FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


The DNC chair: yet another Democrat Dingbat





Voodoocat
Debbie Wasserman, the chairwoman of the Democratic National Committe, is astonished that Republicans believe that illegal immigration is.........
.
.
.
.
Drum roll please.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

ILLEGAL!!!!!

What a moron. Is this more "Change we can believe in?"

Quote:
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D.-Fla.), chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, denounced Republicans last week for believing illegal immigration “should in fact be a crime.”


Source: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/new-dnc-chair-faults-gop-wanting-illegal

I don't care what political party you belong to, people like this have no business making decisions on a national level.
Bikerman
I think you are embarrassing yourself, not her.
Illegal immigration is a civil matter in the US, not a ciminal offense. She was criticising REPUBLICAN calls for it to be made a criminal offense.

It might be a good idea to READ the sources you cite.
jmi256
Voodoocat wrote:
Debbie Wasserman, the chairwoman of the Democratic National Committe, is astonished that Republicans believe that illegal immigration is.........
.
.
.
.
Drum roll please.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

ILLEGAL!!!!!

What a moron. Is this more "Change we can believe in?"

Quote:
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D.-Fla.), chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, denounced Republicans last week for believing illegal immigration “should in fact be a crime.”


Source: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/new-dnc-chair-faults-gop-wanting-illegal

I don't care what political party you belong to, people like this have no business making decisions on a national level.


I can’t say that I agree with further criminalizing illegal immigration. There are already laws on the books that provide penalties for illegal immigration, as well as employing illegal immigrants. The issue isn’t the law itself, but rather the selective enforcement of the law, which the federal government has fallen flat on its face on. Criminal penalties seem counterproductive to me because we would then be burdened with housing these people while they await trial and serve out whatever sentence they might receive. As an immigrant (legal btw), I can tell you that these people give all immigrants a bad name. The solution is rather simple in concept: Protect the borders, deport any illegal immigrants and bar them from reentry. And while we’re at it, fine employers who hire them (and usually at wages and in conditions that seem barbaric) in a manner that would provide an adequate deterrent. For example, if found to employ illegals, the employer should pay a fine of treble the yearly wage of going market rate for the work if a ‘legal’ employee had been hired for that position.
jwellsy
Of course the Marxist useful idiots don't want undocumented workers to be criminals, they need them to vote.
Bikerman
I'd be a bit careful about throwing the word 'idiot' around if I were you - it is likely to rebound.
jmi256
jwellsy wrote:
Of course the Marxist useful idiots don't want undocumented workers to be criminals, they need them to vote.


I think more importantly they rely on ignorance and for a lack of a better word, stupidity. A real-life example: A spoke to a woman here in NYC a while back after a local election. She’s from Costa Rica and as we were discussing the election she told me she voted for a certain local politician who with just doing a little bit of research you would realize is quite the idiot. When I asked the woman why she voted for this politician, she told me that she attended a cookout/block party organized by a “community organizer” for the immigrant population in her neighborhood, and she was told that “the Democratic party” is the only party that stands for “democracy.” The community organizer “proved” this point by claiming the name of the party shows that they stand for democracy while the other parties, which did not adopt a name that used “democracy” as part of their names did not (i.e. Democrats = democracy). This woman said that back in Costa Rica she had seen first-hand the failures and heavy-handedness of socialists and communists and would never vote for any party that did not espouse democracy. I didn’t have the heart to clue her in on what she just did, but suggested she do some research.
Bikerman
Yawn.
Anecdote to prove a general case is the tool of the lazy or uninformed.
Should I reply with anecdotes about stupid republicans? That is not hard to do. Does it prove that all republicans are idiots?
jmi256
Bikerman wrote:
Yawn.
Anecdote to prove a general case is the tool of the lazy or uninformed.
Should I reply with anecdotes about stupid republicans? That is not hard to do. Does it prove that all republicans are idiots?

Surely you're not calling me lazy or uniformed are you? I would hope you have something of value to add rather than your usual nonsense and attempts to change the subject.
Bikerman
If one is not aware that using an anecdote to establish a general case is not valid, then one is either lazy (for not checking) or ignorant (of the fact) - what other possibility is there?
If one IS aware and yet tries it anyway then one should expect to be called on it.

[EDITED to remove personal references - Bikerman]
jmi256
Bikerman wrote:
If you are not aware that using an anecdote to establish a general case is not valid, then you are either lazy or ignorant - what other possibility is there?
If you ARE aware and yet tried it anyway....the reader can make their own mind up about that.


Actually I was just making a point and relaying a story; you simply decided to engage in calling me names in an attempt to insult me. If as a mod YOU are not aware that the TOS clearly states that "Posts, avatars, signatures and usernames must not degrade, insult or disrespect other users or groups of people", well, the reader can make their own mind up about that as well.
Bikerman
I didn't call you anything. I pointed out that anyone using an anecdote to prove a general case is either lazy or ignorant. I repeat it because it hasn't suddenly become untrue since I last wrote it.
You were not 'relaying a story' as anyone can read by scrolling back. You started with the rather insulting generalisation that Marxists 'rely on ignorance' and then 'relayed your story' as explicit support for this.

I am well aware of the TOS and I will not put up with backseat moderation.

[EDITED to remove unnecessary value judgement - Bikerman]
jmi256
Bikerman wrote:
I didn't call you anything. I pointed out that anyone using an anecdote to prove a general case is either lazy or ignorant. I repeat it because it hasn't suddenly become untrue since I last wrote it.

Really, were you? Really? If you expect us to believe that you weren’t trying to be insulting, I have a bridge I’d like to talk to you about.

Quote:
I am well aware of the TOS and I will not put up with backseat moderation.

I wasn’t trying to moderate anything at all, but just pointing out (once again) your insults. But if I was, I apologize for breaking the TOS. But just as a suggestion you should really work on cutting down the insults and flaming if you expect people to post and not get bogged down in these flame wars you seem to be engaged in (and not just in this forum). It really deters from the health of the forum, which is why I pointed it out. In fact, I was replying to jwellsy, who you also decided to insult my implying he’s an idiot, and you decided to inject yourself with more insults. But if you want to ignore your own behavior while gently threatening some type of mod action against me, that’s your right as a mod I guess. Meanwhile yet another thread, one that could have actually resulted in a discussion about illegal immigration, goes off the rails due to you. So with that I’ll leave you it.
Voodoocat
It appears that some don't quite undrstand he meaning of the word "illegal". Perhaps this will be of assistance:

Quote:

legal Dictionary

Main Entry: il·le·gal
Pronunciation: il-'lE-g&l
Function: adjective
: contrary to or in violation of a law : ILLICIT, UNLAWFUL illegal contract> < illegal dismissal> — il·le·gal·ly adverb Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.


But just in case that there are a few that still might not understand that illegal immigration is illegal, here is the law that illegal immigrants are violating:

Quote:
8 U.S.C. § 1325 : US Code - Section 1325: Improper entry by alien

Here is another definition:
Quote:
CRIME
A crime is a wrongdoing classified by the state or Congress as a felony or misdemeanor.

A crime is an offence against a public law. This word, in its most general sense, includes all offences, but in its more limited sense is confined to felony.


Since a crime is an offence against public law, and the very public Federal statute quoted above clearly declares that entering America illegally is an offence, illegal immegration is by definition a crime.
Quote:
Illegal immigration is a civil matter in the US, not a ciminal offense.
is clearly wrong, it is a violation of FEDERAL law.

I invite anyone that believes that violating any Federal statute is not a crime to do so and enjoy the consequences Laughing
catscratches
Voodoocat wrote:
It appears that some don't quite undrstand he meaning of the word "illegal". Perhaps this will be of assistance:
The question was never whether illegal immigration was illegal or not. It was whether it was a criminal offense or a civil matter.

Criminal law and civil law are not the same.
Bikerman
Just so. The OP ridiculed the juxtaposition of 'illegal' and 'criminal'. There is a difference.
Specifically (from the OP citation)
Quote:
During the comments, the chairwoman referred to legislation in 2006 by Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) that would increase border enforcement and make illegal immigration a criminal offense instead of a civil matter.

However, the Senate bill immunized illegal aliens from being prosecuted for document fraud, a felony, and did not stop the practice of allowing illegal aliens eventually granted legal residency to go back and claim credit with the Social Security Administration for work they did as an illegal.
Bikerman
jmi256 wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
I didn't call you anything. I pointed out that anyone using an anecdote to prove a general case is either lazy or ignorant. I repeat it because it hasn't suddenly become untrue since I last wrote it.

Really, were you? Really? If you expect us to believe that you weren’t trying to be insulting, I have a bridge I’d like to talk to you about.
I was not trying to be insulting. In fact I take any such accusation seriously, and in this instance I have edited my posting to address your concerns
Quote:
I wasn’t trying to moderate anything at all, but just pointing out (once again) your insults. But if I was, I apologize for breaking the TOS. But just as a suggestion you should really work on cutting down the insults and flaming if you expect people to post and not get bogged down in these flame wars you seem to be engaged in (and not just in this forum). It really deters from the health of the forum, which is why I pointed it out. In fact, I was replying to jwellsy, who you also decided to insult my implying he’s an idiot, and you decided to inject yourself with more insults. But if you want to ignore your own behavior while gently threatening some type of mod action against me, that’s your right as a mod I guess. Meanwhile yet another thread, one that could have actually resulted in a discussion about illegal immigration, goes off the rails due to you. So with that I’ll leave you it.
I did not imply anything. I specifically stated that using the word 'idiot' was not a good idea because it could be turned around. In other words, please avoid calling people idiots, or they might do the same.
As regards 'threatening' moderation action, I stated categorically that back-seat moderation would not be tolerated - a simple statement of fact. If you want to regard that as a threat then fair enough, but it was meant simply to pre-empt me having to put the mod hat on, which I have no wish to do.
Your comments about the health of the forum are interesting, but I would suggest that stereotyping Marxists as 'stupid' (jwellsy) or manipulative (you) is not helpful to any debate.
jmi256
Bikerman wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
I didn't call you anything. I pointed out that anyone using an anecdote to prove a general case is either lazy or ignorant. I repeat it because it hasn't suddenly become untrue since I last wrote it.

Really, were you? Really? If you expect us to believe that you weren’t trying to be insulting, I have a bridge I’d like to talk to you about.
I was not trying to be insulting. In fact I take any such accusation seriously, and in this instance I have edited my posting to address your concerns

Whatever. I have learned enough to know that you will not simply apologize when you’ve been caught in these types of things, but would rather cover up/edit out the offending remarks or blame it on a “guest,” so there’s no real point in continuing to argue the point. I blame myself for getting into this back and forth with you, however, and should just follow the advice “don’t feed the trolls.”


So back on topic:

catscratches wrote:
Voodoocat wrote:
It appears that some don't quite undrstand he meaning of the word "illegal". Perhaps this will be of assistance:
The question was never whether illegal immigration was illegal or not. It was whether it was a criminal offense or a civil matter.

Criminal law and civil law are not the same.


It’s both illegal and a criminal offense (covered under criminal law). In fact, it looks like the law specifies jail time for offenders. I wasn’t aware of this part (jail time), and as I said above, I would rather just see them deported and barred reentry (assuming/hoping for secure borders) instead of incurring the cost associated with imprisoning them. The criminal law also specifies that they be deported, however.

Quote:
INA: ACT 266 - PENALTIES

Sec. 266. [8 U.S.C. 1306]

(a) Any alien required to apply for registration and to be fingerprinted in the United States who willfully fails or refuses to make such application or to be fingerprinted, and any parent or legal guardian required to apply for the registration of any alien who willfully fails or refuses to file application for the registration of such alien shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not to exceed $1,000 or be imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

(b) Any alien or any parent or legal guardian in the United States of any alien who fails to give written notice to the Attorney General, as required by section 265 of this title, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not to exceed $200 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both. Irrespective of whether an alien is convicted and punished as herein provided, any alien who fails to give written notice to the Attorney General, as required by section 265 , shall be taken into custody and removed in the manner provided by chapter 4 of this title, unless such alien establishes to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that such failure was reasonably excusable or was not willful.

(c) Any alien or any parent or legal guardian of any alien, who files an application for registration containing statements known by him to be false, or who procures or attempts to procure registration of himself or another person through fraud, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not to exceed $1,000, or be imprisoned not more than six months, or both; and any alien so convicted shall, upon the warrant of the Attorney General, be taken into custody and be removed in the manner provided in chapter 4 of this title.

(d) Any person who with unlawful intent photographs, prints, or in any other manner makes, or executes, any engraving, photograph, print, or impression in the likeness of any certificate of alien registration or an alien registration receipt card or any colorable imitation thereof, except when and as authorized under such rules and regulations as may be prescribed by the Attorney General, shall upon conviction be fined not to exceed $5,000 or be imprisoned not more than five years, or both.


Source = http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-8319.html#0-0-0-314
Bikerman
jmi256 wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
I didn't call you anything. I pointed out that anyone using an anecdote to prove a general case is either lazy or ignorant. I repeat it because it hasn't suddenly become untrue since I last wrote it.

Really, were you? Really? If you expect us to believe that you weren’t trying to be insulting, I have a bridge I’d like to talk to you about.
I was not trying to be insulting. In fact I take any such accusation seriously, and in this instance I have edited my posting to address your concerns

Whatever. I have learned enough to know that you will not simply apologize when you’ve been caught in these types of things, but would rather cover up/edit out the offending remarks or blame it on a “guest,” so there’s no real point in continuing to argue the point. I blame myself for getting into this back and forth with you, however, and should just follow the advice “don’t feed the trolls.”

a) I have nothing to apologise for
b) I have apologised on several occasions where I made a mistake, so that is simply wrong. In this case there was no mistake.
c) I didn't 'cover-up' anything - the edits I made were in response to your complaint, and were done out of a spirit of generosity. Clearly it was wasted on you.

On topic :
Quote:
It’s both illegal and a criminal offense (covered under criminal law).

Incorrect.
The examples you cited are not directly relevant. They refer to a failure to register once required to do so, and do not refer to the state of being an illegal immigrant per se.
The important distinction is contained in the words 'wilfully fails or refuses'. It would be quite simple to make the case that a particular immigrant was not aware of the requirements and threfore did not wilfully fail to register.

The state of being an illegal immigrant is not illegal and the proposal was to make it so. Specifically the Bill introduced by Sessenbrenner in 2005, which, in section 203 proposed:
Quote:
Makes illegal U.S. presence a crime. Increases prison penalties for first-time improper U.S. entry. Expands: (1) penalties for marriage and immigration-related entrepreneurship fraud; and (2) criminal penalties imposed upon aliens who illegally enter the United States or who are present illegally following convictions of certain crimes.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-4437&tab=summary
Note the first sentence.
(The bill never passed).
jmi256
And here’s an explanation of the distinction between criminal law and civil law. I think it’s fair enough to say that illegal immigration is in fact illegal, and the DNC chair’s concern that the GOP wants to make it a crime/illegal is pretty moronic. As the OP mentioned, it is concerning that people like this on the Left are entrusted with leading our country when they simply do not have a grasp of what they are saying (or reality apparently). This isn’t some flippant comment she is making, but rather a thrust of her message and the Left’s attack on Republicans, so any defense that she “misspoke” or something should viewed with extreme skepticism (to put it lightly).

Quote:
criminal law
In criminal law, a guilty defendant is punished by either (1) incarceration in a jail or prison, (2) fine paid to the government, or, in exceptional cases, (3) execution of the defendant: the death penalty. Crimes are divided into two broad classes: felonies have a maximum possible sentence of more than one year incarceration, misdemeanors have a maximum possible sentence of less than one year incarceration.

civil law
In contrast, a defendant in civil litigation is never incarcerated and never executed. In general, a losing defendant in civil litigation only reimburses the plaintiff for losses caused by the defendant's behavior.

Source = http://www.rbs2.com/cc.htm
Bikerman
Incorrect. See above.
jmi256
Bikerman wrote:
Incorrect. See above.

And what about the distinction between criminal and civil law is incorrect?

jmi256 wrote:
And here’s an explanation of the distinction between criminal law and civil law. I think it’s fair enough to say that illegal immigration is in fact illegal, and the DNC chair’s concern that the GOP wants to make it a crime/illegal is pretty moronic. As the OP mentioned, it is concerning that people like this on the Left are entrusted with leading our country when they simply do not have a grasp of what they are saying (or reality apparently). This isn’t some flippant comment she is making, but rather a thrust of her message and the Left’s attack on Republicans, so any defense that she “misspoke” or something should viewed with extreme skepticism (to put it lightly).

Quote:
criminal law
In criminal law, a guilty defendant is punished by either (1) incarceration in a jail or prison, (2) fine paid to the government, or, in exceptional cases, (3) execution of the defendant: the death penalty. Crimes are divided into two broad classes: felonies have a maximum possible sentence of more than one year incarceration, misdemeanors have a maximum possible sentence of less than one year incarceration.

civil law
In contrast, a defendant in civil litigation is never incarcerated and never executed. In general, a losing defendant in civil litigation only reimburses the plaintiff for losses caused by the defendant's behavior.

Source = http://www.rbs2.com/cc.htm




Bikerman wrote:
On topic :
Quote:
It’s both illegal and a criminal offense (covered under criminal law).

Incorrect.
The examples you cited are not directly relevant. They refer to a failure to register once required to do so, and do not refer to the state of being an illegal immigrant per se.
The important distinction is contained in the words 'wilfully fails or refuses'. It would be quite simple to make the case that a particular immigrant was not aware of the requirements and threfore did not wilfully fail to register.

Ignorance of the law is not a defense. That has been a foundation of law for thousands of years, btw.
Bikerman
Incorrect.
a) Being an illegal immigrant is not a criminal offence - that was one of the points of the 2005 Bill.
b) Ignorance is no defence is a summary, and like all summaries is inexact. Ignorance IS a defence where it can be shown that the defendant's ignorance obviates the Mens Rea* of the offence.
c) Conviction of a civil offence does not make one a criminal because no 'crime' is extant. That is why we call it 'criminal' law to distinguish it from 'civil' law.

* lit Guilty Mind - in common parlance it means understanding and intent.
jmi256
Bikerman wrote:
Incorrect.
a) Being an illegal immigrant is not a criminal offence - that was the point of the 2005 Bill.


Sorry, but reality is once again simply against your argument. First of all, you are misrepresenting the amendment with your citation of one section (206), which was just one component of the amendment. It could be that's it's not your fault, however, as you seem to be looking at a summary and not the actual bill/section. If you want to read the actual bill, it's available here:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:h4437rfs.txt.pdf


Secondly, breaking the law is inherently illegal. I really don't know how to make it any clearer for you.

EDIT: You added this section after I repsonded, so I am reponding to that:



Bikerman wrote:
c) Conviction of a civil offence does not make one a criminal because no 'crime' is extant. That is why we call it 'criminal' law to distinguish it from 'civil' law.

Again, illegal immigration is covered by criminal law, hence the penalties that include possible imprisonment.
Bikerman
Repeating fallacies does not make them any truer.
It is not a criminal offence to be an illegal immigrant and you can wriggle as much as you like, you are simply wrong.

I already had the full bill, but thought that the summary might save you the bother of reading it.
If you want a reference to the relevant passage in the bill then it is on pages 42 & 43:
Quote:

17 (8 U.S.C. 1325) is amended—
18 (1) in the section heading, by inserting ‘‘UN
19 LAWFUL PRESENCE;’’ after ‘‘IMPROPER TIME OR
20 PLACE;’’;

by inserting after ‘‘concealment of a
2 material fact,’’ the following: ‘‘or (4) is other
3 wise present in the United States in violation of
4 the immigration laws or the regulations pre
5 scribed thereunder,’’
The effect is to make presence in the US as an illegal immigrant a criminal offence. It IS NOT currently so.

On the matter of 'ignorance being no defence' again you are simply wrong. A defendant who is acquitted or does not stand trial is not guilty of the alleged crime. Ignorance IS a defence that can lead to acquittal and therefore no crime.
jmi256
Bikerman wrote:
Repeating fallacies does not make them any truer.

Funny, I was about to tell you the same thing.

But it seems that you are intent on twisting words to make a point and not admit defeat, so be it. But let’s remember what the phrase is that started this debate from the OP:

Quote:
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D.-Fla.), chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, denounced Republicans last week for believing illegal immigration “should in fact be a crime.”

Again, she (and it seems by your defense of her words – you) faults Republicans for “believing illegal immigration should in fact be a crime.” As shown by the immigration laws in force today that outline the crime and penalties, including fines and imprisonment, of immigrating illegally (and the distinction between civil and criminal law), illegally immigrating to the US is a crime. And the likes of Wasserman who continue to make the claim in the face of overwhelming evidence are either being dishonest or intentionally ignorant.


Quote:
On the matter of 'ignorance being no defence' again you are simply wrong. A defendant who is acquitted or does not stand trial is not guilty of the alleged crime. Ignorance IS a defence that can lead to acquittal and therefore no crime.

Huh? Are you referring to the police being ignorant of a crime being committed and therefore a defendant/criminal not standing trial? That’s the only way your comment makes any sense. I thought it was clear that I mean a defendant’s ignorance of the law is no realistic grounds for defense, but is that’s tripping you up, I hope this clears it up for you. Simply put, if a defendant stands in front of a judge and says “yeah I did it, but I didn’t know I wasn’t supposed to do it, so you should let me go” he would quickly have his arse handed to him by the judge.
Bikerman
Incorrect
a) Her statement was correct. Being an illegal immigrant is not a crime. Republicans sought to pass a bill that would make it so, ergo republicans believe that being an illegal immigrant should be a crime.
b) You can say what you like about ignorance being no defence - you are simply wrong again. Ignorance of a crime is usually no defence, however, where such ignorance obviates mens rea* (intent/knowledge of), it IS a valid defence in a court of law. It is not actually classed as 'ignorance of the law' but 'mistake of law'.

* It is also a valid defence where US law has become so complicated that no person knows it thoroughly - such as tax law.
jmi256
Bikerman wrote:
Incorrect
a) Her statement was correct. Being an illegal immigrant is not a crime. Republicans sought to pass a bill that would make it so, ergo republicans believe that being an illegal immigrant should be a crime.
b) You can say what you like about ignorance being no defence - you are simply wrong again. Ignorance of a crime is usually no defence, however, where such ignorance obviates mens rea* (intent/knowledge of), it IS a valid defence in a court of law. It is not actually classed as 'ignorance of the law' but 'mistake of law'.

* It is also a valid defence where US law has become so complicated that no person knows it thoroughly - such as tax law.


*facepalm*
Keep saying it over and over and maybe one of these days it will come try for you. Would you at least admit that illegal immigration is a crime?
Bikerman
That depends what you mean. If you are caught being in the US without the requisite documentation you are given a 'summons' to register and be fingerprinted. If you do not comply with that then you have committed a criminal offence - as explained in your earlier posting. You cannot, however, simply be charged there and then with 'being an illegal immigrant' because no such statute exists. You *could* be charged with illegal entry, but unless there is some evidence of the actual entry (like being caught by border control, for example) then that is unlikely. It is not legally valid to make the (apparently common-sense) deduction that because you have no documentation that itself proves you entered illegally.
jmi256
Bikerman wrote:
That depends what you mean. If you are caught being in the US without the requisite documentation you are given a 'summons' to register and be fingerprinted. If you do not comply with that then you have committed a criminal offence - as explained in your earlier posting.

Actually, you have already committed the crime of entering the country illegally. No summons/fingerprinting is necessarily needed. Failure to comply with an unlawful order is a separate offense.


Bikerman wrote:
You cannot, however, simply be charged there and then with 'being an illegal immigrant' because no such statute exists. You *could* be charged with illegal entry, but unless there is some evidence of the actual entry (like being caught by border control, for example) then that is unlikely. It is not legally valid to make the (apparently common-sense) deduction that because you have no documentation that itself proves you entered illegally.

“Being an illegal immigrant” necessitates that the offense itself has already been committed. If not, maybe you can explain a situation where someone is “being[sic] an illegal immigrant” without first committing the crime of immigrating illegally?
Bikerman
As I said, you are simply wrong.
It is easy to prove that I am wrong in this assertion - provide ONE example of someone being convicted of being an illegal immigrant.
Good luck with that.

You provided the statute which you now admit is a separate offence. So where is the one which makes being an illegal alien an offence?

PS - failure to comply with an unlawful order??
jmi256
Bikerman wrote:
PS - failure to comply with an unlawful order??


Sorry, I was typing too quickly and meant “lawful.”




Bikerman wrote:
As I said, you are simply wrong.

You keep saying that, yet provide no proof yourself. No matter how many times you say it, it doesn’t make it any truer.



Bikerman wrote:
It is easy to prove that I am wrong in this assertion - provide ONE example of someone being convicted of being an illegal immigrant.
Good luck with that.

So now, it’s my responsibility to “prove” a negative because you can’t make your case? The responsibility is on you to actually present some type of credible proof for your argument, and the fact that you can’t speaks volumes. Again, I repeat, please explain a situation where someone is “being[sic] an illegal immigrant” without first committing the crime of immigrating illegally, and you claim. That’s the same as saying someone is a rapist without committing rape.
Bikerman
I've made the case. In fact you posted the relevant link - the 2005 proposed amendment to the existing statute - in YOUR posting. Why not read it?
handfleisch
Jeez, Jmi, is it really so hard to admit you're wrong? I mean I hope you're just being stubborn, because if you really don't realize you're wrong at this point, well as Karl Popper would say, "true ignorance is not the absence of knowledge, but the refusal to acquire it" which is the nicest way anyone can put it.

jmi256 wrote:
Again, I repeat, please explain a situation where someone is “being[sic] an illegal immigrant” without first committing the crime of immigrating illegally, and you claim.

That's easy. If an immigrant enters the country on a legal temporary visa, and then the visa expires, in absence of any other factors, that person came here legally but is now an "illegal immigrant". But as Bikerman has shown you countless times, in the USA this is considered a civil matter, not a criminal one. That's what the OP was about -- from a fake news site in the business of feeding BS to people like Voodoocat and you.
jmi256
Bikerman wrote:
I've made the case. In fact you posted the relevant link - the 2005 proposed amendment to the existing statute - in YOUR posting. Why not read it?


I did read it. And as I said I was looking for some credible proof on your end. You have provided none, but keep going around in circles. It’s very simple: illegal immigration IS illegal. Catscratches tried to help you out by claiming that:
catscratches wrote:
The question was never whether illegal immigration was illegal or not. It was whether it was a criminal offense or a civil matter.

Criminal law and civil law are not the same.

But as shown, that is simply not true, and is covered under criminal law. I’ve shown you the current law, and the reason I showed you the amendment was because you then tried to misrepresent the amendment with your claim that “being an illegal immigrant is not illegal and the proposal was to make it so.” I showed the amendment to show you that again you were wrong. The proposed amendment does not magically make illegal immigration illegal because it already is. If you actually look at the amendment, much of the main thrust of it is funding related (for things like a fenced border, etc). Your claims are 100% wrong, yet you refuse to admit to reality, which is no less that what I can expect I guess.

But if you need even more proof, a Department of Homeland Security report that outlines the funding problems of housing illegal immigrants arrested for (gasp) being illegal immigrants has a clear definition of illegal immigrants for you. If you still claim that illegal immigration is not illegal, you are again simply being dishonest.

Quote:
For the purposes of this report, “illegal aliens” is a comprehensive term intended to include those foreign-born individuals who enter, reside, or work in the United States without complying with U.S. immigration law;


Source = http://www.dhs.gov/xoig/assets/mgmtrpts/OIG_06-33_Apr06.pdf

And to further show how flawed your logic is about this issue, when asked to explain a situation where someone is “being[sic] an illegal immigrant” without first committing the crime of immigrating illegally, you have no comment, but just keep repeating the same fallicy.

Bikerman wrote:
It is easy to prove that I am wrong in this assertion - provide ONE example of someone being convicted of being an illegal immigrant.
Good luck with that.

The DHS report points out that 774,112 have been detained for illegal immigration (and goes on to talk about the issues with deporting them all). I’m not sure if your math skills mirror your logic skills, but in most places 774,112 is a bit more than 1.





handfleisch wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
Again, I repeat, please explain a situation where someone is “being[sic] an illegal immigrant” without first committing the crime of immigrating illegally, and you claim.

That's easy. If an immigrant enters the country on a legal temporary visa, and then the visa expires, in absence of any other factors, that person came here legally but is now an "illegal immigrant".


No, that is quite clear in the law. But again, here is the DHS definition for you:
Quote:
For the purposes of this report, “illegal aliens” is a comprehensive term intended to include those foreign-born individuals who enter, reside, or work in the United States without complying with U.S. immigration law;

See the “reside” part?



handfleisch wrote:
But as Bikerman has shown you countless times, in the USA this is considered a civil matter, not a criminal one.

We already covered this (the difference between civil and criminal), so please read the thread before rehashing the same nonsense. Criminal law provides penalties, including possible imprisonment, while civil law refers mainly to tort that covers damages. The criminal law covering illegal immigration provides penalties, including imprisonment, and instead of posting that again, I would ask you to read the thread.
Bikerman
Wrong so many times.
OK, I wasn't going to bother anymore with you, but since you call me dishonest then I can't let that pass.
Here
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=43154

Now, tell me, what part of this do you not understand? I think you will find that it says exactly what I have been saying throughout.

After all your talk of apologies, I'll be gracious and accept yours when offered.
jmi256
Bikerman wrote:
Wrong so many times.
OK, I wasn't going to bother anymore with you, but since you call me dishonest then I can't let that pass.
Here
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=43154

Now, tell me, what part of this do you not understand?

After all your talk of apologies, I'll be gracious and accept yours when offered.

I understand quite well. So you have teh opinion of one misguided state judge, while the US criminal law, the Department of Homeland Security and years of legal precedence say otherwise. No doubt the judge's decision should/will be reviewed at the federal level, but this one example does not negate the mountain of evidence that proves illegal immigration is against the law. According to the judge's logic, breaking into a house is against the law, but staying after you break in is fine and dandy.
Bikerman
As suspected you are incapable of admitting you are wrong.
Pathetic really.
deanhills
@Bikerman. The opinion you referred to was from Kansas, other States may have different opinions. Also, the judge says if this guy has been deported, and re-enters the country, and is caught without the right papers a second time, then it will become criminal. Looks as though the "system" is hoping that this guy has been deported before. They seem to be investigating this.
Quote:
"[Federal law] declares an alien's unsanctioned entry into the United States to be a crime. While Congress has criminalized illegal entry into this country, it has not made the continued presence of an illegal alien in the United States a crime unless the illegal alien has previously been deported and has again entered this country illegally," the court opinion said. "[Federal law] makes it a felony for an alien who has been deported to thereafter reenter the United States or at anytime thereafter be found in the United States."


I have to agree with MinuteManCDC:
Quote:
"So let's see: While unauthorized entry into the United States is illegal, being in the country after having entered illegally is not illegal so therefore there is no crime. DUH...What????????" asked "zeezil."


I'm sure many people working in the United States, after illegally entering the country, must feel really hopeful. Sounds almost like an all round amnesty to all "illegal" immigrants? Also gives a total new meaning to "illegal".
catscratches
jmi256 wrote:
you then tried to misrepresent the amendment with your claim that “being an illegal immigrant is not illegal and the proposal was to make it so.”
I have never said such a thing but you keep misrepresenting me and straight out lie about what I have or haven't said. I'm done here.
jmi256
catscratches wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
you then tried to misrepresent the amendment with your claim that “being an illegal immigrant is not illegal and the proposal was to make it so.”
I have never said such a thing but you keep misrepresenting me and straight out lie about what I have or haven't said. I'm done here.


If you look, you'll see I was referring to Bikerman and his argument, which continues to fail. Here’s a story from just today, in which 10 illegals were arrested. Instead of addressing the issue of illegal immigration and how to stop it, the delusional Left would rather stick its head in the sand. Illegal immigration not only creates a huge human abuse issue with the treatment of the illegals before, during and after the come here illegally by those who exploit and profit off of them, but more also creates a huge problem for already overburdened infrastructure and services paid by taxpayers.


Quote:

10 suspected illegal immigrants arrested near Malibu

The suspected illegal immigrants were found after being dropped off by a smuggling boat in what authorities call one of traffickers' northernmost forays so far.

Ten suspected illegal immigrants were arrested Wednesday near Pacific Coast Highway after being dropped off by a smuggling boat along the coast northwest of Malibu, U.S. authorities said.

The group was spotted about 4:30 a.m. just up the coast from the Los Angeles-Ventura county line, said Virginia Kice, a spokeswoman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement. A woman with a broken nose and a man with a broken leg were hospitalized, Kice said.

The maritime smuggling attempt marks one of the northernmost forays by traffickers as they try to evade increased enforcement in San Diego County, where such activity has surged dramatically in recent years.

Last year, 867 illegal immigrants and smugglers were arrested at sea or along the California coast, more than double the number in 2009. In recent months authorities have noticed an increase in smuggling-boat landings in Orange County, and they believe traffickers are now eyeing points farther north.

In March, an empty 30-foot motorboat that authorities believe was used to transport people or drugs was found off the Malibu coast. Officials have not found the vessel that may have carried the immigrants arrested Wednesday.

The pilots of smuggling boats frequently evade arrest by speeding back to Mexican waters. The boats leave from Baja California beaches, often crowded with as many as 25 immigrants who pay as much as $6,000 each for the trip.

Source = http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-malibu-human-smuggling-20110630,0,2346730.story
Bikerman
jmi256 wrote:
catscratches wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
you then tried to misrepresent the amendment with your claim that “being an illegal immigrant is not illegal and the proposal was to make it so.”
I have never said such a thing but you keep misrepresenting me and straight out lie about what I have or haven't said. I'm done here.


If you look, you'll see I was referring to Bikerman and his argument, which continues to fail. Here’s a story from just today, in which 10 illegals were arrested. Instead of addressing the issue of illegal immigration and how to stop it, the delusional Left would rather stick its head in the sand. Illegal immigration not only creates a huge human abuse issue with the treatment of the illegals before, during and after the come here illegally by those who exploit and profit off of them, but more also creates a huge problem for already overburdened infrastructure and services paid by taxpayers.

More pathetic attempts to weasel out of your mistake.
Anyone CAUGHT entering the country IS guilty of an offence - that was the whole point of your original mistake and your increasingly dishonest attempts to defend it. The immigrants in your story were caught entering the country, and can therefore be arrested. An illegal immigrant on the streets of a US city cannot, and despite having weeks to find an example, the best you can do is this?
jmi256
Bikerman wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
catscratches wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
you then tried to misrepresent the amendment with your claim that “being an illegal immigrant is not illegal and the proposal was to make it so.”
I have never said such a thing but you keep misrepresenting me and straight out lie about what I have or haven't said. I'm done here.


If you look, you'll see I was referring to Bikerman and his argument, which continues to fail. Here’s a story from just today, in which 10 illegals were arrested. Instead of addressing the issue of illegal immigration and how to stop it, the delusional Left would rather stick its head in the sand. Illegal immigration not only creates a huge human abuse issue with the treatment of the illegals before, during and after the come here illegally by those who exploit and profit off of them, but more also creates a huge problem for already overburdened infrastructure and services paid by taxpayers.

More pathetic attempts to weasel out of your mistake.
Anyone CAUGHT entering the country IS guilty of an offence - that was the whole point of your original mistake and your increasingly dishonest attempts to defend it. The immigrants in your story were caught entering the country, and can therefore be arrested. An illegal immigrant on the streets of a US city cannot, and despite having weeks to find an example, the best you can do is this?


I’ve provided another piece of proof, to go along with the law citation and the Homeland Security paper that sinks your claim that illegal immigration isn’t illegal. I haven’t posted for weeks simply because I’ve had other things to do. Please don’t think for a moment that I give much thought to your ramblings when I’m not on the board. I posted the above because it was from today and hence timely. But here’s another piece for you, but I don’t think any amount of evidence will get you to drop your hilarious claim.


Quote:
Young illegal immigrants arrested in Ga. protest
Six are charged in rally against strict state law




ATLANTA — Six young illegal immigrants were arrested Tuesday after they sat down and blocked traffic near the Georgia state Capitol to publicly declare their status and to protest state policies targeting people who are in the U.S. illegally, the latest in a string of such “coming out” events in Georgia and other parts of the country.

The young people were protesting a policy that bars Georgia’s most competitive state colleges and universities from accepting illegal immigrants and they were opposing strict new state legislation. A federal judge on Monday blocked two key provisions of that law. They risk arrest and deportation for their protest.

Federal judges have now blocked parts of similar laws in Arizona, Utah, Indiana and Georgia from taking effect.

Civil liberties groups have pledged to sue to block others in Alabama and South Carolina.

Various charges
“It’s time to stand up and let the world know that we need to fight for what we believe in,” said Nataly Ibarra, a 16-year-old high school student.

Four of the young people arrested are high school students, one is a recent high school graduate and one is a 24-year-old college graduate. All six face charges of reckless conduct, obstructing law enforcement and obstructing the street. The three who are under 18 were to be released to their parents. Two 18-year-olds and the 24-year-old were to be taken to the Fulton County Jail.

Barbara Gonzalez, press secretary for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, issued a statement after the arrests: “ICE takes enforcement action on a case by case basis — prioritizing those who present the most significant threats to public safety as determined by their criminal history and taking into consideration the specific facts of each case, including immigration history.”

Source = http://www.tennessean.com/article/20110629/NEWS/306290069/Young-illegal-immigrants-arrested-Ga-protest
Bikerman
LOL...more red herrings.
They were arrested, as your own article shows, for 'reckless conduct, obstructing law enforcement and obstructing the street.". Guess what they were NOT arrested for? Yep - being illegal immigrants. Why not, I wonder? Because there is no such offence.
jmi256
Right, because people commonly face deportation for reckless conduct, obstructing law enforcement and obstructing the street. Happens all the time. /sarcasm
Bikerman
I explained your law to you a while back - you still haven't got it.
Those arrested can now be given an instruction to report to Immigration, and normal deportation procedures can be started.
I really don't know why you continue this charade. Your point was that being an illegal immigrant was illegal and subject to arrest. You were wrong and are wrong. You cannot find a SINGLE example of anyone on the mainland being arrested for being an illegal immigrant. Instead you throw up red herrings because you would rather mislead and dissemble than admit you got it wrong.
jmi256
Bikerman wrote:
I explained your law to you a while back - you still haven't got it.
Those arrested can now be given an instruction to report to Immigration, and normal deportation procedures can be started.
I really don't know why you continue this charade. Your point was that being an illegal immigrant was illegal and subject to arrest. You were wrong and are wrong. You cannot find a SINGLE example of anyone on the mainland being arrested for being an illegal immigrant. Instead you throw up red herrings because you would rather mislead and dissemble than admit you got it wrong.


You seem to be mathematically challenged. You say I haven't provided a "SINGLE example" yet I have provided several, including the Department of Homeland Security's report, which cites thousands that have been arrested for that very offense. Deny reality all you want; you're simply starting to bore me.
Bikerman
More lies. Keep it up, I'll do a nice little summary later so that people can see what they are dealing with.
jmi256
Bikerman wrote:
More lies. Keep it up, I'll do a nice little summary later so that people can see what they are dealing with.



Sure. It appears you’ve dug yourself into a hole and now want to change direction again. But I’ll start your little summary off for you:



Bikerman wrote:
Illegal immigration is a civil matter in the US, not a ciminal offense.

And here’s the law that clearly defines it as a criminal matter:
jmi256 wrote:
INA: ACT 266 - PENALTIES

Sec. 266. [8 U.S.C. 1306]






Bikerman wrote:
Anecdote to prove a general case is the tool of the lazy or uninformed.

Followed later by your own anecdote where a state court, which hasn’t the proper jurisdiction to invalidate a federal law, ruled in favor of an illegal immigrant in his case. Most likely this will become an issue with an appellate court if it hasn’t already. But to change your own quote just slightly: “I'd be a bit careful about throwing the word ‘lazy or uniformed’ around if I were you - it is likely to rebound.”





You then take your fantasy into another direction where you claim the crime isn’t really a crime because the illegal doesn’t know it’s a crime.
Bikerman wrote:
It would be quite simple to make the case that a particular immigrant was not aware of the requirements and threfore did not wilfully fail to register.

Again, I wouldn’t think it would be required to prove that ignorance of the law is not a good affirmative defense, but the simple example of a person of majority raping a minor and then saying “I didn’t know she wasn’t 18” (or whatever the age is in that jurisdiction) tends not to work.





You then take the fantasy into yet another direction with a hypothetical where the criminal offense only takes place if they are first caught, released and then fail to then register and get fingerprinted. Sort of a “first one is on the house” theory.
Bikerman wrote:
If you are caught being in the US without the requisite documentation you are given a 'summons' to register and be fingerprinted. If you do not comply with that then you have committed a criminal offence

But obviously this is simply wrong. I showed several examples of thousands of illegals arrested for illegal immigration. If it was as you seem to think, they would simply register and get fingerprinted after being detained, and that would be the end of it. Again, the obvious reality is that is not the case, and the Department of Homeland Security, as well as other agencies regularly arrest the illegals without your “first one is on the house” theory of law.



Bikerman wrote:
It is easy to prove that I am wrong in this assertion - provide ONE example of someone being convicted of being an illegal immigrant.

Done. Is 774,112 more than ONE? According to the math I learned it is.
http://www.dhs.gov/xoig/assets/mgmtrpts/OIG_06-33_Apr06.pdf
Bikerman
LOL...no, but 0 is definately lower than 1. Not one case in that whole document. Plenty of cases of people being removed with final orders.

Maybe you'll believe the LA Times - though I doubt it, since you are clearly incapable of admitting error.
Quote:
UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS ARE NOT CRIMINALS. Its a Civil Matter.

The whole thing is perplexing to people who don't understand that being an illegal immigrant in and of itself is not a crime. The most pervasive comments made in news stories about Secure Communities go a little like this: "Illegal immigrants are what they're called -- they're considered criminals by mere definition. Illegals who broke a bunch of laws to enter and live here should be subjected to immediate arrest and deportation -- that's fair for everyone."
That's not accurate, but a lot of people have that same misunderstanding -- even law enforcement professionals.
http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2011/06/alabamas-immigration-reform-law-most-commented.html?cid=6a00d8341c7de353ef01543318939b970c
jmi256
Bikerman wrote:
LOL...no, but 0 is definately lower than 1. Not one case in that whole document. Plenty of cases of people being removed with final orders.

Maybe you'll believe the LA Times - though I doubt it, since you are clearly incapable of admitting error.
Quote:
UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS ARE NOT CRIMINALS. Its a Civil Matter.

The whole thing is perplexing to people who don't understand that being an illegal immigrant in and of itself is not a crime. The most pervasive comments made in news stories about Secure Communities go a little like this: "Illegal immigrants are what they're called -- they're considered criminals by mere definition. Illegals who broke a bunch of laws to enter and live here should be subjected to immediate arrest and deportation -- that's fair for everyone."
That's not accurate, but a lot of people have that same misunderstanding -- even law enforcement professionals.
http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2011/06/alabamas-immigration-reform-law-most-commented.html?cid=6a00d8341c7de353ef01543318939b970c


LOL. Really, that's it? Your fantasy world gets shattered, and all you have to counter is an opinion piece from the LA Times? You have to try harder than that. Like I said, this is really starting to bore me.
Bikerman
Oh there is plenty more.

Rudi Guiliani should know - after all he WAS an attourney AND Mayor of New York. Neither is he a 'leftie', yet he has no doubt that you are talking crap.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2007/09/post-66.html

Maybe the US Attourney for New Jersey will convince you?
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/04/immigrants_and_their_advocates.html

Or perhaps the words of the US Immigration and Nationality Act?
Quote:
Being illegally present in the U.S. has always been a civil, not criminal, violation of the INA, and subsequent deportation and associated administrative processes are civil proceedings. For instance, a lawfully admitted non-immigrant alien may become deportable if his visitor’s visa expires or if his student status changes. Criminal violations of the INA, on the other hand, include felonies and misdemeanors and are prosecuted in federal district courts. These types of violations include the bringing in and harboring of certain undocumented aliens, the illegal entry of other criminal provisions include disobeying a removal order, offenses relating to registration of aliens, and engaging in a pattern or practice of hiring illegal aliens.


Of course no evidence will ever persuade the true zealot.

I mean, I could give the professional opinions of immigration lawyers:
Quote:
Sara Dill, a member of the American Bar Association's Commission on Immigration and a member of the ABA's Criminal Justice Council, explained it to me this way: "States are seeking to criminalize what is only a civil violation in federal law." Dill said that failing to get a permit for home construction is one example of civil, not criminal, violation. "Putting illegal immigrants in a criminal context confuses merely being present in the United States without authorization with crimes such as falsely claiming citizenship or identity theft which are crimes under federal law."
Or the opinion of a senior Sherrif:
Quote:
Kane County, Ill., Sheriff Patrick Perez said that "90 percent of law enforcement officers believe (just being an illegal immigrant) is a crime but I learned after talking to an immigration judge that it is just a civil offense." He reiterated the same thought every law enforcement official I've spoken to over the years has clearly expressed about treatment of illegal immigrants: Police all happily cooperate with the feds when it comes to criminal, and especially violent, offenders. "But we cannot hold civil offenders in jail," Perez said.




       
jmi256
I like Guiliani and I think Christie is doing a good job as governor of NJ, but even they can be wrong at times (not all of us follow blindly without any critical analysis and challenge that the Left seems to have trademarked). As I pointed out in the law above, it clearly shows that illegal immigration is indeed a crime. But as usual, instead of admitting that you are simply making it up as you go, you divert into another area to try to save face. I'm afraid it's already too late for that though. As you said "...people can see what they are dealing with." I can simply let them read over the thread and the summary above where you go from argument to argument, often contradicting yourself to try to make some type of point, and let them judge your sincerity and honesty for themselves. You've called me a liar several times and have offered zero in way of evidence, just opinions and fantasy, while I have provided the actual laws that stand, reports from the Department of Homeland Security and current examples where illegal immigrants are being arrested.



Bikerman wrote:
Or perhaps the words of the US Immigration and Nationality Act?
Quote:
Being illegally present in the U.S. has always been a civil, not criminal, violation of the INA, and subsequent deportation and associated administrative processes are civil proceedings. For instance, a lawfully admitted non-immigrant alien may become deportable if his visitor’s visa expires or if his student status changes. Criminal violations of the INA, on the other hand, include felonies and misdemeanors and are prosecuted in federal district courts. These types of violations include the bringing in and harboring of certain undocumented aliens, the illegal entry of other criminal provisions include disobeying a removal order, offenses relating to registration of aliens, and engaging in a pattern or practice of hiring illegal aliens.


Of course no evidence will ever persuade the true zealot.

Surely you have a link to the above? Given your loose interpretation of facts, you can't really expect anyone to take you on your word at this point.
Bikerman
I don't expect YOU to take my word, as I said. You think you have provided evidence when you have provided nothing of the sort. The question was whether being present in the us as an 'illegal alien' is a criminal offence. It isn't, never was.
For people prepared to accept facts then of course I can provide links:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33351.pdf
(Congressional Report).
http://www.wikilaw3k.org/forum/Immigration/Illegal-criminal-364135.htm
(Wiki Law)
jmi256
Bikerman wrote:
I don't expect YOU to take my word, as I said. You think you have provided evidence when you have provided nothing of the sort. The question was whether being present in the us as an 'illegal alien' is a criminal offence. It isn't, never was.
For people prepared to accept facts then of course I can provide links:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33351.pdf
(Congressional Report).
http://www.wikilaw3k.org/forum/Immigration/Illegal-criminal-364135.htm
(Wiki Law)


Good thing I asked. I knew something seemed fishy. Again, this isn't "the words of the US Immigration and Nationality Act" as you tried to pass off, but rather another opinion on the law. Nice try.
handfleisch
First of all jmi I want to thank you. It is truly entertaining watching you flop around like this. Also I want to thank you for showing us the mind of today's right wingers who never admit they are wrong, not matter what. You've put on a display that would make a Birther proud -- legal experts, countless citations from US attorneys who are even conservatives, they mean nothing to you.

Another tactic of the right wing you typify is when you try to fight facts and reason with verbiage and volume. You seem to think that by just continually posting with claims that something is not true, when it has been shown to be true, will somehow make you the "winner". I've seen this tactic work well sometimes, since reasonable people basically get tired of hearing such absurdity from totally irrational people and so the the reasonable people go away, leaving the fact-challenged ranter alone to proclaim victory to himself and his fellow Birthers or whomever (though Bikerman has shown that he's not going away). Of course, relentless posting is also the sign of a dedicated troll.

Mods, can we somehow leave this post at the top of the threads, for all to refer to forever?

Jmi, keep it up, please. It's fascinating to watch your shredded credibility getting atomized by your own posts.
deanhills
I found the following explanation about the difference between criminal act and a civil offense, which I thought was a good one:
Quote:
Illegal Immigration: Crime or Civil Offense

In order to understand whether illegal immigration amounts to a criminal act or it is just a civil offense, you need to understand the difference between these two concepts. In legal terminology, 'criminal offense' refers to violation of law which is punishable by a stipulated amount as fine or a jail sentence. On the other hand, 'civil offense' is an offense which is only punishable by a fine.

Entering the US territory illegally amounts to a criminal offense as per the stipulations of US Code Title 8 Section 1325. It suggests that any alien who is caught crossing or attempting to cross over the US border at any place or time other than that stipulated by the immigration authorities, eludes examination or inspection by them or resorts to false or misleading representation to enter the country is guilty and can be subjected to punishment. For the first offense, the said individual can be fined under Title 18 or imprisoned for a maximum period of 6 months (or both). If the offense is repeated, he can be fined under Title 18 or imprisoned for a maximum period of 2 years (or both).

In addition to the aforementioned criminal penalties, there also exist civil penalties which the alien can be subjected to for illegally crossing over or attempting to cross over into the US territory. The law states that an alien caught illegally crossing over (or attempting to do the same) can be fined US$50 - US$250 for the first offense. If the same person is caught violating the law for the second time, he can be fined double the amount which he paid for the first offense. All these illegal immigration facts are more than enough to prove that it is a criminal as well as civil offense.


Source: buzzle.com

The whole thing has become politicized. Every State has their own policies. Apparently the LAPD for example has a policy in force whereby they cannot implement the Immigration Law. So I guess the interpretation of the law would vary from State to State according to political sentiment.
Bikerman
But your entire posting misses the point. YES, being caught crossing into the US without papers IS a CRIMINAL offence. I have never tried to say otherwise. Your posting merely confirms this.

The POINT I made, and which is correct, is that BEING in the US without papers is NOT a ciminal offence.
Now, the argument that some make is that if you are there, you must have GOT there, and therefore you must have broken the criminal law to get there. The trouble with that argument is that you would have to PROVE it (for that is what we require in a criminal case) and without details of where the immigrant crossed into the US, and when, then it isn't possible to prove it.
What happens instead is that every now and again they have a 'clamp down' where undocumented aliens are put into the 'system'. This means that they are detained and issued with a removal notice. This changes the position by now putting the onus on the immigrant to produce their papers within a set period. If they cannot do this, they can be deported. If they refuse to comply with the notice (either they ignore it, or try to produce false documents) then they HAVE committed a criminal offence. If they compy with the notice (which means they admit to not having the correct papers) then they are deported under CIVIL law and at no time is a CRIMINAL charge made against them.

JMI thinks that this proves that being in the US without papers is a criminal offence. He is wrong.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
But your entire posting misses the point. YES, being caught crossing into the US without papers IS a CRIMINAL offence. I have never tried to say otherwise. Your posting merely confirms this.
OK, I did not understand it before.

Bikerman wrote:
The POINT I made, and which is correct, is that BEING in the US without papers is NOT a ciminal offence.

Now, the argument that some make is that if you are there, you must have GOT there, and therefore you must have broken the criminal law to get there. The trouble with that argument is that you would have to PROVE it (for that is what we require in a criminal case) and without details of where the immigrant crossed into the US, and when, then it isn't possible to prove it.
But is that not the case with all criminal cases? If you murder someone they have to prove you murdered someone. With regard to breaking the immigration law it would easy to prove if you asked for proper identification papers, either you have a green card or a legal visa or you don't. If you don't you're criminally liable. So here is where the politics apparently comes in. Some States like California have policies in place where asking someone for their legal papers would be considered racist. LAPD are not allowed to implement the immigration law.

Bikerman wrote:
What happens instead is that every now and again they have a 'clamp down' where undocumented aliens are put into the 'system'. This means that they are detained and issued with a removal notice. This changes the position by now putting the onus on the immigrant to produce their papers within a set period. If they cannot do this, they can be deported. If they refuse to comply with the notice (either they ignore it, or try to produce false documents) then they HAVE committed a criminal offence. If they compy with the notice (which means they admit to not having the correct papers) then they are deported under CIVIL law and at no time is a CRIMINAL charge made against them.
This of course has a very nasty consequence. You get real nasty criminals in Los Angeles who get apprehended for nasty crimes, then of course because they are illegal aliens get deported after investigation, but since they are so well connected very soon find their way back to Los Angeles again, doing the same heavy crimes over again. The irony of course is that the people that get to suffer the most are the legal immigrant communities who seem to be at the mercy of these criminals. So obviously something needs to be done so that criminals can do time for their crime.
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
Now, the argument that some make is that if you are there, you must have GOT there, and therefore you must have broken the criminal law to get there. The trouble with that argument is that you would have to PROVE it (for that is what we require in a criminal case) and without details of where the immigrant crossed into the US, and when, then it isn't possible to prove it.
But is that not the case with all criminal cases? If you murder someone they have to prove you murdered someone. With regard to breaking the immigration law it would easy to prove if you asked for proper identification papers, either you have a green card or a legal visa or you don't. If you don't you're criminally liable. So here is where the politics apparently comes in. Some States like California have policies in place where asking someone for their legal papers would be considered racist. LAPD are not allowed to implement the immigration law.
No this is mistaken.
All you can prove is that the immigrant doesn't have the papers - a CIVIL offense.
That is not the same as proving they crossed into the US illegally - a CRIMINAL offence.

As an analogy: the police pull you over. They find out that you have travelled 120 miles, and that you have taken 1 hour 30 mins to do it. You MUST have broken the UK speed limit to do this, but you CANNOT be charged with speeding, because there is no evidence specific to WHEN and WHERE you did so. A criminal charge has to be specific. It isn't enough to simply say - they MUST have broken the law (even if that is true).
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
Now, the argument that some make is that if you are there, you must have GOT there, and therefore you must have broken the criminal law to get there. The trouble with that argument is that you would have to PROVE it (for that is what we require in a criminal case) and without details of where the immigrant crossed into the US, and when, then it isn't possible to prove it.
But is that not the case with all criminal cases? If you murder someone they have to prove you murdered someone. With regard to breaking the immigration law it would easy to prove if you asked for proper identification papers, either you have a green card or a legal visa or you don't. If you don't you're criminally liable. So here is where the politics apparently comes in. Some States like California have policies in place where asking someone for their legal papers would be considered racist. LAPD are not allowed to implement the immigration law.
No this is mistaken.
All you can prove is that the immigrant doesn't have the papers - a CIVIL offense.
That is not the same as proving they crossed into the US illegally - a CRIMINAL offence.
I don't understand this kind of reasoning Bikerman. I realize you are a rational and logical thinker, but this kind of argument I just can't get at all. If you have to do jail time, then it's a crime. If you are not in good standing with the immigration law it is punishable with a jail sentence. So it's a crime. And yes, they have to prove it, and for me the logical thing is to check on his immigration status. If his status shows he is not in good standing immigration law wise, then he is breaking the law. And the law says that he can be jailed for it. That makes it a crime.

Bikerman wrote:
As an analogy: the police pull you over. They find out that you have travelled 120 miles, and that you have taken 1 hour 30 mins to do it. You MUST have broken the UK speed limit to do this, but you CANNOT be charged with speeding, because there is no evidence specific to WHEN and WHERE you did so. A criminal charge has to be specific. It isn't enough to simply say - they MUST have broken the law (even if that is true).
This is not a very good analogy. If you are caught inside the United States and after investigation it is found that you have entered the country illegally, then you have broken the immigration law. In addition, as an alien you're supposed to carry papers on you all of the time. But in absence of papers it's easy to check on a computer whether the person is a legal alien. Doesn't matter where he entered or what he did. If he is not registered somewhere with the required permissions by the immigration authorities, then he has broken the law. Ask my friend from Sudan who visited the United States last July, and he will explain how at the airport he was told that he had to register at XYZ office (since he is from Sudan and Muslim) and then had to report at the office again before he left for an exit permission. That was on top of having to jump through loops at the US Embassy in Abu Dhabi to get a US Visitors Visa. He was given a document at the airport that said that if he should not register with an office within a certain period of time, that it would be a crime and he would be incarcerated. Pretty straight language. I'll check up if I can find it for you.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
Now, the argument that some make is that if you are there, you must have GOT there, and therefore you must have broken the criminal law to get there. The trouble with that argument is that you would have to PROVE it (for that is what we require in a criminal case) and without details of where the immigrant crossed into the US, and when, then it isn't possible to prove it.
But is that not the case with all criminal cases? If you murder someone they have to prove you murdered someone. With regard to breaking the immigration law it would easy to prove if you asked for proper identification papers, either you have a green card or a legal visa or you don't. If you don't you're criminally liable. So here is where the politics apparently comes in. Some States like California have policies in place where asking someone for their legal papers would be considered racist. LAPD are not allowed to implement the immigration law.
No this is mistaken.
All you can prove is that the immigrant doesn't have the papers - a CIVIL offense.
That is not the same as proving they crossed into the US illegally - a CRIMINAL offence.
I don't understand this kind of reasoning Bikerman. I realize you are a rational and logical thinker, but this kind of argument I just can't get at all. If you have to do jail time, then it's a crime. If you are not in good standing with the immigration law it is punishable with a jail sentence. So it's a crime. And yes, they have to prove it, and for me the logical thing is to check on his immigration status. If his status shows he is not in good standing immigration law wise, then he is breaking the law. And the law says that he can be jailed for it. That makes it a crime.

Bikerman wrote:
As an analogy: the police pull you over. They find out that you have travelled 120 miles, and that you have taken 1 hour 30 mins to do it. You MUST have broken the UK speed limit to do this, but you CANNOT be charged with speeding, because there is no evidence specific to WHEN and WHERE you did so. A criminal charge has to be specific. It isn't enough to simply say - they MUST have broken the law (even if that is true).
This is not a very good analogy. If you are caught inside the United States and after investigation it is found that you have entered the country illegally, then you have broken the immigration law. In addition, as an alien you're supposed to carry papers on you all of the time. But in absence of papers it's easy to check on a computer whether the person is a legal alien. Doesn't matter where he entered or what he did. If he is not registered somewhere with the required permissions by the immigration authorities, then he has broken the law. Ask my friend from Sudan who visited the United States last July, and he will explain how at the airport he was told that he had to register at XYZ office (since he is from Sudan and Muslim) and then had to report at the office again before he left for an exit permission. That was on top of having to jump through loops at the US Embassy in Abu Dhabi to get a US Visitors Visa. He was given a document at the airport that said that if he should not register with an office within a certain period of time, that it would be a crime and he would be incarcerated. Pretty straight language. I'll check up if I can find it for you.
Bikerman
Ho hum, someone else who thinks their opinion is in any way relevant to the facts.

It is a civil offence. Your difficulty lies in your understanding, not the facts. Those deported are officially classed as 'detained' not as prisoners. You could argue that it is a semantic quibble, but there is more to it. No criminal charge is ever made (because there isn't one). Any criminal offense results in the person being charged and then either bailed or remanded in custody. Detention is different, although the effect is still the loss of liberty. It is a major problem - not just in the US - and there is a lot of criticism of how detainees are treated, for example:
http://newmexicoindependent.com/65258/a-year-after-review-immigrant-detainees-still-treated-like-prisoners

If you had read through the thread instead of just jumping in, you would know that refusing to report to an immigration office when duly required to IS a criminal offense - which accounts for your example and shows why my analogy was a very good one.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
If you had read through the thread instead of just jumping in, you would know that refusing to report to an immigration office when duly required to IS a criminal offense - which accounts for your example and shows why my analogy was a very good one.
I did read the thread and from the very beginning thought you were wrong. If they catch you in the United States without your immigration papers being in order, then you are criminally liable. They can put you in jail. It is the law. However, in addition to the law, there seem to be policies as well, which at their bottomline has "at the discretion of immigration and customs". So obviously when these guys are detained instead of incarcerated, this is a result of discretion of "immigration and customs". Maybe there is no space in jail for illegal aliens and the policy is just to ship illegal aliens back to where they came from.
Bikerman
Well, mark up another one.
Completely wrong in every respect. If you have really read the contents of the thread and still think that being an illegal immigrant is a criminal offense in the US then you have some issues that I can't help with.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
Well, mark up another one.
Completely wrong in every respect. If you have really read the contents of the thread and still think that being an illegal immigrant is a criminal offense in the US then you have some issues that I can't help with.
As far as I can see I'm not the only one who holds that opinion. Even though you want it to appear that way. Interesting that you would tell a citizen of the United States, a former marine, how wrong he is about the interpretation of immigration legislation in his own country.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
Interesting that you would tell a citizen of the United States, a former marine, how wrong he is about the interpretation of immigration legislation in his own country.


Odd, I didn't think that the marines dealt with immigration law very often...

Now... a coast guard sailor... that might be a good source of information about immigration law.
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
As far as I can see I'm not the only one who holds that opinion.
That would be the fallacy ad-populum.
Quote:
Even though you want it to appear that way. Interesting that you would tell a citizen of the United States, a former marine, how wrong he is about the interpretation of immigration legislation in his own country.
That would be the twin fallacies of appeal to false authority and red-herring.

PS - if I had wanted it to appear that way (ie that you were alone in this opinion) then I would hardly have used the words 'mark-up another one' - obviously.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Interesting that you would tell a citizen of the United States, a former marine, how wrong he is about the interpretation of immigration legislation in his own country.


Odd, I didn't think that the marines dealt with immigration law very often...

Now... a coast guard sailor... that might be a good source of information about immigration law.
Point taken. However, would love to hear what your views are in the matter. Is it a crime or a civil violation to be in the US illegally. I.e. someone either entered the country illegally or had papers, but they have expired.

By the way just to get it straight. My argument is that it is a crime, as any law that has a jail sentence listed as a penalty is technically a law that has to do with crime. HOWEVER, this has become a political issue particularly after the Rodney King incident where policies have been issued by separate states where the LAPD for example aren't allowed to ask anyone whether they are legal, unless they have committed a crime. And even then they don't touch the illegal aliens but immediately hand them over to the immigration and customs authorities. According to the law it is a crime, but because of politics and fear of discrimination, the law is not implemented as a crime.

What makes if REALLY unfair is that US citizens who are housing illegal immigrants can get a jail sentence, yet even your most hardened felons get to be deported back to Mexico for example. And then very shortly make their way back to their communities like in Los Angeles, as of course they know they won't be asked for their papers.

Anyway, my point is that the Immigration Law is not implemented as it is written. The whole issue of whether crime or a civil violation has become politicized. And maybe the law should be rewritten, however I can't see that happening, as it obviously has become a hot potato. There is such an enormous number of illegal immigrants in the United States that they have become a pressure group in their own right. Maybe it's time that everyone be given an amnesty and they then start from scratch again? Or just open the borders as I recall you suggested in other threads?
jmi256
deanhills wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Interesting that you would tell a citizen of the United States, a former marine, how wrong he is about the interpretation of immigration legislation in his own country.


Odd, I didn't think that the marines dealt with immigration law very often...

Now... a coast guard sailor... that might be a good source of information about immigration law.

Point taken. However, would love to hear what your views are in the matter. Is it a crime or a civil violation to be in the US illegally. I.e. someone either entered the country illegally or had papers, but they have expired.

My only experience from a military perspective was when I participated in JTF-6, a joint endeavor with the border patrol and the military to patrol the US-Mexico border (which was a joke, BTW); and in Gitmo doing crowd control to manage the Haitian boat people being held until what to do with them was figured out (1994 I think). I’ve had “personal” dealings with INS, but that’s not the question. But OC is right in that normally the average grunt doesn’t find himself dealing with immigration issues often, and especially not the law. First of all it just isn’t encountered much; second of all, Marines pretty much just do the mission outlined by the policy makers (the whole “ours is not to question why; ours is but to do or die” thing).



deanhills wrote:
By the way just to get it straight. My argument is that it is a crime, as any law that has a jail sentence listed as a penalty is technically a law that has to do with crime. HOWEVER, this has become a political issue particularly after the Rodney King incident where policies have been issued by separate states where the LAPD for example aren't allowed to ask anyone whether they are legal, unless they have committed a crime. And even then they don't touch the illegal aliens but immediately hand them over to the immigration and customs authorities. According to the law it is a crime, but because of politics and fear of discrimination, the law is not implemented as a crime.


The law, which I have again posted below, is clear. People who post opinions of the law and claim the opinions are "the words of the US Immigration and Nationality Act" are simply being dishonest. It is very clear and the first line of the penalties outlines that ANY alien who is required to register and fails to do so is guilty of a crime. The theory that “the first doesn’t count” is simply fantastic hogwash.

But the real issue is selective enforcement, which the states have basically gotten fed up with. The states apprehend the illegals and hand them over to the feds, who often only prosecute a percentage of the cases, mainly citing space and resource issues (as outlined in the Department of Homeland Security paper I provided). State and local authorities are usually unable to enforce federal laws, so they have then resorted to passing state and local laws that mirror federal law to allow their officers to deal with the illegals.

Quote:

INA: ACT 266 - PENALTIES

Sec. 266. [8 U.S.C. 1306]

(a) Any alien required to apply for registration and to be fingerprinted in the United States who willfully fails or refuses to make such application or to be fingerprinted, and any parent or legal guardian required to apply for the registration of any alien who willfully fails or refuses to file application for the registration of such alien shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not to exceed $1,000 or be imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

(b) Any alien or any parent or legal guardian in the United States of any alien who fails to give written notice to the Attorney General, as required by section 265 of this title, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not to exceed $200 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both. Irrespective of whether an alien is convicted and punished as herein provided, any alien who fails to give written notice to the Attorney General, as required by section 265 , shall be taken into custody and removed in the manner provided by chapter 4 of this title, unless such alien establishes to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that such failure was reasonably excusable or was not willful.

(c) Any alien or any parent or legal guardian of any alien, who files an application for registration containing statements known by him to be false, or who procures or attempts to procure registration of himself or another person through fraud, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not to exceed $1,000, or be imprisoned not more than six months, or both; and any alien so convicted shall, upon the warrant of the Attorney General, be taken into custody and be removed in the manner provided in chapter 4 of this title.

(d) Any person who with unlawful intent photographs, prints, or in any other manner makes, or executes, any engraving, photograph, print, or impression in the likeness of any certificate of alien registration or an alien registration receipt card or any colorable imitation thereof, except when and as authorized under such rules and regulations as may be prescribed by the Attorney General, shall upon conviction be fined not to exceed $5,000 or be imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

Source = http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-8319.html#0-0-0-314






deanhills wrote:
What makes if REALLY unfair is that US citizens who are housing illegal immigrants can get a jail sentence, yet even your most hardened felons get to be deported back to Mexico for example. And then very shortly make their way back to their communities like in Los Angeles, as of course they know they won't be asked for their papers.

That’s one of the reason I initially stated that I am against further criminalizing illegal immigration. The solution would be to make illegal immigration harder by toughing the border, followed by swift deportation for those found here (however, I do believe that those who commit crimes here should be tried for those specific crimes). But illegal immigration is not only unfair to taxpayers who have to then support them through taxes that pay for infrastructure costs and services the illegals consume and strain, but also to legal aliens who follow the system and are lumped in with the criminals. I’m a bit biased as an immigrant in this matter, but I think that legal immigration is strength of the US. Many are hard workers and fill a vital need in the economy.




deanhills wrote:
Anyway, my point is that the Immigration Law is not implemented as it is written. The whole issue of whether crime or a civil violation has become politicized. And maybe the law should be rewritten, however I can't see that happening, as it obviously has become a hot potato. There is such an enormous number of illegal immigrants in the United States that they have become a pressure group in their own right. Maybe it's time that everyone be given an amnesty and they then start from scratch again? Or just open the borders as I recall you suggested in other threads?

The law is clear and fine as written, but when the federal government decides to not enforce the law, what does it matter how it’s worded (BTW, I’m not blaming only Obama for this; this policy goes back to Bush and Clinton as well). I wouldn’t mind seeing more open borders, but I think it should be accomplished through amending the law, not simply ignoring it.
deanhills
jmi256 wrote:
deanhills wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Interesting that you would tell a citizen of the United States, a former marine, how wrong he is about the interpretation of immigration legislation in his own country.


Odd, I didn't think that the marines dealt with immigration law very often...

Now... a coast guard sailor... that might be a good source of information about immigration law.

Point taken. However, would love to hear what your views are in the matter. Is it a crime or a civil violation to be in the US illegally. I.e. someone either entered the country illegally or had papers, but they have expired.

My only experience from a military perspective was when I participated in JTF-6, a joint endeavor with the border patrol and the military to patrol the US-Mexico border (which was a joke, BTW); and in Gitmo doing crowd control to manage the Haitian boat people being held until what to do with them was figured out (1994 I think). I’ve had “personal” dealings with INS, but that’s not the question. But OC is right in that normally the average grunt doesn’t find himself dealing with immigration issues often, and especially not the law. First of all it just isn’t encountered much; second of all, Marines pretty much just do the mission outlined by the policy makers (the whole “ours is not to question why; ours is but to do or die” thing).
Thanks for amplifying Ocalhoun's point. I actually had accepted Ocalhoun's position if you read my comment above. I then went on to ask for Ocalhoun's opinion on whether he thinks breaking immigration law is a crime or a civil violation. Which I thought had been the point of the discussion.
jmi256 wrote:
deanhills wrote:
By the way just to get it straight. My argument is that it is a crime, as any law that has a jail sentence listed as a penalty is technically a law that has to do with crime. HOWEVER, this has become a political issue particularly after the Rodney King incident where policies have been issued by separate states where the LAPD for example aren't allowed to ask anyone whether they are legal, unless they have committed a crime. And even then they don't touch the illegal aliens but immediately hand them over to the immigration and customs authorities. According to the law it is a crime, but because of politics and fear of discrimination, the law is not implemented as a crime.


The law, which I have again posted below, is clear. People who post opinions of the law and claim the opinions are "the words of the US Immigration and Nationality Act" are simply being dishonest. It is very clear and the first line of the penalties outlines that ANY alien who is required to register and fails to do so is guilty of a crime. The theory that “the first doesn’t count” is simply fantastic hogwash.

But the real issue is selective enforcement, which the states have basically gotten fed up with. The states apprehend the illegals and hand them over to the feds, who often only prosecute a percentage of the cases, mainly citing space and resource issues (as outlined in the Department of Homeland Security paper I provided). State and local authorities are usually unable to enforce federal laws, so they have then resorted to passing state and local laws that mirror federal law to allow their officers to deal with the illegals.

Quote:

INA: ACT 266 - PENALTIES

Sec. 266. [8 U.S.C. 1306]

(a) Any alien required to apply for registration and to be fingerprinted in the United States who willfully fails or refuses to make such application or to be fingerprinted, and any parent or legal guardian required to apply for the registration of any alien who willfully fails or refuses to file application for the registration of such alien shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not to exceed $1,000 or be imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

(b) Any alien or any parent or legal guardian in the United States of any alien who fails to give written notice to the Attorney General, as required by section 265 of this title, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not to exceed $200 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both. Irrespective of whether an alien is convicted and punished as herein provided, any alien who fails to give written notice to the Attorney General, as required by section 265 , shall be taken into custody and removed in the manner provided by chapter 4 of this title, unless such alien establishes to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that such failure was reasonably excusable or was not willful.

(c) Any alien or any parent or legal guardian of any alien, who files an application for registration containing statements known by him to be false, or who procures or attempts to procure registration of himself or another person through fraud, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not to exceed $1,000, or be imprisoned not more than six months, or both; and any alien so convicted shall, upon the warrant of the Attorney General, be taken into custody and be removed in the manner provided in chapter 4 of this title.

(d) Any person who with unlawful intent photographs, prints, or in any other manner makes, or executes, any engraving, photograph, print, or impression in the likeness of any certificate of alien registration or an alien registration receipt card or any colorable imitation thereof, except when and as authorized under such rules and regulations as may be prescribed by the Attorney General, shall upon conviction be fined not to exceed $5,000 or be imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

Source = http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-8319.html#0-0-0-314
I thought that is what I was trying to say as well but thanks for all the additional info. My take on it is exactly the same. It is a crime, but those who implement the law have been asked to deal differently with it, i.e. a civil violation and hand those who break the immigration law over to immigration. There are policies in place where those who implement the law are unable to ask people for their immigration status unless they have a just cause to do so, which is the breaking of the law for something else. The moment an illegal alien is suspected of a crime like theft, and is "in the system" so to speak, he/she is liable for deportation. If it is a second second deportation however, it will be treated as a crime, as far as I know and the person will have to do jail time in the United States.

jmi256 wrote:
That’s one of the reason I initially stated that I am against further criminalizing illegal immigration. The solution would be to make illegal immigration harder by toughing the border, followed by swift deportation for those found here (however, I do believe that those who commit crimes here should be tried for those specific crimes). But illegal immigration is not only unfair to taxpayers who have to then support them through taxes that pay for infrastructure costs and services the illegals consume and strain, but also to legal aliens who follow the system and are lumped in with the criminals. I’m a bit biased as an immigrant in this matter, but I think that legal immigration is strength of the US. Many are hard workers and fill a vital need in the economy.
I think a good start would be is to make it easier for people to immigrate to the United States. Right now it is impossible to immigrate without having a very specialist lawyer who can find loopholes in the system. I at one stage tried to find a way to emigrate to the United States from South Africa, and the only way to do it (all my friends did that), was to go over on a visitor's visa and then once you there get a lawyer and work from one class of visa to a different one. Until eventually you're so long in the country you get your "green card". Canada has a very transparent system of immigration with 10 categories where you get scored out of 10 points. The United States is one awesome arduous mission of almost impossibility. I think that is where the problem lies in the first place.

jmi256 wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Anyway, my point is that the Immigration Law is not implemented as it is written. The whole issue of whether crime or a civil violation has become politicized. And maybe the law should be rewritten, however I can't see that happening, as it obviously has become a hot potato. There is such an enormous number of illegal immigrants in the United States that they have become a pressure group in their own right. Maybe it's time that everyone be given an amnesty and they then start from scratch again? Or just open the borders as I recall you suggested in other threads?
The law is clear and fine as written, but when the federal government decides to not enforce the law, what does it matter how it’s worded (BTW, I’m not blaming only Obama for this; this policy goes back to Bush and Clinton as well). I wouldn’t mind seeing more open borders, but I think it should be accomplished through amending the law, not simply ignoring it.
Agreed that the law should be amended.
Bikerman
Same mistake as has already been pointed out. This law applies to "Any alien required to apply for registration and to be fingerprinted in the United States who willfully fails or refuses to make such application or to be fingerprinted". You cannot assume that an alien found on the streets has ever been required to attend for fingerprinting/registration, just like you cannot assume that a man stopped in a car that has travelled 120 miles in 60 minutes cannot be charged with speeding. In both cases it is pretty clear that they 'have done it', but the law requires direct evidence and in neither case is any present. Without evidence of WHERE and WHEN the alien crossed the border, there is no Prima Facie case.
What ACTUALLY happens is that the aliens are detained (not technically 'arrested'). At THIS point they are required to apply for registration and be fingerprinted (or produce their existing documents). They can now be entered into the CIVIL system. They are NOT imprisoned, they are detained. As I explained, the effect may be the same, but the law distinguishes between the two, since they are not being punished for any crime, simply being held to stop them disappearing.
It is wrong to say that the police do not enforce the law because THERE IS NO LAW for them to enforce. They have no power of arrest over an illegal alien unless he/she has committed a crime, because being an illegal immigrant is (for the umpteenth time) not a criminal offence.
jmi256
Bikerman wrote:
Same mistake as has already been pointed out. This law applies to "Any alien required to apply for registration and to be fingerprinted in the United States who willfully fails or refuses to make such application or to be fingerprinted". You cannot assume that an alien found on the streets has ever been required to attend for fingerprinting/registration, just like you cannot assume that a man stopped in a car that has travelled 120 miles in 60 minutes cannot be charged with speeding. In both cases it is pretty clear that they 'have done it', but the law requires direct evidence and in neither case is any present. Without evidence of WHERE and WHEN the alien crossed the border, there is no Prima Facie case.
What ACTUALLY happens is that the aliens are detained (not technically 'arrested'). At THIS point they are required to apply for registration and be fingerprinted (or produce their existing documents). They can now be entered into the CIVIL system. They are NOT imprisoned, they are detained. As I explained, the effect may be the same, but the law distinguishes between the two, since they are not being punished for any crime, simply being held to stop them disappearing.
It is wrong to say that the police do not enforce the law because THERE IS NO LAW for them to enforce. They have no power of arrest over an illegal alien unless he/she has committed a crime, because being an illegal immigrant is (for the umpteenth time) not a criminal offence.


More hogwash, and I’m not surprised you continue to repeat it instead of admitting you are wrong. But maybe if you post it a few more times it will magically become true. First of all, an alien is required to register when entering the US whether it’s the first time or not. There is no “assuming”, but rather shown in the law in black and white (the real law, not some opinion you tried to pass off). If you look at the actual law, you will easily see there is no mention of having to provide “evidence of WHERE and WHEN the alien crossed the border.” Failure to register is the crime, period. If caught in the US and they have failed to register, they can be charged with that crime. Your nonsense with the speeding example is just that – nonsense - and a red herring. The act of speeding is still a crime, but the issue becomes proving it in your “example”. Illegal immigration is pretty easy to prove. The more accurate example is the thief who gets caught in a house he is burglarizing. To say he hasn’t committed a crime but it is only a civil matter is simple nonsense.

Second your point about it being a civil issue is also hogwash. Once again, I point to the actual law and the criminal penalties it provides (i.e. “…shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not to exceed $1,000 or be imprisoned not more than six months, or both.”). It clearly provides criminal penalties.

Third, your claim that there is no law to enforce is easily debunked by actually looking and seeing there is a law on the books (which I have posted several times). But if someone wants to play make believe and pretend it’s not in front of them in black and white, no amount of evidence will bring the space cadet back to Earth.
Bikerman
The argument that crossing the border illegally renders an alien a criminal ignores the fact that about half of the illegal immigrants in the US did NOT cross the border illegally - they simply overstayed their visas.

You can believe me and:
Rudi Giuliani


The Congressional Research Service (CRS)
Quote:
"The INA [Immigration and Nationality Act] includes both criminal and civil components, providing both for criminal charges (e.g., alien smuggling, which is prosecuted in the federal courts) and for civil violations (e.g., lack of legal status, which may lead to removal through a separate administrative system in the Department of Justice). Being illegally present in the U.S. has always been a civil, not criminal, violation of the INA, and subsequent deportation and associated administrative processes are civil proceedings. For instance, a lawfully admitted nonimmigrant alien may become deportable if his visitor's visa expires or if his student status changes. Criminal violations of the INA, on the other hand, include felonies and misdemeanors and are prosecuted in federal district courts. These types of violations include the bringing in and harboring of certain undocumented aliens, the illegal entry of aliens, and the reentry of aliens previously excluded or deported."

http://immigration.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000781

NPR
Quote:
Critics argue that the government should first focus on border security. Some want to make it a criminal offense — punishable by jail time — for the undocumented to live in the United States (right now, it's a civil offense). Legislation passed by the U.S. House in December does indeed make this a felony. The plan approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee eliminates these criminal provisions, and it also drops all criminal penalties for those who provide assistance to undocumented foreigners, except for those involved in smuggling.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5303676

wiki
Quote:
In 2007, Republican representatives introduced legislation targeting sanctuary cities. Reps. Brian Bilbray, R-Cal., Ginny Brown-Waite, R-Fla., Thelma Drake, R-Va., Jeff Miller, R-Fla., and Tom Tancredo, R-Colo introduced the bill. The legislation would make illegal immigrant status a felony, instead of a civil offense. Also, the bill targets sanctuary cities by withholding up to 50 percent of Department of Homeland Security funds from the cities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctuary_city

Pay particular attention to the next one - by the person who is responsible for deporting aliens

John Morton Head of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
Quote:
“The immigration laws are civil in nature…. For example, if you enter the country on a visa and you overstay your visa, that is a civil but not a criminal offense. There is some overlap. Sometimes you are here unlawfully and you’re also guilty of a crime. But it is not one to one.

and
Quote:
Generally speaking, if you’re being deported and you’re being detained for it, it’s for a civil infraction and not a criminal one


Chris Christie (US Attorney, NJ)

Quote:
Being in this country without proper documentation is not a crime


Immigration attorney Shahid Hausrath
Quote:
"Illegal alien" is not a legal term. An alien is defined as anyone who is not a citizen or national of the United States. However, "illegal alien" is not a legal term in the Immigration and Nationality Act. For some, the use of the term "illegal alien" is likely based on a misconception that an immigrant's very presence in the United States is a criminal violation of the law. While the act of entering the country without inspection is a federal misdemeanor, and for repeat offenders could be a felony, the status of being present in the United States without a visa is not an ongoing criminal violation.
In addition, estimates are that almost half of the undocumented aliens in the United States actually entered with lawful status but merely overstayed their visas. These aliens have not committed a criminal offense at all. Their presence in United States while being out of status is a civil infraction, not a criminal offense.
To make it a criminal violation of the law to be present without a visa would be a "status offense." A status offense is an offense that is based on the fact that the offender has a certain personal condition or is of a specified character, rather than any action or inaction that the offender takes in violation of the law. A common example is vagrancy; if a law rendered homelessness illegal, then the status of being homeless would be criminal. Our courts wisely look upon status violations with heightened scrutiny, as the creation of status offenses infringe upon personal liberties and carry significant due process concerns.

http://nohumanbeingisillegal.com/Home.html

or you can believe jmi256....
jmi256
Bikerman wrote:
You can believe me….


Well, given your history of fabricating sources and claiming an opinion piece is “the words of the US Immigration and Nationality Act” and trying to pass it off as such when the law itself doesn’t say what you are claiming it to say, it’s ironic that you would try to call others’ honesty into question. The law is very clear, regardless of how you try to weasel your way out of it. I was willing to think you were simply ignorant on this topic at first, but you have passed ignorance, took a turn at ill-informed and landed at dishonesty. Your argument that it is a civil issue and not a criminal issue is simply wrong, as the Immigration and Naturalization Act clearly shows. Your previous claims, which apparently are now dropping that ignorance of the law is a defense and your whole apparent “the first one doesn’t count” theory of law is also laughable.



Quote:

INA: ACT 266 - PENALTIES


Sec. 266. [8 U.S.C. 1306]


(a) Any alien required to apply for registration and to be fingerprinted in the United States who willfully fails or refuses to make such application or to be fingerprinted, and any parent or legal guardian required to apply for the registration of any alien who willfully fails or refuses to file application for the registration of such alien shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not to exceed $1,000 or be imprisoned not more than six months, or both.


(b) Any alien or any parent or legal guardian in the United States of any alien who fails to give written notice to the Attorney General, as required by section 265 of this title, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not to exceed $200 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both. Irrespective of whether an alien is convicted and punished as herein provided, any alien who fails to give written notice to the Attorney General, as required by section 265 , shall be taken into custody and removed in the manner provided by chapter 4 of this title, unless such alien establishes to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that such failure was reasonably excusable or was not willful.


(c) Any alien or any parent or legal guardian of any alien, who files an application for registration containing statements known by him to be false, or who procures or attempts to procure registration of himself or another person through fraud, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not to exceed $1,000, or be imprisoned not more than six months, or both; and any alien so convicted shall, upon the warrant of the Attorney General, be taken into custody and be removed in the manner provided in chapter 4 of this title.


(d) Any person who with unlawful intent photographs, prints, or in any other manner makes, or executes, any engraving, photograph, print, or impression in the likeness of any certificate of alien registration or an alien registration receipt card or any colorable imitation thereof, except when and as authorized under such rules and regulations as may be prescribed by the Attorney General, shall upon conviction be fined not to exceed $5,000 or be imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

Source = http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-8319.html#0-0-0-314
Bikerman
The quoted articles refer, as previously explained, to those who do not attend an interview when required to do so by the authorities. The millions of visa-over-stayers have never been required to be fingerprinted or attend an interview and it does not apply to them.
handfleisch
Thanks, JMI, I thought you might just run and hide, in which case we would have missed the education value of your Birther-level denial of reality. So JMI is right and Guiliani is wrong, JIM is right and John Morton, director of the ICE, is wrong? Fascinating.

Looking back on your history, you can be trusted to spew vicious lies and insane reversal of facts. Despite the entertainment value, the fact that much of what you say is reflected in the leadership of the GOP, the Tea Party and a sizable minority of the USA shows what a big problem our country has. They'll drag us down to a third-world dark age if they succeed with the irrational and regressive view you represent.
Bikerman
[I have changed two postings of mine and removed sections of other postings which quoted them. The reason was that they contained personal remarks that were unlikely to add to debate and were written in 'heat'. Such wording is not appropriate from a moderator, and I have therefore removed it.]
Bikerman
Related topics
Another really funny christian Joke/s
hp Goblet of Fire movie
Huh?. Another community.
Justification for War in Iraq
More front page news NOT on the front page..
Iran says will resume atomic work
Yet Another Idea..!
Locking threads? enough already!
Convert or kill (Left Behind: Eternal Forces)
WWE NO WAY OUT 2007
Theory of Relativity - Part 1
Constructive Criticism required
What Religion are You?
Yet another set of dots
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.