New Massachusetts Law

[Julielikespolitics]

Today the highest court in the state of Massachusetts ruled that an Illegal immigrant cannot be arrested unless they face some kind of criminal charge. Correct me if I am wrong, but are people who are tabbed "illegal immigrants" not committing a crime by illegally entering the country? If states or the federal government encourages immigrants to come into the country illegally with these laws what is the point of people coming legally?
Immigrants are not the issue, our country is built on generations upon generations of immigrants coming to this country. The issue is that people are coming illegally and, in states like Massachusetts, are being rewarded with things like the ability to get drivers licenses and state funded health care.

 

[TNHarley]

I think it might come down to unlawful presence VS improper entry. Improper entry must be proven without a doubt. Unlawful presence isnt a crime. It carries a CIVIL penalty, not a criminal one.
But im not sure of the context or what the judge said. Have you got a link?

 

[usmbguest5318]

Today the highest court in the state of Massachusetts ruled that an Illegal immigrant cannot be arrested unless they face some kind of criminal charge.

Is that literally what the MA law states? Have you a copy of the legislation that you can share with us?

 

[Julielikespolitics]

I think it might come down to unlawful presence VS improper entry. Improper entry must be proven without a doubt. Unlawful presence isnt a crime. It carries a CIVIL penalty, not a criminal one.
But im not sure of the context or what the judge said. Have you got a link?

Baker drafting bill in wake of SJC immigrant detention ruling If you google "New Massachusetts Immigrant Bill" a ton of articles come up , this one is about the law the governor is putting in place or more accurately attempting to put in place.
If unlawful presence is not a "crime" in a criminal context, then what is the penalty? If people can get arrested for trespassing on private property, because it is a crime, then shouldn't illegally living and entering a country carry the same consequences?

 

[Julielikespolitics]

Today the highest court in the state of Massachusetts ruled that an Illegal immigrant cannot be arrested unless they face some kind of criminal charge.

Is that literally what the MA law states? Have you a copy of the legislation that you can share with us?

Massachusetts cannot hold immigrants so U.S. can detain them: state top court This is just the article about the law, the Supreme Judicial Court might not have an actual legislative bill on it, it was just a ruling that changes how the law is interpreted I believe.

 

[anotherlife]

You don't have to enter the US illegally to be an illegal. Many illegals are illegals because they changed employers and their work visa renewal processing delay put them out of status. Do you expect them to suddenly sell their homes and move out just because immigration bureaucracy has backlogs?

 

[WillowTree]

I think it might come down to unlawful presence VS improper entry. Improper entry must be proven without a doubt. Unlawful presence isnt a crime. It carries a CIVIL penalty, not a criminal one.
But im not sure of the context or what the judge said. Have you got a link?

Baker drafting bill in wake of SJC immigrant detention ruling If you google "New Massachusetts Immigrant Bill" a ton of articles come up , this one is about the law the governor is putting in place or more accurately attempting to put in place.
If unlawful presence is not a "crime" in a criminal context, then what is the penalty? If people can get arrested for trespassing on private property, because it is a crime, then shouldn't illegally living and entering a country carry the same consequences?

I think they should.

 

[Julielikespolitics]

You don't have to enter the US illegally to be an illegal. Many illegals are illegals because they changed employers and their work visa renewal processing delay put them out of status. Do you expect them to suddenly sell their homes and move out just because immigration bureaucracy has backlogs?

No, I wish more people would enter legally in the first place. It's those who come here in the backs of trucks without any of the proper paperwork that are the issue. These people are undocumented as well as illegal and if they commit a crime it is harder to persecute them with no accurate information on their whereabouts or prior histories.

 

[anotherlife]

You don't have to enter the US illegally to be an illegal. Many illegals are illegals because they changed employers and their work visa renewal processing delay put them out of status. Do you expect them to suddenly sell their homes and move out just because immigration bureaucracy has backlogs?

No, I wish more people would enter legally in the first place. It's those who come here in the backs of trucks without any of the proper paperwork that are the issue. These people are undocumented as well as illegal and if they commit a crime it is harder to persecute them with no accurate information on their whereabouts or prior histories.

So, is your point about illegal entry, in contrast to illegal status?

