Posted on 12/19/2010 11:14:00 AM PST by yoe
Illegal aliens have no constitutional rights!
Some people are just stupid. Illegal means ‘not legal’.
I'm afraid that would imply they hadn't voted yet. Besides, documented Bolshecrats have headstones.
Although I would prefer that be the case, it isn't. To actually deport someone, requires either a finding from a judge in a removal hearing (which is an administrative hearing), or a conviction at a criminal trial. Either way, the burden of proof falls to the government to demonstrate the alien is removable by “ clear, convincing, and unequivocal evidence”.
Even when we round someone up right on the border, those "illegals" have two essential rights - either voluntary removal (which almost all of them choose), or access to a removal hearing. As a matter of course, those removal hearings are pretty perfunctory.
And when one of the aholes in your picture kills another gang banger, the resulting killing is what the LAPD calls NHI.....No Human Involved. At least that’s what the LAPD called those type of killings when I lived in California.
Illegal invaders works for me.
Ignorant or bold face liar?
American immigration laws have, for generation on generations, made the the following distinctions: All those who could not prove themselves to be US citizens were definition "aliens."
It further divided "aliens" into 2 groups: Those who entered and remained in the US legally are referred to as "legal aliens" and those who cannot prove they entered and remained legally are - referred to as "illegal aliens."
NOTE: Unlike with criminals or "criminal aliens" (aliens convicted of a crime) the burden of proof has ALWAYS been on the alien to prove they are legal - otherwise, they are LEGALLY PRESUMED TO BE "ILLEGAL ALIENS."
Oh,I see,but all Tea Party people are racists.
Of course you are correct, but being an illegal immigrant and being an illegal immigrant who has had a decision to deport imposed on them are two different things. Not all illegal immigrants who have a hearing are deported. ...I’m not the lawyer in my family, so my musings are nebulous, but it does strike me that being an illegal alien and being deported are two different things. Not being a court anymore than I am a lawyer, I’ll stick to the dictates of good sense, and call a skunk a skunk. The media should do the same. Illegal immigrant defines someone who enters this country illegally or someone who allows their legal documentation to expire. It is a practical definition, if not a legal one.
typo
If a newspaper or TV report refers to any individual as an illegal immigrant withOUT a legal finding, then yes that would be improper. However if you refer to a group of unspecified individuals as illegal immigrants, then you don’t need to wait for a court to rule.
It’s as if you were never allowed to mention murderers in general because some people haven’t been convicted of murder.
From the uscis.gov (US Citizenship & Immigration Services) online manual "E-Verify Manual" in the "Glossary:"
Illegal AlienSo US Immigration laws and regulations, for generations and up until today, have encoded a phrase "illegal alien" "originated... {with groups} such as the Minutemen?"A foreign national who (1) entered the United States without inspection or with fraudulent documentation or (2) who, after entering legally as a non–immigrant, violated status and remained in the United States without authorization.
BUMP
HO HO HO Ha Ha Ha...this makes me laugh!
Next, those idiots will tell us there is no such thing as looters, or looting... just non-documented consumers with undefined deferred payment plans.
Wrong! Aliens are routinely picked up with no documents at all - especially near the border. Once it is ascertained that they are not "US citizens" and therefore aliens, they can admit they are here illegally and (if not a criminal) be given the opportunity to leave voluntarily, OR they have to prove they are legally here - either before seeing the judge or in front of the judge. If they can't prove it, the judge must find them deportable. Of cause if ICE knows or should know, with the information the alien provided, that he is legal and withholds it - heads would roll.
They have to prove that they entered here legal. The phrase that is used is
"by clear and convincing evidence, that the alien is lawfully present in the United States pursuant to a prior admission.
Yes, the burden falls to the alien to prove that they've entered legally and/or are not inadmissable. HOWEVER, the burden to deport/remove an alien falls squarely on the Service, if they entered legally.
From 8 USC § 1229a. Removal proceedings
3) Burden on service in cases of deportable aliensIn ALL cases, the foreign national is entitled to a hearing, if they so request. The burden of proof in an immigration case is fluid - of course, you understand that, right doctor?
(A) In generalIn the proceeding the Service has the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that, in the case of an alien who has been admitted to the United States, the alien is deportable. No decision on deportability shall be valid unless it is based upon reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence.
And terrorists are now undocumented explosive experts.
True, but then they would have proven they entered either as an immigrant or non-immigrant.
Since immigrants are always admitted "permanently" they would remain here legally unless they commit a deportable/removable offense - which the government would have to prove by your stated standard.
However, non-immigrants are admitted for defined periods. When non-immigrants prove they were lawfully admitted they prove the period of time that lawful admission was granted. If that period of time has expired, if the government testifies that their records show no extension - if the alien claims without prove that he was granted an extension - the government case is "proven."
While you're right, that "burden of proof in an immigration case is fluid" for illegal entrants & non-immigrants, it is designed to be pro-enforcement, even if politicians and the political appointees in government chose not to be pro-enforcement.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.