Boy Who Fled Country With Teacher May Get Visa to Return to U.S.

[no name 1]

Regardless if the boy was coniving, innocent, taken advantage of, or taking advantage of someone else, the teacher knows full well that it is illegal to have sex with a minor. It should not matter if he was begging her for sex or a relationship, whatever, she should have had the brains to know that it is illegal and to stay out any compromising situations. So I really don't feel sorry for the teacher. However, I also don't think it is grounds to give permanent residency to the boy and his whole family. Give him the U visa for as long as the case requires, and then send him back to Mexico...

Without an option for permanent residency, there is zero incentive for the boy to help in this trial. Without his cooperation, its unlikely the teacher will face any punishment for her actions.

From Devilette's article above

The boy remains in Mexico because of his immigration status but might be able to return to Nebraska, at least temporarily, if he is granted a "U" visa. The visas are used to encourage illegal immigrants to report crimes against them.

"To prove their case, they have to have him come back here," Davis said. "They're going to have to cut him some deal to have him testify. In exchange for the promise of bringing him into the country, he may be anxious to please them and do what they say."

They are promising him that he can come back into the country for some more time, not that he and his family can remain here forever.

and if anyone bothered to read up on U visas, they don't even exist legitimately yet, nor are they easy to get, and nor do they guarantee anything.

[jundp 191]

Hmmm.

Neither her words (nor mine) say a damn thing about sex (or adults or teachers), simply a consensual relationship. Which may or may not be sexual.

Also, simple math tells us 13 x 2 does not make her twice his age.

Just out of curiosity, dev, why are you so defensive? And argumentative? You were rude and arrogant to me, were called on it, and yet you have no response? Again, here in this post you are assuming and being defensive. I don't understand why?

You made a comment about 13 year olds having relationships and thinking back when we were that age. The two comments that followed indicated that while _WE_ may have had relationships they weren't with teachers and they weren't sexually active. So how is that an attack on your words?

I think you really need to lighten up.

[no name 1]

Hmmm.

Neither her words (nor mine) say a damn thing about sex (or adults or teachers), simply a consensual relationship. Which may or may not be sexual.

Also, simple math tells us 13 x 2 does not make her twice his age.

Just out of curiosity, dev, why are you so defensive? And argumentative? You were rude and arrogant to me, were called on it, and yet you have no response? Again, here in this post you are assuming and being defensive. I don't understand why?

You made a comment about 13 year olds having relationships and thinking back when we were that age. The two comments that followed indicated that while _WE_ may have had relationships they weren't with teachers and they weren't sexually active. So how is that an attack on your words?

I think you really need to lighten up.

Why are you determined to be 'right'?

You twisted my words, as well as Alex's. I do not appreciate that nor do I do it to others.

You also discounted my knowledge of MKL, simply because you lived in Seattle/teach with her former colleagues. Just because your 'friends' piggybacked doesn't make it so....

Edited November 13, 2007 by devilette

[jundp 191]

Hmmm.

Neither her words (nor mine) say a damn thing about sex (or adults or teachers), simply a consensual relationship. Which may or may not be sexual.

Also, simple math tells us 13 x 2 does not make her twice his age.

Just out of curiosity, dev, why are you so defensive? And argumentative? You were rude and arrogant to me, were called on it, and yet you have no response? Again, here in this post you are assuming and being defensive. I don't understand why?

You made a comment about 13 year olds having relationships and thinking back when we were that age. The two comments that followed indicated that while _WE_ may have had relationships they weren't with teachers and they weren't sexually active. So how is that an attack on your words?

I think you really need to lighten up.

Why are you determined to be 'right'?

You twisted my words, as well as Alex's. I do not appreciate that nor do I do it to others.

You also discounted my knowledge of MKL, simply because you lived in Seattle/teach with her former colleagues. Just because your 'friends' piggybacked doesn't make it so....

No, I did not discount your knowledge, I merely suggested another pov. Something you clearly can't handle. I don't have any desire to be "right." Unlike you, I am open to many different views. You are very fond of certain arguments and certain phrasings, I've noticed, but rarely seem to apply your own way of thinking to yourself and your own actions.

Whatever, not worth my time anymore

ETA: having a differing pov does not mean "twisting words"

Edited November 13, 2007 by jundp

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Hmmm.

Neither her words (nor mine) say a damn thing about sex (or adults or teachers), simply a consensual relationship. Which may or may not be sexual.

Also, simple math tells us 13 x 2 does not make her twice his age.

Just out of curiosity, dev, why are you so defensive? And argumentative? You were rude and arrogant to me, were called on it, and yet you have no response? Again, here in this post you are assuming and being defensive. I don't understand why?

You made a comment about 13 year olds having relationships and thinking back when we were that age. The two comments that followed indicated that while _WE_ may have had relationships they weren't with teachers and they weren't sexually active. So how is that an attack on your words?

I think you really need to lighten up.

Why are you determined to be 'right'?

You twisted my words, as well as Alex's. I do not appreciate that nor do I do it to others.

You also discounted my knowledge of MKL, simply because you lived in Seattle/teach with her former colleagues. Just because your 'friends' piggybacked doesn't make it so....

Well speaking for myself I don't think my interpretation of Alex's post was particularly far off - seeing as she was referring to "the" 13 year old, rather than "a" 13 year-old.

[Peikko 1,575]

It seems clear to me that this whole dispute is about whether the U visa is a 'reward' or an instrument of justice. If you think it's a reward, then there really is nowhere else to go. Civic duty? Crikey, are there any other nails you want to put in their coffins?

[no name 1]

No, I did not discount your knowledge, I merely suggested another pov.

And have you worked with her former colleagues or spoken to them on the subject as well in your research and work on the movies?

I'm just saying that there are differences in these two situations. Regardless of your knowledge, if you haven't lived in the community and worked with or talked to her colleagues, I don't think that you are in a position to compare.

----

ETA: having a differing pov does not mean "twisting words"

re-read post #149, you mighta missed where the twist happened.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

No, I did not discount your knowledge, I merely suggested another pov.

And have you worked with her former colleagues or spoken to them on the subject as well in your research and work on the movies?

I'm just saying that there are differences in these two situations. Regardless of your knowledge, if you haven't lived in the community and worked with or talked to her colleagues, I don't think that you are in a position to compare.

----

ETA: having a differing pov does not mean "twisting words"

re-read post #149, you mighta missed where the twist happened.

Well... you created the twist. She said "the 13 year old", which I took to mean referred to the 13 year old in the article. If she'd said "a 13 year old", then yes that would lend itself to application in a hypothetical situation. Only she didn't. And it doesn't.

[Fandango 1,439]

Here's the thing. As Lisa pointed out, sex crimes, such as rape are incredibly difficult to make stick, always. The defense council is going to paint the victim as at best a willing 'victim', at worst a conniving individual who far from being a victim is controlling and manipulative and the perpetrator is the true victim.

Naturally as this is a sex crime case the defense is going to start slinging mud fudging the age, alleging that it was not kidnap, that the sex was consensual etc etc, that's their job. Add to the already difficult task of trying to prove a sex crime, the illegal immigrant angle and the questionable legitimacy of obtaining a U visa and you ratchet up the difficulty many times over.

At the end of the day, I believe everyone would like to see justice done, in this case, as in all cases. No one wants people to be able to 'use' the system for their own ends. Every time someone call foul when there is no foul the legitimate cases are made ever more difficult to prosecute and ever less likely to be brought before a jury.

This is perhaps why we should all perhaps exercise some caution when making judgments of guilt or innocence when one is not in a position to know the facts.

My feeling is that this kid, be he 13 or 16 has been used. Whether he was more abused by the teacher or used by some family members time will of course tell but to somehow believe that the boy himself came up with a ruse to dupe everyone, from forging birth certificates to seducing a teacher in order to become a legitimate citizen, well, I think that's stretching credulity to its absolute limits.

That wasn't the point I was trying to make, actually...but my fault for not expounding more. The theory here is that the visa is not a reward per se, but some sort of help to those who would not normally make a formal complaint, as they would be in fear of suffering personal loss for going to the police. Well, that happens everyday to USCs who testify against criminals, but there's no 'cushion' for the law to prevent that.

I understand in theory what the intent of this was meant for, yet at the same time, see that the application of such not only makes there be no deterrent to report/testify a crime....there's actually a real problem solving benefit for those who do. Which doesn't equal the playing field...it yet again makes illegals follow a different set of rules. Where is the benefit for a USC to report a heinous crime where the vic him/herself will be raked over the coals? There's none. What does the gov't do about that? Sweet fock all.

[Peikko 1,575]

I was not trying to suggest anything other than that you did bring up the point that sex crimes are extremely difficult to prove.

There is no "cushion" for the illegal either, they are still facing the same kinds of personal attacks on their character and integrity that any victim of sex crimes suffers, particularly when the defense teem starts to spin. Maybe even more so if one can argue that the victim is only doing it for the green card.

As for whether the U visa 'levels the playing field' or somehow 'overcompensates' the victim? That really depends on what I have said before, do you see the U visa as a 'reward' for reporting the crime or as a means to enable the crime to be reported.

I don't know what the background is for the U visa in terms of the input from law enforcement agencies, but one would at least hope they were a main factor in determining its instigation.

[no name 1]

I was not trying to suggest anything other than that you did bring up the point that sex crimes are extremely difficult to prove.

There is no "cushion" for the illegal either, they are still facing the same kinds of personal attacks on their character and integrity that any victim of sex crimes suffers, particularly when the defense teem starts to spin. Maybe even more so if one can argue that the victim is only doing it for the green card.

As for whether the U visa 'levels the playing field' or somehow 'overcompensates' the victim? That really depends on what I have said before, do you see the U visa as a 'reward' for reporting the crime or as a means to enable the crime to be reported.

I don't know what the background is for the U visa in terms of the input from law enforcement agencies, but one would at least hope they were a main factor in determining its instigation.

So you brought it up (in a neat link for me) yet didn't even read about it? Interesting. I did a lot of researching about the U Visa (& T Visa) after your link so I could debate knowing the facts...

FYI: One does need law enforcement evidence, yes.

Edited November 13, 2007 by devilette

[Peikko 1,575]

Expounded to add that I read Lisa's comments in the light of sex crimes exclusively which is not the case. The U visa doesn't change the parameters for how anyone is treated in terms of the criminal process. It isn't a cushion that protects someone against the personal effects of testifying in criminal proceedings. It doesn't stop the defense from raking them over the self same coals.

[Peikko 1,575]

Dev, I apologise if what I said was confusing. I meant who was it who framed the U visa? Who determined that it was something that should be put in place? I was asking of law enforcement agencies asked the government to put something of that nature into place or if it was something that came from government?

If that is in the link that I provided, then quite clearly I do need to read it more closely.

[no name 1]

Dev, I apologise if what I said was confusing. I meant who was it who framed the U visa? Who determined that it was something that should be put in place? I was asking of law enforcement agencies asked the government to put something of that nature into place or if it was something that came from government?

If that is in the link that I provided, then quite clearly I do need to read it more closely.

First paragraph.

[Peikko 1,575]

The U visa was created by the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Prevention Act, enacted in October 2000

Yes, but that doesn't explain who called for it which is what I am interested in. To me, if the call came from law enforcement, I am more inclined to believe that it's a necessary device than if the call came from a politician.