Illegal means 'not' legal

What is it about "illegal" that those who promote "illegal" immigrants coming across U.S. borders don’t understand? It seems there is no distinction in some people’s minds. Let me explain.

Most families came to this country legally. They had sponsors or were allowed into this country by legal means. They were given papers to prove they were here legally. And most became citizens.

On the other hand, the nation's southern borders are wide open and illegal aliens are breaking the law when they sneak into this country. There is a big difference. They do not have legal proof of their status.

They are criminals. They have committed a crime by coming to the U.S. illegally. Taxpayers have to foot the bill for all those illegals who come here.

Arizona is just following the law that the rest of the country is overlooking. The state will be bankrupt, just like California, if illegal immigration is allowed to continue.

Kudos to Arizona. State officials there are doing what federal officials should be doing — making the country safe.

When required, I have papers to prove my legal status in this country. And I would not find it offensive if asked to prove my identity.

The only person who might have a problem with that is someone without papers.

So, to make it very clear, illegal is not the same as legal.

Mary Jane Newell, Oxford

Stay informed — Get the news delivered for free in your inbox.

I'm interested in ...

In order to make comments, you must verify your account.

In order to comment on SunJournal.com, you must use your real name and include the town in which you live in your profile. A member of our staff will call you to verify this information. To join in, fill out your user profile completely and check the box "please verify my status." We'll get back to you within one business day to verify your account.

Login or create an account here.

Our policy prohibits comments that are:

  • Defamatory, abusive, obscene, racist, or otherwise hateful
  • Excessively foul and/or vulgar
  • Inappropriately sexual
  • Baseless personal attacks or otherwise threatening
  • Contain illegal material, or material that infringes on the rights of others
  • Commercial postings attempting to sell a product/item
If you violate this policy, your comment will be removed and your account may be banned.

Advertisement

Displaying comments, from newest to oldest

Rev Jim's picture
verified

Reagan did not perform illegal acts

Mr. Riml, and you were a G.I.? You must of been full of hate as now. The Colonel did the deeds with the Iranians without the initial knowledge of Pres. Reagan. It was done underhandedly and when he eventually found out what the Colonel and his buddies were up to, he did not approve of it and let them take their own chances. As they were in so deep at this time!

veritas's picture
verified

So there was no need to Pardon the Reagan Administration?

Oh, how silly of me thinking that all of this could not have been cooked up by a mere Colonel!!

Bush I, being the Head of the CIA during the Reagan years, came to the rescue like the cavalry with mass pardons just before Clinton's Inaugeration. Nothing like a pre-emptive strike to prevent justice - or is that simply more 'Hate' on my part? So where did you get your PhD in psychology? You should try referencing your wild claims now and then to keep from looking like such an incompetent.

---> http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/06/29/reviews/iran-pardon.html

December 25, 1992
By DAVID JOHNSTON

Bush Pardons 6 in Iran Affair, Aborting a Weinberger Trial; Prosecutor Assails 'Cover-Up'

"Six years after the arms-for-hostages scandal began to cast a shadow that would darken two Administrations, President Bush today granted full pardons to six former officials in Ronald Reagan's Administration, including former Defense Secretary Caspar W. Weinberger.

Mr. Weinberger was scheduled to stand trial on Jan. 5 on charges that he lied to Congress about his knowledge of the arms sales to Iran and efforts by other countries to help underwrite the Nicaraguan rebels, a case that was expected to focus on Mr. Weinberger's private notes that contain references to Mr. Bush's endorsement of the secret shipments to Iran.

In one remaining facet of the inquiry, the independent prosecutor, Lawrence E. Walsh, plans to review a 1986 campaign diary kept by Mr. Bush. Mr. Walsh has characterized the President's failure to turn over the diary until now as misconduct.

Decapitated Walsh Efforts

But in a single stroke, Mr. Bush swept away one conviction, three guilty pleas and two pending cases, virtually decapitating what was left of Mr. Walsh's effort, which began in 1986. Mr. Bush's decision was announced by the White House in a printed statement after the President left for Camp David, where he will spend the Christmas holiday.

Mr. Walsh bitterly condemned the President's action, charging that "the Iran-contra cover-up, which has continued for more than six years, has now been completed."

