Immigrants vs. Illegal Aliens

[Timshel]

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/3559.html

§ 3559. Sentencing classification of offenses
How Current is This?
(a) Classification.— An offense that is not specifically classified by a letter grade in the section defining it, is classified if the maximum term of imprisonment authorized is—
(1) life imprisonment, or if the maximum penalty is death, as a Class A felony;
(2) twenty-five years or more, as a Class B felony;
(3) less than twenty-five years but ten or more years, as a Class C felony;
(4) less than ten years but five or more years, as a Class D felony;
(5) less than five years but more than one year, as a Class E felony;
(6) one year or less but more than six months, as a Class A misdemeanor;
(7) six months or less but more than thirty days, as a Class B misdemeanor;
(8) thirty days or less but more than five days, as a Class C misdemeanor; or
(9) five days or less, or if no imprisonment is authorized, as an infraction.

 

[Timshel]

You keep forgetting that no matter how much whining you do, that the Courts sided with the Police Department and the City.

What relevance does that have? The plaintiffs lacked proof of which officers were involved in the incidents in which they had standing. They found that the PD and City acted in good faith. Case closed, as usual.

But, the court made a point on the confusion of local arrest authority throughout the opinion.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

What relevance does that have? The plaintiffs lacked proof of which officers were involved in the incidents in which they had standing. They found that the PD and City acted in good faith. Case closed, as usual.

But, the court made a point on the confusion of local arrest authority throughout the opinion.

"What relevance does that have?"

Well obviously nothing in the world you inhabit and have constructed for yourself; but to the rest of the people, who live in the real world, it means that the suit that was brought was ruled against and that the Court sided with the Police Department and the City.

 

[Timshel]

"What relevance does that have?"

Well obviously nothing in the world you inhabit and have constructed for yourself; but to the rest of the people, who live in the real world, it means that the suit that was brought was ruled against and that the Court sided with the Police Department and the City.

You clearly don't understand the ruling and the differences between the Az law and the specifics involved.

The defendant officers were not identified in any of the incidents involving the plaintiffs. Can't sue them.

The city only asserted the right to enforce criminal violations of the federal law (unlike under the new law). Can't sue them.

The PD, though often confused in its memorandum and policy, showed a willingness to comply with Federal law once it was made clear to them (which the opinion did). It did not do anything to encourage enforcement (unlike under the new law) and there was no proof of racial animus. Can't sue them.

The Az law goes beyond those limits drawn by the court which Peoria was within and therefore not liable.

Our intervention into the enforcement activities of the Peoria Police Department could not be justified as necessary to prevent the violation of constitutional rights. Our review of the record convinces us that the Peoria police are perfectly willing to comply with federal law, once it is made clear to them what their responsibilities are. There is no indication that the police intended to use the law as a pretext to harass persons of Mexican descent. The evidence indicates that the department is not anxious to enter actively into the enforcement of the immigration laws, other than to cooperate with the Border Patrol. Active pursuit of such enforcement would place a strain on jail facilities and on personnel availability. For that reason, no incentives are provided officers for arresting persons for violations of 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1325. Enforcement of that statute is not reflected on an officer's record as an "arrest" for which credit on performance evaluations is received.
65

We do not rule out the possibility that individual officers in the past have abused their authority or that such abuse may occur in the future. However, there is no indication that the wrongful conduct of individual officers is encouraged or ratified by any city or police policy. In view of the principle, reaffirmed in Lyons, that we must avoid interference with state and local law enforcement unless it is necessary to prevent policies that violate constitutional rights, we affirm the district court's denial of injunctive relief.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

You clearly don't understand the ruling and the differences between the Az law and the specifics involved.

The defendant officers were not identified in any of the incidents involving the plaintiffs. Can't sue them.

The city only asserted the right to enforce criminal violations of the federal law (unlike under the new law). Can't sue them.

The PD, though often confused in its memorandum and policy, showed a willingness to comply with Federal law once it was made clear to them (which the opinion did). It did not do anything to encourage enforcement (unlike under the new law) and there was no proof of racial animus. Can't sue them.

The Az law goes beyond those limits drawn by the court which Peoria was within and therefore not liable.

But; what relevance does that have?

 

[Sammy Jankis]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

state and local police can enforce federal immigration law. Federal law does not prevent them from doing so.





Don’t take my word for it. Here are federal court opinions saying so:





In 1983, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit -- you read that right, the Ninth Circuit -- concluded, in Gonzales v. City of Peoria, 722 F.2d 468, that, “Although the regulation of immigration is unquestionably an exclusive federal power, it is clear that this power does not preempt every state activity affecting aliens.” Rather, when “state enforcement activities do not impair federal regulatory interests concurrent enforcement is authorized.” The Court accordingly held “that federal law does not preclude local enforcement of the criminal provisions” of federal immigration law.





In 1984, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit likewise ruled, in United States v. Salinas-Calderon, that “[a] state trooper has general investigatory authority to inquire into possible immigration violations.”





Fifteen years later, in 1999, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reaffirmed its position, in United States v. Vasquez-Alvarez, 176 F.3rd 1294, stating, “this court has long held that state and local law enforcement officers are empowered to arrest for violations of federal law, as long as such arrest is authorized by state law.”





In 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled again, in United States v. Santana-Garcia, 264 F.3rd 1188, “that state law enforcement officers within the Tenth Circuit ‘have the general authority to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal immigration laws,’ and that federal law as currently written does nothing ‘to displace . . . state or local authority to arrest individuals violating federal immigration laws.’ On the contrary, the Court said, “federal law ‘evinces a clear invitation from Congress for state and local agencies to participate in the process of enforcing federal immigration laws.’”





In 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held, in United States v. Rodriguez-Arreola, 270 F.3rd 611, that a state trooper did not violate the defendant’s rights by questioning him about his immigration status after pulling him over for speeding.





In 2002, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held, in United States v. Favela-Favela, 41 Fed. Appx. 185, that a state trooper did not violate the defendant’s rights by asking questions about his immigration status, after pulling the defendant over for a traffic violation and noticing there were 20 people in the van the defendant was driving.





In 2005, the United States Supreme Court held, in Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93, that police officers who handcuffed a gang member while they executed a search warrant for weapons, did not violate her rights by questioning her about her immigration status. The Court explained, “[E]ven when officers have no basis for suspecting a particular individual, they may generally ask questions of that individual; ask to examine the individual's identification; and request consent to search his or her luggage."





In 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit confirmed again, in United States v. Hernandez-Dominguez, 1 Fed. Appx. 827, that "[a] state trooper [who has executed a lawful stop] has general investigatory authority to inquire into possible immigration violations."





in 2008, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri held, in Gray v. City of Valley Park, 2008 U.S. Dist LEXIS 7238, affirmed 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 12075, that federal law did not preempt a local ordinance suspending the business license of any business that hires illegal aliens.





In 2008, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey concluded, in Rojas v. City of New Brunswick, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57974, that, “As a general matter, state and local law enforcement officers are not precluded from enforcing federal statutes. Where state enforcement activities do not impair federal regulatory interests concurrent enforcement activity is authorized.” The Court accordingly held that a city and its police department had authority to investigate and arrest people for possible violations of federal immigration laws.

http://inventors.about.com/od/estartinventors/a/Edison_Bio.htm

 

[Timshel]

You are citing the portion of the law which applies AFTER the law enforcement officer has initiated legal contact. As I correctly pointed out, the Arizona law specifically says they can't detain someone on the basis of "they look like they may be illegal" or anything remotely similar. They have to first have a valid reason for detaining them, other than "looking like" they need detaining. Maybe they jaywalked? Maybe they stabbed somebody? It doesn't matter, as long as the officer has a legitimate reason for detaining them.... THEN and only THEN.... we get into Sec. 2 of the Arizona law!

First off, lawful contact is not what you and the right wing media claimed. The Arizona Republicans have removed lawful contact and made it a "stop, detention or arrest."

Secondly, it does not matter. The feds are not able to make a warrantless arrest for a civil violation of the law unless they are near the border or have a legitimate reason to believe the person will escape. The Arizona law goes well beyond that and places no limits on the warrantless arrest for a civil violation.

And as for your continued assertions that illegally crossing our border and breaching national security, is a "civil violation"

I have repeated over and over and over again, illegal entry is a crime, misdemeanor to be exact. Illegal presence is not a crime but a civil violation of the law. A lack of documentation, even an admission of being illegally present is not probable cause of illegal entry. Gonzales v Peoria states it clearly and this is reflected in US law.

http://openjurist.org/722/f2d/468/gonzales-v-city-of-peoria

Gonzales v Peoria

Although the lack of documentation or other admission of illegal presence may be some indication of illegal entry, it does not, without more, provide probable cause of the criminal violation of illegal entry.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

It's a violation of the law worthy of deportation. let's do it.

This assertion that there is never a legal context where cops can inquire is a lie, a house of cards built on globalist zealotry and hatred of american citizens.

 

[Timshel]

You are a pussy asshat. Why don't you answer my response to what is now becoming spam?

All of the cases from your idiot blogger involved criminal acts or permitted enforcement of the criminal parts of the INA. Gonzales clearly drew the line at enforcement of the criminal violations. The Az law steps over that line.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Heys stringshit. What's your position on the National ID card?

 

[Sammy Jankis]

You are a pussy asshat. Why don't you answer my response to what is now becoming spam?

All of the cases from your idiot blogger involved criminal acts or permitted enforcement of the criminal parts of the INA. Gonzales clearly drew the line at enforcement of the criminal violations. The Az law steps over that line.

no. they're not.

 

[Timshel]

It's a violation of the law worthy of deportation. let's do it.

This assertion that there is never a legal context where cops can inquire is a lie, a house of cards built on globalist zealotry and hatred of american citizens.

Straw man. Cops can inquire about whatever they want. Unless the question is something like "Do you won't to admit guilt or take a beating?" They can ask just about anything they like. The issue is about arrest authority. You keep babbling about something that nobody is arguing and that only makes it more clear that you don't have the capacity to comprehend the legal opinions you keep posting out of context. You don't even know what the issues of debate are.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Straw man. Cops can inquire about whatever they want. Unless the question is something like "Do you won't to admit guilt or take a beating?" They can ask just about anything they like. The issue is about arrest authority. You keep babbling about something that nobody is arguing and that only makes it more clear that you don't have the capacity to comprehend the legal opinions you keep posting out of context. You don't even know what the issues of debate are.

no. You're trying to confuse the issue with lies. None of the decision I have quoted agree with your stupid interpretaion. Except maybe one. The rest of them have you reeling and yet you keep going on about bullshit.

 

[Timshel]

no. You're trying to confuse the issue with lies. None of the decision I have quoted agree with your stupid interpretaion. Except maybe one. The rest of them have you reeling and yet you keep going on about bullshit.

They do not have me reeling at all. They involved probable cause of a CRIME. The arrests were not made based on probable cause of a civil violation of the INA. Only Gonzales addressed the issue and it was quite clear that it did not allow for a warrantless arrest.

 

[Timshel]

But; what relevance does that have?

There was no injunctive relief because...

Peoria only asserted its right to enforce the criminal violation of the INA.
Peoria did not encourage enforcement of the laws and showed no desire to do anything other than help the feds.
Peoria showed a willingness to limit its enforcement to only criminal violations of the INA.

...

The Az law asserts its power to enforce the civil violation of the INA.
The Az law gives enormous encouragement to enforce going so far as punish police for not enforcing.
The Az law does not show a willingness to limit its enforcement to only criminal violations of the law.

The court was very clear on the details of why Peoria was not enjoined, because it was within the limits, and the Az law blows way past those limits.

 

[Timshel]

That the defendants in Peoria were not found liable and that the city/pd was not enjoined, is not relevant because they were within the limits drawn by the 9th. The Az law clearly is not within those limits. Based on the opinion, the 9th would have enjoined the Az law, especially Section 2 E. You can pretend all you like that because the 9th allowed enforcement of the criminal violations of the INA that means locals can enforce the civil violations of the INA, but the court was very explicit on this saying they could not.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

First off, lawful contact is not what you and the right wing media claimed. The Arizona Republicans have removed lawful contact and made it a "stop, detention or arrest."

Secondly, it does not matter. The feds are not able to make a warrantless arrest for a civil violation of the law unless they are near the border or have a legitimate reason to believe the person will escape. The Arizona law goes well beyond that and places no limits on the warrantless arrest for a civil violation.



I have repeated over and over and over again, illegal entry is a crime, misdemeanor to be exact. Illegal presence is not a crime but a civil violation of the law. A lack of documentation, even an admission of being illegally present is not probable cause of illegal entry. Gonzales v Peoria states it clearly and this is reflected in US law.

http://openjurist.org/722/f2d/468/gonzales-v-city-of-peoria

Gonzales v Peoria

Although the lack of documentation or other admission of illegal presence may be some indication of illegal entry, it does not, without more, provide probable cause of the criminal violation of illegal entry.

The change was a clarification for dumbasses like you.

 

[Topspin]

deportation would hurt republicans more than democrats, this I find very funny about the faux outrage.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

There was no injunctive relief because...

Peoria only asserted its right to enforce the criminal violation of the INA.
Peoria did not encourage enforcement of the laws and showed no desire to do anything other than help the feds.
Peoria showed a willingness to limit its enforcement to only criminal violations of the INA.

...

The Az law asserts its power to enforce the civil violation of the INA.
The Az law gives enormous encouragement to enforce going so far as punish police for not enforcing.
The Az law does not show a willingness to limit its enforcement to only criminal violations of the law.

The court was very clear on the details of why Peoria was not enjoined, because it was within the limits, and the Az law blows way past those limits.

But; what relevance does that have?

 

[Sammy Jankis]

THis is all so fucking gay because the federal government should be controlling the border in the first place. Not relying on states to hodge podge defend themselves and then throwing legal monkey wrenches is their way as they try to defend themselves against invasion.

This is just wrong.

It's assinine to destoy the enitire body of immigration law based on how it's all the sudden somehow wrong for a cop to use his own jugement to decide to arrest like we do in ALL OTHER MATTERS. There's all the sudden this judgement against the cop that he can not longer be reasonable. That's fucking insulting.