Johnny Coli Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Where did I say that? Though I think it should be. snip I thought that was what you were arguing here. Illegal entry into this Country is a Misdemeanor? I thought is was a federal crime. Under Title 8 Section 1325 of the U.S. Code, "Improper Entry by Alien," any citizen of any country other than the United States who: * Enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers; or Eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers; or * Attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact; has committed a federal crime. "Any alien who is present in the United States in violation of this Act or any other law of the United States is deportable." Nationality Act Section 237 (a)(1)(B) Violations are punishable by criminal fines and imprisonment for up to six months. Repeat offenses can bring up to two years in prison. Additional civil fines may be imposed at the discretion of immigration judges, but civil fines do not negate the criminal sanctions or nature of the offense. Violations are punishable by criminal fines and imprisonment for up to six months. Repeat offenses can bring up to two years in prison. Additional civil fines may be imposed at the discretion of immigration judges, but civil fines do not negate the criminal sanctions or nature of the offense. In addition to sneaking into the country in violation of the immigration law that requires that aliens be documented for legal entry (referred to as "entry without inspection -- EWI"), others enter with legal documentation and then violate the terms on which they have been admitted by taking jobs that are not authorized or overstaying the authorized period of stay in the country. The list below are all crimes involving illegal immigration: (1) Violating the immigration law is a FEDERAL CRIME (2) Forging documents is a FEDERAL FELONY CRIME (3) Passing forged documents is a FEDERAL FELONY CRIME (4) Stealing ID is a FEDERAL FELONY CRIME (5) Using stolen ID is a FEDERAL FELONY CRIME Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Only if the Civil Rights violation is a criminal violation, I think...as far as I know (not very, I can look it up when I get home), criminal trumps civil before Federal trumps state. Given that the plaintiffs are filing suit for cash damages, I don't think it's a criminal violation. It was in the FindLaw link. EDIT: Here: The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) is representing plaintiffs in the lawsuit, which asks for $32 million in actual and punitive damages for civil rights violations, infliction of emotional distress, as well as other crimes. (erynthered) The court in the current case, however, indicated that illegal immigrants do not leave all legal protections at the border in rejecting defense attorney David Hardy's arguments that illegal immigrants do not have the same rights as U.S. citizens. (erynthered) ...a violation of individuals' federal constitutional rights would trump any justifications afforded by state law... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 I thought that was what you were arguing here. No. Only that it was a federal crime. You, I believe stated that Arizona law was above federal law. http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?s=&am...t&p=1315559 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 You can't just shoot someone for being on your property. Do you not see how a ridiculously loose law like that could be abused? You could shoot anyone at all on your property just by saying you were threatened or didn't know who they were. You've yet to explain how some pieces of sh-- scumbag illegals have a right to file a lawsuit in a country they are illegally entering. Are you really trying to defend that some guy might have to pay these dirtbags money after they illegally entered the country and illegally trespassed on his property? As tom said, its a civil suit, not a criminal one. These criminals got treated like the dirtbags they are. In the eyes of the law, he didn't do anything wrong. Throw the lawsuit out and deport their asses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tennesseeboy Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Since when is trespassing and entering a country illegally not doing anything wrong....? The issue isn't whether trespassing is wrong. Kid cuts across my yard and I hold him at gunpoint for a couple of hours and threaten to have my dog bite his ass...I'm in deep doo doo whether he was trespassing or not. The illegal cleaning my neighbor's house? I don't think I can hold her at gunpoint or threaten to have my dog bite her on her rather voluptuous ass either. We aren't talking about the 12000 people who pooped in this guys yard. We are talking about 16 people who for all we knew were illegally cutting through, who apparently did not offer resistance. Look...the judge had all the evidence and heard both sides and said let it go to trial. Must be something there as judges in my experience are pretty smart guys. Now this guy was apparently appointed by Bush...so we gotta take it with a grain of salt...but I think the case goes forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt. Dan's Revenge Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 The issue isn't whether trespassing is wrong. Kid cuts across my yard and I hold him at gunpoint for a couple of hours and threaten to have my dog bite his ass...I'm in deep doo doo whether he was trespassing or not. The illegal cleaning my neighbor's house? I don't think I can hold her at gunpoint or threaten to have my dog bite her on her rather voluptuous ass either. We aren't talking about the 12000 people who pooped in this guys yard. We are talking about 16 people who for all we knew were illegally cutting through, who apparently did not offer resistance. Look...the judge had all the evidence and heard both sides and said let it go to trial. Must be something there as judges in my experience are pretty smart guys. Now this guy was apparently appointed by Bush...so we gotta take it with a grain of salt...but I think the case goes forward. Granted, but it still comes back to the point that I do not understand how illegal immigrants are able to file a civil suit in the United States that involves a location that they had illegally entered. And to your other point, no we don't know that they did the same types of damaging things like many of the other groups of illegals did, but we might not know if they did anyways. However, none of that would be an issue if they hadn't illegally entered the country and trespassed through someones property. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 It was in the FindLaw link. EDIT: Here: All that says is that if a code that positively affirms actions as non-criminal, that affirmation does not apply to federal law, civil or criminal. Which is perfectly sensible - Rodney King's assailants, for example, faced Civil Rights charges despite CA finding them not guilty. That says nothing about whether the federal charges are civil or criminal in this case, or if state criminal law would supercede federal civil charges. (Which I think it does - I can't think of a case where the federal government has claimed jurisdiction in a state case based on civil rights violations, though I can think of cases where they could have - the Matthew Shepard murder, for example. Like I said, though, I have to look it up when I get home to be sure.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Granted, but it still comes back to the point that I do not understand how illegal immigrants are able to file a civil suit in the United States that involves a location that they had illegally entered. And to your other point, no we don't know that they did the same types of damaging things like many of the other groups of illegals did, but we might not know if they did anyways. However, none of that would be an issue if they hadn't illegally entered the country and trespassed through someones property. Damn near anyone can file a civil suit in the United States. Osama bin Laden probably could if he felt like it and thought he had one (provided he could find the lawyer to file it). And given the actions in question occurred on US soil, the jurisdiction of the US courts is pretty inarguable. Courts have upheld routinely that the protections of US law extend to anyone on US soil regardless of citizenship. So there's really no grounds for dismissal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 The issue isn't whether trespassing is wrong. Kid cuts across my yard and I hold him at gunpoint for a couple of hours and threaten to have my dog bite his ass...I'm in deep doo doo whether he was trespassing or not. The illegal cleaning my neighbor's house? I don't think I can hold her at gunpoint or threaten to have my dog bite her on her rather voluptuous ass either. We aren't talking about the 12000 people who pooped in this guys yard. We are talking about 16 people who for all we knew were illegally cutting through, who apparently did not offer resistance. Look...the judge had all the evidence and heard both sides and said let it go to trial. Must be something there as judges in my experience are pretty smart guys. Now this guy was apparently appointed by Bush...so we gotta take it with a grain of salt...but I think the case goes forward. Judges...the Star Chamber.... OH, for the 1st time in 50 years (!!!), actually de-frocked one last year. I can't remember the number of crumbs put into office locally for more or less life here, or the ones that retire on their fat State pension, then show up for 100K anew - just to "help out". I was a sitting alternent juror a couple of years ago - cocaine case - and the snot in the Robe announced that he was going on vacation, so there was no way that the defendant's trial would go beyond 3 days. So much for justice. If his lawyer took exception, I am sure he would have h*ll to pay in latter cases. This judge was one of those double-dippers. Here's a couple of judicial peaches... http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090211/ap_on_...house_kickbacks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt. Dan's Revenge Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Damn near anyone can file a civil suit in the United States. Osama bin Laden probably could if he felt like it and thought he had one (provided he could find the lawyer to file it). And given the actions in question occurred on US soil, the jurisdiction of the US courts is pretty inarguable. Courts have upheld routinely that the protections of US law extend to anyone on US soil regardless of citizenship. So there's really no grounds for dismissal. What's confusing to me is how they are able to file this civil suit against the property owner when it was a federal crime that they gained access to his land in the first place by entering the country illegally.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 You've yet to explain how some pieces of sh-- scumbag illegals have a right to file a lawsuit in a country they are illegally entering. Are you really trying to defend that some guy might have to pay these dirtbags money after they illegally entered the country and illegally trespassed on his property? As tom said, its a civil suit, not a criminal one. These criminals got treated like the dirtbags they are. In the eyes of the law, he didn't do anything wrong. Throw the lawsuit out and deport their asses. Are you really trying to defend a scumbag who felt he was justified in kicking a woman who was on the ground, even though he was holding her at gunpoint and threatened her with a dog? Who is the POS, here? Not to mention, he was just found liable last year in illegally detaining two men at gunpoint, along with their three kids, all of whom were American citizens. So, let's just get all this POS crap in the open, shall we. He violated the civil rights of a group of people who posed no threat. The Judge presiding over the suit has found that there was enough evidence for a jury of peers to find him, his wife, his brother AND the Sheriff liable. So, who is the dirtbag in this scenario? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt. Dan's Revenge Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Are you really trying to defend a scumbag who felt he was justified in kicking a woman who was on the ground, even though he was holding her at gunpoint and threatened her with a dog? Who is the POS, here? Not to mention, he was just found liable last year in illegally detaining two men at gunpoint, along with their three kids, all of whom were American citizens. So, let's just get all this POS crap in the open, shall we. He violated the civil rights of a group of people who posed no threat. The Judge presiding over the suit has found that there was enough evidence for a jury of peers to find him, his wife, his brother AND the Sheriff liable. So, who is the dirtbag in this scenario? How do you know that he "kicked a woman when she was on the ground"? Or are just willing to take the Illegal Immigrant's (who just so happens to be filing a multi-million dollar lawsuit) word for it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 How do you know that he "kicked a woman when she was on the ground"? Or are just willing to take the Illegal Immigrant's (who just so happens to be filing a multi-million dollar lawsuit) word for it? How do you know he didn't? One of these parties has a history of violence towards people, has been quite vocal about "hunting" Mexicans, has bragged repeatedly about it to the press, and has already been deemed liable by a jury of his peers in a separate suit. A Judge found the evidence in this suit compelling enough that a jury could find him guilty, and the case goes forward. But according to you, and others, he's the squeaky clean one and the others are lying illegals. A jury is hearing both sides and will decide the result. Like it should be. Because we are a nation of laws. You won't hear me bitching if he's found not liable, because that's how the process works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 What are you arguing? Erynthered has been claiming that it was a felony. I said that in Arizona illegal entry was treated as a misdemeanor. Yes, the feds also treat first-time illegal entry to the US as a misdemeanor, but the state misdemeanor charge I was talking about was the trespassing one. In Arizona trespassing is a misdemeanor. In Arizona, illegal entry is treated as a misdemeanor. But the Civil Rights violation is a federal violation and supercedes the trespassing violation, which is relevant becasue it would be the trespassing violation that would allow Barnett to make a "defense of property" plea. We're not disagreeing. I am arguing your position that crossing the border in Arizona is a state misdemeanor, when crossing the US border is a US federal offense that just happened to occur in Arizona. That same law would apply in Texas, California and even Iowa if the illegal fell from the sky. Ergo, you have to ask how does a civil violation under federal statutes trump a federal criminal statute? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Are you really trying to defend a scumbag who felt he was justified in kicking a woman who was on the ground, even though he was holding her at gunpoint and threatened her with a dog? Who is the POS, here? Not to mention, he was just found liable last year in illegally detaining two men at gunpoint, along with their three kids, all of whom were American citizens. So, let's just get all this POS crap in the open, shall we. He violated the civil rights of a group of people who posed no threat. The Judge presiding over the suit has found that there was enough evidence for a jury of peers to find him, his wife, his brother AND the Sheriff liable. So, who is the dirtbag in this scenario? So for ten years or so this scumbag has been trying to defend his property against illegal immigrants crossing over into America illegally, with no help from the border patrol, and he's the scum bag. They've killed his live stock, damaged property and littered his property with sh-- and debris, and he's the scumbag. Your empathy for the ILLEGAL immigrants is heart warming. Come here legally and obey our laws is just a side note in your defence of these Illegal immigrants. Granted the Judge in this case is following a law that he is interpreting as a warranted case. The American Public voiced their opinion about Illegal immigrants about a year ago when the Congress was trying to shove a bill down our throats that they didn't like. I wish they'd do the same thing with regard to this crapulas bill. Anyway the judge heard the arguments, I didn't. It will be interesting to see how this case turns out. I'm !@#$ing dumbfounded at this travesty. Follow the law? After the fact seems to be the new rule of law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Ergo, you have to ask how does a civil violation under federal statutes trump a federal criminal statute? Don't know. I can't find the original suit that was filed anywhere on line, so I'm not sure what all the accusations are that he's being sued for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 So for ten years or so this scumbag has been trying to defend his property against illegal immigrants crossing over into America illegally, with no help from the border patrol, and he's the scum bag. They've killed his live stock, damaged property and littered his property with sh-- and debris, and he's the scumbag. Your empathy for the ILLEGAL immigrants is heart warming. Come here legally and obey our laws is just a side note in your defence of these Illegal immigrants. Granted the Judge in this case is following a law that he is interpreting as a warranted case. The American Public voiced their opinion about Illegal immigrants about a year ago when the Congress was trying to shove a bill down our throats that they didn't like. I wish they'd do the same thing with regard to this crapulas bill. Anyway the judge heard the arguments, I didn't. It will be interesting to see how this case turns out. I'm !@#$ing dumbfounded at this travesty. Follow the law? After the fact seems to be the new rule of law. The law is the law. Their immigration status doesn't seem to have any bearing on this suit, though. The guy was already found guilty once of violating the rights of two Americans and their daughters. You research him. You want to cast your lot with a Ruby-Ridge wannabe nut-job, then that's your deal. We'll see what the next jury of his peers says. The last one ruled against him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 The law is the law. The guy was already found guilty once of violating the rights of two Americans and their daughters. You research him. You want to cast your lot with a Ruby-Ridge wannabe nut-job, then that's your deal. We'll see what the next jury of his peers says. The last one ruled against him. Let me ask you this. Were they here illegally? Yes or no? No spin, please. Just a yes or no. Please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Let me ask you this. Were they here illegally? Yes or no? No spin, please. Just a yes or no. Please. No, they were not here legally. They were all deported. We've been through that. None of that is in dispute. However, their immigration status has no bearing on the civil rights issue. The Judge has ruled on it twice now. Civil Rights do not end at the border. He's been exceedingly clear on that point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 The law is the law. Their immigration status doesn't seem to have any bearing on this suit, though. The guy was already found guilty once of violating the rights of two Americans and their daughters. You research him. You want to cast your lot with a Ruby-Ridge wannabe nut-job, then that's your deal. We'll see what the next jury of his peers says. The last one ruled against him.I would dearly love to hear how you connect Ruby Ridge with illegal immigrants in Arizona. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts