Alamogordo NM
6-09-2025 9:31pm

New Mexico Judge Dismisses Charges, Texas Judge Issues Acquittal in Military Tresspass Cases

NewMexicoConservativeNews.com reports that in the first full judicial test of the Trump administration’s recently established military zones along the southern border, a Peruvian Migrant was acquitted in Texas. This follows multiple cases dismissed in a New Mexico Federal Magistrate Courtroom. 

U.S. Magistrate Judge Laura Enriquez  was appointed by a majority vote of the federal district and is serving her 8th year or second term in the state of Texas.

At the start of the trial, De La Cruz-Alvarez, who had been in immigration agents’ custody since her arrest, facing three misdemeanor charges: entering the country illegally, violating national defense property and trespassing onto a military base

She was found guilty of entering the country illegally and was already facing deportation as soon as she was arrested.

She was sentenced to time served plus one business day by U.S. Magistrate Judge Laura Enriquez. Even though she was acquitted of trespassing onto a military zone, De La Cruz-Alvarez will most likely get deported, said Shane Michael McMahon, her public defense attorney to the Texas Tribune. 

“She knew exactly what she was doing,” Phillip Douglas Countryman, the federal prosecutor, told the judge, asking for a 45-day jail sentence. Crossing the border illegally “should come with some sort of punishment.”

The verdict is the latest blow to the Trump administration, which pursued additional misdemeanor charges in addition to the usual misdemeanor charge of entering the U.S. improperly or the felony charge of reentering the country after being denied. Tacking on the trespassing charges, is the latest tactic the administration is trying in its attempt to deport and punish 1 million immigrants annually, including some who have entered the country legally.

This blow to the Trump administration policy follows rulings from the  Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge for the District of New Mexico  dismissing multiple cases in May ruling that migrants did not know they were entering the New Mexico military zone and therefore could not be charged.

A total of 98 people had the trespassing charges dropped. Migrants received 'Title 50' charges for crossing into military defense property, a 170-square-mile strip along the base of New Mexico, also known as the Roosevelt Reservation, according to a news release by the United States Attorney for the District of New Mexico.

The corridor was recently transferred from the Department of the Interior to the Department of Defense and is now being treated as an extension of U.S. Army Garrison Fort Huachuca, a news release said.

The government had argued in a criminal complaint that the military had posted signs in the zones stating in both English and Spanish that it was a restricted area and that unauthorized entry is prohibited.

Despite signs indicating restricted access, the court noted that the challenging terrain made it unlikely that the defendants saw the warnings and ordered New Mexico U.S. Attorney to show proof that migrants knew they had entered a restricted area.

"Beyond the reference to signage, the United States provides no facts from which one could reasonably conclude that the Defendant knew he was entering the NMNDA (New Mexico National Defense Area)," wrote the court in a 16-page ruling.

More News from Alamogordo
7
I'm interested
I disagree with this
This is unverified
Spam
Offensive

Replies

6-09-2025 10:51pm

a federal court trial with an impaneled jury of 12 texas citizens has  heard the evidence against an illegal immigrant, and acquitted her on charges of trespass of a military reservation, and of trump's xo establishing a national defense area.
i suspect that it may be difficult to seat 12 jurors along the texas/new mexico borders who are willing to convict individuals who did not see signs, and had absolutely no idea they were violating trump's new xo's.
trump/homan's new strategy may run head-first into american's common sense and everyday decency....and due process may not be as dead as has been rumored. 

1
I disagree with this
This is unverified
Spam
Offensive
6-10-2025 7:46am

How is this a loss for Trump or the American people?

The reason the zone was turned into a military base was to allow military personal to patrol the border, with the ability to apprehend and detain anyone caught in the zone.  Every person that has been caught on the new base is being deported.

The misdemeanor charges brought, even combined, are not sufficient to bar legal reentry in and of themselves.  And that is not the goal.

If Trump were to walk on water, this publications headline would be: Trump Can't Swim.

I disagree with this
This is unverified
Spam
Offensive
6-11-2025 9:48am

trump has enough trouble with stairs - he shouldn't try water.
let me explain the significance of these dismissals/acquittal. 

dear leader used executive orders (not laws passed by congress) to involve the military in domestic political affairs....and the military responded as directed.  arrests followed, habeas corpus is observed, hearings, indictments, trials have resulted.  please understand that illegal entry into USA is not disputed - those charges stand, and convictions result.

as reported here, charges filed in NM have been dismissed by federal magistrate, and in TX a trial resulted in acquittal - on all charges related to dear leader's XO's.  98 charges here dismissed - because the federal judge found them trumped-up.   in TX, an acquittal by a full-blown federal jury - 12 citizens, voir dire, evidence, cross examinations, closing arguments, etc.

the NM magistrate decided those charges did not pass the "smell test", the TX jury agreed - and their decision has a name...jury nullification. 

1
I disagree with this
This is unverified
Spam
Offensive
6-11-2025 11:36am

How can an invasion by foreign nationals be considered a "domestic political affair"?  The POTUS was given control of the armed forces under article II, section 2, and used that power to uphold his duties under article IV, section 4, to repel an invasion.  How is that not clear to you?
The Roosevelt Reservation was created by executive order in 1907. The purpose of creating it was to establish a clear zone to prevent the smuggling of goods between the U.S. and Mexico.  That land was transferred from the Interior dept. to the D.O.D., both departments are within the executive branch, and Trump is the chief executive.

You and many others accuse Trump of violating the constitution and federal law with his executive orders, but by that accusation you make it clear that you have never read any of them.

Everyone of Trumps EO's includes the following wording;

General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and
Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or
benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by
any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or
entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

I disagree with this
This is unverified
Spam
Offensive
6-11-2025 3:02pm

and, in spite of all that impressive language - judges and juries are actively engaged in nullifying dear leaders xo's in federal courtrooms inside the roosevelt reservation....go figure.

I disagree with this
This is unverified
Spam
Offensive
6-11-2025 5:53pm

So far as I'm aware, no jury has nullified any of Trump's EO's. To which EO are you referring?

The cases you refer to were dismissed because of insufficient signage on the newly established zone.  That's not likely to be an issue in future cases.  And again, the purpose of the zone is to stop illegal crossings, that purpose has been accomplished.

So far as I'm aware, the Trump administration has not lost a single case yet, as they have not yet gone to trial.  If he does happen to lose a lower court case, he is certain to win on appeal.
On the other hand, many of the previous administration's EO's will likely end up being voided, and possibly some laws that were passed with the rubber stamp auto pen.
There are too many activist judges that are trying to usurp the power of
congress and the president and legislate from the bench.  But I have a feeling that that too will end before 2028.
If congress ends up impeaching federal judges, all of those judges rulings will be suspect, and may well be vacated.  It is in the courts best interest to start reigning themselves in before being reigned in by congress.

I disagree with this
This is unverified
Spam
Offensive