News Digests
Citizens For Immigration Reform regular news digests that are sent to
those on the email list.
10-08-2009
The following is from AZ
State Senator Russell Pearce who has been responsible for the good
immigration laws that have been passed in Arizona and upheld in the 9th
circuit. It is in response to the Obama administration's curbing the
powers of Sheriff Arpaio. His deputies will no longer be able to
function under 287g while fulfilling their duties on the streets - They
will no longer be able to arrest suspected illegals. The WSJ article
states that "unlike others participating in the program, Mr. Arpaio will
be restricted to determining the immigration status of inmates booked
into Maricopa County jails."
Sheriff Arpaio said in
this same article:
"They took away my authority on the streets.
That doesn't matter because I will still pursue illegals
on the streets of Maricopa utilizing the
authority I have as the elected official." WSJ October 7, 2009
-----
Original Message -----
From:
russellpearce
Sent:
2009-10-07 00:29
Subject:
The fed's 287g and more: We do not need a permission slip to enforce
immigration laws:
We are a Nation of laws
“If it be asked, what is
the most sacred duty and the greatest source of our security in a
Republic? The answer would be an inviolable respect for the Constitution
and Laws” — Alexander Hamilton.
"No
'Stinkin' 287g needed; Local Law Enforcement’s Inherent Authority of
Immigration Law:"
Congress has firmly established that
there is a significant public interest in the effective enforcement of
immigration law. Congress could have chosen to limit local enforcement
pursuant to its plenary power over immigration, but it has not done so.
In the absence of a limitation on local enforcement powers,
the states are
bound by the Supremacy Clause of the United ‘States Constitution to
enforce violations of the federal immigration laws.
"The statutory law of the
United States is part of the law of each state just as if it were
written into state statutory law." States do not need a 287g, IGA, MOU
or a permission slip to arrest illegal aliens. The 287g goes beyound the
arrest powers as states already have inherent authority to make arrests,
287g is for post arrest, not anything to do with authority!!!!
Often a misunderstanding of the
relationship between federal criminal and immigration law causes one to
believe being present in the U.S. in violation of immigration law is
civil and "not a crime" and is clearly wrong. The enforcement role given
to local government by the Constitution and the Congress is clear.
Unsanctioned entry into the United States is a crime.
State and local law enforcement
officials have the general power to investigate and arrest violators of
federal immigration statutes without prior INS knowledge or approval, as
long as state law does not restrict such general power.
The U.S. has a "compelling
interest" in the criminal prosecution of immigration law violators,
which is a part of a comprehensive, essential sovereign policy of
uniform immigration law enforcement.
In Sections 1324 the
language that referred to officers "of the United States" when talking
about authority to arrest was stricken from section 1324 by amendment.
In People v. Baraja, a California court concluded, "that change can only
mean that the scope of the arrest power under section 1324 was enlarged;
in no way can it mean that the scope of arrest under the other two
sections was restricted. Such an acute non sequitur would attribute to
the Congress both serious inconsistency and profound lack of logic."
The arrest, detention, or
transportation of aliens by local police enforcing criminal provisions
of the INA is not a regulatory "determination" of the conditions of
alien entrance and residency, but merely enforcement of the previously
determined conditions. States can prosecute illegal aliens under state
laws without running afoul of the INA. State and local laws do not
attempt to regulate who may come to and stay in the U.S. , and thus do
not impinge upon the federal government’s exclusive power to regulate
immigration, even if they affect immigrants.
Other important amendments to
federal law enacted in 1996 were intended by Congress to encourage state
and local agencies to participate in the process of enforcing civil as
well as criminal federal immigration laws by providing incentives such
as reduced liability and specialized training.
In 1999 a decision in
the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the independent authority of
local police departments to enforce federal immigration law,
as long as state law prescribing police power of arrest authorized such
an arrest. The U.S. Dept. of Justice endorsed this doctrine in April
2002. Under Attorney General Ashcroft, the U.S. Dept. of Justice took
the position that state and local police have inherent authority to
enforce civil immigration laws.
Assistant Attorney
General Kobach explained that the inherent arrest authority of states
arises from their pre-constitutional status as sovereign entities.
