Posted on 10/29/2009 9:08:17 AM PDT by AuntB
The lawsuit filed Wednesday by the 10 immigrants marks a major turning point in a two-year-old saga that shook the city and the nation. But how it will all turn out is still anyone’s guess.
Six experts interviewed expressed divided opinions over the federal lawsuit filed Wednesday, which claims that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents of various ranks violated the Fourth, Fifth and 10th amendments by arresting 29 people in New Haven on June 6, 2007.
“I think they have a good [case] from the perspective of something you want to feel good about fighting for justice,” Douglas Penn, chair of the Connecticut chapter of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, said. “I think, in all honesty, it’s probably going to be a very difficult case.”
On violations of the Fourth Amendment, the plaintiffs claim that immigration agents entered private residences without consent or search warrants.
Deborah Notkin, a attorney at New York-based Barst Mukamal & Kleiner and a member of the American Immigration Lawyers Assocation, agreed that the raids violated the Constitution.
“I am outraged with this kind of activity,” she said. “Search warrants are required. You can’t just break into someone’s home.”
ICE agents never have claimed that they had search warrants. What they did have was a list of 30 immigrants wanted for missing court proceedings. Agents checked this list of targets against a federal database to determine which houses to search. Five of the 29 immigrants they arrested by the end of June 6, 2007, were on that original list of targets.
According to a former FBI agent, Brad Garrett, the list is all ICE agents require to have legal basis in arrests.
Garrett said agents can pursue fugitive immigrants anywhere, just as police would pursue any other criminal fugitive; they do not need search warrants to enter a location where they expect the fugitive to be.
“With immigration enforcement, there is a little more latitude,” he said.
Garrett added that all illegal immigrants are liable for deportation whenever they are discovered, even if incidentally.
But documents obtained by Yeshiva University’s Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law through a Freedom of Information request may help the Yale lawyers argue another violation of the Fourth Amendment. The plaintiffs claim that higher “quotas” for arrests mandated by ICE officials encouraged the New Haven raids.
Internal ICE memos show that in 2006, John Torres and Julie Myers, two of the agency’s highest-ranking officials at the time — and two of the defendants in the new lawsuit — increased the agency’s goal for immigration arrests to 1,000 per regional enforcement team, up from 125. Torres and Myers also permitted arrests of immigrants without criminal records or fugitive status to count toward ICE’s goal, according to the documents.
On violations of the Fifth Amendment, which ensures equal protection under the law and due process, the plaintiffs assert that federal agents arrested plaintiffs based on race before adequately determining their immigration status.
“There were clearly some inappropriate racial statements made,” Notkin said.
Finally, on the alleged violation of the 10th Amendment, the plaintiffs claim that ICE officials violated states’ rights by interfering in New Haven affairs.
Citing e-mails between federal officials as evidence, the lawsuit claims that ICE specifically targeted New Haven to undermine the city’s immigration policy. By the time ICE agents arrived in Fair Haven, they did not notify the New Haven Police Department of the operation. One of the defendants, ICE official Richard McCaffrey, admitted during an ICE internal investigation that the failure to notify local authorities had been an error on the part of the ICE agents, according to the lawsuit.
In response to the 10th Amendment argument in the lawsuit, City Hall spokeswoman Jessica Mayorga said ICE “definitely violated their protocol in not talking to us,” adding that the failure was a public safety issue for the community.
Still, several lawyers said the application of the 10th Amendment struck them as unusual. They added that they could not predict how that aspect of the case would turn out.
Upon taking office, U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano ordered a complete review of immigration enforcement. She said in a speech in August that although the administration would continue to aggressively target illegal immigration, ICE officials would focus on holding employers responsible for hiring illegal workers.
If they were absconders, the police didn’t need a search warrant, because they had an arrest warrant. By this “logic,” if you killed someone, were indicted for it, an arrest warrant was issued, and the police came to arrest you, they would still need a search warrant to get into your house and apply the handcuffs. What a waste of time.
ping
According to a former FBI agent, Brad Garrett, the list is all ICE agents require to have legal basis in arrests.
Immigration issues aside, I don't like ANY government agency being able to violate the 4th amendment at will. There are a lot of these agencies now, and eventually they may want to come in your home or mine.
You can’t put “immigration issues aside”: they are the basis for ICE’s actions.
They did not arrest citizens.
OK all of you legal experts out there....answer me this: How do these people have the legal standing to sue if they are not supposed to be in the country in the first place?????
Yes, but were the home owners citizens? The issue for me isn't the arrests (deport 'em all damnit!), but the warrant-less searches of private homes. Did you know that if a neighbor has a grudge against you, they can call Child Services and you have to let them in without a warrant. No proof required. Homeland Security has been given massive leeway as well.
If the Democrats finally manage to do away with our 2nd amendment rights and declares gun owners a threat to society, the path is being laid for them to march right in -- or better, break down your door -- at will.
Are there NO Yale Law students that are Conservatives?
I certainly see your point and I do not know if the home owners were citizens or not or living there or not. [Thinking landlords here...]
I am aware of all of those issues which exist now, especially the child protectives services one.
But the illegals should not have any expectation of 4th ammendment protections.
“ICE agents never have claimed that they had search warrants. What they did have was a list of 30 immigrants wanted for missing court proceedings...........
Immigration issues aside, I don’t like ANY government agency being able to violate the 4th amendment at will. There are a lot of these agencies now, and eventually they may want to come in your home or mine.”
You can’t discount the ‘immigration issue’......this is the line....What they did have was a list of 30 immigrants wanted for missing court proceedings...........
They broke the law by entering the country, then they broke it again. This has nothing to do with the 4th amendment and citizens rights. This is rule of law.....deportation.
And right now Democrats are writing the law. I understand your and Adders points about deporting illegals, and that as non-citizens they do not have the same rights you and I do. And I agree with that 100%. I just don't trust those in power over us when they begin "bending" the constitution. Maybe I need a tinfoil hat. Then again maybe not. (Do my replies to this thread make me a terrorist security risk -- voiding my right to be safe and secure in my home?)
“I just don’t trust those in power over us when they begin “bending” the constitution. Maybe I need a tinfoil hat. “
I do understand, feel the same way. Which is why we need enforcement of existing law more than ever.
Simple, the US Constitution and Bill of Rights do not differentiate between the rights of citizens and immigrants even illegal ones. Everyone who steps foot in the US is covered. (Heck the US Supreme Court has extended it to enemy combatants captured on the battlefield overseas, but that another story) However the constitution gives congress wide authority to regulate immigration and naturalization laws. These immigrants (illegally) violated those laws.
They were apprehended initially because they violated the law, were afforded due process (constitutionally required) and failed to appear at their removal hearing.
As they refused to appear at their removal they were ordered removed from the country in abstencia. The removal order is the same as an arrest warrant and no search warrant was required.
The feds are not required to coordinate with state and locals, but generally do out of cutesy.
The racial profiling is laughable as they were working active open cases and not just grabbing people off the street.
These people were afforded constitutional due process to fight the arrest and removal in a hearing but they chose to run and hide. This law suit is bogus and going nowhere.
Tell me, is this the same Supreme Court that said that a US Citizen doesn't have "Standing" to sue the President with regard to his birth certificate?
I guess I'd like a follow-up question to that: "If a US Citizen doesn't have standing to demand that the President live within the guidelines of the US Constitution, who does?"
LOL I don’t know perhaps we could have one of the Gitmo detainees demand it during discovery.
You are incorrect. The BOR does not apply to illegal aliens that's why illegal aliens are not allowed to own firearms or vote.
Due process is extended to legal immigrants by the US as a priveledge not a right.
They also don’t have the right to be here. But when it comes to the judicial system (both civil and criminal) or (civil rights protections) they have the same rights as a citizen.
They have no rights here. Nowhere in the US Constitution does it say that non citizens and illegal aliens have rights. In fact the Constitution expressly states that Constitutional rights are for citizens only. What has happended is they have been given privledges through judicial activism that often surpass and violate the rights of US Citizens.
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.