WASHINGTON (CNN) -- "A company accused of encouraging hundreds to illegally enter the United States and then hiring them using fake Social Security numbers has agreed to pay the largest settlement ever in a workplace immigration bust, the Department of Justice said Friday.
IFCO Systems North America, a pallet and crate company, will pay a $20.7 million settlement, which includes $18.1 million in fines and $2.6 million for overtime violations, the Department of Justice said.
In early 2006, immigration officials raided 45 IFCO sites, arresting almost 1,200 low-level workers. Federal officials also charged several managers, accusing them of using "as a business model the systematic violation of United States law."
To date, nine IFCO managers and employees have pleaded guilty to criminal conduct, the Justice Department said. Four managers are awaiting trial on felony charges and the investigation is continuing, it said.
The Justice Department said it will not pursue criminal charges against the company if it complies with the terms of the settlement.
"The agreement severely punishes IFCO for its serious immigration and employment violations," acting U.S. Attorney Andrew Baxter said. "But it also allows the corporation to continue its operations, so that its lawful employees and innocent shareholders do not suffer the consequences of a business failure in this economy."
IFCO's violation of the law was flagrant, officials said. More than half of the company's 5,800 workers during 2005 had invalid Social Security numbers, and the company ignored at least 13 letters from the Social Security Administration about questionable Social Security numbers.
IFCO records suggests that as many as 6,000 illegal immigrants worked at company plants from 2003 to 2006, the Justice Department said.
Federal officials said Friday that IFCO "acknowledges and accepts responsibility for the unlawful conduct of its managers and employees." An IFCO official could not be reached for comment."
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
The Enemy Within and Without
The Mexican Government, ACLU, NCLR, League of United Latin American Citizens, La Casa, MALDEF, Service Employees International Union, National Alliance for Immigrant Rights, American Immigrant Lawyers Foundation, Capital area Immigrants Rights Coalition, Citizens and Immigrants for Equal Justice, New American Opportunity Campaign, We Are America Alliance, National Network of Immigrant Refugee Rights, National Immigration Forum, Immigration Information Council, SPLC, Immigration Legal Resource Center, Mexicans and Americans Thinking Together, National Latino Leadership Assembly, New Unity Partnership, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, U.S. [cheap labor]Chamber of Commerce, Border Action Network, National Immigration Law Center, People for the American Way, Citizens for Border Solutions, National Council of Churches, Mississippi Immigration Rights Alliance, Human Rights Coalition of California, Mexica Movement, National Association of Latino Elected Officials, California Immigration Policy Center, Justice for Immigrants, El Comite Pro Amnistia, Center for Human Rights, American Friends Service Committee, Denver Justice and Peace Committee, Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, and the Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
The Impact of Global Growth
“The most acute problem of plenty is the impact of global growth on natural resources and the environment. It is not an exaggeration to say that the world is running out of clean air, potable water, agricultural produce, and many vital commodities. Some of these problems can be fixed—by improving efficiency and developing new sources of supply—but progress so far has been far too slow [and I might add very difficult]. Agricultural productivity, for example, is rising. [Probably, not by much in the U.S. where heavy mechanization and fertilizer, insecticide, and herbicide use must mean that there would be very little return from additional investments of that sort.] But feeding a global population of eight billion, which we will get by 2025, will require crop yields to reach four tons per hectare from only three tons today. [This kind of improvement may be possible in underdeveloped countries with available arable land and a willingness to buy into the mega-agric-business concept.]
Similarly, our ability to manage and conserve water is not growing nearly as fast as our consumption of it. World population tripled in the twentieth century, but water consumption increased six fold. Americans use more than four hundred liters of water a day to drink, cook, and clean themselves [and their clothes.] People in poorer countries today are lucky to get forty, but as they get richer, their rising demands will cause greater stress. Violent clashes over water have already broken out in Africa and the Middle East. [Even in the U.S., there was a border dispute between Tennessee and Georgia when drought struck the Southeast.] Historically, people have moved to find water; if water sources dry up in the future, tens of millions of people will be forced to start moving. [In the Southwestern U.S., cities with burgeoning populations are buying up water rights leaving the land fallow and unable to grow the food needed by the additional people.]
Over the past decade, many predictions about the effects of climate change have proven to be underestimates because global [population] growth has exceeded all projection. The most recent assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was released in mid-2007. By the year’s end, scientists had shown that the polar ice caps are melting twice as fast as the report expected. There is a greater demand for electricity, more cars, and more planes than anyone imagined fifteen years ago. And it keeps growing. The McKinsey Global Institute projects that, from 2003 to 2020, the number of vehicles in China will rise from 26 million to 120 million. And then there’s India, Russia, the Middle East—the rest.
Demand for electricity is projected to rise over 4 percent a year for decades. And that electricity will come mostly from the dirtiest fuel available—coal. Coal is cheap and plentiful, so the world relies on it to produce most of its electricity. To understand the impact on global warming, consider this fact. Between 2006 and 2012, China and India will build eight hundred new coal-fired power plants—with combined CO2 emissions five times the total savings of the Kyoto accords [if they were implemented].
-- from Fareed Zakaria, "The Post American World" (on Obama's reading list)
Similarly, our ability to manage and conserve water is not growing nearly as fast as our consumption of it. World population tripled in the twentieth century, but water consumption increased six fold. Americans use more than four hundred liters of water a day to drink, cook, and clean themselves [and their clothes.] People in poorer countries today are lucky to get forty, but as they get richer, their rising demands will cause greater stress. Violent clashes over water have already broken out in Africa and the Middle East. [Even in the U.S., there was a border dispute between Tennessee and Georgia when drought struck the Southeast.] Historically, people have moved to find water; if water sources dry up in the future, tens of millions of people will be forced to start moving. [In the Southwestern U.S., cities with burgeoning populations are buying up water rights leaving the land fallow and unable to grow the food needed by the additional people.]
Over the past decade, many predictions about the effects of climate change have proven to be underestimates because global [population] growth has exceeded all projection. The most recent assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was released in mid-2007. By the year’s end, scientists had shown that the polar ice caps are melting twice as fast as the report expected. There is a greater demand for electricity, more cars, and more planes than anyone imagined fifteen years ago. And it keeps growing. The McKinsey Global Institute projects that, from 2003 to 2020, the number of vehicles in China will rise from 26 million to 120 million. And then there’s India, Russia, the Middle East—the rest.
Demand for electricity is projected to rise over 4 percent a year for decades. And that electricity will come mostly from the dirtiest fuel available—coal. Coal is cheap and plentiful, so the world relies on it to produce most of its electricity. To understand the impact on global warming, consider this fact. Between 2006 and 2012, China and India will build eight hundred new coal-fired power plants—with combined CO2 emissions five times the total savings of the Kyoto accords [if they were implemented].
-- from Fareed Zakaria, "The Post American World" (on Obama's reading list)
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Gov. Schwarzenegger says Calif. budget deficit now $14.8 bln
Looks like California has a real problem here. I wouldn't give them an extra dime until: (1) they get their house in order by apprehending and turning over to ICE for expedited repatriation all the illegals in the state and their minor progeny, regardless of citizenship; (2) they require all municipalities to renounce any official or unofficial sanctuary status and charge police with apprehending illegals and holding them for ICE; (3) petition the federal government for relief from Medicaid, emergency medical care, education and related expenses for illegals and their progeny; (4) cut state civil service employment by 50% and reduce the top compensation of all state employees to not more than $100 k per year permanently; (5) put all state employees on a four day work week except those involved in emergency services.
Culture Light
On another site there was a spirited discussion of four different models for social integration ranging from monoculturalism to multiculturalism. In between was a model called Leitkultur. Taking that concept as a starting point one can define what I will call Culture Light as a culture and social integration model that recognizes that what is has become largely immutable because of the difficulty in changing the Constitution ( except through unelected, unrepresentative, activist judges who stray from a strict interpretation of the Constitution). Inherent in such a model are the concepts of: separation of powers, checks and balances (especially a strong, independent judiciary), protection of individual rights of citizens (the bill of rights), secularism (separation of church and state), and a representative government that formulates and executes laws within the constitutional framework. Also implicit are the ideas of modernity, liberal democracy, enlightenment, and a civil society guided by the rule of law. Value-blind, multi-culturalism ( if it is at odds with those core values even as they evolve to accommodate the changing complexion of the nation) does not fit with Culture Light. Cultural pluralism within the basic concepts above is what we already have. One can find streets, food, stores, churches, neighborhoods, foreign language instruction, newspapers, TV and radio stations and programming, dress fashions, advertising, and political activity that reflect a heavy multi-cultural influence. But these multi-cultural aspects exist within the context of our core values, our constitution, and our laws and regulations at all levels. This seems to suggest that Culture Light is an apt description of our American model.
Few would advocate the development of ‘parallel societies’ or a value-blind multiculturalism whatever its impracticality given the constitutional and legal framework of our country. One would ask those who do whether they have any core values and the extent to which they vary from those above and why?
Culture Light, as practiced in the U.S., does not mean compulsory assimilation but it does imply an appreciation of the values central to our Constitution, our representative form of government, and the rule of law. An immigration policy structured in the national interest and opposition to illegal immigration is a logical part of Culture Light.
Few would advocate the development of ‘parallel societies’ or a value-blind multiculturalism whatever its impracticality given the constitutional and legal framework of our country. One would ask those who do whether they have any core values and the extent to which they vary from those above and why?
Culture Light, as practiced in the U.S., does not mean compulsory assimilation but it does imply an appreciation of the values central to our Constitution, our representative form of government, and the rule of law. An immigration policy structured in the national interest and opposition to illegal immigration is a logical part of Culture Light.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Obama's Earmarks
1. Blue Gargoyle, $25,000, August 2000, headed by Michelle's first cousin once removed.
2. Englewood Botancal Garden, $100,000, project never happened, campaign volunteer distributed $65,000 to his wife and $20,000 to a now defunct construction company set up by is wife.
3. Community of St. Sabina, $100,000,a church headed by Father Michael Pfleger, a radical Catholic priest and Obama campaign contributor who mocked Hillary from the pulpit of the Wright's Trinity Church.
4. FORUM: Yesse Yehudah, $75,000, being sued by the state for failure to account for dollars received from Obama's grant
There are many more like this.
Change??? Sound like we are in for four years of Chicago-style pork and corruption, i.e. more of the same, not change.
2. Englewood Botancal Garden, $100,000, project never happened, campaign volunteer distributed $65,000 to his wife and $20,000 to a now defunct construction company set up by is wife.
3. Community of St. Sabina, $100,000,a church headed by Father Michael Pfleger, a radical Catholic priest and Obama campaign contributor who mocked Hillary from the pulpit of the Wright's Trinity Church.
4. FORUM: Yesse Yehudah, $75,000, being sued by the state for failure to account for dollars received from Obama's grant
There are many more like this.
Change??? Sound like we are in for four years of Chicago-style pork and corruption, i.e. more of the same, not change.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Idealism
Criticism of idealism is not only pragmatic, it is also moral because idealism too often slips into fanaticism. Foreign invaders will support local min0rities and vice versa to weaken those in power within the country itself, making it difficult if not impossible to for them to do the right thing. A man or a country may be able to afford generousity today but what of tomorrow? Anxious foresight must be the centerpiece of any prudent immigration policy. If we make decisions today without thoughtful consideration of their long term effects, we will be like the lowly ostrich with its head in the sand.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Thucydides
Thucydides has some advice for Obama (paraphrased): exulting in his victory over McCain, the president-elect may be persuaded that nothing can withstand him, that he can achieve what is possible and what is impractical alike, which means whether he has just an adequate basis or an ample basis, it matters not. The reason for this is his extraordinary success which may cause him to confuse his strength with his hopes.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Confessions of a Mexican American (fictional)
I am a Mexican American citizen of the United States. My family has been here for more than 200 years. My current extended family is multi-ethnic, Brown, White and Black. As a youngster I was a member of a migrant farm worker family, therefore I have had a different perspective on the illegal alien problem than most Americans. When I think about the illegal aliens, I say to myself, "There but for the grace of God go I." The major differences are that all members of my family were citizens and my father insisted that we all learn to speak English without an accent.
I have been subject to some degree of discrimination off and on since that earlier time as a migrant worker. I have succeeded in spite of or, perhaps, even because of those experiences. I quite naturally seek a way for others of my original culture to succeed in bettering the lives of their families. This is especially true with regard to those illegals who have been here for five or more years, not only through their own initiative but often as a result of employer culpability.
I have been at odds with other citizens who, for good and substantial reasons, would prefer to see all illegals repatriated as quickly as possible. Although logistically feasible, no one in the mainstream of intellectual thought regarding illegal aliens believes that mass deportation is the answer. This is especially true if that implies some massive overnight roundup and transport of the aliens back to their homelands without regard to the consequences. Loyal Americans know that any repatriation effort would have to be implemented gradually and systematically over many years with due regard for the special circumstances of the long time residents who have made every effort to assimilate, learn English and adapt to American culture and ideals. These are people who have children in school learning English and civics. They want to be Americans in every sense of the word, as opposed to aliens living in America benefiting economically but showing no real interest in abandoning their previous culture, citizenship, and allegiance. I fully agree with that general approach.
I understand the concerns of other citizens regarding the undeniable threat the millions of new immigrants and unassimilated illegals represent to the English language, American culture and ideals. Assimilation is foundering because of the sheer numbers and concentration of illegals in California, Texas, Arizona, Illinois and New Mexico. Modern communications and transportation systems allow immigrants and aliens to remain in touch with their homelands and their relatives in ways that were simply not possible for most during the earlier waves of immigration.
Most of those who oppose the kind of comprehensive immigration reform (CIR) considered and rejected by the Congress in 2006 and 2007 have an important and valid basis for doing so. That basis includes the rule of law, which is undeniably the foundation of all civilized societies, national security, national sovereignty, and the national interest. It is intellectually dishonest for anyone to denigrate or criticize these well-founded and time-honored concepts. They form a powerful and cogent basis for opposing the mass legalization of illegal aliens or the granting of amnesty without a requirement that they return to compliance with the law as it existed at the time of their violation of the border or when their visas were issued. Americans are fully capable of learning and understanding these concepts through reading, research, education, and careful intellectual inquiry and independent thought. They have no need or desire to be spoon fed pre-packaged ideas from the left or the right or prompting from others. As a hyphenated American, I am in no position to patronize loyal citizens of this great country or to impugn their intelligence or knowledge which in most cases is equal or superior to my own.
I have participated in many discussions related to CIR. The first issue that always comes up is the question of amnesty. I have said a number of times that once we have amnesty as prescribed in the various CIR bills, the only people entering our country will be legal immigrants, tourists, students, and perhaps some temporary migrant workers. That statement suggests that I have not properly studied the result of the 1986 amnesty which is one of the primary causes of the present problem. The one or two million illegal aliens forgiven in the 1986 bill prompted 12 million more to violate our borders with the full expectation that eventually there would be another amnesty. And they were right. The CIR bills introduced in 2006 and 2007 proposed exactly that. Politicians went out of their way to try to obfuscate the issue by imposing some minor penalties so they could say, "This is not amnesty. These illegals will have to learn English, pay a fine and pay back taxes before they can be considered for a pathway to citizenship." It is true that if any penalty is imposed, even if it is just a slap on the wrist, technically speaking, that is not amnesty. However, people quickly saw through this charade. The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) headlined an article about this with the phrase, "Amnesty by any other name…".
The proponents of the 2006 and 2007 immigration reform measures insisted that what they proposed was not amnesty. Because of the failure of the 1986 amnesty bill to stem the tide of illegal aliens, the demagogues in Congress and elsewhere knew that the word "amnesty" would inflame the public . But regardless of the technical or legal definition, the common understanding of the word "amnesty" in this context is any legislation that allows illegals to remain and work in the U.S. instead of returning to their homelands. Some definitions of amnesty suggest that a condition of the government's general pardon of prior offenses is the presumption that the offenders will return to compliance with the law as it existed at the time of their offense, an admonition of "go ye and sin no more", as it were. In other words, the government absolves, without penalty, the prior actions of the offender but requires him to return to his homeland and remain there until he can re-enter legally. I understand all of these arguments about what is and what is not amnesty. I am less concerned about what word is used to describe the government's forgiveness than I am about it actual provisions and conditions and their enforceability.
In addition to a general amnesty, the various CIR proposals have provisions relating to border security, an increase in the number of legal immigrants and temporary workers, new categories of visas, and simplified immigration procedures. It has been my conviction that these provisions would eliminate the immgration backlog making it possible for those who have been violating our borders to apply for legal entry thus eliminating the problem of illegal aliens. In retrospect, this was and is an extremely naive position. An analogy would be to legalize all crimes so that we no longer have to worry about all of the criminals in our midst. The Mexicans just across the border who wish to enter our country are not going to wait very long for their applications to be approved before they decide the old way was better and quicker. I now believe that both sweeping the problem under the carpet with amnesty and loosening immigration policies are dead wrong. This approach ignores all of the reasons for stabilizing our population. It would assure that our population would balloon to 1.3-1.5 billion people by the end of this century. The Census Bureau would have to revise its estimate upward by a substantial amount to account for the flood of new immigrants, chain immigrations, amnestied illegals, and their higher fertility rates resulting in more anchor babies. These results of CIR are not acceptable to me.
In recent years, public concern about illegal immigration has often focused on the costs associated with illegal aliens’ use of public benefits and the extent to which these benefits serve as an incentive for immigration. In1996, the Congress took steps to address these concerns through welfare and immigration reform legislation. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-193) further restricted the limited access of illegal aliens to federal public benefits and limited their access to state and local public benefits. However, even if that law limited the access of illegal aliens, it had no impact on the eligibility of children born in the U.S. of illegal parents. As instant birthright citizens, these children are immediately eligible for all applicable forms of public-financed welfare. The typically larger families of these illegals therefore result in significant costs to U.S. taxpayers. These costs are in addition to the costs of education and emergency medical care that are mandated by law. The legitimacy of these concerns about costs is unquestionable and I cannot downplay or denigrate their importance.
My support of illegals places me in an awkward position vis à vis those who see my advocacy for illegal aliens as an act of disloyalty. Their concerns are underlined by the actions of the foreign countries that facilitate the illegals’ penetration of our borders. I understand that aiding and abetting illegals can be seen as one form of disloyalty to our country. As an American citizen, I am uncomfortable in the role of a defender of foreign nationals who have violated our borders. I believe, therefore, that it is incumbent upon me to travel a much greater distance than my fellow citizens in search of a compromise. It is not their obligation to give up all of their heartfelt and well-justified concerns about the welfare of our country under the onslaught of millions of illegal aliens. It is I who must justify support of the interests of foreign nationals.
In the past, some have proposed subjecting all illegals to an employment test that would establish irrefutably which of the jobs they hold could be filled with citizen labor if employers offered a living wage and a hiring preference to them. An additional proposal was offered which would require employers to offer the same wages and benefits to foreign workers as they do to American workers, and not vice versa. This would require some sort of local union sign off. As an American citizen I am uncomfortable in the role of defending foreign nationals who have violated our borders but believe there are many extenuating circumstances which would warrant special consideration for those illegals who can pass the employment test as well as a background check and health exam. If they also have children in American schools making good progress toward learning English and understanding civics and American culture and ideals, that additional fact could be weighed in favor of allowing them to stay. Those proposals offer a basis for compromise that all supporters of illegal aliens should carefully consider.
I have often criticized my fellow Americans for opposing the mass legalization of illegal aliens. They, in turn, criticize me for defending that proposal and other measures under the umbrella of comprehensive immigration reform. But our situations are totally different. I wish to aid and abet illegal aliens while my fellow Americans want them to return to their homelands until they can enter legally with the proper documents. I realize now that there is no reasonable basis for equating the two positions. They are right and, to a large degree, I am wrong. I have been too heavily conditioned and influenced by my ethnicity and my background. I have not fully accepted the responsibilities of citizenship and the criteria by which loyalty is judged. Although none challenge my right to free speech, neither do they defend me when the exercise of that right suggests disloyalty, treason or sedition, nor should they. I have made my bed and I must sleep in it.
It sometimes seems that my fellow citizens choose not to recall the history of immigration into our country but I know it is intellectually dishonest of me to take that position. We have discussed at length our country’s long and checkered history of legal and illegal immigration. For example, we learned that Italian illegals were called WOPs because they arrived without papers. Many loyal citizens are the first or second generation descendents of immigrants and the product of their tumultuous assimilation and conversion into Americans rather than hyphenated Americans. They know firsthand about our immigrant past but they understand that the operative word is the word “past”.
I have too often ignored some other historical facts about our country. First of all, in the early days of the colonies and later the republic, a vast largely unsettled continent lay before the founding fathers and their successors. Natural resources like land, water, timber, fish and game appeared to be limitless. Now more than 200 years later, every one realized that is not the case. The domestic production of petroleum has been in decline since the 1970s. Thirsty cities are buying up water rights to serve their burgeoning populations leaving former ranch and farm lands without the water they need to grow the food to serve those additional people. Aquifers, like the Ogallala Aquifer, are being drawn down faster than they can be replenished and will soon be exhausted. As Tom Letheby put it in the 4/30/06 Denver Post, “We are left with yet another illustration of an all too common American mindset: short on vision, mired in denial and unable to comprehend nature’s limits.”
I confess that I have falsely accused my fellow Americans of failing to understand: (1) the enormity of the impact of repatriations on the illegal families and our economy, (2) the costs associated with mass deportation, and (3) the inhumanity of such an effort. I now understand that none of the mainstream pro-America advocates really believe in overnight mass deportation because it would be unfair to those illegals who have assimilated and become model, English-speaking neighbors and friends, and because it would be unnecessarily disruptive of our economy. Nevertheless, I realize that the logistic feasibility of mass deportation has already been demonstrated.
Following World War II, using only the remnants of a transportation system decimated by the war, eight million ethnic Germans were deported from the Eastern Provinces and regions in less than a year. It is no secret that many of them perished enroute because they were forced to leave in the dead of winter with little food or clothing for warmth. No one wishes to take that kind of draconian approach. Therefore, it is not appropriate for me to talk about mass deportation as the solution to the illegal alien problem most pro-America advocates favor.
If approached in a systematic way, the costs of transporting illegals to borders would not be large. I have to admit that they paid their way here and that they are better off now than they were then. Therefore, they could certainly defray much of the cost of the return journey. Any difference should be made up by employers and relatives, not the U.S. government.
This leaves my accusation of inhumanity remaining to be discussed. There is an honest difference of opinion about what constitutes inhumanity and what does not. Both sides are opposed to family separations. The pro-illegals use that as a rationale for allowing all illegal aliens to remain here and achieve a pathway to citizenship while the pro-America movement would require parents under deportation orders to take their minor children with them or be charged with child abuse. Modern communications and transportation systems enable repatriated families to remain in touch with adult relatives authorized to stay in the U.S.. Minor children accompanying their deported parents would be no worse off than their parents were when they arrived in a foreign land with little knowledge of English. The children probably would have a good command of the mother tongue of their parents’ country of origin and thus would not be handicapped linguistically in the way their parents were when they violated the border.
Another dimension of this issue of inhumanity is whether any form of detention of illegals is necessarily inhumane. This goes back to the fundamental question of whether a nation has a right to enforce its laws and to use whatever reasonable procedures might be necessary to ensure that such enforcement is effective. The former catch-and-release policy for illegal aliens, whether apprehended at the border or in the heartland of
America, constituted a complete abandonment of internal enforcement and border security. I know that those who are turned loose simply disappear. Even those who are detained and eventually removed often return within 24 hours. These are facts not opinions so even I, as an advocate for the illegals, must accept that humane detention is essential to an effective program of border and internal security. My proper humanitarian role is to insist on the fair treatment of these detainees while their cases are being adjudicated. However, I recognize that detention is not fundamentally inhumane.
The intellectual underpinnings of the pro-America, pro-legal, pro-reduced immigration, pro-stable population movement are not dependent on any so-called pre-packaged arguments provided by any of those who I have characterized as the titular leaders of the movement. I realize now it was and is an insult to suggest otherwise. The foundation of the pro-America movement is the logical product of study and research. In fact, this movement seems to be the only one that has had the courage and the intellectual capacity to think about and discuss the long term impacts of a continuation of present policies. I have to recognize that, from many perspectives, the version of immigration reform I (and other organizations and individuals who aid and abet the illegals in their defiance of the law) advocate would be an unmitigated disaster for America from a long term perspective. It is an objective truth that if the Latin American culture and economies were so superior, there would not be a significant illegal alien problem. I tend to malign the terms: national sovereignty, national interest and rule of law even though I have the intellectual capacity to comprehend their significance for the survival of our republic. If I wish to be effective in promoting a reasonable compromise on the principles that should govern all aspects of immigration, I must develop a better understanding of those maligned terms and stop treating them as though they have no significant or legitimacy. I must show those imbued with the conventional concept of loyalty to their country that I have the obligation to move the greater distance to achieve compromise. The rule of law, the national interest and national sovereignty aren't empty concepts that I or anyone else should criticize.
If I say I am in favor of secure borders then I must be willing to provide the tools necessary to achieve that goal, recognizing that internal enforcement is an essential element of border security. I cannot continue to say I am in favor of border security knowing full well that, by definition, I’m not if I continue to oppose most of the measures and tools that would be effective in achieving that goal. Most agree that a fence alone will not stop illegals from entering our country. However, where the fence has been erected, it has worked to reduce the illegal traffic. But more is needed and even I realize that. Infrastructure and staffing improvements at the border, must be buttressed with a change in the rules of engagement and vigorous internal enforcement based on a mandatory E-verification system for all employees and the establishment of a “no fly list” for illegals identified through that process. These are the essential elements of effective border security. I cannot claim to be in favor of border security without endorsing these changes and improvements. IN the absence of that endorsement I know my position in favor of secure borders will not be credible.
In some jurisdictions, the authorities have been accused of racial profiling. Of course, they deny this since it is more or less illegal but it is clear that they are applying a principle called Pareto's Rule. This principle, also called the 80-20 Rule , indicates that 80 percent of the problems stem from only 20 percent of the various causes. In the context of illegal aliens, this rule suggests that if efforts are properly focused, 80% of the desired results can be obtained with the investment of only 20% of the available resources. Quite literally, this means if one looks for illegal aliens primarily within the Latino population wherever it is found, the results to be expected from the application of a given amount of resources will be optimized. Or to put it another way 80% of the results can be obtained with the application of just the first 20% of the authorities resources. In a word this means racial profiling is the most effective way to attack this problem.
I quite naturally seek a way to end racial profiling. However, I fully recognize that until we get control of our borders some measures that would otherwise be unacceptable may be necessary, at least in the short term. I hope that these measures willo be applied with a velvet glove rather than a mailed fist and that all citizens, regardless of their ethnicity, will cooperate with the authorities so that these extraordinary measures can be discontinued as soon as possible. In the meantime, our best approach is to support fully the measures necessary to solve the problem. I understand that if we do otherwise, we will be wasting the taxpayers' money on measures that will not produce the desired results.
The staffing improvements at the border may require the deployment of National Guard troops with full authority to apprehend and detain illegals. The changes in the rules of engagement should permit the hot pursuit of drug and human traffickers and the detention for up to six months of those apprehended in the immediate environs of the border or in the interior before they are fingerprinted, photographed, DNAed and deported. During that period they should be required to work on border infrastructure at minimum wage. I realize that if employers are to be punished as I have often advocated, E-verification is the essential tool for identifying the miscreants. An limited period of temporary amnesty from the full six months of detention could be granted those illegals identified through that process if they quickly and voluntarily self-deport.
I have also been in a persistent state of denial regarding the crimes committed by illegal aliens and their progeny. While I feel it may be inappropriate to lump birthright citizens with their parents in this regard, still I have to admit that they would not be here except for the illegal conduct of their parents. The primary responsibility rests with the illegals. However, the formal or informal sanctuary status of many of our cities suggests that local governments are also culpable. If they were to direct their law enforcement units to check the legal status of all of the miscreants they apprehend and detain the illegal aliens until Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) can take custody of them, criminal elements among the illegals would quickly be brought under control. All too often offenders are turned loose and continue their anti-social activities until someone is finally killed. Zero tolerance for these illegals must be the rule if we are to avoid the kinds of repeated offenses that often lead to tragedies as described in the following examples:
When emergency workers arrived at the scene of the crash on February 19, 2008, they found the bright yellow school bus lying shattered on its side. A few minutes earlier, the bus had been carrying 28 children home from the Lakeview School in Cottonwood, Minnesota. That's when a van barreled through a stop sign and smashed into the bus killing four students between the ages of 9 and 13. Marty and Rita Javens lost two sons, Hunter and Jesse. Six other children were seriously injured.
The woman who police said was driving the van--a 24-year-old illegal alien from Guatemala named Olga Marina Franco del Cid--did not have a valid driver's license. Even worse, she'd been caught driving illegally before. Earlier, in 2006, a resident of Montevideo, Minnesota, called police about a driver who had plowed into her yard. The driver on that occasion was also Olga, who managed to hide her illegal status and pleaded guilty to driving without a license. Her punishment? A $182 fine.
People in Denver are still asking why was illegal alien Francis Hernandez was still on the street after being arrested nearly 20 times over five years. Police and immigration officials continue to deny they failed in their responsibility to detain and deport Hernandez before his most recent crash that killed three people. He is accused of causing the wreck that sent two vehicles careening into an ice cream shop and killing a three-year-old inside plus two women in a pickup truck.
How many illegal alien drivers are on our roads? No one knows for sure, but the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles recently estimated that there were "tens of thousands" of unlicensed drivers in that state alone. All of this helps to explain why America suffers a stomach-turning 117 driving-related deaths per day. Of course, illegal aliens are not the only ones at fault; reckless teenagers and others in their early twenties whose brains are not fully developed also contribute to this tragic record. It is clear however that if illegal aliens were not on our streets and highways we could all rest a little easier.
Nearly one-third of the estimated 435,000 immigrants in Colorado are believed to be illegal. It is likely that even more are the children of illegal aliens. Across the country, crimes involving illegal immigrants have become a lightning rod for criticism and fiery rhetoric, and it's no different in Colorado. The arrest of Hernandez and subsequent revelation that he is an illegal immigrant from Guatemala has renewed a long-simmering and often acrimonious debate about immigration reform.
It is not just the safety records of illegals that is troublesome. A May 2006 World Net Daily report cites a study by the Violent Crimes Institute. Spokeswoman Deborah Schurman-Kauflin says a year-long, in-depth study estimates:
...there are about 240,000 illegal immigrant sex offenders in the United States who have had an average of four victims each.
...based on a figure of 12 million illegal immigrants and the fact that more of this population is male than average, sex offenders among illegals make up a higher percentage than offenders in the general population.
She arrives at the figure of 240,000 offenders – a conservative estimate, she says – through public records showing about 2 percent of illegals apprehended are sex offenders.
"This translates to 93 sex offenders and 12 serial sexual offenders coming across U.S. borders illegally per day," she says.
She points out the 1,500 offenders in her study had a total of 5,999 victims, and each sex offender averaged four victims.
"This places the estimate for victimization numbers around 960,000 for the 88 months examined in this study," she declares.
Nobody knows how many of the illegals are violent. I do know illegal aliens are killing more Americans than the Iraq war. A new report from "Family Security Matters" (FSM) estimates some 2,158 murders are committed every year by illegal aliens in the U.S. The group says that number is more than 15 percent of all the murders reported by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the U.S. and about three times the representation of illegal aliens in the general population. The report from FSM estimates that the 267,000 illegal aliens currently incarcerated in the nation are responsible for nearly 1,300,000 crimes, ranging from drug arrests to rape and murder." I realize that such statistics debunk the claim that illegal immigration is a victimless crime.
The murder of Kris Eggle, a park ranger in the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument in southern Arizona on August 9, 2002, was little noted by the media, although the press has paid considerable attention to the deaths of illegal aliens on the border. Ranger Eggle was shot down by Mexican drug dealers who were using Organ Pipe as a route for their smuggling. Only 28 when he was murdered, Eggle was a valedictorian and an Eagle Scout who joined the National Park Service because he loved the outdoors. (Organ Pipe is considered to be the most dangerous of the national park system: 200,000 illegal aliens and 700,000 pounds of drugs were intercepted at the park in 2001.) It was this incident that triggered my epiphany regarding illegal aliens and moved me to make this confession and to alter my position regarding those whom I have been supporting previously without reservation and without regard to my fellow Americans. I was mistaken and for that I apologize profusely.
I have therefore decided to stop insulting the pro-America advocates who clearly have the high ground in this argument. They are my intellectual peers and do not warrant any insults because they oppose those who flaunt the law and denigrate national sovereignty and the nation interest. I will never again suggest that they are incapable of thinking for themselves and researching the facts from the various sources, writers, reports and pundits on the subject of illegal aliens. It was Mexican drug dealers who murdered Ranger Eggle. He could have been my son. In thinking about his bereaved parents, I could again say, "There but for the grace of God go I." Enough is enough! Our government's long neglect of border security and its failure to enact an effective policy toward illegal aliens contributed to Eggle's death. His parents should never forgive those spineless idiots in Washington who offer no solutions except the amnesty and mass legalization that will certainly exacerbate the problem in the same way that the 1986 amnesty did.
I have been subject to some degree of discrimination off and on since that earlier time as a migrant worker. I have succeeded in spite of or, perhaps, even because of those experiences. I quite naturally seek a way for others of my original culture to succeed in bettering the lives of their families. This is especially true with regard to those illegals who have been here for five or more years, not only through their own initiative but often as a result of employer culpability.
I have been at odds with other citizens who, for good and substantial reasons, would prefer to see all illegals repatriated as quickly as possible. Although logistically feasible, no one in the mainstream of intellectual thought regarding illegal aliens believes that mass deportation is the answer. This is especially true if that implies some massive overnight roundup and transport of the aliens back to their homelands without regard to the consequences. Loyal Americans know that any repatriation effort would have to be implemented gradually and systematically over many years with due regard for the special circumstances of the long time residents who have made every effort to assimilate, learn English and adapt to American culture and ideals. These are people who have children in school learning English and civics. They want to be Americans in every sense of the word, as opposed to aliens living in America benefiting economically but showing no real interest in abandoning their previous culture, citizenship, and allegiance. I fully agree with that general approach.
I understand the concerns of other citizens regarding the undeniable threat the millions of new immigrants and unassimilated illegals represent to the English language, American culture and ideals. Assimilation is foundering because of the sheer numbers and concentration of illegals in California, Texas, Arizona, Illinois and New Mexico. Modern communications and transportation systems allow immigrants and aliens to remain in touch with their homelands and their relatives in ways that were simply not possible for most during the earlier waves of immigration.
Most of those who oppose the kind of comprehensive immigration reform (CIR) considered and rejected by the Congress in 2006 and 2007 have an important and valid basis for doing so. That basis includes the rule of law, which is undeniably the foundation of all civilized societies, national security, national sovereignty, and the national interest. It is intellectually dishonest for anyone to denigrate or criticize these well-founded and time-honored concepts. They form a powerful and cogent basis for opposing the mass legalization of illegal aliens or the granting of amnesty without a requirement that they return to compliance with the law as it existed at the time of their violation of the border or when their visas were issued. Americans are fully capable of learning and understanding these concepts through reading, research, education, and careful intellectual inquiry and independent thought. They have no need or desire to be spoon fed pre-packaged ideas from the left or the right or prompting from others. As a hyphenated American, I am in no position to patronize loyal citizens of this great country or to impugn their intelligence or knowledge which in most cases is equal or superior to my own.
I have participated in many discussions related to CIR. The first issue that always comes up is the question of amnesty. I have said a number of times that once we have amnesty as prescribed in the various CIR bills, the only people entering our country will be legal immigrants, tourists, students, and perhaps some temporary migrant workers. That statement suggests that I have not properly studied the result of the 1986 amnesty which is one of the primary causes of the present problem. The one or two million illegal aliens forgiven in the 1986 bill prompted 12 million more to violate our borders with the full expectation that eventually there would be another amnesty. And they were right. The CIR bills introduced in 2006 and 2007 proposed exactly that. Politicians went out of their way to try to obfuscate the issue by imposing some minor penalties so they could say, "This is not amnesty. These illegals will have to learn English, pay a fine and pay back taxes before they can be considered for a pathway to citizenship." It is true that if any penalty is imposed, even if it is just a slap on the wrist, technically speaking, that is not amnesty. However, people quickly saw through this charade. The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) headlined an article about this with the phrase, "Amnesty by any other name…".
The proponents of the 2006 and 2007 immigration reform measures insisted that what they proposed was not amnesty. Because of the failure of the 1986 amnesty bill to stem the tide of illegal aliens, the demagogues in Congress and elsewhere knew that the word "amnesty" would inflame the public . But regardless of the technical or legal definition, the common understanding of the word "amnesty" in this context is any legislation that allows illegals to remain and work in the U.S. instead of returning to their homelands. Some definitions of amnesty suggest that a condition of the government's general pardon of prior offenses is the presumption that the offenders will return to compliance with the law as it existed at the time of their offense, an admonition of "go ye and sin no more", as it were. In other words, the government absolves, without penalty, the prior actions of the offender but requires him to return to his homeland and remain there until he can re-enter legally. I understand all of these arguments about what is and what is not amnesty. I am less concerned about what word is used to describe the government's forgiveness than I am about it actual provisions and conditions and their enforceability.
In addition to a general amnesty, the various CIR proposals have provisions relating to border security, an increase in the number of legal immigrants and temporary workers, new categories of visas, and simplified immigration procedures. It has been my conviction that these provisions would eliminate the immgration backlog making it possible for those who have been violating our borders to apply for legal entry thus eliminating the problem of illegal aliens. In retrospect, this was and is an extremely naive position. An analogy would be to legalize all crimes so that we no longer have to worry about all of the criminals in our midst. The Mexicans just across the border who wish to enter our country are not going to wait very long for their applications to be approved before they decide the old way was better and quicker. I now believe that both sweeping the problem under the carpet with amnesty and loosening immigration policies are dead wrong. This approach ignores all of the reasons for stabilizing our population. It would assure that our population would balloon to 1.3-1.5 billion people by the end of this century. The Census Bureau would have to revise its estimate upward by a substantial amount to account for the flood of new immigrants, chain immigrations, amnestied illegals, and their higher fertility rates resulting in more anchor babies. These results of CIR are not acceptable to me.
In recent years, public concern about illegal immigration has often focused on the costs associated with illegal aliens’ use of public benefits and the extent to which these benefits serve as an incentive for immigration. In1996, the Congress took steps to address these concerns through welfare and immigration reform legislation. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-193) further restricted the limited access of illegal aliens to federal public benefits and limited their access to state and local public benefits. However, even if that law limited the access of illegal aliens, it had no impact on the eligibility of children born in the U.S. of illegal parents. As instant birthright citizens, these children are immediately eligible for all applicable forms of public-financed welfare. The typically larger families of these illegals therefore result in significant costs to U.S. taxpayers. These costs are in addition to the costs of education and emergency medical care that are mandated by law. The legitimacy of these concerns about costs is unquestionable and I cannot downplay or denigrate their importance.
My support of illegals places me in an awkward position vis à vis those who see my advocacy for illegal aliens as an act of disloyalty. Their concerns are underlined by the actions of the foreign countries that facilitate the illegals’ penetration of our borders. I understand that aiding and abetting illegals can be seen as one form of disloyalty to our country. As an American citizen, I am uncomfortable in the role of a defender of foreign nationals who have violated our borders. I believe, therefore, that it is incumbent upon me to travel a much greater distance than my fellow citizens in search of a compromise. It is not their obligation to give up all of their heartfelt and well-justified concerns about the welfare of our country under the onslaught of millions of illegal aliens. It is I who must justify support of the interests of foreign nationals.
In the past, some have proposed subjecting all illegals to an employment test that would establish irrefutably which of the jobs they hold could be filled with citizen labor if employers offered a living wage and a hiring preference to them. An additional proposal was offered which would require employers to offer the same wages and benefits to foreign workers as they do to American workers, and not vice versa. This would require some sort of local union sign off. As an American citizen I am uncomfortable in the role of defending foreign nationals who have violated our borders but believe there are many extenuating circumstances which would warrant special consideration for those illegals who can pass the employment test as well as a background check and health exam. If they also have children in American schools making good progress toward learning English and understanding civics and American culture and ideals, that additional fact could be weighed in favor of allowing them to stay. Those proposals offer a basis for compromise that all supporters of illegal aliens should carefully consider.
I have often criticized my fellow Americans for opposing the mass legalization of illegal aliens. They, in turn, criticize me for defending that proposal and other measures under the umbrella of comprehensive immigration reform. But our situations are totally different. I wish to aid and abet illegal aliens while my fellow Americans want them to return to their homelands until they can enter legally with the proper documents. I realize now that there is no reasonable basis for equating the two positions. They are right and, to a large degree, I am wrong. I have been too heavily conditioned and influenced by my ethnicity and my background. I have not fully accepted the responsibilities of citizenship and the criteria by which loyalty is judged. Although none challenge my right to free speech, neither do they defend me when the exercise of that right suggests disloyalty, treason or sedition, nor should they. I have made my bed and I must sleep in it.
It sometimes seems that my fellow citizens choose not to recall the history of immigration into our country but I know it is intellectually dishonest of me to take that position. We have discussed at length our country’s long and checkered history of legal and illegal immigration. For example, we learned that Italian illegals were called WOPs because they arrived without papers. Many loyal citizens are the first or second generation descendents of immigrants and the product of their tumultuous assimilation and conversion into Americans rather than hyphenated Americans. They know firsthand about our immigrant past but they understand that the operative word is the word “past”.
I have too often ignored some other historical facts about our country. First of all, in the early days of the colonies and later the republic, a vast largely unsettled continent lay before the founding fathers and their successors. Natural resources like land, water, timber, fish and game appeared to be limitless. Now more than 200 years later, every one realized that is not the case. The domestic production of petroleum has been in decline since the 1970s. Thirsty cities are buying up water rights to serve their burgeoning populations leaving former ranch and farm lands without the water they need to grow the food to serve those additional people. Aquifers, like the Ogallala Aquifer, are being drawn down faster than they can be replenished and will soon be exhausted. As Tom Letheby put it in the 4/30/06 Denver Post, “We are left with yet another illustration of an all too common American mindset: short on vision, mired in denial and unable to comprehend nature’s limits.”
I confess that I have falsely accused my fellow Americans of failing to understand: (1) the enormity of the impact of repatriations on the illegal families and our economy, (2) the costs associated with mass deportation, and (3) the inhumanity of such an effort. I now understand that none of the mainstream pro-America advocates really believe in overnight mass deportation because it would be unfair to those illegals who have assimilated and become model, English-speaking neighbors and friends, and because it would be unnecessarily disruptive of our economy. Nevertheless, I realize that the logistic feasibility of mass deportation has already been demonstrated.
Following World War II, using only the remnants of a transportation system decimated by the war, eight million ethnic Germans were deported from the Eastern Provinces and regions in less than a year. It is no secret that many of them perished enroute because they were forced to leave in the dead of winter with little food or clothing for warmth. No one wishes to take that kind of draconian approach. Therefore, it is not appropriate for me to talk about mass deportation as the solution to the illegal alien problem most pro-America advocates favor.
If approached in a systematic way, the costs of transporting illegals to borders would not be large. I have to admit that they paid their way here and that they are better off now than they were then. Therefore, they could certainly defray much of the cost of the return journey. Any difference should be made up by employers and relatives, not the U.S. government.
This leaves my accusation of inhumanity remaining to be discussed. There is an honest difference of opinion about what constitutes inhumanity and what does not. Both sides are opposed to family separations. The pro-illegals use that as a rationale for allowing all illegal aliens to remain here and achieve a pathway to citizenship while the pro-America movement would require parents under deportation orders to take their minor children with them or be charged with child abuse. Modern communications and transportation systems enable repatriated families to remain in touch with adult relatives authorized to stay in the U.S.. Minor children accompanying their deported parents would be no worse off than their parents were when they arrived in a foreign land with little knowledge of English. The children probably would have a good command of the mother tongue of their parents’ country of origin and thus would not be handicapped linguistically in the way their parents were when they violated the border.
Another dimension of this issue of inhumanity is whether any form of detention of illegals is necessarily inhumane. This goes back to the fundamental question of whether a nation has a right to enforce its laws and to use whatever reasonable procedures might be necessary to ensure that such enforcement is effective. The former catch-and-release policy for illegal aliens, whether apprehended at the border or in the heartland of
America, constituted a complete abandonment of internal enforcement and border security. I know that those who are turned loose simply disappear. Even those who are detained and eventually removed often return within 24 hours. These are facts not opinions so even I, as an advocate for the illegals, must accept that humane detention is essential to an effective program of border and internal security. My proper humanitarian role is to insist on the fair treatment of these detainees while their cases are being adjudicated. However, I recognize that detention is not fundamentally inhumane.
The intellectual underpinnings of the pro-America, pro-legal, pro-reduced immigration, pro-stable population movement are not dependent on any so-called pre-packaged arguments provided by any of those who I have characterized as the titular leaders of the movement. I realize now it was and is an insult to suggest otherwise. The foundation of the pro-America movement is the logical product of study and research. In fact, this movement seems to be the only one that has had the courage and the intellectual capacity to think about and discuss the long term impacts of a continuation of present policies. I have to recognize that, from many perspectives, the version of immigration reform I (and other organizations and individuals who aid and abet the illegals in their defiance of the law) advocate would be an unmitigated disaster for America from a long term perspective. It is an objective truth that if the Latin American culture and economies were so superior, there would not be a significant illegal alien problem. I tend to malign the terms: national sovereignty, national interest and rule of law even though I have the intellectual capacity to comprehend their significance for the survival of our republic. If I wish to be effective in promoting a reasonable compromise on the principles that should govern all aspects of immigration, I must develop a better understanding of those maligned terms and stop treating them as though they have no significant or legitimacy. I must show those imbued with the conventional concept of loyalty to their country that I have the obligation to move the greater distance to achieve compromise. The rule of law, the national interest and national sovereignty aren't empty concepts that I or anyone else should criticize.
If I say I am in favor of secure borders then I must be willing to provide the tools necessary to achieve that goal, recognizing that internal enforcement is an essential element of border security. I cannot continue to say I am in favor of border security knowing full well that, by definition, I’m not if I continue to oppose most of the measures and tools that would be effective in achieving that goal. Most agree that a fence alone will not stop illegals from entering our country. However, where the fence has been erected, it has worked to reduce the illegal traffic. But more is needed and even I realize that. Infrastructure and staffing improvements at the border, must be buttressed with a change in the rules of engagement and vigorous internal enforcement based on a mandatory E-verification system for all employees and the establishment of a “no fly list” for illegals identified through that process. These are the essential elements of effective border security. I cannot claim to be in favor of border security without endorsing these changes and improvements. IN the absence of that endorsement I know my position in favor of secure borders will not be credible.
In some jurisdictions, the authorities have been accused of racial profiling. Of course, they deny this since it is more or less illegal but it is clear that they are applying a principle called Pareto's Rule. This principle, also called the 80-20 Rule , indicates that 80 percent of the problems stem from only 20 percent of the various causes. In the context of illegal aliens, this rule suggests that if efforts are properly focused, 80% of the desired results can be obtained with the investment of only 20% of the available resources. Quite literally, this means if one looks for illegal aliens primarily within the Latino population wherever it is found, the results to be expected from the application of a given amount of resources will be optimized. Or to put it another way 80% of the results can be obtained with the application of just the first 20% of the authorities resources. In a word this means racial profiling is the most effective way to attack this problem.
I quite naturally seek a way to end racial profiling. However, I fully recognize that until we get control of our borders some measures that would otherwise be unacceptable may be necessary, at least in the short term. I hope that these measures willo be applied with a velvet glove rather than a mailed fist and that all citizens, regardless of their ethnicity, will cooperate with the authorities so that these extraordinary measures can be discontinued as soon as possible. In the meantime, our best approach is to support fully the measures necessary to solve the problem. I understand that if we do otherwise, we will be wasting the taxpayers' money on measures that will not produce the desired results.
The staffing improvements at the border may require the deployment of National Guard troops with full authority to apprehend and detain illegals. The changes in the rules of engagement should permit the hot pursuit of drug and human traffickers and the detention for up to six months of those apprehended in the immediate environs of the border or in the interior before they are fingerprinted, photographed, DNAed and deported. During that period they should be required to work on border infrastructure at minimum wage. I realize that if employers are to be punished as I have often advocated, E-verification is the essential tool for identifying the miscreants. An limited period of temporary amnesty from the full six months of detention could be granted those illegals identified through that process if they quickly and voluntarily self-deport.
I have also been in a persistent state of denial regarding the crimes committed by illegal aliens and their progeny. While I feel it may be inappropriate to lump birthright citizens with their parents in this regard, still I have to admit that they would not be here except for the illegal conduct of their parents. The primary responsibility rests with the illegals. However, the formal or informal sanctuary status of many of our cities suggests that local governments are also culpable. If they were to direct their law enforcement units to check the legal status of all of the miscreants they apprehend and detain the illegal aliens until Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) can take custody of them, criminal elements among the illegals would quickly be brought under control. All too often offenders are turned loose and continue their anti-social activities until someone is finally killed. Zero tolerance for these illegals must be the rule if we are to avoid the kinds of repeated offenses that often lead to tragedies as described in the following examples:
When emergency workers arrived at the scene of the crash on February 19, 2008, they found the bright yellow school bus lying shattered on its side. A few minutes earlier, the bus had been carrying 28 children home from the Lakeview School in Cottonwood, Minnesota. That's when a van barreled through a stop sign and smashed into the bus killing four students between the ages of 9 and 13. Marty and Rita Javens lost two sons, Hunter and Jesse. Six other children were seriously injured.
The woman who police said was driving the van--a 24-year-old illegal alien from Guatemala named Olga Marina Franco del Cid--did not have a valid driver's license. Even worse, she'd been caught driving illegally before. Earlier, in 2006, a resident of Montevideo, Minnesota, called police about a driver who had plowed into her yard. The driver on that occasion was also Olga, who managed to hide her illegal status and pleaded guilty to driving without a license. Her punishment? A $182 fine.
People in Denver are still asking why was illegal alien Francis Hernandez was still on the street after being arrested nearly 20 times over five years. Police and immigration officials continue to deny they failed in their responsibility to detain and deport Hernandez before his most recent crash that killed three people. He is accused of causing the wreck that sent two vehicles careening into an ice cream shop and killing a three-year-old inside plus two women in a pickup truck.
How many illegal alien drivers are on our roads? No one knows for sure, but the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles recently estimated that there were "tens of thousands" of unlicensed drivers in that state alone. All of this helps to explain why America suffers a stomach-turning 117 driving-related deaths per day. Of course, illegal aliens are not the only ones at fault; reckless teenagers and others in their early twenties whose brains are not fully developed also contribute to this tragic record. It is clear however that if illegal aliens were not on our streets and highways we could all rest a little easier.
Nearly one-third of the estimated 435,000 immigrants in Colorado are believed to be illegal. It is likely that even more are the children of illegal aliens. Across the country, crimes involving illegal immigrants have become a lightning rod for criticism and fiery rhetoric, and it's no different in Colorado. The arrest of Hernandez and subsequent revelation that he is an illegal immigrant from Guatemala has renewed a long-simmering and often acrimonious debate about immigration reform.
It is not just the safety records of illegals that is troublesome. A May 2006 World Net Daily report cites a study by the Violent Crimes Institute. Spokeswoman Deborah Schurman-Kauflin says a year-long, in-depth study estimates:
...there are about 240,000 illegal immigrant sex offenders in the United States who have had an average of four victims each.
...based on a figure of 12 million illegal immigrants and the fact that more of this population is male than average, sex offenders among illegals make up a higher percentage than offenders in the general population.
She arrives at the figure of 240,000 offenders – a conservative estimate, she says – through public records showing about 2 percent of illegals apprehended are sex offenders.
"This translates to 93 sex offenders and 12 serial sexual offenders coming across U.S. borders illegally per day," she says.
She points out the 1,500 offenders in her study had a total of 5,999 victims, and each sex offender averaged four victims.
"This places the estimate for victimization numbers around 960,000 for the 88 months examined in this study," she declares.
Nobody knows how many of the illegals are violent. I do know illegal aliens are killing more Americans than the Iraq war. A new report from "Family Security Matters" (FSM) estimates some 2,158 murders are committed every year by illegal aliens in the U.S. The group says that number is more than 15 percent of all the murders reported by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the U.S. and about three times the representation of illegal aliens in the general population. The report from FSM estimates that the 267,000 illegal aliens currently incarcerated in the nation are responsible for nearly 1,300,000 crimes, ranging from drug arrests to rape and murder." I realize that such statistics debunk the claim that illegal immigration is a victimless crime.
The murder of Kris Eggle, a park ranger in the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument in southern Arizona on August 9, 2002, was little noted by the media, although the press has paid considerable attention to the deaths of illegal aliens on the border. Ranger Eggle was shot down by Mexican drug dealers who were using Organ Pipe as a route for their smuggling. Only 28 when he was murdered, Eggle was a valedictorian and an Eagle Scout who joined the National Park Service because he loved the outdoors. (Organ Pipe is considered to be the most dangerous of the national park system: 200,000 illegal aliens and 700,000 pounds of drugs were intercepted at the park in 2001.) It was this incident that triggered my epiphany regarding illegal aliens and moved me to make this confession and to alter my position regarding those whom I have been supporting previously without reservation and without regard to my fellow Americans. I was mistaken and for that I apologize profusely.
I have therefore decided to stop insulting the pro-America advocates who clearly have the high ground in this argument. They are my intellectual peers and do not warrant any insults because they oppose those who flaunt the law and denigrate national sovereignty and the nation interest. I will never again suggest that they are incapable of thinking for themselves and researching the facts from the various sources, writers, reports and pundits on the subject of illegal aliens. It was Mexican drug dealers who murdered Ranger Eggle. He could have been my son. In thinking about his bereaved parents, I could again say, "There but for the grace of God go I." Enough is enough! Our government's long neglect of border security and its failure to enact an effective policy toward illegal aliens contributed to Eggle's death. His parents should never forgive those spineless idiots in Washington who offer no solutions except the amnesty and mass legalization that will certainly exacerbate the problem in the same way that the 1986 amnesty did.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
It's all about the Ice Cream!
"The most eye-opening civics lesson I ever had was while teaching third grade in 2008. The presidential election was heating up and some of the children showed an interest. I decided we would have an election for a class president. We would choose our nominees. They would make a campaign speech and the class would vote. To simplify the process, candidates were nominated by other class members. We discussed what kinds of characteristics these students should have. We got many nominations and from those, Jamie and Olivia were picked to run for the top spot. The class had done a great job in their selections. Both candidates were good kids. I thought Jamie might have an advantage because he got lots of parental support. I had never seen Olivia’s mother. The day arrived when they were to make their speeches Jamie went first. He had specific ideas about how to make our class a better place. He ended by promising to do his very best. Everyone applauded. He sat down and Olivia came to the podium. Her speech was concise. She said, “If you will vote for me, I will give you ice cream.” She satdown. The class went wild. “Yes! Yes! We want ice cream.” She surely could have said more. She did not have to. A discussion followed. How did she plan to pay for the ice cream? She wasn’t sure. Would her parents buy it or would the class pay for it? She didn’t know. The class really didn’t care. All they were thinking about was ice cream. Jamie was forgotten. Olivia won by a land slide.
Every time Barack Obama opened his mouth during the election he offered ice cream, and more than half of American voters reacted like nine-year-olds. They wanted ice cream. The remainder of the voters knew, sooner or later, they were going to have to feed the cow."
Every time Barack Obama opened his mouth during the election he offered ice cream, and more than half of American voters reacted like nine-year-olds. They wanted ice cream. The remainder of the voters knew, sooner or later, they were going to have to feed the cow."
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Friday, October 24, 2008
Too Many People Part VIII
The global demand for energy grew twice as fast as the population over the past 50 years. When per capita energy consumption is high, even a low rate of population growth can have significant effects on total energy demand. World oil production per capita reached a high in 1970 and has since declined by 23% and will continue to decline as the population grows, signaling future price shocks as long as oil remains the world’s dominant fuel.[1]
Waste is another critical problem. A ballooning population creates mountains of new waste—garbage, sewer and industrial waste. This will pose a difficult and expensive problem for municipal and national authorities.
The challenge for us and for world leaders is to help countries like Mexico and regions like Sub-Saharan Africa, Asia and the Middle East to achieve sustainability by keeping both birth and death rates low. In a world where both grain output and fish catch per person are falling, a strong case can be made on humanitarian grounds to stabilize world and U.S. population. Physics Professor Emeritus Dr. Albert Bartlett of the University of Colorado sums it all up as follows: “Can you think of any problem in any area of human endeavor on any scale, from the microscopic to global, whose long-term solution is in any demonstrable way aided, assisted, or advanced by further increases in population, locally, nationally, or globally?”
[1] Excerpted from “Increased Population is Causing a Global Ecological Disaster,” by Lester R. Brown, Gary Gardner, and Brian Halwell, originally published in The Futurist, February 1999 presented here with the permission of The World Future Society.
Too Many People Part VII
A full 75% of the loss of global forests occurred in the 20th century and there are signs that this rapid deforestation is continuing. Not only has the rising population created a greater total demand for forest products but the per capita global use of paper and paperboard has nearly tripled since 1961. The loss of forest areas reduces habitat for wildlife and carbon storage which is key to regulating climate. Moreover, the loss of forest areas compromises erosion control, the provision of water across rainy and dry seasons, and the regulation of rainfall.
Climate change is much on the minds of many scientists. Over the last half century, carbon emissions from fossil-fuel burning expanded at nearly twice the rate of population growth, boosting atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, the principal greenhouse gas, by 30% over pre-industrial periods. Emissions from developing countries will nearly quadruple over the next half century, while those from industrial nations will increase by 30%. Former Senator and Democrat Presidential candidate Al Gore’s excellent fact-filled presentation on the subject of global warming runs entirely counter to any idea that population is not a problem. The UN estimates conservatively that America produces 20 metric tons of pollutants per capita annually. If America's population increases by 300 million by the end of this century, an additional six billion tons of pollutants will be produced per year at the present rate. Even if by some technological miracle we were to be able to cut our per capita output in half to that of Mexico, we would have made no progress on reducing the present unacceptable total output.
Too Many People Part VI
As incomes rise in traditional low-income societies, meat production from poultry and livestock will rise from 211 million tons in 1997 to 513 million tons in 2050 This seems like a positive development until one considers that 37% of the grain harvest in 1998 was used to feed livestock and poultry. The increase in total meat consumption will put additional pressures on the supply of grain which, as noted above, is rapidly falling behind population growth.
Too many People Part V
Fresh water scarcity may be the most underrated resource issue in the world today. Here in the Southwest, it is particularly critical. Population is growing and the supply of fresh water per person is declining. Little by little we are soaking up all the water we can find and all we are entitled to here on the eastern slope. We have developed arable land and swallowed up open space. In at least one state in the Southwest, Colorado, irrigated agriculture will face substantial cutbacks as population growth sucks up more of the available fresh water for residential and industrial use. Already streams run dry, water tables are falling and aquifers are being drained more rapidly than they can be replenished. ‘Climate change will have a devastating effect on the availability of water in the
Of 15 major oceanic fisheries, 11 are in decline. An annual take of 93 tons cannot be sustained. Fish farming will place demands on nutrients that are also needed for livestock and poultry production. Some species of fish will disappear entirely while others will decline in quality at the same time prices are escalating sharply. One tuna recently sold for $20,000 in
Too Many People Part IV
“[Overpopulation], combined with rising individual consumption, is pushing our…planet beyond its natural limits. Since 1984, the growth in grain harvest has fallen behind that of population, so per-person output has dropped by 7% (0.5% per year) according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. This is due to population growth, the lack of new land, fresh water for irrigation, and to slower growth in fertilizer use because of diminishing returns to this input.
Since mid-century, grain area—which serves as a proxy for cropland in general—has increased by 19%, but global population has grown by 132%. Population growth can degrade farmland, reducing its productivity or even eliminating it from production through development or destruction for infrastructure. As grain area falls, more and more nations risk losing the capacity to feed them. The
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Too Many People Part III
The Center for Disease Control (CDC) reports that in 2006 American births were the highest since the end of the late 60's. Much of the increase is attributed to the growing immigrant population--both legal and illegal. I have long championed a responsible national population policy that would include tax credits for parents who have, at most, two children. An end to the unlimited deductions for exemptions for more than two children per couple is another approach.
As our cities grow every day they claim thousands of acres of irreplaceable and productive farm and ranch land for new roads, airports, office buildings, schools and shopping centers. Similarly, at least here in the Southwest, they also buy up the water rights leaving the land barren and unproductive for lack of water. The loss of such fertile acreage dedicated to dairy, livestock, and food production must be stopped. We can rein-in out population growth but we cannot create new land or do a rain dance to get more water.
America's population is currently projected to grow to 438 million people (from today's 305 million) by 2050. More than 60% of that growth will be tied directly to new immigration. We must force our elected leaders to get control of our nation's borders and enact reforms that will tailor and limit immigration more precisely to our demonstrated needs. It should be obvious to all that America can no longer welcome the entire world to our shores and expect it to have no effect on our quality of life and standard of living.
As our cities grow every day they claim thousands of acres of irreplaceable and productive farm and ranch land for new roads, airports, office buildings, schools and shopping centers. Similarly, at least here in the Southwest, they also buy up the water rights leaving the land barren and unproductive for lack of water. The loss of such fertile acreage dedicated to dairy, livestock, and food production must be stopped. We can rein-in out population growth but we cannot create new land or do a rain dance to get more water.
America's population is currently projected to grow to 438 million people (from today's 305 million) by 2050. More than 60% of that growth will be tied directly to new immigration. We must force our elected leaders to get control of our nation's borders and enact reforms that will tailor and limit immigration more precisely to our demonstrated needs. It should be obvious to all that America can no longer welcome the entire world to our shores and expect it to have no effect on our quality of life and standard of living.
Too Many People Part II
One of the best ways to get the global warming crisis under control is to halt, and eventually reverse, population growth. Currently, the United States ranks as the world's #1 contributor to global warming and we need responsibile National Population Policy that will reduce America's carbon footprint. As often stated, according to the UN's conservative estimates, America produces 20 metric tons of pollutants pre capita annually. If we add 300 miilion more people, we will be producing an additional 6 billion metric tons of those pollutants each year at the present rate. Even if we were to be able to reduce our per capita output to Mexico's 10 metric tons per per capita per year, we would not have made any progress on reducing the present unacceptable level as our population doubles. Clearly, the road to a responsible climate policy begins with a responsible population policy.Today's unprededented population growth has pushed millions of people to build their homes on major flood plains and along hurricane-threatened coasts and in areas vulnerable to ravaging forest fires. If responsible population policies are enacted, many of these areas would and could be place off limits.
If we are going to succeed in turning around our soaring population numbers, we need a National Population Policy beginning with a national objective of a stabile population to be achieved within 20 years. This effort requires support from citizens to get Congress to create a U.S. Commission on Population Growth. Its charter should be to establish guideliness whereby our entire nation will be focused on the goal to slow, halt and eventually reverse today's escalating growth. Ideally, the recommmendations of this commission would become law unless a 60% majority in both houses of the congress votes otherwise.
As our nation confronts the problem of too many people, it is time to re-examine our national philosophy of "growth at any cost". Our elected leaders must take action today to control future development. We cannot continue to add more and more people to our population without creating disastrous social, economic and environmental problems.
Too Many People Part I
When America's population reached 300 million two years ago, the federal government estimated that our nation records a new birth every seven seconds, a death every 13 seconds and gains a new immigrant every 31 seconds. Adding these numbers together the Census Bureau concluded that the U.S. grows by one new person every 11 seconds. Such fast-paced growth is ruining our nation aided and abetted by pro-immigration, pro-illegal alien citizens in our midst. Indeed, just last month the Census Bureau showed our present population to be 305 million people -- that's 5 million new people in only 24 months. It is unfortunate that otherwise bright people have a blind spot when it come to these shocking numbers and what they portend for our country.Americans are learning that there is no "quick fix" available to solve our growing thirst for energy and we are paying the price financially. Our nation must act now to rein-in today's ballooning population and reduce our demand for oil, coal, and natural gas. We must also focus attention on identifying renewable sources of energy.
Encroaching population threatens more than 1,000 species in the United States. From 1982-1997, an area twice as large as Yellowstone, Everglades, Shenandoah and Yosemite national parks combined was pave over for housing, roads and other purposes. We cannot continue to destroy more of our nation's natural resources without disastrous consequences for future generations.
As population grows it puts more pressure on our nation's infrastructure. Today's fast growing communities are becoming a nightmare of clogged traffic, overcrowded schools, increased crime and gang activity, and overburdened hospitals. Without leaders on the federal, state and local levels working to create responsible population policies, the problems will get much worse and we will be left with the realization that our spineless leaders who talked about making America better have actually, through their action or inaction, contributed to the decline of our great country.
As America's cities and suburbs continue to expand to accommodate out-of-control population growth, we are paving over our irreplaceable farmlands and forests. This is the American version of the slash and burn activity that is destroying large areas of the South American rain forest. The surge in population is wreaking havoc on our infrastructure - roads, schools, hospitals, bridges, and tunnels - and creating many costly problems that will continue to spiral out of control if we fail to reduce population.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Obama policies patent Marxism
Robin Hood’s gambit: Rob the rich, pay the poor. Senator Obama told an Ohio man on Oct. 13, the self-employed plumber will pay higher taxes because he plans to “spread the wealth around.” Except the senator doesn’t call it income redistribution.
Euphemisms like “change” or “fairness” play better. So it’s only fair the rich guy pay for the poor. It’ll be “good for everybody.” Really?
First, I am not calling Sen. Obama a Marxist. A CPA with long experience, I disclaim any intention here of an ad hominem attack. His policies, however, are patent Marxism, and a fair target. Unfortunately, some readers will misunderstand. To those who don’t, please listen up.
Marxism defined: “From each according to their means, to each according to their need. “ Karl Marx. The Federal Tax Code structures progressive tax rates; as bracket income increases, the rate of tax increases. The lowest individual rate is 15 percent; the highest is 35 percent. In 2006, the latest federal data available, tax filers with above $50,000 in taxable income paid 90.3 percent of all personal income taxes; 56.9 percent of taxpayers (those earning less than $50,000) paid 9.7 percent of all personal income taxes; and 3.8 percent (those earning over $200,000), paid 50.6% of all personal income taxes. One-third of tax filers paid no tax. Without question, our already socialist tax structure causes high earners to pay a disproportionate share of taxes. Senator Obama asserts this is not fair because it is not enough.
His published tax plan promises to lower income taxes on 95 percent of taxpayers through refundable targeted credits. So though one-third pay not tax, they’ll get a refund. He will raise capital gains taxes by one-third, taxes on ordinary income above $250,000 by one-twelfth and corporate taxes by half. CCH analysis estimates the cost of his tax policies at $160 billion per year, net.
Perilously, this plan assumes falsely that GDP will not drop below its current level. U.S. history has demonstrated that raising tax rates on business and capital inhibits GDP and job growth. Small tax increases aside, Sen. Obama’s extreme hikes will contract GDP, because the confiscatory tax rates on business will force millions of layoffs and thousands of small businesses into bankruptcy, massively increasing unemployment and welfare. Where is the real concern for the poor in such a plan? Despite new tax revenues, the deficit will be severely exacerbated. Do not be deceived. Either Sen. Obama misunderstands taxation, or he’s counting on your misunderstanding.
Sen. Obama’s change to definitive socialism will exact an unacceptable human cost by crushing middle and lower income Americans who will be reduced to dependency on the state. Of course, the classless state is the Marxist means to pipe dream utopia. America has demonstrated just the opposite—working people rising through expanding economic opportunities. The American Dream’s realized floats all boats. Marxism drains the pond and calls it fairness.
Therefore, the fundamental question in considering Sen. Obama for president is, “Are you ready for America to take the Marxist path?” Maybe. But when you vote I hope you will make an informed choice."
Euphemisms like “change” or “fairness” play better. So it’s only fair the rich guy pay for the poor. It’ll be “good for everybody.” Really?
First, I am not calling Sen. Obama a Marxist. A CPA with long experience, I disclaim any intention here of an ad hominem attack. His policies, however, are patent Marxism, and a fair target. Unfortunately, some readers will misunderstand. To those who don’t, please listen up.
Marxism defined: “From each according to their means, to each according to their need. “ Karl Marx. The Federal Tax Code structures progressive tax rates; as bracket income increases, the rate of tax increases. The lowest individual rate is 15 percent; the highest is 35 percent. In 2006, the latest federal data available, tax filers with above $50,000 in taxable income paid 90.3 percent of all personal income taxes; 56.9 percent of taxpayers (those earning less than $50,000) paid 9.7 percent of all personal income taxes; and 3.8 percent (those earning over $200,000), paid 50.6% of all personal income taxes. One-third of tax filers paid no tax. Without question, our already socialist tax structure causes high earners to pay a disproportionate share of taxes. Senator Obama asserts this is not fair because it is not enough.
His published tax plan promises to lower income taxes on 95 percent of taxpayers through refundable targeted credits. So though one-third pay not tax, they’ll get a refund. He will raise capital gains taxes by one-third, taxes on ordinary income above $250,000 by one-twelfth and corporate taxes by half. CCH analysis estimates the cost of his tax policies at $160 billion per year, net.
Perilously, this plan assumes falsely that GDP will not drop below its current level. U.S. history has demonstrated that raising tax rates on business and capital inhibits GDP and job growth. Small tax increases aside, Sen. Obama’s extreme hikes will contract GDP, because the confiscatory tax rates on business will force millions of layoffs and thousands of small businesses into bankruptcy, massively increasing unemployment and welfare. Where is the real concern for the poor in such a plan? Despite new tax revenues, the deficit will be severely exacerbated. Do not be deceived. Either Sen. Obama misunderstands taxation, or he’s counting on your misunderstanding.
Sen. Obama’s change to definitive socialism will exact an unacceptable human cost by crushing middle and lower income Americans who will be reduced to dependency on the state. Of course, the classless state is the Marxist means to pipe dream utopia. America has demonstrated just the opposite—working people rising through expanding economic opportunities. The American Dream’s realized floats all boats. Marxism drains the pond and calls it fairness.
Therefore, the fundamental question in considering Sen. Obama for president is, “Are you ready for America to take the Marxist path?” Maybe. But when you vote I hope you will make an informed choice."
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Petroleum, Population & Immigration
When one opposes immigration's unarmed invasion and its deadly consequences for our country, the knee-jerk reaction of citizens who give precedence to illegal aliens over the desires and rights of fellow citizens is entirely predictable. They, for lack of more substantive arguments, immediately trot out those racism, xenophobia, bigotry and nativism accusations. Here are some reasons why we need the help of everyone and why this has nothing to do with those accusations.
Monday, October 13, 2008
An Immigration Platform for America
The link below leads to a proposed immigration platform for America and for those who really want secure borders. Half measures will not do as we all know from the numbers of illegals and visa overstays already present in our country. Sign on to this platform and insist that your congressmen and women support it. It is an amalgamation of ideas from the Democrat and Republican platforms and other sources with the sole objective of fashioning an effective program of immigration reforms that will save America from the abyss. Find it here
Friday, October 10, 2008
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Criminal Street Gangs
WASHINGTON (October 1, 2008) – A new Center for Immigration Studies Backgrounder finds that immigration law enforcement has been highly effective in fighting gang activity around the country. Local law enforcement agencies that shun involvement with immigration law enforcement are missing an opportunity to protect their communities, according to the authors. Since 2005, ICE has arrested more than 8,000 immigrant gangsters from more than 700 different gangs under an initiative known as Operation Community Shield.
The Backgrounder,'Taking Back the Streets: ICE and Local Law Enforcement Target Immigrant Gangs,' by Jessica M. Vaughan and Jon D. Feere, was funded by the Department of Justice and describes the unique public safety problems posed by immigrant gangs. The authors present previously unpublished statistics on gang arrests by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), describe how immigration law enforcement authorities are used to combat gang activity, and offer policy recommendations to improve federal-local cooperation, and without damaging relations with immigrant communities.
The authors can provide statistics for 99 different cities upon request. The full report is available online at http://www.cis.org/
Among the findings:
# Transnational immigrant gangs have been spreading rapidly and sprouting in suburban and rural areas where communities are not always equipped to deal with them.
# A very large share of immigrant gang members are illegal aliens and removable aliens. Federal sources estimate that 60 to 90 percent of the members of MS-13, the most notorious immigrant gang, are illegal aliens. In one jurisdiction studied, Northern Virginia, 30 to 40 percent of the gang task force case load were removable aliens.
# MS-13 activity was found in 48 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.
# The immigrant gangsters arrested were a significant menace to the public. About 80 percent had committed serious crimes in addition to their immigration violations and 40 percent were violent criminals.
# The ICE offices logging the largest number of immigrant gang arrests were San Diego, Atlanta, San Francisco, and Dallas. Some cities with significant gang problems, such as Los Angeles, Phoenix, and Houston, had few arrests. These cities had sanctuary, or “don’t ask, don’t tell,” immigration policies in place over the time period studied.
# While many of the immigrant gangs targeted were neighborhood operations, others were ethnic-based, such as Armenian Power, Kurdish Pride, or Oriental Killer Boys. But nearly half of the aliens arrested over the period studied were affiliated with MS-13 and Surenos-13, two of the largest and most notorious transnational gangs with largely immigrant membership.
# Nearly 60 percent of immigrant gangsters arrested by ICE were Mexican citizens, 17 percent were Salvadoran, and 5 percent were Honduran. In all, 53 different countries were represented.
# Immigrant gang members rarely make a living as gangsters. They typically work by day in construction, auto repair, farming, landscaping and other low-skill occupations, often using false documents. Some gangs are involved in the production and sale of false documents.
# The research found no “chilling effect” on the reporting of crime as a result of local law enforcement partnerships with ICE. Instead of spreading this misconception, immigrant advocacy groups should help reinforce the message that crime victims and witnesses are not targets of immigration law enforcement.
# All gang task forces should include either an ICE agent or local officers with formal immigration law training, such as 287(g). Programs aimed solely at removing incarcerated aliens, while helpful, are not as effective in addressing gang activity as investigative programs.
# While immigration law enforcement is a federal responsibility, ICE cannot do the job effectively without assistance from state and local law enforcement, particularly when it comes to immigrant gangs.
# Failure to adequately control the U.S.-Mexico border and to deter illegal settlement in general undermines the progress ICE and local law enforcement agencies have made in disrupting criminal immigrant street gangs.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Obama: Not much known about him
If Obama is elected president, he will be the least researched, least investigated, least studied, and least well-known in history. The media has allowed Obama and his supporters to create a "fairy tale" about him. Where is the media scrutiny of Obama? Have they abandoned their charter to become completely partisan with little interest in the facts? Whatever the motivation behind the mainstream media's refusal to seriously look into Obama's past, they are certainly doing a disservice to the American public.
The State Archives in Illinois said that they don't maintain documents relating to Obama's record in the state senate, and have not received any requests from Obama to archive any of his records. Yet, Obama has assured everyone that all of his records are available right now and have been gone through with a fine-toothed comb by news outlets in Illinois. One or the other must be lying. Guess who! Obama could have chosen to have his records archived but has chosen not to. Apparently he did nothing to be proud of during his time in the state senate or has something he did not wish to be in the record.
Obama has a tangled history of personal and business dealings with one Antoin "Tony" Rezko, a naturalized American citizen who immigrated to the United States from the terrorist-supporting country of Syria. Rezko settled in Chicago and served as a political godfather to Barack Obama. Over the years Rezko has basically bankrolled Obama's political career. Doesn't anyone wonder why?
Rezko and members of his large Muslim family have contributed more than $200,000 to Obama campaigns. (The highly respected London Times referred to REzko as "Mr. Obama's long-serving bagman.") Obama's relationship with Rezko enabled him to acquire his Chicago mansion at $300,000 less than the asking price of $1.65 million. Such a deal! Papers filed in this case show that about a month before Obama's suspicious land deal, Rezko received a wire transfer of $3.5 million from Muslim Nadhim Auchi, an Iraqi billionaire now living in Britain who made his fortune through "business dealings" with the corrupt Sadam Hussein regime. This transfer raises the question posed by the London Times -- whether or not "funds from Nadhim Auchi ...helped Mr. Obama buy his mock Georgian mansion in Chicago."
Rezko managed to corrupt the state government of Illinois. That is bad enough but now the question is whether Rezko has corrupted Barack Obama. Obama is certainly worried about that and is doing everything he can to distance himself, after the fact, from convicted felon Rezko, He has removed $160,000 in Rezko-tainted campaign contributions from his ample campaign treasury and contributed them to charity. Sorry Barack, but hindsight won't play in Peoria!
The State Archives in Illinois said that they don't maintain documents relating to Obama's record in the state senate, and have not received any requests from Obama to archive any of his records. Yet, Obama has assured everyone that all of his records are available right now and have been gone through with a fine-toothed comb by news outlets in Illinois. One or the other must be lying. Guess who! Obama could have chosen to have his records archived but has chosen not to. Apparently he did nothing to be proud of during his time in the state senate or has something he did not wish to be in the record.
Obama has a tangled history of personal and business dealings with one Antoin "Tony" Rezko, a naturalized American citizen who immigrated to the United States from the terrorist-supporting country of Syria. Rezko settled in Chicago and served as a political godfather to Barack Obama. Over the years Rezko has basically bankrolled Obama's political career. Doesn't anyone wonder why?
Rezko and members of his large Muslim family have contributed more than $200,000 to Obama campaigns. (The highly respected London Times referred to REzko as "Mr. Obama's long-serving bagman.") Obama's relationship with Rezko enabled him to acquire his Chicago mansion at $300,000 less than the asking price of $1.65 million. Such a deal! Papers filed in this case show that about a month before Obama's suspicious land deal, Rezko received a wire transfer of $3.5 million from Muslim Nadhim Auchi, an Iraqi billionaire now living in Britain who made his fortune through "business dealings" with the corrupt Sadam Hussein regime. This transfer raises the question posed by the London Times -- whether or not "funds from Nadhim Auchi ...helped Mr. Obama buy his mock Georgian mansion in Chicago."
Rezko managed to corrupt the state government of Illinois. That is bad enough but now the question is whether Rezko has corrupted Barack Obama. Obama is certainly worried about that and is doing everything he can to distance himself, after the fact, from convicted felon Rezko, He has removed $160,000 in Rezko-tainted campaign contributions from his ample campaign treasury and contributed them to charity. Sorry Barack, but hindsight won't play in Peoria!
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
The Real Obama Record?? Columbo Wants to Know!
Columbo is still scratching his head Ah . . Sorry to bother you Mr. Obama, Sir Excuse me Mr. Obama, I mean Senator Obama, sir. Um . . . know you are busy and important and stuff. I mean running for president is very important and . . . ah . . I hate to bother you. I will only take a minute ok, sir? See, I have these missing pieces that are holding me up, and I was wondering sir, if you could take time out of your busy schedule and help me out. You know, no big deal, just some loose ends and things. Hey, you have a nice place here! The wife sees houses like this on TV all the time and says boy she wishes she had digs like this you know? Is that painting real? Really? Wow. I saw something like that in a museum once! Oh, sorry sir. I didn't mean to get off the track. So if you could just help me out a minute and give me some details, I will get right out of your way. I want to close this case and maybe take the wife to Coney Island or something. Ever been to Coney Island? No, I didn't think so. Well, listen, anyways, I can't seem to get some information I need to wrap this up. These things seem to either be "locked" or "not available'. I'm sure it's just some oversight or glitch or something, so if you could you tell me where these things are . . . I . . . I . . have them written down here somewhere . Oh wait. Sorry about the smears. It was raining out. I'll just read it to you. Could you help me please find these things, sir?
Your Occidental College records
Your Columbia Thesis
Your Columbia transcript of grades
Your Harvard College records
Your Selective Service Registration
Your medical records
Your Illinois State Senate records
Your Illinois State Senate schedule
Your Law practice client list
Your embossed, signed paper Certification of Live Birth
Your Harvard Law Review articles that were published
Your University of Chicago scholarly articles
Your Record of baptism
Oh hey . . listen! I know you are busy! Is this too much for you now? I mean, tell you what. I will come back tomorrow. Give you some time to get these things together, you know? I mean, I know you are busy, so I will just let myself out. I will be back tomorrow. And the day after....
I think we need to know more about this man before we even consider voting for the next president of this country.
Your Occidental College records
Your Columbia Thesis
Your Columbia transcript of grades
Your Harvard College records
Your Selective Service Registration
Your medical records
Your Illinois State Senate records
Your Illinois State Senate schedule
Your Law practice client list
Your embossed, signed paper Certification of Live Birth
Your Harvard Law Review articles that were published
Your University of Chicago scholarly articles
Your Record of baptism
Oh hey . . listen! I know you are busy! Is this too much for you now? I mean, tell you what. I will come back tomorrow. Give you some time to get these things together, you know? I mean, I know you are busy, so I will just let myself out. I will be back tomorrow. And the day after....
I think we need to know more about this man before we even consider voting for the next president of this country.
Obama’s Real Record Part Deux
When Obama visited foreign heads of state on his whirlwind world tour to try to shore up his foreign policy credentials, he tried to convince Iraq’s foreign minister to withhold agreement on troop withdrawals until after the election. This stunt, fully vetted by the newspapers, is a clear violation of the Logan Act (18 U.S.C.A. § 953 [1948]) for which he should have been prosecuted. This federal statute makes it a crime for a citizen to confer with foreign governments against the interests of the United States. Specifically, it prohibits citizens from negotiating with other nations on behalf of the United States without authorization.“Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measuresor conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.”The Prowler at the American Spectator has all the details on how Obama, in a closed door session with Iraqi officials, tried to persuade them to not negotiate a troop draw-down agreement with the US government until after Bush left the White House. The Obama campaign spent more than five hours on Monday attempting to figure out the best refutation of the explosive New York Post report that quoted Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari as saying that Barack Obama during his July visit to Baghdad demanded that Iraq not negotiate with the Bush Administration on the withdrawal of American troops. Instead, he asked that they delay such negotiations until after the presidential handover at the end of January.The three problems, according to campaign sources: The report was true, there were at least three other people in the room with Obama and Zebari to confirm the conversation, and there was concern that there were enough aggressive reporters based in Baghdad with the sources to confirm the conversation that to deny the comments would create a bigger problem. Instead, Obama's national security spokeswoman Wendy Morigi told reporters that Obama told the Iraqis that they should not rush through what she termed a "Strategic Framework Agreement" governing the future of U.S. forces until after President Bush left office. In other words, the Iraqis should not negotiate an American troop withdrawal.This is another example of a politician saying one thing in public (pull troops out of Iraq immediately) and another in private (don't draw down troops until Bush is out of office). Obama has a pattern of saying one thing in public and the opposite in private, something Governor Palin touched on in her speech at the RNC when she reminded Americans that Obama spoke out of one side of his face to voters in rural Pennsylvania just to denigrate them out of the other side of his face in private to another group in San Francisco.But the more important and outrageous issue at hand is that Obama tried to undercut negotiations between a sitting US president and a foreign government. That's simply breathtaking in its disrespect and disregard for the Presidency of the United States. A senator running for president does not have to right to march into a meeting with officials from a foreign nation and tell them to disregard any negotiations from the sitting President of the United States. Hubris is not a strong enough word to describe what Obama tried to do.The mainstream media will do what they can to bury this in order to protect their candidate, so the McCain/Palin campaign will need to make a statement denouncing Obama for his actions. Senator Obama needs to be held accountable but he won't be if the media deliberately ignores this story.Update: Pete Hegseth at National Review independently confirms that Obama tried to undermine US negotiations but a bigger concern to him is Obama's naivety on military and diplomatic issues: “Rather than use his touch-down trip to Baghdad to fact-find and consult with senior Iraqi and American officials, Sen. Obama made a concerted effort to push his post-Bush administration agenda, undermining -- in word and deed -- current diplomatic efforts in Iraq. The Obama campaign has now essentially confirmed those details of the report. Some will see this interference in foreign policy during a time of war and cry, treason!" Well, isn't it???
Recently, separate complaints were filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and the U.S. Senate Ethics Committee, against Barack Obama for allegedly accepting a below market rate mortgage loan in 2005 not available to the general consumer.According to the complaints, Obama reportedly received a home loan of $1.32 million at a rate of 5.625 percent, although the average going rate on that day according to two different surveys was between 5.93 and 6 percent. The special below-market "super super jumbo" loan, as described by The Washington Post, was secured without an origination fee or discount points - terms not available to the general public."It appears that due to his position as a United States Senator, Barack Obama received improper special treatment from Northern Trust resulting in an illicit 'gift' which has a value of almost $125,000 in interest savings. It is therefore respectfully requested that a full investigation into whether the special Northern Trust mortgage received by Senator Barack Obama constitutes a gift that is prohibited by Senate ethics rules."As noted in both complaints, the relationship between Northern Trust and Senator Obama goes far beyond this single mortgage loan. Northern Trust has supported Barack Obama's political campaigns since 1990. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, cited by The Washington Post, Northern Trust employees have donated $71,000. The Northern Trust political action committee gave $1,250 to Senator Obama's 2004 campaign for the United States Senate.Northern Trust Vice President John O'Connell essentially admitted company provided Obama preferential loan terms because of his position in the U.S. Senate. "A person's occupation and salary are two factors; I would expect those are two things we would take into consideration," O'Connell told The Washington Post. "This was a business proposition for us."Look, anytime a member of Congress gets a sweetheart deal from a mortgage company, we ought to be suspicious. Let's hope the U.S. Senate and the FEC do their jobs and investigate the matter.
Recently, separate complaints were filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and the U.S. Senate Ethics Committee, against Barack Obama for allegedly accepting a below market rate mortgage loan in 2005 not available to the general consumer.According to the complaints, Obama reportedly received a home loan of $1.32 million at a rate of 5.625 percent, although the average going rate on that day according to two different surveys was between 5.93 and 6 percent. The special below-market "super super jumbo" loan, as described by The Washington Post, was secured without an origination fee or discount points - terms not available to the general public."It appears that due to his position as a United States Senator, Barack Obama received improper special treatment from Northern Trust resulting in an illicit 'gift' which has a value of almost $125,000 in interest savings. It is therefore respectfully requested that a full investigation into whether the special Northern Trust mortgage received by Senator Barack Obama constitutes a gift that is prohibited by Senate ethics rules."As noted in both complaints, the relationship between Northern Trust and Senator Obama goes far beyond this single mortgage loan. Northern Trust has supported Barack Obama's political campaigns since 1990. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, cited by The Washington Post, Northern Trust employees have donated $71,000. The Northern Trust political action committee gave $1,250 to Senator Obama's 2004 campaign for the United States Senate.Northern Trust Vice President John O'Connell essentially admitted company provided Obama preferential loan terms because of his position in the U.S. Senate. "A person's occupation and salary are two factors; I would expect those are two things we would take into consideration," O'Connell told The Washington Post. "This was a business proposition for us."Look, anytime a member of Congress gets a sweetheart deal from a mortgage company, we ought to be suspicious. Let's hope the U.S. Senate and the FEC do their jobs and investigate the matter.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Obama's Real record
A recent post on another blog outlined Obama’s so-called “record”. Actually there was very little in that record other than a rendition of his education and activities rather than any real accomplishments. Among the things that were omitted from that selective “record” were: First, there is his long time association with his mentor, the blasphemous racist, Jeremiah Wright. Second, that he is acquainted with, served on various boards with, and received campaign contributions from Bill Ayers and his wife Bernadine Dohrn, past leaders of the Weather Underground, a violent 1960s radical organization that placed bombs at a number of government institutions. Although Obama likes to point out that he was only eight years old when those crimes were committed, his association with them as an adult leaves his judgment open to question. Third, although Obama's dealings with his hinky friend and felon, Tony Rezko, have never led him afoul of the law, they show that, despite his high-minded politics, he was no purer -- or no savvier -- than Illinois' biggest hacks in his weakness for a generous contributor. He wouldn't even say no when Rezko cooked up a deal to help the newly elected senator buy a gracious Georgian revival home. Rezko, after all, built part of his fortune by exploiting the black community that Obama had served in the state Senate, and by milking government programs meant to benefit black-owned businesses. But Obama took Rezko's money even after the businessman was sued by the city of Chicago for failing to heat his low-income apartments, and even after Rezko was caught using a black business partner to obtain a minority set-aside for a fast-food franchise at O'Hare Airport. Some community organizer!
Fourth, Obama claims that his plan to improve the economy formed the “basis” for the bi-partisan stimulus package passed by Congress earlier this year were declared “not true” by his own supporters among the Democrats on Capital Hill. Obama was clearly guilty of inflating his role in the creation of that bill.
Fifth, Education Week wrote of Obama just a year ago that “In his eight years in the state senate and two years in the U.S. Senate, Mr. Obama hasn't made a significant mark on education policy.
Sixth, in 2005, just after Obama took office as a U.S. Senator, the Gang of 14 came together to ensure that progress could be made on judicial appointments. John McCain was, of course, a member of the Gang of 14. Unsurprisingly, Obama was not (the most liberal Senator in the country does not get involved with things like “bipartisan compromise”).
Seventh, Obama had a reputation in Illinois as someone who avoided “standing up to special interests or divisive party activists,” and further had a propensity for “skipping” tough votes (side note: he voted “present” over 100 times as a state senator). A case in point would presumably be the example of “a key gun control vote that he missed in December 1999 because he was vacationing in Hawaii,” which led to the Chicago Tribune describing Obama as "gutless." Nothing says “getting things done” like being called out as “gutless” by your own hometown newspaper!
Eighth, Obama likes to talk a lot about the importance of Afghanistan (and clearly the efforts in which our troops are engaged there are important). The trouble is he failed to hold a single hearing on the NATO mission in Afghanistan, which falls under his responsibility as Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s Subcommittee on European Affairs. This led in July to the Ranking Member of that Subcommittee blasting him for inaction.
Ninth, while John McCain has a “record of producing bipartisan alliances on tough issues,” Obama has “a much thinner record” where the tough work of bucking one’s party in order to get things done on the most difficult items is concerned
Tenth, Illinois State Sen. Dan Cronin, who served with Obama, says Obama is a “gentleman,” but he doesn’t think Obama accomplished much during his eight-year tenure in the legislature. Per Cronin, himself: “There were no bold solutions, no effort to stand up to the Chicago public schools or the unions. There really wasn't, and there were opportunities to do so.”
This is what Obama’s supporters describe that as a “proven record of getting things done.”
Fourth, Obama claims that his plan to improve the economy formed the “basis” for the bi-partisan stimulus package passed by Congress earlier this year were declared “not true” by his own supporters among the Democrats on Capital Hill. Obama was clearly guilty of inflating his role in the creation of that bill.
Fifth, Education Week wrote of Obama just a year ago that “In his eight years in the state senate and two years in the U.S. Senate, Mr. Obama hasn't made a significant mark on education policy.
Sixth, in 2005, just after Obama took office as a U.S. Senator, the Gang of 14 came together to ensure that progress could be made on judicial appointments. John McCain was, of course, a member of the Gang of 14. Unsurprisingly, Obama was not (the most liberal Senator in the country does not get involved with things like “bipartisan compromise”).
Seventh, Obama had a reputation in Illinois as someone who avoided “standing up to special interests or divisive party activists,” and further had a propensity for “skipping” tough votes (side note: he voted “present” over 100 times as a state senator). A case in point would presumably be the example of “a key gun control vote that he missed in December 1999 because he was vacationing in Hawaii,” which led to the Chicago Tribune describing Obama as "gutless." Nothing says “getting things done” like being called out as “gutless” by your own hometown newspaper!
Eighth, Obama likes to talk a lot about the importance of Afghanistan (and clearly the efforts in which our troops are engaged there are important). The trouble is he failed to hold a single hearing on the NATO mission in Afghanistan, which falls under his responsibility as Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s Subcommittee on European Affairs. This led in July to the Ranking Member of that Subcommittee blasting him for inaction.
Ninth, while John McCain has a “record of producing bipartisan alliances on tough issues,” Obama has “a much thinner record” where the tough work of bucking one’s party in order to get things done on the most difficult items is concerned
Tenth, Illinois State Sen. Dan Cronin, who served with Obama, says Obama is a “gentleman,” but he doesn’t think Obama accomplished much during his eight-year tenure in the legislature. Per Cronin, himself: “There were no bold solutions, no effort to stand up to the Chicago public schools or the unions. There really wasn't, and there were opportunities to do so.”
This is what Obama’s supporters describe that as a “proven record of getting things done.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)