A poster boy for Amnesty

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It would be good if the laws applied here were changed so that deportable felons were continued to be held until the conditions that led to a temporary suspension of deportations to their home country on humanitarian grounds were corrected.  However, the general policy of suspending deportations to places that have suffered major natural disasters, such as Haiti after its earthquake, is a good one.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

... the general policy of suspending deportations to places that have suffered major natural disasters, such as Haiti after its earthquake, is a good one.

Hmm.

Tell that to the three people who died as a result of that "good" policy.

As as already been pointed out to you, I do not agree with the release of deportable felons simply because of a temporary suspension of deportation into disaster zones.  They should be held until they can be deported.  So now that sibboleth has been dealt with, do you really think deportations of non-violent illegals into disaster zones would be good policy?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

... the general policy of suspending deportations to places that have suffered major natural disasters, such as Haiti after its earthquake, is a good one.

Hmm.

Tell that to the three people who died as a result of that "good" policy.

As as already been pointed out to you, I do not agree with the release of deportable felons simply because of a temporary suspension of deportation into disaster zones.  They should be held until they can be deported.  So now that sibboleth has been dealt with, do you really think deportations of non-violent illegals into disaster zones would be good policy?

First, yes I know you are in lockstep with the other lefties on this forum.

Second, for you "temporary" can go on for years, so you, like Obama and twisting the language to mislead.

Third, yes, I know you want the American taxpayers to house, feed, clothe, and provide medical care for illegal aliens, rather than deport them.  Gives you a pretext for arguing for more and higher taxes.

Finally, for those who bothered to read the article linked by the initial post in this thread, you will find that the individual cited had been previously convicted of burglary, which by Florida statute (and common law) is a "violent felony" (something affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States.  http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-9264.pdf)  So, Ernest's argument about non-violent felons does not apply in this case, but rather is merely another example of his trying to change the subject.

I would have thought to anyone with minimal reading comprehension it would have been abundantly clear that I was not including the person in this case when referring to non-violent illegals.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No I purposefully used sibboleth, in reference to the origin of the word shibboleth, because I wished to indicate that I was finished with the narrow tragic case you were trying to use to justify your broader agenda of deport everyone no matter the circumstances or cost of doing so.  Alas, you seem to think language is something that comes out of a dictionary and should never be used imaginatively.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

But you are correct that "(L)anguage is a fascinating indicator of one's personal biases."

Yours is showing.

Right, I'm not suggesting I am immune to it.  Your ruse of legalistic infallibility is a poor way to justify your views, since the law could easily be changed.  Then where you would you hide?

The term I used IS defined by law.  I cited the statute.

Apparently, you (and others) take the 'Humpty Dumpty' approach to language:

"When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Through_the_Looking-Glass

Considering your repeated strenuous objections to the use of the phrase "illegal immigrant", CARL, it's clear that you are counted amongst those others who take the Humpty Dumpty approach.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Also, since you NOW indicate that your argument concernig "non-violent felons" did not extend to the case in point, are you therefor conceding that since he was convicted of a violent felony, he should have been deported before he was able to kill?

I agree that he should not have been released until he could be deported.  That he should be deported back to a country whose already inadequate government had been effectively been wiped out by a natural disaster before at least the bare bones of government function had been restored, I absolutely reject.

(P.S. If you are going to criticize posts for spelling, shouldn't you at the bare minimum use a spell checker before you post?)

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Considering your repeated strenuous objections to the use of the phrase "illegal immigrant", CARL, it's clear that you are counted amongst those others who take the Humpty Dumpty approach.

Once again, I use the correct terminology, and you use inaccurate terminology.

If you check, you will see that the term "immigrant" means someone who moves to another country for a permanent residence.  All the experts agree that many of the aliens illegally present in this country are sojourners.

So, why do you persist in calling such persons immigrants?

Actually, if you look, I simply used the term "illegals" so as to avoid a pointless quibble over word meaning, but if you insist on being a Humpty-Dumpty, so be it.

Why do people use it?  Perhaps because its widely?

From dictionary.com:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They don't seem to think all immigrants do so on a permanent basis.

To be fair, at present Merriam-Webster does include that prescriptive restriction that immigrants must intend on permanent residence that you Humpty-Dumpty on about.

Language is not immutable.  Whether you like it or not, the terms immigrant and immigration are losing the restriction that the crossing of a border be intended to be permanent.  Judging by your posts here on the Forum, I conclude that you find change intolerable, so I suppose I should not be surprised that you cling to the walls of your Humpty-Dumpty notions as to what language is.  However, keep in mind, Humpty-Dumpty had a great fall off of his wall, CARL.  Try as you might, you can't put the past back together again.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I must admit that you are very "imaginative" in you use of language.  So, please "imaginatively" continue to babel.

You're incredibly consistent with spelling when correcting others' language.

(Consistently wrong!)

Thank you for your compliment.

Yes, I know you consistently disagree with everything I post.

Oh, BTW, let me say that I am opposed to Communism. 

Unfortunately for you CARL, we aren't alien computers from the original series of Star Trek.  Your non-sequiturs are not going to cause us to shut down amid a flurry of sparks and smoke.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I might point out that 'migrant' is another serviceable word that seems to lack that particular prescriptivist connotation without being dehumanizing and/or excessively clinical. We okay with 'undocumented migrant'?

No.  While I won't throw a hissy-fit if you use "undocumented" I am certain others will.  I'm nowhere near as Humpty-Dumpty on this topic as CARL is, but "undocumented" makes it sound like they merely forgot to get some paperwork done.  That's not the case.  They are here illegally, and could not have gotten jobs here legally under current law. "Illegal" is the most appropriate adjective to use.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

They are here illegally, and could not have gotten jobs here legally under current law.

And whose fault is that?

Their own in almost all cases.  They knew that they did not have permission to legally immigrate here and yet they still chose to come. (A very small portion have been forced to come here for the sex worker trade, tho most of those trapped in those unfortunate circumstances were not aware of what would be required of them by those they paid to smuggle them until they got here.)

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It's interesting that you're using the language of 'choice' while in your parenthetical remark referencing people 'trapped in unfortunate circumstances', but I presume you take the view that there are for most such people other, preferable options? If so, may I ask you to expound on this?

Nathan, practically anything else is preferable to being a sex slave, which are the 'unfortunate circumstances' I was trying to politely refer to.  About the only thing that isn't better is being dead, and that's a matter of opinion.

For most of those who come here illegally, there are economic benefits to themselves to do so, but that is no excuse for breaking the law.  Now, if we had a better immigration policy that both increased the amount of allowed immigration and was tough on those who employ illegal workers, we'd have a lot less illegal immigration, since it would reduce the economic incentives to come here illegally to do otherwise law-abiding work, and enable us to more easily keep out the undesirables we don't want coming here.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Also, since you NOW indicate that your argument concernig "non-violent felons" did not extend to the case in point, are you therefor conceding that since he was convicted of a violent felony, he should have been deported before he was able to kill?

I agree that he should not have been released until he could be deported.  That he should be deported back to a country whose already inadequate government had been effectively been wiped out by a natural disaster before at least the bare bones of government function had been restored, I absolutely reject.

For how long should he be held? 

Until there was at least a semi-functional society in Haiti again.  If things were done the way I like it, he'd be in Haiti now, unless of course he made another illegal entry after we deported him there.  Haiti is not yet back to the point to where deporting otherwise non-criminal illegal entrants is wat I would consider good policy, but it is back to the point where it is about as capable as it was before the earthquake of handling someone like this.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I agree that he should not have been released until he could be deported.  That he should be deported back to a country whose already inadequate government had been effectively been wiped out by a natural disaster before at least the bare bones of government function had been restored, I absolutely reject.

For how long should he be held?  

Until there was at least a semi-functional society in Haiti again.  If things were done the way I like it, he'd be in Haiti now, unless of course he made another illegal entry after we deported him there.  Haiti is not yet back to the point to where deporting otherwise non-criminal illegal entrants is wat I would consider good policy, but it is back to the point where it is about as capable as it was before the earthquake of handling someone like this.

So, there is NO time limit?

Oh, and to return to the facts situation, the individual is currently dead, so deporting him now would be, well, pointless.

But, if he had been held after completion of his sentence for burglary until he might sometime be deported, what if he killed another inmate, or guard while incarcerated while awaiting deportation?  These things happen.

I find it laughable that immediately after castigating me for making a very probable assumption that if he had been held until he could be deported that both he and his victims would still be alive you then bring up the far less probable scenario of him having killed someone else while in prison awaiting deportation.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The six month limit was based upon the court's interpretation of what Congress had determined to be a reasonable period of temporary incarceration pending deportation in cases in which the country to which he was to be deported refused to accept the deportee.

I see nothing in Zadvydas that suggests that the Court would find it unconstitutional if Congress were to authorize continued detention during periods of temporary suspension of deportation on humanitarian grounds. You asked me how I would handle it if I could set the law as I would, and while my preferred policy would require a change in the law, it does not appear to require a change in our constitution.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

For how long should he be held? 

Until there was at least a semi-functional society in Haiti again.  If things were done the way I like it, he'd be in Haiti now, unless of course he made another illegal entry after we deported him there.  Haiti is not yet back to the point to where deporting otherwise non-criminal illegal entrants is what I would consider good policy, but it is back to the point where it is about as capable as it was before the earthquake of handling someone like this.

So, there is NO time limit?

Oh, and to return to the facts situation, the individual is currently dead, so deporting him now would be, well, pointless.

But, if he had been held after completion of his sentence for burglary until he might sometime be deported, what if he killed another inmate, or guard while incarcerated while awaiting deportation?  These things happen.

I find it laughable that immediately after castigating me for making a very probable assumption that if he had been held until he could be deported that both he and his victims would still be alive you then bring up the far less probable scenario of him having killed someone else while in prison awaiting deportation.

Please be so good as to indicate the post where I supposedly castigated you "for making a very probable assumption that if he had been held until deported that both he and his victims would still be alive."

The bolded part of the post I was directly replying to CARL, where you suggested that I was calling for deporting a dead man.  If that wasn't castigation on your part then it must have been lack of reading comprehension on your part,

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No I haven't, but no previous temporary suspension of deportations due to a natural disaster has lasted permanently.  Haiti's has lasted so long mainly because Haiti was a basket case even before the earthquake hit, but assuming the too slow pace of recovery there continues along its current trajectory, then I think it should be lifted sometime this autumn after the height of the hurricane season is over.  Whether it will be then, or earlier, or later, I can't predict.  If it happens when I think it should, cynics will no doubt claim the Obama administration made its decision on political grounds, and politics may well play a part in the timing. However, because so much of Haiti's economy is based on subsistence agriculture, waiting until October or November to be certain that Haiti does not suffer a major hurricane this year that will undo the earthquake recovery while it is still fragile seems prudent to me.

Also, as I already indicated, I'd have already resumed deportations of violent felons to Haiti by now.  The reason for allowing non-violent illegals to have a temporary stay of deportability is not only that their return would further burden a malfunctioning society, but that remittances from their work that they send back is a more cost-effective form of after-disaster assistance than government direct aid could be.  Since that latter reason is not applicable to violent felons,  then I think their deportations should resume once a functional criminal justice and police system had resumed in Haiti (functional by Haiti's expectations, not ours, since by ours they weren't functional even before the earthquake).

Since you seem to have missed it before, let me repeat that the six month limit you were harping about is based on the Court's interpretation of Congress' intent in the law that limits the time frame before deportation or release must occur. Congress is completely free to revise those limits and there is at least one bill (H.R. 1932) that has been submitted to revise those limits to allow for indefinite detention in broader circumstances.