Federal judge questions immigration prosecutions

[Twoller]

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.

[Ayatollahgondola]

Originally Posted by Twoller

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".

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.

[ilbegone]

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.