Draft old people

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Oct 15 2006, 06:23 PM) [snapback]333117[/snapback]</div>

There may not be a law that makes it illegal to ENTER the country without proper documents (a visa or passport, I assume), but I also assume there's a law that forbids being IN the country without proper documents, and that it has provisions for the consequences of being 'undocumented'. There may not be provisions for a criminal charge and penalties for being found guilty of that charge, but there's a difference between something being 'illegal' and something being 'criminal'. It's hairsplitting, though.

BTW, since I'm 58, I probably qualify as 'old' in your proposal. I assume, though, that I'd be 4F in such a draft - the US government is highly unlikely to extend medical benefits to an overweight diabetic with high blood pressure!

 

Not too long ago most of the old had already served in the military once and I bet you wouldn't have to draft them to serve again. Just allow them to volunteer.

 

I stand by my original statement that is is not a crime to enter or to be in the United States without documents. Yes, it is illegal, but there are no criminal sanctions prescribed in the current law.

The section referred to by our resident contrarian from Sacramento pertains solely to the unlawful employment of undocumented or illegal aliens, not to them entering or being in the country.

Here is the actual language of the law, as opposed to someone's opinion of what the law is. Judge for yourselves:

 

Due to the inability to edit post, here it is again, hopefully without the emoticons:

 

Illegal entry is only punishable by a fine:

 

I say, let whoever wants to enlist, enlist, pending passing a physical.

Now, back to our thread about bashing Daniel, already in progress.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Oct 16 2006, 10:34 PM) [snapback]333818[/snapback]</div>

...or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Oct 16 2006, 07:10 PM) [snapback]333806[/snapback]</div>

You really do have a problem with comprehension, don't you!

It was not me the “resident contrarian from Sacramento†who provided the link to the law about “unlawful employment of undocumented or illegal aliens†. . . IT WAS JARED2! So, is your argument with Jared2 too? :huh:

I referred to his post where he backed-up my stance against your claim that it is not illegal to enter the country without permission. He agreed that it was illegal, and then he added the link to the law against employing illegals.

Just because you didn't read it the first time I posted the laws doesn't mean they don't exist. I'll post them again. (I had hoped the link I provided in my earlier post would have sufficed . . . but nooooo. )

I know it's a lot of readin' and comprehendin' . . . so let me make it easy on you by highlighting the key points in the first and last paragraphs of the two laws:

Section 1325. Improper entry by alien

(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection;
misrepresentation and concealment of facts
Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States
at any time or place other than as designated by immigration
officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration
officers, or (3) 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, shall, for the first
commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or
imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent
commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or
imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
(b ) Improper time or place; civil penalties
Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to
enter) the United States at a time or place other than as
designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil
penalty of -
(1) at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or
attempted entry); or
(2) twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of
an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under
this subsection.
Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not
in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be
imposed.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_s...=8&sec=1325

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Oct 16 2006, 08:34 PM) [snapback]333818[/snapback]</div>

It cracks me up that the “proof†you provide to back-up this new ridiculous claim ACTUALLY CONTRIDICTS what you say. :lol: :lol: Ouch, OUCH!!! There it is again . . . must- :lol: -ouch!-stop-laughing.

DO YOU EVEN READ THAT WHICH YOU POST? :huh:

Let me highlight this one too so you don't miss it.

“ . . . for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than six months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than two years or both..â€

“Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be imposed.â€

Now that you have read it, you can go back to your post and find it. If need be, put on your reading glasses and thinking cap.

[ How deep of a hole can this guy dig? :blink: ]

 

I will admit to not reading each and evey follow-up post - but here goes anyhow...

I like your idea a lot. But I would change one aspect of it...

Instead of drafting old people who have gathered a lifetimes worth of knowledge and experience to share with younger folks, I would draft...

American citizens who are transnationalists, anarachists, etc. I would at the same time along with the draft notice, give each person who receives it a voucher for a free one trip ticket to any country of their choosing which will be valid after they legally relinquich their US citizenship in perpituity for themselves.

That would leave Americans of both liberal and conservative thought who believe that the US is a force for good and understand the marketplace of politcal ideas and ideologies as defined by its Constitution and rules of law.

 

Don't draft old people; just stop them from sending other people's children to kill and die in wars designed to increase their power and wealth.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ Oct 17 2006, 03:53 AM) [snapback]333865[/snapback]</div>

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Oct 14 2006, 04:16 PM) [snapback]332856[/snapback]</div>

I don't know what your definition of old is, but I suspect I qualify having been drafted in 1968 at the age of 23.

Which leads to a minor correction of your premise. The draft in which I was called applied to all men between the ages of 18 and 26. The order of call was oldest first. It was designed to specifically draft teenagers last.

I can bear witness that there were no teenagers in my basic training company. In the lottery that replaced it in 1969 the order of call was based on the numbers drawn, with all men between 18 and 26 with the same birthday called for possible induction; a process that one would expect to produce an average age of 22, which seems to be borne out here.

I don't have any similar statistics for the "poverty draft" however it should be noted that the maximum enlistment age was raised by the Army to 42 last June. In this article about the first 42 year old recruit, it claims that the average age of his basic training platoon is 21.

I don't know what that all means to your argument, and I know facts aren't as fun as hyperbolic rhetoric -- that's why I come here.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Oct 16 2006, 11:59 PM) [snapback]333854[/snapback]</div>

Only when the alien "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."

All other illegal entries specified in that section are subject to a civil penalty of a fine.

You need to know how to read the U.S. Code.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Oct 17 2006, 04:17 PM) [snapback]334161[/snapback]</div>

Under [a], the (1), (2) and (3) are "or"s which precede the "shall". So the way to read it is:
------------
Any alien who
(1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or
(2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or
(3) 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

shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
------------
It certainly is confusing to read, but sneaking in is a crime punishable by fine, prison, or both.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Oct 17 2006, 02:25 PM) [snapback]334168[/snapback]</div>

No you are reading it wrong. There is no paragraph break in the law as you have divided it in your post. Only a violation of subsection (3) is punishable by imprisonment. Violations of subsections (1) and (2) are punishable only as described in section (b) which follows subsection (3). Subsection (3) is punishable both as described in it and in section (b).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Oct 17 2006, 08:52 AM) [snapback]333873[/snapback]</div>

We need to consider mandatory service for all people in a certain age group - the Swiss do it, I think it is done in Israel. Even if it is into the reserves.
Some one mentioned the poverty draft - I guess that could apply to my son - signed up for the education benefits, not so much the money. Has four more years to go.
Either that or make the cost of living and education expenses such that the poverty draft issue is no longer a reality.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Oct 17 2006, 04:31 PM) [snapback]334174[/snapback]</div>

I think if you look at it formatted properly, it will help:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/usc...25----000-.html

(1), (2) and (3) go together under section ( a ). The punishment for any of these 3 is fine and/or prison.

Section ( b ) is separate, though a person could be charged with both ( a ) and ( b ).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Oct 17 2006, 03:11 PM) [snapback]334200[/snapback]</div>

Do you have legal training? I do.

I am the one who first posted this U.S. Code section. I had it formatted correctly.

Perhaps if you were to read the titles of the sections, it will help you understand how the code section is structured.

Section (a) describes the conduct (plus the punishment for the one type of conduct that carries an extra punishment. Please notice how the punishments prescribed in subsection (3) are contained in the same sentence as the conduct that is proscribed by that section. If those criminal sanctions were to apply to the conduct proscribed in subsections (1) and (2) the punishment will be described in a new sentence if not a new paragraph):

Section (b) describes the punishment: