Conquer Club

jimboston wrote:In a criminal case, obviously you are innocent until proven guilty.

Being an "illegal alien" is not the same as committing a criminal act.

You are either a legal alien (legal resident) or you aren't... there's really no "gray area" here.

Should the law have to "prove" someone is illegal aline before deporting them... yes to an extent.
The prove is the lack of documentation... so onus fails on the individual.

If border patrol catches someone crossing a border... not through a normal check-point or crossing... then they should simply turn them back. There's no reason for due process in a case like this. It's not the same as a criminal act, even though we use similar terms. Equating the two is illogical.

Not really- the logic is that due process should be used to decide if someone has broken the law. Innocent until proven illegal and all that.

Symmetry wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Kind of a test of how far you believe in due process this one.

I don't understand the question. Are you talking about an illegal immigrant? Are you speaking of a particular case?

More of a hypothetical. Could an immigrant be presumed illegal under the law without due process, which assumes innocence?

Ah, glad I saw this before answering.

My initial was to say almost always that a person should be innocent prior to a trial, with the exception of when a person is deemed to be an imminent threat to others.. then self-defense warrants judgement without a trial. A related, rare exception would involve something like martial law or war. In those cases, snap decisions have to be made that might be wrong, but are deemed necessary for safety. (with the definite caveat that this should be VERY rare indeed)

In all other cases, the trial must come first.

Saying that someone is illegal and therefore has no right to a trial is only justifiable if the person is proven to be illegal.. and the trial for the other offense is deemed moot. In other words, there could be cases where they get a trial proving they are here illegally, and then don't get a trial for a lessor offense. If the case is major, though -- say murder or some such, a declaration of illegality is irrelevant, though it might influence the penalty.

jimboston wrote:In a criminal case, obviously you are innocent until proven guilty.

Being an "illegal alien" is not the same as committing a criminal act.

You are either a legal alien (legal resident) or you aren't... there's really no "gray area" here.

Should the law have to "prove" someone is illegal aline before deporting them... yes to an extent.
The prove is the lack of documentation... so onus fails on the individual.

If border patrol catches someone crossing a border... not through a normal check-point or crossing... then they should simply turn them back. There's no reason for due process in a case like this. It's not the same as a criminal act, even though we use similar terms. Equating the two is illogical.

It REALLY depends upon the circumstances. In particular, that bit about documentation is a very, very touchy subject. See, most of us are not required to walk around with ANY documentation, so the assumption that not having it means you are here illegally basically comes down to "if you look like you or sound like you are not born here, you had better have documentation" That is very much the crux of the problem with recent Arizona laws.

In the border patrol cases, the reason it is justified is that the people are "caught in the act". If they are caught outside of the border, different rules apply, just like police are allowed to act in one manner if they come upon someone actually in the process of stealing TVs from a store or robbing a bank, versus finding someone who they believe to have done so, after the event. (and then, if they run, avoid the police.. that is yet another element).

PLAYER57832 wrote:

jimboston wrote:In a criminal case, obviously you are innocent until proven guilty.

Being an "illegal alien" is not the same as committing a criminal act.

You are either a legal alien (legal resident) or you aren't... there's really no "gray area" here.

Should the law have to "prove" someone is illegal aline before deporting them... yes to an extent.
The prove is the lack of documentation... so onus fails on the individual.

If border patrol catches someone crossing a border... not through a normal check-point or crossing... then they should simply turn them back. There's no reason for due process in a case like this. It's not the same as a criminal act, even though we use similar terms. Equating the two is illogical.

It REALLY depends upon the circumstances. In particular, that bit about documentation is a very, very touchy subject. See, most of us are not required to walk around with ANY documentation, so the assumption that not having it means you are here illegally basically comes down to "if you look like you or sound like you are not born here, you had better have documentation" That is very much the crux of the problem with recent Arizona laws.

In the border patrol cases, the reason it is justified is that the people are "caught in the act". If they are caught outside of the border, different rules apply, just like police are allowed to act in one manner if they come upon someone actually in the process of stealing TVs from a store or robbing a bank, versus finding someone who they believe to have done so, after the event. (and then, if they run, avoid the police.. that is yet another element).

No. It's very easy for authorities to verify that we are who we say we are. There's no reason to randomly stop people. If someone however is doing something suspicious... say like crossing the border at night and NOT through a normal check-point or crossing... then one could readily assume that person is illegal. Pretty good assumption there.

Symmetry wrote: Innocent until proven illegal and all that.

Really?

That's interesting how you appear to be confusing the term "illegal" with the term "guilty".

Cocaine is illegal... someone using cocaine is only guilty if we can prove in a court of law that they were using the illegal substance.

What is "due process" to determine if that white powered is cocaine or just baking soda?
... simple, you test it. It it tests as cocaine then it's cocaine.

We don't need to go to court to determine if that substance is actually cocaine.

So... what is "due process" to determine if a person is legally in this country?
... simple, you ask for documentation. If said person can't produce it after a reasonable amount of time then they are illegal.

fadedpsychosis wrote:hell, deport me to denmark... nicest place I've ever been, even if a tad expensive

Was it the castles or the prostitutes that sold you?

jimboston wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

jimboston wrote:In a criminal case, obviously you are innocent until proven guilty.

Being an "illegal alien" is not the same as committing a criminal act.

You are either a legal alien (legal resident) or you aren't... there's really no "gray area" here.

Should the law have to "prove" someone is illegal aline before deporting them... yes to an extent.
The prove is the lack of documentation... so onus fails on the individual.

If border patrol catches someone crossing a border... not through a normal check-point or crossing... then they should simply turn them back. There's no reason for due process in a case like this. It's not the same as a criminal act, even though we use similar terms. Equating the two is illogical.

It REALLY depends upon the circumstances. In particular, that bit about documentation is a very, very touchy subject. See, most of us are not required to walk around with ANY documentation, so the assumption that not having it means you are here illegally basically comes down to "if you look like you or sound like you are not born here, you had better have documentation" That is very much the crux of the problem with recent Arizona laws.

In the border patrol cases, the reason it is justified is that the people are "caught in the act". If they are caught outside of the border, different rules apply, just like police are allowed to act in one manner if they come upon someone actually in the process of stealing TVs from a store or robbing a bank, versus finding someone who they believe to have done so, after the event. (and then, if they run, avoid the police.. that is yet another element).

No. It's very easy for authorities to verify that we are who we say we are. There's no reason to randomly stop people. .

You cannot possibly be THAT naive!

Funkyterrance wrote:

fadedpsychosis wrote:hell, deport me to denmark... nicest place I've ever been, even if a tad expensive

Was it the castles or the prostitutes that sold you?

Ironically enough, Det er en sted hvor jeg kunne godt hvaer....

I would say, to by default "being Illegal", yes, I consider anyone who breaks any sort of prescribed rule for a situation an "Illegal" something, (You have preformed an illegal operation, that is an illegal command, etc) by that definition, pretty much everyone is a committer of "Illegal" acts, not United States Laws always, but by some rule or another.
Aside from semantics, I would say that, while it is clear where the laws stand, it is unclear where the burden of proof stands.
For example, in a movie theater, if you suck into a movie without paying, you by default have broken a movie theater's rules, and are an "illegal viewer".
The usher’s job is to keep the rules of the movie theater, if he has reason to believe you snuck in and you cannot prove otherwise, he may throw you out.
But let's say that Viewer A purchases a ticket, it's a busy day and none of the employees can really remember her face over anyone else's, she gives the ticket to the ticket taker and gets back the stub without a word, she crumples up the stub and tosses it in a trash can. Later, at some point during the movie she leaves to get popcorn, and for whatever reason the usher mistakenly believes she snuck into the movie, what should be done at this point?
Is the usher's experience alone enough to place a customer under suspicion?
Is it the viewer’s fault for not taking care of the ticket stub?
Is it the theater's/ticket-taker's fault for not placing adequate emphasis on saving the ticket stub?
By denying the customer services, the theater would be breaking the laws of the transaction.
But if there is no reasonable measure to prove anyone "guilty", then anyone can sneak around movies without repercussions.

I would say that the logical middle ground would be to increase the means to prove the crime, secutity cameras or the like to prove the crime took place.

In the same way, I think the standard for immigration, voting, etc. should be the same, if the government wants to ask for proof for a given rule being followed, then they should ensure said proof is provided to everyone that standard applies to.

jimboston wrote:
So... what is "due process" to determine if a person is legally in this country?
... simple, you ask for documentation. If said person can't produce it after a reasonable amount of time then they are illegal.

I see, and what kind of documentation is acceptable?

See, a good many older Americans and even a few not so old don't have legal documentation, cannot get a passport, cannot run for election, and it seems before long may not be able to vote, despite having very much been born here.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

jimboston wrote:
So... what is "due process" to determine if a person is legally in this country?
... simple, you ask for documentation. If said person can't produce it after a reasonable amount of time then they are illegal.

I see, and what kind of documentation is acceptable?

See, a good many older Americans and even a few not so old don't have legal documentation, cannot get a passport, cannot run for election, and it seems before long may not be able to vote, despite having very much been born here.

... My dear mother is 74, confined to a wheelchair, and SOMEHOW, God only knows how, she managed to get an ID to vote in Illinois.

... If you want to vote, make a freaking effort. It's the least one can do for the privilege.

... (wait a minute... what thread was this again? )

What do you mean by "presumed illegal?"

At some point prior to an arrest, there is a belief by the arresting agent that the person he or she is arresting is an illegal immigrant. This alleged illegal immigrant is likely placed in holding. This occurs with any other person allegedly violating the law.

In any event, due process applies to immigrants, legal and illegal, so it's kind of a moot point.

Nobunaga wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

jimboston wrote:
So... what is "due process" to determine if a person is legally in this country?
... simple, you ask for documentation. If said person can't produce it after a reasonable amount of time then they are illegal.

I see, and what kind of documentation is acceptable?

See, a good many older Americans and even a few not so old don't have legal documentation, cannot get a passport, cannot run for election, and it seems before long may not be able to vote, despite having very much been born here.

... My dear mother is 74, confined to a wheelchair, and SOMEHOW, God only knows how, she managed to get an ID to vote in Illinois.

She had help

Nobunaga wrote:... If you want to vote, make a freaking effort. It's the least one can do for the privilege.

... (wait a minute... what thread was this again? )

Not that one... but the requirements for voter IDs are much less than the requirements for passports and other officially accepted documention of legal residency. Ironic, but true.

Or, put this another way.... how on Earth are you supposed to get a birth certificate when one was never issued? You may believe this doesn't happen, but it was common in past decades.

PLAYER57832 wrote:No. It's very easy for authorities to verify that we are who we say we are. There's no reason to randomly stop people. .

You cannot possibly be THAT naive! [/quote]

I am NOT proposing to randomly stop people.

Does that happen... maybe.

I don't advocate that.

That said... if I am stopped by a cop and asked for ID, I say "Yes sir" and give the guy my license. It's not really that much of a hassle.
I think it's mostly a hassle for people who are illegal.

thegreekdog wrote:What do you mean by "presumed illegal?"

At some point prior to an arrest, there is a belief by the arresting agent that the person he or she is arresting is an illegal immigrant. This alleged illegal immigrant is likely placed in holding. This occurs with any other person allegedly violating the law.

In any event, due process applies to immigrants, legal and illegal, so it's kind of a moot point.

Right.

Our esteemed OP however likely believes "due process" MUST mean a court case that lasts months or years.

My point is that there is a process to verify the legal status of residency... and that process is NOt the same process we have (nor should it be) for criminal acts.

jimboston wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:What do you mean by "presumed illegal?"

At some point prior to an arrest, there is a belief by the arresting agent that the person he or she is arresting is an illegal immigrant. This alleged illegal immigrant is likely placed in holding. This occurs with any other person allegedly violating the law.

In any event, due process applies to immigrants, legal and illegal, so it's kind of a moot point.

Right.

Our esteemed OP however likely believes "due process" MUST mean a court case that lasts months or years.

My point is that there is a process to verify the legal status of residency... and that process is NOt the same process we have (nor should it be) for criminal acts.

Hmm, bit of a mixed bag this, due process does kind of mean a court.

I'm not sure why that would necessarily take months or years, but if you want to say someone has done something illegal, due process is kind of key to deciding that.

jimboston wrote:
My point is that there is a process to verify the legal status of residency... and that process is NOt the same process we have (nor should it be) for criminal acts.

And you ignore evidence that this process to which you refer is very far from impeachable... in fact, the main reason we don't see more older Americans deported is simply that the focus is on younger latino looking individuals, not every American.

I agree that the standard for illegal immigrants is not the same as for murder... and that those "caught in the act" can be summarily deported, but your reference to how easy it is to get documents and how readily available they are to everyone is just wrong.

Symmetry wrote:

jimboston wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:What do you mean by "presumed illegal?"

At some point prior to an arrest, there is a belief by the arresting agent that the person he or she is arresting is an illegal immigrant. This alleged illegal immigrant is likely placed in holding. This occurs with any other person allegedly violating the law.

In any event, due process applies to immigrants, legal and illegal, so it's kind of a moot point.

Right.

Our esteemed OP however likely believes "due process" MUST mean a court case that lasts months or years.

My point is that there is a process to verify the legal status of residency... and that process is NOt the same process we have (nor should it be) for criminal acts.

Hmm, bit of a mixed bag this, due process does kind of mean a court.

I'm not sure why that would necessarily take months or years, but if you want to say someone has done something illegal, due process is kind of key to deciding that.

What do you mean by "presumed illegal?" I'm not sure I understand what point you are trying to make or even where you are coming from with this.

thegreekdog wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

jimboston wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:What do you mean by "presumed illegal?"

At some point prior to an arrest, there is a belief by the arresting agent that the person he or she is arresting is an illegal immigrant. This alleged illegal immigrant is likely placed in holding. This occurs with any other person allegedly violating the law.

In any event, due process applies to immigrants, legal and illegal, so it's kind of a moot point.

Right.

Our esteemed OP however likely believes "due process" MUST mean a court case that lasts months or years.

My point is that there is a process to verify the legal status of residency... and that process is NOt the same process we have (nor should it be) for criminal acts.

Hmm, bit of a mixed bag this, due process does kind of mean a court.

I'm not sure why that would necessarily take months or years, but if you want to say someone has done something illegal, due process is kind of key to deciding that.

What do you mean by "presumed illegal?" I'm not sure I understand what point you are trying to make or even where you are coming from with this.

Simple principles- presumption of innocence should be the standard before due process rules a person as illegal anything.

Symmetry wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

jimboston wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:What do you mean by "presumed illegal?"

At some point prior to an arrest, there is a belief by the arresting agent that the person he or she is arresting is an illegal immigrant. This alleged illegal immigrant is likely placed in holding. This occurs with any other person allegedly violating the law.

In any event, due process applies to immigrants, legal and illegal, so it's kind of a moot point.

Right.

Our esteemed OP however likely believes "due process" MUST mean a court case that lasts months or years.

My point is that there is a process to verify the legal status of residency... and that process is NOt the same process we have (nor should it be) for criminal acts.

Hmm, bit of a mixed bag this, due process does kind of mean a court.

I'm not sure why that would necessarily take months or years, but if you want to say someone has done something illegal, due process is kind of key to deciding that.

What do you mean by "presumed illegal?" I'm not sure I understand what point you are trying to make or even where you are coming from with this.

Simple principles- presumption of innocence should be the standard before due process rules a person as illegal anything.

Okay, that's the process in the United States. So what's the point of this thread? Was there some news story I missed? Is there some critique I'm missing of the U.S. legal system as applied to illegal immigrants?

When the answer is clear? Yes, but there will still need to be a trial (i.e. a guard just watched the person cross the border and they don't speak nor understand English.)

Did you think Anders Breivik was guilty before he was sentenced? Or did you believe he was innocent until proven guilty? "Proven guilty" is when the judge sentences him to be btw.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

jimboston wrote:
My point is that there is a process to verify the legal status of residency... and that process is NOt the same process we have (nor should it be) for criminal acts.

And you ignore evidence that this process to which you refer is very far from impeachable... in fact, the main reason we don't see more older Americans deported is simply that the focus is on younger latino looking individuals, not every American.

I agree that the standard for illegal immigrants is not the same as for murder... and that those "caught in the act" can be summarily deported, but your reference to how easy it is to get documents and how readily available they are to everyone is just wrong.

No process is unimpeachable.

If you have suggestions to improve the current process talk to your congressman.

If anything I think our system errs on the side of the illegal (presumed illegal) alien more often than not.

The Dept. of Customs and Immigration does NOT go around rounding people up randomly and shipping them to other countries. This ISN'T happening... please don't suggest it does. I don't understand the POINT of this thread... I don't think there is one.

jimboston wrote:The Dept. of Customs and Immigration does NOT go around Boston rounding people up randomly and shipping them to other countries. This ISN'T happening in Boston... please don't suggest it does.

Them Canajuns is gettin all up in yer 'chusetts.

thegreekdog wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

jimboston wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:What do you mean by "presumed illegal?"

At some point prior to an arrest, there is a belief by the arresting agent that the person he or she is arresting is an illegal immigrant. This alleged illegal immigrant is likely placed in holding. This occurs with any other person allegedly violating the law.

In any event, due process applies to immigrants, legal and illegal, so it's kind of a moot point.

Right.

Our esteemed OP however likely believes "due process" MUST mean a court case that lasts months or years.

My point is that there is a process to verify the legal status of residency... and that process is NOt the same process we have (nor should it be) for criminal acts.

Hmm, bit of a mixed bag this, due process does kind of mean a court.

I'm not sure why that would necessarily take months or years, but if you want to say someone has done something illegal, due process is kind of key to deciding that.

What do you mean by "presumed illegal?" I'm not sure I understand what point you are trying to make or even where you are coming from with this.

Simple principles- presumption of innocence should be the standard before due process rules a person as illegal anything.

Okay, that's the process in the United States. So what's the point of this thread? Was there some news story I missed? Is there some critique I'm missing of the U.S. legal system as applied to illegal immigrants?

Yeah, I guess a large part of the thread has come to be about the peculiar use of Americans to say someone is illegal without the presumption of innocence pre-trial.

The thread is was it is I suppose.