Father of murdered teen urges Gov. Brown to veto bill ordering illegal immigrants rel

[Warfish]

Father of murdered teen urges Gov. Brown to veto bill ordering illegal immigrants released

A California father whose son was murdered execution-style in 2008 by an illegal immigrant gangster has launched a campaign to persuade Gov. Jerry Brown to veto a bill that would have police release illegal immigrants into the streets even when the feds want them detained.

The controversial bill, which passed the legislature in August, would compel local law enforcement in most cases to ignore requests by Immigration and Customs Enforcement to hold illegal immigrants if they could otherwise be released.

Advocates say it's a way for police to build "trust" with local communities -- the name of the bill is the TRUST Act. But opponents warn the policy could have dangerous consequences.

The bill "will have real and potentially devastating consequences for people across our state," Jamiel Shaw Sr., whose 17-year-old son was killed, said in a statement.

Shaw separately put out a web video appealing to Brown to reject the bill.

"Would you want that to happen to your son? ... How many have to die by people being let out into the streets from the county jail that should be deported," he said in the video. "No one should have to go through losing a child."

Click for the original story on Shaw's case.

Shaw's son Jamiel Shaw Jr., a high school football player, was killed in 2008 by a member of the 18th Street Gang hours after he had been released from a local jail. Pedro Espinoza was found guilty of the murder, in which he shot Shaw twice after mistaking him for a rival gang member. A jury recommended the death penalty for Espinoza earlier this year.

Bob Dane, a spokesman at the Federation for American Immigration Reform, said California would open the door to a rampant public safety threat -- as well as additional financial burden on the state -- if the governor lets the bill become law. He noted Brown could opt to take no action on the bill, allowing it to become law by default.

"It's the perfect storm for complete lawlessness," he told FoxNews.com, saying the state would be rolling out "the welcome mat" for illegal immigrants and become even more of a magnet.

"This is not the work of responsible custodians of the public trust," he said.

The bill would compel law enforcement in California to release illegal immigrants once they become eligible -- even if ICE wants them held -- unless the individual has been convicted of a "serious or violent felony."

Supporters cited the financial burden on local communities that hold these detainees for ICE and the potential erosion of trust with police.

In a Sept. 13 letter to Brown signed by House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic members of the California congressional delegation, supporters urged the governor to sign the bill. They cited accounts that a federal program called Secure Communities "currently erodes trust between local communities and law enforcement."

"They report that the initiative already has reduced the willingness of immigrant and non-immigrant crime victims and witnesses to cooperate with law enforcement and has consequently diminished public safety," they wrote. The suggestion is that illegal immigrants would be reluctant to report crimes out of concern ICE would come after them.

Secure Communities is a program that allows federal immigration agents to work with local officials to determine who in local jails might be deportable.

But Shaw argues that police in California are not interested in checking the immigration status of people who report or witness crimes.

Further, he argues that in California in particular, illegal immigrants are not fearful of law enforcement.

Federal immigration officials have defended the Secure Communities program, which they say has helped the agency remove nearly 150,000 convicted criminals to date -- including murderers and rapists.

ICE Director John Morton wrote in an Aug. 23 letter to FAIR that communities that ignore ICE requests to hold detainees "are undermining public safety in their communities by exposing their local communities to risks from suspected and convicted sex offenders, weapons violators, drunk drivers and other violent criminals."

"These are not hypothetical risks," he wrote. The letter was in reference to a separate initiative in Illinois.

ICE spokeswoman Gillian Christensen told FoxNews.com on Wednesday that the agency implements "clear priorities" to focus on convicted criminals. She stressed the importance of local cooperation, without commenting specifically on the California proposal.

"The federal government alone sets these priorities and places detainers on individuals arrested on criminal charges to ensure that dangerous criminal aliens and other priority individuals are not released from prisons/jails and into our communities," she said. "The Administration remains committed to immigration reform and to enforcing current law in a smart and effective manner across the country."

A simple question.....how is this different than the struck-down Arizona Laws?

How can a State "ignore" the Feds on what has been clearly claimed by the S.Court to be a Federal Power, immigration?

And will there be a lawsuit from the Feds on this, as there was in AZ, or will it be yet another case where illegals get rewarded by "unequal but better treatement under the law" that benefits them, a la in-state tuition and a host of other "get out of jail free or get welfare free" situations?

Sactuary States = ok, Enforcing the actual Law = no ok?

How? Why?

[chiefst2000]

Originally Posted by Warfish

A simple question.....how is this different than the struck-down Arizona Laws?

How can a State "ignore" the Feds on what has been clearly claimed by the S.Court to be a Federal Power, immigration?

And will there be a lawsuit from the Feds on this, as there was in AZ, or will it be yet another case where illegals get rewarded by "unequal but better treatement under the law" that benefits them, a la in-state tuition and a host of other "get out of jail free or get welfare free" situations?

Sactuary States = ok, Enforcing the actual Law = no ok?

How? Why?

Liberalism is a disease of the mind. There's no other explanation for how that bill got passed.

[WestCoastOffensive]

Look up the case of Anthony Bolongna, murdered with 2 of his sopnes in SF by a member of MS-13 (in a case of mistaken identity). They were close friends of my family; Michael was close friends with my son.

Anyway, Ramos was convicted. But SF ICE had this guy under questioning earlier that year and let him go. Quite a sad story.

[WestCoastOffensive]

Originally Posted by Warfish

A simple question.....how is this different than the struck-down Arizona Laws?

How can a State "ignore" the Feds on what has been clearly claimed by the S.Court to be a Federal Power, immigration?

And will there be a lawsuit from the Feds on this, as there was in AZ, or will it be yet another case where illegals get rewarded by "unequal but better treatement under the law" that benefits them, a la in-state tuition and a host of other "get out of jail free or get welfare free" situations?

Sactuary States = ok, Enforcing the actual Law = no ok?

How? Why?

The state/city has the employees on the ground; making reports. Immigrants that can lose jobs and residences because of the use of "profiling"; a family member that's an unwitting stooge for a gang gets the entire family deported...these are real problems that eat up man-hours and $$$$. That's why the State/City will act in the way it feels best serves the population.

Anyway, that what happened with Edwin Ramos...he was put back on the street by ICE

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by WestCoastOffensive

The state/city has the employees on the ground; making reports. Immigrants that can lose jobs and residences because of the use of "profiling"; a family member that's an unwitting stooge for a gang gets the entire family deported...these are real problems that eat up man-hours and $$$$. That's why the State/City will act in the way it feels best serves the population.

And yet if a City/State feels it's in the best interests of the population it serves to act otherwise, for example, not provide benefits to illegals, ask for proof of citizenship from suspected illegals (or even everyone arrested/stopped), or otherwise try and protect their legitimate citizens from the actions and pradations of illegals.....thats unconstituional.

But protect and serve the interests OF the illegals, and there is no issue, no problem. Localism at it's best?

[WestCoastOffensive]

Originally Posted by Warfish

And yet if a City/State feels it's in the best interests of the population it serves to act otherwise, for example, not provide benefits to illegals, ask for proof of citizenship from suspected illegals (or even everyone arrested/stopped), or otherwise try and protect their legitimate citizens from the actions and pradations of illegals.....thats unconstituional.

But protect and serve the interests OF the illegals, and there is no issue, no problem. Localism at it's best?

While I understand your anger and sarcasm, successfully providing some type of humane treatment of individuals is no walk in the park. I have cop friends and they are very concerned for those on the dangerous beats where the violent offenders hide.

Why not ask "Why do some cities have Charters?".

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by WestCoastOffensive

While I understand your anger and sarcasm, successfully providing some type of humane treatment of individuals is no walk in the park. I have cop friends and they are very concerned for those on the dangerous beats where the violent offenders hide.

Why not ask "Why do some cities have Charters?".

Cities have charters, as well as local and state Laws, because we supposedly live in a system where the Federal has enumerated (i.e. limited, strictly) power and authority.

In the issue of immigration, the Supreme Court has de facto said "it's Federal, and Federal Only". Meaning they can ignore their own laws if they wish as they wish and States cannot over-rule them.

So.....I'll ask again the question i asked above:

If a City/State feels it's in the best interests of the population it serves to act otherwise, for example, not provide benefits to illegals, ask for proof of citizenship from suspected illegals (or even everyone arrested/stopped), or otherwise try and protect their legitimate citizens from the actions and pradations of illegals.....thats unconstituional.

But protect and serve the interests OF the illegals, and there is no issue, no problem. Localism at it's best?

[WestCoastOffensive]

It's not my fight; I'm just playing along here. But the USA and certainly San Francisco have reaped the benefits of immigration.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by WestCoastOffensive

It's not my fight; I'm just playing along here. But the USA and certainly San Francisco have reaped the benefits of immigration.

In all seriousness, you know you're being dishonest WCO.

Immigrantion =/= ILLEGAL Immigration and you ****ing know it.

You're damn right it's benefitted from immigration. I'm an immigrant and you bet it benefits from me and my labor and those who follow the law like me.

If your claim is the U.S. and it's citizens benefit from illegal immigration, well, I'd say the burden is on your to prove it.

And maybe, for once, to be honest about whats being discussed.

Not "immigration".

Illegal Immigration.

[WestCoastOffensive]

Originally Posted by Warfish

Cities have charters, as well as local and state Laws, because we supposedly live in a system where the Federal has enumerated (i.e. limited, strictly) power and authority.

In the issue of immigration, the Supreme Court has de facto said "it's Federal, and Federal Only". Meaning they can ignore their own laws if they wish as they wish and States cannot over-rule them.

So.....I'll ask again the question i asked above:

If a City/State feels it's in the best interests of the population it serves to act otherwise, for example, not provide benefits to illegals, ask for proof of citizenship from suspected illegals (or even everyone arrested/stopped), or otherwise try and protect their legitimate citizens from the actions and pradations of illegals.....thats unconstituional.

But protect and serve the interests OF the illegals, and there is no issue, no problem. Localism at it's best?

I don't live in that place; jetstream23 can answer your question directly (hopefully).

Let me say that "unconstitutional" is an argument for those that wish to repeal those laws; it's not my stance. I will say "yes" to whatever effect/result that comes from giving the muni complete authority to handle their residents.

[WestCoastOffensive]

Originally Posted by Warfish

In all seriousness, you know you're being dishonest WCO.

Immigrantion =/= ILLEGAL Immigration and you ****ing know it.

You're damn right it's benefitted from immigration. I'm an immigrant and you bet it benefits from me and my labor and those who follow the law like me.

If your claim is the U.S. and it's citizens benefit from illegal immigration, well, I'd say the burden is on your to prove it.

And maybe, for once, to be honest about whats being discussed.

Not "immigration".

Illegal Immigration.

Okay I see your point; I would be hard pressed to isolate and provide an example of a trend of "positive benefits" flowing to US citizens from illegal immigration. The corollary to this is that there are hundreds if not thousands of examples of folks 1) saving their after-tax dollars and 2) helping out someone willing to work (for less ) by surreptitiously "hiring" illegal aliens.

Did you cast some light on the children of illegals? This seems to be a weighty subject, further clouding matters and obfuscating our "escape route" to a definitive way of handling "illegals".