The Supreme Court could give immigration agents broad power to stop and question Latinos

Washington – The most comprehensive immigration case of this year will decide whether the immigrant agents in Los Angeles suspect that they are illegal here or not to stop, question and arrest.

President Trump promised the “largest mass deportation operation ve in the American history and chose to start aggressive street sweeps in Los Angeles at the beginning of June.

The Great Los Angeles region is zero zero for the effects of the border crisis ”. He told the lawyers to the high court This month. “Approximately 2 million illegal alien, shelter city policies and local authorities aim to prevent federal execution efforts from an area of ​​20 million.”

“The majority of illegal foreigners [Central] District [of California] Bride from Mexico or Central America, and many of them speak Spanish only, ”he added.

He urged to confirm that rapid traces, justice, immigrant agents have “reasonable doubt” to stop and question Latins working in jobs or professions that attract many documentary workers.

There is no question that US immigrant agents can arrest immigrants by criminal record or a final lifting order. However, Trump management lawyers say that agents also have the authority to stop and question the Latins that live here for years and to interrogate the latins and sometimes handcuffs and arrest.

They can do this, not evidence that a particular person lacks legal status, but based on the assumption that they look and work illegally here.

“Reasonable doubt is a low rod – well below the possible cause,” he said lawyers. “The visible ethnicity may be a factor that supports reasonable suspicion, and they said that this standard assumed that“ innocent people can occur with legal stops ”.

If the court sets rules for Trump, Los Angeles and the country “may be extremely consequences, UCLA Professor of Law said Ahilan Arulantham, co -director of immigration law and policy center. “The government would read this as a license to question and detain people without individual doubt to the representatives of immigrants.

In their response to the appeals, immigrant rights defenders do not bless a regime that can be seen in construction, food services or agriculture and can be seen at the bus stops and can be seen at the bus stops and can be seen at the bus stops and can be seen at the bus stops.

When the Supreme Court was arrested at a bus stop where Pedro Vasquez Perdomo and two other residents of Pasadena expect to be taken for a job before the Supreme Court began on June 18th. They said the heavy armed men wearing masks had caught, handcuffed them and put them in a car and put them in an detention center.

Vasquez Perdomo said, “If he’s felt like kidnapping,” he said.

Plaintiffs include people who are handcuffed, arrested and taken to keep facilities, although they are US citizens.

They joined the others who said they met with unions and immigrant rights groups and shouting the command and in some cases that they met with masked agents who pushed them to the ground.

However, the case rapidly focused on the legacy of stops, not the aggressive and sometimes severe style of the arrests.

US Regional Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong said that the arrests violated the 4th change of 4th change of unreasonable searches and seizures.

“It is illegal to question people only as racial -based, questioning them in an aggressive way, and then detained wick patrols that take into custody without any order, without their consent, and without reasonable suspicion that they are unattissible,” he said.

The most important expression is “reasonable doubt ..

The Supreme Court said that for decades of police officers and federal agents, if they see something that gives reasons for the violation of laws, they could stop and question them briefly. Therefore, for example, a civil servant car can pull a driver circulating on the highway.

However, it was not clear that US immigration agents could sit at a bus stop in Pasadena, worked in a car washing or standing with others other than a home warehouse, they could claim that they had reasonable doubts to stop and question their appearance.

Frimpong did not forbade agents from stopping and questioning people who could be illegally here, but set limits to their authorities.

The agents told four factors that they may not stop “only” -based people: races or visible ethnic origins, Spanish speeches, business type or daily labor collection or car washing.

On August 1, the 9th US Court of Appeal refused to abolish the judge’s temporary restriction order. The judges said, “The four factors define a large profile that does not provide reasonable doubt to justify a stance only,” the judges said.

The order of the Regional Judge is valid in Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo as well as in the Central Region of California.

9. The circuit, 47% of these seven districts or 9.096,334, “Spanish or Latin” described as an estimated 19.233,598 population, he said.

Like Frimpong, the three judges of appeals were democratic appointed.

A week later, Trump management lawyers sent an emergency objection to the Supreme Court. NOEM AND PERDOMO. They said that the judge’s decision prevented the President’s efforts to implement immigration laws.

He called on the court to put aside the judge’s order and to cleanse the way of stopping the agents if they suspect that the person could be illegal in the country.

They said that representatives did not need evidence that there was a legal violation. Moreover, only the demographic characteristics of Los Angeles give them reasonable doubt.

“All of this reflects common sense: the reasonable well threshold is low and the number of people who are illegal (seven districts of Southern California) are detained in accordance with immigration laws are extraordinarily high,” he wrote. “The high prevalence of illegal foreigners should ensure that agents stop a relatively wide person.”

The authority said that the government is not “racial profile creation, but that“ marked ethnicity may be related to reasonable suspicion, especially in immigration ”.

In the past, the court said that the police could stand on the basis of the “integrity of conditions” or full picture. This should help the management, because representatives may indicate a large number of undocumented workers in certain enterprises.

However, past decisions, civil servants need a reason to suspect that a particular individual violates the law, he said.

The Court of Cassation may act at any time, but it may be a few weeks before the order of an order. The decision can come with very little or no explanation.

In recent weeks, the court’s conservatives regularly against Trump and the judges of the Federal region, which are on their way. The short decisions often followed an angry and long opposition from three liberals.

Migratory rights defenders, the court, “an extraordinarily extensive Dragnet should not support and millions of laws that comply with the federal agents should not take the risk of detention,” he said.

They said that daily patrols “millions meet the wide demographic profile of the government and therefore could get a pallet to the region where they were afraid that they could get away from their families in the long run, and maybe they were afraid that they were attempted outside their own home”.