Old 18th August 2002, 06:09   #1
BeltwayBomb
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 5
"Free Slick Rick" From The INS

Slick Rick is, sadly, far from alone. A lot of legal immigrants have been getting deported in the same way he's about to get deported, many of them for crimes way, way less serious than attempted murder. Here's a sampling of more cases:


http://www.civilrights.org/library/detail.cfm?id=8932


Immigration laws passed in 1996 basically established double-jeopardy for anyone who's not a full-fledged citizen. Like with Slick Rick's case, it doesn't matter that a person has already paid his debt to society. Deportation (as well as being jailed until deportation) is mandatory, for most crimes. It doesn't even matter if an immigrant has strong family ties here, came here as an infant, owns a business, served in the military, whatever. No ifs, ands, or buts. Congress just decided to get tough on crime in 1996. And when it comes to immigration laws, "inconveniences" in the constitution like the double-jeopardy or ex post facto clauses simply don't apply to slow them down.


Rep. Barney Frank has been pushing a bill (H.R. 1452) in Congress to provide a modest fix for some of these cases, and it just got passed by the House Judiciary committee, thanks in part to Rep. James Sensenbrenner. But it needs a lot more support before anyone like Slick Rick is ever going to be "free" from the INS.
BeltwayBomb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th August 2002, 07:29   #2
Propagandhi
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 4
Rap and Hip-Hop suck anyway, kick his ass back to England.
Propagandhi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th August 2002, 17:13   #3
Aeroe
Major Dude
 
Aeroe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Assembly Hall
Posts: 1,446
Send a message via AIM to Aeroe
since when should non American citizens have American rights? immigrants already get free college education and free healthcare, something i can't get being a citizen.
Aeroe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th August 2002, 00:41   #4
BeltwayBomb
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 5
Aeroe,

Nobody's saying that immigrants should have all of the same rights as American citizens. I'm just suggesting that when somebody comes here legally, has lived here for decades, and has for the most part made positive contributions to society, one fuck-up with the law shouldn't result in mandatory deportation.

If Slick Rick got a hearing, and an immigration judge looked carefully at his case and decided that he must be deported for the good of society, that would be fine. The problem, however, is not that he will be deported but that he'll never get a hearing to see whether deportation actually makes sense in his case.

Immigration laws look at one single, solitary factor to decide whether a person will be deported for having committed a crime: whether that crime is listed as a deportable offense. Anything else is - by law - irrelevant; it doesn't matter if:
  • He was so young when he came here that he doesn't even remember the country he's about to get deported to;
  • He served in OUR military, perhaps even when some U.S. citizens were fleeing to Canada instead (yes, talk about gratitude, even some Vietnam veterans have been kicked out of the country they fought for);
  • He has U.S. citizen children that are going to wind up fatherless or even on welfare without him;
  • He has American employees who will lose their jobs once he's gone;
  • He's been rehabilitated and is teaching other people not to make the same mistakes;
  • He cooperated with prosecutors and brought far more serious criminals down; or
  • His crime was a minor, first-time, nonviolent offense.

All I'm saying is that deportation has real-life consequences, like it or not, and that the law simply ought to ensure that these consequences are taken into account. Most people understand why mandatory minimum sentencing is such a disaster, and "mandatory deportation" is no different.
BeltwayBomb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th August 2002, 16:57   #5
DngrsDrrn
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 3
Don't you think that the INS should be more worried about letting in known terrorists and other people that dont like the US? I mean one of those pilots from 9-11 was given a green card or an extension on his student visa after he was already dead.

My god.
DngrsDrrn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th August 2002, 20:28   #6
The Equalizer
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 1
Free Slick Rick

"due to his felony conviction, US law requires he be deported to his homeland."

Sounds pretty cut and dry to me.
The Equalizer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th August 2002, 21:31   #7
BeltwayBomb
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 5
Re: Free Slick Rick

Quote:
Originally posted by The Equalizer
"due to his felony conviction, US law requires he be deported to his homeland."

Sounds pretty cut and dry to me.
Yeah, the law is most definitely cut and dry. The issue here, though, is whether this mindless, "one size fits all" approach amounts to good policy.
BeltwayBomb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st August 2002, 07:25   #8
Kon
Junior Member
 
Kon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: California
Posts: 24
Send a message via Yahoo to Kon
A visa to a foreign country is a privilege, not a right. When you sign those INS papers, you had better read between the lines, the ones where it says that deportation is mandatory for any crime.

If he broke the law then tough shit.

I say this being one of them immigrants myself :P

Its also interesting to note that Aeroe doesn't know the difference between non-immigrants and immigrants. Its the non-immigrants that get free welfare, food stamps and schooling. Visa holders pay taxes just like anyone else. If you don't, you lose it. Yeah, life is harder for legal immigrants than the illegals and even legal citizens who evade taxes without problems.
Kon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st August 2002, 15:58   #9
MkIIGuru
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 1
We call this Governmental Nigganess or Giganess, We be a Fwee cuntry awight OuiVei TomD
MkIIGuru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st August 2002, 20:06   #10
BeltwayBomb
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 5
Quote:
Originally posted by Kon
A visa to a foreign country is a privilege, not a right. When you sign those INS papers, you had better read between the lines, the ones where it says that deportation is mandatory for any crime.

If he broke the law then tough shit.
Good point, were it only true! But with Slick Rick or any of the other cases we're talking about (see the link at the top of the page), mandatory deportation for nearly "any" crime didn't exist when they came to this country. It's only been law since 1996.

Whatever people might have signed when they came here (and remember that a lot of immigrants come here as children and thus don't sign a damn thing or have much choice in the matter anyway), Congress went and unilaterally revised the deal later on.

If all you can say to that is "tough shit," then as an immigrant you better pray that Congress doesn't go and revise the terms of your "deal" too. As I've pointed out earlier, immigration laws don't have to respect the rights that we normally give to criminal defendants, like the prohibition on double jeopardy or the ex post facto clause. If you've never smoked a joint or downloaded an mp3 file illegally, then maybe you've got nothing to worry about. But don't get too comfy. Because along the same lines, Congress could also pass a law tomorrow making you deportable because of your race, your religion, or your political ideas. They've done it before, Constitution notwithstanding, and there's really not much that could stop them from doing it to you too.

This isn't about crime. Having been on the receiving end of several crimes in the past few years, I'm all for being tough on criminals. But "tough" and "tough shit" are two different things. And people who dismissively say "tough shit" often wind up hearing it said back to them, eventually.

But I digress. Do you really think that any crime should mean deportation with no ifs ands or buts, regardless of the circumstances? If so, at least I admire your consistency. But even the most hard-assed Members of Congress I've lobbied on this issue agree that there needs to be at least some kind of discretion, and that the INS certainly has bigger fish to fry than $15 shoplifters or pot smokers.
BeltwayBomb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th August 2002, 22:20   #11
koohretto
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 2
IF PEOPLE DONTLIKE THE RULES...

Frankly I read the little story about "Slick Rick" and so what? First of all, it's NOT a case of double jeopardy as someone else mentioned. Being convicted of a crime in the US may carry with it numerous penalties. I suppose that when a drunk driver kills someone, the nomal penalty should be reduced to suit him/her since they are nice people. Bull!!! Normally speaking,someone convicted gets a multiple penalty including: Jail time, loss of license, restitution to victims etc. These are all separate punishments and always have been. So why should Slick Ricks crime be any different? If you're here under a Visa and you commit a crime, the standard penalty is deportation and penalties related to crime if no diplomatic immunity is involved. Just becuase hes a rapper and people like him is NO EXCUSE. I say screw the little bastard and send his ass back. He shouldn't get special treatment because of who he is. Isn't that why poeple have gotten fed up over US policies of being lenient of famous people. How many times have we all heard that so and so got off cuz they were rich
koohretto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th August 2002, 23:46   #12
Kon
Junior Member
 
Kon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: California
Posts: 24
Send a message via Yahoo to Kon
Beltway - you don't make any valid claims except for pointing the finger at any stupid excuse you can think of.

1. The visa is a legally binding document
2. You read the fine print and you sign it
3. The fine print says deportation for crimes

If you can't understand that, you must be one really clueless bleeding heart liberal.

As for the other excuses maybe you should become familiar with your own constitution and the right to free speech. Laws taking away politics and religion? Put down your crackpipe, thats the lamest excuse I've ever heard!

Oh, I don't have to worry about anything. I'm not breaking the law, see?

Like I said before - tough shit for him!
Kon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th August 2002, 03:25   #13
BeltwayBomb
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 5
Quote:
Originally posted by Kon
Beltway - you don't make any valid claims except for pointing the finger at any stupid excuse you can think of.

1. The visa is a legally binding document
2. You read the fine print and you sign it
3. The fine print says deportation for crimes

If you can't understand that, you must be one really clueless bleeding heart liberal.

As for the other excuses maybe you should become familiar with your own constitution and the right to free speech. Laws taking away politics and religion? Put down your crackpipe, thats the lamest excuse I've ever heard!
Kon, I'm honestly surprised by your tone. I certainly didn't intend to make you so upset. I'm also surprised because nobody who personally knows me thinks of me as a "bleeding heart liberal." Maybe you should try to read my earlier posting a little more carefully, though. Being a lawyer, I think it's perfectly fair to hold people to the fine print when they sign something. I don't believe I suggested anything to the contrary. Again, though, the deportation laws that existed when Slick Rick and the other cases I've mentioned signed their visa paperwork were very different than the deportation laws that exist today. Do you disagree with that fact? If so, would you like me to educate you further on the sweeping immigration law overhauls enacted in 1996, and how they differ from prior law?

As far as the constitutional aspects of immigration law, let me assure you that I am very familiar with them. Note that I didn't say "laws taking away politics and religion," whatever that means. What I said is that immigration laws can discriminate on the basis of race, religion, and political beliefs in ways that would be unconstitutional as applied to citizens. That's not an "excuse," that is a legal and historical fact. Have you ever heard of the Chinese Exclusion Act, for example? The McCarran-Walter Act?

If you follow your own advice and become familiar with the Constitution someday, you will find that there is something in constitutional law that the U.S. Supreme Court refers to as the plenary power doctrine. To put it in layman's terms, this doctrine basically says that when it comes to immigration policy, Congress and the Executive Branch can do many things that they could never do to citizens. Would you like me to cite for you some of the many Supreme Court cases since the late 1800s in which the Court used the doctrine to uphold immigration laws that, yes, deported or excluded people from the United States on the basis of such factors as race or political belief? Perhaps I could email you some of the countless law review articles that have been written on the subject? I'm sorry if you think I'm making this stuff up, Kon, and personally I think the plenary power doctrine is an absolute disgrace, but the fact is that it does exist and, under it, Congress very likely could in fact get away with passing the kinds of laws that I talked about in my earlier posting. Only very recently (June, 2001) did the Supreme Court cast doubt on the extent of the plenary power doctrine, in a case where - interestingly enough, for purposes of our discussion - they ruled that the INS couldn't keep immigrants with criminal convictions locked up forever (much to John Ashcroft's dismay). For the most part, though, it's still alive and well - but hopefully it will soon wind up in the same ashbin of history as the "separate but equal" doctrine.

koohretto, you're absolutely right that Slick Rick shouldn't get any sort of break because of his wealth. In fact, I think there are other immigrants who deserve far more sympathy than him. You're also right that crimes can and should carry with them a variety of penalties. But much like the way a sentencing judge will look at crimes on a case by case basis and decide what the appropriate penalties should be, all I've been trying to say all along is that an immigration judge should also be able to look at the individual facts of a case and dish out a punishment that fits the crime. A criminal judge doesn't hand out the maximum allowable sentence in every single case of shoplifting or marijuana possession (sometimes a fine is imposed instead, or probation, etc.), right? So why is it so important to have immigration laws that dish out the "mandatory maximum" every single time, then?
BeltwayBomb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th August 2002, 05:16   #14
sardukar420
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 2
Poor slick rick :,(

I like the way you put that, "One Fuck Up with the law". LOL... He MURDERED SOMEONE, not a traffic ticket, or DUI, or drug offense, etc... etc... he killed someone. They should boot him, I could care less about slick ricks social plight, he seems like a real punk. I cant believe you even think he should have an OPTION to stay in this country much less assume that point of view is the obvious one. Man, I am getting sick of people in this country talking about criminals rights. Almost never hear about the victims.

No, Slick Rick can go right back to where he came from, if he wasnt such an idiot, he never would have killed that guy, never would have gone to jail, and would not be being deported. End of story. And don't say it like "just one little opps with the law" when your talking about murder, ok moron?
sardukar420 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th August 2002, 05:38   #15
koohretto
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 2
Maybe I misunderstood...

I thought it said convicted of attempted murder but...be that as it may, I also concur even if I'm not sure how to spell it, that were not talkin about a pot charge here which is still a misty in most states. We're talkin about a BIG felony charge.

Coming to the United States used to mean something. It used to mean escaping from harsh living conditions, bad government and other bad things. Recently we've turned it into a circus of anyone who wants to cross the border, can. It used to mean that coming here, you had been granted the privilage of coming to a more or less safe place, a place where you could find a better life.

If we allow Slick Rick to continue to stay here after we opened our gates to him, just so he could slam it back into our faces, we're crazy.

I don't feel sorry for him, and just because he's married, has a kid, and blah blah blah, does't mean much when faced with this kind of thing.

If he J walked or ran a traffic light or even got busted with smokin dope, I'd be ok with him staying, but we're not talkin about something that minor. We're talkin about a violent crime, a crime that people get labeled for, for life. Sorry, he needs to go. He should have thought about his wife, his friends, his kids, his reputation and business contacts, or the future ones he might have, when he commited the crime.

As far as double jeopardy is concerned, I can understand Beltway's concern. It is true that in the US, if you commit a crime before its considered a crime, then they change the law, you can't be convited posthumously. Although this is true, once again the press isnt giving all the information. Although, in 96 they DID change the law, it wasnt really changed. It was more or less being more official. It was being firmer. Laws that cause you to be deported when commiting serious crimes has always been on the books, its the, "be on your best behavior" rule so to speak. It only became more enforcable in 96. They didnt just come up with a wild scheme at that time and nail people with it.
koohretto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th August 2002, 09:39   #16
Kon
Junior Member
 
Kon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: California
Posts: 24
Send a message via Yahoo to Kon
Beltaway - poor arguments.

Look, you can find all the excuses and reasons you want, but everything comes back down to the simple fact that the guy broke the law and himself signed the document which is now being executed as stipulated - deportation.

We're not talking about taking away religion here, or chinese exclusion acts, or whatever, we're talking about booting out criminals. And someone that apparently tried to commit murder. Sounds like common sense to me.

Also sounds like a job no lawyer in their right mind would take. Which must be why we have the pleading on winamp.com for the guy to stay, right (see: all avenues exhausted)

Times change, immigration trends change, and immigration laws must change. That is a given fact. Thinking otherwise would be extremely naive.

I hope being a lawyer is not your day job because you are doing a piss poor job of convincing anyone on this board otherwise. A long list of random arguments do not make a compelling excuse - excuse being the operative word.
Kon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th August 2002, 10:44   #17
Xerxes
Capitalist Alumni
 
Xerxes's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: my 4 Houses on Park Place
Posts: 8,687
Send a message via ICQ to Xerxes
Re: Poor slick rick :,(

Quote:
Originally posted by sardukar420
I like the way you put that, "One Fuck Up with the law". LOL... He MURDERED SOMEONE
As far as i'm concerned, he can stay in the country...

... as long as he's in a casket. All murders should be a capital offense.
Xerxes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th August 2002, 10:46   #18
e 2 da jhizzay
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: 909-626
Posts: 4
Send a message via AIM to e 2 da jhizzay
i feel beltways side of the story and everyone elses... my (soon to be) brother in law, who is the father of my nephew and "father" to my 2 neices, is almost in the same predicament... i really dont know the details of slick rick's attempted murder, but basically to my understanding, if you marry a citizen don't you become a citezen? so basically this would apply to all, in some wierd way. I mean what if being born here has nothing to do with it? what if later on they get more strict and decide that even if your parents were immigrants you are still immigrant by blood, and therefore they may impose it on you? but that may or may not happen, doubtfully that it will, still, marrying a citizen (that doesn't look right for some weird reason) then becomming a citizen, that double jeapardy law should apply, no matter who you are. why move to a country thats only 2 decades away from the country you ran away from? people make mistakes, in slicks case, he made one, and he paid for it, why make him pay for it twice? first he serves his debt to society then he is kicked out? why didn't they just kick him out on the first place? or make him serve his debt and immediatly after being released be deported? instead of believing your life has come to a different course and become a role model for some, then be hauled off to INS... i mean my bro in law stayed the night at a friends house not knowing the next day that he would become an accesory to fraud just because the house was raided while he was asleep. yes he did some bad stuff in his life, but he has changed his life around since his son was born, and sleeping at a friends house cuz he didn't want to drive drunk put him in a situation where he was busted for fraud and overstay. in my oppinion double jeapardy apply to all who live in the US. immigrant or not, i guess that if he was going to be deported, he should have been deported after being jailed. times change, laws change, a man has changed, should we cast him out because of his past?

