Citizens in Houston have announced a petition drive to put a measure on the ballot ending the de facto sanctuary policy for illegal immigrants.

The heated national debate on immigration may give a boost to the Houston group that wants local police to help crack down on illegal immigrants, but getting the proposition on the ballot still won't be easy.

"It is a lot of effort and takes a lot of volunteers to mount a campaign like this," said Bruce Hotze, who has helped organize several successful petition drives but so far is not involved in this one. "It can be done."

On Tuesday, a new group called Protect Our Citizens announced a petition drive to require a citywide November vote on the contentious issue of whether to allow city police to question people about their immigration status.

Even with the recent spotlight on immigration issues, getting the necessary 20,000 signatures from registered Houston voters by Sept. 1 will take organization, volunteers and money, analysts said.

"It's doable," said University of Houston political scientist and pollster Richard Murray. "They'd have to hit the ground running."

Protect Our Citizens director Mary Williams said the group is doing that. It was contacted Wednesday by several community leaders and residents who wanted to help with the project, she said.

"It's a very basic grass-roots type of reaction," Williams said.

Petition supporters want to change a Houston police order, which they call a "sanctuary policy," that prohibits officers from seeking information about the immigration status of people they encounter, and from detaining anyone solely for being in the country illegally.

It is time to pull up the welcome mat for illegals in Houston.

Posted by: Greg at 11:13 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 293 words, total size 2 kb.

Well, at least one GOP presidential hopeful is willing to step up and try to do something about illegal immigration. That candidate is Mitt Romney of Massachusetts.

Governor Mitt Romney is seeking an agreement with federal authorities that would allow Massachusetts state troopers to arrest undocumented immigrants for being in the country illegally.

Currently, State Police have no authority to arrest people on the basis of their immigration status alone, said Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom. If they arrest immigrants for violations of state law, troopers can call a centralized US Immigration and Customs Enforcement center in Vermont to check on their status, and can detain immigrants if federal officials request it.

Under the agreement Romney is seeking, troopers would have greatly expanded powers: They could check an immigrant's legal status during routine patrols such as during a traffic stop and decide whether the immigrant should be held.

``It's one more thing you can do to make this a less attractive place for illegal aliens to come to work," Romney said.

The governor has instructed his legal counsel to contact Immigration and Customs Enforcement to begin the process. The powers, Romney said, would give the State Police a way of ``finding and detaining illegal aliens in the ordinary course of business."

Federal immigration authorities would provide the troopers with 4 1/2 weeks of training in immigration laws and procedures, civil rights, and avoiding racial profiling.

If the proposal is approved, Massachusetts would join a handful of states and localities that have entered into such pacts since they were first authorized in 1996. That list includes Florida, Alabama, and a few counties in California and North Carolina, where a limited number of officers have been trained to enforce immigration laws.

This move is an exemplary one – and I encourage my own governor, Rick Perry, to implement the same policy here in Texas.

Posted by: Greg at 08:55 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 321 words, total size 2 kb.

It looks like there will be no immigration reform before the election in November.

In a defeat for President Bush, Republican congressional leaders said Tuesday that broad immigration legislation is all but doomed for the year, a victim of election-year concerns in the House and conservatives' implacable opposition to citizenship for

"Our number one priority is to secure the border, and right now I haven't heard a lot of pressure to have a path to citizenship," said Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., announcing plans for an unusual series of hearings to begin in August on Senate-passed immigration legislation.

"I think it is easy to say the first priority of the House is to secure the borders," added Rep. Roy Blunt (news, bio, voting record), the GOP whip.

This isn't a defeat for the president so much as it is a defeat for the American people, as every delay in getting a handle on the immigration issue allows that many more illegals across teh border, that many more anchor babies to be born, and increases teh expense to taxpayers.

Not that Hastert's rhetoric is wrong -- we need immigration reform that actually considers what the American people want.

"We are going to listen to the American people, and we are going to get a bill that is right," said Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, who said he had informed Mr. Bush of the plan.

But what that means is that the negotiations for a new bill will not begin until after Labor Day -- making the volatile issue a bit too hot to handle in the weeks leading up to the election, with all sides engaging in rhetorical excesses in an attempt to get votes rather than make good policy. We are already seeing some of that now.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino sought to put the House announcement in a positive light, saying the field hearings could "possibly provide an opportunity to air out issues" that she conceded are "complex." But she added: "The president is undeterred in his efforts to pass comprehensive immigration reform."

Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.), who is leading the fight against the Senate plan, said: "Odds were long that any so-called 'compromise bill' would get to the president's desk this year. . . . The nail was already put in the coffin of the Senate's amnesty plan. These hearings probably lowered it into the grave."

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), one of the main authors of the Senate plan, called the announcement "a cynical delaying tactic."

So expect immigration to be a major issue in the fall elections, but do not expect there to be any significant results until 2007 -- which means that GOP efforts to retain control of thehouse and Senate are vital if there is any hope of avoiding a bill with real amnesty provisions and little in the way of border control.

Posted by: Greg at 11:18 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 484 words, total size 3 kb.

Georgia's tough new laws related to illegal immigration is apparantly stopping some border jumpers from buying houses in the state.

wo months ago, all Alina Arguello had to do to find Latino home buyers was put up a sign and answer her phone.

But ever since Georgia passed one of the most stringent and far-reaching immigration laws in the nation, the number of Latino buyers who call the Re/Max agent's home office in suburban Atlanta has dwindled from about 10 to two a day.

"We're seeing a drastic drop," she said. "There's just a tremendous amount of people who want homes, but are not calling." Many real estate agents and mortgage providers who cater to Spanish-speaking immigrants across Georgia say that the flourishing Latino home buying market has faltered since April, when Gov. Sonny Perdue signed the Georgia Security and Immigration Compliance Act.

Almost immediately, Latino home buyers pulled out of contracts. Some who had already bought, put their homes on the market. And many prospective buyers stopped searching for homes.

Although Georgia's new legislation does not prohibit illegal immigrants from owning property, many wonder whether they will want to live in Georgia when it begins to come into effect in July 2007.

The law will require companies with state contracts to verify employees' immigration status, penalize employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants, curtail many government benefits to illegal immigrants and require that jailers check the immigration status of anyone who is charged with a felony or driving under the influence.

Oh dear -- requirements that workers be here legally, that companies not break the law by hiring illegals, cutting off the financial incentive to settle in the state, and requiring that immigration criminals arrested for serious crimes be identified (and presumably reported to immigration authorities). How could the state of Georgia possibly enact such an unreasonable law!

There is a chill wind blowing here in America among the average ordinary people. We want those who violate our laws and disrespect our sovereignty OUT OF THE USA. So to all border jumpers who don't like the vlimate change, i suggest taking up residence in your homelands.

Posted by: Greg at 06:35 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 370 words, total size 2 kb.

These people have broken our nation's laws. Why the sympathetic portrayal by the media when law enforcement tries o do something about it?

SAN DIEGO - Fewer parents are walking their children to school in this border city's Linda Vista neighborhood. The crowd of day laborers huddled in a parking lot outside McDonald's has dropped by half.

A sense of unease has spread in this community of weather-worn homes since immigration agents began walking the streets as part of a stepped-up nationwide effort targeting an estimated 590,000 immigrant fugitives. Other illegal immigrants are being rounded up along the way.

Juana Osorio, an illegal immigrant from the Mexican state of Oaxaca, said her neighbors have largely stayed indoors since agents visited her apartment complex June 2.

"People rarely leave their houses now to go shopping," Osorio, 37, said as she clutched a bottle of laundry detergent in a barren courtyard. "They walk in fear."

Her husband, Juan Rivera, 29, has stopped taking their two children to the park on weekends. "We want to go out but we can't," said Rivera, a construction worker.

In a blitz that began May 26 and ended Tuesday, federal agents arrested nearly 2,200 illegal immigrants, including about 400 in the San Diego area — more than any other city.

Now wait just one minute. These people have an option -- go back to Mexico (or where ever they came from -- but in most cases that is Mexico). Apply to come to this country legally. Quit breaking American law.

And if you cannot bring yourself to do that, be afraid -- very afraid.

Posted by: Greg at 10:39 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 283 words, total size 2 kb.

I used all those zeros intentionally -- and that is only the money spent by the Harris County Hospital District directly out of local funds.

KTRH has learned the Harris County Hospital District is shelling out millions of dollars every year to treat people who are here in this country illegally.

When you subtract what patients paid for hospital district services, and money from federal grants and other sources, $97.3 million dollars is what the local property taxpayer subsidized the district budget for undocumented immigrant care in 2005. That's 14 percent of the entire hospital system's operating budget.

You did read that correctly -- unreimbursed medical costs for these sovereignty-violating foreigners are 14% of the annual budget for the entire hospital system. Put differently, that makes it $1 out of ever $7 spent by the hospital district -- or over $25 for each man, woman and child in the county.

But it gets worse. The state and federal governments reimburse an additional $28,000,000. That takes it up to over $125,000,000 in government subsidized medical care for those who have entered this country illegally or stayed past the expiration of their visas. That raises the cost to over $33 per Harris COunty resident.

The Harris County Hospital District's unreimbursed costs of caring for illegal immigrants approached $100 million last year, a 77 percent increase in three years.

"The costs are increasing because the population of undocumented immigrants is increasing and the cost of health care is rising," said hospital district spokesman Bryan McLeod.

The unreimbursed costs rose from $55 million in 2002 to $97 million in 2005, the hospital district said in a report released Friday. Last year's figure represented 13 percent of the district's $760 million operating budget.

The district treats about 300,000 patients annually, but lacks enough funds and facilities to care for all of the county's uninsured and underinsured residents, estimated to number between 800,000 and 1.2 million, McLeod said.

Commissioner Steve Radack, who requested the report on the district's costs of treating undocumented immigrants, said county residents are shouldering a burden created by the federal government.

The federal government doesn't prevent illegal immigration, but hardly reimburses local counties where the immigrants most frequently settle and use public health care facilities, he said.

"The federal government allows people to come here illegally," Radack said. "Because of that the cost shouldn't fall on the local taxpayer."

The district treated more than 57,000 illegal immigrants last year, at a cost of $128 million. The federal and state governments reimbursed about $28 million, and the patients themselves paid about $3 million. Over the past 11 years, the district has paid about $607 million in unreimbursed costs for treating undocumented immigrants.

The district does not directly ask patients if they are in the country legally, but infers their status from other information gleaned during patient screenings, officials said.

Well, maybe we should just be appreciative that the border-jumping immigration criminals graciously paid a whole $3,000,000 for their own medical care last year. That would be a whopping 2.34% of the total cost of treating illegals at the Harris County Hospital District -- or less than $1 per resident of Harris County.

And that does not include the medical care written off by private hospitals. Anne Linehan over at blogHOUSTON points to the information supplied by one caller to the Chris Baker radio show on KTRH.

Chris Baker was discussing this yesterday and one of his callers identified herself as an employee of a private, fourteen-hospital group here in the Houston area. She said they routinely write off anywhere from 40 to 60 surgeries each week, because the patients are here illegally and are unable to pay. She said the paperwork will often have Social Security numbers such as 111-11-1111, or 999-99-9999, and bogus addresses, but since hospitals are prohibited from turning anyone away, there is nothing they can do about it.

Now consider the implications of that figure. Little or no reimbursement from the state or federal government for thise surgeries (not to mention other treatment that is written off) means that the costs are being spread around to those of us who have insurance (or those who can afford to pay cash -- a small percentage of the public indeed). That means increased costs for all of us every time we walk (or are wheeled through) the door for treatment. That probably means that each and every one of us is paying significantly more for the treatment of those who are here illegally.

And the sad thing is that nothing is being done about this problem. The feds are not interested in stopping illegal immigration. The hospitals don't take immigration information directly, for fear of scaring sick illegals away from medical care -- and even if they discover that a patient is undocumented, they do not report them to immigration authorities.

Medical costs ae escalating every year -- and I cannot help but believe that one factor is the free medical care given to law-breaking border-jumpers at the expense of each and every US citizen.

OPEN TRACKBACKING TO: Conservative Cat, Samantha Burns, Stuck On Stupid, Bacon Bits, Adam's Blog, Dumb Ox, Lil Duck Duck, Third World County, Blue Star Chronicles, Echo9er, Cigar Intelligence Agency, Stop the ACLU, Wizbang, Gribbit's World, Assorted Babble, Pursuing Holiness

Posted by: Greg at 10:36 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 901 words, total size 7 kb.

Why can't we do this along the entire border? After all, border jumpers are already criminals.

On June 1, the three Ordaz-Valtierra brothers from Mexico illegally crossed the Rio Grande with the same dream that so many other Latin American immigrants have: head north from the border, get jobs and start sending money home.

Their journey, instead, ended in a federal courthouse here, where, dressed in orange prison jumpsuits, each was charged with the federal misdemeanor crime of entry without inspection. Each pleaded guilty and was sentenced by a U.S. magistrate judge to 15 days. Under guard of U.S. marshals, they were put in shackles and bused to a West Texas jail to serve their time and await deportation home.

"I'm sorry," Juan Carlos Ordaz-Valtierra, 27, said through an interpreter as he stood before U.S. Magistrate Judge Dennis G. Green. "I didn't think it was this difficult to cross into your country."

It wasn't. But this year, most of the 210-mile stretch of riverbank between the small border cities of Eagle Pass and Del Rio became a "zero tolerance zone." If apprehended by the U.S. Border Patrol, illegal immigrants are prosecuted by federal authorities for a misdemeanor, sent to jail for 15 to 180 days and then deported. If they are caught illegally entering the country a second time, they are eligible for a felony charge of illegal entry and as much as two years in federal prison.

"Catch and release" -- in which Mexican citizens are returned promptly to Mexico, but citizens of other countries are given a notice to appear in immigration court at a later date, set free and never tracked down by authorities -- would end here, said Department of Homeland Security officials at a Washington news conference earlier this year. "Catch and remove" would start. And, officials predicted, as this tough policy became known, immigrants would be discouraged from crossing through this slice of southwest Texas.

Every border jumper, every time. Make it clear that we will catch you, we will charge you, and we will remove you from our shores, with harher penalties to come.

Posted by: Greg at 08:38 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 365 words, total size 2 kb.

Imagine that you get a letter telling you that you owe over $15,000 in back taxes on income from jobs a couple of thousand miles from your home -- and that you had not held any job during the time period in question. This woman doesn't have to imagine -- it happened to her.

ne woman's Social Security identification number has been used by at least 81 people in 17 states. Though impossible to verify in every case, information gleaned from criminal investigations, tax documents and other sources suggest most of the users were probably illegal immigrants trying to get work.

Audra Schmierer, a 33-year-old housewife in this affluent San Francisco suburb, realized she had a problem in February 2005, when she got a statement from the IRS saying she owed $15,813 in back taxes — even though she had not worked since her son was born in 2000. Perhaps even more surprising, the taxes were due from jobs in Texas.

Schmierer has since found that her Social Security number has been used by people from Florida to Washington state, at construction sites, fast-food restaurants and even major high-tech companies. Some opened bank accounts using the number.

The federal government took years to discover the number was being used illegally, but authorities took little action even then.

"They knew what was happening but wouldn't do anything," said Schmierer. "One name, one number, why can't they just match it up?"

It is becoming a more and more common problem in America -- especiallysince the IRS and Social Security do not tell immigration authorities about the proble. All they do is contact the employers. Oh, yeah, and possibly fine them.

Under current law, if the Social Security Administration or the Internal Revenue Service find multiple people using the same Social Security number, the agencies send letters informing employers of possible errors.

The IRS can fine employers $50 for each inaccurate number filed, a punishment that companies often dismiss as just another cost of doing business.

"Sending letters is the limit to what can be done," Social Security spokesman Lowell Kepke said. "We expect that will be able to fix any records that are incorrect."

Fifty bucks.

No wonder employers ignore the law -- it is cheaper than doing things legally.

That needs to be fixed.

Posted by: Greg at 07:23 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 399 words, total size 2 kb.

Councilwoman Shelley Sekula-Gibbs has been working to end the cityÂ’s sanctuary policy for illegal immigrants for some time. She authored a column in todayÂ’s Houston Chronicle.

OVER the past few months, the temperature has risen significantly in the immigration debate. Citizens and leaders at all levels of government are working together to find long-term solutions.

At a time when we are working diligently to put a stop to the flow of illegal immigration, I chose to vote against the renewal of a $100,000 federally funded contract for a day labor center in Houston's East End. This center assists people in finding work. It is the only city-authorized, federally funded day labor site remaining in Houston. Recent studies show that at least 85 percent of people who access day labor sites are illegal immigrants — a statistic punctuated by a May 18 Houston Chronicle article that points out that 100 percent of the day laborers a reporter talked to at this North Sampson Street site were illegal.

This is clearly a city issue. By funding this center, the city of Houston is supporting the process of hiring illegal immigrants. This is wrong.

But this does not have to be a partisan, divisive decision. In the past, day labor centers in our city have received support from City Council members regardless of party affiliation. The sites were offered as an alternative to day laborers loitering on private property while waiting for work, a common complaint received in City Council offices. Unfortunately, the calls are still coming in.

These sites have not stopped the problems that they were intended to, and in fact, they are having the opposite effect, by nurturing the increasing flow of illegal immigrants who have turned to our city to find work.

Meanwhile, Houston's "sanctuary city" status is only making a bad situation worse. This is a Houston Police Department policy that City Council members have no control over, and it should be abolished. The policy, forbidding Houston police from inquiring into anyone's immigration status, was established years ago under a previous city administration, has been reauthorized periodically and can only be rescinded by Mayor Bill White.

Council could try to bypass the mayor with a resolution opposing the "sanctuary city" policy, but that is unlikely to occur in our strong mayor form of government in which the mayor sets the council agenda. Even if such a resolution were passed, the mayor would be under no obligation to do away with the policy.

In addition, such a resolution would potentially open Pandora's box, encouraging the consideration of other resolutions dealing with federal matters, such as the war in Iraq. These resolutions would be merely symbolic and would not have a direct impact on federal legislation.

Congress can help put a stop to "sanctuary cities" across the nation by denying federal funding to cities that refuse to enforce immigration laws. For example, Houston faces sanctions, including a loss of highway funds, if the 2007 federal ozone standards deadline is not met.

Similar penalties could be imposed if cities fail to comply with immigration laws. At the local level, the responsibility to revoke Houston's "sanctuary city" policy falls squarely on the shoulders of the mayor.

Changes are needed to the Federal Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, which currently clears the way for day labor sites to receive federal funding.

The act outlines our nation's welfare and immigration policy, which states that "self-sufficiency has been a basic principle of United States immigration law since this country's earliest immigration statutes" and that immigrants within our nation's borders "not depend on public resources to meet their needs" — yet it includes exceptions for programs and services that could be construed to allow day labor sites. This federal loophole must be closed.

The issue of illegal immigration is not just a federal one. It starts at our national borders but quickly spreads into cities such as Houston, where work is readily available.

As a top destination for illegal immigrants, we must do everything we can to assist in enforcing our existing immigration laws while responding to increasing demands for labor and honoring our tradition of welcoming immigrants legally.

It is very simple – the city of Houston (indeed, every community) needs to work with the federal government to enforce our immigration laws and ensure border security, not assist those who break our laws and violate our sovereignty out of a well-intentioned but misguided sense of compassion based on the notion that illegal immigrants are “just good people who want jobs and a better life.” While that may be true, it cannot excuse their law-breaking.

Shelley Sekula-Gibbs is one of those seeking to replace Tom Delay on the CD22 ballot. She has a solid record in favor of enforcing and strengthening our nation's immigration laws. Stands like this show her to be a pro-border conservative worthy of that nomination.

Posted by: Greg at 04:12 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 829 words, total size 5 kb.

The humanity of it all -- border-jumping immigration criminals are receiving substandard wages and working in unsafe conditions -- in their illegal jobs rebuilding New Orleans.

Illegal immigrants helping to rebuild this shattered city are working in hazardous conditions without protective gear and earning far less than their legal counterparts, a study says.

Nearly one-third of the illegal immigrants interviewed by researchers reported working with harmful substances and in dangerous conditions, while 19 percent said they were not given any protective equipment, according to the study by professors at Tulane University and the University of California at Berkeley.

Illegal immigrants also were paid significantly less — if at all — earning on average $10 per hour, compared with $16.50 for documented workers, the study said.

"What is fundamentally unfair is these are workers who have responded to a national priority to rebuild this city and yet whose rights are being violated," said Laurel Fletcher, director of Berkeley's International Human Rights Law Clinic and one of the study's co-authors.

What isn't mention is that their wages and working conditions are much better than those in Mexico and the other Latin American countries.

I do find this law to be particularly galling -- what other law-breakers do we provide such protection for in the course of their criminal activity?

Under federal labor law, illegal immigrants are afforded the same health and safety protections as documented workers. And regardless of their legal status, laborers can sue most employers under the Fair Labor Standards Act for violation of the minimum wage law and overtime regulations, according to the researchers.

Before you ask, I don't find it acceptable for employers to expoit border-jumping immigration criminals who violate our nation's sovereignty and laws. There is but one solution to this terrible situation in New Orleans and other places in this county where such exploitation presumably exists.

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

Posted by: Greg at 11:28 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 323 words, total size 2 kb.

Can't folks understand that border-jumping immigration criminals are not permitted to work in the United States -- and so when they lose a job it really does not matter why they were fired. They certainly are not entitled to their job back or damages for being fired.

A group of immigrant workers, some of whom are in the U.S. illegally, are claiming an auto supplier fired them because they were trying to join the United Auto Workers, but the company says they were fired because they could not provide valid Social Security cards.

The UAW and the Interfaith Committee for Worker Justice, an immigrant rights group, are helping the fired workers file a complaint against Hope Global Industries with the National Labor Relations Board. It's illegal to fire or intimidate workers for attempting to organize.

"This isn't about invalid Social Security numbers," said Elena Herrada, a member of the Interfaith Committee for Worker Justice. "It's about workers who begin to stand up for their rights, and they lose their jobs."

Hope Global President and CEO Robert Louis-Ferdinand said the company did not learn of the workers' union efforts until after they were fired.

"That's outrageous," Louis-Ferdinand said of the charge.

The dispute comes several weeks after the Social Security Administration notified Hope Global that the workers, whose employment ranged from more than a year to just a few months, had provided the company with Social Security numbers that did not match their names, which is often a signal workers are in the country illegally.

"We had no choice," but to fire the workers, Louis-Ferdinand said. "We're way too small of a company to live in fear of IRS penalties and not comply with the law."

So there is a valid reason for firing these invaders -- they provided false documents, and this was brought to the company's attention by the federal government. It means one thing, clear and simple -- these immigration criminals were working in this country illegally. Fire them and ship them back where they come from.

But there is one stupid aspect to federal labor law that does need to be fixed.

Linn Hynds, a labor law expert in Detroit, said the National Labor Relations Act entitles workers to union representation whether they are in the country legally or not.

A right to union representation? For jobs they cannot legally hold? That is absurd!.

As foreigners who have invaded our country in violation of our national sovereignty, the only thing these people should be entitled to is to be dumped unceremoniously back in their homeland.

Posted by: Greg at 04:03 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 436 words, total size 3 kb.

Many of us have been saying this for some time -- why is it only now that we hear such talk out of the Administration?

President Bush told the nation's most prominent business group yesterday that "unscrupulous" employers have contributed to the illegal immigration crisis in the United States by knowingly hiring undocumented workers, and called for steep new penalties on those exploiting the shadow economy.

As part of his emerging public campaign for the immigration legislation pending in Congress, Bush visited the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to emphasize his focus on enforcement and to combat the conservative complaint that his immigration proposals add up to amnesty for millions of foreigners violating U.S. immigration law.

"Businesses that knowingly employ illegal workers undermine this law and undermine the spirit of America," the president said during a speech against a backdrop of U.S. flags, images of the Statue of Liberty and the slogan "Comprehensive Immigration Reform." "And we're not going to tolerate it in this country." Although most businesses abide by the law, he said, "there are some unscrupulous folks who want to take advantage of low-cost labor."

We really do not need immigration reform -- we need immigration law enforcement. Start aggressively enforcing the laws agaisnt employing illegal immigrants. Shipe them back wehn they are caught. Increase teh force at the border and explicitly authorize local law enforcement to aid with the task (to shut up the anti-border, pro-criminal folks who oppose enforcement). We can deal witht he problem quite effectively with just those steps -- and many of the border jumpers will head south if they can't find work.

Will the president match his rhetoric with action?

Posted by: Greg at 03:42 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 287 words, total size 2 kb.

Can you believe the gall of these border-jumping invaders? Not only are they demanding the right to stay in this country despite having entered illegally, they also want their jobs back -- jobs that they cannot legally hold!

Dozens of undocumented immigrants demanded their jobs back Thursday after being fired during an immigration raid here in Chicago.

Twenty-four workers were let go from IFCO Systems of North America after customs agents raided the plant during a sweep last April.

IFCO is a container company located off Damen and the Stevenson Expressway. It's accused of harboring and transporting illegal workers.

The workers rallied outside the federal immigration court on East Monroe Street. Inside, they begged a judge not to deport them.

"Last night was a very scary time for these families. They didn't know. The kids didn't go to school because they wanted to be here because they didn't know if their parents were gonna come home," said Ema Lozano with Center Without Borders.

The workers will have to wait several months to find out if they'll get their jobs back.

The judge granted a continuance until Oct. 12.

Why should this matter take until October to decide?

Round 'em up!

Ship 'em back!

Rawhide!

Posted by: Greg at 12:46 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 210 words, total size 1 kb.

Ever wonder how many bricks were delivered to Congress (the Senate in particular) during the recent debate over immigration? Or about what happened to them once they arrived?

Well, here are your answers.

If the impact was notable, so were the logistical difficulties, particularly given the mail screening and other protective measures put into effect at the Capitol after the anthrax attacks of 2001.

Initially, organizers of the Send-a-Brick Project encouraged people to send bricks on their own, and Ms. Heffron said things had gone relatively smoothly.

But many people, she said, preferred that the organization itself send the bricks and an accompanying letter to selected lawmakers.

The project will do it for an $11.95 fee. So when 2,000 individually boxed bricks showed up at once, Senate officials balked, threatening to force the group to pay postage to have each delivered to its intended recipient. The dispute left the bricks stacked up until an agreement to distribute them was worked out.

"We received them and we delivered them to all the addressees," said a spokeswoman for the office of the Senate sergeant-at-arms.

As the bricks landed in Congressional mailrooms and cramped offices, the effort was applauded in some offices but drew a bemused response elsewhere.

"Given the approval ratings of Congress these days, I guess we should all be grateful the bricks are coming through the mail, not the window," said Dan Pfeiffer, a spokesman for Senator Evan Bayh, Democrat of Indiana.

The senders of the bricks were encouraged to add a letter telling lawmakers that the brick represented a start on building a border wall.

Many could not resist putting their own message on the bricks. "No Amnesty," said a typical one, referring to a contested Senate plan to allow some illegal immigrants to qualify eventually for citizenship. "Stop the Invasion, Build a Wall," said another brick painted like a flag and shown on the group's Web site at www.send-a-brick.com.

Besides the border fence, the group supports technology improvements for border security, added money and personnel for the Border Patrol and an enhanced security presence in general on the southern border.

The brick effort was scheduled to wind down this week, though the organization encouraged people to continue if they desired.

On Tuesday, representatives of the architect of the Capitol collected bricks from lawmakers' offices and stacked them on loading docks with plans to donate them to a nonprofit group.

This is actually a pretty fun article -- though it shows just how out of contact some of our legislators really are.

Posted by: Greg at 03:21 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 425 words, total size 3 kb.

That is what I'm getting from this post over at Euphoric Reality. Here are some of the elements the new "immigration bill" includes, according to Heritage Foundation senior research fellow Robert Rector.

*The bill supposedly would protect American workers by ensuring that new immigrants would not take away jobs. However, the bill's definition of ''United States worker'' includes temporary foreign guest workers, so the protection is meaningless.

*It extends the Davis-Bacon Act's requirement for the payment of ''prevailing wage'' to all temporary guest workers. That puts them ahead of Americans, who have this protection only on federal job sites.

*Foreign guest farm workers, admitted under the bill, cannot be ''terminated from employment by any employer ... except for just cause.'' In contrast, American ag workers can be fired for any reason.

Now what that means is that foreign workers admitted under the guest-worker provisions won't just get "jobs that Americans won't do" -- they potentially can get jobs that Americans want to do, if the employer prefers to hire foreign workers. It guarantees them the "prevailing wage" -- usually the union scale, while not guaranteein American workers that wage. Furthermore, it eliminates the "at will" employment provisions of most state laws in relation to these foreign workers -- meaning that they have a level of job security denied American citizens. So let's see here -- equal rights to American jobs, higher wages guaranteed, and more job security than American workers have. Remind me whose county this is again, and who the members of the US Senate represent?

Kate O'Beirne and Mickey Kaus have more.

Posted by: Greg at 03:12 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 286 words, total size 2 kb.

Michelle Malkin has details on this shocking provision of the Senate immigration bill, as well as the granting of amnesty to everyone who can walk, run, crawl, jump, fly or swim into the USA.

Does the Senate immigration bill essentially give Mexico veto power over our border fences? Hearing this from several readers and sources. Reader Greg writes:

Senator Cornyn gave Lou Dobbs a statement saying the last-minute Amendment SA 41[8]8 says Mexico must be consulted before any fence is constructed.

From F/R thread:

I heard this on Sean Hannity's Fox Radio broadcast a short while ago and just now on "Lou Dobbs Tonight" on CNN:

Arlen Specter, according to Congressman John Kyl of Arizona, slipped a provision into the Immigration Bill the Senate passed today requiring the U.S. to consult with Mexico BEFORE building a wall in any area along the border.

I'm checking into it. If anyone has more specific info, please send along. Update: It's Dem Sen. Chris Dodd's amendment included in Specter's manager's package that passed.

The Senate by Cboldt blog reports:

UPDATE @ 17:16 - Senator Specter notes that the managers package is ready for a vote, he says that it (the package) makes making sausage look good. Senator Kyl asks to speak for one minute on the managers amendment. He says it has been in busy negotiations, right up until now. Federal, state and local entities in the US would be required to consult with Mexican government before building a wall. I predict this amendment, S.Amdt.4188, will pass. Off to find the language that Senator Kyl referred to.

UPDATE @ 17:23 - Found it. Senator Dodd talked against a fence on May 18, and his S.Amdt.4089 contains the following language:

(b) CONSULTATION REQUIREMENT.--Consultations between United States and Mexican authorities at the federal, state, and local levels concerning the construction of additional fencing and related border security structures along the United States-Mexico border shall be undertaken prior to commencing any new construction, in order to solicit the views of affected communities, lessen tensions and foster greater understanding and stronger cooperation on this and other important issues of mutual concern.

UPDATE @ 17:40 - Bonus prediction (the managers' amendment), now four for four. Senator Frist voted against the managers' amendment, for what it's worth.

S.Amdt.4188 - Specter: Managers' amendment, a collection of amendments, including Dodd's S.Amdt.4089 that requires local, state and federal governments to consult with Mexican counterpart authorities before commencing new construction, was PASSED on a 56 - 41 vote.

Republicans who voted for the Mexican consultation requirement:

Bennett, Bond, Brownback, Chafee, Coleman, Collins, Craig, Graham, Hagel, Lugar, Feingold, Collins, McCain, Specter, Stevens, Warner, Martinez, Murkowski, Snowe and Voinovich

Dems who voted against:

Lincoln

Let's hope the House of Representatives stands tough -- but based upon recent actions related to the Jefferson case, I'm not hopeful.

Posted by: Greg at 02:39 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 483 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.

I've have no desire to ignore employers -- and neither do any of the other conservative bloggers I know.

Just once, I'd like to see a corporate executive whose company has knowingly hired illegal immigrants doing the perp walk for his offenses --- handcuffed, disgraced, chaperoned by law enforcement officials as cameras record his every tentative step. For just a few days, I'd like to see the conservative blogosphere roasting the textile mill managers and onion field owners who routinely make a mockery of immigration law with a wink and a nod at forged documents.

I don’t disagree up to this point – and have seen many of my fellow bloggers make exactly that point. We would like to see much greater enforcement of employer sanctions. In fact, one reason we don’t like the amnesty proposals set out by the hug-a-wetback crowd is because we recall that the last time there was an amnesty (back in 1986), the feds quickly dropped all pretense of employer sanctions once the amnesty was in place. Indeed, that simply opened the floodgates, as more and more illegals came with the certainty (confirmed by current rhetoric) that another amnesty would come once critical mass was reached. We don’t blame these folks for wanting to come to America – we blame their governments for pushing them north and or government for doing so little to stem their tidal flow.

That is why I am outraged by the next part of this column.

Business executives remain a core Republican constituency, so it's unlikely they'll end up facing criminal charges for illegal hiring. Besides, darker-hued Mexicans and Guatemalans seem to make more inviting targets than middle-aged white men.

From time to time, I've suggested that the most inflammatory rhetoric swirling at the fringes of the illegal immigration debate is born not of legitimate concern about overwhelmed social services but rather out of an old-fashioned xenophobia that cannot accept "the other." That suggestion is usually greeted with denunciations from critics who claim they merely want the nation to enforce its laws.

So why is there so little criticism of business executives who routinely flout the law? Why has the legislation endorsed by law-and-order Republicans emphasized border security but slighted workplace enforcement?

Are there some xenophobes out there? Yeah – but most are much more concerned about law and order than the Latin Peril. While many of us are concerned about the displacement of America’s culture, history, and language, we are more concerned about the economic impact of illegal immigration. And the Sensenbrenner bill (supported by most conservative bloggers) did include harsh sanctions against employers – it is the Senate bill and the President’s proposal, both trashed as harsh by the liberals, that fails to substantially address the demand side of the illegal immigration equation.

So while Cynthia Tucker wants to make it about race, for most conservatives it is not. I guess it is just her reflexive liberalism requiring that anything involving conservatives ultimately come back to our presumed racistsexisthomophobicfascist tendencies. Too bad she cannot move past that crap and stay on point, for she has a good one.

She is, after all, right when she notes the failure of government to act to stop employers from hiring illegals.

The more promising solution lies in cutting off the flow of jobs. If a few business executives were imprisoned for illegal hiring, the practice would experience a sudden drop in popularity. And if our southern neighbors come to understand that there is no work available for undocumented workers, fewer --- far fewer --- will try to sneak into this country.

The technology required to implement a nationwide system for instant verification of Social Security numbers would be much cheaper and more reliable than the motion detectors, dirigibles, unmanned predator drones and other high-dollar gizmos that Homeland Security wants to buy for the southern border. It would work as easily and quickly as an instant credit check. With such a system, business owners could be required to verify employment status; they'd lose the ruse of forged documents. But Congress has not appropriated funds to develop a nationwide verification tool.

Nor has it made any effort to remove the myopic regulations that hinder workplace enforcement. For example, the Social Security Administration is able to identify companies that routinely employ lots of workers using fake numbers. But by law, Social Security is forbidden from forwarding the names of those companies to Homeland Security.

Don't think this useless system results from mere oversight or incompetence. The dysfunctional hodgepodge of regulations is preferred by the GOP, its business constituency and more than a few middle-class Americans, who benefit from cheap labor. Sure, Immigration and Customs Enforcement has started to do a few high-profile raids of factories and fields certain to yield undocumented laborers. But those raids will wither away after November.

I cannot disagree with a word she says on the matter. We have the technology, but not the will to use it. Let’s send Congress and this administration the message that it is time to take real steps against employers of illegals.

Posted by: Greg at 04:18 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 915 words, total size 6 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.

I've have no desire to ignore employers -- and neither do any of the other conservative bloggers I know.

Just once, I'd like to see a corporate executive whose company has knowingly hired illegal immigrants doing the perp walk for his offenses --- handcuffed, disgraced, chaperoned by law enforcement officials as cameras record his every tentative step. For just a few days, I'd like to see the conservative blogosphere roasting the textile mill managers and onion field owners who routinely make a mockery of immigration law with a wink and a nod at forged documents.

I don’t disagree up to this point – and have seen many of my fellow bloggers make exactly that point. We would like to see much greater enforcement of employer sanctions. In fact, one reason we don’t like the amnesty proposals set out by the hug-a-wetback crowd is because we recall that the last time there was an amnesty (back in 1986), the feds quickly dropped all pretense of employer sanctions once the amnesty was in place. Indeed, that simply opened the floodgates, as more and more illegals came with the certainty (confirmed by current rhetoric) that another amnesty would come once critical mass was reached. We don’t blame these folks for wanting to come to America – we blame their governments for pushing them north and or government for doing so little to stem their tidal flow.

That is why I am outraged by the next part of this column.

Business executives remain a core Republican constituency, so it's unlikely they'll end up facing criminal charges for illegal hiring. Besides, darker-hued Mexicans and Guatemalans seem to make more inviting targets than middle-aged white men.

From time to time, I've suggested that the most inflammatory rhetoric swirling at the fringes of the illegal immigration debate is born not of legitimate concern about overwhelmed social services but rather out of an old-fashioned xenophobia that cannot accept "the other." That suggestion is usually greeted with denunciations from critics who claim they merely want the nation to enforce its laws.

So why is there so little criticism of business executives who routinely flout the law? Why has the legislation endorsed by law-and-order Republicans emphasized border security but slighted workplace enforcement?

Are there some xenophobes out there? Yeah – but most are much more concerned about law and order than the Latin Peril. While many of us are concerned about the displacement of America’s culture, history, and language, we are more concerned about the economic impact of illegal immigration. And the Sensenbrenner bill (supported by most conservative bloggers) did include harsh sanctions against employers – it is the Senate bill and the President’s proposal, both trashed as harsh by the liberals, that fails to substantially address the demand side of the illegal immigration equation.

So while Cynthia Tucker wants to make it about race, for most conservatives it is not. I guess it is just her reflexive liberalism requiring that anything involving conservatives ultimately come back to our presumed racistsexisthomophobicfascist tendencies. Too bad she cannot move past that crap and stay on point, for she has a good one.

She is, after all, right when she notes the failure of government to act to stop employers from hiring illegals.

The more promising solution lies in cutting off the flow of jobs. If a few business executives were imprisoned for illegal hiring, the practice would experience a sudden drop in popularity. And if our southern neighbors come to understand that there is no work available for undocumented workers, fewer --- far fewer --- will try to sneak into this country.

The technology required to implement a nationwide system for instant verification of Social Security numbers would be much cheaper and more reliable than the motion detectors, dirigibles, unmanned predator drones and other high-dollar gizmos that Homeland Security wants to buy for the southern border. It would work as easily and quickly as an instant credit check. With such a system, business owners could be required to verify employment status; they'd lose the ruse of forged documents. But Congress has not appropriated funds to develop a nationwide verification tool.

Nor has it made any effort to remove the myopic regulations that hinder workplace enforcement. For example, the Social Security Administration is able to identify companies that routinely employ lots of workers using fake numbers. But by law, Social Security is forbidden from forwarding the names of those companies to Homeland Security.

Don't think this useless system results from mere oversight or incompetence. The dysfunctional hodgepodge of regulations is preferred by the GOP, its business constituency and more than a few middle-class Americans, who benefit from cheap labor. Sure, Immigration and Customs Enforcement has started to do a few high-profile raids of factories and fields certain to yield undocumented laborers. But those raids will wither away after November.

I cannot disagree with a word she says on the matter. We have the technology, but not the will to use it. LetÂ’s send Congress and this administration the message that it is time to take real steps against employers of illegals.

Posted by: Greg at 04:18 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 921 words, total size 6 kb.

Let's treat Mexicans like Mexico treats Americans and other foreigners.

Even as Mexico presses the United States to grant unrestricted citizenship to millions of undocumented Mexican migrants, its officials at times calling U.S. policies "xenophobic," Mexico places daunting limitations on anyone born outside its territory.

In the United States, only two posts — the presidency and vice presidency — are reserved for the native born.

In Mexico, non-natives are banned from those and thousands of other jobs, even if they are legal, naturalized citizens.

Foreign-born Mexicans can't hold seats in either house of the congress. They're also banned from state legislatures, the Supreme Court and all governorships. Many states ban foreign-born Mexicans from spots on town councils. And Mexico's Constitution reserves almost all federal posts, and any position in the military and merchant marine, for "native-born Mexicans."

Recently the Mexican government has gone even further. Since at least 2003, it has encouraged cities to ban non-natives from such local jobs as firefighters, police and judges.

Mexico's Interior Department — which recommended the bans as part of "model" city statutes it distributed to local officials — could cite no basis for extending the bans to local posts.

One more reason to close the southern border and deport the immigration criminals who stream in from Mexico.

Posted by: Greg at 12:08 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 220 words, total size 2 kb.

This US diplomat is undercutting the immigration policies of the United States. As such, US Ambassador to Mexico Tony Garza needs to be fired by the President -- or Congress needs to act to force his resignation.

U.S. Ambassador to Mexico Tony Garza described building a fence along the U.S.-Mexico border as un-American in a speech to the University of Texas at Austin graduating class Saturday night.

"Simply building walls does not speak America to me," said Garza, a former Texas railroad commissioner and a close friend to President Bush. "I know we can be both a welcoming society and a secure and lawful one."

Congress currently is debating proposals for building fences as a means of controlling illegal immigration. President Bush, who has opposed fences in the past, this week endorsed a limited fence-building proposal for Arizona and California.

The Chonicle calls his speech "a message of tolerance for the millions of Latin American immigrants who have poured into the United States in recent years". That is a miccharacterization. Garza's speech was nothing less than an apologia for law-breaking and border-jumping by those who disrespect our country, and a call for more of the same. As such, Tony Garza does not speak for the overwhelming majority of Americans -- and if President Bush does not wish to further alienate the American people, he needs to fire his old friend immediately, for it is his message that is truly un-American.

OPEN TRACKBACKING: Conservative Cat, Outside the Beltway, Samantha Burns, Liberal Wrong Wing, Business of America is Business, Third World County, Adam's Blog, Blue Star Chronicles, Stop the ACLU

Posted by: Greg at 05:18 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 282 words, total size 3 kb.

Send this guy back to Honduras -- not only is he here illegally, but he clearly doesn't understand the American concept of freedom of speech.

An Honduran teenager arrested for stealing an anti-immigration protest sign is facing deportation after authorities discovered he was allegedly in the country illegally, authorities said.

Joel Martines, 19, was arrested last Thursday after he allegedly stole a sign being carried by an anti-immigration protester outside a 7-11 convenience store, Southampton police said.

The site is popular with day laborers, many of whom are suspected of being in the country illegally, and has lately been the scene of protests by those favoring strict enforcement of immigration laws.

In addition to being charged with the felony theft of the sign, Martines was also charged with a misdemeanor for allegedly giving police false information about his age and identity.

While in custody, officials from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency then determined that Martines allegedly entered the country illegally on Feb. 21, 2005, through Eagle Pass, Texas.

A spokeswoman for the Suffolk County District Attorney's office could not immediately say whether Martines was still in the custody of local authorities, or whether he was being processed by ICE officials.

Let's keep him here just long enough to get him the felony conviction needed to permanently bar him from US under the new Senate immigration bill. He is not needed or wanted here.

Posted by: Greg at 02:02 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 236 words, total size 2 kb.

Suffice it to say that virtually no one is happy with the proposal put forward in last night's speech by the President last night.

President Bush said last night that he will dispatch 6,000 National Guard troops starting next month to help secure the porous U.S.-Mexican border, calling on a divided Congress and country to find "a rational middle ground" on immigration that includes providing millions of illegal workers a new route to citizenship.

"We do not yet have full control of the border, and I am determined to change that," Bush said. He also called on Congress to end the U.S. practice of releasing into the country tens of thousands of people caught illegally crossing the southern border because officials lack the jail space or legal authority to detain them or send them home. He said every foreign worker should be required to hold a high-tech, tamper-proof identification card so U.S. companies could determine whether their employees are legal.

Unfortunately, this plan is flawed. The troops deployed to the border region are there for purposes of pushing paper, not stopping the flow of foreign invaders into the southwerstern part of the United States. Rather than stopping incursions by Mexican troops bringing illegal people and illegal drugs across the border, they will be filling out forms, processing paperwork, and answering phones.

In a rare prime-time speech from the Oval Office, Bush said the nation must move immediately to stanch the flow of illegal immigrants from its southern border by sending in the National Guard to free up U.S. Border Patrol agents in Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas. The Guard troops will provide intelligence, surveillance and logistical assistance over the next two years -- not armed law enforcement.

It contains what amounts to an amnesty plan, in the form of a guest worker program and a "head of the line" citizenship program that puts the lawbreakers ahead of the law abiding.

We are a nation of laws, and we must enforce our laws. We are also a nation of immigrants, and we must uphold that tradition, which has strengthened our country in so many ways. These are not contradictory goals -- America can be a lawful society and a welcoming society at the same time. We will fix the problems created by illegal immigration, and we will deliver a system that is secure, orderly, and fair.

Unfortunately, what he is saying is that this "mation of laws" is going to allow those who broke the law to keep the major booty of their illegal activity -- life in the United States and eventual citizenship.

But let's face it -- there is no chance of the hard-line proposal of the House of Representatives being passed and signed. Doing nothing will result in more disaster at the border. Ands a plan that does impose meaningful border controls is better than the status quo. I therefore have to agree with Dafydd over at Big Lizards.

So that's it; if the anti-immigrant side of the GOP -- fair or not, that is the impression they leave -- persists in this folly, the idea that we can round up and deport eleven million people, and that we can just seal off the border and keep all the foreigners out, then bid adieu to the House, the Senate, and the White House, and gird yourself for twenty years of absolute hell on Earth. Because if we blow this, then that's how long the Republicans will have to wander in the wilderness until we're back in power.

Twenty years of socialist misery. Twenty years of staggering tax increases. Twenty years of racial preference poured down our throats with a gasoline funnel. Twenty years of imperialist judges nullifying elections and ruling by decree.

Twenty years of increasingly savage terrorist attacks; America will be Israel under Barak.

But at least, thank God, we will have stuck to our guns and refused to compromise in any way, shape, form, manner, style, jot, or tittle.

For the love of God, people... compromise means you must give a little. There is a middle ground. And if I'm wrong, if there is not, then we are all lost -- because John's side does not have the support of the American people and will never win.

Here are our choices:

1. We settle on a reasonable compromise bill that includes both border enforcement and also immigration reform, a guest-worker program, and some eventual normalization; and we try to make it the best bill we can, given those constraints; or...

2. We rend the party, the Democrats win, and then you'll find out what "amnesty" and "open borders" really mean. And minor things like the entire war on jihadi terrorism will trampled underfoot by the Democratic thugs who seize control of our country.

And all for the want of the simple art of giving a little to get a lot.

Think. Think. Think two times, three times... and don't throw away this magnificent opportunity -- just because you only get three-quarters of a loaf instead of the whole bloody thing on a golden plate.

I'd rather have a plan proposed by President Tancredo -- but if the best we can do is a plan by President Bush, I'll take it, because it is a damn site better than what we will eventually get from President Hillary Clinton, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Posted by: Greg at 10:43 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 913 words, total size 6 kb.

Here’s another item in the running for ‘Dumb Headline of the Year’.

Was 'U' instructor's speech free - or racist?

This ignores the very real possibility that, as would appear to be the case in this instance, that speech may be both.

Comments a University of Minnesota instructor made at an immigration rally are causing controversy about what is and is not considered racist.

Susana De Leon, an activist and part-time instructor of Mexican-American studies, was involved in a verbal confrontation at the rally in Owatonna.

"Yes, people from Europe are wet backs man... their backs so wet because they had to cross an ocean to get here,” De Leon said at the rally.

De Leon is also an immigration attorney who led the rally in Owatonna.

She added that it is not possible for minorities to be racist against white people.
Nathan Smit, of the Minnesota Coalition for Immigration Reduction, says he felt her comments were racist toward white people.

“It actually almost hurt my feelings,” Smit said.

De Leon said the confrontation escalated because members of the immigration group were being intimidating.

"Eventually they came and shove a sign in my face, and they're murmuring under their breathe the most terrible racist things,” De Leon said. “So there's a point, yes, I take the sign and I take it away."

Another member of the immigration reduction group said it was De Leon who escalated the confrontation – with her words.

"I would never say those things to anybody, even if I didn't like them,” said Paul Westrum. “But the thing is, because she's a minority she thinks she can get by with it."

Vivian Jenkins Nelson, a diversity expert from the Inter-race Institute and author of the ‘Diversity Dictionary’, would not condemn De Leon’s language, but did say it was not helpful.

"There are much bigger conversations that need our attention and effort than name calling at a rally somewhere,” Jenkins Nelson said.

Westrum and Smit said her language would be considered racist if a white person had used those terms.

But Westrum is more angry that she is paid by the public.

"I'd like to see her services terminated,” he said.

University officials declined 5 EYEWITNESS NEWSÂ’s request for an interview, but they said state employees have the same freedoms of speech and have the right to participate in political and social protests.

This speech is not classroom speech or speech made in any kind of official capacity. Rather, it is speech made as a private citizen. As such, the University has no basis upon which to take action against DeLeon. Paul Westrum’s call for her termination is really a call for the university to abrogate her rights as an American citizen – something no true patriot can support.

Which is not to say that I believe DeLeon’s words are appropriate or accurate – they are not. But the First Amendment generally protects reprehensible speech as well as praiseworthy speech.

Oh, and by the way, i have no problem with the word "wetback". It is a perfectly acceptable term for those who violate our laws, one that treats them with the contempt they so richly deserve. It is completely appropriate to use it for them, to distinguish them from citizens of the United States and welcome guests who have followed our laws to come here. It is a reference to status, not race, and therefore its use cannot be regarded as racist by any thinking person (which lets out most liberals and open-border advocates).

MORE AT Michelle Malkin, Ogre, Gringoman, Hot Air, Harisdrop, American Mind, ryanVOX, Commentary Page, Landgazing, Anchor Rising

Posted by: Greg at 11:45 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 610 words, total size 5 kb.

Ask them in Herndon, Virginia, where yesterday's election swept several supporters of a day-labor center for illegal immigrants out of office.

Herndon voters yesterday unseated the mayor and two Town Council members who supported a bitterly debated day-labor center for immigrant workers in a contest that emerged as a mini-referendum on the turbulent national issue of illegal immigration.

Residents replaced the incumbents with challengers who immediately called for significant changes at the center. Some want to bar public funds from being spent on the facility or restrict it to workers living in the country legally. Others want it moved to an industrial site away from the residential neighborhood where it is located.

The labor center forced the western Fairfax County town into the national spotlight last summer as the immigration debate grew deeply contentious. Even though fewer than 3,000 people voted yesterday, advocates on both sides of the issue looked at the Herndon election as a test of public sentiment. Outside groups such as the Minuteman Project, which opposes illegal immigration, intervened in the debate, and Judicial Watch, a conservative legal group, is suing the town over the establishment of the center.

The council voted 5 to 2 last August to establish the center, but yesterday's vote created an apparent 6 to 1 majority in opposition. Steve J. DeBenedittis, 38, a health club operator and political newcomer, defeated Mayor Michael L. O'Reilly with 52 percent of the vote. Council members Carol A. Bruce and Steven D. Mitchell, who voted for the center, also were turned out of office. Jorge Rochac, a Salvadoran businessman who supported the center and was seeking to become the town's first Hispanic council member, also was defeated.

Elected to the council were challengers William B. Tirrell, Charlie D. Waddell, Connie Haines Hutchinson and David A. Kirby, all opponents of the facility, which was created to help immigrants connect with employers each day.

Two incumbents were reelected. Dennis D. Husch, who was one of the two council members to vote against the center, received more votes than any of the eight other council candidates. J. Harlon Reece was the lone supporter who was reelected. He received the fewest number of votes among the six winners.

I would urge national leaders to consider these results very carefully -- Americans don't want amnesty, we want border control, business sanctions, and the removal of law-breaking border-jumpers.

Posted by: Greg at 10:13 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 412 words, total size 3 kb.

Tom Tancredo offers a view of what one would really be like.

We are talking about illegal aliens, not mere “immigrants.” If legal immigrants stopped working for a day, we would miss the services of physicians, nurses, computer programmers, writers, actors, musicians, entrepreneurs of all stripes, and some airline pilots…as well as the CEO of Google. That would be more than an inconvenience, but it won’t happen because legal immigrants are not out marching angrily for rights that are already protected by our courts.

But if illegal aliens all took the day off and were truly invisible for one day, there would be some plusses along with the mild inconveniences.

Hospital emergency rooms across the southwest would have about 20-percent fewer patients, and there would be 183,000 fewer people in Colorado without health insurance.

OBGYN wards in Denver would have 24-percent fewer deliveries and Los AngelesÂ’s maternity-ward deliveries would drop by 40 percent and maternity billings to Medi-Cal would drop by 66 percent.

Youth gangs would see their membership drop by 50 percent in many states, and in Phoenix, child-molestation cases would drop by 34 percent and auto theft by 40 percent.

In Durango, Colorado, and the Four Corners area and the surrounding Indian reservations, the methamphetamine epidemic would slow for one day, as the 90 percent of that drug now being brought in from Mexico was held in Albuquerque and Farmington a few hours longer. According to the sheriff of La Plata County, Colorado, meth is now being brought in by ordinary illegal aliens as well as professional drug dealers.

You know – that sounds pretty good to me. Decreased crime, decreased drug use, and decreased stress on medical, educational and social services.

What’s not to like – if you love America?

Posted by: Greg at 12:01 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 305 words, total size 2 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.

Those participating in tomorrow's boycott may congest our streets, and may provide a certain disruption of the economy Certainly that is their goal.

Now that immigrants have grabbed the nation's attention, what next?

Monday has been set aside for immigrants to boycott work, school and shopping to show how much they matter to their communities. But with some growing tired of street protests, and others afraid they'll be deported or fired for walking out, people are planning to support the effort in myriad ways.

Some will work but buy nothing on Monday. Others will protest at lunch breaks or at rallies after work. There will be church services, candlelight vigils, picnics and human chains.

The range of activities shows both how powerful the immigrants' rights movement has become in a matter of weeks, and that organizers don't yet have a clear focus on its next step.

But this boycott won't be absolute.

No, they aren't boycotting everything American.

They are not boycotting American liberties, the likes of which they are not guaranteed in their own homelands and which are specifically prohibitted to foreigners in Mexico and a number of other Latin American countries.

They aren't boycotting American social services -- they will still use the free health care and cash the welfare checks provided by the American taxpayer.

They will still use our roads and mass transit, again heavily subsidized by American citizens and legal immigrants.

Personally, I urge those participating in tomorrow's events to boycott one -- and only one -- American thing.

Boycott American air.

Hold your breaths until you turn blue -- for the entire 24 hours.

And meditate upon this paraphrase of a MeCHA slogan.

“Para los ciudadanos, todo. Para los mojados, nada.” -- For the citizens, everything. For the wetbacks, nothing.

Posted by: Greg at 11:05 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 365 words, total size 2 kb.

It looks like members of Mexico’s Congress have no scruples against interfering with the internal affairs of the United States of America. They are sending a delegation to “El Norte” to support and participate in Monday’s “Day Without Immigrants”.

Mexican lawmakers issued a declaration of support for immigrant protests planned in the United States on Monday and said they will send a delegation to Los Angeles to show their solidarity.

The declaration, issued late Thursday by all the political parties in the lower house of Congress, contrasts with the position of Mexico's Foreign Department, which has said it will discipline any consular officials who take part in the protests.

The delegation of lawmakers will meet with Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, it said in a news release from Congress.

"The only thing we are looking for is to end this dehumanizing situation and get the recognition of the migrant labor force," Federal Deputy Maria Garcia said. "People who go looking for work should not be treated like criminals with the risk of being tried in federal courts."

Activists are urging immigrants across the United States to skip work, avoid spending money and march in the streets to demonstrate their importance to the U.S. economy.

The protest, dubbed "A Day Without Immigrants," comes as the U.S. Congress debates immigration bills proposing everything from toughened border security to the legalization of all 11 million undocumented migrants in America.

Interestingly enough, such participation would be illegal if it were reversed – say, a group of American politicians traveling to Mexico to participate in a rally against the corruption endemic in the Mexican political system or the official collusion with drug trafficking. You see, this little provision is a part of the Mexican Constitution.

"Foreigners may not in any way participate in the political affairs of the country."

So you see, these individuals are coming here to participate in a rally that US government officials would be forbidden to participate in if it were held in Mexico. Heck, if the situation were reversed, many of those protesting would be forbidden to participate in the protest, and would be subject to summary deportation without due process!

Once again, we see Mexico's leaders demanding the US act in a manner that Mexico itself would not -- and could not -- act under its own Constitution.

Posted by: Greg at 06:32 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 395 words, total size 3 kb.

On the other hand, Mexicans get free medical care in the US, courtesy of citizen-taxpayers who receive no such free care.

Take this case of a Canadian man who still, after a week, has received no medical care from Mexican doctors despite serious, possibly life-threatening, injuries.

A Cape Breton woman whose son survived a fall from a sixth-floor balcony in Mexico says doctors there wonÂ’t set his broken bones without cash up front.

Carol Campbell says her son, Jason Campbell, broke both legs and his pelvis in the fall last Wednesday at a Mexican tourist resort in Puerto Vallarta, where he remains in hospital.

His mother says since then, the 25-year-old has been given only pain medication and antibiotics.

"My son is still laying there with broken legs, broken pelvis, bones coming out of his legs," the woman told Global News on Monday in Sydney.

"His legs are swelling worse than balloons, his eye, I donÂ’t know what state his eye is in, his teeth, heÂ’s bruised everywhere."

Jason Campbell was in Mexico with friends. His family admits he had been drinking before he fell.

His father, Wallace Campbell, says "all I know is, from the doctors down there, is he is going to be paralyzed for the rest of his life and as far as internal bleeding, they wonÂ’t let me know anything."

The family says doctors are demanding up to $40,000 to treat CampbellÂ’s broken bones.

His mother says he didnÂ’t have a health plan in Alberta, where he now works in the oil industry.

Now the family is trying to raise money to get him home.

"We have some fundraising going on in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario and Alberta," says Theresa Petrie, the young manÂ’s sister-in-law.

Carol Campbell says she has turned everwhere to get help for her son — the Canadian Consulate in Mexico, the Canadian Foreign Affairs Department in Ottawa, friends, family and politicians.

Gordie Gosse, an NDP member of the Nova Scotia legislature, says itÂ’s a sad situation.

"We have a Canadian citizen that’s stuck in a foreign country in very severely, bad shape at this time and needs medical attention right away — and has been injured now for almost a week, and has no medical attention."

As i have asked in the past -- can't we treat those who have broken our nation's laws with as much disdain as Mexico shows foreigners in their country -- legal or otherwise? That would solve the illegal immigration problem in short order.

Posted by: Greg at 01:56 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 436 words, total size 3 kb.

Oh those poor law-breaking border jumpers!

Stepped-up immigration enforcement in South Texas has made a long-standing predicament even worse: Increasing numbers of undocumented residents find themselves trapped, unable to get past beefed-up highway checkpoints.

Many are teenagers who rarely stray from their towns and neighborhoods for fear of getting deported.

''These kids go to school here, they've grown up here, and are as American as anyone, except they have no documents," said Kyle Brown, a McAllen immigration lawyer. "They can't go back to Mexico and can't go out of the Valley. It's a problem we see over and over."

Such immigrants are thought to number in the tens of thousands, Brown and other immigration lawyers say, and their ranks are growing as the illegal immigrant population swells.

Typical is the Carrizales family. Irma Alvarado de Carrizales is a legal U.S. resident. But two of her four children have no documents.

Travel is risky, said Carrizales, who lives in the McAllen area. And family getaways — jaunts to Sea World, the Alamo or Six Flags Over Texas — are out of the question.

"South Padre Island is the only place we can go," she said. ''We are prisoners of the Valley."

No, you are foreign invaders who refuse to return to your proper side of the border. You are lawbreakers who think your crimes should be without consequences. The fact that you have to hide out from the authorities is no more a violation of your rights or dignity than the need of an escaped convict to avoid attracting the attention of the police while on the lam.

Posted by: Greg at 01:04 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 271 words, total size 2 kb.

IÂ’ll gladly denounce the perpetrator of these threats.

The lieutenant governor and the mayor of Los Angeles, both Hispanic Democrats, have received threats amid a national debate over immigration policy, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said Monday.

Schwarzenegger told reporters about the threats against Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante during a news conference in his office Monday.

Other elected officials of Mexican heritage have also received threats, Schwarzenegger said, but he did not name them.

Bustamante spokesman Steve Green said the lieutenant governor appeared at some immigration rallies with Villaraigosa in March and received "nasty e-mails" afterward. The death threat _ "The only good Mexican is a dead Mexican" _ came about three weeks ago on a postcard, he said.

Americans of Mexican descent and legal aliens are welcome in my book, even when I disagree with them. Even my opposition to illegal aliens does not extend to cold-blooded murder.

Posted by: Greg at 11:46 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 153 words, total size 1 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.

Mom and Dad are here illegally – they need to be deported. None of the extraneous details about the kids are relevant.

It was about 6:30 in the evening and the woman had dinner on the stove.

Her husband came though the door after a dusty day of work with Cornejo & Sons Construction. He was cheery as always, she said. But the U.S. Marshals that came to the porch of their Wichita home minutes later changed that.

The marshals arrested Jaime Villagrana following his indictment on four counts of using a fake Social Security number to land his job. He is in the U.S. illegally and after being deported once before, had returned.

For some Americans and a majority of Kansans, the question of how the U.S. should deal with illegal immigration is cut and dried: Find those who shouldn't be here and deport them.

But the reality of deportation is complicated, those who deport illegal immigrants for a living say.

Villagrana and his wife, Manuela, for example, have two young children who were born in Wichita and are by law American citizens.

Villagrana's take-home pay -- after taxes and Social Security deductions -- supported his family, but his 7-month-old son, Guillermo, has an undiagnosed illness that requires a respirator and 20-hour-a-day professional attention He has received thousands of dollars in Medicaid services for his care.

If Villagrana is prison, and Manuela is forced to leave, what will happen to the children?

In the debate over whether the U.S. should more aggressively deport those who are here illegally, cases like the Villagranas show that easy answers are hard to find.

There are three options available here – let the parents decide.

The first one is for the parents to take the children with them. The kids can return when they are adults, and start the process of bringing the parents over after the turn 18. That is the legal method of immigration.

The second is for them to find a nice American family to raise the children for them – or a family member who is here legally (notice that the status of the husband’s brother is pointedly not addressed). The kids can then sponsor the parents back when the turn 18. Again, that is the proper legal process for getting the parents into the country.

The third option is terminating the parental rights of the parents, for it sounds like it is not in the best interests of the children to be sent to Mexico. We might even consider writing such a provision into American law, automatically severing the parental rights of any illegal whose child is born an American citizen. These children would be legally free for adoption by American families, and would be raised in America as American citizens. And the beauty of this approach is that the illegal immigrant birth-parents would have no claim to being family members. This would certainly eliminate the incentive to have anchor babies, for they could then never sponsor the deported parents into the US – and it certainly is easier than amending the Constitution to deny citizenship to the children of illegals.

Do I sound heartless, given the health problems of little Guillermo? Probably – but my personal choice would be option number two or three, which would ensure that this child has all the benefits that come with American citizenship.

But I have not one ounce of sympathy for the parents – they have broken our laws and invaded our country. They need to be removed immediately.

To paraphrase a slogan popular among supporters of illegal immigration, “Para los ciudadanos, todo. Para los mojados, nada.”

For the citizens, everything. For the wetbacks, nothing.

OPEN TRACKBACKED TO: Stop The ACLU, Uncooperative Blogger, Third World Country, Cigar Intelligence Agency, Camelot Destra Ideale, Adam's Blog, Conservative Cat, Blue Star Chronicles, Stuck on Stupid, TMH Bacon Bits, Voteswagon, Liberal Wrong Wing, Publius Rendezvous

Posted by: Greg at 12:55 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 717 words, total size 6 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.

Mom and Dad are here illegally – they need to be deported. None of the extraneous details about the kids are relevant.

It was about 6:30 in the evening and the woman had dinner on the stove.

Her husband came though the door after a dusty day of work with Cornejo & Sons Construction. He was cheery as always, she said. But the U.S. Marshals that came to the porch of their Wichita home minutes later changed that.

The marshals arrested Jaime Villagrana following his indictment on four counts of using a fake Social Security number to land his job. He is in the U.S. illegally and after being deported once before, had returned.

For some Americans and a majority of Kansans, the question of how the U.S. should deal with illegal immigration is cut and dried: Find those who shouldn't be here and deport them.

But the reality of deportation is complicated, those who deport illegal immigrants for a living say.

Villagrana and his wife, Manuela, for example, have two young children who were born in Wichita and are by law American citizens.

Villagrana's take-home pay -- after taxes and Social Security deductions -- supported his family, but his 7-month-old son, Guillermo, has an undiagnosed illness that requires a respirator and 20-hour-a-day professional attention He has received thousands of dollars in Medicaid services for his care.

If Villagrana is prison, and Manuela is forced to leave, what will happen to the children?

In the debate over whether the U.S. should more aggressively deport those who are here illegally, cases like the Villagranas show that easy answers are hard to find.

There are three options available here – let the parents decide.

The first one is for the parents to take the children with them. The kids can return when they are adults, and start the process of bringing the parents over after the turn 18. That is the legal method of immigration.

The second is for them to find a nice American family to raise the children for them – or a family member who is here legally (notice that the status of the husband’s brother is pointedly not addressed). The kids can then sponsor the parents back when the turn 18. Again, that is the proper legal process for getting the parents into the country.

The third option is terminating the parental rights of the parents, for it sounds like it is not in the best interests of the children to be sent to Mexico. We might even consider writing such a provision into American law, automatically severing the parental rights of any illegal whose child is born an American citizen. These children would be legally free for adoption by American families, and would be raised in America as American citizens. And the beauty of this approach is that the illegal immigrant birth-parents would have no claim to being family members. This would certainly eliminate the incentive to have anchor babies, for they could then never sponsor the deported parents into the US – and it certainly is easier than amending the Constitution to deny citizenship to the children of illegals.

Do I sound heartless, given the health problems of little Guillermo? Probably – but my personal choice would be option number two or three, which would ensure that this child has all the benefits that come with American citizenship.

But I have not one ounce of sympathy for the parents – they have broken our laws and invaded our country. They need to be removed immediately.

To paraphrase a slogan popular among supporters of illegal immigration, “Para los ciudadanos, todo. Para los mojados, nada.”

For the citizens, everything. For the wetbacks, nothing.

OPEN TRACKBACKED TO: Stop The ACLU, Uncooperative Blogger, Third World Country, Cigar Intelligence Agency, Camelot Destra Ideale, Adam's Blog, Conservative Cat, Blue Star Chronicles, Stuck on Stupid, TMH Bacon Bits, Voteswagon, Liberal Wrong Wing, Publius Rendezvous

Posted by: Greg at 12:55 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 722 words, total size 6 kb.

Guess what – it wasn’t the GOP that backed the proposal in the House immigration bill that makes illegal aliens felons. It was the Democrats.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) issued a joint statement on Tuesday making it clear that it was Democrats who insisted on making unlawful presence in the United States a felony rather than a misdemeanor.

"In December, the House of Representatives passed a strong border security bill aimed at securing our borders and preventing illegal immigration," the statement said.

"However, on December 16, 2005, there were 191 House Democrats who voted to oppose House Republican efforts to reduce the crime of unlawful presence in the United States from a felony to a misdemeanor. Instead, they voted to make felons out of all of those who remain in our country illegally. (Some conservative Republicans also favored making unlawful presence a felony.)

"While we are disappointed with the House Democrat's lack of compassion and the continued efforts by Senator Reid to block action on immigration legislation so that Congress can proceed to conference, it remains our intent to produce a strong border security bill that will not make unlawful presence in the United States a felony."

But which party is now portrayed as the friend of the illegal immigrant? The one that overwhelmingly opposed making unlawful presence in the US a misdemeanor.

Who says the MSM isnÂ’t biased? Who says that immigrant groups are not in the pocket of the Democrat party? Who says that the Democrats arenÂ’t hypocrites?

No one I know, thatÂ’s for sure.

Posted by: Greg at 10:16 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 273 words, total size 2 kb.

They marched for the rights of lawbreakers, and were fired as a result. Now they want their jobs back.

A manager at a Detroit meatpacking plant said Monday that 15 immigrant women were fired last month after attending a protest for immigrant rights. He said they had been told that they would be terminated if they missed work on the day of the protest.

But the workers and an activist working on their behalf said the women were given no such assurances. If the workers knew they would have been fired for attending the March 27 rally in Detroit, they never would have skipped the morning shift, said Elena Herrada, a Detroit activist who is trying to help the women get their jobs back.

Herrada and about 20 union officials went Monday to Wolverine Packing Co. offices on Rivard to inquire about what happened. They were given a letter signed by general manager Jay Bonahoom, explaining why the workers were terminated.

* * *

Bonahoom said that as far as Wolverine knows, the workers were documented, but an employment agency does the actual hiring. He said the workers had been told, "written and verbally," on the Friday before the protests that their attendance was mandatory on the day of the protest.

They were fired "for standing up for their rights," Herrada said.

The fired workers were natives of Mexico and many had worked at the plant for several years. Most have children and are worried about supporting their families, Herrada said.

They should have thought of that when they skipped work. But then again, it is questionable whether any of them had the right to be in this country at all, much less working here. Take this woman who was fired as an example.

"It was not fair,'" said Mercedes, a 31-year-old Detroit woman who attended the rally and was fired. "We went to fight for our rights." Mercedes is undocumented and asked that her last name not be used.

Want to bet that her friends fall in the same category?

Posted by: Greg at 10:15 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 349 words, total size 2 kb.

That is certainly what it looks like, since it refuses to stop (and even encourages) the massive violation of American sovereignty by its citizens.

Fox, according to Casey Wian on CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight (March 31), "is still refusing to do anything to stop the millions of illegal aliens ... saying he won't restrict the freedom of movement of Mexican citizens."

The Associated Press reports, "Mexico has long cited a freedom-of-movement clause in its Constitution as prohibiting any attempt to stop would-be Mexican migrants from massing at border towns. Former Mexican Interior Secretary Santiago Creel actually said his country would never help to secure the southern border. 'We are not going to do that,' Creel told Jerry Kammer of the Copley News Service. Creel claimed Mexico's Constitution provides for 'complete freedom of movement' for Mexicans inside Mexico. 'We can't put up a checkpoint or a customs station inside our territory,' Creel said."

Yet these statements seem contrary to the Constitution and law when the whole picture is viewed. Starting with the fact that there is more to the applicable constitutional article than just its first sentence.

Article 11 states: "Everyone has the right to enter and leave the Republic, to travel through its territory and to change their residence without need of a letter of security, passport, safe-conduct or other similar requisites. The exercise of this right will be subordinate to the powers of the judiciary in cases of criminal or civil liability, and to those of administrative authority with regard to limitations that laws on emigration, immigration and general health of the Republic, or on pernicious foreign residents in the country, may impose."

And the key of course is in the second sentence, namely "will be subordinate to" — with the General Population Law being the primary directive.

Mexico, you see, can act to secure its border with the US -- but chooses not to do so.

More to the point, laws already exist to do exactly that. Besides -- stopping the border-jumpoing would lead to social and economic pressures to reform the corrupt Mexican political system.

But Mexico instead finds it profitible to let its exces workers head to El Norte and send back billions -- and so ignores its own laws while encouraging the violation of ours.

Mr. Fox -- if you have no respect for US law, at least show some respect for the laws of Mexico.

Posted by: Greg at 10:27 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 415 words, total size 3 kb.

Tell that to the American citizens who lost their jobs in this story.

An Alabama employment agency that sent 70 laborers and construction workers to job sites in that state in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina says the men were sent home after just two weeks on the job by employers who told them "the Mexicans had arrived" and were willing to work for less.

Linda Swope, who operates Complete Employment Services Inc. in Mobile, Ala., told The Washington Times last week that the workers -- whom she described as U.S. citizens, residents of Alabama and predominantly black -- had been "urgently requested" by contractors hired to rebuild and clear devastated areas of the state, but were told to leave three job sites when the foreign workers showed up.

"After Katrina, our company had 70 workers on the job the first day, but the companies decided they didn't need them anymore because the Mexicans had arrived," Mrs. Swope said. "I assure you it is not true that Americans don't want to work.

"We had been told that 270 jobs might be available, and we could have filled every one of them with men from this area, most of whom lost their jobs because of the hurricane," she said. "When we told the guys they would not be needed, they actually cried ... and we cried with them. This is a shame."

Mrs. Swope said employment agencies throughout Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi faced similar problems, when thousands of men from Mexico and several Central and South American countries -- many in crowded buses and trucks -- came into the three states after Katrina, looking for employment and willing to work for less money.

And no doubt the jobs here are being funded with the dollars of US taxpayers -- dollars which are being shipped back to Mexico and other parts of Latin America.

Because you see, there really are not many "jobs Americans won't do". The problem is that illegal labor undercuts American wages and fattens the bottom line of greedy, unethical employers.

We need employer sanctions now -- to save American jobs for Americans.

MORE AT: Blogs for Bush

Posted by: Greg at 10:31 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 367 words, total size 2 kb.

After all, wouldn't a lot of illegals be found at these rallies? Turn loose the folks charged with getting rid of illegals at a time and place where we know there will be many illegals -- we could make a good start to removing the law breakers.

In churches, shops and sidewalks across the Washington region yesterday, thousands of people bustled in preparation for a rally that immigration advocates say could be a pivotal moment for Latinos and other groups seeking to demonstrate their political clout.

Organizers of the National Day of Action for Immigrant Justice -- or La Marcha , as some volunteers are calling it -- said it could draw as many as 180,000 people to the Mall and hundreds of thousands more in nearly 100 cities nationwide.

Although no one knows for certain how many people will show up at the D.C. rally, the event has the potential to complicate the afternoon rush hour.

This afternoon, scores of buses will begin moving protesters from throughout the region to the District. CASA of Maryland, an immigrant rights group, has arranged for more than 40 buses to take them to Seventh Street NW between Madison and Jefferson drives. Fifteen additional buses will run a loop six times between CASA's Silver Spring office and the Takoma Metro station and are expected to carry about 5,000 people, said Kim Propeack, advocacy director for CASA.

Mexicanos Sin Fronteras, a D.C.-based immigrant rights group, will send about 20 buses from Virginia to Meridian Hill Park in the Adams Morgan area, said Farah Fosse of the Latino Economic Development Corp., a local organizer.

There, the participants will join neighborhood residents in a march down 16th and 15th streets NW to the Mall. Police plan to temporarily close some streets along the way.

If they want to step out and demand rights and citizenship, we should impose upon them a basic duty -- following the laws of the United States.

Would that the will existed to start today.

Posted by: Greg at 10:22 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 343 words, total size 2 kb.

Could this be the solution?

Senate Republicans reached agreement last night on a compromise immigration measure that they believe will garner enough bipartisan support to break through a parliamentary impasse that has stymied progress on a high-stakes border security bill for two weeks.

Under the agreement, the Senate would allow undocumented workers a path to lawful employment and citizenship if they could prove -- through work stubs, utility bills or other documents -- that they have been in the country for five years. To attain citizenship, those immigrants would have to pay a $2,000 penalty, back taxes, learn English, undergo a criminal background check and remain working for 11 years.

Those who have been here a shorter time would have to return to one of 16 designated ports of entry, such as El Paso, Tex., and apply for a new form of temporary work visa for low-skilled and unskilled workers. An additional provision still under consideration would disqualify illegal immigrants who have been in the country less than two years.

Like it or not, sending all the illegals back would be impossible -- we lack the will and the means. After all, what do you do with someone who has been in this country for 15 years and who has three US citizen children? What do you do with folks who are married to US citizens? This plan recognizes the different levels of ties that have developed within the illegal immigrant population -- differences I see on a daily basis at my school -- and tries to use them. to make reasonable distinctions.

I may not like the amnesty provisions of this (or any other) bill, but I recognize that there is a realistic need for some accommodation of those who have been here hte longest.

Posted by: Greg at 10:37 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 302 words, total size 2 kb.

We ought to prohibit all political participation by aliens -- no contributions, no lobbying, no demonstrations.

We ought to deny all aliens employment in this country, until and unless it can be demonstrated that no American will take a given job. No foreigners -- or even naturalized citizens -- should be permitted to hold any position as military officers, American-flagged ship and airline crew, and chiefs of seaports and airports.

Immigrants, even after naturalization, should be prohibitted from holding elective or appointed office -- or serving as members of clergy.

Property rights should be severely restricted for immigrants, denying them ownership of real property or concessions for mineral exploration and production.

All aliens engaged in illegal conduct -- including immigration offenses -- should be subject to apprehension and citizen's arrest by any American.

Any and all foreigners -- even those in the United States legally -- should be subject to immediate expulsion by the executive branch without due process and without recourse to the courts.

By now, of course, readers must be horrified, and must be wondering if I have gone insane. After all, how could I possibly conceive of such laws, much less suggest implementing them agains these poor, defenseless immigrants streamingover the border from mexico -- good people who just want to work?

Easy -- these are identical to elements of the MEXICAN CONSTITUTION related to the rights of immigrants and limitations upon them. These restrictions are pointed out by the Center for Immigration Security in their new report, Mexico's Glass House.

For example, according to an official translation published by the Organization of American States, the Mexican constitution includes the following restrictions:

* Pursuant to Article 33, "Foreigners may not in any way participate in the political affairs of the country." This ban applies, among other things, to participation in demonstrations and the expression of opinions in public about domestic politics like those much in evidence in Los Angeles, New York and elsewhere in recent days.

* Equal employment rights are denied to immigrants, even legal ones. Article 32: "Mexicans shall have priority over foreigners under equality of circumstances for all classes of concessions and for all employment, positions, or commissions of the Government in which the status of citizenship is not indispensable."

* Jobs for which Mexican citizenship is considered "indispensable" include, pursuant to Article 32, bans on foreigners, immigrants, and even naturalized citizens of Mexico serving as military officers, Mexican-flagged ship and airline crew, and chiefs of seaports and airports.

* Article 55 denies immigrants the right to become federal lawmakers. A Mexican congressman or senator must be "a Mexican citizen by birth." Article 91 further stipulates that immigrants may never aspire to become cabinet officers as they are required to be Mexican by birth. Article 95 says the same about Supreme Court justices.

In accordance with Article 130, immigrants - even legal ones - may not become members of the clergy, either.

* Foreigners, to say nothing of illegal immigrants, are denied fundamental property rights. For example, Article 27 states, "Only Mexicans by birth or naturalization and Mexican companies have the right to acquire ownership of lands, waters, and their appurtenances, or to obtain concessions for the exploitation of mines or of waters."

* Article 11 guarantees federal protection against "undesirable aliens resident in the country." What is more, private individuals are authorized to make citizen's arrests. Article 16 states, "In cases of flagrante delicto, any person may arrest the offender and his accomplices, turning them over without delay to the nearest authorities." In other words, Mexico grants its citizens the right to arrest illegal aliens and hand them over to police for prosecution. Imagine the Minutemen exercising such a right!

* The Mexican constitution states that foreigners - not just illegal immigrants - may be expelled for any reason and without due process. According to Article 33, "the Federal Executive shall have the exclusive power to compel any foreigner whose remaining he may deem inexpedient to abandon the national territory immediately and without the necessity of previous legal action."

Hey, if these provisions are good enough for Mexico to enforce against poor innocent foreigners just looking for work and a better life, then certainly the government of Presidente Pendejo Vincente Fox cannot object to the enforcement of similar provisions in this country -- much less our own significantly less draconian immigration laws.

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

(H/T Michelle Malkin)

UPDATE: Over at Colossus of Rhodey, there is a lot more information on just how much Mexico restricts foreigners.

It's worth noting the chutzpah it takes for an illegal immigrant to join a protest which claims illegals have a right to stay, live and work in the U.S. Maybe these illegals, especially Mexicans, ought to consider how their own country treats illegal immigrants, particularly from Central America:

Mexico’s own immigration policies are the exact opposite of what it relentlessly advocates in the United States. Its entry permits favor scientists, technicians, teachers of underrepresented disciplines, and others likely to contribute to “national progress.” Immigrants may only enter through established ports and at designated times. Anyone not presenting the proper documentation and health certificates won’t get in; the transportation company that brought him must pay his return costs. Foreigners who do not “strictly comply” with the entry conditions will face deportation. Steve Royster, who worked in the American consulate in Mexico from 1999 to 2001, presided over several deportations of Americans who had overstayed their visas. “They were given a choice: accept deportation or go to jail,” he says.

Providing full college tuition or all-expenses-paid secondary and primary education for illegal American students in Mexico? Unthinkable. Until recently, U.S.-born children of Mexican parents weren’t even allowed to enroll in Mexican public schools, reserved for Mexican citizens only. The parents would have to bribe officials for Mexican birth certificates for their kids. (The 1998 change in the Mexican constitution to allow dual nationality now makes enrollment by U.S.-born Mexicans possible.) “We’re not friendly with immigrants; that’s a big difference with the speech we have here with American schools,” admits a Mexican diplomat.

MexicoÂ’s border police have reportedly engaged in rapes, robberies, and beatings of illegal aliens from Central and South America on their way to the U.S. Yet compared with the extensive immigrant-advocacy network in the U.S., few pressure groups exist in Mexico to protest such treatment. If Americans run afoul of MexicoÂ’s border police, watch out. In 1996, the Mexican police beat and shot in the back a teenage American girl who had led them on a high-speed chase in Tijuana.No one in the U.S. or Mexico raised a fuss, at least publicly.

Contrast that incident with another that occurred in the U.S. a few months earlier. A vanload of Mexican illegals in California had fled from the border patrol and the Riverside County deputies, throwing metal bars and beer cans at their pursuers and sideswiping cars to divert attention. When the van stopped, the deputies caught two of the fleeing occupants and beat them. Mexico’s foreign ministry turned the beating into an international human rights incident, attributing it to “discriminatory attitudes that lead to institutional violence.” Mexican diplomats formally protested to state and federal officials, and helped the two beaten Mexicans file multimillion-dollar lawsuits against the deputies and Riverside County.

More of the duplicitous, hypocritcal "Do as we say, not as we do" attitude towards the rights of foreigners, legal or not, down in Mexico. Isn't it time that we insist upon playing by the same rules as they do, rather than becoming the safety valve for all of Mexico's social and economic problems?

MORE AT Publius Rendevous, Wall Street Cafe, Conservative Outpost, Iowa Voice, Queen of All Evil, RTOYAMM, Don Singleton, Gringoman, Noisy Room

Posted by: Greg at 01:04 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 1305 words, total size 10 kb.

A post in three parts relating to the high school immigration walkouts -- including a glimpse into my own classroom.

* * *

Michelle Malkin has photos from one of the many high school demonstrations regarding the immigration bill.

Be prepared to be outraged. The kids purposely insulted the American flag and flew it subordinate to the flag of Mexico.

My students and i had a bit of a discussion on these demonstrations during last period yesterday. Rumor is that they are going to do a walkout sometime today, and 2since I overheard discussion, I thought I should address it.

I may be accused of going a little bit Jay Bennish, but I think you will see where what I did differed.

My comments went something like this -- though I am condensing a bit.

"All right, guys, I'm not going to pretend that I haven't heard some of the chatter about the plans some of you have for tomorrow.

{confused comments from some students, and disingenuous denials from the ring leaders}

You know, I'm the last guy in the world to tell someone not to express their oipinion, but I think this whole walkout thing we've been seeing on Channel One and I've heard you kids talking about here is a bad idea. If you kids walk out, you can expect ISS, Suspensions, or even tickets -- and since I keep the gradebook, I know that some of you really don't need to be out of class any more this grading period.

Besides, do you know how these walkouts are being received by your average middle aged, middle class Anglo like me? Do you? You know, the folks who represent a majority of Americans nationwide? I'll be glad to tell you.

{the ringleaders are enthusiastic, and the rest of the class would like a chance to stop working}

I was listening to one of the talk radio stations over the last couple of days -- I don't remember which one, with all that's been going on in my life -- and you had a guy saying "I see all these folks waving Mexican flags and chanting "Mexico! Mexico! Mexico!' I want to go down there and start shouting 'Go back to! Go back to!'

{one of the ring leaders responds "Mister, I think somebody wants to get his ass jumped doing that."}

Jose, you're missing my point. My point is this -- has waving a Mexican flag and chanting "Mexico!" done anything to get this guy on your side? Do you think it is doing anything to get your average middle aged, middle class Anglo on your side?

{"uhhh... No"}

Why not?

{"Cuz this isn't Mexico."}

Yeah -- and what are you supposedly protesting for.

{"To let Mexicans who are here stay here and become citizens."}

And if you wave Mexican flags and chant "Mexico!", what does it sound like you are more interested in being?

{"Mexican. What's wrong with being proud of being Mexican?"}

Nothing -- but I think you are missing the point. If you want to be proud Mexicans and wave the Mexican flag, that's great. But a lot of Americans are going to look at that and think there is a great place for you if you want to do that -- Mexico. If you want to show us that you want to be American citizens and work and live here and follow our laws, what might be a better thing for you to do?

{various kids respond -- "Carry American flags." "Shout 'USA'." "Don't disrupt school."}

Yeah, those are all good. Besides, who are the folks you most need to influence?

{Again, various kids -- "The president" "Congress" "The governor" "Mayor Bill White"}

Well, maybe not the governor or the mayor, but the first two are exactly right. What can you do to influence them? And I'm not just talking about on this issue, but I mean on anything.

{one jaded kid -- "What? You want us to write them letters? Ain't no on e gonna read letters from us."}

Yeah, they will. Maybe not the President, and maybe not Congressman Gene Green or either Senator from Texas, but someone who works for them will. They record what folks are wrting about, and pass the information on to their bosses.

{time for the challenge -- "Yeah, right. They don't care. They won't even write back."

You would be surprised. Whenever I write, I get a letter back. It may be a few weeks, but they at least acknowledge the letter. And it can change people's minds. Heck, you can even call their offices and talk to a real live person.

{"I don't know who or where to call or write."}

Do you really want the addresses and phone numbers? I'll get them for you before you leave this room -- they aren't hard to find. You can call or write them instead, and make a responsible protest -- show that you know how to be a good American, whether you are here legally, illegally, or are an American citizen. Show that you know how to work within the system.. I'll even make you a deal -- if you feel like writing a letter to the President or the Senators, or the Congressman, I'll even proofread and edit it for you before it goes in the mail. I don't care if I agree with you or not -- I'll be proud of you doing things the right way. I'll even mail it if you bring it in an addressed envelope with a stamp on it."

We talked about the immigration issue for a while -- I used examples of line-jumping in the cafeteria, and whether they would rather have someone who followed the rules or who "backstroked across the river" as a neighbor. the funny thing is, even the kids who I believe to be here illegally (or the children of illegals) said they would prefer those who follow the law.

Where it got down to a real awkward discussion was when someone asked about dealing with the illegals who are already here.

"I guess the problem is this -- we've got maybe 15-20 million illegal aliens in this country. That is somewhere between 5 and 8 perscent of the American population. What are we going to do with them? A lot of folks, myself included, can't see reqarding them by waving a magic wand and giveng them citizenship -- how is that fair to the folks who have waited for years to get their green card legally? On the other hand, rounding them all up and sending everybody back would be pretty near impossible -- and would be a real hardship when you have families where some are American citizens and some are not. So it sounds good, until you think it through. So there has to be some middle ground -- and that is what the bill the Senate is dealing with is trying to do. Read the paper, go ont he internet, do something to find out what exactly the bill does. Do it for yourself -- and then write or call if you feel like it. Do the thing that a responsible citizen does when he or she feels strongly about something.

I eventually got the addresses and phone numbers and put them on the board while they did their assigned work.

And a few were quickly jotting them down, like maybe they were thinking about writing or calling.

Maybe they learned something a damn sight more important to them than the politics and economics of Europe between the two World Wars. And maybe I found a way to teach on some of those "politics and government" standards that are easy to overlook as we spring towards the TAKS test next month.

* * *

As I was leaving school to go to the hospital to sit with my wife, I saw a group of kids (around 200 -- about 8-10 % of our students) leaving campus shortly before the bell for first period rang. They were headed towards the Senior High School (Grades 11 & 12) campus. I wondered what would happen next, and prayed it would not involve school bus transportation.

Later in the day, I got filled in by one of our French teachers when she came to visit at the hospital.

By the time the kids reached the other campus, there were about 20-30 police cars there to meet them. They were parked so that the kids could not go anyplace except into the district football stadium. A couple of them circled behind to make sure the kids didn't go back.

Herded into the stands, their parents were called to pick them up. Those whose parents couldn't come had to stay in the stadium until the end of the day -- though they could take shelter on th interior of the stadium once the wind and the rain started. All got unexcused absences, and will not be permitted to make up work. I suspect that additional sanctions will be forthcoming.

My district doesn't play -- and I am proud of that fact.

MORE AT: Red State Rant, Say Anything, Bill Frist, Captain's Quarters, A Certain Slant of Light, Babalu, Euphoric Reality, California Conservative, Badger Blogger, Leaning Straight Up, James Mabry, Unpartisan, Right Wing News, Smithism, Unalienable Right, Tech In Black, LaShawn Barber, Left Wing = Hate, Those Bastards!, Portia Rediscovered, Hyscience, Education Wonks, Blogs for Bush, GOPBloggers

TRACKBACKED AT: Blue Star Chronicles, Stuck on Stupid, Liberal Wrong Wing, Outside The Beltway, Conservative Cat, Third World Country, Bacon Bits, Real Ugly American, Adam's Blog, Is It Just Me?, Voteswagon, Uncooperative Blogger

Posted by: Greg at 04:11 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 1625 words, total size 12 kb.