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 ...
Why would you "compromise" with law breakers???
I just did my jury service a couple of weeks ago and I didn't see them compromising with the child molester.
Just how many illegals do you employ? Must be pretty lucrative... allowing you to send more money back home.
Janet might want to temper that a little bit - she wouldn't want to offend the people of Tijuana by saying their city looks like Santa Ana
Unfortunately, there would not be incalculable costs in another recession - I'm certainly not talking about just enforcement costs here - what I am worried about is whether ALL "costs" from whatever happens exceeds the "savings" of $50 billion, then I don't think any conservative in his / her right mind would be for it. Similarly, if it could be proven that the "costs" were less than the "savings" I would be for the wall too.
lol Sure you would.
Child molesters are much worse than otherwise law-abiding illegal immigrants.
I just said I would, didn't I?
The article doesn't make clear the status of "Latinos". Are they to boycott the schools, hospital ERs and any other government entities also since they are ran as 'businesses"?
Ha ha - very funny.
Those are non-profit businesses - obviously boycotts do very little to impact non-profit businesses.
That's the desired effect, isn't it?
sw
Not just the "trade war garbage" - the specific hypothetical no one has answered is this: "If all of those costs could total more than $9 billion, would you then agree that said solution [completely sealing the border] was worse than the problem?"
Yes of course your position on illegal immigration is purely based on economic concerns.
Just like the Chinese and Italians are taking over San Francisco and NYC then . . . no harm, no foul.
sw
There's no such thing, unless you want to give them a free pass on using falsified ID, too (and you probably do). You might as well throw on tax evasion, driving without a license and a myriad of other exemptions so that we'll be convinced that they're all good, hard-working people. It's not going to work.
O.K., you've convinced me - go ahead and target child molesters too ; )
Just exactly what are law abiding illegal immigrants?
You would be OK with calling certain areas of the United States "Little Mexico" if it didn't mean "illegal aliens". Right?
sw
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.