February 9, 2017

"She Showed Up Yearly to Meet Immigration Agents. Now They’re Deporting Her."

An article in the NYT.
For eight years, Guadalupe García de Rayos had checked in at the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement office here, a requirement since she was caught using a fake Social Security number during a raid in 2008 at a water park where she worked.

Every year since then, she has walked in and out of the meetings after a brief review of her case and some questions. But not this year.

On Wednesday, immigration agents arrested Ms. Rayos, 35, and began procedures to send her back to Mexico, a country she has not seen since she left it 21 years ago....

The Obama administration made a priority of deporting people who were deemed a threat to public or national safety, had ties to criminal gangs, or had committed serious felony offenses or a series of misdemeanor crimes. Ms. Rayos did not fit any of these criteria, which is why she was allowed to stay in the United States even after a judge issued a deportation order against her in 2013.
So she was an exceedingly easy target once the policy changed.

How do we feel about prioritizing easy targets like this? In general, do we expect law enforcement to let conspicuous petty offenders go and insist that they limit themselves to finding the worse criminals who are working harder at evading discovery?

131 comments:

traditionalguy said...

Sounds like ICE has hired surplus IRS Agents.

Expat(ish) said...

It's only petty if you've never had to straighten out identify theft.

-XC

PS - I'm not sure that "petty" is a great argument for the pro-illegal side of the argument. Poor people suffer more from petty theft than middle+ class. Having your bike stolen if you are scraping by is a tragedy. For me (for example) it would be an annoyance, except for the razzing from the wife/kids

Mary Beth said...

An immigration court ordered her to go in 2013. How do we feel about the government ignoring court decisions?

Jake said...

To be an effective deterrent don't you have to get the easy targets too?

Tommy Duncan said...

How do we feel about prioritizing easy targets like this?

How do we feel about enforcing the law as currently written?

How do we feel about changing the law if we find it objectionable?

"Prioritizing"? They didn't go out looking for her. She just showed up. She stole someone's SS number. Her situation is of her own making.

Hagar said...

It is the old trick they play when Congress tries to tighten up welfare requirements: find a quadraplegic veteran with a sick wife and seven kids that sort of fit and call the media to come watch while they are ejected from their home.

roadgeek said...

Outstanding work by ICE. I suspect this case was meant to send a signal; the gloves are coming off. I applaud the strategy; illegals need to be terrified that ICE will swoop down on them at any time. They need to be looking over their shoulders at all times. They need to scurry back into the shadows.

As an aside, people are wondering when Trump will say or do something in reference to DACA. I suspect he is going to introduce mandatory E-Verify later this year, and he'll use DACA as a bargaining chip to sway Democratic and Republican votes. That's why he's been so quiet on the subject of Dreamers.

Also, my home state of Texas is taking action regarding Sanctuary Cities. SB4 moves from the Texas Senate into the Texas House next week; it provides for both a loss of funding and criminal penalties for cities and counties in Texas who interfere with ICE operations in local jails. Newly elected Sheriff Sally Hernandez of Travis County is being made an example by Governor Abbott.

The mood has shifted. The tide has turned. A change is coming.

RJ said...

They let her stay after proven identity theft?

Lyssa said...

I get your point, Althouse, but I think that if you clearly overlook the easy targets, you just get disrespect for the law. If the law is wrong, perhaps it should be changed, but if it is just not enforced, that only makes it harder to enforce when needed.

rehajm said...

...call the media to come watch while they are ejected from their home.

This is a big part of it. Are we sure Guadalupe's only crimes are illegal immigration and using a fake SS number to get a job? Anybody check? How about we get the Feds from the new administration to look into it. Okay with you lefties?

That said, for unicorns like Guadalupe I think we could have a back of the line path to citizenship that would allow her to stay here and work but then I'm one of those economic conservatives that still believes immigration is good for US well being.

AJ Lynch said...

Story sounds like a setup that the Dems will use to push for continuation of the DACA/ Dreamer edict of Obama.

rhhardin said...

Fortunately she speaks Spanish so will be at home in Mexico.

Rusty said...

Easy targets is just clearing the battle space.
Winnowing the chaff so to speak.

PB said...

The blame and shame must go to those who enabled the people to come here illegally and remain for so long without permission. This is a significant part of the Democratic Party and most of their elected representatives. Those wanting to enforce our laws do not carry any blame or shame.

Curious George said...

Easy targets, difficult targets, all the same. Adios, amigos...ándale!

rhhardin said...

Using a SS number isn't identity theft. It's just filling out a number for the 1099s.

If anything the rightful owner gets a benefit of additional taxes paid in his name.

David Begley said...

Expect more stories like this. Weekly. And protests. Lots of protests. Major march too.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

...at a water park where she worked.

If she used a SSN to get the job, then the job was on the books, so it was at least minimum wage. Is working at a water park a job that Americans won't do? That sounds like exactly the sort of entry level job that teens would love to land.

David Begley said...

Illegal aliens will soon self-deport.

Virgil Hilts said...

Agree with Ann on this one. Bad prioritization; stupid politics. But interesting how NY Times is covering this story but not that of Soleiman Hajj Soleiman - a huge story in Canada that suggests what happens when you do not properly vet someone - six young girls sexually assaulted by someone who should never have been allowed in to the country.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

rhhardin said...

If anything the rightful owner gets a benefit of additional taxes paid in his name.

I would think that depends on the tax situation. I would think they would fill out the forms such that they would have only social security and medicare withheld, since they are making little enough that they will not owe income tax. However, when that income gets added to the actual SSN holders taxes, then they have underpaid. Of course, I'm sure it only takes a quick phone call to the IRS to get that all resolved. \sarc

But yes, it is not identity theft, unless they did other things based on the number ( such as obtain credit, or claim a tax refund. )

Boxty said...

Rhhardin: I excuse you for not having a criminal mind, but if you claim 10 dependents then you have virtually no withholding from your minimum wage paycheck. The real owner of the SSN will be levied a higher tax until the fraud is cleared.

Surely you're trolling.

Jersey Fled said...

I had someone steal my SS number and use it to claim unemployment benefits. If you've ever tried to get something like that straightened out with the NJ Department of Labor, you wouldn't think of it as a trivial offense.

SurferDoc said...

Someone used my wife's SS# and filed income taxes in her name. Ten years later we are still getting letters alleging that my wife filed twice, etc.

Karen of Texas said...

"Using a SS number isn't identity theft. It's just filling out a number for the 1099s.

If anything the rightful owner gets a benefit of additional taxes paid in his name."

This very thing happened to my husband years ago. We got a letter from the IRS for not claiming income on our filed taxes, penalty, fine, yada.

The income was earned in Oklahoma and Texas. We live in Texas. It was up to us to prove that my husband hadn't worked in Oklahoma during that time nor was he moonlighting as a janitor in Dallas. It was a major pain in the ass. So while it might seem benign, it isn't.

John said...

If she was under a deportation order and they knew where she was, why was the order not carried out in 2013?

Why issue the order if it is not going to be carried out? Why have any law or proceeding if it is going to be a nullity?

This kind of thing is why President Trump won.

We could argue about whether illegal aliens should, in general, be deported. I can't believe that any rational person would argue about whether the law, once applied, should not be enforced.

John Henry

Paul Franklin said...

Sounds like it's 8 years late in coming.

John said...

I'm one of those economic conservatives that still believes immigration is good for US well being.

Immigration is only good if it leads to assimilation.

And if it is properly controlled.

I do agree with you that immigration is a good thing, perhaps an essential thing, for the US subject to those caveats.

John Henry

exhelodrvr1 said...

Would they have turned her away or let her through if they had caught her at the border? That's how you decide this, and if the answer is "turned her away", then grab the easy ones when you can. (But not by the ...)

Comanche Voter said...

Both government agents, and your average lazy reporter/editor with an agenda will go for the low hanging fruit every time. It's human nature to do the easy things first--and the hard things maybe not at all.

The Obama administration claimed that those caught as they were crossing the border and immediately turned back were "deported". That had an immediate statistical advantage, "Look how many we deported". Previous administrations hadn't counted such as "deportations". So the juicebox boys "juiced" their numbers. Strictly as an unintended consequence on their part, it also helped protect the country---and was better than "catch and release".

Darrell said...

What the Hell does she have against Mexico?

Ron Winkleheimer said...

I agree with PB except I think the Republican party has equal responsibility.

Probably just about every illegal in the states could be deported for crimes involving forging documents or fraudulently using SS numbers. There was a video recording of a member of the California State Legislature giving a speech on the floor of the legislature stating that half is family would be subject to deportation if laws concerning such things were enforced going around in the last few days.

http://www.breitbart.com/california/2017/02/05/california-state-senate-leader-family-illegal-false-documents-deportation/

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=california+state+legislature+deportation&&view=detail&mid=BCB527FD2F28E83893DEBCB527FD2F28E83893DE&FORM=VRDGAR

Jon said...

"As an aside, people are wondering when Trump will say or do something in reference to DACA. I suspect he is going to introduce mandatory E-Verify later this year, and he'll use DACA as a bargaining chip to sway Democratic and Republican votes. That's why he's been so quiet on the subject of Dreamers."

If all he wants in return for legalizing Dreamers is mandatory E-Verify, that's a lousy deal. He needs to insist on an end to legal chain migration (as in Tom Cotton's proposed RAISE Act).

Ignorance is Bliss said...

I wonder who she voted for...

Ron Winkleheimer said...

So the US government gives tacit approval to people from poor countries to come to the US where they will have to commit crimes that would get natives thrown in jail just so they can work in low paying, low and unskilled jobs thus depressing wages and keeping teenagers from getting starter jobs where they can learn basic job skills.

So that they can be exploited by the upper-class to the detriment of the middle and working class.

Wow.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

A proposition, by the way, that was never agreed to by the American people and one which, once put to a vote (via Trump) was rejected.

Michael McClain said...

Identity theft is no joke. She should've been deported years ago.

exhelodrvr1 said...

Starting with the "low hanging fruit" is a reasonable approach to any large-scale, likely-to-be-long lasting, endeavor.

Ann Althouse said...

"I get your point, Althouse, but I think that if you clearly overlook the easy targets, you just get disrespect for the law."

There are different kinds of disrespect for the law.

One kind is when the general public begins to see the government as the bully and empathize with the petty offenders. At some point, the people will want to change the law so that the behavior isn't illegal anymore.

Think of the disrespect for the law that was Prohibition.

Michael K said...

"It's only petty if you've never had to straighten out identify theft."

Yes, and I wonder how she has been supporting herself since being caught in 2013.

The NYT can be depended upon to find sob stories.

Gloria Allred used just such a case to smear Meg Whitman when she was running for governor of California.

Whitman's husband found out the maid had used a fake SS number and they fired her. That was the story used to make Whitman the bad guy and she lost the election.

Michael K said...

" At some point, the people will want to change the law so that the behavior isn't illegal anymore."

Have you ever heard of "The Broken Windows" principle of law enforcement ?

Curious George said...

I wonder what would happen if I got caught using someone else's SSN....

Birkel said...

The police should not target the easy to catch criminals. They should solve the crimes starting with the hardest cases first.

Do I have the measure of it?

Ron Winkleheimer said...

One kind is when the general public begins to see the government as the bully and empathize with the petty offenders. At some point, the people will want to change the law so that the behavior isn't illegal anymore.

The MSM is going to portray deportations in such a way as to foster that attitude. Will it work? A good portion of the general public voted for Trump who explicitly stated he was going to deport illegal aliens. So my guess is that it won't work on that portion of the public.

rehajm said...

Immigration is only good if it leads to assimilation. And if it is properly controlled. I do agree with you that immigration is a good thing, perhaps an essential thing, for the US subject to those caveats.

Sympatico.

Oso Negro said...

If we really, Really, REALLY needed hordes of Mexicans to do basic labor, we could re-institute the Bracero Program. So why don't the fucking Democrats and Republicans try reviving that? It is not like we haven't been down this road before.

Sebastian said...

"How do we feel about prioritizing easy targets like this?" We feel that "prioritizing" "targets" is an absurd way to frame the issue. We feel that the federal government should prioritize quick and efficient execution of all deportation orders.

Lyle Smith said...

If you allow the conspicuous to stay, no one will self deport and no one will stop coming to start with. It's like policing speeding or vehicle registration, you have to catch them when you can and not only catch the worse offenders.

Static Ping said...

Considering this is one of the things I voted for, I have no problem with it whatsoever. The fact that this was tolerated for so long is embarrassing.

Of course, there will not be many easy targets after this news gets around. No one is going to check in again voluntarily.

Dennis Patten said...

I bet the person whose SSN was stolen, and whose taxes were screwed up probably thinks, "It's about fucking time."

If you don't think "borrowing" someone else's SSN is identity theft, you're an idiot. Despite what the cards used to say, your SSN IS your identification number.

Lyle Smith said...

It's not like prohibition, it's more life vehicular offenses. A constitutional amendment doesn't need to be passed.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

John said...

Immigration is only good if it leads to assimilation.

If you read the linked article, you'll find that the people protesting her arrest were chanting in Spanish. That will play well in middle America.

William said...

I didn't read the article, but I have some sympathy for the woman. I wonder if the NYT would write such an article about someone with the same kind of past history who was later involved in a DUI that resulted in a fatality........I have a lot of cynicism about our news gathering services. It is not so much fit to print as tailored to print.

Oso Negro said...

The best thing would be a massive line of vehicles packed with tearful Mexicans returning to their beloved homeland. But this is probably too much to hope for. It will take more than one Trump presidency to rid the Federal government of progressives.

mccullough said...

This is the broken window theory of law enforcement applied to immigration.

Fritz said...

Ann Althouse said...

There are different kinds of disrespect for the law.

One kind is when the general public begins to see the government as the bully and empathize with the petty offenders. At some point, the people will want to change the law so that the behavior isn't illegal anymore.

Think of the disrespect for the law that was Prohibition.


So you distinguish between liberal direspect for the law and conservative disrespect for the law?

Breezy said...

What would Mexico do if the situation were reversed?

Angel-Dyne said...

How do we feel about prioritizing easy targets like this?

How much "prioritizing" of time and resources needs to go into cases like this? She's there, she's already under a judge's deportation order.

Of course deporting people like this will lead to wall-to-wall sob stories, 24/7 by the MSM, but getting serious about deportation orders would also have the effect of discouraging illegal immigration in the first place.

dda6ga dda6ga said...

Analogy for lefty and the cognitively impaired: Ann has been driving without insurance and with a suspended drivers license for five years. Ann commits a traffic infraction in front of a State Trooper on her spring journey to the Dells. Ann is told she is about to receive at three traffic citations, that she cannot drive her car from the scene of the traffic stop, and that she had better hire another lawyer.

Ann cries "I have been driving this way for more than five years..YOU HAVE TO LET ME GO!...GIVE ME BACK MY CAR..YOU FASCIST!!!

Gusty Winds said...

since she was caught using a fake Social Security number

Is identity theft a crime or not?

The point to all the illegal immigration debate is if the US doesn't want to enforce immigration laws, then change them.

If it's ok to steal someone else's social security number, than just fucking say so. I'm pretty sure no one really cares unless it their social security number being used/stolen.

Gusty Winds said...

William said...

but I have some sympathy for the woman.

I do too. These poor people are purposefully exploited by businesses and politicians.

Our moronic gov't can't even come up with a legal, workable system where people can come in on work visas and get a job without breaking the law. Neither can our Universities.

If we are a nation of laws make the laws workable and enforceable. But to do that we would have to have a functioning legislative branch of gov't.

Ryan, Warren, McConnell, Schumer, Pelosi....no wonder we have problems.

mockturtle said...

How do we feel about prioritizing easy targets like this?

Just curious, Ann. Why didn't you ask what we think about it?

Mike Sylwester said...

rehajm at 7:06 AM

I'm one of those economic conservatives that still believes immigration is good for US well being.

The annual 1,000,000 legal immigrants aren't enough for you?

Mike Sylwester said...

The Obama administration made a priority of deporting people who were deemed a threat to public or national safety, had ties to criminal gangs, or had committed serious felony offenses or a series of misdemeanor crimes.

The Obama administration's priority was to maximize the number of future Democrat voters.

Mike Sylwester said...

The New York Times should publish some articles about how long foreigners wait to immigrate legally.

Jane the Actuary said...

So what did she do in the intervening years -- just use a different SSN? Work under the table? I doubt she simply stayed out of the workforce? I wouldn't be all that surprised if the government was so messed up as to have said, "OK, since you're not a deportation target, here's a real SSN to use in the meantime."

Kevin said...

"An immigration court ordered her to go in 2013. How do we feel about the government ignoring court decisions?"

Well yesterday we were all about the separation of powers and the need for the Executive to respect the power of the Judiciary. But I expect those same people to be appalled that Trump would enforce a court order like this.

#HowWeGotTrump

Mike Sylwester said...

Comanche Voter at 7:48 AM

The Obama administration claimed that those caught as they were crossing the border and immediately turned back were "deported".

How come all the journalists were not barking about this lie that Obama was telling the public?

Goldenpause said...

Why am I having trouble feeling sorry for her? A judge ordered her deportation in 2013 and we are supposed to feel sorry for her that the order is finally enforced in 2017? The horror! Maybe this will make people who are in the country illegally begin to think about self-deportation and deter people thinking about entering/remaining in the US illegally.

If you want to lower the unemployment rate for minorities and to raise wages for entry level jobs, enforcing the immigration laws will be much more effective than some government "jobs" program or raising the minimum wage. The Congressional Black Caucus should be pushing for immigration law enforcement. It's failure to do so is instructive.

Mike Sylwester said...

Ann Althouse at 8:11 AM

There are different kinds of disrespect for the law.

You are excessively concerned that illegal aliens might ever suffer any disrespect.

You even refrain from using the correct, legal term illegal alien for that reason.

Show more respect for our country's legal-immigration laws.

Angel-Dyne said...

AA: There are different kinds of disrespect for the law.

One kind is when the general public begins to see the government as the bully and empathize with the petty offenders. At some point, the people will want to change the law so that the behavior isn't illegal anymore.

Think of the disrespect for the law that was Prohibition.


Illegal immigration falls into this category only if you assume that what the "general public" thinks about illegal immigration and what the NYT editorial board thinks about illegal immigration are the same thing. Or, to put it another way, that what the general public thinks about illegal immigration and what the NYT wants the general public to think about illegal immigration are the same thing.

Hell, even allegedly objective news reports from the NYT (and MSM in general) on what the general public thinks about illegal immigration often have little relation to what the general public actually thinks about illegal immigration.

Though I'm sure we're in for an onslaught of headlines, sob-stories, photos of the terrified, tear-streaked faces of small children, and polls carefully crafted with leading questions, all to push the line that "everybody" is horrified by this governmental bullying of "petty" offenders and wants them left alone.

John said...

Blogger Mike Sylwester said...


The annual 1,000,000 legal immigrants aren't enough for you?

Not to answer for Rehajm but I think that 1mm/yr is in the ballpark of the right number. Maybe as many as 2mm, maybe as few as 500m. We need fresh blood, fresh ideas.

We might, maybe, want to reduce this while getting illegal immigration sorted out. We might also want to change how we select who can come in. I am certainly open to these discussions.

I don't generally have a problem with legal immigration subject to the assimilation caveat.

John Henry

Mike Sylwester said...

Ann Althouse at 8:11 AM

At some point, the people will want to change the law so that the behavior isn't illegal anymore.

Think of the disrespect for the law that was Prohibition.


The recent elections have been won by -- and the next elections will be won by -- proponents of enforcing our immigration laws.

The pendulum is swinging in that direction.

Angel-Dyne said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Angel-Dyne said...

mockturtle: "Just curious, Ann. Why didn't you ask what we think about it?"

Good catch, mock.

Fernandinande said...

using a fake Social Security number

A plain old US citizen can get up to five years in prison for doing that.

Mike Sylwester said...

dda6ga dda6ga at 9:07 AM

YOU HAVE TO LET ME GO!...GIVE ME BACK MY CAR..YOU FASCIST!!!

Your analogy would be even better if she screamed her demands in Spanish.

Birches said...

I know someone who had their SSN stolen by three different illegals. So I'll just pile on that it was not an easy fix.

Mike Sylwester said...

Goldenpause at 9:41 AM

If you want to lower the unemployment rate for minorities and to raise wages for entry level jobs, enforcing the immigration laws will be much more effective than some government "jobs" program or raising the minimum wage.

