When deportation is a death sentence

[ludin]

Which they did.

It's too late for her, though.

then her governmnet should have done something sooner.

 

[American]

To make a long story short, no one called her mom, she was deported without a hearing, and her ex tortured and killed her.

And, she's not alone.

Read more here

Some of them are, I assume, good people. Yes, and some of those good people are fleeing bad people.

Okay so in your world Solis is to blame, or the Mexican authorities? Orrrrrr maybe Laura?

 

[atheist4thecaus]

To make a long story short, no one called her mom, she was deported without a hearing, and her ex tortured and killed her.

And, she's not alone.

Read more here

Some of them are, I assume, good people. Yes, and some of those good people are fleeing bad people.

I guess you were depending on people not actually reading the article. She had a bunch of kids with her boyfriend, who was in the USA with her. After she threatened to leave, he took a knife to his own throat threatening suicide, then pushed her down, and beat the crap out of her. She pressed charges, got a protection order, and he got deported to Mexico. He was in a gang, and as his girlfriend, she probably was, too. And why leave out her last name? It's like the New Yorker is trying to give us half the story while protecting her. My guess is they know if people look into the situation that we'll find that she was no saint. Why did the officer claim she was swerving between lanes? Was she on drugs? There are so many questions. This is not a typical case, and there is a lot of missing information. If her life was in danger, she could apply for asylum as well. I agree with what some have said that this has a lot to do with her home country not protecting her, her ex having responsibility for his own actions, and I'd add that she made some terrible decisions herself.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Okay so in your world Solis is to blame, or the Mexican authorities? Orrrrrr maybe Laura?

Had Laura gone back voluntarily, then she would be to blame.
The Mexican authorities share some of the blame for not being able to protect a citizen.
Solis is to blame for doing the deed.
The INS is to blame for deporting her back to her death.

There is plenty of blame to go around.

The question is whether or not anyone learned anything from this incident and the thousands of other incidents mentioned in the OP link, or whether all of the deaths are in vain. I'm guessing the latter.

 

[Dittohead not!]

I guess you were depending on people not actually reading the article. She had a bunch of kids with her boyfriend, who was in the USA with her. After she threatened to leave, he took a knife to his own throat threatening suicide, then pushed her down, and beat the crap out of her. She pressed charges, got a protection order, and he got deported to Mexico. He was in a gang, and as his girlfriend, she probably was, too. And why leave out her last name? It's like the New Yorker is trying to give us half the story while protecting her. My guess is they know if people look into the situation that we'll find that she was no saint. Why did the officer claim she was swerving between lanes? Was she on drugs? There are so many questions. This is not a typical case, and there is a lot of missing information. If her life was in danger, she could apply for asylum as well. I agree with what some have said that this has a lot to do with her home country not protecting her, her ex having responsibility for his own actions, and I'd add that she made some terrible decisions herself.

NO doubt she made some poor decisions.

I guess she just deserved her fate.

 

[atheist4thecaus]

NO doubt she made some poor decisions.

I guess she just deserved her fate.

She did not deserve her fate, but her fate was not at the hands of the USA. You are blaming the wrong entity.

 

[jaeger19]

She did not deserve her fate, but her fate was not at the hands of the USA. You are blaming the wrong entity.

Nope.. he is pointing out that the US shares some responsibility here. And that makes sense.

 

[atheist4thecaus]

Nope.. he is pointing out that the US shares some responsibility here. And that makes sense.

I disagree. The USA protected her by deporting him and giving her a protective order from him. She then got herself in trouble and got deported for it. She either didn't apply for or didn't effectively argue for asylum. Then she either didn't tell the Mexican government or they failed to protect her. I mean, this is a woman who was involved in gang activity. Some of those women die. To blame the US government is silly.

 

[jaeger19]

I disagree. The USA protected her by deporting him and giving her a protective order from him. She then got herself in trouble and got deported for it. She either didn't apply for or didn't effectively argue for asylum. Then she either didn't tell the Mexican government or they failed to protect her. I mean, this is a woman who was involved in gang activity. Some of those women die. To blame the US government is silly.

Of course you do. I would bet that if this was a child, or someother person in the situation that you deemed WORTHY of protection.. you would agree with my position. the only reason you disagree is because you feel this woman is a gang member that deserves her fate.

 

[atheist4thecaus]

Of course you do. I would bet that if this was a child, or someother person in the situation that you deemed WORTHY of protection.. you would agree with my position. the only reason you disagree is because you feel this woman is a gang member that deserves her fate.

My point about her being a gang member is to show that gang members are often caught up in trouble. You can't blame the USA for that. I don't want people dying, and I also don't want people coming here illegally who are caught up in gangs. The USA did offer her protection with both a protective order and deporting her husband, who was here illegally and also caught up in gangs. I'd like to point out that nobody here is criticizing the USA for deporting the man, but he also deserved to be deported. Once these people committed actions breaking laws while already being here illegally, the USA has an obligation to enforce the law, and it becomes the responsibility of their home country to take care of them (as well as the people themselves). To put responsibility on the USA for not allowing a gang member to stay in the USA illegally is a bit ridiculous. Your argument from emotion doesn't change the reality of the situation.

 

[jaeger19]

My point about her being a gang member is to show that gang members are often caught up in trouble. You can't blame the USA for that. I don't want people dying, and I also don't want people coming here illegally who are caught up in gangs. The USA did offer her protection with both a protective order and deporting her husband, who was here illegally and also caught up in gangs. I'd like to point out that nobody here is criticizing the USA for deporting the man, but he also deserved to be deported. Once these people committed actions breaking laws while already being here illegally, the USA has an obligation to enforce the law, and it becomes the responsibility of their home country to take care of them (as well as the people themselves). To put responsibility on the USA for not allowing a gang member to stay in the USA illegally is a bit ridiculous. Your argument from emotion doesn't change the reality of the situation.

Yeah... your point about gang member is to justify her death. Look at what you end your paragraph with:

To put responsibility on the USA for not allowing a gang member to stay in the USA illegally is a bit ridiculous

\
you have no idea if she was a current gang member.. or a former gang member, or what her affiliation was. Heck.. what if I told you that she was a gang member when she was a teenager because she was forced into it.. and then left the gang when she could.. and that made her a target by the gang... what would you think then?

the issue is whether the government has some responsibility when they knowingly send someone into a situation in which the threat of death is likely.. and the answer is yes.. the government has some responsibility.. whether its a former gang member, a reformed gang member.. a priest or a child.

 

[atheist4thecaus]

Yeah... your point about gang member is to justify her death. Look at what you end your paragraph with:
\
you have no idea if she was a current gang member.. or a former gang member, or what her affiliation was. Heck.. what if I told you that she was a gang member when she was a teenager because she was forced into it.. and then left the gang when she could.. and that made her a target by the gang... what would you think then?

the issue is whether the government has some responsibility when they knowingly send someone into a situation in which the threat of death is likely.. and the answer is yes.. the government has some responsibility.. whether its a former gang member, a reformed gang member.. a priest or a child.

Your comment went downhill when you tried to be a mindreader. You read my mind wrong. I'm justifying her deportation based on her gang affiliations, illegal status, and alleged law-breaking while here. She deserved to live, which I specifically stated before, and you have conveniently ignored that part of my argument.

I do have an idea that she was a gang member. If you read the article, they talk about her relationship with her boyfriend for years, who was a gang member. That is evidence that she was also likely in the gang. But whether she was or wasn't in the gang, she did deserve to be deported, as she was here illegally and was swerving between the lanes. There was no wrongdoing found here.

You ask about if she was forced into the gang and got out when could. I would say she shouldn't have came here illegally and she shouldn't have swerved between the lanes. She should not have acted in a manner in which the law dictates she get deported.

You talk about the government knowingly sending people to their death. The government didn't know that. She stated it, but they have no way to know that is true. The American government is under no obligation to allow her to stay, and it does not have jurisdiction over Mexico. If she is seeking asylum, she should apply for it. She didn't.

You are also talking about a situation from 2009, in which the article doesn't give us access to all the details. You are talking about such an old article/story because this is very, very rare. The American government did what it could to protect her when she was here despite her being here illegally, she couldn't follow the rules, and so she had to be deported. The American government did not know she would be killed. Unfortunately, she was, as many people caught up in gangs or people closely related to those in gangs are. The connection to the deportation was never established. Did the American government hand deliver her to her ex? I doubt it. How her ex found her was just a convenient gap in the story. Heck, I can't even validate the story as true without more information, such as her last name.

Of course, you'd rather the government not deport dangerous people leading to Americans getting killed rather than non-Americans getting killed after these dangerous people are deported. (See, I can play that mind-reading game, too.)

 

[jaeger19]

Your comment went downhill when you tried to be a mindreader. You read my mind wrong. I'm justifying her deportation based on her gang affiliations, illegal status, and alleged law-breaking while here. She deserved to live, which I specifically stated before, and you have conveniently ignored that part of my argument.
.)

Nope.. I didn;t have to "read your mind".. you just don't realize that you ended your post with what you were thinking.

To put responsibility on the USA for not allowing a gang member to stay in the USA illegally is a bit ridiculous

Don't get mad at me because I picked up on your words.

I do have an idea that she was a gang member. If you read the article, they talk about her relationship with her boyfriend for years, who was a gang member. That is evidence that she was also likely in the gang

An assumption not based on fact.

But whether she was or wasn't in the gang, she did deserve to be deported, as she was here illegally and was swerving between the lanes. There was no wrongdoing found here.

so she deserved to die because of being her illegally and she swerved between the lines.? that's basically what you are saying.

You talk about the government knowingly sending people to their death. The government didn't know that. She stated it, but they have no way to know that is true

Oh.. you mean the government that knew that her boyfriend has already tried to kill her.. that she had a restraining order against him (which a government agent issued) and that they had deported the boyfriend... TO THE SAME COUNTRY THAT THEY WERE GOING TO DEPORT HER TO.

Oh yeah... HOW could they possibly know? :doh

Of course, you'd rather the government not deport dangerous people leading to Americans getting killed

Bingo... so now you have jumped to thinking that the girl was a dangerous gang member that would get americans killed. justifying why she should die.

 

[atheist4thecaus]

Nope.. I didn;t have to "read your mind".. you just don't realize that you ended your post with what you were thinking.



Don't get mad at me because I picked up on your words.



An assumption not based on fact.



so she deserved to die because of being her illegally and she swerved between the lines.? that's basically what you are saying.



Oh.. you mean the government that knew that her boyfriend has already tried to kill her.. that she had a restraining order against him (which a government agent issued) and that they had deported the boyfriend... TO THE SAME COUNTRY THAT THEY WERE GOING TO DEPORT HER TO.

Oh yeah... HOW could they possibly know? :doh



Bingo... so now you have jumped to thinking that the girl was a dangerous gang member that would get americans killed. justifying why she should die.

1) You say you weren't mind-reading. Please quote me when I said her life didn't matter because she was a gang member or anything to that extent.

2) No, I didn't say she deserved to die. I said she deserved to live. If you have to strawman me to make your argument then your argument is weak.

3) He didn't try to kill her, he beat her. There is a difference. She claimed he was going to kill her, but the government had no way to know if that was true or not. It's true that the boyfriend had been deported to the same country she was being deported to, but that doesn't mean she's actually going to be killed. And again, we don't even have a way to really know if this story is true or not. They withheld the last name. Do you have more information on this case, such as her last name?

4) Apparently you didn't pick up on my facetiousness with "mind-reading" your thoughts. My original point about her being a gang member is that she was living a dangerous life. Deporting her didn't kill her. Her ex did. If we had kept her here and she was then killed we wouldn't say that keeping her here killed her. Gang members tend to live risky lives. You have not even been able to establish that she was killed because of the deportation. A lot of the story is hearsay and conjecture, and it's not backed up by multiple sources, either. Either way, this is a very rare situation if it did happen, and there are other options available to people in this situation such as seeking asylum, so we do not need to change our policy based on one case that may or may not have even happened.

 

[jaeger19]

1) You say you weren't mind-reading. Please quote me when I said her life didn't matter because she was a gang member or anything to that extent.

.

I don't have to quote you directly saying that. your post clearly indicates it.

2. sure you did.. you made that clear with all your references to her behavior, your assumptions regarding her being a gang member, and lastly when you referred to her possibly being dangerous and potentially killing americans.

3. Right.. he beat her to the point where they got a restraining order on him and he was deported from the country. Listen.. if you want to work this hard to be obtuse that's your business.

4. no.. your point wasn't that she was living a dangerous life.. because you went on to say:

put responsibility on the USA for not allowing a gang member to stay in the USA illegally is a bit ridiculous.

That's obviously a judgement call on her.. not just pointing out "living a dangerous life".. which by the way is a HUGE assumption on your part.

 

[atheist4thecaus]

I don't have to quote you directly saying that. your post clearly indicates it.

2. sure you did.. you made that clear with all your references to her behavior, your assumptions regarding her being a gang member, and lastly when you referred to her possibly being dangerous and potentially killing americans.

3. Right.. he beat her to the point where they got a restraining order on him and he was deported from the country. Listen.. if you want to work this hard to be obtuse that's your business.

4. no.. your point wasn't that she was living a dangerous life.. because you went on to say:

That's obviously a judgement call on her.. not just pointing out "living a dangerous life".. which by the way is a HUGE assumption on your part.

1) When you say my post "clearly indicates it" and that you "don't have to quote me directly", that means you are trying to mind-read, because I didn't say that. In fact, I stated the opposite multiple times. I get you trying to extrapolate what I mean from what I say, but when I tell you that you are misinterpreting me and I have made comments in direct contradiction to what you claim I mean, you have to reconsider how you are portraying me at that point.

2) She was dating a gang member. If she was not in the gang herself, she was closely related to someone who was. That's a dangerous life to live. You are assuming the story actually happened, when we don't have confirmation of that. We don't have her name. All we have is a single article about it. We don't even know the context of her death, the timing, etc. If you want to point to assumptions, look at your own argument.

3) Lots of people abuse others without the intention to kill them. Having been abused is not proof that someone is going to kill you if you get deported.

4) This is a bit technical. She was dating a gang member for years. It's not a very big assumption that she was a gang member when she dated one for years. But like I said, whether she was or wasn't, she deserved to be deported. And whether she actually was in the gang or not, she was closely affiliated to one through her ex, which is living a dangerous life. And like I said, you're making a HUGE assumption that this story actually happened and isn't completely fabricated. Furthermore, to say someone is in a gang is not making a judgement of them as a person.

 

[tosca1]

To make a long story short, no one called her mom, she was deported without a hearing, and her ex tortured and killed her.

And, she's not alone.

Read more here

Some of them are, I assume, good people. Yes, and some of those good people are fleeing bad people.

Not wanting to be unconcerned.....but, is Reynoso the only place in Mexico?


If one can up and move out of the country - what's the problem with moving out of the province and settling somewhere else in Mexico?

My point:

If someone is determined to get you - getting out of Mexico wouldn't be helping those who had fled Mexico LEGALLY!

The law is also to protect those who went through the proper channel, and are legally in the USA.

If illegal aliens can freely come to the USA, what's stopping those who want to kill you from following you to the USA?

If bad people can easily sneak in to track down the good people that fled in fear..... what's the point of moving away? You'd still be looking over your shoulders and living in fear!


The law has to be respected..........if you want the law to be taken seriously. It must be fair.

 

[radcen]

Not wanting to be unconcerned.....but, is Reynoso the only place in Mexico?


If one can up and move out of the country - what's the problem with moving out of the province and settling somewhere else in Mexico?

My point:

If someone is determined to get you - getting out of Mexico wouldn't be helping those who had fled Mexico LEGALLY!

The law is also to protect those who went through the proper channel, and are legally in the USA.

If illegal aliens can freely come to the USA, what's stopping those who want to kill you from following you to the USA?

If bad people can easily sneak in to track down the good people that fled in fear..... what's the point of moving away? You'd still be looking over your shoulders and living in fear!


The law has to be respected..........if you want the law to be taken seriously. It must be fair.

The law will never be fair, truly fair, because it cannot be equal. It cannot take into account every single nuance. But, in an almost contradictory manner, to be as equal as possible it needs to be applied equally.

 

[radcen]

Question that I haven't seen discussed: Was she eligible for legal status? If so, why wasn't she legal?

 

[tosca1]

The law will never be fair, truly fair, because it cannot be equal. It cannot take into account every single nuance. But, in an almost contradictory manner, to be as equal as possible it needs to be applied equally.

In this case, however.....There is no other nuance.
If you're in this country ILLEGALLY - you shouldn't be here.

 

[tosca1]

Question that I haven't seen discussed: Was she eligible for legal status? If so, why wasn't she legal?

Eligibility isn't the issue.
How many people are eligible for legal status.....and yet, they have to wait in line?
You don't jump the line. Period.

If it's a dire and urgent situation, maybe apply as a refugee.

People get furious when someone cuts in line in any situation - what more when we're talking about immigration.

 

[radcen]

In this case, however.....There is no other nuance.
If you're in this country ILLEGALLY - you shouldn't be here.

Incorrect. The law allows for certain exceptions.

 

[radcen]

Eligibility isn't the issue.
How many people are eligible for legal status.....and yet, they have to wait in line?
You don't jump the line. Period.

If it's a dire and urgent situation, maybe apply as a refugee.

People get furious when someone cuts in line in any situation - what more when we're talking about immigration.

You don't know whether she was eligible, either, eh?

 

[tosca1]

Incorrect. The law allows for certain exceptions.

The law on immigration that they're now trying to change?

 

[tosca1]

You don't know whether she was eligible, either, eh?

Her eligibility as an immigrant is not the issue!

Did she, or did she not enter illegally?