Wednesday, April 04, 2012

Why Didn't They Go With Him?

A good friend posted this story on her Facebook page.
MANITOWOC, Wis. (CNS) -- Jennifer Martinez waved in vain through tears of fear and frustration as the windowless white bus left the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement deportation center in Chicago shortly after 7 a.m. March 23.

Inside the nondescript bus, Jennifer's husband and the father of her four children, 32-year-old Jaime Martinez Espinal, his wrists cut and scraped from handcuffs binding his hands, prepared for his forced return to Mexico because he was an undocumented U.S. resident.
The story focuses on the tragedy of breaking up the family, but it treats them like pawns in some greater game when, really, they did this all to themselves. The guy was here illegally, he knew what the risks were and he got caught. No, he wasn't robbing and murdering, but he wasn't thrown in jail, either. He was just sent back to where he should have been anyway.

So why didn't his family just shrug their shoulders and accept the consequences of their actions with some grace? Why didn't they start to liquidate their holdings, take the cash and move back to Mexico? It's not like the man was shot by the Gestapo, he was just sent back home.

Geeze, the dude broke the law and got caught. Get over it.


tim eisele said...

Hm. Article says he came to the US in 1998, so this is punishment for a crime committed 14 years ago. Most non-violent crimes have a statute of limitations that is a lot shorter than that (2-5 years seems to be typical). Why doesn't prosecution for illegal immigration have a time limit?

K T Cat said...

Because it doesn't. That's the law. If you want the law changed, then change it. If not, accept the consequences, don't just flip off the rest of us.

Mostly Nothing said...

He came into the country illegally 14 years ago, and every day he is in the country, he is here illegally. Everyday, he breaks the law.

As to why, they don't liquidate and follow him down to Mexico, is because it would be harder for a family of 6 to illegally cross the border again, and come back.

He'll be back with in a month.

tim eisele said...

Mostly Nothing:

So, are you saying that if the INS started reviewing the records of everybody in the US, and if a person turned out to have entered the US not entirely legally during, say, the runup to World War II, you'd be OK with deporting them?

And KT, you're right. If I don't like it, I should do my bit to see that it is changed. I'll start on that letter to my congressman today.

Doo Doo Econ said...

Or they could just enter legally.

Jedi Knight Ivyan said...

Tim, if the man had stolen something after the statute of limitations had elapsed, would he still have to return it after getting caught?

Jedi Knight Ivyan said...

Grrr, sorry for the poorly worded comment, what I meant was:

If a thief is caught after the statute of limitation has elapsed, does he still have to return what he stole?

K T Cat said...

I guess my point is that the family separation is all voluntary. If they want to keep the family together, they can move back to Mexico. It's not like he's being thrown in a Dickensian prison for a crime he didn't commit. He knows the place, speaks the language and probably has family there. The $$$ he earned here will go a long way there.

tim eisele said...


As I understand it, if the owner of the stolen items waited until after the statute of limitations had passed to report the theft, then no, the thief can't be arrested for the crime and doesn't have to return it.

The statute of limitations seems to be a limit on how long you can wait before making the crime accusation, rather than the amount of time that the criminal has to evade the police after the arrest warrant is made out.

lee said...

"The Law of Population" is to regulate immigration as to volume, structure, and distribution. This law was written to distribute immigrants across Mexico. [4] Immigration must be deemed appropriate, and assimilate to the national average and their proper distribution throughout the country.{article 3, section 7} Foreign nationals are restricted when the national interest so requires.{article 3, section 8} Immigration to urban population centers can be restricted to ensure effective delivery public services.{article 3, section 9} The immigration of foreigners is allowed according to their potential to contribute to national progress.{article 32} Foreigners are subject to approval concerning appropriate activities they will pursue, and the location of residence.{article 34} Immigrants must be useful elements for the country and have the income needed for subsistence and persons under their economic dependence.{article 34} Foreigners may be denied entry for the following reasons, if: No international reciprocity, The national demographic balance is altered, It is deemed harmful to the national economic interests, he/she has violated national law or have a poor record abroad, deemed not physically or mentally healthy. For a foreigner to pursue other activities in addition to those that have been expressly authorized, requires permission from the Interior Ministry.{article 37} The authorities of the Republic, whether federal, local or municipal, as well as public notaries, are obliged to check if foreigners are legally in the country.{article 72.)

Secular Apostate said...

Actually, whether he is a criminal or not depends on how he entered the country. If he entered legally, but overstayed, he's not a criminal. Sneaking across the border is a felony. (see here)

Having said that, I agree with Senor Gato. As my attorney wife is wont to say, "The rules are the rules. If you don't like the rules, there are rules about how to change the rules."

Personally, I strongly support immigration, and I think the extant law is colossally stupid (like virtually everything else that bubbled up from the pickled, and now mercifully dead, brain of Ted Kennedy). A legal rubric like the older bracero scheme (that worked reasonably well until union demigod Cesar Chavez destroyed it rather than fixing it) would be much better for everyone.

After all, who will hang the drywall and cut the hedges while the Occupiers Occupy if not for immigrants?

Mostly Nothing said...

In response to someone entering illegally before WWII, should he be deported. I've got to go with yes.

For this person, who was here illegally. Did he pay taxes? Did he file a tax return? Did he benefit from our government. I'm going to go with the answers are probably, no, no, and a resounding YES. He broke the law every day he was in the country illegally. He evaded capture, every day he was here. That I believe excludes the statute of limitations.

tim eisele said...

Mostly Nothing wrote, "Did he pay taxes?"

Well, it says he was working at a restaurant. Employers are supposed to withhold taxes for their employees. If this didn't happen, then his *employer* was breaking the law. And if it did happen, then he was paying his income tax just like everybody else. And if he didn't file a tax return, then the government would have just kept the money they withheld.

And, in any case, he paid the same sales taxes as anybody else, and if he owned property then he paid property taxes just like everybody else, and if he drove a car then he paid licensing fees and gas taxes just like everybody else. What exact taxes do you think he was getting out of paying?

Foxfier said...

When I was working in a fast food place it was made VERY clear that if we knowingly worked for someone who wasn't properly filing his side of the taxes, we were guilty of a crime.

Also, every year you file a tax return....supposedly. Hard to do if you're illegal, unless you're also committing identity theft. (which is surprisingly common)

If he drove a car, at least in our area, he did NOT pay licensing fees. Or insurance. There's a reason that insurance costs are much higher in high illegal areas. Ask someone who's been charged either criminally or financially because a car that the insurance company totaled out and sold to a scrap yard was involved in an accident years later, and the poor law-abiding fool hadn't filed the forms to have his name disassociated with it.

Don't get me started on folks like the morons doing half-again the speed limit that, without signaling, passed the car doing slightly less speeding then them on the right and nearly slammed into me just last night as I entered the road.

Breaking laws is a bit like sin-- break one, and you'll end up breaking a lot more trying to keep from being punished for it; break a big one, and the little ones don't seem like anything to sweat over.