Posted on 07/23/2005 10:50:58 PM PDT by Cougar66
New York Invites Terror Steve Malzberg Monday, July 18, 2005 New York, New York, so nice they had to name it twice. New York, New York, victim of the single largest act of terror ever carried out against the United States on our own soil. New York, New York, where the constant cry since those 9/11 attacks has been over the way anti-terror funds are allocated by the federal government. New York, New York, their politicians say, was and still remains the number one target of terrorists around the world and should be granted funding accordingly.
Yet New York, New York, its City Council and its mayor, Michael Bloomberg, continue to make it easier and easier for terrorists to slink around their fair city and possibly do it harm. You may not have heard much about this, but on June 23 the New York City Council passed a bill banning the questioning of applicants for street vending licenses about their immigration status. The vote was an unbelievable 42-8. And then on July 11, just days after the London bombings, Mayor Bloomberg put his signature to the legislation, which put an end to a legal procedure that had been in place since the late 1930s. Under the law that this new bill erases, applicants for street vending licenses had to show the Department of Consumer Affairs documentation of citizenship, or valid immigration or working status before obtaining their licenses.
Yes, the margin of the City Council vote was veto proof, but a veto would have at least put Bloomberg on record as having opposed this obscene loosening of the rules regarding illegals.
What makes this even worse is that the bill was introduced by City Councilman Charles Barron. Barron is a former Black Panther and says he's proud of that fact. He is considered by many to be the most radical leftist in that legislative body, and has long been at odds with Mayor Bloomberg over most city issues. But at the signing ceremony at New York's City Hall, the pair had nothing but praise for each other.
There's more. The Acting Consumer Affairs Commissioner of New York is quoted as thanking Barron for "relieving us of this last vestige of citizenship status checks in the laws" that his agency is responsible for carrying out. Barron's next bill now pending would get rid of other safeguards on perspective street vendors such as fingerprinting.
At this point I want to make it perfectly clear that I am not assuming that all or most of New York's street vendors are illegal immigrants. I am not claiming that all or most of the illegal aliens in New York are or would ever consider becoming terrorists. But making it harder to find the one, two, three or four who might is simply foolish. No, it's suicidal.
Unfortunately, this is not the first time that Mayor Bloomberg has caved to the pressure of political correctness, nor is he the first New York City mayor to do so.
In 1989 Mayor Ed Koch signed Executive Order 124. It prohibited city employees from inquiring about a person's immigration status and from transmitting that information to federal authorities such as INS. For the sake of clarity, "city employees" include police.
The twisted logic behind this order appears to be that if you allow city workers to rat out illegals, then the illegals will be frightened away from using vital city services, which will make the entire city less safe. They won't go to the police for help, to city hospitals for health care, and won't send their kids to public schools.
Whether the logic is sound or not is, in my view, beside the point. You don't pass laws or sign executive orders that permit law breakers to get away with breaking the law. Back in 1989 Koch's order was bad enough. But who would believe that even in the aftermath of 9/11, "America's Mayor" Rudy Giuliani would refuse to rescind or in any way tamper with Executive Order 124.
It's true. It defies logic, but it's true. In fact Rudy fought a 1996 law passed by Congress that in effect rendered 124 null and void.
Enter Mayor Bloomberg, who on May 13, 2003, issued Executive Order 34, which mended, not ended, Koch's order. It prohibited city employees from asking about immigration status, but allowed them to report illegals to the Department of Homeland Security under certain circumstances. But that didn't sit well with so-called "immigrant advocacy" groups and various elected officials, some of whom took to the streets in protest.
So Mayor Bloomberg mended his own order with a new one, signed on September 17, 2003. Under this latest one, there are very specific circumstances which would allow a city worker to disclose illegal status.
The illegal would have to be suspected of engaging in illegal activity other than mere status as an "undocumented alien." Or dissemination of the illegal's status would have to be considered necessary to apprehend a person suspected of engaging in such illegal activity. Or finally, such disclosure would need to be deemed necessary in furtherance of an investigation of potential terrorist activity.
Can you believe it? Bloomberg's latest order actually mentions the word "terror" and explores the possibility of "an investigation of potential terrorist activity." New York, New York, it's a hell of a town.
This legislation is sick, NYC counclimen are morons, and Bloomberg is a dilettante pretending to be Republican. I would rather vote for Al Sharpton.
What is this obsession with protecting illegals?
:(
I hate that he's on at 6am now. He was great overnight on wabc
Ive never voted in Senate elections here. First time will be '06. I cant stand it anymore. Her and Upchuck have to go.
>>>>Yet New York, New York, its City Council and its mayor, Michael Bloomberg, continue to make it easier and easier for terrorists to slink around their fair city and possibly do it harm. You may not have heard much about this, but on June 23 the New York City Council passed a bill banning the questioning of applicants for street vending licenses about their immigration status.
All clear for the fruit vendor!
I can't even find WRAL on my radio dial!
And co-hosting with that ditz from the Daily News?!
(Audible groan.)
Try to volunteer a couple of weekends to help their challengers win.
Pass out flyers and work the phones two days.
That could make the whole difference.
Is She with the Daily News?? I never heard of her until he switched. It bummed me out he left the week of election. I was shocked.
I would love to do something. A lot of people need to wake up here.
You work two days on weekends and you personally will probably get 200 votes away from Hillary to your candidate.
A 400 vote switch.
Reminds me of the movie(book), 'Sum of All Fears'. Such trivial legislation, is it that bad in the street vendor biz that the top politicians need to spend time on it?
Though, to be honest, I haven't followed that paper-with the exceptions of A.M. Rosenthal and Stanley Crouch-for years.
Believe it or not, Juan Gonzalez was actually a professor of mine for a semester.
After watching his "interviews" many times, I'm convinced that this Charles Barron jerk produces his outrages for effect for the benefit of the clowns who continue to elect him. I have no idea what his real opinions are, but they can't be what he spews. Nobody is that stupid. Except those who keep voting for him.
She doesn't have a chance in 08.
But I'm surprised, you don't like Stanley Crouch? He's great, except when he goes on about music.
His sole attempt at fiction was atrocious!
Though, much better at cultural/political analysis, in my opinion.
:)
He was among the first to call rap what it is, which I liked -- though his jazz stuff bores me to tears. The old saying: "writing about music is like dancing about architecture."
I also like his social commentary. I don't always agree, but welcome the intelligent arguments. I bought a couple of his books, Notes of a Hanging Judge etc. but not the fiction (didn't even know it existed).
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.