6 ms·

If he was a known undocumented immigrant, why couldn't ICE step in and arrest him and in the process find a valid reason to search the residence? Mind you, I'm

If he was a known undocumented immigrant, why couldn't ICE step in and arrest him and in the process find a valid reason to search the residence? Mind you, I'm super glad the judgement was made in his favor, but only because of HOW they did it, not why.

rayiner 12y ago
I think evidence of illegal firearms possession is a hell of a better reason to search his residence than his just being an undocumented immigrant.
- morganvachon 12y ago
  It wasn't an "illegal firearm", it was illegal for him to possess any firearm because of his immigration status. There's a huge difference there. Edit: Reading your comment again, I think what you wrote can be taken either way (he was illegally possessing firearms, or he was possessing illegal firearms). So we may be in complete agreement here.
  - k-mcgrady 12y ago
    Could you explain the difference here? If he is undocumented and cannot legally purchase a firearm would it not satisfy both phrasings or does the latter (illegal firearm) refer to weapons banned from anyone possessing under law? Edit: Thanks for the clarification below.
    - morganvachon 12y ago
      The first time I read rayiner's post, I took him to mean a firearm that is illegal for anyone to purchase or own, i.e. an "illegal firearm". Reading it again, I realized his phrasing was ambiguous and he could have meant "illegal possession of a legal firearm due to immigration status", hence my edit. So basically, it could be a legal firearm possessed illegally, or a banned firearm, based on his wording.
    - talmand 12y ago
      Typically saying "illegal firearm" means it is illegal for anyone to own the firearm in question regardless of the person's status or how they got it. If a person is barred by law from possessing a firearm then it is possible for them to have a "legal firearm" in their possession; for example, if someone not barred by law owned the exact same firearm then there would be no issue. But I read the post in the manner that I'm guessing was intended, so I personally don't see it as a big deal.
  - logfromblammo 12y ago
    Any law making it illegal for him to possess firearms is likely unconstitutional. The only places where citizenship is explicitly mentioned in the US Constitution is in regard to eligibility for federal offices and jurisdiction of the federal courts. To a non-lawyer, it looks like a slam dunk. The feds and the states are simply not allowed to make laws restricting ownership or possession of firearms. And yet such laws get passed and enforced anyway. His defense would have to explicitly bring that up, and I doubt there are many attorneys that want to go there if they could possibly avoid it. That same argument has already been rejected at the appellate level by the 4th circuit, so it would likely have to go all the way to the SCotUS to stick, and unlikely they would decide to hear it. In any case, even if he ate babies in his spare time, I emphatically reject the idea that plinking cans is sufficient to generate sufficient suspicion for a search, as it is not a crime in itself when nothing else is known about the person doing it. It is, on its face, an innocent activity. If we want this country to not be a police state, we have to accept that fighting crime will have a minimum level of difficulty. The Blackstone Ratio suggests that this guy might have to go free in order to protect innocent people from bogus police tactics in the future.
    - rayiner 12y ago
      > Any law making it illegal for him to possess firearms is likely unconstitutional. The only places where citizenship is explicitly mentioned in the US Constitution is in regard to eligibility for federal offices and jurisdiction of the federal courts. To a non-lawyer, it looks like a slam dunk. It's not a slam dunk. The second amendment reads: > A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Who are "the people?" In the Preamble to the Constitution, the phrase "the people" clearly refers to the political community creating the new government, which arguably excludes illegal aliens. The Supreme Court in Heller v. District of Columbia construed "the people" in a way that is consistent with that use, and which lower courts have taken to mean that illegal aliens don't have second amendment rights. However, the bill of rights uses "the people" to refer to the first amendment right to peaceably assemble, and the fourth amendment right to be protected against unlawful search and seizure. If "the people" is interpreted consistently for all the amendments, that implies that illegal aliens don't have several rights under the bill of rights, which is problematic. See: http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7452&context=jclc http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent....
- lsaferite 12y ago
  I agree. However, the manner in which the evidence of the illegal firearm was obtained is a serious issue. So, my question was, if they had a reasonable suspicion he was a drug dealer but not enough evidence to obtain a warrant, then why not let ICE handle the matter since he was an illegal immigrant anyway? And to be clear so people don't get it in their head I have something against immigrants, I'm all for people immigrating to wherever they want to live, but it's 100% unfair to those immigrants who did it legally to treat illegals like anything other than an illegal immigrant who should be deported. P.S. Is using the term undocumented immigrant supposed to be the PC way of saying illegal immigrant?
  - rayiner 12y ago
    > So, my question was, if they had a reasonable suspicion he was a drug dealer but not enough evidence to obtain a warrant, then why not let ICE handle the matter since he was an illegal immigrant anyway? That effectively lowers the standard for searching homes of illegal immigrants from probable cause to reasonable suspicion. That's probably a harder political sell than trying to get enough evidence to find probable cause for violating of a gun control law.
    - lsaferite 12y ago
      I worded it wrongly I guess. In the article it wasn't a question whether he was an illegal, they knew he was an illegal. I'll agree, letting ICE search the home would be a slippery slope and probably a bad idea as well. But at the very least, if they want to address the problem of him being a drug dealer then they should be able to use the fact that they know he is an illegal to at least deport him and solve the drug issue in a lateral manner, right?
  - talmand 12y ago
    Yes, changing illegal to undocumented is just a language tactic to downplay the issue. I'm not sure it works that way because any negativity the change was likely to alter just gets transferred to the new word.
    - 12y ago
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
revelation 12y ago
Presumably because there are so many of them. The whole situation has gone so completely wrong that they are now handing out driving licenses to undocumented immigrants: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/15/california-undocumented-immigrant-drivers-license_n_6330608.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/15/california-undocume... (Theres no judgement here, it's just a very strange way of dealing with the problem at hand)
- lsaferite 12y ago
  I love how we legitimize the past and current commission of a crime by saying "here, let me give you identity documents". They make it sound like the poor "undocumented immigrants" are being unfairly punished by having their cars impounded. WTF, really? They are here illegally. They should be deported. If they want to immigrate then do it LEGALLY like millions of other people. Do I think we should change the immigration laws to make free movement of people easier? Hell yeah. Do I think we should be obliged to follow the laws as currently written? Of course. If you do something illegal you get punished, simple enough.
  - alasdair_ 12y ago
    The problem occurs with children. Imagine you spent seventeen years of your life growing up in the USA and then someone tells you you are not here legally. You consider yourself american in every way and know no other country. Committing a crime requires you to have awareness that what you are doing is likely something illegal. Children like these have no idea.
    - Domenic_S 12y ago
      Children have to pay for their parents' mistakes all the time. Is this somehow different?
      - DanBC 12y ago
        Yes. Children have rights enshrined in the UNCRC. People have rights in the UDHR. Article 2 of UNRC says: > 1. States Parties shall respect and ensure the rights set forth in the present Convention to each child within their jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind, irrespective of the child's or his or her parent's or legal guardian's race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property, disability, birth or other status. > 2. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that the child is protected against all forms of discrimination or punishment on the basis of the status, activities, expressed opinions, or beliefs of the child's parents, legal guardians, or family members. Article 7 says: > 1. The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and. as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents. Article 8 says: > 1. States Parties undertake to respect the right of the child to preserve his or her identity, including nationality, name and family relations as recognized by law without unlawful interference. > 2. Where a child is illegally deprived of some or all of the elements of his or her identity, States Parties shall provide appropriate assistance and protection, with a view to re-establishing speedily his or her identity. Article 15 of the UNDHR says: > (1) Everyone has the right to a nationality. > (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality. http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CRC.aspx http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CRC.aspx https://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ https://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

rayiner 12y ago

I think evidence of illegal firearms possession is a hell of a better reason to search his residence than his just being an undocumented immigrant.

morganvachon 12y ago
It wasn't an "illegal firearm", it was illegal for him to possess any firearm because of his immigration status. There's a huge difference there. Edit: Reading your comment again, I think what you wrote can be taken either way (he was illegally possessing firearms, or he was possessing illegal firearms). So we may be in complete agreement here.
- k-mcgrady 12y ago
  Could you explain the difference here? If he is undocumented and cannot legally purchase a firearm would it not satisfy both phrasings or does the latter (illegal firearm) refer to weapons banned from anyone possessing under law? Edit: Thanks for the clarification below.
  - morganvachon 12y ago
    The first time I read rayiner's post, I took him to mean a firearm that is illegal for anyone to purchase or own, i.e. an "illegal firearm". Reading it again, I realized his phrasing was ambiguous and he could have meant "illegal possession of a legal firearm due to immigration status", hence my edit. So basically, it could be a legal firearm possessed illegally, or a banned firearm, based on his wording.
  - talmand 12y ago
    Typically saying "illegal firearm" means it is illegal for anyone to own the firearm in question regardless of the person's status or how they got it. If a person is barred by law from possessing a firearm then it is possible for them to have a "legal firearm" in their possession; for example, if someone not barred by law owned the exact same firearm then there would be no issue. But I read the post in the manner that I'm guessing was intended, so I personally don't see it as a big deal.
- logfromblammo 12y ago
  Any law making it illegal for him to possess firearms is likely unconstitutional. The only places where citizenship is explicitly mentioned in the US Constitution is in regard to eligibility for federal offices and jurisdiction of the federal courts. To a non-lawyer, it looks like a slam dunk. The feds and the states are simply not allowed to make laws restricting ownership or possession of firearms. And yet such laws get passed and enforced anyway. His defense would have to explicitly bring that up, and I doubt there are many attorneys that want to go there if they could possibly avoid it. That same argument has already been rejected at the appellate level by the 4th circuit, so it would likely have to go all the way to the SCotUS to stick, and unlikely they would decide to hear it. In any case, even if he ate babies in his spare time, I emphatically reject the idea that plinking cans is sufficient to generate sufficient suspicion for a search, as it is not a crime in itself when nothing else is known about the person doing it. It is, on its face, an innocent activity. If we want this country to not be a police state, we have to accept that fighting crime will have a minimum level of difficulty. The Blackstone Ratio suggests that this guy might have to go free in order to protect innocent people from bogus police tactics in the future.
  - rayiner 12y ago
    > Any law making it illegal for him to possess firearms is likely unconstitutional. The only places where citizenship is explicitly mentioned in the US Constitution is in regard to eligibility for federal offices and jurisdiction of the federal courts. To a non-lawyer, it looks like a slam dunk. It's not a slam dunk. The second amendment reads: > A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Who are "the people?" In the Preamble to the Constitution, the phrase "the people" clearly refers to the political community creating the new government, which arguably excludes illegal aliens. The Supreme Court in Heller v. District of Columbia construed "the people" in a way that is consistent with that use, and which lower courts have taken to mean that illegal aliens don't have second amendment rights. However, the bill of rights uses "the people" to refer to the first amendment right to peaceably assemble, and the fourth amendment right to be protected against unlawful search and seizure. If "the people" is interpreted consistently for all the amendments, that implies that illegal aliens don't have several rights under the bill of rights, which is problematic. See: http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7452&context=jclc http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent....
lsaferite 12y ago
I agree. However, the manner in which the evidence of the illegal firearm was obtained is a serious issue. So, my question was, if they had a reasonable suspicion he was a drug dealer but not enough evidence to obtain a warrant, then why not let ICE handle the matter since he was an illegal immigrant anyway? And to be clear so people don't get it in their head I have something against immigrants, I'm all for people immigrating to wherever they want to live, but it's 100% unfair to those immigrants who did it legally to treat illegals like anything other than an illegal immigrant who should be deported. P.S. Is using the term undocumented immigrant supposed to be the PC way of saying illegal immigrant?
- rayiner 12y ago
  > So, my question was, if they had a reasonable suspicion he was a drug dealer but not enough evidence to obtain a warrant, then why not let ICE handle the matter since he was an illegal immigrant anyway? That effectively lowers the standard for searching homes of illegal immigrants from probable cause to reasonable suspicion. That's probably a harder political sell than trying to get enough evidence to find probable cause for violating of a gun control law.
  - lsaferite 12y ago
    I worded it wrongly I guess. In the article it wasn't a question whether he was an illegal, they knew he was an illegal. I'll agree, letting ICE search the home would be a slippery slope and probably a bad idea as well. But at the very least, if they want to address the problem of him being a drug dealer then they should be able to use the fact that they know he is an illegal to at least deport him and solve the drug issue in a lateral manner, right?
- talmand 12y ago
  Yes, changing illegal to undocumented is just a language tactic to downplay the issue. I'm not sure it works that way because any negativity the change was likely to alter just gets transferred to the new word.
  - 12y ago

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

revelation 12y ago

Presumably because there are so many of them. The whole situation has gone so completely wrong that they are now handing out driving licenses to undocumented immigrants: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/15/california-undocumented-immigrant-drivers-license_n_6330608.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/15/california-undocume... (Theres no judgement here, it's just a very strange way of dealing with the problem at hand)

lsaferite 12y ago
I love how we legitimize the past and current commission of a crime by saying "here, let me give you identity documents". They make it sound like the poor "undocumented immigrants" are being unfairly punished by having their cars impounded. WTF, really? They are here illegally. They should be deported. If they want to immigrate then do it LEGALLY like millions of other people. Do I think we should change the immigration laws to make free movement of people easier? Hell yeah. Do I think we should be obliged to follow the laws as currently written? Of course. If you do something illegal you get punished, simple enough.
- alasdair_ 12y ago
  The problem occurs with children. Imagine you spent seventeen years of your life growing up in the USA and then someone tells you you are not here legally. You consider yourself american in every way and know no other country. Committing a crime requires you to have awareness that what you are doing is likely something illegal. Children like these have no idea.
  - Domenic_S 12y ago
    Children have to pay for their parents' mistakes all the time. Is this somehow different?
    - DanBC 12y ago
      Yes. Children have rights enshrined in the UNCRC. People have rights in the UDHR. Article 2 of UNRC says: > 1. States Parties shall respect and ensure the rights set forth in the present Convention to each child within their jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind, irrespective of the child's or his or her parent's or legal guardian's race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property, disability, birth or other status. > 2. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that the child is protected against all forms of discrimination or punishment on the basis of the status, activities, expressed opinions, or beliefs of the child's parents, legal guardians, or family members. Article 7 says: > 1. The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and. as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents. Article 8 says: > 1. States Parties undertake to respect the right of the child to preserve his or her identity, including nationality, name and family relations as recognized by law without unlawful interference. > 2. Where a child is illegally deprived of some or all of the elements of his or her identity, States Parties shall provide appropriate assistance and protection, with a view to re-establishing speedily his or her identity. Article 15 of the UNDHR says: > (1) Everyone has the right to a nationality. > (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality. http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CRC.aspx http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CRC.aspx https://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ https://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/