one needs to be read into the statute this is the rule rather than the exception in anglo american jurisprudence according to the supreme court on the other hand your honor strict liability offenses suffer disfavor status under the law because of their tendency to criminalize otherwise innocent conduct that is the holding of the supreme court in more than one case that is why the supreme court has consistently held that statutes are to be interpreted to require at a minimum proof that a defendant knows the facts that render his conduct illegal and what the government is asking you to do what he's asking this court to do is indorsed the knowledge that the person is in the united states i see your argument that specific intent but a general intent requirement must be read insist that you so ask to differentiate otherwise innocent conduct from criminal behavior in very rare instances as the supreme court found it appropriate to dispense or harmful devices or objects these are the types of offenses that i very reason of the nature of the aggi regulated it's dangerous and it's harmful in this it would put the person in possession of that object in which he was looking at a statute that regulated the registration of grenades your honor in that case the court found  my argument is that you need to know that you are in the united states otherwise this court would be criminalizing behavior or the statute i should say would be criminalizing behavior that is otherwise innocent and right to travel the right to move a person who is for instance hiking in the mountains east of california and arizona or even texas may not know they are in the united states however if they enter the united states without knowledge because there is no boundary there there's no it's a theoretical line there's not a fence there then perhaps that person  without knowledge he cannot be found guilty of that crime why because as the supreme court says general intent is required in such situations knowledge of the conduct which makes your your  culpable needs to be known to the defendant does not need to know his car was traveling sixty six miles an hour to be convicted of speeding there is no mens rea a requirement that you know you've crossed above the  voluntariness goes to is the act this re us of a crime whereas knowledge the higher cognitive understanding of something goes the mens rea aspect of the crime and so i'm not saying that rodriguez rodriguez is wrong i don't think that it is on point in this case i think this is a question of first impression from in this court the seventh circuit is the only circuit i found which has talked about knowledge in the case i cite in my brief actions not to one's culpable state one can know one is in the country and not be here voluntarily vice versa one may not know they're in the country but be here voluntarily and that is what the court in staples harder li doesn't have to be in the indictment alleged or that doesn't mean that the defendant in responding under your understanding of general intent can't come forward and say i was involuntary yes that's  in thinking about it but there was the notion that what if that the person goes up to the united states borders to gaff thinking he's going to get the permission and he crosses into the united states and doing so whether that is an attempt he's caught and then his defense is look i was simply trying to just go get the paper to get the forms what happened and so that was play somewhere in my attempt statute now we have a found him where he is in the united states but you're saying it doesn't make any difference whether he knew he was in the united states or not well it's not this is doesn't make a difference to the news in the united states my argument is that the guy and it doesn't it's what rights that no i understand that wasn't my question because my question was is that on a firm you say it's an affirmative indictment doesn't have to alleg voluntariness but yours you have said under general intent it's at least open to the defendant to prove that it wasn't voluntary so my question again is if that's the situation why isn't it open to the defendant to also purpose corresponds to the concept of specific intent knowledge in quotation marks corresponds to general in town and if you look at spaceballs you look at all the cases that i've talked about the very basic idea of general in tank it is the knowledge of the facts which make your conduct otherwise innocent conduct illegal your honor the government concedes that general i requirement if it is a requirement to convict your honor then it is required to be alleged in the indictment united states versus pale that is a case that this is this circuit moreover an indictment is failure course unfortunately for mr rivera see is they could always supersede with a new indictment adding the simple word knowingly and we would be back to square one but it would need to be reversed and the government would have to obtain a superseding indictment  you enter involuntary entry your honor i do need to address the sixth amendment argument that i made because i believe government council has as incorrectly stated my argument that is that a defendant in any thirteen twenty six case must have had a point of counsel at a deportation hearing that is not my argument that because he had a deportation proceedings that's all they say not that he left and came back he was apprehended he just had a deportation proceedings we want to go to jail yes you are and there's no i well it certainly would be if there's no crime having been court absolutely you're right and shelf and there was a crime and then you have to look at the penalty all right here there is no prime at the time of the petition hearing at which he was not entitled to counsel didn't get counsel so i just don't is a prison term imposed for the offense of conviction once the prison term is triggered the defendant is incarcerated not for the probation violation but for the underlying offense he is not being imprison for because of the prior deportation your honor i do believe in part of the same offense that's a different crown well your honor the court the government they do rely on the fact of deportation in making a conviction they rely on it as proof it's a prior to it's an event but he's not being put in prison for being deported he's not now becomes a fact and now in a subsequent proceeding deportation proceeding but because as judge nelson has pointed out you're making a step which is a subsequent act of a different crime you come back and say because of that prior deportation deportation has now got attached to a with a criminal penalty that is true but it took the defendant committing a crime to impose that the it wasn't a spent you know the deportation wasn't you won't go to prison if you leave and if you come back you're going to get that wasn't the order that's the consequence of the statute if he leaves and comes back under the illegal entry the logic of that fits that says that at any time in admittedly administrative proceedings that if some time later the defendant can on his own volition with