• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Illegal doesn't make them criminals

I

imported_Shivetya

Platinum Member
Entering the country without documentation is illegal, which is why that description is commonly used. The problem lies not with the immigrants, but with a dysfunctional immigration quota system originally created to ban certain racial and ethnic groups from the country.


While I find the title amusing, after all a criminal is one who broke the law and entering the country illegaly is, uh, breaking the law... its the quote above that gets my notice.

Why is it dysfunctional to put limits on who can come? Should as some writers have put forward allow everyone and anyone who can get here to live here? I have seen people declare it a basic human right to live in the US. Also, don't you like how they twist a restriction on NATIONALITY as a means to limit people by race?

That brings the questions.

1. Is it a right to live here?

2. Should limits be place based on nationality?
 
What a croc. When this statement is said
Entering the country without documentation is illegal, which is why that description is commonly used. The problem lies not with the immigrants, but with a dysfunctional immigration quota system originally created to ban certain racial and ethnic groups from the country.
Click to expand...
it is the OPINION that our immigration law is illegal (which it isnt), unfair (to whom?) or whatever...but it's still the law. Tough shit if they dont like it.

No it is not a right to live here. It is clearly a priveledge...given by a number of ways i.e. born here, naturalized, etc.

Limits on nationality? Nope. We do have limits on the KINDS of visa's, but certainly not on nationality. Thats absurd. I remember a story last year from here in Phoenix where a HUGE prostitution ring was busted, and most of the girls were asian, and illegal. Guess what...they were deported.
 
Originally posted by: Shivetya

Why is it dysfunctional to put limits on who can come?
Click to expand...

It isn't. It makes perfectly good sense to limit how many people can come here, from what countries they come from, and what, if any skill sets they have.


Originally posted by: Shivetya
Should as some writers have put forward allow everyone and anyone who can get here to live here?
Click to expand...

No. We, as a soveriegn nation have a right and responsibility to control our immigration.


Originally posted by: Shivetya
I have seen people declare it a basic human right to live in the US. Also, don't you like how they twist a restriction on NATIONALITY as a means to limit people by race?
Click to expand...

Restricting immigration isn't about race, it's about sheer numbers, about having work for them once they get here without displacing those already here.

Originally posted by: Shivetya
That brings the questions.

1. Is it a right to live here?
Click to expand...

No, it's a privilege that should have to be earned.

Originally posted by: Shivetya
2. Should limits be place based on nationality?
Click to expand...

Yes. We have no obligation to allow unrestricted immigration of any group, whether they be Chinese, Cuban, Irish, Mexican, or other group.
 
Originally posted by: Shivetya

1. Is it a right to live here?
Click to expand...

Yes, it is if you are born here. And even then, at least in my opinion, it should only be your right if at least one of your parents is a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident. Because it is pretty obvious that our law has a glaring loophole in this respect when you look at all the so called "anchor babies" born here to illegal immigrants for the sole purpose of skirting the law. Otherwise, I can't think of anything else off the top of my head that would give somebody the "right" to live here.

2. Should limits be place based on nationality?
Click to expand...

There do need to be limits and those limits have to be based on something. I don't think it should be based solely on nationality but I think that is one perfectly reasonable thing to base it on along with many other possible criteria.

Oh, and YES it does make one a criminal if that person knowingly and willfully breaks one or more of our laws in order to gain entry to and reside in our country. Until they have paid their debts to society, just like any other criminal who breaks the law, is tried, found guilty, and is convicted in a court of law, they are considered by me to be criminals on the loose. While I wouldn't put them up there with child molesters or murderers or rapists by any means, they are criminals nonetheless.
 
Originally posted by: Gneisenau
Originally posted by: piasabird
They are not criminals they are invaders. They should have no rights.
Click to expand...

At least for the most part I agree with this.
Click to expand...

None other than basic human rights I assume? Like the right to life? Or do you mean they don't have any rights and could be shot on sight without any repucussion?

There's criminals and there's criminals. If an "illegal immigrant" is a criminal because they are breaking the statutory code for immigration, that's about on par with calling any American citizen a criminal for violating some other regulatory law. You're not a criminal if you get ticketed for speeding.
 
Originally posted by: piasabird
They are not criminals they are invaders. They should have no rights.
Click to expand...

Lets not get carried away now. . .They are still human beings and the U.S. is supposed to be known for our human rights support. Lets not let the severity of the punishment outstrip the severity of the crime. Deportation with the ineligibility to apply for citizenship for at least 10 years is no more and no less than they deserve IMO. Unless they have committed any felonies while they were here beyond the mere act of sneaking in here (which probably isn't even considered a felony for whatever reason. . .) I don't see any reason to go sending them off to Gitmo.
 
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: Gneisenau
Originally posted by: piasabird
They are not criminals they are invaders. They should have no rights.
Click to expand...

At least for the most part I agree with this.
Click to expand...

None other than basic human rights I assume? Like the right to life? Or do you mean they don't have any rights and could be shot on sight without any repucussion?

There's criminals and there's criminals. If an "illegal immigrant" is a criminal because they are breaking the statutory code for immigration, that's about on par with calling any American citizen a criminal for violating some other regulatory law. You're not a criminal if you get ticketed for speeding.
Click to expand...

Actually, yes, you are until you have paid your fine or had your case dropped in court. It's just a much less degree of severity. You're not really a dangerous criminal but you do get it on your record.
 
Originally posted by: Shivetya
Entering the country without documentation is illegal, which is why that description is commonly used. The problem lies not with the immigrants, but with a dysfunctional immigration quota system originally created to ban certain racial and ethnic groups from the country.


While I find the title amusing, after all a criminal is one who broke the law and entering the country illegaly is, uh, breaking the law... its the quote above that gets my notice.

Why is it dysfunctional to put limits on who can come? Should as some writers have put forward allow everyone and anyone who can get here to live here? I have seen people declare it a basic human right to live in the US. Also, don't you like how they twist a restriction on NATIONALITY as a means to limit people by race?

That brings the questions.

1. Is it a right to live here?

2. Should limits be place based on nationality?
Click to expand...

I think you make a lot of noise over a lack of reading comprehension, though I think your mindset demands it of you:

From

"The problem lies not with the immigrants, but with a dysfunctional immigration quota system originally created to ban certain racial and ethnic groups from the country."

To

"Why is it dysfunctional to put limits on who can come?"

does not compute.

It is not the existence of limits that are dysfunctional, but the numbers at which the limits are set. You are trying to make a simple refutation of a problem that is far far more complex and political. 'What should the numbers be?', not 'Nobody can tell us we can't set limits.' We can and do set limits. The claim is that they are not realistic. In fact they are so unrealistic that the problems they create, for the immigrant and the employer, are so great the limits are ignored by both and they, next, by the politicians, who want to please for a vote.
 
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: Gneisenau
Originally posted by: piasabird
They are not criminals they are invaders. They should have no rights.
Click to expand...

At least for the most part I agree with this.
Click to expand...

None other than basic human rights I assume? Like the right to life? Or do you mean they don't have any rights and could be shot on sight without any repucussion?

There's criminals and there's criminals. If an "illegal immigrant" is a criminal because they are breaking the statutory code for immigration, that's about on par with calling any American citizen a criminal for violating some other regulatory law. You're not a criminal if you get ticketed for speeding.
Click to expand...


Well I guess saying "for the most part" wasn't clear enough. Of course the have basic rights. Of course it's murder to kill them on sight. of course it's assult to attack one. Of couse it's robbery to rob one.
I just don't think they have every right legal immigrants and citizens have.
 
There are two kinds of Law- Criminal and Civil. Immigration law is, by statute, a civil matter, with the only penalty for illegal entry being expulsion. It's not, by definition, a criminal act to enter the country without authorization, certainly not in the same sense that robbery or embezzlement is a criminal act.

Illegal immigrants are *not* criminals, per se, no matter how desperately some want them to be, or how rabidly that label is applied.

Don't like it? Contact your representatives. Don't like the part in the Constitution that makes anybody born in this country a citizen? Contact your representatives, call for a Constitutional Amendment. Rotsa Ruck with that.
 
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
There are two kinds of Law- Criminal and Civil. Immigration law is, by statute, a civil matter, with the only penalty for illegal entry being expulsion. It's not, by definition, a criminal act to enter the country without authorization, certainly not in the same sense that robbery or embezzlement is a criminal act.

Illegal immigrants are *not* criminals, per se, no matter how desperately some want them to be, or how rabidly that label is applied.

Don't like it? Contact your representatives. Don't like the part in the Constitution that makes anybody born in this country a citizen? Contact your representatives, call for a Constitutional Amendment. Rotsa Ruck with that.
Click to expand...


http://policechiefmagazine.org..._id=224&issue_id=22004

The article explains that illegally entering the country is a federal felony, but over staying a visa is a civil violation.

So I would guess that there are criminal aspects to it.
 
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Illegal immigrants are *not* criminals, per se, no matter how desperately some want them to be, or how rabidly that label is applied.
Click to expand...
I believe that it actually depends on how the illegal alien enters the country in the first place. I believe border-hoppers are indeed felons, while those who simply overstay their visas are not.

EDIT: just as Gneisenau said... DOH!

so, wrong again Jhhnn!
 
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
There are two kinds of Law- Criminal and Civil. Immigration law is, by statute, a civil matter, with the only penalty for illegal entry being expulsion. It's not, by definition, a criminal act to enter the country without authorization, certainly not in the same sense that robbery or embezzlement is a criminal act.

Illegal immigrants are *not* criminals, per se, no matter how desperately some want them to be, or how rabidly that label is applied.

Don't like it? Contact your representatives. Don't like the part in the Constitution that makes anybody born in this country a citizen? Contact your representatives, call for a Constitutional Amendment. Rotsa Ruck with that.
Click to expand...

http://www.americanpatrol.com/REFERENCE/isacrime.html
"Under Title 8 Section 1325 of the U.S. Code, "Improper Entry by Alien," any citizen of any country other than the United States who:

Enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers; or

Eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers; or

Attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact;
has committed a federal crime.

Violations are punishable by criminal fines and imprisonment for up to six months. Repeat offenses can bring up to two years in prison. Additional civil fines may be imposed at the discretion of immigration judges, but civil fines do not negate the criminal sanctions or nature of the offense."

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/...ch.pl?title=8&sec=1325



 
EWI (Entry Without Inspection) is a felony and can also (most always) result in permanent ban to enter the United States. 18 USC 911 (false claim to U.S. citizenship) is also a felony and can carry prison sentences. Illegal Immigrants come in all flavors and colors; many of which are felonies and all are crimes. Don't kid yourself Jhhnn a criminal is a criminal. If likely to brazenly commit one type of crime, the odds are that they are not the kind of people you want to live in your neighborhood.

A sovereign nation has the right to exclude ANYONE that they see fit to exclude. I cannot see where letting hundreds of thousands of ill-educated lower class unskilled workers will raise the standard of living OR education in the United States. That being said, the United States should be looking to attract middle class, skilled workers and well educated persons so as to RAISE the standards.
 
Boomer D cites the criminal statute, which applies only to the act of entering or attempting to enter the country per se- at the border itself. Once such a person is no longer at or near the border, the statute no longer applies, since it cannot be shown that they evaded or attempted to evade immigration officials. Thousands of cars and pedestrians are waved across on a daily basis- it's not like trying to get into East Germany... at least it hasn't been in the past.
 
The statute states "Enters" not just entering.

One must enter at the time and place designated.

Failure to do so is a felony.
 
There is a situation where that title does make sense.

Suppose a young mother illegally enters the country, illegally bringing her infant with her. The infant grows up in the US, and only knows the US. That child has basically lived his/her whole life here and is basically an American (knowing the culture, laws, language, etc).

Yet, that child, who never committed a crime in his/her life is an "illegal".

Many illegals have never committed a crime in their life (someone else committed the crime by bringing them in).
 
Originally posted by: dullard
There is a situation where that title does make sense.

Suppose a young mother illegally enters the country, illegally bringing her infant with her. The infant grows up in the US, and only knows the US. That child has basically lived his/her whole life here and is basically an American (knowing the culture, laws, language, etc).

Yet, that child, who never committed a crime in his/her life is an "illegal".

Many illegals have never committed a crime in their life (someone else committed the crime by bringing them in).
Click to expand...
nobody has denied that it is also possible to be an "illegal" and not a "criminal."

However, if they knowingly enter the US illegally, then they are both.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top