New Massachusetts Law

[Moonglow]

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.

As far as the state is concerned it is the federal govt. which handles immigration issues and not the state..There is no jurisdiction for them to enforce a federal immigration 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.

As far as the state is concerned it is the federal govt. which handles immigration issues and not the state..There is no jurisdiction for them to enforce a federal immigration law..

If they are not allowed to enforce a federal law then how should they be able to give out things like drivers licenses to a group of people they have no jurisdiction over? And shouldn't there be more state "choice" in how they want to deal with the immigration issues? Obviously a state like Arizona needs the federal help and their own forces to get stuff done but if a state like Massachusetts doesn't have an overwhelming problem from it then shouldn't they be able to address it as the state feels it should?

 

[Unkotare]

Charlie Baker drafting legislation to honor ICE hold requests

 

[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?

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.

I agree with this, but the Mexicans argue, that the entire south west is Mexico and not the the USA, because they don't believe in losing the war. What can an American tell a Mexican then when the Mexican doesn't consider going to Texas or California a border crossing into another country?

 

[Unkotare]

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.

I agree with this, but the Mexicans argue, that the entire south west is Mexico and not the the USA, because they don't believe in losing the war. What can an American tell a Mexican then when the Mexican doesn't consider going to Texas or California a border crossing into another country?

Only a tiny minority of Mexicans really believe that.

 

[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.

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?

No, not in the context your questions imply. [1] [2]

And what is the problem that gives rise to murder? It is not that a person exists. It is that exists in a person the will and ability to commit murder and their acting on that will. Human jurisprudence and culture both despise and disallow murder. Short of performing a psychological analysis of an individual, there is no way, in accordance with our legal principles, to preempt murder by individuals who've not demonstrated the aforementioned will. ability and performance. That is so without regard to one's status as an immigrant, resident alien, or citizen.

The best we can do is enact laws and cultural mores that, by imposing austere penalties, establish a risk-and-reward and cost-benefit model whereby as many people as possible who might permit their murderous emotions to manifest themselves, are dissuaded from doing so. Implementing such laws and mores will prevent individuals who for whatever reason disregard them. There again, one's being willing to disregard the law and cultural cues that establish the risks and costs has nothing to do with one's citizenship/immigration status.


Note:

1. You know as well as I that the questions above derive from inferences you've made in light of the murder figures you earlier shared. Your line of questioning above is thus an example of the ecological fallacy. FWIW, when the line draws conclusions by concluding/acting upon specious reasoning that goes from specific to general, the fallacy is the atomistic fallacy.
   
   I responded to it purely out of courtesy; I don't recognize your ID/avatar, so I don't know that I've bid you to refrain from engaging with me along fallacious lines of thought. Now I have; thus I will not again make time to respond to your fallaciously premised inquiries because the fact is that there is no good response to another's fallacious reasoning and/or fallaciously premised lines of "loaded" inquiry.
   
   
2. You should be aware that prevention and dissuasion are not the same things, at least not in a legal context. In deterrent theory, punishment is inflicted as deterrent to make the criminal an example. Punishment is the major goal of law. In preventive theory, punishment is inflicted as disabler so that the criminal can't repeat the offense. Major goal is avoiding that the crime happens again.

 

[yiostheoy]

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.

You need an avatar to go with your moniker.

Don't forget !!

Do it now !!

 

[yiostheoy]

Mexico would jail or deport us (WASPs) if we were caught down there illegally.

So what's wrong with it up here ??

 

[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.

I agree with this, but the Mexicans argue, that the entire south west is Mexico and not the the USA, because they don't believe in losing the war. What can an American tell a Mexican then when the Mexican doesn't consider going to Texas or California a border crossing into another country?

They can tell them that unfortunately with the treaty of Guadalupe (I think I'm Using the right treaty) in the Mexican American war the border moved and the US gained those territories.

 

[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?

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.

I agree with this, but the Mexicans argue, that the entire south west is Mexico and not the the USA, because they don't believe in losing the war. What can an American tell a Mexican then when the Mexican doesn't consider going to Texas or California a border crossing into another country?

They can tell them that unfortunately with the treaty of Guadalupe (I think I'm Using the right treaty) in the Mexican American war the border moved and the US gained those territories.

I think the real Mexican strategy can be summarized by the New York word "conquesta". The Hispanics use this word, when they move into a new area by buying a large number of houses in the same time, and distribute it between themselves. After that, they chase away anybody who doesn't speak Spanish. They do this in New York, and they do this everywhere in California and Texas and Arizona and Nevada. Isn't this a very effective method of annulling the Guadalupe hidalgo treaty? No English speaking police force will ever find those illegals within the new Hispanic communities of conquesta.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Illegal immigration has the same effect as an armed invasion, so it must be put under martial law and taken out of the slippery hands of the dangerously permissive criminal justice system. Judges, legislators, and businessmen who collaborate with the enemy must be detained. Illegals, who can be easily and sufficiently identified by their inarticulate English, must be killed unless they surrender for immediate deportation. This treasonous self-righteous pose of being concerned about the invaders' families is as inappropriate as feeling same way about ISIS.

 

[anotherlife]

Illegal immigration has the same effect as an armed invasion, so it must be put under martial law and taken out of the slippery hands of the dangerously permissive criminal justice system. Judges, legislators, and businessmen who collaborate with the enemy must be detained. Illegals, who can be easily and sufficiently identified by their inarticulate English, must be killed unless they surrender for immediate deportation. This treasonous self-righteous pose of being concerned about the invaders' families is as inappropriate as feeling same way about ISIS.

No, it is worse, because an invading army doesn't settle. Illegal immigrants do. So you can whistle for it. Hehe.

 

[Unkotare]

Illegal immigration has the same effect as an armed invasion, so it must be put under martial law and taken out of the slippery hands of the dangerously permissive criminal justice system. Judges, legislators, and businessmen who collaborate with the enemy must be detained. Illegals, who can be easily and sufficiently identified by their inarticulate English, must be killed unless they surrender for immediate deportation. This treasonous self-righteous pose of being concerned about the invaders' families is as inappropriate as feeling same way about ISIS.

Utter nonsense. This kind of self-indulgent masturbation has nothing to do any useful discussion of the topic at hand. It's just an empty waste of time.