New Alabama Immigration Law.

[Vandy Vol]

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?

[Snaggletiger]

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?

Just another example of the man trying to keep a Mexican brother down.

[JR4AU]

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. 

[Vandy Vol]

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.

[JR4AU]

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.

You can enter legally, then become an illegal alien later.  If your visa is expired, you're an illegal alien.   

[Snaggletiger]

Take me, ta-ta-take me
Wanna' be a victim
Ready for abduction

You're an alien
Your touch is so foreign
It's supernatural
Extraterrestrial

[JR4AU]

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. 

[Snaggletiger]

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.

[JR4AU]

There you go blaming the perp again.  You need tutoring.

I've been a bad boy.

[Vandy Vol]

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?

[Token]

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. 

[Vandy Vol]

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.

[JR4AU]

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.

For the same reason you can't charge someone with stealing property simply because they possess stolen property.   Assumption isn't allowed in evidence.

[GH2001]

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.

[Token]

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.

And that was all fine and well.....until the judge let a major part of the law stand.  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.

[Vandy Vol]

For the same reason you can't charge someone with stealing property simply because they possess stolen property.   Assumption isn't allowed in evidence.

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:

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).

Am I misreading those quotes, or otherwise missing something?  (Legitimate question; no sarcasm intended).

[Vandy Vol]

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.

[Kaos]

Blame the perps.

If Steve from Hawaii Five O said it you can count it. 

Next you'll tell me nobody says "book 'em." 

[Kaos]

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. 

[JR4AU]

Thanks for telling me this now.  Could have saved my BIL 18 months in jail.

BIL must be a peice of shit, like the new law.