2006-12-28 21:14:06 · 19 answers · asked by joe s 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Immigration
It's always so easy to blame the government or others for their own wrongdoings and cry "unfair treatment." This person has been breaking the law for 35 years. This person has pledged no allegience to America and has made a conscious choice to retain his/her birth country as their first country. They have always known that without becoming a citizen, there would be the possibility of being deported.
Is it fair to live in the US for 35 years, not pay taxes, but reap the rewards of US social services and educational opportunities for those children without attempting to assimilate into the American culture by becoming a US citizen? Is it fair to retain one's loyalty to his/her birth country and the US that you are taking so much from be damned? This person has chosen not to abide by the laws of America.
If you have failed to become a US citizen after 35 years, then you have no one to blame but yourself if you are deported.
2006-12-28 22:32:15 · answer #1 · answered by A K S 1 · 4⤊ 3⤋
Curious George does not understand what Alien means in terms of US immigration. Being an Alien simply means that you are not an American citizen. It is possible to be an Alien and be legal. I am one myself.
Now, Resident Alien, assuming the term is used accurately, means that the individual has the right to be here at the pleasure of the US Government. That means that he can be deported if he has committed a crime. Indeed, I recall a case several years ago where a woman was convicted in the UK for smoking pot. she was 19 at the time. She emigrated to the USA and lived here for 20 years. She visited the UK from time to time and never had a problem. Then, one day, she was refused entry on account of her drug conviction, twenty years previously, when she was a teenager. Was this fair? Probably not, given that she had no criminal record in the USA. Was it correct? Yes, because that is the law in the USA.
So, to answer your question, it may very well be unfair. It depends what the person did. Rapists, drug dealers and murderers, for instance, are always going to be fair game and no one could really argue if they got deported after serving their sentence. If it is a lesser crime or a technical infringement, then it is, perhaps, unfair. That is why we have immigration attorneys who can help fight deportation proceedings and I hope the deportee has suitable representation if that is the case.
2006-12-29 07:41:57 · answer #2 · answered by skip 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
It depends totally on what this person has done. I'm assuming it was a crime of some importance in order to get him/her deported.
With out all the facts I cant make a judgment call on this.
But if this person has been an illegal alien for 35 years he not only deserves to be deported he deserves a huge fine and his assets seized for back taxes.The fact that he foolishly started a family under theses circumstances is not the governments fault or concern.I'm wondering why the last amnesty didn't apply to him? That's strange isn't it that all the other illegal aliens received
amnesty in what was it 1987 and he /she didn't? Somethings not right here .
Skip below me makes a lot of sense
2006-12-29 07:41:42 · answer #3 · answered by Yakuza 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
If they've been here 35 years and have never made an effort to become legal then they should be given the opportunity to become legal, learn the language and pay your taxes. If they can't do this then yes, deport them. Imagine if I went to Mexico and refused to learn spanish but instead lobby'd the government to write things in english and give me welfare and pay for my kids school, etc etc etc. They would throw me into prison. In fact, they do this every day to any American caught there illegally. I have no respect for an illegal alien, no matter how long they've been here. The crime has been committed, there should be no statue of limitations on this.
2006-12-29 05:30:46 · answer #4 · answered by Billy 4 · 6⤊ 1⤋
Well, the circumstances need to be relayed in more detail. If his only crime is having a visa that expired 35 years ago, or even no visa at, it would be quite stringent. Such a guy deserves leniency and be allowed to stay, especially if he has been working. However, if he has been involved in crime [(for the last 35 years? :-) ] and here I mean not you simple slighting of just a law, but things serious to compare with treason, murder etc... then he loses much of this consideration for compassion.
2006-12-29 05:27:46 · answer #5 · answered by onelife006 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
he broke the law 35 years ago by not becomming legal,why would he still be here 35 years and still not become legal? Probably because he is living off Americas economy,everything for free,about time he pays Id say!
2006-12-29 17:50:47 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
ABSOLUTELY FAIR!!!!! If they are in this country ILLEGALLY,then they need to be DEPORTED!!!! I don't care how long they've been here, or how many kids they have!!!! They KNEW they were breaking a law by being in the country ILLEGALLY!!! Now. they need to PAY for breaking those laws!!!
If a bank robber gets away with it for twenty years, should we forgive him and forget about the money he STOLE???!!! (ILLEGALS steal other people's i.d.'s, and take money (welfare) that is NOT intended for them!!)
If a RAPIST stops raping,gets married,has kids and gets by with his crimes for twenty years without being punished,should we FORGET about his past crimes???!!! NO!!! He needs to be PUNISHED for these crimes!!
A crime is STILL a crime!!! I don't care if it was committed thirty five years ago, or thirty five MINUTES ago!!!
2006-12-29 11:43:26 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
If a person has been breaking the law for 35 years yes they should be deported. They had 35 years to change their illegal status but choose not to.
2006-12-29 06:45:45 · answer #8 · answered by lady01love 4 · 3⤊ 4⤋
It all depends on the Grounds for Deportation..He must have Broken a BIG Law in US for his residency to be taken away...
2006-12-29 09:03:16 · answer #9 · answered by shinningstarofthecarribean 6 · 0⤊ 3⤋
I DO NOT THINK IS THE RIGHT ANSWER, BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. THERE HAS TO BE A CERTAIN CONTROL IN LEGALIZING IMMIGRANTS BUT AT THE SAME TIME THIS PERSON HAS THREE CHILDREN. IF THIS QUESTION WAS TO ASK IF IT WAS MORALLY INCORRECT, I WOULD SAY IT IS TOTALLY INCORRECT, BUT IN LEGAL TERMS IT IS NOT, THAT IS HOW THE SYSTEM WORKS, SADLY.... EVEN IF IT IS NOT FAIR. WELL THAT IS FOR THE RICH POLICY MAKERS TO DECIDE, WHATEVER IS GOOD FOR THE COUNTRY IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING FOR THEM BECAUSE IF THEY WERE TO LOOK TO EVERY INDIVIDUAL CASE THEY WOULD END UP LEGALIZING EVERY IMMIGRANT, BECAUSE EVERY IMMIGRANT HAS A GOOD STORY AND JUSTIFICATION FOR THEIR MOVEMENT OUT OF THEIR LANDS. CONTRARY TO MOST OPINIONS, IMMIGRANTS WANT TO DO GOOD FOR THEIR NEW COUNTRY. NO IMMIGRANT EVER MOVES TO ANOTHER PLACE JUST TO DESTROY IT, BUT ONLY TO SURVIVE,ETC. IT IS THE SYSTEM'S FAULT THAT THESE IMMIGRANTS DO NOT END UP DOING GOOD BECAUSE THE OWN SYSTEM PUTS THEM APART AND TREATS THEM AS ANIMALS, NOT EVEN AS SECOND CLASS CITIZENS. THIS CREATES HATRED AND ASSIMILATION IS MOST LIKELY NOT TO OCCUR. IMMIGRANTS RALIZE THE COUNTRY DOES NOT CARE FOR THEMM AND PROBABLY THEY ASK THEMSELVES WHY SHOULD THEY CARE FOR THE COUNTRY THAT DOES NOT CARE FOR THEM....THERE NEEDS TO BE DONE SOMETHING ABOUT IT.
2006-12-29 05:47:08 · answer #10 · answered by lookingforananswer 1 · 4⤊ 2⤋