The FireWire
 All Forums
 All FireSociety

Full Search Here
RSS Feed Subscribe to Topics

Racial profiling or taking the lead on immigration?

Forums Home | The FireWire | Breaking News
Posts 1-6 of 6 | Latest Post
January 24, 2008 05:00 PM    View printable version     Link to this comment   
Member Since:
May 25, 2007
Racial profiling or taking the lead on immigration?
10-1 vote sends bill that ignites passions to full Senate
By Dan McFeely
dan.mcfeely@indystar.com
Opponents of a tough new illegal-immigration bill say Indiana will be treading on constitutionally dangerous ground if it becomes law. 
The bill, they say, would promote racial profiling and infringe upon the constitutional rights of U.S.-born children whose illegal-immigrant parents lose their jobs.
But supporters say the bill -- approved 10-1 in a committee vote Wednesday and ready for consideration by the full Senate next week -- will send a message to the federal government that it has not done enough to stem the flow of illegal immigrants.
"Our message today to the federal government is to lead, follow or get out of the way," said Sen. Mike Delph, R-Carmel.
Delph championed the bill through the Senate Pensions and Labor Committee, which heard testimony Wednesday at a hearing that drew a crowd of more than 50 people, a mix of Hispanics and business lobbyists opposed to the legislation. The full Senate could take up the bill as early as Monday.
"Today is a reflection of the strong sense that people want the illegal-immigration problem resolved once and for all," Delph said.
But at what cost?
Louis R. Moffa, a nationally regarded immigration lawyer from New Jersey, testified that Indiana lawmakers cannot pass a potentially unconstitutional law just because they don't believe the U.S. government is doing its job. He is making a similar argument in federal court as a lead attorney fighting similar legislation adopted by Arizona.
"There are cases that are proceeding right now, and the appellate courts will make the law in this area. So I urge caution, more thought and more discussion," said Moffa, whom Delph invited to testify, along with another national expert who supports the bill.
Mike Cutler, a former federal immigration agent from New York who often testifies for tough immigration laws, said, "This is a matter of criminal justice." He said Indiana could be considered a border state because of Indianapolis International Airport.
"When they come here, it is just like breaking into our house," he said.
Senate Bill 335 calls for stiff penalties for employers who hire illegal immigrants, punishing them through a series of sanctions that could ultimately lead to the revocation of their business licenses. It calls for the state attorney general's office and local prosecutors to investigate written complaints about such activity. The bill also would make it a criminal act to transport or aid an illegal immigrant.
An amendment was approved to push back the legislation's effective date from July 1, 2009, to Oct. 1, 2009. Also, exemptions from prosecution were added, including churches.
Indianapolis immigration lawyer John Broyles spoke at length against the bill, warning that "blatant racial abuse" would result from a law that compelled employers and citizens to file complaints about workers possibly here illegally. Such complaints, he said, more than likely would involve racial profiling, deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
"I cannot tell you if those people who cleaned my offices last night, nor can I tell you if the young girl who served me coffee this morning, are here legally or illegally," Broyles said. "This bill will not withstand a constitutional challenge."
After nearly three hours of testimony Wednesday, only one senator voted against the bill.
Sen. Greg Walker, R-Columbus, said he voted against it because he was concerned about the rights of children of illegal immigrants who, if born in the United States, are natural citizens. Targeting their mothers and fathers with the new law, Walker said, would infringe on their rights.
"That is my conscience, and that is my reasoning," Walker said. "Their children are natural-born, and they are citizens according to the 14th Amendment. I still think this is a constitutional question that keeps it out of our jurisdiction."
Gavin Rose, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, agreed that the state should consider the plight of those children who rely on illegal immigrants for their support.
"The effect of SB 335 would be to leave these citizens, these native Hoosiers, with absolutely no ability to obtain life's necessities," Rose said.
Legislators, however, have said constituents tell them illegal immigrants are a drain on their tax dollars, a channel for illegal drugs and a matter of national security.
"This bill is not intended to be racist or to drive people out of our country," said Sen. Jim Arnold, D-LaPorte, who voted for the bill. "It is designed to be a welcoming bill" for those who want to come here legally.
Marion Superior Court Judge Jose Salinas disagreed.
"This isn't Hoosier hospitality," Salinas testified.
"I will enforce this law in my position . . . but when little kids and families go without food when we enforce the rule of the law, then something is wrong with that rule of law."
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080124/LOCAL190106/801240449/-1/LOCAL17
January 25, 2008 10:24 AM    View printable version     Link to this comment   
Member Since:
February 16, 2007
Of course you're going to get "racial profiling" when the majority of these illegal aliens are all from the same race.

Instructions on how to be a neocon.
I support the troops who still have moral values, but I don't worship them. I do not support the occupation of Iraq. I believe the opposite of anything George W. Bush says and support Chuck Baldwin for President. I am a Mormon, Libertarian, 9/11 Truther, Alex Jones listener, Ron Paul supporter, and proud of it!
January 25, 2008 10:43 AM    View printable version     Link to this comment   
Member Since:
March 5, 2007
Its not racial profiling, it called criminal profiling.  If the majority of a certain crime is being commited overwelmingly by a certain type of person you target that group.  If you have a crime trend that is being commited by 90 percent hispanic you don;t do after white people just to be PC./  If you did it would wast resources.  thats the problem with the airports now.  We do these random checks on white grandma and grampas and let the middle easter person pass because of their place in line is just stupid.
January 25, 2008 11:51 AM    View printable version     Link to this comment   
Member Since:
August 3, 2007

I am so tired of hearing "racial profiling" and "xenophobe" that I wish the words would not be used to belittle people who are ineterested in preserving America.

Also, I did not know Hispanics were of a different "race" than I. The last anthropological article I read still listed Caucasian , Negroid and Mongoloid as the three basic races. What are the apologists calling the illegal immigrants??

To be American , you must support America, not your ethnic lineage.
January 25, 2008 12:09 PM    View printable version     Link to this comment   
Member Since:
February 26, 2007

Here is all I have to say about these people and their poor children.

The Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1

All persons born or naturalized in the United States

and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,

are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

During the Senate debate for passage of the 14th Amendment, argument was made that inclusion of the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" specifically clarified that:

"This will not, of course, include persons born in the

United States who are foreigners, aliens," et al.

Senator Jacob Howard, Michigan

In 1884 the Supreme Court (in Elk v Wilkins) ruled that:

"subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means

"owing direct and immediate allegiance to the United States."

Would these people and our elected officials, along with the United States Supreme Court, please get a clue. The person who helped get this amendment passed, stated the intent, and The Supreme Court had already made a ruling on it. Now, get the illegals and the anchor babies the hell out of my country and leave me alone.

 

"Government is best which governs least" Henry David Thoreau Civil Disobedience
January 25, 2008 01:52 PM    View printable version     Link to this comment   
Member Since:
March 7, 2007

It is unfortunate, but at least 76% of latinos you see are either illegals or in felony support of illlegals.  Over half of the illegals have committed felonies with phony IDs, and all have committed trespass and littering on the way, defecation on public or private land,  at the least,  besides the gross misdemeanor of illegal entry.   The majority of politicians are guilty of felony encouragement for each illegal in country just by not enforcing the existing laws through withholding of funds and/or official mandate. 

What also compounds the whole thing is that Mexico in numerous ways has Abrogated the Treaties and we are at de facto war, that everyone seems to have their head in the sand about.  Over 10,000 Americans are dying per year while their casualties are just those few invaders who die in the desert.  



With every action and decision think of the consequences 7 generations from now----Ute Rule of Life

You must login to discuss this item.


  Sponsored Links