Border Security To Be Enforced - In Washington D.C.
As illegals flow freely over our sothern most border, politicians in Washington D.C. are moving to curb the movements of citizens in high crime neighborhoods. Calling them “Neighborhood Safety Zones“, police will setup checkpoints surrounding designated areas, refusing entry to those who do not live, work, or have otherwise legitimate reasons to enter.
Under an executive order expected to be announced today, police Chief Cathy L. Lanier will have the authority to designate “Neighborhood Safety Zones.” At least six officers will man cordons around those zones and demand identification from people coming in and out of them. Anyone who doesn’t live there, work there or have “legitimate reason” to be there will be sent away or face arrest, documents obtained by The Examiner show.
Lanier has been struggling to reverse D.C.’s spiraling crime rate but has been forced by public outcry to scale back several initiatives including her “All Hands on Deck” weekends and plans for warrantless, door-to-door searches for drugs and guns
Peter Nickles, the city’s interim attorney general, said the quarantine would have “a narrow focus.”
“This is a very targeted program that has been used in other cities,” Nickles told The Examiner. “I’m not worried about the constitutionality of it.”
Unfortunately Peter Nickles did not elaborate on his statement that similar programs have been used in other cities, although I can only assume he was referring Berlin. While the program may hold up to a Constitutional test, that does not make it good policy. Restricting movements in and out of neighborhoods only adds to the feeling residents already have that they are living in a war zone, and in all likelihood will do very little to reduce crime.
Sphere: Related ContentIf you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Charlie, I think I need to tell you something…
There are fisheries across the Texas panhandle, in towns abutting on the Gulf of Mexico, that are utterly dependent on these immigrants whose illicit entry you so vigorously decry. There are plantations–that’s right, plantations, with all of the gross memories that that word evokes–in California whose owners depend on illegal immigrants to be able to pick the oranges you and I eat without a worry in the world. Likewise, teams of construction workers in New Mexico and, yes, even recent converter to the church of hate and xenophobia John McCain’s home state of Arizona are made up, by and large, of the very illegals on whom you spew your vitriol. Without these illegal immigrants, the fabric of our nation and of a number of industries in the southwest and, consequently, throughout the country would come undone.
We need them. That’s the truth. And unless you’re willing to send your children to pick oranges beneath the sweltering summer skies of California, or to erect buildings they won’t ever afford to live in in New Mexico or Arizona, or to fish for salmon they won’t ever be able to savor in southern Texas, I counsel you to tone down the hatred just a few notches.
No pithy reply, Charlie?
P.
For starters liberals enjoy pointing out that it is the low wages of these workers that keep costs down, and although they fight for increased minimum wages, noone seems to care that these people are exploited.
With regards to them “doing jobs Americans won’t do”, that is because Americans have become lazy thanks to the never ending government handouts. 100 years ago Americans did all of these jobs that iellgals now do, however now with the government offering free money to stay home, they no longer wish to work in the fields.
And just to clarify, it is not “hatred” when one expects laws to be enforced. If a homeless person breaks into your home and starts eating your food, would you consider it an act of hatred if you were to call the polcie and have him arrested?
So the ultraconservative vision for the future is that of a nation of yeomen happily working the fields? Forward-looking indeed.
And the comparison you set up in the end is a false one; there’s no comparison. Because the fact is, it ignores the fact that, were you a business owner in need of cheap labor, you would gladly give them employ, no questions asked. And how are they eating your food? How dramatic!
As to the first paragraph… I’m a liberal (unlike your friend Alan Colmes) and I’m complaining their wages are meager. In my ideal left-wing-terrorist-worshiping world, they would be granted the opportunity to get a worker’s permit that would have, yes, a prescribed minimum wage, but not necessarily that which the rest of the population–permanent residents and citizens–is offered. The approach you describe is granting them citizenship–and I agree, it would place increased weight on the industries I’ve described, but would also RADICALLY increase the pool of workers willing to work for minimum wage. Do you think they would be hiring illegal immigrants, aware of what all of the legal ramifications are, for five dollars an hour if they had people who wanted to work whom they could hire without running the risk of arrest for only two more dollars and some change?