Three Cheers for the US Immigration Dept! - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2014 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to General Talk

Three Cheers for the US Immigration Dept!

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Re: Three Cheers for the US Immigration Dept!

Postby Madison » Fri Aug 15, 2008 11:01 pm

RugbyD wrote:So then a suitable, proportionate punishment for overstaying a visa is death. OK, got it.

Are you really going to claim that b/c someone overstayed a visa that the immigration employees bear zero responsibility for seemingly breaking all sorts of rules and ignoring what appear to be clear signs of severe health problems while he was in their custody and under their purview and therefore their responsibility (its not like he was a cancer-ridden homless guy passed out on a street corner that they chose to step over), eventually leading to a life-and-death situation that they could and, according to the job description, should have prevented? How can you seriously claim that what appears to be a complete dereliction of duty only played a negligible, if any, part in Ng's death?


Bah, you went extremist much faster than you usually do Rugby. You're slipping. Tsk, tsk. :-b

Why stick words into my mouth though? That's extremely low and stretching more than you typically do. Is it really that hard for you to lay the blame where it goes instead of covering up and making excuses for idiots?

I didn't say the guy deserved to die, I said none of this would have happened if he had done what he was supposed to do.

I also didn't say there were zero problems in the immigration department and they are 100% not at fault for anything. I said: "Of course it doesn't excuse what happened" and I also said: "The claims are secondary and worthy of an investigation by the authorities".

Yet not once have you said one word about Mr. Ng breaking the law, having any responsibility, or that this story could be one sided and not the whole truth.

'Tis ok though, you'd rather ignore one fact we know for sure (that Mr. Ng broke the law) and you've got zero ground to argue this situation, so you'd rather stick words in my mouth and go extremist on things I never said. Good for you. You win. ;-D It's really not that hard to realize and accept the fact that if Mr. Ng had simply obeyed the law (heaven forbid! ;-7 ) none of this ever would have happened.

Self edit for a poor choice of words.
Yes doctor, I am sick.
Sick of those who are spineless.
Sick of those who feel self-entitled.
Sick of those who are hypocrites.
Yes doctor, an army is forming.
Yes doctor, there will be a war.
Yes doctor, there will be blood.....
Madison
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
ExecutiveEditorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterInnovative MemberCafe MusketeerPick 3 ChampionMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 53856
(Past Year: 1)
Joined: 29 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Taking Souls...

Re: Three Cheers for the US Immigration Dept!

Postby RugbyD » Fri Aug 15, 2008 11:55 pm

Madison wrote:
RugbyD wrote:So then a suitable, proportionate punishment for overstaying a visa is death. OK, got it.

Are you really going to claim that b/c someone overstayed a visa that the immigration employees bear zero responsibility for seemingly breaking all sorts of rules and ignoring what appear to be clear signs of severe health problems while he was in their custody and under their purview and therefore their responsibility (its not like he was a cancer-ridden homless guy passed out on a street corner that they chose to step over), eventually leading to a life-and-death situation that they could and, according to the job description, should have prevented? How can you seriously claim that what appears to be a complete dereliction of duty only played a negligible, if any, part in Ng's death?


Bah, you went extremist much faster than you usually do Rugby. You're slipping. Tsk, tsk. :-b

Why stick words into my mouth though? That's extremely low and stretching more than you typically do. Is it really that hard for you to lay the blame where it goes instead of covering up and making excuses for idiots?

I didn't say the guy deserved to die, I said none of this would have happened if he had done what he was supposed to do.

I also didn't say there were zero problems in the immigration department and they are 100% not at fault for anything. I said: "Of course it doesn't excuse what happened" and I also said: "The claims are secondary and worthy of an investigation by the authorities".

Yet not once have you said one word about Mr. Ng breaking the law, having any responsibility, or that this story could be one sided and not the whole truth.

'Tis ok though, you'd rather ignore one fact we know for sure (that Mr. Ng broke the law) and you've got zero ground to argue this situation, so you'd rather stick words in my mouth and go extremist on things I never said. Good for you. You win. ;-D Anyone with half a brain realizes that if Mr. Ng had simply obeyed the law (heaven forbid! ;-7 ) none of this ever would have happened.

I know you didn't explicitly say anything in my previous post and I know you said it doesn't excuse what happened, but the fact that you are so clearly dismissive of what appears to be nothing short of deadly criminal neglect and abuse is what leads me to those implicit conclusions. You are saying that the single, innocuous act of overstaying his visa was a larger contributor to his death than that myriad, phisically immediate and direct actions of various immigration workers. That makes zero sense. It's no different than if a sniper in a belltower decides to pick off the first guy he sees peeing in an alley after a night at the bars, and it happens to be you. It is a totally disproportionate result, the act of physical destruction is unidirectional, and there's no reason for you to expect any physical harm for your actions.

You're exhibiting a perverted sense of proportionality by taking the stance of "that's the way the cookie crumbles". What is ironic is that if he chose to not apply for his green card then none if this would have happened, so in essence he was punished with death for trying to rectify a situation through the proper channels to live up to your standards of what his behavior should be.
TennCare rocks!!!!
RugbyD
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe Ranker
Posts: 5591
(Past Year: 4)
Joined: 7 Dec 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: punting small dogs and being surly

Re: Three Cheers for the US Immigration Dept!

Postby bigken117 » Sat Aug 16, 2008 12:21 am

RugbyD wrote:(its not like he was a cancer-ridden homless guy passed out on a street corner that they chose to step over),


Would that have been easier to accept?

People die in custody (I would guess) every day due to the neglect of their care givers. Be it in prison, hospitals, homeless shelters, nursing homes, whatever. Not that it's right, but what makes this one worth getting all up in arms over? What if it were a junkie San Quentin who had a seizure and guards thought he was faking or going through DT's? Or some child rapist who was neglected medical attention after getting the *snot* kicked out of him in the showers?

The system is broken. Stuff like this happens all the time. Just because he was a hard working man trying to do right doesn't make it any different. I'm not saying it's right, just that it's not really that surprising.
Image

Jacoby Ellsbury - Sponsored by the Fantasy Baseball Cafe!

Play Pick 3!

Follow the Cafe on Twitter!
Like us on Facebook
bigken117
Bouncer
Bouncer

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyePick 3 Weekly WinnerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 12870
(Past Year: 254)
Joined: 15 Feb 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: posed in an awkward stance

Re: Three Cheers for the US Immigration Dept!

Postby Madison » Sat Aug 16, 2008 12:26 am

RugbyD wrote:I know you didn't explicitly say anything in my previous post and I know you said it doesn't excuse what happened, but the fact that you are so clearly dismissive of what appears to be nothing short of deadly criminal neglect and abuse is what leads me to those implicit conclusions. You are saying that the single, innocuous act of overstaying his visa was a larger contributor to his death than that myriad, phisically immediate and direct actions of various immigration workers. That makes zero sense. It's no different than if a sniper in a belltower decides to pick off the first guy he sees peeing in an alley after a night at the bars, and it happens to be you. It is a totally disproportionate result, the act of physical destruction is unidirectional, and there's no reason for you to expect any physical harm for your actions.

You're exhibiting a perverted sense of proportionality by taking the stance of "that's the way the cookie crumbles". What is ironic is that if he chose to not apply for his green card then none if this would have happened, so in essence he was punished with death for trying to rectify a situation through the proper channels to live up to your standards of what his behavior should be.


Rather than try to analyze what I say, why not just ask me what I think? :-? I always give my honest opinion (be it good or bad), so asking me straight out will generally do the trick. In this particular case, anything that happened after he chose to break the law is on him because it never would have happened if he hadn't broken the law. There's really no way around that. And he never would have been applying for anything if he had just followed the law to begin with, so that's not all that great of an argument.

What happens after someone breaks the law can be as simple as not getting caught, all the way to death, or worse. The person who chooses to break the law takes responsibility for whatever the results of that choice are. In this case, Mr. Ng chose to break the law. And while his death is unfortunate and resulted in possibly correcting abuse in the immigration service (if there's anything to correct), he still shoulders the majority of the blame for the situation because if he had simply followed the law, none of this ever would have happened.

So while you want to talk about "proportionality" and "suitable" punishments, why do you refuse to see that the ONLY reason he was there to begin with was because he broke the law? That's the #1 factor in this entire story as to "blame". The police didn't make him break the law. The immigration office didn't make him break the law. HE chose to break the law, so why is it that he's not responsible for being there in the first place (because if he's not there, this never would have happened)?

