I consider this very serious development. This could impact access to justice. Women could be afraid to file restraining orders. Witnesses and victimes alike could become afraid to testify. This has not hit the press yet, it is a report directly from the court where it happened, to me and to others who serve the indigent accused community.
Here is more:
The interpreter, two defense attorneys and the ADA voiced our concerns to Judge [with held]. She did not know what their jurisdictional powers were, but stated she would report the matter to the Administrative Office of the Trial Courts. My guess is that the Agents will appear tomorrow in another Court, possibly Marlborough or Framingham. All clients should be advised that they should not speak to any person purporting to be the police or a government agent. Also, I have spoken to {with held] suggesting that in reading a police report into the record not to mention what country the Defendant is from. For example, just say although required to be licensed he/she was not licensed in Massachusetts, rather than saying he/she had only a Brazilian license, even though he/she has lived here for five years. It should be noted that no one is condoning illegal immigration. Our concern was where it took place, inside the Court house, and although only a threshold inquiry, it is one which need not be answered, but one which a person without knowledge of the ramifications should be advised he/she does not need to answer
What next?
a federal agency trying to enforce the law in a courthouse! What will be next.
Does it help justice if you are afraid of deportation if you were otherwise brave enough to come testify? Lets think, EABOGUY.
I’m thinking. Testify then go home, and by home I mean the country from which you came.
<
p>
I’m sorry but here’s the deal. They broke the law. They should be deported. It really is that simple. You liberals always ask how can you expect to deport 12 million illegal aliens. How, one by one.
One by one. And lock up anyone who helps them. That is the way it was in the USA in 1850.
<
p>
I consider that the current immigration laws approach that level of immorality. I choose to follow legal routes in trying to change them.
<
p>
I would not, however, assist in the deportation of anyone.
<
p>
I remind you that there are also valid claims to asylum, even under the current law. There are those who are here in “violation” of this unfair, unjust, contradictory, and poorly written law who with appropriate legal counsel can, in fact, become legal immigrants. But there are other moral issues involved. As to whether I am a liberal, I would say when it comes to issues like the Fugitive Slave Act and its progeny [of which portions of our current Immigration law is one, in certain regards] call me whatever you like. I will call myself moral and honest and forthright about what I believe.
isn’t there. Slaves were brought to the United States against their will, and or born in bondage. Are you suggesting that illegal immigrants are slaves. That they broke laws to get in this country illegally under duress. That it wasn’t their choice.
<
p>
I’ve seen a lot of analogies in the illegal immigration debate. But your fugitive slave act analogy is probably the most ludicrous.
Quite simply, an attitude that says obey all laws, no matter what, no matter what their impact, or whether or not they are moral in fact is contrary to the concept of “conscience”.
<
p>
If you truly thing the analogy is “ludicrous”, as to treating all undocumented residents identically, without yourself having reviewed the law, studied immigration law, considering the impact on real human beings, or taking into account the consideration that, without conscience and a citizenry that is educated, there cannot be democracy at all.
<
p>
The analogy, in fact, has considerable heft – and your resort to mere name calling to counter that merit is, if anything, evidence of the strength of the analogy.
Africans were often bought LEGALLY in their homelands, transported to the Western Hemisphere LEGALLY and enslaved LEGALLY. Not to mention, many slave were born on American soil and at birth were LEGALLY enslaved, abused, murdered and raped until they were freed.
<
p>
So anyone on the Underground Railroad, White, Black, Quaker, Protestant, etc were brazenly flouting the law while slave owners slaughtering slaves and raping and forcing women into pregnancy were operating within the law.
<
p>
Applying Eabo’s “rule of law” principal, Frederick Douglass is not a great orator, thinker and activist hero, he is a worthless criminal who should have been repatriated to the South. Perhaps he should have worked extra on Sundays to earn money to buy his own Freedom instead of breaking the law?
Thank you. You get it entirely.
<
p>
If there are not some who will fight against immoral, demeaning laws, which are “legal” yet wrong, then there is no hope for humanity at all. Ask Anne Frank.
…what Eabo would have said if he was on the bus with that law-breaker Rosa Parks or at those lunch counters with those criminal college students in Greensboro.
<
p>
Good thing the Sons of Liberty weren’t afraid to break laws. I don’t think the Boston Tea Party was legal.
that to skewer an blunt argument.
“Are you suggesting illegal immigrants are slaves”
<
p>
Given that the history of illegal immigration is filled with runners who treat many clients as slaves, whether in labor or sexual terms, many of them are. The story of sudden obligation once on the “right” side of the border is a rich one.
<
p>
Of course, lots of folks on your side take glee that they get what they deserve.
…are often forcefully imported into America or brought here under false pretenses only to end up as sex slaves.
<
p>
But they are just worthless scum who should be punished, right?
http://news.bbc.co.u…
How many illegal immigrants were minors when they entered the country? How many still are?
<
p>
They don’t have free will — they’re minors with parents. I think they’re a very important class of people and warrant different treatment, including access to public health care, public schools, and public universities [at in state rates].
I’m glad you made this parallel Amberpaw because this is truly a fight for migrant emancipation. And for the resident anti-migrant advocate, EaBo, this comparison to slavery and unjust laws is not ludicrous, it is a subject that has been brought up time and time and again. See this article from a member of the Black Alliance for Just Immigration.
…when someone is subpoenaed to appear in court to testify, he or she is effectively enslaved by the US judicial system to appear. There’s no difference.
Sounds like intimidation tactics to me. What’s next, asking Black people for ID as they walk around Newton?
I have a great idea. If people concentrate realy hard, and dont get arrested, they wont wind up in court and be asked for IDs … We can do this people. Problem solved, so lets get the word out ////
Asking Defendants For ID? I have a great idea. If people concentrate realy hard, and dont get arrested, they wont wind up in court…
<
p>
Sometimes a defendant doesn’t have the ability to avoid being dragged into court. Civil suits, for example, whether or not they have any merit.
<
p>
The horror a federal agency trying to enforce the law in a courthouse! What will be next.
<
p>
That’s easy. A hospital. The last few times I was at Lahey Clinic, I noted with interest signs prominently displayed that indicated that Lahey would provide translators in numerous languages on patients and visitors requests. There may be some issue of patient/physician confidentiality, but (i) I don’t know whether that doctrine exists in federal law, (ii) that would trump an administrative subpoena from the ICE, which would have nothing to do with the patient’s condition or treatment, or, most importantly (iii) the translator would be considered a physician (from my law school days, privileges are narrowly construed).
<
p>
On a more general note, ICE officials trolling courthouses (or other establishments) for persons who request translators is significantly disturbing. Such requests are oftentimes made because persons, who may be able to understand and speak die Amerikanische Sprache, may not be comfortable in the nuances of the language. Hence the translator. I’ll merely point out that Helmut Kohl, former Kanzler of Germany, could speak American, but demanded use of a translator for that very reason.
If potential defendants become so afraid of going to court for fear of being deported, then maybe, they might try to avoid getting arrested and hauled into court?
WHAT ever happened to the Bill of Rights, guys? What about the 5th and 6th Amendments?
<
p>
Eabo, Shillelagh – may I guess YOU would have voted against the Bill of Rights?
<
p>
Oh yeah, and if it were legal [as in a law were passed] to round up all Japanese Americans [think World War II] or all Jews or suspected friends of Jews [think Germany, 1932] I suppose you would have been glad to comply?
<
p>
Or how about the Fugitive Slave Law? That was “the law of the land” for a while, too.
Do you do Shakespere also?
Anyhow … your own paste said they were questioning DEFENDANTS.
Now maybe its just me, but I know that if I get a talking to by the law for so much as having a tail light out, then the cop is going to swipe my license through the computer and see my entire life story in a heartbeat.
IDs are a good thing and one might think that in cases were an ARREST has already been made resulting in a DEFENDANT standing trial (as in the story you illustrate) than noone should have a problem with actualy knowing who that person is.
If not couldnt Kenny Lay have just hired a body double to fill in for him if he didnt croak first?
Think about what you are asking.
…it were anyone at the courthouse who requested an interpreter? Interpreters are used for witnesses, as well, and complainants.
You can play what if all day and both ways.
What if the person needing an interpreter was actualy an escaped axe murderer passing themselves off as a humble economic refugee?
What if …
Courts need to know who they are dealing with IMO
Are they imprisoned, deported, or both?
I want to hear it from someone who seems to have first hand experience.
I’m waiting for this insider answer also …
What your hunch Sentinal?
is that they are treated like any other criminal unless the federal authorities get involved.
But how do they do a background check to determine if any past convictions if they cant even get to look at an ID without the AmberPaws crying bill of rights?…
I mean, in this society if you or I were arrested in 1975 for some bs we will be forever branded, unemployed and getting the book thrown at us in any court.
But then there are these other people who the computer cant tell you what they did last week and we should be demanding EXTRA protections for them? I dont get it…
Of minority males under the age of 30 have at least one notation in the so-called criminal record, or CORI.
<
p>
We spend more on incarceration in this state then on education.
<
p>
It costs me as a taxpayer $42,500 a year to lock someone up – and under $8000 a year to educate them, so they will be self-sustaining and not need to re-offend to get a roof and three square meals.
<
p>
The politics of meanness is expensive, folks, and ultimately self defeating.
I was watching the Idaho Senator Craig story with great interest because if he got away with withdrawing his guilty plea than I think everyone who ever got lulled into pleading out anything in the past hundred years should demand to withdraw their own pleas because the terms of the “agreement” they made were not honored by a society that no longer exists. What bs aye?
1. If they are convicted of a crime, they may be imprisoned and then deported, or deported immediately, it depends on the crime. There is a complex set of statutes. For example, I think it is obvious that shoplifting a loaf of bread to feed a starving child, while a “crime”, is different from a cold blooded homicide. Remember Jean ValJean?
<
p>
See: http://en.wikipedia….
<
p>
2. If they are accused, tried, and found innocent, they may still be deported which may or may not constitute a death sentence in and of itself, depending on the person and their lifestory.
<
p>
What must be remembered is that to be accused of a crime is not the same as being guilty of a crime. Between mistaken identity, folk who finger others out of vindictiveness or anger, but are lying, and profiling [which while illegal, still happens, as with the Brazilian electrician shot to death in Britain because he was in the wrong place at the wrong – for him – time and looked foreign].
<
p>
Economic migrants may well be more in the tradition and footsteps of Jean ValJean then the Crips and the Bloods.
Honest and thorough answer.
Shillelagh, did you read what you wrote?
<
p>
“potential defendants” should avoid getting arrested and hauled into court? Is there some confusion here?
How can I be any clearer? If you don’t want to get deported because you asked for an interpreter at the courthouse, then don’t commit crimes. Pretty simple. And if you happen to be innocent of the crime you were arrested for, I don’t have any sympathy for you if you get deported, because you’re here illegally anyway.
“The interpreter, two defense attorneys and the ADA voiced our concerns to Judge [with held]. She did not know what their jurisdictional powers were, but stated she would report the matter to the Administrative Office of the Trial Courts.”
<
p>
It’s the judge’s goddamn court. She has the power to throw them the hell out of there. Let them get a federal court order if they wish. For crissake this is basic stuff. Shame on that judge. She had the power to let them stay or kick them the hell out. She was either stupid, afraid, or agrred that they should be there but didn’t have the guts to say so. Shame on her for having to ask her boss.
Disgraceful. Take her robes away. Not for allowing it, but for not being the boss.
<
p>
Only thing worse than a judge who abuses power is one that is afraid to or does not know how to use it.
I am monitoring this situation and will report back. Once again, though, I think Ernie has this right. Shamefull.
The Judge needs to control the situation while bringing the issue to the CJAM, very lame response. Close it down and force the issue to be settled through vigorous debate by the Supremen Court. This is a complex issue with the potential for far-reaching precedent. Not everything is in life is black and white, there are sometimes areas of gray. The dividing lines in the conservative v. liberal mindset can often be reduced to the black/white v. gray mindset. Conservative: illegal immigrant, consequence = deport. Liberal: undocumented immigrant, consequence = protect the human, assist the victim, ensure due process, sentence the guilty, deport. The labels don't matter. This isssue needs extensive debate and resolution. Thanks to AmberPaw for (once again) shining a light under another rock.
I don’t know why anyone would be against ICE asking defendants their status while they are in court.
<
p>
This is a perfect use of their time and resources to identify criminal aliens and line them up for deportation.
<
p>
We need more of this, not less.
…because they might be here illegally, too?
<
p>
Why not force people riding the T to identify themselves upon entering the station and allow police officers to stop and run ID checks on any person that speaks with an accent or in a foreign language?
<
p>
While we’re at it, let’s just start pulling law-abiding drivers over just so police can check their licenses. Wouldn’t that be a good way to identify unlicensed, law-breaking drivers?
ICE need only create the illusion of law enforcement not the real thing. Corpo-government still demands unlimited cheap labor.
ICE need only create the illusion of law enforcement not the real thing
<
p>
The US’s Transportation Safety Administration (TSA) creates the illusion of safety of the airlines. I’ve read, from people who are in a position to know, that the TSA does next to nothing to secure the safety of the airways, but it is useful in creating make-work.
is the new WPA!
