Why are they deporting women?

[Oompa Loompa]

Actually, it does. The fact that they earlier lacked legal status was the basis of granting them legal status. They wouldn't have to be granted legal status if the government had not already ascertained that they didn't have it.

Your assertion is as if someone who had once had charges for a crime dropped were to be re-prosecuted for the same crime the next day.

More like how dropping charges for crimes committed only means the person will not be punished for crimes committed. For example, if a man is arrested for beating his wife and the wife chooses not to press charges, is that man now innocent and the abuse never happened?

 

[Oompa Loompa]

What law did the Haitians break? Besides eating pets, that is.

If they just showed up on some Floridian beach without going through a proper point of entry, they broke U.S. Code § 1325.

 

[BCP1928]

More like how dropping charges for crimes committed only means the person will not be punished for crimes committed. For example, if a man is arrested for beating his wife and the wife chooses not to press charges, is that man now innocent and the abuse never happened?

If he is officially pardoned, then the case has been settled.

 

[RDKirk]

More like how dropping charges for crimes committed only means the person will not be punished for crimes committed. For example, if a man is arrested for beating his wife and the wife chooses not to press charges, is that man now innocent and the abuse never happened?

If the wife chooses not to press charges, then (except for certain specific circumstances) those are no longer issues for law enforcement or the courts. If the government grants legal status to an immigrant, then the immigrant's former illegal status is no longer an issue for the government.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

If he is officially pardoned, then the case has been settled.

Based on that logic, all the Jan 6 protesters that were given a full pardon never broke any laws. The case has been settled, January 6th never happen so there is no reason for anyone to bring it up anymore. Unless, of course, you are suggesting a double standard of justice that favors illegal immigrants?

 

[BCP1928]

Based on that logic, all the Jan 6 protesters that were given a full pardon never broke any laws. The case has been settled, January 6th never happen so there is no reason for anyone to bring it up anymore. Unless, of course, you are suggesting a double standard of justice that favors illegal immigrants?

Never happened? All a pardon does is pardon. It doesn't change history

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Never happened? All a pardon does is pardon. It doesn't change history

So why did you even bring it up other than to prove my point?

 

[Oompa Loompa]

If the wife chooses not to press charges, then (except for certain specific circumstances) those are no longer issues for law enforcement or the courts. If the government grants legal status to an immigrant, then the immigrant's former illegal status is no longer an issue for the government.

And if the government decides to remove the legal status and they refuse to self-deport?

 

[BCP1928]

And if the government decides to remove the legal status and they refuse to self-deport?

Then they can be arrested. How about if they remove the legal status without telling the suspect in order to be able to arrest him at once and treat him as a criminal?

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Then they can be arrested. How about if they remove the legal status without telling the suspect in order to be able to arrest him at once and treat him as a criminal?

In that case, would they then be subject to arrest? Perhaps the authorities could revoke their legal status without immediate notification in order to proceed with an arrest and process them as individuals in violation of immigration laws?

As I recall, former President Trump made a public announcement and even launched an app aimed at encouraging voluntary self-deportation. While I can't confirm whether every individual was formally notified, it seems that this process was made publicly known. Therefore, it appears that the scenario you're suggesting may be hypothetical rather than reflective of what actually occurred.

Ultimately, individuals who were in the country illegally were often characterized by the left as "undocumented immigrants" or "asylum seekers," particularly during a time when a previous administration issued an executive order to deprioritize enforcement of certain immigration laws. The current administration reversed that directive and reinstated deportation procedures.

The shift in policy has turned what was once treated as a lower priority into a deportable offense. Yet, many on the left continue to defend these individuals, suggesting that their position may be less about the rule of law and more about broader ideological goals—namely, reshaping immigration policy in ways that some view as compromising American sovereignty in favor of a political agenda.

 

[RDKirk]

And if the government decides to remove the legal status and they refuse to self-deport?

There is existing due process for that.

 

[Richard T]

Do not confuse crimes not being inforced as not crimes. Your ilk once defended illegal border crossing because a previous administration treated them as minor misdemeanors. Today, it is a deportable offense. Overstaying a visa is a crime, although a crime not enforced by a previous administration, a crime nonetheless.

You never answered why Senator Banks is making an overstay visa a crime? Because currently such an unlawful presence is treated differently than an illegal border crossing. Yes, there are penalties, depending on the length of overstay and various circumstances. (Some circumstances are legitimate as well and those suffer no penalties). That someone could be innocent offends many MAGA, but that is constitutional. Also, if t is a crime as you suggest, why is Trump offering free airfare for those that will self deport. Seems you would want want to follow through with criminal penalties?
As to my beliefs I prefer to keep families together and treat illegals well, including giving them constitutional rights as the framers likely intended. From my readings of public policy, this is most compatible with the Church of Latter Day Saints. Church Reaffirms Immigration Principles: Love, Law and Family Unity Unlike some others, I look at every area of public policy and have never rubber-stamped a particular political party, even though it obviously is far easier to just depend on labels rather than substance.

Like adverse possession in real estate, if an alien lives in the USA and contributes I think they have earned their right to be here. This coincides more with a Reagan Republican policy that offered amnesty rather than the current Trump policy. Still, "President Donald Trump for the first time said publicly that he supported a pathway to citizenship for young, undocumented immigrants brought to the country by their parents, moving a step closer to bipartisan group seeking a way around an immigration-policy impasse but taking a position at odds with some conservatives." Donald Trump Backs Citizenship Pathway for Dreamers - Foster Global

 

[MrMoe]

The civil penalty for being in this country unlawfully is
deportation, or removal

Isn’t deporting them exactly what Trump is doing?

 

[Belk]

Isn’t deporting them exactly what Trump is doing?

Yes, which is my point. It is a civil penalty, not criminal.

 

[MrMoe]

Yes, which is my point. It is a civil penalty, not criminal.

Oh, so you’re just upset it’s being called a crime. Okay, so it’s no a crime. Either way, they should be deported.

 

[Belk]

Oh, so you’re just upset it’s being called a crime. Okay, so it’s no a crime. Either way, they should be deported.

How about you let me state my positions instead of trying to assign them?

Never stated they should not be deported. That is indeed the lawful remedy.

 

[wing2000]

Women don’t normally commit crimes.

In whose universe?

 

[MrMoe]

How about you let me state my positions instead of trying to assign them?

Never stated they should not be deported. That is indeed the lawful remedy.

Never claimed you did. How about you let me state my position instead of assuming I’m assigning it to you?

I’m curious why it’s bothering you that it’s being called criminal. In the end it doesn’t seem to matter. The end result is the same.

 

[Belk]

Oh, so you’re just upset it’s being called a crime.

Never claimed you did. How about you let me state my position instead of assuming I’m assigning it to you.

That is you assigning my position, not stating your own.

I’m curious why it’s bothering you that it’s being called criminal. In the end it doesn’t seem to matter. The end result is the same.

Because I believe it is incorrect and the end result is not the same. We send criminals to jail.

 

[MrMoe]

That is you assigning my position, not stating your own.

I was stating my own position when I said “Either way, they should be deported.”

Because I believe it is incorrect and the end result is not the same. We send criminals to jail.

I believe the punishment in either case is still deportation. At least for a first time offence.