ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page


Immigration Daily

Archives

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network

EB-5

移民日报

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Make us Homepage

Questions/Comments


SUBSCRIBE

Immigration Daily


Chinese Immig. Daily




The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
Copyright
© 1995-
ILW.COM,
American
Immigration LLC.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16

Thread: USA New world news

  1. #1
    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. #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

  3. #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."

  4. #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

  5. #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."

  6. #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

  7. #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

  8. #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."

  9. #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

  10. #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

Similar Threads

  1. world news thread
    By mike_2007 in forum Immigration Discussion
    Replies: 859
    Last Post: 12-11-2009, 07:05 AM
  2. Bad news for Muslims all around the world
    By manali in forum Immigration Discussion
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 11-04-2008, 04:58 PM
  3. USA news thread
    By MakeItRight! in forum Immigration Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-30-2008, 09:41 PM
  4. Bad news for Muslims around the world especially amerikan muslims
    By manali in forum Immigration Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-30-2008, 08:25 AM
  5. World Immigration: World News
    By E. in forum Immigration Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-29-2004, 12:12 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Put Free Immigration Law Headlines On Your Website

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers Enter your email address here: