Posted on 04/30/2008 6:21:48 AM PDT by NewJerseyJoe
The office of U.S. Attorney Christopher Christie on Monday issued a statement addressing criticism of remarks he made regarding illegal immigration at a church forum in Dover Sunday.
In response to a question from an audience member, Christie said that immigrants are not committing a crime by being in the country illegally.
Monday, Christie said that while entering the country illegally is considered a federal misdemeanor, simply lacking legal immigration status is a civil violation.
(Excerpt) Read more at nj.com ...
Handy word this is becoming lately.
Authorities aren't acting unconstitutionally because their action is only “civil”.
Illegals aren't illegal because their violation is only “civil”
Handy word indeed.
This ASS#$%E needs to go this is the exact point we’ve been talking about, AMNESTY is next again.
Like the rose...
An illegal is an illegal is an illegal is an illegal...
It depends upon your definition of “illegal”.. :)
A distinction without a difference.
Lacking legal immigration status is prima facie evidence of entering the country illegally. Therefore, an illegal alien is guilty of a federal misdemeanor and has also committed a civil violation.
Shaking my head at our state again!
Maybe a dumb question...if they enter legally under some sort of visa, but then overstay that visa, is it a crime to overstay the visa or only a civil violation?
As opposed to simply running across the border without any authorization.
I think you've hit on the actual distinction here. Christie's comments are technically correct, though they don't play well to the general public.
No. It is evidence of overstaying a visa. A civil violation.
Illegal entry is a misdemeanor.
Illegal re-entry is a felony
The punishment is the same, deportation.
However, if there is no record of a visa ever being granted to the person, the conjunction of the two is prima facie evidence of illegal entry.
You could say the same thing about a birth certificate.
You can't have it both ways. If someone claims to be a citizen, they don't need documentation of a visa - they only need to demonstrate they are a citizen.
But if someone is not a citizen and does not have documentation, the lack of documentation that they ever had a visa (and this can be looked up) demonstrates they came here illegally.
Having said that, I understand where you're coming from, forget about these misdemeanors and civil infractions, pass a law that makes them all felons. Oops, they already tried that and fit hit the shan.
Ben has answered this far better than I could. His and the other comments are nailing this down quite well.
Actually, it is a difference.
If being IN the country was a criminal act, then each minute, the illegal would be committing another crime. Or substitute each hour, or each day — things that are illegal WHILE being done subject one to continual and possibly repeated arrests for multiple violations.
In a sense, it’s like the illegal committed a single illegal crime, and is now a fugitive. It’s not that each day they wake up and commit another “crime” of being here.
Further, I maintain everything the illegal alien does while in this country is tainted by the original ongoing crime. That leads to my attitude that the illegal alien should not only be punished for his crime, but that he should receive no benefit from his crime, i.e. confiscate all property, wealth, etc. generated while in the United States.
Law enforcement and the courts do not appear to share my view on this. So either I am wrong (happens a lot), or our justice system is out of whack (also happens a lot).
Either way, am enjoying this thread immensely!
That's a silly similarity. If someone does not have documentation and there is no record of them receiving a visa, they by definition entered illegally.
Having said that, I understand where you're coming from, forget about these misdemeanors and civil infractions, pass a law that makes them all felons.
Typical tactic on your part - putting words in my mouth.
I think the current laws only need minor revisions. What does need to be done is that we actually ENFORCE existing laws.
No. By trial.
Oh please Mr Illegal, would you self-deport so that we don't have to hold you and try you?
Law is not your area of expertise.
Substitute being in possession of a stolen vehicle with being in the country and you should see how absurd that argument is.
Being in possession of a stolen item, or even “conspiring to commit a criminal act” does not need to attach continuous liability for every denomination of time.
The initial instance of said act is both encompassing in the Law, and compelling as to prima facia evidence.
I didn’t mean that to sound insulting.
Sorry if it did.
ping
I actually find the concept of a continual violation of law fascinating.
Suppose you are speeding. If the police pull behind you, and follow you for 5 minutes, they will probably give you a ticket. If you leave, and start speeding, they can give you another ticket 5 minutes later. But if they had followed you for that 10 minutes, they would probably not give you two tickets.
If there were speed trap CAMERAS set up every mile, you could theoretically get 100 speeding tickets for speeding through a 100-mile section. Each one would be it’s own violation. In fact, you are speeding each second.
Your example seems to suggest that my feeling about the illegal question was correct, not incorrect as you seem to imply.
If someone steals a car, and it takes the police a month to catch them, they won’t charge the person with 30 counts of possessing stolen property, even if they could prove that each day you drove the car. You’d get a single charge of stealing the car.
If you gave the car to another person, they could also be charged with receiving stolen property — so it’s possible to have multiple charges for the “same theft”, but it would be two people getting charged.
If being in the country as an illegal was itself a crime, you could be arrested for being here illegally, and released pending trial, and then the next day be arrested again for being illegal — you could get arrested each time you were let out of the jail, since your presense would be illegal.
I know if sounds weird, but if you were driving the wrong way on a street, and were pulled over and given a ticket, and when done you kept going the wrong way, you’d get pulled over again.
And no, I didn’t see anything wrong with the manner you responded. Law is NOT my area of expertise.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.