Truely clueless.....its frightening...

[Cancel 2016.2]

Yeah, it was 2005. I was off by 16 days or so. Sue me. But your description isn't accurate. You seemingly forgot the part that turned every unlawful alien into a felon overnight and you seem not to understand the impact of that. You may not like what Ms. Wasserman Schultz has to say about the bill, but her statement is accurate, whether you agree with it or not.

And I don't give a shit whether the bill had a chance of becoming law.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,191429,00.html

Yes, I know... you will immediately BASH the source of this rather than address the content.... but I will post this anyway....

"As far as those who remain in the country illegally being guilty of a felony, two-thirds or 70 percent of the Republicans in the House voted to make that a misdemeanor," while 191 Democrats "voted to keep it a felony so they could have this phony issue of that being a felony," Rep. Peter King told FOX News this week.

So.... WAS it the Dems that kept it this way?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

GOP aides also have pointed out that Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., tried during debate on the House floor to reduce the penalty to a misdemeanor.

The attempt failed on a vote of 257-164, with 65 Republicans and 191 Democrats opposed. Democrats, however, including members of the Hispanic Congressional Caucus, indicated at the time they favored a bill with no criminal penalties and opposed the suggested change.

hmmm.... ok, but if you oppose ANY criminal penalties, wouldn't you at least reduce the language in the bill to a misdemeanor and then work to remove penalties all together when finalizing with the Senate?

 

[Damocles]

Are you saying that non-citizens have constitutional rights, Dalai Damocles?

Absolutely.

 

[Damocles]

hmmm.... ok, but if you oppose ANY criminal penalties, wouldn't you at least reduce the language in the bill to a misdemeanor and then work to remove penalties all together when finalizing with the Senate?

That Amendment was defeated, although the Senate stated that they would pass legislation that would do just that anyway.

 

[Damocles]

Interesting...and could you explain to me when exactly our Constitutional Rights were given to citizens of other countries?

Yeah right...I just BET we'll see Republican Congresspeople lining up to try and give constitutional rights to all those they've said aren't covered by that same constitution in the past.

Any person under the jurisdiction of the US has constitutional rights. It's silly to argue that they don't have them when so many of our courts have already ruled that they certainly do have rights. It's flat stupid to suddenly ignore this fact so that you can provide an excuse of somebody who uses ignorance to press hyperbolic nonsense onto people so you can obtain more cash for campaign coffers.

I'm not saying that she is "evil" for this or anything, I only point out what her job is, and that she is doing it effectively through pressing fear and nonsense. There is no plans for pogroms. And they cannot try somebody for breaking a law that didn't exist when they "broke" it.

 

[Topspin]

she's spewing the party line.
Someone help me out, isn't it already a crime to cross?

 

[Damocles]

she's spewing the party line.
Someone help me out, isn't it already a crime to cross?

It's a violation of civil law. Basically the same thing as jaywalking, but with the penalty of deportation instead of cash only. If you are deported after a felony conviction it is a felony to re-enter, but otherwise it isn't even a felony to come back after you are deported.

In this case, these people could not be tried for pre-breaking a law, even if it had become law. It would have made people entering after the law passed in violation of a felony. So, any re-entry, or entry at all without the correct documentation, would then be a felony.

At the time the legislation was being discussed the mantra was "fix the border first" using the descriptive analogy of leaky faucets, first fix the leak, then deal with the flood damage.

 

[Bonestorm]

Oh, and can you explain how she seems entirely clueless as to how the fifth amendment might apply?

No, I cannot, because she doesn't seem that way to me.

Tell me, can you be tried for breaking a law that didn't exist when you "broke it"? Can they go back in time, and try you for doing something that they later made a law about?

The legislation could not make "felons" out of people who entered before the law passed, we have protections against stuff like that.

You are mistaken. If unlawful aliens remained in the country after the bill became law, they could indeed be subject to felony convictions for unlawful presence.

 

[Topspin]

what would unemployment be if we deported the 12,000,000?

 

[Damocles]

what would unemployment be if we deported the 12,000,000?

If they were replaced by Americans it would much less than it is currently.

 

[Damocles]

No, I cannot, because she doesn't seem that way to me.



You are mistaken. If unlawful aliens remained in the country after the bill became law, they could indeed be subject to felony convictions for unlawful presence.

It didn't change how "unlawful presence" was declared or counted. Upon being declared by DHS as "unlawfully present" you would then have a period of time to leave, if you pass that period you then become in violation. Basically, an order to depart had to be followed or you would, after a period of time, then become subject to a felony conviction. However because of the detention requirements before deportation it would be nearly impossible to violate that. It would not make them suddenly convicted of a felony, it just didn't do that.

Just being here is not enough. An Immigration Judge must declare you to be in "unlawfully present" and only then does the time begin...

The law flat out did not magically change these people into "felons", nor did it begin the "pack them up" plan. It just didn't do what she or you say it does.

Their entry would not be a felony, it couldn't be they entered before the law was passed. Their presence itself isn't a felony until they stay past the order of departure date after being declared "unlawfully present". It simply didn't change how a person becomes "unlawfully present" or make these people sudden felons.

There is specific legislation on how "unlawfully present" is dealt with, legislation that this didn't change. Seek out the 3/10 rule.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

"Hunting them down?"

Tell me, what is the purpose of making unlawful presence (not entry) a felony if not for massive deportation. To let unalwful aliens present in the United States to continue living here without fear of deportation or imprisonment? Get your head out of your ass, Damo.

is it your claim they cannot be deported now?

 

[Bonestorm]

It didn't change how "unlawful presence" was declared or counted. Upon being declared by DHS as "unlawfully present" you would then have a period of time to leave, if you pass that period you then become in violation. Basically, an order to depart had to be followed or you would, after a period of time, then become a felon.

Just being here is not enough. An Immigration Judge must declare you to be in "unlawfully present" and only then does the time begin...

That's how it works now in the civil proceedings. All of that would change where unlawful presence is a felony. If the bill became law, people here unlawfully would be arrested and prosecuted.

The law flat out did not magically change these people into "felons", nor did it begin the "pack them up" plan. It just didn't do what she or you say it does.

Of course it doesn't magically make them felons, they have to go through the system first. But it makes them subject to arrest and imprisonment and/or deportation for felony charges. In short, it tells them to (1) get the hell out or (2) be subject to arrest and felony conviction.

Their entry would not be a felony, it couldn't be they entered before the law was passed. Their presence itself isn't a felony until they stay past the order of departure date after being declared "unlawfully present". It simply didn't change how a person becomes "unlawfully present" or make these people sudden felons.

I didn't say that their entry would be a felony. I said their remaining present after passage of the law is a felony. As noted above, you are conflating what happens now in civil proceedings with what would happen if the law were passed. If the law were passed and people unlawfully present here remained, they would be subject to arrest and felony prosecution.

There is specific legislation on how "unlawfully present" is dealt with, legislation that this didn't change. Seek out the 3/10 rule.

Actually, it did change that quite a bit.

 

[Damocles]

That's how it works now in the civil proceedings. All of that would change where unlawful presence is a felony. If the bill became law, people here unlawfully would be arrested and prosecuted.



Of course it doesn't magically make them felons, they have to go through the system first. But it makes them subject to arrest and imprisonment and/or deportation for felony charges. In short, it tells them to (1) get the hell out or (2) be subject to arrest and felony conviction.




I didn't say that their entry would be a felony. I said their remaining present after passage of the law is a felony. As noted above, you are conflating what happens now in civil proceedings with what would happen if the law were passed. If the law were passed and people unlawfully present here remained, they would be subject to arrest and felony prosecution.



Actually, it did change that quite a bit.

From what I read in the law it changed solely what the violation would be after declaration and violation. It changed nothing about how one became declared "unlawfully present." Just saying "it did" isn't really making a point here. Can you give me the wording you see that changed how one was declared "unlawfully present"?

 

[Bonestorm]

From what I read in the law it changed solely what the violation would be after declaration and violation. It changed nothing about how one became declared "unlawfully present." Just saying "it did" isn't really making a point here. Can you give me the wording you see that changed how one was declared "unlawfully present"?

It's a criminal law, Damo. Need I explain to you how one is declared a "murderer" after killing someone?

 

[Damocles]

It's a criminal law, Damo. Need I explain to you how one is declared a "murderer" after killing someone?

So you're saying that it didn't change how one becomes declared "unlawfully present"? Are we really getting somewhere? The reality is "unlawfully present" is specifically defined as only happening after that declaration, this law didn't change that. So first they would need to be "declared" by an immigration judge first and then violate the time limitation, at that point they could then be tried for a felony, otherwise they could not. The law didn't change how one became "unlawfully present", it simply invoked deeper penalties for those declared as such after the law had passed.

It wouldn't make them felons to just be here, as you and she seem to believe it would, it would make them felons to stay after they had been ordered to depart.

Now that we've gotten to that part, can you tell me any legislation, because it isn't in this one, that begins the "pack them up" program?

 

[Bonestorm]

So you're saying that it didn't change how one becomes declared "unlawfully present"? Are we really getting somewhere? The reality is "unlawfully present" is specifically defined as only happening after that declaration, this law didn't change that. So first they would need to be "declared" by an immigration judge first and then violate the time limitation, at that point they could then be tried for a felony, otherwise they could not. The law didn't change how one became "unlawfully present", it simply invoked deeper penalties for those declared as such after the law had passed.

No. They don't need to be "declared" anything and aren't granted a time limitation. If they are here unlawfully, they can be arrested and subject to a felony conviction.

It wouldn't make them felons to just be here, as you and she seem to believe it would, it would make them felons to stay after they had been ordered to depart.

No. It would have made them subject to arrest and felony prosecution.

Now that we've gotten to that part, can you tell me any legislation, because it isn't in this one, that begins the "pack them up" program?

We haven't gotten anywhere. You don't seem to understand the part where being unlawfully present is a felony and subjects people here unlawfully to prosecution.

 

[Damocles]

No. They don't need to be "declared" anything and aren't granted a time limitation. If they are here unlawfully, they can be arrested and subject to a felony conviction.

No. It would have made them subject to arrest and felony prosecution.

We haven't gotten anywhere. You don't seem to understand the part where being unlawfully present is a felony and subjects people here unlawfully to prosecution.

Again, can you please tell me the portion of the legislation that changed how "unlawfully present" was defined? We can begin there. Your declaration notwithstanding, we both know what the law is currently, how one becomes "unlawfully present". We both know that it isn't just being here that defines them as "unlawfully present"... I see no wording in the legislation that changed how one was defined as "unlawfully present" only the penalty of a conviction, which can only happen after that declaration and subsequent violation of the time period. If you can point that out it would be nice.

Basically, you're pressing the ignorance of others. Because the law mentions "unlawfully present", you are pretending that means that anybody here now would be subject to those convictions even though you've already stated you understand how one becomes subject to the "unlawfully present" section of the law. One isn't "unlawfully present" until after they are declared as such by an immigration judge and then only after violating the ordered depart timeline.

 

[Damocles]

And I sill am waiting for your link to the "pack them up" legislation, or just even give me a portion of any legislation, even a law that hasn't passed, from any serious legislator that suggests we begin the pogroms.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

is it your claim they cannot be deported now?

.....nigel?