See The Seattle Times, 12/31/2008: "Gregoire favors deportations as way to cut state's jail costs".
Two years ago, Governor Gregoire, finally concerned about the budget deficit, suggested deporting prisoners convicted of drug or property crimes to save the state over $9 million dollars biennially. The program is similar to one used in - take a deep breath - Arizona and New York. Needless to say, the Legislature with such defenders of immigrant rights as Senator Margarita Prentice, D-Renton in control, failed to approve the program for Washington State.
See The Seattle Times, 11/28/2010: "State won't agree to national immigration program".
By 2013, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) will be able to implement a program nationwide called "Secure Communities" to check finger prints of anyone serving jail time against a national immigration data base. Currently, ICE is seeking agreements with state and local governments to install the program now but is meeting resistance from the State of Washington and so called sanctuary cities like San Francisco. Not only has the State Patrol refused any agreement with ICE but the state has also "not granted permission for ICE to work with local jurisdictions to activate the program." While Gregoire has not taken a public position, the Patrol thinks she is "of the same mind" on the issue.
Opponents of "Secure Communities" object to state and local police agencies getting involved in enforcement of Federal immigration law but as "Ira Mehlman, spokesman for the Federation of American Immigration Reform (FAIR)" pointed out; these same agencies do cooperate with the Feds when it comes to drugs and firearms. Hypocrisy aside, the concern is that people here illegally would be reluctant to report a crime for fear they might be ensnared in deportation proceedings unrelated to the crime. Apparently, we should allow our immigration laws to be ignored because some other crime, not witnessed by a citizen, may not be reported. Another argument of the pro "undocumented" immigrants is they work hard and pay taxes. Of course they also got here by breaking the law, in many case using forged identity documents. Once described as "doing the work Americans won't do", more and more illegals are competing for jobs U.S. citizens are willing to do, just look at the construction industry.
None of this resolves the problems caused by decades of boarder enforcement neglect by the Federal government. It is merely snipping around the edges but it is a start. What to do about illegal aliens, who have been here for many years, have integrated into the community, have children who have known no other country or language must be addressed. Rounding up ten to twelve million illegal aliens is simply not practical but finding out who they are, deporting convicted criminals, securing the borders, providing for some penalty for at least the adults seems reasonable. Unreasonable is coming down on Arizona for acting to protect its citizens while winking at Washington's politically correct flouting of the law.
If a person is being fingerprinted AND they are in the system as being under the ICE program they are NOT good people. They are there because they been engaged in activities that get them arrested multiple times.
The entire argument is bogus from the start.
Posted by: Vince on December 2, 2010 07:05 AM"...the concern is that people here illegally would be reluctant to report a crime for fear they might be ensnared in deportation proceedings unrelated to the crime..."
I've always been p.o'd that Illegals come to this country and take advantage of education and social programs without being blocked. Those programs are expensive and they should not have access to them.
I guess to be consistant in my own thinking, I would have to say I don't want them having access to our law enforcement either. It's equally expensive.
If illegals want to jump the border, it might be good for them to know that since they aren't here legally, they have no right to legal protections.
Posted by: johnny on December 2, 2010 07:26 AMAt least not if your readers care about logic.
Posted by: Bruce on December 2, 2010 03:52 PMGood one Bruce.
But my bad for letting Michele hijack this thread.
Posted by: Bruce on December 2, 2010 05:39 PMThis is a complex issue, which bodes poorly for debate in a polarized atmosphere, but let me try.
There are several possible reasons to oppose the I.C.E./state-local program:
1) Immigration policy in general is complex; most people agree that the best policy is something in between "open the borders" and "deport all illegal immigrants". (Anyone who favors either of those extremes can stop reading.)
2) Any police role in immigration might deter illegal immigrants from seeking police protection of their rights. (Yes, all humans in our country have some rights. Again, anyone who disagrees with that statement can stop reading.)
3) By checking people who are booked into jail, the program would catch some people who are ultimately acquitted of (or never even tried for) a crime. Why should we screen those people for immigration status and not random people on the street? (If you believe that being charged with a crime implies guilt, then again, stop reading.)
4) Currently illegal immigrants, once caught, are generally deported without consideration of their entire situation. Now on its face you might say that if someone has broken immigration law and broken another law as well, we don't want them. And usually I'd agree with you. But there have been some well-documented cases of people who ontributed greatly to their employers, communities, families, etc., yet got deported due to a offense without the system (INS or a court) having the opportunity to assess whether the interests of justice or our country were being served. This is not to condone any lawbreaking, just to say that punishment should consider all the circumstances.
Perhaps the proposed program would address these concerns. Or perhaps you don't feel they're important enough to outweigh the obvious benefit of kicking out some people who we really don't want in our country. But I think all of these issues deserve consideration in a serious discussion of this issue, even if that's antithetical to the idea of black and white solutions.
Posted by: Bruce on December 2, 2010 06:09 PM*crickets*
Posted by: Michele on December 2, 2010 06:18 PMHairy
Posted by: Hairy Buddah on December 2, 2010 08:20 PMBongo bongo supports the Afghan war because he has to.
This is also why he didn't follow through on closing Gitmo as he promised.
Because he has to keep it open.
The difference between Bush and Bongo is that Bush understood this simple fact.
Both bongo promises were idiotic and made to appeal to liberals because no one but liberals with
their heads up their A$$es like you would ever believe that he would keep either promise.
There is no surprise that anyone would have to point this bone jarringly obvious fact out to you.
The ONLY reason finding out who illegals are, deporting them, securing the borders, and providing for some penalty for at least the adults has not been considered reasonable for the last twenty years is because illegals of all stripes almost exclusively vote for liberals. Criminals stick together.
Now the ONLY reason why Gregoire might consider messing with this constituency is because she will not be governor much longer and Democrats will screw anyone (even those who elect them) if they don't need them any longer.
Posted by: Amused by Liberals on December 3, 2010 12:32 AMWAAAAAAAAAAAHHH!! I'm not concerned with their situtation, Bruce. I'm concernmed with following the rule of law as set forth by our country and how its immigration policy is carried out. Would you consider someones "entire situation" if they happened to break into your house while you slept? Hell no you wouldn't. The same applies for the gate crashers arriving on our shores. If you can't stand in line with the rest of the honest want-to-be citizen immigrants, then get your sorry carcass back to the hell hole from which you crawled from.
This is not to condone any lawbreaking...
B.S. That is exactly what you are doing, and you know it.
Posted by: Rick D. on December 3, 2010 06:57 AMSo they can be registered to vote when applying for their WDL. Wonder how many of them voted in King and other hard-left counties during the last election?
Posted by: Saltherring on December 3, 2010 07:41 AMThis is a complex issue, which bodes poorly for debate in a polarized atmosphere, but let me try.
Very true. It is sad that many of these discussions devolve into invective.
1) Immigration policy in general is complex; most people agree that the best policy is something in between "open the borders" and "deport all illegal immigrants". (Anyone who favors either of those extremes can stop reading.)
There is a rational basis for both extremes. It might be uncomfortable to think abut, but the same justification that allowed the Europeans to take over the Americas can be used for any group to take over any other territory. Borders are only as good as the will and ability of the people to enforce them. On the flip side, the only reason deporting all illegal immigrants is "extreme" is that it is impractical to do so. If there were only 5 illegals, wold you claim it is an extreme position to deport all five? Our problem stems from not enforcing our border in the first place, and any time we grant amnesty, we send a signal that as along as people "get in" they have a good shot of "staying in". This will encourage illegal crossings, so there is merit in creating sanctions for illegals as one part of a total enforcement policy.
2) Any police role in immigration might deter illegal immigrants from seeking police protection of their rights. (Yes, all humans in our country have some rights. Again, anyone who disagrees with that statement can stop reading.)
I agree that there is a significant deterrent to reporting crime by illegals. This allows some level of predation among the illegal community because there is less chance for the criminals to get caught. That is as much an argument for proper enforcement of immigration as it is for not enforcing it. In other words, because we do not enforce it, we are now expected to not enforce it because of the crime issue that results from not enforcing it? We have created a mess, but we do not solve the mess by embracing it.
3) By checking people who are booked into jail, the program would catch some people who are ultimately acquitted of (or never even tried for) a crime. Why should we screen those people for immigration status and not random people on the street? (If you believe that being charged with a crime implies guilt, then again, stop reading.)
Huge difference between probable cause and random search. You should have given this one a little more thought. On the surface, it does seem as arbitrary, but once someone is processed into the system, there is no basis for not investigating all potential crimes that a person might have been involved in. You know that many criminals are caught as a result of a traffic stop? Should we not run their names for warrants at the time of the stop because that is akin randomly running warrants on people in the street? Or, maybe we should not do checks because it is possible that a felon in a traffic stop might shoot the patrol officer. So, to protect the officers, we should make sure that the people stopped for traffic violations have no fear of arrest and detention and thus will be less of a risk?
4) Currently illegal immigrants, once caught, are generally deported without consideration of their entire situation. Now on its face you might say that if someone has broken immigration law and broken another law as well, we don't want them. And usually I'd agree with you. But there have been some well-documented cases of people who contributed greatly to their employers, communities, families, etc., yet got deported due to a offense without the system (INS or a court) having the opportunity to assess whether the interests of justice or our country were being served. This is not to condone any lawbreaking, just to say that punishment should consider all the circumstances.
Someone who has proven to be a good contributor of society should have some consideration when we process their immigration status, but if we reward the illegal activity, we encourage it. One thing to understand, is that there are millions of upstanding people who want in but did NOT cut in front of the line. For all those who cut that you allow to stay, you have essentially denied another from his rightful "turn", and so you perpetuate an injustice on someone else. You have essentially rewarded a rule breaker and encouraged other rule breakers to do the same while leaving those with higher levels of integrity standing outside the gate.
Posted by: eyago on December 3, 2010 08:54 AMI took nothing out of context. The sentence before you said you don't condone lawbreaking, you made excuses why the law breakers should be given special consideration in light of their particular situation. I believe that all immigrants should have an equal OPPORTUNITY to access our country. You believe that if you get here first by breaking our laws, you should be given extra consideration for legal status than those that this person cut in line in front of. That is inherently unfair and its highly hypocritical for you, Bruce, to have such an illogical position on a fairly clear cut issue.I don't care if they've been here 30 years and been the salt of the earth to their friends, neighbors and community. The fact is they cut in line in front of others that have just as much right to be considered for legal entry into this country, which disenfranchises those suckers that wait in line to do "the right thing". You agree don't you , Bruce?
Posted by: Rick D. on December 3, 2010 09:37 AMThe U.S. Constitution and the courts it provides for are for the benefit of American CITIZENS, not people who cross our borders illegally. The only due process an illegal alien is "entitled" to is a hearing to determine whether he/she is a legal resident. Beyond that, America's 12EE applied to their ass is all "the entire situation" any illegal needs to experience.
Posted by: Saltherring on December 3, 2010 02:19 PMThe only thing Bruce and other leftists care about is establishing another class of victims that faithfully vote Dimocrat. Legality means nothing to a leftist, as evidenced by the actions of our "president" and his congress these past two years.
Posted by: Saltherring on December 3, 2010 02:23 PMPerhaps you might try reading the Constitution before spouting nonsense like this. Most of the US Constitution -- to say nothing of state constitutions and federal and state laws -- applies to all people, not just citizens or legal residents. And sorry, breaking one law, even an immigration law, does not mean you lose the protection of all other laws.
Posted by: Bruce on December 3, 2010 04:31 PMThe U.S. Constitution and the courts it provides for are for the benefit of American CITIZENS, not people who cross our borders illegally.
Its a rhetorical question (cuz your comment demonstrates your inability to grasp the simplest of legal concepts), but how do you determine an illegal action without a court and a constitutional legal framework within which to run it?
Off to Guantanamo for indefinite imprisonment for you Saltherring.
Obama found you to be a non-citizen and there is no court nor constitutional legal protection for people like you.
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on December 3, 2010 05:18 PM
But as you and I and anyone who's read the Constitution realize, he just invented his idea of what he wishes the Constitution said. It bears no resemblance to the actual Constitution.
Posted by: Bruce on December 3, 2010 05:30 PMI don't care to debate each of these points with you. No one point "justifies" breaking the law; you will have an easy time taking a phrase from the last paragraph out of context and arguing why it doesn't justify lawbreaking, as you did in #17. However, I feel a rational, practical, humane immigration policy needs to consider them, and not be based on one single principle in isolation.
Posted by: Bruce on December 4, 2010 11:06 AMIt's a complete waste of time debating leftists, Rick D, when the basis for their contentions is whether our laws are "humane", by the left's definition of course. Laws protecting American citizens from invasion by foreigners mean nothing, but being "humane" does. And our laws provide constitutional protections to foreign invaders. Insanity......
Posted by: Saltherring on December 4, 2010 01:25 PMUnfortunately, the facts don't back up this assertion, Bruce. They are killing us finacially and certainly don't benefit us more than they burden us.
In hosting America's largest population of illegal immigrants, California bears a huge cost to provide basic human services for this fast growing, low-income segment of its population. A new study from the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) examines the costs of education, health care and incarceration of illegal aliens, and concludes that the costs to Californians is $10.5 billion per year.
Among the key finding of the report are that the state's already struggling K-12 education system spends approximately $7.7 billion a year to school the children of illegal aliens who now constitute 15 percent of the student body. Another $1.4 billion of the taxpayers' money goes toward providing health care to illegal aliens and their families, the same amount that is spent incarcerating illegal aliens criminals.
While I support our nation's right to make and enforce laws, these (illegal) immigrants never signed up for those rules.
That's the most ignorant statement I've ever heard out of you yet, Bruce. You may want to look up the term Sovereignty. Those that come here without our permission don't get to make up their own rules, Bruce.
I don't care to debate each of these points with you. No one point "justifies" breaking the law
Of course you don't, Bruce. You know you'll lose on every point if you chose to do so. You make excuses, not rational debate points.
Posted by: Rick D. on December 4, 2010 01:29 PMNo, our constitution provdes constitutional protections to all people in this country. You should try reading it sometime.
Rick@37, does the report you cite mention the taxes paid by those illegal aliens? Or that many of those "children of illegal aliens" are actually US citizens?
Posted by: Bruce on December 4, 2010 03:33 PMI'm certainly glad the Republican-controlled U.S. House can begin to return some sanity to our government come January. America has suffered far too long with twisted leftists turning us into a lawless banana republic that is over-run with foreigners who violate our borders and sovereignty. Kick the law-breaking invaders out. America for Americans and legal immigrants.
Posted by: Saltherring on December 5, 2010 06:20 AMHe obviously reads what his fellow leftist knot-heads write about things and slavishly regurgitates nonsense like the good follower drone liberal/progressive he is.
I do thank him for another in the tedious and seemingly endless lessons in inane liberal superficiality.