Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The court says-ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IS A CRIME

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

  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Remember the letter from the Consul of Mexico in Raleigh, NC on January 1st of this year, protesting an article "Drug traffic's newest wave." Even though it does not seem intentional, its orientation harms the Latino community settled in this region, especially those of Mexican origin." (letter at end of this article)?


    The article stated "In Wake County, where Hispanics make up 5.4 percent of the total population, they accounted for nearly half --46 percent --of drug trafficking arrests in 2002, the Wake County Sheriffs Office reported" and "According to the DEA. about 65 percent of all the cocaine that enters this country and the majority of marijuana comes in from Mexico. The majority of marijuana available in North Carolina is smuggled from Mexico, the DEA also says."


    It would seem that there WAS truth to the article.


    ======================================================


    Rockingham deputies seize 82 pounds of pot
    By TIM YEADON, Staff Writer

    Greensboro News & Record (NC)
    http://www.news-record.com/news/loca...rockbust26.htm
    3-26-03

    WENTWORTH -- Deputies say they seized 82 pounds of marijuana after arresting a Stoneville man accused of running a drug operation that never sold anything less than a pound of pot at a time.

    Investigators said Jose Ramon Panuca was arrested Monday at his Stonethrow Drive residence. They said he sold 40 pounds of marijuana and five grams of cocaine to narcotics officers.

    After his arrest, deputies said Panuca gave the officers permission to search his rental storage unit on U.S. 220 where they seized another 42 pounds of marijuana and about $8,546 in cash.

    Rockingham County Sheriff Sam Page said Panuca likely imported the drugs from Mexico, selling to people who would then sell to street dealers.

    "This guy could probably move 400 to 500 pounds if you wanted," Page said Tuesday.

    During a news conference, the sheriff sat in his agency's narcotics division. Next to him was an eight-foot long conference table covered with dinner plate-size bags filled with marijuana.

    "This is pretty-good-grade marijuana," said the sheriff, scrunching his nose. "And pretty strong stuff, too."

    Page said the drugs' street value was about $145,000.

    Panuca is accused of selling pot by the pound for about $750, he said, noting that marijuana is generally repackaged into smaller amounts and resold at a higher price.

    Authorities believe Panuca is an illegal alien from Mexico. Federal officials were investigating, Page said.

    Panuca was ordered held at the Rockingham County Jail on drug trafficking charges. His bond was set at $500,000.

    The Rockingham County Sheriff's Office received assistance from the federal Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms and the State Bureau of Investigation.

    ---
    Contact Tim Yeadon at 627-4881, Ext. 120, or tyeadon@news-record.com

    Letters to the Editor
    The News & Record
    P.O. Box 20848
    Greensboro, N.C. 27420
    edpage@news-record.com

    ======================


    Stereotypes of Mexico
    Letter to the Editor

    News & Observer
    http://newsobserver.com/editorials/s...-1978495c.html
    January 1, 2003

    I read with concern your Dec. 29 article headlined "Drug traffic's newest wave." Even though it does not seem intentional, its orientation harms the Latino community settled in this region, especially those of Mexican origin. It is very unfortunate that the article attempted to analyze an extremely complex subject through a stereotyped vision that was overcome several years ago in the bilateral agenda between Mexico and the United States.

    It is true that in Mexico there are important criminal organizations involved in drug trafficking, which are being firmly fought under President Vicente Fox's administration, and it is also true that some Mexican workers are being used to smuggle drugs into the United States. However, as Andrea Bazan-Manson, executive director of El Pueblo, Inc. [a Hispanic advocacy group in Raleigh] was quoted as saying, the vast majority of Latino immigrants come to this country to work arduously in order to forge a better future for themselves and their families.

    It is true as well that the drug activity has no nationality, that the most attractive market for the trafficking organizations is on this side, and that thousands of individuals participate in the distribution chain, mainly American citizens.

    Comments tendentiously directed towards Mexico and its nationals as the source of serious drug-related problems that, sadly, many sectors of American society undergo, originate from a twisted focus that not even the former U.S. anti-drug czar, Barry McCaffrey, was able to modify. McCaffrey always insisted that the war against drugs had to be combated through education and cooperation, not by promoting stereotypes.

    I hope readers will reach a just and balanced opinion of the Latino presence, particularly the Mexican one, in this hospitable great state of North Carolina.

    Armando Ortiz-Rocha
    Consul of Mexico
    Raleigh


    Raleigh Mexican Consulate
    336 East Six Forks Road
    Raleigh, NC 27609-7828
    Tel: (919) 754-0046 - 51
    Fax: (919) 754-1729
    Email: conraleigh@sre.gob.mx


    --

    Illegal aliens are just "hard working people trying to make a better life for themselves by doing the jobs that Americans won't do." And so are bank robbers, terrorists, rapists, killers, kidnappers, bums and thieves.

    Illegal aliens aren't criminal invaders. They're just undocumented workers and bank robbers are just unauthorized people making early withdrawals and terrorists are just economically marginalized, nonspecifically destinationed individuals expressing anti-social behavior and rapists are just heterosexually non-celibates, serial killers are just people with difficult-to-meet needs, bums and panhandlers are just unaffiliated applicants for private sector funding and thieves are just ethically disoriented shoppers .

    Arrest and deport all ILLEGAL aliens.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    The weasel next door
    Michelle Malkin
    >
    > The weasel next door
    >
    > http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com | Much fun has been had by American
    > politicians and pundits who are rightly taking France to task for its
    > wimpish, pro-appeasement ways.
    >
    > But what about the country that prides itself as America's "closest ally"
    > and has enjoyed a highly-touted "special relationship" with us? What about
    > our soft-on-terror, fence-sitting, fair-weather friend on the U.N. Security
    > Council, Mexico?
    >
    > President Bush is sorely disappointed that his old ranch buddy, Mexican
    > President Vicente Fox, has left him twisting in the wind at this late date.
    > But Fox's reluctance to side with the U.S. in the debate over war with Iraq
    > (exacerbated by recent Mexican election victories by the opposition PRI
    > party) is no surprise to those who watched him wobble right after the
    > September 11 attacks.
    >
    > Remember: When America called on the world to join in Operation Enduring
    > Freedom, every major industrialized country (including Axis of Weasel
    > members France and Germany) answered the call. Every major American ally,
    > that is, except Mexico.
    >
    > Although Fox declared "sympathy" for the victims, he waited a week after the
    > September 11 attacks to ever-so-gingerly make the case to his countrymen for
    > supporting the global fight against terror. He refused to commit military
    > support for the counter-attack on Afghanistan, and he refused to observe a
    > moment of silence in honor of those who died in the attacks.
    >
    > Fox's belated "unconditional" declaration of support for the War on Terror
    > had more strings attached to it than a grand piano's innards. Meanwhile, his
    > government demanded that illegal aliens from Mexico who died in the attacks
    > be automatically granted U.S. citizenship and that their families be exempt
    > from immigration enforcement.
    >
    > While other nations jumped at the chance to help hunt down radical Islamist
    > murderers, Mexico worried about protecting its image among virulent
    > anti-American factions at home. One of Fox's cabinet members, Interior
    > Minister Santiago Creel, expressed concern that Mexico would appear
    > "subordinate" to the U.S. (There's irony.)
    >
    > Other Mexicans, syndicated columnist Ruben Navarrette noted, "even dare[d]
    > suggest that the United States brought the attack on itself by sticking its
    > nose into affairs of other countries, including - presumably - Mexico."
    > Navarrette (with whom I disagree on many border issues) bravely skewered
    > Fox's hypocrisy: "When it comes to Mexican immigrants residing in the United
    > States, Mexico most certainly does not mind its own businessââ,¬|Fox has
    > himself meddled in our affairs with demands and deadlines."
    >
    > Indeed. While Fox frets about whether America is properly respecting the
    > sovereignty and borders of terror-sponsoring regimes, Mexico's meddling
    > minions at consulates across America have been systematically undermining
    > our own sovereignty and borders. With Fox's encouragement, Mexican consular
    > officials in the U.S. (who have failed to register as political lobbyists)
    > are aggressively pushing for:
    >
    > illegal alien driver's licenses;
    >
    > acceptance of insecure matricula consular identification cards that
    > "regularize" illegal Mexican immigrants;
    >
    > in-state tuition discount rates for illegal alien students;
    >
    > "labor rights" for illegal Mexican workers;
    >
    > an official amnesty program (as opposed to the de facto amnesty that already
    > exists);
    >
    > and government retirement "refunds" for illegal alien workers who used
    > stolen or fake Social Security numbers.
    >
    > That's just for starters. Even if Mexico ultimately votes with the U.S. on
    > the Iraq resolution, it remains against us in so many other ways. While its
    > own citizens clamor for death penalty prosecutions, Mexico ran to the World
    > Court to block the U.S. from executing illegal Mexican criminals. Meanwhile,
    > Fox's peace-loving nation remains a shameful refuge for scores of suspected
    > fugitive murderers whom American prosecutors have tried futilely to have
    > extradited, including alleged cop-killer Armando Garcia and alleged
    > double-murderer Juan Manuel Casillas.
    >
    > When it comes to standing against crime and tyranny, Mexico is as much an
    > equivocal tail-tucker as its European counterparts. But other than a few
    > vague words of disaffection from President Bush last week, our vacillating
    > neighbor has suffered no public repercussions. You haven't (and won't) see
    > congressional leaders dumping tequila and tacos down the drain the way
    > they've been trashing French wine and French fries.
    >
    > Why not? Because neither political party in Washington has the guts to stand
    > up and call Mexico what it is. It's easy to ridicule the French as
    > cheese-eating monkeys. It's much harder to truly offend politically correct
    > sensibilities and call out the weasel next door.
    >
    > Enjoy this writer's work? Why not sign-up for the daily JWR update. It's
    > free. Just click here.
    >
    > JWR contributor Michelle Malkin is the author of, most recently, "Invasion:
    > How America Still Welcomes Terrorists Criminals & Other Foreign Menaces to
    > Our Shores". To comment, please click here.
    >
    > Michelle Malkin Archives
    >
    >


