Cook County Board makes immigration statement they’ve already made

The Cook County Board this week is likely to take an action that I’m sure the conservative ideologues of our society will lambast as a federal offense, if not treasonous and downright “un-American.”

GARCIA: Making national news?

Actually, it’s more a symbolic gesture. But leave it to the overly partisan among us to exaggerate the significance of something.

THE ISSUE AT stake here is immigration reform. And for what it’s worth, the county board back in 2010 approved a resolution stating that it officially supports the concept of comprehensive reform of the nation’s immigration laws, and also has passed vague measures saying the county wouldn’t do business with Arizona companies because of that state’s hostile laws on this particular issue.

The action likely to be taken when the county board meets on Wednesday merely reinforces the fact that the Democrat-led government body supports the idea that treating people from other countries whose papers aren’t in line as vicious criminals is just absurd.

So I personally don’t think this gesture is really worth much attention, although the reports being disseminated in anticipation of the county board’s likely vote would have you think that Cook County is “taking center stage” in the ongoing debate over immigration reform.

The measure in question is being sponsored by county Commissioner Jesus Garcia (one of two Latino members of the 17-member county board), and it says that the county sheriff should refuse to hold people in the Cook County Jail just because federal immigration officials have issued a “detainer.”

WHAT HAPPENS IS that if someone gets arrested in the county and there becomes reason to suspect that their immigration status is suspicious, a federal detainer is issued.

That detainer means that the person gets held at the county jail even if they are capable of posting bond for their charge – or even if their charge gets dismissed or otherwise resolved.

It means that county jail officials get roped into the business of holding onto immigration cases until the officials with the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency are able to get around to resolving those cases.

In some cases, the county incarceration for people who have no pending criminal charge against them is significant.

CONSIDERING THAT IT’S only the ideologues who want to view these people as criminals, it puts the county into having to take up the “wrong side” of the debate on this particular issue.

Garcia’s resolution does include a clause saying that the county jail should only hold these immigration cases if the U.S. government provides the county with a written agreement by which it will reimburse Cook County for all costs of incarceration.

Immigration officials have said they have no intention of reimbursing Cook County because they don’t reimburse any local jurisdiction for the costs caused by immigration detainers. I’m sure they want to view this issue as a courtesy extended by one law enforcement agency to another, and that Cook County officials are off on some sort of diatribe.

What it really is about is making sure people understand that the government officials in Chicago are sympathetic to the people who live here, particularly since it is a city where even the so-called white people are strongly aware of their ethnic origins.

MEANING THAT THE county board’s opposition to being involved in this issue has nothing to do with money. I suspect that even if the federal government were to offer to “pay up” for incarceration costs, the officials who vote against this idea when it comes up this week would still be opposed to the general concept.

As for those who are going to say that this issue is going to cause a lengthy court battle, you’d already be correct.

For the National Immigrant Justice Center already has filed a lawsuit that claims detainers are an un-Constitutional concept. It is pending in the U.S. District Court for Chicago and northern Illinois, and is based on the idea that someone who does not have a pending local criminal charge against them should not be held in a local jail.

Consider it the equivalent of the county telling the federal government, “Do your own dirty work” when it comes to detaining people and holding them while their status is resolved.

PERHAPS IF FEDERAL ICE officials had to be responsible for full incarceration for everybody they take an interest in, then they’d seriously try to find only those people without papers who pose a serious threat to our society – instead of engaging in mass raids that try to pick up as many people as possible (almost like a ballplayer trying to boost his batting average at the end of the season to try to get a contractual bonus).

I have a hard time getting that excited about this particular action because, like I wrote earlier, this is more of a symbolic gesture. This particular measure already has nine sponsors, including the county board president herself.

There will probably be heated debate, and at least a couple of angry suburban types on the county board who decide to vote against this measure just to be ornery.

But anyone who thinks that Toni Preckwinkle and the county board majority is significantly changing its thought process by approving this measure is seriously missing the point.

  -30-

What to get Obama for his birthday? He wants cash, as in campaign contributions

By the time you read this, Barack Obama will have slipped into and out of Chicago.

He celebrates the big 5-oh on Thursday, officially having been alive for half a century. But the public portion of his birthday celebration was done last night at the Aragon Ballroom.

IT WAS A concert. Obama himself returned to his home city to make an appearance at the concert – which featured such Chicago-native talent as Jennifer Hudson and Herbie Hancock.

Yet before anyone gets the impression that Obama is a man of the people who likes to party hearty, keep in mind that this was a political event just as much as any other he would have attended.

For the tickets to get into the Wednesday night fundraisers went from anywhere from $50 each to $35,800.

People who paid the top price were provided with some food and also likely had some direct access to the president himself. People who paid a little less probably can say they were in the same room with Obama, and saw him in the flesh – but didn’t get any chat time with the Leader of the Free World.

AND IF YOU were cheap enough to shell out merely $50, it means you can say you were in the same building as the president – but you didn’t get anywhere near to him.

Which means you might as well have been one of the masses around the country who took part in what were called “grassroots meetings” that allowed people the chance to pretend they were celebrating the anniversary of the date on which Ann Dunham in Honolulu gave birth to a son by her collegiate boyfriend (Does anyone still seriously believe that’s not true?).

If it sounds like I’m mocking the Aragon event and the smaller meetings, well actually I am.



Former Gov. Jim Edgar's 50th birthday/fundraiser in 1996 gave us a Marilyn Monroe-moment (actually, former state Budget Director Joan Walters). Barack Obama had to settle for a birthday song from Jennifer Hudson (albeit, the real thing, not an impersonator). Photograph provided by Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum.



Somewhere in my collection of tacky junk I have accumulated from political people throughout the years is a birthday party “invitation” from then-Gov. Jim Edgar.

THIS CARD WAS issued to announce a very similar event – a reception held at the Illinois State Fairgrounds meant to celebrate Edgar’s 50^th birthday (he turned 65 two weeks ago). I kept the card because of the photograph on the front – an old childhood picture of Edgar, wearing pajamas with the name “Jimmy” printed all over them.

Yet when one looked closely at the card, it was merely an invitation to a political fundraiser. Pay some money, and you can be “included” in the Edgar birthday festivities.

Which was a similar situation to what took place Wednesday night in Chicago for Obama -- although I'm sure the passage of time and inflation and scale of elective office means that Obama was shooting for much more cash than anything Edgar ever hoped to raise that night some 15 years ago.

Barack endured the company of all those people Wednesday night out of a professional obligation. He was raising the money that will help him get re-elected president in next year’s election cycle, and also will help others raise money so that they can get re-elected as well.

IF ANYTHING, THE latter function might be more important. Obama needs allies in government if he’s to be able to accomplish much of anything (I’d say he needs friends, but a political “friend” is really something cheap and worthless – even more-so than a Facebook “friend”).

Political allies come at a price. What did Obama do to help them get elected? Help with finances usually is a good start.

That is what Wednesday night was truly about. It certainly wasn’t about any legitimate birthday celebration – which I would guess Obama will do in the comfort of the White House on Thursday (although I understand there was also an after-concert dinner for up to 100 Obama backers, which also had its political motivations).

Which is why I was somewhat amused to see that the Republican National Committee felt the need to publicly criticize Obama for partaking in a birthday celebration event in Chicago.

“I SUPPOSE THE White House is thinking (Obama) should stick to the part of his job he really likes,” was what came from the lips of a GOP spokeswoman.

The last I knew, fundraising was a legitimate (and essential) part of any elected official’s job, which makes the spokesman’s statement sound like sour grapes that she wasn’t invited to the birthday celebration event.

I only wish these could be billed purely as fundraisers, instead of pretending there was a human touch to the events, such as those people who will now claim that the Aragon Ballroom’s “history” includes a presidential birthday concert.

Actually, I can’t help but think there could be one sure-fire way to raise money with minimal effort off of an Obama birthday tie.

I COULDN’T  HELP but notice a week ago when I shopped for a birthday card for my father the large number of holiday cards that depict Obama, usually offering up some pseudo-holiday greeting.

I’m sure the people using those Obama images are coming up with stock photos or generic drawings for which they don’t have to pay the president a dime. Just think, however, of how much revenue could be generated if every single purchase of such a card kicked in a dime to the campaign coffers?

  -30-