Saying 'No' to Harsh Anti-Immigrant Measures

[Nonno]

More Municipalities Saying 'No' to Harsh Anti-Immigrant Measures

"September 14, 2010 | This week, city leaders in the Houston suburb of Tomball, Texas, joined a host of other local leaders when they voted not to pursue harsh immigration enforcement measures at a city council meeting. Council members cited costly lawsuits while city residents expressed fear of being branded unwelcoming and “racist.”

The ordinances under consideration would have banned undocumented immigrants from renting property or owning businesses and would have made English Tomball’s official language. The council also voted to continue running a day labor site and tabled a mandate banning companies awarded city contracts from hiring undocumented workers."

Full article here.

 

[hvp05]

city residents expressed fear of being branded unwelcoming and “racist.”

"The liberals and illegals said we are UNWELCOMING and used the 'R' word!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "


It is, of course, their choice to be a bunch of pansies. And they will pay for it, literally, in the way of additional public services, imprisonment costs, schooling costs, etc.

The saddest part is that if the residents had sought their own legal measures, the White House would have jumped in and said . But they still could have tried.

 

[SamSpade]

If liberals continue to persist in calling illegal aliens "undocumented immigrants" (which they are not - they are not "immigrants") I think as a matter of civil disobedience we should take up residence in tents on their properties and insist on being called "undocumented residents" - and thus should demand full access to water, bathroom, heat, food, phone and electricity.

 

[glhs837]

So, they fear being sued by the bottomless pockets of the Federal government, and of being tarred and feathered by the media. Not that these laws would be wrong, but we fear the consequences of passing them. Awesome day for my country, when we fear doing right becuase the Fed and the media will punish me for doing so.

 

[hvp05]

calling illegal aliens "undocumented immigrants" (which they are not - they are not "immigrants")

Of course not. "Immigrant" carries a connotation that the individual in question made SOME attempt to be legal. But you know Liberals: buy the product because it has a pretty package, regardless what may be inside.

 

[chernmax]

They won't be labeled racist but let their city live with the higher taxes, increased entitlements, and strain on the system as a result of their actions. When everyone jumps into the apple cart and no one is left to push, the bums will then be thrown out of office because idiots love repeating bad policy history!

 

[Tilted]

If liberals continue to persist in calling illegal aliens "undocumented immigrants" (which they are not - they are not "immigrants") I think as a matter of civil disobedience we should take up residence in tents on their properties and insist on being called "undocumented residents" - and thus should demand full access to water, bathroom, heat, food, phone and electricity.

I tend to agree about the use of the noun 'immigrant', as it is somewhat narrower than alien and doesn't accurately describe some of the people that may be being referred to by its use - it implies an intention to settle in the U.S. permenantly, which isn't present in all of the people referred to in the general 'illegal immigration' discussion.

However, I think the use of the adjective 'undocumented' is probably better than the use of the adjective 'illegal', though 'unauthorized' or 'unlawful' are probably better still. The implication of the term 'illegal immigrant' or 'illegal alien', or at least what many people seem to interpret those terms to mean, is that the presence in the U.S. of those being referred to is, in itself, a crime of some sort. Such is not the case, at least not for many of them. For some, it's a purely civil matter, and even for those whose unauthorized or unlawful presence (which is not a crime, per se) is the result of a prior crime (i.e. improper entry as per 8 U.S.C. § 1325 - a Class B misdemeanor for the first offense), most are no longer subject to punishment for that crime as the statute of limitations (5 years) has run out. That's not to mention the inherent difficulty, in many situations, in proving a violation of § 1325, and that the violation occurred within the last 5 years.

There certainly are some situations in which unlawful presence probably does represent an ongoing crime (e.g. per § 1326, for aliens that have reentered, or per § 1302, for aliens that failed to register - but a violation of the latter must be willful, which has been interpreted to mean the alien had to have known of the requirement to register, and whether it's an ongoing crime (i.e. the 5 year statue of limitations wouldn't usually apply) doesn't appear to be clearly settled anyway). However, those circumstances probably don't apply to most 'illegals' and certainly don't apply to all of them. (Yes, I got a chance to do a little research over this past weekend. )

All things considered, the most accurate and consistently applicable label is probably unauthorized alien. However, some would no doubt reject that term because they think it's the product of political correctness. It's not, at least it need not be, it can be the product of trying to be accurate or trying not to be misleading.

At any rate, none of this is to suggest that their unauthorized presence, in and of itself, doesn't subject the 'illegal immigrants' to deportation proceedings. It generally does. It just doesn't subject them to criminal punishment. They aren't criminals by virtue of their unauthorized presence, and for many of them, there is no associated applicable offense for which they remain subject to punishment.

 

[hvp05]

However, I think the use of the adjective 'undocumented' is probably better than the use of the adjective 'illegal', though 'unauthorized' or 'unlawful' are probably better still.

You must be bored this morning.

 

[Tilted]

You must be bored this morning.

No, I just recently learned some things that came as a bit of a surprise to me about immigration law - and I suspect they would come as a surprise to quite a few people - and responding to that post (which I had meant to do previously, but hadn't gotten around to) seemed like a good place to share at least one of those things. That being the reality that it is not a crime to be in this country without authorization - being an 'illegal', as that term is so often used, is not a crime.

 

[EmptyTimCup]

That being the reality that it is not a crime to be in this country without authorization - being an 'illegal', as that term is so often used, is not a crime.

we need a new law then ........

 

[SamSpade]

That being the reality that it is not a crime to be in this country without authorization - being an 'illegal', as that term is so often used, is not a crime.

This would then be the first time I'm aware of any distinction between "illegal" and "unlawful".

That, and the fact that unauthorized presence in this country is kind of prosecuted as somewhat of a crime as far as our authority extends to someone under the jurisdiction of another country - they get booted out after detainment.

And other nations do treat you as a kind of minor criminal should you remain there illegally.

I'm repulsed however by the idea that they tend towards leniency because they don't want to be seen as unwelcoming or racist. I think if dozens of them took up residence on their front lawn, they'd understand the concept a little better.

 

[Pushrod]

Very interesting Tilted, I do learn something new everyday. So if it is not a crime to come into this country through the proper channels, then, as EmptytimCup said, then it should probably be made a criminal offence with the penalty being a fine and deportation. How else are we going to hold onto the soveriengty of this nation. If we would get rid of our welfare laws that allow 'unauthorized aliens' to partake in services that should only be available for qualified citizens, than we probably wouldn't have as large of a problem with border jumpers.

 

[SamSpade]

being an 'illegal', as that term is so often used, is not a crime.

Actually I just read on Wiki that it is considered a misdemeanor according to the Immigration and Nationality Act. Are they wrong?

 

[Tilted]

This would then be the first time I'm aware of any distinction between "illegal" and "unlawful".

That, and the fact that unauthorized presence in this country is kind of prosecuted as somewhat of a crime as far as our authority extends to someone under the jurisdiction of another country - they get booted out after detainment.

And other nations do treat you as a kind of minor criminal should you remain there illegally.

I'm repulsed however by the idea that they tend towards leniency because they don't want to be seen as unwelcoming or racist. I think if dozens of them took up residence on their front lawn, they'd understand the concept a little better.

Illegal and unlawful are often used interchangeably as they are often used imprecisely (that's not to criticize such usage, just to describe it - many words are sometimes used imprecisely to convey a general sentiment or idea and sometimes used very precisely to convey a more specific sentiment or meaning). However, there definitely can be different connotations to the words - ones that are quite meaningful, depending on the context. They are generally synonymous, but not necessarily specifically so.

As far as deporting people goes, courts have been very clear that deportation is not a punishment and that deportation proceedings are not criminal in nature, but rather civil. That distinction is pretty important when it comes to what rights and protections a subject of deportation proceedings has.

Anyway, I'm certainly not suggesting that it shouldn't be a crime to be here 'unlawfully', 'illegally', 'unauthorized', or however someone wants to refer to it - just that it isn't. And, perhaps more importantly, the crime that the majority (though not all) of those people who are here unlawfully presumably, at some point, committed, has a 5 year statute of limitations. Considering that the flow of illegals into the country has reportedly fallen dramatically in recent years, and that the vast majority of those here came during the 90's and the first half of the 00's, it would seem that a great many are no longer subject to criminal sanctions.

 

[Tilted]

Actually I just read on Wiki that it is considered a misdemeanor according to the Immigration and Nationality Act. Are they wrong?

If you don't mind, link me to the page you a referring to and I'll try to figure out precisely what they are saying. They may be referring to § 1325 Improper Entry which, as I indicated, is a Class B misdemeanor, and just being careless with what they are referring to. You don't have to have committed that crime to be unlawfully present in the U.S., and courts have interpreted it not to be an ongoing crime (properly so, I believe, based on the statutory language of § 1325 as compared to § 1326). So, the 5 year statute of limitations for non-capital federal crimes applies.

(And, it obviously shouldn't surprise anyone to find that something on Wiki is wrong. )

 

[Tilted]

Very interesting Tilted, I do learn something new everyday. So if it is not a crime to come into this country through the proper channels, then, as EmptytimCup said, then it should probably be made a criminal offence with the penalty being a fine and deportation. How else are we going to hold onto the soveriengty of this nation. If we would get rid of our welfare laws that allow 'unauthorized aliens' to partake in services that should only be available for qualified citizens, than we probably wouldn't have as large of a problem with border jumpers.

Just to be clear again, if you aren't authorized to be here, you are generally subject to deportation, regardless of how you got that way. Also, it is a misdeamenor to enter improperly. It just isn't a crime to be here. It's kinda like it's a crime to shoplift from the 7-11, but it isn't a crime to be someone who once shoplifted from 7-11 (or, to be in the same store 3 years later). If you are caught and prosecuted for the crime within the allowable amount of time, you can be punished for committing the crime of shoplifting. But, you can't be punished for being someone that once shoplifted, or for being in that store at some later point (unless something else happened, like you were issued a no trespass notice), or in the same county, etc.

As I indicated, prosecuting someone for improper entry would be problematic in many situations. Their being here doesn't necessarily establish that they entered in violation of § 1325 and, speaking more practically, it doesn't establish when they entered in violation of § 1325.

 

[Larry Gude]

I tend to agree about the use of the noun 'immigrant', as it is somewhat narrower than alien and doesn't accurately describe some of the people that may be being referred to by its use - it implies an intention to settle in the U.S. permenantly, which isn't present in all of the people referred to in the general 'illegal immigration' discussion.

However, I think the use of the adjective 'undocumented' is probably better than the use of the adjective 'illegal', though 'unauthorized' or 'unlawful' are probably better still. The implication of the term 'illegal immigrant' or 'illegal alien', or at least what many people seem to interpret those terms to mean, is that the presence in the U.S. of those being referred to is, in itself, a crime of some sort. Such is not the case, at least not for many of them. For some, it's a purely civil matter, and even for those whose unauthorized or unlawful presence (which is not a crime, per se) is the result of a prior crime (i.e. improper entry as per 8 U.S.C. § 1325 - a Class B misdemeanor for the first offense), most are no longer subject to punishment for that crime as the statute of limitations (5 years) has run out. That's not to mention the inherent difficulty, in many situations, in proving a violation of § 1325, and that the violation occurred within the last 5 years.

There certainly are some situations in which unlawful presence probably does represent an ongoing crime (e.g. per § 1326, for aliens that have reentered, or per § 1302, for aliens that failed to register - but a violation of the latter must be willful, which has been interpreted to mean the alien had to have known of the requirement to register, and whether it's an ongoing crime (i.e. the 5 year statue of limitations wouldn't usually apply) doesn't appear to be clearly settled anyway). However, those circumstances probably don't apply to most 'illegals' and certainly don't apply to all of them. (Yes, I got a chance to do a little research over this past weekend. )

All things considered, the most accurate and consistently applicable label is probably unauthorized alien. However, some would no doubt reject that term because they think it's the product of political correctness. It's not, at least it need not be, it can be the product of trying to be accurate or trying not to be misleading.

At any rate, none of this is to suggest that their unauthorized presence, in and of itself, doesn't subject the 'illegal immigrants' to deportation proceedings. It generally does. It just doesn't subject them to criminal punishment. They aren't criminals by virtue of their unauthorized presence, and for many of them, there is no associated applicable offense for which they remain subject to punishment.

All of which provides the never ending legal snow storms in this nation that will result in another round of '#### it' and amnesty for all.

None of which gets to the core question; does a sovereign nation have a national interest in controlling and regulating immigration?; it does, and why is none being exercised? BOTH major parties see no gain for their interests by doing anything about it.

I think Tilted's greatest point here, intended or not, it to take the heat off the issue so it is understood as a civil issue, by law, and not a criminal one. Thereby setting the stage for some level heads to pursue policies which treat it as a fine requiring payment AND going through some sort of new immigration process that will be rational and reasonable.

And never happen.

 

[Mongo53]

More Municipalities Saying 'No' to Harsh Anti-Immigrant Measures

"September 14, 2010 | This week, city leaders in the Houston suburb of Tomball, Texas, joined a host of other local leaders when they voted not to pursue harsh immigration enforcement measures at a city council meeting. Council members cited costly lawsuits while city residents expressed fear of being branded unwelcoming and “racist.”

The ordinances under consideration would have banned undocumented immigrants from renting property or owning businesses and would have made English Tomball’s official language. The council also voted to continue running a day labor site and tabled a mandate banning companies awarded city contracts from hiring undocumented workers."

Full article here.

The Headline is misleading, it does NOT describe the actual issue of the article. BTW, where do I find the origin and definition of "undocumented immigrant"?

What makes someone an immigrant is they go through the process to reside in the country by law, which means they become documented. The term undocumented immigrant is an Oxymoron, like Jumbo Shrimp or liberal integrity.

More Alinsky rules for radicals? You control the Language, You control the Debate?

Lets keep this in mind, the next time the left makes another ridiculous argument about a Conservative using a general or innocous term, is actually using a "Code" word for race, so they can shift the argument about how the conservative point is actually racist. Yet, liberals use "Code" words all the time, its just an attempt to control the debate, a means to an end, forget integrity or intellectual honesty, even consistency, when it fits their agenda, they'll switch to a new tactic and come up with conditionally based criteria how the old argument doesn't fit the new circumstances.

 

[Tilted]

All of which provides the never ending legal snow storms in this nation that will result in another round of '#### it' and amnesty for all.

None of which gets to the core question; does a sovereign nation have a national interest in controlling and regulating immigration?; it does, and why is none being exercised? BOTH major parties see no gain for their interests by doing anything about it.

I think Tilted's greatest point here, intended or not, it to take the heat off the issue so it is understood as a civil issue, by law, and not a criminal one. Thereby setting the stage for some level heads to pursue policies which treat it as a fine requiring payment AND going through some sort of new immigration process that will be rational and reasonable.

And never happen.

Question (and this is just for giggles, no real point except curiosity as to whether people realized what was going on at the time): Off the top of your head, can you identify the President who signed the legislation that turned out to be the largest amnesty policy in U.S. history?

Bonus: Who controlled the Senate and who controlled the House at the time?

Super Bonus: In nice round figures, about how many people eventually received amnesty as a result of that legislation?

 

[retiredweaxman]

Question (and this is just for giggles, no real point except curiosity as to whether people realized what was going on at the time): Off the top of your head, can you identify the President who signed the legislation that turned out to be the largest amnesty policy in U.S. history?

Bonus: Who controlled the Senate and who controlled the House at the time?

Super Bonus: In nice round figures, about how many people eventually received amnesty as a result of that legislation?

#1 - On November 6, 1986 President Ronald Regan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA). Under IRCA, it became illegal to hire or recruit immigrants who did not possess proper work authorization, also commonly referred to as “undocumented immigrants.” The Immigration Reform and Control Act also granted amnesty to undocumented immigrants who entered the United States prior to January 1, 1982 and resided in the US continuously.

Amnesty

#2 - The Ninety-ninth United States Congress was a meeting of the legislative branch of the United States federal government, composed of the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives. It met in Washington, DC from January 3, 1985 to January 3, 1987, during the fifth and sixth years of Ronald Reagan's presidency. The apportionment of seats in the House of Representatives was based on the Twentieth Census of the United States in 1980. The Republicans maintained control of the Senate, while the Democrats maintained control of the House of Representatives.

99th United States Congress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

#3 - This Amnesty Bill granted amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, who had been residing in the United States prior to January 1, 1982. This Amnesty Bill provided a path towards legal citizenship for many illegal immigrants. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 is also known as the Simpson-Mazzoli Act. This act also made it illegal for employers to knowingly hire or recruit illegal immigrants and stipulated that employers validate their employee's immigration status.

AmnestyBill.com - Immigration Reform and Control Act