Border Patrol wants probe of woman's detention

[inv136]

Here's a dishonest "news" article from ABC News. The article states:
"Irvin Gonzalez was as she was seeking court-ordered protection from an abusive boyfriend. The arrest has led to questions about what lengths authorities will go to apprehend people under newly stepped-up immigration policies."
"The Border Patrol has asked for an internal investigation of the circumstances leading up to the arrest of a transgender woman in an El Paso courthouse."
"In a statement Friday, Customs and Border Protection spokesman Douglas Mosier said the case has been referred to the Office of Inspector General."

I understand the controversy here is because Border Patrol Agents (backed up by ICE agents) apprehended this alien at the courthouse where he/she was at to seek a protective order against an "abusive boyfriend." This actually, probably is a violation of ICE and Border "Patrol policies" prohibiting an arrest at certain sensitive locations (this is a fact that such internal ICE and Border Patrol prohibitions exist). However, the part in the article that was dishonest and the part that is particularly disturbing is that the article falsely equated the arrest of the alien with "....newly stepped-up immigration policies." This line makes it sound like the alien was arrested solely for an immigration violation such as illegal entry (8USC1325), a federal misdemeanor (which is not usually ever charged because most US Attorney's will not prosecute a misdemeanor unless it is in a border area with multiple defendants charged all at one time before a Magistrate Judge, not a full federal District Judge) and only charge administrative non-criminal immigration charges resulting in only a deportation hearing.

But, this part of the article indicates that was Not the case:

"Gonzalez is in the custody of the U.S. Marshals Service while she faces a federal charge of illegal re-entry into the United States."

Illegal re-entry into the US (8USC1326) is a felony criminal offense. This alien would have probably already been indicated by a federal Grand Jury and would at least have a pending criminal felony arrest warrant issued by a federal District Judge, so the arrest would not have been an administrative immigration deportation violation. This would be SOP and not a "newly stepped-up immigration policy" as mentioned in the article. Criminal arrests at sensitive locations is not a policy prohibited action. Only administrative immigration violation arrests are.


http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/latest-border-patrol-probe-womans-detention-45725081     

[sqlbullet]

It isn't news.  It is info-tainment.  Don't kid yourself into thinking otherwise.

I can't tell you how differently I see the world since I stopped watching broadcast news, listening to news radio, and going to sites like CNN.com.

If something big happens I can always get information on the web.  And when I google it, I get several view points.  And I can cross reference and check sources relatively easily.

[inv136]

I was referring to the dishonesty of the article. It made the arrest sound like it was an administrative arrest (not a criminal arrest) solely under immigration violations and relating to President Trump's new immigration policies. None of this is further from the truth. Before I retired I made a number of these arrests. If I knew someone was going to court (in this case to file for a protective order) I would wait and arrest the alien outside the court after his proceeding was over. Most of the time the warrant hadn't even been entered into NCIC before I already had made the arrest. This was quicker and easier than dealing with another agency making the arrest on our warrant. Plus the federal magistrates preferred for us to serve the warrant without any delays.

The majority of the time the alien came to my attention because he/she was already in I&NS (now ICE) custody on the administrative deportation charges after they were transferred to our custody from a jail or prison on an Immigration Detainer. We didn't get a lot of 8USC1326 cases per year because our US Attorney's Office required us to have an alien with an aggravated felony conviction prior to his last deportation. That way the alien was looking at a maximum of 20 years imprisonment upon conviction. 

[Captain O]

Felony reentry should result in a 10-year prison sentence, building the wall along the US/Mexico International Boundary. The new barrier should consist of a Ha-ha wall sloping upward, terminating 45' from the boundary consisting of a slope with .75" diameter sharpened Rebar (Punji sticks that are unevenly spaced. This should deter any illegal entry. There should be concrete walkways with both weight and motion sensors that can be turned off so that we can maintain the fence/wall with doorways as they have them now.

This is not only feasible but reliable. Cameras focused on the "maintenance walkways" will slow any illicit/unlawful entry to a trickle.

[Geeman]

10 years in prison costs about half a million dollars.

Multiply that out by the numbers involved and its just out of bounds.  How do you get Mexico to pay that bill? 

Keep prison for those that cause others harm or loss, and that goes for non-immigration infractions too.

Just my take.

Greg

[sqlbullet]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_P9PR5ckFk

I will just leave this here regarding a wall.

[inv136]

Felony reentry should result in a 10-year prison sentence,

Illegal Re-entry of an alien with felony conviction prior to his last deportation has a penalty of up to 10 years in prison. It's always been that way already under 8USC1326. If the alien had an aggravated felony conviction prior to deportation then the penalty is up to 20 years. An alien with no criminal convictions prior to deportation is subject to a penalty up to 2 years. However, just because the sentence is "up to" (which is the maximum sentence) does not mean that is the sentence that will be handed down by the federal judge. Few 8 USC 1326 prosecutions are accepted by most US Attorney's unless they have aggravated felony convictions prior to deportation, unless there are extenuating circumstances like gang membership and a criminal history that indicates the alien is a bad guy that just hasn't been convicted of anything yet. 


https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-1912-8-usc-1326-reentry-after-deportation-removal   

[inv136]

10 years in prison costs about half a million dollars.

Multiply that out by the numbers involved and its just out of bounds.  How do you get Mexico to pay that bill? 

Keep prison for those that cause others harm or loss, and that goes for non-immigration infractions too.

Just my take.

Greg

You like that revolving door for convicted criminal aliens that keep getting deported and coming back to eventually commit more serious crimes like Juan Francisco LOPEZ-Sanchez did? And, another thing, criminal aliens don't just come form Mexico. Check the Bureau of Prisons (as well as state prison roles) for aliens from countries besides Mexico. At least if we have an alien that commits an Aggravated Robbery (armed robbery) and gets sent to state prison for 10 years, get's released to ICE on an Immigration Detainer (if the state prison is not a sanctuary which would just release him onto the street without notifying ICE), get's an Order of Deportation, is deported to his country (let's say the UK). Then one day the local police receive a tip that the alien that robbed the local bank is back in town and is working at a tire repair shop. Police can't do anything because there have been no state laws violated (the alien served his time in state prison before he was turned over to ICE and then deported). As an option (to take this potential criminal alien off the street before he commits a new serious state crime) they call ICE who verify that the guy was previously deported and they arrest him and get him arraigned on felony 8 USC 1326 illegal re-entry of deported alien with aggravated felony conviction - max sentence up to 20 years. But, based on your argument, they should just deport him back to the UK and who cares if he just comes back and then commits a serious new crime later and maybe, like Juan Francisco LOPEZ-Sanchez, kills an innocent person.     

[Geeman]

Keep prison for those that cause others harm or loss, as was stated above. 

Greg

[sqlbullet]

Irvin Gonzales was certainly guilty of violating 8USC1325.  The had a previous conviction for assault and were in the country in an undocumented status.  This is a situation that does not apply to the vast majority of undocumented foreigners in our country. Incarcerating this small subset would not significantly tax our corrections system.

Here is the part of this case that is problematic.

Irvin Gonzales was in court to petition for a protective order from the boyfriend.  Who had brutally beaten Irvin.  On several occasions.  A boyfriend who is also criminally minded.  And who apparently used the ICE to get back at Irvin for filing for a protective order.

The whole case just plain stinks. And the reality is under Obama, the ICE would probably have overlooked this report, taking the stance that the information was tainted by the fact that it originated due to request for a protective order.  It may have been "technically" a clean tip, but the motivations behind the tip were less pure.  And under Trump, with broader latitude the decision was to move ahead on the tip.

Or maybe it is just circumstantial timing.

Ultimately it sounds like they both need to spend some more time in corrections.  Though, I would like to know more about Irvin's original assault conviction as that bar can be alarmingly low in some cases.

[inv136]

Keep prison for those that cause others harm or loss, as was stated above. 

Greg

So, you're OK with ignoring violations of 8 USC 1326 just because the illegal alien hasn't had the opportunity to hurt anybody after he illegally came back? Let's let him illegally reenter and wait for him to actually cause a new incident of harm or loss before we arrest and put him away for 10 (or 20 years in the case of an aggravated felon)? I'm not. He's already caused loss or harmed someone (been convicted of a felony or an aggravated felony) "before" he was deported the first time. Your way is what resulted in Kate Steinle's murder. The guy had previously been convicted of narcotics trafficking and deported, came back (didn't hurt anyone), deported, came back (didn't hurt anybody), deported, etc. until he came back the last time and killed her. Yeah, your way worked so well that you want us to continue that cycle of deportation for convicted aggravated felons until they hurt someone again.  

[sqlbullet]

One incident does not a standard scenario make.  Similar logic is the basis for most gun control legislation which we gun owners reject.  E.G. someone used an AR-15 to commit an atrocious crime so we have to take away AR-15's from EVERYONE.

In general, I agree with Greg.  If a human being committed a crime, serves their sentence in the corrections system, is released and deported, and subsequently re-enters the US illegally, I would suggest they be deported versus incarcerated again for 10-20 years on my dime.  If they commit a new crime then they should be prosecuted for said crime.

Now, that said, I don't agree with ignoring the law.  I think it should be changed.

[Geeman]

Hmmm, I really don't want to cause strife.  I guess I believe differently. 

I have invested huge amounts of time questioning things people assume to be true which are instead indoctrination for profit.  Legal system is one such area, medical is another, monetary system isn't what is believed either.  Media just pushes the deceptions as they are all part of this deception for profit.  I now question EVERYTHING!!!

"Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent" is a book that details that the average person commits an average of three felonies every day.  They might not realize it, but that is the reality of the situation.  Many more laws are on the books now than when the book was written, so how many now?  Five???  Six???

http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/1594032556

I'm a common law junkie.  I don't hurt others, and I'd prefer that others just leave me alone unless they believe I transgressed them.  I think they call it self governing.  I think they call it freedom.  I think they call it liberty.  Its the foundation of how this country was founded.

I believe prison should be reserved for those causing harm of loss to others.  If I believed differently, they have the power to throw each and every one of us there by the letter of the so called, "law".

Greg

[inv136]

"I'm a common law junkie.  I don't hurt others, and I'd prefer that others just leave me alone unless they believe I transgressed them.  I think they call it self governing.  I think they call it freedom.  I think they call it liberty.  Its the foundation of how this country was founded."

Yeah, I guess you're right. Might as well just shut down all those ports of entry as it's just stifling people's liberties to have to come and go through the border and have to be inconvenienced with passports, customs, immigration, and agricultural products checks. Self governing people don't need no stinking borders. Things were so much simpler before they started building highways and requiring driver's licenses, vehicle inspections, and insurance too. Maybe you can get a political movement going to repeal all of that federal and state infringements of freedom and liberty?

[sqlbullet]

Are you suggesting people should go to prison if they fail a vehicle inspection?  Seems extreme.