But all that is irrelevant anyway. From the earliest days of our Federal Judiciary principals of the English Common Law have be cited as precedents in deciding cases and controversies, as they like to say.

So Sorry Woody, the “Foreign Law” horse left the barn a long time ago.

1) – Deporting legal immigrants retroactively for past problems is obscene (I thought this was against constitution) – “No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.”. Did our law makers not read it?

2) – We should define “aggravated felony”, as a sane/normal person would (as opposed to idiot judges), which does not include stealing a video game.

3) – Legal immigrants who have been here 10 or more years are not be subject to deportation.

4) – Illegal immigrants over 12 years old who have spent MORE THAN HALF THEIR LIVES in the USA are not be deportable.

5) – All other illegal immigrants should be deported.

BTW, the U.S. has done more for human rights than any other country in the world. We’re the one who step up to the plate against dictators, we’re the one who provides food and medical care for needy people across the globe, and we’ve provided a haven of escape for people to come here and better their lives.

Forget everything that your professors told you and listen to me. If you don’t do it now, then one day, many years in the future, you will say to yourself, “That guy on Fremon’s blog was right. I should have listened to him. Look at all the wasted years.” I do this as a public service.

When it comes to the issue of deportation in particular, international law is relevant because every deportation requires the action of 2 states: the US and the receiving nation which has to issue travel documents. Those nations who have ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child, for instance, are in clear violation of that treaty when their acceptance of a deportee impacts a child. In some cases, the receiving countries are acting in contradiction to their own internal laws. They do so because of intimidation and various threats (loss of aid and visas for example) made by the US.

I see no reason why, especially in this age of globalization, we should not consider international standards of law. There are any number of logical precedents for it, not only by “liberal” judges. Particularly when human rights are at stake, I feel we have an obligation to do so. Keeping families intact is central to preserving and bettering society as a whole, here and abroad. Americans like to think of ourselves as the upholders of freedom and democracy and human rights, but we are turning into a nation of hypocrites. It’s time our actions were in line with our pronouncements.