„Illegal immigrants avoid deportation and are eligible for work permits if they arrived in the United States before the age of 16, are under 30, have been in the country continuously for at least five years, have no criminal history, graduated from a U.S. high school or obtained a GED, or served in the military.” But, of course, illegal immigrants are not law-abiding by definition, and the last to seek refuge in New Haven, as they were a few years ago, were given a deportation order, then a few temporary stays before being denied another. While it seems fairly harmless, terrorists and other non-benefactors could be encouraged by the mayor`s assurance that anyone who enters the country illegally and travels to New Haven should be exempt from prosecution because New Haven substitutes its own immigration policy for the United States. No foreigner needs to be screened before arriving in New Haven. Just because a person has not been tried, prosecuted and convicted does not necessarily mean that he or she has not committed criminal activity. This often applies to immigration enforcement, where ICE encounters, for example, a number of illegal aliens using false documents on a construction site. ICE often makes the decision to deport people because of their illegal status without, for example, charging them with identity theft or perjury, although the fraud was used to get the jobs. The decision not to prosecute the alien for perjury or fraud is a way to avoid spending resources on detention and prosecution. Such a decision is also advantageous for the foreigner, as it avoids the penalty associated with the criminal offence (fine or imprisonment). Of course, deportation without punishment for crimes committed here is arguably a loss for the United States (and for individual victims) because fines are never collected. It also has the effect that an illegal alien appears to be „non-criminal” and „otherwise law-abiding”. Some illegal immigrants bring family members to the United States illegally, a fact that was the subject of much debate during the recent debate over the failure of the DREAM Act and President Obama`s Deferred Action Program.
If amnesty becomes law, it is interesting to think about how this violation can never be punished; it seems more likely that smuggler parents of DREAM beneficiaries could gain legal status due to existing chain migration laws. But any illegal alien who has brought a child across the border is liable under this law. Failure or intentional refusal to leave the country (8 U.S.C. § 1253). Many illegal aliens have already been invited by immigration authorities to leave the country, and they have 90 days to do so from the final deportation order. If a final deportation order has been issued against an alien and the alien deliberately refuses or refuses to leave the United States, applies in good faith for the necessary travel documents in good faith, or takes steps to prevent or prevent the alien`s departure, the alien is liable to a fine and/or imprisonment for up to four years. An alien shall be liable to the same penalties if he intentionally fails or refuses to submit to deportation at the time and place required by the Government. If the alien is involved in smuggling, high-speed theft from a checkpoint, or other serious crimes listed in the law, they face up to 10 years in prison.35 It is not true that an alien is „law-abiding” in the United States 90 days after a deportation order. The focus should be on criminals „who really pose a threat to our citizens” and not spend time and energy prosecuting law-abiding people.
As the Miami Herald`s Naked Politics blog points out, „Another sign that Hispanics are key to presidential politics is that of President Barack Obama. Stop deportation and issue work permits to nearly 1 million immigrants who entered or remained in the U.S. illegally as children, and would be eligible for the DREAM Act, which is stalled in Congress due to the election-year stalemate and competing proposals. „Millions of illegal aliens have committed identity theft, a crime that claims real victims. However, the White House is unlikely to require foreigners seeking amnesty to provide the names and Social Security numbers they have used in the past. The original DACA amnesty application required applicants to provide the social security numbers they had previously used; After amnesty advocates complained, the Obama administration lifted the demand, leaving American victims—the real owners of the numbers—completely ignorant of the crimes committed against them.11 Real victims were created, but the amnesty gives a pass to these violations by placing the interests of the illegal alien above U.S. interests.