Senate resuscitates immigration bill

[natty bumppo 297]

just thought ... without legal entry documentation ... how do you prove time of entry ?

Leases, school records, utility bills, things like this.

was it "really" the person? do you really need to be there to have these bills / records ?

Just like everything with immigration, you have to show evidence that proves your case to USCIS. I think its a matter of the totality of the documents not just having some documents.

it is very easy to rent ... buy ... hire services without actually being present.

for evidence ... prove the case from the home country ... just like people on VJ needed to do.

[GaryC 7]

I'm sure if you look harder you can find some specific caveats to that particular clause which don't rely on your subjective interpretation. The obvious question I would ask is where, exactly, are you likely to meet "immigration officers"?

No response to this I see...

Dumb question. At the POE where they should have had their inspection. When they bypassed that they are evading inspection. If they want to be here it is their responsability to be inspected. When they don't submit to inspection they are breaking the law.

[natty bumppo 297]

I didn't say they wanted a holocaust. I said they came at the problem from the same mentality as others who have treated people as subhuman. What exactly about that do you find sick? I think these people are twisted, and as history shows, it doesn't even take particularly twisted people to perpetrate a genocide or other horrible thing. Just humans led by hate-filled humans.

IMO, the senate bill is designed to keep these illegal immigrants as sub-humans.

sending the head of household back to country of origin for a year? what a joke. I would never be away from my family for that amount of time.

not sub human ... but non USC and law breakers

there are people on this forum who have experienced the year seperation and more. I wonder if this is the place to ask for special considerations for law breakers

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'm sure if you look harder you can find some specific caveats to that particular clause which don't rely on your subjective interpretation. The obvious question I would ask is where, exactly, are you likely to meet "immigration officers"?

No response to this I see...

Dumb question. At the POE where they should have had their inspection. When they bypassed that they are evading inspection. If they want to be here it is their responsability to be inspected. When they don't submit to inspection they are breaking the law.

Dumb point to begin with. They are not breaking that point of law every day seeing as the only real way you would be subject to the attentions of immigration officers is at a border crossing.

[GaryC 7]

I'm sure if you look harder you can find some specific caveats to that particular clause which don't rely on your subjective interpretation. The obvious question I would ask is where, exactly, are you likely to meet "immigration officers"?

No response to this I see...

Dumb question. At the POE where they should have had their inspection. When they bypassed that they are evading inspection. If they want to be here it is their responsability to be inspected. When they don't submit to inspection they are breaking the law.

Dumb point to begin with. They are not breaking that point of law every day seeing as the only real way you would be subject to the attentions of immigration officers is at a border crossing.

But you still totally ignore the rest of my points. They are working without EAD, most are not paying taxes and some are commiting ID theft. The point is, unless they are sitting in a cave being fed by someone else they are breaking the law if they are working. Please adress that.

oh, and BTW. I still say they are breaking the law every day they are here because they didn't have a visa. It isn't a one time thing. It's a continuing crime. But I guess we will have to agree to disagree on that.

Edited June 28, 2007 by Iniibig ko si Luz forever

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'm sure if you look harder you can find some specific caveats to that particular clause which don't rely on your subjective interpretation. The obvious question I would ask is where, exactly, are you likely to meet "immigration officers"?

No response to this I see...

Dumb question. At the POE where they should have had their inspection. When they bypassed that they are evading inspection. If they want to be here it is their responsability to be inspected. When they don't submit to inspection they are breaking the law.

Dumb point to begin with. They are not breaking that point of law every day seeing as the only real way you would be subject to the attentions of immigration officers is at a border crossing.

But you still totally ignore the rest of my points. They are working without EAD, most are not paying taxes and some are commiting ID theft. The point is, unless they are sitting in a cave being fed by someone else they are breaking the law if they are working. Please adress that.

oh, and BTW. I still say they are breaking the law every day they are here because they didn't have a visa. It isn't a one time thing. It's a continuing crime. But I guess we will have to agree to disagree on that.

The illegal entry law you pointed out covers the act of illegal entry itself - thats one crime, not one count for every day.

BTW - while those other, secondary activities you mentioned are associated with illegal immigration (I have not denied this), the only conclusive thing you can say about an individual illegal alien is that they entered illegally or overstayed a visa. On everything else you're assuming the worst possible case.

[GaryC 7]

The illegal entry law you pointed out covers the act of illegal entry itself - thats one crime, not one count for every day.

BTW - while those other, secondary activities you mentioned are associated with illegal immigration (I have not denied this), the only conclusive thing you can say about an individual illegal alien is that they entered illegally or overstayed a visa. On everything else you're assuming the worst possible case.

Not the worst possible case. If that were true I would be going on about murderers and rapist. I am not. The working without EAD is inevitable. Not paying taxes is more common than not. ID fraud is very common. These are all crimes that you and I could go to jail over. All I want is for them to go home. That is not unreasonable.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The illegal entry law you pointed out covers the act of illegal entry itself - thats one crime, not one count for every day.

BTW - while those other, secondary activities you mentioned are associated with illegal immigration (I have not denied this), the only conclusive thing you can say about an individual illegal alien is that they entered illegally or overstayed a visa. On everything else you're assuming the worst possible case.

Not the worst possible case. If that were true I would be going on about murderers and rapist. I am not. The working without EAD is inevitable. Not paying taxes is more common than not. ID fraud is very common. These are all crimes that you and I could go to jail over. All I want is for them to go home. That is not unreasonable.

The point is you're judging by type.

The reality is that (any) criminal will only be prosecuted for charges that can be conclusively proven. I'd say unless you're caught red-handed on fraud or ID theft - the only thing that an illegal will be charged with is the initial illegal entry.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Some things are just not a laughing matter.

The fact that you were lecturing Alex on the holocaust sure is...

I wasn't lecturing anyone on the holocaust. I just called Alex out on the distasteful and inappropriate comparison that simply had no place in this thread.

[Dan J 277]

Doing some research it looks like its not illegal to work without an EAD. Its only illegal to hire someone without one. But then its only considered a civil matter and not criminal. It only becomes criminal, if you keep doing or specifically hire people without an EAD.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/usc...24---a000-.html

Edited June 28, 2007 by Dan + Gemvita

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Doing some research it looks like its not illegal to work without an EAD. Its only illegal to hire someone without one. But then its only considered a civil matter and not criminal. It only becomes criminal, if you keep doing or specifically hire people without an EAD.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/usc...24---a000-.html

And how does an illegal work without either falsifying government records or evading taxes altogether? Neither is a civil matter.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

But you can pay taxes with an ITIN.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

But you can pay taxes with an ITIN.

Which still leaves the work eligibility record incomplete. Gotta cheat on that...

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

But you can pay taxes with an ITIN.

Which still leaves the work eligibility record incomplete. Gotta cheat on that...

Unless the employer doesn't ask - or pays off-books.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

But you can pay taxes with an ITIN.

Which still leaves the work eligibility record incomplete. Gotta cheat on that...

Unless the employer doesn't ask - or pays off-books.

People that are paid off the books don't pay taxes using an ITIN. Employers have to verify documents and even if they don't, an ISIN is nowhere on the I-9. The alien would then sell an ITIN as a SSN which means the illegal falsified that record. There ain't no way around it: If you work in this country illegally, you are committing more than a civil offense.

Edited June 28, 2007 by ET-US2004