The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: bryand71 on June 08, 2009, 03:17:27 PM
-
I thought that only CITIZENS and LEGAL IMMIGRANTS (green cards, valid visa) had any rights guaranteed by the US Constitution? This is a very slippery slope that this judge has started going down. :'(
http://enews.earthlink.net/article/us?guid=20090608/4a2c8cc0_3ca6_1552620090608-1350045571
Judge: Immigrants' rights violated in Conn. raids
By DAVE COLLINS (Associated Press Writer)
From Associated Press
June 08, 2009 1:22 PM EST
HARTFORD, Conn. - Federal agents violated the constitutional rights of four illegal immigrants in raids that critics say were retaliation for a New Haven program that provided ID cards to foreigners in the country illegally, a federal judge has ruled.
The sweeps in New Haven on June 6, 2007, came two days after the city approved issuing identification cards to all city residents, regardless of immigration status. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials deny the early morning raids were retaliatory, saying planning began the year before.
Immigration Judge Michael Straus, in decisions last week, said the ICE agents went into the immigrants' homes without warrants, probable cause or their consent, and he put a stop to deportation proceedings against the four defendants, whose names were not released. ICE officials claim all four are from Mexico, but all four cited their Fifth Amendment rights in refusing to say what country they are from.
Two of the four immigrants lived in one home, and two lived in a second home. They said in affidavits that agents barged into both homes after residents had opened their doors only a little. The agents went into both homes looking for specific illegal immigrants on a "target list," who weren't found, court documents say.
Immigration officials have denied claims that the 32 arrests that morning were improper, and they said the people who were arrested had been ordered by judges to leave the country. They said in court documents that they were allowed into the homes during the sweep.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement authorities are reviewing the judge's ruling and will decide later whether to appeal, agency spokeswoman Paula Grenier said Monday. The department has 30 days to file a challenge. Grenier declined further comment.
Witnesses alleged in court documents that parents were arrested in front of their frightened children, agents refused to identify themselves and told people in the homes to shut up.
In his rulings issued June 1 and 2, Straus said the four immigrants' rights were "egregiously violated" and the agents' entries in the apartments were "unlawful."
"Examination of the agents' ... conduct confirms (the defendant's) Fourth Amendment rights were flagrantly violated," Straus wrote in one immigrant's case.
"The touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is 'reasonableness' and, by natural extension, one's reasonable expectation of privacy," the judge wrote. "Nowhere is that expectation of privacy more sacrosanct than in the confines of one's home."
Of the 32 people arrested, 30 were released on bond or supervision orders. Seventeen of those 30 immigrants challenged their arrests in court.
Straus denied motions in 11 of the 17 cases, granted motions in four of them and reserved decision in the remaining two. Of the 11 cases in which motions were denied, one person was later granted asylum by the judge and the other 10 have appealed.
Yale Law School students are representing the immigrants, who still live in New Haven.
"We're obviously very happy about it," Anant Saraswat, one of the students, said Monday. "We think our clients had a very strong case."
Saraswat said it won't be known for about a month whether federal authorities will appeal Straus' ruling. He said the case can be appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, then to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York.
New Haven officials have said the raids appeared to be retaliatory for the ID cards, which are meant to help immigrants open bank accounts and receive city services.
-
New Haven officials have said the raids appeared to be retaliatory for the ID cards, which are meant to help immigrants open bank accounts and receive city services.
New Haven officials should be jailed for conspiracy to violate federal immigration law.
-
The annoying thing is that this a tough one and it shouldn't be. Illegal immigrants are, by their presence committing a crime. That being said warrantless searches by the feds are a VERY BAD THING. How hard would it have been for this brain trust to take five minutes to get search/arrest warrants for these folks? Were the agents stupid, lazy or just arrogant? Choose three of the above. The problem is that it sets a precedent which could make such raids (may there be many more) harder.
FQ13
-
Obama and the Dems open border policy pure BS
-
What is it with these idiot judges. Why do they insist on confering Constitutional rights on ILLEGAL immigrants and enemy combatants. If you're not an American citizen, you don't get any rights guaranteed by the American Constitution.
-
They get it the same place 'anchor babies" come from.
Their interpretation of our 'living document' Constitution. >:(
-
Sorry boys, but you're both wrong. The Constitution proscribes the government from taking certain actions. It doesn't and shouldn't matter if you are a ctizen or not. The Bill of Rights is basically a big list of "Thou shalt nots" applied to the feds (on US soil). The judge was right. The blame lies with idiot agents who could very easily have gotten a warrant and didn't.
FQ13
PS Don't get me wrong. I want the illegals arrested and deported. I just want the feds to get a damn warrant before they start showing up at people's doors.
-
Sorry boys, but you're both wrong. The Constitution proscribes the government from taking certain actions. It doesn't and shouldn't matter if you are a ctizen or not. The Bill of Rights is basically a big list of "Thou shalt nots" applied to the feds (on US soil). The judge was right. The blame lies with idiot agents who could very easily have gotten a warrant and didn't.
FQ13
So.... let's say that you illegally sneak into Saudia Arabia and you are captured and tried for your crime. You will most certainly be tried under Saudi law, but do you believe that the Saudi government can in any way be coerced or legally required to afford you the same rights that they give to their own citizens. Feel free to exchange Mexico, Greenland, Columbia, Cuba, Italy, Iran or most any country of your choice for Saudi Arabia. Anyone in any country ILLEGALLY should expect to be tried under that countries laws, but they would be foolish to believe that they will be guaranteed any of the rights of the legal citizenry. Try getting them to throw the case out of court because the Saudi police came into your house or hotel room without a warrant, assuming that one is required for their citizens.
-
So.... let's say that you illegally sneak into Saudia Arabia and you are captured and tried for your crime. You will most certainly be tried under Saudi law, but do you believe that the Saudi government can in any way be coerced or legally required to afford you the same rights that they give to their own citizens. Feel free to exchange Mexico, Greenland, Columbia, Cuba, Italy, Iran or most any country of your choice for Saudi Arabia. Anyone in any country ILLEGALLY should expect to be tried under that countries laws, but they would be foolish to believe that they will be guaranteed any of the rights of the legal citizenry. Try getting them to throw the case out of court because the Saudi police came into your house or hotel room without a warrant, assuming that one is required for their citizens.
One of the many reasons why I don't live in Saudi Arabia. This isn't so much of question should as its a question of is. The Bill of Rights applies to all persons on US soil, period, full stop. Its why we keep our detainees at GITMO, the constitution doesn't apply outside of US territory as clearly as it does here. The fact is that giving illegals (actually giving is the wrong word because under our Constitution they already have them) the same rights as a legal resident is not a hinderance to law enforcement. As the article made clear, these raids were planned. They knew who they were after and where they were, getting a warrant would have been no problem. This is where I as Libertarian get pissed at the feds. I really, really hate the idea of cops, federal cops in particular, showing up at ANY door without a warrant. That way lies badness and you've got to see that Kid.
FQ13
-
One of the many reasons why I don't live in Saudi Arabia. This isn't so much of question should as its a question of is. The Bill of Rights applies to all persons on US soil, period, full stop. Its why we keep our detainees at GITMO, the constitution doesn't apply outside of US territory as clearly as it does here. The fact is that giving illegals (actually giving is the wrong word because under our Constitution they already have them) the same rights as a legal resident is not a hinderance to law enforcement. As the article made clear, these raids were planned. They knew who they were after and where they were, getting a warrant would have been no problem. This is where I as Libertarian get pissed at the feds. I really, really hate the idea of cops, federal cops in particular, showing up at ANY door without a warrant. That way lies badness and you've got to see that Kid.
FQ13
OK, I've got to ask. Where in the Constitution does it say that it applies to anyone on U.S. soil. Can you cite a specific court ruling that upheld that the Bill of Rights applies to anyone on U.S. soil. I'm willing to be educated. I agree with you about not wanting the Feds or any law enforcement agent busting in doors without a warrant........so long as the door belongs to a U.S. citizen.
-
OK, I've got to ask. Where in the Constitution does it say that it applies to anyone on U.S. soil. Can you cite a specific court ruling that upheld that the Bill of Rights applies to anyone on U.S. soil. I'm willing to be educated. I agree with you about not wanting the Feds or any law enforcement agent busting in doors without a warrant........so long as the door belongs to a U.S. citizen.
Thats a great question Kid. I do know that the Court has always held the Bill of Rights as a limitation on federal actions, as in "Congress shall pass no law" or "Shall not be infringed" as much as grants on individual liberty. It works two ways (in theory), a negative limitation on the state, and a positive grant to the people. As far as when this applied to illegsls, I don't know. I do know that it has, except for those deemed enemy combatants, and Lincoln and Rossevelt's illegal suspension of Habeas Corpus under the War Powers doctrine. Likewise Native Americans prior to 1920 got screwed as they were held to be citizens of dependent domestic nations, not US citizens, and therefore goverened by treaty. I think the Wick Lo case addresses this but I'm not sure, I'll look it up and get back to you.
FQ13
-
OK, I've got to ask. Where in the Constitution does it say that it applies to anyone on U.S. soil. Can you cite a specific court ruling that upheld that the Bill of Rights applies to anyone on U.S. soil. I'm willing to be educated. I agree with you about not wanting the Feds or any law enforcement agent busting in doors without a warrant........so long as the door belongs to a U.S. citizen.
As usual FQ is wrong as is the Judge, I don't know the reference but a couple years ago SCOTUS ruled that illegal search did NOT automatically disqualify evidence that would have been obtained had the search been legal. It was a drug case.
-
Thats a great question Kid. I do know that the Court has always held the Bill of Rights as a limitation on federal actions, as in "Congress shall pass no law" or "Shall not be infringed" as much as grants on individual liberty. It works two ways (in theory), a negative limitation on the state, and a positive grant to the people. As far as when this applied to illegsls, I don't know. I do know that it has, except for those deemed enemy combatants, and Lincoln and Rossevelt's illegal suspension of Habeas Corpus under the War Powers doctrine. Likewise Native Americans prior to 1920 got screwed as they were held to be citizens of dependent domestic nations, not US citizens, and therefore goverened by treaty. I think the Wick Lo case addresses this but I'm not sure, I'll look it up and get back to you.
FQ13
Thanks for the update. I'll look forward to your findings on the Wick Lo case. The designation of Native Americans as non citizens prior to 1920 and therefore not entitled to rights as citizens would seem to support my conjecture regarding the lack of rights for non citizens. I'm curious about your personal feelings regarding confering Heller (2nd Amendment) rights to illegal aliens. Do you personally believe, legal stance not considered, that illegal aliens should have the right to "Keep and Bear Arms?"
-
Not just NO but F^#@ NO !
-
As usual FQ is wrong as is the Judge, I don't know the reference but a couple years ago SCOTUS ruled that illegal search did NOT automatically disqualify evidence that would have been obtained had the search been legal. It was a drug case.
Actually, a few months ago and it was a bad ruling, as what else will keep the cops from ignoring the need for a warrant? Fear that they'll get arrested and charged? Even you don't believe that Tom. The point is that the cops have to have a warrant to come into our homes. You may trust federal law enforcement,and welcome them into your house. Me, not so much. I like the the 4th ammendment, and think that we should enforce it. Cops can get a warrant for the asking, its not hard to do. Therefore, if they don't, its their fault if they think that they are above the laws that they supposedly enforce. I am pro-leo, I just have a healthy suspicion of armed agents of the state that have the ability to kill me or ruin my life. I think they should be held to the law. If you disagree, thats fine.
FQ13
-
Never said I agreed with it, said I remembered it. As it happens I hate LEO's, Cops are OK but LEO's suck.
-
Not just NO but F^#@ NO !
Howdy Tom,
I assume that you're responding to my question about illegals having 2nd Amend. rights. I was really just asking FQ13. I can't possibly believe that any other member of this entire forum would reply with a yes.
-
Howdy Tom,
I assume that you're responding to my question about illegals having 2nd Amend. rights. I was really just asking FQ13. I can't possibly believe that any other member of this entire forum would reply with a yes.
;D He never did answer that, did he ;D
-
Thanks for the update. I'll look forward to your findings on the Wick Lo case. The designation of Native Americans as non citizens prior to 1920 and therefore not entitled to rights as citizens would seem to support my conjecture regarding the lack of rights for non citizens. I'm curious about your personal feelings regarding confering Heller (2nd Amendment) rights to illegal aliens. Do you personally believe, legal stance not considered, that illegal aliens should have the right to "Keep and Bear Arms?"
I agre with Tom here. The 2A, like all rights, does come with conditions. We have free speech, but libel isn't protected. Likewise free excersize of religion, but human sacrifice isn't allowed and you still have to take your kid to the doctor. For the 2A, there are certain qualifications to having a gun, like being of age and not being a criminal. Illegals are, by definition criminals, or to be more PC ,un-lawabiding persons ::), ergo no gun.
FQ13
-
;D He never did answer that, did he ;D
Not yet, I guess that he's taking a little while to ponder his answer. Might be a good sign or then again......
-
Not yet, I guess that he's taking a little while to ponder his answer. Might be a good sign or then again......
Actually, I kind of answered in the above post, hower, I'll quote Tom, F#@#@ No! As far as this thread, kid, we aren't really arguing. I'm just reporting what the rules are. If you don't like them, fine, but I didn't make them. Don't shoot the messenger, because they tend to shoot back (at least on this board). ;D
FQ13
-
I agre with Tom here. The 2A, like all rights, does come with conditions. We have free speech, but libel isn't protected. Likewise free excersize of religion, but human sacrifice isn't allowed and you still have to take your kid to the doctor. For the 2A, there are certain qualifications to having a gun, like being of age and not being a criminal. Illegals are, by definition criminals, or to be more PC ,un-lawabiding persons ::), ergo no gun.
FQ13
I like your thinking on that one FQ13. Common ground, it's a good thing. So is respectful disagreement. I enjoy viewing your side. Based upon your very staunch Libertarian perspectives, I find it almost inconcievable that you would have voted for Obama (that's what I've read from others). Obama is the epitome of anti Libertarianism as he is growning our Federal Government unlike anything seen before. He also seems to believe in dictating to the people and has appointed more Czars than ever before. Your thoughts?
-
I like your thinking on that one FQ13. Common ground, it's a good thing. So is respectful disagreement. I enjoy viewing your side. Based upon your very staunch Libertarian perspectives, I find it almost inconcievable that you would have voted for Obama (that's what I've read from others). Obama is the epitome of anti Libertarianism as he is growning our Federal Government unlike anything seen before. He also seems to believe in dictating to the people and has appointed more Czars than ever before. Your thoughts?
I've had this debate too many times on this board. Everyone is bored with it. I'll PM you
FQ13
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama_budget;_ylt=AuPP9.frgbM9GB66RdUQ2zyMwfIE;_ylu=X3oDMTJhOGJudmlnBGFzc2V0Ay9hcC91c19vYmFtYV9idWRnZXQEY3BvcwM2BHBvcwM2BHNlYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcmllcwRzbGsDb2JhbWFpdHNva3Rv
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama on Tuesday proposed budget rules that would allow Congress to borrow tens of billions of dollars and put the nation deeper in debt to jump-start the administration's emerging health care overhaul.
The "pay-as-you-go" budget formula plan is significantly weaker than a proposal Obama issued with little fanfare last month.
It would carve out about $2.5 trillion worth of exemptions for Obama's priorities over the next decade. His health care reform plan also would get a green light to run big deficits in its early years. But over a decade, Congress would have to come up with money to cover those early year deficits.
Obama's latest proposal for addressing deficits urges Congress to pass a law requiring lawmakers to pay for new spending programs and tax cuts without further adding to exploding deficits projected to total about $10 trillion over the next decade.
If new spending or tax reductions are not offset, there would be automatic cuts in so-called mandatory programs — although Social Security payments and the Medicaid health care program for poor and disabled would be exempt and cuts to Medicare would be sharply limited.
"The 'pay-as-you-go' rule is very simple," Obama said. "Congress can only spend a dollar if it saves a dollar elsewhere."
Last month Obama suggested a tougher plan that would prohibit Congress from swelling the deficit in one year by putting off until later years the tax increases or spending cuts to pay for it.
The requirement for legislation to be financed over the coming decade generally mirrors existing congressional rules and reflects the likelihood that Obama's health care plan will add many billions of dollars to the deficit in the early years. Savings and revenues in later years would have to make up for the initial deficits.
Congress lived under a so-called "pay-go" regime in the 1990s and the early years of this decade. But it didn't stop lawmakers from passing President George W. Bush's landmark 2001 and 2003 tax cuts and big increases in farm subsidies without making the required spending cuts elsewhere. A $127 billion surplus in 2001 subsequently turned into deficits over the next four years of $159 billion, $377 billion, $413 billion and $319 billion.
The rules still exist and lawmakers routinely find ways around them. For example, a bill to effectively double GI Bill education benefits was enacted last year. Congress also regularly waives the rules to pass an annual "patch" to the alternative minimum tax, sparing some 20 million families from a $2,000 tax increase on average.
Still, Democrats profess a faith in pay-as-you-go rules.
"It is no coincidence that this rule was in place when we moved from record deficits to record surpluses in the 1990s — and that when this rule was abandoned, we returned to record deficits that doubled the national debt," Obama said.
In fact, the surpluses of the late 1990s were largely due to a huge influx of tax revenues from a booming economy.
Rep. Dennis Moore, D-Kan., said the House is likely to pass Obama's latest proposal next month. The plan faces far tougher sledding in the Senate, where Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D., has expressed serious reservations.
Conrad said Obama's proposal does nothing about the fiscal perils the country already faces, including deficits that the Congressional Budget Office predicts will average nearly $1 trillion a year over the next decade.
"I remain concerned about the potential effect of this proposal on American farmers, seniors and veterans," said Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.
Republicans said new budget rules ring hollow in the wake of the Obama-championed $787 billion stimulus package and other deficit spending. They said legal limits on appropriations should be put into place as they were in the 1990s, though such "caps" were easily evaded when surpluses appeared.
Congress is just ramping up the annual appropriations process, which in the House would award increases averaging 12 percent to non-defense programs. Obama's proposal does not include the comparable "caps" from the 1990s.
"Time after time this year, Democrats have ignored calls for fiscal responsibility," said House GOP leader John Boehner of Ohio. "We don't need more rhetoric and gimmicks. We need action to tackle the tremendous fiscal challenges facing this nation."
Obama's proposal would require future tax cuts to be financed by tax increases elsewhere. But again, he carves out several exceptions, including for an extension of Bush's tax cuts due to expire in 2011 and relief from the alternative minimum tax.
The federal deficit is on pace to explode past $1.8 trillion this year, more than four times last year's all-time high. The record borrowing is credited with pushing up interest rates, which could imperil chances for a recovery later in the year.