Obama calls for halt to Texas execution Mexican was convicted of raping, killing San Antonio girl (soldiers, free speech)

[sanrene]

Fact: Texas decided that they weren't bound by no stinkin' US rules.

Texas abides by the ruling of SCOTUS...end of story.

[CamaroGuy]

Bravo to Texas! They gave the middle finger to both Mexico and Obama.lol

[HappyTexan]

The Supreme Court backed up Texas..TWICE now for the same damn thing.

7 years since this first came up and Congress has done nothing so it's not that important to Congress is it ?

[EricGold]

[quote=Dane_in_LA;19943590]You're not getting this, are you?


Getting what?..that we should concern ourselves with his "Mexican citizenship" after practically spending his whole life living in American, soaking up American resources?.....what twisted, stunted thought process is that?...

"No. These aren't Mexican rights. Those are the rights that the US has agreed that foreigners in custody have."

The guy is Hispanic and was living in Texas for 16 years (was 18 then).

For all intents and purposes he was American, and went to American schools. Considered himself American as the American lifestyle was all he knew. He did not know he could ask to meet with Mexican consulate officials before talking with police. A Mexican national would be more likely to know that, they’d certainly know they were a Mexican citizen and not a US citizen.

I don't know why you would claim he is a "foreigner" after living and growing up here....I don't know why you think he or anyone else should have asked Mexico for anything when he hasn't been there since he was two.....
But that those "rights" where agreed by the Federal government, not the states...

"It's a binary set of options - is the guy we're arresting a US citizen? No? Well, then he's a foreign national. Those are the only options."

again, he would have spoken up about his "Citizenship" like any person who would have been detained in a foreign land....he, nor anyone else didn't bother because he has been here his whole life....why the hell would he and especially anyone else concerns himself with "Mexico" after living and growing up here?...why?

Now does Texas, every time they arrest and detain a illegal Hispanic person, of which countless reside in Texas, have to ask if they want to speak with Mexican consulate officials when they are arrested?....and isn't "profiling" or mealy asking about their "citizenship" is unlawful or considered racist or something?....

"It is, in fact, irrelevant. This is law"

its like you're not even trying to think anymore...."its the law"...do you use that childish reasoning all the time?..or did you just ran out of things to say?..do you disagree with all this "war on drugs"?...or do you agree with it because its easier not to think and just regurgitate " its the law"?

but that law ties the federal government, not the states...didn't you know that part about the "law"? or is that "irrelevant" because it doesn't fit your narrow way of thinking?..

"By George, he's got it! This is law. Nobody is arguing that it would have changed the outcome. People are trying to make the point that it is kind of important that the US abides by its treaties."

I would think that its kinda more important not to be wagging nearly 4 wars....but if you think that this, right here, this one case would trigger some kind of "international crisis" then you need you get things into perspective..

again, that treaty binds the federal government, not the states..

"If you're arrested for urinating on a police cruiser in front of two officers and a security camera, will having an attorney present help you? No, you're guilty as hell. Does this mean that the authorities may decide to not tell you about your right to one? No, we've long ago decided that civilized jurisdictions go by the rules."

I don't know why all of a sudden "rules" need to be strictly followed now. since recently Democrats abandon Wisconsin and go out of town for 3 weeks to avoid a vote, if the immigration "rules" were followed this poor girl wouldn't have been raped and killed to begin with....this arbitrary, almost hypocritical view on this isn't really all that surprising.....

"If you're locked up abroad (in a country that has ratified the treaty), wouldn't you like to at least to have the right to say "No thanks" to a visit from the Consulate?"

you are talking yourself into circles...again, he wasn't here in America "abroad"...he was "living" in America....he wasn't "abroad"...don't know why you can't make tell difference...

A Consulate is someone who could relay info to family, translate, check on health, etc...a consulate usually acts as a communicator between you, the land you are detained in and your homeland....since he has been here his whole-life, he wasn't detained here...since he been here his whole-life, he doesn't need a translator, and since he has been here his whole-life, I am sure his family is aware of where he is...

"Because the particulars of the case is irrelevant. It's not about whatshisname, it's about US foreign policy."

the particulars of this case is very relevant..you can't claim them irrelevant if parts of the case doesn't suit your argument...

we have nearly 4 wars going on and the rest of the world don't care to much for foreign policy when it comes to their own business....take China:

"China brushed aside international appeals Tuesday and executed by lethal injection a British drug smuggler who relatives say was mentally unstable and unwittingly lured into crime."

(don't recall an international crisis resulting from that.hell ..was any reported Chinese travelers denied their rights?)
the rest of the world when dealing with their own internal affairs, goes about their own business for the most part...didn't you say you are not American?...why the hell are you concerning yourself with American foreign policy , when the rest of the world don't really care too much for "foreign policy"?....but I guess its "cool" and "smart" to go after America. even for the most arbitrary , pointless things..

"Mexico, like the US, probably doesn't care too much about scumbag citizens committing crimes on foreign soil. Mexico, like the US, does care a great deal about other countries abiding by treaties."

What?....Mexico even have time to care or this "treaty" being followed "to the later" when they can't even stop violence from running blood in the streets daily?....how about they get they get their own domestic laws enforced before they try to enforce international ones?..you're worried about some guy's rights who hasn't even lived there in decades when be-headings are taking place in your own backyard almost everyday?...what?

I don't think the treaty is designed for those who come cross borders illegally, and the live there, their whole-life...., but that is not the point,that treaty ties the federal government, not the states so Texas didn't have to concern themselves with that, on top of that why would they for someone who has been here his whole life?....either way Taxes did what they rightfully wanted to....the supreme court said so..

"It says "foreign national". Present the exception or admit you're wrong. "

again, that doesn't extend to the states, the supreme court said so twice....maybe you need to just admitting arguing with no real point..

Not Canadian rights. Rights to Consular visitation is bestowed on foreign nationals. Do you have citizenship in your country of residence? You're not a foreign national. Are you a Canadian expatriate? You are a foreign national.

again, so we needed a Consular from a place he hasn't even lived in?...yeah that makes alot of sense....

"That's a domestic problem for the US, isn't it? The call to delay the execution was due to foreign policy crisis."

Yes it is a domestic problem...so whats your point other then trying to deflect?...what?...you're the one that said U.S. laws need to be upheld, why not those laws?, the laws that would have stop this poor girl from being raped and killed?...

why are you getting your panties twisted about a arbitrary detail of this treaty and not the actual laws, the iimmigration laws that would have prevented this girl from being raped and killed? are you listening to yourself?

and We have two wars and two not-wars going on and you think this case is a "foreign policy crisis?..how could it even be when the guy has been here his whole life?...we are violating his "foreign rights" to a land he never even lived in? that could trigger an "international crisis?"

"I'd love to see an intelligent approach to enforcement of immigration law, but that's neither here nor there.

Fact: A foreign national committed a crime under US jurisdiction.
Fact: The US has agreed to go by certain rules when this happens.
Fact: Texas decided that they weren't bound by no stinkin' US rules."

oh, so you are just jumping over the clear hypocrisy because you don't have an answer to it?..so you, in your own personal opinion think it isn't being handled intelligently so you dismiss it?...

this is what I said:

"if the U.S. would have done that then this guy would have either been sit back or even prevented from crossing the border to begin with and that girl would have never been raped or killed....where is your concern for those laws? "

and then you said:

"I'd love to see an intelligent approach to enforcement of immigration law, but that's neither here nor there. "

that's it?...I asked you for your concern, your out-cry for that and you just waved your hand saying "that's neither here nor there"...again, where is you cries for the immigrations laws, the laws that would have prevented this girl from being raped or killed?

"Texas, of course, has no foreign policy obligations and so dropped the problem in the Federal government's lap."

and the supreme court said that Texas could do what they needed too...

"It's in a set of rules that the US has promised to go by. I don't know about you, but I rather like it when the Government goes by the rules when dealing with those whose fate it controls."

The Govt also is suppose to enforce its immigration rules...if it would have done that, this poor girl wouldn't have been raped and killed...but here you are whining about something as trivial as a suppose "Mexican National" who has been here his whole life not recieveing his "rights"..reserved for those who are traveling abroad....he didn't travel here, he wasn't visiting, he didn't move, he was lived here, his whole life....said that like a million times...

but for some reason this arbitrary thing is more of a reason to b*tch for not being enforced then the actual laws that would have prevented him for raping and killing someone to begin with.....you have any idea how ass-backwards that sounds?..

Anyway, it's been fun, and Texas got to kill the guy which seems to be their thing. And I'm sure you'll all be hunky-dory when the next dumb-ass US tourist who gets picked up by the Tijuana Police isn't heard from for a few weeks. After all, he was guilty, so what difference would it have made?"

really?...you sound as if you don't understand why they did it?...that is what someone says about stuff they don't get...like fetishes or something..."yeah not to sure why Bob is into feet, that his thing"...this is more then a "thing"...this is justice...and if you can't see putting a guy to death after he raped and killed someone...then get help...

and did you really just say "tourist"?.....ok so how does a Tourist compare to an illegal immigrant that's been in a country his whole life?....

this is getting scary stupid..

what about the 16 year old right not to be raped and killed?...what about her right to have the laws enforced that would have prevented her from being raped and killed?...yet you are b*tching about this scum's rights?....stop, listen to yourself, take a wide view of this and realize how arbitrary and dumb this is...you are "smart" enough to do that right?

You don't have to side with this because Obama or some other force said so, its like you have been arguing against reality and logic the whole time for whatever odd reasoning you have....

I didn't want to overuse this point because I would rather use more detailed reasoning then simplified arguments like "its the law"....but the supreme court ruled twice that Texas can do what they needed to, that they are not held to that treaty...so before you reply with another post saying "its the law" or is "Consular rights"...or whatever Texas didn't really have to follow those rules...(again why would they when he's been here his whole life?)

He was given due process, a trial and many appeals....he was given rights probably greater then when he would have received in Mexico and many other places...all the while being an ILLEGAL..he didn't deserve much to begin with...but was granted alot anyway..after the overwhelming evidence convicted him.....yet this one technicality that was of no importance, that was overlooked, somehow is a grave violation of his rights?.....whining that he didn't get his "Mexican rights" when he got greater "American rights" is stupid...this whole damn thing is stupid...

[wehotex]

Originally Posted by Miborn

It is not up to our president to interfere with such things he needs to do the job he was elected to do and keep his nose out of state issues!

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration took the unusual step Friday of asking the Supreme Court to stop Texas from executing a Mexican citizen convicted of raping and killing a 16-year-old girl.
The administration said the court should delay the planned July 7 execution of Humberto Leal for up to six months to give Congress time to consider legislation that would directly affect Leal's case.

Police discovered Sauceda's nude body on a dirt road in San Antonio in May 1994. Evidence showed she had been raped, bitten and strangled. A large stick that had a screw protruding from it was left in her body.
Among other evidence, the bite mark was matched to Leal. Her bloody blouse was found at Leal's home. She and Leal had been attending a party not far from where she was found.


Read more: Obama administration calls for halt to Texas execution | Houston & Texas News | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

This is the ONE time where Perry actually got it right.

[Dane_in_LA]

Getting a bit emotional?

[quote=EricGold;19949584]

Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA

Getting what?..that we should concern ourselves with his "Mexican citizenship"

No need for air quotes. He's a Mexican citizen.

The guy is Hispanic and was living in Texas for 16 years (was 18 then).

For all intents and purposes he was American,

I don't know why you would claim he is a "foreigner" after living and growing up here.

So when dealing with the US legal system, he should be considered a US citizen? Does this perspective extend to immigration law, or is it a convenience thing?

And when, in your expert legal opinion, does an illegal immigrant lose status as a foreign national?

MAN, this could make some interesting cases.

But that those "rights" where agreed by the Federal government, not the states...

Yeah, it's a brilliant loophole Texas found there. I wonder what other treaties they're above and beyond. Can members of the Texas National Guard ignore the Geneva convention? Is Texas no longer bound by extradition treaties?

Let's try it for some other countries, this'll be fun. Will you be calm and relaxed when Bavaria refuses to hand over US servicemen to be prosecuted under the UCMJ, because that's a US-German agreement, not a US-Bavarian one?

Now does Texas, every time they arrest and detain a illegal Hispanic person, of which countless reside in Texas, have to ask if they want to speak with Mexican consulate officials when they are arrested?

According to the Supreme Court, no. According to the Vienna Convention, yes, of course.

[quote]....and isn't "profiling" or mealy asking about their "citizenship" is unlawful or considered racist or something?....[]

After an arrest has taken place? Not at all. Surely you knew that.

its like you're not even trying to think anymore...."its the law"...do you use that childish reasoning all the time?..or did you just ran out of things to say?..do you disagree with all this "war on drugs"?...or do you agree with it because its easier not to think and just regurgitate " its the law"?

I rather like when Law Enforcement live up to the law they're there to enforce. Miranda, right to remain silent, that kind of thing. It is, in fact, the sort of thing that's supposed to set the US apart form, say, Mexico.

but that law ties the federal government, not the states...didn't you know that part about the "law"? or is that "irrelevant" because it doesn't fit your narrow way of thinking?..

I did, and I've conceded as much upthread, I even linked to the decision.

The thing is, of course, that the rest of the world can't make a treaty with Texas. The world at large was under the impression that there as a deal.

I would think that its kinda more important not to be wagging nearly 4 wars...

Which has what to do with the case at hand?

I don't know why all of a sudden "rules" need to be strictly followed now. since recently Democrats abandon Wisconsin...

Which has what to do with the case at hand?

if the immigration "rules" were followed this poor girl wouldn't have been raped and killed to begin with...

Are you just grabbing in a bag of random facts, now?

you are talking yourself into circles...again, he wasn't here in America "abroad"...he was "living" in America....he wasn't "abroad"...don't know why you can't make tell difference...

Was he a US citizen? No. Then he's a foreign national. That's the point you've as yet refused to come to grips with.

A Consulate is someone who could relay info to family, translate, check on health, etc...a consulate usually acts as a communicator between you, the land you are detained in and your homeland....since he has been here his whole-life, he wasn't detained here...since he been here his whole-life, he doesn't need a translator, and since he has been here his whole-life, I am sure his family is aware of where he is...

A Consulate is a building. A Consul or Consular officer can help with what you describe. And again, I don't care it there was a practical purpose for the visit.

I don't think the treaty is designed for those who come cross borders illegally, and the live there, their whole-life

The wording is pretty clear.

...., but that is not the point,that treaty ties the federal government, not the states so Texas didn't have to concern themselves with that, on top of that why would they for someone who has been here his whole life?....

Like I said, it's going to be really freakin' interesting if Texas feels unburdened by international treaties.

"It says "foreign national". Present the exception or admit you're wrong.

"

again, that doesn't extend to the states, the supreme court said so twice....maybe you need to just admitting arguing with no real point..

Can't present the exception?

Not

Canadian rights. Rights to Consular visitation is bestowed on foreign nationals. Do you have citizenship in your country of residence? You're not a foreign national. Are you a Canadian expatriate? You are a foreign national.

again, so we needed a Consular from a place he hasn't even lived in?...yeah that makes alot of sense....

Evading the question.

"That's a domestic problem for the US, isn't it? The call to delay the execution was due to foreign policy crisis.

"

Yes it is a domestic problem...so whats your point other then trying to deflect?...what?...

It's sort of the crux of the argument. Will the US abide by a ratified treaty? Apparently, only if the state in question feels like it that day.

you're the one that said U.S. laws need to be upheld, why not those laws?, the laws that would have stop this poor girl from being raped and killed?...

Where have I ever argued against upholding immigration laws? Cite, please.

that's it?...I asked you for your concern, your out-cry for that and you just waved your hand saying "that's neither here nor there"...again, where is you cries for the immigrations laws, the laws that would have prevented this girl from being raped or killed?

You want to go back in time and stop him from entering? We sort of have the situation on hand.

"It's in a set of rules that the US has promised to go by. I don't know about you, but I rather like it when the Government goes by the rules when dealing with those whose fate it controls.

"

The Govt also is suppose to enforce its immigration rules...if it would have done that, this poor girl wouldn't have been raped and killed...

Oh, we have rules enforcement with 100% success rate, now? Fascinating. Care to cite an example?

but here you are whining about something as trivial as a suppose "Mexican National" who has been here his whole life not recieveing his "rights"..reserved for those who are traveling abroad....he didn't travel here, he wasn't visiting, he didn't move, he was lived here, his whole life....said that like a million times...

Does that make him a US citizen? No? The he's a foreign national.

really?...you sound as if you don't understand why they did it?...that is what someone says about stuff they don't get...like fetishes or something..."yeah not to sure why Bob is into feet, that his thing"...this is more then a "thing"...this is justice...and if you can't see putting a guy to death after he raped and killed someone...then get help...

Want to make this a DP debate? Look at some of the posts in this thread and tell me with a straight face that there's not a little bit of smug satisfaction there.

and did you really just say "tourist"?.....ok so how does a Tourist compare to an illegal immigrant that's been in a country his whole life?....

It's this foreign national thing you seem to not want to talk about. Anyway, why should the Mexican Police care? The treaty is inconvenient, it was signed by the Federales, not the great state of Baja California. Add that he was clearly guilty, it was extra work and besides, they were pretty sure he was from Texas.

He was given due process, a trial and many appeals....he was given rights probably greater then when he would have received in Mexico and many other places...

The insistence on due process is a good thing and one the US can take pride in, we agree on that.

all the while being an ILLEGAL..he didn't deserve much to begin with...

Rights under the Constitution are not handed out based on who deserve them. They're there for everybody, or you tear the damn thing up.

yet this one technicality that was of no importance, that was overlooked, somehow is a grave violation of his rights?

Well, according to the Supremes, Texas has the right to pick and choose what treaties they feel bound by, so - legally, he had his rights.

.....whining that he didn't get his "Mexican rights" when he got greater "American rights" is stupid...this whole damn thing is stupid...

His rights as a foreign national under US jurisdiction.

Wouldn't it be - nice - if the signature of the US on a treaty was worth something? But you can take solace in the fact that China is worse, there is that.

[EricGold]

[quote=Dane_in_LA;19954278]Getting a bit emotional?...[quote]

yeah, you could say that...does irritation and annoyance count as an emotion?....the longer this debate drags on, the typical deflection, spins, and even outright contradictions start to emerge..

"No need for air quotes. He's a Mexican citizen."

its real funny that his "Mexican Citizenship" is important now, when just about ever immigration debate, those who advocate having our laws enforced were called racist...besides they have the right to "American Citizenship" they've been here their whole lives...

So I take it that during future immigration debates, you are going to advocate having all illegals ship back to whatever nation their "Citizenship" holds...after all, you stressed that they don't hold any U.S. Citizenship so what entitles them to be here?..especially for those who are here illegally....and our immigration laws need to be enforced...because like you said.."its the law"..


"So when dealing with the US legal system, he should be considered a US citizen? Does this perspective extend to immigration law, or is it a convenience thing?

And when, in your expert legal opinion, does an illegal immigrant lose status as a foreign national?

MAN, this could make some interesting cases"

a convenience thing?...a rape and murder trial case is hardly a "convenience"...

LOL, so what do you call the Dream Act?...there is an entire movement wanting to grant illegal immigrants automatic citizenship just because they have been here their whole lives....now you people want invoke "Mexican Citizenship" to suit some sort of sick agenda that doesn't even make sense anymore....

yesterday liberals, in-general, were declaring they had as much right to an American Citizenship as you or I, now they get to claim Mexican Citizenship to suit some kind of sick political motive they have...

and I didn't say they should lose their Foreign national status and be granted Citizenship, just that after years of living here, soaking up resources and then breaking our laws, you should be subjected the consequences and not try to hide behind your so called "citizenship" of some foreign land you haven't been to in years, a place you purposefully abandoned..

"Yeah, it's a brilliant loophole Texas found there. I wonder what other treaties they're above and beyond. Can members of the Texas National Guard ignore the Geneva convention? Is Texas no longer bound by extradition treaties?

Let's try it for some other countries, this'll be fun. Will you be calm and relaxed when Bavaria refuses to hand over US servicemen to be prosecuted under the UCMJ, because that's a US-German agreement, not a US-Bavarian one? "

I don't know why you are purposefully being dense...keep comparing someone who has been in a country their whole life to those that travel abroad.....again, legal foreign nationals would have I.D.s, passports, documents on them showing they are foreign...

you keep comparing this to someone who has been here his whole life with school, medical, bills and other records showing he has been here his whole life....why the hell would they check his "Mexican Citizenship" and international treaties after all that info showing he has been here his whole life?.

that is not how the real-world works...the way Texas handled this case kinda proved that....it almost appears that you are arguing with reality at this point....

"According to the Supreme Court, no. According to the Vienna Convention, yes, of course."

the Supreme Court said they didn't have to, so they aren't going to...saying the "Vienna Convection says so" isn't' gong to change that..

and why would they?..illegals probably commit countless crimes, no one is going to waste there time contacting Mexico or some other place and reviewing international laws and treaties every time an illegal, especially for those who have been here for years if not their whole lives....doing so would be pointless...even you agreed more then once that a Consul would have been of no use...

and are they to contact the Consulate for repeat offenders?

not sure why you would want people to waste their time and money over trivialities and redundancies that have no point....

"I rather like when Law Enforcement live up to the law they're there to enforce. Miranda, right to remain silent, that kind of thing. It is, in fact, the sort of thing that's supposed to set the US apart form, say, Mexico. "

I too would like it that Law Enforcement would enforce the immigration laws, the laws that would have prevented this poor girl from being raped and killed...you know that kind of thing...arguing over trivialities that makes no difference don't seem to bug me....not sure why it does you

I mean (A) his "Consul rights" while being on death row for raping and killing someone VS (B) the "immigrations laws" that would have prevented him from raping and killing someone to begin with.......not sure why (A) is such a grave wrongdoing to you when its such a minor detail in the grand scheme of things..

"I did, and I've conceded as much upthread, I even linked to the decision.

The thing is, of course, that the rest of the world can't make a treaty with Texas. The world at large was under the impression that there as a deal."

the world at large don't care much what others think....you have any idea how many U.N. citations go ignored?....I don't know why you people must fight reality, for some reason parts of the world out-right behead and commit all kinds of human-rights violations, yet you people seem to only get your panties twisted at America...

