Good grief...rule of law and a judge is saying this...geezzz
Read the decision. He discusses the seeming incongruity:
Those persons who enter this country illegally are subject to deportation. 8 U.S.C. § 1227 (2000). Martinez' counsel acknowledged this possibility at the plea hearing. Deportation may be based upon any number of factors, including the alien's initial entry into this country contrary to law or acts while in this country, such as the commission of certain crimes. However, while an illegal alien is subject to deportation, that person's ongoing presence in the United States in and of itself is not a crime unless that person had been previously deported and regained illegal entry into this country. See United States v. Rincon-Jimenez, 595 F.2d 1192, 1193-94 (9th Cir. 1979). As noted by the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Cores, 356 U.S. 405, 408 n.6, 2 L. Ed. 2d 873, 78 S. Ct. 875 (1958), when it commented on 8 U.S.C. § 1325 and similar statutes: "Those offenses are not continuing ones, as 'entry' is limited to a particular locality and hardly suggests continuity."
Look at the dates on those cited decisions: the judge isn't doing anything particularly new or novel here. The relevant USSC decision dates back to the Eisenhower administration.
One might reasonably conclude that the existing law is flawed and needs to be changed.
However, the judge appears to be following the law and the previous decisions that apply. Rule of law, indeed.
Any comments yet from Rush or O’Reilly yet? Must
be a Clinton appointee...JK