3
   

State arrests Illegal Immigrant for Trespassing

 
 
woiyo
 
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 10:50 am
JAFFREY, N.H., July 12 - One day in April, Jorge Mora Ramírez stopped his car on the side of a road in the small southern New Hampshire town of New Ipswich and was making a cellphone call when a police officer approached him.

The officer questioned Mr. Ramírez, a 21-year-old Mexican who acknowledged that he was in the country illegally, and the New Ipswich police tried to get federal immigration authorities to arrest him. But when immigration officials demurred, not considering him a priority given scarce enforcement resources, the police acted on their own. They took the highly unusual step of charging Mr. Ramírez with criminal trespassing, and held him overnight.

"I wanted the federal government to understand that I was going to take some type of action," said the New Ipswich police chief, W. Garrett Chamberlain. "If I can discourage illegal aliens from coming to or passing through my community, then I think I've succeeded."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/13/national/13immigrants.html?ei=5065&en=70a9fca935dc7632&ex=1121918400&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print

This will be a very interesting case to follow through the system. Does a State have the right, when the Federal Govt ignores it's responsibilities, to enforce it's laws in this manner.

Seems to me they do.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 3 • Views: 4,008 • Replies: 93
No top replies

 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 10:58 am
Not just a right, but a responsiblity to do so.

You know that I always seek out a peaceful solution to our problems but if the Federal gov't won't do anything about Illegal Immigration, then we the citizens should do something about it ourselves; including our police at the local level.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 11:14 am
"The case against Mr. Ramírez, who lives in Waltham, Mass., and was working as a construction worker here in Jaffrey when he was charged, is also being watched by civil liberties advocates and the Mexican government, which is paying for his lawyers."

Can't wait to hear from Senior Fox on this one.

"On the other hand, he told the prosecutor, some immigrants might "have a driver's license from Germany or France but don't have any other papers" with them. "Are you suggesting that those people are going to be charged criminally," he said, "because the police can't figure out that they're supposed to be where they are?"


If you are smart enough to carry your French Drivers License, you should be smart enough to carry your green card...if you have one.
0 Replies
 
fbaezer
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 11:53 am
woiyo wrote:
"The case against Mr. Ramírez, who lives in Waltham, Mass., and was working as a construction worker here in Jaffrey when he was charged, is also being watched by civil liberties advocates and the Mexican government, which is paying for his lawyers."

Can't wait to hear from Senior Fox on this one.


It is a government's responsability and obbligation to defend it's citizens abroad, regardless of whether it condones or not undocumented migration.
What would you say if the US government refused to legally support a fellow American, if he were arrested, say, for pissing in the Arc de Triomphe?

Besides, if Ramírez is condemned and the Mexican government wasn't informed or wouldn't intervene, then the case would be nullified.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 12:00 pm
fbaezer wrote:
woiyo wrote:
"The case against Mr. Ramírez, who lives in Waltham, Mass., and was working as a construction worker here in Jaffrey when he was charged, is also being watched by civil liberties advocates and the Mexican government, which is paying for his lawyers."

Can't wait to hear from Senior Fox on this one.


It is a government's responsability and obbligation to defend it's citizens abroad, regardless of whether it condones or not undocumented migration.
What would you say if the US government refused to legally support a fellow American, if he were arrested, say, for pissing in the Arc de Triomphe?

Besides, if Ramírez is condemned and the Mexican government wasn't informed or wouldn't intervene, then the case would be nullified.


Which is why I eagerly await to hear from Senior Fox on this matter. Seems in the past Pres. Fox had defended the rights of Mexican Nationals to enter the US illegally.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 12:03 pm
woiyo wrote:

Can't wait to hear from Senior Fox on this one.


Is there a Junior Fox who might speak on this matter?
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 12:10 pm
ebrown_p wrote:
woiyo wrote:

Can't wait to hear from Senior Fox on this one.


Is there a Junior Fox who might speak on this matter?


That's helpful...

OK drop the I and add a tilda.

Have anything useful to add now???
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 12:25 pm
How about we drop the Tilda and add a Tilde.

Is that useful?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 01:20 pm
My, aren't we bitchy today?
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 01:25 pm
Nah - Cyclo is just busting them today. Maybe bad hair day?

Anyway, Mexican crim-aliens do a great job of killing the English language. So I'll just do the same to theirs!
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 11:54 pm
Okay, just to play Devil's Advocate.

People talk on cell phones all the time while driving, which is dangerous.

So this guy pulled over to the side of the road while making a call, which is what you are supposed to do. Vastly increases safety on the road.

So for that, he gets the cop looking through his papers, searching for any discrepancies.

Is that a proper response of law enforcement to a person taking pains to enhance safety on the public thoroughfares? I think not.
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jul, 2005 12:09 am
Quote:
635:2 Criminal Trespass. -
I. A person is guilty of criminal trespass if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he enters or remains in any place.
II. Criminal trespass is a misdemeanor if:
(a) The trespass takes place in an occupied structure as defined in RSA 635:1, III; or
(b) The person knowingly enters or remains:
(1) In any secured premises;
(2) In any place in defiance of an order to leave or not to enter which was personally communicated to him by the owner or other authorized person; or
(3) In any place in defiance of any court order restraining him from entering such place so long as he has been properly notified of such order.
III. All other criminal trespass is a violation.
IV. As used in this section, "secured premises" means any place which is posted in a manner prescribed by law or in a manner reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders, or which is fenced or otherwise enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders.
Source. 1971, 518:1. 1979, 377:7, eff. Aug. 22, 1979.


I think the defendant will beat this if the charge is laid under this section. i can't see how this section can be construed as covering someone who is illegally in the US but not actually trespassing in a specific place.

I wonder how it will go if the defendant, having won his case, sues the city for the local equivalent of malicious prosecution. Could cost the city lots of money.
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jul, 2005 12:37 am
Goodfielder:

Well, it depends on #1, whether he was privileged to enter the United States, or any of the individual states. He was an illegal immigrant, so it could be said that he really was not privileged to enter anywhere in the USA.

However, there is the "equal protection under the law" clause. The fellow had pulled over to make a cell phone call, which is what they tell you to do to enhance safety on the public thoroughfares.

Why was it necessary for the policeman to go through his papers? Wouold he have done it if the person was named Meyer and did not speak with a foreign accent?

I think the immigrant might have a case under the "equal protection" clause of the Constitution here.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jul, 2005 12:42 am
kelticwizard wrote:
Okay, just to play Devil's Advocate.

People talk on cell phones all the time while driving, which is dangerous.

So this guy pulled over to the side of the road while making a call, which is what you are supposed to do. Vastly increases safety on the road.

So for that, he gets the cop looking through his papers, searching for any discrepancies.

Is that a proper response of law enforcement to a person taking pains to enhance safety on the public thoroughfares? I think not.

People who are in the country illegally should be arrested, prosecuted, and deported. What is scandalous is the fact that the immigration authorities refuse to perform their job. Every person in INS connected with the incident should be removed from his job.
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jul, 2005 12:52 am
But Brandon, considering we have "due process" clauses and "equal protection" clauses in the Consititution, shouldn't it matter how this fellow was found to be an illegal immigrant?

Think carefully. If you get too gung-ho, you might concede to the local constabulary the right to search you without cause, even though you were born and raised int he good ol' USA.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jul, 2005 12:57 am
kelticwizard wrote:
But Brandon, considering we have "due process" clauses and "equal protection" clauses in the Consititution, shouldn't it matter how this fellow was found to be an illegal immigrant?

Think carefully. If you get too gung-ho, you might concede to the local constabulary the right to search you without cause, even though you were born and raised int he good ol' USA.

The individual may be technically not guilty in this case, but if he is here illegally, in principle it should be demonstrated and he should be removed if possible. The motivation of the local police is understandable.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jul, 2005 01:07 am
woiyo wrote:
Nah - Cyclo is just busting them today. Maybe bad hair day?

Anyway, Mexican crim-aliens do a great job of killing the English language. So I'll just do the same to theirs!


So you are an US crim-alien - I've thaught so.
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jul, 2005 01:14 am
Brandon:

Okay, in principle we want to get drug dealers out of circulation. but we don't want police to have the right to bust into anyone's house or apartment because they heard that the occupant might have been a drug dealer.

Get my point?
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jul, 2005 02:19 am
Quote:
The motivation of the local police is understandable.


I have a problem with that position. The police have a job to do and they should do it in full observation of the letter and spirit of the law. What we have here is a smart-arse police department or chief or whatever. I reckon this is an abuse of the law writ large and I reckon it's malicious.

Local police don't have the authority to enforce the immigration laws (well that's my understanding, I'm a ferriner so I could be wrong) and that must be for a reason. Perhaps the federal government intended that only its agents should enforce this law because they have no control over local law enforcement and accordingly the authority in the legislation could be abused. Reading this case I'm not surprised.

Brandon the police must never be allowed to make it up as they go along. In this instance because you - rightly and understandably - are upset (and I use that advisedly, your comments on the topic are temperate) about illegal immigration from Mexico, you will support the police bending or breaking or ignoring the law. From my perspective that's a seriously slippery slope.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jul, 2005 02:58 am
One the one hand, i agree with the notion of state and local policing authorities stepping in when there is a nuisance or a criminal situation with which the Feds can't or won't deal. Many years ago, in the bad old days of the Soviet Union, wives of staff acredited to the United Nations would go into small communities near New York, where stores had no security personnel, and shop lift. If busted, they would wave their diplomatic passports around and be on their merry way. One local police chief busted one such woman, and locked her up. When the head of the Soviet mission called, indignant, he was told to "go pound salt." I cheered for that one. When the Feds showed up to bail her, they tried to chew out the police chief, who told them to go pound salt.

On the other hand, i see that there is a serious potential question here of policing methods. Was this guy questioned on probable cause of driving while not white? Whoever it was who made the point above about pulling over to use the cell phone--a responsible act--has got a good point about suffering for behaving responsibly.

If illegal aliens fall afoul of the law, under reasonable circumstances, fine--but we don't need to see profiling, and no one is safe if questionable police methods go unchallenged.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » State arrests Illegal Immigrant for Trespassing
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/18/2021 at 11:40:51