 

[jillian]

Today the highest court in the state of Massachusetts ruled that an Illegal immigrant cannot be arrested unless they face some kind of criminal charge. Correct me if I am wrong, but are people who are tabbed "illegal immigrants" not committing a crime by illegally entering the country? If states or the federal government encourages immigrants to come into the country illegally with these laws what is the point of people coming legally?
Immigrants are not the issue, our country is built on generations upon generations of immigrants coming to this country. The issue is that people are coming illegally and, in states like Massachusetts, are being rewarded with things like the ability to get drivers licenses and state funded health care.

the issue is that the states are not the armed immigration forces for the federal government. and arresting families and enjoying it like ICE is now is disgusting.

criminals? they WERE being deported for the past 8 years. donnie boy has them terrifying children.

 

[007]

Well, they're going to lose federal funding. I hope they enjoy that, among the other consequences that are no doubt coming.

Mass must be the epitome of anti American treasonous behavior, competing with HA of course. They'll get their's though. The America hating kenyan isn't prez anymore, and the illegal alien coddling lynch is gone as well.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Today the highest court in the state of Massachusetts ruled that an Illegal immigrant cannot be arrested unless they face some kind of criminal charge.

Is that literally what the MA law states? Have you a copy of the legislation that you can share with us?

Massachusetts cannot hold immigrants so U.S. can detain them: state top court This is just the article about the law, the Supreme Judicial Court might not have an actual legislative bill on it, it was just a ruling that changes how the law is interpreted I believe.

the Supreme Judicial Court [of MA] might not have an actual legislative bill on it

The jurists have to have some piece(s) of legislation -- enacted, or not if they are exercising the principle of judicial review (assuming that power can be effected preemptively) -- which analyze to determine whether the actions under consideration violate it. Courts/jurists, unlike Donald Trump, don't just wake up in the morning and commence to issue fiats.

Correct me if I am wrong, but are people who are tabbed "illegal immigrants" not committing a crime by illegally entering the country?

You are wrong if you, in the absolute, think that being present in the U.S. with expired documentation authorizing one to be present in the U.S. is a criminal violation. It is not. It is a civil violation, and because it is a civil violation, people can accurately say things like "an Illegal immigrant cannot be arrested unless they face some kind of criminal charge."

The CRS writes:

The INA [Immigration and Nationality Act] includes both criminal and civil components, providing both for criminal charges (e.g., alien smuggling, which is prosecuted in the federal courts) and for civil violations (e.g., lack of legal status, which may lead to removal through a separate administrative system in the Department of Justice). Being illegally present in the U.S. has always been a civil, not criminal, violation of the INA, and subsequent deportation and associated administrative processes are civil proceedings. For instance, a lawfully admitted nonimmigrant alien may become deportable if his visitor's visa expires or if his student status changes. Criminal violations of the INA, on the other hand, include felonies and misdemeanors and are prosecuted in federal district courts. These types of violations include the bringing in and harboring of certain undocumented aliens, the illegal entry of aliens, and the reentry of aliens previously excluded or deported."
​

Indeed, the distinction between persons in the U.S. on expired visas (people sometimes referred to as "visa overstays") and persons who never received authorization to enter the U.S. is part of what drives the term "undocumented immigrants." Visa overstays are documented, but their document (visa), their authorization to be in the U.S., has expired. There is a class of person who is in the U.S., was not born in the U.S., but who are here because, as minors, they had no choice but to come with their parents. They are undocumented too, but it's incredibly heartless to cast out such persons who've literally grown up in the U.S. and know no other nation. Some of those people may not even speak the language of their birth-country. Such individuals are in every sense, except formally, Americans for they know of no country besides America.

 

[Julielikespolitics]

You don't have to enter the US illegally to be an illegal. Many illegals are illegals because they changed employers and their work visa renewal processing delay put them out of status. Do you expect them to suddenly sell their homes and move out just because immigration bureaucracy has backlogs?

No, I wish more people would enter legally in the first place. It's those who come here in the backs of trucks without any of the proper paperwork that are the issue. These people are undocumented as well as illegal and if they commit a crime it is harder to persecute them with no accurate information on their whereabouts or prior histories.

So, is your point about illegal entry, in contrast to illegal status?

Yes, the issue in this country has to do more with the fact that people are coming here without getting things like a green card or proper paperwork. If somebody's status changes because of a job change from a work visa it is different in my eyes because they came to this country the way it was designed to be done. I have no problems with legal immigrants, my best friend's mom is here on a green card and has been for probably 20 to 30 years and that is fine because she took the proper channels to get here.

 

[Julielikespolitics]

Today the highest court in the state of Massachusetts ruled that an Illegal immigrant cannot be arrested unless they face some kind of criminal charge. Correct me if I am wrong, but are people who are tabbed "illegal immigrants" not committing a crime by illegally entering the country? If states or the federal government encourages immigrants to come into the country illegally with these laws what is the point of people coming legally?
Immigrants are not the issue, our country is built on generations upon generations of immigrants coming to this country. The issue is that people are coming illegally and, in states like Massachusetts, are being rewarded with things like the ability to get drivers licenses and state funded health care.

the issue is that the states are not the armed immigration forces for the federal government. and arresting families and enjoying it like ICE is now is disgusting.

criminals? they WERE being deported for the past 8 years. donnie boy has them terrifying children.

I really do not think the workers of ICE enjoy tearing families apart but if the law of the land is you have to come here through legal channels then, no matter how sad it is, their job is to enforce those laws. If states like MA who do not have a ton of ICE officials then shouldn't the police be able to enforce those laws? If ICE carries out the deportations or removals in a poor fashion wouldn't people want to give another agency, local police, the chance to enforce the laws?

 

[jillian]

Today the highest court in the state of Massachusetts ruled that an Illegal immigrant cannot be arrested unless they face some kind of criminal charge. Correct me if I am wrong, but are people who are tabbed "illegal immigrants" not committing a crime by illegally entering the country? If states or the federal government encourages immigrants to come into the country illegally with these laws what is the point of people coming legally?
Immigrants are not the issue, our country is built on generations upon generations of immigrants coming to this country. The issue is that people are coming illegally and, in states like Massachusetts, are being rewarded with things like the ability to get drivers licenses and state funded health care.

the issue is that the states are not the armed immigration forces for the federal government. and arresting families and enjoying it like ICE is now is disgusting.

criminals? they WERE being deported for the past 8 years. donnie boy has them terrifying children.

I really do not think the workers of ICE enjoy tearing families apart but if the law of the land is you have to come here through legal channels then, no matter how sad it is, their job is to enforce those laws. If states like MA who do not have a ton of ICE officials then shouldn't the police be able to enforce those laws? If ICE carries out the deportations or removals in a poor fashion wouldn't people want to give another agency, local police, the chance to enforce the laws?

what you think doesn't seem to be correct. and there are choices that should be made in terms of who is deported. someone brought here as a child who made no choices of their own and who has gone to school and led a good life shouldn't be sent anywhere else. that person probably doesn't even speak the language of their nature country. so how does it benefit society to destroy that person's life?

as to ICE... well,

a-veteran-ice-agent-disillusioned-with-the-trump-era-speaks-out

 

[Julielikespolitics]

Today the highest court in the state of Massachusetts ruled that an Illegal immigrant cannot be arrested unless they face some kind of criminal charge.

Is that literally what the MA law states? Have you a copy of the legislation that you can share with us?

Massachusetts cannot hold immigrants so U.S. can detain them: state top court This is just the article about the law, the Supreme Judicial Court might not have an actual legislative bill on it, it was just a ruling that changes how the law is interpreted I believe.

the Supreme Judicial Court [of MA] might not have an actual legislative bill on it

The jurists have to have some piece(s) of legislation -- enacted, or not if they are exercising the principle of judicial review (assuming that power can be effected preemptively) -- which analyze to determine whether the actions under consideration violate it. Courts/jurists, unlike Donald Trump, don't just wake up in the morning and commence to issue fiats.

Correct me if I am wrong, but are people who are tabbed "illegal immigrants" not committing a crime by illegally entering the country?

You are wrong if you, in the absolute, think that being present in the U.S. with expired documentation authorizing one to be present in the U.S. is a criminal violation. It is not. It is a civil violation, and because it is a civil violation, people can accurately say things like "an Illegal immigrant cannot be arrested unless they face some kind of criminal charge."

The CRS writes:

The INA [Immigration and Nationality Act] includes both criminal and civil components, providing both for criminal charges (e.g., alien smuggling, which is prosecuted in the federal courts) and for civil violations (e.g., lack of legal status, which may lead to removal through a separate administrative system in the Department of Justice). Being illegally present in the U.S. has always been a civil, not criminal, violation of the INA, and subsequent deportation and associated administrative processes are civil proceedings. For instance, a lawfully admitted nonimmigrant alien may become deportable if his visitor's visa expires or if his student status changes. Criminal violations of the INA, on the other hand, include felonies and misdemeanors and are prosecuted in federal district courts. These types of violations include the bringing in and harboring of certain undocumented aliens, the illegal entry of aliens, and the reentry of aliens previously excluded or deported."
​

Indeed, the distinction between persons in the U.S. on expired visas (people sometimes referred to as "visa overstays") and persons who never received authorization to enter the U.S. is part of what drives the term "undocumented immigrants." Visa overstays are documented, but their document (visa), their authorization to be in the U.S., has expired. There is a class of person who is in the U.S., was not born in the U.S., but who are here because, as minors, they had no choice but to come with their parents. They are undocumented too, but it's incredibly heartless to cast out such persons who've literally grown up in the U.S. and know no other nation. Some of those people may not even speak the language of their birth-country. Such individuals are in every sense, except formally, Americans for they know of no country besides America.

