Working for logical immigation reform based on a stable population, a recognition of the finite nature of our natural resources and the adverse impact of continued growth on our quality of life, standard of living, national interest, character, language, sovereignty and the rule of law. Pushing back and countering the disloyal elements in American society and the anti-American rhetoric of the leftwing illegal alien lobbies. In a debate, when your opponents turn to name calling, it's a good sign you've already won.

Sunday, May 30, 2010

Immigration Reform

An editorial in the Washington Post characterized the new immigration reform proposals as sensible and workable. How soon we forget! I have dealt with the amnesty issue in an earlier post. Below I expose the other ommissions and deficiencies of the current proposals.

A provision is needed in the reform proposals that mandates English as the official language of the U.S. to be used for all official publications, proceedings, and documents at all levels of government. Public Interpreters should be authorized for those who cannot afford one or who do not have a family member who can fulfill this role.

True fluency in English must be required for citizenship. The bill should provide funding for teaching English and testing for fluency.

Carefully constructed language needs to be inserted to reinterpret the 14th amendment in the light of the current unanticipated state of affairs regarding illegal aliens, tourists, and students who abuse the law by producing birthright citizens for the purposes of gaining government benefits for their children and
laying the groundwork for subsequent chain immigrations.

Chain immigrations should be limited to the children and spouses of U.S. citizens. The U.S. should not obligate itself to expedite immigration for any other adult relatives of a citizen. They must get in the same line as those without a citizen relative. All chain immigrations must be counted against the overall immigration quota.

Total immigration should not exceed 250,000 per year, exclusive of students, tourists, and temporary migrant farm workers, and should be focused on those who have the greatest potential for increasing the competitiveness of the U.S. in the global economy. Immigration should be tied to the unemployment rate by sector. If the total unemployment rate in any given sector is greater than a specifired level, immigration in that sector should be suspended. The bill should establish a stable population as a national goal to be achieved within 20 years based on tax and immigration reforms.

The Disconnect between Hispanics and Other Americans

The recent ruckus about the new Arizona immigration law highlights the disconnect between Hispanics and Other Americans. Some like to draw a parallel between U.S. border security measures and the Berlin Wall. Of course, the situations are totally different. The Berlin Wall separated East Germans from their countrymen in the West. It was designed to keep people in rather than keep them out.

The East Germans, to their dismay, found out that mine fields, machine gun towers, and multi-layered fences and walls were not enough to stop people from escaping or attempting to escape to the West. Why? Because the people were willing to take incredible risks because they knew if they could escape to the West, they would never be repatriated back to the repressive regime in the East.

Similarly, in the U.S., illegal aliens know that if they can escape the immediate environs of the border or ports of entry, they will be home free because of the lack of vigorous internal enforcement and the lack of the threat of detention and repatriation. This is the lesson we should have learned from the East German experience. Unless there is a high probability that border violators will be apprehended, denied jobs, and repatriated, our borders will never be secure. Instead of repatriation, some Hispanics want all of the illegals currently in this country to be granted amnesty. This is a recipe for failure even worse than that of the East Germans.

This is the major stumbling block in the current immigration reform proposals. Some claim that the bill already represents a compromise and that therefore it deserves to be passed. But there has been no compromise on the amnesty issue. If an illegal has managed to enter the U.S. illegally, even it is just the day before the bill is enacted, he could qualify for amnesty eventually.

Why is it so hard to understand that amnesty simply doesn’t work? It would merely sweep the problem under the carpet and allow the counting of illegals to start all over again from zero. The number of illegals in the U.S. grew from the 1.3 million who were granted amnesty in 1986 to an estimated 12 million today. What will it be in another 25 years if another amnesty is granted?

We need to find a workable compromise on this single issue without delay. To send the right message, the compromise needs to result in the repatriation of a large number of the illegals. We need to be very selective about those who are allowed to stay and work. They should not be eligible for jobs citizens would do if offered a living wage and a hiring preference. Employers must demonstrate with irrefutable evidence that they are unable to fill their jobs with citizens before they can hire hire or retain any foreign workers. Employers must also pay any foreign workers at the same rate as citizen workers with the same skill level and experience. They should also be required to provide full family health care coverage for their foreign workers so that this expense is not offloaded on the unsuspecting public through higher insurance premiums.

The Disconnect between Hispanics and Other Americans

The recent ruckus about the new Arizona immigration law highlights the disconnect between Hispanics and Other Americans. Some like to draw a parallel between U.S. border security measures and the Berlin Wall. Of course, the situations are totally different. The Berlin Wall separated East Germans from their countrymen in the West. It was designed to keep people in rather than keep them out.
The East Germans, to their dismay, found out that mine fields, machine gun towers, and multi-layered fences and walls were not enough to stop people from escaping or attempting to escape to the West. Why? What was the missing ingredient? The people were willing to take these incredible risks because they knew if they could escape to the West, they would never be repatriated back to the repressive regime in the East.
Similarly, in the U.S., illegal aliens know that if they can escape the immediate environs of the border or ports of entry, they will be home free because of the lack of vigorous internal enforcement and the threat of repatriation. This is the lesson we should have learned from the East German experience. Unless there is a high probability that border violators will be apprehended, denied jobs, and repatriated, our borders will never be secure. Instead of repatriation, some Hispanics want all of the illegals currently in this country to be granted amnesty. This is a recipe for failure like that of the East Germans.
This is the major stumbling block in the current immigration reform proposals. Some claim that the bill already represents a compromise and that therefore it deserves to be passed. But there has been no compromise on the amnesty issue. If an illegal has managed to enter the U.S. illegally the day before the bill is enacted, he would qualify for the Reid, Schumer, Menendez amnesty. Why is it so hard to understand that this approach simply won’t work? The number of illegals in the U.S. grew from the 1.3 million who were granted amnesty in 1986 to an estimated 12 million today. What will it be in another 25 years if another amnesty is granted? We need to find a workable compromise on this single issue without delay. To send the right message, the compromise needs to result in the repatriation of a large number of the illegals. We need to be very selective about those who are allowed to stay and work. They cannot be eligible for jobs citizens would do if offered a living wage and a hiring preference. Employers must pay foreign workers at the same rate as citizen workers with the same skill level and experience. They should also be required to provide full family health care coverage for their foreign workers so that this expense is not offloaded on the unsuspecting public through higher insurance premiums.

Thursday, May 27, 2010

The Abandoned Children of Visa Overstays and Other Illegals

On Wednesday, the Today Show NBC's Natalie Morales introduced Telemundo's Maria Celeste Arraras to tell the story of a South Florida family that has been separated by immigration laws. It is the tale of a Colombian mother deported back to her home country because, like 40% of the illegal aliens in the U.S, she overstayed her visa. Many people will say to the children, “Well, this is a very sad case but too bad, your mother was not a citizen and should not have come here in the first place. Moreover, your mother chose to leave you behind or you chose not to accompany her. So whose fault is this? Since she wasn’t a citizen she should not have been here and, in some sense, neither should you, even though the 14th amendment gives you that right if you were born here.

In the U.S., one of the strongest incentives for border violations is the 14th amendment which grants citizenship to anyone who is born in this country.
It is difficult to imagine a more irrational and self-defeating legal system than one which makes unauthorized entry into this country a criminal offense and simultaneously provides perhaps the greatest possible inducement to illegal entry
.

Originally, the 14th amendment was designed to give full citizenship status to former slaves and their offspring. The authors of the 14th Amendment never would have imagined their words bestowing citizenship to the offspring of illegal aliens, tourists, foreign students, or temporary farm workers.

Wednesday, May 26, 2010

New Poll Confirms the Divide between Hisapanics and Other Americans

The most recent poll confirms earlier findings regarding the disconnect between Hispanics and other Americans on immigration reform. The pollster however, cautions against reading too much into this early support for CIR — given that the poll didn’t test the language that opponents of comprehensive immigration reform would use. In addition, he points out that only 19 percent of all adults say they strongly favor the legislation, which suggests soft support.

Until the polls do a better job of pinning down the details of immigration reform in a way that the average person can understand, the results of such polls will be suspect. For example, "allowing undocumented immigrants who are already in the country to pay a fine, learn English, and go to the back of the line for the opportunity to become American citizens" was viewed strongly or somewhat favorably by 65% of the respondents. However, the meaning of the phrase "go to the back of the line" is obscure and this may have affected how the respondents chose to answer that query. If it meant return to your homeland and stay there at the back of the line until your number comes up, that would elicit a strong positive response. If, however, it meant remain in this country and go to the back of the line, that might generate a different response.

Some language that opponents of the Hispanic version of CIR would like to see tested include the following:

--allow illegal aliens already in the country to receive a work visa only if they pay a fine of around five thousand dollars, pay back taxes, and pass a criminal
background check and, in addition, only if an employer can present irrefutable evidence that he or she cannot fill the job with a legal U.S. resident.

--the U.S. population is expected to double again by the end of this century. Which of the following do you believe are causes of population growth:
--high immigration quotas
--chain immigrations
--anchor babies
--14th amendment instant citizens
--legal immigrants
--illegal aliens
--the higher fertility rates of immigrants
--the children of immigrants
--the fertility rate of citizens
--a tax policy that favors larger families

--which of the following do you believe will be the result of population growth
--a long wait for access to national parks and monuments
--a lower standard of living
--a lesser quality of life
--a shortage of finite natural resources like water, arable land, & minerals
--more polluted air and water
--a greater demand for energy - nuclear, wind, solar, coal, oil, gas
--crowding and congestion on highways and streets

--do you strongly agree, somewhat agree,somewhat disagree, strongly disagree, or not sure about the following statement:

-- "It is difficult to imagine a more irrational and self-defeating legal system than one which makes unauthorized entry into this country a criminal offense and simultaneously provides for birthright citizenship under the 14th amendment which is perhaps the greatest possible inducement to illegal entry."

--Hispanics and other Americans strongly disagree with each other about immigration reforms. Which of the following do you believe to be the root causes of this diagreement:

--racism
--ethnocentrism
--nativism
--bigotry
--differing views about population growth
--differing views about increased pollution
--differing views increased energy demands
--the costs of social services, education, health care, and welfare
--the national debt
--crime
--corruption
--oligarchy
--the national character
--the national language
--the national interest
--national security
--national unity
--xenophobia
--nationalism

Monday, May 24, 2010

California has same law as Arizona -- Boycott California

SECTION 834b - California Penal Code

(a) Every law enforcement agency in California shall fully cooperate with the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service regarding any person who is arrested if he or she is suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws.

(b) With respect to any such person who is arrested, and suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws, every law enforcement agency shall do the following:

(1) Attempt to verify the legal status of such person as a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted as a permanent resident, an alien lawfully admitted for a temporary period of time or as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of immigration laws. The verification process may include, but shall not be limited to, questioning the person regarding his or her date and place of birth, and entry into the United States, and demanding documentation to indicate his or her legal status.

(2) Notify the person of his or her apparent status as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws and inform him or her that, apart from any criminal justice proceedings, he or she must either obtain legal status or leave the United States.

(3) Notify the Attorney General of California and the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service of the apparent illegal status and provide any additional information that may be requested by any other public entity.

(c) Any legislative, administrative, or other action by a city, county, or other legally authorized local governmental entity with jurisdictional boundaries, or by a law enforcement agency, to prevent or limit the cooperation required by subdivision (a) is expressly prohibited.”
________________________________________________________________________

Saturday, May 22, 2010

Profiling Didn't Happen in Virginia

PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY, VA (KOLD) - For the last three years, a county in Virginia has remained under the radar in the immigration debate even though it has a law almost identical to Arizona's immigration law.

The ordinance in Prince William County was passed in 2007. It initially required police to check the status of detainees they suspected of being undocumented immigrants but one year later it was revised.

Officers now question all criminal suspects about their immigration status once an arrest is made.

In 2008, the University of Virginia conducted a survey to see what effects, if any, the Prince William County law had. It concluded initial fears about racial profiling did not happen.

It also show that schools saw a drop in English as a second language enrollment. There was also a drop in uninsured mothers giving birth and individuals turned over to immigration and customs enforcement.

The Significance of Domicile in Interpreting Birth Right Citizenship

The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment establishes citizenship as a birthright for all children born in the United States, so long as they are “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Territorial birth, “subject to the jurisdiction” requires a mutual consensual relationship between individuals and the U.S. political community; children of undocumented immigrants, lacking such a relationship, are thus putatively precluded from constitutional birthright citizenship.

The 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause draws heavily on the text of a similar citizenship provision in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, written by Senator Lyman Trumbull. In a letter to President Andrew Johnson summarizing the draft Act, Trumbull said that birthright citizenship depended on whether the parents of children born in the United States were living permanently, “domiciled,” here.

Domicile had an unambiguous definition in 1866: one acquired domicile in a nation or a particular place by moving there with the intention of making it one’s permanent residence. Only two prerequisites must be satisfied for domicile to exist: “residence; and . . . intention of making it the home of the [person]”.
A person could change domicile by leaving one jurisdiction and settling in another, regardless of whether those jurisdictions were states within a country or separate nations. In certain international contexts (such as neutrality agreements), acquiring domicile resulted in “a national character [being] impressed upon a person, different from that which permanent allegiance gives him”; such a person, though, could easily choose to cast off that “national character” by returning to his or her native country. Domicile and citizenship were thus distinct from one another, and acquiring the former in a new country did not alter the latter.
Now let's discuss allegiance, the “complete, political jurisdiction” over an individual that flows from the individual’s “allegiance to the sovereign.” Allegiance involves renouncing their previous allegiance, or at least formally demonstrating “commitment” to the United States by obtaining permanent resident status and assuming the “contributive responsibilities” of citizens. Further, affiliation must be met with the “reciprocal consent . . . of the nation to [the individual’s] membership.”

Taking domicile to be the birthright citizenship standard may just limit bestowed citizenship upon birth much better than the allegiance argument as used today to interpret the 14th Amendment. First, children born within the territorial boundaries of the United States are U.S. citizens (or not) based on their parents’ domicile, not citizenship or political status. Using domicile as the benchmark also contradicts today's argument that “subject to the jurisdiction” refers not to universally applicable territorial jurisdiction, but a narrower, “political” type. To gain domicile in 1868, one had only to have lived within the territory and planned to permanently remain; one did not need to first transfer one’s sovereign allegiance. Any new “national character” that one took on through acquiring domicile in a new country was merely “adventitious,” and could “be thrown off at pleasure” by leaving the country without intent to return. This is not exactly lasting political affiliation or allegiance.
If domicile is the appropriate standard, individuals born here and subject to our laws would not be “subject to the jurisdiction” for citizenship purposes if their parents were here only temporarily. Using domicile in this way is thus more restrictive than the pure territorial approach: it requires parents to have some meaningful ties to the country in which they are living for children born there to be citizens.
Domicile requires individuals to integrate themselves into a nation’s social fabric through residence such that they consider it their home and have no plans to leave. Beyond residence, it requires that an individual seek, and the country accept, affiliation between the individual and the government of the country. Thus, those here on non-immigrant visas should not have bestowed upon their children born within the boundaries of the United States of America, birthright citizenship, as they themselves are not intending to permanently reside or be domiciled within the USA, and they do not intend to give their "allegiance" to the US Constitution. This should also deny children born to illegal immigration entry violators, birthright citizenship.

contributed by Liquid Reigns

Thursday, May 20, 2010

The Misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment

Most legal scholars agree that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution has been misinterpreted, and this has resulted in the practice of birthright citizenship. Lino Graglia of the University of Texas law school wrote in the Jan. 11 Texas Review of Law & Politics that the authors of the 14th Amendment never would have imagined their words bestowing citizenship to illegal or visiting immigrants. Graglia also said, "It is difficult to imagine a more irrational and self-defeating legal system than one which makes unauthorized entry into this country a criminal offense and simultaneously provides perhaps the greatest possible inducement to illegal entry."

Constitutional and legal scholars widely agree that the 14th amendment has been misinterpreted and this misinterpretation is encouraging foreign nationals to come to the United States in order to give birth. I'm sure you agree that Congress needs to act to rectify this misinterpretation.

Please support any legislation that eliminates birthright citizenship because U.S. citizenship is too precious a commodity to acquire while on vacation.

Thursday, May 13, 2010

Petition: Stabilize the U.S. Population

Online petition - Establish a National Objective to Stabilize the U.S. Population

Petition

Online petition - Stop Immigration's Unarmed Invasion and its Deadly Consequences

The Dallas Solution

I have a friend who is president of his homeowners association in the Dallas , Texas suburbs. They were having a terrible problem with litter near some of his association's homes. The reason according to my friend is that six very large, luxurious new houses are being built right next to their community.

The trash was coming from the Mexican laborers working at the construction sites and included bags from McDonald's, Burger King and 7-11, plus coffee cups, napkins, cigarette butts, coke cans, empty bottles, etc. He went to see the site supervisor and even the general
contractor, politely urging them to get their workers not to litter the neighborhood, to no avail. He called the city, county, and police and got no help there either.

So here's what his community did. They organized about twenty folks, named themselves The "Inner Neighborhood Services" group, and arranged to go out at lunch time and "police" the trash themselves. It is what they did while picking up the trash that is so hilarious.

They bought navy blue baseball caps and had the initials "INS" embroidered in gold on the caps.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand what they hoped people might mistakenly think the letters really stand for..

After the Inner Neighborhood Services group's first lunch time pickup detail, with all of them wearing their caps and some carrying cameras, 46 out of the total of 68 construction workers did not show up for work the next morning -- and haven't come back
yet.

It has been ten days now.

The General Contractor, I'm told, is madder than hell, but can't say anything publicly because he could be busted for hiring illegal aliens. My friend and his bunch can't be accused of impersonating federal personnel, because they have the official name of the group recorded in their homeowner association minutes along with a notation about the vote to approve formation of the new subcommittee -- and besides, they informed the INS in advance of their plans, and according to my friend, the INS said basically, "Have at it!"

SO, FOLKS, I THINK YOU COULD SAY THAT TEXAS INGENUITY TRIUMPHS AGAIN!

Reminder: Don't forget to pay your taxes....... 12 million illegal aliens are depending on you.

Another New Poll

Yesterday the respected Pew Research Center released a new poll showing Americans are backing Arizona's recently passed immigration enforcement bill, SB 1070, by huge margins.
Seventy-three percent of Americans agree with "requiring people to produce documents verifying their legal status if police ask for them," according to the poll.
When the Pew Poll respondents were asked if the police should be able to "detain anyone unable to verify legal status," 67% said yes. The real encouraging sign here, though, is that Democrats, Republicans, and Independents all agreed that police should be able to detain those unable to verify their immigration status.
The Pew poll is just the latest sign of a fast-spreading Arizona fever! In fact, virtually all polls show that Americans are rallying behind Arizona's approach.
This is fascinating: According to the new Gallup Poll, the U.S. public is now more concerned about immigration than subjects like "terrorism," the "national debt," and "national security."
Americans are desperate for relief, for any reasonable way to encourage illegal aliens to go home! Congress has failed to act. So now states are acting.
You probably have already heard that the open borders lobby (National Council of La Raza, the left-wing S.E.I.U., some major religious groups, etc.,) has gone hysterical over Arizona's SB 1070. They've made a cottage industry out of condemning Arizona and Arizonans as racists, xenophobes, backwards, bigots. You name it, and they've probably said it.

Immigrants and being an AMERICAN

"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American... There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag.... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language.... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."

U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt, 1907

Every citizen and every immigrant needs to read this!

Wednesday, May 12, 2010

Poll: 2/3s of Americans Support SB 1070

By an almost two-to-one margin overall, respondents to an NBC/Wall Street Journal Poll released today are somewhat or strongly supportive of the recent immigration measure signed into law in Arizona that would make it a state crime to reside there illegally. Fully 64% of the respondents, including Hispanics, viewed the law favorably. However, seven out of ten of the Hispanics respondents said they were somewhat or strongly opposed to the law as compared with only 34% overall. One thousand people were polled but it is unknown whether the respondents were asked whether they were citizens or legal residents or whether a truthful answer could be expected to that question.
The poll did not report the percentage of non-Hispanic respondents who supported the law so all that can be said is that it would certainly by significantly higher than the 64% overall percentage. Among Hispanics 27% are somewhat or strongly supportive of Arizona’s law. Fully 82% of Hispanics said they were concerned about profiling compared to 66% overall. Only 16% of Hispanics said the law was unlikely to lead to profiling, while 31% overall said it would not.
What this means is that law enforcement officials in Arizona need to pursue an evenhanded approach to the implementation of this law treating all they stop for other reasons with the utmost in courtesy and thanking them for their cooperation. All should oppose any unfair treatment of Hispanics whether they are citizens or not. Illegals must be treated humanely and provided with timely food, water and bathroom facilities. This the only way this law will work to the advantage of everyone in the way intended.
If it were not illegal, profiling is an effective law enforcement technique. In fact, the poll shows some support for the use of profiling to identify terrorists. Profiling would help law enforcement to narrow down the search for illegals or terrorists to the populations where they are most likely to be found. This would be not a perfect solution because of the Timothy McVeighs of this world but it would be a major help to law enforcement if it could be used in an appropriate way.
While there is a legitimate concern that the law could lead to discrimination against Hispanics who are citizens or who are residing in the U.S. legally, this need not be as onerous as it might sound. We all are subject to routine traffic stops and required to produce a driver’s license and proof of insurance. Since Arizona does not allow illegal aliens to get a driver’s license, it is logical to ask occupants of an auto stopped for traffic or other violations to also produce proof of citizenship or legal residency. Carrying this additional document should not be considered a major imposition by anyone. To facilitate the implementation of the law all citizens could be asked to carry such identification. It should even be possible to institute a special new ID that could be obtained by presenting proof of citizenship at motor vehicle departments or police stations where one’s bona fides could be checked against national data bases using E-verify. This capability could even be added to police cruisers so that the check could be done right on the spot with little delay or inconvenience. This would be similar to the police capability to check license plates against the list of stolen vehicles.
We should all be supportive of our Hispanic citizens to make sure they are not discriminated against or treated unfairly as a result of this law. Their full cooperation is important make sure the law is effective and works as intended only against those who are present in the state illegally.
Some Hispanic citizens fail to support the law not because of the potential for discrimination or profiling but because they want their ethnic brethren to be left alone and the border unsecured. Their discrimination and profiling concerns are secondary to that larger issue. They are the open borders, pro-amnesty, and increased legal immigration proponents. The discrimination and profiling issue is just a red herring they use to advance their larger agenda.

Broad Approval for New Arizona Immigration Law

May 12, 2010
Democrats Divided, But Support key Provisions

The public broadly supports a new Arizona law aimed at dealing with illegal immigration and the law’s provisions giving police increased powers to stop and detain people who are suspected of being in the country illegally.

Fully 73% say they approve of requiring people to produce documents verifying their legal status if police ask for them. Two-thirds (67%) approve of allowing police to detain anyone who cannot verify their legal status, while 62% approve of allowing police to question people they think may be in the country illegally.

After being asked about the law’s provisions, 59% say that, considering everything, they approve of Arizona’s new illegal immigration law while 32% disapprove.

The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted May 6-9 among 994 adults, finds that Democrats are evenly split over Arizona’s new immigration law: 45% approve of the law and 46% disapprove. However, majorities of Democrats approve of two of the law’s principal provisions: requiring people to produce documents verifying legal status (65%) and allowing police to detain anyone unable to verify their legal status (55%).

Republicans overwhelmingly approve of the law and three provisions tested. Similarly, among independents there is little difference in opinions of the new Arizona law (64% approve) and its elements, which are viewed positively.

Young people are less supportive of the Arizona immigration law than are older Americans. Fewer than half (45%) of those younger than 30 approve of the new law while 47% disapprove. Majorities of older age groups – including 74% of those 65 and older – approve of the law.

However, even most young people approve of requiring people to produce documents verifying their legal status; 61% approve of this element of the law while 35% disapprove. Larger percentages of older age groups support this provision.

Most Disapprove of Obama on Immigration As has been the case since last fall, the public is highly critical of Barack Obama’s handling of immigration policy. Just 25% approve of the way Obama is handling the issue, while more than twice as many (54%) disapprove. That is little changed from last month (29% approve) and down slightly from last November (31%).

In the current survey, 76% of Republicans disapprove of Obama’s handling of immigration policy, while just 8% approve. Independents disapprove of Obama’s job on the issue by more than two-to-one (57% to 25%). Even among Democrats, as many disapprove (38%) as approve (37%) of the way he is handling the issue, while a quarter (25%) offer no opinion.

Tuesday, May 11, 2010

Professor of Law Explains SB 1070

Kris Kobach, a professor of law and lawyer in Missouri who helped draft Arizona's tough new immigration bill, talks about Senate Bill 1070.

1. Professor Kobach, have you been surprised by the national - and even international - reaction to passage of Senate Bill 1070 that you helped draft?

The national reaction has been surprising, for two reasons. First, numerous national figures (including President Obama) significantly mischaracterized SB 1070 in their criticism of it. It is clear that much of the hyperventilating reaction to the bill came from people who did not bother to actually read it. Second, in 2007, the Arizona Legislature passed the Legal Arizona Workers Act—making Arizona the first state in the nation to require all employers to use the internet-based E-Verify system to ensure that their employees are authorized to work in the United States, and taking business licenses away from employers who knowingly hire unauthorized aliens. (I assisted in the drafting of that law as well.) The 2007 law had a much broader impact than the 2010 law, yet there was very little attention devoted to it outside of Arizona. So why all of the controversy over a narrower bill? I suspect it has everything to do with the 2010 elections and the desire of some organizations to use this issue to motivate voters.

2. Is the intent of the legislation to permit suspicion of illegal status to be pursued independently or only as a follow-up on some other offense?

Only as a follow-up to some other offense. Section 2 of the law stipulates that a law enforcement officer must first make a "lawful stop, detention, or arrest … in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state." If the officer, during the enforcement of that other offense, develops reasonable suspicion that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, then the officer must contact ICE if practicable to verify the alien's immigration status. Many city, county, and state law enforcement officers already did this before SB 1070 was enacted. Opponents of the law evidently think law enforcement officers in the state should turn a blind eye to such violations of federal law that they come across during their routine duties.

3. Why make illegal immigration a state crime? Why not just have local law enforcement turn illegal immigrants over to ICE?

SB 1070 doesn't make illegal immigration a state crime. Rather, it makes the failure of an alien to register or to carry certain registration documents a state crime. Since 1940, it has been a federal crime for aliens to fail to keep certain registration documents on their person. SB 1070 simply cites these federal statutes and prohibits aliens from violating them (8 U.S.C. §§ 1304(a) and 1306(e)). In other words, the Arizona law merely adds a layer of state penalty to what was already a crime under federal law. Ironically, open-borders activists have insisted for years that we use the term "undocumented" when referring to illegal aliens. Now, when a state takes seriously the documentation requirements of federal law, they become apoplectic.

SB 1070 thereby gives state and local law enforcement a third option that may be applicable when they encounter illegal aliens in the enforcement of other laws. Law enforcement officers already had the option to turn the illegal aliens over to ICE, or to make a case under Arizona's human smuggling statute. The documentation provisions of SB 1070 offer a third course of action. But if a county sheriff's office prefers to turn all illegal aliens that they encounter over to ICE, they certainly can continue to do so. Nothing in the law requires them to change their protocol.

4. Under the bill, do legal residents have to have proof of citizenship with them at all times? What are the consequences of not having it?

SB 1070 does not require U.S. citizens to carry any identification whatsoever.

Aliens who are lawfully present in the United States were already required by federal law to carry certain documents with them. For legal permanent resident aliens, the relevant document is a green card. The consequences of violating the Arizona law are the same as the consequences of violating the federal law: a fine of up to $100 and/or imprisonment of up to 30 days.

Any American who has travelled abroad knows that just about every country in the world imposes the same documentation requirements on U.S. citizens. It is hardly unfair or unusual to enforce our own laws on the subject.

5. What is the biggest misperception about the bill that you think needs to be corrected?

The biggest misperception about SB 1070 is the claim that it somehow encourages racial profiling. The people making this claim either haven't read the bill or they are willfully misrepresenting it. SB 1070 expressly prohibits racial profiling. In four different places, the law provides that "a law enforcement official … may not consider race, color or national origin in the enforcement of this section …." Race may not be considered in making any stops or determining immigration status. So if race were considered in any particular case, in violation of the law, the prosecution would not hold up in court. In addition, all normal Fourth Amendment protections against racial profiling will continue to apply. Most state and federal statutes do not include such special protection in the text of the statute; SB 1070 goes to extraordinary lengths to protect against racial profiling.

6. If someone calls the police and reports what he claims is someone else who is in the country illegally, do the police have an obligation under the bill to investigate?

No.

7. What's the basis for believing that the state has the authority to enforce federal immigration laws?

The U.S. Supreme Court has long recognized that states may enact statutes that are designed to discourage illegal immigration, without being preempted by federal law. That was the landmark 1976 case of De Canas v. Bica, in which the Supreme Court sustained a California law that prohibited employers from knowingly hiring unauthorized aliens. As long as Congress hasn't expressly barred states from taking the action in question, and Congress has not displaced all state laws from the field, and the statute doesn't conflict with federal law, it is permitted.

With respect to police officers making arrests of illegal aliens in order to assist the federal government, the Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits of the U.S. Court of Appeals have all recognized the inherent authority of state and local officers to do so. And with respect to the authority of Arizona to make it a state misdemeanor for aliens to fail to carry the documents required by federal law, the relevant question is whether the state law conflicts with federal law. Since SB 1070 mirrors federal law exactly, there is no conflict. Indeed, state and federal law are in perfect harmony.

Some of the people who are now declaring SB 1070 to be unconstitutional made the same claims regarding previous Arizona laws. Arizona's last three major laws concerning illegal immigration were all challenged in court—Proposition 200 in 2004, the Human Smuggling Act in 2005, and Legal Arizona Workers Act in 2007. (I assisted in the defense of the last two.) In every case, the law was upheld. Most recently Arizona won an impressive victory in the Ninth Circuit when the Legal Arizona Workers Act was sustained. So Arizona is three-for-three in court. I expect that when the dust settles after the current legal scrap is over, Arizona will be four-for-four.

Saturday, May 8, 2010

Illegitimus non Carborundum!

The vocal critics of Arizona's new law SB1070 are trying to wear us down with the argument that racial profiling is racist. Every intelligent person knows otherwise as shown by the dictionary definitions of both terms. This argument is basically a red herring. They also argue that the new law will lead to racial profiling which is illegal.

Racial profiling, although illegal, could be an effective law enforcement tool because it would allow the police, ICE, and border patrol agents to narrow their search for illegal aliens down to the population where they are most likely to be found.

If strict anti-profiling rules were to be applied to the Border Patrol, the agents would be unable to stop anyone who managed to make his way across the border. They would in effect be told that they could not stop anyone and demand proof of citizenship if it was based on profiles like: apprehended near the border; appears to be Hispanic; speaks only broken English if at all; appears to be enroute from south of the border but there is no proof; appears to be wearing typical Mexican garb; or attempts to escape.

Stopping citizens in autos within 60 miles of the border at illegal alien checkpoints seems to be legal and acceptable. I have been stopped at one of those checkpoints. However, once illegals disappear into the local community or go Norte, it becomes a different story. Now it becomes flagrant profiling rather than a routine stop.

Of course, stopping or questioning individuals who may be citizens is not a step to be taken lightly. Yet, this happens all the time for traffic violations and DUIs and for immigration purposes. In Arizona, you cannot get a drivers license unless you can prove you are in this country legally. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to ask drivers stopped for other reasons and their passengers to not only show their drivers licenses and proof of insurance but also their citizenship papers or other documents that prove they are in this country legally. This check of bona fides is only a minor and legal imposition on loyal citizens interested in keeping unsafe drivers off the road and apprehending illegals. This is apparently not the case with Hispanic citizens of Arizona. They see this minor imposition as a foot on their necks or reminiscent of old movies in which papers are checked routinely in other countries. (Remember in "The Day of the Jackal" when passports had to be turned in at hotels and were reported to the police every morning by courier.)

Naturally, those who are unsympathetic to the enforcement of immigration laws and the removal of illegal aliens take every opportunity to blow such routine stops out of all proportion using such terms as "foot on the neck", racial profiling, and racism as cover for their real feelings. For every imposition experienced by Hispanic citizens there are probably three times that many involving anglos
who have gone astray of the law. Hispanic citizens are their own worst enemies because of their support for illegal aliens. They have become a part of the problem rather than a part of the solution. Their full cooperation would remove any necessity for Draconian laws, "sweeps by what some have called pejoratively "masked goons", and such other measures as citizens desperate for immigration laws to be enforced are willing to accept.

The critics are also trying to organize a boycott of Arizona's businesses to achieve what they were unable to achieve at the ballot box through the democratic process. Goes to show you the high regard in which these critics hold democracy as a form of government and the rule of law as the foundation of all civilized societies. They are willing to sacrifice the jobs of citizens and aliens alike in Arizona in order to achieve their aims.

Some of the Mexican-American critics profess to be in favor of border security but at the same time persist in denying law enforcement the tools necessary to achieve that goal. This clearly indicates that they are only giving lip service to border security. Their real agenda is to remove all the barriers to illegal entry while thwarting any effective approach to the removal of illegal aliens.

This once again illustrates their lack of: personal integrity; loyalty to the rule of law; their shortage of grey matter; and their inability to take a long term view of what that would mean to the America we know and love.

They see no value in defending the national interest, our national sovereignty, and our national character. They see no value in supporting the rule of law. They define Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR) basically in terms of amnesty for 12-20 million lawbreakers. It hasn't occurred to them yet that CIR and amnesty are two totally different things. They are responsible for SB 1070 as much as anybody.

Amnesty was tried in 1968 and the result was that the 1-1.3 million illegals then grew to 12-20 million today, a compound rate of growth of between 9.8% and as 10.7%. None of the critics have bothered to calculate what a 10% compound rate of increase in the number of illegal aliens would mean by the year 2050. Here's the calculation: 12 million x (1.10)^40 = 543 million illegal aliens. If the number today is 20 million, that would mean 20 x 1.10^40 = 905 million. Now I fervently hope that this will not be the reality but I can say tht these calculations are acurate. No wonder the CIR advocates want to sweep the current problem under the carpet with another amnesty so they can start all over again counting from zero.

