Gary Johnson: Calling illegals “illegal” is “very incendiary” (video)

[GunnyFreedom]

Right. But that's not a good analogy to illegal immigration.

Because as soon as you cross the border into a country, you are no longer in the country you just crossed into? You just magically float away into a special limbo where laws and reason are meaningless?

A better one is simply someone who at some point in the past jaywalked, just like the only thing that makes someone an "illegal immigrants" is that at some point in the past they committed a misdemeanor.

LOL no. That's irrational and insane.

There is no law that they continue to break over and over again every day they're here.

Except for being here. Illegally. Thus, Illegal Immigrant.

Or is there? If you're saying there is, then please find it. I asked you to do that before, and conspicuously you didn't.

Why should I? Your argument is irrational on it's face. However if you are truly interested in the law here, (which I frankly doubt, IMHO you are simply trying to distract from the fact that you have an illogical irrational emotional argument) then we can start with 104th COngress, Public Law 208, section 301:

SEC. 301. TREATING PERSONS PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION AS NOT ADMITTED.


(a) ``Admission'' Defined.--Paragraph (13) of section 101(a) (8
U.S.C. 1101(a)) is amended to read as follows:
``(13)(A) The terms `admission' and `admitted' mean, with respect to
an alien, the lawful entry of the alien into the United States after
inspection and authorization by an immigration officer.
``(B) An alien who is paroled under section 212(d)(5) or permitted
to land temporarily as an alien crewman shall not be considered to have
been admitted.
``(C) An alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the
United States shall not be regarded as seeking an admission into the
United States for purposes of the immigration laws unless the alien--
``(i) has abandoned or relinquished that status,
``(ii) has been absent from the United States for a
continuous period in excess of 180 days,
``(iii) has engaged in illegal activity after having
departed the United States,
``(iv) has departed from the United States while under legal
process seeking removal of the alien from the United States,
including removal proceedings under this Act and extradition
proceedings,
``(v) has committed an offense identified in section
212(a)(2), unless since such offense the alien has been granted
relief under section 212(h) or 240A(a), or
``(vi) is attempting to enter at a time or place other than
as designated by immigration officers or has not been admitted
to the United States after inspection and authorization by an
immigration officer.''.


(b) Inadmissibility of Aliens Previously Removed and Unlawfully
Present.--


[[Page 110 STAT. 3009-576]]


(1) In general.--Section 212(a) (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)) is
amended by redesignating paragraph (9) as paragraph (10) and by
inserting after paragraph (8) the following new paragraph:
``(9) Aliens previously removed.--
``(A) Certain aliens previously removed.--
``(i) Arriving aliens.--Any alien who has been
ordered removed under section 235(b)(1) or at the
end of proceedings under section 240 initiated
upon the alien's arrival in the United States and
who again seeks admission within 5 years of the
date of such removal (or within 20 years in the
case of a second or subsequent removal or at any
time in the case of an alien convicted of an
aggravated felony) is inadmissible.
``(ii) Other aliens.--Any alien not described
in clause (i) who--
``(I) has been ordered removed under
section 240 or any other provision of
law, or
``(II) departed the United States
while an order of removal was
outstanding,
and who seeks admission within 10 years of the
date of such alien's departure or removal (or
within 20 years of such date in the case of a
second or subsequent removal or at any time in the
case of an alien convicted of an aggravated
felony) is inadmissible.
``(iii) Exception.--Clauses (i) and (ii) shall
not apply to an alien seeking admission within a
period if, prior to the date of the alien's
reembarkation at a place outside the United States
or attempt to be admitted from foreign contiguous
territory, the Attorney General has consented to
the alien's reapplying for admission.
``(B) Aliens unlawfully present.--
``(i) In general.--Any alien (other than an
alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence)
who--
``(I) was unlawfully present in the
United States for a period of more than
180 days but less than 1 year,
voluntarily departed the United States
(whether or not pursuant to section
244(e)) prior to the commencement of
proceedings under section 235(b)(1) or
section 240, and again seeks admission
within 3 years of the date of such
alien's departure or removal, or
``(II) has been unlawfully present
in the United States for one year or
more, and who again seeks admission
within 10 years of the date of such
alien's departure or removal from the
United States,
is inadmissible.
``(ii) Construction of unlawful presence.--For
purposes of this paragraph, an alien is deemed to
be unlawfully present in the United States if the
alien is present in the United States after the
expiration of the period of stay authorized by the
Attorney General or is present in the United
States without being admitted or paroled.


[[Page 110 STAT. 3009-577]]


``(iii) Exceptions.--
``(I) Minors.--No period of time in
which an alien is under 18 years of age
shall be taken into account in
determining the period of unlawful
presence in the United States under
clause (i).
``(II) Asylees.--No period of time
in which an alien has a bona fide
application for asylum pending under
section 208 shall be taken into account
in determining the period of unlawful
presence in the United States under
clause (i) unless the alien during such
period was employed without
authorization in the United States.
``(III) Family unity.--No period of
time in which the alien is a beneficiary
of family unity protection pursuant to
section 301 of the Immigration Act of
1990 shall be taken into account in
determining the period of unlawful
presence in the United States under
clause (i).
``(IV) Battered women and
children.--Clause (i) shall not apply to
an alien who would be described in
paragraph (6)(A)(ii) if `violation of
the terms of the alien's nonimmigrant
visa' were substituted for `unlawful
entry into the United States' in
subclause (III) of that paragraph.
``(iv) Tolling for good cause.--In the case of
an alien who--
``(I) has been lawfully admitted or
paroled into the United States,
``(II) has filed a nonfrivolous
application for a change or extension of
status before the date of expiration of
the period of stay authorized by the
Attorney General, and
``(III) has not been employed
without authorization in the United
States before or during the pendency of
such application,
the calculation of the period of time specified in
clause (i)(I) shall be tolled during the pendency
of such application, but not to exceed 120 days.
``(v) Waiver.--The Attorney General has sole
discretion to waive clause (i) in the case of an
immigrant who is the spouse or son or daughter of
a United States citizen or of an alien lawfully
admitted for permanent residence, if it is
established to the satisfaction of the Attorney
General that the refusal of admission to such
immigrant alien would result in extreme hardship
to the citizen or lawfully resident spouse or
parent of such alien. No court shall have
jurisdiction to review a decision or action by the
Attorney General regarding a waiver under this
clause.
``(C) Aliens unlawfully present after previous
immigration violations.--
``(i) In general.--Any alien who--
``(I) has been unlawfully present in
the United States for an aggregate
period of more than 1 year, or


[[Page 110 STAT. 3009-578]]


``(II) has been ordered removed
under section 235(b)(1), section 240, or
any other provision of law,
and who enters or attempts to reenter the United
States without being admitted is inadmissible.
``(ii) Exception.--Clause (i) shall not apply
to an alien seeking admission more than 10 years
after the date of the alien's last departure from
the United States if, prior to the alien's
reembarkation at a place outside the United States
or attempt to be readmitted from a foreign
contiguous territory, the Attorney General has
consented to the alien's reapplying for
admission.''.
(2) Limitation on change of status.--Section 248 (8 U.S.C.
1258) is amended by inserting ``and who is not inadmissible
under section 212(a)(9)(B)(i) (or whose inadmissibility under
such section is waived under section 212(a)(9)(B)(v))'' after
``maintain that status''.
(3) Treatment <<NOTE: 8 USC 1182 note.>> of unlawful
presence before effective date.--In applying section
212(a)(9)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as inserted
by paragraph (1), no period before the title III-A effective
date shall be included in a period of unlawful presence in the
United States.


(c) Revision to Ground of Inadmissibility for Illegal Entrants and
Immigration Violators.--
(1) In general.--Subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section
212(a)(6) (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)) are amended to read as follows:
``(A) Aliens present without admission or parole.--
``(i) In general.--An alien present in the
United States without being admitted or paroled,
or who arrives in the United States at any time or
place other than as designated by the Attorney
General, is inadmissible.
``(ii) Exception for certain battered women
and children.--Clause (i) shall not apply to an
alien who demonstrates that--
``(I) the alien qualifies for
immigrant status under subparagraph
(A)(iii), (A)(iv), (B)(ii), or (B)(iii)
of section 204(a)(1),
``(II)(a) the alien has been
battered or subjected to extreme cruelty
by a spouse or parent, or by a member of
the spouse's or parent's family residing
in the same household as the alien and
the spouse or parent consented or
acquiesced to such battery or cruelty,
or (b) the alien's child has been
battered or subjected to extreme cruelty
by a spouse or parent of the alien
(without the active participation of the
alien in the battery or cruelty) or by a
member of the spouse's or parent's
family residing in the same household as
the alien when the spouse or parent
consented to or acquiesced in such
battery or cruelty and the alien did not
actively participate in such battery or
cruelty, and


[[Page 110 STAT. 3009-579]]


``(III) there was a substantial
connection between the battery or
cruelty described in subclause (I) or
(II) and the alien's unlawful entry into
the United States.
``(B) Failure to attend removal proceeding.--Any
alien who without reasonable cause fails or refuses to
attend or remain in attendance at a proceeding to
determine the alien's inadmissibility or deportability
and who seeks admission to the United States within 5
years of such alien's subsequent departure or removal is
inadmissible. ''.
(2) Transition <<NOTE: 8 USC 1182 note.>> for battered
spouse or child provision.--The requirements of subclauses (II)
and (III) of section 212(a)(6)(A)(ii) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act, as inserted by paragraph (1), shall not apply
to an alien who demonstrates that the alien first arrived in the
United States before the title III-A effective date (described
in section 309(a) of this division).


(d) Adjustment in Grounds for Deportation.--Section 241 (8 U.S.C.
1251), before redesignation as section 237 by section 305(a)(2) of this
division, is amended--
(1) in the matter before paragraph (1) of subsection (a), by
striking ``in the United States'' and inserting ``in and
admitted to the United States'';
(2) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ``Excludable'' each
place it appears and inserting ``Inadmissible'';
(3) in subsection (a)(1)(A), by striking ``excludable'' and
inserting ``inadmissible''; and
(4) by amending subparagraph (B) of subsection (a)(1) to
read as follows:
``(B) Present in violation of law.--Any alien who is
present in the United States in violation of this Act or
any other law of the United States is deportable.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

They are in the process of committing a crime, thus, by definition, illegal.

This should be blatantly obvious. Even if you disagree with the US's INS system and prefer open borders, I don't think denying basic reality is very healthy.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Granted, the more important point is the one that Presence made earlier, that federal immigration laws are void to begin with, since they're unjust laws.

But it's worth pointing out that, even according to these void laws, there is no sense in which so-called "illegal immigrants" are continuously in the process of committing any crime, nor even a misdemeanor, just by being here.

The US Constitution authorizes Congress to legislate immigration and nationalization. Your notions of 'just' and 'unjust' are irrelevant. If you don't like it, amend the US Constitution.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Then why are you a Ron Paul supporter?

Because my position agrees with Ron Paul, and yours does not?

 

[GunnyFreedom]

If you have some logical answer to anything I've said, please share it. So far all you've done is make assertions.

I don't see any point where I've tried to pass off my personal opinion as logic.

FFS you are trying to say that an illegal alien is no longer illegal because he broke the law. There is NO logic in that bullshit whatever. That is all emotive pap.

I also don't see anything radical about my view.

You see nothing radical about the view that someone who broke the law is no longer a lawbreaker because he has continued breaking the law?

LMAO okay.

It's essentially the same as Ron Paul's.

LMAO No. Dude you are as delusional as the Trumpaloompas.

It's essentially the same policy that obtained in the US for a century after the Constitution was ratified.

LMAO No. We as a nation have legislated and performed immigration and naturalization services since the 1790's.

And it seems perfectly moderate and sensible to me. Treat other people's property as theirs, not the state's. That's all there is to it.

You are dreaming. AND you are just making bullshit up out of thin air and pretending as if that were knowledge.

 

[presence]

LMAO No. We as a nation have legislated and performed immigration and naturalization services since the 1790's.

The Naturalization Act of 1789 stated that if you were a Resident for 14 years you were eligible for Naturalization. Prior to then the threshold was 5 years.

 

[Superfluous Man]

Because as soon as you cross the border into a country, you are no longer in the country you just crossed into? You just magically float away into a special limbo where laws and reason are meaningless?

That's not true. They are in the country they crossed into. And they are not breaking any laws by being there, as you just confirmed.

Except for being here. Illegally. Thus, Illegal Immigrant.

But they're not here illegally, as you just confirmed.

Why should I? Your argument is irrational on it's face. However if you are truly interested in the law here, (which I frankly doubt, IMHO you are simply trying to distract from the fact that you have an illogical irrational emotional argument) then we can start with 104th COngress, Public Law 208, section 301:

Notice that the whole section of the US Code that you just copied and pasted agrees with me. Take special not of its repeated us of the word "unlawful," not "illegal."

Notice also that your own copy and paste includes this provision: " has filed a nonfrivolous application for a change or extension of status."

Of course, many people who file these nonfrivolous applications for change or extension of status are in reality unlawful residents (not to be confused with "illegal"). But, inasmuch as the law itself includes this very provision, their continued presence in the USA while they wait for the results of their application, is obviously not violating a law.

And notice how nowhere in your entire copy and paste does it ever include any law that is being broken in a continuous way by the people you call "illegal immigrants" merely by their continued presence in the USA.

 

[Superfluous Man]

Because my position agrees with Ron Paul, and yours does not?

I agree with Ron Paul pretty much straight down the line on immigration. I'm not sure what your position is. But the fact that you're arguing with me suggests you disagree with me and him.

I specifically like these positions of his:
Don't punish employers for hiring unlawful residents.
Allow people to enter the country without passports.
Don't require any government paperwork for anyone to prove that they are allowed to be here.
Don't build a wall.
Don't deport people merely for being unlawful residents.

 

[Superfluous Man]

You see nothing radical about the view that someone who broke the law is no longer a lawbreaker because he has continued breaking the law?

I never said they were no longer a law breaker. But we're all law breakers. Nobody has ever called me an illegal before though, just because at some point in my past I committed some misdemeanor.

 

[Superfluous Man]

The US Constitution authorizes Congress to legislate immigration and nationalization.

No it does not. It authorizes them to legislate naturalization, but not immigration.

But more importantly, even if the Constitution did authorize Congress to regulate immigration, that would just make the Constitution wrong. It's not like the Constitution is the legitimate law of the land or something.

 

[Superfluous Man]

LMAO No. We as a nation have legislated and performed immigration and naturalization services since the 1790's.

I see you like to say "LMAO" a lot in lieu of making points. Is that picture in your avatar your grandfather? Or are you just very immature?

You're actually wrong. The federal government did regulate naturalization as far back as that. But it placed no limits on mere entering of the country until much later.

I believe the first time it did so was the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882. Is that your idea of constitutionality?

 

[Superfluous Man]

This should be blatantly obvious.

Therein is the problem. You considered it so obvious that you merely assumed it, or perhaps simply believed others who told you that.

But as you can see, now that you have actually consulted the Law itself. It turns out not to be the case.

 

[Superfluous Man]

Incidentally, what's even more incendiary than calling them "illegal immigrants" is shortening that to just "illegals," like the thread title does.

Why do people use the label "illegals"? Is it not obvious to them that it's insulting? Or are they fine with that?

People who broke immigration laws are no more illegal than anyone else who broke any other law.

[MENTION=37053]lilymc[/MENTION] neg repped me for this with a comment saying that they are in the country illegally.

But that's the problem. In fact, there is no federal law that they are breaking just by being in the country.

Lilymc, if you disagree, please cite that law. Gunny just tried, and as you can see if you read what he found, he failed.

If there were such a law, it would be void, inasmuch as it would be an unjust law, and unjust laws are no laws at all. But, that's a moot point for now, since there isn't such a law.

 

[John F Kennedy III]

They're illegals. What's wrong with calling them illegals?

 

[John F Kennedy III]

[MENTION=37053]lilymc[/MENTION] neg repped me for this with a comment saying that they are in the country illegally.

But that's the problem. In fact, there is no federal law that they are breaking just by being in the country.

Lilymc, if you disagree, please cite that law. Gunny just tried, and as you can see if you read what he found, he failed.

If there were such a law, it would be void, inasmuch as it would be an unjust law, and unjust laws are no laws at all. But, that's a moot point for now, since there isn't such a law.

Eduardo?

 

[misterx]

Just because they did something illegal, that doesn't make THEM illegal.

Nope, but does make them illegal aliens versus legal aliens.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Well it's a good thing nobody has the right to have their feelings addressed.

 

[Superfluous Man]

Nope, but does make them illegal aliens versus legal aliens.

But notice how the thread title just says "illegals."

Notice also how, for some reason, people don't label others "illegal" just because they committed some misdemeanor at some point in the past in any other cases besides immigration laws. And we are seeing in this thread what the misconception is that leads many people to treat immigration laws as special. They have the mistaken belief that people who violated them are perpetually violating them just by being here, which is not the case. There is no federal law that they perpetually break just by being here. In fact, there are federal laws that govern how they can leave the country, so they actually could be violating the law by not staying.

 

[Superfluous Man]

The distinction between "unlawful" and "illegal" has come up, and it's important enough to address specifically. Here is the entry on "unlawful" from Black's Law Dictionary.

What is UNLAWFUL?
That which is contrary to law. “Unlawful” and “illegal” are frequently used as synonymous terms, but, in the proper sense of the word, “unlawful,” as applied to promises, agreements, considerations, and the like, denotes that they are ineffectual in law because they involve acts which, although not illegal, i. e., positively forbidden, are disapproved of by the law, and are therefore not recognized as the ground of legal rights, either because they are immoral or because they are against public policy. It is on this ground that contracts in restraint of marriage or of trade are generally void. Sweet. And see Hagerman v. Buchanan, 45 N. J. Eq. 292, 17 Atl. 946, 14 Am. St Rep. 732; Tatum v. State, 66 Ala. 467; Johnson v. State, 66 Ohio St. 59. 63 N. E. 607. 61 L. R. A. 277, 90 Am. St. Rep. 564; Pinder v. State, 27 Fla. 370, 8 South. 837, 26 Am. St. Rep. 75; MacDaniel v. U. S

http://thelawdictionary.org/unlawful/

N.B. The sections of the US Code Gunny pasted earlier repeatedly refer to "unlawful" residents. Nowhere did they mention such a category as illegal immigrants.

They are unlawful because the law does not give them positive legal status to reside here. They are not illegal, because there is not a law that they break simply by being here. There was a law they broke when they came, thus committing a misdemeanor (not a crime, mind you). But that was a singular act of breaking a law, just like jaywalking, not something they perpetually keep doing every second they're here.

 

[euphemia]

I do not know why this topic is still open. Immigration has been discussed to death in this forums. There is not a universal agreement one way or another. Gary Johnson has made himself and the Libertarian Party totally irrelevant.