← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · jeffersonian
Thread ID: 7291 | Posts: 1 | Started: 2003-06-12
2003-06-12 15:01 | User Profile
Complete Article Available At: [url=http://www.trib.com/AP/wire_detail.php?wire_num=201660]Star Tribune[/url]
In light of the fact the illegals and their kin routinely sue the US government for everything from more health care to water stations in the desert to facilitate illegal border crossings. This ruling is a welcome return to some common constitutional sense.
** Judge denies Constitutional protection to certain immigrants
SALT LAKE CITY (AP) - A U.S. district judge in Utah has ruled that the Constitution does not offer protection to certain illegal immigrants.
U.S. District Judge Paul Cassell issued the ruling in the case of a Mexican man, Jorge Esparza-Mendoza, who re-entered the United States illegally after being deported.
''This court concludes that as a previously removed alien felon, Esparza-Mendoza cannot assert a violation of the Fourth Amendment because he is not one of 'the people' the Amendment protects,'' Cassell wrote in a ruling issued last month.
Cassell agreed with defense attorneys - that Esparza-Mendoza was arrested in violation of the Fourth Amendment's promise of freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures.
But Cassell says that the Fourth Amendment doesn't promise anything to people who have been deported and illegally return to the country.
Salt Lake immigration attorney Hakeem Ishola called Cassell's decision ''flat-out wrong.''
''As long as you have stepped foot in the U.S. you remain a person under the Constitution,'' Ishola told the Deseret Morning News.
Esparza-Mendoza was discovered in Utah last fall after he was questioned on a domestic matter in which he was not directly involved.
A police officer testified she did not believe Esparza-Mendoza had committed any crime but still required him to provide his identification, over his objections.
Daniel Kowalski, a Texas immigration attorney and editor of the technical journal ''Bender's Immigration Bulletin'' called the ruling ''a shocker.''
''I think the case is very dangerous for many reasons, not the least of which is the stigmatizing and dehumanizing message it sends,'' Kowalski said.
**