May I see your papers, citizen?

@ebrown p,

Sorry, Mr Brown-Munoz - I was trying to do you a courtesy by summarizing, having recalled that you forget your English under stress.

Here is the full text:

Quote:

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.

In addition, there are several related pages before and after this one >
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/08/usc_sec_08_00001325----000-.html
> but I don't want to over-tire you, given your limited tolerance of applicable law, federal or state Smile

0 Replies

@High Seas,

P.S. now that I have answered in the excruciating length required by Brown-Munoz, can I expect a clarification on Arizona and the Navy?

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Maybe, if you left your house once in a while rather than simply sitting in front of your computer, typing whatever comes into your head, and, maybe if you had face to face conversations with living human beings, you would see that you are the one that is out of touch . . . seriously out of touch.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

You know you do not believe that everyone gets to make up their own mind as to what their morals are . . . you hawk your version of morality or whatever it is a rightie upholds all too vehemently.

0 Replies

@Ceili,

I boycott all companies who give money to conservative causes as well as those whose advertising is inane or offensive.

0 Replies

@Irishk,

You weren't boycotting Blockbuster, you were, however, voting with your dollars against bad business practices.

0 Replies

Taco night is now tofu night in the Irish household.

Take that, Arizona!!!!

1 Reply

@High Seas,

High Seas wrote:

There was reasonable suspicion of identity theft and use of fraudulent social security numbers - both criminal offenses. Besides, police everywhere in the US have the right to detain anyone for up to 24 hours without a charge - and she was let go after 4 hours. She has no grounds to sue.

Was there reasonable suspicion of identity theft by her? Did they have a warrant for her arrest or did they just sweep into a business and start arresting everyone with brown skin? Why didn't they just ask her to present id or verify her identity with all those computers we hear they have? Did they ask anyone for ID? What was the basis for the original complaint? I'm not a lawyer, but it seems likely that she had her rights as a US citizen violated because of her skin color. I guess time will tell as we learn more.

Still, this sounds exactly like the scenario I proposed earlier in this thread. A specious charge is levied and used to harass US citizens who look Mexican all in the name of finding criminals. No way this woman did anything to merit being carried off in handcuffs and held for four hours and a minimal effort by police would have shown that.

1 Reply

@Irishk,

LOL, Irish - you remind me of the visiting East Coast lady I was driving around LA one time when I lived there, who turned around and asked me if Taco Bell is the Mexican phone company Smile

0 Replies

@engineer,

Check your facts - that sweep took place on April 9, i.e. before the bill became law. There was no complaint filed in the intervening month - I checked.

1 Reply

@High Seas,

High Seas wrote:

Check your facts - that sweep took place on April 9, i.e. before the bill became law. There was no complaint filed in the intervening month - I checked.

Thanks, I didn't realize that. But my point still stands. If this was happening before the law, what will happen with the law in place? I guess it can't be any worse.

2 Replies

@engineer,

Quote:

I guess it can't be any worse.

Of course it can... before cops could act like this, after this bill comes into effect, they must.

0 Replies

@engineer,

engineer wrote:

High Seas wrote:

Check your facts - that sweep took place on April 9, i.e. before the bill became law. There was no complaint filed in the intervening month - I checked.

Thanks, I didn't realize that. But my point still stands. If this was happening before the law, what will happen with the law in place? I guess it can't be any worse.

Yes, I think I follow your point - it was standard police procedure already before the law was passed, so repealing the law would have no effect either way. It's clear to everyone except for Brown-Munoz, who can do prophesy but still hasn't explained where the Navy comes into these proceedings!

1 Reply

@High Seas,

0 Replies

@High Seas,

High Seas wrote:

Thomas wrote:

....
I hope she sues their pants off for this wrongful arrest.

There was reasonable suspicion of identity theft and use of fraudulent social security numbers - both criminal offenses. Besides, police everywhere in the US have the right to detain anyone for up to 24 hours without a charge - and she was let go after 4 hours. She has no grounds to sue.

I'm not seeing the 'reasonable suspicion' here. If it's there, does reasonable suspicion become a substitute for probable cause?

1 Reply

@roger,

All I know is the statements made by the local sheriff - he did mention there was probable cause for the sweep, which involved about 50 people.

1 Reply

@High Seas,

That's all I know, too. It does seem possible he has a bias. That's why I'm having doubts about the law in general, and his enforcement in specific. If it's just a matter of statistics telling him that out of 50 Latinos, some just have to be illegal, I don't think he's met any standard except his own.

2 Replies

@roger,

Sheriff Joe Arpaio is a grandstanding idiot, IMO.

0 Replies

@roger,

Well, on top of this page I've posted a link to the federal law.

Arizona's follows that. I don't see how the state law can be challenged while the identical federal law remains unaffected.

1 Reply

@High Seas,

I know. I'm just not seeing anything there that sounds like working at McDonalds amounts to probable cause, or reasonable suspicion - whatever that means.

1 Reply

May I see your papers, citizen?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know