It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Neb. city suspends immigration law, goes to court

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Neb. city suspends immigration law, goes to court


www.centurylink.net

FREMONT, Neb. (AP) — A Nebraska city suspended its voter-approved ban on hiring or renting property to illegal immigrants, but opponents still want a federal judge to block the ordinance until all legal fights are resolved.

Groups challenging the ordinance are expected in court Wednesday, a day after the Fremont City Council voted to suspended the ban. City officials said delaying the ordinance would save the city money as it fights lawsuits filed by the American Civil Liberties Union...
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 08:13 AM
link   
Well it looks like illegal immigrant is an officialy protected class of persons now. I wonder how long it will take for the ACLU to start defending drug dealer's right to live near elementary schools?

I can not believe that it has come to this in our country. When people stand up and ask for the law to be enforced every knee jerk group in the country wants you to sit down and shut up. We are supposed to work hard pay taxes and adhere to all of the laws. However, if you cross the border at midnight you are some how exempt. It pisses me off.

No where does it say this law only applies to one race or nationality. It applies to anyone that can not prove they are here legally. I don't see anything wrong with it. Maybe somebody can tell me.



www.centurylink.net (visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by MikeNice81
I wonder how long it will take for the ACLU to start defending drug dealer's right to live near elementary schools?

So all illegals are drug dealers?

Firstly


"We know very well that the drug traffickers are motivated by the demand for illegal drugs in the United States and that they are armed by the transport of weapons from the United States," Clinton said

An estimated 90% of drugs used in the US come through Mexico. A similar proportion of the weapons used by the cartels in their war in Mexico come from the US.

www.guardian.co.uk...


Anyone who thinks this is solely a Mexico problem is delusional.

This is a 50/50 America/Mexico problem.


Originally posted by MikeNice81
However, if you cross the border at midnight you are some how exempt. It pisses me off.

Seriously dude... that's the least of your problems


Originally posted by MikeNice81
No where does it say this law only applies to one race or nationality. It applies to anyone that can not prove they are here legally. I don't see anything wrong with it. Maybe somebody can tell me.


Nowhere does it say that the Patriot Act is against the people, it is written it is FOR our security, the name even has the word patriot in it.

If it is not written anywhere then it must not be fact right?

Do you want more examples of..... reality?



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 08:34 AM
link   
reply to post by MikeNice81
 



When people stand up and ask for the law to be enforced every knee jerk group in the country wants you to sit down and shut up.


Then maybe people should quit asking and start electing federal officials who will address the problem.



It applies to anyone that can not prove they are here legally.


Does the law mandate everybody prove their citizenship or just does who people think look illegal?



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


PRactice a little thought before posting. I was saying, if illegal immigrants are a protected class how long before other criminals become the same. See you read something and then made a connection that wasn't there. I never said illegal immigrants are drug dealers.

In fact I am related to someone that came here illegally 30 years ago. They went back and got their papers and became a permanent resident alien. I understand the immigration issue in a way a lot of ATSers may not. I also understand the simple idea that you "don't do the crime if you can't do the time." If you want to come here illegaly you shouldn't expect an easy time and you should expect roadblocks to living a normal life. You should not expect to be considerred a protected class of people.

It is a felony in Mexico to enter the country illegally and you can spend years in prison. It is the same across Central and South America. However, we are not supposed to reciprocate. I find it outlandish that the ACLU says we have to protect illegals or we are discriminating. Especially when the law in question does not mention a specific race. If a Mexican or an Albanian shows up and says they are not a citizen they have to submit to the same scrutiny. That is not discrimination.

Read a little bit more clearly next time and realize you aren't dealing with some "they're all gangbangin' rapist" idiot.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by MikeNice81
PRactice a little thought before posting. I was saying, if illegal immigrants are a protected class how long before other criminals become the same. See you read something and then made a connection that wasn't there. I never said illegal immigrants are drug dealers.

Fair enough, my apologies
But it did read like that though

I only understood what you meant only after reading this explanation.

However even at that, yes certain criminals do need to become a protected class.
You know why? Because there are just too many laws and almost everything is illegal that's why.

Soon we will live in a society where some criminals will need to be a protected class.


Originally posted by MikeNice81
I also understand the simple idea that you "don't do the crime if you can't do the time." If you want to come here illegaly you shouldn't expect an easy time and you should expect roadblocks to living a normal life. You should not expect to be considerred a protected class of people.


Unfortunately this is not a valid point.
Did you see this:
ATS News: Border Security, Part Two: The Arizona War Zone
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The guy there says that he spoke to mexicans and they said "they don't want to live there anymore it's too dangerous".

if 90% of unregistered guns come from the United States then we are destabalizing their region and it's our responsibility to do something about it.

How long do you think your logic will last?



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 08:55 AM
link   
reply to post by jam321
 


From the article. . .




Fremont's ordinance would require employers to use a federal online system that checks whether a person is permitted to work in the U.S.

It also would require people seeking to rent property to apply for a $5 permit at City Hall. Those who said they were citizens would receive a permit and would not have to provide documents proving legal status. Those who said they weren't citizens would receive permits, but their legal status would be checked. If they're found to be in the country illegally and are unable to resolve their status, they would be forced to leave the property.


It isn't even a real red meat type of law. It would be easy to get around but it is a step in the right direction. Yet, that is a step that the ACLU and other groups don't want to take.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by MikeNice81
 


Appreciate the info.

What I am basically saying is that laws like these are unnecessary. It is an intrusion on the rights of Americans more than illegals.

Many don't see that. They never imagine that ultimately the law will include everybody.

Now, this immigration issue has been part of the US since the word go. It is mainly only during bad economic times that laws like these are trying to be passed. It serves no purpose.

The job belongs to the fed. If people want the issue fixed once and for all, they need to get Congress to address this issue.

Many members of Congress have vowed to take care of this problem for the longest, but have never lived up to their promise.

Because in the end, they need those illegals to serve as scapegoats when things go bad.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


First of all your gun numbers are wrong. I just grabbed the first outside source. There are a number of reports that back the figures provided below.

From The New American




Yet, those figures are wildly overblown. When pressed by William Le Jeunesse and Maxim Lott of Fox News, a spokeswoman for BATF acknowledged that “over 90 percent of the traced firearms originated from the United States” — a very different figure. An analysis by Fox revealed that the statistic so favored by the gun grabbers referred only to a much smaller subtotal that Mexico sent to the United States and were successfully traced; it didn’t include the thousands obviously not from the United States that were not submitted to the BATF. As the Fox writers explained:

In 2007-2008, according to ATF Special Agent William Newell, Mexico submitted 11,000 guns to the ATF for tracing. Close to 6,000 were successfully traced — and of those, 90 percent — 5,114 to be exact, according to testimony in Congress by William Hoover — were found to have come from the U.S.

But in those same two years, according to the Mexican government, 29,000 guns were recovered at crime scenes.

In other words, 68 percent of the guns that were recovered were never submitted for tracing. And when you weed out the roughly 6,000 guns that could not be traced from the remaining 32 percent, it means 83 percent of the guns found at crime scenes in Mexico could not be traced to the U.S.


It is not our responsibility to take in everyone that wants to move here because they live in a dangerous country. Should we start air lifting people out of the Congo? Should we allow every Afghani and Iraqi scared by the war to move here? We have to consider our economic ability to support the increasing population. We also have to consider that making an exception for Mexico means making an exception for South Africa, El Salvador, Congo, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, and dozens of other countries.

Immigration law is supposed to be a buffer that keeps an unsupportable number of people from entering the country. It is also supposed to act as a stop gap to ensure the less criminal element enters the country. It doesn't always work, but if you throw it out, it will never work.




However even at that, yes certain criminals do need to become a protected class. You know why? Because there are just too many laws and almost everything is illegal that's why.


We could debate the nuance of that somewhere else. You might find we agree in some aspects.

However, after spending 5 hours sitting in military detention (in Mexico) because I left my passport in my room, I don't think we can agree here. I was stopped at a checkpoint outside of Durango and the car searched. The people in the car with me had their passports, and one was a citizen. I was told that I was being held on suspicion of entering the country illegally and drug smuggling. (The car was drug free.) They told the people I was with to go retrieve my passport.

I sat there the whole time in the sun. I was handcuffed to a rail in the back of a military transport truck. The canvas top had been pulled off and I was just sitting there baking. I was offered no water even though it was 95+ degrees. I was also refused the chance to get up and relieve myself. Then I was told that if my friends didn't get back before shift change they were going to take me to their post and toss me in the brig. They didn't even consider turning me over to local authorities. To them I was a military prisoner until some one told them to turn me over to the federal police.

That is the treatment you get in Mexico for leaving your passport in your room. Yet, we are supposed to bend over backwards and welcome illegal immigrants with open arms.






[edit on 28-7-2010 by MikeNice81]



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by MikeNice81
If you want to come here illegaly you shouldn't expect an easy time and you should expect roadblocks to living a normal life. You should not expect to be considerred a protected class of people.

It is a felony in Mexico to enter the country illegally and you can spend years in prison. It is the same across Central and South America. However, we are not supposed to reciprocate. I find it outlandish that the ACLU says we have to protect illegals or we are discriminating. Especially when the law in question does not mention a specific race. If a Mexican or an Albanian shows up and says they are not a citizen they have to submit to the same scrutiny. That is not discrimination.


Bravo Bravo Bravo !!! Stars for you ! ->"************************************************************"



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by MikeNice81
 


From Fox News?
Are you kidding me?



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by MikeNice81
However, after spending 5 hours sitting in military detention (in Mexico) because I left my passport in my room, They told the people I was with to go retrieve my passport.


Just wondering.. why did your friends take 5 hours to get your passport.. or did they hurry and the time was legal red tape?

[edit on 28-7-2010 by JohnPhoenix]



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


Like I said there are other sources. However, I guess ATF agents are automatically lying when they show up on Fox news.


Article Written by US Rep Tom Tancredo




The 90% number reported by Hoover came from a small group of weapons turned over to the U.S. for tracing, but they were by no means all of the weapons seized by Mexican authorities. A spokesman for the ATFE, Matt Allen, has now "clarified" the number and admitted that only 17% of the weapons found at crime scenes in Mexico have been traced to the U.S. Ironically, while Mexican officials have freely used the 90% number from the ATFE, they have not themselves made such a charge based on their own numbers. The truth is, they know better.

We can easily understand Mexico's reasons for preferring the 90% number to the more accurate 17%. Mexico does not want to openly discuss the many other sources of advanced weapons being used by the drug cartels. Thousands of advanced weapons and tons of military equipment are stolen from its own military and state police. Weapons are smuggled across its southern borders from Guatemala and by boats landing on its 8,000 miles of coastline, weapons that often originate in Venezuela, Colombia, and Nicaragua, or from purchases in Eastern Europe. But it is easier for a Mexican politician to blame the U.S. than to explain his own government’s failure to police its borders, its ports of entry and its military installations.

Did the Mexican ambassador mention that over 100,000 soldiers have deserted the Mexican army in the past seven years and that many of them took their weapons with them and joined the cartels?


At UN, Mexican Math Disputed on Weapons Flow from US, Big Rift with Small Arms Survey




UNITED NATIONS, June 14 -- Mexico's claim that 90% of guns enter its country from the United States was questioned at the UN on Monday. Inner City Press asked the managing director of the Small Arms Survey, Eric Berman, about what percentage of guns in Mexico come from the United States. Video here, from Minute 23:12.

Berman answered that contrary to Mexico's 80% to 90% figures, "there's a little problem in how the numbers are determined." He said the Mexican government has seized thousands of weapons, they selected a subset to send to the US... Another subset, those able to be determined by serial numbers, leads to a percentage 'from the US.' But the headline "skews the information."

Berman said they have "shared the information with the government of Mexico."


A little more on the subject. Read the articles. Don't just peruse clips.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 


We were about two hours from the village we were staying in. We were out visiting various markets and churches. It was the whole tourist thing.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join