Another "our country is going to hell"...

[Paladin]

thread. How can you argue that a person who uses anothers ID has not voilated this law? I hope the SC rules in favor of the government on this one before the Messiah's picks make it a liberally slanted court.

Supreme Court hears immigrant's ID theft case

By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer - Sun Feb 22, 8:19 am ET

WASHINGTON – Ignacio Carlos Flores-Figueroa, an undocumented worker from Mexico, made a curious and undeniably bad decision. After working under an assumed name for six years, he decided to use his real name and exchanged one set of phony identification numbers for another.

The change made his employer suspicious and the authorities were called in. The old numbers were made up, but the new ones he bought happened to belong to real people. Federal prosecutors said that was enough to label Flores-Figueroa an identity thief.

The Supreme Court will hear arguments Wednesday on prosecutors' aggressive use of a new law that was intended to strengthen efforts to combat identity theft. In at least hundreds of cases last year, workers accused of immigration violations found themselves facing the more serious identity theft charge as well, without any indication they knew their counterfeit Social Security and other identification numbers belonged to actual people and were not made up.

The government has used the charge, which carries a mandatory two-year minimum prison term, to persuade people to plead guilty to the lesser immigration charges and accept prompt deportation. Many of those undocumented workers had been arrested in immigration raids.

The case hinges on how the justices resolve this question: Does it matter whether someone using a phony ID knows that it belongs to someone else?

The government, backed by victims' rights groups, says no. The "havoc wrecked on the victim's life is the same either way," said Stephen Masterson, a Los Angeles-based lawyer, in his brief for the victims' rights groups.

On the other side, Flores-Figueroa and more than 20 immigrants' rights groups, defense lawyers and privacy experts say that the law Congress passed in 2004 was aimed at the identity thief who gains access to people's private information to drain their accounts and run up bills in their name. Surveys estimate that more than 8 million people in the United States are victims of identity theft each year.

Flores-Figueroa acknowledges he used fraudulent documents to get and keep his job at a steel plant in East Moline, Ill. But he "had no intention of stealing anyone's identity," his lawyers said in their brief to the court. He traveled to Chicago and bought numbers from someone who trades in counterfeit IDs.

Had he been caught while using the fictitious name and numbers that went with it, he could not have been charged with the more serious offense.

Federal appeals courts in St. Louis, which ruled against Flores-Figueroa, Atlanta and Richmond, Va., have come down on the government's side. Appeals courts based in Boston, San Francisco and Washington, D.C., have ruled for defendants.

The government's use of identity theft charges in immigration cases was on full display in last year's raid on a kosher slaughterhouse in Postville, Iowa. Authorities charged 270 undocumented workers with identity theft, including its threat of two years in prison.

Chuck Roth, litigation director for the National Immigrant Justice Center in Chicago, called the charge "a bludgeon" that was intended to elicit guilty pleas to lesser charges. Roth's group joined one of the briefs supporting Flores-Figueroa.

All 270 workers accepted plea deals in which they also agreed not to contest deportation.

An additional 100 workers arrested in the same raid were using unassigned numbers and faced charges with little prospect of prison time.

The case is Flores-Figueroa v. U.S., 08-108.

[1fastdem]

While I agree on your finding this case absurd. It does touch on one the basic ideas of our legal system and English Law. Intent. Intent when applied to this case would make for some interesting arguments before the Supreme Court. I would be curious to read the transcript of the case with the questions from the Justices.

If you take the illegal at his word, he didn't intend to commit ID theft. You also know from your experience that a prosecutor wants to prove "direct intent" and unless the immigrant told his buddy how he planned to use this info to commit ID theft or purposely committed fraud (by draining their bank account or using their credit rating for his benefit). I don't think the prosecutor can make the caseor it wouldn't get to the S.C. So the presecution is left to prove that a reasonable person should have known the consequences of his action in using the fake papers in Chicago was ID theft. In other words should he have known the name/numbers he bought this time were real as opposed to last time when they were ficticious. Remember that this case is not discussing if he broke the law. But what law he broke exactly. Undoubtedly the guy is guilty of immigration law violations. I am not arguing that.

I think the fact that 6 Appeals Courts are evenly split is an indication of how interesting this case could be. And I love watching Court stuff when it touches on the basic issues of the rule of law.

