DeSantis Martha's Vineyard Stunt

[RolandRat]

What Is Illegal Entry to the United States?

U.S. immigration law actually uses the term "improper entry," which has a broad meaning. It's more than just slipping across the U.S. border at an unguarded point. Improper entry can include:

entering or attempting to enter the United States at any time or place other than one designated by U.S. immigration officers (in other words, away from a border inspection point or other port of entry)

eluding examination or inspection by U.S. immigration officers (people have tried everything from digging tunnels to hiding in the trunk of a friend's car)
attempting to enter or obtain entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or willful concealment of a material fact (which might include, for example, lying on a visa application or buying a false green card or other entry document).

https://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/us-immigration/crime-enter-illegally.html

 

[arayder]

I mean, this is supposed to be a forum of "critical thought". This is just embarrassing.

LOL!

This from a guy who claims that asylum seekers are gaming the system by asking for asylum and then gives a hypothetical example of them not gaming the system (i.e. not asking for asylum) to prove that they are gaming the system.

Proof not everyone got too far in school. . .

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

..dup..

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

You are missing the entire damn point that they have already broken the law by crossing illegally.

Good Lord. Like I said, embarrassing. Clearly you won't let facts deter you. Carry on.

I just addressed that law.

 

[arayder]

You are missing the entire damn point that they have already broken the law by crossing illegally.

Good Lord. Like I said, embarrassing. Clearly you won't let facts deter you. Carry on.

No, you missed the point! Allowing immigrants crossing the border to request asylum assures due process.

One is not surprised considering that you believe these people should be treated like cattle and shipped back to their home countries without regard for their health or condition.

You are the one who should be embarrassed!

 

[RolandRat]

I just addressed that law.

If they actually entered the US at a non designated port of entry then yes, they are illegal. It doesn't appear to matter if they walk straight into a Border Patrol unit.

(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.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325

edit - it seems the law doesn't actually require entry, just an attempt at entry.

 

[gnome]

You are missing the entire damn point that they have already broken the law by crossing illegally.

I think you have to make up your mind about something. Are you arguing for "but it's the law"? Wasn't it just a few posts ago that you argued against standing on the technicality of law because the law pertaining to Venezuelan refugees was wrong? I don't think you can have it both ways.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

If they actually entered the US at a non designated port of entry then yes, they are illegal. It doesn't appear to matter if they walk straight into a Border Patrol unit.

It seems to matter if they also have a valid asylum claim. They get in to the country despite that. I don't think judges just forget that at times.

 

[Warp12]

I think you have to make up your mind about something. Are you arguing for "but it's the law"? Wasn't it just a few posts ago that you argued against standing on the technicality of law because the law pertaining to Venezuelan refugees was wrong? I don't think you can have it both ways.

Yes, I can have it both ways. Because I am not saying that these Venezuelans do not fall under a special exception. I am not saying they are technically here illegally. It is my opinion that the law sucks. As I have already mentioned. In Warp12's view, they are still illegals...but that is just my feeling on the matter. I know the law does not agree.

Now, that is a lot different than saying, "the special exception doesn't exist or apply to them". It would be one thing to say, "it shouldn't be illegal for them to cross...illegally". It is another to claim that what they did is not against clearly written law.

 

[RolandRat]

It seems to matter if they also have a valid asylum claim. They get in to the country despite that. I don't think judges just forget that at times.

Applying for asylum can change their status from illegal to legal but it doesn't change the fact they entered, or attempted to enter, illegally. The change in status means they are allowed to legally remain in the US.

Illegal Entry Is Not a Ground of Inadmissibility for Asylum Applicants
Unlike many other categories of applicants for immigration benefits, people seeking asylum in the U.S. are not barred by having made an illegal entry; for example, sneaked across the U.S. border. Huge numbers of past asylum applicants found that entering the U.S. without permission was their only or best way to get to safety and flee the persecution they faced at home.

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclop...create-problems-when-applying-for-asylum.html

 

[sackett]

Now you fellers have failed to get the point. The law isn't the issue. Hell with the sucking law! Mr. Warp doesn't FEEL like letting a buncha criminally diseased foreign-speaking miscolored nwords into HIS country!

Sorry about that nwords, I know it ain't supposed to be polite. But dammit, Warp n me, we get purty hot n patriotic sometimes!

 

[arayder]

You are missing the entire damn point that they have already broken the law by crossing illegally.

I think you have to make up your mind about something. Are you arguing for "but it's the law"? Wasn't it just a few posts ago that you argued against standing on the technicality of law because the law pertaining to Venezuelan refugees was wrong?

Exactly. In one post he tells us he knows what the law is regarding immigrants seeking asylum and thinks it is a bad law that ought to be changed.

Then in subsequent posts he pretends the law doesn’t work in the way he just admitted it does.

I don't think you can have it both ways.

Like the Special Master just told Donny Boy's lawyers, “You can’t have your cake and eat it too.”

 

[Stacyhs]

Are the attempts to address the illegal entry issue bickering or foolish? I don't really agree because I think it goes to the heart of what DeSantis did and the support he gets from the right.

The wingers want to establish that the asylum seekers 'entered the country illegally.' Therefore 'they broke the law,' and what do we call people who break the law? As the library cop told Jerry on a Seinfeld episode, "We call them criminals!" That plays into the following right wing meme. "Biden's granting asylum to criminals. Or trying to." As I quoted someone writing on another forum, that's bad because:


So I'm willing to take the 'fool' hit because in this case I think it's important to push back.

Nuh-uh. Facts are facts whether someone likes them or not. It doesn't matter what side you are on or what agenda you want to push. Not one single citation has been produced that stated that they entered legally only that they should not be considered to have and can remain legally. That is important: if any article or person here could find a credible source that states they entered legally, they would have. Those who are criticizing what DeSantis did would have produced the law or Immigration provision stating that. But they haven't. The reason why should be obvious to anyone who isn't in denial.

On the other hand, I've produced several pieces of evidence that support that they entered illegally. But you know what? It doesn't really matter if they did or didn't because they are entitled to apply for asylum and Venezuela is a TPS country. The only reason I'm being adamant about this because ignoring facts because a person just doesn't like the answer is unacceptable. That's what MAGAs do.

 

[arayder]

Yes, I can have it both ways. Because I am not saying that these Venezuelans do not fall under a special exception. I am not saying they are technically here illegally. It is my opinion that the law sucks. As I have already mentioned. In Warp12's view, they are still illegals...but that is just my feeling on the matter. I know the law does not agree.

Now, that is a lot different than saying, "the special exception doesn't exist or apply to them". It would be one thing to say, "it shouldn't be illegal for them to cross...illegally". It is another to claim that what they did is not against clearly written law.

Let us know when you settle on an argument, Warp.

I think your argument is a case of overly ridged thinking mixed with a dash of prejudice.

It seems to have escaped you that something can be illegal and then it’s not.

The cop pulls you over for speeding, which is illegal, but upon seeing your about to deliver 10 months pregnant wife in the passage seat gives you an escort to the hospital.

Possession of heroin is illegal. But when you turn in the bag of smack you found on your door step the police don’t arrest you for possession.

In most cities it's illegal to shot a fire arm in the city limits. But when you drill the knife wielding perp who tried to rob and kill you at the ATM it's self defense.

Everybody gets it except you.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Applying for asylum can change their status from illegal to legal but it doesn't change the fact they entered, or attempted to enter, illegally. The change in status means they are allowed to legally remain in the US.

Since when do crimes work that way? Is a person guilty of murder right up until the time prosecutor or jury accepts their claim of self defense?

Look, my mind is not fully settled on this. If you think you are correct just show me a judge agreeing with you. Show me that the people lined up in that video I cited earlier (or similar) wind up in court fighting their illegal entry charge as their first experience in the US. Does Yuma really have hundreds of thousands of those cases proceeding every year?

You said "change your status from illegal to legal". OK When does the designation of illegal happen in this process? How does it work? Are you charged with illegal entry and the a few days later they dismiss the charge because you have a valid defense? Where is there even sufficient time in this process for a designation of "illegal"? I don't see it. I see a process that leads to a single judgement of "legal".

Show me otherwise.

 

[Warp12]

The cop pulls you over for speeding, which is illegal, but upon seeing your about to deliver 10 months pregnant wife in the passage seat gives you an escort to the hospital.

Does that mean that you weren't breaking the law by speeding?

Whether you are charged or not is independent of whether you broke the law. But you still broke the law, in the above example.

 

[arayder]

The cop pulls you over for speeding, which is illegal, but upon seeing your about to deliver 10 months pregnant wife in the passage seat gives you an escort to the hospital.

Does that mean that you weren't breaking the law by speeding?

Whether you are charged or not is independent of whether you broke the law. But you still broke the law, in the above example.

If you understood due process of law you'd know the answer to that question.

 

[RolandRat]

Since when do crimes work that way? Is a person guilty of murder right up until the time prosecutor or jury accepts their claim of self defense?

Look, my mind is not fully settled on this. If you think you are correct just show me a judge agreeing with you. Show me that the people lined up in that video I cited earlier (or similar) wind up in court fighting their illegal entry charge as their first experience in the US. Does Yuma really have hundreds of thousands of those cases proceeding every year?

You said "change your status from illegal to legal". OK When does the designation of illegal happen in this process? How does it work? Are you charged with illegal entry and the a few days later they dismiss the charge because you have a valid defense? Where is there even sufficient time in this process for a designation of "illegal"? I don't see it. I see a process that leads to a single judgement of "legal".

Show me otherwise.

I can't be arsed to start going through USA case law anymore just to convince someone who is niggling about a point that really doesn't even matter. I have shown you the actual law about how illegal entry is defined. Are you trying to say the immigrants that this thread is about entered legally?

edit - I would guess that as these guys walked up to the border patrol and handed themselves in, they would have probably said they entered illegally.

What Happens to Asylum Seekers Arriving at the U.S. Border?
From 2004 through March 2020, DHS subjected most noncitizens who were encountered by, or presented themselves to, a U.S. official at a port of entry or near the border to expedited removal, an accelerated process which authorizes DHS to perform rapid removal of certain individuals.

To help ensure that the United States does not violate international and domestic laws by returning individuals to countries where their life or liberty may be at risk, the credible fear and reasonable fear screening processes are available to asylum seekers in expedited removal processes. Importantly, while the process described below is how asylum seekers should be processed under law, at times CBP officers do not properly follow this process.

https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/asylum-united-states

Looks to me like they catch you near the border, you have no papers or can provide no proof you are in the country legally, they assume you are illegal and /yeet. Unless you claim asylum.

edit 2 -

Found this:

Expedited removal is a procedure that allows U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials to rapidly deport noncitizens who are undocumented or who have committed misrepresentation or fraud. Under expedited removal processes, certain noncitizens are deported in as little as a single day without an immigration court hearing or other appearance before a judge.

On July 23, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced a significant expansion of expedited removal. Under the expanded policy, individuals who are undocumented, who entered the U.S. without inspection, and who cannot prove they have resided in the United States for more than two years potentially will be subject to expedited removal. The new expanded expedited removal guidelines took effect immediately, but immigration advocates have challenged the expansion in court.

https://immigrationforum.org/articl...ure,have committed misrepresentation or fraud.

 

[smartcooky]

Yeah, it's like totally legal for immigrants to cross a river, navigate a tunnel, or scale a wall to enter into the US. As long as they have a special exception, no problem.

Almost correct, nonetheless, in accordance with United Nations General Assembly Resolution 217 A: Article 14, dated 10 December 1948, (to which the USA is a signatory), and which states "Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution".

Seeking asylum is an internationally recognized Human Right, not an exemption!

Glad to see you have caught up with some reality

Why don't we think for a second here. What if they don't get caught and they go about their merry way, without seeking asylum? Is it illegal then?

Yes, it is, because being in, and remaining in a country illegally is not the same as entering that country without authorisation.

 

[Warp12]

<points covered pages ago>

Whatever. A number of countries do have a special exception right now, which is why those migrants are avoiding being deported even upon illegal entry. Whereas others are deported. This has been discussed for pages and pages.

The debate now is about whether entering illegally is...illegal. If you can believe that. Yes, that is what a certain "think tank" of skeptics has put forth. It is brilliant, to say the least.