Thread: Mayan Calendar news calls Chicago cops Nazis!

Sage words madinchicago. Maybe you could pm them to William. I know there are plans for Illinois -maybe Chicago specificially will be part of it.

We do need help.

Thanks for that website for Jorge. I'll go check it out and bookmark it so I can keep an eye on it.

Did you read the letter Guitterezzz and Baca? wrote and the rebuttal to it from FAIR? It's nice to see those two get some heat. And Guitterezzz is our rep???

Keep up your good work.

Originally Posted by fedupinwaukegan

Sage words madinchicago. Maybe you could pm them to William. I know there are plans for Illinois -maybe Chicago specificially will be part of it.

We do need help.

Thanks for that website for Jorge. I'll go check it out and bookmark it so I can keep an eye on it.

Did you read the letter Guitterezzz and Baca? wrote and the rebuttal to it from FAIR? It's nice to see those two get some heat. And Guitterezzz is our rep???

Keep up your good work.

Thanks for your supporting words fedupinwaukegan! You and the other Illinoisans must see this as I do. And somehow the rest of the country needs to focus their efforts in Chicago as well, or simply put “loose the war on illegal immigration.

Others may see their communities “improvingâ€

Ding ding ding!......Round two!

I decided to write a rebuttal to Mr. Perez, as I felt much was left unsaid. My original remarks are plain, his are quoted, and my rebuttal is in bold.

Let's get it on!!!
-----
Dear Mr. Perez,
I was forwarded your e-mail (below) and wanted to write and ask for clarification about a few things regarding it.

First, are you speaking of legal or illegal immigrants in your message? You made no distinction. If legal immigrants are being arrested without just cause, I couldn't agree more that something must be done about it. But if you are speaking of illegal immigrants, they have no legal right to be here, and therefore don't have "civil liberties or Constitutional rights" as you mentioned. Those are reserved for those here legally.

Yes, legal immigrants are being arrested and detained without just cause. Yes, undocumented immigrants are being areetsed and detained without just cause. Constitutional rights/civil liberties apply to anyone that is physically in the USA. The Declaration of Independence states categorically that these rights are inalienable to all human beings. There is also the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, the Geneva Convention, that also apply to unlawful arrest and detention. All of this is based on the principles first delcared in the Magna Carta of 13th century England.

Exactly who among the U.S. legal citizenry is being detained? Are you speaking of citizens born to U.S. parents or children simply born under the guise of the misinterpretation of the 14th amendment?

And what metrics of "just cause" aren't being fulfilled? Again, if your purpose is to support U.S. citizens and those here legally, you have my support. For those here illegally (and their children), I would offer to support them to initiate change in their native country. That is the real solution to the problem.

As for your claim that anyone here has rights guaranteed by the Constitution, no definitive position has even been decided. However, the preamble of the Constitution does say, "We the people of the United States of America...", which establishes at least an implication of American citizenship. It is only an implication, but I don't know of too many non-citizens who would describe themselves as "Americans" solely or even first.

To your point, I think the Constitution illustrates more what is required of the Federal Government than of it's people, present legally or otherwise. I think we can agree that, on many levels, the Federal Government has failed it's responsibilities in that regard.
-----

As you are a new reader of my MCN, you are obviously ignorant of the facts that I have laid out ever since 9/11-2001, of the intent to establish a NATIONAL GESTAPO POLICE STATE, under the guise of immigration enforcement/immigration reform proposals.

"Obviously ignorant to the facts"? Although I admit joining a discussion midstream is a tad headstrong of me, you must regard yourself quite highly to refer to anyone who doesn't believe your every word, without question, as "ignorant". As for "facts", they beg for clarification as you have yet to cite any references beyond mentioning entire bodies of legislation with common threads (of course, I suppose I could read more of your previous posts). Even the worst conspiracy theorists at least add some specific (albeit commonly taken out of context) citations for good measure.
-----

This policy has been spelled out in the HR 4437 (Sensenbrenner/King bill), The STRIVE ACT, and the grand Compromise of the criminal Bush administration.

Exactly how would any of these (by themselves) compromise the safety and security of U.S. citizens? Are you referring to the potential infringements of the Real ID program? While I am against Real ID, I fully supported the immigration enforcement measures contained in these proposals.

Why? Because immigration enforcement has either been underfunded or ignored since Eisenhower. The very reason we're in the current situation is because we've never taken immigration enforcement and border security seriously. Until we do, our quality of live will continue to erode until we either reach economic homeostasis with Mexico (or get blown up by suicide bombers with expired visas). Simply put, the rising tide will not raise all boats, but swallow ours.
-----

This includes federalization of local, county and state police, giving police the authority to determine one's immigreant status without any rights to due process or right to a court hearing before a judge.

Again, to which piece of legislation are you referring? Are you referring to expedited removal, E-verify, or perhaps the 287(g) program? And how do these harm those here legally (aside from the aforementioned misinterpretations of the 14th amendment)?
-----

As these aforementioned proposals never passed in the last session of Congress, YOUR PRESIDENT (not mine) has used the power of executive orders to enact many of these policies.

So who might your president be? To what country do you pledge allegiance, if not America? While I didn't vote for Bush, I realize he's who we have for the next five months or so. Still, I wholeheartedly agree that his efforts to usurp authority from the states is very disturbing, especially since the SPP and plans for a North American Union surfaced.
-----

Right now there are over 25, 000 people being held indefinitely in "DETENTION CENTERS", I CALL THE CONCENTRATION CAMPS, who are being denied access to attorneys, bail, due process rights, etc....

Are you speaking of immigration detention centers or those designated for alleged terrorists? Are you speaking of those here illegally and their kin? If not, to whom are you referring? What might your solution be to those who are here illegally? Can we call ourselves a sovereign nation if we cannot control our borders and enforce our immigration laws?

Who makes up the majority of the people held at these detention centers? Are they first time immigration offenders, repeat offenders, or those ordered to leave but chose to defy the law instead? Are they suspected terrorists?
-----

Now, if that is not a form of Nazi Gestapo POLICE POWERS, then there's a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.

I think the Gestapo shared a small set of enforcement tactics applied to a different set of people under a radically different agenda. I find it disturbing not only because of the obvious comparative inaccuracies, but also because you seem intent on using hate and ad hominem attacks as part of the discussion.
-----
Second, even though we might stand on different sides of this issue, I think we can both agree that both sides could benefit from a meaningful dialog. La Raza, the SPLC, and many other groups have called for an end to the "hate" rhetoric. Would you agree that such rhetoric serves no meaningful purpose other to degrade others and stall progress?

If so, I'm really confused because you use the words Nazi and Gestapo quite liberally in your message. Furthermore, you use it to describe law enforcement officials who are only guilty of enforcing the law.

How fast we forget our history! The same defense used by the Waffen SS, the Gestapo, they were only "following orders" during the Holocaust of european jews, gypsies, masons, homosexuals, etc.

Following orders and following the law are two different things, unless you're suggesting that those who give orders always follow the law. The groups you mentioned also weren't acting on the law of the host countries or even their own, but rather a new (at the time)dictatorial ideology backed by military might (and many times under the personal, ethical, and moral duress of the party members).

However, I couldn't agree more that history is too quickly forgotten. For example, our political candidates are eager to position amnesty or a mass roundup/deportation as the only options available to address illegal immigration. They have already forgotten in 1954 how effectively Eisenhower reversed illegal immigration with only 1075 agents by prescribing attrition through enforcement. The majority that left self-deported, which, if followed today, would alleviate the possibility that people would be detained in the first place.
-----

It becomes very easy to "dehumanize" a sector of society's "undesireables".....Hitler and Geobbles demonized the european jews so much with their nazi propaganda, that even devout religious germans committed unspeakable atrocities. So, are we now to defend the CPD and the Cook County Sherrifs who know the law, and defend their compliance with actions that are unconstitutional and against all accepted standards of human rights.

What exactly do you consider dehumanizing? And how can you possibly compare the mass genocide and concentration camps of WWII with today's detention centers? I think you do the Holocaust victims a great disservice by hazarding such a comparison.

In addition, if our detention centers are so inhumane, perhaps you'd give me another country from whom we could model? If our methods for detaining people are so inhumane or unjust, perhaps you could fashion a list of countries that do it better?

Are our facilities and/or processes perfect? Of course not. But how can we allocate money to improve them further while two million (legal and illegal) more immigrants flood over every year with no end in sight? Who will pay for our already unsustainable education, health care, and social service systems while we strive to provide the World's most humane detention facilities?

One thing I think we can agree upon is that without laws and law enforcement, anarchy ensues. If the CPD and Sheriff's Dept. are acting with blatant disregard to the law, they must be brought into line. However, if they are acting outside of State law, but in accordance with Federal law (such as 287(g) trained immigration enforcement), they are acting in absence of underfunded and badly needed Federal enforcement, not in defiance of it.

If the Federal Government had fulfilled immigration enforcement metrics (as it promised in 1986, and again in 1996, and again in 2006) instead of pandering for votes and exploiting cheap labor, we wouldn't be in this dire situation. Federal funding (and political will) would have been available so state agencies wouldn't have to take up the slack and political flaccidity of the Federal government.

So you see, the flood of illegal immigrants, misinterpretation of the 14th amendment, and lack of traditional enforcement helped create the situation you now consider to result in alleged inhumane treatment. How could allowing more immigration create any different result?
-----

You seem to forget, that Chicago has a long history of police corruption: protecting drug traffickers, taking bribes, soliciting sex from minors/prostitutes, killing innocent civilians without cause, torture......these aren't choir boys nor are they fine upstanding citizens, all too often they are more than willing to "bend the law"....just to satisfy their own biases and prejudices......

Are we talking about the history of Chicago or current day practices in Mexico?

(I'm sorry, I couldn't help myself)

I'll admit, our "boys in blue" are vulnerable to the same potential corruption as anyone given power. But is that really a localized phenomenon or just part of the human condition given the situation?

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." -Baron Acton

Still, are you prepared to judge them as a whole based on the actions of what I would allege is the minority? Based on that logic, wouldn't you also support deporting all illegal immigrants based on the violent acts of a few? While you cast stones, is your house made of something other than glass?
-----

To me, that is what being nazi gestapo is all about. Your entitiled to your opinion. So am I!

And I have very much enjoyed hearing your opinions. Such virulent debate is the cornerstone of any great Democracy.
-----

I have a relative who is a retired U.S. marine captain. When I explained to him what was happening in the USA around immigration enforcement, he blurted out, "they can't do that, it is unconstitutional, and against federal law"!

I had to tell him that this is what is exactly taking place in the USA today...the government of the USA, and local law enforcement are in violation of federal laws, and violating the Constitution of the USA!!

Well, your statement doesn't tell me exactly "what's happening". But since we're both solution oriented individuals, how would you change immigration enforcement to:
-Insure our sovereignty
-Secure our borders
-Maintain the delicate American cultural fabric
-Insure those allowed here truly have the desire and resources to contribute and become Americans?

After all, I'd hazard a guess that's what the majority of Americans want.

Or perhaps you have a different solution or agenda based on other success metrics? I certainly hope we at least share a belief in the aforementioned. But in either case, by all means, I'd enjoy hearing more.

For example, by clarifying the intent of the 14th amendment and specifying that all born here are declared citizens of (either of) their parents native countries, wouldn't that clear up much of the issue regarding detainment of "citizens"? Wouldn't that also remove the belief that "defacto citizenship" can be attained through child bearing? At the very least it would save border states hundreds of millions a year on prenatal care, wouldn't you agree?

What are your thoughts?
-----
I know, I know, Chicago is a sanctuary city. How DARE the police actually follow the law, right? If what you wrote is happening, nobody is more surprised than me. But I'm certainly not going to compare them with a WWII anti-semitic regime simply for following the law. Can you really subscribe to ending hateful rhetoric when you still use it so liberally? Can you defend a position that law enforcement should ignore those breaking the law (it is currently against the law to stay here illegally, as is aiding and abetting, and identity theft)?

Being in the USA with out authorization (for first time undocumented persons) IS NOT A CRIMINAL OFFENSE.....it is a civil offense, with due process rights for a court hearing, and determination of immigrant status, under federal law.

I agree. I claimed it was against the law, which encompasses civil and criminal offenses. First time offenders are supposed to be given due process.
-----

REMEMBER, under the US CONSTITUTION, YOU ARE INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. THE POLICE DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT OR POWER TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION....THAT IS DECIDED IN A COURT OF LAW, WITH DUE PROCESS RIGHTS, AND RIGHTS TO AN ATTORNEY.

If immigrants (and their kids) aren't getting a fair legal "shake", it is really a Gestapo conspiracy? Or rather, is it a symptom of an overburdened, overwhelmed, and underfunded immigration enforcement system?

Would 287(g) training and E-Verify even exist if the agreed upon enforcement metrics were fulfilled, as promised, back in 1986 (and '96, and '06)? The states and municipalities are taking up the collective will of the American people because the Federal government has refused!

Certainly, more funding to expedite visa/citizenship applications might help matters. But the fact is, we will NEVER be able to accommodate the hundreds of millions of people that want to come here. Since that is the reality and the likelihood of greater funding (given historical precedent) is slim, isn't a practical solution to lower immigration to a level our system can adequately handle? Wouldn't that also alleviate the alleged detainment and abuses such an overwhelm might cause?

In addition, wouldn't such enforcement allow the focus of improvement to be placed where it belongs, namely the countries using immigration as a poverty release valve? As long as millions flow in (and send remittances back) such countries have no initiative to address their social and economic shortcomings. It is only when the natives take back THEIR OWN countries that change is possible. They certainly can't do it from here.
-----

When people are railroaded into prison, held against their will, denied their due process and constitutional rights to a court hearing, bail, immigration review, deported without cause....I CALL THAT A NAZI GESTAPO POLICE STATE!!!
Wouldn't you agree!?!?!

I would agree that our system is overwhelmed and the only practical solution is to reduce the flow until we can properly handle each case. But, as I mentioned before, I think using the "Gestapo" reference does our law enforcement officers, military personnel, and millions of Holocaust victims a great disservice.
-----
Mr. Perez, I'm the first to admit that our immigration policy (and country in general) needs a major overhaul. Those seeking a better life deserve better options than we have now. But demanding that the law not be applied to those who already broke it is just plain folly. To demand rights that weren't earned while hurling insults to anyone that opposes is downright bullying.

The Declaration of Independence states that these rights are inalienable....they are not "earned" as you obviously are unaware......these rights apply to anyone who is physically on the soil of the USA....."the land of the free"....this is not Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, North Korea, etc..... ALL PEOPLE HAVE INALIENABLE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS!

All people have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as stated in the Declaration of Independence. But you aware that the Constitution and Declaration are two different documents, right?

As I previously stated, the preamble of the Constitution states "We the people of the United States of America...", which establishes at least an implication of American citizenship or allegiance for inclusion.

It also states in Article IV, Section IV, " The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."

"Invasion", according to one established definition is "an intrusion or encroachment". If you don't think 12-20 million people living here illegally doesn't satisfy the definition of invasion, and therefore the Federal Government doesn't have the Constitutional responsibility to protect our borders and enforce our immigration laws, then I have an extra bridge in Brooklyn I can sell you.
-----

Your argument is prediacted on that undocumented people have no such rights. You are wrong! Plain and simple. This is the 21st century, not the 1600's. Wake up Rip Van Winkle!!!

To whom exactly are you referring when you say "undocumented people"? Are you speaking of illegal immigrants? I ask because, honestly, I don't understand the term, semantically speaking. I've worked with many, and I have yet to meet one that doesn't have documentation of some kind. Sure, most times the IDs are fraudulent, but they do have them.

Perhaps, for the sake of discussion we can come up with a new term that obliges sensitivities while maintaining semantic accuracy?
-----
I, for one, will not be bullied Mr. Perez. However, should immigration advocates decide they want a meaningful, "hate-free" dialog I'll happily volunteer.

You are not being bullied John..... my people are being bullied, arrested, dehumanized, and persecuted. This is not about you.....it is about them......but....mark my words....if "we" do not stop this nazi gestapo police state powers now!!!!....eventually...it will be "you" too.

I'm curious, who are "your people", exactly? Are we not Americans? You know, "one nation, under God, indivisible, etc."

If not, are "your people" not persecuted and dehumanized far worse in their native country? Does their country treat legal/illegal immigrants that much better than we do? How are their detention centers these days?
-----

I love the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution of the USA, the Bill of Rights...I am an American Revolutionary....VIVA 1776!!!! Too bad most americans have forgotten their history...and the real meaning of the american revolution....The Declaration of Independence....The Constitution of the USA!!!

Right on!!!
-----

I declare, as did Patrick Henry, "give me liberty, or give me death"!

Let's hope for our collective sake that it's the former

Carlos Perez
Founder/Editor
Mayan Calendar News

Sincerely,
John D.
Evanston, IL

Godwin's Rule.
They lost the argument when they brought up the Nazi's

Right on! These intelligent, sensible responses are outstanding. I love the people of ALIPAC! I must send in my donation right away.

More proof of their intensions for Chicago.
-------------

http://www.chitowndailynews.org/Chicago ... ions,15333

Aldermen take up the cause of Hispanics who fear "sanctuary" law violations

BY JENNIFER SLOSAR
August 05, 2008 | 6:15 PM

Armed with the names of 59 Hispanic residents detained by immigration officials following their arrest, a group of Hispanic city council members wants to know if city and county "sanctuary" protections have been violated.

A 2006 Chicago ordinance and a county resolution passed the same year forbid city or county officials from inquiring about or disclosing information relating to an individual's citizenship or immigration status, except in cases mandated under federal law.

At a hearing of the city's Human Relations Committee today, Ald. Danny Solis (D-25) and Billy Ocasio (D-26) discussed the cases of Hispanic residents who ended up being held on immigration "detainers" following their arrest.

The names were given to the aldermen last month by Hispanic organizations in the city. They fear that police or other law enforcement officials are illegally tipping off Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the federal agency that investigates cases of undocumented immigrants.

Maria Leon choked back tears as she told the committee about her husband, who was booked into the Cook County jail after his arrest in February for driving without a valid license. ICE placed a hold on him shortly after his arrival, and he has since been moved to five different jails, Leon said.

Leon and her two children, 11 and 7, were forced to move into the Our Lady of Guadalupe Mission in Little Village after she fell behind on the rent for the family's basement apartment.

Rev. Jose Landaverde said the mission is struggling to help numerous families whose breadwinners have been subjected to immigration-based holds placed in the Cook County jail.

Families often cannot afford the expensive bonds that accrue once an immigration hold is placed on the fathers, said Jorge Mujica, an organizer for the March 10 Committee, which helped collect the 59 names that were presented to aldermen.

He said some in the community believe that Chicago police are "ramping up" charges against people they believe are immigrants.

Gail Montenegro, a spokesperson for ICE, said that the agency has three agents stationed at the Cook County courthouse who review the arrest records of individuals booked the day before and look into any cases involving individuals born outside of the United States. Place of birth is included on arrest reports. The records are made available by the Cook County State's Attorney's Office, she said.

She said ICE then determines whether to place detainers on those who appear eligible for deportation, placing priority on violent offenders, those with prior deportations, outstanding deportation orders, prior felony convictions or current felony charges.

"ICE does not racially profile," Montenegro wrote in an e-mail response.

Last week eight aldermen, along with County Commissioner Roberto Maldonado, met with Police Supt. Jody Weis to discuss fears within the Hispanic community that Chicago police officers were engaged in racial profiling and asking about their citizenship status.

Deputy Patrol Supt. Beatrice Cuello told the committee that the department does not tolerate violations of the 2006 ordinance. She pointed to a number of initiatives the department is undertaking to address recent complaints by Hispanic immigrants including training on immigration policy and racial profiling.

Cuello said the department is currently working with the Mexican consulate on an informational video that will inform Hispanic residents of their rights and procedures for making a complaint.

Tina Skahill, chief of the department's internal affairs division, said that if an officer is found to have violated the city's immigration policy, their punishment could range from a reprimand to termination, depending on the officer's history.

"We take all complaints seriously in the department," said Skahill.

Solis applauded the public relations and training initiatives announced by the department, but said it was important to find out whether there were any violations of the law among the 59 reported cases.

"I'm convinced that the majority of the police understand that this law exists and they're not collaborating," he said.

"We are going to know for sure after they investigate the 59 incidents of arrest by Chicago police officers that were then referred to the county jail and then were held for ICE. We're going to find out where that break in the law happens."

Cook County Commissioner Roberto Maldonado (8th District) said yesterday that he had met with the state's attorney's office yesterday afternoon and was assured that they did not tip ICE to detainees' immigration status.

As for the Chicago Police Department, Solis is pushing the idea that police officers should sign a "document of understanding" that they have been informed of the immigration policy and understand the consequences for breaking it.

"That's going to assure, I think, that this law be upheld," said Solis.

Wow Squire. I would pay good money to hear you and Mr. Perez debate this issue. I look forward to hearing his response.

I was not familiar with Godwin's rule which Mr. Perez broke in abundance -made his arguments seem like a high school debate. Much of Mr. Perez' arguments seem to arise from emotionality, that it's 'unfair'... It was more then a bit alarming to read that it wasn't his president and the bit about 'my people.' He is a true blue American??

Godwin's Law - "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. However there is also a widely recognised codicil that any intentional triggering of Godwin's Law in order to invoke its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful.

Hey FedUp,
Thanks for the kind words. I headed up my last posted reply with the words, "Et tu Brute?".

His reply stated only, "Et tu BRUTO".

I guess Mr. Perez didn't care to examine the issue any further

As for a debate, I would welcome the opportunity to debate anyone who thinks amnesty is a good idea. Of course, that's easy for me to say. We have the facts and will of the people on our side