Travel within the US when you're out of status(please help)

[leha.sotokin 0]

Hello everyone,

i recently lost my student status, well over 5 months, ice has come to my previous address where my usc wife live.I never filed for AOS, because she doesnt want it, we are in proceeding of getting divorce. She's panicking and told me that ice told her if they wont find me they will arrest her, is that true?so does it mean I am on proceeding? One more imporant question, is this possible to travel within the Us,i have a valid drivers license. I am really scared to go thru the airport, or should i travel by a train?

Thank you so much

[lucyrich 20]

The ICE agents may have lied to your wife. They are under no obligation to tell the truth. There are penalties for harboring an illegal alien, but as far as I know, there is no penalty for refusing to talk to ICE agents who don't have a subpoena or court order.

TSA agents have sometimes asked for proof of legal status at airport security checkpoints for domestic flights. They don't normally do that. The last I heard, there was some question as to whether they could do that, or whether they could detain someone who lacked proof of legal status, or whose ID showed an apparent lack of status (a foreign passport with an expired I-94, for example). So while it doesn't seem likely, there is at least some possibility of running into some trouble at an airport, even if you're only on a domestic flight.

http://dreamact.info/forum/showthread.php?t=7160

http://ezinearticles.com/?TSAs-Practices-a...&id=1285930

ICE also maintains some checkpoints inside the US along highways. These checkpoints exist mostly in southern border states, within 100 miles of the Mexican border.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/10/aclu-assails-10/

[leha.sotokin 0]

THank you so much for your answer, I'm going to take the train then.I am sorry can i ask couple more questions.

So, there's no way if ice can't find me they will arrest her right? I mean we're getting divorce, so they shouldn't do this.

It's been six months that i'm out of student status, and ive been engaged with unauthorized employment. I know that if you're married to ucs, being engaged to un. employment is forgivven, but we're getting divorce so, is this going to be possible to get reinstated?

As I mentioned before I'm getting divorce and we've been married for 1.5 years. But if i meet a girl, a usc, if I get married second time, how big are my chances of adjusting my status with a second wife?

thank you so much, im just really panicking too much

[Brother Hesekiel 2,236]

1) They will not arrest her as she is not harboring you.

2) Your driver license is all you need for domestic flights, unless you have a black beard and look like you have something major to hide.

3) Your only chance of a life here in the US is to file for AOS. Your wife, who's a US citizen didn't want to? Something is really wrong here, and I have no idea what it is.

[lucyrich 20]

THank you so much for your answer, I'm going to take the train then.I am sorry can i ask couple more questions.

So, there's no way if ice can't find me they will arrest her right? I mean we're getting divorce, so they shouldn't do this.

It's been six months that i'm out of student status, and ive been engaged with unauthorized employment. I know that if you're married to ucs, being engaged to un. employment is forgivven, but we're getting divorce so, is this going to be possible to get reinstated?

As I mentioned before I'm getting divorce and we've been married for 1.5 years. But if i meet a girl, a usc, if I get married second time, how big are my chances of adjusting my status with a second wife?

thank you so much, im just really panicking too much

You may want to make an appointment for a consulation with an immigration attorney or two or three. See http://www.aila.org for a referral. Immigration law is the same all over the US, so you can do a phone consulation with an attorney anywhere if you like.

You're getting into some areas where I have no knowledge. And some of the answers are going to depend on specific facts of your case.

One difficulty is that, if you marry in order to gain status, then that act would be a crime which would cause you to be unable to gain status.

Another difficulty is that ICE agents are apparently already looking for you. That may mean that there is some action being taken against you that would make a future adjustment of status difficult or impossible.

[justashooter 430]

The ICE agents may have lied to your wife. They are under no obligation to tell the truth. There are penalties for harboring an illegal alien, but as far as I know, there is no penalty for refusing to talk to ICE agents who don't have a subpoena or court order.

your wife can be arrested for impeding an investigation. this is the truth. period. the end.

as for adjusting thru another woman, you have complicated the question by leaving your first wife before adjusting status. any other woman you marry will appear to be a mechanism to avoid deportation. this is especially true if you are aware that ICE has begun an investigation as to your failure to leave after the expiration of your student visa, and even more so if you have already been ordered deported.

you might want to start saving for airfare, so that you can leave a free man, rather than after having been jailed for several months while waiting a deportation hearing.

[Bobby+Umit 161]

You could always turn yourself in to ICE.

(suggest you get a lawyer to help you)

What was written on your I-94? (date or D/S)

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

your wife can be arrested for impeding an investigation. this is the truth. period. the end.

Yep. You don't have the "right to remain silent" until you've been arrested, which is why they don't read you your Miranda rights until they arrest you. Up until then, you're required to cooperate with a law enforcement officer, which means answering their questions.

However, you do still have other rights, even if they don't tell you so. For example, you're not required to let them into your home without a search warrant.

[rika60607 215]

Is there any chance you could restore your student status?

If your name is "tagged" (if ICE showed up looking for you, it likely is), you may get reported when buying tickets for a train or a bus and taken off that bus or train. It is cash economy for you now.

There should be a way out of this mess. Why can't you go back home?...

[TBoneTX 45,297]

You don't have the "right to remain silent" until you've been arrested, which is why they don't read you your Miranda rights until they arrest you. Up until then, you're required to cooperate with a law enforcement officer, which means answering their questions.

Uh, Jim...say what?! The following is my understanding: Until a couple more Supreme Court decisions, or even one more, totally renders the Fourth Amendment and its overlap with the Fifth Amendment into a useless inkblot, we are as free to ignore a law-enforcement officer's questions during a "contact" as we are free to ignore a panhandler's contact with us on the street. Possible responses include "Good day to you, sir" or "I don't have time to chat right now" or "I prefer to keep my private affairs private, thank you." Furthermore, even if we have blabbed something (which will always, ALWAYS be used against us!) at any stage of the process -- contact, detention, or arrest -- we are free at any time to say, "I have nothing (more) to say to you. I wish to speak with an attorney now." When we state this, law-enforcement personnel are required to cease their questioning of us immediately, or they become personally liable for violating our Constitutional rights.

Exceptions to remaining completely silent include a possible requirement to identify ourselves when asked, and to produce a driver's license if we are stopped while driving. Check your state's "failure to identify" statute, if any, such as item 38.02 in the Texas Penal Code. The horrible ruling in Hiibel v. 6th Judicial Court of Nevada is behind this appalling decimation of our rights. Google "Hiibel."

We can be arrested for probable cause or officially detained for reasonable articulable suspicion. A good way to clarify this is to ask: "Am I being officially detained for reasonable articulable suspicion at this time, sir?" "Am I under arrest for probable cause at this time, sir?" If the answer to both questions is "no," then an entirely appropriate response is "Well then, since you have expressed no legal basis for detaining me, I am certainly free to leave and to end this conversation. Good day, sir."

However, you do still have other rights, even if they don't tell you so. For example, you're not required to let them into your home without a search warrant.

This is correct... and, they will also not tell you what is written in the paragraph above this one! In fact, I believe that a Supreme Court decision sometime in the last couple of decades confirmed that we still have all of those rights, but also that the police do not need to inform us of those rights (a la the Miranda warning) before the actual stage of arrest.

If I am inaccurate in anything above, a licensed attorney will surely be along to correct it; if none chimes in here, consult a licensed attorney of your choice. One thing has been confirmed by courts over & over, though: The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right (in this instance, those of the Fourth & Fifth Amendments) cannot be converted into a crime!

Edited January 10, 2010 by TBoneTX

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

Uh, Jim...say what?! The following is my understanding: Until a couple more Supreme Court decisions, or even one more, totally renders the Fourth Amendment and its overlap with the Fifth Amendment into a useless inkblot, we are as free to ignore a law-enforcement officer's questions during a "contact" as we are free to ignore a panhandler's contact with us on the street. Possible responses include "Good day to you, sir" or "I don't have time to chat right now" or "I prefer to keep my private affairs private, thank you." Furthermore, even if we have blabbed something (which will always, ALWAYS be used against us!) at any stage of the process -- contact, detention, or arrest -- we are free at any time to say, "I have nothing (more) to say to you. I wish to speak with an attorney now." When we state this, law-enforcement personnel are required to cease their questioning of us immediately, or they become personally liable for violating our Constitutional rights.

Exceptions to remaining completely silent include a possible requirement to identify ourselves when asked, and to produce a driver's license if we are stopped while driving. Check your state's "failure to identify" statute, if any, such as item 38.02 in the Texas Penal Code. The horrible ruling in Hiibel v. 6th Judicial Court of Nevada is behind this appalling decimation of our rights. Google "Hiibel."

We can be arrested for probable cause or officially detained for reasonable articulable suspicion. A good way to clarify this is to ask: "Am I being officially detained for reasonable articulable suspicion at this time, sir?" "Am I under arrest for probable cause at this time, sir?" If the answer to both questions is "no," then an entirely appropriate response is "Well then, since you have expressed no legal basis for detaining me, I am certainly free to leave and to end this conversation. Good day, sir."This is correct... and, they will also not tell you what is written in the paragraph above this one! In fact, I believe that a Supreme Court decision sometime in the last couple of decades confirmed that we still have all of those rights, but also that the police do not need to inform us of those rights (a la the Miranda warning) before the actual stage of arrest.

If I am inaccurate in anything above, a licensed attorney will surely be along to correct it; if none chimes in here, consult a licensed attorney of your choice. One thing has been confirmed by courts over & over, though: The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right (in this instance, those of the Fourth & Fifth Amendments) cannot be converted into a crime!

Two of my friends were at the scene of a robbery and shooting investigation in Long Beach, CA, in 1992. Neither one of them were witnesses. They were just attracted by the crowds and sirens. The police began going through the crowd looking for potential witnesses. One of my friends said he lived nearby, but didn't see or hear anything until he heard the police sirens. My other friend refused to talk to the police, and didn't respond at all to their questions. They asked for his ID, which he provided. They put him in a squad car and continued trying to talk to him, and he remained silent. He was arrested and subsequently convicted of impeding a police investigation. He was only fined for the offense. I wasn't at the trial, but he said the judge told him his mistake was not that he refused to answer the police questions - he has that right - but when he refused to respond to them at all he became guilty of impeding an investigation. He was apparently required to give an answer, even if that answer was "I refuse to answer that question".

[TBoneTX 45,297]

when he refused to respond to them at all he became guilty of impeding an investigation. He was apparently required to give an answer, even if that answer was "I refuse to answer that question".

Very interesting indeed! I imagine that defense attorneys could make a case out of that one. It would seem pretty obvious (to me as a layman, at least) that refusing to speak = claiming the right of silence under the Constitution.

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

Very interesting indeed! I imagine that defense attorneys could make a case out of that one. It would seem pretty obvious (to me as a layman, at least) that refusing to speak = claiming the right of silence under the Constitution.

If Supreme Court precident was applied, I imagine a defense lawyer could probably have gotten the court to find that he could legally remain silent while he was in the squad car, since this could be considered "custodial interrogation" even though he wasn't technically under arrest. However, the 5th amendment doesn't explicitly grant the right to remain silent - that terminology was the result of the Miranda decision in 1966, and also involved custodial interrogation. The 5th amendment merely states that someone can't be compelled to testify against themselves, and the courts have found numerous exceptions to this. For example, you are required to file a tax return, even if it means reporting illegal income that might be used to incriminate you (US v. Sullivan 1927). You are required to testify if you are granted immunity from prosecution (Kastigar v. US, 1972). In a criminal proceeding, guilt cannot be inferred from refusal to testify. However, it CAN be inferred in a cival proceeding (Baxter v. Palmigiano, 1976).

Anyway, this happened in California, which has a statute that requires people to cooperate with police officers conducting an investigation, and follow lawful orders from a police officer. The requirement to cooperate ends when you are a suspect, which I suppose happens when you are placed under arrest. From what the judge said, all my friend would have needed to do in order to comply was to state he didn't want to answer any questions.

[TBoneTX 45,297]

Absolutely correct regarding Miranda & the other cited cases, si man. Interestingly, the Hiibel ruling reinforces the same encroachments. I don't often agree with the "liberal" wing of the Supreme Court, but Justice Stevens was dead-nuts on when he said (a paraphrase), regarding Hiibel, "What other possible use could a police officer have for demanding someone's name if not to potentially incriminate that person, si man?"

Under the California statute that you've elaborated upon, it seems that your friend indeed should have said something (anything) to indicate that he did NOT plan to say something. Most defense attorneys to whom I've spoken recommend telling every law-enforcement agent whom we encounter (after we've been detained or arrested), "I am exercising my right to remain silent and to caucus with an attorney, si man."

To me, on its surface, the Texas "failure to identify" law seems somewhat less unreasonable than California's. Google "Texas Penal Code 38.02" and tell me what you think, si man.