• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Student’s Arrest Tests Immigration Policy

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Student?s Arrest Tests Immigration Policy - NYTimes.com

Jessica Colotl, a 21-year-old college student and illegal Mexican immigrant at the center of a contentious immigration case, surrendered to a Georgia sheriff on Friday but continued to deny wrongdoing. Ms. Colotl was arrested in March for driving without a license and could face deportation next year. On Wednesday the sheriff filed a felony charge against her for providing a false address to the police.

...

“I never thought that I’d be caught up in this messed-up system,” Ms. Colotl said Friday at a news conference after being released on $2,500 bail. “I was treated like a criminal, like a threat to the nation.” Civil rights groups say Ms. Colotl should be spared deportation because she was brought to the United States without legal documents by her parents at age 11. They also note that she has excelled academically and was discovered to be here illegally only after a routine traffic violation.

While it's certainly nice that this woman has managed to attend a few years of college, how does that change the fact that she's here illegally? Should we put a clause in the immigration law saying that illegals will not be deported so long as they're hard-working? The prevalence of emotional reasoning in this country is just depressing.

In Georgia, the case has become intensely political. Ms. Colotl received in-state tuition, substantially reducing her cost of attending Kennesaw State. The university will charge her out-of-state rates in the future, but Republican politicians are calling for new legislation to make attendance more expensive, or impossible, for illegal immigrants.

One Republican candidate for governor, Eric Johnson, has said that if elected he will mandate that all college applicants demonstrate their citizenship. The chancellor of the state university system says that would be prohibitively expensive, costing $1.5 million, for roughly 300,000 students.

You've got to be kidding me. The chancellor claims that they couldn't possibly enforce a citizenship requirement, because it would cost $5/student. Given that Ms. Colotl alone bilked over $30k from the state coffers, that seems a little ridiculous.
 
Throw her in jail, then bus her to Mexico.
 
While it's certainly nice that this woman has managed to attend a few years of college, how does that change the fact that she's here illegally? Should we put a clause in the immigration law saying that illegals will not be deported so long as they're hard-working?
A probationary citizenship program that allows people to work towards a citizenship I think would work best.
 
A probationary citizenship program that allows people to work towards a citizenship I think would work best.

And as a formal policy suggestion going forward, that's fine. What I take issue with are the arguments that even though the law clearly says she should be deported, the government should ignore the law in her case because she's such a nice person.
 
And as a formal policy suggestion going forward, that's fine. What I take issue with are the arguments that even though the law clearly says she should be deported, the government should ignore the law in her case because she's such a nice person.
I simply fail to see what deporting someone who is clearly trying to be a productive member of our society will do. She's going to school to get an education and get a good job, why should she be disavowed the opportunity to do so simply because she doesn't have the right paperwork?

If this was someone who was scamming people or skating by without contributing, I could see the point. But to me, this seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
 
I simply fail to see what deporting someone who is clearly trying to be a productive member of our society will do. She's going to school to get an education and get a good job, why should she be disavowed the opportunity to do so simply because she doesn't have the right paperwork?

If this was someone who was scamming people or skating by without contributing, I could see the point. But to me, this seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Because that's how the rule of law works - we don't create special exceptions on the spot for people simply because they sound nice.

If Congress wants to amend our immigration laws to say that people who are attending college can stay, they're free to do that. Until they do so, it's absurd to argue that we should engage in extralegal case-by-case balancing tests to determine whether or not each person is handled according to the law.
 
Because that's how the rule of law works - we don't create special exceptions on the spot for people simply because they sound nice.
It's not that she "sounds nice" it's that she's a productive and positive member of our society that actually contributes something. In that she's head and shoulders above probably thousands of people who were BORN here.

If Congress wants to amend our immigration laws to say that people who are attending college can stay, they're free to do that. Until they do so, it's absurd to argue that we should engage in extralegal case-by-case balancing tests to determine whether or not each person is handled according to the law.
Zero-tolerance polices almost always end up a mess. The law needs to be flexible.
 
It's not that she "sounds nice" it's that she's a productive and positive member of our society that actually contributes something. In that she's head and shoulders above probably thousands of people who were BORN here.

By "actually contributes something," you mean "attended Kennesaw state for three years while accepting $30k in state taxpayer subsidies and driving without a license"?

Zero-tolerance polices almost always end up a mess. The law needs to be flexible.

So ask Congress to change the law to be more flexible. Don't argue that the authorities should start conducing their own completely unauthorized analysis of whether each illegal immigrant is productive enough to warrant ignoring the law in their case.

Again, this is not about what the law should be. It's about whether it's appropriate to argue that enforcement agencies should ignore the law whenever they feel like it.
 
By "actually contributes something," you mean "attended Kennesaw state for three years while accepting $30k in state taxpayer subsidies and driving without a license"?
I accept public grants and scholarships to attend school, so what?

So ask Congress to change the law to be more flexible. Don't argue that the authorities should start conducing their own completely unauthorized analysis of whether each illegal immigrant is productive enough to warrant ignoring the law in their case.

Again, this is not about what the law should be. It's about whether it's appropriate to argue that enforcement agencies should ignore the law whenever they feel like it.
Im saying that this case highlights a glaring flaw in our immigration policy when we're tossing out people who are trying to be productive members of our society.
 
Because that's how the rule of law works - we don't create special exceptions on the spot for people simply because they sound nice.

If Congress wants to amend our immigration laws to say that people who are attending college can stay, they're free to do that. Until they do so, it's absurd to argue that we should engage in extralegal case-by-case balancing tests to determine whether or not each person is handled according to the law.

But what about people who were dragged across the border as a minor?

Did she commit the crime? Or did her parents?

Clearly, as an adult she became aware of the issues that she would face - but what do you recommend for someone who is here as a minor, who is (by all accounts) a good student, and whose biggest crime was driving without a license. With regards to the charge of providing a false address and getting in-state tuition: if she was providing the address of where she resided, how is that a false address?

I'm not making an accusation, but the piece didn't seem to address that point. Most colleges recognize you as in-state as long as you've lived there for a year, so if she's lived there since 11, I don't see those charges as valid.

Again, my concern here is that she didn't illegally cross the border of her own free will. If you accept that charge, then the prosecutor would need to seek charges against all minors here illegally as adults.

You can argue that she began breaking the law on her 18th birthday; and I'd buy that legally. I find that to be a bit cruel, though - since she'd been here for seven years at that point.

I'm just asking what your point of view is on minors who cannot - by definition - have broken the law of their own free will.
 
Besides anything hasnt she been driving without a licence? Im sure everyone would be fne if she plowed into the back of them.
 
Im saying that this case highlights a glaring flaw in our immigration policy when we're tossing out people who are trying to be productive members of our society.

Wrong. This case is an attempt to uphold a comprehensive, but mostly ignored federal immigration policy... that should, and does enrage those that jumped through beaureucratic hoops to attain citizenship legally...
 
Last edited:
What makes you think she didnt?

You can't get a job without a social security number unless she was working under the table in which case she was, also, guilty of tax evasion or if she used a fake social security number in which she is guilty of fraud.
 
Last edited:
I accept public grants and scholarships to attend school, so what?

So do I. My acceptance of those public monies is not in and of itself a contribution to society. I don't understand how you think that her decision to attend college on the public dollar means that she's automatically made a positive contribution to society.

Im saying that this case highlights a glaring flaw in our immigration policy when we're tossing out people who are trying to be productive members of our society.

And once again, that's a reason to amend the law. Not a reason to start creating case by case exceptions whenever a heartrending story hits the paper.

But what about people who were dragged across the border as a minor?

Did she commit the crime? Or did her parents?

She was a minor, so it was her parents that committed the particular crime of bringing her across the border. She herself committed several more, such as driving without a license and fraudulently obtaining funds from the state.

Clearly, as an adult she became aware of the issues that she would face - but what do you recommend for someone who is here as a minor, who is (by all accounts) a good student, and whose biggest crime was driving without a license. With regards to the charge of providing a false address and getting in-state tuition: if she was providing the address of where she resided, how is that a false address?

I'm not making an accusation, but the piece didn't seem to address that point. Most colleges recognize you as in-state as long as you've lived there for a year, so if she's lived there since 11, I don't see those charges as valid.

Most states explicitly require that students seeking in-state status be lawful US residents. Georgia, her state, says this:

Non-U.S. Citizens

Non-U.S. citizens are only eligible for in-state residency if they are lawful permanent residents as documented by the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service or have been granted a visa in an eligible category. F-1 student visas are not eligible. These students must still provide documentation of in-state residency for the twelve-month period prior to the start of the term.

She clearly lied on her paperwork, obtaining over $30k in state funds fraudulently.

Again, my concern here is that she didn't illegally cross the border of her own free will. If you accept that charge, then the prosecutor would need to seek charges against all minors here illegally as adults.

You can argue that she began breaking the law on her 18th birthday; and I'd buy that legally. I find that to be a bit cruel, though - since she'd been here for seven years at that point.

I'm just asking what your point of view is on minors who cannot - by definition - have broken the law of their own free will.

No one is prosecuted merely for committing the "crime" of crossing the border illegally, they're deported via an administrative hearing. That applies to everyone, regardless of age.

Again, GA is not planning on putting her in jail for crossing the border at age 11. GA is planning on prosecuting her for violating state laws, and then the federal government is planning on deporting her.
 
Last edited:
A probationary citizenship program that allows people to work towards a citizenship I think would work best.

No thats called Amnesty. Its rewarding someone who broke the law getting here and was well aware of it before she stole 30k in our money let alone the state and government services she stole before then.
 
It's not that she "sounds nice" it's that she's a productive and positive member of our society that actually contributes something. In that she's head and shoulders above probably thousands of people who were BORN here.

No she is not. She stole a position that could have been given to a productive and positive us citizen.

And no she is neither productive nor positive for our society. She stole our money and ignored our laws. That's hardly productive or positive.

Zero-tolerance polices almost always end up a mess. The law needs to be flexible.

You mean only enforce the laws we like based on personal morality? I dont think so.
 
Student?s Arrest Tests Immigration Policy - NYTimes.com



While it's certainly nice that this woman has managed to attend a few years of college, how does that change the fact that she's here illegally? Should we put a clause in the immigration law saying that illegals will not be deported so long as they're hard-working? The prevalence of emotional reasoning in this country is just depressing.



You've got to be kidding me. The chancellor claims that they couldn't possibly enforce a citizenship requirement, because it would cost $5/student. Given that Ms. Colotl alone bilked over $30k from the state coffers, that seems a little ridiculous.

I do not see what the controversy is.If she is an illegal then she should be deported.Hopefully she serves time for those other offenses and the illegal immigration offense before she is deported. The fact she is in college is irrelevant,seeing how she is not a citizen nor has a legal right to be in this country just means she stole that from an American citizen.
 
Last edited:
So do I. My acceptance of those public monies is not in and of itself a contribution to society. I don't understand how you think that her decision to attend college on the public dollar means that she's automatically made a positive contribution to society.



And once again, that's a reason to amend the law. Not a reason to start creating case by case exceptions whenever a heartrending story hits the paper.



She was a minor, so it was her parents that committed the particular crime of bringing her across the border. She herself committed several more, such as driving without a license and fraudulently obtaining funds from the state.



Most states explicitly require that students seeking in-state status be lawful US residents. Georgia, her state, says this:



She clearly lied on her paperwork, obtaining over $30k in state funds fraudulently.



No one is prosecuted merely for committing the "crime" of crossing the border illegally, they're deported via an administrative hearing. That applies to everyone, regardless of age.

Again, GA is not planning on putting her in jail for crossing the border at age 11. GA is planning on prosecuting her for violating state laws, and then the federal government is planning on deporting her.

Okay, thanks for the point-by-point...but what the hell do you expect someone to do if they were brought her illegally as a minor.

What do want them to do personally.

They're not criminals as children, so what do YOU want them to do when they turn 18?

That's what I'm asking here. What do you expect them to do practically as human beings.

And, I'm sorry - if she gave them the address where she was residing, then the whole in-state vs. out-of-state thing is ****ing ridiculous. Regardless of legality, if she gave police the address where she was residing, to charge her with a felony for reporting a false address is just draconian. What address was she supposed to give them? A random address in Mexico that she hadn't been to since she was 10 years old?

I'm not asking for a legal perspective from you. I'm asking what YOU would have children do when they've been brought here by their parents.
 
I simply fail to see what deporting someone who is clearly trying to be a productive member of our society will do. She's going to school to get an education and get a good job, why should she be disavowed the opportunity to do so simply because she doesn't have the right paperwork?

If this was someone who was scamming people or skating by without contributing, I could see the point. But to me, this seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Well we either follow the law or we strike down the law, we can't have both because how then would we apply the law fairly. One either violates the law or doesn't, so we either have a law or we don't.
 
Back
Top Bottom