Koreans detained in Georgia battery plant raid preparing class action lawsuit against ICE (koreajoongangdaily.joins.com)
from CubitOom@infosec.pub to world@lemmy.world on 12 Nov 16:01
https://infosec.pub/post/37556553

Roughly 200 workers, including a man identified as Kim, are accusing ICE of unlawful detention, racial profiling, human rights violations and excessive use of force. The raid targeted a joint Hyundai Motor—LG Energy Solution EV battery factory under construction near Savannah, Georgia.

#world

threaded - newest

TheAsianDonKnots@lemmy.zip on 12 Nov 17:19 next collapse

“Including a man identified as Kim” My apologies but aren’t there like millions of Kim’s in Korea?

CubitOom@infosec.pub on 12 Nov 17:25 next collapse

Fair point.

Now, how many millions of those men named Kim were abducted from their job by a paramilitary and forcibly deported when staying in the USA legally and are still dealing with the aftermath of their lives being uprooted unexpectedly?

TheAsianDonKnots@lemmy.zip on 12 Nov 17:35 next collapse

I dunno. How many licks does it take to get to the tootsie roll center of a tootsie pop?

Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.de on 12 Nov 17:35 collapse

Probably like 30 out of the 200. It really is a ridiculously common name.

Edit: I just looked it up, 20% of South Koreans are called Kim.

FlowerFan@piefed.blahaj.zone on 12 Nov 17:46 collapse

So 40 out of 200

fireweed@lemmy.world on 12 Nov 20:40 next collapse

<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/405287ef-ff68-4023-b6c8-71da25c8903f.jpeg">

21.5% of South Koreans have the surname Kim.

Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com on 12 Nov 22:07 collapse

Maybe the really unusual thing which made it worth mentioning the “man named Kim” in that group is that out of 200 Koreans there was only one man named Kim?

Jaysyn@lemmy.world on 12 Nov 22:18 collapse

I can’t wait to hear from SCotUS how ICE has Qualified Immunity to do this.

CubitOom@infosec.pub on 12 Nov 22:32 collapse

I’m not a lawyer, but it seems like the current legal precedent and interpretation of Section 1983 means that people can not sue “federal agents” for violations of their freedoms protected by the Constitution and it’s amendments.

tacosanonymous@mander.xyz on 14 Nov 03:45 collapse

They might be able to target the agency itself but I doubt it. So, the recourse would be to sue the available government body. So, they’d have to get in line to sue the US government. I think they’d be able to do this bc of the Federal Tort Claims Act.