Comments on: LAPD Frees Officers to Contact Immigration Officials

By: Ladainian

Ladainian — Fri, 01 Apr 2005 18:21:28 +0000

Check out the picture of the 3 Mexicans poking their heads over the border fence to watch Tuesday’s press conference on the US side about building a better fence:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/mexico/tijuana/20050330-9999-2m30fence.html

By: Patterico

Patterico — Fri, 01 Apr 2005 02:33:31 +0000

I agree with you, for the most part.

By: Dafydd

Dafydd — Fri, 01 Apr 2005 02:24:48 +0000

I dunno, counselor; it sounds suspiciously like the argument that if we require photo ID before somebody votes, in an effort to weed out non-citizens, that even naturalized citizens will be so frightened or offended that they won’t vote, either.

Frankly, I find both arguments rather insulting — to immigrants. I’m sure there are immigrants who will use the excuse above not to talk to the cops; but I’m pretty certain that absent any communication between the LAPD and the INS, these same immigrants would have found some other excuse and still not talked to the cops.

(Just as I find it dubious, to say the least, that a person who has worked and jumped through all the hoop skirts necessary to finally become a citizen will refuse to vote just because his non-citizen neighbors, who did nothing compared to what he did, aren’t afforded the same reward that he slaved for.)

Dafydd

By: Patterico

Patterico — Fri, 01 Apr 2005 01:27:32 +0000

Dafydd,

I can’t authoritatively speak for those who put Special Order 40 into effect, but I can guess at the concern: that illegal immigrant victims are not going to notice such subtle distinctions — “Don’t worry, they’re only deporting suspects!” My guess is that if illegals see LAPD as la migra, for some it won’t really make a difference that LAPD is investigating the immigration status of suspects only.

No matter. We have violent gang members walking the streets who don’t even belong in this country. Everything is a trade-off; the trade-off discussed in the article is one I’m willing to make.

By: Dafydd

Dafydd — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 20:47:19 +0000

Er… Patterico, I feel silly asking this — surely I must be misunderstanding something basic — but if the intent of Special Order 40 is to prevent witnesses and victims from being afraid to report crimes, then wouldn’t an easy solution be to prohibit disclosure to the INS of the suspected immigration status of the witnesses and victims — but encouraging them to disclose such status of the arrestee?

This seems too simplistic to be accurate. What am I missing?

Dafydd

By: Ladainian

Ladainian — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 20:28:50 +0000

The sad fact is many politicians enjoy criminal migration, and need to be seen as accepting these crminials because they have friends who can legally vote.

Take the press conference by the Mexico border fence Tuesday. The construction of a new fence that is hard to climb over or dig under is opposed by San Diego Democrat house members. They claim this is for environmental reasons. This fence is in a region totally covered with trash from all the people criminally migrating through there! How much of an environmental impact does a fence make, compared to the output of millions of people who criminally migrate into the state?

Opposition to this fence upgrade is the most baffling thing I’ve ever seen. So now the Republicans are saying we need the fence to defend the nuclear subs and nuclear weapons in San Diego from Al Qaeda.

By: Ken

Ken — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 19:35:29 +0000

This is not an anti-immigration question. I just want to know.

It has always been my impression that police at every level and jurisdiction are sworn to uphold local, state, and federal law (referring violations to the proper agency). Yet cities routinely order police to ignore federal laws they dislike.

So, are police to enforce federal laws or not? And can they be ordered not to?