To help this family
Help-a-mother: keep a family together - Online Petition
it would be good of all you fine folks -- now its time for me to crawl back under my rock -- peace to all --theSavage

ETWolverine

Well, not being Christian myself, I follow a different creed. It's called PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. As in "An adult ought to know the laws that pertain to him and live by them, or else should experience the consequences of his actions". You think I'm being heartless... fine. I think you are being foolish to fight for a "cause" that would reward illegal behavior. Perhaps the mistake wasn't Luce's son's fault... but does that mean that we should reward his "error" with the gift of citizenship or legal immigrant status? It "wasn't his fault" because he didn't know the law, but he's still responsible for his own actions. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Gee... thanks for giving us your personal permission to not sign. I thought we HAD to sign, or else...

Really? Since when? Is that how things work where you come from?

The whole point of an elected REPUBLIC is so that people with greater expertise in the issues can make the decisions on those matters without undo pressure from the citizenry, who may not have information, but certainly have strong (and often wrong) opinions. That is why the USA is not direct democacy, but rather a republic.

Y'mean kinda like how the government does it under the Patriot Act? I agree, it isn't a privacy issue.

But without the consent (or even the knowledge) of the signatiries. How does this differ from what the government does under the Patriot Act. Or is the Patriot Act only bad because it's Bush's baby.

I have better causes to donate to, as I have explained above.

Oh baloney. It seems to me that Luce is the proverbial athiest in the foxhole, grabbing at straws and looking for a miracle. She'd be better served spending her time working with attorney's and filing judicial petitions for stays against ICE to keep her son from being deported, rather than online petitions that do nothing more than say that she's justified in her feelings of injustice. Do you really think some bureaucrat in ICE gives a damn about 600 signatures? Do you really think that some elected politician who is trying to please thousands and MILLIONS of voters in his own district every day, cares about 600 signatures from people who's residence (and even existance) he can't verify? No politician or bureaucrat is going to intervene in the system over 600, or 10,000 or even 100,000 signatures that they can't verify.

This is a waste of time. Start trying something that has a chance at actually working, like LEGAL action, not popular activism.

Elliot

tomder55

rivalarrival;

You still do not address my primary concern .Why is there a solicitation of funding at TheJesusMyth directed to her personal paypal account? How is the person that donates to it assured it is going towards the defense intended ?

I need better veriifcation of her story than that . Either you can provide it or you can't .

I'll tell you what I haven't found anywhere ,and that is independent verification that this story is real . If the plight of the Van Vuuren family is true can you provide as much as a local newspaper account ? Frankly ;besides this forum and the Jesus myth the only place I've seen this is at the Kossaks DailyKos website .

rivalarrival

Sounds like a real paradise. Too bad he'll never be able to return to his home.

Asked and answered: He did. He was told differently by someone who should have known better. He was registered to vote by New Jersey election officials who apparently didn't even bother to check his identification. He was allowed to vote by New Jersey election officials who also apparently didn't bother to check his identification.

What you are saying is that you believe it is not worth your time or effort to ensure that victims of fraud are treated fairly, rather then separated from their families and sent half a world away.

What you are saying is that it is a better use of your time to type several hundred words condemning a mother for trying to keep her family together, than to add a signature to a petition.

You say this like you somehow only have the ability to help either refugees or Erhard. Like somehow signing this petition will somehow prohibit you from giving aid and comfort to people who need it.

You made an effort to write all that. You took time out of your day to write about the Van Vuurens, time that you could have spent writing about refugees and the horrible conditions they face. But you didn't do that, you wrote about the Van Vuurens.

You took the time out of your day to research this. You looked up economic and agricultural statistics about South Africa. You eloquently painted it as an idyllic place to live.

What you are really saying is quite simple, just spit it out: You don't think Erhard deserves a second chance. You don't care that he may have been tricked, that he may be a victim of an overzealous political campaign. You don't care that election officials either ignored or blatantly disregarded voter registration and election rules.

But it's not just about "not caring" - no, you've taken it a step further - you've made an effort out of not caring. You've made an effort to denigrate her beliefs. You've made an effort to tell her that her family is not worth your time, not even worth your signature. You've made an effort to inform her that not only is her effort not worth your time, countering her effort IS an effective use.

I leave my conclusions to the reader's imagination.

NeedKarma

RubyPitbull

Now that I know the young man's name, I found a couple of other things Tom. Congress.org
Newsvine - Deported to South Africa for Voting
But, no newspaper accounts.

Rival, has Luce hired an attorney to help her? And, if she hasn't already done so, she should contact her local newspaper, television, & radio stations to gain some public attention to her son's plight. Usually the AP and larger stations will pick up on the smaller personal interest stories if enough public noise is being made. That is what I would do if I was in her position. I think sticking solely to the internet is a mistake. You might want to offer her help with that. It will be much more effective than a petition, asking for donations, or writing to a local rep. If she is able to get the publicity, representives will sit up and take notice. She also might have a better chance at finding an attorney willing to take her son's case on pro bono.

rivalarrival

The fund was started by Luce's friends at TJM. It is a convenient method for people who know her to send cash assistance. Luce is part of a well-established online community, her friends trust her and we wanted to support her. There is a TJM article about the reasoning behind the fund here: Altruism Monthly Number 2: Luci's Legal Fund

Do not feel compelled to donate. You have not been asked to do so in this forum. You have only been asked to sign a petition.


Luce has retained Louis Meltz , an immigration attorney. Mr. Meltz charges $200/hr. You could try contacting his firm, but I doubt they will tell you anything.
Seham Seham Meltz & Petersen, LLC - Louis S. Meltz

I personally cannot provide unbiased confirmation of her story. Luce is my friend and colleague, obviously I trust her, but I understand that you have no reason to trust either of us. The best I can do is remind you that many people and groups have staked their reputations on this. TheJesusMyth has adopted her cause. Brian Sapient of the Rational Response Squad invited her to post on his site. Dozens of Stumblers have posted their support.

The only thing I can tell you at this point is that the petition is worthless if she's lying, and the backlash against her, myself, TJM, and her staunch supporters around the web will not be pleasant at all. If she's telling the truth, the petition may help Erhard Van Vuuren remain in the US and become a citizen.

Referring to the collection of IP addresses:
From the signature page of the petition:
When you request a web page, (ANY web page) you send your IP address so the web server knows where to send the page. Most web pages log all web traffic, including IP addresses. The signature page of the petition specifically states that your IP address will be recorded with your signature. This is done primarily to prevent scammers from creating a robot that automatically signs the petition a few thousand times.

Don't donate then. I was asked (repeatedly) why there was a collection. You were not asked to donate, you were asked to sign the petition.

We're not putting all our eggs in one basket; the petition is just one of the many approaches we are taking. Popular opinion in the US has a nasty habit of becoming public policy.

rivalarrival

Ruby.
Yes she has retained an attorney (details in my last post - sorry I was still typing when you responded)

Several news organizations have been contacted, but to my knowledge, none have picked up the story as yet.

ET,
You are correct, but you ignore mitigating circumstances, which are just as large a part of the law.

I used this analogy elsewhere: Suppose a contractor is hired to install a guardrail on a curve in the road. Suppose two days later that a driver loses control of his car, goes off the road and hits the guardrail. Obviously the driver is responsible for losing control of his vehicle. But, because the contractor made grievous errors in installing the guardrail, it failed under a load far less than it was designed to tolerate before failing. The vehicle goes through the guardrail, over the embankment, and falls 300 feet down the cliff.

Are you telling me that the contractor in this case bears no culpability for the deaths of these people? With the logic you employ, we should not even bother putting up the guardrail: it is the driver's sole responsibility to keep his car on the road, and he is entirely to blame for any deviation, regardless of the reasoning. It is for these reasons that due process in adjudicating crimes involves a jury of the defendant's peers. This helps to ensure that a defendant gets a fair trial, and doesn't get railroaded into punishment for a reasonable action that happened to be a crime. Like swerving off a road to avoid hitting a child. Swerving off a road is a crime, but it is also a reasonable course of action given the circumstances. Do we punish the driver in this situation?

Election officials are tasked with ensuring the integrity of our electoral process. They are held to a much higher standard than the layperson. On at least two occasions, they screwed up, allowing a non-citizen to both register and vote. Erhard's "error" was in listening to political campaigners when they told him he was allowed to vote. His error would have sent him into the guardrail, so to speak, but it is the mistakes made by election officials that allowed the car to go over the edge. So yes, punish Erhard for losing control of his vehicle: warn him, fine him, take away his driver's license. But to punish him for going off the cliff while the contractor walks is asinine.

INS officials would not even be aware that Erhard had voted if he had not informed them. Erhard volunteered this information at a citizenship hearing.

I'm not saying Erhard is completely innocent, I'm saying that the greatest culpability in this case goes to the people charged specifically with ensuring the integrity of the election.

Except that strong and wrong opinions DO become public policy, based on the will of the people. The "elected" part of "elected republic" means that the representatives will represent the popular will of the people, or they will be voted out of office. Politicians have no greater expertise than the people. They have popular support for their opinions, or they don't have a job.

ETWolverine

Nice analogy, but not entirely accurate. You see, if the driver of the vehicle that lost control was unlicensed to drive, all culpability automatically falls to him under the law, regardless of the poor construction of the contractor. Similarly, Erhard was not allowed to vote. The fact that the system "collapsed under his weight" doesn't detract from the fact that he had no legal right to vote in the first place. Did the polling officials screw up? Absolutely. And they should be disciplined for it... including termination of employment, if I had my way. But that doesn't mean that Erhard gets to stay.

But we don't govern based on poll numbers... or we shouldn't anyway. I know of one political bigwig running for major office who's husband did just that. Yes, if an elected official ticks off his contituency, he'll be voted out of office. But in reality, people only get ticked off if the RESULTS are bad.

Giuliani's tenor as Mayor of NY City is a perfect example: He was a VERY unpopular guy fo a few years. There was huge public outcry against much of what he was trying to accomplish... getting rid of the porn shops, prostitutes and adult "entertainment" industry. Cleaning up crime by giving cops a freer hand to do their jobs ticked off a lot of people who were anti-cop in this city... cops were very unpopular during the Dinkins and Koch administrations. Giuliani did a lot of things that were highly unpopular at the time. But he was SUCCESSFUL in his atempts to lower crime, make the city safer, and bring back the economic boom and tourism to the city. And in the end, the people were quite happy with the results.

If Giuliani had gone with what was "popular opinion", none of this would have been accomplished. And it HAD to be accomplished. So Giuliani ignored public opinion, and did his job. And his poll numbers clearly reflect his lack of popularity during his first term. But he let his accomplishments speak for themselves, and became the most successful mayor of NY city in the past century (IMO).

That's how our republican system works... we vote for people who we believe can do the job and then we give them a period of time in which to accomplish those goals. We don't have the ability to simply oust someone from office immediately upon their first perceived "failure". AFTER A TIME, we decide whether we like what that person has done or not. But our system is NOT built on the idea of popular rule... it is based on representative rule. "Wrong opinions" of the majority may get someone elected or voted out of office, but those wrong opinions do not automatically policy or law.

Elliot

rivalarrival

For the most part, this is true. The contractor's negligence would be seriously mitigated in these circumstances, but not entirely eliminated. While he [b]might[b] not be held criminally liable for killing the passengers of the vehicle, he would still be guilty of criminal negligence, and possibly depraved indifference, given the nature of the work. And let's not forget the civil suit: wrongful death is practically a lock.

All that said, you're committing category errors. You describe a situation where two "crimes" are committed -1. Driving without a license, and 2. failure to maintain control of the vehicle. What is Erhard's second crime?

If Erhard voted because he was committing some other crime, he would bear a larger portion of the responsibility for the repercussions. If he had concealed his citizenship status, for instance, this would be a different story. He did not: he informed the campaigner that he was a legal immigrant who had registered for selective service.

The only crime was the vote, the swerving off the road. Voting was a reasonable and rational response to the information he had available to him: he was told he was permitted to vote by a person registering voters. This person would be considered a professional in the field of voter registration. This person should have been aware of the requirements to vote. This person was the kid in the road that Erhard swerved to miss. At least twice after that, "guardrails" to prevent him from voting failed due to the fault of contractors/election officials.


There's a big difference between taking personal responsiblity for your actions and falling on your sword to cover up the mistakes of others.

This is getting well beyond the scope of this thread... I appreciate your position, I don't disagree, and I would love to discuss it further, but I do not wish to detract from the matter at hand.

RecCatholic

TheSavage...I want to thank you for calling attention to this petition. It is of utmost importance for Luci and her family that we support her. Tomder55...I will save you the work of looking me up. I am also an author on TheJesusMyth.com. You will see from my username, however, that I am a fence sitter. I use that site to ask questions about my faith in the hope that someone will help me understand what it is that I am supposed to be believing in. You should stop by sometime and answer some questions...I am honestly needing clarification on why I should remain loyal to a church that treats people the way that you are treating Luci and her family. It's because of people like you that I am embarrassed to be associated with a faith that claims that they care about all people. Are you one of those people who PRAY about everything? Or are you going to step away from your computer screen and DO something?