Arizona's Immigration Law

[petros]

Not a bad idea, but so many are of Spanish decent, and have diluted the native tribes into extinction.

Oh no no no. If you went by that ideal then a hefty majority of of Canadian and US natives wouldn't have the rights and staus they do. Check the stats Mexicos native population didn't get too far from the land that they once occupied for thousands of years. They are the bulk of the northern Mexican states residents. Give them the same rights as the rest of the natives in North America and open the door for legal movement and employment.

 

[critter171]

being and illegal immgration does not make you a bad person. commenting crimes is a bad person. and both legal and illegal do it this law is is wrong end of story. the problem with it is that is american picky job PROBLEM.

they did not want these jobs now since there is no many jobs there whinnning about it now. this is american fault for being stupid and no doing a job to help our contury. this conturny was founded on illegal immgration this contury would of never got where it was. If it was not for illegal allines.

mexcian people are not a threat to us. the people who are a threat to us. is the drug war.

this law is racially profling and its wrong. ok wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. the law needs to be fix.

 

[talloola]

being and illegal immgration does not make you a bad person. commenting crimes is a bad person. and both legal and illegal do it this law is is wrong end of story. the problem with it is that is american picky job PROBLEM.

they did not want these jobs now since there is no many jobs there whinnning about it now. this is american fault for being stupid and no doing a job to help our contury. this conturny was founded on illegal immgration this contury would of never got where it was. If it was not for illegal allines.

mexcian people are not a threat to us. the people who are a threat to us. is the drug war.

this law is racially profling and its wrong. ok wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. the law needs to be fix.

Just be a 'legal immigrant', that would be sensible and
fair to all the people who come into the country legally,
just do it, the people who go through the legal channels
to enter the country should be respected for doing that,
and the illegal ones should have their asses booted right
back across the border, and made to get in line and do it
right.

 

[petros]

The legal way isn't cheap for someone doing day labour in Tecate.

 

[talloola]

The legal way isn't cheap for someone doing day labour in Tecate.

I've known people who cannot afford to buy food, but they
do not steal it.

 

[petros]

I've known people who cannot afford to buy food, but they
do not steal it.

Some do, some don't.

Have you yourself ever been in the position of having to steal or do something you'd never ordinarily think of doing to eat?

 

[CDNBear]

You're confusing fact and opinion. What the Congressional Research Service says is fact. It's the official fact-gathering agency of the Congress, the legislature of the United States.

Again, you are wrong. It is a collation of "Facts", as is interpreted and opined upon by those that collated it. It is not tested and is not law, nor legislation.

Nice try though.

And here's what the CRS said in 2006 report, during the peak of a debate over immigration reform.

"The INA includes both criminal and civil components, providing both for criminal charges (e.g., alien smuggling, which is prosecuted in federal courts) and for civil violations (e.g., lack of status, which may lead to removal through a seperate administrative system in the Department of Justice). Being illegally present in the U.S. has always been a civil, not criminal, violation of the INA, and subsequent deportation and associated administrative processes are civil proceedings. For instance, a lawfully admitted nonimmigrant alien may become deportable if his visitor's visa expires or his student status changes. Criminal violations of the INA, on the other hand, include felonies and misdemeanors and are prosecuted in the federal district courts. These types of violations include the bringing in and harboring of certain undocumented aliens, the illegal entry of aliens, and the reentry of aliens previously excluded or deported."

Yes, it does. Hence my comment, that it didn't support you the way you think it does. It still doesn't. I've never said there weren't distinctive types of laws at play. It is in your interpretation thereof, and the impact of those laws that your error is found.

The only fact I got wrong in our last few exchanges was stating that crossing the border into the US is a civil law violation, when it's really a criminal violation. Beyond that, simple immigration violations are part of civil law, not criminal law, and therefore are not crimes.

You really should learn more about law. Try starting with the result of being in breach of civil rulings. Try not to confuse Civil Litigation, and Civil Law as pertaining to the Federal Judiciary. You can try as hard as you want, to move goal posts or remain obtuse, but in the end, you just look silly.

Perhaps if you read the Constitution, the INA, S.B. 1070 and a whole lot more about US Civil and Criminal law, you might be able to form a more reasoned opinion, based on fact. Try the INA, pay close attention to sections dealing with apprehension and detention. I'ld give you the exact sections, sub sections and all, but then how would you learn to do any real research. Hell, I'm not even American and I know the laws of your land better then you...:lol:

Maybe because I have studied the Jay Treaty, it's implications, along with US Immigration Law, long before this topic ever arose. Seeing as one of the Reserves I called home, is a border reserve...:wink:

And state and local law enforcers should not be enforcing federal civil law. That's not their mission, and it's insane to ask them to.

Again, an opinion, not supported by fact, because they've been enforcing it for years. They've just never been mandated by the State to do so.

At any rate, we've gone way off topic here, my guess as to why, is you can't argue the validity of S.B.1070. So you're grasping at straws now.

Yuuuuuup inland but still very much a port. One thing you may notice about the Immigration Officers. They wear naval whites just like all other naval officers.

That's a tradition. Like Kilts, Red Surge Tunics and Busby's.

They also wear blue, black, khaki and camo.

 

[ironsides]

Oh no no no. If you went by that ideal then a hefty majority of of Canadian and US natives wouldn't have the rights and staus they do. Check the stats Mexicos native population didn't get too far from the land that they once occupied for thousands of years. They are the bulk of the northern Mexican states residents. Give them the same rights as the rest of the natives in North America and open the door for legal movement and employment.

Good observation, never connected them with maritime.

 

[ironsides]

being and illegal immgration does not make you a bad person. commenting crimes is a bad person. and both legal and illegal do it this law is is wrong end of story. the problem with it is that is american picky job PROBLEM.

they did not want these jobs now since there is no many jobs there whinnning about it now. this is american fault for being stupid and no doing a job to help our contury. this conturny was founded on illegal immgration this contury would of never got where it was. If it was not for illegal allines.

mexcian people are not a threat to us. the people who are a threat to us. is the drug war.

this law is racially profling and its wrong. ok wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. the law needs to be fix.

Supposedly a person must be caught committing a crime, then during the background check if they are found to be a illegal alien they will be sent to Immigration officials after they are finished with their criminal or civil case.

 

[ironsides]

Here is one of many reasons why Immigration must have more control over what it does.

Suspected Guatemalan war criminal arrested in Delray Beach

By Erika Pesantes, Sun Sentinel
10:33 PM EDT, May 5, 2010
http://ad.doubleclick.net/click;h=v...t=2/1/6/1;~sscs=?http://www.tenetflorida.com/

A Delray Beach man was arrested Wednesday and charged with lying in a U.S. citizenship application about his participation in a 1982 massacre in Guatemala and has admitted to killing a baby, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office.
Gilberto Jordan, 54, was charged with unlawful procurement of naturalized U.S. citizenship. He was granted the status in 1999 after applying three years prior.
Authorities say Jordan lied on his naturalization application about his past foreign military service and criminal role in the massacre of the Guatemalan village of Dos Erres. In 2000, a Guatemalan judge ordered Jordan's arrest for his involvement in the killings.
In December 1982, about 60 special forces soldiers known as "Kaibiles" went to the village in search of stolen rifles and suspected guerrillas. They interrogated the villagers and murdered men, women and children — and in many cases, raped women before killing them, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office.
Fatal blows were dealt to victims' heads with hammers. Their bodies were tossed into the village well, according to the criminal complaint.
According to authorities, Jordan admitted to serving as a Kaibil at Dos Erres and participating in the massacre. He told investigators that his first victim was a baby, whom he murdered by throwing into the well.
A man who answered the phone at Jordan's home and identified himself as a friend declined to comment and took a message.
"Although South Florida has a long and proud history of welcoming immigrants and exiles, we will not provide shelter and cover to those who lie about their criminal past, especially human rights abuses, to gain U.S. citizenship," said U.S. Attorney Wilfredo Ferrer.
The remains of about 160 of the massacre victims were exhumed from the village well in the 1990s.
Jordan faces up to 10 years in prison on the unlawful procurement charge and revocation of his U.S. citizenship upon conviction.
The case was also investigated by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Human Rights Violators and War Crimes Unit.
It's unclear if Jordan will be tried for the torture allegations in U.S. federal courts.
Information from The Miami Herald supplemented this report.
Guatemala massacre: Former soldier, who officials say was part of 1982 massacre, arrested in Palm Beach County - South Florida Sun-Sentinel.com

 

[Icarus27k]

Again, you are wrong. It is a collation of "Facts", as is interpreted and opined upon by those that collated it. It is not tested and is not law, nor legislation.

Nice try though.

Yes, it does. Hence my comment, that it didn't support you the way you think it does. It still doesn't. I've never said there weren't distinctive types of laws at play. It is in your interpretation thereof, and the impact of those laws that your error is found.

You really should learn more about law. Try starting with the result of being in breach of civil rulings. Try not to confuse Civil Litigation, and Civil Law as pertaining to the Federal Judiciary. You can try as hard as you want, to move goal posts or remain obtuse, but in the end, you just look silly.

Perhaps if you read the Constitution, the INA, S.B. 1070 and a whole lot more about US Civil and Criminal law, you might be able to form a more reasoned opinion, based on fact. Try the INA, pay close attention to sections dealing with apprehension and detention. I'ld give you the exact sections, sub sections and all, but then how would you learn to do any real research. Hell, I'm not even American and I know the laws of your land better then you...:lol:

Maybe because I have studied the Jay Treaty, it's implications, along with US Immigration Law, long before this topic ever arose. Seeing as one of the Reserves I called home, is a border reserve...:wink:

Again, an opinion, not supported by fact, because they've been enforcing it for years. They've just never been mandated by the State to do so.

At any rate, we've gone way off topic here, my guess as to why, is you can't argue the validity of S.B.1070. So you're grasping at straws now.
That's a tradition. Like Kilts, Red Surge Tunics and Busby's.

They also wear blue, black, khaki and camo.

CDNBear, You have impressive skills of hitting around the edges of a substancial post and trying to sound like you're saying a lot when you're really saying very little. The most substancial thing you said in this post I am quoting was to doubt the validity of the Congressional Research Service (which was completely wrong; what the CRS says is fact).

The rest of your post is boasting about how much you understand US law and baselessly accusing others of only having opinions, and not facts.

Your logic is very evasive. *random emoticon*


I'll repeat the facts from the CRS again. Being in the US illegally is not a crime because it's not a part of criminal law.

 

[petros]

Supposedly a person must be caught committing a crime, then during the background check if they are found to be a illegal alien they will be sent to Immigration officials after they are finished with their criminal or civil case.

Yuuuup and then under maritime law they are dePORTed.

 

[ironsides]

Entering or attempting to enter the United States without being inspected by U.S. immigration officials is a crime punishable under immigration law by 6 months imprisonment and/or a fine. A second illegal entry or attempt is punishable by 2 years imprisonment and/or a fine under immigration law.


While entering illegally is a crime, being in the U.S. illegally is not a crime. Being in the U.S. without legal immigration status is a violation of civil law. (Another example of a civil law violation would be failing to provide proper handicapped access to a building that is open to the public.)

Illegal immigrants in the U.S., like any other aliens, may have immigration petitions filed for them to become permanent legal residents (to get a green card). For example, a U.S. citizen or permanent legal resident who marries an illegal immigrant may file a marriage petition for the immigrant to get a green card. Under U.S.immigration law, persons who legally entered the U.S. may be able to live and work here during the immigration process. Persons who entered illegally, however, usually must leave. The rules are as follows:

[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]Legal Entry and Marriage to U.S. Citizen.

[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]A visa number becomes immediately available.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]Can apply to adjust status.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]Can live and work in the U.S. while waiting for application to adjust status.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]Legal Entry and Marriage to U.S. Permanent Legal Resident.

[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]Must wait for a visa number to become available for immigration.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]Can apply to live and work in the U.S. and to adjust status here, if: [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]The petition for residency was filed on or before December 21, 2000, and[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]Has been waiting at least 3 years for approval of the petition or of adjustment of status.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]Should not travel outside the U.S. if the 3-year bar (for overstaying more than 6 months) or 10-year bar (for overstaying more than 1 year) already applies.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]May need to leave the U.S. to avoid the 3-year or 10-year bar before the 6 months or 1 year overstay period runs.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]If the bar already applies, will need to leave the U.S. and apply for a waiver of the bar once a visa number becomes available.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]Illegal Entry and Marriage to U.S. Citizen.

[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]A visa number becomes immediately available for immigration.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]Can apply to adjust status (and live and work in the U.S. while waiting for application to adjust status) if: [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]Had a valid immigration petition pending before January 14, 1998, or[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]Had a valid immigration petition pending between January 14, 1998, and April 30, 2001, and were living in the U.S. on December 21, 2001.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]Otherwise, must leave and apply for a waiver.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]Illegal Entry and Marriage to U.S. Permanent Legal Resident.

[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]Must wait for a visa number to become available.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]Cannot live and work in the U.S. and cannot apply to adjust status here.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]If the bar applies, must leave and apply for a waiver.[/FONT]



http://www.serranolawyers.com/Imm%20Illegal.htm

 

[CDNBear]

CDNBear, You have impressive skills of hitting around the edges of a substancial post and trying to sound like you're saying a lot when you're really saying very little. The most substancial thing you said in this post I am quoting was to doubt the validity of the Congressional Research Service (which was completely wrong; what the CRS says is fact).

It's an interpreted opinion thereof, which is what I've said all along. Which is why my first reply to it as not supporting you as you think it does, still stands. I have never disputed the material within it. It is in the findings, and your subsequent use thereof, that the error occurs.

If it were law, legislation or otherwise statute, you would have something. Seing as it isn't any of those. You have nothing.

The rest of your post is boasting about how much you understand US law and baselessly accusing others of only having opinions, and not facts.

Because that's a fact.

Your logic is very evasive. *random emoticon*

Not at all, cite me law, give me legal precedent, case law and or rulings.

You haven't. Therefore all you have submitted is opinion.

I'll repeat the facts from the CRS again. Being in the US illegally is not a crime because it's not a part of criminal law.

What part of "opinion" don't you get? What you have quoted is not law, legislation or statute. It is an opinion, it's a correct opinion, but your opinion and interpretation of it is out to lunch. All I need to do is use one term from that review, "violation". Period. Furthermore, I don't think you actually read that whole piece. Because if you had, you would know how it doesn't support you, like you think it does.

Again, it does not say what you think it does.

Can you cite statute, case law or rulings, to support how you interpreted that review?

 

[CDNBear]

Entering or attempting to enter the United States without being inspected by U.S. immigration officials is a crime punishable under immigration law by 6 months imprisonment and/or a fine. A second illegal entry or attempt is punishable by 2 years imprisonment and/or a fine under immigration law.


While entering illegally is a crime, being in the U.S. illegally is not a crime. Being in the U.S. without legal immigration status is a violation of civil law. (Another example of a civil law violation would be failing to provide proper handicapped access to a building that is open to the public.)

Illegal immigrants in the U.S., like any other aliens, may have immigration petitions filed for them to become permanent legal residents (to get a green card). For example, a U.S. citizen or permanent legal resident who marries an illegal immigrant may file a marriage petition for the immigrant to get a green card. Under U.S.immigration law, persons who legally entered the U.S. may be able to live and work here during the immigration process. Persons who entered illegally, however, usually must leave. The rules are as follows:

[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]Legal Entry and Marriage to U.S. Citizen.

[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]A visa number becomes immediately available.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]Can apply to adjust status.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]Can live and work in the U.S. while waiting for application to adjust status.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]Legal Entry and Marriage to U.S. Permanent Legal Resident.

[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]Must wait for a visa number to become available for immigration.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]Can apply to live and work in the U.S. and to adjust status here, if: [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]The petition for residency was filed on or before December 21, 2000, and[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]Has been waiting at least 3 years for approval of the petition or of adjustment of status.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]Should not travel outside the U.S. if the 3-year bar (for overstaying more than 6 months) or 10-year bar (for overstaying more than 1 year) already applies.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]May need to leave the U.S. to avoid the 3-year or 10-year bar before the 6 months or 1 year overstay period runs.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]If the bar already applies, will need to leave the U.S. and apply for a waiver of the bar once a visa number becomes available.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]Illegal Entry and Marriage to U.S. Citizen.

[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]A visa number becomes immediately available for immigration.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]Can apply to adjust status (and live and work in the U.S. while waiting for application to adjust status) if: [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]Had a valid immigration petition pending before January 14, 1998, or[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]Had a valid immigration petition pending between January 14, 1998, and April 30, 2001, and were living in the U.S. on December 21, 2001.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]Otherwise, must leave and apply for a waiver.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]Illegal Entry and Marriage to U.S. Permanent Legal Resident.

[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]Must wait for a visa number to become available.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]Cannot live and work in the U.S. and cannot apply to adjust status here.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]If the bar applies, must leave and apply for a waiver.[/FONT]



http://www.serranolawyers.com/Imm%20Illegal.htm

An excellent example of how the the term "violation" plays its part in the question. I wonder if Icky will be able to figure it out now?

Excellent post Iron. I will post statute regarding the disposition of Civil Law at the state level. In conjunction with state and local law enforcement.

 

[Icarus27k]

For the record, I think I should post a link to the "About the Congressional Research Service" page so that it proves that what the CRS says is objective and authoritative fact, and that trying to argue with what it says is like trying to argue with the dictionary.

About the Congressional Research Service

 

[petros]

Quote:
I'll repeat the facts from the CRS again. Being in the US illegally is not a crime because it's not a part of criminal law.

Bang on!

 

[TenPenny]

It's an interesting distinction:
While entering illegally is a crime, being in the U.S. illegally is not a crime. Being in the U.S. without legal immigration status is a violation of civil law.

 

[CDNBear]

For the record, I think I should post a link to the "About the Congressional Research Service" page so that it proves that what the CRS says is objective and authoritative fact, and that trying to argue with what it says is like trying to argue with the dictionary.

About the Congressional Research Service

Again, you just don't get it, you're trying to divert the conversation, because you have no support.. What you posted doesn't say what you think it does.

Furthermore, though the CRS uses facts, of which I have never disputed, it renders untested opinion. It is basically a form of debate, not the final word. You should look into IIRIRA.

It's an interesting distinction:
While entering illegally is a crime, being in the U.S. illegally is not a crime. Being in the U.S. without legal immigration status is a violation of civil law.

One easily lost if one doesn't understand the intricacies of law.

 

[petros]

CRIME. A crime is an offence against a public law. This word, in its most general signification, comprehends all offences but, in its limited sense, it is confined to felony. 1 Chitty, Gen. Pr. 14.

VIOLATION. An act done unlawfully and with force.

Crime and violation have two different meanings.