The Facts Behind Anti-Immigration Rhetoric

What lie am I repeating, since I have given numerous links from the Federal Govt now that back up exactly what I have stated.

Lets see exactly who he is talking about.....wait for it....using Giuliani's own words......when you throw an immigrant out of the country, it’s not a criminal proceeding.. So he is talking about an immigrant i.e. visa holder, not an illegal immigrant, but an immigrant only.

He then goes on to discuss Illegal entry with the following words: Illegal immigration shouldn't be a crime, either, Giuliani said: "No, it shouldn't be because the government wouldn't be able to prosecute it. We couldn't prosecute 12 million people. We have only 2 million people in jail right now for all the crimes that are committed in the country, 2.5 million." So we have Guiliani admitting that illegal immigration is a crime by claiming it shouldn't be a crime. Yea, you have great English comprehension,

Is this going to be more of your inability to comprehend the English language?

ILLEGAL ENTRY OR REENTRY - USSG§2L1.2
Federal law prohibits foreign nationals from entering the United States without permission. A conviction for a first offense of illegal entry is a misdemeanor that is not covered by the guidelines. Subsequent entries, reentry after removal, and remaining in the United States after being ordered removed are felonies covered by USSG §2L1.2. Section 2L1.2 provides for an enhanced sentence when the prior deportation was preceded by certain types of convictions. This section addresses application issues arising under §2L1.2.
http://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/fi...mmigration.pdf

Title 8 is Federal Immigration and Nationality Law. And title 18 is also Federal Law. Now lets look at how TheResister claimed that unlawful presence and illegal entry were not covered under title 18. looks like 18USC922(g)(5) discusses Unlawful Acts
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922

I hate to break it to you, but an alien in the us illegally (EWI) or unlawfully (visa overstay with order of deportation against them) is an Unlawful Act via Title 18.

Please read the proposed Bill, and then quote the relevant portion that you think does what you claim.

Why are you making this about "Little Brown" people? So now your only retort is to try to play the race card? Not all illegal immigrants are little brown people, sorry.

 

I see no point to rephrase what's been said. I'll just repeat the point:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDo-ZVK4dc0

Liquid Reigns took advantage of a computer glitch that I missed the last time. It's fixed and you are urged to access the links for yourself.

One has to give Liquid Reigns credit. In keeping with the strategies of the Secure the border lobby, he repeats a lie enough so that you will begin to accept it as truth. I only read his last sentence because he wants a debate about whether or not immigration under Title 8 is a crime.

Rudy Giuliani stated:

“It's not a crime,” Giuliani said Friday. “I know that’s very hard for people to understand, but it’s not a federal crime.”
Guiliani's comments came in an interview with CNN Headline News and radio talk-show host Glenn Beck.
“I was U.S. attorney in the Southern district of New York,” he said. “So believe me, I know this. In fact, when you throw an immigrant out of the country, it’s not a criminal proceeding. It’s a civil proceeding.”

https://sayanythingblog.com/entry/ru..._isnt_a_crime/

Even this has not been good enough for Reigns, so today I will spank him yet again with the truth. Let’s look at the law and explain it to the intellectually challenged Liquid Reigns:

a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both - See more at:
b) http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/8....xiS6ptaN.dpuf

So, what an accused be tried for under Title 8? NOTHING. That is why Title 8 (Immigration and Nationality Law) references Title 18. All one has to do is examine the law closely. Eluding authorities, entering by making false or misleading representations, and the willful concealment of a material fact are all crimes in Title 18 (the Criminal Code), but improper entry is NOT a crime under Title 18. Any idiot ought to be able to read the law and see that Title 8 simply does not prescribe criminal penalties. The criminal penalties are imposed through Title 18 (which is the Criminal Code.)

Imagine, if you will, an old set of encyclopedias in printed form (Reigns probably never saw one.) That is pretty much what the United States Code Annotated looks like if you visit a law library. The law is divided into many different sections, but one book in particular deals with criminal law. It is Title 18. On the other hand, Title 8 is Immigration and Nationality.

IF you listen to Giuliani’s interview cited earlier, he goes on to tell the audience that not only is improper entry NOT a crime, but Congress tried to change the law, but failed. Reigns knows this. It was one his lap dog politicians that introduced the bill.

WHY Reigns is opposed to little brown people from south of the border seems to hinge on this one issue, so we will play his game until such time as we can move forward. This is important because outside of this narrow issue, Reigns has NO issue. And, he has become the spokesboy for the misguided Secure the border lobby.

Addendum: I'm ignoring Liquid Reigns posts. He has violated most of the rules here, but somebody is tolerating him because the Secure the border lobby has tentacles far and wide. If he states anything new, except for irrelevant laws that have been overturned by the courts or made moot by other statutes, let me know. Unless Reigns grows up and acts like a man, he does not deserve to be in a man's conversation.

 

That not even the part of his quote I italicized. C'mon, f your going to be so intellectually ignorant, the least you could do is pay attention to the actual response I made.

What lie am I repeating? I have shown that 1325 is a criminal violation of immigration law, I have shown title 18 to include illegal entry and visa overstay to be federal crimes, both of which you claim are not crimes at all and are not found in 18.

Thats right he stated exactly what you quoted ......in regards to visa overstays. What was the word he used in his quote? “It's not a crime,” Giuliani said Friday. “I know that’s very hard for people to understand, but it’s not a federal crime.”
Guiliani's comments came in an interview with CNN Headline News and radio talk-show host Glenn Beck.
“I was U.S. attorney in the Southern district of New York,” he said. “So believe me, I know this. In fact, when you throw an immigrant out of the country, it’s not a criminal proceeding. It’s a civil proceeding.”

That's right, he used the word immigrant and not illegal immigrant. So lets look at your link and quote the very next paragraph of it[ since you are trying to be intellectually dishonestQUOTE]"It's not a crime," Giuliani said Friday. "I know that's very hard for people to understand, but it's not a federal crime." Giuliani's comments came in an interview with CNN Headline News and radio talk-show host Glenn Beck. "I was U.S. attorney in the Southern district of New York," he said. "So believe me, I know this. In fact, when you throw an immigrant out of the country, it's not a criminal proceeding. It's a civil proceeding." Illegal immigration shouldn't be a crime, either, Giuliani said: "No, it shouldn't be because the government wouldn't be able to prosecute it. We couldn't prosecute 12 million people. We have only 2 million people in jail right now for all the crimes that are committed in the country, 2.5 million." He added: "My solution is close the border to illegal immigration."[/QUOTE]Why does he then say illegal immigration shouldn't be a crime either? Especially if he was talking about illegal immigration to begin with when he was talking about immigrants? HHHHHMMMMMMMmmmmm

Spank me yet again? You really should quit spanking your monkey, they say it makes you go blind.....maybe that is why you have such a hard time with English Comprehension? imjusayn

All one has to do is look at any court case where the illegal is being charged to see they are charging the illegal via 8USC1325. and not 18USC922. Why do court cases then cite 8usc1325 as the violation and the charge? http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/osg/briefs/2002/01/01/2001-1877.resp.pdf

and further in the case

What their not charging him under title 18? How could this be?

I wonder why when an illegal immigrant is charged with Entry Without Inspection the cite and charge under 8USC1325(a)?

This has already been answered.

Not the race card again. SMFH

I'm telling you it must be a conspiracy, man.

 

Here, lets make this as simple as possible.

When an illegal is charged as being an illegal immigrant (EWI) what code and section is cited?

Here's a hint in this case: http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/osg/briefs/2002/01/01/2001-1877.resp.pdf

That's right 8USC1325(a) under Criminal Federal Immigration Law where the first offense is a Federal Misdemeanor and the second offense is a Federal Felony

 

Finally, you gave a brief post that can be responded to - although you don't deserve it. The first thing that the defendant did wrong was to plead guilty. You've proven nothing with this case. I can tell you about HUNDREDS that are challenged every day. But let me draw you an analogy:

I once helped on the legal research for a tax protestor named Cheek. Now, Cheek stayed the course all the way to the United States Supreme Court. He won the case. So, anyway the IRS cannot prove Cheek intended to violate the law via a willful failure to file. He's won; it's over. Right? No. Just like in this case, the IRS goes after the guy a SECOND time. Tired from the fight, Cheek gives up. So, which interpretation of the law is the right one - the case we won at the United States Supreme Court level OR the second case where Cheek threw in the towel?

Liquid Reigns, I could have won the above case unless the Mexican was caught at the border. Furthermore, your entire argument is moot because the law is as I've stated, IF a person crosses the border and is not detected the government cannot arrest them for a violation of Improper Entry AND their presence is not a crime. Well, they could and they might get an absolute idiot for a client.

If a person repeatedly violates the law, they will be charged and, yes, in those instances (mostly due to case law not always statutory law), they may be dealt with as this guy was.

All of your incessant B.S. does not change the bottom line. BEING IN the United States without papers is not a crime. The only "illegal" act occurs IF you get caught. Again, another analogy is necessary:

You make an improper U Turn and the cops don't see it and don't stop you. Two days later you get arrested. Nobody saw you do it. The cops say that someone says you were going one way and the next instant you were going the other way so you must be guilty. This doesn't even take a legal education to figure out.

If a person enters this country, due mostly to policies and case law, it is not a crime to enter the United States without papers. It is a civil offense and the offender is taken into custody and processed, then deported. Only when it is done multiple times do the authorities act (as then it becomes a more serious matter.)

What you're attempting to do, again by way of analogy, would be to prove that driving under the influence were a felony. You know it isn't, so you will rely on a habitual violator in order to make your case. Again, listen carefully:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDo-ZVK4dc0

So, you found an idiot that was willing to cop a guilty plea to something that isn't a crime. Isn't that what Cheek did? We have a system that arrests people for pretend crimes all the time. BTW, since you are an avid supporter of the so - called "Patriot Act," the government has tried to use it as a basis to murder American citizens. Suppose they are successful. Is that still "legal" by your definition?

 

Whether he plead guilty or not has no bearing on the simple fact he was charged under 8USC1325. He would have been found guilty whether he plead guilty of 8usc1325 or not.

Cheek didn't win the case.

You couldn't have won. And an illegal with no entry record can be charged and found guilty of 8USC1325 no matter where they are found within the US.

They are being dealt with daily, as many are caught 100's and 1000's of miles from the border and are charged with 8USC1325.

It all depends on the method of entry. EWI is criminal, IF they get caught they are charged under 8USC1325, and it is a Federal Misdemeanor for the first offense.

You won't get arrested for a traffic infraction, you may only receive a fine provided they have video. If they have a witness then due process comes into play and its a he said she said issue at that point.

It is a Federal Immigration Violation and can be charged with a Federal Immigration Misdemeanor under 8USC1325. Authorities act on each instance, it is dependent on whether they wish to spend money on the conviction or if the illegal wants to sign a waiver admitting guilt, either way he is charged under 8USC1325 and is guilty under 8USC1325. It counts as a first offense, waiver or court.

Driving under the influence is a crime. You seem to be eluding to that it isn't if you don't get caught that very moment or right a way. You should consider it luck to not have been caught, but eventually you do get caught simply due to it being habitual for you. At which point you are handcuffed and taken in for DUI, or you simply wreck your car and kill some innocent motorist, and if we are lucky enough you would die as well, but must DUI's dont die, they are so drunk that they are limber enough and relaxed enough to absorb the impact.

What citizens have they tried to murder under the patriot act?

There we have it folks, theresister is a member of the tax protest movement, and what did Cheeks lawyer state: Immediately after the ruling, John Cheek's lawyer, William R. Coulson, stated that Cheek had "learned his lesson." Coulson described Cheek as a "gullible victim of the tax protest movement"

Don't be like Cheek and be a gullible victim of theresisters inanity.

 

Cheek won the first round in the Supreme Court. The feds then began a separate action to which Cheek caved in on.

You did lead up to one of the main reasons I don't get along with the likes of you.

PRIOR to the Minutemen and the media giving this immigration crap front page headlines, the tax protest movement was making many inroads. They had challenged the use of the Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops, "Social Security Number" as identification. My mother, born in 1929, had a SSN wherein the government (at that time) printed NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION across the front of the card.

Today, due to your efforts with the National ID / REAL ID Act, Americans have SSN based ID. Millions of people are now victims of identity fraud due to your lobbying efforts, thank you very much. And, insofar as tax protestors go, they did begin winning the war against the income tax.

You see, once upon a time, you had to actually apply for an SSN. If you had no SSN and did not receive an income (but relied on wages) you could become exempt from the income tax. The National ID / REAL ID Act set patriots back fifty years. Today, millions of people become the victims of identity fraud because all you do is linked to a single number that is used by the government to track people from the womb to the tomb. So, regardless of the income tax implications, your so - called "solutions" have led to womb to the tomb surveillance AND increased identity fraud.

Finally, back to the issue at hand. We've gone from it's a crime to get charged under Title 8 USC 1325 to now it's a Federal Misdemeanor (sic.) Let's not talk about multiple violations; let's get rid of visa over stays (they don't apply to ENTRY.) Being charged with Title 8 USC 1325 as a first offense is not a crime. Period... end of discussion. The feds will not charge you with a crime because, in the first place, it would be difficult to prove mens rea (a fancy word for intent.) In the second place, the punishment is strictly civil - which is why Mukasey did not afford an accused a taxpayer funded attorney.

Improper Entry at the federal level is much like an Improper U Turn at the state or local level. In both instances, the accused violates the law. In both instances, a record of sorts is created but, in both cases that record is not recorded as a criminal conviction. Now, do either multiple times and it does become a serious matter - that will end in a criminal conviction.

Liquid Reigns has spent more than enough time on this debating semantics. Even if people coming here were a crime (and it most assuredly is not), then Liquid Reigns should be more offended that the foundational principles upon which America was founded got attacked than by a silly law, passed by a Democrat (that was aimed at making the whites a minority.) Liberty is a God given Right. On that point, Reigns and I will always disagree.

Now, if someone wanted to articulate WHY they make such a big deal out of immigration ... I mean specifically, Liquid Reigns would either find he has no issue OR he would be forced to interact with me on ways to best address specific problems. I just won't screw someone else over and jeopardize their Rights to get what I want.

Now, before I go to a personal issue, Liquid Reigns asks me for information that he could ascertain, but his game is that I provide the proof while he sits on his hindquarters and judges it. Just for chits and giggles, I'll do one of more than a hundred examples of how his so - called "Patriot Act" has impacted Americans:

In 2006 a grandmother, Kathyrn Johnson was killed in her home by cops executing a "No Knock Warrant." Although the cops were held accountable, their defense was that they thought they were justified by the No Knock Warrant concept as allowed under the so - called "Patriot Act."

This entire side show about whether or not immigration is legal or not was done to keep people in the dark. Reigns is really whizzed off that he could not stop the facts from coming out.

The facts are that after thirteen years of his side have carte blanche to do and say what they want without being called out, they have nothing, zilch, nada to show for their efforts. In 1986, according to Newswatch Magazine in both the January and June issues are articles I helped research. There we learned that we had 10 to 12 million undocumented foreigners in the United States. In the year 2000, those figures had not changed. In 2003, Liquid Reigns and his political entourage got the headlines - and, despite having passed over a TRILLION DOLLARS in legislative nonsense, we still have the same number of undocumented foreigners in the United States.

You have far fewer Liberties. You have warrantless searches, National ID based on the SSN, and a womb to the tomb surveillance atmosphere that would make Hitler blush. The police is now merged with the military and we have seen Multi-Jurisdictional Task Forces and even UN troops on U.S. soil, doing mock house to house search and seizure exercises. There are Constitution Free Zones and a society that wants you to prove everything on God's green earth. It's quite a departure from innocent until proven guilty predicated upon a presumption of innocence.

But, it's been said and there is nothing the Secure the border lobby can do to reverse what happened on this forum. There are addressable issues - IF you want to preserve our heritage and culture. There are ways to increase job opportunities and better regulate the flow of people in and out of the U.S. without jeopardizing our God given Liberties.

 

Cheek didn't win anything other than the ability to have standing based on Ignorance. He subsequently lost his case.

Really, is that because you claim to be things that you really aren't and I called you out on it? Showed you to be inane? My parents had one of your brethren come out to their house one day, after I showed him to be a moron, he left in a pretty pissed off mood because he couldn't swindle my parents out of $3500 for the "advice" and tax savings that he had just given them.

The tax protest wasn't making any inroads, after Cheek they mostly went away.

Tax protesters were not winning any war, they got their ass handed to them in every court.

Talk about an ignorance of actual reality and history.

8USC1325 is a crime, it is a Federal Misdemeanor. Being charged with anything is nothing until you are found to be guilty of said charge. And being in the US via EWI means you can be charged and found guilty of 8USC1325 which is a Federal Misdemeanor for the first offense. Immigration court is simply civil in nature as Mukasey states, the illegal is not afforded an attorney nor a jury of his peers, yet the charges are criminal as it is the US Govt prosecuting a defendant. Again, this shows you have no experience in immigration law nor do you have a law degree as you have exclaimed, you have been shown to be both a liar and ignorant of immigration law.

No, a visa overstay is much like a u turn it is an infraction, and not a crime. EWI is a crime under Immigration Law 8USC1325.

The foundational principles attacked? You demonstrate you know nothing of immigration history into the colonies or into the US. You still conflate Liberty to mean something more than what it actually means.

Illegal immigrants have very few rights once they enter the US via EWI along with very few protections; and because Congress has sole authority over immigration laws can be implemented that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens.

You claimed the Patriot Act "murdered" Americans, are you now changing your claim? Here is more of the intellectual dishonesty and lies you exclaim.

This has nothing to do with the Patriot Act. "No Knock Warrants" have been issued since prior to 1981, long before the Patriot Act.

Yes there are better ways to regulate the flow of people in and out of the US, we all agree on that. You do understand that regulation is a limiting of Liberty, though, right?

 

The thing is it is anti-immigration as in legal immigration. It is anti-illegal immigration which it seems this administration is fully in support of. If we are not going to enforce our immigration laws, then we might as well repeal them. Not enforcing all laws does away with the idea this nation is a nation of laws. It either is or it isn't and now it isn't.

 

Let's repeal them. While we're at it, let's make sure Congress knows a few things.

1) Welfare is NOT a right. It should be a privilege of citizenship

2) Marriage is not a right. That is why people get a marriage license. Some day I'll explain why that is relative to immigration

3) Recognize that the 14th Amendment was never legally ratified. That automatically eliminates that issue of anchor babies (sic) without the burden of convincing two thirds of the pols in Washington Wonderland, District of Corruption to amend an illegal amendment

4) Let's offer substantial tax incentives for employers that hire an all American work force

5) Make English the official language of the United States

6) Repeal the income tax

7) Get rid of this surveillance society and limit background checks. MILLIONS of Americans are locked out of the job market because of some minor indiscretion years ago that is not relative to the job. Meanwhile, foreigners have squeaky clean backgrounds because not every violation of the law is a "crime" in other countries

Begin teaching Americans the difference between rights and privileges; power and authority; citizenship and Guest Worker status

9) Return America to the philosophy of the government that governs best governs least (attributed to Thomas Jefferson, Thoreau, and sometimes Thomas Paine)

10) Clearly define the difference between immigration and Guest status, then put into place limits on immigration that allows the Americans to repopulate instead of being wiped out by a flood of incoming foreigners (whether you call them legal or "illegal.") An immigrant is a person that comes here to live permanently. Guests plan on leaving. It should not be necessary to become a citizen in order to come here and exercise basic Liberties.