Deportee to Nowhere

This story touches on so many issues, I hardly know how to begin to summarize it.

Comments

[Lilith]

So, I guess compassion isn't a libertarian value then, Thorley? That's too bad.

[Thorley Winston]

Xray wrote:

Thorley, it's you pretend libertarians who always act obtuse when you are trying to dress up your reactionary views and keep the brown people out.

Actually the ?pretend libertarians? are the ones who are defending a violent felon and thief. Real libertarians believe that people should be held responsible for their actions and favor punishing criminals who violate the rights of others by robbing and stabbing them to the fullest extent of the law and in this case it includes deportation or confinement until he can be deported.

I'll set aside the fact that immigration laws are among the most unlibertarian legislation there is, since you seem quite happy to trust the goverment.

Probably because only an idiot actually wants an open border policy especially post-9/11. Most people recognize that since the federal government has a responsibility to protect our borders (which it has done an imperfect job), it necessarily follows that they must be defined as well. Nations do not exist without borders and it?s pretty much a foregone conclusion that those borders are going to have to be defined by government. Reasonable people can however differ on what those policies should be which is why we make those decisions via our elected representatives.

But your suggestion that because he has a deadbeat daddy, he deserves to be stateless, is silly. From the article: "He came to this country as a 13-year-old in 1984 with his mother and half-brother, part of an immigration program that specifically was designed for Amerasians. Technically, he's living here as a "permanent resident alien." Since you seem to think there were a lot of black soldiers fighting for other countries in Vietnam, why did the gov let him under a program for amerasians? Were you not there in 84 to challenge his claims and demand proof of paternity?

Apparently merely being let in initially under a program for Americasians is not quite the proof of paternity you would like it to be. Evidently there is a lower standard for being admitted under that program than that required to actually prove he is the son of an American serviceman, otherwise he would not now be required to prove his status.

[Thorley Winston]

Lilith wrote:

So, I guess compassion isn't a libertarian value then, Thorley? That's too bad.

Save your compassion for the man he stabbed and the guy whose car he stole. They?re the actual victims here not the criminal who harmed them.

[Ruthless]

I'm not gonna defend a criminal, but what this shows is the insanity of borders.
Trying to preserve the sanctity of borders is every bit as futile as the war on drugs and produces as many horrible, unintended consequences.

[Anonymous]

The comment "Probably because only an idiot actually wants an open border policy especially post-9/11" really lends no credence to your argument. There are plenty of principled people in the libertarian movement who believe differently. I would be very uncomfortable calling people like Jacob Hornberger and idiot, for example.

Post 9/11, our fight is with Al Queda, not Amerasian refugees. And, there is almost always room for compassion.

-Justin

[Thorley Winston]

Ruthless wrote:

I'm not gonna defend a criminal, but what this shows is the insanity of borders.

No what it shows is the intellectual bankruptcy of those libertarians who are merely anti-government without having taken the time to develop a coherent and principled philosophy. Which is why they?re saying silly things about the ?insanity of borders? and crying crocodile tears over the fate of a repeat violent felon because the alternative would be to acknowledge that government while it has a limited role has a legitimate role in a free society.

Trying to preserve the sanctity of borders is every bit as futile as the war on drugs and produces as many horrible, unintended consequences.

It never ceases to amaze me how some people try to relate every issue back to the drug war even when it is nothing like the drug war and has nothing to do with the drug war.

[Thorley Winston]

Justin wrote:

The comment "Probably because only an idiot actually wants an open border policy especially post-9/11" really lends no credence to your argument. There are plenty of principled people in the libertarian movement who believe differently. I would be very uncomfortable calling people like Jacob Hornberger and idiot, for example.

How does being ?principled? make up for advocating what is rather obviously a silly idea? And frankly I have no problem calling many of the LP candidates for office who run on these sorts of fringe issues as ?idiots? any more than I have a problem condemning Murray Rothbard for cheering the Vietcong as an example private citizens protecting themselves from government or the neo-confederates of Lew Rockwell.com for acting as apologists for the CSA.

The fact is that just as there are kooks in the conservative movement and leftist movements, there are sadly also some the libertarian movement (which is actually part of what?s called the conservative movement for the most part) who mistakenly think that so long as a position is against some form of government involvement at some level it is somehow ?principled.?

Open borders are a silly idea unless you really think that a foreign army should be allowed to move into the United States at will or that we really should not do anything to keep out terrorists and criminals from immigrating into the United States.

[Ron Hardin]

Gee, I read it and see mostly the journalist polishing up his prose. ``This'll grab them'' writing. It's written for women, the soap opera crowd. How many things can you relate to, in short.

There's an old book, The Lazlo Letters, in which Lazlo writes to self-important people and publishes responses; in a couple of letters, the respondant came off very well, though I don't know if Lazlo realized it. One was Richard Nixon; the other was Nguyen Cao Ky:

Thank you very much for your letter. I apologize for the
delay in answering, but we have been busy finding a place
to settle. We have decided to stay in the Washington area
for the time being as I feel that I can be more effective
here in helping the Vietnamese.

I am writing this note to express my gratitude for your
kind words and good wishes. Also, I would like very much
to thank you for the dollar you sent so that I could get
a hamburger at McDonalds.

I would like to report to you that a National Center for
Vietnamese Resettlement has been formed in Washington
to assist in the long term needs of the refugees. I know
that we can count on your support of the Center.

Your feelings toward the refugees from Vietnam are heartwarming
and constitute a great source of encouragement to me.
For this and your other kindnesses, I send you my
grateful thanks. Best personal wishes to you.

Yours sincerely,

Nguyen Cao Ky
==
That was the idea. I don't see that the journalist paid much attention.

[seditious_nick]

The only REAL borders are the fence I put around my personal property. If I wish to help my neighbor defend his personal property, I can, but I'm not obligated to.

Thorley,
maybe you should ask a native american about open borders and illegal immigrants.

-sed

[Justin]

Well, I guess that's where you and I differ Thorley. I'm not against closed borders because the U.S. Government is in charge of it. I'm against closed borders because I believe that movement is a basic human right. I don't believe I am a kook for believing such things. You do, that's fine. It still adds nothing to the discussion.

The assertion that without border controls some foreign army would march right in is ludicrous beyond reason. I don't believe that the INS's mandate includes repelling foreign invaders. That's why we have a military (a military that should be concentrating on precisely that, instead of its escapades in far flung countries).

Out of all the arguments I've heard against immigration, national security makes the most sense to me. However, it has not convinced me. As James Bovard once said "Nothing has happened since 9/11 to make the government more competent". Perhaps there is another answer?

Regardless, the issue of national security certainly does not apply here.

[Thorley Winston]

seditious_nick wrote:

maybe you should ask a native american about open borders and illegal immigrants.

You mean when they regularly invaded each other?s territory to murder, rape, and pillage? Is that your idea of an ideal we should strive for ? no national borders so anyone can just cross over to do the same?

[Lonewacko: Yep, I'm Still Blog]

"maybe you should ask a native american about open borders and illegal immigrants"

I agree, Nick. We should learn from what happened to them, and make sure that nothing like that happens to us.

(And, tell us about the Apaches, too).

[Madog]

Thorley,

I'm not saying that criminals shouldn't get punished. I'm saying there's something wrong with a system where a US citizen commits a crime, goes to jail awhile and is set free; an illegal immigrant commits a crime and goes to jail and is deported; but a legal immigrant goes commits a crime, goes to jail, and then is locked up for years because we don't have an arrangement with his home government, a former enemy of ours. It's not un-libertarian to want equal treatment for equal crimes is it? The illegal immigrant, the one who broke the most laws, probably gets off the easiest - I doubt a US criminal record would matter much in other countries, where a US citizen could have trouble getting a job and people in Chau's situtation are imprisoned for years because of red tape.

[JDM]

I don't see what the carping is about. The laws are all reasonable here. This guy was in a unique situation. The system works because governors or the President have the ability to grant pardons for special circumstances.

If he was wrongfully convicted, or denied due process, there'd be a problem. He stabbed someone, stole a car, and probably committed 25 other crimes that he wasn't caught for. Rot in jail, dumbass.

