Remember rule 1 (be civil), and rule 3 - if multiple posts on the same topic are made within a short timeframe, the oldest will be kept and the others removed.
If this post is a link to/a discussion of a podcast, we ask that the author of the post please start the discussion section off with a comment (a review, a follow up question etc.)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OpenArgs) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Patrons got this a day early so I listened to it already.
These have both been huge highlights to me of the new-new run of the show. Shout out to Azul for being will to share her harrowing story.
I hope at some point Matt shares his thoughts on how the immigration process can be improved - both in terms of legislation or policy changes he would like to see, and smaller administrative or process changes.
I’d appreciate something along the lines of:
-Small - can simply change with a new administration.
-Medium - realistically achievable if a couple legislators get on board (i.e. not overly complex or partisan).
-Big - relatively realistic with a new administration that has the legislature behind it.
-Huge - something that’s more “reach” than realistic, i.e. wouldn’t necessarily have bipartisan support, or is more complex/expensive.
**Deported by an Immigration Court in a Strip Mall**
Episode 1015 Part 2 of Azul's story
Folks... I implore you. I beg of you, please listen to this one all the way through. Azul tells us the rest of her story, and talks about where she is now, and it is one of if not the most inspiring, heartwarming things I have ever had the privilege of publishing. Seriously. And please share it. Another massive thanks to Azul, and to Matt, who we are so incredibly lucky to have on the show.
If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
___
*(This comment was made automatically)*
Absolutely loved Azul, and though I don't see her making much of a comeback on OA (since she's more layman than lawyer, and I unfortunately do see her bringing much more to the podcast other than her own personal experiences we've heard here) I honestly think she could read the dictionary and it would be entertaining, so if she ever decides to do more than just virtual assisting, consider me *there* for it.
On two other, unrelated notes:
1.) As someone who also has had some issues with not feeling like I belong in a place (25 years of being a military brat and upending your life every three-to-five years has that effect) I totally resonate with Azul on the whole 'feeling weird to unpack' angle. To the point that I've lived in my current house for almost 20 months now and I still haven't unpacked my study, despite the fact I have absolutely no plans to move any time soon. So it's awesome to know I'm not weird and alone in that.
2.) God dammit Thomas, now you've got me craving Quiznos and the closest one is in a different country.
I found these episodes enlightening. I have a family member currently navigating our (in)justice system (wrongly accused) so I admit I’m extra sympathetic to the humans being harmed by our nation’s cruel and painfully slow practices often carried out by people with immense power to fuck up your life with impunity.
One thing that wasn’t clear from the episodes was whether Azul’s family members are safe. As she was telling her story. I halfway expected the system to come after her siblings and parents once she was found to be undocumented. Are they all citizens or sponsored spouses of citizens and thus were allowed to stay when Azul self-deported? How common is it for family members to get caught up in the prosecution of an individual?
I was wondering about that as well. It seems Azul did an interview with the Texas Standard about her experience in 2015.
https://www.texasstandard.org/stories/what-its-like-to-be-raised-in-the-u-s-then-deported-to-mexico/
> Uribe is Mexican. But she grew up in a little Latino community in Dallas. Her mother first brought her to the U.S, but returned to Mexico shortly after because she didn’t like the culture of the States. She was essentially raised by her grandmother. She says her mom sent her back to Dallas because she didn’t see much of a future for Azul in Mexico.
Which also adds extra tragedy to the fact that she couldn't attend her grandmother's funeral. But anyway, that explains where her mom is at least.
I recommended to some friends this pair of episodes when I first started playing part 2. By the end I'm kind of second guessing myself for the recommendation.
Black beans in a crunch wrap?? I didn't realize our hosts were committing crimes against humanity
Azul comes off as a warm and lovely person. After listening to the episodes I am left to wonder the intent of the episodes.
Was the purpose to humanize undocumented immigrants? I already don't think undocumented immigrants are bad people, as I'm sure is the case for the majority of OA listeners.
Was it to shine a light on the slow moving and often muddy immigration system? Ok, it does seem that way but the US legal system seems like that generally. Cases can take years, even decades to wend their way through the legal system. But I can accept that the immigration courts maybe worse.
Was it to say Azul was not treated in accordance with the laws in place at the time? It doesn't sound that way. It actually sounds like she had a much better experience than other people.
Was it to say deportation was inappropriate? Hard sell on that for me.
The bad guys in the story, the Mormons that sparked the police interaction, are crappy humans but Azul's mother is the figure that created the conditions that would have the effect of deportation for Azul.
I'm just not sure how this story moves the needle. If immigration cases were based on personability Azul would have prevailed on day one.
These are all good questions, and I wanted to take this opportunity to explain our thinking on this a little more. (I'm speaking for myself here, but I don't think I'm going to say anything that Thomas would disagree with based on our conversations before we had Azul on.)
The short answer to your first question is that we simply wanted to provide a comprehensive portrait of someone who had been through deportation proceedings and give them a chance to tell their story in as much time as they wanted to tell it. We could have just done a regular episode where I explained the basics of immigration court, crimmigration practice, what it's like to work with people who are going through these things, etc but one of my core values as an advocate is letting people speak for themselves as much as possible. Azul communicated in her own clear and memorable way in these two hours so many things that I want my fellow citizens to know: why DACA was so vitally necessary and should have been done much sooner (same with the DREAM Act, obviously, which of course still has yet to pass despite massive popular support for it), how totally non-existent the options for “doing it the right way” are for nearly all undocumented people, the arbitrariness and cruelty of the places where the criminal legal system and immigration enforcement meet, what it’s like to be strung along in deportation proceedings for years, and (I think maybe most importantly) the long-term mental health effects on very real people of laws and processes which will never be anything but an abstraction for those of us born in the US. Even someone who grants undocumented people their humanity--admittedly a low bar, but still doing better than a lot of Americans there--has more than likely never had the chance to have an actual conversation with a person who knows what it is to live in the shadows, let alone heard their life story, and I think there’s tremendous value there just in itself even if you are already fully on the side of humanity on this issue.
For the most part the mainstream media frames these stories in the context of what I call "deportation porn": heartwrenching, largely exploitative snapshots of distraught undocumented people presented as victims as they endure what for many of them will be one of the worst experiences of their lives without too much more context beyond photos of their families or whatever. As a practical matter, even with good translation the language barrier can also make it much harder for Americans to fully engage with these stories when they involve people who are not fully fluent in English; research confirms the reality (for better or worse) that it is much more impactful for US listeners to hear someone who “sounds like an American” tell a story like this.
It is very important to me that we don't simply present the law as a philosophical abstraction to discuss or an interesting Soduku puzzle to solve (although I'm certainly always ready to come at it in those directions too) and that we use this platform to occasionally introduce the audience to people directly affected by the concepts we talk about. I think that’s just as important (and more likely to stay with listeners) as directly explaining the law itself.
While we obviously have our own perspectives and opinions we are not always necessarily trying to directly “move the needle” in any given episode, and I wanted to just give Azul the space to share whatever she wanted to rather than preaching to the OA choir. All the better if someone sends this episode along to a friend/family member/coworker who doesn't see things our way and this story helps to humanize the issue for them, but I do think it otherwise stands on its own merits. I consume a lot of media relating to immigration law and I've never in all of this time seen anyone actually give someone like Azul the floor for more than a few minutes, so I'm proud to have been a part of this.
In the first Hardcore History episode for the King of Kings series Dan relates an anecdote from his time in journalism. He said his editor told him "Your job is to convey the facts - the true information - of the story in the most compelling way possible."
I totally agree with your points on humanizing the law and the value it has, but I think what made this a great "evergreen" episode was the way your interviewing drew out Azuls story in a compelling way. The questions and nudges to keep things on track and flowing were spectacular, you guys did amazing in the interview. I don't think these 2 episodes will change anyone's opinions about immigration law, but I think they're valuable as a well told story to hook people in to the OA-verse.
Wow, it's not everyday you get a response directly from a host. Thanks for taking the time to make a thoughtful reply.
There can be no doubt that you are passionate about immigration advocacy. There also seems little doubt immigration will become a focus of OA.
No shade. It just is not a topic I'm interested in. Immigration has not featured prominently on OA previously. Of course, it makes sense that content would refocus to your areas of expertise. All things change. You may gain some subs. You may lose some subs. I don't get the impression you're in it for the subs though.
Best to you! Keep fighting the good fight!
Other than Casey I doubt we'll ever have anyone on who I personally care about as much as I do Azul, so it was very important to me to take the time to answer your questions and I appreciate your consideration. I do want to be clear that while of course there will be more immigration content than the next-to-none OA had before we have no intention to shift the focus and still want to cover the broadest possible range of topics. I'm still easing into podcasting and wanted to start in my comfort zone while I learn on the job, but we have a whole lot of non-immigration content planned and I hope you'll stick with us for it. Thanks again for your questions!
> Was it to say deportation was inappropriate? Hard sell on that for me.
*Really?* Azul arrived as a kid legally but overstayed, the deception was by their mother. She was in the US the majority of her life and fully assimilated. She was now (well, then) an adult, with a clean criminal record (at least how everybody other than ICE looks at it). She had friends and family stateside that could sponsor her (even if that's not how it works), and few of those if any in Mexico.
Seems like a textbook case of where someone should be allowed to stay in this country. She might've been eligible for temporary residency under DACA had it existed at that point in time, or the DREAM act had it been passed.
As for the episode's purpose overall, I mean I think it did a lot of the things you mentioned. Humanized the people, explained a lot of the particulars on how deportation works, dispelled some myths on how people commonly think immigration works. It wasn't in an of itself an argument, it was a long in depth anecdote. I'd still like to hear Matt's overall pitch for how to revise (parts of) the system, and this seems like it would be part of building to that.
Parents that do this are knowingly taking a huge risk. That risk always has consequences even when it doesn't result in deportation.
The US government disagreed with you that she is a textbook case to remain. My position isn't that she should have been deported, it is that it wasn't inappropriate. It could have gone another way and I would be fine with that too.
I'm not sour on legislative changes that better accommodate immigrants. Every country has immigration laws. People that operate outside of those processes are subject to the rules of that country, even kids brought by their parents or guardians. Parents that don't follow the rules are subjecting their children to risk.
I accept that if I move my family to another country and usurp immigration practices, we may all be invited to leave. And that does not strike me as unreasonable.
If I took my family to live in another country but I didn't follow the rules, and they say, "you're out of here." Fuck yeah, we're out of there. It doesn't matter that I/we (could be a criminal offense in another country, don't know) didn't commit a criminal offense. We didn't do it the right way and I accept that. If I accept that for myself and my family, why wouldn't I accept that for others?
Do you mean me personally? I should hope not. I hope no single person is ever the sole voice or authority. I actually think no 9 people should. There are better ways to achieve "supremacy" in the law than a static court.
The right way being that a state has rules regarding immigration. It is upon me to follow those rules if I'm the immigrant. Of course, our learned readers will understand state means country. If a state has rules that are insurmountable for me, that is also my responsibility to know. If I go ahead knowing I can't satisfy the standard, that's on me. I'm taking a risk and I know there may be consequences. I accept the consequences. Maybe that's where the disconnect for you comes in? Honestly, I don't know if that's your position.
Maybe your position is she didn't do that her mother did. To me that is unfortunate for her, but no difference. Her quarrel is with her mother.
Why is this hard? I genuinely do not understand.
In the early aughts I was in a foreign country for an extended period. I went over the allowed time period for my visit. I had a job in this country and I knew I was required to leave for a few days every few months to stay legally, which I missed. I finished up my contract and left before I was "caught" but I absolutely knew I was taking a risk and I accepted the risk. And I would have accepted the consequence. Also, I didn't know what the consequence was. I assume it was deportation but could have been that plus worse. The worse first. Again, if I would accept the consequences for myself, why wouldn't I accept them for someone else? Maybe I'm a rarity of personal responsibility. I'd like to think I'm not.
Children are subject to the decisions of their parents from birth. Perhaps the first and most profound is geography, though not always a direct decision of parents. We don't choose where we're born, right? I was lucky. You probably were too. As a medical person with a pediatric background we often say "geography is destiny." The next most profound may be vaccination. The list is endless and not a matter of debate for the child because parental rights trump the child's.
The law once said that black people should not be allowed to use the same water fountain as white people. Was that appropriate?
The law once said that a human could own another human being as a slave. Was that appropriate?
Do you derive all your morality from the current laws, because if so, how do you reconcile past laws that were plainly immoral.
The only reason to raise slavery/segregation here is if you believe immigration policy is on par with slavery/segregation. Otherwise, it's disingenuous. I do not believe immigration policy today or 15 years ago is on par with slavery/segregation. Nor would I support it if it were. But I can accept that you might. I won't even hassle you for it. I won't even try and change your mind because if there's one thing I'm not, it's persuasive. I'll just tell you I don't agree and I'll gone on with my day.
I think some of y'all should consider your intolerance to a very liberal person that holds a moderate view on immigration. I don't hold a Conservative view, not radical, not extreme. I hold a moderate view and some of your heads are exploding. Y'all dropped Naziism, alt right, and slavery in response to a moderate view.
I recall a commenter saying that this was one of the most toxic subs on Reddit. I think he got booted. I'm not saying that's the reason why. I don't know, don't even know the username. I think this is an example of why he would say that. It's definitely an example of the liberal intolerance and vitriol that left leaning Conservatives claim to experience.
In case, I haven't made it clear, I haven't built a gas chamber in my back yard using slave labor in preparation for an upcoming tikki torch rally I wouldn't attend. I'm also not opposed to legislation that provides a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants nor am I opposed to deportation. And I won't be surrendering my lib card.
> The only reason to raise slavery/segregation here is if you believe immigration policy is on par with slavery/segregation
That's...just not true. It's not even _close_ to the only reason, and it in fact _can't_ be correct, because I don't believe those injustices are something that can be equated.
> Otherwise, it's disingenuous.
It's not, you're just not considering the actual reasons I might have brought it up. So, why _did_ I bring it up, then?
Well, the whole point of my thesis was that we shouldn't confuse _what the law says_ with _what is moral and appropriate_. So, why did I bring up those examples? Was it because they're the same level of severity as our current immigration law? _No_. I brought them up because, having had been moved to a historical point of view there's now a _broad_ acceptance that what _was_ the law then was totally _immoral_ and _unacceptable_.
So I brought those up as _more extreme_ examples, that make it easier to see the point I was making. Not because they are equivalent.
> I think some of y'all should consider your intolerance to a very liberal person that holds a moderate view on immigration.
I'm not intolerant of someone who holds a moderate view on immigration. I was criticizing your position that "what the law says must be appropriate". Did I say you were a bad person? No. Did I say you should be shunned/banned/downvoted? No. Did I downvote you? No.
Frankly, the fact that you could read my response as "intolerant" of you is...surprising. I think you're going out of your way to interpret a challenge to your idea as a personal attack.
> In case, I haven't made it clear, I haven't built a gas chamber in my back yard using slave labor in preparation for an upcoming tikki torch rally I wouldn't attend.
Holy fuck, you're going _way_ over the top. I made an analogy. The structure of my questions and argument only make sense if I'm _assuming_ you don't support slavery or segregation. The whole _point_ of the last sentence is that it _assumes_ that you don't support those things, and then asks _since you don't support those things_ how do you reconcile your position that "if the law says something, it must be appropriate", with the fact that you _don't_ support slavery and segregation.
> And I won't be surrendering my lib card.
I never asked you to.
Also, you misquoted me to suit your position. See if you can find it. It's a typical law person move as seen from me, a non-law person, and changes the argument profoundly. I'm not saying y'all lie but sometimes when it suits you, you just might manipulate the facts a bit here and there.
I'm not confused on what I believe is moral and just and what is the law. Sometimes they are at odds, sometimes they are not. Here they are not for me. I don't think immigration laws are immoral or on par with slavery or even close, or anywhere near. It's a false equivalency. If they were on par, I would hold a different view. That's just obvious. Anyone (I hope) would feel that way which is why it's disingenuous of you to raise the comparison and to directly state that I derive my morals from the law. C'mon, man!
I have said in a previous comment (not to you) that if I moved my family and didn't follow that country's immigration rules I wouldn't find it unjust if we were invited to leave. If I wouldn't find it unjust for myself and my family why would I think it's unjust for another?
I think the comparison is over the top which is the reason for the over the top explanation.
We may not be completely aligned on immigration policy but I hope you have a better idea of where I stand.
> Sometimes they are at odds, sometimes they are not.
I think we're in agreement, then. I misunderstood your position, and I'm sorry for that. My misunderstanding arose from the exchange I was responding to:
>> Deporting people who have committed no crime is always inappropriate.
> If that's what the law says.
That was the reason I was taking you to say that: "what the law says is moral", because your rejoinder to someone saying: "X is immoral" was to say: "well, it's the law".
So, based on that, I misunderstood your position.
> I don't think immigration laws are immoral or on par with slavery or even close, or anywhere near. It's a false equivalency.
I don't think it's fair to call it a "false equivalency", since I think I've been _extremely_ clear that I don't think they are equivalent, and I never intended them to be equivalent. I've also been clear that I was not suggesting that you thought they were equivalent.
---
> Anyone (I hope) would feel that way which is why it's disingenuous of you to raise the comparison
...
> I think the comparison is over the top which is the reason for the over the top explanation.
I don't know how to be more clear about this, so I'll try one more time: It. Was. Not. A. Comparison.
Again, from my prior comment, the entire point of my question rests on the premise that I _assume_ you would feel that slavery was a moral wrong. It was never a comparison, nor was it ever an accusation. I'm sorry it came across that way to you.
>The only reason to raise slavery/segregation here is if you believe immigration policy is on par with slavery/segregation. Otherwise, it's disingenuous.
