Interesting twist on illegal immigration

Leave it to Texas to put a stop to executive overreaching. - By Dahlia Lithwick - Slate Magazine: "Jose Ernesto Medellin is a living argument for the death penalty. In 1993, as part of a gang initiation, he and some friends sodomized and gang-raped two teenage girls in Houston, strangling them with their shoelaces. One victim's Goofy watch was stolen as a prize. Medellin confessed to the crime and was sentenced to death by a jury, a sentence affirmed in the appeals courts. Only later did Medellin learn that, because he is a Mexican citizen, the Vienna Convention of 1963 entitled him to consult with Mexican consular authorities—who might have helped him at his trial. "

Because the guy didn't bother to become a U.S. Citizen, he has a right to help from the Mexican government. Because the police and prosecution didn't tell him he had a right to help from the Mexican government, his sentence can be overturned and the victims' families can be put through hell again.

Yep, illegal immigration is a victimless crime.

A foreigner's right to help from their consulate is kinda predicated on the notion that a foreigner would be visiting a country, not living there. As a visitor, a foreigner might not fully understand the laws of the nation he or she is visiting. He or she might chew gum in a country where that's illegal, or might expect due process in a country where lawyers can be jailed for appealing for a stronger sentence against rapists. I don't think we have any business applying visitor logic to someone who lives here. It's unfair to American criminals, it's unfair to American victims, it's unfair to our taxpayers, it's just plain unfair. Visitors - true visitors who come for two weeks, hire a lorry, rent a flat, complain about the price of petrol, visit a Mosque and go on home - aren't usually a crime problem. Illegal occupiers (undocumented aliens to those of you who have been reading too much of the mainstream media) are a crime problem.

In California, the State can tax my income from out of state if I spend more than a couple months in state; I am presumed to be a citizen for legal (and/or tax) purposes, even if I am technically, personally, physically, and spiritually a citizen of another state. Why are American citizens held to higher standards than illegal immigrants? Why do illegal immigrants get the dual benefit of America's free public defender plus rights to use Mexico's consular help? And why is it our government's responsibility to notify the guy that he has that right? Geneva Convention rights to contact one's consulate are predicated upon the idea that person is in-country temporarily - there has to be some standard for a presumption of having given up that right, like, oh, I don't know, availing oneself of America's public education, welfare, medical care, etc.

Oh, but an illegal immigrant is only a resident of this country until it becomes more convenient to be a citizen of another country, like when he/she wants to appeal a conviction for a brutal and incredibly senseless rape/murder that was committed just to prove that he's a good little gang member. Just doing the jobs that Americans won't do, right?