[Justin]

I'm willing to bet one of those "25 other crimes he wasn't caught for" was the crime of not being able to fashion a basic, logical argument. But, then again, that would be a victimless crime, perpetrated only against the unique ability for an individual to reason; no doubt an ability you distain.

-Justin

[xray]

JDM, I have it on good authority that you probably committed at least 24 dumbass crimes yourself you haven't been caught for. Rot away.

[Keith]

Madog - succinct and eloquent post at 2:55!

[JDM]

xray,

Probably so, but none of them were violent felonies, which is what we are talking about here.

[JDM]

Justin,

"The assertion that without border controls some foreign army would march right in is ludicrous beyond reason."

Since you're describing an event which essentially has already happened - with borders closed relative to your ideal - it's hard to put much credence in your judgement about what is or is not a logical argument.

I wasn't responding to open border kooks.

[Brad S]

Interesting story. The compassionate side of me feels bad for this guy, while the practical side of me doesn't really know what to make of the whole situation. Here are the lessons from this, as I see it:

1. Many government programs, while well-intentioned, often have many unintended consequences (i.e. the act in 1982 which allowed this guy preferential treatment in immigration).

2. America is far from the only nation in the world in which racism is an issue (witness the way this guy was treated in Vietnam as a result of being half African-American).

3. It's very possible to slip through the cracks of our public education system. It sounds like this guy was basically illiterate in 1989 when he was promoted to the 10th grade. I guess it's easier for the public schools to look the other way and pass along the problem children to society than to actually do something about it.

4. Similar to point #1, our federal government passes all sorts of laws that sound good in theory and give people lots of warm fuzzy feelings when their politicians spew on and on about them, but become very problematic for law enforcement to deal with in the real world. Case in point is the quote from the Phoenix detective, "The federal government enacted a law that was a good idea -- getting these kids out of Vietnam -- but with little infrastructure behind it, and little clue what to do when reality struck. It came down to us having to immediately deal with a whole bunch of Dung Chaus."

5. It's interesting to see how the interpretation / intent of language in a law can blow back and forth with the winds of political change. Witness the words of the INS attorney, "There is no evidence that Congress intended to legitimate the children covered within the Amerasian Children Act, or any of the subsequent related acts." You've got to be kidding me. That's EXACTLY what the intent of the act was. Oh well. To summarize the political landscape: in 1982, immigration = good, in 1996 immigration = not so good, post 9/11 immigration = very very very bad.

6. A great many societal ills can be traced back one way or another to the phenomenon of deadbeat dads. Perhaps the most important lesson out of all of this is that there's not a thing any government bureaucrat can ever do that is a viable or acceptable substitute for the presence of a father figure in an individual's life.

[xray]

JDM: A foreign army has marched into the US? Are you talking war of 1812? Seriously.

[Justin]

JDM,
The rest of the sentence reads as follows:

I don't believe that the INS's mandate includes repelling foreign invaders. That's why we have a military (a military that should be concentrating on precisely that, instead of its escapades in far flung countries).

I'm not quite sure what event you are referring to. The war of 1812? Wasn't that conflict ultimately solved by our military? Had the INS existed then, would it have halted the British invasion?

Or, are you talking about 9/11? I was not aware that a foreign army invaded America on that fateful day.

Could that attack been avoided by tougher immigration measures? Maybe, maybe not. The fact of the matter is, the U.S. Government did little or nothing to protect us then. Given its track record, I have little faith in its abilities to do so now.

Arguments against immigration miss the entire point. If we don't want people blowing up our buildings, perhaps we should learn to play nice with others. If we don't want immigrants receiving the myriad of government-sponsored benefits out there, abolish the government-sponsored benefits.

It seems that it is much easier to attack outsiders for problems we have created.

Our enemy is Al Queda. We have every right to go after them and destroy them. Our enemy is not Amerasian immigrants brought here with the understanding that they would all soon be granted American Citizenship.

-Justin

[Steve in CA]

I wouldn't say the guy deserves to be sent back to 'Nam, but it seems like the article is written to make you feel sorry for him, and given his criminal record, he's not a very sympathetic subject.

Of course, as a libertarian, I maintain that he shouldn't have been arrested for the crack.

[david f]

just do to him what they did to roman maronie in Johnny Dangerously...

[Russ D]

c'mon, this is a clear case of the gummint trying to wrangle themselves out of a situation they created because they don't like what might be construed as bad PR. They want to undo the bad PR of the war, and they want to undo the bad PR of the immigration that made it easy for these exceptions. Unfortunately, PR is all the law amounts to; the appearance of caring without actually caring.

[JDM]

xray,

Please continue to make up things for me to say. I'd hate to see you take a position on something I actually said.

Justin,

"Or, are you talking about 9/11?"

Is it so hard to figure this out? 99% of understanding comes from context. You left-libbies really seem to go to town rhetorically on intentionally misreading things, moreso than most other groups, but it doesn't help your argument as far as convincing anyone, and it certainly can't help your understanding.

"I was not aware that a foreign army invaded America on that fateful day."

Yes, well, it is *essentially* the same thing. If you re-read my post, you'll notice the "essentially." I'm not sure why it matters to you whether the future foreign organization that knocks down the Empire State Building or nukes Los Angeles has a seat on the UN or not.

"Our enemy is Al Queda."

I'm don't what the point of calling anyone an enemy is. The idea is to stop other people from blowing Americans up. I get that you believe in a world with no borders, but that's just not the world we have. I understand that you believe all evil is derived from American corporations, but even if the US withdrew entirely from the rest of the world, it would possibly be suicidal to immediately do so and simultaneously completely open the borders. If you think otherwise, you are indeed a kook.

Now as far as the actual topic of the thread goes,
in the world as it exists, I think it's a good idea to deport alien violent felons. It follows that if it's necessary to deport them, it is also necessary to not simply let them off the hook if their home country won't take them back. At any rate, that is the intent of the law - aliens who are known to be felons (or at least who commit violent felonies) are not allowed to stay in the US. It is being fairly applied to this case.

"Our enemy is not Amerasian immigrants brought here with the understanding that they would all soon be granted American Citizenship."

He was not brought here with the understanding that he could stab people and steal cars. In fact, as the law is written, he was brought here with the understanding that if he stabbed anyone, he would not become a US citizen.

[xray]

JDM: I couldn't make up the kind of non-libertarian nonsense you've been spewing. You said this:

"Justin,

"The assertion that without border controls some foreign army would march right in is ludicrous beyond reason."

Since you're describing an event which essentially has already happened - with borders closed relative to your ideal - it's hard to put much credence in your judgement about what is or is not a logical argument.

I wasn't responding to open border kooks.

Posted by JDM at November 14, 2003 04:13 PM "

Now when you write in such a tortured way and then accuse anyone who is more libertarian than you of being a leftist, it's just no fun to argue anymore. You could have answered my question by saying "I think the 9/11 terrorists were essentially/effectively a foreign army." If you really think that an invasion by a military force is essentially the same as a terrorist attck, that's fine. Bizarre, but fine.

[Anonymous]

Neat how the same guy who complains about "intentionally misreading things" then declares "I understand that you believe all evil is derived from American corporations." When did anyone here say anything like that? (Examples must come from actual thread, and not from JDM's rich imagination.)

[Justin]

Wow, you have an awesome ability of inference. Leftist Libertarian? What the hell is that? Evil is derived from evil corporations? Huh?

Honestly, you've lost me.

Yes, I believe in open borders, essentially because I believe in freedom. How we arrive at that solution is certainly a matter for thoughtful debate and discussion.

-Justin

[The Merovingian]

This is fun to watch. 🙂

[JDM]

'Neat how the same guy who complains about "intentionally misreading things" then declares "I understand that you believe all evil is derived from American corporations."'

I'm not misreading the intent of his argument, which is that was that maintaining borders against terrorism is unjustifiable since the US made terrorism so dangerous in the first place with its meddling. Even if I grant that, it'd still be foolish and dangerous to open the borders tomorrow.

