
Outrage over a recent wave of detentions of local residents by officers from Immigration and Customs Enforcement continued to swell this week among supporters of a Latino community that advocates say is being unfairly “hunted” by federal officers.
Swelling budgets and staffing levels in the past year, critics say, have pushed the focus of ICE beyond seeking to deport only those with violent criminal histories and no legal immigration status—those whom President Donald Trump has spotlighted to justify ramping up immigration enforcement agencies.
The resultant uptick in detention sweeps, say the Latino leaders and the families of those detained, has pulled apart families of U.S. citizens and sowed chronic fear in the lives of long-established members of the East End community.
Governor Andrew Cuomo last week lashed out at an ICE sweep that the agency said had led to the detention of 225 people in the New York region, and issued a “cease-and-desist” demand, threatening a lawsuit by the state.
Latino advocates from the East End were careful to note that changing federal policies, from a local level, is not likely within reach. They urged those impassioned by the recent arrests to channel their energy toward support efforts and outreach that can help local residents who are beset with fear or struggling to help a detained loved one.
At a gathering at Christ Episcopal Church in Sag Harbor last week, leaders of Latino advocacy groups said that the recent sweeps show that ICE has turned its sights from violent criminals to anyone who has an arrest record—a single DWI, some from as many as 10 years ago, appears to have been a common trigger.
“This has now become a hunt, and our community is the prey,” Minerva Perez, president of Organizacion Latino-Americana, a community advocacy group, told the crowd on Wednesday, April 25. “But we are not here to talk about what ICE is doing, because that distracts us from what we can do to make a difference.”
Ms. Perez told the large crowd—which included congressional candidates, a number of local government officials and several prominent business owners—the best ways to help the local Latino community face the storm of detentions: lobby for a better support network of mental health services for fearful children, press local police to increase outreach to Latinos so that ICE detentions would not erode trust in local law enforcement, and press for improved language translation services for local police departments, and for better public services, like additional county buses, to help those struggling to navigate daily life.
Nonetheless, much of the conversation focused on tactics that immigration agents have used in recent arrests and how Latino residents can assert the legal rights they do have, documented or not.
Of particular concern were reports that ICE agents had pulled over cars on Flanders Road recently and detained passengers. How many, if any, people had been detained in such a way, Ms. Perez said she did not know, but the specter of federal agents shifting gears to randomly pulling over vehicles to check for undocumented immigrants raised accusations of racial profiling and illegal search and seizure.
However, this week a spokeswoman for ICE said that random stopping and searching of cars is not something the agency’s officers can do.
“Anytime ICE is out in the field, they have a target in mind,” said ICE’s New York region communications director, Rachael Yong Yow. “If they are pulling a car over, it’s because they saw the person get in the car, or they know the person may be in that car.
“We’re not profiling—we’re not looking for a certain type of person, a certain race of person,” she added. “Our last sweep included people from Ireland and Russia to Antigua and the Ukraine, people from all over the world.”
Southampton Town Police Chief Steven Skrynecki confirmed this week that he contacted ICE after receiving calls about cars having been pulled over on Flanders Road near Hampton Bays, and that the agency had said its officers had stopped at least one vehicle. He said that he’d been told the stop, or stops, were related to the agency’s search for a particular person for whom the officers had a detention warrant.
Because ICE officers use unmarked vehicles, the chief acknowledged, there could be some worry about whether legitimate law enforcement officers were behind the wheel. He suggested that anyone with doubts about a car trying to pull them over could call 911 and drive to a well-lighted, open area.
He said he had suggested to ICE officials—who typically do not alert local law enforcement before conducting detention sweeps in local jurisdictions—that they begin to inform local police when they may be looking to pull over a vehicle, so that public safety dispatchers could inform a worried caller that the vehicle behind them is ICE officers.
“We want to make sure that everybody is safe and protected from people posing as law enforcement, which occasionally happens,” Chief Skrynecki said. “If ICE had given us the information that they were in the area, and we got a call from someone concerned about being pulled over, we’d be able to say, yes, that is an ICE vehicle and you should pull over.”
The rights the occupant of a car has if stopped and questioned by ICE officers were also debated at the meeting last week. At a home, Ms. Perez noted, officers may only enter if they have a warrant with reference to a specific address—and advocates for the immigrant community have printed cards that residents can give to officers saying they do not grant entry to the home if such a warrant is not presented.
Attorneys told the crowd that a car is a different story.
“They can say they have a reason to think the car has someone in it that they are looking for,” immigration attorney Chris Worth said at the OLA meeting. “Then they can ask questions that could lead to reasonable suspicion with regard to another person in the vehicle.”
In either instance, ICE officers may detain anyone else present who does not have valid immigration status, Ms. Yong Yow said—though she said that in most instances, if people do not already have an active deportation warrant issued for them, they would typically be processed, fingerprinted and released.
The longest-lasting impact of the tactics that ICE agents have applied in sweeps, advocates worried, was the chilling effect it may have on the willingness of undocumented immigrants to report other crimes to local police, for fear of inviting law enforcement—whose duties, they may not understand, diverge from those of ICE officers—to their homes.
Ms. Perez said that some cities have reported that crimes reported by Latino residents have dropped by as much as 40 percent since the Trump administration ordered more aggressive deportation efforts. She said her organization gets calls regularly from young girls, mostly U.S. citizens, who have been sexually assaulted and didn’t report the crimes to police, because they are afraid that if they bring the police to their houses, they will endanger relatives who are undocumented. “They pull back,” she said.
In the wake of the increase in ICE detentions—which some reports say have increased 40 percent nationally in the last 12 months, and have included several residents of the South Fork—heads of police departments across the East End have said that their goal is to make the difference clear between their duties and those of ICE, in hopes of discouraging that pull-back among Latino residents.
“Our policy starts with the notion that we would like to have and maintain a good relationship with all residents in our community, documented or undocumented,” Chief Skrynecki said. “We see those relationships are beneficial both to the police and the community, and we want the Latino community to feel comfortable reporting crimes to us.”
Ms. Perez said that while local law enforcement may be laboring to erase the division with the immigrant community, ICE agents and their quickly growing detention warrant lists clearly pay little heed to concerns about such side effects.
“They are not scrupulous,” she said of ICE. “They make their own rules.”
Or maybe, take advantage of the absolute leniency illegals have had the past 20+ years and worked to become an American citizen.
Its laughably easy to become a US citizen or at least hold a green card. There isn't an excuse for anyone if you don't follow the rules of the country you are trying to live in.
The truth is its incredibly easy to become a citizen even if you cut corners. You can easily apply for a tourist visa, get accepted, then marry an American. If you come in illegally you are mocking legal immigrants who spent the time and money to do the right thing.
Don't want to be deported? Don't come in illegally. And repeal DACA too. No loopholes for those ...more who can't be bothered to follow the law of the country they want to live in but aren't a citizen of.
Your suggesting "don't come in illegally" to people who have been here for years, and many of them didn't make the choice to come here in the first place.
A child does not deserve to be punished for their parents' crimes.
Sounds like plenty to me, but protection from deportation and the right to earn a living without fear is all these folks really want.
Follow the law and DACA and there should be no issue concern. The sentiment expressed in the article is pure entitlement, to which they have not benefit of it the framework they must abide by is not met. Note the reference to a single DUI. THAT"S THE LAW!
This article isn't about entitlement, it's about fear. It's the first word of the title.
If they are fearful, that's not on anyone here legally...it's on them. Anything short of the keys to the country, won't alleviate their fear...that's all entitlement and again, all on them.
How is it that the hundreds of families that came to LI a hundred years ago legally but now the recent immigrants are entitled not to obey the law?
Crackdowns on immigration from Latin America started in the 80s.
Today, the Naturalization Act of ...more 1965 and other legislation allows what has come to be know has chain migration based on family relationships and eliminating the quota system. While not leaving the door wide-open, it does offer potential immigrants a huge opportunity to legally emigrate the US, if they choose to follow the law and not enter illegally.
Don't do the crime, if you can't do the time. Translation: Don't do something risky unless you are willing and able to accept the full weight of the consequences.
It doesn't? Ok.
Alright then.
The children of [pick a crime] have zero choice in the decisions of their parents, and conceivably are punished for the parent going to jail. The parents in this case acted irresponsibly on behalf of their children. They certainly shouldn't be easily rewarded, that's for certain.
Alright then.
You're up slugger.
I do have an answer, but I've been told that when you have something people want you shouldn't give it away for free.
Spelling it out: "So a parent's murder conviction should result in imprisonment for their children?"
The answer is, "no".
The short answer to yours is: no, breaking the law should not be rewarded.
The long answer is: "actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea" meaning "the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty." Since the choice to come to the U.S. is made for minors by their parents, they have not formed the ...more requisite mens rea to be guilty of any actus reus.
"actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea" is a legal standard applied to criminality. "Illegality should not be rewarded ahead of the law abiding" is an administrative law standard applied to immigration.
"misconstrue" but English is my second language and I'd hate to assume.
Also, while the concept of mens rea is not limited to criminal law, illegal entry IS a criminal offense with both criminal and civil penalties.
However, it's a strict liability crime that doesn't require mens rea.
I'm just suggesting that it should, particularly as ...more it applies to minors brought to the U.S. without choice, and to both criminal and civil penalties.
I think neither the administrative removal nor a criminal charge should be brought in the absence of culpability as is already done with victims of human trafficking, for example, who receive protection from deportation and often permanent legal status.
But spin it up as you will.
I don't see how people following the law are punished.
If that's not what you're suggesting, then what are we arguing about?
If you just agree with me, then thanks.
If you don't want to subject yourself or those under your care to the potential consequences - deportation to the adult offender or penalties, fines and delayed legal status and certainly delayed citizenship, don't break the law as an adult illegally entering the country. If you choose to break the law and in doing so subject your minor children to those consequences, that was your decision. You as the adult who violated ...more the law or you the illegal minor are NOT ENTITLED to the terms you dictate, but to the process behind those seeking legal immigration or a process that takes years to accomplish while you meet set standards.
Well, at least you agree that they shouldn't be deported, even if it's out of self-interest.
A minor who came here unaccompanied, should be deported. If they have been living here for years as in the case of so called Dreamers, that's open to discussion.
Two very distinct issues, that conveniently get blended together.
I think the DACA guidelines highlighted some of those key distinctions, but as more time passes without a legislative response those distinctions become blurry.
For example, I don't see a rational difference between someone who arrived at 15 years old on June 15, 2007 (DACA-eligible), and someone who arrived at 15 years old ...more on June 16, 2007 (DACA-ineligible).
Or July 15, 2007,
Or October 15, 2007,
Or January 15, 2008....
Hell, let 'em all in.
Que bueno!
There's certainly a much brighter distinction between someone who arrived on June 15, 2007 and someone who arrived yesterday.
The goal of policy should be to draw those lines in ways that are clear and fair, wouldn't you agree?
I suspect our versions of clear and fair are very different, but as you attempt to make it clear, I begin to see the logic for treating everyone equally in ways you might not like.
These are arbitrary lines we draw with policy, so we might as well base them in some kind of justification.
Clarity and fairness seem like as good a start as any.
It's clear, fair in that if you are in the country illegally - you get the same treatment, and would give a fresh start!
The law is fraught with arbitrary lines.
You don't believe this nation has the right to control who enters, immigration laws and enforcement = racism, speaking out about our laws being broken = hate speech, and illegal aliens = more worthy than American citizens.
Explain yourselves. Why do illegal aliens have the right to throw their fists in the air and enter by force? Does the country belong to them? Was it 'stolen' ...more from them and they are taking it back? Does every person in a poor nation have the right to enter and stay in the United States? Hundreds of millions?
If you're referring to people who arrived here as children, it's because they shouldn't be punished for their parents' crimes and, since they were raised here, they're basically American already.
If you're referring to adults entering by their own volition without a bonafide fear of violence and ...more no American-born/raised kids depending on them, then those folks should be subject to deportation, as long as we understand the thing driving them here (a dream of prosperity) is something that, in a different situation, we would all succumb to.
Even if you believe (as I do) that the land of the Americas was stolen via conquest from its native people, that doesn't mean that you believe the current inhabitants have an obligation to give it back.
How come no one from Central America wants to become Mexican citizens? How come Mexico allows them to caravan on through?
I disagree. That interview should and often does prevent the hearing before a judge from even taking place. The statement that the "U.S. is legally required to hear" is not accurate.
I've heard of legal citizens getting caught up in deportation proceedings and having to spend months proving that they are here legally, but not of any getting deported.
You bet!
Would my family and livelihood I've worked a lifetime to build be disrupted as a result? Most certainly.
And answer for it they should. Unfortunately it's not against the law to hire a day laborer-- legal or illegal. Maybe that should change. Whaddya think?
And lol at trying to play the sympathy card. Give me a break.
"[The Irish] hate our order, our civilization, our enterprising industry, our pure religion. This wild, reckless, indolent, uncertain and superstitious race have no sympathy with the English character. Their ideal of human felicity is an alternation of clannish broils and coarse idolatry. Their history describes an unbroken circle of bigotry and blood".
When I hear politicians propose free college for the illegals, and have done nothing for legal American student, I can't help but think we are misguided as a country.
> week on how the local community can help Latino residents
> weather more aggressive federal immigration enforcement efforts.
So, learn how to duck ICE enforcement officers... wouldn't the better effort have been to hace started years ago to help undocumented Latino residents start the process of becoming documented?
The ICE presence is greatly welcomed.
Unless there's action from congress, the folks who arrived here illegally are without hope: there is no path to citizenship for them.
"Immigration reform couldn’t pass into law when Republicans controlled the White House and Congress (in 2005-2006). It couldn’t pass when a Republican was in the White House and Democrats controlled Congress (in 2007-2008). It couldn’t pass ...more when Democrats controlled both the executive and legislative branches (in 2009-2010). And now we officially know this after yesterday: It isn’t going to pass with a Democrat in the White House, Democrats in charge of the Senate, and Republicans in charge of the House of Representatives (2011-2014)."
*Why Immigration Reform Died in Congress
Jul.01.2014 NBC
I recall immigration activists being none too pleased. That does ring a bell.
"Members of both parties were leery of supporting an immigration overhaul with unemployment levels still high, fearing they would face angry constituents." ""Obama showed little will to lead on this issue during his first year, and many members of his own party ...more seemed uninterested in comprehensive changes at that time — not just Republicans."*
*Obama’s failed promise of a first-year immigration overhaul
By Josh Hicks September 25, 2012
You could not be more incorrect. If it doesn't have the votes...it doesn't have the votes and bills frequently don't go to a vote because it lacks support regardless of whether it Republican or Democrat. It's up to the President to work to garner support, but the fact is, the Senate vote was pure politics knowing the House wouldn't bring it to vote because of the points in the source I provided. ...more
Fact is, it was never really a Priority for Obama.
Controversial bills will normally require bipartisan support (or change the rules as was the case of Obamacare) to pass. Its' up to
Nice job GOP.
Interesting that Obama had NO problem not waiting for a “strong bipartisan commitment” before pushing Obamacare.
Is it hypocritical to criticize Obama for not pushing legislation hard enough and also criticize him for using executive power too much?
I think so, but that's just my opinion.
After failing to act when he could, Obama implemented DACA with the stroke a pen. It was no surprise given the backlash he received from the broken campaign promises. Believe what you will about Republicans, penning DACA didn't justify Obama's unilateral act.
I think they avoided a vote to insulate Republicans from accountability for failing to support it, but that's just my opinion.
House Republicans had the option to either don't vote on the Senate immigration bill and take the political lumps knowing they had issue with some provisions, or vote on it knowing they didn't have the votes and send a message they were willing to betray ...more American citizens in the process. With out bipartisan leadership from then President Obama, the House did the right thing by not noting.
But it's a given that sometimes the only way to win is not to play.
But to your point of the hypothetical...
Procedurally, yes. Politically, no for the reasons already stated.
I'd have preferred they went on record with what they do or do not support, but I understand the political equation. Regardless, to blame the executive is folly: the president doesn't write or pass laws, congress does.
Then President Obama's failure to lead on the issue at the time is well documented.
In other words, making the same mistakes that were made in the 1980s. Bravo for the GOP House!!
While the Senate bill was "bad" for the reason Republicans didn't like it, it was good for the same reason immigration advocates ...more didn't like it. In many regards, it was a step in the right direction, but fundamentally flawed in others.
While you personalize the discussion please keep in mind, it's just a reminder of what transpired and the perspective of the other side on the issue, most notably, the fact that House Republicans position merely reflected that of the vast majority of Senate Republicans.
I have no problem with your views on the bill that passed the Senate with Republican support only to be shelved without a vote by the Republican-controlled house.
My issue is your assignment of blame to POTUS when 1.) POTUS doesn't vote on or pass legislation, and 2.) House leadership, faced with a multitude of options, chose to do nothing.
Blame then POTUS Obama?...hmmm...well, he did choose his priorities... and he did choose not to lead on the issue for many years. 1) The POTUS does work as an advocate to garner support, when in actuality, Obama was a rather divisive politician...think in contrast, to Bill Clinton who ...more found a way to work with republicans on some very big issues. 2) House leadership knew they did not have the votes and knew there was no reconciling the core issues. Not voting was the only option as there was nothing to vote on.
You may have seen a lack of leadership, but "send me a bill" still echoes five years later.
I think elected legislators are responsible for being clear with what they support, especially when legislation has already passed the upper house.
By failing to go on record they abdicated that ...more responsibility, and by failing to hold them responsible time and time again for that dereliction of duty, not only in this instance but as part of the broader game of politics, we also abdicate our responsibility of being an educated electorate.
Congressman still came home to their constituents and explained their position...we even read about it here in the SHP even.
Regardless, the current POTUS appears to have moved on from immigration after failure to get passage of a bill in either chamber.
I wonder if you'll fault his leadership too?
As much as you dislike the current president, he actually gets it that you have to secure the border BEFORE addressing the fallout from 30+ years of open borders, rather than fixing the gaping wound with a band aid, voting, calling it a day, and feeling good about themselves.
Even moreso than in 2013 when a bill at least passed one chamber of congress.
Something about not wanting to pass a bill that would get vetoed by the president...political consequences and all.
But all that said, I've heard the President say he's open to a path for citizenship for your people. The President even outlined a Four Point Plan in the State of the Union Address.
Ironically, both the compromise bill that Republican leadership refused to vote on in 2013 and the compromise bill that the Republican POTUS refused to support this time around both took major steps to secure the border, which is certainly preferable to letting people build complete lives and deport them ten years later.
That he thought it didn't go ...more far enough and decided to drop it altogether is, well you said it, right? "Failure to lead on the issue."
I would suggest the two at this juncture are mutually exclusive issues.
I see no evidence the pipe dream you have of "dropping it all together" is a reality. Certainly you'd like to demonize the President for this, but what I see however, he has clearly stated he is willing to be flexible on the Dreamer issue, but in doing so is not flexible ...more on negotiations of anything less than securing the border and ending chain migration and visa lottery.
Clear communication of what he wants! Obama was virtually silent.
Except this term it did. The only one standing in the way was good ol' POTUS.
Fact is, you wrote: "My issue is your assignment of blame to POTUS when 1.) POTUS doesn't vote on or pass legislation, and 2.) House leadership, faced with a multitude of options, chose to do nothing."
But now, you want to hold the current president accountable for the very thing you protected the previous when present day. Please Fore, don't ...more project the failed promises of the past president, onto this one.
Actually, nevermind, I'm not.
Typical Obama lead from behind. This of course, after he broke his campaign promise.
Not surprising at all.
But I'm curious, which bill that has "bipartisan support" hasn't he signed?
As for his promise: “I think my positions are going to be what the people in this room come up with...I'm not going to say, 'Oh, gee, I want this,' or 'I want that.' I will be signing it.”
Whether they were bipartisan at all is a whole other issue. Having an "R" in front of your party affiliation designation does not an "R' make. Is McCain really a republican?
As for his promise: You don't get this politics thing too well and ...more Trump is nobody's fool. Since that meeting, he's WELL on the record of what he expects.
I'm getting the sense you don't see the distinction between resolving longstanding security issues and resolving the plight of millions here illegally and the associated reference to a bill of love. Democrats simply don't want to secure the border which isn't very loving to the USA.
How do you feel about centrist (read: vulnerable) Republicans hopping on-board the Hurd-Aguilar bill today and pushing for a discharge petition? Are they also not Republicans like former Republican presidential candidate John McCain?
I understand lame-duck speaker Ryan isn't a fan of passing bills just to have the president veto them, but it sounds ...more like some Republicans would rather get their positions on-the-record than cover for POTUS, as it should be.
Coincidentally, Democrats were voted out of Senate majority shortly after 2013,
Those are no centrists.
BTW, terminology like "centrist" is nothing but BS coined to make someone's position on an issue --->appear<--- to be more mainstream, when it often isn't best nor supported by the majority of the country. It's smoke and mirrors.
For example, an immigration bill that addresses both border security and a path to citizenship for deserving folks.
But I suppose you also believe "bipartisan compromise" and "common ground" are BS terminology.
"bipartisan compromise" and "common ground" ....LOL... more feel good language so everyone can pat themselves on the back telling each other what a great job they did. Meanwhile, when ...more they're no longer in office, the problem still exists.
So let me ask: what motive would anyone have to collaborate with someone who doesn't believe in compromise or common ground?
The motive is elections have consequences. Of course at some level there can be "bipartisan compromise" and "common ground" but when tough issues require tough decisions, both go out the window. Current events have ...more shown this to be accurate.
But, by all means, pave roads through deserts in order to build white elephants on the border that will cost more in construction and maintenance than we'll gain back in security.
Human traffickers will thank you for their smooth ride.
No idea to what paving you're referring to so I'll chalk it up to TDS.
I agree that considerable steps can be taken, but not that they'll achieve "full scale securing" of anything. There's only one thing that will prevent people from coming into the U.S. illegally, and I don't think you'll like it...
There it is...the end of the United States as we know it... liberal nirvana.... the open border argument...no immigration laws...world citizenship. If only you shared the same sentiment for people control...uh....gun control.
Did I advocate for open borders?
Don't get me wrong, I think the free movement of people and capital is ideal but impractical and not politically expedient...sort of how you feel about deporting everyone!
Right, if I want an ocean-to-ocean wall...
Any idea what those two statements have in common?
Answer: I didn't say either. This is what I love about Liberals. They have to say things that weren't said to continue the illusion.
Carry on.
I also made the inference that you were on the wall train, but if you're saying that a concrete and rebar wall is unnecessary to sufficiently secure the border...I'd agree.
But where is the part about "ocean-to-ocean?" Who ever alluded to that...including myself and the president?
I just want to make sure where the goal posts are before I take a swing.
BTW ... you don't swing for the goal posts ... you swing for the fence.
swing
verb
1. Move or cause to move back and forth or from side to side while suspended or on an axis.
It was simply an after thought observation and cultural sensitivity opportunity to the proper usage here in the good ol' USA, while I await the promised big kick.
"Does "everyone" mean "everyone present in the U.S. illegally"?
I just want to make sure where the goal posts are before I take a swing.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (2686), HAMPTON BAYS on May 11, 18 2:29 PM"
Btw, I know you're not a big NFL fan, but unless you're referring to a single post, they're called "goal posts." I'm also still waiting for the video of a swing-less kick.
Ain't that rich.
Illegal Immigrants: You do not have to follow the law, in fact here is a bunch of free stuff paid for by our idiot citizens.
Native born Americans suspect that it is they, and not the immigrant, who are being forced to adapt to social changes caused by migration.
And if I’m honest with myself, I must admit that I’m ...more not entirely immune to such nativist sentiments. When I see Mexican flags waved at pro-immigration demonstrations, I sometimes feel a flush of patriotic resentment. When I’m forced to use a translator to communicate with the guy fixing my car, I feel a certain frustration.
Just sayin'.....
Press 2 for Deportation
THIS is the greatest place on the PLANET to lay your head. IF you do not agree....(fore, Z) I whole heartedly support you going someplace else, ASAP.
“Doubt as sin. — Christianity has done its utmost to close the circle and declared even doubt to be sin. One is supposed to be cast into belief without reason, by a miracle, and from then on to swim in it as in the brightest and least ambiguous of elements: even a glance towards land, even the thought that one perhaps exists for something else as well as swimming, even the slightest impulse of our amphibious nature — is sin! And ...more notice that all this means that the foundation of belief and all reflection on its origin is likewise excluded as sinful. What is wanted are blindness and intoxication and an eternal song over the waves in which reason has drowned.”
~ Friedrich Nietzsche, Daybreak: Thoughts on the Prejudices of Morality
Here is one for you....
"I have been denounced by my fellow unbelievers for stupidity, betrayal, senility and everything you can think of and none of them have read a word that I have ever written."
Antony Flew
AND, the big bang....it a lie.
Anything on that moronic "belief ...more in God" statement?
You just keep digging yourself a deeper hole...
Denzel Washington also had a great quote last weekend. When, as a young boy, he asked his mother why a couple of racist white men called him the n word, she replied "'Oh, that's just somebody who's worried about you taking their place."
That sentiment couldn't be more prevalent today.
Are we watering down DWI’s? Who is buying into this hog wash? Not me. Driving a 2-3 ton vehicle while intoxicated is a violent criminal act. Get the drunks off our roadways ASAP, and make certain these single DWI cases are not repeated 2 or 3 times.
I go to the pharmacy for a script and $15-65, while THEY flash a card and get it for free. I think Kentucky does not... Get the HINT?
The United Kingdom has it right--no job, no housing, no medical and no school unless you are a proven UK or commonwealth citizen.
Best line of your article-- per Perez " They make their own rules". She ...more is referring to ICE. What she would like is NO RULES and NO IMMIGRATION LAWS. Her organization better not be getting any of my tax dollars.
we should also crack down on the businesses supporting illegal labor