- Apr 15, 2012
- 64,493
- 30,323
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Single
If your device doesn't know the word "patrol," you might want to consider an upgrade.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
your device is better than mine...I am constantly being corrected on words put in correctly the first time...
We are not accusing them of any crime other than being here illegally. They can be convicted of one crime and serve their time, and then can deported if they cannot prove who they are.Right -- those are called "affirmative defenses" -- insanity and self-defense are the prime examples.
In both those cases, the facts of the case are not in dispute... Bob did kill Joe, but Bob either wasn't in his right mind, or was defending himself.
The defense of "It wasn't me; I didn't do it; you got the wrong guy" is not an affirmative defense... and that's the defense that they're going to bring up if you accuse them of coming into the country illegally.
Well, we cannot catch them all, but if they KNOW that any misstep could get them deported they will either be VERY careful or not come here. As for claiming to be born here there ARE ways of checking that out. One option would be making that a defense which the ACCUSED has to prove. In other words make them prove they were born here.
How much do we annually spend on supporting, putting illegals through the criminal justice system, and related crime? As for the borders, I suspect that like on public waterways, the US already owns a certain amount of footage from the border in so, no that isn't likely an expense.
We are not accusing them of any crime other than being here illegally.
They can be convicted of one crime and serve their time, and then can deported if they cannot prove who they are.
There are miles and miles and miles of shore line in the United States and there will be no wall on them. No fence, nothing at all to stop someone from coming up in a small boat and getting out and walking into the country. Some kind of boarder wall isn't a viable solution.
If Trump is serious about this, he will be willing to hurt US businesses that hire illegals. My guess is that he won't be willing to do that because it's far easier to demonize a group of people that a lot don't already like than cost businesses millions of dollars.
If they are illegally here then they are breaking the law by BEING here. Any other crime takes some sort of action other than just standing there.You're accusing them of entering this country illegally. You need to prove they did that.
Our country doesn't work that way -- when the government accuses you of a crime, they have to prove you did it.
"Innocent until presumed guilty in a court of law..." what else are you ready to throw out in the name of... what, exactly?
First of all, it is ILLEGAL to hire illegal immigrants...so yes, I would expect the government to hurt these businesses (and they already do go after businesses that do this).
Second, the Rio Grande has a river bank where a fence could be built. However, just because there are places that are harder to guard, doesn't mean we ignore the rest of the border? Luckily we live in a world where electronic surveillance is also a viable option in areas that just can't physically maintain a fence/wall.
Let me guess....you don't live anywhere near one of these borders, do you? I used to live in Texas but now live close enough to the Canadian border that I work with people that cross the border daily. I have never worried about any Canadian gangs moving into my neighborhood. Not a issue. They have the proper paperwork in place to go to school or work here.
I'll just hang onto my "told you so" when the wall/fence doesn't work.
If they are illegally here then they are breaking the law by BEING here. Any other crime takes some sort of action other than just standing there.
You're claiming that their ACTION of crossing the border isn't a crime, but their very EXISTENCE on this side of it is?
Did you think this through?
The ACTION of crossing the border IS a crime, but the fact that they committed that crime means that no matter WHAT they are doing while here they are committing a crime as opposed to otherwise where simply being here is not in and of itself a criminal action.You're claiming that their ACTION of crossing the border isn't a crime, but their very EXISTENCE on this side of it is?
Did you think this through?
First of all, it is ILLEGAL to hire illegal immigrants...so yes, I would expect the government to hurt these businesses (and they already do go after businesses that do this).
Second, the Rio Grande has a river bank where a fence could be built.
However, just because there are places that are harder to guard, doesn't mean we ignore the rest of the border? Luckily we live in a world where electronic surveillance is also a viable option in areas that just can't physically maintain a fence/wall.
but they also tend to be more dangerous to cross.Its also ILLEGAL to shoot heroin between your toes... the government does a bang-up job of stopping it, don't they?
Funny thing about riverbanks, they have an annoying tendency to flood. And when they do, they tend to wash away stuff that was built on them... including fences.
The "virtual fence" is already used in many locations along the border... who told you it wasn't?
Catch-22, chief -- either the virtual fence works, which makes a real one unnecessary, or it doesn't work, which means it still won't.
The ACTION of crossing the border IS a crime, but the fact that they committed that crime means that no matter WHAT they are doing while here they are committing a crime as opposed to otherwise where simply being here is not in and of itself a criminal action.
but they also tend to be more dangerous to cross.
Did you seriously just suggest summary execution for illegal border crossing?Well, maybe if we had paroles that would shoot them if caught that would deter more, as well.
Don't give ideas"More dangerous" how? We're talking about cameras, not land mines.
...or is that the next step? (so to speak)
YOu do that. In tililt. It will also help if we are allowed to actually enforce our laws against illegals who are here.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?