NationStates Jolt Archive

Killings turn focus on San Francisco sanctuary law (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080724/ap_on_re_us/road_rage_killing)

The article's kinda long so I just posted the link. In short, in an act of road rage, 21-year-old Edwin Ramos unloads an AK-47 at a motorist, killing a father and his two sons. As the article says, despite previous brushes with the law, Ramos was never deported.

If you read the story, the whole thing pretty much speaks for itself. It's a pretty stupid reason to kill someone over, but what gets me is that this whole thing could've been avoided if the man had gotten what he deserved and had been kicked out of the country after two previous felonies!


This is a pretty diverse forum, so what do the rest of you think about this?

Infuriating.

:mad:

Killings turn focus on San Francisco sanctuary law (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080724/ap_on_re_us/road_rage_killing)

The article's kinda long so I just posted the link. In short, in an act of road rage, 21-year-old Edwin Ramos unloads an AK-47 at a motorist, killing a father and his two sons. As the article says, despite previous brushes with the law, Ramos was never deported.

If you read the story, the whole thing pretty much speaks for itself. It's a pretty stupid reason to kill someone over, but what gets me is that this whole thing could've been avoided if the man had gotten what he deserved and had been kicked out of the country after two previous felonies!


This is a pretty diverse forum, so what do the rest of you think about this?

Yeah, you know, deporting him might have avoided it.

Arming the border with tanks and pillboxes and shooting border-crossers on sight might have avoided it!

Attacking Mexico like Israel vs Palestine might have avoided it!

Also, putting immigrants into death camps might have, too!

The thing wrong with all these ideas is that you're sacrificing something (morality) in return for the illusion of something else (security).

I mean, I can't help but notice that when an American citizen goes out and kills a bunch of people, you never turn the issue political. Nor does it seem to anger your sense of nationality, patriotism and defense. You don't seem to be calling for the deportation of violent criminals, just when they happen to be from another country. In short, you're a hypocrite. If you weren't, you'd argue in favor of exiling felons to Siberia (or equivalent). But no.

I'm pretty damn liberal about immigration (even the kind that involves digging under fences), but this really pisses me off. Do I think INS should be breaking down doors and hauling hard-working families out of their beds to ship them off? No. Do I think someone who's living in this country illegally should be sent back to their native land if they break the law not once, but three times? Yep. Of course, this kind of thing goes way beyond illegal immigrants (Laura Bush mowing someone down with her car and no repercussions?) but that's another matter, I guess.

Man, this is all we need, another battle between immigrants. And they just finally stopped writing headlines about "Little Saigon". >_<

I mean, I can't help but notice that when an American citizen goes out and kills a bunch of people, you never turn the issue political. Nor does it seem to anger your sense of nationality, patriotism and defense. You don't seem to be calling for the deportation of violent criminals, just when they happen to be from another country. In short, you're a hypocrite. If you weren't, you'd argue in favor of exiling felons to Siberia (or equivalent). But no.

Agreed. Personally, I'd like to deport everyone who isn't contributing anything useful to society (even comic relief! I'm not picky). I think that might make me a fascist, though.

...and, I think it's pretty obvious that these kinds of issues are almost always raised by people who are, often vehemently, opposed to illegal immigration. Why? Because you're outraged at a loss of a life? No. Because you want to gain support for your anti-illegal-immigrant viewpoint. Persuade us to your 'cause.' And of course the implication is that illegal immigrants are violent criminals.

Agreed. Personally, I'd like to deport everyone who isn't contributing anything useful to society (even comic relief! I'm not picky). I think that might make me a fascist, though.

You can't be a fascist, cuz you're a girl. Fascism is man's work.

:p

Yeah, you know, deporting him might have avoided it.

Arming the border with tanks and pillboxes and shooting border-crossers on sight might have avoided it!

Attacking Mexico like Israel vs Palestine might have avoided it!

Also, putting immigrants into death camps might have, too!

The thing wrong with all these ideas is that you're sacrificing something (morality) in return for the illusion of something else (security).

I mean, I can't help but notice that when an American citizen goes out and kills a bunch of people, you never turn the issue political. Nor does it seem to anger your sense of nationality, patriotism and defense. You don't seem to be calling for the deportation of violent criminals, just when they happen to be from another country. In short, you're a hypocrite. If you weren't, you'd argue in favor of exiling felons to Siberia (or equivalent). But no.

Why the fuck should we be haven to criminals of the world? We already have enough. I mean come on. This guy was illegal AND a felon. Kick the fucker out. He has no right to be here. Better yet, just put a bullet in a skull and make sure he never does anything again. Fucking scumbag.

It's a pretty stupid reason to kill someone over, but what gets me is that this whole thing could've been avoided if the man had gotten what he deserved and had been kicked out of the country after two previous felonies!

True. And if we kicked out every person whose name started with "D", we'd probably prevent lots of murders, too.

Tell me one good damn reason why this scumbag should stay, other than to be executed?

Why the fuck should we be haven to criminals of the world?

You know, that's exactly what the Germans said about the Jews. Those criminal parasites! And of course, deportation is exactly what they did. Now, as a Jew myself, I kind of have an antipathy towards the idea of putting people on leaky boats and sending them away to preserve the purity of the fatherland, but maybe you have a different perspective.


We already have enough. I mean come on. This guy was illegal AND a felon. Kick the fucker out. He has no right to be here. Better yet, just put a bullet in a skull and make sure he never does anything again. Fucking scumbag.

Oh, your anger is so cute. It's adorable. I like how you're claiming to be against criminality, but you think shooting people without trial is a good thing. Frankly, you've got no moral leg to stand on.

You know, that's exactly what the Germans said about the Jews. Those criminal parasites! And of course, deportation is exactly what they did. Now, as a Jew myself, I kind of have an antipathy towards the idea of putting people on leaky boats and sending them away to preserve the purity of the fatherland, but maybe you have a different perspective.




Oh, your anger is so cute. It's adorable. I like how you're claiming to be against criminality, but you think shooting people without trial is a good thing. Frankly, you've got no moral leg to stand on.

You know, I think the US should start treating acts like this as acts of war and terrorism from Mexico. And we should respond accordingly.

Fuck it. Mexico aids and abets illegals coming into the country, driving down labor, exporting criminals and the like. Time to fucking respond.

You know, I think the US should start treating acts like this as acts of war and terrorism from Mexico. And we should respond accordingly.

Right. We should bomb them, like the Israelis do to Palestine. Not only is that sort of collective punishment completely moral and right, but it's effective - why look at how there's no terrorism in Israel anymore!

Fuck it. Mexico aids and abets illegals coming into the country, driving down labor, exporting criminals and the like. Time to fucking respond.

I'll take you seriously when you stop frothing at the mouth and blubbering.

Right. We should bomb them, like the Israelis do to Palestine. Not only is that sort of collective punishment completely moral and right, but it's effective - why look at how there's no terrorism in Israel anymore!



I'll take you seriously when you stop frothing at the mouth and blubbering.

Israel could end its problem once and for all if the world just turned its back for a week or two.

But seriously. Acts like this only increase American's growing dislike for illegals. Sometime soon something is going to be the straw that broke the camel's back, as it were, and something is going to happen.

Killings turn focus on San Francisco sanctuary law (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080724/ap_on_re_us/road_rage_killing)

The article's kinda long so I just posted the link. In short, in an act of road rage, 21-year-old Edwin Ramos unloads an AK-47 at a motorist, killing a father and his two sons. As the article says, despite previous brushes with the law, Ramos was never deported.

If you read the story, the whole thing pretty much speaks for itself. It's a pretty stupid reason to kill someone over, but what gets me is that this whole thing could've been avoided if the man had gotten what he deserved and had been kicked out of the country after two previous felonies!

It could have been worse. If we kicked him out, he might have snuck back in with a rocket launcher. *nod*

It could have been worse. If we kicked him out, he might have snuck back in with a rocket launcher. *nod*

:eek:

Is a triple homicide really a thing to be joking about?

:eek:

Is a triple homicide really a thing to be joking about?

If you can't laugh at triple homicide, what can you laugh at?

:eek:

Is a triple homicide really a thing to be joking about?

Hmm...




Yep.

The defense attorney says Ramos is here legally...

...I'd like to see proof, though I'll bet there is none.

You know, I think the US should start treating acts like this as acts of war and terrorism from Mexico. And we should respond accordingly.

Fuck it. Mexico aids and abets illegals coming into the country, driving down labor, exporting criminals and the like. Time to fucking respond.

Declaring war on Mexico is a tad excessive in this situation.

Yeah, you know, deporting him might have avoided it.

Arming the border with tanks and pillboxes and shooting border-crossers on sight might have avoided it!

Attacking Mexico like Israel vs Palestine might have avoided it!

Also, putting immigrants into death camps might have, too!

The thing wrong with all these ideas is that you're sacrificing something (morality) in return for the illusion of something else (security).

I mean, I can't help but notice that when an American citizen goes out and kills a bunch of people, you never turn the issue political. Nor does it seem to anger your sense of nationality, patriotism and defense. You don't seem to be calling for the deportation of violent criminals, just when they happen to be from another country. In short, you're a hypocrite. If you weren't, you'd argue in favor of exiling felons to Siberia (or equivalent). But no.

First off, everybody take a nice big breath and say after me: HE HASN'T BEEN CONVICTED YET.

However, Trostia, I really have to call you on something: how can simple deportation be immoral? This man, regardless of whether he actually did this horrible murder, is first rate scum, and that I can tell by reading his actions - he has volated our law, spat upon our nation in effect, so give me just ONE good reason why we should allow this criminal outsider to remain in the US? He has no right to be here, no legal reason to be, and we have every reason to reject him.

San Francisco Sheriff's Department spokesman Eileen Hirst said jail officials faxed ICE on March 30 asking if Ramos should remain jailed. Ramos was freed after Hirst said immigration officials didn't respond.

how odd

so give me just ONE good reason why we should allow this criminal outsider to remain in the US? He has no right to be here, no legal reason to be, and we have every reason to reject him.

1) because Mexican jails are unfit for human occupation (then again as I speak the gallows are already being set up)

2) because hes currently on trail in the US :p

so give me just ONE good reason why we should allow this criminal outsider to remain in the US? He has no right to be here, no legal reason to be, and we have every reason to reject him.

It doesn't repay society's debt. I've always figured that if you converted your prisons into work camps, with increasing degrees of harsh labor for worse crimes, would do a lot towards preventing repeat crimes.

It's a triple homicide... does the guy being a citizen of a different nation state actually matter that much? It would be pretty shitty if a white Midwesterner did it too...

It could have been worse. If we kicked him out, he might have snuck back in with a rocket launcher. *nod*

Yep. As it is, only every 10th one coming across gets one.

It's a triple homicide... does the guy being a citizen of a different nation state actually matter that much? It would be pretty shitty if a white Midwesterner did it too...

yeah, but I think the idea is that such an event as this is completely preventable, due to his having 2 previous felonies, and if he had been deported (while he might have come back), it was less likely for him to be here to commit such a heinous crime.

Killings turn focus on San Francisco sanctuary law (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080724/ap_on_re_us/road_rage_killing)

The article's kinda long so I just posted the link. In short, in an act of road rage, 21-year-old Edwin Ramos unloads an AK-47 at a motorist, killing a father and his two sons. As the article says, despite previous brushes with the law, Ramos was never deported.

If you read the story, the whole thing pretty much speaks for itself. It's a pretty stupid reason to kill someone over, but what gets me is that this whole thing could've been avoided if the man had gotten what he deserved and had been kicked out of the country after two previous felonies!


This is a pretty diverse forum, so what do the rest of you think about this?

I think that if found guilty, his ass should go to prison -- just like when the LEGAL immigrants and natural-born citizens of this country commit violent crimes.

Then once his sentence is up, he should be placed on a plane with a one way ticket to his country and, if he's found here again, should go back to jail.

Killings turn focus on San Francisco sanctuary law (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080724/ap_on_re_us/road_rage_killing)

The article's kinda long so I just posted the link. In short, in an act of road rage, 21-year-old Edwin Ramos unloads an AK-47 at a motorist, killing a father and his two sons. As the article says, despite previous brushes with the law, Ramos was never deported.

If you read the story, the whole thing pretty much speaks for itself. It's a pretty stupid reason to kill someone over, but what gets me is that this whole thing could've been avoided if the man had gotten what he deserved and had been kicked out of the country after two previous felonies!


This is a pretty diverse forum, so what do the rest of you think about this?
BAWWW immigrants stealing our jobs
BAWWW asians at the welfare que
BAWWW white people being oppressed

BAWWWWWWWWWWWWW

BAWWW immigrants stealing our jobs
BAWWW asians at the welfare que
BAWWW white people being oppressed

BAWWWWWWWWWWWWW

Stop trolling.

Stop trolling.
* Notices bourgeois mod has it in for me. *

:eek:

Is a triple homicide really a thing to be joking about?

Meh, humanity can and does make jokes of anything and everything.

Nationalism is bogus anyway.

If you can't laugh at triple homicide, what can you laugh at?

Heh and talk of irony, note the green card ad!

* Notices bourgeois mod has it in for me. *

Notices Andaras has a persecution complex and refuses to understand that flamebaiting and trolling are the cause of his troubles, not OMG MOD BIAS!!!!

Now TRY to behave like a civilized human being. Surely that's not against Marx-Leninist doctrine? Common courtesy?

yeah, but I think the idea is that such an event as this is completely preventable, due to his having 2 previous felonies, and if he had been deported (while he might have come back), it was less likely for him to be here to commit such a heinous crime.

Yeah coz killing Mexicans instead is okay!

Yeah coz killing Mexicans instead is okay!

Er, he's Salvadoran. I know ALL hispanics are Mexicans to some, but bear with me here....

:eek:

Is a triple homicide really a thing to be joking about?

Or worse... more jalapenos ala samonella.

But in seriousness... The problem here is that by declaring an absolute sanctuary San Fransisco is basically enabling this murderer to go free. Whatever your opinion on illegal immigration, it's clear that there's a very serious flaw in this approach that needs to be addressed.

Right. We should bomb them, like the Israelis do to Palestine. Not only is that sort of collective punishment completely moral and right, but it's effective - why look at how there's no terrorism in Israel anymore!



I'll take you seriously when you stop frothing at the mouth and blubbering.

Oh, please.

1. He entered the country illegally. There aren't many Americans who object to legal immigrants, but he's an illegal immigrant. He's already a criminal, even though many of us here are willing to overlook that.

2. He's allegedly been twice arrested on felonies. Two felonies plus his illegal immigrant status means he should have been deported before this could happen. The government seems to be bending over backwards to protect illegal immigrants more than citizens of the United States of America despite the rhetoric of protecting our borders

People are objecting to the fact that a person who shouldn't be in the country and who already has a criminal history is in this country and free to commit crimes. It's not because "he's a damn mexican". It's because he's a criminal. Yes, we need to streamline the immigration laws and the guest worker program, but that's no excuse for letting an illegal immigrant felon stay here to continue committing crimes.

*edit* reading the article more closely. I see he's from El Salvador, not Mexico.

Like 5 years ago, a marine who guarded the american embassy here in Venezuela shot two people when he was in his off-duty day.

I mean, we should expel all these United Staters out of here. They are violent, and they have a gun culture that create criminal minds.

I hope you understand the point of this post. C'mon people...