Did it not?
and by creating an image of security, the TSA will also produce fruit, Bush-style. That is, keep the masses mollified and voting in the right direction (the one that benefits his corporate brethren).
<
p>
I don’t intend to demean the WPA by comparing the TSA to it. But I do find it humorous that Bush, Mr Small Government, has instituted huge tax-funded worker programs.
in creating security at all. They are interested in the creation of a “norm” of citizen compliance. One needs to properly respond with the proper S&M submissive posture when ordered to do so by those in “authority”.
<
p>
The purpose is far more evil than make work.
like cheating on your taxes.
<
p>
and to be enforced at a federal level. like cheating on your taxes.
so we should have the irs making unannounced demands on defendants to produce copies of their 1040 filings so that we can catch some of these civil lawbreakers, right?
<
p>
y’know, people who did a plumbing job, got paid in cash, and then didn’t report it. y’know . . . criminals.
<
p>
we should be shaking down anyone in a plumbing van, right? a probable suspect, right? like ebo says, one by one.
I also notified the court-appointed attorneys for the indigent, state wide, that these trolls masquerading as “protectors of das homeland” were out there chilling the exercise of legal rights, and the operation of the court system. I felt it was important that they handle their clients needs in a “wide awake” manner. Apparently this ICE strategy has also popped up in Bristol, Hampden, and Essex Counties, but at least the legal community can take it into account.
protectors of das homeland
<
p>
Verteidiger des Heimats.
<
p>
Quite frankly, the first time we heard GWBush refer to “department of homeland security,” we immediately lept to the German “Heimatsicherheitsamt” (Heimat=homeland, Sicherheit=security, Amt=government agency). Sounds very Nazi-like doesn’t it? Not even the Germans have such an agency.
Only it was to a Babylon 5 plot…
<
p>
Which in turn probably was referencing the “Heimatsicherheitsamt” you mentioned.
I really have no problem with this. In fact this court reporter should be reporting this information directly to ICE him/herself. If I read this right the court reporter wants to withhold pertinent information from the court record.
<
p>
As a matter of course, citizenship status should be garnered at a courthouse. And those that are here illegally should be remanded over to the proper authorities.
<
p>
I find it funny, because the number one question from illegal immigrant advocates is “how are you going to deport 12 million?”
<
p>
When ICE finally gets it’s act together ad answers your questions through their deeds you get up in arms. Me thinks you don’t want our laws to be enforced.
Why?
Judges are sworn in to uphold the law. And illegal immigrants have broken the law. Therefore judges should send them back where they came from.
Eabo?
A big difference between uphold and enforce. It is not the judges’ obligation to order people about outside the context of the court.
Uphold is not the same as enforce. What you are suggesting, actively weeding out illegal immigrants, is the job of the Executive branch (under which the ICE is found). It’s like judges asking all defendants to take drug tests upon entering the court room or asking people to prove their citizenship every time they report a crime committed against them.
<
p>
The way you make it sound, I should have to prove my citizenship if I call 9/11 to report someone breaking into my residence.
<
p>
Also, by your standards, any one who has broken the law is not entitled to use the courts. I sometimes break copyright laws watching youtube, I’ve broken the speed limit, I’ve blasphemed God, I’ve drank under age – everyone here has broken the law multiple times. Should we have to prove to the court that we are not guilty of any crime before we appear as a defendant?
…how?
<
p>
EaBo seems to be under the misimpression that citizenship is the touchstone. It is not. Legal residence is. One does not need to be a US citizen in order to legally reside in the US.
<
p>
As an aside, I’ll merely point out that there are probably “communities of interest” in the US that are willing to harbor illegal aliens of the same ethnicity. There certainly were in the Boston area, which harbored illegal aliens from Ireland. (I’ll also point out that, in the rural Carolinas, there was a christian “community of interest” that harbored Eric Rudolph for years.) If an illegal alien really wanted to hide him or herself, and avoid appearing in a US court, he or she could dive into that “community of interest” to avoid a subpoena.
<
p>
It seriously isn’t that difficult to do. The same phenomenon has been noted in Germany for years–it’s referred to as “Auftauchen”–diving in.
Of course you can stay in the U.S. illegally and not get caught, raj, but you’re wrong to say that communities of interest are the solution. Furthermore migrants are being hastled in their communities of interest. Recent happenings in Boston should tell you that. Everett, East Boston, Lynn, have all been targetted by ICE and those are communities of interest.
I’m hardly a bleeding heart on illegal immigration, but come on, people! This is an access to justice issue! Do we really want people to be afraid to go to the courthouse? Leave aside illegal aliens for a minute–do we really want people who look like they could be illegal aliens or who have suspiciously illegal-sounding birthplaces or surnames to be afraid to go to the courthouse? The courts need to be open to everyone, regardless of citizenship, because everyone has the right to sue and be sued. There is enough work for ICE agents elsewhere that they don’t need to trawl the halls of the courthouse.
<
p>
TedF
<
p>
wenn ich wollte, koennte ich im Gericht nur auf Duetsch antworten. Es wueurde mir egal (oder wurst), ob der Richter oder die Beschwoerenenen ich verstehen koennten. Der Ubersetzer hilft dem Gericht, nicht dem Zeugner.
<
p>
Didn’t understand that, did you? Neither would a judge (der “Richter”) or any of the jury (die “Beschwoerenen”) in MA.
<
p>
For those who might be interested, what I wrote was
<
p>
You are correct. If I wanted to, I could in a courtroom answer only in German. It would be all the same to me (or I wouldn’t give a s_h!t) whether the judge or the jury could understand me. The translator helps the court, not the witness.
<
p>
The point being, that by intimidating witnesses and defendants, the ICE is inhibiting the courts’ activities.
Ich kann Sie gut verstehen. Raj, warum schreiben Sie hier auf Deutsch? Sie mussen wissen, dass die meisten Leute Sie nicht verstehen koennen.
<
p>
(Please, Lord, let my German not be too rusty, lest I face the wrath of Raj! I may face the wrath of Raj in any case for asking why he posts in German).
<
p>
TedF
If you are fluent in English but also fluent in another language, can you choose not to use English?
<
p>
Sure, there’s wiggle room for whichever language is 1st language, complex questions, etc. But generally speaking, can a person choose to testify in another language even if her or she is demonstrably sufficiently capable of doing so in English?
Do I hear law enforcement and politicians bemoaning the fact that no one will come forward as a witness in criminal cases? Now, when people do go to court, ICE officials intimidate and arrest them. Is anyone dispensing dope slaps?
<
p>
Bureaucratic goonism at its finest.
We do have a system for making laws in this country. Whenever the, “unjust laws should not be followed,” argument is advanced I always wonder: even accepting the philosophical premise, who should in practice decide which laws are so unjust they should not be followed? Is it just a free for all with each person making up their own mind while waving about copies of Thoreau?
…I wonder if we should take the time to pat down and run drug tests on defendents, too?
<
p>
The issue for me is the fact that this case was specific to people using interpreters and it sounds like racial profiling. It sounds like they are pressuring and intimidating certain minorities into not using the court system. If I as a white, English speaking American don’t have to prove my citizenship everywhere I go, neither should citizens who are Brown and use Spanish as their first language. And since I can’t see anyway once can tell a person’s citizenship simply by the language they speak, there is no reason a person should prove their citizenship simply because they use a translator.
<
p>
Is speaking a foreign language ever a justified reason to check into a person’s background and legal status? What about White illegal immigrants from European countries who speak English as a first language or are fluent enough to not need a translator? Are they subjected to the same scrutiny? If not, the ICE’s plan is unjustly biased against the brown-skinned spanish speaking community.
He was all for civil disobedience, but was equally for those who broke those laws accepting the consequences of breaking the law. Which is why Dr. King wrote his letter from INSIDE the Birmingham Jail. They wanted to change those laws, not merely disobey them with impunity based on the dictates of their personal hearts and conscience.
<
p>
What fascinates me in this debate is that many who feel there should be no legal consequences for breaking an unjust law are also big fans of hate crime punishments, which purport to get inside of a criminal’s head and know why they committed the crime, and give them extra punishment for malice beyond the offense of the statute.
<
p>
Both are grounded in emotional and psychic abilities to know right from wrong independent of laws and others. Narscissism doesn’t begin to cover it.
Yes of course King said,
<
p> But he also said,
<
p>
He explained:
<
p>
<
p>
Treating people who speak foreign languages differently (ie, forcing them to prove citizenship because the use an interpreter) is segregation.
<
p>
<
p>
It’s not so much the enforcement of immigration laws that I object to, it is the zeal with which people demand these laws be enforced. We all know that all crimes or (civil infractions in the case of illegal immigration) can’t be perused with equal diligence. There’s a reason why if you go into a BPD station and report a stolen bike you barely get the time of day – there are bigger fish to fry.
<
p>
My point is sure, enforce the immigration laws, but don’t treat illegal immigration as if it will lead to the collapse of the country. I think the money and resources being poured into solving the illegal immigration problem is not helping America become ‘safer’ as much as it is being exploited for a political agenda. I’d prefer my tax dollars not fund a xenophobic political agenda and go to something, anything, of more value to the country.
<
p>
Illegal immigration was never a front-and-center issue until the Republicans needed it to be a wedge issue. People want to make this about how much money the government wastes on illegal aliens stealing benefits, but the truth is the financial costs of illegal immigration is a drop in the bucket compared to the wasteful spending on Iraq, the supposed ‘War on Terror’, Blackwater, Homeland Security, aid to Isreal, etc.
<
p>
Immigration is an issue, but the hysterics need to stop. Brown people are not the boogie man as some on the Right make them out to be. We and our tolerance for poor government are inflicting far more damage to our country than 12 million immigrants. Let’s get our priorities strait. Enforce and reform the current immigration laws, but not at the expense of more pressing, legitimate priorities.
The source from which King’s text was cut-and-pasted has some odd typos. My apologies.
<
p>
FY2007 cost of the Iraq war: $173.1 billion
<
p>
Homeland Security FY2007 budget: $42.8 billion
<
p>
U.S. Budget Deficit: $162.8 billion
<
p>
FY2007 aid to Israel: $2.46 billion
<
p>
Aid to Israel, like foreign aid generally, is a drop in the bucket (as, I suspect, are the financial costs of illegal immigration). Tblade, why did aid to Israel make your list?
<
p>
TedF
Aid to Israel, like foreign aid generally, is a drop in the bucket…
<
p>
…but the US government likes to include aid to Israel in its “foreign aid” expenditures. The others that you mentioned are counted as US military expenditures.
<
p>
Actually, there is probably little difference. From what I have read, what the US government accounts for as “foreign aid” are actually mostly monies that the US government actually disburses in the US, with the resulting products being sent to the foreign country. So, if the US government allocates US$2 1/2B to Isreal, most of it actually goes to US companies, with the–probably primarily military–goods being sent to Israel.
<
p>
I’ll admit, it’s something of a slight-of-hand charade, but that’s what the US government is involved in.
…but the fact is that the US government has bought off the Egyptian government correspondingly, to the tune of a couple of US$B/yr.
<
p>
It isn’t just Israel.
It isnt very hard to speculate at the reasoning for including the topic of ISRAELI AID along with the topics of general defense spending and Iraqi war costs.
Since some BLOCKHEADS got together in the late 1940s and decided to create Israel out of thin air, it seems that the exact location of their conjuring has led the US to spend endlessly in defenense of that creation.
I would say few doubt that a large portion of our supposed DEFENSE spending is dedicated to positioning ourselves to ride to the eventual rescue of Israel. The Iraq war and the entire post 9-11 debacle can also be attributed to the same phenomena, ill concieved reaction to blowback to our unwanted regional presense.
Israel, at is presently concieved, will never function as a stand alone entity and in that light it is sometimes interesting to note the cost the US taxpayer endures to endlessly defend a rash post world war 2 decision to create an Israeli state in the midst of Palestinean land.
2 billion dollars is hardly a realistic sum for 2007. wouldnt you agree?
…because I haven’t taken the time to educate myself on the nitty gritty. I put Israel on my list because I think whatever it is we I’m very skeptical of the motives behind the money spent by the US on Israel and how much that $2.46 B really costs the US and what is the real benefit.
<
p>
Despite me not having an opinion, I would place sorting out our Israel policy, which is just a piece of our Mid East policy, at a far higher priority than building a fence and deporting anyone here in violation of immigration laws.
Tblade, I don’t want to hijack this thread–we can debate our Israel policy another time. I was simply trying to correct what I think is a common misperception regarding the size (either absolute size or size relative to GDP) of America’s foreign aid budget and of the magnitude of America’s aid to Israel. I agree with you that working to solve the Arab/Israeli conflict is a higher priority (for me, at least) than deporting illegal aliens.
<
p>
TedF
Read the words of MLK:
<
p>
You know, when President George W. Bush signs a law congress passed, and issues a signing statement that he will ignore the law he just signed, and break it at will?
Amber Paw, or whomever was the original poster of this article, must call the Massachusetts Immigrants and Refugees Advocacy Coalition (MIRA) first thing Monday morning.
<
p>
MIRA: 617-350-5480.
<
p>
Anyone there would be interested in hearing the details of this and any other case.