I understand you love to go after the government, institutions, or whatever for acting inappropriately, breaking the law, or whatever, and that's cool, but it would be nice to see you hold individuals just as responsible for their actions as you want said government, instutions, or whatever, to be responsible. You tend to ignore individual responsibility and that's pretty baffling. A group cannot be responsible if the individuals are not responsible, so I'd have thought you'd start with wanting all individuals to be responsible, rather than defend and make excuses for people like Mr. Ng.

As to your sniper example it's not logical because I made no choice on breaking the law or not breaking the law in that. Mr. Ng made a choice to break the law. If said sniper was going to shoot the next jaywalker he saw and I was the next jaywalker, then the result is on me because I chose to break the law.
Yes doctor, I am sick.
Sick of those who are spineless.
Sick of those who feel self-entitled.
Sick of those who are hypocrites.
Yes doctor, an army is forming.
Yes doctor, there will be a war.
Yes doctor, there will be blood.....
Madison
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
ExecutiveEditorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterInnovative MemberCafe MusketeerPick 3 ChampionMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 53856
(Past Year: 1)
Joined: 29 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Taking Souls...

Re: Three Cheers for the US Immigration Dept!

Postby RugbyD » Sat Aug 16, 2008 8:42 am

bigken117 wrote:
RugbyD wrote:(its not like he was a cancer-ridden homless guy passed out on a street corner that they chose to step over),


Would that have been easier to accept?

People die in custody (I would guess) every day due to the neglect of their care givers. Be it in prison, hospitals, homeless shelters, nursing homes, whatever. Not that it's right, but what makes this one worth getting all up in arms over? What if it were a junkie San Quentin who had a seizure and guards thought he was faking or going through DT's? Or some child rapist who was neglected medical attention after getting the *snot* kicked out of him in the showers?

The system is broken. Stuff like this happens all the time. Just because he was a hard working man trying to do right doesn't make it any different. I'm not saying it's right, just that it's not really that surprising.

you're comparing a single event with a clear, months-long deterioration process. There is no comparison.
TennCare rocks!!!!
RugbyD
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe Ranker
Posts: 5591
(Past Year: 4)
Joined: 7 Dec 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: punting small dogs and being surly

Re: Three Cheers for the US Immigration Dept!

Postby RugbyD » Sat Aug 16, 2008 8:56 am

Madison wrote:
RugbyD wrote:I know you didn't explicitly say anything in my previous post and I know you said it doesn't excuse what happened, but the fact that you are so clearly dismissive of what appears to be nothing short of deadly criminal neglect and abuse is what leads me to those implicit conclusions. You are saying that the single, innocuous act of overstaying his visa was a larger contributor to his death than that myriad, phisically immediate and direct actions of various immigration workers. That makes zero sense. It's no different than if a sniper in a belltower decides to pick off the first guy he sees peeing in an alley after a night at the bars, and it happens to be you. It is a totally disproportionate result, the act of physical destruction is unidirectional, and there's no reason for you to expect any physical harm for your actions.

You're exhibiting a perverted sense of proportionality by taking the stance of "that's the way the cookie crumbles". What is ironic is that if he chose to not apply for his green card then none if this would have happened, so in essence he was punished with death for trying to rectify a situation through the proper channels to live up to your standards of what his behavior should be.


Rather than try to analyze what I say, why not just ask me what I think? :-? I always give my honest opinion (be it good or bad), so asking me straight out will generally do the trick. In this particular case, anything that happened after he chose to break the law is on him because it never would have happened if he hadn't broken the law. There's really no way around that. And he never would have been applying for anything if he had just followed the law to begin with, so that's not all that great of an argument.

What happens after someone breaks the law can be as simple as not getting caught, all the way to death, or worse. The person who chooses to break the law takes responsibility for whatever the results of that choice are. In this case, Mr. Ng chose to break the law. And while his death is unfortunate and resulted in possibly correcting abuse in the immigration service (if there's anything to correct), he still shoulders the majority of the blame for the situation because if he had simply followed the law, none of this ever would have happened.

So while you want to talk about "proportionality" and "suitable" punishments, why do you refuse to see that the ONLY reason he was there to begin with was because he broke the law? That's the #1 factor in this entire story as to "blame". The police didn't make him break the law. The immigration office didn't make him break the law. HE chose to break the law, so why is it that he's not responsible for being there in the first place (because if he's not there, this never would have happened)?