I'm not defending the criminal. But I deeply believe you have a rather good justice system. Just let him rot in jail and that's it. I am pretty sure you can keep him behind bars in a better way than Mexico.

Like 5 years ago, a marine who guarded the american embassy here in Venezuela shot two people when he was in his off-duty day.

I mean, we should expel all these United Staters out of here. They are violent, and they have a gun culture that create criminal minds.

I hope you understand the point of this post. C'mon people...

Different situation, though, isn't it? That particular asshole had not come to the country illegally, or overstayed his visa illegally, and had not committed two violent felonies in Venezuela previously, had he?

I hope he spent the next 20 years in jail...

Er, he's Salvadoran. I know ALL hispanics are Mexicans to some, but bear with me here....

Meh I didn't read the linky, I got Mexico from somebody else using it. Still thanks for the correction.(I feel I should now call you ma'am or summit!!):rolleyes:

I'm not defending the criminal. But I deeply believe you have a rather good justice system. Just let him rot in jail and that's it. I am pretty sure you can keep him behind bars in a better way than Mexico.

He was not Mexican.
Not all illegal immigrants are from Mexico.
Some are from other Latin American countries.
Some are from Asian countries.
Some are from Eastern European Countries.
Some are from Western European Countries.
Some are from African countries.
Illegal =/=Mexican.

Meh I didn't read the linky, I got Mexico from somebody else using it. Still thanks for the correction.(I feel I should now call you ma'am or summit!!):rolleyes:

Nah. Since I left the Swiss Guards I've become rather more relaxed about that.

Different situation, though, isn't it? That particular asshole had not come to the country illegally, or overstayed his visa illegally, and had not committed two violent felonies in Venezuela previously, had he?

I hope he spent the next 20 years in jail...

As far as I know, said Marine was returned to the american authorities to be judged by a court martial. Seems to be facing a harder sentence that way, but I'm not quite sure how everything ended.

What I am advocating is that the fact that he is an inmigrant is not the main point here. But that he is a criminal, and should be judged as such, from his first felony, as a matter of fact. Why he was free to commit two felonies after the first?

And he's not even mexican...

Plus, if you "punish" Mexico for such actions as this one, (in the case that he was mexican), you would actually punishing the guys who decided to stay in their country, instead of the ones fleeing to the USA. Wouldn't it be..."ironic"?

Killings turn focus on San Francisco sanctuary law (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080724/ap_on_re_us/road_rage_killing)

The article's kinda long so I just posted the link. In short, in an act of road rage, 21-year-old Edwin Ramos unloads an AK-47 at a motorist, killing a father and his two sons. As the article says, despite previous brushes with the law, Ramos was never deported.

If you read the story, the whole thing pretty much speaks for itself. It's a pretty stupid reason to kill someone over, but what gets me is that this whole thing could've been avoided if the man had gotten what he deserved and had been kicked out of the country after two previous felonies!


This is a pretty diverse forum, so what do the rest of you think about this?

And people wonder why San Fran is pissed on all the time. They should get no federal money for violating federal law. That goes for every city that violates federal law.

He was not Mexican.
Not all illegal immigrants are from Mexico.
Some are from other Latin American countries.
Some are from Asian countries.
Some are from Eastern European Countries.
Some are from Western European Countries.
Some are from African countries.
Illegal =/=Mexican.


I'm pretty aware of that. I was just saying that to the guys proposing him to be deported. In any case, for the sake of simplicity. I think the US authorities can punish him in better and more reliable ways than El Salvador.

I think that if found guilty, his ass should go to prison -- just like when the LEGAL immigrants and natural-born citizens of this country commit violent crimes.

Then once his sentence is up, he should be placed on a plane with a one way ticket to his country and, if he's found here again, should go back to jail.

If he's convicted, he'll probably get life without parole or the death penalty (in the article, it said the crime was a special circumstances case).

True. And if we kicked out every person whose name started with "D", we'd probably prevent lots of murders, too.

probably lots more. i approve of this policy. davids of america, get the fuck out!

Like 5 years ago, a marine who guarded the american embassy here in Venezuela shot two people when he was in his off-duty day.

I mean, we should expel all these United Staters out of here. They are violent, and they have a gun culture that create criminal minds.

I hope you understand the point of this post. C'mon people...

A marine embassy guard that's legally in Venezuela is different from an El Salvadorian that's in the US illegally.

Also, do you have a link to the story you're talking about?

:eek:

Is a triple homicide really a thing to be joking about?

Gee, I don't know. Is it something to be politicking about?

CALLING FOR GENOCIDE ABOUT?

At least JOKES are HARMLESS!

*Snip bourgeois snip snip snip snip snip snip. *

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

I think the problem has more to do with the lack of treatment for violent offenders, and the laxity of a system that allows people like this on the street instead of in jail or in a psych ward.

I don't see how illegal immigration has anything to do with it.

I think the problem has more to do with the lack of treatment for violent offenders, and the laxity of a system that allows people like this on the street instead of in jail or in a psych ward.

I don't see how illegal immigration has anything to do with it.

B-b-but they're FOREIGNERS! They're DIFFERENT! They're... Not... Like... Me! WE SHOULD KICK THEM OUT! GRAAAAAAAAGGGHHH!!! WE SHOULD BOMB MEXICO! GRAAAAGH!!! WE MUST RESPOND TO THINGS BY BEHAVING LIKE IGNORANT ANIMALS! NOW! LEST WE BE DESTROYED! GRAAAAAAAGH!!!

* Notices bourgeois mod has it in for me. *

I'm pretty sure Kat is a school teacher.

I'm pretty sure Kat is a school teacher.

Well, to be sure, she IS burgeois. As are we all, and Andaras too. You see, we live all in burgs - cities, towns. And a burgeois is someone that lives in a burg.

A fact which drives home my point that Andaras doesn't know what burgeois is.

Sorry, but the way I see it, San Francisco's official "sanctuary city" policy is a violation of federal law and is partially to blame for this tragic event.

Are they sufficiently to blame that they could be sued in a civil 'wrongful death' or 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 action? Probably not. Are they sufficiently to blame that significant criticism of their city government and its leaders is warranted and a move to change policy and vote some idiots out of office is called for? You bet.

A marine embassy guard that's legally in Venezuela is different from an El Salvadorian that's in the US illegally.

And you failed to understand the whole point of the post. Of course, it wasn't obvious.

Also, do you have a link to the story you're talking about?

That was like...5 years ago?

I guess I could find something, but I wouldn't promise anything.

The problem with that analysis is that sanctuary cities are probably legal. THe power to enforce immigration is exclusively federal domain. Which means it's the exclusive job of the federal government to enforce it. And thus the federal government can't require states to do its job. Certainly they can use local police to help, but the sovereign nature of the state means that the federal government can't obligate the state to do so.

Counter to what some think, the United States isn't run like a business, where the top CEO tells the lower employees what to do. The federal government isn't sovereign over the states, each maintains its own level of sovereignty. And if immigration is a federal matter, then it's a federal matter, and the federal government can't obligate the states to do its job.

Can the US just implode onto itself already? Your country is a joke.

And you failed to understand the whole point of the post. Of course, it wasn't obvious.

Yea, your post kinda missed it imo. No1 is saying we should deport every El Salvadoran because of this one guy, rather that the ones who have committed crimes should be deported, and never allowed back in (not that he was allowed in in the first place, but that's another debate).



That was like...5 years ago?

I guess I could find something, but I wouldn't promise anything.
I don't think it was that long ago, but I do remember something about this happening. What can we say, stupid people suck.

The problem with that analysis is that sanctuary cities are probably legal. THe power to enforce immigration is exclusively federal domain. Which means it's the exclusive job of the federal government to enforce it. And thus the federal government can't require states to do its job. Certainly they can use local police to help, but the sovereign nature of the state means that the federal government can't obligate the state to do so.

Counter to what some think, the United States isn't run like a business, where the top CEO tells the lower employees what to do. The federal government isn't sovereign over the states, each maintains its own level of sovereignty. And if immigration is a federal matter, then it's a federal matter, and the federal government can't obligate the states to do its job.

I don't think anyone mentioned forcing them to do anything. Simply cutting federal funding, in the same way that if your school system isn't up to federal standards, its not going to get any federal funding. idk what department cutting off funds could be applied to, I suppose police, although they could link other federal aid to federal immigration law if they wanted to, no?

If you read the story, the whole thing pretty much speaks for itself. It's a pretty stupid reason to kill someone over, but what gets me is that this whole thing could've been avoided if the man had gotten what he deserved and had been kicked out of the country after two previous felonies!

I doubt it would have been avoided. He just would have killed Salvadorans.

I don't think anyone mentioned forcing them to do anything. Simply cutting federal funding, in the same way that if your school system isn't up to federal standards, its not going to get any federal funding. idk what department cutting off funds could be applied to, I suppose police, although they could link other federal aid to federal immigration law if they wanted to, no?

Likewise, Republican states should get no funding under Democratic presidencies, and vice-versa?

Killings turn focus on San Francisco sanctuary law (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080724/ap_on_re_us/road_rage_killing)

The article's kinda long so I just posted the link. In short, in an act of road rage, 21-year-old Edwin Ramos unloads an AK-47 at a motorist,

So - the real problem is the easy access to guns, right?

You've convinced me, let's ban all guns.

Yea, your post kinda missed it imo. No1 is saying we should deport every El Salvadoran because of this one guy, rather that the ones who have committed crimes should be deported, and never allowed back in (not that he was allowed in in the first place, but that's another debate).

Noone?

Some people did. My post was clearly aimed to that people.

If you weren't claiming for that, then my post wasn't aimed at you.

I don't think anyone mentioned forcing them to do anything.

Ummm...
Sorry, but the way I see it, San Francisco's official "sanctuary city" policy is a violation of federal law

That specifically is what I was referring to.

Why the fuck should we be haven to criminals of the world? We already have enough.

Isn't that kinda answering your own question?

Why does the foreigner deserve EXTRA vehemence for triple homicide? Because getting torn to pieces in a hail of fire by a crazed gunman, is less horrific if he's at least a nice white crazed CITIZEN gunman?

It happens here a lot, this kind of violence - and you don't have to be a foreigner, or even an illegal immigrant, apparently.

Hell, you could argue that this was just an example of someone adapting particularly well to the immersion culture.

Why SHOULDN'T America be haven to the criminals of the world? It's not like your country isn't a dump already.

Killings turn focus on San Francisco sanctuary law (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080724/ap_on_re_us/road_rage_killing)

The article's kinda long so I just posted the link. In short, in an act of road rage, 21-year-old Edwin Ramos unloads an AK-47 at a motorist, killing a father and his two sons. As the article says, despite previous brushes with the law, Ramos was never deported.

If you read the story, the whole thing pretty much speaks for itself. It's a pretty stupid reason to kill someone over, but what gets me is that this whole thing could've been avoided if the man had gotten what he deserved and had been kicked out of the country after two previous felonies!


This is a pretty diverse forum, so what do the rest of you think about this?

illegal immigrants broke the law and are here illegaly. they should be deported for that, f nothing else. the laws can be changed, but while they exist they should be obeyed.

Isn't that kinda answering your own question?

Why does the foreigner deserve EXTRA vehemence for triple homicide? Because getting torn to pieces in a hail of fire by a crazed gunman, is less horrific if he's at least a nice white crazed CITIZEN gunman?

It happens here a lot, this kind of violence - and you don't have to be a foreigner, or even an illegal immigrant, apparently.

Hell, you could argue that this was just an example of someone adapting particularly well to the immersion culture.
The anger's probably at the authorities because in this case the whole thing could have been prevented. There's nothing you can do about criminals from your own country. When they've served their sentence you have to let them out. After all, it's a part of the law of pretty much every country in the world that citizens have certain rights that non-citizens don't. The difference in this case is that the guy was an illegal immigrant who's a multiple offender. If he has been deported after his first crime this murder would never have happened.

It's a similar story in this country. We won't deport foreign criminals back to countries like Somalia as their lives could be in danger in their home countries. It's pathetic, we should deport them anyway. What happens do them shouldn't be of any concern to us.

* Notices bourgeois mod has it in for me. *

Andaras, I'll bet you ten bucks you can't go a couple of posts without mentioning one of the Marxist categories.

But in seriousness... The problem here is that by declaring an absolute sanctuary San Fransisco is basically enabling this murderer to go free. Whatever your opinion on illegal immigration, it's clear that there's a very serious flaw in this approach that needs to be addressed.
How is declaring an absolute sanctuary granting this guy immunity against criminal prosecution for murder? Please explain.

Andaras, I'll bet you ten bucks you can't go a couple of posts without mentioning one of the Marxist categories.

You're making a bet with someone that doesn't believe in private property...

The anger's probably at the authorities because in this case the whole thing could have been prevented. There's nothing you can do about criminals from your own country. When they've served their sentence you have to let them out. After all, it's a part of the law of pretty much every country in the world that citizens have certain rights that non-citizens don't. The difference in this case is that the guy was an illegal immigrant who's a multiple offender. If he has been deported after his first crime this murder would never have happened.

It's a similar story in this country. We won't deport foreign criminals back to countries like Somalia as their lives could be in danger in their home countries. It's pathetic, we should deport them anyway. What happens do them shouldn't be of any concern to us.

Illegal schimlegal - if he'd been standing by the road yelling 'bang' at people, we'd be watching a youtube video of people laughing at him.

The only reason people are dead, is because he wasn't yelling. He had a gun, and now three people are dead.

His immigrant status is irrelevent. No one died because of his status - they died because he was a nutter with a lethal weapon.

What happens do them shouldn't be of any concern to us.

If you EVER complain that the world is insensitive to your needs or that country X or Y didn't join you in the war in Afghanistan or Iraq, I'm reposting this right after it.

Why SHOULDN'T America be haven to the criminals of the world? It's not like your country isn't a dump already.

Oh and just where are you from, mister high and mighty ferriner?

Canada? The UK? Some other European country?


On to the topic.

The point is, as has been raised, he should have been deported after his first felony, since he was illegal.

And yes, being gunned down by anyone is horrible, but thing is this particular gunmen shouldn't have been in the country to gun down anyone in the first place.

The point is, as has been raised, he should have been deported after his first felony, since he was illegal.

And yes, being gunned down by anyone is horrible, but thing is this particular gunmen shouldn't have been in the country to gun down anyone in the first place.

You could argue that his being in the country is of secondary importance to the fact that he was toting military grade arms.

You could argue that his being in the country is of secondary importance to the fact that he was toting military grade arms.

Was the AK automatic or semi? If it was semi-auto then I think (not sure) it may be legal. If it was an automatic it is illegal and probably from black market. And who says he got in the US anyway?

The major point is that this scumbag shouldn't have been in the US at all, with or without an AK, not that he had an AK- which was probably illegal in the first place.

Was the AK automatic or semi? If it was semi-auto then I think (not sure) it may be legal. If it was an automatic it is illegal and probably from black market. And who says he got in the US anyway?

The major point is that this scumbag shouldn't have been in the US at all, with or without an AK, not that he had an AK- which was probably illegal in the first place.

I would imagine that in discussing a murder the circumstances surrounding the murder would be the more important issue. Not the status of his immigration.

It's....rather unusual for people to insist that the status of an offender is more important than the fact that he offended.

I would imagine that in discussing a murder the circumstances surrounding the murder would be the more important issue. Not the status of his immigration.

It's....rather unusual for people to insist that the status of an offender is more important than the fact that he offended.

