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?
The illegal immigration situation is far more extensive and pernicious than most Americans suspect. This is a direct consequence of depraved, self-serving and reckless policies of and suppression of information by Obama and the Democratic controlled federal government. Complicit and abetting this is the intentional avoidance of the issue by a vast majority of the news media which constitutes malfeasance by the press. It is no wonder that Arizona, backed into a corner by the federal government’s willful abdication of its Constitutional responsibility regarding border security, was forced to enact its immigration legislation.
The following article characterizes the severity of the illegal immigration problem regarding both the scope and magnitude of the crimes and the politicization of the issue. It is a real eye opener.
Immigration enforcement union took a no-confidence vote in its leadership
Joel S. Gehrke Jr. 08/04/10
Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents believe overwhelmingly that their department leadership has become so politicized as to compromise the effectiveness of ICE and the safety of American people. Their union has released a letter announcing its recent unanimous “vote of no confidence” in ICE agency heads, accusing them of “misleading the American public” regarding illegal immigration in order to further a pro-amnesty agenda.
In June, the National Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council — an AFL-CIO affiliate — and affiliated local councils cast a unanimous 259-0 vote of no confidence in ICE Director John Morton and Assistant Director Phyllis Coven. In a letter announcing the vote, the National Council criticized the directors for “misguided and reckless initiatives,” and said their leaders 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 policies and programs related to amnesty.”
Janice Kephart at the Center for Immigration Studies has the letter, which includes several biting indictments of ICE failures by ICE agents. For instance:
Senior ICE leadership dedicates more time to campaigning for immigration reforms aimed at large scale amnesty legislation, than advising the American public and Federal lawmakers on the severity of the illegal immigration problem, and the need for more manpower and resources within the ICE ERO to address it. ICE ERO is currently overwhelmed by the massive criminal alien problem in the United States resulting in the large-scale release of criminals back into local communities.
Kind of puts the Arizona illegal immigration enforcement in perspective, doesn’t it?
While ICE reports internally that more than 90 percent of ICE detainees are first encountered in jails after they are arrested by local police for criminal charges, ICE senior leadership misrepresents this information publicly in order to portray ICE detainees as being non-criminal in nature to support the Administration’s position on amnesty and relaxed security at ICE detention facilities.
The majority of ICE ERO Officers are prohibited from making street arrests or enforcing United States immigration laws outside of the institutional (jail) setting. This has effectively created “amnesty through policy” for anyone illegally in the United States who has not been arrested by another agency for a criminal violation.
Arizona is by no means is the only state that has considered or enacted illegal immigration legislation. Virginia and several other states are working on laws that are fairly similar to Arizona’s SB1020 in order to more effectively address the multitude of problems associated with illegal aliens. This all is in response to the federal government’s abdication of its constitutional responsibility to secure our borders and protect the citizens of this country.
Is Virginia the Next Arizona? State Lawmakers Fuel Immigration Debate
August 03, 2010 FoxNews.com
A handful of Virginia lawmakers may be positioning their state to be the next battleground in the immigration debate.
Virginia, one of nearly 20 states toying with the idea of an Arizona-style immigration law, hurtled onto the national radar screen this week after Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli ruled that police can ask people about their immigration status during routine stops.
While a northern Virginia county has been at the forefront of the push for stricter local immigration laws for three years, none of this activity has prompted the kind of nationwide backlash -- in the form of boycotts and a federal government lawsuit -- that Arizona triggered with its law in April. Those behind the Virginia proposals, including a proposed statewide law, are hoping their state can avoid the kind of public relations and legal pitfalls that have, at least temporarily, ensnared Arizona.
"This is good policy. ... It's both constitutional and prudent," said Robert Marshall, the Republican state delegate who originally requested the ruling from Cuccinelli, who is also a Republican. "Our actions here can't be dismissed."
Marshall told FoxNews.com he has asked Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell to issue an executive order codifying what Cuccinelli wrote. He expressed doubt that any single piece of legislation will pass through the state Senate, but he suggested a carefully worded directive could help shape the national debate.
He said Arizona went astray by requiring law enforcement officers to ask about immigration status. Cuccinelli describes Virginia's policy as discretionary.
"Unlike Arizona, you wouldn't say every time you stop somebody, do this," Marshall said. "I think that was one of the reasons the Arizona law was (blocked)." Marshall said he's confident Virginia's policy would be held up in court if challenged.
Cuccinelli also cited that difference as a key distinction between the two laws.
"The difference, of course, is that the Arizona law enforcement officer is going to be under the cloud of the requirement of that statute," he said. "But the way we operate it here, we're in good shape."
A spokesman for Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer said the governor is reviewing her state's law to see if it can be refined in light of the court decision blocking key parts of it, but was not sure whether she was considering the possibility of making immigration checks discretionary as opposed to mandatory.
Though Cuccinelli's ruling drew widespread attention, it's unclear how much direct impact it will have on Virginia law enforcement.
Virginia Senate Majority Leader Richard Saslaw, a Democrat, said most police forces won't change their policies in light of the opinion.
"Is it going to affect a single thing? The answer is no," he said. "A majority of the police forces won't bother with it."
Saslaw noted that per Cuccinelli's opinion, state officers are still advised against arresting anyone for a civil immigration offense. Saslaw said he doesn't see Virginia, a non-border state, becoming a focal point of the immigration debate any time soon, and he rejected the idea that McDonnell could issue an order codifying Cuccinelli's ruling.
"We don't have a dictatorship in Virginia," Saslaw said. "It would carry absolutely not a shred of legal validity."
McDonnell spokeswoman Stacey Johnson said Marshall was not specifically calling for an executive order. The actual letter to the governor asked McDonnell to "direct all appropriate law enforcement officers of the commonwealth to implement the policies referenced" in the Cuccinelli decision.
Regardless of how Cuccinelli's ruling is interpreted, a few Virginia lawmakers are pushing hard to keep their state in the middle of the immigration furor. Though it's not anywhere close to a border state, Virginia's illegal immigrant population, concentrated mostly in the north, has been pegged at about 300,000 by the Pew Hispanic Center. Any crime connected to that community has the potential to feed the debate.
Just as the killing of rancher Robert Krentz by a suspected illegal immigrant fueled the push for border security in Arizona, a recent killing in Virginia has stirred emotions over the issue. An illegal immigrant on Sunday was involved in a crash that killed one nun and injured two others -- he reportedly had a prior drunk-driving record and was going through deportation proceedings.
The crash happened in Prince William County, which is ground zero for immigration controversy in Virginia. Board of County Supervisors Chairman Corey Stewart seized on the incident, as he continued to push a proposed immigration law similar to Arizona's.
Stewart said in an e-mail to FoxNews.com that Virginia will "adjust our course" in light of the Arizona case and said he hopes the federal government decides to sue his state too.
"Virginia has shown in the past that people care about this issue even 2,500 miles away from the most porous parts of our southern border. Especially in Prince William County, we are very close to the nation's Capitol. Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and President Obama can't ignore what is happening in their own backyard," he wrote.
Prince William County, which Marshall represents, has a local law that requires police to ask about the immigration status of anyone they arrest. Stewart said Cuccinelli's ruling doesn't dramatically change anything there but that "it is good have the Virginia AG on board."
Stewart is pushing for a statewide policy to require police to check the immigration status of anyone they stop or arrest. He claims the proposal anticipates the legal pitfalls that trapped Arizona. He has launched a political action committee to raise money for a public campaign in support of the bill, and he has a started a website, www.virginiaruleoflaw.com, where he is trying to collect 100,000 signatures.
Saslaw ridiculed the push.
"The bill ain't gonna make it through the General Assembly," he said. "It won't even get to a law."
The early signs from the judicial hearings on Arizona’s immigration law that is being challenged by the Obama Administration are auspicious for the state. Comments made by the judge who had been appointed by Bill Clinton appear to challenge the basis of the federal government’s case.
The citizens of Arizona (and in the rest of the country as well) are hoping that this portends a quick and favorable outcome to the Obama Administration’s politically motivated lawsuit.
Arizona should ultimately sue Obama for legal costs and for the accumulated costs that illegal immigrants have burdened Arizona with.
We all need to stand behind Arizona in its defense of the citizens not only of the state but also of the rest of the country. Write Governor Brewer letters of support and encouragement. You can also make an online donation to the cause that will ultimately help all of us.
Hearing on Arizona immigration law begins
Jerry Markon Washington Post July 23, 2010
PHOENIX -- A federal judge pushed back Thursday against a contention by the Obama Justice Department that a tough new Arizona immigration law set to take effect next week would cause "irreparable harm" and intrude into federal immigration enforcement.
"Why can't Arizona be as inhospitable as they wish to people who have entered or remained in the United States?" U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton asked in a pointed exchange with Deputy Solicitor General Edwin S. Kneedler. Her comment came during a rare federal court hearing in the Justice Department's lawsuit against Arizona and Gov. Jan Brewer (R).
Bolton, a Democratic appointee, also questioned a core part of the Justice Department's argument that she should declare the law unconstitutional: that it is "preempted" by federal law because immigration enforcement is an exclusive federal prerogative.
"How is there a preemption issue?" the judge asked. "I understand there may be other issues, but you're arguing preemption. Where is the preemption if everybody who is arrested for some crime has their immigration status checked?"
At issue in Thursday's hearing, argued in a tan-colored "special proceedings" courtroom" inside the federal courthouse, was whether Bolton would grant a preliminary injunction to stop the law from taking effect while the federal lawsuit proceeds.
As dozens of protesters marched outside, the hearing marked the first round in the Obama administration's effort to stop the state's crackdown on illegal immigration. The tension in the courtroom reflected a broader national debate over what has become a political divisive issue: whether police should have the power to question people they suspect are in the United States illegally.
"The regulation of immigration is unquestionably, exclusively, a federal power," Kneedler told a rapt courtroom. Brewer, whose fierce criticism of the federal lawsuit has helped her popularity at home, watched silently from the front row, drawing a "Good afternoon, Governor" from the judge.
Lawyers for Brewer argued with equal force that the legislation, scheduled to take effect July 29, is a legal expression of a sovereign state's right to secure its borders against a tide of illegal immigration. The federal government, the lawyers said, has failed to act.
"We keep hearing that we can't really do anything about these illegal aliens -- Arizona should just deal with it," said John J. Bouma, Arizona's lead attorney. "Well, the status quo is simply unacceptable."
The law, which Brewer signed in April, empowers police to question people they have a "reasonable suspicion" are illegal immigrants and to send them to federal authorities for possible deportation. President Obama has strongly condemned the law, and the Justice Department filed suit July 6, setting up an unusual clash between the federal government and a state over who should enforce the nation's immigration laws.
Bolton did not indicate how she might rule, saying only that she will take the matter "under advisement." But she did subject Justice Department lawyers to some pointed questions.
Kneedler responded to her query about why Arizona authorities don't have the right to be inhospitable to illegal immigrants by saying the law has given the state the power to enforce immigration law "in, frankly, an unprecedented and dramatic way."
"It is not for one of our states to be inhospitable in the way this statute does," Kneedler said, citing as his main argument the legal doctrine of "preemption."
Based on the Constitution's supremacy clause, it says federal law trumps state statutes. Because the federal government has "preeminent authority to regulate immigration matters," the government's lawsuit argues, the Arizona law must be struck down.
Bolton questioned key parts of that argument, especially relating to a section of the law that appears to require immigration-status checks if police stop someone for another law enforcement purpose and suspect the person is an illegal immigrant.
Kneedler said the conflict with federal law comes because the status checks are mandatory, which could lead to federal agencies being overwhelmed with deportation requests. Top officials at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, whose agents will handle most of the calls from Arizona authorities if the law takes effect, have said they will not necessarily respond to every call.
"There really is no flexibility," Kneedler said.
He added that the Arizona law might lead to police harassment of U.S. citizens and is threatening to harm vital cooperation along the border with Mexican authorities, who have strongly condemned the law. "These are very concrete harms, very substantial foreign policy concerns," he said.
Bouma ridiculed the foreign policy concerns.
"Foreign outrage doesn't make the law preempted," he said. He accused the Obama administration of ignoring requests from Brewer and numerous other governors for more help in securing the border.
"You can't catch them if you don't know about them," he said. "And they don't want to know about them."
Bolton is hearing six other lawsuits filed against the Arizona law. A former Arizona state court judge, she was nominated for the federal bench by Democratic President Bill Clinton, but legal observers say she is hard to pigeonhole ideologically.
Outside the gleaming glass-and-white iron courthouse, named for former Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O'Connor, an angry subtext reflected the divide over how to handle the nation's estimated 12 million illegal immigrants.
Opponents of the Arizona law clasped hands, prayed and held signs condemning it.
"The law is racist. The police are harassing us because of our brown skin," said Marta Calderon, who sat next to a painting of the Virgin Mary affixed with a sign saying "Stop SB1070," as the immigration law is known.
Nearby, Brandy Baron waved an American flag and expressed her support for the law and her "disgust" at efforts to overturn it.
"I am amazed that the Justice Department would have the nerve to sue us for trying to get laws that are already on the books enforced," she said.
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.
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.
The Obama Administration egregiously lied to Arizona Governor Jan Brewer regarding the federal government’s assistance on illegal immigration. Instead, through a Hillary Clinton information leak while in South America, it was revealed that he would instead sue Arizona regarding its new illegal immigration law.
Both the impending action and the way this was exposed are despicable!
Compounding the corrupt and destructive and obstructive behavior of Obama, he told Arizona Senator Kyl that he had no intention whatsoever of securing the border until a comprehensive immigration solution was passed.
That’s right. He is subjecting Arizona as well as the rest of the country to invasion by violent Mexican drug gangs and members of the drug cartel, countless illegal aliens as well as Islamic terrorists from around the world.
And this is all for political reasons to serve his purposes.
This is not the action of a President of the United States. This is the action of an anti-President. A mole. Someone who does not care about the welfare of this country and who would rather see it harmed or destroyed.
Obama has stated this in his own words in a variety of ways. His actions over the last year and a half comport with this pernicious desire.
Obama Must Be Removed From Office!
Support Arizona Governor Jan Brewer in her battle to protect the state of Arizona as well as the rest of the United States against the malignant actions of Obama and his administration.
The following video depicts the realities of the illegal immigration which most of the media intentionally ignores and suppresses. Unfortunately, this one example is not the exception. We have witnessed countless ones that are not civil, peaceful or mainstream and in large cities like Los Angeles and Phoenix. California is inundated with them.
These rallies portend imminently dangerous situations and occurrences throughout the country. Many are being influenced or spearheaded by La Raza, the vehemently racist Hispanic organization that makes the KKK appear tame. Their philosophy is one of revolution and radicalism with a foundation essentially based on Marxism.
Given this alone, Obama is intentionally blocking any border security and facilitating such potential insurrection, crime and racism. Just add this to the list of why he needs to be removed from office.
The following text was taken from www.resistnet.com to describe the Atlanta rally which occurred on May 2nd as shown below:
There was an immigration protest in Downtown Atlanta which revealed some shocking discoveries. The speakers spoke almost entirely in Spanish, but a few speakers spoke in English and called for "black, brown, and progressive whites" to stand together and fight the "culture that opposes all things public" A Democrat GA State Representative shamelessly called on the crowd (by definition filled with illegal immigrants), to register and vote! He did not qualify this statement to only include citizens, but clearly was calling for voter fraud.
The Obama administration “accidentally” revealed on June 18th that the federal government will be filing a lawsuit against Arizona challenging the constitutionality of its new illegal immigration law, S.B. 1070. Given their already selected position, the fact that Obama didn’t have the courtesy to inform Arizona’s governor as promised and that this information was released in a back handed way, we feel this was a despicable and arrogant move on his part.
Of course, that comes as no surprise as such is his modus operandi with those he disagrees with except, of course, our enemies.
We encourage Americans to donate money to defend this legal challenge. Hopefully, Arizona can ultimately sue the federal government for legal costs (and punitive damages?).
The state should also sue to recoup the billions of dollars that Arizona taxpayers have paid to deal with all facets related to illegal immigrants.
Facing Federal Lawsuit, Arizona Governor Stands Her Ground on Immigration Law
FOXNews.com June 19, 2010
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer refused to flinch after Obama administration officials confirmed Friday that they plan to file a lawsuit challenging the state's anti-illegal immigration law.
In a statement issued late Friday, Brewer called Obama's decision "outrageous" but "not surprising."
"Our federal government should be using its legal resources to fight illegal immigration, not the law-abiding citizens of Arizona," she said.
Meanwhile, Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard said his office plans to withdraw as the state's lawyers in legal challenges to the law, leaving Brewer's attorneys to defend it. Brewer had complained that Goddard's criticism of the measure raised doubts about his ability to defend it.
Brewer said with Goddard out, "I will ensure the immigration laws we passed are vigorously defended all the way to the United States Supreme Court if necessary, where this reasonable law will ultimately be found constitutional."
The law takes effect July 29 and requires officers to question a person's immigration status if there's a reasonable suspicion that he or she is in the country illegally.
At least five legal challenges have been filed to the law since April.
The lawsuits generally allege that Arizona's law will lead to racial profiling and argue that it's the federal government's responsibility to regulate immigration.
On Friday evening, Brewer's defense team asked a federal judge to throw out the suit by the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups that challenge the law's constitutionality.
Obama officials confirmed plans to file their lawsuit after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in an interview with a TV station in Ecuador earlier this month that the administration would challenge the law in court, though officials had long said the issue was under review.
Administration officials initially would not confirm Clinton's statement. But an official told Fox News on Friday that while the review is still underway, the decision has already been made that a Department of Justice suit will be filed. The administration at this point is just building its case.
Another official said there are still "substantial" issues to address and work out before the Justice Department knows that it has a strong enough case to file a lawsuit. The official said the department intends to file suit, but that any court action is contingent on the final review.
Clinton's announcement was met with outrage Thursday by Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, who signed the law. Brewer told Fox News she's ready for a fight.
"What a disappointment," Brewer told Fox News' Greta Van Susteren on Thursday, saying she was shocked the administration would make such an announcement on foreign TV without giving Arizona officials the news first.
"We are not going to back away from this issue," Brewer said. "We are going to pursue it, we're going to be very aggressive," Brewer said. "We'll meet them in court ... And we will win."
She added: "The population of America agrees with Arizona."
The magnitude of the violence associated with the uncontrolled drug smuggling and illegal immigration is so great in southern Arizona that the federal government is now warning American citizens to avoid these areas because of the danger. In effect, we have lost control of part of our own country because the federal government has abdicated its responsibility to protect the border, and by doing so, protecting Americans.
The cynical, divisive, irresponsible and condescending comments expressed and lies told by Obama regarding the new Arizona illegal immigration law, the security of our borders and the “rights” of these aliens as compared to the rights of American citizens further adds to ther overwhelming evidence of his lack of fitness and competence to be President and the emergent need to seek his removal from office after the November elections.
“A Mexican cartel plots to blow up a dam — in Texas! Another pack of Mexican terrorists takes cash from Hugo Chavez. And what is Washington wringing its hands about? Why, racism in Arizona.”
We suspect that a more immigration reform would be addressed quite expeditiously, responsibly and respectfully if the object of Mexican cartel’s terrorism acts were instead the White House and Congress. Instead, Obama and the Democrats are using the issue to divide the nation and corruptly obtain votes from the Hispanic community.
Bordering Disaster
Investors Business Daily Posted 06/04/2010
National Security: A Mexican cartel plots to blow up a dam — in Texas! Another pack of Mexican terrorists takes cash from Hugo Chavez. And what is Washington wringing its hands about? Why, racism in Arizona.
If still more proof is needed that the border needs to be secured, the latest threats emerging from Mexico should do the trick. Together, they signal that the country's war could advance to a more savage stage.
Last month, the Los Zetas paramilitary drug cartel tried to blow up the Falcon Dam near Zapata, Texas, on the Rio Grande River. The motive was to destroy a smuggling route controlled by the rival Gulf Cartel. Had it succeeded, 534 billion gallons of water could have been unleashed onto a region of 4 million people.
The plot was primitive, and U.S. lawmen took preemptive steps to foil it. But it showed motive, and the threat remains.
On Friday, Texas Gov. Rick Perry called it a reminder that more federal resources are needed to secure the border. Perry said he hoped he never had to tell U.S. officials "we told you so" after a major attack.
Moreover, the threat is no longer just over smuggling routes. Last Tuesday, the Washington Examiner quoted Mexican and U.S. intelligence sources as saying Mexico's Ejercito Popular Revolucionario (EPR), a Marxist terror organization aligned with drug cartels, is secretly receiving funds from Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez.
The group seeks to overthrow the Mexican government while engaging in drug trafficking, much as the FARC guerrillas do in Colombia. What's disturbing here is not just EPR's growing ties to the drug trade — which in time could lead to an alliance with the Zetas. It's the threat to Mexico's democracy, as well as the group's expertise in destroying infrastructure like gas lines, which EPR did in 2007.
FARC itself has also begun operating in Mexico, cutting out drug trafficking middlemen to forge closer ties with Mexico's cartels. StrategyPage, an intelligence forecaster, warned that FARC could begin launching attacks against the U.S. from Mexico in an effort to stop the U.S. from helping Colombia in its war on drugs back home.
These blood-chilling scenarios aren't fantasies. They are signs of an emerging threat that gets little attention from U.S. lawmakers. Instead of focusing on making the border secure, they play partisan political games, pandering to potential voting blocs by dangling amnesty in front of illegal immigrants, grandstanding against Arizona's effort to enforce federal law and coming up with one excuse after another for not erecting a border fence.
As illegal armed groups plot to blow up infrastructure even in this country, Democrats in Congress are more concerned about an illegal immigrant getting his feelings hurt if a police officer in Arizona asks him to show some ID.
Such distractions create opportunities for Mexico's already-odious drug traffickers to be even more ambitious.
The developments from Mexico parallel what happened in Colombia in the 1980s and 1990s, before that country got a grip on how to defeat drug lords.
As drug lords such as Medellin cartel kingpin Pablo Escobar became rich and powerful, their depredations became increasingly callous and casual. Trying to murder a politician, Escobar blew an Avianca 727 out of the sky in 1989, killing 110 people.
To destroy court records that could have meant extradition to the U.S., he teamed up with the Marxist terrorist group M-19 to blow up Colombia's supreme court building, killing 11 justices in 1985 to make sure the papers burned.
He also played politics, aligning with left-wing lawyers and human rights activists, claiming fealty to the poor and victimhood for himself on the human rights front. After Escobar's demise in 1993, political terrorist groups such as FARC took his place.
Now we have Mexican cartels and terrorists emerging in the same pattern. The plot on the border dam and Chavez's funding of Marxist narcoterrorists are an emerging menace that demands immediate attention. Mexican groups like EPR and the drug cartels find only advantage in Congress' indifference to security and laugh at its political priorities.
The price tag to the taxpayers of Arizona of the illegal immigration problem is staggering. An estimate of the costs in 2009 was calculated to be $2.7 billion. That works out to be more than $425 or taxes for each legal citizen in the state of Arizona per year if taxes were paid equally (which they are not). For a family of five, the total cost is in excess of $2100/year.
We are sure these hard working citizens can think of much better ways to spend their hard earned money than subsidizing the expenses of the law breaking illegal residents.
Cost of Illegal Immigration Rising Rapidly in Arizona, Study Finds
Ed Barnes FOXNews.com May 17, 2010
Arizona’s illegal immigrant population is costing the state’s taxpayers even more than once thought -- a whopping $2.7 billion in 2009, according to researchers at the public interest group that helped write the state's new immigration law.
Researchers at FAIR – The Federation for American Immigration Reform -- released data exclusively to FoxNews.com that show a steady cost climb in multiple areas, including incarceration, education and health, in the last five years.
FAIR’s cost estimates – compiled for a comprehensive national immigration report it plans to release next month – include several new cost areas, including welfare and the justice system, that weren’t in previous reports.
FAIR admits that the cost to implement the new law in some of those categories, such as incarceration, will add to the economic strain on the state. But overall, it says, the loss of immigrants either from the deterrent effect of the law, voluntary exodus or from mass deportations, will help the state financially.
Also, the savings to the state will far overwhelm any fallout from boycotts (estimated at between $7 million and $52 million) being threatened in the wake of the law's passage, according to FAIR spokesman Bob Dane.
FAIR's new breakdown shows that illegal immigrants take $1.6 billion from Arizona's education system, $694.8 million from health care services, $339.7 million in law enforcement and court costs, $85.5 million in welfare costs and $155.4 million in other general costs.
The organization concedes that enforcing Arizona SB1070, the new law that allows local police to ask for immigration documents and arrest those who don’t have them, will increase the state’s incarceration costs, police training budgets and prosecution expenses -- but it says those numbers can’t yet be estimated with certainty. Also, it says, some of those costs will be offset by revenues from fines levied against businesses charged with knowingly hiring illegal immigrants, as well as from immigrants themselves who might be charged with minor crimes and fined before being deported.
But the Immigration Policy Center, a major opponent of the new law, says FAIR's data do not accurately portray SB1070's potential outcome. “They count the costs and don’t look at the benefits. We tend to look at the benefits more closely,” said Council spokeswoman Wendy Sefsaf.
“It is like having a roommate and counting how much they cost in toilet paper and incidentals without looking at the benefits of having help with the rent,” she said.
“Overall, every comprehensive study has shown that immigrants are a net benefit to states. If you add their children, they are a very great benefit.”
The Center’s cost crunching found that "if all unauthorized immigrants were removed from Arizona, the state would lose $26.4 billion in economic activity, $11.7 billion in gross state product and approximately 140,324 jobs,” -- a disaster for the Grand Canyon State.
But FAIR’s numbers tell a far different story.
(Because of the polarizing nature of the debate and the lack of solid figures on everything from the number of illegal immigrants in the state to how to accurately figure their share of the costs, there are no numbers either side agrees on or has not challenged.)
Jack Martin, the chief researcher on the report, says his data, in fact, do include benefits like the estimated $142.8 million in taxes paid by an estimated 500,000 illegal immigrants, and he says the Council’s numbers are unrealistic.
“They assume every illegal alien will leave right away," Martin said. "That is not going to happen.”
He said FAIR'S new estimates far exceed the report he wrote in 2004, which helped gain support for the passage of the Arizona law. In 2004, he said, he estimated that illegal immigrants cost the state $1.3 billion -- less than half the new estimate.
He said the new numbers put a reliable cost estimate on the economic impact of illegal immigration -- not just in Arizona, because the debate there largely ended with the passage of the immigration law, but nationally, as the debate spreads across the country.
”The numbers just keep growing,” Dane said.
Both Dane and Martin said that among FAIR’s most important findings was an estimate that tax revenues to the state will actually increase if illegal immigrants leave.
“We discovered after looking at places where big raids were made that salaries went up after the raids because employers now had to pay competitive wages to Americans.” Martin said. “And that will mean more money for the state.”
The gravity of the illegal immigration problem has not only forced Arizona to enact legislation to help deal with a problem which has spiraled out of control but has struck a raw chord in many across America. Among those with a visceral response was Alpha Maser who wrote a gritty and poignant song based on the Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young hit "OHIO".
Thousands of Americans have been killed by illegal aliens since 9/11
Lyrics:
Tin soldiers and O’s not comin’
Arizona’s on its own
This summer they’ll just keep comin’
Thousands more from Mexico
Gotta get down to it
Illegals are running us down
They Should have been gone long ago
What if the violence gets to you
Founding kids dead on the ground?
Claiming racism when you know… Better!
Tin soldiers and Barack’s not comin’
Arizona’s on its own
This summer they’ll keep comin’
Thousands more from Mexico
Gotta get down to it
Illegals are running us down
Should have been gone long ago
What if violence gets you
Found kids dead on the ground?
Claiming racism when you know… Better!
22 Thousand dead in Mexico
Deputy Killed near Mexico
Rancher dead near Mexico
Officer down near Mexico
Drugs are flowing from Mexico
Aliens smuggle guns to Mexico
Prisons over crowded near Mexico
Hospitals over flowing near Mexico
Felons and gangsters from Mexico
Shut the border with Mexico
Arizona State Sen. Russell Pearce, who was the author of state’s new immigration law, is striving to pass a law that would block the granting U.S. citizenship to children born to illegal alien parents. This has been an unfettered scandal for decades, costing the American taxpayer trillions of dollars, and must be stopped.
Author of Arizona immigration law wants to end birthright citizenship
Liz Goodwin 5/21/2010
The author of Arizona's immigration law, state Sen. Russell Pearce, told constituents he wants to pass another measure to invalidate citizenship granted to the children of illegal aliens.
Pearce wrote that he plans to "push for an Arizona bill that would refuse to accept or issue a birth certificate that recognizes citizenship to those born to illegal aliens, unless one parent is a citizen," in an email obtained by Phoenix CBS affiliate KPHO.
Pearce also forwarded an email from another correspondent expanding on the proposal — which he later told KPHO he didn't agree with. "If we are going to have an effect on the anchor baby racket, we need to target the mother. Call it sexist, but that's the way nature made it. Men don't drop anchor babies, illegal alien mothers do," the email said.
Pearce did tell the CBS affiliate, however, that he didn't see anything wrong with using the term "anchor baby" to refer to natural-born U.S. citizens.
Last year, 92 Congressmen sponsored a bill that would change the 14th Amendment so that children of illegal aliens born in the United States would not be granted citizenship. The bill is still in committee.
Last month, Rep. Duncan Hunter of California told a tea party rally he would support deporting children of illegal aliens, even if they are citizens.
"And we're not being mean. We're just saying it takes more than walking across the border to become an American citizen," he said. "It's what's in our souls."
His spokesman later sought to clarify the remarks with the Associated Press, saying that Duncan believes that "U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants should stay with their parents unless there is a legal guardian who could take care of them."
This is just one hospital. Multiply this same story by every hospital in this country with every case and you can't even grasp the unlimited scope and cost of this problem. It is an absolute outrage that must be summarily stopped. It is bankrupting hospitals, forcing many to close. The costs of this unreimbursed care to the states is in the tens of billions of dollars per year at minimum with millions of taxpayers on the hook for these avoidable expenses.
The answer is secure the border and immigration reform.
Arizona once again is at the vanguard of reaffirming traditional American values and protecting its citizens and their rights from those who entered this country illegally. This new situation involves clarifying whether or not there is a legal obligation for a business to provide translators for non-English speaking people. In response to a discrimination suit filed by a Spanish speaking customer, the state legislature passed and Governor Jan Brewer signed a law stating that businesses are not mandated to provide such services and have no obligation.
If we are to remain a peaceful nation with assimilation of people of different cultures rather than balkanization, we need some common ground and values to be followed. If immigrants want to live here, either they can either learn English or provide their own interpreters. Particularly when they are young, being fluent in English will allow them to advance and potentially become productive members of our society rather than remain untrained, unemployed or low wage earners that most often require government supplements such as in healthcare, education, housing, etc. which costs us all.
Of course, this also ties in with the immigration problem.
New AZ law: Firms have no legal duty to have translators
Howard Fischer Capitol Media Services May 17, 2010
PHOENIX - A Glendale optometrist's yearlong legal fight over what services he had to provide for a Spanish-speaking customer has translated into new protections for other businesses.
Gov. Jan Brewer has signed legislation affirming that nothing in state law requires businesses to provide "trained and competent" interpreters when a customer comes in speaking a language other than English.
Assistant Attorney General Michael Walker said that has probably always been the law. But that didn't save John Schrolucke from having to spend time and money defending himself and his practice before Walker's office finally dismissed the case.
Schrolucke told lawmakers the incident stems from a patient who spoke only Spanish. Although she did bring her 12-year-old child with her to the office, he said allowing the child to interpret for the parent would have gotten him into legal trouble.
He said he faced a potential malpractice lawsuit if the child did not properly translate some of the more technical explanations being provided, so he turned the woman away, telling her through her child to come back with someone at least 18 years old.
Schrolucke said he also gave the woman the option of going to one or two other optometrists who speak Spanish.
Instead, he said, the woman filed a discrimination complaint with the Attorney General's Office.
State law prohibits discrimination in places of "public accommodation," which include restaurants, hotels, theaters and any place that offers services or goods to the general public.
Schrolucke said he was given an option to settle. But that would have required him and anyone who bought his business to provide interpreters and documents in Spanish, something he said would set a bad precedent for not only his operation but other small businesses.
It took the Attorney General's Office a year to figure out there had been no civil rights violation and dismiss the case.
Upset with the whole process, Schrolucke approached Sen. John Huppenthal, R-Chandler, who agreed to sponsor what he called "clarifying language" to the state's civil rights law.
"Nobody should be treated like this," Huppenthal said. "It's a nightmare to go through this. He was drug through the mud by us."
Walker, who is the litigation chief of the civil rights division, offered his own apology "for what does occasionally end up as state bureaucratic confusion."
But Walker told lawmakers that his agency is legally obligated to investigate complaints of discrimination. He said the system worked - eventually - when the complaint was dismissed.
Huppenthal introduced identical legislation last year. While it was approved by a Senate panel it never made it to the full Senate floor.
Arizona Governor Jan Brewer distills the incompetence, arrogance and abdication or the Obama Administration’s responsibilities regarding the immigration problem with a video message that even a child can understand. This can be found on the site www.securetheborder.org which we suggest that you visit.
The following is associated with this site:
Arizona Sing-A-Long: Reading Helps You Know What You’re Talking About
While broken borders are not a laughing matter, Washington’s
failure to read Arizona’s immigration law is laughable
PHOENIX –– Two weeks ago, Governor Jan Brewer took President Obama to task for making Arizona’s unsecured borders and illegal immigration crisis a laughing matter. However, since then, Washington’s comedy of errors has grown far worse, with top cabinet officials admitting that they haven’t even read Arizona’s new immigration law. Broken borders are not a laughing matter, but the failure by Obama’s trusted officials to read Arizona’s law before commenting and condemning it is laughable. As a result, SecuretheBorder.org is using a little bit of humor to remind everyone in Washington of the importance of reading. Watch the latest video below:
“Our message is simple: reading helps you know what you’re talking about. That’s why we put Arizona’s immigration law up on www.SecuretheBorder.org,” said campaign spokesman Doug Cole. “Arizona is trying to do the job that the federal government has failed to do, and members of the president’s cabinet condemn it without even reading it. They have time to apologize to China and give President Calderon a standing ovation, but they don’t have the time to read Arizona’s law. Just more examples of how Washington is broken.”
The video features Attorney General Eric Holder, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Assistant Secretary of State PJ Crowley admitting that they have not read Arizona’s immigration law.
In response to the reprehensible behavior of Obama, Congressional Democrats and Mexican President Felipe Calderon’s speech to Congress criticizing our immigrations policies, Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA) delivered a well deserved scathing attack on their outrageous behavior as seen in the following video:
There is something very, very wrong with this picture:
Obama attacking the Arizona immigration law in a speech given on the White House lawn with visiting Mexican President Felipe Calderon who then proffers his own criticisms of the law.
So we have the President of the United States assailing one of the states and then countenancing and applauding a foreign head of state who does the same.
This is not Presidential nor is it rational under standard circumstances. No sane, patriotic head of state trash talks his own country nor does he allow a foreign leader to do so. And Obama did so blithely, persistently and as a matter of fact.
This behavior is one of a dangerous and nefarious leader which Obama is. Such actions should be considered not just in bad taste but bordering on sedition particularly when combined with his body of work.
OBAMA MUST BE IMPEACHED AND REMOVED FROM OFFICE!!
White House, Democrats Applaud Mexican President Slamming Arizona Law
FOXNews.com May 20, 2010
WASHINGTON -- As Mexican President Felipe Calderon ripped Arizona's new law clamping down on illegal immigrants in front of Congress on Thursday, Democrats and White House officials rose to their feet to cheer, including Attorney General Eric Holder and Homeland Security Janet Napolitano -- two officials who have confessed to not even reading the law.
And that isn't sitting well with officials from states along the border.
"It was extremely disappointing to have a foreign head of state on the floor of the U.S. Congress exhibiting willful ignorance" over the new law, Arizona House Speaker Kirk Adams told Fox News.
"But I'll tell you what's even more galling is to have members of the White House staff standing and applauding something that is absolutely wrong," he said. "Arizona's law does not introduce racial profiling. Quite the contrary."
Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, said "those who encourage criticism of the Arizona law are on the wrong side of the American people."
"When you peel back the inflammatory rhetoric and the baseless accusations of those who oppose the Arizona law, you find that Arizona has taken a reasonable, constitutional approach to dealing with a problem that the federal government hasn't," he said.
Despite confessing to not reading the law, Holder and Napolitano are among those who have criticized it, saying the law would promote racial profiling and may be unconstitutional.
In the first address to Congress by a foreign national leader this year, Calderon delivered a message Thursday that the two countries must cooperate to improve security along the often-violent border and control the flow of immigrants into the United States.
While Republican lawmakers welcomed Calderon's call for improved relations between the two countries, they jeered his lecture on how to fix the U.S. immigration system and his criticism of Arizona's new law.
"I think it's inappropriate for him to come in and criticize our law," Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, told Fox News. "When we go down to Mexico, we don't do that to the Mexicans."
"The Arizona law is not the problem," he added. "The problem is the growing violence down the border and securing the border and the Obama administration enforcing federal law."
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, the ranking member on the Judiciary Committee's immigration, refugees and border security subcommittee, said it was "inappropriate" for Calderon to "lecture Americans on our own state and federal laws."
"Arizona's immigration law has been amended to make clear it does not authorize racial profiling by law enforcement," he said.
In his remarks Thursday, Calderon said he is "convinced comprehensive immigration reform is crucial to securing our border."
"But I strongly disagree with the recently adopted law in Arizona," he said. "It's a law that not only ignores reality, but also introduces racial profiling as a basis for law enforcement."
Calderon said his "government does not favor the breaking of the rules" and that he respects the right of any country to "enact and enforce its own laws."
"But what we need today is to fix a broken and inefficient system," he said. "We favor the establishment of laws that work and work well for all."
Smith said he was "disappointed that President Calderon did not use this opportunity before us to talk about what more Mexico will do to discourage illegal immigration and improve conditions so that good, hardworking Mexican citizens will want to stay home instead of coming to America."
"The economic and tax reforms that President Calderon discussed are important, but they are not enough to curb the flow of illegal immigration," he said in a written statement. "Instead, President Calderon continues to mischaracterize and criticize domestic policies of the United States. It is not right for the president of another country to come here and criticize our nation or our states for wanting to stop human smuggling and drug trafficking, or secure our border."
Calderon's state visit comes at a time of renewed furor over the flawed immigration system from Mexico into the United States. From border security troubles to questions about how to deal with the millions of illegal migrants living in the United States, the immigration debate remains politically vexing, frustrating and volatile.
Obama is lobbying lawmakers to get moving on legislation that would seek to deal with the security, employment and citizenship issues at once. He concedes, however, that he does not yet have the Republican support he would need to get such a complex deal done. Whether any progress will happen this year is unclear.
Stoking the matter is a new law approved by Arizona lawmakers and set to take effect July 29 unless derailed by legal challenges. It requires police, in the context of enforcing other laws, to question people about their immigration status if there is reason to suspect they are in the United States illegally.
Calderon calls that discriminatory, and Obama agrees the Arizona law could well be applied that way. He has ordered a Justice Department review.
Calderon also told Congress Thursday that the fight against narcotics traffickers along the border can only succeed if the United States reduces its demand for illegal drugs. Calderon called on Congress to reinstate the assault weapons ban. "The Second Amendment is not a subject open for diplomatic negotiation, with Mexico or any other nation," Cornyn said.
He said the United States must stop the flow of assault weapons and other arms across the border.
The Mexican leader found an ally at the White House Wednesday, where Obama is pressing lawmakers to take up legislation that would deal with security, employment and citizenship issues.
The incompetence, arrogance, demagoguery and general chutzpah that Attorney General Eric Holder displays seems to know no bounds. Neither Obama nor most of the press have criticized him on these – an inexcusable and abominable failing of all these parties.
Holder’s latest transgression involves gratuitous and inflammatory comments regarding Arizona’s immigration law which he has attacked. However, when confronted by Rep. Ted Poe, he admitted that he had not read the legislation. His comments were solely based on media stories and what he heard.
We are not talking about a piece of legislation that exceeds two thousand pages as the Obamacare bill does. This is merely 10 pages long and essentially mirrors the federal law.
You mean to tell us that the Attorney General can’t read a simple 10 page document that has been the cynosure of controversy for several weeks? Boycotts such as by California and other organizations are either being threatened or have been enacted. Even dictator Hugo Chavez of Venezuela has insinuated himself in the conflict. This issue is dangerously expanding not dying down.
Is reading 10 pages of crucial and "controversial" legislation too much to ask of the Attorney General of the United States?
We don’t think so. What we do know is that Eric Holder has recklessly abdicated his responsibilities of this post and yet again has shown general fecklessness, partisanship and divisiveness which make him unfit to continue serving in his present capacity.
We once again are calling for his removal from office.
Holder hasn't read Arizona law he criticized
Stephen Dinan May 13, 2010
Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., who has been critical of Arizona's new immigration law, said Thursday he hasn't yet read the law and is going by what he's read in newspapers or seen on television.
Mr. Holder is conducting a review of the law, at President Obama's request, to see if the federal government should challenge it in court. He said he expects he will read the law by the time his staff briefs him on their conclusions.
"I've just expressed concerns on the basis of what I've heard about the law. But I'm not in a position to say at this point, not having read the law, not having had the chance to interact with people are doing the review, exactly what my position is," Mr. Holder told the House Judiciary Committee.
This weekend Mr. Holder told NBC's "Meet the Press" program that the Arizona law "has the possibility of leading to racial profiling." He had earlier called the law's passage "unfortunate," and questioned whether the law was unconstitutional because it tried to assume powers that may be reserved for the federal government.
Rep. Ted Poe, who had questioned Mr. Holder about the law, wondered how he could have those opinions if he hadn't yet read the legislation.
"It's hard for me to understand how you would have concerns about something being unconstitutional if you haven't even read the law," the Texas Republican told the attorney general.
The Arizona law's backers argue that it doesn't go beyond what federal law already allows, and they say press reports have distorted the legislation. They point to provisions in the law that specifically rule out racial profiling as proof that it can be implemented without conflicting with civil rights.
But critics said giving police the power to stop those they suspect are in the country illegally is bound to lead to profiling.
Mr. Holder said he expects the Justice and Homeland Security departments will finish their review of the Arizona law soon.
