The corrections employees at the detention center where these folks are being held were courteous, helpful, and a pleasure to work with.
The situation itself, the selective enforcement and draconian treatment of economic refugees is a waste of my taxpayer money. The fact that these people were shuttled as far away as Texas with no way to contact an attorney or make sure their children and spouses were safe is morally wrong – and I hope it will be shown as legally indefensible in federal court. See Judge Stearns decision http://pacer.mad.usc… in which he states:
…the court orders that no further transfers of detainees who remain within the jurisdiction of the court take place without prior notice to the court.
and:
The court further orders that no restrictions other than those incident to the normal rules of custody be placed on access by these detainees to such counsel as they may engage.
Further:
The court will give counsel who have entered appearances on behalf of the detainees until the close of business, Tuesday, March 13, 2007 to:….substitute as parties named individuals who have agreed to be represented by counsel now before the court. The court will give counsel until the close of business, Tuesday, March 13, 2007 to brief the issue of the court’s jurisdiction, if any, over detainees who are not being held in custody within this district.
Stay tuned. As John Adams so famously said, the goal was to have the “Rule of Law, not of Men.”
If folks missed it, here’s today’s Eileen McNamara piece in the Glob. It’s a useful mix of background info and opinion on this debacle. Made me want to be given a f/up form Charley’s bro in OR on any pledge rcv’d from the Gov. there.
i’m dense: i still don’t understand the ICE rationale for flying people to texas. what is it?
Amber:
<
p>
Your statement would more correctly be, “no prior arrest record”. For if the are in this country in violation of immigration laws they in fact have a criminal history, as that fact is against the law.
<
p>
EaBo
because of your assholic comemnts about Deval and his wife. You’re new around here and frankly you should just leave.
authorization is a civil offense, not a criminal offense. Only the employer committed a criminal offense, as well as others who may have provided transportation, false documents, and so on.
<
p>
You, on the other hand, are a moral offense, and probably some kind of biological one as well.
A deportable offense.
Not criminal.
http://caselaw.lp.fi…
<
p>
<
p>
emphasis added
you’ve got them.
<
p>
If you catch them lying at the border, (No, I’m my brother Enrique, who’s a citizen), you’ve got them.
<
p>
Just being here without being a citizen or legal alien? No. You got nothin’.
I should only get charged with breaking and entering if they catch me going through the window of a house. If the police come and I’m chillin on the couch, I should be say “tough luck, I’m already here.”
It’s the law. If you don’t like it, your beef isn’t with me.
<
p>
There are more ways to find yourself in the country than in the specific instances prohibited above.
<
p>
Please don’t pick up bad habits from all the other Republicans on this blog. If you are unsure of what I have said, please go learn about it. Despite what your fellow travelers think, I’m nobody’s google monkey.
Failing to turn in an escaped slave also rendered one subject to imprisonment, and was a felony in its time.
<
p>
So, your point is? See section 7 – same length of time in prison for trying to help a slave escape; six months. Is there nothing new under the sun?
<
p>
http://www.nationalc…
…the fugitive slave acts was one of the main reasons for the severing of the union. They made anti-slavery northerners complicit in Southern slavery. Remember the Boston anti-slave riots of 1853? If the Southerners hadn’t overpushed their hand, there might still be slavery in the South.
<
p>
Read Lincoln’s Cooper Union speech. He lays it out excellently. It’s the best crafted speech I’ve ever read.
I am well aware of the way in which The Fugitive Slave Act further polarized the country, as did the “bleeding Kansas” situation.
<
p>
If ICE overplays its hand, enough, and the human pain is public enough, then perhaps the creaky, selectively enforced, out of date immigration law and policy will have to change here.
<
p>
As it is, what occurred last week in Massachusetts is morally indefensible in my view. Being “legal” is not the same as being moral. After all, those of my relatives who were killed in the ovens and camps were killed “legally”. Because a command, or law, is lawful at the time, if the impact [Fugitive Slave Law, Aryan purification laws, etc.] is sufficiently immoral or evil, then to do nothing in and of itself is wrong, is complicity. I
<
p> do have realistic expectation, however, that the handling of the Michael Bianco Raid, and the internal renditions, and depriving U.S. Citizen children of their parents without hearing, etc. etc. will not be found lawful in material regards, and leave that in Judge Stearns hands as I must due to the rule of law.
…what we are dealing with here is an agency whose budget probably was not approved by the last (Republican controlled) congress and which is now playing for its budget in the current (Democrat controlled) congress. I don’t believe for a minute that the timing of these ICE raids–including the ICE raids in the midwest a couple of months ago–is not an issue of budget, and possibly to embarrass the Democrats in Congress if they (the Democrats) don’t give them the money they’re asking for.
<
p>
There was no reason whatsoever for the ICE to whisk away the detainees from Massachusetts to Texas, merely to ensure that they will show up for an immigration hearing. None whatsoever. Except for public relations purposes.
<
p>
I’ll go back to 1993. Do you remember when the firearms control people went to the Branch Davideons’ compound in Wacto? They had notified the news media that they were going to go there. Why would they do that? For public relations purposes, of course.
but when I read
“enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers” it seems like that would apply to people who are already here. That’s what the words looks like to me.
Were people caught in the act of entering the United States from Mexico via some time-space-warp in New Bedford?
<
p>
Or were the people rounded up already here?
<
p>
It might surprise you, but it’s actually kind of hard to get a conviction in this country when your only argument is, “Well, they musta, yer Honor.”
<
p>
I repeat: Merely being here without being a legal alien or citizen is not a criminal offense, though it is of course deportable.
<
p>
Why don’t you stop quizzing me and spend some time researching immigration law?
Your original statement said “only if they are caught in the act”. Now you say “merely being here”.
<
p>
So I stand by my assertion that it may be hard to prove, but doesn’t change the fact that a criminal not civil infraction was committed if they did in fact enter the country illegally.
<
p>
There “merely being here” notwithstanding.
I think it would be pretty east to prove without a reasonable doubt.
<
p>
Prosecutor:”Your honor, there is no record of the defendant entering the country at a legally recognized point of entry to the United States. Therefore one can rightly assume that entry was made at another illegal point.
<
p>
Judge: “Defense council, do you have evidence that contradicts this assertion? Do you have access to an entry record, a stamp in a passport, or some other evidence”
<
p>
Defense Council: “No, your honor I don’t.”
<
p>
Prosecutor:”The prosecution rests, your honor.”
why don’t you busy yourself finding 100% on-point cases of aliens prosecuted criminally for per se presence in the United States, with no other circumstances?
<
p>
I’m sure there are thousands, if it’s so easy.
<
p>
Sometimes I wonder whether it ever occurs to Republicans that there actually is a reality outside their own heads.
…while leaping a fence?
and try again.
<
p>
Hint: Look at a)…b)…c)…
So if it can be proven that one came across at a place not directed by immigration officials, one doesn’t have to be caught in the act correct.
<
p>
Just because it may be hard to prove, doesn’t make it a civil only act.
<
p>
I’ll give you pverstaying a visa may be a civil infraction. But coming across the border illegally in the first place seems to be criminal.
<
p>
I’ll also give you that we may not be enforcing as criminal acts, and that case law(the blessing and curse of a common law nation) may have moved from the original intent of the statute. But the original intent of the statute seems pretty clear to me.
with whether it’s hard to prove or not. Simple presence in the U.S. is not a criminal act for these people. And a court does not make a criminal statute into a civil one, common law or no.
…Are you serious? Marriage fraud is a well known offense to immigration laws. It isn’t necessarily committed when leaping a fence.
Which is why I posted the link to his order, and I will be monitoring the legal action which will intensify next week.
don’t care whether you understand the immigration laws. It’s not my responsibility, though you seem to think it is.
<
p>
A criminal statute prohibits what it prohibits, not whatever you wish it did.
<
p>
…I’m tired of trying to educate you.
…until then, no.
Is it may just give Senator Kennedy and the rest of our congressional delegation the capital they need to push immigration reform through the House and Senate.
…but what ‘day in court’ should they get?
<
p>
Are any of them claiming that they actually ARE citizens?
<
p>
As Ryan said, maybe now the immigration laws can be overhauled – but under the law now, there is no legal standing called ‘economic refugee’ unless you have gone through the proper immigration channels.
<
p>
Every time I hear the cry of ‘we can’t deport them all! There are 12 millions!’ my gut reaction is – fine. Let’s deport the 300 we have. And before you cry selective enforcement – they were already selective in how they snuck into the country. How many more were turned away? Being lucky at getting away with breaking a law doesn’t make you less guilty.
<
p>
And deporting them would conform to the Rule of Law, not Men.
<
p>
How about a hearing before an Immigration Judge after receiving an Order to Show Cause, followed by an opportunity to appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals and later perhaps judicial review?
<
p>
You know, due process that they are entitled to under the law?
<
p>
I know how much Republicans prefer just hauling people off the streets, but in fact, a judge has to rule on each case. Your opinions on the merits of each deportation are of no import.
as a full blown orchestrated operation. Why do I say that? Because MSM got two full days of talking points out of it. The main things here. People wisked away with zero rights. Rendition flights, “processing center” Ft. Devens, no this is not America.
Thing two. Having personally been burnt by the “progressive” party, the party who fathered diversity and inclusion of all people I could easily go to redstate and fully explain exactly why and how and give them ammo too.
One can easily Google SPPNA,Amero,Nascocorridor and get the full facts but no, we have to be constrained by the pontiffs of political punditry via MSM.
The Nazification of the left is just as destructive as Ann the bimbo Coulter.
Thank you for posting and your service to humanity.