Page 1 of 5

Illegal

PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:49 pm
by Symmetry
Kind of a test of how far you believe in due process this one.

Re: Illegal

PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:50 pm
by Woodruff
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?

Re: Illegal

PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:56 pm
by Symmetry
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?

Re: Illegal

PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:57 pm
by Woodruff
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.


I think in some cases, it's possible to do so. However, if there is any question at all, then there should be some sort of due process. I'm not sure a trial is specifically necessary, but something certainly.

Re: Illegal

PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 8:05 pm
by Symmetry
Woodruff wrote:
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.


I think in some cases, it's possible to do so. However, if there is any question at all, then there should be some sort of due process. I'm not sure a trial is specifically necessary, but something certainly.


I'm not sure exactly how the law works in the US on this, but my guess would be that before saying a person has done something illegal, there would have to be due process.

Re: Illegal

PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 8:08 pm
by Nobunaga
... Interesting.

... Could a person be declared "under the influence", intoxicated without due process?

... Of course there is a process - a breathalyzer / blood test.

... What's the process on suspected illegals?

...

Re: Illegal

PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 8:10 pm
by Phatscotty
I think this illegal alien thread should be merged with Symmetry's other illegal alien thread.

Re: Illegal

PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 8:12 pm
by Symmetry
Nobunaga wrote:... Interesting.

... Could a person be declared "under the influence", intoxicated without due process?

... Of course there is a process - a breathalyzer / blood test.

... What's the process on suspected illegals?

...


In the UK? There's the same tests for intoxication, but pretty much only if you're driving.

Suspected illegal drivers have to pass them, then, if they fail, go to court.

Courts being the basis of who is or isn't illegal.

Re: Illegal

PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 3:31 am
by BigBallinStalin
What is "proof of citizenship"?

Re: Illegal

PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:17 am
by jimboston
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.

Re: Illegal

PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 9:48 am
by MeDeFe
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.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it possible to do most things in the USA without having much documentation of any kind at all? Go to school, get a job, rent an apartment, buy a car, etc. Isn't it the case that there's no requirement in the USA to have any ID of any kind? We've already learned that birth certificates are sketchy at best and even they can get lost or never get issued in the first place.

As I understand things, it's possible to be born in the USA, to parents who're both US citizens, and have absolutely no documentation to prove this.

If I'm correct about this, wouldn't that mean that "lack of documentation" being the criterion for determining whether someone is a so-called "illegal immigrant" could make actual US citizens appear to be illegal immigrants?

Re: Illegal

PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 10:11 am
by 72o
MeDeFe 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.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it possible to do most things in the USA without having much documentation of any kind at all? Go to school, get a job, rent an apartment, buy a car, etc. Isn't it the case that there's no requirement in the USA to have any ID of any kind? We've already learned that birth certificates are sketchy at best and even they can get lost or never get issued in the first place.

As I understand things, it's possible to be born in the USA, to parents who're both US citizens, and have absolutely no documentation to prove this.

If I'm correct about this, wouldn't that mean that "lack of documentation" being the criterion for determining whether someone is a so-called "illegal immigrant" could make actual US citizens appear to be illegal immigrants?


It is also possible to drive a car without a license or insurance. That does not make it acceptable. Anyone giving birth to a child in this country should take the necessary steps to get documentation for their child. If the weirdos who want to live "off the grid" don't want documentation for their child, so be it. Let their child get deported.

Re: Illegal

PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 11:11 am
by BigBallinStalin
MeDeFe 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.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it possible to do most things in the USA without having much documentation of any kind at all? Go to school, get a job, rent an apartment, buy a car, etc. Isn't it the case that there's no requirement in the USA to have any ID of any kind? We've already learned that birth certificates are sketchy at best and even they can get lost or never get issued in the first place.

As I understand things, it's possible to be born in the USA, to parents who're both US citizens, and have absolutely no documentation to prove this.

If I'm correct about this, wouldn't that mean that "lack of documentation" being the criterion for determining whether someone is a so-called "illegal immigrant" could make actual US citizens appear to be illegal immigrants?


Sure, you can do all that as long as you have false papers or know how to play the game properly (illegal immigrant). Of course, this limits your range of jobs, apartments, car dealerships, etc. I'm not sure if you're required by law to always carry a proper ID on you, but it's good idea to have one anyway. You know, to avoid misunderstandings...

Your 2nd paragraph is usually the case for people who are 90+ years old.

3rd, requiring proof of citizenship does have its unintended consequences:

One study published last year looking at cases in which deported Americans have later been able to prove they're US
citizens contends that about 1 percent of those detained and deported in any given year are, in fact, Americans. That's about 20,000 people since 2003, it concludes.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2012/0107/ ... y-banished

Re: Illegal

PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 11:14 am
by Woodruff
72o wrote:
MeDeFe wrote:As I understand things, it's possible to be born in the USA, to parents who're both US citizens, and have absolutely no documentation to prove this.

If I'm correct about this, wouldn't that mean that "lack of documentation" being the criterion for determining whether someone is a so-called "illegal immigrant" could make actual US citizens appear to be illegal immigrants?


It is also possible to drive a car without a license or insurance. That does not make it acceptable. Anyone giving birth to a child in this country should take the necessary steps to get documentation for their child. If the weirdos who want to live "off the grid" don't want documentation for their child, so be it. Let their child get deported.


Where exactly do you recommend they be deported TO?

Re: Illegal

PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 12:26 pm
by fadedpsychosis
Woodruff wrote:
72o wrote:
MeDeFe wrote:As I understand things, it's possible to be born in the USA, to parents who're both US citizens, and have absolutely no documentation to prove this.

If I'm correct about this, wouldn't that mean that "lack of documentation" being the criterion for determining whether someone is a so-called "illegal immigrant" could make actual US citizens appear to be illegal immigrants?


It is also possible to drive a car without a license or insurance. That does not make it acceptable. Anyone giving birth to a child in this country should take the necessary steps to get documentation for their child. If the weirdos who want to live "off the grid" don't want documentation for their child, so be it. Let their child get deported.


Where exactly do you recommend they be deported TO?

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

Re: Illegal

PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 1:08 pm
by Symmetry
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.

Re: Illegal

PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 4:37 pm
by PLAYER57832
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.

Re: Illegal

PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 4:42 pm
by PLAYER57832
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).

Re: Illegal

PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 5:30 pm
by jimboston
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.

Re: Illegal

PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 5:34 pm
by jimboston
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.

Re: Illegal

PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:04 pm
by Funkyterrance
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?

Re: Illegal

PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:13 pm
by PLAYER57832
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! :shock: :shock:

Re: Illegal

PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:15 pm
by PLAYER57832
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....

Re: Illegal

PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:16 pm
by /
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.

Re: Illegal

PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:19 pm
by PLAYER57832
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.