|
This is a page from
the official, non-commercial, and nonprofit web site of “Mark Andrew Dwyer” whose only
goal is educating and informing. Although all material contained on this page is copyrighted either by
“Mark Andrew Dwyer” or
by other parties (all pictures are from the Internet and are copyrighted by
third parties), it is being offered
here solely as an educational tool to increase understanding of global
economics and social justice issues for 'fair use' of
copyrighted material as provided in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. Please, send your
comments to readerswrite@yahoo.com. (See also readers’ comments after
the article.) |
THE BLESSINGS OF LIBERTY
By “Mark Andrew Dwyer”
August
14, 2006
(Last updated November 14, 2007; for discussion of relevant
Supreme Court decisions click here; for Addendum 1 click
here; for Addendum 2 click here, for
Addendum 3 click here, for Addendum 4 click here, and for further reading and development click here.)
I thought I was
hallucinating. Two accomplished Border Patrol agents, Ignacio Ramos and Jose
Alonso Compean, were convicted by a
When I looked
into the details of the case and the events that led to agents' convictions, I
found the bases on which the charges were brought and the guilty verdict
pronounced even more absurd than the outcome of the trial itself. Per Sara A.
Carter, DailyBuletin.com Staff Writer (see [1]), Assistant U.S. Attorney Debra Kanof said that
Ramos and Compean had no business chasing someone in the first place. "It
is a violation of Border Patrol regulations to go after someone who is
fleeing," she said. "The Border Patrol pursuit policy prohibits the
[high speed] pursuit of someone." (So, how can one apprehend and intruder,
I ask, if they run away as quickly as they can?) "Agents are not allowed
to pursue. In order to exceed the speed limit, you have to get supervisor
approval, and they did not," Attorney Debra Kanof said, as if breaking the
speed limit by the agents was the main thing to worry about when determined,
and often violent, foreign criminal that couldn't care less about the posted speed
limit made hostile incursion into the
These and other absurdities were thoroughly
exposed by several commentators, most notably, by Lou Dobbs of CNN (see [2,
3,
4]
for relevant videos with "Lou Dobbs Tonight" clips) who referred
(after T.J. Bonner, the president of the
National Border Patrol Council)
to the conviction as the most outrageous miscarriage of justice he's seen in
So, the problem here is that the prosecutor (Assistant U.S. Attorney Debra Kanof) and the court (Judge Kathleen Cardone and the jury) seem to believe that Mexican smuggler (Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila) who just jumped the American border, and did so with clearly criminal intent, enjoys his “constitutional rights” (in particular, Fourth Amendment rights, so that he cannot be chased or searched except in certain restrictive manner) and other protections since the very moment he has managed to put his foot on American soil. Such an absurd interpretation of the U.S. Constitution appears common among many left-leaning Liberals (including those organized in ACLU and the Southern Poverty Law Center, just to name two organizations notorious for their twisting the letter and the intent of the supreme law of the land) that attempt to push down our throats their utopian, if not manic, visions of the contemporary society, but when the U.S. Attorney Office and a federal judge subscribe to this nonsense, the matter becomes much more serious than it may appear to average American citizen. Unfortunately, this dangerous fact has clearly eluded even the most observant critics (I noted one exception in [5] where Devvy Kidd questions constitutional basis of charging the agents in a federal court) of the agents' unjust conviction.
So, let's see what the U.S. Constitution, including its amendments, has to say on this subject.
The very first sentence of the Constitution
(often referred to as the Preamble) clearly states: “We the People of the
For instance, Judge Samuel Alito, a renowned
constitutional scholar and a Supreme Court Associate Justice, during his
nomination hearings expressed his strong opinion that illegal aliens do not
automatically acquire “constitutional right” while on the U.S. soil
(see [6] for a brief report of Alito’s earlier
statements in this matter). In 1986, he made a case that nonresident aliens,
which category includes illegal aliens and foreign border violators, do not enjoy protections offered by Fourth
Amendment, contrary to what Assistant U.S. Attorney Debra Kanof said.
Obviously, Alito’s position, as opposed to Kanof’s simplistic and
naive misinterpretation, is fully consistent with the preamble to the U.S.
Constitution. In particular, the fleeing smuggler of foreign nationality that
illegally crossed the American border does not have Fourth Amendment rights,
unless, perhaps, he can prove his lawful permanent residence in the
Looking from a wider perspective, many
nonsensical interpretations of the U.S. Constitution were caused, or at least
encouraged, by a confusing (at least for some students of the Constitution) language
of 14th Amendment, particularly, its equal protection clause, that – not
withstanding its positive effects - gained some notoriety for misinterpretation
as well as for a number of lingering societal and legal problems and questions
that we are trying to address in today's America. I heard many opinions that
were based on presumption, made out of thin air, that the equal protection
clause guarantees the same (hence adjective equal)
rights and privileges to all person present in the U.S., regardless such a
presence is legal or not. Even otherwise intelligent and educated people
mindlessly accept verbatim interpretation of the equal protection clause as if it meant literally equal protection
for everybody who keeps his feet on American soil. Careful reading of the
Constitution and its Amendments demonstrates that such verbatim understanding
of the equal protection clause is utterly absurd and supported neither by the
letter nor by the intent of the Constitution of the
A common, although invalid, argument that many groups, like ACLU and SPLC, are using in this context tacitly presumes that the phrases "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and "within its jurisdiction" are but meaningless ornaments of speech. This misreading of the language of 14th Amendment (that would wash only under assumption that the federal legislature and several state legislatures were largely composed of bunch of fools who trapped themselves into passing tautological statements into the law around 1868) leads to such absurdities as the so-called "automatic citizenship" awarded to children of illegal aliens in the U.S. as if they were subjected to the jurisdiction of the U.S., which they themselves often deny, and, like in the case described above, granting the invaders (illegal border hopper in this case) the "right" to use the U.S. Constitution, designed to protect the American people, as a weapon against all those who would like to resist the invasion and defend the integrity of the American border, because, ostensibly, these invaders deserve the equal protection while in the U.S.
The "automatic citizenship" for American-born children of illegal aliens fallacy has been thoroughly commented by others (including the author of this article - e.g., in [7]), so we will leave it here without further discussion. We will address, instead, the meaning of the "within its jurisdiction" phrase in the equal protection clause ("nor shall any State [...] deny to any person within its jurisdiction [emphasis added] the equal protection of the laws") within the narrow context of the so-called "constitutional” rights of the illegal aliens. (The so-called “civil rights of illegal aliens” is an oxymoron as the meaning of the adjective “civil” [of or relating to citizens] clearly indicates.)
Unless the phrase "within its jurisdiction" is tautological (so that every person in particular state's territory is automatically deemed "within its jurisdiction") or a meaningless figure of speech, presumption that the equal protection clause uniformly applies to everybody, in particular, to border violators (as well as to other categories of illegal aliens), is invalid because it inevitably leads to serious contradictions with the rest of the Constitution, its purpose, and national interest. Although several courts and organizations have been working hard in order to make these contradictions to disappear, like, for instance, by selective picking (by the Supreme Court of the U.S.) which laws and immunities does Section 1 of 14th Amendment carry from the Bill of Rights to a state law and which it does not, the bottom line is that, as of today, no one has produced a coherent (free of contradictions and extra-constitutional "rules", that is) theory that would reconcile the simplistic and contradictory interpretation of 14th Amendment (that everybody, illegal alien or not, is covered by the equal protection clause) with the facts, basic needs the American nation, and the reminder of the Constitution. It's important to remember that the role of the Supreme Court is to faithfully interpret the existing law and not to mutilate it or create new one. After all, the Supreme Court may be wrong in their rulings, as they were at several occasions in the past.
