Arizona's Immigration Law
- Thread starter DaSleeper
- Start date
This is an unbearably ignorant comment. Whether something is a crime or not is not determined by if people put the work "illegal" in front of it. Immigration violations are not crimes because they are not subject to criminal law. Criminal law, the process whereby the US judicial system determines whether crimes exist or not.
The Princeton U. definition of "criminal law" is as follows.
WordNet Search - 3.0
People only view immigration violations as crimes out of pure emotion that makes them blind to facts. "This makes me so angry, it must be a crime" is the logic. But it's not a crime. Crossing the US border without permission or letting one's visa expire is a part of civil law, the processes wherein legal disputes are settled. No criminal proceedings at all.
Them's the facts.
We already have a national ID, this will only strengthen it by adding the drivers license info. to it.
Painful as this is, at least it is non discriminatory, they require the same documents from everyone, black, Hispanic or white. Arizona law is discriminatory in its intent and its application.
When everything is left at the discretion of the police officer, you may be sure that he is not going to ask a blue eyed blonde or the white man in a three piece suit to produce identification. He will only ask Hispanics and Hispanic looking people.
Perhaps that may be why the law is supported by a majority of Arizona citizens. It doesn’t affect them (the whites), who cares about the Hispanics?
Your point? I'm more then just merely aware of what Criminal Law is.
Hence why S.B. 1070 so infuriates you to the point of not being able to argue it with fact and case law, just emotion and BS.
No that's BS, case law, statute and reality dictate so.
Hence why you can't use case law, or cite any supporting fact. Just your opinion. Which of course is contrary to the INA, in which Illegal Entry is considered a "misdemeanor". A legal term, reflecting a law being broken. Oft enforced by apprehension, detention, trial, documentation, return to Nation of origin, and finally, a criminal record in the US.
Your point? I'm more then just merely aware of what Criminal Law is.
Hence why S.B. 1070 so infuriates you to the point of not being able to argue it with fact and case law, just emotion and BS.
No that's BS, case law, statute and reality dictate so.
Hence why you can't use case law, or cite any supporting fact. Just your opinion. Which of course is contrary to the INA, in which Illegal Entry is considered a "misdemeanor". A legal term, reflecting a law being broken. Oft enforced by apprehension, detention, trial, documentation, return to Nation of origin, and finally, a criminal record in the US.
Again, despite how many emoticons you post and then accuse me of being the one blind to reality through emotion, simple immigration violations are not part of criminal law. They are a part of civil law, wherein crimes are determined.
That's why there are no indictments and convictions in immigration proceedings.
Oh Icky, you can move the goal posts all you want. You can't support your claims with fact, case law or reality...emoticons are all your hyperbole is worth.
Have a nice day though.
That 2004 Congressional Research Service report that I provided earlier clearly calls actions such as crossing the US border without permission or staying in the US after one's visa has expired a part of civil law. And not crimes. I think I've established that pretty well.
8 U.S.C. 1325(a) states: “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.”
A Congressional Opinion. Not fact. Not tested by legislation, or the judiciary.
Your opinion. Not supported by fact, case law or statute.
Now that's a fact.
Pay close attention to what TenPenny posted Icky. It's called documented fact. Not only is it the written law, it is upheld by the judiciary, with proven case law to support it.
Here's a link to the law, so you can acquaint yourself with some reality Icky...
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/8/12/II/VIII/1325
Can you read? Yes or no? What does the Executive order say? Does it not list two entities, one the USA and the US? It's a legal document and invaild if there were a wording error like USA being shortened to US.
I hate to tell ya the truth but as crazy as it or I sound it's the ****ing truth.
Take this document to a lawyer and ask for a translation if you don't understand it.
The end result will be the same; USA's assets were usurped by the US and sold to private interests.
READ man read. The truth may suck ass but it's the truth.
What are the entry requirements for the United States of America?
Civil law is law of the land. Immigration is maritime law (Uniform Commercial Code aka UCC). This is why there are PORTS of entry even where there is no water.
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. 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."
Article: Immigration enforcement within the United States.(CRS Report for Congress:... | AccessMyLibrary - Promoting library advocacy
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.
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.
Maybe just maybe, Mexican native tribes that were forced south by the whites after the peaceful aquistion of CA AZ NM NV TX and CO should be given the same rights and staus of Canadian and American natives so they can freely travel and work across an imaginary line in the desert?
Not a bad idea, but so many are of Spanish decent, and have diluted the native tribes into extinction.
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.