What happens when a State removes the right to bail for 'suspected' illegal immigrants, and finds someone who has legal documentation that they are a citizen, but the prosecutors don't believe her?

Woman held in jail because authorities thought she was illegal

They accuse her of forgery, meaning she has a felony charge and can be denied bail. Over 4 months later, it transpires that her documents are correct, and the prosecution could easily have pulled her file to show that she was born in the USA and her birth certificate was valid. Oddly, the prosecution witness testified that Vital Records had 'cancelled' her birth certificate, despite this not being true according to... Vital Records.

This is what happens when you are too zealous about catching illegal immigrants and loosen safeguards - innocent people get caught up in the net.

On the other hand, when the government doesn't care about illegal immigrants, people die. There are many, many incidents like this. http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/im ... illing-cop

The problem is that:

1 People get killed by lawful immigrants and citizens, and most illegals are not murderers,.

2 The government does 'care', but not as much as you would like and not enough to spend huge amounts on little gains or to risk abrogating the Constitution (as it is arguable that the Az bail law does)

3 Even if more were done to stop and detect illegal immigration, the nature of the geography of the USA makes it all but impossible to completely stop it.

Now, do you believe that Ms Torres' constitutional rights have been abrogated by having her on remand because she was not allowed to be bailed due to being a suspected illegal immigrant?

What remedy are you looking for Danivon?

danivon wrote:The problem is that:

1 People get killed by lawful immigrants and citizens, and most illegals are not murderers,.

Right, but many are criminals. None belong here.

The problem with the Government's current policy is that drunk driving is not a big deal. The number of fatalities connected with drunk driving is significant.

2 The government does 'care', but not as much as you would like and not enough to spend huge amounts on little gains or to risk abrogating the Constitution (as it is arguable that the Az bail law does)

I'd be far happier if it would just not announce it will not enforce the law. When a President does that, I think he should resign because he has violated his oath of office.

3 Even if more were done to stop and detect illegal immigration, the nature of the geography of the USA makes it all but impossible to completely stop it.

But, when we have criminals who also happen to be illegal aliens, surely the latter should be take into account. Same with members of gangs, even if they have not committed a violent crime.

Now, do you believe that Ms Torres' constitutional rights have been abrogated by having her on remand because she was not allowed to be bailed due to being a suspected illegal immigrant?

Yes, but, unlike Officer Will, she is still alive.

Well, df, then you must be pleased with the fact that Obama has deported more people than Bush II and more aggravated felon immigrants than Bush II. The federal government has done a better job of dealing with illegal immigrants under Obama, making state laws to deal w immigration less necessary

bbauska wrote:What remedy are you looking for Danivon?

cart before horse.

First, let's determine if there is a problem. Steve appears to agree that it was Unconstitutional to deny bail. Do you?

If a law is unconstitutional, what is the usual remedy?

If a person willfully acted for the government with malice, then he/she should be held responsible.

If a law is deemed unconstitutional, then it is revoked. Until then it should be upheld by the government. Do you agree with that?

freeman2 wrote:Well, df, then you must be pleased with the fact that Obama has deported more people than Bush II and more aggravated felon immigrants than Bush II. The federal government has done a better job of dealing with illegal immigrants under Obama, making state laws to deal w immigration less necessary

Laughable.

While numbers may be in your favor, the idea that the situation is under control is laughable.

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:What remedy are you looking for Danivon?

cart before horse.

First, let's determine if there is a problem. Steve appears to agree that it was Unconstitutional to deny bail. Do you?

If a law is unconstitutional, what is the usual remedy?

Easy now.

I am saying 4 months of detention does not seem reasonable. Based on that, I would think she has a case against whoever wrongfully jailed her.

Looking over my post to see where it says illegal immigration under control... not there. Not that I am saying that the situation is so dire there needs to be state laws to deal with the situation,. but I never said the situation was under control. I merely said that state laws are less necessary when you are deporting more illegal immigrants and more aggravated felons. That is kind of a hard statement to refute. Nice try, though

freeman2 wrote:Looking over my post to see where it says illegal immigration under control... not there. Not that I am saying that the situation is so dire there needs to be state laws to deal with the situation,. but I never said the situation was under control. I merely said that state laws are less necessary when you are deporting more illegal immigrants and more aggravated felons. That is kind of a hard statement to refute. Nice try, though

State laws either are necessary or not. If the situation is not under control, it's not under control.

Make a stand.

Doctor Fate wrote:Laughable.

While numbers may be in your favor, the idea that the situation is under control is laughable.

I don't know. If the numbers are true, it does kind of suggest that all the rhetoric about 'zero' controls and 'not wanting to deal with illegal immigration' are just... oh what is the word...

demagoguing?

Easy now.

I am saying 4 months of detention does not seem reasonable. Based on that, I would think she has a case against whoever wrongfully jailed her.

Hmm. I actually asked if it was a breach of her Constitutional rights, not whether you thought it 'reasonable'. And you answered 'Yes'. I should have known better than to take your response at face vaue, I guess.

Who wrongfully jailed her? The State of Arizona and Maripoca County
How? By applying the law that says a 'suspected' illegal immigrant who is accused of a felony will be denied bail; and by treating the 'suspected illegal immigrant' part as enough to create a felony of forgery.

Yes, in this case we can see that a prosecutor overstepped the mark. However, it does not mean that someone who follows protocol could not also end up causing a similar injustice, applying the law of Arizona.

State laws either are necessary or not. If the situation is not under control, it's not under control.

Make a stand.

Are you suggesting that if you can't completely eliminate illegal immigration, it's fine for States - indeed, necessary for States - to create laws that risk removing the Constituional rights of citizens who find it hard to 'prove' citizenship?

Again, if freeman's figures are correct, more 'control' is being exerted then before in some respects. How much more do you want?

bbauska wrote:If a person willfully acted for the government with malice, then he/she should be held responsible.

If a law is deemed unconstitutional, then it is revoked. Until then it should be upheld by the government. Do you agree with that?

Not the last part. The government can (certain aspects of it) decide not up uphold an Unconstituional law.

It is not unconstitutional UNTIL ruled to be so by the final court arbiter.

To quote you, "cart before horse"