Category Archives: Immigration

Jun 12 2013

Did Rand Paul Just Shoot Himself In The Foot?

Rand Paul to Illegals: ‘We Will Find a Place for You;’ Envisions 12 Million ‘New Taxpayers’

My first thought was yeah, we’ll find a place for you, it’s called a fast boat back to where the hell you came from, imagine my disappointed.

June 12, 2013 – 10:21 AM
Rand PaulSen. Rand Paul (R.-Ky.) speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference at National Harbor, Md., on March 14, 2013. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)

(CNSNews.com) – In his prepared text for a speech he is delivering today at the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference and Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles, Sen. Rand Paul (R.-Ky.) said to illegal aliens who want to live and work in the United States: “[W]e will find a place for you.”

Paul also said he envisions today’s illegal aliens becoming additional “taxpayers.”

“Imagine 12 million people who are already here coming out of the shadows to become new taxpayers,” said Paul.

Illegal aliens working in the United States today are not exempted from complying with the nation’s tax laws anymore than they are exempted from complying with U.S. laws governing immigration or document fraud.

“First, everyone has to acknowledge that we aren’t going to deport 12 million illegal immigrants,” said Paul. “If you wish to work, if you wish to live and work in America, then we will find a place for you.

“In order to bring conservatives to this cause however, those who work for reform must understand that a real solution must ensure that our borders are secure,” said Paul. “But we also must treat those who are already here with understanding and compassion.”

Paul said that his plan would first secure the border and then grant work visas to illegal aliens.

“The first part of my plan–border security–must be certified by Border Patrol and an Investigator General and then voted on by Congress to ensure it has been accomplished,” said Paul. “This is what I call, Trust but Verify.

“With this in place, I believe conservatives will accept what needs to come next, an issue that must be addressed: what becomes of the 12 million undocumented workers in the United States?” said Paul.

“My plan is very simple and will include work visas for those who are here, who are willing to come forward and work,” he said.

Paul said that his plan is not an amnesty but will put illegal aliens into a “probationary period.”

“Conservatives are wary of amnesty. My plan will not grant amnesty or move anyone to the front of the line,” said Paul. “But what we have now is de facto amnesty. The solution doesn’t have to be amnesty or deportation-a middle ground might be called probation where those who came illegally become legal through a probationary period.”

- See more at:
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/rand-paul-illegals-we-will-find-place-you-envisions-12-million-new-taxpayers#sthash.6QrpBSzw.dpuf

Jun 21 2012

Can the president rewrite federal law?

Published June 21, 2012

Here we go again. Is the Constitution merely a guideline to be consulted by those it purports to regulate, or is it really the supreme law of the land? If it is just a guideline, then it is meaningless, as it only will be followed by those in government when it is not an obstacle to their purposes. If it is the supreme law of the land, what do we do when one branch of government seizes power from another and the branch that had its power stolen does nothing about it?

Late last week, President Obama, fresh from a series of revelations that he kills whomever he pleases in foreign lands, that the US military is actually fighting undeclared wars in Somalia and Yemen, and that the CIA is using cyber warfare — computers — to destabilize innocents in Iran, announced that he has rewritten a small portion of federal immigration law so as to accommodate the needs of young immigrants who came to the US as children and remained here. By establishing new rules governing deportation, rules that Congress declined to enact, the president has usurped the power to write federal law from Congress and commandeered it for himself.

Immigrants should not be used as political pawns by the government. When government does that, it violates the natural law. Our rights come from our humanity, and our humanity comes from God. Our rights are natural and integral to us, and they do not vary by virtue of, and cannot be conditioned upon, the place where our mothers were physically located at the time of our births. Federal law violates the natural law when it interferes with whom you invite to your home or employ in your business or to whom you rent your property or with whom you walk the public sidewalks.

When the government restricts freedom of association based on immutable characteristics — like race, gender or the place of birth — it is engaging in the same type of decision-making that brought us slavery, Jim Crow and other invidious government discrimination. Regrettably, the feds think they can limit human freedom by quota and by geography. And they have done this for base political reasons.

Along comes the president, and he has decided that he can fix some of our immigration woes by rewriting the laws to his liking. Never mind that the Constitution provides that his job is “to take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” and that “all legislative power” in the federal government has been granted to Congress. He has chosen to bypass Congress and disregard the Constitution. Can he do this?

