Two weeks ago Hurricane Harvey hit Texas with all of its fury and delivered a powerful blow from Corpus Christi to Beaumont. Thousands of homes and businesses were destroyed or significantly damaged and dozens of folks lost their lives due to the severe flooding caused by record amounts of rainfall that led to the overflow of the local lakes, bayous, rivers, and creeks.

Yet in the midst of all this despair and devastation, inspiring tales of courage, love and compassion have emerged. Hundreds of ordinary Texans answered the call of duty and aided first responders. These folks launched their own boats into the flooded streets and bayous and pulled survivors and pets out of the dangerous and toxic waters.

Some of these rescuers paid for their unselfish and heroic deeds with their lives, like Alonso Guillen and his friend Tomas Carreon. Against the advice of his concerned father, Alonso, joined by Tomas, disregarded his own safety and drove with a boat in tow from his home in Lufkin to the Houston area to help with the rescues. Tragically, they both drowned in the raging waters after their boat capsized in the late night darkness as they attempted to reach victims stranded at a flooded apartment complex.

Alonso was living in the United States without permanent resident alien status. Born in Mexico, he was brought to our country without the proper immigration documentation as a small child by his parents. He was what many Americans refer to as an “illegal alien.” Alonso considered himself an American albeit without the required legal documentation, but certainly with all the requisite heart, soul, and spirit that defines Americanism. He was a “Dreamer.”

Alonso had received temporary protected status under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals implemented by former President Barack Obama in 2012, which has allowed certain immigrants who entered the country as minors to receive a renewable two-year work permit and deferral from deportation. About 800,000 people, referred to as “Dreamers” after the proposed DREAM Act, have enrolled in the DACA program since its implementation.

None of them have any criminal history and all of them speak English, are full-time students, gainfully employed, or serve in our military. Some are even heroes, although DACA eligibility does not require any acts of heroism.

At the launch of his presidential campaign, Donald Trump referred to Alonso and others like him from Mexico as criminals, rapists and murderers. Alonso was exactly the sort of immigrant that Attorney General Jeff Sessions wishes to see deported as he announced last week the end of the DACA program in six months.

While Sessions was drooling over the prospects of more deportations, President Trump was expressing his deep “love” for the Dreamers.

It looks like Attorney General Sessions will have one less Dreamer to deport and President Trump will have one less Dreamer to love. Alonso, you are a hero who had a dream. That dream lives on.

Roberto Torres is an attorney at law in Galveston and writes columns from a progressive perspective.

(100) comments

Carlos Ponce

Are all Liberals as ignorant as Roberto?
"At the launch of his presidential campaign, Donald Trump referred to Alonso and others like him from Mexico as criminals, rapists and murderers."
Looks like you're ignoring all of what candidate Trump said.
"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."
"And some, I assume are GOOD PEOPLE."
"And some, I assume are GOOD PEOPLE."
"And some, I assume are GOOD PEOPLE."
"And some, I assume are GOOD PEOPLE."
"And some, I assume are GOOD PEOPLE."
Why does Roberto OMIT that phrase? Because it doesn't fit his anti-trump bias. Alonso Guillen fits that phrase.
President Obama said that his executive order had legal problems and was only a temporary solution.
President Obama:
"Now, let’s be clear. This is not amnesty. This is not immunity. This is not a path to citizenship. It’s not a permanent fix. This is a temporary, stopgap measure that lets us focus our resources wisely while giving a degree of relief and hope to talented, driven, patriotic young people. It is the — it is the right thing to do. Precisely because this is temporary, Congress needs to act."
And President Trump also said Congress needs to act.
Obama stated, "I am not king. I can't do these things just by myself." In March 2011, he said that with "respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that's just not the case." In May 2011, he acknowledged that he couldn't "just bypass Congress and change the (immigration) law myself. ... That's not how a democracy works.

Mark Aaron

"And some, I assume are GOOD PEOPLE."

The two operative words here are 'some' and 'assume.'

The non-racist way of constructing this sentence would be: "And Most, I recognize, are good people."

"President Obama said that his executive order had legal problems and was only a temporary solution."

Sounds like yet another Carlos rightwing lie. When did President Obama ever say " his executive order had legal problems."

President Obama used the very common legal device of 'deferred adjudication.' Are you going to pretend that is illegal now Carlos? He never pretended he would, or could, grant amnesty.

Carlos Ponce

Cry me a river Mark. You don't debate you just argue, belittle and annoy

Mark Aaron

"Cry me a river Mark. You don't debate you just argue, belittle and annoy"

No, I just call you out on your wingnut lies Carlos. Quit lying and we can have a reasoned debate. Now let's see you explain how deferred adjudication is illegal. Let's see your source where you claim Obama admitted to not following the law.

Carlos Ponce

I don't respond to those who HATE.

Mark Aaron

"I don't respond to those who HATE."

Your first post to me on this forum questioned my military service and my patriotism, Carlos. Tell me again who the hater is here.

Carlos Ponce

I don't respond to those who HATE.

Emile Pope

Or have facts...

Carlos Ponce

I do respond to those who have the facts and don't don't hate. I also respond to Liberal toadies.

Mark Aaron

"I don't respond to those who HATE."

Here is your opening sentence in this forum thread Carlos:

"Are all Liberals as ignorant as Roberto?"

Now tell us again about hate Carlos.

Carlos Ponce

Sorry, I don't respond to those who HATE.

Emile Pope

or expose hypocrisy...

Lisa Gray

Tell this to the parents of Josh Wilkerson of Pearland who was beaten to death then set on fire by an illegal alien named Hermilio Morales in 2010. Moralez was brought to the US by his parents from Belize. Your opinion that all 800,000 DACA claimants are pure as the driven snow is complete hogwash. Illegal entrance to the US is just that. Illegal. Regardless of how you got here. Don't do the crime if you can't handle the consequences. We all know the purpose of bringing all of the illegal aliens to this country is to create generational voters for the Democrat party. Not to mention the staggering cost of supporting and educating them. Why can one of these "children" get a free college education and my five children qualified for NO assistance. No, we need to care for Americans first for a change and that starts with preserving our borders, language and culture.

Carlos Ponce

Hermilo Vildo Moralez was 19 years old when he killed fellow classmate Joshua Wilkerson, age 18, a senior at the Pearland Independent School District's PACE Center. Morales was found guilty of murder in 2013.

Mark Aaron

Are you also claiming Moralez was a DACA claimant, Carlos?

Carlos Ponce

Read my post Mark. Does it say that? Use common sense if you can.

Mark Aaron

"Read my post Mark. Does it say that? Use common sense if you can. "

Then why are you bringing his name up in a conversation about DACA other than to infer her was a participant?

Carlos Ponce

I don't respond to those who HATE.

Mark Aaron

"Your opinion that all 800,000 DACA claimants are pure as the driven snow is complete hogwash. "

Why are you claiming that Hermillio Moralez was enrolled in the DACA program, Lisa? Do you have proof of this? According to this Amicus Brief to the Supreme Court Moralez was not a DACA claimant. Do you proof otherwise or are you just ragging on immigrants?

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/15-674_amicus_resp_NationalSheriffAssociationetal.authcheckdam.pdf

Carlos Ponce

"None of them have any criminal history" is misleading because "Dreamers" lose their DACA status upon conviction. A simple web search shows many who were named Dreamers by Obama now have criminal history and are no longer called "Dreamers" but are imprisoned criminals or were deported.

Mark Aaron

""None of them have any criminal history" is misleading because "Dreamers" lose their DACA status upon conviction. "

Why are you pretending this is an issue, Carlos? Just another attempt to slander Dreamers? Deferred Adjudication is a form of parole. Break parole and you lose it. What is the issue?

Carlos Ponce

You don't want the truth, you don't want to debate, you just want to ARGUE. Go suck an egg.

Mark Aaron

"You don't want the truth, you don't want to debate, you just want to ARGUE. Go suck an egg."

I do want the truth Carlos. That is why I keep calling you out on your lies. Stop lying and we can have a reasoned debate.

Carlos Ponce

I will not respond to those who HATE.

Mark Aaron

"A simple web search shows many who were named Dreamers by Obama now have criminal history and are no longer called "Dreamers" but are imprisoned criminals or were deported."

I see no such information on the web. Post your source to validate this claim Carlos.

Carlos Ponce

Sorry, I don't respond to those who HATE.

Mark Aaron

"Sorry, I don't respond to those who HATE."

Then there are a lot of people on this forum you won't be able to respond to Carlos. I note numerous people on here, like you, who love to demonize immigrants and minorities. I don't know about you, but I would identify those people as haters. Given your situational morality however, I expect your mileage may vary.

Emile Pope

Which means that he has no proof for his allegations...

George Croix

Entering the country illegally is a criminal act....
Being allowed to stay without any consequences was an un-Constitutional act by all ex-Presidents and all lawmakers and enforcers of the law who sat on their hands and ignored it, after swearing to uphold the laws of the country.
Yet again, we see no differentiation drawn bewteen legal and illegal.....
The means to a resolution must be through the Constitution, and Congress, not people looking the other way for so-called compassion, while showing zero of it for the citizens and legal residents who are negatively impacted by illegals.
The exception does not make the rule in a nation of laws....
Something one would expect a person who makes his living by the laws to understand.

Mark Aaron

"Entering the country illegally is a criminal act....Being allowed to stay without any consequences was an un-Constitutional act by all ex-Presidents and all lawmakers and enforcers of the law who sat on their hands and ignored it, after swearing to uphold the laws of the country."

Poor George, duped yet again.Or willfully lying. There is nothing illegal about deferred adjudication. Nor is overstaying a visa a criminal act, it is a civil act. Entering the country illegally is merely a misdemeanor. You sure love to hate on immigrants, don't you?

Jim Forsythe


Unless Visa over stayers are addressed, the problem will become a larger.

Visa over stayers is  now a larger problem than boarder crossings.
In 2004 the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) wrote that DHS estimated that there were 2.3 million over stayers ; which at that time would have been about one-third of its estimate of the total illegal alien population. The Pew Hispanic Center estimated the share of the illegal alien population that was overstayers at 25 percent to 40 percent in 2005. Less than a year later, a Pew Hispanic Center Factsheet stated that the estimated share was 45 percent of the illegal alien population
In 2006, anywhere from 500,00 to 740,000 were over stays. CMS previously reported that visa over-stayers now represent the majority of non-citizens joining the undocumented population each year

Mark Aaron

"CMS previously reported that visa over-stayers now represent the majority of non-citizens joining the undocumented population each year"

I expect that helps explain why President Obama didn't use his power to pardon on Dreamers. Overstaying a visa is not a criminal offense, it is a civil offense. As best I can tell an executive, whether state or federal, can only pardon criminal offenses. So had Obama pardoned Dreamers it would only apply to about half of them. Also remember that entering the country illegally is normally only a misdemeanor.

George Croix

ps:
The attorney need not worry...there are no round-em-up squads roaming the hills and valleys scooping up illegals. Some additionally criminal illegal aliens, felons and assorted bad actors beyond just entering the country illegally, are being taken into custody and hopefully gotten rid of. Does the author not support that? Does he advocate for, what were his own words before, the 'brown skinned ones' to get away with felony crimes, or even multiple deportations?
Say it ain't so...I'd certainly hope not....The justice system is not supposed to be color coded...
The 'dreamers' need not worry....they're not going anywhere. They are simply now back where they were before ex-Pres. Obama decided he could ignore his own, out of his own mouth words, many times he claimed, on video, to have have no Constitutional authority to personally change immigration law, then did it anyway. The Congress will do what it usually does and P&M and mumble around for years, and inertia will once again be the order of the day...and weeks, months, years.....

Mark Aaron

"They are simply now back where they were before ex-Pres. Obama decided he could ignore his own, out of his own mouth words, many times he claimed, on video, to have have no Constitutional authority to personally change immigration law, then did it anyway. "

You are lying again George. I have patiently explained this to you before: deferred adjudication is legal and used by nearly every court in the nation on a regular, if not daily, basis. Deferred adjudication does not change any laws, it is simply part of the government's right of prosecutorial discretion. As usual you look for any opportunity to hate on immigrants.

Jim Forsythe

"The Congress will do what it usually does and P&M and mumble around for years" unless the President goes back on his word, after 2 years, DACA will be no more.  
"the Department of Homeland Security will begin an orderly transition and wind-down of DACA, one that provides minimum disruption.  While new applications for work permits will not be accepted, all existing work permits will be honored until their date of expiration up to two full years from today.  Furthermore, applications already in the pipeline will be processed, as will renewal applications for those facing near-term expiration.  This is a gradual process, not a sudden phase out.  Permits will not begin to expire for another six months, and will remain active for up to 24 months.  "

Also he said  
"Congress now has 6 months to legalize DACA (something the Obama Administration was unable to do). If they can't, I will revisit this issue!
5:38 PM - 5 Sep 2017 "
What is the action he will take? Will he issue an Executive Order that may be a   un-Constitutional act 
If Congress does nothing ,what choices does the President have? 

If a it was un-Constitutional act by all ex-Presidents , it now includes Trump, as he has let it go since January. If a President knows 
a act is un-Constitutional, and allows it to continue, when he could have issued a Executive Order his first day in office, he is just as much at fault.
Congress , also is just as much as fault, for not acting.

George Croix

Jim, DACA should never have BEEN in the first place if you'd look at all the many video clips of our ex-Pres. claiming in his own words that he had no authority to do it.
Now, the current President who HAS issued his OWN 'deferred adjudication' for a two year period, which itself should not have been done, imo...He COULD have simply wiped out Obama's order immediately, but did not, so Pres. Trump has done the same thing Pres. Obama did, only with a time limit to FORCE Congress to act, or else we're all back at square one again......but, Trump gets no thanks for making some effort to come a little closer to law, and Obama gets his backside kissed for ignoring the Constitution. Go figure ...the guy coming closest...or closer, anyway... to doing what the Constitution calls for is excoriated by everyone from national 'leadership' to blog trolls, while the 'Nobel' prize winner for what he might someday do gets a pass....
Funny if not so pathetic.....
The 'a little bit pregnant' argument used to justify immigration law is as useful and accurate as usual.....
I have no idea what Pres. Trunp will do in two minutes, much less two years. But, it's not his job, as it was not Pres. Obama's, to write immigration law....rag on Congress, all of it, especially the 2009-2010 Congress that COULD have made ALL existing illegals at the time, and for the future, perfectly legal had THEY used their total government majority to do so with the Executive. That gets ZERO play from the usual suspects and talking media heads, too busy now, I reckon, with patting themselves on the back for prioritizing illegal over legal citizens and residents.
The SAME 'congressional leadership' ripping Trump a new one daily over 'immigration' THEMSELVES whiffed and took a pass on it when they ahd all the marbles.
The only hting worse than them are the current characters ignoring history in favor of 'resisting'.....
Can't fix that.....

Mark Aaron

"DACA should never have BEEN in the first place if you'd look at all the many video clips of our ex-Pres. claiming in his own words that he had no authority to do it."

There you go George, lying again. He never did what you are claiming. Prove otherwise. Post a credible link.

Mark Aaron

"If a it was un-Constitutional act by all ex-Presidents , it now includes Trump, as he has let it go since January. If a President knows a act is un-Constitutional, and allows it to continue, when he could have issued a Executive Order his first day in office, he is just as much at fault."

Don't forget Trump's tweet saying:

"Congress now has 6 months to legalize DACA (something the Obama Administration was unable to do). If they can't, I will revisit this issue!"

George Croix

Note to the author:
Why don't YOU use your talents and resources to advocate FOR revised immigration laws, and the following of the laws, rather than constantly find excuses for breaking the ones we have?
You can't claim someone is legal when they have broken a law, so work to CHANGE the law, rather than redefine the word.....a baby who poops his pants a little bit has still pooped his pants...so it is with being a 'little bit' illegal...a low level crime is still a crime, so perhaps a trip to Webster would refresh your memory on what that constitutes a misdemeanor vs a felony, etc.....
Today is 9/11, and the memory of those terrorists who had entered the country LEGALLY with a valid visa and then stayed beyond it's end date should still be with us all.
Why would you advocate for ANYONE to do the same thing, and refuse to follow the rules that are in place? You don't have to knock down a skyscraper after being in violation of immigration law for the need for following the law(s) to be apparent.
Why not use your training as an attorney and NOT pretend that just anyone can allow justice to be postponed. A judge can do it, if the law allows, but a person who does not have the legal authority to change laws also does not have it to defer their impact...A President swears to uphold our laws, and is tasked with taking care that they are enforced...he does not have the Constitutional authority to decide which ones he'll enforce, or else his oath of office is meaningless.
Here's a question for you.
The President, any President, DOES have absolute power of pardons and commutations. WHY do you suppose President Obama chose to 'pen & phone' an unconstitutional variance of immigration law, rather than just PARDON ALL of the 'dreamers' to that point who'd entered the country illegally??? He HAD that authority, for sure, as does any President.....
Was it too much work, because he supposedly can't blanket pardon' and he didn't want to have to sign three quarters of a million or so pardons???
Rather than try to draw no distinctions between felonies or serious crimes and with low level criminal code violations, still crimes, you should ask why your ideologically sympathetic ex-President never bothered to do anything for the 'dreamers' that could not be simply wiped out by the next guy, as Obama KNEW could be done. WHY DIDN'T HE MAKE THE 'DREAMERS' FREE AND CLEAR AS IT WAS WITHIN HIS POWER TO DO SO TO PARDON FOR COMMISSSION OF A CRIME????

Riddle me this....??

Mark Aaron

"a baby who poops his pants a little bit has still pooped his pants...so it is with being a 'little bit' illegal.."

Do you know the difference between civil law and criminal law? Do you know the difference between felonies and misdemeanors? Your 'poop' analogy is just that, poop.

"Why not use your training as an attorney and NOT pretend that just anyone can allow justice to be postponed. A judge can do it, if the law allows, but a person who does not have the legal authority to change laws also does not have it to defer their impact..."

Who do you think runs the Executive branch of government George? Why do you pretend the US Justice Department doesn't have the right of prosecutorial judgement or deferred adjudication?

Lisa Gray

Isn't it amazing that some folks on this thread just come across as having hate in their heart? I am surprised that the GCDN lets him get away with telling someone to " go suck an egg, George" I guess rules are different for the ones with left leaning views. Hmmm, and people wonder why no one has confidence in the media.

George Croix

If I am the George to which you refer, Ms. Gray, rest assured that I truly do not care what the 'new Sherrif in town' as one 'deputy' termed it ([beam][beam]) says, and have read and will read ZERO comments with that guy's name on it for the last three weeks and will not for whatever time comes. I'm not getting dragged down there any more.
After finding out from him in his own words in response to my invite to get together and hash out issues over a Diet Coke and Fritos that he's 100% disabled and has a terminal heart illness, I just tuned out. I don't argue with disabled and/or sick people if I know about it, and feel bad that I did for a few times, and try to make it a rule to avoid attitudes at a distance, as it removes too much of the restraint that is the norm with in person conversation.
Heck, if I was in that condition, I might act the same.....well, no, I would not, but I understand why someone else might....
I wish the poor old man well, and hope he gets the medical help he needs or any other kind of help. And I hope he enjoys himself posting his stuff. But for myself, I can't respond to what I don't read, and when I say 'disregard' I mean disregard....
The GDN? Well, if one doesn't want to be on the forums, one does not have to be, but we all get to choose what we read....or not....and that's a good thing...
The people who count anyway are the ones who know you for what you really are, not what some other person says....
Besides, what would be the fun here without at least one SELF...that's SELF-described "skunk" stirring up the little "cliques"...... [beam][beam][beam][beam][beam][beam][beam][beam][beam][beam]

Mark Aaron

"I can't respond to what I don't read, and when I say 'disregard' I mean disregard...."

That's okay George. As long as everyone else comes to understand how you mislead and misrepresent my objective is more than satisfied. At least you don't beat a dead horse to death as Carlos is wont to do. [yawn]

Mark Aaron

"Isn't it amazing that some folks on this thread just come across as having hate in their heart? I am surprised that the GCDN lets him get away with telling someone to " go suck an egg, George""

Yes, that was pretty rude of Carlos. Some people just have hate in their heart, like those people who like to demonize immigrants and minorities at every opportunity.

Jose' Boix

The travesty and the issue seemingly that gets missed is that there is no process or system to be able to enforce the current immigration laws or acts or edicts. And the government and our legislators keep adding "Band-Aid patches" as "illusionary fixes" to make believe they are actively doing something effective. One of the many examples is the over 2M folks who are still here after their "legal entry visas" expired. Another is the lack of enough judges to deal with captured illegal who entered the USA. Then, all the media tends to post are examples of folks who are seemingly exemplary individuals who have lived, study, and worked in the USA for 5, 10 or 20 years and are still undocumented/illegals and they do not have a path to becoming legal. Then to wrap this irrational and incomprehensible situation, there seems to be some consensus regarding not wanting to deport but totally become unglued when a path to citizenship as an alternative is labeled amnesty. As a Cuban born, who entered the USA with a tourist visa, became a refugee then a resident and finally an American citizen, I understand.

George Croix

Mr. Boix, I'll bet you never marched in the streets protesting against America while carrying a Cuban flag .....
There's a world of difference between what I, personally, and I'd guess some others,. too, think about people who are actually in the same situatuon and have the same status, but some of them keep quiet and go about their lives while others holler and demand and 'protest' against the very country they left their own to come to...

Mark Aaron

" but some of them keep quiet and go about their lives while others holler and demand and 'protest' against the very country they left their own to come to..."

What in the world are you going on about George? More of your anti minority bigotry? Is that a dog-whistle I hear?

Jose' Boix

Mr. Croix, thank you. My point is that unless we can prove that we can enforce the current immigration laws, all we will do is debate - or waddle getting nowhere, like we have done. I had a defined process to follow, and believe me, it was enforced - though that was between 1960 and 1969.

George Croix

Yessir....sometimes the hurrier we go, the behinder we get....
I agree that an inability, or, more accuretly, unwillingness, to enforce current laws is not a reason to get new ones - enforce what we have, then refine as needed....
Time has marched backward when it comes to immigration policy meaning much...and had frozen in place for most practical purposes when it comes to enforcing it....
Isn't it interesting, though that, to date, the seemingly most effective border control technique has been electing someone promising to care about border control, with not a lot else added to that yet, except appointing like minded or close to it people to the agency's charged with doing so....
What's the latest total estimated decrease in illegal crossings...50%?...or more......
Legal immigration is a really good thing...illegal violation of the nation's immigration laws or turning a blind eye(s) is not.....especially when the people charged with enforcing them do it....top to bottom....

Mark Aaron

"What's the latest total estimated decrease in illegal crossings...50%?"

It was already at a net zero since 2014, George.

Mark Aaron

" Then, all the media tends to post are examples of folks who are seemingly exemplary individuals who have lived, study, and worked in the USA for 5, 10 or 20 years and are still undocumented/illegals and they do not have a path to becoming legal. Then to wrap this irrational and incomprehensible situation, there seems to be some consensus regarding not wanting to deport but totally become unglued when a path to citizenship as an alternative is labeled amnesty."

Republicans have intentionally demonized the word 'amnesty' to the point where it is no longer an option without humiliating themselves. They are very adept at demonizing things. On nearly every issue they have painted themselves into an extremist corner. That is why despite controlling the Whitehouse and Congress they can't get anything done. They have made their options radioactive. And if that weren't bad enough they want to demand a purity test on every issue. The test of course believes the correct answer is usually the most extreme one. No Amnesty, can't fix Obamacare, no new tax on the wealthy, no infrastructure spending, no compassion for foreigners, ad nauseam.

Jim Forsythe

Our  history of immigration reform  has not been a success .We need to change the visa program, as there are about 185 different types of visas. Do we need all of them? Does this program do, what we it needs to do, to protect us.

A new immigration program needs to be one that makes since. It has to be developed by both Democrats and Republicans. 
Our history is that we try and patch, and not fix it. If we do not change it, we will have the same discussion from now on.

We have always have had times, when we needed extra labor.
"During the entire period from 1942 to 1964, more Mexicans were repatriated as illegal entrants to the United States, as were legally admitted to legal employment as temporary foreign workers.’"

1965 was an end to the bracero program , but the flow of people did not stop.
"Lot of the people who came as braceros or in the future might have wanted to come as braceros, instead came illegally and the farmers continued to hire them, only they hired them now as illegal workers rather than as guest workers"

Ronald Reagan passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 was a attempt to help.
During the 1990s, the Commission on Immigration Reform was set up to advise the US government on illegal immigration, but the Clinton administration also failed to adopt a counterfeit-resistant identification document 
Although both the Bush and the Obama administrations tried to introduce comprehensive immigration reform, neither succeeded, despite immigration becoming a political issue at campaign time.

"‘The American Dream is the belief that through hard work and determination, any United States immigrant can achieve a better life, usually in terms of financial prosperity and enhanced personal freedom of choice.According to historians, the rapid economic and industrial expansion of the U.S. is not simply a function of being a resource rich, hard working, and inventive country, but the belief that anybody could get a share of the country's wealth if he or she was willing to work hard.This dream has been a major factor in attracting immigrants to the United States."

Mark Aaron

"We have always have had times, when we needed extra labor. "During the entire period from 1942 to 1964, more Mexicans were repatriated as illegal entrants to the United States, as were legally admitted to legal employment as temporary foreign workers.’"

I agree. We need a common sense guest worker policy. We need to bring our existing 8,000,000 undocumented residents out into the light and let them become legal citizens if deserving. They shouldn't be punished so brutally. Let the punishment fit the crime, which in a rational world ought not be any more than a sizeable, but affordable, fine. Then an in-country path to citizenship. Executed within reasonable bounds though, like no serious criminal history, stability, residency for 4-5 years (unless a child), some language fluency, etc.

I expect many will grouse about how this is an open invitation to a flood. To that I would respond, find a better way to secure the borders and entry points. Spend some real money on technical equipment that monitors unobtrusively, but effectively. No walls. More like electronic curtains people pass through. As of right now, if I remember correctly, net migration from Mexico Has fallen to zero. The borders aren't the real problem. Those who overstay visas are the tough ones to deal with. I don't really have any answers for that one.

George Croix

Congress passes laws, Jim, and a President signs them into law...at least, that's how it's supposed to work.
The biggest mistake Reagam made in that '86 legislation was trusting Congress to actually use the bite in it's own law to make immigration reform happen, and to actually control the borders.
Fooled him once...but once was enough....Congress, BOTH houses of it and both Parties, were more concerned about votes and campaign donations than their own law.
None of the other presidents, and Congresses, none of them, have done doodley of any import, either.....
It's the ultimate head shaker that Pres. Trump has stopped more illegal alien crossings just by being elected...so far......
That, too, will reverse if the old status quo is seen to devolve into the new one, too....
Got no problem with a legal guest worker program, but do wonder why we pay some of our own healthy citizens to sit on their but_s and not work while clamoring for foriegn workers....
The American Dream should count for it's citizens, too....

Mark Aaron

"It's the ultimate head shaker that Pres. Trump has stopped more illegal alien crossings just by being elected...so far......"

Probably a head shaker because it isn't true. Net migration from Mexico has been at zero or below since 2014.

George Croix

C'mon, Author...tell us this about the last Administration's failures on immigration despite having both Congressional houses and the Executive branch for 2 full years.
WHY DIDN'T HE MAKE THE 'DREAMERS' FREE AND CLEAR AS IT WAS WITHIN HIS POWER TO PARDON THEM ALL??
And for that matter, why didn't the Democrat controlled Congress make ALL illegal aliens legals during their two years? They COULD have...they could have legislated ALL OF THEM to be legal - amnesty for all.....why not, do you suppose....?????
Could it be because THEY were just taking the expected Hispanic votes for granted?

Mark Aaron

"WHY DIDN'T HE MAKE THE 'DREAMERS' FREE AND CLEAR AS IT WAS WITHIN HIS POWER TO PARDON THEM ALL??"

There is no precedent that I am aware of that allows a President to pardon civil offenses. He can certainly pardon for criminal offenses. Do you just not know the difference between civil and criminal law George? BTW, putting your ignorance of the law into all caps does make it easier to find. Thanks for that.

Gary Scoggin

Sorting through Mr. Aaron's trolling, he did make one salient point. People here illegally have committed a civil offense, not a criminal one. I got a speeding ticket not long ago (I deserved it.) Since I broke the law, does that make me a criminal? My point is that such labels stand in the way of meaningful conversation to address the issue.

I think Atty Gen Sessions was probably right in that the executive action creating the Dreamers was likely beyond President Obama's authority and that Congress ought to do its job and address the issue properly. In the meantime, it's good for the Administration to show prosecutorial discretion, as was suggested, and not deport people who have been here almost their entire lives and, as a whole, are barely distinguishable from American citizens.

George Croix

"A civil offense is a violation of an administrative matter."
"A criminal offense is a violation of a state or federal law."
"A misdemeanor is a low level criminal offense."
"An infraction is simply a low-level crime, one that’s less serious than a misdemeanor."
In Texas, speeding is classified as a civil offense. It's still illegal to speed.

Gary, all the word parsing in the world does not change the fact that violation of federal immigration law, which includes entering the country without legal permission to do so, is a crime, which is what a criminal offense is.

"8 U.S. Code § 1325 - Improper entry by alien
Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both."

The problem is not aided by trying to draw distinctions without a difference....

Sessions wasn't the only one:
"Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein said on MSNBC that the policy was on shaky legal ground, urging Congress to “pass a law.”
Dianne, one may recall, is not a part of the conservative caucus ....[beam][beam]
"Shaky legal ground" is French for we don't want it changed, even if it's illegal.....[beam][beam][beam]

Mark Aaron

"Gary, all the word parsing in the world does not change the fact that violation of federal immigration law, which includes entering the country without legal permission to do so, is a crime, which is what a criminal offense is."

Wrong, as usual George. Overstaying a visa, which is also a violation of federal immigration law, is not a criminal offense, it is a civil offense. Do try to keep up.

George Croix

ps:
"A criminal is someone who breaks the law."
So, yes.....
Just not a biggy, unless 'law' is the new 'meaning of is' now......
Like all laws, you have to get caught......[wink]

Mark Aaron

"A criminal is someone who breaks the law."

So by your wacky definition, George, anyone who gets a parking ticket is a criminal. There are few lengths you won't go to to demonize immigrants is there?
Who taught you to hate like that, George, and what was their motive?

Mark Aaron

"I think Atty Gen Sessions was probably right in that the executive action creating the Dreamers was likely beyond President Obama's authority and that Congress ought to do its job and address the issue properly. In the meantime, it's good for the Administration to show prosecutorial discretion, as was suggested, and not deport people who have been here almost their entire lives and, as a whole, are barely distinguishable from American citizens."

You just contradicted yourself Gary. On one hand you say President Obama exceeded his authority, and then you say it is good for this Administration to show prosecutorial discretion. The Dreamer program was nothing more the prosecutorial discretion/deferred adjudication. The President runs the Executive Branch, including the Justice Department. He has the right to order prosecutorial discretion within his own administration.

George Croix

pss:
I'm actually FOR exceptions that allow kids dragged here in the past by their illegal alien parents to remain. I just think it should be made a legal law, not a political football....and not an exercise in thumbing through Websters....

Mark Aaron

"I'm actually FOR exceptions that allow kids dragged here in the past by their illegal alien parents to remain. I just think it should be made a legal law, not a political football...."

Then quit voting for and supporting Republicans, especially Tea Party Republicans George.

George Croix

psss:
Sorry for the delay, Gary...had a little medical emergency here to attend to.....[sad]
Here's what some othger folks say:
"In the United States, illegal immigration IS (emphasis mine) a violation of criminal and administrative law, but not civil law.
Criminal vs Civil vs Administrative lawPeople that enter the United States without being inspected by an immigration officer at a port of entry can be criminally charged with 8 U.S.C. § 1325 : US Code - Section 1325: Improper entry by alien. Also under 8 U.S.C. § 1182, they are considered inadmissible under administrative law and can be processed for Removal from the United States.
Individual citizens cannot sue an illegal alien in court for having entered or being illegally present in the United States."

There are a multitude of similar references available to anybody, and in fairness there are also some that disagree, so yet again we find that it boild down to another variation of the menaing of 'is'......Interestingly, there seems to be a level of politicking involved in the interpretations of law....imagine that.....[whistling][wink]

The solution is simple, and at the same time hopeless:
All Congress, all of it, has to do is agree on revising and simplifying the immigration laws to reflect the removal of as many ambiguities or questions as possible, then the Supreme Court will ultimately have to weigh in to all the challenges to taht, so stand by to stand by until, oh, probably the 11th of Never.......
They really missed a chance by not legalizing ALL illegal entry 'immigrants' in '09-'10, and making open borders the norm, when they had the 3-way power to be so 'progressive'..... that would have been the end of that....
NOW? Well, now is about the 7th of Never.......[beam][beam]

Jose' Boix

Let me add one other bit of fuel to this raging debate. Regarding enforcement; how about the "eVerify" giving employers a process to confirm that workers to be hired are legal?

Carlos Ponce

That's a step in the right direction as long as there are enforceable penalties for those who hire. Presently many hire "under the table" - no records kept, no taxes paid, no Social Security Card produced, no eVerify, no insurance if there is a job site injury. Also employers are taking a risk by hiring illegal workers.
Hiring illegal immigrants can lead to many severe penalties, such as:
Criminal and civil fines
Loss of business licenses
Most fines are broken down to the following:
First offenders can be fined $250-$2,000 per illegal employee.
For a second offense, the fine is $2,000-$5,000 per illegal employee.
Three or more offenses can cost an employer $3000-$10,000 per illegal employee. A pattern of knowingly employing illegal immigrants can mean extra fines and up to six months in jail for an employer.
https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/penalties-for-employers-hiring-illegal-immigrants.html

George Croix

That's Jim's favorite....and I'd certainly agree that actually enacted and used and enforced, it would be a great tool to supplement the absence of real border enforcement tough enough to actually control them effectively, and to get some control over the existing in-house problem, but also doubt it would ever get more than token effort in reality once the 'leadership' speaker's podiums were vacated, as the same basic realities and inertia that stalled the '86 "immigration reform" still largely exists....politics over law.....
Politics wins every time.....

Mark Aaron

"Let me add one other bit of fuel to this raging debate. Regarding enforcement; how about the "eVerify" giving employers a process to confirm that workers to be hired are legal? "

Others here have made the same suggestion. It does seem like a good start.

Paula Flinn

Good article, Roberto. Uprooting the Dreamers is morally wrong. Dividing families, causing grief among families and friends, loss of jobs, loss of education begun, a loss in the military, and a loss of dreams is not what the United States stands for.

91% of the Dreamers are employed, and the rest are mostly still in school. They al know English or are learning. They do not receive welfare, nor do they vote, and they do pay taxes and pay for the right to renew their visas and stay here. Our economy would lose in a big way if they were deported. President Trump has caused these young people to live in fear that they may be sent to countries where they have not lived. I hope Congress quickly finds a way to keep them here and devises a plan so that they can become citizens. They are living sad and scared.

Carlos Ponce

Paula Flinn posts: " They al know English or are learning." If they all know English then they better pick better spokespersons for their cause. I've seen many "Dreamers" on TV whose reasoning to reinstate DACA had to be translated into English from Spanish . And this was not on a Spanish language network.

Mark Aaron

"I've seen many "Dreamers" on TV whose reasoning to reinstate DACA had to be translated into English from Spanish ."

Sure you did, Carlos. [rolls eyes]

Carlos Ponce

Paula Flinn posts, " I hope Congress quickly finds a way to keep them here and devises a plan so that they can become citizens."
Some don't to become American Citizens. And if Congress finds a way to legalize their immigration status then a path of citizenship is made available - the normal way - if they want it. An English speaking, American educated person in a country south of the border can make much money in their native pais (home country).

Paula Flinn

Carlos, is that why some families are going back to their native pais? Are there many white collar/blue collar jobs waiting for them? I would think only in the large cities.

Carlos Ponce

Paula posts: "Are there many white collar/blue collar jobs waiting for them? I would think only in the large cities."
Yes, and relatively decent paying jobs, most with industry, banking, government. And you're right about those jobs being in large cities, not pueblitos. But they don't live in the big city. They reside in colonias akin to our suburbs.

Mark Aaron

I agree Paula. Punishing innocents is not the American way. We can do better than that.

George Croix

It's going to drive the history book writers nuts when they discover that the years 2009 thru 2010 never really existed......[whistling]

Mark Aaron

"It's going to drive the history book writers nuts when they discover that the years 2009 thru 2010 never really existed......"

You are making no sense George. Or is that supposed to be some obscure dog whistle?

Jim Forsythe

If we would require E-verifying for all  jobs, housing, banking, visas, we could reduce the problem.
Reform the Visa program and put teeth in it, to make it were everyone wants to  comply.
Reduce the number of types of Visas (about 185 different types of visas)
Require weekly check-ins for people in the USA ,under a Visa.

Make sure  employers  correctly complete an I-9, This includes homeowners.
 Is the reason no one in DC wants to address this, is because they are making money off of immigration?
Change the way one becomes a USA citizen.
If the steps are to hard , than one does not want to address the problem.

Besides what Carlos outlined, the following is law
What Counts as Hiring an Illegal Immigrant?
Under federal law, it is illegal for any employer to engage with illegal immigrants in the following .
Hiring illegal immigrants
Recruiting illegal immigrants
Referring illegal immigrants for work and receiving a fee
This also includes hiring contractors who use illegal immigrants. There are criminal and civil penalties associated with this conduct.

It is also illegal for employers to not verify work authorization. Three days after an employee is hired, employers should correctly complete an I-9. Failing to do so will subject employers to criminal and civil punishment.

Go after more under the  RICO act , make it to costly not to  follow the law.

"Additionally, employers should be aware of the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. Employers can be sued under the act for hiring illegal immigrants, and can face large settlement deals.
The lawfully documented workers of the Zirkle Fruit Company recently settled a class action lawsuit brought under RICO. The suit alleged that their employer knowingly hired undocumented workers, driving down their wages."


George Croix

All excellent points, Jim.
They fall apart in actual practice because people talk out of both sides of their mouth, knowingly using illegals for cheap labor while complaining obout them, OR openly defy immigration laws by actively enabling illegals.
No teeth, no bite.....voluntary compliance is obviously a pipe dream.....
We've got only a few years to try and get some legally passed and signed into law immigration reform and national control of who is here, and there's no sign so far that EITHER Party is interested beyond a sound bite or two in front of a camera....
Worst of all are the 'open borders' hostiles.....
Those would be the ones who leave their own home doors unlocked for anyone wanting to come in to do so.....[whistling]

Mark Aaron

George: "They fall apart in actual practice because people talk out of both sides of their mouth"

You've been hanging around with too many Tea Partiers, George.

Mark Aaron

"Require weekly check-ins for people in the USA ,under a Visa."

That's quite oppressive, Jim. I doubt few other countries in the world would be that strict. Let there be some assumption of innocence, don't you think?

I don't have any better answers. My thought was some kind of chip in their visa that can be remotely located. Send a warning message that their visa is about to expire to that location. There are obvious gaping flaws in the plan, but it is only meant as suggestion to build on.

"Go after more under the RICO act , make it to costly not to follow the law. "

These make sense to me.

Jim Forsythe

." Let there be some assumption of innocence, don't you think?" How many innocence overstays do we have now, and the future?
When I worked for Amoco, and BP, I had to check in and out  every day that I worked. They had to account for me, and everyone else in the refinery .
Can we say that for people here in the USA on Visas? Why not?
When one of my sons was thinking about going to China to work, the amount of restrictions were a lot more than anything we have in the USA. One was he had to report if anyone tried to talk to him, that was from China. It may have been a company thing, but it sounded like a China rule. 
 
Reporting would be easy, jobs, schools ,other ways could be used. for reporting. Make.it clear when one comes to the USA on a Visa. what will be required of them, and if they do not want to follow the rules what will happen to them. If they do not want to follow the rules, then do not come.
Make the costs such that, no one will want to not report.

Mark Aaron

Jim: "How many innocence overstays do we have now, and the future?"

But you are punishing people before they do something wrong. You are assuming guilt before it happens. Like in the movie _Minority Report._ Is that really who we are now Jim?

George Croix

But, Jim, we were trained in how to swipe a card through a card reader, and were personally imposed upon by having to actually to go to Security and get our own barcoded ID badge made, if we wanted to work there.
Don't you think that's a bit much to expect of others...... [beam][beam][beam][beam][whistling]

Mark Aaron

George: "But, Jim, we were trained in how to swipe a card through a card reader, and were personally imposed upon by having to actually to go to Security and get our own barcoded ID badge made, if we wanted to work there.Don't you think that's a bit much to expect of others....."

Another of your arrogant bad analogies George. This one presumes easy access to a security check in. It ignores that people on visa may be traveling or working in remote locations. Try judging folks on something other than your narrow little life sometimes George.

Paula Flinn

How about President Trump's properties that have hired illegal workers, and are still hiring them. Recently there has been a call for more. Leadership comes from the top. Lead by example, Mr. President!

Carlos Ponce

Paula, do you really think President Trump has a say in the day to day operations at each of his properties? I'm certain that some of his managers, supervisors, contractors have hired illegal immigrants but to say he himself hired them is beyond logic.

Mark Aaron

Carlos: "Paula, do you really think President Trump has a say in the day to day operations at each of his properties? I'm certain that some of his managers, supervisors, contractors have hired illegal immigrants but to say he himself hired them is beyond logic."

Poor Carlos, ever the Trump apologist/dupe. I wonder what your response would be if the Clinton Foundation hired an illegal or temporary worker?

Mark Aaron

Paula: "How about President Trump's properties that have hired illegal workers, and are still hiring them. Recently there has been a call for more. Leadership comes from the top. Lead by example, Mr. President!"

I agree Paula. Many illegals were hired to build his towers. Now he likes to take jobs away from American workers by hiring foreign "temporary" workers. He claims he can't find Americans to work as cooks and waiters at places like Mar-a-Lago. Maybe if he paid a living wage he could, but Republicans are the party of cheap labor. They don't believe in paying a living wage.

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/309053-trump-will-again-hire-foreign-workers-to-staff-private-resort-in-florida

Jim Forsythe

When it's your house , you make the rules. What we are doing now , is letting Visa holders make the rules. If we do not change the rules, the results will not become better. Accountability now is lacking, and unless we get it, the number of  over stayers will increase. 
Just because we would be demanding accountability, does not mean we are assuming guilt
We are required to drive at the posted speed limit, and if we exceed it, we are held accountable. The posted speed limit does not assume I will speed..
If we wait until they are guilty, we would never find the over stayers. 

The difference from  Minority Report, is that it was using it against it's own citizens. 

If you have never watched  Gumball Immigration , the link is below, and it shows where we are headed.
 https://www.bing.com/search?q=gumball+immigration&form=EDNTHT&mkt=en-us&httpsmsn=1&refig=dce41ed0da234f74d768f18b1c96772c&sp=1&qs=SC&pq=gum+ball+im&sc=8-11&cvid=dce41ed0da234f74d768f18b1c96772c&cc=US&setlang=en-US

Mark Aaron

Jim: "We are required to drive at the posted speed limit, and if we exceed it, we are held accountable. The posted speed limit does not assume I will speed..
If we wait until they are guilty, we would never find the over stayers."

I see a couple of problems with this Jim. First you are setting a different speed limit for visa holders than for everyone else. While we get to drive 70 you want to force them to drive 35. And for what? If they want to overstay their visa they can just stop reporting and disappear. Meanwhile you are punishing them for something you think they might do. Not everyone overstays their visa. Why would you punish them?

George Croix

Jim, you're on target. The future is now. The NSA can track pretty near every electronic message and call and transmission, so it shouldn't be to much of a task for Govt. to track a compared-to-that microscopically small number of chipped/code inserted in visa papers or a card or something required to be on that person at all times. Just like nearly all of us are tracked by cell phone or automobile gps. No effect whatsoever on honest visa holders, and if a signal stops or triggers some type of predetermined criteria alarm, then at least it's better than no way right away there may be an issue than wait for falling skyscrapers. A little better is better than no better at all.
But, they can hand the card/whatever to somebody else.
Sure. We can also run stop signs, but honest people don't....
I'd suspect that it would even be possible to use biometric ID where a simple thumbprint on the ID device daily would be recorded in The Great Info Chamber Somewhere.
Of course, someone bad could always cut off the thumb of the good guy and use it...
There are ways to solve the accountability problem, and thousands more for the udsual suspects open borders types to object.....impale them with helical ridged objects...[beam]

Mark Aaron

George: " The NSA can track pretty near every electronic message and call and transmission, so it shouldn't be to much of a task for Govt. to track a compared-to-that microscopically small number of chipped/code inserted in visa papers or a card or something required to be on that person at all times."

If you wanted to over stay your visa and you knew the visa card would identify your whereabouts what is the first thing you would do?

"and thousands more for the udsual suspects open borders types to object....."

You suggest a simpleton's false dichotomy George, just because someone doesn't buy into your excessive schemes does not make them for open borders. In truth I doubt you could even cite a single person who is for "open borders."

Jim Forsythe

We a already punishing them (Marks words) , read the requirement for student Visas. It is very detailed in requirements for reporting.
We already have reporting requirement that are not working. If you are on a student Visa , reporting is already required, and the results are not good.
Student and Exchange Visitor Program
Federal laws and regulations require the Designated School Official (DSO) to update and maintain the SEVIS records of nonimmigrant students in F and M visa categories  https://www.ice.gov/sevis/dso-requirements

Do you want to leave the system the same as now, or stop people from overstaying.
" If they want to overstay their visa they can just stop reporting and disappear" that what happening now. If we do not change, it will get worse.
"Meanwhile you are punishing them for something you think they might do. Not everyone overstays their visa." 
If your idea of punishment, is having to follow the rule in another country, then what is a passport? It is shown by the person going to a country, so that country can account for them.
Your idea is that its to intrusive for someone to asked to be here, to report more often, so what is your plan to stop over staying Visas? Remember we already require some reporting on their part, so it just a shorter the time period between reporting , it just not working the way it should 
Along with more reporting, jail time must be included .If someone does not report , then we should pay them a visit and find out why.
If someone goes by the rules, they would not have a problem.

DO we have a problem, Congress was stunned, are you?
June 14, 2016
Immigration agents catch an abysmally small percentage of the illegal immigrants who arrived on visas but overstayed their welcome, authorities admitted to Congress Tuesday, describing a loophole that those around the globe are increasingly using to gain a foothold in the U.S.,
At least 480,000 people overstayed their visas last year, adding to a backlog that’s reached some 5 million total, members of Congress said. But immigration agents launched investigations into just 10,000 of them, or about 0.2 percent, and arrested fewer than 2,000, less than 0.04 percent, saying the others don’t rise to the level of being priority targets.
Members of Congress were stunned, saying more needs to be done to go after overstays.

George Croix

Jim...don't get drug down to that level...you are too good of a person.....

Mark Aaron

Jim: "Do you want to leave the system the same as now, or stop people from overstaying."

That is a false choice and non sequitur Jim. There is no evidence I am aware of that suggests stricter reporting will stop people overstaying their visas. Making it cumbersome and difficult is more apt to exacerbate the problem.

"Your idea is that its to intrusive for someone to asked to be here, to report more often, so what is your plan to stop over staying Visas? "

I never claimed to have one, Jim. I just don't believe oppressive reporting is justified or effective in addressing the problem.

Jim Forsythe

"Making it cumbersome and difficult is more apt to exacerbate the problem."
What would be required Is responding when they do not report, not months later if not years , more time passing, means the less chance that they can be found  , 
If once a week is to much for you, what would be the correct time period? 
What would you think is the right amount of  of time for them to report? Remember they are required to report now, so it just the time period that you do not like..
"no evidence I am aware of that suggests stricter reporting will stop people overstaying " The key to the reporting once a week is to be able to check on the ones that do not report that day , and take the action needed..

Oppressive reporting, would mean that we would be  unjustly inflicting hardship, which would not be true
.If it is to much to report just once a week, then they should not be coming here , if that is to much trouble then they do not really want to be here..
It is a privilege , not a right to be in the USA ,on a student Visa!

Mark Aaron

"What would you think is the right amount of of time for them to report? Remember they are required to report now, so it just the time period that you do not like.."

Given that I don't think more reporting is necessarily productive I would keep it at the current setting.

"If it is to much to report just once a week, then they should not be coming here, if that is to much trouble then they do not really want to be here.."

I have to disagree Jim. I think we can do better than that. I agree the problem of overstaying visas should be dealt with, I just can't see your option being effective, and I believe it is unnecessarily onerous. Surely there are other viable options, but that is above my pay grade. It is not something I have investigated.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.