Thread: NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT

This can be found on the LARAZA Web Site. They receive public funding and have sponsors such as Ford and are telling lawbreakers who enter our country illegally how to remain in our country illegally.

Here is the link to it
http://www.nclr.org/content/resources/detail/39063/

NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT:
Know Your Rights at Home and at Work
July 2004

When may Immigration enter my home?
• Immigration officers may NOT enter your home unless they have a “warrant.” A warrant is a piece of paper signed by a judge giving the officer permission specifically to enter your home. There are two types of warrants: one for when they are coming to arrest you, andanother for when they have permission from a judge to search your home. Most immigration warrants are arrest warrants.

• If an office r knocks on your door, do not open it. Ask the officer through the closeddoor to identify himself. You can say, “Who are you with?” or “W hat agency are you with?”

• The officer might say that he is with “Department of Homeland Security,” or “U.S.Immigration and Customs Enforcement.” The officer might name another agency. No matter what, keep the door closed. Through the closed door, ask the officer if he has a warrant.

• If he says “yes,” still do not open the door.
Ask him to show you the warrant by slipping it
under the door.

• When examining the warrant, look for your name, your address, and a signature. This can help you decide whether or not the warrant is valid (true). The warrant will be in English. If you have trouble reading it or understanding it, get someone else in your house to help you read it or translate it, if possible.

• If the warrant the Immigration officer shows you looks valid, you should go outside to talk to the officer. You have the right not to let the officer enter your house. This is especially important if you live with other people who might have immigration problems,because once you allow the officer into your house, he can ask questions of anyone else
who is there, too.

NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER
Los Angeles Headquarters
3435 Wilshire Blvd
Suite 2850
Los Angeles, CA 90010
213 639-3900
213 639-3911 fax
Washington, DC
1101 14th Street, NW
Suite 410
Washington, DC 20005
202 216-0261
202 216-0266 fax
Oakland, CA
405 14th Street
Suite 1400
Oakland, CA 94612
510 663-8282
510 663-2028
National
Immigration
Law Center
www.nilc o r g


• If you do talk to the officer (again, outside your house — do not let him in), do not answer any questions. Do not sign any papers. Tell the officer you want to talk to a lawyer before you say anything. Do not provide any kind of identification documents that say what country you are from. Make sure not to carry any false documents with you at any time.

• ANOTHER W AY an immigration officer can enter your home legally (besides if he has a valid warrant) is if you give the officer permission to enter. This is called giving the officer your “consent” to enter your home.

• If you open your door, or if the officer asks if he can come
in and you say “yes,” you are probably consenting to his entering your home.

• The best thing to do is to keep the door closed and ask the officer to identify himself. Then ask to see a warrant. DO NOT OPEN THE DOOR IF HE CANNOT SHOW YOU A WARRANT.

• An officer is NOT ALLOWED to force you to consent to his entering your home. For example, if your house is surrounded by Border Patrol or Immigration cars with their lights flashing, and the officer is holding his gun as he asks for permission (your consent) to enter your home, and you say “yes” because you’re afraid, a court would probably not consider this to be valid consent. How can I protect myself from Immigration coming to my house?

If you hear that Immigration has been asking questions about you at your job, it is possible those officers may show up at your house.

• If this is the case, try to find a way not to be at your home for a couple of days.

• Stay with a friend or a relative whose address you know your employer does not have (an address not listed in any papers— for example, emergency contact information— you filled out for work).

• Make sure that someone you trust knows where you are, and that you know how to reach them in case of an emergency (if you have been detained by Immigration).

• You and your family or close friends should have the names and phone numbers of good immigration attorneys posted near the telephone at home so that they can c all the attorney in case you are detained.

• In general, it is also a good idea to keep a copy of your important papers (birth certificate, any immigration papers, etc.) at the home of a friend or relative whom you trust and can call in case you are detained.

What should I do if Immigration comes to my workplace?

• Immigration officers are not allowed to enter your workplace— whether it is a factory,store, farm, or orchard— without permission from the owner or manager.

• If an officer does get permission, the officer is free to ask you questions about your immigration status.

• You have a right to keep silent. You don’t even have to tell the agent your name.

• You also have the right to talk to a lawyer before you answer any questions. You can tell
the officer, “I wish to talk to a lawyer” in response to any question the officer asks you.

• Do not tell the immigration officer where you were born or what your immigration
status is.

• Do not show the officer your papers or any immigration documents. If the office r asks you for your papers, tell the officer, “I wish to talk to a lawyer.”

What can my union do?
• If you belong to a labor union, there are ways it can help you. You should talk to your union representative about your concerns. If it would make you feel more comfortable, ask some of your co-workers to go with you to talk to your representative. Your union contract might have language that protects union members, such as an agreement with the employer that has one or more of the following provisions:

• The employer will not allow any Immigration officers to enter the workplace without a valid warrant signed by a federal judge or magistrate.

• The employer will immediately notify the union if the Immigration authorities contact the employer for any purpose so that the union can take steps to protect the rights of its members.

• The employer will provide employees’ I-9 employment eligibility verification forms to Immigration officers for inspection only if they have a search warrant or a court order signed by a federal judge or magistrate.

• The employer will allow lawyers or community advocates brought by the union to interview employees in as private a setting as possible in the workplace. The union might also have a legal plan, which provides workers with immigration attorneys.

• The e employer agrees not to reveal the names, addresses, or immigration status of any employees to Immigration.

• The e employer will not participate in any computer verification of employees’ immigration or work authorization status.

I love this stuff.

Again, it's the things they are not saying. For example some of those actions could be construed as resisting arrest, aiding and abetting ( sp?) things of that nature. Sure they may have the "right" to do those actions, but they forget that there are also consequences that go along with them.

Laraza is undermining the United States and their actions are indefensible.

Excuse me !! I think things are getting a bit OUT OF CONTROL people. This is the breaking point for American and the abuse of our rights as citizens.

Guess they are not up on the new rules and laws! Not that I am surprised, I mean they even follow the laws and rules we have had for years and years.



Supreme Court: No-Knock Evidence OK
High Court Rules Police With Warrant Can Enter A House Without Knocking

WASHINGTON, June 15, 2006
(AP / CBS)


(CBS/AP) The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that police armed with a warrant can barge into homes and seize evidence even if they don't knock, a huge government victory that was decided by President Bush's new justices.

The 5-4 ruling signals the court's conservative shift following the departure of moderate Sandra Day O'Connor.

The case tested previous court rulings that police armed with warrants generally must knock and announce themselves or they run afoul of the Constitution's Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches.

"The Supreme Court has been gradually upgrading police search powers," CBS News correspondent Barry Bagnato says. "This is another step in that direction."

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, said Detroit police acknowledge violating that rule when they called out their presence at a man's door then went inside three seconds to five seconds later.

"Whether that preliminary misstep had occurred or not, the police would have executed the warrant they had obtained, and would have discovered the gun and drugs inside the house," Scalia wrote.

But suppressing evidence is too high a penalty, Scalia said, for errors by police in failing to properly announce themselves.

The outcome might have been different if O'Connor were still on the bench. She seemed ready, when the case was first argued in January, to rule in favor of Booker Hudson, whose house was searched in 1998.

O'Connor had worried aloud that officers around the country might start bursting into homes to execute search warrants. She asked: "Is there no policy of protecting the homeowner a little bit and the sanctity of the home from this immediate entry?"

She retired before the case was decided, and a new argument was held so that Justice Samuel Alito could participate in deliberations. Alito and Bush's other Supreme Court pick, Chief Justice John Roberts, both supported Scalia's opinion.

Hudson's lawyers argued that evidence against him was connected to the improper search and could not be used against him.

Scalia said that a victory for Hudson would have given "a get-out-of-jail-free card" to him and others.

In a dissent, four justices complained that the decision erases more than 90 years of Supreme Court precedent.

"It weakens, perhaps destroys, much of the practical value of the Constitution's knock-and-announce protection," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for himself and the three other liberal members.

Breyer said that police will feel free to enter homes without knocking and waiting a short time if they know that there is no punishment for it.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, a moderate, joined the conservatives in most of the ruling. He wrote his own opinion, however, to say "it bears repeating that it is a serious matter if law enforcement officers violate the sanctity of the home by ignoring the requisites of lawful entry."

The case is Hudson v. Michigan, 04-1360.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...litics_1715081

and watch out if police get power to enforce INS laws they can come and get the illegals. I mean most of them are here illegally which we know and we know many of them are also involved in illegal gang, guns and drug activity!

I found reading that as distasteful as watching Mark Geragos on Larry King defending the child murderer in Florida whose confession was thrown out.