There is no disagreement that our population is headed for a minimum of 458 million by mid-century and perhaps as many as a billion by the end of this century. The above calculations suggest that the 458 million may be a gross underestimate of our potential population in 2050, especially if the amnesty proponents have their way.

Population growth in America is due almost solely to legal immigrants, illegal aliens, their higher fertility rates, and their progeny. As they flood across the border, the last thought in their minds and in the minds of their supporters, aiders, and abettors is the fact that the "limit" of finite natural resources per capita as population increases without bounds is zero. Simply put that means: the more there are of us, the less there is for each of us, and that applies equally to the immigrants, the illegal aliens, their children and all citizens, including the Hispanic-Americans who seem to be oblivious to this elementary fact. They are equally oblivious to the effects of unfettered population growth on the environment. According to the UN's estimate, Americans' produce 20 metric tons of pollutants per capita annually. At that rate, 300 million more people will produce 6 billion more tons of pollutants annually. Even if by some technological miracle we were to be able to reduce our per capita output to the 10 metric tons per year of Mexico, we would have made absolutely no progress in reducing the current unacceptable level as our population doubles.

As the boycotters and open borders crowd do all they can to thwart the efforts of Arizonans to remove illegal aliens from their state, you can be sure they have not given any thought to the consequences of continuing down the present path to the destruction of America.

At the same time we must admit that some white supremacists have raised their ugly heads in Arizona polluting the political climate with their Neo-Nazi filth. Although I support SB 1070 wholeheartedly, I am severely disppointed by the apparent connection between the governor, and others involved in the formulation and passage of this bill, with white supremacists. By that affiliation they have damaged the credibility of the bill itself and undermined the ability of those who see this bill as an important way to deal with illegal aliens to continue to support it.

Is Profiling Racist?

A new commenter at "Immigration Talk with a Mexican American" (ITWAMA), tried to contest my comment about Racial Profiling. I wrote that racial profiling is not a form of racism; racial profiling merely takes cognizance of the characteristics of illegal aliens to enable law enforcement to narrow its search and focus its limited resources on the the larger group consisting of their ethnic brethren because that is where they are most likely to be found rather than within other disparate populations.

The commenter wrote, " [racial profiling] presupposes that qualities attributed to a subset of a larger group are true of the group as a whole." Obviously,this statement is false. No such presupposition is involved in profiling. Quite the opposite in fact; racial profiling seeks to narrow the search by using the characteristics of the illegals to limit the search to the population that possesses those characteristics.

The commenter illustrates this with the following: "An example of such flawed reasoning is this: All professional baseball players are men, therefore all men are professional baseball players. Obviously this statement is absurd."

That much we can agree on but she uses the wrong example.

The appropriate example is: If all professional baseball players are men, to find professional baseball players, one should focus his or her efforts on the male population not on the entire population.

The commenter also errs in concluding that focusing on the male population signals a belief that all men are professional baseball players. That is the absurdity that she overlooks.

The commenter then applies this false example of profiling to illegal aliens writing, "All illegal immigrants are Hispanic (which is debatable) therefore all Hispanics are illegal immigrants."

She then concludes,"That is what racial profiling is. It is based on racist ideology and is therefore racist. You cannot separate the two."

I'm not surprised that she believes "racial profiling" is "racist." But she is wrong on all counts. The word "racial" should be eliminated from the term "racial profiling" because profiling in general can be based on many different factors, not just race. The word "racist" has been used so frequently by those who cannot marshal a more compelling argument that its real meaning has been lost. In such circumstances, I tend to consult my dictionary. That the commenter is wrong is obvious from the following definitions:

Racism-- "(1)an excessive and irrational belief in or advocacy of the superiority of a given group, people, nation, usually one's own on the basis of racial differences having no scientific validity.(2) Social action or government policy based on such assumed differences."

Racial profiling -- "the inclusion of racial or ethnic characteristics in determining whether a person is considered likely to commit [or have committed] a particular type of crime or an illegal act or is likely to behave [have behaved] in a "predictable" manner. It is often confused with the more comprehensive offender profiling and has been perceived to be directed most often toward non white individuals. The practice became particularly controversial toward the end of the 20th century in the United States, as the potential for abuse by law enforcement came to light."

Racial profiling is not based on an excessive and irrational belief in the superiority of one race or group. It is based on the idea that if one can identify one or more characteristics of the illegal aliens, the search for them can then be narrowed to the more limited population of only those who possess these characteristics.

The same logic is used by computer software and search engines to quickly locate a particular piece of information. For example, it one were looking for a particular email, by inserting a keyword or phrase, the search looks only for the messages that contain that keyword or phrase, rather than all messages. This is a form of profiling and search engines would be totally ineffective if they could not use this technique to quickly narrow the search.

It is unfortunate that some people use distortions or their own definitions to try to prove their point when perfectly good and valid definitions are readily available in the dictionary or on line. If one is a student of logic, then it is incumbent upon him or her to use it correctly.