Who Rules the Streets
***A special Thankyou to Michelle Malkin and those who researched this information*****
ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS TO GET MORE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS THAN CITIZENS
By Heather Mac Donald · March 31, 2005 10:06 AM
The Los Angeles Police Department is considering new guidelines for how its officers respond to illegal criminals. Far from restoring law and order to the city, the proposed new guidelines only demonstrate how twisted the elite’s attitudes towards illegal immigration are.
Under debate is L.A.’s sanctuary policy, special order 40, which prohibits the police from enforcing immigration laws. Special order 40 has made Los Angeles into a free-fire zone for illegal gangbangers, who know that the police can’t touch them for their immigration crimes. So what does the LAPD top brass propose to do? Confer due process rights on illegal chollos that your average Crips homie could only dream of possessing.
Compare the fate of two gangbangers, one American, the other an illegal Mexican. Let’s say a cop sees a member of the 42nd St. Gangster Crips hanging out with fellow Crips in a park that the gang controls. Congregating in the park is illegal under a local gang injunction. The cop can arrest all those Crips on the spot; he doesn’t need to go before a judge to get an arrest warrant.
Now imagine that that same cop sees an illegal alien member of the 18th Street gang hanging out on Cesar Chavez Blvd. The 18th Streeter has already been deported back to Mexico following conviction for murder. Upon deportation, he was forbidden from ever returning to the U.S. His mere presence in L.A. now is a federal felony punishable by 20 years in jail. Can the cop arrest him?
Absolutely not—not under the old special order 40, nor under the proposed revision. According to the contemplated new rules, that cop first has to call his supervisor; that supervisor has to call federal immigration officials at ICE; ICE officials have to go before a federal judge to get an arrest warrant; then with warrant in hand, the cop may finally arrest the felonious 18th Streeter. Oops. He’s gone.
This is preposterous. To arrest an American citizen for a crime, arrest warrants are rarely required; about 95% of arrests of citizens are warrantless. But in L.A., under the new rules, illegal criminals will have due process rights that guarantee them not just judicial review before they can be taken off the streets, but federal judicial review—the gold standard of all constitutional protections. Maybe home-grown criminals should renounce their citizenship and reenter the country illegally. It would be a constitutional windfall for them.
Naturally, the usual suspects—the ACLU, MALDEF--are screaming bloody murder about this proposed new change. It is citizens and legal immigrants who should be crying foul. It is a world turned upside down where border trespassers have more protections from a state they have already thumbed their noses at than legal residents.
TrackBack <1>
NO HOPE FOR L.A.'S LAW-ABIDING
By Heather Mac Donald · March 30, 2005 06:38 PM
Chris Kelly reports below on an L.A. mayoral candidate’s past involvement with the Chicano separatist group MEChA. But candidate Antonio Villaraigosa’s opponent, incumbent mayor James Hahn, is indistinguishable from Villaraigosa in his support for immigration law-breakers. Whoever wins the mayoral race, L.A. will continue to flout the law.
Both Hahn and Villaraigosa recently affirmed their commitment to Los Angeles’s sanctuary law, special order 40. That law prohibits the Los Angeles police from arresting criminals for immigration violations. Let’s say an L.A. officer recognizes a MS-13 gang member on the corner of Hollywood and Vine. The gangbanger was previously convicted for armed assault and deported back to El Salvador. Now he’s back, more violent than ever. Without special order 40, the officer could arrest him on the spot for a federal felony: returning to the country following deportation. Thanks to special order 40, however, the officer can’t lay a finger on him for his felonious reentry. Illegal gangbangers in L.A. enjoy total immunity from the police for all immigration crimes.
Illegal alien advocates portray sanctuary laws (replicated in high-immigrant areas across the country) as pro-immigrant. Bunk. By turning an entire city into a safe zone for illegal criminals, sanctuary laws keep law-abiding immigrants in the grip of crime and fear.
Los Angeles police officers detest special order 40. The LAPD top brass, however, seem to worry more about placating illegal alien advocates than about keeping communities safe. Deputy Commissioners warn police captains that if they so much as think of arresting a gangbanger for an immigration felony, they will face disciplinary action.
Mayor Hahn could finally deliver on his promise to free L.A. barrios from gangs by jettisoning special order 40. He might also find that standing up for immigration enforcement would guarantee his reelection. But in L.A., apparently, the politics of illegal immigration trump everything else. The message to legal immigrants is clear: You were a sucker to play by the rules.
TrackBack <0>
The Citizenship Reform Act of 2005
By Chris Kelly · March 30, 2005 05:10 PM
Rep. Nathan Deal (R-GA) recently introduced H. R. 698, the "Citizenship Reform Act of 2005" (report here). It seeks to prevent the children of illegal aliens from automatically being declared U.S. citizens.
Earlier this month, the San Diego Union-Tribune editorialized against the bill in "Bill of wrongs" (reader responses here). The SDUT editorial includes this bit:
...Actually, it's not enough to say that this bill would simply deny U.S. citizenship. Since the people impacted are already citizens under current law, what this legislation really intends to do is to revoke one's citizenship...
Actually, that's wrong. The bill won't revoke anyone's citizenship, it will simply prevent future children of illegal aliens from being declared citizens. The full text of the bill includes this at the end:
(c) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall apply to aliens born on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
In other words, the bill isn't retroactive. If you've read otherwise either in the SDUT or elsewhere, perhaps you should reconsider the reliability of the source.
(Note: it bears pointing out that if the bill passes children born to illegal aliens would not be stateless. They would have citizenship, it just would be of the country of their parents. That's the procedure followed by almost every other country.)
TrackBack <0>
THE SMEAR CAMPAIGN HEATS UP
By malkin · March 30, 2005 11:51 AM
Res Ipsa Loquitur publishes a copy of a flyer describing the Minuteman project as a "terrorist organization" and its founder, Jim Gilchrist, as a "racist vigilante":
Read Res Ipsa Loquitur's full post for more information.
TrackBack <1>
The truth about Antonio Villaraigosa
By Chris Kelly · March 30, 2005 03:28 AM
The L.A. Daily News reports on community activist Hal Netkin's attempts to get the word out about Antonio Villaraigosa, the leading candidate for L.A. Mayor. The election will be held on May 17, with Villaraigosa facing off against the incumbent, Jim Hahn. This is a repeat of the mayor's race from four years ago.
Netkin's site about Villaraigosa is mayorno.com. If you can filter out the terrible design it has some interesting information on the candidate.
For instance, Antonio Villaraigosa is the former president of the UCLA chapter of MEChA (more on them here). In 2001 he was asked to repudiate that group's goals, and he refused. He responded by accusing those who were accusing him of belonging to an intolerant separatist group of... being intolerant. Unfortunately, in L.A. that's considered an acceptable answer.
At mayorno.com you can also find a screengrab of Villaraigosa sharing a stage with Augustine Cebeda of the Brown Berets. Here's something Cebeda said on a different occasion:
"…Go back to Boston! Go back to Plymouth Rock, Pilgrims! Get out [of the U.S. Southwest]! We [Mexicans] are the future. You are old and tired. We have beaten you. Leave like beaten rats. You old white people, it is your duty to die."
It's good to see the L.A. Daily News at least linking to Netkin's site, but it would be much better if the Daily News and - more importantly - the L.A. Times did their jobs and reported the truth about Villaraigosa instead of papering over his past. For instance, does Villaraigosa regret sharing a stage with someone who suggested that white people should go back to Plymouth Rock and/or just die? Here's the L.A. Times' contact information page if you'd like to suggest they do their job.
(Note: The Daily News article gives the impression that the site is new, when in fact it's been around for over four years, since the last time Villaraigosa faced Jim Hahn in the run-off.)
TrackBack <1>
The truth about Antonio Villaraigosa
By Chris Kelly · March 30, 2005 03:28 AM
The L.A. Daily News reports on community activist Hal Netkin's attempts to get the word out about Antonio Villaraigosa, the leading candidate for L.A. Mayor. The election will be held on May 17, with Villaraigosa facing off against the incumbent, Jim Hahn. This is a repeat of the mayor's race from four years ago.
Netkin's site about Villaraigosa is mayorno.com. If you can filter out the terrible design it has some interesting information on the candidate.
For instance, Antonio Villaraigosa is the former president of the UCLA chapter of MEChA (more on them here). In 2001 he was asked to repudiate that group's goals, and he refused. He responded by accusing those who were accusing him of belonging to an intolerant separatist group of... being intolerant. Unfortunately, in L.A. that's considered an acceptable answer.
At mayorno.com you can also find a screengrab of Villaraigosa sharing a stage with Augustine Cebeda of the Brown Berets. Here's something Cebeda said on a different occasion:
"…Go back to Boston! Go back to Plymouth Rock, Pilgrims! Get out [of the U.S. Southwest]! We [Mexicans] are the future. You are old and tired. We have beaten you. Leave like beaten rats. You old white people, it is your duty to die."
It's good to see the L.A. Daily News at least linking to Netkin's site, but it would be much better if the Daily News and - more importantly - the L.A. Times did their jobs and reported the truth about Villaraigosa instead of papering over his past. For instance, does Villaraigosa regret sharing a stage with someone who suggested that white people should go back to Plymouth Rock and/or just die? Here's the L.A. Times' contact information page if you'd like to suggest they do their job.
(Note: The Daily News article gives the impression that the site is new, when in fact it's been around for over four years, since the last time Villaraigosa faced Jim Hahn in the run-off.)
TrackBack <1>
****A special thanks to Michelle Malkin and her blog where this information was origonally located****
Wake up people , judicial activism is preventing us (US Citizens) from defending ourselves and prospering from our own gains.
Who really rules the streets? Simple at the moment bleeding heart liberal utopians who want to stiffle the good citizens of this country by handing out, giving away, stealing from us, what we have traditionally fought for and shed blood sweat and tears to provide to our families
ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS TO GET MORE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS THAN CITIZENS
By Heather Mac Donald · March 31, 2005 10:06 AM
The Los Angeles Police Department is considering new guidelines for how its officers respond to illegal criminals. Far from restoring law and order to the city, the proposed new guidelines only demonstrate how twisted the elite’s attitudes towards illegal immigration are.
Under debate is L.A.’s sanctuary policy, special order 40, which prohibits the police from enforcing immigration laws. Special order 40 has made Los Angeles into a free-fire zone for illegal gangbangers, who know that the police can’t touch them for their immigration crimes. So what does the LAPD top brass propose to do? Confer due process rights on illegal chollos that your average Crips homie could only dream of possessing.
Compare the fate of two gangbangers, one American, the other an illegal Mexican. Let’s say a cop sees a member of the 42nd St. Gangster Crips hanging out with fellow Crips in a park that the gang controls. Congregating in the park is illegal under a local gang injunction. The cop can arrest all those Crips on the spot; he doesn’t need to go before a judge to get an arrest warrant.
Now imagine that that same cop sees an illegal alien member of the 18th Street gang hanging out on Cesar Chavez Blvd. The 18th Streeter has already been deported back to Mexico following conviction for murder. Upon deportation, he was forbidden from ever returning to the U.S. His mere presence in L.A. now is a federal felony punishable by 20 years in jail. Can the cop arrest him?
Absolutely not—not under the old special order 40, nor under the proposed revision. According to the contemplated new rules, that cop first has to call his supervisor; that supervisor has to call federal immigration officials at ICE; ICE officials have to go before a federal judge to get an arrest warrant; then with warrant in hand, the cop may finally arrest the felonious 18th Streeter. Oops. He’s gone.
This is preposterous. To arrest an American citizen for a crime, arrest warrants are rarely required; about 95% of arrests of citizens are warrantless. But in L.A., under the new rules, illegal criminals will have due process rights that guarantee them not just judicial review before they can be taken off the streets, but federal judicial review—the gold standard of all constitutional protections. Maybe home-grown criminals should renounce their citizenship and reenter the country illegally. It would be a constitutional windfall for them.
Naturally, the usual suspects—the ACLU, MALDEF--are screaming bloody murder about this proposed new change. It is citizens and legal immigrants who should be crying foul. It is a world turned upside down where border trespassers have more protections from a state they have already thumbed their noses at than legal residents.
TrackBack <1>
NO HOPE FOR L.A.'S LAW-ABIDING
By Heather Mac Donald · March 30, 2005 06:38 PM
Chris Kelly reports below on an L.A. mayoral candidate’s past involvement with the Chicano separatist group MEChA. But candidate Antonio Villaraigosa’s opponent, incumbent mayor James Hahn, is indistinguishable from Villaraigosa in his support for immigration law-breakers. Whoever wins the mayoral race, L.A. will continue to flout the law.
Both Hahn and Villaraigosa recently affirmed their commitment to Los Angeles’s sanctuary law, special order 40. That law prohibits the Los Angeles police from arresting criminals for immigration violations. Let’s say an L.A. officer recognizes a MS-13 gang member on the corner of Hollywood and Vine. The gangbanger was previously convicted for armed assault and deported back to El Salvador. Now he’s back, more violent than ever. Without special order 40, the officer could arrest him on the spot for a federal felony: returning to the country following deportation. Thanks to special order 40, however, the officer can’t lay a finger on him for his felonious reentry. Illegal gangbangers in L.A. enjoy total immunity from the police for all immigration crimes.
Illegal alien advocates portray sanctuary laws (replicated in high-immigrant areas across the country) as pro-immigrant. Bunk. By turning an entire city into a safe zone for illegal criminals, sanctuary laws keep law-abiding immigrants in the grip of crime and fear.
Los Angeles police officers detest special order 40. The LAPD top brass, however, seem to worry more about placating illegal alien advocates than about keeping communities safe. Deputy Commissioners warn police captains that if they so much as think of arresting a gangbanger for an immigration felony, they will face disciplinary action.
Mayor Hahn could finally deliver on his promise to free L.A. barrios from gangs by jettisoning special order 40. He might also find that standing up for immigration enforcement would guarantee his reelection. But in L.A., apparently, the politics of illegal immigration trump everything else. The message to legal immigrants is clear: You were a sucker to play by the rules.
TrackBack <0>
The Citizenship Reform Act of 2005
By Chris Kelly · March 30, 2005 05:10 PM
Rep. Nathan Deal (R-GA) recently introduced H. R. 698, the "Citizenship Reform Act of 2005" (report here). It seeks to prevent the children of illegal aliens from automatically being declared U.S. citizens.
Earlier this month, the San Diego Union-Tribune editorialized against the bill in "Bill of wrongs" (reader responses here). The SDUT editorial includes this bit:
...Actually, it's not enough to say that this bill would simply deny U.S. citizenship. Since the people impacted are already citizens under current law, what this legislation really intends to do is to revoke one's citizenship...
Actually, that's wrong. The bill won't revoke anyone's citizenship, it will simply prevent future children of illegal aliens from being declared citizens. The full text of the bill includes this at the end:
(c) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall apply to aliens born on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
In other words, the bill isn't retroactive. If you've read otherwise either in the SDUT or elsewhere, perhaps you should reconsider the reliability of the source.
(Note: it bears pointing out that if the bill passes children born to illegal aliens would not be stateless. They would have citizenship, it just would be of the country of their parents. That's the procedure followed by almost every other country.)
TrackBack <0>
THE SMEAR CAMPAIGN HEATS UP
By malkin · March 30, 2005 11:51 AM
Res Ipsa Loquitur publishes a copy of a flyer describing the Minuteman project as a "terrorist organization" and its founder, Jim Gilchrist, as a "racist vigilante":
Read Res Ipsa Loquitur's full post for more information.
TrackBack <1>
The truth about Antonio Villaraigosa
By Chris Kelly · March 30, 2005 03:28 AM
The L.A. Daily News reports on community activist Hal Netkin's attempts to get the word out about Antonio Villaraigosa, the leading candidate for L.A. Mayor. The election will be held on May 17, with Villaraigosa facing off against the incumbent, Jim Hahn. This is a repeat of the mayor's race from four years ago.
Netkin's site about Villaraigosa is mayorno.com. If you can filter out the terrible design it has some interesting information on the candidate.
For instance, Antonio Villaraigosa is the former president of the UCLA chapter of MEChA (more on them here). In 2001 he was asked to repudiate that group's goals, and he refused. He responded by accusing those who were accusing him of belonging to an intolerant separatist group of... being intolerant. Unfortunately, in L.A. that's considered an acceptable answer.
At mayorno.com you can also find a screengrab of Villaraigosa sharing a stage with Augustine Cebeda of the Brown Berets. Here's something Cebeda said on a different occasion:
"…Go back to Boston! Go back to Plymouth Rock, Pilgrims! Get out [of the U.S. Southwest]! We [Mexicans] are the future. You are old and tired. We have beaten you. Leave like beaten rats. You old white people, it is your duty to die."
It's good to see the L.A. Daily News at least linking to Netkin's site, but it would be much better if the Daily News and - more importantly - the L.A. Times did their jobs and reported the truth about Villaraigosa instead of papering over his past. For instance, does Villaraigosa regret sharing a stage with someone who suggested that white people should go back to Plymouth Rock and/or just die? Here's the L.A. Times' contact information page if you'd like to suggest they do their job.
(Note: The Daily News article gives the impression that the site is new, when in fact it's been around for over four years, since the last time Villaraigosa faced Jim Hahn in the run-off.)
TrackBack <1>
The truth about Antonio Villaraigosa
By Chris Kelly · March 30, 2005 03:28 AM
The L.A. Daily News reports on community activist Hal Netkin's attempts to get the word out about Antonio Villaraigosa, the leading candidate for L.A. Mayor. The election will be held on May 17, with Villaraigosa facing off against the incumbent, Jim Hahn. This is a repeat of the mayor's race from four years ago.
Netkin's site about Villaraigosa is mayorno.com. If you can filter out the terrible design it has some interesting information on the candidate.
For instance, Antonio Villaraigosa is the former president of the UCLA chapter of MEChA (more on them here). In 2001 he was asked to repudiate that group's goals, and he refused. He responded by accusing those who were accusing him of belonging to an intolerant separatist group of... being intolerant. Unfortunately, in L.A. that's considered an acceptable answer.
At mayorno.com you can also find a screengrab of Villaraigosa sharing a stage with Augustine Cebeda of the Brown Berets. Here's something Cebeda said on a different occasion:
"…Go back to Boston! Go back to Plymouth Rock, Pilgrims! Get out [of the U.S. Southwest]! We [Mexicans] are the future. You are old and tired. We have beaten you. Leave like beaten rats. You old white people, it is your duty to die."
It's good to see the L.A. Daily News at least linking to Netkin's site, but it would be much better if the Daily News and - more importantly - the L.A. Times did their jobs and reported the truth about Villaraigosa instead of papering over his past. For instance, does Villaraigosa regret sharing a stage with someone who suggested that white people should go back to Plymouth Rock and/or just die? Here's the L.A. Times' contact information page if you'd like to suggest they do their job.
(Note: The Daily News article gives the impression that the site is new, when in fact it's been around for over four years, since the last time Villaraigosa faced Jim Hahn in the run-off.)
TrackBack <1>
****A special thanks to Michelle Malkin and her blog where this information was origonally located****
Wake up people , judicial activism is preventing us (US Citizens) from defending ourselves and prospering from our own gains.
Who really rules the streets? Simple at the moment bleeding heart liberal utopians who want to stiffle the good citizens of this country by handing out, giving away, stealing from us, what we have traditionally fought for and shed blood sweat and tears to provide to our families
