Arizona sheriff to appeal ruling that limits his ability to do immigration enforcement
An Arizona sheriff known for his anti-illegal immigration tactics is appealing a federal judge’s ruling that prohibited his deputies from detaining people under the state’s immigrant-smuggling law based solely on the suspicion that they’re in the country illegally.
Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s lawyers told U.S. District Judge Murray Snow in a filing Friday that they will appeal the judge’s Dec. 23 ruling in a lawsuit alleging that the sheriff’s deputies racially profiled Latinos in immigration patrols.
Lawyers pushing the lawsuit on behalf of five Latino clients also won class-action status that lets other Hispanics join the case if they have been detained and questioned by Arpaio’s deputies as either a driver or passenger in a vehicle since January 2007.
SOURCE
Union fight slows immigration changes
President Obama's call for a review of pending immigration cases in the United States and reform the deportation process has run up against union resistance.
Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement John Morton has called for all ICE agents to prioritize the 300,000 pending deportation cases, starting with people who have committed crimes.
"If you're having to decide between putting someone who's lived in this country for a very, very long time, or somebody who's committed a crime, start with the person who has committed a crime," Morton said.
Although the number of deportations is not likely to change, Morton said, who stays and who goes will.
But CBS News reported Sunday the effort is being slowed by a union representing immigration agents.
Chris Crane, president of the National ICE Council, the union that represents ICE agents, called the order "operationally next to impossible" because agents cannot be expected to check the backgrounds of every illegal immigrant.
Morton said despite the opposition from the union, the policy is moving forward. He said an agreement with the union could be reached by the end of January so the policy can be fully implemented.
The Obama administration has deported 1.6 million people, more than any previous administration, CBS said.
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