Legal Illegalities

24 08 2007

Filed under: Illegal alien, Immigration, Congress, McAnany, Kansas

A Kansas judge has ruled that being an illegal alien in the U.S. is not illegal.

In a Barton County case, a three-judge panel issued an opinion Friday that a judge could not deny probation and order jail time for convicted drug dealer Nicholas L. Martinez based solely on the grounds that Martinez is an unauthorized immigrant.

“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 and has again entered this country illegally,” Judge Patrick McAnany wrote for the court majority.

McAnany cited a 1958 U.S. Supreme Court decision and a 1979 ruling by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, both of which separated the act of entering the country from the act of being in the country.

“Entry is limited to a particular locality and hardly suggests continuity,” the Supreme Court ruling said.

Has this judge been living under a rock for the last fifty years? Who wants to enter and return?

Herein lies the bigger problem:

Matthews (county attorney) said his office is researching immigration records to determine whether Martinez had been deported in the past and returned to the United States, which would make his day-to-day presence in Kansas illegal.

He said initial background research earlier in the case had not indicated any deportations on Martinez’s record, but he wants to make sure.

Maybe if we backed up our current illegal “entry” laws, we would have a case here.

Since Congress can’t seem to give us any positive updated immigration laws to reinforce the current ones, I’d say a little judicial common sense would be in order here. Given the nature of the problem the law addresses and how much the immigration problem has compounded over the last fifty years, I don’t see how the 1958 case was applicable here.

Read this from the 1958 case:

The legislative history is not inconsistent with this interpretation of the statute. After a thorough investigation of our immigration laws completed some two years prior to the enactment of 252 (c), the Senate Committee on the Judiciary reported, “The problems relating to seamen are largely created by those who desert their ships, remain here illegally beyond the time granted them to stay, and become lost in the general populace of the country.” The tracing of such persons is complicated by the obscuration worked both by their own movement and by the passage of time. In this atmosphere the Congress sought to establish sanctions for alien crewmen who “willfully remain,” the Senate Committee having observed that traditional remedies for the problem were inadequate because many crewmen “do not have the necessary documents to permit deportation.”

Since when is an illegal alien, especially a crime-committing one, required to possess valid paperwork to be deported? Additionally, this case was about an alien crewman’s continuity in the same legal district that the entry occurred in. How many illegal aliens confine themselves to Chula Vista, CA? Not 20 million and obviously not Martinez.

The 1958 decision assumes the offender is never caught. This case deals with an apprehended criminal. A drug dealer.

Mr. McAnany needs to come to the realization that A LOT has happened since 1958 and context plays a huge role in citing a case. Especially with immigration in which case, anyone with the slightest common sense can tell you, times have changed and old immigration laws are hardly pertinent to today’s plight. He should have had sufficient common sense and judicial expertise to discern the difference between an alien crewman who overstays his visit and an illegal alien who is convicted of dealing drugs.

La Shawn Barber:

In other words, the judge suspended logic — that illegal aliens obviously are in the country illegally — because Congress wasn’t explicit, and threw out the sentence.

Martinez also argued that it’s not the state court’s function to enforce federal immigration law. True, but as the appeals court pointed out, the district court wasn’t enforcing immigration law by recognizing that the drug-dealing thug was an illegal alien.

Indeed. Illegal alien just became mandatory for all job descriptions for drug dealers.




Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: