There's an interesting catch to a suit wherein a group of day laborers won a lawsuit alleging discrimination and intimidation because a Long Island town attempted to prevent them from finding day work.
They filed the suit as "John Does" and many of the MSM articles leave that fact out - Forbes has it. They are listed as unidentified, but the rationale is left out. And here's the kicker:
They said the village violated their right to equal protection.
Equal protection? Under the Constitution? Which appears to now apply to every citizen of every country in the world, including terrorists, given recent judiciary decisions. Somehow I don't think that's what the Founders had in mind.
Isn't that an unusual, if not telling aspect of the story? You don't even have to identify yourself to get justice in America today? And all because, you know, you might not even be a citizen? I suppose anyone in the world can walk into an American court and allege discrimination, maybe al Qaeda will be next.
Six immigrant workers - all identified as John Doe for fear of retaliation by police or immigration authorities - had sought an injunction against what they called harassment, selective law enforcement and ethnic discrimination. They said the village violated their right to equal protection.
It appears the NY Times, link below, and many other MSM outlets left that detail out. I wonder why?
A federal judge ruled Monday that officials in Mamaroneck discriminated against Hispanic day laborers when they stepped up police patrols, closed a hiring site and aggressively fined contractors who approached the laborers on the streets as they searched for work.
In a 70-page decision, Judge Colleen McMahon of Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York wrote that “the fact that the day laborers were Latinos, and not whites, was, at least in part, a motivating factor in the defendants’ actions.”
And it isn't just New York. We're losing this battle. As pointed out by AJacksonian, we were suppose to have this resolved in 1986. Didn't happen.
As an aside, with Bush on board with the open borders crowd, it could easily lead to animosity toward the GO in 08, or even a third party candidate for President in 08, splitting the vote on the Right and welcoming Hillary into the White House. Arguably, it was Perot who may have helped elect a Clinton the first time around.
The ruling is at least the third legal victory this year for day laborers. Last week, officials in Freehold, N.J., agreed to allow laborers to seek work in public places without being subjected to fines, putting an end to a three-year court battle. In May, a federal judge prohibited the police in Redondo Beach, Calif., from arresting laborers for violating an ordinance against soliciting work on the streets.
And let us not forget the Congressional Seatwarmers who promised to get something done about all of this in 1986: http://thejacksonianparty.blogspot.com/2006/06/90-seatwarmers-in-congress.html
Posted by: ajacksonian | Tuesday, November 21, 2006 at 11:11 AM