Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
Member Login

Posted: 12/23/2003 2:07:42 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/23/2003 2:14:31 PM EDT by Airwolf]


www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/tribsouthwest/news/s_171326.html

Mix-up may have let suspects off

By Vince Guerrieri
TRIBUNE-REVIEW

Tuesday, December 23, 2003

A Washington County police officer's request to hold 13 men who could not show they were legally in the country ended up in the wrong hands, a spokesman for the federal immigration agency said Monday.

The men, apparently from Mexico, were released without charges on Sunday, the same day federal security officials raised the national terror alert level. The whereabouts of the men are unknown.

Bentleyville Police Lt. Mark Kavakich said he became suspicious of two men while investigating a hit-and-run accident at the Pilot truck stop near Interstate 70 at about 4:30 p.m. Sunday. While there, he came across a van carrying 13 men who had no documentation and didn't speak English. They weren't breaking any local laws, he said, and the immigration office he called in Pittsburgh saw no reason to detain them.

"We just had to wish them a Merry Christmas and send them on their way," Kavakich said, adding he was dumbfounded by the decision.

Garrison Courteney, a spokesman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Washington, D.C., said the Pittsburgh office formerly was a customs office that has not been equipped to issue detainers, which allow local police to hold suspected illegal aliens until federal officers can investigate.

Kavakich should have talked with the law enforcement service center in Vermont, Courteney said, adding the center has been in existence since before the federal Department of Homeland Security was formed but has been used for information and enforcement only for the past five months.

The Pittsburgh office had to make a judgment call about whether to refer the Bentleyville incident to the Vermont office and decided it wasn't necessary, Courteney said.

An aide to U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum, a Republican from Penn Hills, Allegheny County, said the senator's office received numerous complaints after news reports of the incident.

"It shouldn't have been handled the way it was handled," said Mike Hershey, Santorum's chief of staff.

Kavakich said he came across the van and its 13 occupants after two Hispanic men came around the corner of the truck stop while he was investigating the hit-and-run. He said the men weren't involved in the accident but got a "deer in the headlights" look and turned around when they saw his police cruiser.

A few minutes later, another Hispanic man peeked around the corner of the van. Kavakich said he approached the van and discovered its 13 occupants. Kavakich said he called a Spanish-speaking police officer from nearby Union Township and the men admitted they were illegal immigrants. The van's driver told conflicting stories, eventually saying each man had a destination in New Jersey, and then he was to take the van to New York City, Kavakich said.

The driver had only a Mexican driver's license, but the officer said he didn't issue a citation, figuring he'd never see the man again, Kavakich said.

Kavakich said that when he called the Pittsburgh office, he was told, "We're not interested in Mexicans."

The department is on the lookout for any illegal immigrants, Courteney said, a sentiment echoed by U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan.

"We're certainly interested in enforcing immigration laws against anyone who violates them," Buchanan said.

Kavakich remains convinced he did the right thing but was still angry about how it was handled.

"Obviously, the federal government feels these guys are legal illegal aliens," he said.
Link Posted: 12/23/2003 2:10:13 PM EDT
Were they all wearing turbans?
Link Posted: 12/23/2003 2:14:02 PM EDT
Happens all the time, we use to pick up a Mexican for whatever, he would be  illegal, we would call the INS, they would say we do not want him, he would pay his fine after court and walk.
Link Posted: 12/23/2003 2:16:08 PM EDT
we really need to have a ARFC "boarder party".

[sniper2]
Link Posted: 12/23/2003 2:16:22 PM EDT
This is very frustrating..  The illegal immigration problem should be, without a doubt, the number 1 issue during this election year.

What is the use of the Homeland Security dept. if they REFUSE to close our F**KING borders.

Link Posted: 12/23/2003 2:20:40 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Airwolf:
"We're certainly interested in enforcing immigration laws against anyone who violates them," Buchanan said. .
View Quote


BS!!! 50% of the people I arrest are illegally in the country.  INS doesnt want them. I could find the border patrol 100 illegals every night, they wont take them.
Link Posted: 12/23/2003 2:20:42 PM EDT
We the unwilling, led by the lunatics [toilet]
Link Posted: 12/23/2003 2:29:15 PM EDT
Originally Posted By cyanide:
Happens all the time, we use to pick up a Mexican for whatever, he would be  illegal, we would call the INS, they would say we do not want him, he would pay his fine after court and walk.
View Quote


Cyanide is right. It happens ALL THE TIME.  I have certainly tagged and released like 5 times the numbers of illegals than those who the Border Patrol would come get. Several instances involving groups of 10 or more.

And, HELL, I am in Alabama.
Link Posted: 12/23/2003 2:35:22 PM EDT
Originally Posted By thecleaner:
we really need to have a ARFC "border party".

[sniper2]
View Quote

Check!
Link Posted: 12/23/2003 7:05:47 PM EDT
Originally Posted By thecleaner:
we really need to have a ARFC "boarder party".

[sniper2]
View Quote


What are we boarding??  A bus, plane, ship..................
Link Posted: 12/23/2003 8:18:36 PM EDT


Well, good morning everyone.

It's been standing policy in southern Texas since I was a kid for the police to turn a blind eye to the immigration status of aliens.  The feds just don't care.  They won't pick up one or one thousand illegals.  

The social services, hospitals, govt. assistance programs are being completely used up by illegals in the border states and larger cities in America.  No one really seems to care.  Hell, Bush and co. keep looking for an excuse to amnesty them all into legality. The Democrats would do that and send them a check to bring all their relatives too.

What is the point of having a border?  You don't check it, don't send anyone back.  But hey, we got NAFTA in exchange to take all of our jobs.  

Oh, by the way.  Remember that John Malvo, aka DC sniper, was an illegal caught and released, from Jamaica.

This battle is lost, I fear.  Next stop for America, third world status.




Link Posted: 12/23/2003 8:44:35 PM EDT
The only time I've ever had INS give a shit about illegals is when we've just arrested them for a major felony.  Even then, you practically have to twist their arms to get them to put a hold on the crooks before the local pokey turns them loose to disappear.
Link Posted: 12/23/2003 8:45:41 PM EDT
Yep, I don't even call the INS anymore.  I'm tired of hearing "We are not interested. No, we don't even want to know his name."
Link Posted: 12/23/2003 9:07:42 PM EDT
Originally Posted By FiveO:
Originally Posted By cyanide:
Happens all the time, we use to pick up a Mexican for whatever, he would be  illegal, we would call the INS, they would say we do not want him, he would pay his fine after court and walk.
View Quote


Cyanide is right. It happens ALL THE TIME.  I have certainly tagged and released like 5 times the numbers of illegals than those who the Border Patrol would come get. Several instances involving groups of 10 or more.

And, HELL, I am in Alabama.
View Quote


Same for Missouri! Been there done that! INS said No thanks! WTF
Link Posted: 12/23/2003 9:27:24 PM EDT
[liberal]You cops are nothing more than civil rights trampling racist Scrooges.  There's nothing wrong with hardworking immigrants in this country.  Maybe you should have more compassion![/liberal]

You have no idea how hard that was to type.[puke]
Link Posted: 12/23/2003 9:54:24 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/23/2003 10:01:03 PM EDT by tac45]
I could easily fill a bus full of illegals in one shift in the town I work (population is about 500). Have arrested a few for traffic warrents, DUI, etc. Border Patrol or INS won't have anything to do with it unless it's a felony. Of course it's their FUCKING job but hey... I guess there are mor important things to do. [:(!]

As kind of a side note... I have always wanted to go on duty wearing an INS or USBP hat just for S&G. [}:D]
Link Posted: 12/23/2003 10:06:33 PM EDT
It's a shame one of those 13 guys wasn't holding a couple of M16 fire control parts.  Within minutes the ATF would have surrounded the van with 500 agents, put thousands of rounds into it, tear gassed it, called in a ANG air strike on it, napalmed it, and dropped a MOAB on it.  Where's the ATF when you need them? [;D]
Link Posted: 12/23/2003 10:24:21 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Niel:
This is very frustrating..  The illegal immigration problem should be, without a doubt, the number 1 issue during this election year.

What is the use of the Homeland Security dept. if they REFUSE to close our F**KING borders.

View Quote


Should be, but there is one issue.... MEXICO.  You will offend tons of Mexican's....(legal, their famileis and the Mexican govt).

Look how big of a deal about the driver licenses were in Kalifornia.  If you start to close or detain people, unfortuantly, most will end up being Mexican and you'll have Mexico's president along w/ a bunch of Mexican groups up in arms.

Unfortunatly, we are too lax in this country.  Politicans make rules and laws, yet obviouse "breaches" exist.  So what they tightened up the security in the airports.  The point is, they got in to the country and did this.  The point should be to keep them out.  Left hand does not know what the right foot is doing......(sigh).

Are we safer now then before Sept 11?  Possibly, but if the borders are open....
Link Posted: 12/23/2003 11:00:50 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/23/2003 11:02:56 PM EDT by Niel]
Originally Posted By Kaliburz:
Should be, but there is one issue.... MEXICO.  You will offend tons of Mexican's....(legal, their families and the Mexican govt).
View Quote


You're right.. we will offend them.  However, I wonder about their voting power.  How many illegals actually vote?  From what I understand most Mexican Americans pride themselves with their citizenship and do not want to give the illegals anything.  (and rightly so, IMO)

Doesn't citizenship play a big part in the gang wars currently being waged in California?  Nortenos v. Surrenos (North v. South / Naturalized Citizens v. Illegals?)


Unfortunately, we are too lax in this country...

So what they tightened up the security in the airports.  The point is, they got in to the country and did this.  The point should be to keep them out.  Left hand does not know what the right foot is doing......(sigh).

Are we safer now then before Sept 11?  Possibly, but if the borders are open....
View Quote


I absolutely agree.
Link Posted: 12/24/2003 2:58:59 PM EDT
Originally Posted By 1911Shootist:
It's a shame one of those 13 guys wasn't holding a couple of M16 fire control parts.  Within minutes the ATF would have surrounded the van with 500 agents, put thousands of rounds into it, tear gassed it, called in a ANG air strike on it, napalmed it, and dropped a MOAB on it.  Where's the ATF when you need them? [;D]
View Quote



Right on the money.  It's what the PC beaurocrats want to enforce that seems to take the priority, not the letter of the law.


Link Posted: 12/24/2003 3:10:46 PM EDT
Selective enforcement
Link Posted: 12/25/2003 5:50:02 PM EDT
Originally Posted By giacutter:
Originally Posted By 1911Shootist:
It's a shame one of those 13 guys wasn't holding a couple of M16 fire control parts.  Within minutes the ATF would have surrounded the van with 500 agents, put thousands of rounds into it, tear gassed it, called in a ANG air strike on it, napalmed it, and dropped a MOAB on it.  Where's the ATF when you need them? [;D]
View Quote



Right on the money.  It's what the PC beaurocrats want to enforce that seems to take the priority, not the letter of the law.


View Quote


Originally Posted By Doctor_Chicago:
Selective enforcement
View Quote


I agree.  ANY, I repeat, ANY elected official will go with what will get lots of media attention and credit to themself.  And which will end up being a bigger gain at the ballot box.

Example, if say, a bunch of "terrorits" (Middle Eastern or converts/sympathisers here) do something with "AR type rifles" or "AK", EVEN IF IT IS ONLY SEMI AUTO and not converted, politicians will still demand or call for an all out ban on "assult rifles" (and maybe even collecting ALL that are out there).  We're talking about high, high, mass murder profile (worse then the summer sniper).  Even though the underlying problem was they were TERRORISTS, they will still DEMAN a all out ban of semi auto "assult rifles"....completely forgetting the true problem.  They would make up something that the American gun culture and their fixation w/ this type of weopons lead to them being available in the first place...or some BS like that.  They would rather disarm the 1 Million American gun owners then to actually go after the true problem, the terrorits and their activites.... (Heck, if a bunch of terrorist ran into an AR15.com shooting party, I don't think there would be a trial..... just body bags.  Not to say that I condone vigalante justice, but I am all for "self defence".) [:D]

Link Posted: 12/25/2003 5:57:40 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/25/2003 6:00:18 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Kaliburz:
Originally Posted By giacutter:
Originally Posted By 1911Shootist:
It's a shame one of those 13 guys wasn't holding a couple of M16 fire control parts.  Within minutes the ATF would have surrounded the van with 500 agents, put thousands of rounds into it, tear gassed it, called in a ANG air strike on it, napalmed it, and dropped a MOAB on it.  Where's the ATF when you need them? [;D]
View Quote



Right on the money.  It's what the PC beaurocrats want to enforce that seems to take the priority, not the letter of the law.


View Quote


Originally Posted By Doctor_Chicago:
Selective enforcement
View Quote


I agree.  ANY, I repeat, ANY elected official will go with what will get lots of media attention and credit to themself.  And which will end up being a bigger gain at the ballot box.

Example, if say, a bunch of "terrorits" (Middle Eastern or converts/sympathisers here) do something with "AR type rifles" or "AK", EVEN IF IT IS ONLY SEMI AUTO and not converted, politicians will still demand or call for an all out ban on "assult rifles" (and maybe even collecting ALL that are out there).  We're talking about high, high, mass murder profile (worse then the summer sniper).  Even though the underlying problem was they were TERRORISTS, they will still DEMAN a all out ban of semi auto "assult rifles"....completely forgetting the true problem.  They would make up something that the American gun culture and their fixation w/ this type of weopons lead to them being available in the first place...or some BS like that.  They would rather disarm the 1 Million American gun owners then to actually go after the true problem, the terrorits and their activites.... (Heck, if a bunch of terrorist ran into an AR15.com shooting party, I don't think there would be a trial..... just body bags.  Not to say that I condone vigalante justice, but I am all for "self defence".) [:D]

View Quote




Surely the true lesson of 9/11 was that all "assault airliners" should be banned.  The only reason we have airliners are the plane nuts in this country.  Isn't your child's safety worth banning the evil assault airliners?



Top Top