I mean honestly, China executed someone who may have been mentally ill over mere drug smuggling.....yet I don't see them worrying about international opinions...nor do I see other international communities worrying about them....

but then bashing America has a special "uniqueness" that you can't get from bashing other places, I suppose,.......even minor issues somehow get turned into "international foreign policy crisis".....really now, come on...

Which has what to do with the case at hand?

you're the one who is worry about America's "foreign policy", I was just stating that wagging four wars at once is a bigger issue for foreign relations then executing someone who has been here his whole life...keep up...

"Are you just grabbing in a bag of random facts, now?"

that was in response to you screaming the U.S. need to "follow the rules"...if the U.S. "followed" the rules, the immigration rules, this girl wouldn't have been raped and killed.....you don't really have an answer to that it so you just deflected it as "random"...

I mean honestly, screaming that those rules need to be followed, but don't have much say for the rules the that would have prevented her from being raped and killed is twisted....you're still pretty much silent on that one..

"Was he a US citizen? No. Then he's a foreign national. That's the point you've as yet refused to come to grips with."

Ok, so he is a "Mexican National".....again, I take it that you are ready to tell these "foreign nationals" to stop sucking up resources for Americans because they are not American "citizens" and to leave...I mean they are here illegally, they are "nationals" of foreign lands, so why the hell should they stay here?...what rights to they have?...I can count on you for that the next immigration thread right?

"A Consulate is a building. A Consul or Consular officer can help with what you describe. And again, I don't care it there was a practical purpose for the visit."

here you are again, admitting that the Consul would have been of no purpose...even the most basic use of a Consul would have been of no use here, and yet you still demand it should have been there...so you are just advocating for something of no use?...can you even think of a trivial reason?...at this point its looking like you are arguing for no good reason with no real point..

"The wording is pretty clear."

it doesn't matter at this point, the Supreme court ruled the "wording" didn't matter..

Like I said, it's going to be really freakin' interesting if Texas feels unburdened by international treaties."

I see you jumped over the part where I said "the rest of the world don't care to much for foreign policy when it comes to their own business"....Texas did what many other nations would have..

and I am not sure what you are expecting to happen...even without that treaty, Texas handled this better then what most other places would have ..what?...you think that they are just going to start shooting illegals randomly on the streets or something?...

they were handling things fine before that treaty become an issue....besides, it was brought up during Bush presidency and it was ruled then that they didn't have to follow the treaty..that was like 7 years ago..don't recall some international crisis resulting from Texas going all crazy from not having to obey treaties, and they had like 7 years to do so...you can think its going to be "freaking interesting" or something....after 7 years, nothing happened...but I am willing to give it more time.....

and if it was such a grave issue why did after 7 years nothing was done by Congress?...either this was some kind of political move whining about his "Consular Rights" or you people really are whining about such a stupid triviality...

this aversion to reality is something..

"Can't present the exception?"

don't have to, the Supreme court did...

"Evading the question."

nope, the supreme court took care of that.

"It's sort of the crux of the argument. Will the US abide by a ratified treaty? Apparently, only if the state in question feels like it that day."

the rest of the world pretty much do what the "feel like that day"....and most people wasn't going to go out of their way over a technicality......sorry, people tend to gloss over unimportant details when dealing with real problems....

"we just arrested this guy on rape and murder on pretty strong evidence, he's an illegal immigrant from Mexico, but been here his whole life"

"QUICK, get Mexico on the phone and pull up every international treaties we have"....

who the hell would do that? especially after dealing with a guy/case about a rape and murder...

sorry, the real-world isn't like that....again, the way Texas handled that kinda proved it...

"Where have I ever argued against upholding immigration laws? Cite, please."

I didn't say you were against those laws, nice deflect/spin, just that I haven't seen you demand, with the same zeal, that those laws need to be enforced, you still haven't said a thing about those laws needing to be upheld, the laws that would have prevented this girl from being rapped and killed......

but I guess him not getting his "Consular rights" deserve a bigger outcry from you then the laws that would have stopped him from raping and killing someone...you pretty much didn't say anything to the contrary...


"You want to go back in time and stop him from entering? We sort of have the situation on hand."

what?....again, WHAT?...no, I wanted the laws to have been enforced at that time that would have stop this "situation at hand"....time travel?...what the hell are you talking about?..this is well beyond deflection...you keep glossing over the laws that would have stop this to whine about some trivial insignificant part of some other law....

...so you ignore the immigration laws that would have stop him from raping and killing someone because its "its already in the past" to whine about this scum's "Consular rights" because its in the "present"?..what the hell are you talking about at this point?

"Oh, we have rules enforcement with 100% success rate, now? Fascinating. Care to cite an example?"

did you just really say this?...ok, so they forgot to mention his "consular rights", what you are expecting a 100% success right of the rules?...care to cite an example?......you see how you sound?

"Want to make this a DP debate? Look at some of the posts in this thread and tell me with a straight face that there's not a little bit of smug satisfaction there."

if you took those who were satisfied that this filth got put to his rightfully death as "smug" again, get help....if it was me, I'd **** on his grave...so that makes me well beyond "smug"...got something to say about that?....

"It's this foreign national thing you seem to not want to talk about. Anyway, why should the Mexican Police care? The treaty is inconvenient, it was signed by the Federales, not the great state of Baja California. Add that he was clearly guilty, it was extra work and besides, they were pretty sure he was from Texas. "

not the same for someone that's been in a country their whole life....if you think the Mexican Police is going to contact America for someone who has been there their whole life, you place too much credit on people that can't even stop be-headings in their own backyards....again, try dealing with the real world..

