From: BAR on
In article <clark-A9BFC7.07535414052010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-
state.edu>, clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu says...
>
> In article <MPG.26570128e6ab5426989f03(a)news.giganews.com>,
> BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <va9pu51uhst8rar2kqthuicb8hbi7mjoef(a)4ax.com>,
> > howard(a)brazee.net says...
> > >
> > > On Thu, 13 May 2010 17:59:35 -0400, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >> >If the person is charged with illegal entry only, they are NOT sent to
> > > >> >trial... they are turned over to U.S. Customs and get a "hearing,"
> > > >> >which is totally different from a trial. The normal result is
> > > >> >deportation.
> > > >>
> > > >> What if the person is innocent?
> > > >
> > > >Any non-citizen of the US who is here legally is required to have proof
> > > >of their authority to be in the US on their person at all times. This is
> > > >a federal law and a condition of their entry into the US.
> > > >
> > > >Therefore, there can be no innocence.
> > >
> > > Citizens can be charged with illegal entry.
> >
> > Any one can be charged with any thing. Courts do not have a finding of
> > innocence, it is either guilty or not guilty.
>
> They have a presumption of innocence, unless guilt can be proved.
> Innocent is, therefore, the status quo.


A presumption of innocence is not a finding of innocence.

From: bknight on
On Fri, 14 May 2010 09:03:33 -0400, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote:


>A presumption of innocence is not a finding of innocence.

Duh. Bert the Shallow; also Master of Platitudes.

Why not a presumption of guilt is not a finding of guilt?


BK
From: Moderate on

"Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4bec80c0$0$4870$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com...
> On Tue, 11 May 2010 23:12:13 -0700, dene wrote:
>> "kenpitts" <ken.ptts(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:0c522f75-0d64-48e8-
>>bac9-92a7bb5e6399(a)a34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> The rights of which you speak are for citizens. Not for illegals
>>> charging across our border or terrorists in Gitmo.
>>
>> Bingo. My point exactly.
>
> US constitution begs to differ.

Not according to the Obama Administration.



From: John B. on
On May 13, 10:17 pm, Loudon Briggs <lar...(a)bbz.net> wrote:
> "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> ****************
>
> >> If the person is charged with illegal entry only, they are NOT sent to
> >> trial... they are turned over to U.S. Customs and get a "hearing,"
> >> which is totally different from a trial. The normal result is
> >> deportation.
> >>*****************
>
> >>I don't know whether I agree with you or not because I don't know what your position is. But since you live in Arizona, maybe you have some insight to what  local law enforcement authorities are going to do with the people they arrest for illegal entry. They can't prosecute them. They can't deport them.
>
> *******************
>
> Apparently you didn't read my whole message... see above!
>
I did read it, but the problem is that Customs didn't have the
resources or the manpower to deal with the illegal aliens that are
caught by local law enforcement even before the AZ law was passed. If
a cop in Yuma arrests an illegal alien, what's he going to do with
him, drive him all the way to Phoenix? Call Customs and tell them to
come and get him? Nobody has the time or money to haul these people
around.
From: John B. on
On May 14, 2:18 am, Don Kirkman <dons...(a)charter.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 13 May 2010 19:17:29 -0700, Loudon Briggs <lar...(a)bbz.net>
> wrote:
>
> >"John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> ****************
> >>> If the person is charged with illegal entry only, they are NOT sent to
> >>> trial... they are turned over to U.S. Customs and get a "hearing,"
> >>> which is totally different from a trial. The normal result is
> >>> deportation.
> >>>*****************
> >>>I don't know whether I agree with you or not because I don't know what your position is. But since you live in Arizona, maybe you have some insight to what  local law enforcement authorities are going to do with the people they arrest for illegal entry. They can't prosecute them. They can't deport them.
> >*******************
> >Apparently you didn't read my whole message... see above!
>
> But wouldn't that be ICE they'd be turned over to?  Even when I was
> still working it was INS, not Customs, IIRC.
> --
> Don Kirkman
> dons...(a)charter.net

You're right, Don, it's ICE.