How Can Dems Confuse Immigrants with Illegals ?

[Liability]

In that pretend world democrats inhabit there is no difference....................lol

I'm not a Democrat, but you have your story bass ackward.

To begin with, people in the United States are NOT illegals. This is the United States of America and we presume every person to be innocent until proven guilty in a court of law by their peers. The lynch mob mentality of the National Socialists don't have much consideration for that fact, but if YOU were being judged on that standard, you would have a different tune.

Secondly, entering and being in the United States without papers is a civil offense, NOT a crime.

Next, under Reagan and Bush the foreigners were given amnesties. George W. Bush advocated a Guest Worker program. For the record, Barack Obama holds the record for deporting more undocumented foreigners than any U.S. president in history.

George W. Bush's Attorney General denied to undocumented foreigners a taxpayer funded attorney, ruling that deportation proceedings (based upon Title 8 USC 1325) were civil NOT criminal and Sixth Amendment protections did not apply in civil proceedings.

It was Eric Holder, Barack Obama's Attorney General that has taken the position that the undocumented foreigners are criminals.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but that's the facts.

...............................................................................................


A civil offense IS still a crime, by the way....But let me paste THIS little ditty:


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.

Illegal aliens ARE criminals one way or another...

ALL of this has already been repeatedly conveyed to DuddlyDolt.

He doesn't listen to reality when it gets in the way of his fictional "story."

He's not very bright and not at all honest.

 

[Unkotare]

All you immigrants that whine and cry about immigration today should go back to the countries you comer from.

Why are you directing these comments towards me? I "comer" from the United States of America.

You lying POS. You came from Somali.

Did someone mention "lying"? You really suck at guessing, untough-guy.

 

[Unkotare]

I'm not a gray haired old guy nor a faggot - .

You're both, we know.

 

[Unkotare]

Anybody too stupid to see the smokescreen you are putting up isn't smart enough to be any kind of discussion.

You know, it's never too late to take an English class, champ.

 

[tjvh]

The moment someone crosses our borders "illegally", they become criminals, and should be treated as such. As for immigrants going through our immigration process "legally"... More power to them.

 

[BuddyColt]

In that pretend world democrats inhabit there is no difference....................lol

I'm not a Democrat, but you have your story bass ackward.

To begin with, people in the United States are NOT illegals. This is the United States of America and we presume every person to be innocent until proven guilty in a court of law by their peers. The lynch mob mentality of the National Socialists don't have much consideration for that fact, but if YOU were being judged on that standard, you would have a different tune.

Secondly, entering and being in the United States without papers is a civil offense, NOT a crime.

Next, under Reagan and Bush the foreigners were given amnesties. George W. Bush advocated a Guest Worker program. For the record, Barack Obama holds the record for deporting more undocumented foreigners than any U.S. president in history.

George W. Bush's Attorney General denied to undocumented foreigners a taxpayer funded attorney, ruling that deportation proceedings (based upon Title 8 USC 1325) were civil NOT criminal and Sixth Amendment protections did not apply in civil proceedings.

It was Eric Holder, Barack Obama's Attorney General that has taken the position that the undocumented foreigners are criminals.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but that's the facts.

...............................................................................................


A civil offense IS still a crime, by the way....But let me paste THIS little ditty:


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.

Illegal aliens ARE criminals one way or another...

Okay counselor. If civil infractions are crimes, what kind of a criminal is a defendant in a divorce action?

 

[MaryL]

I'm not a Democrat, but you have your story bass ackward.

To begin with, people in the United States are NOT illegals. This is the United States of America and we presume every person to be innocent until proven guilty in a court of law by their peers. The lynch mob mentality of the National Socialists don't have much consideration for that fact, but if YOU were being judged on that standard, you would have a different tune.

Secondly, entering and being in the United States without papers is a civil offense, NOT a crime.

Next, under Reagan and Bush the foreigners were given amnesties. George W. Bush advocated a Guest Worker program. For the record, Barack Obama holds the record for deporting more undocumented foreigners than any U.S. president in history.

George W. Bush's Attorney General denied to undocumented foreigners a taxpayer funded attorney, ruling that deportation proceedings (based upon Title 8 USC 1325) were civil NOT criminal and Sixth Amendment protections did not apply in civil proceedings.

It was Eric Holder, Barack Obama's Attorney General that has taken the position that the undocumented foreigners are criminals.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but that's the facts.

...............................................................................................


A civil offense IS still a crime, by the way....But let me paste THIS little ditty:


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.

Illegal aliens ARE criminals one way or another...

Okay counselor. If civil infractions are crimes, what kind of a criminal is a defendant in a divorce action?

Tell me, why are you doing this? Illegal aliens ARE criminals, did you not gather that from title 8 section 1325? Why no answer to that, honey? Hmm? No, instead, you play games with semantics. Tell me, why are you defending them? Get off that ivory tower.

 

[Vidi]

America's current mass immigration mess is the result of a change in the laws in 1965. Prior to 1965, despite some changes in the 50's, America was a low-immigration country basically living under immigration laws written in 1924. Thanks to low immigration, the swamp of cheap labor was largely drained during this period, America became a fundamentally middle-class society, and our many European ethnic groups were brought together into a common national culture. In some ways, this achievement was so complete that we started to take for granted what we had achieved and forgot why it happened. So in a spasm of sentimentality on the Right and lies on the Left, we opened the borders.

Born of liberal ideology, the 1965 bill abolished the national origins quota system that had regulated the ethnic composition of immigration in fair proportion to each group's existing presence in the population. In a misguided application spirit of the civil rights era, the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations saw these ethnic quotas as an archaic form of chauvinism. Moreover, as Cold Warriors facing charges of "racism" and "imperialism," they found the system rhetorically embarrassing. The record of debate over this seismic change in immigration policy reveals that left-wingers, in their visceral flight to attack "discrimination," did not reveal the consequences of their convictions. Instead, their spokesmen set out to assuage concerned traditionalists with a litany of lies and wishful thinking.

Chief among national concerns was total numeric immigration. Senate floor manager and Camelot knight-errant Ted Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, assured jittery senators that "our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually." Senator Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, further calmed that august body, insisting "the total number of potential immigrants would not be changed very much." Time has proven otherwise. Average immigration levels before the 1965 amendments took effect hovered around 300,000 per annum. Yet 1,045,000 legal immigrants flooded our cities in 1996 alone....

FrontPage Magazine - The 1965 Immigration Act: Anatomy of a Disaster

Teddy the drunk's enduring legacy..................

That is spot on accurate.

To add, the rules also changed in terms of what the priority for legal immigration was. No longer did someone have to know a trade in order to come into the country but the priority became about family. If a potential immigrant had family in the US then they were given priority. This led to unprecedented "chain immigration"

 

[BuddyColt]

...............................................................................................


A civil offense IS still a crime, by the way....But let me paste THIS little ditty:


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.

Illegal aliens ARE criminals one way or another...

Okay counselor. If civil infractions are crimes, what kind of a criminal is a defendant in a divorce action?

Tell me, why are you doing this? Illegal aliens ARE criminals, did you not gather that from title 8 section 1325? Why no answer to that, honey? Hmm? No, instead, you play games with semantics. Tell me, why are you defending them? Get off that ivory tower.

Ivory tower? I've answered your question over 50 times on this board. Nobody seems to want to read it. Let me answer you this way:

"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." - Thomas Paine (you remember, one of our founding fathers)

I'm not playing games with semantics. I am telling you the rulings of the courts that are irrefutable no matter how many times you post something to the contrary. I've had more than twenty former contemporaries who are now either in jail, prison, working as snitches or dead because they did not understand the elements of Due Process and the same common denominator was the same in EVERY case: they refused to understand the immigration issue and the danger to ALL our Liberties by maintaining that civil infractions of the law are crimes.

I practiced immigration law for six years. It's done in a civil forum, the immigration officials are civil servants, not criminal judges and Title 8 is in a CIVIL section of the U.S. Code.

The precedents your side is setting is KILLING people from YOUR OWN SIDE!!! I don't want to fucking die because of somebody else's stupidity in creating bad precedents. How is that so hard to understand?

If you REALLY want to know, I'm going to do a cut and paste of my reasons in another post... as if I haven't done this 50 times before. Hopefully you might get it.

