quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

Plain ignorance on many levels. Immigration law is regulatory, not criminal. Someone who overstays a visa is no more a criminal than someone receiving a parking violation.

You're in for a very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very rough future because you want to live in the past and exercise control over human migration -- and you won't be able to do either.

The CATO Institute, a leading conservative economic think tank is pro-immigration notes (and it uses your term, "amnesty"):

Legalization of unlawful immigrants, commonly referred to as amnesty, has been hyperbolically described as an affront to U.S. national sovereignty, the rule of law, and even our Constitutional Republic. However, the U.S. government has a long history of successfully legalizing violators of immigration laws.

...Past amnesties and legalizations of unauthorized immigrants didn’t destroy U.S. national sovereignty (the United States is still a sovereign country), the rule of law (in tatters for many reasons, including efforts to enforce our arbitrary and capricious immigration laws), or our Constitutional Republic. It’s hard to see why another one passed by Congress and signed by the President would produce those grave harms.

Regarding "Illegal Immigrants" --:

But describing an immigrant as illegal is legally inaccurate. Being in the U.S. without proper documents is a civil offense, not a criminal one. (Underscoring this reality, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority opinion on SB 1070, Arizona’s controversial immigration law: “As a general rule, it is not a crime for a movable alien to remain in the United States.”) In a country that believes in due process of the law, calling an immigrant illegal is akin to calling a defendant awaiting trial a criminal. The term illegal is also imprecise. For many undocumented people — there are 11 million in the U.S. and most have immediate family members who are American citizens, either by birth or naturalization — their immigration status is fluid and, depending on individual circumstances, can be adjusted.

Yesterday, the Associated Press announced that it would stop using the phrase �illegal immigrant� to describe an individual present in the US illegally, or who entered the country without proper authorization.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy


Can't you read? Does non-intuitive information ever penetrate your head? Did you read the part about due process or did that go over your head?

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

Plain ignorance on many levels. Immigration law is regulatory, not criminal. Someone who overstays a visa is no more a criminal than someone receiving a parking violation.

You're in for a very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very rough future because you want to live in the past and exercise control over human migration -- and you won't be able to do either.

The CATO Institute, a leading conservative economic think tank is pro-immigration notes (and it uses your term, "amnesty"):

Legalization of unlawful immigrants, commonly referred to as amnesty, has been hyperbolically described as an affront to U.S. national sovereignty, the rule of law, and even our Constitutional Republic. However, the U.S. government has a long history of successfully legalizing violators of immigration laws.

...Past amnesties and legalizations of unauthorized immigrants didn’t destroy U.S. national sovereignty (the United States is still a sovereign country), the rule of law (in tatters for many reasons, including efforts to enforce our arbitrary and capricious immigration laws), or our Constitutional Republic. It’s hard to see why another one passed by Congress and signed by the President would produce those grave harms.

Regarding "Illegal Immigrants" --:

But describing an immigrant as illegal is legally inaccurate. Being in the U.S. without proper documents is a civil offense, not a criminal one. (Underscoring this reality, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority opinion on SB 1070, Arizona’s controversial immigration law: “As a general rule, it is not a crime for a movable alien to remain in the United States.”) In a country that believes in due process of the law, calling an immigrant illegal is akin to calling a defendant awaiting trial a criminal. The term illegal is also imprecise. For many undocumented people — there are 11 million in the U.S. and most have immediate family members who are American citizens, either by birth or naturalization — their immigration status is fluid and, depending on individual circumstances, can be adjusted.

Yesterday, the Associated Press announced that it would stop using the phrase �illegal immigrant� to describe an individual present in the US illegally, or who entered the country without proper authorization.

quote:

Once here, aliens are required to register with the Federal Government and to carry proof of status on their person. See §§1301–1306. Failure to do so is a federal misdemeanor. §§1304(e), 1306(a). Federal law also au­ thorizes States to deny noncitizens a range of public bene­ fits, §1622; and it imposes sanctions on employers who hire unauthorized workers, §1324a.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

Plain ignorance on many levels. Immigration law is regulatory, not criminal. Someone who overstays a visa is no more a criminal than someone receiving a parking violation.

You're in for a very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very rough future because you want to live in the past and exercise control over human migration -- and you won't be able to do either.

The CATO Institute, a leading conservative economic think tank is pro-immigration notes (and it uses your term, "amnesty"):

Legalization of unlawful immigrants, commonly referred to as amnesty, has been hyperbolically described as an affront to U.S. national sovereignty, the rule of law, and even our Constitutional Republic. However, the U.S. government has a long history of successfully legalizing violators of immigration laws.

...Past amnesties and legalizations of unauthorized immigrants didn’t destroy U.S. national sovereignty (the United States is still a sovereign country), the rule of law (in tatters for many reasons, including efforts to enforce our arbitrary and capricious immigration laws), or our Constitutional Republic. It’s hard to see why another one passed by Congress and signed by the President would produce those grave harms.

Regarding "Illegal Immigrants" --:

But describing an immigrant as illegal is legally inaccurate. Being in the U.S. without proper documents is a civil offense, not a criminal one. (Underscoring this reality, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority opinion on SB 1070, Arizona’s controversial immigration law: “As a general rule, it is not a crime for a movable alien to remain in the United States.”) In a country that believes in due process of the law, calling an immigrant illegal is akin to calling a defendant awaiting trial a criminal. The term illegal is also imprecise. For many undocumented people — there are 11 million in the U.S. and most have immediate family members who are American citizens, either by birth or naturalization — their immigration status is fluid and, depending on individual circumstances, can be adjusted.

Yesterday, the Associated Press announced that it would stop using the phrase �illegal immigrant� to describe an individual present in the US illegally, or who entered the country without proper authorization.

Well, according to the 5th circuit court of appeals listed in post 3, they are illigal aliens. I don't see the context in your cite above regarding what Kennedy said, or if it was part of a majority decision. So, until there's a better cite, illigal alien it is. I'm pretty sure all countries now pretty effectively control migration. Well, except the zombie hordes. We don't seem to be good at that sort of migration. While past amnesties may not have destroyed our sovereignty, they have severely affected cultural and welfare systems and we are allowed to be concerned about that as much as sovereignty.

quote:

section 6 of S. B. 1070 provides that a state officer, “without a warrant, may arrest a person if the officer has probable cause to believe . . . [the person] has committed any public offense that makes [him] removable from the United States.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §13–3883(A)(5) (West Supp. 2011). The United States argues that arrests authorized by this statute would be an obstacle to the removal system Congress created.
As a general rule, it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain present in the United States. See INS v. Lopez-

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

Legalization of unlawful immigrants, commonly referred to as amnesty, has been hyperbolically described as an affront to U.S. national sovereignty, the rule of law, and even our Constitutional Republic. However, the U.S. government has a long history of successfully legalizing violators of immigration laws.

...Past amnesties and legalizations of unauthorized immigrants didn’t destroy U.S. national sovereignty (the United States is still a sovereign country), the rule of law (in tatters for many reasons, including efforts to enforce our arbitrary and capricious immigration laws), or our Constitutional Republic. It’s hard to see why another one passed by Congress and signed by the President would produce those grave harms.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Central and Southern American illegal immigrants aren't here because they are "displaced or stateless" individuals due to troubles in their home countries. They are choosing to come here. They are not seeking asylum. They are not seeking protection from their home governments.

It is true that they do not come with the intention of applying for asylum, but not because that isn't what they seek, but rather because it isn't really an option. Granting asylum status means officially acknowledging the corruption of the governments and/or failure of the governments to protect the people against the widespread violence in their countries. And for political reasons, the US is hesitant to do so. Its not like the situation with Cuba, where since we have recognized it as a hostile government for decades, all a Cuban has to do is make it to our shores on their own and they are automatically granted asylum, regardless of prior circumstances.
One article I found that touches on both the problems the people face, and the problems that the government faces by easing asylum laws.
http://www.asylumist.com/2013/11/13/mexican-asylum-seekers-need-not-apply/

quote:

quote:

I would agree that 2 years is a ridiculous amount of time to wait for an asylum hearing, and we really do need to do something about the 5 year period to get before an immigration judge.

According to one immigration lawyer, when you factor in appeals, it can take as long as 10-12 years before a case is decided.
http://eltecolote.org/content/en/commentary/guidelines-for-mexicans-seeking-asylum-for-fear-of-cartel-violence/

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

Your brain seems to be size of a small marble, and your thinking grasps not the issues or any whiff of a solution. A small mind argues terminology, a great mind grasps a problem and finds a solution. By your logic, all drivers with speeding tickets are "illegal drivers" and all barbershops, restaurants, and businesses with a permit askew are "criminal enterprises."

The Real Pertinent Fact is that None of you nitwits (not a one) has either a solution or a grasp of facts -- what you have is your minds clouded by umbrage and dislike (dare we say passionate emotions.) Twas well summed up by the CATO Institute, "Legalization of unlawful immigrants, commonly referred to as amnesty, has been hyperbolically described as an affront to U.S. national sovereignty, the rule of law, and even our Constitutional Republic." (This is short for "hating on Immigrants," like you Tea Partiers do.)

So, like the OP, you all have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING but your own hard, entrenched feelings, nativism, and personal dislikes.

You have "head in the sand" and "do nothing" points of view -- otherwise known as an empty toolbox. You display no instincts for the future, no dynamism of thought, not "can-do" positive attitude whatsoever. Given our long American history here of opening doors, I see your closed, minded negativity as Un-American and thoroughly backward.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

As noted, you got ZERO. (0). Well done and as expected.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

You can't even answer simple yes-or-no questions, so you sure as shit don't have any big-boy pants to address important issues that require clear thinking, pragmatism, and the essence embodied by our own national symbol, The Statue of Liberty.

You are an endless clatter of negativity. You are short on facts and long on paranoia. You dislike just about everything and are full of empty Ann Coulteresque vitriol.

Put more succinctly, you are the emptiest of reads and devoid of character in a debate. You often ask in this forum, "why are others concentrating on me," and the answer to that is --- the emptiness of your posting content leaves nothing else to ponder but the smallness behind your keyboard.

Most of us don't want to truck in bad information.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

A small mind argues terminology, a great mind grasps a problem...

The "great mind" would be you?

K.