2010 June 24 Thursday
Obama Against Local Immigration Law Enforcement
Barack finds another way to oppose local immigration law enforcement. Why does he do this? Because local police are best positioned to enforce immigration law. There are far more police and they come into contact with large cross sections of their communities. They've got excellent sources of information and lots of contacts. So naturally opposing their ability to enforce immigration laws is a logical position for some politician to take if they want to let in millions of illegal aliens.
The Obama administration has tapped an outspoken critic of immigration enforcement on the local level to oversee and promote partnerships between federal and local officials.
Harold Hurtt, a former police chief in Houston and Phoenix, has been hired as the director for the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Office of State and Local Coordination. Starting July 6, Hurtt will supervise outreach and communication between ICE, local law enforcement agencies, tribal leaders and representatives from non-governmental organizations.
As a police chief Hurtt opposed having police check the immigration status of local residents. So basically Obama's appointment of Hurtt is a big "fuck you" to the state of Arizona and to all the local police forces around the country that want to enforce immigration law. Here's the destination of his policies.
This move is consistent with the rumors that Obama will move to grant de facto amnesty to existing illegal immigrants.
Time to tell your elected representatives that you favor local immigration law enforcement and oppose immigration amnesty by executive fiat.
If we had a Congress worthy of the nation, Obama would already be impeached and removed from office.
Then again, if we had a worthy Congress, G. W. Bush would also have been impeached by 2002 and Obama never would have had a chance.
You overestimate the worthiness of the people.
I'm a long-time reader of your blog, a conservative-libertarian minded young woman and a first-time blogger. I've got a future post coming up with a legal, positive and economically productive strategy for closing off the border, which doesn't rely on the goodness of the majority of the populace, nor on the politicians themselves. Another upcoming post has a strategy for conservative politican advancement (to the extent of being able to shift the playing field well away from amnesties). In the meantime, a current post presents a way that conservatives can flip the script on the left vis-a-vis legal immigration, see "Ms Pelosi, Tear Down These Chains".
My blog is designed to be “entertaining conservative-libertarian”, with upcoming humor spin-off, focuses on sharing new ideas/possible solutions (in areas including economics, immigration, entitlements including Social Security/Medicare, and how to get to the point of being able to implement them), is written by an unlikely demographic (youngish successful single female Person of Swart), and has future posts which reference concepts from your writing. I've got over a hundred more high-quality posts in reserve, which I'm pacing myself on, to give people a chance to discover and read the blog.
If you find the blog interesting, after reading current posts, or future ones, a link from your blog would be appreciated (I will link back). Also, if you’d like to comment etc, you are of course most welcome.
For all the blog-whoring you do (cut-and-paste, at that), you don't approve comments.
Dude, gotta get the word out.
Sorry about the oversight Engineer-Poet. This is my first time blogging and I didn't realize that Wordpress is in auto-censorship mode (had wrongly guessed that the default setting would be free speech). Thanks for letting me know, am on it now.
Instead of cut-and-paste promos, I suggest linking to your own thoughts on the subject at hand. Make what you say relevant.
Good suggestion. The problem I've found at times is that much of what the right blogosphere writes is too "Boo on XYZ, just look at these dastardly bad guys, but we have seen The Matrix" simplistic to be interesting. Nothing wrong with Boo on XYZ per se, but it can get predictable after a while. That's no excuse though - I need to add the different myself, via my comments.
So here's one for the prospective amnesty: What if localities enforced ordinances (on renting, working etc) that are not explicitly based on immigration status, but that require (amongst other things) some sort of documentation that (incidentally) one can only get _if_ one has legal residence? If the ordinances themselves were not only innocuous but PC, that would be much harder for the left to oppose (how can you be against the "green jobs licensing requirement"?).
They'll sue over anything which causes "disparate impact".
Why not split up the left's coalition, by making the discontinuation of such licenses something that would gore another of the left's most sacred cows? (It doesn't necessarily have to be "green" only, there are other possibilities as well). I.e., make them fight amongst themselves over the issue. It's not the be-all solution to everything (later on at my blog, I'll be posting an alternate, positive solution to illegal immigration/borders), but it buys time and space to maneuver.
Love the concept, but getting inside the head of the enemy to destroy them with infighting isn't my forte.
"Time to tell your elected representatives that you favor local immigration law enforcement and oppose immigration amnesty by executive fiat."
There's no such a thing as "local immigration law enforcement". The term is simply absurd and meaningless.
Immigration is -by nature- a FEDERAL entity in any country, just as Defense is; otherwise the so called country has ceased to exist as a country -or it's in the process of fragmentation-
Immigration and Defense are the natural institutions resulting of having NATIONAL borders. Whoever favors "local immigration law enforcement" also favors the dissintegration of that locality/state/region from the contry's federation.
What do you mean "local immigration law enforcement"?
It means local law enforcement acting when they find probable cause of a federal crime such as illegal immigration. This action usually means taking perps into custody for federal authorities to handle later.
"It means local law enforcement acting when they find probable cause of a federal crime such as illegal immigration. This action usually means taking perps into custody for federal authorities to handle later."
The Department of Immigration and Naturalization is a federal entity, because immigration is a federal issue. However immigration -legal or illegal- is not a federal crime. One thing is a world-wide issue that has to become a country's federal concern and another is a federal "crime". Immigration also has to do with International Law that that involves Human Rights issues in order to prevent abuses like ethnic cleansing, discrimmination and calling an illegal immigrant a "criminal" just for being an immigrant.
Illegal immigrants are not armed soldiers destroying a country's infraestructure and killing its people. Illegal immigrants are usually low-cultured, hard-working folks who labor, pay taxes and provide a service to the country's economy. In fact, it might just be immigration one of the last supports of the U.S. economy nowadays...
no i don't,
Yes, illegal immigration is a federal crime. The illegals can be prosecuted for it. This does not happen often but does happen.
Local law enforcement works to enforce many laws that are not local in origin. Local law enforcement can and does enforce state and federal laws.