illegal immigrants (another poll)

[NavarreMan 10]

I love to see people actually take the time to research the laws they comment about here. As for the unlawful v. illegal:

Ballentine's Legal Dictionary defines the following:

Unlawful adj. Illegal, illicit, contrary to law; not permitted by law; not done in the manner required by law.

Illegal adj. Unlawful, contrary to law, illicit, felonious, forbidden, improper, unauthorized, proscribed.

There is virtually no difference between the two according to one of the leading legal dictionaries.

Did you actually read what you posted?

Besides the fact that Black's is the leading US law dictionary, the distinction is quite clear: things that are illegal are "forbidden" and "proscribed"; that is, the law specifically forbids them. Things that are unlawful are "not done in the manner required by law"; that is, the law requires things be done a certain way, and it is unlawful to do them a different way.

To use an example I'm sure most people are more familiar with (traffic offenses): driving under the influence is illegal. The law specifically forbids it and--the relevant part to this discussion--you can go to jail for it. Whereas speeding is unlawful (not illegal) because the law sets a maximum speed and therefore by going faster than that you are not obeying the law--and you can be assessed a civil penalty, but not sent to jail (unless you don't pay the penalty).

Assuming someone has not been deported before, entering the country by sneaking over the border is both unlawful (not done the way the law says it should be) and illegal (under 8 USC 1325), therefore you can be sent to jail for it. However, simply being here is merely unlawful and not illegal, therefore you cannot be sent to jail simply for being here, but you can have a civil penalty (deportation or removal) imposed. So VJTroll is correct when he says that mere presence is not a criminal offense.

Ooops, I almost forgot. The status of any immigrant is illegal or unlawful if it is obtained by any means that is not lawful or legal. Whether it is a misdemeanor or criminal offense is the variable.

If the alien has not been deported before, the status is unlawful. If the alien has been deported before, the status is illegal (and also unlawful).

Also, a misdemeanor is a type of criminal offense. Saying "whether it's a misdemeanor is a criminal offense" is like saying "whether it's a Golden Retriever or a dog."

Of course I read what I posted. I carefully and exactly copied it from my dictionary. And in response I say that if being a dog is illegal then it makes no difference if you are a dog or a Golden Retreiver. You are picking between being wrong and wrong. What is the point you are trying to make? Whether you are entering the country "unlawfully" or "illegally" really doesn't matter. The law has been broken and should be dealt with accordingly.

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

i fail to see just what you are driving at with your posts. yes i'm aware of all of that about lead based toys, etc etc, i do read the news and vj

as you support open immigration, and indeed illegal immigration, could we say you are a free market guru? you have ranted against nafta in the past saying it's all wrong.

I think I've been clear. Open immigration policy is in line with Free Trade and a Free Market. You're either in favor of those ideologies or not. I've been consistent on my position - I'm in favor of free trade and a free market as long as its fair. Isolationism isn't going to work in the global scheme of things. You can't prohibit the free flow of labor (both export and import) but allow the free flow of goods, if you want the free market to truly be free. What part of that doesn't make sense to you?

Edit: You can regulate the market, but if you prohibit crucial elements of it - it's no longer what you set it out to be.

i'm not in favor of wide open immigration, every country has the right to limit who enters or not. i'm not sure what you had for dinner but it musta caused hallucinations as yes, every country can and will limit the flow of labor into the country. perhaps you can be so kind as to point out a country that does not? i'm not in favor of free trade when countries like china use us as a dumping ground for their goods and the usa gets the raw end of the deal. i'm not in favor of mexico exporting their population here with instructions on how to cross the border illegally and yet they are hypocrites in the treatment of illegals in mexico. a free market is worthwhile, yes, but we don't have to abdicate our national identity nor future to appease other countries agendas.

no, you've not been clear - as you've stated you are for any type of immigration yet you are against nafta, how does that match up?

If a Canadian or Mexican citizen could show a border agent a valid ID which could be immediately checked through a data base, would you agree to let that person be given free access to travel here? Also, if they could secure a job, grant them a temporary work visa. The EU has similar provisions. I don't how you could or why you would want to limit how many people can travel here, if you eliminate any reasonable fear of them being convicted felons.

such a far cry from what you were defending earlier i.e. illegal immigration. it's one thing if inspected and admitted, another if crossing the desert with a map from the mexican government. as for getting a job, not going to happen unless they have the right visa for that. so you found me a country that just lets anyone move in and work yet? and btw, in germany you still have to register with the police and jump thru some serious hoops workwise. it's not as easy as you wish it would be.

[sparkofcreation 0]

Of course I read what I posted. I carefully and exactly copied it from my dictionary. And in response I say that if being a dog is illegal then it makes no difference if you are a dog or a Golden Retreiver. You are picking between being wrong and wrong. What is the point you are trying to make? Whether you are entering the country "unlawfully" or "illegally" really doesn't matter. The law has been broken and should be dealt with accordingly.

I just don't see how you could have read what you posted since you said there was no difference in the two definitions when in fact the difference in them was blatantly obvious.

And if you honestly can't see the difference between the two ... I'd imagine spending 6 months in jail (the punishment for doing something illegal) the next time you let your parking meter expire (which is unlawful, but not illegal) would clear up that difference for you right quick.

And as for the "law being broken and should be dealt with accordingly": that's the whole point for Pete's sakes. The way things that are illegal is dealt with is a criminal penalty. The way things that are unlawful is dealt with is a civil penalty.

VJ Troll's point was simply that he doesn't report people for doing things that are unlawful. Do you? Do you call the city parking department every time you see a car parked at an expired meter or the traffic patrol every time you see a car speeding or turning without using its blinker? Do you call City Hall if your neighbor's grass is more than 4" high?

[NavarreMan 10]

According to my best source of legal definitions (the one most readily accessible to me as it is on my bookshelf), there is vitually no difference in the two words. Their definitions are almost word for word the same thing. Just because you say there is a difference does not make it so in my mind because I am using a recognized legal source and definition that does not agree with what you are saying. If Black's definition is different than Ballentine's then post the definitions and boltser your case for the argument. Until then I am going with what the dictionary says are the definitions of the words in question.

Edited November 24, 2007 by NavarreMan

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

Of course I read what I posted. I carefully and exactly copied it from my dictionary. And in response I say that if being a dog is illegal then it makes no difference if you are a dog or a Golden Retreiver. You are picking between being wrong and wrong. What is the point you are trying to make? Whether you are entering the country "unlawfully" or "illegally" really doesn't matter. The law has been broken and should be dealt with accordingly.

I just don't see how you could have read what you posted since you said there was no difference in the two definitions when in fact the difference in them was blatantly obvious.

And if you honestly can't see the difference between the two ... I'd imagine spending 6 months in jail (the punishment for doing something illegal) the next time you let your parking meter expire (which is unlawful, but not illegal) would clear up that difference for you right quick.

And as for the "law being broken and should be dealt with accordingly": that's the whole point for Pete's sakes. The way things that are illegal is dealt with is a criminal penalty. The way things that are unlawful is dealt with is a civil penalty.

VJ Troll's point was simply that he doesn't report people for doing things that are unlawful. Do you? Do you call the city parking department every time you see a car parked at an expired meter or the traffic patrol every time you see a car speeding or turning without using its blinker? Do you call City Hall if your neighbor's grass is more than 4" high?

Well stated.

[no name 1]

Of course I read what I posted. I carefully and exactly copied it from my dictionary. And in response I say that if being a dog is illegal then it makes no difference if you are a dog or a Golden Retreiver. You are picking between being wrong and wrong. What is the point you are trying to make? Whether you are entering the country "unlawfully" or "illegally" really doesn't matter. The law has been broken and should be dealt with accordingly.

I just don't see how you could have read what you posted since you said there was no difference in the two definitions when in fact the difference in them was blatantly obvious.

And if you honestly can't see the difference between the two ... I'd imagine spending 6 months in jail (the punishment for doing something illegal) the next time you let your parking meter expire (which is unlawful, but not illegal) would clear up that difference for you right quick.

And as for the "law being broken and should be dealt with accordingly": that's the whole point for Pete's sakes. The way things that are illegal is dealt with is a criminal penalty. The way things that are unlawful is dealt with is a civil penalty.

VJ Troll's point was simply that he doesn't report people for doing things that are unlawful. Do you? Do you call the city parking department every time you see a car parked at an expired meter or the traffic patrol every time you see a car speeding or turning without using its blinker? Do you call City Hall if your neighbor's grass is more than 4" high?

Sure, an (unlawful) expired parking meter is most definitely the same as an illegal living, um, ILLEGALLY in America - using US schools, healthcare, etc. when it's meant for USC and LPRs, NOT illegals.

SAME EXACT THING.

[Kajikit 65]

Only if I knew they were being exploited and maltreated so the business owner could make a profit off them... then I'd have to report the owner. Otherwise somebody's legal status is none of my business.

[jrmach1 0]

no, never! its not my business. Plus I think a may have to become one if USCIS don't approve I hate them they are slow