Dana Point Harbor Boat Captain Admits to Smuggling Aliens From Mexico

At this point I believe your ego is bruised and you are twisting my words to discredit me and my factual arguments.  This is evidenced by your preposterous opening statement:  "So Erin it sounds like you have a low opinion of the character of Mexican citizens, assuming that they are always willing to take a job from someone else by working illegally."  If I had a low opinion of Mexican citizens, I would not have agreed with Judge Pregerson's dissent.   Please stay on point, read the court order, it will help you understand the salient points.

Again from above:  You forgot the most important flaw in your argument: you stated the children were Mexican citizens, they are not. These children were born in the United States, that is why Judge Pregerson dissented in the Opinion. Please read the court order and it will answer the remainder of your questions.  Have you read it at all?  You are basing your arguments on a flawed legal foundation, the fact that the children are U.S. citizens.  Emotional embellishments and personal attacks on me serve only to diminish the strength of your arguments. 

 So Erin it sounds like you have a low opinion of the character of Mexican citizens, assuming that they are always willing to take a job from someone else by working illegally.  They care only for themselves and their own families, not the damage they are doing to American families.  This is exactly why they should not be given citizenship and should be deported back to their countries of origin.  I wonder how many Hezbollah members are here in the US illegally?

You care more for lawless foreign nationals than you do for struggling American families.  Maybe you should go to Mexico with them and try to help the Mexican people have better lives in their own country.

Again, it was my understanding that the Court Order stated that the children were U.S. citizens.  Am I wrong, here?

The developers that used illegal aliens to save their bottom line are at fault here, not the illegal aliens.  They should be sanctioned, but were they?   If you were given the opportunity to make more money than you ever dreamed of and all you had to do was take someone's job, would you do it?  The path up the "ladder of success" is paved with dead bodies that couldn't in all good conscience do what was necessary to save their job.  I can't answer this question for you but I suppose it depends on your life situation at any given time.

Let me make something clear here.  I am not "soft" on illegal aliens whatsoever.  I believe that all persons living in this country should be here legally.  And I despise developers that lay off skilled union workers, replace them with illegal alliens, and produce substandard housing as a result.  That is despicable on many levels.

But are you telling me that you believe that the people paid to enforce our borders and deport illegal aliens are also innocent here?  More dirty money flows through these government agencies from U.S. companies than anywhere else.  People paid to look the other way for a fist full of cash is alive and well.  I believe in unions.  I also believe that union officials can be bought just like any other person that runs their life with no conscience.    

You forgot the most important flaw in your argument: you stated the children were Mexican citizens, they are not. These children were born in the United States, that is why Judge Pregerson dissented in the Opinion. Please read the court order and it will answer the remainder of your questions.  Have you read it at all?  You are basing your arguments on a flawed legal foundation, the fact that the children are U.S. citizens.  Emotional embellishments and personal attacks on me serve only to diminish the strength of your arguments. 

 First of all, driving over the speed limit doesn't require identity fraud, nor does it lead to welfare fraud or tax fraud, all crimes which are common among illegal aliens.  How do I know?  I work in public services.  Secondly, do you or will you teach your children that any law that gets in the way of them having the life that they want should be broken?  There is a proper channel for immigration, and these adults refused to take it, and now the whole family is reaping the consequences.  Having a "path to citizenship" for the law-abiding, and another for those with contempt for the law is nothing short of ridiculous.  We should not give citizenship to ANYONE who is not willing to follow the law. 

I have studied the 14th Amendment, and it was never intended to give citizenship to foreign nationals born on US soil.  If the children of foreign diplomats born in the US are NOT United States citizens, then why would children born to foreign nationals who have flouted the immigration laws, or for that matter those born to any foreign national be US citizens?  It simply is illogical for children to be of different nationality than their parents Erin.  Their Mexican citizenship can be easily established at any consulate.  The 14th Amendment citizenship clause primarily gave citizenship to slaves and their descendents.

Human trafficking is organized crime.  There is a whole industry that supports it.  Illegal immigration hurts blacks more than any other racial/ethnic group.  It specifically hurts Americans and legal residents with low skill and education levels.  It depresses wages in lower skilled jobs.  ONE LAW FOR EVERYONE!

First of all, the Court Order states that Ruby and her siblings are United States citizens.  I'm not sure where you got the idea that they were Mexican citizens. 

