Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well almost but of course you are asserting something that is not on the record...that the children have illegal alien status. And that is not in evidence.
We might be able to compromise on deportable or such. But illegal they ain't...
I would of course agree that they have no claim to citizenship.
Practically they should be disposed of with their parents...the problem occurs though when they reach majority.
It is evidenced, Brennan recognizes they are here illegally
Quote:
The court further observed that the impact of § 21.031 was borne primarily by a very small subclass of illegal aliens, "entire families who have migrated illegally and -- for all practical purposes -- permanently to the United States." Id. at 578. [n3]
and
Quote:
To be sure, like all persons who have entered the United States unlawfully, these children are subject to deportation.8 U.S.C. §§ 1251 1252 (1976 ed. and Supp. IV). But there is no assurance that a child subject to deportation will ever be deported. An illegal entrant might be granted federal permission to continue to reside in this country, or even to become a citizen. See, e.g.,8 U.S.C. §§ 1252 1253(h), 1254 (1976 ed. and Supp. IV).
There is no problem once they reach majority as their status is unchanged, the only real difference is that they do not fall under the responsibility of their parents. You are reverting back to the entire premise of your argument: The kids committed no crime, which is irrelevant to the facts.
Last edited by Liquid Reigns; 10-06-2011 at 04:07 PM..
It is evidenced, Brennan recognizes they are here illegallyandThere is no problem once they reach majority as their status is unchanged, the only real difference is that they do not fall under the responsibility of their parents. You are reverting back to the entire premise of your argument: The kids committed no crime, which is irrelevant to the facts.
I can buy that the family unit is illegal. If however one member is born in the USA is the family unit still illegal? Perhaps...but not all the members are.
It would therefore follow that a family unit being illegal does not imply all members of it are illegal.
Remember the decision also states that they are not comparably situated to illegal entrants...
I have never left the basic premise that the children are in some no mans land...but it does not have criminal or illegal attributes.
I can buy that the family unit is illegal. If however one member is born in the USA is the family unit still illegal? Perhaps...but not all the members are.
It would therefore follow that a family unit being illegal does not imply all members of it are illegal.
Remember the decision also states that they are not comparably situated to illegal entrants...
I have never left the basic premise that the children are in some no mans land...but it does not have criminal or illegal attributes.
The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, your question doesn't pertain to Plyler vs Doe. The "comparably situated" I have already explained, more than once, it simply means Their "parents have the ability to conform their conduct to societal norms," and presumably the ability to remove themselves from the State's jurisdiction; but the children who are plaintiffs in these cases "can affect neither their parents' conduct nor their own status." You are attributing the phrase with your perception, taking it out of the context defined by Brennan to suit your argument.
The children are not in some "no mans land" in regards to their status as their status is made a point as plaintiffs, unsanctioned entry into the United States is a crime, 8 U.S.C. § 1325 and those who have entered unlawfully are subject to deportation, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1251 1252 (1976 ed. and Supp. IV).
The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, your question doesn't pertain to Plyler vs Doe. The "comparably situated" I have already explained, more than once, it simply means Their "parents have the ability to conform their conduct to societal norms," and presumably the ability to remove themselves from the State's jurisdiction; but the children who are plaintiffs in these cases "can affect neither their parents' conduct nor their own status." You are attributing the phrase with your perception, taking it out of the context defined by Brennan to suit your argument.
The children are not in some "no mans land" in regards to their status as their status is made a point as plaintiffs, unsanctioned entry into the United States is a crime, 8 U.S.C. § 1325 and those who have entered unlawfully are subject to deportation, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1251 1252 (1976 ed. and Supp. IV).
Actually...
************************
However, any child under the age of 18 is not held accountable under US immigration law for being illegally present in the United States. While children are not penalised for illegal presence prior to the age of 18, it is important to understand that the clock on illegal presence begins to toll on the child's 18th birthday. Therefore, the day a child turns 18, he or she is personally responsible for their illegal presence and the associated penalties apply to them as well.
This means that, once a child turns 18, he or she has 179 days to leave the United States if they wish to avoid the statutory ban on re-entry
***************************
US Embassy Jamaica...
Sure sounds like no mans land. Not illegally present until they turn 18...
As I keep pointing out it is a strange web we weave.
************************
However, any child under the age of 18 is not held accountable under US immigration law for being illegally present in the United States. While children are not penalised for illegal presence prior to the age of 18, it is important to understand that the clock on illegal presence begins to toll on the child's 18th birthday. Therefore, the day a child turns 18, he or she is personally responsible for their illegal presence and the associated penalties apply to them as well.
This means that, once a child turns 18, he or she has 179 days to leave the United States if they wish to avoid the statutory ban on re-entry
***************************
US Embassy Jamaica...
Sure sounds like no mans land. Not illegally present until they turn 18...
As I keep pointing out it is a strange web we weave.
I hate to break it to you, but your link is a newspaper article and not the Jamaican Embassy. When kids enter the US illegally - JamaicaObserver.com
The article merely says that if you have questions to contact the Jamaican Embassy. It appears the article is nothing more than an opinion piece. Nice try though.
Besides, your link goes against Brennan's Opinion in Plyler, To be sure, like all persons who have entered the United States unlawfully, these children are subject to deportation. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1251 1252 (1976 ed. and Supp. IV). To point, your paragraph says exactly what I have stated, the day a child turns 18, he or she is personally responsible for their illegal presence and the associated penalties apply to them as well., prior to this they fall under the responsibility of their parents. Post #46 Whether they are here by their own volition or not, they are still here in violation of our laws. There illegality was their parents doing, and as long as their parents are responsible for them they are just as deportable.
Despite these reforms, for unaccompanied minors "the removal system has structurally remained largely intact and ... [w]ith the advent of new actors and roles in the system, the dependency and developmental constructions of childhood have found greater expression in the structure of the removal system." (33) Just as the substantive eligibility criteria for immigration relief apply to children as they do adults, grounds of inadmissibility that can baffle even qualified immigrants apply to children just as they do adults. (34) Furthermore, there are penalties and barriers that immigration laws impose on persons who enter the United States without inspection and fail to maintain lawful status, which apply to children as well as adults. (35) This is true regardless of whether the child exercised independent judgment and volition in deciding to enter the United States, or whether the child was carried across the border as a baby. For example, a child who was carried into the United States without inspection as an infant is forever barred from an important immigration law procedure known as adjustment of status, which forecloses that individual from establishing eligibility for lawful immigration through other avenues, such as marriage or employment. (36) Here, as noted in the above section, the child is not held accountable for individual actions, but is saddled with consequences of decisions often made or influenced by parents and other adults. (37) Rather than special treatment based on childhood, children are punished for the choices of adults in their lives or for choices made prior to reaching the age of discretion.
Pay particular attention to the footnotes pointed out above, particularly #34
Quote:
34. No distinction is made between children and adults in grounds of inadmissibility that apply generally to all immigrants. See, e.g., 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A) (2006) (establishing inadmissibility ground for all persons present without permission or parole regardless of age); id. § 1182(a)(7)(A) (establishing documents-related inadmissibility grounds regardless of age).
Last edited by Liquid Reigns; 10-06-2011 at 07:05 PM..
Off topic ..sort of.. but my sister and I were born overseas...The process is that you get a birth certificate from the country of birth and a military record of birth then you have to go to the American Consulate and register the military record of birth...these are our "papers" and prove we are American citizens...I have all 3 parts..but my parents never registered my sisters military record of birth...and she was denied financial aid because of it. She was able to rectify the situation by showing the paper trail proving she was a citizen (Parents birth certificates, marriage certificate, Mothers passport showing infant sister with Mother and sisters name on Mothers passport) but for several weeks it was tentive. Can't believe it just wasn't done tho...my Mother is pretty anal about dotting all I's and crossing all T's..Prolly got lost somewhere in life. My point tho, is that sometime it does boil down to just "one piece of paper".
I hate to break it to you, but your link is a newspaper article and not the Jamaican Embassy. When kids enter the US illegally - JamaicaObserver.com
The article merely says that if you have questions to contact the Jamaican Embassy. It appears the article is nothing more than an opinion piece. Nice try though.
Besides, your link goes against Brennan's Opinion in Plyler, To be sure, like all persons who have entered the United States unlawfully, these children are subject to deportation. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1251 1252 (1976 ed. and Supp. IV). To point, your paragraph says exactly what I have stated, the day a child turns 18, he or she is personally responsible for their illegal presence and the associated penalties apply to them as well., prior to this they fall under the responsibility of their parents. Post #46 Whether they are here by their own volition or not, they are still here in violation of our laws. There illegality was their parents doing, and as long as their parents are responsible for them they are just as deportable.
Sorry it is an advice column run by the US Embassy in Jamaica.
But hey maybe I am wrong. Find a similar article that says that children less than 18 are responsible for illegal entry....
Sorry it is an advice column run by the US Embassy in Jamaica.
But hey maybe I am wrong. Find a similar article that says that children less than 18 are responsible for illegal entry....
I have added to my comment above, I have a very good link to a law journal that points out 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A) (2006) (establishing inadmissibility ground for all persons present without permission or parole regardless of age) which is in line with Brennans Opinion.
I have added to my comment above, I have a very good link to a law journal that points out 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A) (2006) (establishing inadmissibility ground for all persons present without permission or parole regardless of age) which is in line with Brennans Opinion.
It says...without getting into the exception.
An alien present in the United States without being
admitted or paroled, or who arrives in the United States at
any time or place other than as designated by the Attorney
General, is inadmissible.
************************************
Which is a given and says they are deportable. Note it would not appear to cover an overstayed visa.
The children however are still not criminally responsible as it is clear from the defense of Infancy...
Children are not criminally responsible for their actions until they are old enough to understand the difference between right and wrong and the nature of their actions. Children under the age of seven are conclusively presumed to lack the capacity to commit a crime. Between the ages of seven and 14, children are presumed to be incapable of committing a crime. However, this presumption is not conclusive; it can be rebutted by the prosecution through the admission of evidence that the child knew that what he or she was doing was wrong. Anyone over the age of 14 is presumed to be capable of committing a crime, but this presumption can be rebutted by proof of either mental or physical incapacity.
**************************************
This whole area is a semantic quaqmire.
The children have broken no law as they are not capable of doing so...but they are certainly in violation of US law and deportable.
Are they illegal? Well we have a court decision that really says they are not illegal entrants which is what they would have to be.
Are they unlawful? Well probably civilly as they can be deported. Then again virtually anyone admitted into the US and less than a permanent resident can be deported by administration action.
The minority on Plyler would have none of this. They are here illegally so nobody has to do anything for them. But they did not prevail.
The language is almosty too imprecise to have this discussion without first agreeing to a short dictionary.
An alien present in the United States without being
admitted or paroled, or who arrives in the United States at
any time or place other than as designated by the Attorney
General, is inadmissible.
************************************
Which is a given and says they are deportable. Note it would not appear to cover an overstayed visa.
The children however are still not criminally responsible as it is clear from the defense of Infancy...
Children are not criminally responsible for their actions until they are old enough to understand the difference between right and wrong and the nature of their actions. Children under the age of seven are conclusively presumed to lack the capacity to commit a crime. Between the ages of seven and 14, children are presumed to be incapable of committing a crime. However, this presumption is not conclusive; it can be rebutted by the prosecution through the admission of evidence that the child knew that what he or she was doing was wrong. Anyone over the age of 14 is presumed to be capable of committing a crime, but this presumption can be rebutted by proof of either mental or physical incapacity.
**************************************
This whole area is a semantic quaqmire.
The children have broken no law as they are not capable of doing so...but they are certainly in violation of US law and deportable.
Are they illegal? Well we have a court decision that really says they are not illegal entrants which is what they would have to be.
Are they unlawful? Well probably civilly as they can be deported. Then again virtually anyone admitted into the US and less than a permanent resident can be deported by administration action.
The minority on Plyler would have none of this. They are here illegally so nobody has to do anything for them. But they did not prevail.
The language is almosty too imprecise to have this discussion without first agreeing to a short dictionary.
To answer your question in regards to, are they illegal? Yes, Brennan notes they are: "entire families who have migrated illegally...." and "the illegal alien of today may well be the legal alien of tomorrow,". Brennan also points out that Unsanctioned entry into the United States is a crime, but as I noted, the parents are responsible for the children, whereas you noted the children are not "criminally responsible", which says the same thing. Just because they are not "criminally responsible" that does not change their status as "illegal aliens" and the fact that they have virtually no avenue for changing status. Your description merely points out that not all illegal aliens can be considered "criminally responsible" for their situation.
Your other question is, are they unlawful? Yes, from the link I provided, (36) Here, as noted in the above section, the child is not held accountable for individual actions, but is saddled with consequences of decisions often made or influenced by parents and other adults. (37) Rather than special treatment based on childhood, children are punished for the choices of adults in their lives or for choices made prior to reaching the age of discretion. The age of discretion, according to your own comment, could be as young as 7 y.o.
While the minority in Plyler did lose, Brennan still leaves open the fact The school districts of the State are as free to apply to undocumented children established criteria for determining residence as they are to apply those criteria to any other child who seeks admission.
The only "dictionary" needed in this discussion is Black's Law Dictionary.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
