Senators to Obama, DHS: Stop Ignoring Illegal Alien Sanctuaries
With a Justice Department fiercely focusing on taking legal action against state laws that help to combat illegal aliens and crimes they commit, a group of U.S. Senators is asking the Obama Administration to stop ignoring local ordinances that undermine federal laws by offering undocumented aliens sanctuary.
Two cities were recently added to the growing list of so-called sanctuary cities that protect illegal -- even criminal -- aliens from Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents: Washington, D.C., and New York City.
The fact that the President of the United States lives in a location officially designated a sanctuary from the President's own administration has reached the level of absurdity, according to former police commander and homeland security specialist Sid Franes.
"Doesn't anyone in the mainstream media see the anti-American, pro-Mexican leanings of the current White House occupants? There should be moral outrage that federal agencies that deal with illegal aliens don't have authority to enforce federal immigration laws, thanks to Mayor Gray's executive order," Franes noted.
In battling local immigration control measures nationwide, the Obama Department of Justice has claimed that they conflict with federal immigration law and undermine the government’s careful balance of immigration enforcement priorities and objectives, according to the Judicial Watch news blog.
The Obama Administration has made this argument recently in DOJ cases against Arizona and Alabama. South Carolina is already in the sights of Attorney General Eric Holder and Obama, having just passed a state law similar in scope to Arizona's and Alabama's statutes.
But what is the administration doing about local governments that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration authorities and blatantly ignore the legal status of arrested individuals? A group of Senate Judiciary Committee members posed the question to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano this week.
They specifically mentioned Cook County Illinois where local authorities openly flip the finger at the feds by refusing to report illegal immigrants who come in contact with police, even dangerous criminals. In fact, in 2007 Judicial Watch took legal action against the Chicago Police Department -- which has a don’t-ask-don’t-tell immigration policy -- after learning of an illegal immigrant sanctuary resolution that was being considered by Cook County’s Board of Commissioners at the time.
In a letter to Napolitano this week, the Judiciary Committee members -- GOP Senators Chuck Grassley (Iowa), John Cornyn (Texas), Tom Coburn (Oklahoma) and Jeff Sessions (Alabama) -- cite a recent meeting with a high-ranking Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) official who confirmed that Cook County creates a major problem for enforcement efforts. In fact, the ICE associate director of removal operations said Cook County’s egregious example of sanctuary city policies presents “an accident waiting to happen.”
So the senators asked Napolitano: “We would like to know what specific steps have been and will be taken by your Department to compel Cook County to reverse its policy of ignoring immigration detainees. In addition, we would request an overview of meetings held between federal officials and Cook County, including any emails or other documentation that exist, to understand how the federal government has been or is attempting to rectify the situation.”
Napolitano is urged to take a direct role in the matter by the lawmakers who remind the Homeland Security Secretary that Cook County’s ordinance creates a “serious threat to the public’s safety” that requires Napolitano’s “immediate and personal attention.” It’s a matter of national security, the veteran senators asserted.
Americans shouldn’t hold their breath. The Obama Administration is too busy fighting local measures that are viewed as “discriminatory” and “anti-immigrant” by the open borders movement. In fact, the DOJ even created a secret group within the bloated civil rights division to monitor laws passed by states and local municipalities to control illegal immigration, according to the Judicial Watch blogger.
Judicial Watch has been a frontrunner in the nationwide battle to combat illegal immigration and earlier this year filed a motion on behalf of the Arizona State Legislature in the Obama Administration’s lawsuit challenging its tough law.
JW has also sued police departments across the country for practicing don’t-ask-don’t-tell immigration policies and has led an effort to shut down taxpayer-funded day laborer centers.
SOURCE
Perry says will deport all detained illegal immigrants
Rick Perry vowed to deport all illegal immigrants detained in the country if elected president as he sought on Tuesday to burnish his conservative credentials on immigration ahead of the 2012 Republican contest.
The Texas governor has faced criticism from Republican rivals like Mitt Romney for being "soft" on illegal immigrants, because those who live in Texas can attend state universities at the same cost as other Texas residents.
Perry, who made the remarks while campaigning in New Hampshire with a controversial Arizona sheriff, said that if elected he would immediately order the deportation of any illegal immigrant detained in the United States.
"My policy will be to detain and deport every illegal alien who is apprehended in this country," Perry said. "And we'll do it with an expedited hearing process so that millions of illegal aliens are not released into the general population with some hearing date down the road."
Non-violent illegal immigrants who are arrested are currently allowed to stay in the country while awaiting deportation hearings in immigration courts.
Perry was briefly among the front-runners for the Republican primary nomination after entering the race in August, but has been hit by attacks on his immigration views and stumbled in a series of poor debate performances.
Recent polls show Perry running in fourth or fifth place among Republicans nationally, and about sixth in the relatively moderate state of New Hampshire.
But ongoing problems with sexual misconduct accusations against rival Republican Herman Cain could arguably encourage some conservative voters to take a second look at Perry.
Perry's endorsement by Joe Arpaio, who claims to be "America's toughest sheriff," was designed to rebut criticism of his immigration policies.
Arpaio has drawn national attention for creating all-volunteer armed posses to sweep for illegal immigrants in Arizona's Maricopa County and for policies such as making prison inmates wear pink underwear.
The United States has an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants, many of them originally from Mexico and Latin America, among a total population of about 308 million people.
"I have been a law and order governor and I intend to be a law and order president," Perry said. "That border with Mexico, it will be secure. It will be shut down within 12 months of me taking the oath of office."
Research by the Pew Hispanic Center indicates that the population of undocumented immigrants has fallen by about 1 million since 2007. The stalled U.S. economy led to a net outflow of undocumented Mexican immigrants last year, according to research from the group.
SOURCE
Background
Postings from Brisbane, Australia by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.) -- former member of the Australia-Soviet Friendship Society, former anarcho-capitalist and former member of the British Conservative party.
Why is "La Raza" the one Spanish term that is NEVER translated in the American mass media? Because translating it would make it a lot less respectable. It means "THE RACE" -- The mixed Hispanic "race" of Mexico. Racism is fine South of the Rio Grande only, apparently.
The "line" of this blog is that immigration should be SELECTIVE. That means that:
1). A national government should be in control of it. The U.S. and U.K. governments are not but the Australian government has shown that the government of a prosperous Western country can be. Up until its loss of office in 2007, the conservative Howard government had all but eliminated illegal immigration. The present Leftist government has however restarted the flow of illegals by repealing many of the Howard government regulations.
2). Selectivity should be based on "the content of a man's character, not on the color of his skin", as MLK said. To expand that a little: Immigrants should only be accepted if they as individuals seem likely to make a positive net contribution to the country. Many "refugees" would fail that test: Muslims and Africans particularly. Educational level should usually be a pretty fair proxy for the individual's likely value to the receiving country. There will, of course, be exceptions but it is nonetheless unlikely that a person who has not successfully completed High School will make a net positive contribution to a modern Western society.
3). Immigrants should be neither barred NOR ACCEPTED solely because they are of some particular ethnic origin. Blacks are vastly more likely to be criminal than are whites or Chinese, for instance, but some whites and some Chinese are criminal. It is the criminality that should matter, not the race.
4). The above ideas are not particularly blue-sky. They roughly describe the policies of the country where I live -- Australia. I am critical of Australian policy only insofar as the "refugee" category for admission is concerned. All governments have tended to admit as refugees many undesirables. It seems to me that more should be required of them before refugees are admitted -- for instance a higher level of education or a business background.
5). Perhaps the most amusing assertion in the immigration debate is that high-income countries like the USA and Britain NEED illegal immigrants to do low-paid menial work. "Who will pick our crops?" (etc.) is the cry. How odd it is then that Australians get all the normal services of a modern economy WITHOUT illegal immigrants! Yes: Before the pandemic, you usually COULD buy a lettuce in Australia for a dollar or thereabouts. And Australia IS a major exporter of primary products.
6). I am a libertarian conservative so I reject the "open door" policy favoured by many libertarians and many Leftists. Both those groups tend to have a love of simplistic generalizations that fail to deal with the complexity of the real world. It seems to me that if a person has the right to say whom he/she will have living with him/her in his/her own house, so a nation has the right to admit to living among them only those individuals whom they choose.
I can be reached on jonjayray@hotmail.com -- or leave a comment on any post. Abusive comments will be deleted.
No comments:
Post a Comment