Friday, June 29, 2007

Comment on Orange County Raids

Here's a response from Robert Sorensen, who is at the University of Washington, to our postings on the ICE raids that have occurred in Orange County:

This story makes an impression on my because Santa Ana is my home turf. I can't be there now to keep vigil on the ICE raids, but I recall a similar strong and sweeping police presence by the Border Patrol back in the day leading up to and near the time of Operation Gatekeeper. They used to hit Santa Ana because it was the first major city inland from the frontier.

Freshly arrived immigrants were then an easy prey for unscrupulous merchants and landlords, street criminals, fake immigration experts, and the gestapoesque Border Patrol round ups.

It seems as though history is trying to imitate itself with regard to the round up sweeps. Only this time the enforcement is carried out by a much bigger and more specialized branch of the anti immigrant bureaucracy. It is my hope that the raid will stop. I sense that the sweeps represent a temporary political posturing by a desperate government mega-bureaucracy that has to pander to nativist outcry in order to justify its own existence. I am under the impression that the raids won't last. For one thing, I don't think the residents of Orange County will tolerate the strong arm posturing.

Southern California is too dependent on and intertwined with the Hispanic immigrant community to allow the raids to go on. What may be necessary is a stronger protest reaction by the communities surrounding Santa Ana including some prominent religionists and non Latino leaders to denounce the raids.

As for your monitoring the situation as it plays out in Santa Ana today, I would hope that the blogsters would pick up the ball and get the word out that the raids are going on through out the country. Not enough people know that this is going on, but if they did they would protest. We experienced the Portland del Monte raids here in the Pacific Northwest on June 12. Quite a few of us turned out at the ICE prison in protest of the gestapoesque raids. ICE has a live public information phone line (weekdays) EST. Voice opinions a 1 202 514 2648

bh

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2007/06/comment-on-oran.html

| Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bfae553ef00e0098a28de8833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Comment on Orange County Raids:

Comments

A crucial step for advancing the proposed Immigration Bill
In order to overcome the present standstill in Congress between Republicans and Democrats, concerning the proposed Immigration Bill, it should be a good exercise to look for help both at the teachings of the Founding Fathers and at modern legal theories.

In the Federalist No. 51, James Madison wrote as follows: "... In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other; at the same time that each will be controlled by itself".

John Rawls, the renowned author of the essay "Justice as Fairness", made the following statement: "... inequalities are arbitrary unless it is reasonable to expect that they will work out for everyone's advantage, and provided the the positions and offices to which they attach, or from which they may be gained, are open to all. These principles express justice as a complex of three ideas: liberty, equality, and reward for services contributing to the common good".

Since the proposed Bill mentions a maximum of eight years for additional (and probation) periods to be granted to illegal immigrants currently living in the USA, if fairness is indeed sought, it should contemplate the rights of both the mentioned immigrants and of the local communities, where they live and might be registered.

The latter should be granted the power to recommend to their respective State Governments, on a case by case basis, which lenght of probation (additional) time should be granted to each individual (maximum eight years), depending on how he or she should be rewarded for services contributing to the common good, among other fair and acceptable criteria.

Each State, given information provided by each county, should also be in a position to recommend to the Union who should be eligible to aspire to US citizenship (after the eight years period), and who should not. Those ascribed a short probation period (let's say three years only) shoul be allowed to require extension or extensions, based on their merits and/or their impeccable civil behavior.

It is worth keeping in mind that a massive deportation of illegal immigrants would probably result in a widespread lack of manpower and high inflation rates in the USA, for months (or years) in a row. Also sending illegals back to their countries of origin would enormously impair the already low capacity of those countries to cope with problems connected to huge miserable populations.

The "touch base" clause should be dropped down, as it would bring about a bureaucratic nightmare and unbearable/unnecessary costs.

Virtus in medio est.

Antonio Bueno

Posted by: Antonio Bueno | Jun 29, 2007 1:56:01 PM

A crucial step for advancing the proposed Immigration Bill
In order to overcome the present standstill in Congress between Republicans and Democrats, concerning the proposed Immigration Bill, it should be a good exercise to look for help both at the teachings of the Founding Fathers and at modern legal theories.

In the Federalist No. 51, James Madison wrote as follows: "... In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other; at the same time that each will be controlled by itself".

John Rawls, the renowned author of the essay "Justice as Fairness", made the following statement: "... inequalities are arbitrary unless it is reasonable to expect that they will work out for everyone's advantage, and provided the the positions and offices to which they attach, or from which they may be gained, are open to all. These principles express justice as a complex of three ideas: liberty, equality, and reward for services contributing to the common good".

Since the proposed Bill mentions a maximum of eight years for additional (and probation) periods to be granted to illegal immigrants currently living in the USA, if fairness is indeed sought, it should contemplate the rights of both the mentioned immigrants and of the local communities, where they live and might be registered.

The latter should be granted the power to recommend to their respective State Governments, on a case by case basis, which lenght of probation (additional) time should be granted to each individual (maximum eight years), depending on how he or she should be rewarded for services contributing to the common good, among other fair and acceptable criteria.

Each State, given information provided by each county, should also be in a position to recommend to the Union who should be eligible to aspire to US citizenship (after the eight years period), and who should not. Those ascribed a short probation period (let's say three years only) shoul be allowed to require extension or extensions, based on their merits and/or their impeccable civil behavior.

It is worth keeping in mind that a massive deportation of illegal immigrants would probably result in a widespread lack of manpower and high inflation rates in the USA, for months (or years) in a row. Also sending illegals back to their countries of origin would enormously impair the already low capacity of those countries to cope with problems connected to huge miserable populations.

The "touch base" clause should be dropped down, as it would bring about a bureaucratic nightmare and unbearable/unnecessary costs.

Virtus in medio est.

Antonio Bueno

Posted by: Antonio Bueno | Jun 29, 2007 1:57:09 PM

A crucial step for advancing the proposed Immigration Bill
In order to overcome the present standstill in Congress between Republicans and Democrats, concerning the proposed Immigration Bill, it should be a good exercise to look for help both at the teachings of the Founding Fathers and at modern legal theories.

In the Federalist No. 51, James Madison wrote as follows: "... In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other; at the same time that each will be controlled by itself".

John Rawls, the renowned author of the essay "Justice as Fairness", made the following statement: "... inequalities are arbitrary unless it is reasonable to expect that they will work out for everyone's advantage, and provided the the positions and offices to which they attach, or from which they may be gained, are open to all. These principles express justice as a complex of three ideas: liberty, equality, and reward for services contributing to the common good".

Since the proposed Bill mentions a maximum of eight years for additional (and probation) periods to be granted to illegal immigrants currently living in the USA, if fairness is indeed sought, it should contemplate the rights of both the mentioned immigrants and of the local communities, where they live and might be registered.

The latter should be granted the power to recommend to their respective State Governments, on a case by case basis, which lenght of probation (additional) time should be granted to each individual (maximum eight years), depending on how he or she should be rewarded for services contributing to the common good, among other fair and acceptable criteria.

Each State, given information provided by each county, should also be in a position to recommend to the Union who should be eligible to aspire to US citizenship (after the eight years period), and who should not. Those ascribed a short probation period (let's say three years only) shoul be allowed to require extension or extensions, based on their merits and/or their impeccable civil behavior.

It is worth keeping in mind that a massive deportation of illegal immigrants would probably result in a widespread lack of manpower and high inflation rates in the USA, for months (or years) in a row. Also sending illegals back to their countries of origin would enormously impair the already low capacity of those countries to cope with problems connected to huge miserable populations.

The "touch base" clause should be dropped down, as it would bring about a bureaucratic nightmare and unbearable/unnecessary costs.

Virtus in medio est.

Antonio Bueno

Posted by: Antonio Bueno | Jun 29, 2007 1:58:23 PM

A crucial step for advancing the proposed Immigration Bill
In order to overcome the present standstill in Congress between Republicans and Democrats, concerning the proposed Immigration Bill, it should be a good exercise to look for help both at the teachings of the Founding Fathers and at modern legal theories.

In the Federalist No. 51, James Madison wrote as follows: "... In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other; at the same time that each will be controlled by itself".

John Rawls, the renowned author of the essay "Justice as Fairness", made the following statement: "... inequalities are arbitrary unless it is reasonable to expect that they will work out for everyone's advantage, and provided the the positions and offices to which they attach, or from which they may be gained, are open to all. These principles express justice as a complex of three ideas: liberty, equality, and reward for services contributing to the common good".

Since the proposed Bill mentions a maximum of eight years for additional (and probation) periods to be granted to illegal immigrants currently living in the USA, if fairness is indeed sought, it should contemplate the rights of both the mentioned immigrants and of the local communities, where they live and might be registered.

The latter should be granted the power to recommend to their respective State Governments, on a case by case basis, which lenght of probation (additional) time should be granted to each individual (maximum eight years), depending on how he or she should be rewarded for services contributing to the common good, among other fair and acceptable criteria.

Each State, given information provided by each county, should also be in a position to recommend to the Union who should be eligible to aspire to US citizenship (after the eight years period), and who should not. Those ascribed a short probation period (let's say three years only) shoul be allowed to require extension or extensions, based on their merits and/or their impeccable civil behavior.

It is worth keeping in mind that a massive deportation of illegal immigrants would probably result in a widespread lack of manpower and high inflation rates in the USA, for months (or years) in a row. Also sending illegals back to their countries of origin would enormously impair the already low capacity of those countries to cope with problems connected to huge miserable populations.

The "touch base" clause should be dropped down, as it would bring about a bureaucratic nightmare and unbearable/unnecessary costs.

Virtus in medio est.

Antonio Bueno

Posted by: Antonio Bueno | Jun 29, 2007 1:58:34 PM

A crucial step for advancing the proposed Immigration Bill
In order to overcome the present standstill in Congress between Republicans and Democrats, concerning the proposed Immigration Bill, it should be a good exercise to look for help both at the teachings of the Founding Fathers and at modern legal theories.

In the Federalist No. 51, James Madison wrote as follows: "... In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other; at the same time that each will be controlled by itself".

John Rawls, the renowned author of the essay "Justice as Fairness", made the following statement: "... inequalities are arbitrary unless it is reasonable to expect that they will work out for everyone's advantage, and provided the the positions and offices to which they attach, or from which they may be gained, are open to all. These principles express justice as a complex of three ideas: liberty, equality, and reward for services contributing to the common good".

Since the proposed Bill mentions a maximum of eight years for additional (and probation) periods to be granted to illegal immigrants currently living in the USA, if fairness is indeed sought, it should contemplate the rights of both the mentioned immigrants and of the local communities, where they live and might be registered.

The latter should be granted the power to recommend to their respective State Governments, on a case by case basis, which lenght of probation (additional) time should be granted to each individual (maximum eight years), depending on how he or she should be rewarded for services contributing to the common good, among other fair and acceptable criteria.

Each State, given information provided by each county, should also be in a position to recommend to the Union who should be eligible to aspire to US citizenship (after the eight years period), and who should not. Those ascribed a short probation period (let's say three years only) shoul be allowed to require extension or extensions, based on their merits and/or their impeccable civil behavior.

It is worth keeping in mind that a massive deportation of illegal immigrants would probably result in a widespread lack of manpower and high inflation rates in the USA, for months (or years) in a row. Also sending illegals back to their countries of origin would enormously impair the already low capacity of those countries to cope with problems connected to huge miserable populations.

The "touch base" clause should be dropped down, as it would bring about a bureaucratic nightmare and unbearable/unnecessary costs.

Virtus in medio est.

Antonio Bueno

Posted by: Antonio Bueno | Jun 29, 2007 1:59:16 PM

A crucial step for advancing the proposed Immigration Bill
In order to overcome the present standstill in Congress between Republicans and Democrats, concerning the proposed Immigration Bill, it should be a good exercise to look for help both at the teachings of the Founding Fathers and at modern legal theories.

In the Federalist No. 51, James Madison wrote as follows: "... In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other; at the same time that each will be controlled by itself".

John Rawls, the renowned author of the essay "Justice as Fairness", made the following statement: "... inequalities are arbitrary unless it is reasonable to expect that they will work out for everyone's advantage, and provided the the positions and offices to which they attach, or from which they may be gained, are open to all. These principles express justice as a complex of three ideas: liberty, equality, and reward for services contributing to the common good".

Since the proposed Bill mentions a maximum of eight years for additional (and probation) periods to be granted to illegal immigrants currently living in the USA, if fairness is indeed sought, it should contemplate the rights of both the mentioned immigrants and of the local communities, where they live and might be registered.

The latter should be granted the power to recommend to their respective State Governments, on a case by case basis, which lenght of probation (additional) time should be granted to each individual (maximum eight years), depending on how he or she should be rewarded for services contributing to the common good, among other fair and acceptable criteria.

Each State, given information provided by each county, should also be in a position to recommend to the Union who should be eligible to aspire to US citizenship (after the eight years period), and who should not. Those ascribed a short probation period (let's say three years only) shoul be allowed to require extension or extensions, based on their merits and/or their impeccable civil behavior.

It is worth keeping in mind that a massive deportation of illegal immigrants would probably result in a widespread lack of manpower and high inflation rates in the USA, for months (or years) in a row. Also sending illegals back to their countries of origin would enormously impair the already low capacity of those countries to cope with problems connected to huge miserable populations.

The "touch base" clause should be dropped down, as it would bring about a bureaucratic nightmare and unbearable/unnecessary costs.

Virtus in medio est.

Antonio Bueno

Posted by: Antonio Bueno | Jun 29, 2007 1:59:24 PM

One more time Antonio? Your argument is a real about face from the ACLU position that the power to control immigration is the plenary power of the states. I don't subscribe to their view, but it would seem to met that it would behoove your side to take a firm position on this issue, one way or the other, otherwise you look a bit foolish.

Posted by: Horace | Jun 29, 2007 4:40:39 PM

One more thing. Maybe we just grant the states the right to evict illegal aliens from their jurisdiction. It sounds a lot less complicated than your proposal. After all, shouldn't each state have the right to decide whether illegal aliens are a burden on their economies? Seems fair to me, considering it's the states that bear the burden of illegal immigration.

Posted by: Horace | Jun 29, 2007 5:00:30 PM

'One of those 27 was Jamie Peña-Martinez, 30, a previously deported immigrant from Mexico with a prior conviction for child molestation. He was arrested at a residence in Santa Ana.

The remaining 26 criminal aliens were all under deportation orders by immigration judges, according to an ICE news release.

Re-entering the United States after deportation is a felony violation carrying a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison. The ICE release said the United States Attorney's Office is reviewing the latest arrests.

Another of the arrested immigrants was identified as a Mexican national wanted by Mexican authorities for ambushing and murdering his 74-year-old uncle nine years ago in Zacatecas over a land dispute, according to the ICE release. Orange County District Attorney investigators got a tip from the Mexican Attorney General's Office that Almarez Reveles Gonzalo, 35, was residing in Orange County; he was then traced to a home in Baldwin Park, where he was arrested Thursday. Gonzalo was transported to the border and turned over to Mexican authorities hours after his arrest.'

LITMUS TEST OF WHETHER YOU'RE A TRUE OPEN BORDERS ABSOLUTIST: SHOULD EVEN PEOPLE LIKE PENA-MARTINEZ (CONVICTED CHILD MOLESTER) & GONZALO (MURDER SUSPECT) NOT BE DEPORTED? I KEEP SEEING DEMANDS OF 'NO DEPORTATIONS'. NOT EVEN FOR VIOLENT CRIMINALS?

Posted by: Jack | Jun 30, 2007 5:54:02 AM

employer hiring employer hiring,globalization its advantages and disadvantages globalization its advantages and disadvantages,vehicles you can tow 4 down vehicles you can tow 4 down,art festival participants in fl art festival participants in fl,somatostatin analogues somatostatin analogues,darren ruh wash darren ruh wash,connecting digital tv to analogue antennas uk connecting digital tv to analogue antennas uk,criminal law chambers adelaide criminal law chambers adelaide,ez-up exhibition tent ez-up exhibition tent,neo liberal view of globalization neo liberal view of globalization,

Posted by: under-tow | Nov 19, 2007 1:19:02 PM

Post a comment