Wednesday, August 22, 2007

Illegal border crossing only illegal at exact time of crossing, even if you're a cocaine pusher

A trial court judge in Kansas recommended a year in jail for an illegal Hispanic cocaine pushing immigrant (who employed his young son in the operation). The ultimate charges Martinez pled to would have only landed him on probation, but the judge deemed it impossible for him to comply with probationary requirements--obeying the law, chiefly--when he was in flagrant violation of the law by way of being his unlawful residency status:
"Mr. Martinez is illegally in the country and is in violation of the probation rules right from the start if I place him on probation," court documents quoted Judge Hannelore Kitts as saying. "He has to comply with all the conditions of the probation and he can't do that because he's in violation of the law not to violate any federal or state laws."

The judge then rejected the plea agreement's sentencing recommendation and ordered Martinez to spend a year in jail.

Kitts' ruling was overturned. The judicial logic employed by the appellate court to do so is, well, illogical:
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.
Ah, so murdering someone is a crime, but there's nothing wrong with being a murderer. Sound reasoning for sure. The court also cited a ruling from the fifties, expaining that laws regarding illegal entry into the country "are not continuing ones, as 'entry' is limited to a particular locality and hardly suggests continuity."

Hardly suggests continuity? Kafka would like that. Joseph Heller would like it even more.

Uh, we see he is here, but we don't know that he ever actually came here. Well, no, he was born in Mexico. No, no, he never had authorization to come to the US. But we're still not sure he ever actually arrived. Yes, he's standing right here. Where are we? In Kansas, in the US, like I said. I told you, while we know he was in Mexico and now he is in Kansas, we don't know if he ever came here. There's no way we can be sure of that.

It's tantamount to having the suspected father of a child, who impregnated the 12 year-old mother, take a paternity test that reveals him to indeed be the father. But when the prosecutor later tries to get papa on statutory rape, the judge repudiates the prosecutor by arguing that just because the baby is his, he didn't necessarily have sex with the mother.

Or is "continuity" to say that, for example, you commit a crime once, but so long as it seems unlikely that you'll do it again, there's nothing to worry about?

In either case, this is yet another example of how it is an act of aggression against the citizenry of the US, permitted to continue by a derelict government that is charged with, above all, protecting its citizens from foreign invasion.


John said...

The decision is a transparently deceitful piece of equivocation; it equates criminal with felonious.
Remaining after previous deportation is a felony, while remaining illegally in any other case is still illegal, still a crime, and still criminal. The monstrous shysters in our federal courts are brazenly at it again, trying to make new legislation out of their dishonest imaginations. They're ignoring large numbers of legislative acts, trying to abolish them by wishing them away. The hoofprints of the left's longing for freedom-for-aggression are all over this attempt to make the country wide open to whatever criminals are drifting across borders.

John said...

On this juris-imprudence, additional fines for continuing in violation would be regarded as impossible.

Anonymous said...

I have been wanting to shoot my annoying neighbor for some time. I figure with a ruling like this as a precedent, as long as I don't get caught actually pulling the trigger, I will walk free!

Audacious Epigone said...


Right, the appellate court is, in effect, decriminalizing illegal residency, unless it is a repeat offence. One wonders how a repeat offence comes to be, however, if the initial offence cannot be charged.


That is the (il)logic employed, amazingly.