L.A. Times: There Are (Yawn) Several Dozen Mexican Nationals on California’s Death Row
I guess I’m on a bit of a tear tonight on the illegal immigration issue — but stories like this will do that to you.
On Oct. 10, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in Medellin vs. Texas. If Medellin and the Bush administration prevail, California may be forced to reconsider the death sentences for several dozen Mexican nationals at San Quentin.
This is, of course, noted merely in passing, in an article that focuses primarily on the cases the Supreme Court will hear this term.
The idea that California is housing several dozen Mexican nationals on Death Row . . . well, there’s no story in that!
Every last one of them represents at least one murdered soul.
Bo-ring! Is there anything new on Britney?
P.S. Do you have any idea how many hoops the state must jump through to get someone on Death Row? Believe me, for every murderer on Death Row, there are many, many, many more serving standard life sentences, or less.
Starting to see the problem yet??
California may be forced to reconsider the death sentences for several dozen Mexican nationals at San Quentin.
San Quentin has lettuce fields in need of harvesting? Why else would Mexicans be there?
Perfect Sense (b6ec8c) — 10/2/2007 @ 1:39 am“Why else would Mexicans be there?”
Could it be California’s taxpayers financed soft on illegals makes the living easy and the criminal pickings even easier?
juandos (0ecd0b) — 10/2/2007 @ 3:26 amI see the problem but am puzzled about the case itself. Bush seems like the last person who would give much credence to the world court.
voiceofreason (41831e) — 10/2/2007 @ 3:47 amAnyone know a little further background on that?
I just checked Black’s to be sure. “Mexican national” does not mean “illegal alien”. For all you and I know, all of those several dozen could have been legal immigrants or transients with valid documentation.
kishnevi (b99191) — 10/2/2007 @ 4:22 amAnd of course, the reverse is also true: there are plenty of illegal aliens in this country who don’t come from Mexico. China, for example.
“I just checked Black’s to be sure. “Mexican national” does not mean “illegal alien”.”
Aren’t you missing a word there kish? Try putting ‘always’ in front of mean and it sounds better.
I don’t care who you are a national of, if you are on death row, someone isn’t sleeping with a full family because of you. [note: yes some people on death row are innocent, but not most]
Lord Nazh© (770f95) — 10/2/2007 @ 6:03 amThere are currently FOUR links to the Britney Spears story on the Los Angeles Times latimes.com front page.
Entertainment: Britney loses custody of kids;
Wesson (fd354d) — 10/2/2007 @ 6:07 amMost Viewed: Spears loses custody of her two sons
VIDEO: Britney Spears with her Children
MORE VIDEO: Spears with her Children
Embrace the stupidity. Use “Central American Americans”.
Wesson (fd354d) — 10/2/2007 @ 6:11 amHave the prisoners written any childrens books yet? If not, they should talk to Tookie’s agent.
daleyrocks (906622) — 10/2/2007 @ 6:46 amCalifornia has the biggest Death Row population in the country BY FAR – and they loooooove to point their fickle little fingers at Texas.
So it is indeed unremarkable that they have “dozens” of Mexican nationals. The sub-mental political class that runs the state is too cowardly to either abolish the death penalty or enforce it, so San Quentin will eventually be the largest city in the country.
Glen Wishard (b1987d) — 10/2/2007 @ 9:19 amVOR #3,
Medellin v Texas raises the same issue as the Chi case in which the Bush Administration argues that a criminal prosecution is not valid unless aliens are given access to their home nation consulate upon arrest as provided in the Optional Protocols to the Vienna Convention. The US pulled out of these Protocols in 2005 but the issue is still pending as to prior cases.
DRJ (ec59b5) — 10/2/2007 @ 10:31 amDRJ,
Thanks. That helped.
Voice of Reason (10af7e) — 10/2/2007 @ 10:42 amPat, what difference does it make? What are the odds that your home state will actually execute any of them?
Dana (c36902) — 10/2/2007 @ 4:34 pm