- Quickdraw McLaw
- 24 Comments
- 132 Views
- Mixed messages about the TSA and marijuana, but a local ordinance forbidding marijuana at the airport makes it a little easier here. [Forbes]
- Minor traffic violations can lead to deportation. [TNI]
- Las Vegas assemblyman strives to overhaul Nevada’s criminal justice system. [Las Vegas Sun]
- Not Nevada, but a long-running housing discrimination case outlived a judge who died at 96. [LasVegasNow]
What I don't understand is the repeated statements alluding to someone who is here in the United States, without asylum and having not obtained legal immigration paperwork, as someone who is "not a criminal". Specifically, the son's reaction to his father getting deported after having multiple speeding tickets turn into warrants (I'm not taking a position on the tickets being criminal/civil) –
The son said:
“My dad isn’t a criminal. He hasn’t killed anybody. He only had two traffic tickets, which were not even like of high grade,” his 15-year-old son said. “He wasn’t legalized here, but we’re not raised into being criminals, and I just wish that [authorities] didn’t separate families just like they’re doing.”"
Once he said "He wasn't legalized here" the son just admitted that his first statement that his dad wasn't a criminal, was in fact untrue.
I'm not taking a position whether tickets should be criminal or civil, or whether the children should or should not remain here, just that the father knew he was not granted asylum (if he tried), and that he did not obtain legal immigration status here in the US, so the father had actual knowledge that his remaining here in the US was, in fact, against US law. Because of that, one cannot say that the father was not, in fact, a criminal.
Visa overstay is a civil infraction, not a criminal one. In the case of someone who came here lawfully and overstayed, which is the majority of undocumented immigrants, that person is not a criminal by any reasonable definition of the word.
Unlawful entry is a simple misdemeanor. A person who unlawfully enters would be a criminal in a strict technical sense, but so would everyone who has ever sped in Nevada. We don't refer to everyone who has ever driven 1 mph over the speed limit a criminal. Indeed, I would bet that the vast majority of Americans don't consider people who commit simple misdemeanors to be generally "criminals." The only reason to call undocumented immigrants criminals when you would not call those who commit violations of comparable seriousness criminals is to stigmatize them.
To the extent the person in this article is a criminal, it is likely only because of traffic violations. Ask yourself if you would refer to a coworker or friend, or yourself, as a "criminal" because of a couple of traffic tickets.
Response to 10:20a.m.: I do not believe the article specifies whether the subject of the article was a Visa overstay or unlawfully entered the U.S. The punishment for a first time unlawful entry can be up to six months incarceration and a fine (which sounds like a misdemeanor). A subsequent reentry offense is punishable up to two years incarceration (which sounds like a felony). Where does the poster get that the majority of undocumented immigrants are here for Visa overstays? What has been reported to the public is that the vast majority of undocumented immigrants are from Mexico and Central America. The U.S. government does not issue Visas to those countries in the millions.
@10:20; Thank you for interjecting some rationality and proportionality into the otherwise hyper-charged debate on the issue. Being generally conservative on most political issues, I do recognize that this is the proverbial multi-layered and complex, onion type problem. It is requires something other than knee-jerk proposals to solve.
I agree that calling these individuals (assuming no other criminal violations other than mere presence) "criminals" serves little purpose other than demonizing them and foster battle lines based on tribalism instincts. A term such as "unauthorized" would be a correct label, and appropriate, to the extent that labeling is determined to be needed.
A true solution to the problem will only be effective to the extent that it is comprehensive and actually enforced fairly and completely. I do not believe that the current batch of "unauthorized" residents should be allowed to "jump the line" of immigration thus do not agree with “a path to citizenship” for them other than for those that voluntarily exit and begin the process properly. Those individuals that avail themselves of this opportunity should not suffer the imposition of the penalties currently existing barring them from doing it properly for an extended period of time. If, however, they decline to voluntarily avail themselves of this "grace period opportunity" continuing to “roll the dice” forcing an involuntary removal, then the penalties should apply.
The immigration laws should be reviewed and brought more consistent with modern life. A new type of guest worker authorization should be created that is renewable every (1,2,3, whatever) years that does not qualify towards obtaining citizenship like the current green card system. It would be issued at the request of an employer (who would certify that they have attempted but been unable to fill the position using existing local workers). To avoid potential abuses of the workers by the employers, a period of time (60-90 days) could be allowed to obtain authorized replacement work if the worker is terminated or quits the issuing employment.
The problem, however, isn't only at the immigrant level. Greater enforcement of laws needs to be directed against the employers as well. There already exists databases within the government to track right to work status, social security numbers, etc. Strengthen the laws so that the employers face real and significant consequences for hiring unauthorized individuals. Perhaps something like a $50k fine for a first offense, $100k for a 2nd offense, $250K for 3rd, $500k for 4th, and $1M for each offense thereafter. A safe haven provision needs to be included so that if the employer acts in good faith to check the information and receives a clearance back from the government database center they are not subject to the penalties. To qualify for good faith protection they would need to maintain records/copies of the documents provided to them (including government issued identity documents) and lack reasonable suspicions regarding the legitimacy of the documents (objective test).
Additionally, the ability to transfer funds out of the U.S. to family back home would need to be monitored and restricted. Many of the economic unauthorized individuals came here to work while leaving their families back home, regularly transmitting part of their pay back to their families in their native countries to support them.
Drying up the available jobs, and their ability to send money back home, you reduce the incentive to come here wrongfully. Coupled with a system that makes it easier for the employers to properly obtain temporary, seasonal, hard to hire or specialized workers you go a long way to solving this problem.
Unfortunately, few if any currently in the debate actually want to solve the problem. Each, for their own reasons have agendas in which they wish to use the problem for their own advantage rather than the good of the nation or the individuals involved.
Here, as a favor to 12:59 I did three seconds of Googling:
https://www.npr.org/2019/01/16/686056668/for-seventh-consecutive-year-visa-overstays-exceeded-illegal-border-crossings
@10:20 & @12:59 – did you even read the article? It specifically said that ICE had already issued a deportation order against the now deported father back in 2010, and that there was already a final deportation order against the deported father. In other words, it wasn't a visa overstay, as much as you may want to claim it was.
Right. You should probably reread everything. Slowly. I addressed unlawful entry as well. The point remains that we don't refer to white people who commit simple misdemeanors as "criminals."
@9:06 – 18 USC 3156(a)(3) defines a felony as "an offense punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of more than one year." 8 USC 1326(a) provides that any alien who has previously been deported or removed and who enters and is found in the U.S. (without express consent or not required to obtain consent) shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 2 years or both. Seeing as the father re-entered after being deported to Mexico in 2010, and was later found back in the US without consent, he would be subject to imprisonment for not more than 2 years, which meets the definition of a felony under 18 USC 3156(a).
In other words, the article, and others such as myself, are not calling him a criminal just because of a "minor misdemeanor", it is because he has committed a felony by re-entering the U.S. after being deported back in 2010.
Fair enough. I missed that sentence in the article. My main point, that the constant need to justify referring to undocumented immigrants generally as criminals is racist and gross, still stands.
Understood, except, of course, when they are.
The reality of all this is that if someone is here illegally, and they are detected and detained by the authorities, they can be subject to deportation even if they have committed no independent "crimes" beyond the immigration infractions.
It's true that if someone has a conviction for domestic violence, or something even more serious, that this can hasten the process and prevent them from effectively fighting the pending deportation.
But, no matter what new rules and procedures are implemented, if a traffic violation is used as an excuse for deporting someone, it is just that–an excuse or justification. This is someone who would have been deported regardless of whether he had a traffic infraction. The serious immigration violation, in and of itself, would have been more than sufficient.
As a practical matter that's how it has been, an always will. There are going to be very few cases where they otherwise would have let a violator remain, but they decide to deport him for a traffic ticket, but would otherwise have excused the serious immigration violations had it not been for the traffic ticket.
That's ludicrous, is not the way it works, despite people and the media getting all worked up about some of these new changes and procedures.
You seem to be using "serious immigration violation" to mean all immigration violations. If so, this is simply not true. There have been a variety of deferred action policies in the past where many undocumented immigrants were allowed to remain under supervision if the only violation was a visa overstay or unlawful entry.
Obviously, if you mean "serious immigration violation" to mean, well, a serious immigration violation, (like using forged documents or entry after deportation) then you are right.
to 11:51 AM. Can you provide specific data that the U.S. government initiated a "deferred action policy" where many undocumented were allowed to remain under supervision if the only violation was a visa overstay or unlawful entry? The only situation I can think of is when an undocumented alien was already in deportation proceedings and received bail. But the ultimate result will be their deportation, in most cases. The legal process delays deportation but the Feds still seek the deportation and await the immigration court's decision in the matter.
Sure. DACA for one. Here are some (non-DACA) anecdotes:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/they-fear-being-deported-but-29-million-immigrants-must-check-in-with-ice-anyway/2019/04/25/ac74efce-6309-11e9-9ff2-abc984dc9eec_story.html?utm_term=.0c047c1e8853
Does anyone have a good process server recommendation, by chance? I'm having mixed results with June's and Legal Wings. Wondering if there's a better option out there.
Same here. I have heard Paradigm is decent. Any suggestions, thank you.
We've been using Ace Executive for awhile and they have been good.
J&L Process Service. We use them and I highly recommend them.
Not a lot of tax attorneys in Vegas. Unfiled taxes, Taylor Randolph or Thomas Crowe?
Richard Etienne with Report to Court is fabulous. Nationwide Legal is good too.
Nationwide used to be good before they sold out. Court runs they are fine. Service of process they are atrocious.
Attorney Ulrich Smith deceased along with his girlfriend: https://www.mtdemocrat.com/news/somerset-standoff-suspect-takes-own-life-woman-found-dead-inside-home/
Ulrich Smith, former Clark County Deputy District Attorney; ran against Stew Bell for District Attorney: A standoff Thursday evening in Somerset [California] ended with deputies locating a male suspect [Ulrich] dead of a self-inflicted gunshot wound and a deceased woman, the El Dorado County Sheriff’s Office said Friday.
The sheriff’s office has identified the suspect in the apparent murder-suicide as Ulrich Smith and the victim as Janet Trigg, 58.
Sheriff’s deputies surrounded a home on Meyers Lane in the unincorporated community of Somerset on Thursday afternoon after receiving calls about 10:15 a.m. of a possible homicide at that location, according to an earlier news release by the sheriff’s office.
The reporting party told sheriff’s officials that she believed her daughter had been shot by Smith, according to a Facebook post by the sheriff’s office. Authorities confirmed the homicide suspect was still inside the Meyers Lane residence, and negotiations began about 4:30 p.m.
In a Friday morning update to Facebook, sheriff’s officials said a single gunshot was heard about 5:30 p.m., and Smith was found dead inside the home. Deputies then found Trigg’s body while securing the home, according to the updated post.
Ulrich Smith had children. I feel for them.