She doesn't know that illegal immigration is a crime?

[SoonerNate]

I give you the DNC Chairwoman...

asJNCKLoLNA&

[SoonerNate]

And I thought Palin was dumb...

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Illegal Presence is not a crime. It's a civil offense. Deportation proceedings are civil, not criminal, proceedings.

There are exceptions - such as if one has been deported and returns without authorization, then it is a crime.

[jk the sooner fan]

Illegal Presence is not a crime. It's a civil offense. Deportation proceedings are civil, not criminal, proceedings.

There are exceptions - such as if one has been deported and returns without authorization, then it is a crime.

back this up with a source please

[pphilfran]

back this up with a source please

I am pretty sure he is correct...

[pphilfran]

Once they apply for a job with a SS# that is not their own or they work for cash and not pay taxes then it could move to illegal...

[jk the sooner fan]

you're pretty sure? well nothing says committed like "pretty sure"

it's not called "illegal immigration" because its not a crime.....we have a law enforcement entity enforcing the immigration laws

he may be right - i really dont know, i'd just like to see a source for it

[sooner_born_1960]

This isn't just Illegal presence. In virtually every case, they are crossing the border with the express purpose of committing crimes.

[jk the sooner fan]

i'm pretty sure he's wrong

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/8/12/II/VIII/1325

Search 8 U.S.C. § 1325 : US Code - Section 1325: Improper entry by alien


(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection;
misrepresentation and concealment of facts
Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States
at any time or place other than as designated by immigration
officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration
officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United
States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the
willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first
commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or
imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent
commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or
imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
(b) Improper time or place; civil penalties
Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to
enter) the United States at a time or place other than as
designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil
penalty of -
(1) at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or
attempted entry); or
(2) twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of
an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under
this subsection.

[jk the sooner fan]

crickets chirping....

[1890MilesToNorman]

Is it a crime when I can't understand Ronald McDonald when ordering a burger? If it ain't then it should be.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

back this up with a source please

Here is a former federal prosecutor on the issue:

FDo-ZVK4dc0

[jk the sooner fan]

the statutes would say otherwise

[sappstuf]

Is it a crime when I can't understand Ronald McDonald when ordering a burger? If it ain't then it should be.

And then?

-56LjvAZC1E

[1890MilesToNorman]

And then?

-56LjvAZC1E

Exactly!!!! :D

[pphilfran]

A year or so ago I followed a discussion on the subject on another board...several cases were mentioned...

The only thing I can find is from Kansas in 2007...the article itself

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=43154

An appeals court has concluded that just being an illegal alien in the United States doesn't necessarily violate the law, so a judge cannot deny probation and require a jail sentence for a convicted drug dealer who is an illegal alien.

The opinion from the Kansas Court of Appeals came in the Barton County case involving convicted drug dealer Nicholas L. Martinez.

The ruling found that while the laws of the United States make it illegal to enter the United States without authorization, being in the United States after entering illegally is "not necessarily a crime."

(Story continues below)

The trial court judge had ordered Martinez to jail on the grounds he is an illegal alien, the report said.

But the appeals court overturned that decision.

"[Federal law] declares an alien's unsanctioned entry into the United States to be a crime. While Congress has criminalized illegal entry into this country, it has not made the continued presence of an illegal alien in the United States a crime unless the illegal alien has previously been deported and has again entered this country illegally," the court opinion said. "[Federal law] makes it a felony for an alien who has been deported to thereafter reenter the United States or at anytime thereafter be found in the United States."

The court ruling explained that those entering the United States illegally are subject to deportation, which can be based on "any number of factors."


Judge Patrick McAnany, who wrote the opinion

"However, while an illegal alien is subject to deportation, that person's ongoing presence in the United States is and of itself is not a crime unless that person had been previously deported and regained illegal entry into this country," the ruling, written by Judge Patrick McAnany, said.

Barton County Attorney Douglas Matthews told the Wichita Eagle that courts in at least two other states – Oregon and Minnesota – have come to similar conclusions.

It was not immediately announced whether prosecutors would appeal the conclusion to the state Supreme Court.

The defendant, court documents show, had pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine, a felony, and endangering a child, because he had his young son deliver drugs to a law enforcement officer working under cover.

The facts of the case were not in dispute, the ruling said.

"Det. Terry L. Millard arranged for a controlled buy of illegal drugs from Martinez. The first transaction was concluded with the transfer of powered (sic) cocaine from Martinez' young son. The second transaction was consummated by Martinez delivering the drugs," the opinion noted.

Prosecutors had recommended probation, but Barton County District Judge Hannelore Kitts ordered Martinez to jail for as long as year because of his status as an illegal alien.

In court transcripts, Kitts said, "The problem that arises for me is to follow the guidelines here, is because Mr. Martinez is illegally in the country and is in violation of the probation rules right from the start if I were to place him on probation."

Those probation rules forbid the defendant from violating any law while on probation. The judge said the defendant would have to comply with those conditions, but he couldn't do that because he violated the law by being an illegal alien.

It was clear throughout the case that any legal status in the United States for the defendant couldn't be substantiated.

His lawyer said, "I believe Mr. Martinez, because of his citizenship and status, may or may not be eligible under Senate Bill 123 for the mandatory treatment. He may or may not be here. I think – and I have explained to Mr. Martinez that he risks the fate of his brother that I represented on similar charges who was deported, and Mr. Martinez – if the INS continues, both Mr. McPherson and I expect that that's what's going to happen. We certainly have not guaranteed Mr. Martinez that's not going to happen."

During sentencing, the trial court judge explained his process.

"The problem that arises for me is to follow the guidelines here is because Mr. Martinez is illegally in the country and is in violation of the probation rules right from the start if I were to place him on probation. . . . [H]e . . . has to comply with all the conditions of the probation and he can't do that because he's in violation of the law not to violate any federal or state laws. And so for that reason, I am going to have a big problem following these guidelines…," the judge said.

The appellate ruling cited a 1958 conclusion from the U.S. Supreme Court and another ruling, from 1979, in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in California. Both cited the distinction between entering the U.S. illegally and being in the U.S. illegally.

The Supreme Court has found "entry" is done only at "a particular locality" and therefore "hardly suggests continuity."

Matthews said his staff is researching whether Martinez ever has been deported.

The appellate ruling returned the case to district court for a corrected sentencing.

Several folks who joined in a comment forum on the website for ALIPAC, the organization of Americans for Legal Immigration PAC, weren't too understanding of the legal logic.

"The last word is, illegal aliens are …. ILLEGAL!"" wrote MinutemanCDC_SC.

"So let's see: While unauthorized entry into the United States is illegal, being in the country after having entered illegally is not illegal so therefore there is no crime. DUH...What????????" asked "zeezil."

The ruling came just days after WND reported the Census Bureau's Deputy Director Preston Jay Waite told Associated Press in an interview that immigration enforcement raids were suspended for several months during the time the 2000 Census was assembled, and it would help if that happens again in 2010

He said such enforcement, including raids to round up illegal aliens, would just make a segment of the population that already distrusts the government even less likely to cooperate with those who are supposed to count those living in the United States that year.

Enforcement agents "have a job to do," Waite told the news service. "They may not be able to give us as much of a break" in 2010.

Read more: Court rules: Illegal aliens not really 'illegal' http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=43154#ixzz1NwECYdTm

[SanJoaquinSooner]

i'm pretty sure he's wrong

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/8/12/II/VIII/1325

Search 8 U.S.C. § 1325 : US Code - Section 1325: Improper entry by alien

Yes, there may be criminal penalties if one is caught entering w/o inspection.
I was referring to illegal presence. Half of those here illegally entered legally. If you are in, say Kansas, and found to be illegally present, you can't be charged with illegal entry.

[jk the sooner fan]

this is the same as when somebody is pulled over for being in possession of a stolen car - you can't prove they actually stole it -so they get charged with "unauthorized use of a motor vehicle"

splitting hairs - so we didnt catch them entering illegal - yet they're here so its not a crime......makes perfect sense to me :rolleyes:

[pphilfran]

I never said I liked the ruling...

[jk the sooner fan]

i never said you did either! :)

[SoCaliSooner]

Her figure of "12 million" is also off. That's based on census data and many honestly believe illegals will fill out government forms to say they are in the country. From what I have heard, nearly half couldn't or wouldn't fill out the census forms even with census takers at their door.

The actual number could be as high as 18-20 million...or more.

Keep in mind Reagan screwed up in doing amnesty for 2.9 million in 1986. The original legislation called for tighter border control along with a huge crack down on employers hiring illegals but those were eventually stripped out of the bill.

After amnesty was granted people really started to pour across the border for what they thought were job openings and the belief that if you stay in the US long enough, there would be another round of amnesty at some point.

[sappstuf]

http://www.frugal-cafe.com/public_html/frugal-blog/frugal-cafe-blogzone/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/caution-illegal-immigration-sign-mexico-border.jpg

[KantoSooner]

Here's an example of one case:

An Aussie friend was legally in the US studying. She then, being an airhead, overstayed her visa. She got arrested at a party with an illegal bon fire on a public beach and was ultimately deported. (and before you get into an uproar: the cops came to shut down the bon fire/party. In checking ID, hers didn't pass muster. That's how she came to be arrested.)

Last summer, when applying for a visa to visit the US, she dutifully reported these facts to the immigration cops and was told that her earlier offense did not constiture a crime and therefore make her ineligible for a visa.

Make of it what you will.

[sappstuf]

Here's an example of one case:

An Aussie friend was legally in the US studying. She then, being an airhead, overstayed her visa. She got arrested at a party with an illegal bon fire on a public beach and was ultimately deported. (and before you get into an uproar: the cops came to shut down the bon fire/party. In checking ID, hers didn't pass muster. That's how she came to be arrested.)

Last summer, when applying for a visa to visit the US, she dutifully reported these facts to the immigration cops and was told that her earlier offense did not constiture a crime and therefore make her ineligible for a visa.

Make of it what you will.

That would be considered racist in Arizona....

But the bigger question is: Was she hot?

[Sooner_Tuf]

So when the Border Patrol conducts a raid on a place of employment and rounds up the legals (?) they are actually committing a mass kidnapping?

[jk the sooner fan]

no, its a mass civil enforcement ;)

[KantoSooner]

That would be considered racist in Arizona....

But the bigger question is: Was she hot?

Smokin'

She was coming over here last summer for a modeling gig...at age 50.

My best friend's sister, though, so she was kind of off limits...and enjoyed flaunting her perky little bod at me all during high school.

[Soonerfan88]

If a person is found to be illegally present in the United States, shouldn't the State Department or Homeland Security have a record of their entry into the country - work, student, vacation, some kind of visa? And if Washington D.C. doesn't have a legal record of entry, wouldn't that then mean illegal entry? So why can't they be charged with illegal entry at that point?

[okie52]

Should be a hanging offense.

[SoonerNate]

It's called Illegal for a reason. Now some of you can parse it to death with legal jargon until you are blue in the face. If you don't have a green card you are breaking the law. PERIOD'

Edit: Look up the definition of amnesty.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

And I thought Palin was dumb...Then, they GOTCHA!

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

http://www.frugal-cafe.com/public_html/frugal-blog/frugal-cafe-blogzone/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/caution-illegal-immigration-sign-mexico-border.jpgPretty funny! Ridiculous, but funny.

[Flagstaffsooner]

That bitch must get her hair done at the oSu sheep shearing class.

[StoopTroup]

And I thought Palin was dumb...

I'm just hoping that some one in Alaska will do the right thing and release all the Canadians behind bars up there so they can return to Mexico where they belong.....

[yermom]

this is the same as when somebody is pulled over for being in possession of a stolen car - you can't prove they actually stole it -so they get charged with "unauthorized use of a motor vehicle"

splitting hairs - so we didnt catch them entering illegal - yet they're here so its not a crime......makes perfect sense to me :rolleyes:

it's illegal to have weed, and to smoke weed, but it's not illegal to be high, right?

it's not like you get arrested for failing a drug test

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Legal and Illegal are 2 very different words. One means within the law, and the prefix Il means opposite or contra, or NOT. Oh my, this is soooo effing complicated.

[The Profit]

Should be a hanging offense.




Employing them certainly should be. Hang the employers, and the illegal employees will go away.

[jkjsooner]

So the consesus is that the DNC Chairwoman is correct in her interpretation of legal precedent. True?

Now that we all agree that this thread was a uninformed attempt to blast the DNC Chairwoman we can continue to debate whether the rulings should have been decided differently.

[yermom]

Legal and Illegal are 2 very different words. One means within the law, and the prefix Il means opposite or contra, or NOT. Oh my, this is soooo effing complicated.

if someone is found out to not be here legally are they charged? imprisoned? or just sent home?

[SoCaliSooner]

So the consesus is that the DNC Chairwoman is correct in her interpretation of legal precedent. True?

Now that we all agree that this thread was a uninformed attempt to blast the DNC Chairwoman we can continue to debate whether the rulings should have been decided differently.

No. I believe if you came here legally and your visa expired, you arent technically breaking the law, however the 12 mil she's talking about have bypassed an inspection point, thus breaking the law.

[SoonerNate]

That bitch must get her hair done at the oSu sheep shearing class.

LMFAO

[okie52]

Employing them certainly should be. Hang the employers, and the illegal employees will go away.

Hang em all....the illegals aren't innocent nor are the sanctuary cities that support them.

[soonercoop1]

Her figure of "12 million" is also off. That's based on census data and many honestly believe illegals will fill out government forms to say they are in the country. From what I have heard, nearly half couldn't or wouldn't fill out the census forms even with census takers at their door.

The actual number could be as high as 18-20 million...or more.

Keep in mind Reagan screwed up in doing amnesty for 2.9 million in 1986. The original legislation called for tighter border control along with a huge crack down on employers hiring illegals but those were eventually stripped out of the bill.

After amnesty was granted people really started to pour across the border for what they thought were job openings and the belief that if you stay in the US long enough, there would be another round of amnesty at some point.

Agreed and they have been pouring accross the border mostly unchecked for 25+ years...that 20 million number is probably low...

[jkjsooner]

No. I believe if you came here legally and your visa expired, you arent technically breaking the law, however the 12 mil she's talking about have bypassed an inspection point, thus breaking the law.

You can spin it however you want but the chairwoman was legally correct in her analysis. Their presence here (no matter how they got here) does not constitute a criminal offense. Does it imply that they at some point committed a crime. Yes. Can they be charged with this crime? No. Is the chairwoman correct? Yes.

[pphilfran]

You can spin it however you want but the chairwoman was legally correct in her analysis. Their presence here (no matter how they got here) does not constitute a criminal offense. Does it imply that they at some point committed a crime. Yes. Can they be charged with this crime? No. Is the chairwoman correct? Yes.


No need to rub it in...the truth has been accepted reasonably well....:)

[SoCaliSooner]

So the 18 to 20 million here aren't breaking the law or are not here illegally?

[pphilfran]

So the 18 to 20 million here aren't breaking the law or are not here illegally?

Beats the hell our of me....I just want to see a pic of your grill that needed to be craned into place...

[SanJoaquinSooner]

And I thought Palin was dumb...

I think she does well for herself, given what she has to work with...

[sooner59]

it's illegal to have weed, and to smoke weed, but it's not illegal to be high, right?

it's not like you get arrested for failing a drug test

But drugs leave your system. Non-citizenship doesn't. :D

[Soonerfan88]

If a person is found to be illegally present in the United States, shouldn't the State Department or Homeland Security have a record of their entry into the country - work, student, vacation, some kind of visa? And if Washington D.C. doesn't have a legal record of entry, wouldn't that then mean illegal entry? So why can't they be charged with illegal entry at that point?

This was a serious question - if you have no proof of legal entry, can you be charged with illegal entry later or is it only if they catch you crossing the border?

[REDREX]

You can spin it however you want but the chairwoman was legally correct in her analysis. Their presence here (no matter how they got here) does not constitute a criminal offense. Does it imply that they at some point committed a crime. Yes. Can they be charged with this crime? No. Is the chairwoman correct? Yes.---Looks like a crime to me---

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/8/12/II/VIII/1325

[Sooner_Tuf]

You can spin it however you want but the chairwoman was legally correct in her analysis. Their presence here (no matter how they got here) does not constitute a criminal offense. Does it imply that they at some point committed a crime. Yes. Can they be charged with this crime? No. Is the chairwoman correct? Yes.

I think I am going to have this changed. At least in the county I live in. I need several miles of fence built and I can think of no better people to give the job too.

Send em back to Mexico tired I say.

[yermom]

---Looks like a crime to me---

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/8/12/II/VIII/1325

it's a crime to enter, or to attempt to enter, but that doesn't say anything about just walking down the street after you make it inside