First it was maps and a survival guide -- now it seems that some Mexican authorities are going to provide GPS services to border jumping immigration criminals as they seek to break into the United States in violation of American sovereignty.

Two state government institutions are studying the possibility of giving Mexican migrants GPS locators that could be used to call the U.S. Border Patrol for help.

The locators would be given to migrants who are thinking of crossing the border, and would give U.S. Border Patrol agents the location of those in trouble. The U.S. government has yet to sign off on the project, which is still in the planning stages.

Hundreds of Mexicans are killed each year trying to sneak illegally into the United States. Many are lost or succumb to heat exhaustion in the desert, while others are killed trying to swim across the Rio Grande or hide in vehicles.

Supporters of the initiative argue that it could save hundreds of lives. Among those looking at the possibility is Jesus Torreblanca, who works for Puebla state's Commission for the Attention of Migrants.

"This won't guarantee that they won't be detained by the Border Patrol or face deportation, and it won't keep them from facing risks in the desert," he said today. "It is simply an effort at rescuing people while they are still alive."

He denied that the locators would encourage illegal migration.

"Our main purpose is to show people the enormous dangers they risk in crossing rivers, canals and deserts ... but the phenomenon of immigration is something that can't be stopped overnight," he said.

Mexico's Monterrey Tech University is developing the locators, which would be cheap and easy to carry and activate. They would be handed out for free to migrants.

Torreblanca said the locators might be ready by March.

It was unclear whether the U.S. government would approve such a project. In the past, similar campaigns to help migrants in distress have been criticized by U.S. anti-immigration groups as condoning illegal migration.

"The U.S. government has every right to protect its borders anyway it sees necessary," Torreblanca said. "The only thing that we ask is that they respect human rights."

And all we ask is that you folks in Mexican government respect American sovereignty -- and that you begin by acting to stop the incursions by your citizens into the United States, rather than helping them.

Posted by: Greg at 11:36 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 416 words, total size 3 kb.

Not that we need a fence, a wall, or the full militarization of our nation's southern border or any such thing. After all, it isn't like we take such matters seriously in this country.!

A U.S. Border Patrol entry Identification Team site was overrun Wednesday night along Arizona's border with Mexico.

According to the Border Patrol, an unknown number of gunmen attacked the site in the state's West Desert Region around 11 p.m. The site is manned by National Guardsmen. Those guardsmen were forced to retreat.

The Border Patrol will not say whether shots were fired. However, no Guardsmen were injured in the incident.

The Border Patrol says the incident occurred somewhere along the 120 mile section of the border between Nogales and Lukeville. The area is known as a drug corridor. Last year, 124-thousand pounds of illegal drugs were confiscated in this area.

The Border patrol says the attackers quickly retreated back into Mexico.

Not, of course, that the US government would have done a damn thing if the gunmen had decided to stay. After all, they were just here to violate borders Americans are unwilling to violate.

Posted by: Greg at 04:29 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 201 words, total size 1 kb.

I was discussing this issue with my favorite congresswoman just the other evening. I can't believe we both seem to generally agree with the New York Times!

In 1996, Congress ordered immigration officials to create a system to track everyone who enters the country and everyone who leaves. That sensible directive lay on a back burner until 9/11. The Department of Homeland Security then hastened to set up the U.S. Visit program, which requires people to be photographed and fingerprinted at ports of entry for checking against databases of terrorists and other undesirables.

That system has been running since 2004, and has plucked hundreds of bad people from the huge visitor stream without horribly disrupting tourism and business travel. But news came last week that the other half of the program — monitoring foreign travelers when they leave — has been abandoned.

The Homeland Security Department had hoped to begin tracking departures at the 50 busiest land border crossings by next December. But it has given up meeting that deadline after deciding that the cost — including time lost in long lines at the borders — would be prohibitive. Part of the problem is technological: tracking methods that would work are too expensive.

The Government Accountability Office, echoing the Bush administrationÂ’s conclusions, said that a cost-effective departure system may not emerge for five to 10 years. And so, after spending $1.7 billion since 2003 on the U.S. Visit program, the administration will keep doing what it has been doing at the nationÂ’s land exits, which is basically nothing.

It’s good to know who’s leaving the country — and who isn’t. About a third of illegal immigrants are believed to be those who entered lawfully but stayed after their visas expired. Some of the 9/11 hijackers were in this group. Hunting such people down is not even theoretically possible until you know whom you are looking for.

Of course, the formerly great newspaper then turns the corner into another in a never-ending series of Bush-bashing rants about the Iraq war and cutting taxes, but the overall point is correct -- we cannot control the borders until we know who is entering and leaving, and that won't come cheap. But then again, national security is one of the few legitimate things for the federal government to be spending money on, according to the Constitution.

Posted by: Greg at 05:00 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 402 words, total size 3 kb.

Except for the fact that the Jews were innocent of anything other than being Jews and were murdered for that, and border-jumping immigration criminals are guilty of violating American sovereignty and are simply being sent back to their homelands, immigration raids are exactly like Nazi persecution of the Jews!!!

U.S. Hispanic groups and activists on Thursday called for a moratorium on workplace raids to round up illegal immigrants, saying they were reminiscent of Nazi crackdowns on Jews in the 1930s.

They accused the Department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement of "racial profiling," or selective enforcement against Hispanics, for arresting 1,300 workers on immigration violations in December 12 raids at meatpacking plants in six states.

"We are demanding an end to these immigration raids, where they are targeting brown faces. That is major, major racial profiling, and that cannot be tolerated," said Rosa Rosales, president of the League of United Latin American Citizens, at a news conference.

"This unfortunately reminds me of when Hitler began rounding up the Jews for no reason and locking them up," Democratic Party activist Carla Vela said. "Now they're coming for the Latinos, who will they come for next?"

Such claims are nothing less than Holocaust denial on the part of advocates for immigration criminals. Every American, regardless of religion, race, or ethnicity, should stand up and denounce LULAC, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, the Hispanic National Bar Association, and the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials for daring to spew such falsehoods.

And might I add this note.

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

MORE AT Bullwinkle Blog, MaxRedLine, Coalition of the Swilling, Ensuring Greatness, Get Your Head Out Of Your Butt, Texas Rainmaker, 186k Per Second, Mr. Minority, Leaning Straight Up, Right-Wing & Right-Minded, Firewolf's Blog, Holy Coast

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Conservative Cat, Pursuing Holiness, Is It Just Me?, Right Wing Nation, Random Yak, Blue Star Chronicles, Right Wing Guy, The Hill Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, Third World County, Stuck On Stupid, Bullwinkle Blog, Don Surber, 123 Beta, Samantha Burns, Amboy Times, Stop the ACLU

Posted by: Greg at 08:31 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 356 words, total size 5 kb.

Once again putting the lie to the idea that border-jumping immigration criminals are not taking jobs away from American workers.

The line of applicants hoping to fill jobs vacated by undocumented workers taken away by immigration agents at the Swift & Co. meat-processing plant earlier this week was out the door Thursday.

Among them was Derrick Stegall, who carefully filled out paperwork he hoped would get him an interview and eventually land him a job as a slaughterer. Two of his friends had been taken away by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and he felt compelled to fill their rubber boots.

"Luckily, they had no wives or family they left behind. But it was still sad. They left their apartments filled with all their stuff. I took two dogs one of them had. The other guy had a cat I gave to my sister," he said.

Greg Bonifacio heard about the job openings on television and brought his passport, his Colorado driver's license, his Social Security card and even a color photograph of himself as a young Naval officer to prove his military service.

"I don't want to hassle with any identification problems because of my last name," said Bonifacio, a 59- year-old Thornton resident of Filipino heritage.

I'd lay odds that you would find a similar reality in each and every community where these raids took place -- American citizens lining up out the door for good jobs that they need and want to do.

American jobs.

American workers.

They go good together -- when those workers are not aced out by those who violate our nation's laws -- and sovereignty.

Posted by: Greg at 12:50 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 294 words, total size 2 kb.

That is what Swift & Co,, recently hit by immigration raids in six states, appears to have done.

Former employees are suing Swift & Co. for $23 million, alleging the meatpacking company conspired to keep wages down by hiring illegal immigrants.

The 18 former employees are U.S. citizens who worked at a plant in Cactus, north of Amarillo, one of six facilities raided in a federal sweep that led to the arrests of nearly 1,300 employees and temporarily halted Swift's operations.

"These plaintiffs are ... victims in a longstanding scheme by Swift to depress and artificially lower the wages of its workers by knowingly hiring illegal workers," said their attorney, Angel Reyes.

And there seems to be a good prima facie case. After all, how do you explain the rate of pay dropping from $20 an hour to $12 an hour over the last several years, even as wage rates in this country have been rising? Simple -- get rid of those expensive Americans and replace them with cheap foreign laborers in this country illegally.

These border-jumping immigration criminals were not "doing jobs Americans won't do". No, they were (and others are) doing jobs that Americans are ready, willing, and able to do -- taking money out of the pockets and bread out of the mouths of American citizens by depressing wages in the industries in which they work.

And unethical businesses like Swift & Co. are willing participants in their crime against the American people.

Posted by: Greg at 03:58 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 260 words, total size 2 kb.

Which means, of course, that there will be no way of checking if folks have over-stayed their visas. Is there anything that the Department of Homeland Security is doing right?

In a major blow to the Bush administrationÂ’s efforts to secure borders, domestic security officials have for now given up on plans to develop a facial or fingerprint recognition system to determine whether a vast majority of foreign visitors leave the country, officials say.

Domestic security officials had described the system, known as U.S. Visit, as critical to security and important in efforts to curb illegal immigration. Similarly, one-third of the overall total of illegal immigrants are believed to have overstayed their visas, a Congressional report says.

Tracking visitors took on particular urgency after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, when it became clear that some of the hijackers had remained in the country after their visas had expired.

But in recent days, officials at the Homeland Security Department have conceded that they lack the financing and technology to meet their deadline to have exit-monitoring systems at the 50 busiest land border crossings by next December. A vast majority of foreign visitors enter and exit by land from Mexico and Canada, and the policy shift means that officials will remain unable to track the departures.

Is it time to dismantle DHS yet, and replace it with an effective agency for dealing with homeland security?

Posted by: Greg at 01:31 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 241 words, total size 2 kb.

I guess I don’t understand why I should feel bad for the family in this story. After all, they are here breaking the law, and yet they are somehow presented to be victims of the government’s decision to enforce the law.

Isabel Ramirez wept as she clutched her 18-month-old daughter, Brenda, in the ramshackle trailer park where she lives.

Her husband, Juan, had been detained in the Immigration and Customs Enforcement raid on the Swift & Co. meatpacking plant where he worked, and she didn't know where he was.

"He was the only one working. He paid for everything, the bills, rent. I have three kids," 33-year- old Isabel Ramirez said.

As she spoke, her 7-year-old daughter, Laura, was at school, and her 3-year-old son, Juanito, kicking muddy snow by the trailer, was having a very bad day.
His father "is in jail," Juanito said. He threw a stick angrily down at the snow and turned and banged his head against the side of a broken trampoline.

As authorities began deporting workers rounded up in raids at meatpacking plants here and in five other states, this city, which for decades has run on illegal labor from Mexico, confronted an unexpected challenge: what to do about kids left behind.

I’ll answer the question for you – deport the kids with the parents if they were not born with American citizenship. If the kids were born here, revoke the parental rights and place them for adoption – or permit the parents to irrevocably renounce US citizenship on behalf of their children.

Now some of you might object that this proposal is harsh. Know what – you are right. But harsh measures are the only ones that will allow us take control of our border. And you might object that the foster care/adoption expenses would be high for those children taken into state custody. But then again, the taxpayers are already footing much of the bill for the millions of children of illegal aliens in this country, so the added cost would be significantly less than one might think.

And for those who think illegal immigration is a victimless crime, you might want to read this piece from MSNBC.

UPDATE: More efforts to portray the immigration criminals, their families, and their employer as victims of the government enforcing the law.

And in a move that is probably even more outrageous, this story tries to present the American consumer as the real victim -- something that I expect to see repeatedly as there is a concerted push for an amnesty.

Posted by: Greg at 11:21 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 434 words, total size 3 kb.

I guess I donÂ’t understand why I should feel bad for the family in this story. After all, they are here breaking the law, and yet they are somehow presented to be victims of the governmentÂ’s decision to enforce the law.

Isabel Ramirez wept as she clutched her 18-month-old daughter, Brenda, in the ramshackle trailer park where she lives.

Her husband, Juan, had been detained in the Immigration and Customs Enforcement raid on the Swift & Co. meatpacking plant where he worked, and she didn't know where he was.

"He was the only one working. He paid for everything, the bills, rent. I have three kids," 33-year- old Isabel Ramirez said.

As she spoke, her 7-year-old daughter, Laura, was at school, and her 3-year-old son, Juanito, kicking muddy snow by the trailer, was having a very bad day.
His father "is in jail," Juanito said. He threw a stick angrily down at the snow and turned and banged his head against the side of a broken trampoline.

As authorities began deporting workers rounded up in raids at meatpacking plants here and in five other states, this city, which for decades has run on illegal labor from Mexico, confronted an unexpected challenge: what to do about kids left behind.

I’ll answer the question for you – deport the kids with the parents if they were not born with American citizenship. If the kids were born here, revoke the parental rights and place them for adoption – or permit the parents to irrevocably renounce US citizenship on behalf of their children.

Now some of you might object that this proposal is harsh. Know what – you are right. But harsh measures are the only ones that will allow us take control of our border. And you might object that the foster care/adoption expenses would be high for those children taken into state custody. But then again, the taxpayers are already footing much of the bill for the millions of children of illegal aliens in this country, so the added cost would be significantly less than one might think.

And for those who think illegal immigration is a victimless crime, you might want to read this piece from MSNBC.

UPDATE: More efforts to portray the immigration criminals, their families, and their employer as victims of the government enforcing the law.

And in a move that is probably even more outrageous, this story tries to present the American consumer as the real victim -- something that I expect to see repeatedly as there is a concerted push for an amnesty.

Posted by: Greg at 11:21 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 439 words, total size 3 kb.

Even as he prepares to leave office, Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is showing that he understands the importance of dealing with our nationÂ’s immigration crisis.

Gov. Mitt Romney, who is weighing a White House bid, signed an agreement Wednesday that allows Massachusetts State Police troopers to detain illegal aliens they encounter over the course of their normal duties.

Under the terms of the agreement, made with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, an initial group of 30 troopers will receive five weeks of specialized training next year, paid by the federal government.

The troopers will be drawn from the Violent Fugitive Apprehension Squad, the Criminal Investigation Section, the Anti-Gang Unit, the Drug Enforcement Unit and the Community Action Team.

"The scope of our nation's illegal immigration problem requires us to pursue and implement new solutions wherever possible," Romney said in a statement. "State troopers are highly trained professionals who are prepared to assist the federal government in apprehending immigration violators without disrupting their normal law enforcement routines."

Oh, and one question – will Romney’s Democrat successor, Deval Patrick, maintain this policy?

UPDATE: And the answer is -- Deval Patrick doesn't give a damn about our nation's illegal immigration crisis.

Posted by: Greg at 11:10 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 218 words, total size 2 kb.

After all, I've seen him to be pretty much a fraud on every conservative issue, so I'm not surprised by this statement.

Gov. Rick Perry, who built his re-election campaign on border security, told a gathering of border mayors today that building a wall along the border with Mexico is a "preposterous" idea.

"Now, strategic fencing in certain urban areas to direct the flow of traffic does make sense, but building a wall on the entire border is a preposterous idea," Perry said.

"The only thing a wall would possibly accomplish is to help the ladder business."

While Perry always opposed fencing the border, his re-election campaign de-emphasized that position.

Perry ran millions of dollars of television advertising portraying the border as an open zone of human and drug smuggling and as a potential pathway for terrorists. He launched a program to put live Internet cameras along the border and said he would ask the Legislature for $100 million for border security.

The campaign was widely seen as an effort to appeal to a Republican voting base angry at the federal government for failing to act to halt illegal immigration from Mexico and Central America.

Perry told the Texas Border Coalition that the national anti-immigrant rhetoric of the political campaigns was not constructive.

Governor Good-Hair has licked his finger, put it to the wind, and determined that amnesty and open borders are going to win in the next Congress -- and he wants to make sure he is on the right side.

Posted by: Greg at 02:03 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 270 words, total size 2 kb.

A great column today in the Rocky Mountain news, dealing with the issue of crimes committed by illegal aliens -- and not the ones they commit merely because of their immigration status.

What percentage of arrests for DUI offenses in 2005 were illegal aliens? Recall that Justin Goodman of Thornton was killed in 2004 on his motorcycle by an illegal alien driver who had six prior DUI and other driving violations in Boulder and Adams counties. The man had never been referred to ICE for deportation.

Does the Denver city attorney's standing policy of not asking questions in court about the legitimacy of Mexican driver's licenses presented by defendants have any consequences for the law-abiding citizens of Denver? Recall that the man who killed police officer Donnie Young had used an invalid Mexican driver's license to avoid jail in Denver municipal court only three weeks before the slaying.

Why is it that a full year after the Colorado attorney general stated that one- quarter of Colorado's outstanding fugitive homicide warrants are for people who have fled to Mexico, no newspaper has asked how many of the individuals named in the warrants were illegal aliens with prior arrests? (In Los Angeles County, there are more than 400 such fugitive warrants.)

How are sanctuary cities like Durango, Boulder and Denver responding to SB 90, the new state law passed in 2006 to outlaw sanctuary cities? What is ICE doing to respond to SB 90?

If Denver received federal reimbursement for the incarceration of more than 1,100 illegal aliens in 2004, why were only 175 deported when they finished their terms? What subsequent crimes did the other 925 criminal aliens commit?

After the murder of officer Donnie Young in May 2005, the Denver ICE office renewed its routine surveys of the Denver jail population to identify illegal aliens subject to deportation. How many criminal aliens have actually been deported out of the Denver jail since then, compared to prior years when such checks were not being made?

There is a societal cost to our nation's lax immigration policies. Why don't we honestly discuss it and try to solve teh problem? Or will the newly elected Democrats surrender on the border issue like they want to in Iraq?

Posted by: Greg at 03:59 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 384 words, total size 2 kb.

That is what this statement clearly implies.

Democrats will look again at the legislation mandating 698 miles of fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border and might seek to scrap the plan altogether when they take control of Congress next year.

Rep. Bennie Thompson, Mississippi Democrat, told reporters this week that he expected to "revisit" the issue when he becomes chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee in the 110th Congress.

Never mind that fencing/walls are an important part of border security in urban areas where the proposed electronic monitoring system will be rendered ineffective by the ability to quickly hide in densely populated areas.

In other words, the Democrat solution to border control is erecting billboards that read "Welcome Undocumented Workers!"

H/T Blog From On High

Posted by: Greg at 03:15 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 137 words, total size 1 kb.

And if there is, will it be based on preserving the security of our nation's borders and the sovereign right of the US to control immigration? Or will it involve another round of amnesty, legalization, and incentives for even more of border-jumpers to come to America in order to skip to the head of the immigration line? That is the question as Democrats take control of Congress.

Jolted by the dramatic shake-up on Capitol Hill, the incoming Congress may prove more receptive to sweeping immigration changes such as a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, lawmakers and policy experts said.

Among the causes: Democrats' big gains, a shift by Latino voters away from the GOP and the defeat of several conservative Republicans who ran on a strident anti-illegal immigration message.

"I do see a light at the end of the tunnel," Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, of Houston, the top Democrat on the House immigration subcommittee, said Wednesday.

But if Jackson-Lee sees a light, it is probably a flashlight being held by human traffickers leading even more illegals across the border. After all, she has steadfastly opposed shoring up our nation's borders.

And those of us worried about a repeat of the mistakes made in the 1980s with the Simpson-Mazolli amnesty legislation don't find the president's words comforting.

On Wednesday, President Bush identified immigration as an area in which he'd work with Democrats. And in comments directed to congressional conservatives who stymied his push for a guest-worker plan, Bush noted that strides have been made on border security.

"I would hope we can get something done," Bush said. "There's an issue where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats."

But if it involves legalization/amnesty, we may as well throw open the borders and admit that our nation can and will do nothing to stop the flow of illegal immigrants. And a guest worker program may be exactly that -- especially if it contains no effective enforcement provisions to make the "guests" leave.

Not only that, but the incoming Mexican president opposes our current efforts to illegal regulate border crossings.

In his first visit to Washington as Mexico's president-elect, Felipe Calderon is expected to urge President Bush today to resolve the immigration problem by investing in Mexico and eventually creating a European Union-style economic region where goods and services — and people — flow freely throughout North America.

* * *

Their cooperation will be key in determining the fate of 700 miles in new border fencing that Congress approved, but didn't completely fund, this year.

The fence has been heavily criticized in Mexico, and Calderon has called it an unnecessary barrier that threatens to permanently damage the relationship between the two neighbors and trading partners.

In other words, he wants to expand upon NAFTA -- something the Democrats are unlikely to go for. And the EU analogy will turn off conservatives, who recognize that the EU has eroded the sovereignty of European nations and placed it in the hands of a more or less unaccountable EU bureaucracy.

Any solution that doesn't involve building a fence to control access to the United States through regulated border checkpoints is doomed to failure -- and any solution that rewards those here illegally is a surrender of the national interest.

Posted by: Greg at 11:24 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 563 words, total size 4 kb.

Otherwise the Houston Chroinicle missed the big story while reporting on the reaction of the Hispanic community (especially among those here illegally) to changes in HPD policies on working with immigration officials.

Immigration activist Maria Jimenez is quoted extensively in the article. But the attribution of comments becoenm indirect in the final paragraph.

"Everything is stalled on immigration reform," she said, but she nonetheless urged those who are eligible to vote, or who have family members who are, to cast their ballots in the upcoming election.

I've got no problem with her urging people to vote if they are eligible. I want to see every eligible voter vote. But this sentence could be read as a claim that Jimenez advocated the those ineligible to vote should vote if they have an eligible family member but are not eligible to vote themselves. I hope that she is not urging that fraudulent votes be cast. If that is what she called for, reporter Cynthia Leonor Garza missed the big story.

However, I hope that we are just seeing sloppy reporting/editting at the Houston Chronicle. It would not be the first time.

Posted by: Greg at 10:05 PM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 209 words, total size 1 kb.

Yeah, it was a publicity stunt, but I think it indicates the fundamental lack of control we have of the border region, and the resulting lack of security.

Reports of an elephant crossing the river or people trying to smuggle an elephant across were rampant Tuesday while an elaborate political stunt was taking shape near the mouth of the Rio Grande.

It was a while later that the stunt, which was a photo shoot, was abruptly met by federal agents.

“The elephant never made landfall into Mexico, but I tell you something, he could have made 15 laps back and forth, but no one showed up,” said Raj Peter Bhakta, a former star on the NBC show “The Apprentice,” who also is a Republican candidate for the 13th District U.S. House of Representatives seat in Eastern Pennsylvania.

Three elephants, two African and an Asian, were taken out to a ranch near Boca Chica beach to perform, the 31-year-old Bhakta said.

He was in Brownsville to raise funds with friends and decided to get a first-hand look at border security while he was here, he said.

* * *

“If I can get an elephant led by a mariachi band into this country, I think Osama bin Laden could get across with all the weapons of mass destruction he could get into this country,” Bhakta said.

The only response from authorities was the arrival of the US Department of Agriculture, which seized the elephants because they were in a quarantine zone. The beasts wee released after they were sprayed for ticks.

Incredible!

Posted by: Greg at 12:25 PM | Comments (228) | Add Comment
Post contains 271 words, total size 2 kb.

So not only does Mexico intend to continue violating American sovereignty by aiding its citizens as they illegally cross the border into the United States, now they want the UN to tell the United States it cannot act to stop the passage of these Mexicn citizens by building a fence inside the borders of the United States!

Mexico's foreign secretary said Monday the country may take a dispute over U.S. plans to build a fence on the Mexican border to the United Nations.

Luis Ernesto Derbez told reporters in Paris, his first stop on a European tour, that a legal investigation was under way to determine whether Mexico has a case.

The Mexican government last week sent a diplomatic note to Washington criticizing the plan for 700 miles of new fencing along the border. President-elect Felipe Calderon also denounced the plan, but said it was a bilateral issue that should not be put before the international community.

Derbez said Monday after meeting with French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy that it was a "shame" U.S. immigration policy had been used for what he claimed was a short-term political gain in the lead-up to midterm elections in the U.S. in November.

He said he discussed the issue with Douste-Blazy, and planned to bring it up in meetings with his Spanish and Italian counterparts during visits to Madrid and Rome. He vowed to work on the case until the "very last day" of President Vicente Fox's term, which ends Dec. 1.

The U.S. Senate approved the border fence bill last month and President Bush has said he will sign it into law - despite last-minute pleas from the Mexican government for a veto.

"What should be constructed is a bridge in relations between the two countries," Derbez said.

Well, that would mean we need to tell both Mexico AND the UN that they can go to hell. This is entirely an internal matter, not subject to UN interference according to the UN charter. No question of human rights is impacted here.

Of course, if the UN does order the US to stop building the fence and allow unfettered illegal immigration, they would have no reason to object when the 82nd Airborne chose to "illegally immigrate" to Mexico with the assistance of the US Air Force and the US demanded that the Mexican government accede to its demand that the Mexican authorities unconditionally surrender to the United States and submit to annexation.

Posted by: Greg at 12:31 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 422 words, total size 3 kb.

That is how this case should be handled.

Deny the claim.

Dismiss the suit.

Deport the plaintiffs.

A group of illegal immigrants who worked for Wendy's International Inc. is suing the restaurant chain because the company fired them after discovering it had missed a deadline for joining a federal program that would have helped them attain legal status.

The lawsuit, filed Friday in state district court in Houston, is a companion to a similar class-action suit filed last month in Dallas against Dublin, Ohio-based Wendy's, its subsidiary Cafe Express and the Houston-based business law firm Boyar & Miller.

The immigrants, who worked for Cafe Express, are seeking unspecified damages.

Between the two lawsuits, 40 illegal immigrants say they were fired after the company recently found that Boyar & Miller, the law firm Wendy's had hired, never filed paperwork for a 2001 legalization program that allowed immigrants with employer sponsorship or an American spouse to apply for citizenship.

