No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
AALS Panel – Mexico v. U.S.A. (Avena) – Crime and Immigration: Domestic, Regional and International Consequences
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 March 2019
Abstract
An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
- Type
- European & International Law
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © 2004 by German Law Journal GbR
References
1 Case Concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mex. v. U.S.) (Int'l Ct. Justice). Materials regarding the case, including the briefs filed, interim decisions and oral arguments are available at www.icj-cij.org.Google Scholar
2 See, e.g., Harden, Blaine & Golden, Tim, The Hunt for a Sniper: The Suspects, N.Y. Times, Oct. 5, 2002, at A1.Google Scholar
3 Teachey, Lisa, Maturino Resendiz Guilty of Murder, Houston Chron., May 19, 2000, at A1.Google Scholar
4 Turnbull, Lornet, Boom in Illegal Immigration Apparent in Ohio, Columbus Dispatch, Jan. 30, 2002, at 01F.Google Scholar
5 U.S. Sentencing Commission, 2001 Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics tbl. 9, at 19 (2003), at www.ussc.gov/ANNRPT/2001/table9.pdf (visited last Mar. 15, 2004).Google Scholar
6 Id.Google Scholar
7 Id.Google Scholar
8 Id. at tbl. 36, at www.ussc.gov/ANNRPT/2001/table36.pdf (visited last Mar. 15, 2004).Google Scholar
9 U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal Offenders Statistics, available at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/ (visited last Mar. 15, 2004).Google Scholar
10 See, e.g., Daniel P. Mears, Immigration and Crime: What's the Connection?, 14 Fed. Sent. R. 284, 284-85 (2002); Michael Tonry, Ethnicity, Crime, and Immigration, in Ethnicity, Crime, and Immigration: Comparative and Cross-National Perspectives 1, 22-25 (Michael Tonry ed., 1997).Google Scholar
11 Tonry, supra note 10, at 20-22 (model “is simplistic and only partly true.”).Google Scholar
12 For a critique of this view, see Mears, supra note 10, at 287-88.Google Scholar
13 For an analysis of the data on terrorism prosecutions, see Nora V. Demleitner, How Many Terrorists Are There? The Escalation in So-Called Terrorism Prosecutions, 16 Fed. Sent. R. 38 (2003).Google Scholar
14 Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) of 1996, Pub. L. 104-32, 110 Stat. 1214 (Apr. 24, 1996); Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRAIRA) of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 2009-546 (codified as amended in sections of 8 U.S.C.).Google Scholar
15 U.S. Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service, 2001 Statistical Yearbook of the Immigration and Naturalization Service 236, tbl. 64, at 249, tbl. 65, at 250-57 (2003).Google Scholar
16 For information on “Operation Predator”, see www.dhs.gov.Google Scholar
17 See Susan Sontag, In a Homeland Far From Home, N.Y. Times, Nov. 16, 2003, at sec. 6, 48.Google Scholar
18 Id.Google Scholar
19 For a critique of the insufficient enforcement of immigration law and especially re-entry violations, see Heather MacDonald, The Illegal-Alien Crime Wave, City Journal (Winter 2004), at www.manhattan-institute.org/cfml/printable.cfm?id=1204 (visited last Jan. 27, 2004).Google Scholar
20 See Linda Drazga Maxfield & Keri Burchfield, Immigration Offenses Involving Unlawful Entry: Is Federal Practice Comparable Across Districts?, 14 Fed. Sent. R. 260 (2002); Linda Drazga Maxfield, Fiscal Year 2000 Update on Unlawful Entry Offenses, 14 Fed. Sent. R. 267 (2002); Nora V. Demleitner & Jon M. Sands, Non-Citizen Offenders and Immigration Crimes: New Challenges in the Federal System, 14 Fed. Sent. R. 247, 249-50 (2002).Google Scholar
21 U.S. Sentencing Commission, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, sec. 2L1.2. See also Maxfield, supra note 20, at 270; Robert J. McWhirter, Aggravated Felon Re-entry Cases Under the 2001 Guideline, 14 Fed. Sent. R. 295 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22 Provisions of Feeney Amendment as Enacted into Law as Part of PROTECT Act, Pub. L. 108-21, 117 Stat. 650, reprinted in 15 Fed. Sent. R. 358 (2003). For further information about the Feeney Amendment, see 15 Fed. Sent. R. 307-378 (2003).Google Scholar
23 Attorney General John Ashcroft, Memo Regarding Policy on Charging of Criminal Defendants (Sept. 22, 2003), at www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2003/September/03_ag_516.htm (visited last Mar. 15, 2004).Google Scholar
24 See, e.g., United States v. Onwuemene, 933 F.2d 650 (8th Cir. 1991); United States v. Borrero-Isaza, 887 F.2d 1349 (9th Cir. 1989).Google Scholar
25 See, e.g., United States v. Rodriguez-Montelongo, 263 F.3d 429, 432-34 (5th Cir. 2001).Google Scholar
26 See also Demleitner & Sands, supra note 20, at 250 (some courts have held that “the different treatment of incarcerated non-citizens justifies a downward departure.” Id.).Google Scholar
27 Numerous foreign governments, including Mexico and Saudi Arabia, provide extensive assistance -legal and financial – to their citizens who are being charged with criminal offenses in the United States. See, e.g., Michael Fleishman, Note, Reciprocity Unmasked: The Role of the Mexican Government in Defense of Its Foreign Nationals in United States Death Penalty Cases, 20 Ariz. J. Int'l & Comp. L. 359 (2003) (detailing assistance Mexican government provides to its nationals charged with capital offenses in the United States).Google Scholar
28 For a discussion of the harshness and inflexibility of U.S. immigration law with regard to the deportation of non-citizen offenders as compared to many Western European countries, see Nora V. Demleitner, How Much Do Western Democracies Value Family and Marriage?: Immigration Law's Conflicted Answers, 32 Hofstra L. Rev. 273 (forthcoming spring 2004).Google Scholar
29 Soering v. United Kingdom, 11 Eur. Ct. H.R. at 439 (1989).Google Scholar
30 Courts in other countries that no longer allow for the death penalty have similarly denied requests for extradition in death cases. See, e.g., Guy Taylor, Home a Safe Haven for Mexican Suspects, Wash. Times, Jan. 9, 2004. For a discussion of how the jurisprudence of foreign courts may shape U.S. law, see Paolo G. Carozza, “My Friend Is a Stranger”: The Death Penalty and the Global Ius Commune of Human Rights, 81 Tex. L. Rev. 1031 (2003).Google Scholar
31 The World's View of Executions, N.Y. Times, June 13, 2001, at A32.Google Scholar
32 See, e.g., Testimony of Deputy Assistant Attorney General Mary Lee Warren on U.S./Mexico Counternarcotics Efforts Before the Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources Subcomm. of the House Comm. on Government Reform, Feb. 29, 2002, at www.house.gov/reform/cj/hearings/00.02.29/Warren.htm (visited last June 10, 2002) (discussing decision by Mexican Supreme Court and its impact on extradition from Mexico); Terence Jeffrey, Shut Down Mexico's Sanctuary for Murderers, Nov. 13, 2003, at www.townhall.com/columnists/terence jeffrey/printtj20031113.shtml (visited last Nov. 26, 2003); Tim Weiner, Extraditions Are Limited By Ruling In Mexico, N.Y. Times, Jan. 20, 2002, at 9. See also K. Larry Storrs, CRS Report for Congress: Mexico's Counter-Narcotics Efforts under Zedillo and Fox, December 1994-March 2001 CRS-6 (March 30, 2001) (extradition of Mexican citizens for drug violations only if they are being sentenced in U.S. courts under Mexican law).Google Scholar
33 See, e.g., Gaura, Maria Alicia, How Killers in State Stay Untouchable: Mexican Court Scraps Extradition Treaty – Frustrated California D.A.s Won't Cut Deals, S.F. Chronicle, Aug. 10, 2003.Google Scholar
34 See, e.g., Taylor, Margaret H. & Aleinikoff, T. Alexander, Deportation of Criminal Aliens: A Geopolitical Perspective (1998), at www.thedialogue.org/publications/taylor_criminal.htm.Google Scholar
35 See, e g., Richard, Randall, 500,000 Deportees from U.S. Wreaking Havoc, Associated Press, Oct. 26, 2003.Google Scholar
36 See, e.g., Gorman, Anna, Mexico Seeks Warning on Deportations, L.A. Times, Oct. 8, 2003.Google Scholar
You have
Access