Login to Change.org
Create an Account
Cynthia W
Recent Activity
-
Cynthia commented on the article |Your statement, Dream Activist was "I am in FACT, NOT a criminal for my mere illegal presence in this country". You, then contradicted your own statement with the following "I came here LEGALLY" Which is it? You cannot have it both ways.
I rarely make assumptions, however, it is exceedingly difficult to sort truth from fiction and fact from exaggerations in far too many of your claims. Quite honestly, there are far too many glaring inconsistencies in your statements and claims with regard to your circumstances and status.
If, as you claim, your citizen grandparents and parents would be "helpless" without you, you should be aware that their are provisions for just such circumstances. Shall I then presume that you managed, all by your lonesome, to not only reach post-graduate status but also managed to provide housing, food, medical care, tuition, books, etc. for yourself, for your "helpless" citizen grandparents and your "helpless" parents while also managing to acquire a graduate degree and continue to post-graduate status? Shall I presume you did so with no contributions from government of any kind and in compliance with all rules, regulations and the law? If so, I applaud you.
However, what is becoming most exceedingly clear is your actual hatred for not only this country but for the citizens of this nation and her laws. What is even more clear is that you shall continue to insist that it is you who should be accomodated and to perdition with all those persons who have complied with the laws of this nation. What is even more clear is that you have no actual conception of American values, ideals or principles. But then again how could you have a conception of Americn values, ideals and principles. You want your road to citizenship to be paved with another amnesty.
I wonder, would you be willing to return to your native country and go through the rigors of applying for a visa and then complying with the requirements to obtain a green card and eventual status as a citizen if the law were such as to remove the ten year ban you cite? Would you be willing to move to the "back of the bus" behind all those persons who have complied with the current law? I should very much be interested in your answers. -
Cynthia commented on the article |"No, crossing the border without inspection is a misdemeanor. "Being illegally present" is not a misdemeanor. Overstaying a visa is a civil violation, not a crime."
I used the term "undocumented person" with specific reference to "being illegally present" which can be understood to mean a person who has crossed a border without inspection, i.e. is undocumented and therefore has committed a misdemeanor. I shall attempt, in future, to write in a much more refined version of legalese for your benefit. If, however, these persons were in fact documented workers and did in fact overstay their visas, you are correct that they would be subject to civil action and deportation.
I would suggest that you consider using factual information which is available from the IRS as well as from many much more reputable and accurate sources than those used by Prof. Lipman if it is your intent to show proof regarding the statement that "In most cases undocumented immigrants pay more in tax each year than similarly situated U.S. citizens." For an immigration attorney one would hope you actually do research both the law and the facts and do not merely toss out links willy-nilly in an effort to support a premise.
It would appear that, from your statements, the government has acted in a timely manner, carried out the deportations and is continuing, through the proper channels and proper proceedings, to resolve the cases of the remaining undocumented persons and/or those who have overstayed their visas if such was the case.
Filing for bankruptcy requires a court to review the case documents and render judgement. Any and all persons having claims against said company routinely file seeking recovery of funds and assets. In most circumstances claims made by unsecured creditors are unsuccessful and/or are fulfilled after the claims of secured creditors, however, it is the judge as well as the state laws governing bankruptcy filings which decides who recovers what. The company has assets. They did not go "poof" when the company filed for bankruptcy. Therefore the company may well be in a position such that recovery of expenditures is possible.
With respect to your comment that "People have believed for 100 years that immigrants are more disposed to commit crimes, and for 100 years, they've been wrong." if you are referring to immigrants, i.e. persons who have entered the country legally, I would agree that your statement may be factual. Without doing a thorough, not to mention tedious and time consuming, search of the databases at my disposal and going merely by my own experiences, charges that legal immigrants are more disposed to commit crimes are highly improbable. However, again, we are not discussing legal immigrants.
With reference to your reference "Also, in every ethnic subgroup, foreign born commit fewer crimes than U.S. born:" the study fails to quantify whether or not the "foreign-born" are or are not undocumented persons. It also does not include "every ethnic sub-group". The study is limited to Latin Americans and Asians and doesn't even cover all the various ethnic subgroups of those geographical areas. So, while the information seems impressive on the surface, without such quantification it should not be accepted as empirical proof of your stated premises. -
Cynthia commented on the article |
I am utterly astounded that you, Dream Activist, actually believe that the vast majority are homophobic. That statement speaks volumes about you as a person. Your insistence that anyone who does not advocate for the wholesale legalization of undocumented persons is hateful and spiteful also speaks volumes about you as a person. The only actual hate and spitefulness apparent is, sadly, yours.
Despite your statements to the contrary, a misdemeanor is, in fact, a crime. If anyone needs a course in the law, it appears that you are most assuredly among those who should be in line. When I use the term "the vast majority", I have the empirical proof to make use of the term. Let me quote Black's Law for you.
Misdemeanor: 1. A crime that is less serious than a felony ans is usu. punishable by fine, penalty, forfeiture, or confinement. (usu. for a brief term) in a place other than prison. (such as the county jail.) Also termed "minor crime:, summary offense.
Misdemeanor was the label ultimately adopted to apply to all offenses other than treason or felony.
Someone who is "pulled over and given a speeding ticket" has, indeed, committed a crime and can, rightfully, be considered a "criminal". If they had not committed a crime, they would not be "pulled over and given a speeding ticket". If they had not committed a crime, they would not face a fine, penalty, forfeiture or confinement as dictated by the law.
While you may believe you are not a criminal, if you have not complied with the laws of this nation you are, despite all your vehement protests. If, in fact, your parents followed the law and reside in this country legally, what is it that prevents you from doing the same. Did you not enter the country legally? If not, why?
Were you ignorant of the law? You do understand another legal premise that "ignorance of the law" is no excuse.
As regards the Dream Act, you conveniently ignore that there are no provisions for investigating the legitimacy of claims made by those the act would assist. You also ignore the fact that fraudulent documents can, and have, been used by undocumented persons in attempts to enter this country, yet the Dream Act prevents any investigation of those persons making application under the act. That is nothing short of ridiculous.
The fact is that many jurist consider the wording of the Dream Act fatally flawed as do legal scholars and members of Congress. Were that not the case, the act would have progressed further.
It is clear that what you actually want is a wholesale amnesty for another class of undocumented persons. It is clear that you have little if any respect for either the law nor these United States nor for her citizens nor for those immigrants who entered this country legally nor for those persons who continue to follow the laws of this nation in their quest for admission and citizenship nor for the fact that previous amnesties have done little in the way of prosperity or education for those amnestied nor have such amnesties been of benefit to either the nation or to those amnestied. You advocate that all those persons who follow the law in their quest to immigrate should "go to the back of the bus" while those who ignored the law should be rewarded for doing so.
May I remind you that "amnesty" presumes a "pardon" for "crimes against state sovereignty. For over 200 years, the United states only granted amnesty in individual cases and had never given amnesty to large numbers of illegal aliens. Then in 1986, Congress passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) which gave amnesty to all illegal aliens who had evaded law enforcement for at least four years or who were working illegally in agriculture. This resulted in 2.8 million illegal aliens being admitted as legal immigrants to the United States.The amnesty of 1986 was supposed to be a "one time only" amnesty. Yet since 1986, Congress passed a total of 7 amnesties for illegal aliens: The Immigration and Reform Control Act (IRCA) Amnesty of 1986 - the "one-time only" blanket amnesty for some 2.8 million illegal aliens. Section 245(i) The Amnesty of 1994 - a temporary rolling amnesty for 578,000 illegal aliens. Section 245(i) The Extension Amnesty of 1997 - an extension of the rolling amnesty created in 1994. The Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA) Amnesty of 1997 - an amnesty for nearly one million illegal aliens from Central America. The Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act Amnesty (HRIFA) of 1998 - an amnesty for 125,000 illegal aliens from Haiti. The Late Amnesty of 2000 - an amnesty for approximately 400,000 illegal aliens who claimed they should have been amnestied under the 1986 IRCA amnesty. The LIFE Act Amnesty of 2000 - a reinstatement of the rolling Section 245(i) amnesty to an estimated 900,000 illegal aliens. After the 1986 amnesty, illegal immigration increased significantly. Census Bureau 2000 data indicate that 700,000 to 800,000 illegal aliens settle in the U.S. each year, with approximately 8-11 million illegal aliens now currently living in the United States. According to a study by the Center for Immigration Studies, the total net cost of the 1986 IRCA amnesty (direct and indirect costs of services and benefits to the former illegal aliens, less their tax contributions) amounted to over $78 billion in the ten years following the amnesty.
