SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - Republicans Believe Illegal Immigration 'Should be a Crime'

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)

- General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)

- - Republicans Believe Illegal Immigration 'Should be a Crime' (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=184210)

"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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Platapus (Post 1676231)

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:

Quote:

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, "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.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve (Post 1675586)

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.

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:.

Quote:

Originally Posted by August (Post 1676243)

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

Quote:

§ 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.

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:

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve (Post 1676894)

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Penguin (Post 1675630)

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Penguin (Post 1675630)

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:

Quote:

Originally Posted by mookiemookie (Post 1676902)

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.

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.

Quote:

...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:

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.

Quote:

Trust lawyers to screw up what should be a straight forward thing.

Very few things are straightforward when it comes to law.

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!.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mookiemookie (Post 1675531)

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainMattJ. (Post 1677047)

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Platapus (Post 1677121)

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morts (Post 1677124)

$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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainMattJ. (Post 1677047)

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.

Quote:

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/2010/0...want-farm-work

Doesn't sound like kids, or anyone else for that matter, are lining up for illegal immigrant jobs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainMattJ. (Post 1677047)

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.