The point is that these children are in high school, and have lived their entire lives in the United States.  Do you remember high school?  I do.  It's a very important time of social development.  The Court Order says nothing about the accomplishments of the children.  Why should everything be ripped away from them?  Setting aside the extraordinary sentiments of Judge Pregerson's dissent for a moment, it just doesn't seem logicial or necessary. 

When you say "people like that" on what facts do you base you inquiry?  Have you met Ruby's parents or any of the children?  Do you have any personal knowledge of their character, integrity or ability to raise their children?  Do you have any evidence to support your conclusory facts that "Ruby's parents set a bad example for their children"?  They simply wanted something better for them than what Mexico could offer. 

Do you ever exceed the speed limit in your drive to and from work?  That in and of itself is "lawlessness."  Are you a bad example to your children?  Most likely not.  But some might judge you as such.  I think we have to look at more than the laws to make decisions that effect children.  The well-being of the child, in my opinion, is tantamount.  We don't always have all the facts and I'm sure you will agree that the courts don't always consider all the facts in making their decisions. 

So, are you saying Mexico *is* a shithole? 

As Moe from the three stooges would say.........."Mitch is an intelligent imbecile".

The State of California does this:  "assists an alien s/he should reasonably know is illegally in the U.S. or who lacks employment authorization, by transporting, sheltering, or assisting him or her to obtain employment, or (b) encourages that alien to remain in the U.S. by referring him or her to an employer or by acting as employer or agent for an employer in any way, or (c) knowingly assists illegal aliens due to personal convictions."

Sorry, I don't understand your question.  Does what all of the time?

The State of California does this all of the time.  Can the citizens of the state demand the Federal government bring a RICO case against the CA government?

You didn't make an immigration argument?  I must be hallucinating.  You stated:  "Ms. Baldwin, This was not an immigration case.  It was a criminal case, rightfully before the District Court Judge."  Then you said, "Mr. Bokkes case was not one of immigration -- the 6 people on-board, however, are a different story."  To put this to rest I simply encourage you to look at 2011 U.S. Courts Annual Report insofar as the "venue issues."  I never argued that the venue, i.e., the District Court, was an improper venue, I simply was surprised that the case was before a U.S. District Court Judge vs. a U.S. Magistrate Judge, which according to the 2011 U.S. Courts Annual Report is many times more likely to occur than vice versa.I love intellectual debates and you are a worthy opponent.  Thanks for bringing to the forefront the importance of the First Amendment in this country.  I think it was Voltaire that said, "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

I never made an immigration argument.  You misconstrued my comment.

All my comments were directly related to the venue.

I was responding to your immigration argument not the venue of the court.

The case you cite was in DISTRICT COURT, where it belonged.  Exactly as Mr. Bokkes case belonged in, and was in, DISTRICT COURT.

In fact, just three days ago, on March 19, 2012, the Ninth Circuit in USA v. Rafael Gomez-Hawkins (Gomez), Case No. 11-50085 heard and afffirmed a jury conviction and sentence for two counts of transporting illegal aliens in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii), the citation I quoted above.  I'm only stating the facts which is what I based my claims in District Court.  There is no personal agenda; I simply want to reinstate my First Amendment rights taken away by an unconstitutional permanent injunction.  That's not a lot to ask, I don't think. 

We can agree to disagree on this one but I encourage you to read the 2011 Report and find the relevant facts for which I pulled my information.  If Mr. Bokkes transported illegal aliens on his boat, a part of the prima facie case requires the element of immigration-related issues.  You can find the law under the Federal Immigration and Nationality Act Section 8 that states: "A person (including a group of persons, business, organization, or local government) commits a federal felony when she or he: (a)assists an alien s/he should reasonably know is illegally in the U.S. or who lacks employment authorization, by transporting, sheltering, or assisting him or her to obtain employment, or (b) encourages that alien to remain in the U.S. by referring him or her to an employer or by acting as employer or agent for an employer in any way, or (c) knowingly assists illegal aliens due to personal convictions.

Mr. Bokkes case was not one of "immigration" -- the 6 people on-board, however, are a different story. 

Don't let your own issues w/ Judge Carney cloud your judgment on a clear-cut matter.

In my experience dishonest people tend to project their behavior on others to justify their own behavior. There are honest people in this world who would not break a law for personal gain, obviously you are not one of them.