Is it really "illegal?"

[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 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]

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.

You proved nothing, but you are too vastly ignorant to grasp that fact

You merely noted (even though you don't understand it) that the removal proceeding is not a criminal law matter.

And it is a FALSE claim (by you) that "ALL" top immigration officials "state" that illegal border crossing is NOT a crime. It IS a crime. I know of only one idiot U.S. Official who said (moronically) that it wasn't criminal. She was wrong, as are you.

I have already repeatedly proved -- as have others -- that 8 USC § 1325 is a CRIMINAL Law.

Or maybe (since you are too fucking stupid to see what a fucking idiot you are) it is your "belief" that an IMMIGRATION "Court" is an Article III Court?

Perhaps, in your overabundant supply of ignorance and misinformation, you imagine that an Immigration "Judge" could even POSSIBLY "sentence" an alien to the criminal sanctions of time in jail or prison?

Maybe, in fact, you think that one can get a summons to report for "jury duty" before an Immigration "Court?"

Perhaps, since you seem to be aware that an alien gets no entitlement to a lawyer in the removal proceeding, you think aliens COULD be convicted of a crime and get a jail or prison sentence without the benefit of an attorney and without a trial by jury?

The true nature of the problem with you is that you really ARE massively ignorant. You seem to truly NOT know anything on the topic.

 

[Liability]

BTW, Liability, are YOU an attorney?

Bar number please

I am.

I don't share personal information like that with shitheads like you. By the way, in that regard, you might want to take a peek at the TOS, ya dopey dipshit.

 

[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 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.

 

[BuddyColt]

BTW, Liability, are YOU an attorney?

Bar number please

I am.

I don't share personal information like that with shitheads like you. By the way, in that regard, you might want to take a peek at the TOS, ya dopey dipshit.

What you are is a dick sucking liar. IF you were an attorney, I would personally take the steps necessary to see to it that you were disbarred. IF you were a lawyer, you'd know that.

 

[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.

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.

Wrong, ya dishonest assmunch.

ONCE AGAIN, HERE is the actual LAW you make reference to, but which you cannot fathom:

8 USC § 1325 - Improper entry by alien

Current through Pub. L. 112-90. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts
Any alien who
(1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or
(2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or
(3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

-- 8 USC § 1325 - Improper entry by alien | LII / Legal Information Institute

Your incredible ignorance is hard to get a handle on.

In NY, if one violates the criminal statute which prohibits the intentional taking of human life which is governed by Penal Law Section 125.25, the SENTENCES which the offender might receive are governed by another SECTION of the Penal Law, Section 70.

Similarly, in the FEDERAL System, one gets sentenced under Title 18 for a crime defined by ANY other federal statute.

Oh, shit. Here. Let me QUOTE it for your ignorant benefit:

18 USC § 3551 - Authorized sentences

(a) In General.— Except as otherwise specifically provided, a defendant who has been found guilty of an offense described in any Federal statute, including sections 13 and 1153 of this title, other than an Act of Congress applicable exclusively in the District of Columbia or the Uniform Code of Military Justice, shall be sentenced in accordance with the provisions of this chapter so as to achieve the purposes set forth in subparagraphs (A) through (D) of section 3553 (a)(2) to the extent that they are applicable in light of all the circumstances of the case.

-- 18 USC § 3551 - Authorized sentences | LII / Legal Information Institute [Emphases added though it is doubtful it will help DuddleyDolt.]

 

[Liability]

BTW, Liability, are YOU an attorney?

Bar number please

I am.

I don't share personal information like that with shitheads like you. By the way, in that regard, you might want to take a peek at the TOS, ya dopey dipshit.

What you are is a dick sucking liar. IF you were an attorney, I would personally take the steps necessary to see to it that you were disbarred. IF you were a lawyer, you'd know that.

You have no ability to have anybody disbarred no matter what steps you take, you fucking idiot.

I realize you are feeling humiliated by now. Justifiable. You have proved yourself to be a liar and a fucking pussy idiot. Conclusively.

But still. It's ok to simply acknowledge that you have been spouting off without the SLIGHTEST clue on the topic.

You should in fact.

THEN, feel free to skulk away. It's what you pussies do.

 

[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.

Reintroduced because Lie Ability tried to cover it up with non relevant posts

 

[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 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.

Reintroduced. Nothing new was presented by the poseur known as Lie Ability.

 

[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.

Reintroduced because Lie Ability tried to cover it up with non relevant posts

You have been totally refuted and exposed as the lying pussy idiot you are.

At every turn, you have had your bullshit crammed up your nose.

DuddleyDolt, admit you were completely wrong and be done with it.

Until then, like everyone else, I laugh at you.

 

[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.

Reintroduced because Lie Ability tried to cover it up with non relevant posts

You have been totally refuted and exposed as the lying pussy idiot you are.
YOU, LIE ABILITY, HAVE BEEN THE ONE TOTALLY REFUTED
At every turn, you have had your bullshit crammed up your nose.
AT EVERY JUNCTURE YOUR LIES HAVE BEEN STUFFED DOWN LIE ABILITY'S THROAT
DuddleyDolt, admit you were completely wrong and be done with it.
LIE ABILITY, YOU ARE THE ONE THAT IS 100 PERCENT WRONG. YOU HAVEN'T FOUND A SINGLE, SOLITARY IMMIGRATION OFFICIAL TO AGREE WITH YOU. I PRODUCED ALL OF THEM IN AGREEMENT WITH WHAT I PUT IN THE FIRST FOUR POSTS HERE.
Until then, like everyone else, I laugh at you.

EDITORIAL NOTE: Lie Ability is a pathological liar. All one has to do is read my words that he is responding to and see the dirtbag POS is lying. He's also not telling you he's a coward.

 

[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 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.

Lie Ability keeps trying to deny that Immigration Court is an Administrative Court within the DOJ and does not try criminal court cases. His attempts to deceive you mean all I have to do is keep repeating the truth and watch him squirm like the worm he is.

 

[High_Gravity]

Liability is tearing buddycolt a new asshole.

 

[Unkotare]

Say, just wondering, are you an attorney?

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

And yet he talked about "practicing law" for x number of years. I wonder if he might have misrepresented himself...?

 

[Zoom-boing]

Hey duddley doorbell



improper

Main Entry: amiss
Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: wrong; defective
Synonyms: awry, bad, confused, crooked, erring, erroneous, fallacious, false, faulty, flawed, foul, glitched up, haywire, imperfect, improper, inaccurate, inappropriate, incorrect, mistaken, out of order, sick, unfair, unlawful, unsuitable, untoward
Antonyms: good, right


unlawful

Main Entry: unlawful  [uhn-law-fuhl]
Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: against the law
Synonyms: actionable, banned, bootleg, criminal, flagitious, forbidden, illegal, illegitimate, illicit, improper, iniquitous, lawless, nefarious, outlawed, prohibited, taboo, unauthorized, under-the-counter, unlicensed, wrongful
Antonyms: authorized, lawful, legal, right

Main Entry: criminal
Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: lawless, felonious
Synonyms: bent, caught, corrupt, crooked, culpable, deplorable, dirty, heavy, hung up, illegal, illegitimate, illicit, immoral, indictable, iniquitous, nefarious, off base, out of line, peccant, racket, scandalous, senseless, shady*, smoking gun, unlawful , unrighteous, vicious, villainous, wicked, wildcat, wrong
Antonyms: correct, lawful, legal, moral, right, righteous

Unlawful Synonyms, Unlawful Antonyms | Thesaurus.com


Moron.

 

[Unkotare]

BTW, Liability, are YOU an attorney?

Bar number please

Why are you asking others when you won't answer my question, fraud?

 

[Unkotare]

BTW, Liability, are YOU an attorney?

Bar number please

I am.

I don't share personal information like that with shitheads like you. By the way, in that regard, you might want to take a peek at the TOS, ya dopey dipshit.

What you are is a dick sucking liar. IF you were an attorney, I would personally take the steps necessary to see to it that you were disbarred. IF you were a lawyer, you'd know that.

Why won't you answer my question?

 

[High_Gravity]

Say, just wondering, are you an attorney?

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

And yet he talked about "practicing law" for x number of years. I wonder if he might have misrepresented himself...?

I thought she said she "practised" law?

 

[BuddyColt]

Hey duddley doorbell



improper

Main Entry: amiss
Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: wrong; defective
Synonyms: awry, bad, confused, crooked, erring, erroneous, fallacious, false, faulty, flawed, foul, glitched up, haywire, imperfect, improper, inaccurate, inappropriate, incorrect, mistaken, out of order, sick, unfair, unlawful, unsuitable, untoward
Antonyms: good, right


unlawful

Main Entry: unlawful  [uhn-law-fuhl]
Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: against the law
Synonyms: actionable, banned, bootleg, criminal, flagitious, forbidden, illegal, illegitimate, illicit, improper, iniquitous, lawless, nefarious, outlawed, prohibited, taboo, unauthorized, under-the-counter, unlicensed, wrongful
Antonyms: authorized, lawful, legal, right

Main Entry: criminal
Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: lawless, felonious
Synonyms: bent, caught, corrupt, crooked, culpable, deplorable, dirty, heavy, hung up, illegal, illegitimate, illicit, immoral, indictable, iniquitous, nefarious, off base, out of line, peccant, racket, scandalous, senseless, shady*, smoking gun, unlawful , unrighteous, vicious, villainous, wicked, wildcat, wrong
Antonyms: correct, lawful, legal, moral, right, righteous

Unlawful Synonyms, Unlawful Antonyms | Thesaurus.com


Moron.

Thank you "Moron" I didn't know that was your name, however. Thank you for proving my point. Improper is not a synonym for illegal... not in English and not in law.

 

[BuddyColt]

Say, just wondering, are you an attorney?

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

And yet he talked about "practicing law" for x number of years. I wonder if he might have misrepresented himself...?

Cite your source. Quotes needed.