Immigrant Mayor Opposes Illegal Immigrants in His City

[GBFan]

Escondido, California mayor Sam Abed — himself a Lebanese immigrant — railed against a lawsuit contending that his city violated the rights of illegal immigrants by refusing to build them housing, declaring the ACLU is “targeting our city” and “we are going to stand for our rights.”

Last month, city planners in the 150,000-person city north of San Diego rejected a plan to build housing for illegal immigrants, which are overcrowding federal detention centers along the border.

Last week, the ACLU appealed that decision to the entire city council, setting off a local firestorm and making one mayor very, very angry.

“We embrace immigration,” Abed told Fox News’ Neil Cavuto. “I am a proud immigrant coming to this country because of the liberty and the freedom. But the ACLU is [over]stepping their boundaries to interfere with local government.”

“We have two issues here,” he continued,” the issue of the detention facility which the planning commission has denied based on land-use issues. Now the ACLU is dragging this issue to immigration.”

The ACLU is targeting our city,” he accused. “And we are going to stand for our rights. We are going to defend our liberty, our sovereignty. It is a local issue, and the ACLU needs to leave the city alone and let us do our things to protect our city.”

“We have a mobile obligation to the existing residents,” Abed asserted. “We have about 70,000 Hispanic residents in our city. We need to help them realize the American Dream. We need to help them be prosperous, have a better life for their families.”

“But to add more illegal immigrants to our city is a problem for the entire community,” the Escondido mayor said. “You would expect the ACLU would defend the citizens of this country, but they are not.”

“So we’re going to defend ourselves, we’re not going to be intimidated by the ACLU,” Abed continued. “Because we need to fulfill our obligations to our residents, to our seniors, to our Hispanic community in Escondido.”

“The ACLU has no business interfering with the land-use decision,” he concluded. “It is our government, it’s the local government, that needs to make that determination.”

 

[dogtowner]

Illegal aliens have the right to remain silent.

 

[Jim415]

Send them all back

 

[PLC1]

Are children seeking refuge from violence really illegal aliens?

It seems to me there must be a law allowing children to seek refuge here in the USA. Passing such a law would certainly be the Christian thing to do.

 

[dogtowner]

Are children seeking refuge from violence really illegal aliens?

It seems to me there must be a law allowing children to seek refuge here in the USA. Passing such a law would certainly be the Christian thing to do.

There is a law already. But you as an individual do not get to decide you are a refugee. And the international communith has not deemed them refugees.
Theyre just illegal aliens. Nothing more.

 

[GBFan]

Are children seeking refuge from violence really illegal aliens?

It seems to me there must be a law allowing children to seek refuge here in the USA. Passing such a law would certainly be the Christian thing to do.

There are laws protecting such children - that's why there must be a hearing before a judge before they are sent home. Unfortunately, it seems that the current administration is interested in slow-rolling the process, thus forcing INS to release the children to just about anybody with a 'promise' to appear for their court date.

 

[PLC1]

There is a law already. But you as an individual do not get to decide you are a refugee. And the international communith has not deemed them refugees.
Theyre just illegal aliens. Nothing more.

Are we to let the international community decide who may or may not come here as a refugee?

 

[dogtowner]

Are we to let the international community decide who may or may not come here as a refugee?

Moving the goalposts ?
You wanted a law. We have one and the fact is NOONE considers these individuals refugees.
Why ?
Because they're not and neither are the millions of mexicans etc here illegally.
Frankly I find it irritating that some want to give this tag away when the actual refugees I know and know why they were refugees did deserve it.

 

[PLC1]

Moving the goalposts ?
You wanted a law. We have one and the fact is NOONE considers these individuals refugees.
Why ?
Because they're not and neither are the millions of mexicans etc here illegally.
Frankly I find it irritating that some want to give this tag away when the actual refugees I know and know why they were refugees did deserve it.

Moving the goalposts? Not at all. You're the one who said that the international community hasn't deemed them to be refugees.

No one considers them to be refugees because they're not? That sounds to me like circular reasoning.

And there is a vast difference between a few hundred unaccompanied children and a few million adults streaming across the border.

 

[dogtowner]

Moving the goalposts? Not at all. You're the one who said that the international community hasn't deemed them to be refugees.

No one considers them to be refugees because they're not? That sounds to me like circular reasoning.

And there is a vast difference between a few hundred unaccompanied children and a few million adults streaming across the border.

There are standards of determining this status and they have not been met. Its as simple as that.
The millions did not all come at once as you know but by the thousands as with these new ones but at a slower pace when we still cared about the rule of law.

 

[PLC1]

There are standards of determining this status and they have not been met. Its as simple as that.
The millions did not all come at once as you know but by the thousands as with these new ones but at a slower pace when we still cared about the rule of law.

At a slower pace? Are you kidding? When they passed amnesty back in '86, that was a flood of illegals. I'll never forget how our little school was overrun by the children of illegals who didn't speak English and had little schooling.

Now, as to the standards that have already been set, what are they? I'm not familiar with standards set by the international community or by our own government.

 

[GBFan]

At a slower pace? Are you kidding? When they passed amnesty back in '86, that was a flood of illegals. I'll never forget how our little school was overrun by the children of illegals who didn't speak English and had little schooling.

Now, as to the standards that have already been set, what are they? I'm not familiar with standards set by the international community or by our own government.

You're not familiar with the law that says the US will accept 675 thousand LEGAL immigrants annually, including 480,000 visas for 'family reunification'? How's your government doing managing that?

http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/how-united-states-immigration-system-works-fact-sheet provides you a detailed explanation, and breakdown, of legal immigrants (to include so-called 'political refugees'), work visas, etc. Feel free to look it over - there will be a closed-book test Friday.

Oh, by the way - I scanned the whole site - the number of illegal immigrants authorized?? Zero - surprise, huh?

 

[PLC1]

You're not familiar with the law that says the US will accept 675 thousand LEGAL immigrants annually, including 480,000 visas for 'family reunification'? How's your government doing managing that?

http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/how-united-states-immigration-system-works-fact-sheet provides you a detailed explanation, and breakdown, of legal immigrants (to include so-called 'political refugees'), work visas, etc. Feel free to look it over - there will be a closed-book test Friday.

Oh, by the way - I scanned the whole site - the number of illegal immigrants authorized?? Zero - surprise, huh?

From your link:

Asylum.

Persons already in the United States who were persecuted or fear persecution upon their return may apply for asylum within the United States or at a port of entry at the time they seek admission. They must petition within one year of arriving in the U.S. There is no limit on the number of individuals who may be granted asylum in a given year nor are there specific categories for determining who may seek asylum.

Refugees and asylees are eligible to become LPRs one year after admission to the United States as a refugee or one year after receiving asylum.

Now, how is it that a few thousand children fleeing violence in Central America are getting so much negative attention, when millions of illegals have crossed the border with no such compelling reason? How is it that the problem of illegal immigration has been ignored for nearly 70 years by both parties, and all of a sudden the refugees from Central America are getting the spotlight?

Could it be political gamesmanship by any chance?

 

[GBFan]

From your link:



Now, how is it that a few thousand children fleeing violence in Central America are getting so much negative attention, when millions of illegals have crossed the border with no such compelling reason? How is it that the problem of illegal immigration has been ignored for nearly 70 years by both parties, and all of a sudden the refugees from Central America are getting the spotlight?

Could it be political gamesmanship by any chance?

You are quick to ASSUME, once again, that these children are 'fleeing violence' - when, in fact, the children themselves say they have come here to join relatives or to take advantage of the American policy. So, tell me .... how many have applied for 'asylum'? Oh yeah - none.

Political gamesmanship? Our border - wide open - a refusal to apply the law .... that's not political gamesmanship - that's criminal.

To you, as to some others here - what happened in the past does not excuse, nor mitigate, what happens today and tomorrow. We can't fix yesterday ... but we sure as hell can influence tomorrow. Quit looking for excuses, man up, and do something about it.

 

[PLC1]

You are quick to ASSUME, once again, that these children are 'fleeing violence' - when, in fact, the children themselves say they have come here to join relatives or to take advantage of the American policy. So, tell me .... how many have applied for 'asylum'? Oh yeah - none.

Political gamesmanship? Our border - wide open - a refusal to apply the law .... that's not political gamesmanship - that's criminal.

To you, as to some others here - what happened in the past does not excuse, nor mitigate, what happens today and tomorrow. We can't fix yesterday ... but we sure as hell can influence tomorrow. Quit looking for excuses, man up, and do something about it.

Do something about it?

You mean, let's blame the Democrats for a situation that has been going on for seventy years now?

Let's blame then for amnesty, too, and the flood of illegals that brought in, what say ye?