No it isn't so no it doesn't.

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:


Its international relations so it isn't the State its the United States, so the State has to go with INS.
Would you care to look at the "nearly" bit which makes all the difference?
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:

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:

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"?

Hey make every corner store a federal agency.:rotfl2:
Well done tater, you just expanded the government payroll tenfold and started an expensive trash storage agency .

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:

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 ?


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:

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.

Why not?

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.

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.

Because illegal immigration covers a wide range of circumstances each with a variety of processes.
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.
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

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

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.

"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.

Good point. Let's start with Wikipedia:

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

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.

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.

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:.

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/...5----000-.html

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.

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

May be of interest:

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.

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.