Blurt: Seven Days Staff Blog

NOTE: Blurt has been retired and is no longer updated regularly. For new content, follow these links:

OFF MESSAGE: Vermont News and Politics
BITE CLUB: Food and Drink Blog

« Movies You Missed 11: Trespass | Main | Grazing: Käsespätzle From Das Bierhaus »

November 04, 2011

Shumlin Makes "Look the Other Way" Official Immigration Enforcement Policy

ShumlinGov. Peter Shumlin and the Department of Public Safety announced a new policy today that effectively prohibits Vermont State Police from asking suspected illegal immigrants for papers unless they are suspected of another crime.

According to a press release, the new policy states that "Vermont State Police troopers should not try to identify people whose only suspected violation is that they are present in the United States without proper documentation, but also makes clear that officers should continue to investigate suspected criminal activity."

Previously, the state police's "bias-free" policy barred troopers from asking about immigration status only when a suspected immigrant was a crime victim or witness. Vermont’s dairy farms are heavily dependent on migrant labor; several thousand Latino workers are employed in Vermont dairies, legally and illegally.

Shumlin launched a review of state policy in September after two undocumented migrant farm workers, one of them an outspoken activist, were detained by state police during a traffic stop and turned over to the U.S. Border Patrol. The governor took heat from Republicans when he said afterward that Vermont's policy on immigration enforcement amounted to "look the other way."

The new policy was authored by Shumlin's former legal counsel Beth Robinson, who the governor recently appointed to the Vermont Supreme Court.

Click here to read Shumlin's press release. Click here to download the policy.

Shumlin's press release quotes Public Safety Commissioner Keith Flynn saying the policy will "ensure the fair and equal treatment of all individuals in Vermont." Attorney General William Sorrell, who has urged all Vermont police departments to adopt a policy akin to Shumlin's new one, said, "This is good news. Now I hope more Vermont police departments will adopt bias-free policies that emphasize their primary role of enforcing Vermont criminal laws."

The new policy includes "special provisions" for law enforcement operating near the Canadian border, allowing them to take action relating to "unlawful border crossings in progress, as well as to call for support from federal authorities when required to protect officer or public safety," the press release says.

Click here to read about a Franklin County dairy farmer near the Canadian border whose migrant workers were removed earlier this year after one them accidentally dialed 911.

The VT Migrant Farmworker Solidarity Project, which launched a sustained lobbying effort to get the policy changed, welcomed the new policy as a "big step forward" but then expressed some fears about it.

"The policy has a number of exceptions to when police can ask about immigration status and engage in immigration enforcement," said Solidarity Project spokesperson Natalia Fajardo.

This policy will likely become moot once and if ICE's program Secure Communities goes into effect in 2013 nationwide, and if so, cities and states won't be able to opt out of it, whether one likes it or not.

But, but, but what about looking the other way for the people in Lowell, protesting the towers. Nope the supreme court seems to say they must leave.
Double standard?
It seems you can be legal on private property and not be allowed, violate ordinance in city hall park and be allowed, and well the subject of illegal aliens, will eventually go to the supreme court, and, and, and.
Keys for the use of city hall facilities are now available, please contact local taxpayers as these are your providers.
Free speech in Vt. is really being called into question as the courts are now throwing it into the wilderness where Pete the Moose had more power.
Maybe I will lead a Moose on a leash through city hall park.
Double standard has been set, cant protest in Lowell but you can in Burlington. I guess I am protesting.

Thank you, Governor Shumlin, for decriminalizing DWAA (Driving With An Accent). Now I will probably vote for you even though you are an expert at putting your foot in your mouth.

Just a bit ironic that Beth Robinson's "Look the Other Way" policy she has her puppet facilitator enacting actually amounts to a "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy now for Illegal Aliens.

The emerging view in Vermont that if we don't like the laws, we don't have to obey them, is frightening. Drug laws? Don't obey 'em and we won't enforce 'em. Illegal aliens? Hire 'em and we'll look the other way. Wind turbines? They got a permit to go up, but go ahead and obstruct the construction -- it's okay. Illegal camping in City Hall Park? No problem because we like your "cause."

I guess it's now my privilege as a Vermonter to ignore any laws I don't like -- but only as long as my viewpoint is considered politically correct, of course.

Shumlin has no legal authority to direct the VSP to ignore federal law. It's that simple. This order is invalid, and any law enforcement agent that abides this order over federal law is abetting a crime.

As well, all federal agents such as BP, ICE, etc will continue to enforce federal laws and are under no obligation to abide Scummy.

Here is Gov. Shumlin being sworn in and taking the oath of office as Governor on January 6, 2011.

The oaths begin at 1:20.

Note the part where he swears to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

I didn't see the part where he said, "except the federal laws I don't agree with."

I'm also assuming state police officers have to take an oath, and I'm sure it will mention upholding and enforcing both state and federal laws.

Shumlin most certainly can tell the VSP that with limited resources, some laws are more important than others. He may not be able to tell them to "ignore" violations, but he sure can tell them to stop looking for them. Until VSP starts asking light-skinned people without accents about their immigration status, they have no business going after Mexicans.

"ERIC" you are dead wrong. The state police officer in the recent case didn't "go looking" for a violation, it was staring him in the face. Shumlin's not telling police to look the other way; he's telling them to do their jobs with blinders on.

Why the Hell should the VSP ask "light skinned people without accents" about their immigration status? Those people aren't trying to sneak into the U.S.. They're staying in Canada or Western Europe where they have stable currency and a national health plan.

If you are looking for Mexicans who are here illegally, it's only common sense to search among Mexicans. Similarly, if you are looking for Arab terrorists, look among Arabs. This is not racism, it's common sense policing, and it's practiced by countries way more progressive than this one. You just have to be respectful and professional, as this officer was. Oh, and by the way, he was right--the suspects turned out to be, in fact, here illegally.

If the VSP follows your directions, they will be inconveniencing a lot of innocent people minding their own business. Shumlin's only mistake here was using the phrase "Look the other way." As another commenter pointed out, it is more accurately described as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."


Your analogy to "Don't Ask Don't Tell" doesn't work. In the case of gays in the military, people got off their butts and got the rules changed. In the case of illegal immigration, you haven't changed the rules, but you don't want them to be enforced.

Nice try. Try again.

Caleb, I thought you said on another post that you're not against bias-free policing.

I am not opposed to immigration laws. Every country has them. I simply agree with Shumlin that VSP has better things to do than crack down on illegal immigration. Let BP and ICE harass anyone who looks like an illegal immigrant, make racist @$$holes out of themselves, and alienate the community. The new bias-free policing policy calls for the VSP to cooperate with the feds when requested.

Somehow I have the feeling that Will Workman above is very very white and has never been investigated based on superficial characteristics.


Your last comment about Will Workman was totally racist. Shame on you.

By the way, is "very very white" different from just "very white" or from just "white"? What the hell are you talking about?

And you imply that you're somehow morally superior to Will because he hasn't (you assume) been investigated based on superficial characteristics. How do you know? And have you? And what constitutes a superficial characteristic?

Caleb, if I have insulted the one American of Mexican descent who is willing to endure endless harassment from the VSP in the interest of catching illegal immigrants, I will apologize right away.

The point is that nobody ever hears of police targeting blond haired, blue eyed Caucasians simply because they are statistically likely to commit a certain crime. It is easy for those with blond hair and blue eyes to say that targeting citizens of a certain ethnicity is justified. They will never be the targets unless they fit the description of a specific suspect. Even then, bias creeps in. Some years ago the UVM police pulled guns on a 5'2" black female. The suspect had been described as a 6'2" black male. Profiling is ugly.

I don't really care that my Middle Eastern features attract extra questions from CBP and TSA personnel, although if I ever get strip searched it will be the last time I fly. It is a waste of their time.

I'm not going to say that the laws should be changed. If someone driving a work van is pulled over for a traffic violation and turns out to have a foreign licence, that is his tough luck.

Immigration laws are simply not so precious that VSP needs to bother everyone with an accent just to root out a few illegal immigrants.

I am a liberal democrat who is saddened by the Shumlin decision to tell the police to not do the job they are paid to do, which is to enforce the laws of our state and country. If you do not like the law governor, then work to change it, not break it. I can so longer support you.

At the end of the day, unlawful presence is not a crime but rather a civil law violation. If we want our police to use their limited resources to investigate these administrative issues as if they were crimes, then we should spend taxpayer dollars to provide accused illegal immigrants with adequate legal representation and the due process rights that citizens currently receive. Until this happens, the cops have no business investigating immigration law violations. When they do, it diverts resources from investigation of real crime and hurts the community as a whole.


Please give a reason why illegal immigrants who are detained or arrested should get free lawyers at US taxpayer expense?

Caleb, I'm saying that the reason why illegal immigrants don't get lawyers is precisely because unlawful presence is NOT a crime. The federal rules governing immigration are in title 8 of the US code, not in the criminal sections. Accordingly, the local police have NO AUTHORITY to enforce immigration law. It is absolutely within their discretion whether they choose to turn "suspected" migrants over to ICE. They are not "refusing" to enforce the law because it was never up to them to enforce it in the first place.

And about racial profiling (this is for Will Workman) - not only is this practice condemned by every reputable law enforcement organization because it DOESN'T WORK, it completely overlooks the fact that many illegal immigrants, if not most, are not Hispanic.
I understand that people may not know much about how immigration law works or the demographics of the immigrant population, but PLEASE do research before you form opinions based on emotions rather than facts. The level of ignorance in this debate is disturbing.


Illegal immigrants get lawyers. WHere did you get the idea they don't?

They get lawyers to represent them in Immigration court, to file appeals with the BIA, to file appeals in the Court of Appeals... etc.

Moreover, as soon as they go to immigration court they are given a work card and qualify for public assistance.

What more do you want to give them?

Jcarter - There is no 6th amendment right to counsel in immigration cases. People can pay for their own immigration lawyers, but most can't afford it and therefore don't have representation, even if they have really good arguments against removal.
All I'm saying is that it's wrong to say that illegal immigrants are "criminals." Unlawful presence is NOT a crime, and people really need to stop saying that local law enforcement should "enforce" the law. They have no authority to do so - if they did then we would have to provide lawyers under the 6th amendment. Congress purposefully didn't do this because it is so expensive.
Also, as soon as they go to immigration court they are given an order for removal, and detained for months and sometimes years (and because this detention is not technically "punitive" it doesn't violate due process), unless they can lawfully be here, in which case, yes they can work just like everyone else. I don't know where you're getting your information JCarter.


I don't think your assumption is correct that Congress chose not to make illegal presence in the US a crime because then they would have to provide lawyers to the illegals. Because I'm not sure the 6th Amendment right to counsel applies to non-US citizens.

And whether being here illegally is defined technically as a crime under the U.S. Code or not, illegal is illegal.

Bottom line: You have no right to be in my house uninvited. None. Nada. Zilch. Zip. Knock and maybe I'll invite you in. Break in or sneak in, and you should be deported. Period.

Caleb, I'm not making any assumptions, I am telling you the state of the law. Some parts of immigration law are criminal, for example unlawful entry, but unlawful presence is not a crime. Also, under the 14th amendment due process rights apply to all people, not just citizens. Therefore, illegal immigrants are entitled to legal representation if they are accused of a crime, but not for unlawful presence because it is NOT A CRIME. Therefore, illegal is NOT illegal in this instance, and it makes ALL THE DIFFERENCE IN THE WORLD.
Additionally, the federalism issue cannot be overstated. Congress has the authority to regulate immigration and states don't. This is how it's always been, so even if states wanted to make unlawful presence a crime subject to local law enforcement, this would likely be unconstitutional (this proposition remains to be tested in the Supreme Court, however).
What experience do you have with immigration laws? Have you been to law school? Rather than making your own assumptions and saying "I think but I'm not sure," why don't you do some research?

"Also, as soon as they go to immigration court they are given an order for removal, and detained for months and sometimes years (and because this detention is not technically "punitive" it doesn't violate due process), unless they can lawfully be here, in which case, yes they can work just like everyone else. I don't know where you're getting your information JCarter."

Caryn, there are a few hundred detention cells. Most people that go to immigration court are never detained. It's like this, they go to immigration court and ask for political asylum. Then they are "out of status" not here illegally, at which point they get their work card etc etc. Where do I get my info. From a bunch of illegals that I have called and reported several times. Some have been here for several years now.

I'm not sure where you are getting your info, but usually only people who have committed crimes get detained. Not the average smoe who entered illegally or came on a visitor visa and didn't leave. Regardless, they are here illegally. The term illegally makes them criminals.

"Congress has the authority to regulate immigration and states don't. This is how it's always been, so even if states wanted to make unlawful presence a crime subject to local law enforcement, "

Local law enforcement are required to uphold both local as well as federal laws. Period. Moreover, EVERY US citizen is obligated to report to the proper authorities a crime they have knowledge of. A local law enforcement officer who is aware of the presence of an illegally alien is bound to call them in. As are you Caryn, otherwise be prepared to be charged with abeting.

JCarter, the term "illegal" is political, not legal. Calling something illegal doesn't make it a crime.
You're right that most people are released on their own recognizance, but if they are unlawful then they are subject to further hearings, and then either voluntary departure or detention pending removal. However, this is a discretionary matter and many IJs do decide to detain (and there are many circumstances in which detention is mandatory). Asylum is practically impossible to get, as you have to show a credible fear of persecution based on one of the five statutory grounds. You're wrong that people are just getting asylum as a get out of jail free card.
There is no law that obligates citizens to report crimes (this would violate free speech requirements, in fact) and local law enforcement has NO AUTHORITY to uphold immigration law. They are NOT REQUIRED to investigate immigration status, nor should this be since their job is to solve REAL CRIME. If the police could do this, then why would ICE exist?
The fact is that the system is broken. Immigrants are part our community to stay and many of them have been here for years and are productive members of society. Don't demonize them as criminals; think about the situation rationally. Or at least learn something about the law before you form opinions about it.

I echo Jcarter's point: all law enforcement officials in the US are authorized and obligated to enforce local AND federals laws.

Don't confuse apples and oranges. It's true that states aren't allowed to make laws in an area of exclusive federal jurisdiction (hence, US v. Arizona on immigration, and Entergy v. Vermont on nuclear safety). But that's different from saying states can't enforce federal laws. No only can they -- they are required to. If I am a Vermont deputy sheriff and I see someone running across the US-Canadian border, I am obligated to do something about it.

If you see someone actually crossing the border, then that is a crime so you can arrest them. All the police can do otherwise is arrest people for crimes, they can do nothing but turn people over to ICE for immigration violations. If a violation is obvious (as in, the person pulled over says, "I am here unlawfully. Please send me to ICE,"), then the police can give them over to ICE. Considering that this situation never happens, though, the immigration violations are not "obvious," and so long as the police officers don't know then it is totally within their discretion to not ask about it. All Shumlin is saying is that being Hispanic and having an accent are not "obvious" in the sense that they compel police action.
I'm really surprised about how gung-ho you all are about police action against non-criminals. This is like saying that if police suspect that you own a building that isn't up to code, then they should be able to arrest you, detain you and then turn you over to the Housing Authority. We should think carefully before we decide to use the police arm of the state in this manner.

Caryn , you are kind of talking in circles here.

"There is no law that obligates citizens to report crimes (this would violate free speech requirements, in fact)".

There is actually. Free speech grants you the right to say what you want to, not to hide knowldge of a crime. Just an FYI. But lets for example say you see an aquaintance rob a bank at gun point. If you say nothing you will most certainly be charged.

Now onto your argument about local law enforcement. First, no they are not charged with tracking down illegals. They are however required to report suspicious activity and if they have knowledge of an illegal they are required to check into that. That includes asking for if someone has identification and verifying that identification.

Another FYI, something does not have to be "obvious" for a cop to investigate. There only needs to be reasonable suspicion.

Finally, all Shumlin is saying is to ignore federal law. Do not ask, do not prosecute, just pretend we are all US citizens sitting around a campfire singing cumbya.

I also believe that yes, if a sheriff enters a building and it isn't believed to be up to code they have every right to call the housing authority. Heck, any person can do that.

"Asylum is practically impossible to get, as you have to show a credible fear of persecution based on one of the five statutory grounds. You're wrong that people are just getting asylum as a get out of jail free card."

You misunderstood what I said. I didn't say people are getting asylum. You are correct in that it is almost never granted. However, it buys one several years to remain in the states. Then after the last appeal is up they either bolt or ask for voluntary departure. But it takes several years. It's not a get out of jail free card, more like buying some time.

JCarter, I really don't know what else to say. If you really think that on reasonable suspicion police should go arresting people for housing code violations, then you have a pretty totalitarian attitude, man.
All Shumlin is saying is that being Hispanic does not equal reasonable suspicion. That not only makes sense, it's a no brainer.

JCarter, what chapter of the US Code says that citizens must report crimes, much less civil immigration violations? If I don't report my bank-robbing acquaintance it won't be looked well upon, but unless I benefit from it, help cover it up, or help perpetrate it, I'm not involved in the crime. I am not obligated to talk to the police about it until I am served a subpoena.

There are laws requiring the reporting of crimes in very specific instances, such as laws that require school and hospital personnel to report child abuse.

The police are not required to ask about immigration status. Until that changes, Gov. Shumlin and the Police Commissioner are within their authority to instruct the police not to ask.

Caryn and Eric,

I want to test your intellectual honesty. You say, don't ask about their immigration status if they are not committing a crime. I don't necessarily agree, but I'll go with you just for argument's sake. So let's say an illegal immigrant who works on a Vermont farm IS committing a crime. Let's say they're caught breaking and entering a house, or robbing a convenience store, or stealing a car, or buying or selling illegal drugs. You would agree, would you not, that they can then be asked about their immigration status and, if they're here illegally, can and should be deported?

Finn, the answer to your question is yes, of course. But that's not the kind of situation we're talking about here - what Eric and I are saying is that Shumlin 100 percent has the authority and discretion to choose not to divert precious, limited police resources towards investigating civil law violations rather than rapes and murders, especially when that investigation is based on nothing but "reasonable suspicion" that amounts to racial profiling.
If you want to test intellectual honesty, you should ask JCarter and Caleb over here whether they understand the distinction between administrative and criminal law.

First, I think JCarter understands the distrinction between criminal and administrative law, but I'd strongly suggest that you're splitting hairs for the sake of splitting hairs. It may or may not be a criminal offense to "be" here illegally, but you know damn well that we're all talking about people who broke a criminal law by "coming" here illegally. And as for people who have chosen to overstay their legal right to be here, to me that's the same thing as crossing the border illegally. You're refusing to leave my house when I don't want you to be there anymore. Let's please stop the semantics.

And as for your answer, so if an illegal immigrant working on a Vermont farm gets arrested for robbing a convenience store and faces deportation, we won't hear any whining that the poor worker shouldn't face deportation just for knocking over a convenience store. I will hold you to that.

Yes, Finn, I support deportation for undocumented immigrants caught committing felonies. Always have and always will.

Finn, it doesn't matter if "to you it's the same thing." To the law, it's NOT the same thing. This is not semantics, this is an argument about whether we want local police spending their limited resources "investigating" (aka racially profiling, because how else would they ever know?) people who aren't criminals instead of people who are ACTUALLY COMMITTING FELONIES. I don't understand how anyone could disagree with Shumlin without some serious intellectual dishonesty on their part.
Again, if you want to treat unlawful migrants like criminals, then as a civilized supporter of democracy you should support providing them with counsel under the 6th amendment. Until you support that, you shouldn't support treating unlawful presence like a crime.
Please please please learn something about how the law actually works before you make assumptions about it.

And by the way, you can't assume that just because someone is here unlawfully then that means that they committed a crime by sneaking in. A majority of undocumented immigrants came in on legal visas, such as the B2 tourism visa, and overstayed. I'm not saying that this is right, but I am saying that these people have NEVER committed an immigration-related crime.

One more thing - in case you still think that I'm splitting hairs for the sake of splitting hairs, let's do a thought experiment: Imagine the local police have the authority to enforce the entire U.S. and Vermont state codes. Thousands and thousands of pages of codes regulating everything from what containers meat need to be shipped in to Title IX violations. Further, let's say that unless something is actually a "crime," then due process rights are unnecessary (this is how it is now with immigration). Imagine, then, the police having authority to arrest and detain people for, let's face it, pretty much anything they want, for as long as they want. Does this sound like a good idea to you? Do you only think it's right with immigrants because they are not like you?

"Again, if you want to treat unlawful migrants like criminals, then as a civilized supporter of democracy you should support providing them with counsel under the 6th amendment."

I don't even know how you can ask that question with a straight face. Why SHOULDN'T we treat unlawful residents like criminals? Congress could make "unlawful presence" a criminal offfense in a heartbeat, and they SHOULD. And, no, that wouldn't automatically mean we'd have to provide them with lawyers at taxpayer expense. It would NOT be unconstitutional to say that NON-US citizens do not get a 6th Amendment right to counsel.

Finn, Congress purposefully didn't make unlawful presence a crime because under the Fourteenth Amendment all PEOPLE, not just citizens, are entitled to due process protections, including the 6th amendment right to counsel. Your opinions are not just wrong, they are completely outside of any sort of mainstream legal analysis.
Do you know any unlawful migrants? Perhaps you should learn something about the demographics of illegal immigrants in this country (they are mostly ordinary people who have been here for 10 plus years and have families), and how they are currently being treated in detention:

The US Supreme Court would be well within its rights to limit the reach of the 14th Amendment to US citizens ONLY. And if I were on the Supreme Court, I would do so. Your weeping for the poor people who are here illegally is growing tiresome. Your legal analysis is results-oriented. You obviously start from the proposition that anyone should be allowed to walk into our country anytime they want and stay as long as they like. THAT IS JUST WRONG.

Considering that a plain-text reading of the 14th amendment says "persons," not citizens, and that changing the amendment would require overturning more than half a century of precedent case law, that's not going to happen, Finn.
I frankly am getting tired of the level of bigotry and ignorance surrounding the immigration debate. I've never commented on articles like this before, but I felt compelled to say something. You all should be ashamed of yourselves, getting angry at the Governor because of his announcement that racial profiling is unacceptable for law enforcement. For everyone else, this is completely non-controversial.
Grow up and stop scapegoating the immigrant community for your problems. Learn something about the nonsensical mess that is current immigration law, and how it screws up local economies. Stop whining that illegal immigrants are the problem here.

"The US Supreme Court would be well within its rights to limit the reach of the 14th Amendment to US citizens ONLY. And if I were on the Supreme Court, I would do so."

All you need to do is take the LSAT, go to law school, acquire experience as a clerk and attorney, secure appointments to successively higher courts until you're on the Supreme Court, and persuade four other justices to vote with you. The last step is perhaps the most difficult. Good luck, Finn, I hope you make it.

Oh, all the poor, poor people who are here breaking our laws! I just feel so terrible! After all, it's not their fault that they're here illegally! They probably were just innocently driving along the highway and accidentally missed their exit and landed in the US totally by mistake! Or maybe they just can't read a calendar and didn't even realize they've been here 4 years after their visa expired! Not their fault! Innocent mistake! And f___ US laws anyway!

I'm the only one who's right about immigration! Anybody who thinks immigration laws should be enforced is a bigot and ignorant! I'm morally superior to you! Cuz I said so!

Grow up? Grow up yourself, Caryn.

"JCarter, I really don't know what else to say. If you really think that on reasonable suspicion police should go arresting people for housing code violations, then you have a pretty totalitarian attitude, man. "

I have nothing else to say. It is clear that you want to build a bunch of straw men and argue semantics. I never said that police should be arresting anyone for housing code violations.

This is worse then talking VT Yankee with Greenberg.

"JCarter, what chapter of the US Code says that citizens must report crimes, much less civil immigration violations?"

Accessory after the fact
Obstruction of Justice

CA has some more specific charges depending on the nature of the crime.

Unless a person was in a position of trust, such as being an officer of the bank, obstruction of justice doesn't apply to a simple failure to report. Which of the 16 sections of the federal law against obstruction of justice do you think applies to failing to report an acquaintance for robbing a bank?

As for Accessory After the fact, it applies to "whoever,knowing that an offense against the United States has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment."

Failing to report a crime is not necessarily receiving, relieving, comforting, or assisting. You could argue that VSP officers who know of immigration violations are obligated to report them under this law. You could not, however, argue that VSP officers are obligated to ask for immigration documents based on skin and accent, or even any other factor.

I've had to show my licence to a police officer a few times. Not once have I been asked about my immigration status. Why should anybody else be asked, especially if they weren't driving?

Eric is right - you are never compelled to tell a police officer anything unless under a court subpoena. To be an accessory, you have to encourage or provide support for the crime.
Here's what I think the argument really is here: you all are saying that police have an affirmative obligation to investigate and report immigration violations, and that Shumlin's order effectively tells police to break the law. You think that police should be used as an instrument to deport illegal immigrants.
As someone who actually understands immigration law, I can tell you that you are 100 % percent wrong about the law here. Police have no affirmative obligation to investigate immigration status; in fact, police don't WANT to do this because it detracts from their real job of solving crimes.
Furthermore, there is no guest worker program for dairy farm workers - Congress forgot to stick them in the H2a provision along with goat and sheep herders, who can get 3 year visas. Meanwhile, the Agjobs bill that would fix this, sponsored by Sen. Leahy, has been languishing for years. Ergo, you are suggesting that police should go beyond their duties (in fact, to actively undermine their duties) to help ICE enforce a completely nonsensical law. Why on earth would you want to do that?

And by the way JCarter, the point of the Housing Code analogy is that this is exactly what you suggest should happen with immigration law - that police should investigate people, arrest them and detain them when they haven't committed any crime. This is not a straw man argument, this is an attempt to correct your misunderstanding of the situation.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Stuck in VT (VIDEOS)

Solid State (Music)

Mistress Maeve (Sex)

All Rights Reserved © Da Capo Publishing Inc. 1995-2012 | PO Box 1164, Burlington, VT 05402-1164 | 802-864-5684