In many ways, juveniles do have diminished protection of their constitutional rights. Whether you like it or not, that's the trend the appellate courts have been setting for years.

In my state, Pennsylvania, for example, the rules of criminal procedure are different in adult cases versus juvenile cases. There are, to be sure, procedures followed and rules applied in juvenile court, but the exacting yet more expansive and better defined standards that have developed with the rules of criminal procedure that apply to adult cases simply don't apply in juvenile court. The result is that judges have more power in juvenile court (or, shall we say, wider discretion) and rulings are sometimes made in juvenile cases that would not have been made in adult cases. Also, the rules of evidence and the accompanying standards that have developed for adult cases apply differently, more permissively, to situations involving juveniles, such as for searches conducted in schools. Evidence sometimes is admitted in juvie cases that would not have come in in adult court.

However, I digress. I don't think this case was particularly about the rights of juveniles (Frederick was 18 at the time of the incident), but, as I said in an earlier post, about the balancing of an individual's rights versus the competing interests of the school. I agree with Baba that this is a limited and narrow case, and shouldn't, by itself, be taken as a sign that individual rights are being irreparably eroded. The stuff that goes on with the Patriot Act scares me a lot more than this decision. Nevertheless, I applaud the people on this site who have taken the time to dabate this issue. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

well...as far as juveniles and the justice system, they seem to want to cherry pick in those as well....don't hold a child responsible, he isn't mature--then you try a juvenile as an adult in another case. no real consistency. you have a 15 year old considered a victim of a sex crime, but then turn around and have some argue that a 15 year old is old enough to choose to have an abortion, or be tried as an adult for murder.

but again, that's a whole other subject....

it is nice to be able to express differing opinions in a civilized manner. An open mind I think is a good thing.

while I think this is a rather low level issue, the issue that has me really wondering and concerned about where this country is headed is not civil rights or the patriot act. Its the accumulative toll of tens of millions of illegal aliens roaming all over the countryside. In my view its not hard to imagine losing control of sectors of the country when you essemtially do not have control over the border. It's an issue with multi-faceted effects on the country from national security, cultural, and economic and on down the line.
anyway, that discussion is for another thread.

ArlJim 78,
I agree with you that it is nice to express differing opinions in a civilized manner.
I'm really not sure about your "take" on "illegal aliens". I chose to call them immigrants (it's less disparaging and not racist).
You're probably correct that this subject deserves its own thread.
In the meanwhile, please read Leviticus 19: 33+34, and also familiarize yourself with how indigenous people, such as the Cherokees, were dealt with
by immigrants (self appointed "legal") and th consequences.
See also: Trail of Tears, Andrew Jackson.
Also, do you think that the people of Iraq consider Americans to be illegal invaders? Just curious.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Let's keep it civil. Facts on topic, not personal "garbage".

Leviticus might be good reading, but it's not applicable to today unless those using it are from the pick-and-choose crowd.

well first of all I cannot consider that people who race across the border illegally to be immigrants. To me immigrant status is a legal one and I'm all for an active and fair immigration policy. I think it's something that makes this country strong. But what we have is out of control. I can't blame someone for making the easy border crossing in order to find work, but they do know its illegal and wrong. they also know that its not currently enforced so in effect we almost have an open border to the south.
I do blame lawmakers for not acting on border enforcement and employer sanctions.
One of the first requirements for a federal government in my opinion is to secure the borders. If we don't we're increasingly going to discover that the country we are left with is a blend of countries and some day we are going to face a big security threat.
I'm one of the people who would like to have already seen increased border control funding to crack down on the back and forth action, separate from the debate on what to do about the illegal that are already in the country. as far as I know we don't need a bill from congress in order to know that the border has to be controlled. i hope this doesn't come to pass but if there ever is a terrorist action on US soil and it's discovered that the perpetrators came across the southern border, you will suddenly see a whole new dimension to border enforcement like you've never seen before.

I don't know why you would think that a term like illegal alien is racist.

I must admit that I don't see the relevence of the stuff about Cherokee Indians and Leviticus.

how is the term illegal alien racist??

immigrants (as others said) are those who enter this country the correct, lawful way, who jump thru all the hoops and spend all the money to become legal u.s. citizens.

no sense imo to sugar coat the fact that some choose to come here the easier, cheaper, and illegal way. they are lawbreakers plain and simple. the bs that our fed govt is trying to shove thru as a way to fix immigration is a JOKE.

how can anyone justify this amnesty bill to all these people thru the years who went the legal route to citizenship?

also, how can we feel safe in this country when our borders seemingly can't be secured?

AJ -- I think that what DTS meant was that it's very easy to pull out Leviticus 19:33-34 because it says "Do not mistreat foreigners living in your country....."

Which is surely a nice message, but the source renders it more than a little irrelevant in this conversation, since Leviticus 19:27 says "you must not cut the hair on the sides of your head or cut the edges of your beard."

So now we're sort of in a pickle, eh?

okay. lol
I'm really not up on my Leviticus, thanks.

of course we shouldn't mistreat people, but we have to toughen up and deal with this matter.

so Leviticus even covers how to wear your hair? interesting.

ArlJim,
I brought up Leviticus to disarm the "Bible thumpers" that have previously used it to justify positions and actions that are inconsistant with its words.
I won't get into the "Chistian right's" support of an illegal war, other than to mention in passing something about "Blessed are the peacemakers..."
I brought up the Cherokees as an example of people who were forced off of their land and "resettled" by immigrants.
But let's go a bit further back in history and see...
In 1620 a small boat carrying "religious" people sought shelter from a fierce winter storm. Blown off course, the captain found refuge behind a spit of sand near Provincetown, Mass, (Cape Cod). A landing party sought fresh water and found it in nearby Truro (Pilgrim Springs, still there). They also found food storage that had been put in place by the Wampanogs. The site is now called Corn Hill (also in Truro). Rather than ask permission to have food that had been planted, harvested and stored by others, these upstanding "religious folks" stole the food (and made beer with it), despite the teaching "thou shall not steal".
Thoughout the years, the native peoples of this continent have had their land taken, their food (buffallo) stolen, and their culture denegrated by the "immigrants".

Now you're probably shaking your head and saying, DTS, what does that have to do with Mexicans coming into OUR country?
Oh! Did I say OUR country?
Let's consider who really are "immigrants".
Now, in current circumstances, should we build bigger and better walls?
I don't know. The Great wall, Hadrian's, the one in Berlin, well, they sure were effective, right?
Most of the people coming into the US across the southern border are doing so to provide for their families. They are doing work in agriculture, meat packing, construction, etc, that contributes to the growth of the American economy. Many workers send money back "home". Oh, I should have mentioned the "backstretch", as you might be surprised who you find there.
Let's face it, ArlJim. We won't be able to round up twelve million people and deport them. If we did, it would have dire consequences on the economy.
And think of what it would do to horse racing.
The people you call "aliens", as if they jumped off a space ship to invade us,
are equally as much "immigrants" as most of the people that live in this country are.
I think there's more than enough for everyone here, and like the Wampanogs,
rather than react in a negative manner to those that came to their land, they shared. They even taught the newcomers how to plant crops. Then in gratitude, those newcomers decided to throw a grand feast to give thanks.
Guess who brought the food to share?

Ok....take 17 minutes of your life and watch this video. I'm glad I did.

I'm not going to comment on it, other than immigration can't be shrugged off.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7WJeqxuOfQ


Oh and I guess commondreams doesn't have a dictionary....from merriam-webster here is the definition of alien, doesn't surprise me you throw around "racist" pretty liberally, particularly at a friend of mine that is the farthest thing from the term.

b: relating, belonging, or owing allegiance to another country or government :

ooooooooooooooooooooh, snap.

dr fager,
I didn't post anything from "common dreams". Nor did I accuse anyone of being a racist. It is my opinion that the term should be "immigrant" rather than "alien", but I'd rather not play word games.
To anyone that misconstrued my intent, I am NOT saying anyone is a "racist" and hd no intention to offend.
Arljim has it right, keep it "civil".

I'm being honest here, i cannot follow your points. The best I can make out is that you are saying the problem is that we are not welcoming what you call immigrants, there is plenty here, we should welcome them all and share and plant crops together and have a feast.

No wall, cause walls don't work. Do we even need to bother patroling the border? I guess not because that wouldn't be very nice. If we're going to share with 12 million, we may as well share with the rest of them. Sure come on over and somehow we'll work things out.

The problem as I see it is that in effect we are already doing way to much of what you're suggesting, we are way too lax and like I said before our country is morphing into something we can't control.

Question, why stop with the southern border? Why don't we extend the sharing to all nations? After all there is plenty here for all. No need for documents after all everyone is just an immigrant of sorts.

A country that does not have borders is no longer a country. Having a border means you must know who is coming and going. thats not mean its just a fact.

Have you ever tried to get into another country with no documents, claiming just to be a peaceful immigrant wanting to find work and share? try it sometime, any country, and let me know how warmly you are recieved and how tasty was the feast.

to compare the mayflower to what's going on now imo is absolutely ludicrous. that's not even comparing apples to oranges
also, while some think we can all sit and sing folk songs while everyone is welcomed into the fold, this is what we call the REAL WORLD, not some utopia where everything that looks so good on paper actually works when theory is put into practice!

I think one point that DTS made is that one man's illegal alien is another's pilgrim. There is a quote from Spike in BTVS that I paraphrase here: "You had better weapons, you slaughtered them and took their land, that's what nations do". The point being that when viewed in historical context, our "right" to this land came at the end of a bloody sword and to demonize people who come now in ways we see as "illegal" is, philosophically hypocritical. That's not to say we should open the doors to everybody..we need order and that IS the role of government. Still, the majority of these folks are honest and hardworking folks simply looking for a better life...not unlike our ancestors. We need answers, but pointing at the poor is always an effective strategy for the wealthy and powerful. Both ends of the political spectrum are involved in this mess...the "liberals" who are concerned about the welfare of these poor folks (and their votes) and the wealthy who have economic concerns (read: employ them). We sure don't need walls, we need a fair way of dealing with folks who are here and a coordinated effort with the Mexican government.

now this is more in line with my thinking. the rules need to be right, we need to have a fair # of immigrants per year, my issue is that for years now we've had some who we make jump thru every hoop, while now (apparently0 others who did it the wrong way just get to have the same thing.

there has to be a way, but it has to be right, and fair to those who are here, to those who want to come (but be realistic, there has to be a limit) without rewarding those who broke the laws getting here, and those who continue to do so after arriving.


but it's no more right to say hey, open the doors, everyone welcome, than to say hey there deb, you have plenty of land--we can fit four more houses, you'll just have to get over it.

But to compare the problems with illegal immigration now and the way that things were 400 years ago is ludicrous. The world does not work the way that it used to, when European conquest and exploration was the norm. I'm not saying that there may not be a hint of hypocrisy for a nation of immigrants to have a problem with out of control immigration, but the historical context of the time does not pair up with the way the world functions now and to use 16th century historical conquest and exploration to justify lax immigration policies and paint Americans against illegal immigration as hypocrites is just a convenient talking point without any real teeth.

Dare I not toe the party line on this one, but there's a serious problem going on, and to just legalize a bunch of lawbreakers en masse is a ridiculous solution. They're breaking the law now, so what's to say they're going to follow our new law saying they can all be citizens? I'm sure there are plenty of benefits to not being a citizen and getting paid under the table for these people.