The Snooper Report

Fire Janet NapolitanoJanet Nappy Lipped Napoleanitano answered a comment on CNN over the weekend and said the following: HT Michelle Malkin

KING: A lot of Democrats in Congress want to you investigate [Joe Arpaio]. They think he is over the line. He says he is just enforcing the law and the problem is the federal government.

NAPOLITANO: Well, you know, Sheriff Joe, he is being very political in that statement, because he knows that there aren’t enough law enforcement officers, courtrooms or jail cells in the world to do what he is saying.

What we have to do is target the real evil-doers in this business, the employers who consistently hire illegal labor, the human traffickers who are exploiting human misery.

And yes, when we find illegal workers, yes, appropriate action, some of which is criminal, most of that is civil, because crossing the border is not a crime per se. It is civil. But anyway, going after those as well.

Please take note of the following, if you will and, while you are at it, please take note of how the anti-Americanists are forever rewriting law with merely "uddering" inane verbiage.

ENTRY WITHOUT INSPECTION IS A CRIME: In fact, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1325, crossing the border illegally is a crime–a misdemeanor for the first offense and a felony for the second and subsequent offenses. But of course, ignoring or mischaracterizing the law is a very convenient way for those in power to avoid the laws they find most inconvenient. Sadly, statements such as these are also a signal that Americans will have to wait a long time before their government articulates any credible immigration enforcement policy. HT Julie Kirchner

What part of it is illegal to cross an international borde without first "checking in" does this pathetic libtard not understand?

Jena McNeill at The Foundry has this to-the-point observation:

This ‘interpretation’ of the law by Secretary Napolitano seems to be the latest in an effort by the Obama Administration to scale back interior immigration enforcement efforts in the United States. As recently as March 28th, Napolitano made the decision to delay a series of immigration raids and other workplace actions aimed at finding illegal workers. At the same time, both President Obama and Secretary Napolitano have announced new initiatives intending to send the message that they take the issues at the southern border seriously. But the Administration cannot fight cartels while ignoring illegal immigration—people smuggling is part of the problem, not a separate issue. Legalization will only make matters worse. Granting the people here illegally asylum will only encourage more illegal border crossing. Likewise, failing to enforce workplace and immigration laws will only encourage more to ignore the law.

A Snooper Report observation: would these idiot anti-Americanists be bending over backwards to develop and bribe an entire new supply of voters if they hadn't allowed the murder of nearly 3,000 unborn every day for the last 30+ years thus depleting entire American Generations of voters and tax payers?

The Snooper Report.  Join us as we Take Our Country Back.
Sic vis pacem para bellum
Fight Accordingly

Update on Tuesday, April 21, 2009 at 9:33AM by Mark "Snooper" Harvey

Others:

1. Napolitano is lost… | NEOAVATARA
2. Dangerous, Unhealthy, Racist: Pelosi, Napolitano, Janeane Garofalo, David Axelrod Join Iran’s Ahmadinejad in Political Argument, Tactics « Peace and Freedom Global Future
3. Jules Crittenden » Go Ahead, Make His Day
4. DHS Chief Napolitano lacks knowledge of border laws | Unequal Time
5. Oliver North Speaks Out Against DHS Anti-Right-Wing Report: “I Am an Extremist” « Frugal Café Blog Zone
6. DHS Report Against Conservatives: Heads May Roll, Bring Popcorn « Frugal Café Blog Zone
7. DHS ‘Czarina’ Janet Napolitano’s Attempt at Damage Control, There Are No Coincidences « Frugal Café Blog Zone
8. And we need passports to get back home « Garnette’s View
9. Hot Air » Blog Archive » Shouldn’t a DHS Secretary know that illegal immigration is a crime?
10. The Snooper Report
11. The James Allen Show
12. Ace of Spades HQ
13. Oliver North Speaks Out Against DHS Anti-Right-Wing Report: “I Am an Extremist” « Frugal Café Blog Zone
14. Gazzer’s Gabfest » Blog Archive » Jimmy Nap re-inserts foot

Update on Tuesday, April 21, 2009 at 10:52AM by Mark "Snooper" Harvey

I received this link via email from one of the Founders of Vets For Freedom:

Wonder where she is getting that logic? How about MALDEF, and like groups that apparently worked up this bit of legal asshattery. Remember I talked about the SPLC nonsense about The American Legion, well, MALDEF was part of it to, and here is the pertinent section in question, from Page 6:

Unauthorized entries are violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), but immigration proceedings are civil, not criminal, in nature. A person who enters the United States without properly being admitted is inadmissible under the INA and is therefore removable.8 Also, a person who has been admitted into the United States but fails to maintain the condition of admission is removable.9 A person in either case will then be placed in “[d]eportation proceedings [which are] purely civil actions to determine eligibility to remain in this country, not to punish an unlawful entry.”10

Notably, individuals in deportation proceedings are not afforded the same legal protections applicable in a criminal context.11 While it is the obligation of the immigration judge to advise a person of their right to representation, unlike criminal proceedings, their right to counsel comes at no expense to the government.12 The Supreme Court has ruled that courts are required, under the 6th Amendment of the Constitution, to provide counsel only in criminal cases for defendants unable to afford their own attorneys, not civil immigration proceedings.13 This is one critical example that differentiates immigrants in deportation proceedings from actual criminals.

In addition, the exclusionary rule, a legal principle stemming from the U.S. Constitution which provides that unlawfully obtained evidence is excludable in criminal proceedings, does not apply in civil deportation proceedings.14 Consequently, evidence is admissible in an immigration court even if stems from a law enforcement agent’s unlawful stop or arrest.