Another “bad hombre” being deported

From the Detroit Free Press:

His wife, Cindy Garcia, cried out while his daughter, Soleil, 15, sobbed into Garcia’s shoulder as they hugged. Two U.S. immigration agents kept a close watch nearby.

After 30 years of living in the U.S, Garcia, a 39-year-old Lincoln Park landscaper, was deported on the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. holiday from metro Detroit to Mexico, a move supporters say was another example of immigrants being unfairly targeted under the Trump administration.

Jorge Garcia was brought to the U.S. by an undocumented family member when he was 10 years old. Today he has a wife and two children, all of whom are U.S. citizens.

Remember when Trump said he was going to focus on the “bad hombres”?

His supporters say he has no criminal record — not even a traffic ticket — and pays taxes every year. . . .

Garcia is too old to qualify for DACA, which allows the children of undocumented immigrants to legally work and study in the U.S.

A question for restrictionists.  How about a person who came to America illegally at age 2, and was 93 years old.  Assume no criminal record.  Should she be deported?  If so, why?  If not, why should this guy be deported?

“It’s heartbreaking,” Bonesatti said. “If you’re going to pick someone who’s ideal,” he would be it. . . .

Moreover, Mexico is a foreign place to Garcia.

But at least Trump is reducing regulations on coal companies that want to poison our air and water, so everything’s fine.

PS.  I’m guessing that the truly bad hombres don’t dutifully report to the immigration authorities like this guy did:

She said that when her husband reported to ICE in November as part of a regular check-in, he was informed that he had to leave the U.S. and would be detained immediately.

PPS.  Over at Econlog I have a new post on the war on drugs:

As a candidate, Trump promised to leave the marijuana question up to the states. In his confirmation hearings, Jeff Sessions promised not to make marijuana a priority for federal law enforcement. It turns out that all of those promises were meaningless.

PPPS.  And speaking of Trump, I don’t agree with every single charge on this NYT list, but the cumulative impact is pretty convincing.


Tags:

 
 
 

41 Responses to “Another “bad hombre” being deported”

  1. Gravatar of Steven Kopits Steven Kopits
    16. January 2018 at 14:37

    My latest at The Hill

    “There is a way to make illegal immigrants pay for Trump’s wall”

    http://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/369163-there-is-a-way-to-make-illegal-immigrants-pay-for-trumps-wall

  2. Gravatar of John John
    16. January 2018 at 15:51

    The deportation is an outrage and I’m no fan of Trump but factually-speaking this wasn’t Trump’s doing. “In 2016, authorities warned Garcia that his “time was up” and to prepare for deportation, his wife said.”

    His deportation order came under Obama.

  3. Gravatar of Justin Justin
    16. January 2018 at 16:20

    This today in my local paper: http://www.vindy.com/news/2018/jan/16/al-adi-arrives-ice-meeting-cleveland/

    An entrepreneur who has lived here for nearly 40 years and never committed a crime.

    Here’s some background: http://www.vindy.com/news/2018/jan/03/youngstown-businessman-to-be-deported/

    He briefly earned a stay following that.

  4. Gravatar of Benjamin Cole Benjamin Cole
    16. January 2018 at 17:09

    Immigration is a knotty problem. But we should defer to rule of law.

    Is selective enforcement of law a good principle to stand on?

  5. Gravatar of Benjamin Cole Benjamin Cole
    16. January 2018 at 18:15

    Add on:

    The US is building about 1.3 million housing units a year. I do not know how many become obsolete every year. More housing could be built, but it is not legal to build in much of the country, such as the West Coast or suburban Boston etc.

    Housing shortages are standard feature of modern urban life in much of the country—and these are real “shortages,” induced by law.

    So how many immigrants should be admitted, given the realities of property zoning?

  6. Gravatar of Benjamin Cole Benjamin Cole
    16. January 2018 at 18:17

    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/HOUST

    housing starts

  7. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    16. January 2018 at 19:00

    John, Fair enough, but would you agree that Trump is trying to do much more of this sort of thing than Obama?

    Ben, You said:

    “Is selective enforcement of law a good principle to stand on?”

    Um, should the police arrest every single person they see jaywalking? Should the cops pull over 100% of the people they see speeding, even 1 MPH over the limit? Is this even a serious question on your part?

    You said:

    “Housing shortages are standard feature of modern urban life in much of the country—and these are real “shortages,” induced by law.”

    Where there is rent control, not elsewhere.

  8. Gravatar of E. Harding E. Harding
    16. January 2018 at 22:50

    “How about a person who came to America illegally at age 2, and was 93 years old. Assume no criminal record. Should she be deported? If so, why?”

    Yes, to serve as an example to other illegals.

    “Um, should the police arrest every single person they see jaywalking? Should the cops pull over 100% of the people they see speeding, even 1 MPH over the limit? Is this even a serious question on your part?”

    Yes to all (ideally).

  9. Gravatar of E. Harding E. Harding
    16. January 2018 at 22:52

    Sumner, I thought you were a “rules utilitarian”. We can now see that’s a lie.

  10. Gravatar of Carl Carl
    16. January 2018 at 22:57

    ICE stats don’t show a leap in enforcement activities: https://www.ice.gov/removal-statistics/2017 ( see figure 15 ).

  11. Gravatar of Carl Carl
    16. January 2018 at 23:10

    Sorry, one more thing…ICE enforcement numbers are way down from their peak in 2012: https://www.ice.gov/removal-statistics/2015 ( see figures 1 and 2 ).

  12. Gravatar of Benjamin Cole Benjamin Cole
    16. January 2018 at 23:28

    Scott-

    Well, you obviously took more econ than public policy.

    One of the primary responsibilities of the democratic administrative state is equal treatment of all concerned. Anthony Downs, Brooking scholar, wrote the brilliant “Inside Bureaucracy” book in 1977 (required reading at the time for aspiring young bureaucrats), explaining why some of what feels like fussy “bureaucratic behavior” is necessary to try to ensure equal treatment of those concerned (generally, citizens). Lots of paperwork, record-keeping and files and transparency, to show equal treatment. Slow and cumbersome.

    Egads, selective enforcement of law is okay? You must be having an off day.

    One guy has voting rights, but not the next guy? Your property rights hold up, but not your neighbors?

    Inevitably, there is selective enforcement of law, due to circumstance, favoritism, or bias. Indeed, “getting stopped while black” is a valid concern. That is an example of selective enforcement.

    Selective enforcement is often a result of bribery. Get to the front of the line with some Benjamins. Otherwise you will wait forever.

    You have flubbed on this one.

  13. Gravatar of Benjamin Cole Benjamin Cole
    16. January 2018 at 23:32

    Rent control is a feasible option for voters, if the supply of housing is restricted by law.

    I would prefer no zoning and no rent control. In this case, a half loaf is probably worse than nothing

  14. Gravatar of Becky Hargrove Becky Hargrove
    17. January 2018 at 07:06

    Scott,
    (In part due to your response to Ben) If only rent control were the main reason today for scarce housing, all these problems would be simpler to address! Indeed, the desire of special interests to restrict both housing and time based services access, accounts for shortages in both areas. This process likely creates additional incentives for government to further restrict the access of illegal immigrants to both in irrational ways, regardless of how long immigrants have been here.

  15. Gravatar of morgan warstler morgan warstler
    17. January 2018 at 09:54

    Steven Kopits hits a home run.

    Again, it’s all just a way to take total control of border… which is possible and moral.

    Country Clubs REQUIRE gates.

    US is going to be a gated community, one where all the best Earthlings live and play.

    This is OPTIMAL for US natives, bc they have the best possible service work / welfare basket.

    It is their BIRTH RIGHT earned by CONTRACT by their forefathers.

    Stealing all the talent = CREATIVE DESTRUCTION = breaks down all other competing firms FASTER.

    Over time other smaller countries can be brought into US territory fold, mostly after they adopt a texas style mindset.

  16. Gravatar of Student Student
    17. January 2018 at 11:12

    Interesting stuff Kopits..

  17. Gravatar of Student Student
    17. January 2018 at 11:14

    Morgan, real creative destruction would be open borders…

  18. Gravatar of Philo Philo
    17. January 2018 at 12:36

    “. . . so everything’s fine.” Of course not. “So things are better than they might be,” “So things could be worse.”

    “It turns out that all of those promises were meaningless.” “It turns out”? Politicians’ promises? You are just pretending to be naïve, trying for rhetorical effect.

  19. Gravatar of morgan warstler morgan warstler
    17. January 2018 at 12:36

    wrong.

    My analogy stands.

    states are firms. they compete for the best talent on earth. failed states must recast themselves, as the winner do, to compete.

  20. Gravatar of morgan warstler morgan warstler
    17. January 2018 at 12:37

    Keeping people out is how we build value for who gets in… country clubs require a gate.

  21. Gravatar of Student Student
    17. January 2018 at 13:58

    So you creative destruction with out free entry and exit?

  22. Gravatar of Randomize Randomize
    17. January 2018 at 14:22

    Steven Kopits,

    Well done. Everybody and their mother would prefer that immigrants’ money go to the tax base rather than to the smugglers and private visa assistance companies.

  23. Gravatar of Anand Anand
    17. January 2018 at 20:33

    Ben Cole:
    About your point: you say everyone should be treated equally, but there’s no natural law which says that all people who have stayed in the US for 30 years (since they were a child) must be deported. Are libertarians in favour of executing all laws faithfully to the fullest extent?

    You can have an analogy with black market in a commodity (say drugs in the US, or currency in Venezuela). Now suppose that some person accesses the black market and gets caught by the authorities. Do libertarians generally cheer on the State to prosecute the person to the fullest extent of the law, or do they generally focus on the mechanisms of the black market?

  24. Gravatar of Anand Anand
    17. January 2018 at 20:34

    Last sentence should read: “focus on the mechanisms of the law and how it leads to the black market”.

  25. Gravatar of E. Harding E. Harding
    17. January 2018 at 21:19

    “Are libertarians in favour of executing all laws faithfully to the fullest extent?”

    No. But Sumner claimed he was like, two weeks ago.

  26. Gravatar of Anand Anand
    18. January 2018 at 02:43

    As far as I understand Scott, he thinks that utilitarianism is mostly right, and he prefers that rules be followed. He does not claim that all rules should be followed or that utilitarianism always gives the right answer.

    In particular, the “rule” called “US immigration law” is not designed to be utilitarian, so no “rules utilitarian” should advocate that it be followed blindly.

  27. Gravatar of Benjamin Cole Benjamin Cole
    18. January 2018 at 04:05

    Anand:

    I am not sure of your point. I am not citing natural law, I am citing how a public bureaucracy should operate, and citing the best scholar on the topic, Anthony Downs (a fun book to read, btw).

    Transparency, accountability, record-keeping, like cases treated alike, no arbitrary or capricious treatment. No favoritism, nepotism, or bias. Yes, these are ideals.

    To say, “Well, selective enforcement of laws and rules is okay,” is an anathema in a democratic society. You can see how quickly this would descend into simple class bias if not warfare, bigotry or worse.

    If you want a large amount of immigration into the US, that’s fine. Then try to make that law. If others want to restrict the amount of immigration, then that’s fine for them. There is no right to immigrate to the US, or correct level of immigration.

    There are pluses and minuses to immigration. I see no obligation for any nation to admit immigrants, but there may be reasons why they wish to limit immigration. It seems to be a matter of judgement.

    There seems to be a sentiment that a nation is obligated to accept immigrants, and if they do not some moral has been breached. Japan is sometimes lectured for not accepting immigrants, and accused of racism. Buy why should Japan want to be anything other than Japan?

    It is also somewhat insulting to say, “Well, immigrants will assimilate.” What if they prefer their own culture? Why should immigrants assimilate? What make American behavior and values better than that of immigrants. Maybe alcohol should be illegal and polygamy legal, who is to say?

    Are native Brits, priced out of London, compelled to like the globalist result?

    It is nearly impossible to become a citizen of Thailand, unless born there. Is that wrong or right?

    Not every public policy decision can be settled on the macroeconomic merits.

    And really, speaking bluntly of the US, is not the easy establishment embrace of illegal immigrants really just sophisticated labor-bashing?

  28. Gravatar of Michael Rulle Michael Rulle
    18. January 2018 at 07:18

    It is obvious that certain enforcements are truly terrible, and very likely not consistent with the ultimate intent of the original law, as these situations were likey not even considered.

    We know why Scott picks this example now, because he hates Trump, even though his cynical take is itself unhelpful to his supposed goals. He knows this is not a recent problem and has beenwith us seemingly forever.

    Both parties cannot agree on what to do, because their constituents are divided. My views on immigration are far more expansve than either party. But the overhelming majority of politicians use immigration as a battering ram for their own election self interest. This is about as solvable as the middle east “peace process”.

    It is very depressing. And, Scott, just say you dislike Trump, that is more than sufficient, rather than muddying up the waters on the actual deeper problem of immigration, which has been a major issue since the “No Nothings” 150 years ago and well before.

  29. Gravatar of msgkings msgkings
    18. January 2018 at 08:26

    @Michael Rulle:

    Sumner has been very clearly stating he dislikes Trump for over a year now. And he uses much harsher terms than ‘dislike’. I agree with him 100%, Trump is awful.

    Regardless of the history of immigration debates, there’s nothing wrong with highlighting the actual human costs of bad policy. Not letting people who were brought as young children to this country stay (especially when they are model citizens like the example above) is plainly wrong, and there’s no other way to see it.

  30. Gravatar of Liberal Roman Liberal Roman
    18. January 2018 at 11:11

    “Um, should the police arrest every single person they see jaywalking? Should the cops pull over 100% of the people they see speeding, even 1 MPH over the limit? Is this even a serious question on your part?”

    Yes to all (ideally).

    I actually cannot believe someone can be so dumb. Law enforcement officials from the President down your local police officer make decisions every day as to what laws to prioritize for enforcement. They do this, not just because Only a completely impractical person cordoned off in a bubble could actually seriously say “Yes to all ideally”. The average American breaks three laws every single day. (https://mises.org/library/decriminalize-average-man) In your “ideal” world, we would all be imprisoned.

    Enforcement discretion is also a fundamental principle of our judicial system.

    Wayte v. United States 470 U.S. 598 (1985)[5] said:

    In our criminal justice system, the Government retains “broad discretion” as to whom to prosecute. […] This broad discretion rests largely on the recognition that the decision to prosecute is particularly ill-suited to judicial review. Such factors as the strength of the case, the prosecution’s general deterrence value, the Government’s enforcement priorities, and the case’s relationship to the Government’s overall enforcement plan are not readily susceptible to the kind of analysis the courts are competent to undertake.

    It is just sad to me that people can seriously be this impractical and continue to utter the nonsense of “Well it’s just the law.” “It’s just the law.”

    My own opinion is people are not really that stupid, but are trying to hide their racism behind the “It’s just the law” thinking while completely ignoring the dozens if not hundreds of law transgressions they see and often THEMSELVES COMMIT! every single day.

  31. Gravatar of Steven Kopits Steven Kopits
    18. January 2018 at 13:04

    Morgan, Student, Randomize –

    Thank you for the kind words. There are many problems we can’t solve. Illegal immigration is not one of them.

    Scott, happy to discuss if you want to blog on it.

  32. Gravatar of E. Harding E. Harding
    18. January 2018 at 16:25

    @Roman arbitrary enforcement is actually bad. It leads to the proliferation of legal bribery. I prefer rules-based policies.

    Also; great news (I’m glad Trump won):
    http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/369482-haitians-barred-from-applying-for-visas-for-low-skilled-work-in-us

    “In your “ideal” world, we would all be imprisoned.”

    No. Due to fear of their own policies actually being enforced, legislatures will immediately start repealing laws.

  33. Gravatar of Viking Viking
    18. January 2018 at 16:30

    @Liberal Roman

    I am not too impressed with your argument or conclusion:

    “My own opinion is people are not really that stupid, but are trying to hide their racism behind the “It’s just the law” thinking while completely ignoring the dozens if not hundreds of law transgressions they see and often THEMSELVES COMMIT! every single day.”

    You are defending enforcement discretion, and saying it is likely we are all committing several crimes on a daily basis, and yet you seem to find nothing amiss.

    The conclusion from the above facts is that no-one is safe, that we are all at risk of losing our freedom if one influential government insider takes a personal dislike to us.

  34. Gravatar of Viking Viking
    18. January 2018 at 16:44

    @Harding

    In relation to your claim:

    “No. Due to fear of their own policies actually being enforced, legislatures will immediately start repealing laws.”

    There was an extreme vehicle mandate in existence in the nineties, with the following targets:

    “Originally, the ZEV mandate required that automakers produce
    at least 2% ZEVs by 1998, 5% by 2000, and 10% by 2003 (the per-centage was applied to cars only, not light trucks, and applied to the seven largest suppliers to California in 1998 and 2001 and then expanded to include all but the very smallest suppliers in 2003). The credits were, and still are, tradable, with a $5,000 fine imposed for each vehicle not made available for sale.”

    The proper capitalist response to such an extreme requirement would be to either pull out of California, or simply increase prices of all new vehicles in California enough to cover all the fines. Either approach would have resulted in an enormous blowback on California government and legislators. Instead the automakers quietly negotiated. When bad behavior is not punished, bad behavior will continue.

  35. Gravatar of Viking Viking
    18. January 2018 at 16:45

    This is the source of previous quote:

    http://tsrc.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/California's%20Zero%20Emission%20Vehicle%20Mandate%20Linking%20Clean%20Fuel%20Cars%20Carsharing%20and%20Station%20Car%20Strategies.pdf

  36. Gravatar of Don Don
    20. January 2018 at 17:44

    If we are giving folks a pass on “victimless” crimes, can I skip on paying taxes for 30 years??

  37. Gravatar of Scott Freelander Scott Freelander
    20. January 2018 at 19:59

    Just got word that the 3 relatives I disowned for supporting Trump are calling for a Trump dictatorship. I have no regrets.

  38. Gravatar of Bob Murphy Bob Murphy
    21. January 2018 at 07:23

    Hey Carl,

    I’m having a hard time finding consistent data for the whole period. Is there a chart in the 2017 report like the one in the 2015 report, that goes back a few years so we can see it apples-to-apples?

  39. Gravatar of Bob Murphy Bob Murphy
    21. January 2018 at 07:23

    (I’m talking about the ICE stats you linked to.)

  40. Gravatar of Massimo Heitor Massimo Heitor
    24. January 2018 at 02:02

    I’m sympathetic to the Mexican illegal immigrant featured in the presented anecdote. I support a variety of compromises to better accommodate people in his situation. However, I don’t think everyone deserves unconditional membership into any society, nation, or culture, of their choice. And I don’t think it’s fair to selectively choose anecdotes like this, and selectively highlight immigration restrictions, basically tribal membership restrictions, so exclusively on the US and Europe.

    Do you think it’s right that India has an actual shoot to kill policy on their border with Bangladesh? Could you cite those anecdotes? Or deportation anecdotes of people trying to settle in Israel, Japan, Mexico, or Canada against their immigration laws? Or is your outrage at tribalism strictly limited to Steve Bannon and people in the US and Europe? Are you actively diverting attention away from those similar or even more powerful anecdotes as they would dilute your narrative?

    The NYT Article, “Donald Trump’s Racism: The Definitive List” is a real laugh. The third item at the top of the list is a complete lie. They claim that the Central Park Five were exonerated. That is a lie. If you google it, you will find the NYT and other far-left media outlets that bend facts claim full exoneration, and they cite each other for proof. But, all of the the more official documents and sites that check their sources say that the conviction was merely vacated with time served. And, yes, there was DNA evidence that later helped convict another defendant, but that didn’t contradict or disprove the guilt of the CP5 or even expose inconsistencies in the police report leading to their guilt. Many officials with reputations to protect maintain that the CP5 were fully guilty and correctly convicted. The police officers who did the police work to find the CP5 guilty, were not all white, they were of many different races, and they didn’t know each other to collude together to falsify a bogus case. Experts who look for evidence of coerced confessions found that the CP5 confessions seemed legitimate and not-coerced. Even the lawyer who fought for the CP5 to get the convictions vacated fully agreed that the CP5 were in Central Park committing violent attacks on other innocent people. That hasn’t been denied to this day. Not just Donald Trump, but many others continue to believe the CP5 were fully guilty. Is believing in OJ Simpson’s guilt, when a court ruled him not guilty, is that racism? OJ is black and his alleged victims were white.

    And another key piece of evidence of Donald Trump’s racism is nicknaming Elizabeth Warren, “Pocahontas”. lol! Even David French sides with Trump on that one.

  41. Gravatar of Massimo Heitor Massimo Heitor
    24. January 2018 at 10:00

    @Steven Kopits, awesome idea. I love it. Please join the Trump Administration. Thank you.

Leave a Reply