Herramientas Personales
Usted está aquí: Inicio Noticias CIS: Opiniones sobre migración

CIS: Opiniones sobre migración

por Rodolfo Hernández Corchado Última modificación 01/08/2010 18:35

Opiniones sobre migración

1.

'In Arizona, Courts Trump Lawmaking,' Mark Krikorian

2.

'Nice Town You Got There, Shame If Anything Happened to It,' Mark Krikorian

3.

'Is There Any Enforcement They Support?,' Mark Krikorian

4.

'Lindsey Graham, Tough Guy?,' Mark Krikorian

5.

'Attrition Before Enforcement!' Mark Krikorian

6.

'Clowns to the Left of Me, Jokers to the Right' Mark Krikorian

7.

'Immigration Myths,' Mark Krikorian

8.

'CIS Assists Arizona in Defending SB1070,' Jessica Vaughan

9.

'Judicial Activism in Arizona,' James R. Edwards Jr.

10.

'Could Utah's Elites Face Prison Time For Aiding and Abetting Illegal Aliens?' Ronald Mortensen

11.

'Cop Suing Arizona Stole Toys from Needy Children,' Jon Feere

12.

'A Refreshing Story: the Tax-Dodging Yacht, the Illegals, and the Coast Guard,' David North

13.

'C-SPAN Callers Note Concerns of African-Americans,' Jerry Kammer

14.

'A Rare Voice in the Spanish-Language Press,' Jerry Kammer

15.

'Obama Sues Arizona, Gives Sanctuary to Lawbreakers,' Rep. Lamar Smith

16.

'What Section 287(g) of Immigration Act Really Says,' Rep. Lamar Smith

17.

'The Hilarious Arizona Ruling,' Rich Lowry

18.

'An Abominable Decision,' Mark R. Levin

19.

'Detaining Arizona,' National Review Online

20.

'What Judge Bolton’s Injunction Doesn’t Say,' Heather Mac Donald

21.

'Ignoring the Law,' Heather Mac Donald

22.

'The Arizona Lesson,' Heather Mac Donald

23.

'Preemption Is About Law, Not Politics: A Response to Heather,' Andy McCarthy

24.

'Arizona Immigration Decision,' Andy McCarthy

25.

'Free Pass for Sanctuary Cities?,' Debra J. Saunders

26.

'The Amnesty Memo,' Robert VerBruggen

27.

'Law-Enforcement-Free Sanctuaries,' Hans A. von Spakovsky

28.

'Networks Protest Arizona's Immigration Law With Cameras and Microphones,' Tim Graham

29.

'The Democrats’ War On the American West,' Michelle Malkin

30.

'Judicial Activism Against Arizona,' The Washington Times

31.

'Holder Should Sue Maryland to be Consistent,' Gregory Kane

32.

'Re: The Arizona Injunction,' Stewart Baker

33.

'Stealth Amnesty Creeps Ahead,' Investor's Business Daily

34.

'Will AZ’s Immigration Law Survive the Courts?,' John Vecchione

35.

'Looming Threat From Illegals: Terror,' Briigitte Gabriel

36.

'Keeping American Citizenship Valuable,' Silvio Laccetti

37.

'DoJ Lawsuit Against Arizona is Politics,' Ric Oberlink

38.

'Arizona vs. Obama, Round 1,' Joseph Klein

39.

'Feds v. Arizona - Lawfare War,' Family Security Matters

40.

'SAVE and CLEAR Acts Can Overturn Judge Bolton's Decision on AZ Imm. Enforcement Law,' Chris Chmielenski

41.

'Clinton Judge Rules Against Arizona Immigration Law,' Jim Kouri

42.

'Attention Democrats: We WILL Remember on November 2, 2010!,' John Lillpop

43.

'Arizona Police and Tribal Police,' James M. Thunder

44.

'Mixed Immigration Message in Arizona,' W. James Antle, III

45.

'Immigrants and Crime: Time for a Sensible Debate,' Francis Fukuyama

46.

'Judge Bolton: Judicial Activist,' Ben Shapiro

47.

'AZ Judge Doesn't Ignore Reality,' Chad Groening

48.

'A Misguided Decision,' Ken Connor

49.

'The Mailed Fist of the Federal Government Slams Arizona,' J.D. Longstreet

50.

'Clinton Appointee Disregards Law and Constitution in Support of Meritless Gov't Arguments,' Alaphiah

51.

'Frightened Weak Kneed U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton Makes Up The Law,' Gil Guignat

52.

'Sanctuary Cities Are Against Federal Law - Where Are The Lawsuits?,' DiggersRealm.com

53.

'PFIR’s Leah Durant (!) Latest Victim Of “White Nationalist” Smear,' Donald A. Collins

54.

'SB1070 Has Resulted in Mass Self-Deportation of Illegal Aliens,' Dave Gibson

55.

'GOP Gubernatorial Candidates Embracing Arizona...But Can They Be Trusted?,' Washington Watcher

56.

'The Next Roe vs. Wade? Obama’s Pyrrhic Victory in Arizona,' Washington Watcher

57.

'Sued for Self-Preservation: Arizona's Immigration Solution,' Ken Connor

58.

'U.S. Pastor Council Strives to Lead the Flock Astray,' Allan Wall

59.

'Racism, Schmacism: John McCain–Meet J.T. Ready!,' Peter Brimelow

60.

'If You Ain’t Sad, You Ain’t Paying Attention!,' Rob Sanchez

61.

'Dear Mexico ...,' Ted Nugent

62.

'Real America Did Not Sue Arizona,' Christopher G. Adamo

63.

'Sen. Graham Likes The Idea of Striking Birthright Citizenship For Illegal Immigrants,' Kimberly Dvorak

64.

'Judge Grants Preliminary Injunction Against AZ Immigration Statute,' Dan Miller

65.

'This Fight is NOT Over Until We Win: Bolton’s Ruling on SB 1070 is Just a Setback, Not a Defeat,' Kevin Collins

66.

'Mexico to Soon Get a Taste of its 'Montezuma’s Revenge' as Illegals Flood Back Across the Border,' Kevin Collins

67.

'Educating Maria,' Patrick Range McDonald

68.

'Make a Run for the Altar,' Gustavo Arellano

69.

'A True Story: Squalor, Superstitions and Fatalistic Sloth,' Frosty Wooldridge

70.

'Arizona's Immigration Surprises,' Alex Nowrasteh

71.

'A Narrow Rebuke of Arizona's Immigration Law,' Washington Post

72.

'Arizona Judge Gets It Exactly Right,' Ruben Navarrette Jr.

73.

'A Rhetorical Border War,' Ruben Navarrette Jr.

74.

'Arizona Ruling Acts as a Warning to Other States,' Julia Preston

75.

'Immigration Facts, Figures -- And Thoughts,' Gregory Rodriguez

76.

'In Arizona, Feds Are Fighting a Monster They Built,' Aarti Shahani

77.

'Arizona’s New Law Upends Federal Priorities,' Michele Waslin

78.

'More Right-Handed Pot Stirring: Internal USCIS Draft Memo Exploited for Political Gain,' Mary Giovagnoli

79.

'The Logic of Arizona’s Apartheid Champion,' Patrick Osio, Jr.

80.

'Federal Government: Step Up on Immigration Reform,' Deepak Bhargava

 

-- Mark Krikorian]

 

 

1.

 

In Arizona, Courts Trump Lawmaking

By Mark Krikorian

AOLNews.com, July 28, 2010

http://www.aolnews.com/opinion/article/opinion-in-arizona-litigation-trumps-lawmaking/19572808

 

 

It's no surprise that key parts of the Arizona immigration law were temporarily delayed today by a federal judge. The many lawsuits brought by the opponents of immigration enforcement (including the Obama administration) will now proceed. As Churchill said in a different context, this isn't the end; it's not even the beginning of the end. It's merely the end of the beginning.

 

Assuming the state doesn't give up, which it has already said it will not, everyone understands this process will take several years of appeals, eventually reaching the Supreme Court. In today's America, all important social and political issues are decided by the courts, not the people or their elected representatives. It may not be a sensible way to make policy, but with lawyers of the American Civil Liberties Union implacably hostile to immigration enforcement -- some inside the government, some outside -- there's no alternative.

 

That said, some parts of the new Arizona law were unaffected by today's ruling, most notably the prohibition against 'sanctuary cities' that forbid cooperation with federal immigration authorities. Sanctuary cities are already prohibited by federal law, but successive administrations have done nothing to punish these jurisdictions, which interfere with immigration enforcement -- a position trumped, of course, by this administration actually suing a state for trying to assist in that enforcement. Perhaps most importantly, the judge did not enjoin the provision allowing private citizens to sue such sanctuary jurisdictions, opening the door for the first time to legal action against these scofflaw cities.

 

But apart from the specifics of the Arizona lawsuits, the ruling's effects are likely to be positive for the cause of enforcement of immigration laws. Poll after poll has shown substantial nationwide support for Arizona's effort to help enforce federal law. Today's ruling, like the filing of the Justice Department lawsuit in the first place, reinforces the public sense that the federal government is simply uninterested in securing the borders. In particular, Democratic lawmakers up for election in November will be saddled with this usurpation of the public will, and if they lose, many of their colleagues are likely to discover a new zeal for immigration enforcement.

 

In a broader sense, the frustration of public demands for border control through litigation is instructive when thinking about the debate in Washington over immigration. What advocates call 'comprehensive immigration reform' is sold as a package, a grand bargain, of amnesty for illegal aliens (and increased legal immigration) in exchange for tougher enforcement in the future. But if the Arizona experience has taught us anything, it's that any new enforcement measure will be tied up in the courts for years. This makes a grand bargain impossible, almost by definition: The amnesty part of the deal would be implemented immediately, while the promised enforcement would languish in court and might never survive.

 

This is probably the most important lesson from the Arizona lawsuits: that comprehensive immigration reform is out of the question. Enforcement measures must not only be legislated before any discussion of amnesty takes place; they must be fully litigated, too.

 

Return to Top

 

 

 

********

********

 

2.

 

Nice Town You Got There, Shame If Anything Happened to It

By Mark Krikorian

CIS Immigration Blog, July 28, 2010

http://www.cis.org/krikorian/fremont-intimidation

 

 

The other local immigration law that was set to go into effect tomorrow is in the town of Fremont, Nebraska. The ordinance was approved by voters last month and would have prohibited the hiring of, or renting to, illegal aliens.

 

But the town council there voted last night to suspend the measure because of the prohibitive costs of fighting the ACLU and MALDEF in court:

 

Fremont appears to be leaning away from a court fight for cost reasons – officials have estimated that implementing the ordinance, including legal fees, would average $1 million per year.

 

Legal experts say that sets a bad precedent.

 

“City Councils should not suspend ordinances just because they might be expensive,” says Jessica Levinson, adjunct professor of law at Loyola Law School. “The voters have spoken, and passed this ordinance. Regardless of the merits (or constitutionality) of this particular ordinance, it would set a bad trend if elected bodies start to fail to implement newly passed initiatives,” she says.

 

Robert Stern, preside of the Center for Governmental studies, agrees. “I have problems with this action by the council since the ordinance was adopted as an initiative measure by the voters,” he says. “The council should have opposed the measure when it was on the ballot,” he says.

 

Critics of the suits say they amount to intimidation. “The strategy is essentially, ‘You may want to take actions to deal with illegal immigration? It may be what the citizenry wants, but if you try, we’ll bleed you dry in the courts,’“ says Ira Mehlman, spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).

 

Return to Top

 

 

 

********

********

 

3.

 

Lindsey Graham, Tough Guy?

By Mark Krikorian

The Corner at National Review Online, July 2, 2010

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YmJjZmFlOWQ5YTFiMjdkMzVmOGY4MWI0ZjYwM2U0NjE=

 

 

Would it be cynical of me to think that McCain's 'little jerk' is just trying to burnish his tough-on-immigration bona fides?:

 

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) announced Wednesday night that he is considering introducing a constitutional amendment that would change existing law to no longer grant citizenship to the children of immigrants born in the United States.

 

Yeah, right. So the guy doesn't want to do what's necessary to actually stop illegal immigration, but he wants to make sure that the children born to all the illegals he helps bring here become U.S.-born illegal aliens? I'm afraid, though, that his rationale, whether he actually believes it or not, is in fact one shared by a lot of immigration hawks:

 

'People come here to have babies,' he said. 'They come here to drop a child. It's called 'drop and leave.' To have a child in America, they cross the border, they go to the emergency room, have a child, and that child's automatically an American citizen. That shouldn't be the case. That attracts people here for all the wrong reasons.'

 

I don't like illegals having U.S.-citizen kids any more than anyone else, but there's no evidence suggesting that this 'drop and leave' stuff is true — anything's possible, I suppose, but it's just an assertion at this point. My own sense is that most illegal alien women who have kids here (accounting for nearly 10 percent of all children born in the U.S. each year) didn't come for that purpose; they came for jobs or to join relatives, and one thing led to another, birds-and-bees style, and they had kids. There are no doubt some people who dash across the border illegally to have kids, but they just can't amount to a large share of the problem. Nor does the problem of 'birth tourism' require a change in the Constitution — we just need to permit (and require) our consular officers to reject visa applications from pregnant women, inviting them to re-apply once they've given birth in their own countries.

 

The phenomenon of citizen-children of illegal aliens is a symptom of too much illegal immigration, not a cause. Comprehensive immigration enforcement — abroad, at the borders, and in the interior — plus deep, permanent cuts in future legal immigration (which is the catalyst for illegal immigration) are the solution, because when we have less illegal immigration, we'll have fewer kids born to illegals and the problem goes away. I'm afraid that if the citizenship issue makes progress, the libertarians will co-opt us, backing the citizenship change as a way of diverting attention from real immigration control.

 

I hope I don't get in trouble with my friends for this, and there are indeed people I respect who disagree with me, but there's a sense in which, just as anti-Semitism is the socialism of fools, an inordinate focus on birthright citizenship is the restrictionism of fools — and Lindsey Graham is strong evidence for that claim.

 

Return to Top

 

 

 

********

********

 

4.

 

Is There Any Enforcement They Support?

By Mark Krikorian

CIS Immigration Blog, July 27, 2010

http://www.cis.org/node/2123

 

 

The Secure Communities program is intended to make systematic and universal the identification of illegal aliens in police custody — not people pulled over for speeding or broken taillights but those actually booked and fingerprinted. The whole point of the program, politically, is to move away from deporting 'ordinary' illegal aliens (i.e., those guilty only of tax crimes, identity-fraud crimes, employment crimes, etc.) and focus only on illegals who have committed 'real' crimes. It doesn't even guarantee that all those found to be illegal aliens will actually be deported; as promotional material for the program says:

 

ICE prioritizes the removal of criminal aliens by focusing efforts on the most dangerous and violent offenders. This includes criminal aliens determined to be removable and charged with or convicted of crimes such as homicide, rape, robbery, kidnapping, major drug offenses, or those involving threats to national security.

 

And yet the open-borders people still don't like the program:

 

DENVER — The federal government is rapidly expanding a program to identify illegal immigrants using fingerprints from arrests, drawing opposition from local authorities and advocates who argue the initiative amounts to an excessive dragnet.

 

The program has gotten less attention than Arizona's new immigration law, but it may end up having a bigger impact because of its potential to round up and deport so many immigrants nationwide.

 

The San Francisco sheriff wanted nothing to do with the program, and the City Council in Washington, D.C., blocked use of the fingerprint plan in the nation's capital. Colorado is the latest to debate the program, called Secure Communities, and immigrant groups have begun to speak up, telling the governor in a letter last week that the initiative will make crime victims reluctant to cooperate with police 'due to fear of being drawn into the immigration regime.' . . .

 

Since everyone arrested would be screened, the program could easily deport more people than Arizona's new law, said Sunita Patel, an attorney who filed a lawsuit in New York against the federal government on behalf of a group worried about the program. Patel said that because illegal immigrants could be referred to ICE at the point of arrest, even before a conviction, the program can create an incentive for profiling and create a pipeline to deport more people.

 

'It has the potential to revolutionize immigration enforcement,' said Patel.

 

'Revolutionize' immigration enforcement by actually, you know, enforcing immigration law. But considering that San Francisco does allow checking immigration status for those booked for felonies, can't the same arguments be applied? Won't victims of felonies be 'reluctant to cooperate with police' if felons are screened? And, anyway, is it right to deport someone who's put down roots here for having committed only one murder? Shouldn't we limit immigration checks only to multiple murderers?

 

Return to Top

 

 

 

********

********

 

5.

 

Attrition Before Enforcement!

By Mark Krikorian

CIS Immigration Blog, July 27, 2010

http://www.cis.org/krikorian/attrition-before-enforcement

 

 

The Arizona immigration law is set to go into effect Thursday (unless a judge decides it shouldn't), but it's working already:

 

The two women are among scores of illegal immigrant families across Phoenix hauling the contents of their homes into the yard this weekend as they rush to sell up and get out before the state law takes effect on Thursday.

 

The law, the toughest imposed by any U.S. state to curb illegal immigration, seeks to drive more than 400,000 undocumented day laborers, landscapers, house cleaners, chambermaids and other workers out of Arizona, which borders Mexico.

 

It makes being an illegal immigrant a state crime and requires state and local police, during lawful contact, to investigate the status of anyone they reasonably suspect of being an illegal immigrant.

 

The U.S. government estimates 100,000 unauthorized migrants left Arizona after the state passed an employer sanctions law three years ago requiring companies to verify workers' status using a federal computer system. There are no figures for the number who have left since the new law passed in April.

 

Some are heading back to Mexico or to neighboring states. Others are staying put and taking their chances.

 

In a sign of a gathering exodus, Mexican businesses from grocers and butcher shops to diners and beauty salons have shut their doors in recent weeks as their owners and clients leave.

 

Return to Top

 

 

 

********

********

 

6.

 

Clowns to the Left of Me, Jokers to the Right

By Mark Krikorian

CIS Immigration Blog, July 22, 2010

http://www.cis.org/krikorian/cato-panel

 

 

I participated a panel on the Arizona law, and immigration more generally, at the libertarian Cato Institute yesterday; the video of the event is now up, assuming you want to watch all 82 minutes of it. Much of the discussion was the usual stuff, but two things stood out.

 

First, one of the panelists, Cato's Tim Lynch, spoke about how the Arizona law will lead to false arrests and showed an excerpt from this video:

 

The hero of the video, at least from Lynch's perspective, was one of the most obnoxious people ever recorded, refusing to answer a query as to his citizenship from a Border Patrol agent at a highway checkpoint (within 50 miles of the border, the Border Patrol has extraordinary powers rightly denied to law enforcement elsewhere). Starting at about 2:20, his repeated, boorish cries of 'Am I being detained?, Agent Soto' and 'Am I free to go?, Agent Gilmore' were so ridiculous even Lynch realized he'd made a mistake in picking that video. (A colleague of mine said the protagonist of the video, one Terry Bressi, is the kind of guy who didn't get beaten up enough in high school.) But aside from the unintended humor, this really shows the utopianism of libertarians — even necessary, legally defined measures necessary to enforce American sovereignty are simply unacceptable to them. This isn't support for a system of ordered liberty — it's anarchism.

 

The other interesting point came at 76:40 in Cato's video, where an audience member made the following comment:

 

You mentioned that the Arizona law came about as a public, popular public response to federal inadequacies, and we can argue about whether the federal government has been doing their job or not. But something that caught my attention was that idea that we should rely, we should shape public policy based on the majority, or majority opinion, and in large measure an uninformed majority, because I'm willing to be that a lot of those people don't understand and are not well-informed on the intricacies of immigration reform. Now, some of the lowest points in our country's history have come based on these sorts of actions. Recall for example, there's many examples, but recall for one example Japanese detention camps after World War II.

 

Now, Cato's not responsible for every nitwit who attends their events. But this woman was more candid than any leftist I've seen (and I'll eat my hat if she wasn't a left-winger) that the people are simply unworthy to rule. That's certainly a plausible point of view; Franklin, after all, rightly observed that 'Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.' But if the left thinks that we have, indeed, ceased to be a virtuous people (or never were), and our corruption and vice necessitate undemocratic rule by, say, well-informed judges and bureaucrats (and confiscation of guns, which can really only be justified on these grounds), then I wish they'd be honest and just admit it, like this woman did.

 

I'm afraid those are the poles of the immigration debate — the post-American right and the post-democratic left. But I'm happy to be stuck in the middle with the American people.

 

Return to Top

 

 

 

********

********

 

7.

 

Immigration Myths

By Mark Krikorian

CIS Immigration Blog, July 22, 2010

http://www.cis.org/krikorian/meissner-ziglar-myths

 

 

There's too much wrong-headed commentary about immigration to bother with most of it, but the op-ed in today's Washington Post by the last two heads of the INS is worth comment, both because of the venue and the particular myths its authors purvey.

 

The first half is about the Arizona law specifically, most of it a rehash of the Obama Justice Department's lawsuit (the first hearing on which was today). The only thing that struck me was the apparent claim that states may not do anything on immigration without 'specific delegation' from the feds. I'm no lawyer, but this would seem to be the opposite of the claim that states have been affirmatively preempted from enforcing immigration laws — a false claim, to be sure, but a different one. In other words, states either have wide latitude in helping enforce federal immigration laws, except where they are specifically prohibited by Congress from doing so, or they have absolutely no right to get involved in any way in immigration enforcement, except where specifically permitted to do so.

 

But it's the second half of the piece that includes two dubious claims that underlie much of the debate over illegal immigration. First this:

 

The most important fact driving the Arizona action is a question: Why are an estimated 11 million people in this country illegally? . . . The simple answer is that our immigration laws provide inadequate legal avenues to enter the United States for employment purposes at levels that our economy demands.

 

Well, I don't doubt that's the simple answer at the Migration Policy Institute, the high-immigration think tank where both Meissner and Ziglar are fellows. But the correct answer to why 11 million people came here illegally is that they can get away with it. It's simply foolish to imagine that at any given time there's a fixed demand for foreign labor, which would come here legally if only we'd permit it, thus eliminating virtually all illegal immigration. If we were to double or triple legal immigration tomorrow, within a couple of years (if that) the demand would again outstrip supply and open-borders people would again bemoan our 'inadequate legal avenues' for the admission of peasant labor from abroad.

 

The second myth:

 

Tightening border controls, while essential, has exacerbated the problem. Today, our borders are more secure than ever — so those here illegally stay because re-entry is perilous.

 

The open-borders folks delight in making this point: Border controls increase illegal immigration! You obscurantist gun-clingers are making the problem worse! Here's how I described it in congressional testimony a few years back:

 

The story line goes like this: Illegal aliens — Mexican illegals, in particular — had been happily coming and going across the border since time immemorial, never even entertaining the idea of remaining permanently in the United States. 'Circular migration' is how such a process is described by scholars. Then, increased border enforcement — the additional agents and fencing authorized by Congress in 1996, as well as new tactics already being implemented by the Border Patrol — made it more difficult and expensive to cross the border, interrupting the 'circularity' of the flow by forcing illegals to stay here, so they wouldn't get caught up in the dragnet the next time they left and tried to return. In other words, the claim is that border enforcement causes illegal immigration.

 

But the data show no such thing. Noted Princeton sociologist Doug Massey is the originator of this line of argument, which he has spread quite widely (including for the libertarian Cato Institute, which is ironic since Massey is also author of Return of the 'L' Word: A Liberal Vision for the New Century). But Massey's findings simply don't support his conclusions. Here is his testimony from the same congressional hearing, and Figure 7 on p. 20 is the foundation of this idea that enforcement is causing increased permanent illegal settlement by interrupting back-and-forth migration:

 

The graph shows that the proportion of Mexicans who migrate seasonally has been dropping pretty steadily since Massey started collecting data in 1980 (when it was already less than half — i.e. even then, most illegals settled permanently). But 'steadily' is the key; the new enforcement measures that Massey and Meissner and Ziglar point to as the cause of this trend don't have anything to do with it. Instead, what we've been seeing for three decades is the same thing as in every other country during economic modernization — the movement of excess peasantry off the land and into the cities. But because of our lax immigration policies, they've been moving to our cities rather than their own. And only through genuine immigration enforcement — both at the border and the interior — and reductions in the future legal immigration that serves as the catalyst for illegal immigration can we interrupt that process.

 

Return to Top

 

 

 

********

********

 

8.

 

CIS Assists Arizona in Defending SB1070

By Jessica Vaughan

CIS Immigration Blog, July 22, 2010

. . .

David Palmatier, manager of the Law Enforcement Support Center, ICE's 24/7 help desk for local officers, declares that any new referrals or queries about illegal aliens encountered by Arizona law enforcement agencies will negatively affect his unit. Yet he also provides statistics showing that the LESC is currently operating at only two-thirds of total capacity, with Arizona contributing only about eight percent of the workload. I noted that when other, larger, states such as New Jersey and Georgia enacted similar programs a few years back, ICE did not complain but instead hired more agents to remove the increased number of criminals identified by the locals. After all, it is the local officers who are most likely to know where the illegal-alien criminals are, and ICE depends on their help to generate all kinds of investigations, including human trafficking and gangs.

. . .

http://www.cis.org/vaughan/sb1070-declaration

 

 

Return to Top

 

 

 

********

********

 

9.

 

Judicial Activism in Arizona

By James R. Edwards Jr.

CIS Immigration Blog, July 29, 2010

. . .

The four stricken provisions mirror federal laws, so it's ridiculous for the Justice Department and the Clinton-appointed judge to claim Arizona creates its own immigration policy. No, the embattled state crafted corresponding laws. And even if the barred measures did go further than federal law, so what? Ever heard of the Tenth Amendment?

 

Consider: Federal law requires aliens to have their 'alien-registration papers.' Making it a state offense not to have those federally mandated IDs doesn't plow new policy ground.

. . .

http://www.cis.org/edwards/arizona-ruling

 

 

Return to Top

 

 

 

********

********

 

10.

 

Could Utah's Elites Face Prison Time For Aiding and Abetting Illegal Aliens?

By Ronald Mortensen

The Salt Lake City Immigration Examiner, July 24, 2010

. . .

Utah’s in-state tuition program appears to violate federal law directly by encouraging and inducing young people known to be in the United State illegally to remain in the United States once they reach age 18 rather than encouraging them to return to their home countries before they are personally in violation of U.S. immigration law.

 

The Driving Privilege Card encourages illegal aliens to reside in Utah and to remain in the United States illegally by facilitating their ability to find employment and to carry out the activities of their daily lives.

 

Both of these state run programs would appear to bring Utah legislators who voted for these bills, the governors who signed them and those administering the programs into direct conflict with 8 USC 1324 especially since these programs are designed uniquely for illegal aliens and the people administering the programs verify that the persons are actually in the United States illegally before granting the benefits.

 

Thus, by knowingly and willfully encouraging and inducing an alien to come to and reside in Utah, the Utah state legislature and governor, university officials and staff, and state employees appear to be knowingly violating 8 USC 1324 and may be risking 5 years in prison.

. . .

http://www.examiner.com/x-32429-Salt-Lake-City-Immigration-Examiner~y2010m7d24-Utah-elites-aiding-and-abetting-illegal-aliens

 

 

Return to Top

 

 

 

********

********

 

11.

 

Cop Suing Arizona Stole Toys from Needy Children

By Jon Feere

CIS Immigration Blog, July 22, 2010

 

The media has been busy highlighting the supposed moral superiority of law enforcement officers opposed to Arizona’s SB 1070. The darling of the anti-Arizona effort is Phoenix police officer David Salgado who sued Arizona claiming that he wouldn’t be able to keep himself from racially profiling people if SB 1070 were to remain law.

 

The CBS affiliate in Phoenix has broken a story which highlights a part of Mr. Salgado's past that the mainstream media has decided to forget. While on the police force, Officer Salgado and his brother were reprimanded for stealing toys from a charity drive. The toys, which were intended to bring joy to needy families, instead ended up going to the Salgados' family members. As CBS explains:

. . .

http://www.cis.org/feere/Cop-Suing-Arizona-Stole-Toys-from-Needy-Children

 

 

Return to Top

 

 

 

********

********

 

12.

 

A Refreshing Story: the Tax-Dodging Yacht, the Illegals, and the Coast Guard

By David North

CIS Immigration Blog, July 29, 2010

. . .

The officers 'seemed to be unfamiliar with the flag' according to a quote by Ms. Rich in the Times, wanted to see the cruising license of her uncle who owned the boat, and wanted to inspect the immigration papers of everyone on board.

 

Soon they found that Mr. Quinn was an illegal alien from Ireland of several years standing, and that a catering worker from Guatemala was also illegal. In what I regard as a revealing sidelight, we were told a lot about Mr. Quinn, but no one could remember the name of the lady from Guatemala.

 

The two illegals were removed from the ship and both are due to be deported.

 

There's more to the story.

. . .

http://www.cis.org/north/tax-dodging-yacht

 

 

Return to Top

 

 

 

********

********

 

13.

 

C-SPAN Callers Note Concerns of African-Americans

By Jerry Kammer

CIS Immigration Blog, July 29, 2010

. . .

The effects of immigration on African-Americans were raised several times during this morning's Washington Journal program on C-Span. Here are some of the the comments. Note the repeated expressions of disappointment with politicians.

 

FROM A CALLER WHO IDENTIFIED HIMSELF AS A LIFE-LONG DEMOCRAT AND SUPPORTER OF PRESIDENT OBAMA: 'I feel that illegal immigration has devastated the African-American community. No one seems to be expressing that I feel that President Obama has let down the African-American community. We need to voice our opinion to our black leaders that we need to be supported, that we need jobs, that we are suffering out here. And part of the reason is illegal immigration. So we have been let down not only by this president but also by our leaders in the Democratic Party.'

. . .

http://www.cis.org/kammer/cspan-african-americans

 

 

Return to Top

 

 

 

********

********

 

14.

 

A Rare Voice in the Spanish-Language Press

By Jerry Kammer

CIS Immigration Blog, July 30, 2010

. . .

'If we talk about immigrants' rights, 65.9 percent of Mexicans surveyed think that foreigners have no right to criticize what happens in the country,' he writes. Such a figure makes one wonder how Mexicans would react if tens of thousands of Americans living illegally in Mexico took to the streets to demand legal status. After discussing other examples of Mexican hostility to foreigners, Sarmiento draws this conclusion: 'Perhaps one could blame these xenophobic attitudes on ignorance. What we can't do, however, is question the United States for its laws when we have laws that are considerably more restrictive, laws which have meant that the number of foreigners in our country is one of the lowest in the world.'

. . .

http://www.cis.org/kammer/rare-voice

 

 

Return to Top

 

 

 

********

********

 

15.

 

Obama Sues Arizona, Gives Sanctuary to Lawbreakers

By Rep. Lamar Smith

The Hill's Congress Blog, July 26, 2010

. . .

So-called 'sanctuary cities' prohibit their law-enforcement officers from cooperating with the Department of Homeland Security to report illegal immigrants. Many sanctuary cities do not even allow their officers to report illegal immigrants who have been arrested.

 

Unlike the recently enacted Arizona law, sanctuary policies are in direct violation of federal law. Section 642 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 provides that 'no ... government entity or official may prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending ... information regarding the citizenship or immigration status ... of any individual.'

. . .

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/homeland-security/110927-obama-sues-arizona-gives-sanctuary-to-lawbreakers

 

 

Return to Top

 

 

 

********

********

 

16.

 

What Section 287(g) of Immigration Act Really Says

By Rep. Lamar Smith

The Washington Post, July 27, 2010

. . .

Ms. Meissner and Mr. Ziglar asserted that Arizona's immigration enforcement law 'appears to go well beyond the intent of 287(g).' They also claimed that the federal government 'must expressly delegate ... authority' to states that wish to aid in the enforcement of our immigration laws.

 

In fact, paragraph 10 of section 287(g) specifically provides for the type of law that Arizona has enacted. It states: 'Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to require an agreement . . . in order for any officer of a State . . . to communicate with the [Secretary of Homeland Security] regarding the immigration status of any individual . . . or otherwise to cooperate with the [Secretary] in the identification, apprehension, detention, or removal of aliens not lawfully present in the United States.'

 

The writers may be unfamiliar with Section 287(g) because they only entered into two such agreements in their nine combined years at the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

. . .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/26/AR2010072605234.html

 

 

Return to Top

 

 

 

********

********

 

17.

 

The Hilarious Arizona Ruling

By Rich Lowry

National Review Online, July 30, 2010

. . .

Acting in keeping with federal law, court precedent and a Justice Department memorandum (not to mention common sense), Arizona said its law-enforcement officers would henceforth check the legal status of suspected illegals during the course of a lawful stop or arrest. To conclude that the law likely will be struck down for 'pre-empting' federal regulations, Bolton had to engage in complicated judicial gymnastics, which she nailed with the skill of a Mary Lou Retton in robes.

 

Taking her cues from the Obama administration's suit against the law, Bolton worried that too many legal aliens would be caught up in Arizona's dragnet. Of course, these aliens are already required by federal law to carry proof of their legal status. But let's put that aside (as Bolton does). She claims that too many legal aliens without ready access to documents proving their lawful entry into the US will be put at risk, including visitors from visa-waiver countries.

 

For the sake of argument, let's assume that visitors from countries like Norway and Australia are flooding into the border areas of Arizona. And let's assume they engage in recklessly illegal conduct, daring cops to stop and arrest them. And let's assume they exhibit all the behaviors associated with illegal immigrants. How could such a visitor escape the dreaded fate awaiting him when an officer asks about his legal status? Perhaps by producing a passport stamped with the duration of his stay, possessed by every visitor from a visa-waiver country?

. . .

http://article.nationalreview.com/438924/the-hilarious-arizona-ruling/rich-lowry

 

 

Return to Top

 

 

 

********

********

 

18.

 

An Abominable Decision

By Mark R. Levin

National Review Online, July 28, 2010

. . .

In the bulk of its legal analysis, the court applies a selective reading of the case to an incomplete reading of the statute. In particular, respecting the provision related to confirming a person’s legal status, the court largely ignores the requirement that law-enforcement officers are able to confirm a person’s legal status only where there is a reasonable suspicion that a person is in the country illegally. The judge essentially omits the reasonable-suspicion component of the law and concludes that the act implements a new set of immigration rules particular to Arizona, in violation of a case called Hines v. Davidowitz.

 

Hines is an old case dealing with a vastly different Pennsylvania law. Here’s what the Hines court correctly concluded: “The question whether a state law is invalid as conflicting with Federal laws touching the same subject is not to be determined according to any rigid formula or rule, but depends upon whether, under the circumstances of the particular case, the state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.”

. . .

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjU3MDA5ZmU1NzAzZTJhNTIyYWQxZjEzMzdiMGE2Y2Y=

 

Return to Top

 

 

 

********

********

 

19.

 

Detaining Arizona

National Review Online, July 29, 2010

. . .

The bottom line is that Arizona wants to enforce the law against illegal aliens. It wants them to be cognizant of the fact that the state is serious about the law, and therefore to conclude that it’s best to leave or not come in the first place. Arizona did not deem these people illegal aliens. The federal government did, in laws passed by Congress and signed by the president of the United States. Arizona thinks those laws mean something. If the Justice Department’s suit — and Judge Bolton’s line of argument — prevails, then we’ll know that they don’t. The real law of the land will be our current, de facto amnesty, imposed by executive whim.

. . .

http://article.nationalreview.com/438844/detaining-arizona/the-editors

 

Return to Top

 

 

 

********

********

 

20.

 

What Judge Bolton’s Injunction Doesn’t Say

By Heather Mac Donald

The Corner at National Review Online, July 28, 2010

 

In enjoining Arizona’s landmark immigration law, U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton maintains the Obama administration’s carefully cultivated fiction: that what concerns the White House regarding S.B. 1070 is its effect on legal, rather than illegal, aliens. Almost nowhere in the government’s briefs or the judge’s ruling is the arrest and detention of illegal aliens addressed. This fiction is transparent, however. The real threat posed by S.B. 1070 was that it would disrupt the de facto amnesty that the executive branch has accorded to the vast majority of illegal aliens. It would start to implement congressional mandates and the public will that the immigration laws be enforced. For that reason, it had to be stopped.

. . .

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODg2MWRmNWNlOTUwNDdiMWMwNGVlZDM0YjJkM2M3Mzg=

 

 

Return to Top

 

 

 

********

********

 

21.

 

Ignoring the Law

A judge’s ruling against Arizona’s SB 1070 doesn’t square with federal immigration law

By Heather MacDonald

National Review Online, July 30, 2010

. . .

Such commonsense reasoning and fidelity to the law is what we expect of a federal judge. Had Judge Bolton merely maintained such virtues throughout the rest of her opinion — weighing the alleged costs of the Arizona law against its alleged benefits, demanding evidence of those alleged costs, noticing that the most disputed sections of the state statute merely parallel federal law — she would have reached a different result. Instead, her opinion is notable for its superficial and conclusory reasoning, both in its application of the extremely demanding standard for granting a preliminary injunction, and in her substantive analysis of SB 1070’s alleged constitutional infirmities.

 

You’d hardly know from reading U.S. v. Arizona that there was a single illegal alien in the country. Judge Bolton’s ruling, like the Justice Department’s brief, is couched exclusively in terms of how SB 1070 will affect legal aliens. But her reasoning in finding that SB 1070 would impermissibly burden legal immigrants, and would thus allegedly conflict with federal immigration law and policy, would make it impossible to ever enforce immigration law. It is her reasoning, not SB 1070, that conflicts with clear congressional mandates.

. . .

http://article.nationalreview.com/438911/ignoring-the-law/heather-mac-donald

 

 

Return to Top

 

 

 

********

********

 

22.

 

The Arizona Lesson

What the state’s experiment with the rule of law has already taught us

By Heather Mac Donald

City Journal, July 27, 2010

. . .

The Los Angeles Times’s story on the alleged effects of SB 1070 on Phoenix stores leaves out another critical fact: if illegal aliens are actually leaving Arizona in anticipation of the law’s implementation, a major plank of the open-borders manifesto has been demolished. For years, open-borders advocates argued that immigration enforcement is helpless against illegal entry. Therefore, the illegal-alien lobby concluded, the country should stop wasting resources on futile enforcement efforts. Rather, it should legalize everyone now here illegally and let the determination of who enters the country and joins the polity rest with the billions of people who live outside our borders, not with American voters.

. . .

http://www.city-journal.org/2010/eon0727hm.html

 

 

Return to Top

 

 

 

********

********

 

23.

 

Preemption Is About Law, Not Politics: A Response to Heather

By Andy McCarthy

National Review Online, July 30, 2010

. . .

That’s right, and this is exactly the way it is supposed to work in our system. We are a body politic not a body legal. Federal law is (and is supposed to be) very limited in what it can prevent a sovereign state from doing. Beyond those narrow limitations, the state has discretion to govern itself as its citizens see fit. Similarly, the federal executive branch is vested with vast powers but finite resources, and it has discretion over how it will husband the latter. When a state’s lawful discretionary action conflicts with the president’s lawful discretionary decision not to enforce a congressional statute, that is not a legal issue. It is a political issue.

. . .

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/242145/preemption-about-law-not-politics-response-heather-andy-mccarthy

 

 

Return to Top

 

 

 

********

********

 

24.

 

Arizona Immigration Decision

By Andy McCarthy

The Corner at National Review Online, July 28, 2010

. . .

In essence, Judge Susan Bolton bought the Justice Department's preemption argument — i.e., the claim that the federal government has broad and exclusive authority to regulate immigration, and therefore that any state measure that is inconsistent with federal law is invalid. The Arizona law is completely consistent with federal law. The judge, however, twisted to concept of federal law into federal enforcement practices (or, as it happens, lack thereof). In effect, the court is saying that if the feds refuse to enforce the law the states can't do it either because doing so would transgress the federal policy of non-enforcement ... which is nuts.

. . .

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjMyZmVkMmUzYWIxYTAzY2QxOTA0ZDg5OWQyYzg1MzQ=

 

 

Return to Top

 

 

 

********

********

 

25.

 

Free Pass for Sanctuary Cities?

By Debra J. Saunders

The San Francisco Chronicle, July 27, 2010

. . .

Now one would think that if the Obama administration cannot brook 'a patchwork of state and local immigration policies throughout the country,' the U.S. Department of Justice would have sued San Francisco to end its sanctuary city program. But apparently Team Obama objects when a state wants to enforce the law - instead of flout it.

. . .

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/07/26/EDGC1EK1O1.DTL

 

 

Return to Top

 

 

 

********

********

 

26.

 

The Amnesty Memo

By Robert VerBruggen

The Corner at National Review Online, July 29, 2010

. . .

The memo claims that there are no limits to USCIS’s ability to use deferred action, but warns that using this power indiscriminately would be “controversial, not to mention expensive.” The memo suggests using deferred action to exempt “particular groups” from removal — such as the illegal-immigrant high-school graduates who would fall under the DREAM Act (a measure that has been shot down repeatedly in Congress). The memo claims that the DREAM Act would cover “an estimated 50,000” individuals, though as many as 65,000 illegal immigrants graduate high school every year in the U.S.

. . .

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTk3Y2EwODQxMTBlOTE4MmI3MzUwZjBkNjkzODBhMGY=

 

 

Return to Top

 

 

 

********

********

 

27.

 

Law-Enforcement-Free Sanctuaries

By Hans A. von Spakovsky

Townhall.com, July 27, 2010

. . .

The Justice Department’s suit directly contradicts the 2005 Supreme Court decision in Muehler v. Mena. In that case, all nine justices upheld the right of local police officers to question a detained individual’s immigration status while a search warrant was being executed. The suit also flies in the face of Estrada v. Rhode Island, in which the First Circuit Court of Appeals this February upheld a state trooper’s questioning of immigration status during a traffic stop. This is the exact policy being implemented in Arizona.

. . .

http://townhall.com/columnists/HansAvonSpakovsky/2010/07/27/law-enforcement-free_sanctuaries/page/full

 

Return to Top

 

 

 

********

********

 

28.

 

Networks Protest Arizona's Immigration Law With Cameras and Microphones

Study: By Almost 10 to 1, ABC, CBS, and NBC Stories Support Amnesty for Illegal Aliens in Arizona

By Tim Graham

Media Research Center, July 28, 2010

. . .

The networks highlighted the “army” of protesters against the Arizona law and ignored their sometimes radical connections. As with sympathetic media coverage of large amnesty rallies in 2006, none of the stories allowed anyone to suggest it was improper for illegal aliens to petition the government whose laws they're breaking or cancel out the votes of law-abiding citizens.

. . .

http://www.mediaresearch.org/realitycheck/realitycheck/2010/20100728105951.aspx

 

 

Return to Top

 

 

 

********

********

 

29.

 

The Democrats’ War On the American West

“Why do they hate us?” westerners ask about the Obama administration

By Michelle Malkin

National Review Online, July 23, 2010

. . .

The first battlefront: immigration. On Wednesday, Senate Democrats rejected a GOP amendment banning the use of federal funds to participate in any litigation against the new Arizona immigration-enforcement law.

 

“Our federal government should be doing its job to secure our borders rather than trying to bully and intimidate the people of Arizona,” argued amendment sponsor Sen. Jim DeMint (R., S.C.). “We should not be suing and really hassling the people of Arizona for doing what we should be doing here, and that’s protecting the citizenry.”

 

All but five Senate Democrats (Indiana’s Evan Bayh took a pass and didn’t vote) sided with the anti-Arizona Obama administration — and against not only a majority of Arizonans, but a majority of Americans who support the state’s effort to restore order on our chaotic southern border and protect American workers facing double-digit unemployment.

. . .

http://article.nationalreview.com/438564/the-democrats-war-bron-the-american-west/michelle-malkin

 

 

Return to Top

 

 

 

********

********

 

30.

 

Judicial Activism Against Arizona

Judge bucks precedent to keep immigration floodgates open

The Washington Times, July 28, 2010

. . .

Judge Bolton ruled, 'It is not in the public interest for Arizona to enforce preempted laws,' but this is a deceptive statement. If Arizona had passed a law that defined U.S. citizenship, as Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. has disingenuously suggested, federal supremacy would apply. However, the case at hand doesn't deal with pre-emptive law but with parallel enforcement. Arizona's law does not define who has broken immigration laws; it deals with what to do when police apprehend these criminals.

. . .

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/28/judicial-activism-against-arizona/

 

 

Return to Top

 

 

 

********

********

 

31.

 

Holder Should Sue Maryland to be Consistent

By Gregory Kane

The Washington Examiner, July 22, 2010

. . .

But if Holder were the Mr. Consistency that he claims to be when it comes to federal law, he would, as attorney general, have hauled the state of Maryland into court at least one year ago.

 

In April of 2009, the state Legislature passed what was supposed to be the Proof of Lawful Presence Act, which would have required Maryland to grant driver's licenses only to those immigrants who could show they are in our country legally. The law would have brought Maryland in compliance with the federal Real ID Act.

 

But what did Maryland legislators do?

 

Eviscerate the law by allowing 350,000 illegal immigrants to renew driver's licenses they weren't supposed to have in the first place. It was a flagrant violation of a federal law that's already on the books.

So now we have Holder, who's made not move one to have Maryland comply with a federal law that the state has clearly violated, filing a lawsuit against another state for passing a law that is, to use Holder's favorite new word, 'consistent' with the Real ID Act.

 

There's one reason that Holder has Arizona and not Maryland on his hit list. Maryland's violation of federal law was a display of legislators cravenly caving in to political correctness and currying favor with minorities. Arizona legislators did exactly the opposite.

. . .

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Holder-should-sue-Maryland-to-be-consistent-1002418-98951219.html

 

 

Return to Top

 

 

 

********

********

 

32.

 

Re: The Arizona Injunction

By Stewart Baker

National Review Online, July 29, 2010

. . .

That broad view of preemption also doomed the provision making it a state crime for an illegal immigrant to seek employment in Arizona. Although state regulation of employment is supposed to get a presumption against preemption, the court found this provision preempted because it goes beyond what Congress has done. You see, Congress didn’t make it a crime for illegal immigrants to seek employment. Instead it achieved a similar result in two steps, first requiring prospective employees to attest that they are in the country legally, then authorizing criminal prosecutions of those who attest to their legal status falsely. Since state law gets to criminal liability in one step, rather than two, the court ruled, state law deviates too far from federal policy.

. . .

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDRkOGNiMTI1ZWJmOGFiOTZmMDVkNzY0MDAxOGIwOWI=

 

 

Return to Top

 

 

 

********

********

 

33.

 

Stealth Amnesty Creeps Ahead

Investor's Business Daily, July 27, 2010

. . .

All of this suggests the lame-duck period could be prime time for unpopular measures such as amnesty. Democrats could reward their immigration lobby supporters but evade fallout from angry voters after the elections.

 

It's also worth noting that immigration lobbyists have gotten bolder this week. On Tuesday, groups in Washington told Democrats that they want a 'down payment' for their past support.

 

Their Dream Act would give green cards to immigrants brought here as children by their parents, and their AgJobs bill would do the same for hard-working but low-paid farm workers.

 

Instead of full-blown 'comprehensive immigration reform,' which activists know is a loser, their new strategy is to slice off just a bit of the immigration salami over the summer, with hopes of getting more later.

. . .

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/541787/201007271906/Stealth-Amnesty-Creeps-Ahead.aspx

 

 

Return to Top

 

 

 

********

********

 

34.

 

Will AZ’s Immigration Law Survive the Courts?

By John Vecchione

FrumForum, July 28, 2010

. . .

I think Judge Bolton is wrong. The federal law does not say not to enforce its provisions. It is purely an executive decision not to devote the resources to enforcing the laws. Can the executive alone make a preemption decision? The Court looked askance at the Bush administration’s FDA attempting this feat in Wyeth v. Levine just last year. The law is not so clearly preempted that a preliminary injunction is warranted. She does not cite this recent Supreme Court preemption decision.

 

Here Arizona’s laws merely parallel the federal requirements. She is most likely to be wrong on enjoining the law that makes it a crime for an illegal alien to solicit work in Arizona. The states have enormous power to regulate labor conditions. Ever since the Lochner era ended states can make wage and hour requirements higher than those of the federal government and set terms for employment. She upheld making it a crime for employers to solicit and hire illegal aliens and prohibiting picking up day laborers in places that obstruct traffic. It makes little sense that the state can make it a crime for an American citizen to enter into a labor transaction but cannot make it a crime for an illegal alien to do so.

. . .

http://www.frumforum.com/will-azs-immigration-law-survive-the-courts

 

 

Return to Top

 

 

 

********

********

 

35.

 

Looming Threat From Illegals: Terror

By Briigitte Gabriel

The New York Post, July 30, 2010

 

Arizonans will be grateful for some extra help from the National Guard, starting Sunday, in protecting the border and fighting drug violence -- especially now that a federal judge has blocked key parts of their recent illegal-immigration law. But there's a more pressing border issue that goes beyond Arizona: the alliance between drug cartels and groups that aim to smuggle terrorists into our country through the Mexican border.

 

Last week's detonation along the Texas-Mexico border of an Improvised Explosive Device similar to those used in Iraq and Afghanistan strongly suggests that Hezbollah is working with the drug cartels -- and that America is unsafe. Law-enforcement officials and intelligence analysts believe that terrorist groups like al Qaeda have been working with such gangs as the ruthless MS-13 to smuggle terrorists into America.

. . .

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/looming_threat_from_illegals_terror_fxLo773X6OkZJXUCLXVIXJ

 

 

Return to Top

 

 

 

********

********

 

36.

 

Keeping American Citizenship Valuable

We give it away at our peril, as Rome learned

By Silvio Laccetti

The Philadelphia Inquirer, July 30, 2010

. . .

First, we must close the borders, enforce immigration laws, and set strict limits reflecting national needs for new immigrants. To show the absurdity of claims that such measures are motivated by racism, consider that perhaps a third of the world's population would like to immigrate to our shores for economic reasons; Mexicans simply have the advantage of being able to walk across the border.

 

Is letting them do so not discriminatory toward Guatemalans, Hondurans, Peruvians, and Paraguayans living much farther away? And people from Benin, Belarus, Bosnia, Borneo, and Bulgaria don't show up much at all, do they?

 

Second, we should enable the 10 million lacking legal status to become full citizens, but on the condition that they earn citizenship. If qualified and of appropriate age, let them serve in the military for basic training plus one year. Only then would a child born in America to immigrants sans status become a citizen through parentage. Longer enlistments could offer high-tech training and English-language fluency, enabling more contributions to the republic.

 

For those unsuited to military service, there could be community service for 18 months. They could do a lot of good in social services where the help is most needed.

. . .

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20100730_Keeping_American_citizenship_valuable.html

 

 

Return to Top

 

 

 

********

********

 

37.

 

DoJ Lawsuit Against Arizona is Politics

By Ric Oberlink

Human Events Online, July 29, 2010

. . .

Under current law, foreigners in this country must carry identification with them, and law enforcement officers are able to ask the status of anyone whom they have a reasonable suspicion of being in this country illegally. If the Arizona law ever takes effect, foreigners in this country must carry identification with them, and law enforcement officers will be able to ask the status of anyone whom they have a reasonable suspicion of being in this country illegally. Do you see the difference?

 

The difference is that the decades-old standards of federal law would now be part of state law. Aliens have been required to carry identification for over half a century. In fact, the Arizona law imposes no new requirement. It simply authorizes state officers to determine “whether the person is in compliance with the federal registration laws.”

. . .

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=38290

 

 

Return to Top

 

 

 

********

********

 

38.

 

Arizona vs. Obama, Round 1

By Joseph Klein

FrontPageMag.com, July 29, 2010

. . .

In siding with the Obama administration, Judge Bolton also took a leap of faith. She accepted the administration’s argument that it was the federal government’s role to enforce immigration laws without considering that the current enforcement regime has been largely ineffective. Judge Bolton also misread the provision about the determination and verification of immigration status for someone stopped for an unrelated legal infraction whom the police had reason to suspect was an illegal immigrant. Without waiting to see how the law would have been actually enforced, she agreed with the Judge Department that “this section is preempted because it will result in the harassment of lawfully present aliens and will burden federal resources and impede federal enforcement and policy priorities.”

. . .

http://frontpagemag.com/2010/07/29/arizona-vs-obama-round-1/

 

 

Return to Top

 

 

 

********

********

 

39.

 

Feds v. Arizona - Lawfare War

FamilySecurityMatters.org, July 29, 2010

. . .

If an American administration cannot secure its own borders, if it cannot enforce federal law uniformly throughout the nation, if it can invoke fears of racial profiling to distract from its failings, then it sends a message both to the world at large and to the people at home. The message is that America is weak and indifferent.

 

With so many legitimate American citizens already unemployed, and with that number likely to increase, its actions of allowing continued uncontrolled immigration sends a clear message: that the jobs of genuine American citizens – no matter their racial origins - are not valued. Illegal aliens appear to be treated favorably. Hilda Solis, United States Secretary of Labor, has said in a US Department of Labor video that she will support the rights documented or undocumented (illegal alien) workers.

. . .

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.6893/pub_detail.asp

 

 

Return to Top

 

 

 

********

********

 

40.

 

SAVE Act and CLEAR Act Can Overturn Judge Bolton's Decision on Arizona Immigration Enforcement Law

By Chris Chmielenski

NumbersUSA.com, July 28, 2010

. . .

Today’s ruling from Judge Bolton becomes moot if Congress passes the SAVE Act and the CLEAR Act. It’s unlikely for either bill to make its way to the House floor before the end of the 111th Congress in December. But both are expected to be reintroduced next year and could move forward with enough constituent pressure.

 

Check your Members’ Immigration-Reduction Report Cards and see if they’ve cosponsored the SAVE Act and CLEAR Act. If they haven’t, call their office and urge them to do so. You can also look on our grid of “5 Great Immigration Reduction Bills” and see if they’ve cosponsored SAVE, CLEAR, and three other key bills.

 

And finally, there are rumblings in the Senate that Majority Leader Harry Reid may try to bring the DREAM Act to the floor for a vote before they adjourn on August 9. We’ve posted new faxes on your Action Board to send to your Senators. With the fallout from Arizona, your elected officials will be much more sensitive to what their constituents are telling them.

. . .

http://www.numbersusa.com/content/nusablog/cchmielenski/july-28-2010/save-act-and-clear-act-can-overturn-judge-boltons-decision-arizon

 

 

Return to Top

 

 

 

********

********

 

41.

 

Clinton Judge Rules Against Arizona Immigration Law

By Jim Kouri

MichNews.com, July 28, 2010

. . .

'I have had a chance to read [Bolton's] ruling and find it devoid of any common sense. It's double-talk designed to appear as legal jargon. It's a shoddy verdict by a political hack,' says former law enforcement officer-turned-attorney Lawrence Pressman.

 

'It's so evident that this judge wanted to stop this law from taking effect and searched for a rationale for stopping its implementation. I'm personally planning to investigate her credentials, her qualifications and her record,' said Pressman.

. . .

http://www.michnews.com/Jim_Kouri/jk072810.shtml

 

 

Return to Top

 

 

 

********

********

 

42.

 

Attention Democrats: We WILL Remember on November 2, 2010!

By John Lillpop

Canada Free Press, July 30, 2010

. . .

Truly, Democrats are the “Illegal alien” party.

 

Their allegiance is to those who can increase their numbers and improve their prospects for retaining power, rather than to the American people.

 

A word of caution to those who have openly sold out to invading criminals for future votes:

We will remember on November 2!

. . .

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/25990

 

 

Return to Top

 

 

 

********

********

 

43.

 

Arizona Police and Tribal Police

By James M. Thunder

The American Spectator, July 30, 2010

. . .

Comes now President Obama, the Chief Executive Officer of the United States, sworn to faithfully execute the federal laws, who instructs Attorney General Holder to march into federal court to seek an injunction against this new Arizona law and to prohibit the enforcement of federal laws (bad enough by itself) and compounds this violation of his oath by restraining police officers from performing their sworn obligations. At the President's request, the federal court has carved out -- from the universe of the laws the police are sworn to uphold -- particular federal immigration laws. This is a reversal of the Civil Rights Era in which the federal government mandated that the states comply with federal law -- and sent federal marshals and troops to ensure that they did so.

 

The day after the judge's ruling, President Obama signed the Trial Law and Order Act. According to reports, this law 'will allow selected tribal police officers to enforce federal laws on Indian lands…' I am not sufficiently versed in Indian Law to know why tribal police officers, unlike state officers, need to be specifically deputized to enforce federal law. And, perhaps a reader can inform us whether this new law defines the federal laws now enforceable by tribal police to include immigration laws. Certainly a positive answer to this question would highlight the contrast that exists now between the authorities of tribal and Arizona police. For, whatever the answer, tribal police have been granted the authority which has been denied Arizona police.

. . .

http://spectator.org/archives/2010/07/30/arizona-police-and-tribal-poli

 

 

Return to Top

 

 

 

********

********

 

44.

 

Mixed Immigration Message in Arizona

By W. James Antle, III

The American Spectator, July 27, 2010

. . .

Here's a question people are going to be asking if the current polling holds up: Illegal immigration appears to have saved Jan Brewer in Arizona. Why hasn't it sunk John McCain? According to Rasmussen, McCain is up 20 points over J.D. Hayworth with less than a month to go before the primary. Hayworth has campaigned heavily against McCain's longstanding support for amnesty and predicted the senator will return to semi-open-borders form if reelected.

. . .

http://spectator.org/blog/2010/07/27/mixed-immigration-message-in-a

 

 

Return to Top

 

 

 

********

********

 

45.

 

Immigrants and Crime: Time for a Sensible Debate

By Francis Fukuyama

The Wall Street Journal, July 26, 2010

. . .

There is a widespread perception of a strong link between immigrants and crime. It is common to hear those who oppose immigration argue that the first act illegal immigrants commit on U.S. soil is to break the law—that is, our immigration laws—and that they are ipso facto criminals who will continue to disregard U.S. laws once in the country. Those making this argument are generally steadfastly opposed to any immigration reform that will provide the 10 million to 12 million illegals already in the country any path to citizenship, on the grounds that such an 'amnesty' would reward law-breaking.

. . .

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703467304575383281790793258.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

 

 

Return to Top

 

 

 

********

********

 

46.

 

Judge Bolton: Judicial Activist

By Ben Shapiro

Human Events, July 28, 2010

. . .

On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton became Example No. 1A in the pantheon of judicial activism.

 

Not only did she decide to purposefully misread Arizona’s immigration law, she also willfully blinded herself to basic fact. Her ruling today was utterly unhinged and untethered from reality.

. . .

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=38297

 

 

Return to Top

 

 

 

********

********

 

47.

 

AZ Judge Doesn't Ignore Reality

By Chad Groening

OneNewsNow, July 26, 2010

. . .

'She is aware of what is going on in Arizona,' he continues. 'She lives with it every single day, just as everybody else in Arizona is living with it. And that is precisely why the vast majority of people in Arizona support this law because they do recognize that it's having an impact on their lives, on their security, on their tax dollars, [and] on everything that's important to them.' Mehlman concludes that it is 'impossible to ignore the realities that exist.'

. . .

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=1098954

 

 

Return to Top

 

 

 

********

********

 

48.

 

A Misguided Decision

By Ken Connor

RenewAmerica.com, July 24, 2010

. . .

By suing the state of Arizona for 'unconstitutionally' passing immigration legislation, the federal government is tacitly acknowledging its dereliction of duty — they have admitted that there is a dangerous and dire problem along America's southern border that they aren't addressing. But instead of fulfilling their constitutional obligation to protect the victims of illegal immigration, they are victimizing them twice over by prosecuting them for daring to try to protect themselves.

 

Not only is this a gross example of federal bureaucratic arrogance run amok, it is a severe assault on the Constitution and our republic. Despite what the President and his Attorney General might choose to believe, the issue of illegal immigration is not merely political — it is a grave matter of national security. The recent passage of immigration legislation in Arizona wasn't a 'misguided' act motivated by racism, it was a desperate act of self-defense.

. . .

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/connor/100724

 

 

Return to Top

 

 

 

********

********

 

49.

 

The Mailed Fist of the Federal Government Slams Arizona

By J.D. Longstreet

MichNews.com, July 29, 2010

. . .

What we saw occur in Arizona this week, with a federal district judge gutting a law passed by the Arizona state legislature and signed into law by the governor of that state is nothing less than spitting in the face of “states rights!”

We Americans have already fought one civil war over this very thing -- and the federal government is dragging us ever closer to another American holocaust.

. . .

http://www.michnews.com/Guest_Commentary/jdl072910.shtml

 

 

Return to Top

 

 

 

********

********

 

50.

 

Clinton Appointee Disregards Law and Constitution in Support of Meritless Government Arguments

By Alaphiah

CreatingOrwellianWorld-View-Alaphiah.blogspot.com, July 29, 2010

. . .

Clinton appointee Judge Susan Bolton is symptomatic of everything that is wrong with America. She has made herself complicit in the Federal government’s violation of the Constitution of the United States of America. We are no longer a nation of laws; we are now, a nation of progressive judicial rulings.(see article)

 

Judge Bolden did not rule on the facts of Arizona’s immigration case nor did she rule on the law. Instead Judge Bolton ruled on the nonsensical “what if” arguments that the Barry Hussein Soetoro administration have been floating in the Progressive Leftwing Media. (Complaint)(Response)(Decision)

 

The Soetoro administration mischaracterized this case as a civil rights issue instead of the National security or National sovereignty issue that it is. And judge Bolton foolishly bought these unreasonable arguments instead of applying the law. This is exactly the danger of an Elena Kagan and a Sonia Sotomayor on the U.S. Supreme Court because this is exactly what they will do.

. . .

http://creatingorwellianworld-view-alaphiah.blogspot.com/2010/07/clinton-appointee-disregards-law-and.html

 

 

Return to Top

 

 

 

********

********

 

51.

 

Frightened Weak Kneed U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton Makes Up The Law

By Gil Guignat

The Phoenix conservative Examiner, July 29, 2010

. . .

Basically, Bolton got intimidated and ignored all case law and she is now interviewing for a new job higher up in the food chain. Her non ruling signaled Obama that she wants a better position. Nothing more. The fact is that the 'temporary' aspect of this injunction is a trial balloon for the judge. She needs to see how bad this is going to get so she can have it both ways. It is after all temporary and she hasn't totally made up her mind. She has to see where the best opportunities are coming from.

. . .

http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-45621-Phoenix-Conservative-Examiner~y2010m7d29-A-frightened-weak-kneed-US-District-Judge-Susan-Bolton--makes-up-the-law

 

 

Return to Top

 

 

 

********

********

 

52.

 

Sanctuary Cities Are Against Federal Law - Where Are The Lawsuits?

By Digger

DiggersRealm.com, July 27, 2010

. . .

If you live in Kansas, your federal dollars are going to educate illegal alien children in California and emergency health care in Texas for instance. What good is that doing for you? Your taxes should be benefiting you in some way and they most certainly are not when they are used in that fashion.

 

While the Department of Justice ignores these cities that are flagrantly violating federal law, they have mounted their attack on Arizona, whose law does not supersede federal law in any way. Obama called Arizona's law creating a 'patchwork', but the reality is that our current enforcement in this country is a 'patchwork' of enforcement. Sometimes the law is enforced and sometimes it is not. It really is quite a disgrace.

. . .

http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/003443.html

 

 

Return to Top

 

 

 

********

********

 

53.

 

PFIR’s Leah Durant (!) Latest Victim Of “White Nationalist” Smear

By Donald A. Collins

VDare.com, July 24, 2010

. . .

But of course the real motif of the attacks on Arizona’s law from the Administration and others in Congress and the MainStream Media was its alleged “racism”.

And the level of these “racism” charges has not reduced down one whit. Apparently, anyone who believes that we should have less immigration, legal (one million work visas were given out to foreign workers this past 12 months, during our current deep recession) and illegal (how does this condition favor the alleged job creation priority of the Administration?), is going to end up the victim of racism charges—either publically or silently, by suppression!

I have just learned of one example of this silent suppression from Leah Durant, Executive Director of Progressives for Immigration Reform (PFIR).

. . .

http://www.vdare.com/collins/100724_white_nationalist.htm

 

 

Return to Top

 

 

 

********

********

 

54.

 

SB1070 Has Resulted in Mass Self-Deportation of Illegal Aliens, Makes Critics Look Foolish

By Dave Gibson

The Immigration Reform Examiner, July 26, 2010

. . .

The Department of Homeland Security estimates that since 2007, 100,000 illegal aliens have left Arizona, the same year the state legislature passed very tough laws against employers hiring those not eligible to work in the U.S.

 

The mass exodus of illegal aliens from Arizona demontrates the what many have been saying for years…Enforce the law, and most illegal aliens will deport themselves.

 

This also eliminates what the open-borders crowd constantly tells us…”We can’t round up and deport 12 million people.”

 

Of course, we could if we actually wanted to. However, there is no need, they would leave on their own, just as they are doing in Arizona.

. . .

http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-35821-Immigration-Reform-Examiner~y2010m7d26-SB1070-has-resulted-in-mass-selfdeportation-of-illegal-aliens-makes-critics-look-foolish

 

 

Return to Top

 

 

 

********

********

 

55.

 

Republican Gubernatorial Candidates Embracing Arizona...But Can They Be Trusted?

By Washington Watcher

VDare.com, July 26, 2010

. . .

Numbers USA’s congressional report cards make it very easy to find out if a Congressman running for office has put his vote where his mouth is. Unfortunately, it is much more difficult to find the records of state level politicians—if they have a record at all. There is no good comprehensive list of passed and proposed state level immigration legislation available online, and it is difficult to find vote tallies for many states. Some states do not even put their roll calls online. NumbersUSA has candidate surveys for state level races, but very few gubernatorial candidates have filled out.

 

Check to see if candidates in your state have responded, and if not, contact them and send the survey. If you are in a candidate forum, don’t just ask them about the Arizona bill. Ask them specifically if they would E-Verify across the state, if they will defund sanctuary cities, and if they would cut off all non-federally mandated government services to illegal aliens.

. . .

http://www.vdare.com/washington_watcher/100726_embracing_arizona.htm

 

 

Return to Top

 

 

 

********

********

 

56.

 

The Next Roe vs. Wade? Obama’s Pyrrhic Victory in Arizona

By Washington Watcher

VDare.com, July 28, 2010

. . .

Assuming Brewer fights on, what can we expect from the Supreme Court?

 

Here I am cautiously optimistic. It is no secret that Chief Justice Roberts is not friendly to the Obama agenda. He became visibly upset when Obama criticized him during the State of the Union Address. Swing voter Anthony Kennedy also does not appear to be a fan of Obama and stated that he will not retire until after the 2012 elections.

 

That being said, Kennedy is somewhat of a libertarian and conservative Republicans are often on the wrong side of the immigration debate.

 

Once again, as with the great amnesty battles of 2006 and 2007, everything hangs on the reaction of grassroots Americans. They should not get discouraged. They should get angry and active. The American people overwhelmingly oppose the Obama Administration’s lawsuit. A July 13-16 poll from Quinnipiac University found Americans opposed the lawsuit over 2-1 at 60%-28%.

. . .

http://www.vdare.com/washington_watcher/100728_arizona.htm

 

 

Return to Top

 

 

 

********

********

 

57.

 

Sued for Self-Preservation: Arizona's Immigration Solution

By Ken Connor

Crosswalk.com, July 27, 2010

. . .

By suing the state of Arizona for 'unconstitutionally' passing immigration legislation, the federal government is tacitly acknowledging its dereliction of duty - they have admitted that there is a dangerous and dire problem along America's southern border that they aren't addressing. But instead of fulfilling their constitutional obligation to protect the victims of illegal immigration, they are victimizing them twice over by prosecuting them for daring to try to protect themselves.

 

Not only is this a gross example of federal bureaucratic arrogance run amok, it is a severe assault on the Constitution and our republic. Despite what the President and his Attorney General might choose to believe, the issue of illegal immigration is not merely political - it is a grave matter of national security. The recent passage of immigration legislation in Arizona wasn't a 'misguided' act motivated by racism, it was a desperate act of self-defense.

. . .

http://www.crosswalk.com/news/11635347/

 

 

Return to Top

 

 

 

********

********

 

58.

 

U.S. Pastor Council Strives to Lead the Flock Astray

By Allan Wall

NewsWithViews.com, July 24, 2010

. . .

Step Two is entitled “Reform the Immigration System.” Well, that could mean anything. What does it mean here?

 

What the Pastor Council is calling for is a massive increase in legal immigration. That’s exactly what our country does not need. For one thing, we have 15 million Americans out of work! So what we really need is an immigration moratorium, not an increase!

 

But no, the Pastor Council thinks we have “unrealistically low quotas”! This despite the fact that the U.S. takes in more legal immigrants than any other country in the world. But it’s never enough, is it?

. . .

http://newswithviews.com/Wall/allan130.htm

 

 

Return to Top

 

 

 

********

********

 

59.

 

Racism, Schmacism: John McCain–Meet J.T. Ready!

By Peter Brimelow

VDare.com, July 27, 2010

. . .

But these imaginary dybbuks and golems are not the ugly underside of immigration. The ugly underside is the Treason Lobby: the ethnic rent-seekers, the sociopathic cheap labor whores, the paranoid Holocaust hysterics, all seeking consciously or unconsciously to destroy the historic American nation.

 

Ironically, Sterling herself concludes by discrediting her premise—confirming our James Ryan’s prescient skepticism about Ready’s alleged ferocious fascism. She writes:

. . .

http://vdare.com/pb/1007127_jtready.htm

 

 

Return to Top

 

 

 

********

********

 

60.

 

If You Ain’t Sad, You Ain’t Paying Attention!

Last Terry Anderson Show Tonight, 9-11 PDT

By Rob Sanchez

VDare.com, July 25, 2010

. . .

Terry Anderson was an iconoclastic personality who had one topic to talk about on his radio show: illegal immigration. He was far from one dimensional however — he even did movie reviews. I have been on his show several times to talk about H-1B and I was always impressed by his in-depth knowledge of the issue. He was one of the only people who understood how the H-1B program was being used to destroy the hopes and aspirations of black Americans who wanted to move up the ladder by getting educations that would enable them to get high-tech jobs.

 

Terry didn’t beat around the bush about his race. Most of the time he referred to himself as an American who happened to be black. He didn’t approve of people calling themselves “African American” because American came second. His nationalism and tough-on-illegal-immigration views often ran him afoul of black leaders. Terry was deeply disturbed by the rift between him and the clueless black leaders that thumbed their nose at their own people who were suffering as a result of the immigration invasion.

. . .

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2010/07/25/if-you-aint-sad-you-aint-paying-attention/

 

 

Return to Top

 

 

 

********

********

 

61.

 

Dear Mexico ...

American dream is attainable for those who share our values

By Ted Nugent

The Washington Times, July 22, 2010

. . .

Though we believe you should be proud of your heritage, conservatives also believe if you want to immigrate to America, you should embrace our values, traditions and history just as our great-grandparents did when they arrived at Ellis Island 100 or more years ago. We believe everyone who wants to harvest all the bounties of America should also be willing to fully embrace American heritage and customs and assimilate into America.

. . .

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/22/dear-mexico/

 

 

Return to Top

 

 

 

********

********

 

62.

 

Real America Did Not Sue Arizona

By Christopher G. Adamo

GOPUSA.com, July 29, 2010

. . .

For starters, the very name attributed to this action, 'The United States Versus Arizona' howls with untruth. The foundations of this nation, based in the principles of a constitutionally cohesive federation of sovereign states, would suggest that if the United States Department of Justice were ever to engage in legal activity under such a heading, it might require a shred of support from 'We the People' across the nation. But aside from the elitists of the liberal political and media establishment, no such support exists.

 

Instead, Americans overwhelmingly support the actions of Arizona, and desire to see the law implemented and carried forward to success for their own sakes as well. Arizona's fate depends on it, as does that of all America. The very argument that Arizona is 'usurping federal law,' on which the Holder case was fabricated, lends credence to the fact that, at one time, national concern over the illegal invasion was sufficient to establish and implement federal statutes to accomplish the very thing Arizona is now attempting to do.

. . .

http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/2010/07/once-again-the-despicable-conduct.php

 

 

Return to Top

 

 

 

********

********

 

63.

 

Senator Graham Likes The Idea of Striking Birthright Citizenship For Illegal Immigrants

By Kimberly Dvorak

The San Diego County Political Buzz Examiner, July 30, 2010

. . .

Looking past Arizona’s SB1070 ruling this week, some lawmakers are toying with the idea of ending the “birthright citizenship, birth tourism or anchor baby” policies America currently has in place.

 

After the Arizona ruling came down Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) told Fox News that 'birthright citizenship' needs to be changed.

. . .

http://www.examiner.com/x-10317-San-Diego-County-Political-Buzz-Examiner~y2010m7d30-Senator-Graham-likes-the-idea-of-striking-birthright-citizenship-for-illegal-immigrants

 

 

Return to Top

 

 

 

********

********

 

64.

 

Judge Grants Preliminary Injunction Against Arizona Immigration Statute

By Dan Miller

Pajamas Media, July 29, 2010

. . .

Rather than issue a preliminary injunction to prevent the Arizona immigration law from going into effect as scheduled, Judge Bolton should have dismissed the federal government’s action and based a later decision on the effects of the law as applied. Should the Arizona law be wrongly applied, in a constitutionally inappropriate manner, as Attorney General Holder and President Obama earlier opined it would be without bothering to read it, she could and should take action.

. . .

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/judge-grants-preliminary-injunction-against-arizona-immigration-statute/?singlepage=true

 

 

Return to Top

 

 

 

********

********

 

65.

 

This Fight is NOT Over Until We Win: Bolton’s Ruling on SB 1070 is Just a Setback, Not a Defeat

By Kevin “Coach” Collins

CoachIsRight.com, July 29, 2010

. . .

As frustrating as this idiot Democrat judge’s ruling is we, the American patriots of today, must turn to our rule of law to restore us to our natural state of freedom. We have to shake off the damage from Judge Susan Bolton’s ruling because we have much work to do and no time for resting if we are to save our country. We are the heirs to the greatness of America and the only hope for restoring Constitutional government. Our belief in the greatness of America can and will break the chains of Marxism Obama and his Democrats have wrapped around us.

 

The potent legal weapon we have is the Tenth Amendment, and a showdown on its power is coming and now unavoidable. We have no intention of standing by and letting this ruling go unchallenged. We can’t let this insult from an activist judge who sides with LaRaza over American citizens and the government of Arizona go unchallenged, and we won’t.

. . .

http://www.coachisright.com/this-fight-is-not-over-until-we-win-bolton%e2%80%99s-ruling-on-sb-1070-is-just-a-setback-a-not-defeat/

 

 

Return to Top

 

 

 

********

********

 

66.

 

Mexico to Soon Get a Taste of its “Montezuma’s Revenge” as Illegal Aliens Flood Back Across the Border

By Kevin “Coach” Collins

CoachIsRight.com, July 28, 2010

. . .

The corrupt Mexican government is already feeling the results of Arizona’s SB 1070 law which will give local police the power to investigate the immigration status of people they lawfully come in contact with during the course of their duties.

 

The Mexican consulate in Phoenix has assigned extra staff workers to assist its people in returning to their homeland. Mexicans who have been arrested and deported are watching from the southern side of the border holding fast to their delusion that they will soon be able to sneak back in when this “blows over” after Obama kills the law. But the daily deportation flights out of Tucson are filled with people who know better.

. . .

http://www.coachisright.com/mexico-to-soon-get-a-taste-of-its-%e2%80%9cmontezuma%e2%80%99s-revenge%e2%80%9d-as-illegal-aliens-flood-back-across-the-border/

 

 

Return to Top

 

 

 

********

********

 

67.

 

Educating Maria

On L.A.'s Skid Row, a generational war over how to teach the American children of illegal immigrants

By Patrick Range McDonald

The LA Weekly, July 22, 2010

. . .

In the 1990s, the system nearly silenced her. She was bothered that the children of illegal Latino immigrants — many of them Americans born on L.A.'s poor Eastside — were getting an education based on games, picture books and Spanish. Callaghan spoke out. The United Teachers Los Angeles led by Day Higuchi, the Los Angeles Unified School Board successively led by Mark Slavkin, Jeff Horton and Julie Korenstein, the Latino Caucus of the California State Legislature led by Richard Polanco and the majority of elected Democratic leaders in statewide politics in California were of one voice in dismissing views such as hers.

 

In those days, liberal Democrats argued that the mostly Mexican illegal-immigrant population was a vulnerable group whose children needed to be kept within the culture by preserving language ties. Whenever fiscally possible, and using bilingual teachers who were paid a $5,000 bonus, immigrant and American children of Latino immigrants were taught to read and write Spanish first.

. . .

http://www.laweekly.com/2010-07-22/news/educating-maria/1

 

 

Return to Top

 

 

 

********

********

 

68.

 

Make a Run for the Altar

With immigration reform stalled, some young, assimilated illegal immigrants are entering sham marriages with a little help from their friends

By Gustavo Arellano

The LA Weekly, July 8, 2010

. . .

On July 1, President Obama gave a speech on immigration reform that veered between hailing the humanity of illegal immigrants and demanding that they pay for breaking the law. 'We have to demand responsibility from people living here illegally,' he told an audience at American University in St. Louis. 'They must be required to admit that they broke the law. They should be required to register, pay their taxes, pay a fine and learn English.'

 

With no chance of legalizing their status any time soon and any substantial immigration reform having been stalled in Congress for more than a decade, some young illegal immigrants in recent years have decided to enter into fake marriages in the hope of expediting the process. They're doing it with the help of friends and relatives who have gone through the process before.

 

'You reach this point where you figure, 'Why not?'' Jose says outside the din of the Quiet Cannon hall. He and Josefa had gone outside to catch some air. '[Young illegal immigrants] all reach that breaking point. We have a sense that we shouldn't succumb to something false. We want to be honest. But nothing's getting better.'

. . .

http://www.laweekly.com/2010-07-08/news/make-a-run-for-the-altar/1

 

 

Return to Top

 

 

 

********

********

 

69.

 

A True Story: Squalor, Superstitions and Fatalistic Sloth

By Frosty Wooldridge

NewsWithViews.com, July 26, 2010

. . .

From this journalist’s viewpoint having seen it in my travels in Asia and elsewhere in the Third World, it’s sickening to watch as it advances into our country at our government’s behest and our citizens’ disinterest. Why? We’re a nation of immigrants and most of us, like the French, think these massive hordes will finally come to their senses and “become Americans.” One look at our cities illustrates that they “ain’t becoming Americans.” Push ‘1’ for Spanish and ‘2’ for English and ‘3’ for Arabic.

 

France suffers unemployed Muslim youths with no citizenship in their home country, and no loyalty to their new digs, but America suffers 20 million illegal aliens from God knows where. It’s not ‘if’ our street riots will begin, but when.

 

With massive population onslaught from overloaded locations in Africa and Asia-- France, as well as Europe, represents moribund countries as the gates of their borders suffer an endless invasion of out-of-control fecund societies.

. . .

http://www.newswithviews.com/Wooldridge/frosty582.htm

 

 

Return to Top

 

 

 

********

********

 

70

 

Arizona's Immigration Surprises

By Alex Nowrasteh

The Wall Street Journal, July 28, 2010

. . .

Arizona's new anti-immigration law, which goes into effect on July 29, has been a rallying point for many conservatives. It reinvigorated the lackluster administration of Arizona's Republican governor, Jan Brewer, and has earned enthusiastic support from tea party activists in Arizona and elsewhere. But many aspects of the law should give conservatives cause for alarm.

. . .

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704684604575381561053396180.html

 

 

Return to Top

 

 

 

********

********

 

71.

 

A Narrow Rebuke of Arizona's Immigration Law

The Washington Post, July 29, 2010

. . .

Most important, Judge Bolton was right to prevent state law enforcement officers from demanding immigration papers from those they 'reasonably' believe are in the United States illegally. The judge noted that such stops would probably mean that legal residents and U.S. citizens would be 'swept up' by this obnoxious and patently xenophobic requirement. She also put a hold on enforcement of a new provision that would have subjected immigrants to criminal penalties for failing to apply for or carry alien registration papers. These provisions were set to go into effect Thursday. The judge must decide in coming weeks whether the parts of the law she froze in place should be permanently struck down as unconstitutional.

. . .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/28/AR2010072805159.html

 

 

Return to Top

 

 

 

********

********

 

72.

 

Arizona Judge Gets It Exactly Right

By Ruben Navarrette Jr

CNN.com, July 29, 2010

. . .

That's exactly what you should do when confronted with a monster -- in this case, the monstrosity of a law that usurps federal authority over immigration enforcement, doesn't just allow for racial profiling but requires it by allowing police to arrest people they suspect are in the country illegally, makes it a state crime to ask for work if one is undocumented and requires legal immigrants to carry documents proving their legal status.

. . .

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/07/28/navarrette.arizona.law/index.html?hpt=T1

 

 

Return to Top

 

 

 

********

********

 

73.

 

A Rhetorical Border War

By Ruben Navarrette

Real Clear Politics, July 21, 2010

. . .

I was curious about what Richardson thought of the Mexican governors' decision to boycott the Phoenix meeting.

 

'I have said publicly that I oppose boycotts,' he said. 'I don't feel that boycotting events in Arizona is good because -- for instance, with tourism -- it hurts a lot of Latino workers. I just don't think that's the way to approach it.'

 

Still, I pressed, didn't Richardson have even a little admiration for the Mexican governors for raising their voices?

 

'I did,' he acknowledged. 'I felt they were taking a principled stand.'

. . .

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/07/21/a_rhetorical_border_war_106399.html

 

 

Return to Top

 

 

 

********

********

 

74.

 

Arizona Ruling Acts as a Warning to Other States

By Julia Preston

The New York Times, July 28, 2010

. . .

But in taking the forceful step of holding up a statute even before it was put into practice, Judge Bolton previewed her opinions on the case, indicating that the federal government was likely to win in the end on the main points.

 

The decision by Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. to throw the federal government’s weight against Arizona, on an issue that has aroused passions among state residents, has irritated many state governors, and nine states filed papers supporting Arizona in the court case.

. . .

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/29/us/29immig.html

 

 

Return to Top

 

 

 

********

********

 

75.

 

Immigration Facts, Figures -- and Thoughts

By Gregory Rodriguez

The Los Angeles Times, July 26, 2010

. . .

So, in the face of all this data showing that legal and illegal immigration is down dramatically, what's all the fuss about? Why has the debate turned so nasty? Why does it seem worse than it did in 1994, during the debate over Proposition 187, California's anti-immigrant ballot measure?

 

The easy answer, of course, is that the economy is tough and historically people have looked for targets to blame for their feelings of impotence.

 

But today I think there are other contributing factors. The political discourse overall is pretty horrific, and while immigration has always brought out the worst in people, today's polarized climate only makes matters worse.

. . .

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-rodriguez-vitriol-20100726,0,3410280.column

 

 

Return to Top

 

 

 

********

********

 

76.

 

In Arizona, Feds Are Fighting a Monster They Built

By Aarti Shahani

ColorLines.com, July 26 2010,

. . .

Arpaio made a few too many headlines. The Justice Department launched an investigation into racial profiling, which is still pending. Napolitano, as head of Homeland Security, chopped off his street arrest powers, though she left him with the ability to flag people for deportation in the jails. Arpaio, using other state laws that make immigration a crime, continued to arrest people and hand them off for deportation. His and other sheriffs' use of the program is the subject of on ongoing controversy, in and out of the White House.

 

Napolitano said of SB 1070 in May, 'That's not the kind of law I would have signed.' She doesn't see (at least not publicly) a direct line from 287(g) to SB 1070. The National Day Laborer Organizing Network does.

 

'If she reigned in Arpaio earlier, by removing his 287(g) in its entirety,' said the group's lawyer Chris Newman, 'then the country would be debating whether police involvement at all is okay.' Last year NDLON asked the president to terminate the program, on the premise that it leads to mini-Arpaios nationwide.

 

SB 1070's proponents agree, sort of. In front of the courthouse last week, they closely tied the state law to the federal program.

 

The intent of SB 1070 is 'attrition through enforcement.' That is, to scare people without papers into leaving and never coming back. Its author John Kavanagh, however, believes 287(g) is more powerful. Under 287(g), he argued, 'You can approach anybody.' SB 1070 requires reasonable suspicion of a crime. Officers 'have to comply with greater civil liberties safeguards,' he explained.

. . .

http://colorlines.com/archives/2010/07/in_arizona_feds_struggle_to_slay_an_immigration_monster_they_built.html

 

 

Return to Top

 

 

 

********

********

 

77.

 

Arizona’s New Law Upends Federal Priorities

By Michele Waslin

Immigration Impact, July 22, 2010

. . .

Furthermore, through the 287(g) program, Secure Communities, and the Criminal Alien Program, ICE would screen all people booked into Arizona jails and convicted of crimes. ICE would then be expected to take custody of those immigrants charged with or convicted of these state crimes and place them in deportation proceedings.

 

In other words, Arizona would supply ICE with a huge number of people to deal with – most of them charged with or convicted of very minor offenses. While proponents of the law would say that this is the very purpose of the law, it actually strains ICE’s resources and harms their ability to prioritize the immigrants they target.

. . .

http://immigrationimpact.com/2010/07/22/arizona%e2%80%99s-new-law-upends-federal-priorities/

 

 

Return to Top

 

 

 

********

********

 

78.

 

More Right-Handed Pot Stirring: Internal USCIS Draft Memo Exploited for Political Gain

By Mary Giovagnoli

Immigration Impact, July 30, 2010

. . .

And now the National Review has obtained a copy of the “smoking gun” draft USCIS memo that refers to many of the issues the Senators cryptically reference in their hastily worded letter. Restrictionists and anti-government folks alike are already pointing to it as proof that President Obama intends to do an end run around Congress to grant all 10.8 million deferred action (which drastically mischaracterizes the memo). Coming just a day after the striking repudiation of Arizona’s SB 1070 by federal district court judge Susan Bolton—which represents a vindication of the Administration’s strategy to protect federal jurisdiction over immigration law—this latest “amnesty” scare is just the latest in the attempt to distract the public and derail genuine immigration reform.

. . .

http://immigrationimpact.com/2010/07/30/more-right-handed-pot-stirring-internal-uscis-draft-memo-exploited-for-political-gain/

 

 

Return to Top

 

 

 

********

********

 

79.

 

The Logic of Arizona’s Apartheid Champion

By Patrick Osio, Jr.

HispanicVista.com, July 20, 2010

. . .

So there you have it – the only authority the Governor of Arizona needs to sign a bill into law and then defend her position is a newspaper article – no need for FBI, DEA, Border Patrol or Department of Homeland Security – what do they know? And as to the reports that crime is down in Arizona and border cities are safe, come on now – this is an election year, the economy is down and it’s a historical happening that in such times you blame illegal immigrants for all things wrong – how else you gonna get elected in Arizona?

. . .

http://www.hispanicvista.com/HVC/Columnist/posiojr/072010_Patrick_Osio_Arizona_Apartheid_SB1070.htm

 

 

Return to Top

 

 

 

********

********

 

80.

 

Federal Government: Step Up on Immigration Reform

By Deepak Bhargava

Huffington Post, July 29, 2010

. . .

Now that the injunction has been won, Congress should take this pause to do the right thing. They need to stop shirking their responsibility and accept that until they act decisively, ugly episodes like what we're seeing in Arizona will continue to replay in this and other forms in cities and states across the country. Fortunately, our Constitution has prevented the most egregious anti-immigrant legislation from going into effect, but every fight has left scars. And Sheriff Arpaio continues to trample on the rights of people, court decision notwithstanding.

. . .

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepak-bhargava/federal-government-step-u_b_663647.html

 

 

Return to Top
Acciones de Documento
« Noviembre 2017 »
Noviembre
LuMaMiJuViDo
12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930
Amazon

Travelocity

Expedia

Encuentre el hotel que desea

Telefonía gratuita vía internet

Hospedaje barato para su página

FatCow $88 Plan for $66 only

Mida su conexión a internet

Test your Internet connection speed at Speedtest.net