I'm not sure what we'll add here....yet.
Here we post news about illegal immigration. We have NO PROBLEM with legal lawful immigration or the desire of people from all over the planet to come and live here in the United States. We do, however, object to those who break the law to come here.
Don't forget our battle cry, "Remember in November."
What happens when you visit the groups that say voter ID laws discriminate
To clarify what is going on with regard to immigration, let me explain. For the past year Janet Incompentano, Secretary, Homeland Security, has been running around the country making speeches and telling everyone that the "border is under control." If you will recall, the reason "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" (or Amnesty) failed was because the American people said we have to stop the illegal immigration and secure the border FIRST. So, even though it isn't true, Obama is now saying we have the border under control, so we can go ahead with "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" (or Amnesty). The border is NOT under control. - Editor - 2IfByC
US Border Security Council
2/17/2012 - Shocking Video Shows that Billion-Dollar Border Fence is about as Secure as a Garage Door - NumbersUSA
DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano and the rest of the Obama Adminstration have been preaching the repetative Quixotic declaration that the Southwest border with Mexico is more secure now than it's ever been. Well, a shocking new video shows quite the contrary as drug smugglers use a simple car jack to lift the fence panels near Lukeville, Ariz. to open up an unobstructed gateway into the United States. Watch this eye-opening video now . . .
Unfortunately, there are a lot with the same mentality just like her that we are supporting.
This is why we are not getting a Social Security cost of living increase, why our Mecicare premiums are increasing and Medicare is not paying more on our bills because people who have not paid into Social Security are receiving benefits they are not entitled to.
As it is, Americans were swindled out of more than $1 billion in exchange for two more federal immigration laws that are not enforced.
On the Friday before Martin Luther King Jr. weekend, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced plans to scrap the so-called "virtual fence" project along the 2,000 mile United States-Mexico border. The official reasons cited included cost overruns and technology failures. The truth, of course, is a different story.
At the height of the last amnesty craze in 2006, Congress passed the Secure Fence Act (SFA). The measure required building 700 miles of double-layered fence to physically separate the United States from Mexico. The bill's authors also intended to demonstrate that the federal government accepted the American people's judgment that illegal immigrants could not be granted citizenship until the southwestern border was secured.
With the border fence supposedly under construction, the Senate gathered on June 28, 2007, to end debate on comprehensive immigration reform and vote its passage. Then, Senator Elizabeth Dole (R-NC) addressed the chamber. In the final minutes before the Democratic majority moved for cloture, Dole reminded her colleagues that only two miles had been built.
For Dole, enough was enough. "And so my strong view is that it's not just promises, it's proof that people want. The American people want to see results, control of our borders. So we need to establish standards, metrics and show that they have been achieved," said Dole at the time. With devastating accuracy, she confirmed what many suspected: Governing elites used the promise of a border fence to ease resistance towards amnesty for illegal immigrants. After Dole exposed the hypocrisy, comprehensive immigration reform died on the Senate floor.
The open borders crowd was defeated, but not deterred. In December 2007, the Bush Administration tapped Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-TX) to attach an amendment to a DHS appropriations bill. The amendment's language added a wrinkle to SFA by granting then-Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff complete discretion over the border fence. Since the Bush Administration favored granting citizenship status to illegal immigrants, but was dragging its feet on building the fence, many saw Hutchinson's amendment as gutting SFA's mandate to secure the border first.
Hutchison hit back at criticisms she gutted the border fence by pointing to a new requirement in her amendment. By the end of 2008 (i.e. within twelve months of the amendment's passage) 370 of the 700 miles of the southwest border would be fenced. As of September 2008, fewer than 120 miles were completed. So much for mandates.
Then along came the Secure Border Initiative network (SBInet), a compromise between pro-amnesty governing elites and the defense industry to further weaken the fence project. Throughout the public debate over the border, the Bush Administration was quietly replacing its promise of a physical fence with a high-tech virtual one. When the $1 billion contract was awarded to Boeing in September 2006, the project was hailed as a way to harness technology for fulfilling public policy.
A little more than five years later, neither goal was reached. To date, only 53 miles of border have been "virtually" fenced. Problems ranging from weather disruptions to camera lenses that can't distinguish between humans and shrubs pushed SBInet into boondoggle territory. Numerous investigations in and outside the government confirmed the project was a manmade disaster. Last week's announcement to end the program officially concluded this taxpayer-financed fool's errand.
The irony of all this is that many Americans support granting some path to legalization for illegal immigrants – if a border fence is built first. The logic is simple: secure the border to stop the flow of illegal immigration, and then deal with those who are already here. Had Congress and Presidents Bush and Obama taken the American people's demand for a border fence seriously and followed any of the fence laws they enacted, today they might find a public ready to talk about more comprehensive reform.
As it is, Americans were swindled out of more than $1 billion in exchange for two more federal immigration laws that are not enforced. Is it any wonder that voter mistrust of the federal government is at an all-time high?
It's long overdue for Congress to stop the racket of bringing pregnant women into this country to give birth, receive free medical care and then call their babies U.S. citizens entitled to all American rights and privileges plus generous handouts. Between 300,000 and 400,000 babies are born to illegal aliens in the United States every year, at least 10 percent of all births.
We have tolerated an entire industry called "birth tourism," offering "birth packages" costing thousands of dollars, to import pregnant women from all over the world, Korea to Turkey (12,000 U.S.-born Turkish babies have been arranged since 2003). An electronic billboard in Mexico, advertising the services of an American doctor, proclaims, "Do you want to have your baby in the U.S.?"
The advantages of birthright citizenship are immense. The babies get Medicaid (including birth costs), Temporary Assistance to Needy Families and food stamps. Obviously, the baby shares his goodies with his family.
As soon as the child becomes an adult, he can legalize his parents, and bring into the U.S. a foreign-born spouse and any foreign-born siblings. They all can then bring in their own extended families, a policy called chain migration.
Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, has stepped up to this challenge and already has 26 co-sponsors for his bill, H.R. 140, to define citizenship. It states that the "subject to the jurisdiction" phrase in the Fourteenth Amendment means a baby born in the United States only if one parent is a U.S. citizen, or a lawfully admitted resident alien, or an alien on active duty in the U.S. armed services.
King is not trying to amend the Constitution. He is simply using the 14th Amendment's Section 5, which gives Congress (not the judiciary, not the executive branch) the power to enforce the citizenship clause.
In 1993, Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., introduced similar legislation. Bills to limit birthright citizenship to children of U.S. citizens and of aliens who are legal residents have been introduced by other members of Congress every year since.
The amnesty crowd tries to tell us that the 14th Amendment makes automatic citizens out of "all persons" born in the United States, but they conveniently ignore the rest of the sentence. It's not enough to be "born" in the U.S. -- you can claim citizenship only if you are "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, overruled the Dred Scott decision wherein the U.S. Supreme Court declared that African-Americans could not be citizens. Those who support court-made law should forever be reminded of Abraham Lincoln's warning that if we accept the supremacy of judges, "the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal."
The 14th Amendment denied citizenship to American Indians, even though they obviously were "born" in the U.S., because they were subject to the jurisdiction of their tribal governments. Congress did not grant citizenship to American Indians on reservations until 1924, 56 years later.
Babies born in the U.S. to illegal aliens are clearly citizens of their mother's country, so granting U.S. citizenship creates the possibility of dual citizenship, which the United States has never recognized as valid. To become a U.S. citizen, immigrants are required by our law not only to swear allegiance to the United States but also to absolutely renounce any and all allegiance to the nation from which they came.
There is no ambiguity about the solemn oath that all naturalized Americans must take. "I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen ... so help me God."
Any naturalized U.S. citizen who claims dual citizenship with his native country betrays his solemn oath. If anchor babies have citizenship in their parents' country, they should not have U.S. citizenship.
Terminating the anchor-baby racket is very popular with the American people. A Rasmussen poll reports that 58 percent oppose it, while only 33 percent favor it.
Now that state legislatures are flexing their muscles, representatives from 14 states unveiled state legislation to clarify who is and who isn't a citizen in those states. The Arizona bill establishes that state law parallels the definition of citizenship in the 14th Amendment, and that a U.S. citizen is, "for the purposes of this statute, a person who owes no allegiance to any foreign sovereignty."
The Arizona bill, introduced by Sen. Russell Pearce and Rep. John Kavanagh, would create two kinds of state birth certificates. One would be for children of citizens and the other for children of illegal aliens.
Open-borders radicalism means never having to apologize for absurd self-contradiction.
The way illegal alien students on college campuses across the country tell it, America is a cruel, selfish and racist nation that has never given them or their families a break. Yet despite their bottomless grievances, they're not going anywhere.
And despite their gripes about being forced "into the shadows," they've been out in the open protesting at media-driven hunger strikes and flooding the airwaves demanding passage of the so-called Dream Act. This bailout plan would benefit an estimated 2.1 million illegal aliens at an estimated cost of up to $20 billion.
While votes on various Dream Act proposals are imminent, the Congressional Budget Office has yet to release any official cost scoring. Viva transparency!
To sow more confusion, Democrats in the Senate have foisted four different versions of the bill on the legislative calendar, which all offer variations on the same amnesty theme: Because they arrived here through "no fault of their own," illegal alien children deserve federal education access and benefits, plus a conditional pass from deportation and a special path toward green cards and U.S. citizenship for themselves and unlimited relatives.
University of Texas-San Antonio student Lucy Martinez embodies the entitlement mentality of the Dream Act agitators: "We have done lobbying, legislative visits, marches, sit-ins. We are tired of it," she complained to the San Antonio Express-News. The illegal alien student hunger strike "is similar to what we go through in our everyday lives — starving without a future."
But neither she nor her peers have been denied their elementary, secondary or college educations. Neither she nor her peers face arrest for defiantly announcing their illegal status.
And for all the hysterical rhetoric about "starving," the federal government and the federal immigration courts have been overly generous in providing wave after wave of de facto and de jure amnesties allowing tens of millions of illegal border-crossers, visa overstayers and deportation evaders from around the world to live, work and prosper here in subversion of our laws.
Among the major acts of Congress providing mass pardons and citizenship benefits:
•1986: The Immigration and Reform Control Act blanket amnesty for an estimated 2.7 million illegal aliens.
•1994: The Section 245(i) temporary rolling amnesty for 578,000 illegal aliens.
•1997: Extension of the Section 245(i) amnesty.
•1997: The Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act for nearly 1 million illegal aliens from Central America.
•1998: The Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act amnesty for 125,000 illegal aliens from Haiti.
•2000: Extension of amnesty for some 400,000 illegal aliens who claimed eligibility under the 1986 act.
•2000: The Legal Immigration Family Equity Act, which included a restoration of the rolling Section 245(i) amnesty for 900,000 illegal aliens.
This is in addition to hundreds of "private relief bills" sponsored every year. Most recently, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., introduced legislation to stay the deportation of illegal alien Dream Act activist Steve Li — whose family's asylum claim was rejected and whom a federal immigration court judge ordered deported in 2004.
These illegal alien passes needn't be approved by Congress for the recipients to gain benefits. Mere introduction of the bills buys the deportable aliens time that ordinary, law-abiding citizens can't buy in our court system.
Dream Act schemers pretend this isn't a zero-sum game. But every time a private illegal alien relief bill passes, visas available for that year are reduced by the number of illegal alien/deportable immigrant recipients granted legal status/deportation relief through the special legislation.
In Austin, Texas, this week, one illegal alien Dream Act activist argued to me that "it's not like the government would be sending a message that breaking the law is OK." Reality check: The number of illegal aliens in the U.S. has tripled since President Reagan signed the first amnesty in 1986.
The total effect of the amnesties was even larger because relatives later joined amnesty recipients, and this number was multiplied by an unknown number of children born to amnesty recipients who then acquired automatic U.S. citizenship.
At a time of nearly double-digit unemployment and drastic higher-education cutbacks, a $20 billion special education preference package for up to 2.1 million illegal aliens is not and should not be a priority in Washington. It certainly isn't in the rest of America.
And it certainly shouldn't be a priority for federal immigration and homeland security officials, who have a 400,000-deportation-fugitives problem, a three-year naturalization application backlog and borders that remain in chaos.
Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans are demanding Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) stop its policy of selective law enforcement against illegal aliens including the termination of deportation proceedings for a number of dangerous criminal aliens.
Led by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Judiciary Republicans want an explanation from Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano of new selective and lax law enforcement policies for crimes including domestic violence, sexual crimes and driving while intoxicated.
ICE has cited a lack of funding but the senators noted to date they have not seen any efforts by ICE, DHS, or the Obama Administration to "request an increase in ICE funding sufficient to address staffing shortages, detention capacity, and coordination of enforcement efforts nationwide to achieve a streamlined and robust immigration removal system."
The result is the release of these dangerous criminal aliens into our communities.
The letter with signatures is here, with text below.
The Honorable Janet Napolitano
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Nebraska Avenue Complex
245 Murray Lane, Mailstop 0150
Washington, DC 20528-0150
Dear Secretary Napolitano:
Recently, media reports have revealed that pending removal proceedings are being dismissed in record numbers. That sharp increase in dismissals is the result of a directive from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Director John T. Morton to all ICE attorneys to review pending cases and seek dismissal if the cases do not involve Level I offenders (aliens convicted of aggravated felonies or two or more felonies). Specifically, ICE attorneys are directed to seek dismissal of cases involving Level II and Level III criminal aliens so long as the aliens have no felony convictions and no more than two misdemeanors. As we understand it, cases involving aliens with misdemeanors involving domestic violence, sexual crimes, or driving while intoxicated would not be dropped.
Though the reports focused only on cases pending before Houston immigration judges, our understanding is that the ICE directive applies nationwide. Numerous criminal aliens are being released into society and are having proceedings terminated simply because ICE has decided that such cases do not fit within the Department’s chosen enforcement priorities.
The ICE directive, along with other recently announced detention and removal policies, raises serious questions about your Department’s commitment to enforce the immigration laws. It appears that your Department is enforcing the law based on criteria it arbitrarily chose, with complete disregard for the enforcement laws created by Congress. The repercussions of this decision extend beyond removal proceedings, because it discourages officers from even initiating new removal proceedings if they believe the case ultimately will be dismissed based on the new directive.
Even more disturbing is the fact that your Department has chosen to dismiss cases against criminal aliens, including aliens who have committed crimes involving moral turpitude, crimes of violence, assault, theft, fraud, drug offenses, driving under the influence, and illegal entry.
To be sure, ICE has cited a lack of resources as one of the reasons for its prioritization of cases and for its selective enforcement. But to date, we have not seen any efforts by ICE, your Department, or the Administration to request an increase in ICE funding sufficient to address staffing shortages, detention capacity, and coordination of enforcement efforts nationwide to achieve a streamlined and robust immigration removal system. As a result, it appears that your Department is doing the very thing that we have raised concerns about in several letters—allowing illegal aliens to evade the law while waiting, without much concern about removal, to one day obtain legal status. Though Congress has been slow to reach a comprehensive immigration solution, your Department is charged with enforcing the law as written and it should not be adopting a lax approach to immigration enforcement or selectively enforcing the laws against only those aliens it considers a priority.
We would like a detailed list of the number of cases that have been dismissed since January 2010 to the present. If the case involved a criminal alien, we also would like you to identify which crimes the aliens were convicted of and in which jurisdiction. In addition, we want you to detail exactly how much funding your Department would require to ensure that enforcement of the law occurs consistently for every illegal alien encountered and apprehended by ICE or U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Please respond by November 15th.
Primetime liberal comedians have it made. All they need to do is spend a few hours with a politically correct minority and Ñ voila! Ñ theyÕre transformed into instant congressional experts.
Democrats invited Stephen Colbert to drape himself in the more-compassionate-than-thou mantle last week on behalf of illegal immigrant workers. But not all Òpeople of colorÓ are equal.
Minority Americans who have suffered the bloody consequences of open borders are out of luck. No Hollywood celeb wants to walk in their shoes.
After picking veggies for a day at an upstate New York farm, Colbert descended on Washington to lament the suffering of illegal agricultural workers. While Òin characterÓ as a conservative talk show host, he backhandedly mocked those who oppose a blanket AgJobs amnesty program by sneering, ÒU.S.A. Number One!Ó Many law-abiding citizens took offense Ñ and not just those who fit the entertainment worldÕs stereotype of white, right-wing Tea Partiers.
Althea Rae Shaw of Los Angeles wrote an outraged open letter to Colbert after last weekÕs Capitol Hill circus. She is the aunt of 17-year-old Jamiel AndreÕ Shaw II, a young black high-school student who was gunned down by an illegal immigrant gang member in 2008 amid brown-on-black violence in southern California.
The Shaw family has spearheaded efforts to repeal dangerous sanctuary policies in Los Angeles that protect criminal illegal immigrants and handcuff local law enforcement. ÒIt truly breaks my heart that so many people in positions of power and authority continue to make light of illegal immigration,Ó Shaw wrote to Colbert.
ÒAre you aware of, and/or concerned with, the fact that American citizens and legal immigrants are murdered every day by illegal immigrants? Have you ever spent one second thinking about that?Ó the grieving aunt asked the smirky comic.
ÒWhat if your mother was shot in the head by an illegal immigrant? Do you think you could make that funny? What about your children? Would it be comical if your daughter or your son or your niece or nephew was lying in the street dead, shot in the head by someone living in this country illegally?Ó
In her letter, Shaw recounted the horrific case of Cheryl Green for Colbert. She was a 14-year-old Los Angeles girl murdered by illegal immigrant gang members in 2006, along with another young resident who had witnessed the gangÕs violence.
CherylÕs crime? Being black.
Her killers were Latino gangbangers Jonathan Fajardo and Daniel Aguilar. Earlier this month, they were convicted of first-degree murder in a hate-crime trial where one of the Hispanic gang members testified bluntly: ÒBasically, weÕre against all black people.Ó
No, not all illegal immigrants are murderers. But neither are all illegal immigrant harmless workers. And as too many families who will never get ColbertÕs attention or sympathy have come to understand, lax immigration enforcement might mean cheaper arugula in Manhattan Ñ but it also can cost untold lives across the heartland.
In Houston, Texas, 14-year-old Shatavia Anderson was gunned down last month by a twice-deported illegal immigrant from El Salvador who simply waltzed back into the country. ShataviaÕs grieving uncle, Joe Lambert, lambasted open-borders policies that send a signal that illegal immigrants Òcan do whatever they want. What youÕre doing is giving them a green light telling them, ÔHey, you can do whatever you want.ÕÓ Lambert is lobbying for tougher immigration enforcement. ÒI would like to see what theyÕre doing in Arizona done here.Ó
IÕd like to see the likes of Stephen Colbert (or the Obama administration) suggest that Lambert is an ignorant racist.
Putting American sovereignty and security first may invite scorn from elite character actors and their snickering Democratic enablers. But outside D.C.Õs Open Borders Theater, there are no laugh tracks. Just tears.
Shaw issued Colbert a challenge: ÒWhy not invite about 40 families who lost loved ones due to illegal immigration to come to your studio? Then you can tell us all about your experience working on this farm. You can even tell us how bad your back was hurting when you were working with illegal immigrants. I wonder how many families would laugh and think thatÕs funny.Ó
The Colbert Congress served one useful purpose: It showed America that TinseltownÕs heart only bleeds out of its left chambers.
Examiner Columnist Michelle Malkin, author of ÒCulture of Corruption: Obama and his Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks & Cronies,Ó is nationally syndicated by Creator Syndicate
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters yesterday he is adding the DREAM Act into the Defense appropriations bill that will be taken up by the Senate next week.
The DREAM Act would give special amnesty status to illegal aliens attending college, putting them on a path to citizenship. It also includes provisions for those in this country illegally who would serve in the military.
The bill is already in big trouble as it seeks to repeal the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy barring gays from openly serving in the military -- long before the study of the impact to the military has been completed.
The Defense appropriations bill as currently constituted also provides for elective abortions to be performed at military hospitals.
Reid admitted at a press conference that amnesty is dead for Congress this year. His move is purely political.
“I know we can't do comprehensive immigration reform,” Reid said. “But those Republicans we had in the last Congress have left us.”
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said Reid was injecting a “needlessly controversial” issue into the defense spending measure.
The bill requires 60 votes for cloture to end debate and bring the measure to a vote.
Michelle Malkin has more on open borders Republicans who have a history of support for the DREAM Act at the link.
Carlos Hernandez packed up his family and left Arizona after the state passed its sweeping immigration crackdown. The illegal immigrant's new home outside Seattle offered something Arizona could not: a driver's license.
Three states _ Washington, New Mexico and Utah _ allow illegal immigrants to get licenses because their laws do not require proof of citizenship or legal residency. An Associated Press analysis found that those states have seen a surge in immigrants seeking IDs in recent months, a trend experts attribute to crackdowns on illegal immigration in Arizona and elsewhere.
"It's difficult being undocumented and not having an identification," said Hernandez, of Puebla, Mexico. "You can use the Mexican ID, but people look down on it." An American driver's license is also a requirement for many jobs.
The immigration debate has thrown a spotlight on the license programs, which supporters say make financial sense because unlicensed drivers typically do not carry car insurance. Opponents insist the laws attract illegal immigrants and criminals.
"Washington state and New Mexico have been magnet states for the fraudulent document brokers, human traffickers and alien smugglers for years," said Brian Zimmer, president of the Coalition for a Secure Driver's License, a nonprofit research group in Washington, D.C.
State officials in New Mexico dispute that claim.
He said there is mounting evidence that the spike in license applications is a result of pressure on immigrants in states such as Arizona and Oklahoma, where police have been authorized to help enforce federal immigration laws.
Republican lawmakers in New Mexico and Washington state have pushed to tighten the laws in recent years, only to be thwarted by Democrats. The issue is less heated in Utah, where illegal immigrant licenses carry only driving privileges. People cannot use the IDs to board a plane, get a job or buy alcohol, for example.
Candidates in New Mexico's governor's race have made the licenses a campaign theme, with the Republican saying she would revoke IDs granted to illegal and legal immigrants since the state enacted the law in 2003. The Democratic candidate opposes illegal immigrant licenses but prefers a softer approach.
The AP analysis of data in the three states revealed some striking numbers: The rate of licenses issued to immigrants during the 10 weeks that followed approval of the Arizona law reflected a 60 percent increase over the annual average for last year.
By comparison, the rate of licenses issued to non-immigrants during the same period increased only modestly.
Among the other findings:
_ New Mexico issued 10,257 licenses to immigrants through the first six months of 2010, compared with 13,481 for all of 2009. The pace has intensified since April, when neighboring Arizona passed its immigration law. The figures include both illegal immigrants and legal residents from outside the U.S.
_ New Mexico issued about 417 licenses a week to immigrants from the day after Arizona passed its law through July 1. That is a big jump from the 323 per week it was issuing from Jan. 1 to the day before the law passed.
_ Utah handed out 41,000 illegal immigrant licenses for 2010 through June 7, compared with 43,429 for all of 2008.
_ Washington granted 3,200 licenses to people from outside the U.S. through June, exceeding the pace of 5,992 for all of 2009.
Hernandez said he and his family moved to Washington because he and his wife were spooked by the Arizona law that requires officers to check a person's immigration status when enforcing other laws. A federal judge has put most of the law on hold, saying it may be unconstitutional.
Hernandez said he knows other illegal immigrants who considered New Mexico because of the ease of getting a license without documents. But he and others thought Washington would be safer.
"I know that it's not OK for people who come here to cross the border, but there's people that come here that want to contribute ... that want to follow the rules," said Hernandez, 31, who has a 2-year-old daughter.
Recent fraud cases in New Mexico and Washington show some people are trying to exploit the rules.
An Illinois man is accused of driving two Polish immigrants from Chicago to Albuquerque last month in a scheme to charge them $1,000 each for help getting driver's licenses, according to a criminal complaint.
Jaroslaw Kowalczyk of Des Plaines, Ill., allegedly ran an advertisement in a Polish newspaper boasting, "Social security not necessary. 100 percent guarantee."
In Washington, the FBI was tipped that people from across the country were coming to the state because of its license law. Three people, including one current and one former state Licensing Department employee, were arrested in June in a case dealing with the sale of identification documents to illegal immigrants.
"We don't think we're asking for much," said Rep. Tom Campbell, sponsor of a bill last year in Washington seeking to require proof of citizenship to get a license. "We have to have a handle of who's in our state."
In New Mexico, Motor Vehicle Division Director Michael Sandoval cautioned that it's impossible to identify any specific cause-and-effect linking the Arizona law to illegal immigrants relocating in New Mexico because of the way the licenses are issued.
The state does not require clerks to document where immigrants moved from. And clerks cannot ask if someone is in the country illegally.
As a result, there's no way to distinguish between a license issued to a Swiss chemist employed with a visa at Los Alamos National Laboratory and a license assigned to a Mexican laborer in the U.S. illegally.
Washington state immigrant advocate David Ayala said it's better for drivers to have licenses, especially from a public safety standpoint.
"The people who are driving in the streets need to be tested that they have the knowledge and ability to be on the highway," said Ayala, organizing director of a group called OneAmerica.
People with licenses, he added, "have a more normal life. They can cash a check. They can rent an apartment. They can have insurance for the car."
Associated Press writers Barry Massey in Santa Fe, Rachel La Corte in Olympia, Wash., and Brock Vergakis in Salt Lake City contributed to this report; Korte contributed from Albuquerque.
Democrats act as if the right to run across the border when you're 8 1/2 months pregnant, give birth in a U.S. hospital and then immediately start collecting welfare was exactly what our forebears had in mind, a sacred constitutional right, as old as the 14th Amendment itself.
The louder liberals talk about some ancient constitutional right, the surer you should be that it was invented in the last few decades.
In fact, this alleged right derives only from a footnote slyly slipped into a Supreme Court opinion by Justice Brennan in 1982. You might say it snuck in when no one was looking, and now we have to let it stay.
The 14th Amendment was added after the Civil War in order to overrule the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision, which had held that black slaves were not citizens of the United States. The precise purpose of the amendment was to stop sleazy Southern states from denying citizenship rights to newly freed slaves -- many of whom had roots in this country longer than a lot of white people.
The amendment guaranteed that freed slaves would have all the privileges of citizenship by providing: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
The drafters of the 14th amendment had no intention of conferring citizenship on the children of aliens who happened to be born in the U.S. (For my younger readers, back in those days, people cleaned their own houses and raised their own kids.)
Inasmuch as America was not the massive welfare state operating as a magnet for malingerers, frauds and cheats that it is today, it's amazing the drafters even considered the amendment's effect on the children of aliens.
But they did.
The very author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, expressly said: "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers."
In the 1884 case Elk v. Wilkins, the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment did not even confer citizenship on Indians -- because they were subject to tribal jurisdiction, not U.S. jurisdiction.
For a hundred years, that was how it stood, with only one case adding the caveat that children born to LEGAL permanent residents of the U.S., gainfully employed, and who were not employed by a foreign government would also be deemed citizens under the 14th Amendment. (United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898.)
And then, out of the blue in 1982, Justice Brennan slipped a footnote into his 5-4 opinion in Plyler v. Doe, asserting that "no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful." (Other than the part about one being lawful and the other not.)
Brennan's authority for this lunatic statement was that it appeared in a 1912 book written by Clement L. Bouve. (Yes, THE Clement L. Bouve -- the one you've heard so much about over the years.) Bouve was not a senator, not an elected official, certainly not a judge -- just some guy who wrote a book.
So on one hand we have the history, the objective, the author's intent and 100 years of history of the 14th Amendment, which says that the 14th Amendment does not confer citizenship on children born to illegal immigrants.
On the other hand, we have a random outburst by some guy named Clement -- who, I'm guessing, was too cheap to hire an American housekeeper.
Any half-wit, including Clement L. Bouve, could conjure up a raft of such "plausible distinction(s)" before breakfast. Among them: Legal immigrants have been checked for subversive ties, contagious diseases, and have some qualification to be here other than "lives within walking distance."
But most important, Americans have a right to decide, as the people of other countries do, who becomes a citizen.
Combine Justice Brennan's footnote with America's ludicrously generous welfare policies, and you end up with a bankrupt country.
Consider the story of one family of illegal immigrants described in the Spring 2005 Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons:
"Cristobal Silverio came illegally from Oxtotilan, Mexico, in 1997 and brought his wife Felipa, plus three children aged 19, 12 and 8. Felipa ... gave birth to a new daughter, her anchor baby, named Flor. Flor was premature, spent three months in the neonatal incubator, and cost San Joaquin Hospital more than $300,000. Meanwhile, (Felipa's 19-year-old daughter) Lourdes plus her illegal alien husband produced their own anchor baby, Esmeralda. Grandma Felipa created a second anchor baby, Cristian. ... The two Silverio anchor babies generate $1,000 per month in public welfare funding. Flor gets $600 per month for asthma. Healthy Cristian gets $400. Cristobal and Felipa last year earned $18,000 picking fruit. Flor and Cristian were paid $12,000 for being anchor babies."
In the Silverios' munificent new hometown of Stockton, Calif., 70 percent of the 2,300 babies born in 2003 in the San Joaquin General Hospital were anchor babies. As of this month, Stockton is $23 million in the hole.
It's bad enough to be governed by 5-4 decisions written by liberal judicial activists. In the case of "anchor babies," America is being governed by Brennan's 1982 footnote.
Leading Republicans are joining a push to reconsider the constitutional amendment that grants automatic citizenship to people born in the United States.
Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said Tuesday he supports holding hearings on the 14th Amendment right, although he emphasized that Washington's immigration focus should remain on border security.
His comments came as other Republicans in recent days have questioned or challenged birthright citizenship, embracing a cause that had largely been confined to the far right.
The senators include Arizona's John McCain, the party's 2008 presidential nominee; Arizona's Jon Kyl, the Republicans' second-ranking senator; Alabama's Jeff Sessions, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a leading negotiator on immigration legislation.
"I'm not sure exactly what the drafters of the (14th) amendment had in mind, but I doubt it was that somebody could fly in from Brazil and have a child and fly back home with that child, and that child is forever an American citizen," Sessions said.
Legal experts say repealing the citizenship right can be done only through constitutional amendment, which would require approval by two-thirds majorities in both chambers of Congress and by three-fourths of the states. Legislation to amend the right, introduced previously in the House, has stalled.
The proposals are sure to appeal to conservative voters as immigration so far is playing a central role in November's elections. They also could carry risks by alienating Hispanic voters and alarming moderates who could view constitutional challenges as extreme. Hispanics have become the largest minority group in the United States, and many are highly driven by the illegal immigrant debate.
McConnell and McCain seemed to recognize the risk by offering guarded statements Tuesday.
McCain, who faces a challenge from the right in his re-election bid, said he supports reviewing citizenship rights. He emphasized, however, that amending the Constitution is a serious matter.
"I believe that the Constitution is a strong, complete and carefully crafted document that has successfully governed our nation for centuries and any proposal to amend the Constitution should receive extensive and thoughtful consideration," he said.
At a news conference, McConnell refused to endorse Graham's suggestion that citizenship rights be repealed for children of illegal immigrants. While refusing to take questions, he suggested instead that he would look narrowly into reports of businesses that help immigrants arrange to have babies in the United States in order to win their children U.S. citizenship.
Page 2 of 2
The 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868 in the aftermath of the Civil War, granted citizenship to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States," including recently freed slaves.
Defenders of the amendment say altering it would weaken a fundamental American value while doing little to deter illegal immigration. They also say it would create bureaucratic hardships for parents giving birth.
Quoting a newspaper columnist, Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada said Republicans were "either taking leave of their senses or their principles" in advocating repeal.
An estimated 10.8 million illegal immigrants were living in the U.S. as of January 2009, according to the Homeland Security Department. The Pew Hispanic Center estimates that as of 2008, there were 3.8 million illegal immigrants in this country whose children are U.S. citizens.
(Correction: As initially posted, this story inaccurately said that Pinal County was contiguous with the Mexican border. It is in southern Arizona, but not on the border.)
(CNSNews.com) – Pinal County (Ariz.) Sheriff Paul Babeu is hopping mad at the federal government.
Babeu told CNSNews.com that rather than help law enforcement in Arizona stop the hundreds of thousands of people who come into the United States illegally, the federal government is targeting the state and its law enforcement personnel.
“What’s very troubling is the fact that at a time when we in law enforcement and our state need help from the federal government, instead of sending help they put up billboard-size signs warning our citizens to stay out of the desert in my county because of dangerous drug and human smuggling and weapons and bandits and all these other things and then, behind that, they drag us into court with the ACLU,” Babeu said.
The sheriff was referring to the law suits filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and the U.S. Department of Justice challenging the state’s new immigration law.
“So who has partnered with the ACLU?” Babeu said in a telephone interview with CNSNews.com. “It’s the president and (Attorney General) Eric Holder himself. And that’s simply outrageous.”
Last week, U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton placed a temporary injunction on portions of the bill that allowed law enforcement personnel during the course of a criminal investigation who have probable cause to think an individual is in the country illegally to check immigration status. The state of Arizona filed an appeal on Thursday with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
“Our own government has become our enemy and is taking us to court at a time when we need help,” Babeu said.
Babeu and Sheriff Larry Dever of Cochise County Ariz., spoke by phone with CNSNews.com last week about the May 17 ACLU class-action lawsuit, which charges the law uses racial profiling and named the county attorneys and sheriffs in all 15 Arizona counties as defendants. The Department of Justice filed a lawsuit on July 6, charging the Arizona law preempted the federal government’s sole right to enforce immigration law.
“If the president would do his job and secure the border; send 3,000 armed soldiers to the Arizona border and stop the illegal immigration and the drug smuggling and the violence, we wouldn’t even be in this position and where we’re forced to take matters into our own hands,” Babeu said.
Dever said the federal government’s failure to secure the border and its current thwarting of Arizona’s effort to control illegal immigration within its borders has implications for the entire country.
“The bigger picture is while what’s going on in Arizona is critically important, what comes out of this and happens here will affect our entire nation in terms of our ability to protect our citizenry from a very serious homeland security threat,” Dever said. “People who are coming across the border in my county aren’t staying there. They’re going everywhere USA and a lot of them are bad, bad people.”
According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), about 250,000 people were detained in Arizona in the last 12 months for being in the country illegally. Babeu said that that number only reflects the number of people detained and that thousands more enter the country illegally each year.
The CBP also reports that 17 percent of those detained already have a criminal record in the United States.
Both Babeu and Dever said they want to remain involved in the legal battle over the law, which many experts predict will end up being decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Dever has hired an independent attorney to represent him in the ACLU case and his attorney has already filed a motion of intervention in the DOJ lawsuit so the “(Dever) will have a seat at the table.”
A Web site also has been launched by the non-profit, Iowa-based Legacy Foundation to raise money for the Babeu’s and Dever’s legal defense.
Both men said they believe the outcome of the case has national significance.“For us, this is a public safety matter and a national security threat,” Babeu said.
> I interviewed Mexican journalist Evangelina Hernandez while visiting Denver last week.
> Hernandez said, 'They (illegal aliens) pay rent, buy groceries, buy clothes...What Happens to your country's economy if 20 million people go away?' Hummm, I thought, what would happen, so I did my due diligence, buried my nose as a reporter into the FACTS I found below.
> It's a good question - it deserves an honest answer. Over 80% of Americans demand secured borders and illegal migration stopped. But what would happen if all 20 million or more vacated America ?
> The answers I found may surprise you!
> In California , if 3.5 million illegal aliens moved back to Mexico, it would leave an extra $10.2 billion to spend on overloaded school systems, bankrupt hospitals and overrun prisons. It would leave highways cleaner, safer and less congested. Everyone could understand one another as English became the dominant language again.
> In Colorado , 500,000 illegal migrants, plus their 300,000 kids and grand-kids - would move back 'home', mostly to Mexico . That would save Coloradans an estimated $2 billion (other experts say $7 billion) annually in taxes that pay for schooling, medical, social-services and incarceration costs.
> It means 12,000 gang members would vanish out of Denver alone.
> Colorado would save more than $20 million in prison costs, and the terror that those 7,300 alien criminals set upon local citizens. Denver Officer Don Young and hundreds of Colorado victims would not have suffered death, accidents, rapes and other crimes by illegals.
> Denver Public Schools would not suffer a 67 percent drop-out/flunk-out rate because of thousands of illegal alien students speaking 41 different languages. At least 200,000 vehicles would vanish from our gridlocked cities in Colorado. Denver 's 4% unemployment rate would vanish as our working poor would gain jobs at a living wage.
> In Florida , 1.5 million illegals would return the Sunshine State back to America , the rule of law, and English.
> In Chicago , Illinois , 2.1 million illegals would free up hospitals, schools, prisons and highways for a safer, cleaner and more crime-free experience.
> If 20 million illegal aliens returned 'home' --
> If 20 million illegal aliens returned 'home', the U.S. Economy would return to the rule of law. Employers would hire legal American citizens at a living wage. Everyone would pay their fair share of taxes because they wouldn't be working off the books. That would result in an additional $401 Billion in IRS income taxes collected annually, and an equal amount for local, state and city coffers.
> No more push '1' for Spanish or '2' for English. No more confusion in American schools that now must contend with over 100 languages that degrade the educational system for American kids. Our over-crowded schools would lose more than two million illegal alien kids at a cost of billions in ESL and free breakfasts and lunches.
> We would lose 500,000 illegal criminal alien inmates at a cost of more than $1.6 billion annually. That includes 15,000 MS-13 gang members who distribute $130 billion in drugs annually would vacate our country.
> In cities like L.A. , 20,000 members of the ' 18th Street Gang' would vanish from our nation. No more Mexican forgery gangs for ID theft from Americans! No more foreign rapists and child molesters!
> Losing more than 20 million people would clear up our crowded highways and gridlock. Cleaner air and less drinking and driving American deaths by illegal aliens!
> America 's economy is drained. Taxpayers are harmed. Employers get rich. Over $80 billion annually wouldn't return to the aliens' home countries by cash transfers. Illegal migrants earned half that money untaxed, which further drains America 's economy - which currently suffers an
> $8.7 trillion debt.
> At least 400,000 anchor babies would not be born in our country, costing us $109 billion per year per cycle. At least 86 hospitals in California , Georgia and Florida would still be operating instead of being bankrupt out of existence because illegals pay nothing via the EMTOLA Act.
> Americans wouldn't suffer thousands of TB and hepatitis cases rampant in our country-brought in by illegals unscreened at our borders.
> Our cities would see 20 million less people driving, polluting and grid locking our cities. It would also put the 'progressives' on the horns of a dilemma; illegal aliens and their families cause 11 percent of our greenhouse gases.
> Over one million of Mexico 's poorest citizens now live inside and along our border from Brownsville , Texas to San Diego , California in what the New York Times called, 'colonias' or new neighborhoods. Trouble is, those living areas resemble Bombay and Calcutta where grinding poverty,
> filth, diseases, drugs, crimes, no sanitation and worse. They live without sewage, clean water, streets, elec tricity, roads or any kind of sanitation.
> The New York Times reported them to be America 's new ' Third World ' inside our own country. Within 20 years, at their current growth rate, they expect 20 million residents of those colonias.
> (I've seen them personally in Texas and Arizona ; it's sickening beyond anything you can imagine.)
> By enforcing our laws, we could repatriate them back to Mexico. We should invite 20 million aliens to go home, fix their own countries and/or make a better life in Mexico . We already invite a million
> people into our country legally more than all other countries combined annually. We cannot and must not allow anarchy at our borders, more anarchy within our borders and growing lawlessness at every level in our nation. It's time to stand up for our country, our culture, our civilization and our way of life.
> Interesting Statistics!
> Here are 14 reasons illegal aliens should vacate America , and I hope they are forwarded over and over again until they are read so many times that the reader gets sick of reading them:
> 1. $14 b illion to $22 billion dollars are spent each year on welfare to illegal aliens.
> ( that's B illion with a 'B' ) - http://tinyurl.com/zob77
> 2.. $2.2 billion dollars are spent each year on food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens. - http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html
> 3. $7.5 billion dollars are spent each year on Medicaid for illegal aliens. http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html
> 4. $12 billion dollars are spent each year on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they still cannot speak a word of English! http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
> 5. $27 billion dollars are spent each year for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies. - http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
> 6. $3 Million Dollars 'PER DAY' is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens. That's $1.2 Billion a year. Link
> 7. 28% percent of all federal prison inmates are illegal aliens.
> 8. $190 billion dollars are spent each year on illegal aliens for welfare & social services by the American taxpayers. - http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.html
> 9. $200 billion dollars per year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens.
> 10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that's two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular, their children, are going to make a huge additional crime probl em in the US. - http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/12/ldt.01.html
> 11. During the year 2005, there were 8 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our southern border with as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from other terrorist countries. Over 10,000 of those were middle-eastern terrorists. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroine, crack, Guns, and marijuana crossed into the U.S. from the southern border. - http://tinyurl.com/t9sht
> 12.. The National Policy Institute, estimates that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion, or an average cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period - http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/publications.php?b=deportation
> 13. In 2006, illegal aliens sent home $65 BILLION in remittances back to their countries of origin, to their families & friends. http://www.rense.com/general75/niht.htm
> 14. The dark side of illegal immigration: Nearly one million sex crimes are committed by illegal immigrants in the United States !' - http://www.drdsk.com/articleshtml
> Total cost a whopping $538.3 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR!!!
I'm confused about immigration.
We libertarians believe in free trade. That includes trade in labor, too. New people bring us not just labor, but also good new ideas. Open immigration during America's first hundred years helped make America rich.
Open immigration is dangerous today, however, because some immigrants want to murder us. And now that America is a welfare state, some want to come here just to freeload. That great champion of freedom Milton Friedman said Mexican immigration is a good thing -- but only so long as it's illegal.
"Why? Because as long as it's illegal for people to come, they don't qualify for welfare and Social Security. So they migrate to jobs."
But closing our eyes to illegal immigration cannot be good policy. So what should American do?
I sat down with Heather MacDonald of the conservative Manhattan Institute, author of "The Immigration Solution," and Jason Riley of The Wall Street Journal's editorial board, author of "Let Them In." I respect them both. But they radically disagree on immigration policy.
"The case for open borders is a case for letting the law of supply and demand, the free market, determine the level of immigration," Riley said. "Right now, that determination is being made by politicians and public policy makers. ... And like all exercises in Soviet-style central planning, it's been a complete disaster. We have thriving markets in document fraud ... and 12 million-plus illegal aliens. ... (W)e would do better to move to a system that allowed the free market to determine the level of immigration. And that's the case for open borders." Riley proposes a guest-worker program. "That is the way to reduce illegal immigration."
Heather MacDonald retorts: "A country is not a firm. And it is absolutely the prerogative of a nation and its people to decide its immigration policy. ... We should have an immigration policy that accentuates our natural economic advantage in the 21st century, which is as a high-tech, high-science economy. ... (T)he overwhelming number of immigrants that are coming in largely illegally are extremely low skilled." MacDonald worries that "we're facing, for the first time in this country's history ... the first decrease in national literacy and numeracy ... . "
She wants to copy Australia's and Canada's policy: "high skills, English language and education. ... We should be looking out for our own economic self-interest." Riley disagreed with MacDonald's claim that Mexican immigrants don't fit America's modern economy.
"(T)oday's immigrants coming here are not different in terms of their behavior patterns, in terms of their assimilation levels. They are simply newer."
"Immigrants increase crime!" is another charge hurled at illegals, but the data don't bear that out. There has been a surge in immigration over recent years, but crime has been dropping. Crime has dropped in the border areas of Arizona and California, too.
MacDonald said crime was high during immigration surges in the 1970s and '80s, and attributed the recent drop to higher incarceration rates. But Riley noted, "Incarceration reports from the Justice Department ... show that the native-born are five times more likely than the immigrant population to be arrested and incarcerated ... ."
But if today's illegals are not eligible for welfare, less likely to commit crimes and eager to work, why are people in the border states so ticked off?
"Why wouldn't they be?" Riley said. "It's chaos down there. There's trespassing. There are people breaking the law. We're a nation of laws. It's out of control. The question is how to fix it. And I don't think sealing off the border is the best way to fix it. I think regulating the flow is the best way to fix it."
It would be easier to "regulate the flow" if America made it easier for people to work here legally. State Department data show that a British Ph.D. in bioengineering must wait about six months to get a green card. A South African computer programmer, six years. An Indian computer programmer, 35 years.
A Mexican with a high school diploma must wait a theoretical 131 years! No wonder people sneak into America.
Black markets make problems worse. America should let more people come here legally.
National Guard troops will head to the U.S.-Mexico border Aug. 1 for a yearlong deployment to keep a lookout for illegal border crossers and smugglers and help in criminal investigations, federal officials said Monday.
The troops will be armed but can use their weapons only to protect themselves, Gen. Craig McKinley, chief of the National Guard Bureau, told a Pentagon news conference. The troops will undergo initial training and be fully deployed along the nearly 2,000-mile southern border by September.
The announcement provides details on how the government will implement President Barack Obama's May decision to bolster border security and comes as drug-related violence has escalated in Mexico, where several people died over the weekend in a car bombing and in a separate massacre at a private party. It also comes as the U.S. debate over illegal immigration has intensified in an election year.
"The border is more secure and more resourced than it has ever been, but there is more to be done," said Alan Bersin, commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, part of the Homeland Security Department.
The 1,200 troops will be distributed among four border states, with Arizona getting 524; Texas, 250; California, 224 and New Mexico, 72. Another 130 would be assigned to a national liaison office.
Bersin also said the Homeland Security Department will provide six more aircraft, including helicopters, to the border. He said at least 300 Customs and Border Protection agents and inspection officers would be sent to the Tucson area, along with mobile surveillance vans and additional technology.
"It will help," Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, a Democrat, said Monday in Santa Fe, N.M., where he was attending the annual meeting of the Conference of Western Attorneys General. "Manpower clearly has been deficient. Technology has been somewhat deficient, and they're bolstering that."
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican, said the deployment isn't enough "nor tied to a strategy to comprehensively defeat the increasingly violent drug- and alien-smuggling cartels that operate in Arizona on a daily basis."
Republican Sens. John McCain and Jon Kyl of Arizona said Obama's administration was taking a step in the right direction but a lot more needs to be done.
U.S. Reps. Ann Kirkpatrick and Gabrielle Giffords, both D-Ariz., separately called the announced actions welcome but insufficient.
"This is the kind of action we want from the administration _ not suing the state," Kirkpatrick said, referring to the Department of Justice's challenge to the new Arizona immigration enforcement law. "However, we should continue to move forward with a much larger commitment of National Guard troops right away and with an expansion of the Border Patrol to strengthen security for the long run."
Texas Gov. Rick Perry also criticized the troops as "grossly insufficient" for the Texas border in a letter to the administration last week.
President George W. Bush deployed 6,000 National Guard troops to the border in June 2006, also a midterm election year. The troops were part of his effort to persuade the Republican-led Congress to pass his immigration reform proposals that included a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants. The troops' deployment ended in July 2008.
McKinley said even though the four border states are contributing 54,000 troops to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, they still have a sizable number available for other deployments or disaster response. More can be deployed at state cost if governors wish, but the 1,200 are being paid for by the federal government, he said.
"Right now I cannot see a case where we would be overextending the National Guard for this effort," he said. Continued...
Page 2 of 2
Immigration and Customs Enforcement also is beefing up its presence in Arizona, said John Morton, the Homeland Security Department assistant secretary overseeing the agency.
Morton said ICE is opening a new office in Ajo, Ariz., to focus exclusively on cross-border crime and to deploy a specialized investigative team in Douglas, near where an Arizona rancher was shot and killed while surveying his ranch on the border.
Also, the agency will send ICE lawyers to U.S. attorneys offices to help prosecute felons who illegally re-enter the country after deportation. It also will increase the number of ICE agents in Mexico to 40, making it the largest of ICE's 63 offices in 44 countries.
"We are placing a particular emphasis on the Tucson sector in Arizona, an area favored by smugglers and the principal point of illegal entry into the United States along the southwest border," Morton said.
Associated Press writers Susan Montoya Bryan in Santa Fe, N.M., and Paul Davenport in Phoenix contributed to this report.
Homeland Security Department: http://www.dhs.gov
National Guard: http://www.ng.mil
Signs are growing that the terror group Hezbollah has expanded its long-established influence with South and Central American drug cartels into a working presence in Mexico.
Rep. Sue Myrick (R.-N.C.) is asking the Department of Homeland Security to form a task force to investigate ties between the Islamic terror group Hezbollah, the drug cartels in Central and South America and new indications of a Hezbollah presence in Mexico.
Documents obtained exclusively by Human Events reveal a well-established smuggling route into the U.S. Over 180,000 illegal aliens from countries Other than Mexico (OTM) were apprehended from 2007 through mid-March 2010.
Nearly 150,000 of those apprehended were from South and Central American countries that the State Department says are being used as corridors for smuggling people from the Middle East, Southwest Asia and East Africa.
State Department documents examined by Human Events raise concerns that Hezbollah has already used these long-established narco-terror relationships to establish terror cells in the United States.
From the State Department Country Reports on Terrorism 2008:
“Over the past five years, however, smuggling rings have been detected moving people from East Africa, the Middle East, and Southwest Asia to Honduras or through its territory. In 2008, there was an increase in the number of boats arriving on the North coast, ferrying people from all over the world seeking to enter the United States illegally via Guatemala and Mexico. Nationals of countries without Honduran visa requirements, especially Ecuador and Colombia, were involved in schemes to transit Honduras, often with the United States and Europe as their final destination. Foreign nationals have successfully obtained valid Honduran identity cards and passports under their own or false identities.”
Over the past three years, nearly 57,000 people have been apprehended in this country illegally with Honduran identification. Over 49,000 were from Guatemala and over 38,000 from El Salvador, home of the MS-13 narco-terror gangs.
Myrick has requested that a task force study new indications that Hezbollah has expanded their presence into Mexico. In a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, Myrick gives several examples of Hezbollah’s influence on the drug cartels.
“We have seen their cooperation in countries across South America, particularly the tri-border area of South America (bounded by Puerto Iguazu, Argentina; Ciudad del Este, Paraguay; and Foz do Iguanzo, Brazil). Hezbollah operates almost like a Mafia family in this region, often demanding protection money and ‘taxes’ from local inhabitants,” Myrick states in the letter.
Of particular concern was evidence of Hezbollah influence in Mexico, which is the gateway into the United States for drug cartels.
Myrick’s letter warns that tattoos have been found on drug gangs in U.S. prisons showing the influence of Iranian-directed Hezbollah terrorists.
“If you go down to the San Diego area in the prisons that’s where you’ll see prison inmates with Farsi tattoos,” Myrick told Human Events in a recent interview. “It’s not a secret, it just something that people have chosen to ignore.”
Myrick also raised concerns over Hezbollah training Mexican cartels in bomb making and sophisticated tunneling techniques that they’ve used for terrorist attacks against Israel.
“I think that there is a bigger picture here that everyone is ignoring,” Myrick said. “I’ve asked Homeland Security for a task force. They said they would give me an intelligence briefing, which would be to shut me up so I can’t say anything. I’m not going to do that. I want some answers to my questions on the task force first.”
T.J. Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council, recently told Human Events the Mexican cartels are building sophisticated tunnels into the United States.
“When you look at some of the pretty sophisticated tunnels that they’ve dug under the border where two adult males can walk side-by-side without bending over you know that they’ve built them not just for moving drugs through there but [to move] anything through there,” Bonner said.
When asked if the Mexican cartels would work with terrorist groups, Bonner said it’s all about the money.
“They don’t have a conscience. They really don’t care what they’re smuggling across the border—it could be a weapon of mass destruction—as long as the price is right they’ll move it,” Bonner said. “They don’t care whether the person is from a terrorist sponsoring country or whether that person is from Mexico, if the person pays the fee they’re getting across. The higher the fee you pay, the more likely it is that you’re going to get across.”
Bonner said that this year there is a higher percentage of border apprehensions for drug arrests and OTMs.
“It’s not that the OTMs and the drugs coming across have necessarily increased but we have seen our effectiveness increase because we have fewer people coming across,” Bonner said.
Rep. Mike Rogers (R.-Mich.), member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, served for 12 years as an FBI Special Agent. He spoke recently with HUMAN EVENTS about the smuggling routes into this country from these South American countries.
“Remember there’s a difference in a criminal enterprise that seeks to come here that wants to be surreptitious,” Rogers warned. “They’re not showing up to get a job at a construction site. They’re showing up here to do a whole other set of activities that they also don’t want law enforcement to know about, so that makes that group of individuals more difficult to catch and they are much more dangerous.”
Rogers says the lines are being blurred between the terrorist groups and the drug cartels.
“What we see that happening in Pakistan, and we see it happening in Northern Africa and we see it happening in the Arabian Peninsula that these groups will work together,” Rogers said. “I think the five crime families in New York are a great example. If they can find a way to work together to benefit both of them between two families or three families or four families or five families they will do it. It doesn’t mean they like each other, it doesn’t mean they won’t shoot each other, but if they can find something that benefits them they’ll do it. These groups are no different.”
According to an April 30 report compiled by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service, “International terrorist groups, including Hamas and Hezbollah, have also reportedly raised funding for their terrorist activities through linkages formed with [drug trafficking organizations] in South America, particularly those operating in the tri-border area (TBA) of Brazil, Paraguay, and Argentina.”
“We have clearly seen that the line between the narco-terrorist and funding for terrorist operations is getting awful blurred,” Rogers said. “I think that the sooner we come to the realization that all of these groups will use each other to further their aims the better off we are.”
PLEASE PHONE MEMBERS TO GIVE THEM YOUR ETHICAL IMPERATIVE.
25 million Americans who want a full-time job cannot find one.
But the leaders of the House immigration subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee is bringing in some big name preachers Wednesday to talk about the ethical need to give permanent work permits to 7-8 million illegal alien workers while refusing to open up the jobs for millions of unemployed Americans.
These congressional leaders' misuse of religion to justify their greedy desire for cheap new labor and cheap new voters cries out for an immediate response.
IF YOU SEE THIS BEFORE 7 P.M. EASTERN TIME, PLEASE PICK UP A PHONE AND START CALLING NOW.
THROUGH THE EVENING CALL AND LEAVE A MESSAGE ON VOICE MAIL.
THEN, START CALLING AGAIN FIRST THING ON TUESDAY MORNING.
It is so important that these callous Members of Congress know how repulsive their anti-U.S.-worker actions are to the electorate.
Please read my blog about this and get some tips for your phone call.
All of your comments on the phone should be about "ethical obligations."
The ethical obligation of Congress is to stop giving 75,000 new permanent work permits to foreign workers each month and to stop allowing 7-8 million illegal aliens to keep jobs that unemployed Americans want and need.
WHAT TO SAY TO DEMOCRATS
The Democratic Leadership is putting on this sad show. Let all the Democrats on the committee know that this callousness toward jobless Americans is really going to hurt them in this fall's elections.
But mainly talk about their moral obligation to the jobless citizens of their District.
WHAT TO SAY TO REPUBLICANS
The Republican Members are likely to oppose amnesty at this hearing but they will be uncomfortable to have religious leaders telling them that they are immoral.
A few of these Republicans have been champions of U.S. workers lately.
But most Republicans have done almost nothing during the Jobs Depression to loudly advocate for immigration reductions.
Thank the Republicans for holding the line against amnesty but also push them to be more forceful and public in advocating for major immigration reductions. And remind them that opposition to amnesty is truly what most churchgoers regard as the moral position to take.
Here are the Members of the Immigration Subcommittee. You can reach them through the Capitol Switchboard:
Howard Berman (D)
Judy Chu (D)
Elton Gallegly (R)
Zoe Lofgren (D)
Dan Lungren (R)
Linda Sanchez (D)
Maxine Waters (D)
Luis Gutierrez (D)
Steve King (R)
Gregg Harper (R)
Charlie Gonzalez (D)
Sheila Jackson-Lee (D)
Ted Poe (R)
Jason Chaffetz (R)
THANKS. CALL SOON.
Miller for News
President Obama's efforts to battle the anti-illegal immigration law in Arizona will not help him politically.
The Obama administration is getting quite the reputation for bucking the wishes of the people. From pushing through an unpopular health care bill to imposing a moratorium on offshore drilling that's costing the already-suffering gulf region precious jobs, it has refused to back down when it comes to the will of the masses.
Now, President Obama's Justice Department has decided to sue the State of Arizona over its new law targeting illegal aliens, when a majority of the public favors the legislation, leaving many to wonder if the increasingly detached White House has gone too far.
The administration says its lawsuit is all about the law; Arizona, it says, is trying to enforce immigration statutes - which is the federal government's job alone.
It's hard to believe from a President who has already shaken the finger of moral disapproval at the bill.
Rather, anyone with basic political sense can see the move for what it is: a purely political maneuver intended to invigorate Hispanic voters - a key piece of the Democratic base - in time for the November elections. Obama is hoping that a bloody judicial showdown on immigration will translate into high turnout for Democrats. And that could be enough to sustain Democratic majorities in Congress.
Don't count on it. For the strategy to work, registered Hispanic voters would need to turn out in droves over what essentially boils down to a nuanced debate between federal versus states' rights.
While some legal Latinos will buy the concern that the bill could lead to racial profiling - an outcome the Arizona law strictly forbids - most likely voters are overwhelmingly against illegal immigration. Even if some find the Arizona law abhorrent, it won't likely be enough to counter the majority of Americans who side with the Grand Canyon State and would favor a similar law in their own states.
According to a Pew Research Center poll conducted May 6 to 9, nearly six in 10 voters favor the Arizona legislation, the broadest support in favor of the requirement that people produce documents verifying their legal status. A whopping 86% of Republicans, 65% of Democrats and 73% of independents back that provision.
When it comes to immigration, most Americans want the border secured first and foremost. But securing the border would take the immediacy of the immigration issue off the table. You see, Obama needs the border as a carrot to pass a larger bill in Congress that gives amnesty.
Think about it. What sounds better: "The Protect Our Borders Now Act" or the "Amnesty for Everyone Bill"? Without serious provisions that address border security, any such legislation is unlikely to pass, particularly if the GOP gains seats in the fall or takes control of the House of Representatives, something Obama is expecting, with the help of Hispanics, not to happen.
And so, in an effort to maintain and expand the Democratic base, Obama risks support within it. A sharp divide among the unions could ensue as it did in 2007 during the last immigration fight if blue-collar workers believe Obama is favoring illegal aliens who take their jobs and refusing to stand up for the suffering American worker.
With unemployment hovering at almost 10%, a bitter battle between two levels of government is unprecedented and unnecessary. Voters want action on the economy, not more federal government overreaching. A very public power struggle between the President and one of the states in the Union is not likely to play well, especially because it's Washington that has dropped the ball when it comes to tackling the out-of-control issue of illegal immigration.
Declaring war on the State of Arizona is one thing. Declaring war on the State of Arizona while the economy is on the verge of bankruptcy and a double-dip recession is another. Restoring jobs and economic and national security should be the President's top concerns. If he doesn't change course, it'll be him who is on trial next in the court of public opinion.
In a speech Thursday that oozed Emma Lazarus-like treacle, the president distilled the current crisis facing states — from Arizona's massive kidnapping rate and loss of control of territory, to California's bankrupt state hospitals and schools, to Texas' near-catastrophic destruction of a dam and cartel violence spillover — as merely an issue of Americans disliking immigrants, as if there were no difference between legal and illegal.
"These (immigrants) and men and women like them across this country, remind us that immigrants have always helped to build and defend this country — and that being an American is not a matter of blood or birth," President Obama said, apparently forgetting that the people he was describing were legal immigrants.
His inability to admit this is a sign that he's adopted the narrative of the politically muscular open-borders lobby. As his popularity fades and November's midterm election approaches, he's now pandering for Latino votes.
It's clear enough by his past statements: He declared last April 30 that amnesty had zero chance of passing in Congress and wasn't worth the political effort. "I don't want us to do something just for the sake of politics that doesn't solve the problem," he said then.
But as his popularity fell, he told Arizona Sen. John Kyl on June 18, in words heard by others, that Arizona's border security would be held a political hostage to amnesty.
"The problem is ... if we secure the border, then you all won't have any reason to support 'comprehensive immigration reform,'" Kyl explained at a meeting held in an Arizona border town.
And even in Thursday's speech, the president admitted that his proposals for immigration reform "cannot pass without Republican votes," which he knows he won't get.
So Obama's sudden interest in what's euphemistically called "comprehensive immigration reform" can only be one thing: a bid to shore up poll numbers as elections near. A Rasmussen poll showed 32% of voters strongly approving of Obama when he vowed not to pursue immigration reform. Today it's about 26%.
With trouble like that, it's not surprising to see him looking to energize special interest groups, even with a bill he knows can't pass.
The problem is, placing electoral politics above governing amounts to a diversion from his own responsibilities as president.
NEW YORK — While Americans march against Arizona’s new restrictions on unlawful immigration, hundreds of illegal aliens from countries awash in Muslim terrorists tiptoe across the US/Mexican frontier.
According to the federal Enforcement Integrated Database, 125 individuals were apprehended along the US/Mexican border from Fiscal Year 2009 through April 20, 2010. These deportable aliens included two Syrians, seven Sudanese, and 17 Iranians, all nationals from the three Islamic countries that the US government officially classifies as state sponsors of terrorism.
Federal authorities also track “Special Interest Countries” from which terrorism could be directed against America. Over the aforementioned period, 99 of those nations’ citizens also were nabbed on the border. They were: two Afghans, five Algerians, 13 Iraqis, 10 Lebanese, 22 Nigerians, 28 Pakistanis, two Saudis, 14 Somalis, and three Yemenis. During FY 2007 and FY 2008, federal officials seized 319 people from these same countries traversing America’s southwest border.
Some such characters were confined in Arizona, which recently adopted a controversial law that lets cops ask the citizenship status of those they suspect of other possible violations. Atlanta’s WSB-TV recently publicized an April 15, 2010 “population breakdown” of immigrants detained at a Florence, Arizona facility. While 198 of the 395 males behind bars there were Mexican, 18 hailed from Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Nigeria, Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen.
Perhaps these gentlemen simply want to pursue the American dream. Worrisome signs suggest, however, that some may have arrived via blistering, cactus-adorned deserts so that they could blow Americans to smithereens.
Besides Iranian currency and Islamic prayer rugs, Texas Border Patrol agents discovered an Arabic clothing patch that reads “martyr” and “way to immortality.” Another shows a jet flying into a skyscraper.
“Members of Hezbollah, the Lebanon-based terrorist organization, have already entered the United States across our southwest border,” declares A Line in the Sand, a 2006 report by the House Homeland Security Investigations Subcommittee, then-chaired by Rep. Michael McCaul (R – Texas).
“The same disturbing problem we identified four years ago still exists today,” Rep. McCaul tells me. “The number of undocumented aliens coming across our Southwest border from special interest countries that have ties to terrorism continues to increase, and unless we get serious about securing our borders, the terrorists will exploit this region as a way to slip into our country undetected so they can network, radicalize, and plot against us.”
Even more disturbing are the uninvited terrorists and terror suspects who were arrested after entering America through our permeable underbelly.
•Mahmoud Youssef Kourani pleaded guilty in March 2005 to providing material support to terrorists. First, Kourani secured a visa by bribing a Mexican diplomat in Beirut. He and another Middle Easterner then hired a Mexican guide to escort them into America. Finally, Kourani settled into Dearborn, Michigan’s Lebanese-immigrant community and raised cash for Hezbollah.
•Miguel Alfonso Salinas was picked up in New Mexico near the international border in 2006. As Sara A. Carter reported in the June 8 Washington Examiner, one week of FBI interrogation exposed Salinas as an Egyptian named Ayman Sulmane Kamal. Evidently, he remains in federal custody.
•Then-National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell said that in FY 2006 and FY 2007, at least 30 potentially dangerous Iraqis were found trying to penetrate America via Mexico. As McConnell told the El Paso Times: “There are numerous situations where people are alive today because we caught them.”
•The Department of Homeland Security issued an April 14, 2010 “Intelligence Alert” regarding a possible border-crossing attempt by a Somali named Mohamed Ali. He is a suspected member of Al-Shabaab, a Somali-based al-Qaeda ally tied to the deadly attack on American GIs in 1993’s notorious “Blackhawk Down” incident in Mogadishu.
•Captured in Brownsville, Texas, Ahmed Muhammed Dhakane, 24, pleaded not guilty in San Antonio on May 14 to federal charges that he “ran a large-scale smuggling enterprise” designed to sneak East Africans through Mexico into Texas, including “several AIAI-affiliated Somalis into the United States.” Al-Ittihad Al-Islami is yet another Muslim-extremist organization.
•Daniel Joseph Maldonado, a convert to Islam, also has Somali ties. Maldonado, AKA Daniel Aljughaifi, was picked up in Kenya in 2007 after fleeing a Somali camp where he received terrorist training. According to a February 13m 2007 criminal complaint signed by FBI Special Agent Jeremiah George, Maldonado — AKA Abu Mohammed — had “no problem” with the September 11 attacks. Maldonado was returned to Houston for prosecution and is serving a 10-year federal prison sentence. As Rice University’s Joan Neuhas Schaan told KHOU-TV: “They had plans for him to come back to the United States and recruit female suicide bombers.”
All this involves only the bad guys who the authorities nailed. Those who have stayed undetected after crossing the U.S./Mexican border to murder Americans remain — by definition — invisible.
President Obama's Labor Secretary Hilda Solis is supposed to represent American workers. What you need to know is that this longtime open-borders sympathizer has always had a rather radical definition of "American." At a Latino voter registration project conference in Los Angeles many years ago, Solis asserted to thunderous applause, "We are all Americans, whether you are legalized or not."
That's right. The woman in charge of enforcing our employment laws doesn't give a hoot about our immigration laws -- or about the fundamental distinction between those who followed the rules in pursuit of the American dream and those who didn't.
While in Congress, she opposed strengthening the border fence, supported expansion of illegal alien benefits (including driver's licenses and in-state tuition discounts), embraced sanctuary cities that refused to cooperate with federal homeland security officials to enforce immigration laws, and aggressively championed a mass amnesty. Solis was steeped in the pro-illegal alien worker organizing movement in Southern California and was buoyed by amnesty-supporting Big Labor groups led by the Service Employees International Union. She has now caused a Capitol Hill firestorm over her new taxpayer-funded advertising and outreach campaign to illegal aliens regarding fair wages:
"I'm here to tell you that your president, your secretary of labor and this department will not allow anyone to be denied his or her rightful pay -- especially when so many in our nation are working long, hard and often dangerous hours," Solis says in the video pitch. "We can help, and we will help. If you work in this country, you are protected by our laws. And you can count on the U.S. Department of Labor to see to it that those protections work for you."
To be sure, no one should be scammed out of "fair wages." Employers that hire and exploit illegal immigrant workers deserve full sanctions and punishment. But it's the timing, tone-deafness and underlying blanket amnesty agenda of Solis' illegal alien outreach that has so many American workers and their representatives on Capitol Hill rightly upset.
With double-digit unemployment and a growing nationwide revolt over Washington's border security failures, why has Solis chosen now to hire 250 new government field investigators to bolster her illegal alien workers' rights campaign? (Hint: Leftists unhappy with Obama's lack of progress on "comprehensive immigration reform" need appeasing. This is a quick bone to distract them.)
Unfortunately, the federal government is not alone in lavishing attention and resources on workers who shouldn't be here in the first place. As of 2008, California, Florida, Nevada, New York, Texas and Utah all expressly included illegal aliens in their state workers' compensation plans -- and more than a dozen other states implicitly cover them.
Solis' public service announcement comes on the heels of little-noticed but far more troubling comments encouraging illegal alien workers in the Gulf Coast. Earlier this month, in the aftermath of the BP oil spill, according to Spanish language publication El Diario La Prensa, Solis signaled that her department was going out of its way to shield illegal immigrant laborers involved in cleanup efforts. "My purpose is to assist the workers with respect to safety and protection," she said. "We're protecting all workers regardless of migration status because that's the federal law." She told reporters that her department was in talks with local Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials who had visited coastal worksites to try to verify that workers were legal.
No word yet on whether she gave ICE her "we are all Americans, whether you are legalized or not" lecture. But it's a safe bet.
I might be a little slow here, but isn't America a sovereign nation? Doesn't it have borders and land and citizens? Didn't Americans fight battles and wars and negotiate land deals to establish this country and set up a federal government to protect the sovereign nation? Ok, I'm just asking, because now we have Mexican drug gangs camped out on American soil, and Barack Obama is doing nothing about it! Isn't protecting the country THE fundamental function of the president and those in Washington?
Before we get into some details, check out this headline from FoxNews.com: Mexican Gangs Maintain Permanent Lookout Bases in Hills of Arizona. Did you read it? Ok... rest five seconds and read it again. This is completely insane!
Mexican drug cartels have set up shop on American soil, maintaining lookout bases in strategic locations in the hills of southern Arizona from which their scouts can monitor every move made by law enforcement officials, federal agents tell Fox News.
The scouts are supplied by drivers who bring them food, water, batteries for radios -- all the items they need to stay in the wilderness for a long time.
"To say that this area is out of control is an understatement," said an agent who patrols the area and asked not to be named. "We (federal border agents), as well as the Pima County Sheriff Office and the Bureau of Land Management, can attest to that."
Not only are the drug and illegal alien traffickers setting up bases on American soil, they are also issuing threats. As Joshua Rhett Miller reports, "Police officers in a small Arizona border city are on heightened alert following a tip that a Mexican drug cartel will put them in its crosshairs if they conduct off-duty busts."
The threat stems from a marijuana seizure made this month by two off-duty police officers riding on horseback in an unincorporated area east of Nogales, a city of roughly 20,000, Police Chief Jeffrey Kirkham told FoxNews.com.
"The word was that these particular officers would be targeted if they were ever in that area again and were not on duty and intercepted any drug trafficking," Kirkham said. "It said they should look the other way."
So, we have Mexican gangs virtually controlling parts of the United States and making threats against American law enforcement officials, but does it stop there? Of course not. Mexico is also SUING Arizona over its new illegal immigration law.
Mexico on Tuesday asked a federal court in Arizona to declare the state's new immigration law unconstitutional, arguing that the country's own interests and its citizens' rights are at stake.
Lawyers for Mexico on Tuesday submitted a legal brief in support of one of five lawsuits challenging the law. The law will take effect July 29 unless implementation is blocked by a court.
Arizona's new law known as SB-1070 "requires police investigating another incident or crime to ask people about their immigration status if there's a "reasonable suspicion" they're in the country illegally. It also makes being in Arizona illegally a misdemeanor, and it prohibits seeking day-labor work along the state's streets." This law, as many of you know, is basically a restatement of federal law... a federal law that the federal government does not enforce. In addition, this law is much more lax than Mexican immigration law. However, that point seems to be missed in Mexico's lawsuit.
And the list grows... Mexican gangs controlling parts of the U.S. and making threats against American cops. In addition, Mexico is suing Arizona to make sure that the illegal alien "business" keeps right on flowing. Does it stop there? Unfortunately, yes, because there is NO action being taken by Obama and his team!
Just watch any interview with a Democrat "strategist" regarding what's going on in Arizona, and they will pull out their "comprehensive immigration reform" talking points. Just like Obama is doing with the Gulf oil spill, they are taking a situation that needs immediate action and turning it into a call for some left-wing legislation. Our country is being occupied!!!! That sentence alone should be a ringing call for action! Laws are being broken. People in Arizona are being killed and threatened. Arizona takes action, and what does Obama do? Does he send troops in to wipe out the gangs? No, he's going to sue Arizona! What's wrong with this picture?
The Obama administration has a lot of fights on its hands. Putting aside real wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, there's the battle against leaking oil in the Gulf, the struggle against 9.7 percent unemployment across the country, and clashes over the president's agenda on Capitol Hill. Despite all that, the White House has found time to issue a new declaration of war, this time against an unlikely enemy: the state of Arizona.
The Justice Department is preparing to sue Arizona over its new immigration law. The president has stiffed Gov. Jan Brewer's call for meaningful assistance in efforts to secure the border. And the White House has accused Arizona's junior senator, Republican Jon Kyl, of lying about an Oval Office discussion with the president over comprehensive immigration reform. Put them all together, and you have an ugly state of affairs that's getting uglier by the day.
First, the lawsuit. Last week, Brewer was appalled to learn the Justice Department's intentions not from the Justice Department but from an interview done by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with an Ecuadorian TV outlet. "It would seem to me that if they were going to file suit against us," Brewer told Fox News' Greta van Susteren last week, "they definitely would have contacted us first and informed us before they informed citizens ... of another nation."
But they didn't.
"There certainly seems to be an underlying disrespect for the state of Arizona," says Kris Kobach, the law professor and former Bush administration Justice Department official who helped draft the Arizona law. Kobach points out that during the Bush years, several states openly flouted federal immigration law on issues like sanctuary cities and in-state tuition for illegal immigrants. Respecting the doctrines of comity and federalism, the Bush administration didn't sue. Now, when Arizona passes a measure that is fully consistent with federal law, the Obama administration, says Kobach, "goes sprinting to the courthouse door."
Then there is the matter of the White House's assistance, or nonassistance, in Arizona's border-security efforts. On June 3, the president, under criticism for refusing to meet or even talk to Brewer, reluctantly granted her an audience in the Oval Office. After the meeting, Brewer told reporters Obama pledged that administration officials would come to Arizona within two weeks with details of plans to secure the border.
June 17 marked two weeks, and there were no administration officials and no plans. There still aren't. "What a disappointment," Brewer told van Susteren. "You know, when you hear from the president of the United States and he gives you a commitment, you would think that they would stand up and stand by their word. It is totally disappointing."
And now, there's the Kyl controversy. On June 18, Kyl told a town meeting in North Phoenix that Obama personally told him the administration will not secure the U.S.-Mexico border because doing so would make it politically difficult to pass comprehensive immigration reform. "I met with the president in the Oval Office, just the two of us," Kyl said. "Here's what the president said. The problem is, he said, if we secure the border, then you all won't have any reason to support comprehensive immigration reform."
"In other words," Kyl continued, "they're holding it hostage. They don't want to secure the border unless and until it is combined with comprehensive immigration reform."
After Kyl's statement went viral on the Internet, the White House issued a sharp denial. "The president didn't say that and Senator Kyl knows it," communications director Dan Pfeiffer wrote on the White House blog. "There are more resources dedicated toward border security today than ever before, but, as the president has made clear, truly securing the border will require a comprehensive solution to our broken immigration system."
Kyl is not backing down. "What I said occurred, did occur," he told an Arizona radio station. "Some spokesman down at the White House said no, that isn't what happened at all, and then proceeded to say we need comprehensive immigration reform to secure the border. That is their position, and all I was doing was explaining why, from a conversation with the president, why it appears that that's their position."
Even if it didn't have so many other fights on its hands, it would be unusual for an administration to align itself against an American state. But that's precisely what has happened. Soon it will be up to the courts and voters to decide whether Obama's campaign against Arizona will succeed or fail.
Byron York, The Examiner's chief political correspondent, can be contacted at firstname.lastname@example.org. His column appears on Tuesday and Friday, and his stories and blog posts appears on ExaminerPolitics.com
The closed off area includes part of the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge that stretches along the U.S.-Mexico border.
Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu told Fox News that violence against law enforcement officers and U.S. citizens has increased in the past four months, forcing officers on an 80 mile stretch of Arizona land north of the Mexico border off-limits to Americans.
The refuge had been adversely affected by the increase in drug smugglers, illegal activity and surveillance, which made it dangerous for Americans to visit.
"The situation in this zone has reached a point where continued public use of the area is not prudent," said refuge manager Mitch Ellis.
“It’s literally out of control,” said Babeu. “We stood with Senator McCain and literally demanded support for 3,000 soldiers to be deployed to Arizona to get this under control and finally secure our border with Mexico. “
U.S. Fish and Wildlife officials have warned visitors in Arizona to beware of heavily armed drug smugglers and human traffickers.
“We need support from the federal government. It’s their job to secure the border and they haven’t done it,” said Babeu. “In fact, President Obama suspended the construction of the fence and it’s just simply outrageous.”
Signs have been posted warning Americans not to cross into the closed off territory south of Interstate 8. Babeu said the signs are not enough – he said Arizona needs more resources to help scale back the violence caused by the drug cartels.
“We need action. It’s shameful that we, as the most powerful nation on Earth, … can’t even secure our own border and protect our own families.”
Washington-area residents moved out of the District and the inner suburbs over the past decade, while thousands of immigrants poured in.
More than 40,000 District residents left the city between 2000 and 2009, according to new census data. More than 100,000 Fairfax County residents left the county, while about 86,000 immigrants moved in. Across the Potomac River in Montgomery County, nearly 90,000 immigrants moved in and 67,717 residents left.
"Wherever there [are] economic options and prosperity, there will be opportunities for newcomers," said Alan Kraut, a professor of immigration history at American University.
The majority of most local jurisdictions' population increases were "natural," or births outnumbering deaths. In some outer Virginia suburbs, however, migration — both domestic and international — accounted for most of the population growth.
Loudoun County's population grew by more than 100,000 during the first decade of the 2000s, as 95,450 people moved in — 7,556 immigrants and 87,884 domestic migrants.
Of the 53,569 people who moved into Prince William County, 43,165 were domestic movers and 10,404 were international migrants.
Further out in the Virginia exurbs, just over 10,000 people moved into Fauquier County and about 22,000 people moved into Stafford County -- the vast majority of whom were citizens.
Still, the push to the outer 'burbs is part of a more general migration trend tied to economics, Kraut said.
"Not many immigrants can afford to live in the Dupont Circle area, but they can afford to live in Fauquier," he said.
The draw of the relatively inexpensive outer suburbs led to a population spike in general over the decade. Loudoun and Prince William counties, for example, were among the top 100 fastest-growing counties in the country. Loudoun ranked in the top five with a net increase of 77.6 percent, or 131,572 people.
Fauquier, which borders Loudoun and Prince William, added12,825 residents over the past decade. Nearly 80 percent of that growth came from people moving in. Spotsylvania and Stafford counties each added about 30,000 people.
The Hispanic population comprises a hefty chunk of the area's international influx. The District's Hispanic population grew from 44,953 in 2000 to 53,025 in 2009. In Fairfax County, the population swelled from 106,951 to 157,096 over the same period, and Montgomery County's Hispanic population grew from 100,604 to 156,779.
"The suburbs are no doubt changing," said Sabiyha Prince, assistant professor of anthropology at American University. "Montgomery County is much more diverse now."
While the District's overall population grew by 27,602 from 2000 to 2009, Prince said that the percentage of blacks in the District has been falling since the 1970s, with more white Americans moving in.
Indeed, D.C.'s black population dropped to about 324,000 in 2009 from just under 350,000 in 2000, according to new census data. Meanwhile, the District's white population has climbed from 197,163 in 2000 to 243,617 in 2009.
Prince said that while international migrants enjoy diplomatic support, such as the plethora of embassies in Washington, the city'sgentrification is contributing to the movement outward.
"As things become more costly in the city, people start to go out and find housing elsewhere," she said.
Just six weeks ago, Liberal Democrats like Al Sharpton were quaking with righteous indignation over the passage of the new immigration law in Arizona. According to the New York Daily News from April 26, 2010:
"Sharpton said he would mobilize people from across the country to march in Arizona - and get arrested, if necessary - to stop the controversial new law."
Now, according to Politico.com:
Democratic officials have concluded there's only one way they can hope to pass a comprehensive immigration bill: Talk more like Republicans.
Carrie Budoff Brown reports the Democrats have done a multi-year study and decided to
"craft an enforcement-first, law-and-order, limited-compassion pitch" including calling "the 12 million people who unlawfully reside the country 'illegal immigrants,' not 'undocumented workers.'"
Having actually talked to real people, Democratic operatives are giving this advice to Liberal groups and Members of Congress about phrases like "undocumented workers:"
"If the language appears fine to you, it is probably best not to use it. You are an activist, and by definition, you are out of the mainstream."
This isn't Rush Limbaugh, remember. Liberal Members of Congress are being told by their own guys they "are out of the mainstream" on immigration.
The politics of immigration reform are weighing heavily on President Obama's approval rating among Hispanics. According to Gallup, his approval has dropped from 69 percent in January to 57 percent in May among that group.
Gallup's analysis is that Hispanics are disappointed in Obama "for not doing enough to promote comprehensive immigration reform in Congress." The bulk of the decline is "among those interviewed in Spanish: a total of 21 points since January."
There is not likely to be a significant immigration bill taken up in the relatively few legislative days remaining between now and the mid-term elections.
So, the majority of Americans want tougher talk on immigration; Spanish speaking immigrants want immigration reform from the President. Bad place to be.
A Gallup study of Mexican adults shows that of the nearly one-in-five who would like to leave Mexico, "Gallup estimates 6.2 million Mexican adults say they would like to move permanently to the United States if given the chance."
This will not go away. Starting in January - when his re-election campaign will begin gearing up - Obama will be faced with, at a minimum, seriously decreased majorities in the House and Senate and, at a maximum, staring down the barrel of at least one Chamber being in Republican control.
Obama's team will be attempting to re-assemble the excitement among the coalitions which carried him to the White House in 2008, but Democrat Members of the House and Senate may well find it uncomfortable to parrot the Obama line.
Speaking of Gallup, the daily three-day tracking poll showed more bad news for the President. In the polling done June 7-8-9, Obama's approval rating has dropped to 44 percent with 48 percent disapproving - an all-time low.
Gallup's analysis shows that Democrats are staying with their man with 79 percent approving. Only 13 percent of Republicans, no surprise, approve of Obama's handling of the Presidency.
The problem for Obama is that those who identified themselves as independents tracked the overall result - 44 percent approve of the President's performance.
Remember that independents swung toward the GOP candidate in the last three statewide races: Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts. Members of the House and Senate up for re-election in less than five months know that in many districts, especially the districts which are being most hotly contested, Republicans plus Independents will be the winning combo.
Much of the decline has to do with the BP oil spill: Constant footage of the oil spewing from the well under the Gulf of Mexico, empty threats by the Administration to BP, and the strange decision to have the President use the "A" word on the Today show in an attempt to show that he's a tough guy have all added up to a decline in American's confidence in his ability to do his job.
A public community college in California has set up a scholarship fund for immigrant students — including illegal immigrants. The $2,500 scholarship has sparked anger by some, including at least one lawmaker who is threatening to cut off federal funding to the school.
A public community college in California has set up a scholarship fund for immigrant students — including illegal immigrants. The $2,500 scholarship has sparked anger by some, including at least one lawmaker who is threatening to cut off federal funding to the school.
Orange County's Santa Ana College says the controversial new memorial scholarship will be funded by private donations and honors former student Tan Ngoc Tran, a student leader and immigrant-rights activist who transferred to Brown University before she was killed by a drunk driver on May 15.
Students eligible for the new scholarship must have a 3.0 or higher grade point average, demonstrate a financial need and must also be trying to become an American citizen. Those eligible include students holding green cards, students who have permanent residency — and illegal, undocumented immigrants.
The scholarship was announced by the Santa Ana College Foundation at an informal memorial service for Tran held at Santa Ana College on Wednesday, said Laurie Weidner, spokeswoman for the Rancho Santiago Community College District, which governs Santa Ana College.
Weidner repeatedly emphasized to FoxNews.com that no public funds would be used for the scholarship.
But Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., whose district includes the taxpayer-funded Santa Ana College, says that isn't quite true — because the scholarship diverts resources from Americans in need of education funds.
"The fact that a public employee of a public college is seeking to circumvent immigration laws is problematic," he told FoxNews.com. "The fact that it's being associated with a public institution means there's public funds involved: If you have a fund being operated by public employees, it's public."
He said he could not believe that a college would announce such a scholarship at a time when the majority of Americans has increased concerns about security threats along the U.S.-Mexico border.
The Department of Homeland Security recently sent out an alert regarding a Somali man with reported terror ties who the agency believes is trying to sneak into the U.S. over the Mexican border.
"They totally misread the will of the people," Rohrabacher said of the school. "It's very bizarre."
The GOP lawmaker sent a letter to Santa Ana President Erlinda Martinez and has been in touch with members of the district board.
District board member Philip Yarborough — who is an elected official — says he's gotten a flurry of calls from outraged taxpayers who do not want public schools giving priority funding to illegal immigrants.
He was trying to find out exactly where the money would come from to fund this memorial scholarship.
But Weidner, the district spokeswoman, said critics are overreacting, and said the privately funded scholarship is meant to honor a "wonderful student leader" who continued her education after community college.
Tran, 27, was an undocumented immigrant pursuing a doctorate degree at Brown University at the time of her death. She was a leading member of the Dream Team, an activist group lobbying for the passage of the Dream Act, a bill that would provide certain protections for illegal immigrants living in the country, including giving access to scholarship money.
"We want all of our students to dream big and go to an Ivy league school — if they try hard and keep their focus, they can have the American dream too," said Weidner.
In his letter to the president of Santa Ana College, Rohrabacher called the scholarship "an affront to law abiding citizens whose tax dollars will pay the bill" and "an unconscionable insult to immigrants who took the time and considerable effort to come to this country legally.
"Channeling our scarce resources to illegal immigrants, even if they are students, is unforgivable at a time when so many of our citizens and legal residents are struggling to meet their own education needs," he wrote. "[I]f you feel compelled to misrepresent the interests of the taxpayers and your own students you are putting continued public financing for Santa Ana College in jeopardy."
It's just gorgeous right now! We know you'd love it and maybe you can share what you saw with the rest of the country so they can love it too!
This is on an 'illegal super - highway' from Mexico to the USA (Tucson) used by human smugglers.
It is estimated over 5,000 discarded backpacks are in this wash. Countless water containers, food wrappers, clothing, feces,
including thousands of soiled baby diapers. And as you can see in this picture, fresh footprints leading right into it.
As we kept walking down the wash, we thought for sure it was going to end, but around every corner was more and more trash!
And of course the trail leading out of the wash in our city, heads directly NORTH to Tucson, then leads to your town tomorrow.
They've already come through here. Isn't Arizona just beautiful, America?
Why would you boycott us???
Our desert has basically been turned into a landfill.
The trash left behind by people illegally crossing our border is another Environmental Disaster to hit the USA.
If these actions had been done in one of our Northwest Forests or Seashore National Parks areas, there would be an uprising of the American people.....but this is the Arizona-Mexican border.
You won't see these pictures on CNN, ABC, NBC or the Arizona Republic Repugnant newspaper. Nor will they mention the disease that comes from the uncovered human waste left in our desert.
However, with respect to CNN, ABC & NBC, they do offer us "Special Reports" on cheating celebrity spouses....
This information needs to be seen by the rest of the country.
A top Department of Homeland Security official reportedly said his agency will not necessarily process illegal immigrants referred to them by Arizona authorities.
This article was updated at 4:36 p.m. on May 21. See editor's note at the bottom of the article.
A top Department of Homeland Security official reportedly said his agency will not necessarily process illegal immigrants referred to them by Arizona authorities.
John Morton, assistant secretary of homeland security for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, made the comment during a meeting on Wednesday with the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune, the newspaper reports.
"I don't think the Arizona law, or laws like it, are the solution," Morton told the newspaper.
The best way to reduce illegal immigration is through a comprehensive federal approach, he said, and not a patchwork of state laws.
The law, which criminalizes being in the state illegally and requires authorities to check suspects for immigration status, is not "good government," Morton said.
In response to Morton's comments, DHS officials said President Obama has ordered the Department of Justice to examine the civil rights and other implications of the law.
"That review will inform the government's actions going forward," DHS spokesman Matt Chandler told Fox News on Friday.
Fox News legal analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano said ICE is not obligated to process illegal immigrants referred to them by Arizona authorities.
"ICE has the legal discretion to accept or not to accept persons delivered to it by non-federal personnel," Napolitano said. "It also has the discretion to deport or not to deport persons delivered to it by any government agents, even its own."
Morton, according to a biography posted on ICE's website, began his federal service in 1994 and has held numerous positions at the Department of Justice, including as a trial attorney and special assistant to the general counsel in the former Immigration and Naturalization Service and as counsel to the deputy attorney general.
Border apprehensions in Arizona, where roughly 500,000 illegal immigrants are estimated to be living, are up 6 percent since October, according to federal statistics. Roughly 6.5 million residents live in Arizona.
Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-AL, said it appeared the Obama administration is "nullifying existing law" and suggested Morton may not be the right person for his post if he fails to enforce federal immigration law.
"If he feels he cannot enforce the law, he shouldn't have the job," Sessions told Fox News. "That makes him, in my view, not fulfilling the responsibilities of his office."
Sessions said the U.S. government has "systematically failed" to enforce federal immigration law and claimed Morton's statement is an indication that federal officials do not plan on working with Arizona authorities regarding its controversial law.
"They're telegraphing to every ICE agency in America that they really don't intend on cooperating with Arizona," Sessions said. "The federal government should step up and do it. It's their responsibility."
Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-AL, said it appeared the Obama administration is "nullifying existing law" and suggested Morton may not be the right person for his post if he fails to enforce federal immigration law.
"If he feels he cannot enforce the law, he shouldn't have the job," Sessions told Fox News. "That makes him, in my view, not fulfilling the responsibilities of his office."
Sessions said the U.S. government has "systematically failed" to enforce federal immigration law and claimed Morton's statement is an indication that federal officials do not plan on working with Arizona authorities regarding its controversial law.
"They're telegraphing to every ICE agency in America that they really don't intend on cooperating with Arizona," Sessions said. "The federal government should step up and do it. It's their responsibility."
Editor's Note: An earlier version of this article incorrectly attributed a quote by Judge Andrew Napolitano to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.
A member of Arizona's top government utilities agency threw down the gauntlet in a letter to Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, threatening to cut off the city's power supply as retribution for the city's boycott of Arizona.
If Los Angeles wants to boycott Arizona, it had better get used to reading by candlelight.
That's the message from a member of Arizona's top government utilities agency, who threw down the gauntlet Tuesday in a letter to Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa by threatening to cut off the city's power supply as retribution.
Gary Pierce, a commissioner on the five-member Arizona Corporation Commission, wrote the letter in response to the Los Angeles City Council's decision last week to boycott the Grand Canyon State -- in protest of its immigration law -- by suspending official travel there and ending future contracts with state businesses.
Noting that a quarter of Los Angeles' electricity comes from Arizona power plants, Pierce threatened to pull the plug if the City Council does not reconsider.
"Doggone it -- if you're going to boycott this candy store ... then don't come in for any of it," Pierce told FoxNews.com.
In the letter, he ridiculed Villaraigosa for saying that the point of the boycott was to "send a message" by severing the "resources and ties" they share.
"I received your message; please receive mine. As a statewide elected member of the Arizona Corporation Commission overseeing Arizona's electric and water utilities, I too am keenly aware of the 'resources and ties' we share with the city of Los Angeles," Pierce wrote.
"If an economic boycott is truly what you desire, I will be happy to encourage Arizona utilities to renegotiate your power agreements so Los Angeles no longer receives any power from Arizona-based generation."
Appearing to tap into local frustration in Arizona over the raft of boycotts and threatened boycotts from cities across the country, including Los Angeles, Pierce warned that Arizona companies are willing and ready to fight boycott with boycott.
"I am confident that Arizona's utilities would be happy to take those electrons off your hands," Pierce wrote. "If, however, you find that the City Council lacks the strength of its convictions to turn off the lights in Los Angeles and boycott Arizona power, please reconsider the wisdom of attempting to harm Arizona's economy."
Pierce told FoxNews.com that he was speaking for himself, not the entire commission, though he has the support of at least one other member. But Arizona has some serious leverage over Los Angeles, as well as the rest of California. The state and city get electricity from a nuclear power plant outside Phoenix, as well as from coal-fired power plants in northern Arizona and two giant hydroelectric power generators along the Colorado River.
Despite that, the Los Angeles City Council voted overwhelmingly last week to ban future business with Arizona -- a decision that could cost Arizona millions of dollars in lost contracts.
Los Angeles officials were furious with the Arizona immigration law passed last month and joined local officials in cities across the country in pushing boycotts to register their dismay. Critics say the law will lead to racial profiling and civil rights abuses.
Arizona officials have defended the law, saying the state needed to take its illegal immigration problem into its own hands. Pierce said he's "supportive" of the state's efforts to control the border.
The law requires local law enforcement to try to verify the immigration status of anyone they have contact with whom they suspect of being an illegal immigrant. It empowers them to turn over verified illegal immigrants to federal custody. The legislation explicitly prohibits screening people based solely on race or national origin.
"Control the border first" ought to be the battle cry of every citizen who is tired of leftwing elites trying to use charges of racism to blackmail us into accepting perpetually unsecured borders and amnesty for millions.
“Control the border first” is the legitimate demand of Americans concerned about national security and personal safety.
The President, as Commander in Chief, has a constitutional obligation to control the border.
However, instead of executing this duty, he has actually blocked the limited efforts of the Bush Administration, stopping the construction of a “virtual fence” until more studies can be done as to its effectiveness.
The fact that President Obama refuses to fulfill his national security obligations and instead is trying to arouse public fear and divide the country is a dereliction of duty and a betrayal of his Oath of Office.
The left, led by the Obama Administration, is lying about the Arizona immigration bill and attempting to create a new racial divide to prop up the Democratic Party in the election.
If the Arizona law established the ethnic profiling and harassment of innocent people as the New York Times and the left describes, virtually every American would oppose it.
Yet by 61% to 27%, the American people support Arizona’s efforts to eliminate illegality from their communities. There is a deep belief in America that asking people to obey the law and to be law abiding citizens is a legitimate requirement of a free society.
Americans overwhelmingly favor legal immigration. We look with pride on first generation immigrants who work hard and make America a better, more prosperous and more interesting country.
Americans overwhelmingly support efforts to assimilate first-generation immigrants from virtually every country in the world into learning English, learning American history and earning the right to be good citizens.
This has been our national heritage.
However, for over 30 years we have been trapped in a deliberate failure by the federal government to do its job to control the border.
I went back to the diaries of President Ronald Reagan (The Reagan Diaries, edited by Douglas Brinkley) and found entries beginning in 1981:
"Met with Senator Simpson re immigration. He had a great collection of fraudulent S.S. cards, drivers licenses, union cards, etc.--oh, also phony food stamps. How can we stop this kind of counterfeiting." pp 22, June 1, 1981
"We've lost control of our borders." pp 271, October 9, 1984
"It's high time we regained control of our borders and his bill will do this." (on Simpson's bill) pp 445, October 16, 1986
I voted for and President Reagan signed the Simpson-Mazzoli immigration act of 1986 because we were promised:
1. Control of the border;
2. A practical, viable guest-worker program to offer a legal avenue to economic opportunity; and
3. A tough policy with American employers who broke the law for their own enrichment.
In return, the Simpson-Mazzoli Act was supposed to grant amnesty to what was then estimated to be 300,000 people.
The total number of people amnestied turned out to be 3 million.
Having given amnesty and gotten nothing in return, the American people are increasingly angry about their federal government's failure to do its job.
The Arizona law was a reaction to Washington's failure to protect America and keep Americans safe.
Consider Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer's ad responding to President Obama’s dishonest comments.
The Border Can Be Controlled
Those who doubt that real border security is possible should consider two border patrol sectors in Arizona: Yuma and Tucson.
Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl sent me statistics about these two case studies this weekend. They are proof that the right resources, properly applied, can get the job done.
Yuma and Tucson both received more National Guardsmen as part of Operation Jumpstart in 2007, as well as fencing and other technology multipliers. However, Yuma has also robustly applied Operation Streamline, a program where most illegal crossers are prosecuted with either a petty offense or misdemeanor and then sent to jail for somewhere between 15 and 60 days.
Both sectors have seen improvement, but much more so in Yuma, with apprehensions dropping from 118,000 in 2006 to 7,000 in 2009.
When you can get a 92% reduction in illegal crossings it is clear the border can be controlled.
If Washington would do its duty on securing the border first, the country would then consider common-sense reform.
Don't blame Arizona. Instead, petition your U.S. House and Senate members to do their job so the Arizona law becomes unnecessary and irrelevant.
Specific provisions of the law enacted last month draw even more support: Fully 73 percent endorse its provisions requiring people to show police officers documents proving their legal status when asked. And 67 percent approve of police detaining anyone who can't prove their legal status.
The telephone poll by the Pew Research Center was conducted on May 6-9 and released Wednesday. It surveyed 994 adults and has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.
The law has been heavily criticized and prompted calls for tourists and businesses to boycott Arizona. It takes effect July 29 unless legal challenges are successful.
Published in the New York Post on May 10, 2010
He said he had the audacity to hope that America could rise above the politics of partisan polarization and embrace the sunlight paths of compromise and cooperation. But that was then and this is now.
Faced with falling polls and the chance of wholesale obliteration of his majorities in Congress, President Obama has plainly decided to pursue the very politics of division and partisan animus he once claimed to eschew.
To grasp the reasons behind Obama's descent into the mud, start with some basic facts. In 2008, he won almost exactly the same percentage of the white vote that John Kerry won in 2004. The reasons he won and Kerry lost were all demographic:
* Obama generated an African-American turnout three points higher than Kerry, and almost all of those new voters supported him.
* Latino-American voters gave Obama a margin of 45 points while they supported Kerry by only 10 -- and they constituted 1 percent more of the vote in '08 than in '04.
* Obama offset his losses among older white voters by increasing the turnout and the Democratic margin among whites under age 30.
While Obama seemed to avoid the politics of race in his campaign, identity politics and ethnic fault lines were in fact crucial to electing him president.
Now he's returning to dance with those that brought him. He has launched a broad campaign to polarize the electorate and increase levels of fear and racial tension to serve his cause. Each aspect of this new offensive has a clear strategic objective.
* Obama is outspoken in his criticism of the Arizona immigration law as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid pushes an immigration-reform bill. Both surely realize that the bill has no serious chance of enactment this year now that the Republicans, led by Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC) have walked away from the table. But they want the issue and the polarization it brings.
By making Hispanic voters feel under assault -- by emphasizing that the Arizona law could mean that they would be hauled down to the police station at any moment to prove their legal status -- Obama hopes to repeat the Democrats' top-heavy Latino margins from 2008.
* His second front is to demonize Fox News and conservative advocacy groups like the Tea Partiers as polarizing and even accuse them of fomenting domestic terrorism. While he denounces Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, former President Bill Clinton darkly warns that the anti-government rhetoric of the Tea Party activists could incite Oklahoma City-style bombings and terrorism.
Both men are trying to scare the left and motivate a high turnout by painting the right as a force of darkness. By warning of barbarians at the gate, they hope to remedy the low turnout that has cost the Democrats victories in New Jersey, Virginia and Massachusetts.
* Obama is also stepping up his attacks on the likes of Goldman Sachs and BP, disregarding the inconvenient truth that he is the largest recipient of their campaign donations in the nation. While both firms richly deserve our contempt, Obama is hoping to use their misconduct to link Republicans to big business and big oil to deflect his own efforts to foist big government on the country.
All these efforts reflect the basic problem Democrats have in off-year elections -- that voter turnout is typically 15 to 20 points lower than in presidential years. Normally, it is precisely the president's political base that stays home -- African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, single women and young people.
By raising racial and partisan tensions and stoking class animosities, Obama hopes to gin up the turnout and avert disaster for his party in November.
Republicans must not take the bait. They should emphasize employer penalties for hiring illegals so that the flow dries up and neither harsh laws like Arizona's nor an amnesty will be needed. The GOP needs to stress Obama's connections with both Goldman and BP and push their own ideas for regulatory reform. And Fox News needs to continue to do what it does best -- get new viewers and expand its reach.
Arizona acted as it did because of a lack of federal enforcement of federal law barring undocumented immigrants. With a porous border, they felt that they were left no choice but to pass a law allowing potentially intrusive searches to ferret out illegal immigrants. Because this law could subject American citizens of Hispanic origin to undue scrutiny and perhaps to needless trips to the police station, the Arizona law antagonizes the jump ball in the immigration debate -- Latino-American voters. If there were a real national identification card, the requirement to produce papers might be less intrusive. But, as it is, with the burden of proof on the citizen (or the illegal immigrant), the law is bound to raise tensions between Anglo cops and Latino citizens.
But being forced to support or oppose the Arizona law is a false choice. It reflects the unimaginative politics of confrontation that jeopardize race relations and elect demagogues like Barack Obama. (Obama's share of the white vote was the same as Kerry won in 2004. He was elected only because of a three-point increase in black turnout and a shift in Latino votes to his corner. He won because of race, and now he schemes to keep control of Congress by using the immigration issue.)
The real answer is not to round up Latinos in the streets of Phoenix and hope to catch illegals in the net. Nor is it even to pretend that we can stop determined men and women from crossing the border by way of more guards, more troops and better equipment. The answer is to dry up the will to cross the border in the first place by stopping employers from offering jobs to undocumented workers. If there were felony penalties -- jail time -- for hiring illegals, they would not be hired. And if there were no jobs, there would be no illegal immigration.
The Republican position on illegal immigration should be to demand tough employer sanctions, including jail, and coupling that program with a vigorous guest-worker program to bring needed workers in legally, pay them a living wage and then escort them out when they are no longer needed. The United States, in need of a younger population to pay for our current and future retirees, should also raise the allowed levels of immigration.
Both parties are hypocritical on immigration. Democrats, controlled by unions, want Latinos to vote but not work. Republicans, controlled by agribusiness interests, want them to work but not vote. The answer is to stand up to union and to agribusiness pressure and take tough action to stop the hiring of illegal immigrants.
If there were no jobs for illegals outside of guest-worker programs, there would be no need for amnesty. They would all go home of their own accord or wait until they got legal status.
We would need a foolproof, biometric identity card to speed identification of those eligible for employment to accompany the sanctions against hiring illegals, but this is a small price to pay for an answer to so pressing a problem.
But Obama will not take the step that could end illegal immigration. Why? Because he wants immigration. He seeks to reshape the partisan balance in America by increasing the number of Latino voters and marrying them to the Democratic Party by provoking Republicans who just want law and order to appear racist to Hispanic-Americans. His is a game of great duplicity and racial opportunism. But good legislation can defeat his designs and solve one of our most pressing domestic problems at the same time.
Here we go again, thousands of people marching in the streets, protesting immigration laws.
Attempting to deal with the problem of illegal immigrants has now made Arizona the poster child for the self-righteous moralizing of much of the rest of the country.
While the flow of misinformation about Arizona's Senate Bill 1070 has circulated throughout the media, commentators and politicos of every stripe have weighed in on the issue, including the presidents of Mexico and the U.S: The law discriminates against people from Mexico, it's unconstitutional, it's unfair (presumably to the illegal immigrants), it can't be enforced without violating the civil rights of the people who are stopped and asked for documentation to show that they are legally in the country, it's racist.
The bill is only 17 pages long and is not the tangle of legalese that we have come to expect from legislators. However, it appears that most of those who are so vocal about criticizing the law also have not bothered to read the bill.
Sophia Tareen commented that "...activists, families, students and even politicians marched, practiced civil disobedience and 'came out' about their citizenship status in the name of rights for immigrants, including the estimated 12 million living illegally in the U.S."
My question is: Just what rights do illegal immigrants have or should they have? They are not U.S. citizens and they are not here legally. So why are they marching for their rights? The problem is, they represent a potential voting block for the Democrats, who are encouraging them to take to the streets and demonstrate. We went through this a while back, and I remember seeing thousands of people in the streets of Los Angeles and elsewhere around the country demanding, not asking or requesting, but demanding their "rights". I was offended by it then, and I am offended now, and I am not alone. There have been reports that roughly 70% of Arizonans agree.
As for the Arizona legislature, they haven't done anything more than codify U.S. immigration laws that already exist. However, perhaps the most important issue in the Arizona situation is one we are not hearing about, and that is the question of what constitutes a nation. Is it the people or a common culture, or perhaps ethnic uniformity, as the Chinese or Japanese, or a common religion, as Christian or Muslim, or is it based some natural resource, such as oil.
A country that cannot establish and protect its borders risks its sovereignty.
Mexico is a prime example of the sort of draconian immigration laws for which its president Calderon is aggressively criticizing in Arizona. Following are just some examples:
Being in Mexico illegally can land you in jail for up to two years, as can alien marriage fraud.
Law enforcement officials at every level are required to cooperate to enforce Mexico's immigration laws.
Every Mexican citizen is required to carry an ID card. Without it, they are subject to arrest as an illegal alien.
Political speech by foreigners is prohibited, and those who are not Mexican citizens are not allowed to participate in "the political affairs of the country."
Mexico is noted for its abusive treatment of illegal aliens from Central America who are caught crossing Mexico's southern border.
Since most of the school children in Arizona are now Hispanic, it's clear that they will dominate the state's society in the future. However, Europe's experience clearly demonstrates that mass immigration does not work to the advantage of the nation that accepts them. For example, in Germany, three times as many of the Turks are welfare dependent and, on average, they retire at age 50. The situation with the immigrants in France is similar.
Another overlooked consequence of the uncontrolled immigration in Arizona is the impact it has on the carbon footprint of the state, in addition to the demands that the increased population places on government. Arizona has been forced to expand government to service greater numbers of residents. In short, the massive and uncontrolled influx of illegal immigrants in Arizona is breaking the state financially.
The torrent of negative commentary and threats of litigation that Arizona's actions have generated has failed to take into account that the state has already successfully defended its immigration laws on three previous occasions. In 2005 the Arizona began requiring proof of citizenship for voting and restricted benefits to illegal aliens, in 2006 they defeated a challenge to its human smuggling law, and in 2008 the state made it a crime to knowingly employ an illegal immigrant.
Regardless of what the pundits and naysayers may assert, Arizona's latest foray into immigration legislation will prevail again. They've already been there and done that.
Read more of Harris Sherline's commentaries on his blog at www.opinionfest.com
Isn't it interesting that the people yelling the loudest about the imminent racial profiling that will occur under the new Arizona law are the very ones who are profiling the tea party protestors as domestic terrorists?
These egghead elitists stereotyping the protestors don't have a clue what makes people tick or, apparently, what infuriates increasing numbers of Americans about a federal government that is at war with their freedoms and their pocketbooks.
Instead of examining their actual bigotry, let's examine their false claims about the alleged bigotry of Arizonans and the state's lawmakers. On this issue, thanks to the administration and its leftist media propaganda machine, too much misinformation is passing as fact on this issue.
Arizonans didn't just gratuitously pass a bill to harass illegal immigrants. They are tired of the hundreds of violent crimes being committed by illegal aliens, with Phoenix being North America's kidnapping capital and primary location of human smuggling. An Arizonan rancher was recently murdered on his own property by an alleged illegal alien, and three Phoenix police officers have been shot by illegal aliens since 1999.
But Arizonans didn't go out and form lynching parties. They consulted with legal experts and crafted a sophisticated, thoughtful piece of legislation designed to crack down on illegal immigration in their state. I know the idea of states' rights is a bit passe today, but some still take it seriously, as they do the right to defend themselves and their properties.
Knowing that political opportunists and race-baiters would attack the law sight unseen and attempt to inflame passions instead of encouraging reasoned debate -- just as they've done with legitimate tea party protests -- the Arizonans anticipated constitutional challenges and specifically drafted the law to satisfy them.
