• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Criminals and illegals

Dittohead not!

Dittohead not!

master political analyst
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
Messages
52,009
Reaction score
33,944
Location
The Golden State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Are illegals really illegal?

Are they criminals?

Not according to the SCOTUS:

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and three other justices, stated: "As a general rule, it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain present in the United States." The court also ruled that it was not a crime to seek or engage in unauthorized employment.
As Kennedy explained, removal of an unauthorized migrant is a civil matter where even if the person is out of status, federal officials have wide discretion to determine whether deportation makes sense. For example, if an unauthorized person is trying to support his family by working or has "children born in the United States, long ties to the community, or a record of distinguished military service," officials may let him stay. Also, if individuals or their families might be politically persecuted or harmed upon return to their country of origin, they may also remain in the United States.
Click to expand...
 
Very interesting. Thanks for bringing this up. Awaiting responses.
 
If unnamed "officials" have this (pardoning?) power then just how far would the sage justices allow that (guilty but excused?) to extend - to drug, voting and gun laws as well? If those "officials" are the police or prosecutors then that sets the stage for corruption on a grand scale - just pay me a small "tip" and you become a "harmless" criminal (after all, you have kids to feed) and I will see to it that only your competition is arrested. Once the concept of equal protection of the law has been excused in place of "compassion" or "prosecutorial discretion" then we are no longer a nation of laws.

We have jury nullification, we have wide judicial discretion in assigning sentences and we have the ability for laws to be crafted with all manner of exceptions to their application (thus the call for DACA/DAPA). That is how a nation of laws works best so those SCOTUS folks can KMA and interpret the laws exactly as they are written.

This nonsense "As a general rule, it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain present in the United States" is nothing more than saying that open borders is "generally" the law of the land.
 
Last edited:
Interesting.

While these migrants are not illegal of person, I always did believe they were criminal due to having committed a criminal act. An act that I believe should bar them from citizenship.

But this does change things. I wan't aware immigration "law" is civil. Is this right? If so, then yes the Court's decision makes sense.
 
Chomsky said:
Interesting.

While these migrants are not illegal of person, I always did believe they were criminal due to having committed a criminal act. An act that I believe should bar them from citizenship.

But this does change things. I wan't aware immigration "law" is civil. Is this right? If so, then yes the Court's decision makes sense.
Click to expand...

I read this a while ago... I have had to stop using criminal in the context of entering the US...

Now being employed and using someone else's ID are a totally different issue and can/should be criminal.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Are illegals really illegal?

Are they criminals?

Not according to the SCOTUS:
Click to expand...

I am unsure of how much attention one should give CNN's brainless moralistic tripe, but I'm game for a go around or two.

First, the law clearly states that those who overstay there visa or cross without going through an authorized checkpoint is committing an unlawful act: THAT IS THE DEFINITION OF ILLEGAL!

Second, whether or not an illegal alien or immigrant is also a criminal depends on how they entered the country. For example, overstaying a visa is not a criminal act (it is an unlawful act adjudicated before a judge in a civil case). On the other hand, crossing the border illegally that does not go through a checkpoint, or entry using a fraudulent visa application is a criminal act.

Whether it’s by crossing the U.S. border with a "coyote" or buying a fake U.S. passport, a foreign national who enters the U.S. illegally can be both convicted of a crime and held responsible for a civil violation under the U.S. immigration laws. Illegal entry also carries consequences for anyone who might later attempt to apply for a green card or other immigration benefit.
Click to expand...

Is it a Crime to Enter The U.S. Illegally? - AllLaw.com

As the link points out: "For the first improper entry offense, the person can be fined (as a criminal penalty), or imprisoned for up to six months, or both. For a subsequent offense, the person can be fined or imprisoned for up to two years, or both. (See 8 U.S.C. Section 1325, I.N.A. Section 275.)"

Third, the court is correct that the mere presence of an illegal is not "illegal", it is the ACT OF UNLAWFUL ENTRY that makes an illegal, "illegal" - a distinction without a difference.

The disingenuousness of the court, and this threads op, is grade A hutzpuh.
 
Last edited:
Chomsky said:
Interesting.

While these migrants are not illegal of person, I always did believe they were criminal due to having committed a criminal act. An act that I believe should bar them from citizenship.

But this does change things. I wan't aware immigration "law" is civil. Is this right? If so, then yes the Court's decision makes sense.
Click to expand...

It does not make sense. Simply because a law is not a felony does not make it's enforcemnt optional. The "civil" law is for the removal (deportation) of an illegal alien and AZ was not seeking to deport them - just hold them for ICE. This was used to prevent AZ from arresting illegal immigrants, and detaining them for ICE, under an overtrurned AZ state law.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/11-182
 
Last edited:
Chomsky said:
Interesting.

While these migrants are not illegal of person, I always did believe they were criminal due to having committed a criminal act. An act that I believe should bar them from citizenship.

But this does change things. I wan't aware immigration "law" is civil. Is this right? If so, then yes the Court's decision makes sense.
Click to expand...

No really, see my post.
 
Correction to my prior post, #7

maxparrish said:
Third, the court is correct that the mere presence of an illegal is not "criminal", it is the ACT OF UNLAWFUL ENTRY that makes an illegal, "criminal" - a distinction without a difference.

The disingenuousness of the court, and this threads op, is grade A hutzpuh.
Click to expand...

In short, it is unlawful to stay with an expired VISA, it is unlawful to enter the U.S. without going through a border checkpoint. That is considered an unlawful (illegal) presence in the US.

In many circumstances the method of entry is illegal AND criminal, in some it is not criminal.
 
Last edited:
maxparrish said:
I am unsure of how much attention one should give CNN's brainless moralistic tripe, but I'm game for a go around or two.

First, the law clearly states that those who overstay there visa or cross without going through an authorized checkpoint is committing an unlawful act: THAT IS THE DEFINITION OF ILLEGAL!

Second, whether or not an illegal alien or immigrant is also a criminal depends on how they entered the country. For example, overstaying a visa is not a criminal act (it is an unlawful act adjudicated before a judge in a civil case). On the other hand, crossing the border illegally that does not go through a checkpoint, or entry using a fraudulent visa application is a criminal act.



Is it a Crime to Enter The U.S. Illegally? - AllLaw.com

As the link points out: "For the first improper entry offense, the person can be fined (as a criminal penalty), or imprisoned for up to six months, or both. For a subsequent offense, the person can be fined or imprisoned for up to two years, or both. (See 8 U.S.C. Section 1325, I.N.A. Section 275.)"

Third, the court is correct that the mere presence of an illegal is not "illegal", it is the ACT OF UNLAWFUL ENTRY that makes an illegal, "illegal" - a distinction without a difference.

The disingenuousness of the court, and this threads op, is grade A hutzpuh.
Click to expand...
OK, so overstaying a visa, which accounts for a large proportion of people without proper documentation, is not a crime, but unauthorized crossing the border, according to your link, is an illegal act.

Therefore, someone accused of having crossed the border illegally is entitled to due process, including assumption of innocence, but someone overstaying a visa is not.

Unless, of course, we're willing to make an exception to the presumption of innocence only in the case of one particular sort of crime,
 
Dittohead not! said:
OK, so overstaying a visa, which accounts for a large proportion of people without proper documentation, is not a crime, but unauthorized crossing the border, according to your link, is an illegal act.

Therefore, someone accused of having crossed the border illegally is entitled to due process, including assumption of innocence, but someone overstaying a visa is not.

Unless, of course, we're willing to make an exception to the presumption of innocence only in the case of one particular sort of crime,
Click to expand...

Incorrect. Those crossing the border illegally may EITHER be charged with a crime AND/OR subject to civil proceedings. They are not mutually exclusive.
 
maxparrish said:
Incorrect. Those crossing the border illegally may EITHER be charged with a crime AND/OR subject to civil proceedings. They are not mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...

So the word EITHER is out of place and should be omitted.
 
Yes...after you had pointed it out earlier, I read that aspect too. It was what happens then at the end of a sentence you change your mind about your meaning-phrasing, and don't correct it as a whole.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom