Pretty much.

I'll have to dig up that jpeg of the protesters with "This is OUR land" and "Go home, Gringo Invaders!" signs.

No they are here illegally (in my example).

Illegal act does not = Criminal Act

Criminal Act = Act which falls under Criminal law.
We have a
However, the US government has decided that this is not criminal act and is instead a procedural issue.

No Papa, no.
Crime is an act or omission which is prohibited by criminal law. If the US penal system does not expressely state something then it is not a crime.
Maybe thats the way it works in your Faggy snowball of a country called Canada but we things called paper and on that paper are words and those words contain all sort of rules and regulations that define who things operate.
Just cause they seem the same doesn't mean they are the same.




The crime isn't the parking violation. The crime is failure to pay the ticket.
As far as criminal law is concerned....we don't give a fizzuck about where you parked. We only care about you paying the state the money...bizznitch.

In the United States, as clearly stated in the 14th amendment all are gauranteed due process. In you post you say "proven guilty".

Therefore every individual in your example (based on the assumption that being in the country without proper status is a criminal act) would be entitled to a jury trial and legal representation.

Can you please give an example specifically citing a case (since it would be public record...federal court cases are pretty easy to look up and find shit) where a state resident was charged with the crime of "Being in the United States with an Expired Visa\ or invalid paperwork" and cite the penal code violated?
There must be tons of em. Figure a lot of people in the federal penetentiary system, lots of court cases.

They can't fast track em since to do so would raise contitutional issues.

Would seem to be a big pain in the ass since it would be a lot easier to just leave it a code violation.
I wonder how many people are locked up for EPA violations?

enough with you petty BS

The part in my post that has tickled your jackass-bone

Let's break this down:

Crime or "civil infraction", the fact is, they are not legally allowed to be in this country.

People that are not allowed here get deported.

Oh snap...I quoted you.

You said "Crime"
I said No Crime.

Now you say BAH BAH BAH BEH BAH BAH
Wwhatever sissy boy!!! They get deported.

All I say is that they have not committed a crime. Lots of of other stuff but my point is that they have not committed a crime.

Yes they are here illegally
Yes they can be deported.
No that does not mean they are guilty of a crime.
The US has decided that a violated code related to Visa will result in fine or deportation.

You missed the lulz.

I already conceded that no crime was committed.

AZ is still gangsta.

You didn't understand my post.

It was laid out the same as your post that I quoted. The first example (guilty, jail, deportation) was for someone being deported over a crime, not an immigration infraction. My second example (ruling, deportation) deals with those who have only violated immigration law. My post was meant to demonstrate that, unlike your OJ example, with immigration ultimately criminal and civil = GTFO.

No sir. You are the true gangsta. I need to check myself befo I wreck myself.

I was too busy caught up in my own post. I was dazzling myself with goolgle and I may have missed a few points here and there.

Pauldun170, I stick with my original statement. I think that it would be a reasonable accommodation to state that the parents must actually be in the country legally for the 14th Amendment to apply. This has nothing to do with 'criminal' vs. 'civil' (which is nothing of the sort anyway).

"Any person"
That's the key phrase and whether you take the literal definition or massage it with context (intent and purpose of the 14th) it is clear that someone here illegally has right to due process.

Lets say we were to get a sympathetic supreme court to say that Bill of Rights are not extended to unlawful residents. We eliminate all due process to those found in the country illegally.

A state is no longer under constitutional obligation to apply the rule of law to those found to be unlawfully residing within the state.
Are you supportive of a state being able to do whatever it sees fit with those people?

Lets say that they weaken the 14th amendment and one state (State A) declares all illegals guilty of a state felony while another state (state B) declares that it is under no obligation to honor federal immigration code and extends state citizenship to all who establish residency. In effect, all residents of a state are automatic citizens of the United states simply by establishing residency in that state.
An individual is charged in one state as an illegal and therefore guilty of a felony. The person escapes to the state offering residency and citizenship.

Is state B obligated to extradite that person to state A? does the state the follows the amendment to the letter and has a responsibility to honor the individuals due process send the person to a state that says it will not extend due process?

The sticky point is that the child IS in the US legally and as a citizen is entitled to equal protection under the law.
Putting the law to the side, what is the benefit to society to make this child a ward of the state?