Thread: Immigration enforcement law won't help police catch criminal

Hi all...
someone is fighting for us....here are a couple of articles under press releases and some interesting links....it's worth going to site and checking around alot to learn and please use contack us...to thank them for their work...

Click here: Judicial Watch http://www.judicialwatch.org/5809.shtml
For Immediate Release
Jul 17, 2006 Contact: Press Office
202-646-5188

Judicial Watch Challenges the LAPD's "Special Order 40" in New Court Filing
Illegal Immigration “Sanctuary” Policy Violates Federal Law
Court Hearing Scheduled for July 27

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch, the public interest group that fights government corruption, announced today that it filed a memorandum in the Los Angeles County Superior Court further supporting its legal challenge to the Los Angeles Police Department’s “Special Order 40,” a policy that prohibits police officers from inquiring about an individual’s immigration status and reportedly restricts police officers from cooperating with federal immigration officials (Harold P. Sturgeon v. William J. Bratton, et al., Case No. BC351646.) Filed on July 14th in response to the defendants’ “demurrer,” which would effectively dismiss the lawsuit, Judicial Watch’s memorandum argues that “Special Order 40” violates federal law. A court hearing is scheduled for July 27.

“It cannot be denied that Special Order 40 and the policies, practices, and procedures arising thereunder violate both the letter and spirit of [federal law],” Judicial Watch argued in its court filing. “The LAPD has adopted what is in effect a ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy with respect to immigration status. Under ordinary circumstances, a ‘cop on the beat’ who suspects an individual of being in the United States illegally cannot inquire about that individual’s immigration status…He cannot undertake any investigation at all.”

In 1996, Congress enacted legislation which states, “…a Federal, State, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (now Immigration and Customs Enforcement) information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.”

“The Los Angeles Police Department needs to stop undermining our nation’s immigration laws,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Special Order 40 is unlawful and dangerous. It prevents police officers from communicating freely with federal immigration officials and puts American citizens at risk from criminal illegal aliens.”

Judicial Watch filed its “Special Order 40” lawsuit on April 28, 2006 in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles.

Click here to read Judicial Watch’s court filing.
Click here to read more about Judicial Watch’s campaign against Special Order 40.

Judicial Watch
http://www.judicialwatch.org/so40.shtml
Special Order 40

City of Los Angeles
Special Order 40 is a police mandate that originated in 1979 by former Los Angeles Police Chief Gates and the L.A. City Council to prevent police from inquiring about the immigration status of arrestees. The downside to Special Order 40 is quite substantial because it is a powerful incentive for more illegal immigrants to flaunt U.S. law. Illegal immigrants recognize Los Angeles – and many other cities that have adopted similar laws – as a safe haven where they can’t be touched because of their immigration status. Special Order 40 is also at odds with the law. No police officer can be ordered to ignore and flout the law, including federal immigration laws. As part of our efforts in the area of immigration law enforcement, Judicial Watch, under the California Public Records Act, requested documents from the LAPD regarding Special Order 40 and about how their officers handle illegal immigrants. We sued the LAPD for the documents after they were unresponsive to our request and were successful. We have also sued the LAPD over the actual special order. Legal Documents
Opposition to motion to file for leave to file complaint in opposition - JW's response to the ACLU's motion to file for intervention in behalf of illegal immigrants
http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/20 ... sition.pdf
California Superior Court Judge Rolf M. Treu's "Tentative Ruling" - Allows the case to proceed to discovery.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2006/0152_001.pdf
Memorandum in Response to the Defendants' "Demurrer" - Further support of JW's legal challenge to Special Order 40
http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/20 ... 071706.pdf
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief - Seeking judgment that Special Order 40 is unlawful.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/20 ... ratton.pdf
Documents Produced
http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2006/lapd-docs.pdf
Complaint for Injunction - Request for documents pertaining to Special Order 40
http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2006/so40-suit.pdf
Press Releases
ACLU Asks Court to Allow Illegal Immigrants to Intervene in Judicial Watch’s Special Order 40 Lawsuit (September 19, 2006)
http://www.judicialwatch.org/5969.shtml
Judge Rules Against LAPD: Judicial Watch's "Special Order 40" Lawsuit to Move Forward (July 27, 2006)
http://www.judicialwatch.org/5816.shtml
Judicial Watch Challenges the LAPD's "Special Order 40" in New Court Filing (July 17, 2006)
http://www.judicialwatch.org/5809.shtml
Judicial Watch Sues Los Angeles Police Department Over Dangerous & Unlawful Immigration Policy (May 2, 2006)
http://www.judicialwatch.org/5761.shtml

Click here: Judicial Watch
http://www.judicialwatch.org/contact.shtml
* E-mail –* *
o******* To tell us how we are doing or general inquires –
********************* info@judicialwatch.org

**** Media inquires – media@judicialwatch.org

o******* To Report Corruption – www.confidentialwitness.org

o******* Membership or Donation inquiries - fundraising@judicialwatch.org

o******* To apply for an internship – intern@judicialwatch.org

o******* For help with Freedom of Information and other Open Records Requests – openrecords@judicialwatch.org

******** Phone – Call us toll free at 1-888-JW-Ethic (1-888-593-8442)*v*********** Fax – 202-646-5199*v***********
Mail – Please write to*us at:*Judicial Watch, Inc.
P.O. Box 44444
Washington, D.C. 20026
*

Click here: In Border Fence's Path, Congressional Roadblocks - washingtonpost.com
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01935.html

In Border Fence's Path, Congressional Roadblocks

By Spencer S. Hsu
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 6, 2006; Page A01

No sooner did Congress authorize construction of a 700-mile fence on the U.S.-Mexico border last week than lawmakers rushed to approve separate legislation that ensures it will never be built, at least not as advertised, according to Republican lawmakers and immigration experts.

GOP leaders have singled out the fence as one of the primary accomplishments of the recently completed session. Many lawmakers plan to highlight their $1.2 billion down payment on its construction as they campaign in the weeks before the midterm elections.
But shortly before recessing late Friday, the House and Senate gave the Bush administration leeway to distribute the money to a combination of projects -- not just the physical barrier along the southern border. The funds may also be spent on roads, technology and "tactical infrastructure" to support the Department of Homeland Security's preferred option of a "virtual fence."What's more, in a late-night concession to win over wavering Republicans, GOP congressional leaders pledged in writing that Native American tribes, members of Congress, governors and local leaders would get a say in "the exact placement" of any structure, and that Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff would have the flexibility to use alternatives "when fencing is ineffective or impractical."
The loopholes leave the Bush administration with authority to decide where, when and how long a fence will be built, except for small stretches east of San Diego and in western Arizona. Homeland Security officials have proposed a fence half as long, lawmakers said."It's one thing to authorize. It's another thing to actually appropriate the money and do it," said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.). The fine-print distinction between what Congress says it will do and what it actually pays for is a time-honored result of the checks and balances between lawmakers who oversee agencies and those who hold their purse strings.In this case, it also reflects political calculations by GOP strategists that voters do not mind the details, and that key players -- including the administration, local leaders and the Mexican government -- oppose a fence-only approach, analysts said.President Bush signed the $34.8 billion homeland security budget bill Wednesday in Scottsdale, Ariz., without referring to the 700-mile barrier. Instead, he highlighted the $1.2 billion that Congress provided for an unspecified blend of fencing, vehicle barriers, lighting and technology such as ground-based radar, cameras and sensors."That's what the people of this country want," the president said. "They want to know that we're modernizing the border so we can better secure the border."Bush and Chertoff have said repeatedly that enforcement alone will not work and that they want limited dollars spent elsewhere, such as on a temporary-worker program to ease pressure on the border. At an estimated $3 million to $10 million per mile, the double-layered barrier will cost considerably more than $1.2 billion.Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), who chairs the Senate subcommittee that funds the Department of Homeland Security, said that before the legislation was approved, the department had planned to build 320 miles of fencing, secure 500 miles of hard-to-traverse areas by blocking roads and monitor electronically the rest of the 2,000-mile-long southern frontier."I think there'll be fencing where the department feels that it makes sense," Gregg said, estimating that "at least 300 to 400 miles" will be built.
Page 2 of 2*
Congress withheld $950 million of the $1.2 billion, pending a breakdown by Chertoff of how he plans to spend the money. It is due in early December, after the midterm elections.Asked whether Homeland Security would build 700 miles of fence, department spokesman Russ Knocke would not say. Instead, he noted that department leaders announced last month that they will spend $67 million to test a remote-sensing "virtual fence" concept on a 28-mile, high-traffic stretch of border south of Tucson over eight months, and then adjust their plans."We plan to build a little and test a little. . . . Stay tuned," Knocke said. "We're optimistic that Congress is going to provide the department with flexibility."The split between GOP leaders hungry for a sound-bite-friendly accomplishment targeting immigration and others who support a more comprehensive approach also means that the fence bill will be watered down when lawmakers return for a lame-duck session in November, according to congressional aides and lobbyists.The office of Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.) yesterday released a letter from House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) promising to ensure that Chertoff has discretion over whether to build a fence or choose other options. Homeland Security officials must also consult with U.S., state and local representatives on where structures are placed.The letter was inserted in the Congressional Record on Friday night because Congress ran out of time to reach a final deal, aides said."State and local officials in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas should not be excluded from decisions about how to best protect our borders with their varying topography, population and geography," Hutchison said in a statement added to the record.Congress also hedged on when a fence would be completed. The law mandating it said Homeland Security officials should gain "operational control" of the border in 18 months. But the law funding it envisions five years. Chertoff has set a goal of two to three years, but only after completion of an immigration overhaul.Staff writer Peter Baker contributed to this report.

NOTE ::: IT WAS REPORTED ON TUCKER CARLSON SHOW msnbc ...LAST NIGHT IN AN INTERVIEW WITH CONGRESSMAN Tancredo ...that the letter mentioned from Hastert and Frist was to chertoff and gave the insinuation he wouldn't have to worry about building this fence..THAT THE INDIAN NATION/NATIONS AT THE BORDER ALSO HAVE TO AGREE ON FENCE... SO THE INDIAN NATIONS,U.S., state and local representatives
AND DON'T FORGET ."State and local officials in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas should not be excluded from decisions
hows that for veto power?????
p.s. I haven't been able to find this letter inserted in this bill...but I'm trying