Obama Fails the Border Security Test

The outcry over illegal immigration in border states notwithstanding, David Axelrod insisted President Barack Obama has taken as strict an approach to the issue as any other president "No administration has been tougher on enforcement," Axelrod said on "Fox News Sunday." "We have more manpower there than ever before- more equipment drones, helicopters, airplanes. We're doing this in a smart, more efficient way and we're producing better results."

The problem is the results are no where near adequate. After all Arizona still has 460,000 illegals within its borders. We measure effectiveness based on results. As I have written on numerous occasions, while improvements in staffing, infrastructure, and the rules of engagement at the border are important, they are bound to fail without vigorous internal enforcement and suitable penalties for both the illegal aliens and their employers. I suggested a minimum six month term working on border infrastructure for first time border violators and fines on an escalating scale for employers. But before that can happen we need to make E-verification mandatory across the board for all employers, public and private, and all employee, current and potential new hires.

I don't care if the president has done more. He hasn't done enough. Moreover, he has focused BP and ICE resources on what he calls the criminal elements allowing others to penetrate the border and flee to the interior with little chance that they will be apprehended, detained and repatriated.

Where he has failed is his lack of recognition that the Arizona law is what is needed, at least in all the border states and perhaps throughout the entire country. What he is claiming credit for is activity not results or accomplishments. Until the flow of illegals is reduced to a trickle and the numbers already here reduced to the minimum needed by our economy, Obama has to be judged a failure on border security. But he has plenty of company among the Democrats like Senator Schumer and Menendez and even some Republican turncoats like McCain and Graham. They are all failures when it comes to border security. What we want gentlemen is results, not excuses or claims of resource inputs that have had a minimal impact.

And then there is that old bugaboo, CIR, as if granting amnesty to 12 million illegals will be a deterrent to a whole new wave of border jumpers. Quite the opposite of course, it will be one of the strongest incentives for new border violations that will yield similar results from the last amnesty. One thing it will do is hide the 12 million from view except in the welfare lines and in the hard-pressed school systems and emergency rooms. In the longer term it will mean food shortages as the supply of arable land and water is reduced below the amounts needed to support the larger population.

Also the energy demand will not go down; it will increase as our population doubles. Similarly, the amount of pollutants,instead of being curbed,will actually increase in total output per year. Sounds like a real sensible policy, doesn't it? And the Hispanic American who support this nonsense are just shooting themselves in the foot. Instead, they should be consolidating their gains in education and economic well-being and recognize that more is not better when it comes to people of all kinds.

Legal Brief filed by Nine States in support of AZ law

DETROIT — States have the authority to enforce immigration laws and protect their borders, Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox said Wednesday in a legal brief on behalf of nine states supporting Arizona's immigration law.

Cox, one of five Republicans running for Michigan governor, said Michigan is the lead state backing Arizona in federal court and is joined by Alabama, Florida, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas and Virginia, as well as the Northern Mariana Islands.

The Arizona law, set to take effect July 29, directs officers to question people about their immigration status during the enforcement of other laws such as traffic stops and if there's a reasonable suspicion they're in the U.S. illegally.

President Barack Obama's administration recently filed suit in federal court to block it, arguing immigration is a federal issue. The law's backers say Congress isn't doing anything meaningful about illegal immigration, so it's the state's duty to step up.

"Arizona, Michigan and every other state have the authority to enforce immigration laws, and it is appalling to see President Obama use taxpayer dollars to stop a state's efforts to protect its own borders," Cox said in a statement.

Arizona's Republican Gov. Jan Brewer, in a statement released by Cox's office, said she was thankful for the support.

In a telephone interview, Cox said the nine states supporting Arizona represents "a lot of states," considering it was only Monday that he asked other state attorneys general to join him. The brief was filed in U.S. District Court in Arizona on the same day as the deadline for such filings.

"By lawsuit, rather than by legislation, the federal government seeks to negate this preexisting power of the states to verify a person's immigration status and similarly seeks to reject the assistance that the states can lawfully provide to the Federal government," the brief states.

The brief doesn't represent the first time Cox has clashed with the Obama administration. Earlier this year, he joined with more than a dozen other attorneys general to file a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of federal health care changes signed into law by the Democratic president.

Like with his stance on health care, the immigration brief again puts Cox at odds with Democratic Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm. Granholm, who can't seek re-election because of term limits, disagrees with the Arizona law, her press secretary Liz Boyd said. The Michigan primary is less than three weeks away on Aug. 3.

"It's a patently political ploy in his quest for the Republican nomination for governor," Boyd said. [And a damned good one too given the mood of the country!}

Obama’s lawsuit against Arizona: Immigration is my responsibility to shirk - SF Examiner

President Obama said,

“It would be wrong to offer blanket amnesty for people who came into the United States unlawfully because that would suggest to those thinking about coming here illegally that there will be no repercussions for such a decision. And this could lead to a surge in more illegal immigration. ...
…our nation, like all nations, has the right and obligation to control its borders and set laws for residency and citizenship. And no matter how decent they are, no matter their reasons, the 11 million who broke these laws should be held accountable."

Immigration Laws in Missouri

On July 7, 2008, Governor Matt Blunt signed a comprehensive immigration bill that implements new restrictions on illegal immigrants
and imposes new requirements on government officials and businesses. In addition to the provisions discussed in more detail below,
the legislation requires law enforcement agencies to verify the legal status of arrested persons, establishes penalties for those who assist
illegal aliens in obtaining driver’s licenses and prohibits local governments from creating sanctuaries for persons who are in the United
States illegally. Most of the provisions of the new law concerning businesses will take effect January 1, 2009.
Four principal provisions of the legislation that may affect a business are related to the following topics:
• Use of a federal electronic employment eligibility verification program, known as “E-Verify”
• Agreements between general (or sub-) contractors and direct subcontractors regarding the employment of illegal immigrants
• Proper classification of workers: Are they employees or independent contractors?
• Transporting illegal immigrants for employment purposes
Electronic Verification of Employment Authorization Mandatory for Some Employers
The law makes clear that business entities and employers are prohibited from knowingly employing, hiring, or continuing to employ
illegal immigrants to perform work in Missouri.
Under the new law, all Missouri public employers must use E-Verify, a federal employment eligibility verification program that
searches records from the Social Security Administration and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. In addition, as a condition
for the award of a state (or political subdivision) contract or grant in excess of $5,000, or to qualify for a state-administered tax credit,
tax abatement, or loan from the state, business entities must use E-Verify for employees working in connection with the contracted
services.
Private employers do not have to use E-Verify, but they may want to consider doing so, because, under the new law, participation in
the program is an affirmative defense to an allegation that a business entity knowingly employs an illegal immigrant.
The Attorney General’s Office is charged with enforcing these provisions, and, to that end, may bring a civil action if it reasonably
believes a business entity knowingly employed an illegal immigrant.
Penalties include suspension of business permit, license or exemption of the business for 14 days (for first violations), for one year
(for second violations) or permanently (three or more violations). In addition, an employer will be expected to correct the violations
by either terminating the unauthorized employee or requesting secondary verification through E-Verify, and submit a sworn affidavit
explaining how the violations were corrected and documentation proving that the employer has enrolled in E-Verify.
In addition to the above penalties, state contractors and entities receiving tax abatements, etc. that knowingly employ an unauthorized
immigrant will be deemed in breach of contract, and the state may terminate the contract or suspend or debar the entity from doing
business with the state for a period of three years (for first violations) or permanently (for two or more violations). In addition, the
state may withhold up to 25 percent of the total amount due to the business entity upon termination of the contract.
A business entity that terminates an employee in accordance with the new law will not be liable for any claims regarding the termination
brought under the Missouri Human Rights Act.