Yes, this guy murdered 3 people and should be imprisoned or executed.

People are pissed because he should have been in the US to commit the murder in the first place.

I would imagine that in discussing a murder the circumstances surrounding the murder would be the more important issue. Not the status of his immigration.

It's....rather unusual for people to insist that the status of an offender is more important than the fact that he offended.

It's fully usual when it's people that go "DAMN THOSE FOREIGNERZZZ!!!1!1!ONE" at the drop of a hat. A father and his children became props in their hands.

Yeah, you know, deporting him might have avoided it.

Arming the border with tanks and pillboxes and shooting border-crossers on sight might have avoided it!

Attacking Mexico like Israel vs Palestine might have avoided it!

Also, putting immigrants into death camps might have, too!

The thing wrong with all these ideas is that you're sacrificing something (morality) in return for the illusion of something else (security).

I mean, I can't help but notice that when an American citizen goes out and kills a bunch of people, you never turn the issue political. Nor does it seem to anger your sense of nationality, patriotism and defense. You don't seem to be calling for the deportation of violent criminals, just when they happen to be from another country. In short, you're a hypocrite. If you weren't, you'd argue in favor of exiling felons to Siberia (or equivalent). But no.

Maybe an illegal immigrant who is part of a notorious gang who has broken the law three times is not enough justification for exportation? You make exportations and deathcamps sound on par with each other.

Yeah, you know, deporting him might have avoided it.

Arming the border with tanks and pillboxes and shooting border-crossers on sight might have avoided it!

Attacking Mexico like Israel vs Palestine might have avoided it!

Also, putting immigrants into death camps might have, too!



The right thing about this is that the people who commit the act trade off their freedom for punishment and it leaves no moral dilemma for those enforcing the rule of law.

You're making a bet with someone that doesn't believe in private property...

Well, yeah, bombing the houses of "bourgeois scum" (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13861475&postcount=209) ain't exactly a lucrative enterprise.

You know, that's exactly what the Germans said about the Jews. Those criminal parasites! And of course, deportation is exactly what they did. Now, as a Jew myself, I kind of have an antipathy towards the idea of putting people on leaky boats and sending them away to preserve the purity of the fatherland, but maybe you have a different perspective.




Oh, your anger is so cute. It's adorable. I like how you're claiming to be against criminality, but you think shooting people without trial is a good thing. Frankly, you've got no moral leg to stand on.

In Norway, we do not have open immigration, but we do take more than our fair share of asylum-seekers (more than our fair share having to do with Norways population, not the asylum-seekers themselves). Just today a group of about 50 serbians, some already granted asylum, some waiting for a yes or no, attacked a center for asylum-seekers. Why? Oh, it seems the aylum center in question held mainly kosovos, some 25 of these are now hospitalized.
The attackers that haven't already been granted asylum are now "in danger" of being deported. It appears you think this is morally wrong. I don't see your logic for this, but I have to say you are overstepping every boundary when you're comparing deporting non-citizens (!!) TO the country where they actually ARE citizens IF they choose to be criminals to Nazi Germany.

I would imagine that in discussing a murder the circumstances surrounding the murder would be the more important issue. Not the status of his immigration.

It's....rather unusual for people to insist that the status of an offender is more important than the fact that he offended.

Not unusual at all, when people have a political ax to grind.

Maybe an illegal immigrant who is part of a notorious gang who has broken the law three times is not enough justification for exportation?

No, not really. You want to "export" (lulz) him for being an illegal immigrant, not for breaking the law three times. I know this because, again, you don't demand that anyone else be deported for breaking the law three times. Just illegal immigrants. The real crime to you and people who think like you, is that he's an illegal immigrant.

You make exportations and deathcamps sound on par with each other.

Well, no they aren't. However, I know that deporting the Jews was something the Nazis did before that became too expensive. Death camps was their final solution. Given the amount of blind hatred displayed in this thread alone, I see no reason why some people in the US wouldn't give a green light for either one.

Israel could end its problem once and for all if the world just turned its back for a week or two.

Ha. Funny.

But seriously. Acts like this only increase American's growing dislike for illegals.

If so, that's only because some people are unable to distinguish between a group of people, and a person. You might as well say - and you'd be true in doing so - that "acts like this only increase American's growing dislike for Non-Whites."

Sometime soon something is going to be the straw that broke the camel's back, as it were, and something is going to happen.

Right. Well, when you start loading hispanics up into cattle cars, I'll be doing something too.

However, Trostia, I really have to call you on something: how can simple deportation be immoral?

Because no one wants other country's deportees. Recollect the boatloads of Jews deported from Nazi Germany that were turned away from good Christian, supposedly civilized, western ports. It's NIMBY, except we're not talking coal burning power plants but human beings.

This man, regardless of whether he actually did this horrible murder, is first rate scum, and that I can tell by reading his actions - he has volated our law

Wow. You know, I smoked marijuana the other day. I guess I'm "first rate scum" too by your own, silly reasoning.

so give me just ONE good reason why we should allow this criminal outsider to remain in the US? He has no right to be here, no legal reason to be, and we have every reason to reject him.

For the same reason that Native Americans should continue to allow people like you to be here.

1. He entered the country illegally.

Not according to his attorney.

Innocent until proven guilty is how the law still works in this country.

And why is it we (well, you) assume that illegal immigrants are so because they entered the country illegally? The article states only that the Feds think he's "undocumented." Could be just an overstaying of a visa for all you know.

There aren't many Americans who object to legal immigrants

...also there's this nice bridge in Brooklyn you can have for just a few hundred dollars.

He's already a criminal, even though many of us here are willing to overlook that.

Yeah, many of us still harping on that god damn, inconvenient "innocent until proven guilty" bit. Maybe we can change that one day and just "put a bullet in his skull" as Trollgaard so pleasantly suggested.

2. He's allegedly been twice arrested on felonies.

Allegedly, yes.

Two felonies plus his illegal immigrant status means he should have been deported before this could happen.

Allegedly, perhaps. But you already know my position on deportation.

The government seems to be bending over backwards to protect illegal immigrants more than citizens of the United States of America despite the rhetoric of protecting our borders

Oh? And I suppose you have any information that states that the victims were citizens of the US? That would support your conspiracy-theory claim here, just a tiny bit, if you did.

People are objecting to the fact that a person who shouldn't be in the country and who already has a criminal history is in this country and free to commit crimes.

No, people are objecting to the fact that we can't bomb Mexico or shoot people without trials. Trollgaard is, anyway, and you have to accept that his is not a particularly unique viewpoint in this country.

It's not because "he's a damn mexican". It's because he's a criminal.

So, criminals should be deported? Violent ones? Felons? Oops. No. Just the foreigners who are suspected of being illegal immigrants.

*snip*

So, criminals should be deported? Violent ones? Felons? Oops. No. Just the foreigners who are suspected of being illegal immigrants.

Not all criminals should be deported. Just foreign criminals. They have no right to be here.

No, not really. You want to "export" (lulz) him for being an illegal immigrant, not for breaking the law three times. I know this because, again, you don't demand that anyone else be deported for breaking the law three times. Just illegal immigrants. The real crime to you and people who think like you,is that he's an illegal immigrant.


Call me crazy, but yeah that is a crime. And it did kind of lead to him killing these people that are citizens of this country. Does that seem right to you in any way?

Still, I think he should be put to death in this country at the least. It's still a triple homicide.

So, criminals should be deported? Violent ones? Felons? Oops. No. Just the foreigners who are suspected of being illegal immigrants.

Hey, if they deported all violent criminals and felons, I sure as hell wouldn't be complaining.

I'm such a fascist bastard ;)

Call me crazy, but yeah that is a crime. And it did kind of lead to him killing these people that are citizens of this country. Does that seem right to you in any way?

Still, I think he should be put to death in this country at the least. It's still a triple homicide.

Being an illegal immigrant does not lead people to commit violent offenses.

Still, I think he should be put to death in this country at the least. It's still a triple homicide.

Agreed. Gunning down a father and his sons in an act of road rage? I say kill the psycho, regardless of whether he's an immigrant or not.

Not all criminals should be deported. Just foreign criminals. They have no right to be here.

But 'criminals' do have a right to be here?

Of course - you're arguing within the scope of a law that immediately declares any immigrant 'illegal' until he is proven 'legal' (interesting how that works) - so ANY 'foreigner' can be easily declared 'illegal' by just questioning their status.

I guess it's easier that way - the problem isn't that this guy had an AK 47. It isn't the murders. It's the fact that he's a wetback.

In Norway, we do not have open immigration, but we do take more than our fair share of asylum-seekers (more than our fair share having to do with Norways population, not the asylum-seekers themselves). Just today a group of about 50 serbians, some already granted asylum, some waiting for a yes or no, attacked a center for asylum-seekers. Why? Oh, it seems the aylum center in question held mainly kosovos, some 25 of these are now hospitalized.
Chechens. Chechens who attacked kurds and arabs, not people from Kosovo. And 20 people are hospitalized.

The attackers that haven't already been granted asylum are now "in danger" of being deported. It appears you think this is morally wrong. I don't see your logic for this, but I have to say you are overstepping every boundary when you're comparing deporting non-citizens (!!) TO the country where they actually ARE citizens IF they choose to be criminals to Nazi Germany.
Those who are found guilty of this attack should be expelled after serving their time in prison. As long as they aren't granted asylum, of course.

Call me crazy, but yeah that is a crime.

I said "the real crime." As opposed to the killing of three people, which is just a convenient excuse for harping on about illegal immigration.

And it did kind of lead to him killing these people that are citizens of this country.

Uh. No. Illegal immigration didn't "lead to" or cause this crime at all.

Still, I think he should be put to death in this country at the least. It's still a triple homicide.

Are you going to be gracious and concede that there should be a trial first?

Not all criminals should be deported. Just foreign criminals.They have no right to be here.

Right. You could give less than a shit about the violent crime, but the fact that he was born in another country inspires you to rant about bombing Mexico and shooting people.

Being an illegal immigrant does not lead people to commit violent offenses.

I didn't say that, I said it's a crime to be in this country illegally and the fact that he is still here in this country ILLEGALLY allowed him to kill these people. Illegal immigration is a crime, hence the word "illegal".

Did I mention illegal enough?

Agreed. Gunning down a father and his sons in an act of road rage? I say kill the psycho, regardless of whether he's an immigrant or not.

Now, America0, that would not be tolerant. This man is an oppressed minority who felt he had no other recourse. It'd be racist to imprison or execute him. It's the oppression and persecution from the whites that made him do what he did.

So, I think the real issue is: is it society's fault or one man's cry for help?

Uh. No. Illegal immigration didn't "lead to" or cause this crime at all.



So you're saying if the borders of this country were secure and he never made it to San Francisco, or was even deported after his other crimes, this crime would still happen?

Of course there would be a trial first. I'm agreeing with the fact that they are seeking the death penalty.

Amaji, I don't agree with you...
I'm from Italy and I think there's no difference between immigrants killers and Italian killers...they're just criminals.
In Naples italian peoples(not immigrants) kills someone every day, and they're really cruel...sometimes they rip the victim's eyes with a screwdriver.
And they're not immigrants....So, as I've just said, I think that the nationality of a criminal don't really matters...

Sorry for my bad english but I slept too much in the classroom, I think :D

Now, America0, that would not be tolerant. This man is an oppressed minority who felt he had no other recourse. It'd be racist to imprison or execute him. It's the oppression and persecution from the whites that made him do what he did.

So, I think the real issue is: is it society's fault or one man's cry for help?

Wow lol

Never thought of it like that.

Yeah, you know, deporting him might have avoided it.

The thing wrong with all these ideas is that you're sacrificing something (morality) in return for the illusion of something else (security).
and what form of Morality are we sacrificing by deporting him after his first or even second felony?

I mean, I can't help but notice that when an American citizen goes out and kills a bunch of people, you never turn the issue political. Nor does it seem to anger your sense of nationality, patriotism and defense. You don't seem to be calling for the deportation of violent criminals, just when they happen to be from another country. In short, you're a hypocrite. If you weren't, you'd argue in favor of exiling felons to Siberia (or equivalent). But no.
really? how many "Argument for banning guns" threads appeared here because of some nut case shooting his load off?

The defense attorney says Ramos is here legally...

...I'd like to see proof, though I'll bet there is none. he said Ramos CAME HERE legally,
Amparan declined to discuss details of the case, but he denied his client was involved in gang activity and said Ramos entered the country legally.
however this says he's not here legally.
was released April 2 even though he was in the process of being deported after his application for legal residence was denied.

I think that if found guilty, his ass should go to prison -- just like when the LEGAL immigrants and natural-born citizens of this country commit violent crimes.

Then once his sentence is up, he should be placed on a plane with a one way ticket to his country and, if he's found here again, should go back to jail.
This I can agree with.

He was not Mexican.
Not all illegal immigrants are from Mexico.
Some are from other Latin American countries.
Some are from Asian countries.
Some are from Eastern European Countries.
Some are from Western European Countries.
Some are from African countries.
Illegal =/=Mexican.

and I think it's funny that anyone against people staying here Illegaly is already racist. :rolleyes:

I think the US authorities can punish him in better and more reliable ways than El Salvador.
I agree... considering he committed a crime on US soil and against a US Citizen(s). however, just because we can punish him better, does that mean he should stay and live (especially after being arrested for several other felonies?)

Amaji, I don't agree with you...
I'm from Italy and I think there's no difference between immigrants killers and Italian killers...they're just criminals.
In Naples italian peoples(not immigrants) kills someone every day, and they're really cruel...sometimes they rip the victim's eyes with a screwdriver.
And they're not immigrants....So, as I've just said, I think that the nationality of a criminal don't really matters...

Sorry for my bad english but I slept too much in the classroom, I think :D

I see you're point, but if we don't deport the guy, I'd like to see him executed. Seriously, why should my tax dollars go to supporting this guy for the rest of his life?

BTW, you're English looks fine to me ;)

Now, America0, that would not be tolerant. This man is an oppressed minority who felt he had no other recourse. It'd be racist to imprison or execute him. It's the oppression and persecution from the whites that made him do what he did.

So, I think the real issue is: is it society's fault or one man's cry for help?

and another question... which society? the US Society, the one that he snuck/overstayed in or the society he seems hell bent on not returning to?

and what form of Morality are we sacrificing by deporting him after his first or even second felony?

Morality doesn't exactly have 'forms.'

really? how many "Argument for banning guns" threads appeared here because of some nut case shooting his load off?

Too many. I despise those as well and for the same reason. It's always about the political issue, of being "right" and it's never about the victims. The victims just become a handy excuse for faux-self-righteous indignation and feigned outrage.

Now, America0, that would not be tolerant. This man is an oppressed minority who felt he had no other recourse. It'd be racist to imprison or execute him. It's the oppression and persecution from the whites that made him do what he did.

Ah, the smell of burning strawmen in the morning.


So you're saying if the borders of this country were secure and he never made it to San Francisco, the crime would still happen?

I am not saying that, no, because unlike you I understand several things.

* He's innocent. Until you prove him guilty in a court of law. That goes for the murder and the illegal immigrant status.

* Even if someone is an illegal immigrant, that doesn't mean the borders are not secure, because not all (in fact, a minority of) illegal immigrants are so because of overstaying a visa, not because of border crossing.

Morality doesn't exactly have 'forms.' ok, but what morals are we giving up by having him deported after finding out he's here illegally?

(note, I agree with the pillboxes and what not... but then my stance was never about pillboxes and mines.)

Too many. I despise those as well and for the same reason. It's always about the political issue, of being "right" and it's never about the victims. The victims just become a handy excuse for faux-self-righteous indignation and feigned outrage. well, what do you expect on a board where anything NOT policial is frowned upon by the posters. ;)

Just wanted to say that it's not just some punk did a crime and they found out he's here illegally isn't the only topic to turn political. :cool:

I didn't say that, I said it's a crime to be in this country illegally and the fact that he is still here in this country ILLEGALLY allowed him to kill these people. Illegal immigration is a crime, hence the word "illegal".

Did I mention illegal enough?

So, you think the real problem is that immigration isn't legal?

and another question... which society? the US Society, the one that he snuck/overstayed in or the society he seems hell bent on not returning to?

I suppose both. But I was being sarcastic...

I am not saying that, no, because unlike you I understand several things.

* He's innocent. Until you prove him guilty in a court of law. That goes for the murder and the illegal immigrant status.

* Even if someone is an illegal immigrant, that doesn't mean the borders are not secure, because not all (in fact, a minority of) illegal immigrants are so because of overstaying a visa, not because of border crossing.

Well, it seems to be a fact (according to the article) that this guy has been determined an illegal immigrant.

And I highly doubt that this country would knowingly let a gang member from El Salvador within our borders. Does that even strike a chord with you? This guy is a GANG MEMBER, a known gang member, and he guns down 3 people because of road rage.

And thanks for the assumption, but I understand quite a few things.

he said Ramos CAME HERE legally,

however this says he's not here legally.


I'm not sure it says that at all.

If you enter legally, but are refused permanent legal residence - what is the ACTUAL legal status?

Are you actually an 'illegal immigrant', even though you entered, and applied, legally? It seems a little confusing to have his legal application refused, have him waiting for his deportation - and then declare him an illegal immigrant in the interim...

So, you think the real problem is that immigration isn't legal?

What? Like I just posted, this guy is a known gang member in this country illegally. I have no problems with immigration, just go about it the legal way.

Hm, this wouldn't have happened if the man and his two sons had not been in a car, but used another means of transportation (e.g. public transport). Maybe this incidents will open people's eyes to see that a ban of cars is in immediate need.

What? Like I just posted, this guy is a known gang member in this country illegally. I have no problems with immigration, just go about it the legal way.

I'm confused - I'm between conflicting information here...

Didn't someone say he DID enter the country legally? And had applied for residence... and was awaiting deportation after his legal application was refused?

Surely - he did it the legal way?

Well, it seems to be a fact (according to the article) that this guy has been determined an illegal immigrant.

Do quote the relevant bits of the article.

And I highly doubt that this country would knowingly let a gang member from El Salvador within our borders.

Erm. Right. Because if there's one thing the US doesn't have or allow, it's gangs.

Does that even strike a chord with you?

A very dissonant one.

This guy is a GANG MEMBER, a known gang member, and he guns down 3 people because of road rage.

He does? Do cite the trial in which this was proven.

And thanks for the assumption, but I understand quite a few things.

Undoubtedly, but not the fact that there is more than one way to be an 'illegal immigrant.'

ok, but what morals are we giving up by having him deported after finding out he's here illegally?

I don't understand the question. Morality is being given up, not "a moral" or "some morals" or "morals #23, 34 and 90."

well, what do you expect on a board where anything NOT policial is frowned upon by the posters.

Well it's never unexpected, but I'll still call people on it. :p

Just wanted to say that it's not just some punk did a crime and they found out he's here illegally isn't the only topic to turn political.


I don't mind the politics per se, but I do mind that people ignore the facts just to grind an ax.

Surely - he did it the legal way?


Ok, I see what you mean now, sorry about that. Yes, he did it the legal way initially, but he should have been deported after his previous crimes. But then again, maybe he obtained a fake visa or knew someone on the inside that got him in the legal route. Highly unlikely, but I could see it happening.

I'll go back to my previous post though, he still needs to be tried for the death sentence in this country.

And we need a better way of limiting who exactly gets in this country, I don't know how, but there has to be a way.

In the name of homeland security (lol).

Ok, I see what you mean now, sorry about that. Yes, he did it the legal way initially, but he should have been deported after his previous crimes. But then again, maybe he obtained a fake visa or knew someone on the inside that got him in the legal route. Highly unlikely, but I could see it happening.


None of that needs to happen. From what I understand, even if it's decided you're going to be deported, it's not like they immediately bundle you on a plane.

I could be wrong.


And we need a better way of limiting who exactly gets in this country, I don't know how, but there has to be a way.


There is a way.

Open the border at select points - let everyone pick up their citizenship as they come across. You can do a routine criminal background check at the checkpoint, give them a quick medical, register them for paying social security and taxes, etc and let them on in.

There'd be almost no illegal immigration.

* He's innocent. Until you prove him guilty in a court of law. That goes for the murder and the illegal immigrant status.
The presumption of innocence is not extended to his immigration status - it isn't necessary nor is it normal to wait for a court of law to determine if he's an illegal immigrant or not. That lies with the authorities (ICE) and is a civil matter. Of course, it can turn into a issue under the criminal justice system...

And in short, if he doesn't have a permit and isn't a citizen, he's residing there illegally.

I'm confused - I'm between conflicting information here...

Didn't someone say he DID enter the country legally? And had applied for residence... and was awaiting deportation after his legal application was refused?

Surely - he did it the legal way?

When awaiting deportation you can be classified as an "illegal immigrant". You have an independent duty to leave the country should you no longer have a permit to stay, you shouldn't just wait for the government to take active steps (and spend resources) to deport you.

"The deaths immediately drew public outrage, which intensified when authorities revealed that Ramos, 21, is an illegal immigrant who managed to avoid deportation despite previous brushes with the law."

"The victims' family learned that Ramos had been arrested at least three times before the shooting and evaded deportation, largely because of San Francisco's sanctuary status."

Well, if anything, blame San Francisco and their sanctuary status. (sarcasm)

The one thing about illegal immigration that really strikes a chord with me is that the government spends all this time talking about homeland security and the need for the patriot act, but does nothing about securing our borders or weeding out the unsavory immigrants from the good ones in the name of "protecting our great country". That's for another day though. Just mentioning it because I figured I'd give an explanation why I'm strongly against illegal immigration.

Was the AK automatic or semi? If it was semi-auto then I think (not sure) it may be legal. If it was an automatic it is illegal and probably from black market. And who says he got in the US anyway?

The major point is that this scumbag shouldn't have been in the US at all, with or without an AK, not that he had an AK- which was probably illegal in the first place.

The AK type is illegal in California, due to California's AWB.

When awaiting deportation you can be classified as an "illegal immigrant".


Which seems odd, since it means you can drop from 'legal' to 'illegal'...


You have an independent duty


'Duty'? Who to? See what I mean? What - you're going to lose your citizenship? The idea that you're going to feel incredibly 'duty'-bound after you've had your legal application turned down is... odd.


to leave the country should you no longer have a permit to stay, you shouldn't just wait for the government to take active steps (and spend resources) to deport you.

Why would you, though? Really? And - I guess - how? Since theoretically you'd not have the rights to drive, or anything.

What would happen to you if you got caught driving back to the border, I wonder... What would happen if you GOT to the border?

"The deaths immediately drew public outrage, which intensified when authorities revealed that Ramos, 21, is an illegal immigrant who managed to avoid deportation despite previous brushes with the law."

"The victims' family learned that Ramos had been arrested at least three times before the shooting and evaded deportation, largely because of San Francisco's sanctuary status."


Is the 'sanctuary status' what allowed him to not be deported?

What is this 'sanctuary status'... anyone know? Is it a legal status?

Or worse... more jalapenos ala samonella.

But in seriousness... The problem here is that by declaring an absolute sanctuary San Fransisco is basically enabling this murderer to go free. Whatever your opinion on illegal immigration, it's clear that there's a very serious flaw in this approach that needs to be addressed.

Really? Illegal aliens are free from charges, trials and prison sentences for murder? Hell, I'm going to leave the country, renounce my citizenship, sneak back in and pick off all the people who annoy me! -_-

Is the 'sanctuary status' what allowed him to not be deported?

What is this 'sanctuary status'... anyone know? Is it a legal status?

no, sanctuary status is not a legal status in a person. But the area is a "sanctuary city". What it means is that the law enforcement of the city has been directed to not inquire as to the immigration status of suspects, and not aid federal immigration officials in determining who is, and is not, an illegal immigrant.

Sanctuary cities are thus those that do not inquire as to the status of a suspect, and will not report immigration violations to federal officials.

Really? Illegal aliens are free from charges, trials and prison sentences for murder? Hell, I'm going to leave the country, renounce my citizenship, sneak back in and pick off all the people who annoy me! -_-

what a foolproof plan, nothing could possibly go wrong!

Because no one wants other country's deportees. Recollect the boatloads of Jews deported from Nazi Germany that were turned away from good Christian, supposedly civilized, western ports. It's NIMBY, except we're not talking coal burning power plants but human beings.

Now you're just being stupid. You're comparing two entirely different and unrelated actions.

The Jews "deported" from Nazi Germany were Germans, Czechs and Austrians who'd had their citizenship stripped from them. No other nation was required to take them, and to the world's discredit, no one did.

This asshole has undergone no such indignity. His actions and position are entirely his own, and like ALL illegal immigrants, he has a nation that has no CHOICE but to accept him, due to his citizenship therin.



Wow. You know, I smoked marijuana the other day. I guess I'm "first rate scum" too by your own, silly reasoning.

Don't try the extremis argument unless you can make it stick. Reasonable levels of guilt are a factor and that was clear from the outset.

For the same reason that Native Americans should continue to allow people like you to be here.

Because I was born here and throwing me out would be just as wrong as what happened to them? This guy ahrdly falls under the same category. Try again.

Is the 'sanctuary status' what allowed him to not be deported?

What is this 'sanctuary status'... anyone know? Is it a legal status?

Ramos was in San Francisco which is a sanctuary city (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctuary_city) for illegal immigrants.

Agreed. Gunning down a father and his sons in an act of road rage? I say kill the psycho, regardless of whether he's an immigrant or not.

I'd rather see him get life without parole, if he's convicted. It's cheaper than putting him to death.

Is the 'sanctuary status' what allowed him to not be deported?

What is this 'sanctuary status'... anyone know? Is it a legal status?

The "sanctuary status" just means that S.F. law enforcement will not cooperate with federal agents to identify illegal immigrants. So when an illegal alien is convicted of a crime somewhere else, the local authorities may contact the feds and let them know the perpetrator is an illegal. S.F. police don't do that. It doesn't mean he 'can't' be deported.

Don't try the extremis argument unless you can make it stick. Reasonable levels of guilt are a factor and that was clear from the outset.

True, but that require some determination that violating immigration laws creates a higher "level" of guilt than, say, violating anti-drug laws.

I see you're point, but if we don't deport the guy, I'd like to see him executed.
Killers are criminals. If the governement decides to adopt the death penalty, it becomes a criminal too.
I think Life is sacred, and furthermore the death penalty is expensive as the Life imprisonment.
I live in Tuscany, the first nation in the world to outlaw the death penalty, and I'm proud of this.
Seriously, why should my tax dollars go to supporting this guy for the rest of his life?

BTW, you're English looks fine to me ;)

The USA Economy is not in trouble because of the jails costs...but because of wars, oil cost and many other problems.

no, sanctuary status is not a legal status in a person. But the area is a "sanctuary city". What it means is that the law enforcement of the city has been directed to not inquire as to the immigration status of suspects, and not aid federal immigration officials in determining who is, and is not, an illegal immigrant.

Sanctuary cities are thus those that do not inquire as to the status of a suspect, and will not report immigration violations to federal officials.

An interesting loophole... it's kind of like virtual legal immigration. So long as you keep your head down.

EDIT: Thanks to those others who posted responses, too. :)

I'd rather see him get life without parole, if he's convicted. It's cheaper than putting him to death.

That's news to me. America already has an overcrowding prison problem - how is using our tax money to support him in prison for the rest of his life cheaper than simply killing him?

"The policy, adopted in 1989 by the city's elected Board of Supervisors, bars local officials from cooperating with federal authorities in their efforts to deport illegal immigrants."

On Sanctuary status. The fact that it was adopted in 89 too would lead one to believe that there were a lot of people staying longer than their visas in San Fran, eh?

That's news to me. America already has an overcrowding prison problem - how is using our tax money to support him in prison for the rest of his life cheaper than simply killing him?

because our constitution prohibits "simply killing him" and a death penalty comes with a whole separate round of mandatory appeals, plus insurances that the execution is carried out in a humane way, and all other conditions, the result of which is after the prisoner is finally executed after years of appeals, it would simply be cheaper to keep him in jail for what's left of his life.

I suppose both. But I was being sarcastic...Sarcstic or not, it does touch upon a deeper question. people blame society for a lot of things. we should take care of everyone who wants in, yet most of the time, it's not people wanting into a country, but wanting out of theirs.

I'm not sure it says that at all.

If you enter legally, but are refused permanent legal residence - what is the ACTUAL legal status?

Are you actually an 'illegal immigrant', even though you entered, and applied, legally? It seems a little confusing to have his legal application refused, have him waiting for his deportation - and then declare him an illegal immigrant in the interim...
you become an Illegal (either resident or person, or even alien) yet in this case, he entered Legally and the beef the people have is with this sactuary law.

I don't understand the question. Morality is being given up, not "a moral" or "some morals" or "morals #23, 34 and 90."
Just trying to see your point when you included deportation as one of those things that sacrifice morallity for an illusion of security.

Morality tends to be nebulous and more intune with the individual. do you give someone what they want, or do you give them the means to get what they want. do you involve yourself in something that doesn't involve you directly or do you stay out. each person has their own moral compass. so yes, to some, pill boxes on the border is bad, while others will say "Hell Yeah!"

If a person who is here illegally (whether or not they overstayed or snuck in) and is caught, should that person be deported? and what's the moral problem of doing so?

...the death penalty is expensive as the Life imprisonment.

Not at all. What costs a lot is the comprehensive process that goes on after a death sentence is declared - appeals, etc.

Now, if you did what they used to do in the old days, and sent them 'from this place to a place of execution', and let the do a dance at the rope's end, it's practically free.

Hell, sell popcorn, you might make a profit on the day.

Killers are criminals. If the governement decides to adopt the death penalty, it becomes a criminal too.

A generally poor argument once one realizes that people who lock others in cages without their consent and prevent them from leaving are criminals too...

....Seriously, why should my tax dollars go to supporting this guy for the rest of his life?

Because it's cheaper than executing him.

...he entered Legally and the beef the people have is with this sactuary law.


Some of them, maybe.

I think most of the problem is that people hear the phrase 'illegal immigrant' and go all swastika on their ass.

Killers are criminals. If the government decides to adopt the death penalty, it becomes a criminal too.
I think Life is sacred, and furthermore the death penalty is expensive as the Life imprisonment.
I live in Tuscany, the first nation in the world to outlaw the death penalty, and I'm proud of this.

Well, we're gonna have to agree to disagree on the death penalty issue then. I believe in it personally because there are a lot of demented people out there that, I think, simply deserve to die.

The USA Economy is not in trouble because of the jails costs...but because of wars, oil cost and many other problems.

No arguments here.

Some of them, maybe.

I think most of the problem is that people hear the phrase 'illegal immigrant' and go all swastika on their ass.

on both sides of the issue... yes. fanatisism can be found on both sides of any issue.

but the article was basically focusing on the sactuary law. Nice in some cases... but abused in others.

Not at all. What costs a lot is the comprehensive process that goes on after a death sentence is declared - appeals, etc.

Now, if you did what they used to do in the old days, and sent them 'from this place to a place of execution', and let the do a dance at the rope's end, it's practically free.

Hell, sell popcorn, you might make a profit on the day.

or do what Texas does. find a state that has overcrowded prisons and say
"Hey, we can house your prisioners here... for a fee."

Which seems odd, since it means you can drop from 'legal' to 'illegal'...
Why is that so odd? As with other kinds of permits, your rights to do something can expire or be revoked. Ot can change quickly, but it's seldom unexpected. That also includes your legal residence status.

'Duty'? Who to?
The host country.

See what I mean?
No?

What - you're going to lose your citizenship?
No, you don't have citizenship of the host country, that's the point. And if you refuse to follow the instructions of the authorities you may face consequences - like fines, jail time, expulsions, or being denied permits later.

The idea that you're going to feel incredibly 'duty'-bound after you've had your legal application turned down is... odd.
So... When you file for a building permit and have it turned down, you're not duty bound to not build? You feel you have no duty to honour legal restrictions placed upon you by the authorities, nor any duty to follow the law? Hmm...


Why would you, though? Really?
I tend to respect the law. I can't speak for others.

The threat of expulsion works better in Europe, but even in the US, the threat of automatically being denied rights such as the right to work etc. should also have a preventive effect.

And - I guess - how? Since theoretically you'd not have the rights to drive, or anything.
That's a more practical dilemma. You should be allowed to drive, in my opinion. Regardless, plains, trains and busses should suffice.

What would happen to you if you got caught driving back to the border, I wonder... What would happen if you GOT to the border?
I don't think they'd make a fuss about you wanting to get out after having been denied a permit.

Illegal schimlegal - if he'd been standing by the road yelling 'bang' at people, we'd be watching a youtube video of people laughing at him.

The only reason people are dead, is because he wasn't yelling. He had a gun, and now three people are dead.

His immigrant status is irrelevent. No one died because of his status - they died because he was a nutter with a lethal weapon.
His status has everything to do with it. One important responsibility of any country's immigration system is that it should keep dangerous foreigners out. It's a simple crime prevention measure, if you keep out foreign criminals they won't be able to commit crimes in your country. This guy proved himself before this case of being a criminal after his first felony conviction, let alone his second. The immigration system obviously didn't work. If it did work then this guy would never have been in a position to commit these murders in the first place. The crime would have been prevented.

If you EVER complain that the world is insensitive to your needs or that country X or Y didn't join you in the war in Afghanistan or Iraq, I'm reposting this right after it.
Go for it, it doesn't bother me. I'm against our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan anyway. Besides, you're comparing apples and oranges. I was talking about the internal matter of kicking a foreigner out who has abused your hospitality by committing crimes against you country. That's only really any concern of the country in question. The Iraq and Afghanistan thing is a foreign relations matter and totally different.

Not at all. What costs a lot is the comprehensive process that goes on after a death sentence is declared - appeals, etc.

Now, if you did what they used to do in the old days, and sent them 'from this place to a place of execution', and let the do a dance at the rope's end, it's practically free.

Hell, sell popcorn, you might make a profit on the day.

yes...but what about judicial mistakes? You might kill many innocent peoples!

His status has everything to do with it. One important responsibility of any country's immigration system is that it should keep dangerous foreigners out. It's a simple crime prevention measure, if you keep out foreign criminals they won't be able to commit crimes in your country. This guy proved himself before this case of being a criminal after his first felony conviction, let alone his second. The immigration system obviously didn't work. If it did work then this guy would never have been in a position to commit these murders in the first place. The crime would have been prevented.


Here in Tuscany, only 2% of crimes are made by immigrants...outlawing immigration isn't the right choice to take...

Here in Tuscany, only 2% of crimes are made by immigrants...outlawing immigration isn't the right choice to take...

Well, the U.S. isn't Tuscany. And I don't think he's talking about ALL immigration, just illegal immigration.

Yeah, you know, deporting him might have avoided it.

Arming the border with tanks and pillboxes and shooting border-crossers on sight might have avoided it!

Attacking Mexico like Israel vs Palestine might have avoided it!

Also, putting immigrants into death camps might have, too!

The thing wrong with all these ideas is that you're sacrificing something (morality) in return for the illusion of something else (security).

I mean, I can't help but notice that when an American citizen goes out and kills a bunch of people, you never turn the issue political. Nor does it seem to anger your sense of nationality, patriotism and defense. You don't seem to be calling for the deportation of violent criminals, just when they happen to be from another country. In short, you're a hypocrite. If you weren't, you'd argue in favor of exiling felons to Siberia (or equivalent). But no.

One, he is not a citizen, and therefore should have been deported after the first felony. And as for american killings not being political, well, obviously you haven't been living here in the past twenty years. you can't get away from it! "oh, it's the music! No, it's violence on tv and in movies!, No, it's the video games!" I don't blame illegal aliens for wanting to be in America, but they at least have to obey the law like everyone else. he already had two prior convictions, and he is here illegaly. He should have been deported.

Here in Tuscany, only 2% of crimes are made by immigrants...outlawing immigration isn't the right choice to take...
I wasn't talking about outlawing immigration, I was talking about deporting foreign criminals. Completely different thing. Even if the vast majority of crimes are committed by citizens, that shouldn't be any reason not to deport foreign criminals. If you have a known and convicted foreign criminal and you deport him, it's very likely that you'll have prevented him from committing further crimes in you country. It certainly would have worked in this case. In if it's only a tiny amount you're deporting, it should still mean a few less crimes being committed. It's even better if you get rid of potential murderers like this guy ended up being.

His status has everything to do with it. One important responsibility of any country's immigration system is that it should keep dangerous foreigners out. It's a simple crime prevention measure, if you keep out foreign criminals they won't be able to commit crimes in your country. This guy proved himself before this case of being a criminal after his first felony conviction, let alone his second. The immigration system obviously didn't work. If it did work then this guy would never have been in a position to commit these murders in the first place. The crime would have been prevented.


Thank you, I was beginning to think no one else thought this way.

Hmm... -Sits back to think for a moment- Okay. Let's cut out all borders. Forget about nationalism. I say we should form the whole world into one government. Everyone's a citizen of planet Earth. There, no more illegal immigrant killing ctizens, just citizens killing citizens. See how much better the world is when we work together? -Waits for the crazy nationalists to begin flaming-

I wasn't talking about outlawing immigration, I was talking about deporting foreign criminals. Completely different thing. Even if the vast majority of crimes are committed by citizens, that shouldn't be any reason not to deport foreign criminals. If you have a known and convicted foreign criminal and you deport him, it's very likely that you'll have prevented him from committing further crimes in you country. It certainly would have worked in this case.

Ok! I misunderstood you...I agree :)
I'm so worried about immigration restrictions because here in Italy a fascist called Silvio Berlusconi (Do you know him? he's short and without hairs :D ) is taking child's fingerprints only because they (or their grandparents) are immigrants! I think this is racism!

Ok! I misunderstood you...I agree :)
I'm so worried about immigration restrictions because here in Italy a fascist called Silvio Berlusconi (Do you know him? he's short and without hairs :D ) is taking child's fingerprints only because they (or their grandparents) are immigrants! I think this is racism!

Yeah I heard about that, they're mainly going after the gypsies that no one in your country really likes, right?

I think there was mention of that in the article about the sunbathers hanging out near those dead bodies in Italy, and the sunbathers were the loathed gypsies.

Hmm... -Sits back to think for a moment- Okay. Let's cut out all borders. Forget about nationalism. I say we should form the whole world into one government. Everyone's a citizen of planet Earth. There, no more illegal immigrant killing ctizens, just citizens killing citizens. See how much better the world is when we work together? -Waits for the crazy nationalists to begin flaming-

Easier said than done.

Ok! I misunderstood you...I agree :)
I'm so worried about immigration restrictions because here in Italy a fascist called Silvio Berlusconi (Do you know him? he's short and without hairs :D ) is taking child's fingerprints only because they (or their grandparents) are immigrants! I think this is racism!

Sounds like the actions of a police state. I wouldn't call it racism though.

Hmm... -Sits back to think for a moment- Okay. Let's cut out all borders. Forget about nationalism. I say we should form the whole world into one government. Everyone's a citizen of planet Earth. There, no more illegal immigrant killing ctizens, just citizens killing citizens. See how much better the world is when we work together? -Waits for the crazy nationalists to begin flaming-
A little unrealistic. You've got countries in the industrialised west with a high standard of living and good public services such as healthcare, education, ect. Then you've got a much larger section of the global population with none of that. So it wouldn't be too bright for us to try that, for obvious reasons.

Ok! I misunderstood you...I agree :)
I'm so worried about immigration restrictions because here in Italy a fascist called Silvio Berlusconi (Do you know him? he's short and without hairs :D ) is taking child's fingerprints only because they (or their grandparents) are immigrants! I think this is racism!
I don't think that tightening up our country's immigration would be a bad thing, it's definitely too lenient here. We could do with tightening up on immigration laws and properly securing our borders. Of course, it's a different matter. Obviously some form of discretion has to be excercised when deciding which legal immigrants to let in. But I don't think any discretion should be excercised when it comes to foreign criminals, they should always be kicked out.

That's news to me. America already has an overcrowding prison problem - how is using our tax money to support him in prison for the rest of his life cheaper than simply killing him?

Attorneys and judges are paid much more than prison guards, prison guards are responsible for multiple prisoners (whereas one prisoner may have one or more attorneys and legal staff during a death sentence appeal), and there are several levels of appeals for someone sentenced to death.

Just saying. People need to get their heads out their asses. Work for the same damn thing for once.

Maybe I'm just a man before my time.

Oh well. At least I see a world without borders. Unfortunately no one else does.

I think Banananananananaland has it right on with the whole immigration issue. I like your ideas, man.

It's very curious really, that those who claim to not be against immigrants just illegal immigrants so as to claim that their position is not because of bias or racism, but rather a deep seated respect for the laws, complain about the existence of these sanctuary cities.

After all, both the federal and state governments are semi sovereign, and immigration is within the sole authority of the federal government, and as such, its enforcement is its solely its responsibility. To compel state agencies to aid in the enforement of immigration matters would be to allow the federal government to forcibly abrogate its responsibilities to the state, in clear violation of state sovereignty.

Surely then, if ones concerns are based on in bias or racism, but a deep seated respect for the laws of this country, one should respect the constitutionally mandated separate sovereignty doctrine above mere federal statute.

Attorneys and judges are paid much more than prison guards, prison guards are responsible for multiple prisoners (whereas one prisoner may have one or more attorneys and legal staff during a death sentence appeal), and there are several levels of appeals for someone sentenced to death.

Okay, I understand it now. Still not changing my mind on the death penalty though.

Now you're just being stupid. You're comparing two entirely different and unrelated actions.

Heh. Yes, deportation is so very, very different from deportation. How stupid of me not to realize this.

The Jews "deported"

Erm. They WERE deported. Not "deported."

from Nazi Germany were Germans, Czechs and Austrians who'd had their citizenship stripped from them. No other nation was required to take them, and to the world's discredit, no one did.

This asshole has undergone no such indignity. His actions and position are entirely his own, and like ALL illegal immigrants, he has a nation that has no CHOICE but to accept him, due to his citizenship therin.

His choices may have been his own, but this thread is a perfect example of wanting to extrapolate and generalize. It's not about one guy, it's about how all illegal immigrants are murderers and should be deported.

Don't try the extremis argument unless you can make it stick. Reasonable levels of guilt are a factor and that was clear from the outset.

I have reasonable levels of guilt - I admitted it! I committed a crime! That makes me scum according to your own reasoning. Sorry if your reasoning was stupid.

Because I was born here

The fact that you're genetically removed from illegal immigrants doesn't make you any more legitimate in my opinion.

and throwing me out would be just as wrong as what happened to them?

Wait, did you just say that deporting you would be just as wrong as invasion, genocide and oppression of an entire people?

Kind of a high opinion of yourself, no?

It's very curious really, that those who claim to not be against immigrants just illegal immigrants so as to claim that their position is not because of bias or racism, but rather a deep seated respect for the laws, complain about the existence of these sanctuary cities.

After all, both the federal and state governments are semi sovereign, and immigration is within the sole authority of the federal government, and as such, its enforcement is its solely its responsibility. To compel state agencies to aid in the enforement of immigration matters would be to allow the federal government to forcibly abrogate its responsibilities to the state, in clear violation of state sovereignty.

Surely then, if ones concerns are based on in bias or racism, but a deep seated respect for the laws of this country, one should respect the constitutionally mandated separate sovereignty doctrine above mere federal statute.
true, and while I do have a problem with the Sanctuary laws, note that I am not, nor have I seen, any of those in the position you illustrated support breaking such sanctuary laws. they ask and urge their repeal, but they don't encourage people to break them merely because they disagree with them.

Why is that so odd? As with other kinds of permits, your rights to do something can expire or be revoked. Ot can change quickly, but it's seldom unexpected. That also includes your legal residence status.


Why is it 'seldom unexpected'? Didn't this guy apply for his legal status, and then find it got refused? Sure - it can happen, but it's not like you spend all that money on the ASSUMPTION you'll get refused.

And, since you can never know how long it's going to take the immigration service to process your papers.. yeah, it may well be a surprise. And - to wake up one morning and - out of the blue - find out you're now illegal? Hell of a surprise.


The host country.


The... host country that just told you you're no longer welcome?


No?


No.


No, you don't have citizenship of the host country, that's the point. And if you refuse to follow the instructions of the authorities you may face consequences - like fines, jail time, expulsions, or being denied permits later.


I know you don't have citizenship of the host country - that really is the point, although you seem to have been resistant to it so far.

You throw 'duty' in there - but that 'duty' is going to sound pretty hollow to someone who is suddenly finding themselves discarded.


So... When you file for a building permit and have it turned down, you're not duty bound to not build? You feel you have no duty to honour legal restrictions placed upon you by the authorities, nor any duty to follow the law? Hmm...


No parallel at all, as you know it - unless you've got some kind of 'you-can-build-until-we-refuse-you' permit here I don't know about?


I tend to respect the law. I can't speak for others.


Aren't we talking about people that the system is already placing outside of the law? Yesterday, you were a legal resident, paying taxes, paying social security, etc... you wake up today and someone has decided you're no longer legal.

Your simple existence is now a crime.


The threat of expulsion works better in Europe, but even in the US, the threat of automatically being denied rights such as the right to work etc. should also have a preventive effect.


You're funny. The threat of being denied the right to work... and we ARE talking about illegal immigrants here, right?


That's a more practical dilemma. You should be allowed to drive, in my opinion. Regardless, plains, trains and busses should suffice.


Which you will pay for with the money you get from the job you're not allowed to do...


I don't think they'd make a fuss about you wanting to get out after having been denied a permit.

You don't, huh? And that's worth...?

His status has everything to do with it. One important responsibility of any country's immigration system is that it should keep dangerous foreigners out. It's a simple crime prevention measure, if you keep out foreign criminals they won't be able to commit crimes in your country. This guy proved himself before this case of being a criminal after his first felony conviction, let alone his second. The immigration system obviously didn't work. If it did work then this guy would never have been in a position to commit these murders in the first place. The crime would have been prevented.


In the heirarchy of the reasons why this crime was as serious as it was, the absolute top reason has to be that this man was armed with an AK 47. Simple reason - if you had put that weapon into the hands of an illegal immigrant, a legal immigrant, a naturalised citizen, or a native - the results are the same.

The man's country of origin and citizenship status are irrelevent to the crime.

yes...but what about judicial mistakes? You might kill many innocent peoples!

Then they shouldn't have been sentenced to death.

Tighten up the trial process, sure. I'm not a big fan of random executions. But, you have to admit, it would reduce the costs, right?

The man's country of origin and citizenship status are irrelevent to the crime.

Citizenship status is very relevant. If he wasn't here (because immigration did their job), this whole situation could have been avoided.

In the heirarchy of the reasons why this crime was as serious as it was, the absolute top reason has to be that this man was armed with an AK 47. Simple reason - if you had put that weapon into the hands of an illegal immigrant, a legal immigrant, a naturalised citizen, or a native - the results are the same.

The man's country of origin and citizenship status are irrelevent to the crime.

You can't blame the weapon for the actions of its user. The AK had no choice in participating in the crime. If the El Salvadorian is here illegally, his possession of a firearm was illegal. If his firearm was an automatic model, he probably smuggled it into the US when he came because the fun models are much easier to obtain in Central America than here. If he had been deported after his first felony, this crime would have been prevented. Blaming the gun is foolish. If the victim had been armed, he could have defended himself. Of course, then this thread would be about how a white supremacist was arrested for gunning down an innocent Hispanic immigrant.

Yeah, you know, deporting him might have avoided it.

Arming the border with tanks and pillboxes and shooting border-crossers on sight might have avoided it!

Attacking Mexico like Israel vs Palestine might have avoided it!

Also, putting immigrants into death camps might have, too!

The thing wrong with all these ideas is that you're sacrificing something (morality) in return for the illusion of something else (security).

I mean, I can't help but notice that when an American citizen goes out and kills a bunch of people, you never turn the issue political. Nor does it seem to anger your sense of nationality, patriotism and defense. You don't seem to be calling for the deportation of violent criminals, just when they happen to be from another country. In short, you're a hypocrite. If you weren't, you'd argue in favor of exiling felons to Siberia (or equivalent). But no.

No, you misunderstood, it's not because he's an immigrant, but because he's an ILLEGAL immigrant, i.e. he has no legal right to be in this country, therefore he should be deported for his murders. It's not hypocrisy.

Why is it 'seldom unexpected'? Didn't this guy apply for his legal status, and then find it got refused? Sure - it can happen, but it's not like you spend all that money on the ASSUMPTION you'll get refused.
Of course not. But there are certain conditions you have to meet, and you'll have an idea of whether or not you do. And since you have filed an application, you will know that it's not a certainty that you'll get a permit. So it won't come as a thunderous surprise when you're told that you have to leave.

And, since you can never know how long it's going to take the immigration service to process your papers.. yeah, it may well be a surprise. And - to wake up one morning and - out of the blue - find out you're now illegal? Hell of a surprise.
Well, it's more of a gliding transition. You wake up to find that you will have to leave within a reasonable time/designated time limit, or you will be seen as an illegal. You do get a "grace period" so you can pack up and leave.



The... host country that just told you you're no longer welcome?
Yes.


I know you don't have citizenship of the host country - that really is the point, although you seem to have been resistant to it so far.
*Yawn*


You throw 'duty' in there - but that 'duty' is going to sound pretty hollow to someone who is suddenly finding themselves discarded.
A person has the duty to follow the laws of the land no? To respect the legislation in the host country? Like, in this case, to not murder someone? Also, the duty to not stay without a permit to do so.


No parallel at all, as you know it - unless you've got some kind of 'you-can-build-until-we-refuse-you' permit here I don't know about?
On the contrary, there is a parallel. You are issued a visa so you can come visit a relative. While you're visiting, you apply for a work permit. That application is turned down. Now what?

You want to build an annex. You apply for a building permit. That application is turned down. Now what?

The system is the same. You have to respect the authority of the government - if you wish to live in an orderly society, of course. Not something that everyone believes in.



Aren't we talking about people that the system is already placing outside of the law? Yesterday, you were a legal resident, paying taxes, paying social security, etc... you wake up today and someone has decided you're no longer legal.

Your simple existence is now a crime.
That's an extremely simplistic view. You weren't necessarily a legal resident, you may perhaps only be in the country on a visiting visa.

And if you were residing in the country legally, ask yourself this: Why would an application for renewal be turned down? Is there no rules or regulations in this field? Of course there is. So there is a reason - for example having been convicted of a crime - that the application is denied, and it shouldn't come as a surprise.

And, again, your existence isn't a crime. You can go anywhere you want, but you can't stay here.


You're funny. The threat of being denied the right to work... and we ARE talking about illegal immigrants here, right?
I thought we were talking about all kinds of migrants and immigrants. If someone has applied for asylum and is turned down, and refuses to return home - that person can later be denied a work permit summarily if he refuses to abide by the decisions and has to be deported by the government.


Which you will pay for with the money you get from the job you're not allowed to do...
*Shrug*

There are ways to get home if you can't pay for it yourself. The International Organization for Migration is one NGO that aids in such situations.


You don't, huh? And that's worth...?
Are you telling me that the border guards refuse to let people without any valid permits to leave the country? Why on earth would they make a fuss and not let people that should leave, leave?

Heh. Yes, deportation is so very, very different from deportation. How stupid of me not to realize this.

Yes, quite. Because those persons were not deported at all.

They were expelled. You can only deport people from another country; these were Germany's own citizens, whether the government wished to acknowledge that or not.


Erm. They WERE deported. Not "deported."

I do not choose to accept the Nazis' definition of their actions. This was not deportation; it was expulsion of an unwanted minority.


His choices may have been his own, but this thread is a perfect example of wanting to extrapolate and generalize. It's not about one guy, it's about how all illegal immigrants are murderers and should be deported.

I have neither extrapolated nor generalized. Let me be quite clear: this person, and other people who have both entered the country illegally and committed crimes while here (now, that is a generalization), should be returned to their country of citizenship and not permitted to reenter the USA, on pain of further deportation.



I have reasonable levels of guilt - I admitted it! I committed a crime! That makes me scum according to your own reasoning. Sorry if your reasoning was stupid.

Sorry if I assumed you had a sense of balance and fairness. Clearly not the case.

Or in other words, stop being a dumbass.

The fact that you're genetically removed from illegal immigrants doesn't make you any more legitimate in my opinion.

Then your opinion is idiotic. By your reasoning no one has the right to live anywhere.

Wait, did you just say that deporting you would be just as wrong as invasion, genocide and oppression of an entire people?

Kind of a high opinion of yourself, no?

Yes, I do. I am a native born son of the USA. This gives me absolutely equal and equivalent right to live there as anyone else who can say the same, regardless of ethnicity or bloodline origin. I will fight to the death for that for myself, and anyone else so born.

You can't blame the weapon for the actions of its user. The AK had no choice in participating in the crime. If the El Salvadorian is here illegally, his possession of a firearm was illegal. If his firearm was an automatic model, he probably smuggled it into the US when he came because the fun models are much easier to obtain in Central America than here. If he had been deported after his first felony, this crime would have been prevented. Blaming the gun is foolish. If the victim had been armed, he could have defended himself. Of course, then this thread would be about how a white supremacist was arrested for gunning down an innocent Hispanic immigrant.

Bolded words QFT and sigged for truth.

Citizenship status is very relevant. If he wasn't here (because immigration did their job), this whole situation could have been avoided.

Nope, it's entirely irrelevent.

That means - not relevent in the slightest.

Let me explain why:

If you give a naturalised citizen an AK 47, and tell him to shoot at a car full of people - murder.

If you give a native citizen an AK 47, and tell him to shoot at a car full of people - murder.

If you give a legal immigrant an AK 47, and tell him to shoot at a car full of people - murder.

If you give an ILLEGAL immigrant an AK 47, and tell him to shoot at a car full of people - murder.


See? It makes absolutely no difference.

But, okay - let's assume you deported the person in question. Let us assume they legally come back on a visitor visa, and you give them an AK 47, and tell him to shoot at a car full of people - murder.


See? It really makes no difference.

Citizenship, immigration, nation of origin, all irrelevent.

What made this murder was a combination of intent, and an AK 47.


The immigration debate is an attempt to co-opt a tragedy for political gain.

You can't blame the weapon for the actions of its user.


I'm not.


The AK had no choice in participating in the crime. If the El Salvadorian is here illegally, his possession of a firearm was illegal. If his firearm was an automatic model, he probably smuggled it into the US when he came because the fun models are much easier to obtain in Central America than here.


Of course, he must have access to better weapons because he's a foreigner. Nice backdoor attempt.


If he had been deported after his first felony, this crime would have been prevented.


Speculative rubbish.


Blaming the gun is foolish.


I'm not blaming the gun.

The defense attorney says Ramos is here legally...

...I'd like to see proof, though I'll bet there is none.Have him tried federally, where it the death penalty is legal. And give him lethal injection. But instead of the injection being lethal it can be happy brain morphing goop that turns him into the Joker, hell with the Ledger dead we need an insane murderer to eve fill half of his oversized clown shoes. *Nod*

Of course not. But there are certain conditions you have to meet, and you'll have an idea of whether or not you do.


Not at all. There are certain conditions, but fulfilling them is no guarantee.


And since you have filed an application, you will know that it's not a certainty that you'll get a permit.


Absolutely true.


So it won't come as a thunderous surprise when you're told that you have to leave.


It will still come as a surpise, I would think.

I know that Georgian law allows my employer to terminate me with no notice, for no grounds - should they so wish. It would still be a surprise if they did.


Well, it's more of a gliding transition. You wake up to find that you will have to leave within a reasonable time/designated time limit, or you will be seen as an illegal. You do get a "grace period" so you can pack up and leave.


Ah - this is what I was fishing for earlier.


Yes.


Why are you going to feel bound to that country, under those circumstances?


*Yawn*


You liked that, huh? I tell you something, and you tell ME what my point was... and then you act bruised when I point out what I was really saying.


A person has the duty to follow the laws of the land no?


Duty? Interesting word. Do they?


To respect the legislation in the host country? Like, in this case, to not murder someone? Also, the duty to not stay without a permit to do so.


Because, of course, murder, and visa expiration are practically the same thing.


On the contrary, there is a parallel. You are issued a visa so you can come visit a relative. While you're visiting, you apply for a work permit. That application is turned down. Now what?

You want to build an annex. You apply for a building permit. That application is turned down. Now what?


The difference is that the residency permit allows you to remain resident until it is processed, and the building permit doesn't allow you to be getting on with the construction while IT is being processed.

One of them practically calls on you to get invested, the other puts you in a holding pattern.


The system is the same. You have to respect the authority of the government - if you wish to live in an orderly society, of course. Not something that everyone believes in.


"Be a good little automaton"?


That's an extremely simplistic view. You weren't necessarily a legal resident, you may perhaps only be in the country on a visiting visa.

And if you were residing in the country legally, ask yourself this: Why would an application for renewal be turned down?


Because the BCIS reserves the right to refuse issue or renewal for any reason, or none?


Is there no rules or regulations in this field? Of course there is. So there is a reason - for example having been convicted of a crime - that the application is denied, and it shouldn't come as a surprise.


Again - the word 'surpise'. I do not think it means what you think it means.


And, again, your existence isn't a crime. You can go anywhere you want, but you can't stay here.


Your existence where you are is a crime. And, since you are - in all likelihood, let's be realistic - going to BE 'where you are', your existence will suddenly become a crime.


Are you telling me that the border guards refuse to let people without any valid permits to leave the country? Why on earth would they make a fuss and not let people that should leave, leave?

I have no idea, I've never been deported. What DO they do with someone hitting the border from the US side, with NO papers?

Yes, quite. Because those persons were not deported at all.

They were expelled. You can only deport people from another country; these were Germany's own citizens, whether the government wished to acknowledge that or not.

What utter nonsense. Deportation is the act of removing someone from the country by 'legal means.' The Jews were deported.

I do not choose to accept the Nazis' definition of their actions.

Right, you might have to admit to being wrong. And since you've already gone ahead and labeled me "stupid" you can't do that.

I have neither extrapolated nor generalized.

Nor did you start this thread.

Sorry if I assumed you had a sense of balance and fairness. Clearly not the case.

Or in other words, stop being a dumbass.

Are you going to stop with the lame ad hominem fallacies anytime soon? If I'm a "dumbass" it's because I read what you yourself fucking wrote:

This man, regardless of whether he actually did this horrible murder, is first rate scum, and that I can tell by reading his actions - he has volated our law

Violating the law = "first rate scum"

Your words. So sorry to tell you, I'm not being a dumbass. Maybe you were.

Then your opinion is idiotic. By your reasoning no one has the right to live anywhere.

By your reasoning, breaking the law is "spitting on the country" and "scum."

Yes, I do. I am a native born son of the USA. This gives me absolutely equal and equivalent right to live there as anyone else who can say the same, regardless of ethnicity or bloodline origin. I will fight to the death for that for myself, and anyone else so born.

Oh, this from mister "you have no sense of fairness or balance?"

You're fucking wrong. In NO WAY would deporting you be equivalent, materially, morally, judicially or from any other perspective to slaughtering the Native Americans. I don't give a shit HOW much you think your shit doesn't stink or, I guess, how little you estimate Native Americans to be in comparison to your absurdly inflated ego. GTFO.

Not at all. There are certain conditions, but fulfilling them is no guarantee.
That's the responsibility of the applicant, however.


It will still come as a surpise, I would think.

I know that Georgian law allows my employer to terminate me with no notice, for no grounds - should they so wish. It would still be a surprise if they did.
There's no such provision in immigration law though? The authorities will have to give you a reason - and you can appeal, can't you?


Why are you going to feel bound to that country, under those circumstances?
So are you saying that you should only be expected to follow the law when it's in your favour?


You liked that, huh? I tell you something, and you tell ME what my point was... and then you act bruised when I point out what I was really saying.
No, the exchange with you there proved to be worthless. Hence the yawn.


Duty? Interesting word. Do they?
In my opinion, yes, as part of the social contract and out of respect for the law in the host country.


Because, of course, murder, and visa expiration are practically the same thing.
So people should have the luxury to pick and choose which laws they wish to follow?


The difference is that the residency permit allows you to remain resident until it is processed, and the building permit doesn't allow you to be getting on with the construction while IT is being processed.

One of them practically calls on you to get invested, the other puts you in a holding pattern.
Still, the system is the same albeit with some differences. The system that allows you to remain while a permit is processed is due to it being disproportionate to demand that the applicant return home just to get back shortly thereafter.

And how does it work? Is that the rule in all cases, or just some? Are you allowed to apply for family reunification while in the country, for example? In some countries, you aren't. You'd have to apply from your home country and an application filed in the country would - as the main rule - not be accepted and summarily denied on formal grounds.


"Be a good little automaton"?
I'd prefer "Respect democracy and the rule of law", but to each his own.


Because the BCIS reserves the right to refuse issue or renewal for any reason, or none?
Does it? Do you have any links handy?

I would not support such a rule. In my view, it is imperative that the applicant gets a reason for any negative decision.


Again - the word 'surpise'. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Indeed it does. And I stand by my statement. If you've been convicted of serious crimes, you should expect not to have your permit renewed.


Your existence where you are is a crime. And, since you are - in all likelihood, let's be realistic - going to BE 'where you are', your existence will suddenly become a crime.
If you must, but I find that exercise rather pointless.


I have no idea, I've never been deported. What DO they do with someone hitting the border from the US side, with NO papers?
So the border guards wouldn't stop him from leaving - what you were trying to say is that he would have problems getting into Mexico.

Well, they would probably arrest him while trying to determine his identity. But if he was Mexican, should it be problematic? If he's not, he should be able to get papers at a foreign mission before starting the drive. So, I don't see the problem.

Yes, quite. Because those persons were not deported at all.

They were expelled. You can only deport people from another country; these were Germany's own citizens, whether the government wished to acknowledge that or not.

I don't think this is right.

What utter nonsense. Deportation is the act of removing someone from the country by 'legal means.' The Jews were deported.

No. That would be assuming the German Government had the legal right to do what they did - and they did not.



Right, you might have to admit to being wrong. And since you've already gone ahead and labeled me "stupid" you can't do that.

I often admit to being wrong. When I actually am.






Are you going to stop with the lame ad hominem fallacies anytime soon? If I'm a "dumbass" it's because I read what you yourself fucking wrote:



Violating the law = "first rate scum"

Your words. So sorry to tell you, I'm not being a dumbass. Maybe you were.



By your reasoning, breaking the law is "spitting on the country" and "scum."

Is it so much to ask that you understand that there are different levels of law breaking? Of course it isn't, and of course you do. So stop acting like I'm painting with that wide a brush when we both know that isn't the case.



Oh, this from mister "you have no sense of fairness or balance?"

You're fucking wrong. In NO WAY would deporting you be equivalent, materially, morally, judicially or from any other perspective to slaughtering the Native Americans. I don't give a shit HOW much you think your shit doesn't stink or, I guess, how little you estimate Native Americans to be in comparison to your absurdly inflated ego. GTFO.

I think very highly of the Native Americans, as it happens. Exactly as much as I do any other ethnicity.
What you aren't getting is that everybody is an immigrant if you go back far enough. No one is native. Bloodline and ethnicity might tell you that one person's ancestors arrived before anothers, but that's all.

Everyone's ancestors were slaughtered and enslaved. Everyone's ancestors did the slaughtering and enslaving. Today, in this civilization, for the first time, we are civlized enough to stand up and say "that is wrong". Previously, it's just what happened.

To act like barbarians today is a far worse crime than anything that went before. Because now, we know better.

That's the responsibility of the applicant, however.


I don't think I said what you think I said.

"Fulfilling them is no guarantee" =/= "fulfilling them is not guaranteed".


There's no such provision in immigration law though? The authorities will have to give you a reason - and you can appeal, can't you?


You base all this on.. what?

As far as I know, while you CAN appeal - for example - an extension to avisa, or something - you can't do it ON that visa - so you'd have to go back to wherever, and apply to appeal from there. There might be special exceptions if your nation is one from which we accept refugees.


So are you saying that you should only be expected to follow the law when it's in your favour?


No, I'm not. I'm saying 'why would someone feel all that obliged to play nice, when they've just been told 'sling your hook'?


No, the exchange with you there proved to be worthless. Hence the yawn.


Excellent. Next time you won't tell me what my point was, and we'll get along just swimmingly.


In my opinion, yes, as part of the social contract and out of respect for the law in the host country.


The 'social contract' that you'd be no part of?


So people should have the luxury to pick and choose which laws they wish to follow?


Not at all. But not all 'law' is equal.


Still, the system is the same albeit with some differences. The system that allows you to remain while a permit is processed is due to it being disproportionate to demand that the applicant return home just to get back shortly thereafter.


This is true. But, that doesn't stop the fact that the two types of permit are totally different in the way they set the conditions. You are not expected to 'be getting on with it' with the building permit - you can't help but 'get on with it' with the residency, unless you have an outstanding desire to starve.


And how does it work? Is that the rule in all cases, or just some? Are you allowed to apply for family reunification while in the country, for example? In some countries, you aren't. You'd have to apply from your home country and an application filed in the country would - as the main rule - not be accepted and summarily denied on formal grounds.


That's like 9 questions in one, and I don't know enough to give them all real answers. I know some situations allow you to apply for your status to change WHILE you're here, but are also designed to be done from outside.


Does it? Do you have any links handy?


Not on me, only going on what they told me.


Iwould not support such a rule. In my view, it is imperative that the applicant gets a reason for any negative decision.


Why? That's pretty much the American approach to foreigners. Citizens get the good stuff, non-citizens can go hang. Why go through all the trouble of giving a non-citizen a reason?


Indeed it does. And I stand by my statement. If you've been convicted of serious crimes, you should expect not to have your permit renewed.


EVen if that were the case, you'd still be a little surprised to find the letter on the doormat.


So the border guards wouldn't stop him from leaving - what you were trying to say is that he would have problems getting into Mexico.


Maybe? Or he'd get pulled over on the way, and then what?


Well, they would probably arrest him while trying to determine his identity. But if he was Mexican, should it be problematic? If he's not, he should be able to get papers at a foreign mission before starting the drive. So, I don't see the problem.

Well, the specific guy in the example is El Salvadoran, I believe - so I'm doubly unsure what happens when he gets to the border. DO these missions give you papers arbitrarily? Isn't he going to have to provide something? Pay, maybe?

Is it so much to ask that you understand that there are different levels of law breaking? Of course it isn't, and of course you do. So stop acting like I'm painting with that wide a brush when we both know that isn't the case.


In all fairness, you're being hoist by your own petard there.

I've read back over the exchanges and - while you might be trying to change it now - based on what you already said, Trostia has owned your ass so hard here, your grandchildren will be paying him rent on it.

Again it shows there's no justice system in America. If you rape and kill some girls you'll get a handshake and parole after some years so you can rape and kill some new girls.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHVVBzAuRBk
If you do something really wrong though like call the cops for help
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fv8PWW-RMNA
or question Kerry they'll beat your ass.
They only seem helpful at killing shooters but if the 2nd amendment was still honored by the government I'm sure citizens would take care of shooters ourselves.
:mp: . . . :mp5:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54iO26kU15E

Again it shows there's no justice system in America. If you rape and kill some girls you'll get a handshake and parole after some years so you can rape and kill some new girls.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHVVBzAuRBk
If you do something really wrong though like call the cops for help
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fv8PWW-RMNA
or question Kerry they'll beat your ass.
They only seem helpful at killing shooters but if the 2nd amendment was still honored by the government I'm sure citizens would take care of shooters ourselves.
:mp: . . . :mp5:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54iO26kU15E

Ahhh! n00bspam, it burns!

True. And if we kicked out every person whose name started with "D", we'd probably prevent lots of murders, too.

Hey!...

I don't think I said what you think I said.

"Fulfilling them is no guarantee" =/= "fulfilling them is not guaranteed".
Yeah, I misread that. I was referring to the latter.

Fulfilling them should be a guarantee, though. But again, you're referring to the fact that you can be turned down with for any reason, or none? If that's the rule, I would say that the system is broken and is in need of repair.


You base all this on.. what?
My questions? On my inquisitive mind, I guess.

As far as I know, while you CAN appeal - for example - an extension to avisa, or something - you can't do it ON that visa - so you'd have to go back to wherever, and apply to appeal from there. There might be special exceptions if your nation is one from which we accept refugees.
Heh. I think we're both at a disadvantage as we don't know the finer points of law concerning this. I, at least, would only be speculating here. I could say more about the system in other countries, but the US probably has a very different set of rules from those I know about.


No, I'm not. I'm saying 'why would someone feel all that obliged to play nice, when they've just been told 'sling your hook'?
The 'social contract' that you'd be no part of?
Yes. I would - and I would expect others to - respect the law of the host country. But many don't see it that way, thus the system of deportation and sanctions that you'll meet if you stay past your permit.

If you follow the instructions the authorities are spelling out for you, you're welcome to return later when you again fulfill the conditions for a permit thus being part of the social contract yet again at a later date. If not, you should be denied reentry.

And even if you don't feel particularly happy about it, the fact remains that the system is set up so that when you are granted a permit (like a visa) in the first place, the duty to follow the instructions of the authorities is placed upon you.


Excellent. Next time you won't tell me what my point was, and we'll get along just swimmingly.
You posed a question, and I tried to answer it. I didn't try to tell you what your point was. If it came across that way, I apologize.


Not at all. But not all 'law' is equal.
And how is immigration law unequal to... well, everything else?

Of course, you can feel that the government doesn't have the right or authority to regulate which non-citizens are allowed to reside in or visit the country - is that what you're referring to?



That's like 9 questions in one, and I don't know enough to give them all real answers. I know some situations allow you to apply for your status to change WHILE you're here, but are also designed to be done from outside.
Again, damn my lack of knowledge!


Not on me, only going on what they told me.
Too bad.


Why? That's pretty much the American approach to foreigners. Citizens get the good stuff, non-citizens can go hang. Why go through all the trouble of giving a non-citizen a reason?
Because respect is a two-way street. The government should respect the applicant enough to actually formulate a reason as to why an application is turned down. That way, the applicant knows if he should appeal, or what can be done differently the next time he applies. Not knowing the reasons and the possibility to turn an application down for "any" reason creates a lack of predictability, it raises questions as to whether the system treats the applicants equally (as it should).

In my mind, it's a basic component of such a permit system within a democratic nation that prides itself on following the rule of law.



Maybe? Or he'd get pulled over on the way, and then what?
Well, if it was within the time limits that's been placed on him to leave the country there wouldn't be a problem. That's what I was originally referring to. If he had overstayed that limit, however, I would expect the police to take some form of action - like escorting him or arresting him, depending on how long he'd been in the country past the set limit.


Well, the specific guy in the example is El Salvadoran, I believe - so I'm doubly unsure what happens when he gets to the border. DO these missions give you papers arbitrarily? Isn't he going to have to provide something? Pay, maybe?
The missions are usually found in the larger cities, and not on the border, so he would knew before he got there. And the missions all act differently, so I couldn't say.

However, the different foreign missions have a responsibility to help out their own citizens in need. So I would say that the US government should help out any foreigner who wants to get home and can show non-cooperation from his own foreign missions. That means, those who show that they're at least trying to comply with a negative decision within a reasonable time frame shouldn't be subjected to sanctions.

The fact he's an illegal immigrant is irrelevant. His crime is no more and no less heinous than it would have been had anyone else committed it.

In all fairness, you're being hoist by your own petard there.

I've read back over the exchanges and - while you might be trying to change it now - based on what you already said, Trostia has owned your ass so hard here, your grandchildren will be paying him rent on it.

And if he'd call me on using loose terminology that overstates the case, I'd admit to it. As long as he insists on pushing silly in extremis exagerations with no basis in reality, I'm just going to leave him hanging.

Chechens. Chechens who attacked kurds and arabs, not people from Kosovo. And 20 people are hospitalized.


Those who are found guilty of this attack should be expelled after serving their time in prison. As long as they aren't granted asylum, of course.


You're right, I got some conflicting info yesterday, and you are right. I had like half a minute to write my response before work, so thks for the heads up. It doesn't really matter as to my point, but I don't wanna misinform people :0)

You're right, I got some conflicting info yesterday, and you are right. I had like half a minute to write my response before work, so thks for the heads up. It doesn't really matter as to my point, but I don't wanna misinform people :0)

De nada :salute:

I just wanted the nationalities to be correct ;)

Citizenship, immigration, nation of origin, all irrelevent.

What made this murder was a combination of intent, and an AK 47.



Yes, it was a murder. We established that, well, established that he's being accused. But do you think that the situation would still occur had he been deported when immigration did their job and got this person out of this country?

That's what makes citizenship relevant to the crime, not the sheer fact that he is an illegal and evil blah blah blah. This is just one case that does show how our system needs to be fixed because this situation could have been avoided.

Yes, it was a murder. We established that, well, established that he's being accused. But do you think that the situation would still occur had he been deported when immigration did their job and got this person out of this country?


Obviously this could have been avoided. Only foreigners know how to use AK 47s.

No wait, that's not true, is it.

Only foreigners kill people?

Errr...

If he'd left the country, he couldn't have killed anyone, though. Well, he could - but they don't count - they're foreign.

Um...

Okay, well, he couldn't have killed an American. Well, unless he came back in, even legally, and then did it...


No - not buying it. Immigration status and nation of origin are flavour in this case - and they are flavour that is being capitalised on to push an agenda.

Hey!...

They already kicked you out for watching Hilary in the shower.

Yes, it was a murder. We established that, well, established that he's being accused. But do you think that the situation would still occur had he been deported when immigration did their job and got this person out of this country?

That's what makes citizenship relevant to the crime, not the sheer fact that he is an illegal and evil blah blah blah. This is just one case that does show how our system needs to be fixed because this situation could have been avoided.

You know what else, if there were no cars in America this wouldn't have happened. Clearly your system needs to be fixed.

That's what makes citizenship relevant to the crime, not the sheer fact that he is an illegal and evil blah blah blah. This is just one case that does show how our system needs to be fixed because this situation could have been avoided.

Read it again, thanks.

Oh and the part after the bold.

Obviously this could have been avoided. Only foreigners know how to use AK 47s.

No wait, that's not true, is it.

Only foreigners kill people?

Errr...

If he'd left the country, he couldn't have killed anyone, though. Well, he could - but they don't count - they're foreign.

Um...

Okay, well, he couldn't have killed an American. Well, unless he came back in, even legally, and then did it...


No - not buying it. Immigration status and nation of origin are flavour in this case - and they are flavour that is being capitalised on to push an agenda.

So you're telling me that no matter what, this murder was going to take place? If he didn't do it, the guy in the car behind him was going to do it. Ok. Or he just picked some random people before he left the country (if he got deoported) and said to himself, "You know what, I'm going to blow those bastards away with my AK47 when I get back in this country".

Once again, the situation could have been avoided had jobs been done properly.

Once again, the situation could have been avoided had jobs been done properly.

How would you have done it? Have the FBI wait outside SF police stations and ask everyone who gets arrested what their status is?

How would you have done it? Have the FBI wait outside SF police stations and ask everyone who gets arrested what their status is?

Well in the article it states that during one of his previous arrests he was held while the police waited for the ICE, ICE never responds, the guy walks free. That's pretty obvious that someone isn't doing their job properly.

"The district attorney's office decided not to file charges against Ramos, and he was released April 2 even though he was in the process of being deported after his application for legal residence was denied, according to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement."

"San Francisco Sheriff's Department spokesman Eileen Hirst said jail officials faxed ICE on March 30 asking if Ramos should remain jailed. Ramos was freed after Hirst said immigration officials didn't respond."

So you're telling me that no matter what, this murder was going to take place? If he didn't do it, the guy in the car behind him was going to do it. Ok. Or he just picked some random people before he left the country (if he got deoported) and said to himself, "You know what, I'm going to blow those bastards away with my AK47 when I get back in this country".

Once again, the situation could have been avoided had jobs been done properly.

Aren't the saying that Ramos is part of a gang? People keep saying he could only have imported the gun, etc because of his 'illegal immigrant' thing - but isn't it more likely he was armed by the gang? Couldn't any one of those people have comitted a serious crime, with that kind of armament?

