mysteryman wrote:dyslexia wrote:illegal border crossing is a federal offense, requiring a federal officer, a citizen without a warrant would be liable for illegal detention and the detainee would have the legal right to resist with reasonable force.
WRONG!!!
Read the links I posted.
No, dyslexia isn't wrong. You are. The links you posted refer to the ability of a state to create a law which defines and authorises "citizen's arrest". Now there is an argument that says that even without a statutory definition there is a residual right of a citizen to arrest another pursuant to common law. In my jurisdiction there is a right for anyone to arrest to prevent a breach of the peace. I might add that "breach of the peace" in England and Wales and in Australian jurisdictions isn't statutorily defined as it is in jurisdictions in the US an it encompasses several concepts but primarily it involves where harm is about to befall another. So in a pub where A is about to pummell B, C may intervene and arrest A and prevent the assault. There's more to it than that but I'll leave it there.
Now, common law provisions can be removed by statute. It seems to me that if that is the case in the US as it is in other common law jurisdictions, then your argument has failed. US federal law, as dylexia has pointed out, specifically limits the arrest of an alleged illegal immigrant to certain authorised officers. So the concept of "citizen's arrest" of an illegal immigrant doesn't exist.
Arizona allows for citizen's arrest:
13-3884. Arrest by private person
A private person may make an arrest:
1. When the person to be arrested has in his presence committed a misdemeanor amounting to a breach of the peace, or a felony.
2. When a felony has been in fact committed and he has reasonable ground to believe that the person to be arrested has committed it.
