Immigration law

Doctor With Permanent Residency and American Wife, Daughter Who Immigrated From Poland as a Kid Faces Deportation for 26-Year-Old Misdemeanors

|

Lukasz Niec was brought to the U.S. as a three-year-old, a refugee from Poland's oppressive then-communist government. Now 43, Niec's a permanent resident with a green card and an American wife, daughter, and stepdaughter. He works as a doctor specializing in internal medicine for Bronson HeathCare in Michigan.

But the Immigration and Control Enforcement (ICE) agency in the Department of Homeland Security arrested him last week and he may be deported to a country whose language he doesn't even know.

Why? Because of two old criminal convictions, USA Today reports, with Niec's being taken into custody the result of "two misdemeanors from 26 years ago — malicious destruction of property under $100 in January 1992, and a few months later receiving and concealing stolen property over $100. Niec was 17 at the time, and the youthful offender proceeding allowed young first offenders to avoid a criminal record if they stayed out of trouble. But ICE is a federal agency, and family members complained that Niec did not know that the agency was not bound to honor the agreement, the family says."

More recently Niec's had trouble with the law in 2008 over a drunk driving conviction for which he served probation and had the conviction set aside, and a 2013 domestic violence trial in which he was found not guilty.

But mostly he's been a medical professional and nothing in his record indicates a threat to American civic order such that ICE should be eating up public resources bothering with him and harming his family and the people he serves as a doctor. It's one more example of the pointless cruelty of immigration law enforcement. As Washington Post notes, "under previous administrations, immigration authorities have often let low-level offenders off the hook, prioritizing the deportations of violent criminals…But the Trump administration has issued sweeping new guidelines expanding the range of immigrants that count as high priority for deportation, including low-level offenders, and those with no criminal record — regardless of how long they have lived in the country."

Niec has made himself an integral part of his home state's medical profession. As MLive reports:

"He's an excellent citizen, an excellent physician. He's well respected and well liked," colleague Penny Rathburn said. "He's not a threat to our society."

Several colleagues wrote letters addressed to an immigration judge in support of Niec. They were being printed on Bronson letterhead Friday to be sent out, Rathburn said.

"The consensus about his character is overwhelming with no single complaint I have ever heard from anyone over 10 years," Kwsai Al-Rahhal, M.D. wrote.

"He is loving, caring and respectful. I have seen how he treats my own family and my kids love 'uncle Lucas.'….

Another colleague, Jose Angelo L. De Leon, M.D., called Niec an inspiration and a mentor. Niec stepped up to work extra hours during shortages, he wrote.

"I cannot say enough about his work ethic and his service to our community," he wrote.

For more on citizen reaction to the Trump-era deportation wave, see Shikha Dalmia's informative and infuriating February Reason cover story.

NEXT: Linguification

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Lukasz Niec was brought to the U.S. as a three-year-old, a refugee from Poland’s oppressive then-communist government.

    This statement made me think of the olden days of the 90s, when Democrats fought hard to send kids back to communist governments.

    1. Well, to a democrat, the state knows best.

    2. He was sent to his father who had legal custody.

      1. He got sent back to his owner. His father was just another of the slaves.

    3. ………I just started 7 weeks ago and I’ve gotten 2 check for a total of $2,000…this is the best decision I made in a long time! “Thank you for giving me this extraordinary opportunity to make extra money from home.
      go to this site for more details….. http://www.startonlinejob.com

  2. If only he had applied for legal entry and citizenship when he came to the country, he could have been a citizen as early as last year.

    1. He should have chosen better parents.

    2. If he came at six, and is now 43, he would have been eligible for citizenship twenty years ago.

      1. Doesn’t matter. He’s still a legal residence with citizen wife and citizen daughter. Net tax payer. Just because he doesn’t want the piece of paper that lets him vote and collect welfare should not matter. Maybe he doesn’t want to vote and doesn’t want to collect welfare.

        1. It doesn’t matter.

          Except that it does. And his problems are not solely from the 26 year old offenses as stated by the sub headline. His more recent DUI and domestic issues are really where the problem lies.

          Had a good friend I went to high school with, who never wanted to lose his Dutch citizenship. A DUI (maybe two) plus a couple domestic complaints led him to self deport (along with his US wife and two US kids) to Spain.

          That was over ten years ago.

          This is nothing new, and when all you have is a green card then your behavior very much does matter.

          1. Sucks for the Dutchman, because they are emphatic about not allowing dual citizenship over there. Perhaps somewhat oddly for a famously cosmopolitan people, it’s considered a core national political principle of the Netherlands that a person should only have loyalty to a single sovereign–to the extent that they actively try to spread this philosophy around the world and convince other countries to turn against dual citizenship.

            Post-cold-war Poland, to put it mildly, is not known for its aversion to dual citizenship. And he was a childhood arrival, married to an American, and had more than enough money over the past two decades to pay the fee. (Though I knew someone who naturalized in college.) So fuck this dude.

  3. deported to a country whose language he doesn’t even know.

    How do you live in Poland for 3 years, and grow up in a Polish immigrant household and not know Polish?

    Hell, I can understand Geechee just fine and I’m a cracker who hasn’t lived in the low country since I was 3.

    1. Different people learn different things in different ways. Your brain is different from this doctor’s brain, just as your first three years were different. That’s how.

      1. Language imprints at a very early age.

        https://tinyurl.com/y8sa26ru

        He learned Polish, he just does not remember Polish.

        Which means his parents made a conscious effort to not use Polish in the house once they got here. Strange that they would be so concerned with mainstreaming their child, but not concerned with getting him citizenship ASAP.

    2. Ah, a solution! Let’s deport SIV and keep the doctor!

      1. We are doing merit-based now, after all. No reason not to assess the natives.

        1. Tony, why don’t we deport you and make room for this man? Surely a respected physician is worth a million or more of you.

          If you don’t offer to do it, then you’re a racist.

          1. Yeah, but where would we send him? There’s so many places to choose from that match his ideology: Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, China…

    3. Maybe his parents chose to speekie English. My grandparents were both from the old country, but other than the curse words, my dad never learned Danish.

  4. “He’s an excellent citizen, an excellent physician. He’s well respected and well liked,”

    So if someone is kind of a dick, deport them?

    1. With drunk driving and domestic violence arrests and a juvenile rap the Polack seems to have that covered.

      1. You both understate the seriousness of his charges and have a rather unsettling view of the justice system, I think.

        Those are adult charges, not juvenile. If they were juvenile cases, which are custodial rather than criminal in nature, they should be sealed and the kid given another chance no matter what. Also, I for one don’t care if he had 100 baby rape arrests, and I don’t see why anyone else should either. An arrest is not a conviction. Its standards are incredibly low. It might mean nothing but a power-tripping cop or a vindictive girlfriend. This is not a technicality; it goes to the heart of how the actions of our justice system should be interpreted. I’ve never been arrested myself, but for all I know I might be someday; and it makes me shudder every time I hear people talk with casual meaningfulness about “arrest records” and so forth, in the sort of “where there’s smoke there’s fire” folk attitude that people commonly have about the issue.

        We shouldn’t give that much social power to that particular state action, placing a sort of folk faith in it that it was never intended to bear, giving it a significance that it was never meant to have. It’s not healthy.

        1. …As for Dr. Luksusowa here, ideally I’d think that a couple of nonviolent YOs shouldn’t distinguish him from any other childhood illegal. It’s not some great profound injustice if he has to go home to Poland, his real country, which is after all a perfectly lovely place these days; I just don’t think the YOs distinguish him from the “clean” Dreamers in any significant way.

          1. Poland, his real country

            Why is that his real country?

            1. Does he also have some imaginary countries too? Narnia? Zenda? Qurac? Latveria?

              1. Latveria is a shithole.

            2. Because that’s the one on his passport. Something he apparently never sought to change.

              Maybe he meant it, maybe he was just lazy, either way the onus was on him.

          2. Oh fuck me, I’m dumb. He’s not an illegal.

            Well, I actually have less sympathy for him now. People do this all the fucking time and my sympathy is quite limited.

            Waaaah! they say when they get deported over some petty shit. I’ve built a life here. I consider myself American. I fell like this is my country. I never thought they’d ask me to leave.

            Well, why the fuck not? You’re not a fucking citizen; you’re a guest. You’re here on the State Department’s mercy. Who exactly told you you couldn’t be sent back for some petty shit? You know how seriously U.S. Immigration takes criminal records; everybody on Earth fucking knows that.

            You feel like an American? Well fuck you; you’re not. We’re not responsible for your delusion. This isn’t fucking Kuwait. We don’t borrow a foreign workforce, curse their presence as they build our country, and be horrified at the prospect of their assimilation; our national culture is expressly one of naturalization! You want to stay, become a fucking American; it’s expected of you.

            Poland damn fucking well allows dual citizenship if any country does; and you’re a fucking American doctor so finances didn’t keep your lazy ass from sending in that application for more than two fucking decades. Do you know how many people around the world would kill to be in your position? Get your pasty ass back to Poland, commie.

            1. I’m forced to agree that anyone who feels like an American is suffering from a severe delusion.

      2. 2008 over a drunk driving conviction for which he served probation and had the conviction set aside, and a 2013 domestic violence trial in which he was found not guilty.

        Yeah, he had *probation* for a DD conviction 10 years ago. And he was acquitted of the DV.

        But yeah, let’s throw him out of the country because he’s not ‘our sort’.

        1. Ah, he was actually convicted of the DWI! Damn I am fucking tired today; my comprehension is shite!

          Yeah, that’ll fuck ya. Przepraszam, towarzyszu.

  5. If the law says he should be deported, then he should. It is an offense to the rule of law for some people to get special treatment. For every case that gets attention, there are many who are equally worthy and get deported anyway. If you don’t like the outcome, change the law, but until then the law must be applied equally to all.

    That being said, I think the law should be changed.

    1. What if the law, itself, is an offense to the rule of law?

      1. Abraham Lincoln ? ‘The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly.’

        1. “Maybe I said it, but there are so many dubious quotes from me on the Internet that a citation would be in order.”

          1. /Abraham Lincoln

    2. This use of emotion and political power to side step the law is a very disturbing trend.

      Don’t like the outcome — just whine loudly and paint yourself as the victim and the left will hand you a free pass.

      1. Particularly disturbing how getting years and decades more time in the U.S. than you are entitled to, rather than getting none of that and going home immediately as you’d deserved, is perversely wielded against us. “Oh, but I’ve built a life here! Look how many years!” Yeah, well, then be thankful for what you got.

        1. If you built a life here, why didn’t you put a roof on that building and become a citizen?

    3. This use of emotion and political power to side step the law is a very disturbing trend.

      Don’t like the outcome — just whine loudly and paint yourself as the victim and the left will hand you a free pass.

      1. Don’t like the outcome — just whine loudly and paint yourself as the victim and the left will hand you a free pass.

        If a “crime” has no victim, then those prosecuted for it are the victims.

        1. You forgot to add the qualifier ‘but only if you are a member of a darling class and think the same thoughts we do’.

          1. “Darling class” sounds like a late-term elective at a finishing school.

    4. If the law says we have to return the runaway slave, then we need to return the runaway slave. Rule of law and all that. Runaway slaves should not get special treatment just because they have a family. There are many worthy of not being send back to their owner, why should he get special treatment? If you don’t like it, them abolish slavery instead of helping slaves make it into Canada.

      That being said, I do think that slavery is wrong.

      1. My point is that only by enforcing all laws without exception will we realize that we have too many laws.

        1. That’s a commonly stated belief. But I’m not sure it really is true. I’m not sure that realization ever comes.

          1. I’ve never known anyone to provide historical examples when they say this. They just throw it out there, probably thinking that since there’s a logic to it, it must be true.

            1. They’re probably thinking of Prohibition in the US in the 1920s.

              1. Which come to think of it wasn’t always enforced with full strictness.

                1. Yes, I see that as evidence against the proposition.

        2. So the individuals who suffer under bad laws are just collateral damage in pursuit of…greater freedom for individuals?

          I get that lots of innocent people suffer under bad laws but don’t make headlines. But how does adding another to their ranks make things better?

          1. This is more of a general response to the law and order argument than a comment on this specific case.

        3. When has this strategy ever worked out in practice?

          Instead, if you look at things like alcohol prohibition, they are repealed when the people finally realize that attempting to enforce prohibition-type laws is pointless. That is the problem. Prohibitions never work because the behavior attempting to be proscribed is just so widespread, that the state is powerless to even put a dent in it.

    5. The rule of law should get thicker skin.

    6. Only party officials and Top Men get to violate the rule of law with impunity, to the detriment of the entire fucking country.

