The London Economist has announced that a lopsided majority of its readers in a just-concluded online poll think that the recent execution of Humberto Leal Garcia should have been delayed because “American authorities never informed Mr Leal of his right to contact the Mexican consulate, as required under international treaty obligations” [Rush to judgment, July 18, 2011]
This news that the globalist elite sides with the United Nations, the Mexican government, and the Obama and for that matter George W. Bush Administrations, must obviously remove any doubt that the “American authorities” a.k.a. Texas were right to execute Leal for raping and killing a 16-year old American girl.
The legal objections to Leal’s execution were silly but sinister—further evidence of the relentless pressure to subjugate the U.S. to internationalist law. But the coverage of the case reveals that a new propaganda ploy is being insinuated into American political discourse—right up there with “undocumented immigrant”.
Leal turned out to be a “Mexican national”—the new Politically Correct term for “illegal alien trying to escape U.S. justice”.
Normally, the Left does not want local police to inquire about immigration status. Look at the opposition to Secure Communities, 287g, and Arizona’s SB 1070. San Antonio, where Leal committed the murder, is more or less a sanctuary city.
But the police mysteriously should be able to figure out if a criminal is an illegal alien so they can inform him of his right to consult the local consular officials, per the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. On these grounds, the United Nations’ International Court of Justice said in 2004 that the US should review the cases of 51 “Mexican nationals” on death row. But in 2005, Congress explicitly withdrew from optional provisions in the treaty that grants jurisdiction to the World Court if there are disputes.
In 2008, notorious conservative, foreign policy unilateralist, Texan cowboy George W. Bush sided with the UN and Mexico against his own state to intervene on behalf of death row inmate Jose Medellin on the grounds of lack of consular assistance. (Medellin was another illegal alien and gang member who participated in the rape and murder of two girls, aged 14 and 16, later saying how he “had fun”.)
However, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Texas, stating that Congress did not intend for the treaty to apply to the states, but that Congress could amend the treaty to change to make it so if they wished.
The overwhelmingly Democratic 110th and 111th Congress did not so wish. And it is virtually unthinkable that the current Congress will. Nonetheless, the Obama administration attempted to stay Leal’s execution, claiming Congress might decide to amend the treaty in the future; and that his execution would “seriously jeopardize” relations with Mexico.
The Supreme Court rejected these silly arguments, pointing out that its “task is to rule on what the law is, not what it might eventually be”—nor to defer to what the President thinks will help foreign relations [Humberto Leal Garcia vs. Texas] And Leal was executed July 7.
Main Stream Media coverage of the Leal case focused on the issues of international law and the death penalty. Needless to say, the immigration aspect was essentially ignored.
A search of “Humberto Leal Garcia” into Google News search finds thousands of articles about the execution. Add the term “illegal immigrant” or “illegal alien”, and you get a total of 19 articles. Add the PC euphemism “undocumented” and there isn’t a single story. (Nor, of course, for VDARE.com’s new house style term, “undocumented Democrat”!).
Even that 19 is deceptively high—many times it showed up only in the comment thread.
Only three MSM pieces that mentioned Leal’s immigration status: a Waco, TX NBC affiliate, [Texas executes illegal immigrant after President Obama says "hold on", July 7, 2011]; an editorial against the execution in the Oklahoma City Oklahoman [International law and the death penalty, July 6, 2011] ; and a blog in the London Daily Telegraph [American Way: Texas execution signals Rick Perry is poised to run for president, Toby Harnden, July 9, 2011]
Not one national news site, not even Fox News, picked up on this conspicuous omission.
A couple of conservative sites did. In an essay in the American Thinker, Jeannie Deangelis said that Leal was “affectionately referred to as a Mexican national” by the MSM, rather than as an illegal alien.
It is not entirely accurate to say that the MSM is using the term “affectionately”. It would normally be loath to call an illegal immigrant who has been here since age two as a “Mexican national”. The usual media meme is that these potential DREAMers are American as apple pie. President Obama himself has argued that illegals “brought here by their parents at a very young age” are “growing up as American kids”. [Remarks by the President on Comprehensive Immigration Reform, Whitehouse.gov, July 1, 2010]
But if they are “American kids”, then why should they get consular rights from Mexico?
Calling an illegal alien a “Mexican national” suggests that he is not an American and his true home is Mexico, where he will presumably return. “Mexican national” conjures up tourists, businessmen, students, and other foreigners who are only in a country for a short time—rather than people who lived nearly their entire life in America.
Naturally, we can expect that the MSM and immigration enthusiasts (where distinguishable) will start referring to illegal aliens as “Mexican nationals” (or whatever their home country is) in future.
When he met his maker, Leal showed that he was a Mexican at heart. When asked for any last words, he confessed his crime and then said “Viva Mexico”. His family members burned T-shirts with the American flag on it.
The real issue: not the death penalty and consular rights, but why this “Mexican national” was in this country to begin with.
Postscript: in the very rare cases where a Hispanic or Black person is a victim of crime by a white person, such as James Byrd, there are many articles on the victims and the gruesome details. But the majority of media accounts fail to even mention her name, much less describe the crime.
So here is what occurred: On May 20, 1994, both then-21 year old Leal and then-16 year old Adria Sauceda attended the same party. Adria had been drinking and using drugs to the point that she could not walk straight. Several other partygoers took advantage of her inebriated state, and Leal feigned outrage at the situation. He lied and said that he knew her and would drive her home.
Leal later showed up at his house covered in blood and told his brother that he had killed a girl. His brother returned to the party to try to find out what happened. Along with other attendees at the party, they searched the area and eventually found Sauceda’s naked, bloody corpse alongside a dirt road. There was 30 pound mound of asphalt on top of her arm and a bloody stick protruding from her vagina.
The medical examiners determined she was both strangled and then bludgeoned to death with the piece of asphalt. There was never much doubt of Leal’s guilt.
Adria’s bloody blouse was found at Leal’s house, and her blood was on his underwear. After being arrested and given his rights, Leal confessed to killing her. Police soon learned that he had sexually assaulted another young girl just two weeks prior to the murder.
It’s important to note that had Leal been a US citizen and the facts of the case been exactly the same, neither Obama nor George W. Bush would have lifted a finger. And the Economist magazine would have run no poll.
Alexander Hart (email him) is a conservative journalist.