The Glade 4.0

Duh, he married her /tease

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

I'm not sure about any of the specifics, it was all taken care of years ago. I know her family applied when she was around 13 and it still hadn't gone through by the time she turned 21, which started some kind of **** as she was no longer applicable under her family. They wanted her to reapply and start the process over, so she had to get a lawyer to work some magic. She got her permanent resident card shortly after and will be eligible to apply for actual citizenship next year, I think.

If someone reports a crime and, in the process, is identified as being a wanted felon, should that person be taken into custody?

How about found in violation of parole?
Wanted on a bench warrant?
Has a bunch of unpaid parking tickets?
Found some weed on them?

Would the deterrent effect of a penalty be a deterrent if the penalty is never enforced?

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

I concur.

That being said, it isn't a rule system for which I believe civil disobedience (meaning non-compliance) is an appropriate protest.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

That's about what I suspected. Thanks for answering.

edit: to clarify, this kind of nonsense is why I say that the time consuming nature of obtaining an immigrant visa is the worst aspect of the process There is no reason it should take 8 years to say "Yes" or "No". Even if a quota limit is the reason, it should not be that hard to project how long it will take and tell someone "Yes, in this many years you can become a legal resident". Then people can plan their lives. This is why you (occasionally) get a woman with a USC husband and 2 USC children sneaking into the country. It's pure bureaucracy.

By the way, yes, I did process an illegal immigrant with that exact situation. Thankfully, she had been in the U.S. over 14 days. That meant she had to go see a judge. Had she been apprehended at entry, I would have had no choice but to order her summarily deported without further review. She is not a typical illegal immigrant. I did advise her to A) make sure she went to court B) that she have an immigration lawyer (free immigration lawyers are common; we customarily give out a list of them to illegals that are not in a reinstatement of prior deprtation status) and C) that, whatever the judge decides, she comply. It is much better to be deported for 3 years and then pursue a legal avenue of entry, especially with USC children and husband, than to sneak in and get a 10 or 20 year deportation.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Yeah immigration should be easier to comply. So should the tax code, but you know what happens if you don't comply with that.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

By the way, if anyone wants to ask serious questions about immigration law, I graduated first in my class. I am not a lawyer, but I do know where to research the answers if you have questions. If necessary, I'll ask a supervisor.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

For me, it's just a cost/benefit analysis. I'm more concerned with busting people who commit violent crimes and serious property crimes than I am with busting illegal immigrants, so I favor looking the other way on the immigration violation when an illegal immigrant reports a crime, based on the theory that doing so will increase the likelihood of reporting.

I don't reach the same conclusion when the reporter's crime is something other than an immigration violation, though, for two *three* reasons: (i) I suspect the population of illegal immigrants is much larger, more stable and more integrated into "normal life" than the population of parole violators and people with bench warrants, so the cost/benefit effect of having or not having a "reporter amnesty" is much larger and longer-lasting when applied to illegal immigrants; (ii) I consider immigration violations to be low-damage, largely victimless crimes, whereas the kinds of crimes for which people would be on parole (and in violation thereof) and/or be subject to a bench warrant are probably more directly harmful ones; and (iii) I think the parole violators and bench warrant folks are probably much more likely to go out and commit further crimes of a serious and directly harmful nature.

*ETA reason number (iii), which, upon further reflection, I realize is kind of crucial.

Well, for one thing "immigration violator" and "criminal" are not exclusive to each other.

While immigration is a "victimless crime" in the sense that a particular person is not harmed by it, it does harm the country as a whole, especially when the sheer volume of illegal immigrants as a whole is considered.

All illegal aliens are not created equal. They come in 3 basic flavors:

1) Those that are here legally in the first place, but are "out of status" somehow; for example they are here on a tourist (B2) visa but are working, which they are not permitted to do.
2) They were here legally, but their visa has expired or the condition that allowed them to obtain the visa no longer exists; for example they were engaged to be married to a U.S. citizen but broke off the engagement.
3) They never were legally here in any sense; they just crossed the river/fence and sneaked in.

Those in the first 2 categories may very well be "integrated" into normal life better than a typical felon, but those in the third category are not. They are the most likely not to speak English, to not have a job on which they pay any taxes (they're paid a pittance, and totally under the table) and they really have no particular interest in becoming a U.S. citizen or even permanent resident. They're here for a few years to make a little money because there are no jobs back in <insert Departamento or Estado here> and then they plan to go back to an extended family. For example, dad might have been here a year and then junior sneaks in to live with dad and work under the table for another 2 years, then they plan to head back to Guatemala or El Salvador or whatever for a while, and then eventually one or both, or maybe mom this time will come back to the U.S. again to get a little more money.

It's important to note that the first two categories are not necessarily immigrants at all. They are very likely to have originally been here in a nonimmigrant status. The third category isn't necessarily immigrants either in the practical sense because they don't usually want to stay here permanently, but legally they are considered immigrants because they have no paperwork. Any arriving alien applying for admission (which is what an illegal alien is considered when caught) is considered an immigrant unless they have paperwork to establish that they are a nonimmigrant.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

So what's the cost/benefit analysis of undermining rule of law by knowingly "looking away" from crimes? From doing so subjectively? From disbursement of that authority? Etc.

Laws should be plainly written and insubjectively enforced.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

First off - a belated welcome back, DFK! Very glad you're back!

To your question, I was actually thinking more along the lines of "looking the other way" as a matter of statute, rather than on-the-fly decisions by investigating authorities. So, basically, there would be a law on the books granting some kind of qualified immunity from detention/deportation for unrelated immigration violations in the context of reporting a crime. Maybe something like whistleblower or good samaritan statutes (though the analogies are obviously not perfect).

Regarding your larger point, I think a degree of subjectivity in the law and uncertainty in its enforcement are features, not bugs. It's impossible to draft a statute that addresses every possible situation, and to the extent you try, you just end up sacrificing clarity for the sake of scope (e.g., multi-thousand page statutes addressing every contingency the drafters can think of) and justice/fairness for the sake of consistency (e.g., a mitigating circumstance gets ignored because, despite their extensive efforts, the drafters hadn't considered it). Also, people aren't mindless, soulless machines, and a legal system that tries to turn its agents into that isn't one that bodes well for humanity, in my opinion.

It's always puzzling to me how when our ancestors were immigrants they were noble and part of what made this nation great. But today immigrants are somehow this scourge that is destroying our country.

Immigration does not harm the country as a whole. The laws that give them benefits taken forcibly from others do.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Because the world does not remain static. Why would this be in any way puzzling to you?

We aren't getting the same kind of mass immigration that we did back in the late 19th and early 20th century. Back then, people were leaving their countries entirely behind. Now, they're just basically coming here to do some short-term work, and then most likely go back. Around the holidays every year, illegal immigration slows way down because people go home for Christmas or whatever. Then, there's a big flood that starts in mid-January and can last well into May or June as people come back again.

Not only that, but we simply don't need the manpower the way we did back then. Our situation has changed. We do not have a need for large numbers of unskilled laborers and our immigration laws reflect that. The "need" is entirely created by the illegals themselves.

It does not reflect any sort of hypocrisy on our part that immigration is not regarded the same way as we regard the immigration of the past (and in truth, at the time that immigration was happening it wasn't always regarded that well anyhow.) The nation has changed, the world has changed, and the immigrants have changed.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I had planned to stay for two years and go home when I arrived.

Yes, but you came here legally.

We have visa programs for people to do that sort of thing. That doesn't entitle every single person who wants to come here to do so just because we accepted a lot of immigrants a hundred years ago.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

People come to the United States and stay longer than they planned. Big surprise. That's how that works. That doesn't mean the illegal immigrants are giving you a snow job. People change their mind and want to stay when they find out what living here is like.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

The issue at hand is whether people are allowed to stay here, not whether they want to.

But then, I only speak to these people in their native language, interview them, and deal with them on a daily basis. Clearly, I need you to tell me about their motivations.

Tell me something, what's the difference between pisto in Mexico and in Honduras?

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

What do you do for a living DE?

I work for a certain agency that apprehends people who enter the country at places other than designated ports of entry. We wear green uniforms. We have to learn Spanish at least passably well as a prerequisite to the job, as well as immigration law. The vast majority of my co-workers are Hispanic; many grew up at least part of the time in Mexico and have relatives there. We work out in the brush, cactuses, and dust that are found along the Rio Grande river or the land border as you get into Arizona.

Note especially the part about my co-workers. A number of them are immigrants. Many more have relatives that are citizens of countries other than the U.S. They came here legally and did it the right way. More importantly, they speak the language and understand the culture of the countries that send illegal immigrants.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I pretty much disagree with this entire viewpoint. Subjectivity of law creates despotism, whether minor or grand.

Furthermore, the idea of creating a statute for "every situation" is only an argument, to me, for minimal regulation and legislation. If you have to make comprehensive laws, you aren't going to make as many.

Granted this would put all the lawyers out of work, but that's a net economic gain since they aren't a value-add.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

While absolute clarity of law should certainly be a goal, everyone needs to understand that it's an impossible goal.

Perfection is the enemy of good.

I like it when laws are generally enforced. Cops have a little leeway to say hey i'm gonna let you off with a warning now and then (with this being a privilege and not a right of the criminal), but if I law is going to be the law, then it should be generally enforced.

Otherwise its all subjective and too much open to abuse/favoritism.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

Except that it doesn't. Subjectivity isn't what creates despotism; despots create despotism. No system of law can prevent a despot from taking power unless people adhere to it. People will not adhere to a system of law because it follows arbitrary principle; they adhere to it because it improves the condition of society in the practical sense.



The problem with this is that making fewer laws is not a goal in and of itself. The only reason to make fewer laws given has been the need to make them comprehensive. The only reason to make them comprehensive given is that total avoidance of subjectivity at any cost is, for some reason, desirable. The only reason for that given is "avoiding despotism". No causal relationship between discretion or exceptions in law has been established.



You vastly overestimate the degree to which law can be made simple and not subject to interpretation. It would be nice to have everyone agree on what the law means, but that is impossible. Everything but the very simplest is subject to interpretation.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

_________________