Our two-Tiered System of Laws
September 10th, 2007 at 08:57pm Mike McGarry 214
Our Two-Tiered System of Laws
Illegals Prevail While Citizens Go to Jail
By Mike McGarry
“Our laws are the wise restraints that make us free. No one is above the law”.--Sen. Edward Kennedy, 1998
“They [criminal aliens] are only guilty of common, garden-variety immigration offenses”—Sen. Edward Kennedy, 2007
“Legalizing convicted felons, who have already shown disdain for our justice system, simply exacerbates the problem."--Sen. John Cornyn, 2007
When this year’s now-failed U.S. senate shamnesty bill was metastasizing it’s way through to final form, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) offered and amendment that would have excluded from the “path to citizenship” convicted felons, along with hundreds of thousands of fugitive absconders, those who had been issued final removal orders by immigration courts but who then disappeared into the woodwork, failing to comply with those orders.
Cornyn's amendment would have permanently barred from legalization all convicted felons, including members of terrorist organizations, gang bangers, repeat drunk drivers, sex offenders and those convicted of felony ID theft, prompting Sen. Kennedy’s absurd, alcohol-saturated “”garden variety” outburst.
The original language of the bill Cornyn was challenging would have abrogated most of the removal decisions issued to date by immigration courts after the fugitive aliens had been given all the due process they were entitled, essentially retroactively putting those courts out of business. Cornyn’s amendment was defeated with the help of senators McCain, Clinton and Obama.
In former days, aliens were required to demonstrate “good moral character” to qualify for citizenship, but not any more. That’s because we now live under the tyranny of a two–tiered system of laws, one that gives a pass to foreign criminals and another that holds citizens legally accountable for their actions. I have had official documents in my hands that showed that a convicted criminal alien who served time in prison for child molestation was rewarded with U.S. citizenship. It’s the New American Dream.
Did you know that in federal judicial districts along the border with Mexico, some offices of the U.S. Attorney will not prosecute marijuana drug smuggling offenses unless the cases meet a threshold of 500-pounds-or-more of the weed? They just toss the lite-weight smugglers back across the border. And, of course, not being stupid, smugglers are now muleing 450 pound loads.
Rhetorical question: Do you think if you were running 450 pounds of pot from Colorado into Kansas, you would be given a pass for not meeting a 500-pound threshold, or would you probably be headed to federal prison to serve a lengthy mandatory sentence under our two-tiered system of laws.
The Military Selective Service Act requires all males 18-25 years old, including illegals, residing in the U.S. to register for the Selective Service. Failure to register could bring penalties as great as $250,000 and/or five years in prison. During the last year of the Clinton administration I wrote to the then-director of Selective Service, Gil Coronado, and asked him how many U.S. citizens had been prosecuted over the previous 20 years for violating that law. Coronado said about 30.
I then asked him how many illegals had been prosecuted. He said none. Astonished, I asked him how that could be possible, given that millions of male illegals in the U.S. are in the required registration age range. The director dismissed the question as not important. Our two-tiered system of laws in action.
It is not an uncommon practice for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to work special deals with criminal aliens held in local jails for misdemeanors and serious felonies. It’s really a sweet deal, too. If the alien agrees to a “voluntary removal” to his home country, the criminal charges against him are then dropped. These deals happen every day.
Rhetorical question: Do you think if you were in jail for committing a crime, the police would drop the charges against you if agreed to go straight home. A two-tiered system of laws: one for criminal aliens and one for citizens.
Last week presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani said of illegal immigration: “It's not a crime. I know that's very hard for people to understand, but it's not a federal crime.” Oh, really, Rudy!
Apparently Rudy, the former U.S. Attorney, hadn’t read the entire U.S. Criminal Code, to wit: Title 8 Section 1325 of the US Code, Improper Entry: Any alien who
(1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or
(2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or
(3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. (Bold emphasis added)
Rhetorical question: Do you think that if you committed a federal crime(s), Rudy, the former Mayor of Sanctuary City, would say publicly that you really didn’t commit a crime. Please remember, we have a two-tiered system of laws.
Closer to home, a few years ago three inside crooks were sentenced for selling for selling some 300 Colorado driver’s licenses out the back door of the licensing station in Glenwood Springs. The police said the eager customers were all likely illegals. Knowingly possessing such a license is a felony carrying a presumptive intent to defraud.
I telephoned then-district attorney Mac Myers and asked when I could expect to be reading in the newspaper about the arrests and prosecutions of the 300 felons. (I first had to voice my objection to Meyer’s using the word “victims” when referring to the 300 criminals.)
Meyer's told me that to protect his witness opportunities for prosecuting the three insiders, he needed the cooperation of some of the 300, suggesting he couldn’t get that cooperation were he prosecuting them. Tilt! The insiders never went to trial; their cases were disposed of through plea bargains.
He then posed the plaintive question, “How would I know how to find them?” He seemed oblivious that all those otherwise lawfully issued driver’s licenses bore the pictures, names, addresses and finger print information of their felonious holders—a prosecutor’s dream— and that information was very likely in the files of the state department of revenue.
None of the 300 criminal aliens was prosecuted. The jive I got from the DA demonstrates just how deeply entrenched out two-tiered system of law has become.
Rhetorical question: Do you thing if you, a citizen, had committed a felony carrying a felonious presumptive attempt to defraud you would be referred to as a “victim” and you wouldn’t be prosecuted by the DA’s office.
Then there is the “don’t ask, don’t tell,” policies and practices of local police forces throughout the state. Basalt police chief, Keith Ikeda, has publicly stated he does not ask about the immigration status of suspects during police contacts. The chief’s supposed rationale for his bonehead policy is that illegals who are victims of crime won’t report those crimes for fear of being exposed as the illegals they are.
That a curious policy, because if you needed assistance from the police—let’s say you filed an in-person complaint with the police saying you were being followed by a suspicious character—the cops typically would take the information from your driver’s license and “run” your information. I know because it happened to me. If I had had a simple bench warrant issued for me for a failure-to-appear on, say, a speeding ticket, the cops would have taken me into custody. Indeed, they would have been compelled to. Isn’t that interesting.
”Rhetorical question: Why doesn’t chief Ikeda and all the other “don’t ask, don’t tell” law enforcement jurisdictions in Colorado extend that courtesy to citizens who are victims of crimes but who have outstanding warrants for minor crimes or infractions. There’s that funky, quaint two-tiered system of laws—again!
In 2003 the state legislature passed The Secure and Verifiable I.D. Act. Under the Act, a secure and verifiable document means “a document issued by a state or federal jurisdiction or recognized by the United States government and that is verifiable by federal or state law enforcement, Intelligence, or Homeland Security Agencies.” The Act bars state agencies and those of the state’s political subdivisions from accepting as valid ID any document that does not meet the definition of the Act. (There are some reasonable exceptions. If, for example, a law enforcement officer is trying to ascertain the identity of a dead body, the officer may use the information from a non-complying document to begin his investigation.)
Throughout the State of Colorado, the Act—the Law—is being willfully ignored. Last year a Garfield County sheriff’s deputy pulled over illegal alien Richard Ramirez for speeding. Ramirez had no driver’s license, no vehicle registration and no proof of insurance. He did however have an “identity card issued by the Mexican government.” Mr. Ramirez was allowed to leave the scene based solely on the strength of that illegal card. He now is the fugitive prime suspect in the Basalt 7-Eleven shooting.
Rhetorical question: Do you think if you, a citizen, were pulled over by a Garfield county sheriff’s deputy for speeding, you had no driver’s license, no insurance proof and no vehicle registration, that you would get a pass by producing your gym card. Nope, but illegal aliens do, because of our two-tiered system of laws.
In the last state legislative session the legislature passed HB (House Bill) 1343 Among the bill’s provisions is a requirement of contractors who bid on contracts with any state agency or political subdivision to use the Basic Pilot Program, a service the Department of Homeland Security, to determine the immigration status of the contractors’ workers.
It seems the Glenwood Springs City Council thinks complying with the law is too much of a burden. “It’s not our job to require that they follow the law,” said Glenwood mayor Bruce Christensen. “It’s the U.S. government’s job….” The Glenwood Post Independent reported the city council voted not to pass a motion that would force contractors to comply with HB 1343.
So you see, we have a two-tiered system of laws—a Bizarro World, where everything is opposite—where illegals prevail while citizens go to jail.
Stan Weekes is the current director of the Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform, and he is a legislative annalist. Stan works with state legislators on immigration-related legislation. Stan takes great exception to the wholesale flouting of the law by local, state and federal agencies and law enforcement personnel.
Stan Weekes will discuss his concerns regarding noncompliance of state laws, on Con Games (KNFO 106.1), Wednesday morning, September 12, 8-AM-9AM.
Entry Filed under: Politics, Immigration, Basalt, Glenwood Springs, Aspen, Colorado, Crime, Pitkin County, Garfield County, Eagle County
















8 Comments Add your own
1. Michael Conniff | September 12th, 2007 at 5:29 am
Great stuff, Mike, as always. One of your best, I think.
Thanks, Michael!
2. Tammy&hellip | October 5th, 2007 at 6:07 am
Tammy...
...
3. flower77 | October 5th, 2007 at 11:28 am
I agree with Michael - Mike, great stuff. But I have a question what with all the talk of immigration policy in the US , why does no one talk about the immigration policies of other countries?
If a US citizen immigrated- legally or illegally to Mexico , would this person be entitled to free health care , education and welfare for their families? I don't think so.
Also , if this same person commited crimes would they be given the same treatment the US gives our illegal or legal immigrants? No.
Just something to think about , in our bizarro world of immigation.
4. alpha6 | October 5th, 2007 at 11:46 am
If you are caught in Mexico illegally, they can take two courses of action. One is to deport you back to your resident country or they can charge you with subversion. The way they figure it is anyone entering into the country illegally is trying to overthrow the government by not abiding by their entry laws. By charging you with subversion, you are tried by a special military tribunal and given no defense. All they need to prove is that you are in the country illegally, not anything else to get a guilty verdict on subversion. Being found guilty of subversion gets you 30 years to life...in a Mexican prison.
5. flower77 | October 5th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
So, why if it is 'subversion' to be in Mexico illegally and if you are caught illegally in the US nothing is done?
Can't the same premise be drawn on an illegal in the US - either terrorism or subversion? Look at the 9/11 high jackers .
6. alpha6 | October 5th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
That's a good question Flower. While Western Europe is enacting new and stricter immigration laws, our congress is still fiddle fricking around even with a majority of the citizens of this country want better enforcement and control of the borders. (Switzerland just enacted a policy that anyone in their country illegally is put across the nearest border, no trial, no nothing, its on a bus and to the nearest border..see ya, wouldn't want to be ya. Gotta love that Swiss efficiency)
Unfortunately, it is going to take a major terrorist attack from people who crossed the border illegally for anything to start to be done. Then of course it will be too late and Congress, you can bet will be to busy pointing fingers then to actually address the problem.
7. aspenoakes | October 6th, 2007 at 10:15 am
I would like to make some observations on this subject. I think that the problem here is not actual immigration, but rather the way in which we handle it. We need to enforce and adapt the laws that we have. Why is it so difficult to get legal status? Many employers rely on immigrant workers. Mark Gould, of Gould Construction, has given this issue great merit. Should we not strive to make it easier to get the proper paperwork to be here legally? If we were to make them legal, would they not become more involved in our society, rather than a fringe group that strains our institutions? They would then be responsible for paying taxes and they could get driver’s licenses. I don’t think that arguing about weather or not they should be here is helping. After all, most of us have immigrants in our family tree. I don’t have a real number, but I would guess that less than one percent of U.S. citizens are pure Native American.
I would like to take a look at history.
In the 1920’s, the U.S. Congress ratified the Constitution to make it illegal to produce, distribute, or use alcohol. This did little to get people to stop drinking. In fact, it created a huge crime wave, probably gave birth to organized crime, or at least substantially strengthened it. This new law also caused many deaths. After several years, Congress saw the error of their ways and repealed the amendment. The judicial system has come up with other laws that provide us with a guide in the use of this substance.
My point here is that we cannot prevent immigration, no more than we prevented the consumption of alcohol. It has happened for the entire history of our country and it will continue to happen. The question is how do we deal with it? Do we make unreasonable laws that do nothing but promote illegal activities, or do we rewrite our laws to get these immigrants documented and involved in our society? Do we provide immigrants with classes to teach them our language, how to drive, what is acceptable behavior in our culture and what is not? Or, do we continue to treat them as second class humans, not worthy of living in our “free” society? I opt for doing what we can to integrate the immigrants.
The description of what would happen to an illegal immigrant in Mexico should serve as an example of why so many Mexicans want to leave that Country, wouldn’t you? As for Switzerland, Isn’t that similar to what we do? And don’t they just come right back?
I know that there are those that say it will cost a great deal to process and educate them, but do they not already financially drain our resources? They use our health care, our schools, and our roads and engage our law enforcement. Yes, even if they are legal, they will be using our resources. They will also be required to contribute through taxes. Let’s spend the money where it will have a positive impact.
I know that Frosty my have some issues with this. He has shown that the increase of immigrants will have a great impact on our environment. He is right. It will have a tremendous effect on our environment. It means that we should begin to look at how we waste our resources. How many golf courses do we really need, and do they have to water them every damn day? Just one example of how we waste what resources we have.
8. aspenoakes | October 7th, 2007 at 9:08 am
[No Amount of conservation can overcome a country headed for a U.S. Census
Bureau's projection of a possible 1.2 billion immigration-driven
jam-packed souls by century's end. And while you are quite glib that you
are seemingly OK with all that, it won't be you who that nightmare falls on;
it will be you children and grandchildren. It is therefore immoral for you
to make that decision for them.] Mike Cair
Mike, why not place this comment on the post, so everyone can see it?
Then we can all respond to it, and have an open dialog about this subject.
Sometimes one must accept the things one cannot change.
Those 1.2 billion humans are coming to this planet, period- end of story.
Actually, if that is the estimate for the US, I would imagine that the global number would be several billion.
The issue is how do we deal with it? Do we turn our selves into some exclusionary society, accepting only the best candidates for inclusion? Do we continue to allow criminals to take advantage of those who want a better life? Do we continue to either have a two-tiered legal system, or fill an already overcrowded prison system? Do we continue letting people die trying to get to our country? Is that moral?
Or is it better to do what we can to help these people?
Immigration is not like a faucet, it can’t just be turned off. They WILL come, one way or another, they WILL come.
And companies WILL hire them, people WILL give them housing, they WILL be supported. This WILL not change. Just like people WILL consume booze, regardless of the laws.
It is time that we adapt our laws to deal with this. Let’s find a way to get all those illegal aliens documented. If we can make them legal, we can tax them, we can search their background for criminal activity. We can teach them our culture, how to drive, etc. This won’t prevent the illegal immigration from happening. It will greatly diminish it. Then we can truly enforce laws about hiring, housing, or otherwise supporting illegal aliens.
Going back to my example of the laws of alcohol, we control when a person can legally purchase it. It was 18, but now it is 21. This law is enforced. It is difficult to buy booze if you are young and don’t have proper ID, not impossible. It does not seem to be a national issue though. It is something that is left up to local communities to deal with.
How do you suggest we deal with it? Thoughts anyone, Mike?
P.S. It won’t be my children or grandchildren that pay the price. I have done a small part to stop overpopulation, by making a choice not to bring another life into existence. That decision is unlikely to change.
Don’t ever tell me, or anyone, what is moral, immoral, right, or wrong. It puts you in a bad place of thinking you and your personal beliefs are better than everyone elses. It is also the quickest way to destroy thoughtful dialogue and turn it into hate mongering dribble.
By the way, do you support Bush’s war plan? Just curious?
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed