Popieracie protesty nielegalnych w USA ??

[lulu13]

przez USA przetoczyla sie fala protestow organizowanych przez
nielegalnych w celu zdobycia tzw. green card ,zdecydowana wiekszosc z nich
to latynosi i meksykanie,nieliczni Polacy woleli pracowac w ten dzien
niz uczestniczyc w demonstracjach.
Co myslicie o tej formie protestu przez ludzi ktorzy sa w tym kraju
nielegalnie?/!!,ja uwazam ze to stawianie spraw na glowie ,bo jak czlowiek
ktory zlamal prawo i jest nielegalnie moze sie czegokolwiek domagac ?
Odpowiedz powinna byc jedna - deportacja !!!

[melanzysta]

Popieramy .

Sa tak samo nielegalnie jak Ty .

Na jakiej podstawie sa nielegalni ?

Bo pismo wezelkowe jest nielegalne ?

[axx61]

Pokazywano w dzienniku wieczorem migawki z Chicago i byl nawet wywiad z
polakami. Szli w jednym szeregu z latynosami podobnie jak rosjanie w Los
Angeles. Bojkot byl niezwykle udany bo juz zebrali sie radza. Trwa obliczanie
strat bo amerykanie bardzo lubia to wiedziec. Udalo sie to majowe swieto.Tak
trzymac i nie popuszczac.

[lulu13]

sa nielegalnie bo przekradli sie przez poludniowa granice USa do tego
kraju,bez zezwolen odpowiednich wladz emigracyjnych,naruszyli prawo !!! i
zignorowali je,powinni za to odpowiadac jak kazdy czlowiek ktory zlamal prawo.
Zaden !!!! kraj na swiecie nie toleruje przybyszy ktorzy nie sa proszeni i nie
maja odpowiednich zezwolen na pobyt w danym panstwie
Szczegolnie Europa Zachodnia jest bardzo restrykcyjna pod tym wzgledem, w
porownaniu z USA.

[melanzysta]

"Dajcież mi waszych zmęczonych,
waszych biedaków,
wasze zgromadzone tłumy tęskniące,
by odetchnąć wolnością"

Nie wstydzisz sie tej hipokryzji ?

Nie mysleliscie cichaczem , zeby zmienic ten wstydliwy tekst ?

[lulu13]

owszem to haslo jest wypisane na Statule Wolnosci ale nie ma nic do tego
ze ci ludzie nie pytali sie zadnych wladz rzadowych o przyjazd ,przyszli
tu bez stania w kolejakch pod Ambasada USA ,bez wypelniania odpowiednich
dokumentow ,poprostu nielegalnie ,to jest jak zlodziej ktory wkradl sie do
czyjegos domu a teraz zada zeby mu dano przywileje domownika ,ahahhaahhah to
jest bezczelnosc i arogancja !!

[melanzysta]

> owszem to haslo jest wypisane na Statule Wolnosci ale nie ma nic do tego
> ze ci ludzie nie pytali sie zadnych wladz rzadowych o przyjazd

Czyli haslo haslem , a my wiemy lepiej i tak .

Mozna podpisac - Leonid Brezniew

[captain.america]

To jest napisane przy Ellis Island, a nie na granicy mexykanskiej, hehhehe.

[warcholski]

captain.america napisała:

> To jest napisane przy Ellis Island, a nie na granicy mexykanskiej, hehhehe.
>

Tak wlasnie i nie jest zaproszeniem dla przestepcow - ktorzy z natury maj
zakodowane pod czaszka klamac i oszukiwac. Zadnego honoru.

[b467]

> Odpowiedz powinna byc jedna - deportacja !!!


Gdyby Indianie tak powiedzieli pierwszym przybyszom do Ameryki to dzisiaj bys
tez tam nie byl.
Przeciez od poczatku ten kontynent zalewali nielegalni.

[lulu13]

widac ze kompletnie nic nie rozumiecie albo udajecie glupkow !!! Setki
tysiace emigrantow przybylo do tego kraju legalnie poprzez porty
oceaniczne lub lotnicze ,przechodzili wszyscy kontorole urzednikow
Emigration ,wypelniali dziesiatki dokumentow,przechodzili konieczne badania
lekarskie i to jest droga do legalnego pobytu w tym kraju, a nie jak szczur
przekradac sie przez granice panstwa i lekcewazyc wszystkie przepisy
emigracyjne. I nie wypisujcie mi tu bredni o wolnosci itp pierdoly bo to sie
ma jak piernik do wiatraka ,nielegalny jest przestepca i powinien za to
odpowiadac. Hasla o wolnosci sa dla tych ktorzy cierpliwie czekali w
kolejakach pod ambasadami zeby legalnie i prawnie zalatwic swoj wjazd do
USA.

[nutkraker]

lulu13 napisał:


> ma jak piernik do wiatraka ,nielegalny jest przestepca i powinien za to
> odpowiadac. Hasla o wolnosci sa dla tych ktorzy cierpliwie czekali w
> kolejakach pod ambasadami zeby legalnie i prawnie zalatwic swoj wjazd do
> USA.

to dlaczego nielegalni nie odpowiadaja za to "przestepstwo" tylko demonstruja
sobie, powiewajac meksykanskimi i amerykanskimi flagami, ze usmiechem na twarzy
i spiewem na ustach w pelnym poczuciu wolnosci, "praw", bezkarnosci i niekaralnosci?
Czy jestes w stanie lulku zrozumiec mechanizm tego pozornego podwojnego
paradoksu z parabola?

[lulu13]

i tu sie zgadzam !! nie rozumiem dlaczego ich wszystkich nie aresztuja !!
i deportuja !!!

[nutkraker]

lulu13 napisał:

> i tu sie zgadzam !! nie rozumiem dlaczego ich wszystkich nie aresztuja !!
> i deportuja !!!

follow the money trail young man:

1. money make the world go round
2. the link between money and politics is unarguable

papka dla maluczkich jest by-design czesto bardzo slodka, usypiajaca
i unikajaca pytan, niewygodnej, rozbudzajacej prawdy
nikt, lub prawie nikt z politykow nie wskazuje palcem na zatrudniajacych, tych
ktorzy czerpia niwspolmierne korzysci kosztem nielegalnych i reszty
spoleczenstwa, gdzy to oni wlasnie napychaja kieszenie politykow aby ci politycy
mogli sie trzymac wladzy itd
raczka raczke myje nawet w Ameryce
free media, pokazuje demonstracje, meksykanskie flagi, oburzaja sie
nielegalnoscia calego procederu, ale unikaja bardzo "kulturalnie", drazliwej,
glebszej analizy zjawiska
dlaczego?
kto placi za te media, za ogloszenia?

dziel i rzadz...
cel uswieca srodki...
niewiele sie zmienilo od czasow Rzymian i Nicolo Machiavelli

[flipflap]

lulu13 napisał:

> i tu sie zgadzam !! nie rozumiem dlaczego ich wszystkich nie aresztuja !!
> i deportuja !!!

Jak to widzisz Lulu
Gdzie ich będą trzymać? W Więzieniach nie ma miejsc na kryminalistów.
Za co utrzymywać przetrzymywanych nielegali?
Nie daj Boże żeby jakiemuś dziecku coś się przytrafiło wczasie łapanki.
Milionowe odszkodowania.
Gdzie ich deportować jak nie wszyscy to Meksyk?
Pomijam racje prawne ale jak widzisz proces deportacji?

Deportacje beda wygladac tak

[captain.america]

Autobusem prez granice a wetbacki siup z powrotem przez plot na te strone. Bo
tak wlasnie wyglada "strzezenie granicy."

My tu pierdu pierdu, a dzisiaj znowu z 5000 nielegali przeszlo przez pustynie.

Border Patrol has reported surge in number of people caught trying to sneak into
country since October... Shelters on Mexican side report increases of 20% over
last year in people waiting to cross... Developing...

[b467]

lulu13 napisał:

> widac ze kompletnie nic nie rozumiecie albo udajecie glupkow !!! Setki


Pierwsze 10 milionow emigrantow przyjechalo nielegalnie do Ameryki. Potem ci
nielegalni stworzyli prawo ktore niby ma byc przestrzegane przez nastepnych.
Jakim prawem?

[edytkus]

Lulu ja sie z toba zgadzam ale prawda jest taka ze kilkunastu mln ludzi nie da sie deportowac ani
aresztowac (we wlasnych piwnicach i garazach przeciez ich nie pozamykamy, a benzyny przeciez tez
szkoda?!). Ale dzieki demosntracjom wyszlo kto zatrudnia nieleglanych imigrantow i przynajmniej te
miejsca powinny zostac odpowiednio ukarane.

[donald_duk]

walnac po kieszeni, dobry pomysl.

[radio_woz]

Sa tez tacy, co przyjechali legalnie, ale nie przedluzyli wizy, bo i tak im i
tak odmowia, kaza wyjechac albo nie dadza wizy na prace. System emigracyjny
zacheca do klamania, do mowienia, ze przyjezdzasz na wycieczke, bo jak powiesz,
ze do pracy, to spie..c i prosimy przyjsc za rok (do konsulatu).
Pomysl: chcesz emigrowac na stale do Stanow ale: nie wylosowales karty, nie
znasz tu nikogo, wiec sponsorowanie odpada, nie chcesz slubu z obywatelem.
Znasz za to angielski i mam tego krajowi do zaoferowanie chec pracy w zawodzie
fizycznym lub umyslowym. Czy myslisz, ze jest droga prawna, ktora pozwala Ci tu
legalnie emigrowac? Jesli jest, to mnie oswieccie, bo nie znam takiej.
Demonstracje sa potrzebne zeby zmienic skonstniale, niehumanitarne prawo
emigracyjne. Najbardziej nie chca go zmienic czarni obywatele siedzacy na
welfare. Nie znam emigrantow legalnych, czy nie, ktorzy to robia. Wmawia sie
ludziom, ze emigranci sa obciazeniem dla panstwa, a panstwa zarabia na nich
kupe pieniedzy, chocby z podatkow, ktore wielu placi bez korzysci zbierania
social security na starosc.

mowisz jak szwagier z Moniek

[donald_duk]

masz mylne pojecie o sponsorowaniu. Na starosc to sie zapytaj nadau i czosnek
bo oni juz to odkryli: wlasny biznesik, kupa tumanow w kolejce a oni nic tylko
zlopia sobie kawke ze stryopianowego kubka i zajadaja sie zupa grzybowa z
tankstelle.

[radio_woz]

Skad wiesz, ze jestem z Moniek?
Myle sie, to mnie sprostuj, kolego.

[max321]

To ja cie sprostuje troche.
Mechol przyciagaja tutaj bachory, siedza nielegalnie nie ucza sie angielskiego,
pobieraja wszelkiego rodzaju zasilki na bachory urodzone tutaj, potem bachory
wala do szkoly oplacanej z naszych podatkow, obnizaja poziom bo tepe i rodzice
olali nauke angielskiego bo sami nie znaja i sie nie maja zamiaru uczyc,
zresszta jak jak nawet po hiszpansku ledwie dukaja, jak laza do szpitali bez
ubezpieczen to tko myslsisz za to placi? A pieniadze zeby wysylac do mexyku to
maja. Oni kosztuja duzo wiecej niz daja tej ekonomii, tylko o tym sie za glosno
nie mowi. Popatrz na szpitale i szkoly ktore sa na krawedzi bakructwa na
poludniu stanow przez mecholi.
Najlepsze jest to ze jedyni co stracili na tym bojtkocie to ci co zatrudniaja
nielegalnych.

[radio_woz]

A ja wole tych bachorow od tych z Afryki.

[radio_woz]

Te latynoskie przynajmniej pracuja i jesli sa zwalniani, to nie wrzeszcza, ze z
powodu rasizmu (a powodem jest lenistwo).

[edytkus]

radio_woz napisała:

>System emigracyjny
> zacheca do klamania,

no tak, a kazde prawo jest po to zeby je lamac a kazdy Rolex na wystawie u jubilera po to zeby go
sobie wziac?


> Czy myslisz, ze jest droga prawna, ktora pozwala Ci tu
>
> legalnie emigrowac?

a jak to wyglada w przypadku innych krajow? zlaozmy ze chce osiasc na stale we Francji i co, tak sobie
jade i juz?

>Najbardziej nie chca go zmienic czarni obywatele siedzacy na
> welfare.

co Ty za bajki pleciesz, kto np. na tym forum jest czarnym obywatelem na welfare?

> Nie znam emigrantow legalnych, czy nie, ktorzy to robia.

a ja znam, "lepsze" nawet numery odstawiaja i jeszcze sie chelpia

[radio_woz]

Zle prawo trzeba zmienic. Tobie akurat ono odpowiada.

[radio_woz]

Odpowiem krotko na pierwszy post: dajcie ludziom szanse bycia w Stanach
nielegalnie, to nie bedzie problemu legalnych. Na razie taka szanse ma malo
grupa, czesto kombinatorow.
Jak chcesz deportowac miliony ludzi? A co z dziecmi, ktore przeszly przez
granice i nie pamietaja juz innego kraju, ani jezyka? Tez je wyrzucisz za to,
co zrobili rodzice?

[lulu13]

wszyscy powinni byc deportowani bez zadnych ceregieli ,lacznie z
dziecmi ,niech rodzice za to odpowiadaja,nic to nas podatnikow nie
obchodzi ,porzadek musi byc w koncu zaprowadzony. Bo jesli nie bedzie
radykalnych rozwiazan w tej sprawie nastepne setki tysiace juz sa pod granica
i czekaja kiedy patrol USBorder Unit pojdzie na lunch ,a oni biegiem przez
granice. To jest bledne kolo ,ktore nigdy sie nie zatrzyma ,tylko ostre i
radykalne zmiany w prawie emigracyjnym moga to zmienic i grube ,wchodzace
w setki tysiace dollarow kary pieniezne za zatrudnianie nielegali ,moze
powstrzymac to bledne kolo.

[radio_woz]

Jak mozna deportowac kilkanascie milionow ludzi?
Nie wiesz, ze wielu z nich jest tez podatnikami? Nielegalni, ktorych znam
wzbogacaja Stany pod roznym wzgledem, a nie obciazaja go. Jesli pracuja z
legalnymi Murzynami, to bardzo widac roznice w zachowaniu i jakosci pracy.
Pracuja lepiej, nie sa bezczelni, nie korzystaja tak powszechnie z welfare jak
Czarni. Czy ten belkot Czarnego mozna nazwac angielskim (to a propos tego, ze
Latynosi nie mowia po angielsku)

[scag]

radio_woz napisała:

> Nie wiesz, ze wielu z nich jest tez podatnikami? Nielegalni, ktorych znam
> wzbogacaja Stany pod roznym wzgledem, a nie obciazaja go.


The National Research Council reports that an immigrant to the U.S. without a
high-school diploma - whether legal or illigal- consumes $89,000 more in
governmental services that he pays in taxes during his lifetime.An immigrant
with only high-school diploma is a net cost of #31,000. Eighty percent of
illigal immigrants have no more than a high-school degree, and 60 percent have
less than a high-school degree.


wiec moze najpierw fakty,ok?
system loterii wizowych WYMAGA posiadania wyksztalcenia i nie widze powodow by
to zmieniac.

[radio_woz]

Napisalam "ci, ktorych znam" i nie ma to nic wspolnego z wyksztalceniem, ale
checia do pracy, ktorej nie maja czarni obywatele.

[lewymajowy]

czy dane dotycza WSZYSTKICH podatkow placonych przez imigrantow, czy tylko
bezposrednich?
czy uwzglednia skladki SS nielegalnych, z ktorych oni sami nigdy nie
skorzystaja? podpowiadam, ze do tej pory kwota skladek SS z 'no match numbers'
wynosi miedzy 420 - 500 milardow dol. a sa tez tacy, ktorzy maja legalny SS ale
emeryturki nie beda pobierac.
...poprosze o wiecej faktow

Tych co nie znamy - fala kryminalistow, oszustow:

[warcholski]

Some of the most violent criminals at large today are illegal aliens. Yet in
cities where the crime these aliens commit is highest, the police cannot use
the most obvious tool to apprehend them: their immigration status. In Los
Angeles, for example, dozens of members of a ruthless Salvadoran prison gang
have sneaked back into town after having been deported for such crimes as
murder, assault with a deadly weapon, and drug trafficking. Police officers
know who they are and know that their mere presence in the country is a felony.
Yet should a cop arrest an illegal gangbanger for felonious reentry, it is he
who will be treated as a criminal, for violating the LAPD’s rule against
enforcing immigration law.

The LAPD’s ban on immigration enforcement mirrors bans in immigrant-saturated
cities around the country, from New York and Chicago to San Diego, Austin, and
Houston. These “sanctuary policies” generally prohibit city employees,
including the cops, from reporting immigration violations to federal
authorities.
Such laws testify to the sheer political power of immigrant lobbies, a power so
irresistible that police officials shrink from even mentioning the illegal-
alien crime wave. “We can’t even talk about it,” says a frustrated LAPD
captain. “People are afraid of a backlash from Hispanics.” Another LAPD
commander in a predominantly Hispanic, gang-infested district sighs: “I would
get a firestorm of criticism if I talked about [enforcing the immigration law
against illegals].” Neither captain would speak for attribution.

But however pernicious in themselves, sanctuary rules are a symptom of a much
broader disease: the nation’s near-total loss of control over immigration
policy. Fifty years ago, immigration policy might have driven immigration
numbers, but today the numbers drive policy. The nonstop increase of
immigration is reshaping the language and the law to dissolve any distinction
between legal and illegal aliens and, ultimately, the very idea of national
borders.
It is a measure of how topsy-turvy the immigration environment has become that
to ask police officials about the illegal-alien crime problem feels like a
gross faux pas, not done in polite company. And a police official asked to
violate this powerful taboo will give a strangled response—or, as in the case
of a New York deputy commissioner, break off communication altogether.
Meanwhile, millions of illegal aliens work, shop, travel, and commit crimes in
plain view, utterly secure in their de facto immunity from the immigration law.

I asked the Miami Police Department’s spokesman, Detective Delrish Moss, about
his employer’s policy on lawbreaking illegals. In September, the force arrested
a Honduran visa violator for seven vicious rapes. The previous year, Miami cops
had had the suspect in custody for lewd and lascivious molestation, without
checking his immigration status. Had they done so, they would have discovered
his visa overstay, a deportable offense, and so could have forestalled the
rapes. “We have shied away from unnecessary involvement dealing with
immigration issues,” explains Moss, choosing his words carefully, “because of
our large immigrant population.”
Police commanders may not want to discuss, much less respond to, the illegal-
alien crisis, but its magnitude for law enforcement is startling. Some examples:

• In Los Angeles, 95 percent of all outstanding warrants for homicide (which
total 1,200 to 1,500) target illegal aliens. Up to two-thirds of all fugitive
felony warrants (17,000) are for illegal aliens.

• A confidential California Department of Justice study reported in 1995 that
60 percent of the 20,000-strong 18th Street Gang in southern California is
illegal; police officers say the proportion is actually much greater. The
bloody gang collaborates with the Mexican Mafia, the dominant force in
California prisons, on complex drug-distribution schemes, extortion, and drive-
by assassinations, and commits an assault or robbery every day in L.A. County.
The gang has grown dramatically over the last two decades by recruiting
recently arrived youngsters, most of them illegal, from Central America and
Mexico.

• The leadership of the Columbia Lil’ Cycos gang, which uses murder and
racketeering to control the drug market around L.A.’s MacArthur Park, was about
60 percent illegal in 2002, says former assistant U.S. attorney Luis Li.
Francisco Martinez, a Mexican Mafia member and an illegal alien, controlled the
gang from prison, while serving time for felonious reentry following
deportation.

Good luck finding any reference to such facts in official crime analysis. The
LAPD and the L.A. city attorney recently requested an injunction against drug
trafficking in Hollywood, targeting the 18th Street Gang and the “non–gang
members” who sell drugs in Hollywood for the gang. Those non–gang members are
virtually all illegal Mexicans, smuggled into the country by a ring organized
by 18th Street bigs. The Mexicans pay off their transportation debts to the
gang by selling drugs; many soon realize how lucrative that line of work is and
stay in the business.

Cops and prosecutors universally know the immigration status of these non-
gang “Hollywood dealers,” as the city attorney calls them, but the gang
injunction is assiduously silent on the matter. And if a Hollywood officer were
to arrest an illegal dealer (known on the street as a “border brother” for his
immigration status, or even notify the Immigration and Naturalization Service
(since early 2003, absorbed into the new Department of Homeland Security), he
would face severe discipline for violating Special Order 40, the city’s
sanctuary policy.

The ordinarily tough-as-nails former LAPD chief Daryl Gates enacted Special
Order 40 in 1979—showing that even the most unapologetic law-and-order cop is
no match for immigration advocates. The order prohibits officers
from “initiating police action where the objective is to discover the alien
status of a person”—in other words, the police may not even ask someone they
have arrested about his immigration status until after they have filed criminal
charges, nor may they arrest someone for immigration violations. They may not
notify immigration authorities about an illegal alien picked up for minor
violations. Only if they have already booked an illegal alien for a felony or
for multiple misdemeanors may they inquire into his status or report him. The
bottom line: a cordon sanitaire between local law enforcement and immigration
authorities that creates a safe haven for illegal criminals.

L.A.’s sanctuary law and all others like it contradict a key 1990s policing
discovery: the Great Chain of Being in criminal behavior. Pick up a law-
violator for a “minor” crime, and you might well prevent a major crime:
enforcing graffiti and turnstile-jumping laws nabs you murderers and robbers.
Enforcing known immigration violations, such as reentry following deportation,
against known felons, would be even more productive. LAPD officers recognize
illegal deported gang members all the time—flashing gang signs at court
hearings for rival gangbangers, hanging out on the corner, or casing a target.
These illegal returnees are, simply by being in the country after deportation,
committing a felony (in contrast to garden-variety illegals on their first trip
to the U.S., say, who are only committing a misdemeanor). “But if I see a
deportee from the Mara Salvatrucha [Salvadoran prison] gang crossing the
street, I know I can’t touch him,” lament

[warcholski]

L.A.’s sanctuary law and all others like it contradict a key 1990s policing
discovery: the Great Chain of Being in criminal behavior. Pick up a law-
violator for a “minor” crime, and you might well prevent a major crime:
enforcing graffiti and turnstile-jumping laws nabs you murderers and robbers.
Enforcing known immigration violations, such as reentry following deportation,
against known felons, would be even more productive. LAPD officers recognize
illegal deported gang members all the time—flashing gang signs at court
hearings for rival gangbangers, hanging out on the corner, or casing a target.
These illegal returnees are, simply by being in the country after deportation,
committing a felony (in contrast to garden-variety illegals on their first trip
to the U.S., say, who are only committing a misdemeanor). “But if I see a
deportee from the Mara Salvatrucha [Salvadoran prison] gang crossing the
street, I know I can’t touch him,” laments a Los Angeles gang officer. Only if
the deported felon has given the officer some other reason to stop him, such as
an observed narcotics sale, can the cop accost him—but not for the immigration
felony.

Though such a policy puts the community at risk, the department’s top brass
brush off such concerns. No big deal if you see deported gangbangers back on
the streets, they say. Just put them under surveillance for “real” crimes and
arrest them for those. But surveillance is very manpower-intensive. Where there
is an immediate ground for getting a violent felon off the street and for
questioning him further, it is absurd to demand that the woefully understaffed
LAPD ignore it.

The stated reasons for sanctuary policies are that they encourage illegal-alien
crime victims and witnesses to cooperate with cops without fear of deportation,
and that they encourage illegals to take advantage of city services like health
care and education (to whose maintenance few illegals have contributed a single
tax dollar, of course). There has never been any empirical verification that
sanctuary laws actually accomplish these goals—and no one has ever suggested
not enforcing drug laws, say, for fear of intimidating drug-using crime
victims. But in any case, this official rationale could be honored by limiting
police use of immigration laws to some subset of immigration violators:
deported felons, say, or repeat criminal offenders whose immigration status
police already know.

The real reason cities prohibit their cops and other employees from immigration
reporting and enforcement is, like nearly everything else in immigration
policy, the numbers. The immigrant population has grown so large that public
officials are terrified of alienating it, even at the expense of ignoring the
law and tolerating violence. In 1996, a breathtaking Los Angeles Times exposé
on the 18th Street Gang, which included descriptions of innocent bystanders
being murdered by laughing cholos (gang members), revealed the rate of illegal-
alien membership in the gang. In response to the public outcry, the Los Angeles
City Council ordered the police to reexamine Special Order 40. You would have
thought it had suggested reconsidering Roe v. Wade. A police commander warned
the council: “This is going to open a significant, heated debate.” City
Councilwoman Laura Chick put on a brave front: “We mustn’t be afraid,” she
declared firmly.

But of course immigrant pandering trumped public safety. Law-abiding residents
of gang-infested neighborhoods may live in terror of the tattooed gangbangers
dealing drugs, spraying graffiti, and shooting up rivals outside their homes,
but such anxiety can never equal a politician’s fear of offending Hispanics. At
the start of the reexamination process, LAPD deputy chief John White had argued
that allowing the department to work closely with the INS would give cops
another tool for getting gang members off the streets. Trying to build a
homicide case, say, against an illegal gang member is often futile, he
explained, since witnesses fear deadly retaliation if they cooperate with the
police. Enforcing an immigration violation would allow the cops to lock up the
murderer right now, without putting a witness’s life at risk.

But six months later, Deputy Chief White had changed his tune: “Any broadening
of the policy gets us into the immigration business,” he asserted. “It’s a
federal law-enforcement issue, not a local law-enforcement issue.” Interim
police chief Bayan Lewis told the L.A. Police Commission: “It is not the time.
It is not the day to look at Special Order 40.”

Nor will it ever be, as long as immigration numbers continue to grow. After
their brief moment of truth in 1996, Los Angeles politicians have only grown
more adamant in defense of Special Order 40. After learning that cops in the
scandal-plagued Rampart Division had cooperated with the INS to try to uproot
murderous gang members from the community, local politicians threw a fit,
criticizing district commanders for even allowing INS agents into their station
houses. In turn, the LAPD strictly disciplined the offending officers. By now,
big-city police chiefs are unfortunately just as determined to defend sanctuary
policies as the politicians who appoint them; not so the rank and file,
however, who see daily the benefit that an immigration tool would bring.
Immigration politics have similarly harmed New York. Former mayor Rudolph
Giuliani sued all the way up to the Supreme Court to defend the city’s
sanctuary policy against a 1996 federal law decreeing that cities could not
prohibit their employees from cooperating with the INS. Oh yeah? said Giuliani;
just watch me. The INS, he claimed, with what turned out to be grotesque irony,
only aims to “terrorize people.” Though he lost in court, he remained defiant
to the end. On September 5, 2001, his handpicked charter-revision committee
ruled that New York could still require that its employees keep immigration
information confidential to preserve trust between immigrants and government.
Six days later, several visa-overstayers participated in the most devastating
attack on the city and the country in history.

[warcholski]

Six days later, several visa-overstayers participated in the most devastating
attack on the city and the country in history.

New York conveniently forgot the 1996 federal ban on sanctuary laws until a
gang of five Mexicans—four of them illegal—abducted and brutally raped a 42-
year-old mother of two near some railroad tracks in Queens. The NYPD had
already arrested three of the illegal aliens numerous times for such crimes as
assault, attempted robbery, criminal trespass, illegal gun possession, and drug
offenses. The department had never notified the INS.
Citizen outrage forced Mayor Michael Bloomberg to revisit the city’s sanctuary
decree yet again. In May 2003, Bloomberg tweaked the policy minimally to allow
city staffers to inquire into immigration status only if it is relevant to the
awarding of a government benefit. Though Bloomberg’s new rule said nothing
about reporting immigration violations to federal officials, advocates
immediately claimed that it did allow such reporting, and the ethnic lobbies
went ballistic. “What we’re seeing is the erosion of people’s rights,”
thundered Angelo Falcon of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund.
After three months of intense agitation by immigrant groups, Bloomberg replaced
this innocuous “don’t ask” policy with a “don’t tell” rule even broader than
Gotham’s original sanctuary policy. The new rule prohibits city employees from
giving other government officials information not just about immigration status
but about tax payments, sexual orientation, welfare status, and other matters.
But even were immigrant-saturated cities to discard their sanctuary policies
and start enforcing immigration violations where public safety demands it, the
resource-starved immigration authorities couldn’t handle the overwhelming
additional workload.

The chronic shortage of manpower to oversee, and detention space to house,
aliens as they await their deportation hearings (or, following an order of
removal from a federal judge, their actual deportation) has forced immigration
officials to practice a constant triage. Long ago, the feds stopped trying to
find and deport aliens who had “merely” entered the country illegally through
stealth or fraudulent documents. Currently, the only types of illegal aliens
who run any risk of catching federal attention are those who have been
convicted of an “aggravated felony” (a particularly egregious crime) or who
have been deported following conviction for an aggravated felony and who have
reentered (an offense punishable with 20 years in jail).

That triage has been going on for a long time, as former INS investigator Mike
Cutler, who worked with the NYPD catching Brooklyn drug dealers in the 1970s,
explains. “If you arrested someone you wanted to detain, you’d go to your boss
and start a bidding war,” Cutler recalls. “You’d say: 'My guy ran three blocks,
threw a couple of punches, and had six pieces of ID.' The boss would turn to
another agent: 'Next! Whaddid your guy do?' 'He ran 18 blocks, pushed over an
old lady, and had a gun.' ” But such one-upmanship was usually
fruitless. “Without the jail space,” explains Cutler, “it was like the Fish and
Wildlife Service; you’d tag their ear and let them go.”

But even when immigration officials actually arrest someone, and even if a
judge issues a final deportation order (usually after years of litigation and
appeals), they rarely have the manpower to put the alien on a bus or plane and
take him across the border. Second alternative: detain him pending removal.
Again, inadequate space and staff. In the early 1990s, for example, 15 INS
officers were in charge of the deportation of approximately 85,000 aliens (not
all of them criminals) in New York City. The agency’s actual response to final
orders of removal was what is known as a “run letter”—a notice asking the
deportable alien kindly to show up in a month or two to be deported, when the
agency might be able to process him. Results: in 2001, 87 percent of deportable
aliens who received run letters disappeared, a number that was even higher—94
percent—if they were from terror-sponsoring countries.
To other law-enforcement agencies, the feds’ triage often looks like complete
indifference to immigration violations. Testifying to Congress about the Queens
rape by illegal Mexicans, New York’s criminal justice coordinator defended the
city’s failure to notify the INS after the rapists’ previous arrests on the
ground that the agency wouldn’t have responded anyway. “We have time and time
again been unable to reach INS on the phone,” John Feinblatt said last
February. “When we reach them on the phone, they require that we write a
letter. When we write a letter, they require that it be by a superior.”

Criminal aliens also interpret the triage as indifference. John Mullaly a
former NYPD homicide detective, estimates that 70 percent of the drug dealers
and other criminals in Manhattan’s Washington Heights were illegal. Were
Mullaly to threaten an illegal-alien thug in custody that his next stop would
be El Salvador unless he cooperated, the criminal would just laugh, knowing
that the INS would never show up. The message could not be clearer: this is a
culture that can’t enforce its most basic law of entry. If policing’s broken-
windows theory is correct, the failure to enforce one set of rules breeds
overall contempt for the law.

The sheer number of criminal aliens overwhelmed an innovative program that
would allow immigration officials to complete deportation hearings while a
criminal was still in state or federal prison, so that upon his release he
could be immediately ejected without taking up precious INS detention space.
But the process, begun in 1988, immediately bogged down due to the numbers—in
2000, for example, nearly 30 percent of federal prisoners were foreign-born.
The agency couldn’t find enough pro bono attorneys to represent such an army of
criminal aliens (who have extensive due-process rights in contesting
deportation) and so would have to request delay after delay. Or enough
immigration judges would not be available. In 1997, the INS simply had no
record of a whopping 36 percent of foreign-born inmates who had been released
from federal and four state prisons without any review of their deportability.
They included 1,198 aggravated felons, 80 of whom were soon re-arrested for new
crimes.
Resource starvation is not the only reason for federal inaction. The INS was a
creature of immigration politics, and INS district directors came under great
pressure from local politicians to divert scarce resources into distribution of
such “benefits” as permanent residency, citizenship, and work permits, and away
from criminal or other investigations. In the late 1980s, for example, the INS
refused to join an FBI task force against Haitian drug trafficking in Miami,
fearing criticism for “Haitian-bashing.” In 1997, after Hispanic activists
protested a much-publicized raid that netted nearly two dozen illegals, the
Border Patrol said that it would no longer join Simi Valley, California,
probation officers on home searches of illegal-alien-dominated gangs.

The disastrous Citizenship USA project of 1996 was a luminous case of politics
driving the INS to sacrifice enforcement to “benefits.” When, in the early
1990s, the prospect of welfare reform drove immigrants to apply for citizenship
in record numbers to preserve their welfare eligibility, the Clinton
admi

[warcholski]

The disastrous Citizenship USA project of 1996 was a luminous case of politics
driving the INS to sacrifice enforcement to “benefits.” When, in the early
1990s, the prospect of welfare reform drove immigrants to apply for citizenship
in record numbers to preserve their welfare eligibility, the Clinton
administration, seeing a political bonanza in hundreds of thousands of new
welfare-dependent citizens, ordered the naturalization process radically
expedited. Thanks to relentless administration pressure, processing errors in
1996 were 99 percent in New York and 90 percent in Los Angeles, and tens of
thousands of aliens with criminal records, including for murder and armed
robbery, were naturalized.

Another powerful political force, the immigration bar association, has won from
Congress an elaborate set of due-process rights for criminal aliens that can
keep them in the country indefinitely. Federal probation officers in Brooklyn
are supervising two illegals—a Jordanian and an Egyptian with Saudi citizenship—
who look “ready to blow up the Statue of Liberty,” according to a probation
official, but the officers can’t get rid of them. The Jordanian had been caught
fencing stolen Social Security and tax-refund checks; now he sells phone cards,
which he uses himself to make untraceable calls. The Saudi’s offense: using a
fraudulent Social Security number to get employment—a puzzlingly unnecessary
scam, since he receives large sums from the Middle East, including from
millionaire relatives. But intelligence links him to terrorism, so presumably
he worked in order not to draw attention to himself. Currently, he changes his
cell phone every month. Ordinarily such a minor offense would not be
prosecuted, but the government, fearing that he had terrorist intentions, used
whatever it had to put him in prison.
Now, probation officers desperately want to see the duo out of the country, but
the two ex-cons have hired lawyers, who are relentlessly fighting their
deportation. “Due process allows you to stay for years without an
adjudication,” says a probation officer in frustration. “A regular immigration
attorney can keep you in the country for three years, a high-priced one for
ten.” In the meantime, Brooklyn probation officials are watching the bridges.

Even where immigration officials successfully nab and deport criminal aliens,
the reality, says a former federal gang prosecutor, is that “they all come
back. They can’t make it in Mexico.” The tens of thousands of illegal
farmworkers and dishwashers who overpower U.S. border controls every year carry
in their wake thousands of brutal assailants and terrorists who use the same
smuggling industry and who benefit from the same irresistible odds: there are
so many more of them than the Border Patrol.

For, of course, the government’s inability to keep out criminal aliens is part
and parcel of its inability to patrol the border, period. For decades, the INS
had as much effect on the migration of millions of illegals as a can tied to
the tail of a tiger. And the immigrants themselves, despite the press cliché of
hapless aliens living fearfully in the shadows, seemed to regard immigration
authorities with all the concern of an elephant for a flea.
Certainly fear of immigration officers is not in evidence among the hundreds of
illegal day laborers who hang out on Roosevelt Avenue in Queens, New York, in
front of money wire services, travel agencies, immigration-attorney offices,
and phone arcades, all catering to the local Hispanic population (as well as to
drug dealers and terrorists). “There is no chance of getting caught,”
cheerfully explains Rafael, an Ecuadoran. Like the dozen Ecuadorans and
Mexicans on his particular corner, Rafael is hoping that an SUV seeking
carpenters for $100 a day will show up soon. “We don’t worry, because we’re not
doing anything wrong. I know it’s illegal; I need the papers, but here, nobody
asks you for papers.”

Even the newly fortified Mexican border, the one spot where the government
really tries to prevent illegal immigration, looms as only a minor
inconvenience to the day laborers. The odds, they realize, are overwhelmingly
in their favor. Miguel, a reserved young carpenter, crossed the border at
Tijuana three years ago with 15 others. Border Patrol spotted them, but with
six officers to 16 illegals, only five got caught. In illegal border crossings,
you get what you pay for, Miguel says. If you try to shave on the fee, the
coyotes will abandon you at the first problem. Miguel’s wife was flying into
New York from Los Angeles that very day; it had cost him $2,200 to get her
across the border. “Because I pay, I don’t worry,” he says complacently.
The only way to dampen illegal immigration and its attendant train of criminals
and terrorists—short of an economic revolution in the sending countries or an
impregnably militarized border—is to remove the jobs magnet. As long as
migrants know they can easily get work, they will find ways to evade border
controls. But enforcing laws against illegal labor is among government’s lowest
priorities. In 2001, only 124 agents nationwide were trying to find and
prosecute the hundreds of thousands of employers and millions of illegal aliens
who violate the employment laws, the Associated Press reports.

Even were immigration officials to devote adequate resources to worksite
investigations, not much would change, because their legal weapons are so weak.
That’s no accident: though it is a crime to hire illegal aliens, a coalition of
libertarians, business lobbies, and left-wing advocates has consistently
blocked the fraud-proof form of work authorization necessary to enforce that
ban. Libertarians have erupted in hysteria at such proposals as a toll-free
number to the Social Security Administration for employers to confirm Social
Security numbers. Hispanics warn just as stridently that helping employers
verify work eligibility would result in discrimination against Hispanics—
implicitly conceding that vast numbers of Hispanics work illegally.

The result: hiring practices in illegal-immigrant-saturated industries are a
charade. Millions of illegal workers pretend to present valid documents, and
thousands of employers pretend to believe them. The law doesn’t require the
employer to verify that a worker is actually qualified to work, and as long as
the proffered documents are not patently phony—scrawled with red crayon on a
matchbook, say—the employer will nearly always be exempt from liability merely
by having eyeballed them. To find an employer guilty of violating the ban on
hiring illegal aliens, immigration authorities must prove that he knew he was
getting fake papers—an almost insurmountable burden. Meanwhile, the market for
counterfeit documents has exploded: in one month alone in 1998, immigration
authorities seized nearly 2 million of them in Los Angeles, destined for
immigrant workers, welfare seekers, criminals, and terrorists.

For illegal workers and employers, there is no downside to the employment
charade. If immigration officials ever do try to conduct an industry-wide
investigation—which will at least net the illegal employees, if not the
employers—local congressmen will almost certainly head it off. An INS inquiry
into the Vidalia-onion industry in Georgia was not only aborted by Georgia’s
congressional delegation; it actually resulted in a local amnesty for the
growers’ illegal workforce. The downside to complying with the spirit of the
employment law, on the other hand, is considerable. Ethnic advo

[warcholski]

The downside to complying with the spirit of the employment law, on the other
hand, is considerable. Ethnic advocacy groups are ready to picket employers who
dismiss illegal workers, and employers understandably fear being undercut by
less scrupulous competitors.

Of the incalculable changes in American politics, demographics, and culture
that the continuing surge of migrants is causing, one of the most profound is
the breakdown of the distinction between legal and illegal entry. Everywhere,
illegal aliens receive free public education and free medical care at taxpayer
expense; 13 states offer them driver’s licenses. States everywhere have been
pushed to grant illegal aliens college scholarships and reduced in-state
tuition. One hundred banks, over 800 law-enforcement agencies, and dozens of
cities accept an identification card created by Mexico to credentialize illegal
Mexican aliens in the U.S. The Bush administration has given its blessing to
this matricula consular card, over the strong protest of the FBI, which warns
that the gaping security loopholes that the card creates make it a boon to
money launderers, immigrant smugglers, and terrorists. Border authorities have
already caught an Iranian man sneaking across the border this year, Mexican
matricula card in hand.

Hispanic advocates have helped blur the distinction between a legal and an
illegal resident by asserting that differentiating the two is an act of
irrational bigotry. Arrests of illegal aliens inside the border now inevitably
spark protests, often led by the Mexican government, that feature signs calling
for “no más racismo.” Immigrant advocates use the language of “human rights” to
appeal to an authority higher than such trivia as citizenship laws. They attack
the term “amnesty” for implicitly acknowledging the validity of borders.
Indeed, grouses Illinois congressman Luis Gutierrez, “There’s an implication
that somehow you did something wrong and you need to be forgiven.”
Illegal aliens and their advocates speak loudly about what they think the U.S.
owes them, not vice versa. “I believe they have a right . . . to work, to drive
their kids to school,” said California assemblywoman Sarah Reyes. An
immigration agent says that people he stops “get in your face about their
rights, because our failure to enforce the law emboldens them.” Taking this
idea to its extreme, Joaquín Avila, a UCLA Chicano studies professor and law
lecturer, argues that to deny non-citizens the vote, especially in the many
California cities where they constitute the majority, is a form of apartheid.

Yet no poll has ever shown that Americans want more open borders. Quite the
reverse. By a huge majority—at least 60 percent—they want to rein in
immigration, and they endorse an observation that Senator Alan Simpson made 20
years ago: Americans “are fed up with efforts to make them feel that [they] do
not have that fundamental right of any people—to decide who will join them and
help form the future country in which they and their posterity will live.” But
if the elites’ and the advocates’ idea of giving voting rights to non-citizen
majorities catches on—and don’t be surprised if it does—Americans could be
faced with the ultimate absurdity of people outside the social compact making
rules for those inside it.

However the nation ultimately decides to rationalize its chaotic and incoherent
immigration system, surely all can agree that, at a minimum, authorities should
expel illegal-alien criminals swiftly. Even on the grounds of protecting non-
criminal illegal immigrants, we should start by junking sanctuary policies. By
stripping cops of what may be their only immediate tool to remove felons from
the community, these policies leave law-abiding immigrants prey to crime.

But the non-enforcement of immigration laws in general has an even more
destructive effect. In many immigrant communities, assimilation into gangs
seems to be outstripping assimilation into civic culture. Toddlers are learning
to flash gang signals and hate the police, reports the Los Angeles Times. In
New York City, “every high school has its Mexican gang,” and most 12- to 14-
year-olds have already joined, claims Ernesto Vega, an illegal 18-year-old
Mexican. Such pathologies only worsen when the first lesson that immigrants
learn about U.S. law is that Americans don’t bother to enforce
it. “Institutionalizing illegal immigration creates a mindset in people that
anything goes in the U.S.,” observes Patrick Ortega, the news and public-
affairs director of Radio Nueva Vida in southern California. “It creates a new
subculture, with a sequela of social ills.” It is broken windows writ large.

