Front Page NYT Article

[KenWittlief]

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

*sigh*
Ken, as a mentor I teach the students to follow the rules. .

yes, absolutely.

At what point did Amadou break our laws? He was left here by his mother when he was a minor. That was not his choice, that was not his action.

By the time he was 18 his only choice was to surrender himself to the immigration department and be deported, or to find a way to go back to Africa himself (self deportation). There never was a way for him to say here legally.

He had no do-the-right-thing option.

Back in the 19th century when a slave escaped from his owner he was breaking the law. If someone helped him escape he was breaking the law. Anyone who was a part of the Underground Railroad taking slaves across the border into Canada was breaking the law. Now we consider those people heros of American history.

It is absurd that, at this point in human history, if a person stands, or is born on one side of a line painted across a road, that he is treated differently, has different rights, has different opportunites.

I am not advocating that anyone should break the law to help or harbor Amadou, or anyone else. I recognize that he was left in a no-win situation, and I believe that we (the FIRST community) should do everything in our power to help him.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

At what point did Amadou break our laws?

The second his Visa ran out.

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

He was left here by his mother when he was a minor. That was not his choice, that was not his action.

First, you do not need to be of age to request a Green card. They are given out to students all the time
Second, His violation of the law was an inaction since he failed to attempt to get a green card when his visa ran out.

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

By the time he was 18 his only choice was to surrender himself to the immigration department and be deported, or to find a way to go back to Africa himself (self deportation). There never was a way for him to say here legally.

He never attempted (in the article) to get his green card. Only after he got caught and procedings against him start did he try to gain a legitimate status within the US.

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

He had no do-the-right-thing option.

He could have attempted to let the system work. Instead he chose to hide.

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

Back in the 19th century when a slave escaped from his owner he was breaking the law. If someone helped him escape he was breaking the law. Anyone who was a part of the Underground Railroad taking slaves across the border into Canada was breaking the law. Now we consider those people heros of American history.

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

We need to either obey the laws/system, or work to to change the laws/system. We need to avoid breaking the laws because they are currently inconvienient.

So we should break the law anytime we see an injustice?
No, we need to work within the system to bring justice to the people. Our civilization requires people to follow a set of laws. If the laws are injust, then we need to work to change the laws, not break them.

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

It is absurd that, at this point in human history, if a person stands, or is born on one side of a line painted across a road, that he is treated differently, has different rights, has different opportunites.

Absurd as it may be, it is a fact of life in this world.

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

I am not advocating that anyone should break the law to help or harbor Amadou, or anyone else. I recognize that he was left in a no-win situation, and I believe that we (the FIRST community) should do everything in our power to help him.

and here we find common ground. By all accounts in the article, Amadou is a good kid who showed some poor judgement. His fear of the system led him to a poor decision.

While this decision should weigh against him (responsibility), those who know him as a community should stand by his side writeing letters stating the good that he has done and that should speak volumes about his character.

[artdutra04]

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

So we should break the law anytime we see an injustice?

No, we need to work within the system to bring justice to the people. Our civilization requires people to follow a set of laws. If the laws are injust, then we need to work to change the laws, not break them.

The Boston Tea Party was illegal. The Declaration of Independence was illegal. Freeing slaves before the Emancipation Proclamation was illegal. Having de-segregated public areas used to be illegal. Rosa Parks broke the law. Thomas Jefferson broke the law. George Washington broke the law. Although they committed illegal activities, they greatly altered our society for the better. There is quite a difference between civil disobedience and lawlessness anarchy.

Our world is changing, and silly lines drawn on a map are beginning to mean less and less. Isolationism is yielding to globalism. We will still have separate countries, but a peaceful future lies not in drawing chalk lines and apportioning up the world, but in everyone opening our borders. Just look at recent trends - the United States, the European Union, and United Nations - all separate sovereign entities joining together for the betterment of everyone.

[Robyn Needel]

For anyone that hasn't checked CBS yet, our FIRST community came through - Amadou's story will be reported on Friday's news.

I can see both sides of the story here - Amadou is a victim of circumstances and couldn't help what happened to him when he was 14. Someone along the way (one of his adult friends) should have advised him to go to Legal Aid when they realized what was happening - but since that didn't happen, there's no reason to throw blame on Amadou or anyone else. The reality is that he is here and in a bind - and in America everyone has a chance to become their best, that's what makes our country great. There are many cases where public opinion has swayed Congress to make special exceptions for immigration cases and other individual legal problems - maybe the result of all this publicity will help Amadou achieve legal citizenship. We met the team, they were on Archimedes with us, a great group who worked really hard. All of the team members want desperately to achieve...and they deserve every break they can get.

[anna~marie]

wow. just wow.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by artdutra04

The Boston Tea Party was illegal. The Declaration of Independence was illegal. Freeing slaves before the Emancipation Proclamation was illegal. Having de-segregated public areas used to be illegal. Rosa Parks broke the law. Thomas Jefferson broke the law. George Washington broke the law. Although they committed illegal activities, they greatly altered our society for the better. There is quite a difference between civil disobedience and lawlessness anarchy.

Are you saying Amadous' actions were civil disobediance? I dont believe that. I believe that Amadou (and his guardians) made poor decisions (not applying for a student visa) because of fear (of being deported by the INS).

Originally Posted by artdutra04

Our world is changing, and silly lines drawn on a map are beginning to mean less and less. Isolationism is yielding to globalism. We will still have separate countries, but a peaceful future lies not in drawing chalk lines and apportioning up the world, but in everyone opening our borders. Just look at recent trends - the United States, the European Union, and United Nations - all separate sovereign entities joining together for the betterment of everyone.

And on the day that we all can cross those chalk lines without fear and predjudice I will celebrate. But until the laws are changed, we must obey them for they are the root of our civilization.


Let me put Amadous story in a FIRST setting:
We all know that the robots have a 130 LB weight limit. Now lets assume that 1 team arrived with a 250 LB robot and was allowed to play. That would be very unfair to all the other teams.
Now think of all the immigration applicants. How do you think they feel if the rules were not enforced in reguards to Amadou but are enforced for them. Again unfair. This is what breaking the law does (whether intentional or not).

Originally Posted by Robyn Needel

For anyone that hasn't checked CBS yet, our FIRST community came through - Amadou's story will be reported on Friday's news.

I voted for seeing his story (I'm not as Draconian as it seems )
It is my hope that someday this discussion would not need to take place, but until the world is a safer place and we can cross those 'chalk lines', stories like Amadous will happen.

[JAlpert]

I disagree, Daniel LaFleur.

See, the thing that's so persuasive about your argument is that on the surface it seems logical. You say, "So we should break the law anytime we see an injustice?", and it makes sense. We have laws, those laws govern our society, so breaking those laws is wrong.

The reality of the situation, however, is that a balance must be struck. When a law is unjust, blindly following it is just as bad as breaking it. Teach your kids to follow the rules, but also teach them to think about why they're following them. Teach them to make their own decisions.

The question becomes, then, where do you draw the line? Which laws should people follow, and which should they protest? People immigrate to America illegally because a demand exists for them. Illegal immigrants fill a void - they fill jobs and opportunities that we need them to. If there was no demand, people wouldn't come here. If you want to stop immigration, you have to stop the demand. The government does this by passing laws making it illegal for unapproved immigrants to fill those voids.

Sometimes, though, the demand for something is more powerful than laws. A prime example would be prohibition. When this happens, the law doesn't make sense, and needs to be changed. Now I understand you propose "If the laws are injust [sic], then we need to work to change the laws, not break them." Do you really believe that the primary engine for rectifying bad policy is to sit back and wait until the government changes it for us? You don't need to a scientific study to show that the government moves intolerably slowly on its own. While the government is "working to change" its policy, people will continue to immigrate illegally. It will never go away as long as the demand exists. That's why sometimes people need to force change. That's why this country has a rich history of civil disobedience and protest, as pointed out by artdutra. [As a corollary, it turns out your 'overweight robot' argument does not apply here. The rule is cut and dry, and there exists no demand to break it.]

Did Amadou break the law as some sort of civil disobedience? I won't speculate, because I don't know (even though you seem to have made up your own reason). However, I do believe Amadou's case highlights one problem with current immigration policy. As US society approaches (slowly) a meritocracy, a premium exists for citizens who take an interest in academics and pursue higher education. Amadou wants to educate himself, get a good job, and contribute to our economy and society. We have a very difficult time convincing our own population to do this. Yet our policy says we should deport him immediately (talk about sending jobs overseas!). This makes no sense.

The point is, it's obvious something needs to change. Yet, you continue to respond dogmatically.

Jeff

[Rohith Surampudi]

anyway enough debating, his story is truly remarkable, whether or not he did the wrong thing we should support this member of our community, all he did was want to experience the same joys of robotics as the rest of us, so lets help him with his goal.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by JAlpert

The reality of the situation, however, is that a balance must be struck. When a law is unjust, blindly following it is just as bad as breaking it. Teach your kids to follow the rules, but also teach them to think about why they're following them. Teach them to make their own decisions.

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

We need to either obey the laws/system, or work to to change the laws/system. We need to avoid breaking the laws because they are currently inconvienient.

Never have I said to blindly follow the laws either. Working to change the laws while NOT breaking the laws is the ideal here.

Originally Posted by JAlpert

People immigrate to America illegally because a demand exists for them. Illegal immigrants fill a void - they fill jobs and opportunities that we need them to. If there was no demand, people wouldn't come here. If you want to stop immigration, you have to stop the demand. The government does this by passing laws making it illegal for unapproved immigrants to fill those voids.

And that is exactly the laws that Amadou broke

Originally Posted by JAlpert

Now I understand you propose "If the laws are injust [sic], then we need to work to change the laws, not break them." Do you really believe that the primary engine for rectifying bad policy is to sit back and wait until the government changes it for us?

Absolutely not! Activism is a large part of being a citizen in a republic like America.

Originally Posted by JAlpert

That's why this country has a rich history of civil disobedience and protest, as pointed out by artdutra. [As a corollary, it turns out your 'overweight robot' argument does not apply here. The rule is cut and dry, and there exists no demand to break it.]

Peaceful protest has always been the best, most effective, way to work towards change. Look at 2 days ago. There were more than a million immigrants around the country peacefully protesting our immigration laws. That is America at its best.

And as for the 'overweight robot' argument, ask the team that weighed in, got thier inspection sticker, then got weighed just before the elimination rounds and was found 13 pounds overweight . Do you still think there is no demand to break the rules? How do you think the teams that lost to this team feel?

Originally Posted by JAlpert

The point is, it's obvious something needs to change. Yet, you continue to respond dogmatically.

Here I agree, but allowing someone to break the laws without repercussion is not the way. Without consequence there is no rule.

Being in America requires advanced citizenship. It is our responsibility to question our leaders and the laws that they make. The Ballot Box and Soap box are excellent vehicles for this, while the Ammo box is a poor choice. Unfortunately, too many are unwilling to do the real work that the 1st 2 require.

[KenWittlief]

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

Here I agree, but allowing someone to break the laws without repercussion is not the way. Without consequence there is no rule.

this seems to be the sticking point (but it is making for a very interesting conversation here).

Who should the consequences be given to? Through no action or decision of his own you have a minor living in the US, with no parent or guardian, no relative, no supervision. At some point his visa (if he had one to begin with) expires. At that point there is no legal way for him to stay here.

What should he do? What choice does he have? Legally he has no options: he will be deported if he follows the immigration laws. I believe that even if he did have a visa he still could not stay here as a minor without a legal guardian. It was a no-win situation, and he had nothing to lose by staying here.

When a person has nothing they are in survival mode. What consequences can you possibly call down on someone who has nothing to lose?

The fact that Amadou has done so well under these circumstances, will graduate from HS and has been accepted into college is absolutely amazing. This is why we have courts and judges, and our laws are not cut and dry. If someone had been in a no-win situation, and their actions and character has been shown to be exceptional, then we do make exceptions.

[JAlpert]

Daniel, it seems like we can all agree that immigration laws need to change. I also believe we agree that illegal immigration is also not inherently bad (as I mentioned earlier, people like Amadou may actually contribute positively to the country).

We disagree that Amadou should be punished because he broke the law.

There are four reasons why the government punishes people ("the purposes of punishment"): deterrence, retribution, incapacitation, and rehabilitation. Many laws contain portions of each of these purposes. But some laws are made purely for deterrence - like laws against carrying loaded guns. Carrying a loaded gun doesn't necessarily hurt anyone, but it probably has a high correlation with bad outcomes. A subset of deterrence laws are regulatory laws. These are laws where the action isn't inherently evil, like speeding or jaywalking. Speeding or jaywalking may be correlated loosely with bad outcomes, but obviously carrying around a loaded gun is much worse than doing 5 over or crossing the street while there is no traffic.

In my opinion, because we both seem to believe that illegal immigration isn't inherently evil, we would both interpret the law to be regulatory in nature. That means illegal immigration is really no worse than speeding. To an illegal immigrant, they're doing 5 over. Any possible harm to anyone else is so remote that it probably doesn't matter.

This brings me to my point. By your logic, we should bring the maximum weight of the law on everyone who goes over the speed limit ("Without consequence there is no rule"). Would that be OK? You can't just say that everyone who speeds deserves to be punished. That would mean pulling over half the cars on the highway. When nearly everybody breaks a regulatory law at one time or another, and the chances of harm are so remote, it's probably OK to do so. The point of the law is deterrence, not incapacitation or rehabilitation, and is interpreted as such.

In Amadou's case, the argument is even more powerful. This is a case of necessity. Not only is he not hurting anybody by being here, he needs to be here because he had no choice (and furthermore, he's probably actually helping the country by being here). It's like going 5 over because you've got someone in the back of your car who needs to get to the hospital. It's clearly OK to cross the street even though the sign says 'don't walk' if your grandmother is having a heart attack and you've got to get her medical attention. Yet by your logic, the law should come down hard on any and all jaywalkers.

Jeff

PS: I should have been more clear about the "overweight robot" rule in my last post. The reason it doesn't apply is because the rule is not just regulatory. The bad outcome in this case is gaining an unfair advantage, which happens as soon as the rule is broken. It's not at all like immigration in that respect. Some demand probably exists to break it, by people who wish to cheat. That's different than economic demand, though. Nobody fills a void the competition needed to be filled by playing an overweight robot. It actually harms other teams when you break the rule, and is inherently evil to do so.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by JAlpert

Daniel, it seems like we can all agree that immigration laws need to change. I also believe we agree that illegal immigration is also not inherently bad (as I mentioned earlier, people like Amadou may actually contribute positively to the country).

We disagree that Amadou should be punished because he broke the law.

Correct. Also, seems some dont understand that the punishment need not be deportation. If the individual is of good character (which Amadou seems to be) then community service (as well as getting legal papers to be in this country) could be a proper punishment. Especially if that community service included getting his story (and the mistakes he made) out.

Originally Posted by JAlpert

There are four reasons why the government punishes people ("the purposes of punishment"): deterrence, retribution, incapacitation, and rehabilitation. Many laws contain portions of each of these purposes. But some laws are made purely for deterrence - like laws against carrying loaded guns. Carrying a loaded gun doesn't necessarily hurt anyone, but it probably has a high correlation with bad outcomes. A subset of deterrence laws are regulatory laws. These are laws where the action isn't inherently evil, like speeding or jaywalking. Speeding or jaywalking may be correlated loosely with bad outcomes, but obviously carrying around a loaded gun is much worse than doing 5 over or crossing the street while there is no traffic.

First of all, I won't comment on your gunlaw analogy...seems we don't agree here either
Secondly, the reason 5 MPH over the speed limit is not enforced has more to do with manpower and the accuracy of the speeometer in your car than how dangreous an issue is.

Originally Posted by JAlpert

In my opinion, because we both seem to believe that illegal immigration isn't inherently evil, we would both interpret the law to be regulatory in nature. That means illegal immigration is really no worse than speeding. To an illegal immigrant, they're doing 5 over. Any possible harm to anyone else is so remote that it probably doesn't matter.

And what about 6 MPH over the speed limit?...maybe 7? How about 20? where do you draw the line? Is speeding 6 MPH over the limit that much worse than 5? Here is where we have to stop thinking with our hearts and start thinking with our heads. The harm lies not with the particular outcome of a specific act but the precident you set forth when it is really dangerous. 5 MPH over the speed limit might not be dangerous on the highway, but it most definately can be dangerous on a crowded neighborhood street.

Originally Posted by JAlpert

This brings me to my point. By your logic, we should bring the maximum weight of the law on everyone who goes over the speed limit ("Without consequence there is no rule"). Would that be OK? You can't just say that everyone who speeds deserves to be punished. That would mean pulling over half the cars on the highway. When nearly everybody breaks a regulatory law at one time or another, and the chances of harm are so remote, it's probably OK to do so. The point of the law is deterrence, not incapacitation or rehabilitation, and is interpreted as such.

Your speed limit example is an excellent example of "without consequence there is no rule". Because no one is pulled over on the highway unless they are going more than 5 MPH over the speed limit everyone travels 5+ MPH over the speed limit. Should they be punished? Yes, but it will not happen due to manpower (Number of police officers) issues and calibration (of the speedometer) issues. In this case the law is rigid, but enforcement is more lax.

Originally Posted by JAlpert

In Amadou's case, the argument is even more powerful. This is a case of necessity. Not only is he not hurting anybody by being here, he needs to be here because he had no choice (and furthermore, he's probably actually helping the country by being here). It's like going 5 over because you've got someone in the back of your car who needs to get to the hospital. It's clearly OK to cross the street even though the sign says 'don't walk' if your grandmother is having a heart attack and you've got to get her medical attention. Yet by your logic, the law should come down hard on any and all jaywalkers.

You say Amadou does not hurt anyone. Lets look at the bigger picture. If all of the illegal immigrants in this country were to leave, that would leave a hole in the economy. Jobs that people dont want to do and Very low paying jobs would go unfilled. I will use your 'law of supply and demand' arguement.
This would have 2 effects:
1> Low paying jobs would need to up their salaries to attract workers.
2> Corporations (with thier big pockets and lobbiests) would be asking the government to loosen the immigration laws to allow more immigrants in.

So by him (and others) being here (and breaking the law) they actually hurt thier own cause to become citizens.

It is my belief that the immigration laws need to be Loosened up, to allow more legal immigrants. This will remove some of the 'demand' for illegal immigrants. I also believe that the punishment to corporations who hire illegal immigrants should be stiffer and enforced more (also removing the demand). Peaceful revolution

P.S. I want to thank the CD members. Most forums I've been to would have flammed me down by now for putting forth a dissenting view. What I have found here is enlightened discussion on what could be an emotionally charged subject. Your adult and informed posts make it a joy to be a member.

[KenWittlief]

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

You say Amadou does not hurt anyone. Lets look at the bigger picture. If all of the illegal immigrants in this country were to leave, that would leave a hole in the economy. Jobs that people dont want to do and Very low paying jobs would go unfilled. I will use your 'law of supply and demand' arguement.
This would have 2 effects:
1> Low paying jobs would need to up their salaries to attract workers.
2> Corporations (with thier big pockets and lobbiests) would be asking the government to loosen the immigration laws to allow more immigrants in.

this may not be what would actually happen.

Many of the low paying jobs that illegal immigrants now fill are not necessary for our national economy. I will use a couple examples that came up after mondays Immigrant protest day.

A guy who owns a landscaping company complained that 30 of his workers did not show up monday, and he lost thousands of dollars in business. 95% of the 'landscaping' work these businesses do is mowing lawns. The guy buys a bunch of lawn mowers, then pays illegal immigrant less than minimum wage to run them.

Ok, lets say the small time 'landscapers' are all put out of business because their cheap labor is deported. Whats going to happen? Are they going to hire new workers at minimum wage or more, and double the price they charge to homeowners to get their lawns mowed?

most likely not. Some people will start mowing their own lawns. Some will get a neighbors kid to do it. Some will go in halves with a neighbor or two and buy a nice riding lawn mower. Some will cover their lawns with trees and astroturf so it no longer needs to be cut. Some people who have nice riding mowers will cut their neighbors grass for free.

What is the result on our economy? Difficult to say. Some homeowners will be in better health from the exercise they get mowing their own grass. Some wont cut their grass more than once a month. If enough people really hate mowing their lawns then some genius will come up with a cost effective lawm-mower-robot that runs on grass clippings. Scientists will be driven to come up with new forms of ground cover that dont need to be mowed at all (hybrid grass and such).

You could do the same exercise on many of the industries that illegal immigrants now work in: hotels, food service, food production, farming, house construction.... If they are taken out of the picture its difficult to predict what the end result will be, and whether our economy would be better or worse in the long run as a result.

Look at Japan for example. They have a shortage of people to take care of the elderly. What are they doing? Creating robots to be senior adult companions!

In an innovative society like ours the squeaky wheel doesnt automatically get oiled. It gets scrutinized. Sometimes it gets replaced by something better.

[falconmaster]

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

I will play devils advocate here.

We are a nation of laws. Amadou Ly has chosen to willfully break these laws to stay here when his Visa ran out. He has chosen to hide from the authorities rather than attempt to work within the system to become a citizen (or legal immigrent). It appears from the article that he has tried to become a citizen only after he got caught. This shows a deep disrespect for our laws and our culture.

I do not know Amadou Ly. I do not know what type of person he is. From the article those who know him speak well of him and, in the end, those people might be his best chance at staying in this country. It is my hope that Amadou Ly gets a fair shot at becoming a legal immigrent and that he has learned that to live within this nation of laws he must follow those laws.

FIRST teaches many lessons far away from the robot. Lets hope that Amandou and others can learn from Amandous' experience.

Yes you can follow the law, or you could do what's right. Our nation has had many laws that have been changed over time when it is apparent that the law was probably unfair and unjust. Let me ask you a question....would you turn yourself in to be deported when all you have and know is here? It is not quite that simple. What if you were brought here as an infant and all you know is the U.S.? Even less simpler.........Sometimes the heart is a better decision maker when the issues are this complicated and the law just seems heartless.

[falconmaster]

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

I will play devils advocate here.

We are a nation of laws. Amadou Ly has chosen to willfully break these laws to stay here when his Visa ran out. He has chosen to hide from the authorities rather than attempt to work within the system to become a citizen (or legal immigrent). It appears from the article that he has tried to become a citizen only after he got caught. This shows a deep disrespect for our laws and our culture.

I do not know Amadou Ly. I do not know what type of person he is. From the article those who know him speak well of him and, in the end, those people might be his best chance at staying in this country. It is my hope that Amadou Ly gets a fair shot at becoming a legal immigrent and that he has learned that to live within this nation of laws he must follow those laws.

FIRST teaches many lessons far away from the robot. Lets hope that Amandou and others can learn from Amandous' experience.

It also seems to me that Amadou is just an other victim of a bigger problem. The U.S. immigration system is broken. 12 million undocumented people in the U.S.! How could they get in but not terrorists? Oh yes, big business and such that pressure congress and the senate to not pass laws punishing them for hiring undocumented workers. 12 million people who cannot get any state or federal assistance yet pay rent, or mortgage (which pays for their public education) , some pay taxes and pay into soc. sec. yet never collect (50 million a year) , they do the jobs that the rest of us won't touch. They are here because "we" want them here. At least that is how seems to me. I don't see INS swinging by Home Depot to pick up day laborers. It seems funny that everyone else nows they are there except INS. Hmmmm!