> The city of San Francisco did not give Lopez-Sanchez (the alleged murderer) sanctuary in the same way as described in the article...I found your comparison to medieval sanctuary to be cheap and inflammatory.
Every time I touch on an immigration related topic on HN, I swear it is the last time, but because it is so personal to me I just simply can't resist.
OP falls into the classical logical error equating undocumented/unlawful/illegal immigrants as criminals. It is just simply impossible for certain individuals/groups to wrap their minds around the simple fact that ones immigration status does not and can not constitute a crime in and of itself. Almost everyone is aware there is civil and criminal laws, I also think everyone knows immigration law is civil in nature, but you will never stop those with a certain bias from wrongfully projecting immigration status as a criminal issue, hence the existence of terms such as "illegal immigrant" for the mere fact that is sounds closer to a criminal label...its sad really.
I think many people use the term "illegal immigrant" not because it is pejorative but because it seems like a natural way to distinguish from "legal immigrant". And (if true) I wasn't aware that all immigration law is civil. I'd presumed that there was a parallel with "criminal trespass", but perhaps that phrase is itself a misnomer. Could you point to some sources that explain the difference between "unlawful", "illegal", and "criminal" as you understand them?
>And (if true) I wasn't aware that all immigration law is civil. I'd presumed that there was a parallel with "criminal trespass", but perhaps that phrase is itself a misnomer.
"If true"...like I said there are just certain groups/individuals who can not wrap their minds around the idea immigration status is separate and distinct from criminal law. The crazy thing to me is not even where these ideas come from, I guess it just doesn't matter, but the length people go to in order to maintain their present state of thought. Just do a simple Google Search of "is immigration law civil or criminal", you don't even need to click a result, Google gives you the Answer.
>Could you point to some sources that explain the difference between "unlawful", "illegal", and "criminal" as you understand them?
Its not so much as I understand them, as their definitions in a legal context.
"Unlawful"/"illegal" are terms that may be used interchangeably and by definition indicate the violation of a law (either civil or criminal), so all criminal acts are unlawful/illegal but not all unlawful/illegal acts are criminal. For example, the Court ruled that Apple unlawfully/illegally fixed e-book prices[1], yet that is not criminal nor to we go around calling Apple an "illegal company". That is the pejorative nature of "illegal" in the immigration context, where it implies criminality...in fact is likely the reason you didn't know immigration law is civil and presumed a parallel with criminal trespass.
Source: myself, but I can point you to Black's Law Dictionary, I feel confident their definitions will be consistent with my own.
Trespass is a good example. The law is split into civil and criminal law and depending on jurisdiction and sometimes the status of the land owner (i.e. military, etc), trespass can fall into either camp.
If you break criminal law, you are committing a crime and can be prosecuted and punished for that, on the other hand civil law is characterized as a dispute between two parties and the only crime you can then commit is to flout a court ruling on the matter, which may then progress into criminal law if it is serious enough, or may be referred back for yet more civil proceedings. However even if you do flout a court ruling, and the process becomes criminal, what you originally did remains civil, it is your subsequent conduct towards the court that can be judged as criminal.
Every time I touch on an immigration related topic on HN, I swear it is the last time, but because it is so personal to me I just simply can't resist.
OP falls into the classical logical error equating undocumented/unlawful/illegal immigrants as criminals. It is just simply impossible for certain individuals/groups to wrap their minds around the simple fact that ones immigration status does not and can not constitute a crime in and of itself. Almost everyone is aware there is civil and criminal laws, I also think everyone knows immigration law is civil in nature, but you will never stop those with a certain bias from wrongfully projecting immigration status as a criminal issue, hence the existence of terms such as "illegal immigrant" for the mere fact that is sounds closer to a criminal label...its sad really.