Not much time today - colleagues out sick - but just wanted to pop in to say that the consensus in my office is that barring some extreme prosecutorial discretion, or an act of Congress, the guy is FUBARed as far as getting a green card via employment-based or family-based means (and it doesn’t seem that he currently has an avenue for a family-based green card, though he might have had one if his parents and grandparents had behaved differently when he was a kid).
Why? 1) the unlawful presence, for which there is potentially a waiver; but more importantly, 2) lying about his citizenship, for which there is no waiver.
I’d sign on to this pretty much, though it seems reasonable to at least allow some small regulation of immigration (really, regulation of travel into the country rather than of citizenship, I suppose), on the level of issues such as communicable diseases, criminal status in other countries, etc.
Beyond that, one rather more significant prerequisite to immigration which I could still get behind as well-intentioned is some sort of confidence that the immigrant would be able to find and maintain basic needs such as housing and employment, though I have no idea how such confidence should be established, or even whether inability to find such things is actually a problem to be concerned about (even with significantly loosened immigration restrictions).
At any rate, the current, highly-restrictive immmigration system is a moral travesty, in my eyes, and I feel an obligation to move our policy more towards “People who would like to come, may reasonably hope to do so” rather than “Almost no one can come (legally), except through extreme luck”.
No, it’s a general bar to adjustment of status if one has committed fraud, regardless of the basis for adjustment of status. So he could be God and still not be eligible for a green card.
Translation: We are going to treat you immorally, unfairly, and without justice because we don’t want to deal with the consequences of doing the right thing.
I assume that there is no one willing to argue that we should punish sons for the sins of their fathers, or that it is right to deport people who were brought here as kids. So I suppose the question is what cost are you willing to pay to act as a just nation. Unfortunately, the answer for a lot of people is shockingly low.
Actually, Hardin’s work is rife with historic innacuracies, and the only real tragedy of the commons was that they were privatized at all. So says the 2009 Economics “Nobel” laureate Elinor Ostrom
The unjustly and unfairly part are off the table, as he is being treated by a set of laws we have in place. Immorrally? I don’t think so. You seem to overlook the fact that he is the one who ran afoul of the law. He seems like a nice enough guy, but nice guys get speeding tickets and get thrown in jail for breaking other laws every day.
The price I am willing to pay is to deport kids who were brought here illegally. It doesn’t give ma any pleasure to send back a kid who was brought here by his parents. But if I don’t do that, then I encourage more people to bring there kids here with the idea, “if I can just get him across that border all is well”. Nope. That doesn’t work. Aside from the real issue of the dangers some face trying to get over the border, we, as a nation, have a right to set our immigration policy. And to enforce it.
He didn’t run afoul of the law. His parents did. You want to punish him for a crime that he was forced to commit. That is clearly immoral. You should not punish sons for the sins of their fathers, because kids can not control the actions of their parents.
And we have come full circle back to where we began. I don’t want illegal immigrants in my country, and I am willing to act wrongly to prevent them from coming. This is beyond any debate about illegal immigration. It is an issue about basic justice, fairness, and acting as a moral nation. It is wrong to deport a kid from the only country he knows, because his parents committed a crime when he was 2.
For me the issue is this: Yes, he came here illegally and so strictly speaking he should be deported. But there are millions of people here illegally and out of all of them, why should he, a productive, highly educated member of society, be the first to go? With so many illegal aliens we have to create a priority list and there have to be people a lot higher on the list to get rid of than him.
Well he did fess up. You’re saying you would have fessed up at age 16? I stand by my contention most people would have taken it that far. I think many would probably take it through High School/College, with more fessing up around the time they got their first post-college jobs and it really sunk in how big a deal this was.
This law is neither. If this kid was a gang banger type, all would be fine, right? I agree that this particular enforcement of the law is unfortunate for him, but good people get caught up in the law all the time.
So, if I embezzle $10,000,000, give the money to my kid and then die. My son gets to keep the money even after my crime is found out? And the kid isn’t really being “punished”, though it may feel that way, they’re just removing him from where he has no right to be.
And if we make an allowance here we just increase the incidence of parents doing anything they can to bring kids into the country illegally. Sorry, that’s not helpful. And there are more important things than this one kid having to be deported. The actions you suggest would increase this kind of thing in the future. Again, sorry.
It’s unclear if you mean that the deportattion is punishment, or if the punishment you refer to is some sort of fine or sanction on top of the deportation.
Either way, you’re wrong.
No one is saying that a child should face punishment for a crime his parents forced him to commit. But once he turned 18 and continued to commit the crime, he became independently liable.
And deportation is not a punishment. He has no legal right to be in this country. His parents caused him to come here at age 12 (not at age 2, by the way). It’s their fault that this became “the only country he knew.”
The US government is not a substitute parent. Their “punishments” are penal in nature. Deportation is not punishment.
It is interesting that many people (not just in this thead) view deportation as a punishment. To me that’s the equivalent of seeing the removing stolen goods from a shoplifter as a punishment. No that’s just putting things back the way they were prior to the illegal act.