Republicans Believe Illegal Immigration 'Should be a Crime'

[Feuer Frei!]

Heaven's forbid that a crime should be called a crime!

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D.-Fla.), chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, denounced Republicans last week for believing illegal immigration “should in fact be a crime.” “I think the president was clearly articulating that his position--the Democratic position--is that we need comprehensive immigration reform,” said Wasserman Schultz at a Christian Science Monitor Breakfast on May 26.
“We have 12 million undocumented immigrants in this country that are part of the backbone of our economy and this is not only a reality but a necessity," she said. "And that it would be harmful--the Republican solution that I’ve seen in the last three years is that we should just pack them all up and ship them back to their own countries and that in fact it should be a crime and we should arrested them all.”

The comment has drawn attention among conservative commentators and bloggers. During the comments, the chairwoman referred to legislation in 2006 by Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) that would increase border enforcement and make illegal immigration a criminal offense instead of a civil matter.
However, the Senate bill immunized illegal aliens from being prosecuted for document fraud, a felony, and did not stop the practice of allowing illegal aliens eventually granted legal residency to go back and claim credit with the Social Security Administration for work they did as an illegal. These provisions were in sections 601 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:1:./temp/%7Ec110TgTqfy:e541450:) and 614 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:1:./temp/%7Ec110TgTqfy:e652212:) of the McCain-Kennedy comprehensive immigration reform bill.


The new chairwoman has made a number of attention grabbing comments. In an April 6 interview on MSNBC, Wasserman Shultz voiced her opposition to the proposal by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) to reduce the deficit by $6 trillion in 10 years.
Last week she said on MSNBC, that the passage of the health care law has strengthened Medicare.
“In fact, we added 12 years of solvency to Medicare and ensure that it would be better for senior,” she said on Andrea Mitchell Reports on May 25.


SOURCE (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/new-dnc-chair-faults-gop-wanting-illegal)

[mookiemookie]

I'm really conflicted about the whole situation. I used to be in the hardcore "kick them all out" camp. I've done a bit of research and reading and found that the economics of illegal immigration make that position shaky. In a pure supply and demand sense, imagine if you took away a large amount of the supply of labor - the remaining labor would become more expensive. While it's true we have a lot of people out of work in this country, a lot of the people out of work are highly skilled and highly educated and they would not be a one for one replacement of the supply of cheap illegal labor. Cheap labor costs keep the cost of many goods and services in this country low. If the cost of labor inputs increase, firms will be forced to increase the cost to the end consumer.

As I said, I'm not sure how I feel about it. If you bring the illegals into the system and move away from under the table pay, then we've just increased our tax base substantially. That's got to be a positive.

I think we need a two pronged approach - something that both political parties seem to lack. We should identify the places where our immigration laws need streamlining in addition to stricter enforcement of immigration laws and border control. Reliance on cheap labor is a reality in this country, and any solution needs to recognize that.

It's late, I'm sleepy and rambling. Carry on.

[CCIP]

I don't think this is a question of belief at all.

The bigger issue is how you deal with it, whether you choose to prosecute it, or whether there is amnesty to be considered for those who previously did it. But debating whether or not it's a crime is just stupid and distracts from the main issues at hand. Cause "Illegal non-crime" or "Legal crime" are kind of oxymorons...

[Sailor Steve]

Argue about the technicalities all you like (and I'm not saying we shouldn't), but the point here is that we have someone in a position of power who takes others to task because they wrongly believe that something "illegal" should be a crime? Maybe she needs a dictionary for her birthday.

[Penguin]

@Steve: there are also infractions and felonies ;)

I'm really conflicted about the whole situation. I used to be in the hardcore "kick them all out" camp. I've done a bit of research and reading and found that the economics of illegal immigration make that position shaky. In a pure supply and demand sense, imagine if you took away a large amount of the supply of labor - the remaining labor would become more expensive. While it's true we have a lot of people out of work in this country, a lot of the people out of work are highly skilled and highly educated and they would not be a one for one replacement of the supply of cheap illegal labor. Cheap labor costs keep the cost of many goods and services in this country low. If the cost of labor inputs increase, firms will be forced to increase the cost to the end consumer.


Well, if there is a demand for cheap, unskilled labour, why not hand out work visas or raise the number of legal immigrants, if they are really the "backbone of the economy" like the article states. Don't wonder however if you folks will encounter some problems if you let masses of uneducated and unskilled people into your country.
Germany did this in the 60s/70s and many problems we have today root from there. One former chancellor stated some years ago, that this encouragement of unskilled immigration was to keep domestic wages low - and, in hindsight, regards this as a mistake.

The demand is there for cheaper than cheap labour. People who are too cheap to pay normal wages have this demand - the demand of the consumer is always to have a product to the lowest costs.
However it is shortsighted if you only look at the price of products or services. Indirectly you pay higher taxes for federal/state services that these people use, for people who get umemployed because they can't compete with this cheap labour and anopther interesting aspect, that Armistead mentioned, are also enviromental costs. He mentioned it in an example, that illegal workers often dump their waste from their work just into the nature - it's the same here.
As I see it is that by all this this the taxpayer subsides these employers who are too cheap to pay minimum wage and taxes - and it is a slap in the face of the millions of legal immigrants who often went through considerable efforts to immigrate into the country.

[Tribesman]

@Steve: there are also infractions and felonies
And crimes against nature;)

[Betonov]

How can a workforce that doesn't pay taxes and it's employer doesn't pay taxes be a backbone of the economy. OK, sure, more profit more sales tax, but still. More work visas. We built our highways on work visas

[JU_88]

Well, to be honest when caught, most illegal imigrants are treated like criminals already, they usually get locked up until arraangements can be made to deported them back from where they came.

So what is the advantage of prosecuting them in the country in which they illegally tried to enter? if you still deport them anyway, why would they really care that they now have a crimminal record in that country?
If they decide to come back, again it will be illegally and under the radar.

I fail to see how this is going to make any impact on the issue what so ever.

[JU_88]

oops double post

[Tribesman]

So what is the advantage of prosecuting them in the country in which they illegally tried to enter?
in reality it is counter productive, if you look back at the arizona immigration debate their proposals on prosecution were just about the dumbest idea anyone could imagine

[tater]

Of course it should be a crime. Any illegal seeking any services paid for by me should be arrested and deported. Any illegal in ANY interaction with the government should be deported immediately. Straight from where they are grabbed, too. All assets confiscated, etc. Sent home with the clothes on their back.

I'm all for grossly increasing LEGAL immigration, but being illegal should be disqualifying for future legal status. If you sneaked in, and quotas are raised, you should have to sneak OUT, then come back in legally. Any government record of their existence at all here before trying to get in legally should be disqualifying.

We NEED the labor, actually, and the situation will require more, not less immigration moving forward. Still, it needs to be the way we want it to be. Legal, orderly, and not letting in people we don't want to let in.

Also, the type of people who are illegal are also not net contributors to taxes. Only the top tier of taxpayers even pull their own weight, everyone else is a drag on the system (entitlements). The US should consider attracting more of the high end (the ability to buy a place at the front of the line via investment in the US—start a business with several hundred grand or more, and buy a house, and you can enter immediately).

[AVGWarhawk]

Of course it should be a crime. Any illegal seeking any services paid for by me should be arrested and deported. Any illegal in ANY interaction with the government should be deported immediately. Straight from where they are grabbed, too. All assets confiscated, etc. Sent home with the clothes on their back.

I'm all for grossly increasing LEGAL immigration, but being illegal should be disqualifying for future legal status. If you sneaked in, and quotas are raised, you should have to sneak OUT, then come back in legally. Any government record of their existence at all here before trying to get in legally should be disqualifying.

We NEED the labor, actually, and the situation will require more, not less immigration moving forward. Still, it needs to be the way we want it to be. Legal, orderly, and not letting in people we don't want to let in.

Also, the type of people who are illegal are also not net contributors to taxes. Only the top tier of taxpayers even pull their own weight, everyone else is a drag on the system (entitlements). The US should consider attracting more of the high end (the ability to buy a place at the front of the line via investment in the US—start a business with several hundred grand or more, and buy a house, and you can enter immediately).


:yep:

[Tribesman]

Of course it should be a crime.
But what sort of crime, that is the question.:yep:
Any illegal seeking any services paid for by me should be arrested and deported.
By who?
Any illegal in ANY interaction with the government should be deported immediately.
How?
Straight from where they are grabbed, too.
Really????? How does that work exactly?
All assets confiscated, etc.
Errrrr...how do you do that if you are deporting them immediatly straight from where they are grabbed?
Tater takes a "tough" knee jerk line on illegal immigration and creates for himself unworkable proposals bigger government and even more government expense funded by the taxpayers who according to him are nearly all on a free ride anyway:doh:

[tater]

But what sort of crime, that is the question.:yep:

It is already supposed to get you deported or charged now, it's just not enforced enough (BTW, the whole point of the OP article is the absurdity of NOT thiking they are criminals).

By who? In the US, INS, though state laws could allow city/state employees to do so. This is the benefit of the plans like Rhode Island (which is nearly identical to AZ, and has been for years, but they are "blue" so the press didn't notice).

How?

There are many cases where the nationality of the person can be established if the authorities are empowered (and required) to do so. Show up in the ER and you are not paying for the care? Check out who you are. They damn well do to bill everyone else (the billing people know). Here in NM they have a driver's license as KNOWN illegals. Any traffic accident (MANY involve illegals here in NM) should check. Any police interaction at all, ditto. Show license, if it is for illegals, deport them—better to deport the when they ask for license, but the democrats what them to VOTE here (and they do, illegally, it's proven now). You'll say, "how can the dog catcher, or the water utility, or hospital staff report illegals, it's not their job!" Guess what, docs are already required by law to report any injury that might be child abuse, for example. MIGHT be. They are not law enforcement, but they are required by law to do so. Guess what, my wife is just as expert in knowing an illegal when she sees one (yeah, there is a lot of cross over with legal mexicans, but right now most immigrants from mexico are illegal by far so it's a safe bet that a mexican is illegal (not a mexican-american, a mexican. Anyone here in the border states knows what I'm talking about even if someone in ireland doesn't—it's like a european spotting a US tourist on the street there, or us spotting a euro tourist (the ghey jeans are always a good sign).) Would you catch all? No, but you'd catch a lot.

Oh, and interstate (and international) commerce and banking laws might be used to monitor sending money abroad. Much of the income earned by illegals is in fact sent back home. Mexico supports illegal immigration because it brings billions of US$ to Mexico (money wired home). Anyone wiring money abroad should have a check on status. Have a status check to open a bank account, or to cash a check for anyone without an account (legit tourists will have passports and will leave a paper trail).

Really????? How does that work exactly?

Huh? Police pull over car for not being registered or whatever. They check status, and Juanita is illegal. She goes to holding, then off to Mexico. If she was guilty of any other crime, or had a warrant this would be no different, pulled over, or however caught, and taken to jail. The cops don't bring perps home to grab an overnight bag. They can run a check (and search her) for bank account information, etc tied to her name/address, and that money all gets taken, too.

Errrrr...how do you do that if you are deporting them immediatly straight from where they are grabbed?
Tater takes a "tough" knee jerk line on illegal immigration and creates for himself unworkable proposals bigger government and even more government expense funded by the taxpayers who according to him are nearly all on a free ride anyway:doh:

Many would be grabbed in cars. Impound car, send criminal (illegal) home. Yard has weeds, and city come knocking (happens all the time here). Worker suspects illegals and is required to call authorities who check. Indeed illegals. They get rounded up, and contents of house removed (unless one person there is legal, then they take possession of all I guess (though charging them with aiding a criminal activity makes sense (same for anyone employing said illegals, mind you).

Your argument is what? That since illegals are a net drain, spending any more to arrest them puts us farther in the hole so we should ignore them?

Hiring illegals should be fiscally dangerous enough that no one wants to do it.

Being illegal should be unpleasant enough that no one would want to.

Legal immigration should be increased, but anyone here illegally already should be disqualified if known (so get out, then come back in properly, in a line, like civilized people).

[tater]

It's important to note that many places in the US have democrat leaders who have made it ILLEGAL for government employees to report suspected illegals. Santa Fe, NM, for example. So a fire marshall can cite an apartment for being overcrowded (10 illegals living in a 2 bedroom apt, say), but is not allowed to call INS on them.

Same with the police. It's ridiculous.

It's always funny when a non-american wants us to have less strict laws than everywhere else on earth for our borders. Frankly, I don't care even a little what the opinion of anyone not a US citizen is regarding US immigration law. It carries zero weight.

[Tribesman]

It is already supposed to get you deported or charged now
No it isn't so no it doesn't.

BTW, the whole point of the OP article is the absurdity of NOT thiking they are criminals
Someone with a faulty light on a bicycle is a criminal, so they the same as an illegal immigrant who is the same as someone who didn't put enough coins in the parking meter who is the same as a murderer, after all they are all criminals so its all the same and it would be absurd to view their crimes or their criminal status any differently:doh:


In the US, INS, though state laws could allow city/state employees to do so.
Its international relations so it isn't the State its the United States, so the State has to go with INS.
This is the benefit of the plans like Rhode Island (which is nearly identical to AZ, and has been for years, but they are "blue" so the press didn't notice).

Would you care to look at the "nearly" bit which makes all the difference?
There are many cases where the nationality of the person can be established if the authorities are empowered (and required) to do so.
So you want thousands of local national government bodies and many many thousands of private companies to take on federal powers, which will of course require huge oversight and a comprehensive system of training and checks and balances
:har::har::har::har:Prove my point why don't ya:up:

Any police interaction at all, ditto
Ah, a problem there, can the police legally require an American to prove his citizenship, hey can they even ask him if theyu are not acting as federal immigration agents:doh:

Huh? Police pull over car for not being registered or whatever.
Asking for a pile of lawsuits are ya:yep:
Besides which you don't even begin to address the issue.
So a police car stops someone in say New Jersey and finds out they are illegal, you say ship them straight to Mexico. Can you see the huge gaping hole in your "idea"?

Oh, and interstate (and international) commerce and banking laws might be used to monitor sending money abroad.
Hey make every corner store a federal agency.:rotfl2:
Many would be grabbed in cars. Impound car, send criminal (illegal) home. Yard has weeds, and city come knocking (happens all the time here). Worker suspects illegals and is required to call authorities who check. Indeed illegals. They get rounded up, and contents of house removed (unless one person there is legal, then they take possession of all I guess (though charging them with aiding a criminal activity makes sense (same for anyone employing said illegals, mind you).

Well done tater, you just expanded the government payroll tenfold and started an expensive trash storage agency .

but is not allowed to call INS on them.

So is that because it isn't their job, they do not have the federal authority because they don't have the training or is it because they don't get paid to....or any combination of them:yep:
Though I know you think it is because of the magic "voters" who miraculously will buck the trend as part of a secret conspiracy:rotfl2:

It's always funny when a non-american wants us to have less strict laws than everywhere else on earth for our borders
So is that a reading problem making you create that strawman or is it just your inability to address the issue which makes you makes it?
So to give you a chance to show you are not just blowing it out your hole with your fairytale version of the world...... can you find any examples here of someone calling for less strict laws ?


I don't care even a little what the opinion of anyone not a US citizen is regarding US immigration law. It carries zero weight.
Which is a very silly attitude as non-US citizens and their opinions are key to any issue regarding illegal immigration to the US.:yep:

[Armistead]

Illegals are now taking the bulk of social service programs, free hospital, etc.

If it's not a crime, let's just open the border and have a free for all anyone comes.

Illegals have driven down wages in skilled and non skilled trades. In most construction trades wages have been dormant for 12 years. Many americans did these hard jobs before, but refuse to do them for $3 an hour.

Owning a large commercial paint contracting firm in the past, I'll explain how illegals ruined the trade down south. In the 80's many large in house firms existed. These provided safety training, followed OSHA, haz waste laws, had benefits and paid a living, yet lower wage.

As illegals came, they did none of the above. Basically one legal mexican would hire 50 illegals. He would be legit on paper, but illegal in every aspect. Maybe a few legals were covered by work comp. I know one legal mexican that owns a trailer park of run down trailers. He packs his workers in there. He pays them $5 per hour cash, then charges rent. He has no shop, just meets workers at the paint store. Hard for legals to go in and get service in the mornings as stores are often filled with mexicans, forget getting to the coffee pot.

Do they work hard, yes and with cheap wages, no taxes, no benefits, no following any laws most large legal firms couldn't compete. Over years legal firms dropped wages, cut all benefits, etc. Most now are gone. You find very few large in house pro paint firms.

An illegal gets hurt on the job with no work comp, they take him to a hospital and lie. They dump 1000's of gallons of haz waste on the ground.
Illegals aren't gonna set up as a haz waste generator with the Feds. They pay lil to no taxes.

This is the crime people. If I do these things I would go to jail. Illegals simply move or go back to mexico if caught, then come back with a different name and SS number.

This is the world now of most skilled and non skilled trades down south.

The sad thing is General Contractors will use them due to there low numbers. Many illegals use to stay away from large commercial work, just out of their brain realm, now GC's will walk and hold their hands through the process, do their paperwork and basically use them.

Yes, many legal white americans now use illegals, I did for years. I didn't hire them, just sub contracted my work to them as long as they had the proper paper work, but I know how they do business, but that's the game if you wanna be in business today.

[Sailor Steve]

No it isn't so no it doesn't.
Why not?

Someone with a faulty light on a bicycle is a criminal, so they the same as an illegal immigrant who is the same as someone who didn't put enough coins in the parking meter who is the same as a murderer, after all they are all criminals so its all the same and it would be absurd to view their crimes or their criminal status any differently:doh:
Quite true. Each type of crime, however, has its own punishment, from minor fines for minor infractions to lengthy incarceration for major felonies. What do you think the punishment for illegal imigration? You're busy criticizing others, but you don't seem to have any real input. So what is your actual contribution to the conversation? I think that immediate deportation is the proper punishment for this crime. You?

Between that point and the last you do make some good arguments. On the other hand you do so in your usual superior and antagonistic manner.

Which is a very silly attitude as non-US citizens and their opinions are key to any issue regarding illegal immigration to the US.:yep:
And now we're back to the pot calling the kettle black. You know very well the difference between non-US citizens referring to the people who cross the border illegally and an outside agitator expressing a political opinion.

You like to play games with people in these discussions, which makes a lot of your input dishonest, which puts you right back in the "troll" category.

[Tribesman]

Why not?

Because illegal immigration covers a wide range of circumstances each with a variety of processes.
What do you think the punishment for illegal imigration?
It depends on the type of illegal immigration, one thing is for sure, deportations need non US input and agreements and imprisonment for illegal immigration(unless it is for human trafficking which itself is already covered seperately) is a pointless expensive exersize.
I think that immediate deportation is the proper punishment for this crime. You?

See above, but mainly yes with terms and conditions. One main hang up on immediate deportation from the US for plain simple illegal immigration is the complications and expense if the illegal immigrant isn't canadian or mexican.
Another problem is of course dependants, now you could of course amend your constitution just like Ireland did as a "tough" reaction to illegal immigrants, but it isn't effective and can cause all sorts of long running very complex problems for legal immigrants as well as making some deportations impossible

And now we're back to the pot calling the kettle black.
Not in the slightest as the operation of any workable immigration/deportation policy is hinged on non US involvement. If it were a purely domestic matter involving only the US authorities and only US citizens then tater would have had a point, but it doesn't so he didn't .
So it was safe to take it that his statement about foriegners was due to him being unable to deal with the issues raised or to defend his own statements

[Platapus]

If we are going to discuss the legality of this topic, it might be useful if we knew what laws were were talking about.

Can anyone find the federal law that addresses this? What law is someone breaking if they are already inside the United States and not a registered alien?

Seems to me that would be a good place to start.

[Freiwillige]

"they are the backbone of our economy." Excuse me while I :rotfl2::har:

Ive seen the statistics and South American illegal immigration costs U.S. taxpayers far more than they put into the economy. That group makes up 94% of all illegal immigrants

They send to Mexico and other southern nation's millions a year (Its its own economy and the reason Mexico will do nothing but help them come here)

Costs in aid, medical, prison far exceed what we take in paltry sales tax.

Deport them en mass.

[August]

If we are going to discuss the legality of this topic, it might be useful if we knew what laws were were talking about.

Can anyone find the federal law that addresses this? What law is someone breaking if they are already inside the United States and not a registered alien?

Seems to me that would be a good place to start.


Good point. Let's start with Wikipedia:

Immigrants can be classified as illegal for one of three reasons: entering without authorization or inspection, staying beyond the authorized period after legal entry, or violating the terms of legal entry.

Section 1325 in Title 8 of the United States Code (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_8_of_the_United_States_Code), "Improper entry of alien", provides for a fine, imprisonment, or both for any immigrant who:

enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration agents, or
eludes examination or inspection by immigration agents, or
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.


The maximum prison term is 6 months for the first offense and 2 years for any subsequent offense.

[CptSimFreak]

Make them buy citizenship and then force them to pay taxes. Simple.

[Aramike]

Argue about the technicalities all you like (and I'm not saying we shouldn't), but the point here is that we have someone in a position of power who takes others to task because they wrongly believe that something "illegal" should be a crime? Maybe she needs a dictionary for her birthday.This is really hard for people to understand and I deal with this often in my work, but the fact is that not everything illegal is a crime. There is a difference between a violation of the law and a CRIMINAL violation of the law.

In my home state of Wisconsin, for instance, there's been an ongoing debate regarding criminalizing first offense drunk driving.

A "crime" is an illegal action that violates a CRIMINAL CODE. An action that is illegal is far more broad.

The recent labor controversy in Wisconsin is an excellent example of this distinction. The Democrat senators that left the state to avoid a quorum did so illegally. However, it was NOT a criminal action.

Another great example are laws concerning conspiracy. There are many actions one can take that are illegal but NOT criminal except when speciifcally planned with willful intent to violate law.

The bottom line: illegal and criminal are terms meaning very different things.

[Aramike]

As far as the actual subject matter is concerned, I personally believe that it is silly to address the question of what to do with the millions of people here illegally until we can effectively prevent any more from entering the country. Prudence suggests that it is unlikely that even a concerted effort and deportation would be effective considering the influx of illegal immigrants.

In my opinion it would be wise to seal the border tight and THEN find a way to integrate illegals into our society. Our problem is simple: it's too damned easy to get in illegally, and too damned hard to do it the proper way.

[nikimcbee]

They need to put signs up along the boarder that say " warning: Mines". (in spanish) Have a section, here and there that is actually mined (which would remain top secret:|\\:haha:) Build it like the Berlin wall.
They had a show on Nogales, AZ on Nat Geo. What a nightmare to live there:dead:.

[Platapus]

Good point. Let's start with Wikipedia:

Section 1325 in Title 8 of the United States Code

Great!

This is a commonly cited law. So common that it is on wikipedia. But is this the law that is most applicable to the issue?

Ok, let's start with this law. I am not a fan of using wikipedia so let's use this as our citation

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/usc_sec_08_00001325----000-.html


§ 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.

Paragraph B deals with being caught while entering.
Paragraph C deals with Fraudulent Marriage
Paragraph D deals with commercial trafficking companies

Paragraphs b,c,d don't apply to the scenario explained next.

And let's use the following scenario as our test case.

Man standing at the corner of Oak and Main in Ponca City OK. Police suspect that this man is an "illegal alien". So in the best of American tradition the officer asks "let me see your papers". Man says, "I ain't got none" The officer arrests this man.

Let's see if this law (section 1325) could be used to prosecute this man. I think this is a good basic scenario for testing whether this law is aplicable to the issue of whether an undocumented alien is breaking the law simply by being in the country.

Consider two tenets of our legal system

1. The prosecutor needs to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, all the elements of the crime (more on the elements later)

2. The prosecutor needs to prove guilt. The defendant does not need to prove non-guilt.

The first step is to identify the elements of the crime. These are listed in the law, of which one is cited above. Elements are either an “and” or an “or”. In the cited law elements within the numbered paragraphs are “and”. Elements in different numbered paragraphs are “or”. The prosecutor needs to prove all the appropriate “and” elements, but only one of the “or” elements.

The first set of elements are “enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers”

The prosecution would need to prove that our gentlemen

a. Entered the US
b. Entered at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers

How would the prosecution attempt to prove these? Remember the defendant does not have to prove their innocence. The prosecutor needs to prove that this person did not cross at a designated place, but needs to prove that this person entered at a non-designated place. Very difficult to prove when the person is hundreds of miles from a border.

The second set of elements are “eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers”

The prosecution would need to prove that this person eluded examination or inspection by immigration officers. Again, how would a prosecutor prove this (proving a negative as it were). Very very difficult.

The third set of elements are “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”

Again very hard to for the prosecutor to prove.

It is my position that section 1325 is not the applicable statute for prosecuting someone already in the borders. This law is for prosecuting people caught in the act of crossing the border. It would be very easy to prosecute this law if a border patrol officer observes the person crossing the border. This only makes sense as this law is entitled

“Improper entry by alien”

I think we need to find another law that is more applicable to someone who may or may not have crossed a boarder in the past. A law that focuses on making the presence of a person without documentation illegal.

The problem is that I have not been able to find such a federal statute. I am pretty experienced in legal research but I am not perfect. That is why I asked the question for someone to find a law that applies to persons already well inside the borders. According to my research, I have not found one.

Since in the US, we don't have a National Identification Card, nor are people required to establish their citizenship unless they are trying to apply for something that is controlled by the government.

This is why people are rarely prosecuted solely for being an undocumented alien. It is just too hard to prove unless the defendant confesses or they are caught on/by the boarder. The prosecutor is put in a position of proving a negative.

Undocumented aliens are usually prosecuted for other crimes (weapons, drugs, trafficking, etc) and it is this prosecution that gets them deported. Or they are given administrative hearings prior to deportation.

Administrative hearings are not trials. Rules of trial evidence don’t apply to administrative hearings. In administrative hearings the defendant may have to prove their non-guilt. However, administrative hearings do not result in convictions, and the defendant does not have a misdemeanor or felony record after the hearing. They are, however, deported.

This is why the question, why are they not treated like criminals is not as silly as it might first appear. A person deported via administrative hearing is not a criminal.

So I ask everyone’s help in my research. I would really like to find a federal statute that we can cite that would make the presence of a person inside the US without documentation a crime. Section 1325 is focused on the entry.

I have been looking for several years and have not found one yet. But I could have missed something.

[Sailor Steve]

Is there a law against crossing the border without permission? Would breaking that law be a crime?

[mookiemookie]

May be of interest: (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8358045489828856974&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr)

9th Circuit Court of Appeals:

Cupa-Guillen argues that § 1326 violates due process because it punishes solely on the basis of his status as an alien. More specifically, he claims that § 1326 sets forth a strict liability offense which punishes "wholly passive conduct." According to Cupa-Guillen, being subjected to criminal liability for violating *863 a statute unaccompanied by any activity whatever, other than merely being present in the United States, is unconstitutional. He analogizes to Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660, 82 S.Ct. 1417, 8 L.Ed.2d 758 (1962), where the Supreme Court held that a person cannot be convicted of a crime simply because he has the forbidden status of being a drug addict.
[2] [3] Cupa-Guillen misinterprets § 1326 because the statute does not set forth a status crime. Where an offense is based on an underlying act which society has an interest in preventing, the offense is not a status crime. See United States v. Kidder, 869 F.2d 1328, 1332 (9th Cir.1989). Cupa-Guillen is not being punished simply because he has the status of an alien. Instead, the statute specifically punishes the act of illegally re-entering the United States without permission after having been previously deported and convicted of an aggravated felony. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2). [FN3] Cupa-Guillen was convicted and sentenced for his actions in committing two prior aggravated felonies, being deported, then illegally returning to the United States without the permission of the Attorney General. Therefore, because § 1326 requires an affirmative act of re-entry, Cupa-Guillen's mere presence argument fails.

FN3. To obtain a conviction under § 1326(b)(2), the government must prove that: (1) the accused is an alien; and (2) the accused unlawfully re-entered the United States after being deported and convicted of an aggravated felony. See United States v. Gonzalez-Medina, 976 F.2d 570 (9th Cir.1992).

A mere presence argument fails to include actus reus - the act of illegal entry. Sure, it's legalese and completely contrary to common sense, but the way I understand that the law is set up, you can't say someone is guilty of crossing the border illegally just because they're in the country illegally.

[Platapus]

Is there a law against crossing the border without permission? Would breaking that law be a crime?


Yes. The law August cited addresses that, but the prosecution needs to prove that the person crossed the border illegally. It can't be assumed or inferred unfortunately.

The difficulty is proving that a person illegally crossed a boarder, months/years after the fact with no physical evidence.

It is an unfortunate loophole in the way the laws are written. This is actually the loophole that the Arizona legislation were motivated by.

The solution might be to change the laws so that non-citizen legal aliens do have a obligation to positively prove that they are in the country legally. But that would also require citizens to also be required to prove their citizenship which can raise other complications.

It is not an easy issue to solve.

[Bakkels]

Germany did this in the 60s/70s and many problems we have today root from there. One former chancellor stated some years ago, that this encouragement of unskilled immigration was to keep domestic wages low - and, in hindsight, regards this as a mistake.

The same goes for us over here Penguin. Also a lot of unskilled and low-education immigrants came here in the 60's / 70's. But at least they are legal... There's more of a cultural problem than an economical. Not that that problem is smaller, it's just different. One advantage of them being legal, is at least they pay taxes and they have registered places of residence.

The demand is there for cheaper than cheap labour. People who are too cheap to pay normal wages have this demand - the demand of the consumer is always to have a product to the lowest costs.
However it is shortsighted if you only look at the price of products or services. Indirectly you pay higher taxes for federal/state services that these people use, for people who get umemployed because they can't compete with this cheap labour and anopther interesting aspect, that Armistead mentioned, are also enviromental costs. He mentioned it in an example, that illegal workers often dump their waste from their work just into the nature - it's the same here.
As I see it is that by all this this the taxpayer subsides these employers who are too cheap to pay minimum wage and taxes - and it is a slap in the face of the millions of legal immigrants who often went through considerable efforts to immigrate into the country.

Well spoken and very true, but the fact of the matter is; we demand low prices. And we were -at the time- all shortsighted; the governments, the companies, but us consumers as well.
Besides, had those immigrants not come here back then, both our countries would have lost a lot of export revenues. Without those immigrants, we couldn't have kept competitive prices. We should however have foreseen these problems (yeah well easy in hindsight, I know), and maybe only give them temporary visas.

My point is -to get more back on topic- how will it help you throwing them in jail? That'll only cost you that much more. Have them returned to their countries. Yeah, perhaps they'll keep trying to get back, but the time they spend in their own country doesn't cost the US taxpayers money to feed them while they're in a US jail. Plus, do you have any idea how much time, effort and money it takes to find an illegal, find out if someone is illegal, than prosecute them? I don't, but I bet it's a hefty sum.

The ideal solution would imo be to really close up the borders, and come down hard on companies that employ illegal immigrants. The second part isn't that hard. The first part however... well you guys know more about that than I do. Clearly, it's very difficult. Complex problem this one :hmmm:

[Platapus]

May be of interest: (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8358045489828856974&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr)

9th Circuit Court of Appeals:



A mere presence argument fails to include actus reus - the act of illegal entry. Sure, it's legalese and completely contrary to common sense, but the way I understand that the law is set up, you can't say someone is guilty of crossing the border illegally just because they're in the country illegally.


Great find.

Section 1326 deals with punishment for aliens who have already been deported or have had deportation orders and are found in the country.

...any alien who— (1) has been denied admission, excluded, deported, or removed or has departed the United States while an order of exclusion, deportation, or removal is outstanding, and thereafter
(2) enters, attempts to enter, or is at any time found in, the United States, unless (A) prior to his reembarkation at a place outside the United States or his application for admission from foreign contiguous territory, the Attorney General has expressly consented to such alien’s reapplying for admission; or
(B) with respect to an alien previously denied admission and removed, unless such alien shall establish that he was not required to obtain such advance consent under this chapter or any prior Act


So if an alien has been caught once and given a deportation order and violates that order, he or she can be charged with a criminal act.


However, US v. Cupa-Guillen, 34 F. 3d 860 (1994) seems to refute that. I think I am going to read up on that case. Looks interesting.

Most interesting find. Thanks for posting it. :salute:

[August]

Trust lawyers to screw up what should be a straight forward thing. If someone is in this country illegally we should be able to boot them out when we catch them.

[Tribesman]

Trust lawyers to screw up what should be a straight forward thing.
Very few things are straightforward when it comes to law.

[Kpt. Schaker]

Go to Mexico! And scream OUT I"m not Mexican I'm an illegal from another country! They'll throw your butt in the CAN and deport your butt. But it seem's everybody can come to the U.S.A. and demand rights without being a Citizen. Go demand rights in any other Country in the world and you'll see what will happen to you! This Country United States is one who babies illegals. We need to deport to make space! The thing is politicians are to damn scared to stand up say what's in theirs hearts. And don't get me wrong I'm half Hispanic. And mankind needs to control their POPULATION less screwing and more resources will provide a richer society. BUT NO POLITICIAN HAS THE BALLS TO SAY TO THE PUBLIC 2 CHILDREN PER COUPLE AND DON'T IMPREGNATE A WOMAN IF YOU DON'T HAVE INCOME TO SUPPORT!. Yeah that's right people will be hating! But I'm right in the money!.

[CaptainMattJ.]

I'm really conflicted about the whole situation. I used to be in the hardcore "kick them all out" camp. I've done a bit of research and reading and found that the economics of illegal immigration make that position shaky. In a pure supply and demand sense, imagine if you took away a large amount of the supply of labor - the remaining labor would become more expensive. While it's true we have a lot of people out of work in this country, a lot of the people out of work are highly skilled and highly educated and they would not be a one for one replacement of the supply of cheap illegal labor. Cheap labor costs keep the cost of many goods and services in this country low. If the cost of labor inputs increase, firms will be forced to increase the cost to the end consumer.

As I said, I'm not sure how I feel about it. If you bring the illegals into the system and move away from under the table pay, then we've just increased our tax base substantially. That's got to be a positive.

I think we need a two pronged approach - something that both political parties seem to lack. We should identify the places where our immigration laws need streamlining in addition to stricter enforcement of immigration laws and border control. Reliance on cheap labor is a reality in this country, and any solution needs to recognize that.

It's late, I'm sleepy and rambling. Carry on.
We dont need cheap labor from illegals. there are PLENTY of teenagers who need money to pay for the INTENSE increase of tuition.

Illegals are sucking this country. In a monetary sense, they are a parasite. They are PLENTY of illegals getting free health care, free taxes, fake drivers licenses, and some getting FREE tuition.

And BILLIONS UPON BILLIONS is SHIPPED BACK TO MEXICO AND OTHER COUNTRIES. The mexican government and other latin countries are basically teaching illegals how to get passed our borders and live a free life here so they can send back billions of dollars to their governments. Resorts even advertise labor vacations so they can have a baby here while their pregnant and get a free ticket to citizenship.


They need to GO. RIGHT now. No dam amnesty. let our teenagers get the jobs so they can pay for their tuition. Let american CITIZENS get the jobs so they can drive the unemployment down again.

I admire why there here. They want a piece of the american dream too. Their countries are poverty stricken. It sucks to live there. But dragging this country down with them is not acceptable and they need to GO.

Its not like any other country in the world allows anywhere NEAR the amnesty we do on a daily basis. Remember those hikers? No amnesty for them. The mexican government wont give any mercy to illegals living there.

so why should we not do the same? because our politicians are bought and paid for and are afraid of being called racists because the illegals have nothing to fall back on. NO argument. so they pull out the race card and all goes well. look how arizona got harrassed because it was TIRED of the ridiculous illegal immigration problem.

[Platapus]

We dont need cheap labor from illegals. there are PLENTY of teenagers who need money to pay for the INTENSE increase of tuition.




Just try to find one. I literally could not pay any of the teenagers in my neighbourhood to mow my lawn. I was offering up to $50.00 to mow what grass I have left on my puny 1/3 acre lot (House takes up about 2/3rds of that). No interest.


Perhaps it is different where you live, but in North Virginia, teenagers don't do manual labour. :nope: The closest they will ever get is working the back warehouse at Safeway and even then the turn-over at the Safeway where I live is measured in weeks.

I am just not buying the myth that undocumented aliens are taking jobs away from good ole Americans. I just don't see Americans, these days, doing that sort of work.

And as an American, I really don't want to pay the salaries that Americans would expect for manual labour.

My solution has always been to make it easier for them to become citizens. Anyone who wants to come to my country and work hard, I am welcoming them with open arms.

[Morts]

Just try to find one. I literally could not pay any of the teenagers in my neighbourhood to mow my lawn. I was offering up to $50.00 to mow what grass I have left on my puny 1/3 acre lot (House takes up about 2/3rds of that). No interest.


Perhaps it is different where you live, but in North Virginia, teenagers don't do manual labour. :nope: The closest they will ever get is working the back warehouse at Safeway and even then the turn-over at the Safeway where I live is measured in weeks.

I am just not buying the myth that undocumented aliens are taking jobs away from good ole Americans. I just don't see Americans, these days, doing that sort of work.

And as an American, I really don't want to pay the salaries that Americans would expect for manual labour.

My solution has always been to make it easier for them to become citizens. Anyone who wants to come to my country and work hard, I am welcoming them with open arms.
$50 !?
holy crap, what the hell is wrong with these kids?
i would have jumped at the chance to earn $50 that easily

[Platapus]

$50 !?
holy crap, what the hell is wrong with these kids?
i would have jumped at the chance to earn $50 that easily

For $50.00 I would mow my neighbours lawn!! And I hate mowing lawns, but I like $50.00 more. :yep:

And just try to get any American Teenager to shovel snow! It is like you are asking them to give up a kidney and not get an Ipod2.

[mookiemookie]

We dont need cheap labor from illegals. there are PLENTY of teenagers who need money to pay for the INTENSE increase of tuition.

Have you ever spent time in an agricultural field? Do you know what's involved in doing that sort of work? I wouldn't wish that torture on my children.

from January to June, California farmers posted ads for 1,160 farmworker positions open to U.S. citizens and legal residents. But only 233 people in those categories applied after learning of the jobs through unemployment offices in California, Texas, Nevada and Arizona.

One grower brought on 36. No one else hired any.http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2010/09/27/5187033-despite-economy-americans-dont-want-farm-work Doesn't sound like kids, or anyone else for that matter, are lining up for illegal immigrant jobs.

Resorts even advertise labor vacations so they can have a baby here while their pregnant and get a free ticket to citizenship.

Link please? Since having a baby on U.S. soil is no insurance against deportation, I'd love to see these advertisements. A child born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents has to be 21 before they can sponsor citizenship for the parents, AND the parent has to show that they have not been in the country illegally for more than a year. That ticket to citizenship isn't as free as you make it out to be.

[Sailor Steve]

Very few things are straightforward when it comes to law.
That's because most laws are made by lawyers for other lawyers. Job security.

[CaptainMattJ.]

really? Platupus, if i lived in Virginia i wouldve GLADLY mowed your lawn for 50$. Maybe kids these days are getting a little too much money from allowances from doing incredibly simple chores, hence not needing to do much real labor.

Im honestly kind of shocked no one took you up on the offer. Even here in some of the more upper middle class and rich parts of california, all i heard from my classmates back in high school were "i wish i had a job SO badly". Because there are few who are fortunate enough to have rich parents. Teenagers want to do what THEY want to do. So they need a car, money, phones, laptops ect.

And here in college, everybody NEEDS a job because their parents CANNOT afford 20k a semester to go to a decent college. They have to take out loans. Some live off campus. Im at CSU Maritime. They have a program where you work on your degree like any regular student, but also attend weekend Navy ROP training. By the end of your 4 years, youll graduate straight into the Navy. Ive asked around and many instructors who teach there graduated from it, and those who took the Navy ROP said that their college tuition was paid off. Plus you get a monthly sum of a couple hundred bucks.'

But thats how i try to cope. Teens i know all need jobs to go to college. Many of them cant find any. All of the jobs that businesses are willing to hire for have been filled. So those who cant find any will be spending ALOT of time paying off ridiculously large student loans.


And yes, actually, they do advertise labor vacations. The illegal immigrant family with multiple children born here will almost assuredly NOT be deported.

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/debate-birthright-citizenship-aims-baby-tourism/story?id=11322850

Theres your link.

[CaptainHaplo]

Great!

This is a commonly cited law. So common that it is on wikipedia. But is this the law that is most applicable to the issue?

Ok, let's start with this law. I am not a fan of using wikipedia so let's use this as our citation

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/usc_sec_08_00001325----000-.html

This is why people are rarely prosecuted solely for being an undocumented alien. It is just too hard to prove unless the defendant confesses or they are caught on/by the boarder. The prosecutor is put in a position of proving a negative.



Platapus,

Your logic is flawed, because to enter the country legally:

Q: What Documents Must You Present?A: A foreign national entering the U.S. is required to present a passport and valid visa issued by a U.S. Consular Official unless they are a citizen of a country eligible for the Visa Waiver Program, a lawful permanent resident of the U.S., or a citizen of Canada.

Source: http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/travel/id_visa/legally_admitted_to_the_u_s.xml


Any visa issued is recorded - and thus can be demonstrated to exist - or in the case above - to not exist. A simple records check - did Mr. Juan Gonzales get issues a visa? Yes or no? US Consul's do not just hand out these documents without there being a paper trail. After all, if they didn't have a paper trail, they couldn't look up someone's immigration status, now could they?

So I ask everyone’s help in my research. I would really like to find a federal statute that we can cite that would make the presence of a person inside the US without documentation a crime. Section 1325 is focused on the entry.

Simple - you cannot BE present legally in a location if you did not gain entry to that location in a legal manner.

Lets say you put up no trespassing signs in your yard all around your house. On day, you go to the store and when you get back, you enter your home to find me sitting at your table, drinking and eating stuff from your fridge. By your logic - if you don't have no trespassing signs posted in every room in your house, I could LEGALLY be in any rooms that don't have the sign - as long as I am not caught sneaking into it! Maybe I flew down the chimney - or if thats illegal - maybe I teleported in or used a star trek transporter. After all - my mere presence does not - using your logic - prove any illegal action actually occured. My presence does not show any violation of the trespass borders you posted.

Now if your ok with that, fine. But I assure you - most of the people who live in a free society are not. Seriously - I know your smarter than this though.

[mookiemookie]

words

It's not his logic. Its the logic of the courts. Read U.S. vs Cupa-Guillen, as was already linked in this thread. Mere presence is not actus reus in the eyes of the law, as illogical as it sounds. To try and make some sense out of it, the court compares it to being a drug addict. If someone's a heroin addict, can you bust them for possession of heroin? I mean they had to have possessed it at some point in order to become addicted. The law says no, you can't.

[Platapus]

Your logic is flawed, because to enter the country legally:


Simple - you cannot BE present legally in a location if you did not gain entry to that location in a legal manner.

I know your smarter than this though.


Thank you, I appreciate the complement, but honestly my post is more a factor of my experience in legal research than in intelligence. But, I am afraid that it is your logic that is flawed. If you go back to my post, I explained that the prosecutor needs to prove all the elements of the crime, there can be no assumptions nor presumptions.

Yes it is a common sense inference that if a person did not enter legally, they can't be present legally. However, that is not how the law works. The law does not work on common sense inferences, but on proving the elements of the crime as listed in the law. That and the tenet that the prosecutor has to prove guilt, the defendant does not have to prove non-guilt.

The problem is that the way the Title 8 laws are written, it is difficult, not impossible, to prove that a person is in the country illegally, unless they confess, or in the case of Section 1325 they are caught on the boarder.

This is why prosecutors like to find other charges that are easier to prove (drugs, weapons, tax-evasion, trafficking, etc.) to criminally deport people or go through the non-criminal administrative hearing route which is a lot easier and therefore the preferred way of handling this issue.

Now, there is a poser: How would anyone of us reword or make up a new law that would make it easier to prosecute?

Remember that prosecutor has to prove ALL elements and that the prosecutor has to prove guilt.

That should be an interesting discussion. :yep:

[Platapus]

If someone's a heroin addict, can you bust them for possession of heroin? I mean they had to have possessed it at some point in order to become addicted. The law says no, you can't.

That is an excellent analogy. Common sense tells you that if a person is under the influence of cocaine, for example, that they must have had possession, even for the shortest of time. But if the addict has injected/injested/ect all of the drug, the law says that you can't convict them of possession. After all, there is no drug left to bring to the courtroom as evidence. How can the court convict someone of possessing something when there is nothing to possess?

Yes many times the law appears not to make sense and I will certainly agree that the law is complicated. Perhaps overly complicated.

And this is why juries need to be briefed on the law, its elements and how the judicial system works concerning proof - because it is not intuitive to non-legally educated people.

[Onkel Neal]

Finally, people are getting serious about this problem
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/09/alabama-governor-signs-tough-immigration-law/?hpt=hp_t2

[Platapus]

As long as they start holding the employers accountable to this new law, I am in favour of it.

[AVGWarhawk]

As long as they start holding the employers accountable to this new law, I am in favour of it.

Some do. Here in MD there is a raid every now and then. Problem with it is some get outraged about the raids. Human rights, yadda yadda. It is a growing problem and concern. As we see, other states are following suit.