MEXICANOCCUPATION.blogspot.com
*
THE LA RAZA OCCUPATION EXPANDS IN WASHINGTON STATE
The total represents one of every 20 workers in the state and nearly 5 percent of all residents — giving Washington the seventh-highest rate of illegal immigrants in the country. (Nevada has the highest rate.) Three years ago, Washington wasn't in the top 10.
*
Go to http://www.MEXICANOCCUPATION.blogspot.com and read articles and comments from other Americans on what they’ve witnessed in their communities around the country. While most of the population of California is now ILLEGAL, the problems, costs, assault to our culture by Mexico is EVERYWHERE. copy and pass it to your friends.
*
Report Illegals & Employers Toll Free... (866) 347-2423
INS National Customer Service Center Phone: 1-800-375-5283.
http://www.ice.gov/ ICE, ice, ICE
http://www.reportillegals.com/
*
http://www.FAIRUS.org
http://www.JUDICIALWATCH.org
http://www.ALIPAC.us
ALIPAC NOTE: Washington state is most likely seeing a surge due to their policies as one of the last three states to offer driver licenses to illegal aliens. Over 77% of Americans oppose licenses for illegal aliens and Washington State should stop issuing them.
---
An estimated 230,000 illegal immigrants were living in Washington state in 2010 — 35 percent more than three years earlier. They represented one of every 20 workers in the state and nearly 5 percent of all residents — the seventh highest rate in the country.
Seattle Times
February 1, 2011
By Lornet Turnbull
They clean the floors of swanky office towers downtown, pick wine grapes in Wenatchee and wash dishes in Belltown restaurants.
An estimated 230,000 illegal immigrants were living in Washington state last year — 35 percent more than three years earlier, according to a new report by the Pew Hispanic Center.
The total represents one of every 20 workers in the state and nearly 5 percent of all residents — giving Washington the seventh-highest rate of illegal immigrants in the country. (Nevada has the highest rate.) Three years ago, Washington wasn't in the top 10.
Researchers at Pew Hispanic, a project of the nonpartisan Pew Research Center in Washington, D.C., used the U.S. Census Bureau's Current Population Survey data as a basis for the report.
They found that nationwide, illegal immigrants numbered 11.2 million, virtually unchanged from 2009 and down from a peak 12 million in 2007. Many have attributed the slide to more immigration enforcement and a weaker economy.
While 57 percent are from Mexico, the illegal immigrants hail from across the world, including Canada. They include people who sneaked across the country's borders, as well as those who came legally but overstayed employment, student or visitor visas.
Continued failure by the federal government to address the nation's immigration problems has led states to find fixes of their own.
All but Washington, New Mexico and Utah now deny driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, and some believe that has made Washington a magnet.
This year, state lawmakers here have introduced an unprecedented number of bills aimed at immigrants — legal and illegal — and several proposed cuts to the state budget would hit them hard.
There are measures that would make it difficult, if not impossible, for illegal immigrants to obtain driver's licenses, make English the state's official language and require the Department of Employment Security to verify the legal status of those it refers for employment.
In addition, a group of residents, for the sixth straight year, will circulate petitions for an initiative to severely restrict benefits and services to illegal immigrants in the state.
Uriel Iñiguez, director of the state's Commission on Hispanic Affairs, said the fact that the illegal immigrant population nationally hasn't declined shows people aren't going anywhere.
"It's one of the arguments I make all the time — passing laws won't prevent people from being here undocumented," Iñiguez said.
Even with the restrictions on driver's licenses, he said, "we've not seen an entire outflow of people to wherever they are from. What these laws do, however, is drive this population further underground."
State Sen. Val Stevens, R-Arlington, sponsor of several of the bills, said the state needs to act, since the federal government hasn't.
She said the illegal-immigrant cost to the state is $272 million a biennium for such functions as social services, health and corrections. "The illegal-immigration problem really came to the forefront after what happened in Arizona," Stevens said. "It's the lack of a secure border. If we can't keep them out of our country what's the point?"
DISCUSS THIS ARTICLE WITH OUR ONLINE ACTIVISTS AND SEE THE SOURCE LINKS AT...
http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-226731-turnbull.html
*
Heather Mac Donald: White House doesn't want to enforce immigration
By: Heather Mac Donald
OpEd Contributor
August 4, 2010
The real motivation for the Justice Department's lawsuit against Arizona's new immigration statute was the only one not mentioned in the department's brief: The Obama administration has no intention of enforcing the immigration laws against the majority of illegal aliens already in the country.
It is that policy alone which conflicts with SB 1070: Arizona wants to enforce the law; the Obama administration does not. Reasonable minds can differ on whether that conflict puts Arizona in violation of the Constitution's Supremacy Clause.
But what is indisputable is that the failure of the federal government to openly acknowledge the real ground for its opposition to SB 1070 has rendered incoherent not just its own public arguments against the law, but the judicial ruling which largely rubber stamps those arguments as well.
The Arizona statute affirms the power of a local police officer or sheriff's deputy to inquire into someone's immigration status, if the officer has reasonable suspicion that the person is in the country illegally, and if doing so is practicable. Under SB 1070, such an inquiry may occur only during a lawful stop to investigate a non-immigration offense.
Both the Justice Department and U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton, in striking down most of SB 1070, couched their opposition to the statute exclusively in terms of its effect on legal, as opposed to illegal, aliens. SB 1070, Judge Bolton wrote, would impermissibly burden legal immigrants already in the country by subjecting them to unwarranted immigration checks.
There are two problems with this line of argument: First, it ignores the fact that Congress has already anticipated and approved precisely the sort of local immigration inquiries that Judge Bolton now finds unconstitutional. Second, the argument would make all immigration enforcement impossible.
In 1996, Congress banned so-called sanctuary policies, by which cities and states prohibit their employees from working with federal immigration authorities regarding illegal aliens. It was in the federal interest, Congress declared, that local and federal authorities cooperate in the "apprehension, detention or removal of [illegal] aliens."
In pursuance of that mandate, the federal government operates an immigration clearinghouse, the Law Enforcement Support Center (LESC), to provide just the sort of immigration-status information to local and state law-enforcement officials that SB 1070 seeks.
It is therefore absurd to now claim, as Judge Bolton and the Obama Administration do, that such local inquiries conflict with the federal immigration scheme. It is even more absurd to argue that the risk that a legal alien will be questioned about his immigration status makes the alleged conflict unconstitutional.
Any immigration enforcement carries the possibility that a legal alien or U.S. citizen will be stopped and questioned. The only way to guarantee that legal aliens are never asked to present their immigration papers is to suspend immigration enforcement entirely. (The same possibility of stopping innocent people for questioning applies to law enforcement generally; that possibility has never been held to invalidate the police investigative power.)
If Congress intended to create such a blanket ban on asking legal aliens for proof of legal residency, it could have revoked the 1952 law requiring aliens to carry their certificate of alien registration. Such a requirement makes sense only on the assumption that legal aliens will upon occasion be asked to prove their legal status.
Such unpersuasive reasoning suggests that something else is going on. That something is the fact that SB 1070 would have put the Obama administration in the uncomfortable position of repeatedly telling Arizona's law enforcement officers that it is not interested in detaining or deporting the illegal aliens that they have encountered in the course of their duties; the law, in other words, would have exposed the administration's de facto amnesty policy.
And SB 1070 would have shown that immigration-law enforcement can work simply by creating a deterrent to illegal entry and presence. Even before it went into operation, the Arizona law was already inducing illegal aliens to leave the state, according to news reports.
Illegal aliens are virtually absent from the Justice Department's brief or from Judge Bolton's opinion. Despite this studied avoidance, it's time to have a public debate about how much immigration enforcement this country wants and which enforcement policies--the administration's or Arizona's -- best represent the public will.
Heather Mac Donald is a contributing editor of City Journal and co-author of The
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/White-House-doesn_t-want-to-enforce-immigration-1007060-99891419.html#ixzz0w8gI2nha
No comments:
Post a Comment