Immigration raid leaves children behind in New Bedford

Gee, to bad there wasn't some way for our State Police to have standing and oversight... (3.80 / 5)

BTW - did any of YOU hear the audio clip of Deval saying that he had been notified of the raid in advance by the Federal authorities, but was asked to keep this to himself, so he did so, and only decided to raise objections AFTERWARDS?

Yr. Obedient Servant, Peter Porcupine, Republican

---

by: Peter Porcupine @ Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 20:01:12 PM CST

No one can hear the voices in your head, Peter (0.00 / 0)

except you.

Out in the real world, I did hear plenty about the ironclad assurances the Feds had given to the state that all of the children would be accounted and cared for.

And as far as the State Police: You know perfectly well that giving the authority to bust illegals to a small handful of Staties would have had nothing to do with giving them authority over a federal investigation. But we understand that to Republicans, even tiny children are just pawns in a game, as this repulsive and morally leprous incident proves.

---

by: steverino @ Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 20:14:14 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The Deval audio clip ran on WRKO all afternoon. (0.00 / 0)

Poke your head out of the bubble wrap, and you'll hear it.  I'm sure a transcript will feature in the news tomorrow.

Yr. Obedient Servant, Peter Porcupine, Republican

---

by: Peter Porcupine @ Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 21:00:19 PM CST

[ Parent ]

n/t (6.00 / 2)

Gee, to bad there wasn't some way for our State Police to have standing and oversight...

Shame......

---

by: anthony @ Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 22:00:14 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Ugh. (0.00 / 0)

Chertoff is a talking skull.  That guy's supposed to have oversight of our "homeland security"?  He and his goons couldn't adequately defend a major American city against standing water, so I won't hold my breath waiting for them to muster any meaningful response to anything out of the ordinary. 

It's all well and good to talk tough about illegal immigrants, but it's a whole other kettle of fish to actually separate children and infants from mothers and fathers without adequate support in place to care for the kids.  Shameful. 

 

---

by: lightiris @ Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 20:36:08 PM CST

Are only Blue States Targets for Immigration Fiasco Raids? (0.00 / 0)

How to make a governor look bad. Federal agents come in and take mothers from chidren, herd folks to Texas.. and then give the finger to the state's governor. Why did this happen to happen in Massachusetts.?  and ..look at the timing..  two months after a Democrat enters office, after winning in a landslide.... just as he is trying to establish his authority..

hmmmm... where are those federal agents today???? red states or blue states...???? hmmmm.

We are the change we are seeking.

---

by: BlueManSue @ Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 20:43:56 PM CST

BlueManSue - you really need to educate yourself (5.00 / 1)

Let's start with this quote shall we . . .

"Why did this happen to happen in Massachusetts.?  and ..look at the timing..  two months after a Democrat enters office, after winning in a landslide.... just as he is trying to establish his authority.."

Well one does not need to look very far to find the truth...

"Marc Raimondi, a spokesman ICE, said the raid followed an 11-month investigation."  you can read the rest of the story here http://business.bost...

I would like to call your attention to the 11 month investigation part.  As you and EVERYONE here can see.... there was no intent on undermining Gov Patrick's authority.  This investigation has been going on since Mitt's administration. 

I mean think about it...there were over 300 illegal's in this place.  Across the street there was a business that gave these people fake papers for $120

3/28/07 @ 8PM: FOX-541 / CNN-193 / MSNBC-208 - Nielsen Ratings : )

---

by: Republican Rock Radio Machine @ Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 09:04:34 AM CST

[ Parent ]

The Hispanic Vote (0.00 / 0)

I'm sure if there is any state targeting, it would be at states where the Hispanic vote is not numerically important.  You won't see this kind of hack job happening in FL.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

---

by: Laurel @ Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 10:30:22 AM CST

[ Parent ]

maybe this has something to do with it (0.00 / 0)

ACLU just filed a lawsuit against Chertoff for holding children of undocumented workers with their parents in converted prisons.

Another aspect of this I'll be interested in learning the legalities on: at least some of the MA kids are undoubtedly US citizens.  Do US child citizens have any rights in regards to access to parents? 

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

---

by: Laurel @ Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 20:44:11 PM CST

You don't suppose Bush donors could be profiting (0.00 / 0)

by contracting to fill up privately-owned detention facilities with undocumented workers that Chertoff rounds up, do you?

Such a hurry to fly them to Texas... where they will sit around for weeks and weeks.

---

by: joeltpatterson @ Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 21:13:09 PM CST

210 children Affected, 29 at least put in foster care (0.00 / 1)

Page A 18 of the Boston Globe states:

She said as many as 210 children might have been affected.  By yesterday afternoon, s9 children of detained parents had been placed in foster care, according to the State Department of Social Services.

I am appalled.  No one took the factory owner's children.

Like Turner Broadcasting, I expect the factory owners to get away with paying a fine and a slap on the wrist.  These are children traumatized needlessly.  Who will protect them?

Deborah Sirotkin Butler
AmberPaw dot @aol.com

"Failure to plan is planning to fail."
Proverb

---

by: AmberPaw @ Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 21:21:14 PM CST

210 children Affected, 29 at least put in foster care (6.00 / 1)

Page A 18 of the Boston Globe states:

She said as many as 210 children might have been affected.  By yesterday afternoon, 29 children of detained parents had been placed in foster care, according to the State Department of Social Services.

I am appalled.  No one took the factory owner's children.

Like Turner Broadcasting, I expect the factory owners to get away with paying a fine and a slap on the wrist.  These are children traumatized needlessly.  Who will protect them?

Deborah Sirotkin Butler
AmberPaw dot @aol.com

"Failure to plan is planning to fail."
Proverb

---

by: AmberPaw @ Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 21:21:41 PM CST

Amber - I agree that the factory owners shold not be allowed bail. (0.00 / 0)

Yr. Obedient Servant, Peter Porcupine, Republican

---

by: Peter Porcupine @ Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 21:39:00 PM CST

[ Parent ]

But - the factory owners were allowed bial - and 95 million in contracts! (0.00 / 0)

As a child of immigrants this one is personal.  Not only was it done poorly, it [the raid as an approach] was wrong headed.  The owners should have been arrested, period.  it is the hardest working from a foreign gene pool who come and work their way up in this fashion.  They enrich our country, folk like these seamstresses.

And, I fear some of these children will never see their nparents again.  The children, born here, by the vagaries of law, are automatic citizens.  These children have lost their beloved, fit, competent parents without a hearing, with no due process, having done nothing but be born here to hard working folk.  It is not this kind of illegal immigrant that worries me.

Deborah Sirotkin Butler
AmberPaw dot @aol.com

"Failure to plan is planning to fail."
Proverb

---

by: AmberPaw @ Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 19:33:37 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm sickened. (5.00 / 1)

This story is so disgusting to me.  Unspeakable.  I am completely ashamed of our government.  I think the exploitive employers are awful, too.  It is just horrible what has happened.  And what kind of a country do we live in where the government has so much money to throw around flying these poor people to TEXAS for PROCESSSING!  While their kids are at the babysitters' waiting to be picked up in Massachusetts.  What is going on?  What is going on?  The DSS was ready to deal with the kids AHEAD of time--and no one leaked this out to the press! Why is everyone helping the Bush Administration?  Isn't their credibility and moral compass pointing at zero? 

---

by: SunderlandRoad @ Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 21:34:25 PM CST

Perhaps ask Barney Frank? (3.00 / 2)

According to the FEC database - the owner of Michael Biano, Inc., Francesco Insolia, is a donor to his campaign.

Yr. Obedient Servant, Peter Porcupine, Republican

---

by: Peter Porcupine @ Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 23:14:42 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Partisanship (0.00 / 0)

To: my dear Democratic friends who are so afraid of partisanship

Re: Partisanship and Reasonableness

---

May I ask you guys to imitate Peter Porcupine a bit more -- or at least learn from him. He's reasonable and can be convinced when the facts are unkind to Republicans. He's apparently quite happy to talk with those with different points of view.

On the other hand, he does not hide his partisanship. His signature emphasizes his party he affiliation. He does not shrink from a comment of this sort. It's a bit unfair perhaps and it's full of innuendo. It's something for which we guys display very little stomach.

Think though about how PP balances reasonableness and partisanship. One can be quite partisan and still reasonable.

---

by: KBusch @ Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 01:17:04 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm shocked, SHOCKED! I tell you, but I'll be sure to take that into account.. (5.00 / 1)

...when I, one of Ann Coultergeist's faggots choose to cast my ballot in the next election.

I'll just let you know a lil' secret, Ms. Porcupine.  The reason that Barney gets re-elected is not because he is gay, despite Republican bloviating to the contrary.  The reason that he gets re-elected is because he serves his district quite well.  In 1989, after my partner called to Barney's local office regarding a particular issue, Barney himself called my partner back, on a Friday evening, to discuss the matter with him.

Now, Barney had no way to know that my partner, like he, was gay.  And we had never voted for him.  And we had never contributed to his campaign.  So the issue for us was, why did he call us back personally?  Our conclusion was that he was serving his constituents.  And that's why he continues to get re-elected.

---

by: raj @ Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 09:41:04 AM CST

[ Parent ]

No substantive respose forthcoming? (0.00 / 1)

No calls for the donations to be returned?  No questions about why he is accepting donations from a sweatshop owner with a government contract?

It must be wonderful to be a Democrat.

Yr. Obedient Servant, Peter Porcupine, Republican

---

by: Peter Porcupine @ Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 12:37:37 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Why yes it is wonderful to be a Democrat (0.00 / 0)

I'm not sure what your "substantive" point is that requires a substantive response. We should pretend that accepting contributions is an endorsement.

Note friends: Someone has been doing oppo research.

---

by: KBusch @ Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 13:05:17 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The issue with... (0.00 / 0)

...donors should not be whether they did something wrong after making a donation.  The issue, is can that donation somehow be tied to the wrongdoing or give the impression that the donor is receiving special treatment.  If it was discovered that the immigration violations were being overlooked by Frank's request that would be one thing.  How exactly has Frank been improperly involved here?

---

by: anthony @ Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 14:08:10 PM CST

[ Parent ]

If Frank wre a Republican, would you be seeking to ascertain his level of involvement... (0.00 / 0)

...or just shreiking that the donation must be returned in the interests of justice?

(For the Record - I do NOT suspect Barney Frank of anything untoward - but I DO think he should return the donations as a matter of principle. He can afford it).

Yr. Obedient Servant, Peter Porcupine, Republican

---

by: Peter Porcupine @ Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 14:52:15 PM CST

[ Parent ]

For a $250 donation? I don't think so. (0.00 / 0)

But I understand you feeling like any Republican would be heavily scrutinized at this point, since there is has been a recent spate of high-value bribes uncovered between Republican lawmakers and lobbyists.  Your skittishness is perfectly understandable.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

---

by: Laurel @ Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 15:03:03 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Bribes are not... (0.00 / 0)

...donations and vice versa and there is no logical reason to conflate the two.

---

by: anthony @ Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 15:07:44 PM CST

[ Parent ]

A contrast every Republican should consider, (0.00 / 0)

thanks.  Yes, Frank received a small campaign donation.  Several congressional Republicans have accepted huge bribes.  Any republican is bound to be skittish at this point, because they read "small donation" and naturally register "huge bribe".  It's just such a part of the Republican machine these days that the two are apparently easily conflated in their Republican minds.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

---

by: Laurel @ Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 15:37:24 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Amen. (0.00 / 0)

n/t

---

by: anthony @ Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 15:52:35 PM CST

[ Parent ]

My Republican mind (0.00 / 0)

is baffled by the fact Tom DeLay gave back his 15,000 that he got from Jack Abramoff and then got indicted by Harry Reid is keeping the 70,000 Jakc Abramoff gave him. 

---

by: JoeTS @ Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 19:26:16 PM CST

[ Parent ]

That's because (0.00 / 0)

Jack Abramoff didn't give Harry Reid any money.

Those who told you he did, were not making an honest mistake.

That you simply accepted the report, well, that's on you.

---

by: steverino @ Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 19:59:36 PM CST

[ Parent ]

That's because (0.00 / 0)

Jack Abramoff didn't give Harry Reid any money.

Those who told you he did, were not making an honest mistake.

That you simply accepted the report, well, that's on you.

---

by: steverino @ Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 19:59:37 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I have never... (0.00 / 0)

....criticized a Republican for simply taking money from someone who later got in trouble.  It never even occured to me, say after Enron or World Com, to insist that people give back money.  If Frank or anyone else wants to distance themselves from a corrupt donor, the thing to do would be to donate something to a cause that would help the victims of the donor's wrongdoing.  Giving money back to a criminal helps no one.

---

by: anthony @ Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 15:06:46 PM CST

[ Parent ]

If you say so, Anthony - remember, this means you can't make demands in the future. (0.00 / 0)

Yr. Obedient Servant, Peter Porcupine, Republican

---

by: Peter Porcupine @ Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 15:57:53 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I reserve and..... (5.00 / 1)

....retain my right to address every issue based on its own merits.  That said, I stand by my generalization.

---

by: anthony @ Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 18:49:07 PM CST

[ Parent ]

As is always the case (0.00 / 0)

The innocent children of crimminals suffer.

---

by: geo999 @ Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 22:39:26 PM CST

You mean Jenna & Barbara, jr.? (4.50 / 2)

Because it's their daddy's dithering policy not to restrict the flow of cheaper than thou labor into this country and not hold US employers responsible that has lead to soul-crushing travesties such as this.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

---

by: Laurel @ Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 02:19:49 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Excellent (0.00 / 0)

Someone has read the memo!

---

by: KBusch @ Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 09:48:55 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I've said this for a long time: (5.00 / 1)

The biggest reason why we can't just deport all illegals in this country is because it would be an human rights disaster. We find 300 illegals in a big raid - and what is it? A human rights disaster.

They should not have been flown out of state.

They should not have been seperated and forced to be out of touch with their family.

They should not have been holed up in a huge detention center at an air force base.

They are all human beings, regardless of whether or not they're senior citizens. They are all accorded the rights and protections of our Bill of Rights and should have access to attorneys, etc. While the federal government says they will, the fact that they're being flown all over the country isn't really inspiring. How can one get an attorney when you don't even know where you'll be tomorrow? Or what if they did have attorneys, only to be shipped off to Texas or any of the other states they were sent to.

This is an outrage of the highest order. I hope this will wake America up: regardless of how we feel about illegal immigrants, we have to treat the issue with the respect it deserves - which means always maintaining human dignity.

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 23:16:56 PM CST

oops (5.00 / 1)

They are all human beings, regardless of whether or not they're senior citizens

I meant illegal immigrants. LOL.

David, Bob, Charley... I BEG for an edit button!!! Pretty please with a cherry on top!

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 23:18:26 PM CST

[ Parent ]

No way, man! (6.00 / 3)

That's the funniest typo I've ever seen, and it would be a tragedy if you could edit!  ;-)))

---

by: David @ Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 23:35:48 PM CST

[ Parent ]

oh I see, now (6.00 / 1)

you want to torture us so you can get all your daily schadenfruede =p

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 02:10:16 AM CST

[ Parent ]

It's Schadenfreude... (0.00 / 0)

...Cap "S" "eu"

---

by: raj @ Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 09:15:48 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Actually, Ryan, (5.00 / 1)

Illegal immigrants, people who are here illegally, are characteristically not accorded protection of the bill of rights.  Why do you think that the equal protection clause of the (14th or 6th?) amendment doesn't prevent the government from passing a bill that says illegal immigrants cannot have credit cards.

---

by: JoeTS @ Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 23:33:35 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Joe, you are correct, (6.00 / 2)

Illegal immigrants are NOT under the protection of the US constitution. HOWEVER, I believe they may well be entitled to the protection of certain human rights, as defined by international law, and/or treaties that the United States government has signed. I'm no lawyer, but perhaps one of the above mentioned human rights involves and entitlement not to be separated from children who are still to young to feed themselves?

Oh, I forgot. Many Republicans, including, seemingly our President, don't believe in the authority of international law, or in the binding power of treaties we've signed. (Peter, please tell me I'm wrong about this!)

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere- MLK, letter from a Birmingham jail

---

by: davesoko @ Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 00:08:39 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Too broad (0.00 / 0)

Illegals do have some constitituional protections, just not all the protections that american resident citizens have.

---

by: gary @ Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 07:27:24 AM CST

[ Parent ]

You are.... (6.00 / 1)

....completely wrong about this. 

Excerpt from 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. (emphasis mine)

The privileges and immunities clause was limited substantially by the Supreme Court decison in the Slaughterhouse Cases (1873) and has remained basically dormant ever since.

Almost all rights and privileges afforded citizens of the US are given to non citizens as well.  Undocumented immigrants do not have the right to stay here by virtue of immigration law, but while they are here they benefit from constitutional protections.  If that weren't the case then there would not be legal battles raging over the treatment of detainees in Guantanamo.  Even the Bush administration is not claiming in these cases that, generally, people who are not citizens have no constitutional protections.  They are claiming instead that executive war powers allow the detainees to be treated differently than other non-citizens subject to American rule of law would be.

---

by: anthony @ Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 08:18:10 AM CST

[ Parent ]

In college, I don't see many Undocumented Immigrants (4.00 / 1)

but I do see tons of Undocumented Pharmacists. 

woops, I mean drug dealers.

---

by: JoeTS @ Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 08:56:02 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Don't be a bitch, boy... (4.00 / 1)

...and, yes, I mean that in a mean way.

Just how do you know that the "unducumented pharmacists" are undocumented?  Have you done a survey?

---

by: raj @ Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 09:08:11 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Is it a bird? Is it a plane? (0.00 / 0)

no...actually that thing flying over your head is my joke. 

---

by: JoeTS @ Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 09:45:16 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I understood your joke... (0.00 / 0)

...it's just that it isn't necessarily clear how "undocumented" they are.

---

by: raj @ Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 10:03:01 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Drug dealers.... (6.00 / 1)

....are criminals.  They can be indicted, tried, convicted and incarcerated for their actions.  Undocumented Immigrants are not criminals.  Undocumented immigrants (or illegal immigrants if you prefer, you can use whichever term YOU like) are in violation of immigration laws which is an infraction that carries no criminal penalty.  They can be detained and deported and should not as a matter of law have their constitutional privileges burdened beyond a reasonable limit to effect said deportation.

Interesting how your only comment on my post was my terminology.  Wonder why?

---

by: anthony @ Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 09:44:26 AM CST

[ Parent ]

And as it appears... (0.00 / 0)

They are in the process of being detained and deported.  As far as shipping them off to Texas, where no doubt the rest of this chain will be completed, I don't see a problem.  It also appears the Feds have another thing to add to the list that they have successfully bungled.  Bigtime.  Despite being a humongous PR debacle, did anyone actually break any laws besides the illegal immigrants? 

---

by: JoeTS @ Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 09:52:17 AM CST

[ Parent ]

The Govt.... (0.00 / 0)

...doesn't have to "break a law" to suffer the indignity of its actions and to be held accountable for them.  "Breaking the law" as an expression has criminal implications, so I would say that the immigrants violated US policy, rather than broke the law.  Their employer, he is the one who broke the law.

---

by: anthony @ Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 10:04:25 AM CST

[ Parent ]

They had DSS care standing by (0.00 / 0)

and waiting for this.  It was planned, they even allowed 60 of them to go home to their kids because they were sole caregivers.  The ones that had problems were ones who lied to the Feds.  Does that make it the government's fault? 

---

by: JoeTS @ Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 10:15:06 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Why does it... (6.00 / 1)

....have to be about fault?  It is about responsibility and treating people with civility.  Does the govt. need to separate families to enforce immigration law?  There are kids in DSS care who may never see a parent who has been shipped off to Texas again before they get deported.  Is that the right thing to do?  Just because 60 people were allowed to go to their children does not justify separating hundreds more kids from their families.

---

by: anthony @ Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 10:20:11 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Well hopefully (0.00 / 0)

this story won't fade into oblivion and we'll see those children reuinted with their rents when they go back.  If that doesn't happen, I'm with you on it.

---

by: JoeTS @ Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 10:35:23 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I continually get into tussles on this issue... (0.00 / 0)

However, in the main, I'm right. For example, you couldn't bar someone who was allegedly an illegal alien from representation or even likely free speech and other protections, like the 4th amendment. Otherwise, how could you prove they were or weren't illegal aliens?

I'd be happy to defer to David's expert analysis on this issue, but I have studied both immigration laws (took a seminar on immigration when I did my internship in D.C.) and Con Law (with Professor Carrol, who used to be head of the Polisci Dept), so it's not as if I'm a complete novice (just an amatuerish hack =p). We actually had a very lengthy class debate in my Con Law class on whether or not illegal aliens were guaranteed certain key constitutional rights and the answer certainly appeared to be yes.

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 02:17:00 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Just for some quick evidence.... (6.00 / 3)

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Emphasis mine. You'll note it refers to "the people" and "person" -- not "citizen." Anyone who reads "citizen" into "people" is far from a 'strict constructionalist' - which is what you want on the Supreme Court, as a person who identifies as a conservative, right? You know, the Scalia types?

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 02:23:02 AM CST

[ Parent ]

But "the people".... (0.00 / 0)

...are defined in the Preamble-- "We, the People of the United States of America". Illegal immigrants would arguably not be in that group since they're not citizens and thus not the people of the United States.

I'm playing devil's advocate here; I'm appalled by the idea that the country is somehow being made safer by ripping families apart and shipping people to Texas for 'processing'. The Bush administration disgusts me.

---

by: Maldenista @ Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 05:46:13 AM CST

[ Parent ]

That's great and all, (0.00 / 0)

But I can't think of *one* instance where the Supreme Court, throughout its history, has ever used the preamble to help determine a case. Literally, my con law book probably weighed a good 10 pounds (not even really kidding) and I read most of the cases in it... not one pops into my mind. It's pretty common knowledge that the preamble just is kinda there to look pretty - plus, it makes a great song.

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 09:36:47 AM CST

[ Parent ]

quickie (5.00 / 1)

In Holmes v. Jennison 39 US 540 (1840) at 570, Chief Justice Tanney wrote "In expounding the Constitution....every word must have its due force; for it is evident from the whole instrument, that no word was unnecessarily used, or needlessly added." [See also: Richmond Oil v. State Board, 329 US 69 at 77-78] Clearly Justice Tanney's reference to "the whole instrument" can not be read in a way that allows separation of the Preamble. It is thus difficult to reconcile Supreme Court precedent with any suggestion that the Preamble is somehow less meaningful or less binding that the articles and amendments.

---

by: JoeTS @ Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 10:18:32 AM CST

[ Parent ]

It's "Taney." (6.00 / 1)

Pronounced "tawny."  As in "the author of Dred Scott."

A curious choice...

---

by: David @ Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 10:26:10 AM CST

[ Parent ]

He's not a black and white character (0.00 / 0)

in history.  He's actually extremely interesting to read up on.  Good call though on the name, I should have noticed that.

---

by: JoeTS @ Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 10:37:05 AM CST

[ Parent ]

And that argument... (0.00 / 0)

....would likely fail.  The SCOTUS has a long history of deferring to Congress because of what is considered their plenary power to control immigration.  Even so, when immigration cases reach the Court they have a tendancy to rule based on amiguities in immigration laws in favor of not abbrogating basic rights for non-citizens rather than rubber stamping Congress's powers.  The holding in the infamous Dred Scott decision that stated that blacks were not citizens and hence, had no rights has rightly left a very bad taste in the mouths many who sit on the Court.  The easy argument around the "We the people..." claim is that the preamble was written before the 14th Amendment, so case closed, equal protection trumps. 

---

by: anthony @ Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 09:59:00 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Don't be silly... (0.00 / 0)

...Illegal immigrants, people who are here illegally, are characteristically not accorded protection of the bill of rights.  Why do you think that the equal protection clause (blah, blah, blah)

The reason that the equal protection clause does not require states and the federal government to treat illegal aliens in the same way that they treat legal aliens and citizens in regards to matters not covered by the Bill of Rights (BoR), is precisely because their illegal status puts them in a different category than legal aliens and citizens.  The courts have allowed states and federal government to discriminate, notwithstanding the equal protection clause, based on categorization, if the basis for the categorization in regard the government action that is challenged is at least rational.

That doesn't, however, mean that the federal and state governments can discriminate against illegals in regards the rights granted under the BoR.  Illegals have the same right to freedom of religion, speech, peaceful assembly, bear arms, be free from unreasonable search and seizure, counsel in a criminal trial, etc., as legal aliens and citizens.  If you read the BoR, you don't see the right to have a credit card listed there by any stretch of the imagination, and they can be discriminated against in that regard.  Actually, governments can discriminate between legal non-citizen immigrants and citizens, as well, in regards matters not covered by the BoR.

Several things regarding the subject matter of the post.

One, please note that immigration proceedings are administrative (civil) in nature, not criminal.  The detainess are being held pending administrative hearings by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE, formerly the Immigration and Naturalization Service--INS) to determine their right to enter the country.  And they are being detained so that they can be found pending their hearings.  I personally believe there are better ways to handle matters like this--ankle bracelets with GPS are preferable to physical detention, but that's another matter.

Two, I wonder who "dimed out" the company for hiring alleged illegals.  In preparing for a raid such as this, I suspect that the ICE had to have been informed that the company might have been hiring illegals for them to have taken the action that they did.  Taking into custody 300 employees out of what is probably a relatively small workforce would probably put a pretty big crimp into the company's ability to get its work done.  Someone probably had an ax to grind against the company, and I wonder who it was and what the ax was. 

I have the same question regarding several similar raids that the ICE made in regards several meat-packing plants in the mid-west a few months ago.  Was it union related--unions objecting to hiring people under the table and who probably are unlikely to unionize?

---

by: raj @ Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 03:18:46 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Republi-Feds honoring rights? Silly boy! (6.00 / 1)

Give them an inch, they take a mile.

The FBI repeatedly failed to follow the strict guidelines of the Patriot Act when its agents took advantage of a new provision allowing the FBI to obtain phone and financial records without a court order, according to a report to be made public Friday by the Justice Department's Inspector General.

The report, in classified and unclassified versions, remains closely held, but Washington officials who have seen it tell ABC News it documents "numerous lapses" and describe it as "scathing" and "not a pretty picture for the FBI."
[...]
The officials say the inspector general found the FBI underreported by at least 20 percent the use of the controversial provision, known as National Security Letters, NSLs, in required disclosures to Congress.
[...]
The Patriot Act gave FBI agents the ability to demand telephone, bank, credit card and library records by issuing an administrative letter, bypassing the need to seek a warrant from a federal judge.

The inspector general's report reportedly found "systemic" failures in the issuance, tracking and accountability of the controversial NSLs..."

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

---

by: Laurel @ Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 02:35:51 AM CST

[ Parent ]