Saturday, July 21, 2007

Deported Illegals are NOT barred from return

Another post at GBK claims that illegals who are deported are not allowed to return:
If you question whether what Gill proposes is amnesty, consider this. Normally a person who commits a crime in the US and is deported cannot return. That includes those who overstay their visas and commit other immigration crimes. That is because in America there is no amnesty for crimes. Illegal immigration is a crime.
We'll get to what Gill ACTUALLY proposed shortly. But in fact, U.S. law has a wide range of application to the question of whether a person who has been deported for being here illegally can request legal status at a later time. For some deportations, immediate application is allowed. For others, there are 3-year and 10-year waiting periods, after which the deported illegal can apply for legal entry.

There ARE cases that call for permanent exclusion, but they are not the majority.

Here is the official government form used to request entry into the United States after you have been deported. I think that should settle any question the reader may have about whether there is a legal way to do so. The form even gives conditions under which you don't even have to file this application before you apply for legal status:

Section I: Persons Permitted to Reapply for Admission Without Filing This Application

  1. Persons who were excluded from admission and removed or deported more than one year ago.
  2. Persons who voluntarily departed from the United States without expense to the United States Government and without an order of removal or deportation having been entered.
  3. Persons who have been outside the United States for five successive years following their last removal or deportation

As you can see, for people who left voluntarily without going through formal deportation, they can legally apply immediately for re-entry, without even filling out a request for re-entry.

In addition, the post mis-states what Gill has proposed:

Yet Gill in the 7/19/07 Potomac News proposed that the US forgive illegal aliens their past crimes and allow them to immigrate to the US again.

That is called amnesty. Gill proposes that the illegal aliens prior crime be forgiven and that the illegal alien be given a chance to immigrate a second time.
What Gill SAID was quite different: "I absolutely believe this helps the illegal immigrants," Gill said. "They'll go away and come back how everybody else is supposed to do - legally."

First, Gill was discussing illegals who leave voluntarily, without deportation proceedings. Second, he wasn't proposing a change to the law regarding re-entry, just stating what current law allows. Third, he believes this helps illegals because it encourages them to do what is right, and for those who qualify will put them in the country legally, rather than being illegal.

The post questions whether Gill's proposal will do any good:
Gill claims that the problem can be solved if the current misdemeanor Virginia statute banning the hiring of illegal aliens becomes a felony. Gill should explain why if the law is not enforced now it will be enforced once hiring illegals becomes a felony.
First, enforcement of our laws is prioritized to those for more serious offenses. A felony by definition will be investigated and treated more seriously than a misdemeanor. Further, the act of making this a felony will demonstrate the legislature's commitment to having these laws enforced, and make that enforcement more worthwhile by providing real punishment for the crimes.

But more importantly, the existing laws ARE enforced, just in a spotty manner. The problem is the penalties are so small that employers feel the risk is worth the reward. By increasing penalties, you change that equation, and many more employers will decide the punishment is severe enough that it's not worth the risk, even if that risk is low.

Having a felony conviction on your record is a much more serious thing than a misdemeanor.


Anonymous said...


Meanwhile, Have you seen Candidate Rishell's hair? She showed up at my door with some aide in tow. I'd like to have a car load of hogs the same size as that aide. But Rishell's hair looked processed. I've seen better hair on a KABUKI Mask.

Charles said...

I suppose there could be hair so purposefully bad that it actually raised an issue of sanity of a candidate, but I doubt Rishell's hair qualifies. Or the size of her aide.

Nor do either of those observations seem to relate to the topic of this thread.

Discussing Rishell's position on deporting illegals would be a much more productive task.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, Charles.
I'll try to keep my comments more on topic. I was just shocked by Rishell's appearance since she has so much more money than her opponent.

Reportedly, she has been running around saying she is anti-illegal alien. What nonsense. That would be a bigger flip-flop than all of Kerry's put together.

Anonymous said...


Meanwhile..Have you seen the wild folks over at BVBL? Whew!!!

Greg, I think, subscribes to the notion that there is no such thing as "good press" or "bad press"..."just press". While I think that he is rightfully drilling the illegal aliens, I don't think he should be dragging his family into his fight. Greg has repeatedly posted that he wants his daughter's picture in the newspaper. Riley has some stupid website with his wife and child's pictures, thereon. Great... Drag your family into your political fights. Boy...What dopes. Their home addresses are readily available on the Internet. You would think either one of these folks would want to protect their families' anonymity? There are, after all, many people who would do either harm, judging from the posts over at BVBL. I can see personal bravery from both Greg and Riley, but why unnecessarily drag your family and kids into the mix? Bad judgement in my estimation.

I don't see pictures of your family on the Net.....SMART!

Charles said...

I've got pictures around, just not obviously connected. I try to make it just a bit hard for the casual browser, anybody who really cares can put together most of my information around the net.

I've been on the net for over two decades, google still occasionally pulls up comments I wrote back in the 80s.

On the other hand, my whole family was in the Washingtonian Magazine a while back, in a short article on electric cars.

Anonymous said...


Any pictures of your family are not immediately connected to your blogs.

Anonymous said...


And did you see one of the first things that the Wash. Post clobbered BVBL with? Remember Greg's post about the "five Hispanics raping the woman in the middle of the street in Manassas park"? Well, there it was in the first paragraph of the Post's story to illustrate how Greg will post any old false rumor. Remember, how I harp on telling the TRUTH? Tell some lie and it will come back to bite you in the butt, months, even years later.

Before Greg can really CROW, he has to have his face "above the fold" in the Post. They set him up on the front page, to drill him on the editorial page. Can't trust the sneaky MSM. MSNBC or the Post, their adgenda is all the same.