Transferring Wealth From One Class To Another

[VinnieKulick]

You're the one who wants employers who violate the labor code to not be held accountable.

they need to close and/or fine companies that hire illegals. Because I'm sure once they get fined a few hundred thousand dollars, they'd change their tune about if it's affordable to employ illegals.

I guess you're in such a frenzy to try defining somebody violating laws as NOT being a criminal to have read what I actually said.

I never said an illegal immigrant should not be held accountable. I said the 14th provides them with the same protection is provides citizens and legal immigrants and that's supported by Supreme Court case law going back to 1886.

Nobody is debating that with you, but you keep bringing it up. We got it, you can stop posting it again and again.

No, they have violated Federal law but it is not a crime.

Violating a law, is a crime. It doesn't matter if it's a federal law, or a state law it is still a crime to violate the law.

It is a violation of civil law not criminal law. You should have read the complete statute before citing it. It makes very clear that they are subject to civil penalties.

Maybe you should take your own advice and read the statute yourself.

Title 8 Section 1325 of the U.S. Code

(b) Improper time or place; civil penalties
Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to enter) the United States at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil penalty of—
(1) at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or attempted entry); or
(2) twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under this subsection.
Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be imposed.

Take a few minutes to read that again. Besides the fact is, the section you were referring to dealt with people being caught TRYING TO ENTER the country, not people found to be in the country illegally. Two totally different articles, and two totally different crimes.

You can work illegally without committing identity theft.

How does an illegal alien get a job that's NOT day labor, and not have to provide some sort of social security number? Please explain that.

No it is a violation of a civil law, not a criminal law.

Civil law may refer to:

* Civil law (legal system), a system of law based on the Corpus Juris Civilis
* Civil law (area), a branch of continental law which is the general part of private law
* Civil law (common law), a branch of common law dealing with disputes between individuals or organizations (as opposed to criminal law)
* Secular or civil law; law that is not religious law
* law that is not military law or martial law

None of those are in any way, shape or form related to violating a federal statute.
You love to argue semantics, so can you explain what (in your eyes) CIVIL law is?

LMFAO, you're very ignorant. It's one thing to have a strong opinion but to be strongly opinionated and as ignorant as you are on just about *every* topic is fucking sad.

You think that because you can google a case that shows something (that nobody here was debating in any way, shape or form) that you become the Ben fucking Matlock of sludge. You tell me to read a section of a law, and paste it here, and right in the fucking text that YOU post, shows that you're talking out your ass. You don't agree with my personal views, that is fine, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it, but for fucks sake, read what it is your posting and crowing about how it is 'right' and realize your showing how ignorant of the facts you are.

[Blue Midget]

Really? Then I guess you didn't know that an alien eighteen years or older is guilty of a misdemeanor if they don't carry or have a certificate of alien registration or an alien registration receipt card issued to him/her in their personal possession at all times.

You have anything to support that statement?

That statement was taken directly from the USCIS website.

According to the 9th circuit, refusal to provide documentation doesn't give the officer probable cause to arrest.


"As we have indicated, inability to produce documentation does not in itself provide probable cause." Gonzales v. City of Peoria
http://openjurist.org/722/f2d/468/gonza ... -of-peoria

I wasn't stating that it did.

Title 18 Ch 69 covers circumstances under which immigration crimes can occur. Simply being in the country illegally is not a crime. You have to do something more as listed here:

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/69

US Code - Chapter 69: Nationality and citizenship
Search US Code - Chapter 69: Nationality and citizenship

* Section 1421 Accounts of court officers
* Section 1422 Fees in naturalization proceedings
* Section 1423 Misuse of evidence of citizenship or naturalization
* Section 1424 Personation or misuse of papers in naturalization proceedings
* Section 1425 Procurement of citizenship or naturalization unlawfully
* Section 1426 Reproduction of naturalization or citizenship papers
* Section 1427 Sale of naturalization or citizenship papers
* Section 1428 Surrender of canceled naturalization certificate
* Section 1429 Penalties for neglect or refusal to answer subpena


Perhaps it is a crime to be granted documentation and then not carry it with you but that's different than what we're talking about here which is being in the country illegally. Again, if you have anything to back up your claim, post it.

I think what you're doing is attempting to lump every situation into the same group instead of separating them out. If you enter the country avoiding immigration inspection or you go through immigration but use fraudulent documents or purposely mislead an officer, then you have committed a crime. Someone who came into the country legally on a visa and then overstayed would be an example of a civil violation.

[VinnieKulick]

From Merriam Webster:
CRIME:
1 : an act or the commission of an act that is forbidden or the omission of a duty that is commanded by a public law and that makes the offender liable to punishment by that law; especially : a gross violation of law

Criminal:
1 : one who has committed a crime

Being here without a green card, is forbidden by law.

So, by definition, it is a crime.
By definition, they are criminals.

You are proof that you can not win an argument with an ignorant person. You still have no idea what you are talking about. You don't know what it means to call someone a criminal.

Actually, when arguing the definition of criminal, I am 100% correct.

They are not criminals simply because they are in the country illegally.

Yes they are.

It is not. It isn't a crime to hire an illegal immigrant. It's not a crime for an illegal immigrant to work.

Section 274 felonies under the federal Immigration and Nationality Act, INA 274A(a)(1)(A):
A person (including a group of persons, business, organization, or local government) commits a federal felony when she or he:

* assists an alien s/he should reasonably know is illegally in the U.S. or who lacks employment authorization, by transporting, sheltering, or assisting him or her to obtain employment

Vinnie is taking a position that people take when arguing for greater rights for illegals. He's taking a pro-illegal position since they receive more rights if they are criminals. For example, they have to receive attorneys at their deportation hearings.

Yes, I've said before that the system needs to be changed, to help those who want to come here legally. HOWEVER, that doesn't mean that when somebody violates the law (commits a crime) that we should excuse that and take pity on them because of where they came from. I am also in favor of really sticking it to those who employ illegal aliens (which is a violation of law, making them criminals as well)

[Blue Midget]

I think what you're doing is attempting to lump every situation into the same group instead of separating them out. If you enter the country avoiding immigration inspection or you go through immigration but use fraudulent documents or purposely mislead an officer, then you have committed a crime. Someone who came into the country legally on a visa and then overstayed would be an example of a civil violation.

I'm saying exactly what you wrote there. If you are an illegal alien, that doesn't mean you are a criminal.

Vinnie says that if they are an illegal alien, they are always criminals. I'm saying that they are not necessarily criminals and you agree with me.

I do and I don't. Although the law may not define illegal aliens as criminal, I agree with Vinnie that you're attempting to argue semantics. Many people use the word criminal as a generalization to refer to anyone who has broken the law no matter the sort. It's like someone asking for a Kleenex and another person asking for a tissue. Kleenex is actually a brand of tissue, however, regardless of which term is used, the majority of people are going to understand that what is being asked for is a gauzy piece of paper one generally uses to wipe one's nose.

Being here without a green card, is forbidden by law.

Not true. One does not have to have a greencard to live and work here. One also does not have to become a citizen to live and work here.

It is not. It isn't a crime to hire an illegal immigrant. It's not a crime for an illegal immigrant to work.

Section 274 felonies under the federal Immigration and Nationality Act, INA 274A(a)(1)(A):
A person (including a group of persons, business, organization, or local government) commits a federal felony when she or he:

* assists an alien s/he should reasonably know is illegally in the U.S. or who lacks employment authorization, by transporting, sheltering, or assisting him or her to obtain employment

Vinnie is actually correct to say that it's a crime to hire an illegal alien, however, what it comes down to is the key words of "knowingly hires". If there are fake documents involved, then the "knowingly" part gets a little tough to prove.

[VinnieKulick]

Vinnie, let's just get back to your statement that started the discussion over whether illegals are criminals. I'm not going waste any more time explaining the difference between a civil violation and a criminal violation. A parking ticket is a civil violation. According to your logic, someone who fails to pay their meter is a criminal. That's nonsense and it's not worthy of debate.

I understand the difference between a violation of civil code, and a violation of criminal codes. Either way, both are violations of law, and both are crimes.

You claim that their contract is unenforceable since they are involved in a criminal enterprise since they were employed illegally.

No, I said it's how *I* think it *SHOULD* be.

The article deals with illegals employed in California. In California, illegals are entitled to workers' compensation benefits. If their contract is unenforceable because they are engaged in a criminal enterprise, why are they entitled to workers' compensation benefits? Read this article and pay attention to the part that says "California law has expressly declared immigration status irrelevant to the issue of liability to pay compensation to an injured worker."

Calif. Court Rules Illegal Immigrants Can Get Workers' Comp
http://www.insurancejournal.com/magazin ... /62430.htm
By Patricia-Anne Tom
November 7, 2005

Illegal immigrants injured on the job are entitled to workers' compensation benefits despite their legal status, a California state appeals court recently ruled.

The 2nd District Court of Appeal ruled in a case involving Torrance, Calif.-based coffee roaster Farmer Bros. Co. The company had tried to deny workers' compensation benefits to employee Rafael Ruiz, 35, who was in the country illegally.

Ruiz claimed he injured his shoulders, back, neck and hands by repeatedly lifting heavy sacks of coffee beans, according to his attorney's case file.

Farmers Bros. argued that Ruiz was not entitled to benefits because federal immigration laws superseded the state's workers' comp system, which provides medical care and disability benefits to injured employees.

The court disagreed, upholding an earlier decision against Farmer Bros. by the state Workers' Compensation Appeals Board.

In a unanimous ruling, the three-judge panel said, "California law has expressly declared immigration status irrelevant to the issue of liability to pay compensation to an injured worker," according to the Associated Press.

Attorney Kari Krogseng of San Leandro, Calif., who filed a brief on behalf of the California Applicants' Attorneys Association, which represents injured workers, told the Los Angeles Times that the decision affirms "both the common sense application of Calif-rnia law and what every other court in the country has routinely found: that federal immigration law does not pre-empt state workers' compensation laws."

There was no immediate comment from Farmer Bros.; a spokesman did not immediately respond to a message the Times left after hours at corporate headquarters.

Some advocates for tougher immigration control criticized the ruling.

"We can't reward people for breaking the law," Andy Ramirez, a spokesman for Friends of the Border Patrol, a Covina, Calif.-based group that sends members to patrol the U.S. border with Mexico, told the AP.

However, others in the insurance industry believe the ruling is just.

"An injured worker is an injured worker and should be entitled to benefits," said Nicole Mahrt, director of public affairs for the western region of the American Insurance Association. "We don't disagree with this ruling. Someone injured on the job should get the medical care they need and deserve regardless of immigration status. Insurers are not immigration officers. [Immigration status is] an issue for the employers.

"Even before this ruling came out, AIA's position was that injured workers should get benefits if they are hurt on the job," Mahrt added.

The state Department of Finance estimated that 2.6 million illegal immigrants live in California.

Main Entry: 1il·le·gal
Pronunciation: \(ˌ)i(l)-ˈlē-gəl\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle French or Medieval Latin; Middle French illegal, from Medieval Latin illegalis, from Latin in- + legalis legal
Date: 1538

: not according to or authorized by law : unlawful, illicit; also : not sanctioned by official rules (as of a game)




Again, nobody is arguing the fact that California allows people in this country illegally to get workman's compensation benefits. However, the simple fact that they are able to get the benefits does not negate the fact that they are here illegally, and are thus, criminals.

[VinnieKulick]

No, but you argued that they were were engaged in a criminal enterprise and not entitled to whatever protections the law provides to employees. If that's true then they would not be awarded workers' comp benefits by the court. So your assertion is contradicted by this ruling.

For the third time, I said it was what *I* thought SHOULD happen.

Let that sink in for a minute. I never said that they were not entitled to protections that the law provides them.

Not once, in this entire thread.

YOU are arguing with everybody, about something that nobody is debating.

If they are criminals and are still protected by the law, the ruling negates the relevance of whether they are or are not criminals.

Again nobody buy you is debating this.

Let's go back to what you said. You said if they were criminals, they would not be protected by the law since they were engaged in a criminal enterprise.

AGAIN, do you not know the difference between somebody's OPINION and a FACT? Because I gave my OPINION. And every time you post a thread that supports 'your side', I AGREE that it was the case.
What I said was I didn't think it was right.

Now you are saying they are receiving benefits even though they are criminals. So you're admitting that you are wrong.

No I am not.

Regardless of whether they are or are not criminals, they get protected by the labor laws.

RIGHT! And for the fifth or sixth time, nobody disputes that. NOBODY. Can you stop trying to make THAT argument, since everybody has already agreed that they do get protection?

So far as your continued claim that all illegal immigrants are criminals:

Okay, when we see the section of US code that is being violated, and we see how it is a felony to assist an illegal alien, can we not come to the conclusion that violating a law, is, in and of itself, a CRIME?

Because that's ALL that I am saying. That they have violated a law, and it is a crime. That's all I've said, that's all I've shown links supporting, and that's all I am talking about. Nothing else whatsoever.

"State police lack recognized legal authority to arrest or detain aliens solely for purposes of civil deportation proceedings, as opposed to criminal prosecution"

http://www.justice.gov/olc/immstopo1a.htm

Cherry pick words much? Of course they cannot arrest them SOLELY to deport them, there's a federal unit that has that jurisdiction.

From the link:
State and local police may detain aliens reasonably suspected of a criminal violation of the immigration laws for periods of as long as 45 to 60 minutes when detentions of that length are necessary to allow for the arrival of Border Patrol agents who are needed for the informed federal disposition of the suspected violations.
Not to mention, the first sentence on the page:
Subject to the provisions of state law, state and local police may constitutionally detain or arrest aliens for violating the criminal provisions of the Immigration and Naturalization Act.

An illegal can't be arrested by the state police for a civil deportation since they have not committed a crime.

Not for DEPORTATION, but they can be held pending border patrol/ICE agent being able to get to them.

[VinnieKulick]

Also from the link you provided.

California law allows state police to enforce the criminal provisions of federal immigration law, although they may not make warrantless arrests for INA misdemeanor violations unless the offense occurs in their presence. When illegally entering aliens have reached a place of repose within the United States, the offense is completed and is no longer subject to warrantless arrest by California police.


Why does the US Attorney say that arrests can be made if there hasn't been a crime?

[VinnieKulick]

Actually, if they did deport him for being here illegally, he wouldn't be entitled to money earned in a criminal enterprise, or at least that's how I think it SHOULD work.

Okay, time for reading comprehension 101. Differentiating between somebody stating a FACT and somebody stating an OPINION.

See up there where I say "at least that's how I THINK IT SHOULD WORK"?
That's an opinion.

Main Entry: opin·ion
Pronunciation: \ə-ˈpin-yən\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin opinion-, opinio, from opinari
Date: 14th century

1 a : a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter

Main Entry: fact
Pronunciation: \ˈfakt\
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin factum, from neuter of factus, past participle of facere
Date: 15th century

1 : a thing done: as a obsolete : feat b : crime <accessory after the fact> c archaic : action
2 archaic : performance, doing
3 : the quality of being actual : actuality <a question of fact hinges on evidence>
4 a : something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a fact> b : an actual occurrence <prove the fact of damage>
5 : a piece of information presented as having objective reality

— in fact : in truth



Now that we've covered what a FACT is, and what an OPINION is, are you able to comprehend that when I say "at least that's how I THINK IT SHOULD WORK"? that I am NOT arguing that something is a fact? That I am stating my own personal OPINION on the matter?

And, I've agreed with you on every time you've shown a link that shows that illegal (there's that word again) aliens ARE entitled to protection by the law. Yet you keep claiming I am saying the opposite.

And you're right, according to the words from the link you posted, state agents are not able to arrest illegal aliens for the sole purpose of deportation, since state police (and local police) do not have the jurisdiction to do so. HOWEVER, Federal agents DO have the right to arrest them, and bring them to a hearing for deportation, since they have violated a law.

And, as we've covered before, violation of a law, IS A CRIME.

And, as we've covered before, somebody who violates a crime, is indeed a CRIMINAL.

[bane]

And, as we've covered before, violation of a law, IS A CRIME.

And, as we've covered before, somebody who violates a crime, is indeed a CRIMINAL.

Are you a criminal if the tree in your yard falls on your neighbor's roof and he sues you for damages? I have no idea how the immigration laws read, and I'm not about to wade through EYU's shit ton of copy and paste to find out, but there is most definitely a difference between a crime and a civil violation.

[VinnieKulick]

How does a person being sued equate somebody violating a law?
Do you think it's somebody like Judge Judy who's holding deportation hearings? No, it's a FEDERAL court, taking care of FEDERAL business.

If you choose to SUE somebody, seeking compensation for something, it's in CIVIL court.

[bane]

A parking ticket is a civil violation. It's still against the law. It makes no difference if it's county, state or federal court. I'm not arguing what immigration law says, because I haven't read it, but if it in fact says that it's a civil violation, then they aren't criminals, unless your definition of a criminal is anyone that breaks any law, like parking in a no parking zone or having a dog that barks too much.

[tin00can]

Know what this thread needs? Some Juggernaut.

[thejuggernaut]

Know what this thread needs? Some Juggernaut.

LOL

Fine. LOL

Although I have dual, I don't know much about your laws. What I do know is that here, in the land of lax law enforcement, you'll get legit immigrants importing a houseful of his friends/family, putting them to work for slave wages in his restaurant/shop, set them up with fake identification in order to collect social assistance.

So basically, you'll have anywhere from 10-30 people living in a house. Every one of them gets a welfare cheque. It's all handled by the guy who brought them here. Because he uses that money to feed them and he gives them a job in his shop, and gives them "free food and drink", they think he's the greatest guy in the world. Granted, compared to where they came over from, it probably is a marvelous life.

However, I don't particularly like the fact that almost half of my money goes to a government that not only does nothing to fix this, but won't even enforce the laws that exist, for fear of negative perception.

It's quite annoying when you see someone who's been here for over a year, and doesn't speak even a little bit of either official language because there's a %98 chance he is living here off your tax dollars and not doing a damn thing to earn it.

One phenomenon that used to be quite common was known as "Lebanese Lightning" - the shop/restaurant would burn down, then it would be rebuilt bigger and better than ever.

So basically, they were expanding and renovating and doing so through insurance, rather than out of pocket. When they expanded, they were able to import more and more people off the books.

Well, after a long time, the shops started to be burned down/vandalized and not being rebuilt because the insurance costs rose too high.

Popular "rumor" has it that people were willing to accept a "lightning" strike every so often, after a long period of time. However, as the restaurant/store owners became more affluent and started branching out and starting more businesses and what not, it became too much.

They owned roughly %25-30 percent of the city and every year there'd be several fires to their properties. Obviously, the people grew tired of it because it was crooked but also because the fire department is volunteer and they were risking their lives much too often simply because someone wanted to expand and renovate.

So essentially, the "rumor" has it that the people eventually started ransacking their properties with the specific intention of driving their costs so high they'd stop trying to expand.

Plus, in one of the lightning strikes, the legit brother of a gangster invested a shit ton of money into building a shop in a space leased on the property (one complex that took up an entire block with 8 shops in it) and while waiting for his insurance to be processed, there was a "fire" and he lost everything he'd invested. That obviously did not go over well. That moment was really the turning point for people's tolerance of "Lebanese lightning"

P.S. On a related side note, the arsonists who set the fires were always required to leave a Star of David painted somewhere that would be seen and remain unharmed through the fire. The goal was to make it look like it was a "holy war". LOL.

[vanitybinge]

That was a really interesting story, but I just woke up and all I could read was "Lesbian Lightning"....people were willing to accept the occasional "Lesbian Lightning' strike, until some gangster burned down his complex, and now people don't like "Lesbian Lightning."







That should be a band xD

[SkyDog112046]

I can understand why people come here illegally. A lot of them try to do it legally and can't. They need to fix the process for letting law abiding immigrants into the US at the same time they do something about the illegals. Screen them, don't let potentially hostile aliens in, but let the ones who are just coming here to better themselves do it legally and the illegal alien problem would shrink considerably.

My cousin married a Brazilian guy. They were together for 2 or 3 years and have now been married for 5 years. They have a 4 year old daughter. My cousin moved back to the states. Her husband got a temporary visa. He started his own roofing company and was working very hard and becoming successful. His mother passed away and they went back to Brazil for the funeral. The visa expired. On the way back to the US immigration stopped him and now he is not allowed back into the country. The guy never took a hand out, did everything legally, busted his butt and never got so much as a parking ticket while he was here. But he is caught up in red tape and now can't see his family or run his business. Stuff like this is why people sneak in.

[MasterOfMeatPuppets]

How does a person being sued equate somebody violating a law?
Do you think it's somebody like Judge Judy who's holding deportation hearings? No, it's a FEDERAL court, taking care of FEDERAL business.

If you choose to SUE somebody, seeking compensation for something, it's in CIVIL court.

Federal courts handle civil cases as well as criminal cases.
http://www.uscourts.gov/understand03/content_6_1.html
If you got frequent flier miles for having your ass handed to you, you could take a round trip to the Andromeda galaxy for vacation.

[VinnieKulick]

Congrats, you've proven what we've covered here already, that civil cases can be heard in federal court, depending on what it covers.
Deportation hearings are in federal court, and are civil cases.

Congrats! You're a genius.

[MasterOfMeatPuppets]

Congrats, you've proven what we've covered here already, that civil cases can be heard in federal court, depending on what it covers.
Deportation hearings are in federal court, and are civil cases.

Congrats! You're a genius.

Since it took you two pages to beat this into your mind, I understand why you think so.

[VinnieKulick]

Jesus, you're a bigger fucking dunce than EYU.

I said all along that the CIVIL cases in the FEDERAL court happened.

My contention was that breaking civil laws makes one a criminal, whereas EYU said it did not.

That's the gist of the argument, in case you're too dense to realize that.

[chickenona]

Being in the country without the proper documentation is a federal crime, not a civil one.

Oh, and edited to add the one thing that's given your posts in this thread any value whatsoever:

[MasterOfMeatPuppets]

Being in the country without the proper documentation is a federal crime, not a civil one.

Oh, and edited to add the one thing that's given your posts in this thread any value whatsoever:

But he knows the difference.