On the one hand, I like this line; on the other, this is America, where one carries a gun. An issue separate from how much illegals need to go back home.Originally Posted by 0ddl0t
On the one hand, I like this line; on the other, this is America, where one carries a gun. An issue separate from how much illegals need to go back home.
@Kukuforguns
The lynchpin for the judges decision rests on the assumption that an IA is not a threat to public safety. However, there's a possible legal ground for establishing that an IA is indeed a public safety threat.
18 USC 922g(5)(b) establishes a prohibition for those admitted to the US under a non-immigrant visa, however not non-resident aliens admitted under the visa waiver program. In the ATF interpretation letter from 2011 affirming this distinction, it notes that the distinction may exist because a person admitted under the VWP represents a substantially lower security risk than someone from a country which requires additional vetting in the form of additional travel documents (i.e. a visa).
While the ATF's interpretation letter is not legally binding to a court, is this distinction in the law nonetheless instructive in establishing the legal basis that someone who hasn't been vetted at all (or has exceeded their allotted time in the US and requires re-vetting for continued presence, i.e. an overstay) a security risk? I mean, if the law assumes a rationale that a VWP presents less security risk than an NIV recipient, how can we argue that the same assumption wouldn't apply to someone who's here illegally, i.e. a person purposely evading our security vetting as required by law?
I'll note that prior to 2001, the only real vetting for entry into the US and/or being issued a visa was largely based on overstay risk....hence why a bunch of terries from Saudi Arabia were approved for visas, as visa applicants from KSA had a near 100% adherence to the terms of their visas. Post 2001, the vetting includes security as a primary component to admission and continued stay in the US.
Thoughts?
Thanks to @Le Français and @WobblyPossum for bringing this distinction up in our morning chat.
p.s. anyone else reading this who hates freedom of speech, this is a legal discussion, not a political discussion. pls dont lok thrd my overlordz.
Last edited by TGS; 03-28-2024 at 11:28 AM.
"Are you ready? Okay. Let's roll."- Last words of Todd Beamer
The RKBA for non citizens? In my opinion, defense of one's life and property is a human right. I would think an immigrant has the right to be alive as much as anyone else and therefore has the right to attempt the preservation of their life by the most effective means possible. If the preservation of their life is fighting back against a tyrannical government and leading insurrection, perhaps that is an indictment of a society which would seek to deny them human rights....
If a woman here illegally was being raped, and bashed the rapists head in with a rock, would her legal justification be adjudicated by the laws of her home country? Or would it be an American court which would determine the justifiability of her actions? This seems straightforward to me.
Isn't an illegal alien a criminal because they entered the US illegally, and also because they remain here? (As opposed to non-citizens here on a visa or green card).
“There is no growth in the comfort zone.”--Jocko Willink
"You can never have too many knives." --Joe Ambercrombie
I guess it comes down to how fundamental a right is. There are those that attach regardless of citizenship (speech, self-incrimination) and those that are subject to some regulation (voting, marriage). The more fundamental, the less the government can regulate it.
Where that line gets drawn is mainly up to the courts.
If we have to march off into the next world, let us walk there on the bodies of our enemies.
That I'm not certain of, but I suspect the answer is more nuanced than you'd think.
Many who are here illegally initially entered the United States by legal means (work permits, visas etc) and simply overstayed the time-frame and are now illegally here, but the typical proceeding is not criminal, but civil, if deportation proceedings are to be initiated.
Others may have crossed the border illegally as children, but being children, are not the ones "guilty of the crime" so to speak, and prosecuting an 8 year old for the crime of following their dad across a border is hardly fair, given they were not the head of the household, and deporting them at age 30 would be to send them back to a country that is realistically, no longer their home.
But they still committed a crime by crossing a border? I am uncertain if that is also managed by civil proceedings or criminal ones, and typically (though I'm not sure about now) they can apply for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) to obtain a temporary permit to work and study in the US that protects them from deportation. While these immigrants typically pay into social security, medicare etc by way of payroll taxes and filling out a W2, and I believe are counted for the purpose of census, they typically are granted no federal rights or privileges (FAFSA, Social Security, voting, firearms ownership etc) with the understanding that if they ever leave the country, they will not be allowed back in except in special circumstances.
What's more, some of these DACA recipients may have originally entered the country legally and overstayed a visa or have left and re-entered legally under one of those special circumstances mentioned above and now have a "legal entry" to the US on their immigration record and so the crossing of the border they did in elementary school seems even less of a crime now because they have legally entered the country? And because of that "legal entry" now any presence (by way of DACA) is legal.
As far as criminality in general...you are more likely to be the victim of someone born in the US than you are by an immigrant...even one here illegally...so the notion that it's just a bunch of violent, rabid animals at the border is likely a political fabrication.
Entering the country without inspection is a misdemeanor. Re-entering after being removed previously is a felony. Remaining here after a non-immigrant visa expires is a civil violation and not a crime.
My posts only represent my personal opinion and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or official policies of any employer, past or present. Obvious spelling errors are likely the result of an iPhone keyboard.
There is a difference between being an "illegal alien," and an alien "unlawfully present" in the US. The former is a criminal matter, the latter is a civil matter. I don't know much about immigration law, but what little I know includes that distinction.
The legal prohibition on firearms possession (18USC922(g)(5)), applies to both, and accounts for the wording on an ATF Form 4473.
The linked news article doesn't make it .clear which category this person fits.
_______________
"Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" Then I said, "Here I am. Send me." - Isaiah 6:8
I don’t think this is right, although it’s been a minute since I studied Title 8. As @WobblyPossum mentioned above, entering the US without inspection is a crime (albeit a misdemeanor). Remaining in the US after such an entrance (or after a visa expires) is unlawful presence, and is not a crime. I don’t recall a legal distinction between ‘illegal alien’ and ‘unlawfully present’ alien.
@HCM would be a more authoritative source than me but, as far as I know, “illegal alien” isn’t a legal term at all in federal immigration statutes. An “alien” is anyone who isn’t a citizen or national of the United States. Numerous federal statutes refer to “aliens.” “Illegal alien” is a term that is in use because it’s useful to convey a certain idea. A 1999 DOJ report titled “Illegal Aliens in Federal, State, and Local Criminal Justice Systems” had this to say in the abstract: “The report uses the term ‘illegal alien’ to refer to foreign-born persons who entered the United States without inspection by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, or who entered legally as non-immigrants but remained after their authorized period of stay had expired.” The term is generally used to refer to any aliens not lawfully present in the US whether they entered without inspection or entered lawfully but remained here after there legal authority to stay had expired.
My posts only represent my personal opinion and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or official policies of any employer, past or present. Obvious spelling errors are likely the result of an iPhone keyboard.
Reply With Quote