British Nativists Break My Heart Or Juana’s Addicion
March 5th, 2009 at 8:18 pm by BrianMainly because they aren’t selling their country out for a fistful of tacos:
LONDON (Reuters) – A Mexican national who told airport immigration he was visiting Britain to see a friend was swiftly deported after a search unearthed a good-luck card in his luggage wishing him well for his “new life in the UK.”
UK Border Agency officers at Manchester Airport routinely stopped the 40-year-old chef after he arrived on a flight from Los Angeles last Friday.
What’s sadder – that the British react more swiftly to an illegal alien than our sellout government or that Britain had to screen an illegal who was able to buy a plane ticket, make it through our airport security (that I get roto-rootered doing) and had to finally be apprehended by one of our allies?
Think about that the next time you’re getting your passport expedited, getting the necessary vaccinations to travel abroad, getting x-rayed, taking your shoes and belts off, and having to flash your ID a hundred times before boarding a plane.
The man later admitted he had intended to work at the restaurant illegally and had planned to bring his family over from America if he liked it.
He was deported the next day.
“We will not tolerate people coming here to work illegally,” the agency said. “People wanting to visit the UK must play by the rules. Those who do not are sent back.”
Did I read that correctly? Deported the next day! For any ICE officials reading, that means that this man’s family is still illegally sitting around the Los Angeles area. Go get ‘em. Hopefully he was sent back to Mexico and not here or else we’re paying for his counseling after his traumatic encounter with The Law.
The British are breaking my heart because here’s how Tennessee officials are dealing with a once removed illegal who came back and dropped an anchor baby that we’re all paying for:
Illegal immigrant who was cuffed during labor sues
After she was arrested in Metro for driving without a license and shackled during parts of her labor in custody, Juana Villegas de la Paz was told she could stay free so long as she checked in monthly with immigration officials.
Now the illegal immigrant has learned that she’ll be deported the next time she checks in, and she’s suing the Department of Homeland Security for failing to provide her with a copy of her immigration file.
So, for the recap: a) illegal alien, once removed and returned; b) caught breaking the law and has anchor baby at public expense; c) allowed to stay in country unsupervised; d) told that she will eventually be deported and now filing lawsuit claiming that Homeland Security does not have proper documentation.
What’s the Spanish word for chutzpah? How can someone with balls this big get pregnant in the first place? An undocumented illegal alien is wasting our tax dollars in these austere times to sue Homeland Security for not having proper documentation.
Stop Juana’s madness.
March 5th, 2009 at 10:20 pm
Chutzpah en espanol = Cajones!
Suing because DHS failed to provide her with a copy of her Immigration File?! What difference does it make?! You know what it says in that file: “ILLEGAL”! Now get the fukk out and take your fukkin’ “anchor baby” with you. Pinche Puta!
March 5th, 2009 at 10:36 pm
Sorry – I must have skimmed the Reuters UK story too fast – where does it say that the Mexican national was not legally in the U.S.? You certainly think he was not legally in the U.S. – you say, “this man’s family is still illegally sitting around the Los Angeles area. Go get ‘em. Hopefully he was sent back to Mexico…” Information about his U.S. immigration status may very well may be in that story, and he may very well not be in the U.S. legally, but I didn’t see those facts in the story.
What has me cringing is the possibility that you may have assumed he was illegally in the U.S. because either (1) he was not authorized to work in the UK or (2) he is a Mexican national.
You can’t believe that UK work visas are now required for legal US residency, or that Mexican nationals are by definition ineligible for legal U.S. presence.
What would it mean if this apparent slip-up on your part revealed that you see “illegal” as a personal trait more than a legal status conveyed by specific laws. Maybe that’s the part of “illegal” the rest of us haven’t been understanding – the part that has nothing to do with actual laws.
March 5th, 2009 at 10:47 pm
There’s a thin possibility that he’s not. There’s a thin possibility that any of his whole family is ready to pick up sticks and move on the fly to Britain to work at a Mexican restaurant.
It will be interesting to see how this story unfolds.
Regardless, of your head-tilt and pivot on my fairly safe assumption, the greater point of this post was how strictly Britain is enforcing their immigration laws as compared to us and that what happened in Britain would, in fact, never happen here.
Is it because they’re bigots, John? Or is it because most countries in the world do not allow unfettered, unrestricted and unlimited illegal immigration?
I contrasted that point with your friend Juana who some people can’t help but keep crying over her spilled milked.
March 5th, 2009 at 11:01 pm
The fact that you would say someone should be deported from the U.S. before you confirm their legal status – in other words, “Get out based on my assumption alone” – that speaks for itself.
Saying that advocacy for humane immigration laws is the same as calling for “unfettered, unrestricted, and unlimited illegal immigration” is a trick nobody falls for anymore. Limiting the government’s powers is not the same thing as eliminating them, unless you think the founders were after anarchy when they came up with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
As for whether Juana should have been processed for deportation, the immigrant advocates, the Sheriff (in 2007), the GAO, and ICE all agree that she shouldn’t have been:
http://www.hispanicnashville.com/2009/03/sheriff-said-in-2007-he-wouldnt-detain.html
And finally, as for whether Juana should be able to sue Homeland Security, shouldn’t you be pleased that she’s being punished enough by having to hang out with lawyers?
March 5th, 2009 at 11:36 pm
The punishment is balanced out by free counsel getting their name in the paper.
Here’s another assumption – if someone is a foreign national and takes the time to gain a worker visa or some legal status in the United States then why wouldn’t they have done the same when traveling to the UK?
Humane immigration? It’s now inhumane to have a screening process?
If you want to post your amazingly one side insights over here in this thread then I’ll overlook a longer than average post but you’re going to have to excuse me for not visiting your site. I’m confident that you’d be trying to take a closer look at me then you think the Sheriff should take at someone driving without a license who’s fleeing the scene of an accident. When Serpas did not even want to enforce any immigration laws claiming that only the fed has that responsibility.
I believe you’re misinterpreting my stance on “government’s powers” among other things. I’m a huge 4th Amendment advocate. Having said that, our Constitution applies to US citizens. Whether 287(g) is used for minor offenses or major offenses is immaterial. Not so many years ago, laws were passed to make wearing seatbelts mandatory but that they would never-ever pull anyone over for not wearing one. Now it’s commonly used as an excuse for a plain view search.
March 6th, 2009 at 10:26 am
Mexican National….family in America….letter from church….
How blind do you have to be to not see the most likely predicament? Are you that jaded that you don’t look to your left or right in a Wal-Mart and find 2-3 non-English speaking Hispanics with deep tans that look like they just finished mowing someone’s yard or tiling someone’s floor? Gee, those guys are in a Wal-Mart and paying with cash! They must have gotten their money through legal tax-paying jobs, right? Look around you John. Don’t be a victim of white self-hate, cleverly disguised under a race card.
We’ve been invaded with hoes and rakes, not guns and bombs. They are everywhere, taking jobs and not paying taxes. They don’t just take the jobs nobody else wants either.
But anyway, I don’t see why anyone would care much about this kind of thing anymore. I can almost guarantee this story won’t get a backfill later on. It’s commonplace nowadays. We’ve been overrun and government was asleep at the wheel, like usual. It’s not that it isn’t important. It’s just that the MSM or government doesn’t care.
March 6th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
Saying that “advocacy for humane immigration laws” is not the same as calling for amnesty or open borders is also not a trick anybody falls for anymore.
March 6th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
Where’d Lamby-kins go?
March 6th, 2009 at 7:54 pm
You should really hang out here more, Ex. We promise we won’t make you go to the store to buy Aunt B’s tampons.
March 6th, 2009 at 9:21 pm
Re #8 – you went off the rails with #5, so why stay? That first sentence was cute, but the second and third sentences contained arguments I had already addressed. The business about not visiting my site in #5 really makes #8 a head-scratcher, I have to tell you.
If I must stay and comment, I’ll just keep it to pictures this time. Maybe that will go better.
Re #6, first paragraph:
http://comics.com/mike_lester/2008-03-21/ (we hit the cash and the English here!)
Re #6, second paragraph:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bgoodsel/post911/2006/05/from-drew-sheneman.htm (the scary hoes and rakes!)
Re #6, third paragraph – I fear you may be right:
http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/000807.html (conservative cartoonist, mind you)
Re #7 (which I ran across again looking for that last response to #6):
http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/000885.html (again – conservative cartoonist)
March 6th, 2009 at 9:49 pm
You addressing arguments doesn’t end them. Neither does your armchair psychology. The media has conditioned us to make an inference when someone is illegal. It’s what’s not said when a TSU track star gets t-boned by a drunk illegal. We can’t say for sure if he’s illegal or not. It’s what’s not said when a 74 year old grandmother is beaten and raped to death in Bellevue until weeks after the fact or ignored altogether by the press.
I’m assuming this “humane immigration” accounts for the US victims of the criminals who have migrated here as well as the countless other victims of identity theft and fraud or have lost their jobs while disreputable employers exploit illegal labor at the expense of Americans suffering under an 8.1% unemployment rate that will possibly hit double digits in the next year.
Although I do appreciate being communicated to in the form of cartoons.
So what constitutes “humane immigration” from the second highest profile immigration lawyer in Nashville?
March 6th, 2009 at 11:07 pm
I appreciate your getting us back to the main point of my original comment – that you describe people before you know the facts on which you base your description – but I am somewhat dumbfounded by your blaming of the media. If you believe it’s okay to say “I don’t know anything about your legal status, but I can hazard a guess, so I am justified in saying, ‘get out of my country’ at this point,” then own it and don’t blame it on anyone else. Otherwise, stop saying it.
As to whether removing an entire group of people can be justified by the crimes committed by some in the group, then every demographic and people group has to get out. That’s not a very convincing argument.
Glad you liked the cartoons. As long as we’re going with the compliments, I like your blog’s graphic design.
As for what humane immigration law would look like, that’s a fair question.
Why don’t we turn to just about any other area of U.S. law, in which opportunity abounds, life is more precious than land, freedom is more valuable than money, and time forgives a multitude of sins. Outside the arena of immigration, we don’t limit the number of drivers licenses we give out. We don’t allow property owners to set spring-loaded guns to keep out trespassers. We don’t allow unpaid debts to land people in prison. We don’t allow most crimes to land people in jail for the rest of their lives. But when it comes to immigrant law, we ignore those values. By putting low numerical caps on immigration and allowing only certain reasons for immigrating, we have done the equivalent of shutting down the DMV to everyone except those whose last name begins with a vowel. By tearing families apart even when they’re otherwise on their best behavior, we have left the guns spring-loaded. By taking from immigration judges the power to consider community ties and good behavior and then forgive visa violations, we have left the debtors in prison. And by eliminating the statute of limitations for illegal immigration, we have condemned the visaless worker who rebuilds your house to more years of punishment than the arsonist who would burn it down.
How do we make immigration law more humane? We make it more American – by putting into immigration law the American values we have in the other areas of the law – the ones that govern us.
P.S.: What is the deal with people thinking I’m an immigration lawyer? You’re not alone in thinking this – Kleinheider and Coble (if I remember correctly) have made this same flub before, too. In this case, however, you have to admit it is a particularly timely example of that same point I started with. You know, that you describe people before you know the facts on which you base your description.
March 6th, 2009 at 11:52 pm
We all make assumptions about people from the moment we see them. From the way they’re dressed to the way they talk. From colloquialisms. By religion. Having said that, the illegal alien is so commonplace in Nashville and elsewhere that the innumerable bad have tarnished the names of the good.
Consider my statement owned and I’m not shutting up about it until every illegal gets to the back of the line of the people who have followed the rules. It’s the Obamanian Code to punish the people who’ve followed the rules in favor of the lawbreakers.
As far as thinking you’re an immigration attorney. Gee. You’re an attorney who runs a website called Hispanic Nashville that deals primarily with immigration issues. Who would have made that tragic leap? Is this a different John Lamb in Nashville listed as an Immigration attorney?
Chairman Mao, Chairman Obama, Ernesto the Child Murderer…honestly – what’s not to like?
The murders by illegals are completely preventable though. That’s the obvious point you intentionally refuse to recognize in your not very convincing argument. As long as you’re into poor argument ownership, your rhetorical balance is upside-down and subprime at best. And the visaless worker did not build my house.
On to your fatuous and morally equivocating comparison of using deadly force to protect property rights to deportation. Deportation is not murder, voluntary or involuntary manslaughter. It is is no way, shape or form violence against an individual. I realize you’d like to raise the bloody shirt on that point but we’re more likely to find that bloody shirt being worn by the person your friends just killed in a DUI. Again, completely preventable.
As far as the “familes torn apart”, those families can choose to stay together. That they would rather wave goodbye to their deported relative rather than hobo a ride back home on the train of consequences for being accomplices to lawbreaking says more about their character.
Like most people, I fully support legal immigration to this country. But we have to know who we’re dealing with. It’s convenient for you to find a pregnant woman and make her the face of your movement rather than an Ivan Moreno or an Angel Resendiz. You’re passively defending them though by default.
You’ve still never answered my question. You go off on this pious “let’s appeal to our better angels” immigration policy that puts us all at risk. I’m not buying it. I realize that business interests want to evade taxes and minimum wage laws, and that human traffickers really like the current arrangement and that Democrats love a new identity group to bribe for votes but someone should at least get a thorough background check before being allowed in this country.
In this regard, you have contributed nothing to this discussion in terms of real solutions for allaying real concerns under the current system. Maybe if we adopted the same standards Mexicans use on Guatemalans that would be more humane.
March 7th, 2009 at 12:09 am
Your LinkedIn profile says that you were a law clerk at the U.S. Immigration Court. Thanks for the semantics.
Come to think of it, Tennessee does not certify specialists in the law. So you could pretty much say you’re not an anything attorney outside of civil or criminal. Always with the games.
March 7th, 2009 at 12:11 am
Sharoncobb: My Home Is Under Siege
Forget you hate me for a moment, and check out this story I wrote a couple a days ago from an El Pasoan.
(Sorry for the html code, but when I switched to SharonCobb.com, that’s the only way I can get links)
March 7th, 2009 at 1:07 am
Re #15: Sharon, I don’t know who is supposed to hate you, but that sucks about your hometown. If you’re looking for a cause to share with advocates, you will find you have a common enemy in cross-border cartel violence.
Re #14, and #13 paragraph 3: Blogger Wes Comer once tried to correct me on how much English my wife speaks. How he thought his argument could trump my first-hand knowledge of my own life and that of my wife was beyond me. I don’t know Wes, but what he did killed my sense of any value in visiting his site.
Your response to my P.S. not only further proved my point in the P.S. (did you check for any contrary evidence to that one site you found? there’s plenty of it), but you also gave me an unpleasant case of Wes Comer déjà vu.
For that reason, I’m inclined to end this. In the spirit of trying to find common ground that even you can’t disagree with, let me adopt a statement you made in #5:
“You’re going to have to excuse me for not visiting your site.”
March 7th, 2009 at 9:55 am
Why do I need to check for any contrary evidence? It’s not a cardinal sin to think someone is a particular kind of attorney. One visa website says that you work for Boult/Cummings and practice bankruptcy, business, commercial and immigration law. You’re here saying that you don’t practice immigration law. Fine. This is all very far removed from the point of all of this and I am not fooled or distracted.
I should also conclude that you’re not John Lamb. What? I’m supposed to think that you’re John Lamb because you sign your name as John Lamb and talk about things John Lamb talks about? I need DNA evidence before I can confirm or deny that you are who you say your are due to this new rule of proactively seeking out contrary evidence on ancillary tangents in an anecdotal discussion.
You castigated me for concluding you were a practicing attorney in an area of the law that you plainly have familiarity with and let’s face it – you use your position as an attorney to attempt to speak authoritatively on the subject and shut down debate.
You’re the one bringing your wife into this and how much English she speaks – whatever the hell that is supposed to mean as it is completely irrelevant to this entire thread. I don’t know about your previous dealings with Wes Comer. I don’t know Wes Comer. Or your wife.
As far as not visiting here anymore what can I say? It’s a free country (for people who are legal citizens here). Thanks for playing.
March 8th, 2009 at 9:30 am
Well Happy Day All!
John Lamb is one patient man! If Brian,Exador,American Warmonger and Yiddish Steel had any idea what they were talking about it would be a conversation…. Your Fear has turned to Hate is a testiment to your comments and misconceptions.
I would suggest that you guys spend a little time looking for the facts before you spout.
Wishing you Peace and some understanding of a complicated issue,
Tom
March 8th, 2009 at 9:40 am
Peace is never hard to attain. All you have to do is surrender and you can have it. It will be on someone else’s terms but…six of one, half a dozen of another, right?
John is very patient. He’s also fairly obtuse, evasive and a demagogue.
Based on your comments, I am left wondering – as Managing Director of Loews Vanderbilt Plaza hotels and as a member of the pro-illegal Chamber of Commerce, what is your position on hiring illegal aliens, covering identity theft, denying them healthcare and paying the minimum wage when no one’s looking while Tennessee’s unemployment rate is around 8% for US citizens.
Also, if you don’t mind me asking, since there’s nothing morally “wrong” with hiring illegals how many of them are officers at Loews or are they only allowed to clean the rooms, wash the dishes and do the landscaping?
Help show me the path out of capital “h” Hate through the magnificence of your personal efforts, Tom.
Most Sincerely.
March 9th, 2009 at 7:04 am
Hey Tom, since this is such a complicated issue, maybe you could bring more to it than a drive-by invective that “we” are all a bunch of fearful, hateful racists?
How about bringing, ya know, a logical argument to make your point?