I have notice stringbean's voluminous arguments concerning illegal aliens (whether they are felons (criminals) because of illegally entering the U.S. or whether thay are misdemeanants (according to stringbean not criminals). Here is a definitive argument that you can use against stringbean.
Stringbean recites almost verbatim material from the ACLU which the ACLU has disseminated on the web as part of their propaganda program. Stringbean is either a member of the ACLU and is in furtherance of their propaganda program or he or she has simply been taken in by the propaganda spewed forth by the ACLU.
First, the ACLU cites the Gonzales v. Peoria case mentioned by stringbean. They, in their propaganda, even say that the court held just what stringbean has been arguing on this board. However, the attorneys at the ACLU know that their was no "holding" in the Peoria case that supports their propaganda. There was dicta. Let me explain what dicta is. It is something that a court says that is not used in the actual holding of the case. The dicta cannot be appealled, and therefore is not considered much use in arguing future cases. In addition, the court in the Peoria case even used the words "something more" in their dicta. That something more will be further referred to below.
Now, there are two scenarios to consider. First, the illegal alien is stopped for a violation which is a misdemeanor (such as speeding or even jay-walking). The illegal alien can be questioned as to his address, residence and asked for his identification. When he has no identification, no address, no residence in the U.S. (he can be asked where he was born and unless he simply lies, he gives away useful information concerning possible lack of address and residence), the law official can then ask if he has any documentation. If the alien acts dumb, like what's the difference and why is that needed, the law official has all that he needs to arrest the alien. The law official has the lack of documentation, and here is where the "something more" of the Peoria case is important. The law official has the "something more" that is necessary in establishing "probable cause" that the alien has entered the country illegally (a felony). Now according to well established law, the law officer can effect an arrest when he has probable cause that a felony has occurred, even though he is not absolutely sure of that.
Now, the second scenario, the alien produces a passport and visa showing that he made a legal entry into the U.S. But, the visa has expired. His entry into the U.S. was legal and he cannot be said to have committed a felony. His entry was legal. But, his overstaying his visa is a misdemeanor, (that is not a crime not a felony). But now the law officer may still make a legal arrest. The law officer has the documentation in hand. The law officer also sees that the alien is presently committing a misdemeanor and has reason for making an arrest ((the same reason that the officer can give you a summons (an arrest) for speeding)). The law officer sees the alien being in the U.S. and overstaying of the visa (that is committing the misdemeanor). Now, in accordance with well established law, the law officer can arrest the alien. A law officer can arrest anyone that he observes (actually sees) commit a misdemeanor . The law officer can arrest the alien because the law officer has seen the alien commit the misdemeanor in the actual presence of the officer. The alien is still in the U.S. right in front of the law officer, thus the alien is continuing to commit the misdemeanor right in front of the law officer. Under such conditions, the law officer can make a legal arrest.
There is, of course, a third scenario. The alien produces proper documentation that he is here legally. The law officer of course cannot arrest the alien under these circumstances.
I have searched the web to see what possible grounds others are putting forth for the purpose of declaring the Arizona law unconstitutional. There are other grounds that have been brought forth, but the ACLU is the only one that uses this grounds of "illegal entry" versus "legal" entry. It is part of their propaganda, and as said previously, either stringbean is a member of the ACLU and is working to disseminate their propagand, or stringbean has just fallen into the trap of believing their propaganda.
Stringbean recites almost verbatim material from the ACLU which the ACLU has disseminated on the web as part of their propaganda program. Stringbean is either a member of the ACLU and is in furtherance of their propaganda program or he or she has simply been taken in by the propaganda spewed forth by the ACLU.
First, the ACLU cites the Gonzales v. Peoria case mentioned by stringbean. They, in their propaganda, even say that the court held just what stringbean has been arguing on this board. However, the attorneys at the ACLU know that their was no "holding" in the Peoria case that supports their propaganda. There was dicta. Let me explain what dicta is. It is something that a court says that is not used in the actual holding of the case. The dicta cannot be appealled, and therefore is not considered much use in arguing future cases. In addition, the court in the Peoria case even used the words "something more" in their dicta. That something more will be further referred to below.
Now, there are two scenarios to consider. First, the illegal alien is stopped for a violation which is a misdemeanor (such as speeding or even jay-walking). The illegal alien can be questioned as to his address, residence and asked for his identification. When he has no identification, no address, no residence in the U.S. (he can be asked where he was born and unless he simply lies, he gives away useful information concerning possible lack of address and residence), the law official can then ask if he has any documentation. If the alien acts dumb, like what's the difference and why is that needed, the law official has all that he needs to arrest the alien. The law official has the lack of documentation, and here is where the "something more" of the Peoria case is important. The law official has the "something more" that is necessary in establishing "probable cause" that the alien has entered the country illegally (a felony). Now according to well established law, the law officer can effect an arrest when he has probable cause that a felony has occurred, even though he is not absolutely sure of that.
Now, the second scenario, the alien produces a passport and visa showing that he made a legal entry into the U.S. But, the visa has expired. His entry into the U.S. was legal and he cannot be said to have committed a felony. His entry was legal. But, his overstaying his visa is a misdemeanor, (that is not a crime not a felony). But now the law officer may still make a legal arrest. The law officer has the documentation in hand. The law officer also sees that the alien is presently committing a misdemeanor and has reason for making an arrest ((the same reason that the officer can give you a summons (an arrest) for speeding)). The law officer sees the alien being in the U.S. and overstaying of the visa (that is committing the misdemeanor). Now, in accordance with well established law, the law officer can arrest the alien. A law officer can arrest anyone that he observes (actually sees) commit a misdemeanor . The law officer can arrest the alien because the law officer has seen the alien commit the misdemeanor in the actual presence of the officer. The alien is still in the U.S. right in front of the law officer, thus the alien is continuing to commit the misdemeanor right in front of the law officer. Under such conditions, the law officer can make a legal arrest.
There is, of course, a third scenario. The alien produces proper documentation that he is here legally. The law officer of course cannot arrest the alien under these circumstances.
I have searched the web to see what possible grounds others are putting forth for the purpose of declaring the Arizona law unconstitutional. There are other grounds that have been brought forth, but the ACLU is the only one that uses this grounds of "illegal entry" versus "legal" entry. It is part of their propaganda, and as said previously, either stringbean is a member of the ACLU and is working to disseminate their propagand, or stringbean has just fallen into the trap of believing their propaganda.
