Tortured Logic...

[pegwinn]

I am beginning to wonder about the judges in this country. Perhaps it would be better if one were drafted to be a judge and simply have a panel of lawyers to advise you.......

How crazy or more self evident can this be? Yet they.......... Ah hell, read it fer yerself.


Justices used tortured logic
Posted by the Asbury Park Press on 05/20/06

"Without any fault on their part."

That's the key phrase in a baffling 17-page opinion issued unanimously Thursday by the state Supreme Court that ruled an illegal alien has the right to collect damages from the state's uninsured motorists fund.

The fund is administered and financed by insurance companies that write automobile policies in New Jersey. Some of the cost of the fund is passed on to motorists who have liability insurance through surcharges.

Citing a previous case, the court found the fund was established out of a recognition that "there is an economic hardship resulting to those persons referred to in the statute who, without any fault of their own, suffer losses through motor vehicle accidents . . . ." The persons referred to in the statute must be residents of the state.

The case was brought by Victor Caballero, who followed his family from his native Mexico and illegally entered the country in March 2001 when he was 17. The court went out of its way to recount the plight of illegal immigrants seeking a better life here compared to their homeland and how Caballero, in particular, suffered physically and financially as a result of the accident. The opinion even went so far as to explain that Caballero now cannot eat some of the foods he previously enjoyed.

Caballero was being driven by a co-worker, Ricardo Martinez, to his job as a computer repairman when Martinez fell asleep at the wheel and crashed into a parked tractor-trailer. Martinez's car was neither registered nor insured.

Caballero needed hospitalization costing $38,300 and lost $1,482 in net wages. When he filed his appeal in court of his denial of the claim against the Unsatisfied Claim and Judgment Fund, he was living in Lakewood with his parents and girlfriend.

Two lower courts decided against Caballero, but in reversing the trial court and appeals court, the Supreme Court found that for purposes of the fund, Caballero was a resident of New Jersey — even though Caballero crossed the border illegally and is subject to deportation.

The Supreme Court found that Caballero's determination to stay in New Jersey and work made his argument that he was a resident stronger. The court took no notice of federal law in this case, it said, because to consider whether Caballero was an illegal alien or not would assume, or possibly usurp, the role of the federal Bureau of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration.

So, seven lawyers sitting on the high court say they can't take judicial notice of federal law. In other words, find a way to get around the conclusion any clear-thinking person would reach: An illegal alien can't be a state resident. Plain and simple, the court chose to ignore the law of the land to legislate its social values in New Jersey. Who knows what floodgates have now been opened?

The court conveniently failed to apply the test of whether this person "without any fault of their own" suffered losses through a motor vehicle accident. Caballero was in the United States, illegally, of his own volition. He was not kidnapped. He deliberately broke the law. Clearly, had he not chosen to break the law, he would not have been in a car accident in New Jersey.

How can seven lawyers sitting on the high court get so tangled up in legal musing that it leads them to such an illogical conclusion? We'll say it again: It's baffling.

Source

 

[jillian]

I'm not certain what his immigration status has to do with his ability to collect damages when he was neither the owner nor operator of the uninsured vehicle. If it was HIS vehicle which was uninsured, I'd agree with you. They are talking about the accident not being his fault. That is an issue unrelated to whether or not he was here illegally.

Illegals have the right to collect wages, as well, if they've worked because public policy dictates that employers shouldn't be able to avoid paying people whose work they used.

What are you seeing as tortured logic?

 

[Diuretic]

Really interesting post introducing this topic.

There's no twisted logic, in fact it follows settled law. The law doesn't allow a sort of transfer of concepts from one jurisdiction to another and sometimes even between statutes in a single jurisdiction. The issue of illegal immigration is federal US law and is determined by federal statutes. But it seeks only to deal with immigration, not with anything else and certainly not domestic state law.

I'm not sure of the NJ statute (just in passing I think it's an excellent idea, I wish my jurisdiction had something like this - if there's a link I'd appreciate reading the statute) but it relates to a purely domestic situation in NJ. I would think that the statute - unless it is written to expressly excluded illegal immigrants - would treat anyone living in NJ as coming within the definitions in the statute.

If people in NJ don't like this then they should pressure the NJ legislature to change it but on the face of it the court has applied the law consistently and that's all anyone can ask.

Disclaimer: I'm looking at the law from my perspective and my understanding, in general, of the law in jurisdictions which are derived from English common law.

 

[jillian]

For Diuretic...you want to look at the underinsured/uninsured motorist provisions.


http://sls.rutgers.edu/auto.htm

 

[Diuretic]

Thank you jillian, I shall read it with interest.

On edit: read it - that is really interesting. I can see how it works. Thanks again.

 

[jillian]

Thank you jillian, I shall read it with interest.

On edit: read it - that is really interesting. I can see how it works. Thanks again.

No worries. Glad it was helpful.

Still waiting to find out what "faulty logic" was involved in the decision.

 

[pegwinn]

I'm not certain what his immigration status has to do with his ability to collect damages when he was neither the owner nor operator of the uninsured vehicle. If it was HIS vehicle which was uninsured, I'd agree with you. They are talking about the accident not being his fault. That is an issue unrelated to whether or not he was here illegally.

Illegals have the right to collect wages, as well, if they've worked because public policy dictates that employers shouldn't be able to avoid paying people whose work they used.

What are you seeing as tortured logic?

The way the court went out of it's way to reward someones criminal behavior. Had he been in compliance with the law the accident would not have included him. As to wages? Those are ill gotten gains or proceeds of a crime that the court refused to consider. In fact at his appearance he should have been dealt with summarily and turned over to the feds.

I don't mind paying the hospital, but I oppose any moneys paid directly to him for wages.

I hope the insurance fund sues the US Gov, GWB personally (or the sitting president when the kid came across), the Mexican Gov, and VFox personally for not keeping the kid contained within his own country.

 

[Gunny]

I'm not certain what his immigration status has to do with his ability to collect damages when he was neither the owner nor operator of the uninsured vehicle. If it was HIS vehicle which was uninsured, I'd agree with you. They are talking about the accident not being his fault. That is an issue unrelated to whether or not he was here illegally.

Illegals have the right to collect wages, as well, if they've worked because public policy dictates that employers shouldn't be able to avoid paying people whose work they used.

What are you seeing as tortured logic?

Illegals have the right to a ride back to the border. Nothing more. They damned sure shouldn't be allowed to avail themselves of the benefits of our social/financial infrastructure while contributing nothing to it. Illegals most certainly do not have a right to collect wages without paying taxes like the rest of us do.

You are ignoring a key point .... IF said illegal was where he was supposed to be, he wouldn't have been in NJ to get into an accident. His mere presence is criminal, in and of itself, and contributed to his being involved in an accident in a place he would not have been if he was where he was supposed to be.

 

[jillian]

Illegals have the right to a ride back to the border. Nothing more. They damned sure shouldn't be allowed to avail themselves of the benefits of our social/financial infrastructure while contributing nothing to it. Illegals most certainly do not have a right to collect wages without paying taxes like the rest of us do.

You are ignoring a key point .... IF said illegal was where he was supposed to be, he wouldn't have been in NJ to get into an accident. His mere presence is criminal, in and of itself, and contributed to his being involved in an accident in a place he would not have been if he was where he was supposed to be.

Sorry, Gunny. You know I enjoy your posts, but I think that's sort of tortured logic. Why should an employer who avails himself of an illegal's cheap labor then be able to say "sorry, chief, I don't have to pay you. get yourself back across the border." All of us have immigrant ancestors in our background. I think that the immigration laws should be enforced, but we can't do so in such a way that we forget that the Statue of Liberty still means something as does Emma Lazarus' poem, "The New Colossus".

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Should this country give up the values it has always had? Or aren't we any longer a safe refuge for people who want a better life?

 

[Annie]

Sorry, Gunny. You know I enjoy your posts, but I think that's sort of tortured logic. Why should an employer who avails himself of an illegal's cheap labor then be able to say "sorry, chief, I don't have to pay you. get yourself back across the border."

Sorry Jillian, but do you have a link to where that is happening? On the contrary from all that can be found, they are paid, abysmally small wages, but paid; in order for the employer NOT to have to pay the rate that would be necessary to pay those here legally. In fact, the best way to curtail the tidal wave would be for the government to go after the employers of illegals, rather than the illegals. They are here for $$ to feed their families. If that dries up, they would prefer Mexico, which is very different than those in line legally.

All of us have immigrant ancestors in our background. I think that the immigration laws should be enforced, but we can't do so in such a way that we forget that the Statue of Liberty still means something as does Emma Lazarus' poem, "The New Colossus".



Should this country give up the values it has always had? Or aren't we any longer a safe refuge for people who want a better life?

Contrary to the idea that we've lost that philosophy, take a look at what legal immigrants think, here's one:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?p=430137#post430137

 

[Abbey Normal]

Kathianne, you are a

on this board.

 

[pegwinn]

Why should an employer who avails himself of an illegal's cheap labor then be able to say "sorry, chief, I don't have to pay you. get yourself back across the border."

I heard of a construction company in Houston that apparently does just that. Hires em for a week or two, then calls INS the day before payday so he isn't paying them. I'll try to find a link.

All of us have immigrant ancestors in our background. I think that the immigration laws should be enforced, but we can't do so in such a way that we forget that the Statue of Liberty still means something as does Emma Lazarus' poem, "The New Colossus".

Simply enforce the existing law and change it to something better. I would target employers and local or state governments who turn a blind eye. I would bankrupt the employers without batting an eye. For cities and states who wish to declare themselves "sanctuary", well they lose all federal funding until they get back in line.

Should this country give up the values it has always had? Or aren't we any longer a safe refuge for people who want a better life?

OF course not. One of those values is obedience to the law. If you don't like it, obey it and work for change.

Question for you. Without cutting and pasting, how would President J shape immigration?

 

[jillian]

I heard of a construction company in Houston that apparently does just that. Hires em for a week or two, then calls INS the day before payday so he isn't paying them. I'll try to find a link.

See...I think that's disgusting. He's gonna get slammed because the law is that the FLSA takes precedence and they might deport these guys, but they'll get paid in the meantime.

Simply enforce the existing law and change it to something better. I would target employers and local or state governments who turn a blind eye. I would bankrupt the employers without batting an eye. For cities and states who wish to declare themselves "sanctuary", well they lose all federal funding until they get back in line.

I disagree with you, but fair enough.

OF course not. One of those values is obedience to the law. If you don't like it, obey it and work for change.

These people DO work. That isn't the issue. Should they obey the law? Well, yeah...but for a couple of hundred years, we understood that immigrants are our heartbeat and we're the promised land. Funny thing is, every group complains about the ones that come after them. I think a lot of the problem here is we're dealing with brown people. That's making some folk cranky. Just my opinion.

Question for you. Without cutting and pasting, how would President J shape immigration?

Heh...President J? I like you.

Seriously? First, I have no need for cut and paste to give you a full answer. I have my own opinions on this subject. Second, I think that, often, politicians are incredibly heavy-handed and, instead of taking a measured approach to a problem, take sledge-hammers to it and muck up the whole thing. I also think the hysteria over this issue is largely manufactured... nothing's changed in decades, so the fact that the debate has suddenly become so heated is largely the result of the manipulation of both politicians and the media.

That said.... I think first we put enough people to work in the INS to actually do the job properly and stop trying to do it on the cheap (relatively). Once we do that, we should enforce existing laws to see what the effectiveness is. If it isn't effective, we should evaluate where the gaps are and fill them in. Before we actually enforce all existing laws, how can we discuss changes?

In terms of the people here already who have children who are U.S. citizens... we have to make special accommodations for them. We don't separate families, nor do we deport our own. So with regard to them, there should be some type of "permanent resident" status which can be earned by public service, payment of penalties and they would have to pay taxes. Citizenship should only ever be granted after being a permanent resident for a certain number of years and passage of a citizenship test, in English, like it's always been done.

I will tell you what horrified me. One day last week, someone wrote on one of these threads that place of birth shouldn't determine citizenship any longer and that it should, instead, be based on bloodlines. That sounded far too much like the Neuremberg laws to me and I thought how horrible that anyone in this country would think like that.

*Edit* I forgot this...

I would also get Bush's "good friend" Vicente Fox to stop outsourcing the only decent labor that Mexico had. They need industry; they need a middle class and need to create an environment where we aren't such an attractive escape.

 

[dilloduck]

These people DO work. That isn't the issue. Should they obey the law? Well, yeah...but for a couple of hundred years, we understood that immigrants are our heartbeat and we're the promised land. Funny thing is, every group complains about the ones that come after them. I think a lot of the problem here is we're dealing with brown people. That's making some folk cranky. Just my opinion.

Playing the race card ?

 

[pegwinn]

See...I think that's disgusting. He's gonna get slammed because the law is that the FLSA takes precedence and they might deport these guys, but they'll get paid in the meantime.

Still cannot find the link. That's the trouble with hearing it on radio.

I disagree with you, but fair enough.

What is it you disagree with?

These people DO work. That isn't the issue. Should they obey the law? Well, yeah...but for a couple of hundred years, we understood that immigrants are our heartbeat and we're the promised land. Funny thing is, every group complains about the ones that come after them. I think a lot of the problem here is we're dealing with brown people. That's making some folk cranky. Just my opinion.

The point of my comment was working to change the law.

Heh...President J? I like you.

Seriously? First, I have no need for cut and paste to give you a full answer. I have my own opinions on this subject. Second, I think that, often, politicians are incredibly heavy-handed and, instead of taking a measured approach to a problem, take sledge-hammers to it and muck up the whole thing. I also think the hysteria over this issue is largely manufactured... nothing's changed in decades, so the fact that the debate has suddenly become so heated is largely the result of the manipulation of both politicians and the media.

That said.... I think first we put enough people to work in the INS to actually do the job properly and stop trying to do it on the cheap (relatively). Once we do that, we should enforce existing laws to see what the effectiveness is. If it isn't effective, we should evaluate where the gaps are and fill them in. Before we actually enforce all existing laws, how can we discuss changes?

In terms of the people here already who have children who are U.S. citizens... we have to make special accommodations for them. We don't separate families, nor do we deport our own. So with regard to them, there should be some type of "permanent resident" status which can be earned by public service, payment of penalties and they would have to pay taxes. Citizenship should only ever be granted after being a permanent resident for a certain number of years and passage of a citizenship test, in English, like it's always been done.

I will tell you what horrified me. One day last week, someone wrote on one of these threads that place of birth shouldn't determine citizenship any longer and that it should, instead, be based on bloodlines. That sounded far too much like the Neuremberg laws to me and I thought how horrible that anyone in this country would think like that.

*Edit* I forgot this...

I would also get Bush's "good friend" Vicente Fox to stop outsourcing the only decent labor that Mexico had. They need industry; they need a middle class and need to create an environment where we aren't such an attractive escape.

Here is my take on how to run immigration:

I am solidly in the middle on Immigration. Normally being in the middle means that you will be run over by both left and right.

I believe that there should be no immigration quotas at all.

I believe that anyone with a reasonably clean background who can be in the country for a period of years, working, contributing to the community, who learns English, and can pass a civics test should be considered for citizenship.

I also believe that they should bring letters of reference to vouch for character.

I belive that anyone in the country illegally is a criminal and if caught should be prosecuted.

I believe that if you are deported, you should be chipped. And if you return illegally, you are imprisoned, then deported again.

I believe it is the employers job to ensure you are legal. If you are not legal then the employer needs to be bankrupted by the legal action taken when he's busted.

I don't belive illegals rate any of Americas social programs. The USSC disagrees with me on that one since they already ruled illegals and their kids have a right to public education.

I believe border security should be secret. We cannot cover it all and a fence is simply wasting money. We monitor the border covertly, and interdict (with deadly force if needed) the high traffic areas.

I believe that only Americans or legal Aliens should be allowed to get a drivers license.

I believe that legal aliens convicted of a crime should be deported after punishment if found guilty.

 

[Gunny]

Sorry, Gunny. You know I enjoy your posts, but I think that's sort of tortured logic. Why should an employer who avails himself of an illegal's cheap labor then be able to say "sorry, chief, I don't have to pay you. get yourself back across the border." All of us have immigrant ancestors in our background. I think that the immigration laws should be enforced, but we can't do so in such a way that we forget that the Statue of Liberty still means something as does Emma Lazarus' poem, "The New Colossus".



Should this country give up the values it has always had? Or aren't we any longer a safe refuge for people who want a better life?

The toruted logic is going from an idiot in a car wreck to THIS.

Presumably, most or all of our ancestors immigrated LEGALLY (key word here!) I know mine did.

Your idea of what the Statue of Liberty stands for is about as ancient as the statue itself. The US no longer has room nor the resources to support unchecked immigration. And again, the Statue of Liberty stands for LEGAL immigration.

Lastly, I made no comment concerning employers of illegals. You just added 1+1 and got 3. Employers of illegals should be punished to the fullest extent of the law when caught. Simple as that. I do not distinguish between the illegals being criminals and the criminals who hire them.

One crime does not excuse the other.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Sorry, Gunny. You know I enjoy your posts, but I think that's sort of tortured logic. Why should an employer who avails himself of an illegal's cheap labor then be able to say "sorry, chief, I don't have to pay you. get yourself back across the border." All of us have immigrant ancestors in our background. I think that the immigration laws should be enforced, but we can't do so in such a way that we forget that the Statue of Liberty still means something as does Emma Lazarus' poem, "The New Colossus".



Should this country give up the values it has always had? Or aren't we any longer a safe refuge for people who want a better life?

Palestinians just want a better life in Israel. Why is Israel SO MEAN?

 

[dilloduck]

Palestinians just want a better life in Israel. Why is Israel SO MEAN?

Cmon--all the displaced arabs want to destroy Israel--the don't really wanna live there. Besides--they aren't Jewish.

 

[pegwinn]

Was listening to Sirius today enroute to a job about three hours away and heard something strange.

According to the talker we cannot slam employers because their hands are tied. Seems they are legally accountable if they hire illegals, but if they attempt to verify suspected forged documentation they are liable for violation of civil liberties lawsuits. Seems the SS administration issues more warnings to employers........

Any of y'all got scoop on this? If true, then there's another pile needing to be scooped up before the problem is clean.