PPS - For those unsure of the court system... An Appeals Court rules on cases in its jusidiction. For there to be 6 appeals courts weighing in on this there have to be several different cases in the court system. Then the S.C. when it picks which case to hear it selects one of the many cases it deems most relevant to all. At the S.C. level then the arguments deal less with a specific case and more on the challenge to the law someone is tried under. To get to bogged in the specific minutiae in discussing a case before the S.C. misses the bigger picture of what the Justices will be thinking about.

[FreightTrain]

Good for the legal system. They should go after illegals for identy theft when they make up social security numbers that are someone else's actual number. My uncle went through hell for a decade everytime he did his taxes because some illegal was using his social security number. This resulted in several tax audits, higher tax bills, and waiting longer for his refunds because the IRS couldn't seem to fix the problem or acknowledge it from one year to another. They knew where the guy was working but refused to do anything about it.

[Paladin]

blah blah blah

You are a reminder of why I could no longer support the Dems or be a liberal. You have to defend people who have made poor choices and try and twist common sense logic to justify your beliefs.

Illegals who use other persons ID have the intent to fraudulently use someone's ID. How would you know what his intent is/was until you had investigated the case and had spoken to him? This guy chose to enter the country illegally and then chose to use an ID from another person, who happens to be an American citizen. How do you justify defending him instead of your fellow American? :banghead:

I know you will use the typical ACLU line and say you are just protecting his rights, but why do you and the ACLU think he has civil rights from a Constitution that he violated by coming into this country illegally? I love how that logic allows someone to get into the country and then demand protection from the country they so respect that they violated our laws to get in here.

[AL P]

Throw the book at his sorry ass. Using someone else's SS# causes that person all sorts of fucking problems. I hope the person who really owns this SS# gets to go before the court and be heard.

[1fastdem]

You are a reminder of why I could no longer support the Dems or be a liberal.
Based off your reactions to my posts I always knew there was something more at work than simply what I said. So at least I know why now. Often when someone else has opinions that you have discarded the response to that person is a little over the top. (Feel free to say I am wrong and a Psych 101 dropout. It won't bother me)

I know you will use the typical ACLU line and say you are just protecting his rights.
I am not protecting his rights but mine. I am not protecting him but the idea of "Intent" as applied to the law. My comments were on the interest I had in watching the S.C. decide a case covering a foundation issue of our judicial system. Every time a prosecutor oversteps the legal boundaries we all have our rights infringed. The question here is did the prosecutor overstep this line?
I would expect the S.C to uphold the decision. But you never know. 2 of the Appeals Courts that sides with the illegal are mostly Rep. (Boston and D.C courts are made mostly of Judges appointed by Reagan, and the 2 Bushes. Of course the California court was stocked by Clinton.) To allow anyone to lower the burden of proving intent hurts us all. Our system of law is hundreds of years old and if you can list a better current system then please do. It is on the prosecution to prove guilty which means proving intent among other things.
There are more than enough laws violated by an illegal immigrant coming here that we don't need more used on this guy. Just deport him for breaking the immigration laws. You'll probably say, 'he'll just jump the border again and do it again.' All I see is that with this conviction he sits in a US jail for 2 years and WE ALL foot the bill for it. Then we deport him and he'll probably just jump the border and do it again anyway.


why do you and the ACLU think he has civil rights from a Constitution that he violated by coming into this country illegally.
If you went to a foreign country would you be expected to follow their laws or the laws of the United States? If you broke a law in that country would you expect to be prosecuted under their laws or the laws of the US? Would you expect to be treated fairly?
I realize the point you are making and it sounds great. As Colbert would say 'It feels right in my gut.' But it misses the entire point of the judicial system we have. By design the defendant has most of the advantages and the prosecutor has the handicaps. We are not communists or facists yet! :)

[Stevo]

If you went to a foreign country illegally would you be expected to follow their laws or the laws of the United States? If you broke a law in that country would you expect to be prosecuted under their laws as a citizen of that country or as an illegal invader or the laws of the US? Would you expect to be treated fairly?


Fixed that paragraph for you.

Stevo

[Paladin]

Based off your reactions to my posts I always knew there was something more at work than simply what I said. So at least I know why now. Often when someone else has opinions that you have discarded the response to that person is a little over the top. (Feel free to say I am wrong and a Psych 101 dropout. It won't bother me)

I didn't discard your opinion, I just disagree with it. Hell I used to think like you did once upon a time. I found myself trying to defend abhorrent behavior like Clinton's when I knew it was wrong. I know why you support Obama even when you would be screaming at the top of your
lungs if Bush or McCain had 1/10th of the baggage and poor qualifications to be President he does.

Did I insult you with my response? If so, you need to get thicker skin if you are going to continue to come in here.

So are you acknowledging there is truth in my posts since you now know I once thought like you did?

I am not protecting his rights but mine. I am not protecting him but the idea of "Intent" as applied to the law. My comments were on the interest I had in watching the S.C. decide a case covering a foundation issue of our judicial system. Every time a prosecutor oversteps the legal boundaries we all have our rights infringed. The question here is did the prosecutor overstep this line?
I would expect the S.C to uphold the decision. But you never know. 2 of the Appeals Courts that sides with the illegal are mostly Rep. (Boston and D.C courts are made mostly of Judges appointed by Reagan, and the 2 Bushes. Of course the California court was stocked by Clinton.) To allow anyone to lower the burden of proving intent hurts us all. Our system of law is hundreds of years old and if you can list a better current system then please do. It is on the prosecution to prove guilty which means proving intent among other things.
There are more than enough laws violated by an illegal immigrant coming here that we don't need more used on this guy. Just deport him for breaking the immigration laws. You'll probably say, 'he'll just jump the border again and do it again.' All I see is that with this conviction he sits in a US jail for 2 years and WE ALL foot the bill for it. Then we deport him and he'll probably just jump the border and do it again anyway.

See how you conveniently left out my argument that you assume his intent is honorable (yeah, the guy who violates our laws and disrespects our country should be given the bebfit of the doubt in liberal land) instead of the real possibility that his intent may not be so honorable as you claim. How convenient that logic is when you think like a liberal. BTW, even if his intent is as you asssume, I think he should be prosecuted with any and all laws we can throw at his illegal ass.

<--waits for the denial of liberal thinking on his part even though all the evidence I have pointed out says otherwise.

If you went to a foreign country would you be expected to follow their laws or the laws of the United States? If you broke a law in that country would you expect to be prosecuted under their laws or the laws of the US? Would you expect to be treated fairly?
I realize the point you are making and it sounds great. As Colbert would say 'It feels right in my gut.' But it misses the entire point of the judicial system we have. By design the defendant has most of the advantages and the prosecutor has the handicaps. We are not communists or facists yet! :)

I love how you liberals assume that anyone who disagrees with you has no knowledge of the topic or is not enlightened enough to come to your way of thinking. How completely arrogant of you!

As has already been pointed out, we are talking about a guy who violated our laws by entering our country illegally. I would not expect to be treated like a citizen of any country I violate laws in since I am not a citizen there. Do you know about our neighbors to the south that demand equal treatment of their citizens who violate our laws? Do you know how they treat Americans who are in their country LEGALLY?

Now, why would you want an illegal immigrant treated like a legal immigrant or a citizen of this country? I can see it now, they go under the fence or across the river and yell, woo hoo I now get free healthcare at county hospitals and get all the rights of the stupid people who waited for visasa and paperwork.

They get basic human rights and nothing else. I say we treat them just like their home country treats Americans in a similar situation, what do you say about that?

[1fastdem]

Fixed that paragraph for you.

Stevo

Fair enough of an edit. But in what part of 18 U.S.C. 1028A does it state different enforcement of that law for illegals compared to citizens? Since it doesn't we are left at apply the same standards to all people who are accused of violating 18 U.S.C. 10.

Just for your info here is the law...

(a) Offenses.—
(1) In general.— Whoever, during and in relation to any felony violation enumerated in subsection (c), knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such felony, be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 2 years.
(2) Terrorism offense.— Whoever, during and in relation to any felony violation enumerated in section 2332b (g)(5)(B), knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person or a false identification document shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such felony, be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 5 years.
(b) Consecutive Sentence.— Notwithstanding any other provision of law—
(1) a court shall not place on probation any person convicted of a violation of this section;
(2) except as provided in paragraph (4), no term of imprisonment imposed on a person under this section shall run concurrently with any other term of imprisonment imposed on the person under any other provision of law, including any term of imprisonment imposed for the felony during which the means of identification was transferred, possessed, or used;
(3) in determining any term of imprisonment to be imposed for the felony during which the means of identification was transferred, possessed, or used, a court shall not in any way reduce the term to be imposed for such crime so as to compensate for, or otherwise take into account, any separate term of imprisonment imposed or to be imposed for a violation of this section; and
(4) a term of imprisonment imposed on a person for a violation of this section may, in the discretion of the court, run concurrently, in whole or in part, only with another term of imprisonment that is imposed by the court at the same time on that person for an additional violation of this section, provided that such discretion shall be exercised in accordance with any applicable guidelines and policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to section 994 of title 28.
(c) Definition.— For purposes of this section, the term “felony violation enumerated in subsection (c)” means any offense that is a felony violation of—
(1) section 641 (relating to theft of public money, property, or rewards [1]), section 656 (relating to theft, embezzlement, or misapplication by bank officer or employee), or section 664 (relating to theft from employee benefit plans);
(2) section 911 (relating to false personation of citizenship);
(3) section 922 (a)(6) (relating to false statements in connection with the acquisition of a firearm);
(4) any provision contained in this chapter (relating to fraud and false statements), other than this section or section 1028 (a)(7);
(5) any provision contained in chapter 63 (relating to mail, bank, and wire fraud);
(6) any provision contained in chapter 69 (relating to nationality and citizenship);
(7) any provision contained in chapter 75 (relating to passports and visas);
(8) section 523 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. 6823) (relating to obtaining customer information by false pretenses);
(9) section 243 or 266 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1253 and 1306) (relating to willfully failing to leave the United States after deportation and creating a counterfeit alien registration card);
(10) any provision contained in chapter 8 of title II of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1321 et seq.) (relating to various immigration offenses); or
(11) section 208, 811, 1107(b), 1128B(a), or 1632 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 408, 1011, 1307 (b), 1320a–7b (a), and 1383a) (relating to false statements relating to programs under the Act).


If you read this law you'll see a couple things:

1st - the words "knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses" in the opening section. (subsection A.1)
2nd - the part about immigration law violations "creating a counterfeit alien registration card" (subsection C.9)

The question, as I said in my first comment, is did he "knowingly" do this or 'should he have known'. Intent. If the intent is there he is guilty if the intent isn't hs didn't violate this law.

[line-em-up]

While I agree on your finding this case absurd. It does touch on one the basic ideas of our legal system and English Law. Intent. Intent when applied to this case would make for some interesting arguments before the Supreme Court. I would be curious to read the transcript of the case with the questions from the Justices.

If you take the illegal at his word, he didn't intend to commit ID theft. You also know from your experience that a prosecutor wants to prove "direct intent" and unless the immigrant told his buddy how he planned to use this info to commit ID theft or purposely committed fraud (by draining their bank account or using their credit rating for his benefit). I don't think the prosecutor can make the caseor it wouldn't get to the S.C. So the presecution is left to prove that a reasonable person should have known the consequences of his action in using the fake papers in Chicago was ID theft. In other words should he have known the name/numbers he bought this time were real as opposed to last time when they were ficticious. Remember that this case is not discussing if he broke the law. But what law he broke exactly. Undoubtedly the guy is guilty of immigration law violations. I am not arguing that.

I think the fact that 6 Appeals Courts are evenly split is an indication of how interesting this case could be. And I love watching Court stuff when it touches on the basic issues of the rule of law.

PPS - For those unsure of the court system... An Appeals Court rules on cases in its jusidiction. For there to be 6 appeals courts weighing in on this there have to be several different cases in the court system. Then the S.C. when it picks which case to hear it selects one of the many cases it deems most relevant to all. At the S.C. level then the arguments deal less with a specific case and more on the challenge to the law someone is tried under. To get to bogged in the specific minutiae in discussing a case before the S.C. misses the bigger picture of what the Justices will be thinking about.


He knew that the odds were in favor that the SS# he was using had to be someone else's. Thus, he knew he was stealing someone's identity. If that isn't logical, then, when I see an empty car with the keys in it, I will just take it, because I don't know that it belongs to someone.

[Paladin]

Fair enough of an edit. But in what part of 18 U.S.C. 1028A does it state different enforcement of that law for illegals compared to citizens? Since it doesn't we are left at apply the same standards to all people who are accused of violating 18 U.S.C. 10.

Just for your info here is the law...

(a) Offenses.—
(1) In general.— Whoever, during and in relation to any felony violation enumerated in subsection (c), knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such felony, be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 2 years.
(2) Terrorism offense.— Whoever, during and in relation to any felony violation enumerated in section 2332b (g)(5)(B), knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person or a false identification document shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such felony, be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 5 years.
(b) Consecutive Sentence.— Notwithstanding any other provision of law—
(1) a court shall not place on probation any person convicted of a violation of this section;
(2) except as provided in paragraph (4), no term of imprisonment imposed on a person under this section shall run concurrently with any other term of imprisonment imposed on the person under any other provision of law, including any term of imprisonment imposed for the felony during which the means of identification was transferred, possessed, or used;
(3) in determining any term of imprisonment to be imposed for the felony during which the means of identification was transferred, possessed, or used, a court shall not in any way reduce the term to be imposed for such crime so as to compensate for, or otherwise take into account, any separate term of imprisonment imposed or to be imposed for a violation of this section; and
(4) a term of imprisonment imposed on a person for a violation of this section may, in the discretion of the court, run concurrently, in whole or in part, only with another term of imprisonment that is imposed by the court at the same time on that person for an additional violation of this section, provided that such discretion shall be exercised in accordance with any applicable guidelines and policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to section 994 of title 28.
(c) Definition.— For purposes of this section, the term “felony violation enumerated in subsection (c)” means any offense that is a felony violation of—
(1) section 641 (relating to theft of public money, property, or rewards [1]), section 656 (relating to theft, embezzlement, or misapplication by bank officer or employee), or section 664 (relating to theft from employee benefit plans);
(2) section 911 (relating to false personation of citizenship);
(3) section 922 (a)(6) (relating to false statements in connection with the acquisition of a firearm);
(4) any provision contained in this chapter (relating to fraud and false statements), other than this section or section 1028 (a)(7);
(5) any provision contained in chapter 63 (relating to mail, bank, and wire fraud);
(6) any provision contained in chapter 69 (relating to nationality and citizenship);
(7) any provision contained in chapter 75 (relating to passports and visas);
(8) section 523 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. 6823) (relating to obtaining customer information by false pretenses);
(9) section 243 or 266 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1253 and 1306) (relating to willfully failing to leave the United States after deportation and creating a counterfeit alien registration card);
(10) any provision contained in chapter 8 of title II of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1321 et seq.) (relating to various immigration offenses); or
(11) section 208, 811, 1107(b), 1128B(a), or 1632 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 408, 1011, 1307 (b), 1320a–7b (a), and 1383a) (relating to false statements relating to programs under the Act).


If you read this law you'll see a couple things:

1st - the words "knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses" in the opening section. (subsection A.1)
2nd - the part about immigration law violations "creating a counterfeit alien registration card" (subsection C.9)

The question, as I said in my first comment, is did he "knowingly" do this or 'should he have known'. Intent. If the intent is there he is guilty if the intent isn't hs didn't violate this law.

You are arguing a point that he has rights to laws that Americans do and we are saying he is illegal and we don't care if he has the same protections and rights as you and I do.

You can argue the "intent" point all day long and when we are talking about an illegal we disagree that he has those rights. Your argument is valid for citizens and no one would have rasied an eyebrow if the person stealing the ID was a citizen probably.

Once again, why do you want an illegal to have the same rights as a legal immigrant or a citizen? This boils down to a philisophical difference between us traditionalists/conservatives and the liberals.

[Stevo]

Fair enough of an edit. But in what part of 18 U.S.C. 1028A does it state different enforcement of that law for illegals compared to citizens? .....(bunch of shit cut out).......

Umm, in your quote that I edited for you to be more realistic, you were discussing Americans illegally entering foreign countries, not illegal aliens entering America, so why are you quoting American law?

Stevo

[Sean88gt]

Play hardball. Force the illegals to come through the process legally. If they don't abide give them a 2 strike and your out deal.

[1fastdem]

I found myself trying to defend abhorrent behavior like Clinton's when I knew it was wrong.

I can understand that frustration. I didn't defend his actions. They were wrong. But his personal failings didn't stop me from being a Dem.

I know why you support Obama even when you would be screaming at the top of your lungs if Bush or McCain had 1/10th of the baggage and poor qualifications to be President he does.

I clearly stated during the run up to the election why I supported Obama. A quick search and anyone can know that.


So are you acknowledging there is truth in my posts since you now know I once thought like you did?

I have never accused you of not being truthful. Just that I don't agree with some of the conclusions.

See how you conveniently left out my argument that you assume his intent is honorable (yeah, the guy who violates our laws and disrespects our country should be given the bebfit of the doubt in liberal land) instead of the real possibility that his intent may not be so honorable as you claim. How convenient that logic is when you think like a liberal. BTW, even if his intent is as you asssume, I think he should be prosecuted with any and all laws we can throw at his illegal ass.

<--waits for the denial of liberal thinking on his part even though all the evidence I have pointed out says otherwise.

I left it out because it neither of us can prove what he was thinking. I also said he was guilty of violating immigration laws. He pled guilty to 3.


I love how you liberals assume that anyone who disagrees with you has no knowledge of the topic or is not enlightened enough to come to your way of thinking. How completely arrogant of you!

My comment about the court system was partly to you and partly as an attempt to head off future comments from others saying, 'Screw 'em! He is guilty. The bad guy always gets too many chances' as a reflex. I have also never called you unenlightened. Try not to be so thin skinned :) I wouldn't waste time arguing with an idiot.

I say we treat them just like their home country treats Americans in a similar situation, what do you say about that?

I am a big fan of the Golden Rule myself. And I like to hold myself to a higher standard than how others treat me.

[1fastdem]

Umm, in your quote that I edited for you to be more realistic, you were discussing Americans illegally entering foreign countries, not illegal aliens entering America, so why are you quoting American law?

Stevo

That is the statute he was found guilty of and the law in question before the S.C.

[Stevo]

That is the statute he was found guilty of and the law in question before the S.C.

No, you said this:

If you went to a foreign country would you be expected to follow their laws or the laws of the United States? If you broke a law in that country would you expect to be prosecuted under their laws or the laws of the US? Would you expect to be treated fairly?

Which I corrected to be more accurate, then you started posting American law. Once again, how does American law affect someone that is illegally entering and breaking laws in some other country?

Stevo

[46Tbird]

I'm not reading forty responses about the issue, the guy is a CRIMINAL and should be ousted from this country for even being here illegally in the first place. Any crime he committed after getting here illegally is just icing on the cake and any discussion on the secondary crimes is splitting hairs.

So he stole someone's identity. So what? He probably stole all kinds of other shit too, you really think he cares about our laws?

His INTENT was to come here and be a scumbag and use any number of aliases to get what he wanted. He's a criminal. Get out of my face with this other bullshit, send him home and don't waste the supreme court's time dealing the legality of crimes committed by people that aren't even American citizens.

[1fastdem]

don't waste the supreme court's time dealing the legality of crimes committed by people that aren't even American citizens.

Odd that the Supreme Court decided to waste their time on it.

[46Tbird]

Odd that the Supreme Court decided to waste their time on it.Yep, it is odd. As in, a "completely asinine and a total MADDENING waste of American taxpayer dollars" odd.

When do we start putting Czechoslovakian criminals before our court?

Maybe the Hungarian court system is backed up and we could take over for them.

How about Peru and Cambodia?

Put an RFID chip in his neck and send him back to Mexico. It's the same thing I've got embedded in my dog, so when he gets out a vet can scan him and know who he is. If we see this illegal here again, we can let him sit it out in jail for the rest of his life.

So tell me dem, are you a supporter of illegal immigration? You're either for it, or against it. Obviously I'm fed the fuck up with it, can't stand it, and ready for it to end. How do you feel?

[1fastdem]

So tell me dem, are you a supporter of illegal immigration? You're either for it, or against it. Obviously I'm fed the fuck up with it, can't stand it, and ready for it to end. How do you feel?

Now politically you know us Dems are against illegal immigration cause it undermines the Unions. It is the Rep business interests that want it. :)

But seriously. I stated my opinion on dealing with illegal immigration in a different thread.

1st - better border control to stop people coming into the country illegally
2nd - Path to citizenship for those here. (pay fees, pay all back taxes within 5 years or stint in military with honorable discharge, clean criminal history, etc.)
3rd - aggressive enforcement of immigration laws on illegals not working on the 'path to citizenship' and the businesses that continue to emplyoy them.
4th - After the first three are going, raising the numbers of work visa's given. And eliminate the provision for a sponsoring business. Find a way to relate the number of visa's given to the relative employment needs in a specific industry.

[line-em-up]

Now politically you know us Dems are against illegal immigration cause it undermines the Unions. It is the Rep business interests that want it. :)

But seriously. I stated my opinion on dealing with illegal immigration in a different thread.

1st - better border control to stop people coming into the country illegally
2nd - Path to citizenship for those here. (pay fees, pay all back taxes within 5 years or stint in military with honorable discharge, clean criminal history, etc.)
3rd - aggressive enforcement of immigration laws on illegals not working on the 'path to citizenship' and the businesses that continue to emplyoy them.
4th - After the first three are going, raising the numbers of work visa's given. And eliminate the provision for a sponsoring business. Find a way to relate the number of visa's given to the relative employment needs in a specific industry.

They need to add one more provision.

5. Limit the number of kids they can have to 3 so they don't overload the system.

[46Tbird]

Oh trust me, I know exactly WHO wants to keep illegals in this country. To say it is "rep" business interests only is foolhardy... ;)

I would like to see ANY laws regarding illegal immigration get enforced. We have enough laws, but when LEOs are directed to look away... well, that is not going to work.

The only problem with your suggestions is, once someone is "on a path" to legal citizenship, they are no longer here illegally. They really DO become members of our society, and get the protections, entitlements, and PAY afforded to real citizens. At that point they have nothing to offer employers that they can't get from citizens. We have whole industries that are built on having cheap illegal labor.

Criminalize the people that are here illegally, and criminalize employing them. The problems will work themselves out.

[Paladin]

I can understand that frustration. I didn't defend his actions. They were wrong. But his personal failings didn't stop me from being a Dem.

I was speaking mainly about voting for a party that would defend a guy who did what he did. Do you remember the Republican senator who was soliciting sex in a bathroom stall? Did you hear any Republicans saying he should remain in office? Well guess what, the Dems didn't take that high road. I do not know how a decent person could vote for Dems when your vote is tacit approval of the party and they claim the votes they get are confirmation that they were doing what people wanted.

I clearly stated during the run up to the election why I supported Obama. A quick search and anyone can know that.

Again you missed my point and deflected to a side issue. That's okay though, I am quickly losing interest in this discussion.

I have never accused you of not being truthful. Just that I don't agree with some of the conclusions.

Fair enough for me.

I left it out because it neither of us can prove what he was thinking. I also said he was guilty of violating immigration laws. He pled guilty to 3.

And my point was you erred on the sid of his intent not being harmful. Why would you do that? Like I said, if he was a citizen most of us would be agreeing with you.

Do you think illegal immigrants deserve the same exact rights we do as citizens?

My comment about the court system was partly to you and partly as an attempt to head off future comments from others saying, 'Screw 'em! He is guilty. The bad guy always gets too many chances' as a reflex. I have also never called you unenlightened. Try not to be so thin skinned :) I wouldn't waste time arguing with an idiot.

Once again, you seemed to be going down a typical liberal path and claim that if I was only enlightened or smarter I would see your side. You didn't actually go there completely.

I am a big fan of the Golden Rule myself. And I like to hold myself to a higher standard than how others treat me.

How about holding the illegal to a higher standard and allowing your standard to be that illegals don't dseserve special rights they haven't earned?

Do you like my suggestion to hold illegals to the same standard their country would hold you or I to if we were in that country illegal? You ignored that point and wouldn't that be adhering to the Golden rule?

[1fastdem]

You are arguing a point that he has rights to laws that Americans do and we are saying he is illegal and we don't care if he has the same protections and rights as you and I do.

You can argue the "intent" point all day long and when we are talking about an illegal we disagree that he has those rights. Your argument is valid for citizens and no one would have rasied an eyebrow if the person stealing the ID was a citizen probably.

Once again, why do you want an illegal to have the same rights as a legal immigrant or a citizen? This boils down to a philisophical difference between us traditionalists/conservatives and the liberals.

I don't know why I didn't see this post earlier. I over looked it, I guess. But it sums up our difference quite well.

I guess I see it as two issues - being illegal as one crime and this as a separate. I just don't see one as impacting the other.

[Paladin]

I don't know why I didn't see this post earlier. I over looked it, I guess. But it sums up our difference quite well.

I guess I see it as two issues - being illegal as one crime and this as a separate. I just don't see one as impacting the other.


Therein lies the problem. Only liberals would see them as separate. I see them as linked and the first negates the second as being important.

Why would you think an illegal has the same rights as you and I? By that logic all they have to do is get on our soil and then they have all the rights of a person who got here illegally.

How about a guy breaking into your house and then demanding the same rights as you the owner? Kind of stupid if you think about it, right?

[1fastdem]

How about a guy breaking into your house and then demanding the same rights as you the owner? Kind of stupid if you think about it, right?

Well if he breaks in only one of us will still be around. That guy can be the owner... :)

[46Tbird]

Well if he breaks in only one of us will still be around. That guy can be the owner... :)Wow, you just summed up the situation that exists between Mexico and the USA in two sentences. Glad to see that you finally get it.

[Paladin]

Well if he breaks in only one of us will still be around. That guy can be the owner... :)

Does this example help you see our logic? If you apply some personal examples to the situation it usually helps you libs see the light! :fing02:

[1fastdem]

Does this example help you see our logic? If you apply some personal examples to the situation it usually helps you libs see the light! :fing02:

Let me ask you. A armed criminal breaks into a home with the homeowner present at 2:00 AM. What crimes do you charge him with as the arresting officer?

Ps- I gotta go. Kid's soccer game and all. But I'll be back tomorrow...

[Paladin]

Let me ask you. A armed criminal breaks into a home with the homeowner present at 2:00 AM. What crimes do you charge him with as the arresting officer?

Ps- I gotta go. Kid's soccer game and all. But I'll be back tomorrow...

Every one I can.

[Pro88LX]

guy knowingly broke the law, and should be prosecuted as such. i cant believe people are defending him........sickening.

[Vertnut]

Let me ask you. A armed criminal breaks into a home with the homeowner present at 2:00 AM. What crimes do you charge him with as the arresting officer?

Ps- I gotta go. Kid's soccer game and all. But I'll be back tomorrow...

None if it's my house. I'll call the police to clean it up, but that's about it.:approve:

[Paladin]

None if it's my house. I'll call the police to clean it up, but that's about it.:approve:


When he used "arresting" instead of "responding" officer I assumed he didn't kill the guy in his scenario.

My call would have been to have the dead body removed also. :rocketwhore:

[1fastdem]

When he used "arresting" instead of "responding" officer I assumed he didn't kill the guy in his scenario.

My call would have been to have the dead body removed also. :rocketwhore:

Correct. The criminal didn't die. What makes the difference between burglary, and more serious crimes against a person? I honestly don't know all the differences.

If a criminal breaks into your house with a weapon while you are there, can he be charged with assault or attempted manslaughter based on that alone. Or does he first have to confront or show intent to harm the victim?

[32VfromHell]

ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it.

[big_tiger]

Now politically you know us Dems are against illegal immigration cause it undermines the Unions. It is the Rep business interests that want it. :)

Now politcally you know politicans do one thing and say another, right? And since when, only Republican businesses want illegals to work for them?

ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it.

Ding :smashfreakB:

[Paladin]

Correct. The criminal didn't die. What makes the difference between burglary, and more serious crimes against a person? I honestly don't know all the differences.

If a criminal breaks into your house with a weapon while you are there, can he be charged with assault or attempted manslaughter based on that alone. Or does he first have to confront or show intent to harm the victim?

The answer isn't really all that easy to articulate concisely, but I will try.

If a criminal does a burglary with a weapon, usually referred to as home invasion, he can be charged with a higher level of burglary than the guy who breaks in just to steal your TV while you are gone. There is also the person who breaks into a home, armed or not, who intends to commit an assault, rape, or other felony and they can be charged with a higher level offense than the guy who just breaks in to steal a TV while you are gone.

Does that answer your question?