I had a 4 hour training seminar on it yesterday. Attended by District Attorneys, Asst. Dist. Attorneys, AG's office, the head of Alabama Peace Officers Standards and Training, and Dist. Attorney's Investigators, and some Feds/Homeland Security folks. There wasn't a soul in the room that truly understood it. There wasn't a soul in the room that wasn't constantly saying: "Wait, what the fuck?" (not those words, but they were thinking it) or "What the fuck were those morons in Montgomery thinking?" It's a convoluted, useless pile of dog shit! It's not going to accomplish all of what people think it will, or even most of it, and it's going to be extremely burdensome on law enforcement, especially the small, understaffed, underfunded agencies. It uses civil liability on LE and prosecutors to mandate we enforce it. However, the paperwork, and proof that someone is illegal is in the hands of the Feds (ICE), and guess what, they're not going to comply (nor do they have to) and send the proof we need to prove someone is illegal in order to prosecute them at the state level. Huge steaming pile of donkey shit!
Again, blame the perp....not the law. You lawyers suck at teh root cause analysis.
Again, blame the perp....not the law. You lawyers suck at teh root cause analysis.
Blame the law if it sucks...and it does.
That's not to say that we shouldn't be creating and enforcing laws which prevent individuals from partaking in illegal activities, nor should we just overlook criminal activity because it may be hard to regulate.
But when the law sucks, it sucks; the criminals didn't legislate it, so place blame where it is due.
I've said since the beginning that this law is a huge bluff out of Montgomery. It's the biggest waste of time that I've ever seen and we have basically changed nothing where I live. We already have ICE based in our county, and we already have the 287g program. The new bill is worthless to me.
The ONLY think I like, we now have permission to jail anyone driving on a suspended/revoked license. I think it should have always been that way, but for whatever reason, our decision makers have told us we can. That could change next week though.
When a friend or family member of a legislator is jailed because they're driving without a license, and for some reason it can't be verified that they have a valid one, it will.
Not without. Revoked or suspended. But your point still stands.
No, the amended law (32-6-9) says if you can't verify they have a "VALID DL". You lose your wallet, get stopped, and the computers are down...guess what, you're going to jail. Expired DL? Jail. Not just suspended or revoked.
Has it been brought up that Jo Bonner admitted that they had no intentions of actually arresting illegals or deporting illegals with this law?
I read an article the other day (looking for it now) where he straight up admitted that the intention of this law is to scare illegal immigrants out of the state.
You don't pass a law if you don't want it to be enforced.But, when you look at the law, you have to agree with Token. There is no way in hell they REALLY expected this thing to be enforced statewide. Sure, you will have some sheriffs and whatnot that will grandstand and probably create task forces, etc and will run with it. But, for the most part, it's a bluff to illegal immigrants, and the federal government for that matter.
Blame "the perp" (you been watching too much TV) for writing a steaming pile of shit law that makes it hard on law enforcement, and DA's, and easy on the illegals? Your analysis is poor.
I watch no TV that you are refering to. Hell, Ive never even watched a court drama like 90% of the rest of the country does.
Blame the criminal for the breaking the LAW is poor analysis? Holy fuck, were screwed as a country then. This law would not even had been needed if the current law had been enforced the last 20 fucking years and millions of illegals had not waltzed in while sptting in the face of our country's laws. Is it a poor law we have NOW in the state? Maybe. But that is NOT the root issue here. Complicate this all you want with your lawyer down talk and jargon but the simple fact is that a TON of folks broke the law and are illegal. And you want to blame a new state law for the problems. Why don't you blame the amigos that jumped over a fence knowingly illegal. And I use the amigos as an example because they are the only group that has done this in masses/millions. I am sure someone will call me a racist. I really don't give a flying fuck.
I'm guessing that's why revoked/suspended was a focus point for us. We were told exclusively NOT to jail someone unless they were revoked or suspended.
I watch no TV that you are refering to. Hell, Ive never even watched a court drama like 90% of the rest of the country does.
Blame the criminal for the breaking the LAW is poor analysis? Holy fuck, were screwed as a country then. This law would not even had been needed if the current law had been enforced the last 20 fucking years and millions of illegals had not waltzed in while sptting in the face of our country's laws. Is it a poor law we have NOW in the state? Maybe. But that is NOT the root issue here. Complicate this all you want with your lawyer down talk and jargon but the simple fact is that a TON of folks broke the law and are illegal. And you want to blame a new state law for the problems. Why don't you blame the amigos that jumped over a fence knowingly illegal. And I use the amigos as an example because they are the only group that has done this in masses/millions. I am sure someone will call me a racist. I really don't give a flying fuck.
Perp: a tv-ism. Nobody in the legal/law enforcement profession actually says that word. Only those "hard core law abiding" types that pick and choose which laws they like, and say fuck the laws they don't.
The law is poorly written, and doesn't do what it was intended to do. Apply your "simple man" analysis all you want...it's a shitty law. No "amigos" wrote it.
You do realize that "being an illegal" in this country isn't a crime? I bet you don't know that do you? It's these new fucking idiot state laws that make it a crime.
The bottom line is this is a piece of shit law. It will never be enforced and it's a complete waste of tax dollars. We've been to one seminar in Hunstville in the last 2 weeks and it's the exact thing JR posted. The law can't be enforced, and basically the entire session was spent telling us what we can't do instead of how we should enforce it.
This law will lead to a serious racial profiling problem. That's the one thing we can bank on.
The bottom line is this is a piece of shit law. It will never be enforced and it's a complete waste of tax dollars.
+10
Illegal immigrants and the way that our government and citizens treat and utilize them are a portion of our economic problems, yet there are people who back a law that is so problematic that it will waste more tax dollars?
It's like trying to heal a bleeding wound with a knife.
Want to pass additional laws that will deter illegal immigration? Awesome, I'm all for it...as long as you do it right. This is not even close to right for so many reasons, the most important of which is the fact that it can't feasibly be enforced.
Them climbing over the border against documented procedures was illegal. They are still CURRENTLY guilty of doing something illegal. Get into semantics all you wish. Its your job. But what do I know, Im just a simpleton without a law degree right?
I think the word Perpetrator was around before Law and Order The SUVs. So by your logic, anyone who uses a word that is also used on TV had to have gotten it from TV. Check.
I really think you are directing your angst to the wrong people. Please honestly answer me: what the root cause of all of this is? Are you gonna tell me this NEW law is the cause of 40 million undocumented people entering the country the last 20 years? You know good and well, the root of this is a shit ton of people disregarding our federal laws by entering the country illegally and our fed govt (mostly lawyers) letting them.
But, when you look at the law, you have to agree with Token. There is no way in hell they REALLY expected this thing to be enforced statewide. Sure, you will have some sheriffs and whatnot that will grandstand and probably create task forces, etc and will run with it. But, for the most part, it's a bluff to illegal immigrants, and the federal government for that matter.
Oh, yeah, I agree that, as it's written now, it isn't enforceable. At all.
Based on this, I would hope that legislators didn't intend for it to be enforced. Nonetheless, it would be stupid of legislators to pass a law that they don't want enforced.
The fact of the matter is that our government operates in such a way that, once a law is passed, it can be enforced. And it's not enforced by the legislators who wrote it, so once it's passed, it's out of their hands; their intentions as to how or even whether they wanted it enforced no longer matter, at least not until a legal challenge is made and a court decides that it needs to look to legislative intent for guidance.
So now, you've passed a completely unenforceable law, and law enforcers are scratching their heads trying to figure out how they should enforce it. It's going to cause more problems and cost us more money than it should.
Which is why if you don't intend for it to be enforced, or otherwise foresee that it's not going to be able to be enforced constitutionally and with at least some efficiency, then why pass it?
Don't know about all the lawyers letting them in. Illegals a problem? I've heard it is so. The new ALABAMA law is a crock of shit. You blame the failure to act on the lawyers, feds, etc? Then ignore the fact the new law is a crock of shit? It's a crock of shit. Unenforceable. Worthless. And it has nothing to do with lawyers...it makes no sense, not even to intelligent "simple people".
But, for the most part, it's a bluff to illegal immigrants, and the federal government for that matter.
But you are directing 100% of your angst on the entire situation over a NEW piece of (worthless) legislation. And you still won't answer the question. Are you telling me the criminal has no part in any of this by having initially broken the law? Where was your outrage at them? Without that, we aren't even having a discussion about a state law.
The law a piece of shit? I believe I said maybe. If it is, then fine. That's another argument.
But you are directing 100% of your angst on the entire situation over a NEW piece of (worthless) legislation. And you still won't answer the question. Are you telling me the criminal has no part in any of this by having initially broken the law? Where was your outrage at them? Without that, we aren't even having a discussion about a state law.
And BTW - you have said that word more than I have. Maybe you should write it down on a piece of paper and jack off on it since you seem to have the kinky infatuation with it. And yes, you do "blame the perp" as you like to keep repeating, for the mess (along with our fed govt for not enforcing). Usually criminals ARE blamed for the crimes they commit. You, out of all people, should know that. This is gonna be your new "Gus didn't tutor Cam" motto this week isn't it?
Go get some pussy dude.
But, this discussion is about the state law, isn't it? I thought I read the thread title correctly...
If a law is passed which allows an officer to shoot drunk drivers on the spot, then am I expected to express my outrage regarding the recklessness of drunk drivers and ignore discussion about this new law? Does the new law not warrant discussion or outrage simply because drunk drivers have been a problem ever since Henry T. Ford decided to invent a vehicle?
The law can't be enforced as it is. It will cause too many problems and cost too much money. Based on that, I think discussion about the law (and outrage about the law) is warranted. This isn't to say that the underlying reason for the law being passed in the first place should be ignored. But just because there is an underlying problem doesn't mean that any old law which poorly attempts to address the problem should be allowed to exist.
True. I think JR and I agree more than he thinks. My overall point is that if people had gotten as fired up about the initial problem as they are getting about this new law, we might not even be in the situation. The people coming into the country illegally by the millions knew good and well it wasn't on the up and up. And no one gave 2 shits about it until it had gotten out of control. Reactive - that's what we've been on this issue. If JR would stop for a min (like you have done), cool his jets and try to understand another valid point of view instead of trying to argue, he might would see we don't totally disagree. Also, as RWS said, I really think this whole thing is a bluff. IF it is, it would appear real dumb from a small battles perspective, but strategic in the war. It has gotten attention on the problem. Serious attention, whether its the solution or not. It may lead to it.
Ok, you got me, "perp" is one of my pet peeves. But a "perp" isn't a perp if there's not a law making him one. As I said, being an "illegal" in this country isn't a CRIME! They tried to make it one in Alabama, but failed miserably. The portions of the law not currently under Federal injunction, are still difficult to understand at best, and largely unenforceable in practice.
The law is a piece of shit. It doesn't do what it's intended to do. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and that sort of thing. I agree, somewhat, that the "illegal" problem is a problem, but give me a good way to deal with it. Don't burden me with something that is unenforceable and subjects me to liability. Too much to ask?
My jets are hot, not at you, but this new law, which was shoved down my gullet on Friday. I'm not arguing with you, which YOU don't seem to get. As pointed out, the law was a bluff to run them off. Here's my main most argument with it. It was supposed to be a bluff...the kind of law passed where those that wrote it could say "look at me, I'm tough on illegals" at election time. The civil liability part was supposed to be axed...but was included in the final bill. So, they've laid a steaming pile of shit at my door, shit with real stink, and walked away. Is that really that hard to understand? Surely you don't have to be a lawyer to get that?
Them being here - in the here and now? No.
The act of them getting here illegally? Yes.
I am unsure of what the statute of limitations on coming into the country illegally is, but as long as the timeframe is within it, it makes sense that you could still charge them with THAT crime. Not the actual being here.
I know we're circling around to some lawyer shit here, but how do you prove it without actually catching them in the act?
Maybe you don't know this either, and if you do, then excuse me. A large portion of "illegals" arrived here legally. Yes, even the brown skinned ones.
True. I think JR and I agree more than he thinks. My overall point is that if people had gotten as fired up about the initial problem as they are getting about this new law, we might not even be in the situation.
Can't we just pass a law that says if you have no proof of being here legally, we just drop you in the nearest manhole? I know eventually we'll end up with a bunch of spanish speaking C.H.U.D.s. But I'll take that chance.
In fact, they weren't even criminals until this law was passed.
Yes they were, hence the term ILLEGAL alien. They are here in the country illegally therefore they are criminals.
Nope, it's not a crime. Common misconception.
Entering the country at an improper area, or otherwise entering without going through the proper processes, is prohibited by federal law and is punishable by imprisonment and/or fines.
So...I'm confused?
Entering the country at an improper area, or otherwise entering without going through the proper processes, is prohibited by federal law and is punishable by imprisonment and/or fines.
So...I'm confused?
Illegal entry is a crime. Being an illegal alien in this country is not. Many arrive legally, and for one reason or another, become illegal aliens after legal entry. Including many of the Mexicans. Arrive on a work Visa, and over stay, you're an illegal alien, but not committing a crime. It's a civil violation, not criminal.
Being an "illegal" (or, more appropriately, undocumented) alien in this country would indicate that you came to the country without going through the proper processes...otherwise you would be here "legally"/with documentation.
Now, I get what you're saying...the ongoing act of being here after illegal entry is not a crime in and of itself. But it is indicative of the fact that you did commit a crime, and thus are a criminal (albeit for an earlier act, not your ongoing presence), because you had to enter the country improperly (and thus illegally) in order to be here "illegally."
Of course, I don't do immigration law, so I don't know if you can successfully charge an undocumented immigrant with entering the country illegally based solely on the fact that he isn't documented, and thus had to have broken the law in order to arrive here without proper documentation. Afterall, even if their Visa has expired, they still have documentation of having obtained it for the purposes of legal entry. Absolutely no documentation, expired or otherwise, suggests illegal entry. It would make sense to me that you could charge them based off of this lack of documentation, but again, I ≠ immigration lawyer.
Here's the bottom line to me. Yeah, illegal immigrants are a problem. Yeah, something needs to be done. There will also be unpleasant unintended consequences, mostly economic. This new law does little or NOTHING to help the situation. That's all I'm saying.
There you go blaming the perp again. You need tutoring.
You can enter legally, then become an illegal alien later. If your visa is expired, you're an illegal alien.
Yes, but if you had a Visa, there is a paper trail. Thus, you were a documented, legal alien at one point in time, which means that you could have legally entered America.
On the other hand, if there is absolutely no documentation whatsoever (including a record of a previously valid, but now expired, Visa or other paperwork), yet you are here, then you obviously had to enter illegally.
Can you not charge a completely undocumented alien for committing the crime of improper entry?
Not speaking for JR here, as he is the prosecutor, but I don't see how we could charge with improper entry when the crime didn't occur in Alabama. There isn't a border to illegally cross in Alabama. Which is why we detain for ICE, who is able to charge at the federal level.
Yeah, I wasn't specifically referring to Alabama's courts being the proper jurisdiction in which to bring prosecution...just asking if prosecution can be brought period when we know that they are undocumented and were never documented. In such an instance, it would seem to me that the only way they could have gotten here is by breaking the federal law which prevents improper entry. Otherwise, they would have a paper trial of some type of prior documentation.
Not speaking for JR here, as he is the prosecutor, but I don't see how we could charge with improper entry when the crime didn't occur in Alabama. There isn't a border to illegally cross in Alabama. Which is why we detain for ICE, who is able to charge at the federal level.
I really think it goes back to what rws said. It was meant more than anything as a deterrent and bluff to the Feds. It's getting people talking about a solution which is good.
For the same reason you can't charge someone with stealing property simply because they possess stolen property. Assumption isn't allowed in evidence.
Since 1908, federal courts have recognized that "entering" the United States requires more than mere physical presence within the country. United States v. Pacheco-Medina, 212 F.3d 1162, 1163-64 (9th Cir.2000). To "enter," an alien must cross the United States border free from official restraint. Id. If an alien is not discovered until some time after exercising his free will within the United States, he has entered free from official restraint. United States v. Martin-Plascencia, 532 F.2d 1316, 1317 (9th Cir.1976).
Now it's no longer a bluff, and one of our Farva's will use this BS law to stop someone illegally and put someone in jail. Then, when Farva's agency gets hit with a major shit storm (civil lawsuit) our legislators will be responsible for explaining this piece of garbage law.
And believe me, we have a shit ton of Farvas running around with a shield/badge.
Blame the perps.
For the same reason you can't charge someone with stealing property simply because they possess stolen property. Assumption isn't allowed in evidence.
Thanks for telling me this now. Could have saved my BIL 18 months in jail.
You can charge them, you just may not be able to convict them. People are arrested and charged with theft for mere possession all of the time. See Cam Newton.
But isn't this a little different? Personal property can easily be moved around and placed in someone else's possession for purposes of framing them. But a human being that is physically present in a country? What's the excuse there? The Mexican cartel drugged some random hombre and snuck him across the border against his will, all for the purpose of framing him for illegally entering the U.S.?
Is anyone really going to have a reasonable doubt as to whether a person who is not a U.S. citizen, yet is present in the U.S., and for whom there is not a shred of documentation which remotely suggests that he/she was legally present at any point in time, crossed the border by illegally entering this country?
Again, I don't deal with this area of law, so do correct me if I'm wrong, but just from reading a few memorandums from the DoJ, it would appear that individuals who are merely "found" to be residing in the U.S. without proper documentation can be charged with this federal crime; they don't actually have to be caught in the act of illegally entering. There's also some case law which seems to suggest that an individual who is "found" in the U.S. can be charged with illegal entry:
Am I misreading those quotes, or otherwise missing something? (Legitimate question; no sarcasm intended).
BIL must be a peice of shit, like the new law.
tl/dr
You gots more dodge than a Durango.
BIL must be a peice of shit, like the new law.
You can charge them, you just may not be able to convict them. People are arrested and charged with theft for mere possession all of the time. See Cam Newton.
But isn't this a little different? Personal property can easily be moved around and placed in someone else's possession for purposes of framing them. But a human being that is physically present in a country? What's the excuse there? The Mexican cartel drugged some random hombre and snuck him across the border against his will, all for the purpose of framing him for illegally entering the U.S.?
Is anyone really going to have a reasonable doubt as to whether a person who is not a U.S. citizen, yet is present in the U.S., and for whom there is not a shred of documentation which remotely suggests that he/she was legally present at any point in time, crossed the border by illegally entering this country?
Again, I don't deal with this area of law, so do correct me if I'm wrong, but just ffrom reading a few memorandums from the DoJ, it would appear that individuals who are merely "found" to be residing in the U.S. without proper documentation can be charged with this federal crime; they don't actually have to be caught in the act of illegally entering. There's also some case law which seems to suggest that an individual who is "found" in the U.S. can be charged with illegal entry:
Am I misreading those quotes, or otherwise missing something? (Legitimate question; no sarcasm intended).
If I "find" you in my house fucking with my stuff and I didn't invite you in? I should be able to shoot you. At the very least I can kick your ass out the door.
If I "find" you in my house fucking with my stuff and I didn't invite you in? I should be able to shoot you.
If I "find" you in my house fucking with my stuff and I didn't invite you in? I should be able to shoot you.
What makes you think that you can't?