What does an illegal immigrant look like?

[USFREEDOM911]

You cannot be seriously asking this. You can face a lot of consequences from a civil judgment against you. I mean, tinfoil cited the ability to sue cops acting in bad faith as a way of preventing abuse. Obviously, he is arguing that there is a consequence.

It is so sad that you people are so ignorant of the law. Is it that or are you being disingenuous?

A judgement is one thing; but doesn't normally involve something as severe as deportation.
And a judgement can be appealed.
How are you going to appeal that fact that a person is here illegally??

 

[Timshel]

A judgement is one thing; but doesn't normally involve something as severe as deportation.
And a judgement can be appealed.
How are you going to appeal that fact that a person is here illegally??

Deportation is not severe. They don't have a legal right to be here. You can lose your driving privileges for too many civil infractions. Deportation is less severe than that, since they had no license to begin with.

You can appeal a criminal judgment. So? That is not a distinction between the two.

I did not bring up appeals so why would you ask me how one might appeal a ruling on legal presence? I don't know, maybe there was some sort of administrative error. It has nothing to do with criminal vs civil.

 

[tinfoil]

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.

You, sir, are the idiot

Gonzales v. City of Peoria. In Gonzales v. City of Peoria, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that federal law does not preclude local enforcement of the criminal provisions of the INA (722 F. 2d 468, 475 (9th Cir. 1983)). The Gonzalez case examined the city’s policies, which authorized its police officers to arrest illegal immigrants for violating the criminal entry provisions of the INA (8 USC § 1324). The defendants argued that federal law prohibited state and local police officers from making such arrests. The court held that local police officers may, subject to state law, constitutionally stop or detain people when there is reasonable suspicion or, in the case of arrests, probable cause that they have violated, or are violating, the criminal provisions of the INA.


http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/rpt/2005-R-0457.htm

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Deportation is not severe. They don't have a legal right to be here. You can lose your driving privileges for too many civil infractions. Deportation is less severe than that, since they had no license to begin with.

You can appeal a criminal judgment. So? That is not a distinction between the two.

I did not bring up appeals so why would you ask me how one might appeal a ruling on legal presence? I don't know, maybe there was some sort of administrative error. It has nothing to do with criminal vs civil.

If deportation isn't that severe, then what's the problem; but then, you might want to speak to some illegals and ask them if they think it's severe or not.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

You, sir, are the idiot

Gonzales v. City of Peoria. In Gonzales v. City of Peoria, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that federal law does not preclude local enforcement of the criminal provisions of the INA (722 F. 2d 468, 475 (9th Cir. 1983)). The Gonzalez case examined the city’s policies, which authorized its police officers to arrest illegal immigrants for violating the criminal entry provisions of the INA (8 USC § 1324). The defendants argued that federal law prohibited state and local police officers from making such arrests. The court held that local police officers may, subject to state law, constitutionally stop or detain people when there is reasonable suspicion or, in the case of arrests, probable cause that they have violated, or are violating, the criminal provisions of the INA.


http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/rpt/2005-R-0457.htm

Tinfoil just pwnd RS.

 

[Timshel]

Tinfoil just pwnd RS.

What part of criminal entry provisions of the INA do you not understand? Read the fucking ruling. It clearly criticized Peoria for confusion of illegal entry and illegal presence. I will cite the relevant sections again, if you insist. tinfoil, pwned himself showing he can't comprehend anything past a short summary.

 

[Timshel]

tinfoil, pwned himself showing he can't comprehend anything past a short summary.

Actually, I am giving him too much credit since he misunderstood the summary.

 

[Timshel]

If deportation isn't that severe, then what's the problem; but then, you might want to speak to some illegals and ask them if they think it's severe or not.

I don't know what the problem is. You are the one advocating a change to being able to easily deport them. You tell me what the problem is.

They can think whatever they want. Under the laws, they have no right to be here so kicking them out does not deprive them of anything. No need to give them a lawyer or any of the other things we would afford someone who is at greater risk of losing their liberty.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

What part of criminal entry provisions of the INA do you not understand? Read the fucking ruling. It clearly criticized Peoria for confusion of illegal entry and illegal presence. I will cite the relevant sections again, if you insist. tinfoil, pwned himself showing he can't comprehend anything past a short summary.

And you just can't seem to accept that the Court ruled in favor of the Police and the City.
Now you're just splitting hairs, in a very embarassing attempt to save face.

You've been pwnd, get used to it.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

I don't know what the problem is. You are the one advocating a change to being able to easily deport them. You tell me what the problem is.

They can think whatever they want. Under the laws, they have no right to be here so kicking them out does not deprive them of anything. No need to give them a lawyer or any of the other things we would afford someone who is at greater risk of losing their liberty.

Gee, let me see.
How about the FACT that people who have voluntarially deported, just keep coming back; for some reason.
Then they just self-deport again and return again.
This will now have the teeth of then having broke the law, been convicted, and any further disregard for the law might just bring more severe penalties.

Could just cause some people to re-think not taking the law seriously.

 

[tinfoil]

What part of criminal entry provisions of the INA do you not understand? Read the fucking ruling. It clearly criticized Peoria for confusion of illegal entry and illegal presence. I will cite the relevant sections again, if you insist. tinfoil, pwned himself showing he can't comprehend anything past a short summary.

Uh, puhlease. You can split all the hairs you want. 70% of american side with me. you are the idiot on this one

 

[DamnYankee]

Tinfoil just pwnd RS.

That's not hard to do.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

I don't know what the problem is. You are the one advocating a change to being able to easily deport them. You tell me what the problem is.

???...it's never been difficult to deport them.....you just load them on a bus and drive them home.....what's been difficult has been finding federal agents willing to do it.....

 

[Timshel]

And you just can't seem to accept that the Court ruled in favor of the Police and the City.
Now you're just splitting hairs, in a very embarassing attempt to save face.

I know what they ruled. They found that the police could no be liable because there was no proof of bad faith on the part of the officers. Part of their ruling was that local police could help in the arrest criminal violations of he INA. They also said...

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.
36

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).
38

To summarize, nothing in federal law precluded Peoria police from enforcing the criminal provisions of the Immigration and Naturalization Act. Arizona law authorizes local officers to arrest for violations of 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1325 where there is probable cause to believe the arrestee has illegally entered the United States. However, enforcement procedures must distinguish illegal entry from illegal presence and must comply with all arrest requirements imposed by the federal Constitution.

You've been pwnd, get used to it.

How much clearer can I make it for you? You are an idiot that does not understand the summary and did not bother to read the entire judgment.

AGAIN, they can arrest criminal violators of the immigration law. They can't arrest someone for not having their papers because the person could tell them they are illegally present and that still would not be probable cause that a crime was committed.

 

[Timshel]

???...it's never been difficult to deport them.....you just load them on a bus and drive them home.....what's been difficult has been finding federal agents willing to do it.....

I agree. Don't see how that is terribly relevant to anything discussed here. Criminalizing illegal presence won't fix that. Funding is needed for more agents. That has nothing at all to do with the criminalization of illegal presence.

 

[Timshel]

Uh, puhlease. You can split all the hairs you want. 70% of american side with me. you are the idiot on this one

Split hairs lol. The distinction between criminal and civil violations of the law is not splitting hairs. The court clearly said the distinction was important and that the Peoria police seem confused about it.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

I know what they ruled. They found that the police could no be liable because there was no proof of bad faith on the part of the officers. Part of their ruling was that local police could help in the arrest criminal violations of he INA. They also said...

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.
36

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).
38

To summarize, nothing in federal law precluded Peoria police from enforcing the criminal provisions of the Immigration and Naturalization Act. Arizona law authorizes local officers to arrest for violations of 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1325 where there is probable cause to believe the arrestee has illegally entered the United States. However, enforcement procedures must distinguish illegal entry from illegal presence and must comply with all arrest requirements imposed by the federal Constitution.





How much clearer can I make it for you? You are an idiot that does not understand the summary and did not bother to read the entire judgment.

AGAIN, they can arrest criminal violators of the immigration law. They can't arrest someone for not having their papers because the person could tell them they are illegally present and that still would not be probable cause that a crime was committed.

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

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Split hairs lol. The distinction between criminal and civil violations of the law is not splitting hairs. The court clearly said the distinction was important and that the Peoria police seem confused about it.

And yet; you continue to keep forgetting that the Court found in favor of the Police and the City!!

 

[Timshel]

Gee, let me see.
How about the FACT that people who have voluntarially deported, just keep coming back; for some reason.
Then they just self-deport again and return again.
This will now have the teeth of then having broke the law, been convicted, and any further disregard for the law might just bring more severe penalties.

Could just cause some people to re-think not taking the law seriously.

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.

 

[Timshel]

And yet; you continue to keep forgetting that the Court found in favor of the Police and the City!!

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.