AP: Santa Cruz Sheriff Says Illegals Aren't 'Criminals'?

Photo of Warner Todd Huston.
By Warner Todd Huston | November 24, 2007 - 06:32 ET

The AP has used the somewhat heartwarming tale of an illegal alien who found an American boy and his mother suffering from a car accident in the Arizona desert and stayed with them until help arrived as an excuse to plead that illegals aren't "criminals" and should somehow be given a break. The AP tried to pin this wild leap in logic on Santa Cruz County Sheriff Tony Estrada, but they offer no quote marks around the sentence, so it is hard to say if the Sheriff really said that or the AP was extrapolating and putting words in the Sheriff's mouth. Still, that this one illegal did something morally right even while he was breaking our laws, does not erase all the illegalities and law breaking that every other illegal immigrant has done over the last 30 years. Nor does it erase the fact that this particular illegal was breaking the law even as he was nice enough to help the little boy and his mother.

Here is the tale:

PHOENIX (AP) — A 9-year-old boy looking for help after his mother crashed their van in the southern Arizona desert was rescued by a man entering the U.S. illegally, who stayed with him until help arrived the next day, an official said.

The 45-year-old woman, who eventually died while awaiting help, had been driving on a U.S. Forest Service road in a remote area just north of the Mexican border when she lost control of her van on a curve on Thanksgiving, Sheriff Tony Estrada said.

The van vaulted into a canyon and landed 300 feet from the road, he said. The woman, from Rimrock, north of Phoenix, survived the impact but was pinned inside, Estrada said.

Her son, unhurt but disoriented, crawled out to get help and was found about two hours later by Jesus Manuel Cordova, 26, of Magdalena de Kino in the northern Mexican state of Sonora. Unable to pull the mother out, he comforted the boy while they waited for help.

As night came on, Mr. Cordova built a fire to keep them warm and stayed with the boy until a couple of hunters spotted them and called for help. Cordova was taken into custody by Border Patrol agents and slated for return to his country.

OK, it was nice that Mr. Cordova had that pang of conscience enough to stay by this helpless child. It is possible he saved the boy's life, and if he didn't really save his life he certainly comforted the poor, scared kid through the trauma which may or may not have made the whole mess less of a trauma on him. For that Mr. Cordova deserves warm congratulations for his efforts and the knowledge that he did the right thing by the child.

But he doesn't deserve a free pass into our country.

Here is how the AP ends their story (My Bold):

Cordova likely saved the boy, Estrada said, and his actions should remind people not to quickly characterize illegal immigrants as criminals.

"They do get demonized for a lot of reasons, and they do a lot of good. Obviously this is one example of what an individual can do," he said.

Notice that they do not have quote marks around the words they attribute to Sheriff Estrada in the first sentence, there? The sentiment that illegals aren't "criminals" is hard to square coming out of the mouth of a man tasked with upholding American laws via the office of county sheriff, isn't it? If Sheriff Estrada really feels this way, it would seem to me that he is violating his oath of office at least in sentiment if not in actual operations. Still, since the AP did not use any quote marks, we cannot with any certainty say that Sheriff Estrada thinks illegals are all innocents, here. And with the track record of the AP, with its history of lies and obfuscating the truth, we cannot assume that they are actually presenting Estrada's sentiments correctly. So, excuse me if I do not take for granted the AP's claim that Sheriff Estrada said that illegals aren't criminals.

After all, good people individually or no, illegals ARE criminals. You break a law and you ARE a criminal.

Further the sentence they do place quote marks around is not really the same sentiment as that in the unattributed sentence, exactly. Estrada says that illegals get "demonized." I can agree with that. Sometimes anti-illegal immigrant activists get a bit carried away with how supposedly evil illegal immigrants really are. A dispassionate review of this issue can easily agree that illegals are sometimes overly "demonized." Then the Sheriff says they "do a lot of good." No one is saying all they do is necessarily bad, you know? Illegally immigrating here is the bad thing, but it does not follow that all illegal immigrants are somehow bad people because of it. But, like I said, even if they are basically good people, that inherent goodness does not absolve them of their lawbreaking.

So, I have suspicions that the AP might have exaggerated our good Sheriff's words a bit. I have sent a query to the Sheriff's dept. to see if they will respond and if I get an answer, I'll post an update. But, even if the Sheriff agrees with the APs characterization of his words, Mr. Cordova was a nice guy -- that is beyond dispute and no one should quibble with that. But, he still does not deserve to enter our country illegally solely because he was a nice fellow!

This treatment, however, so easily fits the leftist playbook that guides the APs writing. You see, in that vein of thinking, it doesn't matter that laws were broken. And it's all because he "meant well." For the left, the ends always justifies the means.

Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

He is technically correct

He is technically correct. Mere presence in the United States without a valid Visa is not a crime.

 It is unlawful to enter the United States without passing through a designated port of entry (Title 8 Section 1224). Such a violation is usually may be treated civily or as a misdemeanor. It is unlawful to give an invalid Social Security number to an employer or to obtain a Social Security number falsely.

However presence in the United States without a valid Visa  is generally  not a crime. Under the law it makes the alien "deportable".  An exception applies to aliens who have been previously deported. The term illegal alien is a misnomer.  It should be "deportable alien"  

It is a violation of Title 8 Section 1302 for an alien in the United States longer than thirty days not to "register". Violation of this clause is a midemeanor.

My apologies to those of you this may anger. Look not to me, look to the law.  That is what it is right now.

Breaking a law, no matter

Breaking a law, no matter the various degrees, STILL makes you a lawbreaker. THAT makes you a criminal. No one is saying that all laws are equal. An illegal immigrant is not worse than a murderer just because he is illegal, to be sure.

But, I'd take issue with your claim that they aren't criminals because just BEING here is not all they do. They break dozens of laws from driving without a license, without insurance, and for not paying taxes legally as well as all sorts of work laws.

So, they may not technically be a "criminal" when their first foot hits US soil, but once they start making their life here they ARE a criminal in a myriad of ways. When all is said and done, your "technicalities" are quite meaningless as their law breaking piles on top of each other over time.

So they are not living here

So they are not living here illegally, just "deportably"?

You are arguing semantics. Rudy Giuliani also said they are not
"criminals," because the law they break is a civil law, not in the
criminal code. More semantics.

You said:
It is unlawful to enter the United States without passing through a customs and immigration station.

And how did they get here without doing that? The fact is they have done something illegal to get here: you cited it: customs and immigration. If they're residing here and don't have a visa, that's a pretty good indication they got here in an illegal manner.

An alien living here without a Visa is "deportable" because it is "illegal" to live here without a visa, if you're not a citizen. Otherwise, the government wouldn't have a leg to stand on, and couldn't deport anyone.

Missed the Point

Actually, I'm arguing that our laws need to be stronger and clearer.   Don't shout at me guys, shout at your Congressmen.

Right now, if the immigration service detains  an alien without a valid Visa, it must be able to show he violated the alien registration act, or entered the United States without passing through a designated port of entry to charge him with a crime.   Overstaying a Visa is generally not a crime.

Criminal charges are rarely filed because the law is cumbersome.  

I repeat: If they're

I repeat: If they're residing here and don't have a visa, that's a pretty good indication they got here in an illegal manner.

That's how one proves that they entered without going through a customs and immigration station: the lack of a visa.

IMO, they should be deported immediately

Update:

Don't shout at me guys, shout at your Congressmen.

I'm not shouting, allan; I'm disagreeing. I thought this was a civil discussion.  Don't accuse others of being angry if you don't know.

Deportable

An alien present in the United States without a valid Visa is deportable. The designation "deportable" does not imply criminal status. 

In fact the the statute reads:

An alien present in the United States who has not been admitted  or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated  port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United  States after having been interdicted in international or United  States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an  applicant for admission.

Our laws need revising

Criminal charges are


Criminal charges are rarely filed because the law is cumbersome.

allan, we were discussing the semantics of "deportable" vs. "illegal", not why criminal charges are seldom filed. You changed the discussion.

I would respond, but sarcasmo has given you a good response already: Mexico makes it work OK.

Again, you re IGNORING all

Allanf,

Again, you are IGNORING all the other things they do while here. No illegal alien comes here and simply stands around doing nothing but being "deportable." They violate multiple laws while making money, driving, etc., etc. So, even if just existing here without a VISA is not technically a "crime" by statute, they commit all kinds of other crimes while they are here!

Why are you so narrowing the debate? Is it just so you can be "technically" correct?

No illegal alien comes here

No illegal alien comes here and simply stands around doing nothing but being "deportable." [... ] Why are you so narrowing the debate? Is it just so you can be "technically" correct? WTH

I think so.

He is saying they can be deported for any of the other reasons you stated, but not simply for being here without a visa. And technically, that is correct.

But even if they stand around doing nothing, the fact that they don't have a visa means they came in without going through a customs and immigration station (which is illegal).

As I said, semantics.

 

 

A Little More than Semantics

Law is very much about semantics.  Actually proving that a crime has been committed is difficult and the burden falls on the government. Under current law it is difficult unless the alien is apprehended at the border.

 To prove a Section 1325 violation (a misdemeanor for a first violation)  one has to show the statute of limitations has not expired.  Many of these people have been here for years.  Furthermore Visa records have to be checked to show that the alien did not just overstay a Visa.  A lot of work for a misdemeanor charge.

As a result, those aliens living in the United States without Visas are just treated as applicants for admission under  Section 1225. They are deportable but they get a hearing before an imigration judge.

So which is it, allan,

So which is it, allan, "more than semantics" or " very much about semantics"?

I know the law is complicated. My point is this started out to be about the semantics of the law, and you changed it to illegals (and I am NOT going to get in another discussion over that term) are not deported because the law is cumbersome.

And I am done with this argument; it is going nowhere. We will have to agree to disagree.

Warner, Yes, like here in

Warner,

Yes, like here in my County were two young illegals were arrested on Thanksgiving day, for sexually assaulting a young girl, she got away when someone knocked on the door. This type of activity is happening all across our Country and no one in authority cares.

Nobody in the political/media class mentions it much...

But Mexico's own laws on this subject don't seem to be cumbersome for Mexico at all. This means there exists a blueprint for changing our laws that has proven tried & true. Of course, you sure as hell better not be a Guatemalan busted for being illegally in Mexico, unless you want a visit to the famed & luxurious Mexican penal system before your a$$ gets deported...

OTOH, as I also keep-saying, if by some miracle Mexico changed its laws in a sufficiently-capitalist direction, I'd probably want to live there enough that THEY'D need to consider building walls to keep the likes of ME out.
JMR

Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.

The truth hurts.

Well done Alan.  Before these people go throwing around the "criminal" label they should at least know what the law IS before they IGNORE IT!!! I ran a stop sign today, I guess that makes me a "criminal" in the eyes of some. And YES it IS similar in nature both being violations of CIVIL law!

Warner Houston who wrote the NB article said this "For that Mr. Cordova deserves warm congratulations for his efforts and the knowledge that he did the right thing by the child.

But he doesn't deserve a free pass into our country."

I couldn't disagree more. Is this what we've come to? EVEN  in Biblical days, as harsh as the Law and the people were, a GOOD SAMARITAN was allowed entry because of his good deeds. I can't think of a BETTER reason to bend the rules for somebody than saving the life of an American citizen! Listen I probably hate illegal immigration more than most of you, after all, it's my people they're killing in the street for INITIATION into their gangs but the Word says that LOVE COVERS A MULTITUDE OF SINS and "John 15:13
Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life forhis friends.

Now, I know he technically didn't "lay down his life" for the kid but Jeez! He risked EVERYTHING he thought he was making his life about by coming here right? He risked his entire future! Now, I know that the life of a Hispanic in the U. S. isn't something that most of you'd be rushing to get for yourselves but for Mr Cordova, being poor in the U.S. is like being a wealthy LAND BARON where he comes from!!! (LOL) And he was willing to risk all of that to save a child, I say charity should prevail. I'd just like to think that we're big enough as a nation to say "Hey, Mr.Cordova, WELL DONE SIR, WELL DONE. Now, have a seat sir and would you like something to drink?" Even in the barbaric times of King Arthur, rescuing one of the Kings men would get a stranger a bed and a glass of mead! In the morning some servant would bring the guy to the King who'd offer him a job if he'd swear FEALTY to the King! This man needs to be rewarded for his courage and self sacrifice, not sent home like any other piece of crap thug! Look in your heart of hearts, how many of YOU, in the midst of an illegal entry into a foreign country would stop to aid someone else and STAY THERE UNTIL HELP ARRIVES? I'd like to think we're better than that as a nation, sorry if that's asking too much. 

Great!

I hope, then, that you don't mind housing all the "nice" illegals in YOUR home then? I'll trust that you won't expect everyone ELSE to pay for your delicate conscience?

Oh, and it's HUSTON not Houston.

Sry about the misspell Mr

Sry about the misspell Mr Huston.NOTHING in what I wrote can reasonably be construed as an endorsement of illegal immigration. So put your RED HERRING in a pipe and smoke it! I was talking about THIS GUY and THIS CASE. Note to Huston: Arguing like a silly liberal unable to make distinctions in arguments without demonizing or going to illogical extremes, is beneath you.

Actually you ARE making the

Actually you ARE making the case for illegal immigration. After all, under your simplistic case all an immigrant has to do is be nice and wham-o-bango they are an automatic citizen. then we have to define just what "nice" means, don't we? Who needs any laws? We got nice folks here!

Keith

The sojourner among us is still a sojourner.

He's welcome to come visit via a Visa.

wow

"visit via a Visa"

Man, try saying THAT ten times fast!

}}---> Libs and redemption

Remember the movie "CONAIR" in which Nicholas Cage (good guy ex-con) is trapped aboard a prisoner plane that gets hijacked by the prisoners.

One of the characters was a pedophile who helped save the day, and the final scene has him cozying up to a preteen girl in Vegas as though his helping was some redemptive act.

That's how Libs see this incident.  Certainly illegal border crossing doesn't fall to the level of chicken hawk, but the bar is already so low the Libs don't see it. 

-

The point is not this specific incident.  The point is that the AP is using this man and this incident to work on people's emotions about immigration and to try to deflect attention away from the real issue, which is sovereignty and the importance of enforcing the border.

"Oh, look at what he did.  That was so nice.  We're mean not to allow him to stay.  We're mean for not allowing EVERYONE to stay."

- which D

then establishes the exception of the law when we should be establishing the rule of law then proceed to the exceptions

GoHunter08

You are absolutely right

You are absolutely right that they are trying to conflate this one case with the immigration issue at large. I was NOT. I was speaking to something older, wiser and a great deal more honorable.

}}---> keith

If you had performed the same humanitarian act in Denmark, would you automatically assume you deserve to be offered citizenship?

I'm not understanding how being a compassionate human being automatically equates to what you're espousing.

Keith, I agree with many of

Keith, I agree with many of your points here. I'm not sure however, that, presently, we as a nation can speak with one voice in regards to specific situations such as this. All I can say for myself is that, if I was the boys' family, Mr. Cordova would receive a generous financial "thank you" reward. As for Mr. Cordova, I'm sure he already knows his actions have gained him other rewards superior to and more lasting than financial.

He did a good deed and

He did a good deed and ought to be rewarded. The Sheriff might have bought him a good meal and the folks at the station passed the hat for a few bucks for another and then deported him. Actually that little boy has family and friends somewhere and they ought to consider sending him something. If it were my grandson that he saved I certainly would.

But none of this has anything to do with enforcing the law. Enforce the law, secure the border. We don't exonerate burglars or embezzlers because they tossed 20 bucks into the Salvation Army bucket at Christmas.

Illogical

Typical liberal (convenient) thought pattern. One thing is not related to the other. The sheriff obviously never took a course in logic. He was probably "educated" in the public schools. Sad.

Criminal: a person guilty of, or legally convicted of, a crime. DUH!

 Law: All the rules of conduct established and enforced by the authority, legislation, or custom of a given community. DUH!

"There is no week nor day nor hour, when tryanny may not enter upon this country, if the people lose their roughness and spirit of defiance- Tranny may always enter- there is no charm, no bar against it- the only bar against it is a large resolute breed of men."    Walt Whitman.

A big "thanks pal" to this "law enforcement" officer. (Then again, he might shoot some drug dealer in the ass and be put in jail for the next eleven years).

What has happened to us?

NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"

Oh boy...I can just hear

Oh boy...I can just hear the Clinton Team using this as an example....give 'em time, the left will use this too.

Won't work though....heheheee 

This guy was on "C.H.i.P's"

This guy was on "C.H.i.P's" back in the seventies, right?  Anyway, who cares what a Sheriff thinks?  His job is to ENFORCE the law, not legislate it.

mm... You got me

mm...

You got me chucklin' with your CHIPS remark...I rarely watched the show but do know what you are talking about.

As to the rest of your post...you are exactly right!

-

This is a pointless story.  Yes, what the man did was very nice. 

But to make this an accurate story, the AP should have made a list of all the good and bad things done by illegal aliens in the Uniteds States - say, for the last ten years.

And however that accounting came out, it would still completely miss the point.  As with every other country in the world, we have the right to have borders and enforce them.  A story about an illegal alien doing something nice doesn't change that.

Illegals

For me the most depressing thing is that the sheriff who claimes the illegals are not breaking the law is clearly of Hispanic origin. It is the same with Geraldo on Fox.  In other words there is no objective look at the situation, but  simply support knee jerk support of your brethren along racial lines. 

Similarly American Arabs support Palestine; black support blacks (think Jesse Jackson and Rev. Sharpton and their lack of rationality) and so on.  The only group that does not support its own is the white liberal group who 'somehow' tries to be even handed.  And always sees the other side as right.

I mean the sheriff sure isn't even handed. They are his people so they are not criminals. End of story.  It is like that all over the world except among white liberals.

 So much for the melting pot or multi-culti.