AMERICANS vs. MEXICANS

[LilOlLady]

AMERICANS vs. MEXICANS

With Illegal Aliens self-deporting back to Mexico taking their American born children with them, some are claiming to be having problem adjusting. Some are claiming having to learn Spanish as a problem. But how is this different from Illegal Aliens bringing children who have spent all their lives in Mexico being brought to a country where they do not know the language or the culture and their parent do not know the language either? And they have to attend ESL classes provide by the taxpayers to learn English.

Some of these children never adjust and assimilate because their parent don’t and drop out of school and join gangs for their peers. At least the parent that self deport know the language and they and the children already know the culture. Children born in the country often start school here not able to speak English because their parents don’t speak English.

Deportation unite families and illegal immigration separate families. Many of those self deporting are being united with families they left behind years ago. It is a very good thing they are going home. Children are meeting grand parents and family they would not necessary know. And it appears that most returning home are doing quite well.
Those that expect to return here after the economy recover will be repeat offenders and are felons.

Under Title 8 Section 1325 of the U.S. Code, "Improper Entry by Alien," any citizen of any country other than the United States who:
Enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers; or
Eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers; 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;
has committed a federal crime.

Violations are punishable by criminal fines and imprisonment for up to six months. Repeat offenses can bring up to two years in prison. Additional civil fines may be imposed at the discretion of immigration judges, but civil fines do not negate the criminal sanctions or nature of the offense.
See: Unlawful entry a crime since '29 - Rocky Mountain News -- June 11, 2006

Illegal Immigration IS A CRIME!

 

[BuddyColt]

AMERICANS vs. MEXICANS

With Illegal Aliens self-deporting back to Mexico taking their American born children with them, some are claiming to be having problem adjusting. Some are claiming having to learn Spanish as a problem. But how is this different from Illegal Aliens bringing children who have spent all their lives in Mexico being brought to a country where they do not know the language or the culture and their parent do not know the language either? And they have to attend ESL classes provide by the taxpayers to learn English.

Some of these children never adjust and assimilate because their parent don’t and drop out of school and join gangs for their peers. At least the parent that self deport know the language and they and the children already know the culture. Children born in the country often start school here not able to speak English because their parents don’t speak English.

Deportation unite families and illegal immigration separate families. Many of those self deporting are being united with families they left behind years ago. It is a very good thing they are going home. Children are meeting grand parents and family they would not necessary know. And it appears that most returning home are doing quite well.
Those that expect to return here after the economy recover will be repeat offenders and are felons.

Under Title 8 Section 1325 of the U.S. Code, "Improper Entry by Alien," any citizen of any country other than the United States who:
Enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers; or
Eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers; 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;
has committed a federal crime.

Violations are punishable by criminal fines and imprisonment for up to six months. Repeat offenses can bring up to two years in prison. Additional civil fines may be imposed at the discretion of immigration judges, but civil fines do not negate the criminal sanctions or nature of the offense.
See: Unlawful entry a crime since '29 - Rocky Mountain News -- June 11, 2006

This is the most convoluted nonsense I have ever heard. To begin with, most of the time a Hispanic has several children, some born in the United States and some born in a foreign country. We deport the parents and do not think about the rights of their American born children.

The one thing that the anti - immigrants don't think about is the fact that in a few years, those born in the United States and then forced out via cruel and unusual treatment of their parents can and WILL return to the United States. When that happens, they will have learned Spanish and forgotten English. They will have no support system and become dependent on the welfare system. They will have been deprived of an education. Most of this is due to the anti - immigrants failure to understand the economics of their own country and the laws as was demonstrated above. Let's help "LilOLady out:

Title 8 USC 1325 is in a CIVIL section of the law. It is entitled IMPROPER ENTRY. When you are on the receiving end of a divorce, you become a defendant in a CIVIL legal process; however, you do NOT become a criminal. The same holds true for Title 8 actions. As evidence of this, Title 8 (EIGHT) mentions criminal acts under Title 18 (EIGHTEEN) of the United States Code. That is because Title 8 is a civil section of the law and cannot impose a criminal penalty. I will present the entire statute Title 8 USC 1325 and explain the statute the OP misquoted (My comments are in red):

8 USC § 1325 - Improper entry by alien

Notice Title 8 USC 1325 is about an IMPROPER act, not an unlawful one nor an illegal act

a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts

Notice, this Section (a) deals with defining THREE different things (numbered subsections): improper time or place, avoidance of examination or inspection and the misrepresentation or 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.

