http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37263917/ns ... _divided//

The man reports the fact that his girlfriend was being raped by a cop, and now in gratitude for this fine public service of getting another rapist off the streets (and out of the police force) now faces deportation.

That rather makes a mockery of the argument that immigration controls help to reduce crime.

Still, the bottom line is that he has no right to be in the country. The proper channels for US residence might be expensive and time consuming, but they're not utterly ludicrous. There'd be no incentive for people to follow them if there aren't sanctions on those who don't.

I think you are missing out the fact that he was in the country illegally. Said fact only uncovered during this event.

Or, as Matt_B beat me to it,

Sometimes life is shit.

If you you are an illegal you need to keep your head down, I should have thought that was obvious.

John

Wow- now THIS will REALLY set a good precedent for helping immigrants improve our lives.

A good precedent would have been for him to obey the law and become legalised.

John

Ah the wonders of no discretion in applying the law, itsw illegal in the UK for a 16 year old to have sex with a 15 year old but only a moronic police force would ever prosecute

You break the law, you take your chances.

John

and now those illegals will learn that when they notice crime taking place, the last thing you want to do is go to the police.

I mean, he should have let that rotten policeman rape his girlfriend and he would have stayed in the country, policeman would have kept his job and continue his great practice and the girlfriend would still have a boyfriend in the country, albeit still illegally.

Immigration is there, it exist & police needs the cooperation of these people, illegal or not.

If you want to put them further underground and let them be exploited more (even by the law enforcers nonetheless, in this case) and be even more ready to avoid authorities - this is a way to go.

I can understand that law is a law under all situations, but there is a great difference between law & justice. If there was a moment to exercise discretion - this was it.

Aca wrote:and now those illegals will learn that when they notice crime taking place, the last thing you want to do is go to the police.

I mean, he should have let that rotten policeman rape his girlfriend and he would have stayed in the country, policeman would have kept his job and continue his great practice and the girlfriend would still have a boyfriend in the country, albeit still illegally.

Oh dear, lets appeal to emotion. Right how about stacking up the crimes committed by illegals on the other side and see what the balance is overall.

Aca wrote:Immigration is there, it exist & police needs the cooperation of these people, illegal or not.

So if you an illegal and you get to report a crime you can stay is that it?

How big a crime will it have to be to get to stay? Custodial sentences or fines OK? Will it depend on a conviction or not? Will it be a moving tariff, longer you are here the severity can go down? How about traffic offences, could they count.

John

z8000783 wrote:
Oh dear, lets appeal to emotion.

oh great, so which one was emotional?

That immigrants are less likely to report a crime because they will be deported or that this guy did that county a great service by doing a right thing and it is being punished for it?

Right how about stacking up the crimes committed by illegals on the other side and see what the balance is overall

You apply the same stacking criteria to other segments of the population too?

Is this guy guilty of crimes committed by other illegals?

z8000783 wrote:So if you an illegal and you get to report a crime you can stay is that it?

How big a crime will it have to be to get to stay? Custodial sentences or fines OK? Will it depend on a conviction or not? Will it be a moving tariff, longer you are here the severity can go down? How about traffic offences, could they count.

John

I don't know.

But this case shows that "one hat fits all" is fucked up and it has to be reviewed. If you do want to have some control over crime that happens in the illegal community and that is committed against illegal community, you need them to be able to come forward without fear of repercussions. Throwing them all in the same basket just because law says you can, is not in anyone's interest & this county is blind not to see it.

How about if an illegal reports a crime he is first required to sit down, confess who he REALLY is, undergo a brief character screening and if clean (and not a nutcase) handed his application papers and told to sign?

I don't like illegal immigration either, but this is probably a better example to set than telling illegals it's better to be complicit in crime than do the right thing and get punished? (sadly that's a rather strong normal standard for most countries among their own citizens- I sure as shit wouldn't help the law in Australia, because I know there is many a basis the (corrupt) authorities WILL make me regret it)

Fucking awful.

I think it should be noted that he has been granted six months, and may possibly get another four years, before being deported due to being a witness in a criminal trial. So, it's not the case that he's been frogmarched straight to the border and thrown out.

That's a fairly decent grace period during which he could at least try to go through the process of applying for legitimate residency if he wants to stay.

And it wasn't rape. The police officer was apparently (according to the article) "trying to fondle" his girlfriend.

Not that it makes any real difference to the issue (on which I pretty much agree with MattB etc.) But it gets irritating the way people around here deliberately misrepresent things in thread titles to give their view a credibility it doesn't deserve.

Aca wrote:and now those illegals will learn that when they notice crime taking place, the last thing you want to do is go to the police.

That's why, on pragmatic grounds alone, this is a bad idea. Alternatively, if you give illegal immigrants automatic amnesty if they make criminal allegations, it's a perjurer's charter. A difficult balance of interests. The best policy would be an amnesty for any substantive allegation, in a case where a court finds probable cause; and stiff sanctions, and prison time, for people making false reports to stay in the country.

Only if people would use common sense and acted like ... people. But to expect that from "clerks" is, as it seems, naive in any country.

mrjonno wrote:Ah the wonders of no discretion in applying the law, itsw illegal in the UK for a 16 year old to have sex with a 15 year old but only a moronic police force would ever prosecute

The same holds in germany, but if the sex is consensual it doesn´t carry a mandatory sentence. And every time sexual violence against minors is in the media conservatives bring up the idea of closing that "loophole". Because if a 50 year old abuses a 15 year old, he´s benefiting from a rule that only affects people aged 14-18 having sex with people aged 14-16... Close that "loophole" and two 15 year olds having consensual sex would be doing time (1 year minimum IIRC, as they´re both minors). And under the laws that exist policement would face time in prison if they didn´t persecute.

Well, not quite as mad as the gay child abuse laws that were in place for a brief period in the 70s, where a child for the purpose of that particular law was anybody under 21. There were gay couples both 20 going to prison for sexual child abuse of each other (and of course got tried as adults, which starts at age 18). It got thrown out by the supreme court for being ridiculous and inconsistent after 3 months I think it was - as long as it took for the first couple sentenced to run through the appeals system (which worked rather quickly in this case).

Would you say he is a deported reporter?

As much as I feel for the guy, I'm not really surprised this happened.