1) The Senate Bill Would Make It Impossible To Deport Most Illegal Aliens For Years.
(Here's what could happen)
"What about illegal alien protection? The alien and their families who file applications for amnesty “shall not be detained, determined inadmissible, deported, or removed until their applications are finally adjudicated, unless they commit a future act that renders them ineligible with amnesty.” With tens of millions of applications, this amnesty, this provision essentially guarantees an illegal alien years of protection in the United States, even if they do not qualify for the amnesty.
2) Consultations Between United States And Mexican Authorities At The Federal, State, And Local Levels Are Required Before A Fence Can Be Built
Although this isn't, as some opponents of the Senate bill have portrayed it, giving Mexico a veto over the fence, what is going to come of it other than delay and condemnations of the project? The whole point of building the fence is to keep people on the Mexican side of the fence from entering our country illegally. The people in Mexico oppose building a fence for exactly the same reasons that we want it built. So, it's like home owners and burglars getting together to discuss the new locks and alarms that are being put into place. It's really none of their business and even if it were, they oppose the fence, so what's to discuss?
3) The National Guard Gimmick
This isn't technically part of the Senate bill, but it's being used to help sell it, so it's fair to include it. "Last year the House Immigration Reform Caucus estimated that at least 36,000 Guardsmen would be needed" to adequately cover the border. George Bush sent only 6,000 Guardsmen, for one year, and then decided not to allow them to actually apprehend anyone. Because of this, Border Patrol chief David Aguilar estimated that the move would allow only, "500 officers working in clerical and other jobs to return to law enforcement." Setting aside the fact that this is only a PR stunt that will have very little impact, the Guard will only be at the border for a year, which isn't enough time for a wall to be built or many of the other security measures, such as they are, to take effect.
4) Police Can't Arrest Illegals Just For Being Illegals
According to Ed Meese, the current Senate bill would actually prevent police officers from arresting anyone based on the fact that they're in this country illegally. Does that sound like the sort of provision that people who are serious about enforcing our immigration law would add to the bill?
5) The Senate Bill Puts Amnesty Ahead Of Security
"The Senate rejected an amendment by Senator Isakson that would have prohibited the implementation of any guest worker program that grants legal status to those who have entered the country illegally until the Secretary of Homeland Security has certified to the President and to the Congress that the border security provisions in the immigration legislation are fully funded and operational."
This would have been an extremely important provision because it will take a long time to finish the fence on the border and complete the social security verification system. Just to give you an example of the sort of time period we could be looking at, it took the government 9 years, from 1996 to 2005, to complete a 14 mile section of border fence in San Diego. So, would it surprise anyone if it took the government 10-15 years to build a much larger fence?
6) The No-Sharing For National Security Purposes Clause
"The bill forbids the federal government to use any information included in an application for amnesty in national-security or criminal investigations."
That means if Osama Bin Laden were to apply for citizenship and mention on the application that he was currently living in New York, it would literally be illegal to tell the FBI. Does that really make any sense?
7) Amnesty For Illegals, Of Any Sort, Just Encourages More People To Break Our Laws
"...(T)he low hurdles to citizenship this bill erects—making illegal immigrants stand at the back of the immigration line while remaining in our country (and pushing others outside of the country further back in line); forcing them to pay only three years of back income taxes after the IRS, rather than they themselves, figures out how much they owe; collecting a nominal fee of $2,000 per immigrant—mock and demean the sacrifices of those who waited years to immigrate through our established legal channels. Worse, like the immigration law passed in 1986, it creates a disincentive to legally apply for citizenship.
Those who broke the law when coming into America, broke the law when getting a job, and broke the law by failing to pay the same taxes as American workers, continue to break the law by residing here illegally. This bill is dangerous precedent and sends a chilling message about our national integrity: America has lost the will to enforce her laws, and her sovereignty is for sale—currently, for around $2,000."
When it comes to enforcing our immigration laws, this country is like the boy who cried "wolf." If we don't enforce the laws that are already on the books this time, why should anyone believe us when we say we'll enforce the laws next time around?
8) The Tier System
"Illegal aliens who have been in the U.S. for more than 5 years would be given citizenship; those who have been here between 2 and 5 years would receive foreign worker cards with a path to citizenship; those here for fewer than 2 years would allegedly go home. Critically, the bill allows flimsy documentation (such as pay stubs and utility bills) to prove how long illegal aliens have been in the U.S., which virtually begs for massive document fraud."
Worse yet, according to Matt Spalding from the Center for Immigration studies, you could prove residence in the US for 5 years based on nothing more than an affidavit from a friend.
Even if you set aside the fact that the tier system will be unworkable because of fraud, it's set up to reward the people who have been breaking our laws for the longest period of time. Is that really a wise decision?
9) Why Should Criminals Be Allowed To Become American Citizens?
"Republican Senators Cornyn (Tex.) and Kyl (Ariz.) had originally proposed an amendment to make criminals ineligible for either amnesty or U.S. citizenship under the proposed new law. That had been overwhelmingly rejected by the Democrats who then asked Cornyn and Kyl to negotiate a compromise with Kennedy. The two sides agreed—the Republicans reluctantly—that a criminal would now be eligible for amnesty and citizenship if he had committed only one felony or three misdemeanors except that he could commit any number of immigration-related felonies or misdemeanors and still pass muster."
Isn't that just what we need here in America: more criminals. Here's an alternate proposal: how about no felons are allowed to become citizens or guest workers?
10) The Small, Tardy Fine Paid By Illegals To Become Legal
"Under the bill, an illegal alien can go from illegal to legal by paying a small fine of $2,000. Often, illegal aliens will pay more than five times this amount to a smuggler to get across the border. Also, the $2000 fine may not have to be paid until year eight, which allows the illegal alien to live, work, and play in the United States for years free from deportation."
11) An Enormous Increase In The Number Of Legal Immigrants Coming To The US
Although the American people have said, in poll after poll after poll that they favor decreasing the number of legal immigrants coming to America, according to the Heritage Foundation, this bill has the potential to more than triple the number of immigrants becoming US citizens over the next 20 years from roughly 19 million to 66 million.
When you look at the high unemployment rates and in the case of France, riots and car burnings, that these sort of massive increases of immigration has led to in Europe, it becomes obvious that this is a particularly foolish idea.
12) Guest Workers Will Be Eligible For Citizenship
This might not be so bad -- if the number of citizens added via the guest worker program were subtracted from the number of foreigners added in via legalization each year -- and if these workers, who tend to make low incomes, were ineligible for the earned income tax credit, to receive welfare, their relatives couldn't also come to the US via chain immigration, etc. However, since none of those conditions apply, what we're doing is making a lot of people citizens who're likely to be net drains on the system for decades -- just so we can get our dishes washed and strawberries picked a little bit cheaper over the next few years.
13) Union Wages For Guest Workers?
The "Davis-Bacon union wage requirements" are being applied to "jobs performed by so-called temporary workers." On the upside, this may force wages for guest workers to be so high that businesses will be able to hire Americans for less than guest workers.
On the other hand, the Bush administration has been trying to sell a guest worker program as a way to decrease pressure on the border by bringing workers here legally. But, if guest workers are actually very expensive, perhaps even more expensive than American workers, there will still be a powerful incentive to hire illegal aliens. In other words, this will likely make any law enforcement related benefits of the guest worker program negligible.
14) Blue Card Illegals -- Some Of America's Most Privileged Workers
"Under the AgJOBS component of the substitute, illegal alien agricultural workers who have worked 150 “workdays” in agriculture over the last 2 years will receive a “blue card,” allowing them to live and work permanently in the U.S. However, because current law defines an agricultural “workday” as 1 hour of work per day—the bill language restates that definition on page 397—an alien who has worked for as little as 150 hours—there are 168 hours in a week—in agriculture over the last 2 years will qualify for a blue card.
