Two years ago Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York issued Executive Order 41. This order was issued…
to ensure that immigrants, and other New Yorkers, can access City services that they need and are entitled to receive. The policy protects areas of confidentiality, such as immigration status, sexual orientation, status as a victim of domestic violence, status as a crime witness, receipt of public assistance, and information in income tax records.
The New York Times reports on how that order, which “essentially codified a ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy for city workers,” (obviously including those of South Asian heritage) is now being tested:
Waheed Saleh says he was smoking a cigarette outside a doughnut shop at the rough edge of Riverdale in the Bronx when a police officer handed him a summons for disorderly conduct. He protested, he says, and the officer yelled at him to go back to his own country.Mr. Saleh, a Palestinian, worked as a gypsy-cab driver illegally seeking fares and was used to tickets for infractions like double parking, making U-turns and picking up passengers. But he believed that this officer, Kishon Hickman, was harassing him. So he complained to the Civilian Complaint Review Board, which examines complaints against police officers.
Before he heard back from the board, however, he heard from federal immigration authorities. About a year later, outside the same doughnut shop on the night of Dec. 20, 2004, he was confronted by a federal immigration agent and local police officers. The police took him into custody on administrative immigration violations, sending him into deportation proceedings. Mr. Saleh believes it was retaliation for his civilian review board complaint.
What complicates this case is that there is a possible loophole:
There are exceptions written into Executive Order 41: Illegal immigrants suspected of criminal activity or terrorism are not protected. Paul J. Browne, a police spokesman, said that Mr. Saleh’s host of summonses amounted to illegal activity, just as a single parking ticket would.In an interview at a diner near the same doughnut shop, Mr. Saleh said he left his hometown of Jenin, on the West Bank, after his wife died of brain cancer, to find a better way to support his two young children, who stayed behind with his parents.
He arrived in November 2000 on a visitor’s visa, got a valid driver’s license and stayed on illegally to work at gas stations in Rockland County and as a landscaper in Yonkers. But after 9/11, he said, it became much harder to get work without a Social Security card, and he joined other Arabic men driving gypsy cabs.
Mr. Saleh’s case has been taken up by the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund and is being represented by attorney Tushar Sheth:
According to Tushar J. Sheth, Mr. Saleh’s lawyer, it was still under investigation in the fall of 2004 – a typical amount of time for such a investigation – when Officer Hickman asked a friend of Mr. Saleh’s to relay a message to him: If he did not withdraw the complaint, the officer would “give him a hard time.”About two weeks later, the federal immigration agent showed up, with a lieutenant, Kevin Nicholson.
So why does all this matter? What is the big picture? If the government really wants informants to come forward with information about sleeper terrorist cells for example, they can’t pull stuff like this. Instead of bringing a community into the fold, they are teaching them by example that it is better to keep one’s mouth shut and not get involved with the authorities for fear or reprisal or deportation.
[disclaimer: Tushar Sheth is a good friend and my chief counsel if I ever get in trouble.]
I don’t get it !? You mean you would prefer if illegal immigrants do not face deportation ?
Exactly my thoughts, Sean!!
Not sure why he deserves any sympathy. He’s in this country illegally, a crime by iteself and then rather than keeping a low profile to cover his status, he decides to complain about a police officer ? I think he just won himself a honorary mention in the 2005 Darwin Awards.
Sean/Mom/Vikram,
Tsk Tsk… Such insensitivity. They are not illegal immigrants – they are undocumented innocent immigrants. (and it’s not rape – it’s unplanned sex.)
sarcasm off
M. Nam
So would this “special treatment” extend of all illegal immigrants or just to Muslim illegal immigrants, because apprently they can “help” us in the WOT. I bet they also have a bridge somewhere they want to sell us too.
Tough crowd, this.
Where’s the humanity y’all?
Next time, immigrate legally.
As the previous poster said “immigrate legally”. If Greece which hardly has the resources available here, can resort to using satellites to monitor illegal immigrants, why cannot the US use all the resources it has ?
Greece looks to heavens for security
But that would not be “humane” it looks.
Oh, but wait, because this illegal is Muslim, he needs to be treated with velvet gloves. If he was just a garden variety non-Muslim, would all this attention be paid to him ? Tushar Sheth is another Lynn Stewart wannabe.
A country should certainly enforce its immigration laws. But the US is not one of the countries that does — generally, American immigration laws are not rigorously enforced.
What this case highlights is that enforcement of immigration law is used as a tool by authorities to punish individuals that challenge them.
The relevant analogy, to move the issue away from Muslims (which seems to get us -krams very hot and bothered) is the voting qualification laws in the pre-civil rights US South. There is a case to be made for literacy tests (though a bad one), but US literacy tests were not applied evenly — they were enforced selectively to disenfranchise a group of people. (US vagrancy laws were even worse).
From a public policy perspective, deliberate uneven application of laws is often worse than not enforcing the laws at all.
May you never find yourselves in a moment of need.
May you never have the rule book thrown at you when you’re suffering through life’s dirty tricks.
Cheers.
Wnad what is the nature of their challenge?
This analogy is specious. The people trageted by those laws were not criminals. The case being discussed in this thread is about someone who wilfully and knowingly broke U.S. immigration laws. To try and excuse his criminal act by saying that laws are not uniformly applied and hence he should be allowed to stay does not hold water. Using that logic, probably every criminal sitting in jail could get a Tushar Sheth like attorney to file a motion for dismissal because some law somehere through history was not correctly applied in a similar case. And I am pretty sure Mr. Saleh is not trying to do a public service by bringing it to the public attention that laws are not uniformly applied by breaking it himself.
He was smoking!? Oh God, what is the world coming to. Since everyone else that smokes also gets ticketed. I don’t understand why this has to become a question of Muslims being treated better. If anyone has reasons, I’d like to hear them. He had the right to complain against the police officer and he had the courage to do so. The U.S. does have a large population of illegal immigrants and frankly, the economy is heavily dependent on them. Perhaps they ought to be allowed to ask for some decent treatment in return instead of being afraid of what their complaint will cause.
Perhaps you should re-read the original posting:
The last I heard it wasn’t Buddhist sleeper cells that NYC is worried about.
So if a thief broke into your house and your dog attacked him, the thief should be allowed to file a lawsuit against you for damages too ? Because apparently the thief was just trying to make a living (even though by illegal means) and you have thwarted that. Amazing what people will condone. (A case like this did happen in England)
The other -kram said: This analogy is specious. The people trageted by those laws were not criminals … To try and excuse his criminal act by saying that laws are not uniformly applied and hence he should be allowed to stay does not hold water
In the United States, being an illegal immigrant is not a criminal offense (in contrast, alien smuggling is a criminal matter). See here:
For example, mere illegal presence in the U.S. is a civil, not criminal, violation of the INA (Immigration and Naturalization Act), and subsequent deportation and associated administrative processes are civil proceedings.
Now I admit, this -kram is not a lawyer either — I’ll defer to Tushar Sheth, or other immigration lawyers, in this matter.
vik-
i feel as though you are missing the larger point. generally, among the many things that we’ve decided as a nation in our social contract is the idea that everyone should have open access to the government, the ability to speak out against the government, and the ability to seek redress from the government for a violation of the laws. we simply would not be able to say that we have achieved these things if there are a group of people that are not afforded these protections. so everyone, whether they are documented or not, must have these rights for us to be a free and open society- there isn’t really a choice. (the same argument applies for any civil/human right- everyone has to have them for them to mean anything).
now, focusing on the immigration issue, i’m sure you’ve heard all the arguments for sound immigration policy, so i won’t bore you, i only wanna say that it is unfair and intellectually bankrupt to make it so simple and black and white as you make it. you have to agree that our economy depends on immigrants, and that many sectors of our economy and our cities would come to a grinding halt without their contributions. it is a failure of policy that has created this issue, not people performing criminal acts as you have framed this debate. (please note that it is a conclusion by the Times to say that he is undocumented- neither mr. saleh nor his attorney have stated this).
For further thought…
Vikram,
Please stop watching FOX news.
After reading you for some time now, I am sure you can do better than this.
People, the real issue here is :
Anything can be used to build a case against you when you complain against the police – smoking, speeding. OK ! I am hyperventilating a little bit but i think this case scares me.
Full disclosure: I am a naturalized Citizen .
the brown fury writes: >>mong the many things that we’ve decided as a nation in our social contract is the idea that everyone should have open access to the government, the ability to speak out against the government, and the ability to seek redress from the government for a violation of the laws.
No. This has not been decided by anyone. Only citizens should have open access to government, ability for to speak out against the government. Non-citizens should have the same legal protection against force and fraud – that’s about it. If they want full rights, let them complete the immigration process legally and become one of us. Non-citizens are guests – Apni Aukad mat Bhoolo.
The US is the most liberal among all countries when it comes to letting people in. It behooves immigrants to be grateful for this and they should not try to game the system.
M. Nam
MoorNam-
you are wrong. we HAVE decided that civil rights protections extend to everyone within our borders. refer to the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 13th, 14th, 15th amendments to the US Constitution. none of those rights are qualified by immigration status. i think it’s very difficult to defend your position we’ve decided that only citizens only deserve civil rights protections. while you may believe our policy should change, you must admit that currently, our laws and beliefs disagree with your position.
“Non-citizens are guests – Apni Aukad mat Bhoolo”
My punk, skin-head, 9th gen friend has more humanity, at least he likes his “phoren” girlfriends.
God save us…….Hubris.
the brown fury: Re: civil rights.. constitution etc
There are civil rights and there are civil rights. If an H1B is being discriminated because of his/her religion/skin color etc, then he certainly has recourse to knock on the doors of justice. I am not denying that at all.
We are talking about the civil rights of people to change or demand change in the way government works and operates. That civil right rests only with citizens.
For Eg: It is well known that H1-B’s(and R1B’s) pay Social Security and Medicare taxes on their pay, even though they may never live in the US to avail the benefits. Even for the naturalised citizens, your contribution to SS is calculated from the day you got your GC – the taxes you paid while on H1 is “poof”. Gone into thin air.
People have tried to challenge this, only to be told by the immigration lawyers that non-citizens cannot challenge laws.
Perennial complainers should realise that the US is very accomadating. Do you know that you are supposed to carry your I-94(for H1B’s) and GreenCards on hand all the time, and that you could be penalised for leaving it at home? A few days after 911, some desis from Atlanta were vacationing in Florida. They had driven there – so they carried only their drivers licenses and left their passports and GC’s behind. INS did a random check – it’s legal. The way they do it is: They will come and ask you – are you a citizen? If you say – Yes – they cannot touch you. They cannot even ask for proof. If you say – No – they can ask you for papers. If you don’t have papers on hand, you can be deported without hearing. Just as these desis were.
Harsh? Yes. Legal? Yes.
M. Nam
We are talking about the civil rights of people to change or demand change in the way government works and operates. That civil right rests only with citizens.
Would you have said that to the blacks in the 19th century as they were not citizens ?
MoorNam: have you completely lost your mind?
The notion that only citizens can “change or demand change” in the US government is utterly and totally absurd and ill-informed.
You mean to tell me that as a permanent resident and GC holder of over 25 years, I have no “right” to demand change in government and “challenge laws”?
Your logic and examples are truly, mind-bogglingly bizarre.
We’re waiting for another gem of a poem in lieu of a rational and well-reasoned defense of your truly entertaining opinions.
MoorNam- you wrote:
You’re kidding right? First, you’re talking about 1st amendment rights- they are not qualified by citizenship. Second, you do realize that black people were not citizens until the civil war amendments to the constitution- right? Would you argue that they did not have a right to protest and press their government for change?
