by publius
Maybe Mickey Kaus or his BFFs at the Corner could weigh in on this:
It started when Juana Villegas, an illegal immigrant from Mexico who was nine months pregnant, was pulled over by a police officer in a Nashville suburb for a routine traffic violation.
By the time Mrs. Villegas was released from the county jail six days later, she had gone through labor with a sheriff’s officer standing guard in her hospital room, where one of her feet was cuffed to the bed most of the time. County officers barred her from seeing or speaking with her husband.
After she was discharged from the hospital, Mrs. Villegas was separated from her nursing infant for two days and barred from taking a breast pump into the jail, her lawyer and a doctor familiar with the case said. Her breasts became infected, and the newborn boy developed jaundice, they said.
Mrs. Villegas’s arrest has focused new attention on a cooperation agreement signed in April 2007 between federal immigration authorities and Davidson County, which shares a consolidated government with Nashville, that gave immigration enforcement powers to county officers.
Delightful. Let’s make sure we keep them in the shadows.
UPDATE: A thought. Could this family sue the bejesus out of this idiot sheriff’s office. It doesn’t seem like we can rely on compassion, so maybe we can rely on punishing them through the court system. One question I had though is about standing. My understanding is that some courts have limited the ability for illegal immigrants to sue.
But… that wouldn’t apply at all if it’s the infant bringing the suit. He, like Lou Dobbs, is an American citizen. Any immigration lawyers out there?
This kind of horrific treatment of a pregnant woman and of her newborn baby should get all the pro-life organizations up in protest. After all, they claim they’re all about saving babies, yes?
*crickets*
Thought so.
This kind of horrific treatment of a pregnant woman and of her newborn baby should get all the pro-life organizations up in protest.
one would think so.
but from their beginnings, I’ve thought that “pro-lifers” were less than consistent, often advocating for war and the death penalty.
separately, are there any material benefits for documents immigrants giving birth in the USA? like citizenship for the new born?
are there any material benefits for documents immigrants giving birth in the USA? like citizenship for the new born?
Anyone born in the US is a citizen–see the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution.
Hoffman Plastics only bars the recovery of damages, such as reinstatement to a job or lost future wages, based on conduct (such as employment) the undocumented immigrant can not lawfully perform. So an undocumented worker unlawfully fired for complaining about subminimum wages would be entitled to recover unpaid wages he earned but not for the loss of future wages not yet earned. But a claim for damages based on the defendant’s tortuous conduct would not be barred.
The question is what duty does the sheriff’s department have toward pregnant mothers in jail who are flight risks? Would the treatment been any different for an U.S. citizen who was in jail and denied bail?
This kind of horrific treatment of a pregnant woman and of her newborn baby should get all the pro-life organizations up in protest. After all, they claim they’re all about saving babies, yes?
*crickets*
Thought so.
Jes pre-empted me. This kinda reminds me of the HPV vaccine and how Focus On The Family absolutely hated it. (I have the link, just don’t know how to embed ^.^;)
It makes me wonder exactly what kind of life they’re so fervant in defending.
“Let’s make sure we keep them in the shadows.”
I see your story and raise you: let’s shackle everyone! And then let’s let’em die in custody.
And a little penis amputation never hurt anyone.
But they’re just furriners, after all.
And who doesn’t like free psychotropic drugs? People pay good money for those!
Police need not make full custody arrests for minor violations. It would have been far better and perfectly acceptable to have released the poor woman with a citation. US citizens are seldom arrested for traffic violations, other than DWI. It’s a sad situation and is bound to continue as long as immigrants can improve their situation by coming to the US. It will only end when our standard of living declines to the point that there is no benefit in illegal immigration. In others words, when they are better off in their own country.
There are a lot of issues involved in this case that can only be assessed with additional information.
The custody issue would depend on whether Juana had been previously deported. If she had, the prior order of removal could be reinstated administratively without her seeing an immigration judge and she would have had to be held in custody until she was removed. The only form of relief from removal that would be available would withholding of removal or protection under the Convention Against Torture. If the local authorities are acting in the stead of the federal immigration authorities the detention would have been entirely legal. But the story quoted states that she was released after six days and doesn’t say that she was released into ICE custody, so it is probably not the case that she was having a prior order reinstaed. There is also the issue of what type of traffic violation she was pulled over for. Six days of incarceration for some moving violations is not unheard of. But, if she was pulled over for a busted taillight or failing to signal a turn or anything short of reckless driving or DUI, the six days would seem excessive and punitive without due process. As to her being a flight risk…9 months pregnant/mother with a nursing newborn? In whose bizarre imagination?
She should sue. There is nothing barring undocumented immigrants from seeking redress for serious human rights violations.
Most undocumented immigrants caught up in the immigration court system are doing their best not to be deported, much less focus on civil litigation. Who would pay for it? Even if it were done on contingency, if she has no defense against deportation, an immigration court would unlikely to hold off on a removal order to let a civil case come to completion.
Let’s say someone handles the case pro bono. She might not even want to sue, as she might think it would prejudice her immigration case. She might be right, depending on the immigration judge.
In short, the practical obstacles to navigating the civil litigation system for someone whose legal status is in question probably ensure it won’t happen even if it were technically possible.
As far as the infant suing, I don’t know enough about torts–it has nothing to do with immigration law. But it’ll be hard for the infant to manage a case if his mother has already been deported. Most likely he would go with her, anyway.
If I sound jaded, it’s probably because working with the low-income immigrant community in the current enforcement climate tends to drain the optimism out of you.
I was glad to see this story picked up here, though. It bounced around certain segments of the blogosphere before the Times picked it up. I think Tim Chavez at Political Salsa deserves some credit for this story getting into the national press.
Would the treatment been any different for an U.S. citizen who was in jail and denied bail?
Probably depends on the jurisdiction, but at least in many places the answer is no.
We are a cruel nation, but fair.
Thanks –
Intentional Python reference, russell?
Intentional Python reference, russell?
Sadly, yes.
The Python part is not sad. The reality part is sad.
Thanks –