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?
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.