|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 87 responses total. |
tod
|
|
response 50 of 87:
| 
Jul 18 16:57 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
tod
|
|
response 51 of 87:
|
Jul 18 20:18 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
sj2
|
|
response 52 of 87:
|
Jul 18 21:01 UTC 2003 |
One word. Paranoia.
|
tod
|
|
response 53 of 87:
|
Jul 18 21:14 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
other
|
|
response 54 of 87:
|
Jul 18 22:47 UTC 2003 |
The moral of the story is that Congress is passing stupid laws, and they
should legislate with more focus on the effects of the laws than on the
perceptions of the voters. Like that'll happen...
|
tod
|
|
response 55 of 87:
|
Jul 18 22:54 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
bru
|
|
response 56 of 87:
|
Jul 19 01:35 UTC 2003 |
This is an old law, not something new. And no matter how good the person is
or his contribution to this society may be, the law cannot be grant him
special interest. To do so would not be fair to people who are effected by
the law that are not special.
I think we all want the law to treat us the same way, whatever our status in
society may be.
And don't just blame congress. The State department is responsible for most
of the rules regarding visas.
|
other
|
|
response 57 of 87:
|
Jul 19 02:40 UTC 2003 |
This is a perfect example of why a rigid rule of law no more guarantees
justice than does the absence of it. A well-formed system would be based
on the rule of law but include accountable judges (or other arbiters)
empowered to overrule when the core goals behind the regulations are not
compromised.
|
bru
|
|
response 58 of 87:
|
Jul 19 03:06 UTC 2003 |
So it is all right with you if some rich dude gets away with murder cause he
has freinds in all the right places, but some poor kid gets taken out cause
he doesn't?
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 59 of 87:
|
Jul 19 04:39 UTC 2003 |
No, it's all right with him if judges have the ability to exercise discretion
based upon the circumstances of the case. Which is what judges are *for*;
otherwise we might as well not have them.
|
janc
|
|
response 60 of 87:
|
Jul 19 05:12 UTC 2003 |
Usually, I'm pretty impressed by the US legal system. It's occasionally
mistaken, but it doesn't typically hang people on technicalities.
Immigration law is one of the great exceptions. Lots of rigid bureaucracy
that frequently makes decisions that make no sense, or inserts absurd
loops to jump through in their procedures.
They all talk about how they have no flexibility, and when a newspaper
starts investigating the case, they waive a manditory notification
period to shuffle the guy out of the country faster. Apparantly room
for flexibility can magically appear when some ass-covering is needed.
|
other
|
|
response 61 of 87:
|
Jul 19 13:36 UTC 2003 |
#59 is the point, #58 is abuse of the system. And frankly, I'd FAR
rather live under a system which allows a little abuse than one which
allows none, because the latter will result in far more abuse of justice.
|
sabre
|
|
response 62 of 87:
|
Jul 19 14:24 UTC 2003 |
I believe in a one man dictatorship....as long as the dictator is ME!
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 63 of 87:
|
Jul 19 17:59 UTC 2003 |
Immigration law is especially harsh because (1) resident aliens don't vote,
and (2) a substantial minority of the US population would like to throttle
immigration way down from current levels. So they don't have to placate the
people the law affects the most, and they feel they need to appear harsh so
the Buchanan types don't get enough momentum to shut the doors entirely.
It often seems arbitrary, and you don't get the same kind of due process you
get elsewhere in the legal system. And penalties for minor misconduct (e.g.
overstaying a visa by a month) can be obscenely harsh (you're banned from the
country for ten years).
|
scg
|
|
response 64 of 87:
|
Jul 20 00:35 UTC 2003 |
In #56, Bruce says he thinks we all want the law to treat us the same way.
That would make me happy. The problem here is that immigrants aren't being
treated anywhere close to the same way as the rest of us.
Even if we accept that this guy failed to sufficiently honor Bruce's
bureaucracy, and should thus not be allowed in the US, he was on his way out.
If the goal was to make him leave the US, he was taking care of that on his
own.
Instead, we have this strange system where those who have overstayed their
visas and are attempting to leave get arrested and forced to stay longer, and
those who show up at land border crossings missing some piece of immigration
paperwork don't get turned back, but rather get arrested and put through hell.
