First-hand account of Bianco raid detainees

Thanks, AmberPaw, for helping these people (0.00 / 0)

If folks missed it, here's today's Eileen McNamara piece in the Glob. It's a useful mix of background info and opinion on this debacle.  Made me want to be given a f/up form Charley's bro in OR on any pledge rcv'd from the Gov. there.

---

by: AnnEM @ Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 17:30:38 PM CDT

thanks for volunteering! (0.00 / 0)

i'm dense: i still don't understand the ICE rationale for flying people to texas.  what is it? 

---

by: GoldsteinGoneWild @ Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 17:58:37 PM CDT

Being here illegally makes them a criminal (1.77 / 13)

Amber:

Your statement would more correctly be, "no prior arrest record".  For if the are in this country in violation of immigration laws they in fact have a criminal history, as that fact is against the law.

EaBo

---

by: EaBoClipper @ Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 18:01:16 PM CDT

You get a zero (4.25 / 8)

because of your assholic comemnts about Deval and his wife.  You're new around here and frankly you should just leave.

---

by: FrankSkeffington @ Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 18:05:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Entering the country without (6.00 / 4)

authorization is a civil offense, not a criminal offense. Only the employer committed a criminal offense, as well as others who may have provided transportation, false documents, and so on.

You, on the other hand, are a moral offense, and probably some kind of biological one as well.

---

by: steverino @ Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 18:06:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's an immigration violation. (0.00 / 0)

A deportable offense.

---

by: pers-1765 @ Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 18:33:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Deportable (0.00 / 0)

Not criminal.

---

by: steverino @ Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 18:38:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Just Because you Say it Doesn' Make it so. (0.00 / 0)

http://caselaw.lp.fi...

Section 1325. Improper entry by alien

  (a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection;
  misrepresentation and concealment of facts
  Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States
  at any time or place other than as designated by immigration
  officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration
  officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United
  States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the
  willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first
  commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or
  imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent
  commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or
  imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
  (b) Improper time or place; civil penalties
  Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to
  enter) the United States at a time or place other than as
  designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil
  penalty of -
  (1) at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or
  attempted entry); or
  (2) twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of
  an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under
  this subsection.

  Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not
  in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be
  imposed.
  (c) Marriage fraud
  Any individual who knowingly enters into a marriage for the
  purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws shall be
  imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or fined not more than
  $250,000, or both.
  (d) Immigration-related entrepreneurship fraud
  Any individual who knowingly establishes a commercial enterprise
  for the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws
  shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, fined in accordance
  with title 18, or both.

emphasis added

---

by: EaBoClipper @ Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 18:46:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

If you catch them fence-jumping (4.00 / 1)

you've got them.

If you catch them lying at the border, (No, I'm my brother Enrique, who's a citizen), you've got them.

Just being here without being a citizen or legal alien? No. You got nothin'.

---

by: steverino @ Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 18:55:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

According to that rationale.. (0.00 / 0)

I should only get charged with breaking and entering if they catch me going through the window of a house.  If the police come and I'm chillin on the couch, I should be say "tough luck, I'm already here."

---

by: JoeTS @ Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 19:05:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's not a rationale (5.00 / 1)

It's the law. If you don't like it, your beef isn't with me.

There are more ways to find yourself in the country than in the specific instances prohibited above.

Please don't pick up bad habits from all the other Republicans on this blog. If you are unsure of what I have said, please go learn about it. Despite what your fellow travelers think, I'm nobody's google monkey.

---

by: steverino @ Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 19:12:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The Fugitive Slave Act does come to mind (0.00 / 0)

Failing to turn in an escaped slave also rendered one subject to imprisonment, and was a felony in its time.

So, your point is?  See section 7 - same length of time in prison for trying to help a slave escape; six months.  Is there nothing new under the sun?

http://www.nationalc...

Deborah Sirotkin Butler
AmberPaw dot @aol.com

"Failure to plan is planning to fail."
Proverb

---

by: AmberPaw @ Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 19:56:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Just to remind you... (0.00 / 0)

...the fugitive slave acts was one of the main reasons for the severing of the union.  They made anti-slavery northerners complicit in Southern slavery.  Remember the Boston anti-slave riots of 1853?  If the Southerners hadn't overpushed their hand, there might still be slavery in the South.

Read Lincoln's Cooper Union speech.  He lays it out excellently.  It's the best crafted speech I've ever read.

---

by: raj @ Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 20:06:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

And enough of these draconian raids may force a change as well (0.00 / 0)

I am well aware of the way in which The Fugitive Slave Act further polarized the country, as did the "bleeding Kansas" situation. 

If ICE overplays its hand, enough, and the human pain is public enough, then perhaps the creaky, selectively enforced, out of date immigration law and policy will have to change here. 

As it is, what occurred last week in Massachusetts is morally indefensible in my view.  Being "legal" is not the same as being moral.  After all, those of my relatives who were killed in the ovens and camps were killed "legally".  Because a command, or law, is lawful at the time, if the impact [Fugitive Slave Law, Aryan purification laws, etc.] is sufficiently immoral or evil, then to do nothing in and of itself is wrong, is complicity.  I

  do have realistic expectation, however, that the handling of the Michael Bianco Raid, and the internal renditions, and depriving U.S. Citizen children of their parents without hearing, etc. etc. will not be found lawful in material regards, and leave that in Judge Stearns hands as I must due to the rule of law.

Deborah Sirotkin Butler
AmberPaw dot @aol.com

"Failure to plan is planning to fail."
Proverb

---

by: AmberPaw @ Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 21:12:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

'Twod be nice, but I wouldn't hold my breath... (0.00 / 0)

...what we are dealing with here is an agency whose budget probably was not approved by the last (Republican controlled) congress and which is now playing for its budget in the current (Democrat controlled) congress.  I don't believe for a minute that the timing of these ICE raids--including the ICE raids in the midwest a couple of months ago--is not an issue of budget, and possibly to embarrass the Democrats in Congress if they (the Democrats) don't give them the money they're asking for.

There was no reason whatsoever for the ICE to whisk away the detainees from Massachusetts to Texas, merely to ensure that they will show up for an immigration hearing.  None whatsoever.  Except for public relations purposes.

I'll go back to 1993.  Do you remember when the firearms control people went to the Branch Davideons' compound in Wacto?  They had notified the news media that they were going to go there.  Why would they do that?  For public relations purposes, of course.

---

by: raj @ Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 12:16:30 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm not picking up bad habits (0.00 / 0)

but when I read
"enters or attempts to enter the United States
  at any time or place other than as designated by immigration
  officers" it seems like that would apply to people who are already here.  That's what the words looks like to me.

---

by: JoeTS @ Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 20:08:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm getting testy. (5.00 / 1)

Were people caught in the act of entering the United States from Mexico via some time-space-warp in New Bedford?

Or were the people rounded up already here?

It might surprise you, but it's actually kind of hard to get a conviction in this country when your only argument is, "Well, they musta, yer Honor."

I repeat: Merely being here without being a legal alien or citizen is not a criminal offense, though it is of course deportable.

Why don't you stop quizzing me and spend some time researching immigration law?

---

by: steverino @ Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 20:14:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Merely being here (0.00 / 0)

Your original statement said "only if they are caught in the act".  Now you say "merely being here". 

So I stand by my assertion that it may be hard to prove, but doesn't change the fact that a criminal not civil infraction was committed if they did in fact enter the country illegally.

There "merely being here" notwithstanding.

---

by: EaBoClipper @ Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 20:23:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Oh and I think it would be pretty easy to prove (0.00 / 0)

I think it would be pretty east to prove without a reasonable doubt.

Prosecutor:"Your honor, there is no record of the defendant entering the country at a legally recognized point of entry to the United States.  Therefore one can rightly assume that entry was made at another illegal point.

Judge: "Defense council, do you have evidence that contradicts this assertion? Do you have access to an entry record, a stamp in a passport, or some other evidence"

Defense Council: "No, your honor I don't."

Prosecutor:"The prosecution rests, your honor."

---

by: EaBoClipper @ Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 20:26:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Instead of postulating your theories (0.00 / 0)

why don't you busy yourself finding 100% on-point cases of aliens prosecuted criminally for per se presence in the United States, with no other circumstances?

I'm sure there are thousands, if it's so easy.

Sometimes I wonder whether it ever occurs to Republicans that there actually is a reality outside their own heads.

---

by: steverino @ Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 21:38:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

How would you commit marriage fraud, specificaly mentioned in the statute... (0.00 / 0)

...while leaping a fence?

Yr. Obedient Servant, Peter Porcupine, Republican

---

by: Peter Porcupine @ Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 19:06:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Get your reading glasses (0.00 / 0)

and try again.

Hint: Look at a)...b)...c)...

---

by: steverino @ Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 19:15:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

a)Entering not as directed by immigration officials (0.00 / 0)

So if it can be proven that one came across at a place not directed by immigration officials, one doesn't have to be caught in the act correct.

Just because it may be hard to prove, doesn't make it a civil only act.

I'll give you pverstaying a visa may be a civil infraction.  But coming across the border illegally in the first place seems to be criminal.

I'll also give you that we may not be enforcing as criminal acts, and that case law(the blessing and curse of a common law nation) may have moved from the original intent of the statute.  But the original intent of the statute seems pretty clear to me. 

---

by: EaBoClipper @ Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 19:18:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It has nothing to do (6.00 / 1)

with whether it's hard to prove or not. Simple presence in the U.S. is not a criminal act for these people. And a court does not make a criminal statute into a civil one, common law or no.

---

by: steverino @ Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 19:48:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

~sigh~ (0.00 / 0)

...Are you serious?  Marriage fraud is a well known offense to immigration laws.  It isn't necessarily committed when leaping a fence.

---

by: raj @ Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 19:41:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I was speaking to Steverino's contention that if it didn't happen at the border, it's olly-olly-oxen-free. (0.00 / 0)

Yr. Obedient Servant, Peter Porcupine, Republican

---

by: Peter Porcupine @ Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 19:59:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Judge Stearn will have the last word, perhaps (6.00 / 2)

Which is why I posted the link to his order, and I will be monitoring the legal action which will intensify next week.

Deborah Sirotkin Butler
AmberPaw dot @aol.com

"Failure to plan is planning to fail."
Proverb

---

by: AmberPaw @ Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 20:01:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I really (0.00 / 0)

don't care whether you understand the immigration laws. It's not my responsibility, though you seem to think it is.

A criminal statute prohibits what it prohibits, not whatever you wish it did.

---

by: steverino @ Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 20:07:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

If you are unfamiliar with the issue of marriage fraud, educate yourself... (0.00 / 0)

...I'm tired of trying to educate you.

---

by: raj @ Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 20:09:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

If and when federal prosecutors bring a criminal prosecution against the people, I'll sit up and pay attention... (0.00 / 0)

...until then, no.

---

by: raj @ Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 19:18:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The good thing about all of this (0.00 / 0)

Is it may just give Senator Kennedy and the rest of our congressional delegation the capital they need to push immigration reform through the House and Senate.

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 18:02:43 PM CDT

Amber - I'm glad you were there to allay fears... (3.75 / 4)

...but what 'day in court' should they get?

Are any of them claiming that they actually ARE citizens?

As Ryan said, maybe now the immigration laws can be overhauled - but under the law now, there is no legal standing called 'economic refugee' unless you have gone through the proper immigration channels.

Every time I hear the cry of 'we can't deport them all!  There are 12 millions!' my gut reaction is - fine.  Let's deport the 300 we have.  And before you cry selective enforcement - they were already selective in how they snuck into the country.  How many more were turned away?  Being lucky at getting away with breaking a law doesn't make you less guilty. 

And deporting them would conform to the Rule of Law, not Men.

Yr. Obedient Servant, Peter Porcupine, Republican

---

by: Peter Porcupine @ Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 18:11:24 PM CDT

Craptacular (6.00 / 2)

...but what 'day in court' should they get?

How about a hearing before an Immigration Judge after receiving an Order to Show Cause, followed by an opportunity to appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals and later perhaps judicial review?

You know, due process that they are entitled to under the law?

I know how much Republicans prefer just hauling people off the streets, but in fact, a judge has to rule on each case. Your opinions on the merits of each deportation are of no import.

---

by: steverino @ Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 18:30:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

This still strikes me (0.00 / 3)

as a full blown orchestrated operation.  Why do I say that?  Because MSM got two full days of talking points out of it.  The main things here.  People wisked away with zero rights.  Rendition flights, "processing center" Ft. Devens, no this is not America.
Thing two.  Having personally been burnt by the "progressive" party, the party who fathered diversity and inclusion of all people I could easily go to redstate and fully explain exactly why and how and give them ammo too.
One can easily Google SPPNA,Amero,Nascocorridor and get the full facts but no, we have to be constrained by the pontiffs of political punditry via MSM.
The Nazification of the left is just as destructive as Ann the bimbo Coulter.

---

by: Lasthorseman @ Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 18:21:47 PM CDT

AmberPaw - service to humanity (6.00 / 1)

The fact that these people were shuttled as far away as Texas with no way to contact an attorney or make sure their children and spouses were safe is morally wrong - and I hope it will be shown as legally indefensible in federal court.

Thank you for posting and your service to humanity.

---

by: HeartlandDem @ Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 18:29:45 PM CDT