NC Democrats Have Typical Meltdowns Over Proposed Sanctuary City Crackdown Legislation

Apparently, Democrats are not big fans of The Law. Let’s start out with a quote from deep in the article

(WRAL) “We’re sitting here debating whether to obey the law or not. That just amazes me. In a judiciary committee of this state, does that make any sense that we would be debating that?” asked a clearly frustrated Sen. Harry Brown, R-Onslow.

One would think, but, Democrats do not care about the law, at least when it impedes acquiring new voters who are dependent on the Government.

A proposal to crack down on local governments over immigration led to raised tempers and voices Tuesday in the Senate Judiciary Committee before being approved on a party-line vote.

Senate Bill 145 would withhold state funding from cities or counties that adopt a so-called “sanctuary” policy or ordinance regarding undocumented immigrants in any respect. It would open up an anonymous complaint process for any citizen with a “good faith” belief that a local government is not following immigration laws. The Attorney General’s Office would then be required to follow up and investigate within 45 days.17

Any local government with a sanctuary policy could be sued by anyone who was injured by the actions of an undocumented immigrant.

Obviously, this would make sanctuary cities, which are 100% run by Democrats, a bit antsy. The bill further restricts any University Of North Carolina school from limiting any federal immigration enforcement, and would disallow law enforcement from recognizing banned forms of identification. This is all about government, but, of course, Democrats are throwing monkey wrenches in the works by bringing up private entities, like churches (where was their concern when Charlotte was trying to force private entities, like churches, allow the gender confused in bathrooms, showers, and locker rooms of the opposite biological sex?)

Sen. Paul Lowe, D-Forsyth, said his church provides food and other humanitarian assistance to the community.

“The folks that need help and that are coming for help, we know they’re illegal,” Lowe said. “We know they’re here because they have nowhere else to go and they’re just trying to get some basic help. You don’t advertise it, but you just know.”

So, if you know they’re illegal, then you are breaking The Law. Intentionally. However, the law wouldn’t apply to private entities, hence, the quote from the beginning of the post, which was in response to this Democrat idiocy. Some Dems were worried about cities losing funding that they need.

Easy solution? Don’t be sanctuary cities. Do not harbor illegal aliens. Follow the law.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

56 Responses to “NC Democrats Have Typical Meltdowns Over Proposed Sanctuary City Crackdown Legislation”

  1. Zachriel says:

    William Teach: So, if you know they’re illegal, then you are breaking The Law.

    What law is the church breaking when it provides humanitarian assistance to people who may be undocumented aliens?

    What law is a local government breaking when it doesn’t enforce immigration law?

    • gitarcarver says:

      Are you really that naive? Or are you just commenting so you can sit there and drag other people down your rabbit hole of “is not.” which you typically do.

      As to a more direct answer, try “accessory” and “accessory after the fact.”

      Secondly, are you saying that a nation of laws has no duty to obey those laws? Are you advocating that a person who doesn’t want to obey speed limits, building codes, etc should just be able to ignore those laws as well?

  2. Rev.Hoagie® says:

    What law is the church breaking when it provides humanitarian assistance to people who may be undocumented aliens?

    It’s called aiding and abetting in the commission of a crime. The church should immediately have it’s tax exempt status revoked. Render unto Caesar, bitch.

    What law is a local government breaking when it doesn’t enforce immigration law?

    Same thing except when a government does it they are breaking their oaths to uphold the law plus they are aiding an illegal invasion. The mayor and whoever else is responsible should be arrested, their property seized for sedition.

    But that would mean people were being held accountable for their actions and we can’t have that. Instead we have to tip toe around and pretend law breakers are heros. All for future democrat votes. If you democrats would stop killing your babies you wouldn’t have to import Mexicans and moslems for new voters. Just sayin’.

    https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-OWbeaxJ_vWA/WOZv7RZ3hpI/AAAAAAABIKk/Eu4OczM7GAArjEduwSUL_54iT5GvEAXdwCLcB/s640/17626365_1167968673326022_757980416400330208_n.jpg

  3. Zachriel says:

    gitarcarver: As to a more direct answer, try “accessory” and “accessory after the fact.”

    No. Feeding the hungry is not being an accessory after the fact.

  4. Zachriel says:

    Rev.Hoagie®: It’s called aiding and abetting in the commission of a crime.

    No. Feeding the hungry is not aiding and abetting under the law. Perhaps you should propose such a law.

