gonzales did not say that. and, any public offense that makes a person removable is a CRIMINAL offense. you can't be removed for civil offenses.
Post 37.
Being here illegally is a civil offense. The Feds can remove one for it.
this is the weakest argument i've come across in a while. you make a claim, but when asked to substantiate it, fall back on the false claim i am asking you to "prove" a negative. first all, you can prove a negative, second, you made the 'negative' claim. "1245" <-- there is a 3 in that number sequence. are you going to tell me that asking me to prove that is to prove a negative and that it can't be done?
You are an idiot. 1245 is the entire text that must be searched. We can see there is no three instantly with such a small piece of text. If you like I can post the entire text of the bill and say, "see there is nothing in it." But what's the point. You have the text of the bill. So, see there is nothing in it. It's your turn, retard.
let's just accept the fact you made a claim you know you cannot substantiate, so you wuss out.
:
:
again, read the cases i provided you...if you're not going to bother to read stuff i give that backs up what i have said (3 times) then don't bother replying.
Now I am supposed read three cases in search of your point? Post the relevant parts you believe prove your point. I am not going to do the work for you.
its also clear you have no true understanding of the supremacy clause. states create criminal penalties that are also federal criminal penalties all the time, unless congress specifically preempts that area of law, there is no conflict and no violation of the supremecy clause....the cases i repeated pointed you to state clearly that congress has not preempted this and states can create their own penalties.
Federal immigration agents are not permitted to conduct warrantless arrests away from the border unless they have reasonable cause to believe the person would escape before a warrant could be obtained. 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2). The law conflicts with federal law and therefore is a violation of the supremacy clause.
that is from gonzales...its entirely and painfully clear you haven't even read the case you're citing to support your contentions....since you refuse to read the cases i have given, it seems easier to just use your case against you.
Post 37.
Here it is again for you...
We therefore conclude that state law authorizes Peoria police to enforce the criminal provisions of the Immigration and Naturalization Act. We firmly emphasize, however, that this authorization is limited to criminal violations. Many of the problems arising from implementation of the City's written policies have derived from a failure to distinguish between civil and criminal violations of the Act. Several of the policy statements use the term "illegal alien," which obscures the distinction between the civil and the criminal violations. In some instances, that term has been used by the City to mean an alien who has illegally entered the country, which is a criminal violation under section 1325. In others, it has meant an alien who is illegally present in the United States, which is only a civil violation. There are numerous reasons why a person could be illegally present in the United States without having entered in violation of section 1325. Examples include expiration of a visitor's visa, change of student status, or acquisition of prohibited employment. Arrest of a person for illegal presence would exceed the authority granted Peoria police by state law.
35
Furthermore, an arresting officer cannot assume that an alien who admits he lacks proper documentation has violated section 1325. 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 arrest must therefore be supported by additional evidence that the arrestee entered without inspection. In implementing the arrest authority granted by state law, local police must be able to distinguish between criminal and civil violations and the evidence pertinent to each. In the future, this may require refinements of both the written policies and officer training programs.
We further emphasize that arrests for federal offenses can be justified by state law authorization only if the arrest procedures do not violate the federal Constitution. Ker, 374 U.S. at 37, 83 S.Ct. at 1631. The evidence indicates that the City's most recent written policy is based on a misconception of constitutional requirements. The chief of police expressed the conviction that "detaining" persons in custody for suspected violations of the Act is different from arresting them. There is no constitutional distinction between these procedures. "Detention" defines a special category of fourth amendment seizures that are substantially less intrusive than arrests. Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200, 210, 99 S.Ct. 2248, 2255, 60 L.Ed.2d 824 (1979). Because detention represents only a limited intrusion, it can be justified by a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Id. at 211-12, 99 S.Ct. at 2255-56. However, that suspicion justifies only a brief stop and interrogation and, under proper circumstances, a brief check for weapons. United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 881-82, 95 S.Ct. 2574, 2580-81, 45 L.Ed.2d 607 (1975); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 27, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1883, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). If the seizure involves anything more than the brief and narrowly-defined intrusion authorized by Terry, it must be justified by probable cause. Dunaway, 442 U.S. at 212, 99 S.Ct. at 2256; Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. at 882, 95 S.Ct. at 2580. Dunaway makes absolutely clear that where the defendant is transported to the police station and placed in a cell or interrogation room he has been arrested, even if the purpose of the seizure is investigatory rather than accusatory. 442 U.S. at 212-13, 99 S.Ct. at 2256-57; see also Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 605, 95 S.Ct. 2254, 2262, 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975). Because such a seizure constitutes an arrest, it must be supported by probable cause. Dunaway, 442 U.S. at 214, 99 S.Ct. at 2257; United States v. Chamberlin, 644 F.2d 1262, 1266 (9th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 453 U.S. 914, 101 S.Ct. 3148, 69 L.Ed.2d 997 (1981).
37
In seizing persons suspected of violations of 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1325, Peoria police have adopted a procedure identical to that described in Dunaway. Defendants are walked or driven to the police station and held pending interrogation by the Border Patrol. This seizure constitutes an arrest, and the constitutional standards cannot be avoided by labeling it a mere detention. Prior to invoking this procedure, the police must therefore have probable cause to believe either that illegal entry has occurred or that another offense has been committed. As we have indicated, inability to produce documentation does not in itself provide probable cause. For example, if a passenger in a vehicle stopped by the police cannot, or does not, provide identification, his failure to do so does not justify transporting him to the station and holding him for the Border Patrol. See Florida v. Royer, --- U.S. ----, ----, 103 S.Ct. 1319, 1324, 75 L.Ed.2d 229, 236 (1983) (plurality opinion); Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47, 53, 99 S.Ct. 2637, 2641, 61 L.Ed.2d 357 (1979).
As much as I like long range shooting though, I wouldn't take it.