Because after all, we wouldnÂ’t want to make those breaking the law feel uncomfortable, stigmatized or unwelcome.

One of the toughest state laws targeting illegal immigrants takes effect Thursday in Oklahoma, prompting efforts by immigrants trying to block it and work by state agencies to comply.

The law makes it a felony to transport or shelter illegal immigrants. Businesses, which are barred by federal law from hiring illegal immigrants, can be sued by a legal worker who is displaced by an illegal one.

The measure denies illegal immigrants certain public benefits such as rental assistance and fuel subsidies.

"It's clearly one of the most restrictive policies" in the country, says Cecilia Muñoz of the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic civil rights organization.

Muñoz says she's particularly concerned about a provision that gives local police the authority to check immigration status. Such policies create fear among all Hispanics, including those in the country legally, and may contribute to discrimination, she says.

On Thursday, the National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders filed its second lawsuit against the measure. The group says it is unconstitutional because immigration is a federal, not state, responsibility.

IÂ’m particularly troubled by their attempt to block the provision allowing legal workers to sue employers of illegal immigrants. After all, according to the advocates for the border jumpers, those folks are only doing the jobs Americans wonÂ’t do. Could it be that they are afraid of being proved wrong when there is a flood of lawsuits from American citizens who want jobs but are being undercut by those with no legal right to be in (much less work in) the United States?

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Perri Nelson's Website, third world county, Right Truth, The World According to Carl, DragonLady's World, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, The Bullwinkle Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, Adeline and Hazel, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 09:18 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 333 words, total size 3 kb.

In case yesterday’s post about Illinois Senator Dick Durbin didn’t make the point clear, this comment should. Disagreeing with him is not legitimate – indeed, it is a sign of not of principled disagreement, but of something much more ugly and unacceptable.

llegal immigration remains at a legislative impasse — and that may be a good thing for GOP chances since the party’s base in the South and West tends to be vehemently opposed to any accommodation with illegal immigrants.

In his post-vote assessment, the Dream Act’s chief sponsor, Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois said, “In a campaign year, it is a very difficult issue. If it’s tough this year, it’s tougher next year.”

Some senators, he said, “are running scared” on the illegal immigrant issue.
“Switchboards light up, the hates starts spewing, and people get concerned, to say the least,” Durbin told reporters.

Go that, people? Cacting your congressional representatives is not laudable participation by citizens in the political life of the Republic. It is, instead, an exercise in hatred – you know, one of those things the Democrats tell us must be criminalized. When you opposed this piece of Durbin-sponsored legislation because it made a mockery of our borders and amounted to nothing less than amnesty for entire families, you committed a hate crime.

Posted by: Greg at 11:56 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 226 words, total size 2 kb.

And shame on Dick Durbin. After all, Congressman Tancredo was precisely right in his call to enforce our nationÂ’s immigration laws in the very building where they were made.

Representative Tom Tancredo of Colorado, a Republican presidential candidate whose fierce opposition to illegal immigration is the center of his campaign, contacted the immigration service yesterday demanding that agents raid a senatorÂ’s news conference.

“If we can’t enforce our laws inside the building where American laws are made, where can we enforce them?” Mr. Tancredo said in a statement.

Now as it turns out, the participants in the press conference for this misguided piece of amnesty legislation are all holders of temporary legal status, despite having come to this country illegally. But Tancredo’s point is spot on – members of the legislative branch should not be permitted to flout the nation’s laws by bringing lawbreakers into the Capitol itself. Such flagrant disrespect for the law is unacceptable, and a call for the enforcement of the law is appropriate.

Which is why Dick Durbin showed why he is a disgrace to the state of Illinois and unfit to serve in the Senate.

“Congressman, have you no shame?” Mr. Durbin said in a statement, indirectly comparing Mr. Tancredo to Senator Joseph McCarthy and his anti-communist hearings in the 1950s.

What is shameful about demanding that the laws made by Congress be enforced in the very building where they were passed by a majority of both houses? How on earth is this comparable to the oft-caricatured excesses of Joseph McCarthy, who was at least right on one point despite all his excesses – as has now been extensively documented, there was an extensive infiltration of the United States government by Communist operatives directly or indirectly in the service of the Soviet Union.

Of course, Durbin is the same guy who compared our own troops to Nazis, Soviet gulag guards, and the murderous Khmer Rouge. It is clear that it is he who has no shame – and so should be regarded accordingly.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Pet's Garden Blog, Perri Nelson's Website, The Virtuous Republic, third world county, Right Truth, The Populist, The Pink Flamingo, Stuck On Stupid, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, Cao's Blog, Right Voices, Conservative Thoughts, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 10:12 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 385 words, total size 4 kb.

Once again, the Democrats in Congress want to impose a nightmare, called the DREAM Act, upon the American people -- creating one more incentive for illegal immigration.

Mickey Kaus notes some of the problems with the bill -- even while dispelling some incorrect claims about the proposal.

Turning on the 'Kids Magnet': Sen. Reid has filed for cloture on the Dream Act, meaning a vote could come tomorrow (Wednesday). My problems with the proposed law--which would in effect grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens under 30 who can claim they came into the country before they turned 16--are outlined here. Both proponents and opponents are activating switchboard-flooding measures. Askew has a list of allegedly undecided senators. ... Here's a list from Numbers USA. ... Here is an estimate of the number of illegal immigrants who'd qualify from Steven Camarota. ...

P.S.: Applicants would have to live in the U.S. for five years and eventually graduate from high school or get a GED. But Numbers USA claims that the bill would "be a rolling amnesty drawing more illegal aliens here in the future to apply for amnesty." [E.A.] Is it possible that the bill has no cutoff date--no requirement that applicants have entered the country before such and such a day--meaning that it would function as a formal standing offer to people in other countries who might be thinking of coming here illegally in the future: 'Sneak across the border before your kids get too olad and they will get legalized'? ... Even the recently-defeated Kyl-Kennedy "comprehensive immigration reform" had a nominal cutoff date, but I don't see one in the text of the DREAM Act. I must be missing something. Or have the bill's opponents buried the lede? ...

Update--Asked and Answered: Thomas Maguire is a closer reader of the law than I am, and emails to note that the bill does require (in section 3 (a)(1)(A) ) that an illegal immigrant have lived here for five years "immediately preceding the date of enactment of this Act." So there does appear to be a cutoff. ... The bill still acts as a magnet, of course, because a) future illegals know that if they come now another compassionate DREAM Act is likely to be passed in future years, and b) there are ample possibilities for fraud--claiming that you were here before the deadline and daring the authorities to disprove it.

And Kaus gets it exactly right in that last paragraph

I remember the Simpson-Mazzoli Act in the 1980s -- the one-time, never-again amnesty bill wrongly supported by Ronald Reagan. It was supposed to end the immigration problem forever -- and today we have 5-10 times ads many illegal immigrants in America as we did 25 years ago, all clamoring for grants of US citizenship (or at least permanent legal status). We've been down this path, and seen it doesn't work. This will simply draw the next generation of illegals waiting for "compassion" from the bleeding-hearts.

Besides, what is the result of giving these folks citizenship? They gain the immediate right to bring in the parents who broke the law by coming here in the first place -- sort of the equivalent (to use a somewhat inexact analogy) of allowing the family of a bank robber to keep the interest on the fruits of his crime, or a drug dealer's kids to keep the house and car bought with the proceeds of his illegal acts.

Instead, I support this proposal by Fred Thompson.

1. No Amnesty. Do not provide legal status to illegal aliens. Amnesty undermines U.S. law and policy, rewards bad behavior, and is unfair to the millions of immigrants who follow the law and are awaiting legal entry into the United States. In some cases, those law-abiding and aspiring immigrants have been waiting for several years.

2. Attrition through Enforcement. Reduce the number of illegal aliens through increased enforcement against unauthorized alien workers and their employers. Without illegal employment opportunities available, fewer illegal aliens will attempt to enter the country, and many of those illegally in the country now likely will return home. Self-deportation can also be maximized by stepping up the enforcement levels of other existing immigration laws. This course of action offers a reasonable alternative to the false choices currently proposed to deal with the 12 million or more aliens already in the U.S. illegally: either arrest and deport them all, or give them all amnesty. Attrition through enforcement is a more reasonable and achievable solution, but this approach requires additional resources for enforcement and border security ...

4. Reduce the Jobs Incentive. Ensure employee verification by requiring that all U.S. employers use the Department of Homeland Security's electronic database (the E-Verify system) to confirm that a prospective employee is authorized to work in the U.S. Now that the technology is proven, provide sufficient resources to make the system as thorough, fast, accurate, and easy-to-use as possible.

5. Bolster Border Security. Finish building the 854-mile wall along the border by 2010 as required by 8 USC 1103. Extend the wall beyond that as appropriate and deploy new technologies and additional resources to enhance detection and rapid apprehension along our borders by 2012.

In other words, real borders, real enforcement, and the denial of incentives to come or to stay. This is the position that is popular with the GOP base, and with the American people at large. We welcome immigrants -- but only those who come here in compliance with American law. I'm open to increasing the number of openings for legal immigration, but not until we get a handle on the problem of illegal immigration and those who have already jumped the border.

My one complaint -- not enough in the way of employer sanctions. I've got no problem with seeing HR staff, business owners, and corporate executives frog-marched out the door and stuffed into waiting squad cars after their arrests for facilitating the violation of immigration laws by employing illegals. And i don't care what party these folks give to -- we need to enforce our immigration laws and secure our borders.

Of course, my fundamental immigration proposal has always been:

Round 'em up! Ship 'em back! Rawhide!

Posted by: Greg at 10:43 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1036 words, total size 8 kb.

Why doesn't the corrupt government of Mexico adopt the same open border policies for illegal immigrants that they demand of the US?

The bodies of two dozen people washed ashore Friday in southern Mexico after emergency officials received reports that a boat carrying Central American migrants capsized in the Pacific Ocean, a state official said.

Mexican authorities were searching the waters for more bodies around the coastal town of San Francisco del Mar, 200 miles up the coast from the Guatemalan border.

Sergio Segreste, the Oaxaca state public safety secretary, said 24 bodies washed ashore.

Mexico has a much harsher immigration policy than the US does. Hypocrites.

Posted by: Greg at 09:56 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 123 words, total size 1 kb.

Now refugees from Cuba are taking the safer, longer way into the US -- through Mexico!

Cubans are migrating to the United States in the greatest numbers in over a decade, and for most of them the new way to get north is first to head west — to Mexico — in a convoluted route that avoids the United States Coast Guard.

American officials say the migration, which has grown into a multimillion-dollar-a-year smuggling enterprise, has risen sharply because many Cubans have lost hope that Raúl Castro, who took over as president from his brother Fidel in 2006, will make changes that will improve their lives. Cuban authorities contend that the migration is more economic than political and is fueled by Washington’s policy of rewarding Cubans who enter the United States illegally.

In fact, unlike Mexicans, Central Americans and others heading to the southwestern border of the United States, the Cubans do not have to sneak across. They just walk right up to United States authorities at the border, benefiting from lax Mexican enforcement and relying on Washington’s “wet foot, dry foot” policy, which gives them the ability to become permanent residents if they can reach United States soil.

That is what José Luis Savater, 45, a refrigerator repairman from Havana, did in early October to reach southern Florida, which remains the goal for most migrating Cubans.

Two questions spring to mind in light of this story.

1) If we are now getting Cubans coming across, why would anyone doubt that terrorists are (or at least could) infiltrate the US in this same manner?

2) Why are these Cubans coming to America? Didn't they get the memo from Michael Moore that they have it better in Communist Cuba, with its great health care and benevolent leader?

Posted by: Greg at 11:32 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 306 words, total size 2 kb.

Guess what? The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that there is nothing wrong with statutory rape -- and so the US cannot deport adults who have sex with underage partners!

Over the years, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has earned itself a reputation as the legal bastion of San Francisco looniness, and a recent decision will do nothing to change that.

On Tuesday, the court decided that Alberto Quintero-Salazar - a Mexican national and legal resident of the U.S. - could not be deported on the basis of a sex crime he committed in 1998, namely illegal intercourse between an adult over 21 and a youth under 16. According to the court, adults taking sexual advantage of a minor (so long as they have the "consent" that minors are legally unable to provide) are not guilty of a crime of "moral turpitude," which is needed to subject legal U.S. residents to deportation.

The reasoning of this case goes like this -- the age of consent differs in different states, and the act would not be illegal if the couple were married. Therefore it is only a crime because California made it illegal.

I suppose we could make that argument about most other crimes, too.

So the child-raping immigrant gets to stay in America -- even though a plain reading of the law says he should be deported immediately.

Anyone want to argue about the importance of doing something about the out-of-control Ninth Circuit?

Anyone want to ask why this decision was ignored by the media?

Will someone start asking the Democrat s running for President what they think of this decision and these judges? Not to mention what they will do to stop such idiocy.

H/T Stop the ACLU, Random-American

Posted by: Greg at 01:28 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 320 words, total size 2 kb.

After all, the political class would rather that "We, the People" leave the policymaking to them.

The Prince William Board of County Supervisors chairman has used taxpayer money to mail postcards about a meeting on a resolution to crack down on illegal immigration, angering board colleagues and others.

The postcard, from Corey A. Stewart (R), calls on residents to voice their opinions on the controversial resolution before and during a meeting Tuesday. The board will vote on funding and "implementing its policy to crack down on illegal immigration and cut off taxpayer-funded services to illegal aliens," according to the postcard.

Yeah, heaven forbid that the citizens of Prince William County have a say -- either way -- on this issue.

Posted by: Greg at 03:44 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 128 words, total size 1 kb.

You are required to have a valid Social Security number that matches with your name in order to work. My wife found that out not long after we married, when her new employer found that the name on her card and the name on her employment records did not match. She was duly sent to the local Social Security office to do the paperwork to correct the situation.

The necessary time to correct the problem? One hour -- after which she left the office with paperwork indicating the problem was fixed. She received a new card within weeks, reflecting the change.

Similarly, the IRS began requiring matches of names and numbers during the Clinton administration.

So why is a federal judge saying that enforcement of the law is burdensome on workers and employers, who have three months to correct the problem -- and therefore allowing millions to work illegally?

A federal judge barred the Bush administration yesterday from launching a planned crackdown on U.S. companies that employ illegal immigrants, warning of its potentially "staggering" impact on law-abiding workers and companies.

In a firm rebuke of the White House, U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer of San Francisco granted a preliminary injunction against the president's plan to press employers to fire as many as 8.7 million workers with suspect Social Security numbers, starting this fall.

* * *

In a 22-page ruling, Breyer said the plaintiffs -- an unusual coalition that included the AFL-CIO, the American Civil Liberties Union and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce -- had raised serious questions about the legality of the administration's plan to mail Social Security "no-match" letters to 140,000 U.S. employers.

"There can be no doubt that the effects of the rule's implementation will be severe," Breyer wrote, resulting in "irreparable harm to innocent workers and employers."

The government letters are intended to warn employers for the first time that they must resolve questions about their employees' identities or fire them within 90 days. If they do not, employers could face "stiff penalties," including fines and even criminal prosecution, for violating a federal law that bars knowingly employing illegal workers, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said when he announced the plan Aug. 10.

The plaintiffs convinced the judge that the Social Security Administration database includes so many errors -- incorporated in the records of about 9.5 million people in 2003 alone -- that its use in firings would unfairly discriminate against tens of thousands of legal workers, including native-born and naturalized U.S. citizens, and cause major workforce disruptions that would burden companies.

"The government's proposal to disseminate no-match letters affecting more than eight million workers will, under the mandated time line, result in the termination of employment to lawfully employed workers," the judge wrote. "Moreover the threat of criminal prosecution . . . reflects a major change in DHS policy."

The reality is that most of those errors are easily resolved, such as the one in my wife's records. All it takes is a little bit of time and good-faith effort to comply.

In the mean time, we have a federal judge ignoring the laws of the country to protect the lawless.

I agree with Congressman Brian Bilbray on this issue.

"What part of 'illegal' does Judge Breyer not understand?" he said. "At a time when the federal government is finally trying to enforce current immigration law, we cannot have activist judges stand in the way of doing what is right."

Right now, employers know about these problems. Letters informing them have been sent out since the Clinton Administration. They have, however, been ignored by employers and workers because there is no enforcement behind them. Now that there is an attempt to enforce the law, those who have ignored a dozen years of warnings are shouting "No Fair!"

I'm curious -- what time frame would be acceptable to those who challenged the new policy? 120 days? 180 days? One year? We know the answer -- no enforcement of our nation's immigration laws would ever be acceptable to the plaintiffs and the lawless judge who ruled for them.

I'd like to urge Congressman Bilbray to handle this matter via a two-track strategy -- first, with a legislative fix making this process statutorily mandated; and second, bey introducing a resolution for the impeachment of U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer.

H/T Captain's Quarters, Michelle Malkin. STACLU, Bookworm Room

Posted by: Greg at 11:05 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 747 words, total size 5 kb.

I guess that the Mexican flag gets more protection than the American flag some places here in the formerly United States.

It caused some controversy, but it was supposed to. Now, one man is headed to municipal court for burning a Mexican flag in protest in front of the Alamo.

The city is charging 46-year old David Bohmfalk with burning without a permit, even though no one gives permits to burn a flag.

"I was raised to respect my country," Bohmfalk said.

All the rallies and talk of amnesty for undocumented immigrants in May 2006 lit the fires of patriotism for Bohmfalk, he said.

"I just got angry," he said. "I decided I had to do something, make my statement, and that's what I did."

Of course, since flag burning is protected speech, it seems difficult to call what Bohmfalk did a crime. Not, of course, that the San Antonio cops were arresting people for actual crimes that day. Besides letting illegal aliens walk free, they also ignored crimes against the person of Mr. Bohmfalk committed in their presence.

Bohmfalk says while he was detained by police, he was harassed, his life was threatened, and he was even assaulted by some tourists who spit on him. Ironically, all these offenses are punishable by law.

So much for equal protection of the law, hat he harassed any of the demonstrators, threatened them with death, and spit upon them, he would no doubt have been hauled away in cuffs and charged with hate crimes. I guess it wouldnÂ’t do to offend the immigration criminals and their supporters, though, so no arrests were made in the case of the crimes cited above.

Besides, it seems to me that burning a Mexican flag in front of the Alamo seems particularly appropriate. After all, the Mexicans burned the bodies of the Alamo martyrs.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, The Virtuous Republic, The Random Yak, DeMediacratic Nation, Big Dog's Weblog, Jeanette's Celebrity Corner, The Populist, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, Cao's Blog, The Amboy Times, The Bullwinkle Blog, Adeline and Hazel, Nuke's, third world county, The Pink Flamingo, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 12:49 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 377 words, total size 4 kb.

Glad to see that the government is doing something to get these criminals out of circulation -- and out of our country.

About 1,300 violent gang members who are in this country illegally were arrested in a three-month summer crackdown, federal officials announced Tuesday.

“We’ve arrested quite a number of very serious criminals — individuals who frankly have worn out their welcome by coming into this country illegally and committing more crimes when they got here,” said Julie L. Myers, assistant secretary of homeland security for immigration and customs enforcement.

Of the 1,313 individuals arrested this summer, 939 will be charged with immigration violations, and 374 were detained for criminal prosecution in federal, state or local courts. The operation also led to the arrests of 261 people who officials say were not affiliated with gangs but were in the country illegally.

“If we can’t prosecute them criminally, or they are here in the country illegally, we will have them deported,” Ms. Myers said.

Sadly, this group constitutes less than 1/10000 of the illegals currently in this country -- but they are among the worst of the worst. As a matter of public safety and national security, we need to pick up the pace of arrests and deportations of the violent criminals and drug dealers who have jumped the border with impunity before we even begin to talk about the status of the otherwise law-abiding individuals who break America's laws daily by remaining in this country illegally.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, The Virtuous Republic, The Random Yak, DeMediacratic Nation, Big Dog's Weblog, Jeanette's Celebrity Corner, The Populist, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, Cao's Blog, The Amboy Times, The Bullwinkle Blog, Adeline and Hazel, Nuke's, third world county, The Pink Flamingo, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 11:34 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 319 words, total size 4 kb.