Tuesday, July 27, 2010

Immigrant groups criticize fingerprint initiative

DENVER – The federal government is rapidly expanding a program to identify illegal immigrants using fingerprints from arrests, drawing opposition from local authorities and advocates who argue the initiative amounts to an excessive dragnet.

The program has gotten less attention than Arizona's new immigration law, but it may end up having a bigger impact because of its potential to round up and deport so many immigrants nationwide.

Hoo boy, where to start with this one. Ok, how about from the beginning of this article. Does that work for you? Works for me.

The San Francisco sheriff wanted nothing to do with the program, and the City Council in Washington, D.C., blocked use of the fingerprint plan in the nation's capital.

Effectively, both cities governments are telling their law enforcement departments to violate federal law by not cooperating with federal agencies regarding the immigration status of the arrestee. Wonder if that "flavors" the relationship between the locals and say, the FBI or BATF or DEA on major cases at all.

Colorado is the latest to debate the program, called Secure Communities, and immigrant groups have begun to speak up, telling the governor in a letter last week that the initiative will make crime victims reluctant to cooperate with police "due to fear of being drawn into the immigration regime."

Being reluctant to speak to the police if a crime victim when you are here illegally is a given. Anyone who engages in criminal behavior of any type will be reluctant to speak to the police if/when they become a crime victim themselves, so that argument is fatuous at best, and disingenuous at worst. But that hardly matters to those who advocate for criminals.

Under the program, the fingerprints of everyone who is booked into jail for any crime are run against FBI criminal history records and Department of Homeland Security immigration records to determine who is in the country illegally and whether they've been arrested previously. Most jurisdictions are not included in the program, but Immigration and Customs Enforcement has been expanding the initiative.

So basically, the only real new thing here is that your immigration status is checked through the Department of Homeland Security, as police departments nationwide routinely check not only their own databases, but those of other law enforcement agencies to see if you have any kind of a criminal history, and if so, what is the status of that. Adding DHS to the list of agency databases to check to see if you are here legally (or not) is bad how?

Since 2007, 467 jurisdictions in 26 states have joined. ICE has said it plans to have it in every jail in the country by 2013. Secure Communities is currently being phased into the places where the government sees as having the greatest need for it based on population estimates of illegal immigrants and crime statistics.

Nice start, but we need this in every jurisdiction, and the sooner the better.

Since everyone arrested would be screened, the program could easily deport more people than Arizona's new law, said Sunita Patel, an attorney who filed a lawsuit in New York against the federal government on behalf of a group worried about the program. Patel said that because illegal immigrants could be referred to ICE at the point of arrest, even before a conviction, the program can create an incentive for profiling and create a pipeline to deport more people.

First of all, "Hispanic" is not a "race". Hispanics are actually Caucasians with a nice, natural tan. Since the vast majority of illegal immigrants here are of Hispanic descent, it would be foolish not to look at them a little more carefully, especially since they've already committed a federal offense by being here illegally! Then, if they commit further crimes and get arrested, you want them to be allowed to stay here? What alternate universe are you from, Ms. Patel? (I'm assuming Sunita Patel is a "Ms.")

"It has the potential to revolutionize immigration enforcement," said Patel.

And your problem with enforcing our immigration laws is what, exactly?

Patel filed the lawsuit on behalf of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, which is concerned the program could soon come to New York. The lawsuit seeks, among other things, statistical information about who has been deported as a result of the program and what they were arrested for.

Yeah, I could see where that might put a crimp in your business by diminishing the number of people in your labor force, but what are you people doing hiring illegals, anyway? Don't you know that's against the law? I must admit, I'd like to know how many illegals have been deported too. Whatever the number is, it's not enough, as there are still far too many illegals in this country.

Supporters of the program argue it is helping identify dangerous criminals that would otherwise go undetected. Since Oct. 27, 2008 through the end of May, almost 2.6 million people have been screened with Secure Communities. Of those, almost 35,000 were identified as illegal immigrants previously arrested or convicted for the most serious crimes, including murder and rape, ICE said Thursday. More than 205,000 who were identified as illegal immigrants had arrest records for less serious crimes.

Sounds to me like the program actually works! Considering that it's a government program, that's amazing! Ah, just kidding guys. Just because the current administration doesn't want to enforce our immigration laws (so their constituent base grows larger), doesn't mean that everyone that works for the federal government thinks that way. But I digress.

To sum up, it seems like every time - every time! - someone tries to do something constructive to get the least little handle on the problem of illegals being here through enforcing the laws, someone gets their panties in a twisted knot, and starts yelling about "racial profiling", and that crime victims will be "reluctant to cooperate" with the authorities. You know something? That's just tough. Too bad, so sad. If these people want to be here so bad, then they should go through the proper, legal, steps to gain entrance. By coming here illegally, they have already demonstrated their contempt for our laws, and it is absolutely no surprise that many of them go on to commit further crimes, some of them serious such as rape and murder. When a white or black citizen commits rape or murder, there is a great cry from society to have them removed from society, so they cannot commit more offenses, yet when a non-citizen, here illegally, does the same thing we're not supposed to remove them from society, either through putting them in prison or deporting them? That is simply insane.

Go read the rest of the article. There's some positive stuff at the end (as well as more moral relativism junk, too).

Reality Hammer

Friday, July 16, 2010

The STUPID here is monumental!

North and South Vietnam are living together side by side in peace? W.T.F. planet is this woman from? There are no two Vietnams, as anyone with two functioning brain cells well knows, and there hasn't been since 1975, when North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam, and defeated the South - because the DEMOCRAT PARTY in Congress cut off funding the defense of South Vietnam. Obviously, this woman does not possess the requisite two brain cells to have knowledge of this bit of THIRTY FIVE YEAR OLD HISTORY!

From Moe Lane, via Ace.

Thursday, July 15, 2010

Yer doin' it wrong - again

McGinn proposes $20 car tab fee to help pay for streets

Seattle's budget problems keep getting bumpier.

City transportation workers will repair fewer potholes this year due to a $7.8 million budget gap for the Seattle Department of Transportation. To help fill the budget hole, there will be one less crew out filling holes in the street, Mayor Mike McGinn said Wednesday.

SDOT is eliminating one pothole repair crew to save about $868,000.
(SDOT = Seattle Department of Transportation)

$868,000?!?! Geez Louise, how much do those guys make? Yeah, I know, the cost of materials, tools, and vehicle expenses are also factored in to that figure, but still. One crew? $868,000? Really?

McGinn used the pothole example to explain his proposal to increase the commercial parking tax and impose a $20 vehicle licensing fee for next year's budget to help the city keep up with street maintenance. Some might think they've heard this before. After all, the Bridging the Gap levy passed in 2006 was supposed to provide extra money to catch up with the city's maintenance backlog.

But McGinn says SDOT's budget also shrunk over the past few years, offsetting extra revenue from Bridging the Gap.

Can someone explain to me how a shrinking budget offsets revenue? I mean, doesn't a shrinking budget typically mean that you are cutting expenditures, so therefore revenue would increase the amount of funds on hand?

McGinn said he'll propose boosting the parking tax by 5 to 10 percent, which would generate $10-$20 million annually. The licensing fee would raise about $7 million per year, he said.SDOT's cuts represent about 14 percent of its $55 million budget.

The funds generated are, of course, projected amounts. One thing that Dems never seem to get is that when you increase fees and/or taxes is that people are going to be less inclined, not more, to avail themselves of the product or service impacted by those higher fees and/or taxes. It's simple economics.

The other thing they don't seem to get is that by increasing the commercial parking tax, less people are going to be willing to come into the city to purchase goods, eat at restaurants, go to a movie or stage show, etc., thereby hurting local city businesses, resulting in less overall tax revenue for the city. If it costs more to do or get something, the less inclined people are going to be to do or get. Especially in this economy. Duh!

SDOT also will reduce preventative maintenance on street signals and curb markings

Speaking from a maintenance tech's point of view, spending less on preventive maintenance will only cost you more in the long run on repairs. Doing preventive maintenance allows you to find and correct problems before they cause a "catastrophic failure" in the system or device affected. It is usually cheaper to repair something than to replace it. And in this particular example of doing less preventive maintenance on traffic signals, there is the liability issue to keep in mind. For example, if a traffic signal has a "catastrophic failure" at the wrong time, and results in a traffic accident that would have been prevented if the signal had been properly maintained so that it was functioning properly, the city could be opening itself to a hefty lawsuit.

Mayor Mike McGinn - doin' it wrong - again

Sunday, July 04, 2010

Independence Day, July 4th 2010

July 4th is traditionally a day when a large majority of immigrants to our great nation take the oath of citizenship. I would just like to say "Welcome, fellow citizens!" to those taking that oath today.

May your dreams that caused you to seek a new life here come true for you in every way.

Saturday, July 03, 2010

UN funding two "cash cows"

And environmentalists are complaining about it - which, oddly enough, is a good thing here.

UN report fuels criticism of carbon-cutting scheme
UNITED NATIONS -- European and U.S. environmentalists demanded action Friday after an obscure U.N. advisory panel lent credence to their claims that industrialized nations are wasting billions of dollars on carbon-cutting projects.

The dispute revolves around the validity of some of the largest projects funded by the $2.7 billion U.N.-managed Clean Development Mechanism.

Basically, what is happening here is that the UN is paying companies in developing countries to destroy the chemical HFC-23, a "potent greenhouse gas", under one program of the Kyoto Protocol. Problem here is that the UN is also paying companies to produce another chemical, HCFC-22 under another program geared at "saving the ozone layer", and the production of HCFC-22 results in the by-product of - wait for it - HFC-23! This has been going on for over a decade now. You'd think that someone would have checked to see if there were any conflicts here, but obviously, that didn't happen.

Now, knowing human nature, it is absolutely no surprise to me that these companies have been accepting money to produce one product, while at the same time accepting money to destroy the resulting by-product of the original product. I mean, how many people would say, "No thank you!" to someone who offered them "free money", and lots of it? Not many, that's for sure!

For once, I'm in agreement with environmentalists (oh, the irony of it all!) - this double funding needs to stop!