Mr. Walsh directed his heaviest fire at Mr. Bush over the pardon of Mr. Weinberger, whose trial would have given the prosecutor a last chance to explore the role in the affair of senior Reagan officials, including Mr. Bush's actions as Vice President.

'Evidence of Conspiracy'

Mr. Walsh hinted that Mr. Bush's pardon of Mr. Weinberger and the President's own role in the affair could be related. For the first time, he charged that Mr. Weinberger's notes about the secret decision to sell arms to Iran, a central piece of evidence in the case against the former Pentagon chief, included "evidence of a conspiracy among the highest ranking Reagan Administration officials to lie to Congress and the American public."

The prosecutor charged that Mr. Weinberger's efforts to hide his notes may have "forestalled impeachment proceedings against President Reagan" and formed part of a pattern of "deception and obstruction." On Dec. 11, Mr. Walsh said he discovered "misconduct" in Mr. Bush's failure to turn over what the prosecutor said were the President's own "highly relevant contemporaneous notes, despite repeated requests for such documents."

Rev Jim's picture
verified

Races II

Mr. Riml, Who said "Now considering those fertility rates-you tell me what the predominant races will eventually be"?

veritas's picture
verified

OK - You got me there.....

Senior Moment.

I had referred to the "Browning of America"

It will be an interesting phenomena - culturally and racially. As you state 'Hispanic' is not a 'Race' - but as I discussed above, neither are the Mexicans 'Spanish;' they are for the most part 'Mestizos.'

The old divisions by racial characteristics are blurring. That is the point which I was trying to make.

Case in point. I attended a Thanksgiving Dinner at which several of the guests were from Zimbabwe. They were much darker and purer in their Negroid features than many Afro-Americans who had mixed with Caucasian blood. Educated in Great Britain, their 'English' was much better than the vernacular I've heard in most of the U.S. - especially some rural areas. I could communicate much more readily with them than my cousins in Texas and Arkansas.

Rev Jim's picture
verified

Races

Sorry Mr. Riml, There are only four Races in the world. You can SPIN it all you want! Hispanics is a Culture!

veritas's picture
verified

Who said anything about 'Races' - Jim?

Care to illuminate us on that???

Lil's picture
verified

enforcement

Why are republicans in the House proposing $600 million in cuts to border security and immigration enforcement?

Pirate's picture
verified

So it'll make it easier for

So it'll make it easier for the illegals to enter. Isn't that what you all want, Lil? The American dream for all; legal or not?

Rev Jim's picture
verified

Reagan

He also instructed Congress to CLOSE the border as a stipulation, which they have yet to do!

veritas's picture
verified

Reagan also performed criminal acts

By secretly giving missile parts to the Iranians to obtain funds to support the Nicaraguan Contras

But he was never charged not convicted.

So we can't call him a 'Criminal'

rdarluv's picture
verified

typical liberal "change of

typical liberal "change of subject"!

veritas's picture
verified

BS, Mark. Criminality of various folks discussed at 11:37 am

by Andrew MacIsaac. So why's my post a big deal to you six hours later; you didn't protest earlier.

Perhaps you can't keep up with what's being said. Try the Weekly Reader forum - it might be more your speed.

rdarluv's picture
verified

your comment was posted as a

your comment was posted as a response to:

Reagan
Jim Cyr at 8:57 am on Feb 13, 2011
"He also instructed Congress to CLOSE the border as a stipulation, which they have yet to do!"

You took it from illegal immigration to the Iran contra scandal all in one breath, that was the "change of subject"...........

veritas's picture
verified

I returned the subject to criminality - that's no change.

And Iran Contra was the example. Sorry that's beyond your scope of understanding.

rdarluv's picture
verified

but you posted as a direct

but you posted as a direct response to Jim Cyr, not to the group discussion as a whole............shall we start a blogging 101 topic?

veritas's picture
verified

But, But, Butt!

There - the snake ate his tail. Satisfied???

Rev Jim's picture
verified

Illegal is Illegal!

You are correct Ms. Newell. As soon as they come across the border without permission, they are breaking the LAW. And maybe some of these Progressives have a better idea to stem the TIDE. There are over 20 million illegals in this country and do you suppose it may be putting a dent in our economic problems? How many States are thinking of Bankruptcy? And are these states being hurt by these Illegals? How about Los Angeles alone with 4 Billion Dollars in the red directly tied to the Illegals! And we must not give those that hire them a free pass either!

veritas's picture
verified

Wanna stem the tide???

