I have read the decision of the appellate judge several times and agree that in his mind he believes that this alien broke the law by crossing the border illegally but no by being here (illegally in my opinion).
However, it is my contention that the trial judge believes that he is here illegally and had to factor that into his decision on probation vs jail time.
IMO the appellate judge negates the illegal border crossing act by overruling the trial judge. I am trying to split hairs (in reverse) here to show the appellate judge’s decision to split hairs to be flawed.
I do believe u and I agree more on this issue than disagree.
In his mind, and according to the precedent set by a 50 year old US Supreme Court decision. The latter is the governing consideration in his opinion.
It sounds like what you really want, is for the judge to take an activist role, rather than what he actually did, which was to interpret the law according to its actual wording, and previous precedent.
Count me out.