PDA

View Full Version : Obama Obama tries to stop execution in Texas of Mexican killer


Pages : [1] 2

petegz28
07-05-2011, 12:49 PM
President Barack Obama is attempting to block the execution in Texas on Thursday of a Mexican man because it would breach an international convention and do "irreparable harm" to US interests.

The White House has asked the US supreme court to put the execution of Humberto Leal Garcia on hold while Congress passes a law that would prevent the convicted rapist and murderer from being put to death along with dozens of other foreign nationals who were denied proper access to diplomatic representation before trials for capital crimes.

The administration moved after the governor of Texas, Rick Perry, brushed aside appeals from diplomats, top judges, senior military officers, the United Nations and former president George W Bush to stay Leal's execution because it could jeopardise American citizens arrested abroad as well as US diplomatic interests.

Leal, 38, was convicted in 1994 of the rape and murder of a 16-year-old girl in San Antonio. Few question that he was responsible for the killing but the Texas authorities failed to tell Leal, who was born in Mexico and has lived in the US since the age of two, that under the Vienna convention he was entitled to contact the Mexican consulate when he was arrested.

Leal's lawyers argue that the lack of consular access played a role in the death penalty being applied because the Mexican national incriminated himself in statements made during "non-custodial interviews" with the police on the day of the murder. Had Leal had access to the Mexican consulate it would have been likely to have arranged a lawyer who would have advised the accused man to limit his statements to the police. As it was, the Mexican authorities were never informed of his arrest.

In a 30-page brief to the supreme court, the administration said that the carrying out of the execution "would place the United States in irreparable breach of its international law obligation" under the convention.

The White House said it was in the US's interests to meet its treaty obligations.

"These interests include protecting Americans abroad, fostering co-operation with foreign nations, and demonstrating respect for the international rule of law," it said.

Carrying out Leal's execution would cause "irreparable harm" to US interests abroad, the administration added.

"That breach would have serious repercussions for United States foreign relations, law-enforcement and other co-operation with Mexico, and the ability of American citizens travelling abroad to have the benefits of consular assistance in the event of detention," it said.

The legal situation has been complicated by earlier court rulings.

In 2004, the international court of justice (ICJ) ruled that the US authorities had failed to meet its legal obligations to 51 Mexicans awaiting execution in American prisons when they were not informed of their right to contact their consulates.

The then president, George W Bush, a former Texas governor who backs the death penalty, said the US would adhere to the ICJ ruling which, in effect, meant the death sentences would be reviewed or commuted. But in 2008 the supreme court ruled that while the US government was obliged to comply with the ICJ ruling it did not have the power to force individual American states to do so. Only Congress could require adherence by passing a law.

The Obama administration has told the supreme court that a bill has recently been introduced in to the Senate to do just that but it is unlikely to win the approval of both houses of Congress before next year. The White House wants Leal's execution put on hold until the law is passed but two courts have already ruled that pending legislation has no effect on the legal process.

The UN high commissioner for human rights, Navi Pillay, has appealed to Perry to commute Leal's sentence to life imprisonment.

Christof Heyns, the UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions said that if Leal was put to death it would be "tantamount to an arbitrary deprivation of life".

Perry's office has said Texas laws had been abided by and that Leal would be executed for "the most heinous of crimes".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/05/obama-stop-texas-mexican-execution

petegz28
07-05-2011, 12:51 PM
Christof Heyns, the UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions said that if Leal was put to death it would be "tantamount to an arbitrary deprivation of life".

So the rape and murder of a 16 yr old girl was what?

loochy
07-05-2011, 12:51 PM
Leal, 38, was convicted in 1994 of the rape and murder of a 16-year-old girl in San Antonio.

That tells me all I need to know.

petegz28
07-05-2011, 12:54 PM
This is such a circus...

1. You have people pushing for people to be able to come into the country illegally

2. You have people pushing for guys such as this who has been here since he was 2 to have citizenship

3. You have people pushing for us to not enforce our laws because he is not a citizen

4. You have some dolt at the UN claiming if we execute a murderer we are arbitrarily depriving him of life.

You just can't make this shit up

Detoxing
07-05-2011, 12:59 PM
2. You have people pushing for guys such as this who has been here since he was 2 to have citizenship



Yeah. Pushing for guys like him. STFU.

The Mad Crapper
07-05-2011, 12:59 PM
This is such a circus...

1. You have people pushing for people to be able to come into the country illegally

2. You have people pushing for guys such as this who has been here since he was 2 to have citizenship

3. You have people pushing for us to not enforce our laws because he is not a citizen

4. You have some dolt at the UN claiming if we execute a murderer we are arbitrarily depriving him of life.

You just can't make this shit up

Welcome to the planet of the moonbats.

Garcia Bronco
07-05-2011, 01:00 PM
"The then president, George W Bush, a former Texas governor who backs the death penalty, said the US would adhere to the ICJ ruling which, in effect, meant the death sentences would be reviewed or commuted. But in 2008 the supreme court ruled that while the US government was obliged to comply with the ICJ ruling it did not have the power to force individual American states to do so. Only Congress could require adherence by passing a law."

Congress would need to pass an amendment to the Constitution.

And Obama can put a hold on nothing about this...nor can the Supreme court. While I don't like the state to execute anyone...it's an unfortunate reality.

petegz28
07-05-2011, 01:01 PM
Yeah. Pushing for guys like him. STFU.

So tell me how we are supposed to separate the good from the bad?

That's the problem, him and his family never should have been here in the first place, obviously.

ClevelandBronco
07-05-2011, 01:02 PM
Sir, you are not the President of Texas. However, if you believe that this is an injustice, perhaps you should consider pardoning the animal.

The Mad Crapper
07-05-2011, 01:11 PM
Sir, you are not the President of Texas. However, if you believe that this is an injustice, perhaps you should consider pardoning the animal.

He'd make a splendid babysitter for Sasha and Malia.

:drool:

petegz28
07-05-2011, 01:13 PM
I just get tired of all the pitty and concern we show for criminals when it comes to sentencing. I have no problems making sure one has a fair trial, etc, but this kid-glove BS is getting really old. This man murdered a 16 yr old girl. She is gone. She is not coming back. She was deprived of life. Her family was deprived. Meanwhile we are worried for some reason about depriving this scumbag of his life. That's just sick.

go bowe
07-05-2011, 01:14 PM
most of the crap in the op is crap...

the one thing i took away from it is that we have a treaty obligation to give consular access to accused criminals, in exchange for americans being granted consular access overseas...

the only other thing that was of real interest was the geedubya was for it, not just the obamamaniacs currently in charge...

The Mad Crapper
07-05-2011, 01:14 PM
I just get tired of all the pitty and concern we show for criminals when it comes to sentencing. I have no problems making sure one has a fair trial, etc, but this kid-glove BS is getting really old. This man murdered a 16 yr old girl. She is gone. She is not coming back. She was deprived of life. Her family was deprived. Meanwhile we are worried for some reason about depriving this scumbag of his life. That's just sick.

It's a moonbat thing, you wouldn't understand.

go bowe
07-05-2011, 01:17 PM
I just get tired of all the pitty and concern we show for criminals when it comes to sentencing. I have no problems making sure one has a fair trial, etc, but this kid-glove BS is getting really old. This man murdered a 16 yr old girl. She is gone. She is not coming back. She was deprived of life. Her family was deprived. Meanwhile we are worried for some reason about depriving this scumbag of his life. That's just sick.

scumbag deserves to die, no question about it, but do we really want to give up consular access for detained americans overseas?

do you think geedubya was for this because he was worried about depriving the scumbag of his life?

Donger
07-05-2011, 01:20 PM
So, he's an illegal in country for 30+ years?

The Mad Crapper
07-05-2011, 01:22 PM
No doubt this was at the top of Obastard's itinerary for the day.

petegz28
07-05-2011, 01:26 PM
scumbag deserves to die, no question about it, but do we really want to give up consular access for detained americans overseas?

do you think geedubya was for this because he was worried about depriving the scumbag of his life?

Fuck W, fuck, Obama and fuck the whiny ass people who are crying about this.

They are arguably part and parcel to this crime for not doing their fucking job in the first place. Instead of enforcing the laws to keep the people out of the country we coddled them and helped them and aided them while pretending not too.

The system failed this girl and her family among countless others, 2 here in KC yesterday, that die at the hands of illegals. This goes well beyond Obama and Bush as well. The last thing this family wants to hear is how the Rights of the person who murdered their little girl are at issue and are to be defended.

What about their Right to be proteced vis-a-vis keeping our borders protected and not letting illegals in the country to live among us while our government pretends like it's no big deal?

petegz28
07-05-2011, 01:27 PM
So, he's an illegal in country for 30+ years?

You are correct, sir!

Donger
07-05-2011, 01:30 PM
scumbag deserves to die, no question about it, but do we really want to give up consular access for detained americans overseas?

do you think geedubya was for this because he was worried about depriving the scumbag of his life?

If our countrymen entered another country illegally and committed this crime, I wouldn't care if they had consular access or not.

mlyonsd
07-05-2011, 01:41 PM
If our countrymen entered another country illegally and committed this crime, I wouldn't care if they had consular access or not.That's where I'm at. If you're here illegaly the treaty is null and void. Same goes with our citizens.

Fry the POS.

The Mad Crapper
07-05-2011, 01:42 PM
I bet the other convicts on Texas Death row are wishing they weren't American citizens.

LMAO

Donger
07-05-2011, 01:47 PM
Interesting. Of the 314 people on the Texas death row, 14 are Mexican nationals.

go bowe
07-05-2011, 01:50 PM
If our countrymen entered another country illegally and committed this crime, I wouldn't care if they had consular access or not.

of course not...

problem is that americans get detained on spurious charges all too often and without consular access they would have little chance of regaining their freedom...

the treaty is intended to protect the rights of innocent people in foreign countries, and yes it sometimes produces extreme cases like this where injustice inevitably occurs...

however this kind of thing is hardly common and isn't the intent of the treaty...

also, keep in mind that this scumbag has already been convicted of the crime and there is no longer any doubt as to his guilt...

consular access pretty much involves detention early in the process before anything is proven...

how do you sort out the scumbags from people who should not have been detained? consular access is an incredibly important legal safeguard for our citizens abroad and we must extend that same right to foreign nationals arrested here - a result in this case which is repulsive and unconscionable, but in the larger scope of things necessary...

also important is the fact that the scumbag is never going to get out of prison if his death sentence is reduced to life in prison without possibility of parole, he is not going free like so many guilty people escape all punishment because of legal technicalities...

the scumbag deserves to die, no question...

i just wish the cops had just given him consular access and none of this would be happening now...

Donger
07-05-2011, 01:50 PM
Charming: http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/statistics/deathrow/drowlist/leal.jpg

Raped the girl with a piece of lumber and then crusher her skull with a 35lb piece of asphalt.

Donger
07-05-2011, 01:51 PM
of course not...

problem is that americans get detained on spurious charges all too often and without consular access they would have little chance of regaining their freedom...

the treaty is intended to protect the rights of innocent people in foreign countries, and yes it sometimes produces extreme cases like this where injustice inevitably occurs...

however this kind of thing is hardly common and isn't the intent of the treaty...

also, keep in mind that this scumbag has already been convicted of the crime and there is no longer any doubt as to his guilt...

consular access pretty much involves detention early in the process before anything is proven...

how do you sort out the scumbags from people who should not have been detained? consular access is an incredibly important legal safeguard for our citizens abroad and we must extend that same right to foreign nationals arrested here - a result in this case which is repulsive and unconscionable, but in the larger scope of things necessary...

also important is the fact that the scumbag is never going to get out of prison if his death sentence is reduced to life in prison without possibility of parole, he is not going free like so many guilty people escape all punishment because of legal technicalities...

the scumbag deserves to die, no question...

i just wish the cops had just given him consular access and none of this would be happening now...

Like I said, I wouldn't care if our citizens were treated this way if they were in another country illegally.

petegz28
07-05-2011, 01:51 PM
The bigger question is, why was he allowed to stay in the country for so long? Ever wonder how we always hear we can never find these people to deport them yet somehow we know how many are here in this country illegally?

Donger
07-05-2011, 01:53 PM
The bigger question is, why was he allowed to stay in the country for so long? Ever wonder how we always hear we can never find these people to deport them yet somehow we know how many are here in this country illegally?

Because he was "just looking for a better life" and "doing the work that we don't want to do."

The Mad Crapper
07-05-2011, 01:53 PM
Interesting. Of the 314 people on the Texas death row, 14 are Mexican nationals.

Well what do you expect? The poor guys were out with their kids buying some ice cream and then they were profiled by the police.

2bikemike
07-05-2011, 01:54 PM
If our countrymen entered another country illegally and committed this crime, I wouldn't care if they had consular access or not.

This right here says it all.

go bowe
07-05-2011, 01:54 PM
That's where I'm at. If you're here illegaly the treaty is null and void. Same goes with our citizens.

Fry the POS.

i haven't read the treaty itself, so i'm speculating, but i'd be surprised if it had any provision for excluding people who have illegally entered a country...

for example, the hikers who entered iran did so illegally, even if they didn't know it; consular access resulted in their eventual release...

my visceral reaction is that i'd almost enjoy going to prison so i could participate in mass beatings on a daily basis, scumbag would wish he'd died...

petegz28
07-05-2011, 01:54 PM
of course not...

problem is that americans get detained on spurious charges all too often and without consular access they would have little chance of regaining their freedom...

the treaty is intended to protect the rights of innocent people in foreign countries, and yes it sometimes produces extreme cases like this where injustice inevitably occurs...

however this kind of thing is hardly common and isn't the intent of the treaty...

also, keep in mind that this scumbag has already been convicted of the crime and there is no longer any doubt as to his guilt...

consular access pretty much involves detention early in the process before anything is proven...

how do you sort out the scumbags from people who should not have been detained? consular access is an incredibly important legal safeguard for our citizens abroad and we must extend that same right to foreign nationals arrested here - a result in this case which is repulsive and unconscionable, but in the larger scope of things necessary...

also important is the fact that the scumbag is never going to get out of prison if his death sentence is reduced to life in prison without possibility of parole, he is not going free like so many guilty people escape all punishment because of legal technicalities...

the scumbag deserves to die, no question...

i just wish the cops had just given him consular access and none of this would be happening now...

The guy admitted to his guilt. To speculate that cosular access would have had a different outcome is just that. It's a moot point. He murdered one of our citizens and brutally at that.

I look at it this way, he was allowed to stay in this country fro 30+ years illegally so fuck his sudden need for consular access. He wasn't too worried about it when he was prancing around our country illegally.

go bowe
07-05-2011, 01:56 PM
Interesting. Of the 314 people on the Texas death row, 14 are Mexican nationals.

only 14?

given the demographics of texas, i would have expected it to be 50% or higher...

petegz28
07-05-2011, 01:57 PM
only 14?

given the demographics of texas, i would have expected it to be 50% or higher...

That's on death row, not overall prison population.

go bowe
07-05-2011, 01:57 PM
Because he was "just looking for a better life" and "doing the work that we don't want to do."

ok, those are dipshit reasons for any kind of amnesty, i agree...

Donger
07-05-2011, 01:58 PM
only 14?

given the demographics of texas, i would have expected it to be 50% or higher...

Here is the racial breakdown (even though Hispanic isn't a race):

White = 94
Black = 122
Hispanic = 94
Other = 4

petegz28
07-05-2011, 02:00 PM
ok, those are dipshit reasons for any kind of amnesty, i agree...

But that's what we hear all the time, isn't it? There is always some excuse as to why we need to allow people to sneak into our country, game the system and fuck us all one way or the other.

2 people were killed in a head on crash yesterday in KC by guess who?, an illegal alien.

I will be the first to say we need to streamline our immigration process but that is no excuse for turning a blind eye. And when a state such as AZ has said they have had enough and want to start enforcing the laws WTF does our Fed Gov do? Sues their ass!

Donger
07-05-2011, 02:00 PM
That's on death row, not overall prison population.

As of March 31, 2006, TDCJ had a total population of 151,852 inmates

Of the total incarcerated in state jails and prisons in March 2006, 11,514 claimed to have been born in a foreign country and 10,280 claimed that they hold foreign citizenship.

go bowe
07-05-2011, 02:03 PM
The guy admitted to his guilt. To speculate that cosular access would have had a different outcome is just that. It's a moot point. He murdered one of our citizens and brutally at that.

I look at it this way, he was allowed to stay in this country fro 30+ years illegally so fuck his sudden need for consular access. He wasn't too worried about it when he was prancing around our country illegally.

i don't think that the consular access issue had anything to do with his guilt, he committed the crimes, beyond a reasonable doubt...

that's not the issue, nor is his need for consular access, nor is it the fact that he was here illegally...

it's a matter of protecting our citizens abroad from arbitrary arrests in accordance with a treaty we entered into, making it the supreme law of the land....

result sucks, big time, but the treaty is vitally important to our citizens abroad...

that's all i'm saying...

go bowe
07-05-2011, 02:04 PM
Here is the racial breakdown (even though Hispanic isn't a race):

White = 94
Black = 122
Hispanic = 94
Other = 4

wow, didn't know that the majority of texans are black...

still, i would have expected many more than 14...

petegz28
07-05-2011, 02:07 PM
i don't think that the consular access issue had anything to do with his guilt, he committed the crimes, beyond a reasonable doubt...

that's not the issue, nor is his need for consular access, nor is it the fact that he was here illegally...

it's a matter of protecting our citizens abroad from arbitrary arrests in accordance with a treaty we entered into, making it the supreme law of the land....

result sucks, big time, but the treaty is vitally important to our citizens abroad...

that's all i'm saying...

So let me get this straight, we are to allow these people who are clearly anti-death penalty to use this BS against a guy as you have admitted is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?

It isn't like we pulled him over for drunk driving and are going to stick him in the chair. This was not an arbitrary arrest. Not even close.

So why are we not wanting to execute him again? Because he is a clear murderer? If some country was to use this as an excuse to execute people who accidentaly hiked into Iranian territory then they were fucked to begin with, regardless.

Common sense is being thrown out the fucking window here.

What this comes down too is people using this consular access excuse as just that, an excuse to push the anti-death penalty stance. And that includes our President.

go bowe
07-05-2011, 02:09 PM
As of March 31, 2006, TDCJ had a total population of 151,852 inmates

Of the total incarcerated in state jails and prisons in March 2006, 11,514 claimed to have been born in a foreign country and 10,280 claimed that they hold foreign citizenship.

again, i'm really surprised by how few "foreigners" there are in prison in texas...

of course foreign born could include legal residents and naturalized citizens, as well as foreigners who are not hispanic/mexican, which would make the percentage even lower...

frankotank
07-05-2011, 02:11 PM
" While I don't like the state to execute anyone...it's an unfortunate reality.

you don't think some people deserve the death penalty?
please, please, please start executing those deserving and stop leaving them on death row for 20 years so I can pay for their room and board.
some people deserve the death penalty. if it was my daugher I wouldn't have a problem with doing it myself. obama is a tard. he supports abortion - killing an innocent baby - but not a piece of shit rapist. I can't stand any more "change".

petegz28
07-05-2011, 02:12 PM
again, i'm really surprised by how few "foreigners" there are in prison in texas...

of course foreign born could include legal residents and naturalized citizens, as well as foreigners who are not hispanic/mexican, which would make the percentage even lower...

Just under 10%. That's a lot, all things considered. And that is just the ones we hold. That is not including the ones the system insists on letting go free or not making an effort to apprehend at all in the first place.

Donger
07-05-2011, 02:14 PM
again, i'm really surprised by how few "foreigners" there are in prison in texas...

of course foreign born could include legal residents and naturalized citizens, as well as foreigners who are not hispanic/mexican, which would make the percentage even lower...

What's the math? ~8%? That's actually higher than I thought it would be.

petegz28
07-05-2011, 02:14 PM
you don't think some people deserve the death penalty?
please, please, please start executing those deserving and stop leaving them on death row for 20 years so I can pay for their room and board.
some people deserve the death penalty. if it was my daugher I wouldn't have a problem with doing it myself. obama is a tard. he supports abortion - killing an innocent baby - but not a piece of shit rapist. I can't stand any more "change".

That's the morbid thinking of the Left in a nutshell. Kill the unborn innocent but save the proven guilty criminal.

And not just save his life but give him cable tv, workout equipment, etc., etc.

I wouldn't have a problem with a life sentence if these jackoffs were out fixing potholes and cleaning up garbage.

Amnorix
07-05-2011, 02:15 PM
So let me get this straight, we are to allow these people who are clearly anti-death penalty to use this BS against a guy as you have admitted is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?

It isn't like we pulled him over for drunk driving and are going to stick him in the chair. This was not an arbitrary arrest. Not even close.

So why are we not wanting to execute him again? Because he is a clear murderer? If some country was to use this as an excuse to execute people who accidentaly hiked into Iranian territory then they were fucked to begin with, regardless.

Common sense is being thrown out the fucking window here.

What this comes down too is people using this consular access excuse as just that, an excuse to push the anti-death penalty stance. And that includes our President.

You guys noted that George W. Bush is supporting the current Administration on this, and that he is definitely not anti-death penalty, right?

RIGHT?

Maybe there's more to consider here than the fastest way to get a guy in the chair.

Amnorix
07-05-2011, 02:16 PM
That's the morbid thinking of the Left in a nutshell. Kill the unborn innocent but save the proven guilty criminal.

And not just save his life but give him cable tv, workout equipment, etc., etc.

I wouldn't have a problem with a life sentence if thise jackoffs were out fixing potholes and cleaning up garbage.

FTR, I support the death penalty.

This isn't a death penalty issue, it's an issue of international relations and making sure Americans get a fair shake if they are overseas and get pinched for something under legal systems that may not be nearly as fair and impartial as ours.

vailpass
07-05-2011, 02:16 PM
wow, didn't know that the majority of texans are black...

still, i would have expected many more than 14...

They execute the foreginers first. Wonder what the total percentage of all executed inTexas over the last 5 years is?

go bowe
07-05-2011, 02:16 PM
So let me get this straight, we are to allow these people who are clearly anti-death penalty to use this BS against a guy as you have admitted is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?

It isn't like we pulled him over for drunk driving and are going to stick him in the chair. This was not an arbitrary arrest. Not even close.

So why are we not wanting to execute him again? Because he is a clear murderer? If some country was to use this as an excuse to execute people who accidentaly hiked into Iranian territory then they were fucked to begin with, regardless.

Common sense is being thrown out the fucking window here.

What this comes down too is people using this consular access excuse as just that, an excuse to push the anti-death penalty stance. And that includes our President.
try again, pete...

you're arguing against positions that i have specifically not espoused...

it's not anti-death penalty issue, although they would like it to be...

this particular arrest is not arbitrary and guilty americans abroad are not set free because of consular access...

common sense wrt all of your points, none of which is my point btw, appears to be thrown out the window, no doubt...

but you're missing the whole point of the treaty and how we are obligated to follow it...

vailpass
07-05-2011, 02:17 PM
You guys noted that George W. Bush is supporting the current Administration on this, and that he is definitely not anti-death penalty, right?

RIGHT?

Maybe there's more to consider here than the fastest way to get a guy in the chair.

LMAO Another response with President Bush's name in it?

" You realize it isn't just this fuck-up empty suit obama that supports this, that President Bush also supports it right?
RIGHT?"

petegz28
07-05-2011, 02:17 PM
You guys noted that George W. Bush is supporting the current Administration on this, and that he is definitely not anti-death penalty, right?

RIGHT?

Maybe there's more to consider here than the fastest way to get a guy in the chair.

WTF does that matter? Bush also wanted a form of amnesty as well, so WTF should I be surprised?

I fucking love it. On one hand you guys bash and blame Bush for every wrong done under the sun yet here you are throwing him out as if that is supposed to change my mind about something?


I think we have far from rushed to getting him in the chair seeing as the crime was SEVENTEEN FUCKING YEARS AGO!

petegz28
07-05-2011, 02:18 PM
try again, pete...

you're arguing against positions that i have specifically not espoused...

it's not anti-death penalty issue, although they would like it to be...

this particular arrest is not arbitrary and guilty americans abroad are not set free because of consular access...

common sense wrt all of your points, none of which is my point btw, appears to be thrown out the window, no doubt...

but you're missing the whole point of the treaty and how we are obligated to follow it...

It is, they are just using this consular BS as a guise, come on already.

go bowe
07-05-2011, 02:19 PM
They execute the foreginers first. Wonder what the total percentage of all executed inTexas over the last 5 years is?

me too...

it's probably fewer than i expected but more than donger expected...

mlyonsd
07-05-2011, 02:20 PM
You guys noted that George W. Bush is supporting the current Administration on this, and that he is definitely not anti-death penalty, right?

RIGHT?

Maybe there's more to consider here than the fastest way to get a guy in the chair.I don't blame Obama and Holder on this one.

They really needed to just look the other way or get it caught up in paperwork until Friday.

The only other remedy I see is to release and deport him.....and that would be political suicide.

petegz28
07-05-2011, 02:22 PM
try again, pete...

you're arguing against positions that i have specifically not espoused...

it's not anti-death penalty issue, although they would like it to be...

this particular arrest is not arbitrary and guilty americans abroad are not set free because of consular access...

common sense wrt all of your points, none of which is my point btw, appears to be thrown out the window, no doubt...

but you're missing the whole point of the treaty and how we are obligated to follow it...

BTW, we are also obligated to enforce laws that prevent such people from entering the country in the first place. So why do we wish to pick and choose?

We let this guy and his family in the country illegally. We pretended they didn't exist. We made excuses for why they should be here. And now suddenly we are worried about some treaty?

I am sorry, I don't buy this political bullshit when it comes to some young girl being brutally murdered.

frankotank
07-05-2011, 02:24 PM
That's the morbid thinking of the Left in a nutshell. Kill the unborn innocent but save the proven guilty criminal.

And not just save his life but give him cable tv, workout equipment, etc., etc.

I wouldn't have a problem with a life sentence if these jackoffs were out fixing potholes and cleaning up garbage.

unfortunatley life sentences trickle down to overpopulated jails which leads to letting criminals loose after 6 months when under regular circumstances they'd be in jail for a few years. it's a sucky system. protecting criminals.

you know, physical castration would take care of repeat offenders.

go bowe
07-05-2011, 02:25 PM
I don't blame Obama and Holder on this one.

They really needed to just look the other way or get it caught up in paperwork until Friday.

The only other remedy I see is to release and deport him.....and that would be political suicide.

why in the world would you want to release this guy under any circumstances?

he's not a bass, he's a convicted killer...

it's not the only remedy, life in prison is the only alternative being considered by anybody (who is rational and credible /kotter)...

Donger
07-05-2011, 02:26 PM
why in the world would you want to release this guy under any circumstances?

he's not a bass, he's a convicted killer...

it's not the only remedy, life in prison is the only alternative being considered by anybody (who is rational and credible /kotter)...

"Shot 20 times during escape attempt" works for me.

Amnorix
07-05-2011, 02:26 PM
LMAO Another response with President Bush's name in it?

" You realize it isn't just this fuck-up empty suit obama that supports this, that President Bush also supports it right?
RIGHT?"

Seems to me that if Bush and Obama both support X, then we should all think carefully whether anti-X makes much sense -- at least in certain areas.

Because in many areas I don't see that many differences between them. Foreign relations and death penalty, however, aren't issues that I see the two as aligned. If they align on something in those realms, then I would pause and reconsider my stance, if I was on the other side of that debate.

orange
07-05-2011, 02:27 PM
So, he's an illegal in country for 30+ years?

Where do you get that? There's nothing in the article at all about his immigration status, and a quick search hasn't found anything on the web. Is there a previous article that has this information?

Amnorix
07-05-2011, 02:27 PM
I don't blame Obama and Holder on this one.

They really needed to just look the other way or get it caught up in paperwork until Friday.

The only other remedy I see is to release and deport him.....and that would be political suicide.

What's wrong with lifetime imprisonment?

petegz28
07-05-2011, 02:28 PM
"Shot 20 times during escape attempt" works for me.

Just found dead in his cell is fine with me.

Donger
07-05-2011, 02:28 PM
Where do you get that? There's nothing in the article at all about his immigration status, and a quick search hasn't found anything on the web. Is there a previous article that has this information?

http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/nationalities.htm

Donger
07-05-2011, 02:28 PM
What's wrong with lifetime imprisonment?

It's not sufficient punishment for his crime and it costs more money.

petegz28
07-05-2011, 02:30 PM
What's wrong with lifetime imprisonment?

WTF should we pay for this dickhead to exist? He is just taking up space that could be used otherwise, see CA prisoner release.

Get the fuck rid of him and people like him for that matter. It's not a good thing to execute anyone but it's worse to saddle the people to keep them alive in prison. What good comes of keeping him alive in prison? What exactly does that acomplish? He murdered a young girl, why should he be allowed to watch cable tv, eat 3 squares a day, get medical care and suck dick on the tax payer's dime?

petegz28
07-05-2011, 02:31 PM
Where do you get that? There's nothing in the article at all about his immigration status, and a quick search hasn't found anything on the web. Is there a previous article that has this information?

So if he isn't illegal then all this "consular access" is out the fucking window and we are free to fry the fucker, heh?

orange
07-05-2011, 02:32 PM
http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/nationalities.htm

Your list proves nothing. It is possible for foreigners - even Mexicans - to be here legally. You do know that, right?

I asked what makes you and others think he's ILLEGAL. That information may be out there, but I haven't seen it yet.

Maybe if I click his name on the list... nope, nothing there. I ask again, where do you get that he's illegal?

go bowe
07-05-2011, 02:32 PM
BTW, we are also obligated to enforce laws that prevent such people from entering the country in the first place. So why do we wish to pick and choose?

We let this guy and his family in the country illegally. We pretended they didn't exist. We made excuses for why they should be here. And now suddenly we are worried about some treaty?

I am sorry, I don't buy this political bullshit when it comes to some young girl being brutally murdered.

i don't think we pick and choose whether we enforce laws based on someone's immigration status...

don't you think we're trying as hard as we can under today's budget restraints to enforce the border?

of course not...

and our "worry" about some treaty (law of the land under the specific provisions of the constitution) didn't arise because of this case, it was a matter considered and debated in the senate and confirmed...

being concerned about these tangential issues that nobody has brought up to defend what is happening in this case is a bit of a misdirection, but you've worn me down with your strawmen (/ms. pea brain)...

off to find something else to do until the wife gets home...

toodle loo...

vailpass
07-05-2011, 02:32 PM
Seems to me that if Bush and Obama both support X, then we should all think carefully whether anti-X makes much sense -- at least in certain areas.

Because in many areas I don't see that many differences between them. Foreign relations and death penalty, however, aren't issues that I see the two as aligned. If they align on something in those realms, then I would pause and reconsider my stance, if I was on the other side of that debate.

Fair enough. I'm looking forward to the day we have a strong POTUS again.

frankotank
07-05-2011, 02:33 PM
What's wrong with lifetime imprisonment?

In thinking of crimes for which life imprisonment seems fair.....rape/murder isn't one of them. I think you should be executed just for rape. that or at least physical castration. seriously. this guy's a rapist and murderer. die bitch.

petegz28
07-05-2011, 02:33 PM
i don't think we pick and choose whether we enforce laws based on someone's immigration status...

don't you think we're trying as hard as we can under today's budget restraints to enforce the border?

of course not...

and our "worry" about some treaty (law of the land under the specific provisions of the constitution) didn't arise because of this case, it was a matter considered and debated in the senate and confirmed...

being concerned about these tangential issues that nobody has brought up to defend what is happening in this case is a bit of a misdirection, but you've worn me down with your strawmen (/ms. pea brain)...

off to find something else to do until the wife gets home...

toodle loo...

You lost me with your first statement

go bowe
07-05-2011, 02:34 PM
"Shot 20 times during escape attempt" works for me.
yeah, that would probably be a possible solution, and i personally would be honored to shoot one of the 20 shots...

Jaric
07-05-2011, 02:35 PM
If our countrymen entered another country illegally and committed this crime, I wouldn't care if they had consular access or not.

Yeah. This. He fucked up on our soil, I could give a shit about what the rest of the world thinks. He got a far fairer trial than he would have expected had he been on trial in Mexico.

Flip the switch and be done with it.

Donger
07-05-2011, 02:36 PM
Your list proves nothing. It is possible for foreigners - even Mexicans - to be here legally. You do know that, right?

I asked what makes you and others think he's ILLEGAL. That information may be out there, but I haven't seen it yet.

Maybe if I click his name on the list... nope, nothing there. I ask again, where do you get that he's illegal?

You may note that I had a question mark at the end of my post asking about his status. However, I think it is logical to presume that he is not here legally.

Bob Dole
07-05-2011, 02:37 PM
most of the crap in the op is crap...

the one thing i took away from it is that we have a treaty obligation to give consular access to accused criminals, in exchange for americans being granted consular access overseas...

Isn't the spirit of that treaty to provide for visitors in a foreign land, not squatters that reside there illegally?

go bowe
07-05-2011, 02:39 PM
You lost me with your first statement

like a moth drawn to a flame, i just can't quit ya pete...

nobody accused of a violent crime goes free because just because they're an illegal alien...

people are prosecuted for crimes regardless of their immigration status...

iirc, someone posted a link that showed being here illegally is not actually a crime, but i can't remember who it was, just an aside...

petegz28
07-05-2011, 02:40 PM
Perhaps I was off when I said he was here for 30 years. Somewhere I thought I saw it said he had been in the country since he was 2. Either way it doesn't change my opinion on the topic.

orange
07-05-2011, 02:40 PM
You may note that I had a question mark at the end of my post asking about his status. However, I think it is logical to presume that he is not here legally.

I think it would be logical to write that in any of the many articles about him if it were true. And I think it's illogical to jump to that conclusion - which seems to be a centerpiece of the whole discussion, here. Is this a Seinfeld thread? - a thread about nothing?

go bowe
07-05-2011, 02:42 PM
Isn't the spirit of that treaty to provide for visitors in a foreign land, not squatters that reside there illegally?

probably, but i haven't read the treaty itself so i can't really answer that one...

my guess is that there is no exception for being in a country illegally or for a certain length of time...

mlyonsd
07-05-2011, 02:42 PM
why in the world would you want to release this guy under any circumstances?

he's not a bass, he's a convicted killer...

it's not the only remedy, life in prison is the only alternative being considered by anybody (who is rational and credible /kotter)...<!-- / message --><!-- / Jeff Removed Sig -->
What's wrong with lifetime imprisonment?I think I misunderstood what the treaty was really about. If he would still be considered guilty without being retried and evidence thrown out I'm good with that.

Well not really 'good', he should die. An ugly painful death. But I also understand the reason for the treaty. I wonder who the brilliant people from our side didn't see the possibility they overstepped state's rights when ratifying it.

petegz28
07-05-2011, 02:43 PM
like a moth drawn to a flame, i just can't quit ya pete...

nobody accused of a violent crime goes free because just because they're an illegal alien...

people are prosecuted for crimes regardless of their immigration status...

iirc, someone posted a link that showed being here illegally is not actually a crime, but i can't remember who it was, just an aside...

Illegal immigrant murderer goes free
http://phoebe53.wordpress.com/2011/06/08/illegal-immigrant-murderer-goes-free/



And yes, sneaking into the country is a crime, though a misdemeanor it is still a crime.

petegz28
07-05-2011, 02:44 PM
I think it would be logical to write that in any of the many articles about him if it were true. And I think it's illogical to jump to that conclusion - which seems to be a centerpiece of the whole discussion, here. Is this a Seinfeld thread? - a thread about nothing?

This is me not giving a flying fuck one way or the other about his status:

:harumph:


Wanna see it again???

:harumph:

Donger
07-05-2011, 02:46 PM
I think it would be logical to write that in any of the many articles about him if it were true. And I think it's illogical to jump to that conclusion - which seems to be a centerpiece of the whole discussion, here. Is this a Seinfeld thread? - a thread about nothing?

Not really. You think that all the 14 Mexican nationals on that list are here legally?

frankotank
07-05-2011, 02:47 PM
I think it would be logical to write that in any of the many articles about him if it were true. And I think it's illogical to jump to that conclusion - which seems to be a centerpiece of the whole discussion, here. Is this a Seinfeld thread? - a thread about nothing?

I could care less if he's illegal or not. put him down. I can just about guarantee you he'd already be dead (YEARS ago) if he were convicted of this crap in HIS country!

frankotank
07-05-2011, 02:47 PM
This is me not giving a flying **** one way or the other about his status:

:harumph:


Wanna see it again???

:harumph:

another rare laugh out loud moment! :LOL:

petegz28
07-05-2011, 02:47 PM
Not really. You think that all the 14 Mexican nationals on that list are here legally?

Don't you know those people worked their ass off to come here legally only to find their way onto death row?

orange
07-05-2011, 02:50 PM
Hmmm... that Texas corrections page http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/nationalities.htm
says he was born in 1975. And the OP says he's been in America since he was two - that would be 1977, right? And the crime was in 1994. I wonder if anything might have happened in between - say, 1986 for example - that might cast some light on this.

http://media.npr.org/assets/news/2010/07/04/reagan.jpg?t=1279822556&s=2

Amnorix
07-05-2011, 02:50 PM
I think I misunderstood what the treaty was really about. If he would still be considered guilty without being retried and evidence thrown out I'm good with that.

Well not really 'good', he should die. An ugly painful death. But I also understand the reason for the treaty. I wonder who the brilliant people from our side didn't see the possibility they overstepped state's rights when ratifying it.

I'm trying to figure out why the supremacy clause doesn't apply...


This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

go bowe
07-05-2011, 02:52 PM
Application of the treaty by the United States

In March 2005, the United States pulled out of the Optional Protocol to the Convention, which allows the International Court of Justice to have compulsory jurisdiction over disputes arising under the Convention. In June 2006, the United States Supreme Court ruled that foreign nationals who were not notified of their right to consular notification and access after an arrest may not use the treaty violation to suppress evidence obtained in police interrogation or belatedly raise legal challenges after trial (Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon[1]). In March 2008, the Supreme Court further ruled that the decision of the International Court of Justice directing the United States to give "review and reconsideration" to the cases of 51 Mexican convicts on death row was not a binding domestic law and therefore could not be used to overcome state procedural default rules that barred further post-conviction challenges (Medellín v. Texas [2]).http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_Consular_Relations

as best as i can make out, there are no exceptions for illegal entry nor for time criteria...

clearly the supremes have limited the application of the treaty in terms of american criminal procedure (legal technicalities)...

petegz28
07-05-2011, 02:53 PM
Hmmm... that Texas corrections page http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/nationalities.htm
says he was born in 1975. And the OP says he's been in America since he was two - that would be 1977, right? And the crime was in 1994. I wonder if anything might have happened in between - say, 1986 for example - that might cast some light on this.

http://media.npr.org/assets/news/2010/07/04/reagan.jpg?t=1279822556&s=2

So refresh me on the details of the Amnesty. Wasn't he then made a citizen?

go bowe
07-05-2011, 02:54 PM
Illegal immigrant murderer goes free
http://phoebe53.wordpress.com/2011/06/08/illegal-immigrant-murderer-goes-free/



And yes, sneaking into the country is a crime, though a misdemeanor it is still a crime.
ummm...

that guy got off because of a legal technicality, not because he was here illegally...

his immigration status had nothing to do with the case...

are you sure about the misdemeanor part? you wouldn't happen to have a link would you?

Donger
07-05-2011, 02:56 PM
Hmmm... that Texas corrections page http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/nationalities.htm
says he was born in 1975. And the OP says he's been in America since he was two - that would be 1977, right? And the crime was in 1994. I wonder if anything might have happened in between - say, 1986 for example - that might cast some light on this.

http://media.npr.org/assets/news/2010/07/04/reagan.jpg?t=1279822556&s=2

I don't see what bearing that has on this. He is a Mexican national, so he didn't take US citizenship.

vailpass
07-05-2011, 02:58 PM
This is a subject best discussed posthumously.

petegz28
07-05-2011, 02:58 PM
ummm...

that guy got off because of a legal technicality, not because he was here illegally...

his immigration status had nothing to do with the case...

are you sure about the misdemeanor part? you wouldn't happen to have a ling would you?

Listen to what you just said..

He got off because of a technicality not because he was here illegally.

Not just repeat that a few times and then ask yourself WTF?

Got off.......here illegally
Got off.......here illegally


the obvious quesiton I know you will come too is WTF did he get off and not deported if he was here illegally???

Amnorix
07-05-2011, 02:59 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_Consular_Relations

as best as i can make out, there are no exceptions for illegal entry nor for time criteria...

clearly the supremes have limited the application of the treaty in terms of american criminal procedure (legal technicalities)...

Ok. Got it, kind of. Sounds like the US pulled out of a method for interpreting the treaty, and therefore an interpretation by such method cannot be binding on the US, or the states. If the feds want to voluntarily obey such method (even though not technically required to do so) that is fine, but it doesn't then become binding on the states.

If my ten second analysis is correct on this relatively complicated issue, anyway...

petegz28
07-05-2011, 03:00 PM
ummm...

that guy got off because of a legal technicality, not because he was here illegally...

his immigration status had nothing to do with the case...

are you sure about the misdemeanor part? you wouldn't happen to have a link would you?

8 U.S.C. § 1325 : US Code - Section 1325: Improper entry by alien

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/8/12/II/VIII/1325

WV
07-05-2011, 03:01 PM
Stay his execution and put in him in general population. The other inmates will take care of it and it will be cheaper to boot.

vailpass
07-05-2011, 03:04 PM
Orange seems to have heartfelt concern for this piece of shit. It would be appropriate if they let Orange sit on this nombre's lap when he rides the lightning.

orange
07-05-2011, 03:06 PM
I don't see what bearing that has on this. He is a Mexican national, so he didn't take US citizenship.

He's here LEGALLY. That's what bearing it has on this. And as for whether it "matters" - why did you bring it up and petegz28 go off on it in the first place?

Donger
07-05-2011, 03:07 PM
He's here LEGALLY. That's what bearing it has on this. And as for whether it "matters" - why did you bring it up and petegz28 go off on it in the first place?

How do you know that he's here legally?

I brought it up because it has a bearing on whether or not I care about him having access to the Mexican government.

go bowe
07-05-2011, 03:11 PM
8 U.S.C. § 1325 : US Code - Section 1325: Improper entry by alien

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/8/12/II/VIII/1325

so i was wrong about that, thanks for the link...

orange
07-05-2011, 03:13 PM
I brought it up because it has a bearing on whether or not I care about him having access to the Mexican government.

Good. That's progress, there. It DOES matter, so let's see if we can get it right.

How do you know that he's here legally?

I don't know absolutely, but all evidence points in that direction. He was an eleven-year-old minor who had been in the country nine years after being brought in as an infant when a general amnesty was granted. He's basically the perfect candidate for the amnesty - IF it was even required. His parents and him may have entered legally. Add to that the absence of any evidence to the contrary, and I conclude that he's here legally.

mlyonsd
07-05-2011, 03:14 PM
I'm trying to figure out why the supremacy clause doesn't apply...Well if you can't figure it out I certainly won't.

Donger
07-05-2011, 03:20 PM
I don't know absolutely, but all evidence points in that direction.

Well, perhaps you should not be so bold with your ASSERTIONS in the future...

He was an eleven-year-old minor who had been in the country nine years after being brought in as an infant when a general amnesty was granted. He's basically the perfect candidate for the amnesty - IF it was even required. His parents and him may have entered legally. Add to that the absence of any evidence to the contrary, and I conclude that he's here legally.

He's a Mexican national who has been in country for 30+ years. Yes, he was here during the abortion that was Reagan's amnesty program. But, he obviously didn't take that amnesty, because he's still a Mexican national. Heck, aren't all illegal Mexican aliens "Mexican nationals" like the other 13 on that list? You think that all of them are legal, too?

HonestChieffan
07-05-2011, 03:24 PM
Good. That's progress, there. It DOES matter, so let's see if we can get it right.



I don't know absolutely, but all evidence points in that direction. He was an eleven-year-old minor who had been in the country nine years after being brought in as an infant when a general amnesty was granted. He's basically the perfect candidate for the amnesty - IF it was even required. His parents and him may have entered legally. Add to that the absence of any evidence to the contrary, and I conclude that he's here legally.


And he is a murderer. So lets fry him and we can figure out the immigration status later since it has no bearing on the murder. He is the perfect candidate to be made into a bit of carbon and a lil smoke cloud.

orange
07-05-2011, 03:27 PM
Yes, he was here during the abortion that was Reagan's amnesty program. But, he obviously didn't take that amnesty, because he's still a Mexican national.

Wrong. Simply wrong. The amnesty didn't require anyone to become a citizen. There you go listening to petegz28 again... when are you going to learn?

Heck, aren't all illegal Mexican aliens "Mexican nationals" like the other 13 on that list? You think that all of them are legal, too?

No, but they don't matter in any way, shape, or form. We're talking about THIS case, not theirs. Unless of course you believe in group guilt....

Well, perhaps you should not be so bold with your ASSERTIONS in the future...

:LOL:

Donger
07-05-2011, 03:30 PM
Wrong. Simply wrong. The amnesty didn't require anyone to become a citizen. There you go listening to petegz28 again... when are you going to learn?

Like I said, he obviously didn't take the amnesty. So, no, I'm not wrong at all. I didn't think that it was required.

No, but they don't matter in any way, shape, or form. We're talking about THIS case, not theirs. Unless of course you believe in group guilt....

Okay, so you don't think that they are all here legally. Good. Why not? And, why do you think this man is?

orange
07-05-2011, 03:39 PM
Like I said, he obviously didn't take the amnesty. So, no, I'm not wrong at all. I didn't think that it was required.

No, you are wrong. He was here LEGALLY. The amnesty meant immigrants who had entered illegally could STAY. And they didn't have to become citizens, so the fact that he didn't become a citizen doesn't change the fact that he was here LEGALLY. Your words "he obviously didn't take the amnesty" are contradicted by the fact that he STAYED.

Okay, so you don't think that they are all here legally. Good. Why not?

The preponderance of evidence and critical thinking lead me to that conclusion.

And, why do you think this man is?

The preponderance of evidence and critical thinking lead me to that conclusion.

And no, I can't produce his long form birth certificate, so don't even ask.

vailpass
07-05-2011, 03:42 PM
No, you are wrong. He was here LEGALLY. The amnesty meant immigrants who had entered illegally could STAY. And they didn't have to become citizens, so the fact that he didn't become a citizen doesn't change the fact that he was here LEGALLY. Your words "he obviously didn't take the amnesty" are contradicted by the fact that he STAYED.



The preponderance of evidence and critical thinking lead me to that conclusion.



The preponderance of evidence and critical thinking lead me to that conclusion.

And no, I can't produce his long form birth certificate, so don't even ask.

Serious question: have you always been such a tool?

Donger
07-05-2011, 03:48 PM
No, you are wrong. He was here LEGALLY. The amnesty meant immigrants who had entered illegally could STAY. And they didn't have to become citizens, so the fact that he didn't become a citizen doesn't change the fact that he was here LEGALLY. Your words "he obviously didn't take the amnesty" are contradicted by the fact that he STAYED.

WTF? You just wrote that you don't know that he's here legally. 102. Which is it?

The preponderance of evidence and critical thinking lead me to that conclusion.



The preponderance of evidence and critical thinking lead me to that conclusion.

Such as? Why do you presume that he is here legally while some others on that list are not?

orange
07-05-2011, 03:52 PM
WTF? You just wrote that you don't know that he's here legally. 102. Which is it?

I said I don't know absolutely. ABSOLUTELY is the key, here. You know, I don't know absolutely that you're a human. I'm just that way.

I'm open to any evidence you can provide that he's illegal... that's what I asked for way back three(?) pages ago... and you still haven't provided anything. In the interim, I recalled that Reagan thing which pretty much nails the fact that he's here legally. But not absolutely.

Donger
07-05-2011, 04:01 PM
I said I don't know absolutely. ABSOLUTELY is the key, here. You know, I don't know absolutely that you're a human. I'm just that way.

I'm open to any evidence you can provide that he's illegal... that's what I asked for way back three(?) pages ago... and you still haven't provided anything. In the interim, I recalled that Reagan thing which pretty much nails the fact that he's here legally. But not absolutely.

Well, then perhaps you should stop stating that he is here LEGALLY. Perhaps we'll get a definitive determination on his status after he's executed for his crime.

orange
07-05-2011, 04:10 PM
Well, then perhaps you should stop stating that he is here LEGALLY.

While you continue to assert that he's illegal with absolutely no evidence to back it up. Right. ROFL

dirk digler
07-05-2011, 04:18 PM
Interesting. This seems to me just a technicality. He would have been found guilty regardless. Also I read where once he was granted consular access Mexico found out he was brain damaged and sexually abused. Yeah right.

Also everything that I have read he is a Mexican citizen not an American.

Donger
07-05-2011, 04:21 PM
While you continue to assert that he's illegal with absolutely no evidence to back it up. Right. ROFL

I think that it's more likely that he is illegal than legal, yes.

BucEyedPea
07-05-2011, 04:21 PM
President Barack Obama is attempting to block the execution in Texas on Thursday of a Mexican man because it would breach an international convention and do "irreparable harm" to US interests.

Is Barack channeling patteeu?


This guy is a intervening busy-body in the business of the states. I say any treaty that erodes the sovereignty of the US Constitution, including the things that belong to the states that make up this union should be null and void or at least the parts that violate our law.

Donger
07-05-2011, 04:22 PM
Also everything that I have read he is a Mexican citizen not an American.

Correct, but we don't know if he is here legally or not.

BucEyedPea
07-05-2011, 04:25 PM
Bear with me, while I follow this thread backwards seeing the last page first: And he is a murderer. So lets fry him and we can figure out the immigration status later since it has no bearing on the murder. He is the perfect candidate to be made into a bit of carbon and a lil smoke cloud.


If he is a murder he is subject to our laws while here, whether or not he is here legally or illegally. This includes being put on trial for any crimes since the Constitution applies to "persons."

BucEyedPea
07-05-2011, 04:28 PM
I said I don't know absolutely. ABSOLUTELY is the key, here. You know, I don't know absolutely that you're a human. I'm just that way.

I'm open to any evidence you can provide that he's illegal... that's what I asked for way back three(?) pages ago... and you still haven't provided anything. In the interim, I recalled that Reagan thing which pretty much nails the fact that he's here legally. But not absolutely.

It's not even relevant. So long as he is a "person" inside our borders he is subject to our laws under the Constitution.

dirk digler
07-05-2011, 04:29 PM
Correct, but we don't know if he is here legally or not.

I am sure he was illegal. This is what he would had done or his parents done to get a green card.

To qualify for temporary status, migrants had to show they entered the United States before Jan. 1, 1982, and that they had continuously resided since then. They could get permanent residency within 18 months after that if they met certain requirements, such as learning English.

orange
07-05-2011, 04:37 PM
I am sure he was illegal. This is what he would had done or his parents done to get a green card.

To qualify for temporary status, migrants had to show they entered the United States before Jan. 1, 1982, and that they had continuously resided since then. They could get permanent residency within 18 months after that if they met certain requirements, such as learning English.

They obviously had been here since before Jan. 1, 1982 (1977 is before 1982). So to get permanent residency all they would have had to do according to your quote is learn English. You find "learning English" an insurmountable hurdle?

And again, you're assuming - with NO evidence* - that they were here illegally to begin with.

* unless you can do what Donger can't and provide evidence beyond "I am sure"

dirk digler
07-05-2011, 04:42 PM
They obviously had been here since before Jan. 1, 1982 (1977 is before 1982). So to get permanent residency all they would have had to do according to your quote is learn English. You find "learning English" an insurmountable hurdle?

No but I haven't read anywhere that he has legal status which means he would have a green card

orange
07-05-2011, 04:43 PM
No but I haven't read anywhere that he has legal status which means he would have a green card

... And you haven't read anywhere that he hasn't. Except here.

So what is the proper assumption absent evidence - innocent or guilty?

Donger
07-05-2011, 04:48 PM
... And you haven't read anywhere that he hasn't. Except here.

So what is the proper assumption absent evidence - innocent or guilty?

I was just reading on the sob website that his "supporters" have for him that his parents "immigrated to the United States from Mexico to make a better life for themselves and their children."

That's code-word for immigrated illegally.

Jaric
07-05-2011, 04:50 PM
At this point, why does it matter if he was here illegally or not? He was convicted of rape and murder in a court of law under the process sanctioned by the country in which he committed the crime.

Flip the switch and be done with it.

Jaric
07-05-2011, 04:52 PM
I was just reading on the sob website that his "supporters" have for him that his parents "immigrated to the United States from Mexico to make a better life for themselves and their children."

That's code-word for immigrated illegally.

Who cares? He choose to take that chance at a better life and raped and then killed a teenage girl. Who the fuck cares why his parents brought him here.

Flip the switch.

(And yes Donger, I know you aren't making that argument)

orange
07-05-2011, 04:53 PM
At this point, why does it matter if he was here illegally or not? He was convicted of rape and murder in a court of law under the process sanctioned by the country in which he committed the crime.

Flip the switch and be done with it.

The whole issue here is that he wasn't given due process.

HonestChieffan
07-05-2011, 04:54 PM
The whole issue here is that he wasn't given due process.
was the victim

Jaric
07-05-2011, 04:54 PM
The whole issue here is that he wasn't given due process.

How so? Was he not given a trial? Was there no Jury? Did he not have the chance to confront his accusers?

BucEyedPea
07-05-2011, 04:54 PM
Who cares? He choose to take that chance at a better life and raped and then killed a teenage girl. Who the **** cares why his parents brought him here.

Flip the switch.



Yup! :thumb:

orange
07-05-2011, 04:55 PM
I was just reading on the sob website that his "supporters" have for him that his parents "immigrated to the United States from Mexico to make a better life for themselves and their children."

That's code-word for immigrated illegally.

So according to the Donger school, "immigrated" = "immigrated illegally"

The rest of you want to get in bed with that? dirk digler? Jaric?

Donger
07-05-2011, 04:55 PM
Huh. Looks like Texas has executed other Mexican nationals before:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,398465,00.html

BucEyedPea
07-05-2011, 04:55 PM
The whole issue here is that he wasn't given due process.

He was given due process under our system. Perhaps, not under some stupid international treaty that has no business replacing our system.

orange
07-05-2011, 04:56 PM
How so? Was he not given a trial? Was there no Jury? Did he not have the chance to confront his accusers?

He was not afforded the opportunity to consult his embassy or whatever - which the LAW (i.e. due process) requires.

Jaric
07-05-2011, 04:57 PM
So according to the Donger school, "immigrated" = "immigrated illegally"

The rest of you want to get in bed with that? dirk digler? Jaric?

Orange, I don't give a shit about his citizenship status.

Illegal immigration is a serious problem that needs to be addressed. However, my concerns about if you have a green card or not end the moment you decide to rape and then kill a teenage girl on our soil. (or anyone for that matter)

Flip. The. Switch.

BucEyedPea
07-05-2011, 04:59 PM
He was not afforded the opportunity to consult his embassy or whatever - which the LAW (i.e. due process) requires.

Where doe the Constitution provide that? Nowhere. You do know the Constitution uses the word "person" in the fifth and "accused" in the Sixth right? You want to provide special rights.

Jaric
07-05-2011, 04:59 PM
He was not afforded the opportunity to consult his embassy or whatever - which the LAW (i.e. due process) requires.

Yes, well, how unfortunate.

Flip the switch.

Jaric
07-05-2011, 04:59 PM
Where doe the Constitution provide that? Nowhere. You do know the Constitution uses the word "person" on such things, right? You want to provide special rights.

Lots of this.

orange
07-05-2011, 05:00 PM
Orange, I don't give a shit about his citizenship status.

Illegal immigration is a serious problem that needs to be addressed. However, my concerns about if you have a green card or not end the moment you decide to rape and then kill a teenage girl on our soil. (or anyone for that matter)

Flip. The. Switch.

So let him consult his embassy AS THE LAW REQUIRES, then give him his trial etc.

That's called due process. The Justice Departments, State Departments, Defense Departments, et al, of two administrations (different parties) agree.

Donger
07-05-2011, 05:02 PM
So according to the Donger school, "immigrated" = "immigrated illegally"

The rest of you want to get in bed with that? dirk digler? Jaric?

Like I said, the "they just want a better life for themselves and their kiddies" is code word for illegals, yes.

vailpass
07-05-2011, 05:02 PM
So let him consult his embassy AS THE LAW REQUIRES, then give him his trial etc.

That's called due process. The Justice Departments, State Departments, Defense Departments, et al, of two administrations (different parties) agree.

Was your father dissapointed your mother could give him no sons?

orange
07-05-2011, 05:02 PM
Where doe the Constitution provide that?

Right here:

Article Six

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Six_of_the_United_States_Constitution

petegz28
07-05-2011, 05:03 PM
So let him consult his embassy AS THE LAW REQUIRES, then give him his trial etc.

That's called due process. The Justice Departments, State Departments, Defense Departments, et al, of two administrations (different parties) agree.

He has had his trial. It's over. He admitted his own guilt. Done. Fin. Over. There is no need to waste more money on this jackoff. This is a trivial matter in regards to consulate access.

.10 bullet and we go on.

petegz28
07-05-2011, 05:03 PM
Right here:

Article Six

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Six_of_the_United_States_Constitution

Yeah, well in this case the Supremes disagree. We have already been down this road. If that were the case Obama wouldn't need to suck ass to the SCOTUS while some law tries to get through.

WV
07-05-2011, 05:05 PM
Due process my ass. If this POS was given the chance to contact his embassy what exact bearing would it have on his guilt? He raped and killed an American girl, I agree with Jaric........Flip the switch and quit dickering about some POS's "rights".

petegz28
07-05-2011, 05:05 PM
Right here:

Article Six

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Six_of_the_United_States_Constitution

The then president, George W Bush, a former Texas governor who backs the death penalty, said the US would adhere to the ICJ ruling which, in effect, meant the death sentences would be reviewed or commuted. But in 2008 the supreme court ruled that while the US government was obliged to comply with the ICJ ruling it did not have the power to force individual American states to do so. Only Congress could require adherence by passing a law.

BucEyedPea
07-05-2011, 05:05 PM
So is orange saying this guy did not get counsel which means an attorney to counsel and represent him? It has to be a diplomat now? And one from his embassy. This is nonense.

Jaric
07-05-2011, 05:05 PM
So let him consult his embassy AS THE LAW REQUIRES, then give him his trial etc.

That's called due process. The Justice Departments, State Departments, Defense Departments, et al, of two administrations (different parties) agree.

Orange, I like you, so I'm going to save you some time and be blunt.

I don't give a shit he didn't get to consult his embassy. I really just don't. He was given the same protections you or I would receive if we were on trial for raping and killing some poor girl. As far as I'm concerned if he was treated the same way I would be, then he received his due process.

But you aren't going to convince me that some travesty of law and justice occurred because of this. The real travesty would be for a convicted murder/rapist to be somehow set free because of some nonsensical technicality I'm not even sure applies.

That's not justice. It's legality.

orange
07-05-2011, 05:06 PM
Like I said, the "they just want a better life for themselves and their kiddies" is code word for illegals, yes.

Speaking of Reagan:

Even before the Irish emigration to America as the result of the Great Famine, life in Ireland was cruel. The Irish lived for centuries under English oppression, poverty and disease; they knew that it was not about to change soon. Early immigrant letters described America as a land of abundance and urged those left behind to join them. Going to America became the dream of those Irish who just wanted a better life; however, they did not know what they would encounter.

April 1998
http://www.littleshamrocks.com/Irish-Immigrants.html

BucEyedPea
07-05-2011, 05:06 PM
Only Congress could require adherence by passing a law.

I even wonder about that.

petegz28
07-05-2011, 05:08 PM
Medellín v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (2008) is a United States Supreme Court decision which held that while an international treaty may constitute an international commitment, it is not binding domestic law unless Congress has enacted statutes implementing it or unless the treaty itself is "self-executing"; that decisions of the International Court of Justice are not binding domestic law; and that, absent an act of Congress or Constitutional authority, the President of the United States lacks the power to enforce international treaties or decisions of the International Court of Justice.[1]

Jaric
07-05-2011, 05:09 PM
Speaking of Reagan:

Even before the Irish emigration to America as the result of the Great Famine, life in Ireland was cruel. The Irish lived for centuries under English oppression, poverty and disease; they knew that it was not about to change soon. Early immigrant letters described America as a land of abundance and urged those left behind to join them. Going to America became the dream of those Irish who just wanted a better life; however, they did not know what they would encounter.

April 1998
http://www.littleshamrocks.com/Irish-Immigrants.html
And they came here legally and assimilated into American Culture.

What does this have to do with the rapist/murder?

orange
07-05-2011, 05:09 PM
The real travesty would be for a convicted murder/rapist to be somehow set free because of some nonsensical technicality I'm not even sure applies.

So give him his due process, then execute him. Do you see "set free" in the OP? I don't.

Donger
07-05-2011, 05:10 PM
Speaking of Reagan:

Even before the Irish emigration to America as the result of the Great Famine, life in Ireland was cruel. The Irish lived for centuries under English oppression, poverty and disease; they knew that it was not about to change soon. Early immigrant letters described America as a land of abundance and urged those left behind to join them. Going to America became the dream of those Irish who just wanted a better life; however, they did not know what they would encounter.

April 1998
http://www.littleshamrocks.com/Irish-Immigrants.html

Well, sure, immigrants come here for a better life. Some even sign the fucking guest book when they do so legally.

orange
07-05-2011, 05:11 PM
And they came here legally and assimilated into American Culture.

You MUST be wrong. Donger says "just wanted a better life" is code for illegal immigration. You can read it for yourself.


Like I said, the "they just want a better life for themselves and their kiddies" is code word for illegals, yes.

dirk digler
07-05-2011, 05:13 PM
... And you haven't read anywhere that he hasn't. Except here.

So what is the proper assumption absent evidence - innocent or guilty?

nevermind

petegz28
07-05-2011, 05:13 PM
Chief Justice John G. Roberts wrote the majority's opinion.

The majority held that the Avena judgment is not enforceable as domestic law. A treaty is not binding domestic law, it said, unless Congress has enacted statutes implementing it or the treaty itself conveys an intention that it is "self-executing."[24] None of the relevant treaties—the Optional Protocol, the U.N. Charter, or the ICJ Statute—were self-executing, and no implementing legislation had been enacted, the Court found.[25]The Court also rejected Medellín's claim that Article 94 of the U.N. Charter requires the United States to "undertake to comply" with the ICJ ruling. Chief Justice Roberts observed that Article 94(2) of the Charter provides for explicit enforcement for noncompliance by referral to the United Nations Security Council, and for appeals to be made only by the aggrieved state (not an individual such as Medellín).[26] Even so, the United States clearly reserved the right to veto any Security Council resolutions.[26] The majority also held that the ICJ statute contained in the U.N. Charter also forbade individuals from being parties to suits before the International Court. The ICJ statute is a pact between nations, Justice Roberts said, and only nations (not individuals) may seek its judgment.[27]

Relying on Sanchez-Llamas, the Supreme Court then held that, absent a clear and express statement to the contrary in the relevant treaties, domestic procedural rules govern a treaty's implementation.[28]

The Court also rejected Medellín's argument that the President's February 28, 2005 Memorandum was binding on state courts. The Court relied on Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U. S. 579 (1952), recognizing that "plainly compelling interests" were at stake in the Medellín case. Yet:

Such considerations, however, do not allow us to set aside first principles. The President's authority to act, as with the exercise of any governmental power, 'must stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself.'[29]

The majority concluded that neither condition had been met. Neither the government nor the defendant had cited any statutory authority which authorized the President to act. Instead, the President claimed that the Optional Protocol and U.N. Charter implicitly gave him the authority to act. The Court disagreed: "The President has an array of political and diplomatic means available to enforce international obligations, but unilaterally converting a non-self-executing treaty into a self-executing one is not among them."[30] The President also claimed that Congress had acquiesced in the exercise of presidential power by failing to act following the resolution of prior ICJ controversies. But, Roberts held, "A review of the Executive's actions in those prior cases, however, cannot support the claim that Congress acquiesced in this particular exercise of Presidential authority, for none of them remotely involved transforming an international obligation into domestic law and thereby displacing state law."[31] The President also founded his action on "related" statutory responsibilities and an "established role" in litigating foreign policy concerns. But none of the examples cited in the government's brief supported that conclusion, the majority ruled, and none of the examples remotely indicated that the President may pre-empt state law.[32]

The government had also claimed that the Memorandum was an exercise of the President's authority to resolve international claims under his executive authority. The Court recognized that this was a long-standing practice "never-before questioned."[33] But relying on Dames & Moore v. Regan, 453 U.S. 654 (1981), the Court observed that "[p]ast practice does not, by itself, create power."[33] Prior uses of executive authority to settle international disputes all occurred in narrow circumstances, and did not involve the complete setting aside of state law, as the defendant sought in the present case.[34]

Finally, Medellín argued that the President's Memorandum was a valid exercise of presidential power based on the president's authority to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed", as granted in the Article II, §3 of the United States Constitution. The majority observed that the government refused to rely on Article II, §3, which undercut Medellín's claim. Justice Roberts then concluded that, since the ICJ's decision in Avena was not domestic law, the "take care" clause did not apply.[35]

The judgment of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals was affirmed.

Donger
07-05-2011, 05:14 PM
You MUST be wrong. Donger says "just wanted a better life" is code for illegal immigration. You can read it for yourself.

Especially when their rapist/killer son 30 years later apparently has no evidence that he's here legally, sure.

petegz28
07-05-2011, 05:15 PM
To sum it up, the SCOTUS said the "treaty" means jack shit.

END

OF

STORY

orange
07-05-2011, 05:16 PM
Because if he was a permanent resident he wouldn't have this:

they do not have access the country's consular protection

You seem to have missed a part:


they do not have access the country's consular protection (some countries allow this[citation needed])
Do you have something specific about America?

petegz28
07-05-2011, 05:19 PM
You seem to have missed a part:


they do not have access the country's consular protection (some countries allow this[citation needed])
Do you have something specific about America?

You are beating a dead horse that won't fly no matter how hard you blow.

Get this through your head once and for all, the SCOTUS said that treaty doesn't count for shit. He was not entitled to any consualte access, PERIOD!

So the question of his status is totally and 100% irrelevant.

BucEyedPea
07-05-2011, 05:20 PM
[QUOTE=orange;7731277]You seem to have missed a part:
they do not have access the country's consular protection (some countries allow this[citation needed])
That part is irrelevant.



Do you have something specific about America?

Yes, the Constitution doesn't say access to their own country's consular protection anywhere.
When in America, he gets treated the same as every other "person" ( the 5th) who commits a crime.

Jaric
07-05-2011, 05:21 PM
You MUST be wrong. Donger says "just wanted a better life" is code for illegal immigration. You can read it for yourself.

Listen, I'm not getting involved in your little lovers spat with Donger.

dirk digler
07-05-2011, 05:22 PM
You seem to have missed a part:


they do not have access the country's consular protection (some countries allow this[citation needed])

Do you have something specific about America?

I edited my post above. That is referring to the permanent resident country not where is he a citizen.

ie; A US green card holder can't use the US Consular

BucEyedPea
07-05-2011, 05:23 PM
You are beating a dead horse that won't fly no matter how hard you blow.

Get this through your head once and for all, the SCOTUS said that treaty doesn't count for shit. He was not entitled to any consualte access, PERIOD!

So the question of his status is totally and 100% irrelevant.

:clap: Bravo! :clap:


I must say, I'm gettin' as good at reading the Constitution as some of the Supremes—better as a matter of fact! :wayne:

petegz28
07-05-2011, 05:24 PM
I edited my post above. That is referring to the permanent resident country not where is he a citizen.

ie; A US green card holder can't use the US Consular

It doesn't matter. Irrelevant. He had no Right to the Conuslate. EVER. PERIOD.

Donger
07-05-2011, 05:27 PM
Listen, I'm not getting involved in your little lovers spat with Donger.

LMAO

Jaric
07-05-2011, 05:31 PM
So give him his due process, then execute him. Do you see "set free" in the OP? I don't.

According the the article, the supreme court determined that he received due process.

:shrug:

EDIT: Here it is:

But in 2008 the supreme court ruled that while the US government was obliged to comply with the ICJ ruling it did not have the power to force individual American states to do so. Only Congress could require adherence by passing a law.

orange
07-05-2011, 05:31 PM
I edited my post above. That is referring to the permanent resident country not where is he a citizen.

ie; A US green card holder can't use the US Consular

You really should be wary any time you find yourself agreeing with certain people. An alarm or flashing light should go off.

It doesn't matter. Irrelevant. He had no Right to the Conuslate. EVER. PERIOD.

You know what I'm saying? :LOL:

orange
07-05-2011, 05:36 PM
According the the article, the supreme court determined that he received due process.

Which is the point of the whole article. The legislation is in the works right now... the administration is seeking a stay - NOT a reversal, a stay.

Between 2004 and 2008, America complied with the ICJ ruling. It's not this defendent's or any other defendents' fault that Congress is slow.

BucEyedPea
07-05-2011, 05:36 PM
You really should be wary any time you find yourself agreeing with certain people. An alarm or flashing light should go off.
That's a helluva standard!

BucEyedPea
07-05-2011, 05:37 PM
Which is the point of the whole article. The legislation is in the works right now... the administration is seeking a stay - NOT a reversal, a stay.

It's not this defendent's or any other defendents' fault that Congress is slow.

I hope congress doesn't do what Obama wants. Frankly, I don't even see that they have the authority to change the Constitution with mere legislation. Not that it hasn't happened before. They really need an amendment...and that's even sloooooooooweeer! * grins *

Jaric
07-05-2011, 05:38 PM
Which is the point of the whole article. The legislation is in the works right now... the administration is seeking a stay - NOT a reversal, a stay.

It's not this defendent's or any other defendents' fault that Congress is slow.

I can just imagine how many politicians are jumping to be associated with that legislation.

Or the campaign ads their opponents will be running in their next election.

BucEyedPea
07-05-2011, 05:41 PM
I can just imagine how many politicians are jumping to be associated with that legislation.

Or the campaign ads their opponents will be running in their next election.

Here's a good sound bite:

Delivering justice Mexico-style where drug cartels and murderers run the nation.! o:-)


This is what orange and Obama supports.

Jaric
07-05-2011, 05:44 PM
Here's a good sound bite:

Delivering justice Mexico-style where drug cartels and murderers run the nation.! o:-)


This is what orange and Obama supports.

Two words for you. Willie. Horton.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Horton

BucEyedPea
07-05-2011, 05:54 PM
Two words for you. Willie. Horton.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Horton

That's what it's all about —trying to protect good people from evil people.

petegz28
07-05-2011, 05:55 PM
Which is the point of the whole article. The legislation is in the works right now... the administration is seeking a stay - NOT a reversal, a stay.

Between 2004 and 2008, America complied with the ICJ ruling. It's not this defendent's or any other defendents' fault that Congress is slow.

The SCOTUS has no grounds to grant a stay. There is nothing in question. There is nothing to be debated. He wants a stay just to buy time to get some law past that probably won't pass.

petegz28
07-05-2011, 05:57 PM
Which is the point of the whole article. The legislation is in the works right now... the administration is seeking a stay - NOT a reversal, a stay.

Between 2004 and 2008, America complied with the ICJ ruling. It's not this defendent's or any other defendents' fault that Congress is slow.

The White House wants Leal's execution put on hold until the law is passed but two courts have already ruled that pending legislation has no effect on the legal process.

:huh:

go bowe
07-05-2011, 07:32 PM
Where doe the Constitution provide that? Nowhere. You do know the Constitution uses the word "person" in the fifth and "accused" in the Sixth right? You want to provide special rights.

good god, woman...

have you read the freakin thread?

have you ever heard of the supremacy clause in the constitution?

that's where it provides for that...

jesus, you are a loon... /ad hominem based in reality, not an opinion...

petegz28
07-05-2011, 07:35 PM
good god, woman...

have you read the freakin thread?

have you ever heard of the supremacy clause in the constitution?

that's where it provides for that...

jesus, you are a loon... /ad hominem based in reality, not an opinion...

Um, no she isn't. She is 100% correct in this case. As I have posted the SCOTUS has said theis treaty means dick without legislation to back it up. We have no legislation, therefore we have no obligation to adhere to the treaty.

go bowe
07-05-2011, 07:37 PM
Yeah, well in this case the Supremes disagree. We have already been down this road. If that were the case Obama wouldn't need to suck ass to the SCOTUS while some law tries to get through.

how have the supremes disagreed in this case?

have they even heard this case, or is it still in briefing stage?

what did they disagree with?

go bowe
07-05-2011, 07:42 PM
Um, no she isn't. She is 100% correct in this case. As I have posted the SCOTUS has said theis treaty means dick without legislation to back it up. We have no legislation, therefore we have no obligation to adhere to the treaty.

i don't believe the supremes have ever said that a treaty of the u.s. didn't mean dick...

i think you are mistaken...

read the decision again...

the issues are a little complex so you might have some difficulty with it, but you should be able to figure it out...

after all, reading comprehension is one of your strong suits...

Amnorix
07-05-2011, 07:55 PM
To sum it up, the SCOTUS said the "treaty" means jack shit.

END

OF

STORY

Err....no. Not even close.

Amnorix
07-05-2011, 07:56 PM
:clap: Bravo! :clap:


I must say, I'm gettin' as good at reading the Constitution as some of the Supremes—better as a matter of fact! :wayne:


Does it help any if I mention that no justice in 240 years has ever read the Constitution the way YOU read the Constitution? So either every single one of them is wrong, or you are. I know which way I'm betting...

petegz28
07-05-2011, 08:11 PM
i don't believe the supremes have ever said that a treaty of the u.s. didn't mean dick...

i think you are mistaken...

read the decision again...

the issues are a little complex so you might have some difficulty with it, but you should be able to figure it out...

after all, reading comprehension is one of your strong suits...

No legislation, no treaty, no Right to consular access.

petegz28
07-05-2011, 08:23 PM
it all depends on what you mean by treaty...

the treaties addressed by the supremes might have meant jack shit (although i don't think that's what they said at all),

but they didn't hold anything about the consular access treaty...

different treaty altogether...

Same premise. It is not a self-executing treaty, therefore the state is not obligated to do anything since Congress has passed 0 legislation saying they have too.

go bowe
07-05-2011, 08:25 PM
Same premise. It is not a self-executing treaty, therefore the state is not obligated to do anything since Congress has passed 0 legislation saying they have too.

pete, pete, pete... :facepalm:

petegz28
07-05-2011, 08:36 PM
pete, pete, pete... :facepalm:

don't you give me lip and sauce......the state is not obligated to do anything. It's that simple. There is absoultely no enforcable right to consulate access unless the state of Texas grants it. Nothing is there to make them grant it.

BucEyedPea
07-05-2011, 09:54 PM
Um, no she isn't. She is 100% correct in this case. As I have posted the SCOTUS has said theis treaty means dick without legislation to back it up. We have no legislation, therefore we have no obligation to adhere to the treaty.

I never see his posts. Haven't since my first month here due to his very obnoxious welcome. I just don't waste my time with tourette syndrome types.

Nevertheless, since I have seen his quote, my retort is that I DO NOT buy the supremacy clause under the "living Constitution" construction that the left supports. For starters, even on non-treaty issues the Constitution is only supreme where it has jurisdiction—not where it has no specific authority. He's using it in that all inclusive sense.

Now, as to treaties, I will say what I said earlier in this thread, any treaty that override's our Constitution effectively changing it, should be considered null and void or at least on the part of a treaty that does override or conflict with it. NO treaty should EVER over ride our Constitution. This is the reason why I am opposed to some of these internationalist treaties. They do an end run around our sovereignty. I don't care what some social security attorney says.

I am not the only proponent of this idea either. That's makes for lots of loons I guess. ROFL

BucEyedPea
07-05-2011, 10:04 PM
Treaties and the Constitution (http://www.mikenew.com/treaties.html)
by George C. Detweiler, a former assistant attorney general for the state of Idaho, is a practicing attorney in Twin Falls, Idaho.

Contrary to current internationalist misrepresentations, the Founding Fathers never intended that treaty law supersede the Constitution.

Nearly 50 years ago, John Foster Dulles, secretary of state under President Dwight Eisenhower, asserted that "treaty law can override the Constitution. Treaties, for example … can cut across the rights given the people by their constitutional Bill of Rights." Leaving aside the fact that the Constitution and Bill of Rights protect rights, rather than grant them, Dulles’ calculated misrepresentation of the treaty-making power serves as a timely warning today, as a globalist political elite tirelessly promotes UN treaties and conventions that imperil long-cherished American freedoms.

Perhaps the most suitable example of a UN treaty that would "cut across" rights protected by the Constitution is the International Criminal Court (ICC) statute, which would create a permanent, 18-judge tribunal with a mandate over every living human being. Dr. Charles Rice of the University of Notre Dame Law School [ another loon] describes the ICC treaty as a measure that would "cancel the Fourth of July" by making all Americans subject to trial, in a foreign land, before foreign judges empowered to make "law" according to their whims. This arrangement would recreate one of the key offenses of the British Crown cited in the Declaration of Independence — that of subjecting Americans "to Jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws...."

Lee Casey, a former Justice Department Counsel,[ another loon]has pointed out that the ICC treaty "contains no habeas corpus provisions, no right to bail, and no other means of compelling the [court] to conduct a speedy trial." Under the "international standards" that may govern the ICC, Casey further points out, suspects may be detained for five years or more without being charged with a crime. In addition, those arraigned before the UN tribunals established to prosecute "war crimes" in Yugoslavia and Rwanda — which serve as precedent-generating models for the permanent ICC — have been denied nearly all of the protections and immunities guaranteed by the U.S. Bill of Rights

This is how the left is abolishing America. Men like Amnorix and go bowe support this anti-American crapola! So I'd rather be a loon and be in the good company of Dr. Rice and Lee Casey because I want my country's Constitution protected.

BucEyedPea
07-05-2011, 10:38 PM
Thomas Jefferson emphatically agreed with Madison’s depiction of the limits placed upon the treaty power. If the treaty-making power is "boundless," warned Jefferson, "then we have no Constitution."

On another occasion, Jefferson elaborated:

By the general power to make treaties, the Constitution must have intended to comprehend only those objects which are usually regulated by treaty, and cannot be otherwise regulated.... It must have meant to except out of those the rights reserved to the states; for surely the President and Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way. [Emphasis added.]


Even Madison ( in the above link) and Hamilton ( Forefather of BIG govt and even he had SOME sense) were loons:

Alexander Hamilton was in perfect agreement with both Madison and Jefferson. "The only constitutional exception to the power of making treaties is, that it shall not change the Constitution.... On natural principles, a treaty, which should manifestly betray or sacrifice primary interests of the state, would be null." (Emphasis added.)

Loons are a GOOD thing!

BucEyedPea
07-05-2011, 10:43 PM
Congress Is the Key

The true purpose of the Article VI Supremacy Clause is to designate the Constitution as the "super supreme" to which all other enactments — treaties, federal statutes, state constitutions or statutes — must conform. In keeping with the federalist structure of the Constitution, treaties can only be used to carry out the "few and defined" powers conferred upon the federal government; otherwise, they are, from a constitutional perspective, null and void.

Treaties are on a par with federal statutes. They supersede prior statutes and may, in turn, be superseded by later ones....

Although the Supreme Court has seen fit to declare "the order of priorities" under Article VI, it has been reluctant to declare any given treaty to be unconstitutional. Additionally, since courts only decide cases and controversies, a dispute between an injured party and the purported perpetrator is necessary to get any government action before the federal courts...

However, a reasonable conclusion from the decisions of the Supreme Court is that a treaty may be abrogated in its entirety by statute. This would mean that Congress has the power to change or abolish any treaty by enacting legislation superseding it.

listopencil
07-05-2011, 10:46 PM
Any chance we can just give him tothe Mexican government? I have a feeling that they would just shoot him in the head.

KILLER_CLOWN
07-05-2011, 10:53 PM
Any chance we can just give him tothe Mexican government? I have a feeling that they would just shoot him in the head.

What would we do in the event he recrosses the border under the name Dominique Strauss-Kahn?

Hydrae
07-06-2011, 08:18 AM
I find it interesting, after nearly 200 replies to this thread, no one has asked this question. If this is not about the death penalty, why are we only now concerned about his consular access? He has been on death row for 17 years and only now is this a big deal? Give me a fucking break.

2bikemike
07-06-2011, 09:38 AM
I find it interesting, after nearly 200 replies to this thread, no one has asked this question. If this is not about the death penalty, why are we only now concerned about his consular access? He has been on death row for 17 years and only now is this a big deal? Give me a ****ing break.

It sounds to me like he's been on Death Row about 16 years too long.

Radar Chief
07-06-2011, 10:02 AM
It sounds to me like he's been on Death Row about 16 years too long.

Especially in Texas. WTF Over? I thought they had a revolving door to “old sparky”.

vailpass
07-06-2011, 11:32 AM
We don't have a President, we have a campaigner. Worse than any before him the current piece of shit occupying our White House does nothing not calculated to get him re-elected.
Worse than that? If obama does get re-elected he will have 4 years of carte blanche to try and impose his agenda of "re-shaping" America. Rise up people, rise up.

go bowe
07-06-2011, 01:29 PM
We don't have a President, we have a campaigner. Worse than any before him the current piece of shit occupying our White House does nothing not calculated to get him re-elected.
Worse than that? If obama does get re-elected he will have 4 years of carte blanche to try and impose his agenda of "re-shaping" America. Rise up people, rise up.

aren't you forgetting the republican majority in the house?

there isn't gonna be any carte blanche for obama or any other president as long as the congress is divided...

mlyonsd
07-06-2011, 01:48 PM
aren't you forgetting the republican majority in the house?

there isn't gonna be any carte blanche for obama or any other president as long as the congress is divided...

So your 2012 Obama campaign ad would read?:

'Vote for Obama since he can't do any more damage!'

vailpass
07-06-2011, 01:55 PM
aren't you forgetting the republican majority in the house?

there isn't gonna be any carte blanche for obama or any other president as long as the congress is divided...

And thank God for it. By 'carte blanche' I mean if that DNC puppet boy gets a second term there won't be the need to get re-elected hanging over his head anymore. I'd look for reparations to any non-white man group out there, social agendas, "re-shaping" efforts and anything he could get away with.

vailpass
07-06-2011, 01:55 PM
So your 2012 Obama campaign ad would read?:

'Vote for Obama since he can't do any more damage!'

Spot-frigging-on.

go bowe
07-06-2011, 02:21 PM
So your 2012 Obama campaign ad would read?:

'Vote for Obama since he can't do any more damage!'

nope, no campaign ads for me...

if the republicans can't come up with a centrist leaning candidate, i'll probably hold my nose and vote for obama...

maybe that would be my campaign poster, me holding my nose while picking obama in the voting booth...

go bowe
07-06-2011, 02:24 PM
And thank God for it. By 'carte blanche' I mean if that DNC puppet boy gets a second term there won't be the need to get re-elected hanging over his head anymore. I'd look for reparations to any non-white man group out there, social agendas, "re-shaping" efforts and anything he could get away with.

good deal, now my sons can get reparations?

cool...

Hydrae
07-06-2011, 05:06 PM
nope, no campaign ads for me...

if the republicans can't come up with a centrist leaning candidate, i'll probably hold my nose and vote for obama...

maybe that would be my campaign poster, me holding my nose while picking obama in the voting booth...

Stop trying to pick Obama's nose!

vailpass
07-06-2011, 05:45 PM
good deal, now my sons can get reparations?

cool...

My wife's people got their checks years ago. You telling me your tribe has never received any $$?
And I have no doubt if he gets a second term obama will spread reparations every which way possible.

mlyonsd
07-06-2011, 05:54 PM
Without surfing where do we stand on this? Did the SC step in?

go bowe
07-06-2011, 10:19 PM
My wife's people got their checks years ago. You telling me your tribe has never received any $$?
And I have no doubt if he gets a second term obama will spread reparations every which way possible.

nah, they haven't paid any polynesian tribes yet...

we're still hoping though...

Jaric
07-07-2011, 07:40 AM
So your 2012 Obama campaign ad would read?:

'Vote for Obama since he can't do any more damage!'

If only that were true.

vailpass
07-07-2011, 11:36 AM
nah, they haven't paid any polynesian tribes yet...

we're still hoping though...

Whoops I forgot, was thinking indian feather not dot.
Why would we pay Polynesians? Didn't we already give you part of Hawaii or something?

Hydrae
07-07-2011, 11:43 AM
Without surfing where do we stand on this? Did the SC step in?

Still scheduled for execution this afternoon. I doubt it will be stopped.

I find it interesting that although I listen to local talk radio in the car during my commute, this is the only place I have heard about this issue. It is simply not being talked about here in Texas.

vailpass
07-07-2011, 11:45 AM
Refried frijole Texas style! Bring it.

orange
07-07-2011, 02:45 PM
NPR thinks he legal resident.
http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=137666847&m=137666917

(you only have to listen to the first 20 seconds)

vailpass
07-07-2011, 02:49 PM
Like I'm clicking on that link.

Donger
07-07-2011, 02:50 PM
NPR thinks he legal resident.
http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=137666847&m=137666917

(you only have to listen to the first 20 seconds)

Great. Let's see his green card.

orange
07-07-2011, 02:51 PM
Text version: http://www.npr.org/2011/07/07/137666847/texas-urged-to-stop-mexican-nationals-execution

RENEE MONTAGNE, host:

The Obama administration is appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court to stop the planned execution today of a Mexican man convicted of murder in Texas.

Humberto Leal Garcia, Jr. was in the U.S. legally when he was convicted of kidnapping, raping, and murdering a 16-year-old girl in San Antonio back in 1994.

orange
07-07-2011, 02:54 PM
Great. Let's see his green card.

LMAO


And no, I can't produce his long form birth certificate, so don't even ask.

NPR - are they in on the conspiracy too?

Donger
07-07-2011, 02:58 PM
LMAO



NPR - are they in on the conspiracy too?

Well, I presume since they definitely stated that he's legal, they have some evidence to back that up, right?

vailpass
07-07-2011, 02:59 PM
Orange listens to NPR and reads HuffPo.
Can you frigging imagine?

orange
07-07-2011, 03:10 PM
Orange listens to NPR and reads HuffPo.

No, I don't listen to NPR. I got that link from a Wall Street Journal blog.

Can you frigging imagine?

YOU certainly frigging imagine you know anything about me all the time.

Donger
07-07-2011, 03:28 PM
So, is this scumbag dead yet?

go bowe
07-07-2011, 03:30 PM
So, is this scumbag dead yet?

i was wondering the same thing...

they said this afternoon and it's 4:30...

orange
07-07-2011, 03:38 PM
It's scheduled for 6:00 central. Neither the Supreme Court or Gov. Perry have announced a decision yet.

ROYC75
07-07-2011, 03:40 PM
Obama wants to buy some more votes ......

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/07/07/white-house-seeks-delay-mexican-mans-execution-as-supreme-court-mulls-case/

Obo is on a serious campaign to swing the next election.

Next up, $100 K from our tax dollars to every Latino that register and votes for him ?

Donger
07-07-2011, 03:41 PM
It's scheduled for 6:00 central. Neither the Supreme Court or Gov. Perry have announced a decision yet.

Great, time to prepare some queso. Mild.

ROYC75
07-07-2011, 03:56 PM
Screw all that, this prick knew what he was doing when he did it.

vailpass
07-07-2011, 04:01 PM
No, I don't listen to NPR. I got that link from a Wall Street Journal blog.



YOU certainly frigging imagine you know anything about me all the time.

No need to get all bitchy girlfriend.

mlyonsd
07-07-2011, 04:48 PM
SC has spoken....they won't step in.


In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court said, “We have no authority to stay an execution in light of an “appeal of the President,” presenting free-ranging assertions of foreign policy consequences, when those assertions come unaccompanied by a persuasive legal claim.”


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/07/07/white-house-seeks-delay-mexican-mans-execution-as-supreme-court-mulls-case/

mlyonsd
07-07-2011, 04:53 PM
And, I hope there is an after life and there is someone on the other side waiting with a 2x4 with an exsposed screw on the end of it. (what the girl was raped with)

Donger
07-07-2011, 06:06 PM
Excellente! He's now a fucking corpse.

Donger
07-07-2011, 06:07 PM
"I am sorry for everything I have done," Leal said at the Huntsville facility before he was executed. "I have hurt a lot of people. Let this be final and be done. I take the full blame for this."

Leal then shouted "Viva Mexico," followed by "I'm ready warden, let's get the show on the road."

BucEyedPea
07-07-2011, 06:23 PM
Great, time to prepare some queso. Mild.

"MILD?" :hmmm: Well that is very British when you think about it.:p

petegz28
07-07-2011, 07:05 PM
Done deal. Good for Texas. Executing someone is never an easy path to go down but nonetheless justice was served.

BucEyedPea
07-07-2011, 07:29 PM
Did they put chili powder on him?

Deberg_1990
07-08-2011, 07:26 AM
Viva USA! scumbag!

petegz28
07-08-2011, 07:40 AM
SC has spoken....they won't step in.



http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/07/07/white-house-seeks-delay-mexican-mans-execution-as-supreme-court-mulls-case/

Too bad it was 5-4. The 4 were siding with Obama arguably because of political bias and not because of any legal reason. There was no legal basis for the court to step in at all. This is what scares me about the mandate stuff going to the SCOTUS. Law gets ignored and political ideology takes the front and center.

AndChiefs
07-08-2011, 07:45 AM
Yeah the fact that he never received consulate access certainly couldn't of been addressed in the 17 years he was behind bars before being executed.

Otter
07-08-2011, 09:04 AM
Not sure if this has been resolved yet so:

If you don't like this source do a search on his name and "illegal alien". There's plenty out there.

http://itemonline.com/local/x1227514101/Texas-ignores-U-S-protests

HUNTSVILLE - Despite warnings from the U.S. government, Texas put to death Mexican national Humberto Leal on Thursday for the 1994 abduction, rape and murder of 16-year-old Adria Saveda of San Antonio.

Leal, an illegal alien who moved to the U.S. as a young child, was denied legal assistance through the Mexican consulate, an issue that incited challenges to his execution and a flurry of requests for a delay.

The Obama administration had asked the Supreme Court for a stay, expressing concern for Americans accused of crimes while traveling outside the country, according to the Associated Press.

Preston Parsley, who traveled to Huntsville from San Antonio to protest Thursday's execution, said he wanted to express his opposition to what he believes is an unjust practice by the state.

"Proper procedures weren't followed," he said. "This put citizens abroad at risk."

Antonia Mendoza of Houston, who identified herself as Leal's "second aunt," spent time Thursday evening outside the Huntsville Walls Unit where the death house is located comforting Leal's mother, Francisca Leal.

"I’m sad at what she must be going through," Mendoza said. (Humberto) and I haven't been close. We keep in touch since all this through the news and TV."

Leal's uncle Jaime Sanchez, also from Houston, spoke to The Item through a translator. Sanchez said he felt sad and hoped the U.S. Supreme Court would grant his nephew a last-minute stay of execution.

I hope they cancel it, he said while gathered with family on the grounds of the Walls Unit before the execution was carried out. "I hope they give more of a chance to look at the evidence and revise the investigation. They're going to make an error if they execute."

But Leal was remorseful leading up to his death. Lying strapped to a gurney in the death house, he apologized for his actions and said he wanted Christ in his life.

"I’ve hurt a lot of people," Leal said. "I know Christ has forgiven me, and I accept his forgiveness. I am sorry for the victim’s family for what I did. May they forgive me. Let’s get this show on the road, Warden."

Leal still had one last statement to make before he died, much to the delight of his sister Mary Angel Tello, who wept during the entire process, eventually vomiting while inside the Walls Unit.

"Viva Mexico," Leal said before taking his last breath, and then he shouted, "Viva Mexico."

Last week, the Obama administration asked the Supreme Court to delay Leal’s execution for up to six months to give Congress time to consider the newly proposed Consular Notification Compliance Act, which would allow federal courts to review cases of foreign offenders to help determine if the lack of consular help makes a difference in the outcome of their cases, the AP reported.

This legislation would bring the U.S. into compliance with the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations regarding the arrest of foreign nationals. Congress has twice failed to pass similar legislation.

In a 2004 ruling, the International Court of Justice suggested reviewing these cases as a remedy to its finding that the U.S. had violated the Vienna Convention by not allowing 51 Mexican nationals, including Leal, to request help from their consulate when they were arrested.

Leal’s defense attorneys told the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles earlier this week that Mexico’s assistance came after it was too late to affect the outcome of Leal’s trial.

Two inmates in other states have been moved off death row as a result of the ruling, one in Oklahoma and one in Arkansas, according to public records.

The state, however, argued that the evidence, particularly his own statements and those of his brother, convincingly showed Leal's guilt,

Leal’s victim, Saveda, was abducted after attending a party Leal hosted. by Leal. Authorities found her nude body near a creek. She had been sodomized with a piece of lumber and her head had been crushed by a 35-pound piece of asphalt. When police arrested Leal, he bore cuts and scratches on his face and body. Evidence also included Saveda’s bloody blouse, found at Leal’s residence.

Seven more executions are scheduled in Texas this year, including four in September within an eight-day time span.

orange
07-08-2011, 12:14 PM
If you don't like this source do a search on his name and "illegal alien". There's plenty out there.


They're all a bunch of crap sites. "saveourcountry.com" is not a legitimate news source. I've asked Donger and he's come up empty. dirk digler also hasn't found a source, though I don't think he looked for long. This link of yours is as close as anything to real... but he gives no details at all.

I think I'm going to stick with NPR and the obvious fact that he was given permanent residency by Ronald Reagan in 1986.

It's absurd that this event has gotten wrapped up in the illegal alien debate when it doesn't have anything to do with an illegal alien. "He's Mexican, he MUST be illegal."

BucEyedPea
07-08-2011, 12:16 PM
They're all a bunch of crap sites. "saveourcountry.com" is not a legitimate news source. I've asked Donger and he's come up empty. This link of yours is as close as anything to real... but he gives no details at all.

I think I'm going to stick with NPR and the obvious fact that he was given permanent residency by Ronald Reagan in 1986.

Yeah, because we can only accept the Establishment's newsources, many of which are going under. Lolz!

Donger
07-08-2011, 12:18 PM
They're all a bunch of crap sites. "saveourcountry.com" is not a legitimate news source. I've asked Donger and he's come up empty. dirk digler also hasn't found a source, though I don't think he looked for long. This link of yours is as close as anything to real... but he gives no details at all.

I think I'm going to stick with NPR and the obvious fact that he was given permanent residency by Ronald Reagan in 1986.

It's absurd that this event has gotten wrapped up in the illegal alien debate when it doesn't have anything to do with an illegal alien. "He's Mexican, he MUST be illegal."

It's pretty amazing that you'll put such faith in something without ANY evidence.

orange
07-08-2011, 12:20 PM
Yeah, because we can only accept the Establishment's newsources, many of which are going under. Lolz!

Over a free community ad-shopper*? YES - every time.

* maybe not giving the Huntsville Item its due, but there's nothing there to say otherwise.

Donger
07-08-2011, 12:22 PM
Wait, orange, are you saying that you think he was illegally in the country before Reagan's amnesty in 1986?

orange
07-08-2011, 12:35 PM
It's pretty amazing that you'll put such faith in something without ANY evidence.

I've asked you repeatedly for evidence. And you've come up nil. And I've provided evidence - NPR. A NATIONAL news source.

You're the amazing one.

orange
07-08-2011, 12:36 PM
Wait, orange, are you saying that you think he was illegally in the country before Reagan's amnesty in 1986?

No, I'm saying - AS I SAID BEFORE - that even if he was illegal then, he'd be legal now.

Donger
07-08-2011, 12:37 PM
I've asked you repeatedly for evidence. And you've come up nil. And I've provided evidence - NPR. A NATIONAL news source.

You're the amazing one.

I'm not the one who claimed that he was illegal.

Donger
07-08-2011, 12:38 PM
No, I'm saying - AS I SAID BEFORE - that even if he was illegal then, he'd be legal now.

Have you ever read this?

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d099:SN01200:@@@L&summ2=m&|TOM:/bss/d099query.html

It provided amnesty (in the form of temporary residency, not permanent) for 3 million illegals. 2.9 million took that. How do you know that this dead Mexican was one of the 2.9 million?

orange
07-08-2011, 01:03 PM
How do you know that this dead Mexican was one of the 2.9 million?

I don't. I also don't know that he ever needed to. I DO know that NPR says he was legally in the country. I DO know that. What DO you know?


p.s. I emailed Brandon Scott - the author of that Huntsville Item story - and asked him to clear it up. What do you think are my chances that I'll hear back one way or the other? I'm still working on digging out a link/address to contact NPR. [edit] Done.

Donger
07-08-2011, 01:06 PM
I don't. I also don't know that he ever needed to. I DO know that NPR says he was legally in the country. I DO know that. What DO you know?


p.s. I emailed Brandon Scott - the author of that Huntsville Item story - and asked him to clear it up. What do you think are my chances that I'll hear back one way or the other? I'm still working on digging out a link/address to contact NPR.

Again, I don't know whether he was legal or not. You are the one claiming that he was legal.

You might want to ask these people, too:

http://www.humbertoleal.org/contact.html

Jaric
07-08-2011, 01:07 PM
So is this debate about his immigration status to figure out if we need to deport his corpse?

You guys do know he's dead right? So this argument is pretty much moot at this point.