Posted on 08/21/2007 3:35:59 PM PDT by chessplayer
"A Kansas court of appeals has ruled that it's illegal for an illegal alien to enter the country, but not illegal for an illegal alien to be in the country if the illegal alien can illegally make it past the Border Patrol without getting caught."
"Ruling that it is illegal to enter the country without the proper documents and permissions, but it is not necessarily illegal to be in the country if you don't get caught upon entry, the court threw out the sentence of an illegal immigrant who pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine and endangering a child."
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
have these idiots been impeached yet?
more:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1884311/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1884203/posts
(msm spin)
HOW one enters the US determines “legal” and “illegal” residency. Entering as a tourist is one thing, entering as a burglar stealing through the night is something altogether different. Even those who have entered with perfectly satisfactory documentation, of which there is an expiration date, once they have overstayed their welcome (and I am sure every one of the tardy ones is entirely capable of READING what that date was), they lose their credibility at once.
There is the special case of granting “asylum”, for those individuals who are escaping persecution or tyranny in some foreign land. But even this does not automatically grant any special rights, as there is no way of knowing the reason for flight from the land of origin is not, in fact, because the fugitive is fleeing justly deserved legal prosecution.
Now I ask you - does Mexico have that tyrannical a regime, that millions must flee? If so, hadn’t we ought to do something about it?
This would seem like a good case for impeaching judges. What kind of judgement do these judges have if they interpret the law in this manner?
Are they making it up as they go along?
This is like saying “it’s illegal to steal, but if you can manage to steal without getting caught in the act, you can keep the money even if they discover later that you stole.”
So if I rob a bank and a day later the FBI arrests me for it, they have to let me go because they waited too long to catch me?
“Are they making it up as they go along?”
Yes.
But on appeal, a three-judge panel threw out the sentence, based on an apparent contradiction in U.S. law. While it is illegal to enter the country without the proper documents and permissions, it is not necessarily illegal to be in the country.
In its opinion, the court explained that Congress had implicitly created the distinction: "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 unless the illegal alien has previously been deported," said the opinion.
The court also cited previous cases, including a 1958 Supreme Court case, which found that laws regarding illegal entry into the country "are not continuing ones, as 'entry' is limited to a particular locality and hardly suggests continuity."
Because the judge hadn't determined whether Martinez had been deported previously, the appeals court ruled she had no legal basis to deny probation, since simply being in the country isn't necessarily a crime.
Thanks for posting this I had not seen it before.
Keep up the good work
“Kansas Court: Illegal Immigrants Not Really Illegal”
THIS IS JUST
Legal sophistry in the service of “SHAMNESTY” (de facto amnesty for illegals)
This is what I expected after “comprehensive immigration reform” was
slammed by LEGAL RESIDENTS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
Trick and LEGAL SOPHISTRY (word tricks) to get US Citizenships even
for CRIMINALS that have violated our borders (CRIMALIENS).
Soon, there will be a legal decision that anyone that invaded the USA
but didn’t get caught before the statute of limitation ran (2-3 years?)
is a de factor US citizen.
Just another way to give the MIDDLE FINGER (”digitus indignitus”)
to all our law-abiding immigrants that put up with all the BS of
following the law and “playing by the rules” to legally become
MY FELLOW US CITIZENS!!!!!
Don’t panic over this yet. Reason being is that the courts are saying “It’s illegal to hold up a bank for millions of dollars, but it is not illegal if you don’t get caught.” Cool!
don’t get mad at the court — it is correct.
It is a criminal violation of the law to enter the country illegally. (that criminal violation is punishable for the applicable statute of limitations)
Being present in the country without proper papers is a civil violation — the sole jurisdiction I might add, of the Federal Government.
This problem has been part of the illegal immigration enforcement problem from the begining. This is why the Feds control enforcement efforts, and why the 287(g) program was ceated to provide states and localities the right to enforce Federal immigration law concerning being present without proper documentation.
Most “illegals” do enter the country illegally — making them truly illegal. Some, however, enter lawfully on student VISA’s, and never leave. They are not subject to criminal sanctions.
Don’t like it? Me neither.
Tell it to the Congress — not the Courts.
They are not making it up as they go along; they are exactly following the laws as written by Congress. Your argument is with Congress, not the judges.
This is insanity. Our current Kansas Supreme Court is dangerous. Watch out.
Kerry really screwed everything up. I voted against it before ...
I’ve heard that 1/2 the illegals in the US had originally entered the country legally as a tourist, student, or worker.
I’m beginning to think that the ONLY solution to this mess is a grass roots effort to change the constitution.
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.