Should we Deport Her? College student never "broke the law" until now.

[onlyrp]

When you say "countries," what you really is "regimes." Right?

What these borders delineate is the jurisdiction of each regime.

The way we look at Mexico's border with the US shouldn't be that it's where one group of tyrant's rule ends and another begins. We should view it as a place where one ends, and the other side belongs to no tyrants at all.

Unless you are either an anarchist or racist, then yes, countries are synonymous with nation, government, and jurisdictions.

 

[onlyrp]

GAME ON

You call people "illegals" absent due process.

If your whole point of this is to tell me it's not a "crime" but it's still "unlawful", you win this one. Most people are not well versed in legal terminology, so unlawful and illegal are used interchangeably. As for "civil" penalty, if it's a penalty forced on a person by the state, rather than handled at a civil court between 2 citizens as parties, it's still not a "civil" matter.

Of course, there's more than 2 kinds of courts. There's criminal prosecution, civil tort, family/divorce, arbitration, bankruptcy, traffic, and maybe a few others. Calling something civil rather than criminal doesn't suddenly make it lawful, a freedom, a right, or something authorized and unpunishable by law.

 

[Voluntary Man]

Post the mugshot, then ask again: estergoldberg.typepad.com/.a/6a0105349ca980970c01310ff448b5970c-500wi

 

[Enforcer]

I didn't say without papers. Did I?

Pure semantics which is stupid and dishonest


Civil violation? As in a person sues another person for tort and no criminal charges?

It's the same net result. The only applicable law is in a civil section of the United States Code and it never refers to the action as criminal nor can it.



Invited or not, if they can't provide adequate proof they'll be somewhere, what's in it for anybody to let them free and "skip bail"?

You don't need "bail" in order to exercise an unalienable Right


They are not violated due process, even if they didn't deserve it. Due process is not an unalienable right. A policemen doesn't ask you have to be a citizen either, just a reason to convince him you'll show up for court on the date specified. Quit making strawman arguments I never said.



Enforcement of all laws puts people at risk of losing rights. So lets abolish all criminal laws.



Just one good legal one which shows they are equally able and willing to show up in court as a person who can give his driver license or government issued ID.



I'll go check it out.



I've never been drunk on the road, but I believe typically you're in a criminal court and go to jail. That's what I've heard from the few people that I do know having DUIs. I might be wrong though. Calling me a Nazi won't help your argument.

I wanted to answer onlyrp's comment that deserves an answer this way:

onlyrp would be well served to READ a thread before trying to make a point wherein the lie has already been debunked. onlyrp wrote:

"Due process is not an unalienable right."

Let me see. Do you want the words of onlyrp on this issue OR the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT???? Let's see what they have to say about DUE PROCESS:

"The Declaration of Independence states the American creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." This ideal was not fully achieved with the adoption of our Constitution because of the hard and tragic reality of Negro slavery. The Constitution of the new Nation, while heralding liberty, in effect declared all men to be free and equal - except black men who were to be neither free nor equal. This inconsistency reflected a fundamental departure from the American creed, a departure which it took a tragic civil war to set right. With the adoption, however, of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution, freedom and equality were guaranteed expressly to all regardless "of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."1 United States v. Reese, 92 U.S. 214, 218. BELL v. MARYLAND, 378 U.S. 226 (1964)

The Fourteenth Amendment is not just about "citizens." The 14th Amendment is crystal clear. The 14th Amendment differentiates between citizens and "all persons." Here is a direct quote from that Amendment:

"...nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law..."

If onlyrp is trying to convince you that he is not a drunk, he is doing himself a disservice. What kind of man hangs out as "onlyrp" on a Ron Paul site and has never read the Constitution much less the thread he's commenting on? Hell, I was giving the man the benefit of the doubt.

Now, onlyrp is stuck. If he tells you that the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified, he is telling you that blacks and other non - whites cannot be citizens. If he read this fricking thread, he would already know this.

The only thing onlyrp can spew is "straw man," ad hominem attack (sic), enforce the laws, "illegal" aliens, "abolish all criminal laws" and other such idiotic nonsense. onlyrp is grasping at straws looking for some way to enforce laws that don't exist because what he wants trumps the Rights and Liberties of everyone else. His arguments are predicated upon rhetoric dreamed up by white supremacists who love those emotion laden words above. It's just so much pious cant as to be devoid of any real meaning.

onlyrp, get back to us AFTER you've read the thread.

 

[Enforcer]

If your whole point of this is to tell me it's not a "crime" but it's still "unlawful", you win this one. Most people are not well versed in legal terminology, so unlawful and illegal are used interchangeably. As for "civil" penalty, if it's a penalty forced on a person by the state, rather than handled at a civil court between 2 citizens as parties, it's still not a "civil" matter.

Of course, there's more than 2 kinds of courts. There's criminal prosecution, civil tort, family/divorce, arbitration, bankruptcy, traffic, and maybe a few others. Calling something civil rather than criminal doesn't suddenly make it lawful, a freedom, a right, or something authorized and unpunishable by law.

onlyrp, I did not say that coming into the United States is illegal. I NEVER said it was unlawful. It is improper. The violation is in a civil section of the United States Code and cases are decided in an immigration court that is purely CIVIL. Let's ask Attorney General Michael Mukasey (who ruled as the highest ranking immigration official in the United States):

Attorney General Michael Mukasey, the HIGHEST RANKING IMMIGRATION OFFICIAL IN THE UNITED STATES RULED in the Matter of Enrique Salas COMPEAN, Respondent File A078 566 977[/B]:

"Aliens in removal proceedings have no right to counsel, including Government-appointed
counsel, under the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution because the Sixth Amendment
applies only to criminal proceedings and removal proceedings are civil in nature."

http://www.justice.gov/eoir/vll/intdec/vol24/3632.pdf

This is in post #438 of this thread. onlyrp needs to READ this thread before giving you that liberal, NEW WORLD ORDER / National Socialist drivel.

 

[kylejack]

I think you made my point, you have some way of showing you can be found, so you are trusted to be release to appear later.

I have utility bill, like many undocumented immigrants. Yet they still get detained.

 

[AuH20]

Quite frankly, I think we need a separate thread for some of you guys to explain what in the hell an open border advocate is. If your amateurish pretexts for supporting racism are any indication of you contemplating a debate with someone that didn't fall down with last week's rain, let's put that crap to sleep right now.

While all this crap about welfare dependent foreigners (your Freudian slip called the foreigners citizens) may sound good on paper, the bottom line is that undocumented workers were barred from getting entitlements in 1996. When in the HELL are you anti - immigrant types going to join us in the 21st Century?????

Additionally, I have already debunked the myth of a welfare dependent society made up of undocumented foreigners. In a study done by the Congressional Budget Office, they concluded:

"Although it is difficult to obtain precise estimates of the net impact of the unauthorized population on state and local budgets
(see Box 1), that impact is most likely modest."

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/87xx/doc8711/12-6-immigration.pdf

You bring up EMTALA, but forget to tell the readers here that the most likely person to use such services is an American. The only thing EMTLALA does is to make sure hospitals don't turn people down for emergency care for lack of funds. What you fail to understand is that while hospitals have to treat a person, they do not forgive the bill. The money is still due and payable. Foreigners pay - and the cash price is always higher than prices negotiated with insurance companies for the same treatment.

We could do an entire thread on this and I would run you into the ground on this issue since it is where I started in understanding this hatred toward foreigners. I worked for Travelers Insurance for over five years and got a good education on this aspect of the debate.

Finally, while you are pointing the finger at foreigners, let me do a short analysis for you:

In Georgia, the largest group of recipients receiving Peach Care (taxpayer paid medical services for children) is NOT undocumented foreigners. It's not even blacks or some other racial minority. No way. The group that has the largest numbers of children on Peachcare is Wal Mart employees. That is followed by Publix Grocery stores.

What you REALLY don't want to talk about in this debate is the other side of the ledger sheet where we find undocumented foreigners paying some $9 BILLION DOLLARS per year into Socialist Security ... and they can NEVER draw one thin dime out in retirement.

You can come here all day with these false allegations, but they simply do not hold water. Taking everything into account, study after study says that the foreigners being here and contributing to our economy versus the "drain" they are to people like the xenophobes, virtually every economist will tell you it's all a wash - it is NOT a net negative impact on our economy. See this study as an example:

http://irps.ucsd.edu/assets/037/11124.pdf

Keep bringing the excuses, we'll keep examining them under a microscope.

Enforcer, I admire your tenacity but you are wrong on several points. I just got back from vacation and I want to correct you.

(1) This 1996 statement about illegals not receiving benefits is pure nonsense. Medicaid, funded cooperatively by the respective states and federal government, has been providing non-emergency care for illegal aliens for some time. Secondly, a household with one U.S. citizen (e.g. see the anchor baby phenomenon which our friend Dr. Paul is not a fan of) is eligible for the food stamp program. There an assortment of loopholes and state-by-state variables which do provide entitlement benefits to non-citizens.

(2) Secondly, you assert that hospitals "do not forgive the bill" for patients who are forced upon by their facilities by EMTALA. You are only partially correct in that the costs are then shifted to those who can afford to pay, which runs in direct contrast to the key precepts of the free market. In fact, according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 55% of U.S. emergency care in the nation now goes uncompensated.

(3) You characterize many of your opponents as being racially motivated when the numbers prove firsthand (whether it's a 73% approval rating of a Barack Obama or the 100 billion annual price tag for the illegal experience) that open borders will lead to the stifling of liberty as opposed to the flourishing of it. I'm personally aghast at the parasitic nature of domestic, White Americans and I certainly do not want to add to the problem by importing another class of dependents, who are ripe for exploitation, thanks to their dismal view of our globalized "sham capitalism" and lack of education.

In a perfect world, I wish we didn't have borders, but until you can explain to me, how you're going to abolish property taxes, county taxes, state taxes, medicaid, medicare, federal taxes, and government induced cost shifting by next week, you're advocating that your fellow Americans are obligated to pay an inordinate share for the comforts of non-native interlopers, when many are already irate about subsidizing the various native parasites?

 

[Cutlerzzz]

A free market in labor is not a liberal idea.

It's very Liberal. Freedom is a Liberal idea.

 

[MelissaWV]

By the time the same five people hash this out, it won't matter. She'll have died of old age.

 

[Danke]

It's actually illegal to enter the US as a non-citizen without coming through designated immigration entrances. It's also illegal to stay beyond what you're allowed to, illegal, unlawful, criminal and pretty much synonymous here. Whether you like the law does not change whether it exists. So before you spit back "what about due process, what happened to innocent until proven guilty"? If you came in through an undesignated point, or are found near undesignated areas, what do you call that other than "probable cause"? Traffic violators aren't automatically guilty when handed a ticket either, they're asked to appear in court where they'll be given a trial, where he can present his argument against his accuser. So, if immigration was enforced the same way, would that be fair? The problem is, immigrants who do not have identification or registrations, CAN'T BE TRACKED OR FOUND as easily, because they unlike drivers, residents, or otherwise people with utility bills attached to their name and address, they cannot be compelled to show up in court on a signature. That's the "privilege" or being a legal citizen, we know where you live so we trust you won't flake out on us. So if you can't show reason to be trust to show, why SHOULD police let go you on "innocent until proven guilty"?

As much as I resist responding to this type of BS. ok, I'm here. Now I don't have any government papers. Where are you going to send me?

 

[onlyrp]

I wanted to answer onlyrp's comment that deserves an answer this way:

before I read the rest, I find it a bit hypocritical that you insist over unlawful, illegal, criminal, civil proceeding, when you know it is not "perfectly legal", which is fine, it's good to be specific. However, when you put words in my mouth such as "have papers ready for inspection at all times and places", I was just making sure you didn't misread what I said, you say "stupid semantics".

 

[onlyrp]

Now, onlyrp is stuck. If he tells you that the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified, he is telling you that blacks and other non - whites cannot be citizens. If he read this fricking thread, he would already know this.

Nope, I won't say any amendment was improperly or illegally ratified (that's for conspiracy theorists and tax evaders). I will say that the very fact they were necessary to secure rights for non-whites, and women, means that , much like the Supreme Court's opinion, our constitution did not cover the minorities when it was written, and furthermore, the obvious fact, DoI is not law (you know that, I'm sure).

I don't think I ever denied that non-citizens are entitled to due process, if I have, I will take that back. I did say, that due process varies based on what crime or law you break. And citizens can be bailed and released as long as they can show they have a way of being found, non-citizens can too (as somebody mentioned). It's not making you guilty until proven innocent, it's making sure if you want a trial, you hold up your end of the bargain. Skipping bail is not an unalienable right, no more than trespass or escaping prison is an unalienable right.

The only thing onlyrp can spew is "straw man," ad hominem attack (sic), enforce the laws, "illegal" aliens, "abolish all criminal laws" and other such idiotic nonsense. onlyrp is grasping at straws looking for some way to enforce laws that don't exist because what he wants trumps the Rights and Liberties of everyone else.

No, I don't want to trump rights of everybody else. Just non-citizens. Saying something is a right doesn't suddenly make it lawful or legal.

His arguments are predicated upon rhetoric dreamed up by white supremacists who love those emotion laden words above. It's just so much pious cant as to be devoid of any real meaning.

onlyrp, get back to us AFTER you've read the thread.

I'll do my best, thanks.

 

[onlyrp]

I have utility bill, like many undocumented immigrants. Yet they still get detained.

Sorry to keep asking questions, I am genuinely curious. Did they present it as a means of identifying themselves or show of good faith that they're willing to show up in court? In what situation were they detained, were they just hanging out and walking on streets? Or driving? Were they driving without a license or without registration?

 

[onlyrp]

(3) You characterize many of your opponents as being racially motivated when the numbers prove firsthand (whether it's a 73% approval rating of a Barack Obama or the 100 billion annual price tag for the illegal experience) that open borders will lead to the stifling of liberty as opposed to the flourishing of it. I'm personally aghast at the parasitic nature of domestic, White Americans and I certainly do not want to add to the problem by importing another class of dependents, who are ripe for exploitation, thanks to their dismal view of our globalized "sham capitalism" and lack of education.

The fact that open borders allows immigrants to either enjoy rights of citizens, or vote to change our system, gets completely lost on these people. Do they think immigrants are libertarians and capitalists? Do they think immigrants WANT to keep their low wages if they could demand better? Immigrants are happy to take lower wages by American standards because they're higher than what they get at home, but who'd ever turn down higher wages if they had protection, wait til anti-discrimination laws kick in once immigrants are either legalized or authorized to work and authorized to demand wage protection.

Some think naively "Oh, once they're paid minimum wage, they'll lose their competitive edge because Americans would hire Americans if they pay the same anyway". Nonsense, by that time anybody who doesn't hire enough immigrants or a certain skin color will be sued for racism or discrimination against non-English speakers.

 

[Enforcer]

Enforcer, I admire your tenacity but you are wrong on several points. I just got back from vacation and I want to correct you.

(1) This 1996 statement about illegals not receiving benefits is pure nonsense. Medicaid, funded cooperatively by the respective states and federal government, has been providing non-emergency care for illegal aliens for some time. Secondly, a household with one U.S. citizen (e.g. see the anchor baby phenomenon which our friend Dr. Paul is not a fan of) is eligible for the food stamp program. There an assortment of loopholes and state-by-state variables which do provide entitlement benefits to non-citizens.

(2) Secondly, you assert that hospitals "do not forgive the bill" for patients who are forced upon by their facilities by EMTALA. You are only partially correct in that the costs are then shifted to those who can afford to pay, which runs in direct contrast to the key precepts of the free market. In fact, according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 55% of U.S. emergency care in the nation now goes uncompensated.

(3) You characterize many of your opponents as being racially motivated when the numbers prove firsthand (whether it's a 73% approval rating of a Barack Obama or the 100 billion annual price tag for the illegal experience) that open borders will lead to the stifling of liberty as opposed to the flourishing of it. I'm personally aghast at the parasitic nature of domestic, White Americans and I certainly do not want to add to the problem by importing another class of dependents, who are ripe for exploitation, thanks to their dismal view of our globalized "sham capitalism" and lack of education.

In a perfect world, I wish we didn't have borders, but until you can explain to me, how you're going to abolish property taxes, county taxes, state taxes, medicaid, medicare, federal taxes, and government induced cost shifting by next week, you're advocating that your fellow Americans are obligated to pay an inordinate share for the comforts of non-native interlopers, when many are already irate about subsidizing the various native parasites?

You say I'm wrong, but fail to provide a single, solitary cite in order to back the claim. IF you want to debate this side of the argument, let me warn you:

I worked for Travelers Insurance for over five years before getting into this fight from the angle I'm approaching it. YOU are the one that is wrong. If you'd like to debate it, factually, we can do so. The bottom line is, hospitals cannot refuse treatment, but they DO collect for services rendered.

Undocumented workers are going to pay because they do not want Uncle Scam knocking at their door with legal papers of any kind. The PRICE they pay for a service is much higher than what an insured pays. Now, let me give you a preview of what you're in for if you'd like to debate this:

In Georgia, we have what is called Peachcare. Peachcare is, essentially, Medicare for kids. What group is the most in number drawing Peachcare? The people you want to call "illegal" aliens? NO, try again... Maybe blacks? NO. The people most represented on that program is the children of Wal Mart employees. Second place goes to the children of Publix Grocery chain.

When it comes to hospitals, the cash customers, which includes the undocumented foreigner, the cash customers end up subsidizing the people with insurance. Bear in mind, insurance companies can negotiate much lower rates for the services that cash customers receive. BTW, I've already cited a study that gets to the bottom line on this. So, if you want to take me on, quit saying I'm wrong and produce some studies that back your claim.

 

[Enforcer]

The fact that open borders allows immigrants to either enjoy rights of citizens, or vote to change our system, gets completely lost on these people. Do they think immigrants are libertarians and capitalists? Do they think immigrants WANT to keep their low wages if they could demand better? Immigrants are happy to take lower wages by American standards because they're higher than what they get at home, but who'd ever turn down higher wages if they had protection, wait til anti-discrimination laws kick in once immigrants are either legalized or authorized to work and authorized to demand wage protection.

Some think naively "Oh, once they're paid minimum wage, they'll lose their competitive edge because Americans would hire Americans if they pay the same anyway". Nonsense, by that time anybody who doesn't hire enough immigrants or a certain skin color will be sued for racism or discrimination against non-English speakers.

Are you smoking weed again? READ this thread. Undocumented foreigners do not vote. As for minimum wages, etc. the reality is, the undocumented foreigners drive wages up, not down. It's pitiful that you cannot understand the economics of your own country.

 

[onlyrp]

Are you smoking weed again? READ this thread. Undocumented foreigners do not vote. As for minimum wages, etc. the reality is, the undocumented foreigners drive wages up, not down. It's pitiful that you cannot understand the economics of your own country.

Currently they don't, because US doesn't have an official open borders policy, but if we did, they would likely be given it, not sure if that's a bad thing though.

Undocumented foreigners drive wages up? I didn't know that, I am honestly willing to listen, how does that happen? Is it because they fill in jobs people don't look for, forcing people to find employment at less blue collar, more white collar jobs?

 

[onlyrp]

The bottom line is, hospitals cannot refuse treatment, but they DO collect for services rendered.

Do you think its a violation of private property to force private hospitals to render services for people who they have no proof can pay? Or do you think that's just the rule of the business, if they don't like it, they should move to another country and if that means less medical services for everybody, so be it?

 

[onlyrp]

Undocumented workers are going to pay because they do not want Uncle Scam knocking at their door with legal papers of any kind.

except that doesn't happen as often as you'd like, and if it did, you'd be at their defense. You're assuming they provide enough information to allow them to be chased to their door, that's the only way they'd have a door to knock, and if they had that, they'd have less reason for police to detain them after being pulled over.

 

[Enforcer]

before I read the rest, I find it a bit hypocritical that you insist over unlawful, illegal, criminal, civil proceeding, when you know it is not "perfectly legal", which is fine, it's good to be specific. However, when you put words in my mouth such as "have papers ready for inspection at all times and places", I was just making sure you didn't misread what I said, you say "stupid semantics".

Illegal acts are crimes outlawed by law - can only be a crime
Unlawful acts are acts that are not permitted by law - can be listed as a crime OR a civil violation
Improper Entry is an improper act, not a crime. It means that a person simply did not do it properly and committed a civil breach, which is NOT a crime.

For God's sake, read the fricking thread. I covered this. Attorney General Michael Mukasey admonished the liberal American Bar Association with these words (already in this thread):

“Not every wrong, or even every violation of the law, is a crime,”

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/08/12...ong-or-every-violation-of-the-law-is-a-crime/

Give it a rest onlyrp. No amount of jailhouse lawyering or semantic playing is helping you prove a case that we've already discussed in the course of this thread. Please read it and quit embarrassing yourself.