TUCSON, Ariz. (AP) - A 23-year-old Mexican woman with three American-born children, including one just three weeks old, will return voluntarily to Mexico after what supporters call a harrowing experience with authorities during a traffic stop.
Miriam Aviles-Reyes, an illegal immigrant, and the human rights group Derechos Humanos say a Tucson police officer was abusive and called the Border Patrol without necessary cause.Tucson police spokesmen deny the officer did anything wrong and say the officer was following departmental policy.
Aviles-Reyes went into labor during the traffic stop, and her husband, who was also an illegal immigrant, was deported immediately - before she could deliver her son the next day.Supporters of Aviles-Reyes say she was given the option of agreeing to a voluntary departure or facing a 10-year ban from entering the country.http://kvoa.com/Global/story.asp?S=7561444&nav=menu216_3
2007-12-31 15:01:13 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Immigration
Good for the police officer!!!!! To the naysayers, what do you think the Mexican government would do to an American in the same position????? I dare say we would not be treated so well.
2007-12-31 15:06:27 · answer #1 · answered by shirley e 7 · 7⤊ 0⤋
A right protected by the First Amendment. No more and no less. Not the right to sue, that is held solely by those directly and individually affected. And not the right to vote in Arizona, that is held only by Arizona residents. The issue that I have with the law is in 2 components: 1) It allows individuals to sue law enforcement if they don't like how law enforcement exercises their judgment in determining reasonable suspicion and probably cause. 2) Due to the fear of such lawsuits, the police in many areas will feel they have little choice but to harass a group of people, by stopping them frequently and checking their papers and jailing them if they, for example, go out jogging without carrying their wallet. Stopping people for reasonable suspicion that they have committed a crime is a power the police always have. This law doesn't affect that. There are a number of possible constitutional challenges, some of which are purely procedural, such as preclusion. But that's for those who have the right to sue on the matter, which does not include me. I can only voice my opinion and those with the power to vote or sue concerning the issue can do as they wish. Note, by the way, that Scalia successfully argued in a majority opinion that a minority had significant political power if more people than their proportion of the population votes against discriminating against them. That ridiculous argument dealt with an amendment to the Colorado Constitution that prevented the legislature from protecting homosexuals if they see fit. (So for legislation protecting gays, they now need a constitutional amendment, but for any other group, they just need a law, hence the discrimination, it's a bit indirect.) For a case like this, I think the flaw in that logic will be apparent even to Scalia. However he may find other reasons to vote to uphold it. It'll draw interesting lines in the Court. I'm looking at Roberts and Kennedy to be persuaded by Sotomayor and whoever Obama's next pick is. Since he's only had the opportunity to replace liberals, he's been trying to pick replacements who have a chance to persuade Kennedy.
2016-05-28 08:02:24 · answer #2 · answered by raguel 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What part of "illegal" do you not understand?
The husband was illegal and was deported.
The mother was illegal but due to humanitarian concerns, was allowed to download her FOURTH American born child.
Then she was given the option of voluntary departure or facing a 10 year ban.
I would have given her the 10 year ban.
The cop did the right thing.
2008-01-01 09:32:44 · answer #3 · answered by forgivebutdonotforget911 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Thumbs up, One less expense . Go back and reenter properly. The law is the law.
2008-01-01 01:13:24 · answer #4 · answered by reallynow 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
she already had 2 anchor babies - why does she need a third? I agree - she was dealt with correctly. She should have been banned for 10 years.
2008-01-01 01:41:46 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
as you say it that should go under a raciest act.
2007-12-31 15:29:04 · answer #6 · answered by ? 7 · 0⤊ 6⤋
The question is: Do you know what an ILLEGAL immigrant is?? Being in this country illegally is CAUSE to call the Border Patrol. The fact that she has three, American born children DOESN'T give HER an automatic, free pass.
Being in this country illegally is a choice, that she and her husband made when they entered the country illegally. Caught, they must now face the consequences of their actions.
2007-12-31 15:15:31 · answer #7 · answered by edmond_dixon 5 · 6⤊ 0⤋
Good for the officer
2007-12-31 15:08:54 · answer #8 · answered by Sweet Tea & Lemons 6 · 5⤊ 0⤋
The officer was right. The illegals were breaking the law and should be deported - no exceptions, regardless of the efforts of the bleeding heart liberals.
2007-12-31 15:06:36 · answer #9 · answered by Bill 6 · 6⤊ 0⤋
Not that I don't like latinos... but the law was broken. Too bad, so sad. That is the risk of living in America illegally.
2007-12-31 15:05:47 · answer #10 · answered by Rachel 3 · 8⤊ 1⤋