Posted on 10/29/2004 6:53:09 PM PDT by JackelopeBreeder
U.S. Attorney's Office Asks For Change In Federal Guidelines
SAN DIEGO -- In an exclusive 10News report, investigative reporter Thom Jensen learned that the San Diego Office of the U.S. Attorney has advised the Border Patrol they want to change the way the Department of Justice does business.
In a letter written by Assistant U.S. Attorney Steven Peak to Paul Blocker, Jr., acting chief patrol agent, he said, "We believe it appropriate to revise our prosecution guidelines in criminal alien cases."
Peak said the local U.S. Attorney's Office resources are limited and they have other "enforcement priorities." He told the Border Patrol that about one-third of the U.S. Attorney's Office staff is now involved in this case and his office anticipates prosecuting about 25 percent more criminal alien cases this year.
The Department of Justice wants to "scrutinize more closely the immigration and criminal history" defendants.
As explained to 10News by Border Patrol sources, under the new guidelines, the criminal history of smugglers or illegal immigrants will be considered only if they've been convicted of murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, rape or multiple felonies in the past five years. If they have committed a crime longer than seven years ago, it will not be considered -- that includes crimes like child pornography, weapons crimes or terrorism.
Those same Border Patrol sources are furious. They said this new policy will mean releasing potentially dangerous illegal immigrants back into Mexico. And "we will be facing them the next night."
It's a short-term solution that will lead to more problems along the border in the future. U.S. Attorney Carol Lamb defended the policy and said her office will handle these prosecutions on a case-by-case basis.
She said it's a proposal with no start date set, but agents tell 10News the changes are supposed to be implemented Monday, Nov. 1.
Ping!
We should be making it harder not easier for these people
I didn't notice - is the person a Democrat - Wait - it doesn't matter - both parties are for the illegals getting into this nation -
Not unexpected.
The AUSA in Tucson did this back in 1999. While they did not raise the bar as high as SD wants to, they did it for the same reason. No manpower.
Not unexpected.
The AUSA in Tucson did this back in 1999. While they did not raise the bar as high as SD wants to, they did it for the same reason. No manpower.
un-freakin-believable
I think we need a presence beginning Nov. 3 till "how ever long it takes." I think we either need a third party or a highly visible Constitution Party candidate from "go." Our "pickins'" this time out were slim and none. I have zero desire to repeat this scenario.
Mr. President,
Illegal alien, Perez Sanchez said: "A country is like a house. If you let bad people get into your house, you're going to corrupt your own people. I understand that."
Sanchez -convictions for first-degree rape, felony assault and two instances of DUI. -and three previous deportations -
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1261472/posts
Sir, if he can understand that, why can't you?
By allowing employers to violate this law you are encouraging them to violate other laws. Can you understand that premise? Sanchez does.
I am rapidly losing respect for you and your immigration policies!
You should be thanking God that your opponent is such a slimeball who also sees false benefits in this immigrant invasion you are encouraging.
Please reread your Oath of Office. Ask for a definition of 'protect and serve'.
And there is no manpower ... because? Because Asa is either a highly paid mouthpiece or truly an incompetent? If he is the former, is his position worth the national ridicule and humiliation of his lame or non-existent leadership?
And, if it's the latter, what Admin would keep such an embarrassment on the payroll?
Uh ... I hate to tell ya, but I'm voting FOR the Kalifornia initiative insisting employers above a certain size furnish employees with health care. I've been back and forth with myself on this issue, and once I decided to forgo my daily koolaid, the decision was clear.
I want more attention directed to the borders and, if we refuse to deport anyone other than aliens with multiple felonies, I want additional resources in place to identify and prosecute employers of illegal aliens.
As regards our group in this venue, I think we should attempt to identify businesses supposedly dependent on illegal labor and publish their existence.
That may seem a little rowdy, but in keeping with Asa's leadership thus far, I'd like to suggest a poll. And the question is:
What color is a "green card"?
Dubya is no better than Querri when it comes to pandering. He just chooses different groups to wrap his lips around. A pox upon all who value their personal power more than the future of their country.
What a surprise. That's about all I have to say on the subject. I couldn't be more disgusted with our leaders. If they swore and oath to Mexico and did their best to implement policies that served that nation, they couldn't do any more than they are today, to aid Mexico and sell out the United States.
I've gone that way too --- it seems to me to be the only way to prevent the government take-over of health care. It's very ironic however -- it's the "hispanics" who lack health care the most --- but guess which Chamber of Commerce is fighting tooth and nail to keep laws requiring businesses provide health care --- that's right --- the Hispanic Chamber of Commerces are saying such a law would harm hispanic businesses the most --- because they're new to this country, just starting out blah blah blah --- cannot afford to provide health insurance --- Such an irony that it's these hispanic business employing the most illegals --- of course they're fighting this --- they definitely want the government takeover of health care --- they want their cheap taxpayer subsidized labor.
I don't think they're distanced at all --- not by the way the federal money is flowing to the areas of high immigration --- huge amounts for government subsidized housing, federal bailouts of hospitals and schools, welfare checks, and a whole lot more. They know enough about the problem that a new type of Medicare was added --- $1 billion which is obviously just a beginning --- they know enough that they could tack on this kind of money to a program that was originally meant for American senior citizens, now it includes Mexico's citizens -- and they don't have to be seniors.
Well, isn't this just ducky.
Thanks for this info, Fitz. Don't believe I was aware of it. Looks like we're on the right track!
Yes -- in the past I would have been against the requiring of employers to provide insurance --- but because of the availability of very cheap labor --- coming over by the semi-truck load, the new mentality is to dump the real costs onto taxpayers. "Anglo" businesses still commonly provide health insurance benefits and American citizens still take jobs which offer benefits over those which don't, but the hispanic businessman wants to operate like they did in Mexico -- and over there the government does it all (which isn't saying much).
I guess it shouldn't have been surprising -- hispanic leaders have been screaming about hispanics lacking access to health care because they lack insurance --- yet when one solution is to require hispanic businessmen to operate more like the non-hispanics and provide their hispanic workers some health insurance their true agenda comes out --- what they want is for their workers to have easy access to Medicaid. Socialism is their agenda.
So I'm with you --- as far as your imported cheap labor --- if you want to bring them in --- then you pay for them --- don't dump the cost of supporting them onto the tax payer --- the taxpayers are maxed out.
I see it passing. The unions, of course, are for it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.