to lose the GOP nomination. Brilliant.

Bizarre.

Bush's "efforts" at immigration "reform" were a way of scaring the independents into thinking a crisis needed to be addressed while mollifying the racists that at least it wouldn't get any worse.

It's not unlike the way they tried to get the senior vote by hyping a crisis about social security.  In that case, they tried to scare independents into thinking they wouldn't ever see benefits under the present program anyway with Wall Street who couldn't wait to get their mitts on a privatized pool of investment funds.

In both cases, with able Democratic resistance, they ended up disappointing their base and scaring the independents if not firmly into the Dem camp, at least not at all to the GOP camp.

Now, we have a bunch of angry racists and cultural conservatives who won't vote for Rudy and a bunch of dispirited country club Republicans who are pushing Rudy thinking that he might have a decent shot against Hillary (or maybe an Obama who proves to not be ready for prime time) in the general election, but probably won't survive the primaries.

Bush did manage to get education "reform" in the name of No Child Left Behind, but the next Dem President and the next Dem Congress will get rid of it.  Bush also managed to add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare, much to his base's chagrin, and the next Dem President and the next Dem Congress will likely build on it toward more health care coverage for everyone.

In the wake of 9/11, Bush's foreign policy legacy is of course of greater significance.  It's obvious how his virtually criminal handling of the war has been bad for the GOP, the country, and the world.  The Dems here have done a lot less to capitalize on it.  It appears their strategy is to ride it out and blame it on Bush.  That will probably work to neuter the rest of Bush's term, get a Dem in the White House, and return a Dem Congress.  It's too bad, however, that those Dems will have to waste their honeymoon period extricating us from Iraq in an "honorable" way with the least additional damage to the people there possible.

illegal immigrant crackdown.  See here for more.

Also, see here for more on the "Essential Worker Immigration Coalition," which opposes a crackdown.  The group's membership list:

  American Health Care Association
  American Hotel & Lodging Association
  American Immigration Lawyers Association
  American Meat Institute
  American Nursery & Landscape Association
  American Road & Transportation Builders Association
  American Staffing Association
  American Subcontractors Association, Inc.
  Associated Builders and Contractors
  Associated General Contractors
  Building Service Contractors Association International
  California Landscape Contractors Association
  California Professional Association of Specialty Contractors (CALPASC)
  Carlson Hotels Worldwide and Radisson
  Carlson Restaurants Worldwide and TGI Friday's
  Farm Equipment Wholesalers Association
  Federation of Employers & Workers of America
  First Data
  Golf Course Superintendents Association of America
  Harborside Healthcare Corporation
  Ingersoll-Rand
  International Association of Amusement Parks and Attractions
  International Franchise Association
  Marriott International, Inc.
  Mason Contractors Association of America
  Nath Companies
  National Association for Home Care
  National Association of Chain Drug Stores
  National Association of Home Builders
  National Association of RV Parks & Campgrounds
  National Chicken Council
  National Club Association
  National Council of Chain Restaurants
  National Restaurant Association
  National Retail Federation
  National Roofing Contractors Association
  National Tooling & Machining Association
  National Wooden Pallet and Container Association
  Outdoor Amusement Business Association
  Pilgrim's Pride Corporation
  Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors - National Association
  Professional Landcare Network
  Retail Industry Leaders Association
  Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council
  Society of American Florists
  The Brickman Group, Ltd.
  Travel Business Roundtable
  Travel Industry Association of America
  Tree Care Industry Association
  Truckload Carriers Association
  Tyson Foods, Inc.
  United Fresh Produce Association
  US Chamber of Commerce

Do these look pro-Democratic to you?  No?  Gee, you mean that pro-Republican groups are the main lobbyists for continued illegal immigration in this country?  Hmmmmm...

It's one thing to say it "shouldn't" be a crime; it's another thing to say flatly that it isn't a crime, which is simply wrong.  Yet the MSM, just watch, is not going to call him on this.

Now, just imagine if a Democratic candidate for President, like Edwards, said the same thing, there would be all sorts of editorials and op eds slyly suggesting he is incompetent and not fit to be President, and is pandering to the Latino vote.

And that is part of the reason how we ended up with GWB in the White House for the last 8 years.

As Bob Somerby has been documenting, as far as the MSM is concerned, only Democrats have character flaws.

http://www.dailyhowl...

..I can just hear the wails of outrage among Republican bloggers now.  Instead, silence.  Can we say "double standard?"

Rudy is right on the legal technicalities. Being in the country "illegally" is NOT a crime. Rudy is 100% correct. When people are found to be in this country illegally, it's a civil proceeding, not a criminal proceeding. People living in this country who are undocumented are not criminals in so far as the law defines it. Rudy is 100% correct.

It is illegal (a crime) to physically cross the border without the proper legal permission. But the only people to whom that law applies, are people actually caught in the process of crossing the border (or within 50 miles of the border), once you're here, doesn't matter how you got here, being "illegal" is actually NOT illegal.

That's what's so stupid about people who say "illegal is illegal" and then in the same breath say that the whole problem would be solved if we just "enforced our laws." Our laws actually say that illegal is not illegal with respect to undocumented people in this country.

Just Saying, where are you getting your information?  I don't see any reference to 50 miles in the applicable statutes. 

§ 1325.  Improper entry by alien

(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts. Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

8 USCS § 1325

*********

§ 2199.  Stowaways on vessels or aircraft

Whoever, without the consent of the owner, charterer, master, or person in command of any vessel, or aircraft, with intent to obtain transportation, boards, enters or secretes himself aboard such vessel or aircraft and is thereon at the time of departure of said vessel or aircraft from a port, harbor, wharf, airport or other place within the jurisdiction of the United States; or

Whoever, with like intent, having boarded, entered or secreted himself aboard a vessel or aircraft at any place within or without the jurisdiction of the United States, remains aboard after the vessel or aircraft has left such place and is thereon at any place within the jurisdiction of the United States; or

Whoever, with intent to obtain a ride or transportation, boards or enters any aircraft owned or operated by the United States without the consent of the person in command or other duly authorized officer or agent--
  (1) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both;
  (2) if the person commits an act proscribed by this section, with the intent to commit serious bodily injury, and serious bodily injury occurs (as defined under section 1365 [18 USCS § 1365], including any conduct that, if the conduct occurred in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, would violate section 2241 or 2242 [18 USCS § 2241 or 2242]) to any person other than a participant as a result of a violation of this section, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both; and
  (3) if an individual commits an act proscribed by this section, with the intent to cause death, and if the death of any person other than a participant occurs as a result of a violation of this section, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for any number of years or for life, or both.

18 USCS § 2199

******************

§ 1326.  Reentry of removed aliens

(a) In general. Subject to subsection (b), any alien who--
  (1) has been denied admission, excluded, deported, or removed or has departed the United States while an order of exclusion, deportation, or removal is outstanding, and thereafter
  (2) enters, attempts to enter, or is at any time found in, the United States, unless (A) prior to his reembarkation at a place outside the United States or his application for admission from foreign contiguous territory, the Attorney General has expressly consented to such alien's reapplying for admission; or (B) with respect to an alien previously denied admission and removed, unless such alien shall establish that he was not required to obtain such advance consent under this or any prior Act,

shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than 2 years or both.

(b) Criminal penalties for reentry of certain removed aliens. Notwithstanding subsection (a), in the case of any alien described in such subsection--
  (1) whose removal was subsequent to a conviction for commission of three or more misdemeanors involving drugs, crimes against the person, or both, or a felony (other than an aggravated felony), such alien shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both;
  (2) whose removal was subsequent to a conviction for commission of an aggravated felony, such alien shall be fined under such title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both;
  (3) who has been excluded from the United States pursuant to section 235(c) [8 USCS § 1225(c)] because the alien was excludable under section 212(a)(3)(B) [8 USCS § 1182(a)(3)(B)] or who has been removed from the United States pursuant to the provisions of title V [8 USCS §§ 1531 et seq.], and who thereafter, without the permission of the Attorney General, enters the United States, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, and imprisoned for a period of 10 years, which sentence shall not run concurrently with any other sentence.[;] or
  (4) who was removed from the United States pursuant to section 241(a)(4)(B) [8 USCS § 1231(a)(4)(B)] who thereafter, without the permission of the Attorney General, enters, attempts to enter, or is at any time found in, the United States (unless the Attorney General has expressly consented to such alien's reentry) shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both.

For the purposes of this subsection, the term "removal" includes any agreement in which an alien stipulates to removal during (or not during) a criminal trial under either Federal or State law.

(c) Reentry of alien deported prior to completion of term of imprisonment. Any alien deported pursuant to section 242(h)(2) [8 USCS § 1252(h)(2)] who enters, attempts to enter, or is at any time found in, the United States (unless the Attorney General has expressly consented to such alien's reentry) shall be incarcerated for the remainder of the sentence of imprisonment which was pending at the time of deportation without any reduction for parole or supervised release. Such alien shall be subject to such other penalties relating to the reentry of deported aliens as may be available under this section or any other provision of law.

8 USCS § 1326

*************************
§ 1302.  Registration of aliens

(a) It shall be the duty of every alien now [June 27, 1952] or hereafter in the United States, who (1) is fourteen years of age or older, (2) has not been registered and fingerprinted under section 221(b) of this Act [8 USCS § 1201(b)] or section 30 or 31 of the Alien Registration Act, 1940, and (3) remains in the United States for thirty days or longer, to apply for registration and to be fingerprinted before the expiration of such thirty days.

(b) It shall be the duty of every parent or legal guardian of any alien now or hereafter in the United States, who (1) is less than fourteen years of age, (2) has not been registered under section 221(b) of this Act [8 USCS § 1201(b)] or section 30 or 31 of the Alien Registration Act, 1940, and (3) remains in the United States for thirty days or longer, to apply for the registration of such alien before the expiration of such thirty days. Whenever any alien attains his fourteenth birthday in the United States he shall, within thirty days thereafter, apply in person for registration and to be fingerprinted.

8 USCS § 1302

§ 1306.  Penalties

(a) Willful failure to register. Any alien required to apply for registration and to be fingerprinted in the United States who willfully fails or refuses to make such application or to be fingerprinted, and any parent or legal guardian required to apply for the registration of any alien who willfully fails or refuses to file application for the registration of such alien shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not to exceed $ 1,000 or be imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

(b) Failure to notify change of address. Any alien or any parent or legal guardian in the United States of any alien who fails to give written notice to the Attorney General, as required by section 265 of this title [8 USCS § 1305], shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not to exceed $ 200 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both. Irrespective of whether an alien is convicted and punished as herein provided, any alien who fails to give written notice to the Attorney General, as required by section 265 [8 USCS § 1305], shall be taken into custody and removed in the manner provided by chapter 4 of this title [8 USCS §§ 1221 et seq.], unless such alien establishes to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that such failure was reasonably excusable or was not willful.

(c) Fraudulent statements. Any alien or any parent or legal guardian of any alien, who files an application for registration containing statements known by him to be false, or who procures or attempts to procure registration of himself or another person through fraud, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not to exceed $ 1,000, or be imprisoned not more than six months, or both; and any alien so convicted shall, upon the warrant of the Attorney General, be taken into custody and be removed in the manner provided in chapter 4 of this title [8 USCS §§ 1221 et seq.].

(d) Counterfeiting. Any person who with unlawful intent photographs, prints, or in any other manner makes, or executes, any engraving, photograph, print, or impression in the likeness of any certificate of alien registration or an alien registration receipt card or any colorable imitation thereof, except when and as authorized under such rules and regulations as may be prescribed by the Attorney General, shall upon conviction be fined not to exceed $ 5,000 or be imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

8 USCS § 1306

****************

I misremembered it. And the "100 mile rule" comes from the implementation of the border patrol regulations, not from the law itself. There are laws, and then there are regulations. If we were to rely on the law itself, it would apply primarily only to people physically caught crossing the border, and no one else.

In the implementation of applying the law to the border, the border patrol has a 100 mile rule that applies to who they consider to be "caught crossing the border."

You can find the language in 287 (a) (3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 66 Stat. 233, 8 U.S.C. 1357 (a) (3), which provides for warrantless searches of automobiles and other conveyances "within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States," as authorized by regulations to be promulgated by the Attorney General. The Attorney General's regulation, 8 CFR 287.1, defines "reasonable distance" as "within 100 air miles from any external boundary of the United States."

In order to understand that it is "illegal" (a crime) to cross the border, and not "a crime" to be in the US undocumented you have to look at the ALL of the laws regarding immigration. All of the laws you cited above deal specifically with the actual crossing of the border.

Once beyond the "100 miles" undocumented immigrants are subject to "unlawful presence" laws, not "unlawful entry" laws.

Unlawful presence is defined as when any alien is "present in the United States after expiration of the period of stay authorized by the Attorney General or (being) present in the United States without being admitted or paroled."

Unlawful presence violations are civil, not criminal, violations. In other words, being in the united states without the proper documentation is not a crime. And there are hundreds of exceptions to the unlawful presence rules that allow for individuals to have been "unlawfully present" in the U.S. and still be rendered legal (and granted the proper paperwork); which is why the term "illegal means illegal" is so problematic.

So, improper entry is a criminal offense but overstaying a visa is not a criminal offense, but a civil offense and still unlawful, hence illegal.  Right?

Like any good lawyer, Guiliani is trying to weasel on semantics. 

Civil is not criminal. And being in this country does not mean you are here "illegally" until a civil proceeding by the immigration authorities deems it "illegal."

Why are people having such a hard time understanding this. It's not hard. Being in this country without documentation is not a federal crime. Period, full stop. Giuliani is correct on the legal technicalities.

Let me explain this as simply as possible. You are innocent until proven guilty in this country. Which means, very simply, that even if you are in this country without the proper documentation you are not considered illegal or a criminal. You are neither "illegal" nor "a criminal" until being found guilty. Which is why all these laws popping up all over the place to deal with the "illegal population" are so problematic.

They're not illegal, nor are they criminals, they're innocent until proven guilty. That's the way our country works.

And as for this comment:"but a civil offense and still unlawful, hence illegal.  Right?"

Sure, but in the same way that parking in a red zone or driving 10 miles per hour over the speed limit is unlawful and hence illegal.

You get it? Under the law in this country being here "unlawfully" carries the same designation of the law "civil infraction" as does a parking or speeding violation. The only difference is that we allow people to pay for their crimes when they've committed a parking violation or vehicular moving violation. In regards to immigrants we refuse to allow them the option to get right with the law and then deem a whole class of people as "illegal."

Given the way the laws in this country are written, thinking of undocumented immigrants as "illegal immigrants" would be like calling all of the people in this country who speed everyday but never get caught "illegal drivers," it's stupid.

on this issue.  They CLAIM to be against "illegal immigration"  but their actions speak a LOT louder than their (weasel) words.

never talk about Republican hypocrisy, about Republicans taking large amounts of money from companies that employ illegal immigrants, or about the corporate sector much at all?  Instead, they focus almost exclusively on the immigrants themselves.  I wonder why....hmmmm. 

I just don't think Rudy is being a hypocrite in this case. He's right about the law. And, in fact, for once in his life he's telling the truth about what he really thinks. There are lots of examples of GOP hypocrisy with respect to immigration, like the fact that so many of them take money from companies (like Swift & Co and Smithfield) who are known to hire undocumented workers, but this particular example is not an example of hypocrisy.

