Hey, ACLU! SUCK IT!

[TJHairball]

Wow. ACLU's got some pretty, shall we say, "illustrious" connections of its own on this issue, doesn't it?

None of which manage to supply a significant number of the ACLU's observers, and few of which ever join the ACLU or become active in it.

 

[The Question]

Let me reiterate a few points here, mainly 'cause I'm just up for a midnight snack and a whizz.

1. Somebody at the state level either got his information wrong or lied, and told the Minutemen they needed permits for what they're doing when he should have known they didn't.

"They are authorized to be there under the terms of the lease," deputy state Land Commissioner Richard Hubbard said Tuesday. He said a state employee who had told the Minutemen members on Monday they needed permits was incorrect.

2. Whether or not the Minutemen are working as ranch hands as their main reason for being there or not doesn't matter. Working as ranch hands is their end of the lease agreements, and as long as they're fulfilling their end of the lease agreements, tough shit.

3. The ACLU "pressed a question" that only came up through a state employee's A. Incompetence, or B. deception. Since they presumably had the resources to research the law themselves, their attempt to capitalize on the state employee's error also speaks of A. Incompetence, or B. Deception.

4. Minutemen may be armed, but they don't cross the border armed. Mexican nationals do, repeatedly, and engage in standoffs with law enforcement and Border Patrol personnel. Mexico claims these are paramilitary, rather than military, units -- but either way, the Mexican government is responsible for their actions whether it directs their actions or not. So far, the ACLU doesn't appear to give a damn about armed FNs terrorizing Americans, they're only interested in stopping Americans from guarding against the very clear and present danger.

 

[The Question]

Article:

The Victims of Illegal Immigration
"Last week, a notorious illegal alien serial killer who traipsed freely across the U.S.-Mexican border during a 25-year, escalating crime spree popped up in the news again. The case of Angel Resendiz, a convicted death row murderer in President Bush’s home state of Texas, is a timely reminder of the deadly costs of our continued homeland security chaos."

———-

The victims of illegal immigration
By Michelle Malkin

President Bush accuses those of us who want to secure America’s borders and fully enforce our immigration laws of lacking "compassion."

Huh. Well, I have yet to hear an ounce of compassion from President Bush for America’s countless casualties of lax immigration enforcement. Where’s the sympathy for innocent, law-abiding citizens who have lost their lives at the hands of illegal aliens and their open-borders enablers?

Nope, we haven’t heard a word about the victims as the White House pours on its unadulterated pro-illegal alien rhetoric and "undocumented workers do the jobs Americans won’t do" propaganda – all in support of a massive, ill-timed, bureaucratic nightmare-inducing amnesty plan that will inevitably increase illegal immigration.

Last week, a notorious illegal alien serial killer who traipsed freely across the U.S.-Mexican border during a 25-year, escalating crime spree popped up in the news again. The case of Angel Resendiz, a convicted death row murderer in President Bush’s home state of Texas, is a timely reminder of the deadly costs of our continued homeland security chaos.

Time and again, illegal alien day laborer Resendiz broke the law getting into our country; broke more laws while in the country; and then broke the law repeatedly and brazenly after being released, deported and allowed to return. His most brutal acts included the slayings of 12 people, ranging in age from 16 to 81, which ended in 1999 when Resendiz surrendered to a Texas Ranger in El Paso. For the last seven years, Resendiz has been perched comfortably on Death Row – eating chocolate cream pies, watching Spanish-language television, whining about depression and selling locks of his hair on Internet auction sites.

His execution, scheduled for May 10, has been delayed pending yet another of his endless appeals claiming to be "insane."

As I recounted in my book "Invasion," Resendiz entered and exited our country at will. From the time he was 14, he racked up arrests and convictions ranging from trespassing, destruction of property, burglary, aggravated battery and grand theft auto to carrying a loaded firearm and false representation of U.S. citizenship. He had at least 25 encounters with U.S. law enforcement between August 1976 and August 1996, when he was arrested and released for trespassing in a Kentucky rail yard.

