For a long time we have been stating that not only has Obama been negligent regarding securing our borders with Mexico in particular but he has also willfully adopted the position of allowing it to remain porous for political reasons to the detriment of national security and individual safety. Thousands of Americans have been needlessly murdered or subjected to other violent and non-violent crimes perpetrated by these invaders as a direct result of such wanton neglect. (The now convicted murderer of Chandra Levy, the high profile incident occurring in Washington in 2001, was himself an illegal alien.)
We strongly feel that Obama’s incompetence and arrogant, selfish motivation for consciously preventing our borders from being secured from illegal aliens, terrorist, and Mexican narco-gangs and even suing Arizona for taking actions that comport with federal law in order to protect its citizens, are strong grounds for impeachment. He has wantonly violated a basic responsibility of the Presidency.
Gov. 'Blackjack' Perry?
Investor’s Business Daily 11/19/2010
As Mexico buckles, Rick Perry's warnings are starting to sound like prophecy.
Border: As lawlessness spreads in Mexico, the governor of Texas speaks of sending in U.S. troops — a dramatic statement underscoring the fact that the region needs help and isn't getting it.
Attending a conference of governors in San Diego on Thursday, Rick Perry startled some by saying defeating Mexico's cartels may require U.S. military intervention.
"You have a situation on the border where American citizens are being killed," he told MSNBC. "I think we have to use every aspect of law enforcement that we have, including the military. I think you have the same situation as you had in Colombia. Obviously, Mexico has to approve any type of assistance that we can give them."
That may sound extreme, but it underlines that Washington has shortchanged Mexico on even military aid that would help it win its drug war. It has also done little for border states such as Texas and Arizona that bear the brunt of the war, other than deliver lawsuits.
To Washington, the only motive for states' efforts to resist the violent drug cartels is racism, not security.
But Perry knows what he's talking about.
A day earlier, spillover from the war in Mexico took on a quite literal meaning when a dead body clad in cartel-style combat gear washed up on the U.S. bank of the Rio Grande near Salineno, Texas.
According to the Monitor daily in McAllen, police had no idea who he was. But it's likely he's another hash mark to the 31,000-plus death toll of Mexico's war since 2006.
Meanwhile, just eleven blocks away from the Texas town of Roma, hundreds of war refugees from Mier, Mexico, huddle in the town of Miguel Aleman after being forced from their town by the brutal Los Zetas cartel, which vandalized and looted the town.
Los Zetas want Mier for reasons barbarian marauders do — the town sits at a strategic choke point of highways to large cities on both sides of the border. Whoever controls Mier controls routes to them. The Zetas, made up largely of Mexican military renegades, think in military terms.
That's why Mier and this region keep coming up in the news.
Thursday, Mexican troops blew away 11 Zetas in the area and the Zetas took five military men hostage. Mexico watchers noted that the directness of the battle in Mier suggests the Zetas mean to control that town at all costs. Their intensity was seen last month just north of Mier at the Falcon Reservoir, where an American jet-skier was killed and the Mexican police official investigating was beheaded.
The nearby Falcon Dam was also threatened by Zetas with destruction last April, which if carried out would have flooded both sides of the border and displaced 6 million people.
If these realities and other outrages don't wake us up to the fact that our border is now a war zone, what will? War zones require a military response, and as Gov. Perry makes his warning, the prospect of an expedition against the bandits, similar to the ones Gen. John J. "Blackjack" Pershing led in 1916 and 1917, grows more likely.
That's doubly so as the war gets bigger.
Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, speaking by conference call Thursday, said the Obama administration has yet to present a "comprehensive and credible plan" to address national security threats along the border.
Plan Merida, a $1.4 billion package of training and equipment aid to help Mexico fight the cartels, remains largely unspent, with only 9% delivered, according to a 2009 report. That's negligence.
Meanwhile, a 44-page "Broken Neighbor, Broken Border" congressional field investigation, released Friday by Rep. John Carter of Texas, warns that law enforcement agencies in Texas and Arizona are being overwhelmed by the Mexican war's spillover, spending a third of their budgets and manpower on it.
Worst of all is the condescending attitude of the Department of Homeland Security's Janet Napolitano, who snidely told Perry that if he wants border protection, it's up to him to pay for it with Texas National Guard troops. Is she saying border protection isn't her job? If so, that's dereliction of duty.
As Mexico buckles, Washington fails on every front to admit the problem. It raises the possibility that troops really will have to be used — as a last resort. Perry's warning in that case will be prophecy.
Print This Post
We have commented as have others on the unconscionable amount of taxpayer dollars that are being spent on “emperor” Obama’s ten day tour to India and Indonesia. That is $200 million dollars per day for ten days total!
A two billion dollar profligacy in attempts to enhance his world standing and sate his unfettered ego and narcissism – all at the expense of the overburdened, far underemployed American taxpayer who stands to gain virtually nothing. This is indefensible, irresponsible, arrogant and rapacious and he should face harsh consequences for his actions.
That money should be going right back to the taxpayers. Period.
As noted below, the United States gives Mexico $400 million per year totally to fight the drug cartels which now is equivalent to just a two day’s for Obama to stay at the Taj Mahal hotel in India. Furthermore, why does he need more than 3000 people to accompany him?
An astoundingly large number of Americans are being murdered both in the U.S. and in Mexico by Mexicans – legal and illegal. Imagine what some of this money could do to shore up our borders, reduce crime and illegal immigration. Even in today’s world, $2 billion dollars can be put to a multitude of other good uses. Instead, the U.S. Treasury is being raided and used as Obama's personal bank account.
Obama doesn’t and won’t see it this way. (Neither will the press.)
Impeachment proceedings would be a bargain…
As Obama Tours, Our Border Woes Worsen
Investor’s Business Daily 11/04/2010
Border: As President Obama tours India in the style of an Ottoman sultan, the gates of his own nation remain under siege. Five more Americans were killed in Mexico this week, with little interest from Washington.
How is it the White House can scare up $200 million a day for a presidential visit to India — for a pasha-like caravan of 3,000 people, 34 battleships, hundreds of helicopters and loaded hotels for 10 days of peacock diplomacy — but deliver few reinforcements to the battle zone our own border has become?
That's the sad reality as one considers the extravagant costs of President Obama's 10-day trip to India and other Asian countries while the resources committed to securing our border and helping our desperately struggling neighbor, Mexico, go wanting.
Wednesday, Mexican cartels murdered another American, Eder Diaz, 23, a University of Texas-El Paso student visiting his family in Juarez. His friend Manuel Acosta, 25, whose citizenship is not known yet, was also killed. Diaz's death made him the fifth American killed in Mexico this week. The State Department says 92 Americans were killed in Mexico from June 2009 to June 2010.
Diaz won't be the last, because in reality, families and businesses are intimately entwined across our southern Border. But nearly 100 dead Americans is unacceptable. Were such numbers to occur in Iraq, the anti-war left would protest. The White House offers only silence. There won't be a $2 billion presidential visit to the frontier where the killings are happening anytime soon.
The problem is now on our side as well. Immigration activists say about 4,300 Americans are killed by illegal immigrants every year as our border goes unguarded. With cartels controlling the illegal immigration trade, it's likely cartels had a hand in at least some.
One bad U.S. killing stands out: in suburban Phoenix, where three cartel members beheaded a rival last month. Chandler, Ariz., police say Mexico's cartels operating on U.S. soil are the suspects. In the past, such depravity had been dismissed as unlikely here because cartels would be too afraid. Well, not anymore.