In other words, the fact that I overstate his case does not change the validity of my arguments against it. My arguments don't hinge on the difference between my hyberbolic restatement, and his actual argument, I'm not arguing against my hyperbole, I'm arguing against his point. If I'd turned around and said "Ha ha! dummy, all evil does not eminate from US corporations," then your point would be valid. But I don't. I say that even if it did, you still would need to enforce a border right now. To the extent that it's unfair because the implication that he believes that is a smear against him - OK. It's probably unfair.

On the other hand, Justin misreads the intent of Thorley's argument completely. Whether or not a foreign army could actually march in through Mexico, does not change his argument. Bad things can happen, and have happened recently. The fact that there is no army which actually exists in the world that could accomplish such an invasion might clue one in to the fact that he isn't claiming that this could actually happen. For the purposes of this argument, however, 9/11 amounts to the same thing. A porous border allowed attacks to occur. Justin, though, turns around and immediately says - "The assertion that without border controls some foreign army would march right in is ludicrous beyond reason."

Justin's argument that whether or not the border could be closed by an incompetent government is different. As is his argument that whatever you think of the national security issue, this case does not have anything to do with national security.

xray's earlier statement that I've commited crimes as well is another example of what I'm talking about. So what? The fact that I may have broken the law myself hardly speaks to the facts of this case, or my assertion that no one should be feeling so sorry for a dangerous felon, or whether or not this is some sort of miscarriage of justice. I wasn't saying all people who break all laws should have to rot in prison.

Here's another:

"If you really think that an invasion by a military force is essentially the same as a terrorist attck, that's fine. Bizarre, but fine."

Again, I'm not claiming it is essentially the same in all ways at all times, but in the context of this argument, it makes the same point. It's hardly bizarre to think that terrorist knocking down buildings, or a foreign army marching into Texas are so different when talking about what effect border security would have on them. Indeed, the 9/11 attack argues for tighter security than would be required to make sure the Red Chinese aren't massing on the border. I don't see how pulling a sentence out of context and trying to make it say something it was never meant to makes for the fun arguments xray is looking for, but then I try to avoid doing it.

Maybe it's not intentional, but I have a hard time believing that that any of those points was so hard to grasp.

[Justin]

JDM,
They are not hard to grasp at all. I just happen to disagree with most of them. You are correct in asserting that opening the borders tomorrow would be insane. Just like instantly cutting off all subsidies to corporations would be insane.

I also understand that open immigration is a huge debating point amoung libertarians. There are certainly some good, well reasoned arguments out there, pro and con.

I've already stated why I oppose closed borders in the above posts. I've already stated my uncertainty that government can effectively protect us from further terrorist attacks by clamping down on said borders.

Israel has some of the toughest border checks in the world and it certainly has done little to quell the flow of violence there. In fact, their attempts at security have probably done more to harm its citizens than good.

My point is that we cannot ensure security by trampling freedom. Like I said before, I believe free movement is a basic human right. Sure, 9/11 has given me some pause; but it has done nothing to convince me that suddenly government is the solution to our problems.

-Justin

[The Merovingian]

JDM, et. al.,

So, is the guy a terrorist threat or not? If he is, why is he out on bail?

JDM's problem is that he wants a "one size fits all" solution to immigration issues; its the same sort of "zero tolerance" stupidity that people complain about at US schools.

The rest of you are simply letting emotion get in the way of things; the man did stab someone (its the only violent act he committed as far as I can tell - so JDM's discussion of "acts" is misleading). The problem is that this man is caught in a liminal legal state, and sorting out what should happen to him is problematic because of this.

I guess the questions are this: should he returned Viet Nam? If so, why? Because he is an undesirable? As a punishment? Or because the law demands such? Or all three?

[JSM]

The ongoing collateral damage of the vietnam war.

[Thorley Winston]

From the article:

Chau quit school at 17 without learning how to read or write. He's dabbled in illicit drugs, ran with gangs, stolen cars and, in 1991, was convicted of stabbing someone. He spent about half of his 20s incarcerated.

In other words he?s just a criminal (even by libertarian standards) with a sob story.

Nope, it isn?t touching at all.

The only problem is that it may not be possible to deport him without an agreement with Vietnam in which case we may be stuck with him.

[Madog]

The tragedy is that even though he served his sentence for those crimes, he still might be locked up for years because we don't want him in the country, but can't send him back to Vietnam. If he was a US citizen criminal, he'd be free to do whatever he wants right now.

[Erik]

He did the crimes, he's done the time, but he served his time. Whether or not we personally agree with the convictions or punishments, the law has been satisfied.

The idea of deporting him is as ridiculous as deporting Slick Rick. Arrianna Huffington and Governor Arnold have committed crimes and are socially undesirable in certian quaters as well, but no one is seriously calling for their deportation. Bump that noise.

[Thorley Winston]

Erik wrote:

The idea of deporting him is as ridiculous as deporting Slick Rick. Arrianna Huffington and Governor Arnold have committed crimes and are socially undesirable in certian quaters as well, but no one is seriously calling for their deportation.

Really now, what were they convicted of and when?

[Keith]

Thorley,

The point is, he's an AMERICAN criminal, by interpretation of the 1982 law. His case should be handled and remain within the criminal justice system.

I'm no laywer, but I believe that the sentiment was, that Congress intended for the US to repatriate the children of Americans and to accept them as Americans, and that this sentiment is the correct one in my opinion.

[Thorley Winston]

Keith wrote:

The point is, he's an AMERICAN criminal, by interpretation of the 1982 law. His case should be handled and remain within the criminal justice system.

That?s only the case if he can prove paternity, since that seems unlikely he would probably not have any status as an American in which case the 1982 law would not seem to apply.

I'm no laywer, but I believe that the sentiment was, that Congress intended for the US to repatriate the children of Americans and to accept them as Americans, and that this sentiment is the correct one in my opinion.

So prove that his father was an American serviceman as opposed to a civilian or a black serviceman who served in another nation?s armed forces (we weren?t the only multi-racial nation to send troops to Vietnam). If he cannot do that prior to his 21st birthday, then he he would appear to have no standing under the 1982 law.

[Thorley Winston]

Madog wrote:

If he was a US citizen criminal, he'd be free to do whatever he wants right now.

You mean like smoke a little crack, steal a car, and stab someone? You know the things he was ?free to do? and did before he was threatened with deportation.

[Thorley Winston]

Erik wrote:

He did the crimes, he's done the time, but he served his time. Whether or not we personally agree with the convictions or punishments, the law has been satisfied.

That?s not entirely true. According to the article, under the law an immigrant criminal with two crimes of moral turpitude and an aggravated felony can also be deported which is the issue at hand. The law apparently may not be satisfied at all.

[Patriot]

Once a criminal, always a criminal, huh Thorley?

[mudflap]

uhhhh, well,
Who did Arnold stab? the Hummers are stolen?

Arrianna has spent the better part of a decade incarcerated?

socially undesirable is equal to multiple felonies?

Erik, were talking about a habitual felon, it's not the same category as an asshole.

Mudfalp

[xray]

Thorley, it's you pretend libertarians who always act obtuse when you are trying to dress up your reactionary views and keep the brown people out. I'll set aside the fact that immigration laws are among the most unlibertarian legislation there is, since you seem quite happy to trust the goverment. But your suggestion that because he has a deadbeat daddy, he deserves to be stateless, is silly. From the article: "He came to this country as a 13-year-old in 1984 with his mother and half-brother, part of an immigration program that specifically was designed for Amerasians. Technically, he's living here as a "permanent resident alien." Since you seem to think there were a lot of black soldiers fighting for other countries in Vietnam, why did the gov let him under a program for amerasians? Were you not there in 84 to challenge his claims and demand proof of paternity?

[Anonymous]

"The agency placed the trio in a comfortable apartment in Phoenix's Sunnyslope neighborhood..."

Some things you just can't make up.

[Sicherman Miriam]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 82.146.43.155
URL: http://www.penis-pill-enlargement.com
DATE: 02/28/2004 07:40:56
A solved puzzle is just a picture.