Thread: Collision course on 287(g)

Collision course on 287(g)
Waukegan will become ground zero Monday for clash of wills on extended immigration enforcement

July 13, 2007
By RYAN PAGELOW rpagelow@scn1.com

WAUKEGAN -- Groups on both sides of the debate over whether to give Waukegan police authority to perform some federal immigration functions are gearing up for Monday when the City Council will reconsider the issue.

More than 100 supermarkets, small shops and restaurants in Waukegan are displaying orange signs in their windows in opposition to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement training program that would give police the ability to launch deportation proceedings against violent offenders. Immigrant rights groups are urging the community to attend the council meeting and are circulating petitions among voters and businesses to present at that meeting.

Meanwhile, groups favoring stricter immigration enforcement have planned an immigration conference Saturday and a campaign Sunday to shop at Waukegan businesses that support the extension of immigration powers to police. Some of them also plan to attend Monday's City Council meeting.

On the council's agenda that evening is a motion that was presented by 2nd Ward Ald. John Balen and seconded by 5th Ward Ald. Edith Newsome to reconsider the application for 287(g) authorization, which would allow two trained officers to start deportation proceedings for legal and illegal aliens convicted of violent offenses such as sexual assault, murder or drug violations.

Organizers of the boycott, who encourage people to shop only at stores displaying the orange signs in opposition to 287(g), have estimated that "hundreds" of businesses are participating but did not give an exact number or a list of them. Waukegan is home to more than 1,200 businesses.

Lilia Paredes, an organizer with the Labor Council for Latin American Advancement in Chicago, showed a stack of petitions from business owners who formally oppose 287(g) during a news conference Thursday in front of City Hall. The petitions will be presented to the council Monday.

Julio Mejia, owner of Mas por Menos supermarket in Waukegan, has one of the orange signs in his window showing his opposition to 287(g).

"We're completely against 287(g)," said Mejia, a Honduran immigrant whose consumer base is primarily Latino.

He's seen a small drop in business since the City Council passed a resolution to apply for 287(g) authorization in June and expects his business to drop more if ICE grants Waukegan police that authority.

"It's going to affect everyone," he said. "People are scared."

Across the street at Family Dollar, a national chain, there is no sign and business is normal, said store manager Latoya Dodson. Fliers not related to the store cannot be displayed in the window unless approved by corporate headquarters.

"They don't try to get into stuff like that. We try to stay neutral," Dodson said.

One of the largest businesses participating in the anti-287(g) campaign is Lewis Produce Market, which provided a skid of water bottles during a community meeting of 287(g) opponents at Belvidere Mall last Saturday.

"Business is down, that's for sure. I don't know if it's because of that," said Gus Georges, a Greek immigrant.

Most of his store's clientele is Hispanic, he said, but he didn't want to comment on 287(g) specifically.

"Actions speak for themselves," Georges said.

Several businesses, one from each ward, plan to attend a private meeting Friday with Mayor Richard Hyde to press their case in opposition to 287(g).

Fred Flannigan, the host of a radio program on WKRS-AM, is organizing Saturday's immigration conference at the College of Lake County in Grayslake with representatives of local and national groups pushing for strict enforcement of immigration laws. That conference is scheduled to begin at noon with the screening of the film "Border" and a presentation by relatives of jailed former border patrol agent Ignacio Ramos.

Flannigan is urging his listeners to show up at Monday's council meeting in support of implementing 287(g). He's also helping to promote "Shop in Waukegan Day" on Sunday at businesses that do not have the orange opposition signs.

"They've managed to put a target on their own stores. Basically, they said don't shop here if you're in favor of Waukegan enforcing the law," Flannigan said. "We're trying to put together a list of businesses that also sell on the Internet. Obviously, a lot of people are not local residents."

Rick Biesada, a give resident who also leads the Chicago Minuteman Project, said he plans to attend Monday's council meeting.

"A couple of us are planning on going," Biesada said. "We're going as individuals, nothing organized."

http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/news ... S1.article

Added to Home Page
http://www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=N ... e&sid=2376

Every state and local law enforcement officer should be required to enforce immigration laws just as they are required to enforce all other laws. Otherwise they should before the federal government for disobeying the law for aiding and abetting illegals. it is time for our government to stand up and enforce the laws.

Originally Posted by Beckyal

Every state and local law enforcement officer should be required to enforce immigration laws just as they are required to enforce all other laws. Otherwise they should before the federal government for disobeying the law for aiding and abetting illegals. it is time for our government to stand up and enforce the laws.

From the way I read the law they are suppose to be doing just that.

This is much more serious than just an immigration issue. The police we have in office are violating their oaths of office to uphold the Constitution and the law.

TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER II > Part VIII > § 1324

snip....

(c) Authority to arrest
No officer or person shall have authority to make any arrests for a violation of any provision of this section except officers and employees of the Service designated by the Attorney General, either individually or as a member of a class, and all other officers whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws.

For the whole banana go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/us..._sup_01_8.html

This is the oath of office in Greenbelt, Maryland.

[quote]03 The Oath: “I swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to the State of Maryland and support the Constitution and laws thereof; and that I will, to the best of my skill and judgment diligently and faithfully, without partiality or prejudice, execute the office of police officer according to the Constitution and laws of this State.â€

I really can't understand the opposition to this 287(g). From what I understand, it would only apply to those arrested for Felony or violent crimes, not misdemeanors. Law enforcement could only identify the legal status of those criminals they arrested in the course of performing their law enforcement duties--they are not permitted to act as ICE agents, entering homes or businesses for the purposes of enforcing immigration laws.

Therefore, wouldn't you think that even those here illegally, if they are law-abiding (other than their illegal status) would want violent offenders deported out of their communities? These criminals--gang members, drug dealers, murderers, rapists--prey on the immigrant community as well as the community at large. Wouldn't it be a good thing to get rid of them? Why would anyone object to this? I can't imagine any other group of people in a community saying that they want violent criminals to remain to prey on innocent people!

Originally Posted by noyoucannot

I really can't understand the opposition to this 287(g). From what I understand, it would only apply to those arrested for Felony or violent crimes, not misdemeanors. Law enforcement could only identify the legal status of those criminals they arrested in the course of performing their law enforcement duties--they are not permitted to act as ICE agents, entering homes or businesses for the purposes of enforcing immigration laws.

Therefore, wouldn't you think that even those here illegally, if they are law-abiding (other than their illegal status) would want violent offenders deported out of their communities? These criminals--gang members, drug dealers, murderers, rapists--prey on the immigrant community as well as the community at large. Wouldn't it be a good thing to get rid of them? Why would anyone object to this? I can't imagine any other group of people in a community saying that they want violent criminals to remain to prey on innocent people!

Because then they would lose their numbers. The violent offenders probably make up about 25-30% of them, and the regular felons who just casually steal SSN's from Americans make up about 90% of them. That is why John Cornyn's amendment for CIR was called "report to deport" because it would have deported all felons immediately. The open-borders crowd whined "well that's just about everybody!" (boo-hoo-hoo!!)

I have heard that certain members of the Latino activist groups have not entirely told the truth about 287g to the 'immigrant' community in Waukegan. They riled them up and used fear. Or let's say they withheld the full scope of this tool. They used the towing ordinance (if you don't have a license/insurance your car is towed and there is a $500 fine to get it back) to fan the flame of anger/profiling/fear...

They believe that the Waukegan police will abuse these powers and start hauling people away.

Originally Posted by noyoucannot

I really can't understand the opposition to this 287(g). From what I understand, it would only apply to those arrested for Felony or violent crimes, not misdemeanors. Law enforcement could only identify the legal status of those criminals they arrested in the course of performing their law enforcement duties--they are not permitted to act as ICE agents, entering homes or businesses for the purposes of enforcing immigration laws.

Therefore, wouldn't you think that even those here illegally, if they are law-abiding (other than their illegal status) would want violent offenders deported out of their communities? These criminals--gang members, drug dealers, murderers, rapists--prey on the immigrant community as well as the community at large. Wouldn't it be a good thing to get rid of them? Why would anyone object to this? I can't imagine any other group of people in a community saying that they want violent criminals to remain to prey on innocent people!

This is exactly the point I made when emailing the City Council members and the Mayor! I told them that they knew what their intent is in wanting 287g and that is to protect the citizens of Waukegan...irregardless of national origin, race, or legal status....from the worst of the worst currently walking free in their society. I encouraged them not to be swayed from their goal by those who would twist their intent into something sinister simply because they do not want the rule of law to apply, to a certain population, period. I pointed out to them that nothing could demonstrate this more clearly than the fact that these folks would rather see the most dangerous of criminals remain available to victimize even them over any type of law which might hold illegals accountable for their actions in any way, shape, or form.

I also pointed out to them that, while originally, the intent was to block 287g, these people have now expanded their goal to include having the council cease having vehicles impounded which belong to illegals driving with no license and insurance, and to suspend the housing and zoning ordinances as they pertain to Latinos. "If all of this is not indicative of a populace who wants to maintain a separate and lawless society where they alone are untouchable and above the laws which apply to everyone else, then what is?"

Then I urged the Council not to give in to the bullying and intimidation tactics used by those who know they are wrong and have no other recourse in the absence of a legal and legitimate argument, ensuring them that it has been seen time and again that this conduct will only continue until they realize it has gotten them nowhere because officials have not given in.



I just really hope that the Council does the right thing and doesn't cater to these criminal thugs.

The Waukegan event is really going to test the waters. I'm wondering if any effort is being made with our police in all cities on understanding what is at stake if they do not support this effort. I keep reading that the police in many states are reluctant to ask about the legality of anyone--even if they are arrested for a crime.