Thread: H.R. 4437 to make illegal presence a felony?

http://patterico.com/2006/03/26/4375...ent/#more-4375

H.R. 4437 is to amend Section 1325(a), the relevant statutory provision, as follows:

Section 275 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1325) is amended–

. . . .

(2) in subsection (a)–

(A) by striking `Any alien’ and inserting `Except as provided in
subsection (b), any alien’;

(B) by striking `or’ before (3);

(C) by inserting after `concealment of a material fact,’ the following:
`or (4) is otherwise present in the United States in violation of the
immigration laws or the regulations prescribed thereunder,’; and

(D) by striking `6 months’ and inserting `one year and a day’;
______________________________________

An illegal alien convicted of illegal presence in the U.S. thereby becomes a felon. But it isn't spelled out as a felony. Can "one year and a day" apply to a misdemeanor?

Should a felon thereafter apply for citizenship, it cannot be granted. To be
admissible as an immigrant, an alien must establish that he or she “has not
been convicted of any felony or of three or more misdemeanors
committed in the United States” according to
8 U.S.C. 12 §1255a Statute (a) (4) (B),
8 U.S.C. 12 §1255a Statute (b) (1) (C) (2),
8 U.S.C. 12 §1255a Statute (b) (2) (B) (ii).

Aliens applying for welfare are subject to the same restriction.

I read somewhere recently that a citizen can make a citizen'a arrest of a felon.

If HR4437, or whatever the UnRoman Senators pass, makes an illegal alien a felon, can we make a citizen's arrest on them?

Why is it a one year grace period?

Mexican law states, "Mexico reserves the right to arrest and deport any illegal alien it deems inconvenient and can do so without the necessity of judicial procedure."

Mexico uses the "arrest and deport-without-discussion" tactic, but if we try it, they all cry racist. Piss on the bastards.

I say we arrest them all and deport, ah first we should give them some hard labor, like building a REAL wall on the border.

Would anyone besides me care to testify as to what it is like to seek work in Mexico while holding only a visitors visa. Even a work exchange for a stay at a hotel is against the law. As a young man who was found there working on a visitors visa doing freelancing with a Polaroid I was warned by their SRE police that unless I stopped I would soon be pinched, incarcerated and deported in a matter of less than a month. The hypocrisy of the Mexicans churns the stomach.

Illegal entry, except the first offense, is a felony at present.

Does anyone care to predict whether this immigration "reform" will felonize either illegal presence or illegal entry (first offense)?

They say its a misdemeaner , the act of crossing the border the first time.... But how bout the years of tax evasion ? Forgery for the illegal documentation? Countless other offences like welfare fraud that you or me would be behind bars for for years !!

Illegal entry is against the law but inconvenient for the government to enforce and not a popular law with the Democrats or the company owned republicans. So it is not enforced even though a huge majority of legal citizens favor enforcement. I wonder how long the government would sit idle if we chose to ignore the very unpopular tax law. Would Bush say we just want to provide more for our families. I doubt it.
P.S. Our newest residents get a pass on cheating I.R.S.

What happened on the felony provisions was that the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee decided to remove the felony provisions. So he submitted an amendment for that purpose, thinking it would pass easily.

However it didn't because all the Democrats voted against the amendment and a few Republicans as well, so the amendment failed. That was obviously a serious failure for the Republicans because it gave the demonstrations extra focus and support.

Democrats were apparently trying to make the final bill unacceptable to enough Republicans to kill it. They didn't succeed but the felony provisions remained in. The Chairman promised they would be taken out in negotiations with the Senate.

The source for this information is Rep. Tom Tancredo reported in the Washington Post.