- Joined
- Mar 21, 2005
- Messages
- 25,893
- Reaction score
- 12,484
- Location
- New York, NY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
Jessica Colotl, a 21-year-old college student and illegal Mexican immigrant at the center of a contentious immigration case, surrendered to a Georgia sheriff on Friday but continued to deny wrongdoing. Ms. Colotl was arrested in March for driving without a license and could face deportation next year. On Wednesday the sheriff filed a felony charge against her for providing a false address to the police.
...
“I never thought that I’d be caught up in this messed-up system,” Ms. Colotl said Friday at a news conference after being released on $2,500 bail. “I was treated like a criminal, like a threat to the nation.” Civil rights groups say Ms. Colotl should be spared deportation because she was brought to the United States without legal documents by her parents at age 11. They also note that she has excelled academically and was discovered to be here illegally only after a routine traffic violation.
In Georgia, the case has become intensely political. Ms. Colotl received in-state tuition, substantially reducing her cost of attending Kennesaw State. The university will charge her out-of-state rates in the future, but Republican politicians are calling for new legislation to make attendance more expensive, or impossible, for illegal immigrants.
One Republican candidate for governor, Eric Johnson, has said that if elected he will mandate that all college applicants demonstrate their citizenship. The chancellor of the state university system says that would be prohibitively expensive, costing $1.5 million, for roughly 300,000 students.
A probationary citizenship program that allows people to work towards a citizenship I think would work best.While it's certainly nice that this woman has managed to attend a few years of college, how does that change the fact that she's here illegally? Should we put a clause in the immigration law saying that illegals will not be deported so long as they're hard-working?
A probationary citizenship program that allows people to work towards a citizenship I think would work best.
I simply fail to see what deporting someone who is clearly trying to be a productive member of our society will do. She's going to school to get an education and get a good job, why should she be disavowed the opportunity to do so simply because she doesn't have the right paperwork?And as a formal policy suggestion going forward, that's fine. What I take issue with are the arguments that even though the law clearly says she should be deported, the government should ignore the law in her case because she's such a nice person.
I simply fail to see what deporting someone who is clearly trying to be a productive member of our society will do. She's going to school to get an education and get a good job, why should she be disavowed the opportunity to do so simply because she doesn't have the right paperwork?
If this was someone who was scamming people or skating by without contributing, I could see the point. But to me, this seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
It's not that she "sounds nice" it's that she's a productive and positive member of our society that actually contributes something. In that she's head and shoulders above probably thousands of people who were BORN here.Because that's how the rule of law works - we don't create special exceptions on the spot for people simply because they sound nice.
Zero-tolerance polices almost always end up a mess. The law needs to be flexible.If Congress wants to amend our immigration laws to say that people who are attending college can stay, they're free to do that. Until they do so, it's absurd to argue that we should engage in extralegal case-by-case balancing tests to determine whether or not each person is handled according to the law.
It's not that she "sounds nice" it's that she's a productive and positive member of our society that actually contributes something. In that she's head and shoulders above probably thousands of people who were BORN here.
Zero-tolerance polices almost always end up a mess. The law needs to be flexible.
Throw her in jail, then bus her to Mexico.
I accept public grants and scholarships to attend school, so what?By "actually contributes something," you mean "attended Kennesaw state for three years while accepting $30k in state taxpayer subsidies and driving without a license"?
Im saying that this case highlights a glaring flaw in our immigration policy when we're tossing out people who are trying to be productive members of our society.So ask Congress to change the law to be more flexible. Don't argue that the authorities should start conducing their own completely unauthorized analysis of whether each illegal immigrant is productive enough to warrant ignoring the law in their case.
Again, this is not about what the law should be. It's about whether it's appropriate to argue that enforcement agencies should ignore the law whenever they feel like it.
Waste taxpayer dollars keeping her in jail? Really?
Because that's how the rule of law works - we don't create special exceptions on the spot for people simply because they sound nice.
If Congress wants to amend our immigration laws to say that people who are attending college can stay, they're free to do that. Until they do so, it's absurd to argue that we should engage in extralegal case-by-case balancing tests to determine whether or not each person is handled according to the law.
I accept public grants and scholarships to attend school, so what?
What makes you think she didnt?Your parents and you also pay taxes.
Waste taxpayer dollars keeping her in jail? Really?
Im saying that this case highlights a glaring flaw in our immigration policy when we're tossing out people who are trying to be productive members of our society.
What makes you think she didnt?
I accept public grants and scholarships to attend school, so what?
Im saying that this case highlights a glaring flaw in our immigration policy when we're tossing out people who are trying to be productive members of our society.
But what about people who were dragged across the border as a minor?
Did she commit the crime? Or did her parents?
Clearly, as an adult she became aware of the issues that she would face - but what do you recommend for someone who is here as a minor, who is (by all accounts) a good student, and whose biggest crime was driving without a license. With regards to the charge of providing a false address and getting in-state tuition: if she was providing the address of where she resided, how is that a false address?
I'm not making an accusation, but the piece didn't seem to address that point. Most colleges recognize you as in-state as long as you've lived there for a year, so if she's lived there since 11, I don't see those charges as valid.
Non-U.S. Citizens
Non-U.S. citizens are only eligible for in-state residency if they are lawful permanent residents as documented by the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service or have been granted a visa in an eligible category. F-1 student visas are not eligible. These students must still provide documentation of in-state residency for the twelve-month period prior to the start of the term.
Again, my concern here is that she didn't illegally cross the border of her own free will. If you accept that charge, then the prosecutor would need to seek charges against all minors here illegally as adults.
You can argue that she began breaking the law on her 18th birthday; and I'd buy that legally. I find that to be a bit cruel, though - since she'd been here for seven years at that point.
I'm just asking what your point of view is on minors who cannot - by definition - have broken the law of their own free will.
A probationary citizenship program that allows people to work towards a citizenship I think would work best.
It's not that she "sounds nice" it's that she's a productive and positive member of our society that actually contributes something. In that she's head and shoulders above probably thousands of people who were BORN here.
Zero-tolerance polices almost always end up a mess. The law needs to be flexible.
Student?s Arrest Tests Immigration Policy - NYTimes.com
While it's certainly nice that this woman has managed to attend a few years of college, how does that change the fact that she's here illegally? Should we put a clause in the immigration law saying that illegals will not be deported so long as they're hard-working? The prevalence of emotional reasoning in this country is just depressing.
You've got to be kidding me. The chancellor claims that they couldn't possibly enforce a citizenship requirement, because it would cost $5/student. Given that Ms. Colotl alone bilked over $30k from the state coffers, that seems a little ridiculous.
Throw her in jail, then bus her to Mexico.
So do I. My acceptance of those public monies is not in and of itself a contribution to society. I don't understand how you think that her decision to attend college on the public dollar means that she's automatically made a positive contribution to society.
And once again, that's a reason to amend the law. Not a reason to start creating case by case exceptions whenever a heartrending story hits the paper.
She was a minor, so it was her parents that committed the particular crime of bringing her across the border. She herself committed several more, such as driving without a license and fraudulently obtaining funds from the state.
Most states explicitly require that students seeking in-state status be lawful US residents. Georgia, her state, says this:
She clearly lied on her paperwork, obtaining over $30k in state funds fraudulently.
No one is prosecuted merely for committing the "crime" of crossing the border illegally, they're deported via an administrative hearing. That applies to everyone, regardless of age.
Again, GA is not planning on putting her in jail for crossing the border at age 11. GA is planning on prosecuting her for violating state laws, and then the federal government is planning on deporting her.
Well we either follow the law or we strike down the law, we can't have both because how then would we apply the law fairly. One either violates the law or doesn't, so we either have a law or we don't.I simply fail to see what deporting someone who is clearly trying to be a productive member of our society will do. She's going to school to get an education and get a good job, why should she be disavowed the opportunity to do so simply because she doesn't have the right paperwork?
If this was someone who was scamming people or skating by without contributing, I could see the point. But to me, this seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?