I outlined a surefire method to eliminate the jobs situation. --- it's not just about jobs try again
However, no one even commented. --- I did They prefer, for some unknown reason, to concentrate on criminalizing the worker, rather than the hirer. Why do you think that is? --- as I noted - you try to cover the crimes of the illegal immigrant with crimes of those who hire them be a little more genuine and place guilt on both sides then some might take you seriously On May 24, 2:23 am, euwe <[email protected]> wrote: > I outlined a surefire method to eliminate the jobs situation. However, > no one even commented. They prefer, for some unknown reason, to > concentrate on criminalizing the worker, rather than the hirer. Why do > you think that is? > > On May 23, 9:11 pm, Harry Beck <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > What would you categorize them as?? Illegal, simply visiting, without > > papers (WOP), they are taking jobs away from Americans weather it > > constitutes a felony or not. Heavy fines and tax audits should be levied > > against any employer suspected and found to have hired these aliens. > > Americans actually need passports today to cross borders that were > > accessible with drivers licenses a few years ago. All they need is a wet > > suit. > > > Harry Beck > > Montrose, New York > > > Wherever you go, no matter what the weather, bring your own sunshine. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: euwe <[email protected]> > > To: PoliticalForum <[email protected]> > > Sent: Sun, May 23, 2010 8:21 pm > > Subject: Re: Illegal aliens are not criminals > > > 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 are divided into two broad classes: felonies > > > > > > > > have a > > > > > > > > maximum possible sentence of more than one year incarceration, > > > > > > > > misdemeanors have a maximum possible sentence of less than one > > > > > > > > year > > > > > > > > incarceration. > > > > > > > > > civil law > > > > > > > > In contrast, a defendant in civil litigation is never > > > > > > > > incarcerated > > > > and > > > > > > > > never executed. In general, a losing defendant in civil > > > > > > > > litigation > > > > > > > > only reimburses the plaintiff for losses caused by the > > > > > > > > defendant's > > > > > > > > behavior. > > > > > > > > > So-called punitive damages are never awarded in a civil case > > > > > > > > under > > > > > > > > contract law. In a civil case under tort law, there is a > > > > possibility > > > > > > > > of punitive damages, if the defendant's conduct is egregious and > > > > had > > > > > > > > either (1) a malicious intent (i.e., desire to cause harm), (2) > > > > gross > > > > > > > > negligence (i.e., conscious indifference), or (3) a willful > > > > disregard > > > > > > > > for the rights of others. The use of punitive damages makes a > > > > public > > > > > > > > example of the defendant and supposedly deters future wrongful > > > > conduct > > > > > > > > by others. Punitive damages are particularly important in torts > > > > > > > > involving dignitary harms (e.g., invasion of privacy) and civil > > ... > > 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.
