You missed my point. And, there IS a process in which that those want to enter this Country lawfully and legally, have to go through. Thousands upon thousands do it the right way LEGALLY every year. You are simply giving a pass because of hard ship. Well, we have our OWN hardships amongst our OWN citizens. Shouldn't we take care of our own who live here lawfully and have paid taxes and into social security first? Your argument, is a liberal stance as if we HAVE to save the entire world. We can't afford it and it is not our obligation to take care of other Countries problems.
There are differences between unlawful and the various types of unlawful actions that occur. Illegal immigrants for the most part are not committing crime. Unlawful, yes but so is peeing on the sidewalk and murder. There are different degrees of it.
Doing something unlawful by definition is a crime. Illegal aliens pee on sidewalks and murder all the time.
Illegal implies a crime, crime is a legal word that means tried in criminal court. Most illegal immigrants don't fit that definition. Most are here because of unexpired visas, meaning they're here because of unlawful presence which is technically speaking not a crime. Most illegal immigrants are not committing crimes, yes some do but they're actually committing less crimes, this makes sense. If you're already doing something against the law, why draw more attention to yourself? Also a quick side not, nice job bringing Obama into this thread. - - - Updated - - - Most are here due to unexpired visas. They didn't cross illegally.
There are two types of courts, criminal and civil. Illegal immigrants are tried in civil courts, not criminal courts.
You're right in that regard. I'm referring to what type of court would deal with illegal immigration.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2...-immigrants-commit-less-crime-than-americans/ Your argument is based upon emotion not facts or reason. So the facts change your argument from an emotional argument to a rant. You're right. We've also established that some dogs bite humans. Should we treat all dogs as human biters or as family pets? I have no idea what you're saying at this point, but the crime rates in the US and around the world have gone down since the 1990's. Illegal immigrants aren't causing crime increases, rather it's going down everywhere. - - - Updated - - - If I say that I'm against rape everywhere, then I am against rape everywhere. If it occurs in the US, I will condemn it. If it occurs in another part of the world and it meets their definition of rape I will be against it. However I will not use it as justification for beliefs against a particular group of people. That is a diservice to those who have been raped and against that group.
Not really. Why do people rape? Control over the victim. The need for control doesn't go away when you're in one country or another, its going to happen. How can you truly condemn something if you're using it as ammo in another argument? That's like a racist saying he wants lower crime rates yet cheers when an elder is beaten up by an African American. "The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) estimates that a substantial percentage of Americas illegal population is made up of visa overstays their estimates range from 27 to 57 percent. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) noted in a 2004 report2 on visa overstays that DHS may be significantly underestimating the magnitude of the visa overstay problem noting that the DHS study only quantified the number of visa overstays in the illegal population whereas many who overstay visas are later able to legalize their status. " http://www.cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/articles/2008/back208.pdf Thanks for the clarification. - - - Updated - - - No they don't. That's just simply not true. Why would they be doing something that draws attention to them when they are doing something unlawful in the first place?
WRONG Illegal immigration falls under neither. Illegal immigration falls under Administrative Court. Administrative Court is under the Executive Branch and not the Judicial Branch. http://www.nationalimmigrationlawyers.com/immigration-court.html
The type of court is administrative court that falls under the executive branch and not the judicial branch since congress has sole authority over immigration. What you are talking about falls outside of immigration related offenses and has no bearing on this topic. If the immigrant were charged with DUI he would go to a civil court, if he were charged with homicide he would go to criminal court.
Depends on species, Pit Bulls have a bad rap for mauling kids, biting and attacking. The question becomes, is it justified? That's a statistical interpretation. Illegal immigrants don't have the right to be here to begin with, therefor any crime committed by them is a crime that can be prevented and one that should never have taken place in our society.
This topic has nothing to do with WHY people rape. If the illegals weren't here to begin with the rape would not have taken place. All rape is bad, however if it can be prevented by not having the illegal here to begin with, how is that ammo? Your problem is where you are focused, your focused on the rape only, you fail to recognize that if the illegals weren't here to begin with this rape never would have occurred. So you used a 2004 report that says 27 - 57% and you claim the higher number based on what? Now lets look at that GAO report that your link is getting its info from. So there are 3 different % numbers from 3 different sources. The 31 and 27 are much closer and probably much more in line with the first paragraph of my quote A January 2003 DHS estimate put the January 2000 resident overstay population at one-third of 7 million illegal immigrants, or 2.3 million. The 57 looks to be an exaggerated number. Now there are 11M in the US, not the 7M from your link, and PEW claims a number of Illegals via Visa entry are 40% which is in line with the 27 and 31% numbers. Your link doesn't back up your claim of the majority are Visa Overstays, in fact it pretty much says the opposite.
One killed two policemen here in California recently. I don't think he had a good reason. They kill Americans in drunk driving accidents. They are about 1/3 of our prison population.
"In the United States, we often refer to people who are in the United States without permission from the government as illegal aliens. Calling people illegals gives the false impression that they have committed a crime. However, being in the United States without documentation is not a crime. It is a violation of immigration laws, and there is no punishment for illegal presence." http://stopdeportationsnow.blogspot.com/2011/08/is-immigration-law-civil-or-criminal.html So even though the court is Administrative, it would be considered a civil case because no one would go to jail.
Think of it as two types of courts. One is civil where no one will be punished and criminal where someone is punished. Since illegal immigrants aren't committing a crime, they would go to a civil case.
If that was truly the OP's argument, then what standing does him being an illegal immigrant have on the rape? Why include that detail? It's moot. I hold that to be false because if not here then somewhere else. The rapist would have done it else where because illegal immigration has no bearing on it. The problem is with that it doesn't take into account that GAO said that the chances are that it was under reporting the number. I"m going to trust that 57%.
My argument has been: Don't say "They should get in line" when there is no line. Don't say "It's a crime to be here without papers" when it isn't. Don't say "We just need to enforce the laws we have" when we know full well that there is no even remotely rational plan for finding and deporting 12M people and we watched as the economic downturn demonstrated that making employment difficult did NOT cause long term undocumented aliens to leave. etc. - and I don't mean to imply that YOU fell victim to all the above. I support protecting our borders. But, when we make various serious mistakes in understanding the issues we end up with failed policy. One problem that has come up is that we failed to pass the bipartisan immigration reform that had: - large amounts of border protection funding as specified by Republicans most interested in border spending and entry prevention. - improved employment security, including fixing e-verify and policing of employers with penalties for failure to comply - overhaul of our visa system. Of those here long term without papers, over 40% entered with legal visas. That means NO border work could possibly have stopped them! In other words, NOTHING we do on the border will fix more than half the problem - most likely far less, since we can't build a perfect border with Mexico and we have vast sea coasts and an almost unprotected norther border, plus the over 40% who find their way in without crossing the border illegally. We need border investment, but it is oversold. - a realistic approach to those who are here, because we know we will not find and deport 12M people and we know that we don't have the work force to replace all segments of the work they are doing here. You think I'm light on immigration, because I'm sticking to the facts in order to get to workable solutions, including the compromises required. And, I think others on this board are lax on immigration, because they base their direction on lies, emotion, and absolutism, and thus have arguments that are so pathetic that it causes sound proposals to fail.
WOW, an advocacy group calling something that is codified in law something other than what is codified. Isn't a "violation" a crime? The ignorance of your link is they are unable to distinguish the severity of the crime. The punishment for illegal presence is deportation, that doesn't change the fact that they can be charged with EWI and convicted of an EWI. It would not be considered a "civil case" because there is no jail time It would be considered an administrative case, in which if the person was simply a VO, they have the opportunity to challenge there status and in some instances have it changed to legal again. If they have a prior order of deportation against them, the likeliness of changing status is low and they can be deported. When an EWI goes in front of the IJ in immigration court, DHS attorneys are charging the illegal with EWI, which is a crime. The judge asks for the defendants plea, and makes the decision based on the evidence provided by DHS. If the IJ finds them guilty it is a crime punishable with a fine and jail time up to 6 months (a Misdemeanor), if it is there second time in court and found guilty for the same thing, it is a fine and jail time up to 2 years (a Felony). 8USC1325(a)(3).
I don't need to think of it as anything more than what it is, it is an executive branch court system that is administrative law. It has nothing to do with civil or criminal jurisdiction courts under the judicial branch of govt. Trying to equate it to the civil or criminal court system is ignorant. Immigration court is a type of criminal court where it is the govt (prosecution) challenging the illegal (defendant). If it were related to civil, it would be me suing you. Any "infraction" or "violation" of law is a crime, it is the degree of the crime that is at issue. An infraction usually is resolved with a simple fine, where as a misdemeanor can be a fine and jail time of less than 6 months, and a felony can be a fine and jail time of more than 6 months. The fines and jail time can be waived, that doesn't change the fact that they would have a Misdemeanor or Felony on their record, and each time they are caught the severity will increase. Illegal immigrants can be charged with EWI and convicted in administrative courts in front of an immigration judge, the issue is that not all are, some sign a declaration to bypass the court system all together and get out of Dodge just that much faster. They are signing an admission of guilt, and are simply deported and denied legal entry for 3 year to life depending on circumstance. The reason they aren't jailed is because we don't have the centers in place to jail them all.
What standing? WTF...... THE ILLEGAL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN HERE TO BEGIN WITH!!!! then there would not have been a rape of a citizen. That is pure assumption and an asinine one to make. You have no proof that they would have raped somewhere else, it is mere conjecture on your part.Had they not been here to begin with the crime would not have been committed. The GAO stated So the GAO states 1/3 and then goes on to say that alternative data sources indicate varying percentages, and you think the highest number represents the facts. Please provide a link to that 57% claim since not even the GAO does that.
And you have been shown there is actually a line, one they simply don't feel they should have to be in . It is, if they are charged and found guilty, the issue is they aren't always charged, which is the difference between an EWI and a VO. You are dealing with an absolute here that you state you don't deal in. There is no need to find the 12M, they will eventually get caught and deported or they may deport on their own. They left the Arizona and Georgia pretty damned quickly. So not enforcing the laws over the years has resulted in failed policy? Sounds more like it was failed governance. What was wrong with the Senate passing the House version? Why didn't the Dems act in Obama's first year as he promised and they held Congress and the WH? Subjective. And yet you used absolutism in your very argument. Don't feel bad that you are unable to refute the facts and that you don't understand the actual system, it is why you want it changed, that and the fact that you are emotionally involved verse factually literate.
But there is a line and those who don't believe they are above the law get in that line if they want to immigrate to America. The vast majority of Americans ancestors stood in that line. I have a friend who was a Lt. Cmdr. in the Royal Australian Navy and he was stationed in the United States for almost three years back when the Aussies use to fly the F-111 Ardvark. He had a degree in engineering. Well his wife popped out a baby on U.S. soil and their son became a "native born" U.S. citizen. Both the father and mother were legally with in the United States at the time. Well his tour of duty ended in America and he returned "down under." He and his wife fell in love with America and missed America. A few years later he resigned his commission in the RAN and applied for a U.S. immigration visa. His son was a U.S. citizen but he still had to stand in line along with millions of others who respected America's laws. In the mean time every winter (summer time down under) he and his family traveled to America for their yearly vacation in America. The typical thing, Disneyland, Knotts Berry Farm, Sea World, the San Diego Zoo the normal stuff tourist do. He took 11 vacations in America before he got that immigration visa and green card. 12 years obeying America's immigration laws while about 10 million jumped ahead of the line believing they were above the law. Legally and technically they are classified as illegal aliens. Today my friend is a naturalized American citizen, he's an engineer who first worked at Cal-Tech and today works for Raytheon, owns a home in Manhattan Beach, Ca. and pays well over 50K in federal, state and local taxes every year and has never had the government monkey on his back or ever will. I asked him was it worth the wait, 12 years standing in line ? Hell yes was his reply.
