If entering the U.S. illegally is a crime, when does the perpetrator become absolved of that crime? What amount of time having passed brings immunity from prosecution of the original crime?
This is where ones skill at playing Hide & Seek really pays off.
I don't think you guys understand what happened here. The court isn't invalidating federal law. The guy isn't on trial for violating federal law - he's on trial for drug crimes.
The appeals court simply said that the trial court can't use the guy's illegal presence in the U.S. as the sole basis for sentencing him to jail instead of probation, because in its interpretation, simply being here isn't illegal. The trial court must have written something to that effect in its ruling. Whether that is correct or not is largely irrelevant.
What the trial court should have done is either cite the involvement of the child - or the defendant's past crime of illegal entry into the country as the reason for sentencing him to jail instead of probation. Case closed.
which is why these judges are wrong on this.
otherwise a statute of limitation would apply.
Consider that after 10 years illegals can apply for the current rolling amnesty.