(·) Edit: Unlawful entry (border hopping) is a crime, punishable by $250 in civil penalties, but no jail time. Essentially a jaywalking ticket. Unlawful presence is not a crime.
Wrong, you can be present unlawfully after completely lawful entry.
> So pretty clear that it's illegal.
Unlawful presence is obviously illegal, but it is not criminal. The two words do not mean the same thing.
What you present is the converse of the claim under discussion. And, for that matter, is also false. A lawful permanent resident alien who enters (say, after a vacation abroad) other than at a designated border crossing is not unlawfully present, but has committed the offense of illegal entry.
No, it's a crime punishable by imprisonment for up to 6 months and/or fine of up to $5,000 (as a class B misdemeanor) for a first offense and 2 years imprisonment and/or fine of up to $500,000 (as a felony) for a subsequent offense.
It is also a civil offense with civil penalties of $50-$250 the first time a civil penalty is imposed, and double that subsequently.
See 8 USC § 1325(a) for the crime, associated imprisonment, and reference to fines under title 18, and § 1325(b) for the civil offense; 18 USC § 3559 for classification of crimes based on maximum imprisonment, and § 3571 for fines based on classification of crimes.
Entering the country without permission is illegal, but let's not act like it's a crime so heinous that law enforcement should be exempt from due process and warrants and such when prosecuting people for it.
Keep in mind that ICE does sometimes inadvertently deport US citizens, and that there is no central database of who is or is not a US citizen, nor any single canonical way to prove citizenship.
Every country on the planet has borders that are enforced. Every country has immigration policies that just be followed. Every country that finds immigrants that are there undocumented (illegally) deports them and uses databases with public/private cooperation to do so.
There are ways to prove citizenship. Easily obtainable documents like a social security card, passport, birth certificate, etc... . There is no real issue with ICE deporting Americans. None whatsoever.
this is pretty sensationalized. It's very rational to request proof of citizenship before allowing entry to a country
As such, if I am a U.S. citizen, and say so, the burden is then upon the officer to identify a reason to suspect that I am not actually a citizen before requiring that I submit to additional questioning or produce documentation. We desire that our cops be required to have an actual reason before hassling us. That form of behavior was what goaded our forebears into shooting at the king's men.
At the risk of inciting an opinionated pissing contest, I'd say that meekly presenting your official papers to a government authority is reason to suspect that you are not an American, and that loudly arguing with the officer (especially when relying on spurious legal grounds) is almost as good as stapling a notarized copy of your birth certificate to your forehead.
I think a simple majority of Americans would probably prefer the government to treat the public more respectfully and courteously--citizens or not--even if it means some dangerous people will find it easier to commit crimes. I may be mistaken in this perception, but I wish for it to be true. It's a crying shame that people are deciding not to visit because our government is acting like a paranoid brute and that I can't find any rational grounds to disagree with their decisions to stay away.
Obviously if they're undocumented immigrants then they're criminals. My point is that ICE can't consider them to be definitely criminals until that's actually proven in court. You can't just say, well, ICE is totally sure that José over there is undocumented, so it's OK if ICE treats him like a criminal even though they haven't gone to court.
I'm not saying we shouldn't guard the borders or enforce immigration law. I'm saying that it's still law enforcement and the ideas of innocent until proven guilty, and requiring warrants for searches, still applies. Or at least should apply.
Not every US citizen has a social security card, passport, or even a birth certificate. There are quite a few US citizens that get detained by ICE:
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/12/22/504031635/...
And yes, sometimes they do get deported:
https://news.vice.com/article/the-us-keeps-mistakenly-deport...
Also while people in the US who are here illegally may be permitted due process, it'll be a pretty easy case. Are you a US citizen? Yes? No? Pretty simple. I guess you could argue that the state has to provide evidence that you're not, but if the evidence doesn't exist you're asking the state to prove something exists that doesn't, which is a non sequitor.
I don't understand your last part. If the state can't prove something exists that doesn't, then the state can't prove its case, so the accused should go free, no? We don't change the rules of legal proof just because it's inconvenient to the state.
Because that's essentially what you're saying here.
I'm guessing that ICE is generally able to demonstrate, beyond a reasonable doubt, that most illegal immigrants are not citizens. Most can be fairly easily proven not to have had US citizenship from birth (due to being born outside the US to non-American parents), and there is a central database of naturalized citizens, so if they are also absent from that, done.
What I'm saying here is simply that if it is indeed impossible to prove, as you say, that is not a good reason to relax standards of proof.
> Imagine if the local police were able to use CIA records, including phone and location data, to prosecute you for, say stealing a car.
Imagine if the local police were able to use their plate reader software to identify and prosecute people who had stolen cars?
Police are allowed to use license plate readers because that's considered to be in public view. Since the CIA is separate from both ICE and the local police, let's just use CIA in the analogy too.
Do you have a source for this? It's not clear to me that this is the case -- and if it is we are totally screwed whether Palantir is involved or not.
Casting it off as, "it's just a job someone has to do it", is a pretty weak defence.