Yet an amnesty benefits neither our society nor those being amnestied. An Immigration and Naturalization Service study found that after living in the United States for 10 years, the average amnestied illegal alien had only a seventh grade education and earned less than $9,000 a year. While this may well be more than a person can earn in their native country, it most assuredly falls below the poverty level in the United States which, by extension, can be presumed to put additional burdens on both governmental and non-govenmental organizations, cities, towns, schools, law enforcement agencies and every citizen of this country.
The point you clearly seem to either have missed or chosen to ignore is simply that the citizens of the United States, by and large, believe that this country is a nation of laws and respect those persons who abide by the law. All the attempts made to claim that we are somehow racist, "restrictionists", "nativists", hateful and spiteful when we subscribe to the premise that those wishing to become citizens of this country should also respect and abide by the law earn those making such claims little credibility. -
Cynthia commented on the article |
First let me say that no human being should ever be thought of as "trash" or "garbage". That mind set gives rise to hate and hate crimes, something that is becoming all to common in this country.
With respect to the undocumented workers involved in this case, presuming their status is that they are illegally present in the U.S. which is a misdemeanor for a first offence, they should be returned with all possible speed to their nation of origin. The delay is unconscionable. I shall presume the workers were unaware of the machinations of the company and its management, therefore delaying their return to their homeland cannot be justified by the government.
In additon, presuming the delay is caused by the Federal Government, the expense involved should fall on the budget of DHS. Further, Mr. Chertoff should be called upon to explain why these undocumented persons have not already been returned to their nations of origin. If any are required for testimony in a case against the company they can be returned to the U.S. at a future date.
The company and its owners as well as anyone within the company responsible for the violations of state and federal law should face prosecution to the fullest extent of the law. Any monetary damages collected should be used to recompense those non-governmental organizations upon whom the burden of caring for these workers fell. -
Cynthia commented on the article |Thank you, Mathi Kannan, I knew there was much more to this situation than was being offered initially.
-
Cynthia commented on the article |
I didn't realize you hung on my every word, Dream Activist.
The statement that "illegal presence is not a crime" is misleading. It is, by law, a misdemeanor. A second offense is a felony. The vast majority consider a misdemeanor a "crime".
If the child was born in the United States, that child is an American citizen. If the child was not born in this country, that child is not a citizen. While I do not advocate punishment for a minor whose parents committed either a misdemeanor or a felony, I also do not advocate our ignoring the fact that the child is not in compliance with law nor are the child's parents.
I see no provisions for monitoring or verifying information provided by those who might benefit from passage of the so-called Dream Act nor provisions for funding said act nor do I see any provisions for enforcement. I do, however, see numerous provisions which prevent law enforcement agencies from even investigating applicants. Hmmmm, something very wrong with that picture.
No matter how one attempts to soft-pedal or sugar coat it, the Dream Act is a thinly disguised attempt to provide an amnesty. It also penalizes those persons who have followed the law and who are currently lawfully present aliens. -
Cynthia commented on the article |One can only hope that President-elect Obama receives better advice and more thoroughly "vets" Eric Holder. A little more research into Eric Holder's public record in goverment service should give anyone pause before considering this man for the post of Attorney General. There are any number of more qualified persons who do not carry the baggage of past poor judgement and unethical behavior while serving the people of this nation.
-
Cynthia commented on the article |I have watched this video repeatedly. It is clear to me that this child was doing what most children do at this age. He was giving the adults the answers they wanted. Despite not being able to actually see his face, one needs but listen to his voice and pay attention to his body language as well as to his head movements to see that the child altered his responses each time one of the adults indicated their disapproval of the answer given by the child.
I paid close attention also to the tone of voice and the body language of the interrogators. Each adult would often lean forward, a threatening movement to any child-or for that matter to an adult-when they disapproved of his responses. The tone of voice from each interrogator quite clearly indicated when they either approved of disapproved of the child's response. After which, when asked the same question again, the child altered his response, quite often three or four times until he received approval for his answer from his interrogators. Yet, paying attention to his tone of voice and inflection, one would have to be deaf not to recognize the questioning tone of the child; that is to say the child's answers were not actually statements per se but reflected a question to his interrogators asking whether the answer he was now giving was the one they sought.
The McMartin Pre-school case leaps to mind. Numerous children in that case were later confirmed to have given false statements because of the techniques used in their questioning. Indeed, false confessions are very real, in particular, when it comes to juveniles.
I have heard claims by the police that they did not initially consider the child a suspect when they began his interview. They seem to be using this to excuse the fact that they did not wait for a parent or legal guardian or an attorney to be present. Yet it is clear from their questions on the released tape that they did indeed consider this child a suspect. I see no admission by the police that they Mirandized this child nor that either a parent, legal guardian or an attormey was notified or present during the over four hours of interrogation this child underwent.
One can only hope that a competant attorney will be on this case and also that a competent judge will, at the very least, suppress any and all statements made by this child as well as any testimony from those who participated in his interrogation. Actually, the entire case should be immediately dismissed with prejudice. The mere fact that this child had no representation and was not Mirandized is more than sufficient grounds to dismiss.
On the subject of the release of information in an on-going police investigation such as tapes or statements made by "suspects" or, using the current popular phrase, "persons of interest" to authorities during arrest or interrogations, I am absolutely appalled that it seems to have become almost routine.
From the release of phone calls between Nick Bollea (The son of Hulk Hogan) and his parents, to the release of jail house photos of Britney Spears, to the leaking of the name of "person of interest" Steven J Hatfill in the anthrax case, to the release of interrogation tapes and videos in the case of this eight year old, it is becoming routine for law enforcement agencies to attempt to "stack the deck" against defendants by attempting to taint jury pools. This is unconscionable! How convenient it is to claim that such information is a "matter of public record" when it can only become such by the actions of the police, prison employees, prosecutors or judges. What ever happened to the rule of law or, for that matter, ethical behavior? -
Cynthia commented on the article |
How did they end up in Fargo?
Where is the proof that they paid $20,000.00 for anything?
If they are claiming that they did, in fact, pay to obtain a green card they are admitting to attempting a fraudulent act. Are we expected to believe that these "skilled" guest workers are not aware that one cannot purchase a green card?
Did or did not the Department of Labor, Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Department of State have representatives inspect Signal's facilities and employment practices? Did not independent journalists also inspect the facilities? Was not Signal found to be in compliance?
There is much more to this than meets the eye. -
Cynthia commented on the article |Your inference that those who comment against the wholesale legalization of those who entered this country illegally are "restrictionists" is an insult to every law abiding native born American as well as an insult to every law abiding naturalized citizen and legal immigrant.
The United States is a nation of immigrants. To continue to defend the twelve million or more undocumented persons in this country who, with the possible exception of very young children, knew they were and are breaking the law is ludicrous.
If you believe that immigration laws are manifestly unjust, then work to change the law. Do not, however, attempt to defend those who knowingly, deliberately and continually flout the laws of this nation. There were over two million persons who took the Oath of Citizenship within the past year. They followed the law and earned the right to call themselves Americans. My grandparents faced adversity when they entered this country yet that assuredly did not prevent them from following the laws of this nation.
"the laws as written and applied today are manifestly unjust; there is simply no legal way to immigrate to the U.S. for the majority of those who enter without inspection. "
In other words, those who broke the laws of this nation are punished for breaking the law? How very unfair and un-American that this nation should expect its citizens and those who wish to become citizens or those who wish to work in this country or be educated in this country to be law abiding.
Those who entered this country undocumented most certainly do have a way to enter this country legally. They can return to their nation of origin and follow the law. For those for whom a return to their country of origin would pose a danger to their person, the United States has provisions which offer political asylum and sanctuary.
You appear to advocate and support those who break our laws with cries that "So what if they entered illegally, they did it because they didn't want to take the time and trouble to enter legally. They want a job, health care, education, prosperity which they cannot get in their homeland so we should ignore that they deliberately flouted the laws of this nation and change our laws to make their illegal acts legal."
The last thing I advocate is sealing our borders against everyone wanting to enter this country. However, those persons who support the premise that just because someone managed to circumvent border security and stay for a while somehow makes that undocumented person deserving of the same rights enjoyed by legal immigrants and native born Americans can only be perceived as persons who have no respect for this nation of laws.
A friend just recently immigrated to the U.S. It took over a year, many visits to the U.S. Consulate in her native country, medical exams, security checks, a mountain of paperwork and considerable expense, yet she complied with the laws of this nation and now resides here, legally. So the argument that immigrating to this country in a legal manner is all but impossible holds little veracity.
Impact
0 Actions
0 Recruits