• 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!

Should illegal immigration have a statute of limitations?

Should illegal immigration have a statute of limitations?

  • Total voters
    25
Excon said:
iLOL
SFC!

Deportment is not the sentence for the crime of "improper entry".
The punishment for that crime involves a short period of imprisonment and or a small fine.
Deportation is a(n) administrative/civil remedy and comes from the fact that they do not belong here.

We are discussing a statute of limitation being in effect for such.
FFS, it would not prevent deportation if it was discovered they had committed another crime.
FFS, it would not prevent deportation if they were simply discovered.
What it would do is prevent them from being prosecuted for that entry and would not have an affect on deportation, that is, unless they change the laws.
Click to expand...

And why do they not belong here? BECAUSE THEY ARE COMMITTING A CRIME FOR BEING HERE!

:roll:
 
Cephus said:
And why do they not belong here? BECAUSE THEY ARE COMMITTING A CRIME FOR BEING HERE!

:roll:
Click to expand...
And again, what is it you are not getting?
Do you really not understand that the "statute of limitations" we are discussing applies to something being a crime?

Do you also not understand how a statute of limitations can be in effect and they still be deported as it is an administrative act/civil remedy and not actual punishment for a crime?

Answer the questions and maybe we will be able to get somewhere.
 
Excon said:
And again, what is it you are not getting?
Do you really not understand that the "statute of limitations" we are discussing applies to something being a crime?

Do you also not understand how a statute of limitations can be in effect and they still be deported as it is an administrative act/civil remedy and not actual punishment for a crime?

Answer the questions and maybe we will be able to get somewhere.
Click to expand...

Do you not understand that I voted against a statute of limitations?
 
Cephus said:
No. That's ridiculous. We should never give anyone a pass because they manage to avoid capture for a serious crime.
Click to expand...

Would you like to get rid of all statutes of limitations in all crimes?
 
Mr Person said:
Would you like to get rid of all statutes of limitations in all crimes?
Click to expand...

All serious crimes, yes. Anything but minor misdemeanors and traffic crimes.
 
radcen said:
Should illegal immigration have a statute of limitations?

Think about it. Almost every crime*, save murder, basically allows your forgiveness if you're able to skate by and avoid capture for a specific period of time. That's what it essentially is, forgiveness, even if not officially. Even I, as a staunch opponent of illegal immigration, do not view the crime of illegal immigration anywhere near the same level as murder, or even bank robbery or rape, so why not?

The premise would be this: You enter/stay illegally... you avoid capture/deportation for 10 years**... your sins are forgiven and you're now automatically allowed to stay. Not a citizen, but allowed to stay.

Proving exactly when you entered might be problematic, but we're talking concept.

*- Some nuances per state.

**- 10 years picked as random number for example purposes. Don't get hung up on the number, think concept.
Click to expand...

I pick no. Simply because of the fact of who is in office can determine whether or not our immigration laws are enforced and evading deportation for a certain amount of time shouldn't give anyone a free pass.
 
Cephus said:
Do you not understand that I voted against a statute of limitations?
Click to expand...
You have repeatedly not actually addressed what was said or even asked. This time is no different. Figures.
Your reply is actually irrelevant to what was actually said and that you clearly are not getting.
Like I already told you; Go back and read my posts to get a better understanding of what was said/argued.
 
radcen said:
Should illegal immigration have a statute of limitations?

Think about it. Almost every crime*, save murder, basically allows your forgiveness if you're able to skate by and avoid capture for a specific period of time. That's what it essentially is, forgiveness, even if not officially. Even I, as a staunch opponent of illegal immigration, do not view the crime of illegal immigration anywhere near the same level as murder, or even bank robbery or rape, so why not?

The premise would be this: You enter/stay illegally... you avoid capture/deportation for 10 years**... your sins are forgiven and you're now automatically allowed to stay. Not a citizen, but allowed to stay.

Proving exactly when you entered might be problematic, but we're talking concept.

*- Some nuances per state.

**- 10 years picked as random number for example purposes. Don't get hung up on the number, think concept.
Click to expand...

Well, you can't have a statute of limitations without enforcement of the laws. If we had a statute of limitations on illegal immigration then we would have to rigorously enforce immigration laws and then anyone reaching the statute term would be free. It would drive the illegals underground, so to speak, more than they are now. And, in many cases, how would you be able to legally determine when they first entered our country?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom