Tuesday, September 11, 2007

Anchorage Assembly Defers Action On Paul Bauer's Proposed Immigration Ordinance Until November 27th

At tonight's regular meeting of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly, further action on AO 2007-125 was delayed until November 27th.

The ordinance was introduced and seconded by two other Assembly members per normal parliamentary procedure. During this phase, no public testimony is taken. Assembly Chair Dan Coffey then decided to assign this ordinance to the Assembly's Public Safety Committee for further review. This is a normal process with municipal legislation and should not be interpreted at this time to mean that it is being deliberately sandbagged, although there are some within Anchorage's civic plutocracy, to include the Anchorage Daily News, who would like to kill it.

The Public Safety Committee only meets once per month. The September meeting of this committee is jeopardized because its chair, Matt Claman, may have to leave town for a legal issue in Bethel, AK (Claman is a practicing attorney). The October meeting already has a full agenda. Thus November is the earliest occasion when it can be heard.

Before Coffey farmed it out, Assemblywoman Sheila Selkregg voiced three concerns. First, she expressed concern about the possibility or perception of racial profiling. Second, she expressed concern about whether or not the Anchorage Police Department had adequate resources to fulfill the requirements of the ordinance. And finally, she expressed concern about the impact upon minority residents; to wit: would they be just as willing to report accidents or crimes against them if they are illegal, with the corresponding risk of deportation?

Of course, the first and third concerns expressed by Selkregg are a tacit admission that immigration is predominantly non-white, illegal aliens are predominantly non-white, and non-whites are responsible for a disproportionate percentage of crime. However, you will not see those conclusions discussed in the establishment media in Anchorage; only a small part of the blogosphere dares raise these issues.

The community overwhelmingly supports Bauer's proposed ordinance. In last night's KTUU Channel 2 poll, 73% of respondents expressed support for the ordinance. While their poll is "unscientific", it has proven to be a reasonable barometer of public opinion. One cannot vote more than once on the same computer and from the same ISP, so there are some quality controls.

The Anchorage Daily News published an editorial column today (September 11th) opposing the measure, asserting that the drawbacks would outweigh the benefits and in general blowing it off as overkill. First, ADN claims Anchorage is not exactly "awash" with illegals. Really? Of course, that is a true statement, but should we wait until we are "awash" before we take action? Visit the Los Angeles Sucks blog to find out more about life in a metro area that is currently "awash" with illegals.

ADN also claims that the term "sanctuary city" should not apply to us because we don't absolutely ban official interaction between APD and immigration officials. There is some truth to this. The term "sanctuary city" as defined by both Bill O'Reilly and OJJPAC is a bit too broad. OJJPAC has taken ownership of the term "sanctuary city" in much the same fashion as the ADL and the SPLC have been allowed to take ownership of "hate" and "racism". However, unlike ADL and SPLC, who clearly have an anti-white, anti-Gentile agenda, OJJPAC's motives are much purer, but we should judge ourselves on absolute terms rather than kowtowing to a special interest group's definition.

The final version of this ordinance needs to address some of the issues that Sheila Selkregg pointed out. However, adoption of this ordinance will prevent Anchorage from becoming an open city for illegals and will show the rest of the country that we are serious about fighting for our country's sovereignty.


  1. it's funny how obvious your position is towards this issue; so much for your "objective account of the facts concerning Alaska" but this is your blog so keep spouting, i just thought that that your hypocrisy should be highlighted. peace.

  2. Objective in the sense that I present the leading arguments from both sides. However, I do lead people to a partisan conclusion.

  3. Here is my letter to the APD regarding the "report and deport"


    I read your response to Mr. Bauer’s proposed “report and deport” ordinance. Your reluctance to indorse this issue is unconscionable! You are paid from my tax dollars and therefore you have a duty to protect and enforce “all” the laws of this country. I guess by your logic if someone is robbing a bank you do not have to do a thing since that is a “federal” offense! So gentlemen which laws of this country do you intend to enforce and which are you not going to enforce? This ordinance is not designed to make you immigration officers it simply says if you apprehend some one for a crime that during the identification process you determine the legal status of the individual and if that person is here illegally you call ICE, if you do not have the time, about 1 minute by my estimate, then something is wrong with your priorities. I for the life of me cannot understand what the problem is here! The Federal government will even send your officers to school to educate them about the subject at their cost. IE: 287G program. If you are not going to ask the legal status of someone you apprehend then I guess as a citizen of this country and this city if I am present “I can ask” that question of the offender and then make a citizens arrest. Is that OK with you? You see gentlemen by advocating selective enforcement of the law you advocate anarchy. By your logic I guess I have the right to refuse to pay my property tax since I do not like it or is it just you who decide what group is bound by what laws! Where in the Constitution is that located?

    This Politically Correct, Multicultural argument that “well there are only about 3500 illegal’s in the city” therefore it is OK to look the other way begs the question, how many are criminals, how many are gang members, why are they here, and from what countries, are they Mexican nationals, El Salvadorian M13 gang, or Al Qaida? If the APD is so sure this is not a problem they wish to address, then I demand that APD guarantee me and my family and the law abiding citizens of this community that not one of these law breakers will, rape my wife, car jack me or any other person, sell illicit drugs to Anchorage school children, rob me at gun point or as the city of Newark found out, shoot any of our kids in the back of the head! Gentlemen, if you cannot assure me that none of those things will happen then you have only one duty to this community and that is to do everything within your power to enforce the laws not only of the City of Anchorage but the laws of this country and to adopt any policy that will discourage illegal alien law breakers from residing in the City of Anchorage. Let me point this fact out to you, all of those 3500 illegal’s are criminals and here is how I got there! There are two ways to get to Alaska by dog sled and by airplane I think it reasonable to assume that all arrived by airplane therefore each one of them had cross the border illegally that is a criminal offense, they had to present to TSA picture ID that was obviously false that is a Federal Felony, they then used a false Social Security number to get work or they received cash under the table both are violations of IRS rules and Federal Felony’s, just what does the APD not understand about law enforcement? Are you telling me that when you have a suspect in custody and you suspect he is here illegally and has committed four felony offenses to get here that your “don’t ask don’t tell’ policy absolves you from your sworn duty! Gentlemen, are you telling me that you will not enforce the laws of this country? If that is the case then not only do we need a change in City policy but a house cleaning in APD.


    Mike Sweeley

    Eagle River, Alaska