Quote of the Day
From the L.A. Times:
“There seems to be a movement to defining anybody who’s here in the United States unlawfully as a criminal per se,” said Los Angeles immigration lawyer Alan Diamante, former president of the Mexican American Bar Assn. “A lot of these folks don’t have any crimes other than the fact that they’re here unlawfully. I see these people as innocent.”
P.S. The linked article discusses the Outrageous Civil Rights Violation of taking DNA from “[i]mmigration detainees and others arrested for federal crimes,” instead of only those convicted. The article, predictably for the L.A. Times, gives prominent voice to the cries of “critics” like the guy quoted above.
But did you know that everybody gets fingerprinted when they’re booked after arrest — conviction or no? Why is this so different?
“A lot of these folks don’t have any crimes other than the fact that they’re here unlawfully.”
Imagine using such logic as a legal defense:
“A lot of these folks don’t have any crimes other than the fact that they’ve littered unlawfully.”
“A lot of these folks don’t have any crimes other than the fact that they’ve driven unlawfully.”
“A lot of these folks don’t have any crimes other than the fact that they’ve taken retail goods unlawfully.”
“A lot of these folks don’t have any crimes other than the fact that they’ve murdered unlawfully.”
Nope. Can’t make it sound any more ridiculous than “A lot of these folks don’t have any crimes other than the fact that they’re here unlawfully.”
Paul (creator of "Staunch Brayer") (152589) — 12/13/2008 @ 9:18 pmIt’s not different from fingerprinting, as you already know.
Andrew (8a94e5) — 12/13/2008 @ 9:22 pmJust like this highly trained lawyer who is quoted, I also see these people as innocent…most of the time….(and I’m sure he used the obligatory scare quotes while showboating “…Criminal, per se…” for the LA Times)
And like every other booked arrestee, I also see the banking of their DNA as something akin to “Money in the bank” for our cops, and as a step up in their never ending quest to solve violent crimes from behind.
At the very least, it puts every repeat rapist, robber, and killer on notice.
A good thing.
For a while, I’ve joked that “Apparently, there’s a law against getting tanked, and then driving… Who knew?”
It would appear I went to the same lawschool as this guy.
Note: Dad for several years would hound on ethe fact that I took the breathalizer test (which you either take, in illinois, or lose your DL for like 6 months). I would always respond “Well, dad, in my defense I was drunk at the time…”
Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 12/13/2008 @ 9:29 pm“I see these people as innocent.”
Thank you for sharing, Mr. Diamante–could you please tell me what law school you went to so I can let any interested family and friends know a degree from there isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on? Idiot.
M. Scott Eiland (fddcd7) — 12/13/2008 @ 9:31 pmclue for the clueless: if you are here illegally, you are a criminal.
that’s why i always call them “illegal aliens”.
redc1c4 (27fd3e) — 12/13/2008 @ 9:39 pmI was curious why there even exists a Mexican American Bar Assoc. and their purpose so I googled them, and now Mr. Diamante’s self-contradiction becomes clearer,
We are committed to the advancement of Latinos in the legal profession and the empowerment of the Latino community through service and advocacy.
Dana (79a78b) — 12/13/2008 @ 9:48 pm“There seems to be a movement to defining anybody who’s here in the United States unlawfully as a criminal per se… A lot of these folks don’t have any crimes other than the fact that they’re here unlawfully. I see these people as innocent.”
Let’s extrapolate.
“There seems to be a movement to defining anybody who’s here in the United States who burglarized the Watergate DNC offices as a criminal per se… A lot of these ‘plumbers’ don’t have any crimes other than the fact that they broke into the DNC Watergate offices here unlawfully. I see these people as innocent.”
Dick Nixon and his gang could have used this guy back in the Watergate days of ’74.
DCSCA (d8da01) — 12/13/2008 @ 9:48 pmcritic = American laws and culture be damned.
Perfect Sense (9d1b08) — 12/13/2008 @ 9:58 pmAmazingly, we think those who broke into the Watergate broke the law, and were criminals.
So, care to try agin, idiot?
Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 12/13/2008 @ 10:08 pm“A lot of these folks don’t have any crimes other than the fact that they’re here unlawfully. I see these people as innocent.”
And the Ca bar hasn’t taken this idiots license, at least until he completes a refresher on the meaning of the word crime/criminal?
Scrapiron (ce69ff) — 12/13/2008 @ 10:10 pmLet’s extrapolate = Hey! Look over there!
Paul (creator of "Staunch Brayer") (152589) — 12/13/2008 @ 10:41 pmHe must be a Democrat.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 12/13/2008 @ 11:06 pmEnjoy this fine distinction while you can, folks. By this time next year, all these “innocents” will truly be that – innocent. Sweeping changes are coming. The best part for these pols is that it is a revenue neutral deal (it isn’t actually, but they will get away with saying it is. Amnesty for all and to all a good night.
What will our go-to argument be then – they used to be illegal aliens?
Ed (f063fd) — 12/13/2008 @ 11:38 pm#10- Amazingly, we think those who broke into the Watergate broke the law, and were criminals.
So, care to try agin, idiot?
Conservative lesson #12: 12+12=24, not 1,212
January 8, 1973: Trial of the Watergate Seven (Barker, Gonzalez, Hunt, Liddy, Martinez, McCord and Sturgis) begins in Washington presided over by Judge John Sirica. January 11, 1973: Hunt pleads guilty. January 15, 1973: Barker, Gonzalez, Martinez and Sturgis plead guilty. January 30, 1973, Former Nixon aides G. Gordon Liddy and James W. McCord Jr. are convicted of conspiracy, burglary and wiretapping in the Watergate incident. Both had pleaded not guilty. All served prison terms.
Amazingly, it’s true. THEY’RE CONVICTED CRIMINALS. Care to try again, idi… I mean Scotty?
DCSCA (d8da01) — 12/14/2008 @ 12:07 amDCSCA,
Scott’s comment wasn’t complicated. There’s no hypcrisy in condemning Liddy and illegal aliens for both breaking the law.
You’re saying: But Liddy broke the law and is a convict!!!
He’s saying: Liddy broke the law and is a convict, just like illegal aliens did, and both are criminals even if they didn’t commit other crimes.
He’s saying we should treat illegal aliens like criminals because, like Liddy, they are.
What is your problem with that? Other than how complicated it is.
Juan (4cdfb7) — 12/14/2008 @ 2:06 am16- Juan-
No, I’m confirming the fact to him that the Watergate burglars committed a criminal act, caught and convicted. He has a problem with facts.
Illegal aliens commit an illegal act breaking into the United States and when caught, are (or should be) detained and deported. Not complicated. Pretty straightforward stuff.
DCSCA (d8da01) — 12/14/2008 @ 2:59 amDCSCA,
Read comment 10. Scott clearly indicates that he thinks the Watergate break-ins are criminal.
His argument is that it would be absurd to claim they aren’t just because their criminal action may have been isolated, and therefore it’s absurd to say illegal aliens aren’t criminal. There is no other possible interpretation.
I must be the most gullible fool on this site to continually respond to trolls, if that’s indeed what you’re doing.
Juan (4cdfb7) — 12/14/2008 @ 3:15 amReally? Because you’re inability to understand that we think crooks are crooks suggests that it isn’t so simple to you.
1+1=2 not “Liddy is a criminal!!!”
Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 12/14/2008 @ 5:14 amComment by DCSCA — 12/14/2008 @ 2:59 am and Comment by Scott Jacobs — 12/14/2008 @ 5:14 am
Why are you guys fighting? You are both saying the same thing.
love2008 (1b037c) — 12/14/2008 @ 6:09 amWhy are you guys fighting? You are both saying the same thing.
Because DCSCA is a troll with poor reading comprehension.
Kinda like you on occasion.
Paul (creator of "Staunch Brayer") (152589) — 12/14/2008 @ 7:00 amFunny how Mexicans say they have the right to enter America illegally, and yet Mexicans have harsh penalties for those who try to enter Mexico illegally. Funny, that. Even more hilarious is how these Mexican “human rights” advocates will even whine on behalf of Mexicans who commit crimes in America.
pst314 (dbf8fd) — 12/14/2008 @ 7:47 amFunny how Mexicans say they have the right to enter America illegally, and yet Mexicans have harsh penalties for those who try to enter Mexico illegally.
If we proposed implementing the exact same laws Mexico has on the books, those Mexican “human rights” advocates would scream bloody murder.
Paul (creator of "Staunch Brayer") (152589) — 12/14/2008 @ 8:22 amUC Davis Law School Dean Kevin Johnson said the rules were likely to be challenged in court because they violate the privacy rights of people who have not been convicted of a crime.
“It’s unfair on so many levels it’s hard to describe,” Johnson said. “You can make the argument that we should take the DNA of the entire population because if we did it could help us solve crimes. But we’ve made this decision that as a society . . . the freedoms that we stand for are more important.”
A Justice Department spokesman said the DNA samples would be used only as a form of identification, the way fingerprints are today.
I’m at a bit of a loss here. This is such an invasion of privacy, why do folks have to submit fingerprints to get a Real Estate license or other jobs?
I would be perfectly content to have to submit a hair sample or a mouth swab to get a driver’s licence or renewal as well, plus let them fingerprint me and take my photograph and a retina scan.
I see no invasion of privacy principles at work in any of it. It makes for easier identification for a myriad of useful purposes. You need to have a birth certificate, a passport, a social security number…in order to conduct daily affairs of life in this country.
Because people have been “gaming” the system on some of these items, because technological advances allow folks to commit more sophisticated acts of deceit, so too should our system of creating a database or catalog of citizens advance forward technologically.
What Al Diamante seems to be saying, is that folks who snuck in have thereafter tried to live as decent, law abiding citizens for every other aspect of their lives.
I’m sure that’s true. They indeed have tried. But, in many…if not most instances, they can’t. What social security number do you use? How do you pay your fair share of our common financial burden for roads, police, fire and common defense?
You can’t always get insurance, so who pays for your health care when you go get sponsored health care? Or worse, what happens if you get in an accident and someone is killed or injured?
Who pays for your kids education? And lunch programs?
It’s not that they wish not to contribute fairly, they simply can’t. And the kids have half an identity…they also are trapped into a sub rosa existence, trying to find a way to get “into” the system, without getting caught.
“The freedoms that we stand for are more important”…is a rather oxymoronic phrase as used by the Dean….we are not free at all if we choose to enforce none of our rules.
A society that has rules that it refuses to enforce, has no rules at all. It has illusory rules. I’m all for amnesty for every non-violent offense starting on January 1st. As long as on January 2nd, we know which rules we choose to live by from here on out.
Doing the same thing a month from now simply means we are not serious about self-governance. It’s every man for himself. And…I’m fine with that as well. Just let me know. I will carry my quick draw holster and we can meet at high noon at the Ok Corral.
cfbleachers (fe664e) — 12/14/2008 @ 9:49 amPlease, a little perspective is in order here: The Watergate men are innocent.
The natural born American citizens, and their patriotic Cuban-exile associates, wrongly taken into custody in the Watergate were there at the behest of the nation’s highest law enforcement authorities.
Their assigned task was to remove government equipment improperly installed in the offices of a dangerous and highly partisan political organization then engaged in undermining the official policies of the USA while the nation was at war and American soldiers were being killed fighting in a foreign land.
The so-called “burglars” were peacefully and diligently engaged in the proper performance of their assigned duties when they were suddenly and without advance warning accosted by paid gunmen who restricted their freedom of movement and who also failed to advise them of their Miranda rights.
Their subsequent incarceration, for so called “crimes” is a clear example of providing aid and comfort to our nation’s enemies.
This hardly qualifies as grounds to label them as criminals.
Ropelight (5b609a) — 12/14/2008 @ 10:29 amYeah! What he said.
Icy Texan (b7d162) — 12/14/2008 @ 10:46 amYeah, and take note: speculation that most of the men arrested in the Watergate were in Dealey Plaza on 22 November 1963 has been labeled as “scurrilous” on this blog. Which does not impact on questions of their citizenship, or their immigration status. Nor does the label establish the validity of either the assertion or the characterization.
Ropelight (5b609a) — 12/14/2008 @ 12:56 pmNah, that would only if we proposed analogous laws. I doubt Mexican “human rights” activists would have any objection to a U.S. law making it a felony to illegally enter Mexico.
Xrlq (62cad4) — 12/14/2008 @ 4:55 pmWhat do you expect when the California Lawyer Magazine (CL) publishes articles like these “LET THEM IN – Three New Books Argue That Open Borders Serve The National Interest” by Thomas Brom [from his monthly column “Full Disclosure”, August 2008]. Here is the link to the article. http://www.callawyer.com/index.cfm?NewIssueDate=08-01-08
Here is a “Letter to the Editor” I wrote in reply to CL (I was contacted by CL to confirm I wrote the letter and was told it may publish the letter, but CL did not publish it):
Thomas Brom’s “Let Them In, Over Taken By Events – O-B-E,” August, is spin. Spin out of control. First, America already generously Let’s Them In, granting legal resident status and naturalized citizenship every year, to about 2.5 million immigrants. Significantly more than any other nation. Second, Mr. Brom’s “Let Them In” theme reminded me of the callous quip about a woman getting raped: “Hey, why fight it, just sit back, relax and enjoy it.” That theory’s a non-starter, readily proven again by the 1993 rape, then murder, of Jennifer Ertman (14) and Elizabeth Pena (16), by illegal alien gang member Jose Ernesto Medellin (now 33). Texas just executed him. More recent, there’s SF’s triple murder of the Bologna family in June 2008, LA’s murder of Jamiel Shaw, Jr., in March 2008, and Newark’s execution-style murders of three college students in August 2007. (Illustrative, not exhaustive.) All the product of insane sanctuary city policies coddling and harboring convicted criminal illegal aliens. City, state and fed officials all have blood on their hands.
Third, Mr. Brom’s piece referred to three books advocating open borders, published in 2007-8. I call Mr. Brom and raise him: Michelle Malkin’s Invasion (2002), Victor Davis Hanson’s Mexifornia: A State of Becoming (2003) and Pat Buchanan’s State of Emergency (2006). Fourth, what happened to – the Rule of Law? That America is a nation of laws, not men. That no man is above the law, and that’s what separates America from the rest of the world. Let them in? Open borders? Strange arguments coming from a lawyers’ magazine, but guess we’re just living in the world of Superman Bizarro.
Fifth, we have not been O-B-E, but in fact have had decades of deceit, denial, dysfunction and dereliction of duty (maybe by design NAFTA, NAU, SPP), from all three branches of our federal government. Example: Plyler v. Doe, 457 US 202 (1982), a 5/4 Brennan opinion that admitted the fed’s total failure on illegal immigration, flew in the face of Fong Yu Ting (cited in Brom’s piece, but curiously absent from Plyler), opened the floodgates (see fnt. 2 in Plyler dissent, estimating 3-12 million illegal aliens as of 1981), and denied Texas the natural law remedy of self help. Then California’s Prop 187, torpedoed by a single federal judge. Example: the 1986 bi-partisan Simpson-Mizzoli bill that graciously gave amnesty to 3 million+ illegal aliens, and promised American citizens that it would be – a one-time fix. Can you say Shamnesty? Because that was a fraud, fixed nothing and spawned another 12-20 million+ illegals. Example: the recent 5/4 USSC opinions of Boumediene v. Bush and Dada v. Mukasey, foolishly giving more rights and opening further our courts, to terrorist combatants and illegals, thus making even longer ques for Americans to use their own courts. (See “[Fed] Circuit Judges Decry Immigration Case ‘Tsunami’” by Tony Mauro, 8/12/08 Legal Times and “New Nightmare Census Projections Reveal CHAIN MIGRATION Still Choking Our Future” by Roy Beck, 8/14/08 NumbersUSA.) Example: The dereliction of Presidents Carter to G.W. Bush on this issue, most notably their failure to prosecute cheating employers who hire illegals and refuse to use E-Verify.
Separation of powers, the so-called checks & balances? Phooey! The Rule of Law? Phooey! We are trillions in debt, yet the politicos and judges never ask, who or how we will pay for their frolics. We get the shaft from all three branches, plus we get to pay the “check” for the actually not so cheaper labor. The same is true for too many state, county and city governments/officials (sanctuary cities); the media (Mr. Brom’s own “It’s why an editor… may choose to bury a story rather than put it on the front page.”); and, the big corp bandits & pirates (that out-source American jobs, hire the illegals and push for more H-1B visas to in-source more foreign workers). The Dems want more voters; the Repubs (and US Chamber of Commerce) want cheap labor. It can be argued, we are well down the road to anarchy. (See HBO’s “The Second Civil War” (1997).) But the Will of the People has always been clear: STOP IT! Most recently rising up to stop the bogus bi-partisan “comprehensive” shamnesty bill. Yet all ever required was leadership and integrity. To simply apply reason, enforce our existing laws, and follow the advice of Deputy Barney Fife (of Andy of Mayberry): “Nip it. Nip it. Nip it in the bud.” The situation then would have been – the problem that never was.
But that takes courage. Instead, our politicos have chosen to pick the low hanging fruit, and to come up with one scam, scheme and bogus compromise, after another. We must look in the mirror. We must ask: Are we still capable of governing ourselves? Because at present, America has no real Rule of Law – with 12-20 million illegal aliens, it would be foolish to argue otherwise. Fact is, everything has been reduced to politics. Because if baseball used to be America’s pastime, it can be readily argued that today, our pastime now is – lying, cheating, stealing & spin. And it’s everywhere. And it’s destroying our American constitution, country, communities, culture and courts. And it’s killing us.
Open borders – NO! Enforce our laws – YES! Si se puede!
Gary L. Zerman (55474e) — 12/14/2008 @ 5:03 pmNah, that would only if we proposed analogous laws. I doubt Mexican “human rights” activists would have any objection to a U.S. law making it a felony to illegally enter Mexico.
Nitpicker.
You know what I meant.
Paul (creator of "Staunch Brayer") (152589) — 12/14/2008 @ 5:13 pmI saw the much praised movie, The Visitor, an okay movie marred by its obvious bias for illegal immigration. The characters kept sobbing into the camera, “What have I done that’s so wrong?” after they were caught by ICE. “Youv’e broken our nation’s immigration laws,” I wanted to shout out!
Patricia (ee5c9d) — 12/14/2008 @ 5:16 pmWhat law school produced this obvious genius of legal thinking? His comment about people being here illegally would be funny if it wasn’t so pathetic.
rochf (ae9c58) — 12/15/2008 @ 9:44 am