"Rights under the Constitution are not handed out based on who deserve them. They're there for everybody, or you tear the damn thing up."

are you paying attention to what you are saying?....constitutional rights are granted for citizens....and since you've been b*tching that he is "foreign national" and a "Mexican citizen" then tell me what rights from the U.S constitution he deserve?

"Well, according to the Supremes, Texas has the right to pick and choose what treaties they feel bound by, so - legally, he had his rights."

his rights to what? the treaty which was determined that they didn't have to follow? or the rights reserved to citizens of America?...remember, he's the "Mexican Citizen"..

"His rights as a foreign national under US jurisdiction.

Wouldn't it be - nice - if the signature of the US on a treaty was worth something? But you can take solace in the fact that China is worse, there is that ."

again that part where I said the rest of the world don't care to much for foreign policy when it comes to their own business...

but for some reason, when the rest of the world wouldn't have been so nice a to an illegal resident of their country and gave this guy many chances of appeals, after the overwhelming evidence against him, when the other nations don't even care what rest of the world thinks about their internal affairs would probably would just killed him right then and there years ago...but America is a big ol meany for forgetting his "Consular rights".....come on....

you single out America, over a minor detail that if he was somewhere else, he would have had a much harsher fate..hell, I don't think he would have survived the first 2 decades of his life as a illegal immigrant somewhere else...that you believe some grave wrongdoing was done over a inconsequential detail after his he was convicted of rape and murder on massive evidence is borderline senseless...

for someone who isn't even in America..you sure have a narrow view of the world..

[dubyanumberone]

Originally Posted by malamute

Yet the pro-illegal side condemns Arizona for checking if someone it arrests is a citizen or not.

Can't have it both ways you know.

Very good point!

[Dane_in_LA]

"No need for air quotes. He's a Mexican citizen."

its real funny that his "Mexican Citizenship" is important now, when just about ever immigration debate, those who advocate having our laws enforced were called racist...

Sadly, I've not been privy to whatever debates you're refering to. Could we focus on the issue at hand?

besides they have the right to "American Citizenship" they've been here their whole lives...

I have no idea whose position you're arguing here, certainly not mine.

So I take it that during future immigration debates, you are going to advocate having all illegals ship back to whatever nation their "Citizenship" holds...after all, you stressed that they don't hold any U.S. Citizenship so what entitles them to be here?..especially for those who are here illegally....and our immigration laws need to be enforced...because like you said.."its the law"..

Find a cite, anywhere on City-Data, where I have argued against enforcement of immigration laws. I have certainly argued agaisnt some of the dumber suggestions - y'know, the "minefields and snipers" crowd - but I have zero issue with illegals being deported.

"So when dealing with the US legal system, he should be considered a US citizen? Does this perspective extend to immigration law, or is it a convenience thing?

And when, in your expert legal opinion, does an illegal immigrant lose status as a foreign national?

MAN, this could make some interesting cases"

a convenience thing?...a rape and murder trial case is hardly a "convenience"...

I'm just asking you to be consistent. Am I right in saying that you're arguing that in a rape trial, along-time illegal resident should be treated like a US citizen? No Consular contact etc.? I am merely asking whether you're going to apply that same standard to other legal considerations. Like for instance, immigration.

LOL, so what do you call the Dream Act?...there is an entire movement wanting to grant illegal immigrants automatic citizenship just because they have been here their whole lives....

Seeing as the Dream Act hasn't passed and is unlikely to pass, could we focus on the debate at hand?

now you people want invoke "Mexican Citizenship" to suit some sort of sick agenda that doesn't even make sense anymore....

So what citizenship would you say an illegal immigrant has? I'd say Mexican. What with it actually being the case.

yesterday liberals, in-general, were declaring they had as much right to an American Citizenship as you or I, now they get to claim Mexican Citizenship to suit some kind of sick political motive they have...

I suggest you take the debate to those nebulous liberals, then.

and I didn't say they should lose their Foreign national status and be granted Citizenship, just that after years of living here, soaking up resources and then breaking our laws, you should be subjected the consequences and not try to hide behind your so called "citizenship" of some foreign land you haven't been to in years, a place you purposefully abandoned..

Nobody denies the US/Texas the right to prosecute foreign criminals who commit crimes under US jurisdiction.

"Yeah, it's a brilliant loophole Texas found there. I wonder what other treaties they're above and beyond. Can members of the Texas National Guard ignore the Geneva convention? Is Texas no longer bound by extradition treaties?

Let's try it for some other countries, this'll be fun. Will you be calm and relaxed when Bavaria refuses to hand over US servicemen to be prosecuted under the UCMJ, because that's a US-German agreement, not a US-Bavarian one? "

I don't know why you are purposefully being dense...keep comparing someone who has been in a country their whole life to those that travel abroad.....again, legal foreign nationals would have I.D.s, passports, documents on them showing they are foreign...

Like I've said any number of times, andas you keep ignoring: The Vienna Convention doesn't come with a footnote saying "Not valid for illegal immigrants."

you keep comparing this to someone who has been here his whole life with school, medical, bills and other records showing he has been here his whole life....why the hell would they check his "Mexican Citizenship" and international treaties after all that info showing he has been here his whole life?.

Because the US has agreed to take on that obligation?

that is not how the real-world works...the way Texas handled this case kinda proved that....it almost appears that you are arguing with reality at this point....

"Because we can" is a really bad legal concept.

"According to the Supreme Court, no. According to the Vienna Convention, yes, of course."

the Supreme Court said they didn't have to, so they aren't going to...saying the "Vienna Convection says so" isn't' gong to change that..

and why would they?..illegals probably commit countless crimes, no one is going to waste there time contacting Mexico or some other place and reviewing international laws and treaties every time an illegal, especially for those who have been here for years if not their whole lives....doing so would be pointless...even you agreed more then once that a Consul would have been of no use...

