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.
Not necessarily. Your statement presumes all illegal aliens are criminals. Many illegal aliens are also criminals, but other illegal aliens are not. An example is a foreign student or perhaps a tourist who has allowed her visa to lapse. Such a person would be an illegal alien who is not subject to criminal liability, and is thus not a criminal.
I'm gonna say an illegal alien like a visa overstayer WILL commit crimes to survive in the US.
There is no illegal that is not illegal regardless of whether they are Farm workers or a student with an expired visa.
All illegals are in violation of the Law indeed regardless of how it is classified.
In that situation they are not supposed to be here....at all.
I'm gonna say an illegal alien like a visa overstayer WILL commit crimes to survive in the US.
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.
Location: where people are either too stupid to leave or too stuck to move
3,982 posts, read 6,688,188 times
Reputation: 3689
Quote:
Originally Posted by Packard fan
Other Pew findings:
—Mexicans make up the majority of the illegal immigrant population at 58 percent, or 6.5 million. They are followed by people from other Latin American countries at 23 percent, or 2.6 million; Asia at 11 percent or 1.3 million; Europe and Canada at 4 percent or 500,000; and African countries and other nations at 3 percent, or 400,000.
If I may correct you on one nuance - immigration law actually is civil law to the extent that all law is either civil or criminal law. The federal nature of it does not affect its characterization as civil law, because all federal law, just like state law, is either civil or criminal. Of course there is substantial overlap in the subject matter of criminal law and immigration law which makes immigration law seem quasi - criminal. But immigration law does not aim to punish people. It is aimed at kicking people out of the country, letting them in, or letting them stay. I guess you could argue deportation is a "punishment" but theoretically - sending someone back to their country of citizenship is just putting the right person in the right place, to an extent.
I don't personally have a problem with the term illegal alien, like I said. Contrary to what people think it is a completely racially and ethnically neutral term which accurately describes someone present in the US without legal status based on a person's violation of the law. Strictly speaking, I myself could be an illegal "parker" if I park my car in a no parking zone, or an illegal driver if I drive over the speed limit or I don't renew my tags. Or an illegal alien in Canada if I decide to hop the northern border. It's not as if being "illegal" is this immutable characteristic that one does not have control over.
Let’s look at this from the perspective of the court system. If I am the one going against you in court, it is a civil matter, if the government is taking you to court, whether it is State or Federal, it is criminal matter.
In civil law, a private party (a corporation or individual person) files the lawsuit and becomes the plaintiff. In criminal law, the litigation is always filed by the government, who is called the prosecution.
Criminal law is much better known to laymen than civil law. They often misapply principles from criminal law to situations in civil (e.g., tort) law, which results in their misunderstanding.
Immigration proceedings are matters of administrative law, not criminal law. (As a result, the consequence of violating your immigration status is deportation.) Because immigration is considered a matter of national security and foreign policy, the Supreme Court has long held that immigration law is largely immune from judicial review. Congress can make rules for immigrants that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens. Congress has nearly full authority to regulate immigration without interference from the courts.
When deportable aliens are prosecuted under criminal law, instead of being expelled through an administrative proceeding, those accused have the right to a jury trial and all the rules of evidence apply as mandated by the Equal Protection Clause. The government is burdened with "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" and the following punishment may actually be considered a Misdemeanor as Section 1325 suggests below; “for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both.”
The US is a Common Law country not a Civil Law country, civil law defined in the US deals with disputes between persons/individuals. In the case of immigrants it is the Federal authority/gov't going after the immigrant (prosecuting), thus it is not civil proceedings, but administrative proceedings and/or criminal proceedings. You are confusing the procedures, the Federal Gov't is the prosecution in all immigrant cases in front of the immigration judges, which are administrative proceedings and are equivalent in nature to civil proceedings to the extent that the Federal gov't has the burden of proof.
You're wrong. Being in the U.S. without papers is legally different from trespassing. It is a civil administrative violation, and violators of civil administrative codes are not criminals. It's basically the legal equivalent of getting a parking ticket or failing to get a permit to hold a garage sale. Unless you want to call little girls who run lemonade stands without proper permits criminals, you shouldn't be calling undocumented immigrants criminals.
If you disagree with that, fine, but I'm just telling you what the Supreme Court considers undocumented presence on American territory to be.
Once here illegals violate our laws in other ways. They forge documents so they can work, work off the books without paying taxes, drive without licenses or insurance and use fraud to gain social services they are not entitled to as they are otherwise unable to remain in America without assistance. I am tired of people downplaying the criminal actions of illegal aliens. Most are simply unable to remain in America without violating multiple American laws. Not exactly the sort of people we should welcome here.
Let’s look at this from the perspective of the court system. If I am the one going against you in court, it is a civil matter, if the government is taking you to court, whether it is State or Federal, it is criminal matter.
In civil law, a private party (a corporation or individual person) files the lawsuit and becomes the plaintiff. In criminal law, the litigation is always filed by the government, who is called the prosecution.
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.
Quote:
Criminal law is much better known to laymen than civil law. They often misapply principles from criminal law to situations in civil (e.g., tort) law, which results in their misunderstanding.
Immigration proceedings are matters of administrative law, not criminal law. (As a result, the consequence of violating your immigration status is deportation.) Because immigration is considered a matter of national security and foreign policy, the Supreme Court has long held that immigration law is largely immune from judicial review. Congress can make rules for immigrants that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens. Congress has nearly full authority to regulate immigration without interference from the courts.
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.
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)
The US is a Common Law country not a Civil Law country, civil law defined in the US deals with disputes between persons/individuals. In the case of immigrants it is the Federal authority/gov't going after the immigrant (prosecuting), thus it is not civil proceedings, but administrative proceedings and/or criminal proceedings. You are confusing the procedures, the Federal Gov't is the prosecution in all immigrant cases in front of the immigration judges, which are administrative proceedings and are equivalent in nature to civil proceedings to the extent that the Federal gov't has the burden of proof.
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".
If those are Navarette's own words then he is full of it. Doing jobs that Americans won't do? Put the native born to shame? Do his so-called "friends" agree with that?
Here is some more of Ruben's recent words:
[Note: This is a reply to comments on his article, not a published work]
Quote:
A critical point: In the phrase, 'illegal immigrant' -- the word 'illegal' refers not to the person but to how they entered the country or the status they found themselves in after overstaying a visa. If you come into the country legally, you're a legal immigrant. If you come in illegally, you're an illegal immigrant -- you immigrated illegally. We can't whitewash that, and we shouldn't try.
If you have someone who keeps running red lights, the answer isn't to change the color of the lights to purple. Why? To make ourselves feel better.
If you want to help illegal immigrants, and be a great humanitarian, terrific. Vote against Barack Obama -- and his deportation machine. Then we'll talk.
"law breaker" is such a tired old term.
Let's call him an opportunist.
Yeah- right...
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.
