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: r9etb
"I believe the 14th Amendment says that illegals charged with such a felony would have a right to trial, etc."

WOW it's broken thinking like this that has blurred the line of our Constitution that liberals have twisted to the current rule of law. Illegals should have No legal standing under the Constitution and they DEFINATLY don't get ANY under the 14th Amendment. Period (this is just my opinion though....:))

81 posted on 08/21/2007 2:02:48 PM PDT by PEACE ENFORCER (One needs to have the capability of using Deadly Force at ANY moment.......:))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Gandalf_The_Gray

mind boggling isn’t it....


82 posted on 08/21/2007 2:21:34 PM PDT by Sub-Driver (Proud member of the Republican wing of the Republican Party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: PEACE ENFORCER
WOW it's broken thinking like this that has blurred the line of our Constitution that liberals have twisted to the current rule of law.

Don't shoot the messenger: it's been that way since the US Supreme Court decided that way, back in 1898.

Now look at what you're really saying ... put yourself in a different country -- let's say England, just to keep things somewhat familiar -- and assume that a cop decides to look askance at you.

As you know, an English citizen enjoys certain protections from the excesses of government, especially including its law enforcement arm. I'm sure that you, a non-citizen, would be all in favor of those protections being extended to you as well, once you were placed into their legal system.

If you were to make an argument that you deserved such rights, I think you -- like most of us -- would start out by stating the principle that a person has certain inherent and unalienable rights, and that any valid system of law is bound to recognize them. That would include things like the right to due process of law. A person doesn't lose those unalienable rights simply because he crossed the border illegally, and we should not suppose that we can abrogate them.

I really don't like the idea that those unalienable rights can abrogated "because that person is illegal." It's too easy, once you do that, to think up other "becauses."

But again, the whole idea of making "being here" a felony, would simply swamp the legal system, to no good end. We can already deport illegals, and it's already a felony to come back once you've been deported.

83 posted on 08/21/2007 2:24:31 PM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: r9etb

I agree, but it probably means it’s the least likely thing to happen, then.


84 posted on 08/21/2007 2:47:19 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: edsheppa
Nope, first judge was right and second is a jackass. There is no such thing as a law abiding illegal alien. And that is the category the second judge is magically trying to conjure into existence. Like a round square, it is a contradiction in terms, and trying to wish it into existence is futile sophistry.
85 posted on 08/21/2007 3:01:37 PM PDT by JasonC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Where is Joe Palooka when we need ‘im?!


86 posted on 08/21/2007 3:03:30 PM PDT by Revolting cat! (We all need someone we can bleed on...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Greg F
While Congress has criminalized the illegal entry into this country, it has not made the continued presence of an illegal alien in the United States a crime

So people that enter illegally are criminals, but if they stay for a few seconds, they are no longer criminals or here illegally...

It makes perfect sense to me

87 posted on 08/21/2007 3:04:34 PM PDT by dragnet2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: r9etb

An activist judge would have ruled differently using common sense rather than interpreting the law. That is why people on Free Republic are always calling for activist judges to be placed on the SCOTUS. /s


88 posted on 08/21/2007 3:08:14 PM PDT by Starstruck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
This is the twisted ruling this foundation is built on:
.
A 3 Panel Appellate Court said entering the Country was Illegal but being in the country illegally is not necessarily a crime based on a 1958 Court Case. bla bla bla bla, our court system sucks (this is beyond broken)
89 posted on 08/21/2007 3:24:48 PM PDT by PEACE ENFORCER (One needs to have the capability of using Deadly Force at ANY moment.......:))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: marron
The judge points out that, if he were in the country illegally, it would be impossible for him to fulfill the requirement that he not leave the state.

If the INS were to deport him, federal supremacy would render any state charges of violating his probation moot: a state cannot forbid someone from doing something the federal government requires.

On the other hand, if he leaves the state without leaving the country, federal supremacy shouldn't protect him. He can't very well argue that federal law requires him to go some other state unless the government explicitly directs or forces him to do so (e.g. to attend court or prison in another state).

90 posted on 08/21/2007 3:55:35 PM PDT by supercat (Sony delenda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: VRWCmember
It appears the court is saying that since Congress didn't specifically state that staying in the country after entering illegally is a crime that it is implying (that's what an implicit distinction is) that staying after entering illegally is perfectly legal. That is a pretty stupid assumption to make. Unless Congress made an EXPLICIT distinction, the court doesn't have any business creating an implicit distinction out of whole cloth.

Do Kansas and the federal government have catch-all unjust enrichment statutes? I would think they do. If that is the case, what basis is there for inferring this "implicit distinction"?

To my mind, part of the reason for not having existence in this country be a felony in and of itself is that, for the most part, we don't want to chase after illegal aliens who go home of their own accord. If merely being an illegal alien were a felony, that would suggest that the federal government must either expend considerable effort trying to identify everyone who has been here illegally--even if they've already left--or else overtly ignore millions of felons. Neither approach would particularly favor the rule of law.

91 posted on 08/21/2007 4:01:54 PM PDT by supercat (Sony delenda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: JasonC
I prefer non-activists judges who read the law as written and leave it to the legislature to write the law and repair loopholes. I should have thought you would too.

The full article mentions a 1958 case that addresses a very similar issue. Now maybe that decision and others are in error, but don't you think if Congress disagreed with that ruling it would have acted in the fifty years since?

92 posted on 08/21/2007 6:19:59 PM PDT by edsheppa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: edsheppa
No, I think sophists are splitting hairs and bending themselves into pretzels because they will say anything and do anything rather than admit that illegals are here illegally, and that their ideological winking at it, is utterly lawless. And an utterly lawless judge is a pontificating absurdity with no authority over anything.
93 posted on 08/21/2007 7:59:53 PM PDT by JasonC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: JasonC
No, I think sophists are splitting hairs ...

The appeals court is just upholding precedents like that 1958 case I mentioned. I read part of it and it seemed very relevant. Do you think the appeals court should simply ignore those past decisions?

94 posted on 08/21/2007 8:53:20 PM PDT by edsheppa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: edsheppa
I think the appeals court should uphold the clear common sense of the lower, and shut the heck up.

And I think the reason they don't has nothing whatever to do with hunting through 50 years of law books seeking the stupidest decision they could find, and everything to do with maintaining the Party Central Committee line on the matter, that no law or obstacle or barrier shall run, between a potential Party Voter and the booth.

And when judges ignore law, which is all they are doing, they are not judges and we should all flat ignore them.

95 posted on 08/21/2007 9:13:21 PM PDT by JasonC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

btt


96 posted on 08/21/2007 9:31:10 PM PDT by Cacique (quos Deus vult perdere, prius dementat ( Islamia Delenda Est ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marron
Sadly you would have to bar every member of the Bar.
This type of lunacy is the cornerstone of modern American law.
97 posted on 08/22/2007 2:33:54 AM PDT by rmlew (Build a wall, attrit the illegals, end the anchor babies, Americanize Immigrants)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Demand a border fence! Build it NOW!! Beef up the border patrol and close our borders! Stop the DREAM Act!!

U.S. Senate switchboard: (202) 224-3121

U.S. House switchboard: (202) 225-3121

White House comments: (202) 456-1111

Find your House Rep.: http://www.house.gov/writerep

Find your US Senators: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

Republican National Committee
310 First Street, SE Washington, D.C. 20003
phone: 202.863.8500 | fax: 202.863.8820 | e-mail: info@gop.com

Take a look at their hidden agenda: http://www.mexica-movement.org


98 posted on 08/22/2007 3:45:17 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (Cuius testiculos habeas, habeas cardia et cerebellum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
At the heart of almost every absurdity, lies a liberal.
99 posted on 08/22/2007 4:59:52 AM PDT by Edgerunner (If you won't let the military fight your battles, you will have to. Keep your powder dry...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JasonC
And when judges ignore law, which is all they are doing, they are not judges and we should all flat ignore them.

And yet the decision spent a lot of time examining relevant law and precedent as they related to the specifics of this case.

Did you read the decision? If not, how can you say what the judges did or did not do? And if so ... well, I don't know what to say, then.

100 posted on 08/22/2007 6:03:25 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | 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