Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) tries tying ICE's hands on immigration raids; Mexico-linked ACLU cheers

Posted Tue, May 20, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Rep. Lynn Woolsey, Democrat from Petaluma, California and chairwoman of the Workforce Protection Subcommittee of the House Education and Labor Committee (some background here), held a hearing this morning regarding ICE raids (link):
Congress should enact legislation giving more teeth to existing federal guidelines aimed at ensuring that children's needs are considered when their parents are arrested in raids by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enfocement agents [Woolsey said]. The agency's November 2007 guidelines outlining humanitarian concerns to be addressed during raids "are not being followed in a consistent fashion," [she said].
If you listen to her 30-second whine here, it's easy to tell what she's getting at: she doesn't have much interest in immigration laws being enforced.

That belief is buttressed by the fact that the American Civil Liberties Union - an organization collaborating with the Mexican government to possibly sue the U.S. government - has issued a press release commending her actions (aclu.org/immigrants/gen/35397prs20080520.html):
Since late 2006 the Department of Homeland Security Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE) section has undertaken an unprecedented campaign of immigration raids in homes, and worksites. The ACLU has challenged the legality and constitutionality of many of these raids including worksite raids conducted in New Bedford, Massachusetts, and Van Nuys, California... "ICE's immigration raids have been so sweeping that they have ensnared U.S. citizens, including innocent children, in their dragnet," said Caroline Fredrickson, director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. "There are no regulations controlling ICE's reckless raids, and ICE routinely violates due process while conducting raids."
Joanne Lin, ACLU Legislative Counsel, also weighs in with a quote.

Discrediting the ACLU is easier than discrediting Woolsey, but either would have a salubrious impact. See the last link for some questions you can ask them in public and preferably on video.

UPDATE: Nancy Pelosi's blog (?!) links to a PDF with Woolsey's opening whine (speaker.gov/blog/?p=1349, "...we are still hearing heartbreaking stories of the impact on children... ...They have been separated from their families in the cruelest of ways for long periods of time and many of their parents have been deported...", etc. etc.) as well as a video of the remarks of Simon Romo, Chief Counsel for New Mexico Child Protective Services (link). I left the following comment on the last:
We'll always have immigration laws and they'll always be enforced. So, if these two actually cared about children they'd discourage mixed-status families, and the only way to do that is to support our immigration laws and their enforcement.

Instead, they're opposing immigration enforcement, something that will make the situation worse and increase the number of mixed-status families.

Both are simply corrupt, just for slightly different reasons.
Tags: 
nancy pelosi
department of homeland security
american civil liberties union
mexican government
joanne lin
new mexico
lynn woolsey

Comments

Fred Dawes (not verified)

Wed, 05/21/2008 - 12:34

this will mean nothing soon right now the gangs from mexico are fighting or started to fight for control of L.A. Today 12 so called people got shot 2 killed and 10 other shotup, its going to be fun watching the nexy years as L.A. And the USA as it Become the new shootout place for the gangs. Keep watching mexico city much fighting inside the city almost all the main cities in mexico are under the control of the gangs soon we will.

KAS (not verified)

Wed, 05/21/2008 - 18:51

The government is not breaking up the family. The parents that are deported and leaving their children here in the USA are the ones who are breaking up the family. Any one who says differently is not thinking intelligently or not at all.

A (not verified)

Thu, 05/22/2008 - 11:39

The law restricts immigration. If you are for unlimited immigration, great, honestly and proudly argue for the law being changed to reflect that. In the meantime, it's hard to make a serious case for flouting the law. Thus, is it any wonder they resort to tactics like breaking out 'the children' card? Gee, is it *really* just about due process or could a political agenda be at play? You could put deportees on air conditioned tour buses, transform Hutto into Club Med, send Super Nanny to hold the hand of a child, etc. and they will surely find something to bitch/sue about. Because it's really a substantive policy difference. They're against immigration law enforcement in general if not categorically, not just wanting to make sure it's 'done right'. However it's done, they want any action which restricts immigration stopped even though that's not the letter or intent of our law. It's embarrassingly obvious but they somehow maintain this dishonest posture with a straight face. Lone is right. If it were really about the children, why not deter this behavior of the parents which affects the children. Same with border crossing deaths.