The Good Immigrant II: The Loudmouth “Dreamer”


Ooooh, I bet a lot of people are just going to hate this.

 22-year-old Daniela Vargas decided to participate in a pro-illegal immigrant news conference this week in Jackson, Mississippi. Two weeks before , ICE officials had handcuff her father and brother in the family’s driveway, for they, like her, were Argentines living in the U.S. illegally. Vargas was only 7 years old when she accompanied her father, mother and brother on a three-month visitor’s visa in 2001. The visa ran out, but they stayed in the Palmetto State.

Daniela had been protected as a “Dreamer” (another progressive euphemism designed to not only obscure truth but to make something that is nothing to be proud of sound benign, even cute) when she was 17 in December 2012 and again in November of 2014. She allowed that protection to lapse, and was officially violating the law for the last three months.

Nonetheless she put herself in front of a microphone and TV cameras this week to proclaim her defiance of the law. “Today my father and brother await deportation,while I continue to fight this battle as a dreamer to help contribute to this country which I feel that is very much my country,” she said.

Then, as Vargas drove home,  ICE agents pulled her over,  handcuffed her and took her to join her family as a first step to deportation.


Are you outraged? Really? This is a key breach of the common sense, “Don’t rub your law-breaking in the authorities’ faces rule.”  I remember my Dad one time, driving me to the airport when I was late for a flight, passing a state trooper who was going over the speed limit himself.  The trooper pulled us over, and was spitting mad. “You had the gall to flaunt speeding right in my face!” he said, barely under control. “That’s an insult to me, and the law. Just cruise by me going ten miles an hour faster as if I was nothing? No respect at all!” he said.  My dad could only say “I’m very sorry, officer. I didn’t intend to be disrespectful, but you are right. It was.” (He got a ticket.)

Vargas was so certain that she was immune from the laws of ” this country which she feels that is very much my country” that she flaunted her illegal status, after shrugging off her obligation to take the required steps to stay here. Like father, like daughter.

In a statement, an ICE spokesman confirmed that immigration officials took Vargas as “an unlawfully present Argentinian citizen,” into custody  “during a targeted immigration enforcement action” after the agency verified that her DACA status had lapsed.

Now the hashtag #freedany is being  spread on social media as an immigrant rights group, United We Dream, are encouraging young  illegal  immigrants  to sign a petition to Department of Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly demanding Vargas’s release. Its introduction says,,

“ICE agents detained 22 year old Dany Vargas just hours after she courageously spoke about her fear of deportation at a press conference…Dany came to the U.S. when she was 7 years old and was a beneficiary of the DACA program. She is a manager at a small store and dreams of becoming a math teacher.

Like many beneficiaries of the DACA program, paying the nearly $500 in fees every two years was hard and her DACA status expired. However, she saved up, got the money together and her renewal application is now in the approval process. But because of this technicality, ICE tracked her down, and put her into the deportation pipeline.”


“ICE agents detained 22 year old Dany Vargas just hours after she courageously spoke about her fear of deportation at a press conference…”

The proper word is not “courageously.” Stupidly, defiantly, foolishly, disrespectfully, arrogantly—ask that state trooper for the right words. Flaunting the law in the faces of law enforcement is many things, but it is not courageous.

“She is a manager at a small store and dreams of becoming a math teacher.”

I don’t care if she has dreams of curing cancer. She has no right to be here. She is breaking the law. The law  ignored  by someone “dreaming of becoming a math teacher” is just as violated as when that law is violated by someone dreaming of starting a strip club. The entire premise that illegal immigration is sanctified by the aspirations of the law-breakers is intellectually indefensible, and if applied to the law in general would justify every crime from theft to murder.

“Like many beneficiaries of the DACA program, paying the nearly $500 in fees every two years was hard and her DACA status expired.” 

Awww. Avoiding law enforcement while breaking the law should be hard. Vargas has no right to be in the U.S. or to say here. She was lucky enough to be the beneficiary of a law that, foolishly, provides immigrant families with an incentive to breach U.S. immigration laws. All she had to do was keep current. She didn’t. Her status didn’t expire on its own; she allowed it to expire. If you are caught driving without a license because it “expired,” can you make this argument without having a judge laugh in your face? Living in a country involves certain duties and obligations.

“However, she saved up, got the money together and her renewal application is now in the approval process.” Let’s see: if you let your insurance lapse and then get injured after it has  expired, whose fault is it? How about letting your insurance lapse and  deciding to wrestle alligators for a lark—reasonable?

“But because of this technicality, ICE tracked her down, and put her into the deportation pipeline.” “Technicality.” I’m sure her whole family regards that expired visa a “technicality.”  Not paying taxes:another  technicality! Living under a nation of laws is just one big technicality, isn’t it? Her lawyer says that they are going to try to have Daniela released on her own recognizance as she fights deportation. A judge would be a fool to allow it (though I won’t bet that one won’t.) Why would anyone trust someone who regards legal obligations as “technicalities”?

Then the real BS starts with the short but annoying petition itself:

To: Secretary John Kelly
From: [Your Name]

DACA should have protected Dany from deportation – and no one should be punished for being a low income worker.

We are asking you, Secretary Kelly, to release Daniela immediately, grant her DACA renewal and declare to your agents in no uncertain terms that DACA will remain the strong protection from deportation.

Right: Dani is being punished for “being a low income worker.” They were rounding up all the law income workers that day, were they? She will be punished, if she is punished, for staying here illegally and failing to avail herself of a reprieve of dubious legislative wisdom in a timely and lawful fashion. Meanwhile, the theory here is that DACA should provide “strong protection from deportation’ whether an illegal immigrant has bothered to engage in that technicality of meeting its requirements or not. That’s about right: the same arrogance sense of entitlement Vargas displayed by speaking out in public.

A nation of laws has to act against people like Daniela Vargas, just like the state trooper had to give dad a ticket. If it allows the its laws to be shown open disrespect, then the nation cannot maintain the rule of law.


Filed under Character, Childhood and children, Citizenship, Family, Government & Politics, language, Law & Law Enforcement, Rights, U.S. Society

91 responses to “The Good Immigrant II: The Loudmouth “Dreamer”

  1. “Technicality.” I’m sure her whole family regards that expired visa a “technicality.” Not paying taxes:another technicality! Living under a nation of laws is just one big technicality, isn’t it?”

    It’s only a technicality in the law that makes Jeffrey Dahmer’s conduct illegal. I mean… jeez guys.

  2. carcarwhite

    wow… What arrogance… can’t believe not only did she do that, but that people are encouraging it!

    The Left more and more is making me so happy I voted against this kind of thinking.

    I knew it in my gut when I was being bullied for asking questions on facebook during the campaign about inconsistencies in their points. I was even called a troll for asking questions!

    (by my own family too)

    I am SOOO glad, they are showing how ridiculous they are. I get wanting to let people who have lived her a long time a path to citizenship and fast. This behavior puts her in the category of the kind of disrespectful entitled people we do NOT want as citizens.

    What will it be next?

    Unbelievable and you are right on, Jack.

  3. Wayne

    “Don’t cry for me in Argentina. I didn’t pay my taxes or renew my visa. Just got deported. Oh, boo hoo hoo.”

  4. 0dder0tter

    “Then, as Vargas drove home, ICE agents pulled her over, handcuffed her and took her to join her family as a first step to deportation.


    That you think this is “good” speaks volumes about your character.

    “Distrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful.” -Nietzsche

    • The impulse to allow illegal immigrants to frolic and posture without condemnation or consequence is the mark of an idiot. So is quoting Nietszche in a discussion of character. Nice, lazy virtue signaling though.

      “Good,” as if I have to explain for the mentally abled, refers to enforcing laws. And again, good. I am not happy for Ms. Vargas’s pain, but then, she brought it on herself.

      • fattymoon

        Thanks, odderotter.
        Here’s another… “He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby become a monster. And if thou gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into thee.”

      • 0dder0tter

        Frolic and posture. Really? I’m wondering if you can possibly be any more condescending.

        Despite your claim that you’re “not happy for Ms. Varga’s pain” it’s pretty clear that you’re reveling that “she brought it on herself.” You *like* that she’s being punished. What does that say about you that you’re *eager* to punish others?

        • Chris Bentley

          There is a gulf a mile wide between being happy that someone was punished (“You deserved it”), and satisfaction that laws are starting to be enforced *somewhat* consistently, without consideration for factors that would not be considered if the violator was a citizen.

          I hate taking the “as a minority” position, but…as a minority, what bugs me the most about bleeding hearts is the notion that those in a particular protected class need to be coddled like children. Paying expensive fees to procure necessary services, be it car insurance, passport, or DACA fees, is the price of being an adult in American society. As an independent contractor, I have to pay boatloads of taxes each April. When April comes around, because I am not well off, paying taxes that are due is “hard”. You know what makes it less hard? Preparing in advance, knowing that they are due each April. You know, being an adult. Putting aside money each month to make the due date less “hard”. $2 a month for 24 months almost covers the fees DACA fees.

          Is it too much to expect a low income worker to save $2 per month? One who is wearing Flower brand glasses. A quick check of frames on show that the Flower brand retails for $117, while an almost indistinguishable pair retails for $57. Decisions (like accepting a less-expensive version of frames) pop up repeatedly over the course of 2 years, and allow one to squirrel away money for important payments. She chose not to do that. Do I fault someone for wanting the niceties in life. Hell no, everyone does…I certainly do. But you lose the protection of sympathy for “paying x amount is hard” when you have opportunities to make it less hard, and chose otherwise. The IRS feels no sympathy for me when I am short on my taxes. And I am ok with that.

          Nothing Jack wrote implies that he’s happy that she’s suffering. He literally said as much. But to be happy that adults, of sound mind and body, are being held to a consistent standard; that being black, or woman, or hispanic, or an illegal alien is not a handicap that should allow you to be held to a different standard…yeah, I (as a minority) am happy about that too. You damn well should be too.

          • Chris Bentley

            Oh, damn it….$20 per month, not $2. And I fancy myself a math guy.

            $20 IS more onerous for a low income employee, and is nothing to sniff at… but it’s not undoable. Point still stands.

          • I am thrilled she was arrested and hopeful for her deportation. At what point can it ok to purposely defy our laws. Ship them ALL out.

          • 0dder0tter

            “Nothing Jack wrote implies that he’s happy that she’s suffering. He literally said as much.”

            When he said “good” that’s a pretty clear indication to me that he’s happy about her punishment. He’s backpedaling and denying it now, but I’m pretty confident in my opinion that he enjoys what’s happening to her.

            Otherwise, I agree with everything else you wrote. I firmly believe that she is being punished appropriately, and I’ve said nothing to the contrary.

            What *does* bother me is the glee many people feel in punishing criminals. That smug self-satisfaction is how we’ve ended up with absurdly looooooong mandatory minimums and a militarized police force. And it’s only getting worse.

            Remember, who is considered a “criminal” is defined by those in power, and that can change very quickly and it might be *you* next.

            • No, “Yippee! Take that, bitch!” would mean I was happy about her fate. (It’s not punishment, as was just pointed out.) Good means good: this is the right result, and right results are good.

            • Pennagain

              Odder, have you read any Ethics Alarms before? Did you look at the Unethical Rationalizations and Misconceptions list (see the link at the left of Jack’s post)? Do you know anything about the man you are misinterpreting — who is being preternaturally patient with your base assumptions and misconceptions? No, of course not.

        • joed68

          I’m eager to see her punished. She thumbed her nose not only at our law enforcement apparatus, but at the taxpayers involuntarily burdened with the cost of their lawlessness. I honestly don’t care what that supposedly says about me.

    • joed68

      Nietzsche influenced all kinds of people. Hitler immediately comes to mind.
      Also, you’re silly.

      • 0dder0tter

        The Beatles influenced all kinds of people. Charles Manson immediately comes to mind.

        Did you have a point? (haha. I’m kidding. Of *course* you didn’t)

        • joed68

          You missed the point? Okay, I’ll type slowly; Nietzsche is dead.
          And irrelevant, because he was nuts.

          • 0dder0tter

            Still no point? Can’t say that I’m surprised. Unless you consider a “point” the idiotic position that no one should consider the words of anyone who has already died, or that we should disregard people just because of your personal opinion of them.

            But, surely you’re not that stupid, are you?

            • joed68

              You rolled out Nietzsche as if any statement by him is self-evident wisdom. Any particular reason that we should “distrust…”, other than the fact that Nietzsche said it?

              • joed68

                Did you not read “On the geneaology of Morals” and “Beyond Good and Evil”?

              • 0dder0tter

                “Any particular reason that we should “distrust…”, other than the fact that Nietzsche said it?”

                I dunno. Because it’s so obviously true?

                • joed68

                  Aside from whether or not the desire to punish necessarily arises from cruelty, in this particular case she, like so many others, thumbed her nose at our laws and the people footing the bill for her lawlessness. Speaking for myself, the instinct to see her punished for this is strong in me. What’s wrong with wanting to see the tables occasionally turned on scofflaws? I can see the utility for a certain amount of unpredictability worked into our system. She rolled the dice, and lost.

    • Nietzsche was a brilliant philosopher, and vindictiveness is indeed something to watch out for, for a number of reasons. However, that does not have much to do with deporting illegal immigrants, because deporting illegal immigrants it, in and of itself, not punishment. It it rectifying the crime.

      You can debate whether or not any group has sovereign claim to any location, but I do lose a great deal of regard for people who try to use compassion as an argument to waive rules without even bothering to question why the rules are there in the first place.

      There are times in which even the powerful impulse of compassion must be distrusted. Those times are becoming more frequent, because the liberals are using it to justify anything, without regard for the consequences. They toss out any rule that stands in the way of their feelings, unlike the conservatives, who are steeped in order and hold onto rules regardless of their utility. If either faction makes a good decision, it is a coincidence. The truly effective are those who can walk the tightrope between.

  5. fattymoon

    For-profit prisons, welcome back! And thank you, Jeff Sessions!

    (Above is me being snarky.)

  6. Cynical John

    In the words of Jim Groce:
    You don’t tug on Superman’s cape
    You don’t spit into the wind
    You don’t pull the mask off that old Lone Ranger
    And you don’t mess around with Jim

  7. In trying to come up with a rational explanation, all I can think of is that maybe the family decided to head back to Argentina, so the press conference is just grandstanding.

    • Greg

      Presumably, she thought she would get the same treatment as this other Vargas,, who has spent the past several writing articles, holding press conferences and making television appearances to flaunt the fact that he and his family are illegal aliens. He not only hasn’t been deported; he has gloried in the praise of the New York Times and other supporters of unlimited immigration. With luck, the next time he gives a television interview, ICE agents will handcuff him and perp-walk him out of the studio.

  8. Other Bill

    If families are “torn apart” by deportation of various members, why don’t they all return to their country of origin to be together? Isn’t family the most important thing in Hispanic culture?

  9. Glenn Logan

    “She is a manager at a small store and dreams of becoming a math teacher.”

    I don’t care if she has dreams of curing cancer. She has no right to be here.

    I’m dreaming of becoming a millionaire-philanthropist dedicated to feeding the orphans in Somalia. I think I’ll go out and knock off a few banks to realize my dream.

    I demand the cops leave me alone, I’m a dreamer after all.

    Obligatory < / sarcasm > tag for any of the facetiousness-challenged Left that may happen by.

    • The whole article is Exhibit A of the inherently emotions-soaked, logic-free culture of illegal alien chic.

    • Chris Bentley

      Obviously, this is snark, but how can anyone, rationally, argue the difference between an illegal alien dreaming of a hopeful future, and an American dreaming of a hopeful future, with regards to who whom laws should be enforced upon? To enforce the laws on Glenn, for knocking off banks in the pursuit of your dream, and not enforcing them on Ms. Vargas, is a clear cut example of infantilizing someone, simply because they are a minority. “There, there…due dates and adult expectations are hard. These expectations that we have for the real grown ups, the expectations that come with consequences….don’t you worry about that. We dont have any belief that you can meet those expectations, so you dont need to worry about the consequences of failing to. We’ll take care of that for you. Go on back to pursuing your dream.” Who WOULDN’T be insulted by that??

      Are exceptions made for adults, often, when they mess-up on their adult responsibilities? Yep. But, when exceptions aren’t offered, especially when they have previously been offered, beyond the point of reasonable-ness, there isn’t much leg to stand on.

  10. Michael Ejercito

    $500 every two years?

    That translates to $20.83 per month. That is LESS than what people spend on sit-down restaurants.

    • Pennagain

      It’s a mere technicality, but we don’t know if she was paying taxes or not. The DACA fees I think she was referring to “includes a $380 application fee for Form I-765 (Application for Employment Authorization) and an $85 fee for biometrics (fingerprints and photo). DACA renewal applicants are required to submit new biometrics.” I’m sure the IRS will be checking in, however.

  11. E2 (nee Elizabeth I)

    In two words: “Tough shit.” You came here illegally — when millions wait for years to immigrate within the law — and you want my sympathy? Working on the sly, paying no taxes?: Too damn bad. If you loved this country so much — aside from higher wages and living under the radar thanks to a bunch of misguided liberals — you would have gone to the INS and started the legal process for staying here legally.

    These guys are just like the thieves who aren’t at all sorry they stole,but are very very sorry they got caught.

  12. Round them ALL up. Ship them ALL out. MAGA

  13. ALERT! OdderOtter is banned, as I was pretty sure he would be.

    Here was his response to my last reply to him:

    “Truman dropped the bomb. GOOD.”
    Wow. You think the largest *terrorist* attack on *civilians* (because that’s exactly what it was) EVER was good. I can’t even begin to respond to that. Thank you for showing your true colors.

    “Your second assertion is completely fact-free and disconnect from reality.”

    Not if one is capable of connecting the dots. Are you seriously trying to suggest that police militarization, super long sentencing, and ridiculous rates of incarceration are spurred by people who do NOT like meting out punishment? Ridiculous.

    “Your argument is just bigotry, hate, and ideological arrogance”

    Bigotry? Guffaw. Look in the mirror, Jack. You and your cohorts have been *much* more intolerant than I.

    Hate? Am I the one expressing hate toward “people who deserve it”?

    Ideological arrogance? Well, as they say, “If you got it, flaunt it.” Guilty as charged.

    “I’ll give you a couple more posts to actually debate rather than engage in what is essentially an ad hominem argument.”

    At least that’s better than the **actual** ad homs (idiot, asshole) you’ve been using against me. I guess that’s just another example of justifiable ideological arrogance.

    “I’m making a million dollar bet with myself …”

    Aren’t you just the risk taker?

    I had ended my last reply to him with this:

    “I’ll give you a couple more posts to actually debate rather than engage in what is essentially an ad hominem argument to avoid making a real one.I’m making a million dollar bet with myself regarding how you respond. I’d be happy to lose it, but I don’t think I will.”

    I didn’t. He is hopeless and arrogant, a bad combo. I have sock drawers to clean up and lint to pick. He is not worth the time to debate, since OO is obviously a hard core ideologue whose ideas and perspective are as impenetrable and immutable as cement.

    He also triggers the Ethics Alarms stupidity rule, with the comment about Hiroshima. There are some levels of ignorance and idiocy up with which I will not put. This is a perfect example.

    Bye-Bye. Don’t come back.

    • And this, to OO, in case he’s considering sneaking in comments that slip by my spamming device, as they sometimes do.

      If you are banned, and try to comment anyway, I will take down all of your posts, every one.

      • If you are banned, and try to comment anyway, I will take down all of your posts, every one.

        “you are dead to me”

        No sense of what the Japanese did to China, or POWs, or any of the islands they invaded (yes, they were the aggressors)

        “America bad: they dropped the bomb” Infant

        • Questioning the two nuclear bombs can be done in a reasonable and logical fashion, especially Nagasaki.We’ll debate anything here. That kind of extreme assertion about Hiroshima, however, is signature significance of a closed mind and a perspective immune to facts.

          • OO was here to feel smug about himself, nothing more. Not interested in rational debate.

            As an aside, what are/were the ethics of dropping the bomb?

            Most of my past positions are along the lines of “Japan’s acts were worse/needed to save more of Japan’s population/saved a million US troops/etc.” but those leave me feeling uneasy due to my new ethics understanding.

            I am interested in a discussion.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.