Separating immigrant families and imprisoning children

[carpedm9587]

plus just by being here they have committed at least one crime already. So 100% of them have committed crimes of at least the misdemeanor level. I don't think 100% of people born in the USA have committed misdemeanors

That's pretty lame...

[Sparko]

That's pretty lame...

But true. I get tired of people acting like illegal aliens are not breaking the law. It's in the name ILLEGAL alien.

[carpedm9587]

But true. I get tired of people acting like illegal aliens are not breaking the law. It's in the name ILLEGAL alien.

I'm not arguing they need to be let in, Sparko. I personally think they should be either immediately turned around (unless there is an immediate medical danger) or they should simply be bused to an entry point and put in line.

But our patchwork of laws and poor enforcement as well as their illegal entry has led to the 11.1M people currently here. That needs to be dealt with. Most of these people have now been here 10 years or longer. I frankly think we should put a stake in the sand and say, "anyone crossing the border on June 26, 2018 or later will be escorted to an entry point and put at the back of the line if they wish to apply for asylum. Everyone already here will be given an (arduous) path to citizenship, possibly coupled with a reasonable fine for the misdemeanor act of illegally entering.

Then put it behind us and move on.

[Sparko]

I'm not arguing they need to be let in, Sparko. I personally think they should be either immediately turned around (unless there is an immediate medical danger) or they should simply be bused to an entry point and put in line.

I agree that just not letting them in at all is the best policy. That is why I think that wall is starting to sound like a good idea. Yuuuuge wall. People can go to the regular border crossing locations and put in an application to enter legally. Maybe Mexico could put up some temporary housing for them on the other side.

But our patchwork of laws and poor enforcement as well as their illegal entry has led to the 11.1M people currently here. That needs to be dealt with. Most of these people have now been here 10 years or longer. I frankly think we should put a stake in the sand and say, "anyone crossing the border on June 26, 2018 or later will be escorted to an entry point and put at the back of the line if they wish to apply for asylum. Everyone already here will be given an (arduous) path to citizenship, possibly coupled with a reasonable fine for the misdemeanor act of illegally entering.

Then put it behind us and move on.

Sounds like a plan. I would have no problem with that. Maybe add that any illegals that have a criminal record with felonies committed after entry will not be permitted to stay after their prison sentence is up. And any that are here and want to become citizens have to not commit any felonies before gaining citizenship (which I think is already the law, you can't be an immigrant even with a green card if you are a felon as far as I know)

[rogue06]

But true. I get tired of people acting like illegal aliens are not breaking the law. It's in the name ILLEGAL alien.

Explaining why the left has worked so hard to change the name to "undocumented immigrant." It's like they want folks to believe they're here legally but misplaced their papers or something.

[thewriteranon]

Maybe add that any illegals that have a criminal record with felonies committed after entry will not be permitted to stay after their prison sentence is up. And any that are here and want to become citizens have to not commit any felonies before gaining citizenship (which I think is already the law, you can't be an immigrant even with a green card if you are a felon as far as I know)

Way, way, way more complicated than that. Not even close to that simple. Not even a little bit.

Cite: I currently work in criminal law in the immigration division, and I am helping write a book on how criminal violations interact with immigration law.

[carpedm9587]

I agree that just not letting them in at all is the best policy. That is why I think that wall is starting to sound like a good idea. Yuuuuge wall. People can go to the regular border crossing locations and put in an application to enter legally. Maybe Mexico could put up some temporary housing for them on the other side.

Sorry, but "the wall" is a ridiculous idea. Anyone who has been to the border (I have) can explain it to you. A significant part of the border is already protected by walls. The walls help, but they have to be regularly patrolled because those trying to sneak in use amazing resources to climb or tunnel. In highly populated areas, the tunnels start in a home or business on one side of the wall, and emerge in a home or business on the other side. The wall also cannot be continuous because there are native reservations along the border that span between the U.S. and Mexico and the native people (it is their sovereign land) refuse permission for the wall to traverse their nation. At one point I asked our host why people were bothering to climb or dig when they could just walk two miles down the fence line and walk around the end of it, and he just shrugged.

There are a few places along the border where additional wall can help. Beyond that, we need to tap technology. Sensors to detect when digging is happening. Sensors/cameras to detect motion and isolate humans from wildlife, and so forth. More wall will simply not do the job.

Sounds like a plan. I would have no problem with that. Maybe add that any illegals that have a criminal record with felonies committed after entry will not be permitted to stay after their prison sentence is up. And any that are here and want to become citizens have to not commit any felonies before gaining citizenship (which I think is already the law, you can't be an immigrant even with a green card if you are a felon as far as I know)

I do agree that anyone who has committed a felony should be shown the door, unless they have already achieved citizenship (there should not be two classes of citizen). Infractions should not be part of that, and misdemeanors would depend on the nature of the misdemeanor.

[carpedm9587]

Explaining why the left has worked so hard to change the name to "undocumented immigrant." It's like they want folks to believe they're here legally but misplaced their papers or something.

Undocumented was a term, in my experience, that was being used to address any immigrant that was not here via the "normal" immigration process. Technically, asylum seekers are undocumented until their case is heard. The problem is that all of them were being lumped into the "illegal" category.

[thewriteranon]

I do agree that anyone who has committed a felony should be shown the door, unless they have already achieved citizenship (there should not be two classes of citizen). Infractions should not be part of that, and misdemeanors would depend on the nature of the misdemeanor.

How are you going to define a felony?

You already cannot deport a person who has legitimately naturalized, with the exception of draft dodgers and iirc various treasonous activities.

[Sparko]

Way, way, way more complicated than that. Not even close to that simple. Not even a little bit.

Cite: I currently work in criminal law in the immigration division, and I am helping write a book on how criminal violations interact with immigration law.

Well if it were simple we wouldn't need lawyers and you would be asking me "would you like fries with that?"

Job security!

[carpedm9587]

How are you going to define a felony?

I'm not a lawyer. I was under the impression the distinction between infraction, misdemeanor, and felony was written into the laws as they are created. Is that a wrong impression?

You already cannot deport a person who has legitimately naturalized, with the exception of draft dodgers and iirc various treasonous activities.

I would hope that would be the case. Nice to have it confirmed.

[thewriteranon]

For the record, an aggravated felony is a deportable offense with a permanent bar on naturalization, but "aggravated felony" is defined in a long and complicated federal statute and encompasses some crimes that are not felonies in the state of Texas (my point of reference) and doesn't encompass other crimes that are felonies in the state of Texas.

[thewriteranon]

I'm not a lawyer. I was under the impression the distinction between infraction, misdemeanor, and felony was written into the laws as they are created. Is that a wrong impression?

Felonies are defined differently across states and territories. What is, for example, a, idk, third degree felony in one state may be a Class A midemeanor in another.

[Sparko]

Felonies are defined differently across states and territories. What is, for example, a, idk, third degree felony in one state may be a Class A midemeanor in another.

Yeah that is true. I didn't think of that. Like marijuana possession.

[thewriteranon]

Yeah that is true. I didn't think of that. Like marijuana possession.

Controlled substance offenses are a separate permanent bar, but green card holders get a one time pass on marijuana possession for personal use under 30 grams.

Also something "relating to a controlled substance" might not be a controlled substance offense if the statute in question pertains to drug schedules of states that are broader than the federal schedules. For example, salvia is on the Texas controlled substance schedules, but not on the federal schedule (it's legal in California, for example). A crime in Texas might not be a controlled substance offense if it criminalized something to do with salvia ... under certain conditions ... it's hard to explain.