E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Hannah Rappleye/NBC News
When The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency announced its intention to close the Etowah County Detention Center in Gadsden, Ala., in 2010, Alabama's congressional delegation turned on the pressure to block the closure.
GADSDEN, Ala. -- The serpentine Coosa River once brought people and goods aplenty to this pretty Southern town, known first for its riverboats and later for its rubber and steel plants.
But those times are mostly a memory. The city has struggled since the 1980s. Plants shuttered, and industry moved abroad. Many jobs shifted into the service sector.
Then, in the late 1990s, a tide of immigrants flowed into Gadsden, delivering an unlikely economic boost. The essential revenue they generated came not from their work in fields, factories or hotels, however, but from their presence in the county’s jail cells.
Ever since, the Etowah County Detention Center has typically held hundreds of immigrant detainees, incarcerated at the behest of the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, or ICE, as they either await deportation or fight it.
The stable jail population has meant a steady income for the county -- $40 per detainee per day, plus additional payments that bring the total to more than $5 million a year – and good-paying jobs. But the revenue stream appeared to be about to dry up in late 2010, when ICE decided to move the detainees out of the remote and controversial Alabama jail, where critics say they often are subjected to indefinite confinement far from their families and lawyers.
Alabama politicians weren’t going to let that happen without a fight. Records obtained by NBC News show that members of Congress waged a successful battle to stop ICE from ending its deal to lease over 300 beds at the Etowah jail, part of a plan to consolidate its detention facilities and house detainees closer to the courts where their cases are heard.
The Etowah County Detention Center in Gadsden, Ala., holds as many as 350 suspected undocumented immigrants for open-ended stays as they await deportation. Critics say conditions in the rural lockup are "inhumane." NBC's Mark Potter reports.
The story of the Etowah County jail demonstrates how politicians can shape not just policy, but everyday operational decisions at ICE, an agency responsible for nearly 34,000 detainees on any given day.
“ICE has understood very clearly … that moving people out of Etowah would not be welcomed,” said Michelle Brane, director of the detention and asylum program at the Women’s Refugee Commission, which recently published a report detailing what it said are ongoing human rights abuses at the jail. “Etowah was a facility we felt should be closed, and to keep it open because of local politics and favors obviously does not seem to be in the best interest of American taxpayers, or the detainees.”
Growth of an industry
The Obama administration has deported record numbers of illegal immigrants in recent years, including nearly 400,000 in fiscal 2011. It also has detained record numbers of immigrants, thanks to 1996 legislation that expanded the jailing of immigrants pending deportation proceedings.
Floyd Abdul, a Zimbabwean national, describes the four months he spent locked up in Alabama's Etowah County Detention Center.
As a result, ICE now operates the largest detention system in the country. Most detainees await their court appearances or deportation dates not in ICE facilities, but in a network of private and local jails and prisons that offer the agency beds for far less than it would cost to build its own. ICE currently makes use of more than 200 such facilities.
Related stories
Read Part 1: Immigrant detainees land in limbo in Alabama jail
Letter never received landed immigrant in 'hell on Earth'
Many, like the Etowah jail, are in financially struggling rural counties that have come to depend on ICE, which pays between $40 and more than $100 per person, per day to house and feed the detainees.
But ICE itself is under pressure to strengthen Christensen wrote in January 2012 in response to inquiries about conditions in the lockups. The agency has also tried to centralize operations, and give detainees greater access to family and lawyers, Christensen said.
Those initiatives can be at cross-purposes with the needs of cities like Gadsden, the seat of Etowah County, where the fierce pressure brought to bear on ICE when it sought to remove the detainees illustrates how economically dependent the community has become on immigrant detention.
Immigrants have been dispatched to the Etowah County Detention Center – a large, gray block that sits across the street from shops selling guns, bail bonds and barbecue -- since 1998, when the agency then known as the Immigration and Naturalization Service began using it to house detainees it had no room for at its detention facilities in Georgia.
The federal government helped pay for an expansion of the jail in 2003, kicking in about $8 million to help finance the $13.5 million project.
Cost savings and jobs
The relationship was good for both sides. It meant steady revenue for Etowah County and much-needed – and cheap -- space for the INS and its successor agency, ICE, which is part of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
The county receives not just the $40 per detainee payment from the feds, but reimbursement from ICE for expenses arising from transporting detainees. ICE also rents offices in Gadsden and pays the county officers assigned to the detainees $17 an hour.
The facility remains a bargain for ICE, which pays day rates nearly three times higher at detention facilities in some northern states.
But the remoteness of the jail poses problems. For years, detainees and ICE employees have had to travel two hours each way to reach the ICE field office and courts in Atlanta.
That was one of the justifications cited two years ago when ICE, under pressure from Georgia politicians to make use of a half-empty detention facility there, announced that it planned to pull detainees out of Etowah County in December 2010.
File
Rep. Robert Aderholt.
The county decided to fight. A Dec. 7 email obtained by NBC News through an open records request shows Alabama Rep. Robert Aderholt’s staff contacted ICE the day after the announcement.
“Mr. Aderholt is quite concerned about this move and is requesting any information we have on the decision,” the email reads.
The email was among more than 800 pages of documents obtained through a Freedom of Information request that detail the fight to keep immigration detainees at Etowah.
In phone calls, meetings and interviews with the press, Etowah County Sheriff Todd Entrekin implored the county’s congressional representatives to intervene.
“The financial impact of ICE voiding their contract with Etowah County and Alabama will be economically catastrophic to the employees, the county and Northeast Alabama,” he said, according to local newspaper accounts. Voiding the deal, which generates approximately $5.2 million a year for the county, would mean “49 individuals losing their jobs only days before Christmas with no notice whatsoever,” he said.
The county also was still paying off about $3 million in debt associated with the jail expansion. “Without the ICE contract, Etowah County will not be able to meet these obligations,” Entrekin told the Gadsden Times.
Members of Alabama’s congressional delegation, including Reps. Aderholt and Mike Rogers and Sens. Richard Shelby and Jeff Sessions, all Republicans, reacted swiftly. Within days, they sent emails to and met personally with high-level ICE officials to plead Etowah County’s case.
'Secret, unprofessional and unfair'
Aderholt also publicly assailed the decision, saying, “The manner by which this decision has been made by ICE has been secretive, unprofessional and unfair,” according to the newspaper. “I will continue working with the Alabama delegation and Etowah County to further challenge ICE to reverse any plans to end their agreement with Etowah County.”
ICE staffers told the Alabama politicians that the withdrawal from Etowah was “inevitable,” documents show. And ICE said the agreement between the county and the agency, set to expire in 2014, simply set terms for ICE to use the facility -- it did not guarantee the agency would do so.
But emails show ICE officials soon grew concerned they would face budgetary repercussions if they did not find a solution that would satisfy Etowah County.
Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images
Sen. Richard Shelby.
An email from an ICE employee cited a conversation on Dec. 7 with Allen Cutler, Sen. Shelby’s appropriations staffer. “Cutler stated there would have to be a resolution that would satisfy Shelby or there would be a stop to all ICE reprogramming requests," it read, referring to requests from the agency for more funding.
The next day, the local newspaper reported ICE had decided to postpone the pullout.
In meetings over the following days, ICE staff presented reports that outlined the cost-savings of using Georgia detention centers. They also encouraged Alabama officials to "highlight the need for Secure Communities in AL, which would lead to the use of more facilities in the state." Secure Communities is a controversial program that uses a federal database to identify immigration violators when they are booked into local jails.
The agency also looked for other solutions -- including the transfer of detainees from other facilities. "We can move 100 women out of Etowah, and replace them with a hundred others,” read one Dec. 15 email. “Not a zero-sum issue."
ICE eventually backed down, guaranteeing that the detainees would stay at the Etowah County Detention Center at least until March 2011. Records show that the Alabama lawmakers were placated, but wary. Sen. Shelby’s office told ICE they would continue to negotiate on behalf of the county, and asked for a personal meeting between the senator and ICE staff members to discuss their “poor performance,” according to emails.
True to his word, that March, the senator again queried ICE about the agency’s plans, communications logs show.
ICE, Rep. Aderholt’s office, and Etowah County officials declined to speak on the record with NBC News. Shelby’s office issued a statement, saying, “In light of the unreasonably short notice of unnecessary job losses just before the holidays, in addition to the fact that the Etowah County facility was already obligated to hold a significant number of beds for ICE for several more years, members of the Alabama congressional delegation met with ICE to request a more realistic drawdown period.”
But records suggest representatives went beyond such requests. Not long after Rep. Aderholt become chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security in January 2011, giving him power to shape ICE’s budget, he demanded a meeting with ICE.
'Serious repercussions against our budget'
“I met with Aderholt’s personal staff,” wrote Gary Mead, ICE’s executive associate director for Enforcement and Removal Operations, or ERO, in a March 29 email to top ICE staff. “I do not believe we will be allowed to leave Etowah without serious repercussions against our budget. I have a meeting tomorrow with ERO folks to figure out if there is a reasonable way to make some use of Etowah long term. Discretion may be the better part of valor here."
Throughout that month, local newspapers reported what a pullout would mean for the county. Sheriff Entrekin said that, in addition to losing revenue from leased beds and jobs, his department would no longer collect fees that ICE detainees paid for phone calls and commissary items, forcing cuts in programs like substance abuse treatment and inmate work details in the community.
By June 2011, ICE had developed a proposal that satisfied the Alabamians. The agency decided that the detention center would be switched to the New Orleans regional office. That would enable the transfer of long-term detainees held at different facilities throughout the Southeast to Etowah.
In emails, ICE reasoned these detainees have often exhausted legal remedies and would not need to be transferred regularly to immigration courts hundreds of miles away. At Etowah, it said, they could fight their cases by mail or await their deportation.
But for some detainees, those waits are open-ended.
Neville Swaby, a detainee sent to Etowah after the New Orleans Field Office took over, has been at the facility for nearly a year. He is an undocumented immigrant who entered the country illegally from Mexico. He was detained by ICE after serving a sentence stemming from a marijuana possession charge.
An order for Swaby’s deportation has been in force for more than nine months, but his case is complicated because he has no official country of birth.
“I don’t have a country to go back to -- I would go to any country,” Swaby told NBC News reporters who visited the Etowah jail in May. “I’m not fighting deportation.”
ICE has requested travel papers from Jamaica, where Swaby says he was born. But the request has been pending since August 2011 and still no records have been delivered. Meanwhile, the agency has refused to free Swaby, saying his removal is expected in the “reasonably foreseeable future.” To Swaby, it seems simply to be a sentence without end.
“After six months’ time, nine months’ time, I’m still here,” he said.
Leave a Comment:
If the Etowah County Detention Center is this bad, and the town this dependent on its survival, why not rehabilitate the facility, and/or build a new business to replace lost revenue? As painful and unsure as it might be, it seems the best compromise with the most likeliness of a positive outcome. If the town is in such dire straights, and so many old factories are not shuttered, cheap land and ample opportunity to correct the problem should be abundant.
Wait a minute, why do the legislators want to keep the detainees in this jail? Because it brings good paying jobs to this community? How can this be, when we have been told over the last 3+ years that the government can not create jobs?
I guess it all depends on who and where the jobs are being created. Just like all of the other community projects funded by tax payer dollars.
Well the article does not paint a true picture. Actually it is a fairly new facility, not more than 12-15 years old but looks like it has just been built. We go by it at least once a month and I don't remember seeing any place to buy "guns or barbecue". Actually the writer did not even get the name of the facility correct, it is the James Hayes Detention Center. It was build at it's present size due to the request of the Feds to hold federal prisoners. I wonder if the writer EVEN VISITED Gadsden or wrote the article off of Google!
Dog...it isn't the Government creating the jobs.....it's the illegals who jump the border and get caught. Most likely committing other Crimes. It was the GOVERNMENT trying to MOVE those jobs.....most likely to a Blue State, like Illinois.
Sen D......you even sound like a politician.....blind and stupid.
Incarceration is the new growth industry. Our Gov. Dracula here is Florida was trying to privatize many of the jails here in Florida as soon as he took office. That is the GOP solution to everything. That way you fire the employees, hire them back at less pay and probably no benefits and create corporate profits for the corporate elite. Look how much Haliburton, Brown and Root and Blackwater made in Iraq. Hundreds of millions on no-bid contracts. Any guess why Romney and the Neo Cons want to attack Iran?
I'd say that when there are an estimated 12,000,000 illegal aliens in the United States and the government is closing detention centers that politics are definitely involved.
Homeland Security asks congress for $141 per person per night for each person they detain. That's $51,465 a year. Etowah holds these detainees for $40 a night. That's $14,600 per person per year.
Homeland Security keeps the extra $36,865 and adds it to their $98 billion budget. Just to put that into perspective, in 2002 when Homeland Security was founded, their operating budget was $49 million. In 2011, it was somewhere between $58-$98 billion.
In the meantime the private prison cuts corners with detainees so they can pour money into lobbyists, who wine and dine Congressmen to pass more and more restrictive laws to keep the stream of detainees going and the money circulating.
Like the upcoming Enemy Expatriation Act, where if you're suspected of advocating any act that runs counter to the US's interests, they can strip you citizenship and place you in detention as an 'illegal terrorist', and hold you indefinitely without charge or trial per the NDAA for FY2012 that was signed Dec 31st.
Bottom line:
Quick trail, incarceration to another prison if applicable [found guilty by a jury, etc., and sentenced for crime(s)], and quick deportation (with the cost of deportation sent to their home country of origin) the very NEXT DAY. If incarcerated, immediately deported upon release from prison/jail.
Another article in advance of Mr. Obama's 2nd term agenda (IF....IF re-elected) to open the borders and reduce the number of Border agents.
The Congressional political war cry is always "Reduce federal spending!"
(The subtext is always "Don't reduce federal spending in MY district.")
@Amanda-2017567
Not quite, Amanda. Shame on you! Don't dissemble. You are of course entitled to make up your own mind, but you are not entitled to make up your own facts. That's not acceptable.
The Enemy Expatriation Act (HR 3166 and S. 1698) is a proposed law, (a bill) in the United States Congress sponsored by Senators Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Scott Brown (R-MA) and Representatives Charlie Dent (R-PA) and Jason Altmire (D-PA).
The bill would allow the United States government to strip US citizens of their citizenship if they participate in terrorism, defined as "providing material support or resources to a Foreign Terrorist Organization, as designated by the Secretary of State, or actively engaging in hostilities against the United States or its allies."
Interesting several articles lately about illegal aliens...whoops!....I mean, immigrants.
You think msNBC might be trying to polarize voters about now?
Everybody please read the article in Fox News reported today about illegal immigrants, it is very important that more people read this.
My apologies, Robert. I was trying to get that out and I did miss a few words. Here's how that should have read;
".....Like the upcoming Enemy Expatriation Act, where if you're suspected of advocating any act that runs counter to the US's interests, they can strip you citizenship and then per the terms of the NDAA for FY2012, place you in detention as an 'illegal terrorist', and hold you indefinitely without charge or trial."
Here's where it gets tricky. See below the actual text of the bill:
Enemy Expatriation Act
HR 3166 IH/S1698
112th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 3166
To add engaging in or supporting hostilities against the United States to the list of acts for which United States nationals would lose their nationality.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
October 12, 2011
Mr. DENT (for himself and Mr. ALTMIRE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
A BILL
To add engaging in or supporting hostilities against the United States to the list of acts for which United States nationals would lose their nationality.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘Enemy Expatriation Act’.
SEC. 2. LOSS OF NATIONALITY.
(a) In General- Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in each of paragraphs (1) through (6), by striking ‘or’ at the end;
(B) in paragraph (7), by striking the period at the end and inserting ‘; or’; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
‘(8) engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States.’; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
‘(c) For purposes of this section, the term ‘hostilities’ means any conflict subject to the laws of war.’.
(b) Technical Amendment- Section 351(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1483(a)) is amended by striking ‘(6) and (7)’ and inserting ‘(6), (7), and (8)’.
In order to understand the full bill,you have to go and research the articles of US Code to which the bill will make changes. I'm posting them below, with the changes added--subtractions are struck through,additions are boldfaced.
Here's 8 USC 1481:
(a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality—
(1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application or upon an application filed by a duly authorized agent, after having attained the age of eighteen years;
or(2) taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after having attained the age of eighteen years;
or(3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if
(A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States,
or(B) such persons serve as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer;
or(4)
(A) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years if he has or acquires the nationality of such foreign state;
or(B) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years for which office, post, or employment an oath, affirmation, or declaration of allegiance is required;
or(5) making a formal renunciation of nationality before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign state, in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State;
or(6) making in the United States a formal written renunciation of nationality in such form as may be prescribed by, and before such officer as may be designated by, the Attorney General, whenever the United States shall be in a state of war and the Attorney General shall approve such renunciation as not contrary to the interests of national defense;
or(7) committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of title 18, or willfully performing any act in violation of section 2385 of title 18, or violating section 2384 of title 18 by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction:
or(b) Whenever the loss of United States nationality is put in issue in any action or proceeding commenced on or after September 26, 1961 under, or by virtue of, the provisions of this chapter or any other Act, the burden shall be upon the person or party claiming that such loss occurred, to establish such claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Any person who commits or performs, or who has committed or performed, any act of expatriation under the provisions of this chapter or any other Act shall be presumed to have done so voluntarily, but such presumption may be rebutted upon a showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the act or acts committed or performed were not done voluntarily.
(8) engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States; and
(c) For purposes of this section, the term ‘hostilities’ means any conflict subject to the laws of war.
Here's 8 USC 1483;
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (6), (7), and (8) of section 1481(a) of this title, no national of the United States can lose United States nationality under this chapter while within the United States or any of its outlying possessions, but loss of nationality shall result from the performance within the United States or any of its outlying possessions of any of the acts or the fulfillment of any of the conditions specified in this Part if and when the national thereafter takes up a residence outside the United States and its outlying possessions. (b) A national who within six months after attaining the age of eighteen years asserts his claim to United States nationality, in such manner as the Secretary of State shall by regulation prescribe, shall not be deemed to have lost United States nationality by the commission, prior to his eighteenth birthday, of any of the acts specified in paragraphs (3) and (5) of section 1481(a) of this title.
Then you notice these items make reference to other items of US Code, so you have to go and find those;
2383 Title 18:
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
2385 Title 18:
Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or
Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or
Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
As used in this section, the terms “organizes” and “organize”, with respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons, include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons.
2384 Title 18
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
Basically what his says is that any USC, whether native born or naturalized, can have citizenship stripped or revoked if:
10. Bearing arms against the government of the US
11. Inciting/assisting/set in action/supports rebellion against the Government of the US
12. Willfully advocating the overthrow of the US Government
13. Create/Print/Disseminate literature advocating the overthrow of the US Government
14. Organizing/starting/becoming a member of any organization that advocates overthrow of the US Government
15. Any conspiracy between 2 or more persons to overthrow the government of the US, to hinder execution of US law, or seize/take/possess US Government property
Please see my next post...
Now the next part of this is Homeland Security's list of what constitutes terrorism. Suspected terrorism includes any of the following:
Alternative media
Anarchist extremism
Animal rights extremism
Anti-abortion extremism
Anti-immigration extremism
Anti-technology extremism
Aryan prison gangs
Black bloc
Black nationalism
Black power
Black separatism
Christian Identity movement
Cuban independence extremism
Decentralized terror movement
Denial-of-service attacks
Direct action (including lawful acts of civil disobedience)
Environmental extremism
Ethnic extremism
Extremist groups
Green anarchism
Hacktivism (technology-enabled social/political activism)
Hate groups
Jewish extremism
Leaderless resistance
Left-wing extremism
Lone terrorists
Mexican separatists
Militia Movements (including conspiracy theorists)
Neo-Nazis
Patriot Movement
Phineas Priesthood
Primary targeting(directly supporting/funding terrorists)
Puerto Rican independence extremists
Radical Norse mysticism practitioners
Racialists
Right-wing extremists
Single-issue/multiple issue extremist groups
Skinheads whose ‘dress may include shaved head/short hair, jeans, thin suspenders, combat boots or Doc Martens and a bomber jacket’
Sovereign citizen movement
Tax resistance movement
Violent anti-war extremism
Violent religious sects (includes those who stockpile food and weapons)
White Nationalists
White Power advocates
White Supremacists
Then you add the terms for the NDAA for FY2012:
Subtitle D—Detainee Matters
4 SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.
(b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section is any person as follows:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.
(c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:
(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111–84)).
(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.
(d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(e) REQUIREMENT FOR BRIEFINGS OF CONGRESS.—The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be ‘‘covered persons’’ for purposes of subsection (b)(2).
The Constitution of the US has amendments to the constitution, the first ten of which are called the 'Bill of Rights:
Amendment 5: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
The operative term here is 'no person'. The Constitution doesn't differentiate between US citizens, lawful residents, illegal aliens, undocumented immigrants, or terrorists. It gives EVERY PERSON due process of law.
Amendment 6: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Being charged with a crime by the American government is a serious thing, therefore the Bill of rights was written with the idea that an average person should be able to defend himself against charges and implies that the government should have to prove their case. it's also better known as 'innocent until proven guilty' and with the passage of this bill that would change to 'guilty until you prove you're innocent'. How do you do that from behind bars? If they don't tell you what you're being arrested for, how do you know what to defend yourself from? if you aren't given a chance at a trial, how do you prove you're innocent? And if they can hold you indefinitely, they can just wait until you're dead.
SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.
(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—
(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.
Now while this may look on the surface like it doesn't apply to US Citizens, pay close attention to the wording. It says 'the requirement to detain doesn't extend to US citizens', but it says nothing about the military or government choosing to do so. There is no requirement, it basically leaves it up to an as-yet-undetermined agency to choose whether they want to do so or not. It's called ' broad discretionary power'.
SEC. 1032
(c) IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURES.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall issue, and submit to Congress, procedures for implementing this section.
8 (2) ELEMENTS.—The procedures for implementing this section shall include, but not be limited to, procedures as follows:
(A) Procedures designating the persons authorized to make determinations under subsection (a)(2) and the process by which such determinations are to be made.
(B) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection(a) does not require the interruption of ongoing surveillance or intelligence gathering with regard to persons not already in the custody or control of the United States.
(C) Procedures providing that a determination under subsection (a) is not required to be implemented until after the conclusion of an interrogation session which is ongoing at the time the determination is made and does not require the interruption of any such ongoing session.
(D) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection(a) does not apply when intelligence, law enforcement, or other government officials of the United States are granted access to an individual who remains in the custody of a third country.
(E) Procedures providing that a certification of national security interests under subsection (a) may be granted for the purpose of transferring a covered person from a third country if such a transfer is in the interest of the United States and could not otherwise be accomplished.
(d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shall take effect on the date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply with respect to persons described in subsection (a) who are taken into the custody or brought under the control of the United States on or after that effective date.
Subsection A says the President has to determine who would be authorized to make the decision to detain these suspected terrorists. Wait a minute, they’ve passed a law and they don’t even know who’s going to be able to make that determination yet? Shouldn’t that be decided BEFORE you pass a law?
Subsection B says they don’t have to determine if someone can be detained until they interrogate the person, and the determination can be made during the interrogation. An interrogation session on anyone suspected of terrorism, citizen or not. I can't be the only one who sees something wrong with that.
S1867/NDAA sections 1031-1033 basically will give our government the right to have our military indefinitely detain anyone suspected of terrorist activity without charge or trial, American citizen or not, anywhere in the world, on home soil or off. And it's not just limited to anything directly affecting America--it's anyone accused or suspected of terrorist activities against American allies too, which can be interpreted to include conflicts that don't even involve America. The NDAA also gives the department of Defense $600 billion to implement these changes with.
Some of what Homeland Security deems to be an indicator or terrorist activities also infringe on our Bill of Rights.
Amendment 1: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Deeming ‘alternative media’ as ‘terroristic’ abridges our freedom of speech and press. DHS’s ‘direct action’ clause, which includes ‘lawful acts of civil disobedience’ infringes on our right to express a grievance with the government—Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat on the bus back in the 60’s was an act of civil disobedience. If she were to do that today under this law she could be arrested as a terrorist.
Amendment 2: A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
In the above list of terrorist activity indicators is the listing that says militia movements which is a clear direct violation of the 2nd Amendment.
Amendment 4: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
This bill says people can be detained upon suspicion of terrorism without charge or trial. Amendment 4 says no warrants shall issue without probable cause, so if you are detaining someone without charge then you don’t have a warrant. Ergo, this is a violation of the 4th amendment.
Amendment 5: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
I would say terrorism classifies and an ‘infamous’ crime. Yes, according to this Amendment someone can be held to answer for it without a Grand Jury indictment ‘in time of war or public danger’, but while we have called the current conflict the ‘war on terror’, Congress has not actually formally pronounced a declaration of war, therefore holding someone without indictment for suspected terrorism violates that clause of the 5th amendment. Also, as the amendment says the person shall not be held without due process of law, holding someone without charge or trial is a clear violation of the 5th.
Amendment 6: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Detaining someone indefinitely without charge or trial violates this whole Amendment for all the reasons specified in Amendments 4 and 5.
Amendment 8: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Interrogation by its definition implies cruel or unusual. In order to ascertain whether a person is detainable, the detaining authority needs to question the individual but this bill needs very, VERY strict definitions of what constitutes ‘interrogation’ and how far the interrogator can go. One only needs to look at Abu Ghraib to see how this could go very wrong very quickly.
not whining:
Could you be any more vague?
Aren't these the same legislators who scream for smaller GOV?
exactly
Yep...and notice one of the reasons for the economic decline, according to the article, was jobs being shipped overseas. The American way! Corporations are people, my friends.....but it's all President Obama's fault, right?
Clearly Barrack Hussein Obama is impotent. Could do nothing on the economy with complete control of both houses of Congress, has as mired in Afghanistan, Fast and Furious got thousands killed. But he sure can campaign. He da man.
wakani...NO...he da FRAUD.
Uh, Wakani, you do realize that last year the feds deported more people than ever. AND these have been largely those convicted of criminal activity. And Obama is trying to come up with a compassionate solution to the problem of innocent illegal immigrants, i.e., those who had no choice about it, when their parents brought them here as kids. So I think he has actually done a good job with immigration.
And I think you didn't read the article, you just reacted from what you thought the headline was about. All this article is about is moving the detainees from one place to another, not setting them free.
More Deportations, Sure there are more illegals here with some committing crimes ( besides the fact they are committing a crime just by being here ). Also, NOW when someone is turned back at the boarder or denied entry it is listed as a deportation. Paper work Scam to make the numbers look better! Some odd reason article fails to mention that part?
technically they all are committing crimes since they are here illegally to begin with.
homesick....All the illegals deported by Bush and Obama together doubled doesn't put a dent in the problem. Obama stepped up deportation on illegals who have committed crimes in addition to being in the country illegally. This way he can look like he's doing something and the likes of La Raza, MECHA, LULAC, etc can't complain because he's deporting criminals.
What was it Lincoln said? Something like, "You can fool some of the people some all of the time...."
You will know a politician is serious about illegal immigration when he/she cracks down on the employers who give them the incentive to come here in the first place.
The administration will not support E Verify, that determines if a job seeker is a citizen, since they want illegals to stay here. The Supreme Court will not rule on the issue of whether a child of illegal aliens is really a US citizen by default. The illegals love it because a week after the child is born they are at the welfare office demanding rights and food stamps for the kid, and pop out another one ever year. And they know the parents won't be deported with young children so they have a free ride for life. And some states, like California, actually give food stamps to ILLEGAL ALIENS- how stupid is that. Just deport them all and send the National Guard troops from Afghanistan to the Mexican border. 16-20 million illegal aliens over the last 22 years is an invasion and destroying the US economy.
Moderate in Madison - your comment is part of the problem. You assume that because someone is an immigrant they are probably committing crimes? That is incorrect, now go back to school and learn how to site your sources.
This article is concerning because of the fact that we are holding illegal immigrants for an unspecified period of time, and the county gets paid off how many prisoners they have any given day. If that's the case, it's a slippery slope before the rest of us get locked up for jaywalking or speeding, and our states' counties get paid to keep us in jail.
Sen D, I like your idea of actually putting these detainees to work - you know, rehabilitation, and oh I dunno, how about working in the Alamaba and Georgia fields since we've apparently run the workers off with threats? If we want work to get done, pay a worker. If we want people to sit and rot in jail while the taxpayer foots the bill and the county takes whatever profit they get and blows is on beautification projects and making sure our government workers get a nice fat paycheck, well we're doing a fine job.
I blame both sides of the political spectrum on this. They can't pull it together and agree on anything.
Megan,
If someone comes into the country illegally, they have already broke a law, so by definition they have committed a crime.
I understand someone coming here trying for a better life, but the fact of the matter is we cannot have everyone come here from the rest of the world. We have a finite amount of resources, a finite number of jobs. By supporting or not enforcing our own laws we have created a under ground economy. Many people wonder why wages have not gone up, well this is one of the factors in keeping pay down. Many wonder why we have all of these budget short falls, this is a factor in that as well. Not only do illegals take jobs, they also take county, state and federal resources.
Now we have a president who by decree is giving a free pass to many of these illegal aliens, while a noble gesture, we cannot afford it, nor can we as a country survive when the rule of law is over turned.
Hi Subnormal and Everyone,
According to the Department of Homeland Security 3.6 million people are in America after their visa's have expired. This overstaying had increased consequences in the 1996 Reforms [IIRAIRA of 1996]. Those consequences are procedural that allow the federal government to bar people from reentering with a new visa for up to ten years. There do not appear to be jail times for this action which is not listed as a crime but a violation. Staying beyond one's visa is not the same as robbing a liquor store. It is more like having an expired driver's license. This type of violation should not result in long term incarceration of people. It should not result incarceration at all. You state that, "nor can we as a country survive when the rule of law is overturned." I put forth the idea that we cannot survive as a country when our so called laws (and procedures) have the effect of creating slaves and permanent prisoners in spite of our ideals and in spite of our laws.
All too often Americans take solace in the idea, "that well its the law so it must be right." That is not accurate or American. The law is limited at all times by the rights of all people. Keeping the protections of the Constitution for ourselves and not others is cruel and unnecessary. Is America so small that it cannot afford to give a simple jury trial to those accused of a crime? Is it so xenophobic that those that must leave cannot be allowed to live something close to a life while they await deportation? Why must those we have decided to kick out, that have not committed a crime rot in jail indefinitely? Profit is not a moral or acceptable answer. Unfortunately it is the reason given in Alabama.
Even ICE states that detention of those to be deported is not to be punishment. How can sending someone to our places of punishment not be punishment especially when the murders, rapists, and thieves they are likely to be housed with, have rights and the detainees do not?
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
I hold this truth to be self evident that all people deserve their rights at all times unless they have forfeited them by hurting another individual. No country especially not mine, has the right to oppress people out of profit, neglect, or bigotry.
They are illegals and should be in jail or deported. What we need is a 24 hour rule. Once an illegal is arrested and found to be illegal they should be deported in 24 hours. This would save the tax payers a lot of money in having to jail them.
Rolltide -
Your altruistic approach is commendable.
Our country is no too small to afford everyone a free ride, but we are too broke ($16 TRILLION federal debt). 57% of illegals receive some form of direct government support, and that doesn't include cost of education, medical care, or the expenses involved with criminal activity.
And don't you think it a little bit naive to think that once apprehended for visa violations, these folks are going to live a free existence, and then turn themselves in for disposition of their cases.
You would need to define "hurting another individual" for your last paragraph to have much weight. The hurt to the community must also be considered.
BTW - this article is a rehash of one they ran yesterday. Yesterday's article featured a white defendent (federal fraud charges) from Maldavia - so back off on the bigotry angle.
THANK YOU!!!!
I was adopted as an infant, never told before my parents passed away in a car accident. 18 years after my adoption, USCIS lost my adoption paper and came to me for a copy. I had never known I was adopted and so because I couldn't produce a copy of the adoption paper, they revoked my citizenship and placed me in deportation.
Then they found out there was nowhere to deport me--I was abandoned as an infant at an international orphanage with no birth certificate, so I legally do not have a home country to be deported to,no legal biological parents, I have no idea how old I really am, or what my name originally was. So I was told I would remain in deportation until I gave them a copy of my adoption paper.
I spent three years writing to every courthouse in three states trying to find that paper. Dad was in the Army when I was young, so we moved around a bit, but he got out a few years after I started school and no one ever told me I could have written to the Army for a copy of Dad's records, which would have had the adoption decree.
I was not illegal. No crime had been committed. I was brought here legally, adopted legally, had a legal re-issued BC, brand new DL and a legal SS card. It was not illegal for my parents to have never told me I was adopted, it wasn't illegal for me not to have had a copy of the paper, it wasn't illegal for me not to know I'd been adopted, and it wasn't illegal for the government to lose a piece of paper.
I spent two years in one of those private for-profit immigration prisons when USCIS lost my adoption paper (and I couldn't give them a copy because I had no idea I was adopted. Food deprivation, sleep deprivation, maggots in the food, no eating utensils, showers and toilets in full view of guards who got their rocks off watching us pee and shower, strip searches and body cavity searches performed by a guard without regard to gender. There were many times when one of these body cavity searches left me bleeding. Underwear given me was still crusted with blood from another woman's period, having never been washed, numerous urinary tract infections and vaginal yeast infections, my pregnant neighbor was raped by the camp chaplain. When the guards got bored they'd pick one of us 'stuck' ones, the ones who couldn't be deported and had little hope of getting out because of missing paperwork, tell us to strip and kneel,hold a gun to our heads and pull the trigger--on an empty gun. After the first few times you sorta got used to the idea it was empty but it didn't keep you from wondering, maybe once, 'is it not going to be empty?' or 'did he miss a bullet...?'
.. .
Please see the article clip below:
An official Immigration and Customs Enforcement database, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, showed a U.S. detainee population of exactly 32,000 on the evening of Jan. 25.
The data show that 18,690 immigrants had no criminal conviction, not even for illegal entry or low-level crimes like trespassing. More than 400 of those with no criminal record had been incarcerated for at least a year. A dozen had been held for three years or more; one man from China had been locked up for more than five years.
Nearly 10,000 had been in custody longer than 31 days -- the average detention stay that ICE cites as evidence of its effective detention management.
Based on a 2001 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, ICE has about six months to deport or release immigrants after their case is decided. But immigration lawyers say that deadline is routinely missed. In the system snapshot provided to the AP, 950 people were in that category.
The detainee buildup began in the mid 1990s, long before the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Since 2003, though, Congress has doubled to $1.7 billion the amount dedicated to imprisoning immigrants.
Immigration lawyers note that substantial numbers of detainees, from 177 countries in the data provided, are not illegal immigrants at all. Many of the longest-term non-criminal detainees are asylum seekers fighting to stay here because they fear being killed in their home country. Others are longtime residents who may be eligible to stay under other criteria, or whose applications for permanent residency were lost or mishandled, the lawyers say.
ICE says detention is the best way to guarantee that immigrants attend court hearings and leave the country when ordered. By comparison though, most criminal suspects, even sometimes those accused of heinous offenses, are entitled to bail.
Based on the amount budgeted for this fiscal year, U.S. taxpayers will pay about $141 a night -- the equivalent of a decent hotel room -- for each immigrant detained, even though paroling them on ankle monitors -- at a budgeted average daily cost of $13 -- has an almost perfect compliance rate, according to ICE's own stats.
A system that housed 6,785 immigrants in 1994 now holds nearly five times that amount in 260 facilities across the country, most under contract with local governments or private companies. For this fiscal year, ICE has enough money budgeted for 33,400 people on any given night.
Immigration violations are considered civil, something akin to a moving violation in a car, so the government can imprison immigrants without many of the rights criminals receive: No court-appointed attorney for indigent defendants, no standard habeas corpus, no protection from double jeopardy, no guarantee of a speedy trial. "You're locking up people without even a hearing," said Judy Rabinovitz of the American Civil Liberties Union's Immigrants Rights Project. "That, to me, is the outrage: basic due process. Since when do we allow the government to lock up people without even giving them a bond hearing?"
Amanda, I am sorry for your adoption paper case, but since the Regan amnesty there have been 16-20 Million illegal aliens that have invaded this country. CA prisons are now 27% illegals and federal prisons are 20% illegals. These are hard core gang members and felons, not some random illegal caught at a traffic stop. We need to deport them all immediately and when they are caught a second or third time set up a tent city, like Phoenix uses, to hold them for several years for re entering the US illegally.
The jail is housing CRIMINALS. End of subject.
I don't think you read the article. It is not about whether to house the detainees or not, it is about where to house them.
btw, if we started to jail and heavily fine those who provide residences and jobs to people who do not have the legal right to reside and work in this country, we would no longer have an illegal immigrant problem.
E-Verify, Penalty to employer that knowingly hires illegals, Citizenship Required for welfare, food stamps, housing, public schooling etc. ID to vote would all be a good start!
And fine each and every business that hires these darn illegals!!!!!
Big Time and use the money to fund the bus heading to the boarder!
It's one big, giant cookie jar folks. The difference to a degree is that Democrats use it to feed the poor, the GOP uses it to feed it's friends. If you think California is bankrupt, wait till the Red states have to stop feeding at the federal tough.
Why is it then if the Democrats feed the poor and Republicans use it to feed its friends, John Hynansky, Biden's personal friend received TWENTY MILLION DOLLARS to sell Porches in the Ukraine?
And I bet that this entire county, which depends on federal spending for its survival, will vote Republican because they are for "less government"!!!
lmao...those medicare card carrying tebaggers will march lockstep to the polls and vote reichwing...
Wm.-375815 .... yeah, feed the poor ... and their own pet projects and pockets. How much fraud is acceptable in Welfare, Medicare etc, 30%, 40%... no one friggin knows. What Republicans and Indenpendents (like me) are against is the continued growth of the government without accountability. The continued interference in our lives, the heavy taxation and over regulation where commerce is disrupted. Keep thinking in terms of Red and Blue states, that's exactly what liberals like you see the world in, skin color, race, religion, etc. That's why you're always trying to divide the nation then punish anyone that doesn't believe like you. Pathetic.
So the next time some 'cost cutting' reichwinger starts yapping about socialism and spending direct their attention to the south where welfare comes in many forms so it can't be called welfare...keeping a facility open for jobs is welfare in my book...much like building tanks the army doesn't want for jobs...it's called defense welfare
The wheels of business turn once again. Detainee is another word for prisoner. Whatever the reason, America needs to realize when the government needs money, it has to come from us. The billions generated by undocumented persons is a business, just as our prisons are today. Judges use the phrase " the business of the courts" all the time. Although it's understandable the county needs the income, it should also be held responsible for it's shortcommings. Human rights , by law, take precedence over government handouts.
Are those government handouts you ae referring to those received directly by 57% of iilegal invaders - or is that the human rights?
let's just agree to----get rid of illegals from sea to shining sea
Illegal is ILLEGAL! Period! Just another story of how our Government has ruined our Country!
The politics doesn't surprise me. The fact that ICE runs the largest detention facility in the US is alarming. Immigration & Customs Enforcement wouldn't be running the largest detention facility in the US if we closed our borders and enforced our existing laws pertaining to immigration. Those detainees in this huge system are not being detained, in the main, due to violations of our customs laws. Those people are detained, housed, clothed, fed and otherwise tended to at taxpayer expense simply because they are present in this country without legal right.
It would be cheaper to secure our borders and immediately deport immigration violators than it is to maintain this huge detention system. We need a sound immigration policy but that doesn't mean having what are essentially open borders and then locking violators up for extended periods of time.
Isn't it the government's responsibility to control our borders and promptly seek and deport such invaders? Obama's pandering for Hispanic votes has made a mockery of law abiding Americans and of those seeking to legally immigrate.
Dream Act Party, Vote Obama/Vote Often!
it is not politics, poll after poll showed massive support for the Arizona law. People are tired of illegal immigration. Reform will never be supported until the border is shut down and yes if you hire an illegal you should be taken out and shot as a traitor to your country, but since that is not going to happen at least fined. This president who sold out to the Mexican drug cartels a long time ago. He has prosecuted more medical marijuana facilities in 4 years than Bush in 8. These facilties only hurt the cartels while at the same time he "decides" which part of the immigration law he will enforce. In spite of all of this 8 plus unemployment that worthless piece of garbage will win because the Republicans joined with the Christian taliban and the klan/tea party.
Here is how responsive your political leaders are to the will of the people. Arizona passes a law concerning Illegal Immigration because the Federal government whose job it is to protect our borders has been unwilling to do so. The Feds take Arizona to court. Alabama passes a law for the same reason and the feds take them to court. If the government really wanted to end the Illegal immigration problem all they have to do is start enforcing the laws already on the books and go after the companies that hire them. THEY ARE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS NOT UNDOCUMENTED WORKERS!
Steve- you are correct! Of course, this comes down to the money. If they closed this facility in Al it would mean a loss of cash flow so, of course, they want to keep it open. There is more profit to be made off having the illegal immigrants/ undocumented workers/ aliens (or whatever way they want to spin it) than enforcing the law. The officials we elect are failing to do their jobs because its about money and, don't forget, votes!
The Democrats don't want to really stop illegal immigration because they pay taxes and will probably never collect on many of the benifits. The Republicans don't really want to stop illegal immigration because they like the cheap labor that won't complain about poor working conditions and safety violations. This is why the immigration problem will never be solved. When I refer to both Democrats and Republicans I don't mean the voters in these parties, It is our elected officials.
Time!! To simplistic and generalized.The dims are mining for future vote to replace the oens they use to be able to get from cemetaries.The Republicans are not trying to keep these illegals here as cheap labor but instead are on the fore front for deprting the ones that are caught.It's the dims that demoguge the whole illegal immigration process.The lawyers helping these illegals are not republicans.The aid societies helping these illegals get entitlements are not republicans,they are dims.You are a little loose with your conclusion becuase the facts don't support your statements!
Still, I dont believe its right to lock immigrants up, irreguardless of their status. Most would become legal if at all possible, but the process itself screws many out of a real pathway to becoming a U.S. Citizen.. if you dont want them here by all means ship them back... But, it cost the American Tax Payer money to house, feed, bed these immigrants in a penetentary vs shipping them back where they came from. Because after all, after time is served, then we pay for them to be shipped back after we've paid their room and board
Something has to be done with them, we cannot afford to open the flood gate further if that is what you're implying. For some reason once they are incarcerated the process seems to stop there, unknown to me as to why. They should be sent back and let them try again the legal route after they broke the law the 1st time or in many cases multiple tries.
are you serious? you actually used the word irreguardless?!?!
no wonder you don't think it's fair to detain them. Geesh!
Conservatives are for reducing the size of unnecessary government. Security is a necessary function of any government. Detaining illegal aliens and other forms of criminals falls within this. Glad I could clear this up for you slack jawed libs.
“The manner by which this decision has been made by ICE has been secretive, unprofessional and unfair,” according to the newspaper.
-----------------Also sounds like the manner in which Obama and Janet Napoltiano came up with their "policy" change to allow 1.7 million illegal alien "children" to get work permits.
May be some one should take Obama to court to prove he was born in usa and if he is not to deport him to may be Indonesia.
I think you should explore the possibility
This mess is the making of the communists in the demonrat party! fix the borders, fix immigration police, and deport illegals, get on with it, fix it now and it will be easier than later. The enemies of this country are in the white house, and the DNC. We know who they are, get rid of the head of the snake, Obama and the body dies: hohlder, pelosi, Reid, Sebelius, and all of the other commies he has brought into the white house.
I have no use for O and I wish it were as simple as u state but some reason immigration has been so complicated and it should be simple...the kiss principle should apply
I wish republicans were not so stupid for Obama to take over white house. Why do they say things like Akins of MO that make you lose Presidency. Can he not keep his mouth shut from stupid speech?
turns out Akin repeated accusations first stated by the precursor to Planned Parenthood in 1970's! so get over it, biteme has said worse and more stupid things and you think he is a genius! so we know your cred is shot already!
Anyone want to bet on whether or not this jail facility(Etawan) has a union or none union staff.I'd bet a lot that the current staff was not unionized and where the prisoners were sent were unionized.More payment by this administration to his biggest paid supportors this election.Big unions have stated they entend to spending from $400 million to $500 million this election cycle.More corruption where the paid partys get all the benefits and we,as tax payers,get the bill!
Unions are a Non Profit Org. using so called "Workers Money" to donate to a candidate without all workers consent?
Obama is all about creating Jobs. Government is the best employer.
(1) Let us put more Latinos in prison and create more jobs
(2) deport more Latinos and create more jobs for American citizens and reduce unemploment
(3) Those whom Obama cannot deport, give them free education and appease Latinos so
Latino citizens love Obama.
(4) Stop talented Indians and Chinese from coming and creating busiensses here. Keep local tech workers salary high and get their money and support.
Black people are not stupid. Give them credit. He is not asking for mor etaxes from you. What China is for? China can send us Blind lawyer that Goivenment already spent Million dollars on but not 2500 High tech Chinese for Apple that can create 50000 AMerican jobs. Who needs manufacturing here to screw up our rpestine Northwest. Let China do it.
I love Obama.
Were are all those shovel ready jobs? Waiting on Union Contract Negotiations?
This isn't about immigration,immigration policies,immigration rights being violated;it is simply about the power big ubions have over this regime and its' players!Obamy is running scared and will need a large,quick infusion of capital in the fall before the election.You can bet he will get hugh donations to help him be reelected.What happens to us is of no consequence to these thugs!
Maso:
I wish Romney was smarter.
ELection is not like running a Company. It is war. It requires better strategy and stronger will.
I had liek to support him but show me that he can win people. Politics is not about abortion and gay, it is about winning hearts and minds of people and making people feel good about you.
Do Romney lacks guts?
"
Floyd Abdul, a Zimbabwean national, describes the four months he spent locked up in Alabama's Etowah County Detention Center."
So this guy is amazed and outraged because he (as well as others) are in a jail and have not committed a felony?!!! Abdul, you dumbass, you broke our laws by being here period. That gets you a stay in the pokey free of charge. As far as having mental issues from being there, what makes you think it was going to be a walk in the park kind of deal? I suppose you would like our ICE people and the feds to arrest you, book you and then let you go free because you promised to be where you are supposed to be to be deported?!! And all because you are a nice guy? My bet would be that the feds and ICE would have to start their search all over again.
Nope. Stay put until you board the plane.
Richard:
cannot they use him to pick cotton to pay for all the trouble and expense he caused before kicking him to Mexico where they will love him and put him on a log in the Atlantic and push it out to see.