Debate Heats up Over Ill. Jailed Immigrant Policy
Controversy over a Cook County ordinance that forbids the sheriff from notifying federal officials when they're about to release suspected illegal immigrants from jail is heating up after a suspect charged in a fatal hit-and-run posted bail and disappeared.
Amid reports that Saul Chavez, an illegal immigrant, hasn't been seen since late last year when his family posted bail, the nation's top immigration official and the board president of the county that includes Chicago have squared off with dueling statements about the ordinance passed last September.
"This ordinance undermines public safety in Cook County and hinders (the Immigration and Customs Enforcement's) ability to enforce the nation's immigration laws," wrote the agency's director, John Morton, in a letter to County Board President Toni Preckwinkle. "In addition to undermining local public safety, the Ordinance may also violate federal law."
Preckwinkle said she is bothered by the case, not because of Chavez's immigration status, but because his bail was set too low for someone with a prior felony conviction and who posed a flight risk. "Some have tried to blame Chavez's immigration status, but what allowed Chavez to escape prosecution was an attainable bond that didn't take into account his criminal history and flight risk," she said in the news release.
Cook County has been at the center of the debate over the treatment of illegal immigrants for several months. While other places, such as San Francisco, have passed similar measures in response to the Obama administration's program that aims to pursue more criminal deportations, Cook County was the first to forbid a sheriff from holding suspected felons as well as those accused of misdemeanors.
Proponents say the county's previous practice of holding immigrants in jail after they served their time or posted bail until federal agents could pick them up was unfair and unconstitutional. "By refusing the detain people who are entitled to their freedom, based merely on a request from (immigration agents) we are upholding our system of justice," Jesus Garcia, a commissioner who supported the measure, said in a statement at the time.
But critics have said the ordinance is a disaster waiting to happen, that ultimately an illegal immigrant who otherwise could have been held by federal authorities is going to walk out of jail and commit another crime.
"This is our Willie Horton moment in Cook County," warned Commissioner Timothy Schneider at the time he voted against the ordinance, referring to the convicted killer who raped a woman after being released as part of a Massachusetts program.
In her news release this week, Preckwinkle said the problem has nothing to do with immigration and everything to do with an overwhelmed criminal justice system. Judges, she said, have to make decisions "in an instant, without access to the appropriate level of information upon which to base their decision."
SOURCE
TN police board scraps jail immigration rules
State drops controversial screening procedure in favor of federal program
The state board governing law enforcement procedures on Friday dropped a controversial policy that had county jailers interviewing arrestees on their immigration status.
The Tennessee Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission voted unanimously to drop rules that require jail employees to ask newly booked suspects whether they U.S. citizens and where they were born. The change comes in response to a lawsuit filed by Nashville immigration attorney Elliott Ozment who argued that the rules were illegally created in secret instead of discussed in public meetings, didn’t seek input from sheriffs across the state and improperly add to the time that suspects are held in jail.
Joseph Underwood, attorney for the commission, said that jailers across the state instead will follow a new federal program, called Secure Communities, which sends fingerprints of everyone arrested to federal authorities to screen for immigration status.
“There will be no need for these questions to be asked,” he said of the old state policy.
Ozment, who attended the hearing, said he would drop his lawsuit against the commission because of the vote.
“As far as we’re concerned, we accomplished what we wanted to do, which was to eliminate the POST Commission policy,” he said after the meeting. “We consider this to be a victory - that’s not to say that we don’t have problems with the Secure Communities Program.”
Ozment is suing the Williamson County Sheriff’s Office’s implementation of the now-defunct state rules, on behalf of five immigrants who claim the agency was using powers reserved only for federal immigration authorities.
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