Current Events > ICE to consider charging sanctuary city leaders with smuggling!!

(+) Yeah! (+)

JE19426 posted...

Tropicalwood posted...

You're telling people it isn't illegal to be in a country illegally. Probably because your poverty pimp politicians benefit from breaking the law.

Wrong, I'm telling that it's not illegal to be in the USA without permission because it's true. Feel free to cite the law that states otherwise if I am wrong.

It is illegal, it's just that it's penalized as a civil violation.
---

JE19426 posted...

That depends on how you define "illegal immigrants". Most commonly it's used to mean "people currently in country x without permission", which isn't automatically illegal.

It is.

And no I'm not going to hunt down the specific federal law to prove to you what everyone knows.
---

Tropicalwood posted...

It is illegal, it's just that it's penalized as a civil violation.

What law does it break?

Sephiroth1288 posted...

It is.

And no I'm not going to hunt down the specific federal law to prove to you what everyone knows.

There's alot of things "everyone knows" that's wrong. This is one of them.

JE19426 posted...

Tropicalwood posted...

It is illegal, it's just that it's penalized as a civil violation.

What law does it break?

Unlawful Presence

Now, are you going to keep playing dumb
---

Tropicalwood posted...

Unlawful Presence

That's not a law.

JE19426 posted...

Tropicalwood posted...

Unlawful Presence

That's not a law.

What a joke, you didn't even bother to do a quick google search, you're clearly just trolling.

I mean, look at your time stamp, it's just barely 40 seconds past when I posted.

If you really wanted to, you could define illegally entering and staying as illegal entry still being in-progress.
---

Tropicalwood posted...

What a joke, you didn't even bother to do a quick google search, you're clearly just trolling.

I did do a quick google search. Do you know I found no laws called "Unlawful Presence", but hey feel to call me a troll if it helps you sleep better than admitting you are wrong.

I mean, look at your time stamp, it's just barely 40 seconds past when I posted.

How long does it take you to do a google search?

JE19426 posted...

Tropicalwood posted...

What a joke, you didn't even bother to do a quick google search, you're clearly just trolling.

I did do a quick google search. Do you know I found no laws called "Unlawful Presence", but hey feel to call me a troll if it helps you sleep better than admitting you are wrong.

I mean, look at your time stamp, it's just barely 40 seconds past when I posted.

How long does it take you to do a google search?

https://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/AFM/HTML/AFM/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-17138/0-0-0-18383.html
---

JE19426 posted...

Wrong, I'm telling that it's not illegal to be in the USA without permission because it's true.

Wait, is this really true? I don't live in the States. Can I board a plane from my home, land at a US airport and then bypass Airport Security and Customs? I would imagine it would be as easy (or hard) as going through a few "off limits" doors and then jumping a couple fences. The federal government would have no authority to enlist State or local law enforcement to pursue me at that point?
---

JE19426 posted...

Tropicalwood posted...

You're telling people it isn't illegal to be in a country illegally. Probably because your poverty pimp politicians benefit from breaking the law.

Wrong, I'm telling that it's not illegal to be in the USA without permission because it's true. Feel free to cite the law that states otherwise if I am wrong.

Overstaying a visa isn't a crime (unlawful presence, a civil violation), but improper entry or illegal reentry is (8 U.S.C. Sec. 1325 & 1326).

All illegal aliens are guilty of unlawful presence which is only a civil violation, but those found to not have granted permission to be in the country previously are guilty of improper entry which is a crime.
---

I highly doubt a charge would successfully get through the court system.
---

Tropicalwood posted...

https://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/AFM/HTML/AFM/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-17138/0-0-0-18383.html

The law listed there isn't "unlawful presence" and it doesn't make "unlawful presence" illegal.

Lorenzo_2003 posted...

Wait, is this really true? I don't live in the States. Can I board a plane from my home, land at a US airport and then bypass Airport Security and Customs? I would imagine it would be as easy (or hard) as going through a few "off limits" doors and then jumping a couple fences. The federal government would have no authority to enlist State or local law enforcement to pursue me at that point?

Entering the country without permission is illegal. Overstaying a visa isn't. The Federal government can still track you down and deport you.

JE19426 posted...

The law listed there isn't "unlawful presence" and it doesn't make "unlawful presence" illegal.

ittp: parking next to a fire hydrant isn't illegal and laws aren't a mess of amendments and sub sections.
---

Tropicalwood posted...

ittp: parking next to a fire hydrant isn't illegal and laws aren't a mess of amendments and sub sections.

Where did I mention fire hydrants in that post? Oh wait no where. And lmao at defence of giving the wrong law name.

Tropicalwood posted...

JE19426 posted...

Tropicalwood posted...

No you couldn't, it's not illegal to be in your house, according to you.

Where did I claim that?

"IT'S NOT ILLEGAL TO BE IN A COUNTRY ILLEGALLY" - JE19426

Pretty much this. What is not to get about it?
---

@s0nicfan posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

sktgamer_13dude posted...

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/numbers-usa/

Dang...

That puts them roughly equivalent on the right to CNN on the left:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cnn/

Look at where each lies on the spectrum. One is further to the side than the other. Also read the NOTE for both.

Calling CNN the "rough left equivalent" of that site is fucking hilarious. CNN is the rough left equivalent of Fox News. Salon is the rough equivalent on that site. And Salon is a joke.
---

The ONLY reason they are considered right wing is because they publish factual statistics that DEMOCRATS DON'T WANT TO DISCUSS.

Statistics are what they are: facts. No spin or political bias. That's the only source of truth right now. Conservative and liberal publications are opinions and this is solid. No arguments, either.
---

--kresnik-- posted...

The ONLY reason they are considered right wing is because they publish factual statistics that DEMOCRATS DON'T WANT TO DISCUSS.

Statistics are what they are: facts. No spin or political bias. That's the only source of truth right now. Conservative and liberal publications are opinions and this is solid. No arguments, either.

rofl

You're getting upset cause I called you out on your shit site. I'm sorry that actual facts upset you. Just because a "journal" writes something, doesn't make it fact. In which case, I'd start linking to OccupyDemocrats and Salon and acting like they're legitimate sites. They aren't. No one should take them seriously. Just as no one should take right-wing sites such as the one that you posted and shit like redstate and Breitbart.

I don't "hate" a site because it leans right-wing. But when it's fact check is labeled as "mixed" and it's so far on one side of the spectrum (for either side), you should be questioning whether or not it should be a source or not.

I'm sorry that I objectively look at sites while you look for confirmation bias.
---

It's illegal to be here illegally, but it's not a crime. There's lots of things that are against the law, but are not crimes...for example, most of the civil code. Unlawful entry is a misdemeanor, but many undocumented immigrants didn't even do that. And if they did, that's a misdemeanor, I don't see most people getting so bent out of shape over much worse, violent and fraudulent misdemeanors.

They broke the law, that doesn't make them bad people or "illegal" or worthy of disdain or mistreatment.

In addition, aiding and abetting is a term of art with an actual legal meaning. You as lay people are either ignorant of that meaning or twisting it for your own political purposes. To aid and abet, you have to have the intent to aid or encourage the commission of a criminal act. You have to actually aid the person in the offense. You'd have to prove they intended for the person to enter and remain here illegally and they helped them do so. Just not reporting something even when you have the full power to report it isn't aiding and abetting. It's not even accessory after the fact.

It's already been established by actual lawyers that there is no duty of state executive officials to run federal programs or help with federal initiatives. The feds can't enlist state officers to do federal jobs. This is from the Supreme Court people. You asserting otherwise doesn't make it so. State officers do not have to or want to be forced to become federal immigration enforcement.
---

--kresnik-- posted...

Pretty much this. What is not to get about it?

The part where my house became a country.

Edit: Also the part where I made that statement.

legendary_zell posted...

It's illegal to be here illegally, but it's not a crime. There's lots of things that are against the law, but are not crimes...for example, most of the civil code. Unlawful entry is a misdemeanor, but many undocumented immigrants didn't even do that. And if they did, that's a misdemeanor, I don't see most people getting so bent out of shape over much worse, violent and fraudulent misdemeanors.

They broke the law, that doesn't make them bad people or "illegal" or worthy of disdain or mistreatment.

In addition, aiding and abetting is a term of art with an actual legal meaning. You as lay people are either ignorant of that meaning or twisting it for your own political purposes. To aid and abet, you have to have the intent to aid or encourage the commission of a criminal act. You have to actually aid the person in the offense. You'd have to prove they intended for the person to enter and remain here illegally and they helped them do so. Just not reporting something even when you have the full power to report it isn't aiding and abetting. It's not even accessory after the fact.

It's already been established by actual lawyers that there is no duty of state executive officials to run federal programs or help with federal initiatives. The feds can't enlist state officers to do federal jobs. This is from the Supreme Court people. You asserting otherwise doesn't make it so. State officers do not have to or want to be forced to become federal immigration enforcement.

legendary_zell LAYING DOWN THE SMACK
---

https://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-5684.html

Any alien who falsely represents, or has falsely represented, himself to be a citizen of the United States for any purpose or benefit under this Act (including section 274A ) or any Federal or State law is deportable.
---

monkeysRfunny posted...

https://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-5684.html

Any alien who falsely represents, or has falsely represented, himself to be a citizen of the United States for any purpose or benefit under this Act (including section 274A ) or any Federal or State law is deportable.

Is there a particular reason you posted this?

Just to say that illegals can be deported I suppose.
---

legendary_zell posted...

It's illegal to be here illegally, but it's not a crime. There's lots of things that are against the law, but are not crimes...for example, most of the civil code. Unlawful entry is a misdemeanor, but many undocumented immigrants didn't even do that. And if they did, that's a misdemeanor, I don't see most people getting so bent out of shape over much worse, violent and fraudulent misdemeanors.

They broke the law, that doesn't make them bad people or "illegal" or worthy of disdain or mistreatment.

In addition, aiding and abetting is a term of art with an actual legal meaning. You as lay people are either ignorant of that meaning or twisting it for your own political purposes. To aid and abet, you have to have the intent to aid or encourage the commission of a criminal act. You have to actually aid the person in the offense. You'd have to prove they intended for the person to enter and remain here illegally and they helped them do so. Just not reporting something even when you have the full power to report it isn't aiding and abetting. It's not even accessory after the fact.

It's already been established by actual lawyers that there is no duty of state executive officials to run federal programs or help with federal initiatives. The feds can't enlist state officers to do federal jobs. This is from the Supreme Court people. You asserting otherwise doesn't make it so. State officers do not have to or want to be forced to become federal immigration enforcement.

"If it leans right, it's fake news!!1!"

Once again, these are stats. Anybody could publish them. This just goes to show what your media outlets want censored.
---

"These are stats."
"But your source has been known to skew one way heavily and has mixed fact checking."
"THEY NUMBERS. THEY RIGHT DAMMIT. THEY SUPPORT TRUMP SO THEY RIGHT!!!!!!!!"

Literally your argument.
---

No, I just posted some numbers that you cannot accept.
---

And I posted about how your source is skewed and has faulty fact checking.

I'm sorry that you refuse to accept that your source is shit.
---

Sir Will posted...

Yeah gl with that.

---

sktgamer_13dude posted...

And I posted about how your source is skewed and has faulty fact checking.

I'm sorry that you refuse to accept that your source is shit.

The other users trust my source.
---

I don't know why you're quoting me. I'm talking about the law, not about sites or their reliability.

That said, it's not surprising that people who want city officials jailed for their stances on immigration support the views of a website with anti illegal immigrant views. The doesn't bolster the credibility of that site at all.
---

--kresnik-- posted...

sktgamer_13dude posted...

And I posted about how your source is skewed and has faulty fact checking.

I'm sorry that you refuse to accept that your source is shit.

The other users trust my source.

A bunch of pro-Trump trolls agree with you? rofl

Again; your source isn't good. Either post a new one or shut the fuck up. Your source is the right equivalent of Salon. If I posted an article there that said some bullshit "statistic" about Trump or the right, you'd laugh at it and have every right to.
---

Deep breaths, man. Not everybody who supports trump is a troll.
---

>implying I said that
---

"A bunch of pro-Trump trolls agree with you? rofl"
---

--kresnik-- posted...

"A bunch of pro-Trump trolls agree with you? rofl"

If you had reading comprehension, you'd understand I was calling the posters ITT who agreeed with you that. That doesn't mean everyone who is pro-Trump is a troll.
---

No need to troll us.
---

>"no need to troll us!!!"
>posts heavily biased source that has mixed fact checking

southcoast is turning into jokecoast.
---

You've officially resorted to trolling.
---

--kresnik-- posted...

Not everybody who supports trump is a troll.

no, but they are all scum.
---

bump
---