Phillip,
This is largely a matter of semantics. Sure, it is illegal but so isn't speeding, jay walking, etc. How many of us talk about speeders and jay walkers as criminals?
The legislation would make undocumented individuals felons. Most of us think of felons as being criminals; thus the criminalization of undocumented individuals.

"....thus the criminalization of undocumented individuals."

Sorry, Bob. They criminalized themselves by entering the country illegally.

"Undocumented individuals"

I love the political correctness crowd.

That description makes theses people sound like they all awoke in the USA one fine day with amnesia and no paperwork to tell them who or what they actually are.

These folks purposefully entered the country illegally, Bob. That act makes them illegal aliens. Stop trying to turn them into something they are not.

One more thing, Bob.

It is NOT a "matter of semantics". To compare it with jaywalking or speeding trivializes the extent of the problems and costs of illegals entering this country.

"....thus the criminalization of undocumented individuals."

Sorry, Bob. They criminalized themselves by entering the country illegally.

You've take a snipet of what I said out of context. Thus, I'm not responding.

"Undocumented individuals"

I love the political correctness crowd.

That description makes theses people sound like they all awoke in the USA one fine day with amnesia and no paperwork to tell them who or what they actually are.

These folks purposefully entered the country illegally, Bob. That act makes them illegal aliens. Stop trying to turn them into something they are not.

This truly is a matter of semantics. They are absolutely undocumented individuals. They are in this country without documentation that states they can be. My reference is absolutely correct.

And to compare it with jaywalking or speeding is absolutely a good comparision. They are all minor offenses under the law. That is my point as to why this is a sematical issue. I believe being undocumented in this country is a misdemeanor. When you start calling citizens who commit misdemeanors illegal citizens, then you will have a case to make.

It's not semantics, it's legalese -- criminalize meaning to make something a crime, as opposed to a lesser offense or misdemeanor.

The legislation being protested would have made being in this country illegally a felony, which it currently is not.

"And to compare it with jaywalking or speeding is absolutely a good comparision. They are all minor offenses under the law."

Yeah, that's the ticket. Trivialize it in the hopes that citizens ignore it, and therefore the status quo continues.

How very progressive.

The act of entering the country illegally has already been criminalized by any rational interpretation of the law. It's no "lesser offense", and is at least equal to a misdemeanor. A misdemeanor is a crime, by definition.

Let's look at the current law

law:http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=8&sec=1325

A violator is possibly subject to imprisonment of up to six months for a first offense. A second such offense is punishable of imprisonment up to two years.

These are no petty violations, as some would have us believe.

That's hardly in the same category as jaywalking and speeding.

Illegal entry into the US under applicaple Federal law satisfies just about any definition of "crime" and "criminalize" I've read.

HR 4437 would have turned what are now civil violations into criminal acts, i.e., criminalized the behavior.

It's not semantics or political correctness, it's legalese.

HR 4437 was a hair-brained stupid idea. DUMB!

Let's make it a felony and put 'em in jail. YEA! Then we can take all their American children and do...what with them????

"It's not semantics or political correctness, it's legalese."

The violation carries CRIMINAL penalties, not civil penalties. The violation is a CRIME, not a petty offense.

If this is not true, perhaps an attorney or judge would be glad to explain differently.

Clarification:

Illegal ENTRY is clearly a crime. Those who enter the country illegally have already criminalized themselves by that action.

The whole point about not "criminalizing" these people is irrelevant.

Here's Tom Tancredo, the leading Congressional proponent of harsher immigration laws, explaining 4437: "Right now, illegal presence in the USA is not a crime; it is a civil infraction."

The bill would have CRIMINALIZED illegal presence.

Bob, I assume procuring a fake SS card and using to obtain employment is just a minor offense just like jaywalking eh?

"The bill would have CRIMINALIZED illegal presence."

Let's see what the solution to the status of sealing the border, and the solution to what official status those illegals already here will be.

At that point, we will then be able to discuss the possible criminalization for those illegals who refuse to comply with the solution provided by law.

"Bob, I assume procuring a fake SS card and using to obtain employment is just a minor offense just like jaywalking eh?"

Bob can't even accept the fact that Illegals have criminalized themselves already by their entry to the country. He's already indicated he doesn't want to discuss the matter further, so I doubt if he will want to discuss any further criminalization Illegals may bring upon themselves once here.

"Let's see...the solution to what official status those illegals already here will be."

That is exactly what the criminalization debate is about -- what to do with the illegals already here.

The bill to criminalize their presence was one possible solution. It didn't fly.

"The bill to criminalize their presence was one possible solution."

That would be worthless, unless the rest of the equation is solved first.

http://www.immigration-usa.com/ina_96_title_2.html

Under Chapter 7, section 261-266 unfortunately does only allow for misdemeanor treatment of violators. However Dan you are correct that the illegal making or use of documents such as SS cards or other legal forms which would aid an alien to gain rights reserved for citizens of the US is a criminal infraction. That is found in Section 274C .

Some very interesting reading under Chapter 8, Section 273 and 274 concerning criminal penalities. 274A speaks to the unlawful employment of Aliens and 274C speaks to the penalities for such. All are criminal infractions but are unfortunately not being utilized or else the demand for illegals would drop significantly.
Section 275 Speaks to Entry of Aliens at improper time, place, misrepresentation and concealment of facts: This is what we are faced with today and again unfortunately disregard of this law is only a misdemeanor.

The laws need to be strengthened in regard to illegal entry and enforced in regard to employment of the same. Also the laws concerning those who would harbor illegals need to be enforced as well. This in most cases is a criminal offense. This would include the so called "safe zone" cities and towns and could certainly eliminate this problem in a short time.

All of the elected, so called representatives, need to get off their butts and stop the invasion from the south. It is not a Democrat or Republican problem it is a National problem.

Dan,
No, obtaining a fake social security card, as I understand it, is a much more serious offense. Frankly, that isn't what is happening in many of the cases when employers employ undocumented aliens.

Bubba,
Once again, you are taking my words out of context and arguing against a point that I didn't make. Thus, I'm not going to defend an argument that I didn't make. You burned down a straw man that I don't care to defend. I did NOT say that I didn't wish to discuss the matter further.

I learned this week that these illegals from south of the border can come into the hospital and use up to seven different names and we are to accept any of the seven. No matter if the name and birthdate on an insurance card is different than the one the patient gives you, you are to accept an alais. This seems a matter of insurance fraud to me, and probably would be if an American citizen did it.

It is also aganist the standards of Joint Commission (which accredits hospitals). But some big bucks are forcing all this pandering to hispanics and allowing, no demanding, we accept them breaking the law.

Two weeks ago an illegal hispanic woman was admitted into our unit. When she was asked what her name and birthdate was, she gave a different name and birthdate than was on her hospital bracelet and record. According to Joint Commission we have to have two patient identifiers to treat and administer meds. When my coworker discussed this with the interpreter, he responded that Chapel Hill accepted as many as thirteen aliases and MCH up to ten.

To cover her butt, my coworker got a doctor's order saying it was OK to treat this woman without two identifiers. Then it caused a big stink because it was preceived, by the interpreter, that we were discriminating aganist the patient because she was hispanic. We were only following the hospital's policy and procedure not realizing they were for American citizens only.

So please, Bob, don't expect us to have any sympathy for lawbreakers who come here and abuse us and the system. If they don't like the label of criminal, let them go back to where they are not criminals. As long as they are lawbreakers and are covering that fact up with illegal documents, they are criminals in my opinion.

Mary's theory is so preposterous, it does not deserve a response. And I'm being nice to call it preposterous.

Your point is irrelevant regardless of "context", Bob.

By virtue of the nature of their entry to the country, illegals are ALREADY criminalized. It's misdemeanor violation, not a petty offense, and is therefore a crime under any context you want to use.

The point about illegal presesence is moot. Illegals are criminals by fact of illegal entry, and they can be prosecuted and imprisoned for that offense alone.

Straw Man, indeed.

I don't blame you for not wanting to defend your viewpoint. It's the easiest way for you to avoid admitting that you are wrong.

Yvonne,
I didn't ask anyone to have sympothy for anyone.

Bubba
If my point is so irrelevant, why are you so riled up? As Ed points out, even one of the main supporters of the legislation states that illegal presence in this country is a civil offense.

My point is this: Sure, it may be "illegal" to be in this country without proper documentation. It is also "illegal" to jaywalk, speed, and any number of things. When someone references the desire to "criminalize" immigration, they are talking about making undocumented individuals felons.

Now Bubba, tell me that my point is incorrect.

Following is some information that I have found that may be useful to both the debators concerning the definitions of what is illegal and what is not.
First of all there is no defination called Civil Offense as Ed called it. So to use this in a defense or argument concerning boarder crossing legal definitions or terms would be incorrect.
There is a definition to which this would apply and it is called a Civil Penalty. The definition reads as such:
A civil penalty or civil fine is a term used to describe when the state seeks monetary relief against an individual as restitution for wrongdoing by the individual. The civil fine is not considered to be a criminal punishment, because it is primarily sought in order to compensate the state for harm done to it, rather than to punish the wrongful conduct.
Given the definition of the terms this does not seem to fit what those who cross illegally into this country.
A more fitting definition and the one that is used by the INS and that I posted earlier would be as follows:
misdemeanor n. a lesser crime punishable by a fine and/or county jail time for up to one year. Misdemeanors are distinguished from felonies which can be punished by a state prison term. They are tried in the lowest local court such as municipal, police or justice courts. Typical misdemeanors include: petty theft, disturbing the peace, simple assault and battery, drunk driving without injury to others, drunkenness in public, various traffic violations, public nuisances, and some crimes which can be charged either as a felony or misdemeanor depending on the circumstances and the discretion of the District Attorney. "High crimes and misdemeanors" referred to in the U. S. Constitution are felonies.

If my understanding of the new bill that is before Congress or what the majority wishes to see in place, it would be a law that states that it is a felony to cross illegally into the US. Given the reading of misdemeanor it would seem that the Attorney General already has to authority to make this a felony under "high crimes and misdemeanors".
Now, I do not offer this as argument for either side but only as information to hopefully dispel the argument of what is what. It is clear that it is not legalese as Ed calls it nor is it a semantics See the following link for definitions
.http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com.

Now that I have offered the links to both the law dictionary and the INS site(above) perhaps all can do a bit of reading and come to an understanding of what the law is and put an end to nitpicking much ado about nothing.

(sigh)

You're clearly not paying attention to what's previously been said, are you, Bob?

I am not responsible for your lack of comprehension.

By definition, illegal aliens are already criminalized by their illegal entry process. Whether their continued presence becomes a misdemeanor or a felony makes no difference in their already established criminality.

You whole line of disscusion is moot. Your point is irrelevant.

What do you not understand about that?

No Bubba, you are the one that isn't paying attention. Never, ever did I state that undocumented individuals were not criminals, by some definitions. Never did I say that. And you think I have reading comprehension problems? Show me where I said that Bubba.

The LTE asked, how do you criminalize something that is already illegal? My response is this: what they mean by criminalize is to make the penalty stiffer.

Do you follow Bubba? Do you need me to use smaller words? Maybe draw you a picture?

"My response is this: what they mean by criminalize is to make the penalty stiffer"

That's NOT what you said. Here IS what you said:

"Most of us think of felons as being criminals; thus the criminalization of undocumented individuals."

Leaving your "undocument individuals" political correctness aside, that statement pre-supposes that they were not criminals by virtue of their illegal entry. As has been adequately documented, that is not true.

