Wednesday, January 17, 2018




In 1978, Jorge Garcia was born in Mexico.

In 1988, a relative of Jorge Garcia took Jorge, who was ten years old at the time, illegally across the Mexican border and into the United States.

In 2003, at the age of 25, Garcia married Cindy. Then came the birth of his daughter (now 15 years old) and his son (now 12 years old).

For the past 15 years, Garcia has always worked and earned an income to help support his family.  He paid his taxes too.  He has never been arrested, in fact, he has never had so much as a parking ticket.

Garcia has also reported annually to INS/ICE and followed all of their instructions.  He never so much as left town to travel anywhere without first obtaining the permission of ICE.

Garcia does not qualify for DACA.  Of the seven requirements, he was only able to check six of the boxes: He arrived in the US before he turned 16; he continuously resided in the US since June 15, 2007; he was present in the US on June 15, 2012; he had no lawful status on June 15, 2012; he obtained his GED; and he was never convicted of a crime.

His only mishap - he was not under the age of 31 on June 15, 2012.  He was 33 years old.

So, when “The Donald” came into office exactly one year ago this Saturday, the writing was already on the “wall”.  Trump made it clear from day one, when on June 16, 2015 from Trump Tower in Manhattan, he announced that he was running for President. On that day he targeted Mexico and Mexicans, stating infamously "they're bringing drugs; they're bringing crime; they're rapists; and some, I assume, are good people".

Despite repeated attempts to obtain legal status for Garcia so he could stay in this country, those efforts failed.  In December, ICE agents informed Garcia that his time was up.  They gave him the news - he would have to get on a plane and return to Mexico on Monday, January 15, 2018, Martin Luther King Day.  After spending nearly thirty years in the United States, Garcia would be returned to the country he left when he was only ten years old.

At the airport on Monday, his wife and his two children hugged Garcia and kissed him goodbye, and on the plane he went.  Under the law, the earliest he can apply to be re-admitted to our country is ten years from now. If you have two minutes and three seconds to spare, watch the video here.

On Monday, President Trump Made America Great Again.



Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

Can someone do something about Judge Graham. He calls the calendar is alphabetical order and doesn’t take Attorneys out of turn.

So my armed robbery Arthur hearing needs to be rescheduled to accommodate the court.

Anonymous said...

This gentleman's story is heartbreaking. You would like to simply waive immigration laws and allow him to stay. He seems, by all accounts, to be a good guy and a good father. But no one who supports meaningful immigration laws can expect that the standard for immigration can be whether someone is a good dad or is already here.

There are 1.4 million Mexicans (not to mention people from other countries) who have applied for a VISA and who are waiting patiently, sometimes painfully. Are they not good guys? Good dads? Should their place in line be bumped back because this guy's parents simply crossed the border without waiting?

Imagine the news covering the story of the very individual whose entry was denied, so this guy could stay. Let's call him Joe. What justification would you give Joe? Sorry you followed the law? Sorry your parents did not simply disregard it? Please explain to your children your inability to earn the money they need, because this other guy is a "good dad"?

That would be morally repugnant.

So if you want to let this guy stay, the only moral position is to let Joe come in as well. Why punish Joe? So now you are effectively doubling your VISA rate for Mexicans. Do you take that number out of Salvadorans? Haitians? Norwegians? Why? Or do you let whoever wants in, in?

That is the only rational explanation for those who are making this story go viral -- their position must be to simply have open borders. That's a coherent position, without internal contradiction. You dont need to punish Joe or Tom or Hector by not deporting this guy. So be honest and forthright about your position: you want open borders. And run for office, or donate to politicians who support that position. Open borders.

That we can debate. It's clear where I would fall -- open borders would destroy any notion that we are a republic and would make North America merely a corporate entity, with a race for low-wages enriching Wall Street, a welfare system that would soon burst, and the continued impoverishment of the poorest Americans. But -- this guy could stay. No emotional goodbye to his kids.

But merely posting this video, tugging on the heartstrings of viewers, without presenting the obvious implications of NOT deporting him... that is emotional manipulation, unworthy of serious debate.

Anonymous said...

10:44 - your position misses the obvious: if your "Joe" is denied, and the guy from the story is permitted to stay, a 30ish year status quo is maintained. There is considerable public policy (and logical) justification for maintaining status quo and not dividing families without good cause.

Anonymous said...

10:44, Do we hold children responsible for any other crimes of the parent?

Anonymous said...

"In 2003, at the age of 25, Garcia married Cindy."

I'm guessing Cindy is not a United States citizen, otherwise there are legal avenues for Garcia to come back legally after minimal time abroad. So what's the deal with Cindy? No status too?

"For the past 15 years, Garcia has always worked and earned an income to help support his family. He paid his taxes too. He has never been arrested, in fact, he has never had so much as a parking ticket."

I love how the write-up acts like Garcia is such a great guy based on the mere fact that he has worked, paid taxes, and not been arrested. Why when we talk about those without status do these tired facts mean anything? Theses aren't positives, they just show a lack of certain negatives. Has he done anything demonstrably good? Community service? Nothing to add to the fact that he's not a criminal? Such a low bar, and falsely suggests illegals should only be assessed based on lack of obvious negatives.

"Under the law, the earliest he can apply to be re-admitted to our country is ten years from now."

Um, no. Sorry, there are waivers available where he could come back prior to 10 years, assuming he otherwise qualifies for an immigrant visa. for example, His elder child can petition for him when the former turns 21.

"Despite repeated attempts to obtain legal status for Garcia so he could stay in this country, those efforts failed. In December, ICE agents informed Garcia that his time was up."

