A Connecticut federal judge has ordered hearings to determine whether the Constitutional rights of illegal immigrants—some of whom ignored deportation orders—were violated by federal agents who arrested them.
The case involves last summer’s arrest of 31 illegal immigrants by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents in the New Haven area. More than half had pending court cases in Hartford and five had been previously deported yet continued living in the area.
During a regional roundup of such violators, federal agents arrested the group last June and immigration advocates immediately accused authorities of racial profiling. Attorneys representing the illegal immigrants argued that the federal agents violated the U.S. Constitution’s fourth and fifth amendments by conducting illegal searches, lacking probable cause and arresting people based on race.
Like many of his colleagues around the country, a federal immigration judge (Michael Straus) in Hartford sided with the illegal aliens’ pro bono advocate attorneys and ordered the hearings this week to determine the constitutionality of the raids. They are scheduled to begin before the end of the month.
New Haven offers illegal immigrants sanctuary which means police or city officials won’t report them to federal authorities for deportation. Last year the city became the first in the U.S. to issue municipal identification cards to illegal aliens so that they could enjoy public services and integrate into the community.
Similar illegal immigrant sanctuaries exist across the nation and a growing number openly offer taxpayer-financed services to undocumented residents. Texas alone has about a dozen illegal immigrant sanctuary cities and practically every municipality in California—most notoriously Los Angeles and San Francisco—is a sanctuary. Other well-known sanctuaries include Chicago, Phoenix, New York and New Jersey.
Comments
Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580
Harisiades v. Shaughnessy
No. 43
Argued December 5, 1951
Decided March 10, 1952*
342 U.S. 580
Syllabus
1. The Alien Registration Act of 1940, so far as it authorizes the deportation of a legally resident alien because of membership in the Communist Party, even though such membership terminated before enactment of the Act, was within the power of Congress under the Federal Constitution. Pp. 342 U. S. 581-596.
(a) The Act does not deprive the alien of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Fifth Amendment. Pp. 342 U. S. 584-591.
(1) The power to deport aliens is inherent in every sovereign state. Pp. 342 U. S. 587-588.
(2) The policy toward aliens is so exclusively entrusted to the political branches of the Government as to be largely immune from judicial inquiry or interference, and it cannot be said that the power has been so unreasonably or harshly exercised by Congress in this Act as to warrant judicial interference. Pp. 342 U. S. 588-590.
(3) The fact that the Act inflicts severe hardship on the individuals affected does not render it violative of the Due Process Clause. Pp. 342 U. S. 590-591.
(b) The Act does not abridge the aliens' freedoms of speech and assembly in contravention of the First Amendment. Pp. 342 U. S. 591-592.
(c) The Act does not contravene the provision of Art. I, § 9 of the Constitution forbidding ex post facto laws. Pp. 342 U. S. 593-596.
2. Procedural requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act are not mandatory as to proceedings which were instituted before the effective date of the Act. P. 583, n 4.
Page 342 U. S. 581
3. One who consented to the same individual acting both as presiding officer and examining officer in administrative proceedings is without standing, on judicial review, to raise the objection that he was thereby denied procedural due process. P. 583, n 4.
187 F.2d 137 affirmed.
The cases are stated in the opinion of the Court, pp. 342 U. S. 581-584. The judgments are affirmed, p. 342 U. S. 596.
We can send their US born kids with them!
There is nothing in the 14th Ammendment preventing the US from sending their US born kids with them. Nor is there ANY precident for the child of 2 Illegals being a citizen by birth.
Since the parents are here illegally, the precident of children born to parents of foreign diplomats could easily apply giving all a bum's rush
There is nothing in the 14th Ammendment preventing denial of citizenship to children whose parents conspired to have their children born in the US.
Even if they enter legally, conspiring to have their children born here for citizenship is an illegal act.
Only precident is for children of LEGAL resident Aliens. (Wong Ark Kim Vs US) Though a correct decision, the arguments supporting it were poor and should be refined. (Subjects who reside in American possessions that are not commonwealths only & Green Card holders)
Post new comment