Federal judge questions immigration prosecutions
 

Federal judge questions immigration prosecutions
Associated Press - February 6, 2010 8:45 PM ET
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) - A federal judge in Austin questions U.S. prosecutors for seeking criminal convictions against some illegal immigrants, noting in an order concern over the cost.
U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks made the comments in an order filed Friday in the cases against three Mexican citizens who were charged with illegal re-entry after being found in Travis County Jail.
He wrote that like many of the defendants prosecuted under the federal illegal re-entry law, the men had no significant criminal history. He says it has cost more than $13,350 to jail the three.
He also noted the charges mean additional costs and work for prosecutors, defense lawyers, court personnel and others.
The Austin American-Statesman reports that the three all pleaded guilty, were sentenced Thursday by Sparks to time served and are being deported.
Information from: Austin American-Statesman, http://www.statesman.com
http://www.kswo.com/Global/story.asp?S=11945473

How much does 3 bullets cost? Are bullets cheaper if you buy them in bulk? Can you get bullets at a senior citizen discount, how about Costco? I say just shoot them and throw their dead a$$es over the border into Mexihole.:mad:

I know you've read what I've written about this before, but it is true. Mexico's plan is to bankrupt our courts and our prisons to the point where we will have no defense against this invasion. We're very close to that now. Unless we really start to come down hard, and I mean hard on illegals and those employing them, get rid of the entitlements and send Mexico the message that we will no longer accept their impoverished we will lose. No more keeping us entertained with this bill and that bill and sweeping it under the rug with it's a federal issue, or it's the governments job. We need action at all levels and we need it now.

Maybe she was referring to the judges who question upholding our immigration laws:D

Ya, I knew who she was referring to. It would sure save us a buck or two.

They had no "significant criminal history"? What the heck does that mean? It sounds like they had some kind of criminal history. What qualifies as "significant" to this judge? I'd like to know. They pled guilty and are being drop kicked back home. Yay. Well, they certainly have a significant criminal history now.

What this judge is saying is that we shouldn't enforce our immigration laws because of the cost. And what I believe is, that that is exactly what Mexico has been striving for. This judge is saying exactly what Mexico wants all the judges to say, that being, we can't afford to enforce our laws.

The judge's whole argument rests on what he means by "significant criminal history". His argument falls apart as soon as he is confronted by exactly what he means by "significant criminal history".

What does the judge mean when he says "significant criminal history"?

It is not just bogging down the courts that represents the strategy of illegals and their supporters. It is also the simple overwhelming presence. It is the every day display that is supposed make citizens numb to the whole problem. And since you can't determine just by looking whether the little rat is a an illegal or not, the lax legal immigration policies just make the situation look harder to deal with than it really is.

The courts are the last place where the whole thing bogs down. The streets and every day life is where the errosion is the most apparent.

The courts will bog down under enforcement until increasing the criminality of illegal immigration has the effect of detering illegal immigration before they come, which would be the whole point. Purging our country of illegal immigrants starts by an momentary flooding of the courts. Once our will is represented in the courts and law enforcement, potential illegals will become intimidated where intimidation works the best, on the other side of the border.

The judge should not be setting policy for the prosecution. How can a judge remain impartial under circumstances like those. A judge is supposed to decide the cases on merits of points of law. congress makes law, and the president signs them. I don't see anywhere where the prosecution brought a case based upon any point of law that would have caused a judge to toss it out as in the case of malicious prosecution or anything.

I don't see too many judges being concerned over prosecutors' intent to have a conviction rate of 100% concerning American citizens. My home county DA's office has a "conviction" rate of 99% and they file on every police report which lands in their "in basket".

It's money to fund departmental empires. It's like piece work - the DA's office is funded ever more by every conviction regardless of how contrived it is arrived at.

There is no money in dismissing meritless cases.

$13K IN DETENTION COSTS? Meaningless to a prosecutor - he got his piece of the action.