Ambulance stopped by ICE, PT's papers inspected, PT deported

CALEMT

The Other Guy/ Paramaybe?
3,962
2,799
113
The courts have ruled the same protections and rights apply to illegal aliens. Read U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark back in 1896 and the 14th Amendment. In the 14th amendment, it specifically states: 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. NOTE that it says ANY person
Ok noted.
 

Old Tracker

Forum Captain
397
207
43
The courts have ruled the same protections and rights apply to illegal aliens. Read U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark back in 1896 and the 14th Amendment. In the 14th amendment, it specifically states: 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. NOTE that it says ANY person
Key words in the quote are “citizens of the United States.” In the case of illegal aliens, a deportation hearing is due process.

I anticipate that many of the bad rulings on these matters will be overturned in the coming years by the new crop of justices being nominated to the different benches.
 

BobBarker

Forum Lieutenant
115
22
18
Key words in the quote are “citizens of the United States.” In the case of illegal aliens, a deportation hearing is due process.

I anticipate that many of the bad rulings on these matters will be overturned in the coming years by the new crop of justices being nominated to the different benches.
The key words are "any" person."Any" refers to any, not just legal. Illegal alliens are still entitled to due process and rights of legal citizens in the US. It takes 1 minute to research that on Google. For example, read the court case I posted.
 

GMCmedic

Forum Deputy Chief
1,067
583
113
The key words are "any" person."Any" refers to any, not just legal. Illegal alliens are still entitled to due process and rights of legal citizens in the US. It takes 1 minute to research that on Google. For example, read the court case I posted.
They still cant vote or buy firearms (depending on what appeals district) .
 
Last edited:

luke_31

Forum Asst. Chief
897
286
63
The key words are "any" person."Any" refers to any, not just legal. Illegal alliens are still entitled to due process and rights of legal citizens in the US. It takes 1 minute to research that on Google. For example, read the court case I posted.
That is true they do have due process, it's called an immigration court hearing. Where we fail is in the right to a speedy hearing for them. There aren't enough judges to hear them in a timely fashion so a lot slip through the cracks and stay or get told to leave/ agree to leave to be able to legally immigrate later but choose to ignore the order and just stay. The system isn't perfect, it's not broken completely, but there are serious issues that need to be addressed through legislation and executive actions.
 
OP
A

Alan L Serve

Forum Lieutenant
240
46
28
That is true they do have due process, it's called an immigration court hearing. Where we fail is in the right to a speedy hearing for them. There aren't enough judges to hear them in a timely fashion so a lot slip through the cracks and stay or get told to leave/ agree to leave to be able to legally immigrate later but choose to ignore the order and just stay. The system isn't perfect, it's not broken completely, but there are serious issues that need to be addressed through legislation and executive actions.
Wow, you are very wrong.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/daniel...ect-non-citizens-judges-say-yes/#3341ffb44f1d
Does The Constitution Protect Non-Citizens? Judges Say Yes
In U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, an 1898 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the term “person” under the Fifth Amendment applied to aliens living in the U.S. In Fong Yue Ting v. U.S.,the court held that Chinese laborers, “like all other aliens residing in the United States,” are entitled to protection of the laws.
 

E tank

Caution: Paralyzing Agent
920
733
93
Wow, you are very wrong.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/daniel...ect-non-citizens-judges-say-yes/#3341ffb44f1d
Does The Constitution Protect Non-Citizens? Judges Say Yes
In U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, an 1898 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the term “person” under the Fifth Amendment applied to aliens living in the U.S. In Fong Yue Ting v. U.S.,the court held that Chinese laborers, “like all other aliens residing in the United States,” are entitled to protection of the laws.
And what is the obligation of the "immigrant" to observe statutory and constitutional law? So it only goes one way, eh? Got it.
 

DrParasite

The fire extinguisher is not just for show
5,155
1,371
113
The courts have ruled the same protections and rights apply to illegal aliens. Read U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark back in 1896 and the 14th Amendment. In the 14th amendment, it specifically states: 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. NOTE that it says ANY person
I might not agree with his overall there here, but I do give @Billy D props for actually citing an actual court case that supports his statement.
The key words are "any" person."Any" refers to any, not just legal. Illegal alliens are still entitled to due process and rights of legal citizens in the US. It takes 1 minute to research that on Google. For example, read the court case I posted.
That's not what the court case said..... yes, they entitled to due process, but they aren't entitled to ALL the rights of US citizens. Voting in national and state elections, being elected to public office, get a driver's license (although some states are now allowing this), obtain a social security number, etc.

Since you brought up a case, I suggest you look at Zadvydas vs. Davis (2001), where the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that "once an alien enters the country, the legal circumstance changes, for the due process clause applies to all persons within the United States."

So, while due process does apply, they don’t have a right to a government-paid lawyer in immigration court. They do have some rights, but a US citizen has ALL their rights.
 

luke_31

Forum Asst. Chief
897
286
63
Wow, you are very wrong.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/daniel...ect-non-citizens-judges-say-yes/#3341ffb44f1d
Does The Constitution Protect Non-Citizens? Judges Say Yes
In U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, an 1898 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the term “person” under the Fifth Amendment applied to aliens living in the U.S. In Fong Yue Ting v. U.S.,the court held that Chinese laborers, “like all other aliens residing in the United States,” are entitled to protection of the laws.
You do understand that the term alien referred to people who didn't illegally enter the country. Those Chinese persons entered the country as a workforce essentially the equivalent to a modern work visa which granted them the rights. The sticky point in this whole situation is that illegal immigrants enter the country not always through actual immigration checkpoints. The rulings that have been used are stretching previous rulings and it is in fact questionable as to who is right. President has been set in the past to actually block whole groups of people from entering the country before. Just as much as there is president to naturalize groups of illegal immigrants who are already in the country. Also I don't see how the case you cited even states that illegal immigrants must be allowed to remain in the country once they have arrived here. I suggest you look at the laws of Mexico our neighbor to the south, they are actually much harsher then we most likely ever will be with respect to illegal immigration.
 

Carlos Danger

Forum Deputy Chief
Premium Member
4,037
2,723
113
The issue at hand isn't really whether or not non-citizens have a right to due process. They do, and we should all support that because due process is nothing but simple fairness. Anyone detained anywhere in the world for any reason should have the opportunity to explain themselves and plead their case and receive humane treatment and a fair disposition. That's all "due process" means in this context.

More importantly, some people are really missing the point of constitutional protections in the first place.

Law enforcement having the ability to stop and search anyone for no reason other than the fact that they are within 100 miles of the border is clearly a direct violation of the intent of the 4th amendment. Does the law allow authorities to apprehend people who are here illegally, who they otherwise wouldn't? I'm sure it does. But what else does the law do? It requires suspension of 4th amendment protections for everyone, not just the few who are stopped who are found to be here illegally and eventually deported. It increases unnecessary interactions between law enforcement and the public, every one of which is an opportunity for conflict. It also has resulted in a massive expansion of the use of civil asset forfeiture, which is an Orwellian practice where law enforcement is allowed to literally steal your property even if you are not charged with a crime.

Think about it: you can be a white female with red hair and a Boston accent and a MA driver's license, driving a car with MA plates west across I-8 on your way to visit a friend in San Diego and be pulled over for no reason whatsoever, aside from the fact that you are within 100 miles of Mexico. The officer can search your car, your laptop, your cell phone, and your luggage. For no reason. At all. If you have a couple thousand cash on you for some reason, or any valuable property at all really, they can take that from you under civil asset forfeiture with only a vague explanation that the cash or property was likely to have been acquired as a result of criminal activity, or to be used for criminal activity. No evidence or even suspicion of an actual crime is necessary. The process for getting that property back is arduous and time-consuming and people are often unsuccessful.

And before you say "well, maybe that could happen in theory, but it never would in the real world", things like that have happened, and not only a few times. Look in the right places and you'll find all sorts of accounts by law-abiding citizens being harassed by law enforcement and having their property stolen when they had done absolutely nothing wrong and were never charged with a crime.

Some have suggested that this border exception be extended not just to the physical borders with Mexico and Canada, but to a 100 mile radii of international airports and even to the coastlines. I think it is probably only a matter of time.

This is why you should take a conservative view of constitutional protections. You should want to see these protections used by as many people as possible, as often as possible. It isn't about "getting the bad guys", it is about giving up individual liberty. Use it or lose it. Once it's gone we'll never get it back.

"Those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither".
 
Last edited:

Old Tracker

Forum Captain
397
207
43
REMI, I agree with your sentiment, but law enforcement CANNOT, particularily Border Patrol, just randomly cannot pull someone over for no reason. They have to be able to articulate reasons for pulling a vehicle over and for a road stop (as opposed to an established check point on the highway) and establish/show a connection (the word used is NEXUS) to the actual border. In the past Mexico used to sell to types of gasoline, NOVA and ESTRELLA. Nova exhaust reeked to high heaven and was identifiable at a distance when the vehicle went by. Also, little things like 8 or 10 heads in a sedan are a clue, a stack of tortillas in the rear/front window with wrappings from Mexico, was also another clue that the vehicle had been across the border.

Check points are legal by Immigration Law. Having drugs, in quantity at a checkpoint will usually end up in someone being turned over to DEA or state of local authorities.

Asset forfeiture used to be a good tool. Now it is abused, particularly by local and county officers operating under a blessing from DEA. The war on drugs is fueled by statistics, immigration violations not so much.
 

Carlos Danger

Forum Deputy Chief
Premium Member
4,037
2,723
113
REMI, I agree with your sentiment, but law enforcement CANNOT, particularily Border Patrol, just randomly cannot pull someone over for no reason. They have to be able to articulate reasons for pulling a vehicle over and for a road stop (as opposed to an established check point on the highway) and establish/show a connection (the word used is NEXUS) to the actual border. In the past Mexico used to sell to types of gasoline, NOVA and ESTRELLA. Nova exhaust reeked to high heaven and was identifiable at a distance when the vehicle went by. Also, little things like 8 or 10 heads in a sedan are a clue, a stack of tortillas in the rear/front window with wrappings from Mexico, was also another clue that the vehicle had been across the border.
OK, perhaps they have to come up with some excuse, but they don't need to meet the typical standards of probable cause in order to search you and everything you have with you, including your electronics. It's just like civil asset forfeiture. They need to have some reason, I would imagine, to take your stuff, but it doesn't need to be a good one, and the citizen has no recourse for having their basic civil rights violated.

Just because a policy makes it easier for the cops to get a few more bad guys, does not make it a good or a just policy. The ends do not necessarily justify the means.

I have read quite a few accounts of people who had no connection to the border and were stopped and searched and had their stuff taken.
 

Old Tracker

Forum Captain
397
207
43
When asset forfeiture first was being used it was a good tool. It has since been perverted into a revenue generating tool or profit sharing tool from the feds to the state and locals. The key to asset forfeiture is that it only takes a "preponderance" of the evidence to lose your property. So, just to be plain, I agree whole heartedly with you on that. It is a shameful thing.

Asset forfeiture, highway check points, and searches at the border, are actually all separate issues covered by different statutes and different levels of evidence needed.

I think I have mentioned in previous posts, that the Border Patrol has no statuary authority to seize drugs. They do that under a Memorandum of Understanding with the DEA, who have essentially made them the uniformed branch of the DEA. It's all about numbers to present to Congress. Drug seizures make better headlines and news conference than the arrest of 15 or 20 ordinary folks trying to sneak into the country.
 

Carlos Danger

Forum Deputy Chief
Premium Member
4,037
2,723
113
When asset forfeiture first was being used it was a good tool. It has since been perverted into a revenue generating tool or profit sharing tool from the feds to the state and locals. The key to asset forfeiture is that it only takes a "preponderance" of the evidence to lose your property. So, just to be plain, I agree whole heartedly with you on that. It is a shameful thing.

Asset forfeiture, highway check points, and searches at the border, are actually all separate issues covered by different statutes and different levels of evidence needed.

I think I have mentioned in previous posts, that the Border Patrol has no statuary authority to seize drugs. They do that under a Memorandum of Understanding with the DEA, who have essentially made them the uniformed branch of the DEA. It's all about numbers to present to Congress. Drug seizures make better headlines and news conference than the arrest of 15 or 20 ordinary folks trying to sneak into the country.
What is your background, @Old Tracker? Just curious.
 

Old Tracker

Forum Captain
397
207
43
3 years in the Border Patrol (Class 132B) stationed in Rio Grande City, Starr County, Texas. From there, over a weekend, I went to the Customs Patrol, at Falcon Dam, Tx...still in Starr County. From the Customs Patrol I was promoted to Special Agent (GS-1811, same job series as DEA, ATF, FBI agents). Wrote affidavits, sworn to search warrants, executed the same. Made vehicle stops...based on reasonable suspicion, arrested people, and testified either as a witness or the case agent in federal court. Also worked some conspiracy cases and quite a few money laundering cases. Did that for an additional 17 + years.

Retired with 32 years of federal service, including Navy (submarines) time. Had a small business for awhile, indentured myself for a year just to learn how to drive an 18 wheeler. Took an EMT class just to learn something about it, and now I are one.
 

BobBarker

Forum Lieutenant
115
22
18
I might not agree with his overall there here, but I do give @Billy D props for actually citing an actual court case that supports his statement.
That's not what the court case said..... yes, they entitled to due process, but they aren't entitled to ALL the rights of US citizens. Voting in national and state elections, being elected to public office, get a driver's license (although some states are now allowing this), obtain a social security number, etc.

Since you brought up a case, I suggest you look at Zadvydas vs. Davis (2001), where the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that "once an alien enters the country, the legal circumstance changes, for the due process clause applies to all persons within the United States."

So, while due process does apply, they don’t have a right to a government-paid lawyer in immigration court. They do have some rights, but a US citizen has ALL their rights.
Correct, they don't have all their rights, but they have basic rights (1st amendment, 4th amendment, 5th amendment, 14th amendment, etc.). Also, not all US citizens have ALL their rights. Specifically felons....A felon who is a US citizens can't buy/own a firearm (2nd amendment) and can't vote while they are on parole. They also waive their 4th amendment right when they are on parole (search clause).
 

phideux

Forum Captain
431
44
28
One point that should be made here too. Alot of times people say that folks here illegally are a drain on the countries resources including the health care system. Well this girl is here illegally, brought here by her parents who are also here illegally. This non-ambulance, medical transport sedan sounds like the good old "Medicaid Cab", who is paying for that ride??? Who is paying for her medical care and surgery??? Are her parents, here illegally, paying for all of this??? Or are they getting any sort of Medicaid or public assistance to pay for it??? I can barely afford to go to a doc when I am sick, even though I have "insurance", yet people here illegally do get free stuff like Medicaid, that I have to pay for, and they get all their medical care and rides back and forth to medical care for free.

If they were so worried about her legal status, and it is a well known checkpoint, why didn't they take a different route to the hospital???
 
OP
A

Alan L Serve

Forum Lieutenant
240
46
28
One point that should be made here too. Alot of times people say that folks here illegally are a drain on the countries resources including the health care system. Well this girl is here illegally, brought here by her parents who are also here illegally. This non-ambulance, medical transport sedan sounds like the good old "Medicaid Cab", who is paying for that ride??? Who is paying for her medical care and surgery??? Are her parents, here illegally, paying for all of this??? Or are they getting any sort of Medicaid or public assistance to pay for it??? I can barely afford to go to a doc when I am sick, even though I have "insurance", yet people here illegally do get free stuff like Medicaid, that I have to pay for, and they get all their medical care and rides back and forth to medical care for free.

If they were so worried about her legal status, and it is a well known checkpoint, why didn't they take a different route to the hospital???
Do you imply that illegal immigrants receive state Medicaid?
 

Top