[Detachment Charlie]

Border incident interests citizens' group
By Louie Villalobos, Staff Writer
Aug 12, 2003

http://yumasun.com/artman/publish/articles/story_6677.shtml

Using the Yuma case of two men arrested for allegedly holding illegal immigrants at gunpoint as its coming-out party, a newly formed citizens' group is promising to sue two Yuma County departments and come to Arizona with an "army" ready to patrol the Mexican border.

Keith French, spokesman for the newly incorporated U.S. Special Service, said his Missouri-based organization intends to sue the Yuma County Sheriff's Office and the Yuma County Attorney's Office for what he called the unlawful arrest and detention of Matthew Hoffman and Alexander Dumas.

"We have adopted these men," French said.

Both men are accused of detaining six illegal immigrants at gunpoint July 31 in Gadsden until U.S. Border Patrol agents arrived.

Each is facing six counts of aggravated assault, five counts of unlawful imprisonment and one count of conspiracy to commit unlawful imprisonment following the incident.

In an e-mailed declaration sent to the county attorney's office, the sheriff's office and The Sun, the U.S. Special Service accuses both departments of violating the suspects' civil rights by arresting them for doing something permitted by the law.

"People are allowed to arrest someone they see commit a crime," French said. "And entering illegally is a crime."

French said the use of handcuffs and guns on the illegal immigrants by Hoffman and Dumas falls under justification for use of force in defense of property.

Though officials said the area where the incident occurred — County 18th Street and the Colorado River — is technically federal property, French contends the entire United States is the property of every American, which makes it legal for citizens to defend it against "the invasion of illegal immigrants."

A statement released Monday by Sheriff Ralph Ogden states he recognizes the frustrations surrounding current immigration policies and said citizens may assist in the apprehension of anyone violating the law.

But the statement goes one to "warn any individual assuming that responsibility that such arrests must be done in accordance with applicable state and federal laws and that failure to do so may result in their being charged with a violation of the law."

The department has said that detaining someone against their will, even if they have broken the law, is illegal and goes beyond what a citizen's arrest allows.

French said his organization had been looking at federal laws regarding private citizens' patrols when Hoffman and Dumas were arrested, and said the case is the perfect one for his group to announce itself with.

He said his group plans to help family members with the defense of their loved ones, but is urging both the county attorney's office and the sheriff's office to drop the charges and release Hoffman and Dumas. If not, French said his organization will seek alternative means to have the men freed.

"Sometimes you've got to fight fire with fire," he said. "They can take that however the hell they want."

A second demand in the e-mailed declaration is the resignation of Yuma County Attorney Patricia Orozco, who French said is pursuing the case because her Hispanic descent has caused her to take the incident personally.

For her part, Orozco said that her office pursuing the case has nothing to do with her Hispanic heritage and everything to do with the law. She said her staff didn't do anything different on this case than it has in previous cases or will do with future ones.

"Our standard is whether there is a reasonable likelihood of a conviction at trial," she said. "We found that there was sufficient evidence for us to bring charges and we did."

Also targeted by French's group are the illegal immigrants that cross through Arizona on a daily basis. French said he intends to bring an "army" to the Arizona-Mexico border in the near future that will be armed and ready to detain illegal immigrants.

He said plans are in the works for the group to come to the Arizona border and tour the area for possible locations for a base camp. French said the camp will most likely be in the Tucson area but that he intends to visit Yuma to check on the Hoffman-Dumas case and illegal immigrant activity.

Unlike the other citizens' group working near Tucson — which tends to stay on private land — French said his organization will also patrol federal land and public property. Yuma County's border with Mexico is largely federal land, officials have said.

"The United States government's land is the people's land," he said. "And we will function on that property."

--
Louie Villalobos can be reached at lvillalobos@yumasun.com or 539-6858.

© Copyright, YumaSun.com

Well, sportsfans, I knew this situation would kick up some dust. And, IMHO, it's about bloody time. A nation that choses not to defend its borders isn't worthy of being a nation. The illegal immigrant situation in the SW makes the entire idea (not to mention BUDGET) of homeland security a very obvious joke.
:cuss:

[longeyes]

If you think Bush is going to support the "vigilantes," you haven't
heard of Karl Rove.

This will be the biggest overt or covert issue of the '04 Election.

[TallPine]

"Our standard is whether there is a reasonable likelihood of a conviction at trial,"

And the standard has nothing to do with what is right or wrong ... :barf:

[seeker_two]

The department has said that detaining someone against their will, even if they have broken the law, is illegal and goes beyond what a citizen's arrest allows.

Then what exactly does "arrest" mean?... :scrutiny:

[Cosmoline]

Frankly if I was going to arrest anyone I'd round up every farmer in California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas and anywhere else who employs illegals. For that matter arrest all the people who hire under-the-table workers from the street corners. If you're going to start declaring war, declare war on the people creating the demand, not on the poor schmucks who are brave enough to cross the border for some more money.

[Waitone]

Several years ago the INS got frisky and decided to do some work place enforcement in Vidalea Georga. Seems the onion growers employed copious quantities of "undocumented migrants."

INS swooped down and rounded up the bad guys.

Farmers made a few phone calls.

"Undocumented migrants" were promptly back at work.

Until that crap stops nothing will be done. What you have to watch Bush // Rove on is their desire to make 'em legal so they can start payng US social security tax.

Makes me mad enought to chew nails.

[jsalcedo]

Who is going to do the agricultural work?

American citizens aren't going to do hard farm labor for those wages.

Maybe prisoners?

Maybe they can kick out all the hard working illegals and raise the price of lettuce to 10 dollars a head.

[agricola]

Keith French, spokesman for the newly incorporated U.S. Special Service, said his Missouri-based organization intends to sue the Yuma County Sheriff's Office and the Yuma County Attorney's Office for what he called the unlawful arrest and detention of Matthew Hoffman and Alexander Dumas.

"I tell you, Rosa, that I shall demolish this prison, stone for stone!"


:D :D

[rock jock]

French contends the entire United States is the property of every American
Hmmm. I remember making this exact statement on another illegal immigrant thread a few months ago and was thoroughly thrashed for it. FWIW, this guy is right on.

American citizens aren't going to do hard farm labor for those wages.
First, I don't necessarily believe this is true. Second, if all the illegals in this country were working hard and paying taxes, you wouldn't hear any complaints. The fact that you characterize all illegals this way is as much a stereotype as that of the lazt thief. Third, if your statement is true, then farmers need to raise wages and we all need to pay a little more to get our veggies.

Maybe they can kick out all the hard working illegals and raise the price of lettuce to 10 dollars a head.
Anything to back this up?

[Waitone]

One more time for those hard of hearing::::::

The issue ain't immigration

The issue is illegal immigration.

The operative term is "illegal."

[jsalcedo]

Its a matter of economics.

There are jobs, healthcare, and opprotunities here in the US.

The illegals will keep pouring in as long as the US is a better place to live
than mexico or elsewhere.

Everytime the stakes are raised the alien smugglers redouble their efforts
and charge more for the 140 degree boxcar.

The war against illegal immigration is much like the war on drugs:
corrupt, expensive, dangerous and futile.

An increase in legal immigration quotas with backround checks and due process would be a hell of a lot better than the current system where they get in and sap the healthcare, education system and welfare system without putting anything back.

I sure could use someone to help me take care of my son and help maintain my property but I won't hire illegals and I can't afford anyone else.

The jobs are here and they are not getting done for lack of lower wage workers.

[jimpeel]

The department has said that detaining someone against their will, even if they have broken the law, is illegal and goes beyond what a citizen's arrest allows.By that standard, the only thing any person witnessing a crime can do is to follow the perpetrator and use the cell phone to zero the authorities in to their position.

Also by that standard, the passengers and stewardesses who tackled Richard Reed, the shoe bomber, committed a crime in his unlawful detention against his will.

These guys have the "We're the professionals" attitude and they are in full CYA mode for job and budget preservation.

CosmolineFrankly if I was going to arrest anyone I'd round up every farmer in California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas and anywhere else who employs illegals. For that matter arrest all the people who hire under-the-table workers from the street corners. If you're going to start declaring war, declare war on the people creating the demand, not on the poor schmucks who are brave enough to cross the border for some more money.Those laws are already in place. Why do you think you have to show two forms of ID when you start a new job? By the way, a foreign national only has to show one form of ID.

jsalcedoWho is going to do the agricultural work?

American citizens aren't going to do hard farm labor for those wages.

Maybe prisoners?

Maybe they can kick out all the hard working illegals and raise the price of lettuce to 10 dollars a head.Where you miss the point is through your obvious lack of history.

There used to be a Bracero (pron. Bdah-se`-do) program that allowed Mexican nationals to cross the border for the purposes of doing migrant work on farms. They were paid about $2.00/hr which was, at the time, about fifteen Pesos/hr. That is more than most Mexican doctors earn.

The bleeding hearts decided that the Braceros weren't getting minimum wage which, at the time, was about $3.15/hr (23.63 pesos/hr) I believe. They insisted that the farmers pay the foreign nationals the prevailing minimum wage. The program fell apart, the Mexican nationals had to stay in Mexico instead of coming here legally and earning fifteen Pesos/hr and the illegal immigration numbers began to skyrocket.

THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION PROBLEM COULD BE SOLVED OVERNIGHT IF MEXICO WOULD ADOPT THE DOLLAR AS THEIR OFFICIAL CURRENCY. THE ONLY OTHER CURE WOULD BE FOR THE UNITED STATES TO ANNEX MEXICO OR ADOPT THE PESO. FAT CHANCE OF THAT. FAT CHANCE OF EITHER EVER HAPPENING.

The illegals will keep pouring in as long as the US is a better place to live than mexico or elsewhere.No, they will keep pouring in as long as we allow them to continue and as long as we continue to ignore our own laws.

[seeker_two]

An increase in legal immigration quotas with backround checks and due process would be a hell of a lot better than the current system where they get in and sap the healthcare, education system and welfare system without putting anything back.

I agree with that. I think that the US should TRIPLE the amount of LEGAL immigration allowed yearly....

...and turn the border w/ Mexico into a "no-man's land" where all ILLEGAL invasion (I REFUSE to call it "immigration") is stopped cold...

...period. :evil:

[jsalcedo]

Jimpeel.

No, they will keep pouring in as long as we allow them to continue and as long as we continue to ignore our own laws.


Do you think billions more poured into border enforcement or a new Berlin wall across the border will keep illegals out? Who is going to pay for it?

Maybe we can use minefields and nerve gas to dissuade them.

Sounds like you have unwittingly solved the drug problem in this country as well.

[seeker_two]

Maybe we can use minefields and nerve gas to dissuade them.

Maybe not "nerve gas", but.... :evil:

[Pilgrim]

Who is going to do the agricultural work?
American citizens aren't going to do hard farm labor for those wages.

Even if hueros wanted to work as fruit and vegetable pickers, they couldn't get hired. All of the picking is done by labor provided by labor contractors. The farmer contracts with a contractor who in turn provides the pickers. No way a contractor is going to hire a huero when there are plenty of willing and compliant illegal immigrants willing to do the job.

Pilgrim

[longeyes]

The illegal immigration issue extends beyond the obvious jobs. Check
light industry in the San Fernando Valley, the stockyards in Chicago,
chicken processing plants in the Southeast, etc., etc.

Meanwhile, no one talks about the impact of all this on American blacks.
Much of the blue-collar and trade work that blacks once had has been
grabbed by Hispanics, mostly illegals, willing to work for sub-standard
wages. While we provide opportunity for one group, we write off another.
There's no social progress in that.

Militarizing the border can't be ruled out but it isn't where we should
start. I prefer to apply the stick to employers doing the illegal
hiring, then to remove the carrot of public benefits. A guest-worker
program makes sense, done right. I would not increase the amount of
legal immigration from Mexico unless Mexico gets the concept of
bilateralism: we need to have more access to investment down south.

[nemesis]

Cosmoline said.........
If you're going to start declaring war, declare war on the people creating the demand, not on the poor schmucks who are brave enough to cross the border for some more money.
I agree, that's quite true. Regretfully, many don't care if that money used to be yours or mine. A friend of mine works at the County Jail and reports that very nearly half of the population are illegals. Contrary to the wishful liberal notion of "simple people, improving their lives"; many are just criminal opportunists.

The head of the local Border Patrol sector recently made a presentation in which he estimated that they are apprehending 10% of the illegal crossers and fully 10% of those apprehended are known criminals.

With regard to the many comments of the futility of defending the borders, I would suggest that that is not as difficult as it sounds. I recommend you attempt to get into Mexico illegally. You would quickly find that their military, armed and ready, is fully deployed en la frontera. Que este muy bien para ellos, este "un crimen contra derechos civiles para nosotros'.

[jimpeel]

Do you think billions more poured into border enforcement or a new Berlin wall across the border will keep illegals out? Who is going to pay for it?The simple placement of the National Guard on the border would take care of the problem.

Maybe we can use minefields and nerve gas to dissuade them.From the sublime to the ridiculous. You sound like the Liberal hacks we face everyday on the firearms issue who say "Then should everyone be able to own a bazooka or an atomic bomb?"

Sounds like you have unwittingly solved the drug problem in this country as well.Illegal aliens are not brought over the border in low flying aircraft and cigarette boats. They are also not smuggled molded into plastic toys. They are also not smuggled in car bumpers. They are also not smuggled in spare tires in car trunks. They are also not smuggled stashed in the smuggler's rectum or vagina.

Your arguments are specious and boring as well as snide and condescending. Do you have anything to say that is factual and relevant?

[Standing Wolf]

Fine each employer $100,000 for every illegal alien on the pay roll. Since the states are always complaining about being broke, let the states do the police work, collect the fines, and keep the money.

[wingman]

Overpopulation disaster ahead
By Frosty Woolridge


In the past 10 years, the world has added 880 million people. America has added 30 million and Colorado has added 1.2 million. Today, America stands at 288 million and grows by 3.3 million per year.

In 50 years, the world population will go from 6.2 billion to 9.8 billion. America will add 200 million and Colorado will add 4 million. million. An average of 8,200 people are added to our country every day via annual net gains in U.S. births (1 million) and immigration (2 million) - legal, illegal and their births. Soon past the mid-century, those 200 million more Americans will be fighting over dwindling resources, water and food, and experiencing a diminishing quality of life. A Colorado drought in 2050 would be a disaster with multiple consequences.

For graphic examples, one need only look at India and China. recent speech, Arun Gandhi, grandson of Mahatma, recently said, "In my country, 4 million people are born in the streets, live in the streets and die in the streets - never having used a toilet or shower." If massive population is so good, why is India so poor? Even more sobering is China's plight, with a population of 1.3 billion that increases by 12 million per year.

Overpopulation will become the plague of the 21st century. Where is America headed? Do we want such a legacy for our children? According to "60 Minutes," we have 1 million homeless children struggling in our inner cities today. Why can't we take care of their needs? What will be the fate of another 200 million people who create homeless children?

How many is too many - and when will Americans address that fact? Who possesses the courage to step up to the reality of overpopulation, consumption and pollution in America? in the long term?

No one. Politicians scurry at the mention of population stabilization. Corporations demand larger markets as if nonrenewable resources will appear out of thin air. the future of our children. Wake up! We're like a runaway freight train with no brakes headed toward a rock wall.

The East and West coasts teem with too many people, all striving to deal with escalating water, air and land dilemmas. Deep-water wells - already polluted with industrial chemicals from farmers and manufacturing plants dumping poisons - are drying up. Acid rains pound our lakes with chemicals.

Our cities create thick clouds where millions of children breathe carcinogens. Farmers kill microbes in the soil with fertilizers and pesticides, leaving us with contaminated foods.

Each year, 1.3 million new cancers are detected in our citizens - an epidemic of our own making.

Eleanor Roosevelt said it 50 years ago: "We must prevent human tragedy rather than run around trying to save ourselves after an event has already occurred. Unfortunately, history clearly shows that we arrive at catastrophe by failing to meet the situation, by failing to act when we should have acted. The opportunity passes us by and the next disaster is always more difficult and compounded than the last one."

By failing to act now, what kinds of consequences will we as a nation face when we hit a half billion people? people living in this state. That's 100% more cars, etc. In the US, that's 77% more traffic, 77% added planes in the air, 77% increased pollution, 77% faster uses of already limited resources such as gasoline.

We're paving over 3,000 acres of land each day for homes, roads and malls. In Colorado, we pave 100,000 acres per year. that is a pad of concrete/asphalt 88 square or, from Boulder to Colorado Springs and half way to the Kansas state line. With each new added American, 12.6 acres of wilderness is plowed up to support that person.

In the next 10 years, according to the National Academy of Sciences, 2,500 plants and animals will become extinct in the U.S. because of habitat destruction via population growth. Why aren't we addressing the moral and biological consequences of such horrific extinction rates?

When you add global warming, ocean fisheries collapsing, acid rain, ozone destruction, drought, contaminated water supplies, poisoning and sterilization of the soils by insecticides and fertilizers - we're building unimaginable consequences.

How serious is our problem? Upon receiving the Sanger Award for Human Rights in 1966, Dr. Martin Luther King said, "Unlike the plagues of the dark ages or contemporary diseases which we do not understand, the modern plague of overpopulation is soluble by means we have discovered and with resources we possess. What is lacking is not sufficient knowledge of the solution, but universal consciousness of the gravity of the problem and the education of billions of people who are its victims."

Fifty years ago, Bangladesh, India and China ignored their accelerating populations. Today, America's leaders are following the same steps. According to the Center for Immigration Studies, we're allowing the immigration of more than 2.3 million people annually from countries that refuse to offer family planning. Since the American female has a fertility rate of 2.03 children, it's not Americans causing the rising population tide. We need immigration reform and reduction to less than 175,000 people annually before population momentum takes us to another 200 million Americans and an unsustainable society.

We commit our children and all living things to a difficult future by not addressing overpopulation. It's a disservice to ourselves, Colorado, our nation and to future generations.

[jsalcedo]

Jimpeel

Your arguments are specious and boring as well as snide and condescending. Do you have anything to say that is factual and relevant?

Your arguments are oversimplified.

My comments were meant to be somewhat facetious and meant to draw attention to the fact there is no easy solution to the immigrant problem.

From personal experience and living on or near the border since 1979
90% of the illegals I have met were hardworking folks who were trying to survive. There were some thieves and scumbags as well but those were
rounded up and deported fairly quickly.

Going back to the original subject. The citizens patrolling the border should be allowed to continue to arrest anyone caught trying to enter the country illegally. The national guard should be used to kill any drug runners and Mexican Army used to escort them.

Nothing has worked so far and to make matters worse every few years
the president gives amnesty to all who were able to hold out long enough.

This in itself makes the US very attractive.

I think legal immigration should be increased dramatically and any aliens that commit violent or property crimes should be executed or sent to Guantanamo.

As for sounding like a liberal :rolleyes:

[PeteyPete]

If we can prevent the North Koreans from sneaking into South Korea, we can stop a bunch of fence jumpers from crossing our border.

The US gov't could stop the illegal movement of people in a heartbeat if it wanted to, there's no doubt about that.

[jsalcedo]

If we wanted to turn the American Southwest into an armed camp with a few hundred thousand troops at the ready maybe we could shut it down.

Would probably have to bring up the minefield argument again if were are going to make the Korea comparison.

If that ended up being the plan, at least we have a bunch of guys with desert experience now.

[jimpeel]

Going back to the original subject. The citizens patrolling the border should be allowed to continue to arrest anyone caught trying to enter the country illegally. The national guard should be used to kill any drug runners and Mexican Army used to escort them. Hear, hear!As for sounding like a liberal I was making a like comparison to those who go to the extreme in their arguments. I said you sound like them when you do likewise. I compared your "minefields and nerve gas" comment to their "bazooka and atomic bomb" analogy. I have no evidence that you actually are a Liberal. Your arguments simply went far afield like theirs' do.

[AZTOY]

So want has it been, 1 month from are last the illegal immigrants thread:rolleyes:



Would probably have to bring up the minefield argument again if were are going to make the Korea comparison.

Korea comparison , YES

We need the fences , minifeilds , gun towers and arm guards. Also a maybe few tanks. This would help stop the illegal immigrants from crossing!!:D :D :D

[Waitone]

Illegal aliens enter the US for a variety of reasons the major one of which is to work. They go to fairly predictable places for fairly predictable reasons. They take fairly predictable jobs in fairly predictable locations. I'll even go so far as to say employers and service providers are fairly predictable. In other words, it is not a random event we have to anticipate.

If we were serious about greatly reducing the problem the list of actions would not be that hard. What would be hard is mustering the political will to stop the problem. We'd endure tear-jerking stories about the heartless Yanquis chasing down the pure and morally superior undocumented transient employees. Advocacy groups would file suits out the ying-yang. The hospitality industry and agriculture would go absolutely ape. Angry phone calls would go out to previously purchased politicians telling them to call the dogs off. Those previously purchased politicians would immediately propose legislation to protect their future voters from the heartless Yanqui immigration control ossifers.

No, militarizing the border will not in and of itself solve the problem. Arming the border is some small part of the problem. Much more effective and significantly more difficult is mustering the political will to stop the problem growth and gain control. Keyboard commando complain about a real problem caused and fertilized by corporate interests and spineless politicians. Meanwhile states like California are driven into fiscal meltdown because of those interests and politicians.

[longeyes]

"They just come here to work." So goes the mantra. Well, a lot do, but plenty don't. Some 28% of the inmates in Federal prisons are allegedly illegal aliens. I expect a similar stat for state prisons. These people may not necesarily arrive with criminal intent but the competition for work is tough and desperate people will commit desperate acts.

Even if all illegals came to work, we would still be wrestling with massive public expenditure costs for them and their families. More than one study has shown a significant net cost to the taxpayer. What gives them the right, for example, to virtually monopolize all ER services in a community? What about those of us who pay taxes? Are we to come last? We'll see.

I am looking at the situation in my home state (CA) with serious interest. It appears that the radical Latino elements here wish to make support for illegal aliens the litmus test for political viability. Schwarzenegger is being tired because he supported Prop. 187; fact is, so did 60% of the voters. If Latinos want public subsidization of illegal immigrants to be the issue they live and die on--and I have my doubts that the bulk of them do, that this isn't really the agenda of a hard-core minority--then I think we are headed for big trouble in California and perhaps the entire Southwest. This ways lies an "Intifada," because I believe lines are being drawn and taxpayers have now recognized that this is an expense they are unwilling to bear.

[longeyes]

"Illegal aliens enter the US for a variety of reasons the major one of which is to work. They go to fairly predictable places for fairly predictable reasons. They take fairly predictable jobs in fairly predictable locations. I'll even go so far as to say employers and service providers are fairly predictable. In other words, it is not a random event we have to anticipate."

We agree that something needs to be done and that it can be done effectively. I am also in agreement with you that the crux of the problem is the so far lack of political will, though I think that when that will has found its expression the conspiracy of power that backs unchecked immigration has worked to effectively quash that will (as in the Prop. 187 case, where for political reasons appeals were not filed).

I have to respectfully disagree, however, that we are still looking at a situation where illegals are working in obvious places. Not any longer. This is a much bigger and broader problem at this point. Unfortunately, we have allowed this problem in the last decade, with the active aiding and abetting by the Clinton Administration (and Doris Meisner), to become huge and unmanageable, now requiring dramatic actions to resolve. Still, it is going to have to be done. This issue goes beyond the economic; it also goes to the heart of our cultural and political identity. It is not for nothing that the California DMV is referred to by cynics as the Dept. of Mexican Voters. If we want the electoral process to retain any semblance of legitimacy, if we don't want conservative votes swamped for the foreseeable future, we will recognize that our sovereignty, culture, and the rule of law itself hang in the balance. The time to act decisively is NOW; we can no longer afford to be trusting or passive on this matter.

[Waitone]

My point is that while behavior patterns are predictable I do not believe the problem is small. It is a large and predictable situation.

You mentioned Cali DMV and illegals. You guys out there are discussing the problem. We here in NC have a major problem on our hands. Seems NC DMV is handing out DL's with minimal documentation included the Mexican visa. In fact if the illegal can't produce any documentation, the DMV will permit the applicant to sign an affidavit that he is who he says he is and that is sufficient documentation to be issued a NC DL.

The state legislature woke up and began an investigation as to why this is going on. What they determined was instructive. Seems the Chief of DL's in NC when challenged about wholesale distribution of DL's claimed his job was to distribute DL and he should not be stopped. Later it was determined he spent 2 weeks in Mexico on the tab of some philanthropic organization to become culturally sensitized to the needs of undocumented aliens. There are counties in NC that have no restrains on the issuance of DL to the extent that NC in general and some counties specifically are destinations for those on the east coast interested in establishing a new identity.

Now when legislation is proposed to fix obvous abuses it risks defeat because business interests fear damaging its workforce.

What we're dealing with is the sell out of US sovereignty to corporate, international and governmental greed. Meanwhile the taxpaying class is just beginning to wake up. Surveys which track the gap in concern between the ruling and ruled class see as much as a 70% gap in the level of concern. Revolutions get started when that occurs.

If political will was available, the problem could be effectively dealt with.

[wingman]

Personally I would be very happy to see everyone in the world who wants to work have a job and never have any kid hurt or hungry but the point is how many can America provide for, is there a set number that will end our quality of life. Right now the cost to the average taxpayer per illegal is high; the people who benefit are the rich/wealthy in this country and Mexico.

Immigration "is" an important topic and it will become even more so in the coming years, if limits are not set we "all" will pay.

As someone who has lived in the southwest most of there lives and seen the changes along the border the problems are much worse in many ways for all people, crime, corruption, etc., The state is becoming unable to pay for services, medical, schools, etc.

With manufacturing jobs leaving our country and at the same time poorly educated workers pouring in at some point the problem will become a large issue. If you believe now freedom is on the way out wait a few years as our population increases.. Not sure we can build enough prisons.

While the open "door" policy sounds great in truth we not living in the 1800's and in this modern world sad to say it will not work.

[longeyes]

"What we're dealing with is the sell out of US sovereignty to corporate,
international and governmental greed. Meanwhile the taxpaying class is just
beginning to wake up. Surveys which track the gap in concern between the ruling
and ruled class see as much as a 70% gap in the level of concern. Revolutions
get started when that occurs."

I agree completely. I think this is the Lull Before the Storm.

[Erik]

"Who is going to do the agricultural work?"

The "who will do these jobs argument" ignors the fact that there is an almost endless stream of legal immigrants and non-immigrants more than willing to make it is America by fallowing the rules and working hard, regardless of the type of work involved.

It comes down to money. Jail a few greedy American farmers and business owners, force them to hire legal workers, couple all of that with meaningful border security, and ta-da, while the problem might not be wholly solved, it sure as heck would be a lot more managable.

[Erik]

As for the case at hand, more information is needed to make a decision.

Though I too am puzzled at the apparent schism in logic between being allowed to arrest someone and not being allowed to detain them by force.

[Keith]

Fine each employer $100,000 for every illegal alien on the pay roll. Since the states are always complaining about being broke, let the states do the police work, collect the fines, and keep the money.

That's the cure, plain and simple - fine them so heavily that they are driven into bankruptcy and if they can't pay, then imprison them for about ten years.
If it is more expensive to hire illegals than to pay wages an American will work for, then things will change. And you can always implement a REAL guest worker program that can bring in and monitor seasonal workers if labor is in short supply - paid for by those who employ the workers.

And yes, we'll pay more for groceries - so what? We'll make it up in tax savings spent on law enforcement and social services. It is simply INSANE to spend billions along the border to catch 10% of the illegals, then ignore the employers who lure these people across in the first place.

Keith

[ahenry]

I can’t believe I’ve missed this thread…guess getting married can do that. HAHA

With my apologies for a late entry:

Longeyes,
Militarizing the border can't be ruled out but it isn't where we should
start. Would this sort of be a meeting of the minds I detect?! ;) I prefer to apply the stick to employers doing the illegal hiring, then to remove the carrot of public benefits. Why so? What in the world justifies somebody “getting” some of the money I work extremely hard for. I bust my rump day in and day out to bring home as good a paycheck as possible and I damn sure don’t appreciate somebody else enjoying the fruits of my labor, especially somebody that is in America illegally. So unless you can give me a real good reason why this “carrot” should continue to “dangle” I am going to have to disagree with you.

Nemesis,
Contrary to the wishful liberal notion of "simple people, improving their lives"; many are just criminal opportunists. I haven’t taken the time to apply pencil to paper, but I think I am quite safe in saying that the vast majority of those crossing the border really are just trying to make a better life for themselves (note that I am not justifying, just explaining). Of course when you are referring to millions and millions of people trying to cross, even a tiny percentage is still a pretty huge number.
The head of the local Border Patrol sector recently made a presentation in which he estimated that they are apprehending 10% of the illegal crossers and fully 10% of those apprehended are known criminals. Which sector was that?

Jimpeel,
The simple placement of the National Guard on the border would take care of the problem. No it wouldn’t; not even close.

PeteyPete,
If we can prevent the North Koreans from sneaking into South Korea, we can stop a bunch of fence jumpers from crossing our border. Korea is essentially a war zone. The last thing I want is some sort of “buffer zone” filled with mines and 19 year old Marines (God bless ‘em) requiring yet more land become "federal land". Besides, its always been my understanding (i.e. unconfirmed) that the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo forbids military or anything like it on the US-Mexico border.

[AZRickD]

Here is the relevant law on the issue which the Yuma Sheriff must have missed...

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/03884.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS
13-3884. Arrest by private person

A private person may make an arrest:

1. When the person to be arrested has in his presence committed a misdemeanor amounting to a breach of the peace, or a felony.

2. When a felony has been in fact committed and he has reasonable ground to believe that the person to be arrested has committed it.
And...

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/03889.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS
13-3889. Method of arrest by private person

A private person when making an arrest shall inform the person to be arrested of the intention to arrest him and the cause of the arrest, unless he is then engaged in the commission of an offense, or is pursued immediately after its commission or after an escape, or flees or forcibly resists before the person making the arrest has opportunity so to inform him, or when the giving of such information will imperil the arrest.

[longeyes]

Well, congratulations!

No, actually I said "remove the carrot," did I not? I am for fining
employers who hire illegals and ending public benefits to illegals.

It appears--mirabile dictu!--that we do indeed agree on this one.

[jimpeel]

No it wouldn’t; not even close. Actually, it would be a good start.

If one really wants to see a dustup in this nation, simply let the states that are being invaded -- at the behest of the federal government which tells them they have to accept and provide for them -- place all of their illegal aliens on aircraft with one way tickets to Dulles International Airport. They could also start a 24 hour constant parade of buses, filled with same, destined for Washington, DC. You would see some action then to take care of the illegal alien problem when DC started filling up with Mexican, Cuban, and Haitian illegals.

If they must be accepted and provided for, let those who insist they be accepted and provided for accept and provide for them.

[jimpeel]

There is one other Constitutional provision for this activity but it would take a couple of governors with big brass ones to do it.No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
-- Article I, Section 10, Paragraph 3 Constitution of the United StatesCan you just see it? California, Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona declaring war on Mexico? Ah, perchance to dream ...