kon
I believe that beltway does have pretty good arguements, he isn't just fighting for slick rick, and just because he is famous. but for everyone already here, and who is still dreaming about the american dream from an oppressed country, or in a boat. if this rule was applied less than 100 years ago, (assuming your family citizenship doesn't go farther than the year 1902) would you be having this conversation right now? or would u be using a typewriter in the farmlands of great brittain, or russia (i dont really know where ur from so assuming your caucasian)its less likely that from your great gradfathers to you there were no one in your family that did such a bad thing. everyone has made mistakes, most have paid thier debts and has turned thier lives around. others will never change. i understand your point he messed up. but they shouldn't deport him for a crime which has almost been forgotten. i mean they changed the rules, after he signed the papers, what if they change it again to even smokin dope can be a deportable crime? and they deport you. what if this guy was asian, or spanish, where he couldn't even speak his native language? then where would he be? all im saying is that if they were going to deport him... they should have deported him right when they let him out of jail... if the law wasn't passed at that time... then let him go and go after immigrants that are breakin the law now... not the people who have changed thier ways since.

beltway...
since your a lawyer... i was wondering... a few years back i saw on the news that some guy successfully beat a traffic ticket because he was caught w/ one of those cameras... and it was beat because in california a speed trap was illegal... i know u may not even be in the US, or california... but I would like to know if you would know anything about that since i can see your passion for law... me and my friends are racers... but we dont usually endanger anyone but ourselves and so forth... but there are police out there are out to get fixed up imports or just want to walk around w/ nightsticks up thier butts and break police conduct policies to bust friends. i was wondering... yea you know... hey maybe this can help you out too in the long run... but yea... think of this as a consultation... and they have to have police conduct policies written somewhere to be given out or bought somewhere... where can i get it... it must be a big book... but... yea... btw... where do you practice law and what kind of law do you practice? maybe my bro in law could use you.

oh by the way...
going w/ socali has a lot of crooked cops (not all but alot)... changing the subject a little... does anyone actually believe the cops side of the story of that police brutality story at the gas station on that negro fellow a whiles back?
if you dont know... the police said that he was fighting even though he was cuffed and so they beat him... and he aggravatedly assulted one of the cops which made them slam his face on the hood of the beat car... and then he grabbed the gonads of another cop thats why another cop beat him in the face some more... looks right when they slowed it down... but then it may not be?
i dont know.. sorry for being so .... blah... but im bored at home
e 2 da jhizzay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th August 2002, 13:23   #19
Deznaj
Junior Member
 
Deznaj's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 9
What's the big deal about this "Slick Rick" anyway? Just because he is a famous rapper (or whatever) doesn't mean he should be threated in any other way than a 'normal' immigrant. Or are we all of a sudden letting famous people get away with anything because they make such nice tunes???

Tell me mr. collumist... Do you really care about immigration issues? Or is this sudden interest just a byproduct of your sympathy for this loony tunes producing ex-con (not ex-murderer, in my book your never an EX-murderer...)?

People are alike, even if one is famous and hunderds are not...
Deznaj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th August 2002, 08:30   #20
e 2 da jhizzay
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: 909-626
Posts: 4
Send a message via AIM to e 2 da jhizzay
as you can see I made remarks about my brother in law... so i treat him and others equally... so... yea... anyways slick rick or slick jack or jack in the crack the reason it seeems that it looks like they look like they get special treatment is that becaues the press makes it look like that... and the average joe doesn't give a damn about the average ceasar, the average bong, the average nguyen, the average lee... but when the lee's first name is bruce, or nguyen's first name is tila (model) or ceasars last name happens to be chavez... then people make it seem like it matters more... although many fight for the average immigrant, they are rarely spotlighted... thats all. so lets not make this a he's famous why special treatment thread... the spotlight is just on him... how about ellian... we made a big deal about him... was he famous before that? we made him that way... so if everybody doesn't gossip, and everyone ignores the press there will be no famous people...
e 2 da jhizzay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th August 2002, 22:22   #21
Deznaj
Junior Member
 
Deznaj's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 9
Let me ask you this question: Would you care about this 'problem' if your brother in law wasn't in that position? Or if the guy/girl murdered by Slick Rick was your sister/brother/partner? It's ALWAYS in the eye of the beholder!!!

There are refugees from countries that are shredded by civil war who are deported and will be murdered if they come 'home'. People who NEED to stay in another country to live. But do I see these people being hailed by the press (in this case I'm refering to the column, which is a PERSONAL opinion)???

This Slick Rick comes from Engeland for christ sake! Do I really care if someone is sent back to England... Oh my god! They probably will stone him or torture him when he gets back there! You know England is famous for it! Bunch of tea lovers...

Those laws are not perfect and at times even unfair and inhumane. But we're ranting about a guy who probably made lot's of cash and who can easily begin a new life in England, unlike others. So in my opinion this Slick Rick case IS NOT A PROBLEM!!!

Als the fact that ""the Ruler" has already served his time" does nothing with the fact that he once killed a man. And if there is one fair thing about this law it is the fact that (ex)-criminals are deported... I don't shit in my own living room do I? If I would I probably would be kicked out to, six years later if must be!

And the same goes for your brother in law: "yes he did some bad stuff in his life, but he has changed his life around since his son was born, and sleeping at a friends house cuz he didn't want to drive drunk put him in a situation where he was busted for fraud and overstay.". He really didn't know? And the fact that he was overstaying also sliped past him? two thumbs up though for the fact that he didn't drink and drive!

I don't know, maybe I'm just reading to much papers...
Deznaj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th August 2002, 00:57   #22
Limpin
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: A different place than you
Posts: 2
Send a message via AIM to Limpin Send a message via Yahoo to Limpin
hes done more than i will for my country.. i cant be in the military *back problems* hes served his time.. to wait 6 years before they even try to deport him is nutz..

were better off spending time and money ridding this country of incoming and residing terrorists..!
Limpin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th August 2002, 04:46   #23
TeeJay
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London - UK
Posts: 1
How old is Slick Rick now? Someone said he came to America when he was eleven, so if he was 30 years old for example (I don't know), he'd have been resident for 19 years. Presumably his parents live in America, his wife and children are American, he was educated , worked and lived here - so why is he judged to be British? He sounds like he's American to me.

I was born in America, to British parents, but returned to London at the age of 2. I have an American passport and a British one (ie dual nationality) so although I have lived my entire life in the UK and am culturally British I wouldn't get thrown out of the US for commiting a felony. The US is deporting someone who is basically an American to a foreign country - I mean, what makes this guy British? Nothing! What is he meant to do when he gets here? Go and hang out with all his friends from pre-school?

An additional point - why should the UK be expected to take this guy 'back'. The UK used to send its criminals to its colonies like Australia - obviously the US wants to get its own back

Generally I think that while sending convicted criminals back to their country of permanent residency is fair enough, any decent legal system should be intelligent and sophisticated enough to recognise the relevant facts of each case and not condemn people to grossly unfair, unequal and disproportionate treatment on the basis of technicalities.

London has a fair number of refugees from Iraq and Afghanistan, but Slick Rick looks like he could be the first from the USA!
TeeJay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th August 2002, 13:45   #24
e 2 da jhizzay
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: 909-626
Posts: 4
Send a message via AIM to e 2 da jhizzay
first of all he knew he was in overstay... but to be charged for overstay you have to be caught... what if you slept at a friends house and the next morning you were abruptly awakened by a door being kicked in and your in the middle of a raid... yes things can happen right under your nose without you knowing. unfortunately, overstay wouldn't ussually come up on a police computer... and unfortunately for him, he was raided by feds. but in any immigrants case, now there is a new law being passed for immigrants getting backround checks to start thier own business (or something like that) sheesh... i sometimes feel like the government is taking baby steps to controlling everything. but i only think that when im drunk as ... and discussing politics... if it was some one i knew who was murdered i'd prolly be still drinking with the victim because "attempted" murder, doesn't actually mean it was murder... people get that straight the guy didn't murder anyone... he tried... but it didn't work... so don't compare him to an actual murderer, (please don't get into "oh so if he killed someone it would be different" or something like that speech) anyways... like i said... i wouldn't care if they deported him after his jail time... but six years after is just ... a waste of taxpayers money, while the terrorists are going to the grocery stores and hardware stores making home made bombs and deadly gas weapons.
e 2 da jhizzay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th August 2002, 17:00   #25
Pin
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 1
I think the main issue here is the timing. If he had been deported 6 years ago, he could have built a new life in England, but since they are doing it now, it seriously f***s up the last 6 years of his life.

As for treating him differently because of who he is, I don't see whats wrong with that. After all, immigration is supposed to keep the people WE want to keep in the country, right?
Pin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th August 2002, 08:35   #26
kenthu
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 1
missing the point

I think most of you are missing the point that Beltway is trying to make, that deportations should be decided on a case-by-case basis. Consider the case of the woman who was being deported for being in a catfight. She was brought over from Germany by an American soldier when she was a baby but never bothered becoming a citizen. She served her time, but became a target for deportation when the 1996 law was passed. Good luck learning to speak German and starting your life over.
kenthu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st September 2002, 02:43   #27
krunk
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 12
My 2 cents.

There are thousands of cubans in the US right now that are victims of the very law that Beltway is talking about. Yes, I said victems. Many were convicted of the very misdameanor crimes that many of you said "may" be considered as exceptions for deportation. But due to the all or nothing nature of the law some have been trapped in U.S. Federal Penateniaries for over a decade. Can you imagine being imprisoned for over 10 yr's in a federal prison for being caught with few ounces of marijuana or shoplifting?.....they can.

As far as Slick Rick's individual case is concerned, I don't have an opinion. But if you allow the government a foot in the door with retroactive prosecution and penalization your asking for trouble.

And as for those who think that foreigners aren't worthy of the rights we've demanded for ourselves, I beg you to take another look at The Declaration of Independance:

Quote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
It seems our founders felt that the rights we so enjoy as citizens aren't privileges of the American Elite, but due to us by the very fact that we are human beings. If we forgo this wisdom and instead take the view that our rights are privileges that only apply to a specific class (whether that class be "citizen", or "male", or "caucasion" or "landowner" or "immigrant") we are the ones who will suffer the greatest harm, because eventually someone must answer the question "To which class than, should these rights be given and to which should they be excluded?"......ufortunately, unless your wealth falls in the upper 1% and have a guaranteed invite to the Bush Family Christmas don't be terribly surprised when the answer is "Us....not you."
krunk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st September 2002, 07:57   #28
GLewellen
Senior Member
 
GLewellen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: subspace
Posts: 438
personally like other perps i just don't give a phuck. I the govna fills tha need for shipin slick rick back to where ev then mor pwr to em.

CGA-STACKS (DA) | AIRPS 2.0 (DA) | AIRPS 2.0 (Removed by WA.com Available @ DA) | MAKI/M Ext Icons | Oberon
GLewellen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd September 2002, 21:52   #29
e 2 da jhizzay
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: 909-626
Posts: 4
Send a message via AIM to e 2 da jhizzay
missing what point

now where does beltway say case-by-case, i believe that you just assumed that. but in anycase, wasn't his crime in 92, whatever happened to the statue of limitations... they are charging him now right, and it happened in 92... they are 4 years too late aren't they? anywho, just because its thread is free slick rick, doesn't mean that he is the only one we care about this law... he is just on the spotlight. if he wins this case, then everyone else who is charged like this is going to get off. he is just a stepping stone on the spotlight.
e 2 da jhizzay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd September 2002, 22:44   #30
Deznaj
Junior Member
 
Deznaj's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 9
Teejay: In the original article it is stated that Slick Rick originally comes from Engeland. So I assume that's the country he will be deported to. Nothing more, nothing less...

e 2 da Jhizzay:
Quote:
please don't get into "oh so if he killed someone it would be different" or something like that speech
Oh please!!! So if I shoot someone in the head and he is in coma for the rest of his life it's OK??? Because I didn't murder anyone right! I just tried...
Worried about possible terrorists, so overstay, illegal racing and attemted murder are OK in your book. I just can't make any sense of you!!!

Pin: Yes, it's about 'WE', not 'YOU'! There are plenty of people who clearlt state in this forum that they DON'T want him...

Kenthu: Well put, and I fully agree. I know I'm ranting on about things that are getting further and further of the subject. Good to know what's it really about...

Pfff..time to take a break from this tread...
Deznaj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th September 2002, 02:32   #31
jeepmanjr
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3
Free Slick Rock?!

Ignorance is no excuse for a big mouth - or breaking the law. When someone is admitted to the U.S. it is a priveledge, NOT A RIGHT!! Obviously, this moron could not abide by the rules under which he was admitted and decided to violate his status. If you are convicted of a "Crime Involving Moral Turpitude", or CIMT, your immigrant or non-immigrant status is violated and you are processed for removal proceedings. An Immigration Judge hears the case and decides whether a person is deported to their own country or if they qualify for a waiver and are allowed to stay. Obviously, since this butt-sniff in an Ag Felon, he did not qualify. If deported he will not be allowed a legal reentry for 10 years without permission from the Attorney General of the United States. Good Luck! There are enough undesirables in the US without importing more. Please, get your ducks in a row before you spout off your big mouth!!
jeepmanjr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th September 2002, 03:04   #32
jeepmanjr
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3
Quote:
Originally posted by DngrsDrrn
Don't you think that the INS should be more worried about letting in known terrorists and other people that dont like the US? I mean one of those pilots from 9-11 was given a green card or an extension on his student visa after he was already dead.

My god.
Get your facts straight! The extension was granted long before 9/11. The delay was caused by a backlog so typical of the INS. When hundreds of thousands of visas are issued each year how do you track where each and every one goes? For an F1, or student visa, you record an accredited school for visa purposes. You go one semester, change schools and never notify the INS. Do you realize you're talking thousands of people here? In all your self-proclaimed wisdom, please tell everyone reading this how YOU would accurately track these people's movements!!

Oh, I get it. As long as you like the US you can make an entry and attempt to kill someone. And let's not misconstrue this with actually killing someone. It's OK to be an Ag Felon right? Let's be more forgiving right? I mean, hey, as long as it wasn't YOUR mother or sister or whatever he tried to kill it's not a big deal. If this jackass was a nobody (which I think he is) I suspect your attitude would be different. GET REAL (& get educated!!!!).
jeepmanjr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th September 2002, 03:31   #33
jeepmanjr
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3
Quote:
Originally posted by BeltwayBomb


Good point, were it only true! But with Slick Rick or any of the other cases we're talking about (see the link at the top of the page), mandatory deportation for nearly "any" crime didn't exist when they came to this country. It's only been law since 1996.

Whatever people might have signed when they came here (and remember that a lot of immigrants come here as children and thus don't sign a damn thing or have much choice in the matter anyway), Congress went and unilaterally revised the deal later on.

If all you can say to that is "tough shit," then as an immigrant you better pray that Congress doesn't go and revise the terms of your "deal" too. As I've pointed out earlier, immigration laws don't have to respect the rights that we normally give to criminal defendants, like the prohibition on double jeopardy or the ex post facto clause. If you've never smoked a joint or downloaded an mp3 file illegally, then maybe you've got nothing to worry about. But don't get too comfy. Because along the same lines, Congress could also pass a law tomorrow making you deportable because of your race, your religion, or your political ideas. They've done it before, Constitution notwithstanding, and there's really not much that could stop them from doing it to you too.

This isn't about crime. Having been on the receiving end of several crimes in the past few years, I'm all for being tough on criminals. But "tough" and "tough shit" are two different things. And people who dismissively say "tough shit" often wind up hearing it said back to them, eventually.

But I digress. Do you really think that any crime should mean deportation with no ifs ands or buts, regardless of the circumstances? If so, at least I admire your consistency. But even the most hard-assed Members of Congress I've lobbied on this issue agree that there needs to be at least some kind of discretion, and that the INS certainly has bigger fish to fry than $15 shoplifters or pot smokers.
--------------

Gee Whiz! Ignorance to exaggration!! The Immigration Service removes aliens from the country because they either entered illegally or they violated their status for having commited a felony. Pretty simple stuff here, even for you to understand: The US Gov will sign your meal ticket if A) You do not violate the laws of the US; B) You display good moral character; C) You have no prior criminal or administrative histories. How simple can it be? We'll give ya what you want, you keep your nose clean.

Yes, you must digress. Under IRCA '86, the INS gave aliens more rights than they've ever had in history. Several MILLION aliens, mostly from Mexico, were granted Amnesty by doing nothing more than showing a few receipts that they worked 90 days in agriculture between predetermined dates. You tell ME how much fraud there was in '86! This was a slap in the face of all potential immigrants who have waited YEARS in their respective countries for visas. In '96 certain laws were changed. Immigration laws became tougher on CRIMINAL ALIENS!! You spout off quite well, but you know little of what you speak. Present day immigration laws are the most lenient in American history. The INS bends over backwards, disgustingly so I must admit, to accomodate illegal aliens from around the world. Men and women of the INS, and the Border Patrol in particular, risk their own lives performing rescues in formidable climates and conditions ensuring aliens well being while folks like you sit back and freely criticize.

So, to sum this up, this Slick fellow violated his status. And YES, he should be deported for his particular conviction. Sorry to tell you, but to my knowledge, there is no waiver for attempted murder! I said it once, I'll say it again: Do you homework and come back when your ducks are in a row!!!!
jeepmanjr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th September 2002, 09:14   #34
Kazuko
Member
 
Kazuko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In this chair. and that bed over there...and in front of that fridge down there.
Posts: 57
Send a message via AIM to Kazuko
Uh, He'd have more rights back in England.. besides, with P2P and all, it'll be like he was never gone...
Kazuko is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Go Back   Winamp & Shoutcast Forums > Community Center > Breaking News

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump