Criminal Trespassing Research Paper

Trespassing is defined as physical entry onto another person’s property without the consent of that person. The the textbook further defines the elements of trespassing stating; the Actus Reus is entering or remaining on another’s property, and the Mens Rea is the knowledge or awareness that one does not have lawful access. In the case of Jorge Ramirez, New Hampshire’s criminal trespassing law uses broad language that makes it seem applicable to immigration, stating that a person is guilty "if, knowing he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he enters or remains in any place." Where this law uses the phrase “any place”, most states' trespass laws refer specifically to private property and would be difficult to apply to immigration.

Georgia’s
trespass law is worded a bit differently. O.C.G.A. §16-7-21 (b) states; “A person commits the offense of criminal trespass when he or she knowingly and without authority:
(1) Enters upon the land or premises of another person… …for an unlawful purpose; (2) …after receiving, prior to such entry, notice from the owner… that such entry is forbidden; or (3) Remains upon the land or premises of another person… …after receiving notice from the owner… to depart.” It could be argued that Georgia’s law could be used the same way, but the implication to private property is there. Who knows how the courts will rule on things like this?

Is it appropriate to apply trespass laws to illegal immigrants? The short answer here is, I don’t know. I do know that it’s likely not what the law was intended for. I also have issue with the thinking behind this case. When did it become ok for one branch of government to step in and deal with something that clearly belongs on another’s plate, because they are not pleased with the way another branch is performing their duties?