Skip to comments.
Rep. Tom Lantos delays deportation of Bay Area couple
Oakland Tribune ^
| December 27, 2003
| T.S. Mills-Faraudo
Posted on 12/27/2003 10:37:52 AM PST by yonif
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-28 next last
1
posted on
12/27/2003 10:37:53 AM PST
by
yonif
To: yonif
So What? I'm suffering financial hardship because of high taxes needed to educate their children, which should never have been here. I couldn't have 4 kids, because I couldn't afford 4 kids.
I'm amazed that the party line is "they will be seperated from their 4 young children". I suppose taking their children with them is not an option?
2
posted on
12/27/2003 10:45:51 AM PST
by
LaraCroft
To: LaraCroft
"So What? I'm suffering financial hardship because of high taxes needed to educate their children, which should never have been here. I couldn't have 4 kids, because I couldn't afford 4 kids. "
You have 4 kids you are supporting.....................they just aren't YOURS!!!!
3
posted on
12/27/2003 10:56:07 AM PST
by
international american
(support our troops................itch slap a liberal today!)
To: yonif
From the article: "A San Bruno couple facing deportation to Mexico and separation from their four American-born children ..."
This is outrageous. That the US government would force this couple to abandon their children and return to their native ...
What? They are allowed to take their children?
Well, then, it is doubly outrageous that the government of Mexico refuses to let this couple bring their children back to ...
What? They are allowed by the government of Mexico to bring their children?
Perhaps somebody can enumerate for me the number of nations to which I can illegally immigrate and then be allowed to take up permanent residency without the permission of that nation's government.
Is there even one of the several hundred nations in the world who have open borders and will permit me to burden them with my children? Just one?
To: yonif
YET another reason to repeal the "anchor" baby law..
5
posted on
12/27/2003 11:35:49 AM PST
by
Zipporah
(Write in Tancredo 2004)
To: William Tell
Germany, England, France, Italy, Russia and most Europe.
To: LaraCroft; yonif
Oh that we could deport Lantos! He's a vile, evil, hate-filled little man. How tragic that he gets to sit in Congress where he can help undermine the country that he hates.
To: gubamyster; janetgreen
Ping!
"The family can now have a happy holiday, secure in the knowledge that everything possible is being done to keep them (here)together," Lantos said.
They have been here fifteen years, sucking off the public teat. Too long, send them back.
8
posted on
12/27/2003 12:55:28 PM PST
by
raybbr
To: yonif
Maria and Alfredo Plascencia were scheduled to be deported to Mexico on Jan. 6 and taken away from their four school-age children, who were born and raised in the United StatesI doubt this. If these two had been deported, why wouldn't their children have gone with them?
To: mountaineer
Other people have comitted SUICIDE for less a reason!!!!
10
posted on
12/27/2003 1:32:40 PM PST
by
blaze
(Welcome to the Hotel Mexifornia (WWW.AMERICANPATROL.COM) Go to links and have a cry!)
To: yonif
The Plascencias' problems began in 1996 when they applied for permanent residency.
Their attorney advised them to seek asylum, but that was the same year President Clinton signed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, which raised the number of years to qualify for residency from seven to 10.
It also required asylum applicants to prove an extreme hardship.
While they did apply for asylum before the new law went into effect, the INS didn't look at their case until that September. As a result, it was denied.I get ticked off as well as anybody else regarding illegals who use this country as an ATM machine and only want to live like Americans, not become one. However, here I don't see where they were on welfare, so I take it at least one parent was working.
More importantly, as emphasized in boldface, they tried going by the rules and got bit by bureaucracy - what kind of crap is the INS pulling? THEY were the ones who were late in processing the application, which was presented on time.
Until a little more info on these people, such as jobs, speaking American, etc. come out, I'd cut them a little slack.
11
posted on
12/27/2003 1:43:27 PM PST
by
Oatka
To: yonif
It also required asylum applicants to prove an extreme hardship. I'm sure this is going to be a little difficult to prove --- they are trying to get in by using false claims. Nothing bad would happen to them if they and the children all go back to live in Mexico.
12
posted on
12/27/2003 1:48:51 PM PST
by
FITZ
To: Oatka
People like this are making a joke out of "asylum" ---- they aren't going to be killed if they go back home --- the word needs to be reserved for those cases that really do face exteme persecution.
13
posted on
12/27/2003 1:52:38 PM PST
by
FITZ
To: raybbr
Multiply their four children by a million, and that adds up to MUCHO medical and education costs for California taxpayers to pay. Those who employ illegal aliens know that they don't have to provide medical, that's for us citizens to pay. The illegals can even get housing assistance and food stamps. Good deal for them, rotten deal for American taxpayers. Lantos is a sap.
14
posted on
12/27/2003 2:14:37 PM PST
by
janetgreen
(Tancredo for President)
To: yonif
This goes back to the fact that our law says that when the cat has a litter of kittens in the oven, they are by definition biscuits.
This also illutrates the folly of trying to outbid democrats like Lantos for the votes of anybody whose vote is based on a love of criminal aliens.
For every dollar earned in income by legal immigrants $1.50 is paid in benefits. For illegals, it's far worse. Most illegals are on some type of government assistance. They come here for the welfare, which they collect in tandem with under-the-table subminimum wage labour. The people who get hosed are poor Americans, who get underbid for work by people who are content to live twenty to a room with outdoor plumbing.
This immigration is also bringing Latin American squalor and Latin American racism into our country -- neither of which we need; we have not quite got our own under control.
Of course, there is a historical precedent for this open borders thing. The Romans had an open border around 400 AD and they hardly had any trouble after that.
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
To: Oatka
they tried going by the rules Nonsense. An asylum application is for people who are politically repressed and fear the government in their home country. Mexico's government is one of the world's most corrupt, but it is not cruel or oppressive.
Asylum is a dodge beloved by "immigration attorneys" to get their welfare recips into the country without actually following the usual rules. If someone is from North Korea, Cuba, Iran, his application is worth taking seriously. Asylum applicants from Mexico are simply overlawyered frauds.
By the way, the lawyer gets a percentage of the welfare... that's how this deal works for the attorney. Write a couple letters, get 10% of this family's take for a year (which will be about $49k if neither parent works over-the-table).
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
To: mountaineer
If these two had been deported, why wouldn't their children have gone with them? Another artefact of the egregious 1965 immigration act. We no longer place any value on immigrants that are good for our society, instead we value "family reunification." With those four kids, they have a toehold in the US that they can now use for chain migration that will continue until all the 4th cousins are in the USA. (Actually, it can continue indefinitely, because the cousins have cousins, and of course the family must be together).
That act must go. But the only man talking sense about it in the whole congress is fearless Tom Tancredo of Colorado (a state that has been particularly hard hit by immigration-related crime and idleness).
But, I hear you ask, if the family can now be reunited on a reunification visa, why don't they just do that? Well you see, that will require them to do something they haven't been doing, and don't intend to do, and no doubt raise their conveniently-American whelps not to do: obey the law. Why, visas require paperwork, and waiting, and all kinds of unpleasant things.
Why should they get a visa now when they didn't before? Why, that is just unfair and racist to expect them to start obeying the law. Law is a gringo construct, they don't have any in Mexico, so why should they recognise any here?
The worst part of this whole thing is the message it sends to Americans of Mexican descent whose ancestors came here legally and who have worked productively. It tells them: You're a chump.
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
To: yonif
"This buys the couple some time to work with their lawyers and the federal government to resolve their complex case" What is so complex about it? They are illegals. Deport them, but let them take their kids with them. We need a change in the asinine law that makes a kid a citizen just because the mother manages to get to the border before delivery. Either way, minor children belong with their parents. Send them all back.
18
posted on
12/27/2003 3:01:25 PM PST
by
sweetliberty
(Better to keep silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.)
To: TheBattman
Ping!
19
posted on
12/27/2003 3:03:17 PM PST
by
sweetliberty
(Better to keep silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.)
To: LaraCroft
You're jumping to conclusions that aren't warranted by the information we have from this post.
Those parents could well be working and paying their share of taxes. Many illegals do.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-28 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson