THE LAW ON IMMIGRANT MINORS

Neither the surge of influx of children crossing the border into the United States nor the legislation to do something about the immigration minors is enough for our government to rely on bi-partisan politics as a solution to the problem . Under current law a child apprehended entering into this Country will not be sent back to their respective country until they have had a hearing. In most instances, the children will be given the opportunity to acquire authorization to stay in the country. The origins of illegal immigration date to the late nineteenth century. In 1875, a federal law was passed which prohibited entry of convicts and prostitutes. In 1882 President Chester A. Arthur banned almost all Chinese immigration to the United States, and shortly thereafter barred paupers, criminals and the mentally ill from entering. Although this affected only a small percentage of immigrants, there were now distinctions between legal and illegal immigration. Before this, immigration was barely regulated. So what is “THE LAW ON IMMIGRANT MINORS?”

Before we look further into the anatomy of “Immigration Reform”, I want you to view this matter objectively without the spin of politics. Because as I see it, both parties are equally responsible for the current laws on the books. It’s amazing how after shit blows up in their faces, each party tries their best to cover up the smell with some off brand fragrance. Everybody always wants to adopt the quick fix prowess as a solution. Which in essence merely delays the inevitable because at the end of the day, “the smell is still lingering.” So lets be clear, the immigration laws; as a whole, have been yet another failed policy for this country. Now in my honest opinion, there is absolutely nothing wrong with trial and error. But what irks me is none of the politician are willing to accept RESPONSIBILITY. At some point this country with have another progressive spurt like the one embodied in the “DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE” and see through the smoking mirrors.

The fact is children have arrived in the United States without their parents for decades, but over the past two years the flow has become a veritable flood of youths — mostly from Central America — crossing the border in groups and sometimes with the help of adult migrant-smugglers. Their numbers are so large that earlier this month President Barack Obama called the situation a humanitarian crisis. Since 2009, the number of unaccompanied minors apprehended crossing the U.S. border has sharply increased. The journey for these children is long, expensive, and dangerous. So is President Obama soft on matters related to immigration & foreign policies or is his administration following the laws passed by Congress when he steps up and tries to an issue that has  been a part of this country dating back to the late nineteenth century. So what does the actual law on Immigration say about the “Immigration of Minors?”

THE CHILD STATUS PROTECTION ACT (CSPA)

The Child Status Protection Act (CSPA) was signed into law on August 6, 2002. CSPA was enacted to address the problem of minor children losing their eligibility for immigration benefits because they had aged-out or turned 21 years old as a result of processing delays on the part of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services or the Department of State. It was not intended to benefit an applicant who aged-out due to the unavailability of a visa number.

Now you know how we do it here at STREET JUSTICE, I have no intentions on trying to spoon feed you with the tracking language hiding in plain site. All you have to do is GOOGLE the CHILD STATUS PROTECTION ACT (CSPA) and you’ll see for yourself this has absolutely nothing to do with the Obama Administration, but it falls on the ENTIRE system of government. Because in order for the legislation to have passed into to law, Democrats as well as Republicans would have had to vote on it. Basically, the LAW ON IMMIGRANT MINORS is another magic trick; or misdirection, performed by the media and we as the audience have to simply keep our eyes on the cards. In this case the law.

Well, all of this talk about Milk & Honey has got me on edge. I think I’ll go out into my backyard take off my pants and scream at top of my lungs…And hope the entire fiasco’s not captured on tape by a flying DRONE!  Freedom, you’ve got to love it! This is Maestro.

THE TRUTH ABOUT DNA TESTING

There have been 311 post-conviction DNA exonerations in United States history. These stories are becoming more familiar as more innocent people gain their freedom through postconviction testing. They are not proof, however, that our system is righting itself.

Please take a moment to review the chart

Animation of the structure of a section of DNA. The bases lie horizontally between the two spiraling strands. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

DNA profiling was originally developed as a method of determining paternity, in which samples taken under clinical conditions were examined for genetic evidence that could link parent to child. It first made its way into the courts in 1986, when police in England asked molecular biologist Alec Jeffreys, who had begun investigating the use of DNA for forensics, to use DNA to verify the confession of a 17 year-old boy in two rape-murders in the English Midlands. The tests proved the teenager was in fact not the perpetrator and the actual attacker was eventually caught, also using DNA testing.

The first DNA-based conviction in the United States occurred shortly after in 1987 when the Circuit Court in Orange County, Florida, convicted Tommy Lee Andrews of rape after DNA tests matched his DNA from a blood sample with that of semen traces found in a rape victim.1 The first state high court to rule in favor of admitting DNA evidence came two years later in West Virginia.2

In the first years following these groundbreaking cases, the admissibility of DNA evidence was not largely disputed. That began to change once the technique began to become more widely used by prosecutors. Soon defense attorneys began challenging the admissibility of DNA tests.

The Fourth Amendment Discussion

Why Taking DNA upon Felony Arrest Does Not Violate the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
Many states in the U.S. have begun to protect victims and the innocent, while more are quickly identifying dangerous perpetrators by requiring that DNA be taken when individuals are arrested for violent felonies. While often challenged on Constitutional grounds, courts throughout the country have overwhelmingly upheld these statutes. The court decisions and the rationale supporting those decisions have been clear that the processes, procedures and benefits of taking DNA from those arrested for violent felonies is as constitutionally sound as taking fingerprints from those same people.

In the most recent and highest level Federal case considering the Constitutionality of arrestee databasing, the Federal Appeals Court in the Third Circuit as recently as July 25th, 2011, found the Federal Arrestee statute to be constitutional. Significantly, the Court in United States v. Mitchell (Third Cir. July 25, 2011, No. 09-4718) ___ F.3d ___, 2011 WL 3086952, analyzed the issue using a “totality of the circumstances” test – the same test used by eight of the 11 Federal Circuits.

The Fourth Amendment
The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects individuals from those searches and seizures that are “unreasonable.” For years, the Courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have found that, when a suspect is arrested upon probable cause, his identification becomes a matter of legitimate state interest. The rationale behind the decision is the fact that the identification of suspects is “relevant not only to solving the crime for which the suspect is arrested, but also for maintaining a permanent record to solve other past and future crimes.” (Jones v. Murray, 962 F.2d 302, 306 (Fourth Cir. 1992); Johnson v. Commonwealth, 259 Va. 654, 672, 529 S.E.2d 769, 779 (2000).) This becomes particularly clear when we consider the universal nature of “booking” procedures followed for every suspect arrested for a felony, whether or not the proof of a particular suspect’s crime will involve fingerprint evidence.

Treating the taking of DNA samples at arrest just like fingerprinting at arrest has been widely accepted. In addition to the Fourth Circuit in the Jones case:

• The Second Circuit held “[t]he collection and maintenance of DNA information, while effected through relatively more intrusive procedures such as blood draws or buccal check swabs, in our view plays the same role as fingerprinting.” Nicholas v. Goord, 430 F.3d 652, 671 (Second Cir. 2005), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 384 (2006).
• The Third Circuit held “[t]he governmental justification for [DNA] identification relies on no argument different in kind from that traditionally advanced for taking fingerprints and photographs, but with additional force because of the potentially greater precision of DNA sampling and matching methods.”United States v. Sczubelek, 402 F.3d 175, 185-86 (Third Cir. 2005), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 126 S.Ct. 2930 (2006).
• The Ninth Circuit held “[t]hat the gathering of DNA information requires the drawing of blood rather than inking and rolling a person’s fingertips does not elevate the intrusion upon the plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment interests to a level beyond minimal.” Rise v. State, 59 F.3d 1556, 1560 (Ninth Cir. 1995).
• The State of Maryland held “The purpose [of the DNA profile] is akin to that of a fingerprint. (State v. Raines, 857 A.2d 19, 33 (Md. 2004)
• New Jersey held, “We harbor no doubt that the taking of a buccal cheek swab is a very minor physical intrusion upon the person . . . . [T]hat intrusion is no more intrusive than the fingerprint procedure and the taking of one’s photograph that a person must already undergo as part of the normal arrest process.”State v. O’Hagen, 914 A.2d 267, 280 (N.J. 2007)
• Oregon held “Because using a swab to take a DNA sample from the mucous membrane of an arrestee’s cheek is akin to the fingerprinting of a person in custody, we conclude that the seizure of the defendant’s DNA did not constitute an unreasonable seizure under the constitution.” State v. Brown, 157 P.3d 301, 303 (Or. Ct. App. 2007)
• The Virginia State Supreme Court held “the taking of Anderson’s DNA sample upon arrest in Stafford County pursuant to Code § 19.2-310.2:1 is analogous to the taking of a suspect’s fingerprints upon arrest and was not an unlawful search under the Fourth Amendment.

It’s a shame our justice system is so flawed. You would think that a government that parades around to world professing “Democracy” and due process would afford it’s own citizens a fair shake in court. With all the distractions and bureacracy here in the good ole’ US of A, it’s hard to see through the veil. But I suggest that you investigate this matter a little closer and discern the facts carefully before rushing to judgment. After all, a man is suppose to be considered innocent in a court of law. Right? This is Maestro telling it like it is.

Related articles

• Portions of DNA evidence fail to match Delbert Belton murder suspects (krem.com)
• DNA Re-Testing: What Could This Mean?? (lerigormortis.wordpress.com)
• More DNA Testing in 35-year-old Calumet Co. Murder (wsaw.com)
• ‘DNA dynamite’ clears jailed man (bbc.co.uk)
• UMass rape trial postponed to complete DNA testing (boston.com)
• Irish man freed after 17 years in UK jail as conviction is overturned (irishtimes.com)
• DNA clears man in rape after 9 1/2 yrs (abcactionnews.com)
• DNA evidence frees innocent man who spent 25 years in prison (thelead.blogs.cnn.com)
• Prosecutors Oppose DNA Testing For Inmate . . . DNA Tests Then Link Different Man To Murder (jonathanturley.org)
• Man wrongly convicted of sexual assault is freed after 17 years in jail (theguardian.com)