I can't believe it, She won 200,000 of our taxes

[Guest A10thunderbolt]

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2012/may/04/opponents-to-immigration-policy-share-in/

[Glenn]

"We all have the same rights although we are not all Americans," she said.

NO, NO, NO, NO!!!!! NO!!!!!

Glenn

[Guest A10thunderbolt]

Edited May 4, 2012 by A10thunderbolt

[Jonnin]

"We all have the same rights although we are not all Americans," she said.

NO, NO, NO, NO!!!!! NO!!!!!

Glenn

I will give her all her rights -- I agree she has the same ones I do. But she has NO entitlements. She has confused "rights" with something else. She has the right to due process, and the right to spend her life in jail or, if lucky, be deported. Them are her rights.

Edited May 4, 2012 by Jonnin

[Guest adurbin]

Arrested for driving without a valid drivers license, taken in to custody, taken to a hospital and given "free" healthcare, sues, and gets 200 grand. Of friggin course they didn't take the cuffs off of you until you were at the hospital...you were a criminal. Rights my ass. We wouldn't have any rights in your country..oh wait, that's why you jumped the fence in the first place. Must have had a very selective memory on that one.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

She can exercise whatever her rights are in Mexico.

[hornett22]

If you didnt break our laws, you have nothing to worry about.

Funny the news is telling me about this after the fact. I would have gladly gone. Im tired of having my throat cut by this plague.

[gjohnsoniv]

Did they not follow protocol? Last I checked that's what they are supposed to do.

[Guest CCI]

They need to stay in their own country, "then their families won't be separated due to being deported"!

Villegas, through a translator, described in tears how she was treated-"They want you to believe that they are as humble and meek"!

I said it before, and I'll say it again, "they will take your jobs"! They will live 2 to 5 families to a house, and buy property together. Then they start spreading out, they will drive you out of your neighborhood. Where are "you" going to go, "California"?

[Seabeejason]

I hope the Sheriff adopts the new initiative. It is obvious that the immigration officials have their plates full already. If regular law enforcement can help deport these folks it's all the better. I do not mind people becoming citizens LEGALLY. But when they come here, pop out some kids, and start living on welfare it tends to piss me off. I know there are plenty of Americans that sponge off the system, but it does not mean we need more people on government subsistence. Many of these folks are hard working and good people, but if they want to work here they need to obide by our laws and contribute as an American citizen should.

This woman should have never won that lawsuit. She came here, broke the law, and then sued because those laws were enforced. At the most she should have just gotten the healthcare she needed to safely deliver her child and then deported. But I fear now that she has a U.S. born child she will undoubtedly get to stay here and become another taxpayer liability. It will also set a precedent for future court cases like this, which makes me even more angry.

Lets send a message to these folks and start deporting ALL illegals, regardless of their circumstances. And then start fining the crap out of any employer that hires an illegal. I really wish that we could help these people because all they want is to have a good life like the rest of us. Many of them are obviously willing to work very hard for it. But if we open our borders to everyone wanting a "good life" our country will go down the tubes even faster than it is now.

[Dolomite_supafly]

Take possession of the new American, her child, and deport the mother.

I am a firm believer that a child should take the citizenship of the parent. If one parent is Anerican then the child is American. But if neither parents are citizens of the United States the parents, along with the child, should go back to their home country.

Dolomite

[East_TN_Patriot]

Take possession of the new American, her child, and deport the mother.

I am a firm believer that a child should take the citizenship of the parent. If one parent is Anerican then the child is American. But if neither parents are citizens of the United States the parents, along with the child, should go back to their home country.

Dolomite

Hence the term "anchor baby."

[Dolomite_supafly]

And something else to realize. Because she was in custody the taxpayers paid for all her medical bills.

As far as illegal aliens go they should be deported, along with that any children who were born here to illegal parents. By default the child should take the citizenship of the illegal parents. Now if the immigrant parent(s) are here legally, then by all means allow them to stay and the child is an American citizen. We should not reward an illegal who is only coming here to have an anchor baby so they can stay. We also need to bill the county of origin for every illegal we have to transport, house feed or heal. Take the money out of the funding that we are no doubt sending them. Once a country looses millions of our aid dollars because they allow their citizens to illegally enter our country they will begin to do something to secure their borders as well.

Why should we pay to help their country maintain a certain standard of living only to have their citizens come and bilk our country. Kind of like staying in an apartment and having the landlord pay you for staying there, which is ridiculous.

As far as employers go they should also be fined substantially for using illegal aliens. Fine them 1% of the gross income from the previous year’s tax return. Not net because they all write off everything but the gross profit.

The main reason, in my eyes that is, why nothing is being done is money. Not money being made by the employers but by the federal government. Say we have 1,000,000 illegal aliens here working under false documents. Now do you think those illegal aliens are going to file their income tax returns at the end of the year, I think not. Now imagine each worker would be getting back $500 if they did file. That is $500,000,000 the feds can use without giving back to the states who are paying most of the costs related to the support of the illegal aliens. That may not seem like a lot in the scheme of things but it probably is enough to look the other way in some instances. I suspect there are a lot more than 1,000,000 working under false documents and I suspect their refunds would be more than $500 but you get the picture. Add to this that any money given by the feds doesn't include the illegal aliens the states are supporting because the illegal aliens are unlikely to take part in any census. Some states end up with a disproportionately large percentage of illegal aliens but do not receive the funding for the additional drain on their services.

Dolomite

[Spook]

I think I'd have sent her a hospital bill for $200 grand.

[hornett22]

I think I'd have sent her a hospital bill for $200 grand.

Excellent IDEA!

[dats82]

I think I'd have sent her a hospital bill for $200 grand.

