Andrew Defaria

Folinskyinla wrote:

    > First, thank you for acknowledging the formatting problem.

I have always acknowledged that BE has a formatting problem ;-)

    > And also, thank you for formatting this post to conform with the
    > readers [even though you don't like them]. It is appreciated.

Technically there was no explicit formatting done by me. As I said I
went back to posting in plain text and HTML.

Now I wish I could get you to format your replies so that they look
better in my reader! Probably not...

    > The terms "amnesty", "illegal alien" or "undocumented worker" don't
    > appear in the law. I've never liked the use of either PC or non-PC in
    > this arena. I know that many PC-speakers object to the term "alien"
    > but since recent PC use of "non-citizen" parallels the very definition
    > of "alien", that is one use of PC that doesn't bother me too much.
    > [Although, the pedantic side of me wonders about "non-citizen
    > nationals" from Samoa -- but that is a minor quibble. ]

Law and lawyers definitely do have their own jargon, much like the
Internet has it's set of jargon, and it's designed mostly to be more
precise. However in layman's terms amnesty is given to those who have
violated a rule or in this case a law, specifically immigration law.

    > The closest thing to "illegal alien" in the law might be "unauthorized
    > alien" in the employment authorizaton regulations. However, it is
    > possible to be an "illegal alien" and be an "authorized alien" with
    > EAD in hand! There are many aliens "illegally" present in the US who
    > can't be deported due to practical considerations. The prime example
    > are former green card holders with convictions, final orders of
    > removal and no other country which will accept them. In fact, there is
    > a nickname for these people who are in custody due to danger to the
    > community: "lifers."

Cute nickname. I wonder if they fully appreciate it's cuteness. :-)

    > In other areas of the law which are dependent upon immigration status
    > -- there has been created the concept of "PRUCOL" -- an acronym for
    > "permanently resident under color of law." I have a client who entered
    > as a medical doctor under a "J" visa which is, by defintion, a "dirty"
    > J. INS determined that he WILL be persecuted in his home country, so
    > removal to that country has been "with-held" as is allowed by the law.
    > However, due to a technical ground, he cannot be granted asylum. He
    > falls under the PRUCOL definition. But technically speaking, he has no
    > right to remain here. If DHS ever found a third country willing to take
    > him, he could be deported.

I wonder what that technical ground might be. Don't feel you need to
explain it but it is curious.

    > Out of curiosity -- lets posit a overstayed alien, call her an
    > "illegal alien" -- who marries a US citizen. She can file for
    > adjustment of status and gain legal status. Her illegal status is not
    > even questioned by DHS. Would you consider this a "blanket amnesty"?

To me the term "blanket" applies to more than one person. No I think
that her illegal status should be questioned by DHS and possibly
forgiven (amnesty). Again on a case by case basis where somebody is
closely scrutinizing the case then I think it's OK. But not a blanket
amnesty to thousands or millions of people with no close scrutinization.

--
Shell to DOS... Come in DOS, do you copy? Shell to DOS...

Andrew Defaria

David9287 wrote:

    > You are right, Richard is a nice person. Andy seems like a "nice"
    > person also but he and I are so far apart on some issues...ie.. how to
    > deal with "illegal immigration" and the "letter of the law" which in
    > some cases may differ from the "spirit or intent" of certain laws.

The "spirit or intent of the law" is open to interpretation. Our
interpretations simply differ.

    > Actually I will say this, Andy appears to be very intelligent but..
    > "neither a great deal of intelligence nor a great deal of education
    > goes to the making of genius; love, love, love, that's the essence of
    > true genius." Amadaus Mozart.

We all know how long he lived... :-)

--
E Pluribus Modem

Folinskyinla

Hi:

One -- I don't mess with software -- not my expertise. And my connections in the MIT-Caltech axis have contempt for Windows and Microsoft, so they are no help. But, again, I appreciate whatever you are doing to make your stuff readable. I remember when my daughters started using "Fancy Fonts" add-on WordPerfect 4.2 -- I would tell them that Times-Roman was just fine -- for the teacher who had to READ their papers.

Two -- don't mind on the "technical ground" -- you can't get asylum if you have been "firmly resettled" in a third country. I can see the reason for this in most cases -- but I've seen cases where John Q. Alien flees home country, takes up permanent residence in country #2 only to face persecution in that country -- then flee to the US -- no asylum here -- you got it another place. [By way of example -- lets say in 1938, a German Jew got asylum in France, and then fled France when the Nazi's invaded -- sorry no asylum]. My guy had been granted asylum in another country -- and then came to the US for training -- while here, the second country cancelled his refugee status.