During that period, he was convicted at least nine times on several serious felony charges. He was deported to Mexico by the feds at least three times and was "voluntarily returned" to Mexico at least four times without formal proceedings. Throughout 1998, the Border Patrol continued its blind catch-and-release policy – apprehending Resendiz seven times and letting him go on his own recognizance despite his massive criminal record and three prior deportations. Shoddy fingerprint databases, immigration paperwork negligence and unpoliced borders led to:

The bludgeoning death of Florida teenager Jesse Howell and the rape and strangulation murder of his fiance, Wendy Von Huben.
The bludgeoning death of University of Kentucky student Christopher Maier and the rape and near-murder of his girlfriend, who survived the attack.
The murder of Leafie Mason, an elderly Texas woman whom Resendiz hammered to death with a fire iron.
The rape, stabbing and bludgeoning death of Baylor College of Medicine researcher Claudia Benton.
The sledgehammer bludgeonings of Texas pastor Norman Sirnic and his wife, Karen.
The bludgeoning death of Houston teacher Noemi Dominguez.
The murder of elderly Texas widow Josephine Konvicka, who was killed with a grubbing hoe.
The murders of George Morber, shot in the head, and Carolyn Frederick, clubbed to death.
The last four of Resendiz’s victims were murdered after Resendiz had been released by federal immigration officials – even though there were already warrants outstanding for his arrest.

Resendiz made a bloody mockery of our homeland security chaos. Congress and the White House are now preparing to add grave insult to fatal injury by refusing to fix the persistent problems that facilitated Resendiz’s crimes.

Campaigning for amnesty this week, President Bush mouthed the open-borders mantra against tough deportation policies and lectured immigration enforcement advocates about their lack of sensitivity.

"I can understand it’s emotional," he said, but "we’re talking about human beings, decent human beings that need to be treated with respect."

I don’t think the victims of "undocumented worker" Angel Resendiz would agree.

SOURCE: Creators Syndicate, Inc.

The ACLU, ladies and gentlemen, is concerning themselves only with defending the "liberties" of people like Resendiz. It doesn't give a shit about you.

 

[The Question]

Another excellent article, this one demonstrating with perfect clarity Mexico's astonishing hypocrisy on the subject of illegal immigration.

 

[TJHairball]

Article:

The ACLU, ladies and gentlemen, is concerning themselves only with defending the "liberties" of people like Resendiz. It doesn't give a shit about you.

Nice article... de nada to do with the ACLU, everything to do with the INS, FBI, et al fucking up as usual.

 

[The Question]

^^And which end of the spectrum of this issue is the ACLU closer to? Hmmm... could it be the same end as the entities you mentioned? Who are they supporting, and who are they against? Whose "civil liberties" are they fighting for in this equation, and whose don't they give a good goddamn about?

 

[TJHairball]

Let me reiterate a few points here, mainly 'cause I'm just up for a midnight snack and a whizz.

1. Somebody at the state level either got his information wrong or lied, and told the Minutemen they needed permits for what they're doing when he should have known they didn't.

Just as likely, the lease agreement is unclear on the topic of private border patrols. Thus, confusion went up the line until someone made a decision.

2. Whether or not the Minutemen are working as ranch hands as their main reason for being there or not doesn't matter. Working as ranch hands is their end of the lease agreements, and as long as they're fulfilling their end of the lease agreements, tough shit.

Ain't pretense wonderful?

3. The ACLU "pressed a question" that only came up through a state employee's A. Incompetence, or B. deception. Since they presumably had the resources to research the law themselves, their attempt to capitalize on the state employee's error also speaks of A. Incompetence, or B. Deception.

Or C. unclear terms in the lease to begin with combined with D. unclear legal status of the Minutemen.

Which, given the typical status of statutes relating to the lease of public trust lands, is fairly likely.

4. Minutemen may be armed, but they don't cross the border armed. Mexican nationals do, repeatedly, and engage in standoffs with law enforcement and Border Patrol personnel. Mexico claims these are paramilitary, rather than military, units -- but either way, the Mexican government is responsible for their actions whether it directs their actions or not. So far, the ACLU doesn't appear to give a damn about armed FNs terrorizing Americans, they're only interested in stopping Americans from guarding against the very clear and present danger.

The ACLU's job isn't to create a police state, TQ. They have a fairly broad mission, but it doesn't extend to maintaining civil order.

Another excellent article, this one demonstrating with perfect clarity Mexico's astonishing hypocrisy on the subject of illegal immigration.

Another excellent example of what not to do. Again, do you think Mexico more advanced for this, and their lack of an ACLU, etc?

 

[TJHairball]

And which end of the spectrum of this issue is the ACLU closer to? Hmmm... could it be the same end as the entities you mentioned? Who are they supporting, and who are they against? Whose "civil liberties" are they fighting for in this equation, and whose don't they give a good goddamn about?

The ACLU doesn't support the status quo any more than the Minutemen, TQ. Think about that for a minute while you chew on exactly what the ACLU would like to see happen.

 

[The Question]

Just as likely, the lease agreement is unclear on the topic of private border patrols. Thus, confusion went up the line until someone made a decision.

Private border patrols wouldn't be a topic of any lease agreement I can conceive of. Again, as long as they were performing the labor they were contracted for, whatever else they were doing -- legally (and what they're doing is legal) --is irrelevant.

Ain't pretense wonderful?

How's them sour grapes taste?

Or C. unclear terms in the lease to begin with combined with D. unclear legal status of the Minutemen.

Oh, I'm pretty sure the Minutemen are naturalized citizens.

The ACLU's job isn't to create a police state, TQ. They have a fairly broad mission, but it doesn't extend to maintaining civil order.

No, apparently it only extends as far as doing everything they can to ensure that no one else maintains civil order.

Another excellent example of what not to do. Again, do you think Mexico more advanced for this, and their lack of an ACLU, etc?

No, I think their government (and anyone who turns a blind eye to their government's policies while insisting that the U.S. bend over and spread 'em to illegal FNs) is mind-bogglingly hypocritical.

 

[The Question]

The ACLU doesn't support the status quo any more than the Minutemen, TQ. Think about that for a minute while you chew on exactly what the ACLU would like to see happen.

As far as I can tell, they'd like to see amnesty, which (judging by the previous one granted in '86) is not only not a viable solution to the problem, but a devastating exacerbation of it.

 

[The Question]

Oh, and as far as I know, "equal protection under the law" is a civil rights issue -- considering it's a specific part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, you would think so.

But American citizens on the U.S. side of the border receive less legal protection than Mexican Nationals who invade their property.

 

[TJHairball]

Private border patrols wouldn't be a topic of any lease agreement I can conceive of. Again, as long as they were performing the labor they were contracted for, whatever else they were doing -- legally (and what they're doing is legal) --is irrelevant.

Not necessarily. Take mining activities, for example.

Does the lease include mineral rights? Some will, some won't.

How's them sour grapes taste?

Yum.

Oh, I'm pretty sure the Minutemen are naturalized citizens.

Actually, most are not, IIRC. "Naturalized" refers to citizens who were born elsewhere. Wrong word?

No, apparently it only extends as far as doing everything they can to ensure that no one else maintains civil order.

Aha. And here we get to the crux of the matter: "ZOMG THE ACLU HATES AUTHORITY!" Because the ACLU is always operating against someone acting as an authority... whether the police, the government, a school, an employer...

...but that's not because the ACLU is full of anarchists. It's because the ACLU exists to defend individuals and groups of individuals against the excesses of (for example) the US gov't.

No, I think their government (and anyone who turns a blind eye to their government's policies while insisting that the U.S. bend over and spread 'em to illegal FNs) is mind-bogglingly hypocritical.

Not a model to adopt then. Are we agreed?

 

[TJHairball]

As far as I can tell, they'd like to see amnesty, which (judging by the previous one granted in '86) is not only not a viable solution to the problem, but a devastating exacerbation of it.

Hard to tell. I'm hard pressed to find any policy statement to that effect from the ACLU. I would be unsurprised if the entire ACLU is of one mind regarding exactly what should be done.

I can find frequent quotes along the lines of "While measures are needed to secure the borders and enforce the immigration laws, H.R. 4437 offers a flawed approach that will harm civil liberties and is unlikely to do enough to resolve the difficult problem of illegal immigration. The ACLU opposes this legislation."

Primarily the ACLU is concerned with immigration law not violating the broad assortment of rights they are sworn to defend. Beyond insuring that, the ACLU seems to have very little to say officially.

 

[The Question]

Not necessarily. Take mining activities, for example.

Does the lease include mineral rights? Some will, some won't.

Funny thing about leases, they include... uh... paperwork? Paperwork which was available to the state, one must assume, so the state employee in question (assuming he had the authority to make the statement that he did) could have, and should have, checked. Had he done so, he would've known the terms of the lease agreement. Had he then checked the lease agreements signed by the Minutemen members, which he also could have done if he had the authority to make the statement that he did, he would have known that they were operating under legally recognized lease terms.

So again, his error is down to either incompetence on his part, or he was lying through his teeth.

The ACLU, for its part, was either incompetent or malicious themselves for not consulting with more than one employee knowledge of this particular subject, instead simply jumping at the answer they wanted to hear.

Actually, most are not, IIRC. "Naturalized" refers to citizens who were born elsewhere. Wrong word?

Yeah, probably the wrong word. However, some of them are. There are naturalized citizen volunteers.

Aha. And here we get to the crux of the matter: "ZOMG THE ACLU HATES AUTHORITY!" Because the ACLU is always operating against someone acting as an authority... whether the police, the government, a school, an employer...

Or, in this case, American citizens.

...but that's not because the ACLU is full of anarchists. It's because the ACLU exists to defend individuals and groups of individuals against the excesses of (for example) the US gov't.

Except, in this case, that's not what they're doing. They're defending criminals against the perfectly legal activities of U.S. citizens.

Not a model to adopt then. Are we agreed?

Actually, not a double-standard to be tolerated. And no, incidentally, also not a model to be emulated -- however, let me defuse the false dilemma you seem to be offering -- just because we, unlike Mexico, shouldn't condone murdering male illegals and raping the female ones (both notoriously common occurrences in a country which insists that we hand their citizens our jobs, land and state benefits on a silver platter) that doesn't mean we should simply roll over and take it up the ass from that country, either.

 

[The Question]

Hard to tell. I'm hard pressed to find any policy statement to that effect from the ACLU. I would be unsurprised if the entire ACLU is of one mind regarding exactly what should be done.

Well, statements come in many forms. Some are open and explicit, and some come through action.

I can find frequent quotes along the lines of "While measures are needed to secure the borders and enforce the immigration laws, H.R. 4437 offers a flawed approach that will harm civil liberties and is unlikely to do enough to resolve the difficult problem of illegal immigration. The ACLU opposes this legislation."

Here are the main points of H.R. 4437:

-Requires up to 700 miles (1120 km) of fence along the US-Mexican border at points with the highest number of immigrant illegal crossings. (House Amendment 648, authored by Duncan Hunter (R-CA52)
-Requires the federal government to take custody of illegal aliens detained by local authorities. This would end the practice of "catch and release", where federal officials sometimes instruct local law enforcement to release detained illegal aliens because resources to prosecute them are not available. It also reimburses local agencies in the 29 states along the border for costs related to detaining illegal aliens. (Section 607)
-Mandates employers to verify workers' legal status through electronic means, phased in over several years. Also requires reports to be sent to Congress one and two years after implementation to ensure that it is being used. (Title VII)
-Eliminates the Diversity Immigrant Visa (also known as Green Card Lottery) program. (House Amendment 650, authored by Bob Goodlatte)
-Prohibits grants to federal, state, or local government agencies that enact or maintain a sanctuary policy. (House Amendment 659, authored by Thomas Tancredo) (withdrawn 12/16/2005 by unanimous consent)
-Incorporates satellite communications between immigration enforcement officials. (House Amendment 638, authored by John Carter)
-Requires all United States Border Patrol uniforms to be made in the U.S. to avoid forgeries. (House Amendment 641, authored by Rick Renzi)
-Institutes a timeline for deployment of US-VISIT to all land-based checkpoints. (House Amendment 642, authored by Michael Castle)
-Requires the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to report to Congress on the number of OTMs (Other Than Mexicans) apprehended and deported and the number of those from states that sponsor terror. (Section 401)
-Formalizes Congressional condemnation of rapes by smugglers along the border and urges Mexico to take immediate action to prevent them. (House Amendment 647, authored by Ginny Brown-Waite)
-All illegals, before being deported, must pay a fine of $3,000 if they agree to leave voluntarily but do not adhere to the terms of their agreement. The grace period for voluntary departure is shortened to 60 days.
-Requires DHS to conduct a study on the potential for border fencing on the US-Canada border.
-Sets the minimum sentence for fraudulent documents at 10 years, fines, or both, with tougher sentencing in cases of aiding drug trafficking and terrorism.
-Establishes a Fraudulent Documents Center within DHS.
-Increases penalties for aggravated felonies and various frauds, including marriage fraud and document fraud.
-Establishes an 18-month deadline for DHS to control the border, with a progress report due one year after enactment of the legislation.
-Requires criminal record, terrorist watch list clearance, and fraudulent document checks for any alien before being granted legal immigration status.
-Reimburses states aiding in immigration enforcement.
-Housing of illegals will be considered a felony and subject to no less than 3 years in prison.
-Allows deportation of any illegal alien convicted of driving under the influence (DUI).
-Adds human trafficking and human smuggling to the money-laundering statute.
-Increases penalties for employing illegal aliens to $7,500 for first time offenses, $15,000 for second offenses, and $40,000 for all subsequent offenses.
-Refusing to accept immigrants from countries which delay or refuse to accept the foreign country's citizens deported from the United States (Section 404)