Because for a person to be covered by the equal protection clause of 14th Amendment, he/she must be within jurisdiction of a state, the main question that needs to be answered in order to determine the scope of applicability, if any, of the equal protection clause to an illegal alien and a foreign drug smuggler who just jumped illegally the American Border is this: Is the culprit within jurisdiction of a state where the violation took place? All constitutionally based and logically sound reasons that one could consider while addressing this question lead to a resounding "No" answer.
I argue that a foreign national who illegally crossed the American border (unless he surrendered himself to state authorities) is not in jurisdiction of the state that he crushed into in the sense of the language of 14th Amendment any more than a member of foreign military force that invaded that state is3, and, therefore, is not covered by the equal protection clause. (It’s worth noting that 14th Amendment begins, in Section 1, second sentence, with a stipulation that “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens [emphasis added] of the United States,” which strongly suggests that the noun “person” used in the remainder of its text refers to one of the “citizens of the United States”, and even then it’s doubtful if any citizen could maintain his immunities after joining enemy’s armed forces or actually fighting against his own country.) I can imagine an ACLU or SPLC lawyer claiming, in his attempt to dismiss the above argument, that military aggression, unlike illegal border crossing by a foreign criminal, is an act of war that excludes the invading army from the jurisdiction of the invaded, but not withstanding extra-constitutionality of such a claim, there is no acceptable criterion, consistent with the Constitution, as to when a border violation subjects someone to the jurisdiction of the state he/she invaded and when it does not.
For instance, if the requirement is that the aggression (war) must be declared, then we would have to offer constitutional protection the foreign invading army if they launched an undeclared aggression of American territory. (Nonsense.) If being armed (with a proviso that the defenders must know that the invaders are armed, if one were to follow the legal opinion of Assistant U.S. Attorney Debra Kanof ) is such a requirement then attacking America with millions of unarmed soldiers (who can later arm themselves in the U.S., perhaps claiming their 2nd Amendment rights), or with all the arms well hidden so that the U.S. authorities have no way of knowing that the invaders are armed, will make the aggressors eligible for constitutional protection and de facto torpedo (at least in the legal sense) any serious attempts of defense. (Nonsense, again.) If wearing military uniforms is such a requirement then the foreign invading army will masquerade as bunch of civilians and gain support of ACLU and SPLC in their demands for equal protection. (Nonsense, too.) And so on. These are but a few examples - for each imaginable "criterion" there is a scenario of aggression of foreign power "eligible" for "constitutional protection" in the eyes of those who buy the above invalid argument that equal protection clause uniformly applies to any one physically present on the American soil.
Thus the claim that foreign illegal border crossers do fall into jurisdiction of any particular state and, therefore, are covered by the equal protection clause, is invalid because it inevitably leads to nonsensical consequences contradictory with the Constitution and its purpose, part of which is to secure effective defense of the national border and sovereignty, except, perhaps, in the case when the perpetrator surrenders himself to state authorities or otherwise submits himself to state’s jurisdiction4. It is of some importance here that many (most?) border jumpers openly refuse to subject themselves to the jurisdiction of the country (U.S.) or state they crashed into, and Mexican consulates consistently bring these facts up while defending Mexican illegal aliens against their prosecution for violations of the U.S. law.
There is another argument that invalidates the claim that border violators automatically fall into jurisdiction of any particular state, which facts refutes the “proof” of their general eligibility for coverage by the equal protection clause. Since the federal government insisted that all immigration issues are its exclusive prerogative (the so-called "federal issue"), states do not have any jurisdiction over immigration-related matters. In particular, they have no jurisdiction over foreign border violators. Hence, by not being within state jurisdiction, an illegal border jumper cannot claim equal protection clause of 14th Amendment in his defense. In the case that we discuss in this article, neither the smuggled surrendered himself to state authorities nor the Border Patrol agents acted under authority of any particular state (because they were employees of the federal law enforcement agency during the course of carrying on their professional duties). Therefore, agents’ actions could not be subjected to restrictions that federal law (14th Amendment) imposes on state’s actions. It's mind boggling what horse's ass could conceive an idea that the Border Patrol federal agents were bound by the “nor shall any State [...] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" clause, or that a foreign drug smuggler was actually protected by that clause against pursuit, search, and shooting by the agents. (As we have already shown, and according to Supreme Court Associate Justice Samuel Alito, he was not protected by Fourth Amendment).
