Friday, August 20, 2010

47 ILLEGAL GANG MEMBER ARRESTED IN 4 STATES! I Know I Will Sleep Better Tonight!



47 immigrants arrested in 4 New England states

BOSTON – Federal immigration officials say a three-month operation in four New England states has led to the arrest of 47 people suspected of being gang members or having ties to gangs.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokesman Harold Ort said on Friday that many of the suspects had histories of violent crimes including attempted murder, car jacking, assault and battery with dangerous weapons, assault to rape and possession of firearms.

The suspects were detained in Massachusetts, Maine, Connecticut and Rhode Island.
The operation targeted foreigners and those born abroad. They will appear before immigration judges, but their criminal status renders them removable from the country within 10 business days.



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.

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.


Police arrested in northern Mexico mayor's killing

By MARK WALSH, Associated Press Writer Mark Walsh, Associated Press Writer

MONTERREY, Mexico – Six city police officers were arrested Friday in the killing of a mayor in northern Mexico, as the country's escalating drug violence targets more public officials.

The suspects included the officer who guarded the house where Santiago Mayor Edelmiro Cavazos was seized on Sunday. The officer said he was kidnapped with the mayor and later freed unharmed.

The officers confessed to being involved in the Cavazos' killing, said Nuevo Leon state Attorney General Alejandro Garza y Garza, even though some declared their innocence while being presented to the press.

"We are still looking for others who were involved as well," Garza y Garza said.

The body of the 38-year-old mayor was found handcuffed and gagged Wednesday outside of his town, a popular weekend getaway for residents of the industrial city of Monterrey.

One of the officers took part directly in the kidnapping, while the others kept watch on roads surrounding the mayor's home, said Adrian de la Garza Santos, director of the state investigations agency.

Shortly after the kidnapping, the guard on duty told authorities he had been thrown in the trunk of one of the kidnappers' cars and driven around for 15 minutes before being dumped unharmed by the side of the road, De La Garza said. The guard is now accused of being involved, though he said Friday he is innocent.

Cavazos' death comes amid increasing violence in the northeast of the country attributed to a dispute the Gulf cartel and its former allies, the Zetas.

Meanwhile, a federal judge presiding over the case of former Cancun mayor facing drug-related charges survived an attack Thursday in the west coast state of Nayarit, according to a federal police report. The assault killed one of two bodyguards for Judge Carlos Alberto Elorza.

President Felipe Calderon is proposing that Mexico consider appointing anonymous judges for drug-trafficking trials, a change that would contradict the effort he promoted to build a more open judicial system.

Elorza is the judge in the case of Gregorio Sanchez, a former Cancun mayor who was forced out of the Quintana Roo gubernatorial campaign when he was charged with drug trafficking and money laundering. Federal police minister Wilfrido Robledo told reporters that Elorza had received threats, so his security detail was increased. He rode in an armored SUV when he came under attack.

The Nuevo Leon attorney general did not indicated which gang may have been responsible in Cavazos' case, which has prompted authorities to call for more patrols by both the army and federal police in Nuevo Leon.

Mauricio Fernandez, mayor of the San Pedro Garza Garcia, another town on the outskirts of Monterrey, said Cavazos had received death threats from gangs warning him to stay out of their way and had sought advice on how to handle the threats.

Officials at the state attorney general's office said Cavazos had never informed authorities about any threats. Gen. Guillermo Moreno, who commands troops in Nuevo Leon and Tamaulipas states, said the army did not received complains from the mayor or requests for protection.

The leading candidate for governor in the state of Tamaulipas, which borders Nuevo Leon, was shot to death a week before the election. A mayoral candidate in Tamaulipas also was shot in May.

Drug violence has killed more than 28,000 people since December 2006, when Calderon started his crackdown on the cartels.


TEXAS - Murder by Illegal in SANCTUARY CITY

Mayor Touts Sanctuary Policy After Illegal Alien Murders Teen
08/19/2010 - 11:53am
The mayor of Texas’ largest city blames a “failed federal immigration policy” for the recent murder of a teenager yet has the audacity to publicly defend her municipality’s longtime sanctuary measures protecting illegal aliens.
Earlier this week a previously deported illegal immigrant with a lengthy criminal record gunned down a 14-year-old girl in Houston as she walked home from a party. The girl, Shatavia Anderson, was shot in the back after a confrontation near her home. The 22-year-old triggerman (Melvin Alvarado) is a Honduran national who has twice been convicted of drunken driving and has served time in Harris County Jail. Federal officials deported him on two occasions—in 2008 and 2009—but he still managed to return to his adopted hometown of Houston.
That’s probably because the city of about 2.4 million residents has long offered illegal immigrants sanctuary and even forbids its police department from asking suspects’ about their legal status. In an effort to change that policy, Judicial Watch sued the Houston Police Department last year on behalf of a sergeant whose husband, also a Houston Police officer, was killed in the line of duty by a previously deported illegal alien with a criminal history.
Houston Mayor Annise Parker, who favors U.S. citizenship for illegal immigrants, is in denial about the role sanctuary measures play in crimes like the recent Anderson shooting or the Houston police officer’s murder a few years ago. Ardently defending Houston’s sanctuary policies, she claims that “the problem is not illegal immigration” but rather the federal government’s inability to keep foreigners out when they break criminal laws.
The mayor assures illegal aliens that if they live in her city “peacefully” and “don’t “break local laws” they can call the police for services, use public clinics and report crimes without being reported to federal immigration authorities. Hundreds of municipalities around the U.S offer illegal immigrants the same protection and, in most cases, their police departments have a don’t-ask-don’t-tell approach to immigration.
In dozens of instances the measures have enabled violent illegal immigrants to remain in the U.S. long enough to commit atrocious crimes against innocent Americans. In the last few years alone, several law enforcement officers, teenagers and an entire family were brutally murdered in different parts of the country by illegal aliens with criminal histories.

County Spends $600 Mil On Welfare For Illegal Immigrants
Last Updated: Thu, 03/11/2010 - 3:14pm
For the second consecutive year taxpayers in a single U.S. county will dish out more than half a billion dollars just to cover the welfare and food-stamp costs of illegal immigrants.
Los Angeles County, the nation’s most populous, may be in the midst of a dire financial crisis but somehow there are plenty of funds for illegal aliens. In January alone, anchor babies born to the county’s illegal immigrants collected more than $50 million in welfare benefits. At that rate the cash-strapped county will pay around $600 million this year to provide illegal aliens’ offspring with food stamps and other welfare perks.


The exorbitant figure, revealed this week by a county supervisor, doesn’t even include the enormous cost of educating, medically treating or incarcerating illegal aliens in the sprawling county of about 10 million residents. Los Angeles County annually spends more than $1 billion for those combined services, including $500 million for healthcare and $350 million for public safety.
About a quarter of the county’s welfare and food stamp issuances go to parents who reside in the United States illegally and collect benefits for their anchor babies, according to the figures from the county’s Department of Social Services. In 2009 the tab ran $570 million and this year’s figure is expected to increase by several million dollars.
Illegal immigration continues to have a “catastrophic impact on Los Angeles County taxpayers,” the veteran county supervisor (Michael Antonovich) who revealed the information has said. The former fifth-grade history teacher has repeatedly come under fire from his liberal counterparts for publicizing statistics that confirm the devastation illegal immigration has had on the region. Antonovich, who has served on the board for nearly three decades, represents a portion of the county that is roughly twice the size of Rhode Island and has about 2 million residents.
His district is simply a snippet of a larger crisis. Nationwide, Americans pay around $22 billion annually to provide illegal immigrants with welfare benefits that include food assistance programs such as free school lunches in public schools, food stamps and a nutritional program (known as WIC) for low-income women and their children. Tens of billions more are spent on other social services, medical care, public education and legal costs such as incarceration and public defenders.
Anchor Babies Grab One Quarter of Welfare Dollars in LA Co

The anchor baby scam has proven lucrative for illegal aliens in Los Angeles County, at considerable cost to our own poor and downtrodden legal citizenry.

The numbers show that more than $50 million in CalWORKS benefits and food stamps for January went to children born in the United States whose parents are in the country without documentation. This represents approximately 23 percent of the total benefits under the state welfare and food stamp programs, Antonovich said.

"When you add this to $350 million for public safety and nearly $500 million for health care, the total cost for illegal immigrants to county taxpayers far exceeds $1 billion a year -- not including the millions of dollars for education," Antonovich said.

I love children and I'm all for compassion -- smart, teach-them-to-fish compassion. But when laws, the Constitution, and enforcement allow illegal aliens (the operative word here being "illegal") to insinuate themselves into our nation and bleed us of our precious financial resources, then laws, the Constitution and enforcement need to be changed.

SURRENDERING OUR BORDERS TO NARCOMEX - While Fighting Terrorist Over There!

Parts of Mexican Border “Too Dangerous” To Patrol

Federal agents guarding the U.S.-Mexico border have been ordered to stay away from the most crime-infested stretches because they’re “too dangerous” and patrolling them could result in an “international incident” of cross border shooting.
This unbelievable development was made public this week by a veteran law enforcement official in an Arizona county located along the Mexican border. In a video taped interview with a conservative newspaper, Cochise County Sheriff Larry Dever reveals firsthand accounts from U.S. Border Patrol supervisors stationed in his southeastern Arizona county.
Middle and upper management won’t allow agents to work in certain violent portions of the border because it’s too dangerous, the four-term elected sheriff says. They also want to avoid triggering an “international incident” if shooting breaks out across the border, according to Dever’s account of the Border Patrol mandate.
Throughout his three-decade law enforcement career, Dever has been on the frontlines of the increasing violence that has destroyed communities like Cochise County, which shares an 83.5-mile border with Mexico. The area is part of the Border Patrol’s Tucson sector, which accounts for nearly half of all seized marijuana and half of all illegal immigrants apprehended entering the U.S.
The crisis has become so dire that Dever created a special unit in his department dedicated to combating the increasing criminal activity related to illegal immigration and Mexican drug cartels. Officers will patrol smuggling routes along the border and target criminal enterprises that have infested the community in the last few years.
The situation along the border has become dire, the sheriff says, and his community continues to suffer in the midst of federal inaction. Congress is well aware of the situation and in fact has heard from Dever on several occasions. Just last spring the sheriff told federal lawmakers that in the 12 years he’s testified before various congressional committees, border crime has steadily increased and will only worsen.
Violence related to drug and human smuggling has risen sharply in the last decade, the sheriff said in testimony before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security. Local law enforcement agencies are severely undermanned to handle the crisis and about 37% of local criminal justice system assets have been diverted to matters relating to illegal immigration.





August 20, 2010

Robert Rech
Former Secretary of Labor, Professor at Berkeley
Posted: August 19, 2010 07:36 PM

Why the Unfolding Disaster in Pakistan Should Concern You

The human tragedy unfolding in Pakistan right now demands our full attention.
Flooding there has already stranded 20 million people, more than 10 percent of the population. A fifth of the nation is underwater. More than 3.5 million children are in imminent danger of contracting cholera and acute diarrhea; millions more are in danger of starving if they don't get help soon. More than 1,500 have already been killed by the floods.
This is a human disaster.
It's also a frightening opening for the Taliban.
Yet so far only a trickle of aid has gotten through. As of today (Thursday), the U.S. has pledged $150 million, along with 12 helicopters to take food and material to the victims. (Other rich nations have offered even less - the U.K., $48.5 million; Japan, $10 million, and France, a measly $1 million. Today (Thursday), Hillary Clinton is speaking at the UN, seeking more.)
This is bizarre and shameful. We're spending over $100 billion this year on military maneuvers to defeat the Taliban in Pakistan and neighboring Afghanistan. Over 200 helicopters are deployed in that effort. And we're spending $2 billion in military aid to Pakistan.
More must be done for flood victims, immediately.
Beyond helping to prevent mass disease and starvation we'll also need to help Pakistan rebuild. Half of the nation's people depend on agriculture for their livelihood, and a large portion of the nation's crops and agricultural land have been destroyed. Roads, bridges, railways, and irrigation systems have been wiped out.
Last year, Congress agreed to a $7.5 billion civilian aid package to Pakistan to build roads, bridges, and schools. That should be quadrupled.
While they're at it, Congress should remove all tariffs on textiles and clothing from Pakistan. Textiles and clothing are half Pakistan's exports. More than half of all Pakistanis are employed growing cotton, weaving it into cloth, or cutting and sewing it into clothing. In the months and years ahead, Pakistan will have to rely ever more on these exports.
Yet we impose a 17 percent tariff on textiles and clothing from Pakistan. If we removed it, Pakistan's exports would surge $5 billion annually. That would boost the wages of millions there.
That tariff also artificially raises the price of the clothing and textiles you and I buy. How many American jobs do we protect by this absurdity? Almost none. Instead, we've been importing more textiles and clothing from China and other East Asian nations. China subsidizes its exports with an artificially-low currency.
If you're not moved by the scale of the disaster and its aftermath, consider that our future security is inextricably bound up with the future for Pakistan. Of 175 million Pakistanis, some 100 million are under age 25. In the years ahead they'll either opt for gainful employment or, in its absence, may choose Islamic extremism.
We are already in a war for their hearts and minds, as well as those of young people throughout the Muslim world.
Right now, Islamic insurgents are using the chaos as an opportunity, attacking police posts in Pakistan's northwest while police have been occupied in rescue and relief work. Meanwhile, lacking help and losing hope, many Pakistanis are becoming increasingly hostile toward President Asif Ali Zardari.
And, of course, Pakistan has the bomb.
What can you do? Government efforts are important but so is private giving. Check the New York Times's Lede blog for organizations providing disaster relief. The Oxfam website has lots of good information about who's doing what, and how effectively.
This post originally appeared at


“These Americans see mass immigration – especially illegal immigration – as a threat to their well-being. People who have to compete for jobs and wages with immigrants, whose kids attend schools that are strained by meeting the special needs of non-English-speaking students, and who suddenly feel like strangers in their own communities, tend to view things a little differently.”

Religious Leaders Make a Flawed Case for Mass Immigration


In recent months, prominent leaders of the Evangelical Christian movement have joined with mainline Protestant churches, the Catholic Bishops, the Conservative and Reform branches of Judaism, and other establishment religious groups in calling for an overhaul of U.S. immigration policy that includes amnesty for current illegal aliens and significant increases in legal immigration to the United States.
Evangelical Protestantism has often been the odd-man-out in the arena of religious political activism, tending to take a more conservative line than other established religious denominations on contentious political and social issues. Thus, when leaders of the Evangelical movement start singing from the same political hymnal as their more left-leaning brethren, one might assume that the moral issues of the current immigration debate are a matter of settled religious doctrine.
Yet, in the United States, arguably the most religious of all Western societies, the majority of people continue to resist amnesty for illegal aliens, insist that immigration laws be enforced, and oppose increasing levels of immigration to the United States. It seems implausible that these millions of otherwise decent, generous, church-going folks would suddenly exhibit a moral blind spot on the issue of immigration.
The disconnect between the clergy and the people who fill the pews suggests that the moral questions surrounding immigration policy are not as clear as they might seem.
It is easy to understand the position taken by religious leaders when immigration is viewed solely from the perspective of immigrants. We all understand and empathize with the human aspirations that drive people to leave one country and come to another. It is undeniable that immigration always benefits immigrants – they wouldn’t come otherwise.
What is missing from this narrow perspective on immigration is a thoughtful assessment of how immigration affects people in the receiving society (or even how large-scale emigration might impede morally desirable social and economic reforms in the sending nations). The reason the United States, and every nation on Earth, restricts immigration, however, is precisely because we recognize that what is in the individual interest of a would-be immigrant is not necessarily in the interest of everyone else in the receiving country.
Those who support amnesty for current illegal aliens and expanding legal immigration (above its already record levels) do not necessarily claim a higher moral ground. They tend, instead, to claim a higher rung on the socio-economic ladder, or see an immediate personal, political or economic benefit in more open immigration.
The divide over immigration policy in America is not a left-right one, and certainly not between the kind-and-generous among us versus the stone-hearted ingrates. Rather, the debate tends to pit the elite – those who are well-insulated from the adverse consequences of mass immigration – against everyone else.
The economic and social elite in America generally don’t find that their jobs, wages, their kids’ schools, their access to vital services, and their communities are adversely affected by large-scale immigration. In fact, immigrants can often provide the elite with subsidized nannies, gardeners and other domestic help that makes their lives easier. Thus, they are more likely to support amnesty and broader immigration.
The same cannot be said for many other Americans. These Americans see mass immigration – especially illegal immigration – as a threat to their well-being. People who have to compete for jobs and wages with immigrants, whose kids attend schools that are strained by meeting the special needs of non-English-speaking students, and who suddenly feel like strangers in their own communities, tend to view things a little differently.
These folks – according to polls, a significant majority of Americans – are not uncaring, nor have they forgotten their own family histories. However, a 21st century immigration policy that is based on nostalgia for the 19th century is irrational and ignores the inescapable reality that everything – with the exception of the aspirations of migrants – has changed dramatically.
There is no moral or religious code that permits charity with other people’s resources. It is neither kind nor ethical to satisfy one’s own sense of morality with someone else’s job, or someone else’s children’s educational opportunities.
Unfortunately, there is no easy moral path to correcting the failed immigration policies of recent decades. The most immoral option of all, however, would be to try to “solve” the problem on the backs of ordinary Americans. They didn’t ask for this. In fact their pleas for rational enforcement of immigration laws have fallen on the deaf ears of the political elite. Amnesty and legal-immigration-on-demand would only compound the adverse impact that law-abiding Americans have experienced, and punish those who are least to blame for the mess.
Instead, what we need are policies that encourage those who are here illegally to return home. Let’s be very clear: no one is rationally suggesting that we can deport our way out of the current crisis. However, enforcement of policies that make it difficult for illegal aliens to find jobs, gain access to nonessential, nonemergency government benefits and services, or guarantee citizenship to their U.S.-born children would, over time, convince many current illegal aliens to return on their own.
Even those of us who advocate this type of enforcement recognize and are conflicted by the hardships it would cause to the people who are living here illegally and innocent family members. By and large, illegal aliens are good people who have made bad decisions for understandable reasons. However, all of us know that both God and man have established rules that constrain us from doing things we might otherwise want to do, and that there must be consequences for violating those laws. These rules are not arbitrary and capricious, but exist because our actions affect not only ourselves, but others around us.
It is important that a national debate about the moral issues involved in immigration take place. The issue is a highly complex one, and what may appear on the surface to be easy moral questions to answer may not be once we begin looking beneath the surface.
Perhaps one important ground rule for having a productive debate is for all of us to distinguish between immigrants and immigration. Immigrants – regardless of legal status – are human beings who must always be treated with respect and dignity, but also as people who must be held accountable for their decisions and their actions. Immigration, like any other public policy, must be formulated and enforced in a manner that serves the best interests of the American people.
For people who are motivated by their faith to do good in this world, there is no shortage of ways in which their energies and devotion can be put to effective use. But, as global population rapidly approaches 7 billion people, mass migration is simply not a viable response to the poverty and misery that afflicts so many people around the world. In the end, well-intended calls for still higher levels of immigration would only undermine the well-being of millions of Americans while doing little to benefit the billions around the world who could be better served in other ways.
Editorial Reviews

Father Bascio presents a strikingly different perspective on illegal immigration from that of most Christian clergymen. He turns his spotlight on the harm of officially tolerated illegal immigration to America's own struggling workers in the form of joblessness, shrinking wages and poorer working conditions. African-American workers, already plagued by job discrimination, bear the heaviest burden of the illegal invasion, which locks them out of many workplaces or drives wages below acceptable levels. The chronic non-enforcement of immigration laws is no accident: Congress has little stomach for ending something so profitable for their most powerful donors and the voters they can muster. The author fears that many committed Christians are blinded to these abuses by their church leaders' preoccupation with charity toward illegal aliens, while ignoring the plight of millions of low-wage Americans. He deftly rebuts the self-serving myth of employers' and politicians' that illegals "do jobs Americans won't do." Bascio also sees the profit motive behind legal immigration policies that lure the third world's best and brightest to America, stripping poorer nations of their physicians, teachers and scientists. As a Catholic priest, the author admits the unpleasantness of taking a position not shared by his Church's hierarchy, which is driven by the prospect of rising membership. Bascio sees unchecked illegal immigration as having grave consequences for overall U.S. tranquility: disdain for the rule of law, street gangs, document fraud and identity theft, staggering welfare and education costs and creeping "Balkanization" that threatens the national principle of E Pluribus Unum. Father Bascio's book is a resounding appeal to Christians to re-examine their churches' conventional view of illegal immigration and consider the hardship it brings for fellow Americans and its dangers for the nation as a whole.


Lou Dobbs Tonight
Monday, February 11, 2008

In California, League of United Latin American Citizens has adopted a resolution to declare "California Del Norte" a sanctuary zone for immigrants. The declaration urges the Mexican government to invoke its rights under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo "to seek third nation neutral arbitration of ....disputes concerning immigration laws and their enforcement." We’ll have the story.
Last year, Prince William County, Virginia passed an initiative to allow local police to check the immigration status of anyone in police custody. The county recently held its first immigration training session for local police officers. We’ll have a look inside the training.
Mexican President Felipe Calderon is in New York today on the first leg his five day tour across America to meddle in immigration issues in the United States. This is his first visit to the U.S. since he became President in 2006, but he will not meet with President Bush or any of the presidential candidates, who he has accused of spewing anti immigrant rhetoric. Join us for that report.
Audio clips of the true agenda of Illegal Alien Lobby