I don't see anything in there that violates anyone's civil liberties -- unless, again, you consider breaking the law to be a civil liberty.

Primarily the ACLU is concerned with immigration law not violating the broad assortment of rights they are sworn to defend. Beyond insuring that, the ACLU seems to have very little to say officially.

In other words, all they're doing is fighting the implementation of effective policy.

 

[TJHairball]

Funny thing about leases, they include... uh... paperwork? Paperwork which was available to the state, one must assume, so the state employee in question (assuming he had the authority to make the statement that he did) could have, and should have, checked. Had he done so, he would've known the terms of the lease agreement. Had he then checked the lease agreements signed by the Minutemen members, which he also could have done if he had the authority to make the statement that he did, he would have known that they were operating under legally recognized lease terms.

TQ, read it again.

The Minutemen themselves were not signatories to any lease in question. The leases are held by third parties.

Except, in this case, that's not what they're doing. They're defending criminals against the perfectly legal activities of U.S. citizens.

The ACLU does not believe the activities to be "perfectly legal." See again Ybarra's letter.

Here are the main points of H.R. 4437:

Main points =/= details.

It's usually the little details that end up being problems.

 

[The Question]

TQ, read it again.

The Minutemen themselves were not signatories to any lease in question. The leases are held by third parties.

The lease terms under which the Minutemen were hired on as ranch labor were still available to the state, and the employee in question still should have known those terms and checked to see that they were, or were not, being complied with before shooting his mouth off erroneously.

The ACLU does not believe the activities to be "perfectly legal." See again Ybarra's letter.

The courts disagree, it seems, and it's the courts, not the ACLU, whose function is to interpret the law.

Main points =/= details.

And details can only support main points, so which of the details in this case don't support the main points?

It's usually the little details that end up being problems.

And which of the little details don't support the main points, and why would anyone interested in upholding the law have a problem with the main points?

 

[TJHairball]

The lease terms under which the Minutemen were hired on as ranch labor were still available to the state, and the employee in question still should have known those terms and checked to see that they were, or were not, being complied with before shooting his mouth off erroneously.

Actually, any contract on hand placing the Minutemen as ranch labor wouldn't be "available to the state" outside of court orders, IIRC.

The courts disagree, it seems, and it's the courts, not the ACLU, whose function is to interpret the law.

The ACLU's function is to bring things to the courts. They do it very well.

And details can only support main points, so which of the details in this case don't support the main points?

No, the details may include what-have-you on particular clauses.

And which of the little details don't support the main points, and why would anyone interested in upholding the law have a problem with the main points?

Classic "big brother" argument: If you aren't doing anything wrong, why worry about Big Brother?

 

[The Question]

Actually, any contract on hand placing the Minutemen as ranch labor wouldn't be "available to the state" outside of court orders, IIRC.

Then the state employee in question still didn't know what the fuck he was talking about.

The ACLU's function is to bring things to the courts. They do it very well.

Except when they don't. Which they didn't. They jumped at bad information from a state employee who didn't know what he was talking about.

No, the details may include what-have-you on particular clauses.

And since the full letter of the bill is on record, I'm sure you won't mind finding an objectionable clause.

Classic "big brother" argument: If you aren't doing anything wrong, why worry about Big Brother?

Not remotely. This bill only provides reinforcement to pre-existing laws. The fence is such an example. It's already illegal to come here the way illegals currently do, the fence only makes that law easier to enforce.

 

[The Question]

And you have yet to explain to me why it is that you're more concerned with the rights of people who break the law, often with violence, than you are with armed but nonviolent American citizens. Come on, I want to know why you care more about criminals than the law-abiding.