Be honest - do we actually know if any other gun crimes took place nearby, that same day (or there-abouts)? It's being made to sound like everyone else in town was being licked by kittens, but I don't think we could honestly paint a picture where this 'evil immigrant' was anything more than symptomatic.

As I've pointed out - anyone with an AK 47 is a lethal threat, it doesn't matter what country they are from.

Or - are you seriously arguing that it is MORE important that he was an illegal immigrant - more important that he was an El Salvadoran overstaying his visa - than it was that he was a violent guy with a big fucking gun.

Like 5 years ago, a marine who guarded the american embassy here in Venezuela shot two people when he was in his off-duty day.

I mean, we should expel all these United Staters out of here. They are violent, and they have a gun culture that create criminal minds.

I hope you understand the point of this post. C'mon people...Oh sorry, I didn't realize 95% of Caracas's homicide warants were for Americans.

http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_1_the_illegal_alien.html

Obviously this could have been avoided. Only foreigners know how to use AK 47s.

No wait, that's not true, is it.

Only foreigners kill people?

Errr...

If he'd left the country, he couldn't have killed anyone, though. Well, he could - but they don't count - they're foreign.

Um...

Okay, well, he couldn't have killed an American. Well, unless he came back in, even legally, and then did it...


No - not buying it. Immigration status and nation of origin are flavour in this case - and they are flavour that is being capitalised on to push an agenda.

Judging from his past record of trouble, I doubt they would have let him back into the country legally.

BTW, when was the last time a crime WASN'T capitalized on to push a political agenda?

Or - are you seriously arguing that it is MORE important that he was an illegal immigrant - more important that he was an El Salvadoran overstaying his visa - than it was that he was a violent guy with a big fucking gun.

I never said that, I said that his citizenship had everything to do with the crime, which could have been prevented had immigration done their job. Had this man not been in the country (because he got deported for his other crimes) I highly, highly doubt that this crime would have occurred.

I never said that, I said that his citizenship had everything to do with the crime, which could have been prevented had immigration done their job. Had this man not been in the country (because he got deported for his other crimes) I highly, highly doubt that this crime would have occurred.

It could have happened in El Salvador, though, right?

Killings turn focus on San Francisco sanctuary law (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080724/ap_on_re_us/road_rage_killing)

If you read the story, the whole thing pretty much speaks for itself. It's a pretty stupid reason to kill someone over, but what gets me is that this whole thing could've been avoided if the man had gotten what he deserved and had been kicked out of the country after two previous felonies!


No it wouldn't. If he had been kicked out of the country on the previous felonies he'd just have come back in. This guy isn't a run of the mill undocumented migrant worker. He's a gangster.

What would have prevented this is if he had gone to prison for possession of that firearm used in a double homicide.

Obviously this could have been avoided. Only foreigners know how to use AK 47s.

No wait, that's not true, is it.

Only foreigners kill people?

Errr...

If he'd left the country, he couldn't have killed anyone, though. Well, he could - but they don't count - they're foreign.

Um...

Okay, well, he couldn't have killed an American. Well, unless he came back in, even legally, and then did it...


No - not buying it. Immigration status and nation of origin are flavour in this case - and they are flavour that is being capitalised on to push an agenda.

So the other side just needs to capitalize on its agenda and promote the whole thing as a case for stricter gun control. If he had been deported last time he could easily have come right back and done the same thing, but if he was in prison he couldn't have done this anywhere. He might shank a couple of people, but however good your prison smuggling ring is, it's tough to get in AK-47's

So the other side just needs to capitalize on its agenda and promote the whole thing as a case for stricter gun control. If he had been deported last time he could easily have come right back and done the same thing, but if he was in prison he couldn't have done this anywhere. He might shank a couple of people, but however good your prison smuggling ring is, it's tough to get in AK-47's

Tougher gun control wouldn't help, since AK-47s are illegal in California due to their AWB.

Tougher gun control wouldn't help, since AK-47s are illegal in California due to their AWB.

Tougher gun control might help. Less guns in general could well lead to less guns in specific.

It could have happened in El Salvador, though, right?

It very well could have, but at least he's killing his own people there (which I'm sure he has and it's probably why he's in this country to begin with), and then becomes El Salvador's problem, but his gang probably bought out most of the police.

Bottom line, I hope he gets tried here and is at least locked up forever, I support eye for an eye though.

I like that point about locking him up for possession of that weapon too, kudos.

Looking back, this whole situation seems to have been caused by bureaucracy and a broken system. But anyway...

*Runs away from what seems to be a gun control thread now*

Yeah, you know, deporting him might have avoided it.

"Might have" here having the meaning of "definitely would have."

Arming the border with tanks and pillboxes and shooting border-crossers on sight might have avoided it!

What?

Attacking Mexico like Israel vs Palestine might have avoided it!

Where are you getting this from?

Also, putting immigrants into death camps might have, too!

Um... wow.

The thing wrong with all these ideas is that you're sacrificing something (morality) in return for the illusion of something else (security).

The thing wrong with them is that the first option (deporting illegal aliens who have broken our laws while on our soil) is not ridiculously extreme.
You can't seriously be comparing the deportation of a single criminal to murdering all illegal aliens on sight.
There's nothing immoral about looking out for the welfare of your own country, as long as you don't go to ridiculous extremes (like your death camps.)

I mean, I can't help but notice that when an American citizen goes out and kills a bunch of people, you never turn the issue political.

Gun control anyone?

Nor does it seem to anger your sense of nationality, patriotism and defense.

You've never heard anyone say after a school/mall shooting: "The whole country's going to hell?"
Or: "No one is safe anymore?"
Or: "If *insert politician here* would just do his/her damn job, this wouldn't've happened!"

You don't seem to be calling for the deportation of violent criminals, just when they happen to be from another country. In short, you're a hypocrite. If you weren't, you'd argue in favor of exiling felons to Siberia (or equivalent). But no.

We put our own criminals in our own prisons.
What would be truly immoral would be to dump US criminals onto foreign countries, simply because we don't want to accept responsibility for the actions of our own citizens.

It very well could have, but at least he's killing his own people there...

Which makes it okay, because they're just foreigners. Not decent Americans, like us.

Which makes it okay, because they're just foreigners. Not decent Americans, like us.

Once again, I didn't say that. I'm saying at least he's killing his own people in his own country, and he's that country's problem. What I'm trying to convey is that this guy doesn't belong in this country, and he's killing this country's citizens. I don't know about you, but that seems terribly wrong to me.:confused:

I'm not condoning him going and killing people any where. You brought up the point that his immigration status has nothing to do with the crime and I'm disagreeing with that...

21-year-old Edwin Ramos unloads an AK-47
How come he gets an AK-47? That's not fair! :(

Once again, I didn't say that. I'm saying at least he's killing his own people in his own country, and he's that country's problem. What I'm trying to convey is that this guy doesn't belong in this country, and he's killing this country's citizens. I don't know about you, but that seems terribly wrong to me.:confused:

I'm not condoning him going and killing people any where. You brought up the point that his immigration status has nothing to do with the crime and I'm disagreeing with that...

Ah - so, the problem is that he's a El-Salvadoran offing Americans?

It's be okay if he was killing his own kind. Or if these people had been killed by an honest-to-god American rather than some cheap import.

I'm not condoning him going and killing people any where. You brought up the point that his immigration status has nothing to do with the crime and I'm disagreeing with that...

Did you read that part?

Tougher gun control might help. Less guns in general could well lead to less guns in specific.

Tougher gun control might work. It might not. It might make things worse.

The thing is, since this particular firearm was already part of tougher gun control laws, it shows that what may work on paper doesn't necessarily translate to working in the real world.

"Might have" here having the meaning of "definitely would have."


Mm.

What?

Hey, it has the meaning of "definitely would have."

Where are you getting this from?

Trollgaard's suggestion. And hey, it 'definitely would have' prevented it!


Um... wow.


...as above.

The thing wrong with them is that the first option (deporting illegal aliens who have broken our laws while on our soil) is not ridiculously extreme.
You can't seriously be comparing the deportation of a single criminal to murdering all illegal aliens on sight.

If I wasn't the first one to actually suggest it, perhaps you'd have a point. But we got people suggesting it. Arm the border, put tanks there, and bomb Mexico!


You've never heard anyone say after a school/mall shooting: "The whole country's going to hell?"
Or: "No one is safe anymore?"
Or: "If *insert politician here* would just do his/her damn job, this wouldn't've happened!"

Not really. And not to the degree of irrational nationalism here about bombing other countries, about how immigration policy is treason and how the nation's leadership is selling out to damn furreners.

We put our own criminals in our own prisons.
What would be truly immoral would be to dump US criminals onto foreign countries, simply because we don't want to accept responsibility for the actions of our own citizens.

That would be immoral too, but that doesn't negate the immorality I'm talking of.

Tougher gun control wouldn't help, since AK-47s are illegal in California due to their AWB.

It would help because he'd be in prison for his last violation and not on that corner with the AK47.

Ah - so, the problem is that he's a El-Salvadoran offing Americans?

It's be okay if he was killing his own kind. Or if these people had been killed by an honest-to-god American rather than some cheap import.

Yup. Damn furriners coming over here taking our mass-murder jobs.

Like 5 years ago, a marine who guarded the american embassy here in Venezuela shot two people when he was in his off-duty day.

I mean, we should expel all these United Staters out of here. They are violent, and they have a gun culture that create criminal minds.

I hope you understand the point of this post. C'mon people...

Umm, please refer me to the post where anyone has suggested deporting all Salvadorans, Mexicans, Hispanics, or people who belong to the Hispanic Catholic Church.

No one (to my knowledge) has suggested anything even close. They have suggested deporting one criminal due to his breaking of multiple felonies illegal immigrant status not included.

As for the Marine who shot people, I bet he just got off scot free huh? Or is it that his (assumably American) punishment is to harsh for you to actually jsutify your post, so you left it out?

Please, when you make a completely ridiculous post... stop, and don't.

For all the other super-liberal criminal-lovers here, no one has suggested mass deportation of anyone legal, or even of anyone necessarily illegal except this particular criminal. So, before you make gross, and ridiculous hyperboles suggesting we just deport everyone, or trying to compare us to Nazi Germany in regards to Judaism, please, remember that deporting one criminal who is also an illegal immigrant is not even remotely close to causing the brutal death to 6 million people, and the displacement of probably millions more.

I think this guy should be given honorary citizen status, so that he may be jailed for the rest of his life with no chance of parole. I think that when we catch illegal immigrants, we should deport them... we have a great system for allowing people to enter legally, if they can't get in that way, well, we have the rules for a reason (and it's not race, or religion, or skin-tone related). If an illegal immigrant feels the need to stay here, and to disrespect our country further by breaking more laws, they should be immediately deported, or jailed for the rest of their life.

If and American goes on a homicidal spree (I will consider three to be a spree in this case) well, that American should be jailed for the rest of his life without parole. I don't have an unequal sense of justice (unlike the super-liberals... who want to release all the criminals unless their American, I guess) my sense of justice is harsh, and stringent, but equal.

Tougher gun control might work. It might not. It might make things worse.

The thing is, since this particular firearm was already part of tougher gun control laws, it shows that what may work on paper doesn't necessarily translate to working in the real world.

I can't help but notice that the seeming innocent suggestion of not increasing gun control comes from someone with the name "Gun Manufacturers" :p

Tougher gun control might work. It might not. It might make things worse.

The thing is, since this particular firearm was already part of tougher gun control laws, it shows that what may work on paper doesn't necessarily translate to working in the real world.

Which is why I wasn't really arguing pro-or-contra guns. I was arguing that immigrant status isn't what killed anyone - the fact that this guy wasn't just yelling, but was carrying an AK 47 is why we're talking homicide, not silly-bugger-yelling-by-the-road.

But, if someone is going to step up and say gun control COULDN'T make a difference... well, I'll have to point out that we certainly can't be sure that's true.

It would help because he'd be in prison for his last violation and not on that corner with the AK47.

That's an enforcement problem, not a need for another law.

I can't help but notice that the seeming innocent suggestion of not increasing gun control comes from someone with the name "Gun Manufacturers" :p

The funny thing is, I picked my name because I was interested in RPing in International Incidents. It wasn't until a few weeks later that I got interested in General.

Disregarding the issue of the sanctuary law and his immigration status before the shooting - does anybody have some weighty arguments as to why he shouldn't be expelled after he's convicted (if he is convicted) and has served his time?

(Assuming he ever gets out of jail alive)

Which is why I wasn't really arguing pro-or-contra guns. I was arguing that immigrant status isn't what killed anyone - the fact that this guy wasn't just yelling, but was carrying an AK 47 is why we're talking homicide, not silly-bugger-yelling-by-the-road.

But, if someone is going to step up and say gun control COULDN'T make a difference... well, I'll have to point out that we certainly can't be sure that's true.

Ah, ok. I thought you were going in that direction. My mistake.

BTW, when was the last time a crime WASN'T capitalized on to push a political agenda?

Well, let me go and see when the most recent kidnapping of a little black girl was.

The thing wrong with all these ideas is that you're sacrificing something (morality) in return for the illusion of something else (security).
I don't see how it is "sacrificing morality" to expel a known criminal

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trollgaard
Why the fuck should we be haven to criminals of the world?

You know, that's exactly what the Germans said about the Jews.
The difference is, this guy WAS a criminal, a repeat offender in fact.

Yup. Damn furriners coming over here taking our mass-murder jobs.

just another domestic occupation that's being outsourced. damn them for doing it more effienantly and cheaper! :tongue:

Disregarding the issue of the sanctuary law and his immigration status before the shooting - does anybody have some weighty arguments as to why he shouldn't be expelled after he's convicted (if he is convicted) and has served his time?

(Assuming he ever gets out of jail alive)

...

none from me.

I don't see how it is "sacrificing morality" to expel a known criminal

Do you think exile to Siberia is a good form of punishment? It's not much different.

It really is just Not In My Back Yard syndrome - make the criminal some OTHER country's problem. Out of sight, out of mind yay! Usually, a country with backward or non-existent judicial standards, too.


The difference is, this guy WAS a criminal, a repeat offender in fact.

That's not a difference, because Nazi Germany effectively outlawed Jews. Nuremberg laws, etc. Hence they were criminals.

Killings turn focus on San Francisco sanctuary law (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080724/ap_on_re_us/road_rage_killing)

The article's kinda long so I just posted the link. In short, in an act of road rage, 21-year-old Edwin Ramos unloads an AK-47 at a motorist, killing a father and his two sons. As the article says, despite previous brushes with the law, Ramos was never deported.

If you read the story, the whole thing pretty much speaks for itself. It's a pretty stupid reason to kill someone over, but what gets me is that this whole thing could've been avoided if the man had gotten what he deserved and had been kicked out of the country after two previous felonies!


This is a pretty diverse forum, so what do the rest of you think about this?

First reactions: unsurprising, "what else is new"

These stories are daily now and nothing is being done about it at all. Neither party gives a rat's ass about illegal immigration except to let them all in, given them citizenship, and a sticker that says, "Vote for Me!" The media is even half swayed. It depends on who they are but I found that most outlets don't even care to bring about the stories anymore (possibly because they don't care either or because it's so commonplace now it's not "news worthy"). Say what you want about O'Reilly but he does at least bring attention to these sort of things and with a voice about it too.