Judge: Immigrants' rights violated in Conn. raids

[AlphaCentauri]

Source: AP

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 on June 6, 2007, came two days after New Haven approved issuing identification cards to illegal immigrants. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials deny the early morning raids were retaliatory.

Immigration Judge Michael Straus, in a decision last week, said the ICE agents went into the men's apartments without warrants, probable cause or their consent, and he put a stop to deportation proceedings against the four Latino defendants. Immigration officials have denied claims that the 32 arrests that morning were improper. They said in court documents that they were allowed into the homes. It was not clear whether they will appeal Straus' ruling. Messages were left Monday morning for a spokeswoman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Witnesses described in court documents how parents were arrested in front of their children and alleged that agents refused to identify themselves and told people in the homes to shut up. In his ruling issued June 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 of the four men's cases.



Read more: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gAMBfpMm52NacxL3ELKg_B_Mi0jQD98MJ2QO2

[downindixie]

1. I just can't believe that someone

who entered this country illegally should have Constitutional rights!

[Bankhead_ATL]

2. Yeah agree...I am all for immigration but it has to be legal

[Dogtown]

3. Constitutional rights are

basic human rights codified by our founders or later leaders.

Slaves were excluded originally because of the incorrect assumption that they were not human, a grievous injustice we've been attempting to correct since the Civil War.





Would you deny basic human rights to any within our jurisdiction?

Would you help to create a new disenfranchised caste in our society?

[WriteDown]

6. No it doesn't....

Even the 14th amendment made the distinction toward citizens

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

[Dogtown]

8. Thanks for making my case:

"...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."



"nor deny to *any* person."

[WriteDown]

9. Its referring to the first sentence that said "citizens!"

Kind of like this. "Jimmy has the ability to fly over building. He can fire laser beams from his eyes too." Based on that, can all people fire laser beams? This is English 101 people.

[Dogtown]

12. Back to Remedial for you, WriteWrong.

Your example is grammatically incorrect as well as clumsy and crude. Please proof before giving expository advice, lest you look stupid. I know it was just a typo, but proof-reading is *very* basic to clear exposition.

I call your example crude because you postulate two impossible scenarios to point out...what? It is sophomoric to try and disprove a premise with fallacious statements. The intent is obvious: to color the argument with foolish examples in the hopes that the premise is equally tainted. It can only effectively prejudice the simple-minded and naive.

Your interpretation is incorrect, also.

"Any" means "any. It doesn't mean "only the same people we spoke of earlier". You may *want* it to mean that, but "any person" means any person. Hence the exclusionary "nor". They (the States) can't abridge the rights of "citizens". They (the States) can't deny "any person" equal protection.

If you can't hurdle your desires any better than to redefine "any" to mean "only those specific people we mentioned in the previous clause", you're no one to be lecturing others. Your opinion is biased, and tainted.

There exists reams of court decisions that refute your claim.



So, you support denying certain classes of people their basic human rights?

[WriteDown]

16. So they just threw in that first sentence for fun?

Under US law, illegal immigrants are allowed to be deported. Seems like that is denying them there pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. How do you reconcile this?

[Dogtown]

22. If due process is observed

and it can be proved, without violating their civil rights, they can be punished. Once it is proven, legally, that they have violated the law, they are subject to the penalty for the violation.

Just like *any* convicted person. Or are you trying to suggest that every prisoner in the United States penal system is a victim of civil rights abuse, since they've been deprived of their freedom?

This really isn't all that convoluted.


The quotation you offered is one sentence, so I don't know what "first sentence was thrown in for fun". The various clauses within that sentence are not mutually exclusive, they pertain to different aspects of the question, "can States pass laws that abrogate individual rights?" The answer provided by the crafters of the amendment is clearly "No." There follows specific descriptions to avoid confusion and to negate any possible attempt to exclude classes of people. In this example, the rights of "illegal" aliens cannot be abridged.

"Illegal immigration" was not a button-issue when this amendment was ratified, rather, a different class of people was being disenfranchised. The writers clearly wanted to be as clear as possible, to protect future "separate classes" from discrimination; hence, "any person".

Elegantly written, that 14th Amendment.

[WriteDown]

25. A citizen cannot be deported.

An illegal alien can. So obviously they are lacking some rights afforded to citizens, right?

[Dogtown]

26. Different penalties for different crimes

A shoplifter can't be electrocuted.

The penalty for someone *legally* convicted of being an "illegal alien" includes jail and/or deportation".

[WriteDown]

27. Ah, but not quite..

The Constitution specifically states that a US citizen cannot be deported from the US. So we agree that some part of the Constitution do not apply to non-citizens right?

[Dogtown]

28. Where?

What portion of the Constitution states that?

Perhaps you should re-read "The Man Without a Country", a fictional account based on an actual case.

[WriteDown]

34. I also posted downthread...

but its called the 14th amendment and you can even read about what the author meant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_Clause

[Dogtown]

37. That does not answer my question

I'll repeat, "Where does the Constitution state that a citizen cannot be deported?".

We've covered the 14th Amendment. You misread it. And it says NOTHING about deportation.

Don't change the subject. You made a claim, I countered with an actual precedent where a US citizen was deported.

You've also been provided with a citation by the SCOTUS that supports my interpretation.

Your "citation" names several members of Congress who objected to the language in the Amendment. They sought (improperly) to limit who could become citizens of the United States, they did not in any way address the extension of civil rights to non-citizens. Your citation does not apply to this discussion.

You're clutching at straws and attempting to muddy the waters. You fail to address specific faults in your arguments, you redundantly quote your previously debunked examples as authority. You talk in circles but the fact remains: this case was thrown out because it lacked merit and no wishful thinking on your part will change that.

You seem to have all the legal acumen of the "sovereign states" crowd. Unsavory compatriots.

You stand opposed to the Constitution and the courts. Perhaps you should pursue an education in constitutional law and proffer these arguments in court yourself.

[WriteDown]

38. So you're actually

arguing with the person who wrote the citizenship clause? I guess he didn't know what he wrote when he wrote it. :eyes:

[Dogtown]

40. You still haven't answered my question.

Are you willing to admit you were wrong, or would you just like to sweep the inconvenient truth under your mental carpet?

As to your claim that I'm "arguing with person who wrote the citizenship clause", you obviously didn't read or weren't able to comprehend your own citation:

"The citizenship clause (also known as the naturalization clause<1>) refers to a provision, in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution at section one, clause 1."

"Amendment XIV, Section 1, Clause 1:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

The "citizenship clause" is only one part of the 14th Amendment. It only addresses who is a US citizen by right of *jus soli*, that is to say, by right of birth on American soil. This citation has NOTHING to do with the rights of non-citizens other than becoming citizens. It certainly does not address due process.

Will you please actually read these citations before you present them as evidence? It's a waste of legitimate posters time to look up your citations and realize you haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about. Seriously, quit wasting our time with this garbage. Anyone can cut and paste a quote from Wiki.

You're being disruptive. Post something valid, or better yet, read and learn before you pontificate.

[WriteDown]

42. What's the point of being a citizen?

You've said that they have the same rights as citizens, right? :eyes:

[Dogtown]

43. No, I didn't

I said non-citizens can't be denied due process.
But I doubt you understand the phrase, or the distinction.

You are clearly the product of American exceptionalism. You actually believe you're "better" and deserve more than others because you're an American citizen.

And, yet, you haven't the faintest conception of what it all means. Even worse, you're too arrogant to *care* that you don't understand. I have no idea where you get your information. It's just appalling to me that people can escape from our school system with no clear understanding of how our country functions.



At this point I can't even determine if you're a disruptor or just abysmally ignorant. Your arguments are so weak and non-pertinent that I can't imagine a troll being so badly informed. Seriously, take some night-classes.

[WriteDown]

54. Let's review...

Initially, this is what was said:

WriteDown (1000+ posts) Mon Jun-08-09 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. No it doesn't....
Even the 14th amendment made the distinction toward citizens

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Dogtown (1000+ posts) Mon Jun-08-09 05:40 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. Thanks for making my case:
"...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

"nor deny to *any* person."

Obviously, I interpreted the words correctly per THE PEOPLE WHO WROTE IT. Also, its been pointed out downthread that other rights are not extended to non-citizens such as the right to vote and the right to seek to be POTUS.

The right for US citizens not to be deported has been established based on the 14th amendment by the courts.

Please respond without your usual name-calling and histrionics. Thanks. :)

[Dogtown]

58. No, but you really need to believe

that you interpreted correctly; hence, you will continue to believe so despite all evidence to the contrary.

"sayin' doesn't make it so", please present a citation for the court case re: deportation of citizens.

Name-calling is against the rules. I don't recall breaking that rule in this thread.

"Histrionics"? Ok, if that's how you choose to characterize "eloquence". Understandable that you'd choose to view it that way, considering your lack.


Once again, I'll try to bring you back on topic. This thread is about 'due process'. Not deportation. Not the Citizenship Clause. Not about building jumping-or ocular laser beams(and *you* complain about melodrama!)

Due process. I've allowed your digression, pointless as it has been.

Do you have *anything* to add to this discussion, that is to say, do you have any remarks pertinent to due process and it's application to immigration law?
Can you justify excluding a class of people from due process?

Do you even know what the phrase means?

[WriteDown]

59. Another non-response...

Either you are going to reply to the text and evidence presented or you are going to continue your diatribe. We've already proven that citizens have separate rights from non-citizens. Interestingly enough, its also been proven that the authors of the Constitution did not consider "Indians" as persons.

When did I advocate excluding people from due process?

[Dogtown]

61. Your "points" have all been rebutted

The 14th Amendment includes persons not just citizens. If the language is too convoluted for your interpretive skills, refer back to the court citation provided to you that directly quotes the 14th Amendment and stated that Texas must provide services as well as rights to illegal aliens.

The only other "point" you've made is your assertion that citizens can't be deported. Despite it's lack of pertinence to this thread, I offered you several opportunities to prove your dubious claim, all of which you tried to avoid.

I even provided you with an actual example disproving this claim. Your "best" response so far is to claim a court case that you neither name nor cite.

I HAVE replied and rebutted your fallacious "evidence". And you keep claiming that you've interpreted it better than SCOTUS, but have nothing to offer but your opinion.

As to replying to the "text", you mentioned my "histrionics". I responded to the text by quoting your overly dramatic post above. Please support your charge with an example of my "histrionics".


"When did I advocate excluding people from due process?" My post #3 expressed my opinion that the court's decision that due process had been denied was valid. You attempted to riposte that comment with your post #6. Obviously, if you objected to post #3 supporting the decision, you oppose it. QED, you would deny due process to a specific class of persons.

Defend your stance. The 14th Amendment disproves your stance. Have you got anything pertinent?


Your posts are incorrect, off-topic, and disruptive.

[WriteDown]

68. So you're saying the Citizenship Clause is

not part of the 14th amendment? Right?

You must be since its author is on record on what he meant when he wrote it.

I also like how you glossed over the fact that there is specific mention that "Indians" are not people.

You are wrong in your initial premise. You said that The Constitution enumerated basic human rights. I countered that it did not. If it did, then voting would be a basic human right.

[Dogtown]

75. In what way does the Citizenship Clause

pertain to this discussion? The 14th Amendment in general asserts that non-citizens cannot be excluded from due process. That supports my premise in post #3.

The Citizenship Clause only pertains to voting rights. Not pertinent to this case, or this thread.

If you chose to interpret my post #3 to mean that all people everywhere are protected by the Constitution, it's solely due to your poor reading comprehension and personal prejudice. My "basic human rights" referred only to the rights under discussion in this thread; ie, due process. Nor did I say, anywhere, that the Constitution ensures all of it's provisions to every resident of the country.

Nor I did I say that all rights provided for in the Constitution were "basic human rights". Some, most obviously, only pertain to citizens.

In short, the Constitution does enumerate many basic human rights. My premise is correct. It doesn't address *all* basic human rights, nor does it *only* address basic human rights. Your insistence on re-writing my statement is preposterous. And disruptive.

Due process *is* a basic human right afforded to all residents of the country.

I didn't "gloss over" your snide remark about Native Americans. I didn't address it because it was *another* digression. It has nothing to do with the OP. Digressions of this type disrupt the flow of discussion. If you'd like to support discrimination against Native Americans, please start your own thread on the topic. Here, we're trying to discuss the discrimination against immigrants in this country.

I've already mentioned several times that obvious humanitarian errors existed in the original document and that some of these errors have been corrected.

Stay on topic.

[ProudDad]

94. Internet Rule #1 -- don't feed the trolls (n/t)

Especially ones like this one who can't understand written English...

[Cal Carpenter]

35. Unless they have bad karma, according to you.

Your arguments seem to be lacking any sort of intellectual consistency.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3909262#3910687

[JustinL]

46. the sentence contains three distinct clauses with independent meanings

The Privileges and Immunities Clause applies only to citizens. The Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause apply to all persons.

If 'citizen' and 'person' are really being used interchangeably, then what are we to make of the following sentence from Section 2?

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.

Have we been getting apportionment wrong this whole time by counting non-citizens?

Regarding the rest of your post, I agree with Dogtown in post 22.

[WriteDown]

55. By your own citation...

We have proven that "persons" does not pertain to everyone and makes particular exclusion toward my own people.

[JustinL]

77. No we haven't. We've proven the exact opposite.

The fax that they had to explicitly exclude "Indians not taxed" in the cited sentence proves that "persons" by itself includes everyone. Note that there's no "excluding Indians not taxed" sub-clause in the Due Process Clause or the Equal Protection Clause. Therefore, in those clauses, the phrase "any person" includes "Indians not taxed."