She could win the freakin' powerball, and she still would not pay her bill. Her lack of money is not the problem, it is her mentality. She thinks she is due this care and treatment as a right. She could have all the money in the world, but would still bitch about having to pay for something that she feels is owed to her. There are plenty of non-illegals that feel the same way.

Either way, it is crap. I do not understand how poeple look at ILLEGAL aliens and think they are doing nothing wrong. I guess I am just a cold hearted a-hole, but if we would seperate more families and put more prego women in shackles, then maybe we would see an improvement in the problem.

[jtmaze]

Pictsweet frozen Vegtables doubled the size of Bells, TN with "migrant workers." The city of Bells said "we don't care but you have to police them" and not you can see the Private Security force of PictSweet Patrolling the town of Bells. Tn. But that is not what I was going to say. INS used to come in and clean Pictsweet out about once a month. It would always be on FRiday and they would always be back on Monday. It was crazy, A friend of mine worked there and it was crazy.

[East_TN_Patriot]

I am friends with someone who is part of the group that sponsored the event where this woman spoke. After speaking to her, I found out that the reason she successfully sued was because there was evidence showing that the traffic stop that led to her arrest for no DL was the result of profiling. The law requires an officer to have probable cause of a crime or traffic violation to make a traffic stop and there was no documentation that such a situation existed when she was stopped. In other words, the lawsuit was a violation of the 4th Amendment, not for her treatment after being arrested. This is exactly the issue that the group is concerned about, and one place where I think many of us share some common ground. We live in a society of laws and these laws include due process protections for all people in the United States (not just citizens). It's not OK for the police to violate someone's rights, even if we agree with the overall outcome of the encounter. The ends don't justify illegal or unethical means.

This is one case that the group is citing to justify their concern for the Knox County Sheriff adopting the 287(g) policy. There is concern that it will be used, either through accepted daily policy or understood practice, to profile people and conduct stops that are unethical at best and illegal at worst. The refusal of Sheriff J.J. Jones to even meet with the groups representative or address their concerns does nothing more than fuel the speculation of corrupt intent. Again, this is another piece of common ground I think we share. When our elected officials and law enforcement agencies refuse to be open about the policies they are implementing and how they intend to address potential abuses of power and authority, it should cause us all to stop and take notice. I may not agree with all of the points the group makes (I'm certain my friend and I disagree on many points), but I do agree that there is reason for concern here and that the Sheriff has an obligation to the community to be forthcoming and open.

Edited May 8, 2012 by East_TN_Patriot

[Guest A10thunderbolt]

She broke the LAW. You are going to give her a free pass because someone didn't dot the I's and cross their T's? I really have a hard time with the whole profiling excuse it really is worn out.

[BigK]

I have no issue with criminal profiling. It's the only way some crimes could ever get solved.

Racial profiling by LE is a different matter. If she was only pulled over b/c she looks Hispanic, she was wronged. However, once it was discovered that she had broken the law, do we just let her go?

I don't want jack-booted gov't thugs kicking in someone's door to find some reason to haul them off, but this woman DWI (driving while illegal, LOL). They didn't go into her home and drag her out.

It's a slippery slope, but illegal is illegal. After she was found to be here illegally, she should never have been here long enough to pop that kid out OR to sue.

Edited May 8, 2012 by BigK

[Guest A10thunderbolt]

I have no issue with criminal profiling. It's the only way some crimes could ever get solved.

Racial profiling by LE is a different matter. If she was only pulled over b/c she looks Hispanic, she was wronged. However, once it was discovered that she had broken the law, do we just let her go?

I don't want jack-booted gov't thugs kicking in someone's door to find some reason to haul them off, but this woman DWI (driving while illegal, LOL). They didn't go into her home and drag her out.

It's a slippery slope, but illegal is illegal. After she was found to be here illegally, she should never have been here long enough to pop that kid out OR to sue.

I agree, mby the LEO should have had some kind of reprimand or something, but you can't just let the BG go, and especially give them money for their trouble. What if it was a murderer would we release them and let them go? Where is the common sense?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Hence the term "anchor baby."

And to think it was because of a misinterpretation of a decision. Definitely needs to be reviewed, doesn't it?

[Dolomite_supafly]

I thought you could not use the civil courts for redress if you were breaking the law at the same time as the incident.

Like if you were breaking into a home and the homeowner beat the crap out of you. It was my understanding that the criminal could not sue because he was breaking the law at the time.

Dolomite

[gjohnsoniv]

I've always heard about people have broken in suing because the owner "assaulted them" or something similar.

[East_TN_Patriot]

She broke the LAW. You are going to give her a free pass because someone didn't dot the I's and cross their T's? I really have a hard time with the whole profiling excuse it really is worn out.

Yes, that's what the US Constitution and due process is all about. If we are willing to ignore it when it comes to situations we generally dislike, what happens when we become the targets of policy? Due process protects all of us, not the select few who have the money or power to secure the protections our laws provide.

I agree, mby the LEO should have had some kind of reprimand or something, but you can't just let the BG go, and especially give them money for their trouble. What if it was a murderer would we release them and let them go? Where is the common sense?

I understand the frustration, but that's exactly how our system is set up. The state is obligated to honor all due process rights for all people. If the police fail to do so, that's the price that is paid. Do we let a criminal go free? Sometimes yes, if all the evidence that was gathered was the result of a stop that was initially unlawful (except in certain unusual circumstances when it can be proven that the evidence would have been discovered through lawful means anyhow). Our system is set up on the belief that our rights are so sacred that they should be protected to the level that a guilty criminal may go free. I'm OK with that. What I'm not OK with is a law enforcement officer, agency, or prosecutor who thinks they can get away with ignoring the law or acted negligently in carrying out their duty. If we say that it's OK for the police to stop people without the legal standard of proof, then none of us are free.

Edited May 8, 2012 by East_TN_Patriot