Lets add provision to Miranda warning

[J. J.]

Most of you know that when arresting a person for a serious criminal offense, law enforcement must tell the arrested of his rights pursuant to the Miranda case.

It seems to me that considering the volume of serious crime committed by aliens and the international obligations, that every arrested for a serious crime should as part of the Miranda warning be advised that if an alien, he/she has the right to speak with a representative of his government.

Those who request to speak with a representative (typically consular officer) should have their legal status checked, and those not legally present in this country should be subject to deportation.

Those who do not request to have such a representative present will have been considered to have waived their right with respect to appeals.

First, I've yet to see that "volume."

Second, as far as I know, police can check the alien status of anyone arrested, whether or not they make the request.

Third, why are you so worried about abridging due process?  You are basically setting up a situation where the police can just deport anyone, without any appeals.  What it the police simply make a mistake?

[J. J.]

Most of you know that when arresting a person for a serious criminal offense, law enforcement must tell the arrested of his rights pursuant to the Miranda case.

It seems to me that considering the volume of serious crime committed by aliens and the international obligations, that every arrested for a serious crime should as part of the Miranda warning be advised that if an alien, he/she has the right to speak with a representative of his government.

Those who request to speak with a representative (typically consular officer) should have their legal status checked, and those not legally present in this country should be subject to deportation.

Those who do not request to have such a representative present will have been considered to have waived their right with respect to appeals.

First, I've yet to see that "volume."

Second, as far as I know, police can check the alien status of anyone arrested, whether or not they make the request.

Third, why are you so worried about abridging due process?  You are basically setting up a situation where the police can just deport anyone, without any appeals.  What it the police simply make a mistake?

JJ,

First, I am well aware that you are blind to things you do not want to see.

Karl, the K and two others are deserved, while you have posted isolated incidents, occasionally, there is no great "volume of serious crime committed by aliens."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So far as I can tell, the police can check alien status.  If they wish to contact consul, they may, or the police, after establishing that they are alien, can inform then that they may.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is a bit like saying, "If someone attempts to call an attorney, they can be convicted without appeal."  Under your scenario, someone eligible to stay in the county, may be picked up, determined not to have committed a crime, determined to be eligible to stay in the country (with an appeal), and then deported.  That is an abridgment of due process.

[J. J.]

First JJ, I understand that when you have no cogent argument to make, you engage in name calling.  This is very childish of you/

Second, I would like to see the Uniform Crime Reports include a category for persons arrested for commission of murder or nonnegligent manslaughter by status (citizen, legal aliens, illegal alien).  Unfortunately at this time the FBI does not provide this data.  Would you like to have this categorization included in the UCR?

No, an accurate description of a xenophobe.

Now, I have, using your "logic" a much stronger group of criminals, people involved in the country music business.  I just read about the father of Cheri Otari being murdered by country song writer. 

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20195882,00.html?xid=rss-topheadlines

Now, obviously we have people like Merle Haggard, Gary US Bonds, Mindy McCready, Weylan Jennings, Willie Nelson, and, of course Johnny Cash, and his stepdaughter Carlene Carter.

Obviously me much stop this cadre of country criminals, these homicidal honkytonk hillbillies!  Oh, I forgot, there white and speak English.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The fact that they are currently illegal, might change after adjudication.  You would deny that possibility.

[J. J.]

First JJ, I understand that when you have no cogent argument to make, you engage in name calling.  This is very childish of you/

Second, I would like to see the Uniform Crime Reports include a category for persons arrested for commission of murder or nonnegligent manslaughter by status (citizen, legal aliens, illegal alien).  Unfortunately at this time the FBI does not provide this data.  Would you like to have this categorization included in the UCR?

No, an accurate description of a xenophobe.

Now, I have, using your "logic" a much stronger group of criminals, people involved in the country music business.  I just read about the father of Cheri Otari being murdered by country song writer. 

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20195882,00.html?xid=rss-topheadlines

Now, obviously we have people like Merle Haggard, Gary US Bonds, Mindy McCready, Weylan Jennings, Willie Nelson, and, of course Johnny Cash, and his stepdaughter Carlene Carter.