Media Research Center analyzed the news media coverage of Arizona’s new immigration legislation (S.B. 1070) and as expected, it was very one sided. Very ones sided - to the tune of an outrageous 12 to 1 negative stories to positive ones. This should be a surprise to no one given its history of distorting the news, controlling the political angle and even suppressing ones that are not in accord with its far left ideological tilt.
Meanwhile, around 70% of Arizonans were in support of the bill . Nationally, support for the law far exceeded those who opposed it. These are in diametric opposition to the media’s positions.
And the news media wonders why their ratings have plummeted and they are suffering severely financially?
MRC Study: By 12 to 1, ABC, CBS, and NBC Rip Arizona's Immigration Law
Tim Graham 05/06/2010
When political scientists compare populism and elitism, they could certainly find a test case in the new Arizona law on immigration enforcement. While Rasmussen found 70 percent of Arizonans favored the crackdown on illegal aliens, and new national media polls found majority support as well, ABC, CBS, and NBC denounced the popular will as short-sighted and discriminatory.
From April 23 to May 3, the top three television networks offered viewers 50 stories and interview segments on their morning and evening news programs. The tone was strongly hostile to the law and promotional to the "growing storm" of left-wing protesters: 37 stories (or 74 percent) were negative, 10 were neutral, and only three were positive toward the Arizona law's passage -- 12 negative stories for every one that leaned positive. Stories were much kinder and sympathetic to illegal aliens than they were to police officers. Cops were potential abusers of power. Entering the country illegally was not an abuse of power. It was portrayed as an honorable step by the powerless.
The soundbite count was also slanted, with 92 quotes against the law and only 52 in favor. The pro-law numbers, however, included many soundbites of Arizona public officials defending themselves against liberal charges that they were racists or in favor of racial profiling.
Opponents of the law didn’t even have to speak English to be quoted sympathetically. In a May 3 CBS Evening News story, Katie Couric fretted "many" illegals "no longer feel welcome." Reporter Kelly Cobiella focused on the story of non-English-speaking Manuela Quintana, who decided to move to Colorado. Cobiella cued up the mother of ten to deny she was a criminal: "‘No,’ she says, ‘a criminal is someone who kills. I just want to work.’" Over video of the kids piling into an SUV, Cobiella concluded: "The family packed up before dawn today and headed north to Colorado. Manuela says she's lost hope in this state. She thinks she'll find it again in another."
By contrast, law enforcers were the bad guys. On Sunday morning, April 25 , ABC Good Morning America host Bill Weir chided Sheriff Joe Arpaio, a well-known enforcer of immigration law, "With this new law, will you ramp it up?...Will you grab people on street corners?"
While an earlier MRC special report found 44 percent of stories on the Tea Party movement suggested they were dangerous or fringy, none of the Arizona stories ever labeled protesters as "liberal" or on the left. They were often cast in neutral terms as "human rights activists" or "Latino activists."
While several stories forwarded outrage from the Mexican government over the Arizona law, none of the network stories mentioned the hypocrisy: Mexico has a stricter immigration-enforcement regime on its southern border than America does. As with sympathetic media coverage of large amnesty rallies in 2006 , none of the stories allowed anyone to suggest it was improper for illegal aliens to petition the government whose laws they're breaking or cancel out the votes of law-abiding citizens.
Civility wasn't necessary. While the harshest Tea Party activists were scorned by the networks for any suggestion President Obama was a "Nazi," on 11 occasions these same networks unquestioningly forwarded smears that proponents of the Arizona law were like Nazis or Civil War-era slaveholders. NBC’s Andrea Mitchell used these slurs from liberal comedians to demonstrate how Arizona was becoming a "laughingstock."
Violence was downplayed. Only one ABC story reported violence by the protesters (in a "mostly peaceful" protest), and only one CBS story mentioned vandalism (smearing refried-bean swastikas on the state capitol building). There were only two references to the murder of rancher Robert Krentz, and four to the shooting of a deputy in Pinal County, all four in larger celebrations of May Day marches.
Viewers would assume protesters were in the majority. ABC Saturday anchor David Muir touted May Day protests [0]on World News. "Angry backlash from coast to coast. Huge rallies across this country tonight against that new controversial immigration law."
Real poll numbers were not important. The networks were very reluctant to note that the Arizona law was popular: only five stories mentioned that the protesters were on the losing side of public opinion, where almost 90 percent of those polled by CBS consider illegal immigration a serious problem. It’s a stunning contrast, then, that 74 percent of the stories channel the view of a tiny minority. When pressed, Americans suggested to pollsters they're sympathetic toward the poverty of illegal aliens and concerned about race-based harassment. But the Big Three TV networks demonstrated no professional appetite for neutrality or civility on this conflict.
A recent Pew Research Report finds that there is overwhelming public support for Arizona's new immigration law. This is, of course, despite what the news media is reporting or the liberal politicians are spewing.
Without going into great detail, the school administration of a wealthy suburb on the north side of Chicago has canceled a girls varsity basketball team’s trip to Arizona that had been scheduled for later this year. There was no doubt that this was a political statement and maneuver against Arizona’s immigration law. It appears that this was a unilateral decision by Highland Park High School’s assistant superintendent and the school board as parents and students were caught off guard.
The girls worked diligently to raise money for the trip which was to be the culmination of its successful year in which it won its first championship in 26 years. To then pull the rug out from underneath these dedicated, hardworking and talented girls who just want to play basketball by an obviously liberal school administration is at best irresponsible, pathetic and misguided.
What do their actions teach these girls?
Nothing positive!
That it is justified to break the law as these illegals have done?
That the law applies only to certain individuals and not others (legal white immigrants but not illegal Hispanic ones)?
That some should have more rights than others because of some perceived disadvantage?
That it is justified to force American citizens to pay tens of billions of dollars per year for healthcare, education, legal costs, prisons, grants, etc. of these law breakers just because their life in Mexico (or elsewhere) is not ideal?
This action is part of a liberal extortion campaign against Arizona and those who are defending their rights and upholding the law. It also seems to champion indolence, welfare and immorality over industriousness and integrity which these girls displayed. The superintendent and other school officials in this case should either resign immediately or be fired. They are teaching these children perverted values and had no right doing so unilaterally.
Of course, we wouldn’t even be discussing this issue if Congress and Obama had not abdicated their Constitutional responsibility to make sure our borders were secure. Making this situation even more egregious is Obama’s taunting of Arizona and his usage of incendiary comments which is emboldening violent acts, racism against whites, anti-American sentiment, and vitriolic rhetoric by the illegal aliens, Mexicans living legally in America and far left liberals. All of this can teach our children the wrong lesson which can haunt us again in the future.
This situation in the Chicago area is one more example of Obama’s pernicious, divisive influence on our country and way of life and why he needs to be impeached.
Highland Park basketball team trip to Arizona scrapped Administrators cite safety concerns; parents say move sounds like a protest
Jeff Long, Tribune reporter May 12, 2010
Reveling in its first conference championship in 26 years, the Highland Park High School girls varsity basketball team has been selling cookies for months to raise funds for a tournament in Arizona. But those hoop dreams were dashed when players learned they couldn't go because of that state's new crackdown on illegal immigrants.
Safety concerns partly fueled the decision, but the trip also "would not be aligned with our beliefs and values," said District 113 Assistant Superintendent Suzan Hebson. That explanation, though, smacks of political protest to parents upset by the decision.
The news, which was broken to the team Monday by coach Jolie Bechtel, comes as critics of Arizona's controversial law call on professional athletes and others to boycott the state.
Last month a New York congressman asked Major League Baseball to pull next year's All-Star Game from Phoenix, and protesters recently picketed Wrigley Field when the Arizona Diamondbacks played the Cubs.
But tossing a high school team into the heated debate has left parents and players baffled and angry.
"Why are we mixing politics and a basketball tournament?" said Michael Evans, whose daughter Lauren is a junior on the team. "It's outrageous that they're doing this under the guise of safety."
Lauren Evans said she thought the concern was probably that one of the players could get stopped and questioned.
"It shouldn't be a problem," she said. "I don't think it makes much sense. We shouldn't be a threat. We just want to play basketball."
District 113 Superintendent George Fornero declined comment, saying it "wasn't just my decision." He referred calls to Hebson.
Hebson said Arizona is off-limits because of uncertainty about how the new law will be enforced. Signed by Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer last month, it makes it a crime to be in the country illegally and requires police to check suspects for immigration paperwork.
Hebson said the turmoil is no place for students of Highland Park High School, which also draws from Highwood.
"We would want to ensure that all of our students had the opportunity to be included and be safe and be able to enjoy the experience," Hebson said of the tournament, which will be played in December. "We wouldn't necessarily be able to guarantee that."
Asked if there are undocumented players on the team, or if anyone associated with the team is in the country illegally, Hebson said she did not know.
Parents and players interviewed said they knew of no one who fits that description.
The high school's Web site boasts of a "relatively diverse" student population of 80 percent white, 15 percent Hispanic, 3 percent Asian and 2 percent African-American.
"Many of the parents feel that this should be resolved in the judicial court, not the basketball court," said Cynde Munzer, whose daughter, Lena, is a freshman on the team.
"I disagree personally with the Arizona legislation, but I also feel strongly about young women's rights," Munzer said. "They don't want to get involved in politics."
Subrina Collier, whose daughter Briana is a junior on the team, said even if someone were worried about presenting immigration papers in Arizona, it should be a personal decision to stay away. She called the administration decision a misplaced political statement.
The school district is looking for another tournament for the Giants, officials said.
The girls basketball team at Mundelein High School was in Scottsdale, Ariz., in December for the tournament hosted by Desert Mountain High School, said coach Brian Evans.
Evans called Desert Mountain High School "unbelievably hospitable" during his team's trip. Officials there declined comment about Highland Park's decision not to participate.
Meanwhile, other Chicago-area organizations continue to wrestle with their involvement in Arizona.
Local immigrants' rights activists delivered a letter Tuesday to the Chicago-based American Bar Association that urged the group to cancel a conference slated for this week in Arizona.
At Highland Park, basketball player Marguerite Biagi, a junior, said she disagrees with the law but still wants to visit Arizona.
"It's ultimately the state's decision, no matter what I think," she said. "Not playing basketball in Arizona is not going to change anything."
Tribune reporters Cynthia Dizikes, Dan Simmons, Oscar Avila and Lisa Black contributed.
In case there were some doubts about the severity of the illegal immigration problem, here is one more video for evidence. This video was taken in Morgan Hill, California. Mexican Students Knock U.S. Flag to the Ground
Arizona Governor Jan Brewer is firmly standing her ground in support of the state's immigration law and is not intimidated by an arrogant and irresponsible Obama. Furthermore, she has gone on the offensive and directly attacks the "president", his criticisms and inappropriate levity regarding immigration as seen in the following video:
President Obama, No One in Arizona is Laughing
We also recommend that you visit the Facebook site for Stand With Arizona
Has California become so liberal and politically correct that wearing or displaying an American flag constitutes grounds for punishment of even consideration it at public schools because someone (an illegal alien, perhaps) may be offended?
We strongly feel that such is the case. There has been an epidemic of anti-American posturing, actions and rulings in the state particularly in the San Francisco area (banning JROTC and other anti-military issues).
The extremely large Mexican population there which has been fed by illegal immigration compounds an already problematic situation and creates the quintessential contrast and irony. The nearby San Francisco area as well as Los Angeles and to a lesser extent San Diego have been vociferous in their attacks on Arizona which is trying to protect its citizens and financial and social integrity. These California areas are seeking to legislate boycotts of Arizona and its products. So in this state, they are punishing those who are patriotic, American born and descended from legal Americans while preferentially defending or supporting the “rights” of those who are not.
Conversely, Arizona is protecting the rights of all its citizens, abiding by the Constitution and proud to be part of America.
So as an American, under which legal and social conditions would you rather live in: Arizona’s or Cali-Mexico’s? Arizona enforcing the rights of Americans over illegals or California that seems to accord more rights to illegals than Americans.
We thought so!
California Students Sent Home for Wearing U.S. Flags on Cinco de Mayo
Joshua Rhett Miller FOXNews.com May 06, 2010
Administrators at a California high school sent five students home on Wednesday after they refused to remove their American flag T-shirts and bandannas -- garments the school officials deemed "incendiary" on Cinco de Mayo.
The five teens were sitting at a table outside Live Oak High School in Morgan Hill, Calif., on Wednesday morning when Assistant Principal Miguel Rodriguez asked two of them to remove their American flag bandannas, one of their parents told FoxNews.com. The boys complied, but were asked to accompany Rodriguez to the principal's office.
The five students -- Daniel Galli, Austin Carvalho, Matt Dariano, Dominic Maciel and Clayton Howard -- were then told they must turn their T-shirts inside-out or be sent home, though it would not be considered a suspension. Rodriguez told the students he did not want any fights to break out between Mexican-American students celebrating their heritage and those wearing American flags.
Dariano's mother, Diana, told FoxNews.com she and parents of the other four students are now demanding an apology from officials and are considering a lawsuit.
"We want an apology," Diana Dariano said Thursday. "Who in the United States of America would have an issue with that? It's a sad, sad day."
Dariano said her son has at least four T-shirts with American flags that he wears often and did not try to cause any conflict at school.
"I'm more hurt than anything," she said. "It is so hurtful and disrespectful the way this has turned. These are American kids."
The boys told Rodriguez and Principal Nick Boden that turning their shirts inside-out was disrespectful, so their parents decided to take them home.
"I just couldn't believe it," Julie Fagerstrom, Maciel's mother, told the Morgan Hill Times. "I'm an open-minded parent, but it's got to be on both sides. It can't be five kids singled out."
Galli told NBC Bay Area, "They said we could wear it on any other day, but today is sensitive to Mexican-Americans because it's supposed to be their holiday so we were not allowed to wear it."
In a statement released Thursday, Morgan Hill Unified School District Superintendent Wesley Smith characterized the incident as "extremely unfortunate" and said the matter is under investigation.
"The Morgan Hill Unified School District does not prohibit nor do we discourage wearing patriotic clothing," Smith's statement read. "The incident on May 5 at Live Oak High School is extremely unfortunate. While campus safety is our primary concern and administrators made decisions yesterday in an attempt to ensure campus safety, students should not, and will not, be disciplined for wearing patriotic clothing. This matter is under investigation and appropriate action will be taken."
Officials at Live Oak High School did not return several messages seeking comment on Thursday. A secretary told the Morgan Hill Times that Boden and Rodriguez were unavailable for comment on Wednesday.
According to its website, Live Oak High School is a 1,300-student institution in the southern part of Santa Clara County, with most students residing in the nearby cities of Morgan Hill and San Jose.
"The student population reflects the rich ethnic and socioeconomic diversity of the community," the website reads.
More than 100 students were spotted wearing the colors of the Mexican flag -- red, white and green -- as they left school, including some who had the flag painted on their faces or arms, the Morgan Hill times reported.
While bandannas of any color are banned at the school, its dress code policy does not contain references to American flags.
"However, any clothing or decoration which detracts from the learning environment is prohibited," the policy reads. "The school has the right to request that any student dressing inappropriately for school will change into other clothes, be sent home to change, and/or be subject to disciplinary action."
Freshman Laura Ponce, who had a Mexican flag painted on her face and chest, told the Morgan Hill Times that Cinco de Mayo is the "only day" Mexican-American students can show their national pride.
"There was a lot of drama going on today," Ponce told the newspaper.
Some other Mexican-American students reportedly said their flags were taken away or asked to be put away, but no other students were sent home on Wednesday.
Eugene Volokh, a professor of law at the University of California-Los Angeles, said the students are protected under California Education Code 48950, which prohibits schools from enforcing a rule subjecting a high school student to disciplinary sanctions solely on the basis of conduct, that when engaged outside of campus, is protected by the First Amendment.
If the school could point to previous incidents sparked by students who wore garments with American flags, they could argue that the flag is likely to lead to "substantial disruption," Volokh said.
"If, for example, there had been fights over similar things at past events, if there had been specific threats made," he said. "But if [school officials] just say, 'Well, we think it might be offensive to people,' that's generally speaking not enough."
Volokh said the students and their parents likely have a winning case on their hands if they decide to take the matter to court.
"Oh yes, it's almost open and shut," he said.
Lis Wiehl, a former federal prosecutor and a Fox News legal analyst, said the incident appears to a "blatant" violation of the students' First Amendment right to free speech. She noted that inciting violence is an exception to a First Amendment legal defense, but Wiehl said she saw no indications that the students provoked anyone.
"Unless I'm missing something, this seems like a blatant violation of the First Amendment," said Wiehl, adding that uniforms are not required at the public school. "And they're wearing, of all horrific things, the American flag."
It has become an epidemic in America that those who have the public stage for one specific reason (such as in entertainment or sports) feel entitled that they can exploit their bully pulpit for other issues that they usually are ill or complete uninformed about. Yes they are entitled to do so in America because of their right of free speech but it will be at their own peril. They risk offending their audience, supporters, fans, etc. who can then express their discontent by boycotting their endeavors which translates into them earning less money. This can include refusing to patronize movies that these individuals (such as Sean Penn, Danny Glover, Susan Sarandon) are in, not attending concerts, canceling season tickets or not attending games (Phoenix Suns).
Plus, even if they are successful in their field, they can appear quite moronic (or traitorous) when making statements that are clearly based on blind emotions and supported by ignorance and a general intellectual deficit. And people will not forget even years later.
Right, Hanoi Jane (Fonda)?
The owner of the Phoenix Suns, Robert Sarver, the team’s GM, Steve Kerr, and its biggest star, Steve Nash, all publicly condemned Arizona’s recently passed immigration law. They can surely disagree with the law – that is their right but when they go out of their way to derogate the legislation which an overwhelming majority of Arizonans (and Americans in general) support, they deserve any backlash that occurs.
If they had availed themselves to read the legislation first, which is essentially identical to the federal law that is not being enforced, before opening their uninformed mouths, we think that they might have reached a different conclusion. Sarver claims that the law "is not the right way to handle the immigration problem."
Really? Did you explain why it is not and offer an effective solution?
He also stated that the team would wear bilingual jerseys to put the team "on record that we honor our diversity in our team."
What? That is a non sequitur. This is not about diversity or the legal citizens in Arizona who are of Hispanic or even Chinese, Russian, Israeli, Polish, British, or even Canadian descent. This is about people who flagrantly violated the law and who are now costing Arizonans billions of dollars, an artificially elevated crime rate, identity theft out of control and the second highest kidnapping rate in the world.
You don’t like the law, Mr. Sarver. OK. Since you don’t feel that Arizonans should be able to protect themselves we have a proposal for you which we feel that could help your understanding of the issue:
All fans of the "Los Suns" can now attend the playoff games and any or all future games for FREE in support of the anti-anti illegal immigration movement and to show support for your bold national stance on this issue.
Those who want to attend the games will bring their bolt cutters and climb or cut through the fence behind US Airways Center and enter the facility. If they are caught entering illegally, your personnel will have no right to ask them for proof of tickets. They have a right to attend “Los Suns” games and not be confronted and asked to prove they are attending the game legally.
That’s racist and discriminatory!
Therefore, even though others pay to see the team, your security employees should not enforce the rules.
Imagine how unfair it is to be caught at the game illegally, and asked to prove you are there legally! That's simply misguided, mean-spirited and not the American way. It's shouldn't be illegal to commit a crime and be here illegally! It's just like you stated, Mr. Sarver.
By the way, those who do decide to attend the Suns games without purchasing tickets will also get all the free refreshments and food that they want. And, we feel that their children should be entitled to season tickets for life.
You can also tell Steve Nash to donate millions of dollars from his exorbitant salary and endorsements to help cover some of the budget shortfall that these illegals are costing Arizona and which the taxpayers will be forced to pay. Steve Kerr can also do the same.
Maybe now, Mr. Sarver, you can appreciate a little more what the citizens of Arizona have to put up with. You may also want to thank Governor Brewer for bravely dealing with a difficult situation that the Federal Government has refused to seriously address.
The following editorial written by a legal immigrant provides a unique perspective on illegal immigration, Arizona’s new law and the unwillingness of the federal government to abide by its Constitutional responsibility on this issue.
A Legal Immigrant's Take on Arizona's Immigration Law
Boris Epshteyn FOXNews.com May 05, 2010
As a legal immigrant, I neither empathize with nor support those who break the law in order to gain admission into the United States of America.
I am a legal immigrant. My family and I emigrated from Russia to New York in 1993. We applied for permission to do so in 1990. Throughout those three years we went through numerous background checks and interviews and we waited patiently to be granted the right to move to America.
My status as a legal immigrant shapes my perspective on the illegal immigration issue in general, and Arizona Immigration Law SB 1070 recently adopted by the state of Arizona in particular. When confronted by critics of this legislation, who have urged me to empathize with illegal immigrants, I draw the following comparison: when a person goes into a bank with a check and receives cash for it, that person follows the legal and proper procedure for obtaining money; however, when a person robs a bank with a gun, that person, too, has received cash, but by way of committing an illegal act. Both individuals leave the bank with money, however, one is a law abiding citizen while the other is a criminal.
As a legal immigrant, I neither empathize with nor support those who break the law in order to gain admission into the United States of America. The background checks and interviews that we experienced as a part of the legal immigration process proved to the American authorities that my family did not harbor a criminal past, communicable diseases or extreme views. Those who skirt the procedures are not only breaking the law by entering the country illegally, they are robbing the United States of the chance to vet them. These illegal aliens disrespect the American rule of law. They disrespect legal immigrants like me who stood in line to come here. And they disrespect all American citizens at large who are kept safe by the immigration rules and processes.
It is counterproductive to denounce the Arizona bill as the left has at every turn. It would be much more constructive to offer Arizona and its citizens an alternative -- something the federal government has failed to do. Arizona's illegal immigration problem manifests itself in overcrowded schools and hospitals, rampant violence and has left Phoenix with the second highest kidnapping rate in the world, right behind Mexico City.
Arizona has exercised its constitutional right to deal with the problem that has bankrupted the state. Polls show that 70 percent of Arizonans and a majority of Americans support the measure.
President Obama has led the charge against Arizona’s new immigration law. He is capitalizing on this divisive issue for political gain by wrongfully painting supporters of the bill as racist.
As president of the United States, it is Mr. Obama's job to protect its citizens. He should not frivolously interfere with states as they deal with the problems that they face, especially those, such as illegal immigration, that federal institutions do not deal with adequately. Speaking both as a legal immigrant and an American citizen, I urge President Obama to put away his political interests. If his opposition to the legislation is truly genuine, then he needs to step up offer real alternatives to SB 1070.
The following "letter" which has gone viral, lucidly highlights in a tongue and cheek fashion the precise global problems that Arizonans and Americans in general are forced to deal with regarding illegal aliens - by examining the issue in reverse:
Dear President Obama:
I’m planning to move my family and extended family into Mexico for my health, and I would like to ask you to assist me.
We’re planning to simply walk across the border from the U.S. Into Mexico, and we’ll need your help to make a few arrangements.
We plan to skip all the legal stuff like visas, passports, immigration quotas and laws.
I’m sure they handle those things the same way you do here. So, would you mind telling your buddy, President Calderon, that I’m on my way over?
Please let him know that I will be expecting the following:
1. Free medical care for my entire family.
2. English-speaking government bureaucrats for all services I might need, whether I use them or not.
3. Please print all Mexican government forms in English.
4. I want my grandkids to be taught Spanish by English-speaking (bi-lingual) teachers.
5. Tell their schools they need to include classes on American culture and history.
6. I want my grandkids to see the American flag on one of the flag poles at their school.
7. Please plan to feed my grandkids at school for both breakfast and lunch.
8. I will need a local Mexican driver’s license so I can get easy access to government services.
9. I do plan to get a car and drive in Mexico , but, I don’t plan to purchase car insurance, and I probably won’t make any special effort to learn local traffic laws.
10. In case one of the Mexican police officers does not get the memo from their president to leave me alone, please be sure that every patrol car has at least one English-speaking officer.
11. I plan to fly the U.S. Flag from my house top, put U S. Flag decals on my car, and have a gigantic celebration on July 4th. I do not want any complaints or negative comments from the locals.
12. I would also like to have a nice job without paying any taxes, or have any labor or tax laws enforced on any business I may start.
13. Please have the president tell all the Mexican people to be extremely nice and never say critical things about me or my family, or about the strain we might place on their economy.
14. I want to receive free food stamps.
15. Naturally, I’ll expect free rent subsidies.
16. I’ll need Income tax credits so although I don’t pay Mexican Taxes, I’ll receive money from the government.
17. Please arrange it so that the Mexican Gov’t pays $4,500 to help me buy a new car.
18. Oh yes, I almost forgot, please enroll me free into the Mexican Social Security program so that I’ll get a monthly income in retirement.
I know this is an easy request because you already do all these things for all his people who walk over to the U..S. From Mexico . I am sure that President Calderon won’t mind returning the favor if you ask him nicely.
Thank you so much for your kind help. You da man!!!
The incessant left wing attacks on Arizona’s new immigration law are ideologically based emotional rants void of substantive facts. If these demagogues and uninformed parroting protestors availed themselves to examine the law they would note that it is essentially identical to the federal law which the federal government has chosen to largely ignore – for political reasons.
Meanwhile, Arizonans are under assault from these illegals and the Mexican drug and smuggling trade and must protect themselves since the federal government has abdicated its Constitutional responsibility.
Cafferty Blasts Obama and the Dems For the Arizona Law
Print This Post
Subscribe to Our RSS Feed
Follow Us on Twitter
Comments