Students and teachers at the Boston Community Leadership Academy in Hyde Park have started raising funds for an 18-year-old student who is now behind bars at a Suffolk County jail as ICE attempts to boot him from the country.
The money would go towards a bond to help free him while he fights deportation and for the lawyers he'd need.
His mother sent him to the U.S. to escape violence in his home country of Guatemala. Since his arrival in the U.S., Marvin has maintained excellent attendance in school and worked very hard to improve his English skills. He has built many great relationships with his peers and teachers in school. Marvin is also an active member of his church community.
He was detained last month at work, not school, a supporter says.
Separately, an MIT janitor who has been in ICE custody since July should be released Friday as he appeals his deportation order.
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
We can't take them all
By EM Painter
Thu, 12/21/2017 - 1:04pm
There are many countries that are poor and dangerous. In itself coming from such a country is not a reason to be allowed to immigrate to the USA.
Papers please
By anon
Thu, 12/21/2017 - 1:10pm
Prove that your ancestors came here legally or STFU.
open borders?!
By SharpWave
Thu, 12/21/2017 - 1:31pm
So all of our national borders are totally obsolete and we should just open up immigration to everyone? Would this actually work, even in theory?
Nations are obsolete
By BlackKat
Thu, 12/21/2017 - 1:43pm
So yes, we should eliminate a lot more than just the borders. The only border patrol we need is on the solar system's rim.
How is that, exactly?
By Roman
Thu, 12/21/2017 - 1:56pm
I'm genuinely curious how you can believe that to be true?
Because...
By BlackKat
Thu, 12/21/2017 - 3:53pm
...I'm not xenophobic or jingoistic like Republicans are [towards other humans].
I'm more worried about our long term future vs. some [yet to be contacted - despite the latest UFO woo woo] sentient, insectoid, hive mind than being worried about Guatemalans or Somalis who mostly just want economic and physical security.
Are you still working?
By Stevil
Thu, 12/21/2017 - 4:49pm
You probably wouldn't say that if you were a retail clerk or a restaurant worker making $13 an hour and a flood of immigrants willing and competent enough to take your job for $10 an hour came rushing across the border.
To say nothing of the health care, public safety, education costs and more.
You are usually much more thoughtful than that.
Deus Ex Machina
By BlackKat
Thu, 12/21/2017 - 5:19pm
My job is far more at risk of replacement by AI than another human - even in this age of still-primitive AI. Or some of what I do could be performed in say India today. But we can all assure job security for the future regardless of what country we are in or are from by some simple measures:
Free or nearly free education [college or on the job apprenticeship programs]
Strong government regulations for minimum wages and standards of living
Weak government regulations for relocation and work visas
Regardless of the political or regulatory climate there will always be regions where economic opportunities are better than other regions. If not countries then cities vs. rural areas, North vs. South, temperate climates vs. hot climates, etc. etc. You need to allow people to move freely between regions as those opportunities flux and let people freely pursue those opportunities. Years from now we could all be trying to get into Canada or Denmark, or even places like Kenya or Nigeria, just like people are trying to come to the US now. Or to some orbital with better jobs than in any terrestrial location.
And how exactly
By Roman
Thu, 12/21/2017 - 5:53pm
do you propose to enforce a minimum wage law while at the same time having open borders and no immigration enforcement? Everybody and their mother will be working under the table for next to nothing because no one will be able to hire anyone at the legal rate if just a small fraction of their competitors can reduce their costs with creative labor practices.
Don't believe me? Try getting a job as a landscaper or housekeeper or short-order-cook. How the hell do you think any of these business stay open in the face of artificially high wage floors?
One little thing
By Waquiot
Thu, 12/21/2017 - 6:33pm
If anyone could come to the US to work legally, the market for exploited labor would go down, since anyone could sue their employer for underpaying them.
Not that I’m for unlimited immigration or against deporting people who aren’t here legally, but in theory open borders would mean less incentive to pay below what is legally required. Less motivation to pay people much if anything above minimum wage, but that’s why I support the immigration system we have.
I'm not confident that theory would stand up
By Roman
Thu, 12/21/2017 - 6:37pm
to an oversaturated labor market.
It would stand up
By Waquiot
Thu, 12/21/2017 - 7:00pm
Since everyone would have legal standing.
The problem would be the billions that would be unemployed and their effect on the safety net.
What do you think those billions would do?
By Roman
Thu, 12/21/2017 - 8:07pm
Sit back and wait for their nonexistent benefits checks or take any work they can get and not rock the boat since they'd be replaceable?
You know
By Waquiot
Thu, 12/21/2017 - 8:22pm
You might hav a point there.
I guess it’s a good thing we limit intake to a million people a year than just make the limit how many people can get into the country.
since anyone could sue their
By poster
Fri, 12/22/2017 - 10:48am
That's the law in Massachusetts: undocumented immigration status is considered to be protected under wage and working condition labor protections.
It's how Upper Crust got shut down, the undocumented immigrants who were getting shafted by the company sued them and won. They did, however, opt to do so after repatriating to Brazil.
Sure
By Waquiot
Fri, 12/22/2017 - 11:19am
And their employer could suddenly “discover” that their employees are not in the country legally and report them to ICE.
The Ultimate Protection
By anon
Fri, 12/22/2017 - 9:16am
Make the US a far worse shithole than it is now and POOF - no immigrants!
Immigrants put far more into
By anon
Fri, 12/22/2017 - 10:10am
Immigrants put far more into this country than they take. Also, blame corporations not the people that are willing to work even when they are being taken advantage of. The myth that they steal our jobs is so tired and overused.
What white folk will work for 12+ hours a day for peanuts usually doing the "worst" jobs? We have fruit and veg rotting bc no one is there to pick them. I don't see many white folk at 5am waiting in parking lots just to try and get a day labor job. Where are all of these amazing Americans that are so scared of brown ppl taking their jobs? Why aren't they lining up?
I see...
By Roman
Thu, 12/21/2017 - 5:49pm
So somewhere out there there might be aliens...thus the accomplishments of human civilization in bringing order to Hobbesian chaos don't matter...but from an enlightened, scientific perspective, aliens are woo woo...therefor: Republicans are bad and we should have open borders.
Tell me honestly, does that make sense to even you? Also, where did you learn the logical concept of 'therefor' exactly?
Don't talk about logic
By boo_urns
Fri, 12/22/2017 - 9:26am
You just made a false choice argument. You don't get to act like you're adept at logic at all.
Even when the logic is correct
By anon
Fri, 12/22/2017 - 11:29am
... results are completely bogus if the input information being "logicked" on is fake, false, or a subject to false interpretation.
It's funny how survival of
By Steeve
Fri, 12/22/2017 - 2:33pm
It's funny how survival of the fittest republicans are until it comes to brown people taking white jobs.
It's funny how racism is
By Roman
Fri, 12/22/2017 - 3:41pm
the go-to talking point to explain away anything a Republican says or does.
Tax cuts? Racist. Tax hikes? Racist. Free trade? Racist. Tighter borders? Racist. Censorship? Racist. Free speech? Racist.
It's not funny at all
By Michael
Fri, 12/22/2017 - 4:17pm
It's downright depressing that it's 2017 and we still have to talk about this shit
Stop doing racist shit and
By Steeve
Tue, 12/26/2017 - 9:47am
Stop doing racist shit and people will stop saying the shit you do is racist.
And if minorities vote against you en masse, there's a pretty good sign you do lots of racist shit.
Let's see how YOU like when a
By Refugee
Thu, 12/21/2017 - 3:53pm
Let's see how YOU like it when a little green Martian takes your job away.
That's a racist stereotype
By Roman
Thu, 12/21/2017 - 6:34pm
Not all Martians are green. Some are red. Some are jet-black but wear red flight suits and green helmets.
