|
|
Post by sonofsilencedogood on Mar 31, 2007 8:57:06 GMT -5
With the recent news that Morristown is applying to the Federal Government to deputize it's police officers as immigration officials, I am wondering what Mayor Wilson and the town council are doing to follow in their footsteps. I am sure that it has been mentioned on here before that the Illegal Immigration and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 allows states and their subsidiaries (towns, cities, etc) to have their local police force trained and deputized as immigration enforcement officials. I believe it is section 133 (I'm away this weekend and don't have my copy in front of me) that details the steps to take in order to make this application. My first question is, why, since this law was passed 10 years ago, has no one on the Town Council even broached this topic...even to this day?  Next, when is the Borough Council going to make their application to the federal government to deputize our local police force? This legislation has given us the ability to patrol our own streets in regards to an issue that has always been considered "out of our hands" when in fact that has not been the case for the past 10 years...so again, Mayor Wilson...members of the town council...when is Freehold Borough making our application to the federal government? And when are we finally going to take advantage of the laws that are in place and start cleaning up our town? We don't have to be the first one's anymore...and the latino advocacy groups have already labeled this entire town as racists, so what more could they possibly do to us? The illegal population in town is killing our schools, draining our infrastructure, creating unbelievably unfair burdens on our taxpayers, and what's worst of all is that they know they're doing it, and they know we don't have the guts to do anything about it. Mr Mayor, the legal, tax paying, voting citizens of Freehold Borough (for the most part) are sick and tired of paying the bill for the illegal immigrants that are slowly taking over our town...you have the power to do something about it, EXERCISE THAT POWER, or I'll exercise my voting power and find someone else who will. |
|
|
|
Post by unwelcome guest on Mar 31, 2007 11:56:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by fiberisgoodforyou on Mar 31, 2007 15:36:55 GMT -5
"the Illegal Immigration and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996"
I'd rather see the Monmouth COunty Sheriffs Dpt take on this roll for a number of good reason.
First, will the Boro's holding cells have room for the hundreds of detainees, plus all the other additional expenses.
Second, this is also a county wide problem, and the County should take on a roll and share the burden of both expense and responsibility too!
Third, I have YET to see any details printed about the BORO's "Settlement" agreement, but here too, the County will help by taking the heat, the Boro has done it's share, while other municipalities in our county have "Benefited" by or through whom are housed here!
Four, the County Sheriffs department has more resources available to manage the MASS ARRESTS that are needed to effectively remediate the over population of these felons!
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Apr 1, 2007 8:53:21 GMT -5
BY MINHAJ HASSAN
DAILY RECORD
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
33 Comments
MORRISTOWN -- Mayor Donald Cresitello and town council listened Tuesday night to nearly three hours of citizen testimony on his plan to deputize town police as federal immigration agents.
More than 200 people jammed the council chambers and spilled into the hallways, offering often strong opinions for and against the mayor's plan.
Bottom line: Cresitello is sticking by his guns and proceeding with the application to deputize the police in town.
After the hours of testimony, Cresitello said, "Don't tell me we don't need to enforce immigration laws. There are thousands of people crossing the line, who are criminals."
He also vowed that "we will never, ever profile."
The mayor said he had asked ministers to open churches to help mostly Hispanic day laborers who gather on town streets seeking work.
Takes on clerics
"Not one minister has done anything significant" to address stacking, prostitution, or slavery, he said. "But they'll put the basket out to take their money," the mayor said of the church collection plates.
In the past, police investigations on criminal aliens were hampered because local police did not have enough authority to go after them.
"We did not have the authority to intervene," the mayor said. "It made it look like we didn't care."
He said near his own home there were cases of money laundering, prostitution and slavery that involve illegal aliens.
Among those rising to speak was Ruby Winston of Hillairy Avenue. She said she backs the mayor's policy. "I'm with you 100 percent, you can count on that. I did office cleaning for 20 years and lost my job to the illegals," she told the mayor and council. She also said it's not true that Americans won't do jobs that immigrants will.
Outside support
Miguel Cruz of You Don't Speak for Me, an American-Hispanic organization opposed to illegal immigration said, "It is time to recognize the severe problem that it is."
"I had 17 people living across the street (in a single residence)," said Walker Avenue resident Jamie Ramsfelder. She said she couldn't walk in the area without some of those illegal aliens making inappropriate remarks.
She added that one of the illegal immigrants had urinated in the hedges, and another was so drunk he fell asleep in the bushes and almost froze to death.
Ramsfelder's husband, Jonathan, who also supports Cresitello's proposal, said, "The only thing I'm disappointed about is that it is not law yet."
Longtime resident Bob Tracy said "Thank God they gave us a young man who had the guts (to stand up to the illegal aliens problem)," referring to Cresitello. Tracy said he was "surprised and couldn't believe" there are were so many people in the council chambers "for illegality."
His remarks prompted applause.
Resident Ralph Bacharach said, "I think it's an opportunity for Morristown to take a leadership role."
While he respects hardworking immigrants who came to make a better life for themselves and their families, "that doesn't give them the right to break the laws of this community."
John A Rucki, co-chairman of the New Jersey Citizens for Immigration Control, based in Carlstadt, supported the policy. He said there are more than 600,000 illegal aliens who are either murderers or rapists, killed children or police officers in the nation.
He also blamed employers for exacerbating the problem.
"Those employers who aid or abet should get a "Go to Jail card," he said.
He pointed out that the deputization program does not enable police officers to conduct active sweeps. "That's part of the agreement."
On the other hand
Opponents of the mayor's deputization plan just about balanced the testimony supporting him.
Otto Maduro said "We will all pay very dearly if this policy is implemented. Hispanics are becoming the scapegoat."
Tom Clark-Shakir, an imam of The Islamic Clergyman Dedicated to the Leadership of W.D. Mohammed Ministry, "He's being influenced by small group of people who are turning him into a wicked man. It is a Gestapo tactic. Hitler started the same way."
Town resident David Silva said the program "is not a good measure for Morristown. I don't want to live in a place that's prejudiced."
He added that taking such a position ignores the positive contributions the immigrant community has made in Morristown.
Resident Tony Garcia said the program "directly targets the increasingly dominant Hispanic community and other minorities."
Intent of program
Town lawyers said the deputization program, formally known as 287-G, is intended for local law enforcement agencies to address the issue of criminal aliens.
Under the plan, up to 10 police officers would go through about five weeks of training from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) that would enable them to enforce immigration laws.
Councilman Timothy Jackson asked whether the program would give police officers the ability to "supersede" probable cause when going after illegal immigrants.
The lawyers said no.
Councilman John Cryan asked that if a police officer stopped an illegal alien for jaywalking, could that officer then check their citizenship status.
Lawyers said that in theory, they could.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minhaj Hassan can be reached at (973) 267-9038 or mhassan@gannett.com.
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Apr 1, 2007 8:57:20 GMT -5
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
639 arrestees flagged for immigration violations
During one month, 10 percent of people sent to O.C. Jail were flagged as possible illegal immigrants.
By CINDY CARCAMO
The Orange County Register
SANTA ANATen percent of people arrested and sent to the Orange County Jail from Jan. 19 to Feb. 25 were flagged for possible immigration violations, according to statistics the Orange County Sheriff's Department released Wednesday.
Jail deputies booked a total of 6,160 people through the Intake Release Center during that time. Of those, deputies interviewed 956 foreign nationals and detained 639 of them for Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Of those detained for ICE, 56 were held for aggravated felonies, 425 for felonies and 214 for misdemeanors.
The numbers are for the first month of a program that certified deputies to perform certain immigration functions such as checking the legal status of everyone that comes through their jails.
Deputies interviewed foreign nationals from various countries such as Canada, Argentina and Thailand.
Sheriff Mike Carona said the numbers weren't a surprise. He had estimated 8 to 14 percent of the jail population was most likely here illegally.
"Nobody has done a definitive study like we're doing right now," Carona said.
Contact the writer: 714-796-7829 or ccarcamo@ocregister.com
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Apr 1, 2007 9:41:32 GMT -5
To the Mayor and Council,
I posted the above articles as a testament to the good that participating in the 287g program can have. This is an initiative that our town should take seriously. Even with the likely amnesty that is coming, participating in this can set the tone for future illegal immigration. That will be important because the amnesty is not likely to include better border control or other internal measures that will hold people accountable.That must be considered. Remember recently when the illegal immigrant supporters were in Trenton, demanding sanctuary towns? Do we want Freehold to become a sanctuary town? I bet the answer is no.
I believe that this initiative should be brought to our town, if nothing else, for the sole purpose of dealing with the criminal element that does come into our country with the good people. It is bad enough that we have our own home grown criminals. No person in their right mind should expect us to take in the illegal alien criminals from any other country.
We know that the opponents of this idea will have predictable arguments and make their usual noise. Screw them. They have done nothing positive for this town. They have only divided and dragged our name through the mud. They have never shown an ounce of respect for the citizens of this town. Enough is enough. It is time for us all to move froward and do what is right. That includes seeing some proactive measures from our elected leaders.
And to agree with Fiber, yes, the Sheriff's department would be wise to also participate and even lead the way for our county.
Brian
|
|
|
|
Post by Casual Reader on Apr 1, 2007 19:06:48 GMT -5
Brian and other PEOPLE People
As you know, I am studying to be a psychologist -- in fact I am doing field training at this time working at a mental health center.
My diagnosis of some of the people on here is "paranoid with aggressive tendencies, with borderline schizophrenic manifestations."
Why?
You are always attacking the Freydude and the other advocates for bringing the town down. They offer no solutions. They are negative.
Now, some of you want to deputize the police to ask everybody if they have papers?
Get ready for more protest marches! The Casual one is going to free up his social calendar dudes. I expect some really great council meetings once that is introduced. It is going to be real entertaining.
But here is the problem dudes and dudettes -- the town we love will go further into the stinkhole. We will have many months of bad PR and who knows whether the idea will work.
Now I personally disagree with the deputizing suggestion -- as many of you know I like the Mexican community and I think you have blamed them for everything from the Kennedy assassination to the Challenger disaster to 9-11.
But, even if I agreed with you, I think the idea is crazy. It will inflame the community and lead to more confrontation.
What happened to the idea of talking to them?
Casually Confused
|
|
|
|
Post by Casual Weeder on Apr 1, 2007 21:24:26 GMT -5
Brian and other PEOPLE People As you know, I am studying to be a psychologist -- in fact I am doing field training at this time working at a mental health center. My diagnosis of some of the people on here is "paranoid with aggressive tendencies, with borderline schizophrenic manifestations." Why? You are always attacking the Freydude and the other advocates for bringing the town down. They offer no solutions. They are negative. Now, some of you want to deputize the police to ask everybody if they have papers? Get ready for more protest marches! The Casual one is going to free up his social calendar dudes. I expect some really great council meetings once that is introduced. It is going to be real entertaining. But here is the problem dudes and dudettes -- the town we love will go further into the stinkhole. We will have many months of bad PR and who knows whether the idea will work. Now I personally disagree with the deputizing suggestion -- as many of you know I like the Mexican community and I think you have blamed them for everything from the Kennedy assassination to the Challenger disaster to 9-11. But, even if I agreed with you, I think the idea is crazy. It will inflame the community and lead to more confrontation. What happened to the idea of talking to them? Casually Confused Wow...your comments explain much about your psyche... There is a commonly agreed doctrine that for most common minds, the studing Modern Physiology will have an adverse effect, yielding a screwed up head and overly unrealized, uncertain adversely impacted id, resulting in unrecognised inward excessive psychosis! Love your posts! |
|
|
|
Post by fiberisgoodforyou on Apr 1, 2007 22:19:43 GMT -5
Recent survey indicates there is very little support from both legal and illegal aliens, that the do not support the "Activists" as well, legal and illegal aliens overwhelmingly agree that the attention brought on by "Activists" is harmful, creating unwanted attention!
How ironic that most all of the "Voices" we hear from, do not live in FB?
Cas, I hope your future clients don't rub off on you, your sooo kooky!
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Apr 2, 2007 4:14:24 GMT -5
Brian and other PEOPLE People As you know, I am studying to be a psychologist -- in fact I am doing field training at this time working at a mental health center. My diagnosis of some of the people on here is "paranoid with aggressive tendencies, with borderline schizophrenic manifestations." Why? You are always attacking the Freydude and the other advocates for bringing the town down. They offer no solutions. They are negative. Now, some of you want to deputize the police to ask everybody if they have papers? Get ready for more protest marches! The Casual one is going to free up his social calendar dudes. I expect some really great council meetings once that is introduced. It is going to be real entertaining. But here is the problem dudes and dudettes -- the town we love will go further into the stinkhole. We will have many months of bad PR and who knows whether the idea will work. Now I personally disagree with the deputizing suggestion -- as many of you know I like the Mexican community and I think you have blamed them for everything from the Kennedy assassination to the Challenger disaster to 9-11. But, even if I agreed with you, I think the idea is crazy. It will inflame the community and lead to more confrontation. What happened to the idea of talking to them? Casually Confused CR, One of the most important things a psychologist can do is listen. You do not. You appear to have only seen what you wanted to. Go back and read my previous post on this topic. Go back and read my past posts on all of the topics you mention. You will see how wrong you are. |
|
|
|
Post by Casual Reader on Apr 2, 2007 8:21:22 GMT -5
Brian dude: I do not believe I am missing your message. You want to get the county involved in a program deputizing police officers to do immigration work targeting criminals coming across the border. You don't care about the reaction of the advocates -- they are just negative. I believe that summarizes your opinion. My response to you is that once a request like that is made it will be met with strong resistance. Everything I have learned from living here for 4 years indicates that. (The advocates must read this board so may be they want to comment?) Because let us be honest -- such a "county program" will probably really operate in three or four towns. The advocates and the community will know the request came from the borough -- I am sure the county will make that very clear. Another issue I have is how will the deputized officers operate? Will they be able to stop anyone on the street and ask for immigration papers? The other point is since we are all concerned about negative PR -- are we really ready for another few weeks of headlines and television coverage -- on top of what we have already experienced? Is there no one to talk to from that community? Since Brian mentions my psych background let me add that it seems like both sides of the local immigration issue are talking at each other. No one listens to the other side. As part of my field work I observe couples or parent/child interactions and I notice that sometimes both sides are preparing answers before the other has finished speaking. No one is really listening -- everyone is planning their next line of attack/debate.  I think this failure is killing the town. Casually Listening |
|
|
|
Post by fiberisgoodforyou on Apr 2, 2007 9:52:14 GMT -5
The other point is since we are all concerned about negative -- are we really ready for another few weeks of headlines and television coverage -- on top of what we have already experienced? There are other sets of Federal law that protect communities from what your suggesting here, be very careful with your statements! Everything I have learned from living here for 4 years indicates that. (The advocates must read this board so may be they want to comment?) A) By this statement, you have NOT learned much in living here for 4 years B) what you read here is what WE FEED you We control your C) there is NOW a not so silent MAJORITY that you will be hearing from at a time and place of our choosing and when that shoe drops, you can't help not miss it! "I observe couples or parent/child interactions" Are you a peeping Tom ?, there are laws against this you know! "No one is really listening" Maybe more that you are lead on to believe are listen VERY CLOSELY!  "I think this failure is killing the town." Maybe you'd like to have a "Casual" dialog with Mothers (rembemer you have one of those)! www.mothersagainstillegalaliens.org/
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Apr 2, 2007 16:56:54 GMT -5
CR,
You tried. Again, go back and do some more reading on this site and you will find all the answers to your questions, as long as you do not just pick and choose what you want to see.
With that aside, you appear to be against the 287g program, and you are very entitled to your beliefs. That is what this site is for.
|
|
|
|
Post by richardkelsey on Apr 2, 2007 18:59:58 GMT -5
Brian and other PEOPLE People As you know, I am studying to be a psychologist -- in fact I am doing field training at this time working at a mental health center. My diagnosis of some of the people on here is "paranoid with aggressive tendencies, with borderline schizophrenic manifestations." Why? You are always attacking the Freydude and the other advocates for bringing the town down. They offer no solutions. They are negative. Now, some of you want to deputize the police to ask everybody if they have papers? Get ready for more protest marches! The Casual one is going to free up his social calendar dudes. I expect some really great council meetings once that is introduced. It is going to be real entertaining. But here is the problem dudes and dudettes -- the town we love will go further into the stinkhole. We will have many months of bad PR and who knows whether the idea will work. Now I personally disagree with the deputizing suggestion -- as many of you know I like the Mexican community and I think you have blamed them for everything from the Kennedy assassination to the Challenger disaster to 9-11. But, even if I agreed with you, I think the idea is crazy. It will inflame the community and lead to more confrontation. What happened to the idea of talking to them? Casually Confused The 287g program is flawed, at best -- but it does provide a simple, easy solution to bolstering enforcement to combat illegal immigration. The ability of the officers enrolled in such a program to actively pursue all illegal aliens is grossly overstated. The best thing about the program is that the mis-perception is that it allows such trained officers to do so. That alone will help with Freehold's problems. As for your post -- it is again cleverly written to fire off both insults, attacks, humor, and misdirection. You are certainly talented, if not misguided. Perhaps when you go to your next LLA strategy meeting -- you can ask the yourself -- or your alter ego Freydude -- why they won't approve my request to post on their Borough Board. What could they possibly fear from a schizophrenic like me? |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Apr 3, 2007 4:16:15 GMT -5
On a bit of a comical note. Last night at the council meeting, Tom Baldwin spoke out strongly about the 287g program. To my knowledge, this idea has not been discussed by the council or the police department. Unless there is something I do not know, that means that TB got his info from this site. At least he is reading. I hope he will take the time to also write.
|
|
|
|
Post by Marc LeVine on Apr 3, 2007 10:29:56 GMT -5
Before this gets out of hand and blown out of proportion, let me say that I am aware of NO discussions, nor are there any plans to follow Morristown's lead regarding adopting 287g.
Furthermore, I am not sure that our local police are the right mechanism to enforce immigration law in Freehold Borough, given some of the unfortunate profiling situations that have occurred in cities like New York, Los Angeles and on the New Jersey Turnpike. The feds are best equipped to handle this responsibility.
In addition, heaping on this added responsibility to the current workload of our police will either reduce their overall effectiveness in dealing with other routine public safety matters and will almost certainly call for additional tax payer dollars for more hiring and increased overtime.
I have to ask myself, why a federal government that guards immigration policy like a "dog with a bone," is actually willing to give up its enforcement efforts to outside agencies, outside of its control. I am very suspicious of this.
In my opinion, the Feds created the immigration mess we are in and need to be pressured into doing the enforcement part of this on their own, with their own trained people - not local police, except in supporting roles.
It seems like the feds are willing to distance themselves from this aspect of enforcement, because they lack sufficient manpower and funds. They probably also want to step away from any unnecessary liabilities - legal, financial or public relations related.
My own thoughts are that Freehold Borough might be better served just following its present course of action by further cracking down on renegade rental properties; fighting to improve our schools and get the necessary funding for that purpose; strengthening our business district to earn it a "Best Downtown" status; and developing a better dialog DIRECTLY (w/o advocates) with the town's immigrants to gain compliance on law, safety and quality of life issues. The immigrant population must select leaders from among itself and not use outsiders.
As for the issues needing attention from the State and Feds (enforcement of employment laws; greater landlord/tenant penalties, etc.), our town must form coalitions with area other towns to build to greater numbers and pressure Trenton and Washington to come to our aid - using their own regulators and enforcement agencies to eradicate illegal immigration and its disastrous byproducts.
Marc
|
|
|
|
Post by richardkelsey on Apr 3, 2007 10:54:28 GMT -5
Before this gets out of hand and blown out of proportion, let me say that I am aware of NO discussions, nor are there any plans to follow Morristown's lead regarding adopting 287g. Furthermore, I am not sure that our local police are the right mechanism to enforce immigration law in Freehold Borough, given some of the unfortunate profiling situations that have occurred in cities like New York, Los Angeles and on the New Jersey Turnpike. The feds are best equipped to handle this responsibility. In addition, heaping on this added responsibility to the current workload of our police will either reduce their overall effectiveness in dealing with other routine public safety matters and will almost certainly call for additional tax payer dollars for more hiring and increased overtime. I have to ask myself, why a federal government that guards immigration policy like a "dog with a bone," is actually willing to give up its enforcement efforts to outside agencies, outside of its control. I am very suspicious of this. In my opinion, the Feds created the immigration mess we are in and need to be pressured into doing the enforcement part of this on their own, with their own trained people - not local police, except in supporting roles. It seems like the feds are willing to distance themselves from this aspect of enforcement, because they lack sufficient manpower and funds. They probably also want to step away from any unnecessary liabilities - legal, financial or public relations related. My own thoughts are that Freehold Borough might be better served just following its present course of action by further cracking down on renegade rental properties; fighting to improve our schools and get the necessary funding for that purpose; strengthening our business district to earn it a "Best Downtown" status; and developing a better dialog DIRECTLY (w/o advocates) with the town's immigrants to gain compliance on law, safety and quality of life issues. The immigrant population must select leaders from among itself and not use outsiders. As for the issues needing attention from the State and Feds (enforcement of employment laws; greater landlord/tenant penalties, etc.), our town must form coalitions with area other towns to build to greater numbers and pressure Trenton and Washington to come to our aid - using their own regulators and enforcement agencies to eradicate illegal immigration and its disastrous byproducts. Marc The 287g program would be EXCELLENT in Freehold, even with all of its flaws. It would be better, of course, if it were implemented by the County -- leaving more of the cost burden to the County and less of the direct blame with the Borough. You do hit the nail on the head with one major problem with 287g -- each enrolled community signs a MOI with ICE and the training and use of the enforcement powers are narrowly tailored. The notion of the Feds letting a few police officers train and actually then enforcing all immigration laws is fantasy. No Federal agency would give up that power. Having said that -- the perception in the illegal community is just that. That perception alone would be worth the investment. I have long struggled to understand why Freehold does not take that minimum, lawful, action. The argument of "its not our job" seems to ring hollow when the agency tasked with the job won't take action, and the town is over-run. This is a Town looking for every weapon at its disposal to improve the quality of life and mitigate the immigration problem. To me, this is an easy fix. And, if the Borough could get the Monmouth County Sheriffs office to take on the task -- that would be even better. The only legitimate reason to oppose the 287g program is that it dos not go far enough. The fact that TB is terrified of it -- seems like a compelling argument to do some more research on it. |
|
|
|
Post by Marc LeVine on Apr 3, 2007 11:22:22 GMT -5
Rich, I don't disagree with the County taking this initiative and picking up the ball and carrying it to all of the Monmouth County towns struggling with illegal immigration: Long Branch, Red Bank, Freehold, Asbury Park, Manasquan, Bradley Beach, South Belmar, etc.
Of course, these problems are most evident in a tiny town like Freehold Borough, a county seat that also needs some return revenue on the buildings it offers Monmouth County for public use.
The County also "needs to get out more" when it comes to the illegal immigration issue. They have been silent on this topic for far too long and need to help address a major problem that is costing their taxpayers, dearly. 287g would be a big help coming from them, but so would getting some recoverable tax monies to help pay for our troubled schools.
Marc
|
|
|
|
Post by LS on Apr 3, 2007 12:02:30 GMT -5
I don't see what the big deal would be if the police just used these powers only when performing a legitimate arrest or motor vehicle stop. that is, not going out of their way and not doing anything like profiling, but performing incidentally to their current duties.
A guy is drunk driving or caught with weapons or drugs, and when processing him, you find out he is illegal, you go through the appropriate procedures. Aren't these the type of people (illegal or not) that we want to crack down on?
|
|
|
|
Post by Marc LeVine on Apr 3, 2007 15:16:27 GMT -5
"...if the police just used these powers only when performing a legitimate arrest or motor vehicle stop."
LS
I agree, but I don't think we should need a specialized "section 287g" for this purpose, alone. I would argue that we need to press the legislature to make this one aspect, part of routine police powers. After all, if you are stopped on the road by a police officer, your drivers license, vehicle registration and insurance card are fair game for closer scrutiny. So, too, is your breath and your coordination. Even today, a spent tail light bulb can easily lead to a sobriety check, and a DUI if an officer sees reason to follow that course - reasonable suspicion.
Therefore, it should just be that if you get stopped or arrested by the police, for any reason, and can not produce a legitimate and legal identity, the law can and should respond in the proper way - including if you are proven to be in he United States, illegally.
No need for the fanfare and the added attention on a full Section 287g. Just offer this level of authority to all police officers, everywhere, as part of their routine operations. It will certainly aid Homeland Security efforts.
Marc
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Apr 3, 2007 17:10:30 GMT -5
Before this gets out of hand and blown out of proportion, let me say that I am aware of NO discussions, nor are there any plans to follow Morristown's lead regarding adopting 287g. Furthermore, I am not sure that our local police are the right mechanism to enforce immigration law in Freehold Borough, given some of the unfortunate profiling situations that have occurred in cities like New York, Los Angeles and on the New Jersey Turnpike. The feds are best equipped to handle this responsibility. In addition, heaping on this added responsibility to the current workload of our police will either reduce their overall effectiveness in dealing with other routine public safety matters and will almost certainly call for additional tax payer dollars for more hiring and increased overtime. I have to ask myself, why a federal government that guards immigration policy like a "dog with a bone," is actually willing to give up its enforcement efforts to outside agencies, outside of its control. I am very suspicious of this. In my opinion, the Feds created the immigration mess we are in and need to be pressured into doing the enforcement part of this on their own, with their own trained people - not local police, except in supporting roles. It seems like the feds are willing to distance themselves from this aspect of enforcement, because they lack sufficient manpower and funds. They probably also want to step away from any unnecessary liabilities - legal, financial or public relations related. My own thoughts are that Freehold Borough might be better served just following its present course of action by further cracking down on renegade rental properties; fighting to improve our schools and get the necessary funding for that purpose; strengthening our business district to earn it a "Best Downtown" status; and developing a better dialog DIRECTLY (w/o advocates) with the town's immigrants to gain compliance on law, safety and quality of life issues. The immigrant population must select leaders from among itself and not use outsiders. As for the issues needing attention from the State and Feds (enforcement of employment laws; greater landlord/tenant penalties, etc.), our town must form coalitions with area other towns to build to greater numbers and pressure Trenton and Washington to come to our aid - using their own regulators and enforcement agencies to eradicate illegal immigration and its disastrous byproducts. Marc First, Marc, thank you for clearing up that this topic of discussion has not occurred among the council and police department. We do not need any more false rumors. You know who will wind up having another rally calling everyone bigots. I know everyone is so afraid of that now. On that note it is actually sad that our elected leaders, and the police, have not entertained the idea. At least discuss it. You mention problems in other cities, but can we do it better and right? You mention about if this is the role of the local police and the fact that th feds have created the mess at the border. Why wait for the feds if there is a program that can help at the local level? As I have said, the program should ONLY be for dealing with the criminal element. For the police to go through some extra training is nothing new to them Law enforcement is constantly being trained in new developments to better do their job. If we had an explosion of gangs, the police would go to seminars and training to better deal with it. If some new drugs hit the street, again there could easily be more training. Dealing with the dynamics of illegal immigration pertaining to the criminal element has it's challenges. Shouldn't the police be better prepared to deal with this? How are they doing now? This also sends a message, which Rich mentioned as well. The legal residents will know that strong proactive measures are being taken. he criminal element will have less incentive to move here. As far as the advocates for the illegals, they could really shine here if they cared to. I doubt that even they want the criminal element to thrive here. How about some outreach to their community to ease fears and concerns? There is no reason why not. Bottom line, Marc, this is a discussion that should occur beyond this web site. |
|
|
|
Post by fiberisgoodforyou on Apr 3, 2007 23:44:41 GMT -5
"...if the police just used these powers only when performing a legitimate arrest or motor vehicle stop." LS I agree, but I don't think we should need a specialized "section 287g" for this purpose, alone. I would argue that we need to press the legislature to make this one aspect, part of routine police powers. After all, if you are stopped on the road by a police officer, your drivers license, vehicle registration and insurance card are fair game for closer scrutiny. So, too, is your breath and your coordination. Even today, a spent tail light bulb can easily lead to a sobriety check, and a DUI if an officer sees reason to follow that course - reasonable suspicion. Therefore, it should just be that if you get stopped or arrested by the police, for any reason, and can not produce a legitimate and legal identity, the law can and should respond in the proper way - including if you are proven to be in he United States, illegally. No need for the fanfare and the added attention on a full Section 287g. Just offer this level of authority to all police officers, everywhere, as part of their routine operations. It will certainly aid Homeland Security efforts. Marc Many great points!!! This then should apply to Bike riding on sidewalks too. Basically, NJ Title 39; A bicycle is considered a "moving vehicle" and subject to all the same traffic laws that a car is according to the law. www.state.nj.us/transportation/commuter/bike/regulations.shtmRegulations Bicyling in New Jersey is regulated under Title 39 of the Motor Vehicles and Traffic Regulation laws. Helmet Law 39:4-14.5 Definition. “Bicycle” means any two wheeled vehicle having a rear drive which is solely human powered and having a seat height of 25 inches or greater when the seat is in the lowest adjustable position. 39:4-10 Lights on Bicycles. When in use at nighttime every bicycle shall be equipped with: 1) A front headlamp emitting a white light visible from a distance of at least 500 feet to the front; 2) A rear lamp emitting a red light visible from a distance of at least 500 feet to the rear; 3) In addition to the red lamp a red reflector may be mounted on the rear. 39:4-11 Audible Signal. A bicycle must be equipped with a bell or other audible device that can be heard at least 100 feet away, but not a siren or whistle. 39:4-11.1 Brakes. A bicycle must be equipped with a brake that can make wheels skid while stopping on dry, level, clean pavement. 39:4-12 Feet and Hands on Pedals and Handlebars; Carrying Another Person. Bicyclists should not drive the bicycle with feet removed from the pedals, or with both hands removed from the handlebars, nor practice any trick or fancy driving in a street. Limit passengers to only the number the bicycle is designed and equipped to carry (the number of seats it has). 39:4-14 Hitching on Vehicle Prohibited. No person riding a bicycle shall attach themselves to any streetcar or vehicle. 39:4-14.1 Rights and Duties of Persons on Bicycles.
Every person riding a bicycle on a roadway is granted all the rights and subject to all of the duties of the motor vehicle driver. 39:4-14.2, 39:4-10.11 Operating Regulations. Every person riding a bicycle on a roadway shall ride as near to the right roadside as practicable exercising due care when passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction. A bicyclist may move left under any of the following conditions: 1) To make a left turn from a left turn lane or pocket; 2) To avoid debris, drains, or other hazardous conditions on the right; 3) To pass a slower moving vehicle; 4) To occupy any available lane when traveling at the same speed as other traffic; 5) To travel no more than two abreast when traffic is not impeded, but otherwise ride in single file. Every person riding a bicycle should ride in the same direction as vehicular traffic. In New Jersey, the law states a bicyclist must obey all state and local automobile driving laws. A parent may be held responsible for the child’s violation of any traffic law. Helmet Law Title 39:4-10.1 In New Jersey, anyone under 17 years of age that rides a bicycle or is a passenger on a bicycle, or is towed as a passenger by a bicycle must wear a safety helmet. On August 1, 1998 this helmet law was extended to include roller and inline skates and skateboards. Roller skates means a pair of devices worn on the feet with a set of wheels attached, regardless of the number or placement of those wheels and used to glide or propel the user over the ground. The definition of bicycle with reference to the helmet legislation is a vehicle with two wheels propelled solely by human power and having pedals, handle bars and a saddle-like seat. The term shall include a bicycle for two or more persons having seats and corresponding pedals arranged in tandem. All helmets must be properly fastened and fitted. Bicycle helmets must meet the federal standards developed by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) effective March 10, 1999 that ensure the best head protection and strong chin straps to keep the helmet in place during a fall or collision. Also acceptable are helmets meeting the Snell Memorial Foundation’s 1990 Standard for Protection Headgear. Exemptions from the helmet requirement are persons who operate or ride a bicycle (as a driver or a passenger) on a roadway closed to motor traffic; on a trail, route, course, boardwalk, path or area set aside only for the use of bicycles. These exemptions do not apply if the areas of operation are adjacent to a roadway and not separated from motor vehicle traffic by a barrier that prevents the bicycle from entering the roadway. Bicyclists or passengers operating in an area where helmets are not required who need to cross a road or highway should walk with the bicycle. Initial violators of the helmet law will receive warnings. For minors, the parent or legal guardian may be fined a maximum of $25 for the 1 st offense and a maximum of $100 for subsequent offense(s), if lack of parental supervision contributed to the offense. Bicycle salespersons and rental agents must display a sign at least 15 inches long and 8 inches wide at the point where the transaction is completed when they sell or rent a bicycle. This sign should read: “STATE LAW REQUIRES A BICYCLE RIDER UNDER 17 YEARS TO WEAR A HELMET.” In the case of bicycle rentals, the salesperson/rental agent must provide a helmet, if necessary, for a fee. |
|
|
|
Post by Marc LeVine on Apr 4, 2007 9:00:32 GMT -5
I've actually been discussing this one and we may really need to make an exception, here. With insufficient room for bike lanes in the Borough, we don't want to see anyone, especially kids, injured or killed trying to hug the curbs on South Street/Rt. 79, Throckmorton and West Main. Better they be off the street in such cases.
What might be seen as a "no brainer" (keeping off sidewalks) actually may be a "brainer," as Freehold Borough may not fit with the norm.
Now... kids standing on the back wheel or sitting on the handlebars of the bike. That's a different story. We DO need more enforcement against bikes and I am pushing for it. And we're not picking on anyone...but, trying to save their lives.
Marc
|
|
|
|
Post by Marc LeVine on Apr 4, 2007 9:44:15 GMT -5
Brian:
First of all, just because I say that 287g hasn't been discussed and there are no current plans to implement it, does not mean that the topic will never come up. None of us can know that, for sure.
Morristown is the first to venture into these waters and everyone needs to sit back awhile and take a look at their results. Learn from their mistakes. Let them get the bugs out.
It seems, that every time one of these "en vogue, designer ordinances" comes along just about everyone wants to jump on the bandwagon, immediately. Before this one, it was the Hazleton/Riverside ordinance. Before that one it was RICO statutes. Where have any of these gone, so far? The simple answer is - to the courts.
This one is not the kind of thing that can easily be taught in ICE school, either. Police officers need to be genuinely "sensitive" to the populations they are dealing with. You need the right kind of people involved in this or it can be a disaster. ICE hires the right kind of people to begin with. Police forces would be "backing into" this assignment and might find that not all their officers are psychologically equipped to deal with this charge. See the movie "Crash" and explore Matt Dillon's police officer role. as an example of this.
This is not just about issuing tickets for offenses or even arresting someone for the courts. This kind of policing can more easily lead to racial profiling, abject humiliation, civil rights violations and to separation of families through possible deportation. I can see errors being made and great suffering caused as a result. Remember the Brad Davis movie, "Midnight Express?" It was based on a true story.
I stand by I disagreeertion that if you get stopped or arrested by the police, for any reason, and can not demonstrate legal residency in the US, the law can and should respond in the proper way - including if you are proven to be in he United States, illegally. In saying this, it goes for more than just criminals. It should be routine practice for all police and should be considered enough (I'm not sure how much farther all of 287g goes) enforcement on the part of the police.
We'll know, soon enough, Morristown's experience with this and if other towns around NJ and the nation adopt this or do so after modifying it to get the bugs out. It's like buying a new car - NEVER BUY A CAR IN IT'S FIRST MODEL YEAR.
Marc
|
|
|
|
Post by Marc LeVine on Apr 4, 2007 9:52:22 GMT -5
Don't know what happened here. Should read "I stand by I disagreeertion..."
Marc
|
|
|
|
Post by Marc LeVine on Apr 4, 2007 9:54:29 GMT -5
OK. The filter is the culprit. Try it this way... I stand by my (sound it out) "Asertion."
|
|
|
|
Post by LS on Apr 4, 2007 10:46:53 GMT -5
Has bike lanes been brought up? I am not sure of the width of Main and SOuth, but there seems to be enough room, and a designated lane and supporting signs would put drivers on alert. (Unfortunately I think this would lead to some sort of expensive study before implementation.)
|
|
|
|
Post by fiberisgoodforyou on Apr 4, 2007 10:50:29 GMT -5
Not clear why ADULTS can not, either be redirected to bike lanes through safer streets, if that means going a few block out of your way, too bad, you can also walk your bikes on the sidewalks too?
All Kids must be required to wear helmets.
These are all state laws I wish would be respected buy our citizens as well as law enforcement! If the Boro is planning to crack down on Seatbelt Safety, Bike Safety too must be focused on as well!
In my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Marc LeVine on Apr 4, 2007 11:45:32 GMT -5
"Sidewalks" is only a Borough ordinance, not a state statute.
But, I agree with the other bike safety rules needing some cracking down on. This will be an upcoming workshop topic.
Marc
|
|
|
|
Post by Freehold Resident on Apr 4, 2007 14:43:29 GMT -5
N.J.police to practice street-level ICE enforcement
By BRIAN DONOHUE AND MAURA McDERMOTT
The Star-Ledger (Newark, New Jersey)
MORRISTOWN, N.J. - When Morristown announced it was signing up for a federal program that deputizes local law enforcement officers as federal immigration agents, they pointed to the success of 10 agencies already enrolled.
But Morristown's proposal differs dramatically from the way the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's program has been used in other places around the country.
By empowering local police to bust illegal immigrants, the plan described by the mayor and other officials would take the controversial federal program into uncharted territory.
As proposed by Morristown Mayor Donald Cresitello, 10 patrol officers would be trained on how to investigate and begin the deportation process against illegal immigrants.
Not only people arrested for serious crimes but also those caught jaywalking or living in an overcrowded house could be subject to immigration checks by police, according to recent statements by town officials.
None of the 10 agencies enrolled in the Immigration and Customs Enforcement program employs that type of street-level immigration enforcement by cops on the beat. Eight of the 10 agencies are sheriff's departments that deputize jail guards to perform immigration checks on people sitting in jails or state prisons.
The other two agencies - state police in Florida and Alabama - have deputized state troopers who target a narrow range of more-serious offenses than beat cops in Morristown or other cities do.
In addition, Cresitello's vow to investigate employers of illegal workers would broaden the program's scope well beyond the role described by Homeland Security officials who administer it.
"This program is aimed at criminal activity," said Michael Gilhooly, spokesman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the DHS agency that runs the program referred to as 287(g). "It's really fugitive apprehension, gang enforcement, drug enforcement and use by sheriffs in jails."
The differences between the goals of the program and Morristown's proposal pose questions about whom police officers would target for immigration checks.
Cresitello said those details will be worked out once the town formally applies and begins negotiations with ICE.
"There are plenty of Morristown police officers who would like to have the power, and they more than likely will have the power," he said.
FILLING GAPSFor decades, only federal immigration officers had the authority to charge and detain people for illegal presence in the United States, a violation of civil, not criminal, codes.
The system, however, created large gaps in enforcement that allowed noncitizens convicted of crimes to elude deportation after finishing their jail terms.
When police in New Jersey and other states encountered unauthorized immigrants, federal agents often ordered them released, citing a lack of manpower and jail space.
In 2002, the Bush administration launched 287(g) to solve some of the problems.
The program trains local officers to use federal databases and gather other evidence to prove a person is in the country illegally. If an ICE supervisor approves the charges, the officer can order the suspect to appear in federal immigration court.
Besides the 10 agencies actively enrolled in the program, sheriff's departments in Davidson County, Tenn., and Maricopa, County, Ariz., are in the final week of training.
Fifty other agencies have applied or sent letters of intent to ICE.
More than 10,000 people have been deported as a result of checks done by ICE-trained troopers and sheriffs officers, Gilhooly said.
"Obviously, it's been very effective," said Julia Rush, director of communications for North Carolina's Mecklenberg County Sheriff's Department, which has put 1,527 people in deportation proceedings since the program began May 1, 2006.
Even in that county, where the program has made Sheriff James Pendergraph a hero among anti-illegal immigration groups, officials say the job is better left to jailers than to cops.
Police worry that local immigrants will become too fearful to report crimes or serve as witnesses, allowing more criminals to go uncaught, said Jane Hill, communications director for the police department in Charlotte, the largest city in Mecklenberg County.
"It makes it much more difficult for the police department to be engaged in the front end with people who otherwise aren't doing anything wrong," Hill said.
OTHER CHALLENGES
In Morristown, local police enforce a far wider range of laws and local ordinances than state police or sheriff's officers. Cresitello said he wants to focus on criminals, but he hasn't ruled out using immigration checks for such minor offenses as jaywalking.
"The way I understand it, if they're stopped in conjunction with a violation, then you would have the authority to look beyond that, to look into the federal aspect of the violation," Cresitello said. "A police officer has the discretion to decide when to enforce any law. This is not different."
Having beat cops do immigration checks presents other challenges.
To avoid racial profiling, Alabama State Police are now required to ask all drivers stopped for traffic violations if they are a U.S. citizen. Morristown Councilman John Cryan, who voted to endorse the town's 287(g) application, suspects Morristown police will be forced to do the same.
"I agree with the mayor's stance," he said. "As far as actually making it work in town, that's a whole other issue."
BURDEN OF PROOF
Some immigration experts say the program will be a heavy lift for local police because it can be difficult to prove someone is in the United States illegally.
For some legal residents, the only proof of their status may be a photocopy of a judge's order. For others, such as Hondurans granted temporary protected status after Hurricane Mitch in 1998, the only proof may be a line added to the federal regulations extending their legal residency.
"Immigration law is complicated - but not complicated like physics. It's complicated in an irrational way," said Michael Wishnie, a professor at the Yale University School of Law who has studied 287(g). "It's pretty much a rule-free environment."
Cresitello dismissed those concerns, saying, "There's always a way for someone to prove who they are."
He predicted police also would be able to use the program's powers to check whether contractors are hiring illegal immigrants. That, he said, would help solve the town's problems by forcing illegal immigrants to leave Morristown altogether.
"People aren't going to live in a town where they can't work," he said.
|
|
