Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

USA New world news

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • USA New world news

    Illegal Alien Files Million Dollar Suit against Sheriff in Attempt to Undermine 287(g)

    Last Tuesday, an illegal alien filed a federal lawsuit against officials in Frederick County, Maryland, claiming that her civil rights were violated when deputies arrested her last year. The plaintiff, Roxana Orellana Santos, a Salvadoran immigrant, alleges she was detained despite committing “no criminal offense under Maryland law,” though it seems clear from her detention by immigration authorities that she was held for being in the country illegally. (CNN, November 11, 2009).

    Her attorney would not confirm her immigration status to CNN, responding, “We’re not commenting on that at all.” (Id.) Santos, backed by pro-amnesty groups Latino Justice PRLDEF and Casa de Maryland, is suing Sheriff Jenkins, Deputy Openshaw, the Frederick County Board of Commissioners, and current and former immigration officials for allegedly questioning and detaining her based solely on her ethnic appearance. (Washington Post, November 11, 2009; CNN, November 11, 2009). Santos, who does not speak English, claims that she was eating lunch when two deputies asked her for identification, then detained her and turned her over to immigration authorities for possible deportation after she produced a national identification card from El Salvador. (Frederick News Post, November 13, 2009). However, Sheriff Jenkins disputes this characterization, stating that the deputies were doing a routine check of the area when she jumped up and ran behind a storage container after seeing the deputies. (The Gazette, November 12, 2009). The deputies checked her identification against a federal immigration database, and learned the plaintiff had an outstanding arrest warrant from ICE for failing to appear in court. (Id.).

    At issue in this lawsuit is 287(g), the highly successful federal program that allows Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to provide training to state and local law enforcement agencies to assist in the enforcement of federal immigration laws. In addition to accusing the Frederick County Sheriff’s Office of racial profiling, the suit claims the local law enforcement officers exceeded the scope of their authority under 287(g). (Complaint, November 10, 2009). This latest attack on 287(g) is not surprising, given the determination of amnesty proponents to eliminate the program altogether, and the Administration’s ongoing efforts to undermine its effectiveness. (See FAIR’s Legislative Update, October 13, 2009).

    Earlier this year, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced that DHS was changing the program, placing a new emphasis on aligning 287(g) with “the identification and removal of criminal aliens.” (See FAIR’s Legislative Update, July 13, 2009). According to the author of the legislation that created 287(g) (House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Lamar Smith (R-TX)), the new approach contradicts the legislative intent of the program. (See FAIR’s Legislative Update, July 13, 2009). Smith noted at a House Homeland Security Committee hearing in March that “the goal [in creating 287(g)] was to really enable those local law enforcement authorities who wanted to enforce the immigration laws in whatever way they thought best…and that’s really a decision made by the government in individual situations.” (House Homeland Security Committee Hearing, March 4, 2009). Last month, a bipartisan group of 54 Representatives sent President Obama a letter expressing their support for 287(g), which stated that 287(g) was not intended to be “limited to ‘dangerous’ criminals, as some have suggested, but designed to let state and local law enforcement officials help enforce all immigration laws and to remove illegal immigrants from the streets before they go on to commit preventable crimes.” (See Letter, October 26, 2009; See also FAIR’s Legislative Update, November 2, 2009).

    This lawsuit is a consequence of DHS’s attempts to weaken 287(g) by disregarding Congress’s original intent for the program. The complaint asserts that the “main objective of the 287(g) program is to address serious criminal activity, such as violent crimes, gang activity, narcotics smuggling and other felonies committed by foreign nationals.” (Complaint, November 10, 2009). As previously reported by FAIR, this is a blatant misstatement of the legislative intent of the program. Congressman Lamar Smith (R-TX), who authored 287(g), has said that 287(g) should be tailored to suit the needs of participating law enforcement agencies, “and that might or might not include those who have committed serious crimes.” (See FAIR’s Legislative Update, July 13, 2009).

    This lawsuit is not only an attack on 287(g), but is also an attack on Sheriff Jenkins, who is a “vocal crusader against illegal immigration.” (Washington Post, November 11, 2009). The complaint in the lawsuit recognizes that Sheriff Jenkins campaigned for sheriff on promises of increased immigration enforcement, and charges that after assuming office, he “engaged in anti-immigrant rhetoric.” (Complaint, November 10, 2009). Jenkins has said that Casa de Maryland has always been a critic of his office’s participation in 287(g), but that he remains undaunted by the lawsuit. (The Gazette, November 10, 2009).
    USC and Legal, Honest Immigrant Alike Must Fight Against Those That Deceive and Disrupt A Place Of Desirability! All Are Victims of Fraud, Both USC and Honest Immigrant Alike! The bad can and does make it more difficult for the good! Be careful who y

  • #2
    Illegal Alien Files Million Dollar Suit against Sheriff in Attempt to Undermine 287(g)

    Last Tuesday, an illegal alien filed a federal lawsuit against officials in Frederick County, Maryland, claiming that her civil rights were violated when deputies arrested her last year. The plaintiff, Roxana Orellana Santos, a Salvadoran immigrant, alleges she was detained despite committing “no criminal offense under Maryland law,” though it seems clear from her detention by immigration authorities that she was held for being in the country illegally. (CNN, November 11, 2009).

    Her attorney would not confirm her immigration status to CNN, responding, “We’re not commenting on that at all.” (Id.) Santos, backed by pro-amnesty groups Latino Justice PRLDEF and Casa de Maryland, is suing Sheriff Jenkins, Deputy Openshaw, the Frederick County Board of Commissioners, and current and former immigration officials for allegedly questioning and detaining her based solely on her ethnic appearance. (Washington Post, November 11, 2009; CNN, November 11, 2009). Santos, who does not speak English, claims that she was eating lunch when two deputies asked her for identification, then detained her and turned her over to immigration authorities for possible deportation after she produced a national identification card from El Salvador. (Frederick News Post, November 13, 2009). However, Sheriff Jenkins disputes this characterization, stating that the deputies were doing a routine check of the area when she jumped up and ran behind a storage container after seeing the deputies. (The Gazette, November 12, 2009). The deputies checked her identification against a federal immigration database, and learned the plaintiff had an outstanding arrest warrant from ICE for failing to appear in court. (Id.).

    At issue in this lawsuit is 287(g), the highly successful federal program that allows Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to provide training to state and local law enforcement agencies to assist in the enforcement of federal immigration laws. In addition to accusing the Frederick County Sheriff’s Office of racial profiling, the suit claims the local law enforcement officers exceeded the scope of their authority under 287(g). (Complaint, November 10, 2009). This latest attack on 287(g) is not surprising, given the determination of amnesty proponents to eliminate the program altogether, and the Administration’s ongoing efforts to undermine its effectiveness. (See FAIR’s Legislative Update, October 13, 2009).

    Earlier this year, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced that DHS was changing the program, placing a new emphasis on aligning 287(g) with “the identification and removal of criminal aliens.” (See FAIR’s Legislative Update, July 13, 2009). According to the author of the legislation that created 287(g) (House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Lamar Smith (R-TX)), the new approach contradicts the legislative intent of the program. (See FAIR’s Legislative Update, July 13, 2009). Smith noted at a House Homeland Security Committee hearing in March that “the goal [in creating 287(g)] was to really enable those local law enforcement authorities who wanted to enforce the immigration laws in whatever way they thought best…and that’s really a decision made by the government in individual situations.” (House Homeland Security Committee Hearing, March 4, 2009). Last month, a bipartisan group of 54 Representatives sent President Obama a letter expressing their support for 287(g), which stated that 287(g) was not intended to be “limited to ‘dangerous’ criminals, as some have suggested, but designed to let state and local law enforcement officials help enforce all immigration laws and to remove illegal immigrants from the streets before they go on to commit preventable crimes.” (See Letter, October 26, 2009; See also FAIR’s Legislative Update, November 2, 2009).

    This lawsuit is a consequence of DHS’s attempts to weaken 287(g) by disregarding Congress’s original intent for the program. The complaint asserts that the “main objective of the 287(g) program is to address serious criminal activity, such as violent crimes, gang activity, narcotics smuggling and other felonies committed by foreign nationals.” (Complaint, November 10, 2009). As previously reported by FAIR, this is a blatant misstatement of the legislative intent of the program. Congressman Lamar Smith (R-TX), who authored 287(g), has said that 287(g) should be tailored to suit the needs of participating law enforcement agencies, “and that might or might not include those who have committed serious crimes.” (See FAIR’s Legislative Update, July 13, 2009).

    This lawsuit is not only an attack on 287(g), but is also an attack on Sheriff Jenkins, who is a “vocal crusader against illegal immigration.” (Washington Post, November 11, 2009). The complaint in the lawsuit recognizes that Sheriff Jenkins campaigned for sheriff on promises of increased immigration enforcement, and charges that after assuming office, he “engaged in anti-immigrant rhetoric.” (Complaint, November 10, 2009). Jenkins has said that Casa de Maryland has always been a critic of his office’s participation in 287(g), but that he remains undaunted by the lawsuit. (The Gazette, November 10, 2009).
    USC and Legal, Honest Immigrant Alike Must Fight Against Those That Deceive and Disrupt A Place Of Desirability! All Are Victims of Fraud, Both USC and Honest Immigrant Alike! The bad can and does make it more difficult for the good! Be careful who y

    Comment


    • #3
      Wasted tax payers money on overturned law in SC:

      Judge strikes down plate
      Words on Christian cross ruled unconstitutional by federal jurist who says it promotes one religion over another

      A federal judge has ruled unconstitutional a Christian "I Believe" vehicle license tag with the image of a cross authorized last year by the S.C. General Assembly.

      "The 'I Believe' Act's primary effect is to promote a specific religion, Christianity," U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie wrote in a decision released Tuesday.

      State laws promoting one religion over others have been illegal in the United States since the nation's founding, Currie wrote.

      Currie also focused on the role played by Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer, who originally pushed for the Christian tag after a move to create a similar "I Believe" tag failed in Florida.

      "Such a law amounts to state endorsement not only of religion in general, but of a specific sect in particular," Currie wrote.

      TheState.com

      Pretty clear cut it's unconstitutional when the State DMV would have been producing the license plate. There is already a plate approved that says "In God we trust" which can be had by individuals if they want. That one has no association with a particular religion.
      "What you see in the photograph isn't what you saw at the time. The real skill of photography is organized visual lying."

      Comment


      • #4
        <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brit4064:
        Wasted tax payers money on overturned law in SC:

        Judge strikes down plate
        Words on Christian cross ruled unconstitutional by federal jurist who says it promotes one religion over another

        A federal judge has ruled unconstitutional a Christian "I Believe" vehicle license tag with the image of a cross authorized last year by the S.C. General Assembly.

        "The 'I Believe' Act's primary effect is to promote a specific religion, Christianity," U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie wrote in a decision released Tuesday.

        State laws promoting one religion over others have been illegal in the United States since the nation's founding, Currie wrote.

        Currie also focused on the role played by Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer, who originally pushed for the Christian tag after a move to create a similar "I Believe" tag failed in Florida.

        "Such a law amounts to state endorsement not only of religion in general, but of a specific sect in particular," Currie wrote.

        TheState.com

        Pretty clear cut it's unconstitutional when the State DMV would have been producing the license plate. There is already a plate approved that says "In God we trust" which can be had by individuals if they want. That one has no association with a particular religion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

        How do you fit "In God we trust" on a license plate? LOL. I can't for the life of me figure out how to get that down to the 7 standard letter/number combo ...
        **************************************
        The whole of life is but a moment of time. It is our duty, therefore to use it, not to misuse it - Plutarch

        Comment


        • #5
          <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">How do you fit "In God we trust" on a license plate? LOL. I can't for the life of me figure out how to get that down to the 7 standard letter/number combo ... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

          Here Aroha:

          "What you see in the photograph isn't what you saw at the time. The real skill of photography is organized visual lying."

          Comment


          • #6
            Well, that's different. I thought you meant the plate number, not the 'surround'.

            NGdWeTrst?
            **************************************
            The whole of life is but a moment of time. It is our duty, therefore to use it, not to misuse it - Plutarch

            Comment


            • #7
              davdah is Muslim
              http://www.anbsoft.com/images/usflag_med.jpg

              "...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit

              Comment


              • #8
                It's not about being offended davdah. It's about upholding the Constitution. If you believe in that then you can't have one religion being State endorsed over another. I'd say an image of a stained glass cross with the words "I Believe" written over it immediately makes you think of Christianity.

                You can't have your cake and eat it davdah
                "What you see in the photograph isn't what you saw at the time. The real skill of photography is organized visual lying."

                Comment


                • #9
                  I am not kidding you, davdah IS a Muslim.
                  He has typical Muslim attitute of "You are a Muslim or I will behead you!" and so on.
                  It is a great irony (may be intended pun?) that he calls himself a Christian.
                  http://www.anbsoft.com/images/usflag_med.jpg

                  "...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Only in Arabic and exclusively for Muslims !
                    All others are strictly prohibited.
                    http://www.anbsoft.com/images/usflag_med.jpg

                    "...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Yes neutral davdah. That means not favoring one side or the other. That's the issue here.

                      The people behind this ruling were obviously attempting to circumvent the Constitution and blur the Church/State divide. There's nothing to prevent them producing a bu-mper sticker saying the same thing. Every other day you see the Christian fish symbol on people's cars. So you have to ask yourself why would they be trying to get it put on a State plate?

                      Lets take a practical look at your scenario of allowing anybody to have a license plate depicting their religion. On the face of it, it appears to be neutral since the State isn't endorsing any specific religion over another. But in a State like SC (and many others especially in the South) which is largely made up of Christian believers, can you imagine a Muslim having an "Allah is great" plate? In the current climate it is very likely some sort of discrimination would occur, even leading to mental or physical harm. In short, they could be hounded out of town.

                      So you say they don't have to display their religious beliefs so openly right? What happened to religious freedom? Who's discriminating against who now? I think this is one of the reasons why the Founding Fathers said the Church and State should be kept separate and neutral in matters of religion and I for one agree.
                      "What you see in the photograph isn't what you saw at the time. The real skill of photography is organized visual lying."

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brit4064:
                        Yes neutral davdah. That means not favoring one side or the other. That's the issue here.

                        The people behind this ruling were obviously attempting to circumvent the Constitution and blur the Church/State divide. There's nothing to prevent them producing a bu-mper sticker saying the same thing. Every other day you see the Christian fish symbol on people's cars. So you have to ask yourself why would they be trying to get it put on a State plate?

                        Lets take a practical look at your scenario of allowing anybody to have a license plate depicting their religion. On the face of it, it appears to be neutral since the State isn't endorsing any specific religion over another. But in a State like SC (and many others especially in the South) which is largely made up of Christian believers, can you imagine a Muslim having an "Allah is great" plate? In the current climate it is very likely some sort of discrimination would occur, even leading to mental or physical harm. In short, they could be hounded out of town.

                        So you say they don't have to display their religious beliefs so openly right? What happened to religious freedom? Who's discriminating against who now? I think this is one of the reasons why the Founding Fathers said the Church and State should be kept separate and neutral in matters of religion and I for one agree. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

                        It is such a Muslim thing to physically harm, maim and even kill anyone who is non-Muslim.
                        Are you telling me, Brit, that Georgians are such Muslims that they would do such a thing to anyone displaying license plate dedicated to different God
                        http://www.anbsoft.com/images/usflag_med.jpg

                        "...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Brit should actually read the Constitution, there is nothing in it restricting the States from endorsing or even establishing a state religion.

                          The 1st Amendment says "Congress shall make no law........."

                          Of course, that is the problem with Brits, they don't seem to be able to read, but can spout off.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Of course Brit did not object to imposing Islam on children by states.

                            Funny that Brit is against Christianity, but has no objection to no separation between Mosque and State.

                            Of course, liberals are hypocrites, and enemies of the Constitution.

                            The Unity of Mosque and State.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              No davdah, as usual you are twisting this so that it conforms with your view. How many times do I have to say what was passed is unconstitutional? The State cannot endorse a specific religion over another. It's as clear as that. You say you are all for defending the Constitution and have taken a narrow conservative view of its definitions on here in the recent past ("natural born USC" debate).

                              The law was challenged in court and that's why a ruling was made according to the Constitution. The ruling doesn't go the way you wanted. You appear to be the one whose confused.
                              "What you see in the photograph isn't what you saw at the time. The real skill of photography is organized visual lying."

                              Comment



                              Working...
                              X