Exactly what type of immigration laws/policies do today’s Democrat’s believe in?

[Eagle-Keeper]

@Mountain_Soldier

I might suggest that you look up the Democrat platform statement on immigration. It is the basis of what we support.

Hell, they all raised their hands when asked if they wanted to decriminalize crossing the border illegally.

Why bother with a border?

Exactly! Furthermore even if BP catches them all they have to say is “asylum seeker” and essentially that’s a free pass into the US as well.

[reflechissez]

@Eagle-Keeper

@CanadianJudo

I wont sleep till everyone in America speaks Spanish

One of the social consequences, which is already happening, is that there will be more and more pockets of the country that don’t speak English. That will just get worse under this quasi open borders situation.

What are you basing this in-depth analysis on?

[Eagle-Keeper]

Personal experience as a NJ resident (NJ is #3 with regards to immigration). Also from experience going to the ER, as well as time at a NY hospital. Also having a number of friends and acquaintances who were teachers in schools with heavy Latino populations. Heck even when I was young I experienced that.

[GrandWazoo]

@Mountain_Soldier

Hell, they all raised their hands when asked if they wanted to decriminalize crossing the border illegally.

Why bother with a border?

That is not what they were asked. The question was wither we should treat illegal border crossings as a civil matter rather then a criminal matter. A civil sentence could still carry a fine and/or jail time. But it would take the burden off of the federal prison system. And it would not change the deportation laws.
The problem that we have is that if the illegal is from Mexico they can be deported right away. However if they are from another country (which is the majority at this time), they have to go through the court system. And the system is not large enough to get all of them through the system in a decent time frame.

[Mountain_Soldier]

I’ll have to ask a couple of attorneys next time I play golf. But a quick search online reveals this, from multiple sources:

Civil cases generally only result in monetary damages or orders to do or not do something, known as injunctions.

So they don’t want to detain or charge anyone crossing the border illegally.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

“Removal” (the legal term for deportation) is a civil remedy, not a criminal remedy.

[Mountain_Soldier]

@TheDoctorIsIn

“Removal” (the legal term for deportation) is a civil remedy, not a criminal remedy.

Ok. Then what was the question about decriminalizing being in the country illegally about last night?

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@Mountain_Soldier

Ok. Then what was the question about decriminalizing being in the country illegally about last night?

It was about decriminalizing being in the country illegally.

[Mountain_Soldier]

But if deportation is a civil process, where exactly is the status changed to criminal?

[TheDoctorIsIn]

I don’t understand the question.

As of now, it is a crime to be illegally present within the borders of the United States. That is unrelated to the remedy of removal.

[Mountain_Soldier]

If it’s a crime to be in the country illegally, why isn’t there a criminal remedy for it?

[TheDoctorIsIn]

There is. Fines, or imprisonment.

[kingarthur65]

The most important part is to set the priorities.

1. Deport those that are convicted of violent crime.
2. Expand the immigration judgeships and administrative personel.
3. Make E-verify and requirement for all US businesses - updates needed
4. Pass some form of DACA
5. STOP family separation - it is a failed policy to deter immigration. Failed bigly.
6. Appoint a task force to create diplomatic relations with Mexico and Central America specifically to deal with asylum (none of the members of the task force named Trump or Kushner)
7. Upgrade barriers where necessary - notice the priority here.

[Mountain_Soldier]

So those in the country illegally would no longer be subject to fines or imprisonment or any sort of repercussions.

They’d be de facto citizens.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

They would still be subject to removal.

[Mountain_Soldier]

But with DACA and other executive orders, the priority for removal would be extremely low. What’s next, giving them social security numbers?

[TheDoctorIsIn]

Because removal is a civil procedure, not a criminal one.

I feel like we’re talking in circles.

[Mountain_Soldier]

Maybe I just don’t understand. What’s the basis for removal if there’s no criminal liability for being in the country illegally?

How will they deport someone or detain them for a civil matter? I didn’t think anyone could be detained for a civil matter.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@Mountain_Soldier

Maybe I just don’t understand. What’s the basis for removal if there’s no criminal liability for being in the country illegally?

Removal is a civil procedure. There is no required criminal predicate.

Removal hearings are administrative hearings. They are not presided over by Article III judges, there are less Constitutional protections for “defendants”, and the government does not have the burden of reasonable doubt.

In order for an order of removal to be granted by the ILJ, the government must prove, by a preponderance of evidence, that the subject individual meets the legal standard as being “deportable”.

Being in the country without permission (a visa, or citizenship) is a “deportable” state.

@Mountain_Soldier

How will they deport someone or detain them for a civil matter? I didn’t think anyone could be detained for a civil matter.

Detaining is a trickier question than removal, because of habeas protections. The rules are defined in statute - but it’s still not a criminal thing.

[carpe_diem]

@CanadianJudo

I wont sleep till everyone in America speaks Spanish

And the American peoples vote no longer matters at all legally! But only people from other countries do! lol.