>>>Doesn't seem to be any proof (or even claim) that he did enter illegally?
>>
>>However if one is in the country illegally then I believe the burden of proof should be on the individual as to how he came to be *in* the country. It would not be an unfair presumption that at some point he entered and therefore ...
>
>So you advocate 'presumption of guilt' ?

Not at all. But if one first has proven he is *in* the country illegally there must be grounds for that. That means he either entered illegally or did something since to change the legality of his status i.e. the proof of the "entry" would depend on the proof used for the determination of the illegality of his current presence.

>
>>
>>But I would hope the judge's reasoning is that he is interpreting the law strictly as written and that is good in that it points out how sloppy "lawmakers" are when writing laws to begin with and not reasoning their logical conclusions.
>>
>>But if I suddenly were arrested by German police and they found I was not in Germany legally I don't think they would assume I had somehow spontaneously generated in Germany but there would be a presumption that at some point I "entered" Germany. <g>
>
>In practice, both in Germany and the U.S., whether either or both ''entering' or 'being present' are designated as 'criminal' is probably irrelevant. The only realistic course of action is deportation (or not) - a custodial sentence would certainly be self-defeating....

I agree. I have no desire to incarcerate anyone for the "crime" of illegal entry or presence. It would actually seems more logical if reciprocal treaties allowed for incarcerating/fining or whatever repeat offenders in the home country after deportation, but of course that is not going to happen.

I believe the EU arrangement makes the issue moot within the EU and I see a big problem in that if Spain, for example, chooses not to control its borders that leaves Belgium ( or GB ) wide open.

No immigration laws have any teeth whatsoever without border control.