Mexico Hates Crime Fighters
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/LAW/09/14/dog.bounty/
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/LAW/09/16/dog.bounty.ap/
This isn't a federalism issue, but it's too asinine to resist a comment. It is telling that of all the laws that Mexico would decide to start enforcing, it would go after an American icon committed to justice and decency. For anyone who hasn't seen Dog the Bounty Hunter on A&E, he and his group bring in bail jumpers and along the way offer them encouragement and words of wisdom to try to turn their lives around. Three years ago Dog & Co. went down to Mexico to bring in serial rapist Andrew Luster. But because Mexico doesn't allow bounty hunting unless licensed by them, they issued an extradition request to the Hawaii District Court.
One of Mexico's principal sources of income comes from expatriates sending their earnings back home. Perhaps no copies of Atlas Shrugged were ever sent south of the border, because the Mexican government has apparently no problems with this practice. In fact it encourages the extraction and exportation of our economic resources. While Mexico flouts U.S. immigration policy and subverts our laws, it insists on the enforcement of an asinine Mexican law that protects dangerous criminals.
Do we really need to play along with this charade? Must the teat practice reciprocity with the suckling?
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/LAW/09/16/dog.bounty.ap/
This isn't a federalism issue, but it's too asinine to resist a comment. It is telling that of all the laws that Mexico would decide to start enforcing, it would go after an American icon committed to justice and decency. For anyone who hasn't seen Dog the Bounty Hunter on A&E, he and his group bring in bail jumpers and along the way offer them encouragement and words of wisdom to try to turn their lives around. Three years ago Dog & Co. went down to Mexico to bring in serial rapist Andrew Luster. But because Mexico doesn't allow bounty hunting unless licensed by them, they issued an extradition request to the Hawaii District Court.
One of Mexico's principal sources of income comes from expatriates sending their earnings back home. Perhaps no copies of Atlas Shrugged were ever sent south of the border, because the Mexican government has apparently no problems with this practice. In fact it encourages the extraction and exportation of our economic resources. While Mexico flouts U.S. immigration policy and subverts our laws, it insists on the enforcement of an asinine Mexican law that protects dangerous criminals.
Do we really need to play along with this charade? Must the teat practice reciprocity with the suckling?
posted by Tim Kowal at 12:08 AM
2 Comments:
Yes, the teat must practice reciprocity. Yes, we must play along with this charade. Those who enforce the law MUST follow the law. Law enforcement must be objective.
Mexico has a legitimate right to require people working in Mexico to be licensed. If a worker breaks that rule, they should suffer the consequences (extradition).
USA has a legitimate right to require immigrants to obtain visas before entering. Immigrants who break that rule suffer the consequense (deportation).
If USA does not follow the its own law (by preventing the extradition), what legitimate claim can be made to enforce the USA law (deporting non-visa immigrants) Those who enforce the law MUST also follow the law.
That Mexico does not respect the USA immigration laws puts Mexico into the loosing side of an objective argument. Because Mexico does not follow the law, it cannot expect to enforce the law.
That USA does respect Mexico's licensing laws puts USA into the winning side of the objective arguement. Because USA follows the law, it can enforce the law.
The questions are:
1. Will the USA uphold objective standards of law enforcement?
2. If not, can the USA enforce a standard that it doesn't follow against others?
The opposing argument is to say "they're cheating, so its okay if I cheat too."
Answers:
(1) Sure. But a discussion of "objective" law enforcement standards would not be a short one.
(2) Pending our outcome on (1), I would say that we aren't necessarily doomed to a double standard. But even if we were, the answer would still be Yes.
As to the "cheating" analogy, I think it is a poor fit for this situation. Players must be on even playing fields to be held to the same standards. There is more at stake for the players in the global arena. Reciprocity is a fine idea, but it is not a principle that must be embraced in the absolute or not at all. There is no need, or even good sense, in speaking in absolutist terms when it comes to reciprocity.
Post a Comment
<< Home