Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Illegal Presence in US Not A Crime, Court Says
CNS News ^

Posted on 08/21/2007 8:14:49 AM PDT by Sub-Driver

Illegal Presence in US Not A Crime, Court Says By Jeff Golimowski CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer August 21, 2007

(CNSNews.com) - If you can get past the border guards and into the United States, you're no longer violating the law, according to a Kansas Court of Appeals decision.

The ruling comes after an illegal immigrant, Nicholas Martinez, was sentenced to a year in jail after pleading guilty to possession of cocaine and endangering a child. Court documents say Martinez was caught in an undercover sting by detectives in Barton County, Kansas (about 120 miles northwest of Wichita), using his young son to help sell cocaine.

Under Kansas law, the charges (and plea bargain) would have landed Martinez on probation. But the judge in the case said the defendant couldn't be put on probation because of his immigration status.

"Mr. Martinez is illegally in the country and is in violation of the probation rules right from the start if I place him on probation," court documents quoted Judge Hannelore Kitts as saying. "He has to comply with all the conditions of the probation and he can't do that because he's in violation of the law not to violate any federal or state laws."

The judge then rejected the plea agreement's sentencing recommendation and ordered Martinez to spend a year in jail.

(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; US: Kansas
KEYWORDS: aliens; brownback; criminalaliens; illegals; immigrantlist; ruling
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-113 next last
To: Sub-Driver

Deport all illegal aliens, H311 ! Let’s start deporting all the lawyers and judges that come up with this Cr@p, first!


61 posted on 08/21/2007 11:00:24 AM PDT by OB1kNOb (Support Duncan Hunter for the 2008 GOP presidential nominee. He is THE conservative candidate!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
Well, then it probably isn't illegal to avoid paying income taxes either.

Thus.. re-defining of laws could end up being advantageous to taxpayrers.

62 posted on 08/21/2007 11:05:24 AM PDT by VideoDoctor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrB
This is a product of the plague of non-linear thinking that the left is indoctrinating our young people with.

This reminds me of the Klintoonian English: it depends on the ILLEGAL definition of the word "ILLEGAL".

Oh boy! We had better have a GOP WH in '08 before our language is altered forever!

63 posted on 08/21/2007 11:23:15 AM PDT by melancholy (Quiz: name one country, other than the USA, that doesn't control its borders.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: edsheppa

The remedy you suggest is still at hand only because the judge who was overruled made sure that this offender could still be found if she was overturned; as you say, arrest him now on illegal entry charges and hold him for ICE.

Tomorrow, rewrite the law.


64 posted on 08/21/2007 11:26:13 AM PDT by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
Well, judge, prepare to be overturned.

Just imagine the precedent: Your honor, it was illegal for me to break and to enter her home, but my continued presence in the home, hanging out on her sofa, is not.

65 posted on 08/21/2007 11:28:02 AM PDT by TChris (The Republican Party is merely the Democrat Party's "away" jersey - Vox Day)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

What about murder? If you aren’t actually caught DOING the crime, you should be fine thereafter. Rape too. Any crime that can be completed swiftly is not prosecutable then. The jails will be full of tax evaders and speeders while the killers and rapists go free.


66 posted on 08/21/2007 11:28:48 AM PDT by Yaelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yaelle

At what point are you ACTUALLY doing the “evading” of taxes?

Do they have to catch you right at the moment you sign the forms?


67 posted on 08/21/2007 11:34:02 AM PDT by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Keep in mind, the “magnificent jurist,” hails from Kansas (Russell, KS)


68 posted on 08/21/2007 11:38:26 AM PDT by CDB (Michael Yon is the Ernie Pyle of the War on Terror)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Greg F

Isn’t that like saying “while he committed arson and burnt down a building, he is not currently setting a building on fire and so he is not an arsonist and is not currently committing any crime”?


69 posted on 08/21/2007 11:39:48 AM PDT by Delacon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
"He has to comply with all the conditions of the probation and he can't do that because he's in violation of the law not to violate any federal or state laws."

Good, then throw the deadbeat out. Then he won't be violating any federal or state laws.

70 posted on 08/21/2007 11:45:51 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marron
The judge's ruling is incoherent.

Not really ...

Lets leave aside the laughable notion that, having entered illegally, he is no longer here illegally (if he's not here illegally, by what right does INS deport him?).

Take it up with the Supremes. The judge cites a 1958 USSC decision on that point: the actual border crossing is illegal and punishable by deportation. But the court also said that the crime of illegal border crossing isn't somehow made worse by the fact that the crosser stayed here: it's a one-shot deal, not a continuing crime.

The US Code says, however, that once a person has been deported and comes back, it is a felony just to be back here. It appears that Martinez does not fit in this category.

The requirement is that he remain in Kansas during his probation. This means that being deported would itself violate the terms of his probation, as it would remove him from the state of Kansas.

Well, yes, and the judge discusses that topic as well:

We do not presume to breach the line between interpreting and applying the law on one hand and establishing public policy on the other. We leave the latter task to our legislative branch. But our legislature, in enacting K.S.A. 2006 Supp. 21-4610(a), has mandated a provision in every probation plan that the defendant, during the term of probation, not violate the laws the United States. So long as this remains the law of our state, we must refrain from any activity that undermines its clear and unequivocal intent. Further, the sentencing court must be permitted to recognize an inherent conflict which may impede a defendant's successful compliance with a plan of probation which requires the defendant's continued presence in the jurisdiction and the defendant's compliance with the laws of the United States throughout the term of probation. Thus, if Martinez is present in the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (previously deported), the district court may consider this fact in determining whether he could successfully complete a plan of probation.

But please note: the whole point of this ruling is quite a bit different from what the headline and posts would suggest. The appeal apparently turns on the technical principle of "departure," which I take to mean that the judge "departs" from normal sentencing guidelines.

On that matter, and contrary to Kansas law, the trial judge failed to provide proper notice of its intent to "depart" -- she simply announced at the sentencing hearing that she going to do so.

The real kicker is this: the guy's not being let off of anything -- he's still convicted, and will be resentenced.

71 posted on 08/21/2007 11:57:30 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: lastchance
"I was thinking the same thing. It is illegal to rob the bank but not to have the money"

Right. The judge says that because having the stolen money wasn't specifically addressed by law, that it isn't a crime.

72 posted on 08/21/2007 11:57:46 AM PDT by boop (Trunk Monkey. Is there anything he can't do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Delacon

Heh. You have to prosecute a murderer while the bullet is in the air. Once the bullet makes impact and the victim dies, the criminal is a former murderer and current resident in good standing.


73 posted on 08/21/2007 11:58:42 AM PDT by Greg F (Duncan Hunter is the conservative in the race.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Good, then throw the deadbeat out. Then he won't be violating any federal or state laws.

He's convicted of cocaine posession and endangering a child. He belongs in prison. The technical aspects of this case turn on whether he should receive probation, and the judge rightly notes that there's a gap in the laws in Martinez's case.

I think the probable result will be that he'll serve his time (whatever it ends up being), and then have him deported. That would be the most sensible result.

74 posted on 08/21/2007 12:00:07 PM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Yaelle
What about murder? If you aren’t actually caught DOING the crime, you should be fine thereafter.... Any crime that can be completed swiftly is not prosecutable then.

Don't be silly.

When you're put on trial for murder or rape, you're put on trial for the specific act(s) of murder or rape that you are charged with committing.

You're not put on trial for the fact that you happened to remain alive and in the area after having committed the crimes with which you're charged.

75 posted on 08/21/2007 12:04:40 PM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: coloradan

Laws: Cases and Codes : U.S. Code : Title 8 : Section 1325

* United States Code
o TITLE 8 - ALIENS AND NATIONALITY
+ CHAPTER 12 - IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY
# SUBCHAPTER II - IMMIGRATION
* PART VIII - GENERAL PENALTY PROVISIONS

U.S. Code as of: 01/03/05
Section 1325. Improper entry by alien

(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection;
misrepresentation and concealment of facts
Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States
at 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 willfully 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 not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent
commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or
imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
(b) Improper time or place; civil penalties
Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to
enter) the United States at a time or place other than as
designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil
penalty of -
(1) at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or
attempted entry); or
(2) twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of
an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under
this subsection.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=8&sec=1325

Ridiculous interpretation of this section by the lawyers/judges. Illegal entry has happened if the illegal alien is IN THE COUNTRY. If a federal crime has been committed, it can be prosecuted. So what if there is no law that specifically states ‘presence in US is a crime’? That doesn’t negate the crimes committed. If someone commits any other federal crime, they need not be caught in the act by federal agents for the crime to be prosecuted.


76 posted on 08/21/2007 12:20:55 PM PDT by just mimi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: just mimi
Illegal entry has happened if the illegal alien is IN THE COUNTRY.

But the judge is correct, and he cites a 1958 US Supreme Court decision to back it up.

If you look at it, the law is very specific on the terms of the crime. Crossing the border is where the crime occurs, and a person can be punished for that crime. Under the law you cited, simply being here after the commission of that crime does not constitute an additional crime.

The judge makes clear that Section 1326 makes it a felony to remain here, if you cross the border after having been previously deported.

Is it a loophole in the law? Probably. But the judge is correct in his interpretation.

77 posted on 08/21/2007 12:30:12 PM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
Quick fix: Bump an illegal entry from a misdemeanor to a felony.

Now all we have to worry about is the 20 million already here who can't be prosecuted because of the expos facto nature of their "crime".

Regards,
GtG

PS My head hurts!

78 posted on 08/21/2007 12:31:16 PM PDT by Gandalf_The_Gray (I live in my own little world, I like it 'cuz they know me here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: r9etb

Thanks for explaining this. All of this is complex, frustrating, etc, etc, etc.


79 posted on 08/21/2007 1:21:48 PM PDT by just mimi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Gandalf_The_Gray
Quick fix: Bump an illegal entry from a misdemeanor to a felony.

What good would that do, though? Would you propose to imprison them here, or would you still just deport them? And if you made it a felony ... I believe the 14th Amendment says that illegals charged with such a felony would have a right to trial, etc.:

"... nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

(Note that the Supreme Court decided about 100 years ago that the scope of the term any person is very broad, and includes non-citizens.)

All in all, I think the practical difficulties of making illegal entry a felony far outweigh the benefits. As a practical matter, Wouldn't you just end up deporting them ... in exactly the same way we're supposed to do now? There doesn't seem to be much value added.

Now all we have to worry about is the 20 million already here who can't be prosecuted because of the expos facto nature of their "crime".

It's not ex post facto. They're already guilty of illegally crossing the border, and can be deported on that basis.

80 posted on 08/21/2007 1:38:39 PM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-113 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson