The "Mayor Libby Schaaf Act"

[HoughMade]

I kinda don't care what other countries treat as a crime. (Some consider things like criticizing the government and being homosexual to be crimes, too.)

Regarding the US law, it is a misdemeanor to enter without the approval of a border agent. A fine and no more than 6 mos in jail. In state court, that kind of thing is often eligible for a deferral/diversion program or expungement.

The "real" problem (IMHO) are the people who actually enter legally, and either intentionally or unintentionally, overstay their visa. They successfully avoided that misdemeanor crime you mention, so are not "illegal." They have remained "unlawfully" but have not - from what I can tell - committed a crime.

ETA:
Linkification-
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325#a

I don't disagree with your analysis. I disagree with your semantics.

Being here "unlawfully" vs. "Illegal" is 6 of one, half dozen of the other. If someone said that a person who "overstayed" entered the country illegally, that would be wrong. However, for someone to say that it is illegal for them to remain in the country, that's accurate.

Further, I think we can agree that "illegal", believe it or not is a general term that means that it is....not legal. "Illegal" may be civil, regulatory, administrative or criminal (or other). It need not mean "criminal" alone.

...but back to the issue at hand. I think it would be a bad idea to criminalize "tipping off" someone on immigration enforcement, but I would fully endorse the removal of specific federal money from local governments that did this.

 

[T.Lex]

I don't disagree with your analysis. I disagree with your semantics.

Being here "unlawfully" vs. "Illegal" is 6 of one, half dozen of the other. If someone said that a person who "overstayed" entered the country illegally, that would be wrong. However, for someone to say that it is illegal for them to remain in the country, that's accurate.

Further, I think we can agree that "illegal", believe it or not is a general term that means that it is....not legal. "Illegal" may be civil, regulatory, administrative or criminal (or other). It need not mean "criminal" alone.

From my small insights into the world of immigration law, it is a very important difference.

So, if we're talking about "average American" parlance, sure - there are a SIG ton of legalese words that can be fudged. But, the reality is that the words become very important and the legal nuances create varied outcomes.

Semantics? I'm always up for some antics.

 

[HoughMade]

From my small insights into the world of immigration law, it is a very important difference.

So, if we're talking about "average American" parlance, sure - there are a SIG ton of legalese words that can be fudged. But, the reality is that the words become very important and the legal nuances create varied outcomes.

Semantics? I'm always up for some antics.

I guess my question is whether you think Joe Six-Pack, even Joe-doughy-Middle-Aged Politician is using "illegal" in the immigration law sense, or in the more general sense of "not legal" when they are speaking of someone in the country who has no lawful status to be here. I would venture the latter. To the person who is affected, personally, by the distinction (and those involved in a given case) the distinction is important. From a policy perspective, it's less important.

 

[T.Lex]

I guess my question is whether you think Joe Six-Pack, even Joe-doughy-Middle-Aged Politician is using "illegal" in the immigration law sense, or in the more general sense of "not legal" when they are speaking of someone in the country who has no lawful status to be here. I would venture the latter. To the person who is affected, personally, by the distinction (and those involved in a given case) the distinction is important. From a policy perspective, it's less important.

See - you had me right up to that last line.

When talking policy, the specific language is MORE important.

When talking anecdotes, it matters less.

I think we both see INGO as a "The More You Know" opportunity.

For instance, BluedSteel's anecdote is certainly interesting, and important to him. But it remains a layman's anecdote, without a complete understanding of the process or the framework. And that's ok.