Let the Border Patrol Certify when the Borders are Srcure

By now it is clear that you can't trust those damn Democrats.  In 1986 they promised secure border in return for amnesty for more than a million illegal aliens.  Border security never hap pended. They lied.  Eleven million illegals later make that crystal clear.  And yet now the Democrats prompted by La Raza are back at the table again trying to sell us another bill of goods. 

 

It's hard to see why anyone doesn't realize by now that there is only one way to secure the borders  and that is to stop rewarding illegal aliens with the opportunity to stay and work while they ultimately force the Congress into yet another amnesty.  

 

Likewise there is only one way to ascertain whether the border is secure.  We must have a secret poll of all border patrol and related front line officials administered and reported by an outside agency such as one of the large accounting firm or as Charles Krauthammer suggests below when he  s".... some independent body certifies that the border is essentially closed."

 

Is a bipartisan immigration deal at hand? It’s close. Last week, the AFL-CIO and the Chamber of Commerce worked out a guest-worker compromise that allows in foreign workers on a sliding scale of 20,000 to 200,000, depending on the strength of the economy.
Nice deal. As are the other elements of the Senate’s bipartisan Gang of Eight plan — the expansion of H-1B visas for skilled immigrants, serious tracking of visa overstayers and, most important, a universal E-Verify system that would make it very risky for any employer to hire an illegal immigrant.
But there’s a rub. It’s the perennial rub. Are Democrats serious about border enforcement? It’s supposed to be the trigger that would allow illegal immigrants to start on the path to citizenship.

 

Why is a trigger necessary? To prevent a repeat of the 1986 fiasco where amnesty was granted and border enforcement never came — giving us today’s 11 million living in the shadows. Yet just a week ago Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, referring to border enforcement, averred that “relying on one thing as a so-called trigger is not the way to go.” Regarding legalization, “there needs to be certainty.” But not for border security?

And she’s the person in charge of securing that border. Now listen to President Obama: “Given the size of the border, it’s never going to be 110 percent perfect. What we can do is to continue to improve it.”

The usual Obama straw man. Who’s asking for 110 percent enforcement? And the need is for something a lot more than just improvement. The objective is to reduce a river to a trickle. It’s doable. The two border sections with triple fencing outside San Diego reduced infiltration by 92 percent. (If the president tells you that fences don’t work, ask him why he has one around the White House.)

To be sure, the Gang of Eight enforcement trigger is not ideal. The 11 million get near-instant legalization — on the day, perhaps six to nine months after the bill is signed, when Homeland Security submits a plan (with the required funding) to achieve within a decade 90 percent apprehension and 100 percent real-time surveillance.
This plan triggers “probationary” legalization, which in reality is permanent, because once the 11 million register, it is inconceivable their status would be revoked.
Let’s be clear. A mere DHS enforcement plan is a very weak trigger. I would prefer legalization to occur later, once the plan is actually carried out and some independent body certifies that the border is essentially closed.

 

But that simply will not happen. Democrats control the Senate and the White House, and they will only agree to a weaker trigger. Which is? Legalization first — i.e., living here openly without fear of deportation but nothing more until the border is controlled. Until then, no one even starts on the path to citizenship — no green card, no naturalization.

So why is Obama undermining even that compromise, asserting that “this earned pathway to citizenship” must not be “put off further and further,” that it must be “certain” — not contingent on verifiable benchmarks of border closure?

Are he and Napolitano signaling to their hard-core open-border constituency that they will try to sabotage passage of any law that has a serious enforcement trigger, or that they will try to sabotage enforcement if a strict law is nonetheless enacted?

Why? Isn’t border control an elementary principle of sovereignty? What country deliberately forfeits the right to decide who gets to join its communal life?

Remember: We’re not talking about the 11 million already here who will be legalized as a matter of both practicality and compassion. We’re talking about the next 11 million. Without border enforcement, they will be here. If you don’t build it — the fence, the visa-tracker, E-Verify — they will come.

Why deliberately create the next immigration crisis? Is it because you coldly calculate that this wave and the next are destined to be partisans of your political party? Talk about placing party over country.

Or perhaps Obama intends this to be a poison pill: (1) Demonstrate unmistakable bad faith on enforcement. (2) Undermine the Gang of Eight’s already weak border-control “trigger.” (3) And thus force Republicans to defeat this “immigration reform” — as newly defined and newly defanged of enforcement.

Obama seems to want an issue, not a solution — a potent political issue for Democrats to demagogue in 2014 and 2016 and forever. If so, given the Democrats’ incessant and lachrymose expressions of compassion for those living in the shadows, this would be the ultimate in cynicism. per Robert .Krauthammer

Dee Perez-Scott: Loves Mexico and opposes a rational immgration policy

Mexico’s Immigration Law by J. Michael Waller

Mexico has a radical idea for a rational immigration policy that most Americans would love. However, Mexican officials haven’t been sharing that idea with us.

That’s too bad, because Mexico, which annually deports more illegal aliens than the United States does, has much to teach us about how it handles the immigration issue. Under Mexican law, it is a felony to be an illegal alien in Mexico.

At a time when the Supreme Court and many politicians seek to bring American law in line with foreign legal norms, it’s noteworthy that nobody has argued that the US look at how Mexico deals with immigration and what it might teach us about how best to solve our illegal immigration problem. Mexico has a single, streamlined law that ensures that foreign visitors and immigrants are:
•in the country legally;
•have the means to sustain themselves economically;
•not destined to be burdens on society;
•of economic and social benefit to society;
•of good character and have no criminal records; and
•contributors to the general well-being of the nation.

The law also ensures that:
•Immigration authorities have a record of each foreign visitor;
•foreign visitors do not violate their visa status;
•foreign visitors are banned from interfering in the country’s internal politics;
•foreign visitors who enter under false pretenses are imprisoned or deported;
•foreign visitors violating the terms of their entry are imprisoned or deported;
•those who aid in illegal immigration will be sent to prison.

Who could disagree with such a law? It makes perfect sense. The Mexican constitution strictly defines the rights of citizens – and the denial of many fundamental rights to non-citizens, legal and illegal. Under the constitution, the Ley General de Población, or General Law on Population, spells out specifically the country’s immigration policy.

It is an interesting law – and one that should cause us all to ask, Why is our great southern neighbor pushing us to water down our own immigration laws and policies, when its own immigration restrictions are the toughest on the continent? If a felony is a crime punishable by more than one year in prison, then Mexican law makes it a felony to be an illegal alien in Mexico.

If the United States adopted such statutes, Mexico no doubt would denounce it as a manifestation of American racism and bigotry.

We looked at the immigration provisions of the Mexican constitution. Now let’s look at Mexico’s main immigration law.

Mexico welcomes only foreigners who will be useful to Mexican society:
•Foreigners are admitted into Mexico “according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress.” (Article 32)
•Immigration officials must “ensure” that “immigrants will be useful elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their sustenance” and for their dependents. (Article 34)
•Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets “the equilibrium of the national demographics,” when foreigners are deemed detrimental to “economic or national interests,” when they do not behave like good citizens in their own country, when they have broken Mexican laws, and when “they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy.” (Article 37)
•The Secretary of Governance may “suspend or prohibit the admission of foreigners when he determines it to be in the national interest.” (Article 38)

Mexican authorities must keep track of every single person in the country:
•Federal, local and municipal police must cooperate with federal immigration authorities upon request, i.e., to assist in the arrests of illegal immigrants. (Article 73)
•A National Population Registry keeps track of “every single individual who comprises the population of the country,” and verifies each individual’s identity.
•(Articles 85 and 86)
•A national Catalog of Foreigners tracks foreign tourists and immigrants (Article 87), and assigns each individual with a unique tracking number (Article 91).

Foreigners with fake papers, or who enter the country under false pretenses, may be imprisoned:
•Foreigners with fake immigration papers may be fined or imprisoned. (Article 116)
•Foreigners who sign government documents “with a signature that is false or different from that which he normally uses” are subject to fine and imprisonment. (Article 116)

Foreigners who fail to obey the rules will be fined, deported, and/or imprisoned as felons:
•Foreigners who fail to obey a deportation order are to be punished. (Article 117)
•Foreigners who are deported from Mexico and attempt to re-enter the country without authorization can be imprisoned for up to 10 years. (Article 118)
•Foreigners who violate the terms of their visa may be sentenced to up to six years in prison (Articles 119, 120 and 121). Foreigners who misrepresent the terms of their visa while in Mexico – such as working with out a permit – can also be imprisoned.

Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony. The General Law on Population says:
•“A penalty of up to two years in prison and a fine of three hundred to five thousand pesos will be imposed on the foreigner who enters the country illegally.” (Article 123)
•Foreigners with legal immigration problems may be deported from Mexico instead of being imprisoned. (Article 125)
•Foreigners who “attempt against national sovereignty or security” will be deported. (Article 126)

Mexicans who help illegal aliens enter the country are themselves considered criminals under the law:
•A Mexican who marries a foreigner with the sole objective of helping the foreigner live in the country is subject to up to five years in prison. (Article 127)
•Shipping and airline companies that bring undocumented foreigners into Mexico will be fined. (Article 132)

All of the above runs contrary to what Mexican leaders are demanding of the United States. The stark contrast between Mexico’s immigration practices versus its American immigration preaching is telling. It gives a clear picture of the Mexican government’s agenda: to have a one-way immigration relationship with the United States. Let’s call Mexico’s bluff on its unwarranted interference in U.S. immigration policy. Let’s propose, just to make a point, that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) member nations standardize their immigration laws by using Mexico’s own law as a model.

Dee Perez-Scott: her form of government

Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc'-ra-cy) - a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

Dee Perez-Scott: Disloyal Amnesty Enthusiast

Stop Obama's Left Wing Amnesty Scheme
Stand with BAN Amnesty Now

Dee Perez-Scott, when it comes to issues like AMNESTY and BORDER SECURITY, there are no gray areas – there are only right and wrong. And President Obama and his pro-Amnesty establishment in Washington are working very hard to take America in the wrong direction. Tragically, more than 9,000 Americans are killed every year by illegal aliens. That’s three times as many as were killed in the 9/11 terrorist attacks and yet we have spent trillions of dollars on fruitless wars to avenge 9/11 but relatively much smaller amounts on protecting our sovereignty and securing our borders. While improvements in border staffing, infrastructure, and the rules of engagement are important, the sine qua non of in depth border security is the mandatory implementation of E-verify across the board coupled with continuous, vigorous internal enforcement. These obvious solutions appear to be anathema to Obama which shows how little interest he really has in securing the borders.


The tragedy of killing of Americans by illegal aliens keeps happening, year after year and Obama has responded by sending too few National Guardsmen to the US Border – and then handcuffing them by ordering them specifically NOT to interfere with illegal aliens crossing into the U.S.A.! Their only duty is to report what they see to Border Patrol. It doesn’t make any difference if the illegals are narco-terrorists, gun-runners or human traffickers. Obama doesn’t care. All the Guardsmen are allowed to do is REPORT what they see to Border Patrol. The most effective way to use the Guardsmen is to train them and deputize them to perform all of the functions of the Border Patrol. We can’t afford to just have them there as observers with no authority. This is just another way in which government wastes taxpayer funds—by deploying the National Guard and then tying one hand behind their back—creating a façade but not the reality of border security.


Yet, “Napo”, Obama’s grossly ineffective and incompetent Secretary of Homeland (IN)Security calls America’s border “more secure than at any time in memory.” She has a convenient memory. Napo can fool some of the people some of the time but not all of the people all of the time. She must have overlooked the fact that the number of illegal aliens in the U.S. has swollen from 1 million at the time of the last major amnesty in 1986 to 12 million today, a compound rate of increase of about 9% per year. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to extrapolate that rate to mid century to what might then aptly be called “Mexico Norte.” We will have surrendered without firing a shot. That’s hardly a testimony to secure borders in the past, present or future.

To learn the facts, we need a confidential survey of all Border Patrol agents by a private agency with the results to be released directly to the media and the public without going through the Obama Administration's filter or allowing Napo to spin the results.
Napo’s statement could be considered a colossal joke on the American people – but the stakes are just too high. This isn’t a joke at all. It’s a national tragedy. And the cost being paid is American lives.


The way we can bring change to this terrible situation is to inform more Americans about the true situation on our borders – and how it affects them in every state in our great nation. There is not a single state, city or a community, that hasn’t been impacted by the drugs, guns, violence and DUI mayhem perpetrated by illegal aliens.


Despite more than 12-to-23 million illegals remaining in the United States, Barack Obama has slowed down deportations and implemented a “catch and release” policy. Even when illegal aliens are caught breaking additional laws, unless they’re caught committing a violent crime such as rape or murder, the illegal alien is likely to be set loose, back out on the streets. That amounts to a treasonous and de facto unilateral amnesty. Obama must go at the end of this term if not before.


His actions or inactions make it more important than ever to “BAN AMNESTY NOW”.
The Obama “political mafia” is gearing up to once again try to pass the so-called DREAM Act in Congress…The media are continuing their attacks on “BAN AMNESTY NOW” and its allies… And the disloyal pro-Amnesty Left Wing extremists and their fellow travelers never stop their scheming, looking for ways to enact amnesty for illegal aliens criminally residing in the United States. There is a good reason why Sheriff Joe Arpaio, America’s toughest Sheriff, calls “BAN AMNESTY NOW” “America’s toughest anti-illegal immigration organization, and our best hope for stopping the Obama Amnesty scheme in its tracks!”


We need to stand up to subversive and racist organizations like LA RAZA and to the Obama political mafia. We need to warn Americans about the threat of illegals voting in the 2012 national elections and mobilize hundreds, if not thousands, of Americans to become poll watchers to stop illegals from voting.


Help make America stronger by opposing Amnesty from coast to coast, state to state, city to city, community to community across our great nation! Contribute to “Ban Amnesty Now” by sending your check (payable to “B.A.N.”) to:

Ban Amnesty Now
60 E Rio Salado Parkway, Suite 900
Tempe, AZ 85281
Interact with “Ban Amnesty Now” on the Face book and Twitter.

Dee Perez-Scott is talking thru her Hat, Again!

Many pundits believe that President Obama is losing the Hispanic vote because he has not fulfilled his promise to get the Left Wing version of comprehensive immigration reform (LWCIR) passed. Indeed many leading advocates of immigration reform are upset that real immigration reform has not progressed. In a recent letter to the President in response to his earlier note, I have pointed out that adopting a unilateral position on immigration reform was and is a serious error. At the same time as he has been stressing the need to develop coalitions to deal with international problems like those posed by Libya, he has taken a unilateral position in favor of amnesty. This position is totally at odds with the idea of building a coalition or broad consensus on how to proceed. That consensus is unlikely to be achieved as long as unilateral proposals and promises of mass amnesty for illegal aliens are on the table.

Written in the late 1800s when immigration was nearing its peak and the U.S. population was only about 50 million, Emma Lazarus’s famous sonnet mounted on the base of the Statue of Liberty was an expression of her empathy for those who had fled the anti-Semitic Pogroms in Eastern Europe. The sonnet is a poignant reminder of our immigrant past but the operative word in that phrase is the word “past.”

Our population has now increased six-fold. No one can deny that conditions are dramatically different today than they were in the late 1800s. There are many things in our past: child labor, prohibition, lack of women’s suffrage, Jim Crow laws, and segregation. Few thinking Americans want to go back to that “past” yet some continue to cling to the idea of “our immigrant past” without a second thought about its appropriateness as a model for the fully-settled and fully-developed America of today with a population of more than 300 million people.


Our immigrant past of the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries should not be our guide for the future. Times, society and the availability of natural resources have changed dramatically and our policies should have changed with them.

Leftist Dee Perez-Scott is talking through her hat in her recent post. She fails miserably to convince anyone, least of all Obama, on how "to get the Hispanic vote." Contrary to statements by Dee Perez-Scott, it is actually quite easy to understand why enlightened Hispanics should vote Republican in 2012. What may seem like immigration restrictionism to the ignorant and willfully ignorant is in fact an effort to preserve and even improve the quality of life and standard of living for all of us. That cannot be done if we allow our population to balloon sixfold again from the present 0.3 billion people to 1.8 billion as it did in the sixfold increase from the late 1800s to today. Anyone who believes such an increase would be a good thing needs to spend a few years living in working in India or China to see first hand what that would be like. Reduced legal immigration quotas and secure borders are essential to the stabilization of our population and the preservation of the America we know and love.

Bills like Arizona’s SB1070 and similar measures enacted by many other states and local governments have the same objective, to help us get control of our borders so we can control our runaway population growth and make the most of our finite natural resources. Although Left Wingers, like Dee Perez-Scott, like to portray these measures as "racial profiling bills" that is clearly not their intent and they know it. Rather these bills have the same objective as the immigration reduction proposals: to preserve a way of life for all of us regardless of race or ethnicity. That can’t be done if the Left Wing open-door and amnesty lobbies have their way. It's easy for the Left Wingers who are blinded by their own rhetoric to mis-characterize positive immigration reform measures. No matter what they say, racial profiling per se is not the purpose and need not be the result of these bills.

Hispanics and others who take the time to study and understand the adverse long term consequences of another mass amnesty and an open-door policy will be convinced there are other alternatives that will serve our country better.

The Left Wingers also like to criticize the opponents of birthright citizenship but never bother to mention the long list of the countries where that right does not exist. Nor do they mention that U.S. birthright citizenship is a major inducement to illegal entry into the U.S. and the consequent excessive population growth. It follows that if one values our current standard of living, quality of life, natural resources, and freedom, one must be opposed to birthright citizenship.

Most people know the genesis of birthright citizenship. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution gave full citizenship to the ex-slaves who had been forcibly uprooted from their homes in Africa and their children. If it had not been for slavery, there would have been no birthright citizenship amendment. Unless the flawed interpretation of the 14th Amendment is quickly corrected, our country will be doomed to natural resource shortages, increasing poverty, steadily increasing welfare costs and a general decline in all of the things we value.

A common language is the glue that holds multi-cultural societies together. The advocates of Official English strongly believe in that proposition. They have no wish to denigrate any other language. Spanish is a beautiful language well-preserved in many other countries. Official English merely means that all government proceedings, ballots, documents, publications and interactions with the public will be in English. There is no intent to ban the study of foreign languages in any way or their use in private or non-official communications. The Official English advocates' position and mine is that we should not be wasting money on official documents and proceedings in many languages when a single language will serve our country better and when eligibility for citizenship requires a knowledge of English. A common language is the basic unifying force in our society and enables us to communicate with each other in a civilized manner.

Extreme Left Wing groups, like "Move On", are funded by the likes of the notorious George Soros and others with deep pockets. They have been working hard to destroy family values, denigrate Christianity, and obliterate the form of limited capitalism and lassez faire that built this country to its greatness. This incessant attack should convince Hispanics that enough is enough and it is time to vote for the Party that supports rather than denigrates these important values.

Republicans have a great deal of work to do to obtain a large share of the Hispanic vote. They have to be able to articulate all of the reasons why it is in the enlightened best interests of Hispanics to vote Republican. We need their help and understanding to achieve policies that will lead to a stabilization of our population before it is too late. Latinos have many of the same values as Republicans. These values include: Christianity, personal responsibility, fiscal responsibility, traditional families, and marriage as between a man and a woman.

One of the bright stars among Hispanic Republicans, Senator Marco Rubio, has now recognized the need for measures like SB1070 to fill the vacuum left by the federal government when it abdicated its responsibility to secure our borders and expel illegal aliens. Rubio is not against immigration reform. Some act as if there is only one set of changes that qualify as immigration reform. Left Wing nuts like to promote their version of immigration reform without giving a thought to how those reforms will affect the U.S. They are either totally unenlightened or treasonous. They are the disloyal, open-door, amnesty crowd and their ilk. It is they who have been brainwashing the Hispanic young, saying not a word about what the future holds for them if they listen to these siren voices of the Left. Attacks against popular Latino Republican politicians like Rubio are the stock in trade of the Left Wing. Latinos who love this country should be taking advantage of the wonderful opportunities in the Republican Party to help stop all the forces bent on America's destruction through their Leftist rhetoric, policies and tunnel vision. They should be proud of one of their own who has achieved this exalted office.

"Somos Republicanos" and similar Latino Republican organizations have not gained traction among the party faithful because they have espoused doctrines that are not in the mainstream of Republicanism. To gain influence in the Party they need to understand the reasons why Left Wing immigration reforms are not in the best interests of the United States or any of its citizens. They need to understand why bills like SB1070 are necessary and how the potential for racial profiling under that and related bills can easily be avoided. Nevertheless, it is important to point out that if one is looking for male professional baseball player, it is not likely he will be found among the members of the local women's clubs.

To join the mainstream of the Party it is also necessary to avoid extremist rhetoric and and immigrant bashing. Hispanics need to understand and accept that Republicans want to preserve the America we know and love and defend it against all Left Wing threats like the open-door/amnesty proposals.

Gays are a part of the fabric of the U.S. One can be for marriage between a man and a woman as fundamental to our society without being critical of those who choose a different lifestyle. Some Hispanic Republicans have done long-term work for the Party. Some helped George Bush into power. Some have developed a keen understanding of key political issues like the adverse consequences of Left Wing immigration reform proposals. They may also have begun to understand the need for state action to fill the federal vacuum on border security. These "Somos-like" groups are welcome in the Party and can continue to do much good by convincing Latinos that it is in their own enlightened best interests to join the Party and vote for Republicans.

President Obama: Some like, those who characterize themselves as "True American Latinos" rather than just "Americans or true Americans", may support you in the next election. Your silver-tongued oratory still has the power to sway the ignorant and the willfully ignorant and the unenlightened masses. But many have now begun to recognize your Leftist agenda for what it is, a page out of the Alinskyite play book, and will turn in another direction. They recognize that you have compromised internal immigration enforcement and reduced the deportation of illegal aliens sacrificing America's future. You have stopped the effective workplace ICE raids and moved to target and prosecute abusive employers but you have failed to implement mandatory E-verification which is essential to the identification of both miscreant employers and illegal aliens. While you have targeted criminals and gangs you have neglected the vast majority of the illegals and the communities in which the criminals and other illegal aliens find sanctuary.

From the perspective of the people in Ciudad Juarez your partnership with Mexico in border security and targeting the drug cartels has produced few results. Drugs and weapons still flow freely across the border. Murders continue to mount in the border towns. Border Patrol agents are being bribed with millions of dollars of drug money to allow drugs to flow through their checkpoints to the U.S. and weapons to flow in the other direction. The police are being infiltrated with members of the cartels willing to do their bidding. Mexico has shown no stomach for curbing illegal alien traffic into the U.S. They persist in dumping their poor into our backyard. With friends like that, who needs enemies.

Here are some steps a coalition with Republicans could accomplish now:
1. The Dream Act is a bad bill fraught with loopholes. Ask the Republican leadership what changes are necessary to tighten up the bill, avoid wholesale fraud, further limit its applicability, and to require a minimum if a four year enlistment in the armed forces to become eligible for consideration. Make sure this is done with the vote of the entire Congress not through some closed-door parliamentary maneuver. Tell the American people all of the changes that the Republicans proposed to strengthen the bill and enable its passage.

2. Ease the Backlog in the Immigration Courts. Do whatever is necessary to create a rigid set of criteria for immigration decisions for use by state-sanctioned immigration justices of the peace (JoPs). This will relieve the burden on the immigration courts. Difficult cases related to political asylum would always be handled by the courts. The basic criterion for the JoP decisions should be: if you are in this country without proper documentation, that will be considered prima facie evidence that you are an illegal alien. Accordingly, you will be sentenced immediately to six months working on border infrastructure and then deported with the admonition that if you return, you will do hard time as a repeat offender. You will have only one week for an appeal. Family separation will not be an acceptable basis for an appeal. If you cannot produce authentic documents in that time you will be transported directly to the border to begin your sentence. We will charge you and your former employer for the cost of your apprehension and deportation.

If 40% of the 12M are Visa Overstays, their cases are equally clear. They have flaunted the law and need to be subject to immediate justice administered by the JoPs. This will remove the backlog in short order and assure that those who flaunt the law will never have a pathway to citizenship.

3. Have Eric Holder drop the case against Arizona’s SB1070. That was an unpopular move on the part of your administration and showed your true colors on border security. Instead, find a way to facilitate state immigration enforcement to supplement the efforts of ICE and the border patrol. Stop catch-and-release. Whether an illegal is caught at the border crossings or internally, sentence them immediately to six months working on border infrastructure. If you just send them back across the border, they’ll try again and again with an ultimate 95% probability of success.

If the Government Shuts Down on April 8th, BLAME THE RECALCITRANT DEMOCRATS! They are quibbling over a minuscule portion of the multi-trillion dollar deficit.

Dee Perez-Scott echos John Morton

John Morton who heads Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) stated the obvious when he said “With regard to the border, there’s a difference between the border being sealed and the border being secure.” But he went off the trolley when he went on to say, “Crime is a part of life here in the United States and other countries. The beauty of our country is we have a very strong system of the rule of law.” No one thinks the U.S. or any other country is crime free but he doesn’t seem to realize that illegal aliens and their supporters, like Dee Perez-Scott, regularly denigrate the rule of law. If we had a strong system of the rule of law, ICE would not be focusing solely on drug and weapons trafficking but would be a strong advocate for vigorous and continuous internal enforcement based on E-verification to deny illegal aliens the opportunity for employment that brings them here. There may be more Border Patrol and ICE agents but they are not getting the job done because they are hamstrung by the rules of engagement and the policy directives from above.
Morton said, “The border is as secure as I’ve ever seen it in 20 years in law enforcement.” That’s almost laughable. If it was secure, we would not have 12-20 million illegal aliens in this country with more coming in every day. Our borders can never be secure until we identify, detain, and quickly and involuntarily repatriate illegal aliens with the admonition that if they return they will do hard time, two years for the first repeat offense, five for the next, and ten for the third. They say immigration courts are clogged with cases. There is a simple solution to that problem: issue a rigid set of criteria for immigration decisions, swear in justices of the peace to handle all but the most difficult political asylum cases, and require the immigration decision to be made within 24 hours with only a week for an appeal.
Some say there are too many illegal aliens to even consider such a major and costly effort. That is total nonsense. The aliens are better off now than they were when they came here so they and their employers can certainly pay their way back to their homelands. Eight million ethnic Germans were relocated back to the German heartland from the eastern territories in less than a year in 1945-6 using a transportation system heavily damaged during the war. What is lacking is the political will on the part of the Obama administration. To say that they believe in the rule of law is a joke as long as they leave millions of illegals roaming the streets in America.
One commenter said, “What planet did this moron (Morton) come from! "Read Texas Farmers Under Attack at the Border" miles and miles of open border with no fencing!
Another added, “My son was a member of Customs and then was with ICE when Homeland was formed. He can tell some horror stories about what was/is going on at the border. He is no longer with ICE.”
A third said, “I would like to see just how many times this guy has ever been to the border. He's too busy in Washington trying to do the Obama spin that he doesn't have a clue what is going on down here. I live in Texas and immigration is an issue. My daughters have had terrible times trying to get jobs and when they do the wages are horrible because of immigration. If you could see the emergency rooms at all the hospitals it looks like you’re in a third world country. The schools are even worse. No wonder America is broke.”
“Considering that we've had virtually ZERO border security for the past 20 years, it isn't really a consolation to know that we a tiny bit now.”

A Plan to Help Dee Perez-Scott Balance the Texas Budget

Missouri's approach to the problem of illegal immigration appears to
be more advanced, sophisticated, strict and effective than anything to date in Arizona.

Do the loonies in San Francisco, or the White House, appreciate what
Missouri has done? When are our fearless President and his dynamic Attorney General going to take action to require Missouri start accepting illegal immigrants once again?

So, why doesn't Missouri receive attention?

Answer: There are no Mexican illegals in Missouri to demonstrate.

The "Show Me" state has once again showed us how it should be done.

There needs to be more publicity and exposure regarding what Missouri
has done.

In 2007, Missouri placed on the ballot a proposed constitutional
amendment designating English as the official language of Missouri.

In November, 2008, nearly 90% voting in favor! Thus English became
the official language for ALL governmental activity in Missouri.

No individual has the right to demand government services in a language
OTHER than English.

In 2008 a measure was passed that required the Missouri Highway
Patrol and other law enforcement officials to verify the immigration
status of any person arrested, and inform federal authorities if the
person is found to be in Missouri illegally. Missouri law enforcement
offices receive specific training with respect to enforcement of federal
immigration laws.

In Missouri illegal immigrants do NOT have access to taxpayers
benefits such as food stamps and health care through Missouri HealthNET.

In 2009 a measure was passed that ensures Missouri 's public
institutions of higher education do NOT award financial aid to
individuals who are illegally in he United States..

In Missouri all post-secondary institutions of higher education to
annually certify to the Missouri Dept. of Higher Education that they
have NOT knowingly awarded financial aid to students who are unlawfully
present in the United States.

So while Arizona has made national news for its new law, it is
important to remember Missouri has been far more proactive in
addressing this horrific problem.

Missouri has made it clear that illegal immigrants are NOT welcome
in the state and they will certainly NOT receive public benefits at the
expense of Missouri taxpayers.

All the states need to enact the Missouri plan. At least then the Feds couldn't claim that it would result in a hodge-podge of immigration rules with each state's being different from their neighbors'

Here is the link to confirm: Be sure to read the readers comments too.

http://www.ozarkssentinel.com/missouri-ahead-of-the-game-in-dealing-with-illegal-immigrants-p1034.htm


Taken from: "The Ozarks Sentinel" Editorial - Nita Jane Ayres,
May 13, 2010 .

If the link does not work, just type in "The Ozarks Sentinel - Nita Jane
Ayres" in Google.

Dee Perez-Scott misuses the term "Reconquista"

Dee Perez-Scott, a member of the Reconquista Movement to restore the Southwest to Mexican control, encourages and supports illegal aliens and open borders but is in a consistent state of denial when it comes to the existence of the movement itself. She, in desperation, tries to characterize the groups opposed to the Obama administration as the real reonquistas. But, you see, reconquistas refers to the conquests not those who perpetrate them, the very misuse she took issue with in an earlier post. Maybe a repeat of what I wrote earlier will sink in this time.

•The term Reconquista (in English, "reconquest") was popularized by Mexican writers Carlos Fuentes and Elena Poniatowska to describe the demographic and cultural presence of [illegal alien] Mexicans into the Southwestern United States.
• Reconquista (Mexico), a movement that desires the reconquest of formerly Mexican territory lost to the United States following the Annexation of Texas and the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo
• Richard Alatorre, Los Angeles City Council "They’re afraid we’re going to take over the governmental institutions and other institutions. They’re right. We will take them over. …. We are here to stay."
• Excelsior- The national newspaper of Mexico "The American Southwest seems to be slowly returning to the jurisdiction of Mexico without firing a single shot."
• Professor Jose Angel Gutierrez, University of Texas. ----- "We have an aging white America. They are not making babies. They are dying. The explosion is in our population. ….. I love it. They are shitting in their pants with fear. I love it."
• Art Torres, Chairman of the California Democratic Party
"Remember 187 (proposition to deny taxpayer funds for services to non citizens) was the last gasp of white America in California."
• Gloria Molina, Los Angeles County Supervisor
"We are politicizing every single one of these new citizens that are becoming citizens of this
country….I gotta tell you that a lot of people are saying, "I’m going to go out there and vote because I want to pay them back."
• Mario Obledo, California Coalition of Hispanic Organizations and California State Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare under Jerry Brown, also awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by Bill Clinton "California is going to be a Hispanic state. Anyone who doesn’t like it should leave."
• Jose Pescador Osuna, Mexican Consul General We are practicing "La Reconquista" in California."
• Professor Fernando Guerra, Loyola Marymount University: "We need to avoid a white backlash by using codes understood by Latinos…."

La Reconquista

The term Reconquista (in English, "reconquest") was popularized by Mexican writers Carlos Fuentes and Elena Poniatowska to describe the demographic and cultural presence and movement of Mexicans, especially illegal aliens, into the Southwestern United States.

Excelsior, the national newspaper of Mexico, "The American Southwest seems to be slowly returning to the jurisdiction of Mexico without firing a single shot."

Mario Obledo, California Coalition of Hispanic Organizations and California State Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare under Governor Jerry Brown, also awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President Bill Clinton, said

"California is going to be a Hispanic state. Anyone who doesn't like it should leave."

Let's call it Mexifornia!

Jose Pescador Osuna, Mexican Consul General, said "We are practicing 'La
Reconquista' in California."

It's clear that those who actively encourage and defend the illegal aliens Mexican invasion of the Southwest are in fact, supporting, encouraging and defending La Reconqista Ths same can be said about those who favor amnesty as the principal element of comprehensive immigration reform.

Interview #2 with Dee Perez-Scott -- the 14th Amendment

Ultima: I hope you found the blog transcript of my last interview with you to be fair and accurate.

Dee: I suppose I could nitpick the transcript but, yes, basically it reflects my views on the matter.

Ultima: Okay let’s move on to another topic. First, however, let me clear up one other issue. You have been quoted as saying, "I am as gentle as a grandmotherly lamb. I always remain civil and never name call". Somehow that doesn’t seem very truthful to me. Many of your posts (and those of your proxies who post on your blog) literally drip with venom and incivility. That means that any claim to being gentle as a lamb lacks credibility. There are many ways to be uncivil and name call. For example, recently you posted an image of six distinguished United States senators which you inscribed with the following legend, “hydro-head, hate-filled, racist Republicans.” Now if that is not name-calling, I don’t know what is. Had I recorded every similar episode from your long history of rants, incivility, and name-calling, you would be convicted a thousand times over by your own words. There would be such a large volume of those words and their repetition that the conclusion would be undeniable. To give you your dues, you seem to have a schizoid personality which allows you to post some factual news items without much if any spin. Then you turn right around and lose it, returning to your invective and name-calling mode. I can’t explain it any other way than to attribute it to a schizoid personality, unless you are just pretending when you seem reasonable. With those observations out of the way, let’s move on to the 14th Amendment controversy. As long as it is the law of the land, we all have a responsibility to adhere to it and no one to my knowledge has been able to do otherwise.

Dee: I won’t respond to your charge of incivility and name-calling except to point out that you have frequently responded in kind. As far as the 14th Amendment is concerned, you are right; it is a part of the constitution and we all should act accordingly.

Ultima: At some point in the recent past, you seemed to suggest that the Constitution should not be changed but the fact of the matter is that the Constitution has been amended 27 times and there is at least one amendment out there, the Equal Rights Amendment for Women, that has still not received the necessary approval of 3/4ths of the states. There are likely to be more in the future and we are fortunate that the Founding Fathers made a provision for doing so. In recognition of the difficulty in gaining full approval of Constitutional Amendments, the current trend seems to be to rely on a legislative solution that would ultimately have to be reviewed by the Supreme Court.

Dee: I don’t believe that is possible since the Court has already affirmed the meaning of the Amendment in 150 cases. It would therefore be a waste of time for Congress to take such an action.

Ultima: Some may think the 14th Amendment is “elegant in its simplicity” but the number of cases brought to test that simplicity would suggest otherwise. Usually the only way to correct a defective amendment is with another amendment to the U.S Constitution. However, another way the Constitution's meaning is changed is often referred to as "informal amendment." This phrase is a misnomer, because there is no way to informally amend the Constitution, only the formal way. However, the meaning of the Constitution, or the interpretation, can change over time.

Dee: I don’t believe that.

Ultima: There are two main ways that the interpretation of the Constitution changes, and hence its meaning. The first is simply that circumstances can change, like the present circumstances in which, unlike before the 1986 amnesty, 12 million illegal aliens now exist within our borders. One prime example is the extension of the vote. In the times of the Constitutional Convention, the vote was often granted only to moneyed land holders. Over time, this changed and the vote was extended to more and more groups. Finally, the vote was extended to all males, then all persons 21 and older, and then to all persons 18 and older. The informal status quo became law, a part of the Constitution; because that was the direction the culture was headed. Another example is the political process that has evolved in the United States: political parties, and their trappings (such as primaries and conventions) are not mentioned or contemplated in the Constitution, but they are now fundamental to our political system.

Dee: Those two examples don’t quite seem to be the same as the presence of illegal aliens since some number of them, Chinese, Irish, Italian, Mexican and others have always been present in our country.

Ultima: Perhaps not but 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 [birthright citizenship].” Since the current interpretation of the 14th promotes border violations, anyone who is interested in securing the borders needs to help find a way to achieve a more rational interpretation.

Dee: I think the current interpretation has withstood the tests of time and therefore I support it. There are other ways of securing the borders which we discussed in a previous interview.

Ultima: The authors of the 14th Amendment never would have imagined their words would bestow citizenship on the offspring of illegal aliens, tourists, foreign students, visa overstays, and temporary farm workers. If an act of Congress could be brought before the Supreme Court, the majority of the Justices might agree that times have indeed changed sufficiently to warrant a different view of the Amendment, especially in view of the fact that other most developed countries, with the exception of Canada, have already abandoned Jus Soli as the primary determiner of citizenship.

Dee: Do you really think it is likely that the Court would overturn all of those prior precedents?

Ultima: One of the cases often cited as evidence of the meaning of the 14th Amendment is United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). This was a United States Supreme Court decision that set an important legal precedent about what determines United States citizenship. The legal question presented to Court was:
“[W]hether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, were subjects of the Emperor of China, but who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.”
The Court ruled decisively, 6 – 2, in favor of Wong Kim Ark. But, since Ark’s parents were here legally, had a permanent domicile and residence in the U.S., and were carrying on a business, the Court did not address the question of the offspring of illegal aliens and tourists who had no such legal status or domicile.
The minority also argued that "it is not open to reasonable doubt that the words 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' in the amendment, were used as synonymous with the words 'and not subject to any foreign power' . . . ." They thus reasoned that the majority opinion exactly contradicted the original intended meaning of the 14th Amendment.

Dee: This is all very interesting but it does not alter the difficulties faced by those who wish to have the Amendment reinterpreted to exclude the children of illegal aliens and tourists.

Ultima: I take it this is another area where you would not be supportive of any change that would improve border security by reducing the incentives for illegal entry.

No New Amnesty!

History demonstrates that another amnesty will encourage more desperate people to come here illegally. It happened after the 1986 amnesty. In that instance, 3 million people were legalized on the premise that there would be robust immigration enforcement to stop more people from coming, according to the late Sen. Ted Kennedy. The U.S. administration failed to provide this promised enforcement and millions more came here illegally; and still coming.

Rector stated" Current immigration practices, both legal and illegal, operate like a system of trans-national welfare outreach bringing millions of fiscally dependent individuals into the U.S. This policy needs to be changed. U.S. immigration policy should encourage high-skill immigration and strictly limit low-skill immigration. In general, government policy should limit immigration to those who will be net fiscal contributors, avoiding those who will increase poverty and impose new costs on overburdened U.S. taxpayers."

Means-tested programs are typically termed welfare programs. Unlike direct benefits, means-tested programs are available only to households below specific income thresholds. Means-tested welfare programs provide cash, food, housing, medical care, and social services to poor and low-income persons. For example, children in illegal immigrant households are eligible for and do receive public education. We all know by now nobody asks for immigration status at the emergency room, whereas Americans must supply a driver’s license and SS #. So then debt collection companies can hunt YOU unmercifully for payment, while illegal aliens walk out never to be seen again.


The Us Border Patrol estimates that an average of 10,000 illegal aliens cross the border every day - over 3 million per year. A third will be caught and many of them immediately will turn around and try again. About half of those remaining will become permanent (ILLEGAL) U.S. residents.

Illegal aliens have cost billions of taxpayer-funded dollars for medical services. Dozens of hospitals in Texas, New Mexico Arizona, and California, have been forced to close or face insolvency since federally-mandated programs requiring free emergency room services to illegal aliens. Taxpayers pay half-a-billion dollars per year incarcerating illegal alien criminals.

In just the state of California in relating to birthright citizenship FAIR estimates "there are currently between 287,000 and 363,000 children born to illegal aliens each year. This figure is based on the crude birth rate of the total foreign-born population (33 births per 1000) and the size of the illegal alien population (between 8.7 and 11 million). In 1994, California paid for 74,987 deliveries to illegal alien mothers, at a total cost of $215.2 million (an average of $2,842 per delivery). Illegal alien mothers accounted for 36 percent of all Medi-Cal funded births in California that year."

EVERY INCUMBENT, CAREER POLITICIAN WHO HAS A BAD IMMIGRATION RECORD, BEGINNING WITH SEN. HARRY REID AND HIS CZARS MUST BE REMOVED FROM THEIR SEAT IN WASHINGTON. THE ASYLUM IN WASHINGTON NEEDS A CHANGE OF GUARDS? JOIN NUMBERSUSA AND AID IN FIGHTING AGAINST AMNESTY OR BENEFITS FROM THIS INVASION. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! Tell your Representative in Washington at 202-224-3121 and State level officials. Remember illegal aliens could have voted in the midterm elections? The Obama administration has shown its true colors, that illegal immigration is a great way to collect votes in the future by pacifying large minority groups.

--Brittanicus

Dee's Polemic -- Part Trois -- The Big Lie

Dee's message of hate and devisive vitriol continues as follows: "We all know this change[in the 14th Amendment] attacks Latinos only because they don't care about 'illeegals' from Canada or Europe, only children of color."

By definition, any such change would affect all children born of illegal or tourist parents without regard to race, nationality, or ethnicity. If Latinos were affected more than others, that simply means there are more of them who fall in those categories. Illegals from the south have a long history of abusing the 14th Amendment in large numbers.

Population, natural resource, and environmental concerns provide a further and powerful rational for reinterpreting this amendment.

Dee goes on with her vitriolic tirade saying, "While the nation is busy discussing the Comprehensive Immigration Reform debate, Republicans are piling on. Republicans, during this tough election year, have pulled out all the stops with their "Hate" and "Fear" Election Strategy. Their goal is to scare the heck out of white people in America, against our minority president, against minorities in general. Chris Rock was right. After they rid themselves of Latinos, other minorities are next!"

As pointed out previously, by making such devisive statements without foundation it is clear that Dee is promoting her own brand of hate and fear of we vs them. That is her election strategy. What she is counting on is that 'people always have been foolish victims of deception and self-deception in politics, and they always will be...' V.I Lenin. Or 'in the primitive simplicity of their minds [the Hispanics], they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie...' -- A. Hitler.
This exactly what Dee is doing. She believes that if you tell a big lie often enough, people will actually begin to believe it although it is utterly false. Her objective is to scare the heck out of Latinos so they will vote. She libels the entire Republican Party while objecting to any broadbrush treatment of illegals when many of them are involved in crimes.

She knows perfectly well that citizens cannot be deported and that it is therefore impossible to 'rid [the country] ... of Latinos' or any other citizens for that matter. This is just one of her scare tactics. She also knows that the minor children of illegal aliens cannot be deported if they are citizens but some irresponsible parents under a removal order simply choose to abandon them in the U.S. How much better would it be if minor children remained with their parents?

The Other Hydra - Dee's Band of Disloyalists

Dee accuses a distinguished group of senators and all others who disagree with her of hate and racism. That is the limit of her brain power. She cannot see the broader issues. She tacitly approves of Mexico Norte as a goal. Her ethnocentrism blinds her to the relevant facts. Her intemperate blogs is a gross disservice to the senators and to many loyal Americans who see the end of the country we know and love. What she wants is to "leave the borders open to unlimited illegal entry until, and it won't take long, the social, political, economic life of the United State is reduced to the level of life in Juarez, Guadalajara, Mexico City, El Salvador, Haiti, India, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Afghanistan. To a common peneplain of overcrowding squalor, misery,torture, crime and rape." Good luck with that vision of America, Dee.

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."

Senators McCain & Kyl Confirm Obama's Perfidy

On the Frontlines of Illegal Immigration

A firsthand account by Arizona State Senator Sylvia Allen


After Arizona rancher Rob Krentz was murdered on his ranch a month ago, I participated in a Senate hearing on border violence. Here are just some of the highlights from those who testified:

People who live within 60 miles of the Arizona/Mexico border have for years been terrorized by the daily invasion of foreigners who cross their property. One rancher testified that 300 to 1200 people per DAY come across his ranch, vandalizing his property, stealing his vehicles, cutting down fences, and leaving trash everywhere. In the last two years, he has found 17 dead bodies and two copies of the Koran.

Another rancher testified that drugs are brought across his ranch in a military operation. A point man with a machine gun goes in front … 1/2 mile behind are the guards, fully armed … 1/2 mile behind them are the drugs … behind the drugs 1/2 mile further are more guards. These people are violent, and they will kill anyone who gets in the way. This was not the only rancher we heard from that day who talked about the drug trains.

One man told of two illegals who came upon his property -- one shot in the back and the other in the arm by drug runners who had forced them to carry the drugs and then shot them. Daily, this rancher listens to gun fire; during the night, it is not safe to leave his family alone, and they can't leave their ranch for fear of nothing being left when they come back.

The Border Patrol is not on the border. They have set up 60 miles away with checkpoints that do nothing to stop the invasion. They are not allowed to use force to stop people who are sneaking across the border. The guards run around chasing them and, if they get their hands on them, then they can take them back across the border. I do not blame the Border Patrol; I blame Washington.

Approximately 15 percent of convicted prisoners in Arizona are illegal aliens. Over a 10-year period, nearly a third of our law enforcement officers killed on duty were killed by illegal aliens.

The federal government has refused for years to do anything to help the border states. We have been overrun, and we have the burden of funding the state services they use. Education and healthcare cost billions of dollars. Our state is broke – we have a $3.5 billion deficit. We do not have the money to care for illegal aliens. It has to stop. We have the ability to stop this invasion. The border can be secured. We have a responsibility to protect our citizens and to protect the integrity of our country.

There can be no talk of amnesty. We are being overrun to the point where we are becoming a North American Union rather than the United States. We have lost our language – everything must be printed in Spanish, as well as English. We have lost our history – it is no longer taught in our schools. And we have lost our borders.

The Arizona Legislature passed, and the Governor signed, Senate Bill 1070 because of the frustration we feel over illegal immigration. The media has distorted what SB1070 will do. It is not going to set up a Nazi Germany. SB1070 is an effort to give local law enforcement the ability – when there is probable cause – to determine if someone is here legally. Federal law is very clear: if you are here on a visa you must have your papers on you at all times. That is the law. No one is going to be stopped walking down the street to buy an ice cream cone. The Progressives in power in Washington, D.C., are angry because we dare try to fix this problem when what they want is to just let them come.

Maybe it is too late to save America. Maybe we are not worthy of freedom anymore. But, as an elected official, I must try to do what I can to protect our Constitutional Republic. Living in America is not a right just because you can walk across the border. Being an American is a responsibility, and it starts with respecting and upholding the Constitution and the law of our land. Freedom is not free.

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.

Call Them What They Are: Illegal Aliens

The push is on for providing amnesty to the estimated 12 to 20 million illegal aliens in this country. The supporters of this effort include President Barack Obama, former president George W. Bush, Senator John McCain, Majority Leader Harry Reid and New York Senator Chuck Schumer. (There is a chance that neither McCain nor Reid will be re-elected in Novmeber, 2010.) Senator Schumer is now chairman of the immigration subcommittee previously chaired by the late Senator Ted Kennedy, a major amnesty proponent.

Amnesty supporters see themselves as taking the high road and claim that amnesty opponents are opposed to all immigration, when nothing could be further from the truth. Although, most amnesty opponents favor legal immigration, they oppose any measure that grants illegal aliens the objective of their illegality, to stay in the U.S. and work. They believe the amnesty supporters are compromising the national interest, undercutting American labor, and giving the desires of foreigners precedence over the wishes of their fellow citizens.

An examination of the supporters of amnesty is revealing. First and foremost is the National Council of La Raza which many consider to be a racist organization if for no other reason than its title. Second is the group of ethnocentrists among Hispanic citizens who give precedence to the interests of their illegal ethnic brethren over the interests of their country and the wishes of their non-Hispanic fellow citizens. Third are the immigration lawyers whose bread and butter depend on a continuing flow of illegals and a complex set of immigration laws that require their expertise to negotiate. Fourth is the group of liberals who base their position on some sort of world view of human rights and social justice rather than the national interest. Shortsightedness is the common characteristic of all four groups. They do not consider the question of the long term consequences to be relevant to the discussion. They have no concern about the depletion of finite natural resources, increased pollution, and the resulting and inevitable decline in our quality of life and standard of living.

Currently, the U.S. has the highest level of legal immigration in the world. Every year, we allow 750,000 immigrants to enter the country legally and make them eligible for citizenship within five years. That is way too many. Legal immigration in all categories needs to be scaled back to no more than 250,000 per year, exclusive of students, tourists, and temporary agricultural workers. moreover, we need whatever tax and immigration reforms are necessarey to achieve a stable population within 20 years.

Legal immigrants have the right to work and earn a living; the asylees are eligible to work six months after applying to work. Therefore, to protect American workers, employers who claim that more immigrants are needed must present irrefutable evidence to support that need. The concurrence of local unions and professional organizations that might be adversely affected should be required. Government response should be constrained by the total unemployment rate in the relevant sectors of the economy. There should be a moratorium on immigration when the total unemployment rate exceeds a specified level.

If we give the current illegals amnesty, you can be sure that 20 or so years from now, there will be a clamor for another amnesty bill as the illegals will continue to pour in. The Simpson-Mazzoli bill, which was adopted by Congress in 1986, granted amnesty to 1.3 million illegals. That measure was hailed as the last amnesty bill we would need because the borders of the U.S., then a sieve, would be better protected. However, our borders continued to be porous, and the number of illegals burgeoned, and here we are again with the illegals and their supporters seeking amnesty once more for ever larger numbers, estimated to be 12 to 20 million. Thus, the number of illegal aliens has increased from 1.3 million in 1986 to a minimum of 12 million in 2010. This is a compound growth rate of at least 9.7% per year. If that growth rate were to continue, in 40 years, by the year 2050, we would have as many as 487 million illegal aliens in the U.S. (Do the math -- 12 million x 1.097^40 years = 487 million) No wonder the pro-illegal lobbyests want to sweep the problem under the carpet with another amnesty so they can start counting all over again from zero. If the 487 million were to actually materialize, it would not be unreasonable to begin to refer to the U.S. as Mexico Norte.

Given our experience since the 1986 bill, granting another amnesty would be tantamount to enacting an open borders bill. No country in the world has open borders that foreigners can cross at will, certainly not Mexico. Arizona has an estimated 500,000 illegal aliens living in the state and in 2009, the border patrol agents arrested 241,000 illegal aliens, which is why that state enacted controversial legislation out of frustration. Arizona’s citizens are outraged by the presence of many criminals among the people crossing their border – remember there is an ongoing drug war in Mexico with thousands of Mexicans being killed and wounded south of the border by other Mexicans. Arizona does not want that war to spill over into Arizona. Arizona citizens are also distressed with the demands made by illegals upon welfare, medical, and educational services.

As long as laws like the Arizona's stay within the bounds of constitutionality, they cannot be said to have gone too far. Allowing local police to ask individuals, stopped for other reasons, or who are “reasonably suspected” to be illegal immigrants for identifying papers is a reasonable thing to do given Arizona's huge problem. This approach should be extended to all of the border states. It is an especially sound and defensible policy to have the local police examine at the workplace the identity papers of all employees to ascertain whether they are legally allowed to work and, most important, to ascertain if employers , intentionally or not, had violated current U.S. laws requiring employers to check the immigration status of hired workers. Those employers who violate the law should be pursued criminally and, if convicted, go to prison. Regrettably, this is not what is happening. Part of the reason is the insertion of the term "knowingly hire" in the federal statute and in the Arizona law. This is a huge loophole that allows employers to escape prosecution by claiming "we didn't know." If that loophole was removed and the policy strictly enforced, illegal aliens would be denied jobs and would go home, since they are here primarily to get a job and send money home to their families. Recently, I saw an estimate that a million illegals, perhaps 7% of the total, had returned home because of the recession and 9.7% unemployment rate in the U.S.

Amnesty supporters, who use pejorative terms to describe their opponents, refuse to use the term "illegal aliens", preferring instead the euphemism "undocumented workers." They acknowledge that an open border policy is indefensible and irrational and has not been adopted by any other country. Yet, they would deny our country the tools it needs to control the borders. The question of whether all border violations can be stopped with improvements in border infrastructure, staffing, and rules of engagement has already been answered emphatically by the growth in the number of illegals since 1986 mentioned above. The quintessential element of in depth border security is continuous, vigorous internal enforcement. If the illegals are denied jobs and are expeditiously repatriated after serving a six month sentence working on border infrastructure, they will have little incentive to repeat their border violations.

A week ago, Prime Minister Gordon Brown of Great Britain had to apologize to a woman voter for referring to her as “bigoted” when she voiced her objections to millions of Europeans in the European Union lawfully flooding into Great Britain and taking jobs. I don’t know whether she is bigoted in her attitude toward other Europeans, but she doesn’t have to be a bigot to object to the English having to compete for jobs and services such as healthcare and education with immigrants from other countries.

In the U.S., those who favor amnesty, for lack of more substantive arguments, refer pejoratively to their opponents as nativists, bigots, racists, and xenophobes. In doing so, they ignore the adverse impact of illegal aliens on: the national interest, character, language, and sovereignty; the cost of welfare, education, and health care; and the rule of law. The states are tired of illegal aliens flooding into emergency rooms, soaking up Medicaid funds intended for citizens, crowding classrooms, and creating newborn, birthright citizens who qualify for a large range of welfare benefits at taxpayer expense.

Mark McKinnon, who was a senior adviser to John McCain and President George W. Bush, was quoted in The New York Times of April 28th, as stating, “Immigration is the most explosive issue I’ve seen in my political career.” According to The Times, Mr. McKinnon “…also supported giving illegal immigrants a path to citizenship.” But, in his view, “an election year is the worst time to move good public policy on this issue.” He does not say on what basis he has concluded that giving the never-ending flood of illegals a pathway to citizenship would constitute "good public policy." As a minimum, anyone who has entered this country illegally at any time should be permanently ineligible for citizenship. Many, if not most, should be quickly repatriated.

During the Bush presidency, amnesty proponents were twice defeated when they tried to shove their self-defined “good policy” down the throats of the voters. Amnesty advocates believed, as they do now, that they know what is best for us, but the American public stood up and said “no.” In an election year, the voters can throw the bums out, and that is why Congress fears to bring the issue up before the November elections.

I predict the Schumer legislation supported by President Obama and a whole host of prominent public officials and the media will fail. I also believe it is outrageous to threaten understandably frustrated, Arizona with boycotts because we disagree with the protective procedures it has adopted. Let’s leave the legality of those procedures to the courts. We are one country and should not be boycotting one another. Persuasion should be our tool of choice, not punishment.