your support of open borders has been noted On May 23, 7:54 pm, euwe <[email protected]> wrote: > Your mischaracterization of American law has been noted. > > On May 23, 7:47 pm, plainolamerican <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > this nation belongs to Americans - not illegal alien/criminals > > > and the USA is not a charity organization > > > On May 23, 7:41 pm, euwe <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > This is a nation governed by laws, not opinions. > > > > On May 23, 7:38 pm, plainolamerican <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > and those who protect illegal alien/criminals are scum and anti- > > > > American > > > > > On May 23, 7:31 pm, euwe <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > illiegal immigrants are not guilty of felonies > > > > > --- > > > > > those who return again and again after being deported are committing > > > > > felonies > > > > > ------- > > > > > and frogs with wings can fly. > > > > > > On May 23, 7:27 pm, plainolamerican <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > illiegal immigrants are not guilty of felonies > > > > > > --- > > > > > > those who return again and again after being deported are committing > > > > > > felonies > > > > > > > your position is a slippery slope > > > > > > > On May 23, 7:21 pm, euwe <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > I posted the applicable civil conspiracy law, that shows that > > > > > > > simply > > > > > > > going across with a friend or family member does not constitute a > > > > > > > felony, and also showed that smuggling does not apply to illegal > > > > > > > immigrants who are simply present. Felony charges may be levied > > > > > > > against "coyotes" but not against those who are simply discovered > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > be present illegally. Your repetition still has not changed the > > > > > > > fact > > > > > > > that illiegal immigrants are not guilty of felonies, or any other > > > > > > > criminal law unless they meet other conditions besides simply > > > > > > > being in > > > > > > > the united states illegally. > > > > > > > > Try again. > > > > > > > > On May 23, 7:08 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Euwe, > > > > > > > > > I do suggest that you get a dictionary of legal definitions. > > > > > > > > Then look up > > > > > > > > the rules for human smuggling, then look up the conspiracy > > > > > > > > rules that apply > > > > > > > > and do so to the act committed in the particular instance,ie > > > > > > > > conspiratorial, > > > > > > > > before the fact illegal entry. It deals only with the > > > > > > > > conspiracy and the > > > > > > > > acts leading up to but NOT INCLUDING the actual criminal or > > > > > > > > civil violation. > > > > > > > > Those pre-act discussions and planning are in deed a felony. > > > > > > > > > Then read the entire summary and keep each phrase as self > > > > > > > > defining (I love > > > > > > > > legalese, it keeps the common man from being able to understand > > > > > > > > enough to > > > > > > > > represent himself.) and read it as though each sentence were > > > > > > > > its own > > > > > > > > paragraph with all content simply referring back to the main > > > > > > > > theme (illegal > > > > > > > > entry) while each sentence is in fact self defining. It has a > > > > > > > > whole new > > > > > > > > meaning IN CONTEXT of the law, not layman's terms and > > > > > > > > definitions of same.. > > > > > > > > > On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 4:41 PM, euwe <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > I've heard you reiterating a point that doesn't apply. Your > > > > > > > > > references > > > > > > > > > apply to smugglers. > > > > > > > > > > Establishing that someone who is simply "present" without > > > > > > > > > documentation helped someone to come in, and is therefore > > > > > > > > > guilty of a > > > > > > > > > felony is not a forgone conclusion - it requires at least one > > > > > > > > > witness, > > > > > > > > > evidence, or confession, since criminal violations assume > > > > > > > > > innocence. > > > > > > > > > Neither witness, evidence or testimony that the immigrant was > > > > > > > > > guilty > > > > > > > > > of helping somoene across would be available during a simple > > > > > > > > > discovery, nor would one think, at any time from then until > > > > > > > > > they are > > > > > > > > > deported. > > > > > > > > > > You might insist on repeating your "analysis" again, but it' > > > > > > > > > would not > > > > > > > > > make "being an illegal alien" a felony. Even after another 10 > > > > > > > > > or so > > > > > > > > > repetitions, it will still be a civil violation to be > > > > > > > > > illigally > > > > > > > > > present in the United States. > > > > > > > > > > Try again. > > > > > > > > > > On May 23, 3:45 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > As I keep saying.... it is on the books as a felony.... I > > > > > > > > > > would imagine > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > the research done by these people is a whole lot more > > > > > > > > > > thorough than > > > > > > > > > yours. > > > > > > > > > > > The Congressional Research Service (CRS), in an Apr. 6, > > > > > > > > > > 2006 report > > > > > > > > > entitled > > > > > > > > > > "Immigration Enforcement Within the United States," offered > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > following: > > > > > > > > > > > "The INA [Immigration and Nationality Act] includes both > > > > > > > > > > criminal and > > > > > > > > > civil > > > > > > > > > > components, providing both for criminal charges (e.g., > > > > > > > > > > alien smuggling, > > > > > > > > > > which is prosecuted in the federal courts) and for civil > > > > > > > > > > violations > > > > > > > > > (e.g., > > > > > > > > > > lack of legal status, which may lead to removal through a > > > > > > > > > > separate > > > > > > > > > > administrative system in the Department of Justice). Being > > > > > > > > > > illegally > > > > > > > > > present > > > > > > > > > > in the U.S. has always been a civil, not criminal, > > > > > > > > > > violation of the INA, > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > subsequent deportation and associated administrative > > > > > > > > > > processes are civil > > > > > > > > > > proceedings. For instance, a lawfully admitted nonimmigrant > > > > > > > > > > alien may > > > > > > > > > become > > > > > > > > > > deportable if his visitor's visa expires or if his student > > > > > > > > > > status > > > > > > > > > changes. > > > > > > > > > > Criminal violations of the INA, on the other hand, include > > > > > > > > > > felonies and > > > > > > > > > > misdemeanors and are prosecuted in federal district courts. > > > > > > > > > > These types > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > violations include the bringing in and harboring of certain > > > > > > > > > > undocumented > > > > > > > > > > aliens, the illegal entry of aliens, and the reentry of > > > > > > > > > > aliens previously > > > > > > > > > > excluded or deported." > > > > > > > > > > * > > > > > > > > > > * > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 2:29 PM, euwe > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > CIVIL CONSPIRACY > > > > > > > > > > > 'The elements of an action for civil conspiracy are the > > > > > > > > > > > formation and > > > > > > > > > > > operation of the conspiracy and damage resulting to > > > > > > > > > > > plaintiff from an > > > > > > > > > > > act or acts done in furtherance of the common design. . . > > > > > > > > > > > . In such an > > > > > > > > > > > action the major significance of the conspiracy lies in > > > > > > > > > > > the fact that > > > > > > > > > > > it renders each participant in the wrongful act > > > > > > > > > > > responsible as a joint > > > > > > > > > > > tortfeasor for all damages ensuing from the wrong, > > > > > > > > > > > irrespective of > > > > > > > > > > > whether or not he was a direct actor and regardless of > > > > > > > > > > > the degree of > > > > > > > > > > > his activity.'' (Doctors' Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 49 > > > > > > > > > > > Cal.3d 44, > > > > > > > > > > > citing Mox Incorporated v. Woods (1927) 202 Cal. 675, > > > > > > > > > > > 677-78.)' (Id. > > > > > > > > > > > at 511.) > > > > > > > > > > > > 'Conspiracy is not a cause of action, but a legal > > > > > > > > > > > doctrine that > > > > > > > > > > > imposes liability on persons who, although not actually > > > > > > > > > > > committing a > > > > > > > > > > > tort themselves, share with the immediate tortfeasors a > > > > > > > > > > > common plan or > > > > > > > > > > > design in its perpetration. By participation in a civil > > > > > > > > > > > conspiracy, a > > > > > > > > > > > coconspirator effectively adopts as his or her own the > > > > > > > > > > > torts of other > > > > > > > > > > > coconspirators within the ambit of the conspiracy. In > > > > > > > > > > > this way, a > > > > > > > > > > > coconspirator incurs tort liability co-equal with the > > > > > > > > > > > immediate > > > > > > > > > > > tortfeasors. Standing alone, a conspiracy does no harm > > > > > > > > > > > and engenders > > > > > > > > > > > no tort liability. It must be activated by the commission > > > > > > > > > > > of an actual > > > > > > > > > > > tort. ''A civil conspiracy, however atrocious, does not > > > > > > > > > > > per se give > > > > > > > > > > > rise to a cause of action unless a civil wrong has been > > > > > > > > > > > committed > > > > > > > > > > > resulting in damage.'' 'A bare agreement among two or > > > > > > > > > > > more persons to > > > > > > > > > > > harm a third person cannot injure the latter unless and > > > > > > > > > > > until acts are > > > > > > > > > > > actually performed pursuant to the agreement. Therefore, > > > > > > > > > > > it is the > > > > > > > > > > > acts done and not the conspiracy to do them which should > > > > > > > > > > > be regarded > > > > > > > > > > > as the essence of the civil action.' [para.s] By its > > > > > > > > > > > nature, tort > > > > > > > > > > > liability arising from conspiracy presupposes that the > > > > > > > > > > > coconspirator > > > > > > > > > > > is legally capable of committing the tort, i.e., that he > > > > > > > > > > > or she owes a > > > > > > > > > > > duty to plaintiff recognized by law and is potentially > > > > > > > > > > > subject to > > > > > > > > > > > liability for breach of that duty.' (Allied Equipment > > > > > > > > > > > Corp. v. Litton > > > > > > > > > > > Saudi Arabia Ltd., supra, 7 Cal.4th at 510-11.) > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 23, 3:27 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Presence in the United states without permission is a > > > > > > > > > > > > civil > > > > > > > > > > > > infraction. For it to be a criminal offience, the > > > > > > > > > > > > offender has to > > > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > > > > been deported. > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is assuming he/she acted alone. > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 2:23 PM, euwe > > > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > One of the most fundamental distinctions between > > > > > > > > > > > > > civil and criminal > > > > > > > > > > > > > law is in the notion of punishment. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > criminal law > > > > > > > > > > > > > In criminal law, a guilty defendant is punished by > > > > > > > > > > > > > either (1) > > > > > > > > > > > > > incarceration in a jail or prison, (2) fine paid to > > > > > > > > > > > > > the government, > > > > > > > > > > > > > or, in exceptional cases, (3) execution of the > > > > > > > > > > > > > defendant: the death > > > > > > > > > > > > > penalty. Crimes > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
-- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
