Guest Voz: A Priest’s Appeal to the Federal Government to Stop Offending God with a Border Fence

LatinaLista — Over the last several months, Latina Lista has posted numerous posts about the strong efforts of some Texas border residents who are fighting back against the federal government’s insistence that the country will be safer with a physical barrier dividing Mexico and the United States.
Because of these residents pushing back against the government’s strong-arm tactics to build a fence and the fact it’s an election season, progress has been made in just a few short months.

Rio Grande, border between Texas and Nuevo Laredo, Mexico.
(Source: Bryan Woldridge)

Suddenly, politicians are seeing the “luz” (light), not to mention the potential votes, and voicing their beliefs that maybe a wall/fence is not the solution some in Congress believe it is.
To say that the fight against Big Government is taking a toll on Washington is an understatement but the fight is forcing people from every walk of life to look at the region in a whole new light.
One of those people is Nat Stone and for him pictures speak more than just a thousand words.


Ever since learning about what the government had planned for the Texas-Mexico border, Nat, a New England native, has paddled up and down the Rio Grande chronicling its present existence.
In the process, Nat tells Latina Lista that the idea of a fence in the region became more repulsive the more he got to know the area.
So, Nat decided to do something — film along the river, talk to the people who know firsthand what life is like there and not stop filming until he’s gathered enough material to show other people who live far from the border how special the Rio Grand Valley region really is.
As part of this monumental task, Nat is getting border residents’ thoughts on tape. One of those residents is Father Amador Garza, pastor of Immaculate Conception Church in Rio Grande City, Texas.
Nat and Father Amador went down to the banks of the Rio Grande. It was Nat’s intention to film Father Amador sharing his perspective on the fence. What resulted was a totally unscripted, eloquent explanation, as seen through a priest’s eyes, as to why the fence is not just an offense to man but God.

If you enjoyed this post, please consider leaving a comment or subscribing to the RSS feed to stay informed and up to date with articles delivered to your feed reader. Invite a friend to read news on LatinaLista.

Related posts

25 Comments

  1. Jax said:

    Well now, a priest of apparent hispanic heritage (I assume this from his name)speaks against a border fence. I’m shocked -shocked, I tell you. Who could have expected it?
    Let me say this: I’ve been a Catholic longer than this man and I probably know as much, if not more, about the teachings of the Catholic Church than he. and I disagree completely with his comments. There is nothing in the scriptures that says this country can not have legaly defined borders nor the right to protect its citizens from unwelcome people from foreign countries. I can only assume that he believes there should be a worldwide “open house.” Good luck with that! Welcome to anarchy!!
    This man is not in touch with reality. Again, I can’t help but take note of his hispanic name and I feel justified in suspecting a political viewpoint cloaked in a phony religious view.
    I’m a firm believer in the separation of church and state and as such wish this man would stay out of what is properly the right of the state.
    I’ll try to locate him by “googling” his name and church in Rio Grande this weekend. I would love a conversation with him about the aforementioned.

  2. Horace said:

    My neighborhood is full of homes with fences. I must be surrounded by Godless heathens!! How many Catholic churches lock their doors in the barrio? Most, I suspect. And what’s their motivation? Must be devil making them do it, or is it just because they know someone would steal everything including the pews when no one is looking. Lock God’s house, how evil can one get? Get real! Only selfish ethnocentric Hispanics dismiss our nation’s right defend our borders.
    Think that this fence is inconvenient now? Consider how the hammer would come down if terrorists committed mass murder again and entered the country by way of Mexico? Congress would authorize a set of fences three deep and authorize the permanent presence of an army of 10,000 on our border. On the other hand, a good fence and an adequate Border Patrol might do the same thing. All you anti-fence people better be careful what you wish for, because you just may get it.

  3. Frank said:

    Strong arm tactics? Uh, the fence was approved by congress last year. Why is it ok for our politicians to pander to the pro-amnesty crowd by promising legalization of illegal aliens but Hispanics get their panties in a twist when they pander to the majority of Americans who want a secure border?
    Is it also against God’s wishes for us to have a fence around our own yards? Why aren’t those who are so opposed to the fence looking at the good of the entire nation rather than their own selfish interests? I think it has little to do with the look of the fence and more to do with their wanting as many Mexicans and other Latin Americans to come to our country and live as possible. Those that claim that law abiding Americans have a racist agenda don’t want to admit to their own ethnocentric agenda.

  4. Evelyn said:

    Didn’t one of the bigots on this forum say all the states were going to pass racist laws until ALL the immigrants were starved out of the U.S.? Well READ THIS!
    Costs may hamper states’ work to prevent illegal immigration
    BY LAURA WIDES-MUNOZ
    Associated Press
    State lawmakers around the country are proposing hundreds of bills this year aimed at curbing illegal immigration, but experts say the cost and public opposition will keep many from becoming law.
    Lawmakers in at least eight states are now sponsoring legislation similar to Oklahoma, which last May passed the nation’s most comprehensive anti-immigration law.
    It restricts illegal immigrants’ access to driver’s licenses and other IDs, limits public benefits, penalizes employers who hire them and boosts ties between local police and federal immigration authorities.
    The bills are among more than 350 immigration-related proposals unveiled in state legislatures this year.
    Sharma Hammond, staff attorney for the legal arm of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, believes states have been galvanized by the collapse of a congressional solution two years running.
    “They feel like they have to take it into their own hands because the federal government is doing nothing,” said Hammond, whose group helps states write the comprehensive bills and favors a freeze on nearly all immigration.
    But it’s questionable how many of the bills will become law. Many quickly lose momentum after they’re introduced.
    Drawing attention
    Out of more than 100 bills dealing with illegal immigration in the Virginia statehouse, only a few minor ones were likely to pass as the session was scheduled to end Saturday.
    In Florida, lawmakers have proposed nearly a dozen bills targeting illegal immigration since January. But at a recent press conference at the state capitol, only two of the bills’ backers showed. None of the state House leadership has offered support.
    “People are still trying to keep this alive and get the federal government to pass something,” said Ann Morse of the National Conference of State Legislatures, which tracks the bills. “But now that the legislation is introduced, states are wondering is this something we need to do right now, or do we need to study it more.”
    Morse thinks the new comprehensive bills are partly a tool to draw public attention to the issue, especially in an election year. She noted they tend to come with official titles such as “Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act.”
    Last year, more than 1,500 anti-illegal-immigrant laws were proposed nationwide, with nearly 250 passing, according to a count by the National Conference of State Legislatures. And some of that legislation is now creating legal and financial trouble for state governments.
    High cost of laws
    The Oklahoma law still faces a legal challenge by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. In Colorado, a proposal to boost the state’s immigration enforcement unit may be doomed by its $3.9 million price tag.
    Although the University of Arizona saved roughly $70,000 last year by identifying illegal immigrants who are ineligible for in-state tuition under a new law, the startup cost of the program was more than double that. The school estimates the annual cost of identifying such students will be equal if not greater than the savings.
    John Trasvina, president and general counsel of the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund, said despite the flurry of new bills, he believes anti-immigrant sentiment is starting to cool somewhat.
    In part, states may be responding to a national shift, with immigration taking a back seat to the economy and the war in Iraq. All three of the major presidential candidates support a comprehensive immigration law that would eventually legalize many of the country’s 12 million illegal immigrants.
    Costs may hamper states’ work to prevent illegal immigration
    BY LAURA WIDES-MUNOZ
    Associated Press
    State lawmakers around the country are proposing hundreds of bills this year aimed at curbing illegal immigration, but experts say the cost and public opposition will keep many from becoming law.
    Lawmakers in at least eight states are now sponsoring legislation similar to Oklahoma, which last May passed the nation’s most comprehensive anti-immigration law.
    It restricts illegal immigrants’ access to driver’s licenses and other IDs, limits public benefits, penalizes employers who hire them and boosts ties between local police and federal immigration authorities.
    The bills are among more than 350 immigration-related proposals unveiled in state legislatures this year.
    Sharma Hammond, staff attorney for the legal arm of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, believes states have been galvanized by the collapse of a congressional solution two years running.
    “They feel like they have to take it into their own hands because the federal government is doing nothing,” said Hammond, whose group helps states write the comprehensive bills and favors a freeze on nearly all immigration.
    But it’s questionable how many of the bills will become law. Many quickly lose momentum after they’re introduced.
    Drawing attention
    Out of more than 100 bills dealing with illegal immigration in the Virginia statehouse, only a few minor ones were likely to pass as the session was scheduled to end Saturday.
    In Florida, lawmakers have proposed nearly a dozen bills targeting illegal immigration since January. But at a recent press conference at the state capitol, only two of the bills’ backers showed. None of the state House leadership has offered support.
    “People are still trying to keep this alive and get the federal government to pass something,” said Ann Morse of the National Conference of State Legislatures, which tracks the bills. “But now that the legislation is introduced, states are wondering is this something we need to do right now, or do we need to study it more.”
    Morse thinks the new comprehensive bills are partly a tool to draw public attention to the issue, especially in an election year. She noted they tend to come with official titles such as “Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act.”
    Last year, more than 1,500 anti-illegal-immigrant laws were proposed nationwide, with nearly 250 passing, according to a count by the National Conference of State Legislatures. And some of that legislation is now creating legal and financial trouble for state governments.
    High cost of laws
    The Oklahoma law still faces a legal challenge by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. In Colorado, a proposal to boost the state’s immigration enforcement unit may be doomed by its $3.9 million price tag.
    Although the University of Arizona saved roughly $70,000 last year by identifying illegal immigrants who are ineligible for in-state tuition under a new law, the startup cost of the program was more than double that. The school estimates the annual cost of identifying such students will be equal if not greater than the savings.
    John Trasvina, president and general counsel of the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund, said despite the flurry of new bills, he believes anti-immigrant sentiment is starting to cool somewhat.
    In part, states may be responding to a national shift, with immigration taking a back seat to the economy and the war in Iraq. All three of the major presidential candidates support a comprehensive immigration law that would eventually legalize many of the country’s 12 million illegal immigrants.
    It seems ALL the bigots are the ones that will have to go back into the closet. ROTFLMAO

  5. laura said:

    Dear Marisa,
    While I agree that the fence throws a gloomy light on the state of our union, please forgive me for returning to previous subjects of discussion: the campaign to stop the hate.
    I read that the mayor of Santa Cruz, California, called on city residents to turn off Lou Dobbs for the month of March. March as Lou-Dobbs-free month ? Maybe we should make it a nationwide movement.
    The mayor’s proclamation was a response to Lou Dobbs’ attacks on the US Congressman for Santa Cruz, Sam Farr, who had stated that his constituents view the immigration police ICE as an agency similar to the Gestapo.
    My personal belief is: armed police, who come without warrants at night, and beat down doors of family homes to arrest people not accused of a crime, remind any student of history of Nazi practices. Their behavior has no place in a democracy. Congressman Farr is correct. And Lou Dobbs attacked him because he is correct.
    Should we lend Lou Dobbs our support by watching ? Moreover, should we buy the products of advertisers on his show ?

  6. Marisa Treviño said:

    Laura, I think you’re right. But I can’t help but think why stop with the show’s advertisers. It’s the fault of CNN for giving him the influence he has by allowing him to stay on the air without any sanctions for what he says.

  7. Jax said:

    So now some of you folks would like to censor the free speech that you dislike. That’s not what this country stands for.
    I always believed that free speech is a wonderful thing because if a person is wrong he will prove it himself.
    I do believe that illegals should be sent home simply because they are illegals. They have no right to be here.

  8. Frank said:

    The only bigots and racists I know of in here are those who don’t support our immigration laws. Again, this isn’t about “immigrants” it is about illegal aliens. Why the spin? We all know there is a difference between immigrants and illegal aliens. And we get called liars? Pot, kettle, black.

  9. Horace said:

    Evelyn, what would we expect from someone with an Hispanic sir name. The advocates and their mouthpieces are famous for their irrational exuberance. Look at the outcome of the marches, nada. Look at what their protestations did in Oklahoma and Arizon, nada. Your writer ignores the recent defeats in the courts, defeats that enbolden communities all over the country to establish their own anti-illegal alien ordinances. As to the reluctance of some legislatures to act, I predict that illegal immigration will be a major bone of contention between contestants. It can’t help but be a tempting issue for Republicans to use against their Democratic opponents. I predict that immigration will continue to be the third rail of politics. Look at congress today. There are Democrats among those sponsors of newly proposed legislation. Even Hispanics have a difficult time in arguing that their not asking for special treatment under our immigration laws. Their only argument, and a specious one at that, is the the laws are unfair, but they can’t give a rational reason why, or at least one that Americans agree with. The ranks of your writers are full of dillusions of hope that will never come to fruition. Other than Hispanics and a few misguided others, most citizens recognize the illegal alien cause for what it is, an attempt at destroying the fairness of our immigration system for the selfish goals of one ethnic group. Sorry, Evelyn, but you will lose in the end.

