Monday, May 3, 2010

ILLEGALS IN COLORADO An American In Denver Sees & Speaks on ANCHOR BABIES

Illegals moving to Colorado in news tonight (America)

Date: 2010-05-03, 6:37PM MDT
Reply to: [Errors when replying to ads?]

Just watched the news and there was Katic Kouric (ick, ick, ick) oh so sad over this story:

A news reporter was interviewing an illegal woman that's been here for 15 years
(illegally) and speaks only SPANISH....she's married to another illegal....they have TEN anchor babies. Yes, folks that is 10, one zero...TEN.

Ten anchor babies that the citizens of AZ have supported....hospitals there have taken the mom in 10 times and your dime has paid for TEN anchor babies. Your tax dollars have feed, clothed, and given medical care to TEN anchor babies.....10 anchor babies for the hospitals, schools and social services to takecare of.
So two illegal parents and 10 anchor babies.

OK, first: find the businesses where these parents have been working and fine them enough to pay for the 10 anchor babies......find the people that have harbored them and fine them also.

Next, someone watching the news program needs to find these people now...I mean, if the news can find them for a boo hoo newscast them certainly immigration can find them.

The good news for AZ: the family was moving out and heading for, COLORADO will now have the joy of supporting these 2 illegal parents and their 10 anchor babies....because the mom and dad are unemployed and moving to YOUR STATE!

Which is exactly what anyone with any sense has said would happen: they would just move to one of the adjoining states that are just sitting on their butts and ignoring the situation.

But, bravo to AZ for taking this matter in hand.....I still say, locate businesses that have hired illegals and fine them for every illegal and for every year......if you don't they will just round up so more illegals to work for them.

If Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, Florida, Texas, Louisiana, Alabama California (at the very least) doesn't wake up they are going to wake up to a stream of illegals dropping off the Interstate into their cities very soon....because they are fleeing AZ.

Now: I started work when I was four years old (yes, 4 years old) ....they had small child sized cotton sacks for children to use to pick cotton ...worked alongside my mom, sister, brother, grandmother, aunts, uncles. I am Native American and Scottish (quite a combination eh!)...we lived in tar paper shacks without running
water or electricity....there was a pot bellied stove for heat and a woodstove for cooking....baths were taken on the backporch in a wash tub...............I can hardly remember a time I did not work (mow grass, babysit, clean houses,
and later a lineman cable splicer and then a nurse).....the government did not feed us, pay for our utilities, buy our clothes or pay for us to go to the doctor or dentist. We did not rob, steal, commit crimes so, did not wear out law enforcement resources. I grew up and took care of my family, paid off my home and my truck.
I grow a garden, I do without a lot so I can afford to pay for my medical insurance, property taxes, income taxes, food for my table, pet care, truck insurance and not have to ask for a handout. I taught my son to work, pay his bills, not
break the law, go to school. the government has not helped me EVER....

So, NO I do not want to pay for the illegals anymore. I want them deported, no amnesty.
The anchor babies can stay and the parents can be deported....or the parents can take the anchor babies back with them. Sound cold and heartless? That can be your argument.....but, how much longer must the taxpaying, hardworking (if they can find a job) US CITIZEN keep paying for illegals that wonder back and forth across
the border without any regard for the laws of the US? The ONLY reason the current administration wants the border open is for the illegals long as the illegals aren't in the politician's backyards they really do not care one wit! I have need of a second job right now to help a neice with cancer (that does not have
insurance and the government insurance will not help her...that is Georgia for you)...I'll take one of the left behind jobs...I can clean house, mow lawns, work in a manufacturing plant, wash dishes....and pretty sure there are soon to be many unemployed fishermen from the Gulf Coast needing work!

I can not get all boo hoo over a pair of illegals that have lived her 15 years and pumped out 10 children on my dime having to leave AZ.............COLORADO HERE THEY COME! By they way, they were talking about their neighbors having to move also and they were moving to California! By the way, did I mention they had been in AZ for 15 years and did not speak English?????

FL, CO, NM, LA, AL, TX, CA, UT at the very least better WAKE UP....they are coming to a town near you!

Colorado: Looks like you are one of the states of choice for the illegals to run to....
so, the word must be out that you aren't checking ID....and your social services is welcoming....
and your tax payers are asleep....and your politicians are not working for you.

All you had to do is say, "Thank you" to AZ and get busy and put the pressure on and say, "No" to the illegals
and follow AZ's, by sitting back and doing nothing, you are now the proud receipient of
those illegals fleeing AZ.....including gangs, drug dealers and every type criminal immaginable.

THE ECONOMY & ILLEGALS - An American Sees & Speaks!








The economy and illegals
Date: 2010-05-02, 10:27AM MDT
Reply to: [Errors when replying to ads?]

The local illegal aliens have stated themselves, although they are here illegally, once they get here, UT has numerous options to support them while they are here! That is bullshit! They come into this country for nothing else but their own selfish reasons. I don't give a fuck that their country sucks! Make it better, don't come trash ours! They suck all the goverment funding from residents who really need it, take all our jobs at a lower rate and get paid under the table to avoid paying taxes like the rest of us do, and they don't even have the decency to learn our language!

WTF is wrong with you people who don't see this as a problem? Because you are here illegally yourself or have friends and family who are??? I would never in my life move to another country abuse their system, lack the communication skills necessary, and raise their crime rate. It's disrespectful to their culture!

I personally, could care less about the color of someones skin. My problem is, my extended family migrated to the US from Germany and took the necessary steps to become legal citizens. I abide by the law and so should everyone else! The government fears stepping on someones toes and offending them, that's absurd! The law is the law and YOU NEED TO GET THE FUCK OUT IF NOT A US CITIZEN! To many have taken "The Land of the Free" to the extreme and our goverment has allowed this to happen! To hell with them, AMERICANS NEED TO STAND UNITED AND TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK NOW!

Drugs Furnished by the Illegals - An American Sees & Speaks

"Drugs furnished by the ILLEGALS, Drug Wars by the ILLEGALS, (Police Officer murdered by an ILLEGAL)

Date: 2010-04-15, 11:17PM MDT
Reply to: see below

"Drugs furnished by the ILLEGALS, Drug Wars by the ILLEGALS, United States Citizens murdered by the ILLEGALS but not to worry the Sanctuary City of Houston Texas will continue to furnish Cheap ILLEGAL Labor for the Elitist Political Contributors and Special Interest Groups who of course they feel safe in their Gated Communities. If you venture out and you are murdered by an ILLEGAL Drunk Driver or you are a Police Officer murdered by an ILLEGAL during the commission of a crime or a traffic stop or a United States Citizen is in the "wrong" place (Sanctuary City of Houston) and caught in the cross fire just remember Our Elitist Politicians and their Elitist Political Contributors consider these murdered as a SMALL SACRIFICE for THEIR CHEAP LABOR!"

Thank You Utah - An American Sees & Speaks

Thank you Utah

Date: 2010-05-03, 10:11AM MDT
Reply to: [Errors when replying to ads?]

Thank you Utah for supporting Arizona. I lived outside the Phoenix area for over 20 years. I relocated to another state about a year ago, however I still support them 100 % on their recent illegal immigration law. I am not a racist, nor have I ever been. I just simply believe that if you want to be part of this great nation you need to do so legally or you have broken the law. The negative impact that Arizona's economy feels, the crime, and decline in education is a direct result of the overwhelming amount of people crossing the border illegally. I think it is time that the newspapers and television news stations give equal time to those opposed to all the illegal immigration. Almost all the news stories that relate to the problem pertain to the rights of these individuals being compromised or taken away. First of all, if you didn't come here through the proper channels then you are a law breaker and crimminal. You are not a citizen and therefore, haven't earned any rights. Our tax money pays for all their children. Many of which are born out of wedlock. Then we pay for the housing of these children, medical, and provide them with free school breakfast and lunches. My daughter is now an adult in her mid 20's. There was a time in my life during which I was a single parent due to divorce. I did, have times when finances were really tight and I probably could have gotten Gov't assistance. However, there is a thing known as pride and taking care of your own. I cut corners, worked even harder at two jobs, and supported us. Evenutually through hard work and determination we did well. She went to college and has a decent job and is an independant adult. That is what we need to teach our children. Be good, law abiding and self sufficient. Unfortunately, that is not what these immigrants are teaching their children. They will not learn English, nor are they involved in their child's education encouraging them to do well and take pride in themselves and their accomplishments. There are immigrants from all over the world that come here. China, Russia, India, Eastern and Western Europe , Africa etc. All of those people encourage their children to learn English, excel and to success and be a part of the United States. Why are the illegal Mexicans different? Because of their heritage. They feel entitled to benefits they have not earned, contributed to and have no right to receive. I feel for the Citizens in Arizona because they are being portrayed as Nazi's and worse! This is terrible and so untrue. They are simply every day, average American people trying to protect themselves and have the laws that are already on the books in the federal goverment enforced. Their safety is at risk. A rancher who lived near the border was murdered a couple weeks ago by illegals crossing the border and his land. A deputy sherriff was shot just a few days ago by illegal drug dealers. The problem is escalating quickly. I absolutely hope that other states will follow in Arizona's footsteps and we will all be united in our quest to secure our borders, protect our citizens, enforce the laws that already exist, and help turn this economy around. I love this country. I believe it is a great nation. Yes, we do have some problems,..many problems. However, they can be resolved if the good people of this nation stand together. There are many elections coming up later this year. Make your voice heard. Vote!!! If our elected officials are ignoring what the people want and doing their own thing, then they need to be voted out. Thank you for reading this and allowing me to vent. Way to go Utah!






Napolitano: Spillover Violence in Arizona is Mere “Perception”
Testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano played down the violence along the border, stating that “[Arizona] is a place where there is a perception that there is spillover violence.” (Webcast, April 27, 2010, emphasis added). Remarkably, Napolitano made the statement just seconds after she noted that the drug cartels “literally have fingertips that go into communities all over the nation” and that Phoenix has been the center of “battles” between drug cartel distributors. (Id.) Still, Secretary Napolitano seemed to dismiss the seriousness of the violence, insisting that “the plain fact of the matter is from a numbers perspective, the numbers at the border have never been better.” (Webcast, April 27, 2010).

During the hearing, Senators from both sides of the aisle expressed serious concern about increasing border violence. Chairman Pat Leahy (D-VT) said, “[W]e are experiencing historic levels of drug related violence that must be brought under control – families being murdered, law enforcement being murdered, officials being murdered, and brazen shoot outs.” (Webcast, April 27, 2010; See also Leahy’s Written Statement, April 27, 2010). Committee Ranking Member Jeff Sessions (R-AL) echoed his words: “The violence…is increasing and is a serious threat to law abiding people. In Arizona and other places along our southern border, the power of these drug cartels is very real. The power of the coyotes who bring people in illegally is very real, and it’s got to be confronted in a very serious way.” (Webcast, April 27, 2010). And when pressed by Senator Sessions about the need to help local law enforcement officials combat this violence, Napolitano -- who has been an outward critic of Arizona’s new immigration law -- responded, “[I]n my judgment, what we need to be doing is working with local law enforcement so that you have combined and leveraged federal resources with local. (Id.)

Napolitano’s comments before the Judiciary Committee came after a string of violence near the border involving U.S. citizens. Just 45 days earlier, drug cartels executed a gruesome murder of three people with ties to the U.S. Consulate in the Mexican border city of Ciudad Juarez (FOX News, April 6, 2010); 36 days earlier her own department issued a safety alert to law enforcement officers in west Texas warning of retaliatory killings by Mexican “assassin teams” (See FAIR’s Legislative Update, April 12, 2010); and exactly one month prior, Arizona rancher Rob Krentz was murdered near the U.S.-Mexico border by a suspected illegal alien (See FAIR’s Legislative Update, April 5, 2010). Four days after the hearing, an Arizona sheriff’s deputy was ambushed and shot by illegal aliens with an AK-47 about 50 miles south of Phoenix. (The New York Times, May 1, 2010) The encounter led to a massive manhunt in which Arizona law enforcement deployed scores of officers and dispatched helicopters to search a 100 mile radius. (Id.)

Napolitano’s suggestion that the southwest border is more secure than ever was likely meant to lay the groundwork for a mass amnesty. In fact, her comments came in response to a question from Chairman Leahy in which he asked “Can we do both things? Secure our border, and have comprehensive immigration legislation?”(Webcast, April 27, 2010). Napolitano’s answer: “[C]omprehensive immigration reform should be in our sights.” (Id.).

Obama soft on illegals enforcement

Arrests of illegal immigrant workers have dropped precipitously under President Obama, according to figures released Wednesday. Criminal arrests, administrative arrests, indictments and convictions of illegal immigrants at work sites all fell by more than 50 percent from fiscal 2008 to fiscal 2009.

The figures show that Mr. Obama has made good on his pledge to shift enforcement away from going after illegal immigrant workers themselves - but at the expense of Americans' jobs, said Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the Republican who compiled the numbers from the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE). Mr. Smith, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, said a period of economic turmoil is the wrong time to be cutting enforcement and letting illegal immigrants take jobs that Americans otherwise would hold.
With trillion dollar bailouts, government-run healthcare, banks and car companies, ACORN corruption, attacks on conservative media, illegal alien amnesty, unprecedented and dangerous new rights for terrorists, perks for campaign donors—this is the Obama legacy—and we haven't even gotten through the first year of his presidency!
Lou Dobbs Tonight
And there are some 800,000 gang members in this country: That’s more than the combined number of troops in our Army and Marine Corps. These gangs have become one of the principle ways to import and distribute drugs in the United States. Congressman David Reichert joins Lou to tell us why those gangs are growing larger and stronger, and why he’s introduced legislation to eliminate the top three international drug gangs.
Lou Dobbs Tonight
Monday, September 28, 2009

And T.J. BONNER, president of the National Border Patrol Council, will weigh in on the federal government’s decision to pull nearly 400 agents from the U.S.-Mexican border. As always, Lou will take your calls to discuss the issues that matter most-and to get your thoughts on where America is headed.

Illegals Don't Have the Courage to March In Their Own Countries! - BUT WAVE THE MEXICAN FLAG IN OURS CHANTING RACIST!


illegals don't have courage to march in their own countries (they only march here!)

Date: 2010-05-02, 10:10PM MST
Reply to: see below

Americans have witnessed millions of illegals openly engage in undesirable activities while enjoying special treatment that our own citizens don't receive. Such activities include catch-and-release (a type of sanctuary status that even foreign diplomats don't get), failure to appear in court, immigrant gangs, drug and human smuggling, violent crimes, massive identity fraud, illegal voting, driving under the influence, hit-and-run accidents and various other motor vehicle violations, tax free incomes, free social services (including housing and food stamps), free emergency room care, public school enrollments, a full range of medical services for family members due to chain migration--including elderly parents who draw on the healthcare system and maternity care for their anchor babies. As if this weren't enough, they then wave their foreign flags in the streets of America demanding their rights yet they don't have the courage to demonstrate in their native countries to fix their own countries' problems.

Illegals Not Welcome in Arizona - An American Sees & Speaks BUT OBAMA DOES NOT LISTEN!!!

Illegals not welcome in Arizona

Date: 2010-05-03, 12:21AM MST
Reply to: see below

What is the difference between IMMIGRANTS and ILLEGALS ?

IMMIGRANTS; Are citizens of other countries that come to America the LEGAL route and become citizens of America, they learn ENGLISH, they learn the LAWS OF AMERICA and they pledge ALLEGENCE TO AMERICA.

ILLEGALS; Are citizens of other countries that sneak into America like thieves in the night (CRIMINALS RIGHT OFF THE BAT), they bring DESEASES, They have ANCHOR BABIES that we pay for, they STEAL JOBS form American citizens, They ride the entitlemant system because they have ANCHOR BABIES, They do not learn ENGLISH, They do not care about the LAWS OF AMERICA and They do not make an ALLEGENCE TO AMERICA they burn our flag, fly Mexico's flag above Americans and turn our American flag upside down under theirs, no loyalty to America, but demand that they have rights here.

The Ever Expanding Mexican Welfare State - AN AMERICAN SEES & SPEAKS On Anchor Babies


cost of Anchor babies

Date: 2010-05-03, 12:01PM MST
Reply to: see below

Every year, 400,000 pregnant women, some figures show a much higher number, enter the United States illegally to birth their babies on American soil. Their children become instant citizens and their mothers become instant wards of the American taxpayer. You might say they provide 400,000 cuts to our financial systems that bleed us 24/7.

To give you a rough estimate of the costs: average birth in U.S. hospital: $8,800.00 without complications, by Barbara Feder Ostrov, San Jose Mercury News, 6/12/07. K-12 education at average rate of $9,644.00 per year per child. Breakfast/lunch provided to anchor babies at $5.00 per meal. English as second language at $1,000.00 per year per child. No figures for costs of medical care, assisted housing, special needs children with Autism, Down’s Syndrome or birth defects, and food stamps.

Bare minimum total cost to U.S. taxpayer for one child to age 18: $218,792.00

Bare minimum total cost to U.S. taxpayer for 400,000 anchor babies to 18: $87,526,800,000.00

JUDICIAL…. get on their email list


The principal beneficiaries of our current immigration policy are affluent Americans who hire immigrants at substandard wages for low-end work. Harvard economist George Borjas estimates that American workers lose $190 billion annually in depressed wages caused by the constant flooding of the labor market at the low-wage end.

FROM FAIRUS. org email:

“Joining in the fray, President Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder, and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano also sent a clear message that the will of the people in Arizona is irrelevant, as the federal government prepares an attack on the popular state law.”
“However, if the Obama Administration argues the doctrine of preemption applies, it could expose the fact that the Administration has wholly abandoned its responsibility to secure the border and enforce our immigration laws, ultimately forcing Arizona to enact the law.”

FROM FAIRUS. org email:

In addition, the mayor of Mexico City, Marcelo Ebrard, announced he would try to join the lawsuits seeking to overturn the law, stating that the measure is “a planned Apartheid against Mexicans.”
“Even the government of Mexico is getting involved. The Mexican government – battling drug cartels for control of territory along the Mexican border – ironically issued a travel warning urging Mexican citizens to be careful in Arizona and telling them to expect harassment and questioning.”

FROM FAIRUS. org email:
Several members of the Los Angeles City Council signed a proposal for a boycott, calling for the city to “refrain from conducting business” or participating in conventions in Arizona. Councilwoman Janice Hahn, who coauthored the proposal, seemed unconcerned with the logistical complications of such a boycott and made the absurd statement that, “When people are asked to show their papers, it brings back memories of Nazi Germany.” Clearly Councilwoman Hahn is unfamiliar with current federal law, which for decades has required aliens to carry their immigration documents with them “at all times.”

FROM FAIRUS. org email:
In Utah, state Representative Stephen Sandstrom (R) is pushing an identical bill because Utah is “becoming a kind of sanctuary state.” (Los Angeles Times, April 29, 2010). Many illegal alien day laborers say they will leave Arizona because of the new law, and Jose Armenta, an illegal alien from Mexico, is already planning to move to Utah.
FROM FAIRUS. org email:

Public officials in Ohio have asked Ohio Governor Ted Strickland to ensure that a similar law is passed in Ohio. (The Enquirer, April 27, 2010). Meanwhile, a group of state lawmakers in Oklahoma said they plan to introduce a bill similar to Arizona’s and Texas State Representative Debbie Riddle plans to introduce a similar bill. Republicans running for governor in Colorado and Minnesota have also expressed support for the crackdown.

Amnesty Forces Scramble to Challenge Arizona’s New Immigration Law

One week after Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed a tough immigration enforcement measure into law, amnesty forces are scrambling to organize protest rallies, boycotts, and file lawsuits. Despite the fact that a large majority of Arizonans support the law (64%) and that Arizona Governor Jan Brewer’s approval ratings jumped sixteen points after signing the law, many groups and individuals from outside the state and even outside the country are voicing their opposition. (The Washington Post, April 29, 2010; Rasmussen Reports, April 28, 2010). Joining in the fray, President Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder, and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano also sent a clear message that the will of the people in Arizona is irrelevant, as the federal government prepares an attack on the popular state law.
To that end, President Obama last week directed a team of top government attorneys from the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to devise a plan to challenge the Arizona immigration law. (Los Angeles Times, April 29, 2010). This is an extraordinary step, as it is so rare for the federal government to directly challenge a state law even constitutional law experts are unable to cite a comparable example. (The Washington Post, April 29, 2010). Nevertheless, hoping to prevent the law from taking effect and to discourage other states from enacting similar measures, the administration is reportedly exploring different options. These include filing a lawsuit against the state or joining a lawsuit brought by special interest groups who are claiming the bill unfairly targets Latinos. (Los Angeles Times, April 29, 2010). One possible legal ground they are exploring is the doctrine of “preemption” – which they would use to argue that the state’s law illegally intrudes on immigration enforcement, which they argue is solely a federal responsibility. (The Washington Post, April 29, 2010).
However, if the Obama Administration argues the doctrine of preemption applies, it could expose the fact that the Administration has wholly abandoned its responsibility to secure the border and enforce our immigration laws, ultimately forcing Arizona to enact the law. Indeed, supporters of SB 1070 argue that Arizona was left with no choice but to act after enduring years of the federal government’s failure to secure the border. Senator Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) described the law a response to the federal government’s inaction, “I think the frustration is that the federal government isn’t enforcing the laws, so we’re going to do it on the state level.” (The Hill, April 26, 2010). Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) said that his state had to pass a tough immigration law because Obama has failed to “secure our borders.” (The Associated Press, April 27, 2010). He added that the situation in his state is “the worst I’ve ever seen.”
Further complicating Obama’s plan is the fact that similar preemption arguments failed when Arizona passed a 2007 law that sanctioned employers for knowingly hiring illegal immigrants. Kris Kobach, a senior Justice Department official under George W. Bush who is now a constitutional law professor, said of a preemption challenge, “They tried this on for size already, and it failed.” (The Washington Post, April 29, 2010). Kobach, who helped draft the legislation, pointed out that the law does not seek to regulate immigration but merely adds state penalties for what are already federal crimes, and under the legal doctrine of “concurrent enforcement” states are allowed to ban what is already prohibited by federal law. (Los Angeles Times, April 29, 2010).
Amnesty forces have already filed two lawsuits challenging the Arizona bill. The first, filed by The National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders alleges that the measure usurps federal enforcement responsibilities. The second, filed by Martin Escobar, a Tucson police officer filed suit seeks prevent the law from going into effect. (Los Angeles Times, April 29, 2010). Tucson police spokesman Sgt. Fabian Pacheco said Escobar was not acting on the department’s behalf. (The Washington Post, April 29, 2010).
Even the government of Mexico is getting involved. The Mexican government – battling drug cartels for control of territory along the Mexican border – ironically issued a travel warning urging Mexican citizens to be careful in Arizona and telling them to expect harassment and questioning. (Los Angeles Times, April 28, 2010). In addition, the mayor of Mexico City, Marcelo Ebrard, announced he would try to join the lawsuits seeking to overturn the law, stating that the measure is “a planned Apartheid against Mexicans.” Id. Ebrard was unable to explain how the Mexican capital could overcome its lack of legal standing in U.S. courts, but he did say the issue could be taken to international human rights forums. Id.
Others outside the state of Arizona, including the people of some cities in California, have reacted to Arizona’s new law by calling for boycotts. (Los Angeles Times, April 28, 2010). Several members of the Los Angeles City Council signed a proposal for a boycott, calling for the city to “refrain from conducting business” or participating in conventions in Arizona. Councilwoman Janice Hahn, who coauthored the proposal, seemed unconcerned with the logistical complications of such a boycott and made the absurd statement that, “When people are asked to show their papers, it brings back memories of Nazi Germany.” Clearly Councilwoman Hahn is unfamiliar with current federal law, which for decades has required aliens to carry their immigration documents with them “at all times.” (8 U.S.C. § 1304(e)).
In addition, officials in the sanctuary city of San Francisco introduced a similar resolution and Mayor Gavin Newsom imposed an immediate moratorium on city-related travel to Arizona, with exceptions. The American Immigration Lawyers Association is reportedly moving its fall convention from Scottsdale to a new location. Members of the District of Columbia Council are also planning to introduce a resolution calling on the city government to boycott Arizona, though it is not clear if D.C. actually does any business with Arizona. (The Washington Post, April 28, 2010). In the face of these threats, Governor Jan Brewer has remained calm and has stated that she isn’t concerned about possible boycotts. “I believe it’s not going to have the kind of economic impact that some people think that it might.” (Los Angeles Times, April 28, 2010).
Indeed, there are many who are voicing support for the Arizona law and lawmakers in other states have been prompted to consider similar legislation around the country. In Utah, state Representative Stephen Sandstrom (R) is pushing an identical bill because Utah is “becoming a kind of sanctuary state.” (Los Angeles Times, April 29, 2010). Many illegal alien day laborers say they will leave Arizona because of the new law, and Jose Armenta, an illegal alien from Mexico, is already planning to move to Utah. (The Associated Press, April 28, 2010). Public officials in Ohio have asked Ohio Governor Ted Strickland to ensure that a similar law is passed in Ohio. (The Enquirer, April 27, 2010). Meanwhile, a group of state lawmakers in Oklahoma said they plan to introduce a bill similar to Arizona’s and Texas State Representative Debbie Riddle plans to introduce a similar bill. Republicans running for governor in Colorado and Minnesota have also expressed support for the crackdown. (Id.)
There has been much misinformation about the content of the law since it was first reported, perpetuated by many in the national media who continue to get the facts wrong. Last Thursday, weeks after the bill was passed by the Arizona House, The Washington Post reported that the “law criminalizes illegal immigration by defining it as trespassing and empowers police to question anyone they have a “reasonable suspicion” is an illegal immigrant.” (The Washington Post, April 29, 2010). Unfortunately the reporters at the Washington Post were looking at the wrong version of the bill. The language regarding trespassing was stripped from the bill weeks ago and a simple search of the bill as enacted reveals no mention of trespassing. (See FAIR’s Summary of Arizona SB 1070).
Additionally, the Arizona law does not empower police with any more authority to stop individuals or any additional authority to question individuals about their immigration status. The Supreme Court has addressed numerous times the authority of law enforcement officers to do both. (See, e.g. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968); Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93 (holding 9-0 that during a lawful detention, a police officer’s inquiry about immigration did not constitute a Fourth Amendment intrusion and did not require reasonable suspicion.)) Instead, the Arizona law directs the police to attempt to determine someone's immigration status only after a lawful stop, arrest, or detention, and then only if the officer has a reasonable suspicion that the individual is an illegal alien. (HB 2162, amending SB 1070). As Andrew McCarthy put it, “Essentially, it criminalizes (as a state misdemeanor) something that is already illegal (namely, being present in the United States in violation of federal law), and it directs law-enforcement officers to, yes, enforce the law.” (National Review, April 29, 2010).


The Illegal-Alien Crime Wave

Heather Mac Donald

Some of the most violent criminals at large today are illegal aliens. Yet in cities where the crime these aliens commit is highest, the police cannot use the most obvious tool to apprehend them: their immigration status. In Los Angeles, for example, dozens of members of a ruthless Salvadoran prison gang have sneaked back into town after having been deported for such crimes as murder, assault with a deadly weapon, and drug trafficking. Police officers know who they are and know that their mere presence in the country is a felony. Yet should a cop arrest an illegal gangbanger for felonious reentry, it is he who will be treated as a criminal, for violating the LAPD’s rule against enforcing immigration law.

The LAPD’s ban on immigration enforcement mirrors bans in immigrant-saturated cities around the country, from New York and Chicago to San Diego, Austin, and Houston. These “sanctuary
policies” generally prohibit city employees, including the cops, from reporting immigration violations to federal authorities.

Such laws testify to the sheer political power of immigrant lobbies, a power so irresistible that police officials shrink from even mentioning the illegal-alien crime wave. “We can’t even talk
about it,” says a frustrated LAPD captain. “People are afraid of a backlash from Hispanics.” Another LAPD commander in a predominantly Hispanic, gang-infested district sighs: “I would get a firestorm of criticism if I talked about [enforcing the immigration law against illegals].” Neither captain would speak for attribution.

But however pernicious in themselves, sanctuary rules are a symptom of a much broader disease: the nation’s near-total loss of control over immigration policy. Fifty years ago, immigration policy might have driven immigration numbers, but today the numbers drive policy. The nonstop increase of immigration is reshaping the language and the law to dissolve any distinction between legal and illegal aliens and, ultimately, the very idea of national borders.

It is a measure of how topsy-turvy the immigration environment has become that to ask police officials about the illegal-alien crime problem feels like a gross faux pas, not done in polite company. And a police official asked to violate this powerful taboo will give a strangled response—or, as in the case of a New York deputy commissioner, break off communication altogether. Meanwhile, millions of illegal aliens work, shop, travel, and commit crimes in plain view, utterly secure in their de facto immunity from the immigration law.

I asked the Miami Police Department’s spokesman, Detective Delrish Moss, about his employer’s policy on lawbreaking illegals. In September, the force arrested a Honduran visa violator for seven vicious rapes. The previous year, Miami cops had had the suspect in
custody for lewd and lascivious molestation, without checking his immigration status. Had they done so, they would have discovered his visa overstay, a deportable offense, and so could have forestalled the rapes. “We have shied away from unnecessary involvement dealing with immigration issues,” explains Moss, choosing his words carefully, “because of our large immigrant population.”

Police commanders may not want to discuss, much less respond to, the illegal-alien crisis, but its magnitude for law enforcement is startling. Some examples:

• In Los Angeles, 95 percent of all outstanding warrants for homicide (which total 1,200 to 1,500) target illegal aliens. Up to two-thirds of all fugitive felony warrants (17,000) are for illegal aliens.

• A confidential California Department of Justice study reported in 1995 that 60 percent of the 20,000-strong 18th Street Gang in southern California is illegal; police officers say the proportion is actually much greater. The bloody gang collaborates with the Mexican Mafia,
the dominant force in California prisons, on complex drug-distribution schemes, extortion, and drive-by assassinations, and commits an assault or robbery every day in L.A. County. The gang
has grown dramatically over the last two decades by recruiting recently arrived youngsters, most of them illegal, from Central America and Mexico.

• The leadership of the Columbia Lil’ Cycos gang, which uses murder and racketeering to control the drug market around L.A.’s MacArthur Park, was about 60 percent illegal in 2002, says former assistant U.S. attorney Luis Li. Francisco Martinez, a Mexican Mafia member and an illegal alien, controlled the gang from prison, while serving time for felonious reentry following deportation.

Good luck finding any reference to such facts in official crime analysis. The LAPD and the L.A. city attorney recently requested an injunction against drug trafficking in Hollywood, targeting the 18th Street Gang and the “non–gang members” who sell drugs in Hollywood for the gang. Those non–gang members are virtually all illegal Mexicans, smuggled into the country by a ring organized by 18th Street bigs. The Mexicans pay off their transportation debts to the gang by selling drugs; many soon realize how lucrative that line of work is and stay in the business.

Cops and prosecutors universally know the immigration status of these non-gang “Hollywood dealers,” as the city attorney calls them, but the gang injunction is assiduously silent on the matter. And if a Hollywood officer were to arrest an illegal dealer (known on the
street as a “border brother”) for his immigration status, or even notify the Immigration and Naturalization Service (since early 2003, absorbed into the new Department of Homeland Security), he would face severe discipline for violating Special Order 40, the city’s sanctuary policy.

L.A.’s sanctuary law and all others like it contradict a key 1990s policing discovery: the Great Chain of Being in criminal behavior. Pick up a law-violator for a “minor” crime, and you might well prevent a major crime: enforcing graffiti and turnstile-jumping laws nabs you murderers and robbers. Enforcing known immigration violations, such as reentry following deportation, against known felons, would be even more productive. LAPD officers recognize illegal deported gang members all the time—flashing gang signs at court hearings for rival gangbangers, hanging out on the corner, or casing a target. These illegal returnees are, simply by being in the country after deportation, committing a felony (in contrast to garden-variety illegals on their first trip to the U.S., say, who are only committing a misdemeanor). “But if I see a deportee from the Mara Salvatrucha [Salvadoran prison] gang crossing the street, I know I can’t touch him,” laments a Los Angeles gang officer. Only if the deported felon has given the officer some other reason to stop him, such as an observed narcotics sale, can the cop accost him—but not for the mmigration felony.

The stated reasons for sanctuary policies are that they encourage illegal-alien crime victims and witnesses to cooperate with cops without fear of deportation, and that they encourage illegals to take advantage of city services like health care and education (to whose maintenance few illegals have contributed a single tax dollar, of course). There has never been any empirical verification that sanctuary laws actually accomplish these goals—and no one has ever suggested not enforcing drug laws, say, for fear of intimidating drug-using crime victims. But in any case, this official rationale could be honored by limiting police use of immigration laws to some subset of immigration violators: deported felons, say, or repeat criminal offenders whose immigration status police already know.

The real reason cities prohibit their cops and other employees from immigration reporting and enforcement is, like nearly everything else in immigration policy, the numbers. The immigrant population has grown so large that public officials are terrified of alienating it, even at the expense of ignoring the law and tolerating violence. In 1996, a breathtaking Los Angeles Times exposé on the 18th Street Gang, which included descriptions of innocent bystanders being murdered by laughing cholos (gang members), revealed the rate of illegal-alien
membership in the gang. In response to the public outcry, the Los Angeles City Council ordered the police to reexamine Special Order 40. You would have thought it had suggested reconsidering Roe v. Wade. A police commander warned the council: “This is going to open
a significant, heated debate.” City Councilwoman Laura Chick put on a brave front: “We mustn’t be afraid,” she declared firmly.

But of course immigrant pandering trumped public safety. Law-abiding residents of gang-infested neighborhoods may live in terror of the tattooed gangbangers dealing drugs, spraying graffiti, and shooting up rivals outside their homes, but such anxiety can never equal a
politician’s fear of offending Hispanics. At the start of the reexamination process, LAPD deputy chief John White had argued that allowing the department to work closely with the INS would give cops another tool for getting gang members off the streets. Trying to build a homicide case, say, against an illegal gang member is often futile, he explained, since witnesses fear deadly retaliation if they cooperate with the police. Enforcing an immigration violation would allow the cops to lock up the murderer right now, without putting a witness’s life at risk.

But six months later, Deputy Chief White had changed his tune: “Any broadening of the policy gets us into the immigration business,” he asserted. “It’s a federal law-enforcement issue, not a local law-enforcement issue.” Interim police chief Bayan Lewis told the L.A. Police ommission: “It is not the time. It is not the day to look at Special Order 40.”

Nor will it ever be, as long as immigration numbers continue to grow. After their brief moment of truth in 1996, Los Angeles politicians have only grown more adamant in defense of Special Order 40. After learning that cops in the scandal-plagued Rampart Division had cooperated with the INS to try to uproot murderous gang members from the community, local politicians threw a fit, criticizing district commanders for even allowing INS agents into their station houses. In
turn, the LAPD strictly disciplined the offending officers. By now, big-city police chiefs are unfortunately just as determined to defend sanctuary policies as the politicians who appoint them; not so the rank and file, however, who see daily the benefit that an immigration tool would bring. But even were immigrant-saturated cities to discard their sanctuary policies and start enforcing immigration violations where public safety demands it, the resource-starved immigration authorities couldn’t handle the overwhelming additional workload.

The chronic shortage of manpower to oversee, and detention space to house, aliens as they await their deportation hearings (or, following an order of removal from a federal judge, their actual deportation) has forced immigration officials to practice a constant triage. Long ago, the feds stopped trying to find and deport aliens who had “merely” entered the country illegally through stealth or fraudulent documents. Currently, the only types of illegal aliens who run any risk of catching federal attention are those who have been convicted of an “aggravated felony” (a particularly egregious crime) or who have been deported following conviction for an
aggravated felony and who have reentered (an offense punishable with 20 years in jail).

That triage has been going on for a long time, as former INS investigator Mike Cutler, who worked with the NYPD catching Brooklyn drug dealers in the 1970s, explains. “If you arrested someone you wanted to detain, you’d go to your boss and start a bidding war,” Cutler recalls. “You’d say: 'My guy ran three blocks, threw a couple of punches, and had six pieces of ID.' The boss would turn to another agent: 'Next! Whaddid your guy do?' 'He ran 18 blocks, pushed
over an old lady, and had a gun.' ” But such one-upmanship was usually fruitless. “Without the jail space,” explains Cutler, “it was like the Fish and Wildlife Service; you’d tag their ear
and let them go.”

But even when immigration officials actually arrest someone, and even if a judge issues a final deportation order (usually after years of litigation and appeals), they rarely have the manpower to put the alien on a bus or plane and take him across the border. Second alternative: detain him pending removal. Again, inadequate space and staff. In the early 1990s, for example, 15 INS officers were in charge of the deportation of approximately 85,000 aliens (not all of them criminals) in New York City. The agency’s actual response to final orders of removal was what is known as a “run letter”—a notice asking the deportable alien kindly to show up in a month or
two to be deported, when the agency might be able to process him. Results: in 2001, 87 percent of deportable aliens who received run letters disappeared, a number that was even higher—94 percent—if they were from terror-sponsoring countries.

To other law-enforcement agencies, the feds’ triage often looks like complete indifference to immigration violations. Testifying to Congress about the Queens rape by illegal Mexicans, New York’s criminal justice coordinator defended the city’s failure to notify the INS after the rapists’ previous arrests on the ground that the agency wouldn’t have responded anyway. “We have time and time again been unable to reach INS on the phone,” John Feinblatt said last February. “When we reach them on the phone, they require that we write a letter. When we write a letter, they quire that it be by a superior.”

Criminal aliens also interpret the triage as indifference. John Mullaly a former NYPD homicide detective, estimates that 70 percent of the drug dealers and other criminals in Manhattan’s Washington Heights were illegal. Were Mullaly to threaten an illegal-alien thug in custody that his next stop would be El Salvador unless he cooperated, the criminal would just laugh, knowing that the INS would never show up. The message could not be clearer: this is a culture
that can’t enforce its most basic law of entry. If policing’s broken-windows theory is correct, the failure to enforce one set of rules breeds overall contempt for the law.

The sheer number of criminal aliens overwhelmed an innovative program that would allow immigration officials to complete deportation hearings while a criminal was still in state or federal prison, so that upon his release he could be immediately ejected without taking
up precious INS detention space. But the process, begun in 1988, immediately bogged down due to the numbers—in 2000, for example, nearly 30 percent of federal prisoners were foreign-born. The agency couldn’t find enough pro bono attorneys to represent such an army of criminal aliens (who have extensive due-process rights in contesting deportation) and so would have to request delay after delay. Or enough immigration judges would not be available. In 1997, the INS simply had no record of a whopping 36 percent of foreign-born inmates who had been released from federal and four state prisons without any review of their deportability. They included 1,198
aggravated felons, 80 of whom were soon re-arrested for new crimes.

Resource starvation is not the only reason for federal inaction. The INS was a creature of immigration politics, and INS district directors came under great pressure from local politicians to divert scarce resources into distribution of such “benefits” as permanent residency, citizenship, and work permits, and away from criminal or other investigations. In the late 1980s, for example, the INS refused to join an FBI task force against Haitian drug trafficking in Miami, fearing criticism for “Haitian-bashing.” In 1997, after Hispanic activists protested a much-publicized raid that netted nearly two dozen illegals, the Border Patrol said that it would no longer join Simi Valley, California, probation officers on home searches of illegal-alien-dominated gangs.

The disastrous Citizenship USA project of 1996 was a luminous case of politics driving the INS to sacrifice enforcement to “benefits.” When, in the early 1990s, the prospect of welfare reform drove immigrants to apply for citizenship in record numbers to preserve their welfare eligibility, the Clinton administration, seeing a political bonanza in hundreds of thousands of new welfare-dependent citizens, ordered the naturalization process radically expedited. Thanks to relentless administration pressure, processing errors in 1996 were 99 percent in New York and 90 percent in Los Angeles, and tens of thousands of aliens with criminal records, including for murder and armed robbery, were naturalized.

Another powerful political force, the immigration bar association, has won from Congress an elaborate set of due-process rights for criminal aliens that can keep them in the country ndefinitely. Federal probation officers in Brooklyn are supervising two illegals—a Jordanian and an Egyptian with Saudi citizenship—who look “ready to blow up the Statue of Liberty,” according to a probation official, but the officers can’t get rid of them. The Jordanian had been caught fencing stolen Social Security and tax-refund checks; now he sells phone cards, which he uses himself to make untraceable calls. The Saudi’s offense: using a fraudulent Social Security number to get employment—a puzzlingly unnecessary scam, since he receives large sums from the Middle East, including from millionaire relatives. But intelligence links him to terrorism,
so presumably he worked in order not to draw attention to himself. Currently, he changes his cell phone every month. Ordinarily such a minor offense would not be prosecuted, but the government, fearing that he had terrorist intentions, used whatever it had to put him in prison.

Now, probation officers desperately want to see the duo out of the country, but the two ex-cons have hired lawyers, who are relentlessly fighting their deportation. “Due process allows you to stay for years without an adjudication,” says a probation officer in frustration. “A regular immigration attorney can keep you in the country for three years, a high-priced one for ten.” In the meantime, Brooklyn probation officials are watching the bridges.

Even where immigration officials successfully nab and deport criminal aliens, the reality, says a former federal gang prosecutor, is that “they all come back. They can’t make it in Mexico.” The tens of thousands of illegal farmworkers and dishwashers who overpower U.S. border controls every year carry in their wake thousands of brutal assailants and terrorists who use the same smuggling industry and who benefit from the same irresistible odds: there are so many more of
them than the Border Patrol.

For, of course, the government’s inability to keep out criminal aliens is part and parcel of its inability to patrol the border, period. For decades, the INS had as much effect on the migration of
millions of illegals as a can tied to the tail of a tiger. And the immigrants themselves, despite the press cliché of hapless aliens living fearfully in the shadows, seemed to regard immigration
authorities with all the concern of an elephant for a flea.

Certainly fear of immigration officers is not in evidence among the hundreds of illegal day laborers who hang out on Roosevelt Avenue in Queens, New York, in front of money wire services, travel agencies, immigration-attorney offices, and phone arcades, all catering to the
local Hispanic population (as well as to drug dealers and terrorists). “There is no chance of getting caught,” cheerfully explains Rafael, an Ecuadoran. Like the dozen Ecuadorans and Mexicans on his particular corner, Rafael is hoping that an SUV seeking carpenters for $100 a day will show up soon. “We don’t worry, because we’re not doing anything wrong. I know it’s illegal; I need the papers, but here, nobody asks you for papers.”

Even the newly fortified Mexican border, the one spot where the government really tries to prevent illegal immigration, looms as only a minor inconvenience to the day laborers. The odds, they realize, are overwhelmingly in their favor. Miguel, a reserved young carpenter, crossed the border at Tijuana three years ago with 15 others. Border Patrol spotted them, but with six officers to 16 illegals, only five got caught. In illegal border crossings, you get what you pay for, Miguel says. If you try to shave on the fee, the coyotes will abandon you at the first problem. Miguel’s wife was flying into New York from Los Angeles that very day; it had cost him $2,200 to get her
across the border. “Because I pay, I don’t worry,” he says complacently.

The only way to dampen illegal immigration and its attendant train of criminals and terrorists—short of an economic revolution in the sending countries or an impregnably militarized border—is to remove the jobs magnet. As long as migrants know they can easily get work, they will find ways to evade border controls. But enforcing laws against illegal labor is among government’s lowest priorities. In 2001, only 124 agents nationwide were trying to find and prosecute the hundreds of thousands of employers and millions of illegal aliens who violate the employment laws, the Associated Press reports.

Even were immigration officials to devote adequate resources to worksite investigations, not much would change, because their legal weapons are so weak. That’s no accident: though it is a crime to hire illegal aliens, a coalition of libertarians, business lobbies, and left-wing advocates has consistently blocked the fraud-proof form of work authorization necessary to enforce that ban. Libertarians have erupted in hysteria at such proposals as a toll-free number to the Social Security Administration for employers to confirm Social Security numbers. Hispanics warn just as stridently that helping employers verify work eligibility would result in discrimination
against Hispanics—implicitly conceding that vast numbers of Hispanics work illegally.

The result: hiring practices in illegal-immigrant-saturated industries are a charade. Millions of illegal workers pretend to present valid documents, and thousands of employers pretend to
believe them. The law doesn’t require the employer to verify that a worker is actually qualified to work, and as long as the proffered documents are not patently phony—scrawled with red crayon on a matchbook, say—the employer will nearly always be exempt from liability merely by having eyeballed them. To find an employer guilty of violating the ban on hiring illegal aliens, immigration authorities must prove that he knew he was getting fake papers—an almost
insurmountable burden. Meanwhile, the market for counterfeit documents has exploded: in one month alone in 1998, immigration authorities seized nearly 2 million of them in Los Angeles, destined for immigrant workers, welfare seekers, criminals, and terrorists.

For illegal workers and employers, there is no downside to the employment charade. If immigration officials ever do try to conduct an industry-wide investigation—which will at least net the illegal employees, if not the employers—local congressmen will almost certainly head it off. An INS inquiry into the Vidalia-onion industry in Georgia was not only aborted by Georgia’s congressional delegation; it actually resulted in a local amnesty for the growers’ illegal workforce. The downside to complying with the spirit of the employment law, on the other hand, is considerable. Ethnic advocacy groups are ready to picket employers who dismiss illegal workers, and employers understandably fear being undercut by less scrupulous competitors.

Of the incalculable changes in American politics, demographics, and culture that the continuing surge of migrants is causing, one of the most profound is the breakdown of the distinction between legal and illegal entry. Everywhere, illegal aliens receive free public education and free medical care at taxpayer expense; 13 states offer them driver’s licenses. States everywhere have been pushed to grant illegal aliens college scholarships and reduced in-state tuition. One hundred banks, over 800 law-enforcement agencies, and dozens of cities accept an identification card created by Mexico to credentialize illegal Mexican aliens in the U.S. The Bush administration has given its blessing to this matricula consular card, over the strong protest of the FBI, which warns that the gaping security loopholes that the card creates make it boon to money launderers, immigrant smugglers, and terrorists. Border authorities have already caught an Iranian man sneaking across the border this year, Mexican matricula card in hand.

Hispanic advocates have helped blur the distinction between a legal and an illegal resident by asserting that differentiating the two is an act of irrational bigotry. Arrests of illegal aliens inside the
border now inevitably spark protests, often led by the Mexican government, that feature signs calling for “no más racismo.” Immigrant advocates use the language of “human rights” to appeal
to an authority higher than such trivia as citizenship laws. They attack the term “amnesty” for implicitly acknowledging the validity of borders. Indeed, grouses Illinois congressman Luis
Gutierrez, “There’s an implication that somehow you did something wrong and you need to be forgiven.”

Illegal aliens and their advocates speak loudly about what they think the U.S. owes them, not vice versa. “I believe they have a right . . . to work, to drive their kids to school,” said California
assemblywoman Sarah Reyes. An immigration agent says that people he stops “get in your face about their rights, because our failure to enforce the law emboldens them.” Taking this idea to its extreme, Joaquín Avila, a UCLA Chicano studies professor and law lecturer, argues that to deny non-citizens the vote, especially in the many California cities where they constitute the majority, is a form of apartheid.

Yet no poll has ever shown that Americans want more open borders. Quite the reverse. By a huge majority—at least 60 percent—they want to rein in immigration, and they endorse an observation that Senator Alan Simpson made 20 years ago: Americans “are fed up with
efforts to make them feel that [they] do not have that fundamental right of any people—to decide who will join them and help form the future country in which they and their posterity will live.” But if the elites’ and the advocates’ idea of giving voting rights to non-citizen majorities catches on—and don’t be surprised if it does—Americans could be faced with the ultimate absurdity of people outside the social compact making rules for those inside it.

However the nation ultimately decides to rationalize its chaotic and incoherent immigration system, surely all can agree that, at a minimum, authorities should expel illegal-alien criminals swiftly. Even on the grounds of protecting non-criminal illegal immigrants, we should start by junking sanctuary policies. By stripping cops of what may be their only immediate tool to remove felons from the community, these policies leave law-abiding immigrants prey to crime.

But the non-enforcement of immigration laws in general has an even more destructive effect. In many immigrant communities, assimilation into gangs seems to be outstripping assimilation into civic culture. Toddlers are learning to flash gang signals and hate the police, reports the Los Angeles Times. In New York City, “every high school has its Mexican gang,” and most 12- to 14-year-olds have already joined, claims Ernesto Vega, an illegal 11-year-old Mexican. Such
pathologies only worsen when the first lesson that immigrants learn about U.S. law is that Americans don’t bother to enforce it. “Institutionalizing illegal immigration creates a mindset in people that anything goes in the U.S.,” observes Patrick Ortega, the news and public-affairs director of Radio Nueva Vida in southern California. “It creates a new subculture, with a sequela of social ills.” It is broken windows writ large.

For the sake of immigrants and native-born Americans alike, it’s time to decide what our immigration policy is—and enforce it.


AZ is right...send them back to Mexico (downtown / civic / van ness)

Date: 2010-04-30, 3:24PM PDT
Reply to: [Errors when replying to ads?]

Drugs, murder, gangs, MS 13, Nuestra Familia, Mexican Mafia, Squating like a dog to shit, throwing used TP on the floor instead of in the toilet, corruption,
refusal to assimilate, driving without a license or insurance, hit and run, killing, kidnapping and escaping back to Mejico, Tons and tons of garbage left on the US side of the border, Lower wages for US citizens, unemployment for US citizens

That is the contribution to our once beautiful country by Illegal Aliens
They will not stop until it is a third world cesspool

Hooray for Arizona

When was the last time you saw massive demonstrations and mayors come out in support of bank robbers?

Thieves steal what doesn't belong to them. The same applies to the 22 million illegal aliens who have invaded our country openly and in our face, stealing jobs, natural resources and bankrupting the states in welfare, food stamps and medical care. Not to mention the massive amount of drugs coming across the border as well as gangs and terrorists. Arizona should just roll over and do nothing while their citizens suffer such madness.

There is no difference. A thief is a thief.

This article is absolutely perfect!!! And the short YouTube video that shows "Illegal Aliens Will Use 'Shovels and Axes' Against Americans In Armed Rebellion," is something that every American MUST SEE...

These ANIMALS have declared war on YOU, simply because you want to have your laws enforced!
These CRIMINALS, who assemble and march freely in YOUR streets, without fear of arrest, are slapping YOU and your Constitution, in the face!
20 million LAWBREAKERS want you to turn away and ignore them, as they rape YOUR country!

The financial cost to the American taxpayer is so huge. I'm not making these numbers up. Don't believe me? Google it for yourself. Just search the phrase, "cost to support illegal immigrants."

Then, there's the human factor. Google the phrase, "illegal immigrants crime statistics."

Please, just take the time to do this. As a concerned American, you need to know the truth!

The next step is up to all of us. Don't let millions upon millions of illegal immigrants make their voice heard, demanding "rights" they are not entitled to, while Americans remain silent!

This is YOUR country!
These are YOUR laws being broken!
This is YOUR pocket being picked every single day!

Make it a family affair. Go to help protest the illegal immigrants' rallies with your friends, neighbors and kids. Teach your children the meaning of freedom and free speech, and show them how America is supposed to work!

"Yes we will..." TAKE BACK AMERICA!

If you are against this immigration bill would you still be against it if a relative of yours was the one who was killed??

I'll answer for 99% of you people = NO

If your the 1% who would still be against it go ahead and keep bitching or move to Mexico- the rest just shut up

Read the story. Yes they are leaving but not back to Mexico. Its like spraying for roaches. They just move next door.
Thats what these roaches are doing. Simply moving to NM CO TX and UT. WTF?
This is why all the states need to pass a law like AZ.
They dont intend to move back to Mexico. They will just keep hopping around state to state having tons of baby's.
Sending all their tax free cash back home.
If you see contractors, hotels, truck farms or anybody else picking them up for cash day labor. Turn them in!


Don't hire them (if you do, you need your business closed, license pulled and a huge, huge fine)
Don't purchase from them (not restaurants, not food stands, not taxi rides, not one damn thing)
Don't rent to them (should fine and charge with enabling them)

Phoenix and border towns have higher crime rates

CALIF TEXAS ARIZONA have higher Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, higher Forcible rape, higher

robbery, higher aggr. assault and higher property crime....

ALSO higher burglary, larceny theft and motor vehicle theft than NEW YORK CITY


I WAS SHOCKED TO LEARN THAT -- no wonder the border states are saying ENOUGH CRIME!!!!

ARE PRISONS ARE FULL OF ILLEGALS AND IT COST $30 K per year for each inmate

SEE CHART =====>

Sounds like a great opportunity to round up illegals.

Arrest them for disturbing the peace and ask for their "papers."

Guess you could beat some liberal asses at the same time.


If you haven't figured it out: If the Tax Paying citizens can't afford to make their mortgage payments, pay their taxes, purchase their healthcare insurance...then they don't want to support a bunch of illegals.....and maybe they could use the jobs the illegals leave behind!

AN AMERICAN SEES & SPEAKS On Hispandering Gavin Newsom's SANCTUARY CITY of S.F.

17 caught in search for Ariz. deputy's attackers>> (Newsom welcomes such law breakers)

Date: 2010-05-01, 7:15PM PDT
Reply to: [Errors when replying to ads?]

This is what Gavin Christopher Newsom sponsors when he allows illegals control...
Is it a wonder AZ is trying to maintain law and order??

17 caught in search for Ariz. deputy's attackers

By BOB CHRISTIE, Associated Press Writer

Saturday, May 1, 2010
Law enforcement officers from different agencies gather t... A U.S. Border Patrol agent prepares to search for a suspe...

(05-01) 18:25 PDT PHOENIX (AP) --

Authorities searching for drug smugglers who shot and wounded an Arizona sheriff's deputy in the desert south of Phoenix said they captured 17 suspected illegal immigrants Saturday, including three who may have been involved in the incident.

The three matched descriptions given by the Pinal County sheriff's deputy who was grazed by a bullet fired by a group of about five smugglers were questioned but were not believed to have been the actual shooters, sheriff's Lt. Tamatha Villar said.

The deputy was released from the hospital several hours after the Friday afternoon incident. He is expected to return to work next week.

The shooting came amid a growing national debate over the state's new law cracking down on illegal immigration. A backlash over the law has erupted, with civil rights activists, concerned it will lead to racial profiling, calling for protests and boycotts.

Several hundred officers from local, state and federal law enforcement agencies, assisted by several helicopters, scoured a 10-square-mile area of rugged desert about 50 miles south of Phoenix on Saturday. The search was called off as darkness fell.

The U.S. Border Patrol searched areas outside the perimeter and made additional arrests of suspected illegal immigrants. "Their numbers are much, much higher," Villar said.

A Border Patrol spokesman said he couldn't immediately ascertain how many detentions his agency made.

Criticism of the law figured prominently at dozens of immigrants rights marches and rallies held on Saturday across the nation, including Arizona events in Phoenix and Tucson that drew thousands.

The new law's passage came amid increasing anger in Arizona about violence, drug smugglers and illegal immigration drop houses. The issue gained renewed attention a month ago when a southern Arizona rancher was shot and killed by a suspected illegal border crosser.

Arizona politicians called the shooting an outrage and urged the federal government to do more to secure the U.S.-Mexico border.

The violence "should show the rest of the country what we Arizonans have known for too long — the unsecured border poses a very real and very immediate danger," said U.S. Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick, a Democrat whose district includes part of Pinal County.

Deputy Louie Puroll, 53, was patrolling near Interstate 8 when he came upon a stash of marijuana bales and five suspected smugglers. At least one of the suspects opened fire on him.

A running gunbattle ensued, with at least 30 shots exchanged, probably many more, Villar said. The deputy used his pistol until it either jammed or ran out of bullets, then discarded the gun and began firing with his tactical rifle.

At some point, he was hit in the back, the bullet tearing out a chunk of flesh. The deputy believes it is likely that he shot one of the smugglers, but searchers have found no evidence of that.

Puroll used his cell phone to call dispatchers for help, setting off a frantic hourlong search for the deputy in the remote desert, Villar said.

The area is a well-known smuggling corridor for drugs and illegal immigrants headed from Mexico to Phoenix and the U.S. interior.

There were reports that at least one helicopter came under fire during the manhunt on Friday, but Villar said Saturday that report has been largely discounted.

Puroll, a 15-year department veteran, had been on the lookout for smugglers when he discovered the suspected smugglers, two armed with rifles, authorities said.

Pinal County sheriff Paul Babeu has been warning of increased violence in the smuggling corridor where the deputy was shot.

"The stakes are higher," Villar said Saturday. "As the violence increases on the border, as cartels continue to fight over land, and ownership rights of land to move their drugs and people through, we're going continue to see these and we're going to continue to see the violence escalate if we don't take swift action."
17 caught in search for Ariz. deputy's attackers


no health screening for illegals (S.F. also a sanctuary for disease)

Date 2010-05-02, 9:27PM PDT
Reply to: see below

Legal immigrants are required to have medical screening to ensure that they do not bring any contagious diseases into the United States. Illegal aliens are not screened and many are carrying horrific third world diseases that do not belong in the USA. Many of these diseases are highly contagious and will infect citizens that come in contact with an infected illegal alien. This has already happened in restaurants, schools, and police forces.

Malaria was eradicated from the USA in the 1940s but recently there were outbreaks in southern California, New Jersey, New York City, and Houston. Additionally, Malaria tainted blood has been discovered in the blood supply.

Dengue was first recognized in the 1950s, affects most Asian countries and has become a leading cause of death among children in the infected areas. Heretofore unknown in the US, Dengue outbreaks have now occurred in the United States.

Leprosy, a scourge of Biblical days, is caused by a bacillus agent and is now know as Hansen's Disease. In the 40 years prior to 2002, there were only 900 total cases of leprosy in the US. In the following three years there have been 9,000 cases and most were illegal aliens.

As noted in the article Leprosy in America: new cause for concern by Dr. William Levis, head of the New York Hansen's Disease Clinic. "It's creeping into the U.S. ... This is a real phenomenon. It's a public health threat. New York is endemic now, and nobody's noticed." In the same article, Dr. Terry Williams, who runs a Houston-based clinic serving leprosy patients across southern Texas, said that the bulk of the cases treated by his clinic were immigrants. "A lot of our cases are imported," he said. "We see patients from everywhere--Africa, the Philippines, China, South America." (emphasis added)

Hepatitis A-E is a viral infection that primarily attacks the liver. In 2004, more than 650 people contacted Hepatitis A at a single Chi-Chi's Mexican restaurant in Pennsylvania. Four latter died. Hepatitis B is one of the major diseases of mankind and is a serious global public health problem. It is estimated that 2 BILLION people are infected and about one million persons die each year. The new vaccine is only 95% effective in preventing an infection and will not cure a person who already has Hepatitis B, which results in a lifelong infection, cirrhosis (scarring) of the liver, liver cancer, liver failure, and early death. An estimated 1.3 million people in the US are currently infected. No vaccine is currently available to prevent Hepatitis C-E and treatment for chronic Hepatitis C costs about $1,500 per person.

Tuberculosis (TB) kills approximately 2 million people each year. It is estimated that between 2002 and 2020, approximately 1,000,000,000 people will be newly infected, over 150 million people will get sick, and 36 million will die. TB is a highly contagious disease. Like the common cold, it spreads through the air. When infectious people cough, sneeze, talk or spit, they propel TB germs, known as bacilli, into the air. Each person with active TB will infect on average between 10 and 15 people every year.
The United States currently has one of the lowest rates of TB in the world. Mexico has 10 times the rate of prevalence and many African countries along with Afghanistan, Cambodia, the Philippines, and Indonesia have rates that are 100 – 150 times higher. Making matters worse, a few years ago a Multi-Drug-Resistant (MDR) strain of TB has emerged that is resistant to all standard anti-TB drugs. Treating a single case of MDR TB costs over $250,000 and as much as $1,200,000 per person, and even with treatment about half of the patients with MDR-TB prematurely die.

In an article in the Journal of the American Medical Assn., Dr. Reuben Granich, a lead investigator for the CDC commented on MDR-TB:

"Evidence of it has surfaced in 38 of 61 California health jurisdictions, and it could ‘threaten the efficacy of TB control efforts,' Granich said. The infected were said to be four times as likely to die from the disease and twice as likely to transmit the disease to others ... Reluctant to label the infected as ‘illegal' or even ‘undocumented' aliens, the report notes that of the 407 known cases of MDR-TB, 84% were ‘foreign-born' patients, mainly from Mexico and the Philippines who'd been in the U.S. less than five years. The percentage of TB cases among the ‘foreign-born' jumped from 29% in 1993 to 53% as of last year."
Recently, there was a TB Outbreak In Oklahoma City in a hospital affecting thousands.

Hopefully, this will not be the new extensively drug-resistant XDR strain just being brought in by illegal aliens (now 4% of US cases) and which is currently impossible to cure at any cost. In any case, it would not be surprising to find that the source of the outbreak is an illegal alien working in the hospital or an infected resident worker who became infected through contact with an infected illegal alien since the TB rate for residents in the USA is very low.

For more information on TB and the link to illegal aliens, see:

•Is CDC covering up skyrocketing TB rate?
•Immigration helps diseases spread in Valley
•Mayor favors tougher stance against illegals.
Chagas Disease (American Trypanosomiasis), endemic to South and Central America, is spread by infected triatomine bugs, known as the "kissing bugs," that bite people. It was unknown in the United States until fairly recently. It is now estimated that between 100,000 and 500,000 people in the US have Chagas Disease. Who is infected? Mostly illegal aliens.

Since Chagas Disease is basically unknown outside of the illegal alien community most doctors won't recognize it and the blood supply just started being screened for it. Most cases of Chagas Disease that occur in patients other than illegal aliens are thought to be contracted from tainted blood – blood sold by illegal aliens with Chagas Disease before the blood supply started being tested for it as of August of 2006.

HIV The number of illegal Mexican and Central American immigrants with HIV or AIDS is unknown, mostly because researchers rarely ask about immigration status. However, it is known that the rate of HIV infection among Latino women in California is about twice the rate of white women. At one free California health clinic, all of the women have HIV or AIDS. Most are Mexican or Central American "immigrants."

Then there is Schistosomiasis, Guinea Worm Infection, Whooping cough, Cysticercosis, Morgellon's, and a host of others.

All these diseases and pathogens, and a plethora of others that are not endemic to the US, are being brought in by unscreened illegal aliens who then spread them to an unsuspecting population. These diseases will give you something to think about the next time you are eating at a restaurant with the grunt work being done by illegal aliens who didn't have medical screening before preparing and handling your food.

As recently reported in Hepatitis Risk for East Asians in New York, among east Asian immigrants in New York City, one person in seven carries the Hepatitis B virus and that researchers at New York Univ. School of Medicine, found that 15% of east Asians in New York - as many as 100,000 people - are chronic hepatitis carriers, with the rate highest among immigrants from China. That infection rate is 35 times the rate found in the general population. The article did not mention how many of the infected people were illegal aliens but odds are the vast majority were.

Health reporter Bill Sardi noted:

"Recently an outbreak of hepatitis traced to Chi-Chi's Mexican restaurant, in Pennsylvania was inexplicably traced to contaminated green onions, not the most obvious cause, undocumented food workers who harbored Hepatitis. For the most part, Hepatitis is a blood-borne, not a food-borne disease. The Hepatitis outbreak infected over 650 individuals, caused 9,000 Americans to undergo immune globulin shots, and killed 4 people.
If Americans found out restaurants can commonly infect their customers from food workers, it would be a serious blow to the restaurant industry. Better blame the green onions. Let's concede the onions, grown in Mexico, were contaminated from fecal material containing Hepatitis. Did all the green onions imported from Mexico end up in one single restaurant? There were no other outbreaks of Hepatitis anywhere elsewhere from green onions. There were 13 restaurant workers who had Hepatitis. They were the likely source of the transmitted infection.

While the unions resist mandatory Hepatitis screening and vaccination for food workers, the government mandates that newborn babies be jabbed with Hepatitis vaccines before they can leave the hospital. The logic in this defies understanding until one realizes that newborn babies of immigrant families can more easily acquire Hepatitis so all babies are given the vaccines."

As noted in a May 2006 article, Milford taking harsher stance against illegals than Framingham, increased levels of TB are being noted and some municipalities are finally starting to take action to protect their citizens.

As unfortunate as it may be, the US can not bear the financial burden for treating the world's sick, ill, and infected populace, but the Govt. should be protecting American citizens from the diseases being brought in by illegal aliens.

How many more citizens will come down with Hepatitis, Leprosy, E-coli, or Chagas Disease from contact with an infected illegal alien before something is done? How many school children must get TB before our government takes action to protect them?

Remember the movie Alien and how the creature popped out of infected bodies? The Guinea Worm is a mini-version. Maybe your kids can take advantage of the experience on show & tell day.

If we screen legal aliens for contagious diseases, why are we allowing unscreened and contagious illegal aliens to roam the country infecting the citizenry?

Diseases - collateral damage from a "victimless crime" to save ten cents on a head of lettuce.



May 3, 2010

Op-Ed ColumnistThe Borders We Deserve By ROSS DOUTHAT

Critics of Arizona’s new immigration law have not been shy about impugning the motives of its supporters. The measure, which requires police to check the immigration status of people they question or detain, has been denounced as a “Nazi” or “near-fascist” law, a “police state” intervention, an imitation of “apartheid,” a “Juan Crow” regime that only a bigot could possibly support.

Faced with this kind of hyperbole, the supposed bigots have understandably returned the favor, dismissing opponents of the Arizona measure as limousine liberals who don’t understand the grim realities of life along an often-lawless border. And so the debate has become a storm of insults rather than an argument.

On the specifics of the law, Arizona’s critics have legitimate concerns. Their hysteria has been egregious: you would never guess, amid all the heavy breathing about desert fascism, that federal law already requires legal immigrants to carry proof of their status at all times. But the measure is problematic nonetheless. The majority of police officers, already overburdened, will probably enforce it only intermittently. For an overzealous minority, it opens obvious opportunities for harassment and abuse.

Just because this is the wrong way to enforce America’s immigration laws, however, doesn’t mean they don’t need to be enforced. Illegal immigrants are far more sympathetic than your average lawbreaker: they’re risk-takers looking for a better life in the United States, something they have in common with nearly every living American’s ancestors. But by denouncing almost any crackdown on them as inherently bigoted and cruel, the “pro-immigrant” side of the debate is ultimately perpetuating a deeply unjust system.

There’s a good argument, on moral and self-interested grounds alike, that the United States should be as welcoming as possible to immigrants. But there’s no compelling reason that we should decide which immigrants to welcome based on their proximity to our border, and their ability to slip across.

It takes nothing away from Mexico or Mexicans to note that millions upon millions of people worldwide would give anything for the chance to migrate to America. Many come from nations that are poorer than our southern neighbor. Many have endured natural disasters, or suffered political or religious persecution. And many have spent years navigating our byzantine immigration bureaucracy, only to watch politicians in both parties dangle the promise of amnesty in front of people who jumped the border and the line.

As of the mid-2000s, roughly 700,000 migrants were entering the United States illegally every year. Fifty-seven percent came from Mexico, and 24 percent from the rest of Latin America. Only 13 percent came from Africa, the Middle East, South Asia and the Pacific Rim.

In a better world, the United States would welcome hundreds of thousands more legal immigrants annually, from a much wider array of countries. A more diverse immigrant population would have fewer opportunities to self-segregate and stronger incentives to assimilate. Fears of a Spanish-speaking reconquista would diminish, and so would the likelihood of backlash. And instead of being heavily skewed toward low-skilled migrants, our system could tilt toward higher-skilled applicants, making America more competitive and less stratified.

Such a system would also be fairer to the would-be immigrants themselves. America has always prided itself on attracting people from every culture, continent and creed. In a globalized world, aspiring Americans in Zimbabwe or Burma should compete on a level playing field with Mexicans and Salvadorans. The American dream should seem no more unattainable in China than in Chihuahua.

But this can only happen if America first regains control of its southern border. There is a widespread pretense that this has been tried and found to be impossible, when really it’s been found difficult and left untried.

Curbing the demand for illegal workers requires stiff workplace enforcement, stringent penalties for hiring undocumented workers, and shared sacrifice from Americans accustomed to benefiting from cheap labor. Reducing the supply requires bigger Border Patrol budgets and enforcement measures that will inevitably be criticized as draconian: some kind of tamper-proof Social Security card, most likely, and then more physical walls along our southern border, as opposed to the “virtual” wall that the Obama administration seems to be wisely abandoning.

You can see why our leaders would rather duck the problem. But when Washington doesn’t act, the people on the front lines end up taking matters into their own hands.

If you don’t like what Arizona just did, the answer isn’t to scream “fascist!” It’s to demand that the federal government do its job, so that we can have the immigration system that both Americans and immigrants deserve.