Posted on 01/31/2004 5:56:03 AM PST by SheLion
Their boss insists that they're not trying to act like jerks. It's just that the border patrol agents who descended on Portland last weekend are new to Maine and, this being the dead of winter and all, they apparently can't help themselves.
"A lot of our agents are just off the southern (U.S.) border and there's a different atmosphere down there," said Monte J. Bennett, assistant chief patrol agent for the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection in Houlton. "There are a lot more numbers down there. Things are more aggressive."
In other words, if you're an immigrant in Maine these days, you'd best double-check your papers before you go anywhere and learn to say "Yes, sir" and "No, sir" to anyone in a black uniform and boots. And oh yes, try not to look suspicious.
"My business is down 80 percent since Saturday," lamented Juan Gonzalez, owner of La Bodega Latina Grocery Store on Congress Street. "Customers call me on the phone saying, 'Is it clear? Can we come down?' People are really afraid."
According to bureau spokesman Bennett, what happened Saturday in Portland was a typical "transportation sweep" in which federal agents - many recently transferred here as part of a south-to-north shift in homeland security forces - visited Portland's airport, train and bus stations in search of illegal aliens.
They netted 10 people whose papers failed to pass muster. At the same time, they left Portland's hard-won reputation as an immigrant-friendly city in tatters.
Nasir Ahmed was behind the counter at Amei Halaal Market on St. John Street when agents walked in and told everyone, employees and customers alike, to get out their passports and green cards. Ahmed said some patrons eating lunch in the Somali market bolted out the back door - not because they were undocumented, but because they were scared to death.
"How would you feel if you went to McDonald's and got asked for ID while you were eating your food? That's what happened here," Ahmed asked. "Now, less people come in. We lost a lot of customers."
Mohammed Barre, who was in the store at the time, said much of the anxiety could have been avoided if the agents had clearly identified themselves (several eyewitnesses said they didn't) and, before coming through the door, had taken the chips off their shoulders.
"Unfriendly," Barre replied when asked to describe the agents' demeanor. "Very unfriendly."
Bennett insisted that the operation targeted only Portland's "transportation hubs," not its immigrant enclaves. He added, however, that the agents will investigate anything "that needs investigating."
Would two stores with foreign names, frequented by people with dark skin, each a block or two from the Vermont Transit bus station "need investigating"?
"Based solely on that, no," Bennett replied. "They go more by people's mannerisms."
Thus, we are asked to believe, it was a citywide outbreak of "mannerisms" that attracted agents to Amei Halaal Market, La Bodega Latina and even the Preble Street Resource Center, where director Mark Swann has vowed that the next time agents show up, they'll be asked for a search warrant.
(Lest we all think the agents' attitudes began and ended with immigrants, consider my daughter's welcome Saturday upon arriving in Portland by bus from Boston: After she gave a border agent her license, he demanded her passport. She correctly told him that U.S. citizens don't need passports for interstate travel. "Let me give you a word of advice," he replied tersely. "You need to learn to watch your mouth.")
Where all this tension goes from here is anyone's guess.
Meetings are already being held among Portland's immigrant elders and leaders. And the Latino Health and Community Service has called off its Feb. 14 health fair because, director John Connors explained, "I'm not going to put up posters telling these guys we're going to have a bunch of minorities and immigrants showing up at a particular time and place."
Bennett calls such fears unfounded. If confronted by a federal agent, he said, all anyone has to do is "be friendly, be straightforward and answer their questions."
And above all, watch your mannerisms.
Columnist Bill Nemitz can be contacted at 791-6323 or at: bnemitz@pressherald.com
Ok, you do that. the next time a cop pulls you over on a traffic stop, tell him where to go. And don't forget to include that he's an S.O.B.
Until the late ninetheenth century, everyone knew your vote because voting was public. This made fraud less likely and worked to discourage voting by people who knew too little about the issues to justify themselves to their neighbors. The reason the secret Australian ballot came to America -- and it was a tremendously controversial decision with conservatives against -- was so that vote buyers could not know how supposedly bought voters had voted. But now with easy absentee voting in many states we have the worst of both worlds -- vote buying is again practical, while voters are often not manly enough (sorry ladies) to publicly state their beliefs.
As far as the bill of rights in early America, check out the Alien and Sedition Acts. There is a great deal to Madison's description of bills of rights: "Parchment promises, easily made, easily broken."
P.S. Yes, I know Madison eventually said he changed his mind, just as Lincoln changed his famously low opinion of Jefferson. Politics.
Kilvinsky's Law says that officers should be civil to all and courteous to none.
I have lived in this country for 45 years (since birth) and license checks are common here in Georgia. They keep crap vehicles off the roads, and lately they have the added benefit of outing illegals and drunks. Operating a motor vehicle on state highways is a priveledge, not a right.
Then I take that to mean that you think it is alright to ignore the laws if they don't suit you. After all, if your neighbor wants to run prostitutes out of his house and the girls are willing to work for $5 a day, hey, what business is that of yours?
I wasn't suggesting that the laws are always right, but they are often necessary. Why would anybody work for $2 an hour when they can make more on welfare? Do you think people should be forced to live 15-20 in a small house to be able to pay the rent? Apparently you're one of those people who is okay with having wages driven down for the whole country, especially poorer Americans who lack skills, just as long as you can exploit the "free market" and hire Pedro and his 15 cousins for the same as you would have to pay 2 Americans, not to mention exploiting the dignity of those who work at a rate that will barely feed an American dog, but who cares, just as long as YOU get to reap the benefits, right? That is exactly the attitude that created this monster.
I wasn't suggesting that the laws are always right, but they are often necessary. Why would anybody work for $2 an hour when they can make more on welfare? We shouldn't have welfare. Do you think people should be forced to live 15-20 in a small house to be able to pay the rent? Apparently you're one of those people who is okay with having wages driven down for the whole country, especially poorer Americans who lack skills, just as long as you can exploit the "free market" and hire Pedro and his 15 cousins for the same as you would have to pay 2 Americans, not to mention exploiting the dignity of those who work at a rate that will barely feed an American dog, but who cares, just as long as YOU get to reap the benefits, right? That is exactly the attitude that created this monster.Actually, SL, I would not "exploit" anyone. But, what you are basically saying is that the government has the right to use force to confiscate wealth that I acquire so that it may be redistributed to other citizens. How you can hold a belief like this and use liberty in your user name is beyond me! At your core, you don't believe in the free market. You are a socialist. If you are so concerned about the unskilled, you are free to give all you want to them. It should be my choice to give. A lot of people confuse my view with me being greedy or wanting to exploit. You couldn't be further from the truth. The bottom line is that I don't think anyone has a right to confiscate wealth from their neighbors, indirectly or not. Ultimately, you don't think people are capable of surviving without government intervention. Very sad.
Nope. There is a big difference in taking what you earn and distributing it to the non-productive and in preventing you from making your money by exploiting others. Perhaps you think you have the right to use people who are at a disadvantage for your personal financial gain. I don't agree that you do, even if the law did allow it. In effect, all you're doing is contributing more of your tax dollars for redistribution anyway, to subsidize those you are underpaying in the first place.
Already stolen by millions of illegals.
I agree with you and I'd bet alot of WW2 veterns would also agree with you.
I wish I had a dollar for everytime an anti-deportation freeper has pulled the Nazi Card. It happens alot on these immigration threads.
I think the biggest challenge of our day is to rally our citizens out of their slumber.
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.