Forum Settings
       
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next »
Reply To Thread

Jade Helm Conspiracy Non-TerroristsFollow

#277 Jun 28 2018 at 7:06 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
6,503 posts
Oh yeah. People are still pretending to care if something is illegal or not I see.
____________________________
Galkaman wrote:
Kuwoobie will die crushed under the burden of his mediocrity.

#278 Jun 28 2018 at 8:41 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,380 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
At the risk of stating the obvious, Improper Entry (ie: sneaking across the border) is illegal. No one has to "criminalize" it. It's already a crime.
It's been previously handled as a civil matter.
Oh. I see. You're confused.

"Criminalization" refers to Improper Entry being treated as a criminal offense with jail time.


Not all criminal offenses are punished with jail time. Your problem is you are using the wrong terminology. Or, more accurately, just using the terminology incorrectly.

Quote:
This was rarely the case previously because it was treated as a civil matter, handled with a fine. Civil matters against the government are not referred to as a "crime"; you are not a "criminal" for getting a littering fine or failing to mow your lawn or filing your taxes late.


Again. You're the one who used the term "criminalizing". I'm questioning the accuracy of your use of the term.

Quote:
There is a reason why we have a criminal justice system as a subset of the overall justice system. This actually make a significant difference since you have the Constitutional right to legal representation in a criminal justice case, but not in a civil trial (even against the government).


Er? That's great, but not relevant here. Criminal justice can have different penalties applied. In this case, the penalty *may* be jail time and/or *may* be a fine (or may be nothing at all, except, you know deportation). That does not make it not a crime.

Quote:
Therefore, I said that "Trump decided to implement a 'zero tolerance' policy and criminalize Improper Entry" to which you got all confused and flustered and word vomited a meaningless slurry of whatever you found on National Review Online in the past hour.


Sigh. You're the one putting your own word (criminalize) in Trump's decision. He didn't "criminalize" it. It was already a crime. Whatever decisions were made with regards to tougher enforcement and/or punishment are not the same as making something a crime which was not previously.

Quote:
Quote:
Entering the US illegally is a criminal act. Period. It's a violation of federal statute.

So is violating the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. You do realize that, say, being fined under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act means you committed an unlawful act but it doesn't make you a criminal, right? No? Too complex for you? Ok then.


What does "make you a criminal" mean here? You're mixing terminology. That has zero legal meaning Joph. You're just doing BS rhetoric at this point.

Here. Let me make this really simple for you:

US statute wrote:
(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts

Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
(b) Improper time or place; civil penaltiesAny alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to enter) the United States at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil penalty of—
(1) at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or attempted entry); or
(2) twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under this subsection.
Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be imposed.



Read the bolded bits. The statute applies both a criminal penalty *and* a civil penalty. Either or both of them may be applied. Choosing to apply a given penalty or not does not make it "not a crime" or suddenly "make it a crime". It's already a crime, with a defined penalty, which may include anything from no penalty, to a fine, to jail time.

What you mean to say is that Trump is imposing harsher penalties for those committing the crime, not that he's making it a crime in the first place. But that doesn't sound as sinister, so you say he's criminalizing it instead. Which is BS.

Find me something anywhere that actually says that illegal entry into the US is not a crime, and we can talk. You can't do that though, because it's simply not true. It was a crime long before Trump took office. Stop playing word games.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#279 Jun 28 2018 at 8:45 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,380 posts
I will also point out that none of what you are arguing now has any relevance at all to the process of deportation, the choice to hold people in detention for deportation, and how that process deals with minors who are involved in that process as well.

Waving your hands around and yelling "criminalization!!!" doesn't do anything here. It's certainly not relevant at all to what we were actually talking about. You're trying to play on the emotional appeal that many on the Left tend to do by pretending that when we talk about "illegal immigration" or "illegal immigrants" that we're somehow making the people to be "illegal", and thus dehumanizing them in some way.

That's because you liberals think in terms of the people and their identity. We on the Right think in terms of actions and consequences. An immigrant isn't illegal because their person is illegal, but because their status is illegal. Illegal immigration isn't about the person, but the act of entering the country illegally (or staying within it illegally). It's not about emotion. It's not about the person. It's about the actions taken and whether they are legal or not.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#280 Jun 28 2018 at 9:57 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
The statute applies both a criminal penalty *and* a civil penalty. Either or both of them may be applied. Choosing to apply a given penalty or not does not make it "not a crime" or suddenly "make it a crime".

It determines if the case will be pursued from the civil court system or the criminal justice system. There's honestly no further way to break it down so, if you're still confused because "hurp derp sayz it's a law!!!" then there's not much else I can do for you.
Quote:
You're trying to play on the emotional appeal that many on the Left tend to do by pretending that when we talk about "illegal immigration" or "illegal immigrants" that we're somehow making the people to be "illegal", and thus dehumanizing them in some way.

No, I was literally explaining how immigration policy has changed in the past six weeks or so since that is directly connected to the current situation with children that we were talking about. That you can completely miss that and go right to some half-brained screed about "liberals be all like THIS but conservatives be all like THAT..." is, well, pretty classic Gbaji.
Quote:
That's because you liberals think in terms of the people and their identity. We on the Right think in terms of actions and consequences

I read a book once that told me liberals are more motivated by fairness and compassion for other humans whereas conservatives are more motivated by national/racial loyalty and adherence to a status quo. Interesting stuff, you should read it some time.

Edited, Jun 28th 2018 11:05pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#281 Jun 29 2018 at 12:15 AM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,608 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I read a book once that told me liberals are more motivated by fairness and compassion for other humans whereas conservatives are more motivated by national/racial loyalty and adherence to a status quo. Interesting stuff, you should read it some time.
Was it a good enough book to be mentioned in a blog? Do you have the link?
____________________________
Smash wrote:
My next mixed metaphor will include chocolate cake.

#282 Jun 29 2018 at 1:31 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,750 posts
I read a sentence about it on a website about video games, it stands up.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#283 Jun 29 2018 at 7:31 AM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,640 posts
gbaji wrote:
Read the bolded bits. The statute applies both a criminal penalty *and* a civil penalty.
You read the bolded parts. The statute you bolded is talking about the civil penalties you might be subject to while improperly entering the country. The last part is talking about additional charges that may be criminal, not that the improper entry itself is. It does not "apply a criminal penalty" in any way. Your problem is you are using the wrong terminology.
gbaji wrote:
We on the Right think in terms of actions and consequences.
Yeah, what you can get away with and who gets scapegoated and has to deal with the consequences.

Edited, Jun 29th 2018 9:34am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#284 Jun 29 2018 at 8:14 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,750 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Your problem is you are using the wrong terminology...
among numerous other things, like the smell, the burning of the eyes, the slavish devotion to the GOP...
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#285 Jul 11 2018 at 9:33 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,380 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Read the bolded bits. The statute applies both a criminal penalty *and* a civil penalty.
You read the bolded parts. The statute you bolded is talking about the civil penalties you might be subject to while improperly entering the country. The last part is talking about additional charges that may be criminal, not that the improper entry itself is.


You got that exactly backwards. The first part (section "a") clearly establishes criminal penalties for illegal entry. I bolded it. It's the first section I bolded.

The later section (section "b") covers civil penalties. At the end of that section it states that this is in "addition to, and not in lieu of" the previous section.

It's not that it's a civil offense which *could* have additional criminal charges applied (as you just claimed). It's a criminal offense, which may have additional civil penalties applied "in addition to" the criminal charges. Again, you got it completely backwards. Predictably.

____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#286 Jul 12 2018 at 7:26 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,640 posts
gbaji wrote:
You got that exactly backwards.
Nope.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 0 All times are in CDT