Thread: PLEASE HELP

I know we're busy with the bail-out, but would you please take a few minutes to register with this paper and submit comments?

http://www.oaoa.com/opinion/local_21277 ... olice.html

Over reaching the legal limits
Comments 1 | Recommend 0
THE POINT — Lawmakers should resist the urge to have police enforce federal law.
September 26, 2008 - 8:14AM

It might at first seem beneficial to empower local law enforcement officials to enforce federal laws such as immigration in addition to their local duties. Evidence suggests, however, that it isn't such a good idea. It is no surprise, therefore, that police and sheriff's departments generally are against such empowerment.


We hope Texas legislators are paying attention, and resist the urge to add federal immigration enforcement to the list of local laws with which local officers already are charged. Likewise, we hope they try not to override local cities' and counties' policies regarding immigration.


State Rep. Frank Corte Jr., R-San Antonio, and state Sen. Dan Patrick, R-Houston, who have both made clear their desire to keep immigration to a minimum, have asked Attorney General Greg Abbott to determine whether the Legislature has the authority to override city ordinances such as the establishment of immigration sanctuaries.


Local governments in Texas are as split as the general population on the issue of immigration. Some, such as Farmers Branch, are so anti-immigrant that they have imposed requirements for landlords to check the legal status of people who rent from them. Other cities have formally decreed themselves as safe havens, or simply let it be known that their police would not be checking residency status. Most cities haven't codified their attitudes on the issue, but have informal, unwritten policies regarding document checks.
While we find the former ordinance abhorrent and agree with the latter, we find even worse efforts to impose edicts that would control the actions and votes of freely elected city councils and commissions. Those who deal most closely with the citizenry - city and county officials - usually are best equipped to evaluate their constituents' needs, abilities and attitudes, and they generally should have the freedom to act on that knowledge.


Prohibiting a local "no check" residency policy would in effect impose a de facto expectation that local police do check immigration status. That would also in effect require residents to carry passports and identification everywhere they go, even if they're just going to the store around the corner. That places a burden on the citizenry that takes us even closer to a totalitarian society and must not be permitted.


Many police chiefs and sheriffs point out that enforcing federal laws only takes resources away from other duties; some have said they would enforce federal laws if they were also given the additional resources they would need to do it. Some point out jurisdictional confusion that could arise - would municipal and district courts be required to pass judgment on federal law enforced by local officers, or would the officers be required to testify in both local and federal court if both local and federal laws were at issue?


Jurisdiction should also be at issue with Corte's and Patrick's request: Can state lawmakers pass laws regarding the implementation of federal laws?


More importantly than all this, however, is the concern many police chiefs have voiced regarding citizen involvement. They rightly note that it is often difficult enough to encourage people to report crimes and suspicious activities. People would be even less likely to cooperate with police if they thought police would investigate the legal status of the victims or people reporting crimes.


Whichever way Abbott rules on the legislature's ability to impose federal law enforcement authority on local police, we hope the legislature as a whole recognizes that such a law would create more problems than it solves, and doesn't take such efforts seriously.

See archived 'Our Opinion' Stories »

Advertise on this site
Ads by Google
Law Enforcement Training
DHS Approved Cources for Law Enforcement Professionals
www.gtitraining.org
Criminal Defense
State and Federal Criminal Cases Odessa, Texas
www.ejasonleach.com
Immigrants & Diseases
8 Diseases that are being brought into the U.S. By Illegal Immigrants
www.douglassreport.com
Police Arrest Records ?
Lookup Free Arrest Records On Anyone Right Now! Official Service®
PoliceArrests.GovArrestRecords.com

Reader Comments
Many of you have expressed concerns about some of the harsh anonymous comments from readers. To remedy that, we are introducing new features. You can create your own blog, publish your news and share your photos with the community. Once you fill out a simple form and leave a verifiable e-mail address, you can set up your profile page. It will display all of your contributions and allow you to track issues and easily connect with others.

We want our site to be a place where people discuss and debate ideas that foster stronger communities. We built this for you. Please take care of it. Tolerate broad thinking, but take action against obscene or hateful material. Make it a credible and safe place worth preserving and sharing.
Oldest First | Newest First | Show Recommended Comments Only

fayehall wrote:
"Evidence suggests, however, that it isn't such a good idea. It is no surprise, therefore, that police and sheriff's departments generally are against such empowerment."

What evidence? And why would the average citizen be required to carry around a passport?

Beats me how you have such right-on opinions in most of your editorials and be so obtuse on the open borders issue. How can you blatantly ignore the problems caused by illegal immigration? We'll probably have a long discussion on this, but frankly, today I am not up to it. I just received this in the mail, only 1 and 2 of thousands of others that stab me to the center of my being and are 100% preventable by adherence to our immigration laws. Everyone gets upset about the 3,000 killed on 9/11. Well, what about these? Their number is many times the 3,000.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrRr66E0ofU

I'd like to see what our law enforcement officials actually think about 287(g). How about doing interviews with them? Let's just hash the thing out thoroughly.
9/26/2008 10:26:35 AM

Done.

Faye wrote:

I know we're busy with the bail-out, but would you please take a few minutes to register with this paper and submit comments?

And E-verify.

Did that yesterday, MW.

I got a message today that they extended E-Verify until March, 2009, that they couldn't bring it to the floor because Menendez had hold of it.

Faye wrote:

I got a message today that they extended E-Verify until March, 2009, that they couldn't bring it to the floor because Menendez had hold of it.

Yeah, the Democrats expect more of those pesky Republicans to be gone by then which could be bad news for us.

Thanks for that information, good post.

Got it done.


KOOBSTER

Will do.