Capitalist Hogwash Concerning SB1070

I've never heard of Alex Nowrasteh before today and I've only heard in passing of the Competitive Enterprise Institute.  But the headline in his June 28th FoxNews.com opinion article, "Arizona Declares War on on Capitalism", certainly caught my eye.

A summary of his dissertation is as follows: Illegal immigrants don't commit a disproportionately high rate of crime and Arizona is simply punishing businesses. He then cites US Bureau of Justice Statistics to show that from 2006 to 2008 both violent and property crimes dropped significantly. 

Mr. Nowrasteh doesn't bother to mention that in that time frame (specifically, 2007) Arizona passed the Legal Arizona Workers Act, which requires that all employers use the Federal e-Verify system (admittedly a flawed system) and that any employer that knowingly hires undocumented workers will face a 10-day suspension of their business license on the first offense and permanent suspension of their business license on any subsequent violations.

It is believed by many in Arizona that the drop in crime can be at least partially attributed to the enforcement of this act, which went into effect on January 1, 2008, because of a sudden migration of undocumented persons away from Arizona (to Texas, I am told. Sorry, Texas).

Mr. Nowrasteh then goes on to say that SB 1070 and the Legal Arizona Workers Act essentially turns every business and employer into an immigration agent of the state.  Well... in a word, Yes.  There is precedence for this.  Every business that sells goods or services to consumers are expected to collect local, state and federal sales taxes.  Every business that hires employees (as opposed to contract workers) must withhold federal taxes from employee paychecks and forward that money to the IRS.  Every business must conform to OSHA, Dept. of Labor, or Dept. of Sanitation requirements.  Every business must conform to equal employment opportunity regulations to prevent discrimination.  Every business must pay a wage not less than the federally mandated minimum wage.  So, Mr. Nowrasteh's point is somewhat muted by the fact that businesses are already conforming to a myriad of laws, rules and regulations being mandated from all levels of government.

What Mr. Nowrasteh does not point out is that any undocumented worker must provide some form of identification in order to be employed. That's what e-Verify is all about.  So of course, any illegal immigrant that is using bogus identification is causing material harm to a legal U.S. citizen.  That illegal immigrant can cause irreparable damage to credit ratings and worse, legal history. 

Mr. Nowrasteh makes the claim that many of the people that illegally migrate to the United States do so because they have no chance of doing so legally.  Really?  It may be hard, yes. It may cost money, yes.  But have "no chance of doing so legally"?  Please, Mr. Nowrasteh, would you mind submitting any kind of example or proof to support this statement. What utter hogwash.

I believe that Mr. Nowrasteh's underlying motive for this article is exposed in this one sentence buried deep in the midst of this article: "Now, businesses are going to be further punished when they do what naturally comes to them: lowering costs and passing those savings onto consumers."  Yup, if you run a business that is caught hiring illegal immigrants and paying them sub-minimum wage or worse, under the table in order to avoid federal tax withholding collection, then you are going to be punished.  Mr. Nowrasteh's capitalist world of minimized costs at all costs is creating and perpetuating a permanent serf-class in this country. Is that really what America is all about in your world, Mr. Nowrasteh?  Laborers who are viewed as two-legged mules, to be fed and watered occassionally, but who ought not to expect any joy in life? 

If Americans want a high standard of living (high pay), then they have to expect that they will have to pay for that standard when buying goods and services from domestic businesses.  I take pride in the fact that many of the companies that I do business with aren't the cheapest, but that every time I make a purchase, I'm helping their employees to live the "good" life.

Boycotts work two ways.

My beloved wife and I had planned on going to Anaheim this October and spend a fun weekend at Disneyland.  I've been wanting to see the "Haunted House on Holiday" exhibition for the last couple of years and we finally seemed to able to arrange things so that we could go this fall.

Well, all of a sudden, California cities started making a fuss about Arizona's anti-illegal immigration enforcement laws, also known as "SB 1070", also known as "Arizona Safe Neighborhoods and Law Enforcement Act".  Cities like Los Angeles, San Diego and Berkeley (OK, Berkeley isn't a surprise, really) have indicated that they will boycott contracts with Arizona.

Clearly, they've not actually read the law (even though the total number of changes to existing Arizona state statutory laws account for only about 16 pages or reading).  Clearly, they've not yet seen that the law can only be enforced as part of a "contact by law enforcement officials" for other reasons and that questions can only be asked about immigration status if "reasonable suspicion" arises as part of that lawful contact.  They've also clearly not read the even more strongly worded amendment that specifically prohibits the use of race in evaluating "reasonable suspicion". 

OK, California. Have it your own way. But although your contracts with us are important to us, I know that tourism from out of state visitors is also important to you.  So let me point out a few things:

1. Rasmussen polls:
1. 53% in Pennsylvania favor passing legislation similar to AZ SB1070 in their state.
2. 57% in Texas support passing legislation similar to AZ SB1070 in their state.
3. 68% oppose boycotts of Arizona over SB1070.
4. 55% nationally favor immigration law similar to AZ SB1070 in their state.
2. Pew Research Center
1. Broad approval for New Arizona Immigration Law
1. 73% approve requiring people to produce documents verifying status. (86% of Republicans, 65% of Democrats, 75% of Independents)
2. 67% approve allowing police to detain anyone unable to verify status.
3. 59% approve the general provisions of SB1070.
3. Gallup Poll
1. Among those who have heard of the law, 51% favor and 39% oppose it.
4. MSNBC/Telemundo
1. 61% favor AZ SB1070, although only 31% of Latinos favored it.

So... if you look at these results, it's pretty simple: Nearly 2/3 of the nation disagrees with the city council rulings for San Diego, Los Angeles and Berkely (amongst others). And just as California wants to flex it's financial muscle (oh... wait... what financial muscle? Isn't CA like 21 billion in the hole?),  so can we who support AZ SB1070.

You remember that California vacation I alluded to earlier? Well, we're going to Jackson Hole, Wyoming instead.

Intended Consequences of SB 1070, and the Pain it Will Cause.

Today, azcentral.com ran a story about one of the very predictable results of the new Arizona immigration law (SB 1070); illegal immigrants going even further underground than they currently do.

The article is here.

The first thing about this article that caught my eye was the headline: "Arizona immigrants move deeper into the shadows".  The story is about a Mexican born naturalized US citizen, who is married to an illegal alien, also a Mexican and their US born daughter.  In the context that the wife is an immigrant, I suppose the headline is technically correct, I still resent the title because only those who are here illegally or those who are aiding and abetting illegal aliens in their efforts to remain here illegally have to move deeper underground. Legal immigrants who are following the law have nothing to fear from SB 1070.

The summary of the story is that the wife fell in love with her husband to be and had already made plans to marry him when he revealed that he was in the US without permission.  Since then, they have been carefully controlling their daily and weekly activities to keep a low profile. They keep a neat yard. They dress nice. He works hard. They obey all other laws. They immaculately maintain their vehicle in order to avoid traffic stops. In other words, they sound like nice people. People that I would like as neighbors.

But, he is still here in violation of the law, and she is aiding and abetting him. Their daughter is growing up believing that her family are all US citizens, a lie.  One day, be it tomorrow or in ten years, he may be found out and when it happens, he will be deported with the inevitable result that their family will either be ripped apart or they will leave together to go to Mexico, where they will have far fewer opportunities.

This is the consequence breaking the law. He entered the country illegally, and she has supported and aided him ever since she found out that he was an illegal alien.  Until proven otherwise, the US and Arizona are both governed by laws, and justice must be blind when upholding it.  Either that, or we abandon the law. To do so would be, in my opinion, just as unjust if not more so to the millions of people that have become naturalized US citizens by following the law, or the hundreds of thousands more who continue to follow the law and are still patiently awaiting naturalized US citizen status.

The story is tragic. But it is not a tragedy of injustice. It is the tragedy of a nice little family that turned a blind eye with regards to immigration law and are both daily paying the price.  And potentially to pay the highest penalty for breaking it.

CNN's Reuben Navarette: American Flag wearers were "Disobedient Brats".

Reuben Navarette's article was in regards to the Live Oak High School incident where five students who wore American flag inspired clothing were ordered to reverse their t-shirts or be sent home for the day. The boys refused, recognizing that their clothing is an expression of political speech and therefore protected under the First Amendment.

The main point of Reuben's argument is that wearing the American flag at an American high school on May 5th is disruptive behavior. Cinco de Mayo is not even a US holiday, for crying out loud. How is wearing US national colors on any day of the year in school "disruptive"?  These boys were making a political point. "Celebrate your Mexican national roots but don't forget that you are Americans." Or should be, who knows today with so many illegal aliens from Mexico and Central America in our nation? 

He then cited three cases that came before the U.S. Supreme Court that upholds the right of school administration to restrict speech. However, his citations of case law is disingenuous and I'm disappointed.

In Bethel School District v Fraser (1986), the court upheld that schools have the right to uphold community standards and were right to stop a speech that was filled with sexual innuendo. This was not a political speech issue and therefore not protected to the same standard. 

Hazelwood v Kuhlmeier (1988) documents a case where Hazelwood School District was determined to be innocent of violating student's First Amendment rights when an article about teenage pregnancy and use/non-use of birth control was edited from a high school paper, again because the subject matter was deemed inappropriate for the younger class members of the school. Not a political expression issue, and therefore not protected to the same standard.

Morse v Frederick (2007) was a school speech case in which the Supreme Court that First Amendment does not prevent educators from suppressing student speech, even at school supervised events, that can be reasonably viewed to promote illegal drug abuse.

Hey Reuben, how about citing some case law that actually deals with freedom of expression of POLITICAL views? Your argument is pathetic and I, a non lawyer, was able to rip it to shreds in fifteen minutes of Google searches.

To sum up, these boys were expressing their POLITICAL views by wearing those shirts on May 5th and as long as the display of the national colors is in good taste the wearing of such colors should never be deemed disruptive.

USCD panel of legal professors state that SB 1070 probably passes Constitutional muster.

Leslie Berestein of the San Diego Tribune reported on May 14th that a panel of three law professors discussing Arizona law SB 1070 could well pass constitutional muster, although violations could occur during enforcement. 

The article is here.

The primary points made by the professors were:
1) It does not appear to give law enforcement more authority, contrary to claims by opponents of the law.
2) The the law was carefully written by Russel Pearce with the help of Constitutional law professor Kris Kobach of the Univ. of Missouri. It mirrors federal immigration laws. Because immigration law is adjudicated  by the federal government, the Arizona law could be pre-empted because federal law overrides state law. Arizona is essentially notifying the federal government that it will enforce the law until the federal government explicitly orders them to stop doing so. Since there is no conflict, the likelihood that the federal government will "pre-empt" the enforcement of this law is unlikely.  Further, if SB 1070 is found fail constitutional muster, that means that federal law ALSO fails constitutional muster, an unsavory consequence for the federal government.

The Danger of Playing Economic War When you are DOWNSTREAM

Interesting, considering the situation that exists between both Southern California and Arizona. They both are states that border Mexico. Their electorate are mutually groaning under tremendous budgetary shortfalls that are pushing our public programs to their very limit. 

However, Arizona in recent years has become a virtual highway into the United States for migrants from Mexico. Specifically, Arizona is now dealing with rampant human trafficking, kidnapping, drug-related murder and other crimes, and vehicle theft.  Phoenix is the kidnapping capital of the United States.  Five of the last eight Arizona law enforcement officers that we have lost in the line of duty were killed by illegal immigrants.  Two prominent ranchers have been killed and the evidence strongly indicates illegal drug activity associated with Mexicans in our state illegally. 

For these reasons and others the state of Arizona, a state somewhat more 'red' than our neighbor to the west, has decided that if the federal government of the United States will not enforce existing laws with regards to immigration, then Arizona will.  This was a bold step by Governor Jan Brewer and Arizona state senator Russel Pearce.  Both of them have publicly lamented the need to do this.  But citizens who have earned the right to live here because they have declared allegiance to this great country have an expectation to be protected by their government, and "Uncle Sugar" ain't making the grade.

Enter SB1070, or the (Support our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act).  Nearly everybody that has proclaimed (loudly) that this is racist legislation that will open the doors to the dreaded phrase "Papers, please!" has also now admitted that they have themselves not even read it yet.  I have done an analysis of the law (which you can find on this blog), which clearly shows that police may only act on this law in the course of an already existing "contact" between themselves and a potential perpetrator. Since I did that analysis, the law has been even further modified to put further restrictions on what constitutes 'reasonable suspicion'. 

Nonetheless, the liberal main-stream media, in cahoots with their progressive brethren and constituents in the Latino community, La Raza, the Reconquistas, and their fraternal friends in the civil rights movement have whipped up a completely false picture of how this law will be implemented.  President Obama, US Attorney-General Holder, Dept. of Homeland Defense Napolitano have all rebuked Arizona over the law even though all of them now admit they haven't even read it.

Now several cities in Washington, Illinois and California have decided to boycott Arizona originated goods and services.  With regards to California the Los Angeles City Council, strongly led by Mayor Villaraigosa, has decided to jump on the bandwagon. 

However, there can be, from time time, found even in offices of politicians and bureaucrats individuals who have the strength of character to respond forcefully and yet without emotion or irrationality.  Arizona Corporate Commissioner Gary Pierce has decided enough is enough and wrote a little missive to Mayor Villaraigosa, reminding him the Southern California buys a lot of our power.  I think that the Commissioner's stand on their own:


May 18, 2010


VIA FACSIMILE & US MAIL


Mayor Antonio R. Villaraigosa
Office of the Mayor
200 North Spring St., Room 303
Los Angeles, CA 90012


Re: Los Angeles boycott of Arizona


Dear Mayor Villaraigosa:


I was dismayed to learn that the Los Angeles City Council voted to boycott Arizona and Arizona-based companies--a vote you strongly supported--to show opposition to SB 1070 (Support our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act).


You explained your support for the boycott as follows: "While we recognize that as neighbors, we share resources and ties with the State of Arizona that may be difficult to sever, our goal is not to hurt the local economy of Los Angeles, but to impact the economy of Arizona. Our intent is to use our dollars--or the witholding of our dollars--to send a message." (emphasis added)


I received your message; please receive mine. As a state-wide elected member of the Arizona Corporation Commission overseeing Arizona's electric and water utilities, I too am keenly aware of the "resources and ties" we share with the City of Los Angeles. In fact, approximately twenty-five percent of the electricity consumed in Los Angeles is generated by power plants in Arizona.


If an economic boycott is truly what you desire, I will be happy to encourage Arizona utilities to renegotiate your power agreements so Los Angeles no longer receives any power from Arizona-based generation. I am confident that Arizona utilities would be happy to take those electrons off of your hands. If, however, you find that the City Council lacks the strength of its convictions to turn off the lights in Los Angeles and boycott Arizona power, please reconsider the wisdom of attempting to harm Arizona's economy.


People of goodwill can disagree over the merits of SB 1070. A state-wide economic boycott of Arizona is not a message sent in goodwill.


Sincerely,

Commission Gary Pierce


The City of Los Angeles may regret that they didn't build more nuclear power plants in the 1970's, 80's and 90's.

If you want to see the actual facsimile copy of the letter, you can go here to the Arizona Corporate Commissioner's website.

The Unbelievable Media Bias

NewsBusters reports that when prompted by Katie Couric during an interview, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg speculated that the person responsible for the failed car bomb in Times Square was "somebody with a political agenda who doesn't like the health care bill or something. It could be anything.” Yup, Mayor Michael thinks it might be one of those "tea party" people, you know, an angry WHITE guy. I can only imagine how disappointed President Obama was to find out that in fact, the guy is actually a naturalized American citizen of Pakistani decent. Sorry Mister President, you won't be able to blame this one on those angry gun-toting white males.

Of course, Arizona's new illegal immigration enforcement laws are whipping up angst all over the United States. The day of the bill's signing, pro-illegal-immigration supporters were throwing water bottles and other objects at Phoenix police. Looters have damaged stores in several cities during these protest marches during the May day weekend. Yet the press is characterizing them as "unfairly repressed", yet when tens of thousands of tea party people march on Washington DC and other U.S. cities, even though no crimes were reported, they are characterized as full of "hateful, racist and bigoted" people.

Speaking of Arizona's new law, I've read it in it's entirely and there is absolutely no provision for a police officer to lawfully stop somebody and ask them for their papers. Period. These new laws may only be acted upon in a situation where a person has already been legally detained for other reasons (traffic stop). The only possible cause for concern is that it makes the hiring of day laborers from the road side illegal, which in my opinion is good law.

Speaking of peaceful assemblies, several thousand American citizens had a rally in Arlington, Virginia where each and every one of them was wearing or carrying a firearm. I can't speak as to whether any of them actually had any bullets in them, although even an unloaded firearm can really smart when you use it to butt-stroke some idiot. But while the press was lamenting the implied threat of these citizens who were, in fact, doing nothing more than exercise their 2nd Amendment right, I note that nobody was shot or killed or even just injured by some kind of firearm discharge. What?! How can that be? Guns KILL people right? I guess this shows what the NRA people have been talking about for a long time. People kill people, and these people decided to be lawful citizens on that particular day.

So, just so I can call it right out where people can either praise or pillory me for it.

Large group of white people assemble to protest Obamacare, or lack of illegal-immigration law enforcement, or to lawfully assemble with their firearms, is a bunch of racist, bigoted, bible clinging members of hate groups just brimming with hate and ready to explode into seditious violence.

But large groups of non-white people who clearly support illegal-immigration, who break store windows and throw objects at the police, who threaten reporters, slap them and then tell the police that THEY have been assaulted (look it up on the net, it actually happened just this weekend), they're just "unfairly repressed" people.

And the main-stream media talking heads actually have the temerity to look me in the face and wonder why Fox News is kicking the living crap out of all the other news sources?

Arizona SB 1070: Here's what it actually says...

If you want to see the actual bill as passed by the Arizona legislature and signed by the Governor, you can go here.

I have attempted to summarize it as much as possible below.

Changes are made to Sec 2. Title 11, Chapter 7 of Arizona Revised statutes, amended by adding article 8.
8.a) No official or agency of any Arizona juridiction may adopt policies that limit or restricts enforcement of federal immigrations laws.
8.b) When lawful contact made by Arizona law enforcement, where reasonable suspicion exists that the person may be an illegal alien, a reasonable attempt will be made to determine the person’s immigration status.
8.c) If it is determined that the person is an illegal alien and convicted of a violation of Arizona jurisdiction law, they shall be immediately transferred to ICE or the US Border Patrol.
8.d) Notwithstanding other law, law enforcement may securely transport an alien in their custody to a federal facility in Arizona or other point of transfer to federal custody outside law enforcement agency jurisdiction.
8.e) Law enforcement may without warrant arrest a person under probable cause to believe that person has committed a public offense that makes person eligible for removal from the U.S.
8.f) Except as restricted by Federal law, Arizona officials may not be prohibited or restricted from transmitting, requesting or storing immigration-related status information for the following purposes:
8.f.1) Determining eligibility for any public benefit provided by any political subdivision of Arizona or the Federal government.
8.f.2) Verification of claim of residence or domicile is required under Arizona law or judicial order pursuant to a civil or criminal proceeding in Arizona.
8.f.3) Confirming ID of any person who is detained.
8.f.4) If person confirmed to be an alien, determining whether the person is in compliance with the Federal Registration Laws prescribed by Title II, Chapter 7 of the Federal Immigration and National Act.
8.g) A person may bring an action to challenge any official or agency of an Arizona jurisdiction that adopts or implements a policy that restricts full enforcement of federal immigration law. If an official or agency has been found in violation, the court shall:
8.g.1) The person who brought the action recover court costs and attorney feeds
8.g.2) The entity will pay a civil penalty of not less than $1000 or more than $5000 for each day the limiting policy was in effect after the filing.
8.h) The court shall collect civil penalties from 8.g and remit them to the Dept. of Public Safety for the Gang and Immigration Intellgence Team Enforcement mission fund.
8.i) A law enforcement officer is indemnified for reasonable costs and expenses, incurred by any action so long as the officer is judged to have acted in good faith of enforcement of the law.
8.j) Guides implementation.

Sec. 3. Title 13, Chapter 15, Arizona Revised statutes modified as below:
15.a) In addition to any violation of federal law, a person is guilty of trespassing if the person is both:
15.a.1) Present on public of private land in Arizona.
15.a.2) In violation of 8 USC Sec 1304(e) or 1306(a).
15.b) In enforcement of this section final determination of an alien’s immigration status shall be determined by either:
15.b.1) A law enforcement officer who is authorized by the federal government to veiry or ascertain an alien’s immigration status.
15.b.2) A law enforcement officer or agent communicating with US ICE or US Border Patrol pursuant to 8 USC 1373(c).
15.c) A person sentenced pursuant to this section is not eligible for suspension or commutation of sentence until sentence is served.
15.d) In addition to any other penalty prescribed by law, the court shall order the reason to pay jail costs and an additional assessment in the following amounts:
15.d.1) At least $500 for first violation.
15.d.2) Twice the amount from 15.d.1 if person was previously subject to an assessment pursuant to this subsection.
15.e) The court will collect these assesements and distribute them to Dept. of Public Safety, subaccount for Gang and Immigration Intelligence Team Enforcement Mission appropriations.
15.f) This section does not apply to a person who maintains authorization from the federal government to remain in the United States.
15.g) Violation of this subsection is a class 1 misdemeanor unless
15.g.1) A class 3 felony is committed while in possession of
15.g.1.a) A dangerous drug as defined in 13-3401
15.g.1.b) Precursor chemicals used in manufacture of methamphetamines in violation of 13-3404.01.
15.g.1.c) Possesses a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument as defined in 13-105.
15.g.2) A class 4 felony is committed if the person
15.g.2.a) Is convicted of a second or subsequent violation of this section
15.g.2.b) Within 60 months prior to violation, has been deported from the US pursuant to 8 USC 1229a or has accepted a voluntary removal from the US to 8 USC 1229c.

Sec.4 Section 13-2319 AZ revised statutes amended:
Insert section E:
E) Notwithstanding any other law, a peace officer may lawfully stop any person who is operating a motor vehicle if the officer has reasonable suspicion to believe that the person is in violation of any civil traffic law.
Redesignate section E as section F.

Sec. 5 Title 13 Chapter 29 AZ Revised Statues amended by adding 13-2928 and 13-2929

Section 13-2928 makes it illegal to pick up anybody from a street, roadway or highway for the purpose of work at a different location if the vehicle impedes normal traffic. It also makes it illegal to enter a vehicle under the same circumstances. Finally, it makes it illegal for an illegal immigrant to seek work in a public place or perform work as an employee or independent contractor. 13-2928 will be a class 1 misdemeanor.

Section 13-2929 makes it illegal for anyone to attempt to, or actually perform any of the following if they know or recklessly disregard a person’s illegal immigration status: transport, move, harbor, conceal, shield, or encourage to reside in this state unlawfully.

Modification of Sec 23-212 to define entrapment of businesses by law enforcement agencies under certain circumstances such as law enforcement initiating idea to commit the offense, with or without inducement and it can be shown that employer was not predisposed to commit offense prior to contact with law enforcement agents.

Section 23-214 is modified to specify that employers shall participate in e-verify and maintain the record of verification of the employee’s employment or at least three years, whichever is longer.

Section 28-3511 modified to permit the removal, impoundment or immobilization of a vehicle if the person is in violation of a criminal offense and is transporting, moving, concealing, harboring or shielding or attempting to do so of an alien in a vehicle if the person knows or recklessly disregards the fact that the alien is residing in the U.S. unlawfully.

AZ SB1070: If it's making people this mad, it must be a good thing.

“These are the times that try men’s souls.” – wrote Thomas Paine during the U.S. War of Independence at a time when Continental forces had not yet won a major battle. After the Christmas Eve assault on a vastly superior force of Hessians, mercenaries on King George’s payroll and possessed of a ferocious reputation, the Continentals got into the habit winning far more frequently than losing.

Today the people of the United States are now faced with a similar situation within the narrow context of illegal immigration. I will not go into why so many people from Mexico, Central and South America are trying to get into the U.S. other than to say that there are job opportunities here that don’t exist in their own countries.

In 1954, the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service executed Operation Wetback (what a HORRIBLE name), which focused on removing 1.2 million illegal immigrants from the southwest. It focused, unsurprisingly, on Mexicans in the nation illegally.
In 1965, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 restricted, for the first time, the number of Mexicans immigrating to the U.S. It has failed to work.
In 1976, President Jimmy Carter and the U.S. Congress tried to grant amnesty to millions of undocumented workers. The proposed legislation was so unpopular that it failed to get out of committee.
In 1986, President Ronald Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control act of 1996, which granted amnesty to about 2.3 million undocumented workers but was also supposed to restrict business from knowingly hire them. It has failed to work.
In 1996, President Bill Clinton signed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. It increased Border Patrols, built a 20-mile long fence from the Pacific, changed rules for immigration detention. It has failed to work.
In 2005, President George Bush signed the REAL ID act, which further restricted political asylum, increased immigrant enforcement rules, and imposed federal restrictions on the practice of state driver’s licenses to immigrants.
In 2006, Congress tried to pass the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006 and 2007. Both were supported by President Bush. However, since a key component of these acts were to grant amnesty to an estimated 12 million to 21 million undocumented aliens, populist backlash was unprecedented and the legislation never made it to the President’s desk.

This lists only recent attempts by the federal government to control the influx of immigrants or to address the problem of illegal immigration, In fact, the Alien Contract Labor Law of 1885 prohibited the importation or migration of foreigners under contract to perform labor in the U.S. and its territories.

So, with regards to Mexican illegal immigration, the border states (Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California) are now filled to the brim with Mexican illegals because it is supposedly “racist” for the United States to enforce its own sovereignty with regards to controlling who is permitted within our borders.

Since 1954, the illegal immigrants are 21 million to zero. Zero! Have you looked at Mexico’s own laws concerning illegal immigrants? That’s a topic for another blog, but suffice it to say that in Mexico, it’s a felony punishable by up to two years in prison. Illegal re-entry after deportation carries a ten year sentence. Mexico maintains a nation population registry that tracks all outside tourists. Citizens of Mexico must carry an identity card. Visitors not carrying appropriate documentation are subject to arrest. Finally, foreigners may be deported without due process.

President Obama, representing the U.S. federal government, laments Arizona’s attempt to get this problem under control as “misguided”. Yet, Arizona SB1070 is fully compliant with the 4th amendment to the U.S. Constitution. SB1070 does NOT permit Arizona law enforcements officers to stop anybody at anytime and request “papers”. SB1070 does not permit officers to stop people for the purpose of identifying undocumented workers. However, SB1070 does permit officers, under circumstances of reasonable suspicion, to investigate whether a person detained for other reasons might be an illegal alien. In this case, “reasonable suspicion” can be interpreted to mean that if an officer stops a person for violating a traffic law, for example, and upon routine request for driver’s license and registration information, the driver cannot provide the license, the officer might then be permitted to inquire further as to the detainee’s citizenship status.

Since the federal government has elected through its non action to enforce its own immigration laws, the several states of the Union are obligated to protect their lawful citizenry. If that means that we get a hodge podge of immigration laws and differing levels of enforcement, there is nobody that President Obama and Congress can blame but themselves.

SB1070 is now law. Let the lawsuits begin.

Judge Napolitano of Fox News said it best. This is an embarrassment to Arizona.

It will cause Latinos, who are natural "social conservatives" to flee the GOP and seek sanctuary with the Democrats.

He predicted that it will be challenged constitutionally. He believes that either the Arizona Supreme Court, or possibly the U.S. Supreme Court will prevent this law from being enforced from the git go. In fact, he said that a challenge will probably happen "tomorrow".

Who lost? Pretty much everybody.

Who won? Even though the law will be shot down by judicial challenge, Governor Jan Brewer will win with her GOP constituency, which will help her dramatically in the primary. However, she gave her eventual Democratic opponent a huge gift.

My steadfast opposition to this bill doesn't change the fact that the federal government, by its very inaction, guaranteed that the several States are going to start trying to get this issue under control. Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43 are all directly to blame, along with all the Congresses that served along those Presidents. President Obama less so only because he's only served as President for just over a year.

My steadfast opposition to this bill does not change my opinion concerning illegal immigration. If you enter this nation without its expressed permission, you are a lawbreaker and you should seek forgiveness, because in so doing you disrespected the people and the laws of this nation.

Tragedy in Arizona. SB1070 will become Law today. And it didn't have to be...

The story of SB1070 is a testimony of the complete and utter failure of the United States federal government to come up with a sane solution to the problem of illegal immigration.

Let's call a spade a spade right now. Illegal immigration is actually a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself. I have no hard facts or statistics to back up my next statement, but reason and prudence dictates that over 99.9999% of the people who have entered our country illegally are doing so out of desperation to find a job, any job that will put food on their family's dinner table and maybe put a decent roof over their heads. And it's American greed, on the part of private individuals and on the part of American business interests.

The homeowner that has an undocumented worker trim and maintain their yard or property because they can get the work done at a low cost is guilty for this problem.

The business that employs undocumented workers by sharing taxpayer SSN or EIN numbers, or pays them under the table for low wages is guilty for this problem.

The Latin-American community, and especially the Mexican-American community are guilty because they have done absolutely nothing to help stem the tide and in fact are actively involved in protecting them. What infuriates me is that they constantly paint this issue as evidence of racism by the government. State Senator Russel Pearce has stated frequently that "illegal immigrant" is not a race issue. It's a crime. Somehow, it seems that illegal immigrants have some kind of "right" to live here in the United States. Nothing is further from the truth. If you are not born a U.S. citizen, then you must earn the privilege. And that can't be done while living in the shadows.

The federal government is in a real rough place. Back in the 1980's, Pres. Reagan granted amnesty to roughly two million illegals, with the understanding that the gates to the country would then become more strongly guarded. Businesses and private citizens alike claim that they need the low labor costs that undocumented workers provide in order to stay competitive. And yet, the federal government has a Constitutional responsibility to be able to track the activities of every alien currently in our country.

So the federal government has done nothing for over twenty years. The number of illegal aliens in our nation has grown from an estimated two million in the 1980s to somewhere between twelve and twenty million today. The vast majority of these people are working in hotels, fast food restaurants and in the agricultural sector. But that doesn't change the fact the government has no visibility to what these people are doing in our country.

In Arizona, five of the last eight police officers who were killed in the line of duty were killed by illegal immigrants, most of whom were involved in illegal drugs or human trafficking. Additionally, in just the last couple of months the murders of several southern Arizona ranchers have been tied to drug runners who are Mexican nationals.

I want to make my position perfectly clear. SB1070 is bad legislation and bad law. I believe that it will be challenged as being in violation of Constitutional guaranteed rights to protection from illegal search/seizure. I believe that it will open the door to many instances of racial profiling. I should point out that racial profiling works, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a violation of basic civil rights.

But what is Arizona to do? Our officers and citizens are being killed by Mexican nationals who are in our state illegally. The federal government is doing very little to stem the flow across our border. It is also doing nearly nothing to help those who desparately want to work in the United States but who are also not U.S. citizens.

Catholic churches are strangely aligned with human traffickers and their drop-houses by providing sanctuary to illegal aliens. The Church is doing so for very human and compassionate reasons. The human traffickers have very different reasons. They are protecting valuable assets, nothing more than human "cattle" in their eyes.

To add insult to injury, the federal government in the form of President Obama calls SB1070 to be misguided. I disagree with that entirely. I believe that SB1070 is actually a sign of desperation, a sign of a state legislature and governor who has pleaded with the federal government for help. If the federal government would step up to the plate and actually perform it's constitutionally mandated duty to both enforce our border security as well as to provide a mechanism for people who want to work here to let them do so.

So, what would I do if I were King of America?

1. I would give American businesses until Jan 1, 2012 to verify that every single employee can be verified to either be a United States citizen or a foreign national that has a valid work-visa. After that date, any business found to employ undocumented foreign nationals will be fined daily at a rate of $100 per day per undocumented worker until the employees are terminated. Failure to solve the problem within 30 days will result in progressively higher fines and/or suspension/termination of business licenses.
2. I would provide an application process where a foreign national (but specifically Mexicans) could apply for a work visa from their own home. They would have to provide their respective national ID number. The U.S. government would have one month, upon receipt of the application, to determine if the applicant has a criminal history or pending criminal case. Upon approval, the applicant would be directed to a valid port of entry, whereupon after paying an application fee of $350.00, they would have full fingerprinting, a photograph taken. That information would then be immediately registered in a federal database. The applicant could then stay in the country for the duration of the visa provided that they checked in with ICE every 90-120 days.
3. Deportees would go into a federal database, along with their fingerprints. Once in this database, it would become part of the e-verify system, and being flagged as a deportee should be an automatic "do not hire" flag.
4. Once the applicant is an approved alien worker, they can immediately go on the list to become a United States citizen.
   

I'm sure there's more.... but that's a start.

Arizona Enforces What the U.S. Government Will Not

The State of Arizona passed Senate bill 1070, a wide-ranging illegal immigrant measure sponsored by State Senator Russell Pearce. This bill is now sitting on the desk of Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, and you can be that this one is a nasty poser for her.

It makes it a state crime to be in the United States illegally and gives state and local law enforcement broad authority to determine an individual's legal status if there is a reasonable suspicion that the individual may be in the U.S. illegally.

Sadly, since our Federal government does not have the political will to enforce Federal law concerning border security and the problem of illegal immigration, Arizona has been forced to this difficult pass.

There have been three Arizona ranchers killed recently, and the evidence strongly points to Mexican nationals in the U.S. illegally, probably either part of the illegal drug trade or the human smuggling trade. Frustration is so high on the southern border of the state that a militant militia group is offering it's services to provide armed patrols along the border to interdict persons crossing the border. It would be laughable except that the ranchers are frustrated and scared.

Why is it that those advocates for leniency on illegal aliens steadfastly do these things?

First, they do nothing to discourage persons who contemplate coming to the U.S. illegally.

Second, once they are here, the advocates actually assist them in going underground, being paid under the table, and moving further into the heart of our country. You never hear them encouraging these good people who become law breakers by this action to turn themselves in or to return to their homeland. NEVER.

Third, they fail utterly to acknowledge that any sovereign nation has a right, and responsibility, and a duty to know the identity of any foreigner who desires admission.

Fourth, they fail to identify and condemn business and industries that employ these people.

In the face of such advocacy to promote this illegal behavior the State of Arizona has been forced to take action that it would otherwise not take.

I hate this bill, because the vast majority of illegal immigrants simply desire to find work. However, the safety and security of our people demand that we take this action, with all of it's police-state like apparatus.

God help us all.