Posted on 02/02/2006 10:47:06 AM PST by LNewman
Group opposed to city's immigration policy announces boycott, which local leaders call futile.
A Santa Ana-based immigrant rights group that opposes Costa Mesa's immigration enforcement decision today planned to repeat its call for a boycott of Costa Mesa businesses and for civil disobedience.
Local leaders disparaged the boycott plan as divisive and unproductive.
Nativo Lopez, a spokesman for Hermandad Mexicana Latinoamericana, first called for the boycott in late January. On Wednesday he announced he'll take the issue to Costa Mesa City Hall, where he planned a press conference for today.
Lopez, along with several local labor unions and Latino advocacy groups, wants to force the Costa Mesa City Council to reconsider plans to train police to do immigration checks on people suspected of serious crimes.
The city's plan is still being developed, and no police have yet had training from federal immigration authorities.
Protesters intend to create a sign to post in businesses that oppose the city's plan, and to avoid businesses that won't post the sign, Lopez said. He also will urge people not to cooperate with police, though he doesn't advocate violence, confrontation or resisting arrest.
"You have to demonstrate that without the cooperation of the populace, the police cannot do its job, and there's no reason for people to cooperate if they run the risk of being a target of inquiries about their status," Lopez said.
He added that the tactics could be expanded around Orange County if Sheriff Mike Carona proceeds with plans to train deputies for immigration enforcement.
As the only commercial business operator on the council, Councilman Gary Monahan may take a more personal hit if many people participate in the boycott.
Protesters on Wednesday scrambled to organize in time for an evening fundraiser for state Senate candidate Diane Harkey at Skosh Monahan's, the councilman's restaurant.
Protesters oppose Harkey because she co-chaired the failed initiative to form a state border police force, said organizer Naui Huitzilopochtli, who is a member of the immigrant advocacy group the Tonantzin Collective.
And because Monahan voted for the immigration enforcement plan, his restaurant is "a perfect target for us," Huitzilopochtli said.
Monahan said the protest wouldn't change his mind.
"I walked outside my door and got called an ... [expletive] four times in 15 seconds.... This is not an educational protest; it's confrontational, and if they think they're going to convince this council member that what we did was wrong, this is not the way to do it," he said.
He was unconcerned about a possible boycott.
"My customers are loyal," he said. "This will not scare them away."
Costa Mesa Chamber of Commerce President Ed Fawcett said he hasn't heard any concerns from local businesses about the possible boycott.
Fawcett does not support the city's immigration enforcement proposal, which was led by Mayor Allan Mansoor, but he said a boycott would unjustly punish businesses.
"This approach to solving the problem is not productive," Fawcett said. "I'm opposed to it just as strongly as I'm opposed to Mansoor's plan."
Mansoor dismissed Lopez's protest as "just trying to stir the pot."
The protest effort may increase the workload for Costa Mesa Police Chief John Hensley, who has been meeting with community groups to explain the immigration plan. Failing to cooperate with police won't help victims of crime, he said.
"I'm going to constantly get the message out that we do not want to be enemies of the community," Hensley said.
To Councilwoman Katrina Foley, an open and honest debate is exactly what's been missing since the council voted to pursue the immigration plan in December. Foley was one of two council members who voted against the plan.
"It's a political stunt that the mayor has pulled, and we're all suffering the consequences of it," she said.
"There's no dialogue going on; there's been no committee set up to vet concerns and come up with a fair, compassionate, responsible plan; there is no discussion. There's basically a lot of attacks and controversy."
Councilman Eric Bever, who voted in favor of the immigration enforcement plan, and Councilwoman Linda Dixon, who opposed it, did not return calls for comment.
Are you still around - did you see my post to you above? Not trying to boast again, but last night we spent $640 at Crystal Court in Costa Mesa - since this thread is about the proposed boycott, I think it is relevant to discuss the net impact of said boycott.
Yes, I did check back. I'm sorry but can't agree. I don't care how much you spend. I think you have issues with the color of someone's skin. I don't, and every I know around here doesn't care either.
Strangely I was just thinking about you and then was this post. I think you are probably a fine person who is taking the wrong cause. I don't care about your boycott or how much money you spend, I'm just glad we have a wonderful country that allows you to do that.
Watching posted to you:
"The article says, wants to force the Costa Mesa City Council to reconsider plans to train police to do immigration checks on people suspected of serious crimes.
How can you possibly have a problem with this."
Granted, he left off the "?" but that was clearly a typo, and it was clearly a question.
I'm not familiar with the procedure the police use when interviewing somebody suspected of a serious crime. I would have thought that a positive ID in the form of a driver's license, and an employment check would be a bare minimum. That should be sufficient for checking legal status in most cases, and "white and black" people DO submit to it and would likely not need to be checked further.
In the case that a person is unwilling to provide this information, then a further check of legal status should be done for ANYONE. I am surprised this is not standard practice already, and that Costa Mesa would need a new policy to do so.
Being "suspected of serious crimes" is not something that happens casually. Anybody can sue a police department for defamation of character, so I don't expect police to do this without cause. This does not look like a license to round up all the people that look hispanic. The police still have to have a probable cause that links somebody to a crime. Of course, refusing to cooperate with police and refusing to provide postive ID does provide a reasonable basis for suspicion.
I missed that question. As for all the problems I have with this programs, I've given plenty of other examples too - if ALL people, regardless of color, are checked for immigration status, I already said the equal protection problem I have would be gone.
I think my point is that I think all suspects effectively ARE checked for legal residency status already.
As long as legal status was required to get a driver's license and employment, and that information is verified for "suspects of serious crimes", then I don't see how any new policy is in effect. At least not in the phase of establishing legal residency status.
"Suspects of serious crimes" are automatically assessed as to their flight risk and therefor information about ties to the community, employment, and positive ID should also be routinely established.
The difference in the NEW Costa Mesa policy is that this information, having been collected, might be acted upon to start deportation actions if the person is found to be here illegaly. I think the old policy was that even if the person was here illegaly, they were released as long as they were not actually prosecuted for the crime that brought them in.
Sounded like more than just the old standard policy to me:
http://www.ci.costa-mesa.ca.us/council/action/2005-12-06.pdf
"Request from Mayor Mansoor to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Bureau to conduct Federal immigration investigations in Costa Mesa.
Recommendation: Provide direction to staff on securing an agreement with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement regarding use of the Costa Mesa Police Department personnel to enforce immigration laws on individuals arrested and brought into the City’s custodial facility.
ACTION: 1. Directed a request to the County Board of Supervisors to include Costa Mesa Police personnel under the County’s application to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for Cross-Designation training in accordance with the Draft Proposal by the Orange County Sheriff’s Department of October 2005, and if approved training would be limited personnel from the City’s SED Gang
Detail and the Detective Bureau; and
2. Directed a request to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to secure a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for Cross-Designation training of Civilian Custody personnel employed by the City of Costa Mesa, and authorized the City Manager and the Chief of Police to a negotiate the terms of the MOU with ICE, with the final document to be brought to the City Council for
consideration along with any budget authorizations or amendments, as needed; and
3. Directed that dialogue be opened and to work with Congressman Dana Rohrabacher to assist in the work with ICE, (3-2, Council Member Dixon and Council Member Foley voting no)."
INDIVIDUALS ARRESTED and BROUGHT into the CITY's custodial facility!
Good Greif, man! NO one is rounding up anyone! This is as simple as "illegal" but you won't see that either!
"Currently, when someone is arrested for breaking the law, most officers are not authorized to ask about the suspect's immigration status. Costa Mesa's proposal would involve training the police gang detail, the special enforcement detail, investigators and possibly custody personnel to enforce immigration laws . . ."
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-mansoor17jan17,0,2617169.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions
What part of NEW, EXPANDED power don't you understand?
That still sounds like the policy change is only on what to do after a person's illegal status has been determined.
Even though an officer would not ask under the old policy about a person's immigration status, the routine verification of positive ID, employment, etc. would reveal that.
Current policy would be to not specifically ask, and if it comes up, take no action if the person cannot be prosecuted for the crime.
New policy would be to have police officers trained to work with ICE and hold the person even if no prosecution can be made.
Essentially, there are two crimes -- the "serious crime" the person was brought in for, and the "illegal residency" which is unrelated to the reason they were brought in. I think they already determine the person's status in regard to both crimes, but currently only hold the person based on the "serious crime".
So you are correct. This policy is a NEW, EXPANDED power that would train police to hand them over to ICE.
This is like somebody being brought in as a rape suspect, and finding they also have a warrant out on them for a hundred unpaid parking tickets. You might not want police expending a lot of effort on tracking down parking violators, but once they're in jail they aren't released just because you are focused on finding your rapist.
Hmm....we need to go over this pile of crap...
See, they are here "ILLEGALLY"! They have no right to DEMAND anything because they are here "ILLEGALLY"! They have no rights granted to them that are not available to OTHER non-Citizen CRIMINALS...which means the U.S. Constitutional Rights guaranteed to CITIZENS are NOT guaranteed to "ILLEGALS"!
Which means we catch these ILLEGAL turds, and EJECT them with EXTREME PREJUDICE (oh THAT phrase ought to have your ant-American pro-Illegal head spinning!)!
And we shoot on sight each and every one that tries to sneak in to America ILLEGALLY!
Game, set, go the "F'n Kerry" HOME!
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.