Our country's most smart people are telling us that we should:

1) Raise the minimum wage to $15

2) Import millions of uneducated peasants from Honduras, Guatemala, etc.

If Hillary Clinton had been elected, that is what we we would have done.

Angel-Dyne said...

John: Not to answer for Rehajm but I think that 1mm/yr is in the ballpark of the right number. Maybe as many as 2mm, maybe as few as 500m. We need fresh blood, fresh ideas.

I doubt very seriously that keeping this country from turning into a sclerotic, static backwater requires the intake of millions of immigrants annually. "Fresh blood, new ideas" sounds nice but it's so vague as to be meaningless. (We somehow managed to get first-rate fresh-blood, new-idea creating immigrants at times when immigration was highly restricted. And a lot of recent immigrants have all kinds of "fresh new ideas" about things that we'd rather not let them develop here, thank you very much.) Some of the "but but but immigrants start a gazillion times more businesses than natives" stuff is also heavily massaged CoC propaganda, and the "we have to let 'em in by the millions" propaganda also tends to ignore any examination of the opportunity costs to natives (as people who study, e.g., the H-1B issue re business or universities, has noted).

I don't generally have a problem with legal immigration subject to the assimilation caveat.

At a certain volume the numbers themselves prevent assimilation. It's a bit naïve to think that the "increasing divisions" in the country that everyone's nattering about these days are in no way related to the massive immigrant inflow of the last few decades.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

using a fake Social Security number

A plain old US citizen can get up to five years in prison for doing that.

Exactly.

And other questions. Was it a completely fake, unused by anyone ever? If so then how did the IRS and Social Security Administration account for the funds?

If it was fake to her but belonged to someone else. Again...IRS? Social Security? What about the person who that number actually belonged to. This is identity theft.

The employers should be responsible, and held accountable, for verifying the accuracy of the SSN, confirming the ID of their employee. If the employer is hiring illegal aliens with fake IDs, fake SSN....this is fraud and the employer should be fined at the very very least.

Martin said...

So there was a deportation order that the previous Administration ignored?

imho, THAT gets at the nub of the problem. If the deal was "You report in every year and you're safe," that deportation order should have been amended to be conditional on missing a scheduled reporting visit. If there is no administrative provision for that, get a court order as part of a plea bargain or approving a contract agreement between the woman and ICE. If both sides want to do it and no one else is being affected, it can be done.

Then, everything would have been above board and she and the G would have been clear on what was expected and the consequences, and she would have had an enforceable right. As it was, for whatever reason (laziness, fear of it being found out, dishonesty) they didn't do the right thing.

The old saw about "a government of laws, not of men" has more value than people today are inclined to recognize. Her case was handled by men acting contrary to the law, when there was a perfectly good and legal remedy.

If she has really kept her nose clean, I would be in favor of leniency, but instead of cutting corners like the Obama and Bush-43 and Clinton Administrations did, do it the right way to protect everyone's interests.

khesanh0802 said...

There are so many sob stories out there the press will never run out. The important thing to remember is that each sob story committed the initial crime of entering the country illegally. That's it. End of that story.

Then this lady compounded her crime by using an illegal SS card. Why should she - and millions like her - be allowed to continue to break the law? When I mistakenly hunted on a National Wildlife Refuge the game warden didn't give me a break because I had recently moved into the area and didn't know the boundaries. He wrote me up which caused me to pay a fine and not be able to obtain a hunting license for a year. Why should I be punished for breaking the law and not this woman?

Jupiter said...

"How do we feel about prioritizing easy targets like this? In general, do we expect law enforcement to let conspicuous petty offenders go and insist that they limit themselves to finding the worse criminals who are working harder at evading discovery?".

Althouse, what was it you were teaching all those years? Cooking? Psychiatry?

Jason said...

"There's too many minorities in my water park."

Mark said...

How do we feel about prioritizing easy targets like this?

How do we feel about enforcing the law? And respecting generally the rule of law, rather than individuals in positions of power acting on personal predilections and caprice?

If there is an inherently unjust "law" (understanding that an unjust law is no law at all), that is one thing. But while the immigration laws may be unwise or imprudent or may inconvenience those who wish to break those laws, they are not objectively and inherently unjust.

Thus, if you don't like the law -- repeal it. If you don't want to enforce that law, either repeal it or quit.

And let's not overlook that it was in the OBAMA Administration that this woman was ordered deported. Trump did not order it.

khesanh0802 said...

@Goldenpause 0941 You hit the nail right on the head. The basic problem is that very few in the Dem party ( really either party) have even a passing acquaintance with the laws of supply and demand. So simple: fewer job applicants = higher wages/excess job applicants = lower wages.

Michael K said...

"Think of the disrespect for the law that was Prohibition."

I assume most people, even law professors, knew that Prohibition was a Progressive program that finally got passed along with the 19th Amendment in 1919.

AReasonableMan said...

khesanh0802 said...
( really either party) have even a passing acquaintance with the laws of supply and demand. So simple: fewer job applicants = higher wages/excess job applicants = lower wages.


But higher wages make our goods and services more expensive so that they are even less competitive in a global marketplace than they are now. Those market laws go both ways.

Billy Hill said...

Crossing the border illegally is a crime. Obtaining and using fraudulent documents is a crime. If someone is caught or openly admitting they committed two crimes, are we to assume that they wouldn't be willing to commit other crimes, if it suits their purpose? Low hanging fruit is still fruit.

Jupiter said...

Jason said...
"There's too many minorities in my water park."

If you paid attention to Derbyshire, you would know that too many minorities in your water park means it's time to go home, before the shooting starts. Assuming you still have a home to go to.

n.n said...

There desperately needs to be emigration reform.

That said, anthropogenic climate disruption caused by illegal and excessive immigration has already occurred. The greater issue is if climate disruption has been catastrophic to the communities and people affected, including but not limited to disenfranchisement, murder, rape-rape, theft, etc.

There is also the conflict of interest suffered by people engaged in labor and environmental arbitrage, demographic redistricting (e.g. [class] diversity), the abortion industry, and their political patrons.

AReasonableMan said...

Minorities in my Waterpark

Jersey Fled said...

n.n. makes a good point.

She left Mexico where she presumably had a low carbon footprint and became an (illegal) American consumer where she undoubtedly had a higher carbon footprint.

Think of all of those additional greenhouse gases warming the planet!

Oh, the humanity!

cubanbob said...

Setting aside the above comments if I read correctly (elsewhere) she is married to a US citizen and is the mother of US citizens so why didn't she apply for legal status years ago?
As I see it, if one is going to reside in the US not becoming a citizen is rather foolish. You have all of the obligations of a citizen without a lot of the benefits.

rehajm said...

Mike Sylwester said...

The annual 1,000,000 legal immigrants aren't enough for you?


What's in a number? Immigration is good for an economy. People come here, they work, they pay taxes, they buy things, create demand. Grow GDP. Which begat demand for more things and more people to make them, many of them Americans...and on and on...

Worry about people taking advantage of free stuff? Don't offer them free stuff. Make them post a bond at the airport. Whatever...

Worried immigrants depress wages? Consider why you have a wage in the first place...

Don't like competition for your job? Great- I'll offer the counter argument: if too many people is bad let's encourage US citizens to not have families. Pay US citizens to leave. Lower the overall population. Would getting rid of 1,000,000 pesky competitors a year be enough for you?

Fritz said...

Journolists at work. The WaPo has an article in this morning's paper on illegal immigrants in D.C. who fear deportation and are resisting. One, a transgender woman from Columbia says she's "entitled" to be here, even though her application for asylum was refused. Another, an Ethiopian named Solomon crossed illegally from Mexico. He reports spending his spare time in the library. Where he could be learning how to make bombs; how comforting! All self report themselves to be wonderful people and great assets to the US.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

rehajm said...Worry about people taking advantage of free stuff? Don't offer them free stuff. Make them post a bond at the airport. Whatever...


I will trade the welfare state for open/much more open immigration. I'll make that trade in a heartbeat. No one will take the other side, though. The very best they'll do is lie about it ('member when Obama said in 2009 that Obamacare wouldn't give illegal aliens additional access to health care? 'member when Obamacare actually resulted in lots more spending on health care for illegal aliens?). It's a cliche but it's true: a rich Western nation can have a vast welfare state or it can have open immigration, but it can't have both. Look at Europe!
Once you do the seemingly-impossible work to convince a majority of US citizens to roll back the welfare state I will begin working hard to open up immigration. It's dishonest to pretend to make that bargain now, though, as it is to pretend like that's an actual option.

[Even that ignores cultural considerations, but that gets tricky and since the first step is a nonstarter it's not really worth exploring.]

harryo said...

What gives her the right to enter a country illegally? The only reason the government would approve of her remaining in this country, would be if she would be in danger if she was to be deported back.

This isn't the case with Mexico. Mexico is where millions of Americans go to vacation every year.

People like her, come to America merely for greed. They are all whores, and they will do anything to get free money, free homes, and free cars.

As we've seen in our city, the free-wheeling Latino's don't buy car insurance, and don't have licenses, and they will kill you and your loved ones all over the highway, and then run for the border, with their pockets full of cocaine.

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

Tough crap.

We owe her and those like her nothing.

She's lucky she had the years here that she did.

Mike Sylwester said...

rehajm at 11:32

Immigration is good for an economy. People come here, they work, they pay taxes, they buy things, create demand. Grow GDP.

Evidently, the annual 1,000,000 legal immigrants are not enough for you.

A lot of US citizens agree with that opinion.

As I remarked above, the political pendulum is swinging strongly in the other direction. The part of the electorate that agrees with that opinion will suffer politically in the coming years.

The re-election of Trump in 2020 and then the election of Pence in 2024 eventually will motivate a broader consensus that the US Government should control immigration.

mockturtle said...

I have a cunning plan! Let's start...wait for it...enforcing the law!

Angel-Dyne said...

rehajm: What's in a number? Immigration is good for an economy. People come here, they work, they pay taxes, they buy things, create demand. Grow GDP. Which begat demand for more things and more people to make them, many of them Americans...and on and on...

What's in a number?

What's in a nation? What's in a culture? What's in a "quality of life"? Partial answer to all of the above: both economic and non-economic factors. A country isn't a corporation.

"Growing GDP" is a means to an end, not an end in itself. There are always trade-offs (as any economist ought to understand), and there are a host of intangible social goods impacted by mass immigration (even of productive, "good" immigrants) that have to be weighed against economic gains. I have no interest in living in an over-crowded, socially and culturally fractured globalist flop-house, regardless of whether such conditions juke the GDP stats to kingdom come.

Btw, just how many people do you think we can eventually stuff into this place? How much is too much? 500 million? A billion? Two billion?

We can argue about all of the above. Preferences vary. But the point is that these questions can't be answered solely by reference to economics, and no one class or interest group should be making all the decisions about which trade-offs are acceptable.

(Leaving aside here -- since I assume you're an honest econo-sperg -- the fact that many "economic" arguments advanced in favor of massive non-stop immigration are really just fronts for the self-interests -- personal and group -- and political ideologies of the people advancing them, not for any "common good" they claim to be promoting.)

harryo said...

If that whore had snuck into Guatemala, she would have been deported so fast her taco would have been half-eaten.

Yancey Ward said...

I do feel sorry for her, but one of the principles underlying law itself is its impartial application.

If one is not going to deport her, then one needs to define the legal justification, but the problem simply shifts to what becomes the new marginal case of deportation. So, one lets her stay even though she committed identity theft because she has been here since age 14, but then what do you about the person who has been here just as long, but was age 19 when he arrived, and got probation for committing a burglary at age 25- that becomes the new media sob story.

Seeing Red said...

Life is a risk. She rolled the dice and they finally came up snake eyes.

She and her husband should have been talking about this since 11/10/16.

She may have to go back to Mexico and fill out the proper paperwork and pay the fee.

One thing I would add to anyone wanting to emigrate legally here.

Immunization shots.

Haven't decided how to handle that one yet. We could set up clinics in their country and charge the country per head, since we would be doing their work for them.

buwaya said...

"She may have to go back to Mexico and fill out the proper paperwork and pay the fee."

The real problem is that then she has to wait 30 years in the queue.

mockturtle said...

The real problem is that then she has to wait 30 years in the queue.

Tough tacos! She entered the country fraudulently. IMHO, she should be kept out indefinitely.

Mike Sylwester said...

Business Insider magazine has published an excellent article by Josh Barrow titled "Democrats are lost on immigration — and they'd better rethink their ideas to beat Trump".

http://www.businessinsider.com/democrats-immigration-trump-2017-2

A few excerpts:

Eventually, Trump will get to more comfortable political ground: the question of whether immigration to the US is in the interest of American citizens. He has a theory of why restrictive policies are good for Americans, one that was the centerpiece of his successful presidential campaign.

Democrats are much less clear about what they see as the purpose of immigration and how they believe their policies would serve the interests of existing American citizens. Often, their arguments for immigration focus on the opportunities it affords to potential immigrants — that is, people who cannot vote.

Democratic arguments around immigration tend lately to be based around outrage at Trump's ideas and actions on the issue. Because Trump is outrageous, there is a lot of mileage to be had in this.

But eventually, Democrats will need to be able to make a case that their preferred immigration policies serve the national interest. They're not yet positioned to do so.

Unless you support a policy of totally open immigration — an idea that has adherents among the commentariat but not in significant numbers among voters or elected officials — you endorse the idea that sometimes the government will say no to people who would like to come to the US.

Given the need for limits, you will have to come up with some rules about who gets told no, and why.

Trump has been clear: His view is that immigration policy, like all policy, should be made foremost on the basis of the interests of American citizens. ....

immigration advocates can demonstrate their focus on the national interest by being willing to support enforcement of laws against immigration that is neither legal nor in the national interest — by showing that the willingness to say "yes" to immigration is paired with a willingness to say "no."

For the last 20 years or more, the federal government has pursued a policy of benign neglect. Trump presents this as a problem of "weak borders," but the main issue is a failure of interior enforcement — particularly a failure to aggressively enforce laws against working in the US without authorization. ....

.... on immigration, Democrats have somehow ended up with policies premised heavily on their benefits to non-citizens, and therefore with an identity politics aimed at people who aren't eligible to vote.

In other words, they are doing identity politics badly, and will have to do it better — and rethink their ideas to put more of a focus on American citizens' interests — to beat Trump on immigration.

Gahrie said...

I do feel sorry for her, but one of the principles underlying law itself is its impartial application.

The MSM is going to be full of sob stories like this.

I feel bad for her.....I would even consider making an exception for her, but if we did then millions more would demand that we make exceptions for them.

Still we should start with the felons, multiple deportations and gang members whenever possible.

jdniner said...

I would put her at the back of the line for deportation. She was trying. Plenty of other people to deport first. Trump might have allowed her to become a citizen since she is trying.

Gahrie said...

How do we feel about prioritizing easy targets like this?

Just curious, Ann. Why didn't you ask what we think about it?


That's easy...she's a woman, and one self-admittedly prone to becoming hysterical. She has repeatedly stated that feelz are more important than facts.

Althouse is actually a major reason why I have come to the conclusion that we must repeal the 19th Amendment.

jdniner said...

I think we have to remember the feds are a bureaucracy. And inherently are unfair and lack common sense as they try and be institutional. Immigration is full of this. You pick your nose at the wrong time and you are denied entry. We shouldn't be surprised someone uses a false ID to immigrate and pretend to be a better person than they are. That has always been the case IMO. Rather sort them into good karma people and bad karma people. Keep the goods ones send the bad ones back. Karmic vetting for all.

harryo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
jdniner said...

Gahrie said...
How do we feel about prioritizing easy targets like this?

Just curious, Ann. Why didn't you ask what we think about it?

That's easy...she's a woman, and one self-admittedly prone to becoming hysterical. She has repeatedly stated that feelz are more important than facts.


If you want to do the man woman comparision for people quality control you need to dimension the analysis out a little bit to have any accuracy at all.

A man who reasons/emotes for good
A man who of low character and ill motives.
A woman who reasons/emotes for good.
A woman of low character and ill motives. (We seldom see this group addressed. Althouse is not in the group I am sure we can all agree)

harryo said...

Deport everyone without a passport or a visa, or whatever other ticket allows you to enter the country that is signed by the State Department.

Justice is blind - no one case is more sad than the next. They are all criminals.

Richard Dolan said...

"How do we feel about prioritizing easy targets like this?"

"Prioritizing" is hardly the right word here, particularly given that "a judge issued a deportation order against her in 2013." I assume that refers to an immigration judge, not one of the exalted Article III types, but as we've all recently been told, it's a threat to the Republic to disparage any federal judge. A better description would be that the immigration authorities stopped looking the other way when presented with a case of of non-compliance (for four years!) with the deportation order.

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

.... on immigration, Democrats have somehow ended up with policies premised heavily on their benefits to non-citizens, and therefore with an identity politics aimed at people who aren't eligible to vote.

Immigration is also an issue that has a lot of allies in bleeding heart citizens. It's very much a Stuff White Women Like pet cause.

mockturtle said...

Immigration is also an issue that has a lot of allies in bleeding heart citizens. It's very much a Stuff White Women Like pet cause.

And, significantly, the MSM. They have never swerved from their insistence on calling illegal aliens 'undocumented immigrants' and have stores of news features about poor, honest undocumented women and children worried about being deported [if they were honest, they would not be here illegally!]. It is also a significant but little-reported fact that 30% of Hispanic Americans voted for Trump. The legal ones, no doubt.

Angel-Dyne said...

jdniner: If you want to do the man woman comparision for people quality control...

I'm not sure I even know what that means, but I think the comparison was made for the results it produces, not for judging the "quality" of the people possessing the characteristic.

...you need to dimension the analysis out a little bit to have any accuracy at all.

Accuracy about what?

A man who reasons/emotes for good
A man who of low character and ill motives.
A woman who reasons/emotes for good.
A woman of low character and ill motives. (We seldom see this group addressed. Althouse is not in the group I am sure we can all agree)


I'll let the sloppiness of this construct slide here (how does one "emote for good"?), but people of good character with the best of intentions can and will make disastrous decisions if they base them strictly on their "good emotions". They're also very easy to manipulate to bad ends. So I don't really care how people "feel" about any particular issue, I don't want either bad guys or good guys who can't think straight making important policy decisions.

mockturtle said...

The prophet Jeremiah said, The heart is deceitful above all things..

Dennis Patten said...

Let's flip this around the other way too. I wonder how long it's going to take her US husband and child to get a residency visa to live (and work) with her in Mexico. Mexico is VERY strict on gringos headed south. The Mexican constitution prohibits foreigners from actually owning property near the US border (100km) or the coast (50km) so unless they want to rent, enter into a trust (which eventually expires) or own a house in the desert, They're gonna have tough time, thanks to MEXICAN laws.

William said...

What am I missing here. No only did she come here illegally, she also committed a crime that enabled her to work here. Is that the kind of immigrant we want—someone who thinks the rules don't apply to them? I don't quite think so.

Adiós señora and good riddence to you. I don't feel sorry for you one bit!

Seeing Red said...

I'm all for giving us your tired, poor, yada yada.

But NOWHERE does it say they can't be vetted or have a 90-day or more stay before they're let in.

Bad Lieutenant said...

harryo said...
...repeal the 19th Amendment.

and the 26th Amendment.

The only people who should be allowed to vote, are people who are 21 and older, and have no felony or taxes being audited. Nor can anyone run for political office outside those limits.

I see what you did there...at least you would have Chuck's vote!

Richard said...

"How do we feel about it?"
Deee-lighted is how I feel about it.

walter said...

"Every year since then, she has walked in and out of the meetings after a brief review of her case and some questions."

After 2013, questions like....

mockturtle said...

There are really only two solutions to the vast number of illegals here:
1. Deport them all.
2. Take over Mexico.

I kind of favor 2.

Earnest Prole said...

I propose a different question for your commenters: If you knew this woman was deported by Trump's enemies in the government in an effort to influence national immigration policy, would you still be in favor of it?

mockturtle said...

I propose a different question for your commenters: If you knew this woman was deported by Trump's enemies in the government in an effort to influence national immigration policy, would you still be in favor of it?

Of course! What would that matter???

Earnest Prole said...

Of course! What would that matter???

Just wondering if you're smarter than your enemies -- now I know.