Libertarian Lawyer argues for class action suit by crime victims against Sanctuary Cities

[emilynghiem]

Jim Lockwood argues that victims of crimes by illegal immigrants
should join in class action suits against Sanctuary cities.

See his argument outlined below:

-------------

The perfect case would be an individual who has been injured, within the last three years or less, from an illegal immigrant who had previously been arrested by local officials located in a sanctuary state or city.

.....

What follows is a legal argument which MIGHT succeed in holding local officials accountable for designating a city or state a sanctuary for illegal immigrants. I emphasize the word might, because to my knowledge, the below argument has never been made.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions is currently suing California in Federal court over state officials designating the state as a sanctuary state. This effort is bound to fail. Session’s argument is, local officials MUST enforce Federal law. Thus if an illegal immigrant is found to be present, local police departments MUST notify ICE.

However, the Supreme Court has ruled numerous times that local officials cannot be forced to enforce Federal law. I agree with this ruling. I do not want police officers to be turned into agents of the Federal government.

So how do we challenge the designation of a state or city as a sanctuary for illegal immigrants?

Under the Federal civil rights act 42 USC 1983 state and local officials can be sued for monetary damages for violating a Plaintiff’s constitutional rights under color of authority. Color of authority is a fancy way of saying when the local official is acting in their official capacity. Thus, if an officer is wearing civilian clothing and punches you at a bar, he is not acting within his official capacity. But if he punches you while on duty and waring his uniform, he is.

Now, there is no constitutional right to be protected by police from danger. So how can a person frame a federal lawsuit against a local official claiming they failed to protect him from whatever injury they suffered?

Federal courts have held that the due process clause of the 5th and 14th amendment can provide grounds for a civil rights lawsuit under one of two theories:

1. The special relationship doctrine; and
2. The state created danger doctrine.

The doctrine which concerns us here is number two. “Although the state’s failure to protect an individual against private violence does not generally violate the guarantee of due process, it can where the state action affirmatively places the plaintiff in a position of danger, that is, where state action creates or exposes an individual to a danger which he or she would not otherwise have faced.” See Kennedy V. Ridgefield.

This is the state created danger doctrine. A few case examples will be enough to illustrate how this doctrine traditionally works.

-- Jim Lockwood, lawyer and talk show host

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Bigotry and hate behind the facade of a lawsuit.

 

[emilynghiem]

Bigotry and hate behind the facade of a lawsuit.

Dear C_Clayton_Jones CC: TheOldSchool
since you are so good at picking apart the letter of the law,
can you review and point out where these arguments are not enforceable?

Does Jim make any assertion that violates or discriminates
on the basis of race or belief?

For example, with Roe V Wade and abortion laws, these
discriminate and target WOMEN and don't address the MEN.
It raises due process issues and especially discrimination on the
part of women who didn't have a choice but were coerced by men.

Now what part of Jim's arguments discriminate to be hateful and bigoted?
Is he only going after ONE race or gender that is committing crimes as illegal immigrants?

Does what he propose violate "due process"?

I think you may be arguing that these crimes target more
lower socioeconomic classes including Mexican nationals
than other groups?

Are you suggesting that we should police ALL citizens
by the same standards, so we don't target profile or discriminate
by one racial ethnic or national identity more than any other?

Would that solve the problem, and just have taxpayers
pursue class action against ALL CRIMES and demand
we be reimbursed for ALL costs of debts, damages including
costs of policing prosecution and incarceration?
Regardless of citizenship or not, sue ALL criminals
for restitution (and/or require deportation for ALL of them
not just immigrants but any violators who refuse to comply
with authorities and work off full restitution owed for crimes.
wouldn't that be more fair and inclusive, not discriminatory?)

If we apply this to ALL crimes by any person, illegal or
naturalized or natural born citizen, would THAT remove
the discrimination and bigotry?

If so I support that expansion to include all people
committing crimes for which victims and taxpayers
are owed restitution. We might agree on that
C_Clayton_Jones. I can suggest that to Jim okay?

 

[protectionist]

Bigotry and hate behind the facade of a lawsuit.

They shouldn't just be sued. They should be arrested, convicted, and imprisoned.

8 U.S. Code § 1324 - Bringing in and harboring certain aliens

1907. Title 8, U.S.C. 1324(a) Offenses | USAM | Department of Justice

 

[IsaacNewton]

Abortion is settled federal law which means all states are bound to abide by it without question. But all these red states continually pass 'laws' making various forms of abortion illegal. Against federal law and in direct defiance of the federal government. Many red states passed laws instructing state and city employees to ignore federal gun regulations.

Cons when you pretend to have morals and pretend to 'do the right thing' do you ever get a twitch in your eye? It's the sign of a bad liar lying through their teeth.

 

[protectionist]

Abortion is settled federal law which means all states are bound to abide by it without question. But all these red states continually pass 'laws' making various forms of abortion illegal. Against federal law and in direct defiance of the federal government. Many red states passed laws instructing state and city employees to ignore federal gun regulations.

Cons when you pretend to have morals and pretend to 'do the right thing' do you ever get a twitch in your eye? It's the sign of a bad liar lying through their teeth.

Would have been a better post if there was more substance ,or are we supposed to just take this all on faith ?

 

[IsaacNewton]

Abortion is settled federal law which means all states are bound to abide by it without question. But all these red states continually pass 'laws' making various forms of abortion illegal. Against federal law and in direct defiance of the federal government. Many red states passed laws instructing state and city employees to ignore federal gun regulations.

Cons when you pretend to have morals and pretend to 'do the right thing' do you ever get a twitch in your eye? It's the sign of a bad liar lying through their teeth.

Would have been a better post if there was more substance ,or are we supposed to just take this all on faith ?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Unsurprisingly, conservatives come to the defense of bigotry and hate.

 

[Humorme]

Jim Lockwood argues that victims of crimes by illegal immigrants
should join in class action suits against Sanctuary cities.

See his argument outlined below:

-------------

The perfect case would be an individual who has been injured, within the last three years or less, from an illegal immigrant who had previously been arrested by local officials located in a sanctuary state or city.

.....

What follows is a legal argument which MIGHT succeed in holding local officials accountable for designating a city or state a sanctuary for illegal immigrants. I emphasize the word might, because to my knowledge, the below argument has never been made.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions is currently suing California in Federal court over state officials designating the state as a sanctuary state. This effort is bound to fail. Session’s argument is, local officials MUST enforce Federal law. Thus if an illegal immigrant is found to be present, local police departments MUST notify ICE.

However, the Supreme Court has ruled numerous times that local officials cannot be forced to enforce Federal law. I agree with this ruling. I do not want police officers to be turned into agents of the Federal government.

So how do we challenge the designation of a state or city as a sanctuary for illegal immigrants?

Under the Federal civil rights act 42 USC 1983 state and local officials can be sued for monetary damages for violating a Plaintiff’s constitutional rights under color of authority. Color of authority is a fancy way of saying when the local official is acting in their official capacity. Thus, if an officer is wearing civilian clothing and punches you at a bar, he is not acting within his official capacity. But if he punches you while on duty and waring his uniform, he is.

Now, there is no constitutional right to be protected by police from danger. So how can a person frame a federal lawsuit against a local official claiming they failed to protect him from whatever injury they suffered?

Federal courts have held that the due process clause of the 5th and 14th amendment can provide grounds for a civil rights lawsuit under one of two theories:

1. The special relationship doctrine; and
2. The state created danger doctrine.

The doctrine which concerns us here is number two. “Although the state’s failure to protect an individual against private violence does not generally violate the guarantee of due process, it can where the state action affirmatively places the plaintiff in a position of danger, that is, where state action creates or exposes an individual to a danger which he or she would not otherwise have faced.” See Kennedy V. Ridgefield.

This is the state created danger doctrine. A few case examples will be enough to illustrate how this doctrine traditionally works.

-- Jim Lockwood, lawyer and talk show host

The problem with that theory of law is that the people at large willingly do business with undocumented foreigners. If you want to give them a message that you don't want them in your neighborhood, BOYCOTT them. Boycott the businesses that buy from, sell to, or other do business with undocumented foreigners. The government cannot save you from yourself and absolutely cannot deny that the foreigners are invitees as long as the public at large does business with them.

 

[WillMunny]

I would love to see these treasonous "sanctuary cities" sued and sued and sued and sued until the moon turns to green cheese.

 

[Humorme]

I would love to see these treasonous "sanctuary cities" sued and sued and sued and sued until the moon turns to green cheese.

Are you that happy to spend your tax dollars losing?

 

[Dschrute3]

I wish em the best of luck. But it would be extremely perilous. There are so many Open Borders Communist/Democrat judges in this country. It's very likely these families would be thwarted by them. It's very sad, but it is what it is.

 

[Humorme]

I wish em the best of luck. But it would be extremely perilous. There are so many Open Borders Communist/Democrat judges in this country. It's very likely these families would be thwarted by them. It's very sad, but it is what it is.

This border nonsense is like watching the WWE. One day a guy is the good guy and you shake his hand, the next he is the villian. Communist Democrats? I've never voted for either. But reality is what reality is.