[JustinL]

14. the Supreme Court disagrees with you

Plyler v. Doe:

The Fourteenth Amendment provides that "no State shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." (Emphasis added.) Appellants argue at the outset that undocumented aliens, because of their immigration status, are not "persons within the jurisdiction" of the State of Texas, and that they therefore have no right to the equal protection of Texas law. We reject this argument. Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is surely a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. Aliens, even aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful, have long been recognized as "persons" guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Shaughnessy v. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206, 212 (1953); Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228, 238 (1896); Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 369 (1886). Indeed, we have clearly held that the Fifth Amendment protects aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful from invidious discrimination by the Federal Government. Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67, 77 (1976). 9 <457 U.S. 202, 211>

Appellants seek to distinguish our prior cases, emphasizing that the Equal Protection Clause directs a State to afford its protection to persons within its jurisdiction while the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments contain no such assertedly limiting phrase. In appellants' view, persons who have entered the United States illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within a State's boundaries and subject to its laws. Neither our cases nor the logic of the Fourteenth Amendment supports that constricting construction of the phrase "within its jurisdiction." 10 We have never suggested that the class of persons who might avail themselves of the equal protection guarantee is less than coextensive with that entitled to due process. To the contrary, we have recognized <457 U.S. 202, 212> that both provisions were fashioned to protect an identical class of persons, and to reach every exercise of state authority.


"The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says: `Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.' These provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality; and the protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws." Yick Wo, supra, at 369 (emphasis added).

[WriteDown]

17. See post 16. nt

[Posteritatis]

23. See post 14. SCOTUS rulings generally trump your opinion (nt)

[WriteDown]

24. Like Plessy v. Ferguson?

Good to know.

[JustinL]

47. hence the "generally"

Perhaps you'd like to point out the error in the Plyler Court's reasoning, or in the cases they cited.

[WriteDown]

56. So how do we determine which ones are generally...

correct?

[JustinL]

79. Posteritatis said "SCOTUS rulings generally trump your opinion"

In order to show that your opinion trumps a SCOTUS ruling, I think it's reasonable to ask that you point out any error(s) in the ruling.

[Dogtown]

32. Thanks, JustinL

I'm not in the legal profession and I appreciate your help in finding this citation clearly supporting my position.

[ProudDad]

93. "ANY PERSON"

has a legal meaning.

In this case it means that the authorities cannot "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." <-- THAT'S ANY PERSON..."citizen" or not.

Otherwise, you can freakin' forget about tourists coming here...

Semi-colons matter!

But this is just another example of a person's inability to understand the English language on this board... :evilgrin:

[riverdeep]

95. Tourists enter the country legally and are accounted for.

That's different than someone who enters illegally and we have no documentation for them or awareness of their whereabouts or purpose for entry.

[ProudDad]

98. Not true

the corporate capitalist masters use undocumented folk to save money...

[JerseygirlCT]

31. Did you gloss over that "equal protection of the laws" part? nt

[gmpierce]

36. Writedown:

Once upon a time, I read the Rights and Privileges clause of the 14th Amendment and I actually believed that we had some rights.

But in 1872 we also had a Supreme Court, and that Supreme Court decided that it wasn't too sure what the phrase "rights and privileges" meant.

So they solved that problem by making a list of them. Some of the items on the list were: the right of access to land offices and sub-treasuries, the right to use the navigable waters of the the United States, the right of access to seaports. There were a few other listed "inalienable" rights - most of which have been alienated in the last hundred or so years.

I forgot: one other was the right to travel to the nearest "free speech zone" to petition for redress of grievances.

(OK, I lied about the free speech zone. Those were not listed in the constitution or the 14th amendment.)

[Downwinder]

10. I don't believe that anyone still has Constitutional Rights.

Possibly the NRA and Corporations, neither of which can i find mentioned in the Constitution and fail medical tests as persons.

[Dogtown]

13. The niceties are sometimes observed, but

I'll agree that they are often sidestepped. In the example cited, my unworthy opponents are suggesting that certain classes of persons should be denied civil rights, ostensibly because they are "illegal". Ignoring, of course, that they are innocent (and retain basic human rights) until they are convicted of a crime.

Let's pick a "drug offender" instead of Mexicans for a moment: he has violated the law, there's an ounce of reefer in his underwear. A subsequent search, conducted outside Constitutional protections, shows him to be "illegal". According to some people, that illegality preemptively removes his rights.

OH! Wait! He's a citizen, immune to search w/o probably cause or a warrant. Let me amend: a French national with a student visa has an ounce of primo in her lacies. She's "illegal". She's not a citizen, so the search is valid and she's swept away....

No, she isn't. This is a bullshit argument advanced by people with no understanding of the law to support their racism.

Downwinder, I see your point, but it's off-topic and I want to see if posters who wish to deny civil rights to immigrants can supply any *reasonable* arguments to justify racism.

[joeglow3]

15. This is an interesting discussion.

If I kill someone and the police fumble the ball, I am free to go. The only way they can get me is if I commit another crime.

In this case, someone was here illegally and "caught" by illegal means. Thus, they are allowed to go free. I don't have any problem with that logic.

However, the second they step outside the court room, they are comitting a crime all over again (being here illegally).

I don't know how you reconcile the 2.

[Dogtown]

18. Proper procedure

I've known police that have belly-ached about the 4th and 5th Amendments, because it makes their jobs "too hard". I *want* their jobs to be hard, it should not be easy to incarcerate anyone.

In fact, there are many ways an officer can avoid losing a case to "technicalities". They have to start by avoiding short-cuts that violate a suspects civil rights. Had the officers *not* kicked the door down, they wouldn't lose the case. Perhaps they should have observed the suspected violator until they had actual probable cause to make a stop and ask for identification.

Our police have training. I'll go so far as to say in most cases, adequate training. Perhaps we need to hire a better class of officer that understands the law and doesn't blow the case by breaking the law themselves.

[JonQ]

20. It guarantees the right to vote in american elections

is that a basic human right, or reserved for US citizens?

What about the 2nd amendment? Does that apply to only americans, or can a british citizen cite that as a universal human right and demand we protect it?

The constitution is pretty much universally regarded as guaranteeing the rights of american citizens.

[Dogtown]

29. The Constitution is a complex instrument

Often paraphrased, usually incorrectly. I'm pretty sure that the Constitution does reserve the right to votes specifically to citizens.

The 14th Amendment does not. The portion in question, ie, that which applies to "any person" is limited to specific rights. Due process for example.

Please research. You have to be familiar with the document before you can successfully allude to it.

[WriteDown]

33. Uh, no....

We can go right to the source.

"Senate debate
The text of the Citizenship Clause was first offered in the Senate as an amendment to Section 1 of the joint resolution as passed by the House.

There are varying interpretations of the original intent of Congress, based on statements made during the congressional debate over the amendment.<2> During the original debate over the amendment Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan—the author of the Citizenship Clause—described the clause as excluding not only Indians but “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.” He was supported by other senators, including Edgar Cowan, Reverdy Johnson, and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lyman Trumbull.<3> Howard additionally stated the word jurisdiction meant "the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now"<3> and that the United States possessed a “full and complete jurisdiction” over the person described in the amendment.<4><5><3> Other senators, including Senator John Conness,<6> supported the amendment, believing citizenship ought to be extended to children of foreigners."

[JustinL]

50. uh, you made his point for him

Your citation once again demonstrates that 'citizen' and 'person' are not interchangeable, but have distinct meanings.

[Dogtown]

44. Yes and no

Amongst some Americans, the Constitution only applies to them. That's because they only care about themselves. In fact, the Founding Fathers weren't that selfish. They tried to write a just document.

There have been several amendments to the Constitution adding voting groups that were originally (and improperly) discriminated against. Women, for one.

I'd have to spend a some time researching the 2nd amendment in order to answer you positively. The amendment does state "the people"; that could mean citizens or residents. Perhaps a deeper delving in the language would bear fruit. You might find it educating to research that facet of the amendment yourself. You could then post the results in a thread of your own, and educate us on the subject.

I do know that foreigners have been allowed to carry arms in the US at times. Hunters, for instance. I imagine some restrictions apply, just as their are restrictions on US citizens.

That is, if you have an *actual* interest in understanding the principals that guide our government, rather than just being a smart-ass trying to "stump" someone you disagree with.

In any event, it's moot. *This* thread is about due process, not voting or cowboy-guns.

Do you have anything to add that's on-topic?

[JustinL]

49. the Constitution specifically used the word 'citizen' in regard to the right to vote

Fourteenth Amendment, Section 2:

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Nineteenth Amendment, Section 1:

The right of the citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Twenty-fourth Amendment, Section 1:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Twenty-sixth Amendment, Section 1:

The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

The Constitution consistently uses 'citizen' and 'person' as having distinct meanings.

Now for this:

The constitution is pretty much universally regarded as guaranteeing the rights of american citizens.

Thankfully, the Supreme Court does not agree with this "universal" assessment. As early as 1886, in Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, the Court ruled:

The fourteenth amendment to the constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says: 'Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.' These provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality; and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws.

[JerseygirlCT]

30. Exactly. Thank you. nt

[AlphaCentauri]

4. I guess they shouldn't pay taxes

:eyes:

[JonQ]

21. They shouldn't pay taxes

they also shouldn't be here.

[AlphaCentauri]

41. But is a responsibility to pay taxes

[JonQ]

63. Not really

I don't think crack dealer should be expected to pay taxes on their earnings. Or prostitutes, thieves, etc. They should be arrested and prevented from earning money in that manner.

Same with illegals. They shouldn't be in a position to pay income or other taxes here because they should be deported as quickly as possible.

[AlphaCentauri]

65. crack dealing and prostitution are illegal activities, work is not.

[JonQ]

67. Actually it is

in this circumstance. People that are here illegally are A) here illegally (a given) and B) not legally allowed to work. That's why we have work visas, the government gives some non-citizens the right to work here. All other non-citizens who do so are breaking the law.

You do believe the US has the right, like every other country, to regulate people as they enter the country?

[AlphaCentauri]

72. That's why immigration reform has to be accomplish

to address all those concerns.

[JonQ]

73. So do you acknowledge that working illegally

is in fact illegal under current law?

And which issues need to be resolved? Absolve criminals of all crimes, pay then back any taxes they may have paid until now and grant them free citizenship ahead of those who waited and followed the law?

[riverdeep]

96. Seems like your idea of reform would just be to make what's now illegal legal.

That's not the kind of reform we need. The rich business owners are often the ones who want illegals in this country, the poor citizens and legal residents are the ones who are hurt the most by their presence (see the construction industry). Not to mention illegals are regularly forced into substandard working conditions. Meanwhile, Mexico doesn't have to do any reforms of its own, it can just continue on its corrupt ways knowing the disenfranchised will just come here. None of this sounds like a progressive platform.

[AlphaCentauri]

99. OK let's discuss that

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5824131

[JustinL]

48. who's "they"?

Are all non-citizens exempt from paying taxes, or just illegal aliens?

What is the legal basis for your claim? Or are you arguing that the law should be amended to exempt non-citizens/illegal immigrants from paying taxes in the future?

Should non-citizens/illegal immigrants be issued refunds for all the taxes they've already paid?

[JonQ]

62. They: people in this country illegally

who are not allowed to work. They shouldn't be paying taxes because they shouldn't be here. Simple enough. Deport them and the point of whether they should be paying taxes on money earned illegally becomes moot.

[AlphaCentauri]

69. "money earned illegally"

how is that, selling crack or picking strawberries?

[JonQ]

70. Both, in this case

selling crack is always illegal. Picking strawberries while being legally forbidden to work here is always illegal.

Both are crimes according to US law. You may not like the law, but that doesn't change the legal reality.

[AlphaCentauri]

74. it is not a crime to earn money working

in a job that is legally acceptable.
The person might be in violation of the immigration law but the money he or she earns is not illegal.

[JonQ]

76. So a 10 year old is free to work in construction?

Construction is afterall, legal. Or a visibly intoxicated person can be a taxi driver, nothing illegal about driving a car for money. How about performing surgery without a medical liscense? Last time I checked surgery wasn't against the law.

By that logic, yes, those and many other scenarios would be legal as the only "crime" would be that the person involved is not legally allowed to perform those tasks, but the task themselves are perfectly legal.

[AlphaCentauri]

82. none of those jobs is illegal

there are violation of the law which could include drunk driving, performing surgery without a license, employing a minor or employing an un authorize person to work in the US, but work or to have a job is not illegal.

[JonQ]

83. Correct, but it would be illegal for those individuals mentioned to work those jobs

which was my point. You see this yes?

[AlphaCentauri]

87. approaching this problem as illegalities we can end up with illegal taxes, illegal employers,

yes a person could be committing a violation of a law but we can not classified employees as illegals, in the case of minors working in the construction field, we don't call them illegal minors or children, we don't call the drunk taxi driver, illegal driver.
If we fall into those terms then we can start calling illegal taxes to the IRS revenue from un authorize workers, or illegal SS contributions to the suspense file http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/05/business/05immigration.html

or illegal purchases at walmart

[AlphaCentauri]

66. if they weren't protected by the constitution they should not pay taxes either

[JonQ]

71. Agreed

They shouldn't pay taxes, they should be deported. How is this a difficult concept?

Rather than try to figure out the proper way to tax illegal behavior we should try to stop the illegal behavior.

[sutz12]

5. Please point out to me where in the Bill of Rights it says "Citizen"

:shrug:

If anybody's rights are violated, everybody's rights are violated.

The stipulations in the Bill of Rights restrict the actions of government, not people.

[WriteDown]

7. Sure...

14th amendment:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

[aquart]

52. Did you notice that privileges and immunities are for citizens, but rights are for persons?

Did you notice that? Citizens can vote and have jury duty. But all persons have the right to equal protection of the laws.

"...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

[EFerrari]

19. You don't believe in human rights?

Wow.

[aquart]

51. Well, speaking for my grandfather, it's not the first time.

What I find disgusting is the attitude that the constitution is some gated community designed to keep out the riff raff.

[Unvanguard]

53. It's the exclusionary rule. By its very nature, if illegal immigrants aren't protected nobody is.

Because unless you subject police procedures to due process, there is nothing to stop them from doing the same to you.

It's the same reason that criminals are protected by the exclusionary rule even when illegal searches turn up actual evidence of the crime.

[JeanGrey]

57. No kidding.

[treestar]

60. The whole idea is that all humans have these rights

THere is no class of persons privileged to have them.

Try another country.

[Romulox]

11. I believe EVERYONE must be afforded full due process rights under the US Constitution

regardless of citizenship; I protect my own rights by insisting that the government not be allowed to capriciously single out anyone to deny the due process of law.

However, it is silly to claim there is no probable cause for the arrest on immigration violation charges of someone who is issued an official identification card that identifies them as an illegal immigrant. This does not dispose of the warrant/permission issue, of course.

[Dogtown]

45. The issue is not the legality of the cards

"Immigration Judge Michael Straus, in a decision last week, said the ICE agents went into the men's apartments without warrants, probable cause or their consent..."

Fruit of the poisonous tree. The case had no merit because the searches were conducted illegally.

"probable cause" is a legal term demanding that certain conditions be met before legal action is taken. If time allows, it is *always* better to seek a warrant than to act on circumstances. These agents could have saved their case by seeking a warrant.

[Romulox]

64. "Probable cause" is necessary before a warrant will issue...

You're on the right track, but you're conflating some related, but distinct concepts (e.g. fruit of the poisonous tree and the lack of probable cause altogether...)

All I said is that the judge is off base--he said there was no probable cause to support the arrest of these men. But applying for and receiving a card that officially recognizes one's status as an illegal alien is indeed probable cause to support a warrant. That is to say that probable cause is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition to make a Constitutional search of these men's homes.

The judge therefore misspoke when he said "ICE agents went into the men's apartments without warrants, probable cause..."

But the judge is wrong. They had probable cause--the men in question officially admitted to immigration violations when they applied for, and received, this identification. They lacked warrants. Two distinct (but related) concepts.

[Dogtown]

81. Evidence gleaned from an illegal entry

*is* "fruit of the poisonous tree".

I'd need to refresh on the article to determine all the aspects of the case. My recall is that the ICEMen entered the apartment seeking non-specific illegals in a seine-type search. If so, they would need probable cause to support that there were illegals actually residing there. Better than supporting the search would be using that probable cause to support a warrant application, since time wouldn't be a factor.

If the application for ID was a sting operation, there certainly would've been no imperative time factor that would have necessitated a warrant-less entry, and a warranted search is always better than one based upon an articulation of probable cause. A re-read discloses that the cards in question where issued by the state, not by ICE, so the agents had no direct knowledge to supply probable cause.

ICE was clearly on a fishing expedition to retaliate against the state government issuing them state ID cards, much in the way DEA raided California-legal medical-marijuana dispensaries.

In fact, the agents claim to have been allowed entry, disposing of the need for probable cause altogether. Apparently the judge did not believe them.

A re-read of the decision is pretty clear: the judge stated that they did not have probable cause *or* a warrant. If they entered w/o probable cause, especially when they had time to present their believed probable cause to a judge in a warrant application, they did indeed act improperly. Anything seized, therefore, including any identification papers proffered by the defendants, is inadmissible. Fruit of that damned tree. Based on the information in the article (and we can't assume anything else) I'm afraid your conclusion is wrong: the judge acted properly.

[Romulox]

84. The knowledge of their immigration status was *not* gleaned from the search. nt

"the judge stated that they did not have probable cause *or* a warrant."

Right. Sorry to interrupt your memorandum, but I disagree as to the former, and not as to the latter. :hi:

[Dogtown]

85. I see no reason to question the findings.

I also see absolutely nothing in the article describing how the agents identified these people as illegal immigrants. There certainly is nothing to justify your claim that the ICEmen had "probable cause".

The claim that they were "allowed entry" seems weak, unless they used intimidation to secure entry.

Please point out any statements supporting "probable cause" in this article.

If the agents had knowledge of specific violations prior to entering the premises, it's not reflected in the article.

Please explain how you deduce that.


You also stated that the judge was wrong, IYO, but agree that I accurately quoted the judges statement. Please explain , with specificity, why you feel the judge was wrong. I'm looking for a legal basis for your statement, not just your opinion.

You've stated your opinions several times and haven't explained even one of them. If you're looking to pick a fight, I'm really not interested. I've already humiliated one fool in this thread and I don't wish to waste anymore time with someone that can't or won't explain their position.

If you have coherent arguments to support your opinion, I'd be glad to discuss them with you.

[Romulox]

86. There are not enough facts in any record I have access to to properly analyze the case.

In the absence of these facts, your responses are overwrought and way too verbose--you're coming off like a lecturer, and this is a mere discussion board.

[Dogtown]

88. OH!

So you've got nothing, but you're annoyed because I like to actually discuss issues rather than merely self-actualize.

You side with ICE, but admit you're not basing it on any facts. I have to suspect some personal reasons. Possibly just garden-variety xenophobia.

Your opinion of my posting style is of no importance. I don't know you, I don't care if you like me. In light of your behavior in calling me out, I'd prefer you didn't. Please don't trouble me with your personal issues.

I'll be glad to discuss forum issues with you anytime you have something more than your opinion to add to the discussion.

[Romulox]

89. I am posting my opinion based on the scant record.

You are doing the same.

"You side with ICE, but admit you're not basing it on any facts"

Actually, I'm disagreeing with the judge on one of his holdings (which is likely dicta in the first instance, btw!) while agreeing with his overall holding. Please attempt to be more precise in your language! And the facts I am basing that disagreement on are those contained in the article in the OP. As are you. It's a little bit "dirty pool" to denigrate me for being honest as to that fact, don't you think? It'd be different if you had access to the full record. But you don't.

"I have to suspect some personal reasons. Possibly just garden-variety xenophobia."

Is it really OK to call someone a xenophobe based on a disagreement on a relatively technical point of law? Somehow, I think that doing so was the entire point of your postings, since they were so non-responsive to anything I've posted in the first instance.

[Dogtown]

90. Your remarks have been rude and inflammatory.

I never remarked about your prose, merely your lack of content.

I didn't call you a xenophobe or anything else, but if Cinderella likes the fit...

As to being non-responsive, you've posted nothing concrete to respond to.

As I said, you've got nothing but an attitude, and you're looking for a fight. Come on back when you grow some substance.

[Romulox]

91. Link? Quote?

Now you are offended by my opinion?

[Dogtown]

92. No, your opinion is worthless

Your rude behavior is ugly and disturbing, though.

Is there any point to this?

[Gold]

97. Due Process

Fine have the Judge dismiss the case because of the search without warrant or probable cause. Then immediately re-arrest them for being in this country illegally while in the court room. It is now common knowledge that they are illegal aliens and thus are subject to arrest whenever spotted by an officer, even if that is in the court room itself.

I'll agree that all "persons" are due, due process. But all illegal aliens need to be deported. If everyone who wanted to come to America came to America this yacht would sink. We the people, must be free to restrict and regulate imigrants based on what is best for the people who are already citizens regardless of what is best for the person who wish to become a citizen.

Considering that we have such high unemployment and have way too many illegal immigrants competing for those jobs it is easy to only care about their deportation with any means possible.

Legally speaking they get due process. That due process is dismissal in court the re-arrest and deportation. Problem solved.

[LanternWaste]

39. Good to see Due Process becomming a law again....

Good to see Due Process becomming a law again, regardless of what the alleged crime is, or who allegedly committed it. A Law Enforcement Organization lacking a most strict and rigidly enforced adherence to Due Process is little more than a militia.

[Posteritatis]

78. As much as some here don't seem to want it to be, yeah (nt)

[LanternWaste]

80. I've always thought that...

:fistbump:


I've always thought that when an LEO (local or federal) receives the sobriquet of "fascist", it's usually because the LEO is targeting (consciously or not) a person or organization that the benefactor of the sobriquet is allied with.

However, when we remove the appellation of ally from the benefactor's pocket, and the LEO targets a group our brave benefactor finds antithetical to his political and national positions, fascism is then morally uplifted to "not doing their jobs enough..." (at worst), and even "heroic" (at best).

Our biases are quite easily inferred, and tend to speak volumes about our support-- or lack of the same for humanity.