Under Title 8 Section 1325 of the U.S. Code, "Improper Entry by Alien," any citizen of any country other than the United States who: Enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers; or Eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers; or Attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact; has committed a federal crime. Violations are punishable by criminal fines and imprisonment for up to six months. Repeat offenses can bring up to two years in prison. Additional civil fines may be imposed at the discretion of immigration judges, but civil fines do not negate the criminal sanctions or nature of the offense. Staying past the expected departure date on your U.S. visa can carry some serious consequences. For example, your visa will be automatically voided, and you won't be able to apply for a new visa at any consulate outside of your home country. In some cases, you may be barred from returning to the U.S. for a number of years, depending on how long you stayed and whether you fit into an exception or actually accrued "unlawful presence," which is a separate definition under the law.... There are three levels of penalties for overstaying a U.S. visa and accruing unlawful presence that can end with you being banned from the U.S. for a period of time -- or permanently. If you accrue unlawful presence of more than 180 continuous days but less than one year, but you leave before any official, formal removal procedures (i.e. deportation) are instituted against you, you will be barred from reentering the United States for a period of three years. If you accrue unlawful presence of more than 365 continuous days, then leave prior to any deportation or other formal procedures being instituted against you, you will be subsequently barred from reentering the United States for a period of ten years. If you accrue unlawful presence of more than one year total (in the aggregate, not necessarily continuous), or are ordered removed (deported) from the U.S., and subsequently attempt to enter without inspection (for example, attempt to sneak across the border), then you will be permanently barred from the U.S., with no waiver available except to VAWA self-petitioners. (After ten years, however, you can request special permission to apply for a U.S. visa or green card.) It's important to note that these consequences apply only if you depart the United States and attempt to return. In a few rare instances, people eligible for green cards can avoid the time bars by adjusting status within the U.S. -- that is, submitting all their paperwork to USCIS and attending an interview within the United States. However, not everyone is eligible to adjust status. For example, people who entered the U.S. illegally (without a visa or other lawful admission) cannot adjust status. Such people would, despite being technically eligible for a green card, have to apply for it through an overseas U.S. consulate, at which time the time bars could be applied, unles they qualify for a waiver based on extreme hardship to a qualifying U.S. relative. But there's a way around this trap for some immediate relatives of U.S. citizens, if no other grounds of inadmissibility apply to them and they can prove extreme hardship to a U.S. citizen spouse or parent: They may be able to apply for a "provisional waiver" (also called the "stateside waiver") from USCIS, and make sure it's approved, before leaving for the U.S. consulate. http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo...quences-of-overstaying-on-temporary-visa.html But as we al know, you can ignore all of these laws today, Obama will make sure of it.
Obama is just a puppet for his party, and everything he does is for show. He's like a really bad actor or something. Lol.
Well a federal judge just gave Obama a spanking. Obama also got busted for telling the DHS not to enforce the law or face the consequences. This is breaking news and I just posted a thread on this topic in the Breaking News Forum.
The problem with this is that who will conduct it, and how will it be paid for? Today, gun safety courses are conducted by certified gun ranges, who have to pay for the instructors and range to be certified to conduct the classes. In California, the classes on average are around $160, and that is paid to the gun range to cover overhead. The test is another $25, and allows a single retake in that cost at no additional charge. So in total, $185 for the class and test. If it was to be free, then somebody is going to have to volunteer to conduct the class for free. And I can't see that happening. Gun ranges are in the business to make money, not give away free training that makes them no money. And if it was tried to make them free, then I can see no ranges offering to teach the classes. If it was to be conducted by the state, then once again, who pays for it? States do not give away free Driver's Training classes (other then some that are largely subsidized by car lots in the Secondary School Curriculum). They also do not conduct free Nursing License programs, free Security Guard training programs, or anything else from SCUBA Diving to Skydiving. All of these activities require training and certification in order to do them, and absolutely nobody simply "gives them away". Sorry, as much as I support gun rights, I refuse to subsidize the training out of my taxes just so somebody else can pass the requirements to get a firearm. If they want a gun without requirements, licensing, or training, then let them get a muzzleloader. There is no background check for them, no waiting period. Anybody of legal age can go and buy one and just walk right out the door with one. Of course not. Because a felony requires a mandatory criminal trial, and then a conviction and incarceration. Illegals and overstays are treated as they are, an administrative violation. They are generally not convicted for that act, and not tried or imprisoned. They simply have a hearing to determine if they violated the law then deported from the country. Sorry, big time failure here. No matter how much I am against illegal immigration, I am not about to support have them actually treated like criminals, sentenced to lengthy jail sentences, and imprisoned for over a year (the one year or more sentence is the general litmus test if something is a felony or not). Do not put people who commit immigration fraud on themselves in jail for a year or more, and the massive increase in both backlog of cases and cost if increased incarceration. Just hole a hearing to determine if they are indeed legal or illegal, then deport them if they are illegal. However, if the violating of a visa involves either falsifying the visa or defacing it, that is indeed a felony in and of itself, completely separate from the immigration violation. But simply ignoring the visa is not a felony.
There are many currently driving who should never have been given a driver's license due to their ineptitude. There is also the matter of the program being suspended by a lack of funding, rendering it inaccessible. Just as was done in the district of columbia over thirty years ago.
Perhaps when enough crimes are committed by illegal immigrants exploiting their unlawfully gained licenses, the issuance will be terminated once again.
Here in Massachusetts there have already been several instances where an illegal immigrant has killed people with a vehicle. They are DANGEROUS behind the wheel and should not be allowed to drive at all. Not to mention, they are illegal! It disgusts me that anyone would issue them drivers licenses.
Your lucky, Obama plans to move to the Left Coast after he's evicted from public housing in January of 2017. We don't need anymore socialist loons in California. Obama is so lame he bought a house in Rancho Mirage which is pretty red and has a high gun ownership. I'm going to have to keep my eye on Rancho Mirage home prices on Zillow, there's already talk of "There goes the neighborhood."
I doubt it, there are more stupid people today in California than logical people. The Republican Party in California is really no more. The state is ruled by one political party. As the old saying goes, "Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming to Get Out." What happened to all of the Americans and Republicans who use to live in California ? They got the hell out of California. These were the tax payers who use to keep California tax coffers full. It's estimated that 10 million American born California residents left the state during the past 25 years. But there was no reduction in population, they were replaced by immigrants and illegal aliens and their anchor babies. Most of them uneducated, unskilled stupid people who want free stuff and want the government to tell them how to live their lives.
Yes and so eventually one ends up with extremely wealthy gated community type leftists and extremely poor illegals and their first or second generation offspring who discover that there is no future in living in California.
There's already two Califonia's, I think it's was the original agenda of liberals. Abandoned farms, Third World living conditions, pervasive public assistance -- welcome to the once-thriving Central Valley. Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/255320/two-californias-victor-davis-hanson
The problem with this really started in the 1990's, when a lot of Democrats went out to play games with the elections. A lot of Democrats in the 1990's purposefully registered as Republicans, simply so they could vote in the primaries. This has so skewed the primary system that we really have not had a decent Republican run for Governor since Pete Wilson in 1994. We keep ending up with these weak wishy-washy Republicans who have no name recognition, and do horrible on election day. Of course, California is broken in another way. I for one find the very idea of a "supermajority" to be offensive, no matter which party holds it. However, that might slowly be changing. This last year, enough Republican Legislatures won that for the first time in over 20 years, the Democrats do not have a supermajority in the state assembly. And it is about time. I have found it rather offensive that a single party in the state had so much power that it was able to force anything through the legal process that it wanted to, even over the objections of the people and the governor. And in this I am actually consistent. The idea of Republican supermajority is just as offensive to me as a Democratic one. No party should ever have that kind of power.
That's one of the problems with open primaries. The Democrat party does have a track record of organizing Democrats to vote for weak Republican candidates during the primaries.
In California, they tend to be not crazy at all, but damned near invisible. In 1998, the Republican Candidate was Dan Lungren. The State Attorney General, some of his largest fame was in sending a letter to video game companies to ask them to stop making violent video games. Interestingly enough, his main candidate was another Republican, openly gay and a pro-marijuana advocate. But the last thing the Democrats wanted was to go against Dennis Peron in the state election. In 2002, California had Bill Simon. Largely an outsider (he only moved to California in 199, few California Republicans could see themselves supporting a "carpetbagger" lawyer from New York. Meanwhile, the hugely popular LA Mayor Richard Riordan (who had been leading in every poll among Republicans) ended up going down in defeat in the primaries because of the game playing by Democrats. Most think that if Riordan had gotten the nomination, he would have easily beat "Greyout Davis". We will have to see what happens in 2018, when the next election for Governor is.
Well, MA elected a republican governor, Charlie Baker, so I guess we aren't quite as bad as CA, huh? Lol.
Sounds like Irvine. A community of largely Liberal Geriatric Yuppies who want to live in their own utopia bubble, and to hell with everybody else. Grandparents who now are trying to pass along their ideals to their grown children and growing grandchildren. Own multi-million dollar homes, drive Jags, and shop in almost private stores, eating at almost private restaurants, and going to almost private movie theatres.
Yep and THEY hire servants to trim their yards and raise their children and cook their meals and pay sub-minimum wages and consider themselves good liberals because they restrict the amount of water they allow their servants to drink while slaving away for them just like Governor Moonbeam wants them to do in order to conserve water . . . just like good gated community leftists SHOULD do. Not that I am cynical about the Left or anything . . .
Well, that's a good thing that they gave them jobs. After all, their houses are what took away their last jobs. I remember in the 1970's and even into the mid 1980's, when Irvine was still largely farmland. But by 1990 most of that farmland was gone, creating essentially a Levittown for yuppies who wanted to isolate themselves from everybody else. Not exactly a "gated community", but the cops in the area would look at you funny if you were driving any car less then $50,000 in value. My uncle used to live there (until he retired to one of the high-rise condo units near Orange). I would go to visit him every few months, and maybe 1/3 to 1/2 of the time I would get pulled over and asked what I was doing there (my vehicle was invariably a 1970's motorcycle, or an early 1980's import car). Cops could tell I "did not belong", and did all they could to ensure that outsiders were not welcome. And the houses there never really impressed me. Tiny yards, houses packed in almost on top of each other, and really nothing special. But it was Yuppietown, and everybody was trying to "out Jones" their neighbors, and the usual Causeheads were evident in their bumperstickers (Fur Is Dead, No Nukes, Greenpeace, etc, etc, etc). The house I owned in North Carolina was about the same size (useable, his square foot was higher, but because of the "large" 2 floor floorplan I actually had as much effective space as he did), sat on an acre of land with woods in the back, and cost 1/10 of what my uncle paid for his postage stamp sized 2 floor Yuppiebox.
I would not say this is always true, but there are some amazing facts that do support this. Kennesay, Georgia (a suburb of Atlanta, one of the most dangerous communities in the country) is considered one of the safest places to live in the country. And many attribute this to their unique gun law. In 1982, they passed a law mandating that every household that can legally possess a firearm have a firearm. Because of this, criminals stay away from Kennesaw. Their violent crime rate is 85% below the national average, and property crime is over 50% below the national average. It also has a growth rate that is double the national average. http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Kennesaw-Georgia.html These are statistics that are simply impossible to ignore. The criminals avoid Kennesaw, because they know the percentage of private gun ownership is high.
depends on who has the guns more good people armed-less crime. when good people are disarmed and scum sucking mopes are armed-more crime problem is-gun control-as envisioned by the American Left-only disarms good people not the scum sucking mopes
