Posted on 04/26/2007 1:06:40 PM PDT by SmithL
SAN FRANCISCO -- The American Civil Liberties Union and the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights filed suit in San Francisco today on behalf of Kebin Reyes, a 6-year-old U.S. citizen, saying U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents violated the child's civil rights when they took him into custody on March 6.
Kebin was detained along with his Guatemalan-born father, Noe Reyes, 37, during immigration raids in San Rafael that were part of the national campaign "Operation Return to Sender," which has picked up more than 18,000 people nationwide on immigration violations.
Their attorneys charge the federal government violated Kebin's rights under the 4th and 5th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution -- his rights to be secure in his house against unreasonable searches and seizures and his right to liberty.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Hardly the same situation.
I’m not sure the ACLU wants to take this argument to it’s logical conclusion. What if the same children weren’t seized in an immigration raid but during a drug raid where they were taken away from stoned parents and put into a foster home? Do children have a right to liberty if exercising such liberty means that they are left alone in a house, unable to take care of themselves, when their parents are arrested?
Time for anti-anchor baby legislation.
Immigration officials emphasized that Kebin was allowed to stay in a room with his father the whole day, separate from other detainees.
Sounds to me like the boy was not "detained" but was allowed to remain in his father's custody while the father was taken into ICE's custody.
The ACLU is heartless! How can they advocate the breakup of a family?!
HARDLY the same situation.
The 1996 immigration reform act eliminated the anchor baby method of staying.
Essentially the ACLU KNOWS there are no 4 and 5 protections for the illegal aliens but the birthright citizens MIGHT have an argument.
This is pure damage control for the illegal aliens.
I suggest our next area of border protection is to regulate the games of immigration lawyers.
I was shocked yesterday to speak to a CERTIFIED FLORIDA BAR immigration specialist who bragged about his ability to set up sham corporations for investor visas to allow the gaming of the current system. He made about 15k on that case.
And anyone who wants to debate it for the nine millionth time on these threads will be treated to the overwhelming evidence that this is the fact.
The ACLU is really taking a chance. If they end up at the heart of the matter - does the 14th actually make this kid a citizen - with the current court, they may go down Big Time.
Not real bright.
Immigration officials emphasized that Kebin was allowed to stay in a room with his father the whole day, separate from other detainees.
“The father was arrested and there was no one to take care of the boy at home, so they had the boy come with his father,” said ICE spokeswoman Lori Haley. “He went with his dad so he wouldn’t be left home alone. We work with the families to find someone to take care of the child.”
Bitch. Bitch. Bitch.
If Immigration arrests the parents of children and ship them off, they are accused of being heartless for breaking up the family, and placing the children in danger by removing their support system.
If Immigration allows the parent to maintain custody of the child when the parents are arrested, they are accused of violating the rights of the child.
It appears the only option left is to not arrest any parent.
Considering his parents are illegals he can live with them until he turns 18. Meanwhile, enjoy wherever the hell his parents came from.
What do you want to bet the lawyers for the ACLU are of Hispanic decent? They do not give a darn about the kid or his rights they want to fill their pockets with the governments money.
I say they will loose because the officers had to take the child with they sure as heck could not leave him alone at age 6. Also where was his mother; Did she escape and leave the kid behind?
NOTE: PURSUANT TO THE 1996 IMMIGRATION REFORM ACT—
When the parents are deported, the child is returned WITH the parents regardless of the child’s citizenship.
What the ACLU is trying to do is get the parents out of custody so they can flee to some other part of the USA.
If they’re illegal, deport them. Revoke the child’s citizenship and send home to Guatamala.
Some important points here. First of all, detention by immigration is not considered an arrest and deportation is not considered punishment. SCOTUS has ruled on this many times. Just on that fact alone, the child never had his constitutional rights violated. Secondly, ICE could have turned the child over to whatever SF calls their social services department. And you are right about extending such legal arguements to other cases. So if children are present, criminals cannot be arrested? It just seems to me that the ACLU is trying to get immigration cases out of immigration court and into legal venues where they have more influence. The problem is that the federal courts don't like to get involved with the immigration courts because they really are two different legal systems unless it is to reconcile different rulings from different jurisdictions.
Have to change or re-interpret the constitution for the kid. But the parents do need the boot.
Under the 1996 Immmigration Reform Act, there is no anchor baby.
Anchor Baby is a term of art used to describe what illegal aliens would do to obtain relief to stay in the USA. They would produce a child to stay in the USA.
Under the 1996 Immigration Reform Act, the anchor baby was eliminated and thereafter the US Citizen child would accompany the parents when they left the USA via deportation.
Since the illegal aliens do not have the same 4 and 5th amendment rights the ACLU is trying to establish “derivative rights” via the citizenship of the child.
The ACLU is also REALLY AFTER ATTORNEY FEES since the claims they have brought provide for statutory entitlement to attorneys fees.
TORT REFORM MENS DEFUNDING THE ACLU’s claim to attorney fees.
Perhaps we should also place an affirmative duty on immigration lawyers to report clients who are illegal aliens who go to their offices.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.