DISQUS Doodlings – Ma’am, didn’t you forget to answer the Primary Question?

by Skip

illegal alien signYeah, I know – I’ve been spending perhaps a bit too much time over at a couple of Lefty sites lately.  Once again, yet another defense against deportation that forgets to bring up the MOST important question / answer.  It’s almost as if this ACLU lawyer (“Jeanne Hruska is policy director for ACLU-NH”.) did it on purpose in this Concord Monitor Op-Ed (reformatted)?

Nearly two decades ago, Christian families from Indonesia fled persecution in their country and sought refuge in the United States. Dozens settled in New Hampshire and Massachusetts and have since become valued members of their communities. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Boston field office, recognizing the families’ good standing in the community and their real fear of persecution should they ever return to Indonesia, began a program several years ago that enabled the families to stay in the United States. The program was heralded as a success for keeping members of our community here in New Hampshire in exchange for voluntary and regular ICE supervision.

But suddenly, through no fault of their own, these families are set to be deported back to a country where they will almost surely face persecution unless the U.S. District Court intervenes. These families are among those Washington is seeking to deport. Nowhere in ICE’s process, however, has there been sufficient consideration of the possibility that the U.S. government would be sending these people back to a country hostile to them.

And then The Law rears it’s head.  ALWAYS remember that we would not be who we are as a country if we didn’t adhere to The Rule of Law.  However, over the 8 years of the Obama Administration (and previous Bush admins as well), it seems that our Political Class got to the point of emotions over that Rule of Law; my response:

The operative question is always, in the case of illegal immigration, did they come here illegally? Everything stems from that first question.

Which you ignored in your piece. Being a lawyer, why did you so conveniently leave out that question?

I am under no illusion that I’ll get an answer – but it needs to be asked.

It doesn’t matter that they were facing (allegedly) persecution.  It doesn’t matter that they’ve assimilated (unfortunately).  It doesn’t matter that ICE played pickaboo with the law and regulations and let them slide (actually, very unfortunately).  They’ve run into the problem of being extra-legal (like Trump obliterating Obama’s Executive Orders BECAUSE Obama took the cheap way out).

It does suck to be those families right now – but over the intervening years, they did nothing to get themselves “legally here”.  But to have an officer of the Court blatantly disregard the Law – well, welcome to a data point that proves the morass that the Left has brought this country into.

 

Leave a Comment

  • Radical Moderate

    “The operative question is always, in the case of illegal immigration, did they come here illegally? Everything stems from that first question.”
    – Sorry Skip, the question was answered when it was stated that they were BROUGHT over here.
    http://www.unhcr.org/en-us/publications/legal/40d8427a4/guidelines-international-protection-6-religion-based-refugee-claims-under.html
    These NH ACLU screwballs are a non-issue. Unfortunately the fault lays with these “religious organizations” and/or so called “churches” that decide to “interfere” in the political process. At that point they become an enemy of the Republic and their tax exempt status needs to be stripped and their leadership needs to be arrested and charged with conspiracy. President Trump needs to start playing hardball with these anarchists who are hiding under the guise of religion ESPECIALLY here in New Hampshire.

    • Reddiaperbaby

      I see your point here, maybe they were sponsored by the church, and I agree that their tax status should be stripped, but why in the decades since they cake hand ice given them a way to a green card? Is asylum some purgatory we allow people to live in depending on the political tide?

      • granitegrok

        “Maybe they were sponsored by the church” – it doesn’t matter as we are not medieval Europe where the Church (both sides of the aisle – Catholic and Protestant) did much of the actual ruling “behind the Throne”..

        You have it exactly right but the wrong operators in this case – those Individuals should have sought, in the decades since they came here, to get themselves right with the law. Yes, they were in no man’s land or purgatory BUT THAT’S NOT OUR FAULT. It’s is theirs, secondarily aided by lax enforcement of the LAW.

        In MMA or boxing, they always tell the fighters “don’t leave it to the judges – ‘finish’ your opponent”. These refugees didn’t do that – they took advantage of lapses by Government that are now being corrected. They gambled and in the end, the house odds have beaten them..

        “and for some reason not granted / applied for asylum” – I think the latter part of that is the operative phrase. They didn’t and didn’t want to get legal. That’s the main problem – everything else is just PR smoke.

        • Reddiaperbaby

          Unfortunately there is no way to change a TSP visa into a green card unless they all marry citizens, that’s the issue. Without knowing specifics of the case I can’t tell you why they didn’t apply asylum, that would have solved the issue.

Previous post:

Next post: