Types of law: "illegal entry" vs "unlawful presence"

Civics is no longer taught in schools. It should be. People should be aware of the differences between criminal and civil law; and between legislative and administrative law.

Breaking a criminal law means committing a crime, by definition. Crimes can be broken down into felonies (serious crimes such as murder) and misdemeanors (minor crimes such as trespass or drunk driving). Yes, if you break a criminal law, you are a criminal (though many reserve that term for felons; you rarely hear of people convicted of drunk driving referred to as criminals).

Breaking a civil law subjects you to various penalties, of which having to pay a fine is the most common penalty. You can also be compelled to perform a duty. Civil law is what comes into play when you sue somebody. Breaking a civil law does not make you a criminal.

Regarding so-called "illegal immigrants":

Illegal entry is a misdemeanor on a par with attempting to evade customs inspection. It is not a felony. Federal law specifies that illegal entry must be proven, not assumed, and the punishment is "no more than six months of incarceration and up to $250 in civil penalties for each illegal entry."

So "illegal entry" only applies to those who have been proven to have actually crossed the border without going through proper entry procedures. Most of those who are in this country without documentation have not entered illegally; they overstayed valid visas.

Overstaying your visa is considered "unlawful presence" under Federal law. That is a violation of administrative civil law; it is not actually a criminal act, and those who do so are not criminals. "It is a violation of federal immigration law to remain in the country without legal authorization, but this violation is punishable by civil penalties, not criminal." The basic civil penalty for this is indeed deportation, but people "cannot be criminally charged or incarcerated simply for being undocumented".

This is the law of the United States. To say and do otherwise - even if you are the Attorney General or Director of ICE - is to flout those laws.

DACA recipients are not "illegals"

Current rhetoric conflates DACA recipients with those who have come over the border illegally to work as migrant workers, or those who have overstayed their legally-obtained visas. They shouldn't be confused.

Some people seem to think that DACA kids have broken the law. On the contrary. Anybody who is in the federal DACA program is currently legal; they have filed the paperwork, jumped through the hoops. None have criminal records. All have good grades and/or jobs (you don't get into the program otherwise). Their status, right now, is that of a legal resident of the United States.

But they came here illegally, you say. No; they were brought here illegally, but they themselves did not commit a crime. Under the law, you have to have agency - bear responsibility - in order to commit a crime. A minor child has no agency. They are no more responsible for being smuggled into the US than is a Cuban cigar.

Many now on DACA didn't even know they were not US citizens until high school, when it came time to apply to college or get a passport to travel with a school team. By acceptance into DACA, they have shown that they are precisely the sort of upstanding citizens we want in this country.

Oh, but their parents broke the law, you say. Possibly true... but we still have certain legal principles in this country. One is that you don't punish someone for what someone else did.

DACA kids are already in limbo. Yes, they are here legally, but if they are ever less than model citizens - if they even get a speeding ticket - they may lose that legal status. And, of course, the government may unilaterally decide to terminate their legal status. THAT is the current issue.