Man ordered deported to land he's never seen (He was carried in illegally as a baby)

Arizona Republic ^ | August 12, 2003 | SUSAN CARROLL

[Mr. Bird]

I defy ANYONE to tell me how the heck a BABY can form criminal intent

Intent is an irrelevant condition. What if you break a law you are unfamiliar with? You obviously did not intend to break it, but it's broken nonetheless. Should you walk?

But let's put it another way. If this kid does NOT get deported, what do you suppose the effect on potential smuggling parents will be? Would this behavior decrease, with no adverse consequence? No. We'd have people lining up saying they were infants when they were carried in illegally. But then, why stop at infants? Is a five year-old capable of understanding what's happening? What about a semi-retarded 16 year-old?

[mhking]

Be careful though. This case is the exception, not the rule.

Yes, in this case, I think the gentleman should get the benefit of the doubt. But in general, we have to stop the collander from leaking across the Rio Grande.

[ChewedGum]

A 24-year-old Guatemalan man whose mother carried him as a baby illegally into the United States must be deported, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has decided. But in a strongly worded addendum, the court said the result of its conclusion that Jose Didiel Munoz cannot remain in this country, though based on the law, "appears pointless and unjust."

For me the clincher is this statement that the court is powerless because of the law. The whole point of a human judiciary is to insure that justice is served. To make the calls where they law is not just. That is why we do not have a computer program which has built in sentences for every possible conviction. (Not that I'm usually on the same side with the 9th circuit on any issues)

Gum

[hchutch]

Okay, fine, is it okay to toss a one-year old kid in prison if they take and eat a candy bar from a store? I don't think there would be any chance of such a decision being upheld after the appeals process.

He was not the one who made the decision to break the law, the parents were. We do not permit punishing for the acts of their parents for TREASON - THAT prohibition is in the Constitution. It seems reasonable to me to proceed under the assumption that similar punishment is not Constitutionally permissible for lesser crimes, particularly when it's impossible for a kid involved to understand that his parents were doing something illegal, much less DO anything about it.

[kenth]

We are up to our ass in alligators and swatting at flies. I was going to say something, but you said it all. Can't get any more succinct than that.

[inquest]

dont believe the 9th circuit did this because they "ALL OF THE SUDDEN started interpreting the law correctly. They did it to show how "cruel" the current administration (ie homeland security, etc) is. They are trying to make a socialist-democrat-bleeding-heart, worthless point at the expence of an innocent.

Reminds me of a proposal that was making its way through the Massachusetts legislature a little while back. They were talking about loosing the rules that prevented ex-cons from obtaining firearms permits. At first my reaction was, that's cool, Massachusetts may be starting to get over its gun phobia - and then I started to wonder. Of all the byzantine and onerous regulations that Massachusetts imposes on gun owners, this is the one that they decide to let up on? It began to smell like a trap to me.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

ping

[bat1816]

Did I come to the correct website? I can't believe the number of people defending this individual. He is an illegal alien and should be removed.

[Quix]

In an insane age, another insanity.

[Hildy]

You're being sarcastic, right?

[r9etb]

"To me, this case exemplifies the rigidness of our immigration laws and the harsh consequences that result. What more could this kid do? He was just in an impossible bind."

Hmmmm. Seems to me like the 9th Circuit is using this case to make a point about "rigid immigration laws," which they're on record as not supporting.

Cute tactic.

[Prodigal Son]

what's pathetic is they only knew about him because he showed up to the INS in an attempt to become a legal resident.

Yep. Basically he got burned for trying to do the right thing.

[new cruelty]

I agree. However, I have some sympathy for the guy and hope he can find a legal way of returning to the United States. That he was less than a year old when he arrived in the country and is now being forced to leave is just an odd circumstance.

[D Rider]

The easy answer: Join the Military.

[new cruelty]

hah. I wonder if he has thought of that or would even be willing to do so.

[wardaddy]

Precisely.

[D Rider]

The easy answer: Join the Military.

[D Rider]

sorry about the double post.

If he's not willing, then deport him and good riddens. The reporting during the Iraq war has exposed to everybody that this is a way to get citizenship. The rules have even been adjusted to make getting citzenship faster for those that choose to serve. It's his choice, join the team or leave.

[Mr. Bird]

For me the clincher is this statement that the court is powerless because of the law. The whole point of a human judiciary is to insure that justice is served. To make the calls where they law is not just. That is why we do not have a computer program which has built in sentences for every possible conviction

The court's determination of justice should consider only whether the law is applied correctly, and/or whether the law is constitutional. It is not the court's business to assess the "fairness" or inherent "justice" of specific laws. You correctly state that the judiciary is human. It is not proper for a judge to adjudicate according to his or her personal emotions or morals.

[Keyes2000mt]

Attention Mr. President, if you want to give amnesty to any illegal immigrants, give it to this guy.