Mr. Gomez, that was an excellent question, are you sure you understand your rights?

[grantcart]

Stranded for a couple of days in the beautiful (if you are a camel) and relaxing (if you are from Mercury) Yuma where the citizens were celebrating a decline in temperature to a reduced high of 113 degrees (and your parked car temperature over 130) I sought respite in the coolest room in the building, a federal courtroom.

Twenty three men aged between 19 and 65 sat in the courtroom with one woman waiting for their day in court.

Two prosecutors and two defense attorneys and four courtroom employees (including an interpreter, the hardest working fellow in the room) assisted the judge as he went step by step through the process.

Behind the defendants two Border Patrol an ICE guard and a Marshal protected the security for the court that was entirely focused, I assumed, on protecting the citizen gallery that had come to watch, namely me.

It took almost three hours. It wasn't a trial it was simply pleading guilty.

All of the defendants were caught within a few feet of the border near Yuma AZ.

For the past 100 years they would all be offered a quick trip back to the border, or if they wish they could get arrested and go to trial. More than 99% would opt for the quick trip back a quick rest and then another attempt to cross the border.

The new Administration has changed all of that.

Everyone who is apprehended is charged and brought before the Judge.

And now we have the judge asking over and over and over again. Mr. Gomez do you understand your rights? Do you understand that you could plead innocent? Do you understand that if you chose a trial that the government would have the burden of proof? Do you understand that if you cannot afford it that one will be appointed for you at no cost?

The beleaguered translator was on his third bottle of water. The defendants were not allowed to cut him off with a yes, he had to wait until every question was clearly put.

Because some of the defendants were charged with more than one offense (carrying falsified social security documents) some defendants were forced to answer the questions multiple times.

After two hours all of the questions were asked by the judge and the defendants did indeed ask a couple of questions. For example the judge asked each defendant (and the parched interpreter repeated) did they understand that a guilty plea could result in a 6 month sentence? One defendant asked "does that mean that I am going to get six months". When the patient judge said "no that is the maximum you could get, if you have questions about the likely sentence please consult with your attorney".

After a brief consultation with his attorney Mr. Gomez indicated that he understood it was the maximum.

The judge looked at the 48 year old field hand that had leathery skin and looked like he carried the weight of the world on his back and said, "Mr. Gomez, that was an excellent question, are you sure that you understand your rights".

Eventually everyone understood and everyone had pleaded guilty and the dance was over.

Then, just like Law and Order, the judge turned to the Prosecuting Attorney and told her to proceed with the 'allocution phase'. Now the defendants had to prove that they not only wanted to plead guilty but that they had done the crime they were charged with.

A couple of the defendants thought that they had made it to California and the court took a brief break until the records were checked and the defendants agreed that they were not very familiar with US geography.

In the end all but one got a 5 day sentence. One was a high volume repeater with numerous false documents and he got a couple of months.

In this invisible corner of the United States that normally operates without any outside observers the change in government has meant a significant change.

Now the laws of the United States are enforced. Mr. Gomez got the same courtesy, rights and defense that Madoff got.

The informal system has been replaced by the rule of law, done by the book, just like they do it on TV.

I know that the defendants were mainly concerned about getting back into the mill so that they could go out and earn some food for their families. Sitting in that courtroom with a judge treating them with absolute fairness and courtesy you had to wonder if for people that live in places that have governmental chaos (like the war between the Mexican gangs and the Mexican government) that it wasn't the most effective possible advertisement for jumping a fence.

Following the rules, even when no one expects you to, even when you don't have to, even when it's kind of a waste of everyone's time, that is just one small part of the change that was started on January 20th 2009.

[Spazito]

1. Your OP is a fascinating read...

Until reading your OP I had no idea this process was NOT a practice of the previous administration/s. I really did think there was always a legal process involved in dealing with issues such as this.

Thanks for the info on the change, it is much appreciated.

[grantcart]

2. The previous practice allowed for illegals to opt out of a trial for

a quick return home. They could always request a trial.


There were incentives for them to take the quick option. There illegal entry would not be recorded.


Hopefully we will soon get a 'global solution' for all of the illegals who are here and contribute to our society.

[boppers]

3. Your post warmed a 'zonie's heart.

Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if more folks came across just to spend a few days in air-conditioning. :evilgrin:

It is nice that the back-and-forth game has been replaced by judicial action, with tracking and sentencing.

[Wednesdays]

4. K&R

:kick: