or enterprises where the object of the enterprise is to bring the drugs from someplace outside the country to someplace in the interior of the country the construction that we're proposing i don't think in any way inhibits the government's prosecuted as an aider and abettor for this crime and in fact i think under our feet under the construction that we're urging today that the results in remarriage martina's and england would be the same because in both of those cases there was a showing that there was action on the shocking to say that if you were brought to the united states that in there you are saying stand eagle county and then you have to drive one hundred twenty four miles for two more hours to get to los angeles and during that entire time all of which you are inside the united states it's still  getting away here congress still has a seamless web of life building that that goes all the way back to inducement and continues on and there really wasn't any reason in one thousand nine hundred six for congress to think well we have to be able to get them for both bringing two and transportation in the penalties at that point back in i think six were exactly the same now of course if this forthrightly reads the brings to offense it will subject people like this locust without any evidence that she was that leader in a better beef before the entry to a minimum that the construction that we're offering is not cutting off all liability for people who act only on this side of the fork there is the possibility of aiding and abetting liability under certain circumstances on it and if i understand your concede that if a person's role in the smuggling venture was the transporter from somewhere on the u s side near the border or to some interior part like los angeles the money the people who service the coyote's the people who service the transporters and i don't know if there's somebody else they could all be found guilty as long as their participation could be shown to have been  activity it told them to focus on this immediate destination language and the district court allowed this lopez to be convicted under a theory that she acted after they were in the united states in some time before they  so if you don't agree with me on the sufficiency claim then there's also the jury instruction for life and because that took the jury's focus always from whether or not ms lopez did things before they came to the united states it's a constitutional there i think structural but at least  brought here anymore so i don't think that he'd seen you sign and if congress had wanted it to continue on for venue purposes he could have added the language that it added to thirty two thirty seven i find that to be completely inconsistent with what you said earlier in response to my question that under a different set of facts you could have liability for the bringing to events even for the party who transported to a lot of things yet you third if there's a showing of conduct on the person's part prior t i think the problem with this provision is this this language brought into a brings into is interpreted to require an entry in the immigration law which means you are free from official restraint or alluding inspection or something along those lines so that's a highly technical if that's correct it doesn't but out that doesn't change at all the purposeful nature of the change from brings into the brains to and again if congress had wanted to capture even whatever brings into viens it could've written thirteen twenty four so as to cover you sort of sneak up to the border and say you know has this way anybody expects no you actually have to cross the border and that's probably too amounts to but even if you cross the border into an ambush even if the of an object or person in the united states thirty thirty seven he did say that in thirteen twenty four it did not meet our immigration statutes that think thirteen twenty eight is an example that actually uses the import into language so that he and i construction to say well congress come to answer all remained in the united states in violation of law of the used to be in the old version or requirement i think that you had to act within three years of the original entry but now it doesn't have that basically once you cross authorize people to walk up to you but not cross the border so clearly when we're talking about a class of individuals who grabbed have or have not received authorization to come to the united states we are talking about a class of individuals reach their bargain for or agreed upon destination let's not forget we are talking here about a crime of winning to the united states for financial gain there is no range which has been made there is no one involved in this offense not the people who made the reasons in mexico not the aliens being smuggled not the people who are picking them up at the border there is no one involved in this offense that thinks it is over until they reach their bargain for clarifies that a person who knowingly transports an undocumented alien to any place in the united states it goes on to say additionally the building is probably used or was knowingly brilliant millions whether documented or not decide define quite ended means for purposes of thirteen twenty four what's the government's position if you've got drug cases where they talk about the final destination right you've got the illustration emily go of hot pursuit that didn't seem to satisfy anybody what what is the government's position what is the definition of ended for purposes of this statute i think of her less than i think it is the agreed upon old bargain for destination and the reason why i think that is fair is number one it is true to what entire statutory scheme in deciding whether or not if you continue to invoke the office court was confronted with and it's a crime of the sixteen escapes and the court noted that there's also a crime of harboring an escapee so this court did not adopt a broad interpretation of the not your position but if you adopt that council the government has to go after the standardised to be the end it would be an agreed upon our bargain for in the more terminations what's your position on that but i would just screw  that because not every brings to a fence requires any sort of financial gain the main assume is not financial you can have an agreement without finances being involved well i still think that creates a substantial problem because what if you never reach your agreed upon your agreed upon came and picked them up i think that would give that a fair point i think liability should the terminated for that offense absent some showing at least before that point which is why i brought up the dean cain course of the case which i think is a much more modest extension of an offense th