According to the Attorney General 7 Jan 2009 in his opinion on a ruling governing a Title 8 USC 1325 removal:
The Supreme Court has recognized constitutional claims for ineffective
assistance of counsel only where a person has a constitutional right to a
Government-appointed lawyer. In contrast to a defendant in a criminal case,
an alien has no rightconstitutional or statutoryto Government-appointed
counsel in an administrative removal proceeding. Compare section
240(b)(4)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA or Act),
8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(4)(A) (2006) (providing that an alien has a privilege of
being represented, at no expense to the Government, by counsel of the aliens
choosing), and section 292 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1362 (2006), with U.S.
Const. amend. VI (In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall . . . have the
Assistance of Counsel for his defence.), and Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S.
335 (1963).
Case cite - 24 I&N Dec. 710 (A.G. 2009)
If a person is detained on a Title 8 USC 1325 violation, they go before a civil forum, not a criminal court. There, they can be charged up to $250 civil fine and deported.
The argument being brought by the Internet Perry Mason wannabes is that a civil action is a crime and that the violator can go to a civil forum and be denied an appointed attorney and then tried in a criminal court wherein they can supposedly be jailed. AND... to top it all off, they are arguing that both events are criminal in nature!!!!!!!!!!!
The idiocy boggles the mind. The truth is that if the violator's only charge is improper entry, they get detained and brought into a civil proceeding. They can be charged a maximum civil fine of $250 and they are then processed and deported. It is entirely a civil administrative proceeding.
IF a violator eludes the authorities, lies to them or commits a crime as defined in Title 18 of the United States Code, they are tried in a criminal court, afforded a taxpayer attorney and sentenced accordingly BEFORE going into a separate forum for the violation of improper entry.
Will cite this each day for the benefit of people that may stumble across the thread.
Good. Do that. It's entertaining yet quite irrelevant.
It only proves that (a) a removal proceeding is civil/administrative -- a fact which was never in doubt. (b) It doesn't address the FACT that a criminal proceeding under 8 USC § 1325 is not a proceeding that takes in a civil/administrative Article II "court". (c) It highlights the fact that DuddlyDildoDolt doesn't have the first fucking clue on the topics.