“5,000 Miles, 8 Countries: The Path to the U.S. Through One Family’s Eyes” (New York Times, July 8, 2024) gives readers some details on the process by which the U.S. is enriched culturally and economically:
Mr. Aguilar embodied that paradox. He set off for the United States with a turbulent past as a soldier, police officer and bodyguard in Venezuela, and after a prison stint that could derail his chances of securing asylum.
Using a mobile app that the Biden administration has relied on to curb illegal crossings, the family had secured a coveted appointment to enter the United States legally the next day — the first step for many migrants seeking asylum.
The undocumented turn out to have…. documents:
After entering so many countries illegally, the family’s final border crossing was to be entirely lawful. But that did little to ease their nerves as federal officers began to check their passports, take fingerprints and photographs, and swab their cheeks for DNA.
Here’s the core of the story for today’s question:
Mr. Aguilar was part of a SWAT-like unit that specialized in taking down organized crime when, as a 21-year-old police officer, he was arrested and charged in 2010 with abusing his authority.
Venezuelan prosecutors accused him of participating in an armed shakedown of someone who owed his friend money. The friend and Mr. Aguilar, said to be carrying another officer’s gun, were accused of holding several people at gunpoint and stealing money and bottles of whiskey. Mr. Aguilar was charged with aggravated robbery, extortion and embezzlement, according to the few court documents available online.
Mr. Aguilar says Venezuelan prosecutors distorted the charges and that he and his friend weren’t violent [other than holding people at gunpoint?]. In court documents, he portrayed himself as accompanying his friend for backup. He eventually served two years in prison, he said.
At the U.S. border, background checks did not appear to turn up Mr. Aguilar’s criminal past. The family was released on parole — a status that allows migrants without visas to live and work in the country as their asylum cases wind through the courts.
Mr. Aguilar’s first court appearance before an immigration judge is scheduled for April 2025. He doesn’t know how he intends to deal with his past: The government can bar asylum for people convicted of serious crimes, and Mr. Aguilar would have to disclose his record on his asylum application.
The U.S. doesn’t have electronic access to records of criminal convictions in countries around the world. Thus, there is no way for the U.S. to exclude convicted criminals from the open border/asylum system. The NYT describes a New American (“Bidenmerican”?) who probably shouldn’t be allowed to own a gun, having previously been convicted of a “gun crime”, and for whom there will be no practical obstacle to legal gun ownership (except maybe the US immigration bureaucrats will read the New York Times and learn about Mr. Aguilar’s colorful past?).
That’s the big question for today, especially for the gun nut readers (you know who you are!). How can the Second Amendment survive the importation of over 100 million who’ve been selected for nothing other than a willingness to walk over the southern border (59 million arrived between 1965 and 2015 (Pew))? Reasonable people won’t want immigrants with criminal backgrounds owning guns. Democrats, at least, won’t want immigrants treated differently than native-born Americans. Why wouldn’t a majority of Americans come to agree that, therefore, no private citizen should be allowed to own a gun?
The article has some other interesting items:
Mr. Aguilar left Venezuela about six years ago, part of a flight of more than seven million people who have escaped a once-wealthy country where the economy collapsed and crime skyrocketed under President Nicolás Maduro.
Three years later, Mr. Aguilar found himself in Chile, where he sparked a romance with Ms. Ortega, who is also Venezuelan, and they blended their families. Ms. Ortega left behind a 13-year-old daughter in Ecuador because she was too sick to travel.
Both of the adults whom Joe Biden invited in have a history of splitting up with their co-parents. I wonder if Ms. Ortega’s former co-parent would have predicted this continuation of Venezuela’s rich baseball tradition…
But the parents were still stressing about their future, and their relationship continued to fray. One night in mid-April, Ms. Ortega grabbed a baseball bat and swung at Mr. Aguilar, hitting his hands. She said it happened in the heat of the moment. Mr. Aguilar was not injured and did not hit back.
She was arrested on a misdemeanor charge of disorderly conduct, and a protective order was issued to keep Ms. Ortega away from Mr. Aguilar. He lost his carpentry job, and the family was forced from the [free nonprofit-provided] house. Mr. Aguilar was placed in a shelter for domestic violence victims with his children, Samuel and Hayli; Ms. Ortega was set up elsewhere with Josué, her son.
Now the U.S. taxpayer was supporting two households.
In early March, the family received more welcome news: Ms. Ortega was pregnant.
In 18 years, therefore, both parents will be entitled to green cards and, eventually, citizenship. (Today’s anchor baby, on turning 18, has the right to obtain permanent residence for his/her/zir/their parents.)
Related…
How can a country have a right to bear arms and also an open border? Seems to work in Somalia!
Rights to bear arms is necessary to defend against alien gangs!
https://sentinelcolorado.com/metro/aurora-cops-counter-social-media-accounts-of-unruly-throng-at-aurora-shopping-center-watching-venezuelan-election-results/
AURORA | Amid reports of gunfire and lawlessness, police and Aurora city officials say they’re continuing to sort out what happened Sunday evening in the parking lot of an Aurora shopping mall as 3,000-4,000 people gathered while awaiting Venezuela presidential election votes.
And this… https://nypost.com/2024/07/30/us-news/venezuelan-gang-tren-de-aragua-gives-green-light-to-shoot-denver-cops/
How can a country have an open border and 2nd Amendment ? Like US had in 19th century. Unfortunately early 20th century immigration resulted in severe curtailing of personal liberties including right to keep and bear arms, at least in East Coast cities. This also resulted in citizen disconnect from actual government and border cituation that we have now. We need to get back to basics
Immigration in 19th century was limited by travel being difficult and expensive, and, away from established routes, far more dangerous than today. Additionally, there were fewer people to begin with (much lower population in the entire world), so that must also have limited numbers. What worked then may not work now.
Anon 2, In 19th century, nobody promised other peoples money to lure future voters from half way across the world. And if criminal gang crossed the border, it did not travel all way to Washington DC, a local self-armed posse formed to catch it, with participation of local lawmen, open border or not. Beats trillion-dollar government program that flies foreign criminal gangs and terrorists from overseas across America, and limits enforcement to only when we have over 20,000 potential criminals crossing per day.
Mom is a hottie. Bring in more & leave their husbands behind.
This is the way.
Do I understand correctly that US immigration officers would have no way of knowing his or her criminal past except for that fact that they described it in detail to the New York Times?? This does not seem particularly smart.
Perhaps we’re thinking too narrowly, in our whataboutitis fetish we like to engage in here. I’ve often wondered how migration happened worldwide, seemingly without any discussion, referendum, etc on the part of native citizens. Then, in a true black helicopter moment, the answer occurred to me – there never was any policy decision made, just the herd started moving. Here in the US, I’m sure there is some lemonade from lemons thinking – what exactly is the trade space between some mayhem (your 2A concerns) vs having to staff an Army with new cannon fodder, workers for the munitions plants, and the entire ecosystem of food prep, housing construction, etc. If I was thinking about how to roll my sleeves up, and get the US involved in ground wars in Israel, Taiwan, Europe, Africa, I’d be worried about the physical state of our locally grown cannon fodder (as has been extensively documented here: W&B problems among most citizens, essential weed (shoot straight?), pronoun badges for uniforms, and so on). Versus offering our new guests great rewards for slinging some lead in the prescribed directions. A migrant that walked some distance (TV doesn’t lie, correct) is probably in good enough shape to carry a backpack, plate armor, and weapon in Gaza.
Personally, I’d be thinking about putting up some “No Firearms or Weapons” signs, in multiple languages, around the mansion there. That should address any concerns about gun nuts!
Anyways, great question. Quick take: no one thought through the externalities.
Mouse, you thinking 19th century, when immigrants joined rank of United States Army right off the boat. Today immigrants are more precious, US and European world posture drops as they get more foreigners.
UK for example not able to equip one battalion fighting group for land war in Europe. And at the moment it seems to be switching sides. So it is for the best for UK to have weak military. A warning for US, which is afflicted with similar malise
Perplexed: yes, you are correct. ‘Mouse has not kept up with his mandated government firmware updates ever since the manganese nodules incident.
I know this point is extrema, but here we go.
Leave out guns and tanks of Putin’s army and explain to me the difference between the two.
What’s the different between illegal migrant walking into a country, unchecked compared to Putin’s army walking into Ukraine unchecked?
Why is the US and the world standing against Putin’s army but is not against illegal migrants?