10-13-2020, 12:48 PM
(10-13-2020, 12:36 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Uhh, yes it is.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/08/16/qa-trump-administrations-zero-tolerance-immigration-policy
The current “zero-tolerance” policy specifically refers to referrals for immigrants committing “illegal entry,” or entering the US without authorization. Illegal entry is a federal misdemeanor, punishable by up to six months in prison, with a subsequent conviction for illegal entry punishable by up to two years.
So, while the law of the land does indeed include lesser punishments than jail time, the fact is that jail time for first offenses is ALSO the law of the land.
Right, so we have come full circle to the actual LAW OF THE LAND does not require incarceration but rather a unilateral directive from the executive branch has essentially thrown out part of the law pushing for only the most severe punishment. I said the law actually allowed, meaning in lieu of, other remedies. In context to the discussion, it was portrayed as this (Incarceration) was the required outcome of the offense, to which I pointed out it was not as the directive from the executive branch was no THE LAW OF THE LAND but rather a sentencing directive picking out only the parts of the law they liked.
Bottom line, no a sentencing directive from the executive branch does not make something the "law of the land". The constitution is very clear that only the legislative branch can make the laws that govern this land.
