“Gee, I wonder if I could get deported?”
Associated Press – October 10, 2007:
The American Civil Liberties Union filed a motion to stop immigration authorities forcibly drugging deportees as they are put on commercial flights back to their home countries.
The motion, filed Tuesday in federal court, comes after an immigration official testified in the Senate last month that 50 immigrants over a seven-month period were forced to take psychotropic drugs. Many of them had no psychiatric diagnosis.
According to court papers, one of the deportees, a Senegalese man, was forced to the floor in the aisle of a plane parked at Los Angeles International Airport and injected with medication.
“It’s both medically inappropriate and shocking that the government believes it can treat immigrants like animals and shoot them up with powerful anti-psychotic drugs.”
They dont want to go HOME…
They are being placed on an airplane, and STILL dont want to go.
You dont want them to cause problems on the plane…
DRUG THEM, SEND them…
DEA has to do something with all the confiscated drugs, don’t they? Besides, we’re sending them away, their health is no longer our responsibility.
Damn, even without facial expressions, I think I failed the deadpan on that one.
Once again, the ACLU is working to defend civil rights. Tell me again how they are too liberal.
Maybe the ACLU should do more for citizens and stop worrying about illegal immigrants. As long as health issues aren’t a problem I have no problem with immigration doping people up to get them out of the country.
I guess “homeland” “security” and La Migra haven’t heard about handcuffs.
Diouf had been ordered deported for overstaying a student visa.
This quote is from the article. The problem I have with this report is that it refers to these guys as “immigrants”. They are not immigrants. An immigrant has been granted that status by filing the proper petition with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. If they approve it, you are given immigrant status.
If you lie about your intentions, over stay your visa, if you even have one, and do not go “peacefully into the night” back to your country of origin, I say drug them and send them FedEx!
On a plane? How do they get thru security? With their NY Drivers License of course!
#6 – Exactly! There are legal immigrants, legal visitors and illegal aliens.
#3 – BryanP,
Do you really believe we all have the right to own nuclear weapons? How about biological and chemical weapons?
If not, then, like the ACLU, you believe that there are some limits on the second amendment. That is all the ACLU says on the subject is that there must be some limits on it given current weapons. So, given that there must be some limits on arms ownership, the ACLU merely takes the position that each state can decide on those limits.
#3 – BryanP,
Shameless plug. Feel free to check out my own post specifically on the subject of the ACLU.
>>If not, then, like the ACLU, you believe that there are some
>>limits on the second amendment.
Scottie, if you know of a place in the US where there are no “limits on the second amendment”, please speak now, or forever hold your peace.
I read your blog entry, as well as the ACLU statement on the Second Amendment. And although I’m not an evangelist for gun nuts, it seems to me that the ACLU statement (and your blog entry) are just feet in the door to Brady Bill-like legislation, NYC-like legislation, and other ways to tip us down the slippery slope towards BANNING (not regulation, which is already in place everywhere I’ve ever been in the US) gun ownership by law-abiding citizens.
To wit: “Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected.”
If it’s not protected, it can be banned.
If one person can lift the weapon without assistance they should be able to own it.
#12 – MM,
No argument from me on that. The problem is where to draw the line in what an individual may and may not own. ACLU is not advocating a specific point. They are merely staying silent on the issue.
Of course, I know of no place in the U.S. where it is legal for individuals to own nukes, chemical, or biological weapons. I like it that way. I have no intention of holding my peace on the subject.
My question for you is do you want these things owned by your neighbors?
#13 – iGW,
I really do not want my neighbors having RPGs, bazookas, grenades, chemical weapons, biological weapons, a backpack full of C4, SAMs, bouncing betties, M-60s, or a variety of other quite serious weapons. If you do, keep ’em in your state. And, I hope my state will put up borders similar to internationals ones to attempt to keep your neighbors with such devices out.
>>My question for you is do you want these things owned by
>>your neighbors?
Scottie, Scottie, Scottie. Not sure what ‘hood you live in, but I have NEVER lived anywhere that my neighbors had RPGs, bazookas, grenades, chemical weapons, biological weapons, a backpack full of C4, SAMs, bouncing betties, M-60s, or any of the other “serious weapons” you mention. And I seriously doubt that the ACLU has any interest in banning or legalizing these weapons. They are ALREADY banned.
On the other hand, if you ask “would I like my neighbors to own (or at least have the right to own) weapons for self-defense?”, you bet your ass I would. Although I used to be a gun owner, I’m not one now, and I really don’t have any interest in going through the paperwork, time, expense, and trouble of getting one. I’m a lover, not a fighter.
It’s kind of comforting for me, though, to know that wanna-be criminals might THINK I have a nice Smith & Wesson .40 Magnum or a Mossberg pump-action 12-gauge (or even better, a Desert Eagle .50 caliber semi-automatic) sitting on my couch when they consider whether or not to break into my home, rape my wife and children, and murder me in cold blood.
#15 – Musty,
Of course they are banned!! And, good thing too!!!
You are missing my point. If you believe these should be banned, then you believe in some limitations on your second amendment rights. Then the question just becomes where to draw the line.
On the other hand, if you ask “would I like my neighbors to own (or at least have the right to own) weapons for self-defense?”, you bet your ass I would.
Me too. I just don’t claim to know exactly where to draw the line between the first list and the second.
Neither does ACLU. So, they stay out of it. That’s all. Why is that a problem?
I am surprised the Airlines allow the drugged passengers without an escort.
On the surface this sounds horrific, passengers forcibly drugged for long trips. They have been expelled from the country however and if they don’t go willingly, they they have to go somehow. It is probably much safer to drug them then have them a danger to other passengers or themselves.
*
#13, iHotAir(YOP),
So doesn’t that rule out Superman owning his own M1A2 Abrams Tank?
>>You are missing my point. If you believe these should be banned,
>>then you believe in some limitations on your second amendment
>>rights.
Regardless of whether or not I “believe in” limitations, they’re a fact of life. In every state in the Union. What I object to is the slippery slope towards BANNING weapons for personal defense.
Everywhere I’ve lived, convicted felons, people who pistol-whipped their wives, terrorists, etc. have ALWAYS been prohibited from owning guns.
What I do NOT “believe in” is the traditional dem/ lib/ ACLU legislative activities that don’t seek to “regulate” gun ownership (gun ownership is already regulated), it’s to BAN gun ownership. NOBODY (other than the overlords and the criminals) get to own a gun.
Slippery slope, Scottie. It’s kind of like the 10 Commandments in the courthouse thing. Nobody really gives a shit about that per se; it’s the fact that it’s a foot in the door towards mandatory teaching of Creationism in schools, religious control of the gummint, prohibition of reproductive freedom, banning sex-ed teaching in schools, public floggings and stake-burning for “immoral” behavior, and all the rest.
The slope is slippery, son.
#13 iGW & #17 – Fusion,
Good point Fusion. iGW, the standard you set allows stronger people to own larger weaponry. That doesn’t sound right.
#18 – MM,
Regardless of whether or not I “believe in” limitations, they’re a fact of life. In every state in the Union. What I object to is the slippery slope towards BANNING weapons for personal defense.
OK, now you are deliberately sidestepping the issue. Do you or do you not BELIEVE in some limitations?
What I do NOT “believe in” is the traditional dem/ lib/ ACLU legislative activities that don’t seek to “regulate” gun ownership (gun ownership is already regulated), it’s to BAN gun ownership. NOBODY (other than the overlords and the criminals) get to own a gun.
I disagree. Though you haven’t stated your real opinion on the subject yet, I think you seem to BELIEVE in BANNING some weapons. If so, then we just have to decide where to draw the line. Perhaps ACLU should pick a point. Perhaps the weapons of 1789 with reasonable upgrades, is a good limit. I don’t know.
Why is ‘I don’t know where to draw the line’ an unacceptable position to you?
And, will you please just stand up and say you support a ban on nuclear weapons ownership by private citizens so we can get on with the real conversation? Or, do you genuinely believe I should be able to point a pershing missile at your house from my nuclear sub?
>>if they don’t go willingly, they they have to go somehow.
They transport prisoners unwillingly all the time. There’s this high-tech device that some bleeding-edge police forces use….HANDCUFFS.
Side note on 2ndA: Up until 1968, people could order, through the mail, all sorts of machine guns, silencers, morters, cannon, fully equiped tanks, jets with machine guns and rockets, no limet.
The the only limet the feds put on what was mailed was by size and weight. That’s it. They did not place limets on what was shipped by freight companies.
It was not until after Malcom X said “Laws are passed to benifit whites. Blacks do not need to follow white man’s laws” and the crime rate went up that the existing laws were enforced and more laws were passed. Oddly, the crime rate kept going up.
Back to the subject at hand, I’m not surprised by anything Customs and Immigrations does. Nobody has rights at the border.
>>Or, do you genuinely believe I should be able to point a
>>pershing missile at your house from my nuclear sub?
You’re wasting my time with your straw-man arguments, Scottie.
This is not about buying pershing missiles, RPGs, or nuclear weapons.
The dem/ lib/ ACLU “stance” is about BANNING the ownership of handguns and long guns in some misguided attempt to prevent the next Columbine or VA Tech, or the next ATM mugging.
If they only knew they were cutting off their noses to spite their faces.
The ACLU’s position that gun ownership is a collective right and not an individual one is as silly as those court decisions they cite. The collective is comprised of individuals and therefore cannot have rights that the individuals who form it don’t have, i.e. if one person may not have a gun, then a group of 10 people also may not have guns.
Furthermore, we already do possess nuclear, chemical and biological weapons… through the government we have established and enabled by the powers we have granted it. Our authority to grant these powers to our creation is derived from the pre-existing rights in our possession. By corollary, the government can have no powers that the people who created it have no pre-existing right to. So it follows that by virtue of the government having the power to possess weapons, the people, individually, must have a right to also possess them.
So if I take drugs and get stoned before I board the airplane, I get arrested? But terrorists get free drugs? WTF?
#20, Scott, “Or, do you genuinely believe I should be able to point a pershing missile at your house from my nuclear sub?” No problema, now that my sub’s equipped with Google Earth, I can sink anything, anytime, anywhere. 😆
Enjoyed your article (as shamelessly plugged on #11). Concise and accurate. But you can pry my target pistols and shotguns from my cold, dead hands.
#26 – BubbaRay,
Where did I say I wanted to take away your guns?
>>Where did I say I wanted to take away your guns?
You don’t have to say it, Scottie. The ACLU is saying it in your place, by pushing us down the slippery slope of Brady-billing and NCY-gun-lawing us into helplessness.
Sad.
I support most of the ACLU’s positions (and the Dem/ Libs as well), but somehow I don’t see turning us into 1984-style helpless automatons as what the Founding Fathers had in mind.
#28 – Musty,
Stop putting words in my mouth. I am not taking anyone’s guns away. You like to make your point by building a strawman to knock down. I have very mixed feelings about guns but do not claim to know the right answer. You on the other hand do not even bother to answer direct pointed questions about your own opinions.
If I argued the way you do, by now I would already be stating that you do believe we should all have our own nukes in our backyards. But, I don’t argue like you. I take people at their word. You happen to be a few words short. But, don’t worry. Unlike you, I will not pick the words for you.
I will say though, oh musty one, OFTLO has you pegged perfectly. And, I won’t give you any typos to harp on when I say it.
You have the most passive aggressive superiority complex of anyone who has ever posted here.
Why don’t you try coming down from your high horse once in a while and see what others look like from eye level?
>>If I argued the way you do, by now I would already be stating
>>that you do believe we should all have our own nukes in our
>>backyards.
Instead, you ask me questions like “My question for you is do you want these things [nukes, chemical, or biological weapons]. owned by your neighbors?” Talk about straw men!
>>Stop putting words in my mouth. I am not taking anyone’s
>>guns away.
Stop putting them in mine. I never said you were taking away anyone’s guns; in fact, I stated just the opposite. What I DID say is that the private agenda of many organizations who publicly lobby against the absurd straw man of “the individual’s unlimited right to own guns” is NOT reasonable restriction on gun ownership, it is the CRIMINALIZATION (and banning) of gun ownership by private citizens.
If you don’t think there are restrictions on gun ownership, just go to any state in the Union and try to buy one.
And since we no longer have “militias” (in the old-fashioned posse comitatus sense that applied when the Constitution was written), I guess the Second Amendment has no meaning at all. Perhaps you would support striking it from the Bill of RIghts.
And thanks for the valuable psychological insight, Scottie. You’re better than Bob Newhart!
#30 – MM,
It’s not a strawman to ask you a pointed question. You have simply not answered the damn question, and still refuse to.
I do NOT take the position that there are no restrictions on arms ownership. I merely take the position that due to the nature of the arms available today, some arms must be restricted. I then say further that I don’t know which ones. There are some that should definitely be restricted, some that should definitely not be, and some that are in a grey area in between.
Since you take the position that any regulation of arms is bad, I merely ask where you draw the line. So, I ask again, do you believe there should be no line and anyone should be able to own any arms? Do you think there SHOULD be some limitations (again, should, not are, we both agree there are limitations now)?
So musty old man, where the fuck do you personally want to see the line drawn? What arms SHOULD be allowed and what SHOULD NOT?
And, after you get done with that exercise, oh pompous one, tell me why your opinion and yours alone is perfect and everyone else must be wrong on this very grey issue. And, if you can’t explain why you and you alone know the answers, then perhaps you will understand why the ACLU simply does not take a position.
#17 – Superman doesn’t need a tank, but if he wants one, it’s ok with me.
Actually, I kind of like the situation in Vernor Vinge’s Singularity series. Right near the Singularity, individuals were buying personal weapons suites that had more firepower than the entire combined planetary military has today.
The general population needs to be able to stand up to our own military, if necessary to take back freedom.