Thanks for your updates Den, but especially your translations. Nothing like a native-speaker to get the "gist" of the reporting.
- Over 100,000 concentrated in Barcelona for the moment of silence (and subsequent loud protest) at noon. The motto is #NoTincPor (roughly I Have No Fear).
Does this judge bear any responsibility for the tragedy? Or the legislators who have the law in place that criminals can remain because of their "human rights" to not have to go back to where they're from?The imam accused of masterminding the Barcelona terrorist attacks should have been deported at the end of his prison sentence for drug smuggling, but overturned the ruling by arguing it would breach his human rights, it has emerged.
Islamic preacher Abdelbaki Es Satty was told he must comply with an expulsion order when he left jail in April 2014, according to the Spanish daily, El Mundo.
But the 42-year-old Moroccan won an appeal against the decision after arguing his case in front of a judge.
Worth noting that the article linked is a pretty poor representation of the facts, from checking multiple Spanish/Catalan sources. I'll write up an abridged translation (correcting Google Translate, essentially) of a source with better information (Avui: A court in Castellón revoked the deportation of Ripoll's imam because of "developing roots" and "his effort to integrate" - Government did not appeal the judgement, after a four-year sentence for drug trafficking):
shitty translation said:The Court of the Contentious-Administrative number 2 of Castellón annulled in March of 2015 a deportation order against Abdelbaki es Satty, an imam of Ripoll and presumed mastermind behind the attacks in Barcelona and Cambrils, who died in the explosion of the house at Alcanar.
The court made this decision because of Es Satty's "developing roots" and "his effort to integrate", after serving a sentence of four years in prison for drug trafficking, dictated by a Ceuta court a few years before. State lawyers, representing the subdelegation of the Spanish government, did not appeal the judicial decision.
The judge of Castellón considered that Satty, a long-term resident, had demonstrated "obvious labor connections and efforts to integrate" through the accreditation of a valid work contract and accompanying listed term for Social Security, 6 years, 6 months and 16 days. The ruling also argues the age of the crime's commission, which took place in January 2010, and the fact that it was a single criminal act in an otherwise spotless record.
The judge refused to close the deportation proceedings due to expired or irregularities in notification requirements, as Se Satty sought, but determined that the automatic deportation for having served more than one year in prison, as requested by State prosecutors, violated the principle of proportionality brought in by recent legal doctrine.
In particular, the judge applied the new State and European jurisprudential doctrine, according to which the expulsion of a long-term resident alien sentenced by a crime punished with a penalty exceeding one year in prison is not automatic anymore. It is necessary to assess the specific circumstances of each case and determine that there is a "real and sufficiently serious threat to public order or public safety."
The judge is based on "strong European case law", as reported by the High Court of Justice of the Valencian Community (TSJCV), with references to resolutions of the Spanish Supreme Court, the Spanish Constitutional Court, and the High Courts of Justice of Castile And Leon, the Basque Country, Cantabria, and the Provincial Court of Biscay, among others.
In the resolution, the magistrate explains that "although the imputed conduct is serious, one can not ignore that we are facing a single distant criminal act in time - it's been over five years since its commission - while the presented documentation proves that he has obvious roots in Spain, which demonstrate his efforts to integrate into Spanish society, which is why I understand that [deportation due to] a single criminal act along with the rest of the exposed circumstances violates the principle of proportionality".
Abdelbaki es Satty was sentenced by in February 2012 by the Criminal Court number two from Ceuta to four years in prison for a drug trafficking offence he committed on January 1, 2010, according to the TSJCV. The same source indicates that he had no other conviction. In the judicial file, he adds, there is no information regarding his links to Islamist terrorism.
You could just as easily argue that the responsibility lies with the popular prosecution, which decided not to appeal the sentence. The system is not perfect, and relies on all its moving parts (laws, judges, juries, prosecutors, attorneys, witnesses, the executive, ...) to bring justice. Regardless, I don't think deporting him would have been the right call, given what the court knew of him.Does this judge bear any responsibility for the tragedy? Or the legislators who have the law in place that criminals can remain because of their "human rights" to not have to go back to where they're from?
I appreciate your more specific translation, but I think we differ here on philosophy, not necessarily on law per-se. IMO if you're not a citizen of the country, and you commit a crime, you're gone. You are there because the country agreed to let you in (for whatever entry reasons set by said country) and thus you should "keep your nose clean" (or whatever idiom is correct for the particular language) while you're essentially a guest of that country. That means no law-breaking. If you do so, you've proven you do not respect the laws of the country you are are a guest in, and thus, you should be deported.You could just as easily argue that the responsibility lies with the popular prosecution, which decided not to appeal the sentence. The system is not perfect, and relies on all its moving parts (laws, judges, juries, prosecutors, attorneys, witnesses, the executive, ...) to bring justice. Regardless, I don't think deporting him would have been the right call, given what the court knew of him.
I disagree with that standard. Immigrants are a useful resource, and treating them like dirt (e.g. deporting someone over a moving violation, as your overbroad statement would) is not my idea of justice. Deportation is a very heavy penalty to pay for a crime, specially if already followed by a prison sentence (which, in my understanding, is strongly thought and devised of as rehabilitative in Spanish law--not primarily punitive, though it is a component).I appreciate your more specific translation, but I think we differ here on philosophy, not necessarily on law per-se. IMO if you're not a citizen of the country, and you commit a crime, you're gone. You are there because the country agreed to let you in (for whatever entry reasons set by said country) and thus you should "keep your nose clean" (or whatever idiom is correct for the particular language) while you're essentially a guest of that country. That means no law-breaking. If you do so, you've proven you do not respect the laws of the country you are are a guest in, and thus, you should be deported.
It's about respecting those already there, who are citizens (and other legal residents/guests) who made the laws. And I put no distinction on those to whom they were born there, versus who got their citizenship after arriving in that regards. If you're a citizen that committed a crime, do the time, and then the same as any other citizen. If you're a legal guest, you're gone. If you're an ILLEGAL resident, you're also gone, for similar reasons (you obviously didn't respect their laws from the beginning).
On a side note to that: the USA thing where you have to have been born there to be President (there's a couple of exceptions, but essentially) I think is insane. A citizen is a citizen, is a citizen under the law IMO and that should include high office. Personally, I'd love for the "prediction" about Arnold Schwarzenegger to become true from Demolition Man.
But to muddy the waters more, I'm also in favor of stripping citizenship from somebody if they A) have citizenship somewhere else already (no person without a country), and B) are convicted of treasonous acts. I think in that case stripping and sending to wherever they are a citizen is OK. They've "renounced" their country through their treasonous acts. For those following Canadian Politics, IMO we'd be required to take Khadr Jr. back (but not give him $10M) since he only had 1 country, but could have stripped it from his Father (not born in Canada) before he died due to being a terrorist.
So that's where I stand on that general idea. And BTW, what I stated up there is generally what's already on-the-books in most countries that I've heard of. Enforcement of such is another discussion, though I'm in favor of enforcing ALL laws equally, and then ditching the bad laws. Selective enforcement is bad for a whole HOST of other reasons.
They ARE useful to countries... that get to choose who comes, and who stays. You do NOT have a right to travel anywhere you wish, and stay as you wish. I agree a moving violation seems absurd (and isn't a felony. If I should have specified such, OK), but if that's what the people there want, then they have that right too.I disagree with that standard. Immigrants are a useful resource, and treating them like dirt (e.g. deporting someone over a moving violation, as your overbroad statement would) is not my idea of justice. Deportation is a very heavy penalty to pay for a crime, specially if already followed by a prison sentence (which, in my understanding, is strongly thought and devised of as rehabilitative in Spanish law--not primarily punitive, though it is a component).
They are guests of the country, not citizens. They have NO right to stay unless they become a citizen.My other issue with deportation is that it doesn't take into account the deportee's environment. Like with suicide, there is likely to be an impact on the surrounding people, social and economic. With prison, that impact is temporary, and thought of as necessary to return a better person to that environment. With deportation, not so much.
I can pull plenty of sob stories about people whose life has been in country X for the past Y years (where Y can be an impressively large number) being uprooted over victimless crime Z, anecdotes to illustrate what I mean. Particularly in the U.S., specially in the past 9 years.
We agree on the action, but possibly not the reason.I do think deportation is a sometimes useful tool, particularly as a filter for habitual offenders and as a check on migratory pressure (e.g. non-refugee economic migrants not using proper channels), though.
I agree this is a "you're playing with fire" kind of thing, but the bar (when we had such a law in Canada) was extremely high. Saying "no, forever" I think is even more problematic.I think that wanting citizenship to be revocable by the state is indefensible for the same reason the death penalty or summary executions are. I do not trust any state that currently exists with that power, and I'm surprised you do.
I'm a fan of due process, but it's the uneven enforcement of laws that leads to a lot of the abuse of systems IMO.Blind enforcement of the law is as bad as capricious enforcement. Keep in mind that things like the test that was used to keep Es Satty in the country were newer laws superceding or refining existing ones--exactly how it's supposed to work in any sane precedent-law system.
What I'm advocating for is once EVERYBODY is charged, then NOBODY is because the laws themselves get thrown out. There should be relatively LITTLE prosecutorial discretion, but a good amount more for judges, due to innocent until proven guilty. Less laws are better than many laws with discretion, as that just means more possibilities for abuse.Judicial latitude (along with sane methods for electing judges and replacing them) holds a lot of appeal for me. It introduces more variance in justice, but strange outcomes can often be appealed (with things like double jeopardy making sure the scale is tipped against the state). The other end is, in my view, prosecutorial discretion (i.e. choosing what charges to pursue, which is always the state's prerogative), which is ripe for abuse when mandatory sentencing is involved.
Sure, that's a Refugee or a case of Asylum, which is exceptional circumstances. That's not the majority case, nor the case of the terrorist who planned those killings. Those are all about LEGAL immigrants.You don't seem to understand the concept of asylum. No, you don't have the right to move or live wherever you want. You do have the right to live. A gay Nigerian who will literally get shot in his own country and has escaped, an Afghani who helped Western troops and has his life threatened, muslim girls fleeing Somalia because they were to be genitally cut and forcibly married off...
Any of these happen to get caught up in something illegal and you'd send them back? Good luck, it's against a whole bunch of international treaties.
Do you think that the people can desire and foster unjust laws, or are laws just by definition and can only be unjust in application? I don't think this is a false dichotomy, but feel free to expound on a third option. Just trying to get a feel for why we disagree.They ARE useful to countries... that get to choose who comes, and who stays. You do NOT have a right to travel anywhere you wish, and stay as you wish. I agree a moving violation seems absurd (and isn't a felony. If I should have specified such, OK), but if that's what the people there want, then they have that right too.
They are guests of the country, not citizens. They have NO right to stay unless they become a citizen.
We agree on the action, but possibly not the reason.
I agree this is a "you're playing with fire" kind of thing, but the bar (when we had such a law in Canada) was extremely high. Saying "no, forever" I think is even more problematic.
I'm a fan of due process, but it's the uneven enforcement of laws that leads to a lot of the abuse of systems IMO.
To ME at least, this is my problem with the whole "Hillary Emails" thing. it's not that it was a HUGE deal (big maybe, but not huge having a "very hackable" server with secret-level emails on it) but that if it were just about anybody else they'd at LEAST have to go to court over it, and probably end up in jail. But because she was powerful, she got away with it and wasn't even charged, or even her tech guy who set it up! Nobody involved was. Uneven application of laws ends up with the powerful RARELY being brought to account, and the weak ending up with overburdened Public Defenders and all the problems there.
What I'm advocating for is once EVERYBODY is charged, then NOBODY is because the laws themselves get thrown out. There should be relatively LITTLE prosecutorial discretion, but a good amount more for judges, due to innocent until proven guilty. Less laws are better than many laws with discretion, as that just means more possibilities for abuse.
But in the case of non-citizens, being found guilty means you're gone. You get the appeals process like anybody else, but you fucked up royally. You had your chance, we don't want PROVEN (in court) lawbreakers in the country if there's a way that they don't have to be.