Login/Sign Up




Mother Loses Fight to Stay in U.S.
Politics


Mother Loses Fight to Stay in US
...
thales
Aug 20, 2007
12 votes
5 debaters
8
7
5
3
2


+ Add Argument

5
US immigration laws are overly strict


sandifromlargo
Aug 20, 2007
2 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: donmega Show

I think I have said this each time, just maybe in different words:

That's why it is IMPORTANT to FIX the problem, by changing the
law.

Your focus is NOT on the REAL point.
Your focus is exactly where she and all others of the same ilk want you to be. On her and her problems. Meanwhile everyone in the USA grants her wish to make this world a better place for her son.

She can and will return, the same way she did twice before. Only this time there is a stake in it for her. The government will not find her, but she will reap the benefits given to her son. When INS appears wherever he is, she will not visably be there, but trust me, if it is his residence it will also be hers. The problem is, there are so many that this family will be lost in the shuffle, and more than likely will not even be checked on.

AGAIN, that is why all people (like you and me) need to make enough noise to change the laws.


 
sandifromlargo
Aug 20, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: jjc Show

I read this story, but still have some questions. So, she came here 10 years ago, went to work, (albeit illegally), had a family (baby is now an American), and is now deported. Am I correct in thinking, that she is now separated from her family, because they are not illegal? Doesn't the law state if you are deported, in order to return after filing correct paperwork that there is at least a 10 year wait to return? I don't think these facts make her a hero as much as a person that made an unfortunate choice in an effort to make a better life for herself. The consequence now is life without her family and especially her child. If one does the math, he will be 18 when she is allowed to return. An adult brought up by someone else. The fact that she worked, rather than taking handouts or government aid seems to weigh in her favor. Many of her countryman come and sign up for all they can get and do not work. Are there not SOME cases where the word (and action), humanitarian apply?

 
sandifromlargo
Aug 20, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: jjc Show

Thank you for the explanation. I can now vote knowing ALL the facts as you have presented them.

I guess many people are thankful that you are not a part of the Immigration Dept. and reviewing their status as an immigrant seeking entrance.
Please take no offense, but it sounds as if there is no grey area to your decisions, just black and white. Yes, your right she's illegal. But please remember that there are at least 12 million and they probably all have kids.

I hope your rich, because:

While she will now be back in the country of origin, with NO financial burdens, her child, will be here until his age of majority. You and I will supply his food, shelter, medical care, schooling and whatever else he needs through tax paid for government subsidies. She effectively has provided exactly what she came here for. To provide a better life for her family. Now multiply that by the number of mothers and fathers (working, but now being deported) that have children born here. It now takes about $360,000.00 (approximately, but amt grows daily) to raise one child.
SO, how does it feel to be the parent of thousands of kids nationwide?
You can now stand up in church and testify that not only do you tithe 10%, you also are responsible for the care of thousands of orphaned kids. GOOD JOB!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU just became the HERO!

 
sandifromlargo
Aug 20, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: donmega Show

Yes she has a moral obligation, but its ok Uncles jc and donmega are going to support this child.
You can rob a bank and go to jail. No Problem, but we will not support your son because you didn't get deported and your wife probably works.

The point I was making is the government needs to find a different way to solve the problem or we will be supporting ALL of the children left behind.

She still would have been caught and deported because she is the poster child for the problem and the government fell for it. If you watch TV, you will see she is giving interviews pleading for mercy, to be with her American child. Believe me, other illegals are taking notes, watching and waiting.


Oh, and yes I KNOW they are called anchor babies. DUH

 
sandifromlargo
Aug 20, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: donmega Show

Her American child does not have a passport. She was arrested and deported. He was not arrested and leaving her child behind was not her idea. BUT the fact is her dream of a better life for him WILL be fulfilled. As will all others that follow her path.

That's why it is IMPORTANT to FIX the problem, by changing the law.

I find it hard to believe that someone of intelligence, can not seem to grasp the concept.

The problem is NOT that she is illegal, not that she committed a crime, because no one is arguing that point. HOW TO SOLVE an enormous problem that could in fact bite Americans in the ass is the point.

The culture of these families is: Whatever it takes to help my family be better is what I will be willing to do. If that means separation so that my child can eat, have good medical care, an education, etc. then I will do it.

Now that we have granted her celebrity status via the media, others will follow. She will be back, illegally and guaranteed no one will find her. She will enjoy watching her American son grow at Americans expense. Not a moral stand by our standards, but, she is not American. She is a poor hispanic doing what she thinks she needs to do to escape the poverty. Our laws are of little consequence to them.

 
thales
Aug 20, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
The question DOES ask whether the laws are just, not whether the woman broke them. Odd how that question is only actually being debated on this side...and singlehandedly, at that. Nice!

 
thales
Aug 20, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: donmega Show

Of course not. My suggestion is that you examine the statements heading this debate, and present a reasoned argument for whichever side most closely matches your feeling on the subject. But you know us liberals--we're wacky like that.

 
sandifromlargo
Aug 21, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: donmega Show

THIS IS LONG BUT PLEASE READ IT

I did not think that the debate would last this long as it seems cut and dried. As for posting on the liberal, lax side of the debate, I did that because I read the other side and saw that the crime is what you and jc focused on. AND it is not what the debate is about.
Why is it that MOST guys cannot see it from the human side (the REAL) reason this is happening with illegals.
FOR ONE MINUTE, place yourself in Mexico. You live in a house exactly like the poor live in. You have a wife and four children. Work used to be easy to come by and prices were reasonable. But now the work has dissipated and everything is too expensive to care for your family. REMEMBER, you cannot find work to feed your family, clothe them, provide medical care, education, etc. REMEMBER, you DO NOT have anything that you as an American now have (no matter how poor you are here in the states). To the North of you is a country that provides work which will give you ENOUGH to take care of ALL your basic needs. Not even to be rich, which by the way, they consider BASIC NEEDS PROVIDED as being rich. Now, you apply as does fifty people from your village and you find that the quota for residency has already been filled and you must wait on a list that is thousands of families long.
BUT, your neighbor went through the fence, got a job made enough money to come back and get his wife and kids. He now lives in Texas, in a trailer, and his wife and older children all work and the little ones are in school. They have been there five years, no one has said anything or stopped them from living there.
AS A MAN, does this NOT answer a question for you as to how to care for your family? Is it not worth the risk, rather than watching your family go hungry, cold, uneducated, sick, with little clothes?
This is where the illegals thinking process is, and under the circumstances it makes sense.
The illegal we should be looking at is the one that comes, works some days, delves into crime, gives up honest work, for the money that crime will pay. He drinks, gambles, sets up a house and misuses women, applies for all the government programs available to him. These are the ones we need to round up and send back. The ones that are working, causing NO problems and not applying for aid, need to be helped to assimilate LEGALLY. We should NOT be separating families.

The USA touts that we are a country of family values. When we have a chance to show the world we practice what we preach, we show them that we actually lie and do not live up to what we say.
NO WONDER THE WORLD DISTRUSTS AND HATES US!

THANKS, THALES for understanding my position.

 
thales
Aug 21, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: donmega Show

I'd've thought so, too, until I began an immigration process myself (not into the US; unclench).

It turns out that you cannot possibly imagine the strain that it puts on you; every last face at the consulate was drawn and looked near tears. I saw a woman get turned down to go visit her friend because they didn't trust her to come back; can you imagine her humiliation when she had to tell her friend?

I had money, access to all of the documents I needed, and a good lawyer, and I still came incredibly close to just making a run for it. And I spent some time in the US embassy, too, and it is the exact same thing there. The part you seem to forget is that this is not a policy question, or an abstract problem; it is individuals' lives in the hands of a hideously complex bureaucracy that is incomprehensible to most and flat-out hostile toward the rest. Is it any wonder that individuals feel an almost biological imperative to try to evade the system? It doesn't feel like a criminal act at the time; it feels like saving your life and your family's.

The reason--if you can bear to part with your moral high horse for a second--that it does have something to do with the question at hand is that if the system were reformed, it might well send fewer people off the deep end. They'll be here either way; why not just give them a little grace?

 
thales
Aug 20, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: donmega Show

And again...that's not the question HERE.

 
thales
Aug 21, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: donmega Show

That's lax enforcement, not law...as you've mentioned a number of times.

There are countries where a person is automatically granted residency if they have a child born there, you know. So as not to split up families.

 
sandifromlargo
Aug 21, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: donmega Show

So,,, placing yourself as I suggested, in Mexico with those circumstances for you and your family, you would do what??
Why avoid the question?

The crime is not the question and as for what I teach my kids?
I taught my children that crime is wrong and that there are consequences to think about BEFORE entering into the crime.
I ALSO taught my children compassion for those that do not have what they have.
I taught them to volunteer in Food Pantries, to work with minorities to solve problems. My kids have all worked in New Orleans building houses and have volunteered in hospitals and work at the polling place..
I have a Pharmacist, a Doctor, 2 own there own business, 1 died in IRAQ and the other is presently in Walter Reed Rehabilitation. Wounded in IRAQ, is 24, physically lost one eye and half his face and is totally blind in the other eye.
I totally believe in this country and ALL it stands for. Our family stands up well when it comes to family values and being taught right from wrong.

I notice that your name symbol looks like a US flag, and you DEFINITELY are a right wing conservative Republican. SO, look to your own life and family values before calling mine out!!!! What do you do to make a difference?
Just because I am now a Democrat and more liberal than you, does not mean I condone crime or anyone that commits the crime.
It means I am willing to look at all sides and try to figure out what is best for all involved and work to fix the problem. It also means I do not think in JUST black and white and am willing to treat people and situations with compassion.


 
sandifromlargo
Aug 21, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: jjc Show

I also work with Hispanics every day. Oh and by the way my family has a Hispanic last name and I have been a part of the Hispanic community since 1969, when I married into it. I was the wife and I have the children. I eat, drink, talk and sleep daily with them. I have raised my six kids, and now have grands and great grands to help with. While we are not Mexican, I am well aware of the culture and habits of Hispanics.
Mexico has two classes, the rich and the poor. The rich do prosper, they are not the ones coming here. The poor want to come here, because with our BASIC NEEDS met, our poor are still richer than they are.
We do need to follow law. BUT we need to have laws that solve the problems instead of making them worse, which is why one of the "entrenched parties" will SOON be out of office.


 
sandifromlargo
Aug 21, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: donmega Show

Your lame! You continue to debate something that is not part of the debate.

Why can't you put yourself in their position?

Because as an American, if you do it your a criminal, but also as a MAN if you don't do it to take care of them (your responsibility) then you give up your manhood.

If you have a family and don't do EVERYTHING possible to care for them, you forfeit ALL the machismo that is MAN!!!!!!!

Please do not tell me you subscribe to the Family Values of this country. YOU just failed!

 
sandifromlargo
Aug 21, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: donmega Show

You have the knowledge, NOT the understanding. It is impossible to debate with a thick head.
For the umpteenth time:

THE CRIME IS NOT THE POINT!!!!!!!!!!!

Answer the question, WHAT WOULD YOU DO UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES???

Everything possible means it is AVAILABLE for you to do. YOUR moral values SHOULD cause you to take the correct path. MANY people have a different set of values.

MY OPINION should you rob banks to provide for your son? It is YOUR choice, but I would tell you, NO, you should seek help that is available to SOLVE YOUR PROBLEM.

AND I do not have felons in my family,
AND committing crime does bother me.

Prostitution is not a profession that I would seek, but I do not condemn those that do. I try to provide the help needed to turn them to a better path.

Mary Magdalene was a prostitute, and JESUS did not turn her away, but HELPED her to become different.
I assume that since you are Republican, right wing conservative, you probably are a christian also. That is not derogatory, most right wing Republicans are. AND I also am a christian, so DON'T GO THERE!
Doesn't your Bible tell you not to judge? Hate the sin, love the sinner? So using that logic, hate the crime this lady committed, but love her into a reasonable solution. It is what Jesus would do.
Stop being combative and look at the real problem as the debate states.

 
sandifromlargo
Aug 21, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: jjc Show

I also agree that sneaking in the back door is not the way to do it. I believe they should follow our laws to live here. However, they are trying to escape the poverty and provide for families. In many instances the wait to enter legally is longer than they have, so they resort to illegal, because they see it working for them. My point is the existing laws need to be enforced, new laws need to be made to solve the problem. Your points are correct as to their own country's laws and I'm sure there are ways to bring them to the 20th century. But then, rich Mexicans might not be so rich. MONEY or loss of it is a powerful motivator.

My point to Don mega is put yourself there and walk in their shoes and you can understand why they have come here. Since their own country is not helpful in solving problems they look North to the promised land. That they are committing crime is correct, BUT it IS NOT the point of this debate.


 
sandifromlargo
Aug 21, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: donmega Show

The laws on the books now ARE NOT enforced. So, it doesn't matter whether they are strict or not. We need those on the books to be enforced and new ones made to help solve the current problem. I think I have made that point in EACH argument I have presented. If you do not see that, then you are not reading the whole argument or you are not processing it.
Since this woman according to the title of the debate is the subject, I have tried to present the case as I interpret it. I asked jc to explain it as he interpreted it, so that I could take his thoughts into consideration as I debated. In order to make an intelligent decision, one must first figure out what caused the sub questions to be asked.
Who ever put this debate up listed the woman as the subject. So you have to look at the cause of her actions, before you can move forward.

Oh, and by the way, putting yourself mentally in her shoes is an excellent way to try to determine what caused her to chose her plan of action. YOU still haven't done that. Afraid you might have to see HER point of view?

 
sandifromlargo
Aug 21, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: donmega Show

In order to make an intelligent decision, one must first figure out what caused the sub questions to be asked.
Who ever put this debate up listed the woman as the subject. So you have to look at the cause of her actions, before you can move forward.

