I'm against ANY form of deportation for illegal al
- Thread starter wake_up
- Start date
Toxick
Splat
Those things do not go on a criminal record that I'm aware of. Although they go onto a driving record.
If someone asks if I have ever committed a crime, I would probably say that I have some moving and parking citations under my belt. Also I stabbed a drifter in the forehead back in '94 - although they can't prove anything, so I didn't get convicted.*
If they ask me if I have a criminal record, I would probably say no, and probably offer no further explanation.
As far as I'm aware, however, there are punishments for violating all traffic laws. There are fines which must be paid, and if you're ignorant enough, jail time must be served. (Deliberately plow into the side of a Fed-Ex van just ONE time... they have no sense of humor about that).
And it sounds to me like the enforcement of Immigration Laws is way lacking when compared to traffic laws.
*That didn't really happen.
Tilted
..
It absolutely is not. The distinction between something being a crime and it merely being illegal is of great significance, whether the majority of people realize it or not. That significance is particularly evident when it comes to the general subject underlying the issue in this thread - immigration law and enforcement. The reality that deportation is not a punishment legally, and illegal presence is not a crime, makes a huge systemic difference when it comes to immigration enforcement. I suspect most of the people that post in these forums would not like what it would mean if deportation was treated as a criminal, rather than a civil, matter.
That may be true when they speak in the abstract, but I don't think it's true when they speak in consequential terms. Do you believe that most people that have at some point in the past had a speeding ticket, consider themselves to be criminals? Do people that filed an illegal application somewhere (i.e. one that didn't meet the requirements of relevant law) consider themselves criminals? Would you consider someone that built a shed that didn't originally conform to some code requirement, and who had to redo it so that it did, to have committed a crime?
At any rate, the issue here isn't what most people consider with regard to the synonymousness of illegal and criminal. Perhaps it might be a bit of hair splitting if someone were to insist that people, speaking colloquially, were in error when they considered something being illegal to be the same as it being criminal. But that is not the situation here. People have made statements that imply (quite accurately) that some illegals haven't committed crimes. Others (here and in other threads) have suggested that that indicates that they don't know what the term illegal means. That latter suggestion is inaccurate - an inaccuracy that is certainly worth pointing out when it itself is a mistaken assertion that someone else was mistaken. I merely pointed that out and then, in response to inquiries, explained to some degree why that is the case.
The simple reality is that illegal presence in this country is not a crime (except for under particular circumstances). If someone indicates that it is not, they are not mistaken. If someone says that they are, then it is they that are mistaken. Pointing out that the former someone is correct is not hair splitting - it is correcting a mistake by the latter someone.
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
If an illegal uses a SSN illegally to obtain work - is THAT a crime?
philibusters
Active Member
I believe I have heard of such things being prosecuted in identity theft, but I did not look in the code to verify (because finding the statute could take 15 minutes)
Tilted
..
I would think that they'd be violating, possibly among other things, 18 U.S.C.§ 1546, which would be a crime.
This_person
Well-Known Member
I don't think most people look at deportation as a "punishment" as much as a "consequence for not following the law."
Submitted to...it just violates the law.
Perhaps it would be better to say they can stay as long as they haven't violated the law? Would that be the properly unsplit hair?
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
Which more or less translates into:
1. If they work in this country on an illegal SSN, they're committing a crime.
2. If they work in this country and don't pay taxes via a legitimate ID - or at least file a return - they've committed a crime.
3. If they somehow obtain a legal SSN by misrepresenting themselves, they've committed a crime.
If however, they don't work at all, they're more or less cool.
If they do work but work for cash and don't submit a return, they've committed a crime.
Let's not forget that we put Capone away for not paying his taxes.
Tilted
..
If that was substantively what Congressman Baca was trying to say, then that would be an appropriate way of saying it. But, that's the point - and further demonstrates that this isn't hair splitting - that isn't at all what he was trying to say. He said that he was "against any form of deportation for illegal immigrants who have not committed a crime."
What you suggest would have had a meaning completely contrary to what he intended. It would basically mean that he was okay with deporting all illegals; whereas he is apparently opposed to deporting all illegals. He apparently only wants to deport those that have committed a crime, and doesn't want to deport many of those that are in violation of the law. (Frankly, I suspect - though can't be sure just from his statement - that he only wants to deport the subset of those that have committed (what he might consider to be) a serious crime. I suspect he doesn't even want to deport those that have committed the misdemeanor crime of improper entry. By crime, he may only mean to refer to non-immigration and non-employment related crimes.)
What you suggest would actually have been an indication of what others (mistakenly) suggest that his actual statement indicates - that he doesn't know what the term 'illegal' means. Essentially all 'illegals' are in violation of the law.
Tilted
..
There's no doubt that many - probably most - illegal immigrants have committed a crime (even if it is not one for which they would still be subject to punishment). That's not the point. The point is that there are many who haven't; and the suggestion that there are some who haven't is not inaccurate, nor does it indicate that the suggester doesn't know what illegal means. Perhaps it is lost on the general awareness that a great many of the illegal immigrants in this country are visa over-stayers (or visa terms violators), and not people that illegally entered the country to being with. There are surely also a number of illegal immigrants that don't work (because, e.g., they are children or have a spouse that works).
This_person
Well-Known Member
I agree he only wants to deport those who have committed larger offenses against the law. Most people are making fun of that comment because they believe against the law is wrong in and of itself - and if you're not here legally, you should not be here period.