Unfortunately, neither the presiding judge nor
the prosecutor (assistant
As a result of the above circumstances (a lack of understanding of the constitutional law by the judge and the prosecutor), the unjust verdict to convict the Border Patrol agents was based, at least partially, on the invalid presumption that anyone (not just, say, an American citizen), in particular a Mexican illegal border crosser, has the Fourth Amendment right to be safe against unreasonable searches and seizures without probable cause, that right the agents violated.
We must not forget that the “Blessings of the Liberty” guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, including Fourth Amendment’s protection against “unreasonable searches and seizures,” are reserved in the U.S. for American citizens (not withstanding the fact that we generously but voluntarily offer them to some other individuals, like political refugees and resident aliens, as a revocable privilege) and not for the invaders and border violators. So are the civil liberties, as the meaning of the word “civil” (related to citizens) clearly indicates, despite that ACLU, SPLC, and other self-appointed defenders of these liberties would like to bestow them on the foreign intruders. No twisted logic, simplistic interpretation of the Constitution, nor taken out of the context clauses of its Amendments will change that.
Speaking of public reaction to the unjust verdict, I was surprised by relatively (when compared to "Rodney King beating" trial) calm, if not indifferent, reaction of the American public to what may yet turn out to be a symptom of deeply rooted government-level conspiracy to disable the enforcement of the American border and the immigration laws. Where is the outrage? Where are the vigils and protests? I suggest that all those unhappy with the verdict may wish to consider the "No justice, no peace" language that our elected officials seem to understand so well. Because if the political left and "civil rights" leaders are using it but we don't, we may be putting ourselves into a losing game.
_________________________
Notes [top] 1(Added October
20, 2006, updated November 4, 2006) The Supreme Court confirmed (in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 1990),
that Fourth Amendment protections extend only to "the people", which
the Court defined as "a class of persons who are part of a national [emphasis added] community [and
not just immigrant community] or who have otherwise developed sufficient
connection with this country to be considered part of that community" (see
[12]). In light of
this definition, Mexican smuggler fleeing from the U.S. authorities right after
illegally crossing the American border is not protected by Fourth Amendment
because he does not belong to the mentioned above “class of
persons” defined by the Supreme Court. There were no other Supreme Court
decisions that would suggest otherwise conclusion (that the smuggler in
question was a member of the mentioned above “class of persons”
defined by the Supreme Court, that is), so Assistant U.S. Attorney Debra Kanof
obviously misinterpreted the position of the Supreme Court in this matter. [Addendum
3]
2(Added October
31, 2006) As it has been pointed out in [13], “Under
the entry fiction [doctrine that applies to non-admitted (in particular,
illegal) aliens], an alien deemed to have entered this country illegally is
treated as if detained or `excluded’ at the border despite his physical
presence in the
3(Added October
31, 2006) Recently, a blogger in [14] aptly
characterized this scenario (albeit under different circumstances) as
“nonsense about an invading army being under the jurisdiction of the
invaded country”.
4(Added October
31, 2006, updated November 4, 2006) Unfortunately, the Supreme Court in some of
its opinions (e.g., in Plyler v. Doe, 457
U.S. 202, 212, 1982) recycled the extra-constitutional assertion that all
persons within a state’s territory automatically fall under that
state’s jurisdiction, which doctrine was invented in Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 369 (1886) by arbitrarily
injecting the word “territorial” between the words
“its” and “jurisdiction” into the language of the equal protection clause of the 14th
Amendment, and erroneously interpreting the phrase “the equal protection [emphasis added] of the
laws” as “the protection of equal
laws [emphasis added]” (cf. [15]), so that the equal protection clause of the 14th
Amendment “nor shall any State [...] deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" mysteriously becomes an equal rights clause (court’s
invention) that reads “nor shall any State [...] deny to any person
within its territorial [emphasis
added] jurisdiction the protection of equal
laws [emphasis added]", without much regard to logic and obviously
absurd consequences of such an invention. [top]
ADDENDUM 1 (August 15, 2006, amended March 3, 2007)
It turns
out that also
Meanwhile (as of time of this writing, March 3, 2007), Mr. Sutton,
despite all the well-justified criticism of his prominent role in what Lou
Dobbs called “the greatest miscarriage of justice”, continues his
blatant crusade against law enforcement officers that dare to obstruct illegal
traffic of aliens and drugs across the Southern border. In yet another case
reported today by the Internet press (see [18]), Mr. Sutton prosecuted “Gilmer Hernandez, a Texas deputy
sheriff who drew grass-roots support after he was convicted for violating the civil rights of a fleeing illegal alien [emphasis
added]” and who faces seven years in federal prison for defending himself
against assault with a deadly weapon by a Mexican smuggler and for wounding an
illegal Mexican border crosser.
Definitely,
we have a pattern here (see also ADDENDUM 3, below), which brings this question into
consideration: should Mr. Sutton be fired for his repeated misinterpretations
of the
ADDENDUM 2 (September 17, 2006) [top]
Per U.S.
Congressman Tom Tancredo (read his
signed letter to the Attorney General Gonzales, Department of Justice [10]),
“[…]
Chapman
was detained briefly in
This Administration routinely tells Congress
that they cannot secure our borders and immigration system due to a lack of
resources [emphasis added]. We
are told that the
We are
told that ICE can’t possibly tackle the task of deporting illegal aliens
from the interior of our nation. […] We are apparently supposed to accept
presence the roughly 100,000 criminal aliens inside our borders – a
number that is growing every year – while
Frankly,
it is becoming increasingly clear that the real problem is not so much a lack
of resources as it is one of misplaced priorities.
I’m
beginning to wonder who is in charge of
prioritizing assignments at DOJ. Is it this administration – or the one
in
Sincerely,
<legible
signature>
Tom
Tancredo”
I [Dwyer]
cannot resist quoting here Article 9, Extradition of Nationals, Paragraph 1 of Treaty
Between the United States of America and Mexico, signed at
Neither Contracting Party shall be bound to
deliver up its own nationals [emphasis
added], but the executive authority of the requested Party shall, if not
prevented by the laws of that Party, have the power to deliver them up if, in its discretion [emphasis added],
it be deemed proper to do so.
So, quite
obviously, U.S. Department of Justice, notorious for their negligence in
prosecution of Mexican nationals that violated the American border and the
immigration law, showed remarkable over zeal in going after “Dog” although the extradition treaty with Mexico
did not obliged it to doing so. It is of essence here that bounty-hunting,
unlike rape, robbery, and murder, is both legal and established practice in
light of the American law, never mind its undeniable contributions to
enforcement of the law and court orders.
I wonder
if you see a pattern here. I do. I call it capricious
enforcement that favors foreign (Mexican) violators and discriminates
against decent Americans. (You may wish to read
[11] for yet
another example of DOJ’s double standard in this matter.) I would add a
question of my own to Tancredo’s:
The
Blessings of
ADDENDUM 3 (February 4, 2007) [top]
U.S. Attorney, Johnny Sutton, keeps showing
his blatant disregard to the Supreme Court’s ruling1 (see the footnote above) in which the Court
has clearly indicated that Fourth Amendment does not protect Mexican smugglers that illegally jump the American
border (see [12]). Mr.
Sutton’s “logic” goes along these lines (quotation from [16]):
“Myth: ILLEGAL ALIENS DO NOT HAVE ANY
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
“Reality: The courts [but not the Supreme Court] have held that
the 4th Amendment to the Constitution protects all persons in the
So, from the fact that illegal aliens do,
arguably, (see [12]) have some constitutional rights (the premise
of Mr. Sutton’s argument which he
begins from negating the statement “illegal aliens do not have any
constitutional rights”) while in the U.S., like, for instance, the rights
of the accused in criminal
prosecutions, Mr. Sutton draws an invalid conclusion that all rights that constitution guarantees to the people must be extended to each and every one
illegal border jumper of foreign nationality. It’s mind boggling that he
hasn’t been fired yet for his twisting of the law (never mind his
apparent inability and/or unwillingness to reason logically) and stubborn
disobeying the Supreme Court’s rulings. I would not be surprised if there were an ACLU membership card in Mr.
Sutton’s wallet.
Meanwhile, the case of another Border Patrol
agent, David Sipe, has been brought to public attention just a few days ago
(see [17]). Mr. Sipe was sentences to long term prison for “violation of
civil rights” of a Mexican smuggler (here we see the “civil rights
of illegal entrants” oxymoron, again) after he subdued the smuggler by
hitting him with a flashlight.
The verdict has recently (January 29, 2007)
been overturned and Mr. Sipe has been finally set free after seven years of
ordeal. According to his own words, this is what he is facing now: "My
house foreclosed on after having to file bankruptcy, my children having to live
through this... of course my wife divorcing me." And what about the
smuggler, one can ask? It turns out that he got the
Do you see a pattern here? I do. It looks like every American citizen who, be it out of his patriotism or his duty, attempts to obstruct free flow of contraband goods and labor through the American Southern border exposes himself on grave risk of being railroaded by the powerful open-border lobby whose actions have all the attributes of criminal conspiracy to subvert the law. It’s time to expose the powerful conspirators and punish them sternly for the serious threat they pose to the security and well-being of this nation. [top]
Addendum 4 (November 14, 2007) Meanwhile, the violence on the border directed at Border Patrol agents increases. As recently reported by The Washington Times (see [19]), the agents are outnumbered and outgunned by Mexican smugglers who are better armed and equipped than the agents are. "They've got weapons, high-tech radios, computers, cell phones, Global Positioning Systems, spotters and can react faster than we are able to," said Shawn P. Moran, a 10-year U.S. Border Patrol veteran who serves as vice president of the National Border Patrol Council Local 1613 in San Diego. "And they have no hesitancy to attack the agents on the line, with anything from assault rifles and improvised Molotov cocktails to rocks, concrete slabs and bottles," he said.
And what you can expect when U.S. Attorney Sutton is busy harassing the Border Patrol agents and sending them to jail for shooting at a smuggler while carrying on their duties of protecting the American border? The other agents must have been petrified by the outcome of the case of agents Compean and Ramos and they now are more likely to hesitate to fire back at the attackers out of fear of retaliation from Mr. Sutton and his accomplices in the U.S. Justice Department, as well as his mighty protector in the White House.
This shows how damaging the absurd border policies of this administration are to this nation's security. The Commander-in-Chief will send our almighty armed forces to protect the borders of other countries on another hemisphere while leaving the U.S. border vulnerable to Mexican thugs. And to add an insult to the injury, his administration has been more concerned with protecting foreign invaders and smugglers than those who, like Compean and Ramos, put their lives on line while defending our country. Because of this neglect, and because of utterly absurd lack of reasonable priorities that this administration has been notorious for, half of the blame for this outrageous state of affairs goes to President Bush, Secretary Chertoff, and U.S. Attorney Sutton. It has been their stubborn refusal to do the right thing that brought the current crisis on our heads. [top]
FURTHER READING (Added Sept. 25, 2007)
The Burden of Proof (March 29, 2007, updated Sept. 25, 2007)
http://oocities.com/readerswrite/commentaries/Burden_of_proof.htm
Readers’
comments: “The Blessings of
Great read
on the case! [LA Joe]
Thank you
Sir for a well researched article, The Blessings of
REFERENCES
[1] Breaking the silence
Convicted border agent tells his story
By Sara A. Carter, Staff Writer – August
6, 2006
http://www.dailybulletin.com/news/ci_4141562
[2] Lou Dobbs Tonight - CNN - August 9, 2006 (video clip)
http://www.americanpatrol.com/WMV/060809-Dobbs-TJ-Bonner.wmv
[3] Lou Dobbs Tonight - CNN - August 10, 2006 (video clip)
http://www.americanpatrol.com/WMV/060810-Dobbs-Bush-AntiBPSkunk.wmv
[4] Lou Dobbs Tonight - CNN - August 11, 2006 (video clip)
http://www.americanpatrol.com/WMV/060811-Dobbs-ReconShyster.wmv
[5] Presidential Pardon for Border Patrol Agents
By Devvy Kidd - August 14, 2006
http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd206.htm
[6] '86 Alito Memo Argues Against Foreigners' Rights
By
Jo Becker and Amy
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/28/AR2005112801849.html
[7]
Cedillo Proves Children of Illegal Aliens Are Not
By Mark Andrew Dwyer - May 18, 2005
http://www.americanpatrol.com/GUESTCOLUMNS/DWYER/CedilloNoAnchors050518MAD_.html
[8] Statement of
Conviction
of Former Border Patrol Agents Compean and Ramos
By
Johnny
(scroll
down to the last paragraph).
[9]
Invaders' Constitutional Rights?
By Mark Andrew Dwyer - December 22,
2004
http://americanpatrol.com/GUESTCOLUMNS/DWYER/ConstRts4DLPests041222MAD_.html
[10] Thomas D. Tancredo, Congress of the
September 15, 2006
http://tancredo.house.gov/Media/File/Tancredo_DOJ_Chapman.pdf
[11] The Job Feds Won't Do
By Mark Andrew Dwyer - October 12,
2003
http://www.americanpatrol.com/GUESTCOLUMNS/DWYER/JobFedsWontDo031013Dwyer.html
[12]
United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990)
Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit
No. 88-1353 (1990)
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:Z3xoQLdhdWsJ:www.guncite.com/court/fed/sc/494us259.html+%22The+Fourth+Amendment+phrase%22+%22the+people%22+%22a+class+of+persons+who+are+part+of+a+national+community%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
[13] U.S. Court 6th Circuit of Appeals
Rosales-Garcia v.
[14] Impeach Bush: Comments
The History Channel
(a link
expired)
[15]
Plyler v. Doe, 457
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0457_0202_ZS.html
[16] Myth vs. Reality--The Facts of Why the Government Prosecuted Agents
Compean and Ramos
By
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/press_releases/2007/Compean_Ramos_factsheet1.pdf
[17] Verdict Reversal for Ex-Border Patrol
Agent
KGBT
4 TV News – January 29, 2007
http://www.team4news.com/global/story.asp?s=5998384&ClientType=Printable
[18] Feds seeking 7 years for another
Deputy
sheriff convicted for violating civil rights of fleeing illegal alien
World
Net Daily – March 3, 2007
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54533
[19] Lawmen under
siege along
The Washington Times
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071115/NATION/111150077/1002
Past commentary (June 6, 2006) DEPORTATION IS NOT A PENALTY
Mark Andrew Dwyer's latest commentary (updated) is posted at:
save this link >>> http://www.oocities.org/readerswrite/commentaries/latest.htm
Links to commentaries by “Mark Andrew Dwyer” posted at AmericanPatrol.com (retrieved by Google)
Links to commentaries by “Mark Andrew Dwyer” posted at SierraTimes.com
Links to commentaries by "Mark Andrew Dwyer" posted elsewhere (retrieved by Google)
Visit americanpatrol.com for the most comprehensive and up to date coverage of immigration news and commentaries.
The URL address of this page is: http://oocities.com/readerswrite/commentaries/Blessings_of_the_Liberty.htm.