Posted by: Sister Toldjah on August 15, 2007 at 11:03 am
It’ll be the first of its kind in the nation:
Federal immigration officials want to build a 1,500-bed detention facility in Mecklenburg County to house illegal immigrants before they’re deported.
The facility would ease the strain on the county’s overcrowded jails, where 500 inmates sleep on the floor every night.
The center — the first in the country — could open in less than two years and would be the final stop for illegal immigrants from the South and Mid-Atlantic regions, Mecklenburg Sheriff Jim Pendergraph said.
It would be built and owned by a private developer and leased by the county, which would bill the federal government for each inmate who spends the night. Pendergraph said it was unclear how long it would take the developer to recoup the capital costs.
The news of the holding center comes five months after the U.S. Department of Justice announced plans to open an immigration court in Charlotte. The court is scheduled to open early next year.
Pendergraph said he and U.S. Rep. Sue Myrick, a Charlotte Republican, traveled to Washington twice this year to lobby for the detention facility. He received a letter of intent from officials at Immigration and Customs Enforcement this month.
They said, “If you build it, we’ll come,” Pendergraph said.
“They’re so short on space,” he said, “they would even bring prisoners from as far as New York.”
Pendergraph said that his office had already been in contact with potential developers and that the center could be open in as few as 18 months. His office is looking for sites.
Hats off to Sheriff Pendergraph, who received national recognition last year for his department’s efforts on cracking downon illegal immigration, and Rep. Sue Myrick, a staunch anti-illegal immigration fighter.
Related to the illegal immigration issue, I see Newt Gingrich is once again using his role as sideline critic to wrongly attack Congress and the President for going on vacation “while three college students in NJ were killed by illegal immigrants,” as if their staying in office would have stopped the horrific execution-style murders:
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Tuesday he is “sickened” that President Bush and Congress went on vacation “while young Americans in our cities are massacred” by illegal immigrants.
Gingrich, who is considering a run for the White House, was referring to a recent crime in Newark, N.J., where three college students were murdered execution style in a school playground.
One of the suspects — Jose Lachira Carranza — is an illegal immigrant from Peru who was on bail on charges of raping a child when the murders occurred.
Gingrich said another suspect is an illegal immigrant from Nicaragua with a long record of arrests who was ordered deported in 1993 but never left.
However, The (Newark) Star Ledger reported Tuesday that the man — Rodolfo Godinez — obtained permanent legal residency in 2001.
The Newark Police Department did not return requests for comment.
Gingrich said that the “war here at home” against illegal immigrants is “even more deadly than the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
“The federal government’s incompetence, timidity and uncoordinated efforts to identify and deport criminal illegal aliens have had devastating consequences for innocent Americans,” Gingrich said, in a newsletter.
Gingrich said that the “war here at home” against illegal immigrants is “even more deadly than the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
“As an American, I am sickened that the political leadership of America could continue to go on vacation and do nothing,” he said. “Why are the August vacations for the president and the Congress more precious than the lives of young Americans who are being killed because of government incompetence and inaction.”
Gingrich said that President Bush should call Congress back into special session for three days to pass a bill in honor of the slain students.
As an American, I’m sickened by Newt Gingrich’s implication that if our immigration laws were being enforced like they should be, that these murders (and others we hear about) wouldn’t have happened. I’m just as horrified by the murders, too, and also am on board with our immigration laws being both enforced and strengthened. But I’m not naive enough to believe that if we do everything we possibly can to cut down on illegal immigration that crimes like this won’t happen again. Yes, we most definitely need to enforce our immigration laws, and yes doing so would cut down on the chances of it happening, but it’s not going to eliminate it, and someone in his influential position should know better than to broadcast faulty implied assurances that crimes like this won’t happen once those laws are enforced and strengthened as they should be.
As I’ve said before, this issue deserves realism, not idealism. Since Newt has slammed the Republican contenders running for president as a bunch of “pathetic pygmies,” as well as the Congress and the current president for what they have and have not done on the immigration issue, I say he put his money where his mouth is and throw his hat in the ring so he can show everyone else how to do it better.
Prior:
Velvet Lair
I disagree, Sister T.
It’s a certainty that if the immigrations laws had been enforced, Carranza and Godinez would not have killed those people. They wouldn’t even have been in New Jersey at all. Those kids are dead because the people we charge to enforce our laws chose not to do so. There’s no way to get around that.
How do you know for sure? Do you think if we started strongly enforcing every law on the book related to illegal immigration that we are going to catch and deport every single illegal in the US?
