Search for illegal aliens alienates town

http://www.pressherald.com/news/nemitz/040130aliens.shtml

Their boss insists that they're not trying to act like jerks. It's just that the border patrol agents who descended on Portland last weekend are new to Maine and, this being the dead of winter and all, they apparently can't help themselves.

"A lot of our agents are just off the southern (U.S.) border and there's a different atmosphere down there," said Monte J. Bennett, assistant chief patrol agent for the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection in Houlton. "There are a lot more numbers down there. Things are more aggressive."

In other words, if you're an immigrant in Maine these days, you'd best double-check your papers before you go anywhere and learn to say "Yes, sir" and "No, sir" to anyone in a black uniform and boots. And oh yes, try not to look suspicious.

"My business is down 80 percent since Saturday," lamented Juan Gonzalez, owner of La Bodega Latina Grocery Store on Congress Street. "Customers call me on the phone saying, 'Is it clear? Can we come down?' People are really afraid."

According to bureau spokesman Bennett, what happened Saturday in Portland was a typical "transportation sweep" in which federal agents - many recently transferred here as part of a south-to-north shift in homeland security forces - visited Portland's airport, train and bus stations in search of illegal aliens.

They netted 10 people whose papers failed to pass muster. At the same time, they left Portland's hard-won reputation as an immigrant-friendly city in tatters.

Nasir Ahmed was behind the counter at Amei Halaal Market on St. John Street when agents walked in and told everyone, employees and customers alike, to get out their passports and green cards. Ahmed said some patrons eating lunch in the Somali market bolted out the back door - not because they were undocumented, but because they were scared to death.

"How would you feel if you went to McDonald's and got asked for ID while you were eating your food? That's what happened here," Ahmed asked. "Now, less people come in. We lost a lot of customers."

Mohammed Barre, who was in the store at the time, said much of the anxiety could have been avoided if the agents had clearly identified themselves (several eyewitnesses said they didn't) and, before coming through the door, had taken the chips off their shoulders.

"Unfriendly," Barre replied when asked to describe the agents' demeanor. "Very unfriendly."

Bennett insisted that the operation targeted only Portland's "transportation hubs," not its immigrant enclaves. He added, however, that the agents will investigate anything "that needs investigating."

Would two stores with foreign names, frequented by people with dark skin, each a block or two from the Vermont Transit bus station "need investigating"?

"Based solely on that, no," Bennett replied. "They go more by people's mannerisms."

Thus, we are asked to believe, it was a citywide outbreak of "mannerisms" that attracted agents to Amei Halaal Market, La Bodega Latina and even the Preble Street Resource Center, where director Mark Swann has vowed that the next time agents show up, they'll be asked for a search warrant.

(Lest we all think the agents' attitudes began and ended with immigrants, consider my daughter's welcome Saturday upon arriving in Portland by bus from Boston: After she gave a border agent her license, he demanded her passport. She correctly told him that U.S. citizens don't need passports for interstate travel. "Let me give you a word of advice," he replied tersely. "You need to learn to watch your mouth.")

Where all this tension goes from here is anyone's guess.

Meetings are already being held among Portland's immigrant elders and leaders. And the Latino Health and Community Service has called off its Feb. 14 health fair because, director John Connors explained, "I'm not going to put up posters telling these guys we're going to have a bunch of minorities and immigrants showing up at a particular time and place."

Bennett calls such fears unfounded. If confronted by a federal agent, he said, all anyone has to do is "be friendly, be straightforward and answer their questions."

And above all, watch your mannerisms.

Columnist Bill Nemitz can be contacted at 791-6323 or at: bnemitz@pressherald.com


This country's becoming more like a police state every day. This is why all citizens should exercise their Second Amendment rights.

Bill would cancel ban on gun used in self-defense

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-bill29.html

Arguing that a Wilmette man had a right to shoot an intruder in his home -- regardless of a local ban on handguns -- a state representative is proposing legislation that would override such bans when guns are used in self-defense.

People in Illinois should be able to defend their person and their property, said Rep. John Bradley (D-Marion), who filed the legislation this week.

"This affirmative defense would allow them to do that," he said.

Bradley said authorities are wrong in prosecuting Hale DeMar for violating Wilmette's handgun ban and for failing to renew an Illinois firearm owner's identification card. The U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms, Bradley said.

DeMar made headlines when he shot a burglar. The Cook County state's attorney's office declined to charge DeMar for the shooting after determining he acted in self-defense. But he was charged with the other violations.

In a letter published in Chicago newspapers, an unrepentant DeMar said he served his "civic duty" when he shot the burglar.

"What is one to do when a criminal proceeds, undeterred by a 90-pound German shepherd, a security alarm system and a property lit up like an outdoor stadium?" he wrote.

Bradley agreed, saying "law-abiding" citizens should not be prosecuted if they use a gun in self-defense.

But Chris Boyster of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence disputed Bradley's contention, saying DeMar did not have the right under the ordinance to keep a handgun in his house.

"He was not a law-abiding citizen," Boyster said. "He had a handgun, there was a handgun ban, he broke the law."

AP

That's funny, I thought the Constitution was the law.

Free Hunter

http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/04/01/07/hunter.htm

January 7, 2004

Dear News Journal and Mr. Kent:

Thank you for your accurate article on Jeff (Hunter) Jordan It is refreshing to see honest reporting and stories that do not assume guilt or promote the "states" agenda.

I find it appalling that Ohio troopers felt justified in jailing a man, seizing his possessions, infringing on his privacy, and attempting to damaging his excellent reputation - because he was in possession of a gun. I find it very disappointing that a simple speeding violation could escalate to a federal case for simply exercising one's constitutional right. Aren't Ohio State Patrolmen sworn to "uphold" the constitution?

Hopefully this case will awaken people to the danger of unconstitutional laws such as the USA PATRIOT ACT and other legislation that gives law "enforcement" agencies carte blanche to abuse the rights of US Citizens as long as they claim that the citizen was believed to be involved in "terrorism" or whatever the scare term of the week is.

Considering that the US Constitution and the Ohio Constitution both give citizens the right to keep and bear arms for personal protection, I hope that the State Police will be found guilty of false arrest and severely penalized. I also hope that the officers responsible will be punished and relieved from duty. At the very least, they should be required to pass a refresher course on the constitution and their oath of office. Thank you again for being a beacon for liberty in a sea of deception.

Fran Tully
State Chair
Libertarian Party of Utah
801-949-3570

Eyes on the road, not on the screen

http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/projects/new_laws/story/8021182p-8957372c.html

New laws / 2004: Eyes on the road -- not on the screen
As of Thursday, state law bars watching TV while driving.
By Alexa H. Bluth -- Bee Capitol Bureau
Published 2:15 a.m. PST Monday, December 29, 2003
If you are considering installing a video screen on your dashboard to watch your favorite morning show or catch a flick to break up the monotony of your commute, think again.

Beginning Thursday, a new state law will tighten restrictions on drivers who watch video and television screens while operating their vehicles.

With the explosion of high-tech gadgets and gizmos for vehicles, California lawmakers have overhauled an existing law to attempt to limit at least some distractions for drivers.

"You can drive your car, watch a movie, use your cell phone and play on a computer all at once," said Assemblywoman Sarah Reyes, D-Fresno, the bill's author. "The more distractions, the more accidents that occur."

The new measure, AB 301, tweaks a California law to reflect the rapid technological advances available to drivers.

The new bill bars drivers from operating televisions and video screens in their line of vision while the vehicle is moving but allows the use of mapping and some other devices.

"They don't want people out there driving and watching television, and they want to provide exceptions for law-abiding citizens who want to use their technology," said California Highway Patrol Officer Steve Kinoshita, who works in the agency's legislative unit.

One of the key changes in the law is to clarify that drivers can use dealer-installed and other navigational devices, such as Global Positioning Systems.

"I still wouldn't recommended driving and constantly looking at your GPS device," Kinoshita said. "My suggestion for added safety would be to exit the freeway and find a safe spot and figure out where you want to go."

Also allowed under the new law are visual displays that help drivers of large vehicles maneuver, screens with a device that locks it in the "off" position when the car is moving and screens in law enforcement and safety vehicles and school buses.

The new law also "shifts the burden of compliance from vehicle dealers and accessory retailers to the driver," Kinoshita said.

The penalty for violating the law will be an infraction or, in other words, a ticket, he said. Officials hope it will serve as a deterrent to "a dangerous behavior," Kinoshita said.

According to the bill, inattention was cited as a factor in 6,807 collisions in 2001 in the state, including 48 deaths.

Measures to ban the use of certain cellular phones by drivers and to create a violation for certain types of inattentive driving have failed in California.

For one national chain, Audio Express, video screens in vehicles have risen to about 20 percent of sales in the past two years from about 1.5 percent, said Eric Stauffacher, California regional manager.

Drivers primarily install screens that are visible to back-seat passengers to entertain children on road trips, he said.

But other drivers want screens on their dashboard or even on the steering wheel. And some of the nation's rich-and-famous trendsetters are purchasing souped-up vehicles full of video screens, including in the front seat.

"Realistically, it's a cool factor to have it up front," Stauffacher said. "Especially for younger guys, it's just because it's cool and is the latest thing for their car."

The most screens Stauffacher has installed in a vehicle in the Sacramento area is six, in a Ford Excursion. The sport-utility vehicle had screens in its visor, dash and one on each of four headrests, he said.

He said the company installs screens that are visible to the driver, but the screens are installed so they do not function when the car is in drive gear.

"We still sell it; they just can't watch it while driving," he said.

Stauffacher has a video screen in the center of his own dash, near the stereo and other controls. He said he can use it to play video games, watch movies or watch television when the car is not moving.

He also said though the installers inform customers about the law, he suspects some drivers go home and tinker with the system so they can watch it while driving.

"If they have any basic knowledge of installation, they can do it themselves," he said. "And that's what they are doing."