U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-11-2012, 06:47 AM
 
14,307 posts, read 11,156,126 times
Reputation: 2130

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by IBMMuseum View Post
I love the way this Dream Activist individual got pounced on for her outright spinning of the truth and blatant biasness in this issue. If she represents the views of most Dreamies then that makes me even more opposed to the Dream Act and from what Benicar has said in the past those are the views of a typical Dreamie.

Back to Navarette. Just because he says that using the term illegal immigrant/alien is not a slur that doesn't excuse him for saying that illegal aliens are only doing jobs that Americans won't do and that they are superior to American workers. He also is an amnesty advocate and for the reason I already stated.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-11-2012, 07:23 AM
 
Location: somewhere in the woods
16,886 posts, read 12,546,843 times
Reputation: 5210
Quote:
Originally Posted by uggabugga View Post
this article is just chock-full of stupidity..

well, lets stop calling the illegals illegal aliens and start calling them for what they really are. criminal aliens seems more appropiate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2012, 07:55 AM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 1,713,576 times
Reputation: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefoxwarrior View Post
The fact that the government is pressing litigation does not per se make the action non-civil. A state can sue another state on a civil matter. The United States can sue a state on a civil matter.
The key word here is "sue". If one is being sued it is in civil court. Illegal immigrants are "prosecuted" in immigration court.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefoxwarrior View Post
Look - I understand that Congress has plenary power over immigration and that immigration courts are administrative courts. But whether you say it's federal law or administrative law, immigration proceedings are still characterized as civil proceedings. Administrative law and civil law aren't mutually exclusive.
They are only characterized as civil in nature based on burden of proof. Talk to any law professor, they will tell you the same thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefoxwarrior View Post
Look at this ICE memo on prosecutorial discretion from 2011:

"One of ICE's central responsibilities is to enforce the nation's civil immigration laws in
coordination with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)." (p. 2)

http://www.ice.gov/doclib/secure-com...etion-memo.pdf
So what. A typed memo from a secretary is hardly proof of anything, simply a typo. Do I need to post articles countering it?
Quote:
In 1889, in the infamous Chinese Exclusion Case (Chae Chan Ping, 130 U.S. at 606), the United States Supreme Court laid the foundation for the now well-established rule that
immigration removal proceedings are civil, not criminal, in nature.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/..._Markowitz.pdf
Kinda hard to excuse SCOTUS interpretation now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefoxwarrior View Post
I understand that the US is a common law country. It's apparent that you have a much narrower definition of civil law than do I. If I understand correctly, your definition of civil law extends only to suits brought by private individuals. The term "civil law" as I understand it is used very broadly and has been used to refer to all types of law that are not criminal law. The effect of the civil-criminal distinction in immigration law has been made mostly to distinguish the rights of the "defendant" in a criminal case from the rights of the "respondent" in a removal proceeding, as you alluded to. I suppose you could swap "civil" with "administrative" and it would have the same effect. I've just always heard immigration law referred to as "civil".
It's not my narrower interpretation or your opinion of it that matters, the simple fact is that immigration falls under administrative law which is not civil law, only civil in nature.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2012, 09:07 AM
 
Location: Jacurutu
5,302 posts, read 4,014,480 times
Reputation: 601
I think Ruben nails it to say that "illegal" is the act, not the person...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2012, 09:11 AM
 
14,307 posts, read 11,156,126 times
Reputation: 2130
Quote:
Originally Posted by IBMMuseum View Post
I think Ruben nails it to say that "illegal" is the act, not the person...
I disagree. I can mean both. Illegal alien = Illegal is an adjective to describe one's status in this country. Alien = foreigner.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2012, 11:54 AM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 1,713,576 times
Reputation: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by IBMMuseum View Post
I think Ruben nails it to say that "illegal" is the act, not the person...
I agree! http://www.city-data.com/forum/25046167-post3.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2012, 02:13 PM
 
Location: San Diego
32,820 posts, read 30,068,682 times
Reputation: 17698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefoxwarrior View Post
I suppose that's certainly possible, but not necessarily true. They could get deported before they have an opportunity to commit a crime, or they could renew their visa, or try to get a different visa. Just heard a friend of a friend got deported back to Germany due to a visa overstay.
When you sign a contract that has carefully spelled out clauses or terms and it clearly states you will be held responsible and that there will be consequences.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2012, 02:50 PM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 1,713,576 times
Reputation: 299
I wouldn't call what Prerna wrote a continuation of the discussion. Her ideological ideals are clear and she implies that those that disagree with her are racist.
Quote:
There is a rich history of this scapegoating, harkening back to the Chinese Exclusion Act. The Chinese were deemed ineligible for citizenship. The Indians were told they were not white, and hence, not admissible. Americans of Mexican descent were deported during the Great Depression. Gays and lesbians were excluded from admission until 1990. There is little doubt that the latest fervor about illegal immigration has little to do with following the law and more to do with excluding Latinos such as Mr. Navarette, or Asian-Pacific Islanders like myself.
Hardly factual, this is determined simply by playing with the numbers that Latinos are the largest group illegally entering by far of all illegal immigrants. She then claims that some are in legal limbo
Quote:
Take, for example, my own immigration case. My parents gained legal residency through my U.S. citizen grandmother but I was aged-out of the process and put in removal proceedings. I have a pending green card application and a pending cancellation of removal case in immigration court. While both applications are pending, I get to have work authorization, through which I have a driver’s license, state identification and a host of other privileges. I’m also eligible for deferred action. It is, hence, legally incorrect to call me an illegal immigrant (or even an undocumented immigrant), though many have resorted to doing so while telling me to get out of their country. I’m in legal limbo but I’m certainly not in the country illegally at this point.
She is out of status, which is indeed an immigration violation, she is here illegally as her status doesn't change. There is no "legal limbo" to be in if you are out of status. Her pending cases are just that, pending, until they are granted she is still in violation of immigration law, it only means that the BIA/gov't isn't going to actively pursue her removal unless she is denied approval by an IJ.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2012, 04:44 PM
 
14,307 posts, read 11,156,126 times
Reputation: 2130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns View Post
I wouldn't call what Prerna wrote a continuation of the discussion. Her ideological ideals are clear and she implies that those that disagree with her are racist.Hardly factual, this is determined simply by playing with the numbers that Latinos are the largest group illegally entering by far of all illegal immigrants. She then claims that some are in legal limboShe is out of status, which is indeed an immigration violation, she is here illegally as her status doesn't change. There is no "legal limbo" to be in if you are out of status. Her pending cases are just that, pending, until they are granted she is still in violation of immigration law, it only means that the BIA/gov't isn't going to actively pursue her removal unless she is denied approval by an IJ.
I had to laugh at this lie of hers..."There is little doubt that the latest fervor about illegal immigration has little to do with following the law and more to do with excluding Latinos such as Mr. Navarette, or Asian-Pacific Islanders like myself".

I have posted a link in here proving that Latinos are here in the highest numbers legally not to mention illegally. So just where is the exclusion of that group Prerna? Aisians also enjoy one of the largest quotas for legal immigration into our country. By the way, wasn't Navarette born here?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2012, 04:50 PM
 
Location: First Hill, Seattle
5,470 posts, read 5,783,610 times
Reputation: 7191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns View Post
The key word here is "sue". If one is being sued it is in civil court. Illegal immigrants are "prosecuted" in immigration court.

They are only characterized as civil in nature based on burden of proof. Talk to any law professor, they will tell you the same thing.

So what. A typed memo from a secretary is hardly proof of anything, simply a typo. Do I need to post articles countering it? http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/..._Markowitz.pdf
Kinda hard to excuse SCOTUS interpretation now.
It's not my narrower interpretation or your opinion of it that matters, the simple fact is that immigration falls under administrative law which is not civil law, only civil in nature.
I don't know who typed the ICE memo, it certainly could have been the secretary, but it was clearly adopted by the director who signed boldly and prominently on the first page, and it uses the terms "civil immigration law" and "civil immigration enforcement" several times.


If you want to say that it's administrative law that is civil in nature, then I completely accept that as accurate, but I think this completely an argument of semantics.

The simple point I was trying to make is that people tend to misconceive immigration law as criminal law or penal law which it is not. If you want to call it federal law, administrative law, whatever, fine. But when someone is charged with an immigration violation they are not charged with a criminal offense. This is true regardless of whether their actions could also constitute a criminal offense. They are just charged as being removable or inadmissible.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top