Is it really "illegal?"

[BuddyColt]

Hey dumbass, the guy was charged with eluding authorities, NOT improper entry. This is dealt with in the first four posts of the thread.

Guess you missed the last part of the ruling as well.

Buddy, you are wasting you time with these folks. They have an agenda.

Lie_ability is po'd because he wife left him for an illegal alien.

Go fig.

.

First of all, asshole, you are not allowed to violate the no family rule.

Secondly, I happen to be 100% correct on the law. Your idiot pal, BuddyDouche, is an imbecile as are you.

You can't even admit you're dead wrong when it is established unequivocally.

You have zero honesty, no honor and not even a hint of integrity.

Fuck off, ya ignorant dishonest pissant.

,


;


-

,

Liability has the time to try and prove he's 100 percent wrong, but everybody has their "dog in the fight" and somebody today attacked me, accusing me of having a family member that was one of those "illegal" aliens.

Liability cannot read. Sure, there are immigration crimes as per his statistics, but improper entry is not one of them. He claims I'm lying, but I have the words of the TOP IMMIGRATION OFFICIALS IN THE UNITED STATES telling him that crossing the border is not a crime... nor is presence without papers.

A conviction for eluding the authorities is mentioned in Title 8, but it is prosecuted as a Title 18 crime. Improper Entry is not mentioned in Title 18.

Liability is a liability to good common sense.

 

[High_Gravity]

Buddy, you are wasting you time with these folks. They have an agenda.

Lie_ability is po'd because he wife left him for an illegal alien.

Go fig.

.

First of all, asshole, you are not allowed to violate the no family rule.

Secondly, I happen to be 100% correct on the law. Your idiot pal, BuddyDouche, is an imbecile as are you.

You can't even admit you're dead wrong when it is established unequivocally.

You have zero honesty, no honor and not even a hint of integrity.

Fuck off, ya ignorant dishonest pissant.

,


;


-

,

Liability has the time to try and prove he's 100 percent wrong, but everybody has their "dog in the fight" and somebody today attacked me, accusing me of having a family member that was one of those "illegal" aliens.

Liability cannot read. Sure, there are immigration crimes as per his statistics, but improper entry is not one of them. He claims I'm lying, but I have the words of the TOP IMMIGRATION OFFICIALS IN THE UNITED STATES telling him that crossing the border is not a crime... nor is presence without papers.

A conviction for eluding the authorities is mentioned in Title 8, but it is prosecuted as a Title 18 crime. Improper Entry is not mentioned in Title 18.

Liability is a liability to good common sense.

I didn't insult your family, I said you have a family member or loved one who is an illegal because you are so angry and worked up over this subject, and you want all the illegals to be able to stay because of that person or people.

 

[Liability]

Buddy, you are wasting you time with these folks. They have an agenda.

Lie_ability is po'd because he wife left him for an illegal alien.

Go fig.

.

First of all, asshole, you are not allowed to violate the no family rule.

Secondly, I happen to be 100% correct on the law. Your idiot pal, BuddyDouche, is an imbecile as are you.

You can't even admit you're dead wrong when it is established unequivocally.

You have zero honesty, no honor and not even a hint of integrity.

Fuck off, ya ignorant dishonest pissant.

,


;


-

,

Liability has the time to try and prove he's 100 percent wrong, but everybody has their "dog in the fight" and somebody today attacked me, accusing me of having a family member that was one of those "illegal" aliens.

Liability cannot read. Sure, there are immigration crimes as per his statistics, but improper entry is not one of them. He claims I'm lying, but I have the words of the TOP IMMIGRATION OFFICIALS IN THE UNITED STATES telling him that crossing the border is not a crime... nor is presence without papers.

A conviction for eluding the authorities is mentioned in Title 8, but it is prosecuted as a Title 18 crime. Improper Entry is not mentioned in Title 18.

* * * *

You are merely denying the law and the cases which prove you --without question -- to be flatly wrong.

I credit this to your dishonesty.

I said nothing whatsoever about your family -- but your fellow idiotic sub-moron pal, Confusedatious -- did say something about my wife. Nice of you to try to deflect for him.

from: Prosecuting Immigration [eScholarship]

That ^ there is a whole lot of criminal prosecution for allleged non crimes.

But ass-hats like BuddyPopgun continue to imagine they have a point.

They don't.

 

[Liability]

And BuddyPopgun ALSO misreads the provision of 8 U.S.C. § 1325 which makes reference to Title 18.

No surprise.

But the truth is: the prosecutions for illegal entry (improper entry -- makes no difference what you label it) take place AS violations NOT of Title 18 but as violations of Title 8.

Fact.

 

[BuddyColt]

And BuddyPopgun ALSO misreads the provision of 8 U.S.C. § 1325 which makes reference to Title 18.

No surprise.

But the truth is: the prosecutions for illegal entry (improper entry -- makes no difference what you label it) take place AS violations NOT of Title 18 but as violations of Title 8.

Fact.

Having worked in immigration law for six years and HAVING QUOTED THE TOP IMMIGRATION OFFICIALS IN THE UNITED STATES WITHIN THE FIRST FOUR POSTS ON THIS THREAD, IMPROPER ENTRY IS NOT A CRIME.

Title 8 USC 1325 cases involving improper entry are civil cases and not crimes. I have given the proper cites within the first four postings on this thread.

The cases cited by liability thus far have NOT dealt with improper entry, but with acts like eluding the authorities. BTW, those convictions were overturned, but what the hell, Liability likes being my bitch around here.

Liability, some guy exposes you for what your agenda is on this board and you attack me as if I am somehow in cahoots with him. Then you make board attacks against me with sh!+ you would never say to a man's face. So, tell me again, all about honesty.

Getting a lecture out of you about honesty is tantamount to getting physics lessons from chimpanzees.

 

[BuddyColt]

In the fourth posting on this thread, I wrote:

They {speaking about anti immigrant / National Socialists} have lied to you and they have misrepresented themselves to you. For ten years they have dodged and ducked me when I’ve challenged them to a public debate – one on one. When they feel threatened, like on these discussion boards, they turn the topic into a freaking joke; they continue to try and prove disproven myths just to baffle you. The rest of what I have to say regarding them is at this link:

http://www.freeforum101.com/outcastsandoutl/viewtopic.php?t=531&mforum=outcastsandoutl
Here we are, more than a hundred posts later and we've not progressed beyond the one misrepresentation regarding immigration. So, here is the truth:

It is not a crime to enter the United States nor is it a crime to be in the United States without papers.

No amount of political jockeying has altered that fact.

The xenophobes keep contending that a civil violation of the law is a crime. It isn't. The xenophobes will try and argue that the word improper means illegal. It doesn't. Improper is not a synonym for illegal in English or in legal literature. The xenophobes have tried to pawn cases off involving eluding authorities as immigration crimes, eluding authorities is a separate issue from entering improperly.

These people aren't smart enough to read; not intelligent enough to realize when they are getting their butts kicked. Yet they continue to send their own supporters to jails and prisons because they have no concept of nor respect for the due process of law.

In over a hundred postings, the xenophobes have not read and clicked on the links of the first four postings. Everything on this thread has been a rehash of those first four posts. The xenophobes have failed to read them. They're trying to answer an issue before they even know what in the hell it's about.

 

[High_Gravity]

Having worked in immigration law for six years and HAVING QUOTED THE TOP IMMIGRATION OFFICIALS IN THE UNITED STATES WITHIN THE FIRST FOUR POSTS ON THIS THREAD, IMPROPER ENTRY IS NOT A CRIME.

Thats ridiculous, I'm not buying it.

 

[Liability]

And BuddyPopgun ALSO misreads the provision of 8 U.S.C. § 1325 which makes reference to Title 18.

No surprise.

But the truth is: the prosecutions for illegal entry (improper entry -- makes no difference what you label it) take place AS violations NOT of Title 18 but as violations of Title 8.

Fact.

Having worked in immigration law for six years and HAVING QUOTED THE TOP IMMIGRATION OFFICIALS IN THE UNITED STATES WITHIN THE FIRST FOUR POSTS ON THIS THREAD, IMPROPER ENTRY IS NOT A CRIME.

Title 8 USC 1325 cases involving improper entry are civil cases and not crimes. I have given the proper cites within the first four postings on this thread.

The cases cited by liability thus far have NOT dealt with improper entry, but with acts like eluding the authorities. BTW, those convictions were overturned, but what the hell, Liability likes being my bitch around here.

Liability, some guy exposes you for what your agenda is on this board and you attack me as if I am somehow in cahoots with him. Then you make board attacks against me with sh!+ you would never say to a man's face. So, tell me again, all about honesty.

Getting a lecture out of you about honesty is tantamount to getting physics lessons from chimpanzees.

If you "worked in" immigration law at all, it could only have been to clean the rest rooms at the immigration court house.

Eluding authorities is PART of the statute that forbids improper entry, by the way, so your latest quibble is even less meaningful this time around, you filthy asswipe.

The fact is -- and yes, it IS a fact -- improper entry (which we also call illegal entry) IS most certainly a crime and even the fucking idiots at the ACLU recognize as much.

BuddyPeashooter is just dishonest. No big thing.

 

[BuddyColt]

And BuddyPopgun ALSO misreads the provision of 8 U.S.C. § 1325 which makes reference to Title 18.

No surprise.

But the truth is: the prosecutions for illegal entry (improper entry -- makes no difference what you label it) take place AS violations NOT of Title 18 but as violations of Title 8.

Fact.

Having worked in immigration law for six years and HAVING QUOTED THE TOP IMMIGRATION OFFICIALS IN THE UNITED STATES WITHIN THE FIRST FOUR POSTS ON THIS THREAD, IMPROPER ENTRY IS NOT A CRIME.

Title 8 USC 1325 cases involving improper entry are civil cases and not crimes. I have given the proper cites within the first four postings on this thread.

The cases cited by liability thus far have NOT dealt with improper entry, but with acts like eluding the authorities. BTW, those convictions were overturned, but what the hell, Liability likes being my bitch around here.

Liability, some guy exposes you for what your agenda is on this board and you attack me as if I am somehow in cahoots with him. Then you make board attacks against me with sh!+ you would never say to a man's face. So, tell me again, all about honesty.

Getting a lecture out of you about honesty is tantamount to getting physics lessons from chimpanzees.

If you "worked in" immigration law at all, it could only have been to clean the rest rooms at the immigration court house.

Eluding authorities is PART of the statute that forbids improper entry, by the way, so your latest quibble is even less meaningful this time around, you filthy asswipe.

The fact is -- and yes, it IS a fact -- improper entry (which we also call illegal entry) IS most certainly a crime and even the fucking idiots at the ACLU recognize as much.

BuddyPeashooter is just dishonest. No big thing.

I'm glad you are getting so unnerved that you have to bring up the ACLU. Desperation is really setting in. I'm going to do another post just for you. It'll take a bit, but it is on the way...

 

[High_Gravity]

Having worked in immigration law for six years and HAVING QUOTED THE TOP IMMIGRATION OFFICIALS IN THE UNITED STATES WITHIN THE FIRST FOUR POSTS ON THIS THREAD, IMPROPER ENTRY IS NOT A CRIME.

Title 8 USC 1325 cases involving improper entry are civil cases and not crimes. I have given the proper cites within the first four postings on this thread.

The cases cited by liability thus far have NOT dealt with improper entry, but with acts like eluding the authorities. BTW, those convictions were overturned, but what the hell, Liability likes being my bitch around here.

Liability, some guy exposes you for what your agenda is on this board and you attack me as if I am somehow in cahoots with him. Then you make board attacks against me with sh!+ you would never say to a man's face. So, tell me again, all about honesty.

Getting a lecture out of you about honesty is tantamount to getting physics lessons from chimpanzees.

If you "worked in" immigration law at all, it could only have been to clean the rest rooms at the immigration court house.

Eluding authorities is PART of the statute that forbids improper entry, by the way, so your latest quibble is even less meaningful this time around, you filthy asswipe.

The fact is -- and yes, it IS a fact -- improper entry (which we also call illegal entry) IS most certainly a crime and even the fucking idiots at the ACLU recognize as much.

BuddyPeashooter is just dishonest. No big thing.

I'm glad you are getting so unnerved that you have to bring up the ACLU. Desperation is really setting in. I'm going to do another post just for you. It'll take a bit, but it is on the way...

Motherfucker you are sitting here with a straight face saying coming into the US illegally is not a crime, if anyone is desperate its your dumb ass.

 

[Liability]

Having worked in immigration law for six years and HAVING QUOTED THE TOP IMMIGRATION OFFICIALS IN THE UNITED STATES WITHIN THE FIRST FOUR POSTS ON THIS THREAD, IMPROPER ENTRY IS NOT A CRIME.

Title 8 USC 1325 cases involving improper entry are civil cases and not crimes. I have given the proper cites within the first four postings on this thread.

The cases cited by liability thus far have NOT dealt with improper entry, but with acts like eluding the authorities. BTW, those convictions were overturned, but what the hell, Liability likes being my bitch around here.

Liability, some guy exposes you for what your agenda is on this board and you attack me as if I am somehow in cahoots with him. Then you make board attacks against me with sh!+ you would never say to a man's face. So, tell me again, all about honesty.

Getting a lecture out of you about honesty is tantamount to getting physics lessons from chimpanzees.

If you "worked in" immigration law at all, it could only have been to clean the rest rooms at the immigration court house.

Eluding authorities is PART of the statute that forbids improper entry, by the way, so your latest quibble is even less meaningful this time around, you filthy asswipe.

The fact is -- and yes, it IS a fact -- improper entry (which we also call illegal entry) IS most certainly a crime and even the fucking idiots at the ACLU recognize as much.

BuddyPeashooter is just dishonest. No big thing.

I'm glad you are getting so unnerved that you have to bring up the ACLU. Desperation is really setting in. I'm going to do another post just for you. It'll take a bit, but it is on the way...

Yes. Even your idiot pals at the ACLU see how wrong you are.

And they are bigger proponents than you seem to be of the notion that entering the country illegally is not a crime and shouldn't be.

So, your typically dishonest self-congratulation has no basis in reality.

This is your M.O. None of your tripe is based on reality or honesty or facts.

In the meanwhile, you dishonest hose-head, gnaw on this one:

U.S. v. Rodriguez-Gonzales, 358 F.3d 1156 (9th Cir., 2004)

OPINION

T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judge:

The Government appeals the district court's sentencing of Defendant Elisa Rodriguez-Gonzales to two consecutive six-month terms for two illegal entries into the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1325. The Government argues that the court was required to impose the statutory maximum term of twenty-four months' imprisonment for the second violation because it was a subsequent commission under § 1325. The district court held that it could not impose the statutory maximum because the Government failed to charge the second entry specifically as a second violation. The district court held that it had to treat the two violations independently and thus imposed two six-month sentences for two distinct violations. We affirm.

Oh Nozies! An actual CRIMINAL case directly on point proving that 8 U.S.C. § 1325 IS a criminal statute and DOES result in CRIMINAL convictions.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On or about May 29, 1988, and again on or about December 14, 1999, Rodriguez-Gonzales illegally entered the United States. On July 11, 2002, Rodriguez-Gonzales was found in San Bernardino County, California. The Government first charged

Page 1158

her with one count of illegal entry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326. She agreed to plead guilty in exchange for the Government's promise to recommend a thirty-month sentence. However, when the court announced its intention to follow the presentence report's recommendation of between fifty-seven and seventy-one months, Rodriguez-Gonzales withdrew her guilty plea.

On October 9, 2002, the Government filed a second superseding information charging Rodriguez-Gonzales with two separate counts of illegal entry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a). Rodriguez-Gonzales again entered into a plea agreement with the Government in which she admitted to the two illegal entries. Because 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a) imposes a maximum six-month sentence for a first illegal entry, and raises the penalty to a maximum of twenty-four months "for a subsequent commission of any such offense,"1 both parties believed that, as in the previous agreement, Rodriguez-Gonzales' plea would subject her to a maximum thirty-month prison term.

On October 10, 2002, pursuant to the parties' plea agreement, Rodriguez-Gonzales pleaded guilty before the district court to the two-count second superseding information. The district court noted that the information did not state that the second count was a subsequent entry. At sentencing on October 16, 2002, the district court explained its belief that, for the twenty-four-month statutory maximum to apply to the second count, the Government had to specifically plead that the second count was a second entry under 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a). Because the Government hadn't done so, the district court held that Rodriguez-Gonzales had pleaded guilty to two distinct illegal entries in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1325 and sentenced her to two consecutive six-month sentences. The Government filed this timely appeal.

B. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a) a Prior Conviction Must be Charged

The existence of a prior conviction under 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a) substantively transforms a second conviction under the statute from a misdemeanor to a felony. A prior conviction is therefore more than a sentencing factor, and we conclude that it must be charged explicitly. In Apprendi,13 the Supreme Court held that a jury must find all facts that increase the prescribed penalties to which a criminal defendant is exposed.14 Apprendi specifically noted that Almendarez-Torres stands as a narrow exception to this rule.15 The Government argues that the Almendarez-Torres exception instructs this court to hold that any prior conviction is a sentencing enhancement and therefore need not be charged. However, we hold that because a subsequent commission under 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a) changes the nature of the crime, the prior commission must be charged.

In Almendarez-Torres, the defendant was charged with illegal entry into the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Any violation of § 1326 constitutes a felony. However, if a defendant has been previously convicted of certain other offenses, the maximum sentence increases.16 The defendant in Almendarez-Torres had been previously convicted of an aggravated felony but claimed he could not be subject to the increased prison term because his prior felony conviction was not charged in his indictment. The Supreme Court held that a prior conviction under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 "simply authorizes an enhanced sentence" and is therefore not subject to Apprendi and need not be charged in the indictment.17

We note that Almendarez-Torres does not conflict with our holding in this case. Almendarez-Torres stated that an indictment "need not set forth factors relevant only to the sentencing of an offender found guilty of the charged crime."18 The case did not address the precise situation here, in which not merely the sentence, but the nature of the crime changes. Moreover, Almendarez-Torres specifically recognized that "[a]n indictment must set forth each element of the crime it charges."19 We have previously held, and the Government has conceded, that a "previous conviction for illegal entry is an element of the felony offense [of § 1325]."20 Further, this court has stated that "[a]bsent proof of a former `conviction,' the [defendant should not be given] a felony sentence."21 Accordingly, our conclusion that the Government had to charge Rodriguez-Gonzales' prior illegal entry in violation of § 1325 in the indictment's second count follows Ninth Circuit law and does not conflict with Almendarez-Torres.

A felony versus a misdemeanor conviction has serious ramifications for a defendant. For example, felons, but not misdemeanants, are denied the right to vote, the right to bear arms, and may have significant difficulty in finding gainful employment.22 Due to the ramifications of a felony

Page 1161

conviction, this court will not expand Almendarez-Torres, which the Supreme Court has cautioned us to treat as a "narrow exception" to Apprendi's general rule.23 This conclusion comports with the long-standing law that each count charged against a defendant must stand on its own. It is also easily reconciled with Almendarez-Torres because a prior commission affects not merely the defendant's sentence, but the very nature of his crime.

Rodriguez-Gonzales pleaded guilty to two distinct counts of illegal entry into the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a). Each count in an information must stand on its own, and Count Two did not incorporate Count One. Because the statute changes the substantive nature of a second illegal reentry from a misdemeanor to a felony, the fact of a previous entry is more than a sentencing factor and must be charged explicitly. The Government did not do so here, and therefore, the district court properly held that Rodriguez-Gonzales pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor charges and sentenced her accordingly. Thus, we affirm.

Conviction AFFIRMED.

There are lots of cases showing the SAME thing. Criminal statute. Criminal prosecution. Criminal conviction. Criminal SENTENCING. Why?

Because improper (or illegal) entry is a fucking CRIME.

 

[High_Gravity]

Liability is tearing this clown a new asshole.

 

[BuddyColt]

WHEN IS A CRIME NOT A CRIME?

The legal community bandies about some words very freely. Once we repeat a lie over and over, it becomes accepted as fact and sometimes some end up having repeated a lie so often, they don't know what the difference is.

For instance, the word prejudiced is used against anyone that expresses a negative comment about someone based upon race. However, prejudice means you came to the conclusion without thought, knowledge, or reason. If you apply thought, knowledge or reason to the situation, it is NOT prejudice. Has that fact ever changed the way people use the word?

For over a hundred posts, I have endured hatemongers that would destroy our form of government in order to win a concession about their pet issue: immigration. They would sacrifice the entire Constitution in order to win that battle, but for me to allow a false win would be to accept defeat for the Constitution.

It is not a crime to enter the United States nor be in the United States without papers. All of the top immigration officials in the United States have said so and, in my experience, that is the way they have ruled. But, why is there is such confusion?

Attorney General Michael Mukasey stated:

“Not every wrong, or even every violation of the law, is a crime,”

Mukasey:

In order for a "crime" to exist, you have to prove mens rea. In Latin they use the phrase actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means "the act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty".

When a neighbor crosses our borders, especially from Mexico, in most instances they are coming here to engage in lawful pursuits. These are people that do not understand English and many of them lived in the most primitive conditions you could imagine. So, crossing the border remains a civil infraction of the law. It does not rise to the level of a crime.

On the other hand, if someone were eluding the authorities, it's pretty cut and dried that the authorities saw this individual and the individual saw them. If they did not KNOW it was wrong to cross the border, they would not run. There you have a crime based upon an event involving immigration. It is called Eluding the authorities. If nobody sees an immigrant enter the United States, there is no way possible to determine their state of mind. You cannot determine their state of mind. No mens rea, no crime.

Some offenses are statutory crimes. For example, if a person enters the United States without papers it is a civil violation. Do it repeatedly and it becomes a crime.

The real problem we have in discussing immigration is that lawyers and judges in their general talk and writing inadvertently bandy about terms that simply are not accurate. For example, the HEAD of the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security talks about "illegal" immigration and then states as a matter of fact, "crossing the border without papers is not a crime". A simple faux pas in modern language is all it has taken to confuse the hell out of people. Even Michael Mukasey would talk about "unlawful entry" in the very ruling where he states that entry is not a criminal act. There is no statute for unlawful entry. The fact that Title 8 USC 1325 issues dealing with improper entry ought to be enough, but it's not for the xenophobes. Luckily, you can learn the differences between civil law and criminal law and learn WHY it's imperative that you understand.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse:

Outcasts and Outlaws :: View topic - Understanding the Law 2

Again, the importance of this aspect is made apparent within the first postings on this thread and the links contained therein.

 

[BuddyColt]

If you "worked in" immigration law at all, it could only have been to clean the rest rooms at the immigration court house.

Eluding authorities is PART of the statute that forbids improper entry, by the way, so your latest quibble is even less meaningful this time around, you filthy asswipe.

The fact is -- and yes, it IS a fact -- improper entry (which we also call illegal entry) IS most certainly a crime and even the fucking idiots at the ACLU recognize as much.

BuddyPeashooter is just dishonest. No big thing.

I'm glad you are getting so unnerved that you have to bring up the ACLU. Desperation is really setting in. I'm going to do another post just for you. It'll take a bit, but it is on the way...

Yes. Even your idiot pals at the ACLU see how wrong you are.

And they are bigger proponents than you seem to be of the notion that entering the country illegally is not a crime and shouldn't be.

So, your typically dishonest self-congratulation has no basis in reality.

This is your M.O. None of your tripe is based on reality or honesty or facts.

In the meanwhile, you dishonest hose-head, gnaw on this one:

U.S. v. Rodriguez-Gonzales, 358 F.3d 1156 (9th Cir., 2004)



Oh Nozies! An actual CRIMINAL case directly on point proving that 8 U.S.C. § 1325 IS a criminal statute and DOES result in CRIMINAL convictions.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On or about May 29, 1988, and again on or about December 14, 1999, Rodriguez-Gonzales illegally entered the United States. On July 11, 2002, Rodriguez-Gonzales was found in San Bernardino County, California. The Government first charged

Page 1158

her with one count of illegal entry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326. She agreed to plead guilty in exchange for the Government's promise to recommend a thirty-month sentence. However, when the court announced its intention to follow the presentence report's recommendation of between fifty-seven and seventy-one months, Rodriguez-Gonzales withdrew her guilty plea.

On October 9, 2002, the Government filed a second superseding information charging Rodriguez-Gonzales with two separate counts of illegal entry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a). Rodriguez-Gonzales again entered into a plea agreement with the Government in which she admitted to the two illegal entries. Because 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a) imposes a maximum six-month sentence for a first illegal entry, and raises the penalty to a maximum of twenty-four months "for a subsequent commission of any such offense,"1 both parties believed that, as in the previous agreement, Rodriguez-Gonzales' plea would subject her to a maximum thirty-month prison term.

On October 10, 2002, pursuant to the parties' plea agreement, Rodriguez-Gonzales pleaded guilty before the district court to the two-count second superseding information. The district court noted that the information did not state that the second count was a subsequent entry. At sentencing on October 16, 2002, the district court explained its belief that, for the twenty-four-month statutory maximum to apply to the second count, the Government had to specifically plead that the second count was a second entry under 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a). Because the Government hadn't done so, the district court held that Rodriguez-Gonzales had pleaded guilty to two distinct illegal entries in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1325 and sentenced her to two consecutive six-month sentences. The Government filed this timely appeal.

B. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a) a Prior Conviction Must be Charged

The existence of a prior conviction under 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a) substantively transforms a second conviction under the statute from a misdemeanor to a felony. A prior conviction is therefore more than a sentencing factor, and we conclude that it must be charged explicitly. In Apprendi,13 the Supreme Court held that a jury must find all facts that increase the prescribed penalties to which a criminal defendant is exposed.14 Apprendi specifically noted that Almendarez-Torres stands as a narrow exception to this rule.15 The Government argues that the Almendarez-Torres exception instructs this court to hold that any prior conviction is a sentencing enhancement and therefore need not be charged. However, we hold that because a subsequent commission under 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a) changes the nature of the crime, the prior commission must be charged.

In Almendarez-Torres, the defendant was charged with illegal entry into the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Any violation of § 1326 constitutes a felony. However, if a defendant has been previously convicted of certain other offenses, the maximum sentence increases.16 The defendant in Almendarez-Torres had been previously convicted of an aggravated felony but claimed he could not be subject to the increased prison term because his prior felony conviction was not charged in his indictment. The Supreme Court held that a prior conviction under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 "simply authorizes an enhanced sentence" and is therefore not subject to Apprendi and need not be charged in the indictment.17

We note that Almendarez-Torres does not conflict with our holding in this case. Almendarez-Torres stated that an indictment "need not set forth factors relevant only to the sentencing of an offender found guilty of the charged crime."18 The case did not address the precise situation here, in which not merely the sentence, but the nature of the crime changes. Moreover, Almendarez-Torres specifically recognized that "[a]n indictment must set forth each element of the crime it charges."19 We have previously held, and the Government has conceded, that a "previous conviction for illegal entry is an element of the felony offense [of § 1325]."20 Further, this court has stated that "[a]bsent proof of a former `conviction,' the [defendant should not be given] a felony sentence."21 Accordingly, our conclusion that the Government had to charge Rodriguez-Gonzales' prior illegal entry in violation of § 1325 in the indictment's second count follows Ninth Circuit law and does not conflict with Almendarez-Torres.

A felony versus a misdemeanor conviction has serious ramifications for a defendant. For example, felons, but not misdemeanants, are denied the right to vote, the right to bear arms, and may have significant difficulty in finding gainful employment.22 Due to the ramifications of a felony

Page 1161

conviction, this court will not expand Almendarez-Torres, which the Supreme Court has cautioned us to treat as a "narrow exception" to Apprendi's general rule.23 This conclusion comports with the long-standing law that each count charged against a defendant must stand on its own. It is also easily reconciled with Almendarez-Torres because a prior commission affects not merely the defendant's sentence, but the very nature of his crime.

Rodriguez-Gonzales pleaded guilty to two distinct counts of illegal entry into the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a). Each count in an information must stand on its own, and Count Two did not incorporate Count One. Because the statute changes the substantive nature of a second illegal reentry from a misdemeanor to a felony, the fact of a previous entry is more than a sentencing factor and must be charged explicitly. The Government did not do so here, and therefore, the district court properly held that Rodriguez-Gonzales pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor charges and sentenced her accordingly. Thus, we affirm.

Conviction AFFIRMED.

There are lots of cases showing the SAME thing. Criminal statute. Criminal prosecution. Criminal conviction. Criminal SENTENCING. Why?

Because improper (or illegal) entry is a fucking CRIME.

All of these cases you claim exist, you cannot cite a single one. You tried to prove that improper entry was a crime using a case involving eluding authorities and that case was OVERTURNED!

But, you still have a cheering section to wallow in your false beliefs with. But, for knowingly and willingly sending people to prison due to your lobbying efforts, I have to believe that we reap what we sow. And when it's time for you to reap the fruits of your labors, just like I've had to say to so many others - I told you do. You should read the opening posts in this thread. You should click on the links and read them. You'll see why journalists, editorialists, newsmen and legal authorities have had to admit I knew from whence I spoke.

The defendant admitted to more than an improper entry (multiple excursions are a crime)

 

[Liability]

WHEN IS A CRIME NOT A CRIME?

The legal community bandies about some words very freely. Once we repeat a lie over and over, it becomes accepted as fact and sometimes some end up having repeated a lie so often, they don't know what the difference is.

For instance, the word prejudiced is used against anyone that expresses a negative comment about someone based upon race. However, prejudice means you came to the conclusion without thought, knowledge, or reason. If you apply thought, knowledge or reason to the situation, it is NOT prejudice. Has that fact ever changed the way people use the word?

For over a hundred posts, I have endured hatemongers that would destroy our form of government in order to win a concession about their pet issue: immigration. They would sacrifice the entire Constitution in order to win that battle, but for me to allow a false win would be to accept defeat for the Constitution.

It is not a crime to enter the United States nor be in the United States without papers. All of the top immigration officials in the United States have said so and, in my experience, that is the way they have ruled. But, why is there is such confusion?

Attorney General Michael Mukasey stated:

“Not every wrong, or even every violation of the law, is a crime,”

Mukasey:

In order for a "crime" to exist, you have to prove mens rea. In Latin they use the phrase actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means "the act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty".

When a neighbor crosses our borders, especially from Mexico, in most instances they are coming here to engage in lawful pursuits. These are people that do not understand English and many of them lived in the most primitive conditions you could imagine. So, crossing the border remains a civil infraction of the law. It does not rise to the level of a crime.

On the other hand, if someone were eluding the authorities, it's pretty cut and dried that the authorities saw this individual and the individual saw them. If they did not KNOW it was wrong to cross the border, they would not run. There you have a crime based upon an event involving immigration. It is called Eluding the authorities. If nobody sees an immigrant enter the United States, there is no way possible to determine their state of mind. You cannot determine their state of mind. No mens rea, no crime.

Some offenses are statutory crimes. For example, if a person enters the United States without papers it is a civil violation. Do it repeatedly and it becomes a crime.

The real problem we have in discussing immigration is that lawyers and judges in their general talk and writing inadvertently bandy about terms that simply are not accurate. For example, the HEAD of the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security talks about "illegal" immigration and then states as a matter of fact, "crossing the border without papers is not a crime". A simple faux pas in modern language is all it has taken to confuse the hell out of people. Even Michael Mukasey would talk about "unlawful entry" in the very ruling where he states that entry is not a criminal act. There is no statute for unlawful entry. The fact that Title 8 USC 1325 issues dealing with improper entry ought to be enough, but it's not for the xenophobes. Luckily, you can learn the differences between civil law and criminal law and learn WHY it's imperative that you understand.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse:

Outcasts and Outlaws :: View topic - Understanding the Law 2

Again, the importance of this aspect is made apparent within the first postings on this thread and the links contained therein.

Holy crap. Your dishonesty and abject ignorance is astounding.

It is TRUE that not every violation of law is a crime.

But it is FALSE that a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1325 is not a crime.

The reason is clear. The statute itself provides criminal penalties for the violation of that law.

Similarly, it is not true that all crimes have to have a "mens rea." Most crimes do. But some crimes are "per se" crimes.

A malum prohibitum offense is criminal because the law says so.

So while many crimes specifically conjoin a prohibited act (the actus reus) with a criminal state of mind requirement (such as intent or knowledge, etc), the mens rea, it is NOT always the case. SOME crimes require no specific culpable mental state.

But that's besides the point anyway.

The QUESTION is whether illegal entry is a crime.

And it still is.

And even a dolt like BuddyPeashooter OUGHT to be able to figure that much out. It's clear: the law which defines the offense specifies the criminal penalty for its violation.

 

[Liability]

I'm glad you are getting so unnerved that you have to bring up the ACLU. Desperation is really setting in. I'm going to do another post just for you. It'll take a bit, but it is on the way...

Yes. Even your idiot pals at the ACLU see how wrong you are.

And they are bigger proponents than you seem to be of the notion that entering the country illegally is not a crime and shouldn't be.

So, your typically dishonest self-congratulation has no basis in reality.

This is your M.O. None of your tripe is based on reality or honesty or facts.

In the meanwhile, you dishonest hose-head, gnaw on this one:

U.S. v. Rodriguez-Gonzales, 358 F.3d 1156 (9th Cir., 2004)



Oh Nozies! An actual CRIMINAL case directly on point proving that 8 U.S.C. § 1325 IS a criminal statute and DOES result in CRIMINAL convictions.

B. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a) a Prior Conviction Must be Charged

The existence of a prior conviction under 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a) substantively transforms a second conviction under the statute from a misdemeanor to a felony. A prior conviction is therefore more than a sentencing factor, and we conclude that it must be charged explicitly. In Apprendi,13 the Supreme Court held that a jury must find all facts that increase the prescribed penalties to which a criminal defendant is exposed.14 Apprendi specifically noted that Almendarez-Torres stands as a narrow exception to this rule.15 The Government argues that the Almendarez-Torres exception instructs this court to hold that any prior conviction is a sentencing enhancement and therefore need not be charged. However, we hold that because a subsequent commission under 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a) changes the nature of the crime, the prior commission must be charged.

In Almendarez-Torres, the defendant was charged with illegal entry into the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Any violation of § 1326 constitutes a felony. However, if a defendant has been previously convicted of certain other offenses, the maximum sentence increases.16 The defendant in Almendarez-Torres had been previously convicted of an aggravated felony but claimed he could not be subject to the increased prison term because his prior felony conviction was not charged in his indictment. The Supreme Court held that a prior conviction under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 "simply authorizes an enhanced sentence" and is therefore not subject to Apprendi and need not be charged in the indictment.17

We note that Almendarez-Torres does not conflict with our holding in this case. Almendarez-Torres stated that an indictment "need not set forth factors relevant only to the sentencing of an offender found guilty of the charged crime."18 The case did not address the precise situation here, in which not merely the sentence, but the nature of the crime changes. Moreover, Almendarez-Torres specifically recognized that "[a]n indictment must set forth each element of the crime it charges."19 We have previously held, and the Government has conceded, that a "previous conviction for illegal entry is an element of the felony offense [of § 1325]."20 Further, this court has stated that "[a]bsent proof of a former `conviction,' the [defendant should not be given] a felony sentence."21 Accordingly, our conclusion that the Government had to charge Rodriguez-Gonzales' prior illegal entry in violation of § 1325 in the indictment's second count follows Ninth Circuit law and does not conflict with Almendarez-Torres.

A felony versus a misdemeanor conviction has serious ramifications for a defendant. For example, felons, but not misdemeanants, are denied the right to vote, the right to bear arms, and may have significant difficulty in finding gainful employment.22 Due to the ramifications of a felony

Page 1161

conviction, this court will not expand Almendarez-Torres, which the Supreme Court has cautioned us to treat as a "narrow exception" to Apprendi's general rule.23 This conclusion comports with the long-standing law that each count charged against a defendant must stand on its own. It is also easily reconciled with Almendarez-Torres because a prior commission affects not merely the defendant's sentence, but the very nature of his crime.

Each count in an information must stand on its own, and Count Two did not incorporate Count One. Because the statute changes the substantive nature of a second illegal reentry from a misdemeanor to a felony, the fact of a previous entry is more than a sentencing factor and must be charged explicitly. The Government did not do so here, and therefore, the district court properly held that Rodriguez-Gonzales pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor charges and sentenced her accordingly. Thus, we affirm.

Conviction AFFIRMED.

There are lots of cases showing the SAME thing. Criminal statute. Criminal prosecution. Criminal conviction. Criminal SENTENCING. Why?

Because improper (or illegal) entry is a fucking CRIME.

All of these cases you claim exist, you cannot cite a single one. You tried to prove that improper entry was a crime using a case involving eluding authorities and that case was OVERTURNED!

But, you still have a cheering section to wallow in your false beliefs with. But, for knowingly and willingly sending people to prison due to your lobbying efforts, I have to believe that we reap what we sow. And when it's time for you to reap the fruits of your labors, just like I've had to say to so many others - I told you do. You should read the opening posts in this thread. You should click on the links and read them. You'll see why journalists, editorialists, newsmen and legal authorities have had to admit I knew from whence I spoke.

The defendant admitted to more than an improper entry (multiple excursions are a crime)

I cannot help that you cannot fathom what you read. But I have given you several examples of the CRIME of improper entry.

U.S. v. Rodriguez-Gonzales, 358 F.3d 1156 itself saw the accused accept a plea of GUILTY to 8 U.S.C §1325(a).

(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts
Any alien who
(1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers,

FROM the decision:

Rodriguez-Gonzales pleaded guilty to two distinct counts of illegal entry into the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a).

 

[BuddyColt]

Yes. Even your idiot pals at the ACLU see how wrong you are.

And they are bigger proponents than you seem to be of the notion that entering the country illegally is not a crime and shouldn't be.

So, your typically dishonest self-congratulation has no basis in reality.

This is your M.O. None of your tripe is based on reality or honesty or facts.

In the meanwhile, you dishonest hose-head, gnaw on this one:

U.S. v. Rodriguez-Gonzales, 358 F.3d 1156 (9th Cir., 2004)



Oh Nozies! An actual CRIMINAL case directly on point proving that 8 U.S.C. § 1325 IS a criminal statute and DOES result in CRIMINAL convictions.





There are lots of cases showing the SAME thing. Criminal statute. Criminal prosecution. Criminal conviction. Criminal SENTENCING. Why?

Because improper (or illegal) entry is a fucking CRIME.

All of these cases you claim exist, you cannot cite a single one. You tried to prove that improper entry was a crime using a case involving eluding authorities and that case was OVERTURNED!

But, you still have a cheering section to wallow in your false beliefs with. But, for knowingly and willingly sending people to prison due to your lobbying efforts, I have to believe that we reap what we sow. And when it's time for you to reap the fruits of your labors, just like I've had to say to so many others - I told you do. You should read the opening posts in this thread. You should click on the links and read them. You'll see why journalists, editorialists, newsmen and legal authorities have had to admit I knew from whence I spoke.

The defendant admitted to more than an improper entry (multiple excursions are a crime)

I cannot help that you cannot fathom what you read. But I have given you several examples of the CRIME of improper entry.

U.S. v. Rodriguez-Gonzales, 358 F.3d 1156 itself saw the accused accept a plea of GUILTY to 8 U.S.C §1325(a).

(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts
Any alien who
(1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers,

FROM the decision:

Rodriguez-Gonzales pleaded guilty to two distinct counts of illegal entry into the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a).

I cannot help what judges put into their court decisions regarding a statute. The statute does not read unlawful entry. Cases where people were tried and convicted have been overturned when challenged.

U.S. Rep. James Sensenbrenner tried to have improper entry changed to unlawful entry. IF you were correct, and you are not, there would no need to change the law.

What is it that you don't understand about that? What is your major malfunction?

 

[Liability]

All of these cases you claim exist, you cannot cite a single one. You tried to prove that improper entry was a crime using a case involving eluding authorities and that case was OVERTURNED!

But, you still have a cheering section to wallow in your false beliefs with. But, for knowingly and willingly sending people to prison due to your lobbying efforts, I have to believe that we reap what we sow. And when it's time for you to reap the fruits of your labors, just like I've had to say to so many others - I told you do. You should read the opening posts in this thread. You should click on the links and read them. You'll see why journalists, editorialists, newsmen and legal authorities have had to admit I knew from whence I spoke.

The defendant admitted to more than an improper entry (multiple excursions are a crime)

I cannot help that you cannot fathom what you read. But I have given you several examples of the CRIME of improper entry.

U.S. v. Rodriguez-Gonzales, 358 F.3d 1156 itself saw the accused accept a plea of GUILTY to 8 U.S.C §1325(a).

FROM the decision:

Rodriguez-Gonzales pleaded guilty to two distinct counts of illegal entry into the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a).

I cannot help what judges put into their court decisions regarding a statute. The statute does not read unlawful entry. Cases where people were tried and convicted have been overturned when challenged.

U.S. Rep. James Sensenbrenner tried to have improper entry changed to unlawful entry. IF you were correct, and you are not, there would no need to change the law.

What is it that you don't understand about that? What is your major malfunction?

AGAIN with your incredibly petty quibble.

It SAYS improper entry.

We CALL it illegal entry.

It IS illegal even if it says "improper."

For it's a crime.

You are dim. And you are entirely dishonest.

 

[BuddyColt]

In the fourth posting on this thread, I wrote:

They {speaking about anti immigrant / National Socialists} have lied to you and they have misrepresented themselves to you. For ten years they have dodged and ducked me when I’ve challenged them to a public debate – one on one. When they feel threatened, like on these discussion boards, they turn the topic into a freaking joke; they continue to try and prove disproven myths just to baffle you. The rest of what I have to say regarding them is at this link:

http://www.freeforum101.com/outcasts...utcastsandoutl
Here we are, more than a hundred posts later and we've not progressed beyond the one misrepresentation regarding immigration. So, here is the truth:

It is not a crime to enter the United States nor is it a crime to be in the United States without papers.

No amount of political jockeying has altered that fact.

The xenophobes keep contending that a civil violation of the law is a crime. It isn't. The xenophobes will try and argue that the word improper means illegal. It doesn't. Improper is not a synonym for illegal in English or in legal literature. The xenophobes have tried to pawn cases off involving eluding authorities as immigration crimes, eluding authorities is a separate issue from entering improperly.

These people aren't smart enough to read; not intelligent enough to realize when they are getting their butts kicked. Yet they continue to send their own supporters to jails and prisons because they have no concept of nor respect for the due process of law.

In over a hundred postings, the xenophobes have not read and clicked on the links of the first four postings. Everything on this thread has been a rehash of those first four posts. The xenophobes have failed to read them. They're trying to answer an issue before they even know what in the hell it's about.

 

[Liability]

In the fourth posting on this thread, I wrote:

They {speaking about anti immigrant / National Socialists} have lied to you and they have misrepresented themselves to you. For ten years they have dodged and ducked me when I’ve challenged them to a public debate – one on one. When they feel threatened, like on these discussion boards, they turn the topic into a freaking joke; they continue to try and prove disproven myths just to baffle you. The rest of what I have to say regarding them is at this link:

http://www.freeforum101.com/outcasts...utcastsandoutl
Here we are, more than a hundred posts later and we've not progressed beyond the one misrepresentation regarding immigration. So, here is the truth:

It is not a crime to enter the United States nor is it a crime to be in the United States without papers.

No amount of political jockeying has altered that fact.

The xenophobes keep contending that a civil violation of the law is a crime. It isn't. The xenophobes will try and argue that the word improper means illegal. It doesn't. Improper is not a synonym for illegal in English or in legal literature. The xenophobes have tried to pawn cases off involving eluding authorities as immigration crimes, eluding authorities is a separate issue from entering improperly.

These people aren't smart enough to read; not intelligent enough to realize when they are getting their butts kicked. Yet they continue to send their own supporters to jails and prisons because they have no concept of nor respect for the due process of law.

In over a hundred postings, the xenophobes have not read and clicked on the links of the first four postings. Everything on this thread has been a rehash of those first four posts. The xenophobes have failed to read them. They're trying to answer an issue before they even know what in the hell it's about.

Nobody CARES what you say or when you previously said it.

They care about whether what you say is right or wrong.

And when you CLAIM that improper entry is not a crime, you are wrong and willfully dishonest.