This is a page from the official, non-commercial, and nonprofit web site of “Mark Andrew Dwyer” whose only goal is educating and informing. 


Although all material contained on this page is copyrighted either by “Mark Andrew Dwyer” or by other parties (all pictures are from the Internet and are copyrighted by third parties), it is being offered here solely as an educational tool to increase understanding of global economics and social justice issues for 'fair use' of copyrighted material as provided in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.


Please, send your comments to  (See also readers’ comments after the article.)





By “Mark Andrew Dwyer”


August 14, 2006


(Last updated November 14, 2007; for discussion of relevant Supreme Court decisions click here; for Addendum 1 click here; for Addendum 2 click here, for Addendum 3 click here, for Addendum 4 click here, and for further reading and development click here.)



I thought I was hallucinating. Two accomplished Border Patrol agents, Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean, were convicted by a U.S. court for shooting an illegal alien drug smuggler, Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila, that worked for Mexican drug cartel, I presume, and are facing 20 years to life in prison for doing their job. The smuggler and the main witness in a trial against the agents has been granted by the U.S. Attorney Office full immunity from the prosecution for the crimes he committed, and is already suing the U.S. Border Patrol for five million dollars, which exorbitant amount must include his loss of profit from the sales of illegal drugs he wasn't able to deliver to his American collaborators, I guess. The agents who deserved to be commended for their superb job of enforcing the American border and the law are headed to jail, instead, and although numerous petitions to pardon them have already been sent to President Bush, I don't expect the Commander in Chief and the main “defender of the American border” to be nearly as merciful in this case as he is for the millions of illegal aliens that gained notoriety for making mockery of the American border and the law.


When I looked into the details of the case and the events that led to agents' convictions, I found the bases on which the charges were brought and the guilty verdict pronounced even more absurd than the outcome of the trial itself. Per Sara A. Carter, Staff Writer (see [1]), Assistant U.S. Attorney Debra Kanof said that Ramos and Compean had no business chasing someone in the first place. "It is a violation of Border Patrol regulations to go after someone who is fleeing," she said. "The Border Patrol pursuit policy prohibits the [high speed] pursuit of someone." (So, how can one apprehend and intruder, I ask, if they run away as quickly as they can?) "Agents are not allowed to pursue. In order to exceed the speed limit, you have to get supervisor approval, and they did not," Attorney Debra Kanof said, as if breaking the speed limit by the agents was the main thing to worry about when determined, and often violent, foreign criminal that couldn't care less about the posted speed limit made hostile incursion into the U.S. territory. (To make it even more difficult, many state and local law enforcement agencies have been instructed to not interfere with violations of the U.S. border and the immigration laws that, arguably, are federal domain and not within state and local jurisdiction.)


These and other absurdities were thoroughly exposed by several commentators, most notably, by Lou Dobbs of CNN (see [2, 3, 4] for relevant videos with "Lou Dobbs Tonight" clips) who referred (after T.J. Bonner, the president of the National Border Patrol Council) to the conviction as the most outrageous miscarriage of justice he's seen in America. The biggest nonsense, though, comes from the statement of Assistant U.S. Attorney Debra Kanof who said: "The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled it is a violation of someone's [emphasis added] Fourth Amendment rights to shoot them in the back while fleeing if you don't know who they are and/or if you don't know they have a weapon [emphasis added]" (all quotes from [1]). So, according to such absurd interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and the Supreme Court ruling1 by the Assistant U.S. Attorney, all it takes for someone (say, an enemy’s military) to get under “constitutional protection” while invading the U.S. is to make sure that the U.S. authorities “don't know the invader(s) have a weapon.” And then the Federal government will have to charge and convict each invading soldier in the court of law (which includes appointing an attorney for each and every one of them and granting them the presumption of innocence and other benefits as stipulated by Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments) before the invasion can be repelled. (See [9] for earlier application of the invading army argument.)


So, the problem here is that the prosecutor (Assistant U.S. Attorney Debra Kanof) and the court (Judge Kathleen Cardone and the jury) seem to believe that Mexican smuggler (Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila) who just jumped the American border, and did so with clearly criminal intent, enjoys his “constitutional rights” (in particular, Fourth Amendment rights, so that he cannot be chased or searched except in certain restrictive manner) and other protections since the very moment he has managed to put his foot on American soil. Such an absurd interpretation of the U.S. Constitution appears common among many left-leaning Liberals (including those organized in ACLU and the Southern Poverty Law Center, just to name two organizations notorious for their twisting the letter and the intent of the supreme law of the land) that attempt to push down our throats their utopian, if not manic, visions of the contemporary society, but when the U.S. Attorney Office and a federal judge subscribe to this nonsense, the matter becomes much more serious than it may appear to average American citizen. Unfortunately, this dangerous fact has clearly eluded even the most observant critics (I noted one exception in [5] where Devvy Kidd questions constitutional basis of charging the agents in a federal court) of the agents' unjust conviction.


So, let's see what the U.S. Constitution, including its amendments, has to say on this subject.


The very first sentence of the Constitution (often referred to as the Preamble) clearly states: “We the People of the United States, in Order to […] secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our [emphases added] Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” It doesn't say "in Order to […] bestow various rights and privileges on aliens and their Posterity", nor does it indicate that it intends to protect of the entire world against the excesses and reckless acts of American citizens. To the contrary, the Constitution was passed and ratified in order to protect the American people and their legitimate interests (Declaration of Independence's "Pursuit of Happiness") against the rest of the world (and against abuses of power of their own government), and not the other way around. Any attempts to use the Constitution, as well as the Bill of Rights and other Amendments (in particular, Fourth Amendment and 14th Amendment), contrary to their clear intent, like attempts of making it easier for the invaders and intruders of all trades to infiltrate the American nation, obstructing their apprehension and deportation, or disabling this nation's ability to resist incursions into its territory, sovereignty, and integrity, are legally invalid and clearly unconstitutional. They can be compared to using of First Amendment as an instrument to silence somebody, suppress a religion, or to justify censorship. (Unfortunately, some Liberal activist judges seem to engage in this kind of administration of “justice".) Moreover, the language of Fourth Amendment begins with “The right of the people” which clearly indicates that its protections apply only to “We the People”, or, in other words, to the citizens of the U.S. (some constitutional scholars include lawful permanent residents in this category1) but not to illegal aliens and foreign border violators2.


For instance, Judge Samuel Alito, a renowned constitutional scholar and a Supreme Court Associate Justice, during his nomination hearings expressed his strong opinion that illegal aliens do not automatically acquire “constitutional right” while on the U.S. soil (see [6] for a brief report of Alito’s earlier statements in this matter). In 1986, he made a case that nonresident aliens, which category includes illegal aliens and foreign border violators, do not enjoy protections offered by Fourth Amendment, contrary to what Assistant U.S. Attorney Debra Kanof said. Obviously, Alito’s position, as opposed to Kanof’s simplistic and naive misinterpretation, is fully consistent with the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. In particular, the fleeing smuggler of foreign nationality that illegally crossed the American border does not have Fourth Amendment rights, unless, perhaps, he can prove his lawful permanent residence in the U.S., and, contrary to what Kanof said, the Supreme Court never ruled that he does.


Looking from a wider perspective, many nonsensical interpretations of the U.S. Constitution were caused, or at least encouraged, by a confusing (at least for some students of the Constitution) language of 14th Amendment, particularly, its equal protection clause, that – not withstanding its positive effects - gained some notoriety for misinterpretation as well as for a number of lingering societal and legal problems and questions that we are trying to address in today's America. I heard many opinions that were based on presumption, made out of thin air, that the equal protection clause guarantees the same (hence adjective equal) rights and privileges to all person present in the U.S., regardless such a presence is legal or not. Even otherwise intelligent and educated people mindlessly accept verbatim interpretation of the equal protection clause as if it meant literally equal protection for everybody who keeps his feet on American soil. Careful reading of the Constitution and its Amendments demonstrates that such verbatim understanding of the equal protection clause is utterly absurd and supported neither by the letter nor by the intent of the Constitution of the U.S.


A common, although invalid, argument that many groups, like ACLU and SPLC, are using in this context tacitly presumes that the phrases "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and "within its jurisdiction" are but meaningless ornaments of speech. This misreading of the language of 14th Amendment (that would wash only under assumption that the federal legislature and several state legislatures were largely composed of bunch of fools who trapped themselves into passing tautological statements into the law around 1868) leads to such absurdities as the so-called "automatic citizenship" awarded to children of illegal aliens in the U.S. as if they were subjected to the jurisdiction of the U.S., which they themselves often deny, and, like in the case described above, granting the invaders (illegal border hopper in this case) the "right" to use the U.S. Constitution, designed to protect the American people, as a weapon against all those who would like to resist the invasion and defend the integrity of the American border, because, ostensibly, these invaders deserve the equal protection while in the U.S.


