Thread: Illegal immigrant retracts guilty plea

http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbc ... /-1/news01


Illegal immigrant retracts guilty plea

By DAVID BROOKS, Telegraph Staff
brooksd@telegraph-nh.com

Published: Saturday, May. 7, 2005

Jorge Ramirez, 21, of Mexico, who is in the United States illegally withdrew his guilty plea to a criminal trespass charge.
At the request of the Mexican consulate, a Merrimack firm specializing in immigration law has taken on the high-profile case of a 21-year-old Mexican who was charged with trespassing in New Ipswich because he is in the country illegally.

“It’s not a run-of-the-mill situation (to be approached by the Mexican government). But the case isn’t a run-of-the-mill case,� said attorney Mona Movafaghi.

On Tuesday, Jorge Ramirez of Mexico pleaded guilty to two minor state offenses and seemed likely to be deported.

But that plea was withdrawn Thursday, and the matter is now slated to go to trial in Jaffrey-Peterborough District Court on July 12.

What would otherwise be a routine immigration case is drawing considerable attention because of New Ipswich Police Chief Garrett Chamberlain’s use of a relatively minor state law, criminal trespass, to prosecute the federal crime of being an illegal immigrant.

“I think there’s been surprise, pretty much across the country, about it,� said Movafaghi.

That surprise has led Chamberlain to be a guest on CNN and other national media in the past week, and has drawn dozens of e-mails to The Telegraph from around the country, most of them supporting Chamberlain.

The incident began April 15, when Ramirez’s Ford Explorer broke down on Turnpike Road while he was driving home to Waltham, Mass., from a contracting job in Jaffrey. He was approached by a New Ipswich police officer and arrested because he didn’t have a legal driver’s license.

Chamberlain has expressed frustration in the past because federal immigration authorities would not pick up illegal immigrants in his town.

He decided to also charge Ramirez with criminal trespass, a state law that is more commonly seen in domestic disputes.

In New Hampshire (RSA 635:2), criminal trespass involves a person who, “knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so . . . enters or remains in any place.�

Chamberlain argues that Ramirez, who admitted that he entered the country illegally, knew he wasn’t “licensed or privileged� to enter New Hampshire.

“What I’m trying to do, is find a manner in which we can get the federal government to step up to the plate and start helping out,� Chamberlain told the Associated Press this week. “It’s basically a situation here where right now if you make it past the border patrol, you’re free and clear. . . . What I’m hoping to do is find a way that if the feds aren’t going to help us out, then local enforcement can take care of it.�

The charge is a violation, which is less than a misdemeanor and does not carry the possibility of jail time.

Ramirez, who spoke through an interpreter and did not have an attorney, pleaded guilty to trespass and to driving without a license in a short hearing Tuesday in Jaffrey-Peterborough District Court.

He was fined and ordered to report to federal immigration authorities, who planned to deport him.

But Wednesday, the Mexican consulate contacted Movafaghi’s firm, which specializes in immigration cases to the point that its Web site address is ImmigrationNH.com.

On Thursday, Randall Drew of Movafaghi’s office petitioned to withdraw Ramirez’s guilty plea. District Court Judge L. Phillips Runyon agreed and scheduled the July 12 trial.

Ramirez remains free on $1,500 cash bail.

Drew said he would argue that the criminal trespass law was misapplied.

“It was not the intent of the statute, obviously, for local and state authorities here in New Hampshire to be enforcing federal immigration laws. . . . We don’t think that we’re going to see a conviction out of this. We hope to have the case dismissed,� he said.

Chamberlain’s action was labeled a “grandstand� ploy earlier this week by Paula Grenier, a spokeswoman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which oversees federal immigration law.

She argued that authorities have to prioritize their actions, focusing on illegal aliens who have committed other crimes.

Chamberlain’s disagreement with federal immigration authorities first became public last July, when his department found 11 undocumented immigrants but had to let them go when ICE didn’t show up.

The people behind this obviously are able to pull some heavy strings.
Someone got the Mex. gov't to step in!

They're going to use this case as an "example" to Americans who are fighting to have the Rule of Law enforced.

This is something else that the RealId Act would put the kibosh on...if the illegal is picked up here..found to be illegal...he's deported without further ado...no hearings, no appeal...no BS...

RR

RR

Not necessarily! CAFTA will help in making any legislation moot while putting the burden on AMERICANS.

READ EVERYTHING CONCERNING THE TRADE AGREEMENTS!!

Also, note the "weakening" of the legislation ie: wording &/or elimination of certain sections! It's opening the LOOPHOLES for CAFTA & FTAA

Anyone in jail with no legal verification of legal right to be here should be held under no bail.Period.

Originally Posted by rickesteves

Anyone in jail with no legal verification of legal right to be here should be held under no bail.Period.

Naw, they should be given a 1 to 3 year work detail, making little rocks out of big rocks, while living in a tent village in the middle of the desert (pink underwear would be optional).

Put a couple hundred (or 1000's) illegals into that, and word will get out VERY quickly, and America will not be such a bright target for anyone to flaunht in and disrespect our soverignty, by coming here illegally, or by "overstaying" their welcome.

H.

Originally Posted by 2ndamendsis

The people behind this obviously are able to pull some heavy strings.
Someone got the Mex. gov't to step in!

They're going to use this case as an "example" to Americans who are fighting to have the Rule of Law enforced.

I agree that this case has REALLY rattled someone cage. The big pollies do know that if states start to act on this issue, that the fed governments possition of open borders WILL come to a screaching halt.

Yes, someone also posted about CAFTA, and it will eliminate the power to do this. That is true, however, I believe (hope beyond ALL hope), that CAFTA can be flushed down the toilet.

If I am wrong, and CAFTA is pushed through, then all bets are off. There will be some VERY serious reaction from the "folks".


H.

If I am wrong, and CAFTA is pushed through, then all bets are off. There will be some VERY serious reaction from the "folks

From all I've heard the republicans are frothing at the mouth to get CAFTA pushed thru....only a small group of democrats are holdin' 'em off at the pass...

RR

I think the only way to bring the open borders to a screeching halt is to show there is more profit in closing the illegal traffic.Nothing else has worked yet.

Originally Posted by RoadRunner

If I am wrong, and CAFTA is pushed through, then all bets are off. There will be some VERY serious reaction from the "folks

From all I've heard the republicans are frothing at the mouth to get CAFTA pushed thru....only a small group of democrats are holdin' 'em off at the pass...

RR

The republican (Neocon) POLLIES are frothing at the mouth, because they have been SO bought and paid for. The PEOPLE (i.e. folks) are NOT in support of CAFTA AT ALL.

Like I said, if the pollies push this crap through, and I truely think that people will FLOOD them with phone/fax/letter/personal face-face complaints, that this act will NOT be passed.

Like i said, IF I am wrong, then all bets are off.

H.