Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘immigration’ Category

Bigots are always saying “but *my* ancestors were *legal* immigrants, unlike these brown people who just walked across the border!”.

Yeah? Really? So, how’d those ancestors become legal immigrants?

Hint: It was the same fucking way that my own ancestors became legal immigrants: they just walked across the fucking border.

Deal being, until the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and the Immigration Act of 1882, there wasn’t a law anywhere on the books that kept you from entering the United States and becoming a citizen. You entered the United States, found a judge or magistrate somewhere to stamp your passport with an entry stamp, and five years later you took that passport to a judge or magistrate and turned it in for citizenship papers. That’s all there was to it. You just fucking walked across the goddamn border, and that was it. There was no such thing as a “legal” immigrant or “illegal” immigrant. There were just immigrants, who, five years later, became citizens.

You get these inbred redneck racist cretins who excuse their racist rantings with “well, *my* ancestors were *legal* immigrants” when their ancestors did the exact same fucking thing as the current immigrants — i.e., they just fucking walked across the goddamn border — and you know it ain’t about legality at that point. It was impossible to be an illegal immigrant back when their ancestors entered the country. There was no such thing as an illegal immigrant back then. All you had to fucking do was walk across the goddamn border and presto, you were a goddamn legal immigrant.

Nowadays, it’s pretty much goddamn impossible to legally immigrate to here from Latin American countries. For example, Mexico. A few years ago, 1.38 million Mexican citizens were waiting in line for a United States work visa or an immigration visa through a family member. But there were only 26,000 visas made available for Mexico that year. That’s a 53 year waiting list. Most of the people on that list are going to be dead before they actually get an immigration visa. The other Latin American countries have similar waiting lists, all of which basically boil down to, “we don’t want your kind here”.

To say that this is different from the way my ancestors came to America is an understatement. My ancestors from England and Scotland stepped off a boat, stepped across the border, and they were fucking legal. They did the exact same goddamn thing that all these recent refugees did — they stepped across a border — and that was all it fucking took, people. There wasn’t any such thing as an “illegal” immigrant back then. It was literally impossible to be an illegal immigrant back then. There was no such thing.

So saying your ancestor was a legal immigrant, when your ancestor came here before 1882, is ridiculous. There was no such as a “legal” immigrant back then, just as there was no such thing as an “illegal” immigrant back then. There was just immigrants, who, five years after stepping across the border, became citizens. That’s all it took — stepping across the border. Well, before 1882, anyhow. That was before racists took over our immigration policy, but that’s another story for another day.

– Badtux the Legal Penguin

Read Full Post »

Reminder: Race, gender, and religion are protected classes under anti-discrimination laws. You aren’t allowed to discriminate against people based on those things.

However, “liar”, “bigot”, and “baby snatcher” are *not* protected classes under anti-discrimination laws. If you want to refuse service to liars, bigots, and baby snatchers, i.e., if you want to discriminate based upon the character of their soul rather than upon the color of their skin, you are entirely within your freedom of association rights under the 1st Amendment to tell them get off your property.

I mention this because multiple Trump Administration officials have faced difficulties eating out ever since the story of the baby gulags broke. And the question is this: Is it okay to make sure that baby snatchers don’t get to eat out in peace, as Maxine Waters suggested?

On one side you have rabid racists, baby snatchers, people who harass women outside of abortion clinics, and an assortment of other white racists some of whom, our dear Hair Twitler has assured us, are good people. On the other side you have believers in justice, tolerance, decency, and kindness. We already know what the first side is like. The Trumpanzees come out of the woodwork hooting and howling and throwing feces every time their Hair Twitler tweets a twit on Twitter, making life miserable for anybody who dares criticize their God-Emperor Donald The Trump. On the other side you have nice people who really aren’t all that into getting up into people’s faces and being loud. Unless….

Unless the people they are being unkind to are BAD PEOPLE. And I have a sure-fired way of telling who are BAD PEOPLE right now: If they defend snatching babies away from their parents — or lie about it — they are BAD PEOPLE. People who force 8 year old children to represent themselves in immigration court even though it is illegal to charge someone under age 11 with a crime in Federal court because they are held to be too immature to possess mens rea, the ability to comprehend the difference between lawful and unlawful behavior? BAD PEOPLE. If they defend those who snatch babies away from their parents? They are BAD PEOPLE. If they help snatch babies away from their parents? They are BAD PEOPLE.

Yes, it really is that simple.