How can you debate a crime, when no where does it say CRIME?

No one is saying a crime was not committed.

The title of the debate is the woman lost her fight to stay in the US. Where does it say, the criminal .

Crime is already understood.

Why do you REFUSE to put yourself mentally in place of the illegal to get a better understanding?


 
sandifromlargo
Aug 21, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: donmega Show

Obviously this has become personal. You do not want to argue the debate.

Perhaps it is because you do not understand what it is really about. Whatever the problem, hardly matters at this juncture.

Go back into the cocoon in your corner of the world and I will go to mine.

There are far more intelligent people on this site to debate with, that I respect and who actually have common sense.

 
sandifromlargo
Aug 21, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: donmega Show

Forfeit?
I am more than willing to DEBATE THE ISSUE. Which is Woman loses fight to stay in country. With sub titles about the law being too lax or too strict.
I merely pointed out that your personal attack on family and other peoples values need to leave the debate and go back into the cocoon. It gets tiring debating an issue with you, when you change the debate, attack peoples patriotism, or their values. They are opinions after all that actually drive a debate, not personal attacks.
But the actual issue of this debate is VERY much alive. AND I will debate the issue with anyone, even someone I no longer have respect for.

 
sandifromlargo
Aug 22, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: donmega Show

Fact: Yes, you listed the facts correctly.

Fact: I chose the sub title I most agreed with and posted my opinion and questions there.

Fact: New laws to solve the illegal alien and anchor babies need to be passed AND enforced.

Fact: I have not PREACHED understanding for crimes committed.

Fact: I asked isn't there a time when a situation is not just black and white, but gray.

Fact: I asked you to put yourself mentally in their shoes and tell me how YOU would solve the problem.

Fact: You have yet to do that! Instead you have preached that she is a criminal and should receive no consideration for solving the problem of legality and reuniting the family.

Fact: You blew the Family Values theory of the US, straight to Hell in your hand made basket.

Fact: You cannot win a debate if you do not look at ALL sides. Her reasons present a side that deserves research for an amicable solution. That DOES NOT mean condoning the crime!

 
sandifromlargo
Aug 22, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: donmega Show

Once again:

Fact: You cannot win a debate if you do not look at ALL sides.
Her reasons present a side that deserves research for an amicable solution. That DOES NOT mean condoning the crime! That does not mean usurping the rights of others. It means negotiating the law to help people like her and in similar situations to solve the problem of legality AND family unity.

I agreed again and again that present laws on the books need to be enforced, and that new ones updated to solve today's problems need to be passed and enforced.

BUT hey, if YOU want to continue supporting these orphaned kids, far be it from me to stop you. Have at it, be a good Daddy.

I am beginning to believe that you are not an
adult, but a child continually begging until he gets his way.

 
sandifromlargo
Aug 23, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: donmega Show

ONCE AGAIN:

The laws on the books now, are ANTIQUATED AND not enforced. they need TO BE enforced AND new laws NEED TO BE PASSED TO ACCOMODATE THE EVER CHANGING CRIMES in the area of immigration.

If you read back, you will see that I have addressed that question many times as have other debaters on this side.

While I HAVE answered your questions, you continue to neglect answering mine. Getting ALL your ultra conservative right wing buddies to back up your stance on crime matters not one bit, if none of you can see the consequences ahead for immigration and the country regarding the illegals.

This woman is the front runner. The illegals are ALL watching to see what happens. If the strategy works, the country will be innundated with "anchor babies." Which, as stated before, WE the American people WILL support through our taxes.

 
sandifromlargo
Aug 23, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: cbart95 Show

Let me begin by saying, "I have not one ounce of respect for you or your opinion. However, I WILL answer this rebuttal."

If you arranged ALL of this date in order of oldest first, you will see:
NO ONE DISAGREES that this woman committed a crime, OR that she is a repeat offender. However, NOWHERE in the title is crime suggested, listed or even hinted at. Crime is a forgone conclusion.
Her motherhood, is now, what's giving her celebrity with the media and the people of both countries.

The child's plight IS unfortunate, in that for a very short period of time he will be without his parent. But make no mistake, the same way she has come two times before, will bring her back again. INS will not find her, BUT her child will enjoy ALL of the benefits of being an American citizen. Education, Health Care, Food Stamps, Welfare, etc. She will also enjoy the benefits he reaps, as she will reunite with him. IF INS, follows his case, which is highly improbable, because their work load is back logged, they still will not find her, she will be among the silent missing that live among us all. If this scenario does not make sense to you, then your head is in the sand.

I am a liberal, a Democrat by registration, with a fiercely Independent outlook and belief. If Independents could vote in Primaries, I would be registered there. However, I am far from a "Bleeding Heart." I believe in laws and consequences and for taking responsibility for my actions.

We will support these kids that are " anchor babies" because they are supported through our taxes and Federal Programs they qualify for. UNLESS OF COURSE, YOU DON"T PAY ANY TAXES.

So, PLEASE join your right winged brothers in arms. Keep saying the law on the books is enough. Keep saying they are properly enforced. $360,000.00+ per kid multiplied by all that will now try this if she succeeds, is probably a drop in the bucket for you. For MANY intelligent Americans, it is unacceptable.

Hopefully this will open your fanatic red, white and blue eyes to the country around you, and you will stop speaking in these debates from your "Patriotic Anus!"

 
sandifromlargo
Aug 25, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: donmega Show

NOT TOO strict/Not strict enough.

NEITHER! They are ANTIQUATED and NOT ENFORCED!!!!!!!!!!!

New ones NEED to be passed to meet the needs of a growing society and its newest problem! DUH! There IS NO yes or no answer. The laws we have are not enough!

I have said this with each argument. DO YOU KNOW how to read? Not only have I answered your question numerous times, I have even explained enough for a kindergartner to understand.

My point is put yourself there and walk in their
shoes and you can understand why they have come here. Since their own country is not helpful in solving problems they look North to the promised land. That they are committing crime is
correct, BUT it IS NOT the point of this debate.


 
+ Add Argument

7
US immigration laws are not overly strict


jjc
Aug 20, 2007
3 convinced
Rebuttal
She'll be back. I don't really get the sense of entitlement that this woman feels. All countries have borders and immigration procedures. Just because many of her countrymen are exploiting a legal wrinkle intended to make sure that freed slaves were not disenfranchised after the American civil war does not make her a hero.

 
cbart95
Aug 20, 2007
2 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: sandifromlargo Show

She violated our law. People who violate the laws are criminals. Illegal immigrants are deported according to the law.

These laws were enacted to protect our country and our citizens. (That is the IMPORTANT part of this business.)

You may try to change these laws in a lawful manner,but until you do,these laws will be enforced...no matter what bleeding heart liberals and 60's-style radical activist America haters think or do to destroy our way of life.

 
cbart95
Aug 22, 2007
2 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: sandifromlargo Show

Debate is not the object of the debate. The person in question is a repeat offense criminal and is being prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Your muddle-headedness has her motherhood as being some kind of over-riding consideration. In the eyes of the law, it is irrelevant...a consequence that stems from law breaking that all criminals must face.

The unfortunate child's plight is unfortunate and deserves care from all compassionate adults. However, It has no bearing whatsoever in the meteing out of punishment to the criminal mother in the case.

Those are the factual aspects of this matter not the emotional wishes of bleeding heart liberals. Sorry Sandi, you can't wish this any other way. But we fully expect you to do just that anyhow...even tho we all know that we have no obligation to support anyones "orphaned" kids in anyway whatsoever.

 
cbart95
Sep 12, 2007
2 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: sandifromlargo Show

Horsefeathers Sandi! Of course it is. It's the whole point of everything. You just can't turn a sows ear into a silk purse by beating an idea to death. You are dead wrong here.

 
cbart95
Sep 12, 2007
2 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: sandifromlargo Show

No matter what you say, the point of the debate is that this person is a criminal by her actions and no golden intentions change any of that.

She may deserve "understanding". But the facts do not change and the law does'nt either.

You can "brass-tonsil" the issue forever but you can't change the facts.

Check the stated purpose of the debate from the begininng. You are dead wrong.

As usual.

 
donmega
Aug 20, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
This woman is a criminal, had she pulled this in a lot of other countries, she'd have been shot.

 
jjc
Aug 20, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: sandifromlargo Show

She came here once, was caught and deported, she came back again, was caught working under a fake soc. security number as a plane cleaning contractor. She was convicted of using a false SS number. At some poing her child was born before the hearing on deportation. She lost the deportation hearing and was told to report for deportation on some future date. Before she could be deported she claimed sanctuary in a Chicago store front church.

The loophole that all these illegals use to steal citizenship for their children is the amendment written after the war between the states that was to assure that freed slaves were not intentionally disenfranchised or deported. It granted citizenship to all born in the US. The purpose was and is clear. We should not allow parents to steal citizenship in the US for their children any more than we would allow them to steal them a car. Under current interpretation he is a citizen, but she isn't and should be deported. If he wants to go with her that is his choice. It is disingenuous to argue that the govt is splitting up families by enforcing the law. She knew the law when they came here (if not the first time then certainly the second time). That is as wrong as saying they are splitting up families if they jailed her for robbing a bank.

