Why do 3 King County Council members support illegal aliens?

gogodawgs · May 17, 2012

I am pretty sure both of you are WRONG!

Here are the aliens we are talking about.....

Tawnos · May 17, 2012

gogodawgs said:
I am pretty sure both of you are WRONG!

Here are the aliens we are talking about.....

http://ivarfjeld.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/aliens1.jpg?w=450&h=337[MG]

[IMG]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_6EhymzFqbTQ/TSvXEEXNptI/AAAAAAAABlU/Y7ebBYdHqKg/s1600/boardroom+aliens.jpg[MG][/QUOTE]

I know just the man for the job!
[img]http://images4.fanpop.com/image/photos/21100000/Fox-Mulder-fox-mulder-21116483-1024-768.png

LkWd_Don · May 17, 2012

Tawnos said:
That's because you're thick or intentionally blind to that which you don't want to see.

Kent v. Dulles IS a citation. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=357&invol=116

The rest comes from other cases regarding application of the 14th amendment, but it's not that hard. Hell, the part about congress cited the constitution. What more do you need?
.

I will take the time to read further tomorrow, but with looking at the Kent v Dulles cite and not even needing to open it before knowing that you are using a State Department refusal to issue Passports to American Citizens into a discussion about illegal aliens.

If that is to be the type of cite I will be finding as I read further, then I can see there will be no logic coming from my opposition in this discussion. One trying to insist that administrative rules are the Laws that Congress has passed in support of his side. And then my finding this??? What will I find?

Till tomorrow, good night!

jdholmes · May 17, 2012

Dude I never said that administrative policy was law.

If you weren't being so thick and unwilling to learn than you could truly understand what I have said multiple times.

That document I provided will link you to the applicable laws and case law that explains the immigration issues I was speaking of.

Basically you don't have to go digging for it, there are direct links in that document and quoted case law.

Perhaps if you stopped dismissing everyone around you and opened your eyes you might learn something.

I am not obsessed with that particular document, I am simply advising you that it is a good place to start if you want to understand immigration law instead of diving into the deep end of a pool you have no understanding of.

I never once said that it was law - but it will direct you to the applicable laws.

Seriously...wow.

And FYI you yak about other people yet you have completely failed in posting anything that clearly supports your position. You have taken things out of context and misunderstood the law because you don't have an understanding in this particular area. Go play in the kiddy pool.

Tawnos · May 17, 2012

LkWd_Don said:
I will take the time to read further tomorrow, but with looking at the Kent v Dulles cite and not even needing to open it before knowing that you are using a State Department refusal to issue Passports to American Citizens into a discussion about illegal aliens.

I'm actually using that to address whether freedom to travel is a right or not. The case identifies that it is a right, why it is a right, and what part of the constitution the right is protected under.

If that is to be the type of cite I will be finding as I read further, then I can see there will be no logic coming from my opposition in this discussion. One trying to insist that administrative rules are the Laws that Congress has passed in support of his side. And then my finding this??? What will I find?

Till tomorrow, good night!

You're the one who keeps citing things related to naturalization and claiming they apply to immigration. We could do this the socratic way:

What is the difference between civil and criminal penalties?
What is the most common form of illegal immigration?
What are the penalties for that form of immigration (hint: there are two separate ones depending on time periods)?

LkWd_Don · May 17, 2012

Tawnos said:
I'm actually using that to address whether freedom to travel is a right or not. The case identifies that it is a right, why it is a right, and what part of the constitution the right is protected under.

However, Kent v Dulles is a case that can only be related to United States Citizens the same as the 14th Amendment as the 14th Applies to United States Citizenship. Let us look at that for a minute since you keep wanting to confuse issues with it. Please follow along. http://usconstitution.net/const.html#Am14

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

As you can see it only applies to "All persons born or naturalized in the United States" Making any reference to it in this discussion a reference to Naturalization, rather than immigration. As that is not supportive of the topic of illegal aliens (or immigrants) let us avoid its use.

Tawnos said:
You're the one who keeps citing things related to naturalization and claiming they apply to immigration. We could do this the socratic way:

See above! I am not the person who first used cites for Naturalization. But I digress as I just asked we avoid that. Moving on!

Tawnos said:
What is the difference between civil and criminal penalties?

In most cases, civil penalties are those that do not carry a jail term and criminal penalties can. I have already explained that in our Immigration Laws under Tittle 8 of the US Code, the code refers criminal acts to be handled under Tittle 18 Criminal Penalties for arrest and general disposition. As you seem to disbelieve what I was saying. I will pause here and find a cite that will directly point to that fact. Let us look at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325 8 USC § 1325 - Improper entry by alien.. Which contains my primary support for aliens who are undocumented being not only illegal aliens but also criminals. Now I will paste an important part of that for your reading.

(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts
Any alien who
(1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or
(2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or
(3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
(b) Improper time or place; civil penalties
Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to enter) the United States at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil penalty of—
(1) at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or attempted entry); or
(2) twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under this subsection.
Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be imposed.
(c) Marriage fraud
Any individual who knowingly enters into a marriage for the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or fined not more than $250,000, or both.
(d) Immigration-related entrepreneurship fraud
Any individual who knowingly establishes a commercial enterprise for the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, fined in accordance with title 18, or both.

Tawnos said:
What is the most common form of illegal immigration?

Here I know that you and I will disagree. I read your supportive cites and was found wanting for something more current. The newer of the two, the Pro-Con one done as a Congressional Research Paper was the most current with a 2006 date, the other contained data that may have been valid in 1990 with forcasts that extended out to 1994 if I read it correctly.
Neither covers the great unknown number of illegal aliens that cross our borders without documentation, so I can only state, that based on KNOWN numbers of aliens in the US without curent authorization, Your's would be a natural conclusion. Just like with rapes and other sex crimes, there are thousands of undocumented sex crimes that happen which are never included in any statistical data.

Tawnos said:
What are the penalties for that form of immigration (hint: there are two separate ones depending on time periods)?

I have already posted the Criminal Penalties for the most common form of illegal immigration that I see nearly on a daily basis. That which involves Undocumented and Criminal Aliens who are here Illegally.
If you are asking for the penalties for Not Leaving when their documentation expires.
We should look at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1324d

8 USC § 1324d - Civil penalties for failure to depart
(a) In general
Any alien subject to a final order of removal who—
(1) willfully fails or refuses to—
(A) depart from the United States pursuant to the order,
(B) make timely application in good faith for travel or other documents necessary for departure, or
(C) present for removal at the time and place required by the Attorney General; or
(2) conspires to or takes any action designed to prevent or hamper the alien’s departure pursuant to the order,
shall pay a civil penalty of not more than $500 to the Commissioner for each day the alien is in violation of this section.

Please note that this can be $500 per day that they remain in the US. Then if they are found refusing to pay for whatever reason, it can become a Criminal Act chargable under Title 18 of the US Code.

Having been doing more reading and research on this topic I have found many places where the general statement is Violations of immigration laws may also subject an alien to civil and criminal sanctions. See sections 1325, 1306, 1324c and those that support your position of Unlawful presence in the United States is not a federal crime, although it may make the alien removable. See sections 1182(a)(6)(A)(i), 1227(a)(1)(B)-(C).3 Unlawful presence NOT a CRIME.

Bringing us back to your insistence that the most known are those of "Documented Aliens" which initially were Legally admitted into the United States and are remaining unlawfully, where what I am and have been talking about is the vast "unknown" number of "Undocumented Illegal Immigrants/Aliens" who live on our soil. To prove what I am talking about for yourself.. go to a local Home Depot or other Contractor grade Hardware Store early in the morning and find the group of people hanging out just off the property, drive up and ask if they are looking for work.. if they all respond yes.. ask who has a green card.. I've done that so frequently in the last three years and found absolutely "0" ZERO to date who were legal yet I would estimate that I have questioned at least 5 thousand in all and that is just here in the West Pierce/North Thurston/South King County areas. When I hired a contractor to do my roof, I had specified that only certified craftsmen do the work, I had to fire that contractor without giving full payment because the whole crew he had his site foreman bring in were undocumented aliens. I know because I asked. Think back to the Sting operating a couple years back where a corporation was found to be employing hundreds of unlawfully employed Workers. The Corporation was fined and the illegals were not pursued, as they were not pursued, there was of course no real data available other than the names on the payroll who had actually submitted employment applications (those that would fit your position) to show how many were illegal aliens without any documentation. Which it was suspected worked the loading docks and were paid on a daily basis.

The bottom line in all of this is that you have not convinced me that Overstaying a VISA is a criminal act as it initially carries no Criminal Penalty only a Civil one. The Criminal Penalties come into play for other acts related to remaining after they have been found out, their authorization to remain has been revoked and they told to leave. At that point I will admit that I should include them into my position as they are then actually Undocumented and Criminal/Illegal Aliens who are here without a legal admittance into the United States, whether that be sneaking across the border where they never went through an Immigrations checkpoint, of if they had, they used forged or invalid paperwork to remain.

jdholmes · May 17, 2012

Until you understand how the whole process works you will not even understand the points we are trying to make.

You are failing to understand that when a person comes on a visitors or tourist visa they have no authorization to work to begin with. That doesn't mean they swam across the river or forged documents and yet they are here illegally after this visa expires and the initial grace period expires. Their paperwork expresses that clearly. If they do go back home after having been here illegally they will suffer a bar of entry ranging from 3 years to 10 years.

The same is true with a work visa. They are issued a card that gives them an allotted time to stay in the country and work. After that EAD (temp work permit) expires or in the case of a conditional green card which is typically 2 years and they have not filed extension or filed to have conditions removed, or if they are on a B2 and even switch jobs or with some visas if they move from their sponsors home they are immediately subject to removal - heck if they are allowed to move and do move yet fail to notify uscis of that move they are subject for removal. Which makes them here illegally. As soon as they breach the conditions of their authorized stay they are here illegally and subject to deportation and removal proceedings.

All of which is forgiven immediately, of course, if they can find a US spouse and file paperwork.

Your very minimal understanding of the process is making you look at issues as thou through a murky glass. You see blurry images and that is about it.

Tawnos · May 17, 2012

LkWd_Don said:
However, Kent v Dulles is a case that can only be related to United States Citizens the same as the 14th Amendment as the 14th Applies to United States Citizenship. Let us look at that for a minute since you keep wanting to confuse issues with it. Please follow along. http://usconstitution.net/const.html#Am14
As you can see it only applies to "All persons born or naturalized in the United States" Making any reference to it in this discussion a reference to Naturalization, rather than immigration. As that is not supportive of the topic of illegal aliens (or immigrants) let us avoid its use.

You're the second person to fail to read the 14th amendment beyond the first half of a sentence. The first sentence, in its entirety, relates to "birthright citizenship." What about the other sentences, which use a different wording?

Tell me, does the 2nd amendment only apply to people in the Militia? No! Of course not! But if you read it like you read the 14th amendment, it would.

See above! I am not the person who first used cites for Naturalization. But I digress as I just asked we avoid that. Moving on!

Yes, yes you did. I think you're forgetting the very things you brought up because you were confused between immigration and nationalization, which are two vastly different things.
"As most of the Immigration Laws I am finding are contained in US Code Title 18 I will show a couple of examples.
18 USC Part I - CRIMES Chapter 69 - NATIONALITY AND CITIZENSHIP and seeing that most penalties for violations of Citizenship under the Naturalization statutes, state much to the effect of "shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both." "

As you can see, we were discussing immigration, and you brought up criminal penalties for lying to try to obtain citizenship (nationalization). A completely different topic, that YOU brought up.

In most cases, civil penalties are those that do not carry a jail term and criminal penalties can. I have already explained that in our Immigration Laws under Tittle 8 of the US Code, the code refers criminal acts to be handled under Tittle 18 Criminal Penalties for arrest and general disposition. As you seem to disbelieve what I was saying. I will pause here and find a cite that will directly point to that fact. Let us look at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325 8 USC § 1325 - Improper entry by alien.. Which contains my primary support for aliens who are undocumented being not only illegal aliens but also criminals. Now I will paste an important part of that for your reading.

The problem is that you 1) claimed all illegal acts are criminal ("What about the word illegal is it that our GO do not equate with a Criminal act?"), 2) claimed that all people who are here in violation of the law are criminals ("supporting the circumvention of the Laws of our Nation by those who are illegally here, do they not see makes themselves Criminal Friendly ") while contradicting yourself numerous times on the first and not providing citation that the second makes up the entire body of illegal immigrants. In fact, you try to weasel out of having to prove that by claiming that being admitted legally and overstaying doesn't make them illegal ("folks might consider them as illegal aliens.. but in that they were legally admitted.. they are not illegal.") while subsequently admitting that they are breaking the law (the definition of illegal).

It sounds like you want to claim "all illegal aliens who are here in violation of criminal law are criminals" - a useless tautology for the discussion at hand. You can't simply handwave away the largest class of illegal aliens because they're inconvenient to your ranting.

Here I know that you and I will disagree. I read your supportive cites and was found wanting for something more current. The newer of the two, the Pro-Con one done as a Congressional Research Paper was the most current with a 2006 date, the other contained data that may have been valid in 1990 with forcasts that extended out to 1994 if I read it correctly.
Neither covers the great unknown number of illegal aliens that cross our borders without documentation, so I can only state, that based on KNOWN numbers of aliens in the US without curent authorization, Your's would be a natural conclusion. Just like with rapes and other sex crimes, there are thousands of undocumented sex crimes that happen which are never included in any statistical data.

A 2006 date is pretty damn recent in terms of these studies, though it doesn't account for the recession and subsequent drop in all forms of immigration. Either way, the burden is on you to show that the studies are incorrect. I don't need to keep showing more and more simply because you baldly assert "not good enough!"

I have already posted the Criminal Penalties for the most common form of illegal immigration that I see nearly on a daily basis. That which involves Undocumented and Criminal Aliens who are here Illegally.
If you are asking for the penalties for Not Leaving when their documentation expires.
We should look at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1324d

Please note that this can be $500 per day that they remain in the US. Then if they are found refusing to pay for whatever reason, it can become a Criminal Act chargable under Title 18 of the US Code.

Keep 18 USC 1324 in mind for a little bit.

Having been doing more reading and research on this topic I have found many places where the general statement is Violations of immigration laws may also subject an alien to civil and criminal sanctions. See sections 1325, 1306, 1324c and those that support your position of Unlawful presence in the United States is not a federal crime, although it may make the alien removable. See sections 1182(a)(6)(A)(i), 1227(a)(1)(B)-(C).3 Unlawful presence NOT a CRIME.

Which is what I've said from the get-go. Many "illegal aliens" aren't criminals merely because they are unlawfully present, despite your assertion that illegal aliens are criminals. Yes, the sections dealing with civil sanctions mention that there may be other criminal sanctions, but that's irrelevant without providing examples of criminal acts they've committed.

Bringing us back to your insistence that the most known are those of "Documented Aliens" which initially were Legally admitted into the United States and are remaining unlawfully, where what I am and have been talking about is the vast "unknown" number of "Undocumented Illegal Immigrants/Aliens" who live on our soil. To prove what I am talking about for yourself.. go to a local Home Depot or other Contractor grade Hardware Store early in the morning and find the group of people hanging out just off the property, drive up and ask if they are looking for work.. if they all respond yes.. ask who has a green card.. I've done that so frequently in the last three years and found absolutely "0" ZERO to date who were legal yet I would estimate that I have questioned at least 5 thousand in all and that is just here in the West Pierce/North Thurston/South King County areas. When I hired a contractor to do my roof, I had specified that only certified craftsmen do the work, I had to fire that contractor without giving full payment because the whole crew he had his site foreman bring in were undocumented aliens. I know because I asked. Think back to the Sting operating a couple years back where a corporation was found to be employing hundreds of unlawfully employed Workers. The Corporation was fined and the illegals were not pursued, as they were not pursued, there was of course no real data available other than the names on the payroll who had actually submitted employment applications (those that would fit your position) to show how many were illegal aliens without any documentation. Which it was suspected worked the loading docks and were paid on a daily basis.

A green card is not needed to be here legally. Why would you be asking if they have one unless you're ignorant to the other legal ways to enter? The card indicates permanent resident status, not legal immigration. However, let's assume you found out the people are here illegally ("I know because I asked"). I asked you to keep 18 USC 1324 in mind earlier, because it's relevant. Did you report it to ICE? If not, you have aided and abetted in the commission of the transporting and shielding of such aliens, a violation of 18 USC 1324(1)(A)(v)(II). At least, that could easily be argued by the combination of your knowledge of their legal status, their employment, and your lack of reporting. Face it, the law is farked every which way, because chances are, you have unknowingly committed a criminal act (even in your "trying to do good" scenario). If a prosecutor wanted to screw you over, they could.

The bottom line in all of this is that you have not convinced me that Overstaying a VISA is a criminal act as it initially carries no Criminal Penalty only a Civil one. The Criminal Penalties come into play for other acts related to remaining after they have been found out, their authorization to remain has been revoked and they told to leave. At that point I will admit that I should include them into my position as they are then actually Undocumented and Criminal/Illegal Aliens who are here without a legal admittance into the United States, whether that be sneaking across the border where they never went through an Immigrations checkpoint, of if they had, they used forged or invalid paperwork to remain.

What the fark? I am the one who has been saying it's not a criminal act and only a civil violation, which directly contradicts your assertion that all illegals are criminals. Why would I try to convince you it's a criminal act when I've been saying all along it isn't, and therefore the blanket assertion that

LkWd_Don · May 17, 2012

Tawnos said:
LkWd_Don said:

"As most of the Immigration Laws I am finding are contained in US Code Title 18 I will show a couple of examples.
18 USC Part I - CRIMES Chapter 69 - NATIONALITY AND CITIZENSHIP and seeing that most penalties for violations of Citizenship under the Naturalization statutes, state much to the effect of "shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both." "

Click to expand...

I will admit that I should have clarified that most criminal penalties for illegal immigration refer to the US Code Title 18 and because many of the sections relating to Criminal acts in Title 8 USC refer over to those Title 18 Criminal statutes.
It is clear that you did not read that in what I posted last. Did you? I will post it again.

LkWd_Don said:

In most cases, civil penalties are those that do not carry a jail term and criminal penalties can. I have already explained that in our Immigration Laws under Tittle 8 of the US Code, the code refers criminal acts to be handled under Tittle 18 Criminal Penalties for arrest and general disposition. As you seem to disbelieve what I was saying. I will pause here and find a cite that will directly point to that fact. Let us look at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325 8 USC § 1325 - Improper entry by alien.. Which contains my primary support for aliens who are undocumented being not only illegal aliens but also criminals.

Click to expand...

Just like you avoided where I showed that for an Alien who was Legally in the US and now is found to be Unlawful in the US is not a Crime! Therefore they are not Criminals! So who are the criminals, As was posted from "8 USC Section 1324d" http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1324d not 18 USC 1324 as you are confusing it to be. Title 18 Section 1324 would have been contained in Chapter 62 which no longer exists. Please see for yourself at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I

Tawnos said:

The problem is that you 1) claimed all illegal acts are criminal ("What about the word illegal is it that our GO do not equate with a Criminal act?"), 2) claimed that all people who are here in violation of the law are criminals ("supporting the circumvention of the Laws of our Nation by those who are illegally here, do they not see makes themselves Criminal Friendly ") while contradicting yourself numerous times on the first and not providing citation that the second makes up the entire body of illegal immigrants. In fact, you try to weasel out of having to prove that by claiming that being admitted legally and overstaying doesn't make them illegal ("folks might consider them as illegal aliens.. but in that they were legally admitted.. they are not illegal.") while subsequently admitting that they are breaking the law (the definition of illegal).

Click to expand...

So, then by your definition, if you get a Speeding Ticket.. which is a violation of a Traffic Law, you are automatically a Criminal?

I think not.. though speeding is an infraction of a traffic law and is therefore unlawful.. to imply that its violation of law is an instant qualification for being a Criminal is a mistaken one. Just as anything that only carries Civil penalties (like Traffic Infractions) are not Criminal Acts unless they specifically carry a Criminal Penalty, but if they carry a criminal penalty they are not simply Traffic Infractions.. an example being DWI..

So before you attempt any further lecture on what is or is not criminal, you may need to learn the difference yourself.

LkWd_Don · May 17, 2012

Additonal cite's

Rather than edit my last post.. I am just going to post this.
What I am about to post is rather old from Connecticut (CT) I would not have presented it and had I not been told by Tawnos who apparently believes that our Laws and the subject in question do not change so greatly even in as many as 20 years*, I will use it now.

Found in this "Office of Legislative Research" (OLR) Research Letter (2005) at http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/rpt/2005-R-0457.htm. we will find the CT OLR concluding that The IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT (INA) provides limited authority for the State Police to involve themselves.

If they have knownledge of a Criminal Act being committed they are given authority to make an arrest under the INA

Express Authorization for State and Local Law Enforcement Officers to Enforce Immigration Law

The INA contains three provisions that explicitly authorize state and local police to enforce federal immigration laws (8 USC §§ 1357(g), 1103(a)(8), and 1253c. The following is taken directly from the March 11, 2004 CRS report on the ability of state and local police to enforce the INA

And later discussed when State and Local LEOs have questionable authority.

CIVIL VIOLATIONS OF THE INA

It is not clear whether federal law allows state and local police officers to enforce the civil provisions of the federal immigration law apart from the provisions allowing the U.S. attorney general to deputize state and local officers, or allowing him to declare an emergency due to a mass influx of aliens. An alien can be illegally present in the United States without violating criminal provisions of the federal immigration laws. For example, expiration of a visitor's visa, change of student status, or acquisition of prohibited employment could put an alien in violation of the civil, but not criminal, provisions of federal immigration laws.

This again separates what is illegal or Criminal from what is merely unlawful!
Unlawful does not necessarily equate to being illegal or criminal even though it is a violation of a Law.. it is a Violation of a Civil Law, code or statute, not a Criminal Law, code or statute.

Nothing presented to me by others so far, has done anything more than to reaffirm my previous stance. Nothing I have found has done more than to reaffirm my stance.

I am still waiting for someone to present a citation that gives clear and irrefutable evidence that I am mistaken.

Our Government Officials need to learn that what is illegal is Criminal and that to willingly assist criminals in their illegal acts is to be an accessory to those criminal acts

* NOTE: I can show where our Congress passes multiple changes to our various laws regarding Immigration and Naturalizations and will admit that the majority are changing one word out for another, but can show where the meaning of those laws can be changed with a simple and or single word. There are also those that like this one passed on Jan 3, 2001 http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-107s1424enr/pdf/BILLS-107s1424enr.pdf that provide for multiple changes in one bill.

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide permanent authority for the admission of ‘‘S’’ visa nonimmigrants.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. PERMANENT AUTHORITY FOR ADMISSION OF ‘‘S’’ VISA
NONIMMIGRANTS.
Section 214(k) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1184(k)) is amended—
(1) by striking (2);
(2) by redesignating paragraphs (3), (4), and (5) as paragraphs
(2), (3), and (4), respectively; and
(3) in paragraph (4)(E) (as redesignated), by striking ‘‘paragraph
(4)’’ and inserting ‘‘paragraph (3)’’.

Please take note that a Student or "S" type VISA is referred to as being nonimmigration. Excluding them any reference to illegal immigrants until they have committed a Criminal Act which revokes their VISA which then makes them illegal immigrants.

Tawnos · May 17, 2012

This, folks, is a clear case of hindsight bias.

Let's go back to the beginning, shall we, and investigate how LkWd_Don went from saying that illegal immigrants are criminals to his present stance, echoing what I initially said. All original emphasis is removed and my own added to point out exactly what was said.

First, the initial claim equating "illegal" with "criminal act":

LkWd_Don said:
If I had the chance to really talk to our GO.. I would have to ask, What about the word illegal is it that our GO do not equate with a Criminal act? And by their supporting the circumvention of the Laws of our Nation by those who are illegally here, do they not see makes themselves Criminal Friendly and in violation of their Oaths of Office?

Second, a continuation claiming that everyone who is in this country illegally has committed a criminal act:

LkWd_Don said:
The problem that exists is that Congress has established laws by which a person not born in the USA or of Citizens of the US (if born abroad) may become Citizens of the United States of America and there are thousands if not tens of thousands who are violating those laws by being here illegally, therefore are here criminally. And we have a multitude of Officials and Citizens who would simply pardon all the criminal behavior by allowing known criminals to become citizens without complying with the Laws as laid out by Congress.

A simple yet very true statement to come of this, is that those who are illegal aliens living in this country are criminals.
An equally true statement is:
Anyone who assists such criminals can either be considered as criminal friendly or are an accessory to that criminal act.

Third, I reply, pointing out that not everybody who is here illegally has committed a criminal act:

Tawnos said:
Most people here "illegally" have committed civil offense, a tort, punishable by a fine. That is not a criminal act.

Next, he brings up and conflates falsifying naturalization information with the act of being here in violation of civil law, in an attempt to show the latter is a criminal act. This is also the first time he learns that there is a way to be here in violation of the law without being here criminally. Watch how it gets subtly incorporated into his writing, as if that's what he was saying all along. Note that I had not brought up making anyone a citizen. I merely stated a right to travel and equal protection under the law, so anything related to naturalization is irrelevant to the discussion prior to this.

LkWd_Don said:
Yes there is a difference between those who are traveling and legally visiting the US and those who are living here without an official admittance into the United States (that are violating the Immigration Laws of the US).
...
I do find where once an alien has been legally admitted to the US and commits or is involved in one of the listed actions, that they can simply be deported. Which is the "Tort" Law you are referring to.

...

As most of the Immigration Laws I am finding are contained in US Code Title 18 I will show a couple of examples.
18 USC Part I - CRIMES Chapter 69 - NATIONALITY AND CITIZENSHIP and seeing that most penalties for violations of Citizenship under the Naturalization statutes, state much to the effect of "shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."

Such as this example http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1424 Penalty = "Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both." It did not list the fine here so I would have to look deeper into the section to find the adopted fines schedule.

Here is an example of where failure to report to their admission hearing can result in http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1429 "Any person who has been subpenaed under the provisions of subsection (d) of section 336 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to appear at the final hearing of an application for naturalization, and who shall neglect or refuse to so appear and to testify, if in the power of such person to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

There are also Immigration Laws contained in 48 USC § 1806 - Immigration and transition which might also carry criminal penalties.

I would ask where you see No Criminal acts or penalties for illegal immigrants? And I did not even extend my search into the Customs or IRS Titles for additional crimes that they can be possibly be found guilty of.

He goes back to saying that people who are here without proper immigration documentation have committed a criminal defense, despite having previously stating that "once an alien has been legally admitted to the US and commits or is involved in one of the listed actions, that they can simply be deported. Which is the "Tort" Law you are referring to." It's important to note that people here with expired or invalid visas are here "without proper Immigration Documentation."

LkWd_Don said:
L
LOL You are the one who told me that I was wrong, that what I was saying was not true! That most here illegally have committed no offense. That only "Tort" laws with fines were involved. I am sorry to say.. but if they are in this country without proper Immigration Documentation they have committed a criminal offense. If they had documentation that was forged or did not actually belong to them when they crossed the border to get here, then again they have committed a Criminal act. I will stand by my statement that if they are here illegally, they are criminals as for them to not be criminals.. they would be here legally. It really is a very simple concept and the Immigration Laws passed by our Congress spell it out and support that concept.

We spun around for a while, and I'm getting tired of re reading his fail, so I'll end with the latest post, where the complete 180 has happened, and he argues as if he was saying what I was saying the entire time.

LkWd_Don said:
I will admit that I should have clarified that most criminal penalties for illegal immigration refer to the US Code Title 18 and because many of the sections relating to Criminal acts in Title 8 USC refer over to those Title 18 Criminal statutes.
It is clear that you did not read that in what I posted last. Did you? I will post it again.
Just like you avoided where I showed that for an Alien who was Legally in the US and now is found to be Unlawful in the US is not a Crime! Therefore they are not Criminals! So who are the criminals, As was posted from "8 USC Section 1324d" http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1324d not 18 USC 1324 as you are confusing it to be. Title 18 Section 1324 would have been contained in Chapter 62 which no longer exists. Please see for yourself at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I

I did typo then mistakenly copy paste 18 instead of 8. My bad. I meant 8. However, I wasn't mentioning 8 USC 1324d, but 8 USC 1324(1)(A)(v)(II).

Either way, it's amazing to witness such an awesome display of the power of the mind to cloud what you claimed previously as you flip your position and say things based on what you've learned. I know I've done it in the past, and hoo boy does it feel embarrassing, but I think it's good to be able to move past the feeling of shame and acknowledge that the initial claim was incorrect. Learn and grow, and don't disparage somebody because they change their minds when they learn new things.

In fact, I could probably pull up archives of discussions where I argued against open immigration. Currently, I think I was wrong then. However, in the future, should a compelling case and evidence sway me the other way, I would change my opinion again. The main difference is that I try to recognize when that's happening.

LkWd_Don · May 17, 2012

Tawnos said:
Either way, it's amazing to witness such an awesome display of the power of the mind to cloud what you claimed previously as you flip your position and say things based on what you've learned. I know I've done it in the past, and hoo boy does it feel embarrassing, but I think it's good to be able to move past the feeling of shame and acknowledge that the initial claim was incorrect. Learn and grow, and don't disparage somebody because they change their minds when they learn new things.

Quite to the contrary, I have been saying the same thing all along..
What is Criminal is illegal.
What is legal is not illegal and by extension is not criminal.
What is unlawful is not illegal as it is not Criminal.
I have posted cite's from our US Laws that support my contentions. You have failed to provide any credible citations in that regard.

To remind you of what I have been saying, I will go to your last posting and provide a quote from myself that you used.

LkWd_Don said:
Yes there is a difference between those who are traveling and legally visiting the US and those who are living here without an official admittance into the United States (that are violating the Immigration Laws of the US).
...
I do find where once an alien has been legally admitted to the US and commits or is involved in one of the listed actions, that they can simply be deported. Which is the "Tort" Law you are referring to.

Again, if they have or Had a VISA they were legally admitted into the United States. Until those VISA's are revoked or those aliens are found to still be here with an expired VISA and are told to leave without complying, they are still legal. It is only upon their continued presence (remaining) after being told to leave that they become illegal or criminal as they are then Trespassing! Can it be put any more clearly for you?

That is still what I am saying now. No Flips as you so emphatically state.

I have shown that if an alien held a Student, Work or VISA other than directly as an immigrant, they are nonimmigrants under the INA laws and so are not considered as immigrants. I did state that they might become criminals and therefore illegal, if (You even used this in your last post. ) they failed to appear at a mandatory hearing, though I did not use those words precisely.

LkWd_Don said:
Here is an example of where failure to report to their admission hearing can result in http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1429 "Any person who has been subpenaed under the provisions of subsection (d) of section 336 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to appear at the final hearing of an application for naturalization, and who shall neglect or refuse to so appear and to testify, if in the power of such person to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

You insisted I was wrong, even though I have provided credible source citations. Where are yours? A couple of reports that are not links to or listings of laws. If you can't be honest with yourself, you will never be honest with others.

Tawnos said:
I did typo then mistakenly copy paste 18 instead of 8. My bad.

So the computer made the typo when doing a copy/paste and inserted a "1" to make an 8 into an 18 where no "1" previously existed? Interesting!

LkWd_Don said:
LOL You are the one who told me that I was wrong, that what I was saying was not true! That most here illegally have committed no offense. That only "Tort" laws with fines were involved. I am sorry to say.. but if they are in this country without proper Immigration Documentation they have committed a criminal offense. If they had documentation that was forged or did not actually belong to them when they crossed the border to get here, then again they have committed a Criminal act. I will stand by my statement that if they are here illegally, they are criminals as for them to not be criminals.. they would be here legally. It really is a very simple concept and the Immigration Laws passed by our Congress spell it out and support that concept.

I have even posted confirmation of this directly from the immigration laws. Again, where are your credible source citations?

Overall, we come down to your insistence that just because something may violate a law that it is automatically a criminal act.

No! It is not, and in my last couple of posts I even showed where that thinking is incorrect.

Remember my example of a Traffic Offense? Traffic offenses are violations of law, but unless they are an illegal act.. meaning if they do not violate a criminal statute, they are not a crime (or criminal in nature), making them a CIVIL offense/infraction punishable as you keep wishing to refer to them, as a TORT and not by jail time. Illegal or Criminal acts will hold a possibility of Jail time in the punishment of the offense.

When you can understand that last paragraph fully, you will understand what I am saying, and realize that I am right, till then you will probably be as confused and confusing as you presently are.

You no longer confuse me as I now know where you are coming from. You are coming from a point of misunderstanding of the difference in our Laws between that which is unlawful (or of a civil nature) and that which is criminal (or illegal).

When you can provide me a creditable citation to irrefutable evidence in our immigration Laws as Passed by Congress to the contrary, then you are very clearly wrong in your opinion of what constitutes an Alien immigrant and a nonimmigrant Alien as well as what is merely unlawful when compared to what is actually illegal.

And if you can't do that.. then this is, in effect, the End Of Discussion!

Tawnos · May 17, 2012

LkWd_Don said:
Quite to the contrary, I have been saying the same thing all along..
What is Criminal is illegal.
What is legal is not illegal and by extension is not criminal.
What is unlawful is not illegal as it is not Criminal.
I have posted cite's from our US Laws that support my contentions. You have failed to provide any credible citations in that regard.

*snip*
And if you can't do that.. then this is, in effect, the End Of Discussion!

No, the end of discussion is that you're lying and I'm tired of the bull. Anybody reading the above can see that you initially claimed all illegal immigrants are criminals. In fact, you went further to state that anything illegal is criminal (i.e. "what about the word illegal is it that our GO do not equate with a Criminal act?").

That, alone, is enough to show you are full of it. That you can't man up and just say you made a mistake, as I did just a minute ago when I made a typo, speaks volumes.

And if you could read, you would understand order of operations. I made a typo, then copied and pasted it. I didn't copy and paste and magically get a 1. You make it hard not to sling every rude insult of intelligence I know at your shenanigans.

*edit*
Of course, it should have been evident to all present that you cannot read when you highlighted the first half of the first sentence of the first section of the 14th amendment, then claimed the entirety of that section was bound by it.

jdholmes · May 17, 2012

It's not even worth discussing with him - he's too closed minded to even begin to understand the system.

cynicist · May 18, 2012

Why is this an Open Cerry topic?

LkWd_Don · May 18, 2012

cynicist said:
Why is this an Open Cerry topic?

I can not speak for the OP, but I would conclude that it is related because when acts involving guns on the part of illegal aliens are publicized, that it reflects badly upon the entire 2A community.

Why do 3 King County Council members support illegal aliens?

gogodawgs

Campaign Veteran

Tawnos

Regular Member

LkWd_Don

Regular Member

jdholmes

Regular Member

Tawnos

Regular Member

LkWd_Don

Regular Member

jdholmes

Regular Member

Tawnos

Regular Member

LkWd_Don

Regular Member

LkWd_Don

Regular Member

Tawnos

Regular Member

LkWd_Don

Regular Member

Tawnos

Regular Member

jdholmes

Regular Member

cynicist

Regular Member

LkWd_Don

Regular Member