Trump threatens to fine immigrants

[southernhybrid]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/trump-administration-threatens-hefty-fines-on-immigrants-who-elude-deportation/2019/07/02/956e2334-9cc2-11e9-9ed4-c9089972ad5a_story.html?utm_term=.600f05543a09

The Trump administration is threatening to impose hundreds of thousands of dollars in civil penalties on immigrants who disobey deportation orders by seeking refuge in churches or elsewhere in the United States, according to federal officials.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Washington headquarters on Monday notified a woman seeking sanctuary in a North Carolina church that the agency intends to fine her more than $300,000. An immigrant in Colorado faces a fine of more than $500,000.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement generally does not conduct enforcement operations in churches, and while financial penalties for evading deportation have been on the books for years, they were rarely enforced.

ICE’s headquarters issued the notices days after Trump postponed immigration raids that would have targeted parents and children with outstanding deportation orders, a threat that reinvigorated efforts inside the United States to shield migrants from deportation in churches and homes.

Rosa Ortez Cruz, a 38-year-old mother of four living in a Chapel Hill church, received a notice that ICE intends to fine her $314,007 for “willfully” failing to depart the United States and for having “connived or conspired” to avoid deportation. She has said she fears for her life if deported to her native Honduras and has appealed her case to the federal courts.

“Over $300,000 being assessed against a person that has nothing? It might as well be a million dollars. It might as well be a billion dollars,” said Ortez Cruz’s lawyer, Jeremy McKinney, of Greensboro, who received the June 25 notice by certified mail. “She has nothing of monetary value at this point. She is unemployed. She lives in a church.”

He's really losing it now!

Plus, some of these people have filed for asylum status and are waiting for their hearings, but because they can be deported prior to their hearings, they are hiding out in churches. How stupid can Trump get?

“We believe this is intentional and tragically advances efforts to deport migrants without the need to exercise due process,” she said, adding that the fines render the sanctuary efforts “more relevant than ever.”

About 500,000 of the 10.5 million undocumented immigrants in the United States currently have outstanding deportation orders and are considered fugitives, according to 2018 ICE budget documents.

Most were spared deportation under the Obama administration because they had clean criminal records or U.S.-born children. Federal officials instructed ICE agents to focus on criminals and recent border crossers.

 

[Derec]

Plus, some of these people have filed for asylum status

I know! They want to build a house back home. According to the Left, that is grounds for asylum!

 

[Elixir]

How stupid can Trump get?

While one might run out of superlatives trying to answer that question, this behavior is not an example. He is being cruel to The Bad People. His followers like to see The Bad People suffer. Trump enjoys making The Bad People suffer. Everyone who counts, is happy.

 

[southernhybrid]

We all know he's cruel, but how do you fine people hundreds of thousands of dollars when they have no money? That's the stupid part. The cruel part is exhibited almost every time he opens his mouth.

 

[Keith&Co.]

We all know he's cruel, but how do you fine people hundreds of thousands of dollars when they have no money?

They can probably work it off in the laundry of one of his hotels... It's a lovely shortcut around the whole 'you can't own people' thing.

 

[Gun Nut]

Plus, some of these people have filed for asylum status

I know! They want to build a house back home. According to the Left, that is grounds for asylum!

Where did you hear that? I would like to read about that case... unless you are worried that I will point out that the case was about a gang trying to kill her by burning down her house and continuing to stalk her and her family, and her asylum status was that she was rendered homeless and was being hunted.... that case where "she wanted to build a house"?

 

[Gun Nut]

We all know he's cruel, but how do you fine people hundreds of thousands of dollars when they have no money?

They can probably work it off in the laundry of one of his hotels... It's a lovely shortcut around the whole 'you can't own people' thing.

I get the point of what you are saying, and perhaps my comment needs to be split into a separate discussion... but what is the difference between paying off a debt with work, versus paying off a debt with money that you earned working? Is whatever difference you think there may be impacted by the nature or laocation of the work?
That is, if I owe a casino $1,000, is it OK to work in a casino to earn the money to pay that casino back, or only not THAT casino? Or do I have to find a job in a different industry to be able to earn the money to pay them back?

