Jul 24 2006

When Theory Overtakes Humanity

Published by at 8:52 am under All General Discussions,Illegal Immigration

Drudge has a news item up where a judge threatened a woman with deportation as she was attempting to get a restraining order against her abusive husband. Now I am not going to paint anyone with a broad brush here, so no one should run off thinking I am talking about them. But this incident illustrates what is wrong with taking hard line positions on immigration. For every true story of a hard core criminal illegal alien there are 8 or 9 decent human beings here illegally as well. And their crime is simply trying to make a decent living. People who see nothing but the 10-20% of illegals who are true criminals and who need to be evicted from here have a serious problem when they refuse to face the complete reality. When we focus on the margin and ignore the whole we see things like what this judge did. For a woman to go to a judge to ask for a restraining orders typically means she is under some serious threats and there has been a history of abuse. Woman typically will not go to a judge for simple marital issues. This is doubly true for a woman who is an illegal alien. So for this judge to turn a cold eye on this woman’s plight simply because she is not here in this country with proper papers is criminal in of itself. That woman is in danger and her paperwork should not even be an issue when she comes asking for protection from us as a people and us as a society. Anyone who puts immigration policy theory over real life risks simply has their priorities (and emotions) all screwed up. We cannot give up our humanity over an issue that has been the cornerstone of this country since its inception. We will cease to be Americans if we do.

7 responses so far

7 Responses to “When Theory Overtakes Humanity”

  1. HaroldHutchison says:

    Agreed.

  2. crosspatch says:

    “So for this judge to turn a cold eye on this woman’s plight simply because she is not here in this country with proper papers is criminal in of itself.”

    Absolutely and one of the major reasons illegals are often the victims of crime. Criminals know they are afraid of reporting the crime because of judges like this.

  3. For Enforcement says:

    “is criminal in of itself.”
    So let me get this straight, it was okay for the woman to commit an illegal act and because the Judge proposes doing something about it, is criminal. hmmm, that’s a novel idea.
    While I agree that the most important issue in this case was the woman’s safety, and that should have been dealt with appropriately, the fact that a state judge questions a persons legal status” is a crime”? Really novel thinking.
    So a state judge doesn’t have the right to talk about Federal laws. Wonder if a County judge has the right to talk about state laws, wonder if a city judge has the right to talk about county laws?
    Just for the record, I think that the U.S. Constitution was written for Americans, if someone somewhere else wants the rights and privilege of American citizenship, let them go about it legally.
    So ‘hardliners’ would want laws to be enforced, ‘softliners’ would have those that propose to uphold the laws would be locked up.

    “But this incident illustrates what is wrong with taking hard line positions on immigration.”
    But it illustrates a lot more about the thinking of those that would take the hard line position on those that would uphold the law.

    “Anyone who puts immigration policy theory over real life risks simply has their priorities (and emotions) all screwed up. ”

    I agree with this sentence. But let’s take another scenario, suppose this woman that showed up was a hatchet murderer, would that ‘illegal’ act be appropriate for the judge to bring up? or is it just selected crimes, depending on the preference of whom, to bring up? See what you get into when you start having each individual decide what laws should be enforced? Sounds like each person should use their own “priorities (and emotions)” to decide.
    Now I’m gonna quote someone you all admire and love here, Ann Coulter.
    “Liberals believe it is important to never, ever punish criminals because–well, I’m not sure why. They produce a constantly scrolling list of reasons: The perpertrator is too young; the perpertrator is too old; etc. ” Get the message,
    Now this would give me cause to think I’m talking to a bunch of liberals here, except, it does sound like you would like to see this judge locked up.
    What the hell, nobody says you have to be logical.

  4. Terrye says:

    It takes a lot of nerve for a woman from some of these cultures to stand up to that abuse at all. The truth is the man is probably dangerous and if someone should be deported in all likelihood it is him.

  5. For Enforcement says:

    “and if someone should be deported in all likelihood it is him.”

    oh, for God’s sake, the guy hasn’t been convicted of any crime, and you would deport him. Besides, it probably wouldn’t even be a felony, the criteria for maybe, in some cases, deportation.
    And how would the question of whether he is even a citizen or not even come up? Surely if the Judge asked, the Judge would be committing the crime. Come on, be consistent.

    I am not for anyone’s abuse at anyone’s hands, but the inconsistency of some people. Don’t ask her, but deport him. Geeeezz.

  6. crosspatch says:

    From the Drudge article:

    “A judge who threatened deportation to Mexico for an illegal immigrant seeking a restraining order against her husband has been dropped from the roster of part-time judges used by the Los Angeles County Superior Court.”

    That is because what that judge did violates the law. When someone is the victim of domestic abuse, and it doesn’ t matter if they are male, female, adult, or child, the local law enforcement jurisdiction is required to press charges. The decision to press charges is taken out of the hands of the victim because victims are often bullied by their abuser into dropping charges. In California, the district attorney will get the case.

    This judge pro tempore was clearly in the wrong. All she was asking for was to keep the guy away from her. Nobody should have to suffer having someone in their face or even in their life if they don’t want that person around.

    “She moved into a domestic violence shelter last month, and could not be reached for comment.

    Gonzalez has since resubmitted her request for a restraining order and had it granted, Parachini said.”

    That is exactly how it is supposed to work. Because someone doesn’t have their immigration papers in order doesn’t mean they are fair game for abuse.

  7. For Enforcement says:

    That is because what that judge did violates the law. Aaaannnnnddd should be held accountable.

    What the woman did violates the law.
    Aaaannnnnddd should be held accountable.

    Before anyone goes flying of half cocked, I said above that the woman’s safety was the most important thing.