# Good Idea if the Feds are too Busy



## ROBOCOP1982 (Sep 4, 2002)

Danbury mayor calls for deputizing state police as immigration agents



(Danbury-AP, Apr. 16, 2005 5:15 PM) _ Mayor Mark Boughton has called for deputizing state police officers as immigration agents to crack down on illegal immigrants in Danbury and elsewhere in Connecticut.

Boughton yesterday asked state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal to negotiate an arrangement with federal officials to deputize state police as federal immigration agents. He says federal legislation enacted in 1996 permits such a move. 

Blumenthal promised to review Boughton's request and respond as soon as possible. 

Wilson Hernandez, past president of the Ecuadorean Civic Center, called Boughton's proposal shocking.


----------



## USMCTrooper (Oct 23, 2003)

That's a great idea but its not new. There has been a movement in Washington to make it federal law. 
See here: 
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_bills&docid=f:s1906is.txt.pdf

Also, the US Supreme Court has ruled local and state police can act on the 1996 law.........here it is:

Supreme Court Ruling Razes Artificial Fire Wall Between Local Law Enforcement and Immigration Enforcement

April 1, 2005

(Washington D.C.-April 1, 2005) In its March 22 ruling in the case of Muehler v. Mena, the Supreme Court removed barriers that prevent local law enforcement officers from questioning the immigration status of individuals they suspect to be in the United States illegally. In this groundbreaking decision, the high Court rejected the claim of Ira Mena, a permanent resident of the U.S., that police had violated the Fourth Amendment while conducting a lawful search of her home.

The Fourth Amendment provides protection by establishing that persons be shielded against unreasonable search and seizure. Mena argued that by questioning her, and the illegal alien detainees about their immigration status during a lawful search, officers violated her Fourth Amendment rights. Mena further claimed that questions asked about her citizenship required officers to have had independent reasonable suspicion regarding the unlawfulness of her immigration status.

Calling a decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals "faulty," the Supreme Court held that "mere police questioning [regarding one's immigration status] does not constitute a seizure." The Court continued its landmark ruling on this issue by stating that "the officers did not need reasonable suspicion to ask Mena for her name, date of birth, or immigration status."

"Whatever legal fig leaf many police departments have been using to justify policies of non-cooperation with federal immigration authorities, has been stripped away by this landmark Supreme Court decision," stated Dan Stein, president of FAIR. *"If local police are barred from cooperating with federal authorities in the enforcement of U.S. immigration laws it is purely a political decision on the part of local politicians and police chiefs. There is no legal barrier to local police inquiring about a person's immigration status and then acting upon the information they gather." *
Congress expressly intended for local law enforcement to act in cases in which officers have reason to believe that an individual is in the country illegally, even though immigration law enforcement is not their primary responsibility. *In 1996, Congress passed and President Clinton signed legislation that protects individual officers who act to enforce federal immigration laws, even if their departments have non-cooperation policies. *
"In Muehler v. Mena the Court reinforced the clear intent of Congress in this matter," said Stein. "Inquiring about an individual's immigration status can and should be a routine part of ascertaining information, no different than asking questions about one's name, or date and place of birth. Local police come into contact with people who are violating federal immigration laws on a daily basis. Freeing local police to inquire about an individual's immigration status and allowing them to act is essential to curbing mass illegal immigration and protecting our homeland security."


----------



## USMCTrooper (Oct 23, 2003)

I just saw this Senator on FoxNews. Ironic he is proposing same thing. Maybe its me but there seems to be a wave of dissatisfaction among people over how ineefective border control is........

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/47leg/1r/bills/hb2386p.htm&DocType=B


----------



## kttref (Oct 5, 2004)

I don't know if it will happen. 9 times out of 10 officers will let illegals go because they know INS will do nothing. It may be a waste of time.


----------



## Irishpride (May 5, 2002)

Just to clearify for over 2 years there has been no such thing as INS, it is now called U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).


----------



## kttref (Oct 5, 2004)

Thanks Irish, I actually knew that but felt more people would recognize INS.


----------



## Guest (Apr 18, 2005)

Irishpride";p="62909 said:


> Just to clearify for over 2 years there has been no such thing as INS, it is now called U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).


It doesn't matter what they are called. You get the same response: Nada!

If a PO stopped the illegal in Peabody prior to her hitting the Salem PO, do you think USCIS/INS would have done anything? Nope. But now that the news cameras are rolling, here they are. They use the excuse that they are underfunded, backed up. So what. Every PD in MA is underfunded and the courts are backed up. But Troopers and Officers still make the arrest. If the court lets them walk out on a promise, then we lock them up again. Just as we do with every other criminal.


----------



## ROBOCOP1982 (Sep 4, 2002)

Prime example:

*Who's allowed tuition break?

By CYNTHIA MCCORMICK
STAFF WRITER
WEST BARNSTABLE - At Barnstable High School freshman orientation this year, a student whose parents are illegal immigrants expressed her frustration to Renate Sands, a teacher in the school's English Language Learner program.

"Why work?" the student had said. "We can't go to college."

For the foreign-born children of illegal immigrants, the dream of attending even a state college is elusive. Because they are undocumented, these students pay full tuition rather than the lower rate paid by students who are legal Massachusetts residents.

At Cape Cod Community College, for example, Massachusetts residents pay about $3,600 for a full load of classes while out-of-state students pay closer to $9,000, according to college President Kathleen Schatzberg. She estimates that several dozen undocumented students graduate from Cape high schools annually.

Last week, however, Democratic leaders at the Statehouse introduced legislation to grant in-state tuition to illegal immigrants who have attended a Massachusetts high school for at least three years.

Supporters argue that children should not be penalized for their parents' decisions to come here illegally.

They do their schoolwork, pass the MCAS "and all of a sudden the doors close on them," Sands said.

"They become very discouraged."

The House Ways and Means Committee included the controversial provision in a rider to a proposed $23.7 billion budget.

Gov. Mitt Romney vetoed the idea last year, saying the state should not offer incentives to illegal immigrants to come to the commonwealth.

Yesterday morning, a team of students from Boston-area high schools addressed a group meeting at Cape Cod Community College to lobby for passage of the state tuition bill as well as federal legislation that would help some students get legal status.

Tour organizers estimated there are about 400 graduating seniors statewide who can't get a tuition break because of their families' immigration status. It's difficult to be exact, Schatzberg said later, because public schools are required to educate all students, regardless of status.

Ali Noorani of the Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition said nine states, including California, Texas, New Mexico, Kansas and Illinois, have passed in-state tuition plans.

State Sen. Robert O'Leary, D-Barnstable, chairman of the Joint Committee on Higher Education, told the students yesterday he supports the tuition provision, but it faces an uphill battle.

Even if both houses pass the proposal, Romney will veto it as a line item, O'Leary said.

To override the governor's veto, the bill would have to get two-thirds of the vote in the House and Senate.

State Rep. Jeffrey Perry, R-Sandwich, is leading the fight against the proposal. He and Rep. Daniel Webster, R-Hanson, filed an amendment last week to remove the provision from the budget proposal when it is debated at the end of the month.

Yesterday, Perry accused politicians of trying to sneak the in-state tuition plan into effect as a budget provision. He said the maneuver would avert public hearings.

"We don't know how much it's going to cost," he said.

"We don't know how many kids it is. ... Why should people who disobey the law be given the same benefits and entitlements?"

David Kibbe of the Times Boston bureau contributed to this report.*


----------



## ROBOCOP1982 (Sep 4, 2002)

Question: Ok so I understand that they are not offered the in-state tuition rates to state colleges. Can they still attend at the normal $9,000 rate?

$9000 to go to college isn't even that bad, all things considered, when most private colleges cost from $30,000 to $40,000 a year. State colleges can offer that discounted rate because they are subsidized by _tax dollars_ Yours and mine...taxpayers.

Next question: Who paid the bill for for them to go to elementary school? high school? The taxpayer.

Just my 2cents.


----------



## kttref (Oct 5, 2004)

This is all I'm going to say, because I feel very strongly about this: That is bullshit.


----------