You call your view harsh but legal. What is your need to be harsh? Why be harsh if you don’t have to be? A huge part of this argument is respect for others, compassion, understanding, and recognition that everyone is born with certain unalienable rights (again, see the deal we have in place- the declaration of independence). If you have the choice between being harsh and the opposite, why choose harshness? Tell me what benefit you get in this case by being harsh.
Also, look at this logically. We want a society where we can petition the government freely and where we can say what we feel- right? How can you have this sort of society if a group people don’t have those rights? Either everyone has them, or everyone doesn’t. There isn’t an in between. You can’t say we’re free and just, if a whole segment of people can’t exercise free speech.
The brown fury,
What I’ve been trying to say is that the US is already very compassionate, caring and understanding of its immigrants. The law I gave an example of(carrying GC) is rarely ever enforced. 99% of immigrants leave their passports/GC’s in the bank lockers.
There are many universities who have told NewOrleans students that they would be absorbed into their campuses (if requirements are met). There are forums for redressal of grievances of these students.
Considering all this, I get riled when a few illegal SouthAsian (mostly muslim?) immigrants to bitch as to how unfair the US is. First follow the law yourself before asking others to do so.
Let’s not go 150 years back into history(slavery) to “prove” how bad the US was. It’s what it is today that counts.
Oh, and another thing. If the US is really such a bad place, what’s your second choice? Go there.
M. Nam
I’m not sure why you are confusing legal immigrants with illegal ones. Once again people seem to have lost focus on the crux of the matter here. It is about illegal immigrants trying to bend the laws to their advantage. And running to their defense hurts the cases of legal immigrants who are caught up in red tape because when people (like in this thread) speak of both legal and illegal immigration as being equivalent, the anti-immigration lobby also begins to paint the same picture, i.e that all immigration legal or illegal should be banned.
Vikram I think that maybe you have lost focus. The crux of the matter is Executive Order 41 (which I provide a link to) which clearly states that NYC doesn’t give a f@ck whether you are legal or not in situations like this. This “matter” was immediately changed and then highjacked in the direction we now find ourselves heading which wants to debate the merits of 41 instead of the actions taken subsequent to it.
Before this becomes a super long thread to beat down Moornam, I suggest we take a look at the ground rules again:
Note: Requests for celebrities’ contact info; racist, abusive, illiterate, content-free or commercial comments; personal, non-issue-focused flames; intolerant or anti-secular comments; and long, obscure rants may be deleted. Unless theyÂ’re funny. ItÂ’s all good then.
Mr. Moornam, that section in bold is meant for you. Maybe you missed it.
And maybe you should take your ultra right wing Hindu agenda and bad writing back to Sulekha before someone gets medieval on your ass.
Since NYC is not the Federal Government (the only authority that can create and enforce immigration policy as far as I know), I am not sure what the legality is of Executive Order 41 in that regard. If a violation of a Federal law has taken place, I doubt a local law/executive order can supercede/ignore it. It will be interesting to see what the courts rule.
timepass,
Most people here know of my Sulekha connection – but I appreciate the free advertising!!
However, you don’t run SM. If Abhi/Manish decide that my comments are non-secular, I’m sure my posting priviledges will be curtailed. And that’s fine by me. You see – unlike some others, I don’t violate the law of the land(or blog) and yet demand equal treatment.
M. Nam
I’m sorry is someone directly challenging the legality of 41?? If you know of a case where anyone including the federal government is challenging 41 in court then please enlighten us. Even if it is being challenged it’s still the law until it is overturned isn’t it?
Is this fool Moornam an American citizen to begin with ? Go back to India, Moornam and spread your filth there.
timePass,
Moornam is presenting a reasonable argument. I agree with him to some extent and I do not see any agenda there.
Please present your case and support it with the research that he/she is providing. Why are you trying to put him/her on defensive.
KIT
Sure it is the law, but as the law itself states:
There is enough latitude in the law that allows for checking on the immigration status of a person.
The Lodi case finally ended with the people involved in being deported for terrorist connections. Too early to say how this will turn out.
KeepItTogether and Vikram — no confusion on my end on the differences between legal and illegal immigrants. Rather, Moornam is the one who is saying that only citizens have rights in this country. I suppose legal immigrants don’t?
Now, when someone is clearly anti-“illegal immigrant” and claims they are “mostly muslim”, that should tell you something about their politics. It’s not being reasonable, it’s ax grinding. Let’s not go down that road, people.
Moornam is not presenting a reasonable argument. He is using this issue to draw attention to the fact that he doesn’t like Muslim illegal immigration which Timepass caught as well as me. As brown fury pointed out he is also being harsh for the sake of being harsh which is the main thing I have a problem with. Doing so naturally evokes a strong viceral response and creates a race to the bottom as we are starting to see as these comments evolve. That is textbook “troll” behavior and one that we do ban for. This is what keeps SM different from open boards like on other websites. I personally detest saffronist idealogy which I tend to ban on sight when they reveal themselves on SM. This is one of the reasons our comment policy is worded the way it is. As long as “troll” comments are kept off these threads we don’t ban anyone. Banning is something we take no pleasure in but it is sometimes necessary so that SM doesn’t, as Timepass pointed out, become like Sulekha.
Stick to reasonable arguments and not harsh words.
Executive Order 41 with its short sighted prohibition of sharing of information betwen agencies, local and federal, seems counter to the push for more information sharing between agencies. The current debate about whether what the Able Danger Pentagon group knew about the 9/11 hijackers almost a year and a half before 9/11 and couldn’t/wouldn’t share it for fear of violation of the “Posse Comitatus Law” illustrates a serious flaw in the intent of the NYC law. Such laws are what caused most the information failures between federal and local agencies, by blinkering information gathering, however trivial it may seem.
Just got back from class and I had to respond to the “if a thief came into your house and the dog bit him…” response. That is a completely irrelevant point. And your condescending quip about what people will condone these days doesn’t get to me. I’m a bleeding heart liberal and proud of it. I personally don’t think that illegal immigration is hurting me, apparently neither do all the Bush voters here in Texas who are having most of their houses built by illegal immigrants. Anyway, it is not hurting me therefore you can’t personalize it by saying that illegal immigrants are the same as thieves. As to the Muslim question I asked you, I reread the article. The person in question happens to be muslim, yes. I don’t really get the whole “he’s raising hell cuz that’s what Muslims do best.” Anyway, I’m sorry if I’ve offended anyone. this question just kinda got me going because I’ve spent a lot of time working with illegal immigrants who are harrassed at work and at home and don’t have legal recourse.
I did sound that way. I apologise. I detest all illegal immigration – Muslim, Hindu, Hispanic, People who think Susan Sarandon can act, etc etc.
No. You folks misread me. I tried to tell you that the US govt can be very harsh if it really wants to go by the book(as it did for a few days after 911) – but it has refrained from doing so. It has been very accomodative of immigrants – even illegal ones. Some of us think that this illegal immigrant business is a big racket through which potential terrorists(hence my muslim comment) can sneak through, and hence the US should clamp down really hard. It should use whatever arsenal in its Constitution to identify and deport all illegal immigrants.
Either one is politically correct or blunt. I’m the latter.
M. Nam
If I understand Executive Order 41 correctly, it does not protect illegal immigrants from the enforcement of immigration laws; it merely makes sure that one does not need to reveal (or prove) one’s immigration status in order to receive civil services. Can somebody clarify if I am mistaken? I’d appreciate it.
My take: Saleh gained the attention of the authorities first because of his infringement of some (silly? perhaps. ok, definitely) smoking regulation. I do wonder if we’re not too hasty to accept, without solid proof, the connection between his protest to the CCRB and his being busted for being illegal. If you have an unpleasant run-in with an officer, chances are they will run you through their system. If your data doesn’t check out, they feel like big-shot detectives who have successfully followed up on a winning instinct; they act on it gladly. Even if Saleh hadn’t lodged a complaint, who knows? He might have been busted for being here illegally. Until he can PROVE that the CCRB complaint DIRECTLY triggered his detainment for visa violations, I don’t think he has a case. He’d have to prove that the officer deliberately persecuted him for filing a complaint (which was well within Saleh’s rights to do, as a resident — legal or illegal — of the area).
I suspect the cry of “Oh, humanity!” which this article has inspired is due in part to the ridiculousness of being busted for smoking on the curb — the alleged “criminal action” which exempted Saleh from the right to privacy per Executive Order 41. Say the police officer had discovered that Saleh was actually wanted for murder. Would anyone be concerned about his case, or bemoaning loopholes in Executive Order 41? I don’t think so.
Or actually, perhaps they would be. This, I think, indicates a problem… here a brief, musing aside.
Confession: even if this were proved, it would be hard for me to get too morally outraged over the police officer’s actions, since his so-called persecution consisted solely (it seems) of reporting the truth — Saleh overstaying his visa — to the authorities in charge of enforcing the relevant law. That said, Abhi’s editoral note — that this isn’t going to help the government gain informants — is totally correct, so far as one assumes that the informants the government really wants are illegal themselves. For sure, this will be a problem for the gov’t as long as it doesn’t enforce immigration laws, but punishes illegal immigrants who call the govt’s attention to themselves. On the other hand, deporting illegals would also mean fewer groups of illegal immigrants for the government to want to spy on, hence a decreasing need to recruit illegal immigrants as informants. So… Catch-22.
Before anyone demonizes me: I’m a leftie and I don’t watch Fox. However, I also just DON’T understand the debate on immigration. The system needs an overhaul, but that’s not going to be accomplished as long as people who don’t agree with the current system pour their energies into encouraging people to IGNORE the law rather than to CHANGE it. Y’know?
Ok. That was my piece.
Simran writes: >>since his so-called persecution consisted solely (it seems) of reporting the truth — Saleh overstaying his visa
To the point.
M. Nam
It doesn’t seem like that bit about Mr Saleh’s breaking the law and the policeman doing his job is of much concern for the people rushing to his aid. It is just another platform for their agenda.
Look, if you are a CIA agent, and you are investigating a suspected Al Queda member in flight school when you know that OBL is trying to blow up WTC with planes, that information should be passed along. No one is arguing otherwise. The dumb fucks who run our intelligence agencies can’t get their acts together, and so, no one took this CIA agent’s memo seriously. If they did, maybe things would be different, but it’s hard to say.
But because of their failures and lack of real solutions for their MISTAKES, they are diverting attention away by enacting blanket policies like across the board information sharing even when wrongdoing is not suspected, special registration, targeting of communities for deportation, etc. These are fake solutions.
You can’t find the needle in the haystack. It’s not gonna pop up and prick you in the ass.
Instead of wasting time enacting these blanket measures that don’t help you find terrorists, they should pour this money into better intelligence and support. Immigration and national security are not the same thing.
Not the same but connected very closely. In case you are not aware, you do go through FBI and police checks, to check guess what: whether you could be a criminal or a terrorist. National security checks are the first steps for weeding out unwanted immigrants.
If this Maryland police officer had access to better information or been more agressive about arresting Ziad Jarrah for excessive speeding, history may have been different. Sometimes finding that proverbial needle just requires one to have an eye unhindered by red tape and dangerous political correctness. A law like Executive Order 41 will allow such situations to repeat if the police are not allowed to make judgements as to what a situation might potentially be connected with.
Cmon dude- what exactly would be different? We’re not debating whether people should be arrested and put in jail for speeding. That would be the only way they could have stopped Jarrah. The article itself says that he wasn’t on the FBI’s watch list. No amount of information sharing would have made a difference- there was no information to share! But better intelligence perhaps would have made a difference. Who knows, more resources dedicated towards specific intelligence may have caught this guy or one of the others, there’s no way for us to know. But dumping money into blanket policies of intimidation and targeting would not have helped in this case, and has not helped us catch a single potential terrorist. Seriously, go through all the policies since 9/11. Do any of them make you feel safer? It’s because our government repeatedly confuses immigration with national security.
Everytime the argument gets tough for the folks on your side of this debate, your first instinct is to invoke some 9/11 related story and use that to justify your policy choice without making any type of actual policy argument. As if the story is the policy argument. Dig deeper man! There is no scenario related to 9/11 in which information sharing between federal and local entities would have helped.
I take it you read my post with the link to the “Able Danger” group ? There seems to have been more than just trivial information to share.
I suggest you read this article which very clearly summarizes how information sharing between Federal and local entities could have helped, as well as the recent revelations of “Able Danger”.
Deadly tale of incompetence
An excerpt:
I’ll skip past the debate on whether or not it was right to deport Saleh and comment on something else which I feel needs more mentioning, the disparity between the written law and the majority opinion.
I could care less whether the law says Saleh’s blood should be drained and drunk from by the masses opposed to illegal immigration or says Saleh should be awarded a gazillion dollars in punitive damages and wed to Mariah Carey. I do care, however, when we sanction official disregard or abuse of the law. Note the “we”, a rather important concept since “we” affect this country and its rules – and hence affect me, the only person I truly need to care about – far more than any Mr. Saleh can ever hope to concern me. I would rather the law be ludicrous, because then at least it would be allowed and widely taken advantage of for its ludicrousness and eventually people’s opinions may change and steer this 280m passenger ship elsewhere.
What I don’t like, what is excruciatingly annoying and on par with having mistakenly rubbed my eyes with chili-laced fingers, is not only reading about an officer thus far not reprimanded for likely abuse of power, but having to wade through a chorus chanting ad nauseam the illegality of Saleh’s stay here when he has already been deported. If there is a clear consensus on whether we punish Saleh further, hunt and deport Saleh-like individuals, ignore the whole episode, fish Saleh back and restore the pre-imbroglio status quo, slap the officer’s wrist, or strip Hickman’s stripes, one of these things would become the standard and we could measure the effects. Instead, minor infractions occur now and again, some party randomly wins, a howl is made by the public, a lull follows, and the process repeats. This process of sedentary democracy lets victors keep their spoils however obtained; and, without any standards in place, the illegals silently become fodder for abuse and we lose all metrics which if gathered would strengthen future decision-making.
Either kick illegals out, or legitimize their stay! This teetering between the two is horrible. Execute Order 41 largely disambiguated how we should treat illegals, and I neither like nor dislike its stance that immigration status becomes protected information, but I love that it is a stance, a firm one, and an official one. Despite this, we’re still more concerned with Saleh’s former status than Hickman’s ability to circumvent E.O. 41 and exploit Saleh’s status? If anything, I see this as an opportunity to either undo the EO and legislate in the opposite direction, finding and evicting NYC illegals, or to strengthen the EO and attempt to legitimize within the city a federal illegality. City and State nonconformity with Federal stipulation isn’t uncommon – and both Bhagat Singh Thind and the NYC official who unwittingly granted him citizenship in the 1920s would, if still alive, attest both to the priority of local rules and the power of local officials. Personally, if my opinion is worth anything, I’d suggest that money be spent more wisely than paying for an impenetrable aegis protecting us from those who would’ve been freely admitted a century ago. Unless, of course, there are those who feel our 20th century was ruined because of 19th century immigration.
this issue can’t be argued because the fact he broke a law confounds the whole situation
another interesting angle is;
to what extent do countries of the Enlightement tradition hold a special place toward having just laws? I think the idea that the ideals in the Constitution and other products of the Enlightement are universal have led to an expectation that laws should be universally applicable; that is what is good in a universal sense should be a consideration of how law here is made
i wonder if the pre-eminence of countries of the Enlightenment economically helped make this the case
because so many nations are tied in some way to what happens here, it then does matter if the laws here are universal
in some way we expect Han chinese in China to be given special treatment in a way we don’t in the US in similiar situations
or maybe not