    =====

    The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is
    that good people do nothing.
    NO COMPROMISE IN DEFENSE OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD,
    OUR CITY, OUR STATE, AND OUR COUNTRY.
    Calling an illegal alien an undocumented immigrant is like
    calling a burglar an uninvited house guest.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    deport umesh

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    I'll help you!!

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    I don't know if Acelaw is a man or a woman, but judging from how/what he writes, I'd love to f--- him/her.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells....

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Soy Coffee
    This is complete BS! Local law enforcement did NOT have the right and duty to enforce immigration laws before Sep 2002. After Sep 2002 they have the right to do so.

    You are wrong in this statement , here is law that was passed in 1996 immigration reform and welfare act. Read and learn. We are currently pressing our AG to enact this in our state, then we can deport without Federal Help. meaning we do not need INS etc...

    Federal–Local Cooperative Agreements "” Section 133 of IIRAIRA
    In 1996, Congress made several express grants of immigration law enforcement authority to state and local governments. The most important of the legislative actions was contained in IIRIRA §133, which authorized the U.S. Attorney General (AG) to enter into written cooperative agreements with state and local governments to accept the services of state officers or employees in enforcing the INA. Under a ˜Section 133' agreement, state and local governments may designate officers or employees ("local officers") who will be authorized to "perform a function of [a federal] immigration officer in relation to the investigation, apprehension, or detention of aliens in the United States."

    Upon approval of the cooperative agreement by the AG, the designated local officer becomes a limited federal immigration official. The designated local officer is subject to the "direction and supervision of the AG" while performing the immigration enforcement function and, if the written agreement so specifies, may use federal property and facilities to accomplish that function. While Section 133 emphasizes that the designated officer is not a federal employee, agreements created under this section may grant local officers all of the powers exercised by federal immigration officers and provide that the designated local officers will enjoy federal immunity. However, the local officers must carry out their immigration functions at the expense of the state or local government.

    Section 133 is an extraordinary grant of authority to state and local governments, because it allows them to tailor their officers' authority to local immigration enforcement needs. A state or local government can agree with the AG to authorize its law enforcement officers to enforce the INA's civil and/or criminal provisions without dedicating those officers to full-time immigration enforcement. Section 133 clearly contemplates that multiple officers could be authorized to perform one or more immigration enforcement functions. Designated officers could continue to perform their state or local duties. The scope and duration of the officer's immigration enforcement authority is negotiable.

    State and local governments will not be able to take advantage of the broad grants of authority available under Section 133 unless their laws authorize state and local officers to enforce federal laws. Police departments considering whether to seek a Section 133 cooperative agreement should first determine whether existing state and local laws in their jurisdiction already authorize their officers to carry out immigration enforcement functions.

    This is very important to bring up, States have all the right to enforce federal law themselves, they like to lay it off on the Feds, like some on your council, create this problem by accepting these cards ,then point to the feds. They are the problem here.
    Emergency Conditions "” Section 372 of IIRAIRA
    IIRIRA § 372 amended the INA to give the AG (AG) power to authorize state and local immigration enforcement in emergency situations. Under that provision, the AG may authorize state or local officers to enforce the INA if the AG determines that "an actual or imminent mass influx of aliens arriving off the coast of the United States, or near a land border, presents urgent circumstances requiring an immediate Federal response." This emergency authorization may grant a state or local officer "any of the powers, privileges, or duties" conferred by the INA on INS officers. The AG's authorization is contingent on the consent of the head of the agency or department in which the officer serves, but unlike §133, §372 does not expressly require the state or local officer's enforcement of the INA to be authorized by state or local law.

    [See also: The Law Against Hiring or Harboring Illegal Aliens, and commentary by Jim Pasco, executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police, welcoming local police enforcement of immigration laws.]

