Monday, March 30, 2009

Liberal 9th Circuit bones America again on Illegal Alien issues

So let's see..

Two Mexicans are illegally in our country. The male Mexican gets deported back to their home country after racking up three criminal convictions here and the female Mexican follows him back. A child is born to both of them IN MEXICO and then they break up and the female sneaks back into the US again. The child is smuggled back here when she is five year old to be with the female Mexican, supposedly for a visit, but the female Mexican keeps the child. The male Mexican sues and the child is ordered returned, but on appeal, the 9th Circuit--the most-liberal and most-overturned Circuit Court in America--reversed the repatriation order, claiming that since she's spent so much time in America, she should be allowed to stay, even though both she and her mother are here illegally.
A Mexican girl residing illegally with her mother in Huntington Beach has the right to stay here while her father wages a custody battle from abroad because she is "settled" in her new country despite her lack of legal status, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday.

The decision overturned a District Court judgment that would have sent the 11-year-old to live with her father in Acapulco. It was the first to address whether a child should be allowed to remain in the United States during an international custody dispute, to prevent further "distress."

The ruling by a panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals appeared to be a new interpretation of the Hague Conventions on the protection of children in cross-border disputes, establishing that a right of stability be considered, along with each parent's compliance with the law.

Ivan Nemecio Salmeron brought the action under the international conventions protecting abducted children. Salmeron alleged that the girl's mother, Geremias Brito, had kept their daughter in Orange County years beyond the few months' visit to which he had agreed in 2002.

Although Brito has lived most of her life in the United States and Salmeron spent eight years here before being deported for three criminal infractions, neither parent has legal U.S. residency. Their daughter was born in 1996 in Acapulco, after Salmeron's deportation.

Alleging domestic violence and infidelity, Brito left Salmeron and took her daughter back to Orange County in 2001. The child spent the summer of 2002 with her father in Mexico, but later remained in the U.S. during the five-plus years when Salmeron petitioned U.S. and Mexican authorities to intervene.

A U.S. District Court in Santa Ana ruled to repatriate the child in late 2007, and Brito appealed.

In reversing the decision, the 9th Circuit panel pointed to the Hague Convention provision opposing a child's repatriation if "a forced return might only serve to cause him or her further distress and accentuate the harm caused by the wrongful relocation."

Writing for the unanimous panel, Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt, an appointee of President Carter, observed that "It is never an easy nor a joyous task to resolve a dispute between parents that may determine the custody of their child, nor is the outcome ever fully satisfactory."

The judges, including appointees of Presidents Reagan and Clinton, noted the girl's good grades, bilingual skills, friendships and after-school activities such as serving as captain of her soccer team as evidence that she was settled despite her lack of legal status.

"I think it is a good precedent," Brito's pro bono attorney, Mark T. Cramer, said of the decision focusing on the best interests of the child.

"One of the things about this case that is key and important is that the mere fact that a child is not a legal immigrant in itself . . . [shouldn't] prevent the finding that the child is now settled."

Ira Mehlman, national media director for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, said it was his organization's view that "they should all be sent back to Mexico and let the Mexican authorities sort it out."

"The fact that someone brings a child to this country doesn't entitle that child to stay automatically, and whatever harm comes to the child occurs because the parents knowingly violated the law," Mehlman said.
And now we get to support both the illegal adult Mexican female and her illegal Mexican daughter instead of just sending them back to their home country and letting the Mexican courts decide the custody issue.

Anyone remember a kid named Elian Gonzales? He'd spent most of his life here too--and legally--but he was ordered returned to a Communist country by the Clinton Administration, and Janet Reno sent armed officers to go snatch him away from his home and send him off to a life of poverty and oppression. Poor kid. If he'd only been an illegal alien in California, he'd undoubtedly still be here and probably have a pretty nice taxpayer-financed college education and a taxpayer-backed mortgage right now.

Betcha he's pissed...


Meanwhile back at the Lair...

Extra security precautions are now in effect as intelligence indicates that a sophisticatedly-charming and at times delightfully risque redhead has threatened to abscond with Lagniappe, who appears unable to resist her attentions and her offerings of doggie treats.

Got bolt cutters?

10 comments:

  1. "sophisticatedly-charming and at times delightfully risque redhead."

    Who could that POSSIBLY be?

    Lagniappe can come hide out at this redhead's house till the risque one sees a bright, shiny object and gets distracted. I promise I have good treats!

    ReplyDelete
  2. WHAT? You expected liberal democrats to be CONSISTENT? I hereby sentence you to two floggings by the Flogging Molly Chick, followed by a weekend of watching "Andy Griffith" reruns.

    Lagniappe looks completely woebegone! Perhaps he has a future in acting?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hey now, wait just one minute here! I resent the implication that a flogging administered by me would be a punishment! That's if I did that sort of thing. Which I don't. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

    ReplyDelete
  4. You don't???? What good ARE ya, then? ;-)

    LG, you know I can easily purchase a set of bolt cutters, right? And Lagniappe wouldn't mind. He told me he likes redheads.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Illegals are taking over this country at a alarming rate as we all know. THEY have more rights then we do. Just look at the border patrol agents who were jailed and fired for doing their job..... SICKENING!!!!

    Just out the term "war on terror" will not be used anymore. Spoken right out of Hillary Clintons pie hole.

    Lagniappe the pup is a cutie, everyone wants to steal him. He is your chick magnet.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Where does the insanity stop?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Now who could this redhead possibly be?!? ;) lol.

    ReplyDelete
  8. awww poor Lagniappe. You can't blame him .. sophisticatedly charming and at times delightfully risque redheads are terribly hard to resist, after all, arent' they?


    As for the illegal immigrants .. well .. sure, why shouldn't we just let them keep coming and coming and coming? I love barely being able to support my own daughter because I'm busy supporting all the illegals. It would be wrong of us to send them back to whereverthehell they came from because they're already "settled" here.

    I think my IQ dropped about 20 points just from reading that mess.

    They're like so many termites, moving in and using up all the resources around them without giving anything back.

    We exterminate termites.

    I'm just sayin'

    ReplyDelete
  9. Tom Wolff4:29 AM

    These "legal decisions" are way beyond disgusting, dismal and depressing. UnConstitutional rings a bell...

    As far as the redhead goes, get some grade 8 chain. That will buy you some time, LOL.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Meh. Tom, no chain will stop me! Lagniappe loves me! Especially since I'm bringing ice cream tomorrow! MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    ReplyDelete