• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

"illegal immigrants" Conservatives, what happened to innocent until proven guilty?

Can a determination be made that someone is an "illegal immigrant" if they haven't been fo

  • YES

    Votes: 3 75.0%
  • NO

    Votes: 1 25.0%

  • Total voters
    4
  • Poll closed .

ProgressiveCON

New member
Joined
Nov 20, 2018
Messages
47
Reaction score
8
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Why do conservatives insist on calling certain people "illegal" immigrants?

Until a judge through a bench trial or a jury through a jury trial has determined someone as violating immigration laws, they haven't done anything "illegal".

This is a country of laws, and until an immigrant has had their day in court and shown facts, they aren't a "illegal immigrant"
 
The minute you come here without going through the legal process, you're an illegal immigrant. This is like saying if you get away with murder, you're not really a murderer.
 
No person is illegal.
 
The minute you come here without going through the legal process, you're an illegal immigrant. This is like saying if you get away with murder, you're not really a murderer.

And how do you know that they came here without going through a legal process? Was that a fact found by a court, or are we just relying on the court of public opinion of how someone came here?
 
Why do conservatives insist on calling certain people "illegal" immigrants?

Until a judge through a bench trial or a jury through a jury trial has determined someone as violating immigration laws, they haven't done anything "illegal".

This is a country of laws, and until an immigrant has had their day in court and shown facts, they aren't a "illegal immigrant"

Is a person that robbed a bank a bank robber even though they never got caught?
 
Why do conservatives insist on calling certain people "illegal" immigrants?

Until a judge through a bench trial or a jury through a jury trial has determined someone as violating immigration laws, they haven't done anything "illegal".

This is a country of laws, and until an immigrant has had their day in court and shown facts, they aren't a "illegal immigrant"

There is a distinct difference between a person having committed an illegal act and a person having been convicted of committing that illegal act. That difference is not based on whether or not an illegal act had been committed by that person.

Think of it like parking in a metered parking place. Once the parking meter expires then your vehicle is illegally parked whether or not you have paid or contested any parking ticket fine.
 
And how do you know that they came here without going through a legal process? Was that a fact found by a court, or are we just relying on the court of public opinion of how someone came here?

Who is they? I'm talking about anyone who sneaked in here without going through the legal immigration process. You're not going to deny that we have millions of such people here are you?
 
Why do conservatives insist on calling certain people "illegal" immigrants?

Until a judge through a bench trial or a jury through a jury trial has determined someone as violating immigration laws, they haven't done anything "illegal".

This is a country of laws, and until an immigrant has had their day in court and shown facts, they aren't a "illegal immigrant"

There are citizens, legal residents, legal visitors (diplomats, tourist visas, work visas, etc.), and legal immigrants. All of those classifications indicate legal status under law.

When one is present in the United States while not falling under one of those legal conditions, then they are present within the USA illegally (migrants, immigrants, visitors).

The court simply rules on the crime, ordering incarceration, detention, deportation, or permits asylum.
 
Last edited:
And how do you know that they came here without going through a legal process? Was that a fact found by a court, or are we just relying on the court of public opinion of how someone came here?

The best estimate from Yale University puts the number of illegals at 22,000,000. You would really bog down our justice system with 22 million trials?
 
The minute you come here without going through the legal process, you're an illegal immigrant. This is like saying if you get away with murder, you're not really a murderer.

Words cops. Pffffffth
O/P's objection to the term illegal immigrant is just more political correctness run amok.
 
Why do conservatives insist on calling certain people "illegal" immigrants?

Until a judge through a bench trial or a jury through a jury trial has determined someone as violating immigration laws, they haven't done anything "illegal".

This is a country of laws, and until an immigrant has had their day in court and shown facts, they aren't a "illegal immigrant"

So define illegal because I think we have a miscommunication about the definition… or … at least I do obviously
 
Why do conservatives insist on calling certain people "illegal" immigrants?

Until a judge through a bench trial or a jury through a jury trial has determined someone as violating immigration laws, they haven't done anything "illegal".

This is a country of laws, and until an immigrant has had their day in court and shown facts, they aren't a "illegal immigrant"



"Innocent until proven guilty" means the government isn't supposed to punish you before you're given a fair trial.

It doesn't mean that someone who robs a bank isn't a bank robber until a jury officially declares him one.



Now, if you're going to discuss the humanity-related issues of calling someone illegal, that's a different subject from the one you appear to have taken on here.
 
The minute you come here without going through the legal process, you're an illegal immigrant. This is like saying if you get away with murder, you're not really a murderer.

Red:
Visa Overstays Outnumber Illegal Border Crossings, Trend Expected to Continue

The majority of immigrants settling in the U.S. without authorization are first coming to the country legally, raising questions about the effectiveness of President Donald Trump's plan to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexican border.

Crossing the border is not the way "the large majority of persons now become undocumented," the Center for Migration Studies(CMS) said in a recent report. Two-thirds of those who joined the undocumented population did so by entering with a valid visa and then overstaying their period of admission, the center reported.

Overstays have exceeded those entering illegally every year since 2007, and there have been half a million more overstays than illegal entries since 2007.​


The majority of illegal immigrants "come here" by "going through the legal process."
 
Red:
Visa Overstays Outnumber Illegal Border Crossings, Trend Expected to Continue

The majority of immigrants settling in the U.S. without authorization are first coming to the country legally, raising questions about the effectiveness of President Donald Trump's plan to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexican border.

Crossing the border is not the way "the large majority of persons now become undocumented," the Center for Migration Studies(CMS) said in a recent report. Two-thirds of those who joined the undocumented population did so by entering with a valid visa and then overstaying their period of admission, the center reported.

Overstays have exceeded those entering illegally every year since 2007, and there have been half a million more overstays than illegal entries since 2007.​


So what? The minute you overstay your visa, you're an illegal immigrant, too. This wasn't a debate about which method was more prevalent but about the contention made by the OP.
 
Why do conservatives insist on calling certain people "illegal" immigrants?

...

The minute you come here without going through the legal process, you're an illegal immigrant. This is like saying if you get away with murder, you're not really a murderer.

Red:
Visa Overstays Outnumber Illegal Border Crossings, Trend Expected to Continue

The majority of immigrants settling in the U.S. without authorization are first coming to the country legally, raising questions about the effectiveness of President Donald Trump's plan to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexican border.

Crossing the border is not the way "the large majority of persons now become undocumented," the Center for Migration Studies(CMS) said in a recent report. Two-thirds of those who joined the undocumented population did so by entering with a valid visa and then overstaying their period of admission, the center reported.

Overstays have exceeded those entering illegally every year since 2007, and there have been half a million more overstays than illegal entries since 2007.


The majority of illegal immigrants "come here" by "going through the legal process."

So what? The minute you overstay your visa, you're an illegal immigrant, too. This wasn't a debate about which method was more prevalent but about the contention made by the OP.

Pink:
The "what" is that you, with your "red" comment, not I, introduced the notion of one's "coming" to the US without adhering to the laws was what made one illegal. I simply noted that most folks who come to the US do so by following the legal processes established for doing so.

Tan:
How droll. Did not occur to you that you didn't answer the OP-er's central question? The OP-er asked about a specific element of conservatives' diction.

I can't answer that question because I don't speak for conservatives and I've not self-avowed as conservative (or liberal, or anything else; I've only ever articulated my stances. Others attempt to put labels on them/me.).
 
This should be a real fun thread
 
Estimates vary but I would bet that at least 50% of all baby boomers took illegal drugs at one time or another. Taking, possessing and selling any of these drugs would have been a felony for decades. Therefore, 50% of all baby boomers are felons. See the logic?
 
Just out of interest...does anyone know when/who the first immigrant to the USA was declared "illegal" ?
 
So what? The minute you overstay your visa, you're an illegal immigrant, too. This wasn't a debate about which method was more prevalent but about the contention made by the OP.

How do you determine if someone overstayed their visa? You can't know if someone is a murderer or not until there's been proof.

My question is, how do you know someone crossed the border illegally without due process of law? How can you even determine if someone is a illegal immigrant without facts being decided?

I can call someone an illegal alien, I can claim they crossed the border illegal, and that person can claim they didn't, so he's innocent until proven guilty right?

Who decides he crossed the border illegally, if not a jury or a judge?
 
"Innocent until proven guilty" means the government isn't supposed to punish you before you're given a fair trial.

It doesn't mean that someone who robs a bank isn't a bank robber until a jury officially declares him one.



Now, if you're going to discuss the humanity-related issues of calling someone illegal, that's a different subject from the one you appear to have taken on here.

But, how do you know someone robbed a bank unless there's proof of him robbing a bank? And how do you determine if that proof is real or fake without a trial?

Innocent until proven guilty doesn't just mean the government isn't supposed to punish you before you're given a fair trial, it means that we don't know if you did it, but we're going to use a trial to determine if you did it.

How can society at large know if someone robbed a bank without a trial?
How can you determine who is telling the truth and who is lying without a trial?


If person A says that B person crossed the border illegal, and person B says I did not, how do you being person C decide without a trial for the evidence to be shown?
Isn't it premature to mark person B as someone who broke the law?
 
But, how do you know someone robbed a bank unless there's proof of him robbing a bank? And how do you determine if that proof is real or fake without a trial?

Innocent until proven guilty doesn't just mean the government isn't supposed to punish you before you're given a fair trial, it means that we don't know if you did it, but we're going to use a trial to determine if you did it.

How can society at large know if someone robbed a bank without a trial?
How can you determine who is telling the truth and who is lying without a trial?


If person A says that B person crossed the border illegal, and person B says I did not, how do you being person C decide without a trial for the evidence to be shown?
Isn't it premature to mark person B as someone who broke the law?

If they broke the law, they're a law breaker.

If they rob a bank, they're a bank robber.

If someone rapes a woman they're a rapist.

The person who molested me when I was a child was a child molester.

The person who molested me was never convicted in a court of law, but he was still a child molester.

All those priests that the Catholic church covered up for were criminals even though the statute of limitations has run out on most of their crimes and they'll never be penalized.



If someone does the crime they are a criminal. Until they are convicted a journalist will need to take care to say "alleged criminal" and a court will need to say things like "the accused". But no matter whether they ever see a day in court, if they did the crime they are a criminal.
 
If they broke the law, they're a law breaker.

If they rob a bank, they're a bank robber.

If someone rapes a woman they're a rapist.

The person who molested me when I was a child was a child molester.

The person who molested me was never convicted in a court of law, but he was still a child molester.

All those priests that the Catholic church covered up for were criminals even though the statute of limitations has run out on most of them and they'll never be penalized.



If someone does the crime they are a criminal. Until they are convicted a journalist will need to take care to say "alleged criminal" and a court will need to say things like "the accused". But no matter whether they ever see a day in court, if they did the crime they are a criminal.

I agree with you, if you did it, then they are a criminal.
But so far, for the vast majority of people that we refer to as "illegal immigrants" we do not know if they did it.
 
I agree with you, if you did it, then they are a criminal.
But so far, for the vast majority of people that we refer to as "illegal immigrants" we do not know if they did it.


Whether or not we know what they are, they are what they are.

Again, we can discuss the wisdom of humane and/or discreet language. But they are what they are. And can be discussed accurately in those terms either for purposes of abstract discussion or for purposes of common sense. Either one justifies calling a spade a spade even if said spade has never been convicted in a court of law.
 
Back
Top Bottom