Mass Migration Is Good for Long-Term Economic Growth
By anon
Fri, 12/22/2017 - 3:15am
Harvard Business Review:
Meanwhile
By anon
Fri, 12/22/2017 - 11:30am
Labor is restricted from movement while capital crosses boundaries with wild abandon.
Used to be that way
By bgl
Thu, 12/21/2017 - 2:40pm
Until we went to the quota immigration system. Just hop on a boat and pass a health/basic test and in you go. Well, almost - as long as you weren't Asian/Chinese as we had an exclusion act for them (thanks for the railroad, though).
Not quite. My grandparents
By Patricia-can't ...
Thu, 12/21/2017 - 4:36pm
Not quite. My grandparents had to have a place to live, work and a sponsor. And - they weren't given any benefits! Not a single penny.
All the requirements had to be proved before being allowed to enter.
My family did do it the legal way.
OK
By bgl
Fri, 12/22/2017 - 2:11am
My grandparents all hoped in a boot and didn't have TB when they got here. BTW, immigrants still can't get "benefits".
You must be old, then
By Waquiot
Fri, 12/22/2017 - 9:57am
The federal government began requiring immigrants to have sponsors who would vouch for the people and ensure they wouldn’t become wards of the state starting in 1891. Quotas didn’t come into play until the 1920s.
This move created a market for brokers, especially in Italy. Companies sprang up to handle this legal change. If you’ve looked up your grandparents’ immigration records, check out all of the columns. There is one for their contact in the US. That person was responsible for the new arrival.
Patricia
By boo_urns
Fri, 12/22/2017 - 9:27am
The legal way back then compared to now is apples to oranges, to put it kindly. So don't compare the two like they're the same thing. It's a tired, disingenuous argument and it looks bad on you.
But it wasn’t Patricia who
By Metoo
Fri, 12/22/2017 - 1:25pm
But it wasn’t Patricia who brought up the ancestors topic. She was replying to someone else who did.
When we were a developing
By anon
Thu, 12/21/2017 - 7:22pm
When we were a developing nation in the 19th century, that's true; that ended by the 1920s and immigration slowed to a crawl until the 1965 'reform' act. Historians generally agree this breathing period allowed immigrants here to assimilate. Since deindustrialization, globalization and neoliberal economics (think neocon, not liberal as most people associate that word), the flood gates have been opened. Business interests like the tight labor markets and cheap labor, other industries love the flood of 'entitlement' money which is spent on housing, retail, etc. The financial services and legal indusry love the regular increases in the number of people banking, taking out loans, going into debt, and finally, the 'progressives' and Democratic Party love the increases in needy people.
We are committing a form of suicide by 'open borders' and unregulated immigration.
I'm sorry, but that's bullshit
By adamg
Fri, 12/22/2017 - 9:37am
The Irish didn't assimilate faster because people from China could mostly no longer immigrate here.
There was no "breather." There was a rather blatant attempt by the racists in charge then to block non-Christians and non-whites from "flooding" the country and so they changed immigration laws to make it harder for them to get in.
The change in immigration law then gave 70% of the available slots to residents of just three countries - the UK, Germany and Ireland. Two of those three arguably didn't have all that many citizens at that point clamoring for US residency. Ireland was included because, after decades of being treated like dirt, Irish-Americans had learned the power of the ballot box and were in positions of power here.
If you're going to argue for tightening immigration laws, you can at least try to do so without making crap up.
Blah blah blah
By Roman
Fri, 12/22/2017 - 4:58pm
Countries get to choose whom they let in. "Racism" (as defined by liberals to be anything they don't like) is as valid a motivation as any.
You saying blah, blah, blah
By boo_urns
Sat, 12/23/2017 - 6:02pm
Is fucking rich.
Explain how
By Roman
Sat, 12/23/2017 - 7:10pm
Are you trying to call me a hypocrite for not being for open borders because I crossed a border myself? How does that follow, exactly?
Please enlighten us all about this new mathematical proof you've discovered that says if someone is a legal immigrant they must be in favor of legalizing all illegal immigrants. You owe it to everyone to make sure it gets out. Surely once your argument is publicized, all opposition to immigration enforcement will melt away with the new light of truth you've brought into the world.
Now *that's* sarcasm.
Uh,
By boo_urns
Sun, 12/24/2017 - 12:02am
To start I never said we needed completely open or no borders, nor immigration enforcement. So let's start there. Quote me saying that that's what I proposed, anywhere, ever. Here's a hint: you can't, because I never said that.
Everything else is just you ramming words onto me. Pure projection.
Now *that's* pure logical fallacy. Or, I'll reiterate, "blah, blah, blah."
Projection...sarcasm...same thing
By Roman
Sun, 12/24/2017 - 12:23am
Would you care to explain how "that's rich coming from you" is warranted?
Nope
By anon
Tue, 12/26/2017 - 10:47am
Not the same thing.
You are like a 4 year old with a mack truck - big words, don't know how to use them.
Of course they came here legally!
By Michael
Thu, 12/21/2017 - 1:47pm
Of course, when they came here, "legally" meant "show up at Ellis Island without TB or anarchist leanings*", but then the Chinese and Mexicans wanted to start coming here and suddenly this
vast vast country didn't have room anymore.
*or, if you predated my family by a few decades, "show up and kill/remove all the natives living there already"
And if you fast forward a century or two
By Roman
Thu, 12/21/2017 - 2:20pm
1. Go to the US embassy,
2. Apply for permission to immigrate
3. Wait to receive said permission
4. Hop on a plane to JFK
5. Reside in US for five years as an LPR with no criminal record
6. Apply for citizenship
7. Be interviewed, take exam
8. Receive citizenship
Different, yes, but the key part was step 3.
OK
By Michael
Thu, 12/21/2017 - 2:30pm
I liked the old way better
Step 3?
By bgl
Thu, 12/21/2017 - 2:42pm
Most likely going to be denied or wait for years/decades - making it completely different.
So what?
By Roman
Thu, 12/21/2017 - 6:00pm
I'm most likely going to be denied entry to your nice house in a low-crime good school district if I come knocking because I don't like my high crime inner city neighborhood and want me and my family to sleep somewhere else.
How would you feel if I set up a tent in your back yard and told you with a straight face I had a right to do it?
But more to the point, you're wrong.
As I recall, we had to wait about 8 or 9 months back in the early 90's. Foreign graduate students who get work here after graduation have H1-B visas earmarked for them (at least in theory--the whole lottery is a scam and ought to be replaced by an auction) and know pretty early whether they can stay. Same story for anyone else who comes in for work or school--you're either in or out, you're not in limbo for ages the way you imply.
Furthermore, right now we let in something like 1 million a year legally. If your metric for "being denied" is that 1 million out of 6.7 billion is a small number, then sure, you are mathematically correct. Congratulations. You've won the word game in which you defined the meanings of the words beforehand.
Lots of false equivalency there
By bgl
Fri, 12/22/2017 - 2:19am
Not going to bother touching them. H1-Bs are also bullshit and don't allow adjustment to a permanent resident or anything else. Great talking points, though.
You forgot a few steps
By Bob Leponge
Thu, 12/21/2017 - 5:57pm
1a: Make a long journey to the city where the U.S. embassy is located, because there isn't one anywhere near where you live. Lose a day of work doing so.
1b: When you get there, get told, "sorry, no more appointment slots today. No you cannot make an appointment in advance."
1c: Repeat 1a and 1b a few times, missing another day of work each time.
1d: Finally get an appointment. Get told by the clerk that one of your documents is missing a stamp. Ask, "Can you check the rest of my documents while I"m here, so that I know that's the only thing I need to correct?" Answer, "No. We won't look at documents 2, 3, 4, and 5 until document 1 is correct."
1e: Go home. Get document #1 fixed according to what the clerk has asked for.
1f: Repeat 1a and 1b several times, missing a day of work each time.
1g: Finally get your 2nd appointment. Clerk 2 looks at your documents, says, "Clerk 1 told you wrong. You need a green stamp, not a red one."
1h: Go home. Get the green stamp.
1i: Repeat 1a and 1b a few times, missing a day of work each time.
1j: Finally get your appointment. Clerk approves documents 1, 2, and 3, but says document 4 is missing a signature. Ask, "Can you also check Document 5 while I'm here?" Answer: "no."
1k Go home. Get the signature.
1l Repeat 1a and 1b a few times, missing a day of work each time.
1m Finally get your apointment. Clerk approves your application. At this point you've spent 6 months, missed a dozen days of work, and spent half a year's savings on train fare to and from the U.S. embassy. Clerk tells you it'll be a 3 year wait.
1n: Due to economic conditions, you move. Your village is pretty much abandoned.
1o: After 2 years, you visit the embassy (repeating steps 1a and 1b a few times, losing a day of work each time) to inquire as to your case. You get told that because you no longer live at the address from which you applied, and because mail sent to you was returned undelivered, you need to start over again.
That's a lovely story
By Roman
Thu, 12/21/2017 - 6:07pm
Do you have any evidence that it has actually happened to anyone?
More to the point: how do you explain all the people of all stripes and colors and nations to whom it has not happened?
Even more to the point: So What? Immigration to America is not a right.
It happens all the time
By anon
Fri, 12/22/2017 - 9:08am
Your parents probably went through a bit of that, too, until advocates took them on as refugees.
Go ahead and tell me anon
By Roman
Fri, 12/22/2017 - 4:59pm
tell me what happened in my own past. You must remember it better than I do.
It's the rule of law thing
By Bob Leponge
Fri, 12/22/2017 - 11:59am
I'd like the barriers to immigration (and yes, I think there should be significant barriers to immigration) to be set by law. I think we should assess people who want to join our team by how likely they are to make a positive impact).
By law. Not arbitrary barriers put in place by low-level clerks at our immigration offices who think they're somehow keeping bad people out by making the experience unpleasant. Stupid shit like "no, there's no 'take a number' machine like even the deli counter or the post office has; you physically wait in line, in the rain, and if you leave to go to the bathroom you lose your place."
Agreed, but
By Roman
Fri, 12/22/2017 - 1:07pm
here's a question:
A law that says "show up to the embassy in person" is such a law, but going by your parable you seem to be of the opinion that it's dancing on the edge of "disparate impact" as the libs like to say.
Would you have us place our consulates in every city and village so that anyone can come apply on their lunch break? That's not practical, and that's not the norm internationally. For a quick example, when I applied for a visa to China a few years back, I had to either show up in person to the Chinese consulate in New York twice (once to apply, once to pick up), at the cost of train tickets and two working days, or pay a private company to do the legwork on my behalf.
Emotional responses
By EM Painter
Thu, 12/21/2017 - 2:51pm
I'd like to let everybody in but it doesn't work.
When I get an emotional stfu response, I know there are millions or billions of dollars separating whatever I said from the respondent's agenda.
What I said was true, we can't let them all in. You can probably batter me down or liquidate me but it's still true.
Why not?
By anon
Thu, 12/21/2017 - 4:12pm
Why can't we let them all in.
We seem to have no problem with money fleeing over the borders.
Let them all in
By anon
Mon, 12/25/2017 - 3:12pm
"Let them all in" is not the battleground on which the debate is being conducted despite pubic opinion-- 77% of Americans favor renewing DACA and giving undocumented immigrants a conditional path to citizenship, 66% of Republicans favor that too.
The far right which includes Heritage and AG Jeff Sessions oppose that and want current immigration rates cut in half or more.
Off topic
By cinnamngrl
Wed, 12/27/2017 - 9:35am
DACA is not about letting everyone in. It is about a specific group of people that arrived here as children. And if you want to be ruthlessly self interested about then you want the DACA population. They are young healthy and have at least a high school education. These are the new citizens we need to fuel economic growth for the next millennium.
