H09512
Headlines : GovernmentU.S. can hold noncitizens indefinitely
This is particularly disturbing, but it is only a district court’s ruling. This will likely be appealed, and this particular case can highlight how much power the federal government has taken after 9/11 to deal with foreigners on U.S. soil.
[Posted By senssensibilityr]Republished from The New York Times
A federal judge in Brooklyn ruled yesterday that the government has wide latitude under immigration law to detain noncitizens on the basis of religion, race or national origin, and to hold them indefinitely without explanation.
The ruling came in a class-action lawsuit by Muslim immigrants detained after 9/11, and it dismissed several key claims the detainees had made against the government. But the judge, John Gleeson of United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, allowed the lawsuit to continue on other claims, mostly that the conditions of confinement were abusive and unconstitutional. Judge Gleeson’s decision requires top federal officials, including former Attorney General John Ashcroft and Robert S. Mueller III, the F.B.I. director, to answer to those accusations under oath.
This is the first time a federal judge has addressed the issue of discrimination in the treatment of hundreds of Muslim immigrants who were swept up in the weeks after the 2001 terror attacks and held for months before they were cleared of links to terrorism and deported. The roundups drew intense criticism, not only from immigrant rights advocates, but also from the inspector general of the Justice Department, who issued reports saying that the government had…
Posted by senssensibilityr
Student of German and Russian culture, history and language, emphasis on post-Dark Age European History.
German and Russian 20th century literature.
Studying Arabic.
Cannot wait to go to Freiburg to study @ Goethe Institut im Februar.
Thanks for posting this. I read that first graph in today’s paper over my morning coffee and literally a chill went up my spine.
you know back in the day of muscle cars, really good white blotter, and Led Zepplin, we talked about this sort of “world”.. but you know, you never really thought you’d be around to see it…
so here we are, on the cusp of a new world order… I’ve no plans on cashin it in any time soon, but really makes me wonder how much I’m lookin forward to seein how things will be lookin by the end of another decade or so… gonna make science fiction childs play.
Terrible,
slowly getting rid of civil trials, it’ll free up court time for intellectual property rights cases, and you know, other important stuff.
Magna Carta? nope, don’t need that anymore.
and in this long war (permanent war?), is there any chance these rights would be given back soon?
“Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose…” lyrics to Bobby McGee
i blogged this one
“A federal judge in Brooklyn ruled yesterday that the government has wide latitude under immigration law to detain noncitizens on the basis of religion, race or national origin, and to hold them indefinitely without explanation.”
That is not what the judgement was about and not what the Judge said. A typical far left politicization of a straight forward legal ruling.
The case involved illegal aliens, not “non-citizens”, illegal immigrants, shall I spell that for you I L L E G A L A L I E N S.
Since by law they should be arrested and sent back anyways, so as criminals they take our circumstances as they occur. Our circumstances being that their fellow brothers attacked us. That is not their fault, however sneaking in to our country is their fault.
Let’ review, Islamic terror gangs attack the US for reasons no-one really knows, something about, Israel, Muslim lands and infidels, anyways, these filthy swine terrorists sneak into our country, the same way illegal aliants do. Illegal alients intentions are no bad, the Islamist terrorists on the other hand are evil, but the cops cannot easily know that. The cops must protect us at all costs and aliens have few rights, therefore, the ruling makes perfect sense and is fair to me. It strikes a perfect balance.
so le’t review. The case involved, who?.....it begins with an ‘i’. Can you remember?, illegal alians, illegal means, outside the law, as in, snuck into our country and broke our laws.
The case involved illegal aliens, not “non-citizens”, illegal immigrants, shall I spell that for you I L L E G A L A L I E N S.
Doesn’t matter, Stupid.
There is a legal precedent, in a Supreme Court decision that addresses this issue (which the judge in this case convinently ignored)
First, from the 14th amendment:
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
Not citizen, person. An ILLEGAL ALIEN is still a person, and thus the protection of the 14th amendment is supposed to apply to them (that the judge ignored this while making his ruling does not make the judge right).
On the Supreme Court Decision which affirms this:
The Supreme Court ruled and made it clear that equal protection applies to persons that are “illegal aliens” in Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 210 -16 (1982) (explicating meaning of the phrase in the context of holding that aliens illegally present in a State are ‘’within its jurisdiction’’ and may thus raise equal protection claims).
*or are you advocating judges ignoring the constitution, and the legal precedents established by previous Supreme Court decisions when making their rulings, if (as this case does) those rulings violate the law, but support your bigotry and racism?
snuck into our country and broke our laws.
snuck is not a word, Troll. The word is sneaked.
“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”
Yes, I agree, and that due process is to put them on a boat and vamos. You seem to think due process is only for illegals, not for the American people.
“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”
Yes, I agree, and that due process is to put them on a boat and vamos. You seem to think due process is only for illegals, not for the American people.
“The Supreme Court ruled and made it clear that equal protection applies to persons that are “illegal aliens” in Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 210 -16 (1982) (explicating meaning of the phrase in the context of holding that aliens illegally present in a State are ‘’within its jurisdiction’’ and may thus raise equal protection claims).”
Since you may have trouble interpreting judgements I will help you. Nothing in that ruling applies in this case. Their detention is part of the due process. The US government has the right to capture, hold and process aliens for repatriation as well as investigate whether their illegal actions constitute a threat to security. That is what would happen if INS caught boat people trying to enter the US from the sea.
You seem to think due process is only for illegals, not for the American people.
Straw man. This is the fallacy of refuting a caricatured or extreme version of somebody’s argument, rather than the actual argument they’ve made. Often this fallacy involves putting words into somebody’s mouth by saying they’ve made arguments they haven’t actually made, in which case the straw man argument is a veiled version of argumentum ad logicam. One example of a straw man argument would be to say, “Mr. Jones thinks that capitalism is good because everybody earns whatever wealth they have, but this is clearly false because many people just inherit their fortunes,” when in fact Mr. Jones had not made the “earnings” argument and had instead argued, say, that capitalism gives most people an incentive to work and save. The fact that some arguments made for a policy are wrong does not imply that the policy itself is wrong.
On the contrary, I believe that due process applies to everyone the US captures/arrests/accuses of something, and so does the Constitution. In the 5th amendment it clearly states “no person” person includes US citizens and non-US citizens in US custody. So shove your strawmen up your ass, and don’t even pretend that you know what I think, because you do not, Shit Dick Troll.
Since you may have trouble interpreting judgements I will help you. Nothing in that ruling applies in this case.
Don’t imply that I have “trouble interpreting judgments” because the cited case doesn’t support your bullshit. Nothing in that ruling applies to your retarded view of the case, that does not mean that nothing in the ruling applies in this case, which it most certainly does.
Read it again slowly:
The Supreme Court ruled and made it clear that equal protection applies to persons that are “illegal aliens” in Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 210 -16 (1982)
Equal protection includes due process, the right to be presented with the charges against you, and a trial in a timely manner, or release from custody. Indefinite incarceration violates due process, thus is illegal, which is why/how/where the above case comes into it.
Sorry if you have a problem accepting arguments that refute your (asnine) positions, Troll.
The US government has the right to capture, hold and process aliens for repatriation as well as investigate whether their illegal actions constitute a threat to security.
Again, not if doing so violates the constitution, and/or the rights of the aliens.
For a third time:
The Supreme Court ruled and made it clear that equal protection applies to persons that are “illegal aliens” in Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 210 -16 (1982) (explicating meaning of the phrase in the context of holding that aliens illegally present in a State are ‘’within its jurisdiction’’ and may thus raise equal protection claims).
hehe
Juice, Obviously the Federal Judge disagrees with you.
The rights stated under the Constitution apply to illegals and criminals where applicable.
The Supreme Court ruled and made it clear that equal protection applies to persons that are “illegal aliens” in Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 210 -16 (1982) (explicating meaning of the phrase in the context of holding that aliens illegally present in a State are ‘’within its jurisdiction’’ and may thus raise equal protection claims).
What does that have to do with the detention of illegals from high risk groups until verifications or risk can be assessed and the upon determining that they are not a risk, deporting them.
Is there a constitutional clause that I don’t know about that states,
the right of a person entering the country illegally to not be detained under suspicion of involvement in a foreign plot to kill Americans shall not be abridged.
yawn