Deportee's case may hold fate of thousands

Salt Lake Tribune ^ | 03/22/2006 | Thomas Burr

[Boston Blackie]

WASHINGTON - In a case that could affect hundreds of thousands of immigrants and their families, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments today about whether a longtime Utah resident and businessman was illegally deported. There is no question that Humberto Fernandez-Vargas, a 53-year-old Mexican native who made his home in Utah for decades, was in the United States illegally. But the issue before the high court today is whether Fernandez-Vargas, and thousands like him, should have had the right to court hearings before being deported.

[Tammy8]

I personally believe illegally entering this country is as serious if not more serious than illegally entering someone's home. You chose to equate illegally entering this country with a parking violation, I do not see where they equate at all. The fact is any violation of law, when not faced up to becomes more serious and the results become more harsh.

I think each and every instance of illegal entry into this country should be a felony and the penalties should be quite harsh. It is a matter of security and sovereignty for this country. I am glad you understand my position on illegal immigration, I also understand yours. You think people should be able to flaunt the laws of this country and then we should all feel bad when it catches up to them.

You seem to think the only laws worth following are those you agree with. The fact is there are legal ways to enter this country and I do not condone anyone who enters without following the law.

[george wythe]

Your quote actually contradicts your statement that all illegal aliens are criminal felons.

Hint: find out the meaning of "willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact."

[george wythe]

I think each and every instance of illegal entry into this country should be a felony and the penalties should be quite harsh.

Reality is not how the world should be. Reality is how the world is.

I just pointed out to the fact that merely entering illegally was not criminal felony. Furthermore, I stated that Congress is considering this issue right now.

If enough US Senators agree with you, then merely entering illegally will become a felony. [Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the immigration bill making illegal entry a felony already passed the House.]

Until then, your "should" world is not real.

[Tammy8]

I just pointed out to the fact that merely entering illegally was not criminal felony.

The point you kept trying to argue with me is that illegal aliens are not criminals, which of course they are. You were arguing the whole felony/civil violation issue with others, not me. As I understand under immigration law as it is now illegal entry can be charged as a misdemeanor or a felony depending on the circumstances, and repeated violations are usually charged as felonies. It is my understanding that the new law if passed will make illegal entry a felony in every circumstance. I am not a lawyer, this is just my understanding from conversations with CPB officers.

[antiRepublicrat]

Hint: find out the meaning of "willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact."

That's an "or" there. Aside from what you posted, all an alien has to to be a criminal is one of:

• Enter or attempt to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers -- He's guilty if he avoided a legal crossing point to get in.
• Elude examination or inspection by immigration officers -- He's guilty if he didn't go through the mandatory inspection to get in

Since his first entry was illegal, if he didn't commit either of those crimes, then he must be guilty of the one you mentioned or document forgery.

[texastoo]

I agree this is the case to be watching. I am not sure if this will be a legitimate case.

Alberto Gonzales, the U.S. Attorney General, will probably argue this case. Alberto Gonzales is the son of migrant workers from Mexico. He, himself, may be an anchor baby. In all the articles that I have read about him, there is no mention of the legal or illegal status of his parents.

Im my opinion, Gonzales should have recused himself.

[jackbenimble]

Doesn't the Solicitor General, rather than the Attorney General usually argue the government's position in front of the Supreme Court? That used to be Ted Olson who I really liked. I have no idea who is in that position now. But I think that Alberto "the illegals are otherwise law-abiding citizens" Gonzalez is a joke.

[texastoo]

Using dumpster divers post #31.This is the question.

04-1376 FERNANDEZ-VARGAS V. GONZALES, ATTY. GEN.
DECISION BELOW: 394 F.3d 881 (2005 10th Cir.)
LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 03-9610
QUESTION PRESENTED
Whether and under what circumstances INA § 241 (a)(5) applies to an alien
who reentered the United States illegally before the effective date of IIRIRA,
April 1, 1997.
Cert. Granted 10/31/05

There will be another attorney arguing the case.For some reason I don't trust Gonzales and feel this case will go against the US.

[texastoo]

Paul D. Clement will be the attorney from the solicitor generals office.

[george wythe]

I'm not beating a deadhorse anymore. Your own cites contradict your conclusions.

Thank you for your spirited discussion.

[antiRepublicrat]

I'm not beating a deadhorse anymore. Your own cites contradict your conclusions.

If you somehow perceive something opposite from the plain language, then I guess there is no use in continuing.