 

[BuddyColt]

This is for Mary L. It is a cut and paste from another board. Unfortunately due to the rules here, they do not want me to post the link to that board. The rest of the links will not drain their membership here, so they are legit:

An honest refutation to every political angle WilliamR will attempt on this thread:

Outcasts and Outlaws :: View topic - Liberties, Unalienable Rights and Due Process

The bottom line to all bottom lines is simply this:

The National Socialists demand that we call people in this country without papers "illegal aliens." That is incorrect from a Libertarian and constitutionalist POV. Each person is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of their peers. It is this petty name calling that I object the most to. It is what drives me on this issue. Presuming that any group is an "illegal" something or the other absent Due Process, then all groups will be presumed to be criminals and pursued that way. No matter what is said on this issue, I am sounding the warning: that is my dog in the fight.

I came from the Militia of Georgia. When an individual wanted my job, he / she did not run against me in an election, but accused me of teaching people how to build silencers and urging people to kill cops at roadblocks. This individual was bankrolled by the LEO community and was my arch nemesis for years. The LEOs developed a plan to kill me and claim I resisted arrest as a result of a lying snitch. The plan backfired and we ended up in court with the LEOs attempting to hide behind the so - called "Patriot Act" as justification for their actions.

During one of the discussions in the discovery process, I inquired of a government attorney when in the hell we decided that a person was guilty absent due process. He said, "We do it all the time. Haven't you ever heard of an illegal alien?" Now, my position is very clear: I was with an organization 4000 strong. It was split up over the immigration issue and ultimately all of my contemporaries (militia officers) save of those in my own unit ended up in one of four places: in jail, prison, working as a snitch or dead. Here are a couple of stories:

http://www.esquire.com/features/waff...rorists-0212-3

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/nati...stigation.html

Darren Wesley Huff, Georgia Birther, Sentenced For Plan To Take Over Tennessee Courthouse

(BTW, see the famous words of Darren Huff:"A former Georgia militia member testified Friday at his trial in a bizarre attempted courthouse takeover case, fighting back tears and saying "my government has called me a potential domestic terrorist."

Even when the precedents are beating these people into the ground, they cannot call an undocumented foreigner what they are... they have to rely on the "illegal alien" strategy - which I told all those guys above would not work and would be used as a precedent to pursue them as criminals absent Due Process. But, like WilliamR they were so filled with hate that they could not see the forest for the trees.

WilliamR is wrong. I know. I was on the border when the FIRST of the border patrols were activated in 1977. I used to write extensively about the subject when it was the only thing I understood. Many years later, I see my own research being used and argued though it proved to be inaccurate. I've posed some of the tough questions in other threads, but WilliamR does not want to answer those. You can't blame him. If your strategy is failing, start a different thread rather than engage when you have no facts.

The bottom line of all bottom lines boils down to a simple set of facts:

Our laws demand that a foreigner enter "properly." Then, the government fails to provide that "proper" mechanism. The National Socialists demand that people become citizens in order to be welcome. The problem is, many other Americans INVITE the foreigner here by hiring them, renting to them, etc. WilliamR and those like him have no consideration for Americans that don't buy into their ideology. Some of us believe that our Rights are unalienable. That word unalienable has a meaning... a meaning William R cannot comprehend. That failure by the National Socialists means that the government will build a total POLICE STATE because the government does not have to create that "proper" mechanism for foreigners to come here.

Please don't argue citizenship. We don't need everybody that passes through to be citizens. The rest of WilliamR's argument is refuted in whole at:

Outcasts and Outlaws :: View topic - Liberties, Unalienable Rights and Due Process

WilliamR, I warned all of those guys. It's a matter of record. Check the links. Maybe I cannot save you - even with the above link. But, if one person reads that link above and those earlier links, they might get it.

 

[Unkotare]

[

I practiced immigration law for six years.

Are you a lawyer, untough-guy?




...this should be good...

 

[MaryL]

This is for Mary L. It is a cut and paste from another board. Unfortunately due to the rules here, they do not want me to post the link to that board. The rest of the links will not drain their membership here, so they are legit:

An honest refutation to every political angle WilliamR will attempt on this thread:

Outcasts and Outlaws :: View topic - Liberties, Unalienable Rights and Due Process

The bottom line to all bottom lines is simply this:

The National Socialists demand that we call people in this country without papers "illegal aliens." That is incorrect from a Libertarian and constitutionalist POV. Each person is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of their peers. It is this petty name calling that I object the most to. It is what drives me on this issue. Presuming that any group is an "illegal" something or the other absent Due Process, then all groups will be presumed to be criminals and pursued that way. No matter what is said on this issue, I am sounding the warning: that is my dog in the fight.

I came from the Militia of Georgia. When an individual wanted my job, he / she did not run against me in an election, but accused me of teaching people how to build silencers and urging people to kill cops at roadblocks. This individual was bankrolled by the LEO community and was my arch nemesis for years. The LEOs developed a plan to kill me and claim I resisted arrest as a result of a lying snitch. The plan backfired and we ended up in court with the LEOs attempting to hide behind the so - called "Patriot Act" as justification for their actions.

During one of the discussions in the discovery process, I inquired of a government attorney when in the hell we decided that a person was guilty absent due process. He said, "We do it all the time. Haven't you ever heard of an illegal alien?" Now, my position is very clear: I was with an organization 4000 strong. It was split up over the immigration issue and ultimately all of my contemporaries (militia officers) save of those in my own unit ended up in one of four places: in jail, prison, working as a snitch or dead. Here are a couple of stories:

http://www.esquire.com/features/waff...rorists-0212-3

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/nati...stigation.html

Darren Wesley Huff, Georgia Birther, Sentenced For Plan To Take Over Tennessee Courthouse

(BTW, see the famous words of Darren Huff:"A former Georgia militia member testified Friday at his trial in a bizarre attempted courthouse takeover case, fighting back tears and saying "my government has called me a potential domestic terrorist."

Even when the precedents are beating these people into the ground, they cannot call an undocumented foreigner what they are... they have to rely on the "illegal alien" strategy - which I told all those guys above would not work and would be used as a precedent to pursue them as criminals absent Due Process. But, like WilliamR they were so filled with hate that they could not see the forest for the trees.

WilliamR is wrong. I know. I was on the border when the FIRST of the border patrols were activated in 1977. I used to write extensively about the subject when it was the only thing I understood. Many years later, I see my own research being used and argued though it proved to be inaccurate. I've posed some of the tough questions in other threads, but WilliamR does not want to answer those. You can't blame him. If your strategy is failing, start a different thread rather than engage when you have no facts.

The bottom line of all bottom lines boils down to a simple set of facts:

Our laws demand that a foreigner enter "properly." Then, the government fails to provide that "proper" mechanism. The National Socialists demand that people become citizens in order to be welcome. The problem is, many other Americans INVITE the foreigner here by hiring them, renting to them, etc. WilliamR and those like him have no consideration for Americans that don't buy into their ideology. Some of us believe that our Rights are unalienable. That word unalienable has a meaning... a meaning William R cannot comprehend. That failure by the National Socialists means that the government will build a total POLICE STATE because the government does not have to create that "proper" mechanism for foreigners to come here.

Please don't argue citizenship. We don't need everybody that passes through to be citizens. The rest of WilliamR's argument is refuted in whole at:

Outcasts and Outlaws :: View topic - Liberties, Unalienable Rights and Due Process

WilliamR, I warned all of those guys. It's a matter of record. Check the links. Maybe I cannot save you - even with the above link. But, if one person reads that link above and those earlier links, they might get it.

Previous posters warned me about you. I have lived with and around illegals. THEY are CRIMINALS one way or another. That is no exaggeration. You are playing, perhaps, the Devils advocate here. KUDOS, but they aren't deserving of such positive attention or sympathy. They hurt, they lie, they deceive. They have have hurt me and plenty others... So, what the HECK do you know about any of this? What is your motivation here? Stop the games and this moralizing junk, OK? Truth now. What is YOUR stake in this personally? No fair moralizing. The truth.

 

[Vidi]

Title 8, Chapter 12, Section 1304 of the U.S. Code requires every alien age 18 or older to carry the certificate or registration receipt at all times.

Under federal laws, immigrants at least 18 years of age must carry a valid Permanent Resident Card at all times. You must produce the card when requested to do so by a law enforcement officer or government agent. The card, often called a "green card," serves as proof of legal status and qualifies you for work.


Any individual who willfully fails to carry the appropriate documentation at all times is guilty of a federal misdemeanor. Convictions lead to fines up to $100, imprisonment of up to 30 days or both. Deportation is a possibility.

Read more: Rules About Carrying Immigration Papers | eHow.com Rules About Carrying Immigration Papers | eHow.com

Misdemeanor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the United States, misdemeanors are typically crimes with a maximum punishment of 12 months of incarceration

As you practiced immigration law for six years, perhaps youd like to define someone who breaks the law.

Nevermind, I will.

They are called CRIMINALS.

 

[BuddyColt]

Title 8, Chapter 12, Section 1304 of the U.S. Code requires every alien age 18 or older to carry the certificate or registration receipt at all times.

Under federal laws, immigrants at least 18 years of age must carry a valid Permanent Resident Card at all times. You must produce the card when requested to do so by a law enforcement officer or government agent. The card, often called a "green card," serves as proof of legal status and qualifies you for work.


Any individual who willfully fails to carry the appropriate documentation at all times is guilty of a federal misdemeanor. Convictions lead to fines up to $100, imprisonment of up to 30 days or both. Deportation is a possibility.

Read more: Rules About Carrying Immigration Papers | eHow.com Rules About Carrying Immigration Papers | eHow.com

Misdemeanor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the United States, misdemeanors are typically crimes with a maximum punishment of 12 months of incarceration

As you practiced immigration law for six years, perhaps youd like to define someone who breaks the law.

Nevermind, I will.

They are called CRIMINALS.

NONE of what you are saying has squat to do with entering the country or being here without papers. Look, I got that you don't like foreigners. What we're talking about is very narrow. It's not about some neo - nazi law requiring people to carry their papers so they will be free.

If caught, a person could face a CIVIL fine for ENTERING the country; they could be fined and even jailed for a host of immigration related crimes, but the bottom line is, it is not a crime to enter the United States nor be here without papers.

Being a civil libertarian, I do not believe that one must have to produce papers just to exist. Another poster backing me up just tonight wrote this (on a different board):

"How would you deal with the problem? Would you increase the security at the border (nearly half of those in the country illegally entered it on a legal basis and overstayed- work visas, students, tourists). Would you like to have your taxes raised to pay for this additional security along the border (which even if it is 100% effective and it can never be would only stop about half the illegal residents from coming here).

What about the remaining half? How to deal with them? Hire more police and goverment workers (again at the cost of higher taxes for you) and go around checking everybody's IDs? We can't just check those who "look" illegal- we have to check everybody including you. We could set up roadblocks to do random checks (and perhaps see what else we can find! Open your trunk please!). We can place additional requirements on all schools and employers to spend time and money to verify immigration status of everyone who comes in the door. Want to borrow money? Prove you are here legally. Yes- you too. We must check everybody. We can't let you borrow a nickel or buy a house or a car before we check you out. Papers please! Don't have them? We can deport you until you can prove you belong here. Who cares to what country.

Would this be a libertarian solution?

We have seen one thing work in recent years. In 2007, the extimated number of those in the US illegally was 12.6 million. By 2009 it was down to 10.6- a net of two million left. Why? No work due to the recession. If we get rid of jobs (the main reason most are coming anyways) then they go away. Or on the other side we could take billions of US tax dollars and give it to their home countries to try to improve the job situation there so they won't be tempted to come to the US as easiliy.

The better the country is, the more people will want to come here. Maybe if we trash it bad enough, they will all leave. But is that what we want?"

Trading your Liberties for the promise of temporary safety is a terrible idea according to the founding fathers of this country. You want to jeopardize all your unalienable Rights for what??? You don't like the little brown people?

Why not just be realistic in your arguments? Why not call them wetbacks, sand ni%%ers or spics? That's the way you really feel. Why try to sugar coat this stuff with language that is jeopardizing everybody else?

Why harp on this subject, trying to making existence a crime? How come a few people don't read the article I've posted a hundred times and asked themselves what they are exchanging their Liberties for? By denying to others their unalienable Rights, what are you getting in return?

We've never gotten off this subject as to whether or not entering the United States without papers or being here without papers is a crime. Yet nobody can tell me what "crime" is committed when a person is sued for a divorce in a civil action. And yes, there are related crimes, but they do not extend to the divorce. For instance, you can fail to observe a restraining order (mandatory to filing for divorce in Georgia); you can go to jail for failure to pay child support... all of it mentioned in the statutes, but NONE of with any direct bearing on getting a divorce (which is a civil action.)

Ditto for immigration. If a person crosses the border, unless they lie to the authorities, run from them or all the other stuff in that statute, it is purely civi; the courts have ruled it a civil matter AND HELL NO, YOU SHOULD NOT WANT A CIVIL ACTION INTERPRETED TO BE TREATED AS A CRIME. You would not want a civil law to be applied to YOU as if it were a crime. Yet, that is exactly what you're doing on this board because you do not understand Due Process and that pesky 14th Amendment guaranteeing everybody the equal protection of the laws. If we cannot protect the immigrant from the deliberate misinterpretation of the law, then nobody is safe. In my experience, the person most likely to be victimized by what is being advocated on this board is the people advocating calling immigrants "illegal aliens."

 

[Unkotare]

Look, I got that you don't like foreigners. You don't like the little brown people?

Why not just be realistic in your arguments? Why not call them wetbacks, sand ni%%ers or spics?

It is painfully clear that in addition to being a dishonest idiot, you are a racist piece of shit. I don't see anyone else here indulging in that kind of language. Makes one wonder what's really behind all your squealing about "Nazis" and such as well...

Something you want to confess, champ?

 

[BuddyColt]

Title 8, Chapter 12, Section 1304 of the U.S. Code requires every alien age 18 or older to carry the certificate or registration receipt at all times.

Under federal laws, immigrants at least 18 years of age must carry a valid Permanent Resident Card at all times. You must produce the card when requested to do so by a law enforcement officer or government agent. The card, often called a "green card," serves as proof of legal status and qualifies you for work.


Any individual who willfully fails to carry the appropriate documentation at all times is guilty of a federal misdemeanor. Convictions lead to fines up to $100, imprisonment of up to 30 days or both. Deportation is a possibility.

Read more: Rules About Carrying Immigration Papers | eHow.com Rules About Carrying Immigration Papers | eHow.com

Misdemeanor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the United States, misdemeanors are typically crimes with a maximum punishment of 12 months of incarceration

As you practiced immigration law for six years, perhaps youd like to define someone who breaks the law.

Nevermind, I will.

They are called CRIMINALS.

The proper term for a person that is suspected of committing a criminal act is called a suspect. A criminal is someone that has been convicted.

You're choosing to be the judge, jury and executioner without extending Due Process to the accused.

The downside is, you just can't rush up to someone and ask for their papers... well you can, but we aren't a National Socialist country just yet.

 

[Unkotare]

BloodyDolt is growing more and more desperate as his ridiculous position continues to fall apart even to himself.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

How Can Dems Confuse Immigrants with Illegals ?

They don’t. Your confusion is a consequence of your ignorance of the law and immigration policy.

 

[Liability]

Title 8, Chapter 12, Section 1304 of the U.S. Code requires every alien age 18 or older to carry the certificate or registration receipt at all times.

Under federal laws, immigrants at least 18 years of age must carry a valid Permanent Resident Card at all times. You must produce the card when requested to do so by a law enforcement officer or government agent. The card, often called a "green card," serves as proof of legal status and qualifies you for work.


Any individual who willfully fails to carry the appropriate documentation at all times is guilty of a federal misdemeanor. Convictions lead to fines up to $100, imprisonment of up to 30 days or both. Deportation is a possibility.

Read more: Rules About Carrying Immigration Papers | eHow.com Rules About Carrying Immigration Papers | eHow.com

Misdemeanor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the United States, misdemeanors are typically crimes with a maximum punishment of 12 months of incarceration

As you practiced immigration law for six years, perhaps youd like to define someone who breaks the law.

Nevermind, I will.

They are called CRIMINALS.

The proper term for a person that is suspected of committing a criminal act is called a suspect. A criminal is someone that has been convicted.

You're choosing to be the judge, jury and executioner without extending Due Process to the accused.

The downside is, you just can't rush up to someone and ask for their papers... well you can, but we aren't a National Socialist country just yet.

DuddlyDolt:

If you go out and buy a gun intending to kill some other human being. YOu do so. YOu buy the ammo. You test the weapon to make sure it works. YOu carefull load it and make sure the safety is off. You stash it in your coat pocket and drive to where you expect to find your intended victim. YOu find him. You get out of your car and walk up to him. You pull out your gun. You aim it at his head. You pull the trigger. JUST as you had planned it, the gun goes "bang" and a bullet flies out of the muzzle and strikes your intended victim right between the eyes. (I'd say "hey, good shot" but it was at point blank range so you can't really get any props for marksmanship).

As planned (and as the laws of nature require), your victim falls to the ground with a fatal bullet wound to his brain. He takes a moment, but quickly enough he's quite fully dead, just as you had wanted.

The police arrest you on the spot.

Technically speaking, you are only a "suspect" in the commission of the CRIME. But you are still under arrest for the commission of that crime and, all other things being equal, it is a damn-near certainty that you WILL ultimately get convicted of the crime and sentenced for it.

Due Process in your case will get u a fair trial. It does not insure you of an acquittal.

And, as a matter of common language discussions, the moment you took the life of that victim, you WERE a criminal (een though you are not yet technically a criminal in the yes ofthe law).

Got it?

Probably not. You're a fool.

 

[BuddyColt]

As you practiced immigration law for six years, perhaps youd like to define someone who breaks the law.

Nevermind, I will.

They are called CRIMINALS.

The proper term for a person that is suspected of committing a criminal act is called a suspect. A criminal is someone that has been convicted.

You're choosing to be the judge, jury and executioner without extending Due Process to the accused.

The downside is, you just can't rush up to someone and ask for their papers... well you can, but we aren't a National Socialist country just yet.

DuddlyDolt:

If you go out and buy a gun intending to kill some other human being. YOu do so. YOu buy the ammo. You test the weapon to make sure it works. YOu carefull load it and make sure the safety is off. You stash it in your coat pocket and drive to where you expect to find your intended victim. YOu find him. You get out of your car and walk up to him. You pull out your gun. You aim it at his head. You pull the trigger. JUST as you had planned it, the gun goes "bang" and a bullet flies out of the muzzle and strikes your intended victim right between the eyes. (I'd say "hey, good shot" but it was at point blank range so you can't really get any props for marksmanship).

As planned (and as the laws of nature require), your victim falls to the ground with a fatal bullet wound to his brain. He takes a moment, but quickly enough he's quite fully dead, just as you had wanted.

The police arrest you on the spot.

Technically speaking, you are only a "suspect" in the commission of the CRIME. But you are still under arrest for the commission of that crime and, all other things being equal, it is a damn-near certainty that you WILL ultimately get convicted of the crime and sentenced for it.

Due Process in your case will get u a fair trial. It does not insure you of an acquittal.

And, as a matter of common language discussions, the moment you took the life of that victim, you WERE a criminal (een though you are not yet technically a criminal in the yes ofthe law).

Got it?

Probably not. You're a fool.

Perry Mason wannabe:

The law is a bit more complex than you make it out to be. Entering the United States and being here without papers is not a crime. Nor should you want it to be.

Every Hispanic you see is not an "illegal alien." Now, if you had the capacity to read before responding, I've answered your simple minded explanation (which is woefully inadequate) maybe 50 times on this board. You're trying to make the same point over and over, probably hoping to fool somebody with the repetitiveness of an error.

Even IF immigration were a crime (and you realize it is not... at least entry and presence are not), the law probably will not stand. I say that because the United States Supreme Court has opined that:

"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.....

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.

No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256

Obviously the American people have decided that the immigration laws are unconstitutional. We should just create the needed Guest Worker program with no automatic path to citizenship and be done with this argument.