Another - you cant make this up

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by spence

We discussed this earlier in the thread. I don't think this part of the code is applicable to her situation. The laws appear to delineate between those trying to get over the border, those who just recently crossed the border and those who have been here some time.

Sort of like meteor, meteorite and meteoroid

-spence

Are you saying there is a statute of limitations attached to this that equals the length of time it takes you to get way with it and enter the country

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

Enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers; or

Eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers; or

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;

[spence]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Are you saying there is a statute of limitations attached to this that equals the length of time it takes you to get way with it and enter the country

I'd venture a guess that it has more to do with the fact that if someone has been here for some time, there's likely no evidence that they violated that specific section of code. I'm not an immigration attorney, but everything I've read indicates that simply being here without a visa is a civil offense under Federal law.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I'd venture a guess that it has more to do with the fact that if someone has been here for some time, there's likely no evidence that they violated that specific section of code. I'm not an immigration attorney, but everything I've read indicates that simply being here without a visa is a civil offense under Federal law.

-spence

Not having proper documentation is some evidence that they have violated that section of the code. And it is certain evidence that some part of the code has been violated. The civil offense of being here without a visa is also subject to deportation. Even overstaying your visa faces you with removal proceedings to be deported from the U.S. If you overstay your visa for more than 180 days but less than a year you will face deportation and be inadmissible to the U.S. for three years. If you overstay it for more than a year, you will be inadmissible for 10 years. Not having a visa, a green card, or proper immigration papers is evidence of your breaking immigration law and makes you subject to deportation.

The woman Whitman fired, if the code is to be enforced, should be deported.

If it can be proved that Whitman did something illegal, she should be prosecuted. If not, it's typical oxymoronic dirty politics, and the voters should decide on the merits of the candidates' policies, not on mudslinging distractions.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by detbuch

If not, it's typical oxymoronic dirty politics, and the voters should decide on the merits of the candidates' policies, not on mudslinging distractions.

Yup, same old, same old politics.

If you can't win on your record snow them with

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Not having proper documentation is some evidence that they have violated that section of the code. And it is certain evidence that some part of the code has been violated. The civil offense of being here without a visa is also subject to deportation. Even overstaying your visa faces you with removal proceedings to be deported from the U.S. If you overstay your visa for more than 180 days but less than a year you will face deportation and be inadmissible to the U.S. for three years. If you overstay it for more than a year, you will be inadmissible for 10 years. Not having a visa, a green card, or proper immigration papers is evidence of your breaking immigration law and makes you subject to deportation.

I believe deportation is a likely option, but not mandatory. Don't civil offenders go before an immigration judge who ultimately decides their fate? They could be deported, told to leave or given a stay for hardship...

The woman Whitman fired, if the code is to be enforced, should be deported.

If it can be proved that Whitman did something illegal, she should be prosecuted. If not, it's typical oxymoronic dirty politics, and the voters should decide on the merits of the candidates' policies, not on mudslinging distractions.

It's certainly mudslinging, no doubt about that. Dirty and underhanded? Probably...but also high quality stuff

But it also does highlight the issue, that many while standing for stronger laws on illegal immigration also benefit from it. Another report just out alleges Lou Dobbs has the same conflict.

At least Colin Powell had the stones to just come out and say it.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I believe deportation is a likely option, but not mandatory. Don't civil offenders go before an immigration judge who ultimately decides their fate? They could be deported, told to leave or given a stay for hardship...

As we all know from many high profile cases, whether or not someone is actually guilty, nothing is mandatory until the judge says it is. Getting the "right judge" can make all the difference. That's not the point in this discussion. What little we know is what has been reported. From that information (all that is available for this discussion), there is nothing that warrants anything but deportation for this illegal alien. What a particular judge with his/her particular bias, agenda, ethnic/racial/religious background (which seems more pertinent than blind justice nowadays in politically charged cases) will do (whether even if she will be charged given the current reluctance to go after these cases) is uncertain.

It's certainly mudslinging, no doubt about that. Dirty and underhanded? Probably...but also high quality stuff

Bravo! High quality dirt. Exactly what the public needs to decide who wins its vote. Alinsky would approve.

But it also does highlight the issue, that many while standing for stronger laws on illegal immigration also benefit from it. Another report just out alleges Lou Dobbs has the same conflict.
-spence

That illegal immigration benefits many (lower wages for employers/lower prices for consumers, etc. . .) is not some new "issue" that needs highlighting. Nor is it highlighted in this case. The Whitman's were not paying low wages, and the "issue" is using the woman as high quality dirt to influence an election.

I don't know about Lou Dobbs "conflict." Is someone slinging high quality mud at him? Does it concern the voters of California? The fact that many, if not most of us, not just Dobbs, Whitman, or whoever is fortunate enough to get "reported," benefit in some way from illegals is irrelevent to the illegality and the HARM it does to us as a nation. It is wiser to give up small gains that lead to large destruction.