"Never, ever did I state that undocumented individuals were not criminals, by some definitions."

By your above statement, you IMPLIED they were not.

They are criminals by ANY definition becuase of their illegal entry. The whole point is whether we criminalize them FURTHER by the mere fact of their presence here.

The first two quotes that you've taken from me mean the exact same thing. If you make illegal aliens (to use your words) felons, there can be no disagreement as to whether they are criminals. Hence my statement: "Most of us think of felons as criminals, thus the criminalization of undocumented individuals."
I didn't presuppose anything. Nor did I imply anything. You got your panties in a wad by reading more into what I said than I actually did.

And no, they are not criminals by any definition. If one, within the confines of the vernacular, only defines criminals as felons (for the purpose of public discourse) then "illegal aliens" are not criminals, by that definition. Hence, the reason I said early on, this is all semantics.

If they were so clearly criminals, this wouldn't be a debate. No one debates whether a murder is a criminal, do they?

"And no, they are not criminals by any definition."

LOL! And people call me stubborn!

Here you have it, folks....Pharoah Bob, Exaulted King of DeNial.......

Let me see if I can break this down in really plain language.

There exists a definition of criminal which does not include illegal immigrants.

Justification: Obviously, there are plenty of folks that claim illegal immigrants are not criminals. Thus, their definition does not include illegal immigration.

If there exists a definition of "criminal" that does not include illegal immigration, then illegal immigration is not "illegal by ANY definition," as you claim.

If you can't understand that, I'm sorry.

"I'm sorry."

Indeed you are.

I am not responsible for the psychological impediment that keeps you in your alternate political reality despite all the common sense and hard evidence to the contray.

Get help----soon!

I notice you cannot argue against me so you've started name calling. Very sweet.

(yawn)

....whatever, Bob.....

Bob, let me see if I can help you understand what a crime/criminal is:
(crim·i·nal (krm-nl)
adj.
1. Of, involving, or having the nature of crime: criminal abuse.
2. Relating to the administration of penal law.
3.
a. Guilty of crime.

One who commits a crime is a criminal, as per the legal definition, would you not agree?(don't play the jaywalking game with me for it will do you no good.The argument is irrelevant. It and others you have listed are also under these guidlines however not punished as such. The definition is still the same. Period)

The definition of a crime requires the existing intention of committing it (voluntas necandi) , now would you not agree that illegal aliens have an intention of breaking the law when they cross the boarder illegally into the US?

When the alien crosses into the US then they also fall under the category "Malum prohibitum" which means" wrong because it is prohibited. Now would you not say that illegal crossing into the US is wrongful because it is prohibited by law?

According to Western jurisprudence, there must be a simultaneous concurrence of both "actus reus" ("guilty action") and "mens rea" ("guilty mind") for a crime to have been committed;
I do believe that the illegal action of one entering the US without proper documentation would fall under this definition. They have committed a guilty action by entering the US without documentation and they "willfully did so which would create "men rea" which is a "guilty mind".

Given this Bob, what part of criminal do you not now understand?

To help you along since you evidently don't bother to check links which others provide for you before you continue to argue a point which has no grounds I have included the definitions of some of the legal terms used and the sources.
Perhaps these will assist you in overcoming your evident cranius rectumes on this subject.

Mens rea is a Criminal Law concept which focuses on the mental state of the accused and requires proof of a positive state of mind such as intention, recklessness or wilful blindness, or criminal negligence. The standard common law test of liability is usually expressed in the Latin phrase, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means that "the act will not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty". Thus, in jurisdictions with due process, there must be an actus reus accompanied by some level of mens rea to constitute the crime with which the defendant is charged (see the technical requirement of concurrence).

Malum prohibitum (plural mala prohibita, literal translation: "wrong because prohibited")

All definitions are found in the "freedictionary.com" as well in the Legal dictionary which is linked to the same.