Immigrants vs. Illegal Aliens

[Timshel]

Civil offenses are crimes too.

Nope. The legal definition of a crime is distinct from the definition of a civil offense. You can't have it both ways. Either illegal aliens are criminals according to the law or they are not. Those who enter illegally are criminals according to the law. Those who are only illegally present are not criminals according to the law.

You could argue that illegal aliens are criminals according to something else. You seem to think all immigrants are criminals according to your socialist beliefs. But you cannot argue that they are all criminals according to the law. Sorry, the facts have gotten in the way of your propaganda.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Nope. The legal definition of a crime is distinct from the definition of a civil offense. You can't have it both ways. Either illegal aliens are criminals according to the law or they are not. Those who enter illegally are criminals according to the law. Those who are only illegally present are not criminals according to the law.

You could argue that illegal aliens are criminals according to something else. You seem to think all immigrants are criminals according to your socialist beliefs. But you cannot argue that they are all criminals according to the law. Sorry, the facts have gotten in the way of your propaganda.

Im talking about the regular definition.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Protecting the border is not socialist. How is that socialist?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Stringy, you are still talking about people who "fall out of compliance" and those people are not a part of our problem. I realize you are having fun running around under the willow tree, making us all chase you while we are distracted from the real problem, but this has to stop. People who illegally cross our border, have broken the law, and should be deported. End of discussion. As long as searches and seizures are 'reasonable' I don't have a problem with them, and I don't believe the Constitution prohibits them.

 

[Timshel]

Im talking about the regular definition.

Which is?

BS, the propaganda is intended to associate ALL illegal immigrants with real criminals. The person that failed to comply with an administrative rule is lumped in with someone that might be guilty of rape, murder, breaking and entering, etc. But they are more comparable to someone that did not fill out their census.

 

[Timshel]

Stringy, you are still talking about people who "fall out of compliance" and those people are not a part of our problem. I realize you are having fun running around under the willow tree, making us all chase you while we are distracted from the real problem, but this has to stop. People who illegally cross our border, have broken the law, and should be deported. End of discussion. As long as searches and seizures are 'reasonable' I don't have a problem with them, and I don't believe the Constitution prohibits them.

Then quit targeting them with propaganda and warrantless arrests. The illegally present are illegal aliens. When you claim illegal aliens are criminals you are saying they are criminals.

IMO, it is not possible to make a reasonable search and seizure against someone for suspicion of a civil violation of the law. That's what the Arizona law does. It allows Arizona to arrest those people it has probable cause to believe are NOT PART OF THE PROBLEM, according to you. The law does not limit a warrantless arrest to probable cause of illegal entry. If it did, I would have no argument. The feds can do that now and, as far as I know, so can state officers. I don't object. But you continue to pretend that the discussion is only about those guilty of illegal entry. It's not and the law is not narrowly tailored to them. Either you are full of shit or you follow your stated beliefs and oppose this law for its violation of the rights of people you claim to have no problem with.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Which is?

BS, the propaganda is intended to associate ALL illegal immigrants with real criminals. The person that failed to comply with an administrative rule is lumped in with someone that might be guilty of rape, murder, breaking and entering, etc. But they are more comparable to someone that did not fill out their census.

It is real crime. All infractions are crime. Maybe you're thinking of misdemeanor versus felony? that's it im sure.

All american workers deserve the labor market protections of enforced borders and pro-american immigration policy. we don't need anti-worker fascists corroding our sovereign rights to increase short term coporate profit.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Yeah. Stringy, keep likening illegal invasion to some administrative oversight. That will win the hearts and minds.

Keep it up. I'm winning.

 

[Timshel]

Yeah. Stringy, keep likening illegal invasion to some administrative oversight. That will win the hearts and minds.

Keep it up. I'm winning.

lol

YOU IDIOTS AND THE ARIZONA LAW ARE THE ONES DOING THAT. You do that by lumping illegal entry and illegal presence together and pretending there is no distinction. I have maintained throughout that they are not alike. That's my fucking point and the one you deny.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

lol

YOU IDIOTS AND THE ARIZONA LAW ARE THE ONES DOING THAT. You do that by lumping illegal entry and illegal presence together and pretending there is no distinction. I have maintained throughout that they are not alike. That's my fucking point and the one you deny.

Nobody cares about your stupid distinction. It's a minor consideration, so shut up please.

 

[Timshel]

It is real crime. All infractions are crime. Maybe you're thinking of misdemeanor versus felony? that's it im sure.

No, they are not all crimes. The law says that all violations of the law are not crimes. I am thinking civil violation versus criminal violation. A misdemeanor and a felony are crimes. Jaywalking is not, usually, a crime but a civil violation of the law.

 

[Timshel]

Nobody cares about your stupid distinction. It's a minor consideration, so shut up please.

The distinction is very important when you are conducting warrantless arrest for probable cause of a civil violation (a power not enjoyed by federal agents).

The law is going to be challenged because of this distinction and it will be a primary consideration in determining whether the law is valid. I will put any amount of money on that. You want to back up your idiot mouth? Whether it's a winning argument, I don't know... we'll see. But it is certainly not a minor consideration.

 

[Timshel]

nAHZi, criticizes me for likening an "administrative oversight" (illegally present) to an "illegal invasion" (illegal entry) then tells me the distinction between the two is not important. What? Have fun kicking yourself in the ass, idiot.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

lol

YOU IDIOTS AND THE ARIZONA LAW ARE THE ONES DOING THAT. You do that by lumping illegal entry and illegal presence together and pretending there is no distinction. I have maintained throughout that they are not alike. That's my fucking point and the one you deny.

The Arizona law does exactly what the Federal law does. If the Federal law doesn't breach civil rights, neither can the state law. Illegal presence is certainly a "reasonable cause" to suspect someone has violated the law and crossed our border illegally.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

The distinction is very important when you are conducting warrantless arrest for probable cause of a civil violation (a power not enjoyed by federal agents).

The law is going to be challenged because of this distinction and it will be a primary consideration in determining whether the law is valid. I will put any amount of money on that. You want to back up your idiot mouth? Whether it's a winning argument, I don't know... we'll see. But it is certainly not a minor consideration.

Your understanding of the law is wrong. Police must make an otherwise lawful contact for other reasons before asking for immigration papers. Racial profiling is not a concern here.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

stringfield sounds like a retarded Medved clone.

 

[Timshel]

Your understanding of the law is wrong. Police must make an otherwise lawful contact for other reasons before asking for immigration papers. Racial profiling is not a concern here.

I understand, lawful contact. We have been over it.

The Arizona House majority research analyst says,

"t wouldn't just be those suspected of crimes. It could be victims, witnesses or just people who are lawfully interacting with the police officer."
...

"[L]awful contact is definitely different than reasonable suspicion in terms of the initiation of the contact. So lawful contact is essentially any interaction a police officer may have with an individual through the normal legal, lawful course of the performance of their duties. So it wouldn't just be those suspected of crimes. It could be victims, witnesses or just people who are lawfully interacting with the police officer where through the course of that contact they are able to build reasonable suspicion and therefore inquire."

 

[Timshel]

stringfield sounds like a retarded Medved clone.

I bet there won't be any Hispanics at Dunkin' Donuts. Maybe you could get a job there!

 

[USFREEDOM911]

I understand, lawful contact. We have been over it.

The Arizona House majority research analyst says,

"t wouldn't just be those suspected of crimes. It could be victims, witnesses or just people who are lawfully interacting with the police officer."
...

"[L]awful contact is definitely different than reasonable suspicion in terms of the initiation of the contact. So lawful contact is essentially any interaction a police officer may have with an individual through the normal legal, lawful course of the performance of their duties. So it wouldn't just be those suspected of crimes. It could be victims, witnesses or just people who are lawfully interacting with the police officer where through the course of that contact they are able to build reasonable suspicion and therefore inquire."

Just to aide you, so that maybe you won't appear so un-informed; you might want to read up and see what was signed, that addresses "..victims, witnesses, or just people who are lawfully interacting with the Police Officer".

 

[Timshel]

Just to aide you, so that maybe you won't appear so un-informed; you might want to read up and see what was signed, that addresses "..victims, witnesses, or just people who are lawfully interacting with the Police Officer".

I had not heard about it. I welcome any new information.

I still say it is too broad. They can hassle anyone they have a reason to stop, which can include any other civil infractions. It is like the seat belt law in some states. The cop sees you are not wearing a seat belt and finds some other reason to stop you. What do you think they will be looking for?