0
   

Stifle debate by bluring the line.

 
 
Baldimo
 
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 09:29 pm
NEW IPSWICH - Charging illegal immigrants with trespassing is unjust and unconstitutional, critics said yesterday, protesting in two towns where the police have employed the unusual tactic.
"This is an embarrassment to the state of New Hampshire," said AFL-CIO president Mark MacKenzie, one of at least 30 protesters who gathered in front of the New Ipswich police office. The group, carrying signs saying "You Can't Trespass on Public Property," and "No Human is Illegal," also went to Hudson's police station.
Theo Amani of Manchester, who heads a group called Africa Initiative, said illegal immigrants should feel safe when they need or meet a police officer. Lily Mesa of Manchester, a member of the task force, said illegal immigrants shouldn't be made to feel like terrorists.
New Ipswich Police Chief Garrett Chamberlain said he is doing his job in making sure the community is safe and secure.
"The reason why Sept. 11 happened is because of our lax immigration policy,"he said.
Following a traffic stop in April, Chamberlain cited Jorge Mora Ramirez with criminal trespassing, a violation comparable to a traffic ticket. Immigration officials had refused to take him into custody.
Sergio Ruiz-Robles and Margarito Jaramillo Escobar were cited in Hudson this month. Ramirez has pleaded not guilty and faces trial in July; Ruiz-Robles and Escobar are scheduled to be arraigned Thursday in Nashua District Court.
The statute says a person is guilty of criminal trespassing if, "knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he enters or remains in any place."
The protests were organized by the New Hampshire Immigrant Rights Task Force. A group statement expressed concern that the citations "will lead inevitably to the profiling of motorists and pedestrians based on perception of immigration status. Those who are most likely to come under police scrutiny under such policies would be people whose complexion is dark, who speak languages other than English, and who were born in other countries, regardless of their immigration status."
Chamberlain met with the group, saying that they misconstrued the situation.
"Please do not try to portray this as a race issue," he said. "It is not; it's legal versus illegal."
Chamberlain says the citation is his answer to the problem of perceived federal indifference to illegal immigrants. Last summer, the New Ipswich police detained nine illegal immigrants from Ecuador but let them go when immigration officials said they would not take them. In October, immigration officials did arrest a group of 11 illegal immigrants from Mexico.
Immigration officials say the criminal trespassing citation would not increase the chances that someone would be deported, especially if he had not committed a crime.
Police chiefs throughout New Hampshire, including Chief Richard Gendron in Hudson, had praised Chamberlain's use of the law. Chamberlain said yesterday he has received at least 700 positive e-mail messages from across the country and that police officers in other states have been researching criminal trespassing laws.
Groups also turned out in support of Chamberlain and Gendron. "I think he's doing a wonderful job," Bruce Miller of Franklin said of Chamberlain.

Source
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Someone tries to do the right thing and some group always tries to blur the line. To call him a racist is to close your eyes to the truth. Why do these groups always stifle debate by doing the calling thing? He busted a lawbreaker so he must be racist!
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 876 • Replies: 12
No top replies

 
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 09:38 pm
What "line" do you think is being blurred here? It seems to me the Police Chief of New Ipswich, NH, has stepped over the line in citing illegal immigrants on a tespassing charge (a local or state ordinance). He is outside of his juridiction in that the true offense is illegal entry into the United States, which is a Federal charge, and within the jursidiction of the INS and other Federal agencies. Were I a lawyer, I'd be offering my services to those detained in case they wish to file false arrest charges against this country bumpkin. They were not "trespassing" in the commonly accepted legal understanding of that word.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 10:43 pm
The people who were protesting were trying to make it look like a racial issue when it wasn't. It was an illegal issue. He states that.

The person who was cited was indeed trespassing. I think the officer was correct in the ticket and the same action should be taken by all of law enforcement. It's about time something was done.
0 Replies
 
yitwail
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 11:16 pm
Re: Stifle debate by bluring the line.
Baldimo wrote:
Someone tries to do the right thing and some group always tries to blur the line. To call him a racist is to close your eyes to the truth. Why do these groups always stifle debate by doing the calling thing? He busted a lawbreaker so he must be racist!


you're putting words into the protesters' mouths. the only mention of "race" in the article was by the police chief in reaction to a statement of concern over profiling based on complexion and language. how does that translate into calling him racist? in their position, i'd be legitimately concerned about a police chief comparing them to 9/11 terrorists.
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 May, 2005 02:52 am
I'd think that it will be "not guilty" all round.

Then I would suggest that there would be some negotiation with the city about how much the city is going to pay in compensation, that's assuming of course that the city doesn't want to fight a civil action. I wonder how much support for the Chief there will be after that.

I also suggest that the Chief knows that the charges are vexatious and outside of the purpose of the legislation. Were there another administration in Washington the FBI might be looking to prosecute for civil rights violations by the New Ipswich police.

Clever work Chief, clever but very, very silly.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 May, 2005 02:13 pm
You guys just don't get it.

There simply isn't the political will in this country for the kind of ultra-legalistic harsh treatment of those you refer to as "illegal" want. If there were, this idiotic police chief would be held up as a hero to all.

This "legal" vs. "illegal" thing is stupid. Americans always have broken silly laws, from the Boston tea-party, to speeding, to helping runaway slaves, to gin running, to having interracial relationships, to Rosa Parks etc. etc. etc. There are a set of laws you are willing to bend, as well as the set I am willing to bend.

The immigration laws are broken... they are unenforceable, they are unfair to American citizens and inhuman to immigrants... and they are being kept broken by right wing nutcases who refuse to accept the immigrants are people.

The real question is what kind of country do you want to live in?

Do you want to treat people with compassion, or do you want harsh treatment leading to forced deportations and broken families and people trapped in poverty?

The very people who keep screaming "ILLEGAL" are the very people who block any sensible change to the law that would make it both fair and humane.
0 Replies
 
JustanObserver
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 May, 2005 02:25 pm
ebrown_p, you said just what I was planning to say, only better. Well done.

http://img272.echo.cx/img272/2567/applause1002rk.gif
0 Replies
 
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 May, 2005 04:14 pm
Thanks for posting that, Justan. I'm back there in the tenth row, clapping like crazy and wondering what ebrown will now do for an encore.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 May, 2005 05:23 pm
Quote:
There simply isn't the political will in this country for the kind of ultra-legalistic harsh treatment of those you refer to as "illegal" want. If there were, this idiotic police chief would be held up as a hero to all.


Those seeking votes and those under the control of the minority pressure groups will not take any action against illegal aliens. People like the Minutemen Project are about the only ones who are willing to take a stand against these illegal people. Congressman Tom Tancredo is about the only politican who is also willing to take a stand and isn't willing to back down to the illegal support/pressure groups.

Quote:
This "legal" vs. "illegal" thing is stupid. Americans always have broken silly laws, from the Boston tea-party, to speeding, to helping runaway slaves, to gin running, to having interracial relationships, to Rosa Parks etc. etc. etc. There are a set of laws you are willing to bend, as well as the set I am willing to bend.


Here's the difference in your statement. These illegal aliens are not Americans. They are everything else but Americans. If they want to become Americans then they will take the proper steps and become legal citizens instead of lawbreakers. You try and equate speeding to being illegal, but there is a big difference and that is being a citizen and not being a citizen.

Quote:
The immigration laws are broken... they are unenforceable, they are unfair to American citizens and inhuman to immigrants... and they are being kept broken by right wing nutcases who refuse to accept the immigrants are people.


The laws aren't broken; they just aren't being enforced, as they should be. People like this police chief want to help enforce the immigration laws but some people don't want to. We have cities in this country that are called sanctuary cities. The police are forbid from reporting or even holding illegal aliens for INS because of Executive orders placed by mayors against such actions. Illegals know this and have started to flock to these cities because they know they are safe. Denver where I live is one of those cities.

Quote:
The real question is what kind of country do you want to live in?


I want to live in a country where everyone is legal and accepted. They will be able to function without fear of being sent home. They will also have the same opportunities that everyone else has including being able to vote.

Quote:
Do you want to treat people with compassion, or do you want harsh treatment leading to forced deportations and broken families and people trapped in poverty?


I would like to treat people with compassion but they have brought it upon themselves but not following the laws. Why should we change our ways so that they can be more comfortable? If they get broken up families then they are the ones to blame, not the law.

Quote:
The very people who keep screaming "ILLEGAL" are the very people who block any sensible change to the law that would make it both fair and humane.


How is changing the laws being sensible? They are the ones breaking the laws, not the citizens. Should be change the speeding laws because most people speed? No they are enforced and if not followed then they should be made harsher so that people are forced to follow the laws. I got popped in the fall for speeding and I learned a $250 lesson. I have slowed down now.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2005 10:02 am
I disagree with you in thre areas.

1. People are more important than laws. This is part of my Christian heritage (as a major theme in the ministry of Christ), I also like to believe that it is part of our national culture.

You are willing to break famililes and your response is "If they get broken up families then they are the ones to blame, not the law. "

I am not willing to see people suffer such harsh penalties for crossing a border. I believe that most Americans aren't either.

2. You shouldn't treat people badly because they aren't American. We promote the ideals I value about the US as universal. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed with certain unalienable rights...".

Being willing to treat an immigrant with harsh legalism-- including uprooting and breaking families because they cross a border, while Americans not only willing to bend laws, but righfully expect to be treated with dignity when they do... seems the very definition of hypocrisy.

This is where the charges of racism stem from... maybe race is not the real issue, but the willingness to treat "others" with less dignity and respect based on where they are from is certainly related to racism.

3. The Minutemen and Tancredo represent an extreme minority Now I will grant, my opinion is probably further to the other side than shared by most Americans either.

But, the fact is the laws are harsh enough that most moderate Americans will not accept their enforcement. It is clear to me that there are more than "minority pressure" groups who want to treat immgrants with respect.

This is a controverial issue, and I do accept the need of the government to have a sound immigration policy. However, the policy we have now is harsh and unproductive. It is not accepted by business or by many American communities.

If you come up with a law that is accepted by all American communities, you desire that it be strictly enforced may be possible. Right now they are not being enforce (as you complain) because many Americans simply don't want them enforced.

Finally there is one thing you say with which I agree with wholeheartedly.

Quote:

I want to live in a country where everyone is legal and accepted. They will be able to function without fear of being sent home. They will also have the same opportunities that everyone else has including being able to vote.


Amen! If you can express this so beautifully, maybe there is a chance for our country to be unified after all.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2005 10:32 am
Ebrown

"You shouldn't treat people badly because they aren't American."

You would think that this idea would be more universally understood by Americans, but it doesn't seem to be anymore. Nationalism?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2005 11:21 am
I've noticed over time that Baldimo seems to divide people into two categories -- Americans and that other bunch we don't give a rat's a** about. At times, in fact, he seems to consider "that other bunch" barely human. I remember one classic post wherein he said (quoting from memory): "I am, first, an American." That makes you "a human being" second, huh, Baldy? I, on the other hand, am, first of all, a human. That I also happen to be an American citizen is an accident of both history and geography and has no other particular significance except that I, obviously, owe allegiance to a particular piece of turf which it has been my privilege to protect -- at least symbolically -- by wearing the uniform of the US Army. Whatever other obligations that citizenship might entail are secondary to my responsibility to the species homo sapiens. The exprssion "My country -- right or wrong" is one of the most loathsome slogans I have ever encountered. Nobody should be expected to back one's country when it is wrong. When it is wrong, it is a citizen's duty to set it right, not to blindly obey orders from a government which is less than responsive to the needs of all people. Stress that "all."
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2005 12:24 pm
Very well said, Merry Andrew. I have also noticed that those who post a solid answer do not get a legitimate response from our friend.

I applaud your honesty and the integrity which comes through in your post.

Being a Canadian, I suppose, puts me in the category of "that other bunch". I too am a human first, a citizen of the world second, a Canadian citizen third. I support and backup my country, but I will speak out and not tolerate wrongs done by my country. I will also support and backup the United States (or any other country in the world) but I will also speak up and not tolerate wrongs done by them.

I AM CANADIAN
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Stifle debate by bluring the line.
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/17/2021 at 02:23:46