Obviously me much stop this cadre of country criminals, these homicidal honkytonk hillbillies!  Oh, I forgot, there white and speak English.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The fact that they are currently illegal, might change after adjudication.  You would deny that possibility.

Yes, JJ engages in ad hominen arguments rather than deals with facts or logic.

Oh, and once again, aliens illegally present in this country would not lose any rights to adjucication under my proposal.

Oh, and I note for the record, you ignored my proposal that the FBI include the categories I cited.  Guess you don't want to deal with data either.

No KKKarl, I cite the fallacy of your posts, and perhaps a racial subtext. 

What you won't admit that someone can enter the country illegally, a refugee, but can have grounds for being granted legal status.  I havbe no problem with those people seeking to appeal.

[J. J.]

Yes, JJ engages in ad hominen arguments rather than deals with facts or logic.

You don't post facts; you post your own, opinion, and try to pass it off as a fact.  That you engage in an ad hominem, by claiming that I "blind to things you do not want to see." 

So, we see the start of KKKarlHayden's ad hominem.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You don't seem to understand that someone may enter the country illegally, and still be legally entitled to legal status.  You proposal would prevent that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, I don't have an objection, but I'm not the director of the FBI, so there is very little that I can do about it.

[J. J.]

First, as to facts, I suggest you read the Avena case.  Or are you suggesting that I made that up?

I just posted a few country western types that have criminal some criminal activities, so please don't cherry pick cases.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This:

Those who do not request to have such a representative present will have been considered to have waived their right with respect to appeals.

Wanna try again?

[J. J.]

You totally misconstrued what I said by taking it out of context!

No right to appeal removes the ability.  Someone can waive there ability or right to speak with his consul, just as someone arrested can waive their right to have an attorney.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

An alien's right to appeal a deportation would make an erosion of rights, as indicated.  I frankly have no problem with an alien being able to consult consul from his country, prior to deportation.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I should point out that the person still wouldn't have to answer, even if they decline an attorney. 

Gee, someone this unclear on rights of citizens may not be one.  Perhaps you should report yourself.

[J. J.]

Now, an alien can appeal a deportation under my proposal.  Hence, there is no "erosion" of rights.

Let's see:

Those who request to speak with a representative (typically consular officer) should have their legal status checked, and those not legally present in this country should be subject to deportation.

Those who do not request to have such a representative present will have been considered to have waived their right with respect to appeals.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not changing the definition, just looking at your "proposal."  Yes they can appeal, no they can't appeal.  It is perhaps a prime reason xenophobes shouldn't make immigration laws. 

[J. J.]

You presumed that I was saying would be subject to immediate deportation, which I did NOT say.

No, I'm stating that said you have said, "without appeal," which you did.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

First, as far as I know, the police can check the immigration status of anyone they arrest; presumably, if you were arrested, they could check your status.  Second, there is a right to one phone call, which could include a call to consul.  Likewise, the attorney may contact consul.

I really don't see any use to this proposal.

[J. J.]

Again, there are two benefits.

First, aliens (whether legally or illegally in this country) could not contest conviction for a serious crime based on inability to consult with counsul.

Can they do that now, or is that included in the general right to have an attorney.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh, who told them?  Is this a administrative matter or a legal one?

[J. J.]

First, I cited the Avena case. 

Second, the Mayors of a number of cities have instructed their police forces to NOT ask about legal residency status.

Please provide a link to the "Avena case."

Second, police can and do decline to enforce various laws.  That has nothing to do with your premise, because they can do that with or without a warning.  (Numerous marijuana laws are good examples.)

[J. J.]

First, I cited the Avena case. 

Second, the Mayors of a number of cities have instructed their police forces to NOT ask about legal residency status.

Please provide a link to the "Avena case."

Second, police can and do decline to enforce various laws.  That has nothing to do with your premise, because they can do that with or without a warning.  (Numerous marijuana laws are good examples.)

First, I'm sorry you had so much trouble finding the decision of the International Court of Justice in Avena.  Here is the url:

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&k=18&case=128&code=mus&p3=5&PHPSESSID=64670f39301279f5103f22c3984dabac

OK, the right is established by treaty, so any appeal would also be covered by the treaty, so the warning is moot.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And,  the warning has no effect on what is an administrative decision, which is what I'm describing.

In other words, it's a pretty lame idea, but we all knew that.

[J. J.]

Do you really fail to grasp the concepts presented?

First, if Avena had been advised of his right to consult with consul and declined, then he would not have been able to appeal on denial of consul.  Since he was not advised of that right, he was able to appeal to the International Court of Justice.  So, having the warning is not "moot."

Wrong, the treaty gives him the right, so even if he was informed, and declined, the right within in the treaty still exists.  The warning would be moot, for even if initially declined, he'd still have the right.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As a practical matter, if a local authority says, "Don't worry about aliens," it has nothing to do with a right to consul.  It either has to do with the ideology of the local authority or the low priority of the authority gives to aliens (probably because they really create few problems).

[J. J.]

You still don't understand.

If Avena had been notified of his right to consult with consul and declined to exercise that right he would not have been denied that right.

The right to consult exists in treaty.  A law cannot abrogate that treaty.  What part of that don't you understand?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Whether or not they admit it still doesn't mean that law enforcement will enforce it.   An illegal alien, in those localities (and I guess there are some out there) can walk up to police officer and say, "I'm an illegal alien."  If that locality chooses not to enforce it, it won't make a difference.

[J. J.]

The proposal does NOT abrogate the treaty, but rather guarantees that the person arrested has the ability to consult with consul.  They do not have to consult with consul if they don't want to do so. 

The right to consult exists by treaty, so they can be no other guarantee.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The ruling basically says that, at some point, via treaty, before the US puts a Mexican citizen to death, the alien must be informed by the government of the right consul contact, and inform the consul.  Now at the time of arrest, apparently in capital cases, police can check alien status, and inform consul.  The treaty puts the onus on the police.  Thery can check and follow through

This included 49 cases which were death penalty cases (that great mass of pleople, 49 out a prison population of roughly 2 million).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You are again confusing having police the authority to do something and declining to use that authority.

[J. J.]

I don't know whether you are unable to understand or are simply deliberately misrepresenting what I have posted.

The warning I would add to Miranda would assure that a defendant could not plead that he was not givern his rights under international law to consult with consul.

It doesn't make any difference.  Because this is a function of a treaty, a warning will not make a difference.

Further, looking at the case citing, it involves only people with the death penalty (initially 53 nationally).  I'm not clear that it involves all felons.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Those that object now will still object if a warning provision is included. 

[J. J.]

Lets see.

If a person isn't told of his/her right to consult consul, and does not request such a right (being ignorant of it) then there is a basis for appeal on failure to enforce that right.

However, if a person is advised of the right and declines to exercise it, then if the person asserts they were denied the right as part of an appeal, the notice would contradict that assertion.

Do you really have difficulty understanding this?

You see to have a difficulty understanding that the right exists, even if the person declines to use it, by treaty.  The state has a treaty obligation to inform the representative of the alien's government.  A law does not change that.

I also have to ask if the right is for all felons or only in capital cases, which probably has less than 100 people nationwide. (All the case in US v. Mexico were death penalty cases.)

What parts of this do have problem comprehending?

[J. J.]

You really have a difficulty understanding rather basic legal principles.

First, if a person is advised of their right, and declines to exercise it, they are not being denied that right.

Are you suggesting that a person cannot decline to exercise the right to consult with consul?

Under the treaty, the right appears to be ongoing and there also seems to be a requirement that the government doing the arresting must inform the consular officers.  In the second case, the alien could not waive that right, because it is a requirement based on the government.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not clear that, under treaty, this applies to "serious crimes."  In US v. Mexico, it was applied only to death penalty judgments; it was actually withdrawn when three death sentences were commuted in IL.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm afraid you have let you xenophobia cloud both your understanding of the law and your abilitity to comprehend English.  The latter might be a sign of illegal immigrant status.

[J. J.]

Sorry, but a arrestee cannot be compelled to consult with counsul.

Not "compelled" but have a continuing right to, under treaty.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If the right is continuing, yes there is.  There is also a requirement that the representative of the foreign government be informed.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, in all case in Mexico v. US are death penalty cases, so I'm not clear that this applies to all arrests or all felony arrest..  As noted, in cases where the death penalty was commuted, the claims by Mexico were withdrawn.  Why don't you link to the actual treaty.