DGDevin wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...


Most illegal aliens are handled in the civil courts system.

I repeat, since when are illegal aliens not committing a crime?

When they are handled by the civil courts or administrative magistrates.
Ninety-nine percent of illegal immigrants are handled civilly. They are NOT
criminals, they are NOT charged with a crime.


Four years ago, I think, two teen-agers broke into a boat shed in
Maine during the night. Their plan was to steal radios from some of
the boats. Part way through their escapade they noticed the security
cameras.

So they did something, they were not rounded up for being teenagers
(although I'm not necessarily against that).

Yes. I was responding your your assertion that juveniles are not locked up,
but are counseled and returned to the loving arms of their parents. I spent
five years as a deputy sheriff in the Juvenile Division and can tell you
that, for sure, some juveniles are locked up and the key thrown away.


Your observation is spot-on. Since the early '60s, the Supreme Court
has knocked down almost all laws of "status." That is, it is no
longer a crime to "be" something (drug addict, prostitute, vagrant,
etc.), you must DO something. However, in 1942, laws regarding
status were not uncommon.

As I said, legal or not it was still wrong just as legal slavery was
wrong.
However, all this does not mitigate the fact that you got exercised
over people being locked up without being judged guilty of a crime.
I was simply making the point that people CAN be locked up where no
crime is involved.

You are still missing the point, people locked up without committing
a crime are still being confined for a good reason, e.g. a deranged
person who is a danger to himself or others, and due process will be
involved.

I'm not missing the point. I concur those locked up did something wrong. I
was responding to " In the end either everyone has the same rights or
nobody's rights are safe."

Not so. Criminals have MORE rights that juveniles, infectious disease
carriers, those guilty of civil contempt, etc. Specifically, CRIMINALS (but
not others), are constitutionally guaranteed a lawyer, indictment by a grand
jury, compulsory process for obtaining witnesses, and the right to remain
silent. These "rights" are NOT constitutionally available to the mentally
handicapped, unlawful enemy combatants, and others.

Flash: The Americans of Japanese descent living in Hawaii were not
locked up (or at least not many).

Ironic considering that the only case I know of where a
Japanese-American actually aided the enemy took place in the Hawaiian
Islands.
I agree with you - there was certainly something wrong regarding the
treatment of the Japanese. But I still say how I or anybody else
would "feel" about ANY situation is irrelevant. Not only are
"feelings" irrelevant, they should NEVER be the touchstone regarding
whether justice is being served.

In trying to represent my case as focusing on how injustices make
people feel you are being somewhat disingenuous.

You were the one who brought up the notion of "How would you feel..." I'm
just pointing out that should not even be on the list of reasons for judging
a law's worth.


Secondly: There was no "injustice" in locking up the Japanese - at
least not in the legal sense. The president's executive order (#
9066) was issued in February 1942. It remained on the books for over
30 years until it was rescinded by President Ford in 1966. Executive
Order 9066 was never challenged in court.

Again, slavery was once legal--that did not make it right.

And again, I agree. I am contesting your claim of "injustice," not moral
exactitude.