News-Record.com

Of course we care about illegal immigration. But we cared more about a cheap labor pool and they care more about earning a living.

Everything's a matter of priorities.

And I imagine that if the top cops held a forum on burglaries then the burglars would similarly be worried.
And if they held a forum on car thefts then the car thieves would be worried.
And if they held a forum on shoplifting then the shoplifters would be worried.
So should illegal aliens be worried? I hope so...

So Jaycee, you're saying the immigrants came to this country to fill legitimate employment vacancies in our country for burglers, shop lifters, and car thieves?

I don't care anything at all about a "cheap labor pool".

I want ILLEGAL immigrants dealt with by local and federal law enforcement anytime and every time they get the chance to enforce our immigration laws.
And i don't have a problem with racial profiling either - of course you have to racially profile on things like ILLEGAL immigration.

Now I'd like someone to help me understand the one-sided article published in the News & Record.
Mr. Seals only presents the side of people opposed to the new program to help deal with ILLEGAL immigration. He only quotes people who are opposed to this new program.
No wonder so many people think this newspaper is liberal. That is a completely liberal article painting the ILLEGAL immigrants as the victims.

That was the nature of this crowd. A reporter covering a meeting can't present a point of view that isn't expressed.

Organize a meeting to present the other point of view.

Doug:

Help me to understand this.

At a public hearing, people express concerns about the unavoidable racial profiling of this plan and about how the might be counter-productive by reducing crime reporting in immigrant communities. Yet an editorial writer ignores these concerns and equates their position with not caring about illegal immigration.

The writer does care about an honest discussion and portrayal of viewpoints, doesn't he?

Or if he doesn't, please help me to understand why he has to mischaracterize others concerns?

This is a common tactic of the pro-illegal immigration crowd - present any effort to enforce immigration law as racist and discriminatory.

Legal immigrants have nothing to fear. Of course, these advocates already know that. This is just a smoke screen to allow illegal immigrants to continue to live in the U.S. unchecked.

I don't believe there is merit in those concerns.

Please explain how it might be racial-profiling to check the status of individuals who are arrested on suspicion of committing crimes.

JS:

Yes, why does the Constitution have a fourth amendment ( http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmentiv ) at all? People who are innocent of crimes have nothing to fear. That Constitution is just a smoke screen.

How is the 4th Amendment part of this discussion?

"of course you have to racially profile on things like ILLEGAL immigration."

Damn straight, because REAL Americans are white like us!

Yeah, how does the Fourth Amendment factor into this? It concerns unlawful search & seizure. Which has absolutely nothing to do with this issue.

The proposal at hand involves enforcing existing immigration laws against suspects charged with breaking other laws. For example, if an illegal alien is caught robbing a store, then he should be turned over to federal immigration authorities, in addition to any punishment he may face for the robbery.

That is logical, just and Constitutional. Contrary to what some may believe, illegal immigrants do not have the right to sneak into our country and declare their residency here.

One would have liked to have seen the people who are speaking out vehemently now against the immigrants, speaking out and badmouthing all the American businesses that have hired them in the past. But then you would have had to hammer 80% of the businesses in NC.

The Obama administration recently announced it will focus enforcement efforts on those employers.

Bring it on.

"of course you have to racially profile on things like ILLEGAL immigration."

Darn tootin'! REAL Americans are white, like us.

Doug:

Will there be racial profiling? Do we really think that the sheriff is going to check the status of all people who come through the jails or just the ones the sheriff "suspects" of being here illegally.

"Legal immigrants have nothing to fear"? Explain that to the legal immigrant who was rounded up in an ICE raid at a 7-11 in Maryland on Jan. 23, 2007 and held for 18 days until he could prove his legal status ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/17/AR2009021703451.html?sid=ST2009021703780 ).

"When illegal immigrants bring themselves to the attention of local police or sheriff's deputies by committing crimes, they should expect someone to check on their status and act accordingly"? Explain that to Ernesto Guillen who was pulled in during the same raid even though he had only gone into the store to purchase coffee, while taking a break from sitting with his ill son at a hospital.

