Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Patch)   Illegal immigrant caught when he went to see a movie about his life as an illegal immigrant   (easthampton.patch.com) divider line 234
    More: Ironic, Albania, border protection, Albanians, East Hampton, Praq Rado, Customs and Border Protection  
•       •       •

14664 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Oct 2012 at 6:58 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



234 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-08 11:05:07 PM  

davidphogan: tenpoundsofcheese: Klippoklondike: tenpoundsofcheese: Klippoklondike: Godscrack: Klippoklondike: Meanwhile Jose Vargas was arrested on a traffic violation

The article is about an Albanian illegal alien, Vern.

Save your Mexican hate for Storm Front.

What? Vargas isn't Mexican, he's Filipino and I am on his side

His side? You are pro people being in this country illegally?

He brings up a lot of good points on immigration policy. If you haven't you should check out some of his articles about it. It's not so cut and dry as brown people jumping a fence. I don't like people breaking the law either, but it's hard to like the way our immigration policy is right now. The only way to change it is to call it out and point out its flaws, which he is doing.

You do know that he can point out the flaws from the Philippines, right? He doesn't have to remain in the country illegally.
He was driving with an invalid license in a blatantly unsafe manner (wearing headphones). He is an accident waiting to happen.
How many more people need to die from illegal immigrant car crashes before someone says enough?

There are plenty of American citizens who are accidents waiting to happen as well. I don't care where you're from if you hit me with your car.


You'd care if you were a victim of a hit and run with a broken back and a Harry Potter scar on your face. Then the driver flees the country so the passengers in your car sue you and your insurance company. Good times. All it takes is one illegal to screw up your life, and we have millions here in the US with no accountability for their actions.
 
2012-10-08 11:35:12 PM  
22 shells are really cheap, and would fix the border problem in no time. One behind the ear.
 
2012-10-08 11:38:13 PM  

I agree with you: 22 shells are really cheap, and would fix the border problem in no time. One behind the ear.


Derp derp.
 
2012-10-08 11:44:30 PM  
Fano: Being all the writers of the Constitution were foreign born, I imagine they didn't foresee any trouble with it. 

Gouverneur Morris, b. New York.
John Dickinson, b. Maryland.
Roger Sherman, b. Massachusetts.

There were plenty of other people involved in the Constitution, of course - both the writing and the signing, which were separate affairs.

This isn't that important to the matter at hand, anyway. Yeah, the writers weren't all worried about illegal immigration at the time.
 
2012-10-08 11:48:40 PM  

Smackledorfer: Federal laws aren't state laws. Similarly the federal gov can't give their agents peace officer status to enforce state law. Here in Michigan our governor does that (every term I believe is how they do it). Other states, like Texas, do not.
States have to pass their own laws or get some permission to function as agents of the federal gov to enforce the crimes that the federal gov recognizes.



Congress already gave that permission. Section 439 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 states -

"To the extent permitted by relevant State and local law, State and local law enforcement
officials are authorized to arrest and detain an individual who-(1) is an alien illegally
present in the United States; and (2) has previously been convicted of a felony in the United
States and deported or left the United States after such conviction, but only after the State or
local law enforcement officials obtain appropriate confirmation from the Immigration and
Naturalization Service of the status of such individual and only for such period of time as may be required for the Service to take the individual into Federal custody for purposes of deporting or removing the alien from the United States."


The above federal law was specifically cited by SCOTUS in the 2012 case Arizona vs. the United States, where the U.S. supreme court upheld the Arizona law that requires state law enforcement officials to determine the immigration status of anyone they stop or arrest if they have reason to suspect that the individual might be in the country illegally.


Smackledorfer: Now, on that note: do you think it reasonable for state governments to be able to pass state laws regarding determining citizenship?


Yes.
 
2012-10-09 12:06:02 AM  

I agree with you: 22 shells are really cheap, and would fix the border problem in no time. One behind the ear.


You first, whitey.
 
2012-10-09 12:10:11 AM  
First, I was correct in my statement, so I don't see your point.

Second, I saw an "and" in there. It is kind of important, believe it or not.
 
2012-10-09 12:10:43 AM  

jigger: 2words1finger: That's because city, county, and state LEOs do not have the authority to enforce immigration policy, regardless of how much Arizona would like them to. In other words, it ain't their farking job to round up all the Mexis.

What federal law prevents this? I don't know. I'm asking, because it isn't the constitution.


There is no federal law that prevents it. There are, in fact, federal laws that explicitly and unambiguously allow it. See above post about Arizona vs the United States. 2words1finger is just wrong.
 
2012-10-09 12:13:13 AM  

Smackledorfer: EmmaLou: So, if he was having problems in his home country and made it here, why didn't he ask for asylum? If he did ask for asylum, was it denied? Why was it denied? Was there no credible fear found? During his removal hearing, did he show up? If not, why? Did he have an attorney?

Credible fear mostly only applies if the government of a foreign country is going to torture, persecution, etc.

Otherwise all of Mexico would be granted asylum from the cartels.


He said that his personal safety was at stake.

I'm sure people are claiming asylum now, based on the cartels in Mexico. Because of the extreme backlog in immigration courts, those cases just haven't made their way completely through the system.
 
2012-10-09 12:14:30 AM  
Just because the article says it's ironic doesn't mean it is, and it's not, as others have pointed out. It's sworn duty to point out the lack of irony whenever it comes up though, so there it is. It would not be ironic if I died lonely and alone.
 
2012-10-09 12:16:42 AM  

spidermilk: Klippoklondike: tenpoundsofcheese: Klippoklondike: Godscrack: Klippoklondike: Meanwhile Jose Vargas was arrested on a traffic violation

The article is about an Albanian illegal alien, Vern.

Save your Mexican hate for Storm Front.

What? Vargas isn't Mexican, he's Filipino and I am on his side

His side? You are pro people being in this country illegally?

He brings up a lot of good points on immigration policy. If you haven't you should check out some of his articles about it. It's not so cut and dry as brown people jumping a fence. I don't like people breaking the law either, but it's hard to like the way our immigration policy is right now. The only way to change it is to call it out and point out its flaws, which he is doing.

This. If you have ever known someone who was trying to legally immigrate then you would understand why people might come here illegally.

I know a girl who has lived her since high school and just graduated from college. Because she is French instead of brown and speaks perfect English she made it through several years of being an illegal immigrant while the naturalization process FINALLY was completed (it isn't like you can just sign up and be stamped as a citizen that day) and now she is a citizen. This is a chick who went to school, worked to pay for it, and found time to volunteer- if people like that want to be in our country we should let them.

I know two guys with engineering degrees who my company hired to work for them. It was nearly impossible for them to move here legally with the extreme restrictions we have in place to keep out 'illegals'- can't get a car, can't get a loan or any type of credit (can't buy a home), can't get a driver's license.

If someone wants to come live here and tries to do all the right things but doesn't have 5 years to wait and hope and pray they get chosen and approved and they come here illegally- it is against our laws but I don't think it is morally wrong. What is morally wrong is deporting ...


So, she went from being completely illegal to a citizen? Are you sure there wasn't a green card somewhere in that process? I know of no way for one to go from illegal to American in one step.
 
2012-10-09 12:20:14 AM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: jigger: 2words1finger: That's because city, county, and state LEOs do not have the authority to enforce immigration policy, regardless of how much Arizona would like them to. In other words, it ain't their farking job to round up all the Mexis.

What federal law prevents this? I don't know. I'm asking, because it isn't the constitution.

There is no federal law that prevents it. There are, in fact, federal laws that explicitly and unambiguously allow it. See above post about Arizona vs the United States. 2words1finger is just wrong.


It's a jurisdictional issue. States don't have jurisdiction over federal issues. Immigration is handled completely at the federal level.
 
2012-10-09 12:23:51 AM  

EmmaLou: It's a jurisdictional issue. States don't have jurisdiction over federal issues. Immigration is handled completely at the federal level


No. See my post just above that one. This debate was put to rest 6 months ago.
 
2012-10-09 12:26:13 AM  

EmmaLou: Smackledorfer: EmmaLou: So, if he was having problems in his home country and made it here, why didn't he ask for asylum? If he did ask for asylum, was it denied? Why was it denied? Was there no credible fear found? During his removal hearing, did he show up? If not, why? Did he have an attorney?

Credible fear mostly only applies if the government of a foreign country is going to torture, persecution, etc.

Otherwise all of Mexico would be granted asylum from the cartels.

He said that his personal safety was at stake.

I'm sure people are claiming asylum now, based on the cartels in Mexico. Because of the extreme backlog in immigration courts, those cases just haven't made their way completely through the system.


If an alien claims asylum the deportation/removal proceedings cease and they are held pending an interview with an asylum officer. But no, "The cartel will get me" is not a valid claim of asylum.
 
2012-10-09 12:36:09 AM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: EmmaLou: It's a jurisdictional issue. States don't have jurisdiction over federal issues. Immigration is handled completely at the federal level

No. See my post just above that one. This debate was put to rest 6 months ago.


Conjunction junction, what's your function?
 
2012-10-09 12:40:10 AM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: EmmaLou: It's a jurisdictional issue. States don't have jurisdiction over federal issues. Immigration is handled completely at the federal level

No. See my post just above that one. This debate was put to rest 6 months ago.


"To the extent permitted by relevant State and local law, State and local law enforcement
officials are authorized to arrest and detain an individual who-(1) is an alien illegally
present in the United States; and (2) has previously been convicted of a felony in the United
States and deported or left the United States after such conviction
"

Local authorities can arrest an illegal immigrant who has been previously convicted and deported, but not some random illegal immigrant standing in front of Home Depot.
 
2012-10-09 12:43:54 AM  

the ha ha guy: ThrobblefootSpectre: EmmaLou: It's a jurisdictional issue. States don't have jurisdiction over federal issues. Immigration is handled completely at the federal level

No. See my post just above that one. This debate was put to rest 6 months ago.

"To the extent permitted by relevant State and local law, State and local law enforcement
officials are authorized to arrest and detain an individual who-(1) is an alien illegally
present in the United States; and (2) has previously been convicted of a felony in the United
States and deported or left the United States after such conviction"

Local authorities can arrest an illegal immigrant who has been previously convicted and deported, but not some random illegal immigrant standing in front of Home Depot.


All that law was, as suggested by the name, was a way to put a blanket detainer on pieces of shiat caught up in the system. I don't know why throbble presenting it as anything else.
 
2012-10-09 12:44:03 AM  

the ha ha guy: Local authorities can arrest an illegal immigrant who has been previously convicted and deported, but not some random illegal immigrant standing in front of Home Depot.


Correct, as per Arizona s.b. 1070, police can only question a person about legal residency status if that person was already detained for some other infraction (other than residency status). They cannot randomly ask people off the street for no reason.
 
2012-10-09 12:44:06 AM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: jigger: 2words1finger: That's because city, county, and state LEOs do not have the authority to enforce immigration policy, regardless of how much Arizona would like them to. In other words, it ain't their farking job to round up all the Mexis.

What federal law prevents this? I don't know. I'm asking, because it isn't the constitution.

There is no federal law that prevents it. There are, in fact, federal laws that explicitly and unambiguously allow it. See above post about Arizona vs the United States. 2words1finger is just wrong.


Let's break it down & show the folks out there in FARKland just how much of a dumbass you are, shall we?

"To the extent permitted by relevant State and local law,..."

Well that's an operative statement if I've ever seen one. So the basis of everything that follows is relevant state and local laws, and since most state and local laws have absolutely nothing do with immigration (because as mentioned before, that is under the purview of federal authorities), we could just stop right there. We won't though, because this is just too damn much fun! Moving on...

"...State and local law enforcement officials are authorized to arrest and detain an individual who-(1) is an alien illegally present in the United States; AND (2) has previously been convicted of a felony in the United States AND deported or left the United States after such conviction..."

I'm smelling a whole lot of "AND" coming off this plan. All these conditions that have to be met, good lord who can keep up with all that?

"...BUT only after the State or local law enforcement officials obtain appropriate confirmation from the Immigration and Naturalization Service of the status of such individual..."

I knew it! I knew there had to be a big BUTT in there somewhere... baby got back! (yeah I know it's a different "but", just work with me here). So this says that state and local po-po can arrest someone ONLY after they get confirmation of that individual's immigration status from INS (which could take days-to-weeks, usually longer than the standard 72-hour period that law enforcement can detain someone without formally charging them) AND only if that individual has been previously convicted of a felony.

Section 493 of the AEDPA'96 is little more than legal filler designed to make it sound like it has teeth when in fact it is as gummy as my 98-year-old granny. Here's a protip for ya ThrobblefootSpectre, don't go citing laws that you don't understand, it just makes you look like an idiot.
 
2012-10-09 12:54:15 AM  

2words1finger: Section 493 of the AEDPA'96 is little more than legal filler designed to make it sound like it has teeth when in fact it is as gummy as my 98-year-old granny. Here's a protip for ya ThrobblefootSpectre, don't go citing laws that you don't understand, it just makes you look like an idiot.


Tell the U.S. supreme court.

I don't know what else to say. I cite federal law, giving the law name, date passed and relevant text. You give a rant of personal insults, and opinions without citations. And quite frankly, I maintain that your opinions on the subject are factually wrong. I don't mean any offence by that. I understand you are getting upset over this. I'm simply stating fact.
 
2012-10-09 12:55:27 AM  
Wait, wouldn't he technically be a refugee? In Terminal, didn't they say that you can be granted asylum as long as you say that you're afraid to return to your home country?
 
2012-10-09 12:56:58 AM  

TheDumbBlonde: Dude should get Obama's relatives' attorneys. They have this shuffle down.


I'm really hoping you're joking. Because birtherism isn't funny and is just plain stupid.
 
2012-10-09 12:57:28 AM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: 2words1finger: Section 493 of the AEDPA'96 is little more than legal filler designed to make it sound like it has teeth when in fact it is as gummy as my 98-year-old granny. Here's a protip for ya ThrobblefootSpectre, don't go citing laws that you don't understand, it just makes you look like an idiot.

Tell the U.S. supreme court.

I don't know what else to say. I cite federal law, giving the law name, date passed and relevant text. You give a rant of personal insults, and opinions without citations. And quite frankly, I maintain that your opinions on the subject are factually wrong. I don't mean any offence by that. I understand you are getting upset over this. I'm simply stating fact.


I don't know if you are stupid enough that you are being honest, or such a stupid troll that you think anyone buys your argument.
 
2012-10-09 01:02:28 AM  

colithian: Wait, wouldn't he technically be a refugee? In Terminal, didn't they say that you can be granted asylum as long as you say that you're afraid to return to your home country?


Asked and answered in thread. Also refugee status is granted by the executive branch for disaster victims. Asylum is different.
 
2012-10-09 01:06:10 AM  

Smackledorfer: I don't know if you are stupid enough that you are being honest, or such a stupid troll that you think anyone buys your argument.


I simply pointed out what federal law says on the subject. If you have some citations otherwise please do post them. And leave out the childish insults next time. :)
 
2012-10-09 01:08:42 AM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: Smackledorfer: I don't know if you are stupid enough that you are being honest, or such a stupid troll that you think anyone buys your argument.

I simply pointed out what federal law says on the subject. If you have some citations otherwise please do post them. And leave out the childish insults next time. :)


You pasted something you didn't read and still don't understand.
 
2012-10-09 01:11:55 AM  

ZeroPly: Aarontology: If you're losing a job to a moron like this, you're your to motherf*cking stupid to be employed.

Pet peeve...


The only way to save my sanity from this post is to assume that you are a brilliant troll.

/good work
 
2012-10-09 01:15:05 AM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: 2words1finger: Section 493 of the AEDPA'96 is little more than legal filler designed to make it sound like it has teeth when in fact it is as gummy as my 98-year-old granny. Here's a protip for ya ThrobblefootSpectre, don't go citing laws that you don't understand, it just makes you look like an idiot.

Tell the U.S. supreme court.

I don't know what else to say. I cite federal law, giving the law name, date passed and relevant text. You give a rant of personal insults, and opinions without citations. And quite frankly, I maintain that your opinions on the subject are factually wrong. I don't mean any offence by that. I understand you are getting upset over this. I'm simply stating fact.


I think I did a pretty good job of explaining - in a HILARIOUS way, BTW - how the law you cited is irrelevant to the discussion you butted into. Yes SCOTUS cited it for the Arizona thing, but that was because Arizona enacted a RELEVANT state law, which is what is called for in the section of the AEDPA that you cited.

I seriously don't know how to explain it any simpler without resorting to pictures and hand gestures, so I'm gonna assume that you either just don't know when to stop or that you're trying to use that rarely-seen "passive and polite" trolling tactic. Eiter way, I'm going to ignore you now. Good day sir.

/I SAID GOOD DAY!
 
2012-10-09 01:18:18 AM  

Tony_Pepperoni: ZeroPly: Aarontology: If you're losing a job to a moron like this, you're your toyou are too yer two motherf*cking stupid to be employed.


Pet peeve... 

ftfy
 
2012-10-09 01:26:47 AM  

CygnusDarius: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: you are a puppet: "neo-national socialist"? lol

Or neo-Nazi. See, "nazi" is shorthand for "national socialist." The formal name if uncle Adolph's merry band of sociopaths was the "National Socialist German Workers' Party." Link

Which hated communists and socialists, even to the point of backstabbing the Reds.


Mmmm... yes... much like the several border hostilities between the Soviets and the PRC, and the short undeclared war between the PRC and North Vietnam (where, btw, the NVA cleaned the PLA clock).

National Socialism and Soviet Socialism had, in the popular mythology, some major differences.

The Nazis were nationalistic and racist and the Soviets were not. (Except the Soviets, before, during and after WWII, appealed to rabid patriotism and found time and reason beat the antisemitism drum, Not so different, but not widely reported in the west for many years.)

The Nazis were backed by private property industrialists and outlawed unions, and the Soviets were a Worker's Paradise where the People (the State) owned the means of production. (Except the Nazis placed political overseers in all workplaces who vetted all decisions of the "ownership" and the Soviet "worker's unions were simply lapdogs to the Party apparatus and did whatever the State told them to do. Again, not widely known.)

There was also one huge similarity: both were totalitarian dictatorships where a few sociopaths in political power ruled the general population with an iron fist. Both hated and feared the individual. They were a lot closer to each other, philosophically, than either were to the western semi-free-enterprise democracies.

I think a good analogy would be religion -vs- atheism. Christianity and Islam - supposedly mortal enemies - are a lot closer to each other than either is to atheism.

Anyone telling you different is trying to get you either into the frying pan oi the fire.
 
2012-10-09 01:39:02 AM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: CygnusDarius: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: you are a puppet: "neo-national socialist"? lol

Or neo-Nazi. See, "nazi" is shorthand for "national socialist." The formal name if uncle Adolph's merry band of sociopaths was the "National Socialist German Workers' Party." Link

Which hated communists and socialists, even to the point of backstabbing the Reds.

Mmmm... yes... much like the several border hostilities between the Soviets and the PRC, and the short undeclared war between the PRC and North Vietnam (where, btw, the NVA cleaned the PLA clock).

National Socialism and Soviet Socialism had, in the popular mythology, some major differences.

The Nazis were nationalistic and racist and the Soviets were not. (Except the Soviets, before, during and after WWII, appealed to rabid patriotism and found time and reason beat the antisemitism drum, Not so different, but not widely reported in the west for many years.)

The Nazis were backed by private property industrialists and outlawed unions, and the Soviets were a Worker's Paradise where the People (the State) owned the means of production. (Except the Nazis placed political overseers in all workplaces who vetted all decisions of the "ownership" and the Soviet "worker's unions were simply lapdogs to the Party apparatus and did whatever the State told them to do. Again, not widely known.)

There was also one huge similarity: both were totalitarian dictatorships where a few sociopaths in political power ruled the general population with an iron fist. Both hated and feared the individual. They were a lot closer to each other, philosophically, than either were to the western semi-free-enterprise democracies.

I think a good analogy would be religion -vs- atheism. Christianity and Islam - supposedly mortal enemies - are a lot closer to each other than either is to atheism.

Anyone telling you different is trying to get you either into the frying pan oi the fire.


Extreme beliefs are compareable!
 
2012-10-09 01:40:15 AM  

give me doughnuts: jigger: 2words1finger: That's because city, county, and state LEOs do not have the authority to enforce immigration policy, regardless of how much Arizona would like them to. In other words, it ain't their farking job to round up all the Mexis.

What federal law prevents this? I don't know. I'm asking, because it isn't the constitution.

Immigration policy is a civil matter, not a criminal one. It's outside the purview of state and local law enforcement. It's even a matter that the FBI and other Federal law enforcement agencies don't get involved in unless it is related to additional criminal activity.

Also, immigration is never discussed in the Constitution, so why bring it up?


If it's a civil matter why are there federal cops involved? Why are there arrests and raids? I brought up the constitution, because any power not delegated to the federal government in the constitution is reserved to the states or the people. So if anyone has the power to police immigration, it's the states.
 
2012-10-09 01:42:20 AM  

ricochet4: jigger: 2words1finger: That's because city, county, and state LEOs do not have the authority to enforce immigration policy, regardless of how much Arizona would like them to. In other words, it ain't their farking job to round up all the Mexis.

What federal law prevents this? I don't know. I'm asking, because it isn't the constitution.

regulation of immigration has long been considered an inherent federal power, per the supreme court. under the prevailing view, the states have no role in immigration law but many states' rights advocates believe that a sharing of immigration regulation is a more proper interpretation...this view has not gotten much traction in the courts.


That's really what I was looking for. The courts basically wrote into the constitution a federal power that did not exist.
 
2012-10-09 01:52:42 AM  

2words1finger: So the basis of everything that follows is relevant state and local laws, and since most state and local laws have absolutely nothing do with immigration (because as mentioned before, that is under the purview of federal authorities), we could just stop right there. We won't though, because this is just too damn much fun! Moving on...


They do not have any constitutional authority to police immigration.
 
2012-10-09 01:56:11 AM  

jigger: give me doughnuts: jigger: 2words1finger: That's because city, county, and state LEOs do not have the authority to enforce immigration policy, regardless of how much Arizona would like them to. In other words, it ain't their farking job to round up all the Mexis.

What federal law prevents this? I don't know. I'm asking, because it isn't the constitution.

Immigration policy is a civil matter, not a criminal one. It's outside the purview of state and local law enforcement. It's even a matter that the FBI and other Federal law enforcement agencies don't get involved in unless it is related to additional criminal activity.

Also, immigration is never discussed in the Constitution, so why bring it up?

If it's a civil matter why are there federal cops involved? Why are there arrests and raids? I brought up the constitution, because any power not delegated to the federal government in the constitution is reserved to the states or the people. So if anyone has the power to police immigration, it's the states.


This post is ridiculous.

First, speeding is a civil matter enforved by cops (immigration has both civil and criminal penalties,fwiw) so your logic is flawed.

Second your constitution comment is at 'oh wait you're serious let me laugh even harder' levels.
 
2012-10-09 02:01:21 AM  
I'll give you a hint..congress passes all sorts of laws not specifically mentioned in the constitution. However, the document gives them the power TO pass laws. Crazy I know, that the founders expected the nation to pass laws.
 
2012-10-09 02:15:54 AM  

jigger: 2words1finger: So the basis of everything that follows is relevant state and local laws, and since most state and local laws have absolutely nothing do with immigration (because as mentioned before, that is under the purview of federal authorities), we could just stop right there. We won't though, because this is just too damn much fun! Moving on...

They do not have any constitutional authority to police immigration.


It has been my experience that the folks who bring up the constitution the most are generally the ones who understand it the least.

That is all.
 
2012-10-09 02:16:04 AM  

Smackledorfer: EmmaLou: Smackledorfer: EmmaLou: So, if he was having problems in his home country and made it here, why didn't he ask for asylum? If he did ask for asylum, was it denied? Why was it denied? Was there no credible fear found? During his removal hearing, did he show up? If not, why? Did he have an attorney?

Credible fear mostly only applies if the government of a foreign country is going to torture, persecution, etc.

Otherwise all of Mexico would be granted asylum from the cartels.

He said that his personal safety was at stake.

I'm sure people are claiming asylum now, based on the cartels in Mexico. Because of the extreme backlog in immigration courts, those cases just haven't made their way completely through the system.

If an alien claims asylum the deportation/removal proceedings cease and they are held pending an interview with an asylum officer. But no, "The cartel will get me" is not a valid claim of asylum.


I never said it was a winner. But immigrants will throw anything at the wall and hope something sticks. Officers have a lot of discretion in asylum land.

I do admit my professional expertise is employment based immigration.
 
2012-10-09 02:17:35 AM  

Smackledorfer: This post is ridiculous.

First, speeding is a civil matter enforved by cops (immigration has both civil and criminal penalties,fwiw) so your logic is flawed.

Second your constitution comment is at 'oh wait you're serious let me laugh even harder' levels.


They call it a civil matter to get around your right to a jury, but it very much quacks like a criminal matter. They aren't suing you. They're fining you and then jailing you if you don't pay the fine. What other civil suit works like that? None. It's a criminal case that they call a "civil" case to deny you your right to a jury.

And show me where in the constitution the federal government is authorized to police immigration. They aren't. It's not there. And the 10th amendment means that if it's not there, they aren't authorized to do it. At best you could make a convoluted argument based on the prohibition of Congress to limit "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit" prior to 1808. But nothing mentions the power of Congress to limit migration in the first place.
 
2012-10-09 02:18:35 AM  

2words1finger: jigger: 2words1finger: So the basis of everything that follows is relevant state and local laws, and since most state and local laws have absolutely nothing do with immigration (because as mentioned before, that is under the purview of federal authorities), we could just stop right there. We won't though, because this is just too damn much fun! Moving on...

They do not have any constitutional authority to police immigration.

It has been my experience that the folks who bring up the constitution the most are generally the ones who understand it the least.

That is all.


Show me how much you understand it.
 
2012-10-09 02:22:23 AM  
My two cents about local LE getting involved in immigration matters us that immigration consists of a complicated code with a lot of loopholes. They don't have access to the information a federal officer does and cannot possibly know ones immigration status based on the person not having their documents on their person. Sometimes there are no documents bc CIS is still working the case...the immigrant is still legal in some of those cases.
 
2012-10-09 02:24:30 AM  

jigger: Smackledorfer: This post is ridiculous.

First, speeding is a civil matter enforved by cops (immigration has both civil and criminal penalties,fwiw) so your logic is flawed.

Second your constitution comment is at 'oh wait you're serious let me laugh even harder' levels.

They call it a civil matter to get around your right to a jury, but it very much quacks like a criminal matter. They aren't suing you. They're fining you and then jailing you if you don't pay the fine. What other civil suit works like that? None. It's a criminal case that they call a "civil" case to deny you your right to a jury.

And show me where in the constitution the federal government is authorized to police immigration. They aren't. It's not there. And the 10th amendment means that if it's not there, they aren't authorized to do it. At best you could make a convoluted argument based on the prohibition of Congress to limit "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit" prior to 1808. But nothing mentions the power of Congress to limit migration in the first place.


'speeding tickets aren't a civil matter because they aren't suing people'....wow. I'm speechless.
 
2012-10-09 02:28:03 AM  

Smackledorfer: 'speeding tickets aren't a civil matter because they aren't suing people'....wow. I'm speechless.


The only reason "civil offenses" were created was to punish you without due process involving your right to a jury trial.
 
2012-10-09 02:28:19 AM  

EmmaLou: My two cents about local LE getting involved in immigration matters us that immigration consists of a complicated code with a lot of loopholes. They don't have access to the information a federal officer does and cannot possibly know ones immigration status based on the person not having their documents on their person. Sometimes there are no documents bc CIS is still working the case...the immigrant is still legal in some of those cases.


A lot of times the feds don't even have the info in their system when it is lagging behind by months, resulting in, for example, an H1b holder appearing out of status in between renewing the visa. Now legally he has to carry the documentation on him, but that is only a 50 dollar fine and the paperwork is often viewed as too valuable to carry around.
 
2012-10-09 02:29:43 AM  

jigger: And show me where in the constitution the federal government is authorized to police immigration.

Article I, section 8, clause 4:The Congress shall have Power...To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;...


This allows the U.S. Congress to create rules about citizenship; what it is, how to obtain it, etc. Part of creating a rule of anything is the penalties for violating those rules. So, Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 is where the Constitution authorizes the Federal Government to police immigration, since that's where they are allowed to police citizenship.
 
2012-10-09 02:29:48 AM  

jigger: Smackledorfer: 'speeding tickets aren't a civil matter because they aren't suing people'....wow. I'm speechless.

The only reason "civil offenses" were created was to punish you without due process involving your right to a jury trial.


You should go call a sovereign citizen. They might actually give two shiats about your crazy interpretations of the constitution and legal system.
 
2012-10-09 02:31:17 AM  

eldritch2k4: jigger: And show me where in the constitution the federal government is authorized to police immigration.

Article I, section 8, clause 4:The Congress shall have Power...To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;...

This allows the U.S. Congress to create rules about citizenship; what it is, how to obtain it, etc. Part of creating a rule of anything is the penalties for violating those rules. So, Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 is where the Constitution authorizes the Federal Government to police immigration, since that's where they are allowed to police citizenship.


Citizenship is not immigration. Try again.
 
2012-10-09 02:32:08 AM  

jigger: Smackledorfer: 'speeding tickets aren't a civil matter because they aren't suing people'....wow. I'm speechless.

The only reason "civil offenses" were created was to punish you without due process involving your right to a jury trial.


You can request a jury trial in traffic court. I have watched a man request and receive a move from the District Court of MD to the Circuit Court.
 
2012-10-09 02:36:27 AM  

Smackledorfer: jigger: Smackledorfer: 'speeding tickets aren't a civil matter because they aren't suing people'....wow. I'm speechless.

The only reason "civil offenses" were created was to punish you without due process involving your right to a jury trial.

You should go call a sovereign citizen. They might actually give two shiats about your crazy interpretations of the constitution and legal system.


All right. Maybe you can explain it to me.

A "civil offense" usually means that you defied the orders of a judge in a civil case. When there are statutes that prohibit certain behavior and you are caught engaging in that behavior by police and then issued a punishment, that's a criminal case.

Tell me where I'm wrong, law professor.
 
2012-10-09 02:37:58 AM  

eldritch2k4: jigger: Smackledorfer: 'speeding tickets aren't a civil matter because they aren't suing people'....wow. I'm speechless.

The only reason "civil offenses" were created was to punish you without due process involving your right to a jury trial.

You can request a jury trial in traffic court. I have watched a man request and receive a move from the District Court of MD to the Circuit Court.


Many jurisdictions will deny you a jury telling you that it is a civil matter and you are not entitled to a jury trial in a civil matter. Some jurisdictions (very few) realize that this is unjust.
 
Displayed 50 of 234 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report