Americans, I think you guys should get tougher on illegal immigration

[Aimless]

Like, super-tough.

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2012-...e-was-illegal/

A Woman Was Held in Jail Because Authorities Thought She Was Illegal

[Loki]

Her lawyer seems to be grossly incompetent...

[Khendraja'aro]

I love some of the comments as they clearly show that some of those guys are not really thinking straight...

[...]You can fancy it up any way you want, you cannot change the fact that most people (myself included) view any violation of any law - even a civil law - as a crime.[...]

Yeah, when I'm parking in the wrong place, that's surely a crime.

Her lawyer seems to be grossly incompetent...

Given the state of the justice system in the US, how much money do you think she had to hire a competent lawyer?

[Aimless]

Her lawyer seems to be grossly incompetent...

One would hope that she didn't have to pay him. However, the lawyer is not the only one who's grossly incompetent in this case. Innocent until proven guilty, anyone?

[Loki]

One would hope that she didn't have to pay him. However, the lawyer is not the only one who's grossly incompetent in this case. Innocent until proven guilty, anyone?

Do you have any idea at all what you're talking about? Hint: it involves the burden of proof during trial. It boggles the mind that you think arresting someone has any relation at all to innocent until proven guilty.

Given the state of the justice system in the US, how much money do you think she had to hire a competent lawyer?

Considering what she lost as a result of spending 4 months in jail, she probably was better off using the money for a better lawyer. The person also seems to be confused about her own immigration status.

[GGT]

The Birthers and xenophobes are expanding their suspicions beyond President Obama. They want to enact "Papers, Please" laws, but aren't even convinced when "Papers" are legitimate. At least not if your skin is brown or you speak with an accent.

USA #1!

[Aimless]

Do you have any idea at all what you're talking about? Hint: it involves the burden of proof during trial. It boggles the mind that you think arresting someone has any relation at all to innocent until proven guilty.

So let's talk about this "proof" concept for a while shall we?

[Loki]

Proof is presented during trial. There was no trial yet.

By the way, the article claims this person had a really good immigration attorney.

[Aimless]

So wait someone can be held in jail for 4½ months without bail and without any sort of trial or hearing before a judge and jury or without any sort of assessment of whether or not this is reasonable/appropriate?

[Flixy]

So wait someone can be held in jail for 4½ months without bail and without any sort of trial or hearing before a judge and jury or without any sort of assessment of whether or not this is reasonable/appropriate?

As I understand it, there's a grand jury hearing first, when they see if there's enough proof to hold a trial (and hold the person). Apparently, the prosecution lied there, which gave enough proof to proceed to a trial. Incompetence on the side of the defense not to get it dismissed there, sure, but also incompetence on the prosecution's side, she did have a birth certificate after all that was on file.

Being confused about your own status isn't a crime though, and no excuse for not simply checking the records (let alone lying about the records).

[Loki]

So wait someone can be held in jail for 4½ months without bail and without any sort of trial or hearing before a judge and jury or without any sort of assessment of whether or not this is reasonable/appropriate?

There was a grand jury. It ruled that there was enough evidence to proceed to trial. Presumably the person wasn't granted bail because she allegedly didn't have legal status to stay in the US (I've heard of people spending over a year in a waiting cell before their immigration case is heard).

Flixy, it's not a crime to be confused. The woman was never convicted of any crime. Being confused is generally a bad way to expedite the resolving of a misunderstanding though.

[Ominous Gamer]

As I understand it, there's a grand jury hearing first, when they see if there's enough proof to hold a trial (and hold the person). Apparently, the prosecution lied there, which gave enough proof to proceed to a trial. Incompetence on the side of the defense not to get it dismissed there, sure, but also incompetence on the prosecution's side, she did have a birth certificate after all that was on file.

Being confused about your own status isn't a crime though, and no excuse for not simply checking the records (let alone lying about the records).

Not only did the prosecution lie, they lied about checking the very basic document (birth certificate) that would have cleared this woman. How can someone like that still have a job?

[Veldan Rath]

Not only did the prosecution lie, they lied about checking the very basic document (birth certificate) that would have cleared this woman. How can someone like that still have a job?

This. Oh this.

[Flixy]

Not only did the prosecution lie, they lied about checking the very basic document (birth certificate) that would have cleared this woman. How can someone like that still have a job?

Guessing because he usually goes after actual illegals that nobody cares about?

[Aimless]

There was a grand jury. It ruled that there was enough evidence to proceed to trial.

The way I see it, they decided at that hearing that there was enough proof to warrant holding her locked up without bail. The quality of the "evidence" was low, so their decision was kinda unjustifiably wrong. The prosecutor should have been required to confirm the status of the birth certificate at that first hearing. Otherwise it's as if prosecutors can just say "I think this person is guilty so let's lock her up and then see if she can prove her innocence in four months' time".

[Loki]

The way I see it, they decided at that hearing that there was enough proof to warrant holding her locked up without bail. The quality of the "evidence" was low, so their decision was kinda unjustifiably wrong. The prosecutor should have been required to confirm the status of the birth certificate at that first hearing. Otherwise it's as if prosecutors can just say "I think this person is guilty so let's lock her up and then see if she can prove her innocence in four months' time".

I don't think you realize how grand juries work. They generally rule that any evidence at all is sufficient to go to trial. I wager that the main reason she was locked up for so long was for immigration reasons, not because of any evidence in the case.

[Flixy]

I don't think you realize how grand juries work. They generally rule that any evidence at all is sufficient to go to trial. I wager that the main reason she was locked up for so long was for immigration reasons, not because of any evidence in the case.

Well, yes, because first of all immigration reasons were the same as her case reasons, second, apparently arizona refuses bail for anyone who is (suspected) illegal. So that's kind of an obvious thing to say

[Loki]

As far as I know, every state (or nearly so) will refuse bail to an illegal immigrant. I would bet the same applies to most countries as well.

[Ominous Gamer]

there are companies that are solely for illegal immigrant bail. Being an illegal does not mean one is refused bail. Bail may be set higher, but thats hardly the same as none at all.

ICE alone has collected almost a billion dollars in 6 years for bonds on illegal immigrants

[Loki]

Seems odd that they wouldn't be turned over to the immigration authorities upon release...

http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2012...in-bail-bonds/ Looks like a relatively new policy.

[Ominous Gamer]

Seems odd that they wouldn't be turned over to the immigration authorities upon release...

http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2012...in-bail-bonds/ Looks like a relatively new policy.

ICE are the immigration authorities, they are the ones setting the bonds. It's a federal thing.

In this case the lady was denied bond at the state level thanks to prop 100 because of the other charges being stacked on her as an illegal. Arizona's prop is the relatively new policy.

[Dreadnaught]

Isn't this basically the plot of Born in East LA?

[Flixy]

Never heard of that, reminded me of Beavis and Butthead when Cornholio gets deported to lake Titicaca

[ar81]

Illegal immigration is caused by monetary policy that creates buying power gaps.

When US produce dollars with a QE or money created at the banks, dollars are used to buy stuff overseas, exporting inflation overseas, causing devaluation as these dollars are exchanged for local currency and spent. Inflation comes because exported production goes overseas and money stays, affecting the ratio between money and production. It devaluates wages of workers in exporting countries, making them poorer. That way US prints money, and people in other poor nations work hard to produce goods.

I would not worry too much about illegal immigration. At some point, companies get to find out that it is better to move to such poor countries as costs are lower, so instead of illegal immigration, companies will have jobs fleeing.

So blame the FED and banks for printing money...