PDA

View Full Version : Judge allows Illegal aliens to sue ICE for being detained>>



garhkal
08-13-2015, 02:23 AM
Ok, i thought i had heard it all in the way of crazy lawsuits. BUT this takes the cake.

"Illegal immigrants are suing the U.S. government for what they say was psychological and physical harm due to their detention, according to an Associated Press report.

The five illegal immigrants, all hailing from Guatemala, Honduras, or El Salvador, are seeking millions of dollars in damages and claim they received poor medical care and suffered psychologically from being detained.

Andrew Free, the immigration lawyer representing the plaintiffs, told the AP that the government’s use of family detention violates their rights and that the government fails to provide the “standard of care that they owe to these detainees.”"

Sorry, but what rights do they have to sue ICE for being detained due to being here illegally?
What next, criminals suing COPS for arresting them?


http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/12/illegals-sue-u-s-for-millions-of-dollars-over-detention/

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2015/08/11/immigrants-mothers-sue-us-government-over-treatment-at-detention-centers/

Mjölnir
08-13-2015, 02:49 AM
Sorry, but what rights do they have to sue ICE for being detained due to being here illegally?

Are they suing for being detained ... or their treatment while detained? If they were mistreated, I would think they have a right to sue. Just because you detain or arrest someone doesn't mean you have carte blanche to mistreat them.

It is pretty well established by precedent that once someone is in the custody of the state or federal government there is a standard of care/treatment. Not sure if it was violated in this case ... but it is reasonable.

garhkal
08-13-2015, 04:00 AM
But HOW are they being mistreated?

Mjölnir
08-13-2015, 04:08 AM
But HOW are they being mistreated?

Don't know, neither article really got into the specifics/merit (or lack thereof) of the case other than that they got poor medical care (is it possible that they didn't get sufficient care? adequate care? timely care?), the LATINO FOX article says detainees are also claiming they were improperly detained, which if true would be negligent.

efmbman
08-13-2015, 12:22 PM
Ok, i thought i had heard it all in the way of crazy lawsuits. BUT this takes the cake.

"Illegal immigrants are suing the U.S. government for what they say was psychological and physical harm due to their detention, according to an Associated Press report.

The five illegal immigrants, all hailing from Guatemala, Honduras, or El Salvador, are seeking millions of dollars in damages and claim they received poor medical care and suffered psychologically from being detained.

Andrew Free, the immigration lawyer representing the plaintiffs, told the AP that the government’s use of family detention violates their rights and that the government fails to provide the “standard of care that they owe to these detainees.”"

Sorry, but what rights do they have to sue ICE for being detained due to being here illegally?
What next, criminals suing COPS for arresting them?

I'm sure this is a 14th Amendment issue. A synopsis of the 1st clause of the 14th is:


The Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction.

If anyone (even you) feels they are not provided equal protection, they have the right to sue. That is the mechanism our system provides for "righting a wrong". The 14th covers everyone - not just citizens. The lawsuit and the lawyers will present their versions to the judge / jury and a decision is made.

Just a friendly suggestion - spend a little time reading about the Constitution and the Amendments. There are many sites out there that break down the language and the clauses into laymans terms. Most sites will have links to court cases regarding specific clauses and explains the judicial interpretation. I found it to be very enlightening and helps to understand why most times, a court decision is not outrageous, but within the intent of the law. I recommend a law school website. Believe it or not, but Wikipedia does a fairly good job of breaking down the Amendments.

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
08-13-2015, 02:17 PM
I am going to sneak into Iran. When they catch me and squeeze my arm too tight (leaving a bruise), then I'm suing the snot out of them. Probably tell the UN about it too. Yeah, definitely telling the UN.

On another note, has anyone tried Honey Nut Cheerios? Damn, they're good! I'd take a picture and post it if this was FB.

Rainmaker
08-13-2015, 03:03 PM
I am going to sneak into Iran. When they catch me and squeeze my arm too tight (leaving a bruise), then I'm suing the snot out of them. Probably tell the UN about it too. Yeah, definitely telling the UN.

On another note, has anyone tried Honey Nut Cheerios? Damn, they're good! I'd take a picture and post it if this was FB.

Clearly The Founding Fathers of the United States, would've intended that these women ( who were working 12-16 hours in a sweatshop, for less than a dollar a day in their native countries) should now each get $2 Million dollars apiece from the Racist American Taxpayers.... Because They developed PTSD after the DHS didn't speak to them in their Indigenous Yucatec Mayan language.

If you doubt this is the case just ask the "Wise Latina" of the Supreme Court....FORWARD OVER THE CLIFF!!!!

efmbman
08-13-2015, 03:17 PM
I am going to sneak into Iran. When they catch me and squeeze my arm too tight (leaving a bruise), then I'm suing the snot out of them. Probably tell the UN about it too. Yeah, definitely telling the UN.

Fairly certain the protections of the US Constitution would not apply in a foreign country, but please try to post how all that works out.


On another note, has anyone tried Honey Nut Cheerios? Damn, they're good! I'd take a picture and post it if this was FB.

Yes, they are very good. My kids love them. I used to eat Apple Cinnamon Cheerios, but I don't think they make those anymore... at least I can't find them where I shop.


Clearly The Founding Fathers of the United States, would've intended that these women ( who were working 12-16 hours in a sweatshop, for less than a dollar a day in their native countries) should now each get $2 Million dollars apiece from the Racist American Taxpayers.... Because They developed PTSD after the DHS didn't speak to them in their Indigenous Yucatec Mayan language.

If you doubt this is the case just ask the "Wise Latina" of the Supreme Court....FORWARD OVER THE CLIFF!!!!

Perhaps, but the Founding Fathers were not available for comment when the 14th Amendment was written and ratified. The 14th was part of the Reconstruction process following the US Civil War. Regardless, the law requires that all people within the jurisdiction of the State be entitled to the same protections without regard to citizenship.

My opinion is that since another law was violated to get that person in the situation, they should not be entitled to that protection. But my opinion means about as much as yours - nothing.

Absinthe Anecdote
08-13-2015, 03:54 PM
But HOW are they being mistreated?

Why don't YOU try reading the articles that YOU posted?

The answer to your question is in the Fox article, and in the original AP story that Brietbart quotes.

I refuse to read anymore articles for you.

I find it extremely annoying that you create all these threads asking questions that are largely answered in the articles.

How often to you read beyond the first paragraph of a news story?

MikeKerriii
08-13-2015, 05:54 PM
Ok, i thought i had heard it all in the way of crazy lawsuits. BUT this takes the cake.

"Illegal immigrants are suing the U.S. government for what they say was psychological and physical harm due to their detention, according to an Associated Press report.

The five illegal immigrants, all hailing from Guatemala, Honduras, or El Salvador, are seeking millions of dollars in damages and claim they received poor medical care and suffered psychologically from being detained.

Andrew Free, the immigration lawyer representing the plaintiffs, told the AP that the government’s use of family detention violates their rights and that the government fails to provide the “standard of care that they owe to these detainees.”"

Sorry, but what rights do they have to sue ICE for being detained due to being here illegally?
What next, criminals suing COPS for arresting them?


http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/12/illegals-sue-u-s-for-millions-of-dollars-over-detention/

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2015/08/11/immigrants-mothers-sue-us-government-over-treatment-at-detention-centers/
The law sets standards for the treatment of prisoners, if those standards are not met they can sue. I hate tp break it to you but the law applies to everyone in the US.

Bos Mutus
08-13-2015, 06:20 PM
Sorry, but what rights do they have to sue ICE for being detained due to being here illegally?

The right to be treated humanely?

I don't know if their case has any merit or not...but, why is it so inconceivable to you to think that maybe they weren't treated properly while detained?


What next, criminals suing COPS for arresting them?

Well, that has certainly been done when the COPS use excessive force, illegal detention, false arrest, etc....

Do you believe COPS and ICE should be able to operate with impunity?

Rainmaker
08-13-2015, 06:30 PM
Perhaps, but the Founding Fathers were not available for comment when the 14th Amendment was written and ratified. The 14th was part of the Reconstruction process following the US Civil War. Regardless, the law requires that all people within the jurisdiction of the State be entitled to the same protections without regard to citizenship.

My opinion is that since another law was violated to get that person in the situation, they should not be entitled to that protection. But my opinion means about as much as yours - nothing.

Good history refresher. It's always fun.....Anyhow, I've read the amendment. I think we should post section 1 in full text, since in my "meaningless opinion" your'synopsis' left out some key parts.

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.

The timing of this Amendment (Reconstruction) is important, since up until the Civil war we were still a Pure Constitutional Republic.

Becaue, You See. We have had a corporation ACTING as the government since 21 Feb 1871.


28 U.S.C. 3002 (15)
(15)“United States” means—
(A) a Federal corporation;
(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
(C) an instrumentality of the United States.


The "law" is all corporate regulations. Think of Congress and the legislatures as "the board of directors for the corporation"

Once, the State (through the court) starts deciding who is a citizen and who has rights, Then, You are simply seen as a corporate asset (i.e Human Capital)

This begs the question Who owns the Corporation? and What are the requirements to be a CEO of this corporation?

In case folks don't know.....You don't have to be a Citizen of any specific country to head up a corporation.

Absinthe Anecdote
08-13-2015, 06:42 PM
Good history refresher. It's always fun.....Anyhow, I've read the amendment. I think we should post section 1 in full text, since in my "meaningless opinion" your'synopsis' left out some key parts.

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.

The timing of this Amendment (Reconstruction) is important, since up until the Civil war we were still a Pure Constitutional Republic.

Becaue, You See. We have had a corporation ACTING as the government since 21 Feb 1871.


28 U.S.C. 3002 (15)
(15)“United States” means—
(A) a Federal corporation;
(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
(C) an instrumentality of the United States.


The "law" is all corporate regulations. Think of Congress and the legislatures as "the board of directors for the corporation"

Once, the State (through the court) starts deciding who is a citizen and who has rights, Then, You are simply seen as a corporate asset (i.e Human Capital)

This begs the question Who owns the Corporation? and What are the requirements to be a CEO of this corporation?

In case folks don't know.....You don't have to be a Citizen of any specific country to head up a corporation.

On second thought, stick to making cankels jokes. Trying to decipher your interpretation of the Constitution is much worse.

Rainmaker
08-13-2015, 06:48 PM
Trying to decipher your interpretation of the Constitution is much worse.

If It's Greek to you, then just stick to Hebrew kid...

Absinthe Anecdote
08-13-2015, 07:04 PM
If It's Greek to you, then just stick to Hebrew kid...

No, you just did a lousy job of making your case for the government being a corporation.

It was yet another incoherent post, despite being devoid of zingers. Go back and rewrite it.

Rainmaker
08-13-2015, 07:23 PM
No, you just did a lousy job of making your case for the government being a corporation.

It was yet another incoherent post, despite being devoid of zingers. Go back and rewrite it.

What part of the concept was too complicated for you to comprehend?

Absinthe Anecdote
08-13-2015, 07:28 PM
What part of the concept was too complicated for you to comprehend?

You didn't explain yourself.

Go read what you posted out loud.

garhkal
08-14-2015, 06:36 AM
Don't know, neither article really got into the specifics/merit (or lack thereof) of the case other than that they got poor medical care (is it possible that they didn't get sufficient care? adequate care? timely care?), the LATINO FOX article says detainees are also claiming they were improperly detained, which if true would be negligent.

On the article i read this (admittedly GOPUSA) the claim was 'cause the immigrants couldn't speak to the doctors in their NATIVE tongues, they felt that was "receiving poorer medical treatment than they felt they deserved".. or something to that effect.

As to the "Improper detained".. How? They are here illegally, so how can they be considered Improperly detained by ICE?


I'm sure this is a 14th Amendment issue. A synopsis of the 1st clause of the 14th is:


The Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction.


How's about we get it from the horses mouth..
Art 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.

Since illegal immigrants are not "Persons born, or naturalized, and thus subject to the jurisdiction thereof.. how then does the 14th apply to them??


Fairly certain the protections of the US Constitution would not apply in a foreign country, but please try to post how all that works out.

So then why does our constitution apply to Illegals, when by what i posted above, it only applies to US citizens?


Why don't YOU try reading the articles that YOU posted?

The answer to your question is in the Fox article, and in the original AP story that Brietbart quotes.

I refuse to read anymore articles for you.

I find it extremely annoying that you create all these threads asking questions that are largely answered in the articles.

How often to you read beyond the first paragraph of a news story?

Admittedly not as much as i should for ALL the links i come up with, but when i find something worthy to post, i like to get more than the ONE article on the subject. So google the issue to get more links. Ergo, only the initial link (or not since these days i don't link directly to the GOPUSA site) actually got read. The rest were just hunted down and linked for 'expansion' on the issue.

BUT that still does not invalidate the question? How is telling illegals, "Sorry we have no (insert language) doctors here, so you need to speak english to get treatment, Mistreating them?

efmbman
08-14-2015, 11:45 AM
How's about we get it from the horses mouth..
Art 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.

Since illegal immigrants are not "Persons born, or naturalized, and thus subject to the jurisdiction thereof.. how then does the 14th apply to them??



So then why does our constitution apply to Illegals, when by what i posted above, it only applies to US citizens?

Seriously... that's is exactly why I kindly suggested this:

Just a friendly suggestion - spend a little time reading about the Constitution and the Amendments. There are many sites out there that break down the language and the clauses into laymans terms. Most sites will have links to court cases regarding specific clauses and explains the judicial interpretation. I found it to be very enlightening and helps to understand why most times, a court decision is not outrageous, but within the intent of the law. I recommend a law school website. Believe it or not, but Wikipedia does a fairly good job of breaking down the Amendments.

When reading a clause such as the 1st of the 14th, it is important to use the semicolons correctly. Each one is independent from the others. Think of it like a list. Let's break it down:

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.
This simply defines citizenship. Other laws since have modified this, but this is the basic requirements for citizenship.


No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
If Federal Law provides for a privilege or immunity, no state can make or enforce a law to the contrary. Federal Law supersedes any and all state laws.


nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
The often used due process clause. This is the one that also makes the death penalty legal in that since due process was used, one can be deprived of life.


nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
This is the one that answers your question. It clearly says "any person", not "citizens". If someone (anyone) is within the borders of the US, that person is within the jurisdiction. Therefore, they are entitled to equal protection.

Does this answer your question?

garhkal
08-15-2015, 05:22 AM
This is the one that answers your question. It clearly says "any person", not "citizens". If someone (anyone) is within the borders of the US, that person is within the jurisdiction. Therefore, they are entitled to equal protection.

Does this answer your question?

Yes.. Thanks for the correction.
So legally they are accorded the right to due process etc. BUT where then is the issue with them being detained "Incorrectly" etc?

Mjölnir
08-15-2015, 12:56 PM
Yes.. Thanks for the correction.
So legally they are accorded the right to due process etc. BUT where then is the issue with them being detained "Incorrectly" etc?

It could have to do with search and seizure (how were they identified/singled out)

It could have to do with how they were processed upon detainment.

It could have to do with their ability to communicate with their parent nation.

There are a lot of things it could be, without more than what is in the stories I can't comment specifically.

efmbman
08-15-2015, 01:05 PM
Yes.. Thanks for the correction.
So legally they are accorded the right to due process etc. BUT where then is the issue with them being detained "Incorrectly" etc?

As AA posted, that's from the article you linked (Fox Latino):

Claimants in the 60-page filing, all from Guatemala, Honduras, or El Salvador, include a woman who said she received poor care for an injured ear because she could not speak to the medical staff in her indigenous language. Another said her children were among 250 kids given an erroneously high dose of a hepatitis A vaccine, despite their having proof of previous vaccination. A mother and daughter fleeing gang violence and held for more than six months were both diagnosed by a psychologist with post-traumatic stress disorder and depression exacerbated by their long detention.

A Honduran mother reported that her 8-year-old daughter attempted to breast-feed again, and another woman and her son said they had languished in detention for 28 days after having passed their credible fear interview, the first legal hurdle for asylum. When the same woman sought treatment for her broken fingers and wrist, she was allegedly told to "drink more water" by medical staff and her son was rushed to the hospital after "a virus apparently had gone untreated for a dangerously long time," according to the court papers.

Those are some of the claims. Since these people are in the custody of the US Government, the government is the accused. The people filing the lawsuit are the plaintiffs. That's what our courts do - settle disputes. Under the 14th, these people have a right to file this suit just as prisoners files suits all the time about conditions and such.

It's quite OK to think it is BS (as I do), but it is legal and the judge had no choice but to allow the suit.

I think you fell victim to the way headlines are worded for shock value. Your thread title is: "Judge allows Illegal aliens to sue ICE for being detained". That's not true. The judge allows illegal aliens to sue ICE for the conditions while being detailed - not the act of being detained.

garhkal
08-15-2015, 05:13 PM
I think you fell victim to the way headlines are worded for shock value. Your thread title is: "Judge allows Illegal aliens to sue ICE for being detained". That's not true. The judge allows illegal aliens to sue ICE for the conditions while being detailed - not the act of being detained.

True, the headline did kind of get my 'juices boiling'..