We have three distinct acts that 8 USC 1325 deals with above and a foreigner can be fined under Title 18 or imprisoned, etc., etc. HOWEVER, those crimes are specific to what is mentioned in THAT section (subsection 3.) Read them carefully with me. If you make a false or misleading representation or if the foreigner willfully conceals a material fact, that person will be tried under Title 18. The fines and terms are listed for the convenience of those researching the issue, but improper entry is NOT listed in Section 3 above. It's because entry is NOT a crime.


(b) Improper time or place; civil penalties
Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to enter) the United States at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil penalty of—
(1) at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or attempted entry); or
(2) twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under this subsection.

Here you go if you can read the above subsection (b) The penalties for entering the United States improperly only nets the offender a civil fine not exceeding $250

Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be imposed.

Again, the offender must pay a civil fine of up to $250 and it has NO bearing on whether or not they are penalized for the crimes of avoidance of examination or inspection and the misrepresentation or concealment of facts

(c) Marriage fraud
Any individual who knowingly enters into a marriage for the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or fined not more than $250,000, or both.
(d) Immigration-related entrepreneurship fraud
Any individual who knowingly establishes a commercial enterprise for the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, fined in accordance with title 18, or both.*****

Editorial note: If a foreigner is detected at the border and does NOT flee and does not lie to authorities, they can be charged up to $250 civil penalty and deported. If the foreigner comes here and is NOT detected, they are not committing a crime, but if they are stopped pursuant to probable cause, they can be detained and deported - which is all civil.

It is both inaccurate and dishonest to refer to them as "illegal aliens." Perhaps more idiotic, the continued practice of calling people criminals absent Due Process has led to the same principles being applied to the activists on the right. Many of the anti - immigrants have been victims of their own failed strategies, namely failing to realize that by denying the immigrant Due Process, the rules are THE ANTI - IMMIGRANT CAN BE DENIED DUE PROCESS. It's a little provision of the 14th Amendment called the "equal protection of the laws."

 

[BuddyColt]

Considering the starting point for this entire forum rests on whether or not we're talking about immigration being a crime, it would appear this thread ought to be getting more interest and responses.

 

[BuddyColt]

I'm just a newbie here and have already noticed that the National Socialists like to post a new thread about immigration every day. They don't even feel a need to come back and defend their position in old threads once it's been debunked as a myth.

I cited the statute THEY gave in support of the position that it is a crime to enter or be in the United States without papers. They chose to ignore the counter argument. Here's why:

The most radical anti - immigrant legislator in my life-time is (Congressman ) Rep. James Sensenbrenner. A few years ago, Sensenbrenner introduced HR 4437. It was an anti immigrant bill. IT FAILED TO BE ENACTED INTO LAW.

In Section 203 of Sensenbrenner's legislation was a proposal to change the wording of Title 8 USC 1325 FROM Improper TO Unlawful. Section 203 would have changed improper entry to be unlawful entry and unlawful presence, but the bill FAILED.

Full Text of H.R. 4437 (109th): Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005 - GovTrack.us

I've had a simple question for the National Socialists that maintain it's illegal to enter or be in the United States. They will not answer that question because they realize they're wrong, so what you will see next is yet ANOTHER THREAD ABOUT SOME DIFFERENT ASPECT OF IMMIGRATION. Here's my question:

Presupposing it is "illegal" to enter or be in the United States, why waste time changing the law to read "unlawful" where it currently says improper? The real reason they can only answer in silence: IT'S NOT ILLEGAL. IT IS A CIVIL INFRACTION IN A CIVIL SECTION OF THE UNITED STATES CODE.

 

[Sunni Man]

The one thing that the anti - immigrants don't think about is the fact that in a few years, those born in the United States and then forced out via cruel and unusual treatment of their parents can and WILL return to the United States. When that happens, they will have learned Spanish and forgotten English. They will have no support system and become dependent on the welfare system. They will have been deprived of an education."

Just more idiotic liberal non sense.

No, we are not "depriving" deported illegals of an education.

Their country of origin has schools they can attend.

We do not owe them an education!!! Period!!

 

[BuddyColt]

The one thing that the anti - immigrants don't think about is the fact that in a few years, those born in the United States and then forced out via cruel and unusual treatment of their parents can and WILL return to the United States. When that happens, they will have learned Spanish and forgotten English. They will have no support system and become dependent on the welfare system. They will have been deprived of an education."

Just more idiotic liberal non sense.

No, we are not "depriving" deported illegals of an education.

Their country of origin has schools they can attend.

We do not owe them an education!!! Period!!

I guess everybody has the Right to ignore the government education I helped pay for.

First off, had you read the post, my statement applied to children born in the United States who are American citizens.

Secondly, if I start calling you names, how will YOU feel about that?

National Socialists are proving that they cannot read. First, they cannot accept the fact that there are no "illegal" aliens and now this guy cannot even read that my statements applied to American born children who the courts say are Americans and entitled to the equal protection of the laws (which includes a taxpayer funded education.)

 

[Sunni Man]

First, they cannot accept the fact that there are no "illegal" aliens

So a person who sneaks across the border into the U.S. and breaks the law is Not an illegal alien??

 

[Douger]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n62FHQiYRNY]Mexico's Massive Image Gap: College Students Say Americans Have it All Wrong - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Douger]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VI9PD8yC-1c&feature=related]CBS News video on Moving to Mexico - YouTube[/ame]

 

[BuddyColt]

First, they cannot accept the fact that there are no "illegal" aliens

So a person who sneaks across the border into the U.S. and breaks the law in doing that is Not an illegal alien??

Absolutely not. They are an undocumented foreigner. Let me explain to you, on plain English what is wrong with calling people illegal aliens:

To begin with: every person is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of their peers.

When I was fighting the so - called "Patriot Act" with my butt on the line, I asked one of the government lawyers when in the hell we started convicting people by calling them criminals absent Due Process. He said, "We do it all the time. Haven't you ever heard of an "illegal alien?" I was working in immigration law at that time, but immersed myself in it afterward.

We refused to jump on the anti - immigrant bandwagon in Georgia (I was in a citizen's militia at that time) and it created a split in the ranks. The anti - immigrants could not understand nor accept the fact that it is setting a terrible precedent to call people criminals absent Due Process and there is no law making it a crime to enter or be in the United States without papers. Today, ALL of those in the Militia of Georgia who refused to accept the facts have become victims of their own strategies. They are either in jail, prison, working as snitches for the government or dead. They were presumed to be criminals and forced to prove a negative (which cannot be done):

Waffle House Terrorists - Waffle House Terrorist Plot - Esquire

Trucker with illicit tastes led FBI to Georgia militia plot - latimes.com

Darren Wesley Huff, Georgia Birther, Convicted Of Plot To Take Over Courthouse To Topple Obama

ALL of those people had the same view of Due Process that the anti - immigrant lobby does. Their strategies failed them. We're innocent until proven guilty. Remember that.

What you advocate for the foreigner will be done to you.

 

[Sunni Man]

First, they cannot accept the fact that there are no "illegal" aliens

So a person who sneaks across the border into the U.S. and breaks the law in doing that is Not an illegal alien??

Absolutely not. They are an undocumented foreigner. Let me explain to you, on plain English what is wrong with calling people illegal aliens:

To begin with: every person is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of their peers.

No, dickweed, they are "illegal" aliens; and do not deserve Due Process or a jury trial.

All they deserve is "Deportation". Period

 

[Angelhair]

'We deport the parents and do not think about the rights of their American born children. '

Pure unadulterated BS!!! We CAN'T deport american born children! That is one of their rights. The parents come here fully aware that they are here illegally and it's against the law! They get pregnant in order to have a stepping stone to this country. When they are caught and deported, they are asked if they have a relative, friend or other, to see for their child/ren. If not, then the state takes them in - unless - the parent chooses to take their child/ren with them!!! More often than not, they choose to leave their children here! Which in in itself is a big tragedy and just inhuman on THEIR part!!!

 

[Angelhair]

'IT'S NOT ILLEGAL. IT IS A CIVIL INFRACTION IN A CIVIL SECTION OF THE UNITED STATES CODE.'

And...........a civil infraction is just as illegal and is punished. Entering the country without permission aka ILLEGALLY, is punishable by deportation. BTW, if one enters illegally - HE/SHE IS AN I.L.L.E.G.A.L. Period.

 

[Zoom-boing]

So a person who sneaks across the border into the U.S. and breaks the law in doing that is Not an illegal alien??

Absolutely not. They are an undocumented foreigner. Let me explain to you, on plain English what is wrong with calling people illegal aliens:

To begin with: every person is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of their peers.

No, dickweed, they are "illegal" aliens; and do not deserve Due Process or a jury trial.

All they deserve is "Deportation". Period

Correct. How can someone who entered the U.S. in an improper manner - that is, not in the manners listed as being legal -- be entitled to any type of rights a U.S. citizen has (innocent until proven guilty)? They are not U.S. citizens. They have entered in an improper (illegal) manner. Boot them and they can try again through legal channels if they wish.

 

[BuddyColt]

'We deport the parents and do not think about the rights of their American born children. '

Pure unadulterated BS!!! We CAN'T deport american born children! That is one of their rights. The parents come here fully aware that they are here illegally and it's against the law! They get pregnant in order to have a stepping stone to this country. When they are caught and deported, they are asked if they have a relative, friend or other, to see for their child/ren. If not, then the state takes them in - unless - the parent chooses to take their child/ren with them!!! More often than not, they choose to leave their children here! Which in in itself is a big tragedy and just inhuman on THEIR part!!!

I worked in immigration law for six years. I can tell everyone on this board you don't have a clue as to what you're talking about. The children don't have a say in whether or not they go to Mexico and their parents take them back more often than not.

 

[Sunni Man]

The children don't have a say in whether or not they go to Mexico and their parents take them back more often than not.

That's good to hear.

Although, I wish 100% of them took their children back.

 

[BuddyColt]

Correct. How can someone who entered the U.S. in an improper manner - that is, not in the manners listed as being legal -- be entitled to any type of rights a U.S. citizen has (innocent until proven guilty)? They are not U.S. citizens. They have entered in an improper (illegal) manner. Boot them and they can try again through legal channels if they wish.

Half of the people that come here and end up without papers are simply people that over-stay a visa. So asked and answered?

The word improper does not mean illegal. I've given you a link that clearly explains the difference. At least pretend you have an IQ and read it before sticking your foot into your mouth.

There is a presumed "proper" and an "improper" way to get into the United States. It is not legal and illegal. Here, in my next post, you can argue with the professionals...

 

[Sunni Man]

I don't give a rats a$$ how you want to slice and dice the terminology.

If they are in the country and breaking the law by being here.

They need to be immediately deported; not tomorrow, today, like ASAP

 

[Zoom-boing]

Half of the people that come here and end up without papers are simply people that over-stay a visa. So asked and answered?

The word improper does not mean illegal. I've given you a link that clearly explains the difference. At least pretend you have an IQ and read it before sticking your foot into your mouth.

There is a presumed "proper" and an "improper" way to get into the United States. It is not legal and illegal. Here, in my next post, you can argue with the professionals...

If they've overstayed their visas then they are no longer here legally.

 

[BuddyColt]

ENTERING THE UNITED STATES AND BEING HERE ARE NOT A CRIME ACCORDING TO EVERY EXPERT IN IMMIGRATION LAW

Janet Napolitano, the head of the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security that oversees immigration and border security said: "Crossing the border without papers is not a crime..."

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTqim4Se70k]Napolitano: Illegally Crossing Mexican Border's Not A Crime. All Terrorists Crossed Canadian Border - YouTube[/ame]

Attorney General Michael Mukasey, the highest ranking immigration official in the United States at the time, made a RULING regarding a Title 8 USC 1325 deportation:

(2) Aliens in removal proceedings have no right to counsel, including Government-appointed
counsel, under the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution because the Sixth Amendment
applies only to criminal proceedings and removal proceedings are civil in nature.

He went on to explain his ruling in the Opinion of the case:

Several uncontroversial propositions inform whether there is a
constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel in removal proceedings.
A removal proceeding is a civil action, not a criminal proceeding. See, e.g.,
INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032, 1038 (1984) (“A deportation
proceeding is a purely civil action to determine eligibility to remain in this
country, not to punish an unlawful entry.”); Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342
U.S. 580, 594 (1952) (“Deportation, however severe its consequences, has
been consistently classified as a civil rather than a criminal procedure.”).2
Therefore, the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee that, in all “criminal
prosecutions,” an “accused shall . . . have the Assistance of counsel for his
defence” does not apply. See, e.g., Abel v. United States, 362 U.S. 217, 237
(1960) (“[D]eportation proceedings are not subject to the constitutional
safeguards for criminal prosecutions.”). Accordingly, the Federal courts
uniformly have held that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel (which
includes the right to Government-appointed counsel) does not apply in
removal proceedings. See, e.g., Tang v. Ashcroft, 354 F.3d 1192, 1196 (10th
Cir. 2003); United States v. Loaisiga, 104 F.3d 484, 485 (1st Cir. 1997);
Delgado-Corea v. INS, 804 F.2d 261, 262 (4th Cir. 1986); United States
v. Cerda-Pena, 799 F.2d 1374, 1376 n.2 (9th Cir. 1986). The corresponding
Cite as 24 I&N Dec. 710 (A.G. 2009) Interim Decision #3632
717
Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel, see Strickland
v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 685-86 (1984), does not apply either. See, e.g.,
Afanwi, 526 F.3d at 796 & n.31 (citing cases).
Unlike the Sixth Amendment, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth
Amendment, which provides that “[n]o person shall . . . be deprived of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law,” applies to civil and criminal
proceedings alike. Moreover, that Clause applies to “all ‘persons’ within the
United States, including aliens, whether their presence here is lawful,
unlawful, temporary, or permanent.” Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 693
(2001). Therefore, it is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles all aliens who have entered the United States to due process of law in removal
proceedings. See, e.g., Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 306 (1993); see also
Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206, 212 (1953)

http://www.justice.gov/eoir/vll/intdec/vol24/3632.pdf

So, the highest ranking immigration official rules it's not a crime.

Let's keep going:

Rudy Giuliani was once a United States Attorney. He is well versed. Listen to what he said:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDo-ZVK4dc0]Giuliani: Illegal Immigration Not A Crime And Should Not Be - YouTube[/ame]

Want some more?

Governor Chris Christie is also a former U.S. Attorney. Here is what HE said:

"Being in this country without proper documentation is not a crime. The whole phrase of 'illegal immigrant' connotes that the person, by just being here, is committing a crime.

Don't let people make you believe that that's a crime that the U.S. Attorney's Office should be doing something about. It is not."

Chris Christie - Immigration

How much proof will be sufficient?