Surge in Immigration Laws Around U.S.

[bluecuracao]

Oh my god, fucking Heather Mac Donald. Figures.

Rk, she likes to make up shit.

July 22, 2006]
http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2006/07/22/1726111.htm

Border Patrol tries to block entry to criminals

(Brownsville Herald (Texas) (KRT) Via Thomson Dialog NewsEdge) Jul. 22--Rigoberto Pineda Rivas assaulted and kidnapped a woman in Raleigh, N.C., in 2003.

After serving 30 months in state prison, he was deported to Mexico. Last week, he was detained by the Border Patrol near Falfurrias, while en route to Raleigh again.

Pineda's story isn't a first. The Border Patrol catching criminals trying to re-enter the country happens more often than people think, according to Border Patrol spokesman Roy Cervantes.

Last fiscal year, 6,517 criminal immigrants were identified by the Border Patrol in the Rio Grande Valley sector. And 5,955 have been caught so far this fiscal year, he said.

"Identifying aggravated felons is only one of the many duties performed by the Border Patrol aimed at securing the nation's borders," Cervantes said.

The Border Patrol uses the Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS) to identify known criminals. The database shares information within the Border Patrol and the FBI as well.

In this way, the Border Patrol is responsible for protecting not only the residents of the Valley, Cervantes said, but also those of Raleigh, as well.

"These arrests ensure a much safer and secure border which would increase the quality of life not only along the border, but throughout the United States," Cervantes said.

The case of Pineda is exemplary of this commitment, he said.

The Raleigh Police Department initially arrested Pineda and assumed he wouldn't come back after his deportation, spokesman Jim Sughrue said.

"We've obviously believed that people ought to comply with the laws and rulings of courts," Sughrue said.

Pineda had other charges against him beside those that finally landed him in jail, Sughrue said. As Pineda was returning to Raleigh when he was detained, the department is thankful, he said.

"We are certainly grateful for the work they do, for every success that they have enforcing the law," Sughrue said.

That is just one small station.

[DanaC]

Apart from the whole making things up aspect, have we also considered the possibility that some of those figures may be skewed by a) an overwillingness to believe illlegal immigrants are responsible for crimes and therefore more likely to be targetted/arrested/accused (similar to the way black men were almost always found guilty of rape in the segregated south) and b) uncharted, illegal immigrants are a very handy place to hang unsolved crimes?

[bluecuracao]

One small station?

Rio Grande Valley Sector (Texas)
The Sector covers 17,000 square miles of Southeast Texas, including the following counties: Cameron, Willacy, Hidalgo, Starr, Brooks, Kenedy, Kleberg, Nueces, San Patricio, Jim Wells, Bee, Refugio, Calhoun, Goliad, Victoria, Dewitt, Jackson, and Lavaca.

http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/border_se...valley_sector/

The south.... I thought the rapes I was posting was in NY?
Odd.
The South being more prejudice is a myth.
Edit:
I like how you accuse her of making things up then imply that they were framed with no reason for doing so.

[DanaC]

The south.... I thought the rapes I was posting was in NY?
Odd.

You did post about rapes in NY. I was merely pointing out that prejudice can sometimes skew the police response and justice system. I wasn't linking the rapes in NY with black men in the south being more likely to be found guilty of rape during the Jim Crow era.

The South being more prejudice is a myth.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that the South during the segregation years was not more prejudiced? Are you telling me that the justice system in the South during the Jim Crow era was not weighted against the black community?

The whole 'Lost Cause' romance pushed the image of black men raping virtuous white women. It played out in the courts.

Tell me which historians writing about that era have been able to show that the prejudice of the South was myth?

Who said anything about the past?

[DanaC]

Me.

Apart from the whole making things up aspect, have we also considered the possibility that some of those figures may be skewed by a) an overwillingness to believe illlegal immigrants are responsible for crimes and therefore more likely to be targetted/arrested/accused (similar to the way black men were almost always found guilty of rape in the segregated south) and b) uncharted, illegal immigrants are a very handy place to hang unsolved crimes?

'The segregated South' is a fairly clear indication that I was talking about the past

The south is currently no more prejudice than other areas of the nation, in fact the south has a higher rate of women and minorities in management, upper management and business ownership than anywhere else in the nation; as well as being more integrated as far as neighborhoods are concerned.
When I was in NY and LA it amazed me how separated everyone was.
The new Klan, the Order and all the other major hate groups formed above the Mason Dixon Line.

The Phelps family is from where again? Yeah, I thought so.

[DanaC]

Well, if we're going to be entirely honest about it, the North was barely less prejudiced than the South during the Antebellum era, through reconstruction and on into Jim Crow. The only real difference was between de facto segregation and de jure segregation.

I was comparing the unfairness of the justice system of that racist era with the system's attitudes to other groups now.

[DanaC]

What have the Phelps family got to do with systemised racism?

Originally Posted by DanaC

Well, if we're going to be entirely honest about it, the North was barely less prejudiced than the South during the Antebellum era, through reconstruction and on into Jim Crow. The only real difference was between de facto segregation and de jure segregation.

I was comparing the unfairness of the justice system of that racist era with the system's attitudes to other groups now.

If you honestly believe that there is no point in having this conversation.
The politicizing of freeing the slaves became a war issue, slavery in homes was common in the North. Just as much so as in the South and prejudice against blacks was as common.
In fact blacks were treated worse by the Northern army than they were by the south and free Southern prisoners of war were shot on sight by the North but Northern prisoners of war were treated the same as whites by the South.
The freeing of the slaves was a last ditch effort by the North and at the time few truly wanted blacks to be citizens.
It's funny, every time I bring-up the South, you go farther back in history, like it's relevant. It is not.

[DanaC]

wtf are you talking about rk? I just agreed with you. I just said the North was barely less prejudiced than the South.

You didn't bring up the South btw. I brought up the South to illustrate a point. I specifically brought up the South of the segregation era. You did not bring up the South and me go fly off on a history rant. I drew on a historical understanding of the South in a past era to illustrate a point. You then started on about how the South isn't more prejudiced and were referring to the modern South...I returned the discussion to the historic South.

[bluecuracao]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Apart from the whole making things up aspect, have we also considered the possibility that some of those figures may be skewed by a) an overwillingness to believe illlegal immigrants are responsible for crimes and therefore more likely to be targetted/arrested/accused (similar to the way black men were almost always found guilty of rape in the segregated south) and b) uncharted, illegal immigrants are a very handy place to hang unsolved crimes?

It's entirely possible. But we don't even need to go that far to show how things can become skewed.

For example, in posts #22 and #25, rk points out two highly-publicized cases of illegal immigrants who have been charged with rape and/or murder. Then, in post #32, he shows us an article from a town in Texas, about how thousands of 'aggravated felons' were identified by the border patrol in their area.

The inference is scary, isn't it--it seems like thousands of violent criminals are trying to cross through a small town in Texas every year!

But then we realize that the numbers apply to a multi-county, 17,000 square-mile area that includes the Texas town. And then we find out that an 'aggravated felony' can mean one of at least 10 different things with varying levels of severity, about 2 of which are violent crimes.