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.
I understand what you're saying in that it's a problems years in the making and there should be no such thing as a deportation force.
But my problem is when these illegals start protesting and behaving like they have rights to this country. If I was an illegal, I would be hiding,
They have been given too much power to not be afraid of the law an openly come out against anything supporting the existing laws.
The vast majority of illegal aliens don't protest. Much of that is young people who have grown up in the states and are Americanized. They correctly have observed we do not have the resource or will to enforce our immigration laws. They in general have not deliberately broken any US law.
Quote:
What should be done is NOT to legalize people who knowingly have broken the laws. There should be consequences.
If I use your rational about the problem, then we should let anyone out of jail who sold cocaine and other drugs just because this problem has also been going on for years. Lets open the jail and let all the crack dealers out , heck while we are there let just release the cartel druglords as well.
It is rather common for the prosecutors to exercise discretion on prosecution. I was once involved in a case involving a significant sum of money where the County DA refused to charge an obvious and significant forgery of a business document on the basis that all the participants had significant resources and it would cost him at least 10% of his budget to pursue the bad guy. Basically he said it was not cost effective to go after this guy and he would keep his budget for murderers, rapists and robbers.
In fact we have statutes of limitations for virtually all crimes that would in fact prevent the prosecution of one who sold drugs ten or twenty years ago. The analogy is faulty in that the drug dealers have in fact been convicted of an actual crime. Illegal presence in the US is generally not a crime.
Quote:
Point is there are laws and If we turn a blind eye to some laws, why not just ignore all of them?
Let all the illegals protest, buy fake SSN, buy stolen SSN and then lets us let them claim how they pay taxes.
The SSN has moles who sell SSN openly and this needs to be cleaned up.
To he mayors supporting illegals, you should be in jail for promoting law breakers. You were appointed to serve the public not to promote people to break laws. I would personally have you removed for felony if it was up to me.
The use of a false SSN is often not a crime. And many of them use ITINs which are legal. It may be illegal to knowingly employ an illegal. It is not illegal for one of them to work.
Mayors have a duty to their residents and need the cooperation of the residents. They are not responsible for the Federal failure to enforce the immigration laws. A rational person could well suggest that pursuing these people after all this time is an immoral act. The Jewish pogroms were legal but were certainly not morally acceptable.
Location: Born in L.A. - NYC is Second Home - Rustbelt is Home Base
1,607 posts, read 1,085,674 times
Reputation: 1372
Quote:
Originally Posted by jm1982
I'm not sure if this is something Trump has said but it seems if birthright citizenship ended it would make the U.S a lot less attractive for illegals.
Clearly illegals have been exploiting birthright citizenship.
If the U.S made it hard/bad enough for illegals the wall might be unnecessary.
Enforce everify
No birthright citizenship
Cut any benefits
Cut funding to sanctuary cities
Deport illegals even for minor offenses
Birthright citizenship for their kids is one of the main attractions for coming here. They automatically have a source of income through them whether they are working or not. That needs to be fixed.
This means unless you are a citizen this does not apply to you.
And, one parent must be a US citizen for the child being born to be a US citizen, thus the reality that these anchor babies should NEVER have been considered citizens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvmensch
It means you can be arrested. You really think you cannot arrest non citizens?
That isn't what is being discussed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bryan85
A baby being born in America to illegal parents should stay with their parents- when they go back to Mexico. I don't mean to sound heartless, but we cannot allow illegals to manipulate our emotions for THEIR own gain.
That is actually the rule. Even being considered a citizen, the illegal alien family go back and the child as an adult could return as a citizen. Anchor baby is a myth. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.109fb5f2cf7b
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvmensch
The vast majority of illegal aliens don't protest. Much of that is young people who have grown up in the states and are Americanized. They correctly have observed we do not have the resource or will to enforce our immigration laws. They in general have not deliberately broken any US law.
It is rather common for the prosecutors to exercise discretion on prosecution. I was once involved in a case involving a significant sum of money where the County DA refused to charge an obvious and significant forgery of a business document on the basis that all the participants had significant resources and it would cost him at least 10% of his budget to pursue the bad guy. Basically he said it was not cost effective to go after this guy and he would keep his budget for murderers, rapists and robbers.
In fact we have statutes of limitations for virtually all crimes that would in fact prevent the prosecution of one who sold drugs ten or twenty years ago. The analogy is faulty in that the drug dealers have in fact been convicted of an actual crime. Illegal presence in the US is generally not a crime.
The use of a false SSN is often not a crime. And many of them use ITINs which are legal. It may be illegal to knowingly employ an illegal. It is not illegal for one of them to work.
Mayors have a duty to their residents and need the cooperation of the residents. They are not responsible for the Federal failure to enforce the immigration laws. A rational person could well suggest that pursuing these people after all this time is an immoral act. The Jewish pogroms were legal but were certainly not morally acceptable.
I don't care if they protest or not. Many criminals don't get in the public eye because they don't want to pay for their crimes, so I suspect illegal aliens are no different. Crossing into the US without authorization is breaking a law. Illegal Immigration is a Crime Overstaying a visa? https://www.temple.edu/isss/immigration/overstay.html
Illegal aliens are criminals. Load the bus and move them out!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldglory
Birthright citizenship for their kids is one of the main attractions for coming here. They automatically have a source of income through them whether they are working or not. That needs to be fixed.
And, one parent must be a US citizen for the child being born to be a US citizen, thus the reality that these anchor babies should NEVER have been considered citizens.
That isn't what is being discussed.
That is actually the rule. Even being considered a citizen, the illegal alien family go back and the child as an adult could return as a citizen. Anchor baby is a myth. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.109fb5f2cf7b
I don't care if they protest or not. Many criminals don't get in the public eye because they don't want to pay for their crimes, so I suspect illegal aliens are no different. Crossing into the US without authorization is breaking a law. Illegal Immigration is a Crime Overstaying a visa? https://www.temple.edu/isss/immigration/overstay.html
Illegal aliens are criminals. Load the bus and move them out!
Do you bother to read your own cites?
************************
Each year the Border Patrol apprehends hundreds of thousands of aliens who flagrantly violate our nation's laws by unlawfully crossing U.S. borders. Such illegal entry is a misdemeanor, and, if repeated after being deported, becomes punishable as a felony.
The illegal alien population is composed of those who illegally enter the country (referred to as "entry without inspection — EWI") in violation of the immigration law, and others enter legally and then sty illegally (referred to as overstayers). The immigration authorities currently estimate that two-thirds to three-fifths of all illegal immigrants are EWIs and the remainder is overstayers. Both types of illegal immigrants are deportable under Immigration and Nationality Act Section 237 (a)(1)(B) which says: "Any alien who is present in the United States in violation of this Act or any other law of the United States is deportable."
************************
That makes it clear they are deportable. It in no way says they are criminal. And in fact children brought in are in no way criminal though they to are deportable.
And again there is no law against an illegal working. It is not legal to knowingly hire them.
The vast majority of illegal aliens don't protest. Much of that is young people who have grown up in the states and are Americanized. They correctly have observed we do not have the resource or will to enforce our immigration laws. They in general have not deliberately broken any US law.
It is rather common for the prosecutors to exercise discretion on prosecution. I was once involved in a case involving a significant sum of money where the County DA refused to charge an obvious and significant forgery of a business document on the basis that all the participants had significant resources and it would cost him at least 10% of his budget to pursue the bad guy. Basically he said it was not cost effective to go after this guy and he would keep his budget for murderers, rapists and robbers.
In fact we have statutes of limitations for virtually all crimes that would in fact prevent the prosecution of one who sold drugs ten or twenty years ago. The analogy is faulty in that the drug dealers have in fact been convicted of an actual crime. Illegal presence in the US is generally not a crime.
The use of a false SSN is often not a crime. And many of them use ITINs which are legal. It may be illegal to knowingly employ an illegal. It is not illegal for one of them to work.
Mayors have a duty to their residents and need the cooperation of the residents. They are not responsible for the Federal failure to enforce the immigration laws. A rational person could well suggest that pursuing these people after all this time is an immoral act. The Jewish pogroms were legal but were certainly not morally acceptable.
"illegal aliens......They in general have not deliberately broken any US law."
They ARE called "ILLEGAL" BECAUSE they BROKE our immigration laws.
EVERY day they are here, they are BREAKING US law.
************************
Each year the Border Patrol apprehends hundreds of thousands of aliens who flagrantly violate our nation's laws by unlawfully crossing U.S. borders. Such illegal entry is a misdemeanor, and, if repeated after being deported, becomes punishable as a felony.
The illegal alien population is composed of those who illegally enter the country (referred to as "entry without inspection — EWI") in violation of the immigration law, and others enter legally and then sty illegally (referred to as overstayers). The immigration authorities currently estimate that two-thirds to three-fifths of all illegal immigrants are EWIs and the remainder is overstayers. Both types of illegal immigrants are deportable under Immigration and Nationality Act Section 237 (a)(1)(B) which says: "Any alien who is present in the United States in violation of this Act or any other law of the United States is deportable."
************************
That makes it clear they are deportable. It in no way says they are criminal. And in fact children brought in are in no way criminal though they to are deportable.
And again there is no law against an illegal working. It is not legal to knowingly hire them.
"Do you bother to read your own cites?'
Maybe YOU should.
"Such illegal entry is a misdemeanor, and, if repeated after being deported, becomes punishable as a felony."
Even if it " is a misdemeanor" it IS breaking a law, hence they are criminals.
" "Definition of criminal
1 : relating to, involving, or being a crime<criminal neglect><a criminal organization>
2 : relating to crime or to the prosecution of suspects in a crime <criminal statistics><brought criminal action><the criminal justice system>
The Constitution doesn't give birthright citizenship to the children of foreign invaders.
We've gone round and round about this before. The Supreme Court made a determination in Kim Wong Ark, and the broad legal community has, by consensus, agreed for over a century that birthright citizenship is indeed what the writers of the Constitution intended.
What you're hoping for could quite possibly be made to stick, but the discussion on what it would take on page 1-3:
"The “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” language has been interpreted to impose limited exceptions, such as for children of diplomats and foreign ministers (who are accorded immunity from U.S. law)"
"Any statute reinterpreting the Citizenship Clause to exclude children of certain aliens would face judicial review by federal courts. Because of the core constitutional principles involved, it seems probable that any case on such a statute could reach the Supreme Court. The Court could find such a statute constitutional if it interpreted the “subject to the jurisdiction” language of the Citizenship Clause to exclude the children of certain aliens from the scope of the Clause’s protection. To uphold a statute limiting birthright citizenship, it would also appear that the Court would have to find either (1) that the discussion in Wong Kim Ark apparently supporting the conventional interpretation of birthright citizenship was mere dicta, not binding precedent, and the case’s holding was limited to the facts of that case; or (2) that Wong Kim Ark incorrectly interpreted the Citizenship Clause, at least in some respects, and should be overruled. If a statute could not change the meaning of the Citizenship Clause, then a constitutional amendment, as some have proposed, would have the power to do so. Proponents and opponents of the current birthright citizenship rule have marshalled a variety of arguments and historical records on all of these points."
I realize you think you are smarter than all those educated legal minds that don't all hold the same opinion you do. But wishing something were interpreted a certain way, does not make it so.
That applies to a particular class of illegal aliens. It does not apply to visa over-stayers or children brought in by parents. And there are other things done by illegal aliens which clearly violate the law like actually stealing someone's identity. So yes some illegal aliens are criminal. But some illegal aliens are not criminals.
So a general classification is not supported by the facts.
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.
