Nai_ekka_lingikawa photo 1
nai_ekka_lingikawa wallpaper

SAN DIEGO (Reuters) - Two men who left a pregnant woman to die in an isolated mountain region of southern California after they smuggled her across the U.S.-Mexico border were sentenced to federal prison on Wednesday officials said. Carlos Hernandez-Palma 35 was sentenced to seven years and Fernando Armenta-Romero 43 received a sentence of four years and nine months after pleading guilty to two smuggling counts each the U.S. Attorneys Office in San Diego said in a statement. The victim Jaqueline Capistran-Ochoa 32 and her husband Baltazar Razo-Barreto agreed on Dec. 26 2013 to pay $6000 each to be smuggled into the United States from Mexico. But the short easy trip they were promised turned into long days of mountainous hiking. Capistran-Ochoa became increasingly weak and lost consciousness on the third night according to court documents. The smugglers refused Razo-Barretos pleas that they call for help saying they could not use their cell phones. Eventually they promised to stay with the woman while her husband went for help. They abandoned her hours later – although they said she was still alive – without ever seeking help, according to court records. Instead they called Armenta-Romeros brother to pick them up according to the complaint. Razo-Barreto hiked out of the wilderness and called authorities. A search and rescue team with the U.S. Border Patrol looked for Capistran-Ochoa in the Otay Mountain Wilderness for a day before finding her body in an area known as the Olive Grove. She had died of diabetes complications and hypothermia according to court records. Razo-Barreto and the couples three surviving children were in court for the sentencing the Attorneys Office said in a statement. These smugglers showed a profound lack of humanity when they refused to call for help and left a dying woman alone in the middle of nowhere U.S. Attorney Laura Duffy said. THE STATEMENTS AT ISSUE: President Obama abdicated his responsibility to uphold the United States Constitution when he attempted to circumvent the laws passed by Congress via executive fiat and Judge Hanens decision rightly stops the Presidents overreach in its tracks. Texas Governor Greg Abbot, in a statement on February 17 in reaction to a decision by a federal trial judge in Brownsville Texas temporarily blocking the Obama Administrations new deferred deportation policy announced last November and due to go into full effect this week. This decision is a victory for the rule of law in America and a crucial first step in reining in President Obamas lawlessness. The President action both unilateral and unconstitutional was an affront to everyone pursuing the life of freedom and opportunity in America the right way. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in a statement on February 17 about the court ruling. The government claims sole authority to govern in the area of immigration and has exercised that authority by promulgating a complex statutory scheme and prohibiting any meaningful involvement by the states However the government has decided that it will not enforce these immigration laws as they apply to well over five million people plus those who had their applications [to enter the program] denied. If one had to formulate from scratch a fact pattern that exemplified the existence of [a states right to sue] due to federal abdication one could not have crafted a better scenario. U.S. District Judge Andrew S. Hanen in his 123-page decision on February 16 explaining his ruling to temporarily block the new federal government policy of deferring deportation of undocumented immigrants living in the U.S. for a period of years. WE CHECKED THE CONSTITUTION, AND… To the Founders who wrote the American Constitution the concept of abdication was more familiar to them as what sometimes happened when an English king or queen gave up the crown under pressure or to hand it on to a favored successor. But the Founders were familiar with the idea of dereliction of duty and they wrote into the basic document an obligation that would be binding on every president who would thereafter serve. That duty is spelled out in Article II Section 3 declaring that the president shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed. Execution of the laws they understood was different from enactment of them legislating was the duty of Congress. But over time execution has come to be understood as leaving the president with some discretion – perhaps a lot of discretion — about how to enforce the laws passed by Congress. Indeed in modern times presidents have actually signed some legislative bills into law and simultaneously announced that they would interpret them in ways that did not infringe upon presidential powers. (Right now for example the Supreme Court is weighing what to make constitutionally of a decision by President George W. Bush in refusing to carry out a law passed by Congress to allow American citizens who were born in Jerusalem to list Israel on their passports as their place of birth – even though Congress had explicitly mandated that.) If the federal judge in Brownsville Texas who was assigned to decide that case had accepted that argument it would indeed mean that Obama had adopted an unconstitutional policy. The judge explicitly chose in order to avoid an unnecessary decision on a basic constitutional question not to rule on that point. Even so Judge Hanen found a way to get at the abdication theory that lay behind the states constitutional argument. He declared that if the federal government owes a duty to protect the citizens of the United States from the harmful effects of illegal immigration (and he ruled that it did have such a duty assigned by Congress) the states could bring a lawsuit to seek to compel the national government to perform that duty. In other words they could get into court with their challenge but not necessarily win on their constitutional argument. Along the way Judge Hanen used language that indicated his clear sympathy with the abdication argument even as he refrained from finding the Presidents policy to be unconstitutional. Instead taking a legally very narrow approach the judge decided that – at this point – it seemed clear that the states were likely to win their case ultimately on a theory that the new immigration policy was not put into place by the proper procedural route. That was not a constitutional decision and moreover it was not a sign that the President had abdicated his duty as the chief enforcer of the nation laws. The conclusion though was sufficient to lead the judge to impose a temporary ban on enforcement of much of the new policy while the states lawsuit moves on to a full trial. The Obama Administration has already signaled that it will appeal the judge order. And while the states surely will resist that appeal they will not be in a position during that process to press again their claim of unconstitutional abdication by the President. Appeals courts are confined to reviewing the conclusions of what trial courts actually decided not the arguments that parties made but were left unresolved. Even so as this legal struggle moves forward to whatever end Americans should be prepared to hear more of the challengers argument that the President has acted in a way that actually violated the Constitution – as both the Texas governor and the state attorney general did in their statements in praise of Judge Hanen ruling. Americans should recognize that as a political argument not a constitutional one – at least in the context of this lawsuit.