By not effectively addressing illegal immigration issue, the anchor baby issue all while leaving our borders insecure and porous, we have left our country vulnerable on several accounts including massive unreimbursed costs, security, increased crime, overburdening of our educational system and reduction in its quality and effective resources.
This has also become a political issue with significant implications on both sides of the aisle. The Democrats largely refuse to effectively address the problem claiming that these individuals deserve better and it is our obligation to facilitate it by providing resources such as free health care, education and food stamps (all at the expense of us, the taxpayer). Part of the reason is related to their socialist utopian ideas of equality independent of effort, circumstances or national origin. They claim that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees them these rights.
However, the real reasoning is political expediency, power and money. These illegals vote Democrat by a margin of at least 2 to 1. By allowing the status quo, the Democrats are, in essence, guaranteeing themselves re-election in the future as there will be potentially a net increase of Democrat voters over Republicans by at least 4 million. Even worse, this will dilute the effects and power of the votes of true, homegrown citizens thus abridging our rights.
Attacking the Constitutional argument, most constitutional scholars agree that the 14th Amendment was inserted into the Constitution to ensure that children born to African slaves would be considered citizens. It was not intended to be interpreted as it has been for many years now. The consequence of this distorted “interpretation” is illegal aliens steal their way into our great country for the sole purpose of birthing "anchor babies" in order to gain access to our generous welfare benefits and live a more enjoyable life?
As the article below points out, the illegal immigrant parents of stateside-born children gain access to $600 million in social services benefits each year in Los Angeles County alone! When health care and public safety expenses are factored in, this cost exceeds $1.6 billion which doesn’t even include the costs associated with educating these children. With most municipalities in California and the state itself drowning in red ink, this is a burden the taxpayers cannot and should not be required to bear. Project the well over $2 billion in L.A. County alone (for just one year) to every other city, county, and state in America burdened by this fraudulent cost and we are talking well over $100 billion per year.
This massive expenditure of taxpayer dollars could be better employed to reduce our debt and deficit. This could be facilitated if changes were made such that the Fourteenth Amendment was followed as intended, not as the Progressives and Democrats want it to be interpreted - as part of their living, breathing document shtick.
Welfare Tab for Children of Illegal Immigrants Estimated at $600M in L.A. County
January 19, 2011 FoxNews.com
Welfare benefits for the children of illegal immigrants cost America's largest county more than $600 million last year, according to a local official keeping tabs on the cost.
Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael Antonovich released new statistics this week showing social spending for those families in his county rose to $53 million in November, putting the county government on track to spend more than $600 million on related costs for the year -- up from $570 million in 2009.
Antonovich arrived at the estimate by factoring in the cost of food stamps and welfare-style benefits through a state program known as CalWORKS. Combined with public safety costs and health care costs, the official claimed the "total cost for illegal immigrants to county taxpayers" was more than $1.6 billion in 2010.
"Not including the hundreds of millions of dollars for education," he said in a statement.
Antonovich's figures, though, center on costs generated by American-born children of illegal immigrants. Isabel Alegria, communications director at the California Immigrant Policy Center, said it's "unfair" to roll together costs associated with both illegal immigrants and U.S.-born citizens.
"Those children are U.S. citizens, children eligible for those programs," Alegria said.
She also questioned the authenticity of Antonovich's numbers regarding health care and public safety -- though for the welfare program statistics, Antonovich cited numbers from the county's Department of Public Social Services.
Antonovich acknowledges that the children whose benefits he's focusing on are U.S.-born. But he argues that the money is collected by the illegal immigrant parents, putting a painful burden on taxpayers, including those who are legal immigrants.
"The problem is illegal immigration. ... Their parents evidently immigrated here in order to get on social services," Antonovich spokesman Tony Bell said. "We can no longer afford to be HMO to the world."
He said the state should cut back on these social benefits. According to the November statistics, that cost accounted for 22 percent of all food stamp and CalWORKS spending in the county.
Over the summer, the Federation for American Immigration Reform also looked at these kinds of costs nationwide to get an idea of the burden to local governments at a time when many are grappling with budget deficits.
The organization reported that the cost of illegal immigration stands at about $113 billion a year. Nearly half of that amount went toward education costs, according to the study. Costs were naturally higher in states with large illegal immigrant populations -- in California, the total annual cost was pegged at $21.8 billion.
Finally we may actually have some discernible progress on illegal immigration issues now that Republicans are in control of the House. On their very first day of the 112th Congress, Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) introduced a bill that would end the awarding of American citizenship to children of illegal aliens born here. These are the so called “anchor babies” - a major component of the illegal immigrant problem and a substantial motivating factor for illegals migrating here.
This is a multifaceted problem which will have to be dealt with aggressively and persistently and will also face intense vitriol from the far left media and radical organizations including La Raza and the Obama Administration.
Fortunately, it appears that the Republicans are resolute on this issue which bodes well for our country.
Day One: GOP Congressman Introduces Bill to End ‘Birthright Citizenship’
Meredith Jessup 1/6/2011
Before new members of Congress had a chance to celebrate their swearing-in ceremonies Wednesday, Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, was hard at work keeping his promise to address loopholes in America’s immigration laws.
On the first day of the 112th Congress, King introduced a bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act, a measure that would end automatic citizenship for anyone born on American soil — so-called “anchor babies.” Instead, King’s proposal would end “birthright citizenship” by mandating than only children of citizens and legal immigrants permanently living in the country or immigrants enlisted in the military be granted U.S. citizenship.
According to King, the number of babies born to undocumented immigrants runs from 340,000 to as many as 750,000 and that existing law does not discourage pregnant women without citizenship from giving birth in the United States to guarantee their newborns access to state and federal services. “Sometimes by plan, (they) have a baby here so they can cash into this great ATM called America,” King said last November.
Such “anchor babies,” King says, strain the country’s resources, a “substantial” burden on government services.
Many conservatives have called for changing the 14th Amendment, but King insists that ending birthright citizenship through legislative action is an easier route.
“We need to address anchor babies,” King told Politico Wednesday. “This isn’t what our founding fathers intended.”
Republicans grabbed headlines last summer after Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) criticized the longstanding law, saying it encourages pregnant women to come to the country to have children so they can eventually become citizens themselves.
Though Politico predicts that immigration legislation isn‘t high on the House GOP’s list of legislative priorities at this point, at least five members have signed on as co-sponsors for King’s bill: Reps. Phil Gingrey, R-Ga., Gary Miller, R-Calif., Rob Woodall, R-Ga., Brian Bilbray R-Calif., and Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif.
In a separate effort, the New York Times reported Wednesday that Republican state lawmakers across the country plan to introduce similar legislation in at least 14 states. Though they acknowledge the bills aren‘t likely to have a practical effect on stemming the tide of illegal immigration in the near future as they’re challenged in court, representatives from Arizona, Georgia, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and South Carolina said they hoped the Supreme Court would ultimately give the green light for legislative action in Washington.
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.
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.
Obama’s illegal alien aunt has been living on public support for years which we the taxpayers have to bear. She was to have been deported twice but did not leave the country. Now, she has been granted asylum from the same judge that sought to deport her in the past. Apparently, Obama influenced this decision behind the scenes.
There are several egregious issues regarding this whole affair. First, as seen in the video interview below, she matter of factly states that the United States is obligated to take care of her and her kind.
In other words: She sees herself entitled to taxpayer supported aid. We owe it to her. There is no sense of responsibility nor a verbal acknowledgement of the burden that this places on the taxpayer.
She bears an attitude just like her nephew, Barry Obama (aka Barack Obama).
Second: With the Obamas worth millions of dollars, how can they morally allow or accept his aunt to live on public assistance? Of course, this is a rhetorical question as we do expect this arrogant and irresponsible behavior from the two of them.
They display this despicable attitude and moral bankruptcy daily.
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 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.
Obama continues to display unfettered arrogance, ineptitude and inappropriate partisanship while at the same time luxuriating in expensive hedonistic activities such as his weekly vacations and golf outings which obviously he feels are deserved. Millions of Americans beg to differ.
With this backdrop, Obama refused outright to meet with Texas Governor Rick Perry during his recent trip to Fort Bliss in the state. The nature of the conversation was to be over the alarming, dangerous and violent situation along the border with Mexico.
Obama would not make the time for even a brief meeting. But regarding his golfing, parties at the White House and weekly vacations – there is plenty of time.
“United States be damned” he is conveying.
Didn’t his racist, hateful, anti-American religious leader, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, spew the same vitriol?
He listened to and learned from this hate monger but refuses to listen to the American people.
OBAMA MUST BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE ASAP! Perry Offered Consolation Meeting After Request for Obama Face Time Denied
August 31, 2010 FoxNews.com
The White House apparently offered a consolation meeting to Texas Gov. Rick Perry after he was denied face time with President Obama on his trip to Fort Bliss Tuesday.
The Republican governor's spokeswoman said Perry's request for a presidential meeting to discuss border security was rebuffed. According to Perry spokeswoman Katherine Cesinger, White House aides said the president would not be available for such a meeting.
Instead, White House spokesman Luis Miranda said Perry "was offered but declined" a meeting on border security with Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and counterterrorism adviser John Brennan.
"Today, the president is at Fort Bliss to honor the troops who so bravely serve our country, but if the governor wants to have a meeting about the border, the White House has made that possible," Miranda said in a written statement.
Cesinger later said the governor was just looking for a meeting with the president, not his advisers.
"The governor does not need additional briefings about what is occurring on our border. What we need is an immediate deployment of additional resources," she said.
Perry was one of the first people the president saw when he stepped from Air Force One during an Austin visit on Aug. 9. On that occasion, Perry hand-delivered a letter to Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett, warning about the "dire threat" from drug violence along the U.S.-Mexico border.
Miranda noted that the president has "directed unprecedented resources to the southwest border since launching the Southwest Border Initiative in March 2009" and signed into law $600 million in supplemental funds for border protection, law enforcement, 250 additional National Guard for Texas and a new Texas-based Predator drone to enhance surveillance to personnel on the ground.
Fox News' Major Garrett and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
In an absolutely outrageous move which further substantiates the Obama Administration’s anti-American and divisive philosophy, the State Department submitted a report to the UN that was critical of Arizona’s immigration law SB 1070.
Isn’t the President supposed to support and positively represent this country?
If he was so incensed with Arizona’s law, why didn't the federal government’s lawsuit against the state mention racism or abridgment of rights?
Even more reprehensible, he had the audacity to allow such a specious report to be submitted to an organization that is saturated with vile human rights abuses.
Interestingly, he also had the suit adjudicated in a District Court in Arizona where the judge was a known liberal appointed by Bill Clinton. This approach is constitutionally not legal and the ruling should be nullified.
Why? The US Constitution enumerates specifically that in cases where the Federal government sues a state, only the Supreme Court can hear and rule on such matters.
This is all part of Obama’s radical agenda to denigrate and destroy America and render it mediocre at best.
OBAMA MUST BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE!
Brewer condemns State Department for mentioning Arizona law in human rights report to UN
August 27, 2010 Associated Press
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer demanded Friday that a reference to the state's controversial immigration law be removed from a State Department report to the United Nations' human rights commissioner.
The U.S. included its legal challenge to the law on a list of ways the federal government is protecting human rights.
In a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Brewer says it is "downright offensive" that a state law would be included in the report, which was drafted as part of a UN review of human rights in all member nations every four years.
"The idea of our own American government submitting the duly enacted laws of a state of the United States to 'review' by the United Nations is internationalism run amok and unconstitutional," Brewer wrote.
Arizona's law generally requires police officer enforcing other laws to investigate the immigration status of people they suspect are illegal immigrants.
Critics say it would lead officers to target Hispanics. Supporters, including Brewer, say the law prohibits racial profiling and other human rights abuses.
The U.S. Justice Department sued to block the measure, arguing federal law trumps the state's authority to enforce immigration laws.
A federal judge in July sided with the Justice Department and blocked enforcement of the law's most controversial provisions a day before it was scheduled to take effect.
In its report, the State Department does not specifically allege that Arizona's law would lead to racial profiling.
"A recent Arizona law, S.B. 1070, has generated significant attention and debate at home and around the world," the report says. "The issue is being addressed in a court action that argues that the federal government has the authority to set and enforce immigration law. That action is ongoing; parts of the law are currently enjoined."
A State Department spokesman had no immediate comment on Brewer's letter.
Brewer, a Republican, is running for election in November. Her popularity in Arizona and her national profile have soared since she signed the immigration measure in April.
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.
The delays in deciding upon and constructing a Post 9/11 Memorial are inexcusable. Even more outrageous is the spinelessness of countless politicians and bureaucrats in not legally making it a National Historic Landmark and allowing a trojan horse leviathan of a mosque to be built nearby.
Americans are overwhelmingly and vehemently against this mosque being constructed which purportedly is being financed by supporters of terrorism and will represent the subjugation and defeat of the West by Islam.
And why isn't "president?" Obama weighing in on this issue in support of America, for the symbolic preservation of liberties and freedoms and for remembrance and honor of the 3000 victims who tragically were murdered by Islamic terrorists?