WELCOME GUEST  |  LOG IN
hamptons local events, express news group
27east.com

Story - News

May 1, 2018 11:46 AMPublication: The Southampton Press

Fear, Anger Grow In Wake Of More ICE Detentions

A large crowed attended a discussion in Sag Harbor last week on how the local community can help Latino residents weather more aggressive federal immigration enforcement efforts.  MICHAEL WRIGHT Michael Wright
May 1, 2018 3:38 PM

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.”

You've read 1 of 7 free articles this month.

Already a subscriber? Sign in

Don't want to get deported? Don't come here illegally.

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.
By TrueHamptons (33), Sag Harbor on May 1, 18 1:08 PM
People who entered the country illegally don't have a path to citizenship. That's why DACA exists.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (8265), HAMPTON BAYS on May 1, 18 1:26 PM
Or join the military, or leave the country and enter legally, or find a job that will sponser your stay, or... or... or...

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
By TrueHamptons (33), Sag Harbor on May 1, 18 1:56 PM
No, it isn't.

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.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (8265), HAMPTON BAYS on May 1, 18 2:00 PM
3 members liked this comment
But they shouldn't be rewarded nor entitled to immediate citizenship, either.
By Po Boy (5299), Water Mill on May 1, 18 2:03 PM
An applicant must possess a green card for five years before being considered for citizenship.

Sounds like plenty to me, but protection from deportation and the right to earn a living without fear is all these folks really want.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (8265), HAMPTON BAYS on May 1, 18 2:10 PM
1 member liked this comment
Protection from deportation is not what the article is about. It is about entitlement.

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!
By Po Boy (5299), Water Mill on May 1, 18 2:44 PM
1 member liked this comment
If you think people feel safe with DACA, you haven't been paying attention. If it hadn't been for the courts, DACA wouldn't even exist anymore.

This article isn't about entitlement, it's about fear. It's the first word of the title.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (8265), HAMPTON BAYS on May 1, 18 2:56 PM
The government is NOT deporting anyone under DACA who has not violated the provisions of DACA.

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.
By Po Boy (5299), Water Mill on May 1, 18 7:16 PM
Nah, it's not entitlement, it's fear. The kids are not responsible for the place they live.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (8265), HAMPTON BAYS on May 2, 18 8:24 AM
Adults ARE responsible for their immigration status and the status of their children.

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?
By Baymen87 (135), Lugoff, SC on May 2, 18 8:36 AM
1 member liked this comment
Putting it simply: the laws were much more lenient a hundred years ago than today, probably because world travel was more rare when technology didn't facilitate immigration by making it accessible to anyone.

Crackdowns on immigration from Latin America started in the 80s.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (8265), HAMPTON BAYS on May 2, 18 8:44 AM
A distinction should be made to the leniency reference. The Immigration Act of 1917 which was passed about 100 years ago was the strictest immigration law of its time. Back then, it was the advent of steam-powered oceangoing ships replacing sailing ships which fostered lower fares and greater immigrant mobility - it's the reason why millions of Europeans made the journey. But yes, the door was wide open for Europeans from the late 1800s to early 1900s.

Today, the Naturalization Act of ...more
By Mr. Snerdley (397), Southampton on May 3, 18 8:19 AM
Sure they do. Exit our country and apply for legal immigration status. Why are we rewarding those who break our laws? The breaking up of families is not an argument. No is forbidding family members from accompanying their illegal immigrants from going back to their country of origin. That's their choice, life is ull of choices and all come with consequences.
By Walt (292), Southampton on May 3, 18 10:20 PM
2 members liked this comment
Most people wouldn't consider "start over" as a path to citizenship.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (8265), HAMPTON BAYS on May 4, 18 8:24 AM
If a US citizen violates the law and is incarcerated, not only are they separated from their family, but they are also subject to losing whatever they gained in the form of their livelihood.

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.

By Po Boy (5299), Water Mill on May 8, 18 8:20 AM
2 members liked this comment
Great story. How does that apply to people brought here without choice?

It doesn't? Ok.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (8265), HAMPTON BAYS on May 9, 18 6:54 AM
...don't do it...
By Po Boy (5299), Water Mill on May 9, 18 12:34 PM
"Don't do that thing you have zero choice in, or you'll be punished for it."

Alright then.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (8265), HAMPTON BAYS on May 9, 18 12:36 PM
Parents should know better... just like committing any crime. They are the adults, correct?

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.

By Po Boy (5299), Water Mill on May 9, 18 1:44 PM
So a parent's murder conviction should result in imprisonment for their children?

Alright then.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (8265), HAMPTON BAYS on May 9, 18 1:49 PM
So illegality should be rewarded ahead of the law abiding?
By Po Boy (5299), Water Mill on May 9, 18 3:22 PM
I'll answer yours if you answer mine.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (8265), HAMPTON BAYS on May 10, 18 6:56 AM
No.

You're up slugger.
By Po Boy (5299), Water Mill on May 10, 18 7:57 AM
So you won't answer mine but I have to answer yours? What fun is that?

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.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (8265), HAMPTON BAYS on May 10, 18 8:12 AM
I did answer....twice now.

Spelling it out: "So a parent's murder conviction should result in imprisonment for their children?"

The answer is, "no".
By Po Boy (5299), Water Mill on May 10, 18 8:18 AM
Great! So we've established that, at the very least, there are some circumstances where children shouldn't receive the same punishment as their parents for their parent's wrongdoing.

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
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (8265), HAMPTON BAYS on May 10, 18 8:42 AM
The only thing we've established is that you construe someone's words. Now, onward...

"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.
By Po Boy (5299), Water Mill on May 10, 18 9:15 AM
I do construe words, each one I read in fact, as there's no such thing as understanding without interpretation. Perhaps you meant
"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
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (8265), HAMPTON BAYS on May 10, 18 10:09 AM
However, reclassification and the handling of illegality, is purely administrative. Last I heard, no one was charging those brought here illegally with a crime, but they should not receive expedited administrative status.
By Po Boy (5299), Water Mill on May 10, 18 10:37 AM
It's true that the criminal violations are not prosecuted prior to the administrative deportation. A criminal trial would afford a plethora of rights not granted in removal proceedings.

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.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (8265), HAMPTON BAYS on May 10, 18 10:45 AM
I'm most certain none of that has anything to do with the determination of legal status for those brought here by their parents, haven't further violated the law, and how they are handled in relation to others seeking legal status and/or citizenship.

But spin it up as you will.
By Po Boy (5299), Water Mill on May 10, 18 12:55 PM
Synthesized for the simple-minded: if you didn't choose to engage in criminality, you shouldn't be punished for it.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (8265), HAMPTON BAYS on May 10, 18 1:11 PM
Who's getting punished? Those following the law shouldn't be punished as well.Fair is fair. There's that sense of entitlement.
By Po Boy (5299), Water Mill on May 10, 18 3:20 PM
I'm merely explaining why I think people who entered the country as children shouldn't be deported absent some other wrongdoing. You may label it entitlement, but I would label deportation for them injustice.

I don't see how people following the law are punished.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (8265), HAMPTON BAYS on May 10, 18 3:23 PM
Once again, who is saying they should be deported?
By Po Boy (5299), Water Mill on May 10, 18 11:18 PM
"Don't do the crime, if you can't do the time."

If that's not what you're suggesting, then what are we arguing about?

If you just agree with me, then thanks.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (8265), HAMPTON BAYS on May 11, 18 5:19 AM
If you're asking that question, you haven't had your listening ears on.

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
By Po Boy (5299), Water Mill on May 11, 18 10:03 AM
I'm just glad we agree the people who didn't choose to enter illegally shouldn't be deported, that's my only point.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (8265), HAMPTON BAYS on May 11, 18 10:07 AM
I'm not saying they shouldn't be in the scheme of things, it's just not practical nor politically winnable but they sure shouldn't get anything alluding to special treatment in context of other immigration policy and there should be no benefit derived by their illegal adult parents or relatives as a result.
By Po Boy (5299), Water Mill on May 11, 18 10:37 AM
So you think they should be deported, but oppose it politically because mass deportations are unfeasible and likely to foment hostility among a sympathetic electorate?

Well, at least you agree that they shouldn't be deported, even if it's out of self-interest.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (8265), HAMPTON BAYS on May 11, 18 10:54 AM
It has nothing to do with self-interest, but love of country, rule of law (I don't condone human smuggling of any kind) and placing the utmost value on citizenship.
By Po Boy (5299), Water Mill on May 11, 18 11:04 AM
I'm just glad we agree that people who arrived as minors shouldn't be deported, even if it's not for the same reasons.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (8265), HAMPTON BAYS on May 11, 18 11:08 AM
You're changing the context of the discussion.... again.

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.

May 11, 18 12:05 PM appended by Po Boy
To clarify...accompanied or unaccompanied, if it's illegal, it's illegal...deport them. So called Dreamers, remains open to discussion.
By Po Boy (5299), Water Mill on May 11, 18 12:05 PM
There's certainly a valid difference of opinion in what's fair treatment for someone who has lived here for years and someone who entered illegally yesterday.

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
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (8265), HAMPTON BAYS on May 11, 18 12:23 PM
No doubt.

Or July 15, 2007,

Or October 15, 2007,

Or January 15, 2008....

Hell, let 'em all in.

By Po Boy (5299), Water Mill on May 11, 18 12:56 PM
I guess we can if you really want to, but that doesn't sound like something that's going to energize policymakers.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (8265), HAMPTON BAYS on May 11, 18 1:15 PM
You're the one who doesn't see the rational difference. So I'll interpret, "we can if you really want to" as YOUR position (which you've already stated) is, let 'em all in!

Que bueno!

By Po Boy (5299), Water Mill on May 11, 18 1:43 PM
I said I didn't see a rational difference between someone arriving one day before the DACA cutoff and a person arriving the day after. Even if you (obviously) disagree, I have a hard time thinking you don't see the logic.

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?
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (8265), HAMPTON BAYS on May 11, 18 2:02 PM
Oh, I see. Kind of like not allowing people their constitutional right to own a firearm, because they're 20 years and 364 days old. Huh.

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.
By Po Boy (5299), Water Mill on May 11, 18 2:31 PM
Yes! Exactly like that!

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.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (8265), HAMPTON BAYS on May 11, 18 2:34 PM
It's a great justification all right, for deporting "everyone".

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.
By Po Boy (5299), Water Mill on May 11, 18 2:39 PM
Then as time passes and we fall out of consensus on laws, we change them! Isn't it fun!
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (8265), HAMPTON BAYS on May 11, 18 2:40 PM
No more chain migration!



By Po Boy (5299), Water Mill on May 14, 18 7:45 AM
1 member liked this comment
Sure, if you can get consensus around a proposal to stop granting visas based on family relationships to Americans, by all means. I doubt you'll find it though.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (8265), HAMPTON BAYS on May 14, 18 7:51 AM
Immigration reform now!
By Po Boy (5299), Water Mill on May 15, 18 1:24 PM
I'm with you there, buddy.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (8265), HAMPTON BAYS on May 15, 18 1:57 PM
It's time for the leftist posters here to step up and demand the dissolution of this country's borders.

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
By MoronEliminator (215), Montauk on May 1, 18 1:25 PM
If you're referring to people requesting asylum at the border right now, it's because the U.S. is legally required to hear and determine the validity of their claims before deportation.

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
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (8265), HAMPTON BAYS on May 1, 18 2:17 PM
The U.S. is ONLY required to determine the validity of the claims for asylum and the legitimacy of the claim before deportation. Technically, and LEGALLY speaking... those seeking asylum must request asylum in the FIRST contiguous country in which they are fleeing, which is Mexico if they are fleeing from Central America.
By Po Boy (5299), Water Mill on May 1, 18 2:38 PM
How is any of that different from what I said?
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (8265), HAMPTON BAYS on May 1, 18 3:08 PM
You missed the part about asylum seekers do so in the first contiguous country. For Central America, that is Mexico, and the vast majority of the claims for asylum.

How come no one from Central America wants to become Mexican citizens? How come Mexico allows them to caravan on through?
May 1, 18 7:22 PM appended by Po Boy
If Central Americans fail to make the claim for asylum in Mexico, it is legally within US border authority decision to be bye-bye, as a result. For YEARS (read most recently the Obama Administration) this was overlooked and asylum seekers were given a immigration court date only to NEVER appear for the immigration hearing and people like those in the article then complaining about ICE being "unscrupulous",and "making their own rules." PLEASE!!
By Po Boy (5299), Water Mill on May 1, 18 7:22 PM
I said they are entitled to a hearing and determination. Identifying disqualifying factors is part of the determination. So it was no different.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (8265), HAMPTON BAYS on May 2, 18 8:22 AM
That is very different. The determination I'm referring to is done during the immigration inspection at the border. This determines whether there will even be a hearing and where disqualifying behavior is determined. Not everyone gets a hearing under law and international agreement - when it is followed.
By Po Boy (5299), Water Mill on May 2, 18 10:51 AM
Another pointless distinction. The US government is making a determination that this individual is not eligible for asylum, period.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (8265), HAMPTON BAYS on May 2, 18 10:57 AM
A pointless distinction of an interview at the point of presenting oneself for inspection and immigration hearing before a judge is a pointless distinction?

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.

By Po Boy (5299), Water Mill on May 2, 18 12:46 PM
Except they are required to hear the claim, it just fails on a basic qualification.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (8265), HAMPTON BAYS on May 2, 18 12:55 PM
Ahhh... Hear by a judge vs. hear as in listen... but yet Hear is vigorously defended...right.
By Po Boy (5299), Water Mill on May 2, 18 1:36 PM
Exactly. Everyone should have their circumstances heard, rather than get turned around at the border indiscriminately.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (8265), HAMPTON BAYS on May 4, 18 8:13 AM
And they do! Just not by a judge. If they are claiming asylum as citizens of Mexico, hello judge. If they are from Central America, turned around they should be. Make your asylum claim in Mexico.
By Po Boy (5299), Water Mill on May 4, 18 8:22 AM
1 member liked this comment
What about the fears and anger amongst legal citizens? No one cares about us, the press only covers one sympathy side of the story. Sick and tired of hearing about all the poor and innocent "illegals" - how about the rest us break any laws we want and see what kind of sympathy we get. Yeah, straight to jail .................
By HamptonDad (236), Hampton Bays on May 1, 18 2:04 PM
Do you fear getting picked up off the street every time you go grab groceries? Are legal citizens subject to deportation?

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.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (8265), HAMPTON BAYS on May 1, 18 2:22 PM
If I break the law would I worry I'd be picked up and placed in jail.

You bet!

Would my family and livelihood I've worked a lifetime to build be disrupted as a result? Most certainly.
By Po Boy (5299), Water Mill on May 1, 18 2:46 PM
People are going to have to start landscaping their own lawns pretty soon. The humanity!!
By johnj (1024), Westhampton on May 1, 18 2:04 PM
2 members liked this comment
So tell me Johnj- how much is enough? should we just let everyone and anyone in? How many are you willing to support? House? feed? Someone has to pay for it. Let us know. Lead by example. How many are you willing to take into your home right now as there are Millions who want to come here.
By realistic (472), westhampton on May 1, 18 10:30 PM
Stop feeding your kids soy lattes and they may actually want to do labor outside. Before Illegals undercut the cost of labor on LI teens did their jobs. Many teens had more than one job. This is only changed in a generation as we tolerated huddling crowds around 7-11s to be picked up daily, and as the SHPD did nothing to prevent it. How about a Deportation Hall instead of a Hiring Hall?
By Baymen87 (135), Lugoff, SC on May 2, 18 8:42 AM
1 member liked this comment
Right, the contractors who increase their profit margin by hiring them has absolutely nothing to do with it. Keep your heads in the sand boys!
By johnj (1024), Westhampton on May 2, 18 9:14 AM
So the contractors are to blame? Maybe if the PD and the public insisted that the illegals wandering around in the town or village were deported like they are legally supposed to do the contractors would hire citizens. The cost of hiring a citizen is too high for some with the required increase in minimum wages and all of the other overhead expenses as well as spending money on the record keeping. Most contractors make little profit and are forced to look for cheap labor. Should they stick to ...more
By Baymen87 (135), Lugoff, SC on May 3, 18 8:56 AM
1 member liked this comment

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.
By johnj (1024), Westhampton on May 3, 18 9:36 AM
Benjamin Disraeli has it all figured out

"[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".
By Aeshtron (431), Southampton on May 1, 18 4:03 PM
Did the Irish bring massive amounts of drugs on the boats with them like South/Central America and Mexico has? Where do you think the drugs are coming from that are killing the youth in this country? The Irish, like the Germans before them..and the Italians behaved themselves and assimilated in the US. Sure, there were gangs and mafia and unruly behavior, but for the most part they adapted this country's true spirit. Unlike today's immigrants who take this country for granted and want to change ...more
By DiseaseDiocese (668), Riverhead on May 1, 18 10:09 PM
1 member liked this comment
This comment has been removed because it is a duplicate, off-topic or contains inappropriate content.
By Fred s (3321), Southampton on May 1, 18 4:33 PM
Of course the very first word in this leftist diatribe is "Outrage." Give me a break.
By Babyboo (293), Hampton Bays on May 1, 18 7:08 PM
I hate to tell people this but more people are outrage that these people want certain special treatments
By chief1 (2800), southampton on May 1, 18 10:36 PM
I don't mind the detentions one bit. The caravan should not enter the U.S. either.
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.
By rvs (106), sag harbor on May 1, 18 10:54 PM
1 member liked this comment
> "A large crowed attended a discussion in Sag Harbor last
> 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.



By Frank Wheeler (1826), Northampton on May 2, 18 7:27 AM
1 member liked this comment
A legislative effort to create a path to citizenship for many of these folks was championed by President Obama. The legislation passed in the Senate but the Republican-controlled House refused to vote on it.

Unless there's action from congress, the folks who arrived here illegally are without hope: there is no path to citizenship for them.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (8265), HAMPTON BAYS on May 2, 18 7:42 AM
1 member liked this comment
Well, Obama the champion has the opportunity to pass immigration legislation when Democrats held both the House and Senate. That didn't happen. It does make for a great political wedge issue and fund raising mechanism, doesn't it?

"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
By Po Boy (5299), Water Mill on May 2, 18 10:47 AM
If I recall correctly, there were other priorities in 2008. Do you recall?
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (8265), HAMPTON BAYS on May 2, 18 10:52 AM
Is that question directed to me, or then President Obama? He's the one who made the campaign promise to, "put comprehensive immigration reform back on the nation's agenda during my first year in office."

I recall immigration activists being none too pleased. That does ring a bell.

By Po Boy (5299), Water Mill on May 2, 18 12:42 PM
To answer my own question, stimulus came first, then healthcare, then immigration. Folks are free to disagree with the order of priority, but I think he did his job and the House, in refusing to bring it to a vote for fear it might pass, didn't.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (8265), HAMPTON BAYS on May 2, 18 1:01 PM
It was failed leadership by Obama. Obama approved the stimulus less than a month after Obama took office. The fact is, Obama never got out in from of immigration reform and lead on the issue - instead - it was political fodder.

"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
By Po Boy (5299), Water Mill on May 2, 18 1:28 PM
You can hold that opinion, but the only people responsible for failing to bring it to a vote in the House are Republicans.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (8265), HAMPTON BAYS on May 2, 18 1:53 PM
Opinion? well the article makes a man good argument for lack of leadership by then President Obama.

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
By Po Boy (5299), Water Mill on May 2, 18 4:07 PM
Thanks for the civics lesson, here's yours: the executive doesn't pass laws, the legislature does.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (8265), HAMPTON BAYS on May 2, 18 9:20 PM
Four months. That's how long Democrats had the most control in over a decade. Of course, the Republican caused "Great Recession" took precedence. If derivatives were regulated, mortgages wouldn't matter. The casino bets on mortgages would not have existed, and the bubble would not have been remotely as systemic. The GOP failed to regulate the financial markets, failed to see Greenspan's "flaw", and failed to govern.

Nice job GOP.
By Mr. Z (11847), North Sea on May 2, 18 10:52 PM
No leadership on Obama's part! Then President Obama's aides are noted as saying, the president “does not intend to get out in front of any (immigration) proposal until there is a strong bipartisan commitment to pass it.”

Interesting that Obama had NO problem not waiting for a “strong bipartisan commitment” before pushing Obamacare.

May 4, 18 8:18 AM appended by Po Boy
With the Republican AND Democrat caused "Great Recession" (after all, it took more than one administration to get that ball rolling), there was simply no political will to expend as jobs to CITIZENS were the foremost concern, and Obama knew this. If Obama was serious about immigration reform, he would have used some of his high polling numbers to push and lead on the issue. Obama Didn't.
By Po Boy (5299), Water Mill on May 4, 18 8:18 AM
What's so strange about wanting bipartisan support before providing a benefit to non-citizens but being more cavalier with legislation that would primarily benefit citizens?

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.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (8265), HAMPTON BAYS on May 4, 18 8:23 AM
Bipartisan support doesn't materialize by itself.

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.
By Po Boy (5299), Water Mill on May 4, 18 9:24 AM
I don't think House leaders declined to vote on the bill that passed the Senate because it didn't have enough support.

I think they avoided a vote to insulate Republicans from accountability for failing to support it, but that's just my opinion.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (8265), HAMPTON BAYS on May 4, 18 9:35 AM
And likewise, Senate Democrats played politics knowing there would be particulars the House Republicans would need compromise on, and to do so, they would have needed top cover from then President Obama to even begin those discussions.

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
May 4, 18 1:18 PM appended by Po Boy
The political games Democrats showed then caught up to Democrats during recent government shutdown debate as they showed that they clearly put illegal immigration above that of legal citizens. It was no different in 2009 as economic recovery was underway.
By Po Boy (5299), Water Mill on May 4, 18 1:18 PM
You're forgetting that they could have happily passed a different bill and taken both versions through a reconciliation process.

But it's a given that sometimes the only way to win is not to play.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (8265), HAMPTON BAYS on May 4, 18 1:22 PM
Up until this point, we've been discussing what did and didn't happen historically speaking.

But to your point of the hypothetical...

Procedurally, yes. Politically, no for the reasons already stated.
By Po Boy (5299), Water Mill on May 4, 18 2:59 PM
Right. They didn't pass a bill they could rally the troops around because there was none, so they abdicated responsibility instead.

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.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (8265), HAMPTON BAYS on May 4, 18 3:28 PM
No abdication....House Republicans set THEIR PRIORITY, and it was American Citizens.

Then President Obama's failure to lead on the issue at the time is well documented.
By Po Boy (5299), Water Mill on May 5, 18 4:30 PM
I'm unclear on how refusing to vote on a billionaire that passed the Senate, or crafting their own competing bill, demonstrates any priority.
May 5, 18 5:19 PM appended by Fore1gnBornHBgrown
Not billionaire, bill.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (8265), HAMPTON BAYS on May 5, 18 5:19 PM
It's even more unclear which bill passed the Senate.
By Po Boy (5299), Water Mill on May 7, 18 10:36 AM
Is it? The reform bill that passed the Senate by a margin of 68-32 was widely debated at the time. Fourteen Republicans crossed the aisle to vote in favor.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (8265), HAMPTON BAYS on May 7, 18 10:43 AM
Much... the key issues in the 2013 vote were granting legal status to millions who came illegally and not securing the border before doing so.

In other words, making the same mistakes that were made in the 1980s. Bravo for the GOP House!!
May 7, 18 12:10 PM appended by Po Boy
And by "legal status" I mean citizenship. Bottom line, the pathway suggested by the Senate was viewed to be too lenient in light of the fact that the law was broken with the illegal entering into the country.
By Po Boy (5299), Water Mill on May 7, 18 12:10 PM
I see you have strong opinions on the specifics of the bill, so what was unclear about it?
May 7, 18 8:47 PM appended by Fore1gnBornHBgrown
It's also worth noting that the 2013 militarized the border by putting up permanent military bases, launching 24/7 drone operations, and regular armed patrols on ATVs and horseback...but if it passed it would have been a victory for the Democrats, and you can't have that!
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (8265), HAMPTON BAYS on May 7, 18 8:47 PM
I never said the 2013 bill was unclear. I also never said it was entirely bad. It was "bad" on some basic tenets, and that was it's demise; noted in my previous response - disagreement on the issue of granting a pathway to citizenship to millions who came illegally and not securing the border before doing so, making the exact same mistake of the 1983 "reform."

While the Senate bill was "bad" for the reason Republicans didn't like it, it was good for the same reason immigration advocates ...more
By Po Boy (5299), Water Mill on May 8, 18 8:12 AM
"It's even more unclear which bill passed the Senate."

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.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (8265), HAMPTON BAYS on May 8, 18 10:35 AM
Yup...unclear which bill...not the particulars. We were talking about the 2009 timeframe and the time period Obama held both House and Senate...at least I was... and didn't realize you were in 2013 already!

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
By Po Boy (5299), Water Mill on May 8, 18 11:32 AM
POTUS does have the power of agenda-setting. Immigration was third in line on the agenda. Congress failed to pass a law. Executive action was taken. POTUS moved on to the next line-item.

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
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (8265), HAMPTON BAYS on May 8, 18 12:26 PM
Somewhere around 5-7 percent of all bills go to a vote. Not voting on something is neither failing to "go on the record" nor abdicating responsibility nor dereliction of duty. That's layman's terms for you didn't get something wasn't approved that you supported in a system that worked as it was designed and intended - like it or not.

Congressman still came home to their constituents and explained their position...we even read about it here in the SHP even.
By Po Boy (5299), Water Mill on May 8, 18 2:11 PM
You can believe that doing nothing is their job, but I think it's to write bills, read bills, and vote on them.

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?
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (8265), HAMPTON BAYS on May 8, 18 2:36 PM
That 5-7 percent of all bills go to a vote goes back to the brink of dawn....it's nothing new.

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.

By Po Boy (5299), Water Mill on May 8, 18 7:58 PM
You can share his priorities, as I shared Obama's, but I see a lack of leadership on the issue, as you did during the last presidency.

Even moreso than in 2013 when a bill at least passed one chamber of congress.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (8265), HAMPTON BAYS on May 8, 18 10:36 PM
You can learn more about President Trump's priorities by changing the Stormy channel, or simply searching "President Trumps Priorities." You may have even heard of some of them during the campaign.
By Po Boy (5299), Water Mill on May 9, 18 12:31 PM
I remember hearing something about a "bill of love" and an assertion by republican leadership that the only person standing in the way of immigration reform is Trump.

Something about not wanting to pass a bill that would get vetoed by the president...political consequences and all.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (8265), HAMPTON BAYS on May 9, 18 12:35 PM
If you say so. Maybe because he believes it important to secure the border in that equation. I know that falls on deaf ears and might even cause a rash for you...

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.
By Po Boy (5299), Water Mill on May 9, 18 1:40 PM
Lol "your people." You are my people, Po. I'm as American as apple pie, which coincidentally was also born outside this country ;-)

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
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (8265), HAMPTON BAYS on May 9, 18 1:55 PM
"took major steps to secure the border, which is certainly preferable to letting people build complete lives and deport them ten years later."

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
By Po Boy (5299), Water Mill on May 9, 18 3:20 PM
Nah, failure to pass a bill = failure of leadership, you said it.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (8265), HAMPTON BAYS on May 9, 18 4:17 PM
That's all you Fore1gnBorn.
By Po Boy (5299), Water Mill on May 9, 18 5:11 PM
"Bipartisan support doesn't materialize by itself."

Except this term it did. The only one standing in the way was good ol' POTUS.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (8265), HAMPTON BAYS on May 10, 18 6:52 AM
No disagreement that statement came from me, but it's certainly not this: "failure to pass a bill = failure of leadership, you said it."

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
By Po Boy (5299), Water Mill on May 10, 18 7:54 AM
I'm just surprised you don't see how your own argument against Obama's failure to shepherd a bill through both chamber of congress applies to Trump's failure to shepherd a bill through even one.

Actually, nevermind, I'm not.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (8265), HAMPTON BAYS on May 10, 18 8:18 AM
It was a conscious decision by Obama to delegate that to Congressional "leadership" precipitated by the publics lack of confidence Obama would enforce the law, to paraphrase GOP leadership.

Typical Obama lead from behind. This of course, after he broke his campaign promise.
By Po Boy (5299), Water Mill on May 10, 18 8:28 AM
And remember when Trump publicly promised to sign any bill that had bipartisan support? I suppose that's not a broken promise either.

Not surprising at all.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (8265), HAMPTON BAYS on May 10, 18 8:45 AM
No, I don't.

But I'm curious, which bill that has "bipartisan support" hasn't he signed?
By Po Boy (5299), Water Mill on May 10, 18 9:07 AM
Specifically, there was the Graham-Durbin proposal, and the McCain-Coons bill as well.

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.”
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (8265), HAMPTON BAYS on May 10, 18 9:26 AM
Both falling short of the President's priorities as previously stated. He's made that abundantly clear...but yet, the people in the room bring him a garbage bill. Dead on arrival was the language used to describe both. That's leadership.

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
By Po Boy (5299), Water Mill on May 10, 18 10:33 AM
"I'm not going to say, 'Oh, gee, I want this,' or 'I want that.' I will be signing it."
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (8265), HAMPTON BAYS on May 10, 18 10:39 AM
And in seeking to clarify those comments, the next day he said he wouldn't sign a bill without funding for a wall.
By Po Boy (5299), Water Mill on May 10, 18 12:49 PM
That's not clarifying, but walking it back. I guess it's not his fault if he doesn't know what words mean. Still waiting on a bill of love.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (8265), HAMPTON BAYS on May 10, 18 1:12 PM
And actually, he even stated it in followup discussion later in the meeting the same day.

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.
By Po Boy (5299), Water Mill on May 10, 18 3:18 PM
Coincidentally, the 2013 bill and those with bipartisan support today all included billions of dollars slated for border protection.

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
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (8265), HAMPTON BAYS on May 10, 18 3:29 PM
Billions tomorrow does not secure the border today. Once again, noted previously.... "making the same mistakes of 1983, as millions pour into the US while the border is secured... Border Security First!!

Coincidentally, Democrats were voted out of Senate majority shortly after 2013,

By Po Boy (5299), Water Mill on May 10, 18 11:17 PM
Great story, but it seems at odds with how the centrist Republicans in the House appear to want to do business.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (8265), HAMPTON BAYS on May 11, 18 5:22 AM
As Democrats have shifted left, so have the "centrists."

Those are no centrists.
By Po Boy (5299), Water Mill on May 11, 18 9:50 AM
Well that seems a little absolutist, but you're entitled to your opinion.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (8265), HAMPTON BAYS on May 11, 18 9:59 AM
It's a well established paradigm shift and they're now referred to as RINO's.

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.
By Po Boy (5299), Water Mill on May 11, 18 10:32 AM
I think that being centrist/moderate means that you're amenable to bipartisan compromises based on common-ground with the intent of voting on legislation (rather than refusing to vote) and, whether it passes or fail, moving on to the next issue.

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.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (8265), HAMPTON BAYS on May 11, 18 10:50 AM
Sure do. As at least one of the two political party's has exhibited the inability to understand the need to secure the border first, before enacting any type of solution for those already illegally in the country. Anything short of that is not solving the problem but perpetuating the mistakes of the past.

"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
By Po Boy (5299), Water Mill on May 11, 18 11:01 AM
I understand your priorities, but I think it's more important to deal with those here already than those who would come in the future. That difference in opinion is what led to a compromise that deals with both at the same time.

So let me ask: what motive would anyone have to collaborate with someone who doesn't believe in compromise or common ground?
May 11, 18 11:13 AM appended by Fore1gnBornHBgrown
Your disctinction between "real" Republicans and RHINOs is also pretty funny. You may think they're not conservative, but if they're members of the Republican party, moreso if they are nominees and elected representatives, that makes them Republicans.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (8265), HAMPTON BAYS on May 11, 18 11:13 AM
That sentiment is exactly why we're in this mess - pretending like you can know who is already here and who isn't when in reality, it's a never ending pipeline. Anything short of full scale securing of the border is security theater, aka perpetuating the mistakes of the past.

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
May 11, 18 11:33 AM appended by Po Boy
To your point of distinction between "real" Republicans and RHINOs...FOCUS. We're discussing the passing of legislation. But coming from someone who has attributed someone affiliated with the KKK as being demonstrative of the GOP, I can't say I'm too surprised.
By Po Boy (5299), Water Mill on May 11, 18 11:33 AM
I don't agree with your interpretation of current events, nor do I believe that you can achieve "full scale securing" of a border that is bookended by two vast oceans.

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.
May 11, 18 11:41 AM appended by Fore1gnBornHBgrown
Isn't your belief that Republicans should only vote for Republican things more of a reason "why we're in this mess" than folks trying to seek common ground and compromise?
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (8265), HAMPTON BAYS on May 11, 18 11:41 AM
Well, the Border Patrol would disagree that steps can to taken to do so considerably. And President Trump has made it a priority.

No idea to what paving you're referring to so I'll chalk it up to TDS.
May 11, 18 11:59 AM appended by Po Boy
....that steps can't be taken...
By Po Boy (5299), Water Mill on May 11, 18 11:59 AM
Well, it's quite simple: in order to deliver materials such as concrete/rebar and heavy equipment such as excavators/backhoes, you need paved roads.

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...
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (8265), HAMPTON BAYS on May 11, 18 12:08 PM
Never been out west much, have you? Believe it or not, stage coaches haven't been in use for awhile.

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.
By Po Boy (5299), Water Mill on May 11, 18 12:50 PM
Not sure what stagecoaches have to do with anything, but if you want an ocean-to-ocean concrete and rebar wall, you need roads. That's a fact.

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!
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (8265), HAMPTON BAYS on May 11, 18 1:24 PM
Right...how I 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.

By Po Boy (5299), Water Mill on May 11, 18 1:36 PM
Well, if you're not saying they should be deported, you're certainly "not saying they shouldn't be" (your words).

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.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (8265), HAMPTON BAYS on May 11, 18 1:53 PM
Yeah, but where's the part about deporting everyone? Because if you can pick and choose one part of what I wrote, certainly you can locate other for additional insight.

But where is the part about "ocean-to-ocean?" Who ever alluded to that...including myself and the president?
May 11, 18 2:24 PM appended by Po Boy
That's rather void of facts, and filled with raw emotion.
By Po Boy (5299), Water Mill on May 11, 18 2:24 PM
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 (8265), HAMPTON BAYS on May 11, 18 2:29 PM
It's your "everyone," who am I to give clarity?

BTW ... you don't swing for the goal posts ... you swing for the fence.
By Po Boy (5299), Water Mill on May 11, 18 2:34 PM
But you kick with a swing of the leg, do you not?
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (8265), HAMPTON BAYS on May 11, 18 2:36 PM
Not. That implies you have either a) only a no knee joint, or b) only a hip joint, that would in turn rotate on an axis.

swing
verb
1. Move or cause to move back and forth or from side to side while suspended or on an axis.

By Po Boy (5299), Water Mill on May 14, 18 7:43 AM
It's funny that this is so important to you. In fact, I'd love to watch a video of you trying to kick a ball without swinging your leg.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (8265), HAMPTON BAYS on May 14, 18 7:47 AM
You're the one who focused on it, chief.

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.
By Po Boy (5299), Water Mill on May 15, 18 1:22 PM
As I wait for the video.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (8265), HAMPTON BAYS on May 15, 18 1:58 PM
No need for video, you can post the promised "swing for the goal post" here.
By Po Boy (5299), Water Mill on May 16, 18 11:38 AM
Momma always said that if you have something people want, you shouldn't give it away for free. Video or bust.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (8265), HAMPTON BAYS on May 16, 18 11:46 AM
Momma sounds like a smart lady. She'd also tell you that if you googled "swing for the goal post" and no results were found, nobody is buying what you're selling OR giving away.
By Po Boy (5299), Water Mill on May 16, 18 2:15 PM
I think you're mixing metaphors, friend. That quote is misattributed; you're the only one saying it.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (8265), HAMPTON BAYS on May 16, 18 2:52 PM
Friend, clearly, you are mixing metaphors. Then, doubling down on the misuse. If you're now saying you didn't, that's a blatant lie.

"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"
By Po Boy (5299), Water Mill on May 17, 18 10:44 AM
There you go, I never said "swing for the goal post." Just that it would take a "swing" of my leg to accomplish the kick necessary to put one through the aforementioned "goal posts."

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.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (8265), HAMPTON BAYS on May 17, 18 10:50 AM
HAHA...you're waiting for the video on something you say, you never said.

Ain't that rich.
By Po Boy (5299), Water Mill on May 17, 18 5:27 PM
1 member liked this comment
Does the enforcement of other laws scare them or just this one?
By even flow (1023), East Hampton on May 2, 18 8:56 AM
I'll bet the teachers that took out large loans to get a teaching degree are not happy that the governor wants to give illegals a free degree. But, did any of the teachers ever pay that loan? Can't find the illegal and can't find the teacher, go figure...
By knitter (1941), Southampton on May 2, 18 9:58 AM
American Citizens: You MUST obey the law or be punished!
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.
By Preliator Lives (437), Obamavillie on May 2, 18 3:00 PM
I think the American people have a generous instinct. They understand that we're a nation of immigrants. But if those folks are going to live in this country, they have to be put on a pathway to citizenship that involves them paying a fine, making sure that they are at the back of the line and not cutting in front of people who applied legally to come into the country.
By DiseaseDiocese (668), Riverhead on May 2, 18 8:45 PM
Just keep voting Democrat and watch the country collapse.
By BillWillConn3 (180), Southampton on May 2, 18 9:48 PM
1 member liked this comment
Just keep voting Democrat and watch the country collapse.
By BillWillConn3 (180), Southampton on May 2, 18 9:48 PM
There’s no denying that many blacks share the same anxieties as many whites about the wave of illegal immigration flooding our Southern border....a sense that what’s happening now is fundamentally different from what has gone on before. Not all these fears are irrational.

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
By DiseaseDiocese (668), Riverhead on May 2, 18 10:25 PM
2 members liked this comment
Press 1 for English.
Press 2 for Deportation
By pigroast (100), East Quogue on May 3, 18 1:07 AM
1 member liked this comment
Current immigration laws call for the deportation of illegal aliens. Just because the Obama administration wouldn't enforce the rule of law doesn't invalidate that law! Legal immigrants aren't complaining. There is a new sheriff in town who believes in the rule of law. Illegal aliens have been a drain on our school systems, healthcare and other benefits taxpayers pay for which they do not deserve.
By Walt (292), Southampton on May 3, 18 10:15 PM
I am 100% unapologetically AMERICAN. I won't sit and apologize to any race, individual, sexual preference, native, foreign born, snowflake, "my feelings are hurt" S.O.B.

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.
By Bayman3142 (249), Southampton on May 3, 18 10:48 PM
Honest dissent is not unpatriotic.


“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
By Mr. Z (11847), North Sea on May 3, 18 11:27 PM
Nothing like a cup of coffee and a quote from a vile human being who made Hitler appear as if he were Mr. Rogers. Thanks Z, you got a real winner in Fried, your quote says so much about you.

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
By Bayman3142 (249), Southampton on May 4, 18 9:38 AM
Is that why Chaim Weizmann was a big fan of Nietzsche? As well as many other Zionists?

You just keep digging yourself a deeper hole...
May 8, 18 8:09 PM appended by Mr. Z
"Nothing like a cup of coffee and a quote from a vile human being [Nietzsche] who made Hitler appear as if he were Mr. Rogers." ~ Bayman reinforcing his lack of credibility
By Mr. Z (11847), North Sea on May 8, 18 8:09 PM
No more comments from Fore. He must've realized that my last 2 anti-immigration posts on this thread were not written by me but spoken by........wait for it.......BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA! Oh the joy....
By DiseaseDiocese (668), Riverhead on May 3, 18 11:01 PM
That's really funny. I did notice those comments were unexpectedly nuanced coming from you, and I didn't comment because I didn't have any issue with them.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (8265), HAMPTON BAYS on May 4, 18 6:44 AM
German immigrants were going to Nazi sympathizer meetings in Yaphank in the thirties. The Irish drank their paychecks every week, so we set up prohibition. The Italian mob was raping their own with extortion. They got around to everyone else later. See how easy it is to stereotype! Did I pass the test to become a trumpette?
By Mets fan (1501), Southampton on May 4, 18 5:58 AM
You forgot to say your more patriotic then liberals.
By Fred s (3321), Southampton on May 4, 18 9:30 AM
There was a story on CBS this morning about the shrinking number of teenagers working in the fast food industry. Compared to 20 years ago, the number has halved (immigrants currently make up 20% of that workforce btw). At the same time, the number of fast food restaurants has doubled (which is it's own problem unto itself). The decline, analysts say, is due to an increased emphasis on education and getting scholarships due to the rising costs of a college degree as well as young entrepeneurs starting ...more
By johnj (1024), Westhampton on May 4, 18 9:32 AM
1 member liked this comment
“…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…”

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.
By pigroast (100), East Quogue on May 4, 18 11:48 PM
1 member liked this comment
Why are we taking care of ILLEGALS, when citizens the paid into the system are paying for drugs, food and health care. ILLEGALS are getting it for FREE.
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?
By knitter (1941), Southampton on May 6, 18 2:15 PM
"This has become a hunt and our community is the prey" per Perez head of the OLA, Yes that's the deal when you have broken the law. I am sick of the emotional and sympathetic stories. How about the US citizens first. Illegals and certain foreign nationalities have overrun the EAST END.
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
By dhh1416 (2), East Hampton on May 6, 18 7:25 PM
2 members liked this comment
you should suggest that your neighbors and local business owners stop hiring people illegally then.
we should also crack down on the businesses supporting illegal labor
By adlkjd923ilifmac.aladfksdurwp (747), southampton on May 10, 18 11:48 AM
1 member liked this comment
Is there a volunteer deputy job??? Many volunteers waiting...
By knitter (1941), Southampton on May 9, 18 8:31 PM
You can setup a sting and see how easy it is for local employers to get away with hiring illegals. That would be a good start, need to start jailing these enablers
By adlkjd923ilifmac.aladfksdurwp (747), southampton on May 10, 18 3:18 PM