Jump to content
Last login: Wednesday, September 12, 2012
The fact is, numerous law professors, civil rights agencies, sheriffs and law enforcement officials (no to mention the author, Assemblyman Tom Ammiano) all have one idea in mind in writing the trust act: to protect innocent human beings from being violently exploited by their status as non-citizens. The fact is, all people, illegal aliens and visiting foreigners alike ARE protected by the Constitution, and in as much, they enjoy all that that implies, including but not limited to protection from unlawful search and seizure and unlawful detainment.
To nit-pick one penal code law to use as a defense against an Act that is designed to encourage lawful, nonviolent individuals to report crimes without fear of deportation is silly. There are already dozens of contradictory laws in place across the land when it comes to immigration and search and seizure.
Yes, immigration is a messy subject. Yes, this law will make it even more complex. Yes, this law will help protect innocent people from being exploited and/or violently violated.
The fact remains, laws are written by PEOPLE... if the laws do not protect the people they are written for then the laws need to be changed. I ask that anyone in opposition to this Act produce for yourself a compassionate argument as to why these individuals should be allowed to be detained for committing no crime (other than being non-citizens) whilst reporting other, more meaningful, violent crimes. To cooperate with immigration officials is quite a different matter than illegally detaining individuals who have committed no crime other than 'sneaking' into our country. Let local law enforcement document these individuals, then they can pass on that information to Immigration so they can deal with it as they need to. Local law enforcement is NOT being paid by our tax money to do Immigration's job while jailing exploited women who expect the US to protect them from violent crimes. It is local law enforcement's job to Protect and Serve (and not just Americans!).
If a beaten woman cannot be protected by local law enforcement, regardless of her citizenship status, then we are not protecting the basic human rights that we espouse as a liberal, compassionate, democratic, free nation whose interest is to provide equal protection to all peoples within its borders.
"Once again we have a knee jerk reaction by an uniformed member of government. -Ray"
Ray, the truth is, these people spend their lives scrutinizing our laws to make sure they're in out best interests OR in their own interests. To call this is knee jerk reaction is no different than your negative, somewhat disheartened knee-jerk post. We're not protecting ideologies with our Constitution, we're protecting basic human rights <3 Once upon a time it was illegal for blacks and whites to dine together; did we protect the law or the people?
September 12, 2012 at 2:34 p.m.
( permalink | suggest removal )
© 2013 KPBS