Posted on 10/19/2006 11:03:05 AM PDT by Res Nullius
Minutemen can't meet at Selah venue By ROD ANTONE YAKIMA HERALD-REPUBLIC
Citing safety and manpower concerns, Selah Civic Center administrators have denied meeting space to a local chapter of the controversial Minuteman Civil Defense Corps.
The group had asked to hold regular Sunday afternoon meetings in the center, which is owned by the city of Selah and operated by a city-appointed board.
But Vern Larson, the board's chairman, confirmed the board turned down the application on the police department's recommendation.
"We usually abide by what police suggest," Larson said.
Bob Dameron, the Minuteman chapter leader, said a letter denying the request -- and a check refunding the group's $75 deposit on the space -- arrived in the mail Wednesday.
"It's absolutely removing our constitutional right to meet," Dameron said. "We have good, clean outstanding people in our organization. Personally, I'd like to fight this, but it's not up to me. I'm going to take it up our chain of command and see what they want to do."
The Arizona-based Minuteman organization has gained national attention as a citizen watchdog group whose members patrol U.S. borders and report illegal activities to law enforcement. Although the group claims to be nonviolent, Chief Rick Gutierrez of the Selah police said he was concerned about documented clashes in other parts of the country between the organization and those protesting them.
"If 20 protesters and 20 Minutemen get into it, the four officers I have on day shift won't be able to handle that," Gutierrez said. "I'd have to call in officers on overtime, Sheriff's Office, State Patrol, Yakima (police). We just don't have the resources to handle something like that."
Dameron couldn't say how many people Minuteman meetings could draw. A number of local members are out of town patrolling borders, he said. The civic center can accommodate 105 people.
Earlier this week, Minuteman protesters at a Portland day-labor pick-up site encountered some rock throwing and shouting matches. And earlier this month, students at New York's Columbia University attacked Minuteman founder Jim Gilchrist, who'd been invited to speaker to the Columbia College Republicans.
Minutemen have also been being arrested or placed under police protection during demonstrations in largely Hispanic neighborhoods in California.
Chief Gutierrez noted that his concerns are not just for the community and residents, but for protesters and Minuteman members themselves.
"It's a double-edged sword. If we allow them to meet and someone gets hurt, we'll be blamed. And if we don't let them meet, people will say we're discriminating against them," he said.
Local immigrant-rights advocacy groups -- whose members worry about the fact that Minutemen are armed while they patrol borders -- are closely watching the organization and promise protests if the group gathers.
"We would definitely be there," said Maria Cuebas of Aguilas De Norte. "Undocumented immigrants are protected by our Constitution, and no one has the right to detain another person.
"But I would hope that this wouldn't erupt into anything violent or negative."
Selah Mayor Bob Jones said the Minuteman request puts the city in a "tough spot."
"It puts us in a curious decision, because we don't have a lot of police officers in case there is a confrontation," he said. "But people have constitutional rights, freedom of speech, freedom to gather. That's what this country is built upon."
* Rod Antone can be reached at 577-7628 or rantone@yakima-herald.com
Section 8 USC 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)(b)(iii)
"Any person who . . . encourages or induces an illegal alien to . . . reside . . . knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such . . . residence is . . . in violation of law, shall be punished as provided . . . for each illegal alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs . . . fined under title 18 . . . imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both."
Section 274 felonies under the federal Immigration and Nationality Act, INA 274A(a)(1)(A):
A person (including a group of persons, business, organization, or local government) commits a federal felony when she or he:
* assists an illegal alien s/he should reasonably know is illegally in the U.S. or who lacks employment authorization, by transporting, sheltering, or assisting him or her to obtain employment, or
* encourages that illegal alien to remain in the U.S. by referring him or her to an employer or by acting as employer or agent for an employer in any way, or
* knowingly assists illegal aliens due to personal convictions.
Penalties upon conviction include criminal fines, imprisonment, and forfeiture of vehicles and real property used to commit the crime. Anyone employing or contracting with an illegal alien without verifying his or her work authorization status is guilty of a misdemeanor. Aliens and employers violating immigration laws are subject to arrest, detention, and seizure of their vehicles or property. In addition, individuals or entities who engage in racketeering enterprises that commit (or conspire to commit) immigration-related felonies are subject to private civil suits for treble damages and injunctive relief.
Therefore, anyone protesting a group to enforce laws stated above are also breaking the law. The Congress and state legislatures are responsible for changing the law and the voters respective representatives must be called and written to.
With the highlighted segment of law in mind, all persons in government and the public sector are guilty of a felony. The felony of conspiracy to commit crime. All those people in government that have refused to secure our southern borders, enforce current federal law with respect to persons guilty of illegal entry, and demanded that the taxpayer foot the bill for medical care, housing, penal incarceration, and food (like WIC checks) for illegals and their families who have entered illegally are guilty of conspiracy. Hands down guilty of felonious conspiracy and no argument can be given otherwise.
A comment and a published quote by Robert Gaffney, Attorney and County Executive of Suffolk County, LI, NY: The statutory foundation of United States immigration law has always been the jurisdiction of the federal government, Congress and the federal courts. The preeminent laws concerning the employment of illegal aliens are found in the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. §~ 1101-1503), as amended by the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 CIRCA).
The law states it is a crime to assist an illegal alien who lacks employment authorization by referring him to an employer, or by acting as his or her employer, or as an agent for an employer. 8 U.S.C.S. § 1324a(a)(1)(A) (Lexis 1997). Furthermore, it is unlawful to hire an individual for employment without complying with the employment eligibility requirements for every person hired. 8 U.S.C.S. § 1324a(a)(l)(B) (Lexis 1997). Moreover, conduct tending substantially to facilitate illegal aliens remaining in the United States illegally, where there is knowledge or a reckless disregard of an illegal alien s unlawful status, is a crime, with escalating penalties, encompassed within the provisions of 1324. 8 U.S.C.S. § 1324(a)(l)(A)(iii) (Lexis 1997); United States v. Kim. 193 F-3d 567 (2d Cir. 1999), are considered employees for purposes of immigration law.
Hey, where you cop? You didn't answer on the last thread.
And what force would that be, Hmmm?
Bzzzt. Wrong answer. It is precisely the right to peaceably gather in public that is at issue.
Sue the bastards!
Tough. Take it out of the street paving budget. One is a declared and protected right of citizens, the other is not. If the government can justify denying rights due to budgetary costs, what use are they?
Maybe if the State of Washington clamped down on the presence of illegal aliens in their jurisdiction, they wouldn't have to worry about a mob of illegal non-citizens infringing on the peaceful assembly of citizens. Guess they are finding out that kicking the problem down the road so that local orchard growers can benefit from breaking the law is costing more than they thought.
""Gutierrez said."
What a stupid, stupid girl!
Never forget which side of this issue our government is on and the extent to which they have gone to support the illegals.
Moorpark California city council did a similar thing. Friends of the Borber patrol was going to meet in the city's public meeting room. Money was paid, date & time set for the group to meet and have the public invited. At the last minute, the city council put on an aditional $400 charge to use the meeting room on the BP group. That effectively would not allow the group to use the city facilites. Once the Moorpark city was contacted by lawyers and threatened with a lawsuit, the additon $400 'security fee' was removed and the meeting went on without any problems.
"If 20 protesters and 20 Minutemen get into it, the four officers I have on day shift won't be able to handle that," Gutierrez said. "I'd have to call in officers on overtime, Sheriff's Office, State Patrol, Yakima (police). We just don't have the resources to handle something like that."
Denying people their civil rights because you fear that they'll provoke an attack by somebody is a prohibited heckler's veto. This has come up numerous times in court cases, and has gotten knocked down again and again. If the Minutemen decide to contest this, they'll win.
Near Yakima Washington.
So if the Automobile Dealers of blahblahblah, had a meeting in a convention center. They would be responsible for an illegal protest outside, and have to pay for the costs incurred in police and porta potties outside? It seems to me, that any rental of an indoor facility, would be structured to make enough money to pay for security and bathroom/cooking facilities. Anything else that sprung up, like a counter meeting, would be prone to being broken up, because THEY have no permit or meeting place.
She instead is counting on the stupidity of enough Americans to back legalization of illegal aliens.
And given that 25 percent of Americans are retarded enough to believe 9-11 conspiracies, she's already halfway there.
A city of 73,000 residents has only 4 on duty police officers during the day? No wonder they are the crank capital of the state. Probably most of the residents are illegals, so they take more of the money for services, than they pay in taxes.
"Minutemen have also been being arrested ..."
Great grammar, yeah.
Never made a mistake posting? Thank you Mr. God.
How's that again? My copy of the Constitution does not say that law-breaking illegals are somehow protected and that Minutemen are not. The Republic has been invaded by so many illegals that they now dictate how and where we can assemble in peaceful meetings that the illegals can and do convert into riots, thus breaking US and local laws again. If this situation is not corrected and soon, the Republic is toast.
I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that states can't restrict constitutional freedoms. They can have more lax interpretations, but not more stringent. State constitutions and local charters can't restrict fundamental rights. What's not specifically addressed in the Constitution is left to the several states to interpret. That's why the libs always try to work from the top down. Conservatives tend towards ground-roots movements working from the bottom up.
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.