Here's another reason to deport illegals - they're suing for getting arrested

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

This is now ridiculous - regardless of what you thought of my last reason, this is legit.  At the point that they are beginning to be given rights of CITIZENS, something's wrong.  They ALL need to be deported before we just start letting them vote or something.  Our nation is falling apart - and the fact that they can sue a city while they're here illegally just ticks me off so much...

Connecticut Town Sued Over Immigration Enforcement
Thursday, September 27, 2007

 E-MAIL STORY PRINTER FRIENDLY VERSION
HARTFORD, Conn. —  Lawyers for 10 Latino men arrested in Danbury in the past year filed a civil rights lawsuit Wednesday, accusing city and federal officials of a plot to harass immigrants through illegal arrests and intimidation.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in New Haven, alleges authorities violated the plaintiffs' constitutional rights to due process, equal protection, free speech, free association and freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures.

Nine of the 10 were arrested during a sting targeting day laborers, while the 10th was arrested during an unrelated traffic stop.

Professors and students at Yale Law School, who are representing the men, put much of the blame on Danbury Mayor Mark Boughton, who denied the allegations.

"The arrival of new Latino immigrants, and the failure of the federal government to address immigration's local effects, has sparked a backlash from Mayor Boughton's administration, which has targeted, harassed, and intimidated these new city residents through a number of discriminatory policies," the lawsuit says.

The plaintiffs say police officers have made civil immigration arrests despite not having the authority to do so. They also say the city has discriminated against Latinos in enforcing city ordinances, shutting down neighborhood volleyball games and encouraging police harassment of day laborers.

"These policies aim ultimately to drive unwanted immigrants from Danbury and to deter future immigrants from making Danbury their home," the lawsuit says.

Nine of the men were day laborers arrested in a sting operation on Sept. 19, 2006. They were waiting at a park and got into a vehicle driven by a man who they thought had hired them to demolish a fence, but who was actually an undercover Danbury police officer, according to the lawsuit.

When the men arrived at the purported work site, they were arrested and shipped to detention centers around the country. All nine are free on bond and their immigration cases are pending. The lawsuit says the 10th plaintiff was deported to Ecuador earlier this year after a racially motivated traffic stop by Danbury police.

The plaintiffs say police did not know who the nine laborers were before the sting and had no probable cause or warrants to justify the arrests. All nine were shipped to detention centers as far away as Texas and were denied access to phones to call their families and lawyers, the lawsuit says.

Boughton disputed the allegations Wednesday. He said local police provide support to federal operations and that they comply with the Constitution.

"Frankly, we are not going to be bullied by Yale or by anybody else as it relates to the equal application and the neutral applications of the laws of the city of Danbury," Boughton said at an afternoon news conference.

Boughton sparked controversy in 2005 when he proposed deputizing state police as federal immigration agents, but Connecticut's public safety commissioner rejected the request.

Danbury has been transformed in recent years with waves of new immigrants from Brazil, Ecuador and other countries. Boughton has said that the influx has strained schools, created overcrowded housing and led to other problems such as unlicensed and unregistered drivers.

The mayor has called for federal legislation that secures the country's borders, heightens enforcement and reimburses cities for what they spend on services for immigrants. He also wants a path to citizenship for the nation's illegal workers.

Lawyers for the 10 Latino plaintiffs declined to say whether they are in the country legally, citing the pending federal immigration cases.

Mike Gilhooly, spokesman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said ICE officials had not seen the lawsuit and could not comment on the allegations. He offered only a general statement.

"All enforcement actions undertaken by Immigration and Customs Enforcement are done fully within the law and fully within the policies and procedures," Gilhooly said.

The lawsuit asks the federal court to declare the actions of Danbury and federal immigration officials unconstitutional. It also seeks compensatory and punitive damages.

The 10 plaintiffs are Juan Barrera, Jose Cabrera, Daniel Chavez, Jose Duma, Jose Llibisupa, Isaac Maldonado, Edgar Redrovan, Nicholas Segundo Sanchez, Juan Carlos Simbana and Danilo Brito Vargas. No criminal charges have been filed against any of the nine plaintiffs arrested in September.

Barrera, 42, told The Associated Press through an interpreter Wednesday that he supports the lawsuit because he wants to make it clear that he and the other plaintiffs are not criminals. He said he just wants to contribute to society and be able to work.

"I was treated poorly," he said about his arrest and detention in the September sting. "I asked what I did wrong, what did I do. I was just looking for work. They never explained why I was being treated like this."

[Gabu]

Once again, your problem with them is not their actions in question specifically, but that they're in the country illegally.  Why not just say that instead of skirting around the issue?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Once again, your problem with them is not their actions in question specifically, but that they're in the country illegally.  Why not just say that instead of skirting around the issue?

Because this complicates the issue - not only are they just here illegally, they're taking actions to make their illegalness less taboo.

[Gabu]

Because this complicates the issue - not only are they just here illegally, they're taking actions to make their illegalness less taboo.

As far as I can tell in the article, what they're taking action against is a perceived illegal arrest.  If a person was not in the country illegally, you would have no problem with that person fighting an illegal arrest.

Like I said, at the heart of things, your real problem is with their illegal residence within the country, not anything else.  Why not just make arguments about why their illegal residence within the country shouldn't be tolerated?  It'd be more effective than posting a new topic every single time an illegal immigrant does something.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Because this complicates the issue - not only are they just here illegally, they're taking actions to make their illegalness less taboo.

As far as I can tell in the article, what they're taking action against is a perceived illegal arrest.  If a person was not in the country illegally, you would have no problem with that person fighting an illegal arrest.

Like I said, at the heart of things, your real problem is with their illegal residence within the country, not anything else.  Why not just make arguments about why their illegal residence within the country shouldn't be tolerated?  It'd be more effective than posting a new topic every single time an illegal immigrant does something.

I have a problem that they're using the 14th Amendment in their lawsuit.

[Ebowed]

No human being is "illegal", Inks.

[Lief 🗽]

Whether you like it or not, the constitution protects all people living in America, whether or not you deem them "illegal."

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Whether you like it or not, the constitution protects all people living in America, whether or not you deem them "illegal."

Yeah - protects - but once they sue, we should have ICE deport them - because now that it's publically known that they're illegal - why shouldn't we.

No human being is "illegal", Inks.

And yes a human can be illegal - it's an abbreviation for illegal immigrant.

[Bacon King]

Whether you like it or not, the constitution protects all people living in America, whether or not you deem them "illegal."

Yeah - protects - but once they sue, we should have ICE deport them - because now that it's publically known that they're illegal - why shouldn't we.

That'd be blatant interference with their lawsuit.

It would also be a dangerous precedent to start- "wait, you can't sue us! we'll get you deported!"

[Ebowed]

because now that it's publically known that they're illegal - why shouldn't we.

Then undocumented immigrants who have genuine lawsuits that will not otherwise get placed will be deterred from placing them.

And yes a human can be illegal - it's an abbreviation for illegal immigrant.

I know the slang when it comes to this issue, pal, and it doesn't change what I said.  It is morally repugnant to label human beings as "illegal" solely because they have not gone through immigration offices--they are workers and families, not hard-bitten criminal scum.

[Smash255]

Whether you like it or not, the constitution protects all people living in America, whether or not you deem them "illegal."

Yeah - protects - but once they sue, we should have ICE deport them - because now that it's publically known that they're illegal - why shouldn't we.

Ok so would you want a hardened criminal to remain on the streets because someone who would have spoken up to put the guy in jail did not due to fear of getting deported?

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

because now that it's publically known that they're illegal - why shouldn't we.

Then undocumented immigrants who have genuine lawsuits that will not otherwise get placed will be deterred from placing them.

And yes a human can be illegal - it's an abbreviation for illegal immigrant.

I know the slang when it comes to this issue, pal, and it doesn't change what I said.  It is morally repugnant to label human beings as "illegal" solely because they have not gone through immigration offices--they are workers and families, not hard-bitten criminal scum.

Hard-bitten scum, no, but they're most certainly in violation of U.S. law.

[Ebowed]

Hard-bitten scum, no, but they're most certainly in violation of U.S. law.

So?  No one seems to be able to identify exactly what they're doing wrong by ignoring the US' oppressive, needlessly restrictive immigration laws.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

because now that it's publically known that they're illegal - why shouldn't we.

Then undocumented immigrants who have genuine lawsuits that will not otherwise get placed will be deterred from placing them.

And yes a human can be illegal - it's an abbreviation for illegal immigrant.

I know the slang when it comes to this issue, pal, and it doesn't change what I said.  It is morally repugnant to label human beings as "illegal" solely because they have not gone through immigration offices--they are workers and families, not hard-bitten criminal scum.

I'm the decendant of a (supposed) illegal - so I have a right to say it.

Anyway - we shouldn't just stand by - and KNOW that there is an illegal - b/c they filed a lawsuit and allow them to stay here.  Otherwise, it'll lead to illegals filing frivolous lawsuits in order to remain here!

[Ebowed]

I'm the decendant of a (supposed) illegal - so I have a right to say it.

No, you say it because you're a legalistic conservative.

Anyway - we shouldn't just stand by - and KNOW that there is an illegal - b/c they filed a lawsuit and allow them to stay here.  Otherwise, it'll lead to illegals filing frivolous lawsuits in order to remain here!

Who cares?  They can stay here if they want to.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I'm the decendant of a (supposed) illegal - so I have a right to say it.

No, you say it because you're a legalistic conservative.

Anyway - we shouldn't just stand by - and KNOW that there is an illegal - b/c they filed a lawsuit and allow them to stay here.  Otherwise, it'll lead to illegals filing frivolous lawsuits in order to remain here!

Who cares?  They can stay here if they want to.

Who cares?  It's the law.  Why not just ignore all laws then?  The moment that you start ignoring laws, your nation will begin to slip.  (And yes- I am the descendant of an illegal).

[Everett]

Here's another reason to deport illegals -- some conservative Republican kid on the Internet has an irrational loathing for them! Oh no!

[Smash255]

I'm the decendant of a (supposed) illegal - so I have a right to say it.

No, you say it because you're a legalistic conservative.

Anyway - we shouldn't just stand by - and KNOW that there is an illegal - b/c they filed a lawsuit and allow them to stay here.  Otherwise, it'll lead to illegals filing frivolous lawsuits in order to remain here!

Who cares?  They can stay here if they want to.

Who cares?  It's the law.  Why not just ignore all laws then?  The moment that you start ignoring laws, your nation will begin to slip.  (And yes- I am the descendant of an illegal).

So did Rosa Parks cause this nation to slip??

[Ebowed]

Good analogy Smash!  People like Inks would have reacted to the civil disobedience of the oppressed blacks the exact same way they are reacting to undocumented immigrants fighting for their right to live here today.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I'm the decendant of a (supposed) illegal - so I have a right to say it.

No, you say it because you're a legalistic conservative.

Anyway - we shouldn't just stand by - and KNOW that there is an illegal - b/c they filed a lawsuit and allow them to stay here.  Otherwise, it'll lead to illegals filing frivolous lawsuits in order to remain here!

Who cares?  They can stay here if they want to.

Who cares?  It's the law.  Why not just ignore all laws then?  The moment that you start ignoring laws, your nation will begin to slip.  (And yes- I am the descendant of an illegal).

So did Rosa Parks cause this nation to slip??

Strawman - no, not a good analogy Ebowed - especially becuase you said so.

Jim Crowe laws are illegal, constitutionally.  Deporting illegal immigrants doesn't violate the constitution.

Here's another reason to deport illegals -- some conservative Republican kid on the Internet has an irrational loathing for them! Oh no!

Thank you for your intelligent and contributive post!  We need more posters like you!

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Everett makes constructive posts as opposed to spouting hard right talking points.

[Gabu]

Strawman - no, not a good analogy Ebowed - especially becuase you said so.

God, seriously, stop using the word "strawman" until you figure out what it means.  I already went over it.

[Ebowed]

Continuously accusing someone of a "straw man" without explaining why it is so is an indication that you're grasping at straws.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Continuously accusing someone of a "straw man" without explaining why it is so is an indication that you're grasping at straws.

I explained - He's using the huge issue of Rosa Parks - a situation where the law she was arrested for was unconstitutional.

Deporting illegals isn't unconstitutional.

[Gabu]

Continuously accusing someone of a "straw man" without explaining why it is so is an indication that you're grasping at straws.

I explained - He's using the huge issue of Rosa Parks - a situation where the law she was arrested for was unconstitutional.

Deporting illegals isn't unconstitutional.

Which is not even in the same ballpark as the definition of "straw man".