Isn't it a bummer hoe due process sometimes involves doing things that are probably going to be useles?

and are they to contact the Consulate for repeat offenders?

not sure why you would want people to waste their time and money over trivialities and redundancies that have no point....

Yeah, you're right. We could save a lot of money on picking and choosing what rights to give defendants.

"I rather like when Law Enforcement live up to the law they're there to enforce. Miranda, right to remain silent, that kind of thing. It is, in fact, the sort of thing that's supposed to set the US apart form, say, Mexico.

"

I too would like it that Law Enforcement would enforce the immigration laws, the laws that would have prevented this poor girl from being raped and killed...you know that kind of thing...arguing over trivialities that makes no difference don't seem to bug me....not sure why it does you

The Time Machine argument again?

I mean (A) his "Consul rights" while being on death row for raping and killing someone VS (B) the "immigrations laws" that would have prevented him from raping and killing someone to begin with.......not sure why (A) is such a grave wrongdoing to you when its such a minor detail in the grand scheme of things..

The US living up to treaty obligations is minor?

"I did, and I've conceded as much upthread, I even linked to the decision.

The thing is, of course, that the rest of the world can't make a treaty with Texas. The world at large was under the impression that there as a deal."

the world at large don't care much what others think....you have any idea how many U.N. citations go ignored?....I don't know why you people must fight reality, for some reason parts of the world out-right behead and commit all kinds of human-rights violations, yet you people seem to only get your panties twisted at America...

It kinda comes with claiming to hte leader of the Free World - you're held to a higher standard than North Korea.

I mean honestly, China executed someone who may have been mentally ill over mere drug smuggling.....yet I don't see them worrying about international opinions...nor do I see other international communities worrying about them....

"Better than China" is the standard you're going for, now?

Which has what to do with the case at hand?

you're the one who is worry about America's "foreign policy", I was just stating that wagging four wars at once is a bigger issue for foreign relations then executing someone who has been here his whole life...keep up...

So just a deflection. Got it.

"Are you just grabbing in a bag of random facts, now?

"

that was in response to you screaming the U.S. need to "follow the rules"...if the U.S. "followed" the rules, the immigration rules, this girl wouldn't have been raped and killed.....you don't really have an answer to that it so you just deflected it as "random"...

It is pretty random. The US being unable or unwilling to implement an immigration policy that works isn't an issue for the rest of the world.

I mean honestly, screaming that those rules need to be followed, but don't have much say for the rules the that would have prevented her from being raped and killed is twisted....you're still pretty much silent on that one..

I understand that you'd much rather discuss a hypothetical than the situation at hand, but the sad fact of the matter is, he was here. He committed a crime. And the US was unwilling or unable to do what she'd promised she would.

"Was he a US citizen? No. Then he's a foreign national. That's the point you've as yet refused to come to grips with.

"

Ok, so he is a "Mexican National".....

Thank you!

again, I take it that you are ready to tell these "foreign nationals" to stop sucking up resources for Americans because they are not American "citizens" and to leave...I mean they are here illegally, they are "nationals" of foreign lands, so why the hell should they stay here?...what rights to they have?...I can count on you for that the next immigration thread right?

Like I said, cite one thread where I've been in favor of illegal immigration. Just one.

"A Consulate is a building. A Consul or Consular officer can help with what you describe. And again, I don't care it there was a practical purpose for the visit."

here you are again, admitting that the Consul would have been of no purpose...even the most basic use of a Consul would have been of no use here, and yet you still demand it should have been there...so you are just advocating for something of no use?...can you even think of a trivial reason?...at this point its looking like you are arguing for no good reason with no real point..

Seeing as the guy was in fact found guilty, it appears his defense lawyer served no purpose. Should we make that optional as well?

"The wording is pretty clear."

it doesn't matter at this point, the Supreme court ruled the "wording" didn't matter..

Yup, it's a mess.

Like I said, it's going to be really freakin' interesting if Texas feels unburdened by international treaties."

I see you jumped over the part where I said "the rest of the world don't care to much for foreign policy when it comes to their own business"....Texas did what many other nations would have..

Actually, it's an interesting situation. Texas has seaports, right? DO you have any idea of the scope of international law and, yes, treaties, that concern themselves with shipping? Are to assume, now, that Texas courts will feel themselves above those, too?

and I am not sure what you are expecting to happen...even without that treaty, Texas handled this better then what most other places would have ..what?...you think that they are just going to start shooting illegals randomly on the streets or something?...

they were handling things fine before that treaty become an issue....besides, it was brought up during Bush presidency and it was ruled then that they didn't have to follow the treaty..that was like 7 years ago..don't recall some international crisis resulting from Texas going all crazy from not having to obey treaties, and they had like 7 years to do so...you can think its going to be "freaking interesting" or something....after 7 years, nothing happened...but I am willing to give it more time.....

and if it was such a grave issue why did after 7 years nothing was done by Congress?...either this was some kind of political move whining about his "Consular Rights" or you people really are whining about such a stupid triviality...

The cavalier attitude towards due process is rather disconcerting.

"Can't present the exception?"

don't have to, the Supreme court did...

No. The Supremes said that the Convention didn't apply to Texas in the absence of Federal legislation. They did not look through the convention and agree with you that there's an illegal-alien exception.

Two rather different points.

"It's sort of the crux of the argument. Will the US abide by a ratified treaty? Apparently, only if the state in question feels like it that day."

the rest of the world pretty much do what the "feel like that day"....and most people wasn't going to go out of their way over a technicality......sorry, people tend to gloss over unimportant details when dealing with real problems....

So the world should not expect the US will not abide by a ratified treaty. The word of the US is sh.t. That's - sad. I actually harbor higher thoughts of the US than that.

"we just arrested this guy on rape and murder on pretty strong evidence, he's an illegal immigrant from Mexico, but been here his whole life"

"QUICK, get Mexico on the phone and pull up every international treaties we have"....

who the hell would do that? especially after dealing with a guy/case about a rape and murder...

sorry, the real-world isn't like that....again, the way Texas handled that kinda proved it...

Yeah, I get it. Those pesky agreements are inconvenient.

"Where have I ever argued against upholding immigration laws? Cite, please.

"

I didn't say you were against those laws, nice deflect/spin, just that I haven't seen you demand, with the same zeal, that those laws need to be enforced, you still haven't said a thing about those laws needing to be upheld, the laws that would have prevented this girl from being rapped and killed......

SO you ant an entirely different debate?

but I guess him not getting his "Consular rights" deserve a bigger outcry from you then the laws that would have stopped him from raping and killing someone...you pretty much didn't say anything to the contrary...

Correct, it's a different debate.

"You want to go back in time and stop him from entering? We sort of have the situation on hand.

"

what?....again, WHAT?...no, I wanted the laws to have been enforced at that time that would have stop this "situation at hand"....

A bit late for that now, isn't it?

time travel?...

Seems necessary,

...so you ignore the immigration laws that would have stop him from raping and killing someone because its "its already in the past" to whine about this scum's "Consular rights" because its in the "present"?..what the hell are you talking about at this point?

Whether the US intends to live up to her treaty obligations. Now that you've finally agreed that the perpetrator is, in fact, a foreign national.

"Oh, we have rules enforcement with 100% success rate, now? Fascinating. Care to cite an example?"

did you just really say this?...ok, so they forgot to mention his "consular rights", what you are expecting a 100% success right of the rules?...care to cite an example?......you see how you sound?

Sigh. I am pointing out that even if you got in your time machine, went back to the eighties, and implemented some sort of immigration enforcement, you'd still be faced with the problem of long-term illegal aliens.

"Want to make this a DP debate? Look at some of the posts in this thread and tell me with a straight face that there's not a little bit of smug satisfaction there."

if you took those who were satisfied that this filth got put to his rightfully death as "smug" again, get help....if it was me, I'd **** on his grave...so that makes me well beyond "smug"...got something to say about that?....

That while I disagree with the DP, I can at least respect those who are in favor of it as a necessary evil. Not so much those who vicariously get their revenge through the Government killing off somebody.

"It's this foreign national thing you seem to not want to talk about. Anyway, why should the Mexican Police care? The treaty is inconvenient, it was signed by the Federales, not the great state of Baja California. Add that he was clearly guilty, it was extra work and besides, they were pretty sure he was from Texas.

"

not the same for someone that's been in a country their whole life....if you think the Mexican Police is going to contact America for someone who has been there their whole life, you place too much credit on people that can't even stop be-headings in their own backyards....again, try dealing with the real world..

You keep whining it's "Not the same". Yet, the treaty we're talking about doesn't have an exception for long-term illegals. At least you've not been able to point to one.

"Rights under the Constitution are not handed out based on who deserve them. They're there for everybody, or you tear the damn thing up.

"

are you paying attention to what you are saying?....constitutional rights are granted for citizens....and since you've been b*tching that he is "foreign national" and a "Mexican citizen" then tell me what rights from the U.S constitution he deserve?

You couldn't be more wrong. Constitutional rights in the legal system is granted to all persons under US jurisdiction.

"Well, according to the Supremes, Texas has the right to pick and choose what treaties they feel bound by, so - legally, he had his rights.

"

his rights to what? the treaty which was determined that they didn't have to follow? or the rights reserved to citizens of America?...remember, he's the "Mexican Citizen"..

In the US legal system, there are no rights "reserved to citizens of America". It's in the Constitution and everything.

Listen, I'm an expatriate living in the US. (Perfectly legal, by the way.) I did my homework. Do you think I'd make a home in a banana republic that had a special set of court regulations for foreign citizens?

"His rights as a foreign national under US jurisdiction.

Wouldn't it be - nice - if the signature of the US on a treaty was worth something? But you can take solace in the fact that China is worse, there is that

."

again that part where I said the rest of the world don't care to much for foreign policy when it comes to their own business...

but for some reason, when the rest of the world wouldn't have been so nice a to an illegal resident of their country and gave this guy many chances of appeals, after the overwhelming evidence against him, when the other nations don't even care what rest of the world thinks about their internal affairs would probably would just killed him right then and there years ago...but America is a big ol meany for forgetting his "Consular rights".....come on....

Well, you've made your stance clear. Treaties signed by the US are just slips of paper.

you single out America, over a minor detail that if he was somewhere else, he would have had a much harsher fate..

Yeah, I hold the US to higher standard than, say, Colombia. How unfair.

for someone who isn't even in America..you sure have a narrow view of the world..

Oh, but I do live in America. Legal resident in the great state of California, tirelessly working at undermining the nation's moral fiber in Hollywood, even.

And I see that the tags are all messed up, but I hope you'll make sense of it - it's just not that interesting any more.

[Dane_in_LA]

Originally Posted by malamute

Yet the pro-illegal side condemns Arizona for checking if someone it arrests is a citizen or not.

Can't have it both ways you know.

Ehm - checking nationality after an arrest is SOP.

What Arizona did was push the envelope to allow law enforcement to check papers during "arrest, detention or lawful stop", the latter being a very loosely defined term.

I dunno. I'm a legal immigrant, and I'd consider it a bit - un-American - to have somebody stop me on the street to check my papers. (Of course, I'm also Scandinavian, so it probably wouldn't happen.)