I agree with your suggested immigration reforms.

What liberal judge(s) would grant this guy political asylum here? That is what I want to know. Had this case been tried in Texas I believe he would have been shown the door (back to Mexico).

I'm sure we're paying his legal fees to fight it too.

you realize you're going to hell, right?
in the meantime, while I don't agree with your exact thoughts, I agree with your principle.

Dying is dying, makes no difference whether the cause is old age or getting hit by a cross-town bus. We all have an expiration date on our birth certificates, having a better idea of when that date is than most people doesn't entitle you to a damn thing. We're all dying. None of us get a free pass for breaking the law, if we did we'd all go rob a bank to make sure we left something for our heirs.

Since I hadn't read your "reform" post before, I thought it only fair to read it before continuing this one. I found it quite interesting, I must say. But I have a couple of questions about the entire matter:
1. Mines. You mentioned them in the earlier post, but never said how you'd use them.
2. If I remember correctly, a child born in this country by an illegal alien is considered a legal resident. I believe the immediate families of legals can then become legal themselves (no?). Can you reform your reforms to do something about this?
3. Can the legislators you refer to be flogged and then deported.....somewhere? Can the judge in this case fall under that provision reform?

Shumpy, please remember that it was W who proposed "immunity" to illegal workers. So, don't be assuming the judge in this case was a liberal.

Hmmm.

Frankly I think one of the biggest unused arguments is the cost of educating the kids of illegal immigrants. If you get a family of four, husband + wife + 2 kids, the cost of educating the kids will largely erase the economic value of having both parents work.

Especially if they're also getting any local, state or federal aid. Here in NJ the average student cost is about $14,000 per year, and most of it comes from local property taxes which have literally exploded.

Well, Oh, as for "anchor babies" I don't know what Jay Tea suggests, but I'll give you my solution. The child born here most certainly would be a legal citizen. The illegal parents, however, would still be deported. They would be given two choices: 1) take their child back to their country of origin, when it is 18 years of age it can re-enter this country on its own; or 2) leave the child behind in the custody of legal relatives or the State foster care system to be raised by others (it would get all the benefits of legal citizenship - probably more than the illegal parents could ever provide).

Either way the illegals are getting deported. Take their kid or leave, their choice, but they aren't staying just because they have what used to be called an "anchor baby".

Jay Tea, I agree with your principles, your conclusions (the landmines could be replaced with razor wire just to get the Southern Border Wall project going) but I don't agree that you're going to hell. At least, not about these principles.

Otherwise, to the essence of this specific issue's rationalizing premise: what bullwinkle wrote (^^).

I'm still curious just what Mexico would do if three million Americans showed up tomorrow in Mexico City and demanded asylum, free legal representation, housing and healthcare. But we COULD work as waiters in the meantime. With or without the ebola virus.

"Asylum" as I understand it is SUPPOSED to be the realm of defense for POLITICAL PERSECUTION by GOVERNMENTS in an originating country.

Unless the lone policeofficer who allegedly mistreated this guy IS, in fact, the government of Mexico, I don't follow how anyone with a straight face could even begin to apply the Asylum standards to this one fellow's situation.

I am almost certain that it's his HIV+ (now with AIDS) characteristic that has him coasting on taxpayer dollars in the U.S.

Even with the various HIV pharmacology funding from various private groups, it does not begin to cover the maintenance costs for those with AIDS. I don't see how the Public Health Department can even rationalize this guy working in the food service industry, also. Unless, probably, they are tweaked themselves. In which case, that could explain the ever multiplying cases of the virus in individuals.

But, you know, a logical conclusion of this individual situation could be -- based upon the precedent being pushed forward here -- that "all Mexican police" are persecutors.

I mean, ~talk about discrimination!~

Allow me to explain: the guy alleges that one incident by one Mexican policeman equates with CONDITIONS UPON WHICH ASYLUM SHOULD BE/MUST BE GRANTED. Which relies on our Asylum considerations being applied to this incident. Which requires extending the one incident of one policeman's harassment about this fellow as representing political abuse by the originating government.

Thus, the one Mexican policeman represents political persecution from the Mexican government.

The BIGGEST problem with allowing this decision to stand is that it now suggests that ANYONE/ALL from Mexico can allege they are being persecuted for their political beliefs and merit asylum in the U.S. because of that. I wonder if that's the point here.

But, IF that's so, it then defines the Mexican government as being a politically abusive/harassing government, similar to China, North Korea, among others similar.

P.S.: the one guy in San Francisco claiming citizenship under Asylum has not been identified as to POLITICAL beliefs, to my read. Upon what poliical basis has the guy been, allegedly, persecuted by "the Mexican government" by way of this one Mexican policeman?

You're right, this will be THE wedge issue in 2008. This is the Democrats big chance. Maybe they'll take it. But, knowing them, its likely that once they get beyond the easy, rhetorical choices and actually have to take real action - in the courts and at the border - they'll hedge and endlessly talk and be indecisivie and sort of do it legalistically and half-assedly (i.e. Kosovo, 90s era Osama games, Somalia, etc.).

But if they can be decisive and effective then all at once they'll be seen as credible, and they desperately need some national credibility at this point.

There are three large communities of American living in Mexico and many small ones that asked for and got asylum in Mexico. Mennonites are all over Mexico, they claimed they weren't allowed to practice their religion freely in the US and in Europe. There are also quite a few Mormons down here, the regular ones that claim they arent in favor of bigamy(but seem to be practicing it themselves), and the orthodox ones that are in favor of it and openly practice it. Both refer to the other as not being true Mormons, an argument I have no interest in getting started. All three of those groups claim they are better able to practice their religion unharrassed in Mexico. Bigamy is illegal in Mexico and there's no exception to that law for religious beliefs, it's just ignored unless a complaint is filed. As far as just one policeman harrassing someone being the basis for his case, a lot of that claim might be valid if that one policeman happens to the chief of police or if he's reported the harrassment and the chief of police and everyone else has failed to do anything about it. I doubt that very much, it may have been common at one time but there's a noticable difference in Mexico today. The federal police down here would check into the claim and probably have, if it was true something would have been done. I just witnessed that in a town near here. The former chief of police is now spending 10 years in prison for his acts. There's no official death penalty down here but that's a death sentence as sure as if it had been pronounced by the court.

and yet he moved to the united states, where policemen are always being accused of accosting and "brutality" of minorities? Since when are they taking this seriously?

Mexio???

Yeah, "Mexio." It's a nickname. Besides, I had heard there was a tax on the letter "C," and that one would have put me right over the top. And for another thing, I don't like how the Mexicans play with letters -- "J" and "X" pronounced like "H," for example, so I decided to spell it with a silent "C."

J.

(Sigh... typo fixed. Happy now, CC?)

You seem to have missed a Mexio while you were fixing things.

Every graduate of our military boot camps and military acadamies should spend the first six weeks of their military career patrolling the border.
This will give all these newbies invaluable real-world experience in camping, marching, teamwork, concealment, camoflage, observation, coordination with other units, capturing the 'enemy'(illegals), interrogation, etc...-many of the things they will need to know if they are sent to war.

We have to pay these recruits and pay for their training anyway; why not get our borders patrolled at the same time?
You can tweak this plan any way you think is best:
Don't want to let our guys capture the illegals? Fine by me; have them report the illegals location to the border patrol. Don't want our soldiers to interrogate the illegals? Fine by me. Don't want our soldiers to carry loaded weapons while patrolling? Grrr...I hate that, but hey, if that's what it takes, o.k. And so on...

Will this solve ALL our borders/illegal immigration problem? No. But I think it is a logical, common-sense action that is, above all, doable.

Any good, logical reasons why this wouldn't work?

Not arguing that shouldn't, only that they can't, by law. I don't see any merits to using them vs. using trained law enforcment personel already being paid to do the job but not being allowed to do it. Soldiers, especially fresh out of boot camp aren't trained to be cops.

The Posse Comitatus

Act of 1878

10 U.S.C. (United States Code) 375

Sec. 375. Restriction on direct participation by military personnel:

The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to ensure that any activity (including the provision of any equipment or facility or the assignment or detail of any personnel) under this chapter does not include or permit direct participation by a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps in a search, seizure, arrest, or other similar activity unless participation in such activity by such member is otherwise authorized by law.

Bull:
Thanks for the info.
Yeah, I figured there was a law against it, also figured the Posse Comitatus was involved.

Still, it just blows my mind that we can't use our own military to, you know, PROTECT OUR OWN GODDAM BORDERS! I think the majority of Americans would support it. Most Iraq War supporters and most of the 'Only use our military to protect America, not liberate Iraq' crowd would support it.

Hey, let's not call it 'Patrolling The Border'.

Instead, let's call it 'Boot Camp Training That Just Happens To Take Place In Close Proximity To Our Borders'. That should take care of the Posse Com law.

We should do this on our northern border and our international ports also, btw.

I live part-time in a country where the military is involved in police work, almost every country south of the Rio Grande does that. I'd rather my trips back the to the US weren't just another visit to another banana republic. The last thing we need is for the left to dredge up some mistake an untrained soldier makes handling an illegal, the Abu Grahib comparisons would hit faster than the speed of light. Einstein's theory would be disproven.

Upon what poliical basis has the guy been, allegedly, persecuted by "the Mexican government" by way of this one Mexican policeman?

Unfortunately, "asylum" has been liberalized, particularly in jurisdictions like the pot-smokers at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (where this decision came out of) to go well beyond it's original intent to accomodate more people who frankly have no other means of remaining legally, so asylum definitions have been made much more generous. "asylum" now encompasses those who declare themselves as part of a protected class of people, or a "social group," which, natch, has been manipulated and abused to apply to almost anyone. For example, a "social group," for purposes of qualifying for political asylum , which carries with it a green card and the right to live and work in the US indefinitely: (some of these have actually been granted asylum, some of these claims got an asylum officer to beleive that their claim met a standard of "credible fear" to cancel a removal order and allow them to seek asylum in the US.)

People with gang tattoos (becuase they will be "persecuted" by police in their country)
People who are afraid of gangs and don't think the police is doing enough to protect them if they are threatened by a gang
Families or "members of families" (they are actually considered a "particular social group.")
Aliens under age 18 who beleive they would be "street children" if returned to their country, as they have nowhere to go
People who failed to serve a required military stint
Mentally or physically disabled aliens
Claimed victims of domestic violence
Transgenders/transsexuals
Businessmen who have been extorted or asked to pay protection money to mafia members
Spouse of a bad marriage

These are but a few examples of what some judges have determined to be "members of a particular social group" who have merited a grant of political asylum as a "protected class" of people, or have been deemed to have "credible fear" that warranted cancellation of a removal order and the right to remain in the US to apply for asylum before a judge. Needless to say, not all have been upheld by appellate courts.

He probably got tested anonymously, so I doubt the clinic knew anything about his immigration status. Getting rid of anonymous HIV testing would be a very bad idea, in my opinion.

This nation evidently is in the throes of decline not because of one gay HIV+ asylum-seeker but rather the xenophobic, nativistic, racist, bigoted and patently callous approaches people here have towards fellow humans irrespective of their national origin, immigration status, etc.. The Christian right and its regime embodied by imperialist President George W. Bush ultimately betray the fundamental principles of Christ by calling for the expulsion of someone who would be persecuted in Mexico because he is gay and HIV+. As Christians, you forgive and embrace the sinner. As an economic matter, according to US Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, The US economy need massive quantities of immigrants for labor and to sustain its indulgent quality of life during retirement- with or without social security. Deporting them all is not a viable solution. Where is the compassion? The respect for human dignity? Unfortunately, I am not seeing it here in people's loathesome responses.