4 ms·

I don’t mean to sound pompous, but you may have misunderstood the meaning of the word criminalization. Unlawful presence (being “an illegal”) is a civil matter,

I don’t mean to sound pompous, but you may have misunderstood the meaning of the word criminalization. Unlawful presence (being “an illegal”) is a civil matter, and not a crime. Use of the term with regards to immigration is established. Here’s an (old) NYT oped as an example (other outlets available via your favorite search engine): https://mobile.nytimes.com/2009/11/27/opinion/27fri2.html https://mobile.nytimes.com/2009/11/27/opinion/27fri2.html

smsm42 8y ago
Unlawful presence (being “an illegal”) is a civil matter, and not a crime. US legal system seems to disagree with you. http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/us-immigration/crime-enter-illegally.html http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/us-immigration/crime-ent... https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33351.pdf https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33351.pdf It is true that some of the illegal immigrants (e.g. those overstaying visas) may not be guilty of criminal infractions, but most of the illegal border crossers are. As you can see, this question has little to do with ICE as these conditions are written in law, not ICE policies. Here’s an (old) NYT oped as an example NYT is not exactly a neutral arbiter of correct word usage, especially in highly politicized matter in which NYT is fully engaged. Additionally, if you do read the article, right from the start it points out that the change from criminal handling to civil is a target of a future reform, not a current state of affairs: A bedrock premise of smart immigration reform is the sharp distinction it draws between criminal aliens and Americans-in-waiting. While it acknowledges that illegal immigrants need to get right with the law, it treats illegal status as a civil matter to be resolved by the machinery of naturalization, not by the police and prisons. Nobody would need a "reform" if the above would already be the case. In any case, ICE has no power to decide any of these matters, beyond very narrow band of operative focus (i.e. how to allocate prosecutorial and prevention resources, etc.) - if something is criminal, ICE can not "decriminalize" it, and if something is not, ICE can not "criminalize" it. That's why the very article you quoted talks about "bills" - i.e. legislative actions - that can do exactly that.
- dnomad 8y ago
  > US legal system seems to disagree with you. You're wrong. The use of the term "criminalization" here is correct. The Supreme Court has stated multiple times that being on US soil without proper documentation is not a crime [1]. You then deliberately try to conflate this with border crossing but note that irregular border crossing is also not a crime when individuals are seeking asylum. The US law here is actually quite muddy here (several lawsuits are in the air [2]) but international treaties (to which the US is party) make it quite clear that criminal prosecution of asylum seekers and refugees is both illegal and inhumane [3]. The criminalization effort (especially part where ICE agents get decked out with body armor and assault weapons to detain restaurant cooks) is precisely a propaganda effort to make it look like these people are all criminals when they're mostly just poor desperate people refuge from failed countries. (Of particular irony: many of these failed countries are so mostly because of US policy. In the case of Honduras the US decision to back the right-wing coup in 2009 led directly to the total collapse of law and order in that country. [4]) > In any case, ICE has no power to decide any of these matters Not sure if this is deliberate or you're just very naieve but ICE has a lot of leeway in how it carries out its mostly administrative duties. (Contrary to popular belief ICE are not police though they love to dress up in the "POLICE ICE" jackets while terrorizing people.) There's a big difference, for example, whether ICE chooses to pre-emptively detain individuals awaiting processing in Immigration Court or it lets people show up on their own. [1] http://www.politifact.com/new-york/statements/2017/dec/01/kathy-sheehan/being-undocumented-immigrant-us-not-crime/ http://www.politifact.com/new-york/statements/2017/dec/01/ka... [2] https://www.aclu.org/blog/immigrants-rights/immigrants-rights-and-detention/fact-checking-family-separation https://www.aclu.org/blog/immigrants-rights/immigrants-right... [3] https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/press-release/report-documents-administration-s-shameful-criminal-prosecution-asylum-seekers-border https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/press-release/report-docume... [4] https://www.ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/us-role-honduras-coup-and-subsequent-violence https://www.ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/us-role-honduras-c...
  - smsm42 8y ago
    > The Supreme Court has stated multiple times that being on US soil without proper documentation is not a crime Being is not. Crossing the border not via border control is. > but international treaties (to which the US is party) make it quite clear that criminal prosecution of asylum seekers and refugees is both illegal and inhumane We are not discussing what is humane according to some international treaty, we are discussing what is the US law and whether ICE has any power to change it. US law is illegal border crossing is a crime and ICE must enforce it. > ICE has a lot of leeway in how it carries out its mostly administrative duties It does. Changing the law about what is criminal and what is not is not part of it. It can, if directed by the head of the executive, refuse to uphold the law and prosecute behavior which is criminal by law, but that won't change the fact it is criminal - it'd be just criminal behavior that is not prosecuted. They way to make it not criminal is to change the law that makes it criminal. And, also, they can not just decide something is criminal and start prosecuting it without the law already having it as a crime - it's just not in their powers. > Contrary to popular belief ICE are not police Whose popular belief? ICE is a separate law enforcement agency, just as FBI, DEA, CBP or Secret Service are. The fact that they are not police does not change their powers as an executive agency. > There's a big difference, for example, whether ICE chooses to pre-emptively detain individuals awaiting processing in Immigration Court or it lets people show up on their own. There is, but it doesn't change anything about criminality.

smsm42 8y ago

Unlawful presence (being “an illegal”) is a civil matter, and not a crime. US legal system seems to disagree with you. http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/us-immigration/crime-enter-illegally.html http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/us-immigration/crime-ent... https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33351.pdf https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33351.pdf It is true that some of the illegal immigrants (e.g. those overstaying visas) may not be guilty of criminal infractions, but most of the illegal border crossers are. As you can see, this question has little to do with ICE as these conditions are written in law, not ICE policies. Here’s an (old) NYT oped as an example NYT is not exactly a neutral arbiter of correct word usage, especially in highly politicized matter in which NYT is fully engaged. Additionally, if you do read the article, right from the start it points out that the change from criminal handling to civil is a target of a future reform, not a current state of affairs: A bedrock premise of smart immigration reform is the sharp distinction it draws between criminal aliens and Americans-in-waiting. While it acknowledges that illegal immigrants need to get right with the law, it treats illegal status as a civil matter to be resolved by the machinery of naturalization, not by the police and prisons. Nobody would need a "reform" if the above would already be the case. In any case, ICE has no power to decide any of these matters, beyond very narrow band of operative focus (i.e. how to allocate prosecutorial and prevention resources, etc.) - if something is criminal, ICE can not "decriminalize" it, and if something is not, ICE can not "criminalize" it. That's why the very article you quoted talks about "bills" - i.e. legislative actions - that can do exactly that.

dnomad 8y ago
> US legal system seems to disagree with you. You're wrong. The use of the term "criminalization" here is correct. The Supreme Court has stated multiple times that being on US soil without proper documentation is not a crime [1]. You then deliberately try to conflate this with border crossing but note that irregular border crossing is also not a crime when individuals are seeking asylum. The US law here is actually quite muddy here (several lawsuits are in the air [2]) but international treaties (to which the US is party) make it quite clear that criminal prosecution of asylum seekers and refugees is both illegal and inhumane [3]. The criminalization effort (especially part where ICE agents get decked out with body armor and assault weapons to detain restaurant cooks) is precisely a propaganda effort to make it look like these people are all criminals when they're mostly just poor desperate people refuge from failed countries. (Of particular irony: many of these failed countries are so mostly because of US policy. In the case of Honduras the US decision to back the right-wing coup in 2009 led directly to the total collapse of law and order in that country. [4]) > In any case, ICE has no power to decide any of these matters Not sure if this is deliberate or you're just very naieve but ICE has a lot of leeway in how it carries out its mostly administrative duties. (Contrary to popular belief ICE are not police though they love to dress up in the "POLICE ICE" jackets while terrorizing people.) There's a big difference, for example, whether ICE chooses to pre-emptively detain individuals awaiting processing in Immigration Court or it lets people show up on their own. [1] http://www.politifact.com/new-york/statements/2017/dec/01/kathy-sheehan/being-undocumented-immigrant-us-not-crime/ http://www.politifact.com/new-york/statements/2017/dec/01/ka... [2] https://www.aclu.org/blog/immigrants-rights/immigrants-rights-and-detention/fact-checking-family-separation https://www.aclu.org/blog/immigrants-rights/immigrants-right... [3] https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/press-release/report-documents-administration-s-shameful-criminal-prosecution-asylum-seekers-border https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/press-release/report-docume... [4] https://www.ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/us-role-honduras-coup-and-subsequent-violence https://www.ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/us-role-honduras-c...
- smsm42 8y ago
  > The Supreme Court has stated multiple times that being on US soil without proper documentation is not a crime Being is not. Crossing the border not via border control is. > but international treaties (to which the US is party) make it quite clear that criminal prosecution of asylum seekers and refugees is both illegal and inhumane We are not discussing what is humane according to some international treaty, we are discussing what is the US law and whether ICE has any power to change it. US law is illegal border crossing is a crime and ICE must enforce it. > ICE has a lot of leeway in how it carries out its mostly administrative duties It does. Changing the law about what is criminal and what is not is not part of it. It can, if directed by the head of the executive, refuse to uphold the law and prosecute behavior which is criminal by law, but that won't change the fact it is criminal - it'd be just criminal behavior that is not prosecuted. They way to make it not criminal is to change the law that makes it criminal. And, also, they can not just decide something is criminal and start prosecuting it without the law already having it as a crime - it's just not in their powers. > Contrary to popular belief ICE are not police Whose popular belief? ICE is a separate law enforcement agency, just as FBI, DEA, CBP or Secret Service are. The fact that they are not police does not change their powers as an executive agency. > There's a big difference, for example, whether ICE chooses to pre-emptively detain individuals awaiting processing in Immigration Court or it lets people show up on their own. There is, but it doesn't change anything about criminality.