Is it really "illegal?"

[BuddyColt]

Buddy, you are deluding yourself. Your initial question: are they ILLEGAL? : Yeah. Yes they are. It is that simple. But maybe it's more than THAT, maybe the sheer numbers of them that is the issue. Not only are they illegal, there are millions of them so bold as to ignore immigration laws. That is really the problem, I think. Numbers. THEY are abusing the system and are making a mockery of the very laws YOU defend. Now, why all this drama? Obviously, you have a axe to grind here. Yes? Buddy, if an illegal alien shoots you in the back, they aren't going to care what law they are breaking. I have seen that harm they do and only someone that NEVER experienced that would support illegal immigration. So, I know you are clueless as heck. It may be just a game to you, but many of US that have been hurt by these people don't find your act amusing. That may be why you have all those bad rep stars, aren't YOU listening! Illegals ruin neighborhoods they upset the current demographic and they are racist xenophobes. They sell drugs, murder, and they love to hate people like YOU, because you are a patsy for their cause. Oh, they will never acclimate. They hurt people. They do physical harm. We don't need them here. But other than THAT they are great. These folks don't have any compunction violating ANY laws, let alone immigration. Don't kid yourself minimizing this by calling it a civil infraction or whatever. Most respectful people that immigrate legally don't require this level of obfuscation and artifice that you seem to love with illegals. So why are you doing THIS?

Why are you doing what you're doing? You asked me a why question and I told you the truth. People are dying because of your ignorance and stupidity... and it's not necessarily the undocumented foreigners you obsess over with that "illegal" language.

I have this feeling that only one of us has actual experience in this field. Something tells me it isn't you with the experience. You like being associated with the likes of Uncle Liar and LIE Ability? That's what makes you proud to be an American?

I realize those people will not assimilate (you called it acclimate, but you have proven not to be able to understand a lot of English words like illegal and improper.) It's not going to happen, but they are going to come here. Build walls, they will dig tunnels. And, constitutionally, you can't tell the employer who they can and cannot hire. Soooo... the best course of action is to create the proper mechanism by which those people can come, work and then leave. It's called a Guest Worker program with no automatic path to citizenship. It does away with birth citizenship and solves this issue without the National Socialist bullshit non-solutions you seem to gravitate toward.

While we're having this bitch fest, the issue is being ignored and the inevitable is happening... amnesty via the judicial branch looms on the horizon and one day you are going to wake up with some neighbors you didn't want... and they WILL be permanent!

You may not like what the law says. You can call me all manner of names, but I took the time to work ALL sides of the issue and learn what the law says according to those that enforce and interpret it. Nobody pays me to tell you the truth. The only payment I get is the harassment from a couple of dipwads on this board that are so stupid that they have to wear a hat to the toilet in order to remember which end to wipe.

Why not accept the facts, learn how to work within the existing parameters and learn about some viable solutions that give everybody what they want?

 

[Unkotare]

I took the time to work ALL sides of the issue and learn what the law says according to those that enforce and interpret it.

Are you an attorney? Why are you so afraid to answer this question? Not very 'tough' of you.

 

[Unkotare]

And, constitutionally, you can't tell the employer who they can and cannot hire.

Sure you can. Happens all the time.

 

[Unkotare]

It's called a Guest Worker program with no automatic path to citizenship. It does away with birth citizenship and solves this issue without the National Socialist bullshit non-solutions you seem to gravitate toward.

In no way does a guest worker program change the fact that anyone born here is a US citizen. Weren't you going on and on about your 'expert' knowledge of the law? Are you an attorney?

 

[Unkotare]

There must be some reason BloodyDolt won't answer a simple question.

 

[BuddyColt]

The following is a lot better explanation for this ongoing pissing match. Although it is several months old, it appears it answered the issues raised throughout the last several hundred posts:

Outcasts and Outlaws :: View topic - Understanding the Law 2

In addition, this legal v. illegal cow manure does not address the fact that even 12000 broke ass Mexicans are no match for Al-Waleed bin Talal, a Saudi Prince that is a multi - billionaire, a Muslim and the second largest shareholder of FOX.

The facts are, the 9 / 11 hijackers were all Saudis. When our Special Forces would catch Afghan terrorists, it was common to find the cell numbers of Saudi Princes on the Afghan terrorists. Saudi Arabia is one of the major exporters of terrorism world wide, but they not only have one of those "legal" methods of entry, but they are major stockholders in our news and entertainment industry.

Many of this thread are watching a minor diversion while America is biting the dust.

 

[Unkotare]

Say, just wondering, are you an attorney?

 

[High_Gravity]

Say, just wondering, are you an attorney?

No way this clown is anything more than a janitor in the INS office.

 

[High_Gravity]

Most illegal aliens are not monsters hell-bent on destroying our country. Most of them are normal folks trying to get along as best they can. However, they are ILLEGAL, and therefore should not be here. Pretty simple.

Thats it right there, best post in this thread.

 

[Liability]

The following is a lot better explanation for this ongoing pissing match. Although it is several months old, it appears it answered the issues raised throughout the last several hundred posts:

Outcasts and Outlaws :: View topic - Understanding the Law 2

In addition, this legal v. illegal cow manure does not address the fact that even 12000 broke ass Mexicans are no match for Al-Waleed bin Talal, a Saudi Prince that is a multi - billionaire, a Muslim and the second largest shareholder of FOX.

The facts are, the 9 / 11 hijackers were all Saudis. When our Special Forces would catch Afghan terrorists, it was common to find the cell numbers of Saudi Princes on the Afghan terrorists. Saudi Arabia is one of the major exporters of terrorism world wide, but they not only have one of those "legal" methods of entry, but they are major stockholders in our news and entertainment industry.

Many of this thread are watching a minor diversion while America is biting the dust.

DuddleyDolt:

Your entire post was a diversion. You, you drooling fuckwit, BROUGHT up the topic of legal vs. illegal.

It has been proved beyond any rational doubt that the law making improper entry into this country a crime IS a criminal law. But you, being a dishonest scumbag pussy shithead, deny it anyway without any basis in reason, fact, honesty or logic.

And then, being a completely duplicitous rancid diseased twat, you try to denigrate the very topic YOU brought up and were dead wrong about.

Even your suppressed minor premises remain false, you cock gobbler. Those who oppose illegal immigration do NOT necessarily oppose LEGAL immigration NOR is opposition to illegal immigration "racist," you lying sack of shit.

To recap:

• (1) you are a lying pussy motherfucker.
• (2) 8 U.S.C. §1325 is a CRIMINAL Law, your denial of that FACT being just your ignorance and/or dishonesty on display.
• (3) There IS a very real, meaningful and important DISTINCTION -- which morons like you try to evade -- BETWEEN legal and ILLEGAL Immigration.
• (4) Opposition to ILLEGAL Immigration is not even slightly "racist."

Hurry back with more of your stupid, ignorant, baseless, dishonest and muddled "thinking." We could all use another good laugh. Oh, and see point 1, above.

 

[BuddyColt]

The title of this thread is a rhetorical question, designed to get those who want the real questions answered to think about what it is they are saying.

In referring to undocumented foreigners as "illegal aliens," the practice empowers certain segments of the government to act as the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government.

Improper entry is the heading of the title in the official U.S. Code. The clan of rabble rousers here trying to bust my chops cannot show you one statute in the entire United States Code wherein improper means illegal. They've tried to overshadow the truth, but they are stuck with reality.

IF improper entry were a crime, there would have been no reason for an anti - immigrant Congressman to draft and introduce a bill changing that word improper to unlawful. That bill failed, but for all the political jockeying that has been done, as many times as that fact has been ignored, the children here wanting you to think they know something they don't, they can never over - come that one reality among the many that have been introduced here.

 

[High_Gravity]

The title of this thread is a rhetorical question, designed to get those who want the real questions answered to think about what it is they are saying.

In referring to undocumented foreigners as "illegal aliens," the practice empowers certain segments of the government to act as the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government.

Improper entry is the heading of the title in the official U.S. Code. The clan of rabble rousers here trying to bust my chops cannot show you one statute in the entire United States Code wherein improper means illegal. They've tried to overshadow the truth, but they are stuck with reality.

IF improper entry were a crime, there would have been no reason for an anti - immigrant Congressman to draft and introduce a bill changing that word improper to unlawful. That bill failed, but for all the political jockeying that has been done, as many times as that fact has been ignored, the children here wanting you to think they know something they don't, they can never over - come that one reality among the many that have been introduced here.

Blah blah blah, they are illegal aliens bitch, get over it.

 

[Liability]

Former AG Mukasey noted that "Not every wrong, or even every violation of the law, is a crime . . . "
From the first post in the link offered by DuddleyDolt.

Mukasey was correct and nobody who understands any of these things would dispute him on that observation.

The AUTHOR of the first post in the linked site, however, goes on to personally claim the following: "Some violations of the law are civil. Other violations of the law are criminal. The natural reaction to a LOT of people is that if a violation of the law occurs, they want the abuser to face criminal charges, regardless of whether the violation was civil or criminal. "

That needs to be un-packaged. For while it IS true that SOME laws are entirely civil (or administrative) and OTHER LAWS are entirely criminal, it is NOT TRUE that there is always an either/or CHOICE about whether the law is civil or criminal.

What assholes like DuddleyDolt seem unable (or perhaps just too dishonest and unwilling) to admit is that SOME LAWS are explicitly both criminal and civil.

8 USC §1325, BY ITS OWN TERMS, is one of the latter. It provides for civil penalties. Cool. BUT, and more importantly, it provides for CRIMINAL penalties.

NO law which provides for CRIMINAL penalties is ever anything other than a criminal law. It might also permit for civil sanctions, but as long as it provides for the prospect of jail or prison time, it is a criminal law.

But, DuddleyDolt doubles down on dumb. That jackass either ignorantly or deliberately confuses the criminal law prohibiting improper entry with the provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act which establish a mechanism for the deportation of aliens. THOSE provisions of the I&NA happen to be civil/administrative.

This is all VERY complicated for dimwits like DuddleyDolt, evidently. But for most folks, it's not all that difficult to segregate the concepts AND the various laws and provisions of law.

 

[Liability]

The title of this thread is a rhetorical question, designed to get those who want the real questions answered to think about what it is they are saying.

In referring to undocumented foreigners as "illegal aliens," the practice empowers certain segments of the government to act as the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government.

Improper entry is the heading of the title in the official U.S. Code. The clan of rabble rousers here trying to bust my chops cannot show you one statute in the entire United States Code wherein improper means illegal. They've tried to overshadow the truth, but they are stuck with reality.

IF improper entry were a crime, there would have been no reason for an anti - immigrant Congressman to draft and introduce a bill changing that word improper to unlawful. That bill failed, but for all the political jockeying that has been done, as many times as that fact has been ignored, the children here wanting you to think they know something they don't, they can never over - come that one reality among the many that have been introduced here.

IF improper entry were a crime, there would have been no reason for an anti - immigrant Congressman to draft and introduce a bill changing that word improper to unlawful.

False.

It was attempted as a way of making sure dimwits like you wouldn't remain perpetually confused. Sadly, some folks LIKE it better though when drooling dishonest pussy motherfuckers like you REMAIN addled. So they left the somewhat confusing title of that "law" unchanged.

But whether you call it "improper entry" or "illegal entry" or "border crossing which pisses us off," the title of the law doesn't inform anybody of whether or not it is a CRIMINAL Law. What settles that question is the fact that it provides for jail and or for prison time. It IS a criminal law.

Your stupidity, ignorance and dishonesty do not control, DuddleyDolt. The law remains a criminal law.

 

[BuddyColt]

According to the Attorney General 7 Jan 2009 in his opinion on a ruling governing a Title 8 USC 1325 removal:

The Supreme Court has recognized constitutional claims for ineffective
assistance of counsel only where a person has a constitutional right to a
Government-appointed lawyer. In contrast to a defendant in a criminal case,
an alien has no right—constitutional or statutory—to Government-appointed
counsel in an administrative removal proceeding. Compare section
240(b)(4)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA” or “Act&#8221,
8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(4)(A) (2006) (providing that an alien has a “privilege of
being represented, at no expense to the Government, by counsel of the alien’s
choosing&#8221, and section 292 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1362 (2006), with U.S.
Const. amend. VI (“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall . . . have the
Assistance of Counsel for his defence.&#8221, and Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S.
335 (1963).

Case cite - 24 I&N Dec. 710 (A.G. 2009)

If a person is detained on a Title 8 USC 1325 violation, they go before a civil forum, not a criminal court. There, they can be charged up to $250 civil fine and deported.

The argument being brought by the Internet Perry Mason wannabes is that a civil action is a crime and that the violator can go to a civil forum and be denied an appointed attorney and then tried in a criminal court wherein they can supposedly be jailed. AND... to top it all off, they are arguing that both events are criminal in nature!!!!!!!!!!!

The idiocy boggles the mind. The truth is that if the violator's only charge is improper entry, they get detained and brought into a civil proceeding. They can be charged a maximum civil fine of $250 and they are then processed and deported. It is entirely a civil administrative proceeding.

IF a violator eludes the authorities, lies to them or commits a crime as defined in Title 18 of the United States Code, they are tried in a criminal court, afforded a taxpayer attorney and sentenced accordingly BEFORE going into a separate forum for the violation of improper entry.

 

[Liability]

According to the Attorney General 7 Jan 2009 in his opinion on a ruling governing a Title 8 USC 1325 removal:

The Supreme Court has recognized constitutional claims for ineffective
assistance of counsel only where a person has a constitutional right to a
Government-appointed lawyer. In contrast to a defendant in a criminal case,
an alien has no right—constitutional or statutory—to Government-appointed
counsel in an administrative removal proceeding. Compare section
240(b)(4)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA” or “Act”),
8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(4)(A) (2006) (providing that an alien has a “privilege of
being represented, at no expense to the Government, by counsel of the alien’s
choosing”), and section 292 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1362 (2006), with U.S.
Const. amend. VI (“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall . . . have the
Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”), and Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S.
335 (1963).

Case cite - 24 I&N Dec. 710 (A.G. 2009)

If a person is detained on a Title 8 USC 1325 violation, they go before a civil forum, not a criminal court. There, they can be charged up to $250 civil fine and deported.

The argument being brought by the Internet Perry Mason wannabes is that a civil action is a crime and that the violator can go to a civil forum and be denied an appointed attorney and then tried in a criminal court wherein they can supposedly be jailed. AND... to top it all off, they are arguing that both events are criminal in nature!!!!!!!!!!!

The idiocy boggles the mind. The truth is that if the violator's only charge is improper entry, they get detained and brought before into a civil proceeding. They can be charged a maximum civil fine of $250 and they are then processed and deported. It is entirely a civil administrative proceeding.

IF a violator eludes the authorities, lies to them or commits a crime as defined in Title 18 of the United States Code, they are tried in a criminal court, afforded a taxpayer attorney and sentenced accordingly BEFORE going into a separate forum for the violation of improper entry.

The alien HAS no right to counsel in a removal proceeding which is administrative.

But guess what, you fucking drooling dishonest scumbag pussy motherfucker? An alien DOES have the right to counsel in a criminal proceeding in a criminal court of LAW brought under 8 USC § 1325.

Next.

 

[BuddyColt]

The title of this thread is a rhetorical question, designed to get those who want the real questions answered to think about what it is they are saying.

In referring to undocumented foreigners as "illegal aliens," the practice empowers certain segments of the government to act as the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government.

Improper entry is the heading of the title in the official U.S. Code. The clan of rabble rousers here trying to bust my chops cannot show you one statute in the entire United States Code wherein improper means illegal. They've tried to overshadow the truth, but they are stuck with reality.

IF improper entry were a crime, there would have been no reason for an anti - immigrant Congressman to draft and introduce a bill changing that word improper to unlawful. That bill failed, but for all the political jockeying that has been done, as many times as that fact has been ignored, the children here wanting you to think they know something they don't, they can never over - come that one reality among the many that have been introduced here.

IF improper entry were a crime, there would have been no reason for an anti - immigrant Congressman to draft and introduce a bill changing that word improper to unlawful.

False.

It was attempted as a way of making sure dimwits like you wouldn't remain perpetually confused. Sadly, some folks LIKE it better though when drooling dishonest pussy motherfuckers like you REMAIN addled. So they left the somewhat confusing title of that "law" unchanged.

But whether you call it "improper entry" or "illegal entry" or "border crossing which pisses us off," the title of the law doesn't inform anybody of whether or not it is a CRIMINAL Law. What settles that question is the fact that it provides for jail and or for prison time. It IS a criminal law.

Your stupidity, ignorance and dishonesty do not control, DuddleyDolt. The law remains a criminal law.

Okay Perry Mason, give us chapter and verse. Prove your allegation. I proved mine. I gave you the quotes from ALL the top immigration officials stating that crossing the border was NOT a crime. Sesensbrenner tried to change that fact.

 

[BuddyColt]

According to the Attorney General 7 Jan 2009 in his opinion on a ruling governing a Title 8 USC 1325 removal:

The Supreme Court has recognized constitutional claims for ineffective
assistance of counsel only where a person has a constitutional right to a
Government-appointed lawyer. In contrast to a defendant in a criminal case,
an alien has no right—constitutional or statutory—to Government-appointed
counsel in an administrative removal proceeding. Compare section
240(b)(4)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA” or “Act”),
8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(4)(A) (2006) (providing that an alien has a “privilege of
being represented, at no expense to the Government, by counsel of the alien’s
choosing”), and section 292 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1362 (2006), with U.S.
Const. amend. VI (“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall . . . have the
Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”), and Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S.
335 (1963).

Case cite - 24 I&N Dec. 710 (A.G. 2009)

If a person is detained on a Title 8 USC 1325 violation, they go before a civil forum, not a criminal court. There, they can be charged up to $250 civil fine and deported.

The argument being brought by the Internet Perry Mason wannabes is that a civil action is a crime and that the violator can go to a civil forum and be denied an appointed attorney and then tried in a criminal court wherein they can supposedly be jailed. AND... to top it all off, they are arguing that both events are criminal in nature!!!!!!!!!!!

The idiocy boggles the mind. The truth is that if the violator's only charge is improper entry, they get detained and brought before into a civil proceeding. They can be charged a maximum civil fine of $250 and they are then processed and deported. It is entirely a civil administrative proceeding.

IF a violator eludes the authorities, lies to them or commits a crime as defined in Title 18 of the United States Code, they are tried in a criminal court, afforded a taxpayer attorney and sentenced accordingly BEFORE going into a separate forum for the violation of improper entry.

The alien HAS no right to counsel in a removal proceeding which is administrative.

But guess what, you fucking drooling dishonest scumbag pussy motherfucker? An alien DOES have the right to counsel in a criminal proceeding in a criminal court of LAW brought under 8 USC § 1325.

Next.

You totally lying, ignorant son of a mangy dog bitch, Title 8 USC 1325 does not provide a criminal penalty for a fucking thing. THAT is why it references Title 18. The crimes are Title 18 crimes you fucking idiot.

You are the worst liar and the most ignorant bigot on the face of this earth.

 

[High_Gravity]

According to the Attorney General 7 Jan 2009 in his opinion on a ruling governing a Title 8 USC 1325 removal:

The Supreme Court has recognized constitutional claims for ineffective
assistance of counsel only where a person has a constitutional right to a
Government-appointed lawyer. In contrast to a defendant in a criminal case,
an alien has no right—constitutional or statutory—to Government-appointed
counsel in an administrative removal proceeding. Compare section
240(b)(4)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA” or “Act”),
8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(4)(A) (2006) (providing that an alien has a “privilege of
being represented, at no expense to the Government, by counsel of the alien’s
choosing”), and section 292 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1362 (2006), with U.S.
Const. amend. VI (“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall . . . have the
Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”), and Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S.
335 (1963).

Case cite - 24 I&N Dec. 710 (A.G. 2009)

If a person is detained on a Title 8 USC 1325 violation, they go before a civil forum, not a criminal court. There, they can be charged up to $250 civil fine and deported.

The argument being brought by the Internet Perry Mason wannabes is that a civil action is a crime and that the violator can go to a civil forum and be denied an appointed attorney and then tried in a criminal court wherein they can supposedly be jailed. AND... to top it all off, they are arguing that both events are criminal in nature!!!!!!!!!!!

The idiocy boggles the mind. The truth is that if the violator's only charge is improper entry, they get detained and brought before into a civil proceeding. They can be charged a maximum civil fine of $250 and they are then processed and deported. It is entirely a civil administrative proceeding.

IF a violator eludes the authorities, lies to them or commits a crime as defined in Title 18 of the United States Code, they are tried in a criminal court, afforded a taxpayer attorney and sentenced accordingly BEFORE going into a separate forum for the violation of improper entry.

The alien HAS no right to counsel in a removal proceeding which is administrative.

But guess what, you fucking drooling dishonest scumbag pussy motherfucker? An alien DOES have the right to counsel in a criminal proceeding in a criminal court of LAW brought under 8 USC § 1325.

Next.

You totally lying, ignorant son of a mangy dog bitch, Title 8 USC 1325 does not provide a criminal penalty for a fucking thing. THAT is why it references Title 18. The crimes are Title 18 crimes you fucking idiot.

You are the worst liar and the most ignorant bigot on the face of this earth.

Calm down, you are such a hysterical little drama queen.

 

[BuddyColt]

BTW, Liability, are YOU an attorney?

Bar number please