Reference no: EM133942394
A police officer in New Ipswich, New Hampshire, stopped a motorist. The driver, Jorge Mora Ramirez, produced a forged Massachusetts driver's license. The officer questioned him and learned that Ramirez was in the United States illegally. Ramirez was arrested for operating a vehicle without a license and taken into custody. The New Ipswich police contacted Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to advise them they had an illegal immigrant in custody. ICE declined to take Ramirez into its custody, citing scarce resources. At that point, New Ipswich Sheriff W. Garrett Chamberlain consulted with a local prosecutor. Both agreed to prosecute Ramirez under New Hampshire's criminal trespass statute.
The New Hampshire statute defined criminal trespass as follows: "A person is guilty of criminal trespass if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he enters or remains in any place." Chamberlain and the prosecutor reasoned that because Ramirez was in the United States illegally, he was also in New Hampshire illegally. A sheriff in the neighboring town of Hudson then used the same theory to detain 10 more illegal immigrants. Ramirez and the other detainees challenged the trespassing charges, arguing that New Hampshire law was preempted by the federal Immigration and Nationality Act (Article VI of the U.S. Constitution makes U.S. law the supreme law of the land). Prosecutors countered and argued that since the federal government did not want to take custody of the defendants, they were entitled to fall back on state law. A district court sided with the defendants. And while the case was unsuccessful, it does not bind the courts in other states. Moreover, it has gathered plenty of attention in other states, suggesting that, perhaps, other cases are on the horizon.
Question:
Is it appropriate to use state trespassing laws to target individuals who are in the United States illegally?