Mielke's comments draw ire of Latinos

'We're killing ourselves being politically correct. Somebody needs to step up and talk about these tough issues.' said Tom Mielke Clark County Commissioner A proposal by County Commissioner Tom Mielke that Clark County should withhold some public health services from people without valid Social Security numbers has inflamed some Latino civil rights advocates.

[Pandora]

If you are not a citizen, you don't get services. America is not a piggy bank for Mexicans.

[Chrgrfan]

Who cares if they are offended? I don't and neither should Tom Mielke (Clark County Commissioner).
Why would Latino's be offended that U.S. tax dollars are not going to be spent providing non-emergency medical services to illegal immigrants?
They should be offended that illegal immigrants are coming to this country expecting free medical care.
Let me go steal from their bank account. Illegal immigrants steal from mine. Let me go take money from their paycheck. Illegal immigrants take part of my paycheck. Let me go into their country and expect welfare, medical care, free education for my children I'd be laughed right back here.

[Dallas]

They're inlamed? Who cares? The tax payers have been LIVID for a long time! U.S. Citizens are going without, while paying taxes on all levels!

[b4its2late]

The latinos are clearly racist on the issue of illegal aliens.

We can easily come up with many reasons that illegal aliens should be deported. Many

I challenge the latinos to come up with just a few reasons America should let the illegals stay.

You basicly hear two things from the racists. They will say the illegals are doing jobs Americans dont want. We know this is not true. Or they will call us the racists for trying to correct the problem.

[The Outlaw Josie Wales]

The truth does tend to stir the illegals up. Smoke and mirrors, along with a cry of racism is more their style. More people should take a lesson from Mr. Mielke and voice the truth. To hell with all the latino advocates.

[Non Hyphenated American]

Pandora wrote:

If you are not a citizen, you don't get services. America is not a piggy bank for Mexicans.

Or anybody other nationality!

[Non Hyphenated American]

Or any other nationality!

That Darn keyboard gremlin!

[Cricket 23]

Undersheriff Joe Dunegan said Friday that the sheriff’s office must notify federal immigration authorities if there’s "reasonable suspicion" that a local criminal is an illegal immigrant.

"But if the county health department started sending the sheriff’s office a list of people whose names didn’t match their Social Security numbers, Dunegan said, that probably wouldn’t give the office "reasonable suspicion" to report them.

"Immigration status is a federal responsibility, not a local law enforcement responsibility," Dunegan said."

Quote:

The Bail Reform Act of 1984 created a powerful detention provision that authorizes a state of local police officer to arrest any alien other than a legal permanent resident for a federal “offense,” and to request a local magistrate to temporarily detain the alien for up to ten days without bail while awaiting transfer into federal custody, so long as the alien is found to be a “flight risk” or danger to any other person or the community.”

The authority to make arrest for federal offenses under 18 U.S.C. 3041 extends to state and local law enforcement officers.(U.S. v Bowdach, 561 F.2d 1160, 1168 (5th Cir. 1977) An illegal alien is an inherent flight risk.

Supreme Court Ruling Razes Artificial Fire Wall Between Local Law Enforcement and Immigration Enforcement (Muehler v. Mena) 9-0 Landmark Decision (Washington D.C.—April 1, 2005) In its March 22 ruling in the case of Muehler v. Mena, the Supreme Court removed barriers that prevent local law enforcement officers from questioning the immigration status of individuals they suspect to be in the United States illegally. In this groundbreaking decision, the high Court rejected the claim of Ira Mena, a permanent resident of the U.S., that police had violated the Fourth Amendment while conducting a lawful search of her home.

The Fourth Amendment provides protection by establishing that persons be shielded against unreasonable search and seizure. Mena argued that by questioning her, and the illegal alien detainees about their immigration status during a lawful search, officers violated her Fourth Amendment rights. Mena further claimed that questions asked about her citizenship required officers to have had independent reasonable suspicion regarding the unlawfulness of her immigration status.

Calling a decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals “faulty,” the Supreme Court held that “mere police questioning [regarding one’s immigration status] does not constitute a seizure.” The Court continued its landmark ruling on this issue by stating that “the officers did not need reasonable suspicion to ask Mena for her name, date of birth, or immigration status.”

“Whatever legal fig leaf many police departments have been using to justify policies of non-cooperation with federal immigration authorities, has been stripped away by this landmark Supreme Court decision,”

“If local police are barred from cooperating with federal authorities in the enforcement of U.S. immigration laws it is purely a political decision on the part of local politicians and police chiefs. There is no legal barrier to local police inquiring about a person’s immigration status and then acting upon the information they gather.”

[Cricket 23]

"Two members of the League of United Latin American Citizens said Friday that after watching a video of Mielke’s comments, they’re certain he was motivated by anti-Latino sentiment.

Words like Mielke’s "put fear into the rest of the community that we’re basically going to take over, we’re going to take this away from American citizens," said Rodriguez-Salazar, a native of Texas.

"We are part of this community," said Vancouver attorney Eulalia Soto-Esquivel, who opened an immigration and family law office on East 13th Street last year.

Soto-Esquivel said she’d entered the United States illegally, but gained legal status during the 1987 amnesty program.

"During school, I received financial aid because I needed it," Soto-Esquivel said. "Now I am a business owner. I am giving back."

Mielke said there was no racial angle behind his words.

"I look forward to having a meeting with them," he said of his critics.

Soto-Esquivel said the Latino group is planning to start sending a representative to county meetings.

"Mielke is playing with fire," Rodriguez-Salazar said. "We know where this is coming from. This is nothing new to us. He is one of many other individuals in various communities that we have had to deal with. He’s no different."

Quote:

Soto-Esquivel came here illegally,gets amnesty in 1986 and now wants amnesty for other illegals
sound familiar?

[Cricket 23]

"In June, an article in the Washington Post concluded that emergency-room
care "is on the verge of collapse." From 1993 to 2003, the newspaper
reported, the American population grew 12 percent, but emergency room visits
grew 27 percent. "In that same period, however, 425 emergency departments
closed, along with about 700 hospitals and nearly 200,000 beds." As well, in
2003, ambulances were diverted from emergency rooms 501,000 times because
the emergency rooms were full.
But the article doesn't mention that much of this care is for routine,
non-emergency illnesses. Nor does it mention a main cause in the crisis:
uninsured illegal immigrants. the Bush administration announced in May that
it would send $1 billion to hospitals to pay for the care of illegal
immigrants. "The largest allocations this fiscal year," the Times reported,
"are going to California, which will receive $70.8 million; Texas,$46
million; Arizona,$45 million; New York,$12.3 million; Illinois,$10.3
million; Florida,$8.7 million; and New Mexico,$5.1 million." And the $70.8
million for California, the newspaper reported, won't come close to covering
the cost of the state's $500 million bill for illegal immigrants.
According to the Washington Times, citing the American Hospital Association
(AHA), "hospitals in 24 Southwest border counties in Arizona, California,
Texas and New Mexico reported uncompensated care totaling nearly $832
million in 2000. A subsequent report prepared for the U.S.-Mexico Border
Counties Coalition determined that about 25 percent of those nonreimbursed
costs resulted from emergency medical treatment provided to undocumented
immigrants." Reported ABC News, "researchers at the RAND Corporation, a
nonpartisan think tank, analyzed data received from about 2,400 people in
Los Angeles County in 2000 and 2001, and applied that information to the
nation's undocumented population at large. The number of uninsured adults in
the United States grew by about 8.7 million between 1980 and 2000. If the
trend for Los Angeles County held true for the rest of the country, about a
third of that growth can be attributable to illegal immigrants."
About 35 percent of immigrants are uninsured, data show, and 65 percent of
illegal immigrants are uninsured. Citing data from Center for Immigration
Studies, immigration writer Ed Rubenstein concluded, "Immigrants accounted
for more than half - 59 percent - of the growth in the uninsured population
during the 1992-2001 period. When you include the 3.5-million immigrants
enrolled in Medicaid, almost half of all immigrants either are uninsured or
have it provided to them at taxpayers' expense."
All these data point to a culprit in the crisis that shut down 700 hospitals
and 425 emergency rooms in 10 years:"

[cudzuqueen]

He's right, and of course the amoral Latinos, who are offended by his truisms, need to gain some scruples…he's talking about work and entitlement thieves, and that fact alone should also concern them. It costs money to treat the legions of leeches and opportunists, and unfortunately, that money comes out of working taxpayers’ pockets...nothing is free in this country, somebody has to pay…one guess who gets the tab.

[Rebel]

I agree. This PC attitude is causing more problems. NO ONE has the *right* to be here other than citizens. Everyone else needs to get a grip and understand they not only do not have the *right* to be here, but they most definitely don't have the right to be here illegally and have the taxpayers of this country supporting them and giving them freebies.

[an american]

"Latino's" had a fit when the Gov. of Nev. said he wanted social benefits to only go to people with valid SS#'s. What are they having a fit over? They encourage breaking the law? Taxpayers should support illegal beaners and their little beaners? Just take a look at Calif. the writing is on the wall

[nothere]

b4its2late wrote:

The latinos are clearly racist on the issue of illegal aliens.
We can easily come up with many reasons that illegal aliens should be deported. Many
I challenge the latinos to come up with just a few reasons America should let the illegals stay.
You basicly hear two things from the racists. They will say the illegals are doing jobs Americans dont want. We know this is not true. Or they will call us the racists for trying to correct the problem.

For years the citizens have been asking exactly that question: why should illegals be allowed to stay?
You never get an answer except "they've been here for a long time".
When I suggested we go back to Dec 1995 as the date these long time illegals have been here,I was called a racist (who's surprised,lol) and informed this is thier country (I never mentioned a race or ethnicity)and they are not leaving.

Yeah,insult,refuse,demand and threaten....good job illegals.

[Rebel]

an american wrote:

"Latino's" had a fit when the Gov. of Nev. said he wanted social benefits to only go to people with valid SS#'s. What are they having a fit over? They encourage breaking the law? Taxpayers should support illegal beaners and their little beaners? Just take a look at Calif. the writing is on the wall

Who the hell do they think they are? Why shouldn't we limit all benefits to someone with a social and kids don't count unless mommy and daddy have a social and have contributed to the funds. Even as a kid, the parents should have been contributing "x" number of years before that kid can collect any benefits -- ANY benefits.

[cudzuqueen]

Rebel wrote:

<quoted text>
Who the hell do they think they are? Why shouldn't we limit all benefits to someone with a social and kids don't count unless mommy and daddy have a social and have contributed to the funds. Even as a kid, the parents should have been contributing "x" number of years before that kid can collect any benefits -- ANY benefits.

AMEN!

[an american]

Rebel wrote:

<quoted text>
Who the hell do they think they are? Why shouldn't we limit all benefits to someone with a social and kids don't count unless mommy and daddy have a social and have contributed to the funds. Even as a kid, the parents should have been contributing "x" number of years before that kid can collect any benefits -- ANY benefits.

Said like a true American!

[Cricket 23]

nothere wrote:

<quoted text>
For years the citizens have been asking exactly that question: why should illegals be allowed to stay?
You never get an answer except "they've been here for a long time".
When I suggested we go back to Dec 1995 as the date these long time illegals have been here,I was called a racist (who's surprised,lol) and informed this is thier country (I never mentioned a race or ethnicity)and they are not leaving.
Yeah,insult,refuse,demand and threaten....good job illegals.

Any illegal alien that came here after the 1986 amnesty should be deported and wait in line in their own country to return. Enough said!

[Cricket 23]

The U.S. Department of Injustice

The U.S. Department of Justice seal bears a Latin phrase: "Qui Pro Domina Justitia Sequitur." The motto refers to the attorney general, "who prosecutes on behalf of Lady Justice." But under President Barack Obama's politically corrupt DOJ, Lady Justice is getting the shaft.

To wit: Let's examine the uproar over Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to protect hate-mongering thugs who harassed and bullied precinct workers and voters on Election Day in Philadelphia. Oh, wait. There's been no uproar. Let me tell you why.

Two weeks ago, in a highly unusual move, Holder dismissed default judgments his department had won against two of three defendants charged with violating the Voting Rights Act. On Nov. 4, 2008, a billy club-wielding militant in military-style boots and beret stood outside a Philly polling location with a similarly dressed partner. Citizen journalists from the Pennsylvania-based blog Election Journal captured the menacing duo on video. One of the watchdogs observed: "I think it might be a little intimidating that you have a stick in your hand."

That was an understatement. Witness Bartle Bull, a Democratic lawyer who organized for Bobby Kennedy and worked for the civil rights movement in Mississippi, signed a sworn affidavit decrying the Election Day brutishness. Serving as a poll watcher that day, he called the behavior of Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson "the most blatant form of voter discrimination I have encountered in my life."

One of them, Bull reported, taunted poll observers: "You are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker."

http://townhall.com/columnists/MichelleMalkin...

[Rebel]

Cricket 23 wrote:

The U.S. Department of Injustice
The U.S. Department of Justice seal bears a Latin phrase: "Qui Pro Domina Justitia Sequitur." The motto refers to the attorney general, "who prosecutes on behalf of Lady Justice." But under President Barack Obama's politically corrupt DOJ, Lady Justice is getting the shaft.
To wit: Let's examine the uproar over Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to protect hate-mongering thugs who harassed and bullied precinct workers and voters on Election Day in Philadelphia. Oh, wait. There's been no uproar. Let me tell you why.
Two weeks ago, in a highly unusual move, Holder dismissed default judgments his department had won against two of three defendants charged with violating the Voting Rights Act. On Nov. 4, 2008, a billy club-wielding militant in military-style boots and beret stood outside a Philly polling location with a similarly dressed partner. Citizen journalists from the Pennsylvania-based blog Election Journal captured the menacing duo on video. One of the watchdogs observed: "I think it might be a little intimidating that you have a stick in your hand."
That was an understatement. Witness Bartle Bull, a Democratic lawyer who organized for Bobby Kennedy and worked for the civil rights movement in Mississippi, signed a sworn affidavit decrying the Election Day brutishness. Serving as a poll watcher that day, he called the behavior of Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson "the most blatant form of voter discrimination I have encountered in my life."
One of them, Bull reported, taunted poll observers: "You are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker."
http://townhall.com/columnists/MichelleMalkin...

I read about this and was shocked...guess I shouldn't be, considering how Obama has appointed criminals, racists and cheats to every appointment he's made.

How the hell do they let this go?