Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

It Wasn't the Court Order She Sought[Idiot Judge Alert]
LA Times ^ | 7/20/06 | Sam Quinones

Posted on 07/20/2006 4:18:52 AM PDT by Oshkalaboomboom

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-34 last
To: beckysueb

"Kudos to the judge. Wish we had more like him."

What? There are plenty like him; it's call the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

We don't need people like him who are willing to turn a blind eye to illegal immigration - We need people who will respect and enforce the laws we have.

This guy should be removed from the bench!


21 posted on 07/20/2006 2:18:50 PM PDT by Dr. Marten (http://thehorsesmouth.blog-city.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: doc30
He said he thought the couple "obviously wanted to get back together" and that he was trying to avoid granting a restraining order that would keep them apart for at least a year.

He had his reasons evidently. I'll trust him to make those judgements.

22 posted on 07/20/2006 2:43:10 PM PDT by thegreatbeast
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: doc30
. This judge, by denying her a restraining order did not prevent a deportation and put the woman in a place where she can
choose of her own free will to
be further abused.

Instead of reporting her husband or boyfriend to immigration. or going to her consul and having her legal system take care of this.

23 posted on 07/20/2006 3:42:23 PM PDT by MrEdd (Bad spellers of the world - UNTIE!,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: thegreatbeast

If they were trying to get back together, then why was this woman looking for a restraining order? It's basically telling the woman to go back to the abusive situation you were in and work it out. Do you also believe divorce should not be granted in cases of abuse? After all, the victim and abuser make amends after, at least until the next incident.


24 posted on 07/20/2006 5:23:30 PM PDT by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what and Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Oshkalaboomboom
Gonzalez could not be reached for comment Wednesday.

Wow. There's a surprise.

25 posted on 07/20/2006 5:32:02 PM PDT by CaptRon (Pedecaris alive or Raisuli dead)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wolfcreek
Didn't see / sarc in there. And illegals referes to immigration status. However, they are still afforded criminal protection. Otherwise, as I wrote, the situation would become that illegals have no rights ergo you can do with them as you please, including what would be considered crimes to people legally in the country. Everyone in this country does have some level of rights. Illegals are not and should not be granted entitlements and social services, but they still have the same basic human rights not to be anyone else has and the criminal system will treat them as any other person. At this time, the constitution applies to everyone in the U.S., not just citizens. Legal status must be earned, but everyone in this country is entitled to the same basic criminal protections.

Do you see the point I'm making? By threatening her with deportation, which is outside this judge's jurisdiction, he was setting up a situation where a real crime, possibly mortal in nature, could occur. If the logic of illegal status = no criminal protection, then illegals would become less than animals.

26 posted on 07/20/2006 5:35:29 PM PDT by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what and Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: MrEdd
Instead of reporting her husband or boyfriend to immigration. or going to her consul and having her legal system take care of this.

How can her consulate help her? You think the police from her country can come up here and arrest someone abusing her or issue a restraining order that could be enforced here? It doesn't matter what your immigration status is, everyopne here has the same basic right to legal protection. It's the job of the police and courts here to take care of criminal matters here. This judge made a potentially grave mistake. You say it's her own free will if she is abused? So do you honestly believe that the victim chooses to be abused. Obviously this woman felt threatened enough to get a restraining order to prevent this guy from hurting her? Or are you of the persuasion that this woman's face just hit this guys fist and it's her fault?

27 posted on 07/20/2006 5:42:01 PM PDT by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what and Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Marten
We don't need people like him who are willing to turn a blind eye to illegal immigration

Illegal immigration is a federal matter. It's technicaly outside this judge's jurisdiction. He has no charge to arrest her and all he can do is contact immigration. But he has nothing criminal to hold her and she would be released very quickly.

28 posted on 07/20/2006 5:44:47 PM PDT by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what and Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: doc30; All
The entire concept of the word "CITIZEN" seems to fall outside the scope of your comprehension.

Our citizens have a right to protection by our law enforcement within our borders at taxpayer expense. Mexican citizens have a right to protection by their law enforcement within their borders at their taxpayer's expense.

Mexican citizens may have a reasonable expectation that we will help them get to Mexico, where their government can help them, but that is as far as it goes.

29 posted on 07/20/2006 5:55:51 PM PDT by MrEdd (Bad spellers of the world - UNTIE!,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: doc30

Actually, after she admitted to being in the country illegally, he had every right and obligation to order her held.


30 posted on 07/20/2006 8:32:10 PM PDT by Dr. Marten (http://thehorsesmouth.blog-city.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: doc30

Chillax. You are imputing mindless and sinister purposes to the rulings of the judge when he was just trying to spare the woman other consequences. He undoubtedly has seen many of these cases. Perhaps he's wrong in this instance but there is no way for us to know that from this remove. Absent other information, I'll trust that the judge knew what he was doing.


31 posted on 07/20/2006 9:21:59 PM PDT by thegreatbeast
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: MrEdd

No, citizenship has nothing to do with this. It is very ignorant to think that the police in a country have an obligation to protect only citizens or enforce laws with respect to citizenship. That is not how this country works. Everyone, and I mean everyone, in this country has a reasonable expectation of law enforement performing their duties. You may feel that only citizens are obligated to protection, but that is not reality and that will not change. The laws of the U.S. apply to everyone in the country, not just citizens. Otherwise, you will have a two tiered justice system. One for citrizens and none for everyone else. If law enforcement has an obligation to enforce laws when citizens are victims but not non-citizens or illegals, then you have created a criminal justice system that will turn a blind eye to crimes committed against illegals. That means barbaric exploitation of illegals can occur with impunity. You need to learn how the legal system actually operates because what you propose is dangerous.


32 posted on 07/21/2006 5:29:12 AM PDT by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what and Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: thegreatbeast
From the article: "He said he also thought the court order might lead to Gonzalez's deportation, because her husband would not be able to continue helping her get legal residency."

You are imputing mindless and sinister purposes to the rulings of the judge when he was just trying to spare the woman other consequences.

The problem is that this judge doesn't know squat about immigration law. He may genuinely felt that he was doing her a favor or that he could deport her, but only an immigration court can do that. Secondly, absusive spouses don't just stop being abusive. If this woman needed protection, he should have granted the restraining order. Without the restraining order, she may well wind up in an emergency room getting medical care paid for by our tax dollars. I will grant you that the article doens't go into details about why she wanted the order. Lastly, and this is where the judge's knowledge of immigration law is flawed, if he did grant a restraining order, it would be a positive for her immigration status, not a negative. She may well have been there because a restraining order against an abusive spouse acts in her favor for immigration purposes. She becomes eligible for a green card because she is a victim of domestic violence. Here is the link to the government website that describes this:

http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/howdoi/battered.htm

This woman's problem is that she likely did not have a lawyer competent in both immigration and criminal law.

My whole point here is that there seems to be some people here that feel a) an abused spouse doesn't need protection from their abusers, especially if they are here illegally and b) support state judges who know nothing of immigration law who make ill-informed immigration decisions which are outside their jurisdiction and c) crime is OK in the U.S. if it's against illegals.

33 posted on 07/21/2006 5:51:18 AM PDT by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what and Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: doc30

He's not a judge in an immigration court. Stop projecting on these proceedings. We don't know what happened in that courtroom--- we weren't there.


34 posted on 07/21/2006 6:22:29 AM PDT by thegreatbeast
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-34 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson