Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 10 May '10 18:35
    An illegal immigrant with a long rap sheet got a $145,000 parting gift from New York City taxpayers before he was deported, after city lawyers decided his civil rights had been violated when he was held too long on Rikers Island.

    Federal rules allow local law enforcement to detain suspected illegal immigrants for 48 hours after their criminal cases are resolved, to give Immigration and Customs Enforcement a chance to pick them up and move them to federal facilities.
    Former Brooklyn resident Cecil Harvey, 55 -- backed by an immigration-rights advocacy group -- argued that his rights were violated when he spent more than a month in a Rikers holding pen before being transferred to ICE.

    Harvey was shipped to his native Barbados in October 2007; the city settled his civil suit late last year.

    The landmark settlement has prompted the Correction Department to dump scores of illegal immigrants on the streets, since federal officials often fail to pick them up within the required two-day window.

    Federal immigration agents have office space on Rikers Island, and the city allows them to interview roughly 4,000 inmates each year. They put a hold, or "detainer," on 3,200 of those inmates who they discover are illegals.

    But ICE often fails to transfer those detainees within the required 48 hours of their criminal cases being resolved, multiple jail sources said.
    "We just release them now," one high-ranking jail supervisor said. "It's ICE's problem to go find these guys."

    Harvey, a 55-year-old father of three, with three prior arrests, spent 35 days on Rikers, when he should have been moved to ICE.

    On Dec. 2, 2003, cops busted him in Bedford-Stuyvesant shortly after midnight for drinking a bottle of Bacardi in public. Police said they found "crack cocaine residue" in his pocket.

    He pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor drug charge and the judge ordered him released on his own recognizance, according to the Brooklyn District Attorney's Office.

    He was eventually delivered to ICE, but released pending an appeal of his status. After he was arrested again on a warrant for missing his court date on his drug case while in federal custody, Harvey was held on Rikers for another month before being transferred to an ICE center in Alabama.

    " I cannot speak for Rikers as to why he was not released to us within 48 hours," said ICE spokesman Harold Ort. "ICE lodges a detainer on removable aliens and the jail then contacts us when the alien is ready to be picked up by ICE."



    Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/alien_WU7CcuvTMg4n2yBzWqSPMI#ixzz0nYKzUZ6y
  2. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    10 May '10 18:40 / 1 edit
    Cops shouldn't be putting people in prison without a trial.

    Alcohol and crack cocaine use are part of the Right to Pursue Happiness and the police should not be forced to arrest users.
  3. 10 May '10 19:22
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Cops shouldn't be putting people in prison without a trial.

    Alcohol and crack cocaine use are part of the Right to Pursue Happiness and the police should not be forced to arrest users.
    Cops shouldn't be putting people in prison without a trial.

    agreed.


    Alcohol and crack cocaine use are part of the Right to Pursue Happiness and the police should not be forced to arrest users.


    Isn't crack an illegal drug? Do you think the right to pursue happiness should override other laws (especially those concerning drug use)?
  4. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    10 May '10 19:23
    Originally posted by generalissimo
    [b]Cops shouldn't be putting people in prison without a trial.

    agreed.


    Alcohol and crack cocaine use are part of the Right to Pursue Happiness and the police should not be forced to arrest users.


    Isn't crack an illegal drug? Do you think the right to pursue happiness should override other laws (especially those concerning drug use)?[/b]
    Inalienable rights always override all laws. The right isn't a law; it's the moral justification for the law. The anti-drug laws are immoral because they violate the moral system they are supposed to be based on.
  5. 10 May '10 19:28
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Inalienable rights always override all laws. The right isn't a law; it's the moral justification for the law. The anti-drug laws are immoral because they violate the moral system they are supposed to be based on.
    I agree with you, Im playing devil's advocate here.

    doesn't it depend on how you define the right to pursue happiness? I mean, if you can just make it up as you go there'd be no point in having laws preventing individuals from doing harm to themselves or others.
    You'd have no order in society if everytime some guy was stopped by the police he could simply get away scot free by saying "its my right to pursue happiness!"
    regardless of the fact he may have committed an offense.
  6. 10 May '10 19:28
    obama made the wrong pick for supreme court!
  7. 10 May '10 19:29
    ATY would definitely have been a better choice!
  8. 10 May '10 19:37
    he'll toss out the drug laws in favor of his new inalienable rights doctrine!
  9. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    10 May '10 19:53 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by generalissimo
    I agree with you, Im playing devil's advocate here.

    doesn't it depend on how you define the right to pursue happiness? I mean, if you can just make it up as you go there'd be no point in having laws preventing individuals from doing harm to themselves or others.
    You'd have no order in society if everytime some guy was stopped by the police he could s my right to pursue happiness!"
    regardless of the fact he may have committed an offense.
    My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins.

    With drugs, the only nose involved is that of the puncher!

    Laws preventing individuals from harming themselves are extremely suspicious and I am very uncomfortable with them. Having grown up aroun schizophrenics it's a difficult topic for me to make a decision on. If I'm miserable and I want to die I do NOT want to be forced to live in misery!

    But for people who are insane...they generally appreciate being forced to take treatment once they're treated and become rational again in my experience.

    That is a worthy topic of debate. However an employed young couple spending their hard earned money doing a few lines of coke or meth before having a sex marathon is not the same as a schizophrenic depressive trying to kill herself because the doctors won't prescribe her antidepressants.

    EDIT - You'd have no order in society if everytime some guy was stopped by the police he could simply get away scot free by saying "its my right to pursue happiness!" regardless of the fact he may have committed an offense.

    Likewise, if you were apprehended for vandalism and shouted "I have a right to liberty...you can't put me in prison!" wouldn't work. Laws are made to honor and protect rights; rights are not an alternative to law!

    When the law comes into violation of rights, it becomes unjust law and should be resisted as happened in 1976.
  10. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    10 May '10 19:54
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    he'll toss out the drug laws in favor of his new inalienable rights doctrine!
    "New"?

    Have you read our founding documents? How about early Islamic law...familiar with that?

    Inalienable rights is NOT a new idea especially in the context of US law!
  11. 10 May '10 19:55
    put relevant medical diagnoses and test results on the citizen ID card, to be checked by the other party before buying drugs or engaging in unprotected sex?
  12. 10 May '10 20:00
    sure, but i don't have to agree with the idea.

    if there really is a set of inalienable rights, why aren't they the same for all communities?
  13. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    10 May '10 20:02
    What does work, however, is when the police come to imprison you for protesting, is to insist on your right to free speech. Just as you cannot invoke rights to escape legitimate laws, you cannot invoke laws to override legimate expressions of inalienable rights.
  14. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    10 May '10 20:02
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    sure, but i don't have to agree with the idea.

    if there really is a set of inalienable rights, why aren't they the same for all communities?
    They are the same for all communities.
  15. 10 May '10 20:07
    are the communities agreed as to that?