0
   

Whats wrong with this article?

 
 
Baldimo
 
Reply Tue 23 Jan, 2007 08:41 am
Quote:
WOODSTOCK, Ill. - Not many illegal immigrants ask to be deported. But Jose Vallejo of Mexico did, rather than face a potential prison term of 30 years for sex assault here in the United States. And he nearly got his wish.
Prosecutors in Illinois say Vallejo, who is now a 17-year-old Mexican national, pinned a 4-year-old girl down on a bed, then molested her on April 12, 2006. Even though Vallejo was only 16 at the time of the alleged crime, he is being charged as an adult because of the age of the victim. He faces three counts, including aggravated criminal sexual assault, one count of unlawful restraint.
Originally, bond was set by a state judge at $150,000 but Vallejo's family posted the cash. So, Vallejo was released by the state, but soon after, was taken into custody by federal agents for illegally entering the country three years ago.
While in federal custody, Vallejo asked a federal immigration judge to deport him. The request was granted during a Jan. 4 deportation hearing in Chicago.
But before Vallejo was sent back over the border, federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials alerted prosecutors in McHenry County, Ill., and that agency took custody of him.
"It's kind of terrifying to know that someone who has violated a four-year-old, sexually violated, would be washed from the system all of the sudden, he would escape from our country here and it'd be over," said state attorney Lou Bianchi.
Bianchi said a number of things could be added to courtrooms to give immigration judges tools to determine if someone before them has criminal charges pending, which could decide whether or not they stay in the United States to face charges.
"If they have a monitor, at least someone in the courtroom is watching the monitor and all of the sudden it would flash up on the screen that this man is wanted or he's got at least outstanding charges so that the appropriate authority like in this case," Bianchi said. "Our office could be notified so that we could take the proper precautions to make sure that these type of illegal aliens who commit crimes are not deported immediately so that we can prosecute them."
But Vallejo's attorney, Perry Grimaldi, argued in state court that the deportation order should stand, saying, "their law is supreme over the state laws. They are the ones that have taken him into custody. They are the ones that will conduct any further actions."
But a county judge on Jan. 16 ruled against Vallejo, upping his bond from $150,000 to $750,000 to prevent his deportation.
ICE characterizes this case as textbook, stressing that red flags were raised after the immigration judge's deportation order.
But immigration watchdogs say laws must be changed to ensure immigration judges are informed of pending criminal charges. Currently, these federal judges don't take criminal charges into account, unless that's the reason for the illegal immigrant's deportation hearing.
"The system should work in a way that the only people who go before an immigration judge who have committed some sort of crime has already served their time for that crime," said Jack Martin, special projects director for the Federation for American Immigration Reform. "In other words, they should not heave people coming before them that are involved in another judicial proceeding until that proceedings is completed."
Martin said the number of cases of this type is increasing with the illegal immigrant population in the United States; case loads of this type are growing by about 500,000 a year, and there are currently between 11 and 13 million �- with some estimates saying as many as 20 million �- people in the United States illegally.
Susan Eastwood, spokeswoman for the Justice Department's executive office for immigration review, told FOX News that immigration courts will not consider any crimes allegedly committed by an illegal immigrant, unless they are related to the immigration case at hand.
"Our judges do not take into account pending criminal charged against a defendant," Eastwood said. "The judges must stay fair and balanced on a case. A criminal case and a deportation hearing are separate trials. Immigration judges do not do criminal trials."
Now that he'll be in the United States for awhile, Vallejo has requested a jury trial. His next court date is scheduled for March 2.



Here's the quote that kills me: "Bianchi said a number of things could be added to courtrooms to give immigration judges tools to determine if someone before them has criminal charges pending, which could decide whether or not they stay in the United States to face charges."

Be defination isn't there already criminal charges pending if they end up in immigration court? I know not all cases will include illegal aliens but a majority of them do, that is why they are in court in the first place. Whether it is because of staying to long a a visa or just plain old entering illegally, they have still broken the law and therefore have pending criminal charges. Last I looked entering the country illegally was a federal crime.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 854 • Replies: 18
No top replies

 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Jan, 2007 08:44 am
Well, it's pretty evident Mexicans are rapists and scoundrels as well. I hate them meskins.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Jan, 2007 08:55 am
No, it's pretty evident that there is a communications problem between criminal and immigration courts that needs to be fixed. Your immediate conclusion that "it's pretty evident Mexicans are rapists and scoundrels as well." is retarded.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Jan, 2007 09:11 am
Re: Whats wrong with this article?
Baldimo wrote:
Here's the quote that kills me: "Bianchi said a number of things could be added to courtrooms to give immigration judges tools to determine if someone before them has criminal charges pending, which could decide whether or not they stay in the United States to face charges."

Be defination isn't there already criminal charges pending if they end up in immigration court? I know not all cases will include illegal aliens but a majority of them do, that is why they are in court in the first place. Whether it is because of staying to long a a visa or just plain old entering illegally, they have still broken the law and therefore have pending criminal charges. Last I looked entering the country illegally was a federal crime.


I might be mistaken, but are you arguing against sending illegals back, and for detaining them in US prisons instead?
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Jan, 2007 09:13 am
McGentrix wrote:
No, it's pretty evident that there is a communications problem between criminal and immigration courts that needs to be fixed. Your immediate conclusion that "it's pretty evident Mexicans are rapists and scoundrels as well." is retarded.


Oh yeah? Well dys is rubber and you're glue....
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Jan, 2007 09:21 am
Re: Whats wrong with this article?
old europe wrote:
Baldimo wrote:
Here's the quote that kills me: "Bianchi said a number of things could be added to courtrooms to give immigration judges tools to determine if someone before them has criminal charges pending, which could decide whether or not they stay in the United States to face charges."

Be defination isn't there already criminal charges pending if they end up in immigration court? I know not all cases will include illegal aliens but a majority of them do, that is why they are in court in the first place. Whether it is because of staying to long a a visa or just plain old entering illegally, they have still broken the law and therefore have pending criminal charges. Last I looked entering the country illegally was a federal crime.


I might be mistaken, but are you arguing against sending illegals back, and for detaining them in US prisons instead?


If they commit further crimes beyond being here illegally, yes. That would seem to be the case here.

What is wrong with you people? This a$$hole molested a 4 year old girl and tried to escape and you are concerned about illegal immigrant rights?
0 Replies
 
Lord Ellpus
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Jan, 2007 09:25 am
Re: Whats wrong with this article?
old europe wrote:


I might be mistaken, but are you arguing against sending illegals back, and for detaining them in US prisons instead?


Only in cases like this, I would think.

Far be it for me to defend Baldimo's viewpoint, but with regards to this matter, I feel that he is correct.

What must be kept in mind throughout the following arguments on this thread, is that a four year old girl was forcibly and seriously sexually abused.....allegedly.

That girl and her family need to see that justice is done, and that's all that matters here.

It may be that once guilt has been establsihed, the two countries can come to some sort of arrangement that the defendant can complete his prison term in Mexico, who knows.

But he definitely needs to be properly tried, and sentenced if found guilty.
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Jan, 2007 09:37 am
Re: Whats wrong with this article?
Baldimo wrote:
Be defination isn't there already criminal charges pending if they end up in immigration court?


While entering the country without going through the authorized process may be illegal, the immigration courts are not criminal courts. They are administrative courts. Criiminal and Civil courts fall under the judicial branch of our government - they are independent of the Legislative and Executive branches. Immigration Courts are a part of the Executive branch of government. They fall under the Executive Office for Immigration Review which comes under the Atty. General's office.
0 Replies
 
Lord Ellpus
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Jan, 2007 09:52 am
Re: Whats wrong with this article?
fishin wrote:
Baldimo wrote:
Be defination isn't there already criminal charges pending if they end up in immigration court?


While entering the country without going through the authorized process may be illegal, the immigration courts are not criminal courts. They are administrative courts. Criiminal and Civil courts fall under the judicial branch of our government - they are independent of the Legislative and Executive branches. Immigration Courts are a part of the Executive branch of government. They fall under the Executive Office for Immigration Review which comes under the Atty. General's office.


There lies the rub, it would seem. Left hand and right hand syndrome.

With today's technology, one would think that this scenario would be a thing of the past.
Maybe this case will bring about some sort of change to the way these different bodies communicate with each other.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Jan, 2007 10:14 am
Re: Whats wrong with this article?
McGentrix wrote:
old europe wrote:
Baldimo wrote:
Here's the quote that kills me: "Bianchi said a number of things could be added to courtrooms to give immigration judges tools to determine if someone before them has criminal charges pending, which could decide whether or not they stay in the United States to face charges."

Be defination isn't there already criminal charges pending if they end up in immigration court? , that is why they are in court in the first place. Whether it is because of staying to long a a visa or just plain old entering illegally, they have still broken the law and therefore have pending criminal charges. Last I looked entering the country illegally was a federal crime.


I might be mistaken, but are you arguing against sending illegals back, and for detaining them in US prisons instead?


If they commit further crimes beyond being here illegally, yes. That would seem to be the case here.


Right. But wasn't Baldimo talking about illegal immigrants in general when he wrote "I know not all cases will include illegal aliens but a majority of them do"?

Focus.

McGentrix wrote:
What is wrong with you people? This a$$hole molested a 4 year old girl and tried to escape and you are concerned about illegal immigrant rights?


I think this guy should serve his sentence in a US prison, if found guilty. And I'm concerned about illegal immigrants' rights.

It's interesting that you think those two things are mutually exclusive, McGentrix.
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Jan, 2007 10:49 am
old europe wrote:
Right. But wasn't Baldimo talking about illegal immigrants in general when he wrote "I know not all cases will include illegal aliens but a majority of them do"?


Just to set the record straight, Baldimo said the majority of defendants in immigration court are people who are in the US illegally.

He did not state, nor imply, that the majority of people in the criminal court system are illegal immigrants. Only that the majority of defendants in the immigration courts are there because they actually are in the country illegally and got caught.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Jan, 2007 10:51 am
Quote:
Whats wrong with this article?


It didn't have any formatting and was hard to read! That's what was wrong with it.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Jan, 2007 11:21 am
kelticwizard wrote:
old europe wrote:
Right. But wasn't Baldimo talking about illegal immigrants in general when he wrote "I know not all cases will include illegal aliens but a majority of them do"?


Just to set the record straight, Baldimo said the majority of defendants in immigration court are people who are in the US illegally.

He did not state, nor imply, that the majority of people in the criminal court system are illegal immigrants. Only that the majority of defendants in the immigration courts are there because they actually are in the country illegally and got caught.


No, his question was whether or not there were already criminal charges pending if somebody ended up in immigration court.

Apparently, that's not the case.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Jan, 2007 11:47 am
Re: Whats wrong with this article?
old europe wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
What is wrong with you people? This a$$hole molested a 4 year old girl and tried to escape and you are concerned about illegal immigrant rights?


I think this guy should serve his sentence in a US prison, if found guilty. And I'm concerned about illegal immigrants' rights.
That would be a waste of prison space. We've had for quite some time; hightech, foolproof ways of monitoring this type of A-hole, and it's high time we put it to more use.

















http://www.secretary.state.nc.us/images/rip.jpg
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Jan, 2007 10:36 am
Why does this not surprise me? Shootin' to replace Bill O', O'Bill?
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Jan, 2007 12:00 pm
JTT wrote:
Why does this not surprise me? Shootin' to replace Bill O', O'Bill?
Does O'Reily support the death penalty for child molesters as well? Good on him, if he does.<shrugs>
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Jan, 2007 09:42 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
JTT wrote:
Why does this not surprise me? Shootin' to replace Bill O', O'Bill?
Does O'Reily support the death penalty for child molesters as well? Good on him, if he does.<shrugs>


What O'Reilly does is shoot his mouth off with little regard for the facts. You're always a little too eager to dispense with those outside your warm little circle. The guy has NOT been convicted. The "let's gun 'em down/hang 'em high" crew seem to forget the very principles that they often loudly parrot.

There is a fundamentally good reason that innocent until proven guilty is a well established principle. With loose talk like yours, there is a possibility that justice won't be served. Judges sometimes issue gag orders to the media because they realize that there are people who don't have a firm enough grasp of the principles of justice and these folks are unwilling to let these ordered principles follow their intended course.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Jan, 2007 11:47 pm
JTT wrote:
There is a fundamentally good reason that innocent until proven guilty is a well established principle. With loose talk like yours, there is a possibility that justice won't be served. Judges sometimes issue gag orders to the media because they realize that there are people who don't have a firm enough grasp of the principles of justice and these folks are unwilling to let these ordered principles follow their intended course.


I can expect to not need to read any more of your "Bush is a criminal" nonsense then, yes?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Jan, 2007 11:57 pm
Bigotry always has "borders."
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. » Whats wrong with this article?
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/28/2021 at 07:19:52