Posted on 04/20/2012 2:06:37 PM PDT by kevcol
--snip--
In almost total secrecy, the Obama Justice Department has charged a U.S. Border Patrol agent, Luis Fonseca, for depriving the rights of a yet to be identified illegal alien at the Border Patrol station located on Imperial Beach, California, last July. Fonseca, however, was not indicted until a week ago.
Agent Fonseca, 32, allegedly kneed and choked an unidentified alien during his tour near the Mexican border last summer. During his arraignment on Monday April 16, he entered a not guilty plea.
A grand jury had handed down the indictment on April 12, but details were withheld and the DOJ neglected to promulgate why the legal action was taken against the Border Patrol agent, according to an "Inside-the-Beltway" public-interest group that investigates and exposes government corruption and misconduct.
"Border Patrol Agent Fonseca kneed and choked an unidentified alien, depriving him of the right under the Constitution and the laws of the United States to be free from use of unreasonable force by a law enforcement officer," the U.S. Attorney's Office said in a statement.
According to Department of Justice’s records, a federal grand jury indicted Fonseca on a single charge of deprivation of rights under color of law. The charge, a civil rights violation, carries a maximum sentence of 10 years imprisonment.
rest of article: http://www.examiner.com/article/border-agent-indicted-for-violating-illegal-alien-s-rights#ixzz1scH59nfG
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
Its a wonder they get anyone willing to be an agent anymore. What a travesty.
That seems like a potentially dangerous precedent to be setting.
Illegal aliens have NO Constitutional rights. This isn’t rocket science, Eric. The entity violating constitutional rights is the DOJ.
The administration’s war on Hispanics continues.
bw ping
border agent indicted with depriving “civil rights” of illegal alien.
“According to Department of Justice’s records, a federal grand jury indicted Fonseca on a single charge of deprivation of rights under color of law. The charge, a civil rights violation, carries a maximum sentence of 10 years imprisonment.
The case is problematic...”
You know it's a monkey trial when you're charged against someone they can't prove even exist.
None?
Can we tie them up in public and invite anyone to gang rape them?
Could President Romney forcibly convert them to Mormonism, seeing as how they have no First Amendment right to freedon of religion?
.
Breathtaking. Just breathtaking.
Gang rape is a crime as is tying a person up against their will. You don’t have to have constitutional rights to be a victim of a crime.
The Contitution and Bill of Rights does not mention any protections for illegal aliens.
Because of that, law enforcement and courts do not have to protect the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th or even 8th Amendment rights of illegal aliens.
“Its a wonder they get anyone willing to be an agent anymore. What a travesty.”
And it will bread more corruption in the ranks. Some of us who have been warning and posting about illegal immigration have been called every manner of ugly one can regurgitate. Those who have defended this crime will one day try to fix the mess and it’ll be too late. It’s likely already too late. They have allowed a new ‘PROTECTED CLASS” to be created. NEVER a good idea! Never.
I don’t know the particulars of this charge yet, it will be interesting.
I can hardly stand reading news any more. It makes me so sick. When is the regime going to be toppled? Are there any Rs with guts, spines and principles? Where are they?
I’m sure the illegal was being very respectful and was cooperating at every order from the officer, right?
“I can hardly stand reading news any more. It makes me so sick. When is the regime going to be toppled? Are there any Rs with guts, spines and principles? Where are they?”
Prior to the Obama regeme, I do not recall any instance of federal or state police or courts granting constitutional rights to illegal aliens.
I remember studying this isssue in law school-- and I graduated in 1978.
Crimes exist only by statute. So according to you, it would be constitutional for Congress to pass a statute saying "any illegal alien found in the United States shall be gang raped until dead."
The Fourth Amendment provides protection for "the People," so you may have an argument there.
The First Amendment says that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion, without specifying who is protected. Is it your view that Congress could pass a law saying that every alien in the United States must convert to Mormonism or be executed without trial?
The Eighth Amendment says that no cruel or unusual punishments shall be imposed, but doesn't say on whom. Is it your view that Congress could pass a law saying that every illegal alien in the United States shall have their genitalia cut off and then be boiled in hot fat?
Oh please. Stop already. Why are they called ‘civil’ rights instead of ‘legal’ rights or ‘human’ rights? Isn’t it shocking that ‘rights’ are AMENDMENTS not originally included? Why did they have to be added?
More than 100 years before Obama's election, the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment's requirement, "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," applied to all persons "without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality," including "an alien, who has entered the country, and has become subject in all respects to its jurisdiction, and a part of its population, although alleged to be illegally here." Kaoru Yamataya v. Fisher, 189 U.S. 86 (1903) (emphasis added).
More than 100 years before Obama's election, the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment's requirement, "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," applied to all persons "without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality," including "an alien, who has entered the country, and has become subject in all respects to its jurisdiction, and a part of its population, although alleged to be illegally here." Kaoru Yamataya v. Fisher, 189 U.S. 86 (1903) (emphasis added).
They had to be added so that Congress could not infringe them.
Sorry for the double post— computer hiccup.
Illegals who commit crimes, besides invasion, enjoy the protections of the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendments.
When they protest our laws openly blocking streets, and shutting down businesses and schools, they call it exercising the 1st Amendment. Don’t get me started about raising the Mexican flag above our own National Standard. Or burning the same.
One day, they will make a successful argument that the 2nd Amendment applies to them as well.
Only in America can armed people cross our border, squat, take resources and be called refugees.
In any other SANE nation, they would be called invaders.
I think the issue here though is the neutering of BP. There was an illegal a while back who attacked and resisted BP, was tasered multiple times - and later died. It was investigated and no one was indicted. In this case I smell an election cycle bone to La Raza & co. Assuming this criminal was resisting, is getting kneed and put in a chokehold a violation of civil rights? really? Can this illegal then turn around and file a civil suit against the agent if the Feds convict him?
No. The prosecution will have to prove to a jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he was not resisting. Since they haven't identified the alleged victim, either they have good videotape, or the case goes bye-bye.
Can this illegal then turn around and file a civil suit against the agent if the Feds convict him?
If he's convicted, I suspect yes. (There may be immunity issues, but that's beyond my legal expertise.) But if the agent isn't convicted, no.
Whatever. I’m not interested in your smarmy little comments. If you think illegal aliens have constitutional rights then articulate your points.
The author of the 14th Amendment Citizenship Clause, Senator Jacob M. Howard, stated, in reference to the Amendment, “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the family of ambassadors, or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."
Hmmm..We the People of the United States....to ourselves.....
You know I'm not seeing anything about illegal aliens here.... Where exactly did the founders of this nation guarantee constitutional rights to illegal aliens?
I quoted a unanimous Supreme Court decision from 1903, before there were any wise Latinas on the Court. Why don't you articulate your point, if you have one?
And try answering my question: would it be constitutional for Congress to provide, by statute, for the death by torture, without trial, of any illegal alien caught crossing the border?
Not you AuntBee... :)
Many of the Bush-bots fled. Worshiping GWB is no longer an ‘in thing here.
That is precisely what is happening. Since the illegals are principally non-whites, arresting them has been categorized as racist.
Thus the border itself is being declared racist, and the proposition that we have no right to prevent their entry is being advanced.
In other words, Invasion is being made into a civil right, but only as long as the invaders are non-whites.
It's no joke. It's the end of the country if they get away with it.
I provided a statement by the author of the 14th amendment that specifically denies illegal aliens are protectred by the 14th amendment. You can’t get more clear. Obviously your cited court decision is wrong.
Good question. Clearly such legislation would be immoral and unlawful. However, giving illegal aliens constitutional rights is clearly destructive to this country.
You did not. You provided provided a statement by the author of the 14th amendment that specifies that illegal aliens are not protected by, in his words, "the Citizenship Clause" of the 14th amendment. Granted; illegal aliens are not "citizens."
But the Citizenship Clause is not the only clause in the 14th Amendment. The Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, by distinction, protects not "citizens" but "any person." Aren't illegal aliens "persons"? Or are they vegetables? Or animals?
How can legislation be "unlawful" unless it violates the Constitution?
To quote Justice Scalia, "it is a truism that constitutional rights have costs."
To quote me, “The founders never intended the constitution to be a suicide pact.”
Perhaps I misspoke. Maybe it isn't unlawful.
Illegal aliens are person's of other countries unprotected by our constitution. Illegal aliens are criminals that have no allegiance to this country, therefore it makes no senses to give them constitutional rights so they can shit all over us and destroy our nation.
Perhaps you could explain why it is you like the idea of illegal aliens having Constitutional rights.
Because I believe in the Constitution and I believe it should be enforced as written.
The Framers of the Constitution knew how to use the word "citizen" when they intended to talk about citizens. E.g., Article I, section 2 (a member of the House of Representatives must have "been seven Years a Citizen of the United States.") They also knew how to use broader words when they wished to include people who weren't citizens. E.g., the Fifth Amendment ("nor shall any person... be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law") or the Sixth Amendment ("In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right...").
If the Fifth and Sixth Amendment only apply to citizens, why did they use the words "any person" or "the accused" and not "any citizen" or "the accused citizen"? Why did the Sixth Amendment talk about "all criminal prosecutions" if, according to you, it only means "some criminal prosecutions" (the ones where the defendant is a citizen)?
I thought it was liberals who pick and choose which parts of the Constitution they want to enforce. For my part, I'd like to see all of it enforced the way the Framers wrote it.
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.