5 ms·

>By breaking the law, these travellers got sorted into the "criminals" bin and are now treated like shit. Only its immigration law so its civil not criminal la

>By breaking the law, these travellers got sorted into the "criminals" bin and are now treated like shit. Only its immigration law so its civil not criminal law. That's the biggest mental divide I come across, there is a certain group that is very quick to label people as "illegal immigrants" or "illegal aliens" or just plain "illegals". Of course the intent is to convey and suggest illegal = criminal. This group can't wrap their mind around the fact immigration status isn't a crime.

beerandt 7y ago
It's only civil for a first infraction, like the people in this story. Disobeying any immigration order or being deported and then returning is civil and criminal.
- throwaway_law 7y ago
  >It's only civil for a first infraction No. As a preliminary matter there is no such thing as an immigration infraction. >Disobeying any immigration order... There is nothing special about an "immigration order" its a court order, the same as any other court order and has nothing to do with ones immigration status. >or being deported and then returning is civil and criminal. This 2nd part just goes to my point about mental divides, no where did you mention after deportation the vast majority of deportees have a temporary bar to return and thereafter they may return legally...again this goes to your attempted point about "first infractions." People get deported multiple time, it doesn't become a criminal case after the first deportation.
  - beerandt 7y ago
    Illegal entry (8 usc 1325) This is/was generally waived as a matter of policy for a first offence. The status of being/remaining in the country is a civil matter, and not necessarily criminal. But crossing the border illegally is criminal. >court order It's an immigration "court" order, which is administrative/executive (under the DOJ), and which is not an article III court. So immigration order might not be 100% accurate, but it's no more wrong than calling it a court order.
    - throwaway_law 7y ago
      >Illegal entry (8 usc 1325) This is/was generally waived as a matter of policy for a first offence. That isn't an Immigration Law, that is a criminal law. An Immigration Court wouldn't have jurisdiction over those cases. Whether you are a citizen or non citizen if you illegally enter the country thats a crime, and in either case you would go before a criminal court not an immigration court. Again immigration status is not a crime. >So immigration order might not be 100% accurate, but it's no more wrong than calling it a court order. Federal Immigration Judges would disagree, Immigration Court is a...Court, and Immigration Judge's issue Court Orders, subject to the same penalties as violating any other court order.
      - beerandt 7y ago
        It's a criminal law that has direct bearing on a person's ability to immigrate. Immigration status directly affects the penalties of 8 usc 1325 & 1326. ICE/CBP is going to enforce both. >Federal Immigration Judges would disagree They can disagree all they want, but only do it when it's convenient. They're arguing right now they don't even have decision making making capabilities, and can only do what's directed by the executive branch (for the sake of keeping their union). The DOJ can single handily over-rule any order signed by an immigration judge. They're a completely different animal than Article III courts. And so are the orders that they generate. Can they be enforced by federal officers? Yes, but that's my point, the whole immigration system is complicated and is comprised of many different aspects of government and law. But you can't split hairs on the intricacies between civil and criminal law (when for immigration, they're highly interwoven) and at the same time argue that a subsidiary of the executive branch should be treated as if it's part of the judiciary branch. >Again immigration status is not a crime The article is about crossing the border. By foreigners without a visa. Illegally.
        throwaway_law 7y ago
        >But you can't split hairs on the intricacies between civil and criminal law (when for immigration, they're highly interwoven) Its not splitting hairs, its how the law and courts work. There is a difference between civil and criminal laws and courts. Point to a single Immigration Court case where the Court has sentenced someone to jail/prison for a criminal act. You can't because Immigration Courts don't have jurisdiction over criminal cases. >The article is about crossing the border. By foreigners without a visa. Illegally. No criminal charge was brought against these folks. They are NOT in a federal prison awaiting a federal criminal case. They are in an Immigration Detention Facility waiting to appear before a civil Immigration Judge. Could criminal charges be filed? sure, but then the Immigration Court would lose jurisdiction, they would go to a Federal Prison and appear before a Federal Criminal Court for the criminal case. Even if they were sentenced for the crime of illegal boarder crossing and sentenced to prison, they would serve their term in a federal prison not in a immigration detention facility, and likely ICE would be waiting outside the prison the day they get released and ICE would re-detain them, put them back in a Federal Immigration Detention Center pending civil removal (deportation proceedings) in Immigration Court.
rolph 7y ago
one of the elements of a crime is the formulated intent. if you kill someone with the intent to do so, you are commiting murder. if you didnt intend to harm someone, but were intentionally negligent with your parking brake and someone dies, you didnt intend to harm , thus notmurder, but manslaughter, or negligent harm of some sort is the crime. these people didnt intend to cross the border illegally, most certainly the passengers didnt, and i would estimate, they all would have surrendered to inspection and turned around to disembark,given the choice
- beerandt 7y ago
  1- the civil aspect handles part of this. It only requires equitable enforcement. 2- the act of traveling on the road was intentional, even if they were lost. What you are arguing would be more applicable if they were in a wreck, and pushed across the border. But even that is a stretch. They may have been advised of this, hence playing up the "swerved to not hit an animal" part of their story.
  - rolph 7y ago
    I think it was "avoiding wildlife" rather than swerving. in that region there are herds of caribou, buffalo and sometimes quite contrary pods of moose. The traffic delay can be extreme as you have to wait for them to move on, as it is a major offense to interfere with wildlife migration, even tangentially. a lot of people get lost or stranded on a fire/logging road trying to skirt around the crossing. Ive encountered such people many times and helped them out to the road. I do have to wonder if there was a hue of skin that was stimulating to those border agents, no mention of anything like that, so im left to wonder about it. Most border agents in those areas are quite cordial and deal with hikers and hunters all the time, usually its just a matter of showing passport, explaining what your doing and where you crossed, then turn around and dont make the same mistake for a long while.
    - beerandt 7y ago
      I don't know why I read it that way, but you're right. "Avoiding wildlife." I had a picture of an unavoidable turn in my head. Which maybe goes to show they're being a bit over-ambiguous. Or maybe I just read it wrong. >a hue of skin that was stimulating to those border agents, no mention of anything like that If they weren't white, they almost certainly would have mentioned it, with the story being so sympathetic to their victimhood. The media doesn't pass on the chance to play up racism for stories like these.
aidenn0 7y ago
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325 IANAL, but up to 6 months in prison for first infraction under Title 18 (which is US Criminal code). There are additionally civil penalties.
- throwaway_law 7y ago
  What I said is "status is not a crime." Illegal entry into the Country is a crime, whether you are a citizen or not, its a crime. Nevertheless, these people were not charged with a crime or illegally entering the Country, nor does Immigration Court have jurisdiction over criminal cases. They are currently being held in an Immigration Detention Center and facing removal (deportation), thats civil, not criminal. If they were charged with a crime, they would 1st go to criminal court. It happens all the time, an undocumented person commits a crime (of fraud or moral turpitude), gets charged, found guilty, serves time, then upon release from jail/prison ICE is there to meet them, detain them in a Immigration Detention Center/facility while they face the civil Immigration case.
  - aidenn0 7y ago
    Just because they weren't charged with a crime doesn't mean they weren't arrested for a crime. People get arrested for crimes they are never charged for all the time. [edit] > The occupants were arrested for illegally entering the US without inspection. During processing, records revealed the two adults that had previously been denied access to the US, CBP said on Tuesday. Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-50067575 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-50067575
    - throwaway_law 7y ago
      >People get arrested for crimes they are never charged for all the time. Yes and the point is we don't call those folks "illegals." You responded to my comment, specifically: >This group can't wrap their mind around the fact immigration status isn't a crime. Your pointing to a criminal charge that has nothing to do with my point. Sure citizens and immigrants alike can commit crimes, including illegal boarder crossing, but illegal border crossing has nothing to do with immigration status. Immigration status is itself not a crime.
cannonedhamster 7y ago
Being put into a prison without a bed and separating a mother from her child for a wrong turn seems like it's criminal, not civil. Civil would be being asked to show up to court, not being imprisoned.
- throwaway_law 7y ago
  Yes it does seem criminal...but its not. Thats my point Immigrants in detention centers/immigration proceedings are treated like criminals, but they aren't (certainly a immigrant could be a criminal, but thats separate from anything to do with Immigration detention and Immigration Courts).

beerandt 7y ago

It's only civil for a first infraction, like the people in this story. Disobeying any immigration order or being deported and then returning is civil and criminal.

throwaway_law 7y ago
>It's only civil for a first infraction No. As a preliminary matter there is no such thing as an immigration infraction. >Disobeying any immigration order... There is nothing special about an "immigration order" its a court order, the same as any other court order and has nothing to do with ones immigration status. >or being deported and then returning is civil and criminal. This 2nd part just goes to my point about mental divides, no where did you mention after deportation the vast majority of deportees have a temporary bar to return and thereafter they may return legally...again this goes to your attempted point about "first infractions." People get deported multiple time, it doesn't become a criminal case after the first deportation.
- beerandt 7y ago
  Illegal entry (8 usc 1325) This is/was generally waived as a matter of policy for a first offence. The status of being/remaining in the country is a civil matter, and not necessarily criminal. But crossing the border illegally is criminal. >court order It's an immigration "court" order, which is administrative/executive (under the DOJ), and which is not an article III court. So immigration order might not be 100% accurate, but it's no more wrong than calling it a court order.
  - throwaway_law 7y ago
    >Illegal entry (8 usc 1325) This is/was generally waived as a matter of policy for a first offence. That isn't an Immigration Law, that is a criminal law. An Immigration Court wouldn't have jurisdiction over those cases. Whether you are a citizen or non citizen if you illegally enter the country thats a crime, and in either case you would go before a criminal court not an immigration court. Again immigration status is not a crime. >So immigration order might not be 100% accurate, but it's no more wrong than calling it a court order. Federal Immigration Judges would disagree, Immigration Court is a...Court, and Immigration Judge's issue Court Orders, subject to the same penalties as violating any other court order.
    - beerandt 7y ago
      It's a criminal law that has direct bearing on a person's ability to immigrate. Immigration status directly affects the penalties of 8 usc 1325 & 1326. ICE/CBP is going to enforce both. >Federal Immigration Judges would disagree They can disagree all they want, but only do it when it's convenient. They're arguing right now they don't even have decision making making capabilities, and can only do what's directed by the executive branch (for the sake of keeping their union). The DOJ can single handily over-rule any order signed by an immigration judge. They're a completely different animal than Article III courts. And so are the orders that they generate. Can they be enforced by federal officers? Yes, but that's my point, the whole immigration system is complicated and is comprised of many different aspects of government and law. But you can't split hairs on the intricacies between civil and criminal law (when for immigration, they're highly interwoven) and at the same time argue that a subsidiary of the executive branch should be treated as if it's part of the judiciary branch. >Again immigration status is not a crime The article is about crossing the border. By foreigners without a visa. Illegally.
      - throwaway_law 7y ago
        >But you can't split hairs on the intricacies between civil and criminal law (when for immigration, they're highly interwoven) Its not splitting hairs, its how the law and courts work. There is a difference between civil and criminal laws and courts. Point to a single Immigration Court case where the Court has sentenced someone to jail/prison for a criminal act. You can't because Immigration Courts don't have jurisdiction over criminal cases. >The article is about crossing the border. By foreigners without a visa. Illegally. No criminal charge was brought against these folks. They are NOT in a federal prison awaiting a federal criminal case. They are in an Immigration Detention Facility waiting to appear before a civil Immigration Judge. Could criminal charges be filed? sure, but then the Immigration Court would lose jurisdiction, they would go to a Federal Prison and appear before a Federal Criminal Court for the criminal case. Even if they were sentenced for the crime of illegal boarder crossing and sentenced to prison, they would serve their term in a federal prison not in a immigration detention facility, and likely ICE would be waiting outside the prison the day they get released and ICE would re-detain them, put them back in a Federal Immigration Detention Center pending civil removal (deportation proceedings) in Immigration Court.

rolph 7y ago

one of the elements of a crime is the formulated intent. if you kill someone with the intent to do so, you are commiting murder. if you didnt intend to harm someone, but were intentionally negligent with your parking brake and someone dies, you didnt intend to harm , thus notmurder, but manslaughter, or negligent harm of some sort is the crime. these people didnt intend to cross the border illegally, most certainly the passengers didnt, and i would estimate, they all would have surrendered to inspection and turned around to disembark,given the choice

beerandt 7y ago
1- the civil aspect handles part of this. It only requires equitable enforcement. 2- the act of traveling on the road was intentional, even if they were lost. What you are arguing would be more applicable if they were in a wreck, and pushed across the border. But even that is a stretch. They may have been advised of this, hence playing up the "swerved to not hit an animal" part of their story.
- rolph 7y ago
  I think it was "avoiding wildlife" rather than swerving. in that region there are herds of caribou, buffalo and sometimes quite contrary pods of moose. The traffic delay can be extreme as you have to wait for them to move on, as it is a major offense to interfere with wildlife migration, even tangentially. a lot of people get lost or stranded on a fire/logging road trying to skirt around the crossing. Ive encountered such people many times and helped them out to the road. I do have to wonder if there was a hue of skin that was stimulating to those border agents, no mention of anything like that, so im left to wonder about it. Most border agents in those areas are quite cordial and deal with hikers and hunters all the time, usually its just a matter of showing passport, explaining what your doing and where you crossed, then turn around and dont make the same mistake for a long while.
  - beerandt 7y ago
    I don't know why I read it that way, but you're right. "Avoiding wildlife." I had a picture of an unavoidable turn in my head. Which maybe goes to show they're being a bit over-ambiguous. Or maybe I just read it wrong. >a hue of skin that was stimulating to those border agents, no mention of anything like that If they weren't white, they almost certainly would have mentioned it, with the story being so sympathetic to their victimhood. The media doesn't pass on the chance to play up racism for stories like these.

aidenn0 7y ago

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325 IANAL, but up to 6 months in prison for first infraction under Title 18 (which is US Criminal code). There are additionally civil penalties.

throwaway_law 7y ago
What I said is "status is not a crime." Illegal entry into the Country is a crime, whether you are a citizen or not, its a crime. Nevertheless, these people were not charged with a crime or illegally entering the Country, nor does Immigration Court have jurisdiction over criminal cases. They are currently being held in an Immigration Detention Center and facing removal (deportation), thats civil, not criminal. If they were charged with a crime, they would 1st go to criminal court. It happens all the time, an undocumented person commits a crime (of fraud or moral turpitude), gets charged, found guilty, serves time, then upon release from jail/prison ICE is there to meet them, detain them in a Immigration Detention Center/facility while they face the civil Immigration case.
- aidenn0 7y ago
  Just because they weren't charged with a crime doesn't mean they weren't arrested for a crime. People get arrested for crimes they are never charged for all the time. [edit] > The occupants were arrested for illegally entering the US without inspection. During processing, records revealed the two adults that had previously been denied access to the US, CBP said on Tuesday. Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-50067575 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-50067575
  - throwaway_law 7y ago
    >People get arrested for crimes they are never charged for all the time. Yes and the point is we don't call those folks "illegals." You responded to my comment, specifically: >This group can't wrap their mind around the fact immigration status isn't a crime. Your pointing to a criminal charge that has nothing to do with my point. Sure citizens and immigrants alike can commit crimes, including illegal boarder crossing, but illegal border crossing has nothing to do with immigration status. Immigration status is itself not a crime.

cannonedhamster 7y ago

Being put into a prison without a bed and separating a mother from her child for a wrong turn seems like it's criminal, not civil. Civil would be being asked to show up to court, not being imprisoned.

throwaway_law 7y ago
Yes it does seem criminal...but its not. Thats my point Immigrants in detention centers/immigration proceedings are treated like criminals, but they aren't (certainly a immigrant could be a criminal, but thats separate from anything to do with Immigration detention and Immigration Courts).