Newsmax attacked DHS Secretary Napolitano today because "she asserted that illegal immigration is really not a crime."
Well, according to Newsmax's own story, not quite. What she said was that "crossing the border is not a crime per se," in response to Sheriff Joe Arpaio saying he "wants illegal aliens to be prosecuted and jailed."
Let's distinguish between two different things: crossing the border illegally, and crossing the border legally, but remaining illegally.
Crossing the border illegally is a crime (a misdemeanor), and punishable by a fine and up to six months imprisonment.
But crossing the border legally and remaining in the country illegally is not a crime at all. It's a violation of our immigration laws and subjects you to deporation, but is not a crime. It's essentially a civil infraction, like a speeding ticket. The penalty is by many estimations more severe than a speeding ticket -- deportation -- but our law doesn't even really see that as a penalty, so much as just sending you where you are supposed to be (except in that if you are deported and you come back, it carries a more significant penalty).
So when Napolitano says that some "illegal aliens" have not committed any crimes, she's absolutely correct. It is a crime to lie about your social security number, a crime to cross the border illegally, and so on, but it is not a crime to be here illegally.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at April 22, 2009 12:49 PM | Email ThisThat is, if Arpaio wants an illegal alien to go to jail, he should be able to demonstrate they have committed an actual crime, such as crossing the border illegally, lying on employment papers, etc.
Again: crossing the border illegally is a misdemeanor. But many illegal aliens crossed the border LEGALLY, such as on temporary visas, and then STAYED illegally. These people have not committed a crime by the mere virtue of remaining here illegally.
Second, I am not arguing for illegal immigrants, I am simply saying what the law actually says, instead of what YOU WANT it to say.
Third, Napolitano said crossing the border is not a crime, which is true. Crossing it ILLEGALLY is a crime. How can you not see the difference? I've crossed the border multiple times, and I never committed a crime doing so. Many illegal aliens never crossed the border illegally: they entered the country on short-term visas and then stayed here illegally. Not a crime.
That would be an interesting statistic. Pudge?
Regardless, the point is that we cannot assume they crossed illegally. Fifth Amendment. Due process. We need evidence of an actual crime.
It depends on where you cross the border. If you go through U.S. Immigration Control and are allowed to enter the country, then yeah, I'd agree with her statement. But if you wade across the Rio Grande in the middle of the night, you're a criminal.
What she should have said was that "crossing the border legally is not a crime." That would have made the point clear.
Posted by: Smoley on April 22, 2009 04:16 PMSo the fact that someone is here illegally is not grounds to hold them for committing a crime, because being here illegally is not a crime, and does not necessarily imply any crime.
Good luck proving it though. Remember that's the context of the discussion here: the appriate legal response for law enforcement.
I don't really give a damn about the semantics of whether it's a "crime" or a "criminal offense" , "unlawful", "illegal", etc., we should be more vigilant in enforcing federally established, recognized and codified laws in this country.
Absolutely.
If Arpaio is handing these foreign nationals over to the ICE officials on a silver platter, the least they could do is do their damn job and impose the federally dictated protocol set forth by these statutes.
Yeah, but again, good luck trying to prove it. It's much better to just identify them and deport them: then if they do come back, they will quickly come up in the system and you can get them for violating deportation order etc.
If you can quickly find out they violated some criminal statute, fine. Otherwise, I think it's a waste of resources to try to investigate them when you can deport them.
Another measure would be to impose serious penalties on companies that employ illegals. Shuttering a few packing plants would send a serious message to employers who have been willing to take the risk: That risk could cost you dearly.
It is long past time to send each and every illegal alien back to where they came from.
Posted by: Saltherring on April 23, 2009 06:38 AMa. According to ICE statistics, most undocumented immigrants have entered legally and overstayed visas, so the situation that Napalitano referred to is actually more common than many people recognize.
b. Contrary to popular belief, crossing the border without authorization is not a continuing offense. That is to say, the misdemeanor is committed the instant that they step across the line, but is not a status offense. An immigrant who is here without papers is NOT therefor breaking the law by being here, although there is compelling evidence that they are guilty of having committed a misdemeanor at some point in the past (perhaps many years prior) if they have not been issued a visa.
c. In light of point b., the degree of resources and priority that Arpaio has committed to these immigration sweeps appears to be inappropriate. The Reasonable Doubt series (which won its authors a Pulitzer prize earlier this week) by the East Valley Tribune documented that Arpaio's office has committed an inordinately large portion of his resources to these sweeps, to the extent that many violent and dangerous crimes are not receiving adequate attention. Imagine for a moment, that a law enforcement agency were to institute a policy of diverting resources from violent crimes, and re-allocate those resources to aggressively pursuing those who may or may not have committed some other type of misdemeanor (such as failure to yield to a traffic signal) years prior. While this may seem like a very different scenario, there is not, in fact, a meaningful legal distinction.
d. There is significant evidence that Arpaio's office has engaged in racial profiling (again, see the EVT Reasonable Doubt series, and Arpaio himself has admitted on camera that he has performed sweeps on neighborhoods in retribution for local citizens engaging in constitutionally protected free speech.
Thank you for considering these facts.
Posted by: Jason Odhner on April 23, 2009 07:03 AMOn b., I think you've slightly muddled it. An immigrant here "without papers" actually is breaking the law. Not committing a crime, true, but breaking the law.
On c., you're conflating misdemeanor with infraction. Failure to yield is almost always an infraction, not a misdemeanor.
My main concern is not with profiling or resources -- those are arguably rational choices to be made by a local elected official, and not prima facie illegal -- but with actual violations of civil rights: e.g., arresting someone for a crime despite a lack of evidence. Contrary to what you said in b., I don't agree at all that there is "compelling evidence" of guilt of the misdemeanor crime of border crossing just because there's no record of a visa. Lack of record is not serious evidence that it didn't happen.
In order to have compelling evidence that someone crossed illegally, you need to have direct evidence that they did so. You can't assume they committed a crime just because they are here and there's no record of them coming here legally.
Now, I don't know precisely what he's doing down there; he could be merely rounding up illegals and detaining them for ICE rather than arresting them for a crime. I don't know the procedures for that. But I have seen many assertions that he is arresting them for crimes, and if so, that's of serious concern, since he likely hasn't met his evidentiary burden in many cases.
Just failing to notify of a change of address within 10 days is a misdemeanor and can get someone deported.
I heard that Sheriff Joe is only arresting individuals when they have committed a crime and is then checking their status. He is then using the part of the law which states that immigrants must have their "certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card" or they are guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to deportation, etc.
Posted by: Douglas Aldrich on April 23, 2009 09:02 AMOn the other hand, citizens of Canada and other wealthy countries do not require a visa. For Canadian citizens, I do not believe an entry record is made by our country (and the same for our citizens entering Canada) and a six month stay is allowed. It is virtually impossible to prove a Canadian citizen is overstaying their legal welcome, and most Canadians that are deported are caught working illegally.
For other wealthy country citizens (like Britain, Germany, and Japan), an entry record is made and a 90 day stay is allowed without a visa. Departure records are also kept, which I think have been improved since 9/11. There are not so many of these folks who overstay illegally, but at least it can be tracked if ICE devotes the resources.
If someone has actually been deported from the United States, I believe it is a felony to re-enter the country without official permission. There may be technicalities (such as whether or not a formal deportation was ordered, versus voluntary departure). Many aliens repeatedly enter the country, and probably very few are prosecuted for this felony -- unless they have committed some serious crime previously.
In any event, immigration enforcement has historically been extremely lax in this country. Regardless of which political party has been in power. Both parties have strong interest groups that oppose strict immigration enforcement.
Posted by: Richard Pope on April 23, 2009 09:07 AMThat is, of course, not sufficient cause for a criminal arrest.
If they had a visa, and simply overstayed, the existence or nonexistence of the visa can be verified through ICE.
Well, no, that's the problem, nonexistence is not easily verified, for purposes of levying criminal charges. Lack of record is not evidence, because records are broken and incomplete. Further, someone could just clam up and not identify themselves, thus giving the police no information with which to even attempt verification through the visa system. You need positive evidence to charge criminally; you can't just assume they probably committed a crime.
All of this is why the best law enforcement course of action is to ignore whether they may have crossed illegally -- unless you can positively verify it quickly and easily, which in most cases, you cannot -- and just deport them. When you do, you get their fingerprints and photos, and if you catch them again, bam, you have them.
Of course, it's even better to go after the businesses who hire them. Cut off the supply and the demand shrinks. Basic economics, and it works.
(Note: I am not recommending a course of action from a policy standpoint, just saying from a law-enforcement perspective what you should do.)
Please do not dishonestly imply I ever supported it.
And there's nothing remotely easy to implement about this. If you make it a felony to be in this country, this will mean a massive expansion of our judicial (and penal) system: in the U.S., when you are charged with a felony (as opposed to a misdemeanor or civil infraction), you have a lot more rights, and we have to spend a lot more money.
This is why we should not BOTHER with making it a felony. Just deport them! If they come back, THEN charge them with a crime, and you will have rock-solid evidence, since you ID'd them on the way out the first time.
Posted by: pudge on April 23, 2009 01:48 PMI have no problems with what pudge is saying here, surprisingly enough. But what I get amused by is folks like good ol' Alan. When he says:
Being in this country illegally an any way shape of form should be a class a felony with a mandatory 5 year sentence with immediate deportation....period.
I SERIOUSLY doubt he's talking about the citizens of Canada or England or Australia or New Zealand that happen to be here illegally because they've overstayed their visas.
There are plenty of reasons to be concerned about undocumented workers on both sides of the ideological divide. Just from a workplace health and safety perspective, liberals are (or should be!) concerned that the threat of deportation is a great way for employers to extort low wage labor out of folks. Therefore, assuming that the current system works for liberal OR conservative goals is pretty off base.
But what is NOT constructive in this discussion (and no, pudge, I'm not implicating you in this) is when illegal immigration is conflated with xenophobic attitudes about poor brown people. This is not the reason why ALL conservatives are concerned about this issue, but from a liberal perspective, talk of immigration issues often appears to be less about concerns over low-wage jobs that Americans don't want (and in fact, implicitly want to be filled by immigrant labor) or even drains on the social welfare system, and more about how many people feel about poor non-white people that you don't identify with in the slightest.
That is NOT a great basis for public policy, and until that attitude is addressed in some way, compromise is not likely to be possible.
Posted by: demo kid on April 23, 2009 02:43 PM..and one shouldn't conflate the terms "illegal immigrants" with "poor brown people", which you just did. If we are a nation of laws, we should adhere to those principles.
I could care less which country they came from illegaly, if you're here illegaly, you're breaking the laws of a sovereign country that have codified laws and subsequent penalties that apply to that infraction.
I didn't conflate them. I argued that the concerns that people have about illegal immigration have less to do about actual immigration issues, and more to do with having contact with poor people that speak Spanish.
The problems with illegal immigration are with labor costs and poverty, and nothing much beyond that. Skilled immigrants can easily afford the application fees for an H1-B visa, if the costs aren't borne by their employers in the first place. If you or I wanted to emigrate to, say, Canada or Australia, I'm sure that we could do it with little problem if we tried hard enough.
On the other hand, poor, unskilled laborers from Mexico can't pay for the application, and probably wouldn't be granted a visa if they went through it anyway. This is despite the demand for cheap labor that exists in the U.S., a demand that cannot be filled by companies that have been forced to slash wages because of price competition. They are operating according to economics, nothing more.
Now, the anti-immigrant crowd can yell for as long as they'd like about mass deportation, but there is only one solid long-term solution: create a better visa system that allows poor, unskilled laborers to enter the U.S. legally and compete in the market with full labor protections.
Posted by: demo kid on April 23, 2009 04:51 PMWell, no, you said poor BROWN people.
I lived in L.A. and Orange County, for several years, and overwhelmingly, most of the concerns had nothing to do with race. Lower quality of life in the area due to lower incomes? Yep. Language problems? Yep. Color? Nope.
The problems with illegal immigration are with labor costs and poverty, and nothing much beyond that.
Cultural issues are significant problems too, not to mention the massive increases in social spending and so on. (Granted, some people contend the social spending costs are balanced out by the economic benefit of the low-cost labor, but the studies seem pretty shaky.)
Now, the anti-immigrant crowd can yell for as long as they'd like about mass deportation, but there is only one solid long-term solution: create a better visa system that allows poor, unskilled laborers to enter the U.S. legally and compete in the market with full labor protections.
Well, not really. See, the latter part requires significant regulation -- including enforcement -- of the labor market. And if you have that, you don't need to have the better visa system that allows the poor unskilled workers in, since eliminating the job availability will "solve" the problem too.
Not saying we shouldn't do that, of course. Just saying it depends on what you mean by "solve."
Also, frankly, if we give them full labor protections -- which I am in favor of, as same rules should apply to everyone -- then there may be little benefit to hiring the poor unskilled immigrants ...
Sure you did. You also conflated American citizens that would like to uphold the rule of law with respect to legal and lawful immigration into this country with Xenophobes. So far, you're batting a .1000 in the disingenous hyperbole game.
"I argued that the concerns that people have about illegal immigration have less to do about actual immigration issues, and more to do with having contact with poor people that speak Spanish."
You argued nothing. You asserted and then assigned labels that fit with your ideological construct.
"On the other hand, poor, unskilled laborers from Mexico can't pay for the application, and probably wouldn't be granted a visa if they went through it anyway."
So it's your contention that the only group who illegaly enter into the United States and not be subject to deportation when identified are Mexican nationals? Kindly point to the provision in the U.S. code listed @ 21 where it gives "Mexican nationals" exclusivity rights to be granted temporary status based on geographical vicinity.
I, and many other Americans want controlled immigration to this country so that every person in the world wherever they may be have equal and lawful access to the legal immigration process in this country.
This country is based on "doing the right thing", not rewarding squatters and gate-crashers by affording them legal avenues to citizenship that those who have waited years and endured the muddled immigration process legally and lawfully are not. Not exactly the example we should set for ourselves is it?
Your "poor brown people" reference was in order to make an emotional argument.
Which in the end, always fail on merit.
I'm friggin incensed (as is my wife) every time someone starts blabbing about "amnesty" for the simple reason of fairness. Why should someone who resides on the southern side of the Rio Grande - outside of the United States - be afforded an immediate entry into the US, while people overseas (like the rest of my wife's family in Kyrgyzstan), who are just as industrious, just as good people, get left out to dry? Mexican nationals should have no more advantage when it comes to entry into the United States than any other nation. Once you actually know how some of our immigration systems work, you'll have a much different view, trust me. And how much it costs.
Personally I've always been a proponent of destroying companies that violate the law - eliminate the demand, and the supply will diminish rapidly. That being said, pudge - you act like deportations are an overnighter. If we ignore the immediate cost of shipping them out of the country, you're still forgetting the massive legal cost of deporting them thanks to ... THE LAWYERS. Good job, jerks.
Posted by: flashoverride on April 24, 2009 03:07 AMIllegals are destroying America by stealing...YES, STEALING... what belongs to Americans...educational opportunity from our children, social services from our elderly, jobs from our workers, opportunity from Americans to choose who immigrates. These locusts swarm our welfare offices, occupy our public housing, take over our schools, overload our prisons and prey on our vulnerable. They march our streets, unfold their foreign flags and demand rights our fathers fought and bled for. Send them home...NOW!
Yes. The anti-immigration movement is getting a lot of mileage by demonizing poor Mexicans. Do you think that all the Minutemen at the border are eager to flush out rich Canadians that have overstayed their visas?
I lived in L.A. and Orange County, for several years, and overwhelmingly, most of the concerns had nothing to do with race. Lower quality of life in the area due to lower incomes? Yep. Language problems? Yep. Color? Nope.
Cultural issues are significant problems too, not to mention the massive increases in social spending and so on. (Granted, some people contend the social spending costs are balanced out by the economic benefit of the low-cost labor, but the studies seem pretty shaky.)
Assuming that problems with people of color have to do with the actual color of their skin is not the entire point. You've pretty much outlined everything that is an issue here: lower incomes, language problems, cultural issues.
Now, cultural issues have been a historical problem with immigration since the country began, and that's certainly not going to change. The right for folks to be in this country doesn't depend, though, on whether they speak English better than Spanish (or Polish, Vietnamese, etc.), or whether certain people have a problem with them.
And in terms of "massive increases in social spending", I have no problems with citizens of other countries being required to pay the same amounts as other foreign nationals for services in the US. But in Washington State, where income taxes do not exist, that argument doesn't hold water. Outside of Washington state, well... register them in some way and get them to pay taxes.
Also, frankly, if we give them full labor protections -- which I am in favor of, as same rules should apply to everyone -- then there may be little benefit to hiring the poor unskilled immigrants ...
Exactly! This entire scenario has been presented because there are folks willing to work illegally under the table, without job protection or rights in the workplace. Employers are more than willing to do this to cut costs. Make it easier to work legally and give them workplace protections, and you have satisfied both the left- and right-wing on an extremely contentious issue.
pudge - you act like deportations are an overnighter. If we ignore the immediate cost of shipping them out of the country, you're still forgetting the massive legal cost of deporting them thanks to ... THE LAWYERS.
It's a heck of a lot cheaper than if we charged them with a crime, as their legal rights would increase, and the costs would drastically increase.
Posted by: pudge on April 24, 2009 08:10 AMIt's not disingenuous. In response to a specific comment, I stated that when someone proposes to imprison folks for immigration violations or deny funds to bilingual education programs, they don't have Canadians with visa problems in mind. You can suggest that you're just following the "rule of law" in that case, but people in this case are not concerned with everyone breaking that law; they're concerned with a very narrow group of people.
You argued nothing. You asserted and then assigned labels that fit with your ideological construct.
Again, talking about closing down "bilingual education programs" doesn't mean English and French.
So it's your contention that the only group who illegaly enter into the United States and not be subject to deportation when identified are Mexican nationals? Kindly point to the provision in the U.S. code listed @ 21 where it gives "Mexican nationals" exclusivity rights to be granted temporary status based on geographical vicinity.
Not in the slightest. I was using that as one example. But I will point out that Mexicans do have a special status with regards to immigration under NAFTA... it may just be for "professionals", but it does exist.
I, and many other Americans want controlled immigration to this country so that every person in the world wherever they may be have equal and lawful access to the legal immigration process in this country.
I would be in favor of a fair system like that, but the truth is that the immigration system is not "equal". Folks are crossing the border illegally because there is a demand for labor paid under the table, and we implicitly benefit from that. On the other hand, the rich from abroad can effectively jump the queue if they have enough money. Better to recognize these truths and work to create a system that recognizes them, than to assume that all folks that pick apples have an economic incentive to go through the current immigration process.
This country is based on "doing the right thing", not rewarding squatters and gate-crashers by affording them legal avenues to citizenship that those who have waited years and endured the muddled immigration process legally and lawfully are not. Not exactly the example we should set for ourselves is it?
I'm in favor of reforming the entire immigration process, not just the one for folks that work in unskilled labor. But any policy needs to be based in the real world. You can assume that massive deportation and ten-foot-high walls along the Rio Grande would make a difference, but you need to address the entire problem, not just the enforcement angle.
Your "poor brown people" reference was in order to make an emotional argument.
I'm doing exactly the same thing as many folks on the right. When Pat Buchanan decries a Latino majority in certain areas of the U.S., it's hard to believe that "emotional arguments" are not in play.
Which in the end, always fail on merit.
Seems like it typifies the debate on both sides.
Yes. The anti-immigration movement is getting a lot of mileage by demonizing poor Mexicans.
But overwhelmingly, it is not related to the color of their skin.
Do you think that all the Minutemen at the border are eager to flush out rich Canadians that have overstayed their visas?
The fact that you keep mentioning economic status and culture differences is, I think, a demonstration that you can't back up your claim about skin color.
Assuming that problems with people of color have to do with the actual color of their skin is not the entire point.
And so now you essentially admit that you cannot back up your claim that it has anything to do with skin color.
And in terms of "massive increases in social spending", I have no problems with citizens of other countries being required to pay the same amounts as other foreign nationals for services in the US. But in Washington State, where income taxes do not exist, that argument doesn't hold water.
Obviously untrue. Come on, demo kid. Poor illegal immigrants pay much less in sales and property tax, and tend to receive significant amounts of social spending, that everyone else who pays more in taxes than them are subsidizing.
Make it easier to work legally and give them workplace protections, and you have satisfied both the left- and right-wing on an extremely contentious issue.
I'm just saying that providing such a system probably won't help, because then the immigrants will have no advantage in the workforce, but will still want jobs, which will probably result in continuation of this underground labor force.
No, seriously. I won't.
Neither of my kids were born in this country, and my wife is an immigrant. Speaking as someone who has filed an I-130, I-864, G-325a, DS-0156 (for wife's mom and sister),DS-2029 (for both of my kids, born in two different countries), I-751, and has to file an AR-11 every time I change apartments, I'd say you have NO GOD DAMN IDEA what a friggin hassle the USCIS is. Not to mention all of the fees and paperwork.
Which is exactly why the system needs to be reformed. Do you actually think that folks that work in unskilled labor have an economic incentive to go through that process? You should welcome a streamlined process that actually makes sense.
I'm friggin incensed (as is my wife) every time someone starts blabbing about "amnesty" for the simple reason of fairness. Why should someone who resides on the southern side of the Rio Grande - outside of the United States - be afforded an immediate entry into the US, while people overseas (like the rest of my wife's family in Kyrgyzstan), who are just as industrious, just as good people, get left out to dry? Mexican nationals should have no more advantage when it comes to entry into the United States than any other nation. Once you actually know how some of our immigration systems work, you'll have a much different view, trust me. And how much it costs.
Personally, I think that Mexican nationals should actually have an advantage when it comes to entry into the United States, due to NAFTA. We allow Mexican and Canadian professionals into the country on a temporary basis; why not unskilled labor?
I'm sorry that the system doesn't gauge whether someone is a "good person" when decisions are made. I really am. And from experiences with friends I know that it is at times an insulting and demeaning process that seems quite pointless. But there's a difference between individual stories and effective policy here. We're faced with an immigration problem because there are economic incentives that make it a reasonable option for certain people that don't have the money to go through that process. We have three options in this case to solve that problem: eliminate those economic reasons for illegal immigration, drastically increase funding for enforcement, or simply fling open the borders without a care for anything. I'd argue that the first option is best, by making them legal workers, increasing the value of their labor, and reducing or eliminating a distinct advantage illegal immigrants have in the labor market. If you make certain types of foreign labor legal and register these folks, you'll address these problems more effectively than mass deportations.
Personally I've always been a proponent of destroying companies that violate the law - eliminate the demand, and the supply will diminish rapidly. That being said, pudge - you act like deportations are an overnighter. If we ignore the immediate cost of shipping them out of the country, you're still forgetting the massive legal cost of deporting them thanks to ... THE LAWYERS. Good job, jerks.
Yes. People are such jerks for making sure that the laws are actually followed correctly.
Hey, I have no objections to putting companies out of business if they ruthlessly exploit foreign workers. But there is a difference between effective policy and policy determined through emotion, and both sides seem to be driven only by emotion at this point. Some kind of reform needs to consider the realities on the ground, and not just assume that increased spending on enforcement is going to solve all of our problems.
Posted by: demo kid on April 24, 2009 08:20 AMAgain, talking about closing down "bilingual education programs" doesn't mean English and French.
I've never seen a bilingual French education program in the U.S. Maybe they exist, but I've never heard of it. And even if they do exist, obviously they are not significant, since I've never heard of them, so they are not significantly affecting our cultural growth as a nation, nor our economics, that I need to care.
I'm doing exactly the same thing as many folks on the right. When Pat Buchanan decries a Latino majority in certain areas of the U.S., it's hard to believe that "emotional arguments" are not in play.
Emotions are often in play, but Buchanan is making a rational argument, which has, for what it's worth, nothing to do with race, and everything to do with culture. You can disagree with him of course -- I often do -- but if you value preservation of our existing culture, and think you have a right to prevent its modification through mass immigration, then of course you're not going to try to fight such a thing. His argument actually has significant merit.
Crossing the border [legally] and remaining illegally IS a crime.
In fact, no, it is not. This is easy for you: to prove me wrong, just cite the statute in our criminal code that says it is a felony or midemeanor (which is how U.S. law defines "crime").
Personally, I think that Mexican nationals should actually have an advantage when it comes to entry into the United States, due to NAFTA. We allow Mexican and Canadian professionals into the country on a temporary basis; why not unskilled labor?
Sorry, that makes no sense. NAFTA does not state, imply, or otherwise claim that unskilled Mexican citizens coming here to look for work should be given any prefererential treatment. So don't say it is due to NAFTA, because NAFTA doesn't have your back here.
1324 - 1326 cover a lot of what has been discussed, too.
--------------------------------------------
TITLE 8, CHAPTER 12, SUBCHAPTER II, Part VII
� 1306. Penalties
(a) Willful failure to register
Any alien required to apply for registration and to be fingerprinted in the United States who willfully fails or refuses to make such application or to be fingerprinted, and any parent or legal guardian required to apply for the registration of any alien who willfully fails or refuses to file application for the registration of such alien shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not to exceed $1,000 or be imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
(b) Failure to notify change of address
Any alien or any parent or legal guardian in the United States of any alien who fails to give written notice to the Attorney General, as required by section 1305 of this title, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not to exceed $200 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both. Irrespective of whether an alien is convicted and punished as herein provided, any alien who fails to give written notice to the Attorney General, as required by section 1305 of this title, shall be taken into custody and removed in the manner provided by part IV of this subchapter, unless such alien establishes to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that such failure was reasonably excusable or was not willful.
(c) Fraudulent statements
Any alien or any parent or legal guardian of any alien, who files an application for registration containing statements known by him to be false, or who procures or attempts to procure registration of himself or another person through fraud, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not to exceed $1,000, or be imprisoned not more than six months, or both; and any alien so convicted shall, upon the warrant of the Attorney General, be taken into custody and be removed in the manner provided in part IV of this subchapter.
(d) Counterfeiting
Any person who with unlawful intent photographs, prints, or in any other manner makes, or executes, any engraving, photograph, print, or impression in the likeness of any certificate of alien registration or an alien registration receipt card or any colorable imitation thereof, except when and as authorized under such rules and regulations as may be prescribed by the Attorney General, shall upon conviction be fined not to exceed $5,000 or be imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
---------------------------------
TITLE 8, CHAPTER 12, SUBCHAPTER II, Part VIII
� 1325. Improper entry by alien
This references both criminal and civil penalties which include fines and imprisonment.
� 1326. Reentry of removed aliens
References criminal penalties
� 1324a. Unlawful employment of aliens
States which documents are required for identification in order to hire, and give both civil and criminal penalties
� 1324c. Penalties for document fraud
...
Emotions are often in play, but Buchanan is making a rational argument, which has, for what it's worth, nothing to do with race, and everything to do with culture. You can disagree with him of course -- I often do -- but if you value preservation of our existing culture, and think you have a right to prevent its modification through mass immigration, then of course you're not going to try to fight such a thing. His argument actually has significant merit.
I would make the case that bilingual education should be part of every school's curriculum. Mastery of Spanish, French, Japanese, Chinese, etc. is a key advantage in global business, and encouraging the development of those language skills, especially amongst naturalized Americans, would place us in an even better position in the future.
Buchanan's arguments have little merit, if any. Of course culture will be changed as a result of immigration, just as it was changed with massive immigration from Western European countries in the 1800s. But to assume that culture is a stagnant thing in need of draconian preservation efforts is absurd. We are not a country, for example, that has an official office of language, where grammar and vocabulary are dictated from above and outside influences are purged. Historically, our advantage has been (to borrow heavily from a Star Trek villain) to assimilate other cultures and add their distinctiveness to our own. If that can be reinforced with strong democratic institutions, then we are the better for it.
Heck, the advantage that we have over European countries that are also dealing with immigration issues is that we actually have this level of flexibility in our society. One reason why Islamic extremists are able to get more of a foothold in Western European countries is that the need to protect ethnically-defined culture is so potent that other cultural and ethnic groups are excluded as a result. As much as we may think an African-American president is a big thing, I'd argue that a black British Prime Minister or French president would be the truly remarkable case.
Besides... what *is* American culture anyway? One can make the argument that American culture has always been defined by the immigrant experience and a set of common democratic and multicultural ideals. To isolate that to Pilgrims or Western Europeans fleeing famine is unnecessarily confining.
Sorry, that makes no sense. NAFTA does not state, imply, or otherwise claim that unskilled Mexican citizens coming here to look for work should be given any prefererential treatment. So don't say it is due to NAFTA, because NAFTA doesn't have your back here.
I was not clear. It's obvious that unskilled workers from Mexico aren't covered by TN visas. However, Mexican professionals are allowed to work in the US, and there is currently a trade action pending with regards to Mexican truckers being permitted to carry goods across the US. If NAFTA is meant to be a truly "free trade area", and certain aspects of labor are already managed accordingly, then why not free trade in all labor? Again, as I stated before, it is the fact that illegal labor is... well... illegal and unregulated that makes it attractive to certain businesses. Regulating it and making it legal is a better solution than an expensive enforcement program, it would allow for a better handle on security issues currently in play, and for anti-immigration conservatives, there have to be some sort of compromises made to get comprehensive reform through Congress. Better to keep your eye on the ball and work to satisfy your real end goals than to allow a monomaniacal focus on enforcement to dominate your strategies.
You're wrong. Failure to register is a different issue than overstaying a visa.
I would make the case that bilingual education should be part of every school's curriculum.
I would make the case that it should not be. I took four years of French, and got pretty good grades, and I consider the time studying it for those four years to be almost a complete waste of my time.
Mastery of Spanish, French, Japanese, Chinese, etc. is a key advantage in global business, and encouraging the development of those language skills, especially amongst naturalized Americans, would place us in an even better position in the future.
I don't care. I am completely uninterested in using our public school system as a cog factory. I want our schools to teach children so that they can choose what to do for themselves, and actively participate in our democratic process, NOT to give us a "competitive advantage in the global market."
However, of course, this is all beside the point, so let's move on.
Buchanan's arguments have little merit
False. And nothing you say backs up your claim that his arguments have little merit. You do provide one or two reasonable arguments against his position, but that does not imply his arguments have no merit. And you spend more time attacking straw men than his actual positions.
Of course culture will be changed as a result of immigration, just as it was changed with massive immigration from Western European countries in the 1800s.
He knows that.
But to assume that culture is a stagnant thing
He doesn't.
Historically, our advantage has been (to borrow heavily from a Star Trek villain) to assimilate other cultures and add their distinctiveness to our own.
And Buchanan absolutely agrees with that. What you don't recognize is that in many places in this country, the Mexicans have almost completely *taken over* and *have not* been assimilated. The Borg would not be proud.
Besides... what *is* American culture anyway?
It's for each person to decide for himself, and if we collectively decide we want to American culture to be something that massive immigration would harm, then we have every right to restrict immigration to that end.
One can make the argument that American culture has always been defined by the immigrant experience and a set of common democratic and multicultural ideals. To isolate that to Pilgrims or Western Europeans fleeing famine is unnecessarily confining.
Again, straw man: no one is doing that.
If NAFTA is meant to be a truly "free trade area", and certain aspects of labor are already managed accordingly, then why not free trade in all labor?
Because we collectively think it hurts us. That is why it was excluded from NAFTA in the first place, why we required people coming here for those temporary work visas be actively employed. NAFTA is not meant to be a "truly free trade area." We still have borders and rules.
Regulating it and making it legal is a better solution than an expensive enforcement program ...
Again, no. If you regulate it and make it legal, then you have to give them the same employment benefits, and they are no longer as attractive to businesses; this will necessarily mean a continuation of the illegal employment practices we have now (why pay someone $10/hour to pick corn, when you can pay them $1/hour, since there's no serious enforcement?). There's only two options: enforcement, or removal of labor laws (either entirely, or just for poor unskilled immigrants) so they don't need to be enforced.
Of course, you could find ways to make enforcement less expensive, but you still need significant enforcement efforts.
It's a heck of a lot cheaper than if we charged them with a crime, as their legal rights would increase, and the costs would drastically increase.
Pudge, are you being intentionally obtuse as to how the system currently works? The government doesn't just "deport people". Even people we pick up at the border (either of them). They get picked up, are detained and processed at a detention facility before we send them back; during this time, they have all the access to medical care, etc provided to US inmates at taxpayer expense. Once they get past the border, detaining and deporting later requires court dates, hearings, and appeals, etc etc, and many of them simply violate the deportation orders (see: Barack Obama's aunt, who was ordered out of the country in 2004).
Nothing you said actually disagreed with anything I said. What, specifically, did I say that you have a problem with?
That's an argument to improve the system, not to shelve it. Teaching high school students a language is an exercise in futility when language is best learned by children at a young age! You might as well start teaching them how to add when they're teenagers.
I don't care. I am completely uninterested in using our public school system as a cog factory. I want our schools to teach children so that they can choose what to do for themselves, and actively participate in our democratic process, NOT to give us a "competitive advantage in the global market."
So then why even educate children at all, aside from basic lessons in civics? What makes long division or Chaucer more valuable in a curriculum than Spanish or Mandarin?
However, of course, this is all beside the point, so let's move on.
Agreed.
False. And nothing you say backs up your claim that his arguments have little merit. You do provide one or two reasonable arguments against his position, but that does not imply his arguments have no merit. And you spend more time attacking straw men than his actual positions.
He thinks that high birth rates amongst Latinos threatens white America, and that "the people" should be able to impose a quota system on immigrants based on their ethnicity. You can say that certain *proposals* that he has may have some merit, but his arguments are only sound if you share his unfounded opinions about Latinos.
I mean, overall his perspective is biased. Hispanic immigrants ARE assimilating over the span of generations, just not as fast as he'd like. It's understandable, given that improvements in travel and communications make it a lot easier to maintain connections to family across borders. But there have been plenty of examples of situations in the past where groups in the US didn't assimilate quickly either. The arguments that he's using here are no different from those that suggested Italian and Chinese immigration should be limited a century ago. I'm betting that few people would stand up today and declare that Italian or Irish immigration should have been limited further to protect white Protestant culture.
And Buchanan absolutely agrees with that. What you don't recognize is that in many places in this country, the Mexicans have almost completely *taken over* and *have not* been assimilated. The Borg would not be proud.
In the 1800s, there were entire towns where other languages were spoken. I don't see the difference. The names have changed, but the trends have not. In fifty years, it'll all change again.
It's for each person to decide for himself, and if we collectively decide we want to American culture to be something that massive immigration would harm, then we have every right to restrict immigration to that end.
Racism and xenophobia supported by a large number of people is still racist and xenophobic. I thought we were past advocating for a modern version of the Exclusion Act and demonizing an entire ethnic group, but apparently not.
Because we collectively think it hurts us. That is why it was excluded from NAFTA in the first place, why we required people coming here for those temporary work visas be actively employed. NAFTA is not meant to be a "truly free trade area." We still have borders and rules.
We have, in effect, allowed labor markets to operate under a free market; manufacturing can move to Canada or Mexico to capitalize on economic advantages in those locations even if the goods are shipped to customers elsewhere. At least, though, there are labor and environmental protections in place under NAFTA for those businesses. Illegal labor works because it is economically advantageous for the employer and employee, because low-wage unskilled labor isn't managed properly in this combined economic system.
Again, no. If you regulate it and make it legal, then you have to give them the same employment benefits, and they are no longer as attractive to businesses; this will necessarily mean a continuation of the illegal employment practices we have now (why pay someone $10/hour to pick corn, when you can pay them $1/hour, since there's no serious enforcement?). There's only two options: enforcement, or removal of labor laws (either entirely, or just for poor unskilled immigrants) so they don't need to be enforced.
I'm sure that you can agree that the second is a non-starter in any situation, and enforcement is needed of whatever scheme is proposed. An absolute crackdown where all illegal aliens are deported is simply not feasible from an economic perspective: the economic outlay for a massive sweep would be massive, and the economic impacts of losing a large part of the low-wage labor pool in certain industries would be catastrophic for some industries in the short-term. Likewise, the left won't support a simple unilateral crackdown, making enforcement alone an impossible sell in the current political environment.
My case is that the best strategy to use is one that takes away the economic advantage of illegal labor in other ways. Allowing for a more comprehensive guest worker program and granting low-wage participants rights and labor protections under that program will take away a major economic advantage to illegal labor, would give the government political cover from the left to impose harser penalties for employers and employees that violate this new arrangement, and would help to increase depressed wages in these fields.
Of course, you could find ways to make enforcement less expensive, but you still need significant enforcement efforts.
I don't think that anyone is disputing that. It is the nature of the enforcement that is the issue. It's not as simply as just rounding folks up and dumping them on the other side of the border.
Posted by: demo kid on April 24, 2009 01:37 PMThat's an argument to improve the system, not to shelve it.
No, it's not at all. You think I am complaining about lack of proficiency after four years; I am not. Rather, I am asserting that my proficiency in French -- even if I had become fluent -- is not worth the time I spent on it. I would have been much better off taking more history and literature for those hundreds of hours. I have no need significant for knowing French or Spanish in my life.
So then why even educate children at all, aside from basic lessons in civics? What makes long division or Chaucer more valuable in a curriculum than Spanish or Mandarin?
What makes Spanish or Mandarin more valuable than knowing who won on American Idol? If you're going to be in the entertainment business, maybe American Idol is more important. If you're going to be a computer programmer, than neither one really matters, unless you specifically want to work with Chinese or Spanish programmers.
Some people value knowing those languages. I am not one of these people. I think it is important that SOME people know other languages well. I do not think it is important that EVERYONE does. I do not believe I am better off knowing French than I would have been if I had spent all those hours on history and literature, and I doubt you could possibly come up with a serious argument to the contrary.
He thinks that high birth rates amongst Latinos threatens white America
Another straw man. This is not true at all.
and that "the people" should be able to impose a quota system on immigrants based on their ethnicity
Also not true. Completely false. You keep making these assertions, and they continue to be false.
Hispanic immigrants ARE assimilating over the span of generations, just not as fast as he'd like.
... which causes significant problems for the Americans in those areas. (Remember, I used to live in LA and Orange counties, so I know what I am talking about here.) I am not saying because we have problems, we should therefore do some action in particular; but you need to recognize that problems are created, and that Americans do have the right to respond with policies to ameliorate those problems.
But there have been plenty of examples of situations in the past where groups in the US didn't assimilate quickly either.
... which isn't an argument that it is a good thing, or a non-bad thing. Indeed, we know of many problems this has caused in the past.
In the 1800s, there were entire towns where other languages were spoken. I don't see the difference.
You can't see the difference between a town being created in Pennsylvania that doesn't speak English as its main language, and an entire section of an existing highly populated city or county being overrun by people who don't speak English? Come on.
Racism and xenophobia supported by a large number of people is still racist and xenophobic.
True. However, you've fully failed at demonstrating any racism supported by a large number of people, and you've not demonstrated that all xenophobia is bad or unwarranted, except by assertion.
I thought we were past advocating for a modern version of the Exclusion Act and demonizing an entire ethnic group, but apparently not.
Again with the straw men. You keep asserting it is about race; it's not.
We have, in effect, allowed labor markets to operate under a free market ...
Your paragraph here doesn't really argue against what I said, though. I know what you're saying, but still, many people think it would hurt us, and you haven't really argued against that.
An absolute crackdown where all illegal aliens are deported is simply not feasible ... I don't think that anyone is disputing that [you still need significant enforcement efforts]
It seems I misunderstood what you meant by "an expensive enforcement program." I am not in favor of mass deportation, as it really is infeasible, for the reason you mention; what's more, even if we could do it, I don't think we would gain significant advantages from it. But we do need expensive enforcement programs. Border patrol (going BOTH ways now, apparently), workplace labor enforcement, and so on.
My case is that the best strategy to use is one that takes away the economic advantage of illegal labor in other ways. Allowing for a more comprehensive guest worker program and granting low-wage participants rights and labor protections under that program will take away a major economic advantage to illegal labor
Again, I just don't buy it. Granting low-wage participants rights and labor protections (including, of course, minimum wage) will mean that there will still be a significant economic advantage to illegal labor.
... would give the government political cover from the left to impose harser penalties for employers and employees that violate this new arrangement
That may be, but I still don't see it happening. Even when they have political cover they often don't enforce the laws.