Raids Scrutinized as Constitutionally Questionable

Orleander

OH JOY!!!!
Valued Senior Member
Is it intimidation? Is intimidation unethical?


The sheriff's department has developed a remarkably effective -- and controversial -- way of catching illegal immigrants: Deputies in patrol cars pull up to a construction site in force, and watch and see who runs.
Those who take off are chased down and arrested on charges such as trespassing, for cutting through someone else's property; or loitering, for hiding out in someone's yard; or reckless driving, for speeding off in a car.

U.S. immigration authorities are then given the names of those believed to be in this country illegally.

''It's not wrong for them to run, but it's not wrong for us to chase them either,'' said Sheriff Frank McKeithen, who created his Illegal Alien Task Force in April to target construction sites in this Florida Panhandle county.

TECHNIQUE REPUGNANT

Immigrant advocates say the technique is repugnant, and the ACLU says its constitutionality is questionable.

Illegal immigrants are leaving town. And builders are worried the crackdown will deprive them of the labor they need to take part in a building boom in which Panama City's Beach cheap spring-break motels are being torn down and replaced with high-rise condos.

The sheriff said the raids are justified under a long-standing Florida law prohibiting employers from knowingly hiring illegal immigrants.

His department has conducted dozens of these raids over the past three months, sometimes using five or six patrol cars, and has reported more than 500 people to immigration officials since November.

The Mexican American Legal Defense Fund is investigating the arrests because ''the intimidation factor is of great concern,'' said Elise Shore, regional counsel for the organization.

Benjamin Stevenson, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union in Florida, said he finds the tactic troubling.

''Why are they sending out six or seven agents to investigate a paper crime, and are they causing them to run in the first place through intimidation?'' he asked.

As the debate over illegal immigration plays out in Washington, McKeithen is among a growing number of state and local officials taking it upon themselves to enforce immigration laws that up to now were regarded as a federal responsibility.

For example, Farmers Branch, Texas, is trying to prohibit apartment rentals to illegal immigrants in the Dallas suburb. Georgia passed a law requiring employers to verify the immigration status of all new employees.

Barbara Gonzalez, a spokeswoman for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Miami, would not comment on the sheriff's tactics.

McKeithen has asked Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum for a legal opinion on his tactics. A spokeswoman for McCollum said the office is researching the request.

FEWER ARRESTS

The sheriff said that more recently, his officers have been making fewer arrests of workers who flee, and are concentrating more on asking employers for the paperwork on their employees. Sheriff's deputies then arrest workers whose documents are found to be fraudulent.

Mexican illegal immigrant Jose Madrid, 28, said he has been unable to find a construction job over the past six weeks because of the crackdown, and hasn't been able to send money to his parents and his 7-year-old son back home.

''We immigrants, we are leaving Panama City. People are afraid they will be deported,'' he said. ``The companies don't want to hire illegal people. Now they're only hiring those with papers.''

Developer Louis Breland is finishing the first phase of a $750 million beach condo project. ''Subcontractors could not function without immigrant laborers for painting, rebar and steel work. They are the best workers,'' he said. ``Without them, the cost of construction would be 10 times as much and nothing would get built.''
 
Is it intimidation? Is intimidation unethical?

I'm not sure why you think criminals shouldn't be intimidated? Do you like criminals? Do you think criminals should be protected against any and all forms of intimidation?

And do you think that our Constitution and Bill of Rights is applicable for ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS? I thought the Constitution and Bill of Rights applied only to US citizens?

Baron Max
 
It's not just builders. It's ALL employers of criminal aliens. We need to have huge sweeps and crackdowns everywhere. Get rid of them. Then get wages back up for REAL American workers.
 
This won't do it. It targets the wrong people.

The wrong people???? It targets the ILLEGAL immigrants ....they aren't the "wrong people", they're the ones who committed violations!

Arrest and fine the builders.

Can't until laws are passed which prohibits hiring illegal immigrants.

An interesting side note; Texas cities have tried to pass similar laws about renting to illegals, but a liberal, mamby-pamby judge struck it down because "...a city or state can not enforce a federal law". Can you believe that shit??? ...LOL!

It will pass, but the judge put it into the legal machine and it could be months, perhaps years, before it's ruled on again by a higher court.

Baron Max
 
No, they are the wrong people to target, since the employers remain to attract new illegal workers. It's like the difference between arresting major drug dealers and the homeless crack addict on the street.
 
Mexican illegal immigrant Jose Madrid, 28, said he has been unable to find a construction job over the past six weeks because of the crackdown, and hasn't been able to send money to his parents and his 7-year-old son back home.


Poor baby.
Mexican CRIMINAL Jose Madrid, 28, needs to go back home and try to be a real father to his 7-year-old son. The criminal's parents need to get a job and stop spending money like there is no tomorrow.
 
I'm not sure why you think criminals shouldn't be intimidated? Do you like criminals? Do you think criminals should be protected against any and all forms of intimidation?

And do you think that our Constitution and Bill of Rights is applicable for ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS? I thought the Constitution and Bill of Rights applied only to US citizens?

Baron Max

what?? :confused: I just asked. I didn't say "I think this is imtimidation and shouldn't be done". It was in the article. And the title of the thread is the title of the article.
I love immigrants. After all, I am only a first generation American myself. I don't like illegal immigration. Has nothing to do with jobs, medical care, welfare, etc. For me it has to do with keeping track of who comes here and the legality of it all.
So quit yelling at me!!! :p

The Mexican American Legal Defense Fund is investigating the arrests because ''the intimidation factor is of great concern,'' said Elise Shore, regional counsel for the organization.

Benjamin Stevenson, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union in Florida, said he finds the tactic troubling.

''Why are they sending out six or seven agents to investigate a paper crime, and are they causing them to run in the first place through intimidation?'' he asked.
 
what?? :confused: I just asked. I didn't say "I think this is imtimidation and shouldn't be done". It was in the article. And the title of the thread is the title of the article.
I love immigrants. After all, I am only a first generation American myself. I don't like illegal immigration. Has nothing to do with jobs, medical care, welfare, etc. For me it has to do with keeping track of who comes here and the legality of it all.
So quit yelling at me!!! :p

The Mexican American Legal Defense Fund is investigating the arrests because ''the intimidation factor is of great concern,'' said Elise Shore,regional counsel for the organization.

Benjamin Stevenson, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union in Florida, said he finds the tactic troubling.

''Why are they sending out six or seven agents to investigate a paper crime, and are they causing them to run in the first place through intimidation?'' he asked.

What doesn't sink through your skull? that they are breaking the Law, they Know they are Breaking the Law, if they weren't breaking the Law and knew it, why would they run? The Law-abiding Stand and do not fear the appearance of the Law, the criminal runs because his conscience tells him he has transgressed the Law and in the running Identifies him self as a law breaker, do you run when a bunch of Officers pull up and just sit their? you haven't broken the Laws so you don't think about running do you? what would you do if you had broken a Law? what would your conscience tell you to do? If you haven't broken the Law how can you be intimidated?
 
What doesn't sink through your skull? that they are breaking the Law, they Know they are Breaking the Law, if they weren't breaking the Law and knew it, why would they run? The Law-abiding Stand and do not fear the appearance of the Law, the criminal runs because his conscience tells him he has transgressed the Law and in the running Identifies him self as a law breaker, do you run when a bunch of Officers pull up and just sit their? you haven't broken the Laws so you don't think about running do you? what would you do if you had broken a Law? what would your conscience tell you to do? If you haven't broken the Law how can you be intimidated?

$%^#& WHAT??? What isn't sinking through YOUR skull??
I asked "Is it intimidation? Is intimidation unethical?" and then I replied to Baron "I just asked. I didn't say "I think this is imtimidation and shouldn't be done". It was in the article. And the title of the thread is the title of the article."

I never never ever ever said "This is intimidation and its wrong"
 
This won't do it. It targets the wrong people. Arrest and fine the builders.

I agree. Its like arresting the prostitute and telling her how vile she is and not the john because he's an upstanding member of the community.

But the contractor made a valid point. Do I want to pay for a house built by $22 an hr labor or by $8 an hr labor? Is America willing to pay that?
 
No, they are the wrong people to target, since the employers remain to attract new illegal workers.

So ...banks, having all that money, attracts bank robbers, so the bank robbers aren't guilty of anything? ...and shouldn't be pursued and prosecuted?

It's like the difference between arresting major drug dealers and the homeless crack addict on the street.

If the drug dealers didn't have anyone to buy their drugs, they'd disappear quickly. So again, you're barking up the wrong tree!

Baron Max
 
I think a vital undercurrent that needs to be considered here is that there are many folks in this country who will do anything, adopt any principle in order to pretend that foreigners--especially nonwhites--are not human beings. After all, for all we hear about "criminals", what we never stop to consider is the justice of any given law. Certainly I would prefer that immigrants follow the proper channels, but the proper channels are excessively difficult, and on purpose. From the beginning, the point of making immigration difficult was to prevent waves of incoming immigrants from unseating the established conservative powers. It's just a way of making sure that the richest echelon bears the greatest sociopolitical power.

Terrorists? One of the great disappointments of the Clinton administration was the turning back of Hatian refugees while simultaneously (via Congress) opening thousands of Irish refugee slots in the immigration numbers. Regardless of my personal opinion of the Irish troubles, it must be pointed out that many of these "refugees" were people we would classify as "terrorists". The majority of these folks would be white.

Remember also the WTO riot in Seattle. Part of the tension that preceded the police initiation of hostilities was the opinion that many protesters were "breaking the law". Thus, by the simplistic suspension of due process insisted upon in the hate-rhetoric of folks like Sandy, Nutter, Buffalo Roam, and others, these protesters were "criminals". Due process would reveal that the laws they broke were designed specifically to create criminals. Unlike immigration law, the protest laws directly violate the U.S. Constitution. However, like the protest laws, any proper and official scrutiny given our immigration processes would demonstrate their insufficiency. And this is important, especially since many of the illegal immigrants would follow the proper channels if those channels were decently and readily available.
 
Those raids don't matter. The dumb, contradictory, anti-immigration folk out here are gonna vote for Guilliani anyways, which is gonna seal the fate of a North American Union which'll allow all those Mexicans to come into this country freely.

- N
 
Those raids don't matter. The dumb, contradictory, anti-immigration folk out here are gonna vote for Guilliani anyways, which is gonna seal the fate of a North American Union which'll allow all those Mexicans to come into this country freely.

- N

So what?
 
I'm not sure why you think criminals shouldn't be intimidated? Do you like criminals? Do you think criminals should be protected against any and all forms of intimidation?

And do you think that our Constitution and Bill of Rights is applicable for ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS? I thought the Constitution and Bill of Rights applied only to US citizens?

Baron Max

For me it is the use of armed force in large numbers to intimidate as a culling mechanism.

I am sure other people on the site feel intimidated perhaps especially Latinos (some of whose families have been living in the area longer than 'whites'). I have never liked police force culling actions. Let's intimidate random people and see if any of them are bad.

it's a bad pattern to allow a government to get used to. It is a step towards fascism and not something to get used to.

And if they were pulling up in richer suburbs with vans marked IRS it would get shut down.
 
Back
Top