Talk like an Affliction
I've been pretty upset with Laura Ingraham all day, because of her obnoxious ranting this morning over "amnesty". I can't stand that some people want to grant real amnesty - total forgiveness of the crime - to these self-important illegal alien lawbreakers, and then immediately reward the bad behavior by granting an easy path to citizenship and the franchise. But it's another thing entirely to misrepresent the president's position, and that of many fair-minded Republicans, as "amnesty". At one point, Laura screamed at a caller, "So you think just a fine is an acceptable punishment for violating immigration laws?!"
I made the mistake of watching Brit Hume before going to sleep, which reminded me about all this all over again. Tossing and turning in bed, it occurred to me that I hadn't a clue what the actual penalty is for violating immigration laws. Shouldn't that be a good ruler to measure what exactly constitutes "amnesty"?
Well, here is the relevant portion of US Code 8, Section 1325, Improper entry by alien:
(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of factsFor the record, "fined under title 18" is apparently specified under US Code 18, Section 3571
Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both...
(b) Improper time or place; civil penalties
Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to enter) the United States at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil penalty of -
(1) at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or attempted entry)...
(A)n individual who has been found guilty of an offense may be fined not more than....Since the House bill (that liberals have been crying is so atrocious) caught so much flak because it designated the offense a felony, we can assume we're talking about a misdemeanor under current law.
(5) for a Class A misdemeanor that does not result in death, not more than $100,000;
(6) for a Class B or C misdemeanor that does not result in death, not more than $5,000; or
(7) for an infraction, not more than $5,000.
misdemeanorSo, the current penalty under law, prior to deportation (which, technically, isn't a part of the punishment for the criminal offense) is as much as a fine of $5000 or less or no more than 6 months in a non-prison detention facility, or both. And it could be as little as $50.
['mis-di-'me-ner]
a crime that carries a less severe punishment than a felony
specif
a crime punishable by a fine and by a term of imprisonment not to be served in a penitentiary and not to exceed one year
The president's proposal would require illegals to pay back taxes - something that doesn't appear to be required by current statute. I don't know about you, but despite being an American citizen with a decent salary, I still pretty much live paycheck to paycheck. If the IRS told me I had to pay unpaid back taxes for a period of more than a few weeks, I'd be screwed. I honestly think many illegals will run home to Mexico to avoid paying the taxes, or at the least, they'll try to remain part of the underground economy as they have been. So, far from being amnesty, the president's proposal is harsher than current law.
What the hell are these people complaining about?
UPDATE: I just heard the Senate approved an amendment that - for the first time in history - establishes English as the official language of the United States of America. Frankly, I'm stunned. I've been waiting 30 years for this, and conservatives are complaining this is too liberal??? This debate has gotten patently insane.

Comments
I don't have time to research the matter now, but, I am certain that there are also laws which dictate that the offender is supposed to leave after paying these paltry fines. Or, do we fine them agqain the next day, and the next day, if they don't just pack up and leave after the first fine.Surely we have provisions in our laws to deport illegal aliens, agreed?
You did touch on a major complaint of the present situation, enforcement, those laws now in place are not being enforced, for a variety of reasons. And that strikes at one of my complaints about the present exercise, everyone wants to talk about making new laws, nobody seems ready and able to enforce them. And, if the penalty is to be some sort of fine, which common sense tells us is probably not going to retrieved from poor illegals, then what penalty for those who can not pay?
And, if they do pay, and all is forgiven, then, as in one of Laura's analogies, why not simply charge the bank robber a monetary penalty when caught, and then forgive him? The Judicial branch would become merely a revenue system. Our borders would cease to exist as new arrivals paid admission to enter, like going to Disneyland. Though even at Disneyland they make you leave at closing time.
Posted by: Richard
|
May 19, 2006 09:15 AM
The relevant part on apprehension and deportation procedures is covered in Sections 1221 through 1231.
Look, I'd prefer that we do all those things we keep getting told won't work: build a fence, deport every illegal currently inside our borders, make the crime a felony, etc. But in our republic, what I want isn't what we get; it's what can be hammered out in legislation... which then has to be enforced. You're right, we don't see anyone enforcing the laws. But enforcement is the job of the policing authorities under the jurisdiction of the executive. All we can expect from the legislative branch is the promise of tougher laws and oversight. So why get upset when they actually try and provide those things?
As for Laura's analogy, I found it quite disingenuous. Unlike most immigration violations, robbing a bank already is a felony. So if we don't give Congress the chance to create a better bill, she's the one asking us to continue fining and releasing the "bank robbers".
Posted by: Chris
|
May 19, 2006 11:16 AM
Part of the problem, I think, isn't so much what is being proposed by the GOP leadership in the Senate and by the Bush administration. Rather, the problem is that a significant part of the conservative electorate doesn't trust Bush and the Senate GOP to actually do excactly what they are saying they are going to do.
Whether that paranoia is justified remains open to debate.
Posted by: Final Historian | May 19, 2006 03:04 PM
My take on the issue is that crossing the border illegally and not leaving may be a non-felony. However, providing forged or stolen documentation to obtain work is not a minor issue. Providing false information on an I-9 form is perjury. Providing false documents to obtain employment is illegal. Many of the illegals claim excessive numbers of dependents to make it so that no taxes are withheld.
Anything that allows people who have lied and cheated to live and work here and now allows them to essentially get in front of all the people who fallow the rules is amnesty. Call it what you want, but liars and cheats--no matter what President Bush wants to call them still broke the law. Forgiveness is good, but President Reagan thought that people would follow our laws. We can't make the same mistake twice.
My solution.
1. Build a fence.
2. Enforce all laws that we have on the books now. Stop the flow. Use the National Guard, but allow them to enforce the laws, not just be window dressing.
3. Require people her now to choose "guest worker" or "citizenship"path. Depending on their choice they will need to follow a course of action. Fines, etc.
4. Any employer that is found to be knowingly (including carelessness) employing illegal aliens will be criminally liable for 10 times the wages of said employee. No corporate officers will be shielded. No Board of Directors insurance will protect them. 5. All government services will be conducted in english. All election materials and such will be only available in english. We need people who wish to be citizens or guests of our country to be part of our country. Proof of legal status will be required, people looking for services that aren't legal need to be reported. No more cities and states ignoring federal law.
6. Open more visas to people from all over the world, don't allow the current imbalance to continue.
7. Get rid of the anchor baby provision. This is very doable.
I know there is a a lot more that can and should be done. But, stopping the flow is most important and not giving favors to the liars and cheats (those her now illegally) is important to our future. Anything less is amnesty.
Posted by: Skeptic
|
May 20, 2006 06:03 AM
Twenty years ago we gave these people amnesty, and an ultimatum, never again. Anything that now allows those who have entered illegally to be forgiven is ridiculous. If the legilature wants to pass more laws, then let them pass laws that make the 1986 position perfectly clear, we said never again, we meant never again, if you have entered this country illegally you are forever forbidden from becoming a citizen. And once they have finished that law let them be the ones who rally up a Constitutional amendment which will end the practice of illegals having babies which automatically citizens when they break into this country.
Bush's stance may be tougher than existing laws, but it isn't enough.
Posted by: Richard
|
May 20, 2006 12:05 PM