Blue card aliens can only be fired for just cause, unlike an American citizen worker who is likely under an employment at will agreement with the agricultural employer.
No alien granted blue card status may be terminated from employment by any employer during the period of blue card status except for just cause.
Because blue card aliens are not limited to working in agriculture, this employment requirement will follow the alien at their second and third jobs as well. The bill goes as far as setting up an arbitration process for blue card aliens who allege they have been terminated without just cause. Furthermore, the bill requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to pay the fee and expenses of the arbitrator. American citizens do not have a right to this arbitration process. Why are we setting up an arbitration process for blue card aliens paid for by the American taxpayer?
Regarding free legal counsel, the AgJOBS amendment goes further than paying for arbitrators, it also provides free legal counsel to illegal aliens who want to receive this amnesty. The AgJOBS amendment specifically states that recipients of “funds under the Legal Services Corporation Act” shall not be prevented “from providing legal assistance directly related to an application for adjustment of status under this section.” Interestingly, page 414 of the bill requires the alien to have an attorney file the application for him. Not only will AgJOBS give amnesty to 1.5 million illegal aliens, it would have the American taxpayer pay the legal bills of those illegal aliens. This is unbelievable and unacceptable. We should not be rewarding illegal aliens who break our laws with free legal counsel and a direct path to citizenship.
15) Cheaper College For Illegals Than Americans?
"The DREAM Act would... allow illegal alien college and university students to be eligible for in-state tuition without affording out-of-state citizen students the same opportunity. Thus, the University of Alabama could offer in-state tuition to illegal alien students while requiring citizens residing in Mississippi to pay the much higher out-of-state tuition rates.
Allowing all illegal aliens enrolled in college to receive in-state tuition rates means that while American citizens from 49 other states have to pay out-of-state tuition rates to send their kids to [*S5032] UVA, people who have illegally immigrated to this country might not. Out-of-state tuition rates range from 2 to 3 ½ times the in-state resident tuition rate."
16) Weak Assimilation/English Requirements
"The Senate approved Senator Inhofe’s amendment to make English the national language and require those seeking citizenship to demonstrate English proficiency and understanding of U.S. History. However, a far weaker amendment by Senator Salazar gutted the Inhofe amendment, leaving it in doubt, and also giving immigrants the right to demand the federal government communicate with them in any language they choose."
17) Favoring Ditch Diggers Over Scientists
"Developed nations have reformed their immigration policies to prioritize high-skilled immigration over large scale low-skilled and extended family chain migration. This bill prioritizes low-skilled and chain migration over skill-based immigration, an approach we should reject."
If we are going to dramatically increase the number of people being allowed to emigrate to the US, which, by the way, is probably a bad idea, why in the world would we want to try to bring in more ditch diggers and fruit pickers when we could be selecting scientists, engineers, and programmers instead?
18) Employers Of Illegals Get An Amnesty On Taxes They Owe
The bill allows, "unscrupulous employers to pay no back taxes...for hiring illegal aliens." Why should employers of illegal aliens, who've already benefitted by hiring cheap, illegal labor, be allowed to forego paying taxes that they legitimately owe?
19) The Illegal Alien Tax Amnesty
"Under the bill, illegal aliens get an option to only have to pay three of their last five years in back taxes. Law-abiding American citizens do not have the option to pay some of their taxes. The bill would treat lawbreakers better than the American people. The bill also makes the IRS prove that illegal aliens have paid their back taxes. It will be impossible for the IRS to truly enforce this because they cannot audit every single person in this country."
20) Earned Income Tax Credits For Illegals
"Senator Jeff Sessions, who seems to be one of only a few senators paying attention to the results of this giveaway bill, says that the Congressional Budget Office estimates that if S.2611 passes, the government would be required to pay $29.4 billion in refundable tax credits over the first ten years. He says that this expenditure, which includes the EITC and child tax credits, represents the biggest outlay in the bill."
Anyone who can't come to the US and make it on their own without getting welfare or receiving an earned income tax credit is a detriment to this country, not an asset. If a new immigrant to the US can't get by without an earned income tax credit, then we'd be better off without them.
21) The Bill Is A Budget Buster
Because the illegals who are here currently and will be allowed to become citizens under the Senate bill will be largely uneducated, low income workers who do manual labor, they'll be an enormous drain on the taxpayers once they become citizens. From Senator
"According to the Congressional Budget Office, the bill will increase direct spending by $54 billion and discretionary spending by $64 billion in just the first 10 years. The Heritage Foundation projects the bill will increase long-term federal spending by at least $50 billion a year. These are staggering numbers that indicate that this bill might have costs as great as half a trillion dollars in any future 10-year period. This bill is a huge, monumental budget buster."
22) Social Security For Illegals
Unfortunately, the Senate has now voted to give "undocumented workers" credit for the money that they contributed to Social Security while they were here illegally. That's a big mistake and not just because it rewards illegals for breaking our laws or because we're going to be taking money that would otherwise be going to Americans and giving it to illegals.
Since these illegals have used fake numbers, maybe even multiple fake numbers, and even real numbers that belong to other people, it's going to be incredibly difficult to untangle the mess and figure how much they've really contributed, if anything, to Social Security.
This move, like a lot of others the Senate has made while working on this amnesty bill, puts the welfare of illegal immigrants above that of the American people.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Labor Movement’s Comprehensive Immigration Reform
Immigration reform is a component of a shared prosperity agenda that focuses on improving productivity and quality; limiting wage competition; strengthening labor standards, especially the freedom of workers to form unions and bargain collectively; and providing social safety nets and high-quality lifelong education and training for workers and their families. To achieve this goal, immigration reform must fully protect U.S. workers, reduce the exploitation of immigrant workers and reduce employers’ incentive to hire undocumented workers rather than U.S. workers. The most effective way to do that is for all workers—
immigrant and native-born—to have full and complete access to the protection of labor, health and safety
and other laws. Comprehensive immigration reform must complement a strong, well-resourced and effective labor standards enforcement initiative that prioritizes workers’ rights and workplace protections.
This approach will ensure that immigration does not depress wages and working conditions or encourage
marginal low-wage industries that depend heavily on substandard wages, benefits and working conditions.
This approach to immigration reform has five major interconnected pieces:
1. An independent commission to assess and manage future flows, based on labor market shortages that
are determined on the basis of actual need;
2. A secure and effective worker authorization mechanism;
3. Rational operational control of the border;
4. Adjustment of status for the current undocumented population; and
5. Improvement, not expansion, of temporary worker
programs, limited to temporary or seasonal, not
permanent, jobs.
Family reunification is an important goal of immigration policy and it is in the national interest for it to remain
that way. First, families strongly influence individual and national welfare. Families historically have facilitated
the assimilation of immigrants into American life. Second, the failure to allow family reunification creates trong pressures for unauthorized immigration, as happened with the IRCA’s amnesty provisions. Third, families are the most basic learning institutions, teaching children values as well as skills to succeed in school, society and at work. Finally, families are important economic units that provide valuable sources of entrepreneurship, job training, support for members who are unemployed and information and networking for better labor market information.
The long-term solution to uncontrolled immigration is to stop promoting failed globalization policies and
encourage just and humane economic integration, which will eliminate the enormous social and economic
inequalities at both national and international levels. U.S. immigration policy should consider the effects of
immigration reforms on immigrant source countries, especially Mexico. It is in our national interest for
Mexico to be a prosperous and democratic country able to provide good jobs for most of its adult population, thereby ameliorating strong pressures for emigration. Much of the emigration from Mexico in recent years resulted from the disruption caused by NAFTA, which displaced millions of Mexicans from subsistence agriculture and enterprises that could not compete in a global market. Thus, an essential component of the long-term solution is a fair trade and globalization model that uplifts all workers, promotes the creation of free trade unions around the world, ensures the enforcement of labor rights and guarantees core labor protections for all workers.
Future Flow
One of the great failures of our current employmentbased immigration system is that the level of legal
work-based immigration is set arbitrarily by Congress as a product of political compromise—without regard
to real labor market needs—and it is rarely updated to reflect changing circumstances or conditions. This
failure has allowed unscrupulous employers to manipulate the system to the detriment of workers and
reputable employers alike. The system for allocating employment visas—both temporary and permanent—
should be depoliticized and placed in the hands of an independent commission that can assess labor market
needs on an ongoing basis and—based on a methodology approved by Congress—determine the number of
foreign workers to be admitted for employment purposes, based on labor market needs. In designing the new system, and establishing the methodology to be used for assessing labor shortages, the commission
will be required to examine the impact of immigration on the economy, wages, the workforce and business.
Worker Authorization Mechanism
The current system of regulating the employment of unauthorized workers is defunct, ineffective and has failed to curtail illegal immigration. A secure and effective worker authorization mechanism is one that
determines employment authorization accurately while providing maximum protection for workers, contains sufficient due process and privacy protections and prevents discrimination. The verification process must be taken out of the hands of employers, and the mechanism must rely on secure identification methodology. Employers that fail to use the system properly must face strict liability, including significant fines and penalties regardless of the immigration status of their workers.
Rational Operational Control of Borders
A new immigration system must include rational control of our borders. Border security is clearly very important, but not sufficient, since 40 to 45 percent of unauthorized immigrants did not cross the border
unlawfully but overstayed visas. Border controls, therefore, must be supplemented by effective work
authorization and other components of this framework. An “enforcement-only” policy will not work. Practical
border controls balance border enforcement with the other components of this framework and with the reality that more than 30 million valid visitors cross our borders each year. Enforcement, therefore, should
respect the dignity and rights of our visitors, as well as residents in border communities. In addition,
enforcement authorities must understand that they need cooperation from communities along the border.
Border enforcement is likely to be most effective when it focuses on criminal elements and engages
immigrants and border community residents in the enforcement effort. Similarly, border enforcement is
most effective when it is left to trained professional border patrol agents and not vigilantes or local law
enforcement officials—who require cooperation from immigrants to enforce state and local laws.
Adjustment of Status for the
Current Undocumented Population
Immigration reform must include adjustment of status for the current undocumented population. Rounding
up and deporting the 12 million or more immigrants who are unlawfully present in the United States may
make for a good sound bite, but it is not a realistic solution. And if these immigrants are not given adequate incentive to “come out of the shadows” to adjust their status, we will continue to have a large pool of unauthorized workers whom employers will continue to exploit to drive down wages and other standards to the detriment of all workers. Having access to a large undocumented workforce has allowed employers to create an underground economy, without the basic protections afforded to U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents, and in which employers often misclassify workers as independent contractors,thus evading payroll taxes and depriving federal, state and local governments of additional revenue. An inclusive, practical and swift adjustment-of-status program will raise labor standards for all workers. The adjustment process must be rational, reasonable and accessible, and it must be designed to ensure it will not
encourage future illegal immigration.
Improvement, Not Expansion,
of Temporary Worker Programs
The United States must improve the administration of existing temporary worker programs, but should not
adopt a new “indentured” or “guest worker” initiative. Our country has long recognized that it is not good
policy for a democracy to admit large numbers of workers with limited civil and employment rights.
immigrant and native-born—to have full and complete access to the protection of labor, health and safety
and other laws. Comprehensive immigration reform must complement a strong, well-resourced and effective labor standards enforcement initiative that prioritizes workers’ rights and workplace protections.
This approach will ensure that immigration does not depress wages and working conditions or encourage
marginal low-wage industries that depend heavily on substandard wages, benefits and working conditions.
This approach to immigration reform has five major interconnected pieces:
1. An independent commission to assess and manage future flows, based on labor market shortages that
are determined on the basis of actual need;
2. A secure and effective worker authorization mechanism;
3. Rational operational control of the border;
4. Adjustment of status for the current undocumented population; and
5. Improvement, not expansion, of temporary worker
programs, limited to temporary or seasonal, not
permanent, jobs.
Family reunification is an important goal of immigration policy and it is in the national interest for it to remain
that way. First, families strongly influence individual and national welfare. Families historically have facilitated
the assimilation of immigrants into American life. Second, the failure to allow family reunification creates trong pressures for unauthorized immigration, as happened with the IRCA’s amnesty provisions. Third, families are the most basic learning institutions, teaching children values as well as skills to succeed in school, society and at work. Finally, families are important economic units that provide valuable sources of entrepreneurship, job training, support for members who are unemployed and information and networking for better labor market information.
The long-term solution to uncontrolled immigration is to stop promoting failed globalization policies and
encourage just and humane economic integration, which will eliminate the enormous social and economic
inequalities at both national and international levels. U.S. immigration policy should consider the effects of
immigration reforms on immigrant source countries, especially Mexico. It is in our national interest for
Mexico to be a prosperous and democratic country able to provide good jobs for most of its adult population, thereby ameliorating strong pressures for emigration. Much of the emigration from Mexico in recent years resulted from the disruption caused by NAFTA, which displaced millions of Mexicans from subsistence agriculture and enterprises that could not compete in a global market. Thus, an essential component of the long-term solution is a fair trade and globalization model that uplifts all workers, promotes the creation of free trade unions around the world, ensures the enforcement of labor rights and guarantees core labor protections for all workers.
Future Flow
One of the great failures of our current employmentbased immigration system is that the level of legal
work-based immigration is set arbitrarily by Congress as a product of political compromise—without regard
to real labor market needs—and it is rarely updated to reflect changing circumstances or conditions. This
failure has allowed unscrupulous employers to manipulate the system to the detriment of workers and
reputable employers alike. The system for allocating employment visas—both temporary and permanent—
should be depoliticized and placed in the hands of an independent commission that can assess labor market
needs on an ongoing basis and—based on a methodology approved by Congress—determine the number of
foreign workers to be admitted for employment purposes, based on labor market needs. In designing the new system, and establishing the methodology to be used for assessing labor shortages, the commission
will be required to examine the impact of immigration on the economy, wages, the workforce and business.
Worker Authorization Mechanism
The current system of regulating the employment of unauthorized workers is defunct, ineffective and has failed to curtail illegal immigration. A secure and effective worker authorization mechanism is one that
determines employment authorization accurately while providing maximum protection for workers, contains sufficient due process and privacy protections and prevents discrimination. The verification process must be taken out of the hands of employers, and the mechanism must rely on secure identification methodology. Employers that fail to use the system properly must face strict liability, including significant fines and penalties regardless of the immigration status of their workers.
Rational Operational Control of Borders
A new immigration system must include rational control of our borders. Border security is clearly very important, but not sufficient, since 40 to 45 percent of unauthorized immigrants did not cross the border
unlawfully but overstayed visas. Border controls, therefore, must be supplemented by effective work
authorization and other components of this framework. An “enforcement-only” policy will not work. Practical
border controls balance border enforcement with the other components of this framework and with the reality that more than 30 million valid visitors cross our borders each year. Enforcement, therefore, should
respect the dignity and rights of our visitors, as well as residents in border communities. In addition,
enforcement authorities must understand that they need cooperation from communities along the border.
Border enforcement is likely to be most effective when it focuses on criminal elements and engages
immigrants and border community residents in the enforcement effort. Similarly, border enforcement is
most effective when it is left to trained professional border patrol agents and not vigilantes or local law
enforcement officials—who require cooperation from immigrants to enforce state and local laws.
Adjustment of Status for the
Current Undocumented Population
Immigration reform must include adjustment of status for the current undocumented population. Rounding
up and deporting the 12 million or more immigrants who are unlawfully present in the United States may
make for a good sound bite, but it is not a realistic solution. And if these immigrants are not given adequate incentive to “come out of the shadows” to adjust their status, we will continue to have a large pool of unauthorized workers whom employers will continue to exploit to drive down wages and other standards to the detriment of all workers. Having access to a large undocumented workforce has allowed employers to create an underground economy, without the basic protections afforded to U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents, and in which employers often misclassify workers as independent contractors,thus evading payroll taxes and depriving federal, state and local governments of additional revenue. An inclusive, practical and swift adjustment-of-status program will raise labor standards for all workers. The adjustment process must be rational, reasonable and accessible, and it must be designed to ensure it will not
encourage future illegal immigration.
Improvement, Not Expansion,
of Temporary Worker Programs
The United States must improve the administration of existing temporary worker programs, but should not
adopt a new “indentured” or “guest worker” initiative. Our country has long recognized that it is not good
policy for a democracy to admit large numbers of workers with limited civil and employment rights.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Congress should get involved in "anchor baby" U.S. citizenship issue
Sharron Angle said Monday Congress should take a closer look at the 14th Amendment, which grants automatic American citizenship to babies born in the U.S.
In suggesting a review, the U.S. Senate candidate joins several leading Republicans who are pushing to reconsider the constitutional amendment to deal with a growing illegal immigration problem. Those Republicans include Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Sens. Lindsey Graham, Jeff Sessions, and John McCain.
Graham said he may propose an amendment to change the Constitution as the number of U.S. citizens born to illegal immigrants grew to 4 million in 2008, says the Pew Hispanic Center. Critics call them "anchor babies" because the children give parents a foothold for possibly gaining legal status and U.S. citizenship themselves one day.
Angle chose her words carefully when asked whether she, too, has a concern about the 14th Amendment's use by illegal immigrants to win citizenship for their babies.
"I think perhaps the Congress needs to now become involved," Angle told reporters at her Las Vegas campaign headquarters.
Angle didn't call for a repeal of the amendment, but she said a constitutional expert she consulted, John Eastman, raised questions about how it has been interpreted.
The 14th Amendment says those born in the U.S. are under the jurisdiction of its laws, Angle noted.
"Certainly someone who has not come here observant to the rule of law is not under our jurisdiction and so that, I think, needs to have definition as to exactly what that entails," Angle said. "We've been relying upon the Supreme Court to make those definitions."
The 14th Amendment was passed in 1868 after the Civil War to initially grant citizenship to former slaves. It says "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisidiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, the Democratic incumbent Angle is trying to defeat, recently said the amendment's drafters “purposely chose an objective standard of citizenship – birth – that was not subject to politics. Reconstruction leaders established a firm, sound principle: To be an American citizen, you don't have to please a majority, you just have to be born here."
Republicans looking to change the amendment are “either taking leave of their senses or their principles," Reid said, according to an Associated Press story last week.
Illegal immigration became a hot-button issue after Arizona passed a law that would allow police to check the legal status of people they stop for other reasons.
Angle argues Arizona is using its 10th Amendment, or state's rights, to protect its borders after a failure of the U.S. government to enforce the laws against illegal immigration.
Reid, on the other hand, has called for broad immigration reform focused first on securing the border. But he has failed to move ahead on the issue, which appeals to Hispanic voters that he'll need to win re-election. Two years ago, activists boosted Hispanic involvement in the election to 15 percent of the Nevada electorate, a record high.
In suggesting a review, the U.S. Senate candidate joins several leading Republicans who are pushing to reconsider the constitutional amendment to deal with a growing illegal immigration problem. Those Republicans include Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Sens. Lindsey Graham, Jeff Sessions, and John McCain.
Graham said he may propose an amendment to change the Constitution as the number of U.S. citizens born to illegal immigrants grew to 4 million in 