The powers retained by the states at the time of ratification proceeded
"not from the people of the United States, but from the people of the
several states," and remain unchanged, except as they have been
"abridged" by the Constitution. The authority of a state to arrest for
violations of federal law is thus not delegated; but "inheres in the
ability of one sovereign to accommodate the interests of another
sovereign." This federalism-based analysis has a strong judicial
pedigree.
The courts also ruled (Miller v.
U.S., 357 U.S. 301, 305(1958) that a warrant less arrest "of an arrest
for violation of federal law by state peace officers, …the lawfulness of
the arrest without warrant is to be determined by reference to state
law."
Sanctuary policies
are illegal. Local, state,
or federal government agencies that sanction or retaliate against
employees or officials who report immigration law violations to ICE or
the Border Patrol can be sued by the whistleblower under 8 U.S.C. 1373
or 8 U.S.C. 1644 for damages and costs.
Citizens have a constitutional right
to expect the protection of federal laws which prohibit unauthorized
activities by non-citizens are denied equal protection when a police
department or magistrate acts in a manner that encourages or assists
persons selected on the basis of nationality or alienage to engage in
such unlawful activities.
Aggrieved residents may sue in state
or federal court to block unlawful municipal passive resistance policies
(so called Sanctuary Policies), and may sue officials and employees in
their official or private capacities for violations of their rights.
Local government officials do not possess Eleventh Amendment immunity or
qualified immunity when sued in their official for prospective
injunctive or declaratory relief to end statutory and constitutional
violations.
"Harboring" includes any conduct
that tends to substantially help an alien to remain in the United States
unlawfully. Criminal liability for harboring or sheltering could arise
from acceptance of a Mexican matricula consular – which, presented
without proper immigration documents, is prima facie evidence of illegal
alien status – by a local government agency that , for example, provide
housing or utility assistance, made referrals to a public or private job
assistance program or detained matricula presenters for violation of
city ordinances and release them without verifying their immigration
status with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
No policy or humanitarian argument
has been identified by the courts that would negate the criminal mens
rea of reckless disregard for the fact that aliens are present in the
United States in violation of law. Neither sanctuary nor humanitarian
concern is a valid defense to either civil or criminal violations of the
Immigration and Nationality Act. It is illegal for non-profit,
religious, or civic organizations to knowingly assist in the commission
of an alien smuggling felony, regardless of claims that their member’
convictions may require them to assist aliens. The First Amendment does
not protect actions that aid illegal aliens to remain in the United
States.
Illegal aliens are not a
suspect class entitled to Fourteenth Amendment based strict scrutiny of
any discriminatory classification based on that status, nor are they
defined by an immutable characteristic, since their status is the
product of conscious unlawful action.
Every alien who has seen issued a
registration document is a required to carry the document on his or her
person. Federal regulations specify the immigration document that are
evidence of alien registration. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the
unregistered presence of an alien in the U.S. is in itself a crime.
Failure to register is a continuing violation for which there is no
statute of limitations. Other criminal misdemeanors are failure to have
a registration card in personal possession ($100 fine and /or 30 days
imprisonment), and failure to report a change of address ($200 fine and
/or 30 days).
A law enforcement officer has
probable cause to detain an individual who admits he or she is an alien
(legal or illegal) but is not in possession of registration documents.
This is a crime that a warrant less arrest can be made in most
jurisdictions.
Immigration document fraud is a
felony enforceable by local police officers under 18 U.S.C. 1028.
Criminalizes eight types of knowing conduct that relate to false
identification documents.
The Bail Reform Act
of 1984 created a powerful detention provision that authorizes a state
of local police officer to arrest any alien other than a legal permanent
resident for a federal "offense," and to request a local magistrate to
temporarily detain the alien for up to ten days without bail while
awaiting transfer into federal custody, so long as the alien is found to
be a "flight risk" or danger to any other person or the community."
The authority to make arrest
for federal offenses under 18 U.S.C. 3041 extends to state and local law
enforcement officers. (U.S. v Bowdach, 561 F.2d 1160, 1168 (5th Cir.
1977) An illegal alien is an inherent flight risk.
Supreme Court Ruling Razes
Artificial Fire Wall Between Local Law Enforcement and Immigration
Enforcement (Muehler v. Mena) 9-0 Landmark Decision (Washington
D.C.—April 1, 2005) In its March 22 ruling in the case of Muehler v.
Mena, the Supreme Court removed barriers that prevent local law
enforcement officers from questioning the immigration status of
individuals they suspect to be in the United States illegally. In this
groundbreaking decision, the high Court rejected the claim of Ira Mena,
a permanent resident of the U.S., that police had violated the Fourth
Amendment while conducting a lawful search of her home.
The Fourth Amendment provides
protection by establishing that persons be shielded against unreasonable
search and seizure. Mena argued that by questioning her, and the illegal
alien detainees about their immigration status during a lawful search,
officers violated her Fourth Amendment rights. Mena further claimed that
questions asked about her citizenship required officers to have had
independent reasonable suspicion regarding the unlawfulness of her
immigration status.
Calling a decision by
the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals "faulty," the Supreme Court held that
"mere police questioning [regarding one’s immigration status] does not
constitute a seizure." The Court continued its landmark ruling on this
issue by stating that "the officers did not need reasonable suspicion to
ask Mena for her name, date of birth, or immigration status."
"Whatever legal fig
leaf many police departments have been using to justify policies of
non-cooperation with federal immigration authorities, has been stripped
away by this landmark Supreme Court decision,"
"If local police are
barred from cooperating with federal authorities in the enforcement of
U.S. immigration laws it is purely a political decision on the part of
local politicians and police chiefs. There is no legal barrier to local
police inquiring about a person’s immigration status and then acting
upon the information they gather."
Congress expressly intended for
local law enforcement to act in cases in which officers have reason to
believe that an individual is in the country illegally, even though
immigration law enforcement is not their primary responsibility. In
1996, Congress passed and President Clinton signed legislation that
protects individual officers who act to enforce federal immigration
laws, even if their departments have non-cooperation policies.
"In Muehler v. Mena the Court
reinforced the clear intent of Congress in this matter," said Stein.
"Inquiring about an individual’s immigration status can and should be a
routine part of ascertaining information, no different than asking
questions about one’s name, or date and place of birth. Local police
come into contact with people who are violating federal immigration laws
on a daily basis. Freeing local police to inquire about an individual’s
immigration status and allowing them to act is essential to curbing mass
illegal immigration and protecting our homeland security."
Any decision by law
enforcement not to enforce immigration laws is a political decision by
politicians and local police chiefs, not a lack of authority.
A recent Memo by the
U.S. Justice Dept. makes it clear local law enforcement can enforce
immigration laws
Theodore Roosevelt's: AMERICAN in 1907.
"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes
here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he
shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an
outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or
birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming
in every facet an American, and nothing but
an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says
he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We
have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but
one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room
for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."
We, as elected officials,
must have the courage and the fortitude to enforce, with compassion but
without apology, those laws that protect the integrity of our borders
and our rights of our lawful citizens.
The Federal Government’s
failure is malfeasance. States and local governments also have a
Constitutional responsibility to protect their citizens and taxpayers.
Inaction has had devastating economic and social consequences.
We have a crisis in America; and those that ignore
the damage to America and the destruction of our nation and our
neighborhoods are in violation of their
Oath of Office. We must demand the laws be enforced.
We don't need reform we need enforcement. It will take all of
us to force our politicians to do
something about it.
Enforcement not Reform is what is needed.
Local law enforcement officers
must be engaged in this effort and cannot sit on
the sidelines and be spectators while our Nation/neighborhoods are being
destroyed. America is a nation of legal immigrants, however so is every
nation. People from all parts of the world dream of coming to
America for freedom, opportunity and the
chance to be the best they can be. We should encourage
legal immigration and always discourage illegal immigration, yet
Republicans and Democrats in DC are terrified to oppose illegal
immigration out of fear that they will
be labeled racist. This assertion is ridiculous.
There is nothing racist about upholding the law. We need
representatives who are willing to
speak clearly for legal immigration and speak clearly against illegal
immigration.
Until the day I die, I will insist that 'illegal'
is 'illegal'."
I have spent most of my career in law enforcement
including Chief Deputy of the Maricopa
County Sheriff's Office (4th largest Sheriff's Office in the nation)
and I have two sons in law enforcement today. I know to speak out today
puts one in jeopardy. For some reason
enforcing the law is not the politically
correct thing to do; and those that put profit or political power ahead
of the interest of America help to destroy this nation.
I know it is strictly political and I believe
constitutes malfeasance of office on the
part of our local law enforcement agencies to ignore those in this
country "illegally". Not only do they have the authority we have the
moral obligation. This "illegal" invasion is one of the
greatest threats to America
(neighborhoods) facing us today, why we would ignore the damage, the violence,
the economic destruction, etc. Why we would encourage or demand local
law enforcement to use the most useful tool they have to protect our
neighborhoods? Public Safety is our #1 job!!! It was intended and
has always been a partnership in
enforcing our laws and protecting our communities. Once
they cross the border it is no longer JUST a federal issue,
it is OUR Healthcare system, it OUR educational system, it is OUR criminal
justice system, it is OUR jobs being taken, it is OUR welfare system,
IT IS OUR TAX DOLLARS AND OUR NEIGHBORHOODS!! It is the LAW and we must
enforce it.
ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION: Amnesty: Winning the Jackpot
for Breaking the Law!
• 9,000 are killed "each" year at the hands of illegal
aliens. 25 each day, 12 by stabbings and shootings
and 13 by DUI and related crimes. This is from
Congressional Homeland Security Report. (4 to 10 million illegals
crossed into the U.S. last year alone) Investigations-Border-Report.pdf
Death and maimings of police officers and citizens
in Arizona by illegal aliens
-
Phoenix Officer Nick Erfle
-
Phoenix Officer Shane Figueroa
-
Phoenix Officer Nick Erfle
-
Phoenix Office Glidewell
-
Child serial rapist in Chandler
-
15 year old raped in Scottsdale by school janitor
-
15 year old kidnapped and raped in Guadalupe
• Phoenix Officer Marc Atkinson;
• Phoenix Officer Robert Sitek;
• Kris Eggle-park ranger in southern Arizona;
• Border Patrol Agent James Epling;
• Two deputies – Sean Pearce & Lew Argetsinger were shot by an
illegal alien while executing a search warrant for homicide;
• Sgt. Manuel H. Tapia was shot by a drug suspect;
• DPS Officer Robert K. Martin, 57, was shot to death – his
assailant, Ernesto Salgado Martinez, a 19-year-old ex-convict;
• Agent Richard Fass, 37, of the United States Drug Enforcement
Agency, murdered;
• Agent Alexander Kirpnick, 27, Border Patrol, murdered;
• Jason Schechterle suffered fourth-degree burns when his patrol
care went up in flames after being struck by a taxi – the driver was an
illegal alien.
To name a few more of
the over 9,000 per year killed:
• Gilbert mother killed by illegal alien fleeing from police in
Mesa.
• Jason, Decorated Iraq war veteran stabbed in his own front
yard by illegal alien.
• Mother "legal immigrant" killed by illegal alien trying to ram
Sheriff's Deputy's car in Phoenix.
• Illegal, 17, runs down hero cop – juvenile released by Border
Patrol 10 days earlier
• Murder suspect – an illegal with driver’s license –
24-year-old previously deported, now faces 41 counts
• Illegal alien accused of triple homicide – Pennsylvania
suspect says he’d been experiencing ‘blackouts’
• 3 illegals beat pregnant woman – mayhem rampage
Study: 1 million sex crimes by illegals
More than 100 offenders crossing border daily
• Deborah Schurman-Kauflin: Based
on a one-year in-depth study, a researcher estimates there are about
240,000 illegal immigrant sex offenders in the United States who have
had an average of four victims each.
Deborah Schurman-Kauflin of the
Violent Crimes Institute in Atlanta analyzed 1,500 cases from
January 1999 through April 2006 that included serial rapes, serial
murders, sexual homicides and child molestation committed by illegal
immigrants.
Most offenders were in states with the highest numbers of illegal
immigrants. California had the most offenders, followed by Texas,
Arizona, New Jersey, New York and Florida.
• 8 USC Sec. 1325: (ILLEGAL ENTRY)
• 8 USC Sec. 1324: (Hiring an ILLEGAL)
• 8 USC Sec. 1644: ("No local
ordinance, rule, or measure shallstop law
enforcement officers from enforcement of this section") "Any person
who knowingly hires/harbors/transports any illegal alien is guilty of a
felony punishable by:
• 10 years in prison
• $2000 fine per illegal alien
• Forfeiture of the vehicle or property used to commit the
crime."
"All officers whose duty it is to enforce
criminal laws shall have authority to make arrests for a violation of
any provision of this section" (affirmed US v Perez-Gonzalez 2002 Fed
App 0360, 6th Circ.).
Now let me explain what the Fair and Legal
Employment Act is intended to do and talk about the Myths and the Real
Facts:
Fair and Legal Employment Act (HB2779 Summary)
• Reduce unauthorized employment
• Minimize verification-related discrimination
• Protect civil liberties and employee privacy
• Be quick and non-burdensome
• Hold “illegal” employers accountable (those that knowingly
hire illegal aliens.
• Prohibits an employer from intentionally or knowingly
employing an unauthorized alien.
• Provides progressive penalties for “knowingly” or
“intentionally” violating this Act.
• Provides all employers a rebuttable presumption that the
employer did not intentionally or knowingly employ an unauthorized alien
the employer uses the Basic Pilot Program.
• Provides an affirmative defense that employers did not
knowingly or intentionally employ an unauthorized worker if an employer
complies with federal I-9 requirements.
• Requires the Attorney General or county attorney, upon receipt
of a complaint that an employer allegedly intentionally or knowingly
employs an unauthorized alien, to investigate the complaint.
• Requires Attorney General or County Attorney to verify work
eligibility with the Federal Government.
• After an investigation determines the complaint to be valid,
the investigating body is required to:
– Notify U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement of the
unauthorized alien.
– Notify the local law enforcement agency of the unauthorized
alien.
– If the investigation was completed by the AG, then the AG must
notify the appropriate county attorney to bring an action against the
employer.
Intentionally
• "Intentionally" or "with the intent to" means, with respect to
a result or to conduct described by a statute defining an offense, that
a person's objective is to cause that result or to engage in that
conduct.
Knowingly
• The same actions described in 8 USC §1324a. This allows
violations to be determined by the employer’s constructive knowledge of
the employee’s lack of legal status rather than the employee’s
appearance or accent.
Employer Responsibilities
• Employers cannot use the EEV/Basic Pilot to prescreen job
applicants, screen existing employees, selectively verify or reverify
current workers: EEV Basic Pilot can only be used for new hires within 3
days of start date.
• Employers must inform employees of a tentative
non-confirmation and cannot terminate an employee while a tentative
non-confirmation is being resolved.
• Employers must post a notice in an area visible to prospective
employees that it is a EEV/Basic Pilot
Participant.
• Develop improvements to data completeness - even though 99.7%
of non-citizen queries are resolved in 4 days if the employee contacts USCIS immediately.
• Sufficient lead-time and start-up funding to properly design
all aspects of EEV, including allocating for SSA resource needs to
conduct automatic secondary verifications.
• Address special needs of small and unusual needs employers.
• Ensure ease of use by employers using electronic I-9s.
• Collaborate with “designated agents” who verify new hires of
clients who choose to outsource their HR functions.
Future inclusion of Biometrics.
Myth:
Employers don’t know what “knowingly employing an unauthorized alien”
means.
Fact: The “knowingly” standard passed in 1986 and has
been explained in detail through federal regulation and court cases.
Myth:
Employers acting in good faith who make an innocent mistake will be put
out of business.
Fact: No one gets in trouble for a mistake! One must
“knowingly” hire illegal aliens. If they complete the I-9 document
procedures in good faith, they have an affirmative defense. Second,
employers who use the “free” Basic Pilot Program to verify legal
employees will be presumed legal unless rebutted.
Myth: The federal Basic
Pilot Program cannot absorb the demand from Arizona employers to use it
as of Jan. 1, 2008.
Fact: The U.S. Department of Homeland Security testified to the
Arizona Legislature in March of this year that it could easily handle
the increased demand.
Myth: The
federal Basic Pilot Program to verify the legality of new employees has
a high error rate.
Fact: A June 7, 2007 report issued by the U.S. Government
Accountability Office shows 92 percent of inquiries entered by employers
are confirmed within seconds and 99.7 percent with 3 to 4 days. A
mismatch usually means an illegal employee, not an error.
Myth: HB2779 needs to have
an anti-employment discrimination clause based on race or national
origin to ensure it is enforced in a fair and non-discriminatory manner.
Fact: Discrimination is already illegal under state and federal
law. Governor Napolitano’s signing letter states, “federal
and state law precludes employment discrimination on the basis of race
or national origin.” Another anti-discrimination law is not needed
Myth: An
employer with multiple business locations will have all its locations
closed even if the illegal alien performed work at one location only.
Fact: HB2779 is site specific, only affecting the licenses at
the business location where the violation took place. Where the
offending location has no licenses, and only in that case, the licenses
for the employer’s primary location will be suspended.
Myth: Sanctions against
employers for employing unauthorized aliens is a federal issue.
Fact: The facts and our courts say otherwise. Federal
courts have consistently held that local law enforcement has the
authority to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal law,
including immigration law (See Gonzalez v. City of Peoria, 722
F.2d 468 [9th Cir. 1983] and United States v. Santana – Garcia,
264 F.3d 1188 [10th Cir. 2001]). And the federal law for knowingly
employing unauthorized aliens specifically allows states to sanction
this through “licensing and similar laws.”
Myth: The
State of Arizona is trying to turn businesses into de facto immigration
agents.
Fact: It has been law since 1986 for employers to verify the
work authorization of prospective employees. HB2779 simply enforces
existing law against those who “knowingly” violate this law through
suspension of business licenses. This isn’t some new burden. What they
really object to is the notion that we are actually going to enforce the
law.
The “Fair and Legal
Employment Act”, along with recent ballot propositions passed by Arizona
voters will help reduce the flow of illegal aliens, reduce costs to
taxpayers and cut crime in our state.
In Arizona we have put
our citizens and the Rule of Law first. Let’s pray the rest of America
follows our lead.
10-12-2009
Healthcare vote to be taken tomorrow -
October 13th
Dick Morris writes:
SNOWE AND LINCOLN WILL DETERMINE EVERYTHING
INFO AT BOTTOM OF PAGE TO
CALL
Watch how Maine
Republican Olympia Snowe and Arkansas Democrat Blanche Lincoln vote in
the Senate Finance Committee on the Baucus version of the Obama
healthcare plan. As Snowe and Lincoln go, so will the Congress.
The Democrats need Snowe's vote desperately, to
convince wavering moderate Democrats that they can offer a veneer,
however thin, of bipartisanship to the health proposal. If Snowe, their
last chance at a Republican vote, opposes the Obama/Baucus proposal,
there is no hope of a bipartisan fig leaf for the package. On the other
hand, if Snowe backs the bill, it will send a signal to moderate
Democrats that it's OK to join in and the bill will probably attract the
60 votes it needs for Senate passage.
Lincoln's
vote becomes critical if Snowe votes no. Lincoln is probably the single
most vulnerable Democrat running for reelection in 2010. She is the
proverbial canary in the coalmine. If she makes it, so will all the
Democrats. Hailing from a conservative Southern state, her poll numbers
suggest that she would be in a heap of trouble with a stiff challenger.
If Lincoln
defects and joins the Republicans in voting no (as she has done on a
number of amendments), she will do a lot to cement her chances to remain
a senator, but will open a wound in the Democratic Party. A domino
effect will likely set in.
Her Arkansas colleague, Democrat Mark Pryor, will
feel exposed by her defection and will probably consider voting no as
well. It will be very hard for the son of moderate David Pryor to
explain why Lincoln jumped ship but he chose to stay on board.
Sen. Ben Nelson (D) of Nebraska, encouraged by
Lincoln's vote, will probably vote no as well. These negative votes will
bring huge pressure on Mary Landrieu, the Louisiana Democrat. Nor can
the president count on the support of Joe Lieberman (I) of Connecticut,
who has warned that, despite his basic support for the concept of the
bill, it would be hard for him to back it given the current economic and
fiscal crisis.
Once Obama's plan fails to attract 60 votes, Senate
Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) will fall back on reconciliation as
a strategy and hope for 50 votes. But if the Democrats pass the bill
with 50 votes, it will set a precedent they may come to rue. It would
basically eliminate the filibuster as a parliamentary tactic and would
condemn any future minority party (Democrats in 2011?) to the same
irrelevance as afflicts their House colleagues. To be in the minority in
a chamber run by a bare majority is not a fun task.
However, if Lincoln votes yes, it will send a signal to
all moderates that even the most endangered of their species is willing
to risk backing the program and will do a great deal to shore up the
president's defenses.
All this means that if the elderly citizens of Arkansas
and Maine -- and their families -- want to avoid the evisceration of the
Medicare program contemplated in the Baucus/Obama bill, they had better
get busy. They need to deluge both senators with urgent pleas to vote
against the $500 billion cut in the Medicare program. Neither senator
can afford to alienate her elderly constituents, but what do they expect
when they vote to take the hatchet to Medicare?
Newt Gingrich found out that cutting Medicare is a
ticket to political oblivion. Barack Obama will learn the same lesson.
The question is: Will Olympia Snowe and Blanche Lincoln join him?
Baucus 202 224 2651
Lincoln 202 224 4843
Snow 202 224 5344
10-19-2009
The Obama
Administration’s 287(g): An Analysis of the New MOA
By Jon Feere
CIS Memorandum, October 2009
http://cis.org/ObamasNew287g
EXCERPT: The Obama administration may have begun to undermine one of the
most successful immigration enforcement programs in the country. Known
as 287(g), the program allows trained state and local law enforcement
officials to assist federal immigration agencies in carrying out
immigration enforcement. Since the beginning of 2006, state and local
law enforcement officials have identified over 120,000 illegal aliens
for removal. As of this writing, 77 jurisdictions in 25 states have
signed on to the program.
Visit
http://www.bibdaily.com to
read the details.
Houston
rejects 287(g)
"The Houston
Police Department will not participate in a controversial immigration
screening program, federal officials said on Friday, ending a
months-long saga over the city's plans." Houston Chronicle, Oct. 16,
2009.
National
Association of Former Border Patrol Officers
http://www.nafbpo.org
As crime grows in
Mexico, more people flee to Texas
"Over
the years, the central state of Aguascalientes, known as Mexico's Rhode
Island because of its small size, has gained a reputation for having the
best quality of life and safest neighborhoods – "rich in culture and
rich in boredom, the good kind," quipped Irma Carrillo, an education
professor at the Autonomous University of Aguascalientes. But in the
last couple of years, residents say, a steady stream of people from
Pabellon and nearby communities, including the city of Aguascalientes,
have fled for other parts of Mexico or the United States, particularly
Texas." Dallas Morning News, Oct. 4, 2009.
http://www.ice.gov/pi/nr/0910/091013corpuschristi.htm
Texas men
convicted of conspiring and harboring illegal aliens
CORPUS CHRISTI, Texas - A
federal jury on Monday convicted three Texas men of conspiring to harbor
illegal aliens while constructing new student housing at Texas A&M
University's Kingsville campus. The verdict was announced by U.S.
Attorney Tim Johnson, Southern District of Texas; this case was
investigated by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and U.S.
Customs and Border Protection's (CBP) Border Patrol.
William Holtzapfel, 53, Robert "Spyder"
Wilson, 50, both of Houston, and Edgar Martinez, 33, of Hidalgo, Texas,
were all convicted of conspiring to and harboring illegal aliens. During
the trial, which began Oct. 7, the jury heard testimony from various law
enforcement officers and two citizens of Argentina illegally present in
the United States.
"In democracies the Welfare State is the beginning, and the Police State
is the end."
Dr, Melchior Palyi, in "Compulsary Medical Care and the Welfare
State", 1949
Tea Party Against Amnesty Rally
Nov. 14th at the Tarrant County
Courthouse
Ft. Worth TX
Details here:
www.againstamnesty.com - Select Event Locations
You can contact the rally organizer via
http://againstamnesty.com/event_locations.html
If anyone in the Dallas area is interested in
organizing a rally, sign up on
www.againstamnesty.com
10-27-2009
NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF FORMER BORDER PATROL OFFICERS
Visit our website:
http://www.nafbpo.org
El Universal
(Mexico City) 10/20/09
“Central America is a bridge for
illegals” –
(Article’s sub-headline): “More and more
African and Asian migrants arrive in the area, smuggled by Chinese and
Colombian bands, heading to the U.S.”
Chinese and Colombian mafias, allied with
the Central American “coyotes” have enlarged the hugely profitable,
massive illegal traffic of persons who seek to enter the United States
and Canada by land, via Mexico, and have converted Central America into
the hallway of Africans and Asians – and not only Latin Americans and
persons from the Caribbean, who face a dangerous journey with an
uncertain outcome, after paying large amounts of money. The head of
Panama’s Immigration Service said that this phenomenon could open up a
thresher for the infiltration of international terrorism due to the
illegal entry of fundamentalist African Muslims.
The Africans fly from South Africa to Brazil
and go by land to Colombia, Central America and Mexico to be able to get
into the United States and Canada. Due to controls in Costa Rica and
Panama, routes change and sometimes they are taken by sea from the
Colombian ports of Barranquilla and Cartagena, on the Caribbean, toward
Nicaragua or Honduras, so that they may enter Belize, and from there, to
Mexico, the United States and Canada. The minimum charge per each
illegal migrant is over 7 thousand dollars. The head of Costa Rica’s
Immigration and Foreigners’ Affairs, Mario Zamora, said that in
Nicaragua and Honduras “they have social networks that assist them and
collaborate with them during the trip, and in the case of Belize’s black
population they wouldn’t stand out” and that once in Belize they obtain
the trip to Mexico. He added: “The phenomenon continues. From
information we’ve been able to obtain, we know that there are some two
thousand persons of African origin in Colombia and the southern portion
of Central America, which demonstrates that the detentions have been
minimal in comparison with the official figures we have been furnished.”
Nearly 275 Africans are detained in
immigration housing facilities in Central America, but the number could
be higher because there is no precise official tally. Of the total, most
are from Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana and Somalia, but
also included are citizens of Afghanistan, Nepal and Bangladesh, who
entered as part of the “African” network. The phenomenon began to be
detected in 2008 and the key bases of the contraband operated in Costa
Rica and Panama.
In August of this year, Costa Rican
immigration police gave the smuggling ring a hard blow and captured
three Colombians who were attempting to have a numerous group of
Africans to go ashore at the Costa Rican port of Limon; they’re now
accused of international people trafficking. Zamora explained that one
of the causes for trafficking of Africans and Asians in Latin America is
that Europe has reinforced its migratory and security controls.
In the case of Chinese, the structure is
controlled by a Chinese Mafia known as “Red Dragon”, and that it charges
up to some 60 thousand dollars per person to take them from Hong Kong to
Paris and Bogota by air, and then they choose various options to attempt
to reach the United States. One method of the traffic is to hide the
Chinese in ships that sail from Panamanian ports to the United States.
In other instances, the Chinese are taken by land to Panama and then by
vessel to Guatemala so that they may enter Mexico and continue toward
the United States. One of the routes detected is the one which takes
them to Ecuador, and from the port of Guayaquil they’re sent to
Guatemala so they may continue their northbound trip on Mexican soil.
The maritime trip from Colombia to Nicaraguan and Honduran ports on the
Caribbean is also used, from where they are sent by land to Belize,
Guatemala and Mexico.
Costa Rican sources have confirmed that the
Chinese mafia has made death threats against immigration officials
because of smuggling operations being undone. Panamanian judicial
sources warned about the danger of the Red Dragon, since the Chinese
communities “are very reserved” in their culture, and for fear of
becoming kidnapping and extortion victims of the gangs.
Diario Xalapa
(Xalapa, Veracruz) 10/22/09
Official comments on state of Mexico
migration figures
Arnulfo Valdivia, International Affairs
Coordinator of the state of Mexico [Note: not of the country of
Mexico; one of the country’s states is also called Mexico]
acknowledged that 14,000 state residents emigrate “to the other side”
each year in search of better opportunities. [“The other side” is a
common Mexican slang expression when referring to the United States]
| 