So she worked, big deal. What about the thousands of her countrymen who are going through the embassy to legally immigrate. Should we just tell them, "sorry, you were foolish to follow our rules". We need order in the immigration process. This woman is not a hero, she is a manipulator.

 
jjc
Aug 21, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: sandifromlargo Show

The fact of the matter is that in most of these cases the child will more than likely return to Mexico with his Mother. She will probably cross the border again and bring him back again.

If you have a problem with the law, change it. I don't understand what gives people the right to immigrate unchecked because they want to work. There are laws and processes that should be adhered to. You didn't address what we say to the thousands of people that this woman jumped in front of in the immigration line. I read your other posts and I disagree with most of what you said. THe process is out of control, for whatever reason that is. We pay for hospitals, schools, etc... for the children of people who have no legal right to be in this country. Like you I think there is a price to pay, but we are paying the price now, not later.

I have worked in the construction field most of my life. I am rather good at it and I make a pretty good living (so you don't have to worry about my tax rates going up to pay for these kids). I know a lot of Mexicans. They are my friends. Your assumptions about their motivations are not really correct. Yes, they are here to work. No, life in Mexico is not as bad as you think. They are here because we let them be here and they make a huge wage relative to what they could make at home. If we enforced the laws on the books, some would stay but the majority would return to Mexico (or South America). I know relatively uneducated Mexicans who make well over $100K a year, that is more than enough to live OK here and still send money home.

Yes, I have a problem with these kids becoming a burden to the state. I am in favor of changing the 14th amendment, which is clearly intended to give citizenship to freed slaves, so that parents are not able to steal citizenship for their children.

Your argument is ridiculous. The parents are illegal, in this case a convicted criminal, and we should let them stay here because they are here? If I break into your house while in the throes of childbirth, do I get to live in your house? And if I take out the garbage while I'm there do I get to live in your room because I am doing the job you clearly don't want to?

If the US, as a nation, chooses to change the law that would be OK with me. My problem is with people who want to disregard the law because it is not convenient for them.

 
donmega
Aug 21, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: sandifromlargo Show

Just because I am now a Democrat and more liberal than you, does not mean I condone crime or anyone that commits the crime.
Oh really?
Explain how the following does anything but condone crime and make excuses for the criminals:FOR ONE MINUTE, place yourself in Mexico. You live in a house
exactly like the poor live in. You have a wife and four
children. Work used to be easy to come by and prices were
reasonable. But now the work has dissipated and everything is
too expensive to care for your family. REMEMBER, you cannot find
work to feed your family, clothe them, provide medical care,
education, etc. REMEMBER, you DO NOT have anything that you as
an American now have (no matter how poor you are here in the
states). To the North of you is a country that provides work
which will give you ENOUGH to take care of ALL your basic needs.
Not even to be rich, which by the way, they consider BASIC NEEDS
PROVIDED as being rich. Now, you apply as does fifty people from
your village and you find that the quota for residency has
already been filled and you must wait on a list that is thousands
of families long.
BUT, your neighbor went through the fence, got a job made enough
money to come back and get his wife and kids. He now lives in
Texas, in a trailer, and his wife and older children all work
and the little ones are in school. They have been there five
years, no one has said anything or stopped them from living
there.
AS A MAN, does this NOT answer a question for you as to how to
care for your family? Is it not worth the risk, rather than
watching your family go hungry, cold, uneducated, sick, with
little clothes?

 
donmega
Aug 20, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
The Headline is misleading, no, strike that, the headline is a flat out lie. A mother didn't lose her fight to stay in the US, a criminal, who had already been deported once and reentered illegally a second time was deported. She hadn't been bravely fighting to stay, she had been hiding in a church because the government didn't want the bad publicity that would have come had they kicked the door in and dragged her sorry ass out. Hiding isn't brave, it is what cowards do.

 
donmega
Aug 20, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: sandifromlargo Show

No financial burdens? Doesn't she still have a moral obligation to provide for her child?
{{{Yes, your right she's illegal. But please remember that there are at least 12 million and they probably all have kids. }}} So, that makes it OK for them to be criminals? Well, I have a son, I guess I'll go rob a bank.

 
donmega
Aug 20, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: sandifromlargo Show

The term Anchor Baby is what you describe, most illegals who have children here are NOT deported. She probably wouldn't have been deported had she not decided to give the finger to the feds.

 
donmega
Aug 20, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: sandifromlargo Show

No one forcibly separated her from her child! She could have taken her son with her, but, instead she decided to abandon him to Coleman.

 
donmega
Aug 20, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: sandifromlargo Show

No, he probably doesn't have a passport, however, he doesn't need one to leave, only to return. No, he wasn't arrested, being the child of a criminal is not a crime.Leaving him behind may not have been her idea, but it was clearly her choice. If you abandon your child you are scum, no matter what your "reasoning" is.
An easy way to solve the problem would be to amend the constitution so that children of illegals are not automatically granted citizenship at birth.{{She is a poor hispanic doing what she thinks she needs to do to escape the poverty. Our laws are of little consequence to them.}} That our laws are of little consequence to them is a very good reason for the plight of unrepentant criminals to be of little concern to us.
To summarize: it is no one's fault but her own that she chose to be a criminal and no one forced her to leave her kid behind, that was her selfish decision.

 
donmega
Aug 20, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: sandifromlargo Show

So, you think it should be easier for illegals to subvert our laws? Or should it be easier to throw them, and their anchor children out?

 
donmega
Aug 20, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thales Show

Every nation has laws about immigration and border controls. The fact that for some idiot reason the Illegal alien lobby convinced the US not to enforce those laws is shameful at best.

 
donmega
Aug 20, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thales Show

What is your suggestion then? Allow criminals to invade en mass?

 
donmega
Aug 20, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thales Show

{{{US immigration laws are not overly strict}}}
The woman was deported after YEARS of illegal residency and CHOSE to leave her son behind. Immigration did not drag her out of the church where she has hid for the past year. If US immigration laws were overly strict, she'd have been shot.

 
donmega
Aug 21, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thales Show

Yeah, I know, in the majority of cases the US grants legal residency to illegals who have children here, another indicator, btw, that our laws are not overly strict. In this case however the term scofflaw fits this woman, she entered illegally TWICE, which in some countries, you know the ones WITH overly strict immigration laws, would have gotten her shot. She was deported, tried and convicted for using a false social security number (ANOTHER CRIME) and managed to stay here for a number of years. That you don't like the facts of this case, does not mean the question was not addressed. Of course our laws are not overly strict, if they were there would not be nearly as many illegal aliens here.

 
donmega
Aug 21, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: sandifromlargo Show

How does teaching your children that committing some crimes is OK teach family values? You haven't proposed anything, except excusing crime. Why not excuse all parking tickets? Why not let all petty thieves go free? How is it the responsibility of Americans to ensure Mexican families prosperity? Shouldn't that be a responsibility of Mexico?
Delves into crime? You mean like working either without a social security number, or with a false one? Because, that is a crime, or sneaking over the border? Because that too is a crime. Or how about defying a deportation order? Because THAT is also a crime.
By the way, I understand your position, I find it to be ignorant and appeasing to criminals, but, I understand it. Unlike you, I understand that your position is why we have so many illegals. If there were not so many people whining about how hard life is for these criminals it would be far easier to enforce the law and deport them.


 
jjc
Aug 21, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: sandifromlargo Show

I read this post. It is wrong. I work with Mexicans every day. I know them, I eat with them, I know their children and their wives. If we made them go home they would go home. THey will prosper at home, they just prosper more quickly and to a much higher degree here.

If the world mistrusts us so much why do so many of them want to come here? (one of our two entrenched parties expouses family values, which they don't really follow) We are a country of laws not men. We need to follow the law.

 
donmega
Aug 21, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: sandifromlargo Show

You said:If you have a family and don't do EVERYTHING possible to care for
them, you forfeit ALL the machismo that is MAN!!!!!!! ...
Everything possible, I own a revolver so robbing a bank is possible.So, in your opinion if I were to start robbing banks to better provide for my son, that would be OK? Wow, there must be a lot of felons in your family.
That committing criminal acts, for whatever reason doesn't bother you is appalling. Whores sell their bodies so they can feed and clothe themselves, does that make prostitution respectable?

 
jjc
Aug 21, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: sandifromlargo Show

Which entrenched party is going to be dumped? I don't like either of them too much.

I went to high school with a bunch of Cubans. They were by far the richest kids in my school. Absolutly loaded. I think most of their parents were smart enough to get out of Cuba before Castro took their wealth. I hear what you are saying regarding solving problems and I think I agree with you. However, I don't want to solve Mexico or South America's problems. I think its fine if immigrants come to America to work and build a life. I do not think it is OK to sneak in the back door. I also agree that our poor are richer than most of the world, but that is because of the policies of the US. Mexico's correct name is "Los Estados Unidos de Mexico", the United States of Mexico, the country was created to emulate the success of the US. They have more natural resources than the US, yet they have huge class divisions and political corruption. Why can't they get their house in order? The Mexican president openly condemns our politicians who want to enforce our immigration laws yet Mexico's own immigration law is draconian and enforcement is brutal. They are hypocrites. They will continue to live in the 3rd world until they respect their own laws, how can we really expect them to follow ours?

 
donmega
Aug 21, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: sandifromlargo Show

The two choices at the top of this debate are:
US immigration laws are overly strict
And
US immigration law are not overly strict
Your arguments have all been that we should understand why the criminals become criminals and have compassion for them. How does that address either of the two given choices?

 
donmega
Aug 21, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: sandifromlargo Show

You keep complaining that I am not addressing the point of the debate, and yet all you have done is harp on why we should understand why this woman is a criminal and why her choosing to abandon her son was not a choice.

 
donmega
Aug 21, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: sandifromlargo Show

Why do you REFUSE to put yourself mentally in place of the
illegal to get a better understanding?

Because it has NOTHING to do with the Question/Stated choices of this debate. Not one thing.

 
donmega
Aug 21, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: sandifromlargo Show

So that is a forfeit then?

 
donmega
Aug 21, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thales Show

Actually, knowing a few people who went through the entire program and legally immigrated to the US and who are now naturalized US citizens, I do understand the hassle. I also understand how not throwing the book at those who come and stay illegally is a slap in the face to those who do it right. There is a right and a wrong way to do things, and if you choose to do what you know is the wrong thing, you should damn well pay the consequences. The plain and simple fact is US Immigration law is much more flexible than in most countries. Why do you assume reform would allow illegal immigrants to stay, the Bill that would have allowed that lost HUGE not too long ago. Illegals claiming they have a right to stay? Ha! Try that crap in another country and see what happens. Try it as a Salvadoran in Mexico, for example...

 
donmega
Aug 21, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: sandifromlargo Show

Fact: The woman entered the country illegally and was deported
Fact: The woman reentered the country illegally and had a child
Fact: The woman was convicted of using a false social security number
Fact: The Government ordered the woman deported
Fact: The woman defied the deportation order and hid in a church
Fact: The woman was deported
Fact: Rather than keep her son, she left him here.
These are the facts and they are, as the saying goes, undisputed.
The stated arguments are:
US immigration laws are overly strict
Or
US immigration laws are not overly strict
Even narrowing the field to this one case, a rational argument cannot be made that she was treated harshly, or cruelly.
No one forcibly removed her son from her.
You have not spoken to the facts, all you have done is preach that we should understand why people become criminals. Well, we know that answer: People become criminals because crime "LOOKS" like it will be easier than working for and earning what they want.
I attacked the idea that crime is OK if you do it for good reasons. I attacked your assertion that we should ignore this woman's crimes because she wanted a better life for her child.
This woman didn't lose a fight. She wasn't fighting, she was hiding in a church because she knew after the Elian Gonzales debacle the US government was loathe to kick doors down to deport people.
Hiding from the authorities is not "Fighting the good fight"


 
donmega
Aug 22, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: sandifromlargo Show

Why should she get to stay when many are on waiting lists to get in and are doing things the legal way? Why should her crimes get special treatment? I told you again and again, enforcing the existing laws equally solves the problem, refusing to enforce the law only adds to the problem.

 
donmega
Aug 23, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: sandifromlargo Show

Once again, is it your assertion that the law is too strict or not? Because, you know, that is the stated argument in this debate. Regardless of what you think of this woman, you have not once answered that question.

 
donmega
Aug 24, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: sandifromlargo Show

Simple yes or no question: Are US immigration laws overly strict?

 


Use these tags to find similiar debates

britain death government politics uk 2008 2009 9/11 abortion Afghanistan america Arizona AU bad Baha BBC bias Biden boycott Britain bush canada capitalism Censorship cheney children China Christianity church cia Clinton Cold War commonwealth communism Communist congress conservative conservatives conspiracy Constitution Corruption country crime death debate defeat Democracy democrat Democrats detention discrimination drugs economics economy education election elections Ethics EU Europe Euthanasia evil Fascism feminism Fight France Frankie freedom Freedom of speech freedoms french gay Gaza george bush Georgia global global warming goverment government Great Britain Guantanamo Bay guns Health Health Care Healthcare Hillary hillary clinton History Hitler homosexual human rights illegal illegal immigration immigration india iran Iranian presidential election iraq islam Israel japan Jewish juggernaut justice Karl law laws legal legislation liberal lies marijuana marriage mccain media Medicine mexico middle east military monarchy money moral morals Mugabe Muslim Muslims news North Korea nuclear nukes Obama objective Oil opression Osama pakistan Palestine Palin Panda paradox parliament peace petition philosophy policy politicians Politics polygamy power president Prime Minister prisoners protest Public Affairs punishment queen race racism religion republican Republicans revolution right rights Rove russia Saddam Sarkozy Security sex socialism Society South Korea sovereignty Supreme court tax taxes terror terrorism terrorist terrorists Tibet torture Troop U.S. uk un united nations united states us usa vancam vote Votes voting war washington weapons wmd women world wrong