What was our rationale for wanting to continue to host immigrants after they were convicted of crimes?

by philg

“Man Who’d Served His Time in U.S. Is Deported to an African Prison” (New York Times, September 1, 2025):

Mr. Etoria came to the United States [from Jamaica] on a green card in 1976 at age 12. He joined his mother, who had been sponsored by a family she worked for as a nanny, said Ms. McKen, his aunt. He had tough times early in life, she said. He saw his mother flee from his abusive father. In the United States, he struggled to adjust and was bullied in school, she said.

Mr. Etoria has a history of drug abuse, which he has blamed in part on head injuries he suffered as a child. He was also diagnosed with schizophrenia. Doctors noted that he has exhibited violent outbursts, hallucinations and paranoia, according to court records.

He was arrested in 1981 on charges of attempted murder, robbery and kidnapping. During a psychiatric evaluation, he said he could not remember exactly what happened, according to court records. He pleaded guilty and served three years in prison.

More than a decade later, Mr. Etoria walked into a leather goods shop and shot the victim three times in the head, according to Brooklyn court records. The motive was never determined, and there was no indication that he knew the victim or that the crime was gang-related.

I’m trying to figure out what our rationale has been for wanting to keep an immigrant after he “served three years in prison” for “attempted murder, robbery and kidnapping.” Why didn’t we deport him back to Jamaica in the 1980s, before he had a chance to commit murder? The U.S. government had the right to deport him, I think, but a bureaucrat somewhere concluded that American citizens would somehow be better off keeping Mr. Etoria as a neighbor?

Here’s a good window into how the female humans of America are implementing Charles Darwin’s sexual selection:

Since leaving prison in 2021, Mr. Etoria, a father of three adult children, has spoken regularly with his aunt, she said.

I.e., the schizophrenic convicted criminal has enjoyed far greater reproductive success than the typical American male who works 50 hours per week, pays taxes, and has never been arrested. Maybe that actually was the rationale for keeping him around? American women want to breed with convicted criminals and there aren’t enough native-born criminals to meet the demand for genetic material?

Note that the subject of the above-referenced article is not about what happened in the 1980s, but rather about the cruel Trump administration that has deported Orville Etoria to Eswatini, formerly Swaziland.

What amazes me almost as much as the idea that Americans in the 1980s couldn’t live without being enriched by a convicted criminal’s continued residence is the ability of the U.S. economy to survive Mr. Etoria and millions of similarly situated enrichers. Taxpayers have been funding shelter, food, security, etc. for Mr. Etoria almost every year since at least 1981 when he was first arrested. Taxpayers are continuing to fund shelter, food, and security for Mr. Etoria now that he lives in Eswatini. U.S. taxpayers are also funding migrant-to-migrant interactions, e.g., “Three victims of Florida 18-wheeler U-turn crash ID’d as Haitian immigrants” (New York Post):

The three victims of the Indian immigrant truck driver who made an illegal U-turn across a Florida highway earlier this month have been identified as Haitian immigrants, according to officials.

The driver Herby Dufresne, 30, and passengers Faniola Joseph, 27, and Rodrigue Dor, 53, all Haitian immigrants, were in their minivan when it plowed into the side of an 18-wheeler driven by Harjinder Singh, an immigrant from India, on Aug. 12, the Miami Herald reported.

(I’m not sure what the argument for keeping the enricher Harjinder Singh here in the U.S. was. India is home to 1.45 billion humans, a number that grows every year, and also India is too dangerous for any human to occupy?)

24 thoughts on “What was our rationale for wanting to continue to host immigrants after they were convicted of crimes?”

  1. > Why didn’t we deport him back to Jamaica in the 1980s, before he had a chance to commit murder?

    Because Reagan was a liberal? 🙂 I heard in Jamaica, like Wyoming, they shoot back:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Tosh#Murder

    our deported schizophrenic subject probably wouldn’t have lasted long there. Tosh’s son Jawara didn’t do too well in a U.S. jail:

    https://www.jamaicaobserver.com/2020/07/20/peter-toshs-beaten-son-dies/

    If Mr. Etoria really had schizophrenia, why wasn’t he in a hospital (Reagan closed a lot of those) until cured? A schizophrenia diagnosis is punishment in itself, with unpleasant outcomes, on-meds or not.

    Everyone should have due process, as a human right–however, why aren’t people scrutinizing the countries they are from with the same zeal as the U.S? What would Jamaica do if the situation were reversed? What about the human right to live in a country without the fear of murderers out loose?