    7. Right on. If you don’t like or agree with the law, then get the law changed or eliminated.

  6. “citizen reaction to the Trump-era deportation wave”
    as opposed to the non-reaction for the previous 8 years when the press never reported on any of the 3,000,000 people Obama deported…

  7. Yup. That was for nothing. Just imagine if the perp had need a really dangerous felon with, say, a six-pack in 1932, or some plant leaves in 1968! There’s the beauty of the Bush policy of subsidized faith-based community snitches and entrapment operators. Who is better qualified to help the goons keep America’s borders secure?

  8. If folks are so infuriated by Dalmia’s journalism, why don’t they subscribe to the John Birch Society newsletter instead of trying to infiltrate libertarian venues?

    1. Because that’s a false binary choice fucktard. Seriously, do you read the gibbering drivel you write before you hit ‘submit’?

    2. Hank eats cat poop with Hihn, news at 11.

  9. If he has been here for decades, why has he not applied for a more permanent status. Does he consider himself a short termer, with a foothold some were else.

    Did he come in illegally? or on a Refugee visa?

    There are so many holes in this story that one can only assume that some lawbreaker is trying to use emotion to obscure the legals facts.

    1. He has permanent status. He has a green card. That’s what it means.

      1. He has permanent resident alien status.

        Nothing actually permanent about that. Especially if you commit crimes.

        1. I don’t get this. Are we, as libertarians, now advocating oaths of submission to a sovereign?

            1. Not really – lot’s of people saying ‘fuck you if you don’t take the oath’ here. Which is puzzling since I don’t think most of them had to swear . . .

              . . . that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”

              In order to live in this country. Not even to vote.

              1. Assumption that they’re libertarians or are starting from the same premises as you, I mean.

          1. Potentially interesting question that I’ve never seen asked of libertarians. What, if any, citizenship (or permanent residence) oath would we design? Could yield some interesting answers.

            Me personally, I see absolutely no problem with swearing an oath to the Constitution or similar values, but would absolutely cut out the conscription part that I think is in there. I certainly don’t want anyone not sharing these values becoming a permanent part of our citizenry; and we have every right to stop them from becoming part of it. Note that as soon as they are granted citizenship it is already too late; they have as much a right to then say, “naw, now I changed my mind and fuck the Constitution” as any of us do. That is as it should be. No oaths for citizens to exercise their rights; oaths for naturalization, which is not a right of aliens–in fact, again, the robust rights of citizens is all the more reason to be careful about aliens while we can.

            1. …Meanwhile I think essentially all those of us who believe in borders also believe in some distinctive concept of citizenship–that merely setting foot on a country’s soil does not entitle you to the full right to remain here as does the core population. (It would be interesting to note if any of us actually believes in fewer rights of citizenship than is currently permitted–for instance, in the punishment of banishment, which is precluded by modern citizenship and considered a human rights violation under most circumstances.)

              And I do think that, even if some folks think the current citizenship oath is unacceptable, they’ll consider its imperfections acceptable enough to swallow, considering anything else to be letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. They’d be a bit like the republicans who take their oath to the Queen in order to take their seats in Parliament.

              1. Fuck off, slaver.

                1. See? This guy gets it!

        2. The guy is here 40 years and doesn’t take the time to become a citizen? Didn’t want to be?

          Shit or get off the pot. If you can’t commit to the country, it’s not going to commit to you.

          Americans first.

          1. Here here. This is not even a marginally sympathetic case either, as I and other people have been pointing out. Thank God Reason wasn’t in charge of staging the Montgomery bus protest; they’d probably have picked Omarosa.

  10. Civilization and society!

  11. For all those ‘tards talking about deporting criminals, we’re talking about mere misdemeanors here. Which while a step up from the usual administrative offense they of being here without papers, is still a far cry from the kind of scary images their fearmongering would suggest. We’re not talking felony here. We’re not talking violence. We’re talking about one case of drunk driving, with the conviction set aside, more than twenty flipping years ago.

    It’s easy to say “they should just obey the law if they don’t want to be deported”, but they fail to realize how minor this shit is. 26 year old tiny shit. This isn’t protecting Americans. It’s not even protecting our jerbs. I have close friends and family who have done worse.

    Misdemeanor. Not violent felony. Just a misdemeanor. And a LEGAL resident, not a one of those scary murdering and raping illegal Mexican types. LEGAL resident. Physician. Wife and family.

    1. And……………………of EUROPEAN heritage.

      1. Maybe it’s not all about race after all

    2. Blame MADD. DUI is a special kind of misdemeanor.

      And lets also consider what domestic offenses can do to an actual citizen’s rights…

      1. You think we’re serious about it; Canada considers it a felony for immigration purposes, and they are as serious about criminal records as we are. Instant ban! It’s become a real issue since the border closed over the ’00s, disturbing the centuries-old lifestyles of an untoward number of intimately intertwined communities.

        Watch carefully for that cunt Gabby Giffords, who is attempting to get the definition of “domestic victim”–currently limited by the Lautenberg Amendment to current or former spouse, parent, or guardian (or “similarly situated”), or person with whom you have a child–expanded to include everyone you have ever gone on a date with. Remember, we’re talking about a misdemeanor. Gay dude throws a drink in his ex’s face–should the ADA press charges and win, he’d pay a small fine…and lose his gun rights for life.

        The astronaut bitch and her minions are going state to state with that filthy deranged racist Bloomberg’s money and trying to get the local laws passed one by one. Next stop after that, Congress! And fuck if I trust the Stupids to go to the mat against “closing this ‘loophole.'” (The NRA, I must admit, is somewhat quietly but most determinedly fighting this one, so credit where credit is due.)

    3. You think 2008 was that long ago?

    4. Actually, the DUI was in 2008. That’s ten years ago, not “more than twenty flipping years ago”.

      But really, if he didn’t want to get deported, he probably should have done something about getting naturalized sometime in the past 25 years.

  12. I’ll bet if he was an illiterate indigent illegal we wouldn’t be deporting him.

  13. I maintain that the political support for changing our immigration laws is dependent on the perception that we can control who comes across our borders.

    Those of you who undermine efforts to secure our borders are undermining the necessary condition for reform.

    Support for expanding legal immigration will only come at the expense of illegal immigration. If we can’t convince people that the laws are being followed and that we can secure our border, then you might as well be kicking guys like this doctor out yourself.

    It’s like background checks for gun purchases. Convincing people that background checks don’t work, and it may make committed libertarians want to get rid of them. For swing voters, if you convince them that background checks don’t keep guns out of the hands of criminals, terrorists, and mass shooting maniacs, then they don’t want to get rid of background checks. In that case, they just want strict gun control for everybody.

    Likewise with immigration, convince people that our border is impossible to secure, and they don’t suddenly support illegal immigration. They support throwing every illegal alien out of the country.

    A secure border is the price of free and legal immigration. Convince people that illegal aliens are being deported and can’t get back in, and the support for legal immigration will rise dramatically.

    1. In my leftist days I was ultra dovish on legal immigration, but still ultra hawkish on illegal. I never understood the slowly creeping trend (from California in the 90s across the country to our present weirdness) of this ultra-dovishness where we call illegals “undocumented” and so forth, and think it is somehow horrifying to deport their asses. Should we not all aim for a totally legal workforce, so that every worker here can fully stand up for their rights and interests and no employer gets to “cheat” by hiring those who cannot? And furthermore, doesn’t any partial “rights” amount instead to an enormous incentive to come here? Especially doesn’t any “amnesty” whatsoever amount to a total loss of credibility on our part (yeah, this one last time and we mean it)? Does it seem at all fair (not to mention selective of good Americans) to favor those who said, fuck it, Im’a come over anyway, over those chumps who followed the law and stayed on line in their home countries?

      I felt like I was taking fucking crazy pills.

      1. “Does it seem at all fair (not to mention selective of good Americans) to favor those who said, fuck it, Im’a come over anyway, over those chumps who followed the law and stayed on line in their home countries?”

        Don’t reward people for breaking the law. Kind of obvious, *if* what you’re aiming at is to bring in the law abiding.

        Along with a bus ride to the border, illegal aliens should get a lifetime ban on coming to the US in any capacity.

        1. Our country was founded by people who said ‘fuck it, I’ma come anyway.’ Our country was founded by people who broke the law – even some of the most important laws of the time.

          1. Well indeed, our country was settled by people who had zero respect for the laws of the Indians. And look how it turned out for the Indians!

            I don’t think any liberal today, even the most zealous open-border type, can give our civilization any claim to have respected even the most basic rights of the Indians who were here before. In fact it’s not even a matter of opinion, but of historical fact: The settlers did not conceive of themselves as immigrants to the country of the Indians, but as people setting up a new nation, independent of them and of separate sovereignty, on that soil. The Indians were treated as at most foreign nations to be negotiated with, possibly made war upon, etc.; and often they were not even that. Is this the attitude you suggest that today’s plucky immigrants take towards the United States; and that we, for our part, even celebrate and cherish as so reminding us of ourselves back in the Pilgrim days?

    2. “I maintain that the political support for changing our immigration laws is dependent on the perception that we can control who comes across our borders.”

      When Americans feel that their right to determine who gets to join the club is respected, then maybe they’ll feel happier about letting more people into the club.

      When they have foreingers forced on them, they don’t like it.

      No mean no!

  14. Oh, and for every big-eyed, sad bunny, there’s one of these guys:

    This guy was deported 20 times over a period of just a few years. He has a felony conviction for burglary, and misdemeanors for battery and theft.

    He just got 35 years for burglary, kidnapping, and sodomizing a 65 year old woman.

    http://www.kgw.com/article/new…..-459231264

    Oh, and just before that sexual assault, he was released from jail by a sanctuary city that ignored a request from ICE to transfer him to their custody rather than release him.

    The government has a legitimate libertarian responsibility to protect our rights from from foreign threats, and congress has used their enumerated powers to pass constitutional laws to do precisely that in the case of illegal aliens. It’s absolutely correct for my fellow libertarians to argue for the free flow of labor across our borders for all the same reasons we argue for the free flow of goods . . .

    However, nothing hurts the cause of free and legal immigration like arguments against securing our border against illegal immigration. Libertarians can and should argue against wars that are bad for our country, too, but what could be worse for that cause than arguing for America to lose a war? And rooting for illegal immigration is like rooting for America to lose a war. I wouldn’t even do that in an unconstitutional war–and our immigration laws are perfectly constitutional.

    1. It’s been suggested that a border barrier is of limited utility (and again, it won’t do shit against the visa overstays). But mandatory e-verify should be a bright line for any libertarian; it’s utterly horrifying. (The CBP “border zone” where 70% of us live is no great shakes either.) Other than those things, we’ve got ordinary enforcement. The idea that we put up with explicit local noncooperation is utter insanity; the Canadians sure as fuck have nothing of the kind.

      We should sit down and determine, in a manner free from ideology, exactly what enforcement we need to be more flexible about, lest, e.g., violent criminals hide among illegals who fear coming to authorities. Then we should show utterly no mercy–there should be a Federal law passed providing for sanctions, civil penalties, and criminal penalties against not only local law enforcement, prosecutorial, and other governmental institutions but also any thereby affiliated individuals guilty of committing or officially promoting anything short of full notification and cooperation with ICE. We have very few tools at our disposal; we need to be serious about the ones we have. The status quo is insanity.

      I often think most of y’all place way the fuck too much importance on subsidiarity, but surely we can all agree on this!

      1. “mandatory e-verify should be a bright line for any libertarian; it’s utterly horrifying.”

        Mandatory E-Verify is: it is illegal for me to hire my neighbor’s kid to mow my lawn without checking his papers through some official government database.

        1. True story – I was in Little Caesar’s the other day, read some of their employee notices. Two of them, right next to each other.

          1. This business uses eVerify

          2. You can not be refused employment based on your immigration status.

          So, what the hell is the point of eVerify then?

          1. (2) means legal (and legal to work) status. It’s illegal to take citizenship vs. green card vs. work authorization into account. But you can say, no, I’m not employing you because you’re on a student or tourist or a work that doesn’t cover this type of employment or whatever. In fact, you’re obligated to say that of course by Federal law.

      2. there should be a Federal law passed providing for sanctions, civil penalties, and criminal penalties against not only local law enforcement, prosecutorial, and other governmental institutions but also any thereby affiliated individuals guilty of committing or officially promoting anything short of full notification and cooperation with ICE. …surely we can all agree on this!

        Surely!

        1. Bah, your ellipsis hides a universe! I don’t mean all Americans, and of course hardly all libertarians; I’m addressing all those of us who place some importance on getting serious about stopping illegal immigration but differ (as we do widely in H&R) on what we imagine we’d like to see done. I was encouraging anyone on the fence to take an unapologetically centralist view of immigration enforcement, despite the deep visceral misgivings many might have.

      3. “But mandatory e-verify should be a bright line for any libertarian; it’s utterly horrifying.”

        I go in with my birth certificate and social security card when it’s time to fill out the new employee paperwork.

        I am not “utterly horrified”.

