Trib Article re: The Church & Members and Mass Deportations

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Many countries secure their borders, but it seems like the United States is the only one that is vilified for it.

Because those discussing the issue in the sources you read likely live here.  I have heard interesting criticisms of Canada while I lived there, both pro and against immigration.  And if you read European papers there can be a lot of discussion there, both pro and against.

Edited December 13, 2024 by Calm

[Danzo]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Actus reus + mens rea = crime.

Thanks,

-Smac

In between posting here today, I had a consultation with someone who needed help.  He ended up paying me several thousand dollars for work he wanted me to do to help him.

because of some mistake he had made there was

1. 100% certainty that he violated a federal statute (more than one actually)

2. 100% certainty that he would incur civil fines as a result of that action

3. 100% certainty that there was a criminal statute that allowed the government to go after him criminally for his actions.

4. 100% certainty that, the government would not go after him criminally for his actions if he did certain steps and there weren't other things that he didn't tell me about.  These steps, were it a criminal proceeding, would actually confirm his guilt.

 

would you have told him he  was a criminal? Despite having no reason to believe he would be subject to any criminal proceeding? Even though part of the plan we came up with involved telling the government everything?

i am interested how you would have handled the situation.

 

Edited December 13, 2024 by Danzo

[smac97]

56 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Quote

So are you advocating for open borders?  I don't want to jump to that conclusion, but your statement above sure seems headed that way.

If there were a practical, legal way to enter the country legally, there would not be such a need for coyotes.

Are you advocating for open borders?  I am trying to understand your position, but you dodging this question makes that difficult.

From ChatGPT:

Quote

What are the legal ways to enter the United States?

Entering the United States legally involves obtaining the proper documentation and following the regulations set forth by U.S. immigration law. Below are the primary legal ways to enter the U.S.:

---

1. Temporary (Nonimmigrant) Visas

Temporary visas allow individuals to enter the U.S. for specific purposes and durations. Examples include:

• Tourist Visa (B-2): For tourism, vacations, or visiting family.
• Business Visa (B-1): For short-term business activities.
• Student Visa (F-1, M-1): For academic or vocational studies.
• Work Visas: For temporary employment, including:
  • H-1B: Skilled workers in specialty occupations.
  • H-2A: Temporary agricultural workers.
  • H-2B: Temporary non-agricultural workers.
  • L-1: Intra-company transferees.
  • O-1: Individuals with extraordinary ability in science, arts, education, business, or athletics.
  • TN: Workers under NAFTA/USMCA agreements (Canada and Mexico).
• Fiancé(e) Visa (K-1): For individuals engaged to a U.S. citizen, allowing them to enter the U.S. and marry within 90 days.
• Exchange Visitor Visa (J-1): For cultural exchange programs, such as internships or academic research.

---

2. Permanent Residency (Immigrant Visas or Green Card)

Permanent residency allows individuals to live and work in the U.S. indefinitely. Entry paths include:

• Family-Sponsored Immigration: U.S. citizens or permanent residents can sponsor close family members.
• Employment-Based Immigration:
  • For individuals with specific job offers, skills, or extraordinary abilities.
  • EB-1 through EB-5 visa categories cover various professional and investor categories.
• Diversity Visa Lottery: A program for individuals from underrepresented countries to apply for permanent residency.
• Special Programs:
  • Refugees or asylees can apply for green cards after one year of residency in the U.S.
  • Special immigrant categories, such as religious workers or certain juveniles.

---

3. Refugee or Asylum Status

• Refugees: Apply from outside the U.S. through the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP).
• Asylum-Seekers: Apply from within the U.S. or at a port of entry if they fear persecution in their home country due to race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group.

---

4. Visa Waiver Program (VWP)

• Citizens of certain countries can travel to the U.S. for tourism or business for up to 90 days without a visa, under the Visa Waiver Program.
• Requires an approved Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) prior to travel.

---

5. Temporary Protected Status (TPS)

• Granted to individuals from designated countries facing ongoing armed conflict, natural disasters, or extraordinary conditions. While not a direct means of entry, TPS protects eligible individuals already in the U.S. from deportation and allows travel with permission.

---

6. Border Crossing Cards

• Issued to certain citizens of Mexico for short visits within designated border zones.

---

7. U.S. Citizenship

• U.S. citizens do not require visas to re-enter the country and can bring qualifying family members through sponsorship.

---

8. Special Immigration Programs

• Humanitarian Parole: For urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit.
• Military Personnel: Certain expedited processes exist for members of the U.S. Armed Forces and their families.

---

Entry Requirements

To enter the U.S. legally, individuals typically must:

1. Have a valid passport or travel document.
2. Obtain the appropriate visa or travel authorization (if required).
3. Comply with inspection and admission procedures at a U.S. port of entry.

Adhering to the terms of the visa or travel authorization is essential to maintain lawful status while in the U.S.

These are all ways to lawfully enter into the United States, correct?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Quote

Actus reus + mens rea = crime.

In between posting here today, I had a consultation with someone who needed help.  He ended up paying me several thousand dollars for work he wanted me to do to help him.

because of some mistake he had made there was

1. 100% certainty that he violated a federal statute (more than one actually)

Was mens rea present?

2 minutes ago, Danzo said:

would you have told him he was a criminal?  

Despite having no reason to believe he would be subject to any criminal proceeding? Even though part of the plan we came up with involved telling the government everything?

i am interested how you would have handled the situation.

I would give him legal advice, and that typically does not involve allocating labels like "criminal."  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

From the Wikipedia article on the subject of the Mormon settlements in Mexico:

In 1885 President John Taylor purchased 100,000 acres of land in Mexico. This act allowed over 350 Latter-day Saint families who practiced polygamy from Utah and Arizona to settle land in Mexico. This was a very strenuous task, but it allowed the men the opportunity to keep their multiple wives without being fined and jailed. These people started their own farming colonies and established their settlements in Chihuahua^[5] and Sonora, where they focused their labors on sheep, cattle, wheat, row crops, and fruit orchards.

Does paying the Mexican government a fair price for 100,000 acres of northern Mexican land, for the purposes of settlement, equate to the unlawful invasion and theft of sovereign Mexican territory? 

We didn’t pay Mexico when we moved into Mexican territory around a salt lake.

[smac97]

56 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Quote

Could you elaborate?  What is your proposal?  Not picking a fight, not looking to set you up, or anything like that.  I am genuinely interested in what you have to say.

As I have said 

there needs to be

1.    A practical way for people to come here legally. 

Again, from ChatGPT:

Quote

What are the legal ways to enter the United States?

Entering the United States legally involves obtaining the proper documentation and following the regulations set forth by U.S. immigration law. Below are the primary legal ways to enter the U.S.:

---

1. Temporary (Nonimmigrant) Visas

Temporary visas allow individuals to enter the U.S. for specific purposes and durations. Examples include:

• Tourist Visa (B-2): For tourism, vacations, or visiting family.
• Business Visa (B-1): For short-term business activities.
• Student Visa (F-1, M-1): For academic or vocational studies.
• Work Visas: For temporary employment, including:
  • H-1B: Skilled workers in specialty occupations.
  • H-2A: Temporary agricultural workers.
  • H-2B: Temporary non-agricultural workers.
  • L-1: Intra-company transferees.
  • O-1: Individuals with extraordinary ability in science, arts, education, business, or athletics.
  • TN: Workers under NAFTA/USMCA agreements (Canada and Mexico).
• Fiancé(e) Visa (K-1): For individuals engaged to a U.S. citizen, allowing them to enter the U.S. and marry within 90 days.
• Exchange Visitor Visa (J-1): For cultural exchange programs, such as internships or academic research.

---

2. Permanent Residency (Immigrant Visas or Green Card)

Permanent residency allows individuals to live and work in the U.S. indefinitely. Entry paths include:

• Family-Sponsored Immigration: U.S. citizens or permanent residents can sponsor close family members.
• Employment-Based Immigration:
  • For individuals with specific job offers, skills, or extraordinary abilities.
  • EB-1 through EB-5 visa categories cover various professional and investor categories.
• Diversity Visa Lottery: A program for individuals from underrepresented countries to apply for permanent residency.
• Special Programs:
  • Refugees or asylees can apply for green cards after one year of residency in the U.S.
  • Special immigrant categories, such as religious workers or certain juveniles.

---

3. Refugee or Asylum Status

• Refugees: Apply from outside the U.S. through the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP).
• Asylum-Seekers: Apply from within the U.S. or at a port of entry if they fear persecution in their home country due to race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group.

---

4. Visa Waiver Program (VWP)

• Citizens of certain countries can travel to the U.S. for tourism or business for up to 90 days without a visa, under the Visa Waiver Program.
• Requires an approved Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) prior to travel.

---

5. Temporary Protected Status (TPS)

• Granted to individuals from designated countries facing ongoing armed conflict, natural disasters, or extraordinary conditions. While not a direct means of entry, TPS protects eligible individuals already in the U.S. from deportation and allows travel with permission.

---

6. Border Crossing Cards

• Issued to certain citizens of Mexico for short visits within designated border zones.

---

7. U.S. Citizenship

• U.S. citizens do not require visas to re-enter the country and can bring qualifying family members through sponsorship.

---

8. Special Immigration Programs

• Humanitarian Parole: For urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit.
• Military Personnel: Certain expedited processes exist for members of the U.S. Armed Forces and their families.

---

Entry Requirements

To enter the U.S. legally, individuals typically must:

1. Have a valid passport or travel document.
2. Obtain the appropriate visa or travel authorization (if required).
3. Comply with inspection and admission procedures at a U.S. port of entry.

Adhering to the terms of the visa or travel authorization is essential to maintain lawful status while in the U.S.

How are these not "practical way{s} for people to come here legally"?

56 minutes ago, Danzo said:

One that someone from another country, could reasonably follow to allow them to come if they don't have anything wrong with their background and enter the US in a reasonable time frame.

Seems like the foregoing options can be "reasonably follow{ed}."

56 minutes ago, Danzo said:

2.    A statute of limitations on immigration enforcement so that after a certain time here, if the government can't/won't enforce their laws against them, they can move on with life. 

Could you clarify what you mean by "move on with life"?  Stay in the U.S. forever?

56 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Crossing the border illegally shouldn't result in a life sentence. 

Nor should it be incentivized.

56 minutes ago, Danzo said:

If we can agree to have a statute of limitations for bank robberies and attempted murder, I think we can agree to a statute of limitations for crossing a border.

We do.  Five years.  But thereafter, deportation is a civil matter.  Are you proposing "If you get in here illegally and get away with it for X amount of years, you get to stay here forever"?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Danzo]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Was mens rea present?

I would give him legal advice, and that typically does not involve allocating labels like "criminal."  

Thanks,

-Smac

Which is what I did.  The word "Crime" did not come up because it didn't need to come up.

as for mens rea,  it could probably be argued that it was present, was it sufficient get a conviction? maybe.  That would probably be the only real defense, if it were to go criminal.

Would the government care?

No, they won't take this case criminal (based on policy precedent and experience), unless there are other crimes present.  Then they would throw this one on as a consolation prize if they were to lose the other charge or as a bargaining chip for plea bargaining. 

[Danzo]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

We do.  Five years.  But thereafter, deportation is a civil matter.  Are you proposing "If you get in here illegally and get away with it for X amount of years, you get to stay here forever"?

Thanks,

-Smac

yes.

 

We do the same for bank robbers. and sex offenders, and drug dealers, and attempted murderers and tax cheats.

Edited December 13, 2024 by Danzo

[Calm]

41 minutes ago, smac97 said:

These are all ways to lawfully enter into the United States, correct?

 

I believe Danzo is saying there are not lawful, workable ways that are available to everyone who has a good (as in moral and reasonable) reason to enter the US, even if only visiting.

Just because some or even many are allowed in lawfully does not mean the law is just.

Edited December 13, 2024 by Calm

[Danzo]

Deleted

Edited December 13, 2024 by Danzo

[MiserereNobis]

13 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

From the Wikipedia article on the subject of the Mormon settlements in Mexico:

In 1885 President John Taylor purchased 100,000 acres of land in Mexico. This act allowed over 350 Latter-day Saint families who practiced polygamy from Utah and Arizona to settle land in Mexico. This was a very strenuous task, but it allowed the men the opportunity to keep their multiple wives without being fined and jailed. These people started their own farming colonies and established their settlements in Chihuahua^[5] and Sonora, where they focused their labors on sheep, cattle, wheat, row crops, and fruit orchards.

Does paying the Mexican government a fair price for 100,000 acres of northern Mexican land, for the purposes of settlement, equate to the unlawful invasion and theft of sovereign Mexican territory? 

I'm talking about Brigham Young in 1847.

[smac97]

Just now, Danzo said:

Quote

Was mens rea present?

I would give him legal advice, and that typically does not involve allocating labels like "criminal."  

Which is what I did.  The word "Crime" did not come up because it didn't need to come up.

Okay.

In the context of people who are in the U.S. illegally, deportation is a civil, not criminal, sanction.  I think most people who are here illegally are less worried about criminal punishment, and more worried about deportation.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

5 hours ago, bluebell said:

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.

Because of this:

https://www.npr.org/2024/08/26/g-s1-19700/pause-undocumented-spouses-immigration-biden-program

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Quote

We do.  Five years.  But thereafter, deportation is a civil matter.  Are you proposing "If you get in here illegally and get away with it for X amount of years, you get to stay here forever"?

yes.

Doesn't that create a pretty powerful incentive to enter illegally rather than getting in line?

Aren't incentives like these a big part of why our immigration policy is such a mess?  We have immigration laws, but then flamboyantly refuse to enforce them, and even encourage, via both de facto and de jure means, violations of the law on a massive scale.

2 minutes ago, Danzo said:

We do the same for bank robbers. and sex offenders, and drug dealers, and attempted murderers and tax cheats.

Okay.  So if someone's illegal presence is detected within the statute of limitations, you would support their deportation?  Or not?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

So far, no one has mentioned this sort of thing.

I grew up being enticed by the picture of the Statue of Liberty, and this country being a nation of immigrants. "Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free."  And I notice  the right wing hysteria over the supposed invasions of hardened criminals (for example, one successful Presidential candidate claimed that their were hordes of murders and lunatics from prisons and asylums in the Congo, a claim that notably bewildered the government of the Congo), and I remember watching footage of this supposed invading army of relentless violence looked remarkably like family groups seeking a better life.  It is also evident that some of the loudest voices urging deportation, are second or third generation immigrants, and at times, married to first generation immigrants.

If it comes down to conflict between legality and morality, I also remember being very inspired by the stories of Harriet Tubman and the Underground railroad and those who helped Jews escape from Nazi Germany and the Holocaust.  It just may be that in the next four years many people may be confronted with the opportunity to choose between rendering unto God, or rendering unto Caesar.  Some people opposed slavery and some passed the fugitive slave act and made compassion illegal.  I suppose those who want to deport millions do have some moral justification.  After all, did we not hear that "They are eating the dogs!"  Of course it wasn't true, but it does indicate the concern some people have about the danger of letting known criminals in, or lawbreakers, or potential lawbreakers, or people who are different and might "poison the blood of the country."  So the country elected a known criminal and Stephen Miller gets power to impose his vision and work his will on day 1.  What possible harm could he do if it is all legal?

Who is my neighbor?  And who and what do I worship and how?

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA  

Big air hug to you Kevin before this thread gets shut down. 

[Danzo]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Okay.

In the context of people who are in the U.S. illegally, deportation is a civil, not criminal, sanction.  I think most people who are here illegally are less worried about criminal punishment, and more worried about deportation.

Thanks,

-Smac

for most people there really isn't a big distinction. both involve being forcibly removed from your home and family

[Danzo]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Doesn't that create a pretty powerful incentive to enter illegally rather than getting in line?

 

Does the statute of limitations on the prosecution of bank robbery create a powerful incentive to commit bank robberies?

or Sex crimes? or assault?

Maybe they do.

Is there still value in have the past stay in the past after a certain time period?  Especially for a malum prohibitum offence?

[Danzo]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

We have immigration laws, but then flamboyantly refuse to enforce them, and even encourage, via both de facto and de jure means, violations of the law on a massive scale.

If we create a law that we don't want to enforce, I would say it is a bad law.

Do you believe it is possible to have a bad law? Is it at all possible for congress to create a bad law, even if is for a good purpose?

[Danzo]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  So if someone's illegal presence is detected within the statute of limitations, you would support their deportation?  Or not?

Thanks

I would support deportation as an enforcement tool if there were a statute of limitations. 

It would encourage enforcement if there were a deadline to do the enforcement.

I think the same holds true, even with civil and common law torts.  If you have a deadline to do something, you pay more attention to it. If you have forever to do something, sometime it takes forever to get it done. 

[Danzo]

40 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Are you advocating for open borders?  I am trying to understand your position, but you dodging this question makes that difficult.

From ChatGPT:

These are all ways to lawfully enter into the United States, correct?

Thanks,

-Smac

I think that Chat GPT has a way to go before it can be relied on for substantive answers.

Most people can't qualify for the Visas mentioned. For you it's an answer from an internet robot.  For me, its lived experience.

I am not quite sure how to bridge that gap between us. 

 

In the fun house mirror of our immigration system, a permanent residency is a ticket home to Mexico.  People here wait years in the us for their permanent residency status to they can go home.  Does that make sense to you?

Can you think of a better way?

Edited December 13, 2024 by Danzo

[smac97]

On 12/13/2024 at 3:27 PM, Danzo said:

I think that Chat GPT has a way to go before it can be relied on for substantive answers.

The information it provided seemed correct, and you aren't noting any errors.

On 12/13/2024 at 3:27 PM, Danzo said:

Most people can't qualify for the Visas mentioned.

So how do you propose we vet potential Americans?  Do you think anyone who wants to should have an automatic right to a path to citizenship?  

On 12/13/2024 at 3:27 PM, Danzo said:

For you it's an answer from an internet robot.  For me, its lived experience.

Then let's both aim for impartial clinical objectivity.

On 12/13/2024 at 3:27 PM, Danzo said:

I am not quite sure how to bridge that gap between us. 

Well, you could shelve the hostility.  That could help.

On 12/13/2024 at 3:27 PM, Danzo said:

In the fun house mirror of our immigration system, a permanent residency is a ticket home to Mexico.  People here wait years in the us for their permanent residency status to they can go home.  Does that make sense to you?

You're sort of speaking in shorthand, so I don't quite follow what you are asking/saying.

On 12/13/2024 at 3:27 PM, Danzo said:

Can you think of a better way?

I can think of ways to improve inefficiencies, as those have been bandied about for a long time.

But you seem to be advocating for open borders, for the abolition of visas or any other meaningful constraint on entering and remaining in the United States without its consent (except, perhaps. for violent and convicted criminals).  Is that a fair statement? 

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 12 by smac97

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You're sort of speaking in shorthand, so I don't quite follow what you are asking/saying.

They can’t come back and visit the US automatically once they leave the US, meaning if they leave family behind, they might never see them again…at least that seems to be what he meant given what he said previously about the couple having to get permanent residence in the US so they could live in Mexico. I have heard the same for other countries, including younger couples not being able to go visit family in other countries even though they were here legally, just not permanent residents.  Grandparents or a parent was dying and they couldn’t go say goodbye.

It would have been so odd if Canada didn’t let us back in when we owned a house and my husband had a job there just because we came down to the US every summer for a month to visit family (cheap vacation).  We were not permanent residents even though we intended to be. We couldn’t afford it to begin with and then we got sick of the hassle just to get an ongoing legal status rather than year to year or whatever it was.

Edited December 14, 2024 by Calm

[Danzo]

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So how do you propose we vet potential Americans?  Do you think anyone who wants to should have an automatic right to a path to citizenship?  

Right away you switch from people coming here legally to citizenship.  Not everyone who wants to come here legally wants to become a citizen.  It is not the same thing.

Lets just start with getting here legally then we can address citizenship. 

 

34 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But you seem to be advocating for open borders, for the abolition of visas or any other meaningful constraint on entering the United States.  Is that a fair statement? 

Open borders/Closed borders is a false dichotomy. The openness of a border is is a matter of degree not some binary mechanism

I am not for the abolition of visas, I'm for changing the process of getting a visa so that people can have a legal way of getting here.

39 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You're sort of speaking in shorthand, so I don't quite follow what you are asking/saying.

It is pretty clear you are not following what I am saying, I don't know how help you.  I keep pointing out absurd outcomes of the current system and You really haven't addressed them.  I really have a hard time believe that you understand how the US immigration laws actually, really, work in the real (not internet) United states.  

[Danzo]

30 minutes ago, Calm said:

They can’t come back and visit the US automatically once they leave the US, meaning if they leave family behind, they might never see them again…at least that seems to be what he meant given what he said previously about the couple having to get permanent residence in the US so they could live in Mexico. I have heard the same for other countries, including younger couples not being able to go visit family in other countries even though they were here legally, just not permanent residents.  Grandparents or a parent was dying and they couldn’t go say goodbye.

It would have been so odd if Canada didn’t let us back in when we owned a house and my husband had a job there just because we came down to the US every summer for a month to visit family (cheap vacation).  We were not permanent residents even though we intended to be. We couldn’t afford it to begin with and then we got sick of the hassle just to get an ongoing legal status rather than year to year or whatever it was.

You seem to understand, how can we get SMAC to understand?

The US government does not let people come from Mexico to visit family in the US if they are poor and have family here.  SMAC doesn't seem to believe this.   The only way for some of my immediate family to overcome this obstacle is to apply for permanent residency, even though they have no intention of being permanent residents.  They just want to see their families.  People who are already hear don't dare leave to go home because it may mean they never see their loved ones again.  The only work around for them to be able leave the country is, ironically to become permanent residents of the country the want to leave. 

Edited December 14, 2024 by Danzo

[Danzo]

39 minutes ago, Calm said:

They can’t come back and visit the US automatically once they leave the US, meaning if they leave family behind, they might never see them again…at least that seems to be what he meant given what he said previously about the couple having to get permanent residence in the US so they could live in Mexico. I have heard the same for other countries, including younger couples not being able to go visit family in other countries even though they were here legally, just not permanent residents.  Grandparents or a parent was dying and they couldn’t go say goodbye.

It would have been so odd if Canada didn’t let us back in when we owned a house and my husband had a job there just because we came down to the US every summer for a month to visit family (cheap vacation).  We were not permanent residents even though we intended to be. We couldn’t afford it to begin with and then we got sick of the hassle just to get an ongoing legal status rather than year to year or whatever it was.

I remember a case when i was working in an immigration law firm.  There was a woman from Canada who came to the US as a young woman, married here, and even had Grand Children here.  She basically forgot that she was Canadian, so did everyone else in the US. She forgot to renew her green card years earlier and it didn't seem to be an issue (she was white and that helped).  One day as she hears that a relative was dying in Canada and she goes up there and all of a sudden they US didn't want to let her back in.