The "automatic citizenship" for American-born children of illegal aliens fallacy has been thoroughly commented by others (including the author of this article - e.g., in [7]), so we will leave it here without further discussion. We will address, instead, the meaning of the "within its jurisdiction" phrase in the equal protection clause ("nor shall any State [...] deny to any person within its jurisdiction [emphasis added] the equal protection of the laws") within the narrow context of the so-called "constitutional” rights of the illegal aliens. (The so-called “civil rights of illegal aliens” is an oxymoron as the meaning of the adjective “civil” [of or relating to citizens] clearly indicates.)


Unless the phrase "within its jurisdiction" is tautological (so that every person in particular state's territory is automatically deemed "within its jurisdiction") or a meaningless figure of speech, presumption that the equal protection clause uniformly applies to everybody, in particular, to border violators (as well as to other categories of illegal aliens), is invalid because it inevitably leads to serious contradictions with the rest of the Constitution, its purpose, and national interest. Although several courts and organizations have been working hard in order to make these contradictions to disappear, like, for instance, by selective picking (by the Supreme Court of the U.S.) which laws and immunities does Section 1 of 14th Amendment carry from the Bill of Rights to a state law and which it does not, the bottom line is that, as of today, no one has produced a coherent (free of contradictions and extra-constitutional "rules", that is) theory that would reconcile the simplistic and contradictory interpretation of 14th Amendment (that everybody, illegal alien or not, is covered by the equal protection clause) with the facts, basic needs the American nation, and the reminder of the Constitution. It's important to remember that the role of the Supreme Court is to faithfully interpret the existing law and not to mutilate it or create new one. After all, the Supreme Court may be wrong in their rulings, as they were at several occasions in the past.


Because for a person to be covered by the equal protection clause of 14th Amendment, he/she must be within jurisdiction of a state, the main question that needs to be answered in order to determine the scope of applicability, if any, of the equal protection clause to an illegal alien and a foreign drug smuggler who just jumped illegally the American Border is this: Is the culprit within jurisdiction of a state where the violation took place? All constitutionally based and logically sound reasons that one could consider while addressing this question lead to a resounding "No" answer.


I argue that a foreign national who illegally crossed the American border (unless he surrendered himself to state authorities) is not in jurisdiction of the state that he crushed into in the sense of the language of 14th Amendment any more than a member of foreign military force that invaded that state is3, and, therefore, is not covered by the equal protection clause. (It’s worth noting that 14th Amendment begins, in Section 1, second sentence, with a stipulation that “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens [emphasis added] of the United States,” which strongly suggests that the noun “person” used in the remainder of its text refers to one of the “citizens of the United States”, and even then it’s doubtful if any citizen could maintain his immunities after joining enemy’s armed forces or actually fighting against his own country.) I can imagine an ACLU or SPLC lawyer claiming, in his attempt to dismiss the above argument, that military aggression, unlike illegal border crossing by a foreign criminal, is an act of war that excludes the invading army from the jurisdiction of the invaded, but not withstanding extra-constitutionality of such a claim, there is no acceptable criterion, consistent with the Constitution, as to when a border violation subjects someone to the jurisdiction of the state he/she invaded and when it does not.


For instance, if the requirement is that the aggression (war) must be declared, then we would have to offer constitutional protection the foreign invading army if they launched an undeclared aggression of American territory. (Nonsense.) If being armed (with a proviso that the defenders must know that the invaders are armed, if one were to follow the legal opinion of Assistant U.S. Attorney Debra Kanof ) is such a requirement then attacking America with millions of unarmed soldiers (who can later arm themselves in the U.S., perhaps claiming their 2nd Amendment rights), or with all the arms well hidden so that the U.S. authorities have no way of knowing that the invaders are armed, will make the aggressors eligible for constitutional protection and de facto torpedo (at least in the legal sense) any serious attempts of defense. (Nonsense, again.) If wearing military uniforms is such a requirement then the foreign invading army will masquerade as bunch of civilians and gain support of ACLU and SPLC in their demands for equal protection. (Nonsense, too.) And so on. These are but a few examples - for each imaginable "criterion" there is a scenario of aggression of foreign power "eligible" for "constitutional protection" in the eyes of those who buy the above invalid argument that equal protection clause uniformly applies to any one physically present on the American soil.


Thus the claim that foreign illegal border crossers do fall into jurisdiction of any particular state and, therefore, are covered by the equal protection clause, is invalid because it inevitably leads to nonsensical consequences contradictory with the Constitution and its purpose, part of which is to secure effective defense of the national border and sovereignty, except, perhaps, in the case when the perpetrator surrenders himself to state authorities or otherwise submits himself to state’s jurisdiction4. It is of some importance here that many (most?) border jumpers openly refuse to subject themselves to the jurisdiction of the country (U.S.) or state they crashed into, and Mexican consulates consistently bring these facts up while defending Mexican illegal aliens against their prosecution for violations of the U.S. law.


There is another argument that invalidates the claim that border violators automatically fall into jurisdiction of any particular state, which facts refutes the “proof” of their general eligibility for coverage by the equal protection clause. Since the federal government insisted that all immigration issues are its exclusive prerogative (the so-called "federal issue"), states do not have any jurisdiction over immigration-related matters. In particular, they have no jurisdiction over foreign border violators. Hence, by not being within state jurisdiction, an illegal border jumper cannot claim equal protection clause of 14th Amendment in his defense. In the case that we discuss in this article, neither the smuggled surrendered himself to state authorities nor the Border Patrol agents acted under authority of any particular state (because they were employees of the federal law enforcement agency during the course of carrying on their professional duties). Therefore, agents’ actions could not be subjected to restrictions that federal law (14th Amendment) imposes on state’s actions. It's mind boggling what horse's ass could conceive an idea that the Border Patrol federal agents were bound by the “nor shall any State [...] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" clause, or that a foreign drug smuggler was actually protected by that clause against pursuit, search, and shooting by the agents. (As we have already shown, and according to Supreme Court Associate Justice Samuel Alito, he was not protected by Fourth Amendment).


Unfortunately, neither the presiding judge nor the prosecutor (assistant U.S. attorney) were sophisticated or knowledgeable enough to realize the above facts – my guess is that they simply didn’t have a clue. And this shouldn’t come as a surprise. Why would judges and attorneys know and understand the constitutional law any better that other holders of post-1965 university degrees know math, science, or even history of the U.S.? (For those who have some unrealistic expectations about what does it take to be conferred a degree in a professional discipline, I have this example to show. Many state universities award degrees in mathematics to student who couldn’t take calculus, thee foundation of math at a college level, if they demonstrate the so-called learning disability. Then such students are allowed to take a substitute class, like history of mathematics, instead.) IQ test have been all but banned by the Supreme Court in mid-1970-ties so there is really no way of filtering out those individuals who are not smart enough to decide legal disputes, particularly those involving difficult constitutional issues or when long-term prison and capital punishment are be at stake. As to Assistant U.S. Attorney Debra Kanof , I saw her in one of the "Lou Dobbs Tonight" clips (see [3]) and am willing to bet $20 that her actual IQ is way below 110 (which I estimate as an IQ score of average college graduate in the U.S.). I would hypothesize that, based on her appearance, statements, simplistic “logic”, and embarrassing misunderstanding of constitutional issues, her IQ does not exceed 95.


As a result of the above circumstances (a lack of understanding of the constitutional law by the judge and the prosecutor), the unjust verdict to convict the Border Patrol agents was based, at least partially, on the invalid presumption that anyone (not just, say, an American citizen), in particular a Mexican illegal border crosser, has the Fourth Amendment right to be safe against unreasonable searches and seizures without probable cause, that right the agents violated.


We must not forget that the “Blessings of the Liberty” guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, including Fourth Amendment’s protection against “unreasonable searches and seizures,” are reserved in the U.S. for American citizens (not withstanding the fact that we generously but voluntarily offer them to some other individuals, like political refugees and resident aliens, as a revocable privilege) and not for the invaders and border violators. So are the civil liberties, as the meaning of the word “civil” (related to citizens) clearly indicates, despite that ACLU, SPLC, and other self-appointed defenders of these liberties would like to bestow them on the foreign intruders. No twisted logic, simplistic interpretation of the Constitution, nor taken out of the context clauses of its Amendments will change that.


Speaking of public reaction to the unjust verdict, I was surprised by relatively (when compared to "Rodney King beating" trial) calm, if not indifferent, reaction of the American public to what may yet turn out to be a symptom of deeply rooted government-level conspiracy to disable the enforcement of the American border and the immigration laws. Where is the outrage? Where are the vigils and protests? I suggest that all those unhappy with the verdict may wish to consider the "No justice, no peace" language that our elected officials seem to understand so well. Because if the political left and "civil rights" leaders are using it but we don't, we may be putting ourselves into a losing game.



Notes [top] 1(Added October 20, 2006, updated November 4, 2006) The Supreme Court confirmed (in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 1990), that Fourth Amendment protections extend only to "the people", which the Court defined as "a class of persons who are part of a national [emphasis added] community [and not just immigrant community] or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community" (see [12]). In light of this definition, Mexican smuggler fleeing from the U.S. authorities right after illegally crossing the American border is not protected by Fourth Amendment because he does not belong to the mentioned above “class of persons” defined by the Supreme Court. There were no other Supreme Court decisions that would suggest otherwise conclusion (that the smuggler in question was a member of the mentioned above “class of persons” defined by the Supreme Court, that is), so Assistant U.S. Attorney Debra Kanof obviously misinterpreted the position of the Supreme Court in this matter. [Addendum 3]


2(Added October 31, 2006) As it has been pointed out in [13], “Under the entry fiction [doctrine that applies to non-admitted (in particular, illegal) aliens], an alien deemed to have entered this country illegally is treated as if detained or `excluded’ at the border despite his physical presence in the United States. See Gisbert [v. U.S.A.G.], 988 F.2d at 1440 (explaining distinction between excludable and deportable aliens)” and “The entry fiction treats an excludable alien [in particular, an illegal alien, according to the above quotation] `as one standing on the threshold of entry, and therefore not entitled to the constitutional protections provided to those within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States [emphasis added].’ Ma v. Reno, 208 F.3d 815, 823 (9th Cir.), cert .granted, 121 S.Ct. 297 (Oct. 10, 2000).”


3(Added October 31, 2006) Recently, a blogger in [14] aptly characterized this scenario (albeit under different circumstances) as “nonsense about an invading army being under the jurisdiction of the invaded country”.


4(Added October 31, 2006, updated November 4, 2006) Unfortunately, the Supreme Court in some of its opinions (e.g., in Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 212, 1982) recycled the extra-constitutional assertion that all persons within a state’s territory automatically fall under that state’s jurisdiction, which doctrine was invented in Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 369 (1886) by arbitrarily injecting the word “territorial” between the words “its” and “jurisdiction” into the language of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, and erroneously interpreting the phrase “the equal protection [emphasis added] of the laws” as “the protection of equal laws [emphasis added]” (cf. [15]), so that the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment “nor shall any State [...] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" mysteriously becomes an equal rights clause (court’s invention) that reads “nor shall any State [...] deny to any person within its territorial [emphasis added] jurisdiction the protection of equal laws [emphasis added]", without much regard to logic and obviously absurd consequences of such an invention. [top]



ADDENDUM 1 (August 15, 2006, amended March 3, 2007)


It turns out that also U.S. Attorney, Johnny Sutton, maintains that agents Ramos and Compean were guilty of “willfully [sic!] violating Aldrete-Davila’s Constitutional, Fourth Amendment right to be free from illegal seizure” (quotation from [8], last paragraph). This is as absurd as it gets, folks. Mr. Sutton should be fired for his embarrassing misunderstanding of the U.S. Constitution and its Amendments, if not charged for a crime of aiding and abetting a foreign invader by arbitrarily bestowing on him the right that only We the People can grant to someone. It looks more and more like the “No justice, no peace” may be the only option left for us to prevent this federal government-approved giveaway of our country to the Mexican invading hordes. It’s worth noting that this administration does not think, and justly so, that aliens from countries that harbor terrorists are protected by our Fourth Amendment, even if they, unlike the Mexican smuggler, Aldrete-Davila, did not violate the American border on their trip to this country. These are just the Mexicans (or “Hispanics”) that enjoy that undeserved privilege that the U.S. government extended to them without being authorized to doing so by the Constitution of the U.S., in blatant violation of 10th Amendment that expressly prohibits the federal government exercising of any authority that was “not delegated to [it] by the Constitution”.


Meanwhile (as of time of this writing, March 3, 2007), Mr. Sutton, despite all the well-justified criticism of his prominent role in what Lou Dobbs called “the greatest miscarriage of justice”, continues his blatant crusade against law enforcement officers that dare to obstruct illegal traffic of aliens and drugs across the Southern border. In yet another case reported today by the Internet press (see [18]), Mr. Sutton prosecuted “Gilmer Hernandez, a Texas deputy sheriff who drew grass-roots support after he was convicted for violating the civil rights of a fleeing illegal alien [emphasis added]” and who faces seven years in federal prison for defending himself against assault with a deadly weapon by a Mexican smuggler and for wounding an illegal Mexican border crosser.


Definitely, we have a pattern here (see also ADDENDUM 3, below), which brings this question into consideration: should Mr. Sutton be fired for his repeated misinterpretations of the U.S. Constitution and its Amendments, or should he be fired and prosecuted for his treasonous siding with the invaders and their American collaborators? I saw Mr. Sutton defending his mistakes and wrongdoings on national TV and I have a feeling that deceit and lackeyship is what makes this sorry individual ticking. I hope to see one day Mr. Sutton in federal prison, serving term at least as harsh as his office recommended for those who defended America’s border against Mexican invasion. That should teach other willing or prospective traitors of this nation a little lesson that betraying the American people may have some very unpleasant consequences. [top]



ADDENDUM 2 (September 17, 2006) [top]


Per U.S. Congressman Tom Tancredo (read his signed letter to the Attorney General Gonzales, Department of Justice [10]),


“[…] U.S. Marshals raided the Hawaii home of Duane `Dog’ Chapman […] at the behest of the Mexican government […]. A spokeswoman for the Marshals Office told that an arrest warrant was signed Wednesday by a federal magistrate in Hawaii [`based on a formal request based on a diplomatic note from the government of Mexico’, per]. He could now be extradited to Mexico […].


Chapman was detained briefly in Mexico after he captured Max Factor heir Andrew Luster in Puerto Vallarta in 2003. Luster, who was wanted in the United States for rape is now serving a 124-year sentence. […]


This Administration routinely tells Congress that they cannot secure our borders and immigration system due to a lack of resources [emphasis added]. We are told that the U.S. Attorneys offices in Border States are simply overwhelmed with cases and cannot prosecute all the violations – even some of the serious ones. Yet somehow this administration has plenty of time to track down a Mexican drug smuggler and give him immunity so he can testify against our Border Patrol agents [Ramos and Compean, emphasis added].


We are told that ICE can’t possibly tackle the task of deporting illegal aliens from the interior of our nation. […] We are apparently supposed to accept presence the roughly 100,000 criminal aliens inside our borders – a number that is growing every year – while U.S. marshals track down successful bounty hunters instead, on orders from a foreign master.


Frankly, it is becoming increasingly clear that the real problem is not so much a lack of resources as it is one of misplaced priorities.


I’m beginning to wonder who is in charge of prioritizing assignments at DOJ. Is it this administration – or the one in Mexico City? [emphasis added]




<legible signature>


Tom Tancredo”


I [Dwyer] cannot resist quoting here Article 9, Extradition of Nationals, Paragraph 1 of Treaty Between the United States of America and Mexico, signed at Mexico City, May 4, 1978, that says:


Neither Contracting Party shall be bound to deliver up its own nationals [emphasis added], but the executive authority of the requested Party shall, if not prevented by the laws of that Party, have the power to deliver them up if, in its discretion [emphasis added], it be deemed proper to do so.


So, quite obviously, U.S. Department of Justice, notorious for their negligence in prosecution of Mexican nationals that violated the American border and the immigration law, showed remarkable over zeal in going after “Dog” although the extradition treaty with Mexico did not obliged it to doing so. It is of essence here that bounty-hunting, unlike rape, robbery, and murder, is both legal and established practice in light of the American law, never mind its undeniable contributions to enforcement of the law and court orders.


I wonder if you see a pattern here. I do. I call it capricious enforcement that favors foreign (Mexican) violators and discriminates against decent Americans. (You may wish to read [11] for yet another example of DOJ’s double standard in this matter.) I would add a question of my own to Tancredo’s:


The Blessings of Liberty to what nation, Mexican or ours, was the U.S. Constitution supposed to secure? [top]



ADDENDUM 3 (February 4, 2007) [top]


U.S. Attorney, Johnny Sutton, keeps showing his blatant disregard to the Supreme Court’s ruling1 (see the footnote above) in which the Court has clearly indicated that Fourth Amendment does not protect Mexican smugglers that illegally jump the American border (see [12]). Mr. Sutton’s “logic” goes along these lines (quotation from [16]):




“Reality: The courts [but not the Supreme Court] have held that the 4th Amendment to the Constitution protects all persons in the United States whether they are here legally or illegally. It is a violation of the 4th Amendment to shoot an unarmed person [in Mr. Sutton’s fantasy; 4th Amendment has no such provision] who poses no threat to the shooter. [False. For instance it’s perfectly legal to shoot at a soldier of an invading army regardless whether he poses immediate threat to the shooter or not, and regardless whether he is armed or not. And that’s just one example that invalidates Sutton’s thesis.] This law applies regardless of immigration status. [False, again; see the Supreme Court ruling mentioned above.]


So, from the fact that illegal aliens do, arguably, (see [12]) have some constitutional rights (the premise of Mr.  Sutton’s argument which he begins from negating the statement “illegal aliens do not have any constitutional rights”) while in the U.S., like, for instance, the rights of the accused in criminal prosecutions, Mr. Sutton draws an invalid conclusion that all rights that constitution guarantees to the people must be extended to each and every one illegal border jumper of foreign nationality. It’s mind boggling that he hasn’t been fired yet for his twisting of the law (never mind his apparent inability and/or unwillingness to reason logically) and stubborn disobeying the Supreme Court’s rulings. I would not be surprised if there were an ACLU membership card in Mr. Sutton’s wallet.


Meanwhile, the case of another Border Patrol agent, David Sipe, has been brought to public attention just a few days ago (see [17]). Mr. Sipe was sentences to long term prison for “violation of civil rights” of a Mexican smuggler (here we see the “civil rights of illegal entrants” oxymoron, again) after he subdued the smuggler by hitting him with a flashlight.


The verdict has recently (January 29, 2007) been overturned and Mr. Sipe has been finally set free after seven years of ordeal. According to his own words, this is what he is facing now: "My house foreclosed on after having to file bankruptcy, my children having to live through this... of course my wife divorcing me." And what about the smuggler, one can ask? It turns out that he got the U.S. government’s settlement of “80 thousand dollars... [and]  he now has his own ranch in Mexico” (all quotations from [17]). Unbelievable!


Do you see a pattern here? I do. It looks like every American citizen who, be it out of his patriotism or his duty, attempts to obstruct free flow of contraband goods and labor through the American Southern border exposes himself on grave risk of being railroaded by the powerful open-border lobby whose actions have all the attributes of criminal conspiracy to subvert the law. It’s time to expose the powerful conspirators and punish them sternly for the serious threat they pose to the security and well-being of this nation. [top]



Addendum 4 (November 14, 2007) Meanwhile, the violence on the border directed at Border Patrol agents increases. As recently reported by The Washington Times (see [19]), the agents are outnumbered and outgunned by Mexican smugglers who are better armed and equipped than the agents are. "They've got weapons, high-tech radios, computers, cell phones, Global Positioning Systems, spotters and can react faster than we are able to," said Shawn P. Moran, a 10-year U.S. Border Patrol veteran who serves as vice president of the National Border Patrol Council Local 1613 in San Diego. "And they have no hesitancy to attack the agents on the line, with anything from assault rifles and improvised Molotov cocktails to rocks, concrete slabs and bottles," he said.


And what you can expect when U.S. Attorney Sutton is busy harassing the Border Patrol agents and sending them to jail for shooting at a smuggler while carrying on their duties of protecting the American border? The other agents must have been petrified by the outcome of the case of agents Compean and Ramos and they now are more likely to hesitate to fire back at the attackers out of fear of retaliation from Mr. Sutton and his accomplices in the U.S. Justice Department, as well as his mighty protector in the White House.


This shows how damaging the absurd border policies of this administration are to this nation's security. The Commander-in-Chief will send our almighty armed forces to protect the borders of other countries on another hemisphere while leaving the U.S. border vulnerable to Mexican thugs. And to add an insult to the injury, his administration has been more concerned with protecting foreign invaders and smugglers than those who, like Compean and Ramos, put their lives on line while defending our country. Because of this neglect, and because of utterly absurd lack of reasonable priorities that this administration has been notorious for, half of the blame for this outrageous state of affairs goes to President Bush, Secretary Chertoff, and U.S. Attorney Sutton. It has been their stubborn refusal to do the right thing that brought the current crisis on our heads. [top]




FURTHER READING (Added Sept. 25, 2007)


The Burden of Proof (March 29, 2007, updated Sept. 25, 2007)




Readers’ comments:  “The Blessings of Liberty” was a work of genius and I hope it reaches the right people as this border snafu has been one of the greatest travesties of justice in the history of this country. [Mark from Phoenix]


Great read on the case! [LA Joe]


Thank you Sir for a well researched article, The Blessings of Liberty. All who have served the U.S. Border Patrol, past and present as well as citizens that live in the invasion path appreciate your efforts. [John W. Slagle (ret) Special Agent, Anti-Smuggling Unit U.S.B.P. Tucson, Arizona] [top]





[1] Breaking the silence

Convicted border agent tells his story

By Sara A. Carter, Staff Writer – August 6, 2006


[2] Lou Dobbs Tonight - CNN - August 9, 2006 (video clip)


[3] Lou Dobbs Tonight - CNN - August 10, 2006 (video clip)


[4] Lou Dobbs Tonight - CNN - August 11, 2006 (video clip)


[5] Presidential Pardon for Border Patrol Agents

By Devvy Kidd - August 14, 2006


                                    [6] '86 Alito Memo Argues Against Foreigners' Rights

                                    By Jo Becker and Amy Goldstein, Washington Post Staff Writers - November 29, 2005


                                    [7] Cedillo Proves Children of Illegal Aliens Are Not U.S. Citizens

By Mark Andrew Dwyer - May 18, 2005



[8] Statement of United States Attorney Johnny Sutton Regarding The

Conviction of Former Border Patrol Agents Compean and Ramos

By Johnny Sutton, U.S. Attorney - August 11, 2006

(scroll down to the last paragraph).


[9] Invaders' Constitutional Rights?

By Mark Andrew Dwyer - December 22, 2004


[10] Thomas D. Tancredo, Congress of the U.S. to Atty. Gen. Gonzales, DOJ (a PDF file)

September 15, 2006


[11] The Job Feds Won't Do

By Mark Andrew Dwyer - October 12, 2003


[12] U.S. Supreme Court

United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990)

Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit

No. 88-1353 (1990)




[13] U.S. Court 6th Circuit of Appeals

Rosales-Garcia v. Holland, 238 F.3d 704 (6th Cir. 2001),+238+F.3d+704+%22entry+fiction%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us


[14] Impeach Bush: Comments

The History Channel

(a link expired)


[15] U.S. Supreme Court

Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982)


[16] Myth vs. Reality--The Facts of Why the Government Prosecuted Agents Compean and Ramos

By United States Attorney Johnny Sutton – January 17, 2007


[17] Verdict Reversal for Ex-Border Patrol Agent

KGBT 4 TV News – January 29, 2007


[18] Feds seeking 7 years for another Texas cop

Deputy sheriff convicted for violating civil rights of fleeing illegal alien

World Net Daily – March 3, 2007


[19] Lawmen under siege along Mexico border

The Washington Times



Past commentary (June 6, 2006) DEPORTATION IS NOT A PENALTY

Click here for Disclaimer


Mark Andrew Dwyer's latest commentary (updated) is posted at:

save this link >>>

The complete list of commentaries by “Mark Andrew Dwyer” with synopses and readers’ comments ordered by the date of original posting (with the most recent commentary first).

Links to commentaries by “Mark Andrew Dwyer” posted at (retrieved by Google)

Links to commentaries by “Mark Andrew Dwyer” posted at

Links to commentaries by "Mark Andrew Dwyer" posted elsewhere (retrieved by Google)

Visit for the most comprehensive and up to date coverage of immigration news and commentaries.



The URL address of this page is: