Arizona style immigration law coming to Virginia?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Sure. Because you are alive you have the luxury to worry bout' the rest. Ingmar Guandique ring a bell? ONE life is too many. How about curtailed lifestyle? Would you encourage young ladies to jog (as is their right) in Rock Creek Park after this incident?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/16/AR2010071605988.html

I know that this is a tremendously difficult concept for you because I have seen you struggle with it repeatedly and in multiple threads. But, one case has very little bearing on the big picture. As I said on this very same page (so, yes, having written the name not more than a couple of days ago, it does ring a bell, but you may want to work on your reading comprehension):

"Ingmar Guandique is no more representative of the average illegal immigrant than Scott Roeder is of the average Christian white male."

Should white Christian males be defined by the fact that they have a propensity to kill abortion doctors? Should all Christian white males be tarnished by the deeds of Scott Roeder? You know, Roeder had previously been arrested. Does the fact that he was released and went on to kill someone say anything important about our justice system?

You are making an argument that is not a winner and you appear determined to ride it all the way down through its death spiral. What started with "immigrants cause crime waves" -- only to be proven false -- became one guy killed a person. So, do you really believe that "All illegal immigrants are crime threats because of Ingmar Guandique" to be a serious argument?

Nothing to do with all illegal aliens (whom I do not think should be here; there should be a better legal immigration system). However, if they have not committed any actionable criminal act BEYOND illegal entry or overstaying that is a separate discussion for me from those in the Guandique category. IE everything to do with illegal aliens, like Guandique, who had prior brushes with the law and were released because their illegal status was considered a non-event (or not allowed to be inquired into) and not factored into how they should be processed. One death at such hands is one too many:

"The murder charge has raised questions about D.C.'s sanctuary city policy, which has been in place since at least August 1984. The policy prevents police from inquiring into or detaining anyone for immigration violations and also prevents social service agencies from inquiring into an applicant's legal status, thus enabling illegal aliens to receive taxpayer-funded benefits. (Human Events, May 4, 2007; Judicial Watch, Government of the District of Columbia Response to Judicial Watch Request for Sanctuary City Policy Information). On May 7, 2001, six days after Chandra Levy disappeared, Guandique was arrested by the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department after he burglarized a woman's apartment near Rock Creek Park. (Human Events, May 31, 2002). He was released by a judge after the burglary arrest and, in the weeks that followed, attacked two women in Rock Creek Park in separate attacks. Guandique was convicted on charges related to those attacks. Had D.C. not had a sanctuary city policy in place and if Guandique been held by D.C. police after the burglary, he would have been unable to attack two women in Rock Creek Park in the summer of 2001."

http://www.fairus.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=20099&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1721

[Anonymous]

And if Guandique had been legal, the situation would have stayed the same. So his immigration status, ultimately, had nothing to do with it. If anything, fault a justice system that allows violent offenders back on the street. But if Guandique had his immigration paperwork in order, he would have been in the exact same situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And if Guandique had been legal, the situation would have stayed the same. So his immigration status, ultimately, had nothing to do with it. If anything, fault a justice system that allows violent offenders back on the street. But if Guandique had his immigration paperwork in order, he would have been in the exact same situation.

Are you for real? His immigration status had everything to do with it. No matter how you feel about illegal immigrants, you might be able to agree that illegal immigrants who are arrested for criminal acts have no business roaming free. If DC was not a semi-sanctuary city there would be a process for inquiring into arrestees immigration status and detaining them until a determination was made of status, threat etc. Sure, legal citizens may hide out all the time waiting to accost, rape and murder girls jogging through Rock Creek Park. If Guandique's status after a robbery arrest had been determined and he had been detained HE would not have been able to. Seriously, I think if Chandra Levy were your daughter/sister/mother you might feel like ONE life was too many. What about the rights of citizens to live without the threat of fear and intimidation from criminal aliens? We have enough to deal with legal perverts and madmen.

[Anonymous]

You're missing the point. He was not released because he was here illegally. If he had been a legal immigrant, he would have been put through the same process and would have been released the same way. Your beef is with the criminal justice system in this case, not his immigration status. Yes, if he had been detained/deported because of his status, Levy would still be alive today. But if he had gotten his paperwork in order, he would have still been roving the street. You're acting as if the cops looked at him and let him go only because he was illegal, which is not the case at all.

Citizens have a right to live without threat of fear or intimidation by ANYONE. And given that illegal immigrants are responsible for a disproportionately SMALL amount of violent crime with regards to the size of their population, I'm happy to worry about the other, scarier, much more realistic threats posed by native citizens.

And telling me I'd feel differently if it was my family is complete nonsense. That is an appeal to emotion and has no place in an intellectual conversation. If our laws were based on emotions, our country would be a much scarier place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You're missing the point. He was not released because he was here illegally. If he had been a legal immigrant, he would have been put through the same process and would have been released the same way. Your beef is with the criminal justice system in this case, not his immigration status. Yes, if he had been detained/deported because of his status, Levy would still be alive today. But if he had gotten his paperwork in order, he would have still been roving the street. You're acting as if the cops looked at him and let him go only because he was illegal, which is not the case at all.

Citizens have a right to live without threat of fear or intimidation by ANYONE. And given that illegal immigrants are responsible for a disproportionately SMALL amount of violent crime with regards to the size of their population, I'm happy to worry about the other, scarier, much more realistic threats posed by native citizens.

And telling me I'd feel differently if it was my family is complete nonsense. That is an appeal to emotion and has no place in an intellectual conversation. If our laws were based on emotions, our country would be a much scarier place.

You're actually missing my point. If a person is arrested and is here illegally - then it is logical to contact ICE, detain said person (Guandique obviously would NOT have his 'paperwork' in order) and decide if they should be held until trial. Guandique was not released BECAUSE he was illegal--he was released as any other legal status person would have been--BECAUSE police were NOT allowed to inquire into his status and refer him to ICE. If they had been, Chandra Levy would possibly be alive today. Thanks for the correction on my intellectual argumentation skills. I feel I made my case. I simply added as an emotional (yes) addendum what you and I both know --that if Chandra were your girlfriend, you would be far more interested/concerned and quite possibly (though I don't know you--maybe not) horrified that an illegal alien caught for a lesser crime and thus demonstrating that they possibly are not in the US for any good purpose was not reported to ICE but rather released back into the streets to ultimately attack three women, and kill one.
I can understand a discussion on amnesty etc. Cannot understand a catch and release policy for those here illegally arrested for a severe property crime like robbery. Please explain your tolerance for that.

[Anonymous]

I have no tolerance for a catch and release policy for any violent offender, immigration/citizenship status be damned. How's that?

Guandique's immigration status, to me, does not matter. In this case, it had no bearing on what ultimately transpired. Should things have happened differently? Yes. But as it is, they should have happened differently regardless of his immigration status.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
You're actually missing my point. If a person is arrested and is here illegally - then it is logical to contact ICE, detain said person (Guandique obviously would NOT have his 'paperwork' in order) and decide if they should be held until trial. Guandique was not released BECAUSE he was illegal--he was released as any other legal status person would have been--BECAUSE police were NOT allowed to inquire into his status and refer him to ICE. If they had been, Chandra Levy would possibly be alive today. Thanks for the correction on my intellectual argumentation skills. I feel I made my case. I simply added as an emotional (yes) addendum what you and I both know --that if Chandra were your girlfriend, you would be far more interested/concerned and quite possibly (though I don't know you--maybe not) horrified that an illegal alien caught for a lesser crime and thus demonstrating that they possibly are not in the US for any good purpose was not reported to ICE but rather released back into the streets to ultimately attack three women, and kill one.
I can understand a discussion on amnesty etc. Cannot understand a catch and release policy for those here illegally arrested for a severe property crime like robbery. Please explain your tolerance for that.

I am willing to concede that it is problematic that an illegal immigrant could be arrested for a serious crime and then be released without the individual's immigration status being examined. However, you are missing a fairly major point that seriously damages your argument. Chandra Levy disappeared on May 1. Guandique was arrested on May 7. According to most calendars, May 7 comes after May 1. Therefore, even if Guandique would have been put on the first airplane to El Salvador on May 7, Chandra would still be dead.

[Anonymous]

SNAP!

[Anonymous]

Thank you for concedingy points- I am actually rather thrilled. And you're absolutely right, I read the dates sloppily. My bad. Quite the little crime spree he was on! So - I wonder if he had been held if his involvement in the Levy case would have come to light sooner? Remember, he eventually blabbed to a cellmate. This would have saved the levy family so much agony, and Condit the cloud of suspicion ( though Condit was not a sympathetic figure and invited much of the subsequent implosion through his own adulterous actions, he was dragged trough the mud as prime suspect in killing Chandra and his career / family were left in shambles). Also, two young women were attacked by Guandique after his release. How much does one's life change after a vicious attempt at a sex crime and the knowledge that ones attacker was both capable of and disposed to murder? I am glad that we both agree that anyone arrested for crimes such as robbery and above should have their immigration status verified and if here illegally, be detained and referred to ICE.

[Anonymous]

PP-

I think that anyone arrested for crimes such as robbery or the above should be jailed. If they are illegal immigrants, they should be extradited to their country. The failing here was of the criminal justice system, not the immigration system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And if Guandique had been legal, the situation would have stayed the same. So his immigration status, ultimately, had nothing to do with it. If anything, fault a justice system that allows violent offenders back on the street. But if Guandique had his immigration paperwork in order, he would have been in the exact same situation.

The isn't even a fascinating "if". He wasn't legal. Three women were attacked and one was murdered. Once again , one is one too many.

[Anonymous]

But where do you stop extending such logic. Suppose a parolee kills someone. Should we end parole? Suppose a kid who went to juvee grows up and kills someone? Should any kid who commits a crime be locked up for life?

No one is arguing that Guandique should have been set free without his immigration status check and, if it was determined he was here in violation of federal statute, deported or otherwise handled appropriately. But to extrapolate his situation, which as an aberration w/r/t illegal immigrations as a hole, is unfair. Saying we need to vigilantly fight illegal immigrants because ONE (and I realize he is not the only, but it is still disproportionately small) illegal immigrant kills someone is the same as any argument I've outlined above. Would you support those? Furthermore, after plenty of evidence that whites commit a disproportionate amount of upper-level financial crime, should they be barred from seeking such positions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But where do you stop extending such logic. Suppose a parolee kills someone. Should we end parole? Suppose a kid who went to juvee grows up and kills someone? Should any kid who commits a crime be locked up for life?

No one is arguing that Guandique should have been set free without his immigration status check and, if it was determined he was here in violation of federal statute, deported or otherwise handled appropriately. But to extrapolate his situation, which as an aberration w/r/t illegal immigrations as a hole, is unfair. Saying we need to vigilantly fight illegal immigrants because ONE (and I realize he is not the only, but it is still disproportionately small) illegal immigrant kills someone is the same as any argument I've outlined above. Would you support those? Furthermore, after plenty of evidence that whites commit a disproportionate amount of upper-level financial crime, should they be barred from seeking such positions?

Yes, but DC Is a semi-sanctuary city. If you are not arguing, then fight to change the inane policies that do not allow police to inquire. THAT is why two girls were attacked, and Chandra's parents did not get redress for so MANY agonizing years. This is not JUST about Guandique, it is about ALL in sanctuary cities who 'slip through the cracks'--contributing to many more than ONE victim.

I completely don't understand how you are extrapolating the situation. Your analogies --financial crime etc. -- just don't make sense to me. Anyone?

The problem with the AZ immigration law is that it does not begin at the right point in empowering police to check status, or go far enough. Personally, I think that EVERYONE arrested for a serious crime (whether ultimately proved guilty or not) should automatically invoke an immigration status check by ANY local or federal agency they come in contact with, with automatic referral to to ICE if found to be here illegally.

Police in DC are not allowed to ask anyone upon arrest. It was not an 'oversight'. It's a policy. It led to two vicious, sex attacks. What do you not compute?

[Anonymous]

Your argument seems to be that because ONE illegal alien killed someone, that is one too many and we need to vigilantly oust any illegal immigrants from the land. Is that not what you are arguing?

I agree that our immigration situation is F'ed up on so many levels, including 'sanctuary cities'. And, yes, I do advocate for change. But I do not do so based on isolated and unrepresentative incidents.

The point is that if this individual had been deported/detained upon his first brush with the law, those 2 other girls would have been completely safe. This is not the case. They still would have had risks. There still would have been the potential for violent offenders to be too-quickly released. So, while there are flaws in the immigration situation, the criminal justice procedures that allow for too-quick releases of violent offenders is a far bigger risk and should be the true target of your efforts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But where do you stop extending such logic. Suppose a parolee kills someone. Should we end parole? Suppose a kid who went to juvee grows up and kills someone? Should any kid who commits a crime be locked up for life?

No one is arguing that Guandique should have been set free without his immigration status check and, if it was determined he was here in violation of federal statute, deported or otherwise handled appropriately. But to extrapolate his situation, which as an aberration w/r/t illegal immigrations as a hole, is unfair. Saying we need to vigilantly fight illegal immigrants because ONE (and I realize he is not the only, but it is still disproportionately small) illegal immigrant kills someone is the same as any argument I've outlined above. Would you support those? Furthermore, after plenty of evidence that whites commit a disproportionate amount of upper-level financial crime, should they be barred from seeking such positions?

Willie Horton? Remember him? Dukakis does.