Iowa City pastor being deported

[lucas80]

Interesting story on a national and local level. I know many of you will immediately go to your pre-assigned ideological corners on this one. But, it's an interesting case about our nations immigration and enforcement priorities. Max Villatoro has been in Eastern Iowa for 20 years. He is currently an outreach pastor at the 1st Mennonite Church in Iowa City. He was scooped up by ICE a few weeks ago and has recently been transferred to a federal facility in Louisiana. That's a lot of resources and expense for a pastor and father of four.

ICPC link

 

[22*43*51]

After 20 years you would have figured he would have found a way to become naturalized.

 

[CadeHawk]

Originally posted by 22*43*51:
After 20 years you would have figured he would have found a way to become naturalized.

Exactly!

 

[bagdropper]

Or, he didn't think it was important because our federal government doesn't truly think it's important - or hadn't back then.

 

[aflachawk]

Originally posted by lucas80:

Interesting story on a national and local level. I know many of you will immediately go to your pre-assigned ideological corners on this one. But, it's an interesting case about our nations immigration and enforcement priorities. Max Villatoro has been in Eastern Iowa for 20 years. He is currently an outreach pastor at the 1st Mennonite Church in Iowa City. He was scooped up by ICE a few weeks ago and has recently been transferred to a federal facility in Louisiana. That's a lot of resources and expense for a pastor and father of four.

It is an interesting story. I had read he was rounded up because of a felony in his background. It was a DWI from over 15 years ago. It seems since then he has become a much better person. To me, in this case, The crime does not fit the punishment

 

[wildcatdad]

Originally posted by aflachawk:

Originally posted by lucas80:

Interesting story on a national and local level. I know many of you will immediately go to your pre-assigned ideological corners on this one. But, it's an interesting case about our nations immigration and enforcement priorities. Max Villatoro has been in Eastern Iowa for 20 years. He is currently an outreach pastor at the 1st Mennonite Church in Iowa City. He was scooped up by ICE a few weeks ago and has recently been transferred to a federal facility in Louisiana. That's a lot of resources and expense for a pastor and father of four.

It is an interesting story. I had read he was rounded up because of a felony in his background. It was a DWI from over 15 years ago. It seems since then he has become a much better person. To me, in this case, The crime does not fit the punishment


Would a DWI have kept him from becoming a citizen?

 

[TJ8869]

I don't know where my pre-assigned ideological corner is. Can someone point me in the right direction, please?
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[INXS83]

I feel for this guy and his family. He's obviously turned his life around, but has a boo boo or 2 on his record. Did that prevent him from qualifying to become a citizen? Did he not even try to become a citizen fearing his past record would be dredged up and make him a target for ICE (which happened anyway)?

Why wasn't he detained years ago when he first got arrested? You would think the fact that he is not an American citizen would have set off some bells and whistles.

Now there are reports they are going to keep him down in the gulf for an extended stay and not send him back to Honduras as originally intended? WTH?

ICE hasn't got the memo about POTUS's amnesty plan yet, have they?

 

[St. Louis Hawk]

Originally posted by INXS83:



ICE hasn't got the memo about POTUS's amnesty plan yet, have they?

Republicans sued and won an injunction putting the plan in legal limbo right now.

 

[OtayLake Hawkeye]

Seems he probably missed several opportunities to naturalize. Maybe he was fine with just being a lawful alien.. Maybe more to the story than is being said........

 

[IMCC965]

Originally posted by OtayLake Hawkeye:
Seems he probably missed several opportunities to naturalize. Maybe he was fine with just being a lawful alien.. Maybe more to the story than is being said........

Lawful alien? If he's here illegally, then he's a criminal. Sounds like he had ample opportunity to become a citizen but just didn't find it too important. Too bad for him and his family. He was irresponsible and is now paying the price. Personal responsibility is a bitch.

And a DWI is a misdemeanor, not a felony.

 

[naturalmwa]

Originally posted by 22*43*51:
After 20 years you would have figured he would have found a way to become naturalized.

Shouldn't a citizen be able to have their father live with them with out regurad to the father's citizenship? That seems about as close to an inalienable right as I can think of.

 

[KennyPowers_96]

Originally posted by IMCC965:

Originally posted by OtayLake Hawkeye:
Seems he probably  missed several opportunities to naturalize.  Maybe he was fine with just being a lawful alien.. Maybe more to the story than is being said........

Lawful alien? If he's here illegally, then he's a criminal. Sounds like he had ample opportunity to become a citizen but just didn't find it too important. Too bad for him and his family. He was irresponsible and is now paying the price. Personal responsibility is a bitch.

And a DWI is a misdemeanor, not a felony.

20 years is quite a bit of time, he has no real excuse. Should he leave, while others that just got here get to stay? No, but that's another debate. Personal responsibility is key in this specific case.

Luckily for him, a few thousand dollars will have him back here in a few weeks.

Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[KitingHigh]

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by 22*43*51:
After 20 years you would have figured he would have found a way to become naturalized.

Shouldn't a citizen be able to have their father live with them with out regurad to the father's citizenship? That seems about as close to an inalienable right as I can think of.

The problem with that is anyone could sneak into the country and have an anchor baby to shortcut the entire immigration process.

 

[naturalmwa]

Originally posted by KitingHigh:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by 22*43*51:
After 20 years you would have figured he would have found a way to become naturalized.

Shouldn't a citizen be able to have their father live with them with out regurad to the father's citizenship? That seems about as close to an inalienable right as I can think of.

The problem with that is anyone could sneak into the country and have an anchor baby to shortcut the entire immigration process.

I'm sure that would happen a good deal. I'm not so sure that it would actually be such a problem however.

 

[22*43*51]

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by 22*43*51:
After 20 years you would have figured he would have found a way to become naturalized.

Shouldn't a citizen be able to have their father live with them with out regurad to the father's citizenship? That seems about as close to an inalienable right as I can think of.

I think a citizen should follow the law until the law changes.

It is important for me to provide for my family. So everyday I make an effort to not go to jail, or get thrown out of the country.

This gentleman should have done the same.

 

[FanOHawk]

1 down 12 million to go.

 

[wildcatdad]

Originally posted by FanOHawk:
1 down 12 million to go.

Yep, making progress 1 deportation at time.

 

[naturalmwa]

Originally posted by 22*43*51:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by 22*43*51:
After 20 years you would have figured he would have found a way to become naturalized.

Shouldn't a citizen be able to have their father live with them with out regurad to the father's citizenship? That seems about as close to an inalienable right as I can think of.

I think a citizen should follow the law until the law changes.

It is important for me to provide for my family. So everyday I make an effort to not go to jail, or get thrown out of the country.

This gentleman should have done the same.

I'm referring to his 4 citizen children. I think they have a right to have their father live with them, they haven't broken any laws. I also think civil disobedience is a respectable way to stand up to unjust laws. Laws that criminalize your existence seem unjust to me and are not powers I want the state to have.

Look at me being all anti-statist tonight. I'm going to blow the HROT libertarian contingent's minds.

 

[IMCC965]

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by 22*43*51:
After 20 years you would have figured he would have found a way to become naturalized.

Shouldn't a citizen be able to have their father live with them with out regurad to the father's citizenship? That seems about as close to an inalienable right as I can think of.

So what you're advocating is ANY criminal with kids should not go to jail simply because he/she has the right to be with their kids?

You're a smart guy, but this is a pretty dumb statement. The guy broke the law. Period. That makes him a criminal. ILLEGAL alien.

 

[naturalmwa]

Originally posted by IMCC965:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by 22*43*51:
After 20 years you would have figured he would have found a way to become naturalized.

Shouldn't a citizen be able to have their father live with them with out regurad to the father's citizenship? That seems about as close to an inalienable right as I can think of.

So what you're advocating is ANY criminal with kids should not go to jail simply because he/she has the right to be with their kids?

You're a smart guy, but this is a pretty dumb statement. The guy broke the law. Period. That makes him a criminal. ILLEGAL alien.

I just don't think the state should be able to criminalize a person's existence. Its fun being the small government guy in the debate for once, I see the appeal.

 

[22*43*51]

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

I think a citizen should follow the law until the law changes.

It is important for me to provide for my family. So everyday I make an effort to not go to jail, or get thrown out of the country.

This gentleman should have done the same.

I'm referring to his 4 citizen children. I think they have a right to have their father live with them, they haven't broken any laws. I also think civil disobedience is a respectable way to stand up to unjust laws. Laws that criminalize your existence seem unjust to me and are not powers I want the state to have.

Look at me being all anti-statist tonight. I'm going to blow the HROT libertarian contingent's minds.

I don't necessarly disagree.

However, the father had a legal path that would have allowed him to stay with his legal children.

Why didn't he take it? Why are you excusing him from not flowing the legal path?

 

[22*43*51]

Further.

My children are legal citizens.

Does that make it right for me to renounce my citizenship and break laws I don't personally agree with?

There is not much difference between your feelings of righteousness from anarchy.

 

[naturalmwa]

Originally posted by 22*43*51:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

I think a citizen should follow the law until the law changes.

It is important for me to provide for my family. So everyday I make an effort to not go to jail, or get thrown out of the country.

This gentleman should have done the same.

I'm referring to his 4 citizen children. I think they have a right to have their father live with them, they haven't broken any laws. I also think civil disobedience is a respectable way to stand up to unjust laws. Laws that criminalize your existence seem unjust to me and are not powers I want the state to have.

Look at me being all anti-statist tonight. I'm going to blow the HROT libertarian contingent's minds.

I don't necessarly disagree.

However, the father had a legal path that would have allowed him to stay with his legal children.

Why didn't he take it? Why are you excusing him from not flowing the legal path?

Predominantly because I think the state has made the legal path too onerous. I think it should be as easy as a citizen sponsoring a family member for that family member to stay. IMO, if you have a close relative who is a citizen you should be allowed to stay indefinitely. What compelling state interest is being served by breaking up this family? I can see where the state might have a minor security and economic interest here, but I think both of those pale in comparison to the fundamental right of being able to keep your family together. I think our current policy is unjust and does more harm than good.

 

[22*43*51]

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by 22*43*51:

I don't necessarly disagree.

However, the father had a legal path that would have allowed him to stay with his legal children.

Why didn't he take it? Why are you excusing him from not flowing the legal path?

Predominantly because I think the state has made the legal path too onerous. I think it should be as easy as a citizen sponsoring a family member for that family member to stay. IMO, if you have a close relative who is a citizen you should be allowed to stay indefinitely. What compelling state interest is being served by breaking up this family? I can see where the state might have a minor security and economic interest here, but I think both of those pale in comparison to the fundamental right of being able to keep your family together. I think our current policy is unjust and does more harm than good.

Again. I don't necissaiy disagree. But, until the law changes you are advocating lawlessness by personal discretion.

 

[HallofFame]

I can't wait for the rest of Iowa to look like Denison and Storm Lake.

 

[naturalmwa]

Originally posted by 22*43*51:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by 22*43*51:

I don't necessarly disagree.

However, the father had a legal path that would have allowed him to stay with his legal children.

Why didn't he take it? Why are you excusing him from not flowing the legal path?

Predominantly because I think the state has made the legal path too onerous. I think it should be as easy as a citizen sponsoring a family member for that family member to stay. IMO, if you have a close relative who is a citizen you should be allowed to stay indefinitely. What compelling state interest is being served by breaking up this family? I can see where the state might have a minor security and economic interest here, but I think both of those pale in comparison to the fundamental right of being able to keep your family together. I think our current policy is unjust and does more harm than good.

Again. I don't necissaiy disagree. But, until the law changes you are advocating lawlessness by personal discretion.

I'm OK with the concept of nullification of unjust laws. Its one way for nonviolent revolution. Its dramatic enough to spur change and still open enough to be subject to checks and balances. I consider it an essential feature democratic societies should, even must avail themselves if they are to remain just and free.

Here you have a minority being unjustly oppressed, IMO. For political reasons, the politicians are not likely to champion their cause. For legal reasons the courts are not going to side with them. They don't have a legitimate path to redress this wrong. Its up to some ICE official to simply refuse to enforce this unjust law and for bureaucrats to close ranks to protect that decision. At that point the system will be forced to face the injustice and come to terms. Nullification is a legitimate and honorable path for change IMO. Its not exactly lawless nor personal as its still done openly within a system that will be forced to react even if the reaction is simply to allow the nullification.

 

[22*43*51]

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Here you have a minority being unjustly oppressed, IMO.

It hard to claim a "gotcha" move by the government after 20 years.

My brother in-law is an expatriot from Idian. These stories frustrate him and his naturalized friends more than they do me.

Even in a clumsy system he was still able to gain citizenship(prior to meeting my sister, no pic) after 7 years of setting foot in the country on a work visa.

He never understands the victim stance adopted by Illegal aliens when the chose not to follow the legal path.

 

[jthawk]

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by 22*43*51:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by 22*43*51:

I don't necessarly disagree. 

However, the father had a legal path that would have allowed him to stay with his legal children. 

Why didn't he take it?  Why are you excusing him from not flowing the legal path?

Predominantly because I think the state has made the legal path too onerous.  I think it should be as easy as a citizen sponsoring a family member for that family member to stay.  IMO, if you have a close relative who is a citizen you should be allowed to stay indefinitely.  What compelling state interest is being served by breaking up this family?  I can see where the state might have a minor security and economic interest here, but I think both of those pale in comparison to the fundamental right of being able to keep your family together.  I think our current policy is unjust and does more harm than good. 

Again. I don't necissaiy disagree. But, until the law changes you are advocating lawlessness by personal discretion. 

I'm OK with the concept of nullification of unjust laws.  Its one way for nonviolent revolution.  Its dramatic enough to spur change and still open enough to be subject to checks and balances.  I consider it an essential feature democratic societies should, even must avail themselves if they are to remain just and free.

Here you have a minority being unjustly oppressed, IMO.  For political reasons, the politicians are not likely to champion their cause.  For legal reasons the courts are not going to side with them.  They don't have a legitimate path to redress this wrong.  Its up to some ICE official to simply refuse to enforce this unjust law and for bureaucrats to close ranks to protect that decision.  At that point the system will be forced to face the injustice and come to terms.  Nullification is a legitimate and honorable path for change IMO.  Its not exactly lawless nor personal as its still done openly within a system that will be forced to react even if the reaction is simply to allow the nullification. 

Unjust according to who? It is a slippery slope. I feel bad for this man and I hope things turn out well for him but "unjust" is clearly in the eye of the beholder.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[naturalmwa]

Originally posted by jthawk:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by 22*43*51:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by 22*43*51:

I don't necessarly disagree.Â

However, the father had a legal path that would have allowed him to stay with his legal children.Â

Why didn't he take it? Â Why are you excusing him from not flowing the legal path?

Predominantly because I think the state has made the legal path too onerous. I think it should be as easy as a citizen sponsoring a family member for that family member to stay. IMO, if you have a close relative who is a citizen you should be allowed to stay indefinitely. What compelling state interest is being served by breaking up this family? I can see where the state might have a minor security and economic interest here, but I think both of those pale in comparison to the fundamental right of being able to keep your family together. I think our current policy is unjust and does more harm than good.Â

Again. I don't necissaiy disagree. But, until the law changes you are advocating lawlessness by personal discretion.Â

I'm OK with the concept of nullification of unjust laws. Its one way for nonviolent revolution. Its dramatic enough to spur change and still open enough to be subject to checks and balances. I consider it an essential feature democratic societies should, even must avail themselves if they are to remain just and free.

Here you have a minority being unjustly oppressed, IMO. For political reasons, the politicians are not likely to champion their cause. For legal reasons the courts are not going to side with them. They don't have a legitimate path to redress this wrong. Its up to some ICE official to simply refuse to enforce this unjust law and for bureaucrats to close ranks to protect that decision. At that point the system will be forced to face the injustice and come to terms. Nullification is a legitimate and honorable path for change IMO. Its not exactly lawless nor personal as its still done openly within a system that will be forced to react even if the reaction is simply to allow the nullification.Â

Unjust according to who? It is a slippery slope. I feel bad for this man and I hope things turn out well for him but "unjust" is clearly in the eye of the beholder.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

Of course it is, where else would justice start? But it doesn't stay in the eye of just one beholder as I already explained. It always takes a hero to start us on the path toward doing the right thing does it not?

 

[22*43*51]

You're calling this man a hero now Natural?

The term that keeps coming to my mind is irresponsible.

 

[naturalmwa]

Originally posted by 22*43*51:
You're calling this man a hero now Natural?

The term that keeps coming to my mind is irresponsible.

No, I'm calling a person who would refuse to enforce unjust laws or carry out unjust orders a hero.

 

[22*43*51]

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by 22*43*51:
You're calling this man a hero now Natural?

The term that keeps coming to my mind is irresponsible.

No, I'm calling a person who would refuse to enforce unjust laws or carry out unjust orders a hero.

You have already painted this man as oppressed and the process as unjust.

So he fits your heroic discription outlined in this thread. That is taking this incident to emotionally extreme levels.

 

[jthawk]

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by jthawk:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by 22*43*51:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by 22*43*51:

I don't necessarly disagree. 

However, the father had a legal path that would have allowed him to stay with his legal children. 

Why didn't he take it?  Why are you excusing him from not flowing the legal path?

Predominantly because I think the state has made the legal path too onerous.  I think it should be as easy as a citizen sponsoring a family member for that family member to stay.  IMO, if you have a close relative who is a citizen you should be allowed to stay indefinitely.  What compelling state interest is being served by breaking up this family?  I can see where the state might have a minor security and economic interest here, but I think both of those pale in comparison to the fundamental right of being able to keep your family together.  I think our current policy is unjust and does more harm than good. 

Again. I don't necissaiy disagree. But, until the law changes you are advocating lawlessness by personal discretion. 

I'm OK with the concept of nullification of unjust laws.  Its one way for nonviolent revolution.  Its dramatic enough to spur change and still open enough to be subject to checks and balances.  I consider it an essential feature democratic societies should, even must avail themselves if they are to remain just and free.

Here you have a minority being unjustly oppressed, IMO.  For political reasons, the politicians are not likely to champion their cause.  For legal reasons the courts are not going to side with them.  They don't have a legitimate path to redress this wrong.  Its up to some ICE official to simply refuse to enforce this unjust law and for bureaucrats to close ranks to protect that decision.  At that point the system will be forced to face the injustice and come to terms.  Nullification is a legitimate and honorable path for change IMO.  Its not exactly lawless nor personal as its still done openly within a system that will be forced to react even if the reaction is simply to allow the nullification. 

Unjust according to who? It is a slippery slope. I feel bad for this man and I hope things turn out well for him but "unjust" is clearly in the eye of the beholder.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

Of course it is, where else would justice start?  But it doesn't stay in the eye of just one beholder as I already explained.  It always takes a hero to start us on the path toward doing the right thing does it not?

Or a zealot to attack windmills. Again, it depends on your point of view. In this case I have mixed emotions, but you can find people who are passionate about many "unjust" laws which are really not unjust at all. That's why we follow the law until it is appropriately changed. Otherwise we just have chaos.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[naturalmwa]

Originally posted by 22*43*51:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by 22*43*51:
You're calling this man a hero now Natural?

The term that keeps coming to my mind is irresponsible.

No, I'm calling a person who would refuse to enforce unjust laws or carry out unjust orders a hero.

You have already painted this man as oppressed and the process as unjust.

So he fits your heroic discription outlined in this thread. That is taking this incident to emotionally extreme levels.

This is an odd response to insist that I mean something that I just explained is not what I mean. I suppose this victim could have been heroic if he was purposefully flaunting the unjust law to draw attention to the injustice. I don't think that's what he was doing however. For me a hero is a bit higher bar than your definition.

 

[naturalmwa]

Originally posted by jthawk:
Or a zealot to attack windmills. Again, it depends on your point of view. In this case I have mixed emotions, but you can find people who are passionate about many "unjust" laws which are really not unjust at all. That's why we follow the law until it is appropriately changed. Otherwise we just have chaos.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

But these windmills are protected with barriers, checks and balances, so its not the lackadaisical or chaotic penchant for personal predilections you propose. There's a cost, a risk and a review that justifies and regulates this approach.

 

[jthawk]

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by jthawk:
Or a zealot to attack windmills. Again, it depends on your point of view. In this case I have mixed emotions, but you can find people who are passionate about many "unjust" laws which are really not unjust at all. That's why we follow the law until it is appropriately changed. Otherwise we just have chaos.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

But these windmills are protected with barriers, checks and balances, so its not the lackadaisical or chaotic penchant for personal predilections you propose.  There's a cost, a risk and a review that justifies and regulates this approach. 

Yeah. To be honest I don't think we are in violent disagreement here. Even though the Pastor made some bad choices here, I hope things work out for he and his family.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[aflachawk]

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by 22*43*51:
After 20 years you would have figured he would have found a way to become naturalized.

Shouldn't a citizen be able to have their father live with them with out regurad to the father's citizenship?  That seems about as close to an inalienable right as I can think of. 

So a father living with a person is an inalienable right? That's why people come here and anchor babies.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[naturalmwa]

Originally posted by aflachawk:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by 22*43*51:
After 20 years you would have figured he would have found a way to become naturalized.

Shouldn't a citizen be able to have their father live with them with out regurad to the father's citizenship? That seems about as close to an inalienable right as I can think of.Â

So a father living with a person is an inalienable right? That's why people come here and anchor babies.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

Yes think its a pretty basic right to have your family live with you, don't you? It seems to me I'm arguing a pretty small government, pro individual rights, traditional family values position in this thread and getting lots of push back from people who claim to value those principles. What principle are you prioritizing here that leads you to a different conclusion?

 

[OtayLake Hawkeye]

Originally posted by IMCC965:

Originally posted by OtayLake Hawkeye:
Seems he probably missed several opportunities to naturalize. Maybe he was fine with just being a lawful alien.. Maybe more to the story than is being said........

Lawful alien? If he's here illegally, then he's a criminal. Sounds like he had ample opportunity to become a citizen but just didn't find it too important. Too bad for him and his family. He was irresponsible and is now paying the price. Personal responsibility is a bitch.

And a DWI is a misdemeanor, not a felony.

A lawful alien is a non citizen, living here with a green card.