  5. Jeffery says:

    TheFalsePatriot typed:

    you wouldn’t have to import Mexicans and moslems for new voters.

    Asking generally, do far right conservatives really believe that liberal motivation for immigration reforms are to get more Democratic voters?

    • Rev.Hoagie® says:

      The FakeAmerican who lies about me, wishes me dead, calls me a coward and brings my wife into a comment on a blog needs to go or I will.

      • Rev.Hoagie® says:

        I can no longer comment here because I can no longer continue to go lower and lower into the filth with Jeffery. I will no longer be disrespected as an American soldier by a coward who probably was protesting the war when I was fighting in the jungle. I fought communists who had more character and class than a thousand Jeffery’s.

        • Hank_M says:

          Hoagie, I’d prefer to see you continue to comment here.
          I suspect others feel the same. Instead you might consider what I suggested a long time ago – ignore him. Sure, sometimes I respond to him, but it’s always a waste of time. So I generally ignore him which vastly improves my time on Pirates Cove.

          If you do leave, I wish you the best.
          But I do urge you to reconsider.

        • drowningpuppies says:

          Hoagie,
          Can’t believe you take that little shit seriously.
          He’s to be mocked unendingly like all lib trolls.

        • gitarcarver says:

          Rev Hoagie,

          You need to try and figure out why you are here. If you are here to read posts and enjoy conversations and discussions, you should stay and ignore the trolls.

          If you are here to engage with the trolls, you should leave. Life is too short for that. You aren’t going to out-nasty the trolls. You can’t use your honesty and integrity in a discussion and think they have the same honesty and integrity. You can’t expect any type of consistency in morals or ethics from trolls. You can’t think that people who take pride in being banned for their behavior from other sites and then doing the same thing here have the same type of belief system that you do. Life it too short to have to deal with trolls who are intellectually dishonest and morally corrupt.

          While I would hate to see you go, I understand perfectly why you would leave. Just remember that no matter what, you are always going to be a better person than the trolls.

        • Jeffery says:

          Hoagie,

          We’re fascinated by conservatives who constantly mock, ridicule, cajole and demean others, yet seemed surprised and hurt when those subjected to their scorn push back. Coward, FakeAmerican, rapist, child molester, wife abuser, little shit, draft evader, drama queen and the generic leftist, moron, idiot, stupid, retard, racist, sick, liar, child murderer etc. If you were to review the tapes you would find we usually respond like for like.

          As we’ve noted before, TEACH sets the tone with his mocking, ridiculing, cajoling and demeaning posts of liberals, Democrats, climate science, government, Mexicans, Muslims… the opposite of thoughtful commentary and discussion. We get it. It’s the nature of inflammatory conservablogs. Blogs always label those who disagree with the blogger and the mass of supportive commenters as trolls. Just more namecalling.

          • drowningpuppies says:

            You left your favorite term for those who disagree with you, little guy: “fluffer”.

        • david7134 says:

          Keep commenting, you insight is valuable. Lets petition Teach to get rid of Jeff.

          • Jeffery says:

            little guy,

            We used “fluffer” to describe your behavior of backing TEACH and gitarcarver’s statements without adding substance of your own.

            Our apologies if you were offended.

  6. gitarcarver says:

    No. Feeding the hungry is not being an accessory after the fact.
    No. Feeding the hungry is not aiding and abetting under the law. Perhaps you should propose such a law
    .

    Somehow I know that you would try and change the parameters of the discussion.

    First, many cites have laws against feeding the hungry and the homeless outside of designated areas and control. You are wrong on your position.

    Secondly, offering material help or assistance in the commission of a crime, such as entering the country illegally is the legal definition of “aiding and abetting.” Being an “accessory after the fact” is aiding someone after the crime has been committed such as supporting and supporting illegal immigrants in the country.

    You asked for the law that was being broken and when you got it from several sources, you do what you always do. You ignore the truth and stamp your foot like a child.

    • gitarcarver says:

      By the way Zach,

      1907. Title 8, U.S.C. 1324(a) Offenses

      Conspiracy/Aiding or Abetting — Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(v) expressly makes it an offense to engage in a conspiracy to commit or aid or abet the commission of the foregoing offenses.

      You now have a definitive answer to your question of:

      What law is a local government breaking when it doesn’t enforce immigration law?

      Rev Hoagie and I await your apology for being wrong or at the very least, admitting your mistake.

      Adults will admit mistakes, you know.

  7. Zachriel says:

    Zachriel: Feeding the hungry is not being an accessory after the fact.

    gitarcarver: many cites have laws against feeding the hungry and the homeless outside of designated areas and control. You are wrong on your position.

    Sure. And they have food safety laws, as well. That doesn’t make it an accessory after the fact.

    gitarcarver: <emConspiracy/Aiding or Abetting — Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(v) expressly makes it an offense to engage in a conspiracy to commit or aid or abet the commission of the foregoing offenses.

    Aiding someone trying to cross the border illegally is a crime. Feeding someone who may have crossed the border illegally is not a crime.

    What law is a local government breaking when it doesn’t enforce immigration law?

    • david7134 says:

      A number of laws are broken and hopefully the officials are open to civil action.

      My daughter lives in Seattle and she has horror stories of the consequences of Seattle’s tolerance of homeless and illegals. Seattle even went as far as to build showers in the park near her house for these folks and her property value plummeted and crime greatly increased. Also, if you can find someone lacking in food, let me know. As to hungry I am hungry right now, but don’t lack in food.

  8. gitarcarver says:

    That doesn’t make it an accessory after the fact.

    Actually, it does. The act continues, furthers, or supports the illegal activity after the illegal act was committed. That’s the classic and legal definition of “accessory after the fact.”

    Feeding someone who may have crossed the border illegally is not a crime.

    Already asked and answered. See above.

    What law is a local government breaking when it doesn’t enforce immigration law?

    Already asked and answered. See above.

    It is clear that your position that people and governments can legally support illegal activities. That’s not the law, but you are free to believe that.

  9. Zachriel says:

    gitarcarver: The act continues, furthers, or supports the illegal activity after the illegal act was committed.

    You never defined the illegal act. Under U.S. law, improper entry is a crime, however, unlawful presence is a civil matter.

    What law is a local government breaking when it doesn’t enforce immigration law?

    Under the anti-commandeering doctrine, states cannot be forced to enforce federal law. This has been Supreme Court precedent since Prigg v. Pennsylvania (1842).

  10. gitarcarver says:

    You never defined the illegal act. Under U.S. law, improper entry is a crime, however, unlawful presence is a civil matter.

    The amazing thing is that you define the crime and then try to say it doesn’t exist.

    Under the anti-commandeering doctrine, states cannot be forced to enforce federal law.

    No one is asking the states to enforce the laws. (Your argument is again a shifting of the goalposts.)

    This has been Supreme Court precedent since Prigg v. Pennsylvania (1842).

    As usual, you say things without understanding. Prigg solidified the idea that while state could not be forced to enforce the law, the states could not actively try and subvert federal law.

    Your position is that the states can subvert and ignore Federal law in the furtherance of an illegal activity. That’s simply not true and your own citations prove it.

    • drowningpuppies says:

      (Your argument is again a shifting of the goalposts.)

      Yep. They do that a lot.

      • gitarcarver says:

        The odd thing is that the case he cites is directly against his point.

        Prigg was a case where Pennsylvania enacted a law that forbid people within the state of returning runaway slaves to their owners under the federal Fugitive Slave Act.

        That is analogous to states and cities passing “sanctuary” laws in violation of the immigration laws.

        The Supreme Court ruled the Pennsylvania law to be unConstitutional.

        Zachriel is basically trying to say that if a person kidnaps a child, takes them across state lines (thus making it a Federal crime) the state can knowingly give aid and support to the kidnapper. No law or court supports that, but that is what he is trying to argue.

        But notice how he went from “what laws have been broken?” to “”what law prevents the feeding of people”” to “states cannot be forced to enforce federal laws.” It is a constant shifting of the goalposts.

        He also somehow thinks abiding by the law is the same thing as enforcing it. That too makes no sense.

  11. Jeffery says:

    And we promise no namecalling except when first attacked by another commenter.

    • Zachriel says:

      OFF-TOPIC

      It’s usually best to ignore name calling. It’s off-topic and makes the thread difficult to read.

  12. Zachriel says:

    gitarcarver: Prigg was a case where Pennsylvania enacted a law that forbid people within the state of returning runaway slaves to their owners under the federal Fugitive Slave Act.

    Prigg held that the state could not interfere with federal officials. However, it also held that the state could pass legislation keeping state officials from enforcing federal law.

    Zachriel: Under U.S. law, improper entry is a crime, however, unlawful presence is a civil matter.

    gitarcarver: The amazing thing is that you define the crime and then try to say it doesn’t exist.

    There are people who do aid and abet improper entry, and those people are subject to criminal penalty. Feeding someone who is undocumented and already in the U.S. is not aiding and abetting improper entry.

  13. gitarcarver says:

    Prigg held that the state could not interfere with federal officials. However, it also held that the state could pass legislation keeping state officials from enforcing federal law.

    You clearly are confusing “abiding by the law” and “enforcing the law.” You are in essence saying that people can break Federal law. Prigg held they could not. States do not have to enforce federal law, but they cannot break it.

    Once again, you have shifted the goalposts only this time, you have shifted into different world.

    Feeding someone who is undocumented and already in the U.S. is not aiding and abetting improper entry.

    You are just so damned tiring at times.

    No one said that feeding someone was “aiding and abetting improper entry.” What was said and is true, is that supporting and furthering a criminal (and even a civil violation) is a crime.

    Stop repeating the same things that have been disproven.

    • drowningpuppies says:

      The Left is relentless in exhuming debunked dogma. They do it just to make us debunk it all over again. Dealing with shameless liars is exhausting.

  14. Jeffery says:

    So are ERs that treat an undocumented MI patient guilty of aiding and abetting?

    • david7134 says:

      How does that statement have anything to do with the topic under discussion? By Federal law, the ER has to treat anyone without question. Your effort is nothing more than to confuse and introduce emotional issues into a discussion of the abuse of power by Democrats.

  15. Zachriel says:

    gitarcarver: You are in essence saying that people can break Federal law.

    No. That is not our position. Our position is that a charity that feed people who may be undocumented aliens is not a criminal act.

    gitarcarver: States do not have to enforce federal law, but they cannot break it.

    What law are states breaking? And don’t say “aiding and abetting” unless you say what criminal act they are aiding and abetting.

    gitarcarver: No one said that feeding someone was “aiding and abetting improper entry.”

    What law are charities breaking when they feed the poor who may be undocumented aliens? And don’t say “aiding and abetting” unless you say what criminal act they are aiding and abetting.

  16. Jeffery says:

    dave,

    So you’re telling me that we created a special federal law forcing hospitals to treat lawbreaking undocumented immigrants who entered the US illegally? Wouldn’t letting them die send a message to other undocumented immigrants that they should go home or better yet not come here in the first place? Isn’t the hospital law encouraging illegal activity? Maybe trump and the Repubs can repeal that law.

    Are hospitals at least required to call ICE when they treat a lawbreaking undocumented immigrant who entered the US illegally? Patch ’em up and deport ’em!

    Are you telling me that we could create a federal law allowing Christian churches to feed hungry children and parents without threatening the church, the Pastor or the parishioners?

    Until we pass such a law, what do you think the punishment should be for feeding hungry undocumented immigrants?

    Anyway, who knew that immigration law could be so tricky?

  17. david7134 says:

    Don’t feed them.

  18. gitarcarver says:

    No. That is not our position. Our position is that a charity that feed people who may be undocumented aliens is not a criminal act.

    We’ve gone down this path. You’re repeated insistence that aiding in an illegal criminal or civil endeavor is not a crime is contrary to the law.

    (The funny thing is that you admitted that crossing the boarder illegally was a crime and are now saying no crime was committed.)

    What law are states breaking? And don’t say “aiding and abetting” unless you say what criminal act they are aiding and abetting.

    Once again, asked and answered. Is it your contention that being in the country illegally is not crime?

    Furtherance of an illegal act is a crime.

    Here’s where we are Zach, and this is a pattern with you. You asked a question, and got several answers. You didn’t like those answers so you shifted the goalposts to something else. (And then did it again when you didn’t like the next set of answers.)

    You admit that the crossing of the border illegally is a crime. There is a continuance of an illegal activity there that you refuse to recognize.

    Secondly, being in the country illegally is a crime. While you say it is a “civil matter,” you are confusing civil torts (something between two parties) and a civil crime, which this is. In a civil crime, the punishment is not locking someone up. The punishment is a requirement to do something – such as leave the country.

    Being in the country illegally is still a crime. Period.

    Therefore, once again, providing assistance to those who are knowingly breaking the law violates aiding and abetting as well as an accessory after the fact.

    The question is therefore, why are you saying that the furtherance of a criminal endeavor not a crime?

    Don’t say “it’s not a crime to be in the country illegally,” because it is.

    I can prove it beyond what I have stated here, but you have shown a particular history of ignoring the written word, laws and misinterpreting legal cases. So my proof is going to get the same result from you that it always has – you sticking your fingers in your electronic ears, and then typing “NANANANANANANANANANANANA!!! IS NOT!”

  19. Jeffery says:

    dave,

    What about school teachers teaching undocumented grade-schoolers? Are they aiding and abetting?

  20. Zachriel says:

    gitarcarver: civil crime

    “Civil crime?”

    gitarcarver: being in the country illegally is a crime


    Unlawful Presence Is Not a Crime
    . In 2013, Republicans proposed to make illegal presence a crime with the SAFE Act (Strengthen and Fortify Enforcement Act), “creating the new crime of unlawful presence“; however, it never became law.

  21. gitarcarver says:

    “Civil crime?”

    Do you have a point to your question other than demonstrating you don’t know what you are talking about?

    As to your point, it is clear that you didn’t read the article as it says exactly what I have maintained.

    We’re done here Zach.

    Once again you have shown an inability to read, understand or even consider that which you disagree with.

    Proverbs 26:11

  22. Jeffery says:

    from the FindLaw article:

    Unlawful Presence Is Not a Crime

    Some may assume that all immigrants who are in the United States without legal status must have committed improper entry. This simply isn’t the case. Many foreign nationals legally enter the country on a valid work or travel visa, but fail to exit before their visa expires for a variety of reasons. But mere unlawful presence in the country is not a crime.

    It is a violation of federal immigration law to remain in the country without legal authorization, but this violation is punishable by civil penalties, not criminal. Chief among these civil penalties is deportation or removal, where an unlawful resident may be detained and removed from the country. Unlawful presence can also have negative consequences for a resident who may seek to gain re-entry into the United States, or permanent residency. Both improper entry and unlawful presence should be avoided by any immigrant to the United States, but an illegal alien cannot be criminally charged or incarcerated simply for being undocumented. –

    See more at: http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2014/07/is-illegal-immigration-a-crime-improper-entry-v-unlawful-presence.html#sthash.gWU4dLtG.dpuf

    So unlawful presence is not a crime. Is the argument that it is a crime to “aid” someone who is unlawfully present in the US, when the act of unlawful presence is not a crime??

    The nucon movement would starve immigrant children to get them out of the country. The nucon movement would jail a good samaritan who feeds a hungry child. Who thinks that way?

    • gitarcarver says:

      It is a violation of federal immigration law to remain in the country without legal authorization, but this violation is punishable by civil penalties, not criminal.

      This is what I have said and maintained.

      Once again, please try and read before commenting.

      Secondly, once again, the parameters of the discussion have changed. Workers who were here legally and allowed or caused their status to change was not the original question.

      So unlawful presence is not a crime.

      Actually it is. It is a crime with civil penalties, and not criminal penalties which the LawBlog post explains.

      The nucon movement would jail a good samaritan who feeds a hungry child.

      Please site anyone in this discussion who would advocate jailing someone under the circumstances you gave.

      I am sorry, but you are setting up strawmen arguments left and right. It is also interesting that despite your pledge not to call people names, you have whipped out the derogatory “nucon” moniker.

  23. Jeffery says:

    We not only read the article, we copied and pasted some for you to read as well. They said Unlawful Presence Is Not a Crime. Your argument is with FindLaw not us.

    nucon is shorthand for the New Conservatism – Do you object to labels of groups and movements – why do you consider it derogatory??? It was not directed at you. Certainly the New Conservative movement exemplified by the alt-right and white nationalists that is currently dominating the conservative pseudopopulists, is different from Ronald Reagan’s conservatism.

    Today TEACH described those he has ideological differences with as Nutters, Snowflakes, Wankers and Wackadoodles. In a single post. He repeatedly refers to residents here by the derogatory term, “illegals”. Nucon is pretty tame, by comparison, and describes a political movement.

    We get it. The New Conservatives feel threatened by the diversity of modern America and long for the days of white, christian, straight privilege, which they feel is being lost. That is what drives their concern about Mexicans “criminals” here, not a newfound concern for the rule of law.

    Who claimed that those helping immigrants were committing a crime? You. And Teach.

    So, if you know they’re illegal, then you are breaking The Law

    How would nucons want to punish the lawbreakers?

  24. gitarcarver says:

    Your argument is with FindLaw not us.

    They said no such thing. That’s the point. Try reading what was said instead of reading what you want.

    Secondly, as I stated, the goalposts have been changed from the original question.

    It was not directed at you.

    So you changed the goalposts even more. Got it.

    Nucon is pretty tame, by comparison, …..

    So you admit it is derogatory in nature. The amazing thing is that you continue to violate your own promises and somehow think you are justified in doing so.

    How would nucons want to punish the lawbreakers?

    So you now agree that those who aid and abet those who are here illegally are breaking the law? Or are you trying to shift the goalposts away from the losing argument you are presenting again?

    Secondly, since you have said that you find the term “nucon” derogatory and yet continue to break your word on not using derogatory terms, there is no need for me to continue in this discussion with you.

    • drowningpuppies says:

      Git,
      The little guy can’t help himself but you already knew that.

      • gitarcarver says:

        dp,

        I know that. That’s why it makes no sense to beat my head against the wall and try to convince people of anything when they are unwilling to read or comprehend what they are saying. It makes no sense for me to keep pounding away at arguments that have already been disproven. I have better things to do with my life.

        The ironic thing is that Jeffery has walked away from far more debates than I ever have and yet somehow he wants to attack me. And my crime?

        Being right.

        • drowningpuppies says:

          Yep.

          The only thing the little guy is good for is mockery and he’s an easy target.

          Like any idiot liberal (is there any other kind?) there’s no need to take him seriously.

          Just point out his stupidity and laugh at him like everyone else here does and wait for the vitriol to spew forth.

          Then laugh at that loser some more.

          Besides it’s more clicks for the Captain…

  25. Jeffery says:

    there is no need for me to continue in this discussion with you.

    Thank Allah for that.

  26. Jeffery says:

    Every time gitarcarver gets beaten in an argument he flounces away in a dramatic huff!

    “I said, Good Day!, Sir.” LOL

    We’re done here Zach.

    LOL

    there is no need for me to continue in this discussion with you

    . LOL

    • drowningpuppies says:

      Little guy, you’ve never won any argument on this blog against Git or any other commenter that I can remember.
      Get over yourself.

  27. Zachriel says:

    gitarcarver: It is a crime with civil penalties, and not criminal penalties which the LawBlog post explains.

    Unlawful Presence Is Not a Crime

    • gitarcarver says:

      I read your citation, Zach.

      It is clear you have not.

      It is clear that you are trying to change the parameters of your initial question to fit something else.

      I am just not playing your silly game anymore.

    • gitarcarver says:

      Oh, and by the way, why are people in the country illegally (even overstaying their visas) granted a lawyer paid for by the government?

      Do actors in civil cases against the government get tax payer funded lawyers?

  28. Zachriel says:

    gitarcarver: It is clear that you are trying to change the parameters of your initial question to fit something else.

    gitarcarver: {unlawful presence} is a crime

    Findlaw: Unlawful Presence Is Not a Crime
    USA Today: law proposed to create a “new crime of unlawful presence”
    Arizona vs. United States: “as a general rule, it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain present in the United States.”

    We’d be happy to provide more citations.

    • gitarcarver says:

      Zach,

      When you can actually understand the terms you are using, get back to me.

      Most people define “crime” as “being against the law.” It is an illegal action.

      Certainly you aren’t saying that being in the country illegally is somehow legal, are you?

      The diffrerence which you fail to recognize, is that a “crime” when used in legal circles carries criminal penalty – the ability to detain, fine, etc.

      Breaking civil laws are still “crimes” but they carry non-criminal penalties, such as fines or the requirement to do something.

      For example, most people consider breaking traffic laws to be a crime, but in fact most traffic laws are civil penalties. I tried to explain this distinction to you before and you brushed it aside because it doesn’t fit your beliefs.

      You have changed the parameters of your initial question and yet you don’t address that.

      As I said, the US supplies lawyers in deportation hearings which is only done in criminal cases. Therefore, the distinction is still that a law is being broken (a crime) but the penalties are civil (non confinement) in nature.

      You can supply all the citations you want, but what you don’t realize is that your citations are supporting what I have said and contradict you. I can’t and don’t want to deal with that type of continued willful ignorance.

  29. Jeffery says:

    I can’t and don’t want to deal with that type of continued willful ignorance.

    We’ve heard that before.

  30. Zachriel says:

    gitarcarver: Breaking civil laws are still “crimes”

    Ah! You mean you are making an “argument” about the “legal definition” of “crimes” citing “Title 8s U.S.C. 1324(a)”. Didn’t notice the scare-quotes previously.

    Arizona vs. United States: “as a general rule, it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain present in the United States.”

Bad Behavior has blocked 4087 access attempts in the last 7 days.