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!}
Showing posts with label Arizona. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Arizona. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Monday, June 14, 2010
Operation Wetback
Operation Wetback was a 1954 operation by the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to remove about one million illegal aliens from the southwestern United States, focusing on Mexican nationals. Although the term "wetback" is now considered to be a slur, the problem remains essentially the same as it was in 1954 except that the numbers are now much greater. The recently-passed Arizona law is another long-overdue attempt to deal with the problem of illegal aliens This problem has become much worse since 1954 and even just since 1986when the last amnesty bill was passed. Accordingly, drastic action was called for particularly in the vacuum created by the federal government's ineptness and neglect.
Burgeoning numbers of illegal Mexican aliens prompted President Dwight D. Eisenhower to appoint his longtime friends, John Cox and General Joseph Swing, as INS Commissioner. It is indeed unfortunate that no presidents since Eisenhower has taken the decisive action needed to curb border violations. According to Attorney General Herbert Brownell Jr., Eisenhower had a sense of urgency about illegal aliens upon taking office. In a letter to Sen. J. William Fulbright, Eisenhower quoted a report in The New York Times that said, "The rise in illegal border-crossing by Mexican 'wetbacks' (rooted in the watery route taken by the Mexican immigrants across the Rio Grande) to a current rate of more than 1,000,000 cases a year has been accompanied by a curious relaxation in ethical standards extending all the way from the farmer-exploiters of this contraband labor to the highest levels of the Federal Government." It's still happening and has now extended to many other expoitative employers and to many jobs traditionally held by citizens.
Unfortunately, all of the successive Administrations since Eisenhower have continued to appoint ineffective and unethical officials to important immigration policy positions resulting in a gross failure to provide even the semblance of effective border security and internal enforcement.
The original operation was modeled after a program that came to be termed the Mexican Repatriation, which put pressure on citizens of Mexico to return home during the Great Depression, due to the economic crisis in the United States. The Obama Administration should have implemented a similar program when the U.S. descended into a deep recession with double digit unemployment.
The Operation Wetback effort began in California and Arizona, and coordinated 1075 Border Patrol agents, along with state and local police agencies, to mount an aggressive crackdown. Tactics employed included going as far as systematic police sweeps of Mexican-American neighborhoods, and random stops and ID checks of "Mexican-looking" people in a region with many Native Americans and native Hispanics. This remains a problem today in Arizona mainly because racial profiling is illegal. From a strictly effectiveness point of view, profiling makes a great deal of sense. One does not go looking for illegals from Mexico or Central America among the Anglos or the Chinese communities. Hispanic citizens have chosen to take umbrage at this most efficient way to apprehend the illegals. The best way to avoid this situation is for Hispanic citizens to become part of the solution rather than remaining a part of the problem. If Hispanic citizens were willing to come forward with as many legitimate forms of proof as they have, sheriff's offices and police departments could find a way to carefully check these documents and then issue a new, guaranteed, counterfeit-proof biometric ID that would be accepted without question. Citizens would be put to no more trouble than they would be if asked for their drivers' license or other forms of ID. Limiting sweeps to employers places of business or worksites might also help to assuage the concerns of the Hispanic community. Of course, some number of Hispanics object to these procedures not because they represent a significant imposition but because they oppose all effective forms of border security and internal enforcement.
In some cases, during the operation, some American-born minor dependent children were deported with their illegal alien parents. This occurred despite the fact the children were, according to the Supreme Court's interpretation of the 14th amendment, citizens of the United States. Nevertheless, a strong case can be made that parents should be allowed to abandon their minor children in the U.S. To some that would constitute a form of child abuse. The mere act of accompanying their parents would not deprive these minor children of their citizenship.
Some 750 agents targeted agricultural areas with a goal of 1000 apprehensions per day. By the end of July, over 50,000 immigrants were caught in the two states. An estimated 488,000 illegal immigrants are claimed to have left voluntarily, for fear of being apprehended. By September, 80,000 had been taken into custody in Texas, and the INS estimates that 500,000 to 700,000 had left Texas of their accord. To discourage illicit re-entry, buses and trains took many deportees deep within Mexican territory, prior to releasing them. Tens of thousands more were deported by two chartered ships, the Emancipation and the Mercurio. The ships ferried them from Port Isabel, Texas, to Veracruz, Mexico, more than 500 miles (800 kilometers) to the south. Some were taken as far as 1,000 miles. With the recent improvements in border infrastructure and staffing and a new law to permit sentencing every illegal who is appehended at the border or internally to six months working on border infrastructure, there may be somewhat less incentive to return, especially if all repatriations are classified as involuntary. Involuntary removal invokes stiffer penalties for those who attempt to return and causes them to be classified as felons.
Burgeoning numbers of illegal Mexican aliens prompted President Dwight D. Eisenhower to appoint his longtime friends, John Cox and General Joseph Swing, as INS Commissioner. It is indeed unfortunate that no presidents since Eisenhower has taken the decisive action needed to curb border violations. According to Attorney General Herbert Brownell Jr., Eisenhower had a sense of urgency about illegal aliens upon taking office. In a letter to Sen. J. William Fulbright, Eisenhower quoted a report in The New York Times that said, "The rise in illegal border-crossing by Mexican 'wetbacks' (rooted in the watery route taken by the Mexican immigrants across the Rio Grande) to a current rate of more than 1,000,000 cases a year has been accompanied by a curious relaxation in ethical standards extending all the way from the farmer-exploiters of this contraband labor to the highest levels of the Federal Government." It's still happening and has now extended to many other expoitative employers and to many jobs traditionally held by citizens.
Unfortunately, all of the successive Administrations since Eisenhower have continued to appoint ineffective and unethical officials to important immigration policy positions resulting in a gross failure to provide even the semblance of effective border security and internal enforcement.
The original operation was modeled after a program that came to be termed the Mexican Repatriation, which put pressure on citizens of Mexico to return home during the Great Depression, due to the economic crisis in the United States. The Obama Administration should have implemented a similar program when the U.S. descended into a deep recession with double digit unemployment.
The Operation Wetback effort began in California and Arizona, and coordinated 1075 Border Patrol agents, along with state and local police agencies, to mount an aggressive crackdown. Tactics employed included going as far as systematic police sweeps of Mexican-American neighborhoods, and random stops and ID checks of "Mexican-looking" people in a region with many Native Americans and native Hispanics. This remains a problem today in Arizona mainly because racial profiling is illegal. From a strictly effectiveness point of view, profiling makes a great deal of sense. One does not go looking for illegals from Mexico or Central America among the Anglos or the Chinese communities. Hispanic citizens have chosen to take umbrage at this most efficient way to apprehend the illegals. The best way to avoid this situation is for Hispanic citizens to become part of the solution rather than remaining a part of the problem. If Hispanic citizens were willing to come forward with as many legitimate forms of proof as they have, sheriff's offices and police departments could find a way to carefully check these documents and then issue a new, guaranteed, counterfeit-proof biometric ID that would be accepted without question. Citizens would be put to no more trouble than they would be if asked for their drivers' license or other forms of ID. Limiting sweeps to employers places of business or worksites might also help to assuage the concerns of the Hispanic community. Of course, some number of Hispanics object to these procedures not because they represent a significant imposition but because they oppose all effective forms of border security and internal enforcement.
In some cases, during the operation, some American-born minor dependent children were deported with their illegal alien parents. This occurred despite the fact the children were, according to the Supreme Court's interpretation of the 14th amendment, citizens of the United States. Nevertheless, a strong case can be made that parents should be allowed to abandon their minor children in the U.S. To some that would constitute a form of child abuse. The mere act of accompanying their parents would not deprive these minor children of their citizenship.
Some 750 agents targeted agricultural areas with a goal of 1000 apprehensions per day. By the end of July, over 50,000 immigrants were caught in the two states. An estimated 488,000 illegal immigrants are claimed to have left voluntarily, for fear of being apprehended. By September, 80,000 had been taken into custody in Texas, and the INS estimates that 500,000 to 700,000 had left Texas of their accord. To discourage illicit re-entry, buses and trains took many deportees deep within Mexican territory, prior to releasing them. Tens of thousands more were deported by two chartered ships, the Emancipation and the Mercurio. The ships ferried them from Port Isabel, Texas, to Veracruz, Mexico, more than 500 miles (800 kilometers) to the south. Some were taken as far as 1,000 miles. With the recent improvements in border infrastructure and staffing and a new law to permit sentencing every illegal who is appehended at the border or internally to six months working on border infrastructure, there may be somewhat less incentive to return, especially if all repatriations are classified as involuntary. Involuntary removal invokes stiffer penalties for those who attempt to return and causes them to be classified as felons.
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.”
________________________________________________________________________
(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 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.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
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.
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)