5 ms·

Which part is different? - Do illegal immigrants with families mostly have significant existing criminal records in the destination jurisdiction? The ones tha

Which part is different? - Do illegal immigrants with families mostly have significant existing criminal records in the destination jurisdiction? The ones that do should of course be treated more harshly, but most do not. - Do illegal immigrants with families mostly have outstanding warrants in the destination jurisdiction? The outstanding warrant should of course be honored in that case, but most do not. - Or are we imprisoning people for sometimes over a year, placing their children in (at best) the care of strangers, purely as a mechanism to ensure that they show up to court? Could you imagine the outcry if we did that for speeding?

manigandham 8y ago
They are not citizens so don't have the same rights and don't have a legal residence to be sent to so detainment is the only option, other than immediate deportation and skipping any case processing at all. And yes, even if you are a citizen and you get arrested, you will be separated from your family. If you have children, they will be placed in protective services. They do not go with you to jail. Whether you are arrested for speeding is explained in my prior post.
- amalcon 8y ago
  The U.S. Constitution grants most of the same rights to non-citizens within its borders that it grants to citizens. Things like due process and legal representation are guaranteed to non-citizens within U.S. jurisdiction. There are of course exceptions, like voting, but none of those exceptions are relevant here. Homeless people also don't have a legal address, but a homeless person won't be imprisoned for a year pretrial and separated from their kids for speeding in the car they live in. And no, if you get arrested for most misdemeanor crimes, you will usually not be imprisoned and separated from your family for sometimes over a year with no planned method to ever contact each other again. You are just wrong about this. I'm aware of (and rather outraged by) cases where people convicted of serious felonies (in one case, assault with a deadly weapon) are given sentences that still allow them to live with their children most of the time.
  - manigandham 8y ago
    It's not speeding or misdemeanor, it's whether you will show up to court or not. Illegal immigrants are not citizens, don't have the same rights, and don't have anywhere to be released to since they cannot be in the country in the first place. However they do have due-process and have access to lawyers and communications. Detainment is the only answer if you want their cases to be processed, and detainment may sometimes result in families being separated. Homeless people can be in the country and have the ability to show up in court but they do often spend time in jail and sometimes even commit crime because it ensures food and housing.
    - amalcon 8y ago
      You've mentioned rights accorded to citizens, but not to noncitizens, twice now. I can't see the relevance. Which relevant right is guaranteed to citizens, but not to noncitizens in U.S. jurisdiction? Detainment is not the only answer if you want these cases to be processed. I cite as evidence the fact that there was a backlog of these cases to be processed when the zero-tolerance policy was implemented. If cases were not being processed, there would be no backlog. Homeless people sometimes going to prison is not relevant to whether or not every illegal immigrant should go to prison.
      - manigandham 8y ago
        The right to be in the country. Either they are detained and the case is processed or they are deported immediately. You seem to have no answer to where else to put people who cannot be in the country legally. The backlog is a resource issue. Precisely the kind of thing that can be helped with better software.
        amalcon 8y ago
        Re: "the right to be in the country", there is no such right. U.S. citizens do have the (pretty sure only legislative) right to obtain a U.S. passport, which may be presented at a port of entry. Entry may not be denied to someone carrying a genuine and current U.S. passport, though they might be immediately imprisoned upon doing so for unrelated crimes. Entry of a U.S. citizen by other means, however, is just as illegal as a noncitizen overstaying their visa. Re: "no answer", I had been operating under the assumption that we could take the entire history of the United States prior to April 2018 as evidence that there are other ways of doing things. A variety of solutions were employed prior to that date, with only one solution being employed after. This is sufficient evidence that other approaches are indeed possible. If the argument is that all of these previous solutions were in fact illegal, then I'm not really qualified to have that argument. Most legal scholars seem to disagree, though. The backlog is indeed a resource issue. Resource issues are evidence of demand for resources. Demand for these resources is driven by the need to process immigration cases. The backlog is therefore evidence that cases were being processed.

manigandham 8y ago

They are not citizens so don't have the same rights and don't have a legal residence to be sent to so detainment is the only option, other than immediate deportation and skipping any case processing at all. And yes, even if you are a citizen and you get arrested, you will be separated from your family. If you have children, they will be placed in protective services. They do not go with you to jail. Whether you are arrested for speeding is explained in my prior post.

amalcon 8y ago
The U.S. Constitution grants most of the same rights to non-citizens within its borders that it grants to citizens. Things like due process and legal representation are guaranteed to non-citizens within U.S. jurisdiction. There are of course exceptions, like voting, but none of those exceptions are relevant here. Homeless people also don't have a legal address, but a homeless person won't be imprisoned for a year pretrial and separated from their kids for speeding in the car they live in. And no, if you get arrested for most misdemeanor crimes, you will usually not be imprisoned and separated from your family for sometimes over a year with no planned method to ever contact each other again. You are just wrong about this. I'm aware of (and rather outraged by) cases where people convicted of serious felonies (in one case, assault with a deadly weapon) are given sentences that still allow them to live with their children most of the time.
- manigandham 8y ago
  It's not speeding or misdemeanor, it's whether you will show up to court or not. Illegal immigrants are not citizens, don't have the same rights, and don't have anywhere to be released to since they cannot be in the country in the first place. However they do have due-process and have access to lawyers and communications. Detainment is the only answer if you want their cases to be processed, and detainment may sometimes result in families being separated. Homeless people can be in the country and have the ability to show up in court but they do often spend time in jail and sometimes even commit crime because it ensures food and housing.
  - amalcon 8y ago
    You've mentioned rights accorded to citizens, but not to noncitizens, twice now. I can't see the relevance. Which relevant right is guaranteed to citizens, but not to noncitizens in U.S. jurisdiction? Detainment is not the only answer if you want these cases to be processed. I cite as evidence the fact that there was a backlog of these cases to be processed when the zero-tolerance policy was implemented. If cases were not being processed, there would be no backlog. Homeless people sometimes going to prison is not relevant to whether or not every illegal immigrant should go to prison.
    - manigandham 8y ago
      The right to be in the country. Either they are detained and the case is processed or they are deported immediately. You seem to have no answer to where else to put people who cannot be in the country legally. The backlog is a resource issue. Precisely the kind of thing that can be helped with better software.
      - amalcon 8y ago
        Re: "the right to be in the country", there is no such right. U.S. citizens do have the (pretty sure only legislative) right to obtain a U.S. passport, which may be presented at a port of entry. Entry may not be denied to someone carrying a genuine and current U.S. passport, though they might be immediately imprisoned upon doing so for unrelated crimes. Entry of a U.S. citizen by other means, however, is just as illegal as a noncitizen overstaying their visa. Re: "no answer", I had been operating under the assumption that we could take the entire history of the United States prior to April 2018 as evidence that there are other ways of doing things. A variety of solutions were employed prior to that date, with only one solution being employed after. This is sufficient evidence that other approaches are indeed possible. If the argument is that all of these previous solutions were in fact illegal, then I'm not really qualified to have that argument. Most legal scholars seem to disagree, though. The backlog is indeed a resource issue. Resource issues are evidence of demand for resources. Demand for these resources is driven by the need to process immigration cases. The backlog is therefore evidence that cases were being processed.