Immigrants vs. Illegal Aliens

But I would still like to hear your argument for illegal aliens being who have committed a moral offense. What was that offense? Was it against a person or the state? I am waiting.
 
RStringfield said:
It is your side that attempts to control terminology even to the point of trying to redefine criminal. You do it above by confusing illegal alien/illegal immigrant/illegal whatever you want to call it (the important is really the illegal isn't it) as people who have committed the crime of illegal entry. They are not. Illegal aliens/immigrant/whatever did not necessarily enter illegally. But it enables you to paint them all as criminals who threaten our safety and so you bunch them all together.




If you were really concerned about the honest immigrants then why would you want to lump all the civil violations together with criminal violations? There is a reason it is only a civil violation. It is reasonable to assume that a person fell out of compliance without any real intent to violate the law or upset the security of the state. Just like with speeding.

Now that is not to say everyone that is guilty of illegal presence just made an honest mistake. I don't believe that for a second. Just as I don't believe most speeders did it unaware. But we've all looked down at the speedometer and thought, "oh shit, I am speeding" (well those of us over 35, the kids would just speed up). The right wishes to lump all those illegally present with those who clearly intended to violate our law. It confuses the issue to the point that it misuses the word criminal.

A fine and possible deportation is sufficient punishment if they are first timers. Imprisonment would be unjustified without proof of willful intent to break the law. There is no reason to treat the illegally present as criminals unless you plan to lock them up.

The right wishes to refer to them as criminals, when they clearly are not and for good reason.
Click to expand...

You keep making that same useless distinction. so fucking what? They didn't follow the damn law. They are now in violation.


If I let my insurance lapse, I'm subject to fines. I didn't mean to not have the money to pay my insurance, so you shouldn't penalize me even though i'm contracting without insurance?
 
RStringfield said:
I have noted numerous times that illegal entry is a crime. By definition it is crime. No argument there, just like there is no argument that illegal presence is not a crime. Further, I have repeatedly noted that I think illegal entry should be a crime. My problem is with the lie that all illegal aliens are criminals. They are not. Your bait ans switch will not fly.
Click to expand...


My problem is with the lie that all illegal aliens are criminals.

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal"]Illegal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Disambig_gray.svg" class="image"><img alt="Disambig gray.svg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5f/Disambig_gray.svg/30px-Disambig_gray.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/5/5f/Disambig_gray.svg/30px-Disambig_gray.svg.png[/ame]
Illegal, or unlawful, is used to describe something that is prohibited or not authorized by law or, more generally, by rules specific to a particular situation


[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime"]Crime - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Question_book-new.svg" class="image"><img alt="Question book-new.svg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/99/Question_book-new.svg/50px-Question_book-new.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@en/thumb/9/99/Question_book-new.svg/50px-Question_book-new.svg.png[/ame]

Now tellm us again how illegal alien doesn't mean criminal
 
RStringfield said:
You are saying the legal definition of a crime is not important to the definition of a crime. That's absurd. Civil violations of the law, by definition, are not crimes. PERIOD. You can claim otherwise if you like but you are just an idiot denying reality.

A person who commits a civil violation (e.g., a speeder, jaywalker, etc.) is not a criminal. He does not have to answer as a criminal when asked of prior criminal convictions.

It's not a crime. You can pretend otherwise but you do so by distorting the definition of a crime.
Click to expand...

Well Rstring, you did not answer my question on the post yesterday discussing the Peoria case, but I will ask again, do you know the difference in dicta and holding in a case? I assume that you do because you said in the postings made yesterday that:
"Gonzales v. City of Peoria. In Gonzales v. City of Peoria, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that federal law does not preclude local enforcement of the criminal provisions of the INA (722 F. 2d 468, 475 (9th Cir. 1983)). The Gonzalez case examined the city’s policies, which authorized its police officers to arrest illegal immigrants for violating the criminal entry provisions of the INA (8 USC § 1324). The defendants argued that federal law prohibited state and local police officers from making such arrests. The court held that local police officers may, subject to state law, constitutionally stop or detain people when there is reasonable suspicion or, in the case of arrests, probable cause that they have violated, or are violating, the criminal provisions of the INA."

You state what the court held, thus you might know the difference in dicta and holding. You acknowledge that the court held that police of a state or city can arrest illegal immigrants for violating the criminal entry provision of the INA.

The Arizona law that you were discussing yesterday acknowledges that also and states that an arrest can be made when there is reasonable belief that a crime in which removal from the U.S. is mandated (deportation). Now, you try to twist words in your favor by saying that a person who stays longer than his visa did not make an illegal entry. And that is true. And he cannot be forcefully removed. He is fined and given a certain time period (ten to fifteen days or so) to leave and exit the U.S. Now, if the immigrant stays longer than the time period given, he then in essence makes illegal entry. His staying longer than the court said he could stay is in and of itself illegal entry. Now he can be deported (removed by force). The Arizona law passes muster under even the dicta of the Peoria case in that it says that the arresting officer must have reasonable belief that a crime which is punishable by mandatory removal (deportation) has been committed.

I would still like to know if you know the difference between dicta and holding made by a court of law?
 
RStringfield said:
I have noted numerous times that illegal entry is a crime. By definition it is crime. No argument there, just like there is no argument that illegal presence is not a crime. Further, I have repeatedly noted that I think illegal entry should be a crime. My problem is with the lie that all illegal aliens are criminals. They are not. Your bait ans switch will not fly.
Click to expand...


As far back as Post 13 I agreed with you in this 'legal' definition of crime and criminal...butr generically speaking, if you are here illegally, having entered legally, you are guilty of a crime, in this case a civil offense.
Click to expand...
RStringfield said:
But I would still like to hear your argument for illegal aliens being who have committed a moral offense. What was that offense? Was it against a person or the state? I am waiting.
Click to expand...

I said nothing about illegal aliens being who have committed a moral offense, don't take what I said out of context....we were discussing how the word 'crime' can and is used according to the definitions in the US dictionary....
Click to expand...
.
 
Last edited:
tinfoil said:
You keep making that same useless distinction. so fucking what? They didn't follow the damn law. They are now in violation.

If I let my insurance lapse, I'm subject to fines. I didn't mean to not have the money to pay my insurance, so you shouldn't penalize me even though i'm contracting without insurance?
Click to expand...

You guys are fucking idiots. You argue that all illegals are criminals according to their violations of the law. You are defining it in a legal context. But they are not all criminals under the law. They should not be and I have explained why.

If you have some other context that you want to use fine. Tell us what it is? Have they committed a crime against some moral code?

If you were only subject to fines for your violations of the law, you would not be a criminal. Would you go around telling people that you were a criminal? Do you think of other people that have been fined for a civil infraction as criminals?

If you want to argue that all illegal aliens are just like a guy that failed to pay his insurance and got fined... okay. But that does not scare anyone and so you guys repeat a lie that will scare. You lump them in with people who have actually committed a crime.
 
bravo said:
Its sometimes irrelevant HOW one enters the country. If you overstay your visa, you're here illegally....you're breaking the law....by definition, you're a criminal.
Click to expand...

If you are not using a legal context here then I have no way of knowing what context you are using. According to the law they are not criminals. So, who says they are criminals?
 
Yes, I know what dicta/holding is. But it demonstrates how the court has viewed it in the past.

imnoliber said:
The Arizona law that you were discussing yesterday acknowledges that also and states that an arrest can be made when there is reasonable belief that a crime in which removal from the U.S. is mandated (deportation).
Click to expand...

It doesn't specify a crime.

E. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.

The rest of your statements are incorrect.
 
Being illegally present is grounds for deportation. They did not make a mistake here. It means they can arrest people without a warrant on suspicion of committing a civil infraction. Do you think they should be able to do that to a guy they think may have crossed the street illegally? Why not he's a fucking criminal... Right?
 
tinfoil said:
My problem is with the lie that all illegal aliens are criminals.

Illegal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Illegal, or unlawful, is used to describe something that is prohibited or not authorized by law or, more generally, by rules specific to a particular situation


Crime - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now tellm us again how illegal alien doesn't mean criminal
Click to expand...

Read your source idiot.

While every crime violates the law, not every violation of the law counts as a crime; for example: breaches of contract and of other civil law may rank as "offences" or as "infractions". Crimes are generally considered offenses against the public or the state, distinguished from torts which are offenses against private parties that can give rise to a civil cause of action.
 
yes rstring im sure those that enter legally "just happen to accidentally forget" when their visa expires. Those poor ignorant clueless illegal aliens, so innocent, no idea what they are doing...

All non permanent residents of the united states should be rounded up and shipped back to mexico, repeat offenders may get their wish and stay here in prison.

Alternatively, they may be hung from the highest tree
 
also children of illegal aliens born in america should not be granted citizenship. that's another big mistake we have going currently
 
G 2 i n d said:
yes rstring im sure those that enter legally "just happen to accidentally forget" when their visa expires. Those poor ignorant clueless illegal aliens, so innocent, no idea what they are doing...
Click to expand...

I already acknowledged that that is probably not true in most cases. Nice try, though.

It remains quite possible that they may have just made a mistake. That's why it is a civil violation of the law.

I am not saying we should go soft on them. They have violated the law. If they can't get back into compliance then they should be fined and/or deported. They should not be subject to jail time. That's why it is a civil violation of the law.

G 2 i n d said:
All non permanent residents of the united states should be rounded up and shipped back to mexico, repeat offenders may get their wish and stay here in prison.
Click to expand...

I don't have a problem with that as I have already stated. That's why first time illegal presence is a civil violation and if it is repeated it may be a crime.

But illegal presence is not a crime and should not be. You don't even want to treat it as a crime. You just want to call it a crime. Who says it is a crime? The law does not. Your bible? Where? Is legal immigration a crime? We are not using legal definitions so what are we using?
 
rstring, you agree probably 90% with what dixie is saying. this is one of your classic "type out paragraphs for the purpose of typing out paragraphs." You are arguing minutia.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top