Court: Transgender Illegal Immigrant Felon Can't Be Deported

originally posted by: ControlledChaos
a reply to: Reallyfolks

The first response I have is something that has bothered me for a while in the US.

Any time gay or now transsexuals are brought up there is an immediate connection to pedophilia.

Being gay or transsexual is in no way similar to being a pedophile, unless you are a person who classify both as sexual deviants and therefore to you they are in fact on in the same.

Not saying that's what you beleive but I have seen this happen over and over.

They are not the same by any stretch of the imagination.

Now to try to answer your valid question;

I really don't know. Courts do use prior court rulings to move forward with new hearings this is true. Will it happen in this case? I really don't know, I suppose it's possible that it could.

But again what I see in the op is a person requesting safety from persecution in their homeland which is what they were given.

I don't have a problem with it.

If it comes up again in the future and they use this ruling to give someone else safety from torture, again I do not have a problem with that.

I just don't understand why gay is immediately linked to pedophilia by many in this country?

At no time did I equate the two.I mentioned some other what most people would deem bad felonies questioning what this ruling would do to other convicted felons. Pedophiles happen to fall into a felon and someone who would have a believable torture claim. No link was ever made or attempted.

a reply to: Reallyfolks

I just had to point it out there because it happens in so many other discussions and it's not about you; it's more about the way that people have been conditioned to think of anyone who is somehow sexually different or in this case has a gender identity issue.

So fine; to get back to what you were saying: if someone was a murderer (also felons that most people would take issue with) who served their time and got released from jail and faced deportation back to their home country where they were going to be tortured, do I think it is ok for them to be granted asylum to stay in the USA?

My answer is yes it is ok.

If they served their time then our justice system says they paid their debt to society. So now they are free to be greater asylum and stay in this country where they will not be tortured. Yes I am ok with this, and I think it's a sign of an advanced society to be able to make tough calls on stuff like this.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Reallyfolks

It's really simple you made the statement that similar cases have been dismissed.

You mean rejected?
www.buzzfeed.com...

Can you cite those cases and were those cases ruled on by a court that has the same weight as appeals court.

You didn't ask that originally. You moved the goalpost.

No goal post was moved.

Yes it was. You said this:

You seem to ignore rulings are made by citing other cases everyday in this country.

So the three ladies were denied by an immigration judge and making the same claims and these cases are now with the same court of appeals that just ruled this lady could stay for the exact same circumstances. Maybe I did move the goal post but you missed it. I guess the whole court with equal weight went over your head and the fact you cite a case now sitting with the same appeals court that just ruled for this woman is funny.

But the absolute funniest thing is that you cite an article listing the three women denied. One of those women from your case was none other than Edin Avendano-Hernandez, the same lady who was just allowed to stay by the 9th and is the topic of the op. So the 9th set the standard and has the other two ladies from your article . Thank you for that, I normally don't have a gift dropped on me during a debate.

a reply to: Reallyfolks

One of those women from your case was none other than Edin Avendano-Hernandez, the same lady who was just allowed to stay by the 9th and is the topic of the op.

Gosh, you're quick.

As I said earlier:

Will transexuals be looked upon more favorably because of this decision? Probably, if they can demonstrate that they actually are transexuals.

Does it mean that pedophiles will? No. Do you equate the two?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: ControlledChaos

I appreciate your honest answer my honest answer NIMBY.

Edit: unless he was convicted of murdering a rapist or a pedophile, in which case come on, we can even have weekly cookouts

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Reallyfolks

One of those women from your case was none other than Edin Avendano-Hernandez, the same lady who was just allowed to stay by the 9th and is the topic of the op.

Gosh, you're quick.

As I said earlier:

Will transexuals be looked upon more favorably because of this decision? Probably, if they can demonstrate that they actually are transexuals.

Does it mean that pedophiles will? No. Do you equate the two?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

So you intentionally cite an article in which one of those listed as being denied is the same one that this article is about, to prove that just because this court ruled doesn't mean a standard is set? If you think I link the two have at it, if you scroll up a few posts you will find your answer or don't. Even if I did, it would be my right to do so if you liked it or not.

Also you have no clue if it would apply to pedophiles., you mean to tell me the government has not released rapist, murderers, and pedophile illegals into the general public before?

originally posted by: HomerinNC
a reply to: tigertatzen

Then why not come here LEGALLY, or any OTHER country non gender biased?
Why not go the legal route and not break the laws of THAT country?
Just because you choose to identify yourself as a different gender does NOT give you license to break the laws of the other countries of the world

Do you know what it takes to come to the country legally? I looked into it when I was dating a Mexican girl, even with my support, it was a years long process.

a reply to: Reallyfolks

So you intentionally cite an article in which one of those listed as being denied is the same one that this article is about, to prove that just because this court ruled doesn't mean a standard is set?

No. I cited an article which referred three adverse rulings, which is what you asked for. I also pointed out that this case probably would set a standard, as did the article which I cited. I also pointed out that that standard would be probably be applied to other transexuals who could demonstrate that they were bona fide transexuals.

If you scroll up a few posts you will find your answer or don't.

No need to scroll, I linked it.

Also you have no clue if it would apply to pedophiles., you mean to tell me the government has not released rapist, murderers, and pedophile illegals into the general public before?

No, I'm not saying that. I'm also not saying that they have not also released legal citizens of the same ilk. But it doesn't happen often and it isn't based on precedent. If it were, all of them would be automatically released. Right? There is more than precedent to jurisprudence. I said that earlier too.

originally posted by: boncho

originally posted by: HomerinNC
a reply to: tigertatzen

Then why not come here LEGALLY, or any OTHER country non gender biased?
Why not go the legal route and not break the laws of THAT country?
Just because you choose to identify yourself as a different gender does NOT give you license to break the laws of the other countries of the world

Do you know what it takes to come to the country legally? I looked into it when I was dating a Mexican girl, even with my support, it was a years long process.

It needs to take that long. Not to be mean but you need time to ensure adequate resources, infastructure, schools, medicine, etc are in place to handle it plus give previous new comers time to integrate. If not we'll you get our current mess. You do it the way it's happening and people are flooding the problems show up big time. Especially in the public schools system. It is an ugly process, but honestly, it's needed. No country without things in place can successfully handle millions and millions of new comers year after year and not have a ton of problems. Even if all spoke English, the language barrier adds even more problems especially in the schools. Its great to want to help people but really?

As far as the op I understand the torture concerns, don't know to what degree but two people were injured in her last dui. That's where the felony came in. Does that mean anything, depends on your view

a reply to: Reallyfolks

Does that mean anything, depends on your view

Does "doing your time" mean anything.
Depends on your point of view, I guess.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Reallyfolks

So you intentionally cite an article in which one of those listed as being denied is the same one that this article is about, to prove that just because this court ruled doesn't mean a standard is set?

No. I cited an article which referred three adverse rulings, which is what you asked for. I also pointed out that this case probably would set a standard, as did the article which I cited. I also pointed out that that standard would be probably be applied to other transexuals who could demonstrate that they were bona fide transexuals.

If you scroll up a few posts you will find your answer or don't.

No need to scroll, I linked it.

Also you have no clue if it would apply to pedophiles., you mean to tell me the government has not released rapist, murderers, and pedophile illegals into the general public before?

No, I'm not saying that. I'm also not saying that they have not also released legal citizens of the same ilk. But it doesn't happen often and it isn't based on precedent. If it were, all of them would be automatically released. Right? There is more than precedent to jurisprudence. I said that earlier too.

I

I asked for equal courts , not the lower courts , especially not the lower courts that have been over turned in one case and that same court has the other two. I asked for equal weight specifically because the appeals courts hold more authority as has been proven. You get an e for effort, but not much on the overall


you are perfectly entitled to think this will only apply where gender identity applies. I'm calling bs. Ats saves posts and if one year from today this ruling does not lead to some convicted illegal felon being allowed to stay that had nothing to do with gender identity I'll make sure to pull it up and say I was wrong.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Reallyfolks

Does that mean anything, depends on your view

Does "doing your time" mean anything.
Depends on your point of view, I guess.

We can go in circles all day, should she have been here to even have hurt those two people? No. Does that matter, depends on your view. Does the time served make it ok with the injured considering she shouldn't have been here to start, don't know. I assume you see it differently, you're entitled. I would assume it would be different posting about it and going through something like that all things considered.

a reply to: Phage

I think you will find this interesting, Ive been reading the exchange you've had with other members for the last few pages. I believe a number were saying that 'just based on their say so, we gave them asylum' or something to that effect.

