The law of unintended consequences ALWAYS works:
It was a story that touched the hearts of Minnesotans. But now it has taken a surprising turn, in Boston.
A homeless, 22-year-old, undocumented immigrant from Mexico was found secretly living inside a Twin Cities high school last year, using the showers and foraging for cafeteria food. Francisco Javier Serrano's story captivated the news media there and moved a wealthy developer to provide him with money, an immigration attorney, and a rent-free apartment overlooking downtown Minneapolis.
But immigration officials ordered Serrano back to Mexico. Officials believed that he boarded a plane for his home country Jan. 5, and it seemed to be a closed case.
Then, two weeks ago, a tenant in Boston's North End heard a sound inside his apartment. A man with a knife had broken in. The tenant struck the intruder with a kitchen pan, and police responded to find Serrano and the tenant in a struggle, authorities said.
Now, Serrano sits in Suffolk County Jail facing charges of home invasion. And authorities, the friends he made in Minnesota, and even his mother in Mexico City are trying to figure out how and why the baby-faced, quiet man ended up in a stranger's apartment in Boston.
''I'm absolutely shocked," said Rochelle Barrett, who along with her husband, the developer Basim Sabri, hired an immigration lawyer for Serrano. ''I never saw this side of him. I never thought he could be capable of doing something like this."
Really? You never thought that a man who broke laws to get into this country would, well, break a law once in the country? Yeah, I'm shocked as all get out...
Part of the problem of the rampant illegal immigration is that we don't know who is coming in - whereas if we gain strict control of our border we can let in as many as we like (heck, as many as come in now, if we like) but we'll be able to know who they are and, perhaps, be able to do some background checking. People don't just suddenly grab a knife and go into other people's homes. This man, I'll bet dollars to donuts, has some sort of record down in Mexico...it could be, after all, that he came here in order to avoid discovery/prosecution in Mexico.
What is annoying - and quite pathetic - is how this man "touched hearts" - for crying out loud, he had broken laws. There's a term for people who break the law: criminal. You don't get them high-priced attorneys so they can dodge the consequences of their law breaking; you let them take the consequences...and only after they have done so do you consider your options and see if mercy is the proper thing to do.
Posted by Mark Noonan at April 15, 2006 06:18 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.blogsforbush.com/mt/president.cgi/6935
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference An Inconvenient Immigration Tale:
Iowa Voice linked with Mexican Illegal Arrested
This should give the illegal immigrant supporters second thoughts (but I doubt it will):
A young illegal immigrant who became a cause celebre in Minnesota after secretly living in a high school for weeks has been arrested here on home invasion charges,
[Read More]
Tracked on April 15, 2006 08:34 AM
Immigration Attorney linked with Immigration Attorney
San Francisco Immigration Attorney Lawyer specializing in K1, K3, fiancee visas, and marriage and family greencards. DOL Proposed Rule on...
[Read More]
Tracked on April 30, 2006 02:20 PM
Comments
And yet, it seems to be the right who is blaming the left for not passing legslation to provide "guest-worker" status to illegal immigrants.
It's not the left, it's you.
Posted by: PM at April 15, 2006 11:49 AM
PMS you got that wrong, its the left which is BLOCKING legislation to tighten border security and institute a guest worker program.
All in all a clever strategy with Teddy "Chapaquidick" Kennedy showing up at immigration rallies to pander to the Hispanic vote for the dems, while Dusty Harry blocks the legislation from being voted on to placate some union leaders.
Posted by: phnxbmed at April 15, 2006 05:11 PM
We take a semi-official stance that there is no penalty for breaking our laws, and then we are surprised when people break our laws.
We rush to support a man who is a proven law-breaker, offer him support and money and a great place to live, and then we are "shocked" when he assumes he can break further laws with equal success.
That is, if "we" are the Left.
If someone breaks several laws with the justification that it is OK to do so if he is just "looking for a better life" then where is the line drawn? Just how are we going to prosecute him for breaking into our homes, or stealing our cars, or robbing our banks? After all, each would help in the quest for a "better life".
Think of the prison cells being emptied as convicted felons jump on this bandwagon---after all, if we essentially pardon millions for breaking our laws because we go for the "better life" defense, then how can we continue to incarcerate anyone who uses the same defense?
And remember the other fascinating argument of the Left---that WE "create" criminals by identifying them as such. The fact that they broke the laws is irrelevant---they are not "criminals" until we call them that. So a crime does not exist until it is identified and labled. By that logic, we could pretty much erase the crime statistics by merely stopping the naming of crimes, or the arresting of those who commit them.
Posted by: Almiranta at April 15, 2006 08:35 PM
HI,
I read this site a lot, but have never posted. I haven't heard this story before, but I do feel as if you have forgoten a few things in your post. Perhaps the indvidual is a criminal in Mexico. On the other hand you have no idea what it's like to have no money, no job, no good job prospects. To have no rights, to not have a clear understanding of the law or 100% use of the langauge of the land you live in. I would guess you have never suffered from want of a shelter, food, warm clothes or even the ability to get hired at a decent job with security of working every week. And to top it off, as often as some Americans don't belive it or don't want to belive it, this man's skin color would make it more difficult to obtain the basic needs for survial.
Easy to see him in the light of a criminal (I often speed on the interstate and I have been known to Jaywalk, this makes me a criminal by your defintion, but I don't see myself as one). I like the idea of cheeking individuals we allow into America, I just ask that before you cast stones you consider what other go threw to put them in the situation they find themselves in. SOmetimes I sure wonder about the Christian retoric on this site. It seems a bit doublestandard.
Thank you for allowing me to post
Peter
Posted by: Peter Shimon at April 16, 2006 01:06 AM
HI,
I read this site a lot, but have never posted. I haven't heard this story before, but I do feel as if you have forgoten a few things in your post. Perhaps the indvidual is a criminal in Mexico. On the other hand you have no idea what it's like to have no money, no job, no good job prospects. To have no rights, to not have a clear understanding of the law or 100% use of the langauge of the land you live in. I would guess you have never suffered from want of a shelter, food, warm clothes or even the ability to get hired at a decent job with security of working every week. And to top it off, as often as some Americans don't belive it or don't want to belive it, this man's skin color would make it more difficult to obtain the basic needs for survial.
Easy to see him in the light of a criminal (I often speed on the interstate and I have been known to Jaywalk, this makes me a criminal by your defintion, but I don't see myself as one). I like the idea of cheeking individuals we allow into America, I just ask that before you cast stones you consider what other go threw to put them in the situation they find themselves in. SOmetimes I sure wonder about the Christian retoric on this site. It seems a bit doublestandard.
Thank you for allowing me to post
Peter
Posted by: Peter Shimon at April 16, 2006 01:11 AM
PMS, the right is not blocking guest-worker status for some illegals, they're blocking Ted Kennedy's totally asinine amnesty proposal. There's a difference. Not that I expect anyone from the "gotcha" crowd to see it, but there is...
Posted by: keefer at April 16, 2006 07:01 AM
Post a comment
And yet, it seems to be the right who is blaming the left for not passing legslation to provide "guest-worker" status to illegal immigrants.
It's not the left, it's you.
PMS you got that wrong, its the left which is BLOCKING legislation to tighten border security and institute a guest worker program.
All in all a clever strategy with Teddy "Chapaquidick" Kennedy showing up at immigration rallies to pander to the Hispanic vote for the dems, while Dusty Harry blocks the legislation from being voted on to placate some union leaders.
We take a semi-official stance that there is no penalty for breaking our laws, and then we are surprised when people break our laws.
We rush to support a man who is a proven law-breaker, offer him support and money and a great place to live, and then we are "shocked" when he assumes he can break further laws with equal success.
That is, if "we" are the Left.
If someone breaks several laws with the justification that it is OK to do so if he is just "looking for a better life" then where is the line drawn? Just how are we going to prosecute him for breaking into our homes, or stealing our cars, or robbing our banks? After all, each would help in the quest for a "better life".
Think of the prison cells being emptied as convicted felons jump on this bandwagon---after all, if we essentially pardon millions for breaking our laws because we go for the "better life" defense, then how can we continue to incarcerate anyone who uses the same defense?
And remember the other fascinating argument of the Left---that WE "create" criminals by identifying them as such. The fact that they broke the laws is irrelevant---they are not "criminals" until we call them that. So a crime does not exist until it is identified and labled. By that logic, we could pretty much erase the crime statistics by merely stopping the naming of crimes, or the arresting of those who commit them.
HI,
I read this site a lot, but have never posted. I haven't heard this story before, but I do feel as if you have forgoten a few things in your post. Perhaps the indvidual is a criminal in Mexico. On the other hand you have no idea what it's like to have no money, no job, no good job prospects. To have no rights, to not have a clear understanding of the law or 100% use of the langauge of the land you live in. I would guess you have never suffered from want of a shelter, food, warm clothes or even the ability to get hired at a decent job with security of working every week. And to top it off, as often as some Americans don't belive it or don't want to belive it, this man's skin color would make it more difficult to obtain the basic needs for survial.
Easy to see him in the light of a criminal (I often speed on the interstate and I have been known to Jaywalk, this makes me a criminal by your defintion, but I don't see myself as one). I like the idea of cheeking individuals we allow into America, I just ask that before you cast stones you consider what other go threw to put them in the situation they find themselves in. SOmetimes I sure wonder about the Christian retoric on this site. It seems a bit doublestandard.
Thank you for allowing me to post
Peter
HI,
I read this site a lot, but have never posted. I haven't heard this story before, but I do feel as if you have forgoten a few things in your post. Perhaps the indvidual is a criminal in Mexico. On the other hand you have no idea what it's like to have no money, no job, no good job prospects. To have no rights, to not have a clear understanding of the law or 100% use of the langauge of the land you live in. I would guess you have never suffered from want of a shelter, food, warm clothes or even the ability to get hired at a decent job with security of working every week. And to top it off, as often as some Americans don't belive it or don't want to belive it, this man's skin color would make it more difficult to obtain the basic needs for survial.
Easy to see him in the light of a criminal (I often speed on the interstate and I have been known to Jaywalk, this makes me a criminal by your defintion, but I don't see myself as one). I like the idea of cheeking individuals we allow into America, I just ask that before you cast stones you consider what other go threw to put them in the situation they find themselves in. SOmetimes I sure wonder about the Christian retoric on this site. It seems a bit doublestandard.
Thank you for allowing me to post
Peter
PMS, the right is not blocking guest-worker status for some illegals, they're blocking Ted Kennedy's totally asinine amnesty proposal. There's a difference. Not that I expect anyone from the "gotcha" crowd to see it, but there is...