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

To: antiRepublicrat
Obama's problem is that he asked again, although he already knew the answer, so it was just political grandstanding.

So Bush thought his action might free a convicted murderer, and Obama knew his action would not. That is hardly a point in Bush's favor. I think if Bush's effort had succeeded, it would have been a political liabilty, but it should have been obvious to everyone that the SCOTUS would rule against Bush, plus Bush was already in his second term.

Look, I really hate Obama. I voted for Bush 2 times as governor and 2 times for POTUS. In 2000 I literally went all over the world defending him, from Edinburgh to Macau. But in his second term, he lost me.

I would say if the person doesn't self-identify as a foreign national before or during arraignment, he would lose the ability to use the claim in appeals.

That would be a reasonable approach, but I doubt it would satisfy America's enemies, internal and external. It's not clear to me whether such a law would end the dispute, or move the ball toward more radical legislation.

Advocates of such radical "immigrant friendly" legislation would claim that an individual arrested would not know he was required to declare his nationality without consular help (a chicken-and-egg problem). Plus lawyers could claim that he did declare his nationality but the officials did not speak his language. With John Morton's let-em-go policies, illegals might be confused about what is illegal and what is not, especially after radicals tell them they have a "right" to be here.

I have serous concerns about what Holder and Napolitano would do with such a law.

What is meritorious in your suggestion is that it avoids the preposterous scenario of police being required to determine immigration status, while being forbidden from asking about it. At least, I hope it avoids it -- There are always new tricks.

I wrote: The Senate ratified the Vienna Convention with the understanding that it created no individual rights and would not be enforced in state courts.

You wrote: He doesn't supply a source for that claim.

I have to agree. There may have been an informal majority "feeling" that there are some aspects of the treaty that they felt uncomfortable with, but AFAIK they ratified it without any formal statements of reservations.

197 posted on 07/13/2011 2:40:45 PM PDT by ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas (Budget sins can be fixed. Amnesty is irreversible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies ]


To: ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas
So Bush thought his action might free a convicted murderer

Not necessarily. Remember, Bush had no problem as Texas governor sending many men to the death chamber. Bush wanted the execution to wait until the point of consular notification was cleared up. Obama knew his arguments would fail, as they had failed the last time with Bush. Even worse, nobody in the federal government bothered to clear it up in the interim.

But in his second term, he lost me.

My opinion of him went down quite a bit too. I had such high hopes right after Clinton.

198 posted on 07/13/2011 2:53:22 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies ]

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