Illegal aliens murder

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Gee, Charles. At least give me credit for the avatar! I had it first

Edited December 1, 2006 by szsz

[Peikko 1,575]

There are no illegal Cubans. They become legal as soon as they step on American soil.

So, the Mexican's should do some lateral thinking, change the Mexican regime to communism and maybe they too will be more welcomed?

[mawilson 2,133]

There are no illegal Cubans. They become legal as soon as they step on American soil.

So, the Mexican's should do some lateral thinking, change the Mexican regime to communism and maybe they too will be more welcomed?

Indeed, although if Mexico had a communist government, they would probably have a wall

on their side keeping people in.

[DeadPoolX 9]

Felonies are generally your standard murder, forcible rape, aggravated assault, robbery, buglary, larceny-theft, motor-vehicle theft, and arson offenses. I wouldn't lump crossing the border into the U.S. with these offenses; however, that does not mean other illegal acts committed by non-citizens (or citizens, for that matter) can't qualify them as a criminals.

There is such a thing called a "misdemeanor." Granted, these are generally less serious crimes, but they can incur a stay of up to a year in prison or jail time and supervised probation, and/or a fine. I'd suggest that crossing the border might be more in-tune with this classification of illegality.

One is classified as a criminal, in the Criminal Justice system, if one commits a crime, is arrested for it, convicted, and sentenced for the crime, regardless of the infraction. So this means even someone on probation can be classified as a criminal -- they just managed to get off rather lightly, without incurring any jail or prison time.

Having said all of that, if someone is given a "free ride" or is merely arrested but not sentenced, then they are not a criminal. Being questioned or arrested by the police does not automatically make one a criminal, nor does it go on one's record.

So, I think I can understand both points of view here in this discussion. I do view crossing the border without the proper paperwork to be completely illegal. There's no question in my mind about that. However, I don't quite view "illegal aliens" as felons (mostly because they haven't committed the crimes necessary to be considered such, nor have they been arrested and convicted), so this is a somewhat difficult issue.

Here's a good example: OJ Simpson. Most people I know feel OJ killed his wife and Ron Goldman. OJ was indeed arrested and put on trial for the crime. However, he was not convicted or sentenced. Therefore, no matter what we may personally think of OJ Simpson (I happen to think he's a scumbag, but that's beside the point...), and whether or not he really did kill those two people or not, he is not a criminal by the standards of U.S. law.

See where I went with that? Murder is illegal. That should make one a criminal. However, if one is not convicted and sentenced, then he or she is not a criminal.

To end this extremely long post...in order to classify all "illegal aliens" as criminals, the U.S. Criminal Justice system would need to arrest, put on trial, and then convict and sentence each and every one of them. I don't know if our system has the capability or the resources to handle such a job, with more illegals pouring through every day.

Edited December 1, 2006 by DeadPoolX

[peezey 0]

But if every law was changed by working from the outside in, we wouldn't have civil rights laws, women wouldn't be voting, etc. All of these significant changes were made after people made huge sacrifices, physically (including death), mentally, emotionally to show the injustice of the laws they didn't agree with.

The survival of the American republic, Hamilton maintained, depends upon "the preservation of a national spirit and a national character.” "To admit foreigners indiscriminately to the rights of citizens, the moment they foot in our country would be nothing less than to admit the Grecian horse into the citadel of our liberty and sovereignty.”

We are not a nation of immigrants. We are first and foremost a nation of laws. The U.S. Constitution does not say that the paramount duty of government is to “Celebrate Diversity” or to “embrace multiculturalism” or to give “every willing worker” in the world a job. The Premable to the U.S. Constitution says the Constitution was established “to provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty.”

As our founding fathers recognized, fulfilling these fundamental duties is impossible without an orderly immigration and entrance system that discriminates in favor of those willing, as George Washington put it, to “get assimilated to our customs, measures, [and] laws.”

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004840.htm

This is about as trustworthy as the original website the original topic of this thread was posted from. Anyone can take anyone's words and spin them how they choose, especially when they take bits & pieces to do so, especially out of context.

Ok, pretend you never saw where the article came from for a moment. Care to debate the content of the article, and state precisely what is false?

Any real content has been maligned by bizarre spin. However, I will say that the "otherwise" here is the history of our country.

My rant:

Watch Lou Dobs on CNN. He's all over pro-illegals' azzes, and for good reason. I love Lou Dobbs, am in support of a border fence, arresting CEOS who hire illegals, pulling in the reins on the Catholic Church's tax exemption re their bleeding heart open borders stance, anti-sanctuary cities, reinterpretating the constitutional provision to end anchor babies for illegals, taking away their ability to get medical and educational benefits, and stepped up deportations. I want to see my tax dollars at work for US citizens and legal immigrants, not the Mexican government and greedy, exploitive employers!

No way I'm spending all this time and money on a legal visa, then turn around to support the business scum and illegals who are taking our jobs and lowering our standard of living. I live in Colorado where illegals run wild, kill cops, sell drugs, rape children, and drag women in the street behind trucks until dead. All had been arrested before. If these people want jobs, let them make their governments more responsive to them rather than mooching off of us. Haven't we learned anything about self-preservation!

I take back my agreement that we are agreeing more and more.

Edited December 1, 2006 by peezey

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Felonies are generally your standard murder, forcible rape, aggravated assault, robbery, buglary, larceny-theft, motor-vehicle theft, and arson offenses. I wouldn't lump crossing the border into the U.S. with these offenses; however, that does not mean other illegal acts committed by non-citizens (or citizens, for that matter) can't qualify them as a criminals.

There is such a thing called a "misdemeanor." Granted, these are generally less serious crimes, but they can incur a stay of up to a year in prison or jail time and supervised probation, and/or a fine. I'd suggest that crossing the border might be more in-tune with this classification of illegality.

One is classified as a criminal, in the Criminal Justice system, if one commits a crime, is arrested for it, convicted, and sentenced for the crime, regardless of the infraction. So this means even someone on probation can be classified as a criminal -- they just managed to get off rather lightly, without incurring any jail or prison time.

Having said all of that, if someone is given a "free ride" or is merely arrested but not sentenced, then they are not a criminal. Being questioned or arrested by the police does not automatically make one a criminal, nor does it go on one's record.

So, I think I can understand both points of view here in this discussion. I do view crossing the border without the proper paperwork to be completely illegal. There's no question in my mind about that. However, I don't quite view "illegal aliens" as felons (mostly because they haven't committed the crimes necessary to be considered such, nor have they been arrested and convicted), so this is a somewhat difficult issue.

Here's a good example: OJ Simpson. Most people I know feel OJ killed his wife and Ron Goldman. OJ was indeed arrested and put on trial for the crime. However, he was not convicted or sentenced. Therefore, no matter what we may personally think of OJ Simpson (I happen to think he's a scumbag, but that's beside the point...), and whether or not he really did kill those two people or not, he is not a criminal by the standards of U.S. law.

See where I went with that? Murder is illegal. That should make one a criminal. However, if one is not convicted and sentenced, then he or she is not a criminal.

To end this extremely long post...in order to classify all "illegal aliens" as criminals, the U.S. Criminal Justice system would need to arrest, put on trial, and then convict and sentence each and every one of them. I don't know if our system has the capability or the resources to handle such a job, with more illegals pouring through every day.

No offense, but it'd be a lot easier to reply to your posts if you cut them down a bit.

Edited December 1, 2006 by Steven_and_Jinky

[Scott & Lai 12]

Felonies are generally your standard murder, forcible rape, aggravated assault, robbery, buglary, larceny-theft, motor-vehicle theft, and arson offenses. I wouldn't lump crossing the border into the U.S. with these offenses; however, that does not mean other illegal acts committed by non-citizens (or citizens, for that matter) can't qualify them as a criminals.

There is such a thing called a "misdemeanor." Granted, these are generally less serious crimes, but they can incur a stay of up to a year in prison or jail time and supervised probation, and/or a fine. I'd suggest that crossing the border might be more in-tune with this classification of illegality.

One is classified as a criminal, in the Criminal Justice system, if one commits a crime, is arrested for it, convicted, and sentenced for the crime, regardless of the infraction. So this means even someone on probation can be classified as a criminal -- they just managed to get off rather lightly, without incurring any jail or prison time.

Having said all of that, if someone is given a "free ride" or is merely arrested but not sentenced, then they are not a criminal. Being questioned or arrested by the police does not automatically make one a criminal, nor does it go on one's record.

So, I think I can understand both points of view here in this discussion. I do view crossing the border without the proper paperwork to be completely illegal. There's no question in my mind about that. However, I don't quite view "illegal aliens" as felons (mostly because they haven't committed the crimes necessary to be considered such, nor have they been arrested and convicted), so this is a somewhat difficult issue.

Here's a good example: OJ Simpson. Most people I know feel OJ killed his wife and Ron Goldman. OJ was indeed arrested and put on trial for the crime. However, he was not convicted or sentenced. Therefore, no matter what we may personally think of OJ Simpson (I happen to think he's a scumbag, but that's beside the point...), and whether or not he really did kill those two people or not, he is not a criminal by the standards of U.S. law.

See where I went with that? Murder is illegal. That should make one a criminal. However, if one is not convicted and sentenced, then he or she is not a criminal.

To end this extremely long post...in order to classify all "illegal aliens" as criminals, the U.S. Criminal Justice system would need to arrest, put on trial, and then convict and sentence each and every one of them. I don't know if our system has the capability or the resources to handle such a job, with more illegals pouring through every day.

No offense, but it'd be a lot easier to reply to your posts if you cut them down a bit.

"Hello, Kettle? This is The Pot. You're black!"

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Felonies are generally your standard murder, forcible rape, aggravated assault, robbery, buglary, larceny-theft, motor-vehicle theft, and arson offenses. I wouldn't lump crossing the border into the U.S. with these offenses; however, that does not mean other illegal acts committed by non-citizens (or citizens, for that matter) can't qualify them as a criminals.

There is such a thing called a "misdemeanor." Granted, these are generally less serious crimes, but they can incur a stay of up to a year in prison or jail time and supervised probation, and/or a fine. I'd suggest that crossing the border might be more in-tune with this classification of illegality.

One is classified as a criminal, in the Criminal Justice system, if one commits a crime, is arrested for it, convicted, and sentenced for the crime, regardless of the infraction. So this means even someone on probation can be classified as a criminal -- they just managed to get off rather lightly, without incurring any jail or prison time.

Having said all of that, if someone is given a "free ride" or is merely arrested but not sentenced, then they are not a criminal. Being questioned or arrested by the police does not automatically make one a criminal, nor does it go on one's record.

So, I think I can understand both points of view here in this discussion. I do view crossing the border without the proper paperwork to be completely illegal. There's no question in my mind about that. However, I don't quite view "illegal aliens" as felons (mostly because they haven't committed the crimes necessary to be considered such, nor have they been arrested and convicted), so this is a somewhat difficult issue.

Here's a good example: OJ Simpson. Most people I know feel OJ killed his wife and Ron Goldman. OJ was indeed arrested and put on trial for the crime. However, he was not convicted or sentenced. Therefore, no matter what we may personally think of OJ Simpson (I happen to think he's a scumbag, but that's beside the point...), and whether or not he really did kill those two people or not, he is not a criminal by the standards of U.S. law.

See where I went with that? Murder is illegal. That should make one a criminal. However, if one is not convicted and sentenced, then he or she is not a criminal.

To end this extremely long post...in order to classify all "illegal aliens" as criminals, the U.S. Criminal Justice system would need to arrest, put on trial, and then convict and sentence each and every one of them. I don't know if our system has the capability or the resources to handle such a job, with more illegals pouring through every day.

No offense, but it'd be a lot easier to reply to your posts if you cut them down a bit.

"Hello, Kettle? This is The Pot. You're black!"

Sometimes, in the rush of things, I don't have the time to edit down an article I post, but when it comes to typing it myself, I prefer to keep it short and sweet whenever possible.

[Ban Hammer 13,333]

Please tell me you heard of Tenacious D before, no?

can't say i have. is he your backup guitar guy?

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Has anyone taken the time to check out Mexico's illegal immigration laws? Everything they are in opposition to us doing in the US to protect our borders, they have legislated and exercise. They jail illegals, deport them, have made it illegal for non-Mexicans to take the best jobs and they are very, very serious about enforcement of their laws.

On the other hand, their government publishes and distributes pamphlets telling their citizens where and how to cross into the US, and regularly sends Mexican troops to the northern border. It is not uncommon for them to cross into the US illegally to assist border crossers and coyotes in human trafficing.

FirstData Corp., parent company of Western Union, is adamately opposed to border control because they gain considerable profits from remittances that are sent from illegals into Mexico. They have led efforts to silence and unseat legislators who are in favor of border enforcement. Remittances to Mexico from the US is the second largest source of income for Mexico, second only to their oil and gas industry!

The bottom line is illegals are exploited for their cheap labor, and employers are not footing the bill for the medical care, pregnancies, crime and cultural accomodation that is being picked up by the middle class taxpayer. Politicians are hopeful of gaining new liberal voters to keep themselves in office and are in receipt of corporate donations designed to keep them flush with cheap labor. All of them enjoy their illegal gardeners, landscapers, nannies and chauffers. Do you have any of those?

Most Americans gain little over time, especially undereducated minorites and skilled laborers. Their wages are undercut and their jobs, if not outsourced, are given over to untrained illegals who cannot communicate effectively with their customers and managers, do not share the same sanitation habits, and produce a higher rate of safety violations and on the job injuries.

The collusion and hypocrisy that surrounds this issue is immense. Blame the government for the falling standards and the higher cost of living in this country, but you cannot do so as long as you are part of problem, too.

[China Rob 0]

Illegal alien or freeloader.... if want to get into a country then take what it has to offer then send it back to the country from whence you came, never become a citizen, never become part of the society, fly the flag fo the country from whence you came, then I think of you as an illeagl alien. If however, you come here to participate in the society as a legal citizen, contributing to the society and having a say in the society then I DON"T CARE WHERE YOU COME FROM and what you keep from your old country. But do it legallly like so many before you.

Felony shelony.... if it quacks like a duck. Let's see illegal immigrant.... no thats impies that you want to stay here legallly, but you really don't.... foriegn tourist... no that implies you will leave and have a visa for your stay... no I think Illegal alien sums it up.

Live in California for awhile.... even the whatchamacallits are leaving because there are too many of 'em... I think Kentucky in the new California... until it is full..... New York maybe...

[GaryC 7]

But if every law was changed by working from the outside in, we wouldn't have civil rights laws, women wouldn't be voting, etc. All of these significant changes were made after people made huge sacrifices, physically (including death), mentally, emotionally to show the injustice of the laws they didn't agree with.

The survival of the American republic, Hamilton maintained, depends upon "the preservation of a national spirit and a national character.” "To admit foreigners indiscriminately to the rights of citizens, the moment they foot in our country would be nothing less than to admit the Grecian horse into the citadel of our liberty and sovereignty.”

We are not a nation of immigrants. We are first and foremost a nation of laws. The U.S. Constitution does not say that the paramount duty of government is to “Celebrate Diversity” or to “embrace multiculturalism” or to give “every willing worker” in the world a job. The Premable to the U.S. Constitution says the Constitution was established “to provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty.”

As our founding fathers recognized, fulfilling these fundamental duties is impossible without an orderly immigration and entrance system that discriminates in favor of those willing, as George Washington put it, to “get assimilated to our customs, measures, [and] laws.”

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004840.htm

This is about as trustworthy as the original website the original topic of this thread was posted from. Anyone can take anyone's words and spin them how they choose, especially when they take bits & pieces to do so, especially out of context.

Ok, you don't trust Malkin. Fair enough. This is from a totaly different source and quotes our founding fathers verbatum. Please comment on this.

The Founders’ Views of Immigration and Assimilation

In the late 18th century, the young republic needed a larger population and encouraged immigration. At the same time, America's founders were concerned with assimilating immigrants. Thus, George Washington, in a letter to John Adams, stated that immigrants should be integrated into American life so that "by an intermixture with our people, they, or their descendants, get assimilated to our customs, measures, laws: in a word soon become one people." In a 1790 speech to Congress on the naturalization of immigrants, James Madison stated that America should welcome the immigrant who could assimilate, but exclude the immigrant who could not readily "incorporate himself into our society." In Notes on Virginia, Thomas Jefferson wrote:

"Every species of government has its specific principles. Ours...is a composition of the freest principles of the English constitution, with others derived from natural rights and natural reason. To these nothing can be more opposed than the maxims of absolute monarchies. Yet, from such, we are to expect the greatest number of emigrants. They will bring with them the principles of government they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their numbers, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its direction, and tender it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass."

Alexander Hamilton insisted that "the safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of citizens from foreign bias and prejudice; and on the love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education, and family." The ultimate success of the American republic, he maintained, depends upon "the preservation of a national spirit and a national character," among native born and immigrant alike.

Hamilton opposed granting citizenship immediately put to new immigrants: "To admit foreigners indiscriminately to the rights of citizens, the moment they foot in our country would be nothing less than to admit the Grecian horse into the citadel of our liberty and sovereignty." Instead, he recommended that we gradually draw newcomers into American life, "to enable aliens to get rid of foreign and acquire American attachments; to learn the principles and imbibe the spirit of our government; and to admit of a philosophy, at least, of their feeling a real interest in our affairs."

Clearly, Washington's call for "one people," Madison's insistence that the immigrant "incorporate himself into our society," Jefferson's concern that some newcomers might not be prepared for "temperate liberty," and Hamilton's emphasis on the "safety" of our republic and the "love of country," are all more or less of one piece. They are a clarion call for "patriotic assimilation." Given the founders' forthright insistence on patriotic assimilation, it is not surprising that the Naturalization Law of 1795 required that before becoming American citizens, aliens would have to "renounce under oath" all previous sovereign allegiances. This "renunciation clause" remains today part of the naturalization law and part of the oath to the U. S. Constitution that all new citizens must take.

http://www.cis.org/articles/cantigny/fonte.html

Edited December 2, 2006 by Iniibig ko si Luz forever