New Haven Independent

Posted by: nfjanette | August 10, 2007 6:11 PM

The raids "greatly shook the stability and safety that we strive to create in New Haven," said JUNTA's Laura Huizar (pictured above at right). The information requested would allow the groups to "ensure that the rights of our immigrant neighbors were not violated," she said at a press conference outside New Haven's federal courthouse Friday.

This should make clear to everyone what the true agenda of JUNTA is: non-enforcement of existing federal immigration laws. From such a perspective, enforcement of the law is seen as a violation of the "rights" of illegal immigrants. From the perspective of law-abiding citizens, such a perspective is unfortunate as best, and seditious at worst. It's not enough for JUNTA that New Haven - in exchange for political favor in the Latino community - has promoted the ID card for illegal residents and instructed the police not to arrest such people. Now they want to stop the federal government from enforcing the federal laws. I look forward to the failure of this effort.

Posted by: True New Havener | August 10, 2007 7:50 PM

NFJANETTE,

The quote you chose seems to not even come close to proving your "point." Quite the opposite.

"The information requested would allow the groups to "ensure that the rights of our immigrant neighbors were not violated," she [Huizar] said at a press conference outside New Haven's federal courthouse Friday."

Seems like they want to be certain no one's constitutional rights were violated -- a worthy cause to be sure. Even if you don't like immigrants you should care about this.

How come you are the first to cry about government abuses but when people's constitutional rights are being violated suddenly the people standing up are undermining some unnamed federal law. Reminder, the Constitution comes before all other federal laws.

If Junta can prove that federal agents illegally entered homes without judicial search warrants or retaliated against a community for passing a legal ordinance, then someone who dislikes/distrusts government as much as you should be particularly worried. If they cannot prove this because the government refuses to meet its obligation to share documents under FOIA laws then that's even worse.

Why are you so willing to suddenly trust the government. What's so unique about this case? Hmmmm? I wonder what it could be.

Good job to Junta and to ULA. Despite being under constant assault and threat they have stood up. History tends to remember much more fondly those who stood for the poor and disenfranchised in the face of hate, as opposed to those who looked the other way or worse offered encouragement to oppression by sniping at those who are willing to take the risk of standing up.

I recall Dr. King said something relevant but much more eloquent while sitting in a cell in Birmingham.

Posted by: eli | August 10, 2007 8:04 PM

Remember when xenophobia was a bad thing? When I was younger (i'm 38) and didn't have children, or pay medical insurance, or property taxes I didn't understand the burdon on the average taxpayer or towns that is created when humans who are not contributing their part (this also includes american citizens who create welfare fraud, or who are able bodied but find ways not to work and still collect state funds)to the local tax base. The intention i'm sure is noble, but they ARE breaking the rules. I know, i know my great - great - great grandfather took the red man's land, get over it. History is pocked with dastardly acts by people and socitey. It's history though. These people are knowingly here at thier own risk, and breaking the laws of the united states. My family is 100 times more important then they are. I'm curious to know why JUNTA doesn't think it's so important for everyone who chooses to break into this country to know english. Let's not forget what mulit-language countries have become - Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, even Canada ten years ago Qubec came within a few thousand votes of breaking away.
I can't write much longer because i've got to my other job - my full time doesn't pay what it used to since the mexicans i work with brought in their cousins to work for half of what i do.

Posted by: Wjay | August 10, 2007 8:37 PM

The raids "greatly shook the stability and safety that we strive to create in New Haven," said JUNTA's Laura Huizar (pictured above at right). The information requested would allow the groups to "ensure that the rights of our immigrant neighbors were not violated," she said at a press conference outside New Haven's federal courthouse Friday.

Pardon me Ms. Laura, but exactly what rights in U.S. Law are you speaking of protecting. Unless one is a citizen or naturalize citizen of the U.S. one does noy have constitional protections.
You contend that there is a law providing for a protection of an illegal person, further.If you believe the FOI provides some constitutional protection, in illegal immigration matters, please explain.
I advise you and yale legal services to cease and desist from inflaming this issue any further with the U.S. Homeland security. Your going to piss them off big time. Keep listening to those yalies and you will find your neighbors have conveniently left the country.

Posted by: George | August 10, 2007 8:39 PM

You're absolutely correct, janette. It's ironic that these people are trying to attribute ulterior motives to DHS actions, when theirs are so transparent. It seems that thwarting the law has become the major obsession of advocacy groups and the ACLU. I await the Supreme Courts ruling on ACLU v Hazleton, when our local and state governments have their sovereign powers to protect their citizens restored, and the subsequent cascade of legislation that will restore our nation to rule of law, not mob rule.

Posted by: CT Lawyer | August 11, 2007 7:01 AM

WJAY,

It's a good thing that knowing the Constitution is not required to be a US citizen -- otherwise you would not be one. The Constitution, Bill of Rights and subsequent Amendments apply to all "persons" on US soil. There are specific sections which apply only to citizens, say voting or running for office, or making former slaves into citizens.

Better that we all stop getting our legal training from anti-immigrant blogs and either read the Constitution or even go so far as to read the federal court decision in Hazelton.

If you don't want to work that hard, how about did you ever wonder why Bush has worked so hard to keep Guantanamo open as a prison? Here's a hint -- he believes the Constitution does not apply because the prisoners have not reached US soil.

Posted by: Stop Eli Stop | August 11, 2007 7:12 AM

You said:

"I'm curious to know why JUNTA doesn't think it's so important for everyone who chooses to break into this country to know english (sic)."

You should know that Junta is the largest provider of English as a second language instruction in New Haven county.

The rest of your comments are so disgusting that they border on hate. They are also ridiculous.

Posted by: Paul Wessel | August 11, 2007 9:15 AM

For all our sakes, it's worth challenging the federal government on how and what they did here. I've heard from some of the lawyers working on the individuals' cases some of the slim legal grounds that the feds used for justifying entering people's homes and identifying and arresting people for whom they did not have warrants. Whether this was a rogue action on the part of a local office of the federal government or a more calculated reponse to a local governmental action, it was over the top. If the feds were angry at the City, they should have gone after the Mayor and the leadership of the Board of Alderman for harboring fugitives or whatever the crime is that others have suggested in postings here; instead, they went after the weakest people they could. What's next?: barging into the houses of people in East Rock who are critical of federal policy, in Westville who back the wrong presidential candidate, in the Hill who speak out against federal drug policy? Even if one doesn't give a hoot about the individuals involved, we should be worried about agents of the government with guns and arrest power bootstomping into our town. Looks like I'm going to have to find a copy of Sinclair Lewis" "It Can't Happen Here" and reread it. (See www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2005/12/18/public_enemy/ where the Boston Globe describes this "hastily written cautionary note about America's potential descent into fascism.") Going to have to get me one of those "Don't Tread on Me" flags from the American Revolution too.

Posted by: Carson | August 11, 2007 11:39 AM

The lack of enforcement of our nations laws should be worrying you.

This country had a Constitution for a foundation and we also had laws to live by. Those are gone now.

Just how much longer do you expect this country to survive the invaders that have infiltrated it and the lawlessness?

Would many still feel as they do if it was happening in their country?

The Federal Government has a Revolution going much as many other countries of the world that have had their politicians bought off by the bankers and businesses of the world.

We will have to restore law and order in our government before we can restore order in our streets.

Posted by: Carson | August 11, 2007 11:44 AM

P.S. The raids stopped when the government no longer had an Amnesty Bill they were trying to carny sell us on. They were only pretending to abide by the law as a political maneuver.

They also used the tactic to create sanctuary cities.

I'm not seeing that happening since the bill Jason'd either.

Posted by: nfjanette | August 11, 2007 11:06 PM

Seems like they want to be certain no one's constitutional rights were violated -- a worthy cause to be sure. Even if you don't like immigrants you should care about this.

Of course we should protect the legal rights of citizens and even the legal rights of criminals, including illegal aliens. But, it doesn't seem like that is the mission of JUNTA, at least that's not the only agenda of the group. This is about the politics of buying and selling votes to and from the Latino community.

How come you are the first to cry about government abuses but when people's constitutional rights are being violated suddenly the people standing up are undermining some unnamed federal law. Reminder, the Constitution comes before all other federal laws.

I had no idea I was the first to cry out about such things - that's an interesting observation, if correct. What unnamed federal law do you not understand as it applies to illegal immigrants?

If Junta can prove that federal agents illegally entered homes without judicial search warrants or retaliated against a community for passing a legal ordinance, then someone who dislikes/distrusts government as much as you should be particularly worried. If they cannot prove this because the government refuses to meet its obligation to share documents under FOIA laws then that's even worse.

The government must meet it's obligations under FOI laws, without question.

The government must act within the laws and guidelines for search and seizure, without question.

However, the government must also enforce the laws as they apply to illegal immigrants. If you don't care for those laws, you can work for change via your elected reps. Many people on various sides of the issue, including myself, believe that we need updated laws regulating immigration of permanent and temporary aliens. A part of that effort must include some mechanism to provide a path toward legal status for the staggering number of illegal residents - a path that could include fines to be paid and various classes to teach English and other important skills to be participants in American society.

Why are you so willing to suddenly trust the government. What's so unique about this case? Hmmmm? I wonder what it could be.

There's nothing to wonder - I've been consistent and clear in my position on illegal immigration:

- the government must secure all borders to prevent all types of threats including drug smuggling and terrorists

- we need immigration reform that will allow more legal permanent residents, but they must be willing to learn English and other important aspects of American citizenship

- existing laws must be enforced to extent realistically possible

- illegal immigration is bad for illegal immigrants because they have little protection, and is bad for American society because it provides a human neo-slave trade of workers that distort the wage scale and working conditions for legal low-end wage earners

Posted by: KAM B | August 12, 2007 7:26 AM

These people from these organizations, like JUNTA, just dont get it. American Constitutional rights for illegal immigrants? Give me a break. This lady from JUNTA should be out there working htis hard for real Latin-Americans who are here leagally. Help them get jobs. Why would you want to create a Utopia for these free loading, non tax paying, no drivers license, can't speak nor attempt to learn english ILLEGAL immigrants!? Who knows, maybe JUNTA can get some money together with some more crazy Yale lawyers and they could raise funds for box lunches for Al Queada terrorists.

Well said, nfjanette and eli.

Posted by: True New Havener | August 12, 2007 9:35 AM

NFJANETTE,

Your response was much more coherent and appropriate than your first comment. We would have common ground on many things.

Seems to me that Junta is honest that it advocates on behalf of immigrants no matter how they got here. That's their right. Advocating for constitutional protections and a path to citizenship is not illegal or inappropriate.

A tried and true method of engaging in such advocacy is to litigate against the government when you believe that people's rights have been violated. Advocacy of both the litigation and grassroots kind led to new federal laws in the civil rights movement.

"we need immigration reform that will allow more legal permanent residents, but they must be willing to learn English and other important aspects of American citizenship" -- my guess is that folks at Junta would agree with you on this. They seem to be fighting for exactly this. The difference between your approaches is that they are actively pursuing change using methods which have been the most successful for a minority confronting some people (not you in this case) who influence public debate via racist confrontational tactics.

Also, my understanding is that they provide more English as a second language classes then any organization in New Haven (and possibly the state). To put so much effort into this means they probably believe like you that assimilation is important to reaching the American ideal and that starts with English.

Finally, it is not clear why you have any animosity towards Junta at all. My guess is that while waiting for the real reform you both envision, they don't want the lack of federal law to rip families apart through random deportation actions. These actions even when successful mean a few people get deported while millions become terrified. (And for those who believe that this fear will get people to leave -- it is going to take a lot to get to the place where it is scarier to live in Connecticut than in a slum in Mexico City or Colombia.)

Take New Haven. According to the Register, in those raids the federal government managed to only find something like 5 people which it could hold on deportation orders (everyone else bonded out), and at least 1 of those (an African refugee with an American wife and kids who was tortured and fled to the US) is likely to get relief in the end. So with all of that bluster maybe 4 people get deported.

But over ten thousand New Haven immigrants get really scared. They are less likely to shop in stores in Fair Haven (remember stories about the empty stores), less likely to show up at Junta's English classes, less likely to talk to police, and less likely to do a lot of things that make New Haven more livable. Men, women and children basically go into hiding.

Junta's actions seem to recognize that this level of fear is not good for any decent resident of this city, whether immigrant or not. They are willing to fight not only for immigration reform (largely along the same lines as you suggest apparently) but also willing to question whether it makes sense to terrify people while they wait for that reform.

And as to your comments about "seditious" and "political favor" in the Latino community: Sedition is a serious charge punishable by death. There is no evidence that anyone at Junta is seditious. If they were, no doubt the US Attorney would bring charges. To use such language is to throw in your lot with people whose values your second comment indicates you do not share. Don't use absurd language when racist hate mongerers are using the same language.

And "political favor?" What does that even mean in this case? Junta is not a political organization. Undocumented immigrants can't vote. DeStefano has been attacked when he could have been quiet and easily won re-election. Political favors are when I give you a parking lot to manage without a bidding process. They are not when I put a proposal before a board of aldermen, have public hearings, and a vote is overwhelmingly taken by friend and foe alike. That some constituencies support the initiative is not a political favor -- it's responsive democracy.

Maybe if you believe as you say you do, your animosity would be better placed against those who don't share your ultimate views. In the meantime why write negative stuff about an organization willing to fight the actual fight necessary to get to the end result you envision?

Posted by: Bill S. | August 12, 2007 11:56 AM

The First Thing We Do, Let's Kill All the Lawyers"
Shakespeare's Tribute to Trial Lawyers

Posted by: True New Havener | August 12, 2007 12:37 PM

NFJANETTE,
In case you were wondering whether you were giving comfort to crazy reactionary racist nuts, try reading Kam B's comments. As someone who actually apparently lives in New Haven, NF, you probably are aware that Junta provides job training and advocacy for Latinos who are US citizens.

Posted by: WEBbloger 1 | August 12, 2007 1:09 PM

CT. Lawyer- where did you get your law degree..? Sears & Roebuck, or is it Walmart??

The fact that the government has passed no less that Six immigration laws, represents admendments to the U.S. Constitution. Illegal immigrants are not citizens of the U.S. and therefore do not benefit from federal protections. If you and Paul Wessel believe you both can convey that right through you post, your sadly mistaken. If you both are posting in defense of what Junta has done here... just wait and you will see how quickly this suit is dismissed. As for your Yale Legal Services friends, remember these tax exempt free loaders, who attempt to hone their craft at the expense of poor immigrants, serve at the pleasure of the tax payers of the city of New Haven.

Posted by: RM | August 12, 2007 8:20 PM

What would we do if we did not have well-meaning but totally incorrect, if not misguided LIBERALS LIKE NFJANNETTE? This person is certainly entitled to his/her opinion, just as I am to STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH SUCH AN OPINION.

Posted by: nfjanette | August 12, 2007 9:08 PM

True New Havener,

In addition to the silliness of your chastising my positions, your political naivety is showing. The favor is not being shown toward the illegal immigrants, but rather the many legal members of the Latino community that have family and friends that are illegal immigrants. Gathering a voting block of Latino voters would be a significant accomplishment of Mayor DeStefano's party - a party that ultimately wants to be in the Governor's seat of this state. Try to think toward the future - they are.

Posted by: True New Havener | August 12, 2007 11:45 PM

NFJ,

I have not called your positions silly. Too bad. And my political naiveté is basically non-existent. If you think DeStefano gets any additional votes from this anytime soon, you are more than naive.

John DeStefano's party (that being the Democrats) have won the Latino vote in every election in this state since FDR. If you start out by not knowing that, maybe you should avoid trying to give lectures on politics.

Sounds like you really don't have much real response to give. I'll take that to mean that you really don't disagree with any of the arguments I presented -- other than your erroneous view that there are votes in this for DeStefano.

Check out Kam B's comments. You should be clear to whom your comments give succor.

Posted by: KAM B | August 13, 2007 7:16 AM

Hey Stop Eli Stop,
You think its a good thing that JUNTA is the leader in trying to push English as the second language in New Haven?! How about JUNTA pushing for English to be the FIRST language in New Haven County!

Posted by: Stop Eli Stop | August 13, 2007 8:41 AM

Eli,
That's ridiculous. English as a second language refers to teaching adults who don't speak English as their first language how to speak English. It's their second language -- get it. In any case Junta provides more English instruction than anyone but the public schools.

Posted by: CT Lawyer | August 13, 2007 9:01 AM

Weblogger,
Where did I get my law degree? Here's a free legal class for all of your absurd "legal" comments:

1. Laws passed by Congress are not amendments to the Constitution. Amendments require 2/3 votes by Congress followed by approvals from 3/4 of state legislatures. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and thus is sparingly amended through a difficult process.

2. Most of the "federal protections" you seem to be referring to are available to anyone who finds themselves on US soil. For instance, the right to due process (that's provided in the 5th and 14th amendments), is guaranteed to all "persons" not citizens. Specific rights for citizens, like the right to vote, use the word "citizen."

3. The US has a lot more than six immigration laws. If you got your law from something other than anti-immigrant web sites, you would know that. They don't want you to know this because they want you to think in simplistic terms about complex issues.

4. Lawyers, whether from Yale's Jerome N. Frank Legal Services, or anywhere else, do not serve at the pleasure of New Haven's taxpayers. They serve because they have been hired by clients. In this case that would be ULA and Junta. One place that no one in our system of justice can wedge themselves is between a lawyer and his or her client -- not the government, not taxpayers, no one.

Now that class is over, I would ask that in lieu of payment for these lessons, you send a check to Junta or ULA -- your choice.

Posted by: Wait a second | August 13, 2007 9:11 AM

George said:

"I await the Supreme Courts ruling on ACLU v Hazleton, when our local and state governments have their sovereign powers to protect their citizens restored, and the subsequent cascade of legislation that will restore our nation to rule of law, not mob rule."

Okay George, do you also believe states should have the right to secede? Be honest now. I have to believe you are itching to say a whole lot more but know that people would find your comments reprehensible so are just giving us a taste of your views.

"sovereign powers" of state governments -- where have we heard that before -- oh yeah -- following the desegregation of public schools when governors in places like Mississippi railed on about sovereign states rights and employed mob rule to try to keep little children out of school. Why not give us the full blast of your views.

Don't be surprised when even Bush's supreme court looks unfavorably on Hazelton because the question was answered decisively when Lincoln was president.

Posted by: WEBbloger 1 | August 13, 2007 11:52 AM

In the suit, JUNTA and ULA say DHS has failed to respond in a timely manner to two Freedom of Information requests filed on June 26: One sought records regarding the planning of the raids; the other sought any agency correspondence mentioning the municipal ID program. Under the federal FOIA act, agencies have 20 days to respond to requests, with a possible 10-day extension.

CT. Lawyer..
You should concentrate on posting to the article written above, not creating argument with other posters.

At the risk of conterdicting myself, I see no violation of the 5th & 14th amendment rights in the cut-out above. The persons arrested received due process when they appeared in court and received bond. There is no property rights violated either. The persons arrested owned nothing and did not have a contractural right to a job.

In as much as your lessons are concerned.. thank you, but no thank you.
By the way, sent cash to Junta, $10,000 peso's via the border patrol.

Posted by: Amused | August 13, 2007 1:56 PM

All this nonsense about latinos being so grateful to John DeStefano that he now has their political support is totally misplaced. The ID card will not make up for the many problems the Mayor has with Latinos. They did not support his candidacy for Governor in the primary or general election and he's done little to reach out beyond this one issue. It gets him in the national limelight, while people close to home can't wait to see him go. And as for JUNTA, beleive it or not I hear there are a number of Latinos (Puerto Ricans) who are fed up with its obsession with illegal immigrants. The entire focus of the group is consumed to the point they are doing little for those legal latinos who need help. It seems if you are a legal resident, you have to stand behind the undocumented clients for services.

Posted by: THREEFIFTHS | August 13, 2007 2:08 PM

Ct. Lawyer
You Are Correct About There Being More Than Six Immigrant Laws,But The Law States That If You Enter This Country Undocument Than You Are Breaking The Immigrantion Laws Of This Country.Take A Look At What Happen In Newark New Jersey The Main Suspect In The Killing Of Those
Students Was A Illegal Immigrant Who Was Already Out On Bail For A Crime He Had Committed And The Problem Was ICE Had A Warrent To Deport Him But The Newark Police Did Not Inform ICE That They Had Him Because They Have The Same Policy As New Haven Has And That Is Do Not Ask About There Immigrantion Status. It Is Only A Matter Of Time Before This May Happen Here!!! Bottom Line When These Illegal Immigration Are Caught They Should Be Deport And Reapply After A Fingerprint And Medical Exam, And Criminal Background Check And If
They Pass All Of These Requirements Then The Should Be Admit To This Country.

Posted by: lankiel | August 13, 2007 4:07 PM

Webbloger1:

the due process and property rights refer to the actual arrests -- did they use proper search and seizure warrants? Did they invade homes with permission? Did they collect the information that there were illegal immigrants legally? Everyone has those rights if they are on US soil -- even al-quaida, and illegal immigrants.

Posted by: CT Lawyer | August 13, 2007 4:37 PM

Webbloger,

Your the one who insulted me, not the other way around. Re-read your post. Seems like now that you have been summarily corrected you don't think I should respond any further to your errors.

Well . . . Too bad. You have no idea whether anyone's due process rights were violated. In this case I raised it because it would be easy for you to actually read the word "person" in the 5th amendment. I assume you checked and now are granting that on the constitutional issues these people do have rights.

So now it will be up to the court to decide whether any constitutional rights were violated. These will include not only due process but also the right to not have the government engage in searches of your home without a warrant issued by a judge. That's the 4th Amendment.

Now ICE admits it did not have 4th Amendment warrants, what are commonly called search warrants. It argues that it was allowed into the homes by the residents themselves and in some cases found people who lacked ID who ICE assumed were thus undocumented immigrants.

Now it is clear that you don't really like immigrants but put that rage on hold for a second. Here's why you should be worried. If you believe that anyone let ICE into their home voluntarily as opposed to sworn statements that ICE forced their way into homes, then you believe way too much in the federal government and ought to spend a year at the library in the American history section.

ICE forced their way into homes in violation of the Constitution. In some cases they got lucky and found people that did not have ID. In other cases they found people with ID including US citizens. In only 5 cases did they actually find people who they were looking for, and even in those cases, they lacked search warrants. These are all things that ICE admitted and have been reported previously on here and in the Register.

You have a right in this country to deny anyone, including a federal agent, into your home unless they have a search warrant issued by a judge. I would suggest that it is pretty darn important to stand up for that right.

So that you don't have to either continue to rely on me for your legal education or make any more stuff up going forward, here's where you can find the Constitution -- a pretty impressive document, and one worth honoring with the truth.

http://www.law.emory.edu/index.php?id=3080

Posted by: Divertido? | August 13, 2007 4:52 PM

Hey Amused,

Get over yourself. You don't speak for Latinos. DeStefano won every Latino district in the state when he ran for Governor (really go check it out instead of making stuff up). Spend the time to get your facts straight. And remind us where all the opposition to DeStefano is again? DeStefano has no opponent in the primary, a Republican opponent who will get 1000 votes and a Green who won't run a campaign.

And as for Junta and your knowledge of Puerto Ricans -- here's a thought. Why don't you talk to the Puerto Ricans on its board and staff, or those members of the board of aldermen (both Puerto Rican and Cuban) who have been strong supporters of both Junta and immigrant rights.

Perez, Castro, and Rodriguez in particular have been excellent advocates on this issue and are members of the board of aldermen. They have marched, voted, and lobbied their colleagues. All in all they have made many of use very proud.

Posted by: nfjanette | August 13, 2007 5:21 PM

All this nonsense about latinos being so grateful to John DeStefano that he now has their political support is totally misplaced. The ID card will not make up for the many problems the Mayor has with Latinos. They did not support his candidacy for Governor in the primary or general election and he's done little to reach out beyond this one issue. It gets him in the national limelight, while people close to home can't wait to see him go.

That's the beauty of his support for the ID cards: Latino communities outside of New Haven will perceive him positively without regard to his actual record and relationship to local Latino residents. That could play out in a big way if he runs for state office again.

And as for JUNTA, beleive it or not I hear there are a number of Latinos (Puerto Ricans) who are fed up with its obsession with illegal immigrants. The entire focus of the group is consumed to the point they are doing little for those legal latinos who need help. It seems if you are a legal resident, you have to stand behind the undocumented clients for services.

If this is true, these people need to find the courage to stand up and speak out about this issue, as it illustrates exactly the problems of providing services to illegal immigrants. Anyone else who does so is immediately branded a racist.

Posted by: WEBbloger 1 | August 14, 2007 5:11 PM

CT. Lawyer.. get your augument straight, first you argued the violated protection was the 5th &14th amendment, now, (see further below)you say its the 4th. amendment. You cannot change your brief after submission and statement.

2. Most of the "federal protections" you seem to be referring to are available to anyone who finds themselves on US soil. For instance, the right to due process (that's provided in the 5th and 14th amendments), is guaranteed to all "persons" not citizens. Specific rights for citizens, like the right to vote, use the word "citizen."

"So now it will be up to the court to decide whether any constitutional rights were violated. These will include not only due process but also the right to not have the government engage in searches of your home without a warrant issued by a judge. That's the 4th Amendment."

The fact remains persons arrested received constitutional 5th & 14 amendment rights. The story above does not cite a 4th amendment violation. If that is cited the in suit in the manner you present it, I can only hope you are in federal court to present the argument in the fashion and tone as you have to us.

Petition denied.
case dismissed.

You had your three strikes, your out>>>>>>> GO

Posted by: Blah Blah Blah | August 14, 2007 8:40 PM

Hey Weblogger --
U lost me! I thought CT Lawyer was pretty clear and your response was nonsense.

Seems like the 4th is about the searches.
The 5th is about whether due process was followed.

If either is true the feds have a BIG problem.

I hate bloggers who get whooped on and then start to talk in circles. Just give Up. And your ending made you seem like you learned law in prison -- can you use some big words incorrectly now too? Remember those guys in In Living Color -- you remind me of them.

Posted by: Wjay | August 15, 2007 12:38 PM

BLAH..BLAH...BLAH Read it and weep.(below)
Is this clear enough for you???
WeBBloger answered the issue corectly regarding the 4th & 5th ammendment rights (above).

It seems to me the reason you cannot read it
correctly is because you watch too much Law and order TV, leave Living color out of it, they'er re-runs.

Amendment XIV: Privileges or immunities, due process, elections and debt.

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; 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.