In the article, Barnes is quoting as saying "my officers will only be checking on the status of anyone who has already been arrested for a crime." But of course lying about your identity and providing false documentation are themselves crimes, so immigration status, which is technically a civil legal matter, becomes a criminal matter. The upshot is that if Barnes or one of his officers suspects that you are lying about your identity and you can't immediately provide identification, they have a basis for dragging you in.

An irrational fear? Just ask the day workers at the Maryland 7-11.

Dave, you're not going to convince me on the basis of one example of overzealous policing more than two years ago in another state.

I understand that police, unfortunately, make false arrests a lot more often than any of us would like. I don't see that as a reason for them to stop making arrests.

Barnes has explained how he plans to operate this program. If he keeps his word, your concerns may prove to be unfounded. He should be held accountable for any mistakes or abuses. But I continue to believe that illegal immigrants who commit crimes should be liable to deportation.

Maybe to avoid "racial profiling," the status of every arrestee should be checked. It's supposed to be quick and easy to do so. It just seems like a waste of time and resources when there are legitimate "profiles" -- someone with no ID and who can't speak English, for example, might raise more suspicion than someone who has a valid ID such as a state driver's license.

From the Charlotte Observer:

"Ten foreign-born gang members were arrested in Concord on Wednesday during a multi-agency operation led by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, officials said.

"Seven men and three women with ties to MS-13 and Brown Pride gangs were arrested at their homes in a morning sweep involving 25 officers from five agencies.

"All the gang members face immigration violations. Two also face state charges of narcotics violations and obstruction of justice."

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/597/story/638936.html

Anyone object to this?

The arguments posed in opposition to enforcement are simply another way to use "racism" or "profiling" as an excuse for not enforcing our laws.

It's one way to offer pushback on an issue when changing the laws to enable their worldview is impossible because of public outrage.

Doug:

If you want an example closer to home, we have the case last summer of law enforcement officials using health records to arrest a library employee in Alamance County ( http://www.newsobserver.com/news/immigration/story/1158853.html ). The sheriff there also promised that he would only use his 287(g) program to check people who were in jail for other crimes.

I guess that you would put the GAO in the category of "not caring about immigration" when it expressed concerns this January ( http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09109.pdf ): "ICE has designed some management controls to govern 287(g) program implementation, such as MOAs and background checks of state and local officers, but the program lacks other controls, which makes it difficult for ICE to ensure that the program is operating as intended." The GAO also wrote "of 29 program participants reviewed by GAO, 4 used 287(g) authority to process individuals for minor crimes, such as speeding, contrary to the objective of the program."

No law-enforcement program I'm aware of operates flawlessly. That's no reason not to enforce laws.

The idea that someone who very likely is an illegal immigrant could be arrested for a serious crime, and yet should not have his status checked, seems to me indefensible.

Doug:

Your assertion was that people who voiced concerns about Barnes program do not care about illegal immigration. But you provide no evidence of this other than the fact that they disagree with you.

You also said that there concerns had no merit. Yet the GAO report and abuses by other law enforcement agencies (including both the ICE--the agency tasked with managing the 287(g) program--and a next door sheriff who promised virtually the same thing that sheriff Barnes has promised) indicate that their concerns have considerable merit.

Instead of acknowledging those concerns and discussing how the program might be (or needs to be improved), you just dismiss them out of hand. Acknowledging those concerns does not mean giving up your support of Barnes' plan. In the same fashion, expressing those concerns doesn't mean that people don't care about illegal immigration.

I wasn't at the meeting, so I can just offer my interpretation based on what was reported.

I read their objections as being objections to the program in total. It will make illegal immigrants afraid of law enforcement. Illegal immigrants won't report crimes. They won't step forward if they witness a crime. Whatever.

Those assertions add up to this, in my mind: Any program that gives illegal immigrants cause to fear detention and deportation should not be implemented.

The same assertions are made to ICE raids of workplaces where many illegal immigrants are known to be employed. Such tactics amount to harassment. These people just want to work. Why can't we leave them alone?

Now the Obama administration says it will direct enforcement efforts at the employers. Fine! But when the employers are docked, the workers won't be employed anymore.

Call me cold-hearted, but I don't believe any illegal immigrant should enjoy the assurance that under no circumstances can he or she ever be deported from this country. I would never expect I could simply cross the border into Canada, find a place to live, get a job and assume no risk whatsoever of having Canadian authorities pick me up and escort me back across the border. Would you, Dave, seriously?

How does the sheriff "check" the immigration status? Where is the burden of proof of immigration status? That's pretty important. The profiling aspect is bothersome. I especially disagree with those who comment that local law enforcement should make finding illegal immigrants a priority. That's a federal issue, so not something local law enforcement should go out of it's way for. However, seeing as we have free movement of capital between US and Mexico (including free movement of guns from the US stores to Mexican drug cartels), it seems only fair to have free movement of labor. I'm all for all the immigration we can get, legal or no. It'd probably help out the housing market.

Doug, you're right: the conclusion (we don't want to be deported) clearly precedes the arguments that ostensibly lead there. As is true with any hotly contested issue, folks will find ingenious reasons to believe what they already do.

As for whether we "care": sort of, but not in a way that has political legs. Democrats see Latinos (correctly) as a core constituency, and Republicans, who are split between nativist knuckle-draggers and Bushian equivocators, fear this and fret about alienating America's largest minority. (Having alienated the second largest, Republicans obviously can't afford Latino bloc voting.)

As a result, popular sentiment against immigration doesn't find mainstream political expression.

I could support increased legal immigration, I just don't see the point of having border security if, once you can sneak across, you're considered home free.

Huh? Local law enforcement agents shouldn't be concerned about enforcing federal law? By that logic, a murderer who escapes to Virginia should be home free, since Virginia law enforcement shouldn't worry about a North Carolina crime.

Illegal immigration is just that - illegal. There are many valid reasons for the U.S. (or any nation) to exercise the right to control its borders. All of this talk of racial profiling is just an excuse to allow illegal immigrants to stay here in violation of our laws.

"The profiling aspect is bothersome."
Police profile for drunk drivers, murderers, child abusers, shoplifters, and many other types of illegal behavior. I suspect your "concern" is political, not practical.

"That's a federal issue, so not something local law enforcement should go out of it's way for."
Huh? I guess the police should just ignore bank robberies, drug smuggling, and interstate prostitution as well, eh, Andrew?

"(including free movement of guns from the US stores to Mexican drug cartels)"
Define "free movement" please. Anyone doing this is violating multiple US and Mexican laws; hardly a "free" transaction.
And why don't you think that this is one of the Federal laws that should be ignored?
Oh, and Hillary and Obama are lying about gun movements to Mexico:
"Only Small Fraction of Guns In Mexico Come From US"
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2009/04/02/myth-percent-guns-mexico-fraction-number-claimed/

Above "anonymous" comment is mine.
Don't know why, but my name seems to keep dropping off when I post lately.

I was kind of joking around because in all honesty I think the costs of enforcing our immigration laws often outweigh the benefits and to be frank I could hardly be less concerned about illegal immigration. If it's a problem at all, then in my mind it ranks below a dozen or so other things I could mention.

When I say local police shouldn't go out of their way, I don't mean they don't enforce laws, I mean they don't make it a nonviolent federal crime a priority. We don't need local police making sure a banker isn't engaged in insider trading.

My problem with profiling is moral and constitutional, not practical, you are correct jaycee. I find the idea of it repugnant.

I also still think the burden of proof is important. If this is a crime, then shouldn't the authorities be forced to prove they are here illegally instead of them having to prove their legal status?

Oh and I don't think that cartels are completely armed with American weapons, though I'm sure a large number have made it down. Of course it's not legal to take them there, I just don't like the fact that they're legal at all, so an unrelated gripe. Please don't have a lot of pro gun retorts. I don't like guns, others do, that's not going to change.

Well, if we're talking about suspects already in custody for other crimes, it's not like checking their immigration status would be much of a drain on police resources. I mean, the suspects already are in custody.

How hard can it be to prove one's citizenship? Just provide a social security number, driver's license or other form of ID. I'm sure it's a simple process to run this through a database.

Profiling is morally repugnant only if it leads to overreaching stereotypes and discrimination. For example, we shouldn't assume that all Hispanics are illegal aliens. However, it is fair to assume that most illegal aliens are Latino. As Doug says, it makes sense that a non-English speaker with no ID would raise more red flags about his immigration status than someone who speaks English and has a valid ID. That's just common sense.