U.S. Agrees to New Rules for Immigration Raids

Ianus · 04-05-2013, 12:34 AM

I think a lot of Dreamers will love this news considering the amount of immigration raids that happened in 2006 and '07.This is actually binding on the Federal agents and it would not matter if even a hardcore restrictionist were to win the Presdency.

Quote:

Federal authorities have agreed to establish new policies governing the conduct of immigration officers during raids, including restrictions on how and when agents can enter private homes, the source of widespread ire and anxiety among immigrants.

The rules are included in a settlement that was approved by a Federal District Court judge on Thursday, concluding a six-year-old class-action lawsuit. The suit contended that in eight raids in 2006 and 2007, Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, without court warrants or other legal justification, forced their way into the homes of Latino families on Long Island and in Westchester County.

“No longer will ICE agents have free rein to invade the homes of immigrants, especially Latino immigrants, and be as abusive as they want without any worry that they might be reprimanded,” said Juan Cartagena, president of LatinoJustice PRLDEF, an advocacy group in New York City that, along with the Center for Constitutional Rights and the private firm Winston & Strawn, represented the 22 plaintiffs.

The settlement also ordered the federal government to pay $1 million in damages and fees — $36,000 to each plaintiff and the rest to cover lawyers’ fees.

Brian Hale, a spokesman for Immigration and Customs, an arm of the Department of Homeland Security, said the agency had no comment on the settlement.

The raids were among hundreds conducted in the New York metropolitan region and across the country as part of national enforcement operations that officials said were intended to catch and deport dangerous criminals, and immigrants previously ordered to leave the country.

The raids were widely criticized including by local officials, and spurred numerous lawsuits.

Most of the lawsuits to emerge from the raids in the New York region have been resolved, though the latest settlement appeared to be the only one that has required federal policy changes, immigration lawyers said.

The plaintiffs in the suit contended that during the raids, armed agents surrounded their homes in the predawn hours, pounded on windows and shouted orders to open up. When occupants opened the doors, the plaintiffs contended, the agents barged inside — in at least one instance with guns drawn — then swept through the homes, corralling occupants for interrogations.

Law enforcement agents without a judicial warrant are permitted to enter a home only under certain conditions, including if they receive consent.

A central point of contention in the case was what constituted valid consent. “There was no opportunity to say, ‘Please don’t come into my house,’ ” said Ghita Schwarz, senior staff attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights, and a plaintiffs’ lawyer in the case.

Beatriz Velasquez, 18, one of the plaintiffs in the suit, was 12 and alone with her younger sister in Westbury, on Long Island, when immigration agents showed up. The agents, Ms. Schwarz said, citing confidential government documents in the case, were looking for someone who was unknown to the family.

Ms. Velasquez recalled in an interview on Thursday how the agents rushed by her when she opened the door even though she never told them they could enter, and began searching the house. “It was scary,” she said. “My little sister was crying throughout the entire raid. I felt helpless.”

According to the settlement, immigration agents needing consent to enter a private residence will now have to seek permission in a language spoken by the resident “whenever feasible.” Agents must also get consent from residents to enter the yards and other private outside areas adjoining their homes, the settlement said.

Under the settlement, agents are forbidden from conducting protective sweeps through the homes without “a reasonable, articulable suspicion of danger.”

The government agreed to drop deportation proceedings against four of the plaintiffs and to grant a four-year reprieve from deportation to four others.

Pianoswithoutfaith · 04-05-2013, 12:45 AM

Wow actually great news

dado123 · 04-05-2013, 12:51 AM

Sweet !

Smooth · 04-05-2013, 01:52 AM

Awesome news.

Sonawabich · 04-05-2013, 04:11 AM

So just say NO if they don't have warrants

Demise · 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sonawabich

So just say NO if they don't have warrants

Yeah a lot of people don't know that when a cop, etc. asks "mind if I look around?" or "mind letting me look into the trunk of the car?", or "can I look through your backpack?" and you answer yes you pretty much let them conduct a search on you.

It might be rude but unless they have a warrant tell them to take a hike, if they act like the fucking imperial guard just slam the door in their face.

Sonawabich · 04-05-2013, 03:37 PM

NEVER talk to police

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

RJD · 04-05-2013, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sonawabich

NEVER talk to police

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

48 mins?

aint nobody got time for dat

Quote:

Originally Posted by Demise

Yeah a lot of people don't know that when a cop, etc. asks "mind if I look around?" or "mind letting me look into the trunk of the car?", or "can I look through your backpack?" and you answer yes you pretty much let them conduct a search on you.

It might be rude but unless they have a warrant tell them to take a hike, if they act like the fucking imperial guard just slam the door in their face.

I learned some of that when I saw Project X

Sonawabich · 04-05-2013, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RJD

48 mins?

aint nobody got time for dat

I learned some of that when I saw Project X

Worth it though

Pianoswithoutfaith · 04-06-2013, 01:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Demise

Yeah a lot of people don't know that when a cop, etc. asks "mind if I look around?" or "mind letting me look into the trunk of the car?", or "can I look through your backpack?" and you answer yes you pretty much let them conduct a search on you.

It might be rude but unless they have a warrant tell them to take a hike, if they act like the fucking imperial guard just slam the door in their face.

take in mind in some states its illegal to film a cop with out his consent or actually in most states its illegal to film someone else with out their consent

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
			1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29	30	31

They need you!

Forum links

Resources

Join our list

National calendar of events

July

U.S. Agrees to New Rules for Immigration Raids