(02-10-2017 12:44 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-10-2017 03:29 AM)WKUYG Wrote:  According to the Arizona Republic, Garcia de Rayos was convicted in 2009 for impersonation. She was charged with a felony, but her lawyers told ABC15 that raid was subsequently ruled unconstitutional. Court documents obtained by ABC15 also show that Garcia had previously been ordered to self-deport.

"Ms. Garcia, who has a prior felony conviction in Arizona for criminal impersonation, was the subject of a court-issued removal order that became final in July 2013. Ms. Garcia’s immigration case underwent review at multiple levels of the immigration court system, including the Board of Immigration Appeals, and the judges held she did not have a legal basis to remain in the U.S.

So there's no basis for the identity theft claim as far as the law is concerned?

What do you mean, no basis? She stole someone's ID got caught 8 years ago. Plea guilty to a felony and was ordered to self deport in 2013. Which she did not do.

So not only did she commit a felony with the ID theft, she also broke the law by not self deporting. She probably should have received a year or longer in a Federal Prison for absconding on the self deport order. I'm fairly sure that she continue breaking the law since she plead to the ID theft. How else has she worked over the last 8 years? I se there is no mention of where she was working before being deported. So was she living off the government or working under some else name....SS#

(02-10-2017 01:24 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(02-10-2017 12:44 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-10-2017 03:29 AM)WKUYG Wrote:  According to the Arizona Republic, Garcia de Rayos was convicted in 2009 for impersonation. She was charged with a felony, but her lawyers told ABC15 that raid was subsequently ruled unconstitutional. Court documents obtained by ABC15 also show that Garcia had previously been ordered to self-deport.

"Ms. Garcia, who has a prior felony conviction in Arizona for criminal impersonation, was the subject of a court-issued removal order that became final in July 2013. Ms. Garcia’s immigration case underwent review at multiple levels of the immigration court system, including the Board of Immigration Appeals, and the judges held she did not have a legal basis to remain in the U.S.

So there's no basis for the identity theft claim as far as the law is concerned?

What do you mean, no basis? She stole someone's ID got caught 8 years ago. Plea guilty to a felony and was ordered to self deport in 2013. Which she did not do.

So not only did she commit a felony with the ID theft, she also broke the law by not self deporting. She probably should have received a year or longer in a Federal Prison for absconding on the self deport order.

Ordered to self deport? That has to be the dumbest thing ever.

(02-10-2017 01:26 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(02-10-2017 01:24 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(02-10-2017 12:44 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-10-2017 03:29 AM)WKUYG Wrote:  According to the Arizona Republic, Garcia de Rayos was convicted in 2009 for impersonation. She was charged with a felony, but her lawyers told ABC15 that raid was subsequently ruled unconstitutional. Court documents obtained by ABC15 also show that Garcia had previously been ordered to self-deport.

"Ms. Garcia, who has a prior felony conviction in Arizona for criminal impersonation, was the subject of a court-issued removal order that became final in July 2013. Ms. Garcia’s immigration case underwent review at multiple levels of the immigration court system, including the Board of Immigration Appeals, and the judges held she did not have a legal basis to remain in the U.S.

So there's no basis for the identity theft claim as far as the law is concerned?

What do you mean, no basis? She stole someone's ID got caught 8 years ago. Plea guilty to a felony and was ordered to self deport in 2013. Which she did not do.

So not only did she commit a felony with the ID theft, she also broke the law by not self deporting. She probably should have received a year or longer in a Federal Prison for absconding on the self deport order.

Ordered to self deport? That has to be the dumbest thing ever.

Well the federal system has used the self-report system for low level convictions for many years. They give the person a date and time and prison to show up to. This is no different, but it should be. But it does show she would break the law anytime it fit her needs. absconding is punishable by a year or more in prison.

(02-10-2017 01:24 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(02-10-2017 12:44 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-10-2017 03:29 AM)WKUYG Wrote:  According to the Arizona Republic, Garcia de Rayos was convicted in 2009 for impersonation. She was charged with a felony, but her lawyers told ABC15 that raid was subsequently ruled unconstitutional. Court documents obtained by ABC15 also show that Garcia had previously been ordered to self-deport.

"Ms. Garcia, who has a prior felony conviction in Arizona for criminal impersonation, was the subject of a court-issued removal order that became final in July 2013. Ms. Garcia’s immigration case underwent review at multiple levels of the immigration court system, including the Board of Immigration Appeals, and the judges held she did not have a legal basis to remain in the U.S.

So there's no basis for the identity theft claim as far as the law is concerned?

What do you mean, no basis? She stole someone's ID got caught 8 years ago. Plea guilty to a felony and was ordered to self deport in 2013. Which she did not do.

So not only did she commit a felony with the ID theft, she also broke the law by not self deporting. She probably should have received a year or longer in a Federal Prison for absconding on the self deport order. I'm fairly sure that she continue breaking the law since she plead to the ID theft. How else has she worked over the last 8 years? I se there is no mention of where she was working before being deported. So was she living off the government or working under some else name....SS#

I meant legal basis. If the raid that caused her arrest was declared unconstitutional what does that do to her impersonation case?

(02-09-2017 08:12 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  There is noting morally defensible about breaking the law.

As long as the law itself is not immoral...I agree. It for sure does not apply here.

(02-10-2017 01:38 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-10-2017 01:24 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(02-10-2017 12:44 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-10-2017 03:29 AM)WKUYG Wrote:  According to the Arizona Republic, Garcia de Rayos was convicted in 2009 for impersonation. She was charged with a felony, but her lawyers told ABC15 that raid was subsequently ruled unconstitutional. Court documents obtained by ABC15 also show that Garcia had previously been ordered to self-deport.

"Ms. Garcia, who has a prior felony conviction in Arizona for criminal impersonation, was the subject of a court-issued removal order that became final in July 2013. Ms. Garcia’s immigration case underwent review at multiple levels of the immigration court system, including the Board of Immigration Appeals, and the judges held she did not have a legal basis to remain in the U.S.

So there's no basis for the identity theft claim as far as the law is concerned?

What do you mean, no basis? She stole someone's ID got caught 8 years ago. Plea guilty to a felony and was ordered to self deport in 2013. Which she did not do.

So not only did she commit a felony with the ID theft, she also broke the law by not self deporting. She probably should have received a year or longer in a Federal Prison for absconding on the self deport order. I'm fairly sure that she continue breaking the law since she plead to the ID theft. How else has she worked over the last 8 years? I se there is no mention of where she was working before being deported. So was she living off the government or working under some else name....SS#

I meant legal basis. If the raid that caused her arrest was declared unconstitutional what does that do to her impersonation case?

I don't believe the raids have been ruled unconstitutional. The same court that upheld the stay on the travel ban also upheld the law used for these raids back in May 2016. There is a suit pending but just as our government must now do. This ruling would need to be turned over by the Supreme court. So I believe the suit you are talking about will be tossed at some point based off the ruling by the 9th circuit court of appeals

Sometimes we need to actually check the facts and not go by the half truths that are being reported in these articles. Most of the time you will find the context is totally wrong.

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/loca.../83835390/

A federal appeals court has lifted a judge's ruling that effectively blocked Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio from conducting his controversial workplace raids.

Monday’s decision from a panel of judges on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reverses a preliminary injunction issued last year by U.S. District Court Judge David Campbell. Campbell is presiding over a class-action lawsuit against Arpaio, County Attorney Bill Montgomery and the state of Arizona.

She committed a crime, oh well.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/convict...id/772870/

126 of our citizens killed during Obama years by illegal aliens that were convicted of crimes and released. Bet for those 126 families, not much sympathy for our convicted felon in the OP.

(02-10-2017 02:16 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  She committed a crime, oh well.

That's like saying that passenger of a a car that was speeding should also get a ticket because they too were going over the speed limit.

(02-10-2017 03:51 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-10-2017 02:16 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  She committed a crime, oh well.

That's like saying that passenger of a a car that was speeding should also get a ticket because they too were going over the speed limit.

No, thats like saying that the driver was speeding, she was the passenger, then she decided to be the driver, kept speeding, got pulled over, gave out the wrong insurance and a fake driver's license, got a day in court, failed to show up and now she is in jail.

(02-10-2017 03:48 PM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/convict...id/772870/

126 of our citizens killed during Obama years by illegal aliens that were convicted of crimes and released. Bet for those 126 families, not much sympathy for our convicted felon in the OP.

I just think the attitude of using one crime does not condemn an entire group. Said attitudes should have died out a long time ago. Legal and illegal immigrants commit crimes at lower rates than the native population. And if you were to apply basic common sense and human decency to the case in the OP you would have a hard time seeing that as justification for deportation.

(02-10-2017 03:51 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-10-2017 02:16 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  She committed a crime, oh well.

That's like saying that passenger of a a car that was speeding should also get a ticket because they too were going over the speed limit.

I've yet to read anything about a mother or father bringing her to America. I guess we just assume one or both did?

If so wonder where they are and how they worked to support their 14 year old?

Anyone have a link explaining the background on this lady? Other than she just appeared here in America at the age of 14. Any brothers or sisters born here from her illegal parents? It's very uncommon for a Hispanic family to only have one child.

(02-10-2017 03:58 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-10-2017 03:48 PM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/convict...id/772870/

126 of our citizens killed during Obama years by illegal aliens that were convicted of crimes and released. Bet for those 126 families, not much sympathy for our convicted felon in the OP.

I just think the attitude of using one crime does not condemn an entire group. Said attitudes should have died out a long time ago. Legal and illegal immigrants commit crimes at lower rates than the native population. And if you were to apply basic common sense and human decency to the case in the OP you would have a hard time seeing that as justification for deportation.

Actually 100% of illegal immigrants commit crimes.

by definition..........

(02-10-2017 03:58 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-10-2017 03:48 PM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/convict...id/772870/

126 of our citizens killed during Obama years by illegal aliens that were convicted of crimes and released. Bet for those 126 families, not much sympathy for our convicted felon in the OP.

I just think the attitude of using one crime does not condemn an entire group. Said attitudes should have died out a long time ago. Legal and illegal immigrants commit crimes at lower rates than the native population. And if you were to apply basic common sense and human decency to the case in the OP you would have a hard time seeing that as justification for deportation.

So we should just ignore the deportation laws for the first crime?

126 American families would disagree with that

(02-10-2017 03:58 PM)john01992 Wrote:  And if you were to apply basic common sense and human decency to the case in the OP you would have a hard time seeing that as justification for deportation.

That's cute. I see the law as the law, and violating the law has consequences. You may not like the law, or find nuance in how some situation when the law is enforced, but the law is the law. I don't like civil forfeiture laws, but I damned sure will not carrying round huge wads of money or associate with someone I know is committing felonies because I don't want to lose my stuff.

To question my common sense or human decency because you feel for the circumstances of this individual is laughable and insulting. I don't care. This country has rotted for too long not enforcing laws and standing up for our citizens, even when doing so can be uncomfortable and unpopular.

(02-10-2017 04:17 PM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  

(02-10-2017 03:58 PM)john01992 Wrote:  And if you were to apply basic common sense and human decency to the case in the OP you would have a hard time seeing that as justification for deportation.

That's cute. I see the law as the law, and violating the law has consequences. You may not like the law, or find nuance in how some situation when the law is enforced, but the law is the law. I don't like civil forfeiture laws, but I damned sure will not carrying round huge wads of money or associate with someone I know is committing felonies because I don't want to lose my stuff.

To question my common sense or human decency because you feel for the circumstances of this individual is laughable and insulting. I don't care. This country has rotted for too long not enforcing laws and standing up for our citizens, even when doing so can be uncomfortable and unpopular.

And that is the difference between conservatives and other people. They care more about the law than they do about people.

(02-10-2017 04:21 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-10-2017 04:17 PM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  

(02-10-2017 03:58 PM)john01992 Wrote:  And if you were to apply basic common sense and human decency to the case in the OP you would have a hard time seeing that as justification for deportation.

That's cute. I see the law as the law, and violating the law has consequences. You may not like the law, or find nuance in how some situation when the law is enforced, but the law is the law. I don't like civil forfeiture laws, but I damned sure will not carrying round huge wads of money or associate with someone I know is committing felonies because I don't want to lose my stuff.

To question my common sense or human decency because you feel for the circumstances of this individual is laughable and insulting. I don't care. This country has rotted for too long not enforcing laws and standing up for our citizens, even when doing so can be uncomfortable and unpopular.

And that is the difference between conservatives and other people. They care more about the law than they do about people.

I guess you forgot the 126 American families that we care about...

Grab a warm milk and a binky, Snowflake. It'll all be over in 8 years (or not).

I'm not interested in any argument which seeks to lessen the impact of the illegality of a person's presence in this country.

If we are talking about legal aliens it would be different but we are talking about illegal aliens whose very existence in this country undermines the rule of law.

Without the rule of law there is no United States. There is no valid moral argument that says being nice is ultimately a positive or that individualized feels is of any importance to the overall picture.

Illegal aliens must quit breaking the law, which is to say they must leave.