There is a valid and constitutional argument to be made that the president may refrain from defending and enforcing laws that he believes are palpably and demonstrably unconstitutional. These arguments go back to Thomas Jefferson, who refused to defend or enforce the Alien and Sedition Acts because, by punishing speech, they directly contradicted the First Amendment. Jefferson argued that when a law contradicts the Constitution, the law must give way because the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and all other laws are inferior and must conform to it.This argument is itself now universally accepted jurisprudence — except by President Obama, who recently and inexplicably questioned the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to invalidate the Affordable Health Care Act on the basis that it is unconstitutional.

Nevertheless, there is no intellectually honest argument to be made that the president can pick and choose which laws to enforce based on his personal preferences. And it is a profound violation of the Constitution for the president to engage in rewriting the laws. That’s what he has done here. He has rewritten federal law.

Only Congress can lay down specifics such as in order to avoid deportation and qualify for a two-year work visa, one must have entered the U.S. prior to age 16 and possess a valid American high school diploma or be a military veteran, as the president now requires. By altering the law in this manner — by constructing the requirements the government will impose — the president has violated his oath to enforce the laws as they are written. His second responsibility in the Constitution (the first is to defend the Constitution) is to enforce federal laws as Congress has written them — hence the employment of the word “faithfully” in the Constitution — not as he wishes them to be.

Congress should have enacted years ago what the president is now doing on his own, because it is unjust to punish children for the behavior of their parents, and it is unjust to restrict freedom based on the place of birth. But this can be remedied only by Congress. If the president can rewrite federal laws that he doesn’t like, there is no limit to his power. Then, he will not be a president. He will be a king.

Read more:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/06/21/can-president-rewrite-federal-law/#ixzz1yQzXCDjw

Feb 14 2012

Supremes told Arizona law repels ‘invasion’

WND EXCLUSIVE
Supremes told Arizona law repels ‘invasion’
Identifying illegals ‘consistent’ with goals of both state, federal constitutions
Published: 15 hours ago
author-image by Bob UnruhEmail

A brief filed today with the U.S. Supreme Court argues that Arizona’s contested state law allowing law-enforcement officers to ask about the legal status of people they encounter is justified because of the virtual “invasion” of the state by outsiders.

“As provided in the Constitution, the power to repel against invasions was … granted to both the federal and the state governments,” stated the brief filed by Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch.

“This action is consistent with the notion that the federal and state governments are both sovereign bodies within the United States,” the brief explained. “Furthermore, the state of Arizona, with its general police power, a power the Founding Fathers intentionally did not give to the federal government, surely has the power to protect the health, safety and welfare of those residing within its borders.”

At issue before the high court is HB 1070. It was signed by Gov. Jan Brewer in April 2010, only to have the Obama administration sue three months later to block it from taking effect. Oral arguments are pending before the court.

According to documents in the case, the cost of illegal immigration into the United States is estimated at some $100 billion, and state and local governments bear about $80 billion of the load.

The Obama administration, which contends regulating immigration is the job of the federal government not the states, also filed lawsuits against similar laws in Alabama, South Carolina and Utah.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco earlier said a judge was right to halt enforcement of the Arizona law. Among the blocked provisions are a requirement that all immigrants carry immigration registration papers, one making it a criminal offense for an illegal immigrant to work in the state and another allowing police to arrest suspected illegal immigrants without warrants.

Klayman noted that Arizona’s passage of the act sought to enforce federal immigration laws by enabling state officers to verify the immigration status of people suspected of being in the country illegally.

The Freedom Watch statement said the Obama Justice Department has “miserably failed” in securing the borders of Arizona and other states.

The group said Arizona was left with no choice but to take charge when faced with the invasion of tens of thousands of illegal aliens, some carrying guns and running drug cartel operations.

Klayman explained that the state has the authority.

He said states are granted the right to defend in the case of a “large scale invasion” and also when there is imminent danger.

“The state of Arizona faces a serious danger from the drug cartels and smugglers crossing over from Mexico. Thousands are killed near the border every year by the drug cartels, and there is an immediate danger of these crimes crossing over into the United States.”

Klayman pointed out that the state of New York has approved authorization for officers to “shoot down airplanes in order to defend against terrorist threats.” But he noted the Obama Justice Department “has chosen not to file suit against New York.

“President Obama, much like he did with Obamacare, is trying to ram its non-existent immigration enforcement policies down the throats of the American people and will stop at nothing to further illegal immigration to pander to elements of the electorate. This lack of enforcement is intended to benefit him and his Democratic Party during the period leading up to the 2012 elections,” said Klayman.

“With Congress and the executive branch unwilling or unable to provide for additional defenses of the southern border, Arizona is left with no choice but to act. It is clearly within the power of a state to provide for the safety of its citizens.”

Freedom Watch was filing on its own behalf.

The American Center for Law & Justice said it also filed a brief in the Arizona case.

“Our argument is clear: Arizona has the constitutional authority to implement policies to protect its borders and citizens – policies that mirror federal immigration law and incorporate federal standards,” said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the ACLJ.

“Because of the federal government’s inaction in dealing with illegal immigrants, Arizona passed and signed into law S.B. 1070, a constitutionally sound measure that is consistent, and does not conflict, with federal law. This case is being closely watched by many states facing similar concerns as Arizona. It’s clear that nearly 60 members of Congress and more than 65-thousand Americans understand that Arizona’s law is not only proper, but permissible under the Constitution as well. We’re hopeful the high court will reach that conclusion.”

The ACLJ brief alleges a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit should be reversed “because it exalts administrative ‘priorities and strategies’ over Congress’s clear and manifest intent to welcome state involvement in the enforcement of federal immigration law.”

The brief argues the appeals court decision “sets up an untenable conflict between congressional immigration policy and administrative ‘priorities’ that the separation of powers doctrine requires the administration to lose.”

The ACLJ simply said Arizona was right.

“Although states may not pass laws setting immigration policy, they may pass harmonious laws that further Congress’s purposes. Because S.B. 1070 is fully consonant with federal immigration laws, mirroring their standards and definitions, it is not preempted. The Ninth Circuit’s decision to the contrary is based on conjured conflicts that have no basis in statutory language or other congressionally established immigration policy.”

The ACLJ represents dozens of members of Congress: Trent Franks, Jim DeMint, David Vitter, Robert Aderholt, Michele Bachmann, Diane Black, Marsha Blackburn, Mo Brooks, Paul Broun, Michael Burgess, Dan Burton, Ken Calvert, John Culberson, John Duncan, John Fleming, Bill Flores, Randy Forbes, Virginia Foxx, Scott Garrett, Phil Gingrey, Paul Gosar, Ralph Hall, Lynn Jenkins, Walter Jones, Jim Jordan, Mike Kelly, Steve King, Adam Kinzinger, John Kline, Doug Lamborn, Jeff Landry, James Lankford, Robert Latta, Blaine Luetkemeyer, Don Manzullo, Kenny Marchant, Tom McClintock, Jeff Miller, Tim Murphy, Sue Myrick, Alan Nunnelee, Joe Pitts, Ted Poe, Mike Pompeo, Ben Quayle, Phil Roe, Dana Rohrabacher, Dennis Ross, Ed Royce, Jean Schmidt, David Schweikert, Lamar Smith, Cliff Stearns, Lynn Westmoreland, Ed Whitfield, and Rob Woodall.


http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/supremes-told-arizona-law-repels-invasion/

Jan 3 2012

Probe reveals feds pressuring agents to rush immigrant visas – even if fraud is feared


By Sarah Ryley Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Higher-ups within U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services are pressuring rank-and-file officers to rubber-stamp immigrants’ visa applications, sometimes against the officers’ will, according to a Homeland Security report and internal documents exclusively obtained by The Daily.

A 40-page report, drafted by the Office of Inspector General in September but not publicly released, details the immense pressure immigration service officers are under to approve visa applications quickly, sometimes while overlooking concerns about fraud, eligibility or security.

One-quarter of the 254 officers surveyed said they have been pressured to approve questionable cases, sometimes “against their will.”

The report does not call out any particular officials and indicates that the agency has had a problem with valuing quantity over quality since at least the 1980s.

But high-ranking USCIS officials said the pressure has heightened after the Obama administration appointed Alejandro Mayorkas as director in August 2009 during an effort to pass comprehensive immigration reform, bringing with him a mantra of “get to yes.”

Internal communications provided to The Daily indicate that the new leadership seemed to fundamentally clash with career agency employees over when to afford the benefit of the doubt, culminating in a whistle-blower investigation into a senior appointee and, ultimately, the agency-wide inspector general inquiry that produced the report.

“We recognize their right to interpret things as liberally as possible, but you still have to follow the law,” said one high-ranking official who was unhappy with the current push.

At least five agency veterans seen as being too tough on applicants were either demoted, or given the choice between a demotion or a relocation from Southern California — where their families were — to San Francisco and Nebraska, according to sources and letters of reassignment provided to The Daily.

Those kind of threats have caused lower-level employees to fall in line, sources said.

“People are afraid,” said one longtime manager, who requested anonymity for fear of being fired. “Integrity only carries people so far because they’ve got to pay the rent.”

A rank-and-file officer who was not involved in the investigation claimed he was demoted to working on less technical cases because he had a high denial rate. “They don’t reprimand you, they just move you,” he said.

“They attempted to basically get me to come into line and approve a bunch of cases. And I just wouldn’t compromise myself because the approvals they ordered, they weren’t in line with the laws,” said the officer.

These employees’ claims are reflected in the inspector general report, which found that 14 percent of respondents had “serious concerns” that employees who focused on fraud or ineligibility were evaluated unfairly. The report also found that supervisors sometimes take cases away from an unwilling officer and assign them to someone else, against agency rules.

Recommendations for improvements in the report included raising the burden of proof and doing away with the popular informal and special appeals practices, which immigration lawyers said would only lengthen an already onerous process.

Attorney David Leopold, who was recently president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, said the formal appeals process can take up to two years.

“When you’re dealing with business visas, those visas cannot wait around a year, or two years, for review. They needed an answer yesterday,” said Leopold. “I think when they’ve [the officers] made a mistake at that level … sometimes you can just reason with people and ask them to take a look at it again.”

Nevertheless, USCIS approved 86 percent of the 3.9 million immigration cases it reviewed between October 2008 and October 2009 — a 4 percent drop from the year before, according to the most recent data provided to The Daily.

And immigration attorneys complained that it seems like officers are just looking for reasons to deny a case, and already demand a higher standard of proof than what is required. That standard is now considered a 51 percent likelihood that a fact is true.

“We’re getting ridiculous denials and requests for evidence on things that should be approved very easily,” said immigration attorney Deb Notkin, adding that it’s particularly tough for specialty industries like fashion, software development and graphic design.

The attorneys applauded Mayorkas’ more open dialogue with them, and other proponents of immigration reform, who had previously felt shut out of the bureaucracy. “Mayorkas, to his credit, is very accessible, so we are able to express our concerns about the adjudication process,” said Leopold.

But sometimes, the openness led to a perception that private attorneys were “running” the agency, according to the inspector general’s report, which cited emails in which individual cases were granted special review after private attorneys complained to management.

Mayorkas and Homeland Security press officers said yesterday they could not comment on the allegations.

Sarah.Ryley@thedaily.com

**************************************************

Homeland insecurity

The Daily has exclusively obtained a Homeland Security Office of Inspector General draft report on fraud detection issues within the agency’s immigration arm. The inspector general interviewed 147 managers and staff at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, or USCIS, and received 256 responses to an online survey. Here are some of the findings in the report.

“63 of 254 Immigration Services Officers (24.8%) responded that they have been pressured to approve questionable applications.”

“Several USCIS employees informed us that officers have been required to approve specific cases against their will.”
“Another 35 ISOs (13.9%) had serious concerns concerns that employees who focus on fraud or ineligibility were evaluated unfairly.”

“Cases are sometimes taken away from us and given to officers who the supervisor knows will approve the case … Another survey respondent was threatened with a formal reprimand if a case was not approved as the supervisor required.”

“… data confirm that USCIS was more likely to grant O visa status [for aliens who have extraordinary ability in science, arts, business, or athletics] incorrectly than to deny a legitimate position.”

Source: Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General, “The Effects of USCIS Adjudication Procedures and Policies on Fraud Detection by Immigration Service Officers,” September 2011.


http://www.thedaily.com/page/2012/01/03/010312-news-immigration-strife-1-3/
Dec 29 2011

OBAMA LAUNCHES FREE HOTLINE FOR SUSPECTED ILLEGALS…

ICE launches hotline for busted immigrants

By MACKENZIE WEINGER | 12/29/11 2:05 PM EST

As states across the nation ramp up their efforts to catch illegal immigrants, the Obama administration on Thursday launched a new free hotline for people busted on violations to get help.

The hotline, run by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, is available 24/7 for detained individuals to phone if they think they “may be U.S. citizens or victims of a crime.”

The hotline will have translation services available in several different languages. ICE personnel will gather the caller’s information and send it to a field office for immediate action, according to the press release.

The purpose of the hotline and other measures, including a new detainer form, are “to ensure that individuals being held by state or local law enforcement on immigration detainers are properly notified about their potential removal from the country and are made aware of their rights.”

The new practices are “part of a broader effort to improve our immigration enforcement process and prioritize resources to focus on threats to public safety, repeat immigration law violators, recent border entrants and immigration fugitives while continuing to strengthen oversight of the nation’s immigration detention system and facilitate legal immigration,” ICE wrote in its press release.

ICE is an arm of the Department of Homeland Security.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70943.html#ixzz1hyK9tv8x
Dec 22 2011

Judge Strikes Key Provisions of South Carolina Immigration Law

This is bullshit!!
Published December 22, 2011

A federal judge on Thursday blocked three key provisions of South Carolina’s controversial law cracking down on illegal immigration.

U.S. District Judge Richard Gergel granted the federal government’s request for an injunction against the law that’s set to take effect Jan. 1.

The ruling applies to portions that require law officers to check the status of anyone they stop for something else and suspect is in the country illegally. Gergel also halted the implementation of sections pertaining to the transportation of illegal immigrants and immigrant registration cards.

Gergel has denied the state’s request that he suspend all court hearings on the case until the U.S.Supreme Court rules on a challenge to Arizona’s similar law. South Carolina prosecutors have said the nation’s high court will likely rule in six months or less.

Read more:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/22/judge-strikes-key-provisions-south-carolina-immigration-law/#ixzz1hIGSTKEf
Dec 12 2011

Obama to slash National Guard force on U.S.-Mexico border

Meanwhile, they’re talking about putting in new unmanned border crossings.  This bullshit just keeps getting worse, they have no intention of securing the border.
By Stephen DinanThe Washington Times
Monday, December 12, 2011

Blaming budget cuts, the Obama administration early next year will cut the number of National Guard troops patrolling the U.S.-Mexico border by at least half, according to a congressman who was briefed on the plan.

The National Guard said an announcement will be made by the White House “in the near future,” but Rep. Duncan Hunter, a California Republican who has learned of the plans, said slashing the deployment in half is the minimum number, and he said it will mean reshuffling the remaining troops along the nearly 2,000-mile border.

In California, that will mean going from 264 Guard troops down to just 14, he said.

Mr. Hunter said the pending cuts are another reason Congress and President Obama should revisit the automatic defense spending reductions that kicked in with the failure last month of the deficit super-committee to reach a broader spending deal.

“What’s apparent now is that a decision not to continue their deployment, even though it might be in the national interest to do so, would be based entirely on budget constraints on the Defense Department,” Mr. Hunter said.

Mr. Obama deployed 1,200 guard troops to the border in June 2010 in an effort to bolster the U.S. Border Patrol and try to prevent the growing drug violence in Mexico from spilling into the U.S.

He charged the National Guard with aiding in intelligence-gathering and other backup duties, though troops have not been actually enforcing immigration laws.

The troops were scheduled to be drawn down this June, but Mr. Obama extended their deployment, saying there was still work to be done.

The troops were meant to be a bridge to beef up support staffing while the Border Patrol hired more agents under a bill Congress passed early in his term.

In 2006 President George W. Bush sent 6,000 National Guard troops to the border. Republican 2012 presidential hopefuls have routinely slammed the Obama administration for not doing enough to secure the borders.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/dec/12/obama-slash-national-guard-force-us-mexico-border/
Nov 9 2011

Decatur Utilities Firm in Alabama Cuts off Services to Undocumented

Let’s see how long this flies.