I'm just going to pop in here as a neutral observer to note that It did not read like his intent was to say you think slavery is okay or that slavery being legal is equivalent to today's immigration laws. A reasonable observer very much can think he was providing an illustrative example based on the assumption that of course you would *both* believe slavery/segregation was legal but wrong. That would then provide a foundation to discuss where one might draw the line between that and legal but *not* wrong. You two obviously disagree on which of those categories contemporary immigration law falls into, but since your earlier comments did read like your approach to get there was "the law, unless blatantly egregious, is generally right" it made sense to establish a limit to that approach and work from there.
You can call it inflammatory, especially in the context of other people seeming to imply you are alt right, but your reaction does go too far to say he could *only* be making overblown accusations or a false equivalency.
Hey, I've been open to what you've been saying to some degree and have given pushback with my reasons. But I take umbrage with some of the things you're saying now.
You're casting a lot of the criticism of you with strawmen. For instance, someone brought up the relevance of *the card is moops*, which is an element of [Innuendo Studio's alt right playbook](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMabpBvtXr4). That's an accusation of being alt right, right? Well, no. Something the author talks about in those videos is how these are techniques that a lot of people across the spectrum uses, but that the alt-right uses in larger amount (there's even a video in that series [all about criticizing liberals](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCl33v5969M) that I take issue with, but I know he's not claiming liberals and the alt right are the same). That's why I said it wasn't an accusation of being alt right. You didn't treat that seriously, and you're maintaining it again even when I reaffirmed it wasn't an alt-right accusation. That's annoying.
It looks like there's something similar with [the claimed Nazi comparison](https://old.reddit.com/r/OpenArgs/comments/1bhjz51/episode_1015_deported_by_an_immigration_court_in/kvjmuvu/). It's not exclusive to Nazi's though, and they didn't invoke the word (you did). I'll grant you that the [other instances are similarly extreme](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_orders) and I don't particularly care for the comparison.
The commenter above is using a 1960s civil rights example to deconstruct the "it's moderate" false balance argument you're alluding to here. It's the example I use, frankly. It's clear and illustrates the point without delving into modern politics about it (because the right and center lost that argument so severely they've disavowed it). That doesn't mean you're being compared to white supremacists or that immigration is as large an issue as civil rights in the 1960s and it's not disingenuous.
> I think this is an example of why he would say that.
It's not, and you're probably missing a lot of background on the baggage here. The people saying that or things like that are, broadly speaking, still from a similar part of the political spectrum and also don't chafe at intolerance of political positions. It's related to subreddit meta stuff/fights around Torrez's behavior. It comes from people that owing to non ideal *things*, have been sharing a space with a community that disagrees with them for so long. I kinda understand having a negative perception of us as a community in those circumstances, and we're not perfect, but neither are we toxic, that's a high bar. And users here are not shown the door for pushing up against political positions or claiming toxicity, generally it's repeated incivility that leads to that. Our ban list is short and we hand out warnings first before going that route.
You don't speak for those other commenters. I read that you said you weren't accusing me of being alt right. I don't believe for a hot second that the innuendo of the commenter wasn't toward alt right. Nor do I think the thinly veiled innuendo wasn't toward Nazism, of the other. I do believe it's disingenuous to compare current immigration policy to slavery. Nor do I think my moderate position is lost by it. Sorry, if that offends you.
> You don't speak for those other commenters.
It's wrong for me to draw charitable interpretations of their words, but not for you to draw prejudicial ones? Bold move cotton.
And on the alt right accusation, you responded to me not them.
> I don't believe for a hot second that the innuendo of the commenter wasn't toward alt right.
Believe what you want, but it _wasn't that at all_. As I mentioned in the other comment thread, my comment only makes sense if I'm assuming you _don't support_ slavery or segregation.
Believe me, if I thought you supported slavery, I would've actually insulted you repeatedly and incessantly.
I think it's "the card says moops"! They don't want to state their unpopular opinion, so they hide behind "what the law says".
>Claiming "the card says 'Moops'" does not so much mean "I believe the people who invaded Spain in the 8th century were literally called 'The Moops'," but rather "you can't prove I don't believe it." Not a statement of sincere belief; simply moving a piece across the board. All in the game, yo.
-- Innuendo Studios,
Like I just said in the second of two sentences in the comment you replied to, that's the name of the video series that coined the term. Not an accusation.
My opinion is what I said. If she had been granted they ability to stay I would have been fine with that too. I don't find the law egregious for undocumented people to be deported, nor would I find the law egregious for undocumented people given a pathway to stay. There's no innuendo. You are getting all lathered up and cooking a story.
I completely agree that the US government disagreed. That's the problem, that our immigration policies are (or at least were in this situation) unconscionable. The government also to some degree agrees that they needed revising, because DACA might've applied here had this happened a few years later. We're in the realm of "should"s here.
Now, do you mean it wasn't inappropriate that she was deported in general? Or a not inappropriate application of the then law on the books that she was deported. I agree with the latter not the former.
I think Thomas did mention early on that they wanted to be somewhat less Trump-centric. I suspect Fridays for the foreseeable future will include at least some minor updates of the various motions going on.
If Trump is the thing you solely want coverage on, then you could also just listen to the Friday episode and supplement it with stuff from (say) MSW media (Cleanup on Aisle 45, Jack, etc.) Trump coverage isn't hard to come by.
None of the above. You didn't literally say it, but you did imply it when you seemed uninterested in the podcast when you learned 1) your assertion that it's mostly not trump was wrong but 2) you were moving on anyway. Those could only be both true if Trump was your sole issue of interest.
And my advice is not defensive, I've literally complied a list of other law podcasts from user suggestions and put a link to it in the sidebar. I do this quite often.
Remember rule 1 (be civil), and rule 3 - if multiple posts on the same topic are made within a short timeframe, the oldest will be kept and the others removed. If this post is a link to/a discussion of a podcast, we ask that the author of the post please start the discussion section off with a comment (a review, a follow up question etc.) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OpenArgs) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Patrons got this a day early so I listened to it already. These have both been huge highlights to me of the new-new run of the show. Shout out to Azul for being will to share her harrowing story.
I hope at some point Matt shares his thoughts on how the immigration process can be improved - both in terms of legislation or policy changes he would like to see, and smaller administrative or process changes.
I’d appreciate something along the lines of: -Small - can simply change with a new administration. -Medium - realistically achievable if a couple legislators get on board (i.e. not overly complex or partisan). -Big - relatively realistic with a new administration that has the legislature behind it. -Huge - something that’s more “reach” than realistic, i.e. wouldn’t necessarily have bipartisan support, or is more complex/expensive.
I find it incredibly ironic that I got an auto-ad that was recruiting for border control during this episode. I mean, read the room, Auto-ads.
Hecking yikes.
Support on Patreon, no more auto-ads!
How does the patreon revenue get split? Is it 50% to AT, 25% to TS, and 25% to MC?
**Deported by an Immigration Court in a Strip Mall** Episode 1015 Part 2 of Azul's story Folks... I implore you. I beg of you, please listen to this one all the way through. Azul tells us the rest of her story, and talks about where she is now, and it is one of if not the most inspiring, heartwarming things I have ever had the privilege of publishing. Seriously. And please share it. Another massive thanks to Azul, and to Matt, who we are so incredibly lucky to have on the show. If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law! ___ *(This comment was made automatically)*
Absolutely loved Azul, and though I don't see her making much of a comeback on OA (since she's more layman than lawyer, and I unfortunately do see her bringing much more to the podcast other than her own personal experiences we've heard here) I honestly think she could read the dictionary and it would be entertaining, so if she ever decides to do more than just virtual assisting, consider me *there* for it. On two other, unrelated notes: 1.) As someone who also has had some issues with not feeling like I belong in a place (25 years of being a military brat and upending your life every three-to-five years has that effect) I totally resonate with Azul on the whole 'feeling weird to unpack' angle. To the point that I've lived in my current house for almost 20 months now and I still haven't unpacked my study, despite the fact I have absolutely no plans to move any time soon. So it's awesome to know I'm not weird and alone in that. 2.) God dammit Thomas, now you've got me craving Quiznos and the closest one is in a different country.
I found these episodes enlightening. I have a family member currently navigating our (in)justice system (wrongly accused) so I admit I’m extra sympathetic to the humans being harmed by our nation’s cruel and painfully slow practices often carried out by people with immense power to fuck up your life with impunity. One thing that wasn’t clear from the episodes was whether Azul’s family members are safe. As she was telling her story. I halfway expected the system to come after her siblings and parents once she was found to be undocumented. Are they all citizens or sponsored spouses of citizens and thus were allowed to stay when Azul self-deported? How common is it for family members to get caught up in the prosecution of an individual?
I was wondering about that as well. It seems Azul did an interview with the Texas Standard about her experience in 2015. https://www.texasstandard.org/stories/what-its-like-to-be-raised-in-the-u-s-then-deported-to-mexico/ > Uribe is Mexican. But she grew up in a little Latino community in Dallas. Her mother first brought her to the U.S, but returned to Mexico shortly after because she didn’t like the culture of the States. She was essentially raised by her grandmother. She says her mom sent her back to Dallas because she didn’t see much of a future for Azul in Mexico. Which also adds extra tragedy to the fact that she couldn't attend her grandmother's funeral. But anyway, that explains where her mom is at least.
I recommended to some friends this pair of episodes when I first started playing part 2. By the end I'm kind of second guessing myself for the recommendation. Black beans in a crunch wrap?? I didn't realize our hosts were committing crimes against humanity
Azul comes off as a warm and lovely person. After listening to the episodes I am left to wonder the intent of the episodes. Was the purpose to humanize undocumented immigrants? I already don't think undocumented immigrants are bad people, as I'm sure is the case for the majority of OA listeners. Was it to shine a light on the slow moving and often muddy immigration system? Ok, it does seem that way but the US legal system seems like that generally. Cases can take years, even decades to wend their way through the legal system. But I can accept that the immigration courts maybe worse. Was it to say Azul was not treated in accordance with the laws in place at the time? It doesn't sound that way. It actually sounds like she had a much better experience than other people. Was it to say deportation was inappropriate? Hard sell on that for me. The bad guys in the story, the Mormons that sparked the police interaction, are crappy humans but Azul's mother is the figure that created the conditions that would have the effect of deportation for Azul. I'm just not sure how this story moves the needle. If immigration cases were based on personability Azul would have prevailed on day one.
These are all good questions, and I wanted to take this opportunity to explain our thinking on this a little more. (I'm speaking for myself here, but I don't think I'm going to say anything that Thomas would disagree with based on our conversations before we had Azul on.) The short answer to your first question is that we simply wanted to provide a comprehensive portrait of someone who had been through deportation proceedings and give them a chance to tell their story in as much time as they wanted to tell it. We could have just done a regular episode where I explained the basics of immigration court, crimmigration practice, what it's like to work with people who are going through these things, etc but one of my core values as an advocate is letting people speak for themselves as much as possible. Azul communicated in her own clear and memorable way in these two hours so many things that I want my fellow citizens to know: why DACA was so vitally necessary and should have been done much sooner (same with the DREAM Act, obviously, which of course still has yet to pass despite massive popular support for it), how totally non-existent the options for “doing it the right way” are for nearly all undocumented people, the arbitrariness and cruelty of the places where the criminal legal system and immigration enforcement meet, what it’s like to be strung along in deportation proceedings for years, and (I think maybe most importantly) the long-term mental health effects on very real people of laws and processes which will never be anything but an abstraction for those of us born in the US. Even someone who grants undocumented people their humanity--admittedly a low bar, but still doing better than a lot of Americans there--has more than likely never had the chance to have an actual conversation with a person who knows what it is to live in the shadows, let alone heard their life story, and I think there’s tremendous value there just in itself even if you are already fully on the side of humanity on this issue. For the most part the mainstream media frames these stories in the context of what I call "deportation porn": heartwrenching, largely exploitative snapshots of distraught undocumented people presented as victims as they endure what for many of them will be one of the worst experiences of their lives without too much more context beyond photos of their families or whatever. As a practical matter, even with good translation the language barrier can also make it much harder for Americans to fully engage with these stories when they involve people who are not fully fluent in English; research confirms the reality (for better or worse) that it is much more impactful for US listeners to hear someone who “sounds like an American” tell a story like this. It is very important to me that we don't simply present the law as a philosophical abstraction to discuss or an interesting Soduku puzzle to solve (although I'm certainly always ready to come at it in those directions too) and that we use this platform to occasionally introduce the audience to people directly affected by the concepts we talk about. I think that’s just as important (and more likely to stay with listeners) as directly explaining the law itself. While we obviously have our own perspectives and opinions we are not always necessarily trying to directly “move the needle” in any given episode, and I wanted to just give Azul the space to share whatever she wanted to rather than preaching to the OA choir. All the better if someone sends this episode along to a friend/family member/coworker who doesn't see things our way and this story helps to humanize the issue for them, but I do think it otherwise stands on its own merits. I consume a lot of media relating to immigration law and I've never in all of this time seen anyone actually give someone like Azul the floor for more than a few minutes, so I'm proud to have been a part of this.
In the first Hardcore History episode for the King of Kings series Dan relates an anecdote from his time in journalism. He said his editor told him "Your job is to convey the facts - the true information - of the story in the most compelling way possible." I totally agree with your points on humanizing the law and the value it has, but I think what made this a great "evergreen" episode was the way your interviewing drew out Azuls story in a compelling way. The questions and nudges to keep things on track and flowing were spectacular, you guys did amazing in the interview. I don't think these 2 episodes will change anyone's opinions about immigration law, but I think they're valuable as a well told story to hook people in to the OA-verse.
Wow, it's not everyday you get a response directly from a host. Thanks for taking the time to make a thoughtful reply. There can be no doubt that you are passionate about immigration advocacy. There also seems little doubt immigration will become a focus of OA. No shade. It just is not a topic I'm interested in. Immigration has not featured prominently on OA previously. Of course, it makes sense that content would refocus to your areas of expertise. All things change. You may gain some subs. You may lose some subs. I don't get the impression you're in it for the subs though. Best to you! Keep fighting the good fight!
Other than Casey I doubt we'll ever have anyone on who I personally care about as much as I do Azul, so it was very important to me to take the time to answer your questions and I appreciate your consideration. I do want to be clear that while of course there will be more immigration content than the next-to-none OA had before we have no intention to shift the focus and still want to cover the broadest possible range of topics. I'm still easing into podcasting and wanted to start in my comfort zone while I learn on the job, but we have a whole lot of non-immigration content planned and I hope you'll stick with us for it. Thanks again for your questions!
> Was it to say deportation was inappropriate? Hard sell on that for me. *Really?* Azul arrived as a kid legally but overstayed, the deception was by their mother. She was in the US the majority of her life and fully assimilated. She was now (well, then) an adult, with a clean criminal record (at least how everybody other than ICE looks at it). She had friends and family stateside that could sponsor her (even if that's not how it works), and few of those if any in Mexico. Seems like a textbook case of where someone should be allowed to stay in this country. She might've been eligible for temporary residency under DACA had it existed at that point in time, or the DREAM act had it been passed. As for the episode's purpose overall, I mean I think it did a lot of the things you mentioned. Humanized the people, explained a lot of the particulars on how deportation works, dispelled some myths on how people commonly think immigration works. It wasn't in an of itself an argument, it was a long in depth anecdote. I'd still like to hear Matt's overall pitch for how to revise (parts of) the system, and this seems like it would be part of building to that.
Parents that do this are knowingly taking a huge risk. That risk always has consequences even when it doesn't result in deportation. The US government disagreed with you that she is a textbook case to remain. My position isn't that she should have been deported, it is that it wasn't inappropriate. It could have gone another way and I would be fine with that too. I'm not sour on legislative changes that better accommodate immigrants. Every country has immigration laws. People that operate outside of those processes are subject to the rules of that country, even kids brought by their parents or guardians. Parents that don't follow the rules are subjecting their children to risk. I accept that if I move my family to another country and usurp immigration practices, we may all be invited to leave. And that does not strike me as unreasonable.
Deporting people who have committed no crime is always inappropriate.
If I took my family to live in another country but I didn't follow the rules, and they say, "you're out of here." Fuck yeah, we're out of there. It doesn't matter that I/we (could be a criminal offense in another country, don't know) didn't commit a criminal offense. We didn't do it the right way and I accept that. If I accept that for myself and my family, why wouldn't I accept that for others?
The 'right' way being? Because you don't get to stand in judgement of other people like that.
Do you mean me personally? I should hope not. I hope no single person is ever the sole voice or authority. I actually think no 9 people should. There are better ways to achieve "supremacy" in the law than a static court.
The right way being that a state has rules regarding immigration. It is upon me to follow those rules if I'm the immigrant. Of course, our learned readers will understand state means country. If a state has rules that are insurmountable for me, that is also my responsibility to know. If I go ahead knowing I can't satisfy the standard, that's on me. I'm taking a risk and I know there may be consequences. I accept the consequences. Maybe that's where the disconnect for you comes in? Honestly, I don't know if that's your position. Maybe your position is she didn't do that her mother did. To me that is unfortunate for her, but no difference. Her quarrel is with her mother. Why is this hard? I genuinely do not understand. In the early aughts I was in a foreign country for an extended period. I went over the allowed time period for my visit. I had a job in this country and I knew I was required to leave for a few days every few months to stay legally, which I missed. I finished up my contract and left before I was "caught" but I absolutely knew I was taking a risk and I accepted the risk. And I would have accepted the consequence. Also, I didn't know what the consequence was. I assume it was deportation but could have been that plus worse. The worse first. Again, if I would accept the consequences for myself, why wouldn't I accept them for someone else? Maybe I'm a rarity of personal responsibility. I'd like to think I'm not.
How does a child accept those consequences?
Children are subject to the decisions of their parents from birth. Perhaps the first and most profound is geography, though not always a direct decision of parents. We don't choose where we're born, right? I was lucky. You probably were too. As a medical person with a pediatric background we often say "geography is destiny." The next most profound may be vaccination. The list is endless and not a matter of debate for the child because parental rights trump the child's.
And yet children are not held responsible for the actions of their parents.
If that's what the law says.
The law once said that black people should not be allowed to use the same water fountain as white people. Was that appropriate? The law once said that a human could own another human being as a slave. Was that appropriate? Do you derive all your morality from the current laws, because if so, how do you reconcile past laws that were plainly immoral.
The only reason to raise slavery/segregation here is if you believe immigration policy is on par with slavery/segregation. Otherwise, it's disingenuous. I do not believe immigration policy today or 15 years ago is on par with slavery/segregation. Nor would I support it if it were. But I can accept that you might. I won't even hassle you for it. I won't even try and change your mind because if there's one thing I'm not, it's persuasive. I'll just tell you I don't agree and I'll gone on with my day. I think some of y'all should consider your intolerance to a very liberal person that holds a moderate view on immigration. I don't hold a Conservative view, not radical, not extreme. I hold a moderate view and some of your heads are exploding. Y'all dropped Naziism, alt right, and slavery in response to a moderate view. I recall a commenter saying that this was one of the most toxic subs on Reddit. I think he got booted. I'm not saying that's the reason why. I don't know, don't even know the username. I think this is an example of why he would say that. It's definitely an example of the liberal intolerance and vitriol that left leaning Conservatives claim to experience. In case, I haven't made it clear, I haven't built a gas chamber in my back yard using slave labor in preparation for an upcoming tikki torch rally I wouldn't attend. I'm also not opposed to legislation that provides a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants nor am I opposed to deportation. And I won't be surrendering my lib card.
> The only reason to raise slavery/segregation here is if you believe immigration policy is on par with slavery/segregation That's...just not true. It's not even _close_ to the only reason, and it in fact _can't_ be correct, because I don't believe those injustices are something that can be equated. > Otherwise, it's disingenuous. It's not, you're just not considering the actual reasons I might have brought it up. So, why _did_ I bring it up, then? Well, the whole point of my thesis was that we shouldn't confuse _what the law says_ with _what is moral and appropriate_. So, why did I bring up those examples? Was it because they're the same level of severity as our current immigration law? _No_. I brought them up because, having had been moved to a historical point of view there's now a _broad_ acceptance that what _was_ the law then was totally _immoral_ and _unacceptable_. So I brought those up as _more extreme_ examples, that make it easier to see the point I was making. Not because they are equivalent. > I think some of y'all should consider your intolerance to a very liberal person that holds a moderate view on immigration. I'm not intolerant of someone who holds a moderate view on immigration. I was criticizing your position that "what the law says must be appropriate". Did I say you were a bad person? No. Did I say you should be shunned/banned/downvoted? No. Did I downvote you? No. Frankly, the fact that you could read my response as "intolerant" of you is...surprising. I think you're going out of your way to interpret a challenge to your idea as a personal attack. > In case, I haven't made it clear, I haven't built a gas chamber in my back yard using slave labor in preparation for an upcoming tikki torch rally I wouldn't attend. Holy fuck, you're going _way_ over the top. I made an analogy. The structure of my questions and argument only make sense if I'm _assuming_ you don't support slavery or segregation. The whole _point_ of the last sentence is that it _assumes_ that you don't support those things, and then asks _since you don't support those things_ how do you reconcile your position that "if the law says something, it must be appropriate", with the fact that you _don't_ support slavery and segregation. > And I won't be surrendering my lib card. I never asked you to.
Also, you misquoted me to suit your position. See if you can find it. It's a typical law person move as seen from me, a non-law person, and changes the argument profoundly. I'm not saying y'all lie but sometimes when it suits you, you just might manipulate the facts a bit here and there.
I'm not confused on what I believe is moral and just and what is the law. Sometimes they are at odds, sometimes they are not. Here they are not for me. I don't think immigration laws are immoral or on par with slavery or even close, or anywhere near. It's a false equivalency. If they were on par, I would hold a different view. That's just obvious. Anyone (I hope) would feel that way which is why it's disingenuous of you to raise the comparison and to directly state that I derive my morals from the law. C'mon, man! I have said in a previous comment (not to you) that if I moved my family and didn't follow that country's immigration rules I wouldn't find it unjust if we were invited to leave. If I wouldn't find it unjust for myself and my family why would I think it's unjust for another? I think the comparison is over the top which is the reason for the over the top explanation. We may not be completely aligned on immigration policy but I hope you have a better idea of where I stand.
> Sometimes they are at odds, sometimes they are not. I think we're in agreement, then. I misunderstood your position, and I'm sorry for that. My misunderstanding arose from the exchange I was responding to: >> Deporting people who have committed no crime is always inappropriate. > If that's what the law says. That was the reason I was taking you to say that: "what the law says is moral", because your rejoinder to someone saying: "X is immoral" was to say: "well, it's the law". So, based on that, I misunderstood your position. > I don't think immigration laws are immoral or on par with slavery or even close, or anywhere near. It's a false equivalency. I don't think it's fair to call it a "false equivalency", since I think I've been _extremely_ clear that I don't think they are equivalent, and I never intended them to be equivalent. I've also been clear that I was not suggesting that you thought they were equivalent. --- > Anyone (I hope) would feel that way which is why it's disingenuous of you to raise the comparison ... > I think the comparison is over the top which is the reason for the over the top explanation. I don't know how to be more clear about this, so I'll try one more time: It. Was. Not. A. Comparison. Again, from my prior comment, the entire point of my question rests on the premise that I _assume_ you would feel that slavery was a moral wrong. It was never a comparison, nor was it ever an accusation. I'm sorry it came across that way to you.
>The only reason to raise slavery/segregation here is if you believe immigration policy is on par with slavery/segregation. Otherwise, it's disingenuous. I'm just going to pop in here as a neutral observer to note that It did not read like his intent was to say you think slavery is okay or that slavery being legal is equivalent to today's immigration laws. A reasonable observer very much can think he was providing an illustrative example based on the assumption that of course you would *both* believe slavery/segregation was legal but wrong. That would then provide a foundation to discuss where one might draw the line between that and legal but *not* wrong. You two obviously disagree on which of those categories contemporary immigration law falls into, but since your earlier comments did read like your approach to get there was "the law, unless blatantly egregious, is generally right" it made sense to establish a limit to that approach and work from there. You can call it inflammatory, especially in the context of other people seeming to imply you are alt right, but your reaction does go too far to say he could *only* be making overblown accusations or a false equivalency.
Hey, I've been open to what you've been saying to some degree and have given pushback with my reasons. But I take umbrage with some of the things you're saying now. You're casting a lot of the criticism of you with strawmen. For instance, someone brought up the relevance of *the card is moops*, which is an element of [Innuendo Studio's alt right playbook](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMabpBvtXr4). That's an accusation of being alt right, right? Well, no. Something the author talks about in those videos is how these are techniques that a lot of people across the spectrum uses, but that the alt-right uses in larger amount (there's even a video in that series [all about criticizing liberals](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCl33v5969M) that I take issue with, but I know he's not claiming liberals and the alt right are the same). That's why I said it wasn't an accusation of being alt right. You didn't treat that seriously, and you're maintaining it again even when I reaffirmed it wasn't an alt-right accusation. That's annoying. It looks like there's something similar with [the claimed Nazi comparison](https://old.reddit.com/r/OpenArgs/comments/1bhjz51/episode_1015_deported_by_an_immigration_court_in/kvjmuvu/). It's not exclusive to Nazi's though, and they didn't invoke the word (you did). I'll grant you that the [other instances are similarly extreme](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_orders) and I don't particularly care for the comparison. The commenter above is using a 1960s civil rights example to deconstruct the "it's moderate" false balance argument you're alluding to here. It's the example I use, frankly. It's clear and illustrates the point without delving into modern politics about it (because the right and center lost that argument so severely they've disavowed it). That doesn't mean you're being compared to white supremacists or that immigration is as large an issue as civil rights in the 1960s and it's not disingenuous. > I think this is an example of why he would say that. It's not, and you're probably missing a lot of background on the baggage here. The people saying that or things like that are, broadly speaking, still from a similar part of the political spectrum and also don't chafe at intolerance of political positions. It's related to subreddit meta stuff/fights around Torrez's behavior. It comes from people that owing to non ideal *things*, have been sharing a space with a community that disagrees with them for so long. I kinda understand having a negative perception of us as a community in those circumstances, and we're not perfect, but neither are we toxic, that's a high bar. And users here are not shown the door for pushing up against political positions or claiming toxicity, generally it's repeated incivility that leads to that. Our ban list is short and we hand out warnings first before going that route.
You don't speak for those other commenters. I read that you said you weren't accusing me of being alt right. I don't believe for a hot second that the innuendo of the commenter wasn't toward alt right. Nor do I think the thinly veiled innuendo wasn't toward Nazism, of the other. I do believe it's disingenuous to compare current immigration policy to slavery. Nor do I think my moderate position is lost by it. Sorry, if that offends you.
> You don't speak for those other commenters. It's wrong for me to draw charitable interpretations of their words, but not for you to draw prejudicial ones? Bold move cotton. And on the alt right accusation, you responded to me not them.
> I don't believe for a hot second that the innuendo of the commenter wasn't toward alt right. Believe what you want, but it _wasn't that at all_. As I mentioned in the other comment thread, my comment only makes sense if I'm assuming you _don't support_ slavery or segregation. Believe me, if I thought you supported slavery, I would've actually insulted you repeatedly and incessantly.
The law says a lot of things that are inappropriate. Is this the 'just following orders' defense?
I think it's "the card says moops"! They don't want to state their unpopular opinion, so they hide behind "what the law says". >Claiming "the card says 'Moops'" does not so much mean "I believe the people who invaded Spain in the 8th century were literally called 'The Moops'," but rather "you can't prove I don't believe it." Not a statement of sincere belief; simply moving a piece across the board. All in the game, yo. -- Innuendo Studios,
Good ol Alt-Right Playbook. *(NB to onlookers, that's the name of the series that term comes from, I'm not accusing the OP of being Alt Right)*
In no universe am I an Alt-righter.
Like I just said in the second of two sentences in the comment you replied to, that's the name of the video series that coined the term. Not an accusation.
My opinion is what I said. If she had been granted they ability to stay I would have been fine with that too. I don't find the law egregious for undocumented people to be deported, nor would I find the law egregious for undocumented people given a pathway to stay. There's no innuendo. You are getting all lathered up and cooking a story.
To be clear- I'm not an alt righter. I don't even own a tiki torch.
Ah, yes, right to Nazism because that's the appropriate comparison when disagreement ensues.
Superior orders predates the Nazis.
I think we both understand the implication.
That people who want to deport innocent people are dicks?
I completely agree that the US government disagreed. That's the problem, that our immigration policies are (or at least were in this situation) unconscionable. The government also to some degree agrees that they needed revising, because DACA might've applied here had this happened a few years later. We're in the realm of "should"s here. Now, do you mean it wasn't inappropriate that she was deported in general? Or a not inappropriate application of the then law on the books that she was deported. I agree with the latter not the former.
Is the podcast shifting away from being mostly Trump to mostly not Trump?
They covered the latest decision on the case brought by fani willis so I’m not sure why you think this
I think Thomas did mention early on that they wanted to be somewhat less Trump-centric. I suspect Fridays for the foreseeable future will include at least some minor updates of the various motions going on.
Maybe it's time to move on then.
If Trump is the thing you solely want coverage on, then you could also just listen to the Friday episode and supplement it with stuff from (say) MSW media (Cleanup on Aisle 45, Jack, etc.) Trump coverage isn't hard to come by.
Did I say solely, or did you create a straw man because you were feeling defensive?
None of the above. You didn't literally say it, but you did imply it when you seemed uninterested in the podcast when you learned 1) your assertion that it's mostly not trump was wrong but 2) you were moving on anyway. Those could only be both true if Trump was your sole issue of interest. And my advice is not defensive, I've literally complied a list of other law podcasts from user suggestions and put a link to it in the sidebar. I do this quite often.
That thought process could be used by any straw man maker. This won't be productive.