Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Meanwhile, on the Border,.....

The article mentioned Ca. as being one of nine states, that allow the subsidized college for illegals, do you know what the other states are??

I understand if you don't know the answer to the question, cause your just the messenger.

Sheesh !,....you just can't beat that town for wierdness,

San Fran Freako,.....$285 a DAY,.....?

Link: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/09/17/MNQK12R47M.DTL

30% of S.F. juvenile offenders actually adults
Jaxon Van Derbeken, Chronicle Staff Writer

Wednesday, September 17, 2008


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Print E-mail del.icio.us
Digg
Technorati
Reddit
Facebook Slashdot
Fark
Newsvine
Google Bookmarks
Yahoo! Buzz
Share Comments (314) Georgia (default)
Verdana
Times New Roman
ArialFont | Size:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(09-16) 23:44 PDT San Francisco --

Nearly 30 percent of the felony offenders San Francisco juvenile justice officials have reported to federal immigration authorities since the city stopped shielding youths from deportation have turned out to be adults, authorities say.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Images

View Larger Images


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S.F. Shielding Immigrants
Many juvenile offenders actually adults (9/17)

Honduran drug suspect gamed juvenile system (8/30)

Teen offender turned over to ICE (8/27)

Court rules teen illegal needs services (8/26)

S.F. fund aids teen felons who are illegals (8/2)

Last juvenile illegal immigrant drug offender escapes (7/22)

Slaying suspect once found sanctuary in S.F. (7/20)

3 more juvenile migrant drug dealers escape (7/19)

Policy on convicted felons changes (7/02)

Newsom: Court has final say (7/02)

8 crack dealers in S.F. walk away (7/01)

Probe into migrant-offender protection (6/29)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More Crime News
Prosecutors want judge to reject offer from Cosco Busan owner 09.17.08
Rapist guilty of five murders in 1985; DNA tests crack case 09.17.08
Actor Thomas Jane sentenced for DUI in Kern County 09.17.08
Ryan O'Neal, son, arrested in drug sweep at home 09.17.08

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The city's Juvenile Probation Department has referred 58 offenders to federal authorities since Mayor Gavin Newsom announced July 2 that the city no longer would protect youths from deportation under San Francisco's sanctuary law. The mayor took the step after The Chronicle revealed that the city was paying for flights home and $7,000-a-month group homes for underage, undocumented offenders, who as adults could face prison and automatic deportation.

<<M&R: Hundreds of adult illegals also got sanctuary>>

Of those 58 offenders, authorities have concluded that 17 - or 29.3 percent - were adults, based on immigration records and the statements of offenders themselves, federal immigration officials say. Most of the 58 were being held on drug-dealing charges.

"It confirms our early suspicion that adults were taking advantage of the sanctuary policy in order to evade detection, responsibility and prosecution for criminal behavior," said Joseph Russoniello, the U.S. attorney for Northern California.

Russoniello said adult illegal immigrants convicted of felonies face almost certain deportation, but San Francisco's previous policy of not reporting juveniles who had committed similar offenses to federal officials encouraged offenders to "game the system" and say they were underage.

Advocates denounce change
Advocates for the immigrant youths say that just because some offenders turn out to be adults does not mean the city should report all juvenile immigrant offenders to the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.

"We believe all youth in the juvenile justice system in San Francisco should be treated the same," said Renee Saucedo of La Raza Centro Legal, a Mission District law center for the immigrant community.

"Adults are legally required to be turned over to immigration, and that happens," Saucedo said. "But for fear of the system being abused, we are now going to treat minors the same way as adults. We don't buy it; we don't believe that immigrant youths should be treated any differently than other youth. We believe what the mayor is doing, his change in policy, is wrong. We see him caving in to anti-immigrant interests."

Saucedo added that "the benefits (of the sanctuary policy for juveniles) far outweigh the potential for abuse. ... San Francisco values people being able to live peacefully, regardless of whether they are immigrants."

Federal immigration officials say most of the offenders they have determined to be adults either admitted they were over 18 or had previously been caught crossing the border and the birth dates they provided then confirmed they are adults now.

Feds want access to jail
"There are people who are going to take advantage of the system," said Tim Aitken, field office director for Immigration and Customs Enforcement's detention operations in San Francisco. "The key point is, we need to be able to do our job."

He said federal officials should be allowed access to juvenile hall and adult jail so they can check inmates' immigration status more easily.

Sheriff Michael Hennessey, however, has balked at providing more access in the adult jail. He said that no law requires his agency to allow federal officials to screen inmates, and that the city's sanctuary ordinance requires San Francisco officials to have a legal basis for helping the federal government track down illegal immigrants.

The national head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Julie Myers, asked Newsom to intervene in the dispute in a July 23 letter. "Absent access to this kind of information, ICE is unable to effectively identify criminal aliens in sheriff's custody and lodge the detainers necessary to prevent the release of these criminal aliens back into the San Francisco community," she wrote.

The mayor's office has yet to reply. Nathan Ballard, a spokesman for Newsom, said the city is drafting a response.

Federal officials still happy
For all the back-and-forth over the issue, Aitken said, the city officials' revised policy of referring juvenile offenders is still an improvement over their former refusal to do so.

In July, City Attorney Dennis Herrera reiterated a 1994 opinion that nothing in the sanctuary city law provided protection for juveniles who commit felonies.

Among the 17 offenders found to be adults was Javier Martinez, who claimed to be 16 when he was arrested for drug dealing. Martinez was one of eight Hondurans the Juvenile Probation Department put in unlocked group homes in San Bernardino County who fled in June. When he was caught last month, he told juvenile authorities that he was really 25 and his true name was Jose Mendoza Cerrato.

He is now in adult jail after pleading guilty to a drug charge and is expected to be transferred to federal authorities when he is sentenced Friday.

Juvenile probation officials have said they are often forced to trust offenders when they say they are underage. They say that while courts can order dental examinations in an attempt to determine an offender's age, the findings are inexact.

Juvenile Hall less crowded
Probation officials feared that the Juvenile Hall population would spike after Newsom changed the city's policy and barred offenders from being put in group homes. In fact, the opposite has happened. The average population at Juvenile Hall this month has been 114, a 13.6 percent drop from the 132 in May.

William Siffermann, the head of the Juvenile Probation Department, said that such fluctuations are not unusual and that "this slight reduction cannot be attributed solely or directly" to the decision to turn over immigrant offenders for deportation.

The Juvenile Hall population had been steadily increasing since 2004, the year Newsom took office. That was also the year Juvenile Probation Department officials expressly prohibited staffers from reporting illegal immigrants to federal officials, a ban that the agency had observed for more than a decade.

Advocates for immigrant youths criticized Newsom and Siffermann last year when the Juvenile Hall population hit a 30-year high of 156. Authorities quickly acted to move offenders out of the lockup, including a youth held in a weapons case who was subsequently accused of murder.

Caring for immigrant youths takes up a disproportionate share of Juvenile Probation Department resources, because often they have no local relatives to whom they can be released. Housing youth offenders costs the city an average of $285 a day.

E

Golly,....talk about candid and out front,......I admire this fellow for tellin' it like it is.

Link: http://www.nwtntoday.com/news.php?viewStory=16604

Sheriff: Illegals get a free ride
By: John Brannon Messenger Staff Reporter

Posted: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 9:32 pm

By JOHN BRANNON Messenger Staff Reporter Obion County Sheriff Jerry Vastbinder shared some shocking news about illegal aliens who are arrested: Only those convicted of a felony will be deported to their home country. �If you�re an illegal and you�re picked up on a charge of driving on revoked license or DUI, the government will not deport you,� he said. That�s the policy of the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), formerly the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). Vastbinder said it was long the policy of the federal government that illegal aliens held by law enforcement would be picked up by INS, and later ICE, and deported, whether the charge was a misdemeanor or felony. �About a month ago, ICE sent us notice that unless an illegal is convicted of a felony charge, they couldn�t pick them up and deport them. They said they don�t have the manpower to do them all,� Vastbinder said. �Those illegals charged with misdemeanor crimes must be released. They post bond like anyone else. They go to court like anyone else. If they�re found not guilty, they�ll go free. If they are convicted, they�ll pay a fine or serve a sentence or whatever, like anyone else. �And they�ll be free like anyone else. Of course, they�ll still be illegal aliens, still be in this country illegally. Those who are convicted of a felony will be deported after they serve their sentences.� According to the Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform, there are an estimated nine to 11 million illegal aliens in the United States. CAIR asserts that 80 percent of cocaine and 50 percent of heroin in the United States is smuggled in from Mexico by illegals. Too, they cost American taxpayers billions of dollars each year for medical and welfare services. �It�s mind-boggling that we let people like that stay in the United States,� Vastbinder said. �They are here illegally, but ICE doesn�t have the manpower to ship them out because there�s so many of them here. �We�ve had some here working in this area and doing legitimate jobs. ICE would tell them, �You need to get your citizenship,� and they would go and file for it. ICE gives them a break if they�re showing they�re trying to do right. �Being illegal means they broke the law, that they are in this country illegally. But we have to turn them loose unless they commit a felony.� And more and more illegals are crossing the border every day. CAIR estimates 10,000 a day. �We�ve had some illegals in here. And when we get them in here, they are entitled to the same things as other prisoners � dental care, medical care, the works,� Vastbinder said. �They have a free ride, all courtesy of the American taxpayers. �This whole thing blows my mind.� Published in The Messenger 9.16.08

I tried to tell you, that ICE won't pick them up unless their felons, and you thought i was talking $hit to you. You've heard it from a Sheriff in a small Tn. county in NW Tn.

There's 95 counties in this state and unless your in the big five population wise, ICE doesn't care. My wife went to college up there at UT Martin, in the same county.

You really don't know how lucky LE and the citizens have it, in the larger cities that have an ICE office.

Several years ago local Highway Patrol stopped a truck with 13-15 (I forget the exact number) illegals on the Interstate near Flagstaff. They were all at the site and ICE was contacted, according to the newspaper, and ICE didn't care. The paper didn't go into why. About a year later the local ICE head guy, who apparently didn't want anybody sent back, was moved on and the cooperation with local LE reportedly improved.
It's hard to get anything done if the LE guy in charge wants to ignore the problem and the law. (Sort of like your situation, hunter1960).
Incidentally, thank you for your military and LE service.

Thank you, regarding the kind words involving my Mil/LE service.


The issue with ICE/illegals and local LE agencies is complexed in some ways. You have about half a population in a county that wants them removed, but you have another sector of citizens who either don't care one way or the other, or are making a profit by employing the illegals. (this is based on examples that i've personnaly observed).

If the local LE, arrests them on misdemeanor charges and they serve their sentence or pay their fine, as was stated in the article their free to go. ICE won't come and get them.

If you attempt to hold them for ICE when it's evident that ICE won't pick them up you do two things, you put yourself as a Sheriff, in risk of a lawsuit for illegal detention of the person. Since immigration laws are a Fed. crime, not a state crime. You'ld be surprised at the number of them who file lawsuits, and the number of Att's who represent them.

The other fact is that you've got to feed and provide medical treatment to the alien, at taxpayers expense. This without any chance of recovering that expense, the Fed's don't pay for you to hold them. This takes away funds that can be used in other areas.

I understand. It is interesting how many flaunt our laws then use the system to their benefit.
Back when the Shah of Iran was still in power, maybe 1977 or '78, many Iranians in this country were demonstrating against him and some of those demonstrations were being suppressed. There was a lawsuit that went to the Supreme Court about rights and the Court held that if you were here you had the same rights as a citizen, whether you were a citizen or not. I suppose that's what is carrying over to the lawsuits you face.

That probably is the basis of these lawsuits, that's what i've been told it was based on.

You know how it is with the courts, if you can get one case to stick, you've just set an example for others of the same nature.

It was interesting, when i first started noticing an influx of Hispanics locally, they were mostly arrested for driving violations, alcohol related issues etc. They'ld come to court without any representation, at first many court systems didn't even have an interpreter.

Now their coming to court with legal representation and the court system has interpreters. The nature of the charges have increased also to include felony drug and crimes of violence. I am not blaming the lawyers, criminal justice is a business, their not into it for a hobby.

An intriguing piece by Spencer,......sadly, correct

Avoid rumor,....distribute fact


Link: http://www.americanpatrol.com/08-FEATURES/080918-FEATURE/080918--AISI-GS_.html

As I see it
Glenn Spencer -- September 18, 2008

Why The Strategic Border Initiative Failed

SBInet Industry Day Announcement -- January 26, 2006


Jackson: We are charged to manage, control, and protect our nation's borders...

For the entire time that we've been engaged over years in trying to enforce the border, we have never, in my view, had a credible plan for taking on control of the entire southwest border.

Glenn Spencer, July 5, 2006: And you still don't. A $2 billion contract will be let in September. Nowhere does SBI spell out a goal that can be measured. This is all of the same nonsense we have seen for years. The program will be run by open borders people at DHS/CBP and will accomplish absolutely nothing except lull the people into a false sense of security.

Where We Stand Now

CNET.com � Sept. 10, 2008

"The Department of Homeland Security's �virtual fence' along the U.S.-Mexico border is inoperable in the one location it has been deployed, and plans to replicate the technology along the rest of the border have been completely changed or abandoned, government auditors told Congress on Wednesday."

Government Accountability Office � Sept. 10, 2008

"The SBInet program office has not effectively defined and managed program expectations, including specific project requirements."

How Did I Know?

How did I know two years ago that the SBInet project would fail? Simple. I know how the government thinks about illegal immigration law enforcement. The power-elite that run our government do not want to control the border and I knew they would figure out a way to make it fail.

How did they do this?

SBInet was doomed to failure because the government did not define goals, or requirements, in a way that could be measured. Why is this important? There is an old saying; "If you can't measure it, you can't improve it." The government merely reversed engineered this concept, i.e., "If you don't want to improve it, don't measure it."

The requirement of the SBI should have been to stop illegal immigration but it never said that. It should have gone on further and set a goal of reducing illegal immigration to some set level.

For example, SBI management could have said t: "By 2011 no more than 20,000 people should successfully enter the country illegally between ports of entry." (This would have been a 98% reduction.) They would then design a system to meet that goal.

The system would have included a way of measuring progress. But there's the rub. In order for management to measure success, the Border Patrol would have to report the total number of people entering illegally. This would be a fairly straightforward job, but the government doesn't want people to know that number. As a result they avoid using the one metric that would allow them to properly design the system.

Let me give you an example. In January 2006, DHS held a number of "Industry Days" for people interested in bidding on contracts. At these meetings (a video of one of the meetings can be seen here.) Kevin Stevens, Acting Director of the SBInet system for Customs and Border Protection said the objective of the system was to "Gain, maintain and expand," whatever that means.

Stevens, using a PowerPoint presentation, said the SBInet has one strategic goal: Establish and maintain control of our border. He did not define what control of the border means, nor did he say when we would know when we achieved it. He said, "in order to establish and maintain control of our borders there are three things we need to do." He then listed the following...

Detect
Identify/Classify
Respond
This is where the SBInet system went wrong. Instead of defining what border security meant, he went on to say how it could be achieved. He jumped from a goal orientation to a means orientation, right over the definition of border security.

In defining "Detect" Stevens said "If we don't know what is going on we don't know how to address it." The same thing applies to the entire border. If we don't know how many people are crossing the border and how much we want to reduce it, how do we know how to address it?

Nowhere in Stevens' presentation does he say the goal of the system is to stop illegal immigration. He says we have to detect border crossers, identify and classify them and respond. He assumes that are going to cross the border. If we had a double fence system such as in San Diego, topped with concertina wire we wouldn't have many border crossers to detect in the first place, but his approach didn't include such a direct solution.

The importance of defining a measurable goal or objective cannot be underestimated. In selecting from various means, it is important to select those things that are most cost-effective.

It is unrealistic on its face to say we can or should control the border mainly with Border Patrol agents. The Border Patrol is approaching 20,000 agents. The annual cost of operating a 20,000 member Border Patrol probably approaches $2 billion.

Let's say the government had set a goal of reducing illegal immigration to, say, 20,000 per year, and that super technology and a "virtual fence" let's them achieve that goal. What then? The average agent would apprehend an illegal on the average of one per year. Having 20,000 people sitting around with nothing to do is not a good use of resources, and it would be a terrible job. But this serious problem would only be only be exposed if a specific goal had been set.

Now, if it were found that building a double fence across 700 miles of border costing $3 billion would allow the job to be done with only 5,000 agents, the investment would be returned in two years. Double the cost and it still makes sense. But these kinds of trade-offs can only be made when border security is defined in a way that allows cost analysis in terms of specific objectives.

Systems Management


Concepts of large-scale systems management are well known in military circles, and throughout federal government for that matter. Unfortunately there is no evidence that the Department of Homeland Security moved to employ these disciplines in the development of the Secure Border Initiative.

Boeing should have known better as it is a major military contractor and its management must have been exposed to modern management systems.

The SBInet got into trouble because top management in the Department of Homeland Security wanted it to fail.

An Expensive Boondogle


A review of the SBI budget exposes major imbalances. According the GAO the strategic border initiative spent $2.7 billion while only building 109 miles of fence (as of Aug. 22).

