If you want to sentence him to death, then at least have the stones to do so, and execute him in a humane fashion.
I can try.
[ul][li]The agreement was that his family could immigrate and stay as long as they obeyed the law. If they didn’t obey the law, they would be kicked out and sent back from where they came.[/li][li]The agreement was made on his behalf, by his father/parents, because he was too young at the time.[/li][li]Then he turned 18. At that point, if he didn’t want to abide by the terms of the agreement, he could have left and gone anywhere else he wanted and where they would accept him.[/li][li]He didn’t leave, he stayed. He thereby ratified the agreement - behave yourself, or get kicked out.[/li][li]He then proceeded to break the agreement, in many and serious ways. Note that many of the things he was convicted of are not petty crimes - they involved violence.[/li][li]So, out he goes. If he can’t live like a decent citizen, and abide by the law like other decent citizens, he can’t stay here.[/ul][/li]“Cruel and senseless” would be if the government broke the agreement, or if they were deporting him for petty reasons. The government didn’t break the agreement, and the reasons weren’t petty.
Nobody else will take him. Sux to be him, of course. What doesn’t suck is to be the people he will probably continue to rob and assault, or the taxpayer who has to pay for him while more deserving immigrants have to wait in line who can manage not to be career criminals.
Regards,
Shodan
“He could have left” before he turned 18 is not a serious argument. That’s not how teenage humans work. Treating him like we would a citizen (i.e. sanctioning him for his crimes through the justice system) would have harmed no one, and at least it would have prevented an entirely unnecessary and all-but-certain death.
Culturally, this guy was as American as anyone else his own age – he’d never known any different culture or society. It’s purely due to callousness and bigotry that he was treated otherwise.
A bullet to the back of the head would have been less cruel. His suffering on the streets of a foreign and impoverished country was likely about as horrible (and entirely foreseeable) a death as can be imagined. I don’t know about you, but I think it’s wrong to sentence someone to a near-certain and incredibly slow, painful, and horrible death for non-capital crimes.
Further – this was a mentally ill homeless person. We deported, to essentially certain and horrible suffering and death, a mentally ill homeless person:
Is deporting a mentally ill homeless person to near-certain and horrible death fine with you, Shodan?
No, you do know about him. Anyone who would shrug his shoulders and say “Pffff, send the brown guy across the border to a country he’s never known because the law is the law”…you know about that guy. You just don’t want to come out and say it.
Actually, that’s kinda a bad thing to do to the home country anyway. When we deport criminals who have lived their whole lives in this country, we are exporting criminals that were formed in our society. We made the criminal, we should take responsibility, rather than ship them to a country that does not have the resources to deal with it. Many of the gangs that are causing the violence that the refugees are fleeing are made of people we deported.
We made the problem, then shipped it to someone else, then we not only refuse to even take in the refugees from the problem we caused, but treat them with such contempt that we are willing to intentionally inflict terrible cruelty, just so that we can show that we are worse people than who they are fleeing. I don’t see that we are the good guys here.
But I reiterate: any reason not to care. We killed this man, and Shodan’s response is… “The cruel thing would be not sending him to die on the streets of a foreign country”.
That’s fucking horrifying. All I can say is that when someone shows you who they are, believe them. 
Eh it’s all an internet tough guy act anyway.
Did you know that “when” and “before” are different words, and have different meanings?
I reiterate: here’s 20.
Regards,
Shodan
He was a mentally ill homeless man. And we sentenced him to all but certain, slow, and extremely painful death.
Which of those crimes carries the death penalty?
As I said earlier, if someone wants to sentence a mentally ill homeless guy to death for stealing change from cars, then they should openly advocate for that, and admit that’s what they want from the justice system.
First, he wasn’t sentenced to death. He was deported under the current laws of our country.
Second, I am assuming you disagree with the law that says those legal immigrants who commit certain crimes may be subject to deportation. If that’s accurate, when do you think this law should not apply, or should it not apply ever? It seems like this has been the law of the land for some time, if that makes a difference in your assessment.
Sending a mentally ill diabetic to a devastated third world country in which he’s never been to and doesn’t speak the language seems like, effectively, a death sentence. Do you disagree?
Yes, I disagree. The law owes no duty of care to this person. From the linked article, Iraq as the host country appears to have granted permission to receive the person. Based on that, he became the responsibility of the receiving country. I would feel differently if he was deported without consent of the receiving country.
Would you care to answer my question?
I think government should have the duty to use judgement in circumstances like this in which such deportation is an effective death sentence, and find a different solution. This was a monstrous action, and the law is not a moral defense of such monstrosity.
If we, rather than send someone to jail for a crime, for some crimes instead strand them naked in the middle of Death Valley, would you still not consider that to be sending them to their death? Technically, it’s not sentencing them to death, it’s just punishing them under the current laws.
If you take an action that you know will very likely result in the death of someone, and you have the choice to not take that action, then you are culpable if you choose to go forward with it.
Personally, I’m against it entirely, for reasons I listed upthread, but especially for someone who has lived their entire life here. He was not their problem. He was our problem. He became a criminal while living here, while exposed to our culture, while going to our schools. Why should a country that had nothing to do with making him into a criminal have to deal with him?
The fact that he subsequently died painfully in a very foreseeable fashion is just the most obvious humanitarian failing of our “current laws”.
Fucking monstrous.
If anyone is wondering how we have concentration camps: this is how.
I’m not persuaded by appeals to emotion, generally. I pose the same question to you as I did in the 2nd paragraph of post 753. When should the law not apply, a law that has been on the books for some time? I’m not clear if you disagree with the principle of the law, the application, or both.
iiandyiiii declined to respond - would you?
This isn’t an accurate characterization. iiandyiii responded that law enforcement should use discretion and avoid mindlessly enforcing laws when enforcing the law means a likely death sentence.
This is in line with US criminal law in any case - LEOs use discretion and if they are faced with either violating someone’s rights or punishing someone as the law says verbatim, they are not required to violate that person’s rights.
In any case, I’m not super familiar with deportation law, but my guess is that deportation doesn’t mean “find literally any country that is willing to take him despite the fact that he has never set foot in that country”. It’s hard to argue that they were in fact following the law in any case - if they were clearly deportation law should be amended to prevent people from being “deported” to somewhere they have never been.