Let it be stated emphatically that but for the federal political class's failure to enforce current immigration laws and protect our borders, we wouldn't be having this discussion. The federal sermonizers have no more moral standing to be pointing their phony pious fingers at Arizonans than congressional scalawags who encouraged Fannie and Freddie to back uncreditworthy loans have to lecture "fat cat" banks.
The truth is that these lawmakers, mostly Democrats, don't want to enforce the laws, for both ideological and political (getting the Hispanic vote) reasons, and want to put Republicans in a trick bag where if they call for enforcement they'll be branded as racists; they already have.
So when Arizona tries a little self-help to enforce the very laws the feds won't, they're the ones who are demonized. Our own intermeddling president has poked his nose in the issue in two ways: 1) His attorney general, Eric Holder, said he was considering challenging the law in court, which is highly unusual in these cases before allowing any local challenges to play out, and 2) Obama said the law is "misguided" and threatens "to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans." Wrong, on both counts. Obama misled the public he claims to be protecting in saying the Arizona law will lead to harassment of people who take their kids out to get ice cream if they don't have their papers.
Law professor Kris Kobach, who specializes in immigration law and who helped draft the Arizona law, has addressed the many myths associated with the law. The law cannot be applied against U.S. citizens; only aliens can be found guilty under the law. But even noncitizens aren't going to be harassed at the ice-cream stand, because the law first requires law enforcement to have made a "lawful contact" with a person, such as stopping him for speeding. Next, before asking for someone's papers, an officer must have a "reasonable suspicion" that an immigration law was violated. Third, the cop must then contact the federal authorities to see whether the person is legal or not. Moreover, federal law already requires aliens to carry identification, so this law doesn't impose any additional burden in that respect.
The drafters went to great pains to insulate the law from a federal pre-emption challenge by making sure it was perfectly harmonious with the federal laws. You can only be guilty of the Arizona law if you are guilty of the federal law, and in all cases, the state will defer to the feds.
The law also expressly prohibits racial profiling and will actually make profiling less likely because state authorities will be required to contact the feds to verify their assessment as to a person's legal status. Fourth Amendment protections on this will also attach.
It's time that demagogic politicians quit stoking the flames of racial disharmony every other time American citizens try to protect themselves and their rights. But don't hold your breath; they don't have many other avenues left to turn back the coming conservative electoral tide of 2010.
David Limbaugh is a writer, author and attorney. His book "Bankrupt: The Intellectual and Moral Bankruptcy of Today's Democratic Party" was released recently in paperback. To find out more about David Limbaugh, please visit his Web site at www.DavidLimbaugh.com.
Over the past nearly two weeks, supporters of illegal immigration have been literally hyperventilating over Arizona’s new immigration enforcement law -- and spreading misinformation.
Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, hosted a media briefing on the new law yesterday with Kris Kobach, a professor of law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, A.B. (Harvard University); Ph.D., M.Phil. (Oxford University); J.D. (Yale School of Law).
Kobach has litigated a number of high-profile lawsuits in the field of immigration. He is also the principal drafter of Arizona’s new immigration law.
One of the key points of misinformation has been the “show me your papers” comparison to Nazi Germany.
“The Arizona law merely adds a layer of state penalties to what was already federal law,” Kobach explained. “It has long been a requirement of federal law for aliens to have certain documents on their person while in the United States, just as it is a requirement in most countries on the planet for U.S. citizens who travel there to have their documents in their possession while in that country.”
Another leading point of misinformation is the claim the law creates a police power to detain someone merely going out for ice cream -- because law enforcement thinks they “look illegal.”
“In the enforcement through a stop, detention or arrest, on the basis of a violation of any state, county or local law in Arizona, at that point the officer who is investigating the law that was violated, whatever was the basis of the stop -- speeding would be the most typical example -- if the officer at that point develops reasonable suspicion that the person is unlawfully present in the United States, then the officer must contact the federal government and verify whether or not the person is indeed unlawfully present in the United States,” Kobach said.
“Reasonable suspicion” Kobach explains is something the courts have been defining for 40 years.
“There are literally dozens and even over 100 opinions defining what reasonable suspicion means -- a great number of them in the context of illegal immigration,” Kobach said. “Reasonable suspicion includes numerous factors and there have to be two or more factors present for reasonable suspicion to exist that a person is unlawfully present in the United States.”
Some examples Kobach gave include someone with no documentation on his person whatsoever. It can include a person traveling on a known alien smuggling corridor. They might show evidence of having just crossed the desert.
“Courts have looked at dusty shoes and pants and backpacks with water bottles on the person indicating that he has just completed a long journey,” Kobach said. “All of these things can constitute individual factors that add up to reasonable suspicion.”
The infrastructure for checking legal status already exists and is used by law enforcement nationwide. The Law Enforcement Support Center (LESC) is a database tool under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) in the Department of Homeland Security.
“Numbers from fiscal year 2005, the latest numbers I have at hand, LESC responded to a very large number of calls -- 504,678 calls from state and local law enforcement officers,” Kobach said. “That’s about 1,383 calls a day. Most of those calls are from law enforcement officers in traffic stops or similar situations coming upon individuals who they believe are unlawfully present.”
Kobach also said the bill was drafted with the full knowledge that certain organizations would try to defeat the law.
“Arizona’s already been down this litigation road three times before,” he said. “The last three major laws to discourage illegal immigration in Arizona were all challenged in court. Those three were the 2004 Proposition 200 which limited public benefits to illegal aliens. That was challenged in court, went up to the Ninth Circuit and Arizona won.”
“In 2005, Arizona passed its human smuggling act at the state level that was challenged in state court and I assisted Maricopa County in defending the constitutionality of that act and Arizona won,” Kobach continued.
“In 2007, Arizona passed an employer act that requires employers to use E-Verify,” he said. “That was challenged, went up to the Ninth Circuit U.S. court and Arizona won.”
E-Verify is an internet based system that allows businesses to determine the eligibility of their employees to work in the United States.
And the Ninth Circuit is arguably the most liberal court in the nation -- the court having once ruled “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional.
Kobach helped draft the Arizona employer act and believes this one will also withstand legal challenge.
“Arizona is three for three, they’ve been down this road before and they’ve taken great care to draft their laws carefully,” Kobach said.
He said there’s one complaint already filed by the National Organization of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders that make the same faulty argument of preemption.
“This is one of the reasons that it mirrors federal law when it comes to the documentation provision,” Kobach said. “Courts look for conflict between the federal statute and the state law being challenged. If there is tension or conflict between them then preemption is likely. If the laws are in harmony as is the case with Arizona -- because the Arizona law actually says you can’t be guilty of violating the documentation provisions unless you are guilty of violating the cited federal laws -- then what you have is called perfect concurrent enforcement, the courts have referred to it, concurrent enforcement being the state and the federal government are enforcing against the same conduct.”
That makes it difficult for the argument of preemption to stick.
“The other argument that they will make is they will claim an equal protection violation based on the hypothetical possibility that there might be racial profiling,” he said. “Given that the law expressly prohibits racial profiling it will be very difficult for them to prevail on that one as well.”
“I think that the chances are very good that the Arizona law will stand,” Kobach concluded.
I'm Arizona State Senator Sylvia Allen. I want to explain SB 1070 which I voted for and was just signed by Governor Jan Brewer.
Rancher Rob Krantz was murdered by the drug cartel on his ranch a month ago. I participated in a senate hearing two weeks ago on the border violence, here is just some of the highlights from those who testified.
The people who live within 60 to 80 miles of the Arizona/Mexico Border have for years been terrorized and have pleaded for help to stop the daily invasion of humans who cross their property . One Rancher testified that 300 to 1200 people a DAY come across his ranch vandalizing his property, stealing his vehicles and property, cutting down his fences, and leaving trash. In the last two years he has found 17 dead bodies and two Koran bibles.
Another rancher testified that daily drugs are brought across his ranch in a military operation. A point man with a machine gun goes in front, 1/2 mile behind are the guards fully armed, 1/2 mile behind them are the drugs, behind the drugs 1/2 mile are more guards. These people are violent and they will kill anyone who gets in the way. This was not the only rancher we heard that day that talked about the drug trains.
One man told of two illegal's who came upon his property one shot in the back and the other in the arm by the drug runners who had forced them to carry the drugs and then shot them. Daily they listen to gun fire during the night it is not safe to leave his family alone on the ranch and they can't leave the ranch for fear of nothing being left when they come back.
The border patrol is not on the border. They have set up 60 miles away with check points that do nothing to stop the invasion. They are not allowed to use force in stopping anyone who is entering. They run around chasing them, if they get their hands on them then they can take them back across the border.
Federal prisons have over 35% illegal's and 20% of Arizona prisons are filled with illegal's. In the last few years 80% of our law enforcement that have been killed or wounded have been by an illegal.
The majority of people coming now are people we need to be worried about. The ranchers told us that they have seen a change in the people coming they are not just those who are looking for work and a better life.
The Federal Government has refused for years to do anything to help the border states . We have been over run and once they are here we have the burden of funding state services that they use. Education cost have been over a billion dollars. The healthcare cost billions of dollars. Our State is broke, $3.5 billion deficit and we have many serious decisions to make. One is that we do not have the money to care for any who are not here legally. It has to stop.
The border can be secured. We have the technology we have the ability to stop this invasion. We must know who is coming and they must come in an organized manner legally so that we can assimilate them into our population and protect the sovereignty of our country. We are a nation of laws. We have a responsibility to protect our citizens and to protect the integrity of our country and the government which we live under.
I would give amnesty today to many, but here is the problem, we dare not do this until the Border is secure. It will do no good to forgive them because thousands will come behind them and we will be over run to the point that there will no longer be the United States of America but a North American Union of open borders. I ask you what form of government will we live under? How long will it be before we will be just like Mexico , Canada or any of the other Central American or South American countries? We have already lost our language, everything must be printed in Spanish also. We have already lost our history it is no longer taught in our schools. And we have lost our borders.
The leftist media has distorted what SB 1070 will do. It is not going to set up a Nazi Germany . Are you kidding. The ACLU and the leftist courts will do everything to protect those who are here illegally, but it was an effort to try and stop illegal's from setting up businesses, and employment, and receiving state services and give the ability to local law enforcement when there is probable cause like a traffic stop to determine if they are here legally. Federal law is very clear if you are here on a visa you must have your papers on you at all times. That is the law. In Arizona all you need to show you are a legal citizen is a driver license, MVD identification card, Native American Card, or a Military ID. This is what you need to vote, get a hunting license, etc.. So nothing new has been added to this law. No one is going to be stopped walking down the street etc... The Socialist who are in power in DC are angry because we dare try and do something and that something the Socialist wants us to do is just let them come. They want the "Transformation" to continue.
Maybe it is too late to save America . Maybe we are not worthy of freedom anymore. But as an elected official I must try to do what I can to protect our Constitutional Republic . Living in America is not a right just because you can walk across the border. Being an American is a responsibility and it comes by respecting and upholding the Constitution the law of our land which says what you must do to be a citizen of this country. Freedom is not free.
The drafters of the law knew the lawsuit was coming; a lawsuit is always coming when a state tries to enforce the nation's immigration laws. What the drafters didn't expect was Obama's aggressive and personal role in trying to undermine the new measure.
"You can imagine, if you are a Hispanic American in Arizona ..." the president said in late April at a campaign-style appearance in Iowa, "suddenly, if you don't have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you're going to be harassed." At about the same time, Attorney General Eric Holder said he was considering a court challenge.
"The practice of the Justice Department in the past with states involving immigration has been to let the courts settle it and not weigh in as a party," says Kris Kobach, the law professor and former Bush Justice Department official who helped draft the Arizona law. Having Justice intervene, Kobach and other experts say, would be extraordinary.
The problem for Obama and Holder is that the people behind the new law have been through this before -- and won. Arizona is three-for-three in defending its immigration measures. In 2008, the state successfully defended its employer-sanctions law, which made it a state crime to knowingly employ an illegal immigrant. Facing some of the same groups that are now planning to challenge the new law, Arizona prevailed both in federal district court and at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the nation's most liberal federal-appeals court.
In federal court in 2005, Arizona successfully defended Proposition 200, which required proof of citizenship for voting and also restricted benefits to illegals. And in 2006, officials won a state court challenge to Arizona's human-smuggling law.
The arguments that liberal groups make against the new law are similar to those made in the past. Foremost among them is the claim that only the federal government can handle immigration matters, and thus the Arizona measure pre-empts federal law.
Lawmakers thought of that ahead of time. "This law was carefully drafted to avoid any legal challenge on pre-emption in two ways," Kobach explains. "One, it perfectly mirrors federal law. Courts usually ask whether a state law is in conflict with federal law, and this law is in perfect harmony with federal law.
"Two, the new law requires local law-enforcement officers not to make their own judgment about a person's immigration status but to rely on the federal government," Kobach continues. Any officer who reasonably suspects a person is illegal is required to check with federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement. "As long as the state or city is relying on the federal government to determine immigration status, that will protect against a pre-emption challenge," Kobach says.
But what if the Obama administration argues that the law is a burden on the federal government? Or refuses to assist Arizona in determining a person's legality? The drafters thought of that, too. There's a federal statute -- 8 USC 1373, passed during the Clinton years -- requiring the feds to verify a person's immigration status any time a state or local official asks for it. The federal government cannot deny assistance to Arizona without breaking the law itself.
Given all that, Obama and Holder will have a hard time stopping this law. Their best hope is that a judge might be swayed by the political storm that has erupted, mostly on the left, by opponents raising the specter of fascism, Nazism and a police state in Arizona.
That was one thing the drafters didn't expect. As they see it, the old employer-verification law was broader in scope and more serious in effect than the new law, and it didn't set off this kind of national controversy. That tells Kris Kobach one thing about the current battle: "It's more about the politics of 2010 than it is about this particular law."
(CNSNews.com) - Three Border Patrol agents are assaulted on the average day at or near the U.S. border. Someone is kidnapped every 35 hours in Phoenix, Ariz., often by agents of alien smuggling organizations. And one-in-five American teenagers last year used some type of illegal drug, many of which were imported across the unsecured U.S.-Mexico border.
These facts are reported in the recently released National Drug Threat Assessment for 2010, published by the National Drug Intelligence Center, a division of the U.S. Justice Department. They ought to add some perspective to the national debate raging over Arizona’s new law that requires local law enforcement officers to make a “reasonable attempt” to determine the immigration status of persons they legally come into contact with and whom they reasonably suspect of being in the country illegally
Assaults on Border Patrol agents have massively escalated in recent years, according to the Justice Department threat assessment, which was released on March 25. “Assaults against U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) agents increased 46 percent from 752 incidents in FY2006 to 1,097 incidents in FY 2008,” says the assessment. Given that there are 365 days in the year, 1,097 assaults equals 3 per day.
“Contributing most to this increase were rocking assaults, which rose 77 percent from 435 incidents in FY2006 to 769 incidents in FY2008,” said the assessment. A “rocking assault,” the assessment explains, “is defined as the throwing of rocks at Border Patrol agents by drug or alien smugglers with the intent of threatening or causing physical harm to the agent.”
The assessment also noted that Border Patrol agents are sometimes murdered in the line of duty. “However, some assaults against USBP agents in California have been deadly,” it said, “including the January 2008 murder of a USBP officer who was struck and killed by the automobile of a fleeing drug suspect in Imperial County and the fatal shooting of a USBP officer investigating suspicious activity in Campo in July 2009.”
The assessment indicates that kidnappings have become commonplace in Phoenix, Ariz., because families involved in alien smuggling have moved there to escape inter-smuggling-organization violence in Mexico.
“Although much of the violence attributed to conflicts over control of the smuggling routes has been confined to Mexico, some has occurred in the United States,” says the Justice Department assessment. “Violence in the United States … has been limited primarily to attacks against alien smuggling organization (ASO) members and their families—some of whom have sought refuge from violence in Mexico by moving to U.S. border communities such as Phoenix. For example, in recent years, kidnappings in Phoenix have numbered in the hundreds, with 260 in 2007, 299 in 2008, and 267 in 2009.”
The 267 kidnappings in Phoenix in 2009 equals one kidnapping every 1.37 days—or one every 35 hours.
“Nineteen percent of youth aged 12 to 17 report past year illicit drug use,” the report says. That is approximately one out of every five teenagers in the United States.
The main drug suppliers for these American teenagers are Mexican drug trafficking organizations (DTOs), which increasingly dominate the U.S. market for illegal drugs.
“Mexican DTOs continue to represent the single greatest drug trafficking threat to the United States,” says the Justice Department assessment. “Mexican DTOs, already the predominant wholesale suppliers of illicit drugs in the United States, are gaining even greater strength in eastern drug markets where Columbian DTO strength is diminishing.”
Drug production is up in Mexico, the assessment said, and thanks to a massive network of criminal gangs on this side of the border with whom they can do business, the Mexican DTOs now distribute their wares in communities all across America.
“Mexican DTOs increased the flow of several drugs (heroin, methamphetamine, and marijuana) into the United States, primarily because they increased production of those drugs in Mexico,” said the assessment.
“In 2009, midlevel and retail drug distribution in the United States was dominated by more than 900,000 criminally active gang members representing approximately 20,000 street gangs in more than 2,500 cities.”
“Mexican DTOs were the only DTOs operating in every region of the country,” said the threat assessment.
Minnesotans Seeking Immigration Reform said Minnesota lawmakers should move forward under state rights with a similar initiative.
Dan McGrath is the Executive Director of a group called Minnesota Majority.
"I'm in favor of immigration, immigration built this nation, but it has to be orderly and measured to some extent. We don't want drug dealers, gangsters, human traffickers coming across the border with impunity," said McGrath.
His group says illegal immigrants cost Minnesota taxpayers $180 million to 340 million per year. But that number varies depending on who you ask.
According to a study last year by the Department of Homeland Security, less than 2 percent of illegal immigrants nationwide live in Minnesota. That same study also shows the makeup of unauthorized immigrants in the state. Fifty percent are from Africa, 27 percent from Asia and only 10 percent come from Latin and Central America.
Minnesota doesn't currently have any laws like the new one in Arizona. Last February there was a House bill introduced that would require law enforcement to check for citizenship or immigration status, but it was shot down.
Texas lawmaker to introduce anti-immigration bill
A Texas lawmaker says she plans to push for a law similar to Arizona's get-tough immigration measure.
San Antonio Express-News and Houston Chronicle report Wednesday that Republican Rep. Debbie Riddle of Tomball says she will introduce the measure in the January legislative session.
Utah lawmaker to draft immigration bill similar to Arizona's
Rep. Stephen Sandstrom, R-Orem, told the Deseret News Monday he's started work on drafting a bill for the 2011 Utah legislative session that uses the Arizona statute as a model - a move he said is necessary to stanch the flow of illegal immigrants into the Beehive State.
"It is imperative that we pass similar legislation here in Utah," Sandstrom said. "In the past, when we've seen tougher legislation in Arizona ... a lot of illegal immigrants just move here."
While critics of the bill say it will lead to racial profiling and likely makes inroads into rights protected under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, Sandstrom said it's no different from enforcement policy local police officers already use.
"If you get pulled over for driving intoxicated, what's the first thing the officer asks for?" Sandstrom said. "Your ID, right? This is the same thing, the same work police officers are already doing ... asking for documentation that relates to probable cause."
"It is passing strange for federal officials, including the president, to accuse Arizona of irresponsibility while the federal government is refusing to fulfill its responsibility to control the nation's borders. Such control is an essential attribute of national sovereignty. America is the only developed nation that has a 2,000-mile border with a developing nation, and the government's refusal to control that border is why there are an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants in Arizona and why the nation, sensibly insisting on first things first, resists 'comprehensive' immigration reform." --columnist George Will
"In terms of resources and in terms of political will, it has become abundantly clear that the federal government refuses to make the right decisions in terms of enforcing the law and making the critical reforms necessary to drive down illegal immigration. Sadly, efforts in Congress have been more about gaining political votes through an unnecessary amnesty than on honest and effective reforms." --columnist Jena McNeill, Heritage Foundation
"If a state, or nation, has laws it will not enforce for political reasons, it mocks both the law and politics, to say nothing of the cultural order." --columnist Cal Thomas
"The election we need so desperately is coming. There's an intermediate need as well: namely, to balk or slow down the administration's initiatives until the debate -- if there ever is a debate -- can commence and the people, knowing what they now know, can say how they truly would like things to be. The establishment, if this happens, will prate about 'obstructionism.' Fine. We're traveling about 150 miles an hour right now as we weave down the political superhighway. Flashing red and blue lights behind us would be a sight for sore eyes." --columnist William Murchison
"Arizona's new immigration law shows what happens when a state on the front lines of a failed immigration policy reaches the bursting point. What you get is a blunt instrument that produces lawsuits, more political polarization (if that's possible) and the risk of hostility between the local police and the public. The law makes it a state crime to be in the U.S. without proper documents. It allows the police to stop anyone on 'reasonable suspicion' that they may be in the country unlawfully and arrest them on the spot if they can't produce identity papers. The police aren't required to have a search warrant or even to suspect some illegal action has occurred before questioning a person. Traditionally the federal government has enforced immigration laws, so this is an extraordinary state criminalization of a heretofore federal authority. ... The loud voices denouncing 'Arizona' should understand that the results of the nation's failed immigration policies have come down on this state. ... Congressional Democrats have no intention of enacting serious immigration reform before November. President Obama is surely playing politics with the situation in Arizona for gain in the fall. He'd like to pick a fight and define Republicans as anti-Hispanic going into the election, without having to propose anything substantive. We'd support a national immigration reform that was realistic about the fact that most of these are economic migrants who will find a way to come here in any case if this is where the jobs are. The most effective way to reduce illegal entries and defuse these tensions is to expand legal channels, including guest worker programs. This would reduce illegal immigration and free up security resources to threats from drug gangs and the like. But so long as Republicans, Democrats and Mr. Obama mainly view immigration as an electoral weapon, the nation can expect more desperate laws like Arizona's." --The Wall Street Journal
“This is racial profiling!” they screamed. “What about civil liberties?” “All this does is discriminate against Hispanics!” they moaned.
Wow, what a fuss. Fury erupted because Arizona lawmakers had had enough and decided to become the first state to have the guts to give police the authority to do the unthinkable: enforce the law.
Some concept, huh? Actually letting cops do their jobs. So when an Arizona police officer pulls someone over for speeding or weaving through traffic and they discover that the driver has absolutely no identification on them and is barely capable of speaking English, that officer might conclude that the driver is in Arizona illegally. Ask any cop and they’ll assure you that it doesn’t exactly take a forensics team from NCIS to figure out that someone is an illegal.
But ACLU-loving, America-hating bunch that seems to think illegal immigrants deserve weekly ticker-tape parades down Main Street is mortified at Arizona’s chutzpah. They’re upset that at least in ONE state, the jig is finally up.
For too long now, the apologists for illegal immigrants have played a little game. They pretend to understand that the act of sneaking across the border and taking up residence in America is against the law. They even profess discomfort at illegals getting free health care, taking jobs that could belong to American citizens, and occupying seats in our country’s already overcrowded classrooms.
But they expect everyone to ignore the problem. They insist that illegal immigration is a federal concern and therefore oppose any effort for local law enforcement -- the real soldiers in the trenches -- to be able to do anything about it. It’s as if they believe there’s a magical, mythical federal army of illegal immigration watchdogs that just hasn’t quite yet gotten around to arresting illegals.
But it’s just a game to these folks. They resist enforcement of our illegal immigration laws and pretend to pawn the problem off on the feds so that the problem will never get solved.
Well, Arizona just took a giant step towards rectifying the situation. Polls show over 70% of state residents support the Senate bill that Gov. Brewer signed into law. I’ll bet the national percentage is even higher.
We are, after all, a nation of laws. And we live in a culture where carrying a form of identification is as normal as keeping your car keys in your pocket. When any of us walk into a grocery store and cashes a check, no one skips a beat when asked to present our driver’s license. If a police officer is looking for a criminal, he or she might stop a number of people in that particular area and ask to see their driver’s license. No one bellyaches about civil rights or privacy issues. We’re just happy the cops are trying to find the bad guy.
Hispanics have expressed concern that Arizona police officers will abuse this law and harass and intimidate “people of color.” Well, most logical, clear-thinking people don’t worry that cops are going to start rounding up Hispanics, throwing them in the trunk of their police car, and haul them out to the woods somewhere and beat them to death.
If any person -- white, black, brown or yellow -- objects to having a police officer potentially ask them for their ID, it makes me wonder what that person is trying to hide.
The classic media meltdown over the Arizona law came on CNN where a young Hispanic Army medic about to be deployed was interviewed by a reporter named Thelma Gutierrez (heaven forbid someone named “Buffy Smith” would be assigned this story). The young man was busily lighting candles on the steps of the state house, explaining that his family brought him here -- illegally -- when he was two years old and they all eventually became naturalized citizens. Now, he’s so ashamed of Arizona that he practically doesn’t want to live there anymore.
I honor his service to our country. I’m sorry his parents set such a lousy example for him that their illegal act became part of his life story. But I wonder if he realizes that roads between the United States and Mexico run north AND south. And I hope CNN does a follow-up interview with him when he, God willing, returns safely from Iraq and describes how soldiers do more than a little “racial profiling” in their ongoing battle with terrorists.
But here in the United States, Arizona just became the torch-bearer in doing the right thing when it comes to dealing with illegal immigrants.
Here’s hoping the other 49 state legislatures are paying attention. Let’s not make Arizona be alone in its act of bravery.
MEXICO CITY (AP) — Mexico's government is warning its citizens about travel to Arizona because of a tough new immigration law there.
The travel alert from the Foreign Relations Department urges Mexicans in Arizona to "act with prudence and respect the framework of local laws."
It says that the law's passage shows "an adverse political atmosphere for migrant communities and for all Mexican visitors."
It says that once the law takes effect, foreigners can be detained if they fail to carry immigration documents. While enforcement details are not yet clear, the alert says "it should be assumed that any Mexican citizen could be bothered and questioned for no other reason at any moment."
Arizona lawmakers on Tuesday passed one of the toughest pieces of immigration-enforcement legislation in the country, which would make it a violation of state law to be in the U.S. without proper documentation.
It would also grant police the power to stop and verify the immigration status of anyone they suspect of being illegal.
The bill could still face a veto from Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer. A spokesman for Ms. Brewer said she has not publicly commented on the bill. Ms. Brewer, a Republican, has argued for stringent immigration laws.
Under the measure, passed Tuesday by Arizona's lower house, after being passed earlier by the state Senate, foreign nationals are required to carry proof of legal residency.
Immigrants' rights groups roundly criticized the bill. "The objective is to make life miserable for immigrants so that they leave the state," said Chris Newman, general counsel for the Los Angeles-based National Day Laborer Organizing Network. "The bill constitutes a complete disregard for the rights of nonwhites in Arizona. It effectively mandates racial profiling."
The bill's author, State Sen. Russell Pearce, was in a committee session Tuesday and couldn't be reached, his offices said. Mr. Pearce, a Republican, represents the city of Mesa, in Maricopa County, whose sheriff, Joe Arpaio, has gained a national reputation for his tough stance on immigration enforcement. A spokesman for Mr. Arpaio didn't return a request for comment.
The bill is different from an earlier version, giving protections for church and community organizations from criminal prosecution for transporting or harboring illegal immigrants.
In a statement, Tuesday Rep. John Kavanagh (R-Fountain Hills) called the measure "a comprehensive immigration enforcement bill that addresses the concerns of our communities, constituents and colleagues."
"This updated version gives our local police officers the tools they need to combat illegal immigration, while protecting the civil rights of citizens and legal residents."However, human rights groups are certain to challenge the measure in court, said Joe Rubio, lead organizer for Valley Interfaith Project, a Phoenix-based advocacy group, calling it "an economic train wreck." He added that "Arizona's economic recovery will lag way behind the country's if we keep chasing away our workforce. Where do the legislators think business will find workers?"
The bill in some ways toughens up a situation that the Obama administration had tried to roll back. Under a program known as 287g, some local law enforcement agencies were trained to enforce federal immigration laws by checking suspects' immigration status.
Mr. Arpaio, the Maricopa county sheriff, had been one of the most aggressive enforcers of 287g. However, the Obama administration in recent months has sought to scale back that program, and had reduced the resources it made available to Mr. Arpaio's office and others.
In this Aug. 6, 2009, photo, a U.S. Border Patrol agent opens a barbed wire fence leading to a road lined with vehicle barriers marking the U.S-Mexico border near Hermanas, N.M. (AP Photo)
Former Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo, reacting to the murder of a well-known Arizona rancher by an assailant authorities believe was an illegal immigrant, said violence on the border has spiraled out of control and the federal government seems powerless to stop it.
Tancredo, who has called on the Obama administration to deploy the National Guard in response, told FoxNews.com Tuesday that the killing shows how bad the situation has become for Americans living north of the Mexican border.
"The violence on the border is ... getting worse all the time," he said. "This is just a horrible manifestation of it."
Tancredo, a Republican who briefly ran for president in 2008, said gaps in the border fence -- and problems with the fencing that's already in place -- as well as ineffective border patrol are opening the door to the kind of violence that struck Robert Krentz.
The 58-year-old rancher, whose family has lived there for a century, was found slumped over his ATV on his ranch late Saturday. Footprints led back across the Mexican border, and local police say an illegal immigrant probably killed him.
Lawmakers Demand Administration Deploy National Guard, Border Patrol After Killing
A satellite photo from U.S. Customs and Border Protection shows a gap in the border fence near Krentz's ranch in southeastern Arizona. Tancredo said a small gap in the fence could be manageable, because border agents could "funnel" illegal immigrants into a small area and arrest them. But he said the gap by Krentz's estate is too big and law enforcers aren't working hard enough to catch people crossing over.
"There is not going to be any effective barrier on that border because there is no desire to stop illegal immigration," he said. "They're not using any human resources effectively."
Plus, Tancredo said, most of the fencing that is in place is not strong enough. It's either a single fence or, as Tancredo's Rocky Mountain Foundation noted, a short barrier meant to stop vehicles.
"It doesn't stop people," said Charles Heatherley, executive director of the foundation.
Lawmakers are calling on the administration either to send in the National Guard or to increase the number of Border Patrol agents in the area.
A spokeswoman for Arizona Sen. John McCain said Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has not yet responded to the senator's request for the National Guard to be deployed.
Asked about the requests, Department of Homeland Security spokesman Matt Chandler said the department would respond "directly" to the members of Congress and defended the work border security forces have done to try to stem the violence.
Napolitano "shares these members' concern about the safety of U.S. border communities and is committed to working with our state, local, tribal, and Mexican law enforcement partners to combat threats from violent cartels on both sides of the border," he said in a written statement.
Chandler said Napolitano has launched an "unprecedented" effort to target smuggled weapons, drugs and drug money and has already beefed up border security.
Tancredo, though, said officials like Napolitano and McCain, whom he accuses of being lax on the issue, are part of the problem in the first place.
"Each one of them is culpable in this man's death," Tancredo told FoxNews.com.
McCain's office did not respond to a request for comment.
Tancredo, who said he has known the Krentz family for 10 years, was set to meet with them and other ranchers in the area to discuss "violence on the border" when Robert Krentz was killed.
The former congressman said he held the meeting Sunday with the families anyway.
"It was really kind of a sad and ironic situation," Tancredo said.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
This year could be the "tipping point" when the number of babies born to minorities will outnumber that of babies born to whites, demographers said Wednesday.
Minorities make up nearly half the children born in the U.S., part of a historic trend in which minorities are expected to become the U.S. majority over the next 40 years.
The numbers are growing because immigration to the U.S. has boosted the number of Hispanic women in their prime childbearing years. Minorities made up 48 percent of U.S. children born in 2008, the latest census estimates available, compared to 37 percent in 1990.
"Census projections suggest America may become a minority-majority country by the middle of the century. For America's children, the future is now," said Kenneth Johnson, a sociology professor at the University of New Hampshire who researched many of the racial trends in a paper being released Wednesday.
Johnson explained there are now more Hispanic women of prime childbearing age who tend to have more children than women of other races. More white women are waiting until they are older to have children, but it is not yet known whether that will have a noticeable effect on the current trend of increasing minority newborns.
Broken down by race, about 52 percent of babies born in 2008 were white. That's compared to about 25 percent who were Hispanic, 15 percent black and 4 percent Asian. Another 4 percent were identified by their parents as multiracial.
The numbers highlight the nation's growing racial and age divide, seen in pockets of communities across the U.S., which could heighten tensions in current policy debates from immigration reform and education to health care and Social Security.
There are also strong implications for the 2010 population count, which begins in earnest next week, when more than 120 million U.S. households receive their census forms in the mail. The Census Bureau is running public service announcements this week to improve its tally of young children, particularly minorities, who are most often missed in the once-a-decade head count. The campaign features Nickelodeon's Dora the Explorer, the English- and Spanish-speaking cartoon character who helps "mommy fill out our census form."
The population figures are used to distribute federal aid and redraw legislative boundaries with racial and ethnic balance, as required by federal law.
"The adults among themselves sometimes forget the census is about everyone, and kids should be counted," said Census Bureau director Robert Groves. "If we fail to count a newborn that is born this month, that newborn misses all the benefits of the census for 10 years."
Whites currently make up two-thirds of the total U.S. population, and recent census estimates suggest the number of minorities may not overtake the number of whites until 2050.
Right now, roughly 1 in 10 of the nation's 3,142 counties already have minority populations greater than 50 percent. But 1 in 4 communities have more minority children than white children or are nearing that point, according to the study, which Johnson co-published.
That is because Hispanic women on average have three children, while other women on average have two. The numbers are 2.99 children for Hispanics, 1.87 for whites, 2.13 for blacks and 2.04 for Asians in the U.S. And the number of white women of prime childbearing age is on the decline, dropping 19 percent from 1990.
— In Gwinnett County, Ga., an Atlanta suburb, the population has shifted from 16 percent minority in 1990 to 58 percent minority in 2008. The number of blacks and Hispanics nearly doubled, while the number of white young people stayed roughly the same.
— The population of Dakota County, Neb., increased from 15 percent minority in 1990 to 54 percent in 2008, due largely to an influx of Hispanics who came looking for work in meatpacking and other labor.
— In Lake County, Ind., a suburb of Chicago, the minority population grew from 43 percent in 1990 to 53 percent in 2008 as the number of white children declined, the number of blacks stayed stable and the number of Hispanics increased.
The 2008 census estimates used local records of births and deaths, tax records of people moving within the U.S., and census statistics on immigrants. The figures for "white" refer to those whites who are not of Hispanic ethnicity.
What did Hoover, Truman, and Eisenhower have in common?
Here is something that should be of great interest for you to pass around.
I didn't know of this until it was pointed out to me.
Back during The Great Depression, President Herbert Hoover ordered the
deportation of ALL illegal aliens in order to make jobs available to American
citizens that desperately needed work..
Harry Truman deported over two million Illegal's after WWII to create jobs
for returning veterans.
And then again in 1954, President Dwight Eisenhower deported 13 million
Mexican Nationals! The program was called 'Operation Wetback'. It was
done so WWII and Korean Veterans would have a better chance at jobs.
It took 2 Years, but they deported them!
Now....if they could deport the illegal's back then - they could sure do it today..
lf you have doubts about the veracity of this information, enter Operation
Wetback into your favorite search engine and confirm it for yourself. Reminder: Don't forget to pay your taxes...
12 million Illegal Aliens are depending on you!
See Operation Wetback.---A terrible name!
The Patriot Post
The Weekly Standard
Nick McNultly Blog
Defend Your Healh Care
Numbers USA - Immigration Reforms
Got a site that offers real news and perspective? Pass it on to us...
Want to advertsise?
Send us an email.
Want to get an email update? No spam ever.
Join our email list