Frivolous Lawsuit?

JaJae · 07-05-2008, 06:44 PM

I already have my mind made up on this. This is something that is taking place in my home town. There's a lot of racial politics going on here with the election of our current Asian mayor. That said I am going to try to describe the incident in question as even-handed as I can.

Police were called to an apartment complex on a complaint of an illegal fireworks display. Numerous police officers showed up to stop the fireworks and disperse the crowd. During this encounter a man, Rajnikant Parikh, was arrested for resisting arrest and I believe assault on a police officer. He accused the police of assaulting him by kicking and punching him when he was down. He made his case in court, however, he had not a single witness to stand by his account, yet there were numerous witnesses that said he in fact had assaulted police and resisted arrest. Our mayor, Jun Choi, came out and said there was absolutely no evidence of wrong doing by police and that there were no witnesses that stand by Parikh's account of what happened.

That didn't stop Parikh from starting a protest over police brutality. With a little racial political pressure our mayor later recanted his statements and sided with Parikh saying that our police had wronged him in some way. Parikh began a protest at the local police station to protest his rights and got many followers as this had become a rather high profile case in the area. Jun Choi supported him. At the protest rally ICE showed up and arrested Parikh in front of the crowd. Apparently Parikh has used numerous aliases and was on the FBI's list for an immediate deportation order since 2005. Someone within the local police tipped off ICE about his presence. He has since been deported. There was a large uproar at the time saying that he shouldn't be arrested or deported because he was arrested while utilizing his free speech rights. It is common in NJ for illegal immigrants to protest in front of state buildings for their "rights" and nothing is ever done about it. A few months after ICE picked him up, he was deported back to India.

The police who arrested him were found guilty of wrongdoing and were sentenced to counseling. The Police Chief and Mayor say they were unaware that the officers tipped off ICE and by doing so without their approval they were guilty of wrongdoing.

Now (I assume possibly in response to recent SCOTUS decision regarding constitutional rights to non-citizens) Parikh is suing our town for violating his civil rights. So the question is, did he as an illegal immigrant to this country have constitutional rights? I say absolutely not. And even so, by being in this country illegally he was actively engaged in a crime while he was protesting. And therefore, he was liable to be arrested the same as if I was spray painting the building while protesting. You cannot commit a crime while utilizing your constitutional rights and use it as an excuse for a get out of jail free card. I think this whole thing is ridiculous and the last thing we need is a high profile lawsuit in our town to further drive up property taxes.

JaJae · 07-05-2008, 07:09 PM

This is what my major said of his initial arrest before race was brought into the case.

Originally Posted by Jun Choi

We had 12 officers arrive on the scene. It is highly unusual and very unbelievable that the charges that were made against him were committed in front of hundreds of other people and 11 colleagues. They are just not believable and not credible. The belief again is that the officer acted in defense in trying to arrest the subject. Dotro not only acted appropriately but also acted with restraint.

There were 600 to 800 people in a gathering that could have become very unruly. It is unfortunate that it happened, but we believe the job of the police is to keep this community safe. We believe they did their job.

Ezra Smack · 07-06-2008, 12:13 AM

illegal immigrants should have no rights what so ever. Just like a thief who breaks into your house. They should forfit all rights including the right to use the court system to sue.

Simius · 07-06-2008, 12:20 AM

Originally Posted by Ezra Smack

illegal immigrants should have no rights what so ever. Just like a thief who breaks into your house. They should forfit all rights including the right to use the court system to sue.

I've always glad that our constitution describes inalienable rights and not inalienable* rights.

*rights that are actually alienable if the majority doesn't like you.

thewise1 · 07-06-2008, 12:48 AM

He absolutely has constitutional rights.

The bill of rights limits the power of our federal government (and by... I forget the word... incorporation?... states and lower as well) to infringe on inalienable rights granted by our creator.

Simius · 07-06-2008, 12:49 AM

Originally Posted by JaJae

The police who arrested him were found guilty of wrongdoing and were sentenced to counseling. The Police Chief and Mayor say they were unaware that the officers tipped off ICE and by doing so without their approval they were guilty of wrongdoing.

Now this is bullshit. I don't see how it can be wrong doing for a police officer... to follow the law.

Now (I assume possibly in response to recent SCOTUS decision regarding constitutional rights to non-citizens) Parikh is suing our town for violating his civil rights. So the question is, did he as an illegal immigrant to this country have constitutional rights? I say absolutely not. And even so, by being in this country illegally he was actively engaged in a crime while he was protesting. And therefore, he was liable to be arrested the same as if I was spray painting the building while protesting. You cannot commit a crime while utilizing your constitutional rights and use it as an excuse for a get out of jail free card. I think this whole thing is ridiculous and the last thing we need is a high profile lawsuit in our town to further drive up property taxes.

On to your actual question about whether illegal immigrants should have constitutional rights. I think the answer is clearly yes. Anyone within the jurisdiction of the United States should be afforded the right to be tried by a jury or to not be tortured or to file a civil lawsuit or whatever. Of course, since they are in the jurisdiction of the United States US laws apply to them and so they can be deported... but they should still have constitutional rights. Just like how a criminal doesn't lose his right to a jury or the right to free speech even if he is breaking another law in the process. Being a criminal doesn't strip you of your rights. If it did, having rights would be sort meaningless.

thewise1 · 07-06-2008, 12:53 AM

Originally Posted by Ezra Smack

illegal immigrants should have no rights what so ever. Just like a thief who breaks into your house. They should forfit all rights including the right to use the court system to sue.

I disagree. In order to set the situation up like that, you have a paradoxical situation.

We all have certain inalienable rights that are innate to being human. The Constitution merely prevents the federal government from infringing on them - it does not grant them. Let me repeat - the Constitution does not grant rights (at least in this context).

In order to set up your scenario where illegals don't have rights, we have to give up our rights as well. In order to identify an illegal, you would have to demand proof of citizenship. A police officer currently has no right to do that (without RAS) because of our rights.

The only way to enforce your ideal is to have an counterfeit proof national ID card that we have to present on demand. Nothing else would have any chance of being effective.

JaJae · 07-06-2008, 09:10 AM

Originally Posted by Simius

Now this is bullshit. I don't see how it can be wrong doing for a police officer... to follow the law.

On to your actual question about whether illegal immigrants should have constitutional rights. I think the answer is clearly yes. Anyone within the jurisdiction of the United States should be afforded the right to be tried by a jury or to not be tortured or to file a civil lawsuit or whatever. Of course, since they are in the jurisdiction of the United States US laws apply to them and so they can be deported... but they should still have constitutional rights. Just like how a criminal doesn't lose his right to a jury or the right to free speech even if he is breaking another law in the process. Being a criminal doesn't strip you of your rights. If it did, having rights would be sort meaningless.

I think illegal immigrants should be given the rights the state wishes to give them. I don't think they should necessarily be given all the rights of citizens, however, I don't think they should be discarded of all rights either. I don't think illegal immigrants should be allowed to own firearms for example. The constitution and Bill of Rights shouldn't be applied to illegal immigrants, however, they should have access to many of our rights.

motivez · 07-06-2008, 04:13 PM

What limitations are there on which rights a state makes available to illegal immigrants?

thewise1 · 07-06-2008, 05:00 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

I think illegal immigrants should be given the rights the state wishes to give them. I don't think they should necessarily be given all the rights of citizens, however, I don't think they should be discarded of all rights either. I don't think illegal immigrants should be allowed to own firearms for example. The constitution and Bill of Rights shouldn't be applied to illegal immigrants, however, they should have access to many of our rights.

The constitution and bill of rights applies to NONE OF US.

It applies to the government, and doesn't say "you can't do this, unless it's an illegal immigrant".