  10. laura said:

    I agree, Marisa, that it is CNN who are responsible for the hate broadcast from Lou Dobbs’ show throughout the country. I think they are doing it because they want Americans to blame our problems on immigrants, not on the corporations (and their bought politicians) who are actually causing those problems.
    Can we simply suggest no one watch CNN until they take Lou Dobbs off ?
    Regarding ICE: clearly white supremacists recognize ICE as kindred spirits, as shown by ads for T shirts with the following emblems:”Turn illegals into ICE” “La Couca Gotcha – Report illegal aliens – 1-866-DHS-2-ICE.” These are on a website that was advertising on google. The link between civilian racist agitators and racist state agencies, again, is quite reminiscent of the Nazis.
    Again, I hope the critical difference between then and now, is that the majority of Americans today do not share that racism, and that many individuals are willing to take a stand against it.

  11. Evelyn said:

    http://www.boycottdobbs.us/
    This website has been developed for a singular purpose: to end the incessant immigrant-bashing heard nightly on the Lou Dobbs Tonight program.
    While we firmly embrace the First Amendment of the US Constitution, we also know some speech can be harmful, such as yelling “FIRE!” in a crowded area.
    Dobbs has, through the use of questionable experts, half-truths, and damning innuendo, helped to bring the issue of Undocumented Immigration to a near flashpoint. While we do not attribute this circumstance solely to Dobbs or to his program, we do acknowledge his participation in this hatefest and are determined to stop it.
    The best way to attack any media problem is from its underbelly, and in the case of electronic media, that underbelly is the advertisers, the ones actually paying for the program to be on the air, and the ones who will bring pressure on the media outlet.
    Your help is needed.
    First, make sure you sign our Petition , as well as any petitions we bring against Dobbs’ advertisers.
    Next, Use our “Invite a Friend ” form to notify your friends, co-workers, and neighbors. Make sure they come in and sign the Petition, and also pass along the word.
    Our strength is in our numbers.
    Finally, if you know of a local or nationwide sponsor you would like to add to our boycott, please submit as much information as you can into our Submit a Sponsor form. We’ll check it out, get any additional information necessary, and add them to our list.
    Help us stop the Immigrant Bashing.
    Enough is Enough.
    Boycott Lou Dobbs
    http://www.boycottdobbs.us/
    STOP THE HATE
    http://www.boycottdobbs.us/
    STOP DOBBS FROM INCITING VIOLANCE
    http://www.boycottdobbs.us/
    SIGN THE PETITION
    http://www.boycottdobbs.us/

  12. Evelyn said:

    Horace, you are well within your right to DREAM. I truly believe you and the Congressmen you speak of, are wrong.
    The same manipulated words you and the other misguided souls on this forum use to further an agenda of hate were used against another man and the people he defended.
    Millions of letters were received by him with the same words of intimidation and lies you and the others post here.
    Like you, this man also had a dream. His dream was full of acceptance, love, guidance, goodness and courage.
    Your dream is one of hate, divisiveness, wrong and misguidance that shows a coward, full of fear, unwilling to step up to the plate, and follow what is morally right instead of cowering behind hate-filled unjust law.
    His name was Dr. Martin Luther King
    He understood the power of words to transform. “I have a dream,” he said, “that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.’”
    With this speech, Dr. King penned one of the most eloquent defenses of the moral law: the law that formed the basis for his speech, for the civil rights movement itself, and for all laws for that matter.
    For Dr. King understood the transformational power of ideas.
    The spring of 1963, Dr. King was arrested for leading a series of massive, non-violent protests against the segregated lunch counters and discriminatory hiring practices in Birmingham, Alabama. While in jail, Dr. King received a letter from eight Alabama ministers. They agreed with his goals, but thought he should call off the demonstrations and obey the law.
    Dr. King explained why he disagreed in his famous “Letter From a Birmingham Jail.” “One may well ask, how can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?” The answer “. . . is found in the fact that there are two kinds of laws: just laws, and unjust laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws,” Dr. King said. “But conversely,” he said, “one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.”
    How does one determine whether the law is just or unjust? A just law, Dr. King wrote, “squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law . . . is out of harmony with the moral law.” Then Dr. King quotes Saint Augustine: “An unjust law is no law at all.” He also quoted Saint Thomas Aquinas: “An unjust law is a human law not rooted in eternal or natural law.”
    This remains a great issue in today’s public square. Is the law rooted in truth? Is it transcendent, immutable, and morally binding? Or is it merely what each succeeding generation of culture says it is?
    Dr. King was a transformational figure in American history, not a transitory political personality. He was able to rise above the generally accepted cultural and political wisdom of the day, and dream of an America that lived in harmony with transcendent moral law.
    Our nation is stronger today because Dr. King chose to address the scourge of racial injustice. And he did so from a strong moral, theological and philosophical foundation.
    As Dr. King said in that same letter from Birmingham: “We will reach the goal of freedom in Birmingham and all over the nation, because the goal of America is freedom.”
    We have not yet reached that goal fully. But Dr. King ultimately knew the power of faith. And by his example, we are inspired to continue moving forward to make his dream, and that of our forebears, a reality in our generation, and for posterity.
    Every new wave of immigrants that has come to the U.S. has been demonized by a group of Know Knothings, who in the end, have always lost!

  13. Evelyn said:

    Holes in the Wall: Homeland Security Won’t Explain Why
    the Mexican Border Wall Bypasses the Rich and Connected
    By Melissa del Bosque
    The Texas Observer
    Monday 18 February 2008
    Texas resident Eloisa Tamez wants to know why her land is getting a border wall, while a nearby golf course and resort remain untouched.
    As the U.S. Department of Homeland Security marches down the Texas border serving condemnation lawsuits to frightened landowners, Brownsville resident Eloisa Tamez, 72, has one simple question. She would like to know why her land is being targeted for destruction by a border wall, while a nearby golf course and resort remain untouched.
    Tamez, a nursing director at the University of Texas at Brownsville, is one of the last of the Spanish land grant heirs in Cameron County. Her ancestors once owned 12,000 acres. In the 1930s, the federal government took more than half of her inherited land, without paying a cent, to build flood levees.
    Now Homeland Security wants to put an 18-foot steel and concrete wall through what remains.
    While the border wall will go through her backyard and effectively destroy her home, it will stop at the edge of the River Bend Resort and golf course, a popular Winter Texan retreat two miles down the road. The wall starts up again on the other side of the resort.
    “It has a golf course and all of the amenities,” Tamez says. “There are no plans to build a wall there. If the wall is so important for security, then why are we skipping parts?”
    Along the border, preliminary plans for fencing seem to target landowners of modest means and cities and public institutions such as the University of Texas at Brownsville, which rely on the federal government to pay their bills.
    A visit to the River Bend Resort in late January reveals row after row of RVs and trailers with license plates from chilly northern U.S. states and Canadian provinces. At the edge of a lush, green golf course, a Winter Texan from Canada enjoys the mild, South Texas winter and the landscaped ponds, where white egrets pause to contemplate golf carts whizzing past. The woman, who declines to give her name, recounts that illegal immigrants had crossed the golf course once while she was teeing off. They were promptly detained by Border Patrol agents, she says, adding that agents often park their SUVs at the edge of the golf course.
    River Bend Resort is owned by John Allburg, who incorporated the business in 1983 as River Bend Resort, Inc. Allburg refused to comment for this article. A scan of the Federal Election Commission and Texas Ethics Commission databases did not find any political contributions linked to Allburg.
    Just 69 miles north, Daniel Garza, 76, faces a similar situation with a neighbor who has political connections that reach the White House. In the small town of Granjeno, population 313, Garza points to a field across the street where a segment of the proposed 18-foot high border wall would abruptly end after passing through his brick home and a small, yellow house he gave his son. “All that land over there is owned by the Hunts,” he says, waving a hand toward the horizon. “The wall doesn’t go there.”
    In this area everyone knows the Hunts. Dallas billionaire Ray L. Hunt and his relatives are one of the wealthiest oil and gas dynasties in the world. Hunt, a close friend of President George W. Bush, recently donated $35 million to Southern Methodist University to help build Bush’s presidential library. In 2001, Bush made him a member of the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, where Hunt received a security clearance and access to classified intelligence.
    Over the years, Hunt has transformed his 6,000-acre property, called the Sharyland Plantation, from acres of onions and vegetables into swathes of exclusive, gated communities where houses sell from $650,000 to $1 million and residents enjoy golf courses, elementary schools, and a sports park. The plantation contains an 1,800-acre business park and Sharyland Utilities, run by Hunt’s son Hunter, which delivers electricity to plantation residents and Mexican factories.
    The development’s Web site touts its proximity to the international border and the new Anzalduas International Bridge now under construction, built on land Hunt donated. Hunt has also formed Hunt Mexico with a wealthy Mexican business partner to develop both sides of the border into a lucrative trade corridor the size of Manhattan.
    Jeanne Phillips, a spokesperson for Hunt Consolidated Inc., says that since the company is private, it doesn’t have to identify the Mexican partner. Phillips says, however, that no one from the company has been directly involved in siting the fence. “We, like other citizens in the Valley, have waited for the federal government to designate the location of the wall,” she says.
    Garza stands in front of his modest brick home, which he built for his retirement after 50 years as a migrant farmworker. For the past five months, he has stayed awake nights trying to find a way to stop the gears of bureaucracy from grinding over his home.
    A February 8 announcement by Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said the agency would settle for building the fence atop the levee behind Garza’s house instead of through it, which has given Garza some hope. Like Tamez, he wonders why his home and small town were targeted by Homeland Security in the first place.
    “I don’t see why they have to destroy my home, my land, and let the wall end there.” He points across the street to Hunt’s land. “How will that stop illegal immigration?”
    Most border residents couldn’t believe the fence would ever be built through their homes and communities. They expected it to run along the banks of the Rio Grande, not north of the flood levees – in some cases like Tamez’s, as far as a mile north of the river. So it came as a shock last summer when residents were approached by uniformed Border Patrol agents. They asked people to sign waivers allowing Homeland Security to survey their properties for construction of the wall. When they declined, Homeland Security filed condemnation suits.
    In time, local landowners realized that the fence’s location had everything to do with politics and private profit, and nothing to do with stopping illegal immigration.
    In 2006, Congress passed the Secure Fence Act, authored by Republican Congressman Peter King from New York. The legislation mandated that 700 miles of double-fencing be built along the southern border from California to Texas. The bill detailed where the fencing, or, as many people along the border call it, “the wall,” would be built. After a year of inflamed rhetoric about the plague of illegal immigration and Congress’s failure to pass comprehensive immigration reform, the bill passed with overwhelming support from Republicans and a few Democrats. All the Texas border members of the U.S. House of Representatives, except San Antonio Republican Henry Bonilla, voted against it. Texas Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn voted for the bill.
    On August 10, 2007, Chertoff announced his agency would scale back the initial 700 miles of fencing to 370 miles, to be built in segments across the southern border. Chertoff cited budget shortages and technological difficulties as justifications for not complying with the bill.
    How did his agency decide where to build the segments? Chad Foster, the mayor of Eagle Pass, says he thought it was a simple enough question and that the answer would be based on data and facts. Foster chairs the Texas Border Coalition. TBC, as Foster calls it, is a group of border mayors and business leaders who have repeatedly traveled to Washington for the past 18 months to try to get federal officials to listen to them.
    Foster says he has never received any logical answers from Homeland Security as to why certain areas in his city had been targeted for fencing over other areas. “I puzzled a while over why the fence would bypass the industrial park and go through the city park,” he says.
    Despite terse meetings with Chertoff, Foster and other coalition members say the conversation has been one-sided.
    “I think we have a government within a government,” Foster says. “[This is] a tremendous bureaucracy – DHS is just a monster.”
    The Observer called Homeland Security in Washington to find out how it had decided where to build the fence. The voice mail system sputtered through a dizzying array of acronyms: DOJ, USACE, CBP, and USCIS. On the second call a media spokesperson with a weary voice directed queries to Michael Friel, the fence spokesman for Customs and Border Protection. Six calls and two e-mails later, Friel responded with a curt e-mail: “Got your message. Working on answers…” it said. Days passed, and Friel’s answers never came.
    Since Homeland Security wasn’t providing answers, perhaps Congress would. Phone conversations with congressional offices ranged from “but they aren’t even building a wall” to “I don’t know. That’s a good question.” At the sixth congressional office contacted, a GOP staffer who asked not to be identified, but who is familiar with the fence, says the fencing locations stemmed from statistics showing high apprehension and narcotic seizure rates. This seems questionable, since maps released by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers showed the wall going through such properties as the University of Texas at Brownsville – hardly a hotbed for drug smugglers and immigrant trafficking.
    Questioned more about where the data came from, the staffer said she would enquire further. The next day she called back. “The border fence is being handled by Greg Giddens at the Secure Border Initiative Office within the U.S. Customs and Border Protection office,” she said.
    Giddens is executive director of the SBI, as it is called, which is in charge of SBInet, a consortium of private contractors led by Boeing Co. The group received a multibillion dollar contract in 2006 to secure the northern and southern borders with a network of vehicle barriers, fencing, and surveillance systems. Companies Boeing chose to secure the southern border from terrorists include DRS Technologies Inc., Kollsman Inc., L-3 Communications Inc., Perot Systems Corp., and a unit of Unisys Corp.
    A February 2007 audit by the U.S. Government Accountability Office cited Homeland Security and the SBInet project for poor fiscal oversight and a lack of demonstrable objectives. The GAO audit team recommended that Homeland Security place a spending limit on the Boeing contract for SBInet since the company had been awarded an “indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contract for 3 years with three 1-year options.”
    The agency rejected the auditors’ recommendation, saying 6,000 miles of border is limitation enough.
    In a February 2007 hearing, Congressman Henry Waxman, a California Democrat and the chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, had more scathing remarks for Giddens and the SBInet project. “As of December, the Department of Homeland Security had hired a staff of 98 to oversee the new SBInet contract. This may seem like progress until you ask who these overseers are. More than half are private contractors. Some of these private contractors even work for companies that are business partners of Boeing, the company they are supposed to be overseeing. And from what we are now learning from the department, this may be just the tip of the iceberg.”
    Waxman said of SBInet that “virtually every detail is being outsourced from the government to private contractors. The government is relying on private contractors to design the programs, build them, and even conduct oversight over them.”
    A phone call to Giddens at SBI is referred to Loren Flossman, who’s in charge of tactical infrastructure for the office. Flossman says all data regarding the placement of the fence is classified because “you don’t want to tell the very people you’re trying to keep from coming across the methodology used to deter them.”
    Flossman also calls the University of Texas at Brownsville campus a problem area for illegal immigration. “I wouldn’t assume that these are folks that aren’t intelligent enough that if they dress a certain way, they’re gonna fit in,” he says.
    Chief John Cardoza, head of the UT-Brownsville police, says the Border Patrol would have to advise his police force of any immigrant smuggling or narcotic seizures that happen on campus. “If it’s happening on my campus, I’m not being told about it,” he says. Cardoza says he has never come across illegal immigrants dressed as students.
    Flossman goes on to say that Boeing isn’t building the fence, but is providing steel for it. Eric Mazzacone, a spokesman for Boeing, refers the Observer to Michael Friel at Customs and Border Protection, and intercedes to get him on the phone. Friel confirms that Boeing has just finished building a 30-mile stretch of fence in Arizona, but insists other questions be submitted in writing.
    Boeing, a multibillion dollar aero-defense company, is the second-largest defense contractor in the nation. The company has powerful board members, such as William M. Daley, former U.S. secretary of commerce; retired Gen. James L. Jones, former supreme allied commander in Europe; and Kenneth M. Duberstein, a former White House chief of staff. The corporation is also one of the biggest political contributors in Washington, giving more than $9 million to Democratic and Republican members of Congress in the last decade. In 2006, the year the Secure Fence Act was passed, Boeing gave more than $1.4 million to Democrats and Republicans, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
    A majority of this money has gone to legislators such as Congressman Duncan Hunter, the California Republican who championed the Secure Fence Act. In 2006, Hunter received at least $10,000 from Boeing and more than $93,000 from defense companies bidding for the SBInet contract, according to the center. During his failed bid this year for the White House, Hunter made illegal immigration and building a border fence the major themes of his campaign.
    In early February 2008, Chertoff asked Congress for $12 billion for border security. He included $775 million for the SBInet program, despite the fact that congressional leaders still can’t get straight answers from Homeland Security about the program. As recently as January 31, Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee members sent a letter to Chertoff asking for “greater clarity on [the Customs and Border Protection office's] operational objectives for SBInet and the projected milestones and anticipated costs for the project.” They have yet to receive a response.
    Boeing continues to hire companies for the SBInet project. And the congressional districts of backers of the border fence continue to benefit. A recent Long Island Business News article trumpeted the success of Telephonics Corp., a local business, in Congressman King’s congressional district that won a $14.5 million bid to provide a mobile surveillance system under SBInet to protect the southern border.
    While Garza and Tamez wait for answers, they say they are being asked to sacrifice something that can’t be replaced by money. They are giving up their land, their homes, their heritage, and the few remaining acres left to them that they hoped to pass on to their children and grandchildren.
    “I am an old man. I have colon cancer, and I am 76 years old,” Garza says, resting against a tree in front of his home. “All I do is worry about whether they will take my home. My wife keeps asking me, ‘What are we going to do?’”
    Besides these personal tragedies, Eagle Pass Mayor Foster says there is another tragedy in store for the American taxpayer. A 2007 congressional report estimates the cost of maintaining and building the fence could be as much as $49 billion over its expected 25-year life span.
    “They are just going to push this problem on the next administration, and nobody is going to talk about immigration reform, and that’s the illness,” Foster says. “The wall is a Band-Aid on the problem. And to blow $49 billion and not walk away with a secure border – that’s a travesty.”
    No wonder they call it “The Wall Of Shame.”

  14. Horace said:

    “Regarding ICE: clearly white supremacists recognize ICE as kindred spirits, as shown by ads for T shirts with the following emblems:”Turn illegals into ICE” “La Couca Gotcha – Report illegal aliens – 1-866-DHS-2-ICE.” These are on a website that was advertising on google. The link between civilian racist agitators and racist state agencies, again, is quite reminiscent of the Nazis.”
    Kindred spirits? There you go again, demonizing government agents acting in the course of their civil service duties. We hear such attacks all the time by families of druggies and criminals who take their arrests personally rather than accepting the fact that they’ve broken the law and are deserving of their fate. As far as racists and concerned citizens having coinciding intersts are concerned, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. The fact that those who disagree you with support their law enforcement agencies is called loyalty and supporting our legal system and laws, a laudable thing that you should have learned in civics. Laura, you engage in the same hate mongering that you accuse your opposition of.
    Laura, is there a policeman that doesn’t remind you of German SS?
    I doubt that those who object to Lou Dobb’s position on immigration actually watch Lou Dobbs, so advocating that your friends stop watching him will do any good. I doubt that any of you have actually watch the person that you deign to demonize. You’re just parrots, repeating what you’ve heard from others, ideas that reinforce your preconceived notions.

  15. Frank said:

    laura, THIS ISN’T ABOUT IMMIGRANTS!!!! It is about illegal aliens!!! Why the spin of the truth in here? And we get called liars?
    I know of no law abiding American that is only blaming the illegals. Another spin of the truth in here. The blame is three-fold, our government, the employers and the illegals themselves. Why are the same old lies repeated in here? Yet our side is called liars? Isn’t that a bit hypocritical?
    Why do you call your fellow Americans citizens for the rule of law, racists and white supremists? Do you think that it is only white people opposed to illegal immigration? What is racist about it anyway? Yes, the majority of Americans are not racists so why do you keep harping aobut it?
    I find it ironic in here that someone says that myself, Horace, Liquid etc. are just parroting each other and yet the same thing goes on between you and at least one other member of this blog. I have never seen so much hypocricy in my life!

  16. laura said:

    Horace, my friend, I am grateful for the difficult and dangerous work of police who keep me safe in my community, by going after thieves, robbers, muggers, rapists, drug dealers and other criminals. I appreciate the work of national law enforcement officials who protect us from large-scale criminals, mobsters, and terrorists.
    These officers have my deepest appreciation and gratitude.
    ICE who break down doors of family homes to arrest people whose only offense was to enter the country illegally – a civil offense, by the way – or handcuff 5 foot tall nursing mothers in workplace raids are not among them. They are neglecting their duty to protect me from dangerous criminals and terrorists, as they are chasing people for being here without a visa.
    The way they celebrate their “victories” over tiny helpless people speaks clearly about their mindset. Maybe if they went after the actual terrorists who are threatening this country, of whom I am truly afraid, victories would not be so easy to celebrate. In fact, they might have to take some risk.

  17. Frank said:

    Those illegally in a country are not “immigrants”. There is no such thing as an “illegal immigrant”. An immigrant is involved with an established and orderly procedure of immigration (entering a country to which one is not native in order to settle there by legal process).
    They are not immigrants, not undocumented immigrants (Kennedy and the PC fan favorite), not undocumented workers, not undocumented Americans (Harry Reid’s favorite), not economic immigrants (Big Business and Wall Street favorite) not immigrants without work papers, not people who are working (Enrique Morone’s favorite), not migrant workers, not day laborers and not the “unbanked” (Bill Clinton and Arnold Schwarzenegger’s favorite).
    The government has defined them as “illegal aliens” and explicitly uses that term in all its laws and statutes. So keep it simple…a spade is a spade…they are illegal aliens. Or, if you’d prefer, another term that would be just as correct to use is “invaders”. I would consider the two interchangeable.
    One other definition is exceedingly useful since you’ll hear with every piece of amnesty legislation, the open border lobbyists and invader advocates will declare that it isn’t amnesty in the hope that you will think so. Here’s the definition of amnesty so you can decide for yourself:
    AMNESTY is legislation to forgive the breaking of immigration laws and to make it possible for illegal aliens to live permanently in the United States. Amnesty represents a system of federal rewards and assistance for illegal aliens, and they entice an even greater number of foreign nationals to illegally enter a country. Amnesty is providing the ultimate goal of the perpetrators illegal entry…legalization of their presence.
    AMNESTY:
    1. A general pardon for offenses against a government
    2. An act of forgiveness for past offenses, esp. to a class of persons as a whole
    3. Forgetting or overlooking any past offense
    There you have it, folks. Knowledge is power…use it wisely.

  18. EYES OF TEXAS said:

    I just did a search by using “illegal immigration survey” and was not too amazed at what I found. Seems it all depends on several different factors as to the results of the surveys. Things like, who was conducting the survey, who was being surveyed, if the survey was on a national level or local level and how the survey questions were presented. Here are a few examples.
    Alipac asked if illegal immigration was a major issue. 76.63% said it was their major issue.
    Pew Hispanic Center asked if illegal immigration is the major issue facing America today. Answer was no, illegal immigration is not the major issue in America.
    Center for Immigration Studies asked if the U.S. needs to do more to prevent illegal immigration and secure all borders. Answer by 70% said the U.S. needs to do more to stop illegal immigration and secure our borders, with 60% of those saying it is critical to the vital interests of the U.S.
    And finally, a California Immigration Survey asked residents if illegal immigration was a serious problem. 20% said it is a serious problem and 80% said No es un problemo serioso. Go figure.
    Who, what, when, where and the desired results make surveys meaningless.

  19. Evelyn said:

    HERE EDUCATE YOURSELVES!!!! LOL!
    Mother Tongue Annoyances
    Tim’s weblog on English communication
    On the “Illegal Alien”
    How are you doing? Today I’d like to examine the term “illegal alien” and why its use bothers me so darned much.
    Let’s be vulnerable and deeply honest with each other, okay? How often do you hear Americans use the term illegal alien with some discernable trace of prejudice and/or racism? Can you detect any shades of hypernationalism and/or ethnocentrism in this usage?
    Speaking for myself, I am disappointed whenever I listen to news commentary or participate in a personal discussion and an individual refers to undocumented immigrants as “illegals” or “illegal aliens.” I’m not saying that (a) I can ‘read’ people’s motivations without asking them directly; or (b) The majority of those who use the term “illegal alien” do so with conscious or unconscious prejudicial intent.
    On the other hand, I’ve found that, more often than not, when I ask an individual directly, eyeball-to-eyeball, if their use of “illegals” or “illegal aliens” belies some sort of anti-immigrant prejudice, my rigorously honest conversational partners tend to answer in the affirmative.
    It’s time to parse some words. First let’s examine the phrase illegal alien. Wikipedia has an excellent entry on illegal immigration. Following is some relevant text from that piece:
    The term “illegal alien” is conferred legitimacy by its official use in federal statutes. An illegal alien is a foreign national who resides in another country unlawfully, either by entering that country at a place other than a designated port of entry or as result of the expiration of a non-immigrant visa. Alternative terms include “illegal immigrant” and the euphemisms “undocumented immigrant,” “undocumented worker,” and “paperless immigrant.”
    The Wikipedia author(s) make a good point in saying that some folks argue over the adjective illegal because an immigrant who illegally crosses the U.S. borders or overstays his or her visa intentionally has, in fact, “violated our laws and customs in establishing residence in our country. He or she is therefore a criminal under applicable U.S. laws.” (Reference: Adversity.net)
    The Oxford English Dictionary defines the adjective and noun alien in a couple of different ways. In definition B1a, the noun alien (used in an adjectival sense) means “a person belonging to another family, race, or nation; a stranger, a foreigner.”
    Definition B1b in the OED pertains to our colloquial understanding of the term alien: “Science Fiction. An (intelligent) being from another planet, especially one far distant from the Earth; a strange (usually threatening) alien visitor.”
    Hmm. For completeness, let us examine the adjective and noun illegal. The OED defines the adjectival sense of illegal in definition 1a as “Not legal or lawful; contrary to, or forbidden by, law.”
    When the OED defines illegal as a noun, the entry reads starkly in definition B1: “illegal immigrant.”
    Yeah yeah yeah—some folks might contend that my distaste for the phrase illegal alien boils down ultimately to a sturdy dose of semantics with a big ol’ pinch of political correctness thrown into the mix.
    Linguistically and definitionally, the phrase illegal alien technically works to describe an undocumented immigrant, unauthorized migrant, or whatever euphemism you’d like to use. See Adversity.net for another set of definitions related to the terms alien, immigrant, illegal alien, and undocumented immigrant.
    My purpose in this blog post is not to delve into the issue of illegal immigration in general. Heaven knows there are enough Joes and Janes rantin’ about this subject in their own personal weblogs. And good for them! Civilized discourse and freedom of expression are, to my understanding, at the heart of American democracy.
    All this definitional stuff aside, however, I ask you to switch off your analytical minds for a moment and consider the following question with your hearts:
    When you hear someone refer to an undocumented immigrant as an “illegal alien,” do you feel that this phrase in any, shape, or manner dehumanizes the person in question? Moreover, do you feel that the phrase may be intended to dehumanize the immigrant?
    Obviously, I feel this way. And if you visit Web sites such as IllegalAliens.US, you’ll see that there exist plenty of people who disagree with me. Fine and fine.
    Here is my “take” on the matter, folks: Men, women, and children who migrate from one country to another, whether they do so legally or illegally, are living, breathing, human beings who are worthy of dignity and respect.
    Am I proposing that people change the way they speak or write? Not exactly. Instead, I would suggest that American citizens (a) ask themselves honestly what cultural assumptions (if any) underlie their use of “illegal alien”; and (b) consider that because this phrase is ‘loaded’ on many different levels, perhaps using a less inflammatory phrase to describe these men and women may be advisable.
    What do you think? Does the phrase “illegal alien” bother you at all? Or, by contrast, do you think that any controversy regarding its use is a “tempest in a teapot”? Or…what? I look forward to learning from you. Have a wonderful day!

  20. Frank said:

    laura, are you saying that part of ICE’s job is not to go after illegal aliens? Their only designated job is to chase terrorists? I have a hot flash for you. You are incorrect if you think that. They are doing the job that they are supposed to be doing and using the tactics that they are supposed to use according to government policy.
    So if you own a store and a thief steals some of your goods you shouldn’t call the police then because it isn’t about catching a rapist or a murderer? See how ridiculous you are being?
    You illegal alien sympathizers are beyond reproach you know.

  21. Evelyn said:

    DHS and ICE Violating Human Rights of Legal Permanent Residents
    Posted on July 3, 2007.
    Many U.S. politicians and citizens – especially those who are part of the racial majority – are in denial.
    The United States of America is a nation of immigrants, but many U.S. citizens and politicians are in denial. These people seem to think they have a right to be in the U.S., while immigrants of color – especially Latinos and Asians – do not.
    …
    Politics in American towns, cities and states are becoming increasingly poisoned by venomous debates over how to deal with immigrants, given the federal government’s failure to act. Under pressure from constituents, state and local officials will increase their efforts to restrict how, where, when and under what circumstances immigrants can gather, live, study, drive and work. Local and state police forces will be enlisted in the effort, increasingly turning the United States into a police state.
    Blame George W. Bush, a president whose self-inflicted wounds have left him too politically incapacitated to deliver his own party. Blame radical extremists like Tom Tancredo and Fred Thompson (the actor who would be president). Blame Republicans like Jim DeMint of South Carolina, John Cornyn of Texas and Jeff Sessions of Alabama, senators more focused on generating sound bites and 30-second attack ads than on solving the nation’s immigration problems.
    They abdicated their responsibility to deal with one of the nation’s knottiest problems and perpetuated a system rife with injustice, illogic and inhumanity.
    To make matters worse, the rise of a new form of radical and sophisticated terrorism is being used to justify the indeterminate detention and neglect of immigrants and – amazingly – legal permanent residents of the United States.
    The New York Times reports that immigrants die in custody in the United States’ fastest-growing form of incarceration, immigration detention.
    Sandra M. Kenley was returning home from her native Barbados in 2005 when she was placed in immigration detention. Seven weeks later, Ms. Kenley died in a rural Virginia jail, where she had complained of not receiving medicine for high blood pressure. She was one of 62 immigrants to die in administrative custody since 2004.
    Some excerpts:
    In the case of Ms. Kenley, a legal permanent resident of the United States for more than 30 years, detention interrupted her medical care for high blood pressure, a fibroid tumor and uterine bleeding. An autopsy attributed her death to an enlarged heart from chronic hypertensive disease. But a report by emergency medical services said that she had fallen from a top bunk, and that a cellmate had pounded on the door for 20 minutes before guards responded.
    …
    Ms. Kenley had been traveling with her 1-year-old granddaughter when she arrived at Washington Dulles International Airport, records show, and she was ordered to return without the baby to discuss two old misdemeanor drug convictions that had surfaced in an airport database.
    She obeyed. A transcript shows she admitted a conviction for drug possession in 1984 and one in 2002 for trying to buy a small amount of cocaine. She described a life derailed by drug addiction after 11 years of working in a newspaper mailroom.
    “I turned my life around,” Ms. Kenley told the immigration inspector, pointing to three drug-free years after probation and treatment, completion of a nursing course, and legal custody of the granddaughter, Nakita. She also showed that she was taking blood pressure medication and was scheduled for surgery.
    The inspector arrested her, invoking the law: two drug-related convictions made her subject to exclusion from the United States.
    Level-headed, sensible Americans must not continue to stand idly by while dangerous extremists such as Michelle Maglalang, Tom Tancredo, Fred Thompson, and Jeff Sessions speak for the American people.
    Level-headed, sensible Americans must not continue to stand idly by while the Department of Homeland Stupidity and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement goons violate the human rights and civil liberties of legal permanent residents of the United States. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is terrorizing communities across the United States. People are really scared because they could leave their homes and never see their families again. The Gestapo-styple raids of U.S. Immigration and Customs terrorists must be stopped.
    Extremist groups and terrorist groups like American Border Patrol, Americans for Immigration Control, California Coalition for Immigration Reform, Federation for American Immigration Reform, Minuteman Project, Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, NumbersUSA, ProjectUSA, and VDARE do not speak for sensible Americans. The terrorist activities of these extremist fringe groups must be stopped.

  22. Frank said:

    More lies! Most Americans do not object to persons of color, they object to illegal immigration from anywhere.
    We are no longer a nation of immigrants. We are a nation of Americans now. Most American’s families have been here for generations and were born here. Time we shed that stupid label as it is being used as blackmail against Americans now.
    We still take in immigrants but that doesn’t make us a nation of immigrants anymore than other countries that take in immigrants.
    Again blame is being put on law enforcement such as ICE rather than those who have broken our laws.

  23. EYES OF TEXAS said:

    Must have gotten this one right off the completely unbiased NCLR website. More of the same bulls__t wrapped in the same old package of blameing U.S. citizens for all the bad things that happen to those illegally in our country. Once again insulting our governmental agencys that are in place to protect American citizens. The list of extremist groups and terrorist groups must also include the NCLR and the Brown Berets and any other Hispanic organization that promotes unlawful presence within the borders of the United States. Save Act will save America.

  24. Liquidmicro said:

    Rights of Permanent Residents
    As a permanent resident, you have the right to:
    * Live and work permanently anywhere in the U.S.
    * Apply to become a U.S. citizen once you are eligible.
    * Request a visa for your husband or wife and unmarried children to live in the U.S.
    * Get Social Security, Supplemental Security Income, and Medicare benefits, if you are eligible.
    * Own property in the U.S.
    * Apply for a driver’s license in your state or territory.
    * Leave and return to the U.S. under certain conditions.
    * Attend public school and college.
    * Join certain branches of the U.S. Armed Forces.
    * Purchase or own a firearm, as long as there are no state or local restrictions saying you can’t.
    ….
    If you are a lawful permanent resident, you may be able to naturalize and become a U.S. citizen. Once you have naturalized, the INS cannot deport you unless the INS first revokes naturalization for obtaining it illegally, such as through fraud. If you have criminal convictions, however, you should talk to a lawyer before filing for naturalization.
    Many crimes that are punished lightly in criminal court can still lead to permanent deportation including the following:
    # any drug crime (except simple possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana)
    # a crime of violence (including assault and battery with a dangerous weapon) with a term of imprisonment of at least one year even if the sentence is suspended
    # theft (including receiving stolen property) or burglary with a term of imprisonment of at least one year, even if the sentence is suspended
    # murder
    # rape or sexual abuse of a minor
    # unlawful possession of a firearm

  25. Evelyn said:

    I an so glad most Americans are not racist.
    Latest of ICE’s ignorant intrusive invasion
    November 26, 2007
    Ads by Google
    Customs Careers
    Protect our borders
    I swear that ICE, or Immigration and Customs Enforcement, must be the most unconstitutional federal agency ever created in the United States. They keep getting away with violating basic human rights everyone agrees we’re born with.
    What’s worse is that local police assist them in doing so. When was border patrol added to their job description?
    The latest of these unlawful violations in today’s Times. I was left with a knot in my stomach after reading the first paragraph.
    It was still dark the morning of Sept. 27 when armed federal immigration agents, guided by local police officers, swept into this village on the East End of Long Island. Within hours, as the team rousted sleeping families, 11 men were added to a running government tally of arrests made in Operation Community Shield. (NYT)
    The details of this ordeal is most horrifying. The agents arrested
    Omar Lopez, 25, a Shelter Island landscaper, who had been asleep with his fiancée and infant son. Valentin Rudy Escobar Montenegro, a Guatemalan carpenter, also was with his wife and baby.
    But first a little back ground on this “Operation Community Shields” from the official Web Site.
    In February 2005, ICE began Operation Community Shield, a national law enforcement initiative that targets violent transnational street gangs through the use of ICE’s broad law enforcement powers, including the unique and powerful authority to remove (deport) criminal aliens, including illegal aliens and legal permanent resident aliens. (ICE)
    “Broad law enforcement power?” Damn. ICE seems to me to be the most connected gang. I mean isn’t their tactics illegal? and the organization itself, too? Where do I go to report them? Then deport them?
    “We’re not here stomping all over anybody’s rights,” said Peter J. Smith, the special agent in charge of the Long Island operation. “We’ve got immigration powers.”
    Maybe I’m a bit harsh with my criticism. I know they are just doing their job. But wait…
    Only one of the 11 men taken away that morning was “suspected”of a gang affiliation, according to the Southold Town police. The 10 others, while accused of immigration violations, were not gang associates and had no criminal records.
    Possibly, the argument half of you reading this will back is that, “well those arrested were still breaking the law. They were here illegally.” Or something close to it. Am I in the ballpark?
    I understand what you’re saying. But tell me something. Had they broken any other law, let’s say, dealing couple of kilos of cocaine, wouldn’t the government still need a warrant to enter their home? These folks’ “illegal activity” isn’t the least bit comparable to dealing hard drugs, but they’re treated worse.
    If some of you still remain lost for compassion, I understand. I can’t change your mentality if you’re set on your beliefs. But you couldn’t possibly disagree that something is wrong when someone legally can break into a house in the middle of the night and break up families sleeping together.
    7 Responses to “Latest of ICE’s ignorant intrusive invasion”
    Abdul Kargbo Says:
    December 18, 2007 at 1:34 am
    Damn!!
    I appreciate your outrage, hardknock. Seems so many people simply accept the grossest violations of human[s’] rights as long as it’s not their rights being violated.
    To quote a classic American movie, “This used to be one hell of a country.” Where are we headed?
    When they came for the undocumented immigrants, I did not speak out because I was not undocumented . . ..
    How will this story end?
    Hard knock life Says:
    December 23, 2007 at 10:59 pm
    Seriously. I cannot believe I am witnessing such violations during my lifetime. Growing up, I always equated being an American to being a free human being. This is not the reality I want my kids to be born into.
    Baekho Says:
    December 24, 2007 at 4:02 am
    Increasingly, I find myself unable to recognize this country, let alone support what it seems to stand for.
    Incidentally, Hard Knock Life, where do you see a constitutional violation? I have no doubts that this is a serious human rights violation, but if we can back that up constitutionally, maybe somebody will be able to do something…?
    Hard knock life Says:
    December 24, 2007 at 10:05 am
    Hi Baekho,
    This one to begin with: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am4
    And this one, too. Since they were out looking for gang members, not the undocumented:
    http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am14
    Also true if you agree with me when I said, “I always equated being an American to being a free human being.”
    Baekho Says:
    December 26, 2007 at 5:07 pm
    Very true…and thanks for point that out! Do you know if anybody is bringing a lawsuit against the ICE?
    Hard knock life Says:
    December 27, 2007 at 9:50 am
    Baekho, I love the way you think. You’re not a civil rights lawyer by any chance, are you? ;)
    Anyways, to answer your question, I was not sure so I just looked it up. And yes, there are law suits against ICE. ICE is beyond f’ed up dude! Check it out:
    Union files suit against ICE to stop immigration raids
    Lawsuit: ICE drugging detainees set for deportation
    Minn. Immigrant Rights Group Sues ICE Over Swift Meatpacking Raid
    Man legally in U.S. who was detained is fighting crackdown
    Baekho Says:
    December 27, 2007 at 3:35 pm
    Hahaha, not yet, although that is a potential career option. ;)
    It’s good to see that many lawsuits against ICE. They’re totally f’ed up!
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Sign The Petition
    End Immigrant Bashing
    http://www.boycottdobbs.us/

Comments are closed.

Top