The TAB’s Julie Cohen spoke to Rigoberto Mendez, the Newton dad who was separated from from his wife and two sons in Newton five months ago when he was deported.
“I hope to go back and be with my family again,” he said. “I believe in God. … God is the only one who keeps me strong.”
“I hope to go back and be with my family again,” he said. “I believe in God. … God is the only one who keeps me strong.”
Excellent reporting from the Tab. It’s important for all of us not to forget this family tragedy in our community.
Despite much criticism on this site and elsewhere, I still find good content in the Tab, though it would certainly be beneficial if the economics of the news media allowed for more.
This is truly more than heartbreaking. It would seem that the reasonable answer — benefiting both Mr. Mendez, his family and those similarly situated as well as the United States — would have been and remains, complete physically securing the southern border so that these situations will not occur in the future and that, having secured the border first, there would be acceptable avenues to allow those under similar circumstances as Mr. Mendez already here to remain; as well as actions to be initiated for Mr. Mendez and those in his current circumstances to return to the USA.
Its not clear to me if there are options avail even ehen his son turns 21.
Both parties need to come together on some compromises. Amnesty, larger visa guest workers.. there has to be compromise somewhere( wall, birth right citizenship) otherwise these sad stories are not going away
Such a sad story. Anyone know how his wife is doing with the cancer treatment?
Bugek, securing border first, thereafter leaving much more leeway for acceptability of amnesty, larger visa guest workers, etc. — cases such as Mr. Mendez.
A vanity wall does not solve these problems as so many of these cases involve people overstaying visas. Comprehensive immigration reform is what is needed.
Wally, “comprehensive immigration” is smokescreen to avoid true border security now. Secure the border. Then have all the comprehensive immigration reform wanted (including means to address the tragic circumstances of Mr. Mendez).
We must secure our southern border with Rhode Island. Those people are not like you and me. They’re coming here–they’re murderers, they’re rapists, and we’re gonna need a wall to stop them. I want to build a big beautiful wall on the Rhode Island border. It will cost tens of billions. But don’t worry, I’m going to get Rhode Island to pay for the wall. Oh, they’ll pay for the wall, they’ll pay for it. Just watch.
Apologies to the Mendez family. I don’t mean to make light of their tragic situation. But this ridiculous talk about “the wall” has got my juices flowing. Americans desperately need a wake up call. Our federal government has been a purveyor of evil for much of the post WW2 era. And now we have a mad man in charge. Sobering thoughts.
I would be interested in what mr mendez believes the solution to his plight and others should be
Open borders, guest worker visa, child able to sponsor parents regardless of prior immigration violation
Lets push both parties on solutions they can both compromise on. The current stand off is going no where.
Waitinf for the next Democrat president is not going to help either.
Mike, the southern border needs to be secured by whatever means the experts recommend (if that entails a “wall” or some physical barrier in some places, sobeit). Your comparison to the Mass. /RI boarder I assume is to make light of the seriousness of securing the border and enforcement of immigration laws as other countries do, such as Mexico itself.
Are you suggesting that anyone can simply walk in to the USA with no border enforcement, and in addition to that, receive all the benefits provided here?
I frequently see that the tactic of making light, false analogies, or creating strawmen is a device to avoid serious discussion, which I would certainly welcome if you disagree with the need for border security.
@Jim Epstein – talk about strawmen. I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone suggest we have no border enforcement. As for what “experts recommend”, good luck finding any expert that thinks building a wall along the entire southern border is a sensible use of resources if the goal is securing our borders.
Jerry, the strawman is on your part in two respects. (1) I never did state that we have “NO border enforcement”; and (2) I never did state a “wall along the ENTIRE southern border”. I specifically stated: “physically securing the southern border” (my use of the word “complete” at the beginning of that phrase is a VERB (as in “finish”), NOT and adjective or adverb; and I stated “a ‘wall’ or some physical barrier in SOME places” “AS EXPERTS RECOMMEND”.
Talk about classic strawman arguments. So we have strawman arguments used by Jerry Reilly to avoid actual discussion, and we have attempted humorous making light of/false analogy used by Mike Striar (above) to avoid serious discussion, both on this thread.
As I replied to Mike, I would certainly welcome serious discussion (rather than device to avoid such discussion as you and Mike manifest on this thread).
Jerry, one more point on your comment. Your citing claim for “sensible use of resources” as are claims by the Democrats and allied media are completely disingenuous. Compared to the size of federal budget, the amount in contention is a rounding error.
@Jim Epstein – “Are you suggesting that anyone can simply walk in to the USA with no border enforcement” No I am not, nor has anyone on this thread. That’s the strawman argument.
The outrage that I and many others feel about how Mr. Mendez and 1000’s of others cases have been handled is not outrage about having border security. It’s outrage that this administration is using Mr Mendez’s life to score cheap political points rather than a good faith effort to deal with the very real issues around immigration.
For a little perspective on this – if you robbed a convenience store, if you beat an old lady with a baseball bat, if you molested a child, you could not be prosecuted for it 27 years later. Do you really and sincerely believe that breaking up Mr Mendez’s family for a non-criminal violation of immigration regulations when he was 18 years old is a reasonable thing for the government to be doing in yours and my names?
Jerry,
If non criminal undocumented can live in USA without worry of deportation then this opens the floodgates for 1 billion people to freely come in.
Both parties need to come together to allow more immigrants to come in legally do they dont have to live in fear between administrations every 4 years. There will be compromise involved.
Jerry , let’s assume, for the sake of discussion, you are in full support of effective border security. Then why are you (and the Democrats and allied media) so vehemently opposed to the expenditure of what is a rounding error compared to the size of the federal budget, for physical barriers where experts have recommended in certain areas of the southern border?
Re the tragic circumstances of Mr. Mendez, if the Democrats and allied media had stopped blowing the smoke screen of “comprehensive” immigration reform to block effective border enforcement, the same would have long since been completed and would have facilitated American and political support for legal measures to allow those under similar circumstances as Mr. Mendez to remain; as well as actions to be initiated for Mr. Mendez and those in his current circumstances to return to the USA.
Securing the border first, thereafter leaves the leeway for acceptability of amnesty, larger visa guest workers, etc. — including cases such as Mr. Mendez. The Democrats simply don’t want the border secured. They want to replicate across the country their success in flipping California from red to blue. (And of course their revenge in blocking Pres. Trump from any success exceeds whatever benefit would otherwise flow to the USA from securing the border. )
@ Jim Epstein – as long as US citizens and US companies are willing to employ undocumented workers, and they are, in droves, people will come. Everybody, everywhere wants to improve their lives and they will go where the opportunities lie if the situation is bad enough.
If there is a wall, they will dig. Besides, as this article shows – https://www.npr.org/2019/01/10/683662691/where-does-illegal-immigration-mostly-occur-heres-what-the-data-tell-us – most undocumented people enter the US via airplane.
It’s such a double standard in this country on this issue, even from this president; as the employment history from his golf courses (and I am sure other businesses) shows.
If the people of the United States *really* wanted to stave illegal immigration, they would stop hiring people without status.
So rather than invest money in a wall that will not have a return on the investment, the government should invest in better ways to document someone’s status and increase fines for hiring undocumented workers, since obviously there is no compliance with the law.
And as other said – create a reasonable work visa system, because we do need foreign workers, in several areas – and for crying out loud – if someone lived here for DECADES, he’s become a common law citizen!There are thousands of stories like Rigoberto’s and it’s awful; right up there with separating kids from their families at the borders. Not what a developed, ethical country would do.
Patricia
Just want to correct you. All developed countries have a stringest immigration. Name another developed country where they will legalize you after decades of undocumented status. I cant name one
OK Patricia, let anybody walk right in and receive govt. benefits as well. We don’t need no border.
But seriously, do what you suggest PLUS secure border.
Where did I say that I wanted no border control???
I am saying that I want amnesty for the people who are here for decades so that families don’t have to be ripped apart.
I am also saying that we should target the people who employ undocumented immigrants. Find a way to differentiate between someone who is legal and “illegal”. Other countries, like Switzerland, for instance use a system where you have to register where you live.
Obviously undocumented workers are getting hired. So I don’t understand the outrage at the problem, when it is clear that a lot of people don’t really . Such as the people who work for this president. That doesn’t mean that I feel there shouldn’t be something done.
A physical border might make sense in some parts (as I understand very limited), but again – MOST people come in through our airports. So a wall isn’t really going to help.
If undocumented workers cannot find employment, they will not come or stay.
Oops. I forgot the word “care”
Patricia, there WOULD have been amnesty by now if the Democrats and allied media had not insisted on “comprehensive immigration” without securing the border first. First secure the border, then there’d be political and American support for amnesty.
You say that you do not say you want no border control, but then you say border control makes no sense because there are other areas where illegal immigrants may enter, and there are other measures which can be taken. Why couldn’t both be done, fix the border PLUS implement other measures.
Bottom line, you (and the Democrats and allied media) come up with anything to avoid securing the border with physical barriers where needed. That would give Trump a “win” on this, which must be avoided at all costs! Of course, Trump DID get a “win” this morning, getting the Congressionally approved funds PLUS additional funds subject to declaration of National Emergence PLUS — importantly and immediately — additional funds NOT subject to declaration of National Emergency — military drug interdiction.
Oops, “Emergence” should be “Emergency” in penultimate line.
I wonder if mr mendez can come back if he were to gain citizenship in another country?
If he managed to get Canadian citizenship via amnesty or other means. Could he then travel freely back and forth canada and usa.
@Jim – I take “border control” to mean to protect all entry points and not just the physical border in the south.
You don’t build a wall FIRST and then figure out what is best to do. Especially not when there is a deficit in the amount we have.
You look at the situation as it presents – especially when you do not have a national emergency – and figure out how to fix the whole system.
And Jim – congratulations on your win!
I’m talking about the southern border.
Once the southern border is secured, including completion of physical barriers at locations recommended by the border experts — which the Democrats and allied media have just disregarded — the political and American support will be there for such things as amnesty.
Your citation of “fix the whole system” is another way of saying “achieve comprehensive immigration reform”. Both are devices to avoid securing the southern border now to the extent of physical barriers at locations recommended by the border experts. Entry points should be addressed as well, but there’s no reason to delay securing completion of the physical barriers at locations recommended by the border experts.
Your injection of “my win/congratulations” is nothing more than effort on your part to personalize this to obfuscate serious discussion.
Sorry Jim, but you started the winning references. That and the “you Dems and your allied media” references already made this a polarized exchange.
I get it, you see “securing the southern border” as a very important issue that requires investment of billions of tax dollars. I see it as one of the issues (much less pressing than the environmental issues we are faced with), which is primarily a problem at the various airports around the country and to a much lesser extent at the Southern border. I already explained what I think needs to be done to stave the influx of people looking to better their lives.
So I guess you and I will never see eye to eye.
I wanted to apologize to the rest of the readers of this thread for the high jacking of it. This started out as a thread on Rigoberto and his story. I feel so bad for this family and hope that they can find a way to be all reunited in a country that affords them a good life.
Patricia,
1. The professed concern and citing of the “investment of billions of tax dollars” is disingenuous — the actual amount in controversy is a rounding error compared to the size of the federal budget.
2. Does the citing of other immigration “issues” mean it is OK for anybody simply walking across the border — and receiving federal benefits?
3. The citing of “Dems and allied media” opposing securing the border with physical barriers where recommended by the experts and their opposition to Trump, is simply a statement of fact, along with their opposition to Trump gaining any “win” re the border.
4. No need to apologize to readers — as it does relate to immigration enforcement.
Can someone explain to me what “secure the border” means? We already have physical barriers along the length of the border in appropriate places and comprehensive border patrols and monitoring for the entire length of the border.
Even Trump’s “the wall” is not one uninterrupted solid wall. It is just lots more funding for lots more physical barriers.
If the Republican Party in Congress wanted to continue paying for border security and reform our immigration system, we could’ve done that years ago.
Bryan,
1. Customs and Border Patrol experts conclude there are additional areas where physical barriers are needed and areas where existing physical barriers need to be beefed-up.
2. During the first two years of Trump’s Presidency, the Republicans in Congress could not get the job done because of the filibuster rule (60 votes needed) in the Senate and the Senate Democrats were virtually lock-step (100%) opposed to anything Trump would want re additional and beefed-up physical barriers (albeit many of those same Democrats were in favor before Trump became POTUS).
3. “Lots more funding” is a misnomer when it is a rounding error compared to the size of the federal budget.
4. I’d say “secure the border” means a border where people cannot simply walk across or walk across with insufficient impediment and enter the USA (and BTW receive the benefits within the USA).
Know anyone that looks like mr mendez and wants to take a trip to mexico to ‘lose’ their passport?
I think this is the only way back, really can’t think of any other way.
I second the call to remember the purpose of the thread (posted on Valentine’s day :(: reaching across the divide to commiserate with Mr. Mendez! Sir, you have given this issue a human face. Perhaps this is what God intends. May he give you the strength you need!