Click to Translate to English Click to Translate to French  Click to Translate to Spanish  Click to Translate to German  Click to Translate to Italian  Click to Translate to Japanese  Click to Translate to Chinese Simplified  Click to Translate to Korean  Click to Translate to Arabic  Click to Translate to Russian  Click to Translate to Portuguese


Forum Home Forum Home > General Discussion > General Discussion
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Immigration Problem (Hot--Potato)
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Online Discussion: Tracking new emerging diseases and the next pandemic; Now tracking the Aussie Flu.

Immigration Problem (Hot--Potato)

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 7891011 13>
Author
Message
sjf53 View Drop Down
Valued Member
Valued Member
Avatar

Joined: April 06 2008
Location: Arizona
Status: Offline
Points: 400
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote sjf53 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 01 2010 at 10:01am
 
 

Translating the Code Words of "Comprehensive Immigration Reform"


What the Illegal Alien Lobby Says Versus What They Really Mean


The illegal alien special interests are working overtime making their last ditch pitch for amnesty before mid-terms elections, robotically reciting how they want to "fix" our immigration problems. In today's media spin-cycle, consistency counts, repetition rules and the illegal alien lobby is true to form, all working from the same playbook, line by line, word for word. Whether it's the National Council for LaRaza, the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund, or America's Voice arguing for amnesty, you can rest assured that they will use any one, or any combination of, the phrases below:

"We need to fix our broken immigration system. We need a path to citizenship for undocumented workers so they can go to the back of the line, get right with the law, and implement an orderly flow of needed workers, and a policy which secures the borders."

For those in the know, of course, it's all nonsense — word play and empty promises. Fortunately, the code words can be deciphered and their true motives revealed with a minimal of effort:

Fix A Broken System: On its surface this sounds good, urgent and necessary, but as Plato said, "Everything that deceives is said to enchant." Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has been leading the amnesty lobby by repeating the phrase "we must fix a broken immigration system" and "we need 21st century laws." When they say the system is broken they actually mean illegal aliens face deportation, and that America is not admitting enough legal immigrants fast enough. The fact is illegal aliens aren't supposed to be in the United States — by definition they do not have legal status. As regards our level of legal immigration, America currently allows in more than one million people a year, more than any other industrialized country on the planet.

The bottom line is that the only thing broken about our immigration system is an unwillingness to impose sensible limitations and enforce the laws. Truth in labeling might suggest that their version of "fixing a broken system" should be read as "making a broken system worse."

Path to Citizenship: Euphemisms for amnesty wear thin quickly so the new phrase "path to citizenship" and "earned legalization" has also entered the lexicon. We already have a "path to citizenship" and it starts with applying for a green card and getting in line. "Earned legalization" is kind of crafty. It implies that as long as illegal aliens actually have to do something, no matter how inconsequential like paying a modest fine, it is not really amnesty. Beware of both phrases. Substitute the word "amnesty" and remind yourself it applies to 13 million illegal aliens and the context and consequences become abundantly clear.

Go to the Back of the Line:To most people, going to the back of the line would mean returning home, visiting the nearest U.S. embassy or consulate, filling out the necessary forms, and then waiting for a reply. What amnesty advocates mean by going to the back of the line is that we create a brand new line for those who have broken the law right here in this country.

Get Right with the Law:This beguiling phrase is meant to imply that that amnesty recipients will follow the rule of law. If illegal aliens have already broken the law, what assurance do we have they will follow the law now? This phrase also suggests that administratively converting 13 million people from illegal status to legal status "gets them right with the law." Accommodating law-breaking by simply rewriting the rules to fit the circumstances is one of the most insidious aspects of amnesty.

Undocumented Workers: Given the huge sums of money the special interests have, one would assume their high-paid consultants would have told them that this euphemism expired years ago. We all know it means illegal aliens, but amnesty advocates believe that using the adjective "undocumented" magically erases the illegality, while claiming they are "workers" suggests all are gainfully employed, which they're often not. And very few who do work pay taxes. The proper reference is "illegal aliens." "Illegal" means prohibited by law. Yes, entry without inspection into the U.S is prohibited. And "alien" is a term defined in 8 U.S.C. Section 1101 and used by legal professionals across the board including the United States Supreme Court. It's ok to say illegal aliens. You'll be in good company.

Orderly Flow of Workers: This is a phrase that by its own definition assumes we actually need more workers. It refers to our foreign guest worker program. In addition to the 1.2 million legal immigrants the U.S. admits each year, and the 13 million illegal aliens currently living here, the U.S. also brings in another one million foreign nationals through work visas year after year. With a national unemployment rate of 9.9 percent and 25 million Americans either unemployed or working part-time involuntarily, any endorsement of our massive foreign guest worker flow, or a suggestion that we should increase it, should be challenged on the grounds that it is imposing unfair competition for scarce jobs. Instead of "orderly flow of workers" the proper translation is "more foreign labor to take your job."

Secure the Border: They save the biggest and boldest claim for last. Amnesty advocates promise to secure the border for no other reason than to make their plans for massive amnesty more palatable. The special interests don't mean it and they don't want to do it. After all, they have stymied every single piece of immigration enforcement legislation in recent years and relentlessly pressured the Obama administration to systematically dismantle most existing immigration enforcement. But, they remember all too well that the amnesty bill of 2007 was shot down because Americans could see that the borders were not secure and that meaningful interior enforcement was nonexistent. The amnesty lobby may remember 2007, but we remember 1986 when, in exchange for roughly 3 million illegal aliens getting their amnesty, the American public was promised more enforcement. That grand bargain rewarded illegal aliens with citizenship while the American public got squat. Promised enforcement was simply a deceitful bargaining chip to advance an amnesty agenda. Their repeated claim that they want to secure the border rings hollow given their record of working against it.

There is immigration enforcement and then there is amnesty. One has nothing to do with the other and true immigration reformers know this. Revealing the motives of the illegal alien lobby is an ongoing responsibility because as Burke said, "a very great part of the mischiefs that vex this world arise from words."

Back to Top
sjf53 View Drop Down
Valued Member
Valued Member
Avatar

Joined: April 06 2008
Location: Arizona
Status: Offline
Points: 400
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote sjf53 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 03 2010 at 4:45pm

Wishing You a Safe Independence Jan%20Brwer%20-%204th%20of%20JulyDay

On this Fourth of July, I wish you and your family a safe and happy Independence Day.  This is a wonderful time to spend with our family and friends. 

I also encourage you to take some time to cherish the freedom that our forefathers fought against tyranny to obtain and the generations that have followed have stood proudly to preserve.

Protecting our country and defending our safety is as critical today as it was 234 years ago.   Just as relevant today as back then, our forefathers held the simple truth that preserving our freedom demands an adherence to the rule of law. 

President Roosevelt said, “No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man’s permission when we require him to obey it. Obedience to the law is demanded as a right; not asked as a favor.”

Freedom without safety is easily compromised and eventually lost.  As we celebrate our freedom, we are reminded that our social contract to follow the laws of our nation is what makes it possible.

As our forefathers taught us when they signed the Declaration of Independence, all challenges can be met and all perils can be overcome.  God bless you and your families, and may God bless Arizona and the United States of America.

Happy Fourth of July!

 
Governor Jan Brewer
State of Arizona
Back to Top
Mary008 View Drop Down
V.I.P. Member
V.I.P. Member
Avatar

Joined: June 22 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 5769
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mary008 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 05 2010 at 8:19pm
.
 
 
 
 
 

No, we can't: Obama speech provides little hope for immigration breakthrough

Copyright 2010, Houston Chronicle

July 5, 2010, 9:14PM

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/7095124.html

 

 

..................

 

 

Mary008

Back to Top
sjf53 View Drop Down
Valued Member
Valued Member
Avatar

Joined: April 06 2008
Location: Arizona
Status: Offline
Points: 400
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote sjf53 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 06 2010 at 12:49pm
From Article below: 
 "They have spent the last three months declaring this unconstitutional on the basis of discrimination.  If that were true, the government would have made that its primary argument.  The fact that they’re going with pre-emption means that they’re conceding that the discrimination argument never held water — and that their accusations of bigotry against Arizonans were nothing more than demagoguery."

Feds to claim pre-emption in fight against AZ immigration-enforcement law

posted at 1:36 pm on July 6, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

The Department of Justice will file a lawsuit this week, perhaps as early as today, against Arizona to block its new immigration-enforcement law.  They plan to use the weakest argument possible, that of pre-emption, which amounts to a surrender on the grounds that the Obama administration has claimed in the previous three months of debate:

The Justice Department has decided to file suit against Arizona on the grounds that the state’s new immigration law illegally intrudes on federal prerogatives, law enforcement sources said Monday.

The lawsuit, which three sources said could be filed as early as Tuesday, will invoke for its main argument the legal doctrine of “preemption,” which is based on the Constitution’s supremacy clause and says that federal law trumps state statutes. Justice Department officials believe that enforcing immigration laws is a federal responsibility, the sources said. …

The preemption doctrine has been established in Supreme Court decisions, and some legal experts have said such a federal argument likely would persuade a judge to declare the law unconstitutional.

But lawyers who helped draft the Arizona legislation have expressed doubt that a preemption argument would prevail.

Why might they be skeptical of this approach?  The argument relies on a position that claims that the federal government is the only sovereign with jurisdiction to enforce immigration laws.  They may need to explain, then, the DoJ effort to train state and local law enforcement on immigration law and enforcement.  The program, called Basic Immigration Enforcement Training (BIET), offers the following training:

A rising immigrant population in the U.S. has led to a dramatic increase in local, state, and tribal law enforcement encounters with both legal and illegal immigrants during routine police duties. As immigration continues to affect interior communities, there is an increasing demand for law enforcement officers to have a working knowledge of immigration law and policy.

BIET is a highly interactive, self-paced multimedia training program that addresses the immigration knowledge requirements of local, state, and tribal law enforcement officers. BIET addresses a wide range of topics including:

  • False identification
  • Identifying valid identification documents
  • Consular notification
  • Diplomatic immunity
  • Nonimmigrant visas
  • Immigrant and nonimmigrant status
  • Law Enforcement Support Center resources

BIET was developed by Cameron University and Advanced Systems Technology, Inc. with funding received from the U.S. Department of Justice COPS Office. The pilot program was available for free to the first 500 officers from law enforcement departments.

It seems rather clear that the DoJ intended to get state and local law enforcement involved in immigration efforts.  Arizona’s law doesn’t set up the state as an adjudicator of the complaints, but merely requires police to check status and refer suspects to ICE when circumstances warrant.  It doesn’t violate federal prerogative at all, but instead forces the federal government to act responsibly to enforce the law.

Besides, this issue of pre-emption works the other direction.  Does this mean that state and local police have no jurisdiction to enforce federal drug laws if they don’t violate state or local law?  Terrorism?  Wire fraud?  If a court rules that referrals to federal agencies from state and local law enforcement are unconstitutional on the basis of pre-emption, it will make the Gorelick Wall look like like a curb.

Furthermore, this is weak tea compared to the Obama administration’s rhetoric on the subject.  They have spent the last three months declaring this unconstitutional on the basis of discrimination.  If that were true, the government would have made that its primary argument.  The fact that they’re going with pre-emption means that they’re conceding that the discrimination argument never held water — and that their accusations of bigotry against Arizonans were nothing more than demagoguery.

Comments:

"The Court Of Public Opinion Is On Arizona’s Side. I was reading the comments to that yahoo article above, and they were all siding with Arizona. Yahoo isn’t necessarily a Conservative or Liberal. The MSNBC poll had over 2 million votes so that’s a good sampling and they came out 95% in favor of Arizona’s Law. I would describe MSNBC as very Liberal."


Back to Top
sjf53 View Drop Down
Valued Member
Valued Member
Avatar

Joined: April 06 2008
Location: Arizona
Status: Offline
Points: 400
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote sjf53 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 06 2010 at 3:49pm
 
 
 
Full Article
 
"The Republican representative referenced several incidents that show evidence of Hezbollah's efforts to infiltrate the U.S. region with the aid of Mexican drug cartel gangs."
---------------------------------------------------------
 
Full Article
Full

Mexico's Drug War Heats up Near Arizona Border

Monday, 05 Jul 2010 06:33 AM
 
Just 12 miles south of the border, an apparent confrontation between rival gangs last week left 21 people dead and six wounded in what was formerly a tranquil zone on Arizona’s doorstep.
 -----------------------------------------
 
Full Article
 
The car with Texas plates was riddled with bullets within site of the US border. 
The woman was a US citizen and 4 months pregnant.
 

Mexico arrest over US consulate killing

Page last updated at 18:42 GMT, Friday, 2 July 2010 19:42 UK

Mexican police say they have arrested a gang leader responsible for killing three people connected to the US consulate in Ciudad Juarez in March.


 
Back to Top
sjf53 View Drop Down
Valued Member
Valued Member
Avatar

Joined: April 06 2008
Location: Arizona
Status: Offline
Points: 400
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote sjf53 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 07 2010 at 12:58pm
 
comments (64)  Always Interesting
 

"As a former Maryland resident, I got to see Perez’s militant friends and colleagues in action. I watched Casa de Maryland president Gustavo Torres (who met with President Obama last week) complain that motor vehicle administration officials have “absolutely no right to ask for people’s Social Security number or immigration status to get a driver’s license.” I stood among Casa de Maryland grievance-mongers who shouted “No license, no justice! No justice, no peace!” while playing the race card against naturalized Americans and legal immigrants who opposed the illegal alien welfare state."

 

Open-borders DOJ vs. America

By Michelle Malkin  •  July 7, 2010 09:43 AM

My column today looks at one of the champions of illegal immigration inside the DOJ: Civil Rights Division chief/assistant attorney general Thomas E. Perez. Related read: Doug Ross spotlights another member of the Sue Arizona team – Tony West. Know your enemies.

Open-borders DOJ vs. America
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2010

The Obama administration’s lawsuit against Arizona, officially unveiled on Tuesday, is an affront to all law-abiding Americans. It is a threatening salvo aimed at all local, county, or state governments that dare to take care control of the immigration chaos in their own backyards. And it is being driven by open-borders extremists who have dedicated their political careers to subverting homeland security policies in the name of compassion and diversity.

The Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, headed by Assistant Attorney General Thomas E. Perez, took the lead in prepping the legal brief against Arizona. The son of immigrants from the Dominican Republic, Perez is a far Left lawyer and activist who worked for the late mass illegal alien amnesty champion Teddy Kennedy and served in the Clinton administration DOJ. While holding down a key government position there in which he was entrusted to abide by the rule of law, Perez volunteered for Casa de Maryland – a notorious illegal alien advocacy group funded through a combination of taxpayer-subsidized grants and radical liberal philanthropy, including billionaire George Soros’s Open Society Institute (not to mention more than $1 million showered on the group by Venezuelan thug Hugo Chavez’s regime-owned oil company, CITGO).

Perez rose from Casa de Maryland volunteer to president of the group’s board of directors. Under the guise of enhancing the “multicultural” experience, he crusaded for an ever-expanding set of illegal alien benefits from in-state tuition discounts for illegal alien students to driver’s licenses. Casa de Maryland opposes enforcement of deportation orders, has protested post-9/11 coordination of local, state, and national criminal databases, and produced a “know your rights” propaganda pamphlet for illegal alien depicting federal immigration agents as armed bullies making babies cry.

In 2006, Casa de Maryland threatened to protest at the schools of children whose parents belonged to the pro-immigration enforcement group, the Minutemen – and then headed into the Montgomery County, Md., public schools to recruit junior amnesty protesters who were offered school credits for traveling with Casa de Maryland to march on Washington.

As a former Maryland resident, I got to see Perez’s militant friends and colleagues in action. I watched Casa de Maryland president Gustavo Torres (who met with President Obama last week) complain that motor vehicle administration officials have “absolutely no right to ask for people’s Social Security number or immigration status to get a driver’s license.” I stood among Casa de Maryland grievance-mongers
who shouted “No license, no justice! No justice, no peace!” while playing the race card against naturalized Americans and legal immigrants who opposed the illegal alien welfare state.

Perez himself derided secure-borders citizen activists as “xenophobes,” but denied painting the grass-roots immigration enforcement movement as racist. Questioned by GOP Sen. Jeff Sessions during his Obama DOJ confirmation hearing last year about the illegal alien rights guide produced by Casa de Maryland, Perez grudgingly stated that “the Civil Rights Division must not act in contravention to valid enforcement actions of our federal immigration laws.”

But “act[ing] in contravention” is exactly, of course, what the Civil Rights Division is doing in spearheading the challenge to Arizona’s valid enforcement actions of our federal immigration law.

Perez, Attorney General Eric Holder, and the rest of the open-borders DOJ team have invoked “preemption” doctrine based on the U.S. Constitution’s supremacy clause to attack Arizona’s anti-illegal immigration measure and oppose local and state enforcement of federal immigration laws. Never mind that the Arizona law was drafted scrupulously to comply with all federal statutes and the Constitution.

You gotta love Obama’s fair-weather friends of the Constitution. When a state acts to do the job the feds won’t do, Obama’s legal eagles run to the Founding Fathers for protection. When, on the other hand, left-wing cities across the country pass illegal alien sanctuary policies that flagrantly defy national immigration laws and hamper cross-jurisdiction enforcement, the newfound federal preemption advocates are nowhere in sight.

The Obama DOJ’s lawsuit against Arizona is sabotage of the people’s will and the government’s fundamental responsibility to provide for the common defense.

No border enforcement, no security. No security, No peace.

Posted in: Immigration
Back to Top
sjf53 View Drop Down
Valued Member
Valued Member
Avatar

Joined: April 06 2008
Location: Arizona
Status: Offline
Points: 400
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote sjf53 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 08 2010 at 9:54pm

If 'Preemption' is the primary basis of the lawsuit against Arizona what about 'Sanctuary cities'?

 
Let's see.......Although sanctuary city policies are illegal under Federal law, the DOJ and this administration is prosecuting Arizona for upholding and enforcing the Federal Rule of Law.
Federal immigration laws preempt sanctuary city ordinances. Why is the DOJ not prosecuting there.
 
Why the focus on Arizona?   Could it be they do not want the laws enforced or the border secure for political reasons. Maybe for future undocumented Votes?  Rhode Island is enforcing Federal Immigration Laws?  Why not prosecute them.?
Hmmmmmmmm.
 
 Sanctuary Cities

Several US cities have instructed their own law enforcement personnel and other city employees not to notify or cooperate with the federal government when they become aware of illegal immigrants living within their jurisdiction..... The measures violate federal law as the cities are in effect creating their own immigration policy, an area of law which only Congress has authority to alter.[94]  Wikipedia

"Excuse me, Sanctuary cities are a direct violation of United States Immigration Law. What exactly is meant by sanctuary anyway. There is no war in Mexico or south of the border. Mexicans aren’t being persecuted in Mexico. American taxpayers are being persecuted by their politicians. Illegal immigration, is nothing more than a humongous distribution of money scheme, from what’s left of the American middle class to the illegal foreign nationals. This persecution business and the people who bring it up, have their thinking a bit inverted."  Comment

http://azcapitoltimes.com/blog/2010/02/24/sanctuary-cities-bill-ready-for-debate-on-house-floor/

-------------------------------------------------

Feds Sue Arizona…But, What About Rhode Island?

by Publius

Michael Graham in today’s Boston Herald:

GUNCONTROL31

Anyway, if enforcing immigration law is a bad thing for local cops to do, as Holder claims, why pick on Arizona? If he’s really upset that the same laws he has taken an oath to enforce might actually get (gulp!) enforced, why isn’t he suing Providence instead of Phoenix? They’ve been doing local immigration enforcement for years now.

As The Boston Globe-Democrat reported yesterday, “From Woonsocket to Westerly, the troopers patrolling the nation’s smallest state are reporting all illegal immigrants they encounter, even on routine stops such as speeding, to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.”

Even liberal Providence, where politicians long opposed any local enforcement efforts, changed its policy in 2008 after the infamous Marco Riz case.

Riz was the illegal immigrant arrested by Providence cops twice while under a federal deportation order but released both times. He was then charged with carjacking a woman in Warwick and raping her in Providence.

Rhode Island cops now routinely contact ICE when they suspect they’ve come across an illegal immigrant. Since 2006, the number of contacts they’ve made to ICE’s Law Enforcement Support Center in Vermont has nearly doubled, the Globe reported. How is this significantly different than Arizona’s proposed law?

Families who fear running into the next Marco Riz might think Rhode Island is onto something. But not Team Obama.

Read the whole thing here.

Back to Top
Turboguy View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Avatar

Joined: October 27 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5399
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Turboguy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 09 2010 at 6:47am
Originally posted by sjf53 sjf53 wrote:

If 'Preemption' is the primary basis of the lawsuit against Arizona what about 'Sanctuary cities'?

 
Let's see.......Although sanctuary city policies are illegal under Federal law, the DOJ and this administration is prosecuting Arizona for upholding and enforcing the Federal Rule of Law.
Federal immigration laws preempt sanctuary city ordinances. Why is the DOJ not prosecuting there.
 
Why the focus on Arizona?   Could it be they do not want the laws enforced or the border secure for political reasons. Maybe for future undocumented Votes?  Rhode Island is enforcing Federal Immigration Laws?  Why not prosecute them.?
Hmmmmmmmm.
 
 
Thirty million potential Democrats can't be all wrong. The Dems are on the cusp of taking a major megapounding and will stoop to any level of antiAmericanism to keep power. The Republicans are just as guilty of, shall we say, taking liberties with voter turnouts. But the by far greatest voter fraud beneficiaries are the Democrats. There were actually more voters than living people living in many Minnesota districts. It was incredible.
 
We had ACORN people busing Somali immigrants from polling place to polling place here in Minnesota, then beforehand they'd sent in an absentee ballott. Because Minnesota does not require I.D. for voting some were bragging that they had voted upwards of ten times in the Presidential election. All you need here is someone to vouch for you that you live in a certain area and magically you're eligible to vote there. If I really wanted to I could literally vouch for the entirety of AvianFluTalk and all could be Minnesota voters. It's really that easy! Nobody would *EVER* take advantage of that system...  Would they?
 
We must really need Obama when even the dead rise up to cast their ballott in his favor.
 
"UuuUUUuUrrrrGGGhhhhh BBbbbBBBrRRrAAAiinnnsssssss... er... *AHEM* Gotta vote for the Obama!"
Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views. - William F. Buckley
Back to Top
sjf53 View Drop Down
Valued Member
Valued Member
Avatar

Joined: April 06 2008
Location: Arizona
Status: Offline
Points: 400
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote sjf53 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 09 2010 at 3:28pm
 
 

No Concern For U.S. Unemployed In President's Big Amnesty Speech This Morning

 

By Roy Beck, Updated Thursday, July 1, 2010, 3:20 PM EDT - posted on NumbersUSA

Once again Pres. Obama has shown that he considers immigration to be primarily a game of political calculation rather than an issue that deeply affects how many millions of U.S. workers must remain unemployed.

His renewed call for massive numbers of work permits for foreign workers is an incredible slap in the face to the 25 million Americans who want a full-time job but cannot find one.

PRES. OBAMA DOESN'T KNOW THAT AMERICAN COLLEGE GRADS ARE HAVING ONE OF WORST YEARS EVER FOR FINDING A JOB

And while we provide students from around the world visas to get engineering and computer science degrees at our top universities, our laws discourage them from using those skills to start a business or power a new industry right here in the United States. Instead of training entrepreneurs to create jobs on our shores, we train our competition.

Everywhere I turn this summer I talk to college students, recent college grads and their parents who lament the difficulty -- sometimes the impossibility -- of finding a job in their professions.

I know that the President is aware of the terrible jobs environment. Why in the world would he stand up today and tell the nation that we need to make the job market worse for American kids by giving out even more work permits to foreign students?

JOBLESS AMERICANS ARE A SPECIAL INTEREST WHO MUST BE OPPOSED, ACCORDING TO SPEECH

In sum, the system is broken. And everybody knows it. Unfortunately, reform has been held hostage to political posturing and special-interest wrangling -– and to the pervasive sentiment in Washington that tackling such a thorny and emotional issue is inherently bad politics.

Folks, just who are the "special interests" who are blocking "comprehensive immigration reform?"

It looked like nearly every special interest in the nation was in that university auditorium applauding the President's appeal for more work permits for foreign workers. You had Big Business, Big Labor, Big Academe, Big Religion, Big Ethnic Grievance Groups, Big City Mayors, Big City Police Chiefs.

What you didn't have in that auditorium was the PUBLIC INTEREST. Groups representing the public interest -- like NumbersUSA -- look out for people across the spectrum regardless of race, religion, geography, occupation, education or age. The PUBLIC INTEREST groups are especially concerned about our fellow citizens in all those categories who can't find a job in this awful economy.

But apparently the President believes that fighting to protect the job prospects of the citizens of this country is "special-interest wrangling."

And he ridicules the idea that Members of Congress standing up for illegal aliens over their unemployed constituents is "inherently bad politics."

Which leads to the next big whopper in the President's speech . . . .

THE LIE THAT DEMOCRATS ARE UNITED BEHIND AN AMNESTY

Interestingly, Mr. Obama did not turn his speech into the Republican-bashing screed that the open-borders groups had requested. Various political publications had indicated that he had been urged to turn his speech into a major campaign effort to inspire voters to turn on Republicans in the fall congressional elections for having blocked "comprehensive immigration reform."

My guess is that the President realized that the truth in what several of those publications suggested -- that there are more votes to be gained this fall by opposing amnesty than by promoting it.

Nonetheless, Pres. Obama implied several times in his speech that getting the amnesty through depends totally on Republicans. The further implication in that is that he has the Democrats all lined up.

But the President has approximately 60% of both the House and Senate locked up by his own Party. Why did he not try to push through an amnesty last year or this year? The reason is that there are many Democrats in Congress who oppose favoring illegal aliens over jobless Americans. And there are many more Democrats who don't have the stomach for taking that stance before a contentious election.

The fact is that Mr. Obama may have little more than half of his own Party in Congress willing to increase work permits for foreign workers during incredibly high unemployment.

I thank the million NumbersUSA activists for making sure so many Democrats and nearly all Republicans in Congress firmly oppose what the Gathering of Special Interests today so greedily want.

PRESIDENT USES HIS FAILURE AT ENTRY/EXIT SYSTEM AS EXCUSE FOR AMNESTY

In fact, because we don’t do a very good job of tracking who comes in and out of the country as visitors, large numbers avoid immigration laws simply by overstaying their visas.

This was one of several references that the President made to his failure to enforce immigration laws already on the books.

But instead of pledging to do a better job in the future or acknowledging that as President he has it totally in his power to fix the problem he describes, he says the failure is the reason we must give permanent access to U.S. jobs to all illegal aliens in the country.

The program known as U.S. Visit languished under Pres. Bush even though Congress ordered it more than a decade ago. But Pres. Obama's Administration has shown even less interest in making sure that every person entering and leaving the U.S. checks into an electronic system so our central computer will know who has come in, who is still here and who has left on time.

Because Obama has failed to put this in place, he indicated today that everybody who overstayed their visa deserves to stay and hold U.S. jobs instead of unemployed Americans!

PROF. OBAMA DOES NOT UNDERSTAND IMMIGRATION HISTORY

Of course, the tensions around immigration are not new. On the one hand, we’ve always defined ourselves as a nation of immigrants -- a nation that welcomes those willing to embrace America’s precepts. Indeed, it is this constant flow of immigrants that helped to make America what it is. . .

Each new wave of immigrants has generated fear and resentments towards newcomers, particularly in times of economic upheaval

The President relayed the common false view of American history that immigration was somehow the main engine for U.S. progress, and that despite the constant bigotry of American natives, immigration was always good for the American people.

If the U.S. welcomed everybody in the world who were "willing to embrace America's precepts," we would easily have a billion people here now instead of the 310 million who already are over-burdening many of our natural resources and physical infrastructures.

Obama conveniently left out that in the past, America greatly reduced immigration during times of "economic upheaval." Instead during this time of massive unemployment, he stood there and made a speech for increases in foreign workers.

He further unscored his lack of historical knowledge by using the Statue of Liberty as if it were dedicated to immigration. In fact, "Liberty Enlightening the World" was intended to celebrate the U.S. as a model for the rule of law and individual freedom for other nations to emulate so their own citizens wouldn't need to think about moving somewhere else.

TOUTING WORKER VERIFICATION WHILE REFUSING TO SUPPORT IT IN CONGRESS

And we’re implementing and improving a system to give employers a reliable way to verify that their employees are here legally. But we need to do more. We cannot continue just to look the other way as a significant portion of our economy operates outside the law. It breeds abuse and bad practices. It punishes employers who act responsibly and undercuts American workers. And ultimately, if the demand for undocumented workers falls, the incentive for people to come here illegally will decline as well.

In fact, Pres. Obama continually opposes requiring businesses to verify their new hires. The SAVE Act in Congress dies on the vine even though it would easily pass if Senate and House leaders would allow a vote.

But Pres. Obama doesn't want mandatory E-Verify to pass because that would make it harder to pass an amnesty in the future.

This is the same reason that Pres. Obama refuses to secure the border even though it is fully in is power to do so. He needs the constant flow of illegal workers across the border so he can use a promise to eventually stop the flow as a bargaining chip to get an amnesty.

Every piece of enforcement that Mr. Obama promises to do AFTER an amnesty could be done right now.

Despite all the flowery language and his attempts to paint the majority of Americans as immoral because they oppose an amnesty, the President today failed to obscure the fact that our immigration system is broken because the person living in the White House -- as the three occupants before him -- refuses to do his job of enforcing the nation's immigration laws.

(12:45 p.m. Thursday) -- Some first thoughts on Pres. Obama's much touted speech on the need for "comprehensive immigration reform" this morning.

Rosemary Jenks, our NumbersUSA Director of Government Relations has these comments:

1) It is incredibly hypocritical for the President to talk about holding employers accountable when his DHS has basically stopped criminal prosecutions of employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens and has completely stopped worksite raids, and when his Justice Department is asking the Supreme Court to overturn Arizona's E-Verify law, and all despite the fact that 25 million US workers can't find full time jobs.

2) His contention that our borders are more secure than they've been in decades is ludicrous, but then, he wouldn't know that, since he hasn't been down there; his claim would come as a big surprise to the law enforcement officers and ranchers who have been shot or shot at in recent months by illegal aliens, and to the human and drug smugglers who are operating with impunity.

3) His contention that our immigration laws are unenforceable is interesting--how would he know, since he hasn't tried? When he took his oath of office and swore to faithfully execute the laws of the land, he didn't say, "except those I don't like, like immigration laws."

4) The only thing he was actually specific about was his support for amnesty for 11 million illegal aliens who, as he admitted, came here to take jobs from US workers who desperately need them during the current jobs depression.

5) His politicization of this issue is offensive. He talked about all the different groups he's met with, representing all kinds of views and faiths and beliefs. Unfortunately, the only groups he hasn't met with are those who represent the American people, who oppose his amnesty plan and his apparent plan to ratchet up already too high legal immigration levels. He also said that Republicans are the ones blocking CIR. Last I checked, Democrats control both the House and the Senate. The fact is that there are sufficient numbers of Democrats who actually represent their constituents and oppose amnesty, but instead of admitting that CIR simply doesn't have enough support to pass, he blames Republicans.

ROY BECK is the CEO and Founder of NumbersUSA

NumbersUSA's blogs are copyrighted and may be republished or reposted only if they are copied in their entirety, including this paragraph, and provide proper credit to NumbersUSA. NumbersUSA bears no responsibility for where our blogs may be republished or reposted.

Views and opinions expressed in blogs on this website are those of the author.
Back to Top
HappyHeart View Drop Down
V.I.P. Member
V.I.P. Member
Avatar

Joined: July 11 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 42
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote HappyHeart Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 15 2010 at 8:00pm
 
 
 
Some comments:

"Double standard? Not so much as coming down on one side or the other in the war of The United States sovereignty. On one side we have people who are ignoring, negating or in opposition to federal law designed to preserve and protect our nation from foreign invaders. On the other side we have people who believe The United States is a sovereign country and think that our immigration laws were put in place for good reason. People who believe the United States Constitution is what makes our country the envy of the world where people have the freedom to succeed or fail without government interference vs people who desire to destroy the United States sovereignty, render the Constitution meaningless and control our social structure via a one world government. The current administration is using classic divide and conquer strategy by siding with a foreign country against AZ, promoting racial divides and protecting criminal activity."
================BEWARE THE ENEMY WITHIN===================

Thursday, July 15, 2010 at 12:00 PM  
-----------------------------------------------

"The following quote is possibly the most moronic thing that has ever been said. Congrats Bush the Holder DOJ has knocked every quote you ever made out of the top 20 dumbest things of ALL TIME.
"There is a big difference between a state or locality saying they are not going to use their resources to enforce a federal law, as so-called sanctuary cities have done, and a state passing its own immigration policy that actively interferes with federal law,"
So refusing to allow federal law to be enforced is NOT interfering but basically bolstering the federal law IS....Wow...I mean WOW."

Thursday, July 15, 2010 at 12:34 PM  
 

"using holder's logic, if i can convince my community to become a federal tax sanctuary community then we don't have to pay our federal taxes... yipppieeee for the laws of lawlessness."

 

DOJ Tries to Explain Sanctuary Double Standard, Fails

The Obama administration said this week that there is no reason to sue so-called sanctuary cities for refusing to cooperate with federal authorities, whereas Arizona's new immigration law was singled out because it "actively interferes" with enforcement.
 
"There is a big difference between a state or locality saying they are not going to use their resources to enforce a federal law, as so-called sanctuary cities have done, and a state passing its own immigration policy that actively interferes with federal law," Tracy Schmaler, a spokeswoman for Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., told The Washington Times. "That's what Arizona did in this case."
 
But the author of the 1996 federal law that requires states and localities to cooperate says the administration is misreading it, and says drawing a distinction between sanctuary cities and Arizona is "flimsy justification" for suing the state.

Read The Full Article

Back to Top
HappyHeart View Drop Down
V.I.P. Member
V.I.P. Member
Avatar

Joined: July 11 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 42
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote HappyHeart Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 16 2010 at 1:36pm
 
 
NewsMax
 
Rep. Myrick: Hezbollah Major Threat on Mexican Border
Thursday, 15 Jul 2010 08:12 PM  

By: Jim Meyers

Rep. Sue Myrick tells Newsmax it is “very frightening” that the Iran-backed terrorist group Hezbollah has been sending agents to Mexico — and some have already entered the United States across the porous border.

The North Carolina Republican has asked Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to set up a special task force to investigate the reports that Hezbollah is cooperating with drug cartels along the Mexican border.


In an exclusive Newsmax interview, Myrick — a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the GOP’s Deputy Whip — was asked what is known about Hezbollah’s threat to America.

“Our intelligence sources have really clarified that they are in Mexico, that there is an operation that is quite large in place there, and it’s very frightening to me because this is national security,” says Myrick, who was first elected in 1994.

“Yes, immigration’s a problem too, but this particular situation [involves] people who don’t like us for various reasons.

“We know some of them have gotten across the border in the past, and now we know that there are people from Iran who are going to Venezuela. They are actually learning Spanish, and then they come up through Mexico to cross our border. So they’re working in cahoots with Venezuela as well.”

About Hezbollah’s intentions in the U.S., Myrick says: “We don’t know. It used to be that most of those groups did not really target the United States. They were targeting other countries or they were staying inside their own area of influence. Now they are starting to target the United States and that’s my concern.

“I do want a task force of both U.S. and Mexican officials. Let’s get to the bottom of this and find out what is going on.

“The response I have received was a call that they would like to give me a private intelligence briefing because I’m on the Intelligence Committee. I said that would be fine, but I would like an answer about the task force first because once I get a briefing, I can’t talk about it.”

Sen. John Kyl, an Arizona Republican, has said he met privately with President Barack Obama and implored him to secure the border. Kyl claims Obama told him that if he did secure the border it would remove the incentive for comprehensive immigration reform or amnesty for illegals. Myrick says that “makes no sense whatsoever.”

She tells Newsmax: “It’s obvious that’s what he wants, amnesty. He’s said it over and over again. I don’t see it that way.

“Our responsibility at the federal government is to make sure that our borders are secure. Once the border is secure, like it is in some other places where we don’t have the problems that we do in the areas where it’s porous, then we’ll know who is in the country. We can control who comes into the country.

“It makes no sense to me whatsoever that you can’t secure the border because you can’t get amnesty.”

Myrick takes issue with Attorney General Eric Holder, who has filed suit against Arizona’s tough new law to battle illegal immigration.

“The federal government has not done its job,” she declares.
“Arizona is only trying to do what a state as the right to do, and that is to protect themselves.”

Turning to Iran, Myrick charges that the Obama administration is dragging its feet on dealing with the nuclear threat posed by the Islamic Republic.

“I think we should take a tougher stance and work harder with our partners in the world to make sure they do too,” she says.

The United Nations in its attempts to deal with Iran is “just a joke,” she adds. “They aren’t doing their job.”

Asked about the possibility that Israel may attack Iran’s nuclear facilities on its own, Myrick responds:

“I think Israel has the right to defend themselves. That option is there.

“I hope it does not come to that, but there needs to be something done to have a tougher stand with Iran.

“They aren’t going to be our friends. You can’t convince them they’re going to be our friends. They don’t operate that way. They don’t want to be friends. They want to conquer the world.”

© Newsmax.
Back to Top
HappyHeart View Drop Down
V.I.P. Member
V.I.P. Member
Avatar

Joined: July 11 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 42
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote HappyHeart Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 16 2010 at 1:45pm
Please Secure the Borders before it is too late! 
 
 
 

Mayor: Car bomb in Mexican border town kills 3

By the CNN Wire Staff
July 16, 2010 1:14 p.m. EDT
Jesus Armando Acosta Guerrero, believed to be a leader in the Juarez cartel, was arrested in connection with the blast.
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • NEW: A counterterrorism expert tells CNN there is "some confusion" about explosion
  • Mayor says it's the first car bomb attack against federal police
  • Three people died and seven were injured
  • Rival drug cartels are waging a turf battle in Ciudad Juarez

(CNN) -- A car bomb killed at least three people in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, the city's mayor, Jose Reyes Ferriz, said Friday.

It was the first time a car bomb has been used to attack federal police, the mayor said.

"The violence is escalating," he said.

Back to Top
HappyHeart View Drop Down
V.I.P. Member
V.I.P. Member
Avatar

Joined: July 11 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 42
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote HappyHeart Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 16 2010 at 7:45pm
Here is one of the websites about the border situation.  It is grim.
 
 
 
Click for VIDEOS
 

Hidden Cameras on the Arizona Border 2: Drugs, Guns and 850 Illegal Aliens

 
Contact: Janice Kephart, 202-466-8185, jlk@cis.org

New Video: Hidden Cameras on the Arizona Border 2



WASHINGTON (July 15, 2010) Hidden Cameras on the Arizona Border 2: Drugs, Guns, and 850 Illegal Aliens is the Center for Immigration Studies' second web-based film on the impact of illegal alien activity in Arizona. The Center's first video on the subject, Hidden Cameras on the Arizona Border: Coyotes, Bears, and Trails, has received over 52,000 views to date. This new 10-minute mini-documentary raises the bar, featuring footage of both illegal-alien entry as well as gun- and drug-smuggling. At minimum, the inescapable conclusion is that hidden cameras reveal a reality that illegal-alien activity is escalating.

The hidden camera footage, acquired from a variety of sources, indicates that there is an unfortunate lack of federal law enforcement presence on Arizonas federal land on the border in Nogales, in the Coronado National Forest (15 miles inside the border), and the Casa Grande Sector (80 miles inside the border). Also significant to the story are responses received as part of Freedom of Information Act requests made by Janice Kephart, the Centers Director of National Security Studies, in August 2009. Featured in the film is a 2004 federal government PowerPoint showing the near-complete devastation of a borderland national park due to illegal-alien activity, highlighting the disconnect between the situation on the ground in Arizona and Washington rhetoric.

Hidden Cameras on the Arizona Border 2: Drugs, Guns, and 850 Illegal Aliens, is available online at: http://cis.org/Videos/HiddenCameras2

The first film, Hidden Cameras on the Arizona Border: Coyotes, Bears, and Trails, is available at: http://cis.org/Videos/HiddenCameras-IllegalImmigration

The blog describing the federal government response to the July 2009 video is available at: http://www.cis.org/Kephart/HiddenCamerasUpdate

All of the Center for Immigration Studies videos are available online at: http://cis.org/Videos

# # #

The Center for Immigration Studies is an independent research institution that examines the impact of immigration on the United States.






Credits:

Director/Writer/Narrator/B roll film:
Janice Kephart

Video Production/Graphics/Editing:
Bryan Griffith

Music Composition/Production/Editing:
Buddy Speir

Nogales/Casa Grande Footage:
SecureBorderIntel.org

Coronado Footage:
BorderInvasionPics.com
Back to Top
Turboguy View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Avatar

Joined: October 27 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5399
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Turboguy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 17 2010 at 5:51am
Are you saying that Janet Napolitano, along with pretty much every single part of Obama's team is not only absolutely corrupt, but inept and utterly full of crap? Remember Janet Napolitano saying that the border is more secure today than ever before?

Are you saying that reality refutes everything these idiots say? A picture is worth a thousand words, but video is worth MILLIONS.

The problem for these liars is that it's not just an opinion anymore. They're willfully attempting to do damage to our country at this point for political gain and it's pathetic. We've now flirted with liberalism for almost two years and every facet of the Liberal plan, aside from upholding abortion rights and pushing forth stem cell research/cloning (Both of which I happen to agree with), has been an absolute unmitigated disaster.
Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views. - William F. Buckley
Back to Top
mrmouse View Drop Down
V.I.P. Member
V.I.P. Member


Joined: April 24 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 2225
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote mrmouse Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 17 2010 at 9:48am
Turboguy, it must be all that Kool-Aid that Captain Kick Ass and his loyal sidekicks are drinking from the Rio Grande That's causing such delusions of border security!
Back to Top
HappyHeart View Drop Down
V.I.P. Member
V.I.P. Member
Avatar

Joined: July 11 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 42
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote HappyHeart Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 19 2010 at 11:19am
 
 
See Article below after definitions of Illegal and Crime/Criminal
il·le·gal (ĭ-lē'gəl)  
adj.
  1. Prohibited by law. 2.Prohibited by official rules: an illegal pass in football. 3.Unacceptable to or not performable by a computer: an illegal operation.

n. An illegal immigrant.
il·le'gal·ly  adv.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Cite This Source
 
/ɪˈligəl/ Show Spelled[ih-lee-guhl] Show IPA
–adjective
1.
forbidden by law or statute.
2.
contrary to or forbidden by official rules, regulations, etc.: The referee ruled that it was an illegal forward pass.
–noun
3.
Informal . illegal alien.


 
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2010.
Cite This Source
|
Link To illegal
 
 

From Wikipedia

"Criminal" redirects here. For other uses, see Crime (disambiguation).
Crime is the breach of rules or laws for which some governing authority (via mechanisms such as legal systems) can ultimately prescribe a conviction. Individual human societies may each define crime and crimes differently. While every crime violates the law, not every violation of the law counts as a crime; for example: breaches of contract and of other civil law may rank as "offences" or as "infractions". Modern societies generally regard crimes as offenses against the public or the state, distinguished from torts (offenses against private parties that can give rise to a civil cause of action).

When informal relationships and sanctions prove insufficient to establish and maintain a desired social order, a government or a sovereign state may impose more formalized or stricter systems of social control. With institutional and legal machinery at their disposal, agents of the State can compel populations to conform to codes, and can opt to punish or to attempt to reform those who do not conform.

----------------------------------------------

Bingo Night for Detained Illegal Immigrants

http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/07/15/sprucing-up-some-detention-centers-proposed/

July 15, 2010 - 4:49 PM | by: Jamie Colby

Last August, the Obama administration pledged to overhaul how those entering the U.S. illegally would be held and treated at detention centers across the country. Many who enter illegally but have not committed other crimes, are housed at Level 1 facilities run by Immigration and Customs Enforcement or ICE while those here illegally who have committed crimes are at more secure ICE detention centers classified as Level 2 or 3.

According to ICE, sometimes facilities provide housing for both but these populations are never mixed. The non-criminal, lower risk detainees could soon see the biggest changes in living conditions– 28 changes proposed in total – while even those at more secure detention facilities could see some, like improved access to legal libraries and other changes that will not however, according to ICE, put the public at risk.

News of the proposed changes came when The Houston Chronicle published a leaked, internal email from Corrections Corporation of America or CCA, a private contractor working for ICE. Check out the email below that lists the changes proposed. ICE confirms to Fox these are the improvements proposed by CCA that it is now considering.

The ACLU and other immigrant activist groups say upgrading conditions for detainees is a start, but most working on behalf of illegal immigrants want more sweeping reform. ACLU staff attorney Vanita Gupta tells Fox “some of them actually will make a difference in the living conditions of detainees, who I have to remind everyone, are not criminals."   Why are they not criminals?
But Chris Crane the president of AFGE 118 Council, the union representing ICE officers says “we have to take every precaution possible to make sure that they are safe and that our employees and officers inside these facilities are safe". Again, ICE tells Fox it hasn’t decided yet which of the CCA proposals will be approved and any that are, ICE insists will not put the public at risk. How about the cost of making these upgrades to detention? CCA picks up the cost, not taxpayers.

My producer Kathleen Foster and I were granted access to a Level 1 ICE facility in Elizabeth, New Jersey to observe both current conditions and some of the changes that are being tried out there. The healthcare provided was extensive, special meals are already available for those with dietary or religious needs, there’s a hair salon for the female detainees, a library including law books and access to lexis nexis legal cases as well as fitness and movie nights.

The ICE administrator that took us on our tour explained in his experience keeping detainees calm and healthy reduces the risk of disturbances. Take a look at what we observed and tell us what you think.

LEAKED EMAIL
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 2:38 PM
Subject: Immedate Attention - New ICE Requirements
Importance: High

Below, please find a list of facility modifications which we will
discuss at our upcoming meeting at 2:45 pm.

In addition [to the policy reforms], CCA will provide the following
no-cost improvements at each of those nine facilities. [Elizabeth;
Eloy; Florence; Houston; Laredo; Hall County; San Diego; Stewart; Hutto]

* Allow visitors to come for as long as they like during a 12-hour
period each day and on weekends.
* Increase availability of legal supplies and postage to indigent
detainees for legal correspondence.
* Add research resources at the law libraries.
* Play the "Know Your Rights" legal orientation video in each
housing unit every day (not in lieu of in person legal programs but in
addition to them).
* Increase contact visitation space for legal counsel.
* Design and provide an area at each facility for contact
visitation.
* Allow free movement within the institution for detainees of
appropriate classification levels.
* Allow detainees of appropriate classification levels to wear
their own clothing, within reasonable limitation, and providing
non-penal clothing for detainees to wear.
* Eliminate lock downs and lights out for appropriate
classification levels
* Reduce the frequency of and, as reasonable, wholly eliminate pat
down searches
* Provide more normalized common areas.

* Soften the look for the facility with hanging plants, flower
baskets, new paint colors, different bedding and furniture, wall
graphics and framed pictures on the walls, and enhance the aesthetics of
the living areas.
* Expand programming for detainees to include movie nights, bingo,
arts and crafts, dance, walk and exercise classes, health and welfare
classes, basic cooking classes, tutoring and self-paced computer
training on portable computer stations.
* Provide celebrations of special occasions and allowing a
detainee to receive outside, packaged food for celebrations and while
visiting with family and friends.
* Increase the number of phones and unmonitored lines for attorney
calls.
* Design new menus with greater variety and reduce repetition of
food
* Offer continental breakfasts that are completely self serve on
holidays and weekends.
* Provide fresh carrot sticks and celery or other vegetables in a
bar format.
* Provide self-serve beverage bars.
* Offer water and tea in the housing areas at all times.
* Provide a unit manger so detainees have someone available to
talk to and to solve problems in the facility other than the immediate
guard.
* Increase training unique to each facility so staff are aware of
the nature and needs of the population of each facility.
* Survey community-based immigration advocacy groups and
immigration attorneys for suggestions that may improve communication and
ease of access.
* Designate an employee at each facility for consular access
issues to improve consular access.
* Ensure third party legal education programs are made available
at all ICE sites.
* Provide four hours or more hours of recreation in a natural
setting, allowing for robust aerobic exercise.
* Provide email access for detainees, as is currently provided at
Hutto.
* Provide internet-based free phone service.

Do legal citizens who are detained have these facility modifications? 

At Taxpayers Expense.  The article leaves out that  (CCA) Corrections Corporation of America is a private-public (government ) partnership. 

I wonder what grants or funds they have received from the public (government) side?  They must really think the general population is stupid.

HH

Tags
Back to Top
HappyHeart View Drop Down
V.I.P. Member
V.I.P. Member
Avatar

Joined: July 11 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 42
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote HappyHeart Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 27 2010 at 9:29pm
it's all about the voting block.....Eliseo Medina, SEIU Vice Pres. and Democratic Socialists of America Honorary Chair

 
 
http://newzeal.blogspot.com/  Check out this site.............
 

Obama Adviser, Eliseo Medina, on Exploiting Immigrants for Socialist Power  -  Please Click to See Videos

Cross posted from KeyWiki Blog

http://keywiki.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/D2004w.jpg


Eliseo Medina, SEIU Vice President and Democratic Socialists of America Honorary Chair, was the lead speaker at last weekend's 2010 Netroots Nation discussion of Civil Rights in the Modern Era.

Here Medina tugs on the heartstrings and plays on the emotions as he urges the gathered, mainly young "progressives" to unite behind the illegal illegal immigrant community. Medina is very careful to blur the line between illegal immigrants and Latino Americans.

His message is that by exploiting the Latino vote, "progressives" can carry several key states in November. To do that, the left must portray any resistance to illegal immigration as an attack on all Latinos.



Medina has more influence than most marxist activists.

In 2008 he served the the Obama campaign as a member of
Barack Obama's National Latino Advisory Council. As a vice president of the D.S.A. dominated SEIU, Medina can put tens of thousands of activists on the streets to promote his socialist agenda.



Speaking at the
2009 America's Future Now! (click for Video) conference in Washington DC, Medina was more matter of fact, more honest. This was an older crowd of hard core core "progressives". They didn't need the violins, they just wanted the numbers.

Here Medina plainly states that his campaign is purely about votes. Medina is pursuing "immigration reform" for one reason only 8 million new Democratic voters.

His aim is to "create a governing coalition for the long term"



That is "caring" socialism for you. Illegals immigrants are not individuals with hopes and dreams. their plight, their personal tragedies, are irrelevant. They not the result of irresponsible politicians unwilling to police U.S. borders.

They are simply numbers to be exploited, in the socialist pursuit of power.


posted by Trevor Loudon at 7/27/2010 11:42:00 AM 0 Comments Links to this post 


Back to Top
HappyHeart View Drop Down
V.I.P. Member
V.I.P. Member
Avatar

Joined: July 11 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 42
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote HappyHeart Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 28 2010 at 9:04am
 
 
 
The Media continues to blatantly Lie and not tell the whole truth about SB 1070 for a political agenda.
 
The DOJ should prosecute Sanctuary Cities for blatantly disobeying the Federal Law.
 
We are a Nation of Laws.  Equal Justice under the Law for ALL.
 
"Social Justice" is being Abused to promote special interest groups over law abiding citizens.
 
The sovereignty of our country is at stake.  Secure the Borders! 
 
I am praying these groups are not sent to incite a violent reaction.  Code Pink and other radical groups will be in attendance as well.
 
 

L.A. union members, activists to caravan to Arizona to protest immigration law

More than 550 people representing 32 unions plan to travel in 11 buses for a rally at the state Capitol and a vigil with local groups on the day the law is set to take effect.

 
Back to Top
HappyHeart View Drop Down
V.I.P. Member
V.I.P. Member
Avatar

Joined: July 11 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 42
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote HappyHeart Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 28 2010 at 10:15pm
 
 

On Arizona and Immigration: Judge Ignores Rule of Law

Posted July 28th, 2010 at 5:12pm in Protect America, Rule of Law with 0 commentsPrint%20This%20Post Print This Post

As everyone knows, Arizona, chafed by the Federal government’s inability to control the flow of illegal immigrants into the State, enacted Senate Bill 1070 (PDF) in an effort to do something about the resulting collateral damage to it and its citizens. Now, a federal judge appointed by President Clinton, Susan Bolton, has temporarily blocked enforcement of portions of S.B. 1070, reasoning that those portions interfere with the Federal government’s system of immigration laws.

Significantly, Judge Bolton rejected the demand by the Obama Justice Department that the entire law be struck down. In fact, the judge upheld twelve different provisions of the law, including a prohibition on Arizona officials limiting the enforcement of federal immigration laws and another that allows Arizona citizens to sue any state official that adopts a policy of restricting such enforcement. The judge also upheld parts of the law intended to stop human smuggling, such as a provision that makes it possible to impound vehicles used to transport or harbor unlawfully present aliens.

Unfortunately, however, Judge Bolton (using very fallacious reasoning) did preliminarily block provisions (1) calling for Arizona law enforcement officials to verify the immigration status of individuals who are arrested when an officer has a reasonable suspicion that they are an illegal alien; (2) making it a state crime to violate federal alien registration requirements; (3) creating a crime for an illegal alien to solicit, apply for, or perform work; and (4) authorizing an arrest when there is probable cause to believe that an individual is removable from the U.S.

Of course, to come to that conclusion, the judge had to torture the language of the Arizona statute, ignore federal law and precedent, and come to an illogical conclusion about the supposed burdens placed on the federal government by the Arizona law.

For example, Section 2(B) of S.B. 1070 states very clearly that:

For any lawful stop, detention or arrest made by [an Arizona] law enforcement official…in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance…where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien and is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable effort shall be made…to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation. Any person who is arrested shall have the person’s immigration status determined before the person is released.

This paragraph could not be clearer – the immigration status of individuals who have been arrested for some other crime will only be checked if the officer has a “reasonable suspicion” that they are an illegal alien. Yet the federal judge reads the second sentence of this paragraph without reference to the first as supposedly requiring that the immigration status of all arrestees must be determined, despite Arizona’s claims to the contrary. In other words, she completely ignores the first sentence and then claims that checking the immigration status of all arrestees would be an impermissible burden on the federal government.

This reading of the Arizona statute is illogical and the judge’s refusal to defer to Arizona’s construction of its own law is legally improper and certainly unnecessary, except for an activist judge with an agenda. In 1997, the Supreme Court chastised the Ninth Circuit and an Arizona district court for their treatment of a limiting construction of a state law suggested by the Arizona Attorney General and the recommendation that the Arizona Supreme Court be asked for its opinion of the proper construction of state law. The Court unanimously said that the federal courts should ask, “Is this conflict really necessary? When anticipatory relief is sought in federal court against a state statute, respect for the States in our federal system calls for close consideration of that core question.” The Court also suggested that the opinion of a State’s Attorney General on a matter of state law was entitled to respect.

Here, Judge Bolton failed to give the State the respect it was due on this issue. Indeed, it is strong evidence of an activist judge straining to find a way to stop a law that she does not like from a policy (not a legal) standpoint. It is also completely contrary to federal law that specifically requires federal officials to “respond to an inquiry by a…State, or local government agency, seeking to verify or ascertain the citizenship or immigration status of any individual.” (8 U.S.C. §1373). How can Judge Bolton rationally conclude that Arizona is placing an impermissible burden on the federal government to respond to citizenship verification requests when federal law mandates that the feds respond to such requests? The judge’s reasoning is foolish – she is treating the Obama administration’s enforcement priorities (or lack of enforcement priorities) as if they are federal law. Arizona’s law does not conflict with federal immigration law, although it may conflict with the Obama administration’s policies. But policy conflicts do not result in federal preemption. Judge Bolton’s reasoning also conflicts with a very recent First Circuit Court of Appeals decision, Estrada v. Rhode Island, that upheld the right of state law enforcement officers to check the immigration status of individuals detained for other reasons such as a traffic stop, as well as other precedents.

The judge also temporarily halted Arizona’s attempt to make it a state crime for an alien to not carry alien registration papers despite the fact that under federal law ((8 U.S.C. § 1304), all aliens are required to “at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration” issued by the federal government. Contrary to Judge Bolton’s view, there is no violation of the Constitution because a state has added state penalties on top of federal penalties for the same offense. Otherwise, it would be unlawful for states to punish possession of illegal drugs since that is already a federal offense. Unfortunately, this type of tortured reasoning is applied by the judge to other provisions of the Arizona law.

Arizona should continue its court fight to implement all of the provisions of the Arizona law. The chances are very good as this case works its way up through the courts and eventually to the U.S. Supreme Court, that Arizona will win in the end. It is a battle well worth fighting and it is one that other states should join, particularly in the face of this administration’s refusal to take the steps necessary to secure our borders and protect our national security. In fact, if other states participate in this battle in other federal circuits, it is highly likely that they will get rulings directly conflicting with Judge Bolton’s erroneous decision. The Justice Department should be forced to fight as many states as possible on this issue.

Back to Top
Turboguy View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Avatar

Joined: October 27 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5399
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Turboguy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 29 2010 at 6:58am
I think people are making this into something it's not. The Judge only struck down the provision *FORCING* officers to determine immigrant status when articulable reasonable suspicion is there. They can choose not to enforce it per "Officer Discretion."

Arizona officers will still have the ability and jurisdiction to arrest illegals they catch, their hand just isn't forced anymore. This is a common sense deal here. The way the bill was written shifted priorities from other crimes which are more heinous to immigration which is just as wrong as what Obama and crew are up to in trying to open the borders completely. It is really sad that a sitting U.S. President is allowing irreparable damage to be done to our country, on purpose, for political gain.

Also this law *WILL* be getting appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court. Count on it. Thankfully Obama hasn't been able to change the demographics of the court at all thus far and it still sits tenuously in Conservative hands, where this bill will probably be upheld even though we've got four justices who perform complex  mental gymnastics to contrive some of the ideas they've come up with in regards to Constitutionality. (Chicago v. McDonald and DC v. Heller are excellent examples of these moron "Living Document" Liberals)

A nice result of this is that the Arizona law is popular with more than 70% of the electorate. 70% or more of Americans rarely agree on *ANYTHING* much less this and the disaster of a president is actively fighting against them. This crap alone may ensure that Barack Obama will be completely hogtied come November. Thank God for that! If he keeps this crap up, he may even find himself in front of Impeachment hearings as he's cruising to be significantly more unpopular than even George W was and he's close to that now.

My opinion on what Arizona should do: Tell the Ninth Circus Court of Appeals to piss up a rope and do it anyway. When the Feds threaten lawsuit, Arizona should threaten to SECEDE from the Union and activate their National Guard to enforce their borders both from the South, but from Federal intervention by Alphabet Agencies as well. The President has shown willful disregard for the rights and welfare of U.S. Citizens so Arizona should do it themselves.



GO Arizona!!!
Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views. - William F. Buckley
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 7891011 13>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down