Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Moses Lake, WA
Feds won't obey the law, therefore you can't
Judge Rules: If Feds Won't Enforce Immigration Laws, Locals Must Not
by Mac Johnson
Posted Aug 15, 2005
The Open Borders Bloc successfully mobilized this summer to put down an unexpected outbreak of the rule of law. The rebellion was brief but threatening, as local law enforcement clearly overstepped their bounds and began enforcing laws willy-nilly--leading many in the ruling elite to wonder where it all might end. Luckily, a judge was able to step in and stop the law before it could be enforced again.
In a case well publicized by the national media, Chief Garret Chamberlain, a police officer in the town of New Ipswich, N.H., encountered Mexican citizen Jorge Mora Ramirez broken down on the side of the road. Ramirez, though unable to speak much English, admitted that he was in the country illegally, was in possession of forged Massachusetts identification bearing a fictitious Social Security number, and was illegally employed in a construction project in a nearby town.
In a move that the media is still grasping to understand, Chamberlain then called the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Division of the Department of Homeland Security (formerly known as the Immigration and Naturalization Service or INS), with the idea that they might want to, say, apprehend and deport the unknown foreign national in possession of forged government documents and investigate the matter as a violation of so-called “law.”
Immigration and Customs Enforcement quickly informed Chamberlain, however, that they were not much interested in enforcing immigration or customs laws, and he should release Ramirez before tragedy occurred and some hapless piece of drywall was not affixed at a below-market rate. Investigating the admitted client of an international human smuggling and document forgery network is not really the sort of thing that the Department of Homeland Security can afford to waste resources on, it seems.
This was not the first time such an incident had occurred. The previous July, Chamberlain had stopped a van loaded with nine criminal aliens from Ecuador. Upon calling Immigration and Customs “Enforcement,” Chamberlain was told that the nine men, who had entered the country illegally and were employed by a roofing company illegally, hadn’t done anything “criminal” and should therefore be let go.
So Chamberlain gave up on the corrupt federal immigration system and charged Ramirez with being in New Ipswich illegally--under New Hampshire’s trespass law, which states, ''A person is guilty of criminal trespass if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he enters or remains in any place."
Chamberlain explained, ''My position was: If Mr. Ramirez was in the country illegally, he was obviously in the town of New Ipswich illegally.”
The logic is incontrovertible.
Unless you are a proponent of unlimited, unscreened, unfettered foreign entry into America, and all such were simply shocked that Chamberlain had failed to play the game properly. In America, there are two sets of laws: those that are passed by Congress to placate the election-year will of the people, and those that the ruling elite actually wants enforced. And leaders in both parties have no intention of enforcing immigration law. These laws exist only to quiet the whining masses. Enforcing such laws is exactly the sort of thing a law enforcement officer should know better than to do. I mean, what’s next? Actual democracy?
Worse yet, this law “enforcement” fad threatened to catch on, as other police departments--frustrated by the federal government’s willful inaction and flagrant failure to enforce immigration law--expressed interest in using the trespass law to protect their towns from the financial and criminal burdens imposed by illegal aliens. In the nearby town of Hudson, N.H., Police Chief Richard Gendron bravely backed up Chamberlain by charging several criminal aliens found in his town with trespassing.
Immigration and Customs “Enforcement” was outraged. Paula Grenier, an ICE spokeswoman, commented, “For a police chief to grandstand about illegal immigration, and [give] the perception that the federal government is doing nothing, is wrong.” Of course it is. ICE told the chief to let the illegal aliens go, and that is doing something, isn’t it?
The Mexican government was so concerned that its biggest moneymaker (illegal labor pimping) might be harmed that they paid for legal counsel and sent their counsel-general to view the hearings.
The mainstream media and numerous other liberal advocacy groups were aghast and reacted predictably. Last week, the judge hearing the cases issued his decision.
Immigration law, he ruled, is solely the federal government’s to neglect, and claims that the act of illegal entry into the US might be violations of any local laws would be “unconstitutional attempts to regulate in the area of enforcement of immigration violations, an area where Congress must be deemed to have regulated with such civil sanctions and criminal penalties as it feels are sufficient.”
In other words, if an unelected bureaucrat at ICE decides that it is OK for an unidentified foreign national to be in the United States illegally, it is OK for him to be in New Ipswich illegally. The law be damned.
This is a curious decision when one considers that in almost every other area of law known, the statutes of federal, state and local governments often overlap. Yet no one claims that local gun-control or minimum-wage ordinances violate the will of Congress on these issues, or that federal civil rights and terrorism laws are unconstitutional infringements on state laws against murder and assault. It is a well-established legal precedent in this nation that a single act may cause one to be in violation of multiple laws--and thus subject to prosecution by more than one layer of government. Just ask Elliot Spitzer.
Also, contrast the quick reaction to local enforcement of immigration law with the phenomenon of “sanctuary cities”--cities that have prohibited their police from assisting the federal government in finding illegal aliens. Clearly, such prohibitions constitute “unconstitutional attempts to regulate in the area of enforcement of immigration violations,” yet they continue unimpeded and without pressure from the media and ICE, even years after court rulings against them.
Apparently, one may help the federal government subvert immigration law all one wants, but don’t dare try to help it actually enforce things.
So what are the abandoned local and state governments (who bear the brunt of illegal immigration costs) to do, if they may not charge illegal stowaways with trespass?
Charge them with something else.
Local governments can require contractors and laborers to register and show real identification (which coincidentally now requires proof of legal residency). Violation of such a law would be a wholly local matter. Local governments regulate restaurant zoning, and issue building permits. They can disperse loiterers and deny builders their inspection approvals. Local governments have a lot of power to regulate local activity.
Whatever local governments do, they must not surrender. Because when you fight back, sometimes you win even when you lose. Consider the parting words of Ramirez’s attorney regarding the future plans of his illegal alien clients: "I think they plan on staying out of Hudson and New Ipswich, N.H."
The actions of one cop in one town got the attention of the U.S. government, the Mexican government, the national media and the open-borders zealots. The town forced the issue on behalf of the clear majority of the American people and in the process made itself safer and finally respected among the criminal alien population, most of whom will now avoid the place altogether. There are tens of thousands of towns and cities in America, were even 1% to follow the lead of New Ipswich and Hudson, it would change everything --and restore the rule of law.