[longeyes]

Jimpeel:

I've had similar thoughts. We talk constantly of being "invaded"
but, so far, not of "invading." It would not surprise me if a future
Adminstration, Karl Rove being long absent, adopted a more aggressive
posture toward Mexico. Far-fetched? Not really. And there's
precedent.

But we're getting ahead of ourselves.

I tend to think the stuff will hit the fan when the American public
starts hearing, after the next amnesty is floated, that they are also
going to be paying SS for Mexicans in Mexico.

[nemesis]

ahenry

Which sector was that?

McAllen Sector. Testimony at Sub-Committee immigration hearings in San Antonio.

[jimpeel]

The section of the Constitution I cited is also the one that will prevent Cruz Bustamante from ceding California back to Mexico, as much as he would like to do so.

There are rumblings that Davis may abdicate the throne to thwart the recall and that would make Bustamante governor by fiat.

[0007]

jimpeel - you are forsure forsure burning up the key board today. Ha, ha, ha, ha; CA,TX, NM, NV declaring war on Mexico - soon to be joined by NC, SC and probably a few other overloaded states. The question is which side would the us gov come in on? And the answer is - as we all know from their present actions - the wrong side.
I really like the idea of buying the illegals one-way tickets to DC. It would certainly cost less then letting them stay in whatever state they dropped in on.

[longeyes]

In the last analysis it all comes down to one thing: who's got the
military? You're right: the current crop of honchos, both parties,
are on "the wrong side." Stay tuned.

[jimpeel]

The federal government would surely come down on the wrong side because, in their continuing effort to please everyone while pleasing noone, they have this propensity to see nothing beyond the next election. They don't want to alienate an entire voting block.

The invasion continues and, for those who would deny there is one, the mantra of the invaders proves it. Their mantra is "Taking back California block by block". That mantra will soon change to "Taking back California hectare by hectare".

If Bustamante becomes governor ...

[telomerase]

I was raised in Ohio, but have lived in Texas for eleven years. Even in Texas, you have to be blind to be worrying about a few million people who are trying to come here and work... instead of worrying about the tens of millions who were born here but want to live off your labor. (Especially the rich ones like Archer-Daniels-Midland; their welfare checks are a lot bigger).

If you want to worry about evil foreigners, worry about the dictators that stay in power on US foreign aid...

[longeyes]

Telomerase:

The concern about illegal immigration is not about "evil foreigners."
It is about sovereignty, the rule of law, exploitation of labor, coerced wealth transfer, and voter fraud.

It is clear you are completely unaware of the direct and indirect cost
of public services to illegal aliens and their offspring. It is one
major component of the fiscal travails now faced by this State (CA). Given the pols in power it will no doubt get a lot worse before it gets better.
And it will spread, to your State of TX as well.

As for other forms of parasite, there is no doubt no lack of suspects
and no lack of Americans willing to aid and abet the invaders for their
own selfish and traitorous reasons.

[telomerase]

>It is clear you are completely unaware of the direct and indirect cost
of public services to illegal aliens

Are you suggesting that the immigrants created our welfare state? I agree with you completely that no one should you tax you to pay for Jose's education or health care, but that's between you and your political "owners". Jose had nothing to do with it. (And in my personal experience, most of the Mexicans work. It's the people who were born here who are the biggest per-capita welfare consumers.)

I'll concede that freedom and the welfare state are not compatible. Obviously we can't afford to have half of South America and all of Africa move here and live on welfare. But the solution is to abolish un-Constitutional programs, not "use nerve gas on Mexicans", as has been suggested here. It may be tempting to attack poor people rather than powerful politicians (who might attack you back), but it doesn't do anything to solve your problems.

[jimpeel]

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030814-110345-7086r.htm

Arizona residents seek vote on illegals

By Stephen Dinan
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Arizona residents are trying to put an initiative on next year's ballot to deny illegal immigrants access to state services and voting rights.

The initiative would require new voters to present positive proof of U.S. citizenship before registering, and would require state and local officials to verify U.S. citizenship before allowing someone to use state-funded health care or other state services. Education, police and fire services and other services mandated by federal law would not be affected.

Backers said state law already requires voters and users of state services be citizens, but the law isn't enforced seriously.

"It's an honor system. And the honor system isn't working," said Iris Lynch, the southern Arizona organizer for the petition drive. "So we've gone back and we've said in this initiative that when you're a first-time registrant, that you would need to prove you are a citizen."

Backers must obtain 122,612 signatures of registered voters by next July for the measure to go to voters on the November 2004 ballot.

Kathy McKee, one of the chief organizers, said they haven't begun to count how many signatures have been obtained, but she said the response has been strong.

"We ran out of petitions. We printed 2,000, we thought that would last a while, and we ran out in the first week," she said.

But Rep. Steve Gallardo, a Democrat who opposes the initiative, said it's based on a fallacy.

He said backers haven't produced any studies that show illegals are using the services, and he said the director of the state's Medicaid program, probably the biggest service that would be affected, has publicly said they require recipients to be citizens.

"This is purely some type of theory they pulled out with no proof and no documentation," Mr. Gallardo said. "This is purely an anti-immigrant initiative. There are no other reasons for it."

He said even though backers were aiming at welfare benefits, the initiative is written so broadly that it would apply to everything from public swimming pools to library access.

The measure is somewhat similar to California's Proposition 187, which passed with nearly 60 percent support in 1994, and which denied most government services to illegal immigrants.

A federal judge struck down most of the provisions, arguing that they conflicted with federal law and that denying children public education violated the Constitution. After he was elected in 1998, Gov. Gray Davis, a Democrat, dropped the pending appeal before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

But Arizona state Rep. Randall Graf, a Republican leader in the Legislature who is supporting the initiative, said it only applies to services where federal law lets states determine eligibility.

He said opponents are overblowing things.

"That's the only way they can try to get any traction is to argue on emotional aspects of what the initiative tries to do," he said.

In June, the state Legislature passed a measure requiring stricter proof of identification for new voters to register, but Gov. Janet Napolitano, a Democrat, vetoed the measure.

Mr. Graf said that's why supporters had to turn to the initiative process.

He and other backers said it is indicative of a wide divide in attitudes between the general public, which wants a crackdown on illegal immigrants, and policy-makers, who seem indifferent.

"What disturbs me most of all about that is, I have a sinking feeling that the citizens of the United States have nobody on their side. It used to be we had the Republicans on our side, and I see that's slipped away," Mrs. Lynch said.

"The people are really disturbed about the citizens' lack of representation. The only alternative is the initiative route. [The governor] cannot veto that."

The League of United Latin American Citizens is opposing the initiative, as does Arizona's Republican delegation to Congress — both senators and six of the state's eight representatives.

The members of Congress said the burden for securing the border is a federal one. They also said because similar proposals in other states have been struck down.

[ahenry]

Longeyes,
No, actually I said "remove the carrot," did I not? I am for fining
employers who hire illegals and ending public benefits to illegals. Sorry, I must have misunderstood you.

Jimpeel,
Actually, it would be a good start. No, it wouldn’t even begin to accomplish anything. The role of the military is vastly different than the role of the BCBP/BICE/BP/etc. There are rumblings of giving local LEO’s limited authority to enforce INA violations, which would accomplish a whole lot because there would begin to be some immigration enforcement within the United States. Unless enforcement practices change to include a lot more interior work nothing much will change no matter how many people are put on the border. In addition, I will say what I have said time and time again; enforcement practices of any sort will never solve the situation.

[longeyes]

I think we are bound to be most effective by removing the
incentives for coming here, drying up the benefits and the jobs.

Is there a role for the military? I believe there is and will be, but
in my view it is not going to happen "at the border" but rather,
ultimately, INSIDE MEXICO. We are going to need to "come to an
understanding" with the Mexican government about a whole slew of
things, and these matters go beyond their deliberate attempt to
export their social unrest to us. The border is a long, open wound.

[wingman]

Tancredo calls illegal immigration threat to U.S.

By GARY HARMON, The Daily Sentinel

Illegal immigration into the United States threatens the future of the nation, a Colorado congressman told Mesa County Republicans on Friday.

U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Centennial, drew two standing ovations from about 100 Republicans, even though he acknowledged his stand on illegal immigration runs counter to that of the party's leader, President Bush.

Forcing a national debate over illegal immigration transcends party loyalty though, he said. At issue, he said, isn't so much whether the United States will have a Balkanized future, but whether it will have a future as a nation at all.

Illegal immigration combined with "the cult of multiculturalism" and the welfare state threaten to undermine and bankrupt American institutions, he said.

Tancredo joked that he actually was on his way to California to get in on the governor's race. In an exclusive interview with The Daily Sentinel, however, he said the stakes actually are a bit higher than a governor's race.

He has visited California on several occasions with the hope of forcing illegal immigration to a top-level issue in the 2004 presidential race.

One vehicle, he said, might be a referendum in the nation's most populous state that would limit access to any government services to citizens or legal residents only.

"Even if I'm 180 degrees wrong," he said, "the subject at least deserves a debate."

Tancredo said he advocates securing the nation's southern border using a 20,000-strong Border Patrol combined with high-tech equipment to prevent illegal border crossings.

A guest-worker program might be in order for industries that couldn't otherwise find employees, but no such program could work without a secure border, he said.

It's particularly important to secure the border, he said, because it isn't used only by Mexicans seeking employment.

"Huge numbers" of Middle-Easterners frequently cross the border, often helped by Mexican drug gangs who charge $30,000 for the use of their expertise, he said.

"I don't blame them," he said of illegal immigrants looking north for opportunity, but he noted the Mexican government relies heavily on money sent by illegal immigrants to their relatives to bolster the economy.

That amounts to about $10 billion a year, a third of the Mexican gross domestic product, he said.

Tancredo urged the Mesa County Republicans to insist that all candidates be held to account on illegal-immigration issues.

Even if offices such as city council or county commissioner seem to have little to do with illegal immigration, candidates still should be forced to take a position.

"Get them on record," he said.

[Waitone]

Good article. At least someone from the spinelessrepublican party is trying. Trouble is he is being undercut by the party's leaders.

Bush needs to be squeezed and squeezed hard on illegal immigration. He should be forced to get to the record and actually state his beliefs.

If democrats were smart and desperate enough they would haul out illegal immigration as a club and bust Bush with it. It would take a reversal of field by democrats and some clever lying to make it look like they were against it all along. No problem. . . they are up to it.

Revolutions start for less cause than what is happening now on the southern US border.