It may however be an example of how to lose the GOP presidential primary in the span of one interview. We shall see.

By the way, Giuliani took $1000 from Smithfield Foods PAC in February of this year...now that's some hypocrisy.

...they're everywhere, mainly giving to Republicans (yes, they give to Democrats too, but they give something like 3:1 to Republicans) when they're not busting unions, hiring illegal immigrants, and trashing the environment.

Of course, administrative regulations cannot abolish laws enacted by Congress.  The Border Patrol may limit certain of its activities to within 100 miles of the border, but that in itself doesn't change the definition of what is a crime and what isn't.  But I don't think the regulation you cited purports to do that.

What is criminalized under the statutes, as I read them, is not just the act of crossing the border, but illegal entry into the country, which is a status that remains even past your 100 mile mark.  For a first time offender, the fact of illegal entry would need to be proven under section 1325(a).  For someone who is subject to the reentry statute, his or her mere illegal presence in the U.S. would be enough to convict.

The unlawful presence laws seem to apply to people in a different status, i.e., those whose admission into the U.S. was lawful or was thought to be lawful.  That would be people like visa-overstays.  Such folks are deportable under 8 USCS § 1227.  If they willfully fail to register as aliens, that is a crime.  If they committed fraud to get their visa, that is a crime.

As as discussed in a previous thread, if the illegal immigrant or visa overstay person uses forged documents to get work in the U.S., that is also a crime.

What is being done in practice as far as enforcing the immigration laws, and prosecuting violators, is a far, far different thing than what the laws actually provide.  That's the problem.

"In 2005, in summary:
? DHS apprehended more than 1,291,000 foreign nationals. Eighty-five percent were natives of Mexico.
? There were 9,874 criminal arrests and 6,763 convictions for immigration-related activities including financial enforcement, human smuggling and trafficking, general and criminal alien enforcement, identity and benefit fraud, and compliance and work site enforcement.
? ICE detained approximately 238,000 foreign nationals.
? There were 208,521 foreign nationals formally removed from the United States. The leading countries of origin of those removed were Mexico (69 percent), Honduras (7 percent) and Guatemala (6 percent). More than 965,000 other foreign nationals accepted an offer of voluntary departure.
? Expedited removals accounted for 72,911 or 35 percent of all formal removals.
? DHS removed 89,406 criminal aliens from the United States. Nearly 77 percent were from Mexico."

http://www.dhs.gov/x...

So that's a relatively recent snapshot of what has actually been happening on the ground.  About 1.3 million apprehensions, out of which there was 208k detentions, and only 6,763 criminal convictions.  (Note: this seems to show that the immigration laws aren't even being strictly enforced when people are apprehended in the border areas.)

Getting back to Guiliani, his statements might have been correct if he qualified them by saying, "in practice, illegal immigration by itself hasn't except in the most egregious cases been enforced or prosecuted as a crime for the past 40 years." 

"Of course, administrative regulations cannot abolish laws enacted by Congress.  The Border Patrol may limit certain of its activities to within 100 miles of the border, but that in itself doesn't change the definition of what is a crime and what isn't.  But I don't think the regulation you cited purports to do that."

You've got this backwards, the "100 mile" rule doesn't limit the law..it expands it. As written, and interpreted by the U.S. Courts, "illegal entry" only applies to those caught in the act of crossing the border (or within 100 miles of the border). Without the the "100 mile" rule which was established upon implementation of the laws under the guidance of the U.S. Attorney General, you would only be able to apply the law to those caught actually crossing the border.

This has been litigated over and over again in many court cases specifically in regards to illegal search and seizure. The court, has repeatedly affirmed that "unlawful entry" does not apply to just anyone who is here illegally, but is specifically limited to those who are caught crossing the border or within 100 miles of the border.

See ALMEIDA-SANCHEZ v. UNITED STATES, 413 U.S. 266 (1973)

People who are in this country "illegally" and beyond the "100 mile" rule, are subject to laws governing immigration, but unlawful entry is not one of them. Undocumented immigrants in this country are charged with "unlawful presence" (unless they have commmitted other crimes), unlawful presence is a MISDEMEANOR CIVIL OFFENSE. Which is about as serious as a speeding ticket. The consequences can be harsher (you can be deported instead of just getting a ticket), but it is not a criminal charge.

Seriously, Giuliani is right, being an "illegal immigrant" is not a crime in this country.

There are only two things with respect to immigration (absent of some other crime, like identity theft) that rise to criminal conduct in this country:

1. Getting caught physically crossing the border; and
2. Being found to be "unlawfully present" in the US, getting deported, and then being caught again "unlawfully present" in the US.

Being undocumented in the United States is not a crime. now, if you want to argue that it should be, fine. but as the law is currently written, it is not a crime.

By the way, for those of you that were against the supposed "amnesty bill" in the Senate. One of the things that bill did was to make it a crime to be in the united states without proper documentation.

OK, I pulled the Almeida-Sanchez case, and found that it deals with warrantless searches, and doesn't speak to issue that Guiliani addressed and that is addressed above.  But decide for yourselves:

http://supreme.justi...

It cites the exact "100 mile" rule that we're discussing.

in the Almeida-Sanchez case the INS used the "unlawful entry" laws for justification for searching without a warrant. The very question at hand in the case is whether the feds have the right to extend their search for "unlawful entrants" or "criminal behavior" 25 miles from the border.

The whole case hinges on the right of the INS to extend the "unlawful entrant" rules to a "reasonable distance from the border" which has been determined by the United States Attorney General to be "100 air miles from the border."

So, pardon me, but it speaks directly to the issue at hand; which is whether "unlawful entry" applies to people not caught physically crossing the border (which by the way is Rudy's whole damn point).

The case set precedent in two ways:

first, that "unlawful entry" DOES NOT APPLY to everyone who is in the country without proper documentation, which is why the plaintiff was able to having standing at all.

and second, that the "reasonable distance from the border" rule is ineed a reasonable standard for the feds to be using. Hence the 100 mile rule.

In my comment above I stated the following:

"This has been litigated over and over again in many court cases specifically in regards to illegal search and seizure"

which is the same thing as "warrantless searches," so it's not like it I misrepresented the facts of the case or anything, I told you up from what it was about.

I suppose maybe you didn't actually read what I wrote.

We are not talking about warrantless searches in this thread. The issue is whether Guiliani was right or wrong when he said that illegal immigration isn't even a federal crime. 

The following written by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1982 (nine years after the Almeida-Sanchez case):

"Since the late 19th century, the United States has restricted immigration into this country. Unsanctioned entry into the United States is a crime, 8 U. S. C. § 1325, and those who have entered unlawfully are subject to deportation, 8 U. S. C. §§ 1251, 1252 (1976 ed. and Supp. IV). But despite the existence of these legal restrictions, a substantial number of persons have succeeded in unlawfully entering the United States, and now live within various States, including the State of Texas."

Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 205 (U.S. 1982)(finding a Texas statute that barred funds for education of children not "legally admitted" to be a violation of Equal Protection).  Now, in a case like that, if illegal immigration wasn't even a federal crime once you get past 50, or 100, miles from the border, wouldn't the Court have said so? 

Here's a link to Plyler:
http://supreme.justi...

Good lord. Okay, this is my last post becuase I honestly can't stand this anymore. I have tried, tried, to be patient with you, but it is to no avail. You've just cited the most pro-immigrant decision ever handed down by the Supreme Court as evidence to back up a relatively anti-immigrant claim.

Do you not see with your own eyes that the case to which you refere specifically talks about "unlawful entry" which is exactly what we've been talking about.  Unlawful entry is a federal crime. The judge was simply pointing out that we have restrictions on immigration in this country and that there are people who are here who do not have permission to be here. The punishment for some of those people is deportation; which is a CIVIL PROCEEDING BY THE WAY.

When you get deported, it's a CIVIL matter NOT a Criminal matter. Hence NOT ILLEGAL.

The case you are referring to was in regards to whether non-citizens (illegals) were granted protections under the constitution (namely the fourteenth amendment) and so, no, the judge would not have said anything about whether being in the country was a federal crime or not. The whole question at hand had to do with the rights of non-citizens NOT illegal immigration.

Seriously, I'm done, this has gotten absurd. You're citing cases that having nothing to do with the question at hand and to boot, you're citing cases that prove my point for me and don't even realize you are doing it.

If "unlawful presence" was a federal crime, why wouldn't the judge cite it instead of using the "unlawful entry" citation instead? You know why? Unlawful presence isn't a crime, unlawful entry is. And if unlawful entry covered anything beyond the 100 miles why would we have anything called "unlawful presence" which pertained to anything other than those who over-stay their visas? This is just stupid, and I'm done having this argument.

"illegal immigrants" are not prosecuted under the "unlawful entry" statute unless they are caught crossing the border or within 100 miles of the border. Period, full stop.

"illegal immigrants" who are deported are deported because they have been found to have an "unlawful presence" in this country; which is a civil violation. period full stop.

Rudy is correct, illegal immigration is not a crime. there is no such thing. There is "unlawful entry" which is a crime, and there is "unlawful presence" which is not a crime (in the criminal law) because it is a civil misdemeanor. But there is no such thing defined in our law as "illegal immigration." And there never has been, ever.

I've learned a lot, probably more than I ever wanted to know. :)

I agree that this has been a waste of time.  I haven't learned any law from you -- I'll just leave it at that.

Anybody who is interested can read the text of the statutes and read the actual opinions, and make up their own minds. 

well, since I'm apparently a moron (and didn't teach you anything about the law) I'll let Tom Tancredo school you on the subject. From March of last year (in regards to the Sensenbrenner Bill):

http://blogs.usatoda...

Right from Tancredo's own mouth: "Right now, illegal presence in the USA is not a crime; it is a civil infraction. The House Judiciary Committee voted to make it a felony but then was counseled that millions of new felons could clog our courts.

Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., wrote an amendment to his own bill asking that the penalty be reduced from a felony to a misdemeanor; 191 Democrats and a few Republicans voted to keep the felony penalty in the hope that it would be a poison pill to defeat the measure."

Do you see that? "illegal presence in the United States IS NOT A CRIME."

This was the biggest immigration fight last year, an attempt to make illegal presence in the United States a crime. Why it is that everyone is freaking out that Rudy stated exactly the same thing the United States Congress stated last year, I have no idea.

OK, if you want to quibble, you can argue that because there is no federal statute expressly referring to "illegal immigration", then technically Guiliani is correct to say that "illegal immigration" is not a federal crime.  Or, you can pretend that Guiliani was referring to "illegal presence" rather than "illegal immigration", and that he couldn't have possibly been talking about "illegal entry." 

I'll agree that Guiliani was 100% correct if one assumes that none of the following activities would fall within whatever he is calling "illegal immigration":

8 U.S.C. 1160(b)(6) Misuse of information - special agricultural workers

8 U.S.C. 1160(b)(7) False statements in applications - special agricultural workers

8 U.S.C. 1253(a) Failure to depart after final order of removal

8 U.S.C. 1253(b) Failure to comply with terms of release under supervision

8 U.S.C. 1255a(c)(5) Misuse of information - adjustment of status

8 U.S.C. 1255a(c)(6) False statements in applications - adjustment of status

8 U.S.C. 1282(c) Overstay of conditional permit issued to alien crewman

8 U.S.C. 1304(e) Failure to carry alien registration card

8 U.S.C. 1306(a) Failure to register

8 U.S.C. 1306(b) Failure to notify of change of address

8 U.S.C. 1306(c) False statements in application for registration

8 U.S.C. 1306(d) Counterfeiting of registration documents

8 U.S.C. 1324 Bringing in and harboring certain aliens

8 U.S.C. 1324(a)(2)(A) Bringing in and harboring aliens with knowledge they  are unauthorized

8 U.S.C. 1324(a)(2)(B)(i)Bringing in and harboring aliens with knowledge that  they are unauthorized and that they will commit a criminal offense

8 U.S.C. 1324(a)(2)(B)(ii)Bringing in and harboring aliens with knowledge that they are unauthorized, for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain

8 U.S.C. 1324(a)(3) Hiring unauthorized aliens

8 U.S.C. 1324a(f) Engaging in pattern or practice of employing unauthorized aliens

8 U.S.C. 1324c(e)(1) Failure to disclose role as document preparer

8 U.S.C. 1324c(e)(2) Unlawful preparing of application for immigration benefits

8 U.S.C. 1325(a) Initial unlawful entry - improper time or place;avoidance of examination or inspection;misrepresentation and concealment of facts

8 U.S.C. 1325(a) Subsequent unlawful entry

8 U.S.C. 1325(c) Marriage fraud

8 U.S.C. 1325(d) Immigration-related entrepreneurship fraud

8 U.S.C. 1326 Reentry after removal or exclusion

8 U.S.C. 1326(b)(1) Reentry after removal subsequent to conviction for felony

8 U.S.C. 1326(b)(2) Reentry after removal subsequent to conviction for aggravated felony

8 U.S.C. 1326(b)(3) Reentry after removal on security grounds

8 U.S.C. 1326(b)(4) Reentry of nonviolent offender removed prior to completion of sentence

8 U.S.C. 1327 Aiding or assisting entry of inadmissible aliens

8 U.S.C. 1328 Importation of alien for immoral purpose

18 U.S.C. 1423 Misuse of evidence of citizenship or naturalization

18 U.S.C. 1424 Personation or misuse of papers in naturalization proceedings

18 U.S.C. 1425 Procurement of citizenship or naturalization
unlawfully

18 U.S.C. 1426 Reproduction of naturalization or citizenship papers

18 U.S.C. 1427 Sale of citizenship or naturalization papers

18 U.S.C. 1428 Failure to surrender canceled naturalization
certificate

18 U.S.C. 1429 Neglect or refusal to answer subpoena to appear at naturalization hearing

18 U.S.C. 1541 Issuance of passport or other instrument without authority

18 U.S.C. 1542 False statement in application for and use of passport

18 U.S.C. 1543 Forgery or false use of passport

18 U.S.C. 1544 Misuse of passport

18 U.S.C. 1545 Safe conduct violation

18 U.S.C. 1546(a) Forgery or alteration of visa, permit, or other immigration document

18 U.S.C. 1546(a) Personation or false statements in application for immigration document

18 U.S.C. 1546(b) Use of false immigration document

18 U.S.C. 2424 Failure to file factual statement about alien harbored for immoral purpose
 

there is no such thing as "illegal immigration."

In any case, we don't have to "pretend" anything about what Giuliani meant, he told us specifically:

"In fact, when you throw an immigrant out of the country, it's not a criminal proceeding. It's a civil proceeding."

He was talking about "illegal presence" for which the punishment is "removal." It's a civil proceeding, not a crime.

Period. Full stop.

about the line Republicans enjoy throwing around, "what part of 'illegal' don't you understand?"  I wonder what they would say in response to your discussion; how much would THEY understand?

Actually, that's been a part of my thinking on this for a long time. They actually don't understand very much at all.

It's even more true of the general population, they don't understand a thing about immigration policies and law.

In any case, I think my friend and I here have proved pretty clearly that "illegal is illegal" is certainly not as clear cut as it sounds.

It's a complex issue.

Here's the video in which Saint Rudy explains himself:
http://www.ajc.com/n...

Are you surprised that you can't read minds?  :)

Giuliani evidently thinks that a misdemeanor is not a crime!  (Plus he overlooks the reentry statute).