Once the discovery was made, Wendy's was forced by law to fire the employees because of their illegal status. Immigrants in the program would have been insulated from being fired.

They are here illegally.

They had no right to be employed.

The company had no obligation to participate in the program.

The law required the firings.

As such, I don't see the basis for any legitimate claim -- and indeed, I only see the basis for the federal government to impose sanctions against Wendy's for employing the border-jumping immigration criminals in the first place.

So it is time for the federal government to do their duty in this case.

Round 'em up!

Ship em's back!

Rawhide!

Posted by: Greg at 01:49 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 279 words, total size 2 kb.

We keep getting this nonsense from Vicente Fox, the President Pendejo of Mexico.

Mexican President Vicente Fox, who leaves office Dec. 1, has called the barrier "shameful" and compared it to the Berlin Wall. His spokesman yesterday urged Bush to veto the bill.

"This decision hurts bilateral relations, goes against the spirit of cooperation needed to guarantee security on the common border, creates a climate of tension in border communities," Ruben Aguilar told reporters.

I’ll tell you what – if you would keep your border jumpers and drug smugglers out of our country, and we wouldn’t need to build a fence. But since you and your country encourage and profit from both the trafficking in illegal drugs and the trafficking in human beings, we need it. Look in the mirror if you want to know why it has come to this.
Maybe your successor will do a better job with this matter.

Posted by: Greg at 10:35 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 157 words, total size 1 kb.

We keep getting this nonsense from Vicente Fox, the President Pendejo of Mexico.

Mexican President Vicente Fox, who leaves office Dec. 1, has called the barrier "shameful" and compared it to the Berlin Wall. His spokesman yesterday urged Bush to veto the bill.

"This decision hurts bilateral relations, goes against the spirit of cooperation needed to guarantee security on the common border, creates a climate of tension in border communities," Ruben Aguilar told reporters.

I’ll tell you what – if you would keep your border jumpers and drug smugglers out of our country, and we wouldn’t need to build a fence. But since you and your country encourage and profit from both the trafficking in illegal drugs and the trafficking in human beings, we need it. Look in the mirror if you want to know why it has come to this.
Maybe your successor will do a better job with this matter.

Posted by: Greg at 10:35 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 162 words, total size 1 kb.

Arizona Democrats want Republicans to denounce and apologize for one of their own – because they don’t like his ideas on immigration reform.

Several Arizona Democrats are calling on Republicans to denounce controversial comments by a prominent Mesa representative and take steps toward meaningful immigration reform, including tough sanctions on employers who hire illegal immigrants.

The comments last week by Rep. Russell Pearce advocating a return to a mass-deportation program from the 1950s called "Operation Wetback" have outraged many in the Latino community. But the state Republican Party has been silent on the issue, and a spokesman said the party has decided not to comment on the statements by Pearce, a House leader and one of the GOP's leading voices on immigration issues.

* * *

"We need to secure the border and go after employers hiring illegally," [Democrat Rpresentative Steve] Gallardo said. "We need comprehensive reform that is meaningful and successful, not a failed policy from the 1950s."

Actually, the program in question didn’t fail – it was remarkably successful in cutting the number of folks illegally entering and working in the country.

Fifty-three years ago, when newly elected Dwight Eisenhower moved into the White House, America's southern frontier was as porous as a spaghetti sieve. As many as 3 million illegal migrants had walked and waded northward over a period of several years for jobs in California, Arizona, Texas, and points beyond.

President Eisenhower cut off this illegal traffic. He did it quickly and decisively with only 1,075 United States Border Patrol agents - less than one-tenth of today's force. The operation is still highly praised among veterans of the Border Patrol.

* * *

[O]n June 17, 1954, what was called "Operation Wetback" began. Because political resistance was lower in California and Arizona, the roundup of aliens began there. Some 750 agents swept northward through agricultural areas with a goal of 1,000 apprehensions a day. By the end of July, over 50,000 aliens were caught in the two states. Another 488,000, fearing arrest, had fled the country.

By mid-July, the crackdown extended northward into Utah, Nevada, and Idaho, and eastward to Texas.

By September, 80,000 had been taken into custody in Texas, and an estimated 500,000 to 700,000 illegals had left the Lone Star State voluntarily.

Unlike today, Mexicans caught in the roundup were not simply released at the border, where they could easily reenter the US. To discourage their return, Swing arranged for buses and trains to take many aliens deep within Mexico before being set free.

Tens of thousands more were put aboard two hired ships, the Emancipation and the Mercurio. The ships ferried the aliens from Port Isabel, Texas, to Vera Cruz, Mexico, more than 500 miles south.

Now you can argue about whether such a program would be desirable today, but to call it a “failed policy” is clearly not accurate. Given that there were only about 3 million illegals in this country at the time, it is hard to argue that a program that got rid of half of them constitutes a failure. And it is certainly clear that the program was more successful than anything that is going on now.

Maybe the best answer would be to include such a program along with stiffer employer sanctions, a border fence, and proposals put in place other proposals suggested by both Democrats and Republicans – crackdowns on human smugglers and the use of increased technology. I suppose I’d even be open to a guest worker program – once we get the numbe of people illegally in this country down by 90-95%.

But apologize for floating the idea of trying a policy that worked? I donÂ’t think so.

Posted by: Greg at 10:34 AM | Comments (48) | Add Comment
Post contains 623 words, total size 4 kb.

Recognizing that the policy in place for fourteen years was flawed, the Houston Police Department has modified its handling of immigration issues.

Under fire in recent months over its policy toward illegal immigrants, the Houston Police Department is unveiling new procedures today to allow more cooperation with federal agents trying to catch criminals living in the country illegally.

Officers still will not inquire about the immigration status of people they haven't arrested, so the changes are unlikely to quiet critics who have labeled Houston a "sanctuary city" for illegal immigrants.

But the department is making several key revisions.

An announcement is expected today, less than two weeks after the shooting death of police officer Rodney Johnson caused simmering opposition to the department policy to flare anew. An illegal immigrant who previously had been deported is charged in the slaying.

Now what this means is that HPD won't go on ignoring violations of immigration laws, but will instead cooperate with federal authorities .

Among the changes to take effect this week:

•The department will hold people detained or arrested for traffic violations or other minor crimes — Class C misdemeanors — if warrant checks show they are wanted by federal agents for defying an order to leave the country or for returning after being deported in connection with a criminal case. Under existing policy, police generally did not hold such people for federal authorities, even if officers were aware of the federal warrants.

•The department will allow immigration agents unfettered access to the city's two jails, as they have had in the Harris County jail, and officers will start asking all arrestees whether they are citizens.

•Fingerprints of anyone booked into the jails without proper identification will be checked against a national fingerprint database. That could help officers identify wanted criminals, including people wanted for serious immigration violations, police say.

Now the policy does not go far enough, in my book. HPD officers should inquire about the immigration status of ALL individuals arrested or cited and then notify federal authorities of those here illegally. This is, however, a good start.

And for those who argue that immigration is a federal issue and that the local cops should not be involved in enforcing such laws, would you care to let us know what other federal laws you don't want cops enforcing?

Kidnapping?

Terrorism?

Drug trafficking?

Come on, surely there must be some other federal law besides the one against border jumping that you don't believe local cops should enforce.

And interestingly enough, the policy change was expedited by the murder of HPD Officer Rodney Johnson by a previously-deported, child-molesting, border-jumping immigration criminal.

The death of officer Rodney Johnson expedited the Houston Police Department's new policy of asking people arrested in minor crimes for identification and running criminal background checks on those who cannot provide it, but the change was being formulated before he was killed during the arrest of an illegal immigrant, Mayor Bill White said Sunday.

"That did provide an additional impetus to bring this to conclusion, but it was in the works anyway," White said at a news conference Sunday formally announcing the change. "Both Chief (Hurtt) and I, after that death, we asked for an expedited review of everything we could to identify people who are wanted (for criminal activity)."

I wonder -- will Houston city councilwoman Ada Edwards call Mayor White and Chief Hurtt "pimps" for making the change, as she did Councilwoman Shelley Sekula-Gibbs when the GOP congressional candidate courageously called for the policy's change on the day of Johnson's funeral?

Posted by: Greg at 10:19 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 614 words, total size 4 kb.

I mean after all, just because they are charged with drug offenses doesn't mean that they shoud be kicked out of the country, does it -- even if they entered illegally?

The Denver district attorney's office under gubernatorial candidate Bill Ritter approved plea bargains that prevented the deportation of illegal and legal immigrants charged with drug, assault and other crimes.

The office allowed defendants to plead guilty to trespassing on agricultural land instead of the crimes they actually were accused of 152 times from 1998 through 2004. Other counties - Jefferson, Adams and Arapahoe - had only 75 convictions combined for the crime, according to court records.

Former Denver District Attorney Norm Early, who was Ritter's predecessor, laughed when he heard about the farm charges in urban Denver.

"I reviewed all my case dispositions, and I never remember that coming up," he said.

A review of 15 of the agricultural trespass cases in Denver showed that heroin and cocaine charges, theft of motor vehicles and domestic violence crimes - miles away from any farm or open land - were transformed into agricultural trespass.

"This plea agreement was reached with the the specific purpose of not pleading guilty to an offense that would subject (the defendant) to deportation proceedings," wrote a defense attorney in a motion filed in a Denver court Oct. 11, 2000.

The defendant, Ernesto Leon Reyes, was a resident alien who was initially charged with five drug counts related to his possession and intention to distribute 2,000 grams of methamphetamine.

If convicted of the drug charge, Reyes could have been deported after serving time. Instead, after pleading guilty to the trespass on agricultural land charge, Reyes received probation and stayed in the United States.

Did you folks get that one -- drug dealers remained in this country because the DA's office didn't want to subject them to the "hardship" of going back where they came from. Sounds like prosecutorial malfeasance to me.

And now Bill Ritter and the Democrats want him to be Governor of Colorado.

Vote Republican in Colorado and the rest of the country for every office -- public safety and America's borders depend on it.

Posted by: Greg at 09:51 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 384 words, total size 2 kb.

There was clearly no merit to this suit -- the law is clear that illegal immigrant parents of American citizens have no right to stay in this country simply because they managed to breed while breaking this country's laws. And there is no legitimate counstitutional claim here, either.

A federal judge struck a blow Friday to the hopes of an immigration activist who has taken refuge in a Chicago church to avoid deportation, dismissing her lawsuit against the government.

Elvira Arellano, 31, a Mexican national, had hoped that U.S. District Judge Amy J. St. Eve would rule that deporting her would violate the constitutional rights of her 7-year-old son, Saul, an American citizen.

But St. Eve ruled that no one's rights would be violated by deporting Arellano back to Mexico. She did say, however, the child would suffer a hardship.

"The question before the court is whether that hardship is of constitutional magnitude -- under any construction of the alleged facts, it is not," St. Eve said in her order.

St. Eve concluded that the pending removal order does not prevent Saul from exercising his rights of citizenship.

"Saul will not suffer any injury to his constitutional right to remain in the United States," she said.

Indeed, I'm struck by this observation that the Constitution is not violated just because all options available to a person have negative aspects to them.

"In fact, the injury Saul alleges is not the same as the injury his mother will suffer. Her injury is compelled removal; his is the unenviable fork in the road [i.e., whether to uproot or to live apart from his mother] that arises as a result of his mother's compelled removal," the judge said.

Yes, the boy can stay in the United States -- whether under the guardianship of someone designated by his mother or as a ward of the state. Or Saul's mother may elect to take her son back to Mexico, which in no way impairs his citizenship rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The choice is entirely in the hands of Elvira Arellano.

But then again, this all comes down to choices made by the mother.

Arellano was supposed to surrender for deportation to Mexico on Aug. 15.

Instead, she and her son moved into a cramped room in the storefront church sandwiched between a bank and a beauty parlor in Chicago's heavily Puerto Rican Humboldt Park neighborhood.

She has frequently told reporters visiting the church she wants to stay in the United States to provide a better life for herself and her son.

"I'm not going to leave. This is a place where God has put me, this is God's will and I'm going to stay here," Arellano has said.

Arellano first was deported from the United States shortly after illegally crossing the border in 1997, according to immigration enforcement. She says she returned within days, went on to live in Oregon for three years and moved to Chicago in 2000.

She was arrested in 2002 at O'Hare International Airport, where she was employed as a cleaning woman, and subsequently convicted of working under a false Social Security number.

So you see, this woman has broken American law multiple times, twice sneaking into this country like a thief in the night, working illegally in this country and fraudulently using false documentation. Violating her deportation order and hiding out in a church in an attempt to avoid the workings of American law (gee -- where are the church-state separationists on this one?) Oh, yeah -- and choosing to have a child.

The time has come for a SWAT team to enter the church to arrest Elvira Arellano.

Cuff her.

Stuff her.

Send her back.

Oh, yes -- and indict Rev. Walter Coleman, pastor of Adalberto United Methodist Church for harboring a fugitive.

And by the way -- this story presents the best available argument for amending the Constituion to do away with birthright citizenship for the children of border-jumping immigration criminals.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Conservative Cat, Bacon Bits, Bullwinkle Blog, Third World County, Adam's Blog, Stuck On Stupid, Clash of Civilizations, Random Yak, Blue Star Chronicles, Pursuing Holiness, Samantha Burns, Uncooperative Blogger, Stop the ACLU, Church & State, Is It Just Me?

Posted by: Greg at 09:40 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 708 words, total size 6 kb.

I know of few who advocate sending local police on immigration raids. On the other hand, many of us do insist that police should check the status of those arrested or cited in traffic stops. This is something that is happening more and more often around the country as police treat immigration violations like other illegal activity.

CHARLOTTE -- Police here operated for years under what amounts to a "don't ask, don't tell" policy toward illegal immigrants.

As elsewhere in the United States, law enforcement officers did not check the immigration status of people they came into contact with, and in the vast majority of cases, a run-in with the law carried little threat of deportation.

But that accommodation for the burgeoning illegal population ended abruptly in April, when the Mecklenburg County sheriff's office began to enforce immigration law, placing more than 100 people a month into deportation proceedings. Some of them had been charged with violent crimes, others with traffic infractions.

The program takes one of the most aggressive stances in the United States toward illegal immigrants, and officials in scores of communities, including Herndon and Loudoun County, have been considering adopting their own version. The House earlier this month was weighing a measure "reaffirming" the authority of local law enforcement agencies to arrest people on suspicion of violating immigration laws.

Some Latino leaders say the program here is contributing to a discriminatory climate in which Hispanic drivers feel as if they are being "hunted" by police. And some law enforcement agencies elsewhere have shied away from enforcing immigration laws, saying that doing so would rupture any trust they have developed in Latino neighborhoods.

But advocates see it as a way to catch illegal immigrants who slip through porous federal enforcement measures and then run afoul of state or local police.

Perhaps the best way of explaining the goal of the program is found here, in the words of an immigration attorney.

"They're putting the pressure on these people. They're scaring them. People say we can't deport 10 million. But you don't have to. If you deport enough of them, others will go back voluntarily because they don't want to live in these conditions."

You deter behavior by giving it a negative consequence. While there will always be some illegal immigrants, we can deter folks from coming and encourage them to leave by making the conditions a bit more inhospitable.

Police check warrants and records. Checking citizenship is one more legitimate inquiry, given the plague of illegals that have come into this country in recent years. LetÂ’s see more of it.

Posted by: Greg at 12:39 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 444 words, total size 3 kb.

I wonder -- would the Houston Chronicle come out in favor of allowing bank robbers to keep any interest they earn or investment income derived from the money they stole?? I doubt it -- they would rightly argue that it is a case of permitting criminals to profit from their crime.

Why, then, should they allow border-jumping immigration criminals to profit from their violations of the law by making their children citizens if they are born in this country? Why should we permit "anchor babies"? I see no reason -- but the Houston Chronicle wants to allow lawbreaking foreigners to profit in this way.

They start by arguing against the scenario that has pregnant women coming north to have babies.

The evidence is anecdotal, but plausible. A growing number of undocumented immigrants, border health officials say, are bearing children in U.S. hospitals. The resulting cost is immense. It's believable, because although immigrant women have fewer children than they did 20 years ago, the number of immigrant women in this country is higher.

That's a far different scenario from the more sensational one peddled by some immigration-control activists. Droves of pregnant Latin American women, they suggest, are marching here across desert, mountain and river expressly to bear American children. Their so-called "anchor babies" ostensibly are part of the parents' plans to reduce their chances of deportation from the United States.

The distinction between these two accounts is an important one. In response to the so-called anchor baby trend, some lawmakers are proposing amending the U.S. Constitution to deny the citizenship now conferred on all infants born in the United States.

I'm willing to accept that argument -- though the statistics in some border counties would appear to confirm the thesis dismissed by the Chronicle.

But that does not logically lead to this conclusion.

A coherent immigration system would effectively police the borders, while creating sane laws for visiting or guest workers. Part of that law should include required payment into a bare-bones insurance pool. Obviously, such insurance would include prenatal and delivery care.

The way to ease the financial anchor around border hospitals' necks is not to kill the hopes of children starting life there. Stripping these infants of their chance to strive, invest and sacrifice on behalf of the land where they're born could cost this society infinitely more than the price of a hospital stay.

Except, of course, that granting citiZenship to such children encourages illegal immigrants to stay, to return after deportation, and allws for eventual line-jumping privileges as family members of US citizens when teh children are older. Let's not give any benefit to those who break our nation's laws by their mere presence int he country -- let's clarify the Constitution to make it crystal clear that the Fourteenth Amendment does not (and, if one considers the legislative history, was never meant to apply) to the children of those who are in the US in violation of our laws.

Posted by: Greg at 10:23 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 505 words, total size 3 kb.

LetÂ’s ignore the impact on wages and crime statistics. LetÂ’s just look at the impact at local hospitals.

Rising numbers of undocumented immigrants from Mexico and Central America are streaming into Texas to give birth, straining hospitals and costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, health officials say.

Doctors and health officials say they are overwhelmed by both the new arrivals and those immigrant mothers who already are in the state. Even Houston's feeling the pinch. An estimated 70 percent to 80 percent of the 10,587 births at Ben Taub General Hospital and Lyndon B. Johnson General Hospital last year were to undocumented immigrants, administrators say.

Also feeling the strain is Starr County, an already poor South Texas county that has the region's only taxpayer-supported hospital district.

Immigrants "want a U.S.-born baby" and know that emergency room staffers don't collect any money up front, said Dr. Mario Rodriguez, an obstetrician in Starr County.

"The word is out: Come to Starr County and get delivered for free. Why pay $1,000 in Mexico when you can get it for free?" Rodriguez said.

''When we are separated only by the distance of the river, it's easy to do," Starr County hospital administrator Thalia Muñoz said. "It's gotten worse, and it's because the economy in Mexico is not good and because we provide all these benefits."

Yep – you and I, dear taxpayers, are providing “free delivery” for Mexican children who then have all the rights of American citizenship because of their parents’ wrong-doing. And all while we are expected to pay our own medical bills.

What does it cost?

Starr County Memorial Hospital had $3.6 million in uncollected medical bills in 2005, up from $1.5 million in 2002. The total when fiscal 2006 ends on Sept. 30 is expected to hit $3.9 million, chief financial officer Rafael Olivarez said. Unpaid bills for the past five years will reach nearly $13 million, he said.

To make up for the shortfall, Starr County's hospital district is proposing a 25 percent tax hike.

Already, the U.S. government is pitching in, setting aside $1 billion in Medicaid funds to pay for emergency care received by undocumented migrants over the next four years.

But Olivarez said getting the reimbursements isn't easy. Federal officials ''told us at a meeting they would pay us about 20 cents on the dollar," he said. "But it's better than nothing."

And here in Houston, the cost is staggering.

In all, 57,072 patients visited the district's hospitals, clinics and health centers last year, and nearly a fifth were undocumented, Rasp said. The cost of their treatment was $97.3 million, up from $55 million in 2002.

One county spending nearly $100,000,000 care for criminal aliens who violate our laws by their very presence.

It is time to stop.

Ask their status. Refuse them all but life-saving medical care.

Round ‘em up.

Ship ‘em back.

Rawhide!

Posted by: Greg at 10:47 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 490 words, total size 3 kb.

UPDATE: I seem to have used a certain term in this post, a term that I have always understood as referring to immigration status, but which i am now informed is racially/ethnically insensitive. I apologize. I won't change the word on my site, though, because I do not go back and hide my mistakes or bury evidence of my own errors.

After all, they are all just here looking for a better life and honest work. They certainly don't contribute to the crime problem.

Yeah, right.

I'd suggest you ask Officer Rodney Johnson, a 12 year veteran of the Houston police Department. Unfortunately, you can't.

A simple traffic stop — as routine for Rodney Johnson as putting on his uniform or waving to the residents of the southside neighborhoods he often patrolled — turned suddenly tragic Thursday evening when the veteran Houston police officer was shot and killed as he sat in the front seat of his patrol car near Hobby Airport.

When other officers arrived minutes later at the scene in the 9300 block of Randolph, a handcuffed man remained in the back seat of the squad car along with a pistol thought to have been used in the shooting.

Just after 5 p.m., Johnson had stopped a pickup with two people inside. It was unclear why he detained or handcuffed the driver, though an officer familiar with the incident said he had no identification on him. At least one female passenger left, possibly with Johnson's permission, but Police Chief Harold Hurtt said he thought officers had found the woman and were bringing her to headquarters for questioning.

A source familiar with the scene said Johnson was shot four times through the plastic shield separating the front and rear seats. Johnson managed to push his emergency button before collapsing. The 12-year veteran of the department was taken to Ben Taub General Hospital where he was pronounced dead.

A tragedy, beyond all question. Houston mourns for a hero who died in a senseless shooting.

But why the shooting over the traffic stop? Because the shooter was going to face deportation -- again.

[Homicide Capt. Dale] Brown said the suspect did not tell investigators why he fired.

"Nothing definitive ... ," Brown said. "My personal belief is that he was upset about being arrested rather than being written a ticket. And I believe he was upset, because he knew he was going to be discovered as a deported alien, and that he was going to spend several years in a federal prison before being deported."

[Juan Leonardo] Quintero was deported as an illegal felon in 1999, following a charge of indecency with a child, Brown said.

Court records show Quintero was given deferred adjudication in that case. Brown said Quintero's previous criminal record included an arrest for driving while intoxicated, for driving with a suspended license and for failing to stop and give information after an automobile accident.

I guess he hoped that he could get away and avoid being sent back where he came from -- twice -- in violation of American laws. After all, what is the blood of a single American cop when compared to the right of a wetback child molester to stay in the US in violation of American laws?

Houston's ineffective and incompetent Chief of Police, Harold Hurtt, blames the feds for the shooting, and feels that the murder of one of his officers is no reason for Houston cops to start helping to enforce our nation's immigration laws, even though the first thing every wetback does upon entering the United States is to break the law.

After a capital-murder charge was filed against an illegal immigrant in connection with the death of Officer Rodney Johnson, Chief Harold Hurtt firmly defended the Houston Police Department's policy of not enforcing immigration laws.

"If the government would fulfill their responsibility of protecting the border," he told reporters Friday afternoon, "we probably would not be standing here today."

* * *

Hurtt called a provision sponsored by U.S. Rep. John Culberson, R-Houston, that would cut federal funding to police departments that did not enforce immigration laws "misguided and wrong" and said the measure would detract officers from dealing with more serious crimes.

I'll agree that the federal government needs to do more, but banning the enforcement of immigration violations by HPD is no more sensible than banning the arrest of those sought for other federal crimes.

I support the Culberson bill.

I support closing the border and fencing it off to keep these immigration criminals out of my country.

And I support the state of Texas quickly sending Juan Leonardo Quintero to Hell, where he belongs -- and billing Mexico for all expenses incurred in trying, housing, and executing him.

And to those of you offended by my use of the word "wetback", might I suggest that you can go set up the "Welcome Home" party for Quintero in his future infernal abode. a murdering, child-molesting border-jumping sumbag like him deserves no respect from any American.

Posted by: Greg at 02:43 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 845 words, total size 5 kb.

This is outrageous.

Some parents in Freeport were livid after they said a Velasco Elementary School assembly last week included a requirement that children say the pledge of allegiance to the Mexican flag.

One mother, who has a daughter enrolled at the school, told KTRH News she couldn’t believe a school assembly would include children holding small Mexican flags and reciting a pledge in Spanish. “Where is the sensitivity to the men and women who have fought and died for this country?” the mother asked.

Several parents have complained to the Brazosport Independent School District administration, school officials confirmed, but claims that students were required to recite a pledge to the Mexican flag were simply false, a school spokesman said.

Brazosport District Spokesman Stuart Dornburg said, “A group of parents, who are volunteers, did get up on stage and recite the pledge to the Mexican flag … the students did not recite the pledge.”

If you are so enamored of Mexico, it isnÂ’t all that far. And please make it a one-way trip.

Posted by: Greg at 11:13 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 195 words, total size 1 kb.

Even the paper from San Antonio, with its surfeit of illegal immigrants, is willing and able to see why we need something more done to secure the border against border-jumping immigration criminals.

Imagine the folly of passing a law without the mechanism or the will to enforce it. Imagine if there were no penalties, no fines or jail sentences, for crimes like robbery.

People might get the notion that, despite the official ban, it was all right to steal.

This analogy applies to illegal immigration.

In 1986, President Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act, granting amnesty to almost 3 million people who were in this country illegally.

The legislation, while showing compassion to the immigrants already here, was not intended to create an open border, and to balance the amnesty, lawmakers included several provisions to strengthen the enforcement of immigration laws:

Sanctions for employers who knowingly hired illegal immigrants.

Increased border controls.

Programs to verify the immigration status of workers applying for welfare benefits.

Except for sporadic raids of employers who hired illegal immigrants, however, little changed. The immigrants lived in the shadows, but the lack of enforcement emboldened the workers and their employers. And, as a result, the illegal immigration population has swelled to 12 million.

Either we control our borders, or those illegally crossing our borders control us. We must have an immigration bill this year, with sanctions against both employers and border-jumpers.

Posted by: Greg at 10:10 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 251 words, total size 2 kb.

And its a damn site better than anything being done by leaders on the state and national level -- especially since Congress has abandoned the issue for this year.

Texas should deploy 10,000 state National Guard troops to the border and issue special worker cards for immigrants, gubernatorial candidate Kinky Friedman said Wednesday as part of his "Keep It Simple, Stupid Politician" plan.

* * *

Friedman said Texas should immediately deploy 10,000 National Guard troops to the border to reinforce several hundred who are there now.

"We've been waiting for 153 years for Washington to help us with the border. They're not going to do it," he said.

Friedman said he would require immigrants to buy "taxpayer I.D. cards" that would allow them to work legally in Texas, and proposed fines of up to $50,000 against employers who hire illegal immigrants without the card.

Now I don't know that Texas can issue its own immigration documents, but we at least have someone proposing a common sense plan.

For that matter, I suspect Kinky has scored points with some Houstonians with frank words about our other immigration problem -- Katrina evacuees whose presence has lowered our quality of life.

In a Houston campaign appearance, the maverick independent also expressed a dim view of Hurricane Katrina evacuees still in town.

"The musicians and artists have mostly moved back to New Orleans now," he said, according to KHOU (Channel 11). "The crackheads and the thugs have decided to stay here. They want to stay here. I think they got their hustle on, and we need to get ours."

He wants the state to give Houston $100 million for more police officers to deal with a spike in street crime related to the evacuees.

And yes, he does generalize a bit too broadly. But given the spike in crime associated with the low-lifes shipped here from New Orleans, the failure of many of the evacuees to take any part in supporting themselves, and the constant whining for hand-outs from those peole (we've got kids still using their evacuee status as an excuse for not bringing pens and paper to school -- a year after the storm), many Houstonians are ready to load them back onto the buses and send them back across the Louisiana state line.

Posted by: Greg at 10:16 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 395 words, total size 2 kb.

After all, if the House and/or Senate go Democrat this year, we will never get an amnesty-free border bill passed and signed.

A final decision on what do about immigration policy awaits a meeting this week of senior Republicans. But key lawmakers and aides who set the Congressional agenda say they now believe it would be politically risky to try to advance an immigration measure that would showcase party divisions and need to be completed in the 19 days Congress is scheduled to meet before breaking for the election.

President Bush had made comprehensive changes in immigration laws a priority, even making the issue the subject of a prime-time address, but House Republicans have been determined not to move ahead with any legislation that could be construed as amnesty for anyone who entered the country illegally. They held hearings around the country in recent weeks to contrast their enforcement-only bill with a Senate measure that could lead to citizenship for some.

“I don’t see how you bridge that divide between us and the Senate,” said Representative Peter T. King, Republican of New York and chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. “I don’t see it happening. I really don’t.”

Democrats say they are not surprised by the immigration impasse and believe some Republicans would prefer to keep the issue alive to stir conservative voters rather than reach a legislative solution.

This will not please the GOP base -- no matter how good the legislation the GOP leadership is preparing to deal with is.

With Congress reconvening Tuesday after an August break, Republicans in the House and Senate say they will focus on Pentagon and domestic security spending bills, port security legislation and measures that would authorize the administrationÂ’s terror surveillance program and create military tribunals to try terror suspects.

All of that is important -- and all of it should have been dealt with sooner. And the failure to deal with immigration issues because of divisions within the Congress simply means that an issue that resonates with many voters across the political spectrum will never pass in this Congress.

Posted by: Greg at 10:07 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 374 words, total size 2 kb.

The Houston Chronicle laments the high poverty statistics in parts of Texas -- but I believe they ignore something.

The U.S. Census Bureau released new poverty estimates on Wednesday. The outlook for Texas is troubling indeed, and should prompt self-examination from state leaders and voters both.

According to the new data, one in six Texans lived in poverty last year. And Texas was home to three of the nation's 10 poorest counties, including the top two — Cameron County, with 42 percent below the poverty level, and Hidalgo County, with 41 percent. With 29 percent of its population poor, El Paso County was listed as the country's fourth least-prosperous.

A full quarter of all Texas children are poor, the Bureau's American Community Survey found. Almost 20 percent of Texans are economically deprived, which the government defined for a family of four as earning $19,971 or less. Only 13 percent of Americans overall were found to be poor.

The news was no more heartening in Houston. A full 29 percent of black families here were impoverished, a jump from 25 percent in 2000. Among Hispanics, the number living in poverty climbed to 30 percent from 26 percent. Fewer white Houstonians, 9 percent, were found to be poor.

Look at those Hispanic statistics -- what percentage of them are among the "undocumented" community. I recognized very quickly that the counties mentioned are among the most Hispanic -- and most illegal -- in the state.

And the statistics on African Americans? Do these numbers include the Katrina evacuees who we have welcomed into our midst -- many of whom are stuck in a cycle of chronic, generational dependence on public aid rather than work? We have witnessed this crew demanding ever more cash from the public teat so that they might avoid seeking and finding employment until they can return to their homes in the welfare state of Louisiana. Does this skew the numbers?

We don't get that sort of analysis -- because if such analysis was given, we might have obvious policy solutions for both that fly in the face of liberal dogman.

Posted by: Greg at 10:18 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 363 words, total size 2 kb.

Time for this country to quit being the patsy on illegal immigration -- and allowing the border-jumping invaders to become so comfortable that they think they have anything approaching the rights of a US citizen.

More cases like this one would be a good start.

The deportation Friday of a well-educated Venezuelan couple who admitted lying about their citizenship when they registered to vote in Boone County has struck a chord among those who are in the United States illegally, their lawyer said.

Abraham E. Gomez, 46, and his wife, Mayen C. Gomez, 41, entered the United States legally on a visa, but became illegal when they overstayed, said attorney John Arnett.

Still, the couple, both of whom have college degrees, settled in Union, obtained jobs, and sent their two children to school.

Over the past six years, along with dozens, if not hundreds of illegal immigrants in Boone County, they have become part of the community, Arnett said, their status almost forgotten.

It may have been their downfall, he said.

"After being here for a while, they got lulled into a false sense of security," he said.

"They don't think that way now, that's for sure."

Their arrest - along with the arrests of dozens of illegal immigrants in connection with an investigation into the Northern Kentucky home-building industry - has not gone unnoticed among those in the United States illegally.

Arnett said he knows several such people who have returned home for fear of being caught.

In 2004, the Gomezes went to get their driving licenses. While at the courthouse, they registered to vote, falsely checking the box that said they were United States citizens.

"They knew they were not citizens of this country when they checked the form, but they had no criminal intent," Arnett said. "In their country, they are required to vote."

They were arrested earlier this year after agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement received an anonymous tip. In a plea agreement with federal prosecutors, they pleaded guilty to falsely claiming they were U.S. citizens in exchange for a recommended sentence of probation and deportation.

That sentenced was imposed Friday.

The conviction also means the couple is prohibited from ever entering the United States again, even as visitors, Arnett said.

And don't let the screen door hit you in the ass on the way out.

Posted by: Greg at 10:26 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 401 words, total size 3 kb.

Under no circumstances should any alien not yet legally admitted to the United States be held to have any rights beyond the right to continue breathing.

The case of a Juárez woman who said she was physically abused in 2001 by an immigration officer at the Paso del Norte Bridge prompted a decision by the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals this month that non-U.S. citizens have constitutional rights at ports of entry.

"It doesn't matter whether you are a U.S. citizen or not, you have rights. It may seem obvious but nobody had said it before," said El Paso lawyer Lynn Coyle, who represents the woman, Maria Antonieta Martinez-Aguero.

The decision sets a precedent and could lead to more lawsuits on the border, legal experts said.

The decision came in response to a preliminary motion by the immigration officer seeking to dismiss the case on grounds that his alleged victim did not have constitutional rights to be free from false imprisonment and the excessive use of force by law enforcement officers because she had not made official entry into the United States, among other reasons.

The officer, Humberto Gonzalez, now a Border Patrol agent, denies the abuse.

"By no means did he do the things she said he did," said his lawyer, Jeanne "Cezy" Collins.

What this decision means, in effect, is that the US Constitution applies to foreigners before they are even in the United States as defined by the laws of the United States and relevant court precedents dating back decades. Stupid decision -- even more stupid than holding that illegal aliens have rights under the Constitution and laws of the United States.

Posted by: Greg at 02:45 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 282 words, total size 2 kb.

Imagine that -- a cop who catches lawbreakers acting to see that the law is enforced. Who could oppose that? Besides the ACLU and groups that support border-jumping immigration criminals, of course.

The Rhode Island State Police will review a trooper's actions during a July 11 traffic stop on Route 95 in Richmond, when he detained 14 people who he suspected were in the country illegally, a state police spokesman said.

The internal investigation stems from a complaint the Rhode Island Affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union filed this week, on behalf of 11 of the 14 people involved, said Maj. Steven O'Donnell.

The ACLU took the case after the driver and several passengers alleged during a Providence news conference last month that Trooper Thomas Chabot overstepped his authority by taking immigration enforcement into his own hands.

They also alleged that Chabot threatened to shoot anyone who tried to escape the van that morning as it was escorted to the Bureau of Immigrations and Customs Enforcement office in Providence.

The traffic stop occurred at 6:30 a.m. near Exit 4 south, where Chabot was posted at a speed checkpoint. Chabot's report states that he pulled the van's driver over for failing to signal a lane change.

After the driver provided a license and ID, Chabot asked the passengers for identification, his report states. When only a few could do so, he then "asked if any of them had immigration credentials proving their U.S. citizenship."

None did. Chabot contacted ICE authorities, and he and another trooper escorted the van to the ICE office on Dyer Avenue in Providence. The 14 were found to be in the country illegally, and they now face deportation.

Who came up with the goofy idea that illegal aliens have any rights beyond breathing?

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

Posted by: Greg at 10:24 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 314 words, total size 2 kb.

Because a group of politicians intervened in the case.

And also so that the deportation order will be mooted if Congress passes amnesty.

Eleven illegal immigrants from the Chicago area, arrested in a high-profile nationwide sweep, received an unexpected reprieve Monday after elected officials and the public weighed in on their behalf.

An immigration judge in Chicago granted the former employees of IFCO Systems a one-year stay of deportation. In return, the immigrants pledged not to appeal the deportation orders.

The delay gives the immigrants a chance to stay in the country if Congress approves a bill granting legal status to many of the nation's 11 million to 12 million illegal immigrants. That measure has stalled, for now, but many analysts think the prospects will improve after the November elections.

DHS officials are weighing the option of appealing this decision.

Marc Raimondi, a Department of Homeland Security spokesman, said the department was still evaluating the judge's decision but would likely appeal a one-year extension.

"In order for the immigration system to have any integrity, the laws have to be enforceable," Raimondi said. "We aren't going to be influenced by public sentiment. We are going to be influenced by enforcing the immigration laws."

That doesn't sit well with one politician.

[Congressman Luis] Gutierrez will ask the Department of Homeland Security to suspend all deportations to give Congress time to pass a legalization bill, the congressman's spokesman Scott Frotman said. Frotman said it does not make sense to deport illegal immigrants "because these are people who would ultimately be affected by the law."

And I'm asking DHS to expedite every single deportation case -- and I'm asking the people of Gutierrez's district to vote him out and replace him with a congressman who believes in enforcing American law.

Posted by: Greg at 05:23 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 314 words, total size 2 kb.

Vin Suprynowicz of the Las Vegas Review-Journal is a libertarian, and admits that on principle he supports open borders -- but only once teh welfare state is eliminated and replaced with a true system of free enterprise capitalism. Absent that, he argues that our nation's immigration laws should be vigorously enforced.

We can't even get the federal government to stop enforcing their absurd marijuana laws when we so direct them by majority vote. So, if they "have to enforce all the laws," why in hell won't they enforce sensible immigration laws, currently on the books, that have overwhelming public support?

In support of that position, Vin takes on the standard "pragmatic" arguments against even trying to enforce those laws.

The "pragmatic" objections are pretty lame.

"Who would replace them in the work force?"

All the regular work -- and lots more -- got done when millions of boys went into the armed services on short notice in 1941. If we need more workers, stop sending out "disability" checks to drunks. When they get hungry, they'll work.

"But once we give them amnesty, they'll pay more in taxes than they cost us."

Actually, under the proposed Senate amnesty, illegals could cost us billions more. Remember, the reason 85 percent of Mexicans currently in this country are here illegally is because most don't have the education or job skills to beat out would-be immigrants from Asia, Africa, or Europe in any fair contest for high-paid jobs, in the first place.

"Actually, the reverse is true: The federal government will give billions to the illegal aliens," writes author Bradley Steffens and Las Vegas-based certified financial adviser and tax preparer Scot Fairchild. Nothing in the Senate amnesty legislation "prevents illegal aliens from qualifying for the earned income credit. All a family of four has to do is file a tax return showing earnings lower than $37,263 (tax year 2005) and it will be eligible for the EIC. The credit can be up to $4,400 (tax year 2005) per family. A family filing five years of back taxes could receive a check from the government for $22,000. Multiply that by the estimated 3 million illegal alien families, and the government could pay out $66 billion in earned income credits, roughly $660 for each of America's 100 million taxpayers."

What's that? "But it's not feasible to round up and deport millions of illegal aliens"?

Wrong. Former Managing Editor John Dillin recalled in the July 6 Christian Science Monitor how "Fifty-three years ago, when newly elected Dwight Eisenhower moved into the White House, America's southern frontier was as porous as a spaghetti sieve." We had 3 million illegal migrants.

"President Eisenhower cut off this illegal traffic ... quickly and decisively with only 1,075 United States Border Patrol agents -- less than one-tenth of today's force."

Ike appointed retired Gen. Joseph "Jumpin' Joe" Swing, a former West Point classmate and veteran of the 101st Airborne, as the new INS commissioner. On June 17, 1954, "Operation Wetback" began. Over the objections of "business-friendly" politicians like Lyndon Johnson and Pat McCarran, some 750 agents swept northward through agricultural areas with a goal of 1,000 apprehensions a day. By the end of July, more than 50,000 aliens were caught. An additional 488,000, fearing arrest, fled the country. By September, 80,000 had been taken into custody in Texas alone, and an estimated 500,000 to 700,000 illegals had voluntarily fled the Lone Star State. Illegal migration had dropped 95 percent by the late 1950s.

Yeah, that's right -- jobs will get done if we incentivize work rather than idleness. The newly legalized immigrants will have a claim on more taxpayer money. A serious effort at rounding up some illegals will lead many more to return home. Remember those three arguments and use them the next time you are told why we cannot make a serious effort to enforce the immigration laws we have rather than pass new ones.

Posted by: Greg at 07:21 AM | Comments (67) | Add Comment
Post contains 669 words, total size 4 kb.

UPDATE: I seem to have used a certain term in this post, a term that I have always understood as referring to immigration status, but which i am now informed is racially/ethnically insensitive. I apologize. I won't change the word on my site, though, because I do not go back and hide my mistakes or bury evidence of my own errors.

Something has got to be done to fix this problem -- not only do border-jumping immmigration criminals walk among us with impunity, those arrested on serious criminal charges are let free -- even when they are repeat offenders eligible for deportation.

TAMPA - The immigration agent didn't like the looks of Manuel Pardo's Social Security card. When the 20-year-old from Mexico was questioned, he admitted it was fake.

Pardo and several other immigrants were picked up at a brothel in Dover that night in June 2003, a Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office report shows. Five months earlier, Pardo tried to attack some people with a shovel and was charged with aggravated assault. He served 24 days in county jail.

After Pardo was picked up at the brothel, the federal immigration agent ordered him to remain in Orient Road Jail until he could be transferred for deportation proceedings.

Federal officials said Pardo was deported, but three weeks ago he was back in the county jail, charged with driving without a valid license. Although it is a felony to return to the United States after deportation, he was released on $500 bail.

He walked out nine hours after he was picked up.

It seems we don't have sufficient jail space to hold criminal wetbacks pending their deportation -- even when the charges are directly related to their immigration status.

It seems clear that one step needed is the adoption of a policy that either expeditites or eliminates hearings in such situations. Our policy needs to be that such deportations occur quickly and efficiently.

Load 'em up! Ship 'em back! Rawhide!

Posted by: Greg at 09:41 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 336 words, total size 2 kb.

Looks like another instance of the Mexican government acting to undermine American sovereignty.

Two Tucson-based immigrant-aid groups were expected to sign an agreement of hospitality with the Mexican government Tuesday evening.

Members of the Coalición de Derechos Humanos/Alianza Indígena Sin Fronteras and the faith-based No More Deaths movement were scheduled to sign the document, along with Jesus Lopez Quiroz of Mexico's National Institute of Migration and Enrique Flores Lopez of Sonora's State Commission for the Care of Migrants.

No More Deaths members say the agreement will formally allow the U.S.-based organizations to provide food, water, footwear and basic medical care to migrants on the Mexican side of the international border.

No More Deaths, which provides food, water and medical assistance to illegal entrants in distress on the U.S. side, has a new program of providing aid to migrants returned by U.S. authorities to Mexican ports of entry at Nogales and Agua Prieta.

The Coalición de Derechos Humanos/Alianza Indígena Sin Fronteras is a grass-roots organization that aims to promote respect for human and civil rights and fights what it calls the militarization of the southern border region.

When are we going to cut off aid to the Mexican government until it acts to stop, rather than assist, the violation of our border by its citizens? And will the American government take action against these groups that are clearly aiding and abetting the violation of American law?

Posted by: Greg at 08:20 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 255 words, total size 2 kb.