DHS Overrides State, Says Illinois Must Share Fingerprint Data For Deportations

HOUSTON -- The Department of Homeland Security will not allow Illinois law enforcement to stop sharing information with immigration enforcement, despite Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn’s request to opt-out of a controversial program, DHS officials confirmed on Thursday.

Quinn (D) announced on Wednesday he intended to withdraw from Secure Communities, an immigration enforcement program that shares fingerprints between the FBI and DHS to detect unauthorized immigrants.

But DHS officials confirmed to The Huffington Post that they will still require the state to share fingerprints with immigration enforcement -- even though Quinn said he wants to terminate a memorandum of understanding with the agency to share the data.

In making this decision, DHS is flouting the state's decision to withdraw from the program in favor of more universal immigration enforcement and likely setting the stage for a lawsuit.

The Illinois case is the latest -- and farthest-reaching -- in a string of confusion and misstatements from DHS over whether Secure Communities participation is voluntary. The program, a staple in the DHS’s efforts to deport record numbers of undocumented immigrants each year, has come under fire from the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, which called for a moratorium on Secure Communities on Thursday.

Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) and Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) called last week for an investigation into Secure Communities to determine whether DHS willfully deceived the public on the nature of the program.

Bills that would allow local jurisdictions to withdraw from Secure Communities, meanwhile, are currently working their way through state legislatures in Illinois and California.

In the wake of those criticisms, Illinois became the first state to attempt to withdraw from fingerprint-sharing by terminating a memorandum of understanding with DHS. In a letter to the agency, Gov. Quinn wrote on Wednesday that Illinois police would no longer participate in Secure Communities and that all jurisdictions within the state would terminate their relationships with the DHS program.

Illinois is one of 42 states to agree to the program, which is being used in 1,265 jurisdictions. The Obama administration aims to expand the program nationwide by 2013.

Quinn criticized Secure Communities for netting large numbers of non-criminal undocumented immigrants, which he said was contrary to the DHS messaging on the program. Although Secure Communities is meant to capture the “worst of the worst” of undocumented residents, Quinn cited data that shows about 20 percent of those deported from the state under the program have never been convicted of a crime.

In response to the letter, DHS confirmed to HuffPost it would still obtain fingerprint data for immigration checks from the FBI, which screens fingerprints from local law enforcements to find fugitives and determine criminal records. The Illinois governor's office did not immediately return a request for comment on the DHS decision.

DHS's response prompted critics to say it is unclear what the memorandums of understanding were meant to signify.

"Contracts are contracts, not courtesies. ICE cannot rule by decree or manufacture its own authority out of thin air regardless of how much they're trying to emulate Sheriff Arpaio in Arizona,” said B. Loewe, spokesperson for National Day Laborer’s Organizing Network, which has been part of a coalition effort to end the program. “The Governor terminated their agreement and [for DHS] to do anything but honor that should sound warning bells for any states yet to sign, and raise new levels of questions about whether this rogue agency recognizes it’s operating in a democracy."

The Illinois decision is likely to spark a fight between DHS and Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.), an influential Latino congressman who has criticized the Obama administration for its immigration enforcement tactics. Gutierrez praised Quinn's choice to withdraw from Secure Communities in a Thursday letter to the Illinois governor.

“Programs like Secure Communities result in pretextual stops and arrests based on racial profiling ... and are often in conflict with the purported goals and priorities of ICE enforcement efforts,” Gutierrez wrote on Thursday.

But with the Obama administration eager to prove it is serious about deporting some of the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants within United States borders, DHS has forged onward with Secure Communities despite criticisms, said a former DHS staffer familiar with decision-making at the agency.

"They’re caught in a really bad lose-lose position but they’ve put themselves there by being overly enthusiastic about this program without thinking through its implications,” the former staffer said. "The Secure Communities program is a huge funnel for bringing immigrants into detention. It’s because of these programs that they’ve exceeded Bush on deportations."

The agency originally called participation in the program voluntary -- Secure Communities is not based on a mandate from Congress -- and even provided steps to allow local governments to opt-out. When they started trying to do so last summer, DHS officials began to play catch up, seeking “messaging that can help ... keep them on board,” according to an internal email released to anti-Secure Communities groups in California.

In the end, DHS officials chose to redefine “opt-out,” choosing what Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) called a “counterintuitive and misleading definition.” Instead of allowing jurisdictions to stop sharing fingerprints with immigration enforcement, DHS now states jurisdictions can opt-out of receiving word back from immigration officials on the results of immigration checks -- which will not prevent local police from aiding in immigration enforcement.

John Morton, director for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, will travel to Springfield, Ill., on Friday to meet with Illinois officials to discuss how to improve the program, ICE Press Secretary Barbara Gonzalez told The Huffington Post.

Gonzalez defended the program and said ICE is working to ensure that it focuses on individuals who have broken criminal laws.

“Secure Communities has been deployed quickly to support the administration’s efforts to prioritize criminal aliens for removal, and DHS is committed to working with all partners to address questions about the program,” she said.

Comments

[intellectualTradition]

06:22 AM on 06/14/2011

deport illegals now ! it's much cheaper than subsidizing via school, hospitals, etc. also, charge a 30% tax on all out bound money sent back out of the country.

[sd12]

01:21 AM on 06/12/2011

Supporters of illegal immigration are always quick to point out that immigration is a federal matter.
The feds are doing what should have been done long ago. States that don't like it can lump it.

[dbrett480]

05:37 PM on 05/27/2011

Why is this controversial? The only illegal immigrants subject to deportation are those arrested for crimes other than being illegal. This includes DUIs, gang members, child molesters, robbers, etc. The immigration rights community will only be happy when the Border Patrol is eliminated and America has no immigration laws.

[nee]

08:21 AM on 05/20/2011

There shouldn't be an opt out for any state. ILLEGAL ALIENS need to be deported when they are arrested!

[AMlegion]

11:18 PM on 05/08/2011

My father was not born in this country. He came off the boat from overseas learned to speak english, Graduated High School and worked to provide for a new family that he and his wife were raising.

Oh I forgot to mention that first HE GOT A GREEN CARD AND BECAME A CITIZEN.

Never has he benn arrested or convicted of a major crime.

You can put all the illegals on a big giant bus and sends them all back to wherever they came from.

Canada isn't flooding our borders to come in. Mexico should get there stuff together and keep there own violent criminals.

[Foodgrade]

07:04 PM on 05/07/2011

We need to disband DHS while we still have a country. That Gestapo stuff didn't work so well last time it was tried.

[Soule23]

11:31 PM on 05/07/2011

Hear, hear. Too bad the "take our country back," Constitution waving tea baggers wholeheartedly support it.

[spytheweb]

02:16 PM on 05/08/2011

Why have any law enforcement at all? Just let everybody carry a gun. Make this the wild, wild west again. If your not strong enough to keep your stuff then someone else will have it.

[dennisrs]

05:56 PM on 05/08/2011

Need to replace it with Obamas civial defense force that he spoke about during his campaign.

[Foodgrade]

10:59 PM on 05/08/2011

No, we don't need the Hitler youth either, that didn't work out so well either. What we need Obama to do is keep his campaign promises such as shutting down gitmo, stopping the wars, reforming the banks, universal health care and stoping sneek and peek. Instead he endorsed sneek and peek, gitmo, military tribunals, a law to pay corporations for crappy health care, financial reform written by wall street and a brand new war.

Now he fakes killing Bin Laden, throws the "body" overboard and runs a bush style "terrorist" circus.

No, Obama has to go, along with the criminals who ran Bush and are running Obama.

[dolphcsun]

06:53 PM on 05/07/2011

Here's a reality for everyone....we must resolve the issue, as a country of what we want done with illegal aliens. Continuing to deport them to have them turn around and sneak back in hardly seems cost effective. On the other hand, we can't have people in this country working without contributing and eating up our social program dollars.

Furthermore, has anyone ever put together that illegals within this country attend our schools without payment or verification of any kind? We then wonder why we can't pass the various state exams. Ever worked with ELL students who are not on grade level??

[randyjet]

09:52 PM on 05/07/2011

We need to put a fence along the entire border and man it properly. THAT will stop or drastically reduce more illegals. Then we need to mandate E-Verify and use no match letters to force the illegals out. That will get rid of about half of them and allow Americans to take thoses jobs, and also raise wages. Then ICE can resume the workplace raids to get the other half who work under the table and pay NO taxes at all. Those who are not caught and deported, will take the hint and leave on their own. We did NOT force them here, so they can self deport. Right now we are deporting about 600,000 illegals/yr. At that rate with a secure border, the problem should be solved within about five years.

[dennisrs]

05:58 PM on 05/08/2011

If they seriously fined the employers for hiring these people in the first place there would be no incentive for most to come here in the first place.

[Cacey]

06:11 PM on 05/07/2011

For several decades the Conservative have increasingly gone after children and treated them criminally as adults.  Here we have a young man who was brought into this country as a near infant being treated that way and we've seen a lot of pre-teens involved in  crime handled similarly.  Just last week in CA a 10 year old shot his dad, the leader of the Neo-NAZIS in that region and the conservatives are planning on trying him as an adult.  The gas chamber for a 10 year old seems to be okay as does deportation for some one who committed no crime and has never been in the country e's being deported two since he could talk.

[spytheweb]

06:40 PM on 05/07/2011

This student didn't take any steps to correct his status after he found out what it was. And it was he is in the country illegally.

This was his parents fault but that fault fell onto him when he turned 18. Make that 14. If he didn't do this, he is breaking the law again.

8 U.S.C. § 1302 : US Code - Section 1302: Registration of aliens

"(a) It shall be the duty of every alien now or hereafter in the
United States, who (1) is fourteen years of age or older, (2) has
not been registered and fingerprinted under section 1201(b) of this
title or section 30 or 31 of the Alien Registration Act, 1940, and
(3) remains in the United States for thirty days or longer, to
apply for registration and to be fingerprinted before the
expiration of such thirty days.
(b) It shall be the duty of every parent or legal guardian of any
alien now or hereafter in the United States, who (1) is less than
fourteen years of age, (2) has not been registered under section
1201(b) of this title or section 30 or 31 of the Alien Registration
Act, 1940, and (3) remains in the United States for thirty days or
longer, to apply for the registration of such alien before the
expiration of such thirty days. Whenever any alien attains his
fourteenth birthday in the United States he shall, within thirty
days thereafter, apply in person for registration and to be
fingerprinted.
(c) The Attorney General may, in his discretion and on the basis
of reciprocity pursuant to such regulations as he may prescribe,
waive the requirement of fingerprinting specified in subsections
(a) and (b) of this section in the case of any nonimmigrant."

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/8/12/II/VII/1302

[Foodgrade]

07:06 PM on 05/07/2011

And this is Homeland Security's business because...?

[dallastexas21]

01:24 PM on 06/17/2011

There is so much more of this going on then we realize. This is why it is important to have a really good immigration lawyer like this, http://www.immigration-lawyer-us.com, to provide guidance. They are aware of all the laws, and are willing to help in any way they can.

[hjo4]

05:28 PM on 05/07/2011

[Quinn criticized Secure Communities for netting large numbers of non-criminal undocumented immigrants]

They are not immigrants but illegal aliens who chose to circumvent the LEGAL procedure to enter the USA. They violated our immigration laws and they must face the consequences for their actions when caught.Illegal aliens bring no value or skills to our country.It's regrettable that the Governor of Illinois wants to ignore the law for political gain. Does he also believe other criminals should not be held accountable for their actions. It's baffling how some folks break our laws,then become "victims".

[Jesica Arevalo Orozco]

06:42 PM on 05/07/2011

I understand the frustration with this issue. I am one of those who belives those who want to live and work in the US should and need to do it LEGALLY. But why be so hateful? Why is it you think it's okay to belittle undocumented immigrants. If you really think they have no value or skills maybe you should think about where all that food in your fridge and pantry came from. Who built your house etc.? The law needs to be followed but enough with the hate.

[hjo4]

07:21 PM on 05/07/2011

[But why be so hateful? Why is it you think it's okay to belittle undocument­ed immigrants­.]

I am not being hateful I am being truthful. Illegal Aliens made a conscience decision to violate our immigration laws for whatever their reasons. Calling those who are here illegally what their crime tells us they are illegal aliens,this also serves as a deterrent, it's a stigma and gives pause to others who may think about being here illegally& unlawfully. There is no such thing as an "undocumented immigrant", either you are in America legally or you are not. Are drug dealers "unlicensed pharmacist".

[If you really think they have no value or skills maybe you should think about where all that food in your fridge and pantry came from. ]

May I ask you who was doing those jobs before influx of illegal aliens, American citizens that's who.Have you ever wondered what happened to those who worked in service jobs after being replaced by illegal aliens. This country was thriving with Americans doing jobs that illegal aliens currently are doing. The argument that they are doing jobs that Americans won't do is a lie.

[hrpmap]

08:20 PM on 05/07/2011

Why is it hate to you to want laws followed, for people who come to America to be vetted for our securities sake, to screen out undesirables, even in their own country? Legally means we are in control of our country, why is that so hard? Legal is fine and welcome.

[Joel Wischkaemper]

03:08 PM on 05/07/2011

If an illegal alien is found, and he is in jail.. and he .is. in jail when the local officer provides those fingerprints, he should be deported.
I don't want to play silly games with all the badly run businesses in this country that want illegal aliens to fight over head. I want E Verify to work, and at this point, I want the illegal aliens who have gone to jail deported. Sheriffs who have illegal aliens in their jails, should not be allowed to quibble about what is done until their immigration law becomes the Law of our Country.

One nice piece of news here ... the 9th Circuit is almost always over turned when the Supreme Court examines their work. Kinda tells you something too. SB 1070 is going to become law.

[geoffrey s]

04:50 PM on 05/07/2011

"Sheriffs who have illegal aliens in their jails, should not be allowed to quibble about what is done until their immigratio­n law becomes the Law of our Country."

I don't' understand this statement. Could you clarify, please? If there is a Congressional mandate requiring all police department to share with information with ICE, then they need to follow the law. However, there is no such law. Are you saying they need to do as they're told by a federal agency even though that agency has no authority to issue such orders?

[spytheweb]

05:46 PM on 05/07/2011

Well these sheriffs have a choice, don't sent any prints to the federal data base and release the criminal  and hope he doesn't kill anybody. If he does i would sue the city that had this guy but refused to use the data system to identify this guy.

[hrpmap]

06:21 PM on 05/07/2011

An agency mandated by law to enforce federal law has the ability under law to issue orders to states, look it up they have the authority under law.

[Sean777]

12:55 PM on 05/08/2011

A CBO study emphasizes the importance of legalizing the undocumented population because enforcement will bankrupt state and local economies, now Arizona is an excellent example of how enforcement at the state and local levels translates in misspending costs for local tax payers.

Maricopa County in Arizona is investigating a hidden payroll log and database that was found in a secure computer system at the Sheriff’s Office. Officials believe this could be the smoking gun to prove mishandling of funds at the office – and it could possibly land Sheriff Joe Arpaio in his own Tent City jail.

The hidden records were found during the investigation of a case of racial profiling. Investigators say it is a database that runs parallel to the county-run system, but indicates different officer assignments and payments than what has been routinely provided to county auditors.

Arpaio’s hidden records have apparently existed for almost 10 years and investigat¬ors believe the Sheriff’s Office has misappropr¬iated as much as $80 million just over the last five years. County administrators suspect that the Sheriff’s Office tried to avoid laying anyone off by shuffling money around. The $80 million was intended for jail operations, but since Sheriff Joe knows how to cut corners there, the money was allegedly spent on patrol officers, human smuggling operations and unauthorized investigations.
"Joe Arpaio's Office Accused Of Misspendin¬g nearly $100 Million"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/13/joe-arpaio-spending-accusation_n_848804.html

[WhereSheStops]

02:59 PM on 05/07/2011

I accept the notion of noncriminal illegal immigrants.

If someone was brought into this country by their parents their presence is illegal but they are not criminals for being here.

Accepting that as a fact doesn't mean that they should be allowed to stay in this country.

It is a matter of law. If someone is not in this country legally then they should not be here, unless they are in the process of making a legitimate case for asylum in accordance with the law.

[spytheweb]

05:57 PM on 05/07/2011

"I accept the notion of noncrimina­l illegal immigrants­."?

If you are in the country without permission you are breaking the law. When you found out that you are in the country illegally and do not take steps to correct this, you are breaking the law.

"On a claim of ignorance, a deterrent is irrelevant; you simply do not know about it, and therefore cannot avoid that which you know nothing about. A cry of "I know nothing" against punishment is also seemingly sensible; you did not know that it was the wrong thing to do, so a punishment is basic stupidity (ie. "Don't do it again!" vs. "If I knew it was wrong, I wouldn't have done it in the first place!").
But then you might say, "Okay, you didn't know -- prove it". This might be more difficult than you think. It is very easy to prove knowledge, but to prove ignorance is a little more tricky.
In the end, a balance should be made. The following are a few questions that could be asked:
Was there the opportunity to find out whether the act was illegal?Were you capable of doing so?Did you try?If you failed, did you try again?Did you try hard and find nothing?Did you even suspect the act was illegal?Did you think it might be a little bit wrong."

http://www.galactic-guide.com/articles/8R93.html

[WhereSheStops]

08:11 PM on 05/07/2011

It doesn't matter what the intent was. That's missing the point.

A 1-year-old certainly doesn't have any criminal intent. However, if they are in this country illegally they are subject to deportation.

A 12-year-old is old enough to know that they are here illegally, even though not all do. But a 12-year-old really isn't in a position to try to make things right. Do you expect a 12-year-old to turn themselves or their family in? You could argue the 12-year-old is a criminal and I could argue that they are not.

But that doesn't matter. They are still subject to deportation.

A person who is here illegally is not necessarily a criminal. However, they are still here illegally and subject to deportation.

Deportation is not a penalty for crime. It is a legal remedy to an illegal situation. Sorry for all the nuance. I'm just saying that I don't feel the need to call a person's status criminal in order to invoke a remedy for the illegal situation. Some children will suffer by deportation. But that's on the parents for bringing them here illegally. Parents do a lot of things their kids suffer for.

[mashtoe]

02:37 PM on 05/07/2011

Why are Latinos supporting illegal labor and wage suppression that hurts Americans? Where is their loyalty?!

[geoffrey s]

04:51 PM on 05/07/2011

Why are you assuming one ethnic group is doing this?

[TggerJen]

06:54 PM on 05/07/2011

Well, it depends entirely on how you define the issue at hand.

Presumably the foreign nationals here illegally support their own illegal status (which drives up unemployment and drives down wages for Americans trying to compete with an illegal labor supply). Something close to 80% of foreign nationals here illegally are Hispanic (some equate Hispanic and Latino, the Pew Center uses the designation of Hispanic in some cases and Latino in others but seemingly interchangably). So, presumably 80% of the foreign nationals here illegally would be Hispanic/Latino supporters of illegal labor and wage suppression based on their own behavior.

If you are considering only American citizens who support illegal labor and wage suppression, that presumably includes all the exploitative employers who hurt our society and nation by leaving Americans unemployed so they can profit more from exploiting foreign nationals here illegally. That population is more difficult to describe in terms of demographics like ethnicity. Still, it's difficult to believe that there aren't ANY Hispanic employers who give jobs to foreign nationals here illegally, and members of other ethnic groups who do the same, for any or all of a number of reasons. Certainly not all the people who exploit illegal labor are Caucasians. But I haven't found any numbers for this group.

Finally, people often generalize that Americans who are ethnically Hispanic probably tend to support foreign nationals here illegally in larger numbers than other ethnic groups do, perhaps simply because so many of those here illegally are Hispanic. Not realizing that they suffer the most negative effects from the presence of illegal labor that suppresses wages (particularly at the low end of the wage scale), they are believed to side with foreign nationals here illegally because of shared culture and ethnic background.

According to the Pew Hispanic Center: "For example, fully 86% of Latinos support providing a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants if they pass background checks, pay a fine and have jobs, a level of support far greater than among the general public (68%). Among Latinos, about eight-in-ten (82%) of the native born and nine-in-ten (90%) of the foreign born say they support providing a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants."  http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1781/survey-hispanics-unathorized-immigration-policy-discrimination-deportation-politics

Do so many Americans of Hispanic/Latino ethnicity actually support 'illegal labor and wage suppression' - well, I'm not sure Pew measured that. But there certainly are higher numbers of Hispanics/Latinos surveyed who reported that they support giving amnesty as a reward for working here illegally and suppressing our wages than the numbers for the general public reported in that survey. It's possible to suggest that a significant number don't seem to support rigorous enforcement of our immigration laws.

[spytheweb]

06:06 PM on 05/07/2011

Alot of what is in the news wants you to think all Hispanics are all together on this which they are not. How many times have you heard the Hispanic population has hit 50 million? How many of those are illegal? Or they use the word immigrants when they should be using the words illegal aliens. Man Hispanic Americans don't want them here either.

"not all Hispanic voters support amnesty. Of Hispanic voters, 37% of Hispanics supported deporting illegal immigrants rather than fining them and than giving them a pathway to citizenship. So the pro-immigration Hispanics vote in 2008 was only 5.4% of the total vote."

http://super-economy.blogspot.com/2010/05/hispanic-voters-are-few-compared-to.html

[rwextthoughts]

02:33 PM on 05/07/2011

so pro illegals,,,,,, Quinn is actually going AGAINST federal law,,, while Brewer and Arizona were just implementing it

[timequake45]

04:12 PM on 05/07/2011

In truth, Quinn isn't. The program he is trying to op-out of has no legal mandate. What we have essentially is a fed admin agency trying to bully a state without legislative mandate ( though Its questionable if this is even constitutional in this case; perhaps that is the reason they tried to do it by contract, not by law). Although, if you mean that Quinn is personally liable for hidding info on illegal immigrants, essentially, attempting to harbour them, it would be a stretch, but an interesting point. (see hrpmap's post below)

[elfish]

04:40 PM on 05/08/2011

Again, you are completely resistant to facts and especially Mathematics:
 
> Funny how you equate tax cuts as spending. By the same logic
> one can say that because Obama didn't increase taxes by 100%
> then he increased the deficit by trillions of dollars.
 
Simple math here. If you cut taxes WITHOUT a concomitant CUT IN SPENDING, you increase the deficit. Bush cuts tax AND added four MAJOR new spending programs:
 
1) Iraq War, 2) Afghan War, 3) Medicare Advantage, 4) Medicare Part-D.
 
By the way the Two Bush wars were the second most expensive in US history and the ONLY WAR NOT PAID FOR BY A NEW TAX. Dating back to the Spanish American war, we have always paid for our wars with increased taxes. Except for BUSH.
 
Republicans like to claim that tax revenue goes up after a tax cut, but after Bush's Tax cut, revenue went down for the next seven years and still hasn't recovered to Clinton era levels. The total lost revenue from the Bush tax cuts is nearly $2-trillion. That would be fine if they were paid for by spending cuts, but they weren't.

[elfish]

04:52 PM on 05/08/2011

> Additionally, you included the interest on debts incured
> for the Bush years, but not the Obama years,

Again, look at the detailed math.

1) There was a debt of $5.871-trillion when Bush came into office, that came from previous presidents all the way back to WWII. No one in their right mind would argue that belongs to Obama.

2. Bush added another $5-trillion to the debt while he was in office. HOWEVER, HIS PROGRAM DIDN'T JUST DISAPPEAR WHEN HE LEFT OFFICE. Medicare Advantage and Medicare Part-D continue to this day.

3. $4-trillion was added to the debt during Obama's term, BUT 98% of it was Bush's two wars, Bush's two Tax Cuts, and Bush's two new Medicare programs.

4. The only new spending Obama generated was the stimulus package. Obamacare reduces Medicare spending by $147-billion a year. So Bush is responsible for $9-trillion of the current deficit, with $5.8-trillion belonging to previous presidents dating back to WWII. Obama is responsible for $850-billion in new spending.

5. PLUS, Bush a $310-billion SURPLUS and turned it into a $500 billion a year deficit, so the "NET CHANGE" is more the $700-billion annually to the negative.

[Sean777]

12:59 PM on 05/08/2011

Brewer is facing RECALL

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/06/jan-brewer-recall_n_832003.html

[holyghostie]

02:15 PM on 05/07/2011

Residents of NJ know Bob Menedez cares more about undocumenteds than he does citizens. while a fire fighter who was killed by illegals was being buried...Mr. Menedez was down the street taking part in a pro-illegal rally. The family of the firefighter deserved better.

[hrpmap]

01:39 PM on 05/07/2011

Non criminal illegal aliens? What part of the word illegal does he not understand? Does he realize or even care that he is in gross violation of federal law by encouraging illegals in his state, or aware of the penalty?
"Any person who . . . encourages or induces an alien to . . . reside . . . knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such . . . residence is . . . in violation of law, shall be punished as provided . . . for each alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs . . . fined under title 18 . . . imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both
It is a violation of law for any person to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection in any place, including any building or means of transportation, any alien who is in the United States in violation of law. HARBORING MEANS ANY CONDUCT THAT TENDS TO SUBSTANTIALLY FACILITATE AN ALIEN TO REMAIN IN THE U.S. ILLEGALLY. The sheltering need not be clandestine, and harboring covers aliens arrested outdoors, as well as in a building. This provision includes harboring an alien who entered the U.S. legally but has since lost his legal status.
http://americanpatrol.com/REFERENCE/AidAbetUnlawfulSec8USC1324.html
 

[WhereSheStops]

03:02 PM on 05/07/2011

Thank you! I actually technically accept the notion of a noncriminal illegal alien - I don't think a two-year-old illegal alien is a criminal.

But the person who facilitates illegal aliens' continued presence here is criminal.

Thank you for showing that so explicitly.

[hrpmap]

03:42 PM on 05/07/2011

Back atcha, already fanned so faved.

[Lock Piatt]

05:01 PM on 05/07/2011

then let me chose one law to ignore and my choice is to not pay any taxes - so is that OK?

[Foodgrade]

07:11 PM on 05/07/2011

It's not the business of DHS. It's dangerous when a Federal Agency decides to unilaterally expand it's authority. Whenever we think it's convienent to ignore the Constitution, we lose civil rights.