Illegal immigrants

Bookworm · Post by **Bookworm** » Sun Dec 19, 2004 5:19 pm

I seem to remember that the Department of Homeland Security was tryin to get law enforcement to report any illegal immigrants that they came across, and law enforcement didn't want to because it might hamper their investigations. But aren't illegal immigrants breaking the law, and thus, shouldn't they be turned in?

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1475, old post ID:18946

Red Squirrel · Post by **Red Squirrel** » Sun Dec 19, 2004 10:36 pm

What exactly do they consider illegal immigrants though?

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1475, old post ID:18967

The Gheyness · Post by **The Gheyness** » Sun Dec 19, 2004 11:28 pm

No...there are plenty of instances where people break the law and police can choose whether or not to turn the other cheek. (ie, getting a warning for speeding instead of a ticket or even jail)

I think it should be left up to their own discretion, not some lawnjockey sitting behind a desk all day deciding what's best.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1475, old post ID:18970

Bookworm · Post by **Bookworm** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 12:15 am

Legend wrote: No...there are plenty of instances where people break the law and police can choose whether or not to turn the other cheek. (ie, getting a warning for speeding instead of a ticket or even jail)

I think it should be left up to their own discretion, not some lawnjockey sitting behind a desk all day deciding what's best.

But giving warnings are part of the enforcement procedures for speeders. An analogy to my question would be: If the police knew that Mr Doe speeds down a certain road every day, but Mr. Doe also has information about a crime, and Mr. Doe will not give up his information if he gets caught speeding, should the police just ignore the speeding? I'm not sure that we want the police to just be ignoring illegal activity.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1475, old post ID:18973

shenbaw · Post by **shenbaw** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 2:21 pm

Bookworm wrote: An analogy to my question would be: If the police knew that Mr Doe speeds down a certain road every day, but Mr. Doe also has information about a crime, and Mr. Doe will not give up his information if he gets caught speeding, should the police just ignore the speeding? I'm not sure that we want the police to just be ignoring illegal activity.

Wow, I think I could use for that analogy to be explained a bit further. If the police knew that mr.doe speeds down a certain road every day, wouldn't the police have information about a crime???

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1475, old post ID:19009

Bookworm · Post by **Bookworm** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 8:59 pm

shenbaw wrote:
Bookworm wrote: An analogy to my question would be: If the police knew that Mr Doe speeds down a certain road every day, but Mr. Doe also has information about a crime, and Mr. Doe will not give up his information if he gets caught speeding, should the police just ignore the speeding? I'm not sure that we want the police to just be ignoring illegal activity.
Wow, I think I could use for that analogy to be explained a bit further. If the police knew that mr.doe speeds down a certain road every day, wouldn't the police have information about a crime???

I was trying to make a speeding analogy to this situation: The police know a murder has taken place, and they need information. There are some witnesses, but they will not come forward because they are illegal aliens and are afraid they will be turned in. The police find out about them and are faced with my rather lame analogy situation. Do they ignore the illegal alien status in order to get information about a crime?

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1475, old post ID:19047

MrSelf · Post by **MrSelf** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 12:33 pm

I would say it depends on each situation or case, and in each situation you must choose so that the outcome is the best possible for everyone involved. In this case, murder is more important than illegal immigrants, you can deal with them again later. Shenbaw might know a little better, is the justice system based on tiers? Criminal justice, ? justice Are there types cases that supercede others?

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1475, old post ID:19110

shenbaw · Post by **shenbaw** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 2:55 pm

MrSelf wrote: I would say it depends on each situation or case, and in each situation you must choose so that the outcome is the best possible for everyone involved. In this case, murder is more important than illegal immigrants, you can deal with them again later. Shenbaw might know a little better, is the justice system based on tiers? Criminal justice, ? justice Are there types cases that supercede others?

Well, as I'm sure you're aware, there are tiers within crimes. 1st degree, 2nd degree, and so on. But as for the Criminal Justice question, there are basically two major branches of the law. Criminal Law and Civil Law. Criminal Law are the laws that our government makes in order to ensure a certain stardard of conduct among citizens, violations of which result in suits between the state (if it's a state law) or our country (if it's a federal law) and the individual or group of people who allegedly committed the crime. Civil Law are laws that our government makes in order to ensure a certain standard of conduct among citizens, violations of which result in suits between two citizens or groups of citizens. Civil Lawsuits may result in some type of compensation to the citizen who is seeking compensation, while Criminal Lawsuits may result in some type of punishment to the individual or groups of individuals who committed the crime or compensation to the state or federal government. Many crimes violate both criminal and civil laws which is why in the case of murder trials, the criminal case is usually directly followed by a civil case seeking compensation by the victims family. To get to the answer you're looking for, yes, within the Criminal Code of Law, which both muder and illegal immigration status would fall into, there are varying levels of offenses such as Petty Misdemeanor, Misdemeanor, Gross Misdemeanor, and Felony. I believe a Felony is the worst you can get, but there may be a level of "lesser" Felony as well. (Petty Felony perhaps?) I'm not sure. In this case, I'm pretty sure that illegal immigration status would qualify as a misdemeanor if anything, technically I don't know if you could charge them with anything since they are not a citizen of the United States? Maybe they just deport them? But the crime of murder, if it was indeed a murder would most likely qualify as a Felony. Whether that means an officer of the law could overlook one crime in favor of prosecuting another, again, I'm not sure. I would guess yes, often time police officers are able to use lesser offenses as leverage to get at the violaters of larger ones.

"I might be able to overlook the fact that you don't have a Green Card if you can identify who shot your friend last night."

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1475, old post ID:19131

MrSelf · Post by **MrSelf** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 3:06 pm

Thank you shenbaw for the information, food for though...

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1475, old post ID:19132

shenbaw · Post by **shenbaw** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 5:04 pm

No problem.

You might not want to quote me on any of that, but I think I got the basics right.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1475, old post ID:19158

Bookworm · Post by **Bookworm** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 7:47 pm

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Homeland Security Enhancement Act of 2003'.

TITLE I--ENHANCING FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE IMMIGRATION LAWS

SEC. 101. FEDERAL AFFIRMATION OF IMMIGRATION LAW ENFORCEMENT BY STATES AND POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS OF STATES.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law and reaffirming the existing inherent authority of States, law enforcement personnel of a State or a political subdivision of a State have the inherent authority of a sovereign entity to apprehend, arrest, detain, or transfer to Federal custody aliens in the United States (including the transportation of such aliens across State lines to detention centers), in the enforcement of the immigration laws of the United States. This State authority has never been displaced or preempted by Congress.

SEC. 102. STATE AUTHORIZATION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS ENCOURAGED.

(a) IN GENERAL- Effective 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, a State (or political subdivision of a State) that has in effect a statute, policy, or practice that prohibits law enforcement officers of the State, or of a political subdivision within the State, from enforcing Federal immigration laws or from assisting or cooperating with Federal immigration law enforcement in the course of carrying out the officers' law enforcement duties shall not receive any of the funds that would otherwise be allocated to the State under section 241(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1231(i)).

REALLOCATION OF FUNDS- Any funds that are not allocated to a State due to the failure of the State to comply with this section shall be reallocated to States that comply with this section.
____________________________________________________________________

This is the section of the homeland security act I was refering to. If a county has a policy that allows officers to overlook an illegal alien's status, that county will lose Federal funding. Law enforcement does not like this idea because they sometimes need information from illegal aliens, but when this takes effect, they will pretty much have to turn the aliens in.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1475, old post ID:19169

shenbaw · Post by **shenbaw** » Wed Dec 22, 2004 3:23 pm

But technically they could still use the offering of a lesser punishment as leverage in bargaining with the illegals, right? That's what I got anyway.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1475, old post ID:19236