That is wrong. What else can be said? You are going to keep your incorrect opinion alive despite absolute evidence in front of you that it is wrong. See post #82
“While Congress has criminalized illegal entry into this country, it has not made the continued presence of an illegal alien in the United States a crime”
They are still illegal insofar as they have violated the law by illegally crossing the border.
Also, from your citation, is that a Kansas State Court of Appeals that gave the ruling?
This is the United States people aren’t guilty of a crime just because circumstances appear that they might be guilty. What evidence do you have that they crossed the border illegally? They are protected by the same bill of rights we are in that they can’t be arrested and interrogated without probable cause. If they are caught while crossing the border, yes they are illegal immigrants and in violation of federal law. Once they are inside the border no crime is being committed and there is not sufficient evidence to haul people in for interrogations to investigate whether or not they crossed illegally. Immigration is a matter of administrative law, not criminal law. Yes the decision I cited as mentioned in the post was from an appeals court in Kansas however it echoes decisions made over many years by many courts which can easily be found online. But you might instead read the bill of rights, understand that they apply to every human being within the US borders without exception, and you will have the answer to your own question.
Yes, I believe you’re not saying that as a personal attack. You’re saying it to cover up for the fact that you have no argument.
You know, you can find cites that go both ways on this. Cites on both sides from seemingly reputable sources. I know because I’ve looked for them and given fair brain-time to both. I can tell you from personal experience that I live on the “front line”, so to speak, of this immigration. Note my location. I have felt zero negative effects from it. I don’t know anyone who has lost their job to a migrant worker. I don’t know anyone who was forced to learn Spanish. When that ambiguity exists, that reasonable doubt, that uncertain area, and I have to choose sides, I’m going to choose the side of human dignity, of compassion, of charity, of love for my fellow man, of respect for other people and cultures, over the side of xenophobia, exclusionism, fear, contempt, and selfishness, every single time. Say they do cost us a little more - and again, this is far from clear - so? We’re the richest country on Earth. We can afford it. Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Maybe that’s just me, though. Just me and her.
Viva México, viva los Estados Unidos, viva la raza humana.
Actually I think there have been a number of cogent arguments made by a number of posters here. You happen to disagree with them and apparently are unable to refute them thus your having to resort to these sorts of arguments.
I’m not really sure you have given time to both sides of the argument. There are numerous studies which make it clear that there is a massive costs associated with illegal immigration that isn’t covered by the resulting benefit from having cheap labour. This includes Mexico which is being directly hurt by mass illegal immigration.
I have a simple question for you though, how many are too many? That is, is there any level of illegal immigration that you think would be too much? So personal attacks aside, you’ve failed to adequately respond to a number of posters repsonses. The Statue of Liberty isn’t a law, it’s just symbol and that’s all and if you’re really for Mexico and for “The Race” then you would be against illegal immigration.
Actually the Kansas court’s opinion has no direct bearing on federal law insofar as I believe it is still a criminal offense to be illegal in the United States. If you can. please cite me to a case where the relevant Federal statues have been held to be invalid.
And no, immigration is a matter of criminal law and not one of “administrative law”. No matter how you may wish it to be otherwise it is entirely a criminal matter when someone ignores a border and enters another country illegally. And whilst the bill of rights may be applicable there is nothing in the bill of rights prohibiting someone from being arrest for commiting an unlawful act (e.g. illegally entering and staying in a country that they are no entitled to reside in legally).
That is not correct. Immigration is a matter of administrative law. I’m not going to belabor the point any further because this is an easily verifiable fact about your own country, laws, and constitution. Show someone some evidence that someone illegally crossed the border and, pending statutes of limitations which I am not sure exist or not for illegal border crossing, they might be investigated for it. Simple presence within the United States without documentation is not a crime, it is not in violation of any criminal statutes, and it is incorrect to call someone an “illegal alien” unless they are caught crossing the border or if they have been previously deported from the United States (an administrative function, not a criminal one) and then returned again without documentation. You can’t find a relevant federal statute that has been held invalid because there are none against being within our borders without immigration paperwork in order. That is the whole point. Please read this entire thread in detail because all these points have already been made, cited, and closed. Call your local police department, call your congressman, read the constitution, but don’t ask me to explain it again, please.
Come on now, you seem to think anything you say is true just because you said it. I am “apparently unable to refute them”? Sorry, I’ve done a good job of arguing coherently within this thread without resorting to purely reactionary posts and calling people “shrill.”
Funny, you are obviously the one not giving time to both sides of the argument. I acknowledged both sides in my last post and explained why I chose the side I did. You’ve done nothing of the sort, instead you’ve just resorted to claiming your side is unambiguously right, which is far from proven.
Honestly, I’ll say something that you seem incapable of admitting it, though it is undoubtably true about many of your beliefs: I don’t know. Frankly I think, like most other things in a free and open society, it would do a lot towards balancing itself out. When there are enough gas stations, people quit opening gas stations. When there are enough piano tuners, people stop going into the piano-tuning business. When there are enough immigrants here, they would probably stop coming. My opinion, of course, but any counter argument is only going to be your opinion, so don’t claim otherwise. We can’t say, objectively, for a fact, that x, y, or z would happen, because as any economist will tell you, there are just too many x-factors. If the economy was completely predictable there would be no such thing as recession but hey, we’re in one. Like I said, I’m always going to come down on the side of love thy neighbor.
I’ve posted a lot in this thread that has gone unacknowledged, but if you feel like I’m ignoring people, feel free to remind me of what you want me to respond to. Don’t be surprised if I remind you of some points you have not responded to in return.
Huh? 
First of all, what does this even mean, and secondly, you know I was talking about the human race, not the mestizo race, right? I’m white. This sounds a lot like No True Scotsman drivel, but since I don’t really even get it, feel free to explain it and maybe I’ll change my mind.
I think you’re confused. Matters of immigration may be designated to administrative bodies but the violation of immigration law is indeed a Federal criminal offense.
Please lookhttp://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=02729c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCRD&vgnextchannel=02729c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCRDe for further details on US immigration law.
I have read all of the posts in the thread and I believe you are mistaken. It is illegal to cross the border illegally just as it is illegal to reside in the US without valid authorization. Equally, it is also a violation of Federal law to remain in the US beyond the date stated on the relevant visa.
As a general respose Cisco perhaps we can summarize the arguments as follows:
You do not feel that entering the US without a visa should be illegal. However, as the law currently stands it is illegal to enter the US without a valid visa. As such, those who enter illegally should be deemed illegal aliens.
Now I know you are not going to agree with the above but it does serve as a simple summary.
Lastly, you are very quick to play the “racist card”. It’s unhlepful and quite frankly suggests that you can’t refute the actual arguments being presented.
[long post deleted] Actually, show me where I called someone a racist before I respond to this.
And the thought of you accusing me of ignoring people in this thread is just laughable, Lochdale. How 'bout these points that everyone ignored, including you? Want to respond to them?
To add to that one: people on both sides of the political fence complain about “illegals”, from just about every conservatives, to a lot of liberals, for example DanBlather here who is from “Portland, Obamagon.” If it’s such a popular issue, and doing us so much harm, and I think we all agree we’re capable of doing something China did 2,200 years ago, then what’s the hold up? Why isn’t Washington stopping this “invasion of our borders”?
Really convenient that no one “noticed” that post.
So chop chop, Lochdale. Hop to it. Tell us how you feel, and respond to the points made instead of just telling me I’m wrong and I call names and I don’t respond to points made.
I’m confused as to how it is xenophobic (your words) to ask people to obey our laws. So if someone enters a country and murders a citzen of that country it would be xenophobic to enforce laws against murder agains that person? Is this actually what you are arguing?
$6 billion in social security is a drop in the bucket when compared to the actual costs associated with illegals and their familes. Such costs include infrastructure, health care and education. 6 billion doesn’t even come close to satisfying these costs. Morever, what about the illegals who do not pay social security but who are paid in cash? They do not directly contribute to the tax roles. Mass immigration of low-skilled workers directly affects the wages of those on the lower rungs of the economic ladder. That is, an open supply of labour depresses wages due to the very simple notion of supply and demand.
Here’s an interesting article from National Review (an open-borders advocate) that suggests the $6 billion dollar figure you are citing is a drop in the bucket when compared to the actual cost:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTUyZjY3NzExYjIxODU0NmVmYWE4MTAxNTZlOWJkNDk=&w=MA==
So I guess you’ve never heard of sales tax or property tax.
And to the rest of your post: your lack of response to most of what I said speaks volumes.
You didn’t happen to read that, by any chance, did you? Did you read the part that says:
?
I’m wondering if you read it because it reminds me of something. What does it remind me of, what does it remind me of? Oh yeah! This:
But wait, over here you say:
But, but, but, but, I don’t get it? You say I’m not giving time to both sides of the argument, but the report you linked to contains a valid counter argument that you completely fail to mention or take into account. I mean, your claim that I’m not seeing both sides does implies that you are seeing both sides, doesn’t it? What gives?
I’m starting to see a pattern here: when you accuse me of doing something, I’m actually not doing it, but you are. Maybe you keep getting mixed up and thinking that Lochdale is spelled C-i-s-c-o?
You’re just determined to fight as dirty as necessary to make yourself look right, aren’t you? Everytime I read your posts I notice another example of dishonest arguing on your part. If you’d been reading the thread, you’d know that this was already discussed on page 3. Ask Contrapuntal if this is what I’m arguing. He or she conceded my point.
I’m pretty much done with you if all you’ve got to contribute are these “throw a bunch of shit at the wall and see what sticks” tactics.
It’s clear to anyone whose mind wasn’t made up before opening the thread who has consistently made more sense in this argument, and they’re my only audience, because I’m not nearly naive enough to think I’m going to change your mind about anything, no matter what my arguments are. You’re far more concerned with appearing to be correct on an internet messageboard than with an honest examination or reevaluation of your beliefs.
Because they are politically correct twits. They don’t want to think of someone coming into this country illegally as having committed a crime.
Let’s all clap for the brilliant, insightful, impeccable 157th response . . . which is pretty much exactly the same as the 4th response . . . and the 6th response . . . and the 7th response . . . Didn’t read the thread, huh, Clothahump? Or just don’t mind sounding like a broken record?
I am confused. I don’t know what you’re linking to because the link doesn’t work even after attempting to manually correct the error you made inserting it. But whatever it is - there is no part of the US Criminal Code that references simple presence without immigration status. “Illegal presence” which is probably what you’re seeing on the USCIS website and are taking to mean ‘a violation of a criminal code’, is not a violation of a criminal code. A person cannot be sent to prison for being here without authorization from immigration authorities. It may be a violation of civil (administrative) immigration laws, for which the federal government can impose civil penalties (namely deportation) and for which law enforcement agencies can impose absolutely nothing. Rather than “undocumented immigrant” a more accurate term than “illegal immigrant” might be: “foreign national with no known immigration status, who might be subject to civil penalties including deportation, but might also be entitled to a change of this status if and when an immigration court ever reviewed the case and made a determination as to said status.” but for the sake of brevity “undocumented immigrant” is still better than “illegal immigrant”. As I said in a post 200 messages back in this thread its really just a matter of semantics. If you make an “illegal block” in a football game you are not in violation of any US Criminal Code you are in violation of the rules of football. Immigration law is not criminal law except in specific areas already mentioned in this thread. As I also said before, and for the last time now, please call your local police, an attorney, your congressman, and ask them if you are still having trouble understanding the distinction. Or cite any part of the US criminal code (not civil immigration laws) that makes mere presence here a criminal offense.
Nonsense. It’s not a question of whether or not there is a criminal sanction versus simple deportation for being here illegally. It’s a very simple question of whether or not the individual involved complied with US law to enter the country. If they did, they are here legally. If they did not, they are here illegally. This is not a problem of semantics and there is absolutely nothing wrong or less accurate about using the term “illegal” as a perfectly appropriate shorthand.
Whether they get tossed back to their prior homeland or tossed into the Big House is entirely irrelevant.
Let me say it once more: “undocumented (anything)” is a term used by folks who support the notion of having people here who entered illegally. It seems less pejorative. “Illegal (anything)” is a term used by folks who do not support that notion. The term “undocumented” is preferred for the sake of political correctness–i.e. it is considered less offensive to others–but it is neither more accurate nor more defensible.
Much of the thread has deteriorated into a rather shrill defense of illegal aliens, but this has little to do with the OP’s question.
