Illegal Immigration

[dwmoeller1]

A quick tour of any border town would quickly dispell that rumor.

Besides...there's a very important word here: "illegal."

1. It wasn't a rumor, it was an actual study

2. To negate the statement "net boon to our economy" by pointing to border towns is terribly fallacious.

3. As I have already pointed out the simple fact of "illegal" is a non-answer. You don't decry all things which are illegal, so to decry illegal immigration for that simple unqualified fact would be inconsistent.

 

[Don]

My statement about all immigrants was to point out that the money the illegals are using has nothing to do with their illegal status (or, if it does, its actually a lower impact). Thus, pointing out the money they cost the government is about their being poor, not being illegals. Its primarily a commentary on our social welfare system, not whether they are here illegally.

It was said (or implied) that the immigration law is a just and necessary one.

If you agree, why would you say the immigration law is just? Was the lack of a significant one through much of our history unjust?

Why would say the immigration law is necessary?

The money they cost the government has to do with tax revenue; i.e., police, fire, and other government-provided services.

As TCassiday pointed out, if they're here legally, they share in the bounty. If they're legal, they pay taxes, which in turn ensure their fair share of the services those taxes provide; i.e, police, fire, etc.

Illegally, they don't pay taxes; in other words, they receive all the same services, but you and I and others who are here legally pay an unequal share for those services that the illegals enjoy but don't pay for.

The "lower impact" economically is because illegals don't pay into taxes, Social Security, Medicare, etc. and therefore have proportionally more disposable income.

Why is this so hard to understand?

 

[TCassidy]

You act as if I said being an illegal alien is not illegal. I didn't say that. I said it's not a crime.

Uh, yes, it is. 8 U.S.C. §1325(a).

 

[Gold Dragon]

Uh, yes, it is. 8 U.S.C. §1325(a).

Paul3144 is actually correct but I understand your confusion.

8 U.S.C. §1325 is about illegal entry which you are correct is a criminal offense.

But Paul3144 was talking about the status of being an illegal immigrant which is a civil offense. This is contingent upon a legal entry into the United States because otherwise they could be criminally prosecuted under 8 U.S.C. §1325.

So if you illegally enter the U.S. and are caught, it is a criminal offense.
If you legally enter the U.S. but for whatever reason are no longer legally allowed to be in the U.S. and are caught, it is a civil offense.

 

[TCassidy]

Paul3144 is actually correct but I understand your confusion.

I am not at all confused. To enter the country illegally makes one a criminal. To elude capture and justice is to be a criminal fugitive.

To enter the country legally but allow your legal status (visa, et al) to expire is a crime and eluding capture and justice makes one a criminal fugitive.

That is why they are called "Illegal Aliens." Not "civil action aliens."

Perhaps we should change our nomenclature. "Criminal fugitives" vice "illegal aliens."

 

[FR7 Baptist]

To enter the country legally but allow your legal status (visa, et al) to expire is a crime

Prove it. What section of the U.S. Code says this?

 

[dwmoeller1]

The money they cost the government has to do with tax revenue; i.e., police, fire, and other government-provided services.

As TCassiday pointed out, if they're here legally, they share in the bounty. If they're legal, they pay taxes, which in turn ensure their fair share of the services those taxes provide; i.e, police, fire, etc.

Illegally, they don't pay taxes; in other words, they receive all the same services, but you and I and others who are here legally pay an unequal share for those services that the illegals enjoy but don't pay for.

The "lower impact" economically is because illegals don't pay into taxes, Social Security, Medicare, etc. and therefore have proportionally more disposable income.

Why is this so hard to understand?

Even here illegally they do still pay taxes. Even the FAIR study which says illegals cost the US 113 admits that they pay taxes for the most part. They admit that if they were legal the increase in tax revenue would be insignificant. Thats the study done by those who are *against* illegal immigration and amnesty. The study which claimed illegals were a net benefit to the US were even stronger on this point.

Sure, there are some who are paid under the table, but given the immigration laws in the past couple decades, illegals and businesses which hire them both usually have more incentive to have income taxes paid. In fact, one study shows that they pay more than their "fair share" due to various factors (ie. paying income tax and SS tax but not being able to get refunds on the former or benefits from the latter).

In short, I know of no evidence which suggests that illegals aren't, for the greater part, paying their "fair share" of income and SS taxes -the opposite is what studies (both ones that can be seen as pro and con immigration) indicate.

 

[Gold Dragon]

eluding capture and justice makes one a criminal fugitive.

But if you do not run from immigration officers, you are not eluding capture and are not a criminal.

To enter the country legally but allow your legal status (visa, et al) to expire is a crime

This statement is not true under the U.S. criminal code.

 

[sag38]

My how some like to play twister with words. They are here illegally, clearly breaking U.S. law, but they are not criminals. If I were to try and obtain a false id and social security number they would throw me under the jail. But, since they are poor undocumented travelers, it's somehow ok.

 

[dwmoeller1]

My how some like to play twister with words. They are here illegally, clearly breaking U.S. law, but they are not criminals. If I were to try and obtain a false id and social security number they would throw me under the jail. But, since they are poor undocumented travelers, it's somehow ok.

Straw man. No one has attempted to argue yet that its "ok".

 

[FR7 Baptist]

My how some like to play twister with words. They are here illegally, clearly breaking U.S. law, but they are not criminals. If I were to try and obtain a false id and social security number they would throw me under the jail. But, since they are poor undocumented travelers, it's somehow ok.

Obtaining a false ID and Social Security number is a crime. Being in the country illegally is not. No one said being an illegal alien is okay.

 

[Ruiz]

Being in the country illegally is not (criminal).

As the resident Hispanic on the board, I find comments like this to be a part of the problem, not the solution. Look, I am against the Phoenix policy (but not for the reasons the Obama Administration is advocating), but to say that something is illegal but not a crime is a splitting of the hairs of this issue.

While this may be technically true, it shows the complete idiocy of the left to make this as a part of their argument against those on the right. They have nothing to gain in this argument and much to lose, including looking foolish.

If something is truly illegal, do we really want to split hairs over whether it is criminal? I may think the current laws on the books are wrong, but to disobey the laws of the land and justify it by saying "it is not criminal" is an argument that will never win the hearts and minds of Hispanics, liberals, or conservatives.

I think the right has the advantage in saying they want something illegal to be treated as a crime. I think the left saying they don't mind it being illegal but not a crime has a philosophical conundrum which will only convince those who are blindly liberal.

 

[FR7 Baptist]

As the resident Hispanic on the board, I find comments like this to be a part of the problem, not the solution. Look, I am against the Phoenix policy (but not for the reasons the Obama Administration is advocating), but to say that something is illegal but not a crime is a splitting of the hairs of this issue.

My grandmother is from El Salvador so I'm quasi-Hispanic.

While this may be technically true, it shows the complete idiocy of the left to make this as a part of their argument against those on the right. They have nothing to gain in this argument and much to lose, including looking foolish.

No, it makes the Right look foolish for not being able to understand nuance.

If something is truly illegal, do we really want to split hairs over whether it is criminal?

Yes.

I may think the current laws on the books are wrong, but to disobey the laws of the land and justify it by saying "it is not criminal" is an argument that will never win the hearts and minds of Hispanics, liberals, or conservatives.

I never justified illegal immigration.

I think the right has the advantage in saying they want something illegal to be treated as a crime. I think the left saying they don't mind it being illegal but not a crime has a philosophical conundrum which will only convince those who are blindly liberal.

Making being an illegal alien a crime will make deportation harder by increasing the burden of proof and requiring lawyers be appointed to represent illegal aliens.

 

[Ruiz]

My grandmother is from El Salvador so I'm quasi-Hispanic.



No, it makes the Right look foolish for not being able to understand nuance.



Yes.



I never justified illegal immigration.



Making being an illegal alien a crime will make deportation harder by increasing the burden of proof and requiring lawyers be appointed to represent illegal aliens.

I think you miss the point. I think people understand the nuance, they fail to see the point. Often the argument is used as a sort of combat against the Right's immigration policy. Yet, there is no philosophical underpinnings being conveyed in saying it is not a crime.

I (nor anyone else I know) was not convinced against Phoenix because there is a distinction between criminal and merely illegal. This argument will not change worldviews, it will only make one side think they are more intellectual than the other.

 

[Gold Dragon]

If something is truly illegal, do we really want to split hairs over whether it is criminal? I may think the current laws on the books are wrong, but to disobey the laws of the land and justify it by saying "it is not criminal" is an argument that will never win the hearts and minds of Hispanics, liberals, or conservatives.

I think the right has the advantage in saying they want something illegal to be treated as a crime. I think the left saying they don't mind it being illegal but not a crime has a philosophical conundrum which will only convince those who are blindly liberal.

Nobody is stopping people from wanting the status of an illegal immigrant being a criminal offense. Go ahead and want it and even seek to have the laws changed to reflect your wants. That is how a representative republic works.

Just recognize that this is not the current situation. Stating as fact what is fact is not about winning hearts and minds. It is just about stating current fact.

 

[dwmoeller1]

As the resident Hispanic on the board, I find comments like this to be a part of the problem, not the solution. Look, I am against the Phoenix policy (but not for the reasons the Obama Administration is advocating), but to say that something is illegal but not a crime is a splitting of the hairs of this issue.

While I am not sure that I agree with the distinction he is making with regards to these particular words in this particular case (not sure I agree = too ignorant about the particulars to make a good judgement one way or the other at this time), I do understand his overall point and think its a perfectly valid one. Forget the words themselves and consider the concept....

Murder is illegal and speeding is illegal. Yet I think everyone would agree that even though they are both illegal they are worlds apart on many different levels. We would probably agree as well that putting them in the same category and leaving it at that is, at best, very misleading. So, we make various distinctions between the two to make their differences clear. After all, while they are similar in some ways (they are both illegal, they both break what could be considered "just and necessary" laws, etc.) we all realize that their differences are much more significant.

I believe thats the sort of point Paul is trying to make - the fact that, while illegal entry is "illegal", it doesn't rise to the same level as other illegal acts. Simply calling it illegal is true, but not very enlightening (double parking is illegal...and so is armed robbery).

While you may disagree with the specifics of the word distinctions he is making, the reasoning behind it is certainly nothing like "splitting hairs". Trying to determine where illegal immigration falls on the "illegal" spectrum is essential to the whole discussion. Simply calling it "illegal" and leaving it at that is highly unreasonable - it fails to create some very necessary categories.

 

[FR7 Baptist]

I think you miss the point. I think people understand the nuance, they fail to see the point. Often the argument is used as a sort of combat against the Right's immigration policy. Yet, there is no philosophical underpinnings being conveyed in saying it is not a crime.

All I'm saying is that there is a legal distinction, and I'm going to correct people who say it is a crime.

I (nor anyone else I know) was not convinced against Phoenix because there is a distinction between criminal and merely illegal.

Same here. I'm actually fairly tough on illegal immigration.

This argument will not change worldviews, it will only make one side think they are more intellectual than the other.

I know.

 

[FR7 Baptist]

Murder is illegal and speeding is illegal. Yet I think everyone would agree that even though they are both illegal they are worlds apart on many different levels. We would probably agree as well that putting them in the same category and leaving it at that is, at best, very misleading. So, we make various distinctions between the two to make their differences clear. After all, while they are similar in some ways (they are both illegal, they both break what could be considered "just and necessary" laws, etc.) we all realize that their differences are much more significant.

It's interesting you mention that. In Florida most moving violations are civil infractions. They can be termed quasi-criminal in that you still enter a plea, pay a penalty and the judge can withhold adjudication of guilt or formally convict you. (If you just mail in a fine when you get the citation, that is a guilty plea and you will be convicted. If you opt in writing to pay a reduced fine and go to traffic school, it is a nolo contendere plea and adjudication will be withheld. Of course, you always have the option to go to court.) Because they are civil violations, it is heard by a judge and not a jury and the State only needs to prove the case by a preponderance of the evidence as opposed to beyond a reasonable doubt. In some States, like South Carolina, traffic tickets are criminal matters.

Another example of civil violations involve Indian tribes. Tribes lack criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians. (As a general rule, if an non-Indian commits a crime on a reservation, it is Federal if it is against an Indian, State if it is not. Tribes have criminal jurisdiction for misdemeanors committed by Indians on reservations; if it is a felony it is Federal.) However, in some cases the Tribe can have civil jurisdiction. For example, if you get a hunting or fishing license from a Tribe and violate their hunting or fishing code, the Tribe can issue you a summons to Tribal Court and seek a civil penalty.

I believe thats the sort of point Paul is trying to make - the fact that, while illegal entry is "illegal", it doesn't rise to the same level as other illegal acts. Simply calling it illegal is true, but not very enlightening (double parking is illegal...and so is armed robbery).

While you may disagree with the specifics of the word distinctions he is making, the reasoning behind it is certainly nothing like "splitting hairs". Trying to determine where illegal immigration falls on the "illegal" spectrum is essential to the whole discussion. Simply calling it "illegal" and leaving it at that is highly unreasonable - it fails to create some very necessary categories.

I agree with you here.

 

[sag38]

All I'm saying is that there is a legal distinction, and I'm going to correct people who say it is a crime.

Our young lawyer wanna be had been reading his text books again. This attitude comes from the book, Lawyer Talk 101. Chapter Title: "How to play twister with the truth."

 

[dwmoeller1]

All I'm saying is that there is a legal distinction, and I'm going to correct people who say it is a crime.

Our young lawyer wanna be had been reading his text books again. This attitude comes from the book, Lawyer Talk 101. Chapter Title: "How to play twister with the truth."

Why not show him up then by adding substance, reason and reasonableness to the discussion.