Trib Article re: The Church & Members and Mass Deportations

[Danzo]

43 minutes ago, Calm said:

Why have they chosen to punish in these cases in your experience?

Sometimes its because it is just easier.   Its much harder to prosecute someone who is well educated and has wealth.  Many disadvantaged people will just take the plea.

Most of it, though is due to the lack of a statute of immigration.  The longer you are here, the more likely to be adversely affected by the law.  

One big change that could make a big difference is just adding a statue of limitation to civil immigration enforcement. That way, the government could just focus on border crossing instead of persecuting otherwise productive and law abiding people

[Dario_M]

How can a topic have so manny reactions in such a short time? 🤷‍♀️ only Smac can accomplish that. 

Edited December 13, 2024 by Dario_M

[Calm]

22 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Sometimes its because it is just easier.   Its much harder to prosecute someone who is well educated and has wealth.  Many disadvantaged people will just take the plea.

Most of it, though is due to the lack of a statute of immigration.  The longer you are here, the more likely to be adversely affected by the law.  

One big change that could make a big difference is just adding a statue of limitation to civil immigration enforcement. That way, the government could just focus on border crossing instead of persecuting otherwise productive and law abiding people

Not sure if you got my question.  Before you said many choose not to enforce the law.  It seems therefore odd to me that they would choose to enforce it even civilly when involving elderly residents, children, etc.  Makes more sense to go after the ones damaging our communities.  I was wondering if you knew why or could guess why they enforced the law in those cases?

Edited December 13, 2024 by Calm

[smac97]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

Quote

Is it your position that the old man was not the victim of a crime?  That the unknown person who threw the brick did not commit an act in violation of penal law?

Maybe the person thought he saw a fire in the home and wanted to wake up the inhabitants.  Maybe they thought they saw someone being assaulted and they wanted to scare off the predator.

Then he would be factually mistaken.

I find the notion that a "crime" does not exist until the person is charged with it, or prosecuted for it, or convicted of it (@Danzo seems to vary about which) is odd.

A crime happens when the mens rea and actus reus accrue.  

9 hours ago, Calm said:

Wouldn’t you need to know the reason for an action to accurately label it a crime in many cases?  

It seems that Danzo is trying to structure an argument that someone intentionally crossing the U.S. border, without the consent or permission of the United States, is not a criminal act until and unless the State files criminal charges against the individual (and/or prosecutes the charges, etc.).  Otherwise, per Danzo, no "crime" has occurred.

9 hours ago, Calm said:

I think personal assault cases that make no sense in any way as self defense such as in rape the reason probably doesn’t need to be known, but if one didn’t know the circumstances of an attack, could one automatically rule out self defense in many cases?

In a particular case, yes.  I struggle, though, to articulate a scenario in which a person intentionally crossing the U.S. border, without the consent or permission of the United States, has not committed a crime.  The actus reus is there.  What circumstances would negate mens rea?  And in the end, isn't this just a smokescreen to justify wholesale and widespread violations of U.S. immigration laws?  That seems to be where Danzo is headed.

9 hours ago, Calm said:

The woman whose car was stolen is a victim, but what if it was appropriated because a person found someone injured and bleeding out on the sidewalk, lacked a cell phone and couldn’t get the woman’s attention or anyone else’s to get them to call an ambulance, so they took the car to rush the injured individual to the hospital, but the person died on the way, so traumatizing the person who tried to save them that they just abandoned the car somewhere and walked off forgetting they had done so.  Highly unlikely of course, but a possibility, correct?

Well, not quite.  The crime occurred, but the individual might have an affirmative defense to being charged and convicted of it.

Again, what does this have to do with illegal border crossings?  Are we seriously trying to argue that these people are not committing a crime when doing so?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

11 hours ago, Danzo said:

Quote

The law.  I think securing our border is an important, even vital, function of government.

Against women and children?  How Heroic.

This is a serious topic.  I would like to approach it with seriousness, tact and decorum.  Sneering sarcasm doesn't help.

Large numbers of women and children are horrifically abused, both physically and sexually, during illegal border crossings.  Securing our border will take away or substantially weaken the Coyotes' business model, and hence their opportunity to abuse women and children.

And it is an unserious claim to suggest that only women and children are illegally crossing the border.  Plenty of men are, too, including many bad ones.

11 hours ago, Danzo said:

Against people who want to work (a rarity among our current native population)?

There are lawful means to do so.

Also, massive numbers of illegal immigrants coming into the United States materially dilutes and lowers wages.

11 hours ago, Danzo said:

A law that makes ordinary and desirable traits illegal is not legitimate.

Immigration laws do not regulate "traits," they regulate behaviors, such as illegally entering into the United States, and staying here without the consent of the United States.

Your reasoning is so loose and vague that it could be used to negate virtually every law.  I respectfully reject it as unsound, unreasoned, and incongruent with the Constitution and our system of laws.

11 hours ago, Danzo said:

A law that oppresses women and children should not be legitimate.

Immigration laws prohibit anyone from illegally entering into the United States, or staying here illegally.

Your reasoning here is fallacious:

Quote

"Think of the children" (also "What about the children?") is a cliché that evolved into a rhetorical tactic.^[1][2][3] In the literal sense, it refers to children's rights (as in discussions of child labor).^[4][5][6] In debate, it is a plea for pity that is used as an appeal to emotion, and therefore may become a logical fallacy.

I hope you reconsider your argument.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

11 hours ago, Danzo said:

Who makes the Law?

In a constitutional republic?  Do you really not know?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

I'm praying that the president elect will think about what the current president put into place and continue the process. One can only hope. 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/06/18/fact-sheet-president-biden-announces-new-actions-to-keep-families-together/

Keeping American Families Together

• Today, President Biden is announcing that the Department of Homeland Security will take action to ensure that U.S. citizens with noncitizen spouses and children can keep their families together.
• This new process will help certain noncitizen spouses and children apply for lawful permanent residence – status that they are already eligible for – without leaving the country.
• These actions will promote family unity and strengthen our economy, providing a significant benefit to the country and helping U.S. citizens and their noncitizen family members stay together.
• In order to be eligible, noncitizens must – as of June 17, 2024 – have resided in the United States for 10 or more years and be legally married to a U.S. citizen, while satisfying all applicable legal requirements. On average, those who are eligible for this process have resided in the U.S. for 23 years.
• Those who are approved after DHS’s case-by-case assessment of their application will be afforded a three-year period to apply for permanent residency. They will be allowed to remain with their families in the United States and be eligible for work authorization for up to three years. This will apply to all married couples who are eligible.  
• This action will protect approximately half a million spouses of U.S. citizens, and approximately 50,000 noncitizen children under the age of 21 whose parent is married to a U.S. citizen.

[bluebell]

44 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Are we seriously trying to argue that these people are not committing a crime when doing so?

Thanks,

-Smac

In one sense it's semantics:  If everyone is innocent until proven guilty, then anyone who has not been proven guilty is automatically innocent of any crimes.

I also think that danzo is trying to make a pragmatic argument, as in, if the government knows that you are doing something illegal, and they choose not to charge you with a crime, then realistically you've committed no crimes.  The government isn't pressing charges so the person is not a criminal.

I don't think that your way of defining the term (to mean, breaking the law) is wrong, but it's not the way that Danzo is choosing to define it, and he has a point as well.  You've often spent pages on different threads refusing to look at a phrase or word in any other way than how you would define it as a lawyer, so you of all posters should be on board with Danzo's point.

 

 

[smac97]

9 hours ago, Dario_M said:

How can a topic have so manny reactions in such a short time? 🤷‍♀️ only Smac can accomplish that. 

Thanks,

-Smac

[Dario_M]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Immigration laws prohibit anyone from illegally entering into the United States, or staying here illegally.

I wish we had the same immigration laws here in the Netherlands. You don't wanna know how much foreigners we receive per year. I lot of them stay illegal. While our little country can't handle the amound of people who enter the border. And i just notice that safety is at stake. They also get priority for a home's above the people who are born here. And they take our jobs...because they are cheaper. It's just a mess. My opinion. I think a lot of foreigners should be trown out. Also because they cause so much problems and agression. 

[Dario_M]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Thanks,

-Smac

👌🤣

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I'm praying that the president elect will think about what the current president put into place and continue the process. One can only hope. 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/06/18/fact-sheet-president-biden-announces-new-actions-to-keep-families-together/

Keeping American Families Together

• Today, President Biden is announcing that the Department of Homeland Security will take action to ensure that U.S. citizens with noncitizen spouses and children can keep their families together.
• This new process will help certain noncitizen spouses and children apply for lawful permanent residence – status that they are already eligible for – without leaving the country.
• These actions will promote family unity and strengthen our economy, providing a significant benefit to the country and helping U.S. citizens and their noncitizen family members stay together.
• In order to be eligible, noncitizens must – as of June 17, 2024 – have resided in the United States for 10 or more years and be legally married to a U.S. citizen, while satisfying all applicable legal requirements. On average, those who are eligible for this process have resided in the U.S. for 23 years.
• Those who are approved after DHS’s case-by-case assessment of their application will be afforded a three-year period to apply for permanent residency. They will be allowed to remain with their families in the United States and be eligible for work authorization for up to three years. This will apply to all married couples who are eligible.  
• This action will protect approximately half a million spouses of U.S. citizens, and approximately 50,000 noncitizen children under the age of 21 whose parent is married to a U.S. citizen.

Has this policy improve the border crisis after it was put into place?  (Sincere question as I don't know).

[Tacenda]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

Has this policy improve the border crisis after it was put into place?  (Sincere question as I don't know).

It's basically been put on hold or discontinued. It gave many people a lot of hope, my family for instance. There was an interview with the president elect recently that they stated something might be done to keeping families together. It was barely there, but gave me such hope. 

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

It's basically been put on hold or discontinued. It gave many people a lot of hope, my family for instance. There was an interview with the president elect recently that they stated something might be done to keeping families together. It was barely there, but gave me such hope. 

Why did he create a policy and then immediately put it on hold?  It makes me think that the policy was about optics and he realized it wasn't actually doable, it just made him look good.

I also hope that Trump works to keep families together, though deporting entire families, even the kids that were born here, sounds horribly cruel to me.

[Danzo]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

Not sure if you got my question.  Before you said many choose not to enforce the law.  It seems therefore odd to me that they would choose to enforce it even civilly when involving elderly residents, children, etc.  Makes more sense to go after the ones damaging our communities.  I was wondering if you knew why or could guess why they enforced the law in those cases?

For an incredibly large amount of things the Federal Government has deemed to be illegal,  The government has two choices,

1.      pursue Criminal Sanctions

2.     Pursue Civil Sanctions

 

With Immigration violations( and tax violations, and environmental violations, and financial violations, and labor violations ) the Federal government rarely pursues Criminal Sanctions, and overwhelmingly chooses to go the civil route.

The disagreement I have with SMAC is that I think (and the courts generally agree) that whether something is treated as a crime is up to the discretion of the government (and validated by the courts). 

His opinion seems to be that if a violation occurs that could , in theory be  treated as a crime, it is a crime.  

it is my opinion, (and again you really can't call someone a criminal in a court of law unless they have been convicted of a crime) that a crime isn't a crime unless it is treated as a crime.  

The federal government has no problem going after elderly, children for immigration violations using civil law, but they rarely go after them using Criminal penalties.  If the government chooses not to treat the the act as a crime, its not a crime.

 

This distinction (civil/criminal)  is often lost on people who are not involved in law.  Many people think that something illegal=crime, and I understand why people think that.  SMAC is a lawyer and I think he should know better. 

 

People Confuse something that is really only a potential crime that is almost never treated as crime with something everyone agrees is a crime.  Then we can just agree that we are all criminals (since we have all done things that, in our world today could potentially be charged as crime).  

For a potential crime to be an actual crime, there needs to be additional steps.

 

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

This is a serious topic.  I would like to approach it with seriousness, tact and decorum.  Sneering sarcasm doesn't help.

Large numbers of women and children are horrifically abused, both physically and sexually, during illegal border crossings. 

Large numbers of women and children are horrifically abused when they are not crossing a border.  I would say an overwhelming minority of the abuse of women and children occurs in places other than the US/Canadian or the US/Mexican Border.

Abuse is a serious topic.  I would like to approach it with seriousness, tact and decorum. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Securing our border will take away or substantially weaken the Coyotes' business model, and hence their opportunity to abuse women and children.

You know what else will weaken the Coyote's business model,  Changing the laws to allow people to cross the border legally.

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

There are lawful means to do so.

For most people, there are no lawful ways of crossing the border.

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Immigration laws do not regulate "traits," they regulate behaviors, such as illegally entering into the United States, and staying here without the consent of the United States.

Behaviors like working to make a living, taking care of one's family, protecting oneself getting married .

 

Look, SMAC,  I think you are a good person.  Also I think you haven't had very much interaction with actual, real, immigration enforcement in the United States, or you would not be defending the system. I have worked at an immigration law office, have experienced the system with my wife and family members, Served in leadership callings in Spanish units,  litigated tax cases involving illegal immigrants and even given lectures on the intersection of Immigration law and Tax law on local and national levels.

I could go on and on with real, actual events that I have personally witnessed , working with family, clients, members of the church as part of church leadership callings that really, actually happened. From your conversations, immigration law is something you seem to have only dealt with on Fox news.

I would really recommend doing some pro bono immigration work. to find out how the system really operates.  Maybe even serve in a Spanish unit in the area.

 

One really has to engage with this law to understand it.  

 

 

 

Edited December 13, 2024 by Danzo

[Danzo]

Just for fun, I'll tell you some real stories that illustrate some of the absurdities of immigration law.

Had a client who was a legal, permanent resident. He married someone in Mexico.  The person was an attorney in Mexico and did not want to break any laws.  She also had a career in Mexico and did not want to immigrate.  But she wanted to visit her husband.  The US government said no.  Can't do that, not legal, because you can't get a tourist visa if you  have a close relative in the US.  So she couldn't visit her husband in the US.  He really wanted her to be able visit him so he applied to become a US citizen so she could visit (the law treats spouse of permanent residents differently that US Citizens).   His application is accepted and he finally goes down to get sworn in. He, unfortunately has a heart attack and dies.  All of a sudden, the wife can now visit for the funeral because she is no longer related to a US resident.

The Law basically said that your spouse has to die before you can visit.  

[Danzo]

Another story.  

A client of mine found the girl of his dreams, he had been brought here as a child and was here illegally but someone had filed an application for him to be a permanent resident.  He goes to get married and his attorney contacts him and says No, you can't get married.  The Law says that getting married terminates his application to become a resident and to follow the law he should just shack up. This member of the church had to make a decision.  Follow the Law of man or follow the law of God.  He choose the law of God.  

It should not have to be this way. 

[let’s roll]

22 hours ago, Danzo said:

I think you are spot on.

I think the main problem that people see with congress is that they really don't anything.  Congress seems to have abdicate their legislative duties and just given it to the executive branch.  Immigration law is a prime example.  Pretty much everyone agrees it is broken, but few attempts are made at fixing it.  I am not talking about major policy changes, I am talking about removing absurdities in how the law is implemented.

My main specialty is tax law, there are so many examples where everyone has agreed that laws are written so poorly that they couldn't possibly mean what they say.  I can give examples where the IRS pretty much assumes that congress was drunk when they wrote the law and it can be ignored because it doesn't make sense to anyone.

If Congress would get things done and actually pass laws, i think congress as an institution would get a bigger reputation. (although individual congressmen might suffer).

Thank you for your thoughtful response.  As applied to this thread I would suggest the following:

1.  The U.S. needs a robust, rationally controlled flow of immigrants, both to meet economic need and because our country was founded on the premise that lawful immigration is an important element of what the country stands for…opportunity.

2.  Immigration is broken because the current policy is flawed, since in large part the only legal path is the asylum path and that path, while a necessary element to any immigration policy, will necessarily be misused and abused if it is the only practical available path.

3.  Our history with enforcement of the current policy is a lesson in extremes.  We either enforce the letter of the law and cut off needed immigration, or we selectively enforce or ignore the law as written and in doing so loose our moral authority to enforce it as written.

4.  The best path forward is a policy the recognizes both the economic and moral justification for immigration, sets annual limits on the number of immigrants in each category, provides a clearly articulated and readily available process for immigrants to apply for the applicable category (without the need of coming to the border), uses an objective and unbiased methodology to grant applications, and with the moral authority attendant to a rational and well administered immigration policy, aggressively shuts down attempts to immigrate in any way not authorized by the policy.

 

Edited December 14, 2024 by let’s roll

[Danzo]

Another Member of the church.  

She was married to a US Citizen and had three young US Citizen children.  There due to a technicality in the law , there was no legal way for her to be legal. She had to choose between following the law and abandoning her family (for at least ten years according to the law).  She made the right choice and choose to break the law.

It should not have to be this way.

[Danzo]

1 minute ago, let’s roll said:

Thank you for your thoughtful response.  As applied to this thread I would suggest the following:

1.  The U.S. needs a robust, rationally controlled flow of immigrants, both to meet economic need and because our country was founded on the premise that lawful immigration is an important element of what the country stands for…opportunity.

2.  Immigration is broken because the current policy is flawed, since in large part the only legal path is the asylum path and that path, while a necessary element to any immigration policy, will necessarily be misused and abused if it is the only practical available path.

3.  Our history with enforcement of the current policy is a lesson in extremes.  We either enforce the letter of the law and cut off needed immigration, or we selectively enforce or ignore the law as written and in doing so loose our moral authority to enforce it as written.

4.  The best path forward is a policy the recognizes both the economic and moral justification for immigration, sets annual limits on the number of immigrants in each category, provides a clearly articulated and readily available process for immigrants to apply for the applicable category (without the need of coming to the border), uses an objective and unbiased methodology to grant applications, and with the moral authority attendant to a rational and well administered immigration policy, aggressively shuts down attempts to enter the immigrate in any way not authorized by the policy.

 

Exactly.  The law need to changed. When there is no practical, legal path to come here, People will come here on the illegal path.  The law needs to be changed to allow for

1.         a practical, legal way for people to come here

2.        A statute of limitations to allow people who have been here a while to move on with their lives.  

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, Danzo said:

You know what else will weaken the Coyote's business model,  Changing the laws to allow people to cross the border legally.

Could you elaborate?  Under what conditions?  Are you advocating for open borders?  Or do you allow for any constraints?  If so, what are those constraints?

5 minutes ago, Danzo said:

For most people, there are no lawful ways of crossing the border.

Yes, there are lawful ways.  

5 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Quote

Immigration laws do not regulate "traits," they regulate behaviors, such as illegally entering into the United States, and staying here without the consent of the United States.

Behaviors like working to make a living, taking care of one's family, protecting oneself getting married .

Working to make a living after having illegally entered the United States, or else being here unlawfully.

If I steal $50,000 from an elderly neighbor and use it to start a business "to make a living," to take care of my family, etc., do these purposes justify the theft?  

5 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Look, SMAC,  I think you are a good person. 

Thanks.  It would be nice if you lowered the heat a bit.

5 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Also I think you haven't had very much interaction with actual, real, immigration enforcement in the United States, or you would not be defending the system. 

I consider myself pretty well-informed as to our immigration system, including its flaws.

5 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I have worked at an immigration law office, have experienced the system with my wife and family members, Served in leadership callings in Spanish units,  litigated tax cases involving illegal immigrants and even given lectures on the intersection of Immigration law and Tax law on local and national levels.

Ah.  I did not know you are an attorney.

5 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I could go on and on with real, actual events that I have personally witnessed , working with family, clients, members of the church as part of church leadership callings that really, actually happened.

Several years ago I had a first-hand experience which now informs my current view of perspectives such as yours.  The husband and father in a family turned himself in to law enforcement, having confessed to crimes associated with child pornography.  After some months, I went with him and his wife to his sentencing hearing (as a friend, not as an attorney).  He had been hoping for probation, but was instead sentenced to several years in prison.  He was immediately taken into custody and incarcerated.  This all became a great difficulty for his family, his wife and children.  

Your reasoning seems to be that if enforcement of a law creates hardship, or if the law is sometimes poorly or unfairly enforced, or if the law has some flaws in how it is structured and enforced, then the law is immoral and should not be enforced at all, and everyone should be at liberty to summarily declare the law to be - as you put it - "illegitimate," such that we are all free to disregard it and violate it for any reason or no reason at all.  Respectfully, this is a recipe for anarchy.  If a law is innately and intractably immoral/bad, then we should repeal it.  If it is flawed, we should fix it.  If it is improperly enforced, we should take steps to ensure that proper enforcement efforts are implemented and maintained.

5 minutes ago, Danzo said:

From your conversations, immigration law is something you seem to have only dealt with on Fox news.

I never watch Fox News, and only seldom and incidentally come across their printed news items.

Again, it would be nice if you lowered the temperature a bit.

5 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I would really recommend doing some pro bono immigration work. to find out how the system really operates.  Maybe even serve in a Spanish unit in the area.

One really has to engage with this law to understand it.  

I think we should also talk to people living in border towns, such as in Texas, and get their feel for whether we should take an open-borders approach, or whether we should secure our borders.

We should also talk to victims of crimes committed by people who are here illegally, many of which crimes which would not have been committed had we a better track record of securing our borders and enforcing our immigration laws.

We should also talk to victims of abuse at the hands of Coyotes and other malefactors who take advantage of lax immigration policy.  The failure of the federal government to properly secure our borders and manage immigration is a bipartisan failure, and one requiring urgent attention and correction.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Danzo]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes, there are lawful ways. 

This comment alone show that you do not understand current immigration law and that you are defending a fantasy version of the law that only exists in your mind. 

[Danzo]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Working to make a living after having illegally entered the United States, or else being here unlawfully.

If I steal $50,000 from an elderly neighbor and use it to start a business "to make a living," to take care of my family, etc., do these purposes justify the theft?  

Again you are equating malum prohibitum with malum in se crimes.

They are not the same morally. 

[Danzo]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

We should also talk to victims of crimes committed by people who are here illegally, many of which crimes which would not have been committed had we a better track record of securing our borders and enforcing our immigration laws.

We should talk to victims of crimes committed by people who are blond, many of which crimes which would not have been committed had we a better track record of blond people. 

Edited December 13, 2024 by Danzo