« I GUESS THE DFL DOESN’T WATCH TELEVISION | Home | MDE EXCLUSIVE: AL FRANKEN CLAIMS TO BE FRIEND OF THE WORKING MAN AND WOMAN, YET $25,000 JUDGMENT FILED AGAINST FRANKEN’S COMPANY FOR FAILURE TO CARRY WORKERS’ COMP INSURANCE »
PRESS RELEASE FROM REPRESENTATIVE MARTY SEIFERT: “SEIFERT AMENDMENT ON ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION FAILS BY ONE VOTE”
By Michael B. Brodkorb | March 4, 2008
I received this press release yesterday afternoon.
###
Representative Marty Seifert (R-Marshall) came up one vote short on an amendment to a bill that would have taken local aid away to cities that prohibit their law enforcement officers from inquiring about the legal status of people detained by police.
Currently, Minneapolis and St. Paul disallow their police officers from inquiring about the status of people detained for violations of the law. Reports of illegal aliens using the two cities as "safe harbors" have come tolight since the cities adopted the ordinances some years ago.
"Something needs to be done to bring sanity to this insane system," Seifert said.
Seifert's amendment failed 66-67, with DFLers keeping the voting board open and urging their members to vote against the measure. All of Seifert's fellow Republicans voted for the amendment, while all votes in opposition were DFLers. Seifert was able to persuade 18 DFLers to vote with him, but it wasn't enough.
Seifert said he would try to attach measures to restrict illegal immigration to any bills that would relate to the topic.
Roll Call vote failed 66-67.
Tags: Marty Seifert
Topics: Marty Seifert | 42 Comments »
42 Responses to “PRESS RELEASE FROM REPRESENTATIVE MARTY SEIFERT: “SEIFERT AMENDMENT ON ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION FAILS BY ONE VOTE””
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
March 4th, 2008 at 10:23 AM
***“Seifert was able to persuade 18 DFLers to vote with him, but it wasn’t enough.”***
Doncha wonder how the DFL will punish these dam DINOs??!?
You know, take away their leadership positions? Threaten ‘em with challengers?
March 4th, 2008 at 11:47 AM
To bad the DFL is so desperate for voters that they are willing to let law breakers run free. I wonder how people feel about them letting illegals go and then having them pop up again as killers. The DFL needs to be held accountable for deaths like the ones in Cottonwood.
March 4th, 2008 at 12:16 PM
Maybe I can use my tax rebate to buy a flak jacket, one of the drive by shootings was in my area or they could get an amendment passed to give the illegals shooting lessons so we would not have stray bullets hitting the buildings. Oh I forgot the dems and rinos took my tax rebate.
March 4th, 2008 at 12:19 PM
***“…they are willing to let law breakers run free.”***
Say, Pete?
It was Bush The Lesser that let let G. Gordon Libby, er, ‘scuse me, L. Scooter Liddy, er, ‘scuse me, “L. Scooter Libby”, go free.
March 4th, 2008 at 12:28 PM
That’s about the dumbest thing I’ve ever read, One Nut.
March 4th, 2008 at 12:33 PM
My God this is so F-ing infuriating.
Michael, can you post the list of commies who voted against this?
March 4th, 2008 at 12:36 PM
I dont see why the DFL should pay for the Cottonwood kids, that isn’t the Twin Cities, Cottonwood isnt a “sactuary city”.
I just love coming to this site now and just going, hahahaha, the GOP fails again. and again. and again. oh and again,
March 4th, 2008 at 12:43 PM
PAW-lenty CLAWS [not Santa Claus] are coming out. They are going to rip, tear, lacerate, to make St. Paul a “national” Showdown City at the expense of state & local Minnesotans.
PAW-CLAWS looks like they are more in the element of demolition than of bridge-building.
March 4th, 2008 at 12:59 PM
TPT, Andrew and el presidente way to stay on topic, product of public schools?
March 4th, 2008 at 1:27 PM
Well, OGVette, ya see:
When some Republicans crossed the aisle recently, T-Paw and Seifert smacked ‘em around pretty hard.
So, I was wonderin’ if Margie was gonna whip out a can o’ whup-ass on them 18 that crossed the aisle to Seifert’s side, on THIS vote!
So, I was on topic; you just couldn’t figure it out.
I know some rightwingnut wouldn’t be able to connect the dots; I just wasn’t sure which one would be first to admit it.
March 4th, 2008 at 2:20 PM
TPT My fault I could have sworn the topic was Seifert amendment on illegal immagration fails by one vote. Next time I will try to read the lib version into it. If I can not argue the point I will resort to calling names like you.
March 4th, 2008 at 2:34 PM
The real point to the amendment was to take away funding from cities that “harbor” illegals. Currrently, Mpls. and St. Paul, among others, refuse to cooperate with the Feds and even report illegals if they are stopped by city police. That ought to enrage even DFLers, the fact that certain cities have a policy to purposely thumb the nose at federal LAW.
I heard a number of Metro reps saying this was punishing the local police. No it did not. It required cities to report illegals and no longer be “sanctuary cities”.
Most of the DFL won’t be harmed by this because their voters won’t hold them accountable. However, there are number of rural reps who might pay the price, those such as Aron Peterson who voted no.
March 4th, 2008 at 2:36 PM
OGVette, I note, again, that Michael posted:
“Seifert was able to persuade 18 DFLers to vote with him, but it wasn’t enough.”
Therefore, my commenting on retribution on the GOPer side, or (presumably) lack thereof on the DFL side, is fair game.
Get it?
March 4th, 2008 at 2:39 PM
MrMustang,
Isn’t there a notable opinion among law enforcement professionals that “Sanctuary City” designation actually DECREASES crime, makes law-abiding citizens safer, and makes law enforcement easier?
March 4th, 2008 at 2:50 PM
Democrats are the party defending the exploitation of illegal aliens. The favor exploiting illegal aliens for low wages. The favor that exploitation’s affect on lowering wages overall for the working poor. And Democrats oppose any effort to halt human trafficking, which is rampant in the sex and drug traded.
Minneapolis Democrats, specifically, opposed participation of that cities police in efforts to apprehend illegal aliens running a prostitution ring in their city. They preferred that those women be held in bondage and be forced to operate in the sex trade.
That is the Democrat party.
March 4th, 2008 at 3:00 PM
It sure was not safer around Richfield on sunday at 6pm with bullets flying everywhere (they are a do not ask city) but that was probably some rightwingnut trying to wipe out illegal aliens.
March 4th, 2008 at 3:09 PM
Two Putt: I’m sure that “notable opinion” is a great comfort to the parents of the dead children in Cottonwood. Hard evidence vs. theory, no contest.
March 4th, 2008 at 3:10 PM
***”Democrats are the party defending the exploitation of illegal aliens.”
Yeah, “right”.
“The (sic) favor exploiting illegal aliens for low wages. ”
Yep – Unions are ALL OVER that one!!!
“And Democrats oppose any effort to halt human trafficking, which is rampant in the sex and drug traded. ”
ROFLMAO!!!!
Is El Druggo back on the meds, AGAIN?!?! I mean, seriously, you can’t make this stuff up; so – where do you get it??!?
March 4th, 2008 at 3:12 PM
Booyah – border security is a function of the FEDERAL government; you guys have controlled the Oval Office for Seven years – and had control of the Senate and House.
What’s your excuse?
March 4th, 2008 at 3:19 PM
Tell me Chestnut, who do all these meat packing and processing businesses make political donations to? It couldn’t be primarily to the Republicans could it
You can’t have your cake and eat it too dumbass. Immigration is a federal issue and unless they are given the resources and directive to do their job everyday(not just once every year or two to make political buzz) nothing will change. Local police across Minnesota are understaffed and overworked and don’t have the time or training to deal with immigration violations. They don’t need to waste half of their day on the phone to INS, only to have them say in return “we don’t want them, thanks”.
March 4th, 2008 at 3:32 PM
Seifert re-worded this amendment and re-offered it later that night. With an absent Republican who had the flu returning to vote “yes” on it, the DFL had two missing people too. They forced Dave Dill (safe DFL seat) and Scott Kranz (retiring) to switch their vote from the morning. You could see Sertich hovering over Dill’s desk when Seifert’s amendment came up. Let’s see, he’s the only “chairman” that voted with Seifert that morning. Don’t tell people that the DFL doesn’t force people to vote one way or another. The don’t need to punish because they won the vote.
March 4th, 2008 at 3:43 PM
two putt: So if a state trooper pulls over someone engage in weapons trafficking, they should ignore it because its a federal issue?
March 4th, 2008 at 3:52 PM
Don’t be rediculous, booyah.
I’d educate you about the law enforcement philosophy behind “Sanctuary City”, but:
I don’t have the time, and
I doubt you’d pass the test.
Here’s my take – I don’t agree with the complete Law Enforcement philosophy, but I understand it. And I also understand that as long as there is no coherent national immigration policy AND porous borders, local governments are going to consider “Sanctuary City” status and there are valid Law Enforcement reasons to do so.
But, let’s get back to a question you ignored, booyah:
***
Booyah – border security is a function of the FEDERAL government; you guys have controlled the Oval Office for Seven years – and had control of the Senate and House.
What’s your excuse?
***
March 4th, 2008 at 4:10 PM
Wow, twoputt, you’re a real asshole. Why are you always trolling here, anyway?
If you are so offended by the “punishment” of the 6 Repubs that crossed the aisle, take a minute to read the Platform of the Republican Party of Minnesota. They directly violated it. Should we pat them on the head and tell them that’s OK?
If a few in your party of the gutter morals voted to ban abortion and it passed, would the DFL just tell them that’s OK? Don’t tell me they would, hypocritical jerk.
March 4th, 2008 at 4:41 PM
The voters will never dump Aaron Peterson. We had someone run against him last time (Mike Bredeck) that could run circles around the boy and he still won. He continues to live off daddy plus as with most people who vote DFL they do it because they are told to – does sheep come to mind? We can only hope that he will actually not run again this year – something that he has denied but still looks likely.
March 4th, 2008 at 4:55 PM
“If you are so offended by the “punishment†of the 6 Repubs that crossed the aisle,…”
Not offended at all!
If you want to enforce party discipline, knock yourself out!!!
Why stop at discipline, though? “Kick them RINOs OUT!!!” why doncha?
March 4th, 2008 at 5:05 PM
I don’t know two putt. Maybe it was a result of the same thing that happened with all the federal judges that were blocked by filibusters. You know, its tough to get something through when half of the legislating body is so afraid of their shadows (their donors), that they won’t move on any policy.
However two putt, I don’t recall any of this post as talking about border enforcement. I mean, state police (federal dollars from homeland security do go to all law enforcement entities) enforce all other federal drug, gun laws. Why so scared to do if for illegal immigration? I mean, I guess I would be scared too if I had my election laws aimed at allowing illegals to vote for me, with no illegals in the state to vote.
March 4th, 2008 at 5:17 PM
Booyah, here’s the deal – and I’m NOT saying I agree with this; I’m just saying this is what the argument is: if illiegal immigrants are worried the local cops are gonna toss ‘em to ICE, if they witness, say, a strong-arm robbery, they’re gonna high-tail it as far (cheney)in’ away from the scene as they can.
If they witness a pimp smackin’ a ho around, they’re not gonna tell the local cop. If the illegal is a woman, and her ol’ man is pullin’ a Mark Olson on her, she’s not gonna call 9-11.
That’s just part of the argument; to dismiss this argument that a WHOLE LOT of law enforcement professionals support due to political rhetoric is crazy.
March 4th, 2008 at 7:11 PM
If any of the Dems are punished election time I’d hope Koenen would be first on the list. He voted NO and represents half of the lakeview school district, the district of the bus accident.
March 4th, 2008 at 7:45 PM
Koenen is an idiot, just like Aaron Peterson. The people again had an excellent alternative during the last election and still re-elected this fool. It would be nice if Scott Van Binsbergen would run again and boot the fool out of office.
March 5th, 2008 at 6:53 AM
“Tell me Chestnut, who do all these meat packing and processing businesses make political donations to? It couldn’t be primarily to the Republicans could it ?”
I don’t know. And neither do you.
And I, a Republican, join many other Republicans, in demanding that those who hire illegal aliens be thrown in jail and/or face corporation killing penalties.
The Democrat Party is the party of exploitation, oppression and socialism.
March 5th, 2008 at 6:55 AM
“And I also understand that as long as there is no coherent national immigration policy ”
What the hell are you talking about. The coherent immigration policy is “here’s the legal way, there’s the illegal way. If you take the illegal way, we’ll deport your ass.”
Democrats position on illegal immigration is the only thing that’s incoherent… and immoral…
March 5th, 2008 at 9:16 AM
HOLD THE BOAT HERE !!! I just returned to Minnesota after living in the the SW Phoenix for ten years. BOTH PARTIES are too blame here. Bush and McCain have done this country no favors. However, Democrats are soft on this issue too.
Over 2/3rd’s of Arizonans twice voted for tough restrictions on illegal immigrants. The first resolution denied them getting benefits from the state. The Democrat Governor and Attorney General have dragged their heels and refused to enforce the law. The second resolution was to get tougher on employers by taking away their business licence. This time it was the good ole C of C and Jerry Colangelo (McCain’s good buddy) that have fought this to the bitter stump.
Both sides need to look in the mirror.
The problem is that Minnesota does not have a Sheriff Joe Arapio. He chooses to enforce the law despite political pressure on both sides of the aisle.
March 5th, 2008 at 1:01 PM
eight putt:
Get real!!!
Bush handed the prosecution over to an indepent counsel who went and conducted a proper investigation. This bill was tell cities like Minneapolis and Saint Paul to turn info over for investigation.
Libby was prosecuted and convicted. What Bush did was say he didn’t have to go to jail. What Minneapolis and Saint Paul are saying hey we don’t care if you’re an illegal alien.
And just curious if you don’t like Scotter breaking the law why do you say it’s okay for the cities of Minneapolis and Saint Paul to cover up for the law breaking of illegal aliens.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
March 5th, 2008 at 3:59 PM
Maybe I am missing something, but what does the Scooter Libby case have anything to do with the illegal immigration problem?
Rather than bickering, our political leaders need to get some ba**s and do what the Arizona legislature did. Cut the head off, deny them benefits, get tough on employers along with the ones smuggling the illegals in here (aka coyotes). Then start jailing the illegals here as accomplices with the coyotes.
Like Arizona, you will soon see that illegals will leave on their own. The fallout from this is that wages will rise, unemployment, student to teacher ratios, crime and monthly apartment rents will drop.
It is so simple that it is frightening.
March 5th, 2008 at 10:32 PM
Tim the point is that there was a person who seems to think that it was more important to talk about Scooter libby’s than illegal immigration. I was just trying to demonstrate that he has no case.
After all if this person wants to claim that he cares about that lawbreaking he has to agree with us that the cities shouldn’t cover for illegal aliens.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
March 6th, 2008 at 9:07 AM
Walter– I see where you are getting at.
What I do this not follow down that path with a liberal. I break down the REAL reason they are so pro-illegal immigration. Usually it breaks down to one of three reasons:
1) They don’t want to be called a “racist”. Which I am finding out in Minnesota is more serious crime than killing 4 children.
2) Follow the money.
3) They still feel guilty about what their long dead ancestors allegedly did to some other group’s long dead ancestors.
Once they admit the REAL reason–I can seriously debate with them why they are wrong.
On this issue–no Minnesota liberal has a chance against me. I lived with the problem and it is coming this way if we continue to stick our head in the sand. The gang shootings, people running stop signs and killing innocent drivers—I have seen this before. It will only get worse unless we take a very hard line. Trust me, the legal immigrants will walk in the with us and fight the problem too.
March 6th, 2008 at 3:49 PM
Walter;
Bush and the Republicans had four years of total control and they did nothing to “fix” the issues that you speak of, why?
I guess this is the way the Republicans control their base, by doing nothing and then blaming the Democrats?
That’ll do Sheeple that’ll do
March 6th, 2008 at 5:06 PM
Tim M: You forgot reason #4: Illegals, with a utility bill for ID, will show up at the polls and vote for democrats.
A very, very compelling reason to protect them. And, it doesn’t get much slimier than that.
March 6th, 2008 at 5:50 PM
Hi guys not to jump in your argument here or anything, but just for the heck of it lets say this is a bad idea. I will explain why:
1. If officers are given the right to question immigration status, it is only fair to believe the amount of illegals reporting violent crime will fall a great deal.
2. Who would the majority of officers be questioning? Mostly hispanics, a good amount which would have legal status. This would mean the officers are racially profiling them. Which as we all know, leads to a decent amount of legal problems. I mean c’mon, Bob Anderson and Tom McCormick will not be questioned but rather, there friends from south of the border.
3.Many lawmakers know how expensive plans like this would be, If there are as many illegals as some have said, and cities would have to spend A LOT of money deporting them.
just for arguement
inb4 took our jobs/criminals
March 6th, 2008 at 6:10 PM
“rather, their friends from south of the border.”
correction.
March 7th, 2008 at 7:19 AM
I forgot in this state asking for IDs at the voting is considered racism. Just like allowing
the two racetracks to have casino gambling is considered racism.
Look George, in the last two years in Phoenix the following has happened to me or members of my immediately family at the hands of illegal immigrants:
1) My brother’s van stolen in front of my home. When it was found it was full of meth. The police where afraid to arrest the illegals because, “it would piss them off.”
2) Shortly thereafter someone tried to break into his condo.
3) Unexplained checks from his old business started showing up at checking cashing stores.
4) My then 7 year old son and 10 year old daughter were attacked by six older illegals. Luckily my children are trained in the martial arts and it was the illegals who walked away bleeding and missing teeth. Of course, the police wanted to cite me and my children’s martial arts instructor.
5) Our neighborhood was terrorized by a stalker who was asked school children to come into his truck. When he was arrested, he was identified as a “migrant”.
6) Got my windows of home and van shot out.
7) One percent of every $20 bill passed in the SW Valley of Phoenix was phony. Thanks to a coyote printing money. They passed these things at my garage sale and at my daughter’s fund raising car wash.
If you want a more local approach, drive up to Melrose. That once proud town is being brought to its knees by the illegal workers brought in by Jenny-O. A company will not even place an ad in the high school football program.
EXCUSE ME IF A FEW PEOPLE ARE INCONVENIENCED!
The dirty little secret is that a majority of Hispanics actually support anti-illegal immigration measures.
Since when does a liberal care about how much anything cost?