Boeing's program management alone cost $144 million. Another budget element, Design, cost another $84 million. Another, Supply Chain Management cost $313.3 million. The waste of hundreds of millions of dollars in this politically driven project speaks volumes about why the United States of America faces bankruptcy.

Had the DHS used all of the money to build a double fence along the border we would be more secure today and require fewer Border Patrol agents, thereby saving money and securing the border. But that is not what the government wanted to do.

By the way, I attended the SBInet briefing in Sierra Vista in January, 2007. I asked the Boeing rep what SBInet had to do with the Secure Fence Act of 2006. His answer was "We are activators � we activate what the government tells us to activate." In other words, there was no relationship.

Summing Up


I called the Strategic Border Initiative the Strategic Bullsh*t Initiative and I was right. But my conclusions are harsh and personal. As a result they will be totally unacceptable in polite company.

For more politically correct words, I turn to Randolph C. Hite, the man in the Government Accountability Office, who said:

....SBInet requirements have not been effectively defined and managed. While the program office recently issued guidance that does a good job of defining key practices for effectively developing and managing requirements, the guidance was developed after several important activities had been completed. In the absence of this guidance, the program has not effectively performed key requirements definition and management practices, such as ensuring that different levels of requirements are properly aligned."

I don't like much about Chicago,.......never have.

This is cool,.....but, it's sure interesting how much bally-hoo can evolve around these deportations.

" unfairly targets ".....? Chit, being a "Target" pretty much ALWAYS sucks, I'd say .



Link: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-il-immigrationsweeps,0,2794222.story

144 illegal immigrants arrested
Associated Press
6:24 PM CDT, September 17, 2008
CHICAGO - Federal agents have arrested 144 illegal immigrants in a series of sweeps in the Chicago area and northern Indiana.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials announced the arrests Wednesday. The raids targeted 110 undocumented immigrants who failed to appear for hearings or were ordered by a judge to leave the country. ICE arrested the other 34 illegal immigrants during the sweeps that began on Friday and ended Monday.

This brings the total number of illegal immigrants the Chicago ICE office arrested since last October to 1,597.

One of the largest immigrant rights groups in the state is condemning the sweeps.



The Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights claims the arrests separate families and unfairly target immigrants.

You don't pull the mask off the old Lone Ranger,

....and you DON'T mess around with Joe,......

Guadeloupe's Liberal Mayor really made a bad call here,.....



Link: http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/hourlyupdate/258008

Hourly Update
Maricopa County set to drop Guadalupe police protection
The Associated Press
Tucson, Arizona | Published: 09.17.2008
advertisement
PHOENIX � The Town of Guadalupe is facing a loss of police protection from the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office.
Wednesday, the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors could vote to cancel sheriff's office protection for the Phoenix suburb.
The move, which some on the board said they approve of, would put Guadalupe on a 180-day notice for cancellation of a contract originally set to expire in 2010.
A heated confrontation between Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and the former town mayor led the sheriff to cancel a contract between the sheriff's office and the town.
The contract pays Maricopa County $1.2 million annually for providing police protection in Guadalupe.
Town officials are hoping for a change of heart from Arpaio and the board.
"At this point, we have no alternatives to the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office," Guadalupe Mayor Frank Montiel said.
Montiel replaced Rebecca Jimenez as mayor earlier this month. Jimenez remains on the town board.
Montiel said he wants to establish a better relationship with the sheriff's office and is hoping that the two sides can reach an agreement before the contract expires. "I hope Mr. Arpaio will see it that way, also. We do have new leadership," Montiel said.
Arpaio said he might be willing to continue police protection in Guadalupe if things go his way.
"If I want to come back in there with my suppression operation, I will," he said.
It was a crime suppression operation that stirred anger in former Mayor Jimenez referring to the sweep as racial profiling and leading her to consider other options for law enforcement.
During one sweep, Jimenez confronted Arpaio before thousands of TV viewers which led the sheriff to cancel the policing contract.
Supervisors have been inclined to go with Arpaio's recommendation on the matter. The sheriff originally made it in April, when the discussions with Guadalupe officials were most heated.
"The sheriff is determined to move on, (and) outside law enforcement is largely a creation of his own ability and desire," Republican Supervisor Don Stapley said. "When he calls me and says, "We're not going to continue there,' it's real hard for me to say, "Yes, you are.' "
Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox, a frequent critic of Arpaio's immigration policies, will oppose the cancellation. Wilcox's district includes the town. "Guadalupe is going to become a casualty of these immigration battles, and we're going to leave a small town "without services," Wilcox said. "It's really irresponsible of us."
As far as alternatives, Phoenix and the Department of Public Safety have declined to contract with Guadalupe.
Phoenix Police Chief Jack Harris says doing so could lead some neighborhoods without adequate police protection.
The DPS also told town leaders it could not provide police services, DPS Deputy Director Pennie Gillette-Stroud said.

Ahh, yes, Guadalupe. That is where the Chief of Police, when they had one, got a guy sent to prison for having drugs that the Chief either planted or had someone else plant.
And he was also arming for a revolution or some such having ordered a bunch of Uzis and some other automatic weapons , HK's maybe. The DPS had to take them. (IIRC)
The chief got sent to prison, the other guy got out and the town was without a police force and the Sheriff offered to step in and police the place. Only the primarily Hispanic town didn't like it when the sheriff started enforcing the immigration laws, too.
The sheriff said that no one is going to tell him which laws to enforce.

There was more than a "Bunch of Uzis",........

.........a loose and goosey hodgepodge of H.E. and initiators,......just to open that ball.

some REALLY peculiar "reporting" on the part of biased "Red Star" media.

Looks like we're damned if we do and ,.....yadda.

GTC

Still being over run....

Field tests for "Baboon Ass" ,......free.

MORE GUADELOUPE'

Obviously an evolving situation,

wish we could get GPA and pho-Ya down there,...to confront Joe.
they got power,.....and moves.

He'd be no match for them

Link: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2008/09/18/20080918guadalupe0918.html

Sheriff's police deal with Guadalupe ends
County cancels contract; Arpaio, town officials can renegotiate
by Yvonne Wingett - Sept. 18, 2008 12:00 AM
The Arizona Republic
The town of Guadalupe's contract for police services with the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office will end in March, one year earlier than the contract calls for, the county's Board of Supervisors decided Wednesday.

The 3-1 vote by the board started the clock for town officials and Sheriff Joe Arpaio to try to negotiate a deal to reinstate the contract and continue law-enforcement services in the small town southeast of Phoenix.

Guadalupe and the Sheriff's Office have 180 days to strike a deal, and it appears they can.
Arpaio said Wednesday that he would be willing to negotiate with Guadalupe Mayor Frank Montiel only if no one will tell him how to police the town or whether he can launch immigration sweeps, similar to those done in April amid protests, fights with town politicians and accusations of racial profiling.

"You will not tell this sheriff what laws to enforce in Guadalupe," Arpaio said in a news conference.

"If they can get by that bypass, I'd be glad to talk to them to see what we can do to help them. I will do my crime-suppression operations. I will continue to lock up illegal aliens in Guadalupe. They're hurting, they know they can't find anybody to take that job."

Montiel, who took office last week, believes those are fair conditions: "It's not perfect, like anything. If those are the terms, I think we're OK with the terms," he said.

If the two cannot reach an agreement, Guadalupe will have to find another agency to pick up the police services or form a police force of its own.

For most of the past 20 years, the town has contracted with the Sheriff's Office for law-enforcement services and now pays the county about $1.2 million yearly.

Town leaders have turned to other agencies, including Phoenix, Tempe and the state Department of Public Safety for help, without success.

Wednesday's controversial vote came at the request of Arpaio, who has been embroiled in a dispute arising from his two-day immigration sweeps in Guadalupe, home mostly to Latinos and Native Americans.

Guadalupe officials and Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox wanted an extra 60 days to negotiate a deal between the Sheriff's Office and the town. Supervisors Fulton Brock, Don Stapley and Max Wilson approved the cancellation. Chairman Andy Kunasek missed the meeting and the vote.

The vote took place after dozens of protesters with the Maricopa Citizens for Safety and Accountability were kicked out of the meeting for being disruptive.

The protesters have been showing up lately to voice concerns over Arpaio's management of public money, his immigration enforcement and emergency-response times.

The demonstrations have been consistent and increasingly unruly, but Wednesday's protest was deliberately scripted to cause the biggest ruckus, said Raquel Ter�n, a paid organizer and project director with the group.

Members of the group asked to be put on the agenda to have a chance to address their concerns, she said, but that did not happen. Typically, the public is given the chance to address the supervisors on items related to specific agenda items or during the public comment portion of the meeting.

"Our intention was to take over a little bit of the meeting," Ter�n said. "We intentionally escalated. This was completely intentional, to disrupt the meeting, to take over the meeting at one point, and then leave."

From the beginning of the meeting, several shouted at the supervisors, first during the prayer, and then the Pledge of Allegiance.

Waving miniature American flags, some shouted, "Why aren't we on the agenda?" One by one, members stood, yelling at the supervisors. They were asked to leave the meeting and filed out, singing My Country 'Tis of Thee. One screamed, "We're not going away. We'll see you next month. Sheriff Joe Arpaio has you in his back pocket."

The protesters then stationed themselves just outside of the supervisors' chambers in downtown Phoenix.

Protective Services officers and sheriff's deputies guarded the chamber's doors, as some protesters yelled and taunted. At one point, law-enforcement officers decided to block the entrance for public safety reasons, and in doing so, denied access to the media and other people who wanted to attend the meeting.

The supervisors continued the meeting but then suspended it when they became concerned about possible violations of open-meeting laws after learning people were shut out.

The supervisors resumed the meeting after County Manager David Smith and Wilcox met with MCSA leaders to get assurance that they would not disrupt the rest of the meeting.

County administrators, who believe there were legitimate safety concerns, are trying to figure out how the decision was made to block the entrance, said Richard de Uriarte, a county spokesman. County officials are trying to determine whether it will affect the supervisors' vote on the Guadalupe contract, he said.

Officials with Protective Services and the county clerk's department declined comment. Sheriff's officials said they did not lock the doors.

Channel 12 (KPNX) filed a formal complaint to the supervisors, saying the lockout violated Arizona Open Meetings Law, the First Amendment and the Arizona Constitution. "There was no justification for today's lockout of reporters from the meeting," the letter said.

MCSA leaders said they intended to file a class-action suit against the county for the lockout. On Wednesday evening, MCSA e-mailed a letter to supporters, vowing to return. "We will return to the Board of Supervisors Meeting October 15th, having requested to be on the agenda for that same board meeting. If we are not on the agenda, we will escalate more!"

They can always start another police dept. all it takes is money. It still won't keep the sheriff out, his deputies have jurisdiction throughout the county.

Very Classy lady,....recomended by "Doc" Howell,

....and she presents an issue that needs some loud screaming ,....up to and just before election day.

...............I have to produce ID,...fer' cryin' out loud.


Link: http://eagleforum.org/column/2008/sept08/08-09-19.html

The Danger of Vote Fraud in the 2008 Election


by Phyllis Schlafly September 19, 2008


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Printer Friendly version

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Google Ads are provided by Google and are not selected or endorsed by Eagle Forum



The most provocative line in the Democratic national platform adopted in Denver is: "We oppose laws that require identification in order to vote or register to vote." Since it's routine to show an ID in order to board a plane and do dozens of other very ordinary things, what's the big deal about showing an ID to exercise the most important privilege of citizenship?
That question is answered in the new book by John Fund called Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy." Honest elections absolutely depend on preventing the stuffing of the ballot box by people who are not eligible to vote.

Among those who are not eligible to vote are those who are dead, who are not residents of the precinct where they vote, who are registered to vote in another state, who are underage, and especially those who are not citizens. Votes cast by any of those can cancel out your vote and, in close elections, decide the winner.

Fund describes how easy it is for unscrupulous politicians to buy voter impersonators with a little cash and get them to cast illegal votes. The Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals explained "the extreme difficulty of apprehending a voter impersonator. He enters the polling place, gives a name that is not his own, votes, and leaves. If later it is discovered that the name he gave is that of a dead person, no one at the polling place will remember the face of the person who gave that name."

The Democrats have hysterically fought against voter ID laws in Congress, in state legislatures, and in the courts, taking what they thought was their best case, the Indiana law, all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. They lost there because they ran into liberal Justice John Paul Stevens who, hailing from Chicago, was acquainted with many "flagrant examples" of election fraud going back to Mayor Richard Daley's shenanigans that swung Illinois to John F. Kennedy in 1960.

The National Voter Registration Act (known as the Motor Voter Law), the very first law signed by President Bill Clinton, imposed fraud-friendly rules on the states by requiring them to register anyone who applies for a driver's license, to offer mail-in registration with no identification needed, and to make it very difficult to purge dead and moved-away voters from registration rolls. The voter rolls in many U.S. cities now contain more names than the U.S. Census lists as residents over age 18.

The Motor Voter Law, according to Fund, "has fueled an explosion of phantom voters." In the four years since passage, nearly 26 million names were added to the voter rolls nationwide. One investigation in Indiana showed that hundreds of thousands of names were people who had died, moved away, or gone to prison.

Missouri Secretary of State Matt Blunt's report on the 2000 election showed how the Motor Voter Law facilitated fraud in one district. He reported that votes were illegally cast by 14 who were dead, 68 who voted twice, 79 who were registered from vacant lots, 62 who were federal felons, 52 who were state felons, and an undetermined number who were registered from drop-sites for multiple false registrations.

Fund's book makes fascinating reading because of his descriptions of many specific examples of vote fraud that actually determined the outcome of elections. Fund describes in detail some of the more outrageous examples of recent vote fraud in Chicago, Indiana, St. Louis, Seattle, Milwaukee, Mississippi, and Georgia.

Fund believes that the biggest opportunity for vote fraud this year is the registration tactics of ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now). ACORN is a classic Saul Alinsky-style community-organizing group, and it has received hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars as well as corporate donations.

It's no surprise that ACORN is closely associated with Barack Obama. Right after graduating from the Harvard Law school, Obama was recruited by ACORN to run a successful voter registration drive for an ACORN affiliate, Project Vote.

ACORN claims that, along with Project Vote, it registered 1.15 million new voters in 2004 and deployed 4,000 get-out-the-vote workers on Election Day.

The job of handling legitimate voters is tremendously complicated by phony registrations and by the tactic of filing new registrations on the last possible day when there is not adequate time to verify them.

In 2008, Obama was a major supporter of a Democratic housing bill that provided $200 million to community groups (such as ACORN) that are counseling homeowners facing foreclosure. ACORN is pledging to spend $35 million this year registering persons who will vote.

With the 2008 elections as close as they are predicted to be, Obama's best chance to win is to flood new names on the registration rolls who may or may not be eligible voters. It is more important than ever that voter ID be used in order to make sure that ballot boxes are not stuffed by voter impersonators.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Birmingham (Alabama) News
Fox News gasbag wants Bush to "pardon" illegal aliens

Ridiculous,....to sublime.


Link: http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/metro.ssf?/base/news/1221812142308200.xml&coll=2

Geraldo Rivera urges local business leaders to tell President Bush to pardon illegal imigrants
Friday, September 19, 2008 ERIN STOCKNews staff writer
Television news host Geraldo Rivera on Thursday asked Birmingham business leaders to join him in urging President Bush to pardon the approximately 12 million immigrants living illegally in the country.

"Call off these raids and pardon these people, then go forward and help to heal the inequities and the other bureaucratic problems and irregularities with the immigration system," Rivera said.

Rivera, host of "Geraldo at Large" on Fox News Channel, told an audience of about 350 people at the Hispanic Business Council's annual breakfast that Bush should halt raids on plants employing illegal immigrants and issue the pardons in his last few months in office. Granting illegal immigrants some form of documentation would make them feel safer to report crimes, he said.

The wording on these "Ballot Propositons" is in legalese,....and the really strange thing is the preponderance of "Reverse Syntax"
I'll find a copy of upcoming 202,....we need to figure whether a Yes or No vote defeats it,......


Arizona Wins in Court
Greedy Businesses Fight Back With Prop. 202

Lou Dobbs Tonight -- CNN -- September 19
State Rep. Russell Pearce calls for defeat of Proposition 202.

Sylvester: What was this going to mean for the folks in Arizona.
Pearce: Well, clearly it will. This is a national issue. I mean, they've attacked Hazleton, Pennsylvania, they've attacked, you know, Valley Park, Missouri, they've attacked Oklahoma, who have all tried to implement rules and laws to go after the illegal alien problem, the crisis in this country. The employers are the No. 1 lure, this is clear, they made it very clear that we're not preempting federal law.
States have the inherent authority to enforce these laws. They made it clear that we can go after, first of all the best program ever devised to help employers know who they're hiring, called E-Verify, a Web-based system that verifies the identity of your employer that they're either a citizen or they have a visa and they have a right to work here, it's 99.7 percent accurate. That's what (INAUDIBLE).
But, they don't want to know who they're hiring, they want to continue use the I9 process that's full of fraud. In fact these same folks are the ones that are now doing Proposition 202 here in Arizona because they knew they would lose in court and they've gone after us at the ballot...

"Greedy Businesses Fight Back With Prop. 202 "


That seems to be a succinct appraisal.