Does this make any sense to anyone?

[ban basketball]

There are very few areas of society, law, business, sports etc where people are all treated the same, why should this case be any different? There is usually an option for a judge to consider extenuating circumstances, it seems like the fact that this woman is working hard to provide for her family is a major extenuating circumstance. If she had been late for school because her meth dealer ran late to their earlier meeting then that would be a consideration.

If someone is pulled over doing 100 mph trying to get to the hospital because their kid is bleeding out then the cop should let them go and give them a police escort. If someone is doing 100 mph racing from one party to the next then they should be ticketed or cuffed and taken away.

People with lots of money can get great lawyers to get them off. Poor people who can't afford a lawyer get a public defender and have to take what they can get. A superstar athlete can miss practice and get off with a wrist slap; a bench-warmer might be cut from the team. Attractive men and women tend to be promoted over their less attractive counterparts, all else equal. Ethnicity can be a major advantage or disadvantage to getting into a college, sometimes it trumps GPA. None of this is new, right?

Your examples do a good job of ilustrating what is outside of the legal system, but the fact is, which is all that my point has ever been, is that the legal system does not and should not allow for unequal treatment under the law, correct?

If you're not happy with this fact of our legal system, then, as Scott Gallan has always said, "take it up with the Constitution," as that is what you should question, not me, who is simply asking that our justice system work fairly and equally. How much more American can you get than that?

[ban basketball]

Two people can be convicted of the exact same offense and each be given two different sentences based on the circumstance in each case (except in the relatively rare case of mandatory sentences). There is nothing unequal or unfair whatsoever nor is it unconstitutional. That's our system like it or lump it, ban. You do understand this, right?

If a difference of sentence, in my example above, is based on ethnicity or economic standing then of course there would be a violation under the 14th Amendment...but no one in this thread has even remotely disputed that nor has such a thought been in the context of this thread.

Criminals (and people involved in civil suits) have the right to expect equal perfection under the law..."fairness" in sentencing is relative and it's based on circumstances....fairness in the execution of the criminal process and access to court is protected by the 14th and other Amendments.

I respectfully and directly ask you to please tell me, with specificity, where in this post, you feel I am factually inaccurate in my understanding and explanation of the law and criminal procedure.

Under the law. That is where equality and fairness needs to be assured, right? We all have a rights that seek to assure that we are all treated equally under the law, and treated fairly under the law. That is also not inaccurate, and all that I have ever said.

Going back to the case at hand, I think most people are looking too much into it. There is only one thing at issue: repeat offenders as it relates to one offense. If they repeat too much, they are sent to the court system. Because we are not talking about people with other offenses for a judge to take into account (we are only talking about truancy), to hand down an "easier" sentence for a seemingly "upstanding citizen" versus a seeming "slacker" is not the job of this judge or court, as other offenses and criminal records are not being considered. In short, that would be unfair treatment in the system, as, again, both have only committed truancy, both are repeated truant offenders, and why should an "employed truant" receive a lesser sentence than an "unemployed truant?"

Thank God the judge sees it like me!

[pm01]

The simple fact is that you are waving your hands trying to do hocus pocus to obfuscate, misdirect, and generally ignore the context members here are talking about.

[UGLY]

I asked how I have "advocated" for them only because I've never really advocated one way or another on this issue.

What you may recall is that I have often stood up against the myths that get passed on as fact regarding "illegals" and "illegal" immigration, but I haven't really taken a stance either way. I do, however, feel that I have a duty to point out what is factual and what is hyperbole concerning these folks.

In specific regard to your question, again, all that I have ever said about their children being U.S. citizens is that is the law of the land, like it or lump it. Whether or not we like it or not, the fact is is that the courts have ruled that these children are U.S. citizens. If that is the case, then it ought to be our task to try to figure out what is best for these children and how to assist them, as opposed to pointing fingers, which is irrelevant considering the courts' stance on this issue.

So would it not in this case also be advantageous to find a way to help this girl out instead of punishing her for circumstances beyond her control?

Just because you come here and have a baby doesn't make you a citizen, it makes you the mother of one ( which is a debate for another thread). Shouldn't those women who have these children be deported back to their country of origin based on the fact that they have clearly broken the law or do the circumstances surrounding their residence allow her a different outcome? According to your position she should be deported along with all other without regard to her having an American child.

[ban basketball]

The simple fact is that you are waving your hands trying to do hocus pocus to obfuscate, misdirect, and generally ignore the context members here are talking about.

And what would be the great benefit of me doing that?

If so, you also seem to be doing a pretty derned good job of doing the same things that you are accusing me of doing, correct? From my perspective, you're doing all of that which you seem to not like about me.

I also wonder why the judge was doing so much "hand waving," "hocus pocus," "obfuscating," "misdirecting," and "generally ignoring everyone's context?" Gee, he must be NUTS!

See how weird differing perspectives are? Who would have guessed?

[ban basketball]

So would it not in this case also be advantageous to find a way to help this girl out instead of punishing her for circumstances beyond her control?

Just because you come here and have a baby doesn't make you a citizen, it makes you the mother of one ( which is a debate for another thread). Shouldn't those women who have these children be deported back to their country of origin based on the fact that they have clearly broken the law or do the circumstances surrounding their residence allow her a different outcome? According to your position she should be deported along with all other without regard to her having an American child.

Sure. The "illegal" immigrant broke the law (which we all do, ironically enough; I'm a chronic law breaker), had a child in the U.S., so let's just ship her out of the country, her child would likely stay here because of resident status, and we can solve all of the world's problems by separating mother and child.

Gee, just like Jesus would do, eh? Makes me all warm and fuzzy...

[UGLY]

Sure. The "illegal" immigrant broke the law (which we all do, ironically enough; I'm a chronic law breaker), had a child in the U.S., so let's just ship her out of the country, her child would likely stay here because of resident status, and we can solve all of the world's problems by separating mother and child.

Gee, just like Jesus would do, eh? Makes me all warm and fuzzy...

I'm only applying your standard to the scenario. The law is the law honor student or not according to you, so why would you change your stance when it comes to an illegal alien having a child here?.

[WhippetGrappler]

Sure. The "illegal" immigrant broke the law (which we all do, ironically enough; I'm a chronic law breaker), had a child in the U.S., so let's just ship her out of the country, her child would likely stay here because of resident status, and we can solve all of the world's problems by separating mother and child.

Gee, just like Jesus would do, eh? Makes me all warm and fuzzy...

Why the religious bash?!? UGLY made no reference to Jesus!!

[ban basketball]

I'm only applying your standard to the scenario. The law is the law honor student or not according to you, so why would you change your stance when it comes to an illegal alien having a child here?.

I don't think that I changed my stance in my answer, did I? My answer looks to me like I'm applying good ol' law and order to the sititation, right?