4 ms·

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 k

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
    My followup was to point out the unreasonableness of your definition. You seem to have created a law which doesn't exist "breaking into a country" and a punishment which doesn't exist, on the assumption that your definition must be the right one. If your view is right, it should be easy to disprove me - it was not hard for me to find the information which showed that your broad definition was wrong. Why hand-wave instead? You bring up "fully integrated into society" as if that were of fundamental importance. Are the Amish fully integrated into society? If your definition is only "fastidiously obey the law" then for a long time the Amish were not fully integrated, eg, continuing to speak German at places in violation of laws passed as a result of WWI. The laws changed, making the Amish once again integrated under that definition. Just like the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 shows that it's possible legalize undocumented immigrants - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Reform_and_Control_Act_of_1986 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Reform_and_Control... .
    - towaway1138 8y ago
      I'm fine with whatever laws our representatives enact to deal with the situation. I'm completely against those (citizens or not) who decide they'll just break the laws because they don't like them.

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
  My followup was to point out the unreasonableness of your definition. You seem to have created a law which doesn't exist "breaking into a country" and a punishment which doesn't exist, on the assumption that your definition must be the right one. If your view is right, it should be easy to disprove me - it was not hard for me to find the information which showed that your broad definition was wrong. Why hand-wave instead? You bring up "fully integrated into society" as if that were of fundamental importance. Are the Amish fully integrated into society? If your definition is only "fastidiously obey the law" then for a long time the Amish were not fully integrated, eg, continuing to speak German at places in violation of laws passed as a result of WWI. The laws changed, making the Amish once again integrated under that definition. Just like the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 shows that it's possible legalize undocumented immigrants - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Reform_and_Control_Act_of_1986 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Reform_and_Control... .
  - towaway1138 8y ago
    I'm fine with whatever laws our representatives enact to deal with the situation. I'm completely against those (citizens or not) who decide they'll just break the laws because they don't like them.