Well, here is the judges ruling in its entirety:

cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov...

You will notice down near the end, they go on to question the statement of facts:

We reject the government’s attempts to characterize these police and military officers as merely rogue or corrupt officials.

Im not sure exactly how it came to pass, but it appears that Mexican government acknowledged the crimes against her and blamed it on "rogue elements" in their government.

I believe that would weigh heavily on her testimony. Besides the fact that her stories of rape & torture by her family and officials, seems a little hard to account for such accurate details. But maybe thats just me.

a reply to: Reallyfolks

I asked for equal courts

No.
You asked for similar cases. You secondarily asked if the cases were adjudicated at the same level. And that was after I had already posted here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Ats saves posts and if one year from today this ruling does not lead to some convicted illegal felon being allowed to stay that had nothing to do with gender identity I'll make sure to pull it up and say I was wrong.

I doubt that.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Reallyfolks

I asked for equal courts

No.
You asked for similar cases. You secondarily asked if the cases were adjudicated at the same level. And that was after I had already posted here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Ats saves posts and if one year from today this ruling does not lead to some convicted illegal felon being allowed to stay that had nothing to do with gender identity I'll make sure to pull it up and say I was wrong.

I doubt that.

This is what I posted, before you posted your buzzfeed link and I honestly don't know how much clearer it can be if you doubt it, see what page and time stamp this post was on and what page and time stamp your link was posted on. No reason to deny what can easily be verified............


It's really simple you made the statement that similar cases have been dismissed. Can you cite those cases and were those cases ruled on by a court that has the same weight as appeals court.

You made the statement now back it up. If you can't do it, say you can't and you can attempt to continue on another point. No goal post was moved. This court has more weight. . Cite equal cases denied by equal authority or admit you were wrong

You can try changing subjects with the equate question. Won't happen back up your statement

a reply to: Reallyfolks
I know what you posted. I quoted it here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
You asked for similar cases, I gave them to you.

You made the statement now back it up.

I made no claim that the decisions were of equal authority. Obviously they were not or the cases would not have moved to the appellate court.

Cite equal cases denied by equal authority or admit you were wrong

I did not say that the cases were of equal authority. I said that they were similar cases. They were. Very similar. They were cases of transexuals seeking asylum based on persecution. I also said that the appellate decision would likely influence other decisions. Did I not?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Reallyfolks
I know what you posted. I quoted it here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
You asked for similar cases, I gave them to you.

You made the statement now back it up.

I made no claim that the decisions were of equal authority. Obviously they were not or the cases would not have moved to the appellate court.

Cite equal cases denied by equal authority or admit you were wrong

I did not say that the cases were of equal authority. I said that they were similar cases. They were. Very similar. They were cases of transexuals seeking asylum based on persecution. I also said that the appellate decision would likely influence other decisions. Did I not?

So I asked for an Apple you provided an orange. Ok

a reply to: Reallyfolks

So I asked for an Apple you provided an orange

You asked two things. You asked for similar cases and you asked a second question about the authority of those cases. You did not ask for cases decided by equal authority.

I provided the similar cases with a link to an article, that article answered your second question.

Your premise that the appellate decision would lead to pedophiles being granted asylum has not been supported.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Reallyfolks

So I asked for an Apple you provided an orange

You asked two things. You asked for similar cases and you asked a second question about the authority of those cases. You did not ask for cases decided by equal authority.

I provided the similar cases with a link to an article, that article answered your second question.

Your premise that the appellate decision would lead to pedophiles being granted asylum has not been supported.

Cite equal cases denied by equal authority or admit you were wrong


You dont get much more clear than what I asked for, it wasn't an and question. Clear as day. You failed. Argue all you want.

a reply to: Reallyfolks

You dont get much more clear than what I asked for, it wasn't an and question.

It was two questions. Here is what you said:

It's really simple you made the statement that similar cases have been dismissed. Can you cite those cases and were those cases ruled on by a court that has the same weight as appeals court.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Two questions, separated by an "and".
Could I cite those similar cases? Yes.
Were they ruled on by equal courts? No, as was readily apparently in the article. Which I happen to know you actually did read.

Your premise that the decision will lead to asylum being granted to convicted pedophiles has not been supported.