You miss the point entirely. The felony does not have to include
participation in the misdemeanor act itself. It is a separate issue
and is consumated with the first body part that crosses the line. You
are talking about the act of being present in the US illegally.
The comparison is DUI/Physical control while intoxicated; everyone
knows exactly what it is and what it entails. Now imagine a really
nasty Prosecutor that wants someones hide on the wall. Say someone is
washing their car in front of the house listening to the radio, key
turned on, and drinking a beer though they are not seated in the
car.... are they guilty as well ?? Why yes they are even though they
never set down in the car, never started the motor, (and unlike your
immigrants) never had the intent to do so. We can push that one step
further, call the car a convertible with an emergency or second
starter under the hood (as some do have) which is open making the car
impossible to drive and an entry door that was never opened...
Are they still guilty ??? Why , yes they are even though the acts are
on private land, and the motor was never started. You are speaking of
the started motor, I am speaking of the events that could lead to a
started motor.
Now imagine that his wife actually placed the keys in the ignition and
started the radio... Is the man still guilty... why yes he is. Was the
wife guilty of facilitation ?? Yes she was. He did 90 days, she did
10. Her act was before and separate from the act. They soon divorced.
By the way the above is from "Blesh v. Arizona" from the 80's it is
not a figment of my imagination.
There are only two ways a prosecutor could not include the felony
conspiracy (before and separate from the act) with the "illegal
presence" act is if the person crossed on his own (all by him/her
self) or by conscious choice.
On May 23, 6:21 pm, euwe <machgie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I posted the applicable civil conspiracy law, that shows that simply
> going across with a friend or family member does not constitute a
> felony, and also showed that smuggling does not apply to illegal
> immigrants who are simply present. Felony charges may be levied
> against "coyotes" but not against those who are simply discovered to
> be present illegally. Your repetition still has not changed the fact
> that illiegal immigrants are not guilty of felonies, or any other
> criminal law unless they meet other conditions besides simply being in
> the united states illegally.
>
> Try again.
>
> On May 23, 7:08 pm, Mark <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Euwe,
>
> > I do suggest that you get a dictionary of legal definitions. Then look up
> > the rules for human smuggling, then look up the conspiracy rules that apply
> > and do so to the act committed in the particular instance,ie conspiratorial,
> > before the fact illegal entry. It deals only with the conspiracy and the
> > acts leading up to but NOT INCLUDING the actual criminal or civil violation.
> > Those pre-act discussions and planning are in deed a felony.
>
> > Then read the entire summary and keep each phrase as self defining (I love
> > legalese, it keeps the common man from being able to understand enough to
> > represent himself.) and read it as though each sentence were its own
> > paragraph with all content simply referring back to the main theme (illegal
> > entry) while each sentence is in fact self defining. It has a whole new
> > meaning IN CONTEXT of the law, not layman's terms and definitions of same..
>
> > On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 4:41 PM, euwe <machgie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I've heard you reiterating a point that doesn't apply. Your references
> > > apply to smugglers.
>
> > > Establishing that someone who is simply "present" without
> > > documentation helped someone to come in, and is therefore guilty of a
> > > felony is not a forgone conclusion - it requires at least one witness,
> > > evidence, or confession, since criminal violations assume innocence.
> > > Neither witness, evidence or testimony that the immigrant was guilty
> > > of helping somoene across would be available during a simple
> > > discovery, nor would one think, at any time from then until they are
> > > deported.
>
> > > You might insist on repeating your "analysis" again, but it' would not
> > > make "being an illegal alien" a felony. Even after another 10 or so
> > > repetitions, it will still be a civil violation to be illigally
> > > present in the United States.
>
> > > Try again.
>
> > > On May 23, 3:45 pm, Mark <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > As I keep saying.... it is on the books as a felony.... I would imagine
> > > that
> > > > the research done by these people is a whole lot more thorough than
> > > yours.
>
> > > > The Congressional Research Service (CRS), in an Apr. 6, 2006 report
> > > entitled
> > > > "Immigration Enforcement Within the United States," offered the
> > > following:
>
> > > > "The INA [Immigration and Nationality Act] includes both criminal and
> > > civil
> > > > components, providing both for criminal charges (e.g., alien smuggling,
> > > > which is prosecuted in the federal courts) and for civil violations
> > > (e.g.,
> > > > lack of legal status, which may lead to removal through a separate
> > > > administrative system in the Department of Justice). Being illegally
> > > present
> > > > in the U.S. has always been a civil, not criminal, violation of the INA,
> > > and
> > > > subsequent deportation and associated administrative processes are civil
> > > > proceedings. For instance, a lawfully admitted nonimmigrant alien may
> > > become
> > > > deportable if his visitor's visa expires or if his student status
> > > changes.
> > > > Criminal violations of the INA, on the other hand, include felonies and
> > > > misdemeanors and are prosecuted in federal district courts. These types
> > > of
> > > > violations include the bringing in and harboring of certain undocumented
> > > > aliens, the illegal entry of aliens, and the reentry of aliens previously
> > > > excluded or deported."
> > > > *
> > > > *
>
> > > > On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 2:29 PM, euwe <machgie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > CIVIL CONSPIRACY
> > > > > 'The elements of an action for civil conspiracy are the formation and
> > > > > operation of the conspiracy and damage resulting to plaintiff from an
> > > > > act or acts done in furtherance of the common design. . . . In such an
> > > > > action the major significance of the conspiracy lies in the fact that
> > > > > it renders each participant in the wrongful act responsible as a joint
> > > > > tortfeasor for all damages ensuing from the wrong, irrespective of
> > > > > whether or not he was a direct actor and regardless of the degree of
> > > > > his activity.'' (Doctors' Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 49 Cal.3d 44,
> > > > > citing Mox Incorporated v. Woods (1927) 202 Cal. 675, 677-78.)' (Id.
> > > > > at 511.)
>
> > > > > 'Conspiracy is not a cause of action, but a legal doctrine that
> > > > > imposes liability on persons who, although not actually committing a
> > > > > tort themselves, share with the immediate tortfeasors a common plan or
> > > > > design in its perpetration. By participation in a civil conspiracy, a
> > > > > coconspirator effectively adopts as his or her own the torts of other
> > > > > coconspirators within the ambit of the conspiracy. In this way, a
> > > > > coconspirator incurs tort liability co-equal with the immediate
> > > > > tortfeasors. Standing alone, a conspiracy does no harm and engenders
> > > > > no tort liability. It must be activated by the commission of an actual
> > > > > tort. ''A civil conspiracy, however atrocious, does not per se give
> > > > > rise to a cause of action unless a civil wrong has been committed
> > > > > resulting in damage.'' 'A bare agreement among two or more persons to
> > > > > harm a third person cannot injure the latter unless and until acts are
> > > > > actually performed pursuant to the agreement. Therefore, it is the
> > > > > acts done and not the conspiracy to do them which should be regarded
> > > > > as the essence of the civil action.' [para.s] By its nature, tort
> > > > > liability arising from conspiracy presupposes that the coconspirator
> > > > > is legally capable of committing the tort, i.e., that he or she owes a
> > > > > duty to plaintiff recognized by law and is potentially subject to
> > > > > liability for breach of that duty.' (Allied Equipment Corp. v. Litton
> > > > > Saudi Arabia Ltd., supra, 7 Cal.4th at 510-11.)
>
> > > > > On May 23, 3:27 pm, Mark <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Presence in the United states without permission is a civil
> > > > > > infraction. For it to be a criminal offience, the offender has to
> > > have
> > > > > > been deported.
>
> > > > > > That is assuming he/she acted alone.
>
> > > > > > On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 2:23 PM, euwe <machgie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > One of the most fundamental distinctions between civil and criminal
> > > > > > > law is in the notion of punishment.
>
> > > > > > > criminal law
> > > > > > > In criminal law, a guilty defendant is punished by either (1)
> > > > > > > incarceration in a jail or prison, (2) fine paid to the government,
> > > > > > > or, in exceptional cases, (3) execution of the defendant: the death
> > > > > > > penalty. Crimes are divided into two broad classes: felonies have a
> > > > > > > maximum possible sentence of more than one year incarceration,
> > > > > > > misdemeanors have a maximum possible sentence of less than one year
> > > > > > > incarceration.
>
> > > > > > > civil law
> > > > > > > In contrast, a defendant in civil litigation is never incarcerated
> > > and
> > > > > > > never executed. In general, a losing defendant in civil litigation
> > > > > > > only reimburses the plaintiff for losses caused by the defendant's
> > > > > > > behavior.
>
> > > > > > > So-called punitive damages are never awarded in a civil case under
> > > > > > > contract law. In a civil case under tort law, there is a
> > > possibility
> > > > > > > of punitive damages, if the defendant's conduct is egregious and
> > > had
> > > > > > > either (1) a malicious intent (i.e., desire to cause harm), (2)
> > > gross
> > > > > > > negligence (i.e., conscious indifference), or (3) a willful
> > > disregard
> > > > > > > for the rights of others. The use of punitive damages makes a
> > > public
> > > > > > > example of the defendant and supposedly deters future wrongful
> > > conduct
> > > > > > > by others. Punitive damages are particularly important in torts
> > > > > > > involving dignitary harms (e.g., invasion of privacy) and civil
> > > > > > > rights, where the actual monetary injury to plaintiff(s) may be
> > > > > > > small.
>
> > > > > > > One can purchase insurance that will pay damages and attorney's
> > > fees
> > > > > > > for tort claims. Such insurance coverage is a standard part of
> > > > > > > homeowner's insurance policies, automobile insurance, and insurance
> > > > > > > for businesses. In contrast, it is not possible for a defendant to
> > > > > > > purchase insurance to pay for his/her criminal acts.
>
> > > > > > > While a court can order a defendant to pay damages, the plaintiff
> > > may
> > > > > > > receive nothing if the defendant has no assets and no insurance, or
> > > if
> > > > > > > the defendant is skillful in concealing assets. In this way, large
> > > > > > > awards for plaintiffs in tort cases are often an illusion.
> > > > > > > -------------------
> > > > > > > Presence in the United states without permission is a civil
> > > > > > > infraction. For it to be a criminal offience, the offender has to
> > > have
> > > > > > > been deported.
>
> > > > > > > On May 23, 3:09 pm, euwe <machgie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > Immigration law is civil law; law enforcement never enforces
> > > civil
> > > > > > > > law,
>
> > > > > > > > On May 23, 12:05 pm, Harry Beck <hgb...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > I agree, therefore the
>
> ...
>
> read more »
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment