Lawyers - does this make sense?

[wheresmy50]

Regarding Hazelton PA's anti illegal alien law, from CNN:

In a 13-page opinion, Munley said immigrants risked "irreparable injury" by being evicted from their apartments if the law is enforced. He also said he was not convinced by the city council's argument that illegal immigration increases crime and overburdens social services.

"Defendant offers only vague generalizations about the crime allegedly caused by illegal immigrants but has nothing concrete to back up these claims," Munley wrote.

He added that since the plaintiffs -- representing the town's Hispanic community -- claim the law affects constitutionally protected rights, it is in the public interest to delay enforcement of the ordinance until a court can consider its constitutional implications.

About a third of Hazleton's 31,000 residents are immigrants from Central America. According to local civil rights activists, about a quarter of the town's immigrant population is in the United States illegally.

Aren't we talking about people who are fugitives from justice? How is it illegal to evict them (what the Hazelton law aimed to do)? Also, how can an ethical judge basically condone illegal activity, i.e. them living here illegally?

-Ty

[Diamond Tackle]

Its very simple, its all about the votes. Lawyers and politicians sleep in the same bed. Same as with Gun Control, its never been about you and your families safety(if it was they would ENFORCE the laws in place), its only about the $ and getting votes by playing with peoples emotions . Funny how they are trying to use the Constitution when it suits them, and when it doesnt, its called an outdated piece of paper. Funny how that works.

[MakoMike]

Originally Posted by wheresmy50

He added that since the plaintiffs -- representing the town's Hispanic community -- claim the law affects constitutionally protected rights, it is in the public interest to delay enforcement of the ordinance until a court can consider its constitutional implications.

I think that is the key sentence. The judge isn't ruling ont he law itseld, he's just stopping its enforcement until it can be reviewed in court. IOW - he's not saying the law is invalid.

[wheresmy50]

Do illegal aliens have constitutionally protected rights?

[Diamond Tackle]

Originally Posted by wheresmy50

Do illegal aliens have constitutionally protected rights?

If they do , it should be exactly the same as rights that PRISONERS have, no more no less, cause thats where they should be til processed for deportation.
Im so sick of hearing about hardworking Illegal aliens.

[Mike P]

Originally Posted by wheresmy50

Do illegal aliens have constitutionally protected rights?

Generally speaking, yes. Most if not all of the provisions in the Bill of Rights start off with "No person.....", not "No citizen...."

Eg, "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without Due Process of Law".

And as someone already said, the judge isn't in any way condoning illegal immigration. He's doing what he's mandated by law to do, stay an order that's being separately challenged in a court until such time its legality is determined. What he's saying is that if the law is later held invalid, enforcing it now will do damage that can't be remedied later on if the law is struck down. That is the legal standard for issuing an injunction.

[BW from AZ]

i know your problems well. we get more than you could possibly believe a daily bassis passing thruogh. we cant even check if their legal, that would be "ratial profilling". they get free schooling and government assistance. i dont think anyone living here illegally should get any puplic benifits paid for by cittizens taxes. let them pay for it.
ive allso been thinking that maybe money shouldnt be allowed to be sent out of the country by any one not here legaly. sorry for ranting
but its election time and i get frustraited. BW

[wheresmy50]

I guess my question about the judge was improperly stated. What I really meant was, isn't the judge via his opinion implying that they have a right to be in the US? Otherwise wouldn't their rights or lack thereof to be in a given apartment building be moot since they have no legal right to be anywhere in this country? Isn't the only question whether or not they're here illegally?

By this logic, couldn't someone who is on the run from the law sue to maintain a particular residence since by being evicted, and thus sent to jail, bad things could happen? Meaning, by violating the law, don't you necessariy forfeit your right to live in free society?

I don't ususally have trouble understanding the ways of the world, but this recent nonsense about the rights of illegal aliens has me completely confused.

[MakoMike]

Originally Posted by wheresmy50

isn't the judge via his opinion implying that they have a right to be in the US?
Isn't the only question whether or not they're here illegally?
.

The only thing that he is implyign is that the provisions of the law may violate the illegal's consitutional rights. As the othr Mike pointed out, eveyone in this country has the rights granted by the constitution ( which is tha main reason Bush sends all the "detainees" to Cuba) IOW whether they are here legally or not they still have rights.

[Mike P]

Originally Posted by MakoMike

The only thing that he is implyign is that the provisions of the law may violate the illegal's consitutional rights. As the othr Mike pointed out, eveyone in this country has the rights granted by the constitution ( which is tha main reason Bush sends all the "detainees" to Cuba) IOW whether they are here legally or not they still have rights.

Actually, the naval base at Gitmo is a US territory, under lease from Cuba. The fact that Castro doesn't accept it as such doesn't change its legal status for the courts here. The detainees there do have the protection of US law in some respects, at least. A couple have been granted legal relief by the Supreme Court, in an opinion written by the most conservative Justice on the Court, Scalia.

Here's an example of how the Constitution says "citizens" when it means citizens, and "persons" when it means anyone, even illegals:

Amendment XIV

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.

[Redsoxticket]

I'm no lawyer but I interpet it as follows.
The first sentenced equates "person" that are born or naturalized .... as "citizens". Therefore, the mention of the word "persons" in the following sentences of the same paragraph is the same as referring to "citizens".

[wheresmy50]

This is insane. It blows my mind that someone who is traspassing on our soil can sue to receive legal protection to do anything. They should be arrested on the spot when they file the papers.

Secondly, how do these people exist in society? Don't at least some of them drive, have bank accounts, sign leases, etc? I'm guessing they do it with forged documents - again, fraud.

If you were a fugitive from justice for any other crime, this would never happen.

[MakoMike]

Originally Posted by Mike P

Actually, the naval base at Gitmo is a US territory, under lease from Cuba. The fact that Castro doesn't accept it as such doesn't change its legal status for the courts here. The detainees there do have the protection of US law in some respects, at least. A couple have been granted legal relief by the Supreme Court, in an opinion written by the most conservative Justice on the Court, Scalia.
s.

Just to pick nits, it is not a U.S. "territory." It is a location subject to U.S. juristiction and the applicability of consitutional right ot persons in that area is subject to legal debate. The Marshall Islands are a territory.

[MakoMike]

Originally Posted by Redsoxticket

I'm no lawyer but I interpet it as follows.
The first sentenced equates "person" that are born or naturalized .... as "citizens". Therefore, the mention of the word "persons" in the following sentences of the same paragraph is the same as referring to "citizens".

Sorry, no go. The first sentence define citizens as persons that are born or naturalized, the second sentence extends due process to all persons, citizens or not.