How did he attempt to legalize and why did his efforts fail? How many years was he given to straighten things out?

I get the point and I sympathize with his situation. But no country in the world has anything like DACA, because even talk of DACA is a huge incentive for parents to bring their kids here illegally.

Anonymous said...

For all you Trump bashers out there, read it and weep:

Apple pledges to spend $350 billion and bring 20,000 jobs to the U.S. within next five years. The announcement comes after recent corporate tax changes and a greater push to increase manufacturing in the U.S.


to 3:04 PM:

Cindy is a US citizen. According to the news reports on the story, Cindy and Jorge were told that he was not eligible to return to the US for, at a minimum, 10 years. The law was followed here - if Garcia had been a member of the Rotary Club and contributed 1,000 hours of community service over the past ten years, he would still be looked at the same way - he had no legal grounds to stay in this country.

The question is, and 11:57 AM raises it well, is do we break up families. We all know the stats: the likelihood is that the 15 year old daughter and the 12 year old son will do worse, economically, socially, etc without their father in their life. And 1:52 PM raises the bigger question - when else do we hold the child legally responsible for the illegal acts of their parents (or in this case a close family relative)?.


to 3:04 PM:

I did just read this in another story about Garcia:

"Garcia may be able to return to his family in two years, he said, citing his attorney, though the slip of paper handed to him by ICE stipulates a 10-year ban."

Anonymous said...

Cap--3:04 here.

1 article says says he was ordered removed over a decade ago. Seems like letting him stay around for a decade to try to figure out his status, after ordered removed by a judge, was pretty fair.

There are 2 separate 10 year bars likely applicable here, and both are waivable. 1 bar you can request to be waived even before you leave. This reference to 2 years appears to be a mistake, in my opinion.

I don't buy the facts as presented to be the full story. It doesn't add up, frankly. I'm too skeptical, and the articles appear to be based on what his attorneys friends and family tell the press. ICE doesn't talk to the press on stuff like this.

Bottom line: if he's an angel, he'll be back pretty soon with a green card. In my opinion only, of course.

Anonymous said...

As a Cuban myself, I think it is fair to say that you are most likely a Cuban republican, who notwithstanding the fact that this country allowed either you or your parents to migrate here are against immigration and immigrants.
As an attorney, I’m sure you are aware that as the gentleman came here illegally, through his parents, it doesn’t matter that his wife is an American citizen. The only option for him was to attempt to attempt to show a hardship to a US citizen while he is in removal proceedings. I assume was that was denied.
It’s a shame that so many Cubans which were fortunate enough to migrate here and be accepted to this wonderful country have turned against all other immigrants. Talk about hypocrisy.

Anonymous said...

3:04 here again for one correction: the waivers to the 2 separate 10 year bars he needs both can be sought and approved prior to leaving the United States. This speeds things up, at least some. There still are delays related to getting an appointment with a US embassy or consulate and certain paperwork that has to be done, but he comes back legally. Separation is clearly bad for any child, but here the separation can be a lesson to his kids about why you should follow the law, or at least why his parents who brought him should have. And making him return to Mexico to get right with the law makes it a little fairer to all those mexicans patiently waiting in line.

" if Garcia had been a member of the Rotary Club and contributed 1,000 hours of community service over the past ten years, he would still be looked at the same way - he had no legal grounds to stay in this country."

#1 did he actually even do 1 hour?

#2 Sounds like you are in favor of trump view: merit based immigration.

Again, this story is an over dramatization written by his attorneys etc.

Anonymous said...

Is there nothing you like about trump?

Anonymous said...

To ask "is there nothing you like about Trump" is a foolish question in the context of the POTUS. I like W. He seems like a good guy. But he took us to war in Iraq, spent billions of taxpayer $ at a time when the economy could have used it, caused the blood of thousand of american soldiers to be spilled, and destabilized the region based on a lie/cooked-up intel that he wanted to believe and so didn't properly vet - that's dereliction of duty. He was a bad president (but probably a good guy who I'd likely have a blast hanging out with). Carter too - probably a really good guy to be liked and admired, and also a really bad president.

The fact that Carter, W., and now Trump may not fuck up EVERYTHING that they touch as president, doesn't mean we should cut any of them a break while they sit/sat in the oval office. Trump has no business in office and shows it with 99% (or to be generous, 80%) of everything he does and says on a day to day basis. Could we like the other 1-20%, sure - but too little too late when the stakes are this high.

Anonymous said...

Yes, but am I left or right handed?

Anonymous said...

When the law is mandating blatant injustice then the law must be changed or excepted or not followed. 10:44 and 3.04 would have been great citizens of nazi Germany or communist Cuba. Let me remind you that when Jews were getting gassed in Germany it was all done as required by laws legitimately passed by the government and was the basis of the defense advanced in Nuremberg. "I was following legitimate laws or orders" when I fucked over a fellow human being and his family is not persuasive to god or any decent human being. Hiding behind the "law" doesn't change your responsibility to the morality of your society. Sleep tight but remember once you allow the government to fuck over the poor bastard on the other street it means one day the fuckers will come to your street. Its people like you that make possible the worst crimes against humanity.

Anonymous said...

Dear 1:02, I agree with what you have to say, but remember Godwin's law - when you involve a comparison to Hitler/the nazis in an debate, you lose by default.

Anonymous said...

Your analogy to Nazi Germany and the murder of millions of Jews is, well, misplaced. Your post is so outlandish, it really deserves no response. But I can't help but ask, why the quotes on the word law ("law"). Just curious.