The cartels in fact are operating here easily. On Thursday, U.S. agents arrested 45 cartel members known as La Familia Michoacan in Atlanta. La Familia, run by a drug lord known as "El Mas Loco," is the craziest of all the cartels. Based in central Mexico, the group is known for its bizarre religious rituals and freakish crimes. In 2006, they rolled severed heads like bowling balls onto a dance hall floor. Now they're here.
The problem here comes down to two issues: As the president spends $2 billion to impress India's locals, his country is doing little on one of its most vital foreign policy priorities: protecting our border and helping our neighbor Mexico win its brutal drug war.
How is it that $2 billion can gets splashed out on a trip to India while the Merida Initiative to help Mexico fight its cartels gets a mere $400 million a year? Mexico's president, Felipe Calderon, says he needs help, and the sad thing is that U.S. aid in this kind of war is known to be effective — as it had been in Colombia. How much more critical it is in the case of the war on our own border.
Perhaps more outrageously, the border fence, meant to keep cartel business out, approved in 2006 as the Secure Fence Act, hasn't been built. Unless completed, the $3 billion spent will be little more than another chapter in the annals of U.S. government waste.
We see a skewed sense of White House priorities.
The president on the one hand is making an extravagant show of U.S. might and power in India. Yet back home, barbarian hordes at our gates are killing U.S. nationals and literally streaming over our border as the leader of the Free World does nothing.
The world will eye this disconnect and conclude that the U.S., for all of its resources, is nothing but a paper tiger. The result could be ominous.
Print This Post
The Obama Administration’s policy positions for the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Dept. (ICE) have not only rendered the agency impotent for its originally intended purposes but even worse, has transformed it into an advocate, supporter and facilitator of illegal immigration and associated illicit activities.
This has even created a unique and unprecedented action by the foot soldiers in the agency who vehemently assailed their superiors unanimously in disgust to these policy changes (ICE Agents Unanimously Critical of their Leadership and Politicization of Illegal Immigration Policies).
This should be one more issue to closely examine if and when actions are taken to impeach Obama.
Enforcement On ICE
Investor’s Business Daily 08/27/2010
Politics: If there's one agency that's been made useless by its leaders, it's Immigration and Customs Enforcement. If, under a new policy, being here illegally is no longer reason enough for deportation, why does it still exist?
The Obama administration has effectively declared open borders to millions of would-be illegal immigrants — not through legislation, but with a sneaky policy move.
On Aug. 20, its man at ICE, John Morton, wrote a memo stating that being in the U.S. illegally is no longer sufficient reason to send someone home. An illegal immigrant now has to be a security threat or else commit a crime — and a violent one at that. To everyone else, ICE turns the blind eye.
Director Morton says it's a matter of priorities. But make no mistake: This is amnesty by another name.
Adding insult to injury, ICE will empty its costly, just-built detention centers of 17,000 existing deportation cases as long as an illegal can show that he or she has applied to become legal.
This, says the New York Times, will "pare huge case backlogs." And to ICE bureaucrats, it's proof they're doing their jobs.
In fact, it's an astonishing abrogation of duty. The policy turns ICE into a $6 billion border-jitney service for the subset of illegals who were picked up by other law enforcement agencies, convicted of violent crime and have served their time, and whose jailers didn't forget to put them on an "immigration hold" list.
Any others can make themselves at home.
That goes for the Mexican Zeta cartel members who are busy recruiting assassins in barrooms around Phoenix, as Fox News reported Friday.
Nothing violent about recruiting, you know — and that goes for illegal immigrants who've illegally voted in U.S. elections.
In the latter case, Fox reported that ICE itself helpfully sent a form letter to an illegal who admitted doing that, coaching him to take his name off the voter rolls first so his application could go through smoothly. ICE didn't mind that the man had admitted to committing a felony. The bureaucrats just wanted to issue him his U.S. citizenship so they could clear the backlog.
It also goes for the Mexican cartel members who may be buying off city governments like that of Cudahy, Calif., which is under FBI investigation. It also goes for illegal immigrants who invade rural properties at night in Arizona, terrifying ranchers.
Not surprisingly, there's no one angrier about this mission-nullification than ICE agents themselves. Last June their union issued a letter expressing a membership consensus of "no confidence" in Morton and Assistant Director Phyllis Coven.
They have "abandoned the agency's core mission of enforcing United States immigration laws and providing for public safety, and have instead directed their attention to campaigning for programs and policies related to amnesty," the agents declared.
By extension, no one's happier than the Mexican cartels that have muscled into the immigrant-smuggling business, making about a third of their income from fees charged for such assistance.
Morgan's no-deport policy is just the enticement they need to bring in new business that will fatten up the fee income they use to make war on the Mexican state.
Last Monday's discovery of a massacre of 72 would-be illegals in Tamaulipas, Mexico, on their way to Los Angeles makes clear what lies ahead. Human smuggling is an evil ICE should not encourage.
The cartels are monopolies that make $500,000 or so per human "load" into the U.S., but they also press many illegals into becoming foot soldiers. Some are forced into sex slavery, and others — as the sole survivor of the Tamaulipas massacre claimed — are ordered to become cartel assassins in the U.S. — or else.
The fact that the U.S. no longer enforces immigration laws for anyone except those with violent criminal or terrorist convictions will draw would-be immigrants into this racket like a magnet.
At a time when U.S. diplomats' families have been ordered to evacuate the consulate in Mexico's second-biggest city, Monterrey — as happened Friday — any encouragement of illegal immigration works at cross purposes to the real national security mission of defeating cartels.
ICE leaders talk smugly about "priorities," but they've effectively abandoned their agency's core law-enforcement mission and become servants of the immigration lobby. ICE should be allowed to do the job it's tasked with. Failing that, it should be disbanded.
Print This Post
Effective Border Security
Print This Post
There is an insidious and pernicious invasion in California and more specifically in the L.A. area by vicious members of several Mexican drug cartels. Their numbers and the amount and degree of violence are increasing as are their influences on local governments.
This is of monumental significance and yet few people are aware of this crisis. Why?
Because the very liberal Los Angeles Times refuses to report on it for political and ideological reasons.
This is inexcusable and a dereliction of their professional responsibility yet the Times has no shortage of vitriol and racist charges against Arizona and those who are against illegal immigration and for secure borders.
Media Miss Cartels' War In U.S.
Investor’s Business Daily 08/16/2010
Media: As Mexico's drug war and Arizona's bid to defend itself take center stage, the growth of cartels in Los Angeles is another leg of the story. But to know about it you need to read Spanish.
Los Angeles and its suburbs are in grave danger of becoming outposts for Mexican drug- and immigrant-smuggling cartels, according to local law enforcement officials.
"We have detected the Gulf cartel and Los Zetas," Alvin Jackson, head of the Narcotics Division of the L.A. Police Department, said in a recent interview. "They are operating on a middle and street level."
In Mexico, the Gulf and Zeta gangs are among the most violent, known for beheading opponents, setting off car bombs and shooting up border cities from Tijuana to Matamoros. In L.A., they've set up "distribution centers" not just in the slums, but also the San Fernando Valley and on the well-heeled Westside near Santa Monica.
Five other Mexican cartels — Sinaloa, Beltran-Levya, La Familia, Arellano Felix and Carillo Fuentes — also operate in L.A. They're busy recruiting gangs to carry on the same mayhem they're engaged in south of the border, Jackson said.
Steven Martinez, who heads the FBI in Los Angeles, agreed with Jackson's observations.
You'd think this would be news that merits front-page coverage in, say, the city's newspaper of record, the Los Angeles Times. But it's not. Jackson's and Martinez's assessments were reported in La Opinion, a Spanish-language daily that has no English translation.
It's not that the Times doesn't cover the cartel war in detail from Mexico. But when it comes to what's going on in Joe Friday's precincts, something that might have some relevance to its readers, the paper is derelict.
Perhaps it has something to do with the Times' near-monopoly on news in a one-newspaper town. Or maybe it's the paper's historically cozy relationship with the city's political machine, which panders to the Latino vote.
As illegal immigrants inundate the city and cartels come in behind them, the City Council declares L.A. a sanctuary city and wastes time boycotting Arizona for trying to beat back the same problems.
This is going to create serious problems down the road. L.A. District Attorney Steven Cooley told the Washington (not the L.A.) Times that gangs and drug traffickers may create gang- and cartel-controlled city governments.
It's already evident, he said, along the 710 Freeway towards the Port of Long Beach — a corridor that encompasses illegal-immigrant-majority towns such as Bell, the city whose officials were caught feathering their nests with million-dollar salary packages. The 710, by the way, has seen actual cartel shootings.
"If I was a drug dealer, and I didn't want to be interfered with, I'd move to a city where I could exploit dysfunctional city governments, corrupt the police or be left alone in a neighborhood where people are not as active in monitoring their communities," Cooley said.
Already in Cudahy, just south of Bell, Cooley says the FBI is investigating cartel-linked corruption as part of 30 ongoing corruption probes. No wonder even Mexico's president is complaining about U.S. official corruption going uninvestigated.
Meanwhile, even Hollywood is more aware of the cartel problem in Los Angeles. Locally produced TV shows such as "NCIS: Los Angeles" are incorporating cartel infiltration in city government into their L.A.-based story lines.
But at the Times, protecting the political establishment and its priorities means the growing power of the cartels will go unreported. It's a sad state of affairs when Angelenos have to rely on the ethnic press or newspapers based 3,000 miles away.
It's also ironic. Over the weekend, the Times reported that Mexican newspapers are not reporting drug-war news out of well-founded fear of retribution from cartels.
The Times seems to be practicing the same kind of self-censorship on its turf — not out of fear of gangs so much as a reluctance to cross a political establishment that is invested in unchecked illegal immigration.
Print This Post
And Mexico is joining in the lawsuit against Arizona - thanks to the encouragement from Obama and Congressional Democrats!
Print This Post
Arizona’s new immigration law S.B. 1070, which has been relentlessly attacked by many liberals and the news media yet is overwhelmingly supported by Americans, is also serving as the prototype for immigration legislation in several other states as discussed below. Americans are sick and tired of the problems associated with illegal immigration: increased crime and violence, massive unreimbursed costs such as for healthcare, education, welfare, and the judicial system which are presently being paid by us through our tax dollars, burdens on our schools and even what is becoming a ubiquitous finding: bilingual signs and communications.
Despite this, the Obama Administration is fighting this law under the pretense that it necessarily requires “profiling”. This is not the true reason, however, as the legislation is essentially a replica of the federal law that adds controls to mitigate the “risk” of profiling. (Of course, liberals want to label “profiling” a racist action when in fact profiling represents the most logical, efficient and prudent way to detect what one is looking for which in this situation, are illegal aliens.)
Among the real reasons that Obama is against the law is for political purposes. He wants more of the Hispanic vote. As we have noted in previous posts, the fact that he would intentionally keep the border unsecured which also affords terrorists the ability to sneak into this country, is inexcusable, irresponsible, contemptuous and actions of what could be termed an anti-President.
Let’s reiterate. Obama resolutely refuses to secure our borders for personal political reasons which consequently places America in much greater jeopardy for future terrorism by allowing terrorist to infiltrate undetected into our country. This also financially burdens all 50 states (or in his mind, 57 states) and their citizens who have to bear all the attendant costs associated with these illegals which is estimated to be around $113 billion per year.
And one more thing. Ideology and narcissism aside, the Obama Administration and some liberal groups state that the cost of deporting the entire illegal alien population would be prohibitively expensive – estimated to be $285 billion over 5 years. The cost for them staying here during these 5 years is $565 billion ($113 billion per year times 5 years).
Interesting! We could actually save $280 billion over these five years if these illegal immigrants were sent back where they came from. That is $56 billion per year in net savings which would then jump to more than $113 billion per year after these first 5 years.
No wonder the federal government is against this: it would save us money instead of being a money losing proposition which the Democrats feel more comfortable with!
Arizona Immigration Law Emerges as Model for Other States
July 7, 2010
Arizona’s immigration law, considered controversial by some and under legal assault by the Obama administration, is fast emerging as a popular model in other states where illegal immigration is a hot-button issue.
And while protests against the law have drawn thousands to marches across the country, polls have consistently showed a majority of Americans favor the get-tough approach against illegal immigration.
At least three other states could pass similar legislation next year, and in many others, like Florida, GOP candidates are filming campaign ads and pushing debates favoring the law.
Oklahoma, South Carolina and Utah have each taken steps against illegal immigration, and politicians in the three states are advocating further measures when their legislatures reconvene early next year, according to The Washington Post.
Meanwhile, lawmakers in at least 14 other states drew up bills that permit police officers to question anyone they suspect of being in the county illegally – the core issue of the Arizona law.
But it’s an open question in many of those states whether these bills would make it past sitting governors, many of whom are Democrats. In Oklahoma, South Carolina and Utah, however, political factors improve the chances that state legislatures could follow Arizona's lead when they convene in 2011, according to the Post.
Oklahoma was actually the first state, not Arizona, to adopt legislation that was the toughest ever against undocumented immigrants. That happened in 2007. The measure made it a felony to knowingly provide transport or shelter to an illegal immigrant, and blocked illegal immigrants from obtaining driver's licenses and tuition.
The lawmaker responsible for the measure, Republican state Rep. Randy Terrill, has said he wants to go even further with another bill next year that would seize property from businesses that knowingly employ undocumented immigrants.
Terrill cited the arrest of an alleged Mexican drug cartel member last week as evidence that an "Arizona-plus" measure is needed urgently. He said the effect of Arizona's law had been to push illegal immigrants "straight down Interstate 40" toward Oklahoma, according to the Post.
In South Carolina, GOP Gov. Mark Sanford touted a comprehensive set of new measures against illegal immigration as the strictest yet when he signed it into law in 2008. The measure forced businesses to check the immigration status of their workers.
Harboring and transporting illegal immigrants also became a state crime. State lawmakers want to build on it and were quick this year to draw up an Arizona-style bill, introducing it less than a week after the Arizona measure had been signed.
"We had a bill that was introduced this year that was very similar to the final version of the Arizona legislation. It was too late for us to move on it, but I have every expectation a new bill will be introduced in January," Republican state Sen. Larry Martin told the Post.
"As long as an officer has a lawful reason to question someone, and then a suspicion develops [that] they are an undocumented person, then I think our law enforcement folks ought to be able to pursue that," he said.
In Utah, pro-immigrant advocates fear that new legislation clamping down on illegal immigration is inevitable next year. Several lawmakers there are advocating a crackdown, according to the Post.
On paper, Arizona's controversial new immigration law is not that different from the federal version. But the key difference is this: Arizona wants every illegal immigrant caught and deported. The federal government says treating all 11 million of the nation's illegal immigrants as criminals would overwhelm the system.
In its lawsuit challenging the Arizona law, the Justice Department says its policy is to focus on dangerous immigrants: gang members, drug traffickers, threats to national security. Law-abiding immigrants without documentation would largely be left alone.
Homeland Security officials say the government cannot possibly find, arrest and deport everyone who is here illegally. And trying to do so would also upset a balance crafted by Congress that takes into account humanitarian interests and foreign relations.
But proponents of the Arizona solution insist that's no reason not to try. And they say the state's toughest-in-the-nation law is a reasonable way to start.
"If it's really the case that they don't have enough resources to enforce the laws that Congress has passed, it would seem it's incumbent on them to go back to Congress and ask for more resources," said Steven Camarota, research director at the center for Immigration Studies, a group that favors stricter enforcement of immigration laws. "But since they don't do that, it sort of undermines the argument."
Arizona's new law is nearly identical to federal immigration law. At issue is how it is enforced. The federal government says the state law is unconstitutional because it usurps federal authority to protect U.S. borders and American citizens. Arizona counters that the federal government is not doing its job, which forces state officials to step in.
State lawmakers argue that the federal government already enlists local authorities to identify illegal immigrants who have been arrested for other crimes. The new law, they say, just extends that to police patrols.
The federal government says the law goes too far by making it a state crime to be in Arizona illegally and requiring police to question the immigration status of anyone they encounter who is believed to be undocumented.
The furor over the Arizona law is overblown, Camarota said Wednesday. It does not envision mass deportations or roundups, just a slow but steady pressure on illegal immigrants to leave Arizona — either for their home countries or for another state.
The number of illegal immigrants in the country fell for the first time this decade in 2007, and dropped another 800,000 between 2008 and 2009, primarily due to the recession and increased enforcement efforts.
As of January 2009, an estimated 10.8 million people were in the country illegally, 1 million less than the 2007 peak, according to the Department of Homeland Security.
Deportations have been increasing, climbing from 185,944 in 2007 to 387,790 last year.
Many critics argue the federal government cannot selectively enforce immigration law, but it's common for law enforcement at all levels to prioritize. Small-time pot dealers do not receive the same level of investigation or prosecution as big-time heroin traffickers. The government has also tolerated medical marijuana in 14 states.
But Arizona's law has brought selective enforcement — and the differences that exist even among police agencies — into clearer focus.
Those differences are stark, even in the Phoenix metro area. Phoenix Police Chief Jack Harris says in an affidavit supporting the federal suit that he will probably have to move detectives focused on violent crime to street patrol because regular officers will be busy enforcing Arizona's new law.
But Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who has been at the forefront of the effort to empower local authorities to enforce immigration laws, routinely assigns deputies to crime sweeps where they target illegal immigrants.
The federal government is worried that other states will follow Arizona's lead, overwhelming federal agencies with non-criminal illegal immigrants who will cost the government millions to deport.
A March study by the liberal Center for American Progress estimated that deporting the entire illegal immigration population and securing the borders would cost $285 billion over five years.
In the government lawsuit, officials with Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection declared they will be forced to shift resources from major cases to minor ones if the law goes into effect as scheduled on July 29.
Five other lawsuits, filed by immigrant-rights groups, the American Civil Liberties Union and individuals, are already before a federal judge in Phoenix. The federal challenge filed Tuesday is expected to be transferred to the same judge, who has hearings set for next week on requests to block the law from taking effect.
The federal lawsuit focuses on a core constitutional concern — balancing power between the states and the federal government. More specifically, the issue centers on the long-running "pre-emption" legal argument that says federal law trumps state law.
The government sidestepped concerns about the potential for racial profiling and civil rights violations most often raised by immigration advocates. Experts said those are weaker arguments that do not belong in a federal legal challenge.
Material from the Associated Press was used in this story.
Print This Post
The estimated costs of illegal immigration to the American people annually is $113 billion per year - not chump change. This burden is borne unwillingly by the taxpayer and by definition could be considered to be indentured servitude or slavery. Simply put, we are forced to work to benefit the welfare of someone else, without choice.
Why should we be mandated to pay the costs of individuals who are not citizens here, have broken the law, increased the crime rate, have a deleterious effect on the education of our citizens and then have the audacity to call us racist and intolerant?
In many states, the cost of services for them exceeds the budget shortfall. That is, get rid of these costs and these states will be able close their budget deficits, be more fiscally sound and maybe even reduce the tax rate.
Obama and Congressional Democrats have abdicated their responsibility to resolve this problem in order to gain maximal political benefit (from voters of the Hispanic community). They need to be voted out of office this coming November.
Illegal Immigration Costs U.S. $113 Billion a Year, Study Finds
Ed Barnes FoxNews.com July 06, 2010
The cost of harboring illegal immigrants in the United States is a staggering $113 billion a year -- an average of $1,117 for every “native-headed” household in America -- according to a study conducted by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).
The study, a copy of which was provided to FoxNews.com, “is the first and most detailed look at the costs of illegal immigration ever done,” says Bob Dane, director of communications at FAIR, a conservative organization that seeks to end almost all immigration to the U.S.
FAIR's opponents in the bitter immigration debate describe the organization as "extremist," though it is regularly called upon to testify before Congress.
Groups that support immigration reform immediately attacked FAIR's report and pointed out that it is the polar opposite of the Perryman Report, a 2008 study that found illegal immigration was actually a boon to the American economy. It estimated that illegal immigrants add $245 billion in Gross Domestic Product to the economy and account for 2.8 million jobs.
The FAIR report comes as President Obama moves immigration reform to the top of his agenda, and it is likely to be a rallying point for those who oppose the president. At a speech Thursday at American University in Washington, D.C., Obama argued that the entire immigration system is broken and needs sweeping reforms. Among the changes he said are needed is "a path for [farm] workers to earn legal status," which the president's critics called an opening for a new amnesty program.
FAIR's report argues that there are two choices in the immigration debate: “One choice is pursuing a strategy that discourages future illegal migration and increasingly diminishes the current illegal alien population through denial of job opportunities and deportations. The other choice,” it says, “would repeat the unfortunate decision made in 1986 to adopt an amnesty that invited continued illegal migration.”
The report states that an amnesty program wouldn’t appreciably increase tax revenue and would cost massive amounts in Social Security and public assistance expenses. An amnesty “would therefore be an accentuation of the already enormous fiscal burden,” the report concludes.
The single largest cost to the government of illegal immigration, according to the report, is an estimated $52 billion spent on schooling the children of illegals. “Nearly all those costs are absorbed by state and local governments,’ the report states.
Moreover, the study’s breakdown of costs on a state-by-state basis shows that in states with the largest number of illegals, the costs of illegal immigration are often greater than current, crippling budget deficits. In Texas, for example, the additional cost of immigration, $16.4 billion, is equal to the state’s current budget deficit; in California the additional cost of illegal immigration, $21.8 billion, is $8 billion more than the state’s current budget deficit of $13.8 billion; and in New York, the $6.8 billion deficit is roughly two-thirds the $9.5 billion yearly cost of its illegal population, according to Jack Martin, the researcher who completed the study.
"The most important finding of the study is the enormous cost to state and local governments due to lack of enforcement of our immigration laws,” Martin wrote.
The report found that the federal government paid $28.6 billion in illegal related costs, and state and local governments paid $84.2 billion on an estimated 13 million undocumented residents. In his speech, Obama estimated that there are 11 million.
But FAIR's critics said the report wrongly included American-born children of undocumented workers in its study.
“The single biggest 'expense' it attributes to unauthorized immigrants is the education of their children, yet most of these children are native-born, U.S. citizens who will grow up to be taxpaying adults," said Walter Ewing, a senior researcher at the American Immigration Council. "It is disingenuous to count the cost of investing in the education of these children, so that they will earn higher incomes and pay more in taxes when they are adults, as if it were nothing more than a cost incurred by their parents."
He added that “the report fails to account for the purchasing power of unauthorized consumers, which supports U.S. businesses and U.S. jobs” and that it “ignores the value added to the U.S. economy by unauthorized workers, particularly in the service sector.”
Martin said FAIR expected that criticism, but that because the children are a direct result of illegal immigration, their inclusion was both fair and reasonable.
Print This Post