What does an illegal immigrant look like?

[USFREEDOM911]

Are you talking about a voluntary departure?

Self deportation can be a grounds for future inadmissibility. If the immigrant was illegally present for 180 days he is barred for 3 years and for a year of illegal presence they are barred for 10 years. Your problem is with enforcement.

Being barred would require them to appear before a judge; because it doesn't become automatic.

Self-Deportation occurs when ICE picks up someone. They are given the opportunity to "self-deport", which means they go before no Judge and are just returned to their country of origin.

There use to be a lot of it here, around Christmas. That way they got a free ride home.

 

[Timshel]

And yet the Court ruled in favor of the Police and the City, so the rest is just you complaining that it didn't work out the way you wanted it to.

If asked for ID, in a legal investigation, you are required to provide such and I want you to post the report where come to Arizona, run the stop sign, refuse to supply a legal ID, tell them you're here illegally and expect nothing to occur.

Time to put your money where your mouth is, or else just STFU AND STFD.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
H

I posted the relevant parts and put in them in bold. Was it too difficult for you? Maybe something shorter? Here you go...

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.

....

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.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

I did not say otherwise. The ruling is important not because the cops could not be sued. That has little to with anything. It is important because the court drew a distinction between state and local leo's enforcement of criminal violations and civil ones. You guys focus on whether cops could be held liable (nobody is debating that) and ignore the part relevant to enforcement of civil violations and where the court described this confusion on the part of the Peoria police. You share their confusion and demand that it be advanced.

Since this is so important to you, what has happened since then??

 

[Timshel]

Since this is so important to you, what has happened since then??

If you are referring to Arizona's attempt to create arrest authority, I noted that in my first post on the subject. It is an attempt to regulate immigration. We'll see if the courts allow it.

 

[imnoliber]

I posted the relevant parts and put in them in bold. Was it too difficult for you? Maybe something shorter? Here you go...

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.

....

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.

RString
Do you know the difference between dicta and holding in a case. Dicta does not establish legal precedence that can be used in future cases.

 

[Damocles]

YOU ARE A FUCKING IDIOT. It goes beyond existing law. The feds cannot make a warrantless arrest away from the border based on a lack of documentation. Gonzales v Peoria, 8 USC Section 1357.

Actually, neither can these cops, there is the "legal contact" portion of the law that everybody seems to ignore.