The first offense is a misdemeanor. Subsequent illegal entries are felonies. See 8 USC § 1325(a).
I’ll play also.
In my view, not all misdemeanors are the same, so the question doesn’t resolve usefully. There are some misdemeanors that do, in my opinion, almost always should require a custodial arrest. For example, in my jurisdiction, any person who commits an assault and battery against a family or household member is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. (See Va Code § 18.2-57.2).
In fact, although the usual rule in Virginia is that an officer may arrest a person for a misdemeanor only on a warrant, or if the misdemeanor was committed in his presence, there is a statutory exception for that act of domestic assault, and an officer may arrest solely upon probable cause, or “personal observations or the reasonable complaint of a person who observed the alleged offense.” (See Va Code § 19.2-81.3).
And here’s a thought experiment to hopefully remove the misdemeanor/felony distraction, for a distraction I believe it to be.
Tomorrow morning, the announcement is made: I, Bricker, have been appointed Chief of the US Border Patrol.
By Friday, I implement the following changes: using fingerprint scanners, my agents check all detained immigrants at border crossing. Those who are thus identified as previous illegal border crossing captures, or those identified as people previously deported, are subjected to the same treatment being discussed in this thread: if they have children with them, they are separated from those children exactly as being done now.
But those who appear to be first time entrants – misdemeanants, in other words – are cited and released upon their signed promise to appear at a specified time in front of an immigration judge.
Is this treatment, the “Chief Bricker Protocol,” also inhumane?
As to your first questions, I’m not an immigration expert, nor am I a refugee detention expert. So, I don’t know the answers to your questions either. However, we manage to keep kids with parents in other situations, such as large human displacements after natural disasters. However, I do think that the United States of America has the resources to house a truly gigantic number of would-be immigrants and asylum seekers if we wanted to.
As to your final question, I think the USA can morally enforce sanctions against would-be illegal immigrants and asylum seekers by providing humane detention centers while figuring out whether to accept their claims of asylum or sending them back to wherever they will they should ultimately end up. Humane centers may be converted arenas and stadiums, temporary housing, and so on (in my totally non-expert opinion), set up so that families can stay together.
Not really likewise, as if someone is caught in possession of drugs, we don’t ship them off to another country. If we discover someone about to drive drunk, we don’t ship them off to another country.
In some ways, it is more in keeping with the law, so it closer to being humane. Humane would be doing everything in our power to avoid separating families in this fashion, and only doing so when we truly have no other choice, not when we just don’t want to expend a bit of effort in treating people as though they were humans worth existing on the same planet as us, and especially not as a deterrent specifically to prevent people from seeking refuge from danger.
I am not clear on the legal position of asylum seekers either, whether it be in reality or in your new Bricker’s World reality, but is being turned away as an asylum seeker the first time a crime? Is seeking asylum a second time, after having been denied the first time, a crime?
IOW, would you use your “Two strikes and you lose your kids” rule just on immigrants trying to find a better life, or would you include immigrants that are escaping a specific danger to their lives?
ETA2: I guess you are right in that the felony/misdemeanor distraction is a distraction, as asylum seekers are doing neither.
But the problem with the analogy is also what powers it: no, we don’t ship them off; but we do take away those drugs, because otherwise the guy would be breaking the very law he was arrested for breaking — and maybe he paid a fine for breaking it, and maybe he spent time behind bars for breaking it; but the point is, he then got told that “yeah, see, even after that, you still don’t get to keep the drugs.”
So what’s the parallel to some guy who gets caught trying to illegally slip across the border? Sure, maybe he pays a fine, and maybe he serves time behind bars; but the relevant point is, he then gets told “yeah, see, you still don’t get to stay,” right? In this case, stopping him from breaking the law right then means — what?
That was a different time. There are fewer open areas. Where should they be built? In who’s backyard?
Remember we have to provide power, heat, sewage, water, schools, food, employment, recreation, etc…
All of which would need to be housed inside barbed wire with armed guards. We tried this after the Cuban boat lift and they had riots. Ever saw “Scarface”?
When it gets down to it the best thing is to persuade them not to come in the first place.
Funny, I thought any mention of Christian references are to be banned. Ex. removing copies of the Ten Commandments. Outlawing school prayer.
Not a bad idea.
Are democratic lawmakers putting together a funding bill to build all these new massive detention centers (concentration camps)? In which state and and in who’s district will they be built?
I’m sure THAT will go over well in an election year.
If the guy turns himself into the border patrol claiming asylum, what law has he broken, exactly?
If you are a cop, and you see someone run out of their burning house, and you see them cross onto their neighbor’s property, in completely defiance of the well posted “No Trespassing” signs, do you take their children away from them and put them in jail?
Let’s say a civil war breaks out in Canada, with massacres of innocents being a common event. Some Canadians want to flee the violence and seek asylum in the US. Is your response to this crisis, “Fuck you, go back home, we are full?”
Answer the fucking question?
Are you saying that the Straight Dope Message Board is a court house or school or some other government location? What kind of argument is this? Are you arguing in good faith here?
Democrats are not the majority in either House of Congress, nor do they hold the presidency. They have no authority whatsoever to introduce any bills and have them voted on. If you’re looking for ideas for the Republicans, maybe claw back some of the trillions in tax cuts.
On second thought, I will no longer engage with you until you provide cites for your other claims.
To be perfectly honest, it isn’t a question we should be asking about government action. I hope you are not suggesting that question (WWJD?) to be a guiding principal for policy making in the US, or that you want to selectively apply it only when you agree with what the outcome would be.
Felling obtuse, are we?
That’s not my position. My position is as follows:
- I’m in favor of MUCH looser border restrictions, but I know that’s not a position that’s going to gain traction, so in reality I’m not pushing that so heavily.
- Given that there are going to be border restrictions, some prevention and deterrent measures are appropriate.
- There is no indication that we’re in an actual immigration crisis. That’s manufactured. Yes, people are disobeying this law, just like people are disobeying laws against smoking pot and exceeding the speed limit and driving while intoxicated and cheating on taxes and myriad other laws. But we’re not in an emergency situation with any of these illegal activities.
- Whatever detterent factors we put in place MUST NOT BE WORSE THAN THE PROBLEM THEY’RE PREVENTING.
- Removing thousands of children from their parents and putting them in detention centers in order to intimidate families and/or Democrats into bowing to the president’s will? WAY WORSE THAN THE PROBLEM BEING PREVENTED.
So no–extrapolating to some extremist absurdity turns out not to be a reasonable evaluation of my argument.
Now, you: do you think that separating two-year-olds from their parents and putting them in cages in abandoned Walmarts is a morally defensible response to illegal immigration? Would you support this response to DUIs, to tax cheats, to other crimes?
It can certainly be a guiding principle in considering your vote and in contacting your representative.
WWJD is something that everyone can follow, whether or not you are a christian, even whether you believe in Jesus as a person that every even existed.
There are stories of a man named Jesus. It is not that hard to ask the question, based on how he acted it hose stories, what would he do in this situation.
If a detective said “What would Sherlock Holmes do?” it would not be saying that there is a guiding principle to run the police based on fictional 19th century scotland yard policies, but it is still a good starting point to determine what, in your opinion, a person of history or of fiction would do in this situation.
In this case, it is being asked what sherlock holmes would do, as there is a convention of professed fans of sherlock homes that are eliminating the uncomfortable, and whatever is left, however impossible, is considered to be the truth.
I believe the question is being asked of all the self-professed Christians here and in the administration (especially those quoting the bible :eek:) who are defending this indefensible policy. The question is, hey, you Christians, what would Jesus do in this situation? Tear children from their families? Do you think he would support this policy? Hey, you Christians, especially those who, for example, oppose abortions on biblical grounds, how can you support this policy?
And, with that, I’m off to see my father. I’m out for the rest of the day, so sorry if I don’t reply. I’m sure all the people smarter than me on this board will fill in for me well.
No - just overt Christians who are loud as fuck about their religion and the morality attached to it. Y’know, like most republicans. And Urbanredneck. Why do you think the Trump administration felt the need to justify their horrifying decisions with a fucking bible verse?
I don’t care what Jesus would do. But these people clearly either do, or should be fucking called on it when it’s shown that they obviously don’t.
I believe we should not be re-enforcing behavior we don’t think is in the best interest of the country. Encouraging people to set government policy based on religion isn’t something I want to see happen. Of course it does happen all the time, and maybe you didn’t hear our AG, Jeff Sessions, quote the New Testament (Paul) in support of this current action.
Enjoy the time with dad.