And what should be done with BAD PEOPLE when law fails to deal with the fact that they are BAD PEOPLE, other than a good old fashioned shunning, including refusing to date them and restaurants refusing to serve them — especially Mexican restaurants (duh)? I mean, really. Should good people associate with people who are BAD PEOPLE?

And then some good people say, “but if we just explain and are kind and patient to them, they’ll become good people!” Sadly, that really doesn’t happen. Bad people don’t possess the empathy or willingness to listen that is necessary to become good people. You take your average racist inbred vicious redneck, all he’s going to do is sneer at good people who try to be friendly with him. Because they are cruel people, and see nothing wrong with cruelty and sneer at those who do as being “weak libtards”, and are never going to change. They haven’t over the past 50 years of my life anyhow, so why would they change now?

Given that, the only thing we can do with these BAD PEOPLE is to not voluntarily associate with them. Because voluntarily associating with them says we condone being bad people, and encourages children to themselves become bad people.

So yeah, shun these motherfuckers. Shun them good. And those who go beyond being BAD PEOPLE, who actually make it possible to do bad things? Well. Play this for them at high volume:

Because no, they don’t deserve to live in peace. Because people who make children cry for nothing that the child himself did are BAD PEOPLE. And bad people don’t deserve courtesy, respect, or peace.

– Badtux the Vicious Penguin

Read Full Post »

Stalin’s Soviet Union was a vicious place, where at any moment the secret police could arrest you and send you off to the gulag concentration camps. Children under the age of 2 got sent with their families, while children above the age of 2 went to relatives or state-run orphanages. One thing that was *not* done was to rip children away from their families and send them to separate concentration camps just for children. Granted, the orphanages weren’t exactly cushy places. But they weren’t concentration camps. Unlike this:

This is a detention center for unaccompanied children. It is set up in an abandoned Walmart store. But this is a cushy detention center. Why, they’re given mattresses to sleep on, instead of being required to sleep on the raw concrete! That at least makes it better than the detention cages on the border:

The cages on the border are where the children are kept for one to three days before they can be shipped off to the “cushy” detention center. They’re not given food during that time, and are not given a mattress or blankets. Because it is a “temporary” holding facility, Homeland Security claims they don’t need to provide any of that.

Note that this photograph dates to 2014, during the Obama regime. Which shows that the Republican lie of Obama not being “tough on immigration” was utterly false. Obama was no friend of immigrants, just as the black community, as a whole, is no friend of immigrants, who they view as having come into America and taken “their” jobs. And so the cycle of viciousness towards our fellow man goes on, despite everything that God says:

Hell, even the Southern Baptists, who are as regressive as you can get without being a total Bircher, are rather queasy about the whole be-mean-to-immigrants thing:

God commands His people to treat immigrants with the same respect and dignity as those native born … we desire to see immigration reform include an emphasis on securing our borders and providing a pathway to legal status with appropriate restitutionary measures, maintaining the priority of family unity, resulting in an efficient immigration system that honors the value and dignity of those seeking a better life for themselves and their families … any form of nativism, mistreatment, or exploitation is inconsistent with the gospel of Jesus Christ.

What is especially hypocritical is people like Vice President Pence and Attorney General Jeff Sessions who claim to be Christian advocating treating immigrants badly, even to the point of wanting to send migrant kids to tent cities in the fierce Texas summer heat, something would have made Stalin chortle with delight since he did the same thing with adults when he sent them to the frozen Siberian north. But Stalin never claimed to be Christian. I mean, if you claim to be Christian, shouldn’t you, like, obey the word of Christ? Isn’t that, like, the whole point of being Christian? But I guess their Christianity stops when they exit the churchyard door.

And so we continue treating children in ways that would make Stalin envious in their utter cruelty….

– Badtux the Disgusted Penguin

Read Full Post »

ICE is transferring 1,600 people detained pending administrative removal to Federal prisons. Note that these people have not been arrested. The term “arrest” means that they’ve been charged with a crime. Instead, they’ve been detained, pending appearance before an administrative law judge who will rule whether they are subject to removal or not.

This is not a trivial distinction. You cannot place someone into a Federal prison unless they have been indicted for a crime, or have been convicted of a crime. These immigrants have not been indicted for a crime — they haven’t been charged with a crime at all, because that would require the Federal government to provide them with a lawyer and due process rights as guaranteed by the Constitution, which requires due process and provision of a lawyer if you’re going to charge someone with a crime. Instead, they have been scheduled to appear before an administrative law judge pending administrative removal, which gets around that whole Constitution thing by *not* being a punishment, it’s just returning the person back to where they came from. The administrative detention in a civilian detention facility is not a punishment, it’s part of a removal process wherein people who have been cited for being here without authorization are temporarily held pending their hearing. They can waive their hearing and be removed immediately, so under the law they’re there voluntarily.