 

Written By Sandra E. Garcia  Published November 08, 2011

No legal immigration status? No electricity, no gas, and no water service.

This is the criterion Decatur Utilities in Alabama has decided to use when determining who gets necessary home utilities from their company.

According to The Decatur Daily, Decatur Utilities is now prohibiting immigrants without proper documentation from obtaining utilities for their homes.

Stephen Pirkle, Decatur Utilities business manager and chief financial officer, said DU required identification for residents seeking utilities, but their immigration status was never queried, according to the publication.

“We did not document or confirm whether or not they were citizens or aliens here legally,” Pirkle said, reported the newspaper. “Because of the new law, we are now going through the process to confirm that they are either citizen or an alien here legally.”

The U.S. Department of Justice predicted this situation when seeking that the new Alabama immigration law, known as HB56, be deemed unconstitutional.

“If they are not here legally, we will deny them service,” said Pirkle.

Alabama State Attorney General Luther Strange rebuffed the DOJ’s claim by stating they were “misinterpreting” or “exaggerating” the requisites of the law, the newspaper said.

“Its fear that Section 30 would prohibit such aliens from having running water or sewer services, for example has little basis,” wrote Strange in his response to the department, The Decatur Daily reported.

Alabama’s immigration law makes it a felony for immigrants to have business or contracts with the state.

“If you’re already a customer and you already have service with us – and there is no discontinuation of service – we don’t have to do anything,” Pirkle said.

DU began imposing the requirement in the last two weeks, according to Pirkle.

Some parts of the law, considered the strictest state-level immigration measure in the nation, have been blocked by federal courts. But a section that allows police to check a person’s immigration status during traffic stops still stands.

Some immigrants, even those in the country legally, worry that the law could lead to improper detentions or racial profiling – concerns that police and supporters of the law dismiss.

Since Alabama’s law was enacted, many Hispanics – the state’s fastest growing immigrant group over the last decade – have reportedly left the state. Even among legal residents, many said they were leaving either because they feared the law would lead to racial profiling or because they have family members who are here illegally.

This story contains material from The Associated Press.

You can reach Sandra E. Garcia at: SandraEvangelinaGarcia@gmail.com or via Twitter: @S_Evangelina

Read more:
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2011/11/08/decatur-utilities-firm-in-alabama-cuts-off-services-to-undocumented-immigrants/?test=latestnews#ixzz1dG7gvNC8

Oct 26 2011

Another Border Patrol Agent jailed for doing his job

U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Texas needs to be overhauled or better yet, eliminated, these commie bastards are the same ones who prosecuted  Agents Ramos and Compean in 2006.

U.S. border agent jailed for improper arrest of suspected drug smuggler

By Jerry Seper
The Washington Times
Tuesday, October 25, 2011

A U.S. Border Patrol agent has been sentenced to two years in prison for improperly lifting the arms of a 15-year-old drug smuggling suspect while handcuffed — in what the Justice Department called a deprivation of the teenager’s constitutional right to be free from the use of unreasonable force.

Agent Jesus E. Diaz Jr. was named in a November 2009 federal grand jury indictment with deprivation of rights under color of law during an October 2008 arrest near the Rio Grande in Eagle Pass, Texas, in response to a report that illegal immigrants had crossed the river with bundles of drugs.

In a prosecution sought by the Mexican government and obtained after the suspected smuggler was given immunity to testify against the agent, Diaz was sentenced last week by U.S. District Judge Alia Moses Ludlum in San Antonio. The Mexican consulate in Eagle Pass had filed a formal written complaint just hours after the arrest, alleging that the teenager had been beaten.

Defense attorneys argued that there were no injuries or bruises on the suspected smuggler’s lower arms where the handcuffs had been placed nor any bruising resulting from an alleged knee on his back. Photos showed the only marks on his body came from the straps of the pack he carried containing the suspected drugs, they said.

Border Patrol agents found more than 150 pounds of marijuana at the arrest site.

The defense claimed that the smuggling suspect was handcuffed because he was uncooperative and resisted arrest, and that the agent had lifted his arms to force him to the ground — a near-universal police technique — while the other agents looked for the drugs.

The allegations against Diaz, 31, a seven-year veteran of the Border Patrol, initially were investigated by Homeland Security’s Office of Inspector General and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Office of Professional Responsibility, which cleared the agent of any wrongdoing.

But the Internal Affairs Division at U.S. Customs and Border Protection ruled differently nearly a year later and, ultimately, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Texas brought charges.

The Law Enforcement Officers Advocates Council said the government’s case was “based on false testimony that is contradicted by the facts.”

In a statement, the council said that because the arrest took place at about 2 a.m., darkness would have made it impossible for the government’s witnesses to have seen whether any mistreatment took place. It said Marcos Ramos, the Border Patrol agent who stood next to Diaz, testified that he did not see any mistreatment of the smuggling suspect.

The council said other witnesses made contradictory claims and some later admitted to having perjured themselves. Such admissions, the council said, were ignored by the court and the government. It also said that probationary agents who claimed to have witnessed the assault raised no objections during the incident and failed to notify an on-duty supervisor until hours later.

“Instead, they went off-duty to a local ‘Whataburger’ restaurant, got their stories straight and reported it hours later to an off-duty supervisor at his home,” the council said. “Then the ‘witnesses’ went back to the station and reported their allegations.”

The council also noted that the teenager claimed no injuries in court other than sore shoulders, which the council attributed to “the weight of the drug load, approximately 75 pounds, he carried across the border.”

The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Texas, which brought the charges, is the same office that in February 2006 — under U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton — prosecuted Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean after they shot a drug-smuggling suspect, Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila, in the buttocks as he tried to flee back into Mexico after abandoning a van filled with 800 pounds of marijuana. Aldrete-Davila also was given immunity in the case and testified against the agents.

Agents Ramos and Compean were convicted and sentenced to 11 and 12 years in prison, respectively.

President George W. Bush commuted the sentences in 2009 after they had served two years.

The same prosecutors also charged Edwards County Deputy Sheriff Gilmer Hernandez in 2005 with violating the civil rights of a Mexican criminal alien after he shot out the tires of a van filled with illegals as it tried to run him over. One of the illegal immigrants in the van was hit with bullet fragments.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/oct/25/border-agent-jaile-arrest-teen-drug-smuggler/

Oct 14 2011

Appeals Court Suspends Parts of Alabama’s Immigration Law

Damn!! The law was working! Friggin’ govt!!

Published October 14, 2011

A federal appeals court on Friday suspended parts of Alabama’s tough immigration law while it considers the Justice Department’s request to strike it down.

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta ruled that Alabama cannot prosecute illegal immigrants for not carrying registration documents with them at all times or require schools to check the immigration status of all students.

But the court said Alabama, among other things, can require police officers to verify the immigration status of anyone they lawfully stop if they suspect they are in the country illegally. Illegal immigrants will also be prohibited from obtaining a license to drive, get a vehicle or open a business.

The Justice Department opposes Alabama’s law, claiming it invites discrimination against foreign-born citizens and legal immigrants and is at odds with federal policy. But state officials say the law is necessary to protect the jobs of legal residents.

A final decision on the law won’t be made for months to allow time for more arguments.

Alabama’s provisions allowing officials to check the immigration status of public school students and authorities to question people suspected of being in the country illegally are what help make the Alabama law stricter than similar laws passed in Arizona, Utah, Indiana and Georgia. Other federal judges have blocked all or parts of the laws in those states.

Since a federal judge upheld much of the Alabama law in late September, many frightened Hispanics have been driven away from the state, fearing they could be arrested or targeted by police. Construction workers, landscapers and field hands have stopped showing up for work, and large numbers of Hispanic students have been absent from public schools.

To cope with the labor shortage, Alabama agriculture commissioner John McMillan at one point suggested farmers should consider hiring inmates in the state’s work-release program.

It’s not clear exactly how many Hispanics have fled the state. Earlier this week, many skipped work to protest the law, shuttering or scaling back operations at chicken plants, Mexican restaurants and other businesses.

Immigration has become a contentious issue in Alabama over the last 10 years as the state’s Hispanic population grew by 145 percent to about 185,600. While the group still represents only about 4 percent of the population, some counties in north Alabama have large Spanish-speaking communities and schools where most of the students are Hispanic.