I hear Perdue Chicken is good
- Thread starter Gonz
- Start date
2minkey
bootlicker
"O'REILLY: Here's why it can't, because right now, entering the country illegal is a civil matter, not a criminal matter, right Doctor? Here's the crux of the matter. This is what the law wants. It wants to prevent a Catholic church - and I know them on Long Island - OK, I know who they are, from putting illegal aliens in the basement of a church, helping them evade authorities and helping them assimilate into society even though they're illegal. That's what the law wants to stop and Mahoney knows it. And Mahoney is saying we're still going to do it."
http://www.udnews.org/2006/03/professor_featu.html
we'll either you're wrong, or bill o'reilly is....
wonder why the current debate is about "criminalizing" illegal immigration? maybe the debate wouldn't be there if it were already "criminal?" hmmm....
http://www.udnews.org/2006/03/professor_featu.html
we'll either you're wrong, or bill o'reilly is....
wonder why the current debate is about "criminalizing" illegal immigration? maybe the debate wouldn't be there if it were already "criminal?" hmmm....
2minkey
bootlicker
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/03/29/DI2006032901468.html
"Springfield, Va.: Congressman Tancredo,
Do you think that H.R.4437 goes too far in some areas by turning illegal immigrants into felons, making it a crime to assist illegal immigrants, and denying services? These make the bill seem too punitive and mean-spirited towards illegal immigrants. I think that the focus should be on building a fence. It is discouraging to see the Senate considering amnesties and new guest worker programs. What are the chances of the House and Senate agreeing on a bill that leaves out the more harsh measures and the measures that will make the problem worse?
Congressman Tom Tancredo: Unfortunately, this has to be our last question. Let me briefly address the issue of making illegal presence in the U.S. a felony.
The truth is Democrats voted for the felony provision, and a majority of Republicans (including me) voted against it.
Right now, illegal presence in the USA is not a crime; it is a civil infraction. The House Judiciary Committee voted to make it a felony but then was counseled that millions of new felons could clog our courts.
Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., wrote an amendment to his own bill asking that the penalty be reduced from a felony to a misdemeanor; 191 Democrats and a few Republicans voted to keep the felony penalty in the hope that it would be a poison pill to defeat the measure. After his amendment lost, Sensenbrenner promised, "When this bill gets to (House-Senate) conference, those penalties will be made workable. You can count on that."
any more questions? google "immigration civil infraction" and see what you get.
"Springfield, Va.: Congressman Tancredo,
Do you think that H.R.4437 goes too far in some areas by turning illegal immigrants into felons, making it a crime to assist illegal immigrants, and denying services? These make the bill seem too punitive and mean-spirited towards illegal immigrants. I think that the focus should be on building a fence. It is discouraging to see the Senate considering amnesties and new guest worker programs. What are the chances of the House and Senate agreeing on a bill that leaves out the more harsh measures and the measures that will make the problem worse?
Congressman Tom Tancredo: Unfortunately, this has to be our last question. Let me briefly address the issue of making illegal presence in the U.S. a felony.
The truth is Democrats voted for the felony provision, and a majority of Republicans (including me) voted against it.
Right now, illegal presence in the USA is not a crime; it is a civil infraction. The House Judiciary Committee voted to make it a felony but then was counseled that millions of new felons could clog our courts.
Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., wrote an amendment to his own bill asking that the penalty be reduced from a felony to a misdemeanor; 191 Democrats and a few Republicans voted to keep the felony penalty in the hope that it would be a poison pill to defeat the measure. After his amendment lost, Sensenbrenner promised, "When this bill gets to (House-Senate) conference, those penalties will be made workable. You can count on that."
any more questions? google "immigration civil infraction" and see what you get.
unclehobart
New Member
...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...
Civil penalties are still a state sponsored lawsuit wherein they only have to have a majority of evidence instead of a unanimous verdict in trying to recoup some of the costs of the harm the individual has put upon the system. The best examples of which are the government suing chemical companies for the cost of clening up illegal dumping. It is not the only part of the equation. There is still the criminal matter of 6 months to 2 years in jail.
Civil penalties are still a state sponsored lawsuit wherein they only have to have a majority of evidence instead of a unanimous verdict in trying to recoup some of the costs of the harm the individual has put upon the system. The best examples of which are the government suing chemical companies for the cost of clening up illegal dumping. It is not the only part of the equation. There is still the criminal matter of 6 months to 2 years in jail.
unclehobart
New Member
How about simple wikipedia?
Criminal law (also known as penal law) is the body of statutory and common law that deals with crime and the legal punishment of criminal offenses. There are four theories of criminal justice: punishment, deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation. It is believed that imposing sanctions for the crime, society can achieve justice and a peaceable social order. This differs from civil law in that civil actions are disputes between two parties that are not of significant public concern.
The process begins, obviously, with an alleged crime. A complainant makes an accusation, which is investigated by the police, acting as agents of the government. The police file a document, in most jurisdictions known as a complaint, with a court in the appropriate jurisdiction. If the alleged offense is classified as a felony, the Constitution of the United States requires that the case be referred to a grand jury for an indictment. An indictment is the official charging instrument accusing the defendant of criminal conduct.
The interests of the state are represented by a prosecuting attorney, while the interests of the defendant are represented by his or her defense attorney. While the specific process varies according to the local law, in virtually every jurisdiction the process culminates with a trial, followed by appeals to higher courts.
Criminal statutes spell out the exact circumstances which constitute a crime. These circumstances are known as the elements of the offense. Unless all the elements are proven by the prosecuting authority, the defendant is not guilty of the offense. There are three kinds of elements: the act itself, the actus reus, guilty act; the requisite mental state, the mens rea, guilty mind; and the attendant circumstances. As an example, the common law definition of burglary was as follows: unlawful entry into a dwelling house at night with the intent to commit a felony therein. It is the duty of the prosecution, therefore, to prove not merely the act (the entry), and the mental state (the intent to commit a crime), but all the attendant circumstances (that it was a dwelling house, and that it was at night). Most modern criminal statutes have, among other changes, eliminated the "at night" element.
In defense, the accused could argue that he had no intent to commit a crime inside the house, that it occurred during the day, or that his entry was lawful. He could also, of course, argue that the incident never happened, or that someone else committed the offense.
Criminal law in most jurisdictions, both in the common and civil law traditions, is divided into two fields:
Criminal procedure regulates the process for addressing violations of criminal law
Substantive criminal law details the definition of, and punishments for, various crimes.
Criminal law distinguishes crimes from civil wrongs such as tort or breach of contract. Criminal law has been seen as a system of regulating the behavior of individuals and groups in relation to societal norms at large whereas civil law is aimed primarily at the relationship between private individuals and their rights and obligations under the law. Although many ancient legal systems did not clearly define a distinction between criminal and civil law, in England there was little difference until the codification of criminal law occurred in the late nineteenth century. In most U.S. law schools, the basic course in criminal law is based upon the English common criminal law of 1750 (with some minor American modifications like the clarification of mens rea in the Model Penal Code)
.........
Unlike criminal law, civil law regulates relationships amongst persons and organizations. Civil law, in this sense, is usually referring to redress to civil law courts (as opposed to criminal courts) and is often used as a means to resolve disputes involving accidents (torts such as negligence), libel and other intentional torts, contract disputes, the probate of wills, and trusts, and any other private matters that can be resolved between private parties. Violations of civil law are considered to be torts or breaches of contract, rather than crimes. Depending upon the regional government, this field of law contains commercial law and some kinds of administrative law remedies, though sometimes administrative law judges adjudicate penal law violations such as parking tickets and other minor offenses.
Contractual law enforces contracts by allowing a party(the plaintiff), whose rights have been violated or breached
Criminal law (also known as penal law) is the body of statutory and common law that deals with crime and the legal punishment of criminal offenses. There are four theories of criminal justice: punishment, deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation. It is believed that imposing sanctions for the crime, society can achieve justice and a peaceable social order. This differs from civil law in that civil actions are disputes between two parties that are not of significant public concern.
The process begins, obviously, with an alleged crime. A complainant makes an accusation, which is investigated by the police, acting as agents of the government. The police file a document, in most jurisdictions known as a complaint, with a court in the appropriate jurisdiction. If the alleged offense is classified as a felony, the Constitution of the United States requires that the case be referred to a grand jury for an indictment. An indictment is the official charging instrument accusing the defendant of criminal conduct.
The interests of the state are represented by a prosecuting attorney, while the interests of the defendant are represented by his or her defense attorney. While the specific process varies according to the local law, in virtually every jurisdiction the process culminates with a trial, followed by appeals to higher courts.
Criminal statutes spell out the exact circumstances which constitute a crime. These circumstances are known as the elements of the offense. Unless all the elements are proven by the prosecuting authority, the defendant is not guilty of the offense. There are three kinds of elements: the act itself, the actus reus, guilty act; the requisite mental state, the mens rea, guilty mind; and the attendant circumstances. As an example, the common law definition of burglary was as follows: unlawful entry into a dwelling house at night with the intent to commit a felony therein. It is the duty of the prosecution, therefore, to prove not merely the act (the entry), and the mental state (the intent to commit a crime), but all the attendant circumstances (that it was a dwelling house, and that it was at night). Most modern criminal statutes have, among other changes, eliminated the "at night" element.
In defense, the accused could argue that he had no intent to commit a crime inside the house, that it occurred during the day, or that his entry was lawful. He could also, of course, argue that the incident never happened, or that someone else committed the offense.
Criminal law in most jurisdictions, both in the common and civil law traditions, is divided into two fields:
Criminal procedure regulates the process for addressing violations of criminal law
Substantive criminal law details the definition of, and punishments for, various crimes.
Criminal law distinguishes crimes from civil wrongs such as tort or breach of contract. Criminal law has been seen as a system of regulating the behavior of individuals and groups in relation to societal norms at large whereas civil law is aimed primarily at the relationship between private individuals and their rights and obligations under the law. Although many ancient legal systems did not clearly define a distinction between criminal and civil law, in England there was little difference until the codification of criminal law occurred in the late nineteenth century. In most U.S. law schools, the basic course in criminal law is based upon the English common criminal law of 1750 (with some minor American modifications like the clarification of mens rea in the Model Penal Code)
.........
Unlike criminal law, civil law regulates relationships amongst persons and organizations. Civil law, in this sense, is usually referring to redress to civil law courts (as opposed to criminal courts) and is often used as a means to resolve disputes involving accidents (torts such as negligence), libel and other intentional torts, contract disputes, the probate of wills, and trusts, and any other private matters that can be resolved between private parties. Violations of civil law are considered to be torts or breaches of contract, rather than crimes. Depending upon the regional government, this field of law contains commercial law and some kinds of administrative law remedies, though sometimes administrative law judges adjudicate penal law violations such as parking tickets and other minor offenses.
Contractual law enforces contracts by allowing a party(the plaintiff), whose rights have been violated or breached
A.B.Normal
New Member
How does that cover sneaking in though,your not making a false statement or concealing fact???
2minkey
bootlicker
unclehobart said:
thanks for clearing that up.
it's nice that i'm not the only one here that understands there's a distinction between civil and criminal matters.
being in the US without proper documentation and permission is, indeed, a civil infraction.
re-read the US code. if you try to sneak across, it's a civil penalty, as the latter part of the posted code indicates. more likely the border guards will just say "turn around, pedro."
the first part of the US code excerpt does mention jail time and whatnot, but that's for willful deception (as AB noticed), not just being some poor fucker picked up by the border patrol. if you read it carefully, it's also likely aimed at those trying to sneak contraband in.
there's many people in the US that did not enter through illegal means, but who have overstayed and are now illegals. but that does not make them criminals. again, civil infraction.
say, if my girlfriend had quit her job in detroit with the auto company that was sponsoring her L1 (managerial) visa, as an intercompany transfer from canadian operations. she would have needed to leave the country in either 90 or 180 days, i forget which. if she hadn't. she would have been guilty of a civil infraction, and would have gotten the boot if she'd been caught. but she would not have been a criminal.
being unregistered in the US remains a civil infraction and that is why there is current, vigorous debate about the prospects of criminalization. i have to ask this again:
why would there be a debate about criminalizing illegals if being here by itself was, at present, a criminal act?
hmmm. i wonder.
still finding it hard to believe these radical notions? try this...
http://www.google.com/search?client...migration+civil+infraction&btnG=Google+Search
Nobody is imprisoned for civil litigation. § 1325 is taken from the US Code which is not a work known for it's suggestions. The law is the law. Whether misdemeanor (like speeding or illegal alien status) or felony, it's still the law of the land. As soon as we begin dismissing it (not enforcing speed limits or allowing 1 million illegal aliens to march unmolested by INS) is a sign of a major breakdown.
2minkey
bootlicker
Gonz said:
there's a difference between
civil litigation
and
civil infraction.
a very basic distinction.
ask a lawyer!
hmmm. if you don't know that your interpretation of US code is prolly not so spot-on.
those that are here illegally are not (all) "FUCKING CRIMINALS" as you so eloquently suggested a couple dozen post ago.
did you even check out that google link that i posted will all those stories? no? most of 'em mention that THE CURRENT DEBATE ABOUT CRIMINALIZATION IS DUE TO THE FACT THAT NOW IT'S A CIVIL INFRACTION and some fuckers want to make it criminal. sure, there are ineffective/difficult to enforce laws that are beefed up with new laws, but if you did a smidgen of reading, you'd figgur out that this idn't one of those instances.
SouthernN'Proud
Southern Discomfort
dictionary.com said:
Law. Not criminal law. All law. Hence, if one's conduct falls outside the parameters of a law, said conduct is illegal. Is that spot-on enough for you?