: Sun, 15 May 2011 16:53:04 -0400
From: Tom West
Subject: Anti-law enforcement forces to storm County commission meeting
An email went out last week from from Ilana Dubester opposing Chatham County’s desire to enforce the law –
From: Esther Coleman [mailto:]
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 12:48 AM
To: [Question? Whose mailing list is Esther Coleman still using?]
Subject: ACTION ALERT FROM ILANA DUBESTER [Gary Phillip’s better half?]
ACTION ALERT FROM ILANA DUBESTER: “CHATHAM COUNTY LAW ENFORCEMENT RESOLUTION”
(Forgive Duplicate Postings)
COME TO THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING ON: Monday, May 16 @ 6 PM — Please attend the public input session. Sign up to speak or just show up! It is a good idea to show up early so that you are not locked out.
PLACE: Cooperative Extension Auditorium (downstairs) in Downtown Pittsboro (directions below)
RESOURCES: See the attached Chatham County Board of Commissioners’ proposed resolution that calls for cooperation between Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) and local law enforcement and which asserts that Chatham County is a sanctuary for immigrants when there are no facts that support that assertion. The proposed resolution also repeals the county’s current anti-ICE resolution. Right now, the “Law Enforcement Resolution” is not on the May 16th agenda. But some of the Commissioners are still working on it, and we anticipate that the issue will be brought up — supported by those with asterisks below. If not, it’s likely to be put on the agenda for the June 6th meeting. Regardless, we should speak out on the 16th and continue with more speakers on the 6th. Please try to attend both meetings.
Illana also included some talking points. Some of which are –
Some on the right say that Chatham is viewed as a “sanctuary county”? We should question how anyone arrives at this conclusion as well as the potential influence of known hate groups. Opposition to these programs does not create “sanctuary counties”. Local law enforcement has always been able to enforce the criminal provisions in immigration our laws, but they should not be asked to enforce civil immigration law, which is a federal responsibility. The enforcement of immigration laws has never been and it should not be within the purview and authority of local law enforcement, just as they don’t enforce civil violations of the IRS tax code.
<Chatham County IS a sanctuary county. Former county commissioner George Lucier admitted as much.>
The truth is that the right wing’s proposed resolution encourages hate and discrimination in our communities by emboldening fringe anti-immigrant groups. Remember the KKK demonstration in 2000? That rally was a direct consequence of a misguided anti-immigrant letter submitted by the BOC.
<Sounds like the old song and dance by our friend Paul Cuadros. He can’t let go of making that 2000 KKK comparison>
Minorities must be protected and must feel safe reporting crimes and serving as witnesses. However, collaboration with ICE puts a chill in communities, creates fear in the immigrant community, and encourages racial profiling and discrimination against immigrants, regardless of documentation status as well as American citizens who are perceived to be undocumented.
<ALL people can be made to feel safe if law enforcement is allowed to do their job.>
NOTE: You should focus your comments on the program that is already in place in our county – “Secure Communities” or “Operation S-COMM”. Chatham doesn’t qualify for 287(g), and the Feds have effectively frozen that program.)
SOURCE: Ilana Dubester assembled these talking points based on her personal knowledge and expertise and advice from John Graybeal, Marty Rosenbluth, and others.
It is truly unfortunate to see Chatham residents Ilana Dubester, John Graybeal and Marty Rosenbluth advocate breaking the law.
From weekly/opinion/myopinion/chatham-residents-tired-of-political-gestures-and-we-want-real-results-110117.shtmlhttp://www.chathamjournal.com/
Paul Caudros says that eliminating the Human Relations Director position was nothing more than politics because people were angry about the passage of the 287g immigration law enforcement resolution. He points out that the resolution carried no authority and only the sheriff could seek to implement the program. Doesn’t that mean that the resolution was passed solely for political reasons? Did the former board buy the support of a certain constituency with a meaningless resolution? Was the creation of the Human Relations Director position just more of the same?