But that’s a civilian detention facility, which, I might point out, is not a prison and is not a punishment for a crime. A prison is a prison and is a punishment for a crime. Punishing someone by putting them in prison without an indictment, lawyer, or due process is a violation of the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments of the Constitution, which applies, I might remind you, to *all* people on US soil regardless of their citizenship (the Supremes have ruled on this repeatedly). But I guess the Constitution is just a piece of paper as far as the regime of Orange Julius Caesar is concerned.

— Badtux the Constitutional Penguin

Read Full Post »

So, Cheetoh Mussolini tweeted that it wasn’t him separating children from their mothers at the border. It was them mean Democrats and laws they’d passed. That is, of course, a bald-faced lie. So: What *IS* the truth, anyhow? Does the law require separating children from parents suspected of illegal immigration at the border?

A: No. Parents who are apprehended at the border are detained pending administrative deportation. They are not being jailed or put into prison, because they are not being charged with a crime. There is no law stating that children and parents cannot be detained in the same location.

CBP deliberately does not charge immigrants apprehended at the border with a crime, because being charged with a crime triggers Constitutional protections. Specifically, the Constitution guarantees a right to indictment by a grand jury, right to an attorney, and the right to a trial by jury for all Federal criminal charges. An administrative proceeding, on the other hand, can occur before a magistrate judge in an administrative hearing and incurs no right to a trial by jury, because the immigrant is not being punished, the immigrant is simply being removed back to where he/she came. CBP would rather not be tied down with having to put together grand juries and trials by jury and find lawyers for all these immigrants. Especially the lawyer part. They prefer their immigrants to be unrepresented by a lawyer, because that makes it easier to conduct a show trial whose sole goal is to deport the immigrant as swiftly as possible. Having to deal with a real trial in front of a jury in a Federal court, as vs a hearing before a magistrate judge, would bring the whole process to a standstill.

In cases where an immigrant is charged with a crime and is punished by being placed in jail or prison, children must be removed and placed with child protective services or a relative. That is because the Constitution does not allow jailing or imprisoning someone unless they have been charged with or convicted of a crime, and in general the children have neither been charged with nor convicted of a crime. This isn’t a law that Democrats passed. This is the Constitution. But as pointed out above, immigrants detained at the border aren’t being charged with a crime, they’re merely being held for administrative deportation. Being administratively detained has nothing to do with being punished, thus it’s perfectly legal for a child to be placed with a mother who is administratively detained. These detention camps may *look* like jails, but, legally, they are not.

So that’s the truth of the matter — there is no, zero, law requiring that children of parents who are being administratively detained be separated from those parents. This is because administrative detention is not a punishment, under the law. It is merely the temporary housing of those who are waiting for an administrative removal proceeding. In fact, until recently it was policy that women and children be placed together in ICE family detention facilities while waiting for their immigration hearings. It is only recently that a deliberate policy of ripping apart families and sending off the kids to foster care was instituted — a policy resulting in over 1500 children who cannot be located, children who may or may not be safe with relatives, who may or may not have been sold to the highest bidder via child trafficking.

– Badtux the Immigration Penguin

Read Full Post »

I’m one of those people whose life has spanned the transition from the paper era to the digital era. When I went to college, researching any topic required going to the library and using the card catalog and microfiche indexes to locate material. If I wanted government statistics, they were on paper in what was basically 1/4th of the bottom floor of our college library and I had to use a big paper index to find them. Making a copy for later was 5 cents per page. So basically, there was an excuse back then for someone to say something stupid — the information just wasn’t easily available.

But today? If you want to look up tort costs in healthcare, you can look up the total amount spent on medical liability insurance (approximately 0.3% of total healthcare spending), then look up tort limits and healthcare costs by state, and easily see that a) the amount spent defending and paying out on lawsuits is trivial, and b) defensive medicine isn’t really a “thing”, states with strict tort limits don’t have lower healthcare costs on average than those without. Then you can go look for the real causes of high healthcare costs, which isn’t lawsuits. Despite access to every bit of information needed to prove or disprove the assertion “tort costs causes high healthcare costs”, virtually nobody does the few mouse strokes needed to do so.

Instead, we seem to have weaponized ignorance. Ignorant memes that can easily be disproved by a few mouse strokes use social media to sweep the nation within hours of their release by Russian troll factories. Despite the fact that so much information is available, most of the American public seems disinterested in looking it up. And that surprises some people.

But not me. Because I’ve studied American history (hell, I’ve lived half a century of it). Ignorance has always been the preferred state of the average American. Few regardless of the era have cared about education. There’s a *reason* why the atom bomb was built mostly by European immigrants. Even today, close to half of our STEM workforce is foreign-born or the children of immigrants. All that technology has managed to do is allow the ignorant to confirm with each other that their ignorance is truth and anything that doesn’t agree with their ignorant opinions is fake. Science textbooks? Fake. Government statistics? Fake. Scientists? Elitist fakes. By allowing them to confirm with each other that anybody who actually knows anything is a fake, their ignorance is not only confirmed, but weaponized.

The fact that immigrants have contributed much of the intellectual advancement of America in the past century is also why the ignorant are so anti-immigrant. The last thing they want is for people smarter and harder working than they are to render them obsolete. Even if they are.

– Badtux the Ignorance-spottin’ Penguin

Read Full Post »

An administrative offense is something like a OHSA violation, where you are violating rules and regulations. When you are cited for an administrative offense and are penalized with a fine or other administrative action, you appear before a hearing officer and argue your case that you should not have to pay the fine or comply with the administrative action. You are never convicted of a crime as part of this, and you never have a criminal record as a result of this.

Immigration removal of those without a valid visa, here in the United States, is an administrative action. Those who have overstayed their visas or entered without a visa appear before an administrative law judge, who then either orders them to be released, or orders them to be administratively removed. These people are not convicted of a crime as part of this administrative action, and do not have a criminal record as a result of this administrative action. Because, as I’ve previously pointed out, if it were charged as a crime, then the Constitution requires a grand jury to indict, requires providing a lawyer, and requires a jury for conviction. Thus ICE deliberately does not charge immigrants slated for deportation with any crime, because that would trigger civil rights protections that they don’t want triggered.

So anyhow: In 2016 the NYPD received 80 “administrative detainer” requests from ICE of prisoners slated for release who they claimed had criminal records. The NYPD investigated those claims, and in those cases where prisoners had a felony record, released the prisoners into ICE custody. This was done as a favor to ICE, which in turn has done favors in the past for the NYPD such as deporting a felon they really don’t want released back to the streets. It is not the job of the NYPD to spend significant resources dealing with administrative actions associated with another agency altogether and they have no obligation under the Constitution or under New York law to do so.

In 2017, however, after Trump unleashed them for an overall war on immigrants, ICE sent a whopping 1,526 detainer requests to the NYPD claiming that immigrants were felons who needed to be deported upon release — or basically one for every single immigrant slated for release. After the first few dozen didn’t pan out as being felons, the NYPD basically started waste-binning these requests. The NYPD investigated the first few, and after a few dozen proved to not have criminal records the NYPD started returning the detainer requests wholesale rubber stamped “Unable to verify criminal record.” Because really, if ICE lies to you a dozen times, why bother validating that they lied to you the other 1,500 times?!

Police officers are not immigration agents. Their job is to maintain public order and arrest people who commit crimes in order to prosecute them as criminals in a court of law. Note that undocumented immigrant are never prosecuted for being undocumented. That would give them rights, such as the right to an attorney and trial by jury. Instead, they are removed from the United States via an administrative action that requires only an administrative hearing with far fewer rights. This administrative action does not result in a criminal record for the immigrant, because it is an administrative action, not a criminal action. Requiring police officers to treat people as criminals who have never been convicted of any crime in the United States and never *will* be convicted of any crime in the United States is un-American and utterly ridiculous, and attempting to use police officers in order to enforce administrative actions rather than to enforce criminal law is a complete and total waste of their resources.

In short, it is not surprising to me that the NYPD started wholesale refusing these detainer requests. Once you want them to be enforcing administrative actions rather than enforcing criminal law, you’re no longer an ally — you’re the enemy. Because their sole reason for existing is to enforce criminal law. End of story. Asking them to do something outside their reason for existing is okay for a few times a year as a favor, but if you’re demanding massive use of their resources that they should be using to chase and prosecute criminals, you are their enemy.

– Badtux the Law Penguin

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »