5 ms·

Came here to point this out. Both I and my wife had immigrant parents, and they all integrated beautifully. None of them would have been caught dead so much a

Came here to point this out. Both I and my wife had immigrant parents, and they all integrated beautifully. None of them would have been caught dead so much as speeding. The idea of breaking into the country--obviously a very serious crime--would never have occurred to them.

eesmith 8y ago
Could you clarify a few things which come to mind when I read your comment? I have problems reconciling it with my understanding. 1) What guidelines do you have for judging if a group of people have 'integrated beautifully'? As an example, would those guidelines show that the Amish have integrated beautifully? If they have not, is the lack of integration a problem that must be remedied? My understanding is that the Amish have not 'integrated beautifully' in the sense that they keep their own language and culture, and remain isolated from most of the rest of the country. My understanding is that that's also perfectly fine, because US culture is not homogeneous. 2) What does "breaking into the country" mean? As a specific example, when my US friends canoed in the Boundary Waters and knowingly landed in Canada to pretend to "claim" the land for the US - and did so not at a place of entry, nor did they report that entry - were they breaking into Canada? And was it a very serious crime? My understanding is that it's illegal, but not serious. 3) For a first time offender, entering or or attempting to enter the United States at any time or place other than one designated by U.S. immigration officers is a misdemeanor, with a punishment of no more than six months of incarceration and up to $250. How can something which is "obviously a very serious crime" have such a mild punishment? (The specific law is at https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-8-aliens-and-nationality/8-usc-sect-1325.html https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-8-aliens-and-nationality/... .) That is, my understanding is that "breaking into a country" is ill-defined, and reasonably interpreted to include things which are well-accepted as not being a serious crime.
- SamReidHughes 8y ago
  Six months isn't a mild punishment.
  - eesmith 8y ago
    It is a mild punishment for something which is a "obviously a very serious crime". How many other 'very serious crimes' have a maximum incarceration of only six months? How many other 'very serious crimes' are misdemeanors?
    - SamReidHughes 8y ago
      Simple battery, shoplifting, petty theft, DUI.
      - eesmith 8y ago
        And littering is also a misdemeanor which in some jurisdictions have a higher penalty than illegal border crossing, according to http://www.ncsl.org/research/environment-and-natural-resources/states-with-littering-penalties.aspx http://www.ncsl.org/research/environment-and-natural-resourc... . My argument is that it's meaningless to describe all cases of illegal border crossing as a "very serious crime", because then there's no way to distinguish between the very serious crime of littering and the very serious crime of murder. Bear in mind that the term "petty theft" contains the word "petty", which means it's "less important, serious, or great than other" types of theft, quoting https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/petty https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/petty . The listed synonyms for petty are "minor, lower, junior, secondary". You are of course free to use "very serious crime" to apply to any crime, but that is not common usage. I believe most people, most of the time, would limit the term "very serious crimes" to describe felonies. For example, quoting https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/classifications-of-crimes.html https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/classificat... > Crimes receive different classifications according to their severity. The mildest crimes are known as infractions, more serious crimes are known as misdemeanors, and the most serious crimes are known as felonies. This would suggest that "serious crimes" might include misdemeanors and felonies, but "very serious crime" should be limited to felonies. Or from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seriousness#Measuring_degree_of_seriousness_in_crime https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seriousness#Measuring_degree_o... > A felony is generally considered to be a crime of "high seriousness", while a misdemeanor is not. I am hammering the point because I believe that describing all illegal entries as a "very serious crime" muddies the water, likely deliberately so. Why describe it using terms more appropriate for murderers than litterers?
- towaway1138 8y ago
  1) Most notably, fastidiously obey the law. A close second, learn to speak and write American English really well. Also, work if you can. 2) Pretty sure we know what we're talking about here. 3) My understanding is that being in the US illegally is a misdemeanor, but entering the US illegally as an act is a felony. This is splitting hairs, though. Jumping the citizenship line, putting yourself in front of the thousands of people doing the hard work to get in right, is simply wrong. That said, it's been politically convenient for both major parties to look the other way on this for decades. Hence the mess we're in. Clearly we need to stop digging ourselves further into the hole. What to do with those already here is a tough topic.
  - eesmith 8y ago
    #1, immigrants in the US as a whole have lower incarceration rates than native born Americans. Why must they be more fastidious than native born citizens? #2, no, I insist that I do not know. There is no legal definition for "breaking into the country", and the best definition I can come up with - entering the country without going through border control - is only a misdemeanor for the first offense, so not "obviously a very serious crime". That's why I asked what you mean by it. #3, your understanding is wrong. I linked you to the actual US law. I will now quote it: > Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers,... shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under Title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both Then https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3559 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3559 says that "if the maximum term of imprisonment authorized is ... six months or less but more than thirty days" then it's a "Class B misdemeanor". Hence, entering the US at somewhere other than a designated border crossing is a class B federal misdemeanor, and NOT a felony. We are not "splitting hairs". You are making statements which are simply incorrect, then justifying your views based on those statements.
    - towaway1138 8y ago
      1) You asked me what my definition is--that's it. You're welcome to have your own. 2/3) Quoting one regulation does not establish that another does not exist. In any case, you're not going to change anyone's mind on this by quibbling over such details. People who come in unlawfully cause a long train of problems, which we're having to deal with now. For starters, there's no way to remain here without continuing to break laws on a regular basis. They are at significant risk of violence and exploitation, and there's no way for them to ever fully integrate into society given their illegal status. On top of that, they displace the people that we are choosing to admit after long and careful consideration--people who worked long and hard for it, who are the ideal future citizens we want. It's difficult to think of any other context in which this would be considered acceptable.

eesmith 8y ago

Could you clarify a few things which come to mind when I read your comment? I have problems reconciling it with my understanding. 1) What guidelines do you have for judging if a group of people have 'integrated beautifully'? As an example, would those guidelines show that the Amish have integrated beautifully? If they have not, is the lack of integration a problem that must be remedied? My understanding is that the Amish have not 'integrated beautifully' in the sense that they keep their own language and culture, and remain isolated from most of the rest of the country. My understanding is that that's also perfectly fine, because US culture is not homogeneous. 2) What does "breaking into the country" mean? As a specific example, when my US friends canoed in the Boundary Waters and knowingly landed in Canada to pretend to "claim" the land for the US - and did so not at a place of entry, nor did they report that entry - were they breaking into Canada? And was it a very serious crime? My understanding is that it's illegal, but not serious. 3) For a first time offender, entering or or attempting to enter the United States at any time or place other than one designated by U.S. immigration officers is a misdemeanor, with a punishment of no more than six months of incarceration and up to $250. How can something which is "obviously a very serious crime" have such a mild punishment? (The specific law is at https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-8-aliens-and-nationality/8-usc-sect-1325.html https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-8-aliens-and-nationality/... .) That is, my understanding is that "breaking into a country" is ill-defined, and reasonably interpreted to include things which are well-accepted as not being a serious crime.

SamReidHughes 8y ago
Six months isn't a mild punishment.
- eesmith 8y ago
  It is a mild punishment for something which is a "obviously a very serious crime". How many other 'very serious crimes' have a maximum incarceration of only six months? How many other 'very serious crimes' are misdemeanors?
  - SamReidHughes 8y ago
    Simple battery, shoplifting, petty theft, DUI.
    - eesmith 8y ago
      And littering is also a misdemeanor which in some jurisdictions have a higher penalty than illegal border crossing, according to http://www.ncsl.org/research/environment-and-natural-resources/states-with-littering-penalties.aspx http://www.ncsl.org/research/environment-and-natural-resourc... . My argument is that it's meaningless to describe all cases of illegal border crossing as a "very serious crime", because then there's no way to distinguish between the very serious crime of littering and the very serious crime of murder. Bear in mind that the term "petty theft" contains the word "petty", which means it's "less important, serious, or great than other" types of theft, quoting https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/petty https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/petty . The listed synonyms for petty are "minor, lower, junior, secondary". You are of course free to use "very serious crime" to apply to any crime, but that is not common usage. I believe most people, most of the time, would limit the term "very serious crimes" to describe felonies. For example, quoting https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/classifications-of-crimes.html https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/classificat... > Crimes receive different classifications according to their severity. The mildest crimes are known as infractions, more serious crimes are known as misdemeanors, and the most serious crimes are known as felonies. This would suggest that "serious crimes" might include misdemeanors and felonies, but "very serious crime" should be limited to felonies. Or from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seriousness#Measuring_degree_of_seriousness_in_crime https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seriousness#Measuring_degree_o... > A felony is generally considered to be a crime of "high seriousness", while a misdemeanor is not. I am hammering the point because I believe that describing all illegal entries as a "very serious crime" muddies the water, likely deliberately so. Why describe it using terms more appropriate for murderers than litterers?
towaway1138 8y ago
1) Most notably, fastidiously obey the law. A close second, learn to speak and write American English really well. Also, work if you can. 2) Pretty sure we know what we're talking about here. 3) My understanding is that being in the US illegally is a misdemeanor, but entering the US illegally as an act is a felony. This is splitting hairs, though. Jumping the citizenship line, putting yourself in front of the thousands of people doing the hard work to get in right, is simply wrong. That said, it's been politically convenient for both major parties to look the other way on this for decades. Hence the mess we're in. Clearly we need to stop digging ourselves further into the hole. What to do with those already here is a tough topic.
- eesmith 8y ago
  #1, immigrants in the US as a whole have lower incarceration rates than native born Americans. Why must they be more fastidious than native born citizens? #2, no, I insist that I do not know. There is no legal definition for "breaking into the country", and the best definition I can come up with - entering the country without going through border control - is only a misdemeanor for the first offense, so not "obviously a very serious crime". That's why I asked what you mean by it. #3, your understanding is wrong. I linked you to the actual US law. I will now quote it: > Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers,... shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under Title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both Then https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3559 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3559 says that "if the maximum term of imprisonment authorized is ... six months or less but more than thirty days" then it's a "Class B misdemeanor". Hence, entering the US at somewhere other than a designated border crossing is a class B federal misdemeanor, and NOT a felony. We are not "splitting hairs". You are making statements which are simply incorrect, then justifying your views based on those statements.
  - towaway1138 8y ago
    1) You asked me what my definition is--that's it. You're welcome to have your own. 2/3) Quoting one regulation does not establish that another does not exist. In any case, you're not going to change anyone's mind on this by quibbling over such details. People who come in unlawfully cause a long train of problems, which we're having to deal with now. For starters, there's no way to remain here without continuing to break laws on a regular basis. They are at significant risk of violence and exploitation, and there's no way for them to ever fully integrate into society given their illegal status. On top of that, they displace the people that we are choosing to admit after long and careful consideration--people who worked long and hard for it, who are the ideal future citizens we want. It's difficult to think of any other context in which this would be considered acceptable.