Posted on 01/19/2006 6:08:35 AM PST by kellynla
SANTA ANA – As local law enforcement appealed to Latino leaders Wednesday to help with controversial plans to enforce immigration laws, one Hispanic activist threatened protests in Costa Mesa if the proposals are approved.
Nativo Lopez said if the plans are enacted he will ask Latinos to refuse to cooperate with Costa Mesa police through a campaign of "non-confidence and silence," will launch a boycott of businesses within the city, and will hold a mass march and rally there on President's Day weekend.
Lopez was among several people, including Sheriff Mike Carona and Costa Mesa Police Chief John Hensley, who spoke at a discussion organized by the Orange County Community Forum, an organization of faith, ethnic and grass-roots groups.
Police sweeps are nothing new, Lopez said, but now police and politicians are using fears brought on by the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to justify a public policy that they say will help cut crime.
"The fallacy of these arguments about crime and security is that they have been tried before, but previously the anti-immigrant crowd did not have the Twin Towers as their big fig leaf," Lopez said.
Carona and Hensley didn't react to Lopez's threat during the forum. Both asked Latino leaders for help in educating the community on their plans, which they said have been mischaracterized as racial profiling and sweeps aimed at undocumented immigrants.
(Excerpt) Read more at ocregister.com ...
Oops, Lou Dobbs in on..catch ya later.
sw
That's right: increased enforcement without increased levels of legal immigration is NOT the answer (see above).
Is it, or is it not, the right of every American citizen to not just protest in Costa Mesa on President's Day weekend, but also to refuse to cooperate with Costa Mesa police through a campaign of "non-confidence and silence" and to launch a boycott of businesses within the city?
Increased enforcement? The Bush administration doesn't want increased enforcement, our "leader" doesn't even want to enforce the existing laws already on the books. He has lost all credibility on this issue.
You don't address the little item of the billions of dollars the millions of illegal aliens cost California every year.
We can't afford to support millions of third worlders. They need to go back to their own country and stop feeding off American taxpayers. Let them wait their turn and apply legally.
Ah, yes, you are the person who gave the following friendly advice to travelers: "BEWARE, parts of once-American Orange County are turning into Tijuana [sic] north."
Well, did you have a problem when Ronald Reagan signed that last amnesty into law?
Perhaps you, kellynla and stephenjohnbanker could go all around the country posting such warnings:
"BEWARE, parts of once-American San Francisco are turning into China East and, God forbid, New York City are turning into Spic central" too?
Yes of course I did. Even people pushing the most liberal immigration bills point to the Reagan amnesty and say "Well at least its not that!" No need to ask you the same question. You most definitely supported rewarding all that illegal behavior. Anybody you know benefit from that amnesty? relatives?
It is also "just plain wrong" to assume the cost of one wall is the only cost in completely sealing the border. What about the net impact to our economy, for instance? If all of those costs could total more than $9 billion, would you then agree that said solution was worse than the problem.
Holy crap, it's the REINCARNATION OF BAYOUROD! :O
Try to be original.
sw
Nope - my Mexican-born mother actually became a U.S. citizen before that - that being said, I really see no special reason to target otherwise law-abiding immigrants, especially if it's going to cost more than it would save in social services, etc.
I was not the one to bring up Tijuana North.
I have no idea who "BAYOUROD" is, but is that someone who also posed hypotheticals that no one dared to answer?
LOL!!!
Our enforcement costs would have to be upwards of $50 billion to compensate for illegals' net social services consumption alone - and while a wall would be largely a one-time expense, our social service costs are ongoing and accelerating. Furthermore there are all the incalculable costs of importing a third-world culture, with its crime and disease, directly into our first-world cities. And of course there's no amount of money which is worth selling our sovereignty.
You also see no reason to target criminal immigrants apparently. Nope youre against targeting anybody who is not a terrorist. Well should illegal mexicans currently in-country be eligible for any guest worker program that required them to return home after or should they just be given straight up amnesty?
Illegal funds....??? Underground economy...
Do those fruit and flower vendors on every corner pay taxes on their incomes? Probably not.
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.