If you still think the UN has any useful role to play in the world, consider this: The UN-by acclamation-has put Iran on the Womens' Rights Commission!!
Beginning tonight, the pro-Palestinian organization, Al-Awda, is hosting a three-day conference in Garden Grove, California dedicated to bashing Israel. Here is a link to their announcement:
As you can see from the below link from Discover the Networks, this bunch is dedicated to the proposition that some 7 million Palestinians (and their descendants)who left Israel in 1948 to get out of the way of the Arab armies (who were roundly defeated) should be allowed unfettered return to Israel (most of the ones who left are dead, but the 7 million number consists of their descendants.)
Norman Finklestein- a discredited joke of a former professor (canned by DePaul University), who hates Israel and now makes his living speaking in front of audiences who also hate Israel.
Laila al-Arian- the daughter of "political prisoner" as the flyer says, Sami al-Arian, ex-University of South Florida professor, convicted of funneling support to a terrorist organization in the Middle East. She works for al-Jazeera in Washington.
Jess Ghannam- San Francisco State University professor recently quoted as praising the 11 Muslim Student Union disruptors of the Israeli ambassador's speech at UC Irvine and stating that now Israeli officials will be afraid to speak anywhere. Someone needs to explain the First Amendment to this clown. I wonder how he would feel this weekend if somebody disrupts his dopey remarks.
There will also be a short blurb by a representative of the Muslim Student Union at UC-Irvine. You know, the "Stand with the Irvine 11" stuff.
And others. So if you want to come out and hear a bunch of clowns rail against Israel, the United States and "Zionist Jews", drop by the Embassy Suites in Garden Grove this weekend.
Fousesquawk comment: I'm surprised the pseudo-professor Norman Finklestein wasn't present. He's giving the keynote address tonight in Garden Grove for an al-Awda weekend bash-with the same theme.
I can't help going back to my posting of March 26 regarding a UC regents meeting when UC regent Sherry Lansing suggested that UCI chancellor Michael Drake visit UCLA if he wanted to see a balanced presenting of the Middle East conflict. In my comments on that whopper, I referred back to a previous UCLA seminar that Eric had attended.
"Regent Sherry Lansing challenged Irvine Chancellor Michael Drake on the topic, asking whether Oren had been permitted to finish his speech -- he had, Drake said -- and noting the history of Muslim-Jewish tensions at the university.
Fousesquawk comment: The ambassador was only able to finish his speech after the protesters marched out. At one point, he had to withdraw from the room and it was not clear he would return.
Pointing to UCLA, which recently inaugurated an Israeli studies program “to educate people about the Middle East in a fair and balanced way,” Lansing urged Drake to visit the Los Angeles school and learn about the program.
“It’s only an hour away,” noted Lansing, a former film studio executive.
Fousesquawk comment: Is she referring to the same UCLA which hosts anti-Israel bashes and where any defense of Israel is met by jeering and derision? I am thinking about the "forum" that was held January 2009 during the Gaza fighting where a Jewish blogger from LA named Eric Golub spoke up in defense of Israel and was told by one of the panelists-a UC professor- that he had "his Zionist hat on too tight". Yeah, UCLA is the model."
Amazing how things keep coming around.
Of course, UCLA is not unique in being a hotbed of radical-supporting Middle Eastern academics, joined by the tired old academic leftist professors who hate Israel and the US as well.
So tell me, Ms Lansing; did you invite Chancellor Drake to attend this latest one-sided dog and pony show masquerading as a "conference"?
This week, the hapless British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, running for re-election, spoke with a woman who complained about unemployment benefits going to Eastern Europeans in the UK. After telling the woman what a great job he was doing, Brown got into his car and drove off. What wasn't off was his mic.
I am sure glad we don't have politicians like that in the US, who show such contempt for ordinary citizens.
Hopefully, after the up-coming election, Brown can take his seat on a back bench next to George Galloway. (He's the one in the red.)
Well, it's 2010, 102 years since my cursed Cubbies last won the World Series (1908-the year my Dad was born)and 65 years since they last won the National League pennant (1945-which, incidentally, is the year I was born). Yes, that was a great year; Hitler died, I was born and the Cubbies ruled the National League.
"Let the dynasty begin", as they say.
Now the 2010 season is a month old, and it's clear that my torment will continue.
Let's take a look. Carlos Zambone, who is supposed to be our ace and win 20 games every year, is in the bullpen. Our 85 million dollar free agent for 8 years, Elfloppo Sorryano, who nobody will take away from us, is on the bench after showing that he can still wave at fly balls and breaking pitches with equal aplomb. Our two sluggers, Derrek Lee and Aramis Ramirez, are hitting .300 (combined). "I'm back in the CELLAR again"
Meanwhile, Albert Pujols and the Cardinals are on their way to an easy division championship and possibly their umpteenth World Series appearance.
At this point, as the Old Penguin nears his 65th birthday, my chances of seeing the Cubs in the World Series are becoming a dwindling mathematical equation. Wouldn't it be ironic if say, I was 95 years old, drooling all over myself in a nursing home, that someone came in and said, "Congratulations, Big Gar-The Cubs have won the World Series!!"
"Who?"
Well, who knows? Every dog has his day. "Good news, mein Fuerhrer! The Cubs are going to win the pennant this year!"
LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who has all but run LA into the ground as a sanctuary city for illegal aliens, today spoke at a news conference where he urged an economic boycott of Arizona by the city and called for folks to all come out for the annual May Day march on Saturday (something we all look forward to).
Of course, Villaraigosa and his liberal pals could care less that Arizona has almost 500,000 illegal aliens. he could care less that Arizona is the main entry point for illegal aliens. He could care less about the violent crime that is rocking Arizona. (He could care less about the violent crime that is rocking Los Angeles.) He could care less that Phoenix has become the kidnap capital of the nation. He could care less about the urgency of the situation given the drug war on the Mexican border. He could care less that the overwhelming majority of people in Arizona, including Hispanics, welcome the new law.
He wants open borders.
Villaraigosa calls for "comprehensive immigration reform", which is, as we all know, a call for amnesty for the 12-15 million people who are here illegally. That is what he considers a better alternative to securing our borders.
Like his liberal friends, he repeats the canard that it is all about racism because the majority of illegal aliens-especially in Arizona-are Latinos. He makes it a racial issue because the illegals are brown.
What Villaraigosa ignores is that if Canadians were flocking by the millions across our northern border, the problem would be the same, and the response would be the same. Does the mayor really think that white people in Montana would be protesting the enforcement of our immigration laws because the Canadians are white?
The inescapable fact is that the Tony Villaraigosas of this country are speaking against the rule of law and the sovereignty of our country. He has ignored the law in the city he runs, welcomes illegal aliens and accepts the gang crime that runs rampant. And guess who the biggest victims of illegal alien gangs are. Other Latinos, that's who.
Villraigosa doesn't care because he is too much into liberal, ethnic politics.
So come on out Saturday and march, folks. Show your anger at this "unjust" law, says Mayor Tony. They are expecting 100,000 people Saturday. Now, with the mayor and those other clucks in the city government stoking their anger, there is no telling what is liable to happen.
The below statement from UC Berkeley Chancellor Robert Birgeneau appears on today's UCB website in reference to the final Israel divestment vote. It was originally sent to me by an anonymous commentor. I think it bears posting. ___________________________________________________________________________________
Chancellor Birgeneau reacts to ASUC divestment bill related to disputed territories in the Middle East 29 April 2010
"On April 28, the ASUC Senate upheld a veto of a bill that called for the UC Berkeley administration and the UC Regents to divest from any investment in companies with business interests which support "the occupation of the Palestinian territories" by Israel. Previously, the bill had been passed by the Senate and then vetoed by the ASUC president. In the statement below, UC Berkeley Chancellor Robert J. Birgeneau reacts to the debate.
BERKELEY — Since the ASUC Senate passed Bill 118 "A Bill in Support of ASUC Divestment from War Crimes," followed by the ASUC President's veto of the bill, my office has been inundated with more than 28,000 e-mails, some arguing passionately that I should make a statement denouncing the bill, others calling fervently for me to celebrate and applaud it. Statements have come from our faculty, who have weighed in with their expertise and eloquence; messages have poured in from staff, students and alumni, and from people and organizations from around the world.
What has become abundantly clear is how deeply divided our campus community is on this difficult and complex issue. As chancellor, a pillar of my vision for UC Berkeley has been to create a campus where equity and inclusion are fundamental values that sustain our principles of community and allow freedom of expression to occur through civilized, informed debate.
The campus must be prepared to accept a diversity of views, and all of our students must feel that the campus is an inclusive environment for them, one in which they have the freedom to express their views without fear of intimidation.
While last night's vote brings this matter to a close within the ASUC for the time being, we remain concerned about the lingering effects of the debate in our campus community. We hope and expect that the ongoing discussion and dialogue about the conflict in the Middle East will happen in a manner that respects and acknowledges the views and beliefs of others."
Robert J. Birgeneau Chancellor, UC Berkeley _____________________________________________________________________________
I am intrigued by the chancellor's reference to fear of intimidation. Has there been such intimidation on campus in regards to this issue? I am particularly thinking of ASUB President Will Smelko, who vetoed the original resolution. I think we have a right to know who, if anyone, has been intimidated or otherwise harassed, and by whom on the UCB campus.
Student governments at UC Berkeley and UC San Diego last night voted down divestment resolutions from companies doing business with Israel. The Berkeley vote failed to overturn a previous veto by President Will Smelko and a similar resolution was reportedly voted down at San Diego.
As for Berkeley, after weeks of turmoil over this issue, hopefully the student government can get back to addressing their 2010-2011 budget, which has taken a back-burner while the divestment nonsense was going on.
Here's the spin from the losing side:
“We lost the vote, but won the night,” read a statement on the CalDivest from Apartheid Web site. “We made a statement recorded for posterity and forced everyone to listen and watch what the nature of Israeli occupation is, to listen to Palestinian voices, from Palestine and from the US, telling their stories. These transcripts will stay preserved in recorded history, and we shall overcome.”
A Pennsylvania state senator seeking to become the state's next governor introduced a resolution last week condemning anti-Semitism on college campuses.
A draft of the resolution, prepared by State Sen. Anthony Williams (D-District 8), cites recent incidents at the University of California-Irvine and Columbia University, but does not mention any here in the Keystone state.
Anti-Semitic behavior on campuses across the country has come in the form of derogatory remarks, vandalism and the use of symbols, according to the draft version.
It also makes reference to a number of Middle Eastern studies departments that "provide highly inflammatory and polarizing academic presentations that may exclude Jewish student participation."
According to an aide, Williams had hoped to have the measure passed unanimously.
But several senators voiced objections, so the resolution must now go through the committee process.
Barry Morrison, regional director of the Anti-Defamation League, commended the language incorporated into the draft, and said that he didn't know of a similar resolution being adopted -- or even introduced -- in any other state legislatures.
The Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles has also chimed in, saying that the proposed resolution reflects the growing number of incidents where "pro-Israel Jewish students are intimidated and harassed for their views."
Williams, a Philadelphian, is attempting to become the state's first African-American governor.
It's a four-way primary on May 18, with Williams facing Montgomery County Commissioner Joe Hoeffel, Allegheny County Executive Dan Onorato and State Auditor General Jack Wagner. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More barbarism coming out of the UK. Here in the US, we only shout down Israeli diplomats on university campuses. In the UK, they actually attack them. Yesterday, an Israeli diplomat was attacked by pro-Palestinian demonstrators at the University of Manchester.
In this video, which appeared this week, President Obama appeals to women and minorities to keep supporting the Democrats.
Hey, Mr President! What am I-chopped liver? What about all that talk about how you were going to bring us together? What about that speech you gave so long ago at the Democratic convention of 2004-you know, the one where you refuted the idea of a black America, white America, Hispanic America and all that-in favor of one America?
I have news for you, Mr President. White people also elected you president. Asian-Americans also elected you as president. Jews also elected you as president. Arab-Americans also elected you as president. Native American Indians also elected you as president. Yet you shamelessly address yourself to certain minorities.
The fact is, Mr President, when it comes to having divided the American people, you make people like George W Bush and Richard Nixon look like Bob Hope.
And as for you folks who believed in this man as The One, the man who was going to unite this country, and you who ignored the red flags, such as Jeremiah Wright, how are you feeling now?
The below link is an article dated April 12, 2010 in the Orange County Jewish Experience, the blog of the Orange County Jewish Federation. The actual text follows.
"There is an old saying that begins something like this. “There were three Jews the room and there were five different opinions……” At times, it is hard for Jews to agree on something, anything. This is not one of those times. Four different groups, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), Hillel Foundation of Orange County, Jewish Federation Orange County and the American Jewish Committee issued a joint statement today regarding the latest news from an anonymous source regarding the Muslim students arrested in February.
Orange County Jewish Organizations Urge UC Irvine to Act
(Irvine) — "A number of organizations and individuals have received information from an anonymous source regarding the disruption of Israeli Ambassador Michel Oren’s February 8, 2010 speech at the University of California, Irvine.
The evidence and allegations in the packet, if accurate and authentic, are deeply disturbing. They point to a well-planned, highly organized, premeditated effort to disrupt Ambassador Oren’s speech. The shocking details contained in these materials would clearly establish that MSU leadership and members deliberately deceived University officials about their planned protest and expressly instructed participants to deny that the MSU was involved.
The contents of the packet, if true, constitute disturbing evidence that members of the Muslim Student Union at UCI were willing to engage in egregious and intimidating behavior in an effort to deprive Ambassador Oren of the opportunity speak freely and openly in a forum provided by the university. The packet’s contents also suggest this disturbing tactic may be part of a larger national effort to engage in similar disruptive acts.
We urge the University to investigate the contents of the packet thoroughly and expeditiously. If the information is genuine, it points to serious violations by individual students as well as the Muslim Student Union of acceptable standards of public discourse and UCI’s own student code of conduct.
Because we cannot verify the source or authenticity of the material in the packet, we have turned it over to law enforcement for their investigation."
Rabbi Marc S. Dworkin
Executive Director
American Jewish Committee, Orange County
Shalom C. Elcott
President & CEO
Jewish Federation Orange County
Jordan L. Fruchtman
Executive Director
Hillel Foundation of Orange County
Dr. Kevin O’Grady, Ed.D.
Regional Director
Anti-Defamation League, Orange County/Long Beach Regional Office
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Stand With the Four". Amazing.
All I can say to the above four individuals is: Welcome to the war. Where have you been?"
First of all, the Jewish Federation has for years denied there were any problems at UCI and maintained that the university was doing a great job. Now that all that blew up at the disruption of the Israeli ambassador's speech at UCI on February 8th, the Federation is apparently feeling the heat from its constituents like the dozens of elderly Jewish folks they bussed in to hear the ambassador's speech and enjoy a lovely evening. Now everybody knows that there IS a problem at UCI. Now the Federation is trying to convince the community that THEY are leading the charge, "laying down the gauntlet" to UCI to quote one news report. "Laying down the gauntlet"
I don't know much about the American Jewish Committee other than they had the UCI chancellor as their keynote speaker a couple of years back while all this controversy was raging.
I don't know much about the Anti-Defamation League's activities in this area either, but that itself makes me wonder. That leads to a very important point.
In the past 3-4 years, I have been going to as many of these MSU and Israel-bashing events as I can. I listen and during the Q&A, I try to ask hardball questions to the speakers or panelists. Many times, I am virtually alone, a fact which led me to write a posting asking where was the Jewish community? I know that these gentlemen have attended many of the same events because I have seen them there. Where were they when I was challenging MSU-sponsored speakers? Have they ever challenged the speakers and told them they were engaging in hateful speech and filling the audience with lies?
Not to my knowledge. I do every time, and frankly, I could use a little support (On occasion, the Jewish student group "Anteaters for Israel" has turned out with Israeli flags and posters to protest the hate speech going on. They are students, however. Where are the big boys?)
Do the above-signed gentlemen go to these fraudulent academic "seminars" like the "Whither the Levant" event of January 2009 at UCI, and challenge the so-called panelists for their one-sided indoctrination-as I have done?
Not to my knowledge. I was at the entire Whither the Levant event and was the only one who spoke up in opposition. This lonely gentile could have used a little support.
Did they support the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) when they were complaining to the university about the on-going hate at UCI(i.e. the Galloway fund raising event for Hamas on May 21, 2009 and the Oren event)?
No. They opposed the ZOA, which in my mind is the ONLY national Jewish organization that has stepped up to the plate.
Another question: Which of the above organizations lent support to the Orange County Independent Task Force on Anti-Semitism when the OCITF was investigating complaints of harassment of Jewish students on the UCI campus?
None.
Hillel is a national Jewish organization that has to work within the university infrastructure. They have never been known for making waves. Yes, they provide many services to Jewish students on campus, but their thrust is having a pro-Israel fest (I-Fest) once a year with bake sales, games and posters telling passers-by that Israel invented the i-pod or something like that. Fine. I appreciate the positivity of the I-Fest message as compared to the negativity of the MSU's events, but there is a more pressing issue going on here that must be confronted. Has Hillel ever confronted these speakers?
Not to my knowledge.
Of course, I am fully cognizant that they probably consider me a loose cannon. That's fine. I answer to no one and don't have to worry about who might be upset about what I have to say. I don't care about the politics of who knows whom or who does business with whom. I just care about the situation at UCI very deeply. Unfortunately, the response of the Jewish community is fragmented because the Jewish community itself is fragmented.
So now comes this letter and a plea to "Stand With the Four". A better phrase would be for the "four" to stand with the rest of us.
Today, I perused the official website of the Council of American Islamic Relations (CAIR) to see if they had anything about the threats to the South Park creators Trey Park and Matt Stone for depicting an image of the Prophet Muhammad in a bear costume.
There was nothing. Yet CAIR spokeshole, Ibrahim Hooper, has this to say about the RevolutionMuslim group that issued the threat:
"CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper wrote off the RevolutionMuslim.com site as "an extreme fringe group that has absolutely no credibility within the Muslim community." "In fact, most Muslims suspect they were set up only to make Muslims look bad," Hooper added. "We just have very deep suspicions. They say such outrageous, irresponsible things that it almost seems like they're doing it to smear Islam." - Steven Emerson-Investigative Project on Terrorism
You see, CAIR's website is devoted to two basic themes; American Muslims doing wonderful, mainstream activities and Muslims being the subject of discrimation. One theme that CAIR avoids is hate or violence being directed toward others by Muslims-unless the incident is so big they cannot ignore it (Ft Hood). Even then, they will find a way to spin it their own way.
Now comes this (small) group of fanatics from RevolutionMuslim, who remind us of the murder of Dutch film maker Theo Van Gogh, who made a short documentary critical of Islam's treatment of women, and as a result, was murdered-no butchered on a Dutch street by a Muslim immigrant. And these hate-filled jerks here in the States "imply" that the same will happen to the South Park creators?
Well, as the lawyers will remind us, it is all free speech-protected speech. CAIR also has the freedom of speech to make a big deal of this, put it on its website and condemn these statements in the strongest language. Instead Hooper waves it off and suggests that it's all a set up to make Muslims look bad.
Mr Hooper. It does make Muslims look bad, and you are not helping the situation.
Read more at: http://www.investigativeproject.org/1922/cairs-irresponsible-dismissal-of-the-south-park
Today, in reponse to my e-mail regarding the upcoming divestment vote at UCSD, I received an e-mail from Student Body president Utsav Gupta. Attached was his own position on divestment. (Unlike UC Berkeley, he cannot veto a resolution.)
SAN DIEGO: OFFICE OF THE ASSOCIATED STUDENTS PRESIDENT UC San Diego, LA JOLLA, CA 92093-0077 (858) 534-4452 April 28, 2010 STATEMENT FROM ASUCSD PRESIDENT UTSAV GUPTA SUBJECT: Statement on Resolution in Support of Peace and Neutrality through UC Divestment from U.S. Corporations Profiting from Occupation
It is not often that a student association has an opportunity to consider legislation and take a stand on issues of national and international import. As an Association, we have passed resolutions to promote what we believe and hope will make a better world. We have taken stances against sweat shop labor, unfair trade practices, and violations of civil rights. We aspire not only to be students in support of the progress of our own nation, but to also be global citizens who answer the call for aid. It is a basic civic duty awarded to us as a representative government, and one that is codified in our Constitution.
However, these past few days, I have watched as our campus climate has gotten worse. I have witnessed the creation of two competing groups and camps around a singular contentious issue: the consideration of a resolution at our ASUCSD Council meeting today. In many ways, I am watching history repeat itself.
Last year, when a resolution was proposed concerning the conflict in Gaza, two student groups came to several ASUCSD Council meetings, passionately defending and advocating for their world point-of-view their perspective on an issue that even our best international leaders have yet to successfully resolve.
Some of these students believed they were compelled to come to this meeting to defend a country they hold dear. Others came to the meeting advocating for peace and human rights, hoping to lead the Association towards what they argued was progress. What is tragic is that both groups were correct, incorrect, misinformed, and made some good and bad points. The issue was a complicated one, something that the ASUCSD Council was obviously ill-equipped to solve.
Now that a year has passed, we are still ill-equipped to resolve this issue. Consideration of this resolution today will only prove again for us one thing: that it is divisive. It is dividing our students, pitting groups against each other who are fighting to be represented by their student association. They should not have to fight for the voice of our Association. We could not call any resolution approved through this process representative of the students at our university. And thus, I do not believe our student association can or should take a stance on this resolution.
I am not here to choose or argue sides. For me, the most important consideration is the welfare of the student body at the University. Passage of this legislation will create a divide that violates the goals and purposes of our Association. To this end, I will be voting against the passage of this resolution. I urge my colleagues to do the same.
I am truly proud to be a part of the extraordinary institution that is UC San Diego. The University has given us these words to live by: Local Impact, National Influence, and Global Reach. Issues such as these prove that, as a student body, we are strong and passionate. Despite what happens in our Council tonight, remember that, together, we are Tritons, and that we will continue to make an impact wherever we go.
Sincerely yours,
UTSAV GUPTA President, Associated Students University of California, San Diego For more information, contact: aspresident@ucsd.edu, (858) 534-4452. -------------------------------------------------------------------------
(SACRAMENTO)— In response to recent acts of racism and hateful vandalism committed by students at several University of California campuses, Senate President pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) and Senators Gloria Romero (D-East Los Angeles), Denise Ducheny (D-San Diego) and Carol Liu (D-Pasadena), sent the following letter to UC President Mark Yudof and the Chancellors of the 5 concerned campuses inquiring about their policies and the enforcement of those policies.
President Mark G. Yudof University of California UC Office of the President 1111 Franklin St., 12th Floor Oakland, CA 94607-5200
Chancellor Robert J. Birgeneau University of California, Berkeley Office of the Chancellor 200 California Hall #1500 Berkeley, CA 94720-1500
Chancellor Linda P.B. Katehi University of California, Davis Mrak Hall One Shields Avenue Davis, CA 95616
Chancellor Michael V. Drake, M.D. University of California, Irvine The Chancellor’s Office Irvine, CA 92697-1900
Chancellor Marye Anne Fox University of California, San Diego Office of the Chancellor 9500 Gilman Drive La Jolla, CA 92093-0005
Chancellor George Blumenthal University of California, Santa Cruz 200 Clark Kerr Hall Santa Cruz, CA 95064 President Mark G. Yudof
March 3, 2010
Dear President Yudof and Chancellors,
We are writing to share your outrage at the recent acts of racism and hateful vandalism committed by students at five UC campuses. Like you, we were shocked and mortified. Thus, we were pleased to read that leaders of the UC community have publicly denounced and condemned these and all acts of racism, intolerance and incivility. We were also pleased to read of the efforts at some of the affected schools to investigate the despicable acts as hate crimes.
However, we do not wish to rely on press accounts to ascertain UC’s responses to the despicable acts. We therefore are writing to inquire what policies UC and its campuses have in place to deter such abhorrent acts; what UC and its campuses have done to enforce those policies; and what policy changes UC may be considering to ensure that these vile acts do not recur. Specifically:
· What policies does UC have in place with respect to prohibiting the vandalism of school property with hate speech (such as the painting or carving of swastikas or other hateful graffiti on the property)? Is there a uniform UC policy or do individual campuses set their own policies? (To the extent that individual campuses set individual policies, please note and elaborate in the following questions as well.)
· What penalties or disciplinary sanctions do the UC policies impose for the vandalism of school property with such hate speech?
· How does UC make its students aware of its policies?
· In the past five years, how many incidents of these and similar forms of vandalism have been reported to UC campus officials?
· What is UC’s policy with respect to the investigation of these acts and how many of these incidents in the past five years were investigated?
· What is UC’s policy with respect to the disciplining or prosecution of the offender? How many disciplinary actions or prosecutions have been taken in the past five years?
· What discipline or corrective actions have UC taken in response to the recent incidents on the five UC campuses? What policy changes, if any, will be made?
Unquestionably, these vicious acts create a hostile atmosphere for the affected students, making their student experience unnecessarily more challenging than it already is. News articles have reported on students’ perception of pervasive racism on several campuses.
We know you share our concern that this problem must be addressed, at all campuses, so the educational opportunities and experiences of a UC student are not compromised by a hostile environment that is not conducive to higher learning. We also know all of us are concerned about what these incidents say to prospective students, who may decide to turn away from UC in favor of other, less hostile academic settings.
We all share the goal that our universities should be training tomorrow’s future leaders to recognize and celebrate our multi-racial, multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, multi-religious, and LGBT diversity, and not be harbors for racism or hate of any kind.
· What deficiencies have been identified in UC policies that could enable a racist or hateful climate to exist on any UC campus? And what improvements to those policies have been or are being considered?
We look forward to hearing your responses to these concerns and working together to address them. Our budget and policy committees will be monitoring your progress.
Sincerely,
SENATOR DARRELL STEINBERG Senate President Pro Tempore
SENATOR GLORIA ROMERO Chair, Senate Education Committee
SENATOR DENISE DUCHENY Chair, Senate Budget Committee
SENATOR CAROL LIU Chair, Senate Budget Committee, Subcommittee 1
cc: Karen French, Associate Director, UC Office of Legislative Affairs
I take note from reading my daily fishwrap (newspaper) that His Eminence, Los Angeles Archbishop Roger Cardinal Mahoney has this to say about the Arizona illegal immigration bill:
"I can't imagine Arizonans now reverting to German Nazi and Russian Communist techniques."
I will refrain from pointing out that for decades, Cardinal Mahoney made a science out of protecting pedophile priests in his region and stonewalling efforts of law enforcement to investigate said crimes. Thank God this bum is finally retiring.
What I would point out to His Eminence is that Arizonans have simply reverted to what every other sovereign nation in the world does-control who comes across its borders-since the federal government refuses to do so.
So much for Cardinal Mahoney.
George Will points out in today's column that the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund has accused Governor Jan Brewer as having "caved to the radical fringe". Since when are people who demand that the government enforce the law fit into the category of the "radical fringe"?
Meanwhile Mexican President Jose Calderon, has issued a travel advisor for Mexican citizens traveling to Arizona!!! (Especially when they get to places like Nogales, Sonora and other border areas on the south side of the border where there is a war going on).
Then there is Nancy Pelosi, who calls the measure, "misguided and irresponsible". When it comes to misguided and irresponsible, Ms Pelosi knows of what she speaks.
Speaking of San Francisco, playboy Mayor Gavin Newsom, who runs that sanctuary city, is now banning city employees from going to Arizona on city business-as if San Francisco has any city business to conduct with Arizona or vice-versa.
Speaking of feckless mayors, Phoenix's mayor, Phil Gordon, is opposed to the law. He would prefer for his city to remain a sanctuary city and the kidnap capital of the US.
We all know what Obama has to say about it. He's having his crack (head) Justice Department take a look at the "legality" of it all, while pronouncing it ahead of time as being "unfair."
Meanwhile, even though some 70% of Arizonans approve of the measure including a majority of its Hispanic citizens, a noisy minority has turned out to the state capitol (in Phoenix, the aforementioned kidnap capital of the country) to protest the measure by throwing water bottles at police-something those much-maligned tea-partiers have never done-yet they (the tea-partiers) are called all kinds of names and described as "dangerous". Since when is believing in the rule of law make one "dangerous"? Kinda turns things upside-down, wouldn't you say?
And not to be forgotten, Al Sharpton, who the hapless Larry King is now calling "Sheriff Al" and Jesse Jackson are planning to hold marches in Arizona-hopefully in the vast desert in which the illegal aliens trek.
The most ironic critic of all has to be DHS chief Janet Napolitano, who was governor of Arizona as it was becoming the number one point of crossing for illegal aliens. She is none too pleased that Arizonans, now free of her mis-management, have tried to put a stop to the chaos.
Which leads me to my final question; whatever happened to that border fence?
Sheriff Al (Artwork by Fousesquawk. All rights reserved. Send for a free brochure.)
First for the nonsense, as expressed by "Sheriff" Al Sharpton (at least according to Larry King) as he debates Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio on Larry King on Life Support on the topic of the new Arizona Illegal Alien Bill (SB 1070).
With all the talk of the new Arizona illegal immigration bill and whether it is constitutional, unconstitutional, unfair, racist, et al., it might be a good idea to read the text. It is linked below SB 1070).
It also might be a good idea to recall a law signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996 that authorized state law enforcement authorities to help enforce federal laws on illegal immigration. ----------------------------------------------------------------------
State and Local Authority to Enforce Immigration Law: A Unified Approach for Stopping Terrorists By Kris W. Kobach May 2004 Backgrounders and Reports
Enforcing our nation’s immigration laws is one of the most daunting challenges faced by the federal government. With an estimated 8-10 million illegal aliens already present in the United States and fewer than 2,000 interior enforcement agents at its disposal, the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (BICE) has a Herculean task on its hands — one that it simply cannot accomplish alone.
The assistance of state and local law enforcement agencies can mean the difference between success and failure in enforcing immigration laws. The more than 650,000 police officers nationwide represent a massive force multiplier.
This Backgrounder briefly summarizes the legal authority upon which state and local police may act in rendering such assistance and describes the scenarios in which this assistance is most crucial. It does not cover the provisions of Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) (that is, Section 133 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRAIRA) of 1996 titled "Acceptance of State Services to Carry Out Immigration Enforcement"), since the scope of such delegated authority is evident on the face of the Act. Rather, this Backgrounder describes the inherent arrest authority that has been possessed and exercised by state and local police since the earliest days of federal immigration law.
It has long been widely recognized that state and local police possess the inherent authority to arrest aliens who have violated criminal provisions of the INA. Once the arrest is made, the police officer must contact federal immigration authorities and transfer the alien into their custody within a reasonable period of time. Bear in mind that the power to arrest — and take temporary custody of — an immigration law violator is a subset of the broader power to "enforce." This is an important distinction between inherent arrest authority and 287(g) authority to enforce — which includes arresting, investigating, preparing a case, and all of the other powers exercised by BICE agents.
Where some confusion has existed in recent years is on the question of whether the same authority extends to arresting aliens who have violated civil provisions of the INA that render an alien deportable. This confusion was, to some extent, fostered by an erroneous 1996 opinion of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) of the Department of Justice, the relevant part of which has since been withdrawn by OLC. However, the law on this question is quite clear: arresting aliens who have violated either criminal provisions of the INA or civil provisions that render an alien deportable "is within the inherent authority of the states."1 And such inherent arrest authority has never been preempted by Congress.
This conclusion has been confirmed by every court to squarely address the issue. Indeed, it is difficult to make a persuasive case to the contrary. That said, I will proceed to offer my personal opinion as to why this conclusion is correct. I offer this legal analysis purely in my private capacity as a law professor and not on behalf of the Bush Administration.
State Arrest Authority
The preliminary question is whether the states have inherent power (subject to federal preemption) to make arrests for violation of federal law. That is, may state police, exercising state law authority only, make arrests for violations of federal law, or do they have power to make such arrests only insofar as they are exercising delegated federal executive power? The answer to this question is plainly the former.
The source of this authority flows from the states’ status as sovereign entities. They are sovereign governments possessing all residual powers not abridged or superceded by the U.S. Constitution. The source of the state governments’ power is entirely independent of the U.S. Constitution. See Sturges v. Crowninshield, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 122, 193 (1819). Moreover, the enumerated powers doctrine that constrains the powers of the federal government does not so constrain the powers of the states. Rather, the states possess what are known as "police powers," which need not be specifically enumerated. Police powers are "an exercise of the sovereign right of the government to protect the lives, health, morals, comfort, and general welfare of the people…" Manigault v. Springs, 199 U.S. 473, 480 (1905). Essentially, states may take any action (consistent with their own constitutions and laws) unless there exists a prohibition in the U.S. Constitution or such action has been preempted by federal law.2
It is well established that the authority of state police to make arrests for violation of federal law is not limited to those situations in which they are exercising delegated federal power. Rather, such arrest authority inheres in the States’ status as sovereign entities. It stems from the basic power of one sovereign to assist another sovereign. This is the same inherent authority that is exercised whenever a state law enforcement officer witnesses a federal crime being committed and makes an arrest. That officer is not acting pursuant to delegated federal power. Rather, he is exercising the inherent power of his state to assist another sovereign.
Abundant Case Law. There is abundant case law on this point. Even though Congress has never authorized state police officers to make arrest for federal offenses without an arrest warrant, such arrests occur routinely; and the Supreme Court has recognized that state law controls the validity of such an arrest. As the Court concluded in United States v. Di Re, "No act of Congress lays down a general federal rule for arrest without warrant for federal offenses. None purports to supersede state law. And none applies to this arrest which, while for a federal offense, was made by a state officer accompanied by federal officers who had no power of arrest. Therefore the New York statute provides the standard by which this arrest must stand or fall." 332 U.S. 581, 591 (1948). The Court’s conclusion presupposes that state officers possess the inherent authority to make warrantless arrests for federal offenses. The same assumption guided the Court in Miller v. United States. 357 U.S. 301, 305 (1958). As the Seventh Circuit has explained, "[state] officers have implicit authority to make federal arrests." U.S. v. Janik, 723 F.2d 537, 548 (7th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, they may initiate an arrest on the basis of probable cause to think that an individual has committed a federal crime. Id.
The Ninth and Tenth Circuits have expressed this understanding in the immigration context specifically. In Gonzales v. City of Peoria, the Ninth Circuit opined in an immigration case that the "general rule is that local police are not precluded from enforcing federal statutes," 722 F.2d 468, 474 (9th Cir. 1983). The Tenth Circuit has reviewed this question on several occasions, concluding squarely that a "state trooper has general investigatory authority to inquire into possible immigration violations," United States v. Salinas-Calderon, 728 F.2d 1298, 1301 n.3 (10th Cir. 1984). As the Tenth Circuit has described it, there is a "preexisting general authority of state or local police officers to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal law, including immigration laws," United States v. Vasquez-Alvarez, 176 F.3d 1294, 1295 (10th Cir. 1999). And again in 2001, the Tenth Circuit reiterated that "state and local police officers [have] implicit authority within their respective jurisdictions ‘to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal law, including immigration laws.’" United States v. Santana-Garcia, 264 F.3d 1188, 1194 (citing United States v. Vasquez-Alvarez, 176 F.3d 1294, 1295). None of these Tenth Circuit holdings drew any distinction between criminal violations of the INA and civil provisions that render an alien deportable. Rather, the inherent arrest authority extends generally to both categories of federal immigration law violations.
No Congressional Preemption
Having established that this inherent state arrest authority exists, the only remaining question is whether such authority has been preempted by Congress. In conducting preemption analysis, courts must look for (1) express preemption by congressional statement, (2) field preemption where the federal regulatory scheme is so pervasive as to create the inference that Congress intended to leave no room for the states to supplement it, or (3) conflict preemption, where compliance with both state and federal law is impossible or state law prevents the accomplishment of congressional objectives. See Gade v. National Solid Wastes Mgmt. Ass’n, 505 U.S. 88, 98 (1992) (plurality opinion). In all three categories, there must exist manifest congressional intent for preemption to exist.
Moreover, in the context of state arrests for violations of federal law, there is a particularly strong presumption against preemption. Normal preemption cases involve: (1) state legislation or regulation (2) that is at odds with federal purposes or statutes. However, state arrests for violations of federal law involve: (1) state executive action (2) that is intended to assist the federal government in the enforcement of federal law. The critical starting presumption must be that the federal government did not intend to deny itself any assistance that the states might offer. This presumption was explained in 1928 by Judge Learned Hand, who stated that "it would be unreasonable to suppose that [the federal government’s] purpose was to deny itself any help that the states may allow." Marsh v. United States, 29 F.2d 172, 174 (2d Cir. 1928).
In 1996, Congress expressly put to rest any suspicion that it did not welcome state and local assistance in making immigration arrests. Congress added section 287(g) to the INA, providing for the establishment of written agreements with state law enforcement agencies to convey federal immigration enforcement functions to such agencies. In doing so, Congress reiterated its understanding that states and localities may make immigration arrests regardless of whether a 287(g) agreement exists. Congress stated that a formal agreement is not necessary for "any officer or employee of a State or political subdivision of a state… to communicate with the Attorney General regarding the immigration status of any individual, including reporting knowledge that a particular alien is not lawfully present in the United States," or "otherwise to cooperate with the Attorney General in the identification, apprehension, detention, or removal of aliens not lawfully present in the United States." 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g)(10).
Consequently, it is hardly surprising that no appellate court has expressly ruled that states are preempted from arresting aliens for civil violations of the INA. The only case that even comes close is the 1983 opinion of the Ninth Circuit in Gonzales v. City of Peoria, 722 F.2d 468 (9th Cir. 1983). In Gonzales, the Ninth Circuit held that local police officers have the authority to arrest an alien for a violation of the criminal provisions of the INA if such an arrest is authorized under state law. In that instance, a group of persons of Mexican descent challenged a policy of the City of Peoria, Arizona, that instructed local police to arrest and detain aliens suspected of illegally entering the United States in violation of the criminal prohibitions of Section 1325 of Title 8. See 722 F.2d at 472-73. Observing that local police generally are not precluded from enforcing federal statutes and that concurrent enforcement authority is authorized where local enforcement would not impair federal regulatory interests, the court engaged in a preemption analysis to determine whether Congress had precluded local enforcement of this criminal provision of the INA. The court concluded that no such preemption had occurred. See id. at 475. In passing, the Ninth Circuit "assume[d] that the civil provisions of the [INA]… constitute… a pervasive regulatory scheme" that suggested a congressional intent to preempt local enforcement, id. at 474-75. However, this possibility of field preemption was merely an assumption, asserted without any analysis, and made in dictum — entirely outside of the holding of the case (which concerned a criminal offense). It does not constitute binding precedent. And even if the Ninth Circuit had squarely reached this conclusion in 1983, such a holding would have been fatally undermined by the court’s failure to apply the strong presumption against preemption discussed above. In addition, the subsequent actions of Congress in 1996 made such a holding unsustainable.
Solid Case Law. In contrast, the case law supporting the conclusion that Congress has not preempted state arrests of aliens for violations of civil provisions of the INA is solid and on point. The Tenth Circuit has issued several opinions on the subject, all pointing to the conclusion that Congress has never sought to preempt the states’ inherent authority to make immigration arrests for both criminal and civil violations of the INA. Its 1984 ruling in the case of United States v. Salinas-Calderon, 728 F.2d 1298 (10th Cir. 1984), confirmed the inherent arrest authority possessed by the states. The defendant in that case was the driver of a pickup who had been arrested for the criminal violation of transporting illegal aliens. He had been stopped by a state trooper for driving erratically. The driver and his wife were in the cab; and six passengers, none of whom spoke English, were in the back of the pickup. The defendant claimed that a state trooper did not have the authority to detain the transported passengers while he questioned them about their immigration status. In rejecting this claim, the Tenth Circuit held that a "state trooper has general investigatory authority to inquire into possible immigration violations." 728 F.2d at 1301 n.3. The court did not differentiate between criminal and civil violations. Indeed, because there is no indication in the opinion that there was any reason to believe that the alien passengers had committed any criminal violations, the court’s statement appears to apply fully to civil as well as criminal violations.
