The link above is to the article that Dan is using to justify his version of some level of a "natural human right" that he calls "free movement" (among other things). While I'm hoping that Dan will provide some more details about what he means by the term "free movement" (or the alternatives), and foster a dialogue, I'm going to explore something else here. I want to look at whether or not the above article actually demonstrates what Dan says it does.
Dan starts by saying this.
" It should not be treated as a crime to move from point A to point B,..."
Yet the story quite clearly states that Pacheco was not prosecuted for "moving from point A to point B". His problem had absolutely nothing to do with his location. His problem stemmed from the fact that he violated the terms of his DACA protection. It seems as though the DACA law requires those it applies to to avoid things like breaking the law. In this case, Pacheco was convicted on two misdemeanor charges (one involving drugs). These two convictions resulted in his protected status being revoked and his being subject to a, " immigration hearing". The "immigration hearing" could have made "deportation a possibility" according the ICE (quoted in the article), which means it was possible that he wouldn't have been deported. However, after being released on bail, Pacheco was convicted of DUI. This third conviction was the tipping point. Now, I'm going to guess that his attorney told him that further arrests and convictions would be detrimental to his case, yet he clearly wouldn't take the prudent course.
Now, according to the story provided by Dan, one thing becomes clear. Pacheco wasn't deported, that's right, he wasn't deported.
"Neudauer said that Cano Pacheco was not deported.
He
opted for voluntary departure, which means he would not suffer the
penalties of a formal deportation, such as being banned from legally
returning to the United States for a period of years, Neudauer said.
He
requested and was granted voluntary departure on April 10, ICE said,
and was returned to Mexico at the border in Laredo, Texas, on April 24"
Pacheco (advised by council) made the choice that gave him the best opportunity to potentially return to the US legally. In other words Pacheco used his" self determination" to exercise his "basic human right" to engage in " free movement" from "point A to point B".
Dan claims.
"Of course, you should
move away from one place if your life or the life of your family is
threatened there!"
" His family had LEFT Mexico because it was safer here."
Yet, these claims are NOT supported by the article referenced. Pacheco's mother clearly states.
" They traveled to Iowa because his father was already there,..."
Now, that's a reasonable reason, but it doesn't involve safety.
The only thing that article says about his death is the "he was in the wrong place at the wrong time,". Now, I'm no expert, but people being killed for being in the "wrong place at the wrong time" is a phenomenon that is not limited to Mexico.
In fact, any conclusions about his death are pure speculation based on the information offered in the article. Given his history of substance abuse, it seems reasonable to speculate that drugs or alcohol could have played a role. It's also possible to reasonably speculate that his continued presence in Iowa could have resulted in the death of an innocent while Pacheco was driving drunk or high. We just don't know any of things.
So, let's stick to what we do know. Pacheco, used his "self determination" to make choices that resulted in his loss of DACA protection. His choices led him afoul of the US legal system, but he clearly had access to due process and was offered an option that would have allowed his potential return to the US.
I'm sorry for his tragic accidental death, I'm sorry for the pain felt by his family, I'm sorry that his illegitimate child won't have him around. Although, I'm not sure that a father with a history of substance abuse and criminal convictions is the best father, I understand that people change and that redemption is possible. I'm also sorry that this tragedy is being used as propaganda to advance a political agenda.
There are many things that can be learned from the story linked above, but I see nothing in it that supports Dan's reckless charges that this death directly results from US immigration policy or that it has anything to do with the "free movement" of people.
As usual, context is important. Also as usual, when the source offered doesn't actually support the claims being made, it diminishes the effectiveness of the source.
DISCLAIMER
I'm not going to delete off topic contracts, per se. I'm going to point out that this post is NOT about "free movement" or "self determination" or any other BS agenda, any comments about those topics will be relocated. This post is also NOT about any additional updates or new information about this situation. It's about the fact that the article that Dan linked to doesn't demonstrate what he claims it demonstrates. Therefore, any comments trying to bring new information about the underlying case will also be relocated.
I will not delete, but relocate, any off topic comments because I think that it's important to keep the evidence available while still keeping the thread on topic.
4 comments:
That was largely my point in responding to Dan posting about this case. His conclusion...that our government "sent him to his death"...was in no way supported by anything in the story. This makes it a clear case of exploitation to further the open borders agenda that Dan supports. As you state, and as I did as well over at his blog, there was absolutely no indication that Pacheco's mother came here to flee from danger...and that's true assuming that she and her husband came here seeking a better life. "A better life" is not synonymous with "fleeing danger", though Dan tries to make every case of illegal immigration about fleeing danger...especially when the illegal is being sent back for whatever reason.
As an aside, however, I'm not sure I'm understanding the terms for commenting. There's not a whole lot that can be said beyond merely that Dan's use of that article was clearly exploitative given how little it had to do in relation to his claims about our immigration policies. As to that, though, there is much to discuss insofar as showing how Dan's position on the subject is completely irrational and devoid of logic and reason. Are you planning a post on our immigration policies?
I’m trying to prevent Dan from trying to turn this thread into a discussion of all the open borders stuff he’s pushing at his blog. Usually that’s just a way to obfuscate.
I’m also trying to point out that Dan’s entire rant was based on this article, and this article alone. While there may be more information that either supports or contradicts this article, that’s not part of this conversation.
Indeed. Dan totally misrepresents the article, exploiting the kid's death to push his ambiguous and specious defense of illegal immigrants.
You’ll note that Dan hasn’t commented on this thread, yet sticks to his “Pacheco was sent to his death for moving from here to there” narrative despite the demonstration that it’s false.
Post a Comment