DescentBB

...because the laws of the country are no longer respected, much less observed.

Huntington Park Councilman To Appoint 2 Undocumented Immigrants As Commissioners

HUNTINGTON PARK (CBSLA.com) — Huntington Park may become the first city in California to appoint two undocumented immigrants as commissioners on city advisory boards, a lawmaker confirms.
City Councilman Jhonny Pineda has picked Francisco Medina to join the health and education commission and Julian Zatarain for the parks and recreation commission.

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2015/08/ ... issioners/

Yeah, the immigration thing really bothers me. On one hand: I think a lot of these people should be (have been) let in - they fill a valid place in our country, and I think we grew to greatness through immigrants. At the same time, I hate the way that condoning illegal immigration just tosses the law to the side. I'm a firm proponent of "follow the law whether you like it or not." My solution, I suppose: Open up the immigration rules dramatically, but require that people have proper documentation to immigrate. In terms of implementation, I'd be perfectly happy to turn a blind eye to people who drive across the border into Mexico (or Canada) and immediately turn around to enter legally... but it's important to me to force people to do that - to say, basically, "I'm not going to hunt down your history to see if you ever crossed illegally, but if you want in right now, you need to show respect for our immigration/border processes right now." IMO it sets a foundation of respect for the law in our immigration process - and simply granting amnesty to me implies that it's okay to break the law that you're about to swear loyalty to.

snoopy wrote:Yeah, the immigration thing really bothers me. On one hand: I think a lot of these people should be (have been) let in - they fill a valid place in our country, and I think we grew to greatness through immigrants. At the same time, I hate the way that condoning illegal immigration just tosses the law to the side. I'm a firm proponent of "follow the law whether you like it or not." My solution, I suppose: Open up the immigration rules dramatically, but require that people have proper documentation to immigrate. In terms of implementation, I'd be perfectly happy to turn a blind eye to people who drive across the border into Mexico (or Canada) and immediately turn around to enter legally... but it's important to me to force people to do that - to say, basically, "I'm not going to hunt down your history to see if you ever crossed illegally, but if you want in right now, you need to show respect for our immigration/border processes right now." IMO it sets a foundation of respect for the law in our immigration process - and simply granting amnesty to me implies that it's okay to break the law that you're about to swear loyalty to.

Agreed.

After reading the details in the article it sounds like Pineda did the right thing.

A typical troll by vision

The article wrote:Pineda stresses that the two appointees would not be paid – federal law prohibits that – and that they will have no power to determine city policy.

While it may be a bad call PR-wise, is there technically any issue here?

Do those opposed to having them as unpaid volunteer advisors have any legal basis for their objection, or is it strictly a debate about principles?

If they are here illegally then they should be deported

And if they are making the community a better place?

vision wrote:And if they are making the community a better place?

Well, what if a bunch of people rob a bank and redistribute the money to needy people? Wouldn't that help people in need too?

ThunderBunny wrote:Well, what if a bunch of people rob a bank and redistribute the money to needy people? Wouldn't that help people in need too?

What if a meteor came out of nowhere and hit the northwest corner of the states? wouldn't that help people in need too?


Answer the friggin question.

vision wrote:And if they are making the community a better place?

They still need to be deported. If a person commits a crime, goes into hiding, takes on a new identity, becomes a model citizen and then years later are discovered by authorities...they are still arrested for the crime they committed. Depending on the judge, they may either have to serve their time in prison or the sentence may be reduced for their good behavior. In either case the criminal is still treated as such. No different for the person who illegally enters the country.

keep in mind that immigration is a civil, rather than criminal, matter.

So since we are making things clear here…civil code violations contain penalties just like criminal code, and in this case we are talking about detention and/or deportation.

No, illegal immigrants are not criminals, but they are in violation of the law.

Depends on how they entered the country. If they illegally crossed the boarder then:

, inserted "or attempts to enter" after "(1) enters" and "attempts to enter or" after "or (3)", and substituted "shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined not more than $2,000 (or, if greater, the amount provided under title 18) or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years" for "shall, for the first commission of any such offenses, be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof be punished by imprisonment for not more than six months, or by a fine of not more than $500, or by both, and for a subsequent commission of any such offenses shall be guilty of a felony and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than two years, or by a fine of not more than $1,000". Subsec. (c). - See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/8/12 ... s6B54.dpuf

EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1996 AMENDMENT Section 105(b) of div. C of Pub. L. 104-208 provided that: "The amendments made by subsection (a) [amending this section] shall apply to illegal entries or attempts to enter occurring on or after the first day of the sixth month beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act [Sept. 30, 1996]." EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1991 AMENDMENT Amendment by Pub. L. 102-232 effective as if included in the enactment of the Immigration Act of 1990, - See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/8/12 ... s6B54.dpuf

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/8/12 ... 1325/notes