Thread: Day laborers drop First Amendment claims in Westchester case

http://www.silive.com/newsflash/metro/i ... st=simetro

Day laborers drop First Amendment claims in Westchester case
9/11/2006, 1:22 p.m. ET
By JIM FITZGERALD
The Associated Press


WHITE PLAINS, N.Y. (AP) — The day laborers who have accused a suburban village of harassing them on the streets as they look for work dropped all claims of First Amendment violations Monday rather than reveal their immigration status.

The decision, just before the start of a federal trial, meant the plaintiffs would no longer argue that the Village of Mamaroneck, 23 miles north of New York City, was attacking their rights to free speech and free association.

The case now rests on the workers' Fourteenth Amendment claim that they were discriminated against because they are Hispanic.

Judge Colleen McMahon had warned the plaintiffs last week that lawyers for the village would be permitted to ask whether they are legal or illegal immigrants because, "Different plaintiffs may have different First Amendment rights."

Plaintiffs lawyer Alan Levine said that he disagreed with that ruling but that the workers — some of them illegal and all identified as John Doe — were unwilling to answer the question. He withdrew the First Amendment case in a letter to McMahon.

The judge said Monday that the plaintiffs' immigration status is "irrelevant" to the Fourteenth Amendment claim.

The immigration status of the plaintiffs was known to the judge but had not been made public.

The workers are seeking an injunction against what they describe as steady harassment by village officials and the police department in prohibiting the use of a park as a worker pickup site and in closely monitoring the laborers and potential employers on the street.

Day laborers, highly visible in many communities around the country as they wait for contractors to drive by and hire them for a day's work, have become a key element in the national debate over illegal immigration. In the absence of national legislation, several states and municipalities have imposed restrictive measures, while some have tried to accommodate them.

WHITE PLAINS, N.Y. (AP) — The day laborers who have accused a suburban village of harassing them on the streets as they look for work dropped all claims of First Amendment violations Monday rather than reveal their immigration status.

Oh, make room for the ACLU....they're gonna jump all over this one.

Those poor illegals and the struggles they have to undergo just to sue us pesky Americans.

<<The judge said Monday that the plaintiffs' immigration status is "irrelevant" to the Fourteenth Amendment claim. >>

Am I missing something? Aren't the rights and privileges of the US Constitution guaranteed to Citizens of the US? How is the plaintiffs' immigration status NOT relevant in this case? IF they are illegal immigrants, then what rights to claims of constitional violations do they have, and how do the rights and protections of the 14th Amendment apply to them if they are not even entitled to its protections?

Am I wrong, or do the rights and protections within the US Constitution extend to people other than just American citizens? Thanks.

Mirth

The immigration status of the plaintiffs was known to the judge but had not been made public.

How can a judge ignore the legal status of the plaintiffs? Didn't she swear an oath to uphold the law? Why isn't she required, by law to notify ICE if she knows, without a doubt, that some of these folks are illegal immigrants. They are in violation of the law and should be apprehended and deported. Has it gotten so bad in our country that judges can now ignore the laws of their choosing?

They knew that was a fast ticket to deportation. You testify and that is the last thing you would be saying in our country. Darn, they got away.

Dixie