 

[Elixir]

We all know he's cruel, but how do you fine people hundreds of thousands of dollars when they have no money?

They can probably work it off in the laundry of one of his hotels... It's a lovely shortcut around the whole 'you can't own people' thing.

I get the point of what you are saying, and perhaps my comment needs to be split into a separate discussion... but what is the difference between paying off a debt with work, versus paying off a debt with money that you earned working? Is whatever difference you think there may be impacted by the nature or laocation of the work?
That is, if I owe a casino $1,000, is it OK to work in a casino to earn the money to pay that casino back, or only not THAT casino? Or do I have to find a job in a different industry to be able to earn the money to pay them back?

Well, it would be pretty sick to be indentured to an entity that won't pay any more than minimum wage. I suggest a different industry, if that option is available. But the point to which you are responding contains the implication that no, options are not for "illegals". And with full implementation of Rethuglican policies, there will be no options for anyone who owes anyone anything, because money is more important to them than people. So I suggest NOT owing a casino - not even $1000. It is probably owned by a Trump donor.

 

[KeepTalking]

We all know he's cruel, but how do you fine people hundreds of thousands of dollars when they have no money?

They can probably work it off in the laundry of one of his hotels... It's a lovely shortcut around the whole 'you can't own people' thing.

I get the point of what you are saying, and perhaps my comment needs to be split into a separate discussion... but what is the difference between paying off a debt with work, versus paying off a debt with money that you earned working? Is whatever difference you think there may be impacted by the nature or laocation of the work?
That is, if I owe a casino $1,000, is it OK to work in a casino to earn the money to pay that casino back, or only not THAT casino? Or do I have to find a job in a different industry to be able to earn the money to pay them back?

It is the difference between being a wage earning worker, and an indentured servant. If you are working to pay off your debt, that implies that you are not being paid actual wages for your work, which means that you have no money to pay rent, or buy food. But hey, no worries, the casino will put you up in a room, and feed you as well. Unfortunately for you, they tack on the cost of the room and your meals to what you owe them, and a room at a casino is not cheap, neither is the food. Now the amount they are adding to what you owe is barely less than the value of the work you are doing, so it is going to take you decades longer to pay off that debt, and that is if they choose not to add interest to your debt, which then means your debt is growing even larger, and you will never be able to pay it off. You are locked into working for the casino, with no way out. That sound good to you?

 

[Trausti]

So these are people failing to abide by deportation orders? They've gone through process, had their hearings, and been told to go? Go.

 

[bilby]

So these are people failing to abide by deportation orders? They've gone through process, had their hearings, and been told to go? Go.

Yeah. If something is in accordance with the law, it can't be immoral, cruel, or unjust. Unquestioning obedience to authority is the one thing that defines the USA, which is why it's called The Land of the Free^TM.

 

[Elixir]

So these are people failing to abide by deportation orders? They've gone through process, had their hearings, and been told to go? Go.

Yeah. If something is in accordance with the law, it can't be immoral, cruel, or unjust. Unquestioning obedience to authority is the one thing that defines the USA, which is why it's called The Land of the Free^TM.

Was.
Right now it's the land of the mindlessly cruel orange dork.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So these are people failing to abide by deportation orders? They've gone through process, had their hearings, and been told to go? Go.

And therein lies the problem--many of these people still have appeals pending.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Am I the only one seeing the secularism angle here? Why were churches no go zones for deportation until now? Why not public libraries?

 

[laughing dog]

Am I the only one seeing the secularism angle here? Why were churches no go zones for deportation until now? Why not public libraries?

There is a long tradition of churches offering  Sanctuary that has been respected to varying degrees for centuries, so it is part of our culture. Add in that the principle of the separation of church and state in the US has been interpreted to giving churches special privileges and that churches are explicitly not part of the government, and it is easy to see why churches have been leading safe havens for potential deportees. One does not have to agree with the tradition or the special privileges to see this nor to understand that this part of our culture is unlikely to change soon.

On the other hand, public libraries are part of government. Which means they are less likely to be able to resist the request or demands of other parts of government for a variety of reasons. First, their funding may be put at risk. Second, public libraries are run ultimately by elected officials who may be unwilling to risk their seats or reputation for resisting the federal government in this manner.