Immigrants vs. Illegal Aliens

RStringfield said:
They are fascist. You, a person who believes people should be assumed guilty until proven innocent and that the cops should cast as wide a net as possible, have no right to call them that. I think Hitler may have found you too extreme.

Like I said, beyond the fringes of reality much less reasonable political discourse. You are crazy, but harmless since nobody listens to you.



Felonious crime? You have to be pulling my leg.
Click to expand...

Asking for documents is not a presumption of guilt. Frankly, it's admitting ignorance and wanting confirmation on the subject. given your stupidity on this one issue, it's unnecessary to continue this post to make you look like the fool you are.
 
You now are referring to this as a felonious crime. It's not even a misdemeanor. Are you going to tell me the distinctions between a felony and a civil violation are trivial and unimportant. I don't know if you could make yourself look any more foolish.
 
RStringfield said:
You now are referring to this as a felonious crime. It's not even a misdemeanor. Are you going to tell me the distinctions between a felony and a civil violation are trivial and unimportant. I don't know if you could make yourself look any more foolish.
Click to expand...

Let's just agree it's an infraction worthy of deportation. You can call it Skippy Lou for all i care.
 
RStringfield said:
No, I do not. I keep repeating (has to be close to a 100 times now) that THAT is a crime. It is a crime that not all illegal aliens are guilty of and lack of documentation is not probable cause of it, the courts have expressed this. Not all illegal aliens entered illegally. Some entered legally and failed to stay in compliance with the law (could be a visa expiration, change in student status, taking prohibited work, etc.). They are not guilty of a crime but a civil violation of the law.
Click to expand...

But here is the catch.... Law enforcement officers do not determine guilt or innocence. A judge and a court can find someone guilty or not guilty, it is NEVER left up to the officer to determine. That applies to everything from a parking ticket to premeditated murder. If there is reasonable suspicion a crime has been committed, in this case, crossing the border illegally, the officer can (and usually does) make an arrest. They can hold you for 48 hrs, just on the suspicion you committed a crime, and it is ultimately up to the district attorney to decide if the evidence is good enough for a conviction, and whether formal charges are made. You are incorrectly attempting to apply the standards of a jury to law enforcement, and that is never the case, never has been the case, and never will be the case.

One can be deported for illegal presence. I have not argued otherwise. They can not be arrested for illegal presence without a warrant unless they are likely to escape. They cannot be jailed or imprisoned for illegal presence alone. The illegally present are not criminals.
Click to expand...

Being illegally present is "probable cause" to reasonably suspect you might have committed the crime of crossing the border illegally. This is largely due to the fact that everyone who has crossed the border illegally, is also illegally present. Extenuating circumstances are for the judges and courts to figure out, not law enforcement. Their job is to enforce the law, and being illegally present, is... well, illegal!
 
Dixie said:
But here is the catch.... Law enforcement officers do not determine guilt or innocence. A judge and a court can find someone guilty or not guilty, it is NEVER left up to the officer to determine. That applies to everything from a parking ticket to premeditated murder. If there is reasonable suspicion a crime has been committed, in this case, crossing the border illegally, the officer can (and usually does) make an arrest. They can hold you for 48 hrs, just on the suspicion you committed a crime, and it is ultimately up to the district attorney to decide if the evidence is good enough for a conviction, and whether formal charges are made. You are incorrectly attempting to apply the standards of a jury to law enforcement, and that is never the case, never has been the case, and never will be the case.



Being illegally present is "probable cause" to reasonably suspect you might have committed the crime of crossing the border illegally. This is largely due to the fact that everyone who has crossed the border illegally, is also illegally present. Extenuating circumstances are for the judges and courts to figure out, not law enforcement. Their job is to enforce the law, and being illegally present, is... well, illegal!
Click to expand...

The USC and court opinions state that an even admission of illegal presence is not probable cause alone of illegal entry. Sorry, your rationalizations are incorrect.

http://www.justice.gov/olc/immstopo1a.htm

Whether state officers may assist in enforcing the civil component of federal immigration law raises a separate issue. Deportation of aliens under the INA is a civil proceeding. For example, a lawfully admitted non-immigrant alien may become deportable if his visitor's visa expires or if his student status changes. In such circumstances, persons may become subject to civil deportation without having violated a criminal provision of the INA.

In Gonzales, the Ninth Circuit held that the authority of state officials to enforce the provisions of the INA "is limited to criminal violations." 772 F.2d at 476. The court based this distinction between the civil and criminal provisions of the INA on the theory that the former constitute a pervasive and preemptive regulatory scheme, whereas the latter do not. (2) Application of this rule would seem to preclude detentions by state officers based solely on suspicion of deportability (as opposed to criminal violations of the INA). Accord Gates v. Superior Court, 193 Cal. App.3d 205, 213, 238 Cal. Rptr. 592 ((1987) ("The civil provisions of the INA constitute a pervasive regulatory scheme such as to grant exclusive federal jurisdiction over immigration, thereby preempting state enforcement.").

In an opinion issued in 1989, (3) this Office similarly recognized the distinction between the civil and criminal provisions of the INA for purposes of state law enforcement authority. We first expressed our belief that "the mere existence of a warrant of deportation for an alien does not provide sufficient probable cause to conclude that the criminal provisions [of the INA] have in fact been violated." 1989 OLC Op. at 8. We then concluded:

Because 8 U.S.C. § 1251 makes clear that an alien who has lawfully entered this country, lawfully registered, and who has violated no criminal statute may still be deported for noncompliance with the noncriminal or civil immigration provisions, the mere existence of a warrant of deportation does not enable all state and local law enforcement officers to arrest the violator of those civil provisions.

Id. at 9.

In that regard, 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2) imposes substantial restrictions even upon the authority of federal officers to make warrantless arrests for purposes of civil deportation. It requires that the arresting officer reasonably believe the alien is in the United States illegally and that he is "likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained for his arrest." See Mountain High Knitting, Inc. v. Reno, 51 F.3d 216, 218 (9th Cir. 1995) (asserting that even INS agents have no legitimate basis for a warrantless arrest of aliens subject to civil deportation unless the arresting officer reasonably believes that the alien is likely to escape before an arrest warrant can be obtained).

Taking all these authorities into account, we conclude that state and local police lack recognized legal authority to stop and detain an alien solely on suspicion of civil deportability, as opposed to a criminal violation of the immigration laws or other laws.
 
RStringfields loves laws that hamstring a cop's ability to get basic information, but believes the law should be ignored when deportation should apply. The hypocrisy reeks.
 
AssHatZombie said:
But they can and should still be deported for illegal presence.
Click to expand...

By the feds, after an arrest, with a warrant and a court hearing to determine their legal right to be present.

Shit, the DOJ goes farther than me. I don't see why state leos shouldn't be able to arrest if they have a warrant. Without one, hell no. But the DOJ says they can't do it WITH a warrant for a civil violation. But since the courts have argued that the states are preempted in the civil sphere and illegal presence IS NOT probable cause of illegal entry, I guess they are right.

You guys are done. I am sure you are going to keep arguing the point, but you have been proven wrong whether you accept it or not. The distinctions are important and Arizona has overstepped.
 
RStringfield said:
By the feds, after an arrest, with a warrant and a court hearing to determine their legal right to be present.

Shit, the DOJ goes farther than me. I don't see why state leos shouldn't be able to arrest if they have a warrant. Without one, hell no. But the DOJ says they can't do it WITH a warrant for a civil violation. But since the courts have argued that the states are preempted in the civil sphere and illegal presence IS NOT probable cause of illegal entry, I guess they are right.

You guys are done. I am sure you are going to keep arguing the point, but you have been proven wrong whether you accept it or not. The distinctions are important and Arizona has overstepped.
Click to expand...

I believe local cops can enforce federal laws too.
 
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://web.mac.com/waltermoore/Walt...lice_Can_Enforce_Federal_Immigration_Law.html
 
AssHatZombie said:
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://web.mac.com/waltermoore/Walt...lice_Can_Enforce_Federal_Immigration_Law.html
Click to expand...

AHZ just pwnd RS, AGAIN :good4u:
 
You have been proven wrong on Gonzales v Peoria. Your quote shows it. Criminal violations.

Vazquez involved a criminal offense, previously deported felon. It did not distinguish between criminal and civil violations.

Salinas involved a criminal offense, knowing transportation of illegal immigrants. It did not distinguish between criminal and civil violations.

Hernandez involved a criminal offense, possession of methamphetamine. It did not distinguish between criminal and civil violations.

Gray is n/a.

Hernandez involved a criminal offense, possession of a false social security card.

Anything else?

BTW, the DoJ opinion I posted from in response to Dixie was rescinded by Bush. Sorry, if I created any confusion. That does not make it wrong and it still demonstrates the distinctions are important.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top