Thread: Court: Just being in U.S. isn't illegal

Court: Just being in U.S. isn't illegal
BY DION LEFLER
The Wichita Eagle

While unauthorized entry into the United States is illegal, being in the country after having entered illegally is not necessarily a crime, according to a new ruling by the Kansas Court of Appeals.

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.

Barton County Attorney Douglas Matthews said courts in Oregon and Minnesota have issued similar rulings. But he said, "My research tells me this is the first time this has come up in this state."

Martinez's lawyer, Janine Cox of the Kansas appellate defender's office, declined to comment because prosecutors have not decided whether to appeal the decision to the state Supreme Court.

The case arose from the sentencing of Martinez, who pleaded guilty to felony possession of cocaine and endangering a child by having his young son deliver drugs to an undercover officer, according to court documents.

Although the prosecution recommended probation -- the presumptive sentence for the crimes in state sentencing guidelines -- Barton County District Judge Hannelore Kitts sentenced Martinez to serve as much as a year in jail because he is an illegal immigrant, the records said.

"The problem that arises for me is to follow the guidelines here, is because Mr. Martinez is illegally in the country and is in violation of the probation rules right from the start if I were to place him on probation," Kitts said, according to transcripts quoted in the appeal ruling.

Kitts said Martinez "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."

Not necessarily so, said the appeals court.

"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," McAnany wrote.

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.

The appellate court ordered that Martinez's case be returned to Kitts for resentencing.

Matthews 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.

Matthews has 30 days to decide whether to appeal the appellate court ruling to the state Supreme Court.

http://www.kansas.com/news/local/story/153645.html

While unauthorized entry into the United States is illegal, being in the country after having entered illegally is not necessarily a crime, according to a new ruling by the Kansas Court of Appeals.

This has to be one of the most insane comments I have ever and I mean ever heard in my life "While unauthorized entry into the United States is illegal, being in the country after having entered illegally is not necessarily a crime'.

What kind of crack are these judges smoking and how in the HE double hocky sticks did they get into that position as Judges.

Or is that a prerequisite; smoking crack

Kansas has a lot of Big Business Beef Slaughter houses which hire a lot of Illegals.This judge is bought and paid for I would say by the Businesses.

While unauthorized entry into the United States is illegal, being in the country after having entered illegally is not necessarily a crime, according to a new ruling by the Kansas Court of Appeals.

Are you friggin' kidding me??? Another bunch of socialist wacko leftist judges trying to make it easier for illegals to perpetuate their crimes?

"Evil is good,
Darkness is light,
Bitter is sweet,
And this ain' right."

Someone needs to contact Judicial Watch on this. Keep reading this whole article. This is the most illogical insane psychotic babble from judges that I've heard yet. We need to get blow-up dolls appointed to the bench, not these commie idiots!!!

Originally Posted by controlledImmigration

While unauthorized entry into the United States is illegal, being in the country after having entered illegally is not necessarily a crime, according to a new ruling by the Kansas Court of Appeals.

"Your Honor, you know . . . even though I'm in the United States, I didn't enter the United States illegally. You see, this big black round spinning disk landed on the hill in La Paz. Then these icky reptiles in green suits came out and took me into their flying machine. The next thing I remember, I was up here in Kansas. When they put me out, they said, 'You're not in La Paz anymore, DoDo!'

"And it's not MY FAULT!"

Case dismissed.

So let's see: While unauthorized entry into the United States is illegal, being in the country after having entered illegally is not illegal so therefore there is no crime. DUH...What?????????????????????????????

Originally Posted by controlledImmigration

"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.

So, your honor, an illegal alien comes up out of the Rio Grande, climbs up the bank soaking wet, and the BP apprehends him on the levee.

Now, let me get this right, your honor. Because the perp is no longer "entering the country" but is now "in the country," the BP cannot arrest him for illegal entry?

Please be patient with us, Judge. We're not as educated in the fine points of the law as your honor. Just one more time. Unless the BP apprehends the perp at the moment he passes from the Mexican half of the Rio Grande into the American half of the Rio Grande, the perp cannot be prosecuted for entering the country illegally? Sort of like the Highway Patrol not being able to arrest a traffic violator unless he keeps him in sight? I see. . . I mean, I think I see. Well, really, I don't see.

Now, your honor, with all respect due to the bench, isn't it going to be a little difficult, if not impossible, for the agent to swim out to the mid-point of the Rio Grande and put the cuffs on the illegal alien entering illegally . . . I mean, the perp has a head start getting to the middle of the river, and the BP is toting boots and cuffs and a radio and a taser and a government issue pistol with extra clips - it's all he can do not to sink to the bottom -

No, your honor, I didn't mean any contempt for the bench. I'll sit down. I think I understand the position of the court now.

Originally Posted by controlledImmigration

"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," McAnany wrote.

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.

And how do you define that "particular locality," esteemed Men in Black?
On the river bank? Within sight of the river? Within 50 miles? At the last Border Patrol checkpoint? Within one of the border states?

According to this twisted logic of the U.S. Supreme Court,
to convict an illegal alien for illegal entry, first offense,
IS VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

Therefore, all first offense deportations are called into question or rendered invalid automatically.
Ergo, since no one can be deported the first time, no one can ever be deported at all.

"Come on back, amigos y muchachos. It's all been just a big misunderstanding."

Woe to those who drag iniquity with the cords of falsehood,
And sin as if with cart ropes;

Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;
Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness;
Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!
Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes
And clever in their own sight!

Who justify the wicked for a bribe,
And take away the rights of the ones who are in the right!
Therefore, as a tongue of fire consumes stubble
And dry grass collapses into the flame,
So their root will become like rot and their blossom blow away as dust;
For they have rejected the law of the LORD of hosts
And despised the word of the Holy One of Israel. (Isaiah 5:18,20,21,23,24)

Woe to those who enact evil statutes
And to those who constantly record unjust decisions,
So as to deprive the needy of justice
And rob the poor of My people of their rights,
So that widows may be their spoil
And that they may plunder the orphans.
Now what will you do in the day of punishment,
And in the devastation which will come from afar?
To whom will you flee for help?
And where will you leave your wealth? (Isaiah 10:1-3)

For all this His anger is not spent,
But His hand is still stretched out. (Isaiah 5:25b)