Texas Justice, Served American Style

Like many other Americans my interest was recently piqued when I read that “Mexican national,” Jose Medellin, was about to be (and has since been) executed for the brutal rape and murder of two teenage girls in 1993. Various editorials alarmingly tried to compare Medellin’s predicament to that of a poor American tourist, caught up in a legal situation while vacationing abroad, and being denied access to an American consul. The argument being that if the United States did not stay Medellin’s execution, as requested by the International Court of Justice (and subsequently, the Bush Administration), and have his, along with the cases of 50 other Mexicans on death row, reviewed to see if their right of consular access was violated at the time of their arrests, then Americans in other countries could be subjected to the same treatment.

The media threw around the phrase “Mexican national” as if poor Jose Medellin had been on vacation in the U.S. at the time he committed his dastardly deed, and longed to return home to his beloved Mexico. As a police officer who has arrested foreign nationals before, and has had to fill out the required consular access forms as required by law, I thought that if Medellin was arrested for a crime, of course he should have been notified of his right to consular contact.

However, as it turns out, Medellin was not here on vacation, or business, nor was he here temporarily. Medellin had come to the United States, possibly in violation of U.S. immigration laws, with his family or otherwise, at the age of 3. He grew up in Houston, Texas, where he no doubt went to American public school, at least for a time, and spoke English like most of his peers. As a gang member, probably with numerous prior police contacts and possibly arrests, he had some working knowledge of our laws, customs, etc. At the time he gang-raped and murdered two innocent girls, Medellin was 18 years old.

For 15 years, Medellin had grown up and lived in the U.S. He probably considered himself as “American” as anyone in his neighborhood. He didn’t move to Mexico first chance he got; he wasn’t yearning to be a Mexican national; he was happy and content going about his day-to-day criminal activities as an “American” who should have known better—wherever you live, wherever you’re from, you just don’t gang rape and murder children.

And you obey the law!

One of Medellin’s lawyers, Sandra Babcock, tried to argue that this case was “about the reputation of the United States as a nation that adheres to the rule of law.” I’ve got news for you, Ms. Babcock, Texan officials were adhering to the rule of law—their state law. Most law-abiding Americans expect their state judicial systems to punish wrongdoers appropriately, and according to state law. In other words, you murder somebody and you pay the price, whether it’s in Texas, California, or wherever. And no American, whether they be Texan or otherwise, is going to accept a foreign, UN-sanctioned judicial body in The Hague, telling them how to punish a murderer among us.

Despite the ICJ’s ruling, and no matter what President Bush would have liked, the State of Texas did what the majority of Texans wanted. Americans are rightly outraged that there are people in this country illegally, who rape and murder American citizens, assault police officers, and terrorize neighborhoods. Just ask the family of LA Sheriff’s Deputy David March, who was murdered by the same type of “Mexican national” as Medellin—an undocumented criminal thug who lived and plundered in the U.S., then tried to seek security in Mexico after doing his damage here.

Americans already know what would have happened to Medellin if the so-called International Court of Justice had got its way. Medellin probably would have been deported back to Mexico, where Mexican authorities wouldn’t have prosecuted him for anything, since he didn’t break any of their laws. Medellin would have easily crossed the border again to return to his “homies” in Houston, where he might have murdered another innocent American.

Interestingly, Medellin’s predicament got scant coverage by pro-immigrant rights groups. They probably didn’t want to touch this hot potato. You see, you can’t have it both ways. Is Medellin a “Mexican national” who should have been in Mexico, obeying the law, or is he as “American” as any hard-working immigrant who’s been here 15 plus years, trying to enjoy the “American Dream,” and therefore, potentially subject to American laws and justice?

The irony is that Medellin sat on Death Row for almost four years before deciding that he was indeed a “Mexican national” who should have been provided consular protection. Through the appeals process, both state and federal courts determined that Medellin’s case had not been compromised because he hadn’t been provided consular access.

It’s common knowledge that the International Court of Justice has had a checkered relationship with the U.S. government, and because of that, the U.S. Supreme Court did the right thing by agreeing to hear the case. However, they made the right decision in pointing out that the Justice Department had not requested their intervention, and basically left it up to the Lone Star State to decide Medellin’s fate.

Medellin, as a murderer who committed his gruesome crimes within the territory of the United States, got what he deserved in Texas—American justice, meted out by American judges, presiding over American courts. Medellin and his family chose to live in the United States and chase the American dream. Medellin chose to pursue this dream as part of a lawless, murderous gang of criminals. If you want to play the “American Dream” game, you better be prepared to live by the “American Dream” rules.