Arizona's Immigration Law

[Icarus27k]

It is a crime to be in the US illegally. That's why it's called illegally...:lol:

This is still false. When people use the word "crime", they mean the processes of criminal law, with its higher burden of proof than civil law; it's ideal of innocent until proven guilty; grand jury indictments; trails by juries; and convictions.

Being an illegal immigrant is not a crime. No semantics involved.

 

[CDNBear]

This is still false. When people use the word "crime", they mean the processes of criminal law, with its higher burden of proof than civil law; it's ideal of innocent until proven guilty; grand jury indictments; trails by juries; and convictions.

You're getting closer, but you still fall short of what has been posted, straight from the Congressional Library.

Let me give you a little hint on how sometimes things are worded, for specific purposes. Not that it matters, it's actually irrelevant to the topic.

A crossbow is not a firearm. Yet in many jurisdiction, it is so considered, for specific reasons.

Being an illegal immigrant is not a crime. No semantics involved.

Yes it is. First Congress dictated so. Oh it has been argued that it isn't really a crime. And if I were talking about the criminal code, I would agree, but we aren't. We're talking about Federal Statute, and how Congress dictates laws will be viewed.

Now, if I simply concede, because I really don't care what you think is or isn't a crime and it really has no bearing on the topic at hand. Do you think you can debate your opposition to S.B. 1070, using something other then your opinion?

 

[Icarus27k]

Bugajewitz v. Adams (1913), "[Deportation] is not a conviction of a crime, nor is the deportation a punishment; it is simply a refusal by the Government to harbor persons whom it does not want."

BUGAJEWITZ V. ADAMS, 228 U. S. 585 :: Volume 228 :: 1913 :: Full Text :: US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez



Being an illegal immigrant in the US is not a crime, and your assertion that it is, is false.

 

[petros]

True, now all you have to do is read the Congressional definition again, when citing Federal statutes, and S.B. 1070, and you'll be all set.



Now, can you prove S.B. 1070 is unconstitutional?

Have a great day Petros...

As Icarus posted ....

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.

 

[CDNBear]

Bugajewitz v. Adams (1913), "[Deportation] is not a conviction of a crime, nor is the deportation a punishment; it is simply a refusal by the Government to harbor persons whom it does not want."

BUGAJEWITZ V. ADAMS, 228 U. S. 585 :: Volume 228 :: 1913 :: Full Text :: US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez

Being an illegal immigrant in the US is not a crime, and your assertion that it is, is false.

That's just awesome. You spent all that time looking that up, to argue a moot point? Wow, what a waste of time, and I say that because I concur, "deportation" is not a conviction of a crime. Again, I have never claimed otherwise.

 

[Icarus27k]

That's just awesome. You spent all that time looking that up, to argue a moot point? Wow, what a waste of time, and I say that because I concur, "deportation" is not a conviction of a crime. Again, I have never claimed otherwise.

Well, as long as you say "I never said that" everytime you're proven wrong, I guess we're good.

 

[CDNBear]

Well, as long as you say "I never said that" everytime you're proven wrong, I guess we're good.

Please by all means show me where I said being convicted of deportation is a criminal conviction.

You know what, forget it.

 

[Icarus27k]

Please by all means show me where I said being convicted of deportation is a criminal conviction.

Being convicted of deportation?

 

[petros]

con·vict (k

n-v

kt

)
v. con·vict·ed, con·vict·ing, con·victs
v.tr. 1. Law To find or prove (someone) guilty of an offense or crime, especially by the verdict of a court:

 

[CDNBear]

So? Do cultural subsets like the law community or LBGT have unique linguists or not?

Of course they do, which is what I've been trying to convey to both you and Icky for over a page now. I'm glad you can concede.

Seeing as you seem to understand that now, you may want to inform Icky of his error.

Thanx for coming around and being big enough to admit it.

 

[petros]

Of course they do, which is what I've been trying to convey to both you and Icky for over a page now. I'm glad you can concede.

Seeing as you seem to understand that now, you may want to inform Icky of his error.

Thanx for coming around and being big enough to admit it.

When you are prepared to use the language of law as it is intended then perhaps I'll agree.

Law is all about interpretation of the law. The wording and meanings are precise so use them as they were written for law.

 

[CDNBear]

When you are prepared to use the language of law as it is intended then perhaps I'll agree.

I have, all along.

Law is all about interpretation of the law.

Absolutely, which is why I refer to case law, precedent, Congressional interpretations of Federal statute and so on.

 

[petros]

Even cases that go before Immigration Judges are mostly decided by oral opinion which is only transcribed if a party appeals. In any event, decisions by Asylum Officers and Immigration Judges do not have precedential value.

 

[petros]

There you go. No precedent because it's NOT a trial of a criminal but an immigration hearing.

 

[petros]

Now to the heart of the matter. All AZ can do with their bill is step up enforcement through state, county and municipal means. They do not have the authority to go beyond the federal level.

It's the methodology of obtaing that personal legal status information that falls into question.

 

[CDNBear]

There you go. No precedent because it's NOT a trial of a criminal but an immigration hearing.

Please show me were I specified immigration hearings, when I used the word precedent.

 

[CDNBear]

Now to the heart of the matter. All AZ can do with their bill is step up enforcement through state, county and municipal means. They do not have the authority to go beyond the federal level.

Yep, which I said several pages back. Because S.B. 1070, does not exceed Federal statute. I even provide case law from the Supreme Court...

It's the methodology of obtaing that personal legal status information that falls into question.

Nope, taken care of in the wording and terminology of the Bill.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

As Icarus posted ....

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.

As I understand it, being in the country illegally is punishable only by deportation, not by imprisonment.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

is so, is not, is so. is not. :lol::lol::lol::lol:

Even a civil crime carries with it penalties, and in this case deportation is one of them. As was mentioned earlier that not complying with the Americans With Disabilities Act is against the law and carries penalties. (Civil - Criminal both are crimes and carry penalties).

Civil offense and criminal offense are different (in Canada they are called summary offense and indictable offense). As I understand it, civil offense is punishable only by fine; criminal offense can be punished by imprisonment. I assume discrimination against somebody would be a civil offense, not punishable by imprisonment, but only by a fine.

Since entering USA illegally is punishable by neither (no fine, no imprisonment, but deportation), I don’t think it can be classified as offense.

 

[CDNBear]

(in Canada they are called summary offense and indictable offense)

Wrong. A summary offense, as it's name implies, is a criminal act, that can be proceeded with summarily. Thus forgoing an trial.

An indictable offense is a crime, for which by indictment, the Crown must present a prima facia case, to proceed.

As I understand it, civil offense is punishable only by fine; criminal offense can be punished by imprisonment. I assume discrimination against somebody would be a civil offense, not punishable by imprisonment, but only by a fine.

You obviously don't understand it.

Since entering USA illegally is punishable by neither (no fine, no imprisonment, but deportation), I don’t think it can be classified as offense.

To enter the US illegally, one must in contrary to criminal law, bypass, circumvent or otherwise avoid examination by Customs, INS or other border services.

Therefore it is a criminal offense and you are wrong, yet again.