    No easy answers, as usual.

  2. Have there been any stories about people doing good deeds who “could not remember exactly what happened.”

    E.g., “I guess I gave my car away to this unhoused person, but I don’t remember”

    • > people doing good deeds who could not remember exactly what happened.

      Twice I forgot to set the alarm and chain down my Acuras, and some needy car-booster gangstas (not sure if they were housed–probably better than mine) got some VTEC charity, does that count? I learned the police don’t even investigate car theft anymore.

  3. Illegal migrants and asylum seekers — yes, the vast majority are not legitimate cases, since you cannot claim asylum simply because your government fails to protect you from gangs in your home country — are finally starting to sink in with citizens. People across Europe and the UK are pushing back and demanding more from their governments.

    “In nations across the European Union, centrists are joining staunch conservatives to roll back protections in an effort to make it easier to deport illegal migrants. Denmark’s “zero” refugee policy has become a model other leaders want to replicate. European Union officials are working on new rules that would help to send asylum seekers to third countries. The bloc struck a recent deal to deploy agents in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which is not an E.U. member, to better police borders.” [1]

    “The men, an Iraqi Kurd whose asylum application is under appeal, and another from Afghanistan, both didn’t want to be identified for safety reasons. The Afghan says he fled his country because a family member had fought for the Afghan army against the Taliban.” [2]

    As for not deporting Mr. Etoria in 1981, back in the ’80s, ’90s, and even the 2000s, the influx of illegal migrants was nowhere near what it is today. At that time, deportation was not seen as a necessary measure to deter illegal migration.

    [1] https://archive.ph/uAKqz
    [2] https://archive.ph/f3rUz

    • I’ve been looking for asylum from the tyranny of the U.S. for years, which is, as we all know, the worst country in the world, except for perhaps every other one. That’s why they all want to get in. Seems like with Trump we have reached some positive pressure, outwards–but at what cost? With so many damn people on the planet, freedom, justice, and democracy have been reduced to ideal gas laws:

      pV = nRT

  4. Speaking of legal immigration to the U.S.

    A close friend of mine filed an I-130, Petition for Alien Relative, back in 2008 to bring his brother and family to the U.S. Two weeks ago — after 19 years of waiting — he finally received a letter from the Department of State’s National Visa Center. It informed him that their case is now current, and it is time to complete the Affidavit of Support (by the petitioner in the U.S.), submit background check documents, provide medical exams, and then, if all is approved, prepare for an in-person interview at the U.S. consulate. If everything checks out, only then will the visas be issued. That process will take another 9–12 months.

    Good news after 19 years of waiting, right? Especially when immigrating legally from Syria. But now the family is torn apart and in limbo. Why? They have three children, and the oldest daughter is now 22 years and 10 months old. The law states that only children under 21 can immigrate with the family. Even with the protections of the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA), she no longer qualifies.

    So here they are, forced to decide: leave their oldest daughter behind, risk sending her illegally, or give up on immigrating to the U.S. altogether.

    • Phil, a little secret I want to share (on the down low): we “collect” illegals of all sorts so they will vote for us. Comprende?

    • Thank you, Hunter, and I hope that one day you are able to purchase a laptop computer (I am informed by qualified experts and the New York Times that you never previously owned one).

      Are you sure that importing voters is a complete explanation? That doesn’t explain why Americans actually prefer to hold onto immigrants who need to spend years in the hospital (ones who would immediately be rejected by Australia as a burden on scarce health care resources). A low-skill/no-skill immigrant who will be forever on welfare and grateful to the party that provides the welfare makes sense, but not one who will occupy 20 physicians for 10 years.

    • Phil, Obamacare was designed precisely for the hypothetical illegal you describe (20 doctors etc.). Free healthcare is a human right and one that our voters support because that program made it so affordable. Comprende?

    • @philg

      > Crowded, cramped, horrendous, filthy, deplorable.

      Sounds like my freshman dorm. Cute kitties though, I hope they get a good forever home with a cat lady. Cats behind bars and allegedly murderous, psychotic immigrants not? Thanks H.B.

    • @philg I think you’re onto something when you say it’s for emotional reasons. Obviously, mentally ill felons (and hopefully non-citizens in general) aren’t going to be voting much, so that’s probably not it.
      There are a certain number of people who materially benefit from a population of dependents. (Paper pushers, case-workers, cops, charity organizations) But it’s pretty cynical to suggest they are running the show.
      There are a large number of sentimentalists who believe that taking in strays is the most important thing they can do, and sometimes they don’t even mind if they bite. Maybe it’s some kind of coalition. It certainly doesn’t seem rational.

    • SM: Here’s one from today https://x.com/visegrad24/status/1966502707306360843

      An illegal migrant and repeat offender has beheaded an Indian man in Texas.

      37-year-old Yordanis Cobos-Martinez, a Cuban national with a lengthy prior criminal record, murdered 50-year-old Bob Nagamallaiah in front of a hotel in Dallas.

      Yordanis was released from an ICE facility in January this year and should have been deported to Cuba.

      However, Cuba refused to receive the deportation flight, arguing that Yordanis was a violent repeat offender.

      ——————–

      In other words, the Cuban government was far more interested in protecting its citizens/residents than the U.S. government. It’s also interesting to me for the migrant-kills-migrant angle. Migrants claim asylum here in the U.S. because their home countries are purportedly too dangerous. Then the U.S. welcomes all of the people who made those home countries dangerous.

    • @philg

      I asked the Thunberg Foundation if they thought Sweden would take me as a refugee from the U.S.–I’m apparently a member of the last category of humans it is OK to oppress. I’d like to hang out in a government subsidized apartment in Stockholm, getting fat on Swedish welfare bennies–they are a little oppressive about the weed and they have a king, but you can’t have everything. You should have heard their laugh from across the Atlantic. Cuba? You gotta be kidding me.

      Has a refugee into the U.S. ever gone back into the 3rd world hole they came from, after a more welcoming regime change? I really doubt it. Fix your own damn countries, people–if that response is good enough for me, it’s good enough for you, trust me.

    • That’s super easy, SP! The rationale for Trump voters was, presumably, that they thought he’d do a better job than Kamala Harris. (The rationale for those who voted for Trump over, e.g., DeSantis and Nikki Haley, in the primary was, presumably, that they wanted to make Philip Greenspun look like an idiot.)

    • Hola,

      “wanting” -> “having no other choice than”

      Vaya con Harris, amigo/amiga/amigX!

      —

      Then our demo expert Willie Blew got arrested
      came out with his head hanging under his hoody
      “Didn’t know they started doing that for jumping the turnstiles,” he said.
      “How many times must we tell you… Don’t.. get.. caught.”
      — Brooklyn Funk Essentials, “The Revolution Was Postponed Due to Rain”

    • PG:

      Philip Greenspun doesn’t look like an idiot. Rationality does, in the short-term. That’s a law of Nature, and how it prevents us from renouncing the world and becoming a monk, Dr. Greenspun.

    • That’s a pretty big stretch for the supposed party of “law and order.” More likely just some good old fashioned racism plus sexism was enough to overcome the lengthy list of criminal convictions, sexual assault and fraud judgements, rampant obstruction of justice, and election interference. Maybe the wake of bankrupt companies and love of dictators was just too enticing. If you’re serious about crime, why not elect an actual prosecutor, DA and state AG?

      Because republicans don’t really have an issue with criminals, it’s just a convenient cover to do some racism. Trump got folks all excited to do some deportations, and Mexicans are the new Jews–cures everything that ails ya.

    • Señor Pablo:

      ¿Cómo está usted?

      > republicans

      The word “Republicans” should be capitalized. It is a proper noun in this context because it refers to members of the political party, and not the abstract concept. Not doing so could be considered microagressive partisanship or evidence of being a Democrat. But I’ve repeated myself.

      Salud.

    • #AnonymousToo — bien, gracias. Had to look that up as I failed Spanish. Thanks for the tip regarding capitalization of political parties. I wasn’t particularly strong in English academics either.

    • @Senorpablo

      American voters already had experience with Trump in his first term. In 2020, they rejected him and chose Biden. But in 2024, they swung back to Trump, by an even wider margin, even after more faults and controversies had come to light.

      Say what you will about Trump and Republicans, but the reality is clear: voters saw Trump and the Republicans as far, far less evil compared to what Democrats delivered under Biden and promised to continue under Harris. If you don’t understand that, then it is time for you and for Democrats to do some serious soul-searching.

      You and the Democrats are still crying over your loss, blaming the other party, while refusing to accept that it is your own policies and actions that are driving Americans away from the Democratic Party!

Comments are closed.