ProgressiveCON
New member
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2018
- Messages
- 47
- Reaction score
- 8
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Other
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.
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"
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"
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"
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 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.
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"
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.
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.
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.
Yes they are if they cross the border illegally.No person is 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.
"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?
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?