It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Identified
reply to post by rcwj1975
This law doesn't address the state being able to deport anyone. It only allows the state to ask for immigration verification.
Now the problem here is that the USCIS (immigration control) has no authority over US Citizens. None whatsoever! And under federal law only immigration judges and border patrol officers can ask for verification.
Also it is completely legal for me as a US Citizen to walk around without any ID on me. It is also legal for me to leave my state in a vehicle or to travel in a vehicle as a passenger without any form of ID.
So I ask you how exactly is it that any officer whether they have probable cause or not should be allow to ask anyone whether they are legally in this country and then to have that officer require proof?
Even the federal government admits via USCIS documents that they can't even legitimately and constitutionally enforce that all immigrants carry their visa or greencard with them at all times. Even tho as an immigrant you are told you must carry proof at all times. This is because of a little thing called the 4th amendment. Just looking at someone you can not tell if they are legally here a naturalized citizen or a natural born citizen.
Now I am all for STATES being able to deport someone once it is proven in a court with a immigration judge that this person is illegally in the US. How you get to that step is when they are arrested on another charge and placed in front of a judge who can then ask them for proof of citizenship.
I however, will never submit willingly to any state law officer asking me for proof of my citizenship simply because this smacks of fascism and goes against my civil rights.
And just so everyone knows I am totally against amnesty, I think we need to tighten our borders and actually deport people who are found to be here illegally.
Originally posted by SheaWolf
reply to post by Everwatcher33
First states have no authority over immigration matters that power was given by the founders of this country to our legislative branch. You know the same constitution you choose to uphold when you enforce the law?
While it is true that it is the duty of the federal government to handle this matter, they have been most heinously derelict of their duties. In such cases the states DO have the authority and the duty to do the job themselves.
No they don't, point me to a case where the supreme court or any law that has been upheld has held that to be true?
NOT TO MENTION IT'S NOT A CRIME TO BE HERE ILLEGALLY
It's not???
Yes you found someone who was illegal, guess what they are everywhere. Not all of them are criminals.
I am curious...exactly what do you think ILLEGAL means???
Originally posted by Identified
reply to post by Everwatcher33
Actually the ICE must work within the Immigration and Naturalization ACT. Which is governed by the USCIS in conjuction with the DHS which gives ICE its control.
I am a long time consultant for the USCIS. Back when it was the INS.
The Immigration and Nationality Act, or INA, was created in 1952. Before the INA, a variety of statutes governed immigration law but were not organized in one location. The McCarran-Walter bill of 1952, Public Law No. 82-414, collected and codified many existing provisions and reorganized the structure of immigration law. The Act has been amended many times over the years, but is still the basic body of immigration law.
The INA is divided into titles, chapters, and sections. Although it stands alone as a body of law, the Act is also contained in the United States Code (U.S.C.). The code is a collection of all the laws of the United States. It is arranged in fifty subject titles by general alphabetic order. Title 8 of the U.S. Code is but one of the fifty titles and deals with "Aliens and Nationality". When browsing the INA or other statutes you will often see reference to the U.S. Code citation. For example, Section 208 of the INA deals with asylum, and is also contained in 8 U.S.C. 1158. Although it is correct to refer to a specific section by either its INA citation or its U.S. code, the INA citation is more commonly used.
Originally posted by Wildbob77
Personally, I think that he should be given a trial.
If found guilty, he should have to pay his fine, do his time and then immediately be deported.
I think that he should have to wait a minimum of 5 years before he would be eligible to get a visa to come to this country legally.
Originally posted by Identified
This law doesn't address the state being able to deport anyone. It only allows the state to ask for immigration verification.
Now the problem here is that the USCIS (immigration control) has no authority over US Citizens. None whatsoever! And under federal law only immigration judges and border patrol officers can ask for verification.
Also it is completely legal for me as a US Citizen to walk around without any ID on me. It is also legal for me to leave my state in a vehicle or to travel in a vehicle as a passenger without any form of ID.
So I ask you how exactly is it that any officer whether they have probable cause or not should be allow to ask anyone whether they are legally in this country and then to have that officer require proof?
Even the federal government admits via USCIS documents that they can't even legitimately and constitutionally enforce that all immigrants carry their visa or greencard with them at all times. Even tho as an immigrant you are told you must carry proof at all times. This is because of a little thing called the 4th amendment. Just looking at someone you can not tell if they are legally here a naturalized citizen or a natural born citizen.
Now I am all for STATES being able to deport someone once it is proven in a court with a immigration judge that this person is illegally in the US. How you get to that step is when they are arrested on another charge and placed in front of a judge who can then ask them for proof of citizenship.
I however, will never submit willingly to any state law officer asking me for proof of my citizenship simply because this smacks of fascism and goes against my civil rights.
And just so everyone knows I am totally against amnesty, I think we need to tighten our borders and actually deport people who are found to be here illegally.
Originally posted by Identified
reply to post by Everwatcher33
Bingo! I am so tired of people saying that it isn't against the law to be here "undocumented". That these people are criminals. HELLO! Yes they are. And I agree that the federal government doesn't do it's job where it comes to deporting people.
Heck I know of a story in New Mexico of a local law agency that was told that they would only deport people when they had a bus load ready. Well since this local jail couldn't hold more than a handful of people they were forced to let these illegals go.
Crazy! Heck I will drive them to the border myself!
Originally posted by Wildbob77
Personally, I think that he should be given a trial.
If found guilty, he should have to pay his fine, do his time and then immediately be deported.
I think that he should have to wait a minimum of 5 years before he would be eligible to get a visa to come to this country legally.
Originally posted by Ex_MislTech
Originally posted by Wildbob77
Personally, I think that he should be given a trial.
If found guilty, he should have to pay his fine, do his time and then immediately be deported.
I think that he should have to wait a minimum of 5 years before he would be eligible to get a visa to come to this country legally.
I think any of the illegals that come here and then willfully commit
a felony that could financial ruin a US citizen should not be eligible
for citizenship.
We have enough ppl like that here, such as lawyers and politicians.
Unfortunately we cannot deport them...yet.
Originally posted by Identified
reply to post by Everwatcher33
Technically they are not able to get citizenship if a felon. Not only would they incur a ban but they would never be able to meet the moral turpitude section of the immigration law- specifically for Naturalization.
However, whether the idiot filing their paperwork pays attention to this is another question.
Originally posted by Identified
reply to post by Everwatcher33
I am well aware that the DHS wasn't around until after 9/11. I would hope everyone is aware of that.
Prior to that the INS was under the DOJ. When they split the INS they put the enforcement and the services under different wings. However both must abide by the law which is stated in the INA.
I am not sure what you are arguing about since the USCIS is NEW it is the name of the Service section of the OLD INS. USCIS was not UNDER INS.
Remember before we had USCIS and after it was split we had BCIS. Remember? So I am not wrong.