I agree that those three kids may still have been gunned down but their chances certainly would have improved has this child molesting murderer been deported. Newark really needs to rethink the sanctuary city status that it now has.
Sister T, I never suggested that we should deport every illegal immigrant. I saw that strawman get pummeled a lot during the last illegal immigration debate and I wondered how folks could inflate the point so badly.
I didn’t suggest that we deport every illegal immigrant. I am saying that we can and should deport the illegal immigrants that we arrest for other crimes. If the authorities had done that one simple thing, neither of those men would have been around to execute their victims. Now, I can’t say that those folks would be alive today. It’s possible that they would have died some other way – maybe a gang shootign, maybe a safe falling on their heads, who knows? They wouldn’t have been killed by illegal immigrants with extensive criminal records who had been released repeatedly by the authorities who are there in part to protect the citizens of their state.
Jimmie, with all due respect, it wasn’t a strawman. In order to believe that illegal immigrants with certainty would not have killed those college students if our laws were enforced to the fullest indicates a belief that they without a doubt would have been caught and deported beforehand and would not have slipped through the cracks. Our system has failed before, and even if everything possible was done to ensure that criminal illegals (which is a bit redudant, because every illegal by law is a criminal) would get caught and be deported, that still doesn’t mean that we won’t have illegals in this country who won’t slip through the cracks. Especially if they have a criminal history, because they’ll be the ones more cautious than the rest. That’s why I asked “how could you be sure they wouldn’t fall through the cracks?” The answer, of course is that none of us can be sure, which was my whole point.
Why they let this illegal immigrant rape suspect out on bail boggles the mind. Who could possibly be more of a flight risk than someone who didn’t respect our laws when they entered our country, and faces hard time if convicted?
You know I like you Sister T, but it was a strawman. I said that it was certain that those illegal immigrants would not have killed those people if our elected official has upheld our laws. I’m not sure how that’s in any sort of dispute.
You say there will be cracks in the system and I can’t disagree. But we’re not really debating cracks in the system here, are we? I’m talking about two guys the authorities had their hands on more than once who were continually released to commit more crimes for no other reason than they did not or could not ask whether they were legal residents. I feel very certain that at least one of their many arrests would have resulted in deportation had the authorities asked that question and enforced that law.
I’m not asking for an Illegal Roundup by any means. All I’m saying is that we go ahead and deport the guys we arrest for other crimes. If ten out a hundred slip through whatever cracks exist (and I think that number is high), that still puts 90 safely away from our citizens. Isn’t that the very least our elected officials can manage? Goodness knows we’ve given up the idea that we’ll enforce the laws on the books if they’re hard or cost a few bucks. Can we at least enforce the ones that are easy, where the criminals pretty much toss themselves into our hands?
I’m sorry, Jimmy, but it wasn’t. We’ll have to agree to disagree.
Oh there’s a ton of dispute over that – at least from me, because it assumes that once they were deported, they’d never get back into the US in order to be able to commit crimes.
I don’t have an issue with law enforcement going to the fullest extent of the law in order to arrest and deport illegal aliens convicted of crimes other than just being illegal in and of itself (which is also a crime). My issue is with people like Newt Gingrich who wrongly imply that without a doubt if the laws were fully enforced that this wouldn’t have happened, and try to make it look like GWB and Congress were complicit in these murders. As a public figure and an experienced former politician, he should know better than to say something like that. Once again, though, he’s using emotional manipulation where he doesn’t have to in order to advance his ideas.
I could just as easily say that if Newt Gingrich had dealt with the issue when he was Speaker of the House instead of ragging on Bill Clinton and completely ignoring illegal aliens maybe this awful crime would not have happened.
I remember when the kids were killed on that college campus in VA, there were people who said that if we had stricter gun laws that would not have happened. There were even people who said that if the campus had been a gun free zone it would not have happened. As if a homicidal maniac cares about the law.
Does Gingrich really think that if a bunch of Congressmen and women stay in Washington that people will not find a way to sneak into this country? Well perhaps we should stop giving border agents vacations. Maybe we should stop allowing cops to take time off. After all if they did their jobs there would be no crime.
As far as that is concerned Americans shoot each other every day and while I too want to see laws enforced Gingrich’s use of this incident to further his own political argument is not a lot different than the use of dead soldiers by Democrats who are against the war. It is demagoguery.
BTW, our laws to require a hearing for everyone before they can be deported. I think some people who are complaining about not enforcing the laws do not understand how the system works.
Now the bill that was just killed in the Senate would have made it easier to deport people who have committed certain crimes, but that bill was killed. In truth the people complaining about this are the ones protecting the status quo.
If legal Americans are Harmed by a ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT in any way, sue the city offering sanctuary and the business that hired him or she! Government main reason for existance is to “PROTECT ITS CITIZENS”! The majority of our local,state and federal governments refuse to do so. Businesses want to profit from them, it’s their responsibility to pay damages caused by the ILLEGALS ACTIONS!
SUE THEM, it’s governments JOB AND RESPONSIBILITY!
SUE THE BUSINESSES THAT LURE AND HIRE THEM!
Well First off I was wondering where in the heck the term”sanctuary city”came from. Then it hit me FOX NEWS. I thought only Dems spewed media driven talking point. Guess not. It’s too late in the day for me to get started on illegal immigration but it probably wouldn’t have even made the news if those young adults were basically good kids which in of itself is a shame. Also ST I’m still doing the right thing you know what I mean.
If you want to break down the argument to matters of metaphysical certainty (how I miss the old-school John McLaughlin!), then sure. You’re right. I admit that it’s possible that those two men could have gotten back into the country, back to New Jersey, and killed those two kids.
The likelihood of that happening is so remote, though, that I feel pretty confident in my certainty.
But so what? So what if they come back in? Does that mean that we should allow the authorities to abrogate their responsibilities? I can’t buy that. If you follow that logic to its end, you might as well stop enforcing every law because there will be recidivists. That’s just not a tenable position.
We’re just going to have to disagree on this one. When we impress on any authority figure a duty to enforce our laws, and they do not, they have to bear at least some of the responsibility for their malfeasance. I think that’s even more appropriate when folks like the President go out of their way to ensure that certain laws are not enforced and castigate those who insist that he enforce the laws he’s hired to enforce.
reusha:
Oh puhleaze, did people wake up one morning in 2005, look around and say to themselves, My God there are illegals here!
For years and years people have been coming to the US to work the fields. For decades we even had a program, the Bracero program that was in place for that purpose. And then the unions killed it, but the unions did not take to the fields.
For years we have had a policy that says if any Cuban can get to dry land he can stay.
For our entire history we have had open borders, in fact Bush has put more people and more resources on that southern border and into enforcment than any president in history.
I don’t like the idea of sanctuary cities, but I do know that if all the illegals in NYC were rounded up and shipped out of there the restaurant industry in that city would collapse.
None of this happaned over night and it will not be dealt with over night either.
I don’t think sueing cities will ever work.
And btw, if all the assailants had been local gangbangers, would people even really give a damn?
And this is not just about big business, a lot of these people work for small businesses or are self employed and if it were not for the migrant workers food would rot in the fields. So rather than just rant and rave about this problem, people need to find realistic solutions.
Jimmie:
Who said they abrogated their responsibilities? I do not think that people have any realistic idea of how long those borders are, how many people it would take to actually pick up all these people, how much space it would take to detain them, what changes would have to be made in the law to speed up processing etc. They just assume that since the powers that be have not magically gotten this thing under control with the laws as they exist today and with the resources currently available to them…then it must be because they are just not doing their jobs.
I have never heard a hardliner actually talk about what the cost would be in doing what they demand be done. They just insult other people and make impossible demands.
There is nothing impossible about deportation. It is actually pretty simple, and not all that costly. You put them on a plane, a bus, or whatever with an escort, and you send them out of the country to the intended destination. We should be doing this by the train load, with sealed box cars, except that our rail system is in such bad shape that it probably does not reach the Mexican border any more. We have the means for deportation, and it is just a lack of will that has caused it not to happen.
If those illegal aliens were deported, and therefore not in NJ, it is pretty clear that they would not be doing any murders in NJ. How can there be any argument about that? It is true that they might make another illegal entry into the US, but they would at least have to work at it. Just keeping them there and releasing them on the street makes it far too easy for them to do what they did.
It is true that Americans do murder Americans, but let us address that problem, rather than having to deal with murders by illegal aliens who should not even be in the picture. Newt got that much absolutely right!
Wrong, tommy.
Good. Stay strong!
Then you have a lot more confidence in the border control system than I do. It’s not just a remote chance, either, because no matter how much stronger our enforcement laws get,and borders tightened, deported people are still going to slip through and not in small numbers.
That’s a huge strawman. Please go back and read what I’ve posted in this thread as well as the post itself, and you’ll see that I’ve never, ever, not once said that authorities ought to “stop enforcing the law” and “abrogate their responsibilities.” I wrote this in my post:
And in a later comment:
I’ve made it clear that the laws should indeed be enforced and strengthened, but took issue with the fact that Newt Gingrich tried to blame Bush and Congress for the murders of the college kids in NJ by implying that if our laws were enforced to the fullest extent that this would not have happened. It’s irresponsible on his part.
The President hasn’t “gone out of his way” to not enforce immigration laws. In fact, it was the vocal-anti-illegal immigration crowd who kept pushing for immigration reform, Bush told Congress to make it a priority, and at least twice now they’ve tried to do something about it in Congress but failed, primarily due to the fact that the bill’s opponents were saying we don’t need a new bill, we need to enforce existing laws.
The problem with the debate is that there are two parts to it. One, border security or the lack thereof. Our first priority should have been and still is to properly secure our borders and ports of entry. ST I realize that this won’t stop all the illegals from sneaking in but it will slow the flow down to a trickle.
Then we can figure out some way to deal with everyone already here. The priority should be to deport everyone in the clink once their sentences are up. After that we can start to sort through everyone else. But it’s like bailing a leaky boat while ignoring the hole where the water is pouring in.
Just my 2¢
ST opines, regarding the failure to deport the alleged murderer:
That’s very close to arguing that there’s no sense in ever deporting an illegal, regardless of the crime, because after all he can just sneak back in again. You’re right that a good number will get back in again. Let’s assume for the moment that you’re right, and that 90% of them sneak in again. That would have given those three kids in Newark a 10% better chance of being alive today. Not great odds, but I like them better than zero. If illegal alien criminals are inconvenienced before they can resume a life of crime, so be it. I don’t care.
I’ve commented on illegal immigration here before and noted three points that I’d start with on this issue – and if any one of the three were adopted it would have helped here:
* robust border security – might have kept him out. No, not 100%, or even 50% success, but better than now.
* automatic deportation for felonies – aggravated assault and rape of a toddler. Over a few years. And threatening the parents of his lust victim. I’d say this piece of filth qualifies.
* outlawing sanctuary cities – if Newark weren’t a sanctuary city, and notified ICE, the Feds could have taken action.
In any one of those cases, three lives might have been saved.
I do agree with ST that Gingrich is off base in his criticism of the President and Congress. Actually there are other villians here, but not the ones he rails again. First, there’s the judge who let this scum back on the street with minimal bail despite his past criminal history. Second, as already mentioned, there’s the sanctuary city policy.
Once again people are demanding the laws be enforced without knowing what the laws are. The laws regarding deportation in this country do not make it possible to just put them on a plane and deport them. BTW there are 11 million illegals in this country, roughly half of them are border crossers and the other half got here some other way…so 11 million people is about twice the population of the state of Indiana and we are going to just put them all on a plane and deport them to…where?
As for sanctuary cities, we can thank the states rights fanatics for some of this, they forget that the same kind of laws that make it possible for local governments to make laws we support, make it possible for them to make laws we think are stupid. It makes more sense to attempt to cut off their money.
Great White:
I am not saying I like this decision, but I think we forget that often times judges have to work with the law that is there, and it is useless for people to rail against that law while they make it impossible for changes to made in the law. The hardliners fought to keep the status quo, well this is the status quo.
Terrye, read carefully. I didn’t say that’s what the laws were. I said that the law should be changed so that illegals who commit felonies would be deported.
And where did I say all illegals should be deported? I’ve been very specific about only shipping out the felons. In the future, you might want to respond to what I actually write…there’s enough content in there that you don’t have to make up some.
Nonsense. This is a case of cities refusing to comply with Federal law and not being punished for it. It has nothing to do with states rights. Not too coincidentally, just about every ’sanctuary city’ is run by leftists, not ’states rights fanatics’. I do agree with you that cutting off their federal funds is a good idea, but if that doesn’t work, I’d like to apply some legal leverage as well.
That makes no sense. Judges have wide discretion on what sort of bail to set, within parameters of the charges. In this case, the judge knew he had a dangerous, violent, individual in front of him. He chose to set low bail and let him back on the street. Note that this has nothing to do with his illegal status – the judge might not even have known about that. It’s a case of a soft-headed judge letting violent people run loose. It has nothing to do with the failure to pass the “amnesty” bill.