*******************************
FOR THE SAKE OF IMMIGRANTS AND NATIVE-BORN AMERICANS ALIKE, IT’S TIME TO DECIDE
WHAT OUR IMMIGRATION POLICY IS—AND ENFORCE IT.
**************************
The Illegal-Alien Crime Wave
Heather Mac Donald
www.city-journal.org/html/14_1_the_illegal_alien.html

[lewymajowy]

ja przyznaje warcholski, ze troche mnie frustrujesz. jestem na biezaco z tematem
wiec odpusc sobie 'copy and paste'. nikt nie neguje potrzeby deportowania osob,
ktore popelnily przestepstwa kryminalne i innych lobuzow. za to nie przekonasz
mnie, ze kampania anti-illegals nie jest zabarwiona rasistowsko. chocby
pojawiajace sie terminy jak 'browning america'. niestety, Ty takze popisujesz
sie wlasnymi uprzedzeniami, czy tez zapozyczonymi od chlopcow spod krzyza
poludnia. ...ale skoro tak sie upierasz, ze chcesz mi sypnac troche danych. moze
posiadasz dane porownawcze przestepczosci wsrod nielegalnych imigrantow i
obywateli amerykanskich? tylko, jak mozesz to zwiezle, rzeczowo i bez akcentow
humorystycznych.

Lulu, ty masz spoznienia, tak o pare dni:

[waldek.usa]

forum.gazeta.pl/forum/72,2.html?f=44&w=41131522&v=2&s=0

juz zaplanowane

[lulu13]

sa nastepne akcje i protesty ,i to wkrotce ,latynoskie srodowisko jest
bardzo aktywne pod tym wzgledem !! ,bo ich jest najwiecej z calej Ameryki
Poludniowej,staja sie coraz bardziej bezczelni i nachalni i
halasliwi ,ciekawe co zrobi Congres ?

[warcholski]

lulu13 napisał:

> sa nastepne akcje i protesty ,i to wkrotce ,latynoskie srodowisko jest
> bardzo aktywne pod tym wzgledem !! ,bo ich jest najwiecej z calej Ameryki
> Poludniowej,staja sie coraz bardziej bezczelni i nachalni i
> halasliwi ,ciekawe co zrobi Congres ?

oto chodzi, zaczna wiecej szumiec, przerodzi sie w violence ...wtedy beda
zamiatac i szulami sprzatac illigals

> halasliwi ,ciekawe co zrobi Congres ?
tak jak poprzednio - nic

[axx61]

I znowu kilka tysiecy latynosow przeszlo przez granice do USA. Czy w ogole
istnieje jakas granica" Chyba tylko na mapie. Prasa podala ze 8 mln
meksykanczykow ma stale wizy do pracy w USA ale mieszka na codzien w Meksyku.

[scag]

axx61 napisał:

> Prasa podala ze 8 mln meksykanczykow ...

???
MEKSYKANCZYKOW?
ty na prawde taki glupi jestes czy tylko trolujesz?

[warcholski]

> > Prasa podala ze 8 mln meksykanczykow ...

hehe -to "podala" trybuna ludu

[axx61]

The Washington POst. Polecam.

Mexico has its immigration problems, too

[warcholski]

By Maria Elena Salinas
(Updated Tuesday, April 25, 2006, 9:30 AM)

Residents of the Mexican city of Tultitlan are up in arms. So much so that
dozens took the law into their own hands, attacking two vehicles occupied by
Mexican immigration agents and state police officers, beating several of them,
burning one car and flipping the other one over. Their anger stems from the
fatal shooting of a Mexican national during an immigration raid, when he was
reportedly mistaken for an undocumented immigrant.

The vigilante unrest aside, the shooting incident brings up myriad questions
about the way Mexico deals with its own immigration problem, particularly when
its government is demanding fair and humane treatment of its undocumented
migrants in the United States.

According to witnesses, Roberto Lugo Hernandez, a 22-year-old construction
worker, was on his way to work with a friend when they heard shots and saw two
official vehicles driving toward them. They ran. Hernandez turned around to
look at his aggressors, and he was shot. Immigration agents are not supposed to
carry weapons, but in this case armed police were called in as backup.

There is another version being investigated, according to Ermenegildo Castro,
director of communication at the National Immigration Institute of
Mexico. "There were several captured undocumented immigrants in the vehicles
when a group of villagers rammed toward them, demanding they be freed," Castro
told me. "We'll have to wait and see which version is true," he added.

'Routine operation'

One thing is certain, according to Castro: This was a routine operation, like
thousands that have taken place in the past five years. The flow of
undocumented immigrants, mostly from Central America, has increased 70%. More
than 240,000 have been detained and repatriated. "It is the first time there
has been a fatality," Castro assured.

This might be the first documented case of a death at the hands of Mexican
immigration agents, but accusations abound of abuse, theft, torture, rape and
even murder against undocumented immigrants in Mexico. Villagers in the area of
Tultitlan, a magnet for migrants just outside of Mexico City, say these types
of operations happen all the time. As soon as they hear shots, some have told
local media, they know it's time to round up the undocumented.

Edgar Cortez, spokesman for a human-rights coalition called "All Rights for All
People," said they receive dozens of complaints of abuse of migrants by
authorities.

On their 1,800-kilometer journey through Mexico on their way to the U.S.
border, Central American migrants are often victims of extortion by law
enforcement. The immigration institute says it deals with abusers. Nearly 200
agents have been relieved of their duties in the past four years. But human-
rights activists say that migrants who decide to file complaints have a great
disadvantage since they can't hang around and wait for cases to be investigated
and processed.

Interior Secretary Carlos Abascal said Mexico is a country with a "clear,
defined and generous policy toward migrants." Every six months, the Mexican
government offers legalization to undocumented immigrants who have been in the
country more than two years, have a job or have some personal link to a Mexican
citizen. However, most recent arrivals who are caught are deported immediately,
with no legal recourse.

Mexican immigration authorities are looking into creating a border patrol,
similar to the one in the United States, as part of an agreement with the U.S.
to increase protection of the borders with better-trained agents. As of now,
all they have is "Grupo Beta," an elite group with only 150 members, who are
supposed to protect the human rights of immigrants coming into the country and
Mexican nationals who are leaving.

Just like the U.S., the Mexican government has a right to protect its borders
and its sovereignty. But to have the moral authority to demand humane treatment
of immigrants north of its border, ***it needs to look at it own immigration
laws, stop giving abusers impunity and begin to practice what it preaches.***

Maria Elena Salinas is anchor of "Noticiero Univision".

www.fresnobee.com/columnists/salinas/story/12097322p-12848846c.html

oni sobie przechodza bez problemow

[lulu13]

przez granice ,bo nie ma drutow kolczastych,zadnych murow
i innych zasiekow !!

[lulu13]

i dlatego ich tu jest najwiecej

[lewymajowy]

a mi sie wydawalo, ze najwiecej jest tutaj Amerykanow