May, 18 2010, 12:57pm EDT

For Immediate Release
Contact:
Jennifer Carnig, NYCLU, (212) 607-3363
Maria Archuleta, ACLU, (212) 519-7808 or 549-2666; media@aclu.org
John Garcia, LatinoJustice PRLDEF, (212) 739-7513
NYCLU, ACLU And LatinoJustice PRLDEF Challenge Unconstitutional Anti-Immigrant Ordinance On Behalf Of Day Laborer Groups
Oyster Bay, NY Law Restricts Free Speech Rights Of Day Laborers
NEW YORK
The
New York Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties Union and
LatinoJustice PRLDEF filed a lawsuit today on behalf of two day laborer
groups challenging an Oyster Bay town ordinance that violates the core
rights of free speech and equal protection under the law and is
intended to drive Latino immigrants from the community.
The lawsuit, filed on behalf of Centro de la Comunidad Hispana de
Locust Valley and the Workplace Project, challenges an ordinance
enacted in September 2009 that prohibits standing on the sidewalk to
solicit employment and bars motorists from stopping to solicit
employment or hire workers. The Oyster Bay law, enacted in September
2009 purportedly to address traffic and pedestrian safety, criminalizes
a wide variety of constitutionally protected speech that presents no
threat to traffic safety, including, for example, students soliciting
cars for a high school carwash fundraiser.
"This misguided ordinance uses
public safety as a smokescreen for intolerance and violates the
constitutional rights of day labors and all Oyster Bay residents," said
Samantha Fredrickson, director of the NYCLU's Nassau County Chapter.
"It is a symptom of the anti-immigrant hostility that has swept across
Long Island and the country in recent years."
The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York against the town of Oyster
Bay and Town Supervisor John Venditto, maintains that the ordinance
violates the First and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.
"The true purpose of this ordinance
is to prevent a group of predominantly Latino day laborers from making
a living in Oyster Bay," said Cesar Perales, president and general
counsel of LatinoJustice PRLDEF. "Day laborers are hardworking people
and provide a valuable service to this community that we are all part
of; their kids go to school here and they work, spend money and go to
church. But as a result of this law, many of them have lost the ability
to earn a living wage."
"Local attempts to regulate
immigration by passing ordinances that restrict free speech are
unconstitutional, ineffective and only drain state and local budgets
while hurting workers and local businesses," said Farrin Anello, an
attorney with the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project. "Standing on the
sidewalk to let people know that you are available for work is not a
crime. The Constitution protects all people in this country, regardless
of their background."
For nearly two decades, day laborers
have gathered in Oyster Bay, particularly the Hamlet of Locust Valley
and the Village of Farmingdale, to find work. Since passing the
ordinance, the town has stationed law enforcement officers at a corner
at which workers and contractors typically meet, keeping contractors
away from the site and intimidating workers seeking employment. The
ordinance has had a devastating effect on the workers, who typically
depend on these jobs to feed themselves and their families and
frequently lack transportation to seek work elsewhere.
"Oyster Bay's ordinance is hurting
families and it's hurting children," said Luz Torres of the Centro de
la Comunidad Hispana de Locust Valley. "These people have to work so
that they can feed, clothe and house their children, and they have the
right to talk to anyone they want."
In recent years, Latino day laborers
in Oyster Bay have endured harassment and intimidation from neighbors,
government officials and law enforcement when they gather to seek work.
In a 2006 survey by Hofstra University's Center for the Study of Labor
and Democracy, more than 43 percent of day laborers on Long Island
reported being targeted for slurs based on their nationality while more
than a quarter reported having been threatened while seeking work. When
residents of Farmingdale attempted to establish a hiring site for day
laborers, news reports indicated that someone had left a .50-caliber
anti-aircraft shell and carved the depiction of a gun in a picnic table
at the proposed location.
At the same time, Latino immigrants
across Long Island have increasingly faced discrimination, harassment
and violence. In November 2008, Ecuadorian immigrant Marcelo Lucero was
stabbed to death on Long Island following an altercation with local
teens who were specifically trolling for a Latino victim. In 2003, the
house of an immigrant in Farmingville was firebombed. Three years
earlier in the same town, two Mexican day laborers were brutally beaten
after being lured out of their home by the promise of work.
"Oyster Bay's discriminatory law is
promoting anger and distrust toward Latinos and contributing to an
environment where we feel like constant targets of harassment," said
Nadia Marin-Molina of the Workplace Project. "The town should do
everything in its power to ease tensions, not be fanning the flames of
hate by passing unconstitutional laws."
At a March 2009 Oyster Bay Town
Board meeting, several Oyster Bay residents complained of the "invasion
of day laborers," calling the workers "unsafe and unsightly." Following
the meeting, the Town Board introduced the ordinance. At a May 2009
public hearing on the proposed ordinance, several residents and local
lawmakers expressed displeasure with federal immigration policy. The
board approved the ordinance unanimously.
Local lawmakers and police officials
have never explained why current road safety laws - such as New York
State's vehicle and traffic laws - are inadequate to protect motorists
or pedestrians. At the public hearing, no resident or Oyster Bay Town
Board member indicated that a single traffic accident had occurred as a
result of a day laborer soliciting work. The legislative record on the
ordinance contains no evidence that the presence of day laborers causes
traffic problems.
Lawyers on the case, Centro de la Comunidad Hispana de Locust Valley et al. v. Town of Oyster Bay et al.,
are Corey Stoughton, Adriana Pinon and Arthur Eisenberg for the NYCLU;
Alan Levine and Christina Iturralde for PRLDEF; and Anello and Lee
Gelernt for the ACLU.
The complaint is online at: www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights/centro-de-la-comunidad-hispana-de-locust-valley-et-al-v-town-oyster-bay-et-al-comp
The American Civil Liberties Union was founded in 1920 and is our nation's guardian of liberty. The ACLU works in the courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to all people in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
(212) 549-2666LATEST NEWS
Billionaire Palantir Co-Founder Pushes Return of Public Hangings as Part of 'Masculine Leadership' Initiative
"Immaturity masquerading as strength is the defining personal characteristic of our age," said one critic in response.
Dec 07, 2025
Venture capitalist Joe Lonsdale, a co-founder of data platform company Palantir, is calling for the return of public hangings as part of a broader push to restore what he describes as "masculine leadership" to the US.
In a statement posted on X Friday, Lonsdale said that he supported changing the so-called "three strikes" anti-crime law to ensure that anyone who is convicted of three violent crimes gets publicly executed, rather than simply sent to prison for life.
"If I’m in charge later, we won’t just have a three strikes law," he wrote. "We will quickly try and hang men after three violent crimes. And yes, we will do it in public to deter others."
Lonsdale then added that "our society needs balance," and said that "it's time to bring back masculine leadership to protect our most vulnerable."
Lonsdale's views on public hangings being necessary to restore "masculine leadership" drew swift criticism.
Gil Durán, a journalist who documents the increasingly authoritarian politics of Silicon Valley in his newsletter "The Nerd Reich," argued in a Saturday post that Lonsdale's call for public hangings showed that US tech elites are "entering a more dangerous and desperate phase of radicalization."
"For months, Peter Thiel guru Curtis Yarvin has been squawking about the need for more severe measures to cement Trump's authoritarian rule," Durán explained. "Peter Thiel is ranting about the Antichrist in a global tour. And now Lonsdale—a Thiel protégé—is fantasizing about a future in which he will have the power to unleash state violence at mass scale."
Taulby Edmondson, an adjunct professor of history, religion, and culture at Virginia Tech, wrote in a post on Bluesky that the rhetoric Lonsdale uses to justify the return of public hangings has even darker intonations than calls for state-backed violence.
"A point of nuance here: 'masculine leadership to protect our most vulnerable' is how lynch mobs are described, not state-sanctioned executions," he observed.
Theoretical physicist Sean Carroll argued that Lonsdale's remarks were symbolic of a kind of performative masculinity that has infected US culture.
"Immaturity masquerading as strength is the defining personal characteristic of our age," he wrote.
Tech entrepreneur Anil Dash warned Lonsdale that his call for public hangings could have unintended consequences for members of the Silicon Valley elite.
"Well, Joe, Mark Zuckerberg has sole control over Facebook, which directly enabled the Rohingya genocide," he wrote. "So let’s have the conversation."
And Columbia Journalism School professor Bill Grueskin noted that Lonsdale has been a major backer of the University of Austin, an unaccredited liberal arts college that has been pitched as an alternative to left-wing university education with the goal of preparing "thoughtful and ethical innovators, builders, leaders, public servants and citizens through open inquiry and civil discourse."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Hegseth Defends Boat Bombings as New Details Further Undermine Administration's Justifications
The boat targeted in the infamous September 2 "double-tap" strike was not even headed for the US, Adm. Frank Bradley revealed to lawmakers.
Dec 07, 2025
US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Saturday defended the Trump administration's policy of bombing suspected drug-trafficking vessels even as new details further undermined the administration's stated justifications for the policy.
According to the Guardian, Hegseth told a gathering at the Ronald Reagan presidential library that the boat bombings, which so far have killed at least 87 people, are necessary to protect Americans from illegal drugs being shipped to the US.
"If you’re working for a designated terrorist organization and you bring drugs to this country in a boat, we will find you and we will sink you," Hegseth said. "Let there be no doubt about it."
However, leaked details about a classified briefing delivered to lawmakers last week by Adm. Frank Bradley about a September 2 boat strike cast new doubts on Hegseth's justifications.
CNN reported on Friday that Bradley told lawmakers that the boat taken out by the September 2 attack was not even headed toward the US, but was going "to link up with another, larger vessel that was bound for Suriname," a small nation in the northeast of South America.
While Bradley acknowledged that the boat was not heading toward the US, he told lawmakers that the strike on it was justified because the drugs it was carrying could have theoretically wound up in the US at some point.
Additionally, NBC News reported on Saturday that Bradley told lawmakers that Hegseth had ordered all 11 men who were on the boat targeted by the September 2 strike to be killed because "they were on an internal list of narco-terrorists who US intelligence and military officials determined could be lethally targeted."
This is relevant because the US military launched a second strike during the September 2 operation to kill two men who had survived the initial strike on their vessel, which many legal experts consider to be either a war crime or an act of murder under domestic law.
Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.), the ranking member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, watched video of the September 2 double-tap attack last week, and he described the footage as “one of the most troubling things I’ve seen in my time in public service.”
“Any American who sees the video that I saw will see its military attacking shipwrecked sailors,” Himes explained. “Now, there’s a whole set of contextual items that the admiral explained. Yes, they were carrying drugs. They were not in position to continue their mission in any way... People will someday see this video and they will see that that video shows, if you don’t have the broader context, an attack on shipwrecked sailors.”
While there has been much discussion about the legality of the September 2 double-tap strike in recent days, some critics have warned that fixating on this particular aspect of the administration's policy risks taking the focus off the illegality of the boat-bombing campaign as a whole.
Daphne Eviatar, director for security and human rights for Amnesty International USA, said on Friday that the entire boat-bombing campaign has been "illegal under both domestic and international law."
"All of them constitute murder because none of the victims, whether or not they were smuggling illegal narcotics, posed an imminent threat to life," she said. "Congress must take action now to stop the US military from murdering more people in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Leaked Memo Shows Pam Bondi Wants List of 'Domestic Terrorism' Groups Who Express 'Anti-American Sentiment'
"Millions of Americans like you and I could be the target," warned journalist Ken Klippenstein of the new memo.
Dec 07, 2025
A leaked memo written by US Attorney General Pam Bondi directs the Department of Justice to compile a list of potential "domestic terrorism" organizations that espouse "extreme viewpoints on immigration, radical gender ideology, and anti-American sentiment."
The memo, which was obtained by journalist Ken Klippenstein, expands upon National Security Presidential Memorandum-7 (NSPM-7), a directive signed by President Donald Trump in late September that demanded a "national strategy to investigate and disrupt networks, entities, and organizations that foment political violence so that law enforcement can intervene in criminal conspiracies before they result in violent political acts."
The new Bondi memo instructs law enforcement agencies to refer "suspected" domestic terrorism cases to the Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs), which will then undertake an "exhaustive investigation contemplated by NSPM-7" that will incorporate "a focused strategy to root out all culpable participants—including organizers and funders—in all domestic terrorism activities."
The memo identifies the "domestic terrorism threat" as organizations that use "violence or the threat of violence" to advance political goals such as "opposition to law and immigration enforcement; extreme views in favor of mass migration and open borders; adherence to radical gender ideology, anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, or anti-Christianity; support for the overthrow of the United States Government; hostility towards traditional views on family, religion, and morality."
Commenting on the significance of the memo, Klippenstein criticized mainstream media organizations for largely ignoring the implications of NSPM-7, which was drafted and signed in the wake of the murder of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk.
"For months, major media outlets have largely blown off the story of NSPM-7, thinking it was all just Trump bluster and too crazy to be serious," he wrote. "But a memo like this one shows you that the administration is absolutely taking this seriously—even if the media are not—and is actively working to operationalize NSPM-7."
Klippenstein also warned that NSPM-7 appeared to be the start of a new "war on terrorism," but "only this time, millions of Americans like you and I could be the target."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


