Student may still face being deported

[one...two...tree 2,762]

We don't know all the details, but I think logic and reason says this guy for all intense and purposes is a citizen of the U.S..

um no he's not........

Common Law could and SHOULD apply in a case like this...at least as a gateway for his legal citizenship. Deporting the man simply based on the laws on the books is draconian and anti-American.

Common law is a type of legal system in which the law is created and/or refined by courts on a case-by-case basis. When there is no authoritative statement of the law, common law judges have the authority and duty to "make" law by creating precedent. The body of precedent is called "common law" and it binds future decisions. In future cases, when parties disagree on what the law is, an "ideal" common law court looks to past precedential decisions of relevant courts. If a similar dispute has been resolved in the past, the court is bound to follow the reasoning used in the prior decision (this principle is known as stare decisis). If, however, the court finds that the current dispute is fundamentally distinct from all previous cases, it will resolve the matter itself, with reference to general legal guidelines. Thereafter, the new decision becomes precedent, and will bind future courts under the principle of stare decisis.

In practice, common law systems are considerably more complicated than the "ideal" system described above. The decisions of a court are binding only in a particular jurisdiction, and even within a given jurisdiction, some courts have more power than others. For example, in most jurisdictions, decisions by appellate courts are binding on lower courts in the same jurisdiction and on future decisions of the same appellate court, but decisions of non-appellate courts are only non-binding persuasive authority. Interactions between constitutional law, common law, statutory law and regulatory law also give rise to considerable complexity. However, stare decisis, the principle that similar cases should be decided according to similar rules, lies at the heart of all common law systems.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

We don't know all the details, but I think logic and reason says this guy for all intense and purposes is a citizen of the U.S..

um no he's not........

Common Law could and SHOULD apply in a case like this...at least as a gateway for his legal citizenship. Deporting the man simply based on the laws on the books is draconian and anti-American.

Common law is a type of legal system in which the law is

-----------------------------snip!!-------------------.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law

steven, to the best of my knowledge, there isn't a statute of limitations on being illegal - i.e. avoid ice long enough and you get rewarded with citizenship. and while speaking of anti-american, isn't that sneaking into the country?

[ChristinaM 0]

So this guy came here without his consent when he was 3 years old, he's trying to do good things with his life, that's awesome. But he is still illegal. He is on the wrong side of the law. That is not open to debate - I assume that even you can see that, Steven. ... If he wants to be a fully-functioning member of American society, he needs to be legal - which means following the legal channels like the rest of us who want to be legal in this country.

JMHO

Oh now, sure it is. Legality, criminal intent, civil liberties and even the definition of what makes a citizen of the U.S. a citizen are definitely open for debate.

Well then let's just say "####### all this stupid paperwork - if you're a productive member of society, you're a citizen - regardless of how you got here!!"

Then we could denaturalise all the welfare bums who obviously don't appreciate that they live in the only place in the work worth living in, and deport them to Mexico to right the balance.

[/sarcasm]

[Ladylethal 12]

I can't really give my opinion on the matter until I have more facts. Does he have a connection to Mexico? Did he really come to US at age 3? Could he have become legal somehow?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

We don't know all the details, but I think logic and reason says this guy for all intense and purposes is a citizen of the U.S..

um no he's not........

Common Law could and SHOULD apply in a case like this...at least as a gateway for his legal citizenship. Deporting the man simply based on the laws on the books is draconian and anti-American.

Common law is a type of legal system in which the law is

-----------------------------snip!!-------------------.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law

steven, to the best of my knowledge, there isn't a statute of limitations on being illegal - i.e. avoid ice long enough and you get rewarded with citizenship. and while speaking of anti-american, isn't that sneaking into the country?

Holy #######, Charles...he was THREE YEARS OLD and has LIVED here most of his life. I'm glad none of you are judges because you'd never get your head around the idea that laws don't always apply justly in all situations. You adhere to our current immigration laws as if they were God sent and above reform or making exemptions. Even children's classic fairytales demonstrate that, 'A law is a law is a law' isn't always the best course, sometimes rules should be bent or broken. And yes, deporting him, under his circumstances, IMO, is anti-American.

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

We don't know all the details, but I think logic and reason says this guy for all intense and purposes is a citizen of the U.S..

um no he's not........

Common Law could and SHOULD apply in a case like this...at least as a gateway for his legal citizenship. Deporting the man simply based on the laws on the books is draconian and anti-American.

Common law is a type of legal system in which the law is

-----------------------------snip!!-------------------.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law

steven, to the best of my knowledge, there isn't a statute of limitations on being illegal - i.e. avoid ice long enough and you get rewarded with citizenship. and while speaking of anti-american, isn't that sneaking into the country?

Holy #######, Charles...he was THREE YEARS OLD and has LIVED here most of his life. I'm glad none of you are judges because you'd never get your head around the idea that laws don't always apply justly in all situations. You adhere to our current immigration laws as if they were God sent and above reform or making exemptions. Even children's classic fairytales demonstrate that, 'A law is a law is a law' isn't always the best course, sometimes rules should be bent or broken. And yes, deporting him, under his circumstances, IMO, is anti-American.

steven, perhaps you have it bassackwards......

the law isn't something the judge can toss out the window and make a decision on based upon his or her own feelings. i'm sure you've heard of "the rule of law" in your lifetime?

if judges were allowed to do such, perhaps more than a few rapists and murderers would be hung high right outside the courtroom. so be careful what you wish for

[one...two...tree 2,762]

We don't know all the details, but I think logic and reason says this guy for all intense and purposes is a citizen of the U.S..

um no he's not........

Common Law could and SHOULD apply in a case like this...at least as a gateway for his legal citizenship. Deporting the man simply based on the laws on the books is draconian and anti-American.

Common law is a type of legal system in which the law is

-----------------------------snip!!-------------------.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law

steven, to the best of my knowledge, there isn't a statute of limitations on being illegal - i.e. avoid ice long enough and you get rewarded with citizenship. and while speaking of anti-american, isn't that sneaking into the country?

Holy #######, Charles...he was THREE YEARS OLD and has LIVED here most of his life. I'm glad none of you are judges because you'd never get your head around the idea that laws don't always apply justly in all situations. You adhere to our current immigration laws as if they were God sent and above reform or making exemptions. Even children's classic fairytales demonstrate that, 'A law is a law is a law' isn't always the best course, sometimes rules should be bent or broken. And yes, deporting him, under his circumstances, IMO, is anti-American.

steven, perhaps you have it bassackwards......

the law isn't something the judge can toss out the window and make a decision on based upon his or her own feelings. i'm sure you've heard of "the rule of law" in your lifetime?

if judges were allowed to do such, perhaps more than a few rapists and murderers would be hung high right outside the courtroom. so be careful what you wish for

Go read up on some good ol' American History, Charles. You'll find example after example of what I'm talking about. In fact, this whole idea that laws are somehow supreme above all criticism, re-examination, or abolishment sounds more like Fascism than anything. It's fanatical to say the least...very much in line with the fundamentalist extremists who scream that 'the law is the law is the law.'

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The rationale isn’t difficult to understand – laws are not absolute, nor are they applied uniformly. In most criminal cases – decisions are made on a whole host of factors. If that weren’t the case you’d expect every killing, for example to result in a murder conviction and life imprisonment. And we all know that isn’t true.

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

We don't know all the details, but I think logic and reason says this guy for all intense and purposes is a citizen of the U.S..

um no he's not........

Common Law could and SHOULD apply in a case like this...at least as a gateway for his legal citizenship. Deporting the man simply based on the laws on the books is draconian and anti-American.

Common law is a type of legal system in which the law is

-----------------------------snip!!-------------------.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law

steven, to the best of my knowledge, there isn't a statute of limitations on being illegal - i.e. avoid ice long enough and you get rewarded with citizenship. and while speaking of anti-american, isn't that sneaking into the country?

Holy #######, Charles...he was THREE YEARS OLD and has LIVED here most of his life. I'm glad none of you are judges because you'd never get your head around the idea that laws don't always apply justly in all situations. You adhere to our current immigration laws as if they were God sent and above reform or making exemptions. Even children's classic fairytales demonstrate that, 'A law is a law is a law' isn't always the best course, sometimes rules should be bent or broken. And yes, deporting him, under his circumstances, IMO, is anti-American.

steven, perhaps you have it bassackwards......

the law isn't something the judge can toss out the window and make a decision on based upon his or her own feelings. i'm sure you've heard of "the rule of law" in your lifetime?

if judges were allowed to do such, perhaps more than a few rapists and murderers would be hung high right outside the courtroom. so be careful what you wish for

Go read up on some good ol' American History, Charles. You'll find example after example of what I'm talking about. In fact, this whole idea that laws are somehow supreme above all criticism, re-examination, or abolishment sounds more like Fascism than anything. It's fanatical to say the least...very much in line with the fundamentalist extremists who scream that 'the law is the law is the law.'

if you think ranting about it will do some good, feel free. i don't think it will make a bit of difference in his case. he knew he was illegal and was trying to duck the system.

btw, i didn't say laws are above criticism......but if you feel such needs to be changed, use the ballot box. until then, the guy in the story is screwed.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Whenever the offense inspires less horror than the punishment, the rigor of penal law is obliged to give way to the common feelings of mankind.

~Edward Gibbon

.....

I was summoned for jury duty some years ago, and during voir dire, the attorney asked me whether I could obey the judge's instructions. I answered, "It all depends upon what those instructions are." Irritatingly, the judge asked me to explain myself. I explained that if I were on a jury back in the 1850s, and a person was on trial for violating the Fugitive Slave Act by assisting a runaway slave, I would vote for acquittal regardless of the judge's instructions. The reason is that slavery is unjust and any law supporting it is unjust. Needless to say, I was dismissed from jury duty.

~Walter Williams

....

"Jury nullification" means that a jury finds a defendant innocent because the law itself is unjust, or is unjust in a particular application, and so should not be applied.

http://www.friesian.com/nullif.htm

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

Whenever the offense inspires less horror than the punishment, the rigor of penal law is obliged to give way to the common feelings of mankind.

~Edward Gibbon

.....

I was summoned for jury duty some years ago, and during voir dire, the attorney asked me whether I could obey the judge's instructions. I answered, "It all depends upon what those instructions are." Irritatingly, the judge asked me to explain myself. I explained that if I were on a jury back in the 1850s, and a person was on trial for violating the Fugitive Slave Act by assisting a runaway slave, I would vote for acquittal regardless of the judge's instructions. The reason is that slavery is unjust and any law supporting it is unjust. Needless to say, I was dismissed from jury duty.

~Walter Williams

....

"Jury nullification" means that a jury finds a defendant innocent because the law itself is unjust, or is unjust in a particular application, and so should not be applied.

http://www.friesian.com/nullif.htm

i'm well versed with the definition of jury nullification and such won't occur with this individual as he's not going to trial.......nor is he a runaway slave.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Whenever the offense inspires less horror than the punishment, the rigor of penal law is obliged to give way to the common feelings of mankind.

~Edward Gibbon

.....

I was summoned for jury duty some years ago, and during voir dire, the attorney asked me whether I could obey the judge's instructions. I answered, "It all depends upon what those instructions are." Irritatingly, the judge asked me to explain myself. I explained that if I were on a jury back in the 1850s, and a person was on trial for violating the Fugitive Slave Act by assisting a runaway slave, I would vote for acquittal regardless of the judge's instructions. The reason is that slavery is unjust and any law supporting it is unjust. Needless to say, I was dismissed from jury duty.

~Walter Williams

....

"Jury nullification" means that a jury finds a defendant innocent because the law itself is unjust, or is unjust in a particular application, and so should not be applied.

http://www.friesian.com/nullif.htm

i'm well versed with the definition of jury nullification and such won't occur with this individual as he's not going to trial.......nor is he a runaway slave.

Of course he isn't. What those statements above show is that your argument that a law is a law is a law therefore must be followed, regardless of this guy's circumstances lacks any credence.