I understand you love to go after the government, institutions, or whatever for acting inappropriately, breaking the law, or whatever, and that's cool, but it would be nice to see you hold individuals just as responsible for their actions as you want said government, instutions, or whatever, to be responsible. You tend to ignore individual responsibility and that's pretty baffling. A group cannot be responsible if the individuals are not responsible, so I'd have thought you'd start with wanting all individuals to be responsible, rather than defend and make excuses for people like Mr. Ng.

As to your sniper example it's not logical because I made no choice on breaking the law or not breaking the law in that. Mr. Ng made a choice to break the law. If said sniper was going to shoot the next jaywalker he saw and I was the next jaywalker, then the result is on me because I chose to break the law.

Public urination is illegal, so the example is relevant. Funny you sould mention jaywalking b/c that was also a dastardly, death-worthy crime i was considering using as an example.

I am all for individual responsibility. I have never once indicated that immediate deportation was an unacceptable result of him overstaying his visa. It doesn't quite jibe with what I think an effective immigration policy would be in this particular instance, but it is what the law proscribes, so be it. To say that the willful, malicious, and criminal actions of others are also his fault is beyond the pale IMO.
TennCare rocks!!!!
RugbyD
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe Ranker
Posts: 5591
(Past Year: 4)
Joined: 7 Dec 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: punting small dogs and being surly

Re: Three Cheers for the US Immigration Dept!

Postby Madison » Sat Aug 16, 2008 3:09 pm

RugbyD wrote:Public urination is illegal, so the example is relevant. Funny you sould mention jaywalking b/c that was also a dastardly, death-worthy crime i was considering using as an example.

I am all for individual responsibility. I have never once indicated that immediate deportation was an unacceptable result of him overstaying his visa. It doesn't quite jibe with what I think an effective immigration policy would be in this particular instance, but it is what the law proscribes, so be it. To say that the willful, malicious, and criminal actions of others are also his fault is beyond the pale IMO.


Ack. I missed the part about why I went outside in your example. In that case it is fully relevant. Sorry about that. :-o Either example though, I'd have to shoulder the majority of the blame since it was my choice to break the law.

You're still reading into what I'm saying instead of what I'm actually saying though. I didn't say anyone else's actions were his responsibility, I'm saying if he hadn't broken the law, their actions never would have happened (if they did happen). In other words, If Mr. Ng hadn't broken the law, he wouldn't have been in custody, and the alleged abuse never would have occurred because it would have been impossible for him to allegedly be mistreated because he wouldn't have been in custody to begin with. If he hadn't broken the law, he'd be alive right now. So he's got to hold the majority of the blame/responsibility in this. There's just no way around that fact.
Yes doctor, I am sick.
Sick of those who are spineless.
Sick of those who feel self-entitled.
Sick of those who are hypocrites.
Yes doctor, an army is forming.
Yes doctor, there will be a war.
Yes doctor, there will be blood.....
Madison
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
ExecutiveEditorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterInnovative MemberCafe MusketeerPick 3 ChampionMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 53856
(Past Year: 1)
Joined: 29 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Taking Souls...

Re: Three Cheers for the US Immigration Dept!

Postby RugbyD » Mon Aug 18, 2008 2:03 pm

Madison wrote:
RugbyD wrote:Public urination is illegal, so the example is relevant. Funny you sould mention jaywalking b/c that was also a dastardly, death-worthy crime i was considering using as an example.

I am all for individual responsibility. I have never once indicated that immediate deportation was an unacceptable result of him overstaying his visa. It doesn't quite jibe with what I think an effective immigration policy would be in this particular instance, but it is what the law proscribes, so be it. To say that the willful, malicious, and criminal actions of others are also his fault is beyond the pale IMO.


Ack. I missed the part about why I went outside in your example. In that case it is fully relevant. Sorry about that. :-o Either example though, I'd have to shoulder the majority of the blame since it was my choice to break the law.

You're still reading into what I'm saying instead of what I'm actually saying though. I didn't say anyone else's actions were his responsibility, I'm saying if he hadn't broken the law, their actions never would have happened (if they did happen). In other words, If Mr. Ng hadn't broken the law, he wouldn't have been in custody, and the alleged abuse never would have occurred because it would have been impossible for him to allegedly be mistreated because he wouldn't have been in custody to begin with. If he hadn't broken the law, he'd be alive right now. So he's got to hold the majority of the blame/responsibility in this. There's just no way around that fact.

I'm not at odds with your timeline of events where overstaying visa --> arrest --> bad stuff. But when you talk of individual responsibility, the immigration employeees in question chose to act in the alleged fashion, making them responsible for their own actions and nobody else. You can't dually assign responsibility to one party who had no choice in the matter of decisions made by others outside of how the law should be applied to Ng. Responsibility for any actions taken against Ng that involve moving the deportation process from one stage to the next as proscribed by law can be assigned to Ng. Anything outside of that cannot; it has to be assigned to those making the direct decision to act outside the bounds of the law.
TennCare rocks!!!!
RugbyD
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe Ranker
Posts: 5591
(Past Year: 4)
Joined: 7 Dec 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: punting small dogs and being surly

Re: Three Cheers for the US Immigration Dept!

Postby Mookie4ever » Mon Aug 18, 2008 3:36 pm

Wow, that's a horrible story. Seems to me to go beyond negligent homicide. They were more than negligent, if the story is accurate then that is abuse and could be manslaughter.

Statue of Liberty wrote:"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"


Lady Liberty must be weeping. These people ought to be ashamed and a full investigation conducted and the book thrown at the offenders.
Image
Mookie4ever
Head Moderator
Head Moderator

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterHockey ModBasketball ModFootball ModMatchup Meltdown ChampionPick 3 Weekly WinnerSweet 16 SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 19486
(Past Year: 301)
Joined: 17 Dec 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Hakuna, Montana

Re: Three Cheers for the US Immigration Dept!

Postby Madison » Mon Aug 18, 2008 5:36 pm

RugbyD wrote:I'm not at odds with your timeline of events where overstaying visa --> arrest --> bad stuff. But when you talk of individual responsibility, the immigration employeees in question chose to act in the alleged fashion, making them responsible for their own actions and nobody else. You can't dually assign responsibility to one party who had no choice in the matter of decisions made by others outside of how the law should be applied to Ng. Responsibility for any actions taken against Ng that involve moving the deportation process from one stage to the next as proscribed by law can be assigned to Ng. Anything outside of that cannot; it has to be assigned to those making the direct decision to act outside the bounds of the law.


As I said earlier though, why is it you're "Gung Ho!" to blame the immigration department (if they did anything wrong, and I do agree that an investigation should be conducted to find out), yet you ignore Mr. Ng's responsibility in this? :-? How can you expect an institution of thousands (?) of people to be responsible for their actions when you give a free pass to individuals (Mr. Ng)?

That confuses me. Help?

And I'm not saying what the guards allegedly did was Mr. Ng's responsibility, simply that it would have been impossible for the guards to do what they allegedly did if Mr. Ng had simply followed the law to begin with. The timeline you used wouldn't have existed, none of it would have happened. So the majority of the responsibility or blame for this situation is squarely on his shoulders since he started the timeline by breaking the law.
Yes doctor, I am sick.
Sick of those who are spineless.
Sick of those who feel self-entitled.
Sick of those who are hypocrites.
Yes doctor, an army is forming.
Yes doctor, there will be a war.
Yes doctor, there will be blood.....
Madison
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
ExecutiveEditorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterInnovative MemberCafe MusketeerPick 3 ChampionMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 53856
(Past Year: 1)
Joined: 29 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Taking Souls...

PreviousNext

Return to General Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: incimussand, unioreimi and 4 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Today's Games
Sunday, Apr. 20
(All times are EST, weather icons show forecast for game time)

Toronto at Cleveland
(1:05 pm)
LA Angels at Detroit
(1:08 pm)
Seattle at Miami
(1:10 pm)
indoors
Atlanta at NY Mets
(1:10 pm)
Milwaukee at Pittsburgh
(1:35 pm)
St. Louis at Washington
(1:35 pm)
NY Yankees at Tampa Bay
(1:40 pm)
indoors
Minnesota at Kansas City
(2:10 pm)
Cincinnati at Chi Cubs
(2:20 pm)
Chi White Sox at Texas
(3:05 pm)
Houston at Oakland
(4:05 pm)
Philadelphia at Colorado
(4:10 pm)
Arizona at LA Dodgers
(4:10 pm)
San Francisco at San Diego
(4:10 pm)
Baltimore at Boston
(7:05 pm)

  • Fantasy Baseball
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact