Want to know where Napolitano got the fuzzy law on immigration?
Go over and read Ms. Malkin first, and then HotAir.
Per Naps on CNN:
And yes, when we find illegal workers, yes, appropriate action, some of which is criminal, most of that is civil, because crossing the border is not a crime per se. It is civil. But anyway, going after those as well.
Wonder where she is getting that logic? How about MALDEF, and like groups that apparently worked up this bit of legal asshattery. Remember I talked about the SPLC nonsense about The American Legion, well, MALDEF was part of it to, and here is the pertinent section in question, from Page 6:
Unauthorized entries are violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), but immigration proceedings are civil, not criminal, in nature. A person who enters the United States without properly being admitted is inadmissible under the INA and is therefore removable.8 Also, a person who has been admitted into the United States but fails to maintain the condition of admission is removable.9 A person in either case will then be placed in “[d]eportation proceedings [which are] purely civil actions to determine eligibility to remain in this country, not to punish an unlawful entry.”10
Notably, individuals in deportation proceedings are not afforded the same legal protections applicable in a criminal context.11 While it is the obligation of the immigration judge to advise a person of their right to representation, unlike criminal proceedings, their right to counsel comes at no expense to the government.12 The Supreme Court has ruled that courts are required, under the 6th Amendment of the Constitution, to provide counsel only in criminal cases for defendants unable to afford their own attorneys, not civil immigration proceedings.13 This is one critical example that differentiates immigrants in deportation proceedings from actual criminals.
In addition, the exclusionary rule, a legal principle stemming from the U.S. Constitution which provides that unlawfully obtained evidence is excludable in criminal proceedings, does not apply in civil deportation proceedings.14 Consequently, evidence is admissible in an immigration court even if stems from a law enforcement agent’s unlawful stop or arrest.
Wow, that sounds astonishingly similiar to Naps’ argument, doesn’t it?
Category: Politics
Section 1325 provides in relevant part:
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 … or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined … or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
8 U.S.C.S. § 1325(a)
The statute above is a criminal statute. Federal prosecutors prosecute these cases on a routine basis.
First offense is a misdemeanor, second and subsequent offenses are felonies. This woman(?) needs to go, not only is she racist, sexist, heterophobic and anti-American, she’s terribly ignorant of the law and woefully unqualified for her job. Which tells us just everything we need to know about every senator that voted for her and the fool who nominated her.
[…] This ain’t Hell…, Hot Air, Jules Crittenden, Unequal Time, Right Pundits, Fire Andrea Mitchell!, Neoavatara, […]
[…] This ain’t Hell…, Hot Air, Jules Crittenden, Unequal Time, Right Pundits, Fire Andrea Mitchell!, Neoavatara, […]
what the MALDEF wrote is true: the deportation proceeding is administrative and, thus, civil – Immigration court judges are not Sec 3 judges and you cannot argue any criminal or ConLaw issues in front of an immigration judges because they have no authority to adjudicate these issues/questions. Yes, you are not entitled to an atty in your deportation or any immigration court hearing. Yes, the gov’t can use ‘unlawfully’ obtained evidence against an alien in his/her deportation proceeding.
What the DHS Secretary does is substituting the procedural for substantive, obviously hoping that the majority of the American populace who are absolutely ignorant about our immigration laws won’t follow through or question her statement. Shame-shame-shame…
“…crossing the border is not a crime per se”
Does that mean I can go onto Janet Napolitano’s property and it won’t be a crime. Would somebody close enough to her property try that and let us know what happens?