President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump



CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta



CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson



CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd



CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese



CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen



CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore



CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk



CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans



State Senate Majority See Full Big Line





State House Majority See Full Big Line





Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
February 23, 2007 01:08 AM UTC

ICE Raids Dave and Busters

  • by: Colorado Pols

Among other places, the AP reports:

Three top officials of a nationwide cleaning service were charged Thursday with fraud and tax crimes as part of an ongoing federal investigation that also netted hundreds of illegal immigrants in 18 states, including Colorado.

The illegal immigrants were working as janitors for Nevada-based Rosenbaum-Cunningham International, Inc., or RCI, a cleaning contractor for businesses.

The workers were swept up early Thursday in 63 locations nationwide, including restaurants such as the House of Blues, Hard Rock Cafe, ESPN Zone, Planet Hollywood, and others, according to a law enforcement official.

CBS 4 News quoted local federal officials as saying the raids took place at the ESPN Zone in downtown Denver along with the two Dave and Busters locations in the metro area; one in Westminster and the other at Colorado Blvd. and Interstate 25. It is not known how many people were taken into custody during the raids in Denver…


76 thoughts on “ICE Raids Dave and Busters

  1. Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s on record as favoring in-state tuition rates for illegals and other kinds of financial support for them that would attract more illegals to the U.S.

    And Murtha’s against anything Bush tries, including rounding up illegals and protecting U.S. security.

    So it seems likely that Congress will defund ICE so that it can’t enforce border security or go after illegal legals who may join unions and pay dues to unions that contribute to the campaigns of Democratic Party congressional candidates.

    Can’t wait to see where Clinton and Obama stand on this issue. Richardson’s for increased border security and enforcement of labor laws. But, then, he’s a Westerner and has to differentiate himself somehow.

    The rule of law is not a top priority for Pelosi, Murtha or the Democrats who think Clinton shouldn’t have been impeached for lying to a grand jury.

    1. If only they followed the law and the order of our court system…  But since the last raid on the Swift plants went so swimmingly well before the courts, perhaps ICE should contemplate a narrower sweep procedure at least.

      More than anything else, we need to get moving on immigration reform; that means addressing identification, verification, and required employee numbers vs. immigration quotas.

        1. “Dares to speak the truth about a Lib”  All we need to do is look at your comments from you most recent diary to know that’s not true. I believe the word you were looking for “dares to distort the truth about a Lib.”

          I’m just keep things balanced here with all the nice things you and AS have to say about Democrats.

          What’s wrong Gecko, you can dish it out but can’t take critisicm? 

            1. Ok, let’s see why I started out negative. AS starts this thread with shit about Clinton! The last conservative talking point, it’s pathetic, useless (and here’s another negative term) intellectually lazy for someone to bring up Clinton’s name with regards to an ICE Raid in Denver Colorado 2007!

              Here’s some criticism. You’ve got to get a hold of your party from wingnuts who still believe Bill Clinton is to blame for all of our problems today. It’s been 7 years and your golden boy from the east coast has solved a single problem in this country (except if you’re in the highest tax bracket) and has made our internal relations about as good as shit in a bucket.

                  1. Those who wink at illegal immigration undoubtedly wink at other law breakers and ethical missteps. That is the havoc being brought to our country by illegal immigration, more and more corruption.

              1. Seems to me that the post that began all this was referring to Hillary Clinton.

                So that this thread got sidetracked to Bill’s Oval Office BJ’s suggests there are still a lot of wounds festering out there.

                [It’s true, if Bill could have kept his pants zipped, W would have been just another trivia answer.]

                1. Go to the very top and read Another Skeptic’s post. He closes with this sentence:

                  “The rule of law is not a top priority for Pelosi, Murtha or the Democrats who think Clinton shouldn’t have been impeached for lying to a grand jury.”

                  But you’re right about Bill keeping his pants zipped. Gore distanced himself from the very successful and still-popular-in-2000 Clinton because of the whole scandal and I’m one who believes that that cost him votes everywhere, including Florida where just a few more votes to begin with would have put him over the top beyond all question.

          1. has anyone ever seen a GoBlue post that wasn’t cheap, vicious and dripping with hate?  I haven’t, but I may have overlooked one in which he was merely banal.

    2. what did he say that was lie?

      is this the whole “I did not have sex with that woman” thing?

      Because if it is… he’s right.  A BJ and intercourse are two different things.

      Saying you did not have sex with that woman is truthful if you only got a BJ.

      And that is a fact.  It doesn’t matter what the GOP House of Representatives said.

      1. Getting or receiving a BJ is not SEX?
        What have you been smoking? Is that the lie you tell your wife?
        Give me a break, that is one of the dumbest things I have heard in years.
        So under that logic eating at the “Y” is just a social event?
        I don’t think my wife would buy that one.
        In fact I don’t know of a person on this planet, short of you, that would buy that one.
        A BJ is not sex………
        I can die now, I have heard it all.

        1. Because if all you got was a bj, and someone asked you, “did you have sex with her?”, you answer would be “No, I didn’t have sex with her, I just got a bj.”

          1. A BJ IS sex.
            One person licking, sucking, whatever….another persons private parts, is having sex. Maybe not intercourse but they are indeed having sex in the common terminology.

            You know it but you are only trying to defend a cheating lying scumbag.
            Won’t work.

            If you don’t believe me, put up a poll.
            Ask everone that posts here to honestly answer if sucking on another person’s penis, or vagina is sex or not.
            And see if the people that post here are honest or not.

            1. Pacified did. Anal sex, BJ’s, eating at the “Y”, etc…..
              is all SEX.
              GET IT?

              Oh yeah, and Clinton did lie. To his wife , to the country, to the world. In other words, he is a lying cheating scumbag.
              Get over it.

          1. it’s not about agreeing or disagreeing. It’s about your sad and pathetic expansion on what is a weak post of an even weaker issue. You’re simply showing your lack of class. Leave Lauren out of it.

        1. Lordy Lordy! I had no idea when I started blogging on a political site that I’d be asked if a BJ is sex.

          Sorry pacified, a kiss is just a kiss, but a BJ is sex!

          My office is now closed to all incoming sex questions. 

          1. Thank you Miss Lauren. I knew you would know what sex is and isn’t.
            I told my wife what Pacified said and she said the same thing I said when I read that. “Jesus Christ, a BJ IS sex, dumbass”.

            I’m not sure if she was aiming that at me or not……

            1. But as to whether a person’s private life has bearing on their fitness for public office goes, especially when it came to light as a result of a special investigation on a man that found absolutely nothing else to pin on him, we’ll disagree. If we apply that standard to everyone we’ll soon find how severely we’ve limited the talent pool for every important job.

              And while I get AS’s point in mentioning it, no one believes that Clinton was dragged before that Grand Jury for anything but political purpose. They wanted to get him for something, anything, and that was what they got. That tends to undermine the rule of law too.

      2. The quote was “sexual relations.”

        And anyone who says a BJ isn’t “sexual relations” is either selling something, or still lives in his mother’s basement and plays WoW all day.

    3. Methinks you were a bit too subtle in emphasizing the cynical politicization of nearly every damn thing by the Democratic Party, and having only one position on everything: “Whatever (insert derogatory name for the President here) said, we say the opposite.  Nyah.”

      Some folks apparently can’t see that sort of “leadership.”

    4. Since when has Bush been talking about rounding up illegals? I’m pretty sure his guest worker program says nothing about rounding up anyone. This post doesn’t make any sense. You want to be pissed at the dems, but you should be equally angry at Bush.

  2. I feel tons safer now that I know undocument aliens aren’t emptying the garbage bins at ESPN Zone.  Just thinking about this lurking threat now gives me the SHIVERS.

      1. One of my best friends, a Friend, (Quaker) to use our custom, is a “pro-illegal immigration” supporter.  We’ve traveled to Mexico together on a service project, so it’s not like we haven’t had times to talk and discuss.  Sometimes it has been very heated. 

        The man, and his co-believers, mean well, putting compassion into practice.  But the issues that I bring up can never be given a straight answer:

        1.  IM lowers the value of labor, hurting the very Americans that need a good job the most.
        2.  Most of the pro-IM people’s jobs are in no way impacted by IM.
        3.  You can’t simultaneously be pro-union and pro-IM.
        4.  Who was doing all these jobs for the last 200 years anyway?
        5.  They are not all “good people” trying to better themselves.
        CA spends more on IM’s in prison than on the community college system.

        And so on.  It isn’t just IM per se, it is the rate of IM, or for that matter, legal immigration.  A culture can absorb a small rate of immigration, assimilating those joining the culture.  When the flow becomes huge, it creates many problems, including a lack of assimilation.

        The US has created some of these problems in Latin America that has motivated people to El Norte, but it is not a blanket reason, excusing all.

        1. The U.S. continues to create more jobs than our population growth without immigration could sustain. Also, immigrants aren’t taking jobs from Americans because the U.S. is currently at full employment. Immigrants (legal and otherwise) are getting jobs because the economy is creating more high paying jobs, leaving a vacuum at the bottom. This vacuum (low paying, high labor jobs like janitorial services) needs to be filled. If there were no immigration in the U.S., employers would have to raise salaries significantly to attract labor and to keep labor at their current jobs. This would cause inflaiton to rise and could possibly trigger a recession. So immigration needs to be plentiful in order for the U.S. economy to continue to have healthy economic growth. Where this plays into the illegal immigration debate is that immigration laws are too restictive, thus giving people incentive to immigrate illegally. If we loosened our laws (say, for example, we only checked applicants for a criminal background and possible threats to national security), illegal immigration would not be a problem. Open borders aren’t the solution, we just need more sensible immigration laws.

          1. As I’ve posted before, background checks+more work visas=happy employers and happy legal immigrant workers.

            There’s a lot of smoke and mirrors on both sides with their own agendas causing this to be a much bigger problem than it has to be. 

          2. Cheap labor.

            No thank you. I don’t care if I have to pay more for goods.  I want every American who would like to have a job have one, and at decent wages.  Who can blame the attitude of some blacks and browns?  Work your butt off so that you can get an $8/hr job w/o benefits competing against someone who will keep their mouth shut because they deportation?

            The only area where we have a lack of Americans interested is in ag.  Yes, we need a viable program for ag workers.  But we don’t need construction and meat packing and diswashing done by illegal immigrants.

            High immigration, both legal and illegal, is a goal of the corporatists and the Republicans.  Keeps the rabble scared, you know.  David Ricardo pointed all this out two centuries ago, about the value of labor. 

            To have cheaper goods on the backs of those who can’t or won’t stand up (pun intended) for decent wages is immoral.

            1. If inflation rises high enough due to the cost of labor, this will send the economy into a recession, during which unemployment is very high. So in order to keep enough jobs for everyone, we have to make sure the labor market doesn’t overheat. That’s where immigration comes in.

              The plus side to this type of economy is the new jobs that are being created are higher paying jobs. So people don’t have to resign themselves to an $8/hr job for the rest of thier lives, and they sure as hell don’t have to resign their children to that. As long as the economy keeps growning and new jobs are being created, everyone will benefit. I know it’s hard to see that on an individual level and it’s agonizing to see immigrants have to work shitty jobs, but in the grand scheme of things it’s a good thing. 

              1. The jobs lost at the beginning of the Bush Bust in 2001 were paying an average of $18/hr.  As people found new work, they average went down to $14/hr.  Well documented, govt stats. 

                As for me, I will err on the side of higher wages, not cheap Republican labor.

            2. the cabbies said they were paid $5 a day.  Compare that to a construction job on the Western Slope of $14 an hour (base salary, unskilled labor).  That isn’t cheap labor.  They come here because they can make a lot more money.  If I thought they were really taking jobs from Americans I’d have a bigger problem with it, but job ads for construction, dish washers, and housekeepers go largely unanswered by American born workers. If they were legal then they would be covered by all the same rules and regs that protect American workers from those “greedy corporate types”. They need jobs, we need workers. Don’t you see the potential for a win-win here?

              1. SOMEONE used to do these jobs, and it was the ‘kids” who didn’t go to college, it was the native born minorities.

                $14/hr an hour is great if you are used to $5/day, but it isn’t when you prefer one family per house and perhaps even a spouse to stay with the kids.  $14/hr is cheap labor; if we hadn’t have had this onslaught, unskilled labor would be that and more, everywhere.  The minimum wage of the late 60’s, when I was in college, extapolates to a minimum of $10/hr today, and some reasonalbe cases based on essentials puts it at closer to $14/hr.

                Americans won’t do these jobs?  Yes, for two reasons.  First, we have to finish the sentence and say, “At this rate of pay.”  Second, this has become a self-fulfilling prophecy.  Who is hearing from parents or friends that there’s a good job to be had in construction or at the restaurant?  How many kids today have never even mowed a lawn or swung a hammer?  OK, #3, yes, Americans don’t have the work ethic we once did; so for contractors with a choice (there wasn’t a generation ago), of course they’ll hire the hard worker willing to work for less!

                If somehow one morning all the illegals were gone, and a hotel or a contractor needed workers, they would find them.  Not at the cheap labor rates, and some Americans would fail the test, but they would arrive.  Not at $8 for that dishwashing job?  How about $10? $15?  At some point there will be people lined up to work. 

                Mexico suffers greatly, too.  Whole villages are empty of young and middle aged people, kids don’t see their parents.  Field are untilled.  Yes, money and presents flow south, but that is not like having mom there.

      2. We all know how the Civil Rights movement employed civil disobedience to achieve their ends. Since civil disobedience meant disobeying the law were their actions wrong?

        1. I would say that the, or “a” difference, is that the illegals are not making a moral claim.  They have not been denied rights (except in their own countries of origin!)

          When I was going to Liberal Seminary ten years ago I noticed a particular phenomena.  Lots of libs – and don’t forget, that’s my label, too – long for the glory days of the Civil Rights movement.  Hell, we had professors who could call, without disrepsect, MLK “Martin.Z”  They were right there.

          Anyway, said profs and like minded students see every little struggle as equivalent to the CRM, no matter how misplaced.

        2. the Civil Rights movement was inspired by Gandhi’s “satyagra” campaign, which I probably misspelled.  It mean violating laws you thought unjust AND ACCEPTING THE CONSEQUENCES.  The more decent people the British had to throw into jail, the harder it became to uphold the moral legitimacy of their rule.  Martin Luther King explicitly accepted the notion of accepting the consequences of that civil disobedience.  Hence, you can’t compare that type of civil disobedience with just plain old law-breaking.

          1. Ain’t life grand?

            Hindu Ghandia learned from Jesus of Nazareth.  His success with the British encouraged Baptist preacher MLK to use the Hindu’s, indirectly Jesus’, methods. 

            All murdered by those who can’t accept people who throw off their chains. 

              1. Bibles and the Christian faith were everywhere, all around him.  Ghandi was a smart, curious, well educated person.  Surely, if some Christians note and embrace the non-violent Jesus, Ghandi would, too.

                No, I don’t have a source.  One of those things I’ve picked up in a long life.

          2. but I’m challenging Another Skeptic’s “rule of law” concept which, by his statements, seems to be narrow – either you’re law abiding or you’re morally suspect.

            I pose the Civil Rights example because, to my thinking, it’s a clear cut example of how disregarding the rule of law can be the right thing. I don’t make the case that illegal immigrants  are naturally right because of this, just that the “rule of law” argument isn’t compelling.

            Although, an argument can be made that simply coming to our country to work shit jobs for shit wages, illegal as it is, is more morally correct than denying the illegal immigrants the chance to pursue life, liberty and happiness. I think that’s more convincing than the arguments that we should restrict immigration because X number of them are criminals.

            (It’s true that there are criminals among them, but I wonder if there are disproportionately more among illegals than there are among any demographic of American-born poor people. And I wonder what the overall percentage of – what is it, 4 million illegal immigrants in the USA? – are criminals? Because if it’s a tiny fraction than that undermines the argument that restricting immigration protects Americans from crime.)

            Again, this is more devil’s advocate than anything else. I have my feelings that illegal immigration isn’t that big of a problem, based largely on the lack of good data regarding the resources they take versus what they pay in (illegals do pay taxes – sales taxes and, indirectly, the property taxes of their landlords, and maybe more).

    1. I for one think the raids plenty of material for blogging…and by talking about Clinton we are just distracting ourselves from the main issue.

      I wonder how much of a profit the guys at RCI were turning by using illegal workers? IMO, these raids on various industries could make for some great investigative journalism and research. For example, a comparison of a company that has used illegal workers and one in the same sector that relied strictly on legal workers. So far we have meatpackers and cleaners, if the next sector raided is a little more glamorous (like a strip club) then I think an economic impact research paper is in order. Data would be tough to come by, but basic balance sheets could be used as a starting point.

    2. Often, but not always a thread here takes its cue from the first post. This one did in ridiculous fashion. Personally, I thought that this thread (alliteration, baby!) would have a post about the Beauprez campaign and their, dare I say, illegal contributor who worked for ICE.

    1. I think the distinct lack of any element of Tancredo in the story was enough to limit the cockles-getting-up-edness of the truly pro-lawbreaking crowd, so there was nothing to talk about.

      Or the same group was distracted by a perceived slight against Go-I mean Bill.  Priorities, you know.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments

Posts about

Donald Trump

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo

Posts about

Colorado House

Posts about

Colorado Senate

52 readers online now


Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!