I can! And, who the hell are
By Patricia-can't ...
Thu, 12/21/2017 - 4:34pm
I can! And, who the hell are you to tell anyone to stfu?
Things were different over a
By Metoo
Fri, 12/22/2017 - 1:28pm
Things were different over a hundred years ago. Times have change and we have to change with time. Come on you know that.
People come under the rules
By anon
Sun, 12/24/2017 - 11:01pm
People come under the rules allowed and those sometimes change. You are not being realistic at all.
Gosh, you're right
By Parkwayne
Thu, 12/21/2017 - 1:18pm
I guess we can't have several billion people immigrate here.
Oh wait, that's not whats happening at all but hey good luck with all your 'economic insecurity', Pepe.
Ribbit ribbit
By Roman
Thu, 12/21/2017 - 1:32pm
Since we like to believe we're a country of laws and not men, we need to have laws that apply equally to everyone at all times. Our immigration laws are no different.
If you agree that we can't have several billion people trying to come here, we shouldn't have policies that would allow it. A policy of not having border controls would allow such a thing, and as proof that that statement is not wild hyperbole, I present the 12 million or so illegal immigrants who came to reside in this country under the assumption that our border controls would not be enforced against them.
If we then decide that we must have border controls, we must enforce them equally and uniformly. Which means that, yes, as fine and upstanding a member of his adopted community as this fellow is, if he's not eligible to stay under existing law, he's got to go. It isn't personal, and it isn't mean-spirited. If we want to have laws, we need to enforce all of them, or repeal the ones we don't believe reflect our values and/or serve our interests.
And by "law" and "repeal," I do mean "law" and "repeal." Being a country of laws and not men, we can't have presidents declaring that they will not enforce laws because reasons, the way Obama did with DACA.
I am with you 100%
By SharpWave
Thu, 12/21/2017 - 1:44pm
However, it seems that asking for laws that mean what they say and say what they mean is too much for this country to handle right now. Instead, we pass laws against things that are 99.999% unenforceable and then just hope that when we throw the book at the 0.0001% that we do catch that it'll be sufficient deterrent.
The impending arrival of self-driving cars and other automation into daily life means that the era of gray area wiggle room laws will draw to a close; the roads will need actual meaningful, consistently enforced rules and so will other areas of life.
Let's Start With Enforcing The Emoluments Clause
By Elmer
Thu, 12/21/2017 - 2:28pm
When those at the very top flout the law, how can you expect ordinary Americans to support cruel and strict law enforcement upon people who are less fortunate?
Breaking up families by deporting good people to places where they're likely to be killed is not the American way. It is evil. It builds resentment towards our United States government around the world, and also among our own citizens.
Such cruelty, if unchecked, will ultimately destroy our nation.
By all means, let's
By Roman
Thu, 12/21/2017 - 2:37pm
Let's also enforce executive orders on handling classified information, federal data retention and conflict-of-interest laws for politicians of all stripes.
BUT HER EMAILS!!!
By lbb
Thu, 12/21/2017 - 3:59pm
i knew you'd get around to it quick enough, dog-whistler. You're so tired, go lie down.
Email is a dog whistle?
By Roman
Thu, 12/21/2017 - 6:09pm
Let me guess...racist? No, scratch that--too easy.
Sexist? Can't be. Don Junior's emails were in the news too, and he's a dude.
Um....let's see email...dog whistle...email...dog whistle.
I've got it! It's a literal dog-whistle! Every time you send an email, Fido hears a high-pitched noise!
Edit: can't believe I missed it: And Fido is a racist dog that barks at black people slightly more often than he barks at white people. Latinos are somewhere in between. East Asians and South Asians? It's a toss-up. Gingers? Up to 11!
That Eric Trump look of stupidity
By lbb
Fri, 12/22/2017 - 10:22am
...is fooling exactly no one. Give it up, Roman. Everyone sees you for what you are.
Pages
Add comment