The Tenth Circuit’s most salient case on the preemption question is U.S. v. Vasquez-Alvarez, 176 F.3d 1294 (10th Cir. 1999). In that case, an Oklahoma police officer arrested the defendant because he was an "illegal alien." The officer did not know at the time whether the defendant had committed a civil or criminal violation of the INA. Id. at 1295. It was later discovered that the alien had illegally reentered the country after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, a criminal violation. When the government indicted the defendant, he moved to suppress his post-arrest statements, fingerprints, and identity, arguing that he was arrested in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1252c. The defendant claimed that a local police officer could arrest an illegal alien only in accordance with the conditions set forth in Section 1252c and that because his arrest was not carried out according that provision it was unauthorized. Section 1252c authorizes state and local police to make a warrantless arrest and to detain an illegal alien if (1) the arrest is permitted by state and local law, (2) the alien is illegally present in the United States, (3) the alien was previously convicted of a felony in the United States and subsequently was deported or left the country, and (4) prior to the arrest the police officer obtains appropriate confirmation of the alien’s status from federal immigration authorities. 8 U.S.C. § 1252c.
The Tenth Circuit’s conclusion was unequivocal: Section 1252c "does not limit or displace the preexisting general authority of state or local police officers to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal law, including immigration laws. Instead, Section 1252c merely creates an additional vehicle for the enforcement of federal immigration law." Vasquez-Alvarez, 176 F.3d at 1295. The court rejected the alien’s contention that all arrests not authorized by Section 1252c are prohibited by it. The court reviewed the legislative history of Section 1252c and analyzed the comments of Rep. Doolittle (R-Calif.), who sponsored the floor amendment containing the text that would become Section 1252c. The court concluded that the purpose of the amendment was to overcome a perceived federal limitation on this state arrest authority. However, neither Doolittle, nor the government, nor the defendant, nor the court itself had been able to identify any such limitation. Id. at 1298-99.
The interpretation of 1252c urged by the defendant would have grossly perverted the manifest intent of Congress, which was to encourage more, not less, state involvement in the enforcement of federal immigration law. Reading into the statute an implicit congressional intent to preempt existing state arrest authority would have been entirely inconsistent with this purpose. Moreover, such an interpretation would have been inconsistent with subsequent congressional actions. As the Tenth Circuit noted, "in the months following the enactment of Section 1252c, Congress passed a series of provisions designed to encourage cooperation between the federal government and the states in the enforcement of federal immigration laws." Id. at 1300 (citing 8 U.S.C. §§ 1103(a)(9), (c), 1357(g)). Put succinctly, the "legislative history does not contain the slightest indication that Congress intended to displace any preexisting enforcement powers already in the hands of state and local officers." Id. at 1299.
The Fifth Circuit has also rejected the notion that Congress has preempted the inherent arrest authority possessed by the states. In Lynch v. Cannatella, 810 F.2d 1363 (5th Cir. 1987), the court considered whether 8 U.S.C. §1223(a) defined the sole process for detaining alien stowaways, thereby preempting harbor police from detaining illegal aliens as occurred in that case. The Fifth Circuit’s conclusion was broad and unequivocal: "No statute precludes other federal, state, or local law enforcement agencies from taking other action to enforce this nation’s immigration laws." Id. at 1371.
Finally on the subject of preemption, it must be noted that the distinction between arrests by state police for criminal violations of the INA and arrests by state police for civil violations of the INA is utterly unsustainable. Any claim of field preemption would have to establish that the civil provisions of the INA create a pervasive regulatory scheme indicating congressional intent to preempt, while the criminal provisions do not. No court has ever attempted to justify such a conclusion. The INA is not separated neatly into criminal and civil jurisdictions. Nor have the regulations promulgated pursuant to the INA or the executive agencies charged with its enforcement attempted such a separation. The structure of the INA, with its numerous overlapping civil and criminal provisions, simply cannot support such a distinction.
Voluntary State and Local Assistance
It bears reiterating that any assistance that state or local police provide to the federal government in the enforcement of federal immigration laws is entirely voluntary. There is no provision of the U.S. Code or the Code of Federal Regulations that obligates local law enforcement agencies to devote any resources to the enforcement of federal immigration laws. This fact seems to escape those who assert that the federal government has by statute or policy imposed costly enforcement burdens on state and local government. This assertion is false. Indeed, when local law enforcement agencies do arrest and detain aliens for violations of immigration law prior to transfer to federal immigration authorities, it has been the regular practice of the federal government to reimburse such agencies for any detention costs incurred.
Local Enforcement Is Essential
The two and a half years that have passed since September 11, 2001, have yielded a wealth of cases in which the arrest of an alien by a state or local police officer was crucial in securing the capture of a suspected terrorist, a career criminal, or an absconder fleeing a final removal order. The role that state and local police officers play simply cannot be overstated. They are the eyes and ears of law enforcement that span the nation. They are the officers who encounter aliens in traffic stops and other routine law enforcement situations. Federal law enforcement officers simply cannot cover the same ground. The following are the most important scenarios in which state and local assistance in the enforcement of immigration law occurs:
Observations of Potential Terrorist Activity. I cannot describe the details of actual cases in this report. But I can offer hypothetical fact patterns that illustrate the point. For example, suppose that a police officer learns that a university student from a country that is a state sponsor of terrorism has made several purchases of significant quantities of fertilizer. He may also learn from other university students that the alien has not been attending classes. Neither of these actions constitutes a crime. However, from these circumstances, the officer may reasonably suspect that the alien has violated the terms of his student visa. His arrest and questioning of the alien, founded on the immigration violation but reflecting larger concerns about terrorist activity, would be lawful and would serve the security interests of the United States. Without the immigration violation, the officer would possess no legal basis to make the arrest. In this type of situation, the authority to make the immigration arrest is a powerful tool that the local police officer can use when necessary to protect the public.
Arrests of Suspected Terrorists. One of the most disturbing aspects of the story of the September 11 terrorists is the fact that three of the hijackers were accosted by local police in routine law enforcement encounters. Had the federal government possessed information regarding their possible terrorist connections, and had that information been distributed to police officers via the National Crime Information Center (NCIC), the terrorist plot might have been derailed. Now, the federal government does possess information that should be disseminated to state and local police officers through NCIC. For example, the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS) allows the federal government to determine when a high-risk alien overstays his visa or fails to report his address and activities after 30 days in the United States. The names and details of some of these NSEERS violators are now being entered into the NCIC. It is absolutely essential that state and local police officers have access to this information and that they act upon it when encountering an NSEERS violator in a traffic stop. If the alien is actively avoiding contact with law enforcement, this may be the only opportunity to stop a terrorist attack. In order for this system to work effectively, four things need to happen: First, the vast majority of NSEERS violators need to be entered into NCIC, not just a small subset. This will require that the Compliance Office of BICE be allocated adequate resources to do the job. Secondly, the 30-day reporting requirement of NSEERS must be maintained. Without the 30-day requirement, the potential of the system to identify terrorists would be dramatically reduced. Indeed, many of the most important national security leads that have been generated by NSEERS were triggered by the failure of the aliens to report in after 30 days. At the end of 2003, the Department of Homeland Security announced that the 30-day reporting requirement would be suspended and that such reporting would only be requested on an ad hoc basis in the future. This decision, driven primarily by considerations of administrative convenience, will impair efforts to identify and apprehend terrorists operating within the United States. Congress should correct this vulnerability by re-imposing the 30-day reporting requirement statutorily. Thirdly, the Departments of State and Homeland Security must enter the names of aliens in the TIPOFF terrorist database into NCIC (something that has not yet occurred). Finally, state and local law enforcement agencies must not adopt ill-considered policies barring their officers from making immigration arrests.
Arrests of Absconders. There are now more than 400,000 absconders at large in the United States. These aliens have had their day in immigration court and have disobeyed a final order of removal. The absconder problem has made a mockery of the rule of law in immigration. A substantial number of absconders have engaged in serious criminal activity in addition to their immigration violations. Most absconders have committed criminal violations of the INA. Others have committed civil violations only, if the underlying immigration violation was of a civil provision and the refusal to obey the order of removal was not willful. At the end of 2001, the Department of Justice and the INS launched the absconder initiative, which has continued under the Department of Homeland Security. Under this initiative, the process of listing absconders in NCIC was begun. Although the initiative has yielded many valuable arrests with the cooperation of state and local law enforcement, the effort has been hamstrung by the fact that the entry of names into NCIC has occurred at an alarmingly slow rate. Indeed, the number of absconders is growing faster than the entry of absconders into NCIC. Nonetheless, the entry of absconders’ names and information has already yielded success. As of March 1, 2004, the names of 28,304 absconders had been listed in NCIC; and 8,542 had been arrested, including 261 sexual predators.
Interception of Alien Smuggling. In recent years, the country has witnessed a number of truly horrific deaths as a consequence of alien smuggling. Victims of the trade have died from exposure in the desert, from heat and suffocation in railroad cars, and in highway accidents in overloaded and unsafe vehicles. It is often the case that smuggling activities become evident far from the border, where the only law enforcement officers likely to observe them are state or local police. Smuggling will not decrease until and unless enforcement abilities increase. State and local police can provide a critical boost to federal enforcement activities. For this to occur, officers across the country need to be made aware that they have the authority to initiate immigration smuggling arrests; and alertness to the activity of smugglers needs to be encouraged.
Enforcement in Remote or Under-served Areas. Because BICE’s interior enforcement agents are spread so thinly across the country, there are states that experience substantial illegal immigration but do not receive adequate enforcement attention from BICE agents. Such communities may be ill equipped to bear the costs of illegal immigration (e.g., in health care expenses and the provision of other social services). When local law enforcement agencies can undertake limited enforcement actions in coordination with BICE officials, the resulting deterrent effect can alleviate these local costs and enable BICE to extend its enforcement reach.
Conclusion
In summary, it is clear that state and local police possess substantial inherent authority to make immigration arrests, in addition to the delegated powers available through Section 287(g). It is also clear that the potential for closer cooperation with state and local law enforcement has not been fully exploited. Consequently, there has been a cost in the national security of the United States, as well as in the enforcement of immigration laws.
Mr. Kris W. Kobach is a professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law. He started as a White House Fellow in the personal office of Attorney General John Ashcroft days before the 9/11 attacks; after the Fellowship ended, he remained as Mr. Ashcroft’s Counsel, until 2003. Mr. Kobach holds a bachelor’s degree in government from Harvard University, a doctorate in political science from Oxford University, and a juris doctorate from Yale Law School. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So you can take the legal opinion of "Sheriff" Al Sharpton if you wish. But what does he know about the southwestern border? What does he know about anything?
This morning on C-Span I watched a Republican congresswoman (I believe it was Candice Miller, R-MI) speaking about the breaking scandal that HHS Secretary Kathy Sibelius and her staff worked to bury a report by the Medicare Office of the Actuary that raised the estimate of the costs of the health care bill and costs to consumers until weeks after the vote was conducted. The below article is from the American Spectator.
If true, it appears that HHS Secretary Sibelius and others in her department as well as the White House need to be put under oath by Congress, which I am sure will want to get to the bottom of this mess.
Here we go again. These moves to pass resolutions on divestment of firms doing business with Israel are spreading all over the nation. The latest is UC San Diego. The Jewish advocacy group Stand With Us has sent me this letter asking supporters of Israeel to e-mail the student government of UCSD urging them not to pass this resolution that, while symbolic, has great symbolic importance. These motions are organized by pro-Palestinian and Middle East Studies departments aligned with far-left elements among students and professors.
You can help. During the recent UC Berkeley divestment move, the student government received tens of thousands of messages from both sides. The information needed for those who would like to send a message to the ASUCSD is is the letter below. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Dear Friends of Israel
We are once again facing the threat of divestment. This time at UCSD.
The pro-Israel student group at UCSD, Tritons for Israel, has mobilized. Among other things, they have already created a Facebook page to rally pro-Israel students to voice opposition, and they have created a petition for students and community members to sign to urge the student senate to vote against divestment.
Please write a short note to the Associated Students President, the UC San Diego Chancellor, and the President of the University of California in regards to the divestment bill at UCSD. This Wednesday, April 28, 2010 their will be a senate vote on divestment from Israel and your note could possibly make a difference. The subject of the email can be "Please say NO to the unfair divestment bill". Send your note to aspresident@ucsd.edu, chancellor@ucsd.edu, president@ucop.edu.
Please send a copy of your letter to info@standwithus.com.
Below is a sample letter:
Sample Letter: I urge you to veto the anti-Israel Divestment Bill. The bill violates the rights of thousands of UCSD students, who have no choice but to pay their student fees and they are legally entitled to be assured that these mandatory fees are not used to empower the political aims of an extremist and hostile group that seeks to promote one sided propaganda against Israel.
Student fees must be invested in a non-discriminatory way without regard to the political whims of a block of students. This could become a legal battle over the rights of ALL students.
Thank you so much for your urgent consideration." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Born 1945 in Los Angeles. Worked from 1998-2016 as adjunct teacher at University of California at Irvine Ext. teaching English as a second language.
Served three years in US Army Military Police at Erlangen, Germany 1966-68.
1970-1973- Criminal Investigator with US Customs
1973-1995 Criminal investigator with Drug Enforcement Administration. Stationed in Los Angeles, Bangkok, Milan, Italy, Pittsburgh and Office of Training, FBI Academy, Quantico, Va. until retirement.
Author of Erlangen-An American's History of a German Town-University Press of America 2005,
The Story of Papiamentu- A Study in Slavery and Language, University Press of America, 2002, and
The Languages of the Former Soviet Republics-Their History and Development, University Press of America, 2000.
