New Haven Independent

Posted by: charlie | June 13, 2007 5:28 PM

These people's shifty answers are not a good sign.

Posted by: FairHavenRes | June 13, 2007 7:10 PM

Common Mr. Newton, you have to be more specific. If you had read some of the comments on this website, a reader sent federal law about identifications, you would have been able to answer the question more intelligently.

Mr. Newton please stay out of the debate if you can not be more constructive. You are playing with people's lives and the public security of our neighborhoods.

He has the ideas to be mayor of the city? Hmmm. And Attny Jefferson,"Commit to rid the city of this administration." This is the campaign manager? Geeze, please do better than that. Present yourself as if you really want to be elected.

Posted by: Tired, Oh So Tired | June 13, 2007 7:50 PM

Jim Newton -- to be expected. More of no idea what he is talking about. I think he is saying that immigrants (a) don't know that a municipal id is not a visa, and (b) that they are lawbreakers to be sent home. The first is so foolish it would clearly be a joke if said by someone other that Jim. (Jim, let me assure you immigrants know how hard it is to get a visa.) The second, reflects that Jim is a conservative Republican or at least has chosen to run as one. DeStefano must pray for this guy to hold press conferences.

But Michael Jefferson's answer is priceless. Such a strong and needed voice for so long in speaking out for the disenfranchised so hates DeStefano that he does not bother to find out that Newton's short list of nutty policies includes stop and frisk. Now I know it is such a crazy idea that Michael would have never thought to ask Jim whether he thought the Constitution should be suspended in minority neighborhoods. Just so you know, here's some:

Undocumented Immigrants -- there all bad law breakers, but has no comment on children left behind by ICE raids or lack of search warrants.

Municipal ID -- violates federal law, just not sure which one (you're a pretty darn good lawyer so you may want to school him on this one).

Stop and Frisk -- apparently never heard of the "beat down posse," but I'm guessing you left the press conference pissed about this one already.

Seems like there are two choices, get this guy some real policies or find someone who can actually challenge the current administration. Running to the right of DeStefano makes no sense. Is DeStefano funding Jim's campaign?

Posted by: Wjay | June 13, 2007 9:06 PM

For Charlie, FairHaverners, and all others.

If Newton didn't cite the appropriate federal law to suit you, then allow me:

1. The emergency quota act of 1921.
2. The Immigration act of 1924.
3. The National orgins formula was established with the act of 1924.
4. The immigration and Nationality act of 1952. (Eisenhower)
5. The Immigration act of 1965. (Johnson)
6. The Immigration Reform and control act of 1986.( Regan)
7. The illegal Immigration reform and immigration responsibility act of 1996. (Clinton)
8. The Real ID act of 2005. (Bush)

Take you pick, all the above apply to illegal entry into the USA, and specify that illegal entry is a civil and criminal crime.

WHAT!!

Posted by: TrueBlueCT | June 13, 2007 9:18 PM

Priceless video Paul. But also laughably sad...

Can we get more coverage of the other candidates in the race? Newton isn't making much sense on anything, and his all-things-Destefano-equal-bad routine is getting stale.

Posted by: Taxed To Death | June 13, 2007 11:08 PM

I don't care how articulate Newton is on this subject -- bottom line? This ID program, according to DeStefano, Junta and its former direct Kica Matos -- is a first in the nation, a real trendsetter. Yet, according to his story, the mayor says "wherever it's been used" the city has not been asked for its database. Which is it? The mayor also said the illegals wanted the ID cards so they could show police who may be investigating landlords who are taking advantage of the illegals. Really? Our police are now part of the LCI -- the liveable city initiative? NO...oh, maybe the mayor meant the police were a division of the fair rent commission -- fair housing commission. uhhhh no....When was the last time a New Haven cop had time to investigate a landlord compliant? Please....If the mayor has a hard time with facts, and he's spent years sucking up to the illegal community, why hold Newton to a higher standard?

Posted by: Tired, Oh So Tired | June 14, 2007 11:22 AM

WJAY,

Many of those laws have been done away with because they were racist and exclusionary. The "emergency quota act of 1921"?? Are you kidding me?

This act, which limited immigration from any country to 3% of that country's representation already existing in the US, was designed to ensure that the large majority of immigrants would be from northern and western Europe. It was to stop Jews and Italians as well as Eastern Europeans from immigrating in any serious numbers, because of their religion and darker color. The dialogue at the time was pretty explicit. The percentage was further reduced (to 2%) by your number 2 law The Immigration Act of 1924. Fortunately despite your desire and post, they are no longer the law of this country.

Posted by: Tired, Oh So Tired | June 14, 2007 11:44 AM

Taxed to Death,

Aside from being impressed that you can apparently use the web from the grave, I think you may have forgotten an early issue which led to some of the pro-immigrant matters. An NHPD police officer was involved in a housing code action covered by the New Haven Independent. Once determining that he believed the residents were undocumented he told them that he was going to call ICE. They in turn fled the apartment leading to the landlord not having to fix anything.

I think this is exactly the point of reference which DeStefano is connecting to.

As to whether Newton is "articulate" on this issue probably should not change your opinions on the issue (and of course it is not his being "articulate" but his ability to grasp this or other issues that does not really need to be discussed as his weaknesses are obvious as soon as he starts talking). Your opinion should change because despite evidence to the contrary you continue to hammer on endlessly about how no one in the advocacy community, board of aldermen, or city hall knows what they are doing. Your arrogance regarding how only you know anything and everyone else is an idiot has to make people dismiss your claims. That's too bad because you actually sometimes make good points.

Your post here is a perfect example. You were just historically and factually wrong and as an Independent reader you could have just searched this website to have found out you were wrong. Instead you tried to paint everyone else as an idiot. That's not conducive to effective public discussion which you appear to otherwise want to engage in.

You may not like city hall's policies but they are on the whole not simplistic or stupid people. Painting them as such makes you come off as a ranting lunatic.

Posted by: Joe | June 14, 2007 1:19 PM

Tired, Oh So Tired, couldn't be more right. His post is likely applicable to more than half the comments on the ID card issue (and perhaps the majority of comments on the NHI as a whole).

Posted by: Wjay | June 14, 2007 11:10 PM

Your inaccurate Tired, or is it tried?
The Law that seems to best fit you raging response is:

7. The illegal Immigration reform and immigration responsibility act of 1996. (Clinton)
This act fits well into todays circumstance Re: illegal immigrants in Hartford federal court.
It goes like this...
The law made drastic changes to asylum law, immigration detention, crimina- based immigration, and other forms of immigration relief.

How the previous immigration law was amended
These changes in immigration law occurred:

a distinction was introduced for the purpose of this relief between applicants who were lawful permanent residents and those with no legal status in the United States;
renamed deportation proceedings and exclusion proceedings as "removal proceedings";
major changes to the immigration consequences of criminal cases;
mandatory detention for immigrants convicted of certain crimes;
a permanent bar to permanent residence for those who falsely claimed to be U.S. citizens;
authorization for the U.S. Attorney General to hire at least 1,000 new Border Patrol agents and 300 new support personnel each year from 1997-2001

[edit] Constitutional issues within the law
Previously, immediate deportation was triggered only for offences that could lead to five years or more in jail. Under the Act, minor offences such as shoplifting, may make an individual eligible for deportation. The Act also applies to residents who have married American citizens and have American-born children.

When IIRIRA was passed in 1996, it was applied retroactively to all those convicted of deportable offenses. This included US residents who committed minor offences decades ago.

However, in 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that Congress did not intend IIRIRA to be applied retroactively to those who pleaded guilty to a crime prior to the enactment of IIRIRA, if that person would not have been deportable at the time that he pleaded guilty. (INS v. St. Cyr).
In spite of the 2001 ruling the way the IIRIRA law is used in practice has had so little public scrutiny and oversight so as to make its further use questionable.
In an effort to curb illegal immigration, Congress votes to double the U.S. Border Patrol to 10,000 agents over five years and mandates the construction of fences at the most heavily trafficked areas of the U.S.-Mexico border. Congress also approves a pilot program to check the immigration status of job applicants.

IIRIRA's mandatory detention provisions have also been repeatedly challenged, with less success.

Deportation issues
Deportees may be held in jail for months, even as much as two years, before being brought before an immigration board, at which defendants need to pay for their own legal representation. In 2001, the Supreme Court curtailed the Immigration Service's ability to hold deportees indefinitely. (Zadvydas v. Davis)

The Act has been applied much more vigorously since 9/11. At least 1000 British citizens were affected by the law in 2003.
In one case, an 83-year-old Frenchman, who had lived in the US for 52 years, was held for an old minor offence for seven months and then deported to France, though he no longer had any ties there. He also lost his US social security benefits. [1]
Opponents argue that such deportations are being used to punish nations whose foreign policy clashes with the US, stating that it may be possible, within the legal language of this act, for an American that is born abroad with

American born parents (both US citizens)
American born grandparents (all US citizens)
to be deported.

SO there, read it and weep, your wrong period.
PS No need for a response.

out>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>