We see the question every day and we never go any deeper than a brief look at what the difference really is between legal and illegal immigration.
Basically, we know that if the individual is an “illegal alien,” the individual entered the United States against the law.
However, what happens to that individual after they come across our border against the law? We get a number of answers ranging from the individual has rights just because they entered the United States to he broke the law and has no rights and a host of ideas between the two main ideas.
Let us see if we can maybe draw a line to see the difference. First, let’s show the difference between the terms, legal or illegal.
Let us go to one source to see what it states about Illegal Immigration.
“Illegal immigration, as well as immigration in general, is overwhelmingly upward, from a poorer to a richer country. Living in another country illegally includes a variety of restrictions, as well as the risk of being detained and deported or of facing other sanctions.
There have been campaigns in many countries since 2007 discouraging the use of the term “illegal immigrant”. They are generally based on the argument that the act of immigrating illegally does not make the people themselves illegal, but rather they are “people who have immigrated illegally”. In the United States, a “Drop the I-Word” campaign was launched in 2010 advocating for the use of terms such as undocumented immigrants or unauthorized immigrants when referring to the foreign nationals who reside in a country illegally.”
In the US, the term illegal alien is used in many statutes and elsewhere (e.g., court cases, executive orders). U.S. law also uses the term “unauthorized alien”, but U.S. law provides no overarching explicit definition of the term illegal alien. U.S. immigration laws do use the phrase illegal immigrant, though the phrase has become a common and highly politicized term in the United States.”
- Jump up ^ Taylor, Mark (December 2007). “The Drivers of Immigration in Contemporary Society: Unequal Distribution of Resources and Opportunities”. Human Ecology. 35 (6): 775–776. doi:10.1007/s10745-007-9111-z. Retrieved 10 December 2009.
- Jump up ^ Briggs, V. M. (2009). “The State of U.S. Immigration Policy: The Quandary of Economic Methodology and the Relevance of Economic Research to Know”
- Jump up ^ “Drop the I-Word Campaign”. Race Forward.
- Jump up ^ http://picum.org/words-matter/
- Jump up ^ “2 USC 658”. Cornell University Law School. February 22, 2011. Retrieved 2018-03-24
- Jump up ^ “8 USC 1252c”. Cornell University Law School. March 29, 2011. Retrieved 2018-03-24.
- Jump up ^ “8 USC 1330”. Law.cornell.edu. March 29, 2011. Retrieved 2018-03-24.
- Jump up ^ “8 USC 1356”. Cornell University Law School. Retrieved 2018-03-24.
- Jump up ^ “8 USC 1365”. Cornell University Law School. March 29, 2011. Retrieved 2018-03-24.1996.
- Jump up ^ “8 USC 1366”. Cornell University Law School. September 30, 1996. Retrieved 2018-03-24.
- Jump up ^ “8 USC 1621”. Cornell University Law School. August 22, 1996. Retrieved 2018-03-24.
- Jump up ^ “42 USC 6705”. Cornell University Law School. Retrieved
- Jump up ^ “49 USC 40125”. Cornell University Law School. November 1, 1999. Retrieved 2018-03-24.
- Jump up ^ “8 USC 1188”. Cornell University Law School. June 1, 1986. Retrieved 2018-03-24.
- Jump up ^ “8 USC 1255”. Cornell University Law School. Retrieved 2018-03-24.
2011. Retrieved 2018-03-24.
We should pay attention to the two sentences above that actually contradict themselves to promote the now wild phrase, “undocumented immigrant.” This seems to show that the “politically correct” people do not want the word “illegal” used as it indicates what is a criminal act. This should never be forgotten since these people are, in fact, here illegally.
Let us now show other laws not abided by people crossing across the border against the law.
Immigration Law: An Overview
“Federal immigration law determines whether a person is an alien, the rights, duties, and obligations associated with being an alien in the United States, and how aliens gain residence or citizenship within the United States. It also provides the means by which certain aliens can become legally naturalized citizens with full rights of citizenship. Immigration law serves as a gatekeeper for the nation’s border, determining who may enter, how long they may stay, and when they must leave.
Congress has complete authority over immigration. Presidential power does not extend beyond refugee policy. Except for questions regarding aliens’ constitutional rights, the courts have generally found the immigration issue as nonjusticiable.”
Justiciability refers to the types of matters that the federal courts can adjudicate. If a case is “nonjusticiable.” a federal court cannot hear it. To be justiciable, the court must not be offering an advisory opinion, the plaintiff must have standing, and the issues must be ripe but neither moot nor violative of the political question doctrine.
This says a lot that is never shown when the Democrats and some Republicans try to convince people that “illegal aliens” have rights. The law clearly shows that people who come across our borders only have rights once they become citizens, not before. The laws, no matter how much some people would love for them to state it, are clear that people who cross the border without properly going through the normal process break the law and are “illegal aliens” in the United States. They become criminals due to the breaking of the law that forbids them from entering the United States without going through the legal entry process.
Let us show some laws that should be followed. We show but a brief amount as to show them all would take up more pages than allowed for the article.
According to Law.Cornell.Edu:
“The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (INA), also known as the McCarran-Walter Act, eliminated all race-based quotas, replacing them with purely nationality-based quotas. The INA continues to influence the field of American immigration law. To enforce the quotas, the INA created the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). The INS served as the federal agency that enforced these caps for remainder of the 20th century.
When Congress passed the INA, it defined an “alien” as any person lacking citizenship or status as a national of the United States. Different categories of aliens include resident and nonresident, immigrant and nonimmigrant, and documented and undocumented (“illegal”). The terms “documented” and “undocumented” refer to whether an arriving alien has the proper records and identification for admission into the U.S. Having the proper records and identification typically requires the alien to possess a valid, unexpired passport and either a visa, border crossing identification card, permanent resident card, or a reentry permit. The INA expressly refuses stowaway aliens entry into the U.S.
The need to curtail illegal immigration prompted Congress to enact the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986. The IRCA toughened criminal sanctions for employers who hired illegal aliens, denied illegal aliens federally funded welfare benefits, and legitimized some aliens through an amnesty program. The Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments of 1986 sought to limit the practice of marrying to obtain citizenship. The Immigration Act of 1990 thoroughly revamped the INA by equalizing the allocation of visas across foreign nations, eliminating archaic rules, and encouraging worldwide immigration.
Under international law, the Geneva Convention, or the laws of the United States, foreign citizens who have become disillusioned with their homeland cannot take temporary refuge within the United States. The Refugee Act of 1980 specifically leaves out temporary refuge as a form of refugee status that the U.S. government will recognize.
To qualify for refugee status under the persecution provision, the refugee applicant must prove actual fear. A proof of actual fear requires meeting both a subjective and an objective test. The subjective test requires that the refugee actually have an honest and genuine fear of being persecuted for some immutable trait, such as religion, race, and nationality. Seekers of asylum must show a fear that membership in a social or political group has caused past persecution or has caused a well-founded fear that persecution will occur upon returning. The applicant meets the objective standard by showing credible and direct evidence that a reasonable possibility of persecution exists upon the applicant’s return to the homeland.
The President retains the ultimate decision making authority when determining the number of refugees to allow into the country during a given year.
Deferred Action (DACA/DAPA)
Deferred action is an administrative relief from deportation; DHS temporarily authorizes non-U.S. citizens to remain in the U.S. Through deferred action, a non U.S. citizen may apply for employment authorization for the duration of the temporary stay. Recipients of deferred action grants, however, cannot claim lawful status during that time, but they are considered lawfully present in the U.S. In other words, they are not accruing unlawful presence, which could later render them inadmissible to the U.S. if and when they apply for permanent legal status. DHS grants deferred action on a case-by-case basis.
In June 2012, the Obama administration introduced the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. The program aimed to grant deferred action to those under 31 as of Jne 15, 2012, who entered the U.S. before their sixteenth birthday and continuously resided in the U.S> without lawful status since at least June 15, 2007. The policy rationale was to prevent deportation of young adults and children, who grew up as Americans yet did not voluntarily enter the U.S. without lawful status.
In November 2014, President Obama announced a series of executive actions to address illegal immigration and to prioritize deporting felons not families. The executive actions expanded the DACA program by extending the period from two to three years, removing the age requirement, and easing the continuous residency requirement (continuous residency since June 15, 2007 changed to January 1, 2010). The executive actions also introduced the new Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) program. The DAPA program permits parents of U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents (LPR) to apply for deferred action if they have continuously resided in the U.S. since January 1, 2010 and had a U.S. citizen or LPR child as of November 20, 2014.
The expanded DACA and DAPA programs, however, are on hold due to a pending Supreme Court case, United States v. Texas. USCIS is not currently accepting applications for the expanded DACA or DAPA programs.
- Article I, Section 8 – Congressional Authority to Establish Uniform Rules of Naturalization
- CRS Annotated Constitution:
- 8 U.S.C., chapter 12 – Immigration and Nationality
- 8 U.S.C., chapter 13 – Immigration and Naturalization Service
- 18 U.S.C., Part I, chapter 69 – Nationality and Citizenship (in the context of crimes)
- 8 C.F.R. – Aliens and Nationality
- U.S. Supreme Court:
- U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals: Immigration Cases
- Federal Agencies:
- Immigration Law (Nolo)
- American Immigration Law Foundation
- Immigration Equality’s Immigration Law Glossary
- ITA’s Immigration Law Resources
- Siskind’s Immigration Bulletin
As can be seen by all the information shown here, if an individual does not come into the United States legally, they are criminal “illegal aliens” with no rights under our Constitution and they do not have any rights to “free” food, housing or other items citizens get. To grant them any of these rights is illegal in and of itself. If people wish to come to the United States, they can do so legally.
On the matter of refugees, It is clearly shown by law that the President can stop any flow of refugees at any time he wants.
Today, we have too many illegal aliens within the borders of our nation who are abusing programs designed for our citizens and that is draining our resources when we should be taking care of our citizens first.
We do hope that maybe we have shown enough here to illustrate that people in the United States illegally have no right to anything in our nation until they become citizens.Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook and Twitter, and follow our friends at RepublicanLegion.com.
Become an insider!
Sign up for the free Freedom Outpost email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.