Posted on 02/21/2005 2:42:11 PM PST by SwinneySwitch
Most Americans will think so, once they see the bill.
It's not enough to propose a solution: you must also pay for it, and convince the American public (who live in 50 states) to pay for solving a problem peculiar to four states.
That will remain to be seen.
It's not enough to propose a solution: you must also pay for it, and convince the American public (who live in 50 states) to pay for solving a problem peculiar to four states.
Nice try. It affects just about every state.
Poohbah's claim:
Yup, the same Congress that has never been willing to hire enough border patrol agents. I don't give a flying hoot about high-tech gizmos; unless Congress is willing to hire a minimum of million additional pairs of boots at $150K per year, they're not serious. Unless the American public's willing to foot that bill, they're not serious, either--and most Americans aren't willing to spend that kind of money.
Marine inspector: Any comments on the supposed cost?
Loaded is right. Do you mean to tell me that a park ranger in Yellowstone handing out tour guide pamphlets is costing me $150,000 a year? Two EPA goofs running around checking on endangered fruit flies cost as much as a McMansion in Pennsylvania? How can we ever afford our military?
I think your numbers are just a little bit inflated. I also think my country's priorities are just a little bit out of wack.
I'd say that's a legitimate figure, but we don't need a million more BP Agents.
I'd say we start by just letting the 10,000 we have enforce the law with out impediment from management and politicians. Once we see how effective they can really be, then we could accurately decide on how many we need.
SIMCOX: We've been shot at, we've had knives pulled on us, we've had people tell us that if we didn't have that holstered firearm on our side that they'd kill us.
Gilchrist has apparently been cowered. There was one thread where it was said that the volunteers were merely going to line their cars up on the side of a short stretch of road in a lightly populated area and not get out of their cars.
"I studied Arizona and Texas laws on that, and neither would allow you to detain a border crosser unless they were committing a felony"
Illegal entry is a FEDERAL offense, which trumps state laws:
8 USC Sec 1325 - Improper entry by alien (a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of fact. Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a wilfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned no more than 6 months, or both and for a subsequent commision of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
---
Illegal entry after deportation (8 USC Section 1326(b)) is punishable up to 20 years in a federal penetentiary.
In either case it's a federal crime, both as a misdemeanor and felony, both subject to arrest and immediate confinement as well as detention without bond. The INS may choose to deal with it as an administrative issue, but it is a criminal offense.
States have legislated the ability for bounty hunters, as officers of the court, to return offenders when they violate the terms of their bond; likewise, legislatures can pass legislation or laws giving bounty hunters the power to detain persons illegally crossing borders. The federal government is unlikely to place a bounty because 95% of the "10% bonds" made in US court are paid to the court clerk, not a bondsman, and therefore surety companies (and their bounty hunters) are not involved.
Instead, the US Marshall's office does the work of the bounty hunter.
I don't believe Washington will get serious about this until they're forced to by border states adopting stricter legislation and enforcement. As for the border watchers, they lack the authority, the arms and the support needed to affect a change. They'd do more good staring down their state and congressional representatives and starting a SwiftVet-type campaign to get existing laws enforced.
It does not trump state law over what is an offense suitable for citizen's arrest.
In either case it's a federal crime, both as a misdemeanor and felony, both subject to arrest and immediate confinement as well as detention without bond. The INS may choose to deal with it as an administrative issue, but it is a criminal offense.
And, once again, Arizona law requires that you witness a felony in progress, except for a few narrow misdemeanor exceptions which do not apply here. If you witness an illegal border crosser, you have no idea whether they are doing it after previous deportation. Therefore, you have no idea whether it is a felony in progress or not. So you cannot legally perform a citizens arrest.
Don't believe me? Ask Marine Inspector. He's in a good position to know the law, and we have discussed this subject in detail on FR in the past.
States have legislated the ability for bounty hunters, as officers of the court, to return offenders when they violate the terms of their bond; likewise, legislatures can pass legislation or laws giving bounty hunters the power to detain persons illegally crossing borders.
The important thing to note here is that no such authorization has been made. Once again, I think state laws should allow for citizen apprehension of someone observed crossing the border without going through border checkpoints. But that's my opinion, it's not the law. You need to learn the difference between the two yourself.
Please provide the link.
If the illegal is on public property, you're going to jail if you attempt a citizen’s arrest.
If the illegal is on private property, then the situation changes. If it's your property, then I'm pretty sure you can perform a citizen’s arrest for trespassing. If it's someone else’s property, then your in a whole new ball game and I'm not sure how the works on that case.
I don't doubt you.
It typically depends upon the nature of the trespass, as to whether it elevates to a felony level, such as witnessing the person breaking into a building or removing property.
I would say that, IMO (and take it as such), if you were to apprehend a tresspasser via citizen's arrest, you would probably not be subject to prosecution or trial if the force was not excessive. It's interesting that the Ranch Rescue dudes got off with nothing more than a weapons charge.
As long as your the owner or have the owners permission, that is how I read it also. In public, you can't touch them.
It's interesting that the Ranch Rescue dudes got off with nothing more than a weapons charge.
They got off, because the illegals had no proof they were abused. IMO, the abuse story was made up by the folks that brought the law suite up on behalf of the illegals.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.