Why is wanting people to immigrate legally considered being Xenophobic?

[Spunt]

I bet they do. You may want them to take care of that rash though.

That is from something completely unrelated.

[Pangean]

That is from something completely unrelated.

No doubt. They probably have meds for that. If not oh well you probably weren't using it anyway.

[Spunt]

No doubt. They probably have meds for that. If not oh well you probably weren't using it anyway.

I've been using maple syrup. I heard it cures meningitis.

[Dadwen]

You cherry picked a source. You played the synonym game (which FYI is playing semantics. It is akin to Creationists using common parlance theory to mean science theory.) You are literally projecting. You have misrepresented points and you have outright lied.

And now I can add shifting the goal posts.

I picked the source that is in charge of telling the public of the laws.

(and if the laws give them 180 days to get all the papers and such in order fine but I've never heard anyone talking or complaining about people that just stay over a short time it's ones that try and make a permanent resident.) Everything I put I picked right from that site so what did I lie about?

[Darththeo]

I picked the source that is in charge of telling the public of the laws.

And when confronted with sources that explain those laws, you choose to waive them off due to your own personal preference and nothing of any other substance. The sources I cited were written by Immigration Lawyers whose entire job is concerning immigration law who are just as valid of a source as yours, was waived off by your own preference. And when I called you out on it, you then misrepresented what I was stating about your source. Based on your actions I can only feel that you intentionally did so.

Given that your then shifted "well we weren't really talking about that" ... when in reality, we were.

[Dadwen]

what you're the one that said they were not valid sources even those it said right there what they do and what they are responsible for.

The Office of Visa Services, in the Consular Affairs Bureau, Department of State provides various functions:

We serve as liaisons with the Department of Homeland Security
We serve as liaisons between the Department of State and U.S. Embassies and Consulates abroad on visa matters
We interpret visa laws and regulations, and act as a point of contact for the public.

it seems right there they should know what they are talking about (your the one that said well they don't really know the law they are only Liaisons etc etc etc, it's right there their job, to tell people who want to come to the US what laws to follow and the procedure you're the one trying to play off it as well they are not homeland security etc they REALLY don't know, where as your sources are lawyers who's job is to find loopholes or make money or whatever off of getting people out of trouble when they break those laws)

and have not shifted a dam thing it's always been about people that are in violation of the law, if they are over any grace time the law allow it's in violation of the law

[Darththeo]

what you're the one that said they were not valid sources even those it said right there what they did

You are lying again.

My post:

Except the site you found wasn't Department of Homeland Security, US CBP or USCIS, but rather Department of State Bureau of Consular Affairs. So it isn't a group that enforces those laws it mentioned at all. The Immigration Lawyers I quoted are actually more valid sources.

Where did I claim they weren't valid? More valid doesn't mean your source is invalid. This is a clear strawman of what I stated on your part. Not only that, I explained to you why I feel that your source isn't as valid ... you merely waived my off without a valid reason other than personal preference.

And another lie:

and have not shifted a dam thing it's always been about people that are in violation of the law, if they are over any grace time the law allow it's in violation of the law

No, we are talking about whether or not unlawful presence is against the law on whole. Go back and read Endus' post ... he had address this SEVERAL times. Giving that I have to dig up my own posts for you ... I am not going to dig up his too.

[Dadwen]

tell you what, tell me what part of this I am "misinterpreting"

Out of Status:A U.S. visa allows the bearer to apply for entry to the United States in a certain classification for a specific purpose, such as student (F), visitor (B), or temporary worker (H). Every visa is issued for a particular purpose and for a specific class of visitor. Each visa classification has a set of requirements that the visa holder must follow and maintain. When you arrive in the United States, a DHS CBP inspector determines whether you will be admitted, length of stay and conditions of stay, in the United States. When admitted you are given an admission stamp or paper Form I-94 (Arrival/Departure Record), which tells you when you must leave the United States. The date granted on the admission stamp or paper Form I-94 at the airport governs how long you may stay in the United States. You are considered out of status if you remain in the United States without authorization after the expiration date on your admission stamp or paper Form I-94. It is important to understand the concept of immigration status and the consequences of violating that status. Failure to maintain status can result in arrest, and violators may be required to leave the United States. Violation of status also can affect the prospect of readmission to the United States for a period of time, by making you ineligible for a visa. Most people who violate the terms of their status are barred from lawfully returning to the United States for years. See our Visa Expiration Date page for more information.

What if I Decide to Stay Longer and am Out-of-Status with the Department of Homeland Security?

You should carefully consider the dates of your authorized stay and make sure you are following the procedures. Failure to do so will cause you to be out-of-status.
Staying beyond the period of time authorized, by the Department of Homeland Security, and out-of-status in the United States, is a violation of U.S. immigration laws, and may cause you to be ineligible for a visa in the future for return travel to the United States. If you overstay the end date of your authorized stay, as provided by the CBP officer at a port-of-entry, or United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), your visa will generally be automatically be voided or cancelled, as explained above. Select Classes of Aliens Ineligible to Receive Visas to learn more.

- - - Updated - - -

No, we are talking about whether or not unlawful presence is against the law on whole. Go back and read Endus' post ... he had address this SEVERAL times. Giving that I have to dig up my own posts for you ... I am not going to dig up his too.

My first post was about illegal entry and Endus said that what not being discussed and he brought up the Visa comparison, and that what started my out of status line *and his supermarket comparison but most (if any) supermarkets don't give you permits to be in there for a certain time.

Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
For at least the fourth time, "Improper entry" only applies if you evade or defraud border security. Overstaying your visa doesn't qualify, and unless you can PROVE that they didn't enter legally, improper entry cannot be applied retroactively.
Your argument is like claiming that someone who wanders into your store 5 minutes after closing, because you didn't lock the door or turn out the lights, is breaking and entering. They didn't do anything illegal. You can require that they leave, because you're closed, but they didn't do anything wrong by being in there.
My response:
I think with most of the current talk is about border entry ones and not visa over stays, but I didn't read the entire thread but there seem to be a point there are some "Illegal" immigrants, sounds like you are arguing not all are illegal some are just undocumented and it would seem to be fairly easy to prove if they were Illegal or undocumented if they had a expired visa\Green card\etc or not? (last I checked stores don't give temp entry permits so not sure how that would fit here)

Update looks like expired Visa are called out of status and can lead to arrest
https://travel.state.gov/content/vis...ml#outofstatus

[bladeXcrasher]

If there was grace period then why does less than 180 days bring one set of consequences and over 180 brings another? I posted it a ways back. Endus just hand waved it.

[Darththeo]

tell you what, tell me what part of this I am "misinterpreting"

Not understanding the words "can" and "may" for one.
Not understanding that violation of a law doesn't equate to illegal action (which is Endus is asking for). In a legal sense, all illegal acts are unlawful but all unlawful acts are not illegal. You keep wanting to use common parlance in a discussion where it doesn't apply.

Yes, you can read the law, but you do not understand what it is saying. You are quoting a law that is describing the term "out of status" in a legal setting. This definition is why a person who overstays a visa is considered in violation of the law without doing anything illegal. This has been explained to you numerous times already and you accuse the other side of semantics ... we have explained the terms, you don't accept the explanation.

And why do you constantly shift the discussion to another topic to make it appear like you have a point?

- - - Updated - - -

If there was grace period then why does less than 180 days bring one set of consequences and over 180 brings another? I posted it a ways back. Endus just hand waved it.

180 days has no punishment outside being told to leave.
Over 180 days you can be barred for 3 years.
Over a year you can be barred for 10 years, a 10 year bar can result from multiple 3 years as well under the law.

[Dadwen]

Not understanding the words "can" and "may" for one.
Not understanding that violation of a law doesn't equate to illegal action (which is Endus is asking for). In a legal sense, all illegal acts are unlawful but all unlawful acts are not illegal. You keep wanting to use common parlance in a discussion where it doesn't apply.

Yes, you can read the law, but you do not understand what it is saying. You are quoting a law that is describing the term "out of status" in a legal setting. This definition is why a person who overstays a visa is considered in violation of the law without doing anything illegal.

And why do you constantly shift the discussion to another topic to make it appear like you have a point?

was going to type something out but it says Failure to maintain status can result in arrest, now a person could rob a store and the owner take pity and not charge them, where you get your may and can argument I suppose, but that does not mean a law was not broken.

think the point is fairly simple if a person is in the US and not allowed to be here they have violated a law, they are in the US with out proper authorization (not sure where I have tried to make any other points.)

[Darththeo]

was going to type something out but it says Failure to maintain status can result in arrest, now a person could rob a store and the owner take pity and not charge them, where you get you may I suppose, but that does not be a law was not broken)

think the point is fairly simple if a person is in the US and not allowed to be here they have violated a law, they are in the US with out proper authorization (not sure where I have tried to may any other points.)

Yes, they have violated a law. And literally, no one has been arguing otherwise. Again, not all violations of law are illegal, but all violations of law are unlawful. Essentially the one difference is the kind of penalties that exist ... if it is only civil and not criminal, it isn't considered to be illegal.

We aren't arguing if it is a violation of the law, we are arguing about in a legal sense is it illegal. The answer is no.

Again, this post is just more semantics you are playing ... yet the other side which has remained consistent are the ones playing semantics. I can understand having to repeat a point I made a few posts ago, but can you please not have me repeat myself in subsequent posts?

Please note: I am aware Endus used the term "legal" ... I don't agree with this term, but from his arguments he wasn't saying a law hadn't be violated. He was referring to the action not being by definition illegal.

[Spunt]

Ya'll do realize that according to the Merriam Webster Dictionary, "Illegal" and "Unlawful" are synonyms, right?

[Dadwen]

Yes, they have violated a law. And literally, no one has been arguing otherwise. Again, not all violations of law are illegal, but all violations of law are unlawful. Essentially the one difference is the kind of penalties that exist ... if it is only civil and not criminal, it isn't considered to be illegal.

We aren't arguing if it is a violation of the law, we are arguing about in a legal sense is it illegal. The answer is no.

Again, this post is just more semantics you are playing ... yet the other side which has remained consistent are the ones playing semantics. I can understand having to repeat a point I made a few posts ago, but can you please not have me repeat myself in subsequent posts?

Please note: I am aware Endus used the term "legal" ... I don't agree with this term, but from his arguments he wasn't saying a law hadn't be violated. He was referring to the action not being by definition illegal.

well he is the one I started with and you took over so that's where my mind set is, and from what I can find on some law sites while out of status is not a criminal office it is a civil one (prob the closest I'll see eye to eye on this)

[Endus]

tell you what, tell me what part of this I am "misinterpreting"

What you're misinterpreting is that "in violation of a law" does not mean "illegal". You break no laws, through unlawful presence. It means that your legal right to remain no longer exists, and you can be "arrested" and deported (and I use parentheses there, because the arrest is not the prequel to charges being filed nor a punishment, merely the first step of the deportation".

And deportation is not itself a legal punishment, despite how it may feel to the deportee. It's just removing them from somewhere they do not have authorization to be.

My first post was about illegal entry and Endus said that what not being discussed and he brought up the Visa comparison, and that what started my out of status line *and his supermarket comparison but most (if any) supermarkets don't give you permits to be in there for a certain time.

Irrelevant, and deliberately missing the point; publicly open buildings only allow the public within certain hours, and we were talking about a circumstance outside of those hours of business. That's what you're "violating", and it isn't illegal, it just means they can require that you leave, which is "deporting" you from the store.

This is what I mean by the difference between "in violation of" and "illegal". Unless you are facing a legal punishment of some form, whether it's a fine, jail time, or some other such thing, you aren't being charged with having done anything illegal. And deportation isn't such a punishment. You also don't need to be charged with anything before you can be "sentenced" to deportation. They just up and do it, because it's not about any breaking of any law that might have to get proven in court.

Take note that you get your chance to go to court and defend yourself against a parking ticket. You don't, with deportation. You can file a suit to have it prevented if you have status and it was overlooked, but that has to be initiated by the defendant, because again, no charges of any sort have been filed for unlawful presence.

- - - Updated - - -

Ya'll do realize that according to the Merriam Webster Dictionary, "Illegal" and "Unlawful" are synonyms, right?

Which refers to how they may be used in standard English. We're talking about their legal use, in legal jargon, where they're very not the same thing. To be more specific, "illegal" is a subcategory of "unlawful"; anything illegal is unlawful, but there are things that are unlawful that aren't illegal. Much like how all oranges are fruit, but lots of fruit aren't oranges.

- - - Updated - - -

was going to type something out but it says Failure to maintain status can result in arrest

You can be arrested and held for 24 hours for looking at a cop funny. Then they either have to charge you, or let you go. Arrest doesn't mean you've done anything wrong. Hell, I got arrested once, and questioned, and that experience ended with the cops offering to file charges on my behalf, against the guy who'd (falsely) accused me. Because nothing I'd done had been remotely illegal, and he knew that when he called the cops on me and my friend.

"Arrest" doesn't mean what you apparently think. You don't have to do anything illegal before you can be arrested.

[Dadwen]

And deportation is not itself a legal punishment, despite how it may feel to the deportee. It's just removing them from somewhere they do not have authorization to be.


Irrelevant, and deliberately missing the point; publicly open buildings only allow the public within certain hours, and we were talking about a circumstance outside of those hours of business. That's what you're "violating", and it isn't illegal, it just means they can require that you leave, which is "deporting" you from the store.

This is what I mean by the difference between "in violation of" and "illegal". Unless you are facing a legal punishment of some form, whether it's a fine, jail time, or some other such thing, you aren't being charged with having done anything illegal. And deportation isn't such a punishment. You also don't need to be charged with anything before you can be "sentenced" to deportation. They just up and do it, because it's not about any breaking of any law that might have to get proven in court.

Take note that you get your chance to go to court and defend yourself against a parking ticket. You don't, with deportation. You can file a suit to have it prevented if you have status and it was overlooked, but that has to be initiated by the defendant, because again, no charges of any sort have been filed for unlawful presence.

it's my understanding the deportation is not the punishment, it's the being barred from reentering is the punishment.

[Spunt]

What you're misinterpreting is that "in violation of a law" does not mean "illegal". You break no laws, through unlawful presence. It means that your legal right to remain no longer exists, and you can be "arrested" and deported (and I use parentheses there, because the arrest is not the prequel to charges being filed nor a punishment, merely the first step of the deportation".

And deportation is not itself a legal punishment, despite how it may feel to the deportee. It's just removing them from somewhere they do not have authorization to be.


Irrelevant, and deliberately missing the point; publicly open buildings only allow the public within certain hours, and we were talking about a circumstance outside of those hours of business. That's what you're "violating", and it isn't illegal, it just means they can require that you leave, which is "deporting" you from the store.

This is what I mean by the difference between "in violation of" and "illegal". Unless you are facing a legal punishment of some form, whether it's a fine, jail time, or some other such thing, you aren't being charged with having done anything illegal. And deportation isn't such a punishment. You also don't need to be charged with anything before you can be "sentenced" to deportation. They just up and do it, because it's not about any breaking of any law that might have to get proven in court.

Take note that you get your chance to go to court and defend yourself against a parking ticket. You don't, with deportation. You can file a suit to have it prevented if you have status and it was overlooked, but that has to be initiated by the defendant, because again, no charges of any sort have been filed for unlawful presence.

- - - Updated - - -



Which refers to how they may be used in standard English. We're talking about their legal use, in legal jargon, where they're very not the same thing. To be more specific, "illegal" is a subcategory of "unlawful"; anything illegal is unlawful, but there are things that are unlawful that aren't illegal. Much like how all oranges are fruit, but lots of fruit aren't oranges.

- - - Updated - - -



You can be arrested and held for 24 hours for looking at a cop funny. Then they either have to charge you, or let you go. Arrest doesn't mean you've done anything wrong. Hell, I got arrested once, and questioned, and that experience ended with the cops offering to file charges on my behalf, against the guy who'd (falsely) accused me. Because nothing I'd done had been remotely illegal, and he knew that when he called the cops on me and my friend.

"Arrest" doesn't mean what you apparently think. You don't have to do anything illegal before you can be arrested.

So then, does that mean you're okay with people violating the law and sneaking into a country when they have no legal right too or do you feel they should be deported when they are caught?

[Arcurium]

Because more often than not "legal immigration" has been used by certain races and ethnicities to exclude certain other races and ethnicities based on beliefs with no scientific basis.

[Mace]

Why is wanting people to treat women equally to men considered "feminazi"?

Same reasons..
A couple of people think it's an easy response instead of discussing it.
And a lot of people always seem to fall back to "I just want immigration to happen legally" when they ARE being xenophobic.

I'll just sneakily use your post to make a point about a related issue.

usually people wanting to treat women equally to men is pretty much people wantint to treat women the same as men - and the two are very very different things, and yet equal means same to a lot of people. Gender is not a bad thing, it's natural, try to understand it.

[Endus]

it's my understanding the deportation is not the punishment, it's the being barred from reentering is the punishment.

Still not a legal punishment, no.

Canada barred the folks from the Westboro Baptist Church from entering, a while back, because they were coming up to do what would end up being charged as a hate crime, here. That didn't mean they had actually (at that point) broken any laws.

So then, does that mean you're okay with people violating the law and sneaking into a country when they have no legal right too or do you feel they should be deported when they are caught?

I feel they should be deported, but this is complicated in the USA because their system is designed to encourage and allow for illegal immigration, in the first place. Which is why it's something like 40 times as bad as it is in Canada. Also depends on their circumstances; someone who's working and would prefer legal residency but was unable to jump through the bureaucratic loopholes to get there should have an easier path to citizenship.