Quit hiring these people for cheap labor when they migrate home to the land we stole from them though military conquest.

Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it, Mr. Cyr.

rdarluv's picture
verified

Speaking of history, aren't

Speaking of history, aren't the people of Mexico primarily "Spanish"?? Might they be living on stolen land themselves? Didn't they kill, rape, and pillage for that land south of the border?

Mac antSaior's picture
verified

Actually, they only speak

Actually, they only speak Spanish by virtue of Spanish conquest of the Myans and Incans. Many can be traced to southwestern tribes and are essentially just native North Americans. Although some Spaniards interbred with some of the Mexican natives, it would be akin to saying that all English speaking countries are "English".

veritas's picture
verified

"Mestizos"- Part European, Part Indian

Though Spanish was the primary foreign blood mixed with the Mexican Indians, bloodlines from many other countries were also introduced. The term has been abandoned in Mexico, and the only 'Indians' now not considered integrated into equal social and cultural footing with the former Mestizos are those who have not abandoned their former tribal languages and customs.

veritas's picture
verified

Primarily Spanish? Nope....

Keep guessing.

Woody's picture
verified

What is the official...

..language of Mexico? Spanish. If you are arrested in Mexico, will you be supplied with an interpreter? No. If you vote in Mexico, will you be given an English language ballot? No. I could go on but you should be getting the idea. Go to Mexico, speak Spanish. Period.

veritas's picture
verified

So that makes LePage & most Lewistonians English???

And they get this special little shivver up their back and down their leg every time they hear "God Save the Queen?"

Mon Dieu!!!

Mac antSaior's picture
verified

Anyone who calls me English

Anyone who calls me English had better be ready to back it up!

Jabba's picture
verified

Speaking of history...

Didn't Anglo-Saxons essentially do the same thing to Native Americans? Didn't they run them off their land, violate treaties, and and commit genocide?

rdarluv's picture
verified

Yes they did, but I am tired

Yes they did, but I am tired of people saying that Mexico just wants "their" land back. It wasn't "theirs" to begin with anymore than it was ours! Therefore, what matters is who's land is it TODAY!?

This whole border war has nothing to do with who's land it is. It has everything to do with the opportunities here in the US. and lack thereof in Mexico. Take away the opportunities here and they won't come.

veritas's picture
verified

Take away greedy business owners who break the law

by hiring them - and lock their asses up! But that will never happen.

Mark - May as well face it. The 'Browning' of America is happening, whether by immigration (legal or illegal), by birth rates, whatever. This demographic shift is inevitable. It won't occur in my lifetime, perhaps not yours - but it is occuring. And it doesn't depend one whit on 'What you're tired of'

According to the Census Bureau, the Birth Rate for Whites in 2007 was 38.8 per 1,000 women. For Afro-Americans, it was 64.9 per 1,000, and for Hispanics, it was 81.8 per 1,000 women. - See --> http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0083.pdf

Now considering those fertility rates - you tell me what the predominant races will eventually be?

Lil's picture
verified

Reagan

Reagan was tough on undocumented immigrants. He gave amnesty to only 3 million of them.

Pirate's picture
verified

Referring to illegal

Referring to illegal immigrants as "undocumented immigrants" is like referring to street corner drug dealers as undocumented pharmacists.

rdarluv's picture
verified

By definition, they may not

By definition, they may not be criminal, but they are indeed "illegal"!

Pirate's picture
verified

The parrot agrees that

The parrot agrees that "unlawful" means against the law, but he insists that "illegal" means sick bird.

sweetfern's picture
verified

changing times

Years ago many of my ancestors come to our area from Quebec and New Brunswick Canada. They were coming here seeking employment in shoe shops, woolen mills or any factoy that was hiring. As I've been told, the head of the family would come here for a week or two to find a job. If he ,or she, found gainful employment they would then comit to bringing their family knowing they had an income with a future. Most learned English and they hungered to become American citizens.
Now they cross the border, mostly from the south, skirting the law for our welfare benefits, don't care much about learning English and becoming an American citizen is hardly a priority. I'm not saying all do this, but I believe way too many do. Yup, times have changed.

veritas's picture
verified

Historically there wasn't any legal or illegal to immigration

You were simply allowed to come, May Jane. Then we created the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882.

And you're not a criminal until convicted in court of a crime, Mary Jane. So don't give up your 'Day Job' - (If you have one) to practice law.

Jabba's picture
verified

You're kidding right?

So by this line of thinking Charles Manson wasn't a criminal until AFTER he was convicted. Is that what you mean? Gein, Bundy, Dahmer and Gacy were not criminals until AFTER they were caught and convicted?

veritas's picture
verified

It's not a "Line of Thinking" - it's a fact

One is legally not a 'Criminal' until one is convicted of a crime. It's this thing we have of a 'Presumption of Innocence' here in the United States. Totalitarian Countries may stack their cards a little bit differently.

But for those who play 'Fast and loose" with definitions, feel free to apply "Criminal" to whomever you wish. Though bear in mind it could open you up to a lawsuit.

Read it and Weep --> http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/illegal-alien-wins-lawsuit-for-bei...

"Illegal Alien Wins Lawsuit, For being called, "Criminal"

jalbrecht's picture
verified

illegal?? Really

Again we have the brutal perversion of language to justify hatred. As mentioned in other comments you aren't a criminal until after conviction in a criminal court of law. Undocumented never appear in any court of law. There are no criminal penalities for being undocumented. Instead you appear in an administrative court before an administrative judge and if found that you have no proof that you are legally resident you can at most be deported to your home country.
The argument that states are being driven to bankruptcy by undocumented immigrants is laughably false. The Heritage Mis-informantion Policy Center some years ago reported the Costs of illegal immigrantion. Most of the data has been debunked, but that's not even necessary. The report itself says that it did not in its study include any of the benefits of illegal immigration. Undocumented workers pay taxes (that's why they get arrested for and are deported not for immigrations violations but for identify theft - they used a false social security number). They pay social security and other payroll taxes that they are never going to see the benefits of. Business make unjustified profits from using undocumented immigrants to force wages down. The best example being Hormel and its strike in 1986. The strikers there were replaced by undocumented workers 70% of whom were arrested a few years ago in an ICE raid. The undocumented workers came to Hormel via the Reagan immigration law of 1986 which among other things opened our souther border to waves of undocumented immigration because of the amnesty provisions. Wages fell from $19.75 before the strike to 9.75 after the strike adding millions to Hormel profits.
Now the border must be controlled. Undocumented immigration needs to be stopped. But lets end the inflammatory language or the wild proposals that we "seal the border" or the hate speech directed toward all immigrants that lead to the trial going on right now in Arizona where a militia leader and her co-conspirators are on trial for slaughtering a immigrant family.

Jabba's picture
verified

OK, I read it...

It doesn't really prove your point. It was a sham law suit that was dropped by 6 of the 7 plaintiffs and is currently under appeal. If you shoot somebody you are a criminal. Read it and weep>>>>>>>>>
crim·i·nal   
[krim-uh-nl] Show IPA
–adjective
1. of the nature of or involving crime.
2. guilty of crime.
3. Law . of or pertaining to crime or its punishment: a criminal proceeding.
4. senseless; foolish: It's criminal to waste so much good food.
5. exorbitant; grossly overpriced: They charge absolutely criminal prices.
–noun
6. a person guilty OR convicted of a crime. (emphasis mine)

veritas's picture
verified

Cite your source......

The Court found in his favor - until the suit is overturned, the appeal means nothing.

Pertaining to, or involving, crimes or the administration of penal justice. An individual who has been found guilty of the commission of conduct that causes social harm and that is punishable by law; a person who has committed a crime.

West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

see --> http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/criminal

criminal 1) n. a popular term for anyone who has committed a crime, whether convicted of the offense or not. More properly it should apply only to those actually convicted of a crime. Repeat offenders are sometimes called habitual criminals. 2) adj. certain acts or people involved in or relating to a crime. Examples of uses include "criminal taking," "criminal conspiracy," a "criminal gang." (See: convict, felon, habitual criminal)

tron's picture

MS Newell, get your facts

MS Newell, get your facts straight, these immigrants are not doing anything 'illegal' they merely do not have the proper documentation. But they have committed no crime, so get off your high horse.

Pirate's picture
verified

If they're illegal

If they're illegal immigrants, their very presence is a crime.

Advertisement