Agendas of MEChA, La Raza, MALDEF, and Southwest Voter Registration Projects This is a compilation of live, recorded statements by elected U.S. politicians, college professors, and pro-illegal alien activists whose objective is to take control of our country "by vote if possible and violence if necessary!" The speakers listed below are not the "lunatic fringe". They are some of the most powerful Latino leaders and politicians in America, whose allegiance is to foreigners of their ethnic group, not to the United States. They seek political power and realize the way to get it is to flood America with legal and illegal immigrants from their ethnic "tribe". Simply by demographics, they will dilute the vote of American citizens and replace our American culture. "The Third World" is at your doorstep and anxious to present you with the bill as they jump on "the entitlement bandwagon." If you think this is an exaggeration, you have only to witness California as a forewarning of where our entire country is headed. A very sinister message being taught in many Ethnic Studies programs across this country. While MEChA and LA Raza, the two largest Latino organizations on college and high school campuses preach hatred for America, the liberal media ignores them, as the Ford, Rockefeller, Carnegie and other Foundations contribute millions to promote their anarchy. Pro-illegal immigration activists would have you believe "illegals" are coming here only to seek work and a better life. MEChA, LA Raza, MALDEF and the Southwest Voter Registration Project have much darker agendas. Listen to the following audio clips to understand their message. "We call things racism just to get attention. We reduce complicated problems to racism, not because it is racism, but because it works." --- Alfredo Gutierrez, political consultant, as quoted by Richard de Uriarte, The Phoenix Gazette, March 14, 1992 (quoted in The ProEnglish Advocate, 1st quarter, 2002). The above audio clips are from archives distributed by the California Coalition for Immigration Reform. THE AMERICAN RESISTANCE assumes no responsibility for possible errors in recording, attribution, or transcription. The first 15 audio clips above demonstrate the "Pro-Mexico, Anti-America" agenda of "Pro-Immigration" activists and politicians. Rather than encouraging new immigrants and illegal aliens to assimilate into the American culture, they instead seek to "set up a nation within a nation"; one that they can control by keeping immigrants out of the mainstream. They seek "raw political power" with the goal of open borders. Many helped to found and still support such openly racist, anti-American organizations like MEChA, LA RAZA, MALDEF and the Southwest Voter Registration Project. Their goals are to re-take the American Southwest, not by war, but rather by uncontrolled migration. If you think it's not a problem in your state, it will be eventually, as you become a citizen of "MEXAMERICA". Additional audio/video Former Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo "I have proudly affirmed that the Mexican nation extends beyond the territory enclosed by its borders and that Mexican migrants are an important - a very important - part of it." -- Former Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo at the National Council of La Raza (The Race) Soiree, Chicago on July 23, 1997 The true agenda of The Race Industry Harvard Professor Samuel P. Huntington, Chairman of the Harvard Academy for International and Area Studies - a self-described "old-fashioned Democrat" - warned in his April 2004 article, "The Hispanic Challenge": "Demographically, socially, and culturally, the reconquista (re-conquest) of the Southwest United States by Mexican immigrants is well underway... No other immigrant group in U.S. history has asserted or could assert a historical claim to U.S. territory. Mexicans and Mexican Americans can and do make that claim." In December 2004, the Mexican government published a guide advising illegal Mexican nationals on how to safely cross the U.S. border. In 2001, Ernesto Ruffo Appel, Mexico’s Commissioner for Northern Border Affairs, reportedly told potential illegal Mexican migrants: "If the border patrol agent finds you, try again." Other Mexican government officials have said: "I have proudly affirmed that the Mexican nation extends beyond the territory enclosed by its borders and that Mexican migrants are an important - a very important - part of it." --1997, Ernest Zedillo, former President of Mexico, in Chicago. "We are practicing La Reconquista in California." --1998, Jose Pescador Osuna, then-Consul General of Mexico, in California. "We are Mexicans that live in our territories and we are Mexicans that live in other territories. In reality, we are 120 million people that live together and are working together to construct a nation." --2004, Vicente Fox, President of Mexico, in Chicago. Leaders of Mexican ancestry in the United States have made similar statements: "As goes the Latino population will go the state of California, and as goes the state of California will go the United States of America. My friends, the stakes are big. This is a fight worth making." --1995, Henry Cisneros, former U.S. Housing and Urban Development Secretary, at a Hispanic conference at UC Riverside. "Eventually, we are going to take over all the political institutions of California." --1998, Mario Obledo, co-founder of MALDEF and California Secretary of Health & Welfare under Gov. Jerry Brown. (He added that California will soon become an "Hispanic state" and that anyone who does not like Mexicans "should go back to Europe.") "Mexico is recovering the territories yielded to the United States by means of migratory tactics." -- 2001, Elena Poniatowska, a prize-winning Mexican novelist who has taught at Harvard, Yale and Princeton. "A secessionist movement is not something that you can put away and say it is never going to happen in the United States. Time and history change." --2002, Armando Navarro, professor at the University of California-Riverside. "The U.S. Southwest will secede and may rejoin Mexico... No nation's borders have been permanent. Throughout history, nations and empires rise and fall." --2002, Charles Truxillo. professor at the University of New Mexico. (Who also said secession of the U.S. Southwest is an "inevitability" because of continued high Hispanic immigration.) "We don't need no stinking green cards." --Benicio Silva of UC Berkeley declared that having to show them at the border was a "violation of our human rights" because "Aztlan is ours and the white man is the invader." "They say we're 'Latinizing' Los Angeles! Don't you love it? We are fighting to build a new Mestizo nation." "We are here again, we are millions and millions, and the aging white Americans are not making babies, we've got to get ready to govern!" --Jose Angel Gutierrez, long-time University of Texas faculty member Rudy Acuña warns that Chicano youth "bring the possibility of violence" to the Chicano movement, and the "Brown Berets" tell "gringos" that "the streets will run red with the blood of tyrants, who have murdered us for so long." Amnestied and naturalized illegal aliens would be able to vote in U.S. elections. Their extended family members who migrate here also could become future voters in the U.S. "Anchor baby" children born in the U.S. to illegal alien parents also are able to vote. Many Mexican-Americans are patriotic and have no political agenda, but they and their U.S.-born children indeed can be mobilized by Mexico to vote according to Mexico’s interests. Juan Hernandez, U.S.-born member of Vicente Fox’s cabinet, has remarked: "We are betting that the Mexican American population in the United States... will think Mexico first."


One thing that has certainly changed since 1994 is Harry Reid. As Senate Democratic Leader, he now sees illegal aliens and foreign workers as future Democratic voters and believes that pandering to Hispanics will help him win votes. The Arizona Republic recently ran a piece entitled “Harry Reid's dislike of Arizona law may aid re-election.”
Fortunately for Nevadans and Americans, Reid’s repositioning on immigration will most likely backfire. Hispanics only make up 12% of the electorate, and many are patriotic citizens who support Arizona’s law. As a whole, 57% of Nevada voters support Arizona’s law and 63% oppose the Obama administration’s lawsuit to prevent it.
While illegal immigration has become a hot button political issue, no politician of either party has introduced legislation for across the board cuts on legal immigration since I introduced the Mass Immigration Reduction Act of 2004.
The fact that this is not getting any attention is outrageous. Despite skyrocketing unemployment, we actually increased the number of foreign workers we accepted into the country in 2009, with over 1.1 million permanent green cards issued in addition to over 880,000 visas to temporary foreign workers.
With our immigration and economic problems out of control and politicians refusal to fully address the issue, we need the Harry Reid of 1993 and 1994 more than ever.


Reid Now Nearly Tied With Pelosi In Terms of Unfavorability
Friday, August 20, 2010
In addition to becoming competitive in his bid for reelection in Nevada, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is now nearly tied with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi when it comes to unpopularity among voters nationwide.
A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Voters across the country finds that 56% have at least a somewhat unfavorable opinion of Reid, while 59% feel the same way about Pelosi.
The good news for Reid that these figures include 47% with a Very Unfavorable opinion of Pelosi, while just 38% hold a Very Unfavorable opinion of him.
Twenty-six percent (26%) have a favorable opinion of the Nevada Democrat, but that includes just five percent (5%) with a Very Favorable view. Thirty-four percent (34%) regard the San Francisco congresswoman favorably, with 13% Very Favorable toward her.
Still, 19% don’t know enough about Reid to venture any kind of opinion about him, while only seven percent (7%) have no opinion of Pelosi.
Neither Democratic congressional leader has been particularly popular since the current session of Congress began early last year, but Pelosi has been the better-known and least popular of the duo for most of that time. Pelosi’s unfavorables have ranged from 52% to 64% in that time period, while Reid’s generally remained in the 40s last year but have been consistently in the 50s since then.
But then the majority of voters nationwide believe the Democratic congressional agenda is extreme, while a plurality describes the Republican agenda as mainstream.
Speaking of the Republicans, just over one-third of U.S. voters view their congressional leaders unfavorably, but they remain unknowns to another third.
(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.
The national survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on August 17-18, 2010 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is viewed favorably by 28% of voters and unfavorably by 38%. This includes just four percent (4%) with a Very Favorable opinion of him and 17% who regard him Very Unfavorably. But 34% have no opinion of the Kentucky senator.
Twenty-four percent (24%) have a favorable opinion of House Minority Leader John Boehner, while 39% view him unfavorably. Included in these findings are six percent (6%) with a Very Favorable view and 19% with a Very Unfavorable one. However again, 37% don’t know enough about the Ohio congressman to have any kind of opinion of him.
Since the first of last year, McConnell’s unfavorables have ranged from a low of 28% to a high of 38%. Boehner in those same surveys has earned unfavorables ranging from 31% to 42%.
Democratic voters like their congressional leaders a lot more than GOP voters like their party’s leaders, though. Voters not affiliated with either party tend to dislike Reid and Pelosi strongly and have mixed feelings about the Republican leaders. But a high number of unaffiliateds also have no opinions about Boehner and McConnell.
Most Democratic voters think their representatives in Congress have done a good job of representing Democratic values over the past several years, while even more Republican voters continue to feel that GOP members have lost touch with the party base throughout the nation.
Only 37% of voters think their local congressional representative deserves reelection, and 62% say it would be better for the country if most incumbents in Congress were defeated this November.
Sixty percent (60%) of voters say most members of Congress don’t care what their constituents think.
Nearly two-out-of-three voters (65%) remain at least somewhat angry at the current policies of the federal government, including 40% who are Very Angry. Fifty-nine percent (59%) also continue to feel that neither Republican nor Democratic political leaders have a good understanding of what is needed today.
Republicans continue to lead Democrats on the Generic Congressional Ballot and are trusted more by voters on most key issues.
Most voters in the country now believe President Obama and the average Democrat in Congress are more liberal, politically speaking, than they are. Just 26% think Obama shares the same political views they have, and only 23% believe that of Democrats in Congress. But then only 26% think the average Republican
One thing that has certainly changed since 1994 is Harry Reid. As Senate Democratic Leader, he now sees illegal aliens and foreign workers as future Democratic voters and believes that pandering to Hispanics will help him win votes.

It will grant amnesty to every single illegal alien present in this country the day it is passed. Besides rewarding the lawbreakers who are already here, this will encourage additional illegal immigration as the bill is debated. The bill even allows illegal aliens with multiple criminal convictions to receive amnesty.

Tom Tancredo
Bring back the Old Harry Reid

When asked about figures released by the Pew Hispanic Center that found that 14% of the nation’s construction workers are illegal aliens, Harry Reid responded, “That may be some place, but it’s not here in Nevada.” Reid is right. The number is much higher in Nevada. According to the same report, Nevada has the highest level of illegal aliens in the workforce at 12.2%—2.3% higher than the next highest state.


Gangs and drugs prevalent in public schools, survey finds
A national report says a quarter of middle and high school students say both are present on their campuses, a vast difference from the scene at private and religious schools.
By Kim Geiger, Tribune Washington Bureau
August 20, 2010
Reporting from Washington

More than a quarter of public middle and high school students say both gangs and drugs are present at their campuses, according to a survey released Thursday by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University.
Those roughly 5.7 million students nationwide are also more likely than their counterparts at private and religious schools to smoke, drink and use drugs, said Joseph A. Califano Jr., chairman and founder of the center, which has been surveying youth for the last 16 years.
Califano said the survey illustrated "a trajectory of tragedy for millions of children and their parents."
Forty-six percent of teens report gangs at public schools, compared with just 2% of teens at private and religious schools. Forty-seven percent of public school teens said drugs are used, stored or sold at school, compared with 6% of private school students.
The "most disturbing finding," Califano said, is that 1 in 3 middle school students say drugs are used or sold at their school — a 39% increase since last year.
Not everyone reacted with alarm.
David J. Hanson, a professor emeritus of sociology at the State University of New York at Potsdam and a longtime critic of surveys by Califano's group, said Califano was "making much ado about nothing, because if we compare 2010 to 2001, there's been no change" in middle school numbers.
In 2001, 31% of public middle school students said drugs were present at school, compared with 32% in 2010. Similarly, though Califano noted a "steady rise" since 2006 in students who report the presence of drugs at their high school, Hanson said that when compared with 2001, there again had been no change.
The annual survey, timed to coincide with the back-to-school season, was conducted in April and was based on responses from more than 2,000 students and 456 parents from across the country who were surveyed by phone or over the Internet.
Hanson, who reviewed the survey and its methodology, said numerous data points were "simply deceptive," because they relied on second-hand information, some of which was supplied by students whose parents could see or hear their responses. The tendency of students to report what they have heard at school but not seen skews the portrait of what actually is occurring, he said.
Califano said his organization expected that some students might have underreported their own use of substances or alcohol.
Students from Southern California and other areas in the Southwest were among the most likely to report gang activity, Califano said.
He said students at schools where drugs and gangs were present were almost 12 times more likely than private school students to use tobacco, three times more likely to use alcohol and five times more likely to use marijuana.
Students consistently rate drugs, alcohol and tobacco as the "top concern" facing their age group, Califano said.

FUCKING OVER THE AMERICAN WORKER - Why Don't They Just Hire a Horde of Illegals? THAT WORKS!

Feigning concern for “democracy”
Corporations, UAW call for revote on wage cut at Indianapolis GM plant
By Andre Damon and Jerry White
20 August 2010
[Click here to toggle images]

In recent days, the United Auto Workers union, former Wall Street speculator Justin Norman and General Motors have pressed ahead with their efforts to force workers at the Indianapolis GM stamping plant to accept a 50 percent cut in wages. These forces are calling for a revote on the grounds that only a “vocal minority” of workers spoke out at last Sunday’s union meeting against the concessions demands.

The GM Indianapolis stamping plant
This position was expressed most clearly by Norman who has insisted on the pay cut as the precondition for buying the plant from GM. At a press conference Wednesday he said, “Based on the outpouring of phone calls that I have received from plant employees, I believe there is a sincere desire to listen to our offer.”

This was echoed by UAW Region 3 Director Maurice Davison who previously told the Indianapolis Star, “Out of the 600 that work there, about 200 were carrying that message (to deny a vote). I wonder about the 400 that didn’t come out to that meeting.”

Workers at the August 15 meeting shouted down UAW International officials and drove them out of the Local 23 union hall, forcing the UAW to cancel a vote on the concessions they hoped to hold the next day.

The sudden concern for the rights of workers to express themselves is ludicrous coming from Norman, a corporate front man for GM who is using the threat of mass unemployment to tear up the existing contract and blackmail workers into accepting poverty wages.

It is even more ridiculous coming from the UAW, an organization controlled by corrupt company agents who regularly resort to rigged elections, threats and physical intimidation to impose management’s dictates.

From the very beginning the UAW, GM and Norman have shown nothing but contempt for the decisions made by the stamping workers. Last May, workers voted by a margin of 384-22 against reopening the contract and explicitly forbade the UAW to hold further negotiations. Instead, UAW International and Region 3 officials continued talks with Norman and GM behind the backs of workers.

“The international did not proceed democratically. When we said ‘no’ back in May, they went ahead and renegotiated the contract anyway,” Tim, a young worker at the plant, told the World Socialist Web Site.

The UAW had planned to have workers vote to reopen their contract on Sunday, then proceed to a vote on Monday, only three days after workers were first informed of a vote. This was a violation of the UAW’s own bylaws, which specify that members must be notified fifteen days in advance of any votes scheduled to take place, workers said.

UAW officials decided to hold the meeting on a Sunday, hoping the fewest numbers of workers would attend and they could browbeat them into reopening the contract. “Many workers commute long distances to this plant, and it is far harder for most to come on Sunday than on any other day. They proceeded in this manner because they wanted a low turnout,” said Angela, a worker at the plant.

Contrary to the UAW’s intentions, however, word got out about what they were up to and significantly more workers showed up determined to stop them. “Once the UAW officials had left the meeting, we said that anyone in favor of the contract was welcome to take the floor and defend it, but nobody did,” said Tim, a worker at the plant.

Auto workers also suspect that the UAW is seeking to skew a new vote by hiring additional temporary workers, who are not facing as much of a pay cut as regular employees. “They’re trying to pad the vote,” said Todd, another worker at the plant.

Such methods are typical of the UAW. Its officials are totally unaccountable to the members and are focused on one thing: securing their own income and privileges by functioning as the industrial policemen for management.

Through the proliferation of scores of labor-management schemes and investments, the UAW has insured itself a flow of income that does not depend on the number of its dues-paying members, let alone their wages and conditions. In the meantime, it has collaborated in the destruction of hundreds of thousands of jobs in the last three decades, and rolling back the wages and conditions of auto workers to the 1930s.

In return, the UAW has been rewarded a major ownership stake in the corporations. With its control of the VEBA retiree health care trust fund, the UAW executives have gone into business with one of the largest private investment funds in the US.

According to its 2009 filing with the US Labor Department, the union’s national headquarters in Detroit disburses a total of $96,477,335 in salaries and other payments to its officers, including an army of hundreds of regional directors, service reps, organizers and others who take home between $90,000 and $170,000 annually. Combined family salaries can run into the hundreds of thousands in the organization, which is rife with nepotism.

For example, Maurice Davison, the Region 3 director, who denounced the stamping workers, made $150,233 in salary and perks, according to the Labor Department report. Mike Grimes, the Assistant Director UAW-GM Department who was chased from the meeting, pocketed $132,155.

On the local level, there are countless appointees and other officials who do the bidding of the International in order to stay on the gravy train. If they don’t toe the line completely they face being forced back into the plant or having the local placed under receivership.

This upper-middle-class stratum is alien from and hostile to the “members” they allegedly represent. In order to protect their common interests with management, the UAW officials resort to the most dictatorial methods. Votes are rigged, opponents denounced or physically threatened, threats of unemployment used to push through concessions and workers pitted against each other. In 2007, the UAW went to court on behalf of GM to block retirees—who have no right to vote on contracts—from taking legal action to protect their pensions and health benefits.

Even the selection of the union’s president is the result of his anointment by fellow bureaucrats, not a vote of the membership.

As for abiding by the democratic votes of UAW members, the union apparatus regularly organizes “revotes” to overturn their decisions and impose management’s will. The following are just a few examples:

•In June, International and local UAW officials forced 2,200 workers at the Nexteer Automotive plant in Saginaw, Michigan, to revote after they previously rejected wage and benefit concessions. Like the situation in Indianapolis, UAW officials said the wage cuts were necessary to help GM find a buyer.
•In April 2008, Workers at GM’s Parma, Ohio stamping plant rejected a new local contract. UAW Local 1005 President Tito Boneta, in a letter to his members, said voter turnout was less than 50 percent for that rejection, so the union’s leadership put the tentative pact up for a new vote.
•Last month workers at the Navistar foundry in Indianapolis, members of UAW Local 226, were forced to accept a 23 percent pay cut to $17 per hour. The same deal was refused last fall by about 98 percent of the local’s voters.

Stamping workers told the WSWS it took three votes for the UAW to push through the 2007 contract concessions at the plant that tore up the gains of generations of struggle.

The interest of workers can find no expression through this rotten organization. Nor can such an organization, which has been degenerating for decades, be reformed. Workers can only find a way forward by breaking with the UAW and building new, truly representative organizations, elected by the rank-and-file workers themselves, to mobilize the working class in defense of jobs and living standards, and against the corporate-government conspiracy to impoverish them.

Workers at the Indianapolis transmission plant are determined not to let the UAW’s intimidation tactics succeed. “It’s not going to work this time,” maintained Angela. “If we fold, if we bow down under their intimidation and their propaganda we’ll be the first of many plants to do so,” she said. “We are not going to be responsible for undermining the livelihoods of other workers in GM; that’s why we’re taking a stand here.”



Agency weighs skirting Congress on immigration
By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS, Associated Press Writer 23 mins ago
WASHINGTON – The Obama administration, unable to push an immigration overhaul through Congress, is considering ways it could go around lawmakers to allow undocumented immigrants to stay in the United States, according to an agency memo.
The internal draft written by officials at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services outlines ways that the government could provide "relief" to illegal immigrants — including delaying deportation for some, perhaps indefinitely, or granting green cards to others — in the absence of legislation revamping the system.
It's emerging as chances fade in this election year for a measure President Barack Obama favors to put the nation's estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants on a path to legal status, and as debate rages over an Arizona law targeting people suspected of being in the country illegally.
The 11-page internal memo, written in April to the agency's director, says: "This memorandum offers administrative relief options to promote family unity, foster economic growth, achieve significant process improvements and reduce the threat of removal for certain individuals present in the United States without authorization."
It goes on: "In the absence of comprehensive immigration reform, USCIS can extend benefits and/or protections to many individuals or groups."
The memo provoked a backlash by Republicans who called it evidence that Obama is looking for ways of relaxing immigration policies without political consensus to enact a new law.
"The document provides an additional basis for our concerns that the administration will go to great lengths to circumvent Congress and unilaterally execute a backdoor amnesty plan," said Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, who obtained and circulated the memo. "The problem remains that if you reward illegality, you get more of it."
Grassley led a group of conservative GOP senators who wrote to Obama in June asking him to promise that the administration wouldn't use its authority to "change the current position of a large group of illegal aliens already in the United States."
The Iowan's staff said the group has not received a response.
"Now we find out the truth: while saying one thing to the public, the Obama administration is scheming to ensure that immigration laws are not enforced," said Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee.
Christopher Bentley, a spokesman for the agency, said the internal document "should not be equated with official action or policy," and represented only "deliberation and exchange of ideas."
"We continue to maintain that comprehensive bipartisan legislation, coupled with smart, effective enforcement, is the only solution to our nation's immigration challenges," he said in a statement.
Still, the memo makes clear that even without such a bill, immigration officials have identified a variety of ways to relax U.S. policy to allow more undocumented immigrants who might otherwise face deportation to stay in the country. Among the options outlined is expanding the use of "deferred action" — in which the government can use its discretion to halt a deportation indefinitely, usually for an urgent humanitarian reason.
"While it is theoretically possible to grant deferred action to an unrestricted number of unlawfully present individuals, doing so would likely be controversial, not to mention expensive," the memo says. Instead, officials suggest using the option for certain groups, such as tens of thousands of high school graduates who have been brought up in the U.S. and plan to attend college or serve in the armed forces.
Democrats and Republicans have repeatedly tried to push through legislation — known as the "Dream Act" — to cover those students.
"To be clear," Bentley said, the government "will not grant deferred action or humanitarian parole to the nation's entire illegal immigrant population."
Another option included in the document is to allow more illegal immigrants to receive "parole-in-place" status. This would let them stay in the United States while they seek legal status.
The document discusses applying both those options to spouses of active duty military personnel, for instance.
It also suggests expanding the definition of "extreme hardship" for exceptions in immigration cases — a prospect that alarmed critics who said it could lower the bar so virtually any undocumented person could meet it.
And the memo suggests allowing people who entered the United States illegally and were granted so-called "Temporary Protected Status" because of a crisis in their home countries to stay and get permanent legal residency.
The memo notes that this would be a change in long-standing policy, and says, "Opening this pathway will help thousands of applicants obtain lawful permanent residence without having to leave the U.S."
Some proponents of revamping the immigration system said the document simply points out ways the agency can fix old and outdated practices that separate families and hurt workers and employers.
Writing on the Immigration Policy Center's blog, Director Mary Giovagnoli, a former immigration official, said, "Good for you, USCIS, for trying to do what it can within that broken system."
Hans A. von Spakovsky
Law-Enforcement-Free Sanctuaries

The Obama administration will sue Arizona for trying to help Washington enforce federal immigration laws, but flatly rejects the notion of suing sanctuary cities that blatantly defy those same laws. That announcement two weeks ago revealed the hypocrisy and utter contempt for the rule of law rampant in Eric Holder’s Justice Department.
It was the latest example of the Department letting partisan politics, rather than the interests of justice and the impartial enforcement of the law, drive its legal decisions. In this instance, it both threatens national security and undermines public confidence in our legal system.
The very weakness of the Department’s legal arguments in the Arizona suit betrays its political genesis. As the brief filed on behalf of Arizona by nine other states persuasively argues, Arizona is not interfering with federal authority: it has neither created new categories of aliens nor attempted to independently determine the immigration status of aliens. Arizona’s law simply requires local law enforcement officers to check the immigration status of individuals arrested for other reasons. This is exactly the regulatory scheme of concurrent enforcement envisioned by federal immigration law.
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.
Federal courts have long upheld the power of state law enforcement officers to arrest those who violate federal law, as long as it is also a violation of state law, includingimmigration laws. The inherent authority of local police to arrest immigration violators was outlined in 2002 in a legal memorandum issued by the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel. Yet Attorney General Holder has filed a lawsuit making claims completely at odds with an opinion issued by his own department.
Holder’s suit also conflicts directly with federal immigration law. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. §1373) specifically mandates that no federal, state, or local government can “prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service [now Immigration and Customs Enforcement or ICE], information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual,” a provision upheld by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in 1999. Congress wanted local governments to get information on immigration status from the federal government – and that is exactly what the Arizona law requires for anyone arrested in the state. Yet Holder is trying to prevent Arizona officials from checking “the citizenship or immigration status” of “any individual.”
Now we’re awaiting a ruling by a federal judge on the Justice Department’s request for a temporary injunction to stop the law from going into effect on Thursday. It’s clear, though, that the only way that judge could possibly rule in the Department’s favor is by ignoring the law and this precedent.
Justice Department spokesman Tracy Schmaler asserts that Arizona is “actively” interfering with federal law while sanctuary cities are just not using their resources to enforce federal law. This bogus claim displays fundamental ignorance of these federal legal requirements. Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary committee and the chief author of the 1996 immigration law, rightly calls it “absurd.” Cities like San Francisco not only do not enforce federal immigration laws, some violate it by protecting aliens from deportation and refusing to cooperate with or provide information to immigration officials.
As the nine states note in their brief, the Justice Department is trying to negate the “preexisting power of the States to verify a person’s immigration status and similarly seeks to reject the assistance that the States can lawfully provide to the Federal government.” Holder’s claim that Arizona is interfering with federal power to regulate immigration is near frivolous.
Arizona simply requires that law enforcement personnel (1) ascertain the immigration status of people they have lawfully detained for some other reason and (2) report to the federal government the presence of any detainee determined to be here illegally. If the Obama administration wants to ignore that information and reject that assistance, it has that option. The only possible “interference” with federal power is the risk that the feds might be publicly embarrassed by a policy of non-enforcement. Apparently the White House and DOJ consider embarrassment a federal offense.
Holder makes one further -- yet equally absurd -- claim: that by trying to deter the movement of illegal aliens into Arizona, the state is restricting interstate commerce and thus violates the Commerce Clause. How can deterring the entry of people who have no legal right to enter possibly violate interstate commerce? It is the same as saying that -- notwithstanding federal laws that bar importation of heroin -- a state that busts heroin traffickers is flouting the Commerce Clause.
Federal law stipulates that any person who “conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection,” an illegal alien is committing a crime. It is also criminal just to “encourage” residence by illegal aliens. Yet sanctuary cities like San Francisco have enacted formal policies that embrace all these illegal acts. Such policies lead directly to further crimes, such as the vicious murder of a father and his two sons on a San Francisco street. The killer was an illegal alien with two prior felony convictions -- yet on neither occasion did San Francisco authorities notify the feds of his presence. Had they done so, he would not have been able to gun down Tony Bologna, 48, and his sons Michael, 20, and Matthew, 16, as they sat in their car on June 16, 2008.
Holder’s refusal to sue sanctuary cities is an abrogation of his responsibility as the nation’s chief federal law enforcement officer. Unlike Arizona, many of these cities have policies that violate federal law.
The Obama administration claims Arizona’s law will “disrupt federal immigration enforcement.” But the only thing it could possibly disrupt is federal non-enforcement. As the elections approach, Holder’s suit may help gin up enthusiasm among the president’s more radical political allies, such as La Raza. But using the law enforcement powers of the federal government to achieve political ends is a dangerous abuse of power.

JOBLESS CLAIMS SOAR! So Do Obama's Banksters' Profits!

38 million illegals in this county. They’re either in our jobs, on welfare, or Mex gangs! ... get on their free no ads newsmail

US jobless claims hit nine-month high
By Barry Grey
20 August 2010
The number of Americans applying for unemployment benefits rose by 12,000 last week, according to a report issued by the Labor Department Thursday, bringing the total to 500,000, the highest level since November 2009. The increase defied economists’ forecasts, which were for a drop of between 4,000 and 10,000 from the previous week’s upwardly revised figure of 488,000.
The weekly increase in new jobless benefit claims was the third in a row and the fourth in the past five weeks. From a low point of 427,000 initial claims reached last month, the weekly figure has been steadily rising over the past six weeks. Economists believe that any number over 400,000 reflects an economy that is not generating sufficient jobs to keep pace with the normal growth in the labor force.
The Labor Department report also showed an 8,000 rise in the four-week moving average of jobless benefit claims to 482,500, the highest point since December 2009. The staggering growth in long-term unemployment, nearing levels unseen since the Great Depression, was reflected in a rise in the number of Americans who have used up their traditional benefits and are now collecting emergency extended payments. That figure rose by more than 309,000 to 5.59 million in the week ended July 31.
Another section of the report showed that 40 states and territories reported an increase in jobless claims for the week ended August 7. Thirteen reported a decrease.
The Obama administration’s forecast is for the official jobless rate, currently 9.5 percent, to drop to 8.7 percent at the end of next year and eventually sink to 6.8 percent by the end of 2013. Even this grim prediction is overly optimistic given the mounting signs of a retraction in economic growth.
The Labor Department reported August 6 that non-farm payrolls declined overall by 131,000 in July and the private sector generated a mere 71,000 net increase in jobs. The private sector has to create some 150,000 new jobs a month just to keep unemployment from rising.
Peter Morici, a business professor at the University of Maryland, estimates that the economy would have to generate nearly 300,000 jobs a month over the next three years to meet the administration’s forecast of 6.8 percent unemployment by the end of 2013. Even in the first half of 2010, when the economy was growing at about 3 percent, the private sector added fewer than 100,000 jobs a month.
Last month, the Commerce Department estimated economic growth at 2.4 percent in the second quarter of this year, down from 3.7 percent in the first quarter and 5.0 percent in the last quarter of 2009. However, dismal data on jobs, housing and consumer spending since then has led economists to predict that the second quarter estimate will be revised downward and growth in the second half of the year will be even more anemic.
Following the release Thursday of the Labor Department report on jobless claims, Bloomberg cited Stephen Stanley, chief economist at Pierpont Securities LLC in Connecticut, as saying, “We’re seeing a renewed pickup in layoffs. If firms aren’t hiring it’s probably because they’re not producing. Demand will slow in the third quarter.”
Another negative report issued Thursday further underscored the downward economic trend. The Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia released its latest survey of manufacturing activity in the region encompassing eastern Pennsylvania, southern New Jersey and Delaware. Economists had expected the report to show a rise in the Fed’s manufacturing index from positive 5.1 in July to positive 7.5 for August. Instead, the Fed reported a drop in its index to negative 7.7, the first contraction since July 2009.
Any reading below zero indicates a decline in manufacturing activity. The Fed noted that optimism among manufacturing executives “has waned in recent months.” The report also showed a decline in both the number of manufacturing employees and the length of the workweek.
The Philadelphia Fed report is particularly significant since manufacturing has been one of the few relative bright spots in an otherwise hollow “recovery.” The report, on top of the jobless claims data, indicates that the jobless rate will rise rather than decline in the coming months.
In a note to investors, Paul Ashworth, senior economist with Capital Economics, wrote, “The collapse in the Philly Fed activity index suggests the industrial recovery is teetering on the brink.” The British Guardian quoted Jeremy Cook, chief economist at commodity exchange broker World First, as saying, “This will further heighten fears that the US economy is careening into the dreaded double-dip recession.”
A third report issued Thursday provided more negative news. The Conference Board’s leading indicators index rose a mere 0.1 percent for July, less than the 0.2 percent gain that had been expected. At the same time, the index’s June decline was revised downward from negative 0.2 percent to negative 0.3 percent.
Two major retailers also released second quarter financial reports showing worse than expected results. Sears, the largest US department store chain, reported a bigger than anticipated loss and lower than expected revenue. Staples, the office supply chain, missed its revenue target.
These reports paint a picture of an economy sliding deeper into recession and make a mockery of the cynical attempts of the Obama administration to put a positive gloss on the situation. Obama responded to the jobless claims report with a perfunctory four-minute speech from the White House. His only proposal to deal with the worsening jobs crisis was to urge congressional passage of a $42 billion bill to aid small businesses.
The bill was passed by the House of Representatives and has stalled in the Senate due to a Republican filibuster. Apart from the hopelessly inadequate sums allocated under the proposed measure, the bulk of the money would go not to mom-and-pop businesses or small enterprises, but to tax breaks for banks with less than $10 billion in assets. Much of the aid to small businesses in the bill would actually go to big corporations in the form of tax windfalls for companies that make large capital purchases.
In line with the Democrats’ midterm election strategy, Obama again sought to blame the Republicans for the jobs crisis, claiming that their opposition to the small business bill was blocking progress on the employment front, while touting the supposed success of his economic policy. In a series of media events this week, interspersed with private fundraisers in some cases costing tens of thousands of dollars to attend, Obama declared, “We are moving in the right direction. We’re on the right track. The economy is getting stronger.”
After his White House remarks Thursday, Obama left for a 10-day vacation at a private estate, which rents for tens of thousands of dollars a week, on the exclusive resort island of Martha’s Vineyard off the Massachusetts coast.
Soooooo, How Did These Illegals Get In Our Country and Jobs in the First Place???


Colorado Gives Illegal Immigrants Unemployment Benefits

Colorado pays illegal immigrants unemployment insurance because a director at the state agency that cuts the checks eliminated a key tool designed to prevent payments from going to unqualified residents.

As a result the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment (CDLE) regularly makes unemployment insurance payments to illegal aliens and other citizens who don’t qualify for the taxpayer-funded benefit. The story was made public after an investigative news organization obtained internal electronic mail showing that a high-ranking official ordered the agency to stop using a software control implemented to screen applicants’ immigration status.

The CDLE’s unemployment director (Mike Cullen) actually issued an official work order in early 2009 to shut the system down. The order, which was given “top priority,” forced the agency’s information technology department to reset the software so that it stopped questioning the immigration status of applicants.

Since the change was implemented, any residency or citizenship related questions routinely asked of those filing for unemployment benefits have been ignored by the computer system. The move violates a 2006 state law that mandates that certain government benefits—including unemployment insurance—be denied to illegal immigrants.

A few days after the story hit the internet, the head of the CDLE said that state lawmakers were actually notified earlier this year that the department shut down the immigration screening tool because it was causing a backlog. With a record number of unemployment claims, the screening tool was “holding everything up,” according to the agency’s director.

It appears that many at the agency knew they were violating state law. In fact, some CDLE employees questioned the legality of suspending the program in emails obtained by the reporter who broke the story. One flat out asked “is this legal?” Another admitted that not screening for immigration status would “disable” the state law that specifically requires it. Several lawmakers have demanded an investigation.

“We could cut unemployment in half simply by reclaiming the jobs taken by illegal workers,” said Representative Lamar Smith of Texas, co-chairman of the Reclaim American Jobs Caucus. “President Obama is on the wrong side of the American people on immigration. The president should support policies that help citizens and legal immigrants find the jobs they need and deserve rather than fail to enforce immigration laws.”

“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.” Christian Science Monitor