Federal Judge Sides With Day Laborers (Ruling Closely Watched by Other Cities

CBS News ^ | 5-3-2006 | CBS News

[martin_fierro]

Marshall, Consuelo Bland

    Born 1936 in Knoxville, TN

    Federal Judicial Service:
    U. S. District Court, Central District of California
    Nominated by Jimmy Carter on June 20, 1980

[martin_fierro]

Whoops GMTA

[sockmonkey]

I searched for a jpg of the Redondo Beach Day Laborers, but couldn't find one..If anyone has a link, or jpg, please post.

I know even in my small town, the day laborer hang out creeps me out.

[Republic Rocker]

Consuelo....figures.

[I_dmc]

Hmm, if the mechanisms of government keep removing all legal means of dealing with illegals, does that mean government is unofficially asking the citizens to take the law into their own hands?

[Leatherneck_MT]

"Hmm, if the mechanisms of government keep removing all legal means of dealing with illegals, does that mean government is unofficially asking the citizens to take the law into their own hands?:

Whether they are asking for it or not is a moot point. It's going to happen.

[Jason_b]

Why do federal judges get away with telling not even a state in this case, but cities what to do? I would have thought that federal judges have authority over the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, territories, forts, and so on, not part of any State of the Union. How did the federal judiciary, created by the states, come to have jurisdiction over the entire land? Who would enforce this ruling if the city chose not to? If the city can choose to ignore the federal ruling, would the US Marshal show up to enforce it? This is just one decision and it applies only to this case. Unless a law to the same effect is enacted by the state legislature, there is no rule of law to follow that might curtail future arrests of migrants by that city. Am I wrong about all this? We wonder how the black robed tyrants get to be so powerful. No one ever questions the scope of their jurisdiction. We have separation of powers that is supposed to prevent the accumulation of excessive centralized power and no one brings it up. It is as if people want to be told what to do. They gripe about the decision, but then obey it, it never occurring to them that they don't need to. Again, not being an expert, am I mistaken about the jurisdiction of this court?

[Jason_b]

"Consuelo....figures."

Jimmy Carter....figures.

Seriously, this is very alarming. Jimmy Carter's appointment of "Consuelo" has left us with a small-minded federal judge whose agenda is to look out for people of her own skin color first at the expense of We The People who live here now. She needs to be impeached, removed. Being that her job is to interpret the laws, what laws did she interpret to come to this ruling? I doubt any, this stinks of arbitrary.

I have to ask again, why does a federal judge have jurisdiction across all the land of the several states and the federal areas?

"Ruling closely watched by other cities"...why? Why do they care about this irrelevancy? Their own state legislatures make the laws, not the judges. There is something extremely wrong here, no one is asking about jurisdictional authority. If this does not stop we will not need the legislative branch any more, just send the elected representatives home because the judges who got tired of merely interpreting the laws will make the laws from here on out.

[Postman]

The same Jimmeh Cartah?

[lakeman]

she has really short legs lol

[Postman]

The Solution to Mexico's demands.......Return California.....

[lemura]

for being illegal immigrants

They aren't illegal immigrants - they are illegal aliens.

[lemura]

if the mechanisms of government keep removing all legal means of dealing with illegals

In this case, the judge ruled correctly: it's an abridgement of 1st amendment rights to attempt to curtail one's solicitation of work.

There are more than a sufficiet number of laws already on the books to deal with illegal aliens. They just need to be enforced:

(1) it's a crime to not pay withholding taxes, etc if the employer is paying cash; or (2) it's a crime to use fraudulent documents to procure employment if the employer is not paying cash.

Pretty simple, really. Just enforce the law.

[Jason_b]

"If they are illegal day laborers, do they have any rights?"

Even if they are here illegally, they have human rights, and are entitled to certain civil protections. We can't privately kidnap them and put them on a plane. We can't assault them, or steal from them, etc.

However, if the laws of the United States mandates all prospective immigrants apply for a visa, and these did not, then they are violating the law and penalties apply; they need to be caught and sent back with a warning that if they reappear in this country, they could wind up in jail with a long term.

But to go so far as a federal judge telling a city not to arrest them as they wait on the corner for work, when to do so is a violation of a city ordinance, is obscene. Not so much that the illegals benefit, but that the federal judge would presume to have dictatorial authority over a city. That is obscene.

[Syncro]

The ordinance in Redondo Beach had been on the books since the late 1980s. It was challenged in late 2004 after 60 day laborers were arrested in stings by undercover police officers posing as people seeking to hire workers.

City officials said they were responding to complaints of blocked traffic, drinking and urinating in public, and disrupting local businesses by loitering.

Maybe we could hire 50 of these day laborers (each with a wrinkled up papersack containing a bottle of ripple) and send them to the Judge's office to urinate in his doorway. What would it cost, $4.00 an hour and no Workman's comp or taxes to pay as an employer cause it would be cash for Fox.

If he wants to make it legal for them to do that in other public places, why not his doorway?

What, he is one of those NIMD people? TS.

[Leatherneck_MT]

If they are illegal aliens, they have no constitutional rights.

Constitutional Rights are reserved for Citizens of these United States. Not Illegals

[Jason_b]

"In this case, the judge ruled correctly: it's an abridgement of 1st amendment rights to attempt to curtail one's solicitation of work."

You are dead wrong. Here is why. This isn't actually about a man's or a group's right to solicit work. They can stay at home and use a telephone to call contractors and ask if they need a laborer. Or go to an employment agency. If the second option is not open because they are illegal, it's too bad. But no 1st amendment right exists that allows them to flout local ordinances. Not any more than my first amendment right to free speech allows me to falsely yell fire in a crowded movie theatre. And I'm not convinced illegal alien non-citizens, who disregard our laws, are entitled to a full compliment of protections of the bill of rights anyhow. They are still citizens of Mexico, Honduras, the list is long. They could reasonably be called infiltrators. Some of them might be dangerous to natonal security. The vdare link below references a story where one worker murdered a Korean immigrant; I infer from the context of that and the linked article that the Korean immigrant Mr. Kim was a legal immigrant.

This is about, this:

Day laborers at a 7-11. Breaking the law by loitering on 7-11 property. Breaking the law by even being in the U.S.

herndon link

vdare link

[DoughtyOne]

I like your suggestion.

[lemura]

But no 1st amendment right exists that allows them to flout local ordinances.

Um, OK if you say so. Jeez, get a clue - nothing trumps the Constitution - not federal/state laws and/or local ordinances.

And I'm not convinced illegal alien non-citizens, who disregard our laws, are entitled to a full compliment of protections of the bill of rights.

Bro, if they're standing on a street corner soliticing work (ie exercising 1st amendment rights), there's nothing one can do to determine if they are illegals in the first place absent probably cause.

The nexus is the commission of illegal acts - they're illegal for being here in the first place, but law enforcement needs a mechanism for making that determination. You can't just ask anyone on the street for ID.

The key is in paperwork: applications for jobs, loans, schooling, welfare, etc. Make the proof of legal residency/citizenship part of this process.

Once you have probable cause, you engage law enforcement.