I agree that it is not ideal and is pretty heartless to cast people out but by leaving some, those who grew up here and moved here when they were children, it opens the door to leave all in this country. The fact of the matter is illegal immigrants, whether it was their choice to come here or not, commit crimes and a lot of them are criminal.
The truth about crime, illegal immigrants and sanctuary cities
In that article it says illegal immigrants make up around 3% of our nation's total population. From 2003 to 2009, out of 183,359 murders, 25,064 of them were committed by illegal immigrants (in all senses of the term). Meaning out of a 3% total population they made up almost 14% of all the murders.
I understand that this may be only a civil proceeding with minimal punishment and no real grounds for removal but when this relatively small group of people is contributing a large amount (compatatively to it's size) of the crimes, should there not be harsher consequences?
And yes, I understand not all of these illegal immigrants who would face the consequences are bad or deserving of being sent out of our country but it would send a message that people need to come here the right way.
For those who were born here or have issues with work visas or school visas or whatever else in that area, give them the chance to apply for citizenship or green cards as bad luck may have fallen upon them.

 

[Julielikespolitics]

Today the highest court in the state of Massachusetts ruled that an Illegal immigrant cannot be arrested unless they face some kind of criminal charge. Correct me if I am wrong, but are people who are tabbed "illegal immigrants" not committing a crime by illegally entering the country? If states or the federal government encourages immigrants to come into the country illegally with these laws what is the point of people coming legally?
Immigrants are not the issue, our country is built on generations upon generations of immigrants coming to this country. The issue is that people are coming illegally and, in states like Massachusetts, are being rewarded with things like the ability to get drivers licenses and state funded health care.

the issue is that the states are not the armed immigration forces for the federal government. and arresting families and enjoying it like ICE is now is disgusting.

criminals? they WERE being deported for the past 8 years. donnie boy has them terrifying children.

I really do not think the workers of ICE enjoy tearing families apart but if the law of the land is you have to come here through legal channels then, no matter how sad it is, their job is to enforce those laws. If states like MA who do not have a ton of ICE officials then shouldn't the police be able to enforce those laws? If ICE carries out the deportations or removals in a poor fashion wouldn't people want to give another agency, local police, the chance to enforce the laws?

what you think doesn't seem to be correct. and there are choices that should be made in terms of who is deported. someone brought here as a child who made no choices of their own and who has gone to school and led a good life shouldn't be sent anywhere else. that person probably doesn't even speak the language of their nature country. so how does it benefit society to destroy that person's life?

as to ICE... well,

a-veteran-ice-agent-disillusioned-with-the-trump-era-speaks-out

Yes, children are unfortunately caught in the cross fire but if that life that these kids get to live in a good education system is at the expense of others, in tax dollars to pay for ice or to pay for that child to go to school when the parents who would also be here illegally are not paying taxes as they have no SSN. It may be " destroying that person's life" as you say but if they chose to come here legally or whoever brought them here made that choice they would have been afforded the same opportunities, maybe even more if they didn't have to worry about hiding who they really were.
Also, just for future reference, if somebody does not agree with your opinion, it does not make them wrong or incorrect especially because the society you are promoting is inclusive of people and those people will not always share your view points.

 

[usmbguest5318]

when this relatively small group of people is contributing a large amount (compatatively to it's size) of the crimes, should there not be harsher consequences?

There should not be harsher or less harsh consequences. American jurisprudence does not levy criminal penalties en masse, or based on anything other than, as an individual, one's being found guilty or innocent in a criminal court of law.

 

[miketx]

^ loves them law breakers....

 

[Julielikespolitics]

when this relatively small group of people is contributing a large amount (compatatively to it's size) of the crimes, should there not be harsher consequences?

There should not be harsher or less harsh consequences. American jurisprudence does not levy criminal penalties en masse, or based on anything other than, as an individual, one's being found guilty or innocent in a criminal court of law.

If the problem is there should we not try to prevent it? We try to prevent things like terrorist attacks or the spread of deadly diseases so why is it so bad to say that we should attempt to prevent things like murders before they happen?