    Modified 4/02

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    "...because, previously, local law enforcement had to call the nearest INS (which may not be so near) to take custody of the alien..."

    This is complete BS! Local law enforcement did NOT have the right and duty to enforce immigration laws before Sep 2002. After Sep 2002 they have the right to do so.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Under the new INS restructure, the FBI in local cities and towns can arrest and detain illegal aliens. That should help (a LOT!) because, previously, local law enforcement had to call the nearest INS (which may not be so near) to take custody of the alien. Now, local law enforcement can call the local FBI office and accomplish the same thing.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    poster "somebody" said on March 03, 2003 01:01 PM (EST)

    "congratulations you can read! Have you gotten far enough to determine whether or not you are a criminal as per fellatio or other laws?"

    Amen!

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    You are a guest in a foreign country. Your stay is conditional and is required to meet your specific purpose for being here (education). As a student, you were granted permission to go to school and when you complete school, you must return home. If you seek to be in the country for some other purpose, such as to work, you must apply for permission to fulfill that purpose (employment). That's why there are so many kinds of visas - for you to explain your exact reason for being here and to stick to that purpose. Otherwise, we would have just one type of visa and immigrants could do anything they want - and that would do nothing but create chaos. The rules are pretty simple, if you stop to think about it - and, when your goals are completed, you can then return home and serve your country better.

    That's the idea behind a student visa.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Entering or staying illegally in the U.S. is a crime. The punishment is as is outlined in the law, if other criminal activity is found. For example, an illegal alien commits theft. (1) He is tried and imprisoned for the theft and serves the designated time on the books. (crime) (2) He is deported because he's not a citizen or a legal residence and he's in the country illegally. (crime) (3) He can be sued to make restitution for what was stolen. (civil)

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    acelaw go and get horse's dic* up your as*!

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    How could you be so misinformed about immigration laws on a immigration board ? There is NO CIVIL tort in FEDERAL LAWS. We could list all the Federal statutes they violate by there illegal entry and working with fraudulent DOC which is a felony. Civil comes in when you are sued under RICO Act for employing them which is becoming the way for business owners who won't hire illegals to get comp sated by business that do, works well too. All you need to win is a bust of business who have hired illegals, you win hands down.


    Immigration Law Enforcement by Local Agencies
    The following is an introductory summary of federal law on the issue of local law enforcement agencies enforcing federal immigration law provisions. Local officials who seek guidance on this issue may contact FAIR's legal counsel for detailed information.

    Overview
    In most cases, federal laws that bar illegal aliens from the United States and punish persons who smuggle, shelter, or employ or otherwise assist illegal aliens can be enforced by local and state police.

    State and local law enforcement officials have the general power to investigate and arrest violators of federal immigration statutes without prior Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) knowledge or approval, as long as they are authorized to enforce federal law in general. Although immigration is a federal matter, local law enforcement departments and personnel are not required to turn a blind eye to any illegal activity – including violations of immigration law. It is illegal for local governments to prohibit police cooperation with the INS, and individual officers who report violations are protected by law.

    Although the Illegal Immigration and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRAIRA) of 1996 provied new authority for empowering local law enforcement agencies to enforce immigration law provisions against aliens illegally in the country, local police were never powerless to act on immigration law violations before adoption of that legislation. Local police departments have always had the ability to collaborate with the INS in enforcement operations. An example was local cooperation with the INS and the FBI in locating and interviewing foreign students from Middle Eastern countries following the September 11 terrorist attacks.

    In addition, Section 274(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended in 1986, authorizes "...all other officers whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws," to arrest persons for smuggling, harboring or transporting illegal aliens. Furthermore, federal courts had repeatedly affirmed since 1984 that local police may inquire into immigration violations in the course of a routine stop (see e.g., U.S. v. Salinas-Calderon).

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    "double remifications" is not "double jeopardy"!
    Certainly one can be criminally prosecuted and then held "civilly liable" for the consequences (such as O.J. Simpson), but nobody may be punished twice in a crimal procedure. An order to pay a monetary amount for a civil liability is not considered a "criminal punishment", it's a "liability" as it's implied.

    It is for almost this reason alone why immigration matters are NOT considered (and have been so declared by the Supreme Court) "criminal". As another poster and I indicated above, "criminalizing" immigration matters would make the deportation of an alien impossible!

    The 8th U.S. code is, as the name clearly implies a CODE, not a criminal procedure!

    Leave a comment:

Sorry, you are not authorized to view this page

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

EB-5

移民日报

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Questions/Comments

SUBSCRIBE

Immigration Daily



Working...
X