Any noticable effects of 1804 yet?

[Neptune]

It doesn't matter.  The question comes up in a similar context as being withheld your Miranda rights.  If you're in front of a judge on a case, and you're asked a question about something completely unrelated, can you be charged with something based on that answer.  It's simple.

And then, does the court even have a right to ask, and what's their justification?  

You don't have the answers.  The courts will decide this at a later date.

[Neptune]

And no, I'm not saying I know what the conclusion will be, because I don't.

But it is a challenge.  Every law is challenge-able, this one in particular because effects people.  That makes it more of a target.  It's only the beginning of the challenges to 1804.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by Neptune

It doesn't matter.  The question comes up in a similar context as being withheld your Miranda rights.  If you're in front of a judge on a case, and you're asked a question about something completely unrelated, can you be charged with something based on that answer.  It's simple.

You don't have the answers.  The courts will decide this at a later date.

This really isn't that complicated.  Who is FORCING someone to speak in volation of the 5th amendment? NO ONE!  

Can you explain to me how they are being FORCED?

Refusing to speak gives them the right to inquire further and lastly to deport (3rd Circuit).

quote:And then, does the court even have a right to ask, and what's their justification?  

Title 8 of the Fed Reg grants the Feds the right to ask.  This statute has been challenged constitutionally numerous times with ZERO success.

[Neptune]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

Refusing to speak gives them the right to inquire further and lastly to deport (3rd Circuit).

You're not even talking about the challenge.  Not even in the neighborhood.  So, since you're just plain off, I guess we'll move on.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by Neptune

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

Refusing to speak gives them the right to inquire further and lastly to deport (3rd Circuit).

You're not even talking about the challenge.  Not even in the neighborhood.  So, since you're just plain off, I guess we'll move on.

That's question two MichaelC, which has been answered already.  You still haven't answered question one which is:

WHO IS FORCING THEM?

My point is that we will eventually end up arguing the fact pattern in the 3rd circuit case because no one will divulge their status.

Asking them is NOT illegal either because they are acting under the auspices of the exectuive power via ICE.

[Breadburner]

quote:Originally posted by Neptune

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

Refusing to speak gives them the right to inquire further and lastly to deport (3rd Circuit).

You're not even talking about the challenge.  Not even in the neighborhood.  So, since you're just plain off, I guess we'll move on.

Just like your post on College Football.....

[iplaw]

This legal challenge is tantamount to saying that the police aren't allowed to ask a suspect if he comitted a crime because he might implicate himself.  Sheer ignorance.

The suspect has a right not to speak, but the police have a right to further investigate.

This is no different.

[Neptune]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

My point is that we will eventually end up arguing the fact pattern in the 3rd circuit case because no one will divulge their status.

No, you've ignored the entire challenge.

They were not suspects of being here "illegally", they were asked to incriminate themselves during an unrelated case, then charged for deportation.  Everything Federal comes to bear on the Civil or State court.  Can't pick and choose it, even if you want to.

It's a completely different set of scenarios from a Fed asking a known or suspected illegal, his/her immigration status.

If I were the State, I'd let them go, then have ICE pick them up for deportation on the courthouse lawn.  That solves the problem.

[Neptune]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

This legal challenge is tantamount to saying that the police aren't allowed to ask a suspect if he comitted a crime because he might implicate himself.  Sheer ignorance.

[EDIT]

They were not "suspects" in an "illegal immigration" case.  Yet, that's what they were charged with, after self-incrimination coaxed out of them by a judge.

[Hometown]

In case anyone missed this:

It's been reported that only felons are being deported.

But I have first hand reports that people have been deported for simple traffic infractions.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by Hometown

In case anyone missed this:

It's been reported that only felons are being deported.

But I have first hand reports that people have been deported for simple traffic infractions.

That's incorrect.  They have been deported for being in this country illegally, not for traffic infractions.

[iplaw]

quote:

You'd have to be the dumbest lawyer around to believe that.  Or really even to say that.

They were not "suspects" in an "illegal immigration" case.  Yet, that's what they were charged with, after self-incrimination coaxed out of them by a judge.

[EDIT]  Who are the "they" you are referring to anyway?

To put it another way, the police suspecting someone of being illegal and asking them about their citizenship when being investigated for another crime is constitutional, just as it's permissible for a police officer to ask you if you've had a few to drink when you're pulled over for expired tags.

Especially when the driver lacks a license, or is in posession of a seemingly fake one.

Is it legal to pull people over just to question their legal status...no, but that's not what is being discussed here.

[iplaw]

quote:

If I were the State, I'd let them go, then have ICE pick them up for deportation on the courthouse lawn.  That solves the problem.

Other than the fact that ICE is unable, because of manpower to accomplish those goals.  That's why the State is involved in the first place.  Training local and state officers and making them proxies for ICE helps, but that's what you're arguing against.

[Neptune]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

[EDIT]  Who are the "they" you are referring to anyway?

To put it another way, the police suspecting someone of being illegal and asking them about their citizenship when being investigated for another crime is constitutional, just as it's permissible for a police officer to ask you if you've had a few to drink when you're pulled over for expired tags.

Yes I am.  [EDIT].  What about a judge in a courtroom?

You're equated things, that are inherently unequal.  As if civil courts don't have rules to follow, or somehow civil courts are exactly like investigative agents, ICE agents, or police.

[Neptune]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

Other than the fact that ICE is unable, because of manpower to accomplish those goals.  That's why the State is involved in the first place.  Training local and state officers and making them proxies for ICE helps, but that's what you're arguing against.

No.

Listen up.  It's not about agents, or police enforcement.  And again your skirting the issue, just because in your fairy tale world all goes well as long as another immigrant is deported.

It's not about enforcement, as in law enforcement.  This was a judicial technicality, that caused charges to be brought.  It has nothing to do with enforcement.  These are rights that every citizen has in court.  Your only argument can possibly be, that they aren't citizens and the normal rules and procedures of a civil court don't apply.