David9287

Hello
Andrew,
WE HAVE REACHED AN A"CHORD"...... I THINK..... :-) Just for the record, I do not disagree that "illegally" entering the US should not be a crime......... and like you said "interpretation" of law is key..... thank God for the Appeals Court, can you imagine how many "innocent men" would have been put to death without it? Beat you to the punch...... and yes how many "guilty men" would have been set free.....lol. Hats off to the Supreme's..... :-)

Andrew Defaria

Leslie66 wrote:

    > He also argues just for the sake of arguing. Arguing for a reason is
    > wonderful. Fight for something you believe in. Fight with someone you
    > disagree with. But don't just do it for entertainment. He claims to be
    > honest and "in your face", but he is really inconsistent and plays
    > mind games. Intelligence is not wisdom.

You're just angry because you don't know what spam is! :-)
--
You have to stay in shape. My mother started walking five miles a day
when she was 60. She's 97 now and we have no idea where she is.

Andrew Defaria

Folinskyinla wrote:

    > One -- I don't mess with software -- not my expertise. And my
    > connections in the MIT-Caltech axis have contempt for Windows and
    > Microsoft, so they are no help.

Well there's always news groups! :-)

I get lots of help from news groups which I why I find them so valuable.
Then again you'd have to get a real news reading client... Again,
Netscape, Thunderbird and even Outlook Express can read news groups.
Usually the hardest thing is to figure out the news server that your ISP
has (usually news.<something> or nntp.<something> like
news.earthlink.com). Then just configure and go. Sometime you need a
username/password to connect. Then again there's always Google...

    > But, again, I appreciate whatever you are doing to make your stuff
    > readable. I remember when my daughters started using "Fancy Fonts"
    > add-on WordPerfect 4.2 -- I would tell them that Times-Roman was just
    > fine -- for the teacher who had to READ their papers.

But I'm only using one font! ;-)

    > Two -- don't mind on the "technical ground" -- you can't get asylum if
    > you have been "firmly resettled" in a third country. I can see the
    > reason for this in most cases -- but I've seen cases where John Q.
    > Alien flees home country, takes up permanent residence in country #2
    > only to face persecution in that country -- then flee to the US -- no
    > asylum here -- you got it another place. [By way of example -- lets
    > say in 1938, a German Jew got asylum in France, and then fled France
    > when the Nazi's invaded -- sorry no asylum]. My guy had been granted
    > asylum in another country -- and then came to the US for training --
    > while here, the second country cancelled his refugee status.

Seems odd. Persecution is persecution no matter where it's from. If you
are persecuted in Germany and move to France and then persecuted there
seems reasonable to me to allow the person to get asylum. But I'll take
your word for it.

--
All I want in life is a warm bed, and unlimited power.

Richard III

Leslie -

You know the REAL me ;^) -

Richard III

L D Jones

Andrew DeFaria wrote:
    >
    > L D Jones wrote:
    >
    > > Andrew DeFaria wrote:
    > >
    > >> Matthew Udall wrote:
    > >>
    > >>> I hear you. I see that Andrew replied to my comments, and I would
    > >>> reply to his reply however it contains the html clutter. I've been
    > >>> using the same computer and software to access ex-pats since I
    > >>> started coming here, and the "only" person's postings that I've
    > >>> noticed this problem with are his postings. The funny thing is that
    > >>> not all of his
    > >>> postings contain the html clutter. I wonder what's up with that? As
    > >>> I said before, the reasons for this were already discussed and had
    > >>
    > >> you taken a moment to research it or follow along you would know. As
    > >> I have often said, perhaps you might consider getting better software.
    > >
    > > Bah. HTML doesn't belong in usenet
    >
    > Says who? (Besides you)

Plenty of people; it's an old usenet debate (people who have been
reading usenet since before 91-92 or so against, etc). Anyway, your
message headers are consistent and thus easy to killfile

Andrew Defaria

David9287 wrote:

    > WE HAVE REACHED AN A"CHORD"...... I THINK..... :-)

Probably not. :-)

    > Just for the record, I do not disagree that "illegally" entering the
    > US should not be a crime

Well in the common definition is it a crime, a violation of the law, so
I don't see how you can really get out of that.

    > ......... and like you said "interpretation" of law is key..... thank
    > God for the Appeals Court, can you imagine how many "innocent men"
    > would have been put to death without it?

I'm more worried about the number of innocent men and women who have
been put to death with it!
--
Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be happy.

Andrew Defaria

L D Jones wrote:

    >> Says who? (Besides you)
    > Plenty of people; it's an old usenet debate (people who have been
    > reading usenet since before 91-92 or so against, etc).

Yes, it hasn't been solved then, it still isn't solved. Trouble is the
RFC does not forbid it and is open enough to allow it. Basically it's a
matter of preferences. You have yours and I have mine.

    > Anyway, your message headers are consistent and thus easy to killfile

Good, so then it's safe to say I won't be hearing from you anymore?...

--
I went for a walk last night and my kids asked me how long I'd be gone.
I said, "The whole time."

Folinskyinla

Hi:

Actually, you only give a partial definition. Knowing that I think legally, I took a peek at the definitions of "crime" found at www.dictionary.com.

It turned out that the common definitions are pretty close to the legal defintions -- so to be a crime -- not only must it be a violation of the law, but a criminal punishment must be imposed for that violation.

This may be a pedantic distinction -- but its one with real teeth. For aliens here unlawfully or subject to removal, the law has long treated that as a "civil" and not a "criminal" proceeding. Right to counsel if you can't afford it -- nope, thats for criminal matters only. Entitlement to reasonable bail while cae is going on -- Supremes spoke this year on MANDATORY detention of 'aggravated felons" pending their "civil" removal proceedings -- no such right other than general "due process" and Congress has determined they are a danger to the community and likely to abscond. Jury trial -- thats for criminal trials only [I've been in practice 28 years as of next week -- never done a jury trial -- my niece who was born while I was studying for the bar has had many already].

sibsie

Interestingly or not, when I was in uniform in London we often had to do "swoops" on behalf of immigration as we had the power of entry and arrest that Immigration officers didn't have.

We had all sorts of dirty tricks to track people down which for obvious reasons I won't go into here. We also had the power to stop people and request them to produce their documents much along the same lines as producing car insurance. In fact it was the same form that we filled in.

After arrest they would be charged and handed over to immigration after appearance at a magistrates court. Of course that was just applicable to England and Wales. It couldn't go to Crown Court as it wasn't an indictable offence.

Leslie

Richard,

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to "OUT" you in such a public forum. I just couldn't help myself.

Leslie

Folinskyinla

Hi:

In some ways, the ICE officers have more power than criminal law enforcement -- no "exclusionary" rule.

I had a case where the proof of deportability was the "I-213" which is essentially the immigration "police" report. It is considered credible evidence because it usually contains the admissions of the alien and is entitled a presumption of regularity. Well this particular I-213 disclosed that "Information based upon memo from OIC Seoul alleging that subject entered the United States without inspection on [date two years in the past] after transiting Mexico after having lived in Ecuador for 4 years."

Of course, there was that case a few years back where the United States Governmentflew some Iraqi Kurds fleeing Sadaam. The United States Government was able to arrest these people upon entry since they were aware of the actions of the particular alien smuggler and charged with attempted entry without proper documentation. Secret evidence was introduced [after making sure the Immigration Judge, Trial Attorney and Clerks obtain very high security clearances]. One of the aliens was not allowed to examine the evidence and neither were his attorneys. The alien and his attorneys did nothing to counter the evidence they were not allowed to see. Guy ordered removed. While on appeal, they associate in a new attorney who used to head an organization known as the "United States Central Intelligence Agency" and has a pretty high security clearance himself.

When the courts ordered that the new attorney be allowed access, the Government quickly declassified all the evidence which turned out to be mighty weak and easily met. IJ ordered admission.

[BTW, rumor has it that the FBI investigated the government trial attorney for not quite forthright with the immigration court and apparently misrepresenting some stuff during the secret portions of the proceedings. But we don't really know -- it is just rumor.].

sibsie

I always enjoy reading your posts Mr F. I still think you'd make a top dinner party guest.

US law seems to be so much more complicated than British with so many different levels and departments. In England Customs and Excise trump the Police with their powers.

I'm looking forward to learning a lot more about US law and am even toying with the idea of studying it when I move. I love criminal law... it's clear and consise for the most part whereas Civil and Immigration law seems mind boggling.