Phoenix to consider becoming a "sanctuary city"

[bobbyf]

Originally Posted by JGMotorsport64

what you are citing is a criminal act committed by illegal immigrants who enter without visas.

Yes, that is what I am citing because it's a fact. There is further distinction between improper entry and unlawful presence as you point out, but it is inaccurate to simply say "illegal immigration is civil". Improper entry is criminal. Unlawful presence is civil.

[JGMotorsport64]

Originally Posted by bobbyf

Yes, that is what I am citing because it's a fact. There is further distinction between improper entry and unlawful presence as you point out, but it is inaccurate to simply say "illegal immigration is civil". Improper entry is criminal. Unlawful presence is civil.

A lot of illegal immigration takes place via unlawful presence. Therefore, not criminal.

[bobbyf]

Originally Posted by JGMotorsport64

A lot of illegal immigration takes place via unlawful presence. Therefore, not criminal.

Just stop. That's not what you initially said. You were wrong. I didn't ridicule you or call you a dummy. You provided misinformation. I corrected it not to attack you personally, but to make sure that whoever read it didn't go on and continue to propagate misinformation. Yes, I am aware of unlawful presence. You didn't distinguish between entry and presence in any way. You said "It should be pointed out that federal immigration law is Civil not Criminal." And then you went on to talk about identity theft, as if that was the only way to incur a criminal penalty. Wrong. You could have admitted that you were wrong instead of trying to backpedal and make it seem like you were partially right or like I misunderstood you or that I'm wrong. I am not wrong in any way. Stop putting this on me. You were wrong. Just admit it instead of acting like a child "but I was kinda right . . . " I'm done with this conversation and will not be reading this thread any further. Do a little research next time before trying to cite legal fact and don't be so sensitive. After all, being wrong is civil, not criminal.

[1AngryTaxPayer]

Nearly impossible for someone to just "be here" without breaking another law. They'd have to have someone taking care of them, paying their way so to speak. Almost impossible.

[JGMotorsport64]

Originally Posted by bobbyf

Just stop. That's not what you initially said. You were wrong. I didn't ridicule you or call you a dummy. You provided misinformation. I corrected it not to attack you personally, but to make sure that whoever read it didn't go on and continue to propagate misinformation. Yes, I am aware of unlawful presence. You didn't distinguish between entry and presence in any way. You said "It should be pointed out that federal immigration law is Civil not Criminal." And then you went on to talk about identity theft, as if that was the only way to incur a criminal penalty. Wrong. You could have admitted that you were wrong instead of trying to backpedal and make it seem like you were partially right or like I misunderstood you or that I'm wrong. I am not wrong in any way. Stop putting this on me. You were wrong. Just admit it instead of acting like a child "but I was kinda right . . . " I'm done with this conversation and will not be reading this thread any further. Do a little research next time before trying to cite legal fact and don't be so sensitive. After all, being wrong is civil, not criminal.

You're missing a lot of nuance and frankly I don't care enough to get into this with you.

Improper entry is not illegal immigration. Identity theft is not illegal immigration. Federal Immigration Law is under a civil title, it's a civil matter. You are citing criminal acts committed by illegal aliens. It's not the same thing as what I said. The laws governing the handling of illegal immigration are civil laws. Acts that illegal immigrants commit can be criminal, but that doesn't change the fact that the overarching title is a civil title.

It's splitting hairs it doesn't matter this much to get all worked up over.