Posted on 05/12/2005 7:04:25 AM PDT by whd23
MERRIMACK — The attorney representing the illegal immigrant charged by New Ipswich police for criminal trespassing will argue state law is being misused and the Vienna Convention was violated when her client was not put in touch with the Mexican Consulate.
During an interview in her Merrimack office, Attorney Mona Movafaghi said the Vienna Convention guaranteed the right of her client to contact the Mexican Consulate, but police failed to provide the opportunity.
New Ipswich Police Chief W. Garrett Chamberlain charged Jorge Mora Ramirez, 21, with criminal trespass and operating a vehicle without a valid license on April 15. Ramirez encountered police on Turnpike Road after having car trouble. A local officer, who stopped to investigate, found Ramirez with several false identification papers and a Mexican driver's license.
When federal authorities would not take Ramirez into custody, Chamberlain added the criminal trespassing charge — a tactic that has gained attention nationally.
"I'm disgruntled that the feds aren't going to follow up. We're stepping up to the plate and doing what the federal government refuses to do," the chief has said.
"We think that it's a misuse of the law and it was not the intent of the statute to be used in that way," Movafaghi said.
"If (Chamberlain) feels like this is his mission in life, he should join ICE," she said, referring to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the federal agency charged with enforcing immigration law.
Immigration authorities are "told to target criminals, terrorists and people who are causing trouble," the attorney said.
Manny Van Pelt, an ICE spokesman, disputed the priorities outlined by Movafaghi.
"We cannot turn a blind eye to violations of the law. And we will not," he said.
"We are going to place this person (Ramirez) in deportation hearings. Absolutely. We fully intend to," Van Pelt said in a phone interview yesterday.
Movafaghi declined to comment on the pending deportation proceedings.
In district court on May 3, Ramirez pleaded guilty to the charges. He does not speak English and did not have an attorney present.
After contacting the New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union, the Mexican Consulate in Boston called Movafaghi on May 4. Movafaghi met Ramirez the next day. And, on May 6 in Jaffrey-Peterborough District Court, Ramirez's guilty plea was reversed to innocent.
"Things moved very quickly. We were surprised we got a hearing" to change the plea, Movafaghi said.
Movafaghi declined to comment on whether she is being paid by the Mexican Consulate, Ramirez or working pro bono. The Mexican Consulate in Boston did not return calls for comment.
"The police chief is saying a person who is traveling on public roads has no right to do so if they are in the U.S. illegally . . .," she said. "If you are from Milford, can you be on the roads in New Ipswich?" Movafaghi said. "Where does it end?
"The immigration laws make the determination on who's here illegally, not the police chief," she said.
Movafaghi has been a member of the American Immigration Lawyers Association since 1987 and has focused primarily on immigration and nationality law since 1996. Her law firm is at 419 Daniel Webster Highway in Merrimack.
"I think people don't understand the state of immigration in New Hampshire . . . both illegal and legal. If there is an issue in a small state like New Hampshire, you can imagine the problems in New York and Florida," she said.
Ramirez is living in Waltham, Mass., and worked for a construction company in Jaffrey.
"(Ramirez) did not understand the implication of pleading guilty and was not given access to an attorney or a consulate," said Claire Ebel, executive director of the New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union.
The matter is scheduled for a bench trial at 10 a.m. on July 12 in Jaffrey-Peterborough District Court.
But I thought illegals wanted to be treated like everyone else...a job, free education, free health care, drivers license but they sure want their "rights" as a Mexican National when it suits them...
I think people don't understand the state of immigration in New Hampshire . . . both illegal and legal. If there is an issue in a small state like New Hampshire, you can imagine the problems in New York and Florida," she said."
Oh, it's not exactly rocket science, Mona.
Is anybody going after this company?
Ummmmmmmmm... so the POLICE do not know what is legal and what is not now?? I guess it depends of what the meaning of "law" is.
I mean, they write these things down right?? /s
ping
Police Chief Garrett Chamberlain
"the Vienna Convention was violated when her client was not put in touch with the Mexican Consulate"
Illegal Mexicans are invoking the legal concept of extraterritoriality, that they are not subject to our laws.
The illegals want all the benefits of being here, but not of the responsibilities. Sort of like Shanghai and Hong Kong in the 1920s when foreigners had their own laws and courts so Chinese law did not affect them while in China. Modern China recalls this as foreign oppression.
extraterritoriality, privilege of immunity from local law enforcement enjoyed by certain aliens. Although physically present upon the territory of a foreign nation, those aliens possessing extraterritoriality are considered by customary international law or treaty to be under the legal jurisdiction of their home country. Generally such persons are exempt from both civil and criminal action; they may not be sued or arrested. Their property and residences are inviolable, and they are usually exempt from both personal and property taxes.
"The immigration laws make the determination on who's here illegally, not the police chief," she said.
OK, since when does it take a police chief to figure out that you're an illegal when 1.) You can't speak ANY English. 2.) You have several false ID papers. 3.) You're carrying a Mexican driver's license?
Things should be no different than when a US citizen enters a US Military installation. You automatically waive your rights to being notified in advance of being searched, your belongings siezed, and basically your rights as you know them being thrown out. Once an illegal steps over the border without documents allowing them to do so, they should immediately lose any and all Constitutional protections or rights. They should have fewer rights than someone breaking into your home in the middle of the night.
Oh, like diplomatic immunity.
Yes, I'd like to place an order.
20 million blue helments please.
You silly!! That would be profiling!/s
Sort of like Shanghai and Hong Kong in the 1920s when foreigners had their own laws and courts so Chinese law did not affect them while in China. Modern China recalls this as foreign oppression.Good analogy. The difference here being that the oppressors in this case are supported by an army of domestic traitors, including the ACLU, which believes that the only good law is an foreign law.
If I remember correctly, according to the immigration laws state he is here illegally. Since he is here illegally, he is in violation of the Massachusetts criminal trespass law. All the sheriff is doing is enforcing state law, not the federal immigration law. Also, the state attorney has already reviewed this specific application of the law, and indicated thew sheriff is applying it correctly.
It's a New Hampshire case, but if Massachusetts has a similar law then let's nail this crimalien on both counts and ship his butt back to his home country.
Every illegal alien in America would be arrested, deported or shot in one month.
And we could shoot unregistered full auto machine guns in our backyards anytime, with no hassles from the governement.
(I just want a list of the laws which "really count" and I have to obey, and a list of the laws I can [wink wink] just ignore.)
Quisling: A word Norwegians are not very proud of having given to the world: it derives from Vidkun Quisling (1887-1945), a Norwegian politician who collaborated with the Nazis during World War II. He established his name as a synonym for "traitor", someone who collaborates with the invaders of his country, especially by serving in a puppet government. Quisling was found guilty of high treason in 1945, and was executed by firing squad on the 24th October 1945.
Oops, Freudian slip. I grew up in eastern Mass, and was thinking of the area when I posted my comment. What's really bad is I stated Mass more than once, even though I knew this happened in New Hampshire.
Well, the crimalien admits to "residing" in Mass so if Mass has a similar law it would be an open-and-shut case (if any DA in Mass would touch the case).
"Second hand rose" law degree : )
If this fine young wetback was working on the Boston Harbor Tunnel, then he is a wetback in both the literal and figurative sense. He probably had been using Mexican construction techniques while at work and we, therefore, can not expect the tunnel NOT to leak because that would be unfairly applying US thinking to an international person.
ping
Quisling was found guilty of high treason in 1945, and was executed by firing squad on the 24th October 1945.How do I love this idea? Let me count the names...
What a retard. It ends at our nation's borders, or it's supposed to.
Protect our borders and coastlines from all foreign invaders!
Be Ever Vigilant!
Minutemen Patriots ~ Bump!
American Borders ~vs~ The Powerful Open Border Lobbyists.
Which one will triumph? Which one has White House support?
================================
The attorney representing the illegal immigrant charged by New Ipswich police for criminal trespassing will argue state law is being misused and the Vienna Convention was violated when her client was not put in touch with the Mexican Consulate.New Ipswich Police Chief W. Garrett Chamberlain charged Jorge Mora Ramirez, 21, with criminal trespass and operating a vehicle without a valid license on April 15. Ramirez encountered police on Turnpike Road after having car trouble. A local officer, who stopped to investigate, found Ramirez with several false identification papers and a Mexican driver's license.
The laws cannot do anything. They need to be enforced by the actual people. And the Mexican consulate should be contacted, by all means - it should be SWAMPED with the contacts and inquiries, it should pay the tickets too.
"If there is an issue in a small state like New Hampshire, you can imagine the problems in New York and Florida," she said."
It's a NINE BILLION DOLLAR A YEAR PROBLEM in California!
And W, we want our money!
That kind of ends the 'anchor baby' nonsense, then, doesn't it?
Sure looks like it.
There was a similar story not long ago. Never heard the outcome. But at that time it stuck me odd that law enforcement would be responsible for initiating the contact between the consulate and the Illegal. What's to stop Jorge from calling the consulate on his own? Surly he could have done this on his own at any time.
What do they do? Throw out hundreds of years of America law precedent for a single wetback?
Trees are shaking in D.C. over this one . .
LOL. I assume in fear of being turned into reams of 11x14 paper.
If the Republicans don't address this illegals issue...they have lost my vote and my support!
Keep the pressure on on immigration!
That kind of ends the 'anchor baby' nonsense, then, doesn't it?"
Bravo. Brilliant observation. Should be good enough to qualify you for today's Clarence Daraow award.
Unfortunately, when it comes to the left/dim/, common sense and reason (much less the "law") is used and applied according to each situation as benefits them--not according the actual constructs.
I don't think courts accept pleas of "innocent". A defendant can either plead "guilty" or "not guilty".
Hey, nimrod attorney, just being in the country illegally is criminal trespass. Hail to the chief for figuring out something our overlords in DC cannot.
They should have fewer rights than someone breaking into your home in the middle of the night.
++++
Actually, that's exactly what they're doing: breaking into our "home."
Oh please counselor, spare us. That is a gross over-simplification and she you knows it. The police chief is correct. If the defendant can produce tax returns for every year he's been living in the US, then he might be able to make a case for using public roadways. Roadways that have been paid for by tax money from LEGAL citizens.
'Where does it end' she asks? It ends at the border. These people need to be rebuffed and turned away.
901@nipd.net
And here's the message I sent last week.
Chief Chamberlain:
Many Thanks to Chief Chamberlain for charging the Illegal Alien.
And it looks like ICEs Paula Grenier may well be a liar.
Grenier told the Monadnock Ledger on April 21 that
“Upon resolution of the state charges, ICE will take appropriate action,”
Yet, now she acts dumb about the case, saying they don't have any "official" paperwork.
You are correct. They should. But they don't. It's the wording of that darn pesky 14th Amendment:
14th Amendment
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
If they had only used the word 'citizen' a third and fourth time instead of the word 'person'...we wouldn't be having this problem.
These days, it's hard to say.
===================================
Thanks, Happy.
#27
Do they do this on purpose you think? There's that sweet little boy with the big doe eyes, and there's the cop sitting there looking cocky and Buford T Pusser like. I think it's planned for sympathy.
Thank you, filthy American politicians who have brought this scum into America. You're traitors to America and suck ups to your one world masters.
EVERYBODY!!
e mail Chamberlain . We need to show SERIOUS support for a good man doing a good job!!
901@nipd.net
working construction? I thought they were only doing jobs americans wouldn't do. I know pleny of people who are american citizens who would like to work construction jobs and would relocate to take one.
They couldn't.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
The way the Constitution was originally written, a 'citizen of the United States' was a person born within the confines of Washington DC, or the *ten miles square* of the Constitutions Article 1 Section 8, Clause 17.
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
A 'person' was everyone who were NOT US citizens, just residents of the states.
That why the two different terms were used.... United States = citizen / State = person.
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.