Trib Article re: The Church & Members and Mass Deportations

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Quote

One quibble I have with the Compact is its apparent suggestion that entering the U.S. illegally (illicit border crossings) is a "civil violation" of federal law.  It is, in fact, a criminal violation.   In contrast, staying in the U.S. illegally (overstaying visas) is, I believe, a civil violation.

Nothing is a criminal violation unless someone is charged with a crime. 

Could you elaborate?  if I steal a candy bar from a gas station, and if I get away with it, have I committed a crime or not?

4 minutes ago, Danzo said:

In this case I believe that the government must charge within three years or it can't be a crime.

First, I believe the statute of limitations is five years, not three (I am open to correction on this point).

Second, illegally entering into the U.S. is a crime, regardless of whether the individual is caught, and regardless of whether the Statute of Limitations runs out.

Third, my understanding is that the statute of limitations does not apply to removal (deportation) proceedings, as these are civil, not criminal, processes.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, Danzo said:

the other hand, I regularly send my children to school without any documents at all.  Its not an issue of possessing 'documents'.

Yeah….I did that up in Canada for 5 years at least before I came across something about a visa requirement on my daughter’s school file….that no one had ever mentioned to us.  Turned out my kids needed some extra papers to go to school up in Canada as we were immigrants, but no one cared to bother with it but me.  The cost wasn’t unreasonable, it was more the hassle that annoyed me.  It never occurred to me that it would be needed.

[Danzo]

On a personal note, my wife emigrated to the US when she was thirteen and joined the church as a teenager.  After high school, she felt guilty about being in the US Illegally and returned to Mexico.  She had a desire to serve a mission, but was unable to be active enough in the church to do that in Mexico.  (In the region where she lived, it was about three hours to the nearest branch and she didn't have the money to make the trip regularly).  After much prayer, she felt she needed to come back to the US to serve a mission. She decided that if that was the will of God, she would cross the border at the regular port of entry and not use any fake documents. When she got the border crossing the border patrol let her in without ask for any documentation at all.   She took this as a sign that she was supposed to be in the US.  She served her mission as someone here illegally (and the church knew it).

As a side note, when we had here immigration hearing to get her residency status, the one doing the interview was confused that she crossed "legally" while being "Illegal".  Apparently there wasn't a check box on the form for this and he had to write an explanation.  

[Danzo]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Could you elaborate?  if I steal a candy bar from a gas station, and if I get away with it, have I committed a crime or not?

'Crime' is a legal term (as you should already know).  You haven't committed a crime unless you are charged (as you already know).  I can't call you legally a "criminal" unless you have been convicted of a crime (as you already know).

There are many things that could, in theory be crimes that are not charged as crimes.  Since they are not charged as crimes, They are not criminal activity.

An example that I deal with many times is that failing to file a tax return can be charged as a crime.  It almost never is I would estimated that less that one in 10 million people who don't file a tax return are ever charged with that crime.  Even when the IRS knows about it.   If someone comes to my office and says they didn't file a tax return last year, it would be highly inappropriate and legally indefensible to call them a criminal. 

[Danzo]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Second, illegally entering into the U.S. is a crime, regardless of whether the individual is caught, and regardless of whether the Statute of Limitations runs out.

You call yourself a lawyer and don't understand basic criminal law? where did you go to law school? 

A person becomes a criminal after they are charged with a crime and are convicted. Its not an automatic thing. 

[Danzo]

3 minutes ago, Danzo said:

You call yourself a lawyer and don't understand basic criminal law? where did you go to law school? 

A person becomes a criminal after they are charged with a crime and are convicted. Its not an automatic thing. 

For those who don't understand the process to be a criminal 

            1.      Someone does something that violates a law

           2.       The police (or someone in a police-like agency) has to care enough to investigate

           3.        The prosecutor (Department of Justice or other prosecutor) must issue an indictment, usually approved by a grand jury.

           4.        The prosecutor has to give enough evidence to a court of law to show they have prima facia evidence that the person did the thing that violates the law and must prove it beyond a reasonable doubt or the person can plead guilty

Only after these steps can someone be called a criminal.

Most of the time step 2 prevents the process going forward.

 

[OGHoosier]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Some day….

In the Kingdom of Heaven, perhaps. 

It couldn't work in North America. The EU only works because the relative prosperity of the member countries is pretty comparable - and even then the British can be racist against Poles to a degree that befuddles Americans. Given the gulf in wealth between the US and lots of Latin America, the avalanche would be untenable. The crush of low-income individuals competing for affordable housing and, frankly, jobs for which they are qualified would make life hellish for the poor already here. And the "donor countries", so to speak, would be utterly denuded. Even now, I think mass immigration to the United States is beneficial to the incoming immigrants themselves and the American business class (more customers and cheap labor) and GDP fetishists (number go up!) But I don't think it's good for poor Americans, the continual ratchet of immigrants introduces competition for the immigrants who are already here, and the countries they come from are stripped of a lot of human capital. On balance I don't think the phenomenon of mass migration to the United States is a good thing, nor is it a particularly natural one. If the United States government just stopped funding a large web of "refugee assistance" NGOs who in practice serve as refugee recruiters, things might return to a more manageable equilibrium. 

But there is no law without punishment, and therefore we're going to have to make some hard choices.

Edited December 13, 2024 by OGHoosier

[smac97]

47 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Quote

Second, illegally entering into the U.S. is a crime, regardless of whether the individual is caught, and regardless of whether the Statute of Limitations runs out.

You call yourself a lawyer

Yes.  And so does the Utah State Bar.

47 minutes ago, Danzo said:

and don't understand basic criminal law?

I do not specialize in criminal law, but I have a pretty good grasp most of its moving parts.

47 minutes ago, Danzo said:

where did you go to law school? 

J. Reuben Clark Law School in Provo, Utah.

47 minutes ago, Danzo said:

A person becomes a criminal after they are charged with a crime and are convicted. Its not an automatic thing. 

Regardless of how you want to define "criminal" (that's your thing, not mine), my point remains: Illegally entering into the U.S. is a crime, regardless of whether the individual is caught, and regardless of whether the Statute of Limitations runs out.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Danzo]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  And so does the Utah State Bar.

I do not specialize in criminal law, but I have a pretty good grasp most of its moving parts.

J. Reuben Clark Law School in Provo, Utah.

Regardless of how you want to define "criminal" (that's your thing, not mine), my point remains: Illegally entering into the U.S. is a crime, regardless of whether the individual is caught, and regardless of whether the Statute of Limitations runs out.

Thanks,

-Smac

If we are into our own private definitions of a crime, maybe you are right.

 

However, if we are talking about how the law defines a crime, than perhaps you should respect how the law defines a crime.

 

Try calling someone who hasn't been convicted of a crime,  a criminal in a court of law.

Tell me how that works out. 

 

 

Edited December 13, 2024 by Danzo

[let’s roll]

29 minutes ago, Danzo said:

For those who don't understand the process to be a criminal 

            1.      Someone does something that violates a law

           2.       The police (or someone in a police-like agency) has to care enough to investigate

           3.        The prosecutor (Department of Justice or other prosecutor) must issue an indictment, usually approved by a grand jury.

           4.        The prosecutor has to give enough evidence to a court of law to show they have prima facia evidence that the person did the thing that violates the law and must prove it beyond a reasonable doubt or the person can plead guilty

Only after these steps can someone be called a criminal.

Most of the time step 2 prevents the process going forward.

 

You might want to pump the breaks.  Most dictionaries don’t agree with your definition of a criminal and it certainly isn’t the most common definition in law enforcement or legal circles…some notorious criminals are never convicted.

Additionally, your description of the process is overly simplistic to the point of being inaccurate.  For example, many crimes are prosecuted with no police or agency investigation (e.g. running a red light caught on a traffic camera).  Also indictments aren’t “usually approved” by grand juries, grand juries are used in only a small fraction of cases.  A majority of states don’t require use of a grand jury for any criminal charges.

FWIW, since you inquired about credentials, I practiced with Skadden, Arps.  

Cheers.
 

[smac97]

53 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Quote

If I steal a candy bar from a gas station, and if I get away with it, have I committed a crime or not?

'Crime' is a legal term (as you should already know). 

Yes, I know.

According to Black's Law Dictionary (4th Ed. is what I have access to online, but the definition is likely fairly static), a "crime" is "a positive or negative act in violation of penal law; an offense against the State."

Please note that the act is the crime.  If I commit a crime in January, and am arrested for it in March, and prosecuted for and convicted of it in August, when did the crime occur?  January, March or August?

53 minutes ago, Danzo said:

You haven't committed a crime unless you are charged (as you already know). 

Respectfully, this is incorrect.  A crime is committed when an act or omission which violates penal law occurs.  The "crime" doesn't spring into existence when the individual is charged.

53 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I can't call you legally a "criminal" unless you have been convicted of a crime (as you already know).

I am not speaking of about calling someone a "criminal."  Rather, I am speaking of when a crime occurs.  

A person who crosses the border illegally has committed a crime.  Whether he is arrested for it, charged criminally, or convicted criminally, or not, is fairly beside the point.

53 minutes ago, Danzo said:

There are many things that could, in theory be crimes that are not charged as crimes.  Since they are not charged as crimes, They are not criminal activity.

Respectfully, I encourage you reconsider your position here.

There are huge numbers of children or are sexually abused, women who are sexually assaulted (and quite a few men, too), for which actions charged are neither brought nor prosecuted.

For example, if a man has forcible sexual contact with a woman without her consent and is "not charged" with it (for any of a number of possible reasons), that is "criminal activity."  If a teacher coerces one of her students into sex and gets away with it, that is still "criminal activity."  And so on.

53 minutes ago, Danzo said:

An example that I deal with many times is that failing to file a tax return can be charged as a crime.  It almost never is I would estimated that less that one in 10 million people who don't file a tax return are ever charged with that crime.  Even when the IRS knows about it.   If someone comes to my office and says they didn't file a tax return last year, it would be highly inappropriate and legally indefensible to call them a criminal. 

I'm less interested in who ought and ought not be called a criminal, and am rather discussing what a "crime" is and when it occurs.  In this particular context, a person who illegally crosses the border into the U.S. in January 2024 committed a crime in 2024.  Whether he is arrested for it, or charged, or convicted, does not negate the reality that he committed a crime.

I'm not sure why you are coming out with guns a'blazin here.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

On 12/12/2024 at 4:57 PM, Danzo said:

The problem with US immigration law is that it is broken and defective.

Another problem: Lots of people break these laws.

Another problem: Lots of politicians breach their oath of office by refusing to faithfully enforce these laws.

In any event, the answer to a defective or broken law is to fix it.

On 12/12/2024 at 4:57 PM, Danzo said:

When the law starts punishing morally correct behavior, it loses its legitimacy. 

Who gets to arbitrate this "morally correct behavior"?  

And what does "loses it legitimacy" mean?  This seems like a recipe for anarchy.  Any law that a person dislikes he can just ignore?  

On 12/12/2024 at 4:57 PM, Danzo said:

When it encourages immorality, it loses its legitimacy.

Not sure what your point is here.

On 12/12/2024 at 4:57 PM, Danzo said:

Broken laws are difficult to enforce.

Not sure what you mean by "broken."  I assume you mean intractably defective, functionally incapable of being enforced, etc.  Is that correct?

If so, I think you are incorrect in many respects.  We can do a lot to secure our borders, to deport violent criminals, and so on.

On 12/12/2024 at 4:57 PM, Danzo said:

Legislators of both parties have ignored the defects in the law for the past thirty years, resulting in a feral law that everyone who works with it recognizes.

I think the answer, then, is to fix the law, not disregard it and leave our borders wide open.

On 12/12/2024 at 4:57 PM, Danzo said:

I remember once attending a family wedding.   The bride was Hispanic and the Groom was white.  One of the groom's family members that was invited happened to be the head of the immigration department for that particular region.   Only a few of the people attending knew who he was.  I was talking to him and I joked that maybe we should announce how honored the wedding was that such a high ranking government official was present.  He laughed and said he didn't work after hours. 

Even he knew how stupid the laws were and how it would have been immoral to try and enforce the laws at that time because, as written, they were immoral laws.

Not sure how laws requiring permission to enter the U.S. are "immoral."

On 12/12/2024 at 4:57 PM, Danzo said:

I Often find that people who try to defend the US immigration laws are often defending the laws as they imagine them to exist, not on the laws that actually exist.   After educating them on how the laws actual exist and how they are actually written,  the almost always agree that the laws are stupid and need to be changed.

I am fine with improving our immigration laws and policies.  We can start with securing the border, deporting people convicted of violent crimes, reduce/removes incentives/inducements to enter illegally or stay here illegally, incentivize compliance with the law, and so on.

We could do all of these things and improve immigration laws and policies.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 22 by smac97

[Vanguard]

2 hours ago, Rain said:

That does say being at the port or in the country so it looks like applying from  your own country or from Mexico may no longer be an option.  In not seeing anything about not being able to cross illegally though.  Just that you have to be here under a year.

I want to be clear here too, that just because you cross illegally it doesn't make you elligible for asylum.  Elligibility for asylum is much like for refugees where you are forced to leave or it is a danger for you to stay.  Many who cross illegally do so for economic reasons and last I heard that was still not enough for asylum status.

To press the issue, this link (about the 4th question down) does say one cannot cross illegally and then petition for asylum. One must go to a port of entry first to do so. 

https://www.arizonaimmigration.net/asylum-at-the-border-frequently-asked-questions/

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Vanguard said:

The problem as I see it is that 'you break it, you buy it". We have virtually countless undocumented immigrants here who are simply trying to better themselves for their families - and we let them in.

Kinda sorta.  Most of those who come illegally, or overstay their visas, do so knowingly.

By way of analogy: Utah's Frontrunner and Trax rail systems seem pretty sparse in the please-show-me-your-ticket department.  UTA has some enforcement officers, but they seem spread fairly thin.  In perhaps 100+ rides over the years, I have only been asked to show my ticket once. 

So if I were to make a habit of taking train rides without buying a ticket, would it therefore be fair to say that UTA, in being lax in its enforcement of the requirement to purchase a fare, "let" me ride for free? 

Is my violation of the law excused because I got away with it for a while? 

Could I excuse my failure to pay the for the fares by saying "I am simply traveling to and from work to better myself and provide for my family"?

And if UTA were to start being more vigorous in enforcing the rules and finding those who are caught on the train without having paid the fare, can those people say "Hey, you were previously more lax in your enforcement of the obligation to buy tickets, so it is unfair for you to start enforcing that requirement now"?

1 hour ago, Vanguard said:

For those, we will have to find an alternative to sweeping them back over the border.

I suspect there will be a surprising amount of self-deportations.

I also think that if the deportation efforts focus on getting rid of those with convictions of serious crimes (felonies and violent misdemeanors), this will create a substantial incentive for those here illegally to refrain from violent/serious misconduct.

To be sure, there will be some very difficult choices to be made, and stories to be told.

1 hour ago, Vanguard said:

I am much more agreeable to the idea of shipping all of those who have picked up felonies and probably most who have picked up misdemeanors since arriving. That's probably about the best balance we're going to get.

Perhaps so.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

20 minutes ago, Danzo said:

If we are into our own private definitions of a crime, maybe you are right.

I have previously quoted Black's Law Dictionary, not "{my} own private definition" of what "crime" means.

20 minutes ago, Danzo said:

However, if we are talking about how the law defines a crime, than perhaps you should respect how the law defines a crime.

Agreed.  I think we should all do that.

20 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Try calling someone who hasn't been convicted of a crime,  a criminal in a court of law.

Tell me how that works out. 

Again, I'm less interested in who ought and ought not be called a criminal, and am rather discussing what a "crime" is and when it occurs.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

For those who don't understand the process to be a criminal 

            1.      Someone does something that violates a law

That someone has committed a crime, as soon as he did that something.  Whether he is later criminally convicted of that crime is a separate question.

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

           2.       The police (or someone in a police-like agency) has to care enough to investigate

In order to bring charges and prosecute them?  Yes.  But the crime has already occurred before then.

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

           3.        The prosecutor (Department of Justice or other prosecutor) must issue an indictment, usually approved by a grand jury.

           4.        The prosecutor has to give enough evidence to a court of law to show they have prima facia evidence that the person did the thing that violates the law and must prove it beyond a reasonable doubt or the person can plead guilty

Only after these steps can someone be called a criminal.

Right.  But if "{s}omeone does something that violates a law" in January and is convicted in June, the crime occurred in January, not June.

So it is with people who cross the border illegally.  The crime is committed when they cross the border. 

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 13, 2024 by smac97

[Rain]

15 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

To press the issue, this link (about the 4th question down) does say one cannot cross illegally and then petition for asylum. One must go to a port of entry first to do so. 

https://www.arizonaimmigration.net/asylum-at-the-border-frequently-asked-questions/

From your link:

"How Long Do Asylum Seekers Have To Wait To Receive Credible Or Reasonable Fear Interviews?

"The answer to this question depends where asylum seekers cross the border. Under 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1325, it is a crime for any noncitizen to enter (or even to "attempt" to enter) the United Statesanywhere other than a designated entry point, or "port of entry" or "POE." Therefore, in order for asylum seekers to avoid exposure to criminal prosecution for illegal entry to theUnited States, they must seek asylum at a port of entry along the border. While many asylum seekers follow the proper procedure by applying for asylum at a port of entry, many asylum seekers continue to illegally cross the border. When they are apprehended by Customs and Border Protection,there are two possibilities. First, theymay be criminally charged with illegal entry (a misdemeanor) or illegal reentry (a felony) and, only after they finish their criminal cases, further detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to await their credible or reasonable fear interviews. Second, they may not be prosecuted, and simply detained by ICE to await their interviews in an immigration detention center."

[Danzo]

 

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

According to Black's Law Dictionary (4th Ed. is what I have access to online, but the definition is likely fairly static), a "crime" is "a positive or negative act in violation of penal law; an offense against the State."

Yet in our legal system a crime has to be prosecuted and proved.

The exact same action might be a crime in one set of circumstances and not a crime in another set of circumstances.  Ask Daniel Penny.

If someone in a prosecutorial position sees an action and decides not to prosecute, then it really isn't a crime.  Otherwise we can just say everyone is a criminal and just go home.   

Certain actions, while they may be defined as a crime on some statue are just not treated as crimes by the government. By and large, 8 U.S. Code § 1325 is enforced as a crime. Not treated as a crime.  Even by government officials who have absolutely no doubt as to what occurred.  There are many good reasons for this.  Mainly because it is bad law.

This is not unique.  There are many bad laws on the books that are just not enforced.  Sometimes the government just outright says they are not going to be enforced. Sometimes they are ignored. Sometimes they conflict with other laws.  Sometimes we just all collectively scratch our heads and say "what was congress thinking?" to which we generally have to shrug and say "they probably weren't".

 

 

[Danzo]

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

There are huge numbers of children or are sexually abused, women who are sexually assaulted (and quite a few men, too), for which actions charged are neither brought nor prosecuted.

Even though you are fond of using extreme examples to try and prove a point, I would appreciation if you refrain from equating either explicitly or implicitly the crossing of an imaginary line with Sexual Assault.   It really doesn't help the conversation.

[Danzo]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The crime is committed when they cross the border. 

And subsequently prosecuted.

Crossing the border does not by itself automatically constitute a crime. 

There was a deacon in my ward a few years ago who crossed when he was a few months old.  

Not a crime. 

[Vanguard]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

From your link:

"How Long Do Asylum Seekers Have To Wait To Receive Credible Or Reasonable Fear Interviews?

"The answer to this question depends where asylum seekers cross the border. Under 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1325, it is a crime for any noncitizen to enter (or even to "attempt" to enter) the United Statesanywhere other than a designated entry point, or "port of entry" or "POE." Therefore, in order for asylum seekers to avoid exposure to criminal prosecution for illegal entry to theUnited States, they must seek asylum at a port of entry along the border. While many asylum seekers follow the proper procedure by applying for asylum at a port of entry, many asylum seekers continue to illegally cross the border. When they are apprehended by Customs and Border Protection,there are two possibilities. First, theymay be criminally charged with illegal entry (a misdemeanor) or illegal reentry (a felony) and, only after they finish their criminal cases, further detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to await their credible or reasonable fear interviews. Second, they may not be prosecuted, and simply detained by ICE to await their interviews in an immigration detention center."

Maybe I should have read the whole thing? What do you think? ;o

Regardless, it's probably not the best course of action to argue immigrants can simply illegally cross to petition asylum. That might be granted but then again it might result in further prosecution.

Edit: I should add also that it is not an inmigrants right to petition for asylum if they crossed illegally while it is if they enter through one of our points of entry.

Edited December 13, 2024 by Vanguard

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Quote

There are huge numbers of children or are sexually abused, women who are sexually assaulted (and quite a few men, too), for which actions charged are neither brought nor prosecuted.

Even though you are fond of using extreme examples to try and prove a point,

I also used a more mundane example ("if I steal a candy bar from a gas station, and if I get away with it, have I committed a crime or not?").  You did not respond to it.

3 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I would appreciation if you refrain from equating either explicitly or implicitly the crossing of an imaginary line with Sexual Assault.   It really doesn't help the conversation.

I did not "equate" anything.  I analogized by noting traits shared by two otherwise dissimilar things.

Again, you didn't respond to the candy bar point.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Danzo]

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I have previously quoted Black's Law Dictionary, not "{my} own private definition" of what "crime" means.

Agreed.  I think we should all do that.

Again, I'm less interested in who ought and ought not be called a criminal, and am rather discussing what a "crime" is and when it occurs.

Thanks,

-Smac

If a prosecutor declines to prosecute, then there really hasn't been any crime recognized by the state.

Recognized by you, in your mind, maybe. 

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Danzo said:

Quote

The crime is committed when they cross the border. 

And subsequently prosecuted.

I think you mean "and subsequently charged and successfully prosecuted."  Is that correct?

So by your reasoning, the owner of a gas station is not the victim of a crime unless and until the guy who stole the candy bar is criminally charged, prosecuted and convicted.  

By your reasoning, an elderly women whose car is stolen is not the victim of a crime unless and until the guy who stole the car is criminally charged, prosecuted and convicted. 

I'm trying to respond to your statements using logic and reason.  I'm not looking to pick a fight.  Can we dial it down a bit?

1 minute ago, Danzo said:

Crossing the border does not by itself automatically constitute a crime. 

"Taking a candy bar without the storeowner's consent and without paying for it does not by itself automatically constitute a crime."

"Throwing a brick through your neighbor's window because you dislike his Christmas decorations does not by itself automatically constitute a crime."

"A woman taking a baseball bat to her boyfriend's kneecaps because he cheated on her does not by itself automatically constitute a crime."

Do any of these statements resonate with you?

1 minute ago, Danzo said:

There was a deacon in my ward a few years ago who crossed when he was a few months old.  

Not a crime. 

Minors taken across the border illegally have not committed a crime because they lack the requisite mens rea (see?  I did go to law school! ).

The adult(s) who brough him across the border, however, likely did commit a crime.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

19 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Quote

According to Black's Law Dictionary (4th Ed. is what I have access to online, but the definition is likely fairly static), a "crime" is "a positive or negative act in violation of penal law; an offense against the State."

Yet in our legal system a crime has to be prosecuted and proved.

I really don't understand your point here.

Crimes are committed, but not charged, all the time.

Crimes are committed, and charged, but not prosecuted, all the time.

Crimes are committed, and charged, and prosecuted, but no conviction is achieved, all the time.

In all of these instances, the crime was committed, just not charged and/or prosecuted and/or culminate in a conviction.

19 minutes ago, Danzo said:

The exact same action might be a crime in one set of circumstances and not a crime in another set of circumstances.  Ask Daniel Penny.

Sure.

When the "set of circumstances" involves someone crossing the border illegally, without the consent of the United States, that someone has committed a crime.  

19 minutes ago, Danzo said:

If someone in a prosecutorial position sees an action and decides not to prosecute, then it really isn't a crime. 

Gook luck convincing the elderly woman whose car was taken from her without her consent and without payment that the what happened to her "really isn't a crime."

19 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Certain actions, while they may be defined as a crime on some statue are just not treated as crimes by the government. By and large, 8 U.S. Code § 1325 is enforced as a crime. Not treated as a crime.  Even by government officials who have absolutely no doubt as to what occurred.  There are many good reasons for this.  Mainly because it is bad law.

Why do you think it is "bad law"?  I am genuinely curious.  Do you think nation states should not have the right to control who enters their borders?

Again, not trying to pick a fight.  Just have a discussion.

Thanks,

-Smac