“ignorance of the law is no excuse”

A NYT “Good Illegal Immigrant” Sob Story That I Sympathize With..

/ Jack Marshall / 7 Comments

In the past, I have registered disgust with the New York Times (and others) pushing illegal immigrant/open borders propaganda with features highlighting “good” illegals who are allegedly selfless, hard-working, honorable, long-time residents whose only transgression is that they have no business living here in the first place. Ethically, being in the U.S. legally is a condition precedent to my venturing any sympathy for someone facing deportation.

The saga of two teenage brothers from the Republic of Congo who have fallen into I.C.E.’s clutches, however, is different.

Israel Makoka, 18, and Max Makoka, 15, entered the United States legally on F-1 student visas. They were to attend the Piney Woods School, a “historically Black boarding institution” (whatever that is). The brothers weren’t comfortable at Piney Woods so they transferred to a public school in their host family’s neighborhood, Hancock High, in August of last year. A lawyer advised their host family to become their legal guardians so that they could remain in the country, and a judge granted the family’s guardianship request.

No one warned the family that the transfer to a public school would affect the brothers’ immigration status. Nobody knew until the teenagers’ arrest last week that moving from Piney Woods wiped out their legal immigration status. Hancock High is not allowed to host people on student visas, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement got wind of the snafu. The brothers are now facing deportation through, it can be argued, no fault of their own.

The rest of the Times piece is, like all the other “Good Illegal Immigrant” features, full of testimonials about how wonderful the Makokas are. This pattern reminds me of a comic’s routine I heard in which the wit marveled at how the murder victims in all the “Dateline” and “48 Hours” episodes are always described as lighting up every room they enter, being universally loved, and having no flaws or faults. Maybe the brothers are Golden Boys, and maybe not: it doesn’t matter. What matters is justice.

The maxim of the law is that “ignorance of the law is no excuse.” Mistake of law, however, can be a viable defense. What happened in this case is somewhere between the two, but the youth of these “Good Illegal Immigrants” should, I think, carry the day.

I hope this is recognized as the unintended mess it is, and that I.C.E. gives the Makotas a reprieve.

It’s the right and just course.

Both Parties Are Hereby Ethically Estopped From Accusing Each Other’s Officials Of Violating The Hatch Act

/ Jack Marshall / 4 Comments

However, such violations are still unethical and illegal…but laws are for the little people. Bush officials violated the Hatch Act. Obama Cabinet members Kathleen Sibelius and Julian Castro violated the Hatch Act. Kellyanne Conway and Mike Pompeo, among others, violated the Hatch Act in the Trump administration. Ethics Alarms explained,

The Hatch Act is a perfect example of the principle that if people can cheat to obtain power or keep power, they will, if they know the penalties will be minimal or less….The Hatch Act isn’t enforced, so all administrations allow their officials to violate it. I don’t know if the law is enforceable. It is naive and irresponsible to expect …any Presidential underlings regardless of party to eschew this unethical practice when they know they can get away with it, and the potential benefits of the violations are significant….enforce the Hatch Act, or get rid of it.

Continue reading →

Morning Ethics Warm-Up, 11/25/2017: NPR, Spin Cycle, A Mother Bugs A Classroom, and a Jumbo!

/ Jack Marshall / 51 Comments

 

Good Morning, Black Saturday!

1 Self promotion Dept. I’m going to be back on NPR (WBUR, D.C.) in what I think is a live panel discussion (“Barbershop” is the show—I wonder what a ‘barbershop” is? ) hosted at 5: 30 pm, EST by the estimable Michel Martin. The topic is The Harvey Weinstein Ethics Train Wreck, though that’s not what they’ll be calling it.

2. “For every time, Spin Spin Spin, there is a season..” I may mention this New Republic article, or at least be ready to torch a fellow panelist who cites it favorably. The tortured reasoning of writer David Dayen led him to assert that the “sexual harassment crisis” resulted from ” a broken justice system.” Let me summarize it for you: men harass women in the workplace because it’s too hard to convict people and put them in jail. When did liberals start being the ones who want to dispense with civil rights protections and due process assurances in court?

“But we should identify the real culprit for this state of affairs: the long, slow abandonment of the rule of law in America. The reason adjudicating sexual misconduct claims has been left to the media and the crowd is that people have no expectation that the legal system will adjudicate those claims fairly. How can anyone blame them? They have witnessed endless instances of powerful people, mostly wealthy men, getting away with criminality and deception, in every context imaginable. When you don’t have a working justice system, you get a kind of vigilantism as a result. The problem isn’t the vigilantism—it’s the broken framework that leads desperate people to take matters into their own hands. That powerful people face little sanction for misbehavior is an old story, as true in gender as it is in class. But brazen impunity for the powerful is a hallmark of our era. The worst financial crisis in America in nearly a century led to practically no convictions for those whose actions facilitated the meltdown. The Catholic Church shuttled around sex-abusing priests for decades with little reckoning. Cops shoot black people and go back on the job….”

None of this has much to do with sexual harassment, which isn’t a crime, and the three examples cherry-picked by Dayen don’t support his stated argument. The Wall Street wheeler-dealers operated primarily within loopholes and gray areas in the laws and regulations. There were few convictions because it was hard to prove that laws were broken. When the molesting priests were identified, still living, and in the U.S., many were sent to prison. (That the Catholic Church behaved abysmally doesn’t show that the U.S. justice system is broken, obviously). And “Cops shoot black people and go back on the job” is deceitful, simple-minded agitprop. Colin Kaepernick, is that you?

The article is a desperate and clumsy attempt at ethics jujitsu, with the recent exposure of progressive hypocrites as sexual predators being flipped to pivot to the talking point that “everything is rigged against the poor, blacks and women.” What Dayen ends up arguing is that we need to make it easier to prove criminal guilt when we just know the defendants are bad dudes (white, male and rich) —shouldn’t that be enough?— and all the “beyond a reasonable doubt” stuff should be junked…except when black “non-violent drug offenders” are involved.

3.  It’s still illegal. Fark.com called this story “a woman being arrested for mothering while black.” Nice. David Dayen, is that you? Continue reading →

A Horror Story From The Law vs. Ethics Files: The Mario Hernandez Saga [UPDATED and BACKDATED!]

/ Jack Marshall / 4 Comments

Mr. Hernandez? Mr. Unger would like a word with you...

Mr. Hernandez? Mr. Unger would like a word with you…

This is complicated.

Occasionally a trusted source sends me to a link or a news item that turns out to be old, sometimes many years old. I assume it is current (I need to learn to check the dates), write the post, and then find out that what I wrote about took place in 1978. I usually trash the post. There have been a few like this. Now this story came to me from a trusted source, and linked to a current story, or so I thought. The post, on a site called “America Now,” is dated August 25, 2016. But WordPress pointed out, right at the bottom, that I had in fact written about Mario Hernandez’s citizenship problems two years ago. What? For a second I thought there were TWO Marios (Mario brothers?), who had the same problem, but no, they are the same guy.

The story  I was given today, based on this New York Times story from May of 2014, led to the post below. There is an ending to the story, which was explicated by me in the post of two years ago. However my two posts were on two different ethics issues, and today’s though inspired by a stale story, is still ethically useful. Pretend Mario plight isn’t two years old: that doesn’t alter the principles involved, or my analysis. I’ll tell you what happened at the end of the post..

***

Continue reading →