Reorg Today at 1:00 PM

[stffgpr2003]

Andrew -

Your first and second paragraphs are fair, but your third and fourth paragraphs are totally unnecessary. They insinuate that the council has sold out to special interests (which it has not!) and they are highly politically charged, in their tone. Actually, it makes me wonder - are you a council candidate in 2008?

It is best that we all know this early, so that we can better understand the context of your remarks, when you add them to the site and elsewhere. In other words, are your words written to influence the governing body's actions, as a resident, or to influence other residents to eventually vote for you as an opposition candidate? Either way is fine with me, by the way. But, it is most helpful for others to know if your thoughts are shared with the council for purely unselfish reasons (to help the present council and town succeed). Or, do they come with a political agenda (e.g. no matter what the facts are, the council must be made to look especially bad in order to persuade people to vote for GOP candidates). You'll agree that the latter case makes the possibility of honest discussion, pretty much hopeless.

I don't know where you or anyone else get the impression that I or anyone else on Council support illegal immigration, in any way. I only can speak for myself, but it is my impression that everyone else that you are concerned about agrees with me that illegal immigration is wrong, bad for our nation, state, county and town and that it must be rectified - ONCE AND FOR ALL - by the Federal government.

My goal, which I believe is a shared one, is to limit the negative effects of illegal immigration on our town by educating all of the people and through adequate local enforcement of laws, codes, health policies, etc. This also extends to asking the state and county to help us (including the new Sheriff) in every way they possibly can. And, it further extends to continuing to pressure the federal government for response, for whatever it is worth.

I consider everything that comes before me very carefully and weigh any and all thoughts against common sense, practicality, moral principals and available resources. I do not favor "coddling" ANYONE in our town. But, I do agree with the concept of working with EVERYONE towards attaining helpful solutions, which - by the way - involve accountability from all parties.

We don't know how the federal immigration issue will ultimately be resolved, but the illegal immigrants, living in our town, should know what is expected of them as residents. And, what is expected of them shouldn't be anything less than what is expected of the rest of us. Anyone who disagrees with this line of clear thought should be run out of town - whether they are here illegally or are legal residents.

You say you want to help the illegal immigrants become better residents? Perhaps the value of knocking on their doors to offer them direction is far greater, for our town, than knocking on the doors of legal residents and trying to convince them that the town needs to be divided instead of united for the same purpose - to better our situation.

As a Board of Education member, I know you understand this. But, would you still do as a candidate? That, of course, is only if you plan to be one. And that is OK - as long as we know where you are coming from.

Marc

Marc

[richardkelsey]

We don't know how the federal immigration issue will ultimately be resolved, but the illegal immigrants, living in our town, should know what is expected of them as residents. And, what is expected of them shouldn't be anything less than what is expected of the rest of us. Anyone who disagrees with this line of clear thought should be run out of town - whether they are here illegally or are legal residents.

I disagree. And you can't even run me out of town! (Apparently, according to some, I slipped out of town as a disgraced council seat loser!)

Seriously though. I think the problem with your quote Marc is that illegals should not have any expectations as residents, because they should not be residents there illegally. The expectations, if any, should be that they go home, get in line, fill out the right paper-work, wait behind those already waiting, and play by the rules. Once that is done, then as new, welcome, legal immigrants, they should expect the same treatment as anyone else, and the town should work hard to integrate them into its fabulous culture.

The approach you outline is a failed approach. I don't mean that to personally denigrate you in any way. But cooperation, communication, and accommodation are the reasons why we have 12-20 million illegal aliens in the country.

Towns cannot, and should not wait for others to take action to solve the problem. If the problem were new, I think the very actions you set out would make great sense, and would gain great support. This problem is not new -- though apparently new to some. (In fact, cooperation, accomodation, and communication were tried when the Borough opened the Muster zone of its own accord the first time)

In 1996, the Federal Government provided the mechanism to allow for a 287(g) program. Admittedly, states, counties, and towns were slow to act. However, every year the program grows, and now it grows tremendously. It is the one tool, arguably, that the Feds indisputably gave to towns like Freehold, and for 12 years now -- that tool has been unused.

Who is going to use it? The State. Get real, the official position of the state -- in light of the Governor's Committee -- is that NJ is a sanctuary state. (Note the financial crisis)

Is the County going to do it? They might. They haven't acted yet, and we don't know if they will, or more importantly how they intend to apply it.

We do know, however, that if Freehold had the program, it would send the same signal it has sent around the Country. No mas.

It would drive illegal aliens -- not all but many -- from Freehold into some other town. (Frankly, that's all you can do, as Freehold cannot solve the national issue. Heck, the feds can't even solve the national issue.)

Here is the other problem. A solution is coming -- look for it in March, April, or May of 2009. it will be some form of amnesty -- and as it looks today -- it is likely to be the most broad of all amnesty.

If that happens, Freehold will lock in place the inhabitants it now has here illegally. That is the same inhabitants who showed no regard for your laws to begin with. Frankly, once that happens, even a rich Kelsey can't pregnant dog -- as that will be the law.

Wouldn't it be better to drive out the illegal aliens before the amnesty? This would drop the massive demand for services, encourage new investment, and ease tensions with legal residents.

A County-wide 287(g) program will help the County -- and as I said previously, I would never try to dissuade a government from entering the program. But the most likely scenario is that limited resources will chase illegals from town to town, placing the priority on other bigger towns. Also, don't be surprised if the real political pressure is from larger, wealthier communities to make sure the program is used to keep illegals out of their towns. (except to mow the grass)

The problem with the County-wide solution, from a Freehold perspective, is that the benefits to Freehold are likely to be marginal, at best. Freehold will have no control over the use of the resources, and therefore will again be at the mercy of other agencies.

A Freehold centered program is perfect, as the small size of the Borough would require very little resources to, in essence, cover the town with the program. Freehold controls it, and the side benefit of the PR from the program will belong all to Freehold -- and believe me, illegals will begin to self-deport.

Anyway -- I am just repeating myself here. This is not new. Only the the years change - not the result.

In fairness to you, your rhetoric is consistent with your actions. And that is not a knock. You believe that cooperation, accommodation, and communication with the illegal aliens is the best course in any otherwise hopeless situation. With that, I disagree.

My beef -- which is well-documented -- is not with people whose rhetoric matches their respective actions, it is with those whose rhetoric is followed with either inaction or opposite action. Those issues I will not rehash here.

I will only say this -- with respect to 287(g) -- "bring it on"

[adefonzo]

Marc...

First, let me thank you for continuing to communicate...conversations such as this are why we miss you so much on this site.

Rest easy (and you can tell the mayor, Mr DiBennedetto and Mr Schnurr to do the same ), I have absolutely no intentions of running for a town council seat. I'm still debating whether or not it is possible for me to run for the school board again (my term ends in April). Time constraints with work and trying to have some sort of life outside of work don't give me much more time to get involved with all the things I want to be involved with in town, never mind trying to run for a Town Council seat. I would never rule it out in the future, but to be blunt, I don't have the time that a town council seat would require right now, so no, I am not running.

Hey Casual...did you hear that too??? Leaving it wide open for you big guy!!! ;D That guy you may have to worry about, Marc, he's the best thing since sliced bread, just ask him, he'll tell you!! ;D

Moving on...as for what I say, whether you choose to believe me or not, I never say anything with some hidden political agenda. I speak my mind, sometimes admittedly, too openly and frankly, but it's always what I am thinking, no hidden agendas.

As for my comments above, and your interpretation that I am suggesting the town council has sold out to special interest groups...well let me pose this to you...

In recent months, what have we seen in the media from the town council and mayor? Stories of increased lines of communication and better relations with immigrant advocacy groups and those who support the illegal immigrant population. The mayor according to published articles, writes a regular column in the local Spanish newspaper. But when it comes to those of us who say we don't agree with what he and the town council are doing, we're called a bunch of GOP malcontents, and we're blasted as being disgruntled former residents who no longer live in town.

I do not deny that there have been things said on this site and in the media, by myself and others, that have probably aided in the division that is forming in this town...but the blame does not fall squarely on our shoulders, and to suggest that it does is just not true. There have been things said and done on both sides which have helped create the current state of restlessness. And there have been times where silence, at least from one side, has helped to fester feelings of distrust and misunderstanding.

As I have asked others, I will ask you...in that last letter I wrote to the News Transcript, was there anything in there that was a lie? Did I say anything that was not true? The mayor and town council can't expect everyone in town to simply come together and sing "Koombaya", especially not on an issue so charged as illegal immigration. There are a large number of people in town who are ticked off, and when we look to our elected leaders to do something about the problem, we have seen very little as far as real leadership and decisive action is concerned.

Yes, the town has very recently started to enforce housing codes...and that's great...but it came 10 years after the problem started to manifest. I am not laying this all on your feet, or all on the feet of those who have only been on the council a short time...but there are some who have been there for quite a while, and they sat back and watched as this problem continued to grow and grow...doing nothing to really deal with it until very recently.

Richard said it above, and I have said it before...the Federal government is not going to deal with illegal immigration anytime soon. In fact, I believe, and i have said before, that I think the federal government knew that illegal immigration was going to be a problem too big for them to handle alone, which is why they created 287g, to allow states, counties, and towns to help in dealing with it.

However, now the problem is that everyone keeps pointing that finger up to the feds instead of taking the tools they have provided and working to fix our communities, counties, and states ourselves. We need to take some responsibility on ourselves...not everything is the fault of the federal government. I look at it this way, if the towns (like Freehold) were not to blame in the least, and were truly powerless to stop the problem of illegal immigration, then why doesn't every town have an illegal immigrant problem? Why don't we hear about the Township, Marlboro, Manalapan, Colts Neck, Holmdel, Middletown, etc etc having the same problems we do?

I don't want to keep on too long, so let me end this post here.

I hope you're going to really push for some real action and changes in this coming year, and as I said, if the town is ready to take some real steps to dealing with the illegal immigrant issue, I am more than willing to help out however I can...just tell me when and where.

[stffgpr2003]

Andrew -

Just to tie up loose ends, I want to thank you for being honest in answering the question about your future political plans. Of course, you reserve the right to change your mind at any time.

I was also glad to read in today's Transcript that our new county Sheriff seems to be intent on living out her promise regarding 287g. I'll leave it to you and Rich to continue to speculate about what that means for all. For me, this is good news and it brings my brief return to post here - full circle and to a close.

To repeat myself... "Returning to post here? I'll considerate it, only if everyone starts behaving themselves."

However, in the few posts that I have read since I posted, there is nothing to convince me that the site has or will change. It's still not ready for prime time! I'll just leave it at that.

As I also said , "no one in town has ever had a problem finding me and having their questions answered."

Thanks.

Marc

[richardkelsey]

stffgpr2003 said:

To repeat myself... "Returning to post here? I'll considerate it, only if everyone starts behaving themselves."

However, in the few posts that I have read since I posted, there is nothing to convince me that the site has or will change. It's still not ready for prime time! I'll just leave it at that.

Yuck. Read this a few times and consider how it sounds.

If you want a blog site where you can control the opinions and content, and where you do not need to hear any criticism of policy or people, or where you can conform behavior to what you believe is appropriate -- you will be searching long for such a site.

Of course, you could start your own here:

www.freeholdboro.org/

hopefully it will be more fresh than this link:

www.freeholdboro.org/mayor&council.htm

We can't promise sunshine or great behavior and high quality posts. How could we? We certainly can't ask people not to criticize, nor can we ask them to solely spin positive messages. That's not reality.

Since the advent of this site -- I am only familiar with two people who have actually brought negative publicity to the Borough and were taken to task for their postings on this site -- and one of them just promised not to post here again until the rest of us behave.

The new council started talking about a new era of bi-partisanship. So far, you jumped back on the site swinging at the newly elected Republican sheriff -- apparently without any facts -- and have demanded to know the political plans of one poster -- as if his plans to run for office, if any, would lessen the substance of his comments any more than it would lessen the substance of someone in office and posting here.

I have gone back and read the posts since you jumped back on -- and they have been pretty darn substantive. (Obviously there has been some cheekiness) This is a blog. We can't control every aspect of posting. You know better than that Marc.

[fiberisgoodforyou]

Lets see if this will work on some of the "questionable" content...

Maybe we can collectively use this JPG to flag a cleanse worthy post.

[adefonzo]

stffgpr2003 said:

Andrew -

Just to tie up loose ends, I want to thank you for being honest in answering the question about your future political plans. Of course, you reserve the right to change your mind at any time.

I was also glad to read in today's Transcript that our new county Sheriff seems to be intent on living out her promise regarding 287g. I'll leave it to you and Rich to continue to speculate about what that means for all. For me, this is good news and it brings my brief return to post here - full circle and to a close.

To repeat myself... "Returning to post here? I'll considerate it, only if everyone starts behaving themselves."

However, in the few posts that I have read since I posted, there is nothing to convince me that the site has or will change. It's still not ready for prime time! I'll just leave it at that.

As I also said , "no one in town has ever had a problem finding me and having their questions answered."

Thanks.

Marc

Well, Marc, while I enjoyed seeing you back on the site, I went through and re-read the posts that made up our "conversation" here, and I wanted to make you aware of something, because honestly, I don't know if you did it intentionally or not.

What gets me (and a number of others in town) so frustrated with the Mayor and Town Council, is when we express points of view, ask questions, offer opposing opinions...and they seem to fall on deaf ears.

Now, before anyone assumes too much, the start of our "conversation" was very good, I think we both answered each other point for point. But towards the end, the tone shifted (particularly in the last couple of posts). Suddenly your comments veered off more towards my possible political aspirations. And then in your last post, having found out that I don't plan on seeking a town council seat, it was as if the conversation was now over.

Again, I am saying this because I do not know whether it was intentional or not, but the appearance is that since I have confirmed that I would not be a "threat" to run for a town council seat, you had all the information you needed, and could now pull back once more from the site and not continue to participate.

There were several topics (not necessarily questions) I brought up in my last post that I had hoped you would have addressed...

*my mention that the town council and mayor have spoken publicly about the open lines of communication with advocacy groups

*my comment about the Mayor's apparent regular articles in the Spanish newspaper

*my idea that blame for the division in town falls on both sides of the aisle, not simply on the "malcontents"

*my question about whether or not I lied in my article to the News Transcript? (though admittedly, no one that I have asked has answered me on that one)

*my mention that Freehold Boro, and some of it's leaders who have been around for a number of years, are in at least some form or fashion responsible for the illegal immigrant problem starting and continuing to grow in our town (the level of which can always be debated)

All of these topics and ideas went unanswered, which for me is another example of what I mentioned in my last post, "there have been times where silence, at least from one side, has helped to fester feelings of distrust and misunderstanding."

I want to say one more time, I am mentioning this because I do not know if you wrapped up your return without realizing that there were still questions on the table, and I wanted to present them to you again so that you could have a chance to reply.

As we have both mentioned, and as you now have written under your photo, what you say on here is in no way the opinion or position of the Boro Council...I am asking for your thoughts and opinions. Just like me, you are a private resident of our town, and entitled to your own opinions, separate from your responsibilities as an elected official.

Regarding your assertion that you don't feel this site is "ready for prime time", you're right...but unfortunately we're not putting out a television show where everything is tied up in a nice hour long package. You know better than me that this is the real world, and at times, it ugly, but as an elected official, that's what you signed on for when you took your oath of office (even though it's not mentioned specifically).

Unfortunately, the conversation does not necessarily end because one side doesn't want to continue with it. I hope you will respond

[stffgpr2003]

Andrew -

I will briefly respond to your post. I did not recognize the points you made as questions for me within the context of our 287g discussion. I read and accepted them as your personal views. You certainly have the right to hold them as your own perceptions, without assuming the need for me to refute them. They were outside of our topical discussion regarding the town's and county's role in 287g. That is what I signed on to enlighten about (offering the Sheriff's quotes, etc) and to discuss. The single additional, but ancilliary, point I made within the framework of our discussion was that it is my belief that no one on the council supports illegal immigration, and it supports the calling for 287g in Monmouth County.

I'm always happy to discuss anything else with you (or anyone else) that concerns the town or your residential interests. Please give me a call or drop me an email, anytime.

Thanks,

Marc

[richardkelsey]

richardkelsey said:

stffgpr2003 said:

To repeat myself... "Returning to post here? I'll considerate it, only if everyone starts behaving themselves."

However, in the few posts that I have read since I posted, there is nothing to convince me that the site has or will change. It's still not ready for prime time! I'll just leave it at that.

Yuck. Read this a few times and consider how it sounds.

If you want a blog site where you can control the opinions and content, and where you do not need to hear any criticism of policy or people, or where you can conform behavior to what you believe is appropriate -- you will be searching long for such a site.

Of course, you could start your own here:

www.freeholdboro.org/

hopefully it will be more fresh than this link:

www.freeholdboro.org/mayor&council.htm

We can't promise sunshine or great behavior and high quality posts. How could we? We certainly can't ask people not to criticize, nor can we ask them to solely spin positive messages. That's not reality.

Since the advent of this site -- I am only familiar with two people who have actually brought negative publicity to the Borough and were taken to task for their postings on this site -- and one of them just promised not to post here again until the rest of us behave.

The new council started talking about a new era of bi-partisanship. So far, you jumped back on the site swinging at the newly elected Republican sheriff -- apparently without any facts -- and have demanded to know the political plans of one poster -- as if his plans to run for office, if any, would lessen the substance of his comments any more than it would lessen the substance of someone in office and posting here.

I have gone back and read the posts since you jumped back on -- and they have been pretty darn substantive. (Obviously there has been some cheekiness) This is a blog. We can't control every aspect of posting. You know better than that Marc.

I have reflected upon this post by me numerous times since last evening -- and I have also traded many e-mails with Marc on the subject. We do not agree on either the effect of his post, or the measure of my response.

Marc makes one observation with which I do agree. That is, as posters, we should try to direct our criticism more precisely, more substantively, and less personally.

I still maintain that neither I nor Brian can promise perfect or great posts by ourselves, or others. But we can try to encourage stronger posts that focus more on the factual disagreements, rather than our emotions.

My response to Marc was based on his line that appeared to smear us all by suggesting that "we are not ready for prime-time" or that we need to improve our behavior to earn him as a poster.

I thought and still do think that criticism is too broad, and therefore unwarranted. As I said previously, most of the posting was very substantive -- and that most are drawn to blogs to vent -- and by that nature you take the good with the bad, so long as it is within the rules.

Marc, everyone here would be happy to have you participate. We can't and won't change the open nature of our board to do so, but we will be mindful of reminding our participants to take a higher road in their criticism. I ask that you do the same with respect to the site.