        1. I’ve only ever had to provide an SSN – not a card – and only for tax withholding purposes.

          I’ve never had to prove my age – except in one job where there was a minimum age requirement.

    2. Re: Ken Shultz,

      The government has a legitimate libertarian responsibility to protect our rights from from foreign threats,

      Will it dawn on you that a government who legitimizes veritable pogroms against peaceful and productive undocumented immigrants couldn’t care less about your rights, or mine? If there’s one thing that cannot be denied by you nor anyone else, is that that woman wasn’t sodomized by all immigrants, legal or else, that are living inside the country. She wss the victim of one person, one individual. Not a symbol. A man.

      1. Using the word “pogrom” to describe constitutional laws that respect the rights of the accused is absurd if not offensive.

        I am not an anarchist.

        If government has any legitimate purpose at all, it is to protect our rights.

        We have a military to protect our rights from foreign enemies.

        We have a police force to protect our rights from criminals.

        We have a criminal court system to protect our rights from the police.

        If our immigration policy isn’t protecting us from threats to our rights in that regard, then the government isn’t doing its job.

        We should have a treaty with Mexico so that Mexican citizens can freely cross our borders at legal checkpoints–so long as they can flash an ID and we can independently verify that they aren’t wanted criminals, convicted felons, etc.

        As the case above shows, as it is, we can’t even prevent known felons who have been duly convicted in the United States from crossing our borders. That’s an excellent reason to a) make it legal for non-criminal Mexicans to cross the border by showing an ID (then the only people sneaking through miles of desert at night would be people who couldn’t legally cross) and that’s an excellent reason to b) secure the border.

        Before we get the American people to sign off on a treaty like that through their representatives in the senate, we’ll need to convince them that our border is or will be secure and that those who are rejected for good reason can be kept out.

        1. Here’s what “pogrom” means:

          https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php? ModuleId=10005183

          —-Holocaust Encyclopedia

      2. Illegal aliens/undocumented immigrants (whichever side of the Orwellian divide you want to live on) knew the rules, they decided not to follow them. In life we are all presented with choices, they made their choice for reasons I understand (desire for a better life) but their choices also have consequences. These consequences sometimes involve deportation.

        They knew this before they came.

        Why is the American citizen now a heartless bigot for their “pogrom against peaceful and productive” individuals who willingly made choices that they knew the consequences would be if caught? They broke the rules, they were caught, you suffer the consequences. That is how things work.

        Want to change the rules? Go ahead. As they are right now, however, in your scenario there is one criminal, the one in the United States illegally, not the person “legitimizing the pogrom against peaceful and productive undocumented immigrants.”

        1. Hey, I think I found out who JoeBlow really is.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pn0WdJx-Wkw

        2. “Why is the American citizen now a heartless bigot …”

          And why is it *only* Americans? Actually, only citizens of predominantly white countries who are shrieked at as racists for having immigration policies?

          The US has the largest foreign born population in the world, by multiples.

          Are the immigration laws in Mexico more inviting? Japan? China?

          1. There’s an immense amount of shrieking going on in exactly that manner about South Africa. White people just don’t pay attention to it because white South Africans are no longer involved with the major tensions, so it’s not interesting.

      3. Old Mexican’s Speedos|1.22.18 @ 8:45PM|#
        “Will it dawn on you that a government who legitimizes veritable pogroms against peaceful and productive undocumented immigrants”

        That’s a shame.
        You used to be a rational person. TDS is a serious issue with some; seek help.

    3. I haven’t been this outraged at the sad bunnies since they tried to hijack the Hugos to include more illegal immigrant sci-fi!

    4. Being an immigrant made him into a rapist?

  15. Ah, well, here we are: the Trump administration deports another person of color! Of course, as a Pole, his particular color just happens to be pasty white.

    Seriously, isn’t everyone a person of (some) color? I mean, unless you are completely transparent, like Kevin Bacon in Hollow Man.

    1. Whites have no ethnicity – they’re all the same. All look alike.

    2. How do you know he is not orange, pink, beet red, sallow yellow, or even cadaverously blue. Most Poles have rather florid complexions, pasty white is a distinct minority. Poles are not Irish, English, or Finns. This sort of ignorance is just typical of American parochialism.

  16. Fake news!

    If he’s not Latino, not from Africa or Haiti, and not a Moslem, then he can’t be deported.

    1. I think Putin paid him to get rid of the Polacks tho

  17. This guy could have became an American citizen if he wanted to. He had a green card, he was married to an American citizen. It would have been supremely easy to gain citizenship. He made a decision, for whatever reason, not to pursue it. Thus, he is not a citizen and is subject to visas. He knows the rules.

    He then messed up and committed crimes. What is the issue here? Dont want to be deported? How about dont drunk drive? Let alone the possible domestic issues. He cannot even claim that one is from being young and dumb, he was fully an adult.

    1. Re: JoeBlow123,

      This guy could have became an American citizen if he wanted to.

      So that the government didn’t trample all over his natural rights?

      Why is it that the victim is getting the blame here?

      1. Victim? Dude made a choice. He knew the rules. He now has to live with his choices.

        I know what it takes to become an American citizen and the rules for green cards, my wife is Japanese. We talked not one week ago that we will not pursue American citizenship for her because Japan does not allow dual citizenship and she wants to maintain her citizenship. We also follow the law and do not plan on drunk driving, shoplifting, or knifing anyone no matter where we live. But if she does any of those, she knows the rules, she has a friggin green card and can lose it. Same if I ever decide to live in Japan. If you are out of the United States for more than like a year (I believe) you lose your permanent resident status. That is the THE RULES. These are the rules for every country in the world. We know the rules. We will follow the rules.

        Since when is it your natural rights to sign up for a program, abide by them, later break them, and decide later you do not agree with the agreement you signed and cry foul?

        1. Status quo fallacy – Assuming that the status quo is just and moral.

          1. How is immoral what is happening to him? He has an unlimited right to live in the United States?

            1. Well, that’s a start.

              Instead of arguing “the correct result was achieved because the rules were obeyed”, why not start by trying to justify the legitimacy and the correctness of the rules themselves.

              1. Instead of arguing “the correct result was achieved because the rules were obeyed”, why not start by trying to justify the legitimacy and the correctness of the rules themselves.

                Legitimacy?

                Simple. We cannot house the entire world here.

                Thus, we have to make choices. And if somebody refuses to follow the steps to become a citizen, then they can go fuck themselves.

            2. Fuck yes he does. He bought a house here, didn’t he?

              1. Fuck yes he does. He bought a house here, didn’t he?

                You buy a house with money you robbed from others and you aren’t entitled to that house.

      2. Furthermore, I find natural rights and natural law baloney. Every time I read someone talk about these I wonder, “Hmm, natural rights, tell me what those rights will get you in Venezuela or China.”

        1. Really now. So where do rights come from in your view?

          The mob? The government? Judges?

          Yet another way in which the modern left and the modern right agree – they both deny the heritage of the Enlightenment and reject the concept of natural rights.

          1. Where do you think our rights come from, Jesus or Mohammad? Perhaps Buddha? Our spiritual-togetherness? We are more special than all the other animals of the world and get our own special rights to go along with this?

            I do not understand how it is incompatible to say we make our own rules and also say there is an ethical and moral way that we should treat one another. We do not need some great lawgiver in heaven or some idea that humans are special to reach the same conclusion.

            1. Who decides what is that ethical and moral way to treat one another? Each individual? The state?

              If the individual says “it is immoral for the state to prohibit the free flow of labor across borders”, but the government/the mob/the judges say “no you are wrong”, who is correct?

              If humans are not special, then there is no ethical reason to treat other humans any differently than other animals. If it is legal to for a human to own dogs and cats, then why shouldn’t it be legal for a human to own other humans?

              1. Freedom from coercion is ethical and moral. We can never reach a perfect state of this but it is an ideal. Equality of opportunity. Giving everyone an equal chance as any to realize their goals whether they be to raise a family in a Christian manner in Utah or make a billion dollars in New York.

                I do not think we need to believe in natural rights or natural law, both concepts that are grounded in as much reality as international law, to reach this conclusion. The idea of “natural rights” have existed for so long, for thousands of years, in places that have enslaved other individuals, murdered them enmasse, etc. that it seems farcical to pretend laws exist above a state/kingdom in reality.

                I will admit I shot myself in the foot with pretending we are like any other animal. We are not, we can think and feel in much deeper ways than other species. I do not think we are as great as we think we are though and honestly some of the vegan types have some pretty ethically consistent arguments to wonder how we justify caging animals and eating them and keeping them as pets. I have thought it would be better to be a vegan, more ethically consistent. But hamburgers taste pretty good.

                1. “Freedom from coercion is ethical and moral. We can never reach a perfect state of this but it is an ideal.”

                  Okay, then. Broadly speaking, I agree. So then suppose we decide to institute a government, for the purpose of achieving some collective goal that each of us individually cannot achieve. Common defense, roads and bridges, whatever. A legitimate government is one that performs these tasks well, while striving towards the ideal of treating its citizens without coercion. An illegitimate government is one that does not. Another way to say this is to assert that citizens are entitled – or, possesses a natural right – to be free from coercion, and a legitimate government is one that respects this entitlement, or protects this natural right..

                  1. chemjeff|1.23.18 @ 12:25AM|#

                    This will be a lot of semantics.

                    The thing is, I think I believe in this because of where I am from, what I have read, and the people I have encountered. I do not think my belief in these things mean these rights are natural rights, that they come from me being a human. Freedom from coercion, property rights, freedom of speech, all have utilitarian value for us in my belief. These beliefs I understand as societal conditioning. Luckily, our societal conditioning has been pretty successful for us, most in America have done pretty well compared to others across the globe. However, if no one believes these things then it stops existing, it is not a natural right, it is in fact nothing. It is a historical relic.

                    In the marketplace of ideas, if libertarian ideals stop having utility then people will stop believing in them. Which is why education is so important, which is why the “American Dream” and social mobility are so important, which is why it is important for people to buy into the system we have inside our borders because it does not exist everywhere in the world. If they stop believing in our system then you can bet the pitchforks and guillotine will be coming out soon after.

            2. JoeBlow123|1.22.18 @ 10:53PM|#
              “Where do you think our rights come from, Jesus or Mohammad? Perhaps Buddha? Our spiritual-togetherness?”

              No, our “rights” are not handed to us by any agency at all. To presume so shows you have no idea what you’re posting about. Simply by being born as moral agents, we have every freedom in the world, limited only by not causing harm to others. No one has to grant me the “right” to eat a hot dog at a ball game.
              Idiots try to define them as “rights” and limit them to certain enumerated “rights”, which leads those idiotws (Tony) to wander where *they* came from. Those “rights” came from the voices in your head.

              “We are more special than all the other animals of the world and get our own special rights to go along with this?”
              Well, yes we are. Are you trying for ‘idiot of the day’ award?

              “I do not understand how it is incompatible to say we make our own rules and also say there is an ethical and moral way that we should treat one another. We do not need some great lawgiver in heaven or some idea that humans are special to reach the same conclusion.”
              Uh, you need a class in logic; you ran off the track there.

              1. Go tell that to a dude living in China that is jailed for protesting. Sounds grand spewing this stuff, but the historical reality is people that believed in a shared worldview, our Founders, established a system where they desired not to trample all over one another.

                It will be ended the same exact way, when enough people do not share this same worldview. Tell me exactly how far your natural rights will go when no one thinks it is against natural rights to take all your money and redistribute it, to destroy property rights, to conscript you to the military and fight in foreign wars.

                People make laws. They always have. Which is why it is important to educate them why it is good to keep these systems in place.

                1. I’d tell that dude in China that he knew the rules, and so doesn’t have my sympathy.

                  1. You would be right, he knew the rules and decided he did not like them and wanted to change them by protesting. He thus hopes to gain positive traction in a direction he desires.

                    You guys act like natural law is some religion. It is an idea, it exists in books and in your heads. In 200 years people will probably believe something drastically different. 100 years ago nationalism that barely existed in the 1800s bloomed in Europe and many states were born from the corpses of fallen empires. 400 years ago people all believed in God in Europe. 1000 years ago you could buy your way into heaven. 2000 years ago everyone had slaves. 4000 years ago tribes were migrating across the globe and establishing the first civilizations and writing. 10000 years ago the first people started to settle into agricultural communities.

                    100000 years ago… the savages we were all had natural rights too? Or maybe not that far back? Perhaps they started to exist when we could speak? Write?

                    1. Natural rights don’t get much truck with me. I’m just curious why you would see the dude in China’s position as being bad or unjust, given what you’ve posted so far. Assuming that you do see it as bad and deserving of sympathy.

                2. JoeBlow123|1.22.18 @ 11:29PM|#
                  “Go tell that to a dude living in China that is jailed for protesting.”
                  Are you replying to me?
                  And if you are, I’ll be more than happy to point out your stupidity after you learn how to address a post.

                  1. Sevo|1.23.18 @ 12:52AM|#

                    Yes I was replying to you. Perhaps the fact it was right below your post was not enough of a giveaway? Does this way suit your fancy gramps?

                    1. “Yes I was replying to you. Perhaps the fact it was right below your post was not enough of a giveaway? Does this way suit your fancy gramps?”
                      Perhaps you are ignorant enough not to know threading makes placement irrelevant, little boy?

                3. “Go tell that to a dude living in China that is jailed for protesting. Sounds grand spewing this stuff, but the historical reality is people that believed in a shared worldview, our Founders, established a system where they desired not to trample all over one another.
                  It will be ended the same exact way, when enough people do not share this same worldview. Tell me exactly how far your natural rights will go when no one thinks it is against natural rights to take all your money and redistribute it, to destroy property rights, to conscript you to the military and fight in foreign wars.”
                  Our newest fucking idiot seems to believe that since people get murdered, “life” doesn’t exist. Get a brain.

                  “People make laws. They always have. Which is why it is important to educate them why it is good to keep these systems in place.”
                  First, no, people have not always made laws, and it’s irrelevant besides.
                  The Stupid Award for 1/23 has a front runner already

              2. So natural rights are what we’re free to do in a state of nature. So attempt not to starve and fuck someone if we’re lucky. Yippee. Also you can’t hurt other people. That one doesn’t derive from any tautological proposition, so we’ll go with “God says so” on that.

                1. Tony|1.23.18 @ 1:39AM|# (for the benefit of Sevo, do not want any confusion)

                  I made a very dickish reply to something you posted yesterday, but I agree with what you posted here. Natural rights pretty much are because “God says so.”

          2. The heritage of the Enlightenment is belief in mystical things?

            1. Rely on Tony to beat anyone else for ‘idiot of the day’.

            2. You and JoeBlow are perfect for each other.

              1. Uhh ohh my libertarian card has been stripped away by chemjeff because I believe in the heretical belief of positive rights and not natural rights!

                1. Dude, you never had a libertarian card. Stop fronting.

                2. Dude, you never had a libertarian card. Stop fronting.

                  1. My mistake then. I am not pure enough.

                    Answer me this then, when did natural law and natural rights start existing? Forever? Before the Earth was formed? When we were amoebas? When we started walking with a straight back on land as homo erectus? Was it when we became homo sapiens? Did neanderthals have natural rights? Was it when Plato penned his utopian, fascist epic The Republic? Was it when the Jews first started to pen their first religious tracts, what later became the Bible for Christians? Was it when Augustine or Aquinas created a system of natural law that required the Divine Providence, the Supreme Being, to function rationally? Was it when Hugo Grotius spread the ideas of a more secular natural law (still based on God)? Was it when Locke or Hobbes or Rousseau crafted the ideas of a social contract? Was it when the Deceleration of Independence was drafted?

                    1. “Answer me this then, when did natural law and natural rights start existing? Forever? Before the Earth was formed? When we were amoebas? When we started walking with a straight back on land as homo erectus? Was it when we became homo sapiens? Did neanderthals have natural rights? Was it when Plato penned his utopian, fascist epic The Republic? Was it when the Jews first started to pen their first religious tracts, what later became the Bible for Christians? Was it when Augustine or Aquinas created a system of natural law that required the Divine Providence, the Supreme Being, to function rationally? Was it when Hugo Grotius spread the ideas of a more secular natural law (still based on God)? Was it when Locke or Hobbes or Rousseau crafted the ideas of a social contract? Was it when the Deceleration of Independence was drafted?”

                      Answer: WIH does that have to do with anything? We are born with freedom as are all animals. We recognize that and organize governments in the hopes opf protecting them

                3. There is no such thing as “positive rights”. To be such means you are inherently unlibertarian.

                  Fuck off, slaver.

          3. Really now. So where do rights come from in your view?

            The mob? The government? Judges?

            If they’re natural, then gun ownership CLEARLY isn’t suppressed anywhere on Earth.

            1. Just because you’re forced to not exercise your rights doesn’t mean you stop having them.

              Jesus christ, do they even teach logic anymore?

        2. Oooo that shit will probably unite everyone in these parts against you. I think natural law is spoken about here pretty much as a presupposition; you’d think it was the only respectable foundation for true-blue libertarianism. (It isn’t–not unless you want to write, say, Mises and Hayek out of the club.)

          More relevant, I think, is indeed the matter of how exactly the good Doctor’s situation is supposed to violate his natural rights. I’m not seeing any particularly straightforward way–unless, of course, you think that borders themselves are an affront to nature.

      3. [quote]Why is it that the victim is getting the blame here?[/quote]
        Just-World Hypothesis

        How the Sam Hell do quote functions work? Fuck it. This is now my artistic flourish.

        1. Got to use ‘more than’ and ‘less than’ angled brackets.

          and I think you have to use ‘blockquote’ instead of quote – unless this came out quoted

          1. Got to use ‘more than’ and ‘less than’ angled brackets.

            Testy McTestyface.

          2. Well, that’s your good deed. May the internet bless and keep you.

      4. “So that the government didn’t trample all over his natural rights?”

        Wah!
        I don’t live in Anarchotopia!
        Wah!

    2. “He made a decision, for whatever reason, not to pursue it.”

      And Reason made the decision, for whatever reason, to publish an article which did not elaborate on this rather relevant fact.

      First thing that hit me on reading the article was “The guy has been in the country 40 years, and isn’t a citizen yet? What’s up with that?”

  18. We can’t have immigration because they’ll all vote democrat and overload our welfare state!

    And if they don’t want to vote or collect welfare…kick them out anyway!

    1. But it’s not xenophobia. Oh no no no.

    2. Some of us think the universal franchise for people living here is a good thing, and don’t want a tiered society of citizens and permanent dhimmis.

      I know Reason wants a lot of disenfranchised cheap labor and cheap nannies, but some Americans think that’s a step backwards in freedom and equality before the law.

      1. You’re willing to kick out a doctor with a single misdemeanor conviction to get it.

        1. And your alternative is what? Exactly?
          How many misdemeanors would make the difference? How many years of having the opportunity to ‘fix’ things should be ignored?
          Are YOU to be the one who examines every case for justice? If not, how many new bureaucrats do we hire and who writes the rules that *this* case is allowable, and that one isn’t?
          Do you understand the rule of law?

          1. Perhaps, Sevo, there is an argument to be made that human are bright enough to conceptualize the rule of law without being bright enough to pull it off on a grand scale.

            I have a theory that this is the biological function of free markets. Everything has a function, in theory, right? Consequences are our failsafe path to learning. We just hate consequences with the fire of a thousand suns and avoid them at all cost, including our long-term cost. The human brain is a short-term thinker, in the main.

            The temptation is to look at any ill effect and say, “A-HA. Consequences at last. Let that be firm lesson to you, fellow citizen, on the price of civilization.”

            We don’t stop to ask ourselves if the pattern being presented is recognizable civilized. Prediction: Humans will not have a civilization which does not fail catastrophically until they learn to recognize when they are not behaving in a civilized manner.

            1. Prediction:
              Your “behaving in a civilized manner” will become “kill them all” when the next one in power isn’t as civilized as you like.

  19. a doctor specializing in internal medicine for Bronson HeathCare in Michigan.

    Trust me; never use this network. Anyone who does has a real Death Wish.

    1. I take it you actually were treated at Bronson HealthCare once and narrowly escaped with your life, so you consider it your Great Escape.

      I have heard they do actually have a handful of excellent doctors there, though. There are Seven of them, and they are Magnificent!

      But most of the doctors there are horrible, it’s true. You go there, and you might as well be entrusting your health to a Mechanic.

  20. This is precisely the approach desired by authoritarian, right-wing bigots.

    Carry on, clingers.

    1. “This is precisely the approach desired by authoritarian, right-wing bigots.
      Carry on, clingers.”

      This is precisely the answer offered by idiots who have given the matter zero thought.
      Carry on, idiot.

  21. Trump should trade DACA for an end to birthright citizenship.

  22. Trump should trade DACA for an end to birthright citizenship.

    1. We don’t need Democrats for any of it.

      End both DACA and birthright citizenship.

  23. I have sympathy for the guy, but the choices are limited:
    1) Open the borders entirely.
    2) Make rules about who can enter the country.
    I tend toward the “Open borders” side, but I still see the need to keep criminals out, so that leaves me on the “Make rules…” side.
    Once that happens, the rules are the rules and unless we are to grant exceptions for every sympathetic case, out you go.
    Just sayin’ that examining every case for “sympathy” is probably going to increase the federal employment by thousands, and they will *STILL* use bureaucratic criteria to make the choices. Is that what you want? Or do YOU want to be the one to examine every case to assure that justice is served?
    I have to keep my drivers license current. Unless I do, it can be real trouble, but it’s a pain to do so. The later is the better choice IMO. And I do think rules of the road (and, hence drivers licenses) are a good thing.
    Mr. Niec had the opportunity to ‘keep his drivers license current’ and did not do so. While the penalty for his ignorance of the rules and the required actions may seem excessive, that’s what should have prompted him to action; we are presuming he is not stupid.

  24. Oh, and for your viewing pleasure, Ms. Candace Owens explains how keeping more of what your earned is GOOD, regardless of your TDS infection.
    Admittedly, she ignores the possible effect on the deficit, but we all know that needs attention by cutting costs rather than raising taxes:
    https://www.youtube.com/
    watch?v=Nkns8In6jH4&feature=youtu.be
    Hey, Reason? Clean up your act.
    I have no desire to deal with HTML every time I want to link something. And your lack of an edit feature is, oh, so 2000.
    You got zero this year; you’ll get a bill in 2018. Fuck your primitive web protocols.

  25. [quote]And I do think rules of the road (and, hence drivers licenses) are a good thing.[/quote]
    I do too. Proper communication and a common grounds for understanding are generally good things.

    On the other hand….

    The right to transport one’s self along the common roadways for personal reasons is a perfected right. Personal, as opposed to commercial – personal vs commercial have different legal status., as I understand.

    For another, the rules of the road are an excellent example of the common laws society makes and yet it’s denizens only abide by them if they feel like it. Find us a self-professed “law-abiding man” and give us 45 seconds to ask how often he obeys speed limits.

    Despite how much we might like things to be different, rules are rarely more than guidelines. Humans obey them if they feel it will return a benefit. If they don’t, then rules are ignored. After all, it’s ONLY 32 in a 30mph zone, and my teenager is ONLY looking to mow lawns in the summer without needing a landscaping permit and a bond, whats the BFD?

    This feels like an is/ought problem. There’s the stories we tell each other, about the way we would prefer for everything and everybody to work, and then there’s how things actually work, and we’ll solve our issues when we get these things to properly coincide. I could be wrong, though.

    1. Did you have some point other than pedantry? If so, you need to tell us what it is.

      1. PEDANTRY ALERT:

        I think pedantry is when I nyaa’d for three paragraphs about your spelling or other inconsequentials to your inherent argument.

        If I somehow missed/misinterpreted your inherent argument, then you do have my sincerest apologies and invitations to redirect so’s we stay on topic and relevant. I felt I was addressing and even agreeing with your point while also adding that I felt it to be more (FAR more) nuanced in reality than we picture things working in the cold vacuum of theory. It is entirely possible that something was lost in translation, which is cool, because we can always fix that by optimizing communication. You nudge your dial a bit to accommodate me, see, and I nudge mine a bit to accommodate you, see, and then we get there in the end. No worries.

        Thanks for recognizing the quote, and sorry for the misfired HTML/threading. I’ll work on that.

  26. He should have become a citizen. He chose not to. Now he’s paying the price.

    1. He shouldn’t have smoked weed. He new the laws. No sympathy.

      She shouldn’t have looked askew at that other man. She knew that stoning to death was the punishment. No sympathy!

      1. Bye bye non-American!

        Trump 2020! Trump 2020!

  27. What state(s) was he convicted in? Can he seek pardons at the state level? If he succeeded at that, would it change ICE’s thinking, or would the law make ICE back off?

  28. Let me correct a few things this article misrepresents. Dr Niec came to the US at age five and was granted a green card under his parent’s green card. At age 17, just months before turning 18, he and friend used another person’s bank card and stole Thousands of Dollars. Niec’s take was $12,000 (a Felony in MI. is $1,200 let alone $12,000) In that same month he and his friend got into an altercation and caused hundreds of dollars of damage to another’s car. Because he was only months from being 18, he slipped under the limit for the Youthful Offender Law in Michigan. He offenses were lowered to misdemeanors, and he got away with it.

    He also, has multiple civil infractions (19) one for DUI. Multiple for Driving without Insurance, and Domestic Disputes. Even though he knows he is not eligible to vote he did register to do so in Texas Twp, Kalamazoo, Mich.

    He does speak some Polish contrary to the above report.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.