Among people I've known who have had this problem, what makes this case
unusual is that he really didn't have a valid visa. Most of the similar
stories I've heard have come from people who had done everything according
to the instructions, but whose cases had somehow confused the INS.
|
sj2
|
|
response 65 of 87:
|
Jul 20 20:00 UTC 2003 |
The way I see it, the US has never before faced terrorism in a manner
as grotesque as 9/11. So lots of reaction to it has been knee-jerk,
both, from the government and the citizens. This is just a part of it.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 66 of 87:
|
Jul 20 23:17 UTC 2003 |
No, the problems with the treatment of immigrants and foreign visitors existed
well before 9/11. 9/11 aggravated them severely, but it didn't create them.
Trust me; when I studied Immigration Law in (I think) 1997, we heard a lot
of horror stories.
|
bru
|
|
response 67 of 87:
|
Jul 21 02:49 UTC 2003 |
I heard a lot of horror stories when I took this job. Most of them have not
panned out, or are regulatted to the distant past. (we don't arbitrarily take
cars apart and leave them disassembled for the pwner to have put back
together.)
There is a lot of confusion in Immigration and Customs law. And inspectors
discuss them nearly every day in order to become more capable in our knowledge
and our skills.
Many problems occur because of language barriers. We do not have someone who
speaks every language at every border 24/7, nor do we have them on call. So
if someone comes in and does not speak english, there is plenty of room for
miscommunication. Whose job is it to facilitate said communication?
Obviously it is up to the person entering the country to facilitate a means
of communication. So do they bring an interpreter? NO!
You also get immigrants trying to tell you your job. We had three kids today
under the age of 21 who each bought a bottle of booze in canada, and said they
had the right to bring it in because they bought it legally in Canada. WRONG!
Had a well educated Indian woman arguing about how she did not have to pay
duty to import her car because her husband had originally had a visa that
allowed him to stay in the US and work, and now they were changing it by
becoming legal residents so they did not have to pay duty. WRONG!
I believe more firmly than ever that anyone seeking to become a US Citizen
should be required to learn English so they can at least talk to other
americans. I doubt it will happen, but it should.
And laws change.
Hundreds of Canadian hunters passed thru the state of michigan last year thru
the port of detroit enroute to hunting ground in northern Ontario. They took
their rifles with them by presenting a valid hunting permit.
New rules now say that is not good enough. They must get a permit from the
State department. How many do you think are going to show up at the border
this year an get turned back because they do not know of the rule change or
do not have time to get a permit from the state department? I would be
willing to bet most of them won't have the new correct documentation, and will
have to take the long route back thru canada.
How many know we won't be allowing Deer, Elk, amd moose into the country this
year because of the mad cow scare? Wanna guess? We still have people trying
to bring BEEF across, adn everyone should know that isn't allowed by now.
(we will allow skinned hides and antlers adn skulls across, but no meat)
There are over 20 pages of rules dealing with the student VISA, and the
lawyers are still arguing over rules with regards to what has more impact,
Shall or must.
All you immigration lawyer wannabes out there tell me which word has more
impact. The applicant "shall" be required... or The applicant "must" be
required...
Adn what happens with a sentence like The applicant "may" be required...
These are just a few of the problems that make immigration and customs so
convaluted at times, adn why one answer does not fit every situation. Why
one doctor "may" be sent back to his country of origin, and why another may
not under similar situations.
Blame it on the lawyers.
|
polytarp
|
|
response 68 of 87:
|
Jul 21 03:07 UTC 2003 |
What do you blame your weight on, fatty?
|
tod
|
|
response 69 of 87:
|
Jul 21 16:32 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
flem
|
|
response 70 of 87:
|
Jul 21 16:41 UTC 2003 |
It totally baffles me how anyone reading #51 can fail to reach the conclusion
that an ethical person *must* occasionally break rules in order to do the
right thing.
|
tod
|
|
response 71 of 87:
|
Jul 21 16:56 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
flem
|
|
response 72 of 87:
|
Jul 21 17:05 UTC 2003 |
You misunderstand me. The unethical part of the process is his continued
detainment and the refusal to allow him to leave voluntarily.
|
tod
|
|
response 73 of 87:
|
Jul 21 17:12 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
slynne
|
|
response 74 of 87:
|
Jul 21 18:12 UTC 2003 |
Yes, he is responsible for violating the law. However, that doesnt mean
that there isnt a problem with the law. Clearly, it is too harsh.
|