Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Drayno

Term 'Illegal Immigrant' dropped by press

57 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

And yet again it must be explained that this is not a criminal act. It's only criminal if caught crossing the border or a few other circumstances. Immigration is a CIVIL statute. Do you call issues before a CIVIL court criminal? I think not. Most Americans have no idea what these terms mean. It's the good ol boy theory of everything.

I'm not saying you're wrong. I don't know. I am saying that if you're right, that's such a crock of legal manure that it's unbelievable.

Robbing a bank is criminal only if you are caught in the act. Having the money afterward is a civil issue.

Rape is criminal if someone catches you with your penis where it doesn't belong. Finding your DNA there afterward is just a civil issue.

Murder... you get what I'm saying.

Edited by sam12six
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I find it interesting that the AP never says how they are going to refer to these people in the future or are they just going to refuse to run any story about said people and pretend it is not a problem?

they are probably just going to put all immigrants in the same catagory wether legal or illegal. which should p*** off every legal immigrant but since the AP won't tell us who is who we won't be able to tell.

Edited by MiskatonicGrad
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not saying you're wrong. I don't know. I am saying that if you're right, that's such a crock of legal manure that it's unbelievable.

Robbing a bank is criminal only if you are caught in the act. Having the money afterward is a civil issue.

Rape is criminal if someone catches you with your penis where it doesn't belong. Finding your DNA there afterward is just a civil issue.

Murder... you get what I'm saying.

at least you don't know. But you're wrong. The offenses you describe are not civil offenses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

at least you don't know. But you're wrong. The offenses you describe are not civil offenses.

only if you wanna see it that way.they crossed the border ILLEGALY, that is enough to call them criminals. they broke federal law, not some civil regulations, they commited federal crime, (yea that what happens when you brake federal law).so spare us your bs. they are CRIMINALS, plain and simple.

you can call a civil offence those that came in legaly and still here with expired visa, that i could somehow understand, but border jumpers are CRIMINALS. in pretty much every country.

Edited by aztek
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

at least you don't know. But you're wrong. The offenses you describe are not civil offenses.

That was pretty much the point. What sense does it make that something is a criminal offense if you're caught in the act but a civil offense if you're caught after the fact?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

That was pretty much the point. What sense does it make that something is a criminal offense if you're caught in the act but a civil offense if you're caught after the fact?

So you can't call the criminals! Don't you know the rules of political correctness gone wrong yet?

Edited by -Mr_Fess-
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you can't call the criminals! Don't you know the rules of political correctness gone wrong yet?

Apparently it's rude to identify a criminal as a criminal.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently it's rude to identify a criminal as a criminal.

Legally challenged

or in this specific case:

Surprise visitor

Non Border Savvy (NBS)

Geographically impaired

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

you can call a civil offence those that came in legaly and still here with expired visa, that i could somehow understand, but border jumpers are CRIMINALS. in pretty much every country.

Only if you catch them in the act - an increasingly rare occurrence since our border is secure.

Otherwise they are an "alien" 1. An unnaturalized foreign resident of a country. Also called noncitizen. And subject to the civil Naturalization courts.

Edited by ninjadude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only if you catch them in the act - an increasingly rare occurrence since our border is secure.

Otherwise they are an "alien" 1. An unnaturalized foreign resident of a country. Also called noncitizen. And subject to the civil Naturalization courts.

And again, that makes not a lick of sense.

Get caught robbing a bank and you're a thief. Get caught afterward and you're an unauthorized possessor of funds.

Get caught raping someone and you're a rapist. Get caught afterward and you're involved in a nonconsentual relationship.

Get caught killing someone...

Once again, you seen the point? It makes absolutely no sense that if you commit a crime the penalty is less if they get you later instead of stopping you in the act. An act is either criminal or not.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And again, that makes not a lick of sense.

Get caught robbing a bank and you're a thief. Get caught afterward and you're an unauthorized possessor of funds.

Get caught raping someone and you're a rapist. Get caught afterward and you're involved in a nonconsentual relationship.

Get caught killing someone...

Once again, you seen the point? It makes absolutely no sense that if you commit a crime the penalty is less if they get you later instead of stopping you in the act. An act is either criminal or not.

Don't you know that you can only believe and recite official government definitions and facts? C'mon Sam.

Couldn't rarely being caught in the act be indicative of an unsecured border? Me thinks yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't you know that you can only believe and recite official government definitions and facts? C'mon Sam.

Couldn't rarely being caught in the act be indicative of an unsecured border? Me thinks yes.

That's one of the things that's annoying about political debates. You can look at any statistic and use it to fit your preference.

Not that many people being caught in the act? This either implies that not many are trying or that there's not enough enforcement available. I personally don't really care which it is. I do care that those who are later found to have done the deed aren't being hit with the penalty for the deed. As I said before, I don't know if Ninja was right and the crime becomes a civil issue 5 minutes after you cross the border, but if it is true, it's BS.

There's a big difference between what the civil violation is for (someone failing to extend a visa, for example) and what the criminal violation is for (someone simply invading another country). If the latter reverts to the former just because nobody saw you do it, we've got worse problems than I thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The press should call them "undocumented Democrat voters". That is more matter-of-fact than the other terms.

Edited by Zaphod222

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Illegal immigrants can vote in the US? How does that work?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Illegal immigrants can vote in the US? How does that work?

If dead people and Micky Mouse can, surely the undocumented can too. Remember, any time anybody dares to bring up the topic of ID checks, the democrat politicians scream about "voter suppression".

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I still can't follow you. I assume your voting system is a lot, if not completely, different than it is here in Germany. And I am not that much into US politics, so sadly I don't remember.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The press should call them "undocumented Democrat voters". That is more matter-of-fact than the other terms.

If dead people and Micky Mouse can, surely the undocumented can too. Remember, any time anybody dares to bring up the topic of ID checks, the democrat politicians scream about "voter suppression".

Sadly, this is VERY true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But how can people who are not registered citizens participate in an election?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But how can people who are not registered citizens participate in an election?

All you need to vote is a utility bill, with what you say your name is, at the address where you say you live. No other ID has been required. That is why a lot of us are for the new voter ID laws and Democrats are not.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New voter ID laws seem sensible. That sounds like an open invitation for voter fraud.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

New voter ID laws seem sensible. That sounds like an open invitation for voter fraud.

Absolutely.

The argument: can't attach a cost to the right to vote and an ID can cost a walloping $30 every four years

The solution: IDs in states that enact voter ID laws have made acquiring one free if necessary

The argument: driving to the DMV to acquire an ID will cost gas or bus fare

The solution: you can do the whole process by mail

The argument: postage has a cost, it's not fair

The solution: I'll bet the return envelopes have prepaid postage marks on them

The argument: the sick and bed ridden can't even do mail

The solution: any service needed will be provided to make this happen

The argument: it's racist and suppressing

Counter argument: really? Only people of color are poor and incapable of acquiring something simple like an ID? That sounds racist to me. An ID is required for every government benefit they apply for and get. They need one to cash the government check. They need one to buy liquor and cigarettes. An ID is just part of modern life no matter what you're situation. Yet to cast a vote is an extremely important country direction depending decision and to hell with proving who you are? Wow!

The argument: you hate black people and women and don't want them to vote. You're racist!

Counter argument: The only racism I see is in that you don't think these people have the slightest ability to obtain such a simple thing. You must think they're all lazy and stupid. Every effort and solution is available to make the process of obtaining an ID effortless and free if needed. So the argument is null.

Edited by -Mr_Fess-
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet costly background checks and gun insurance are completely reasonable costs for that constitutional right.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New voter ID laws seem sensible. That sounds like an open invitation for voter fraud.

They will use very common names from their region, like John Smith is common here, so if there is any discrepancy it can easily be explained. A bunch of them will actually live in the same house so the household bills will often be in various names. If they aren't on the list of the regular neighborhood voters they are just written in.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But how can people who are not registered citizens participate in an election?

they can't. It's another ridiculous Republican talking point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they can't. It's another ridiculous Republican talking point.

Could you tell me how they weed through and eliminate every individual voter who isn't required to show any kind of ID? It's common knowledge many people get their utility bills turned on under false pretenses. When this is the only form of ID that is required how can you say it doesn't exist?

I saw the pitfalls of this long before it became an agenda by Republicans. When I voted for the first time, many moons ago, I couldn't believe they didn't ask for ID. I had to show my ID to even buy beer and yet I could walk right in there an vote without having to prove I was who I said I was. They didn't even know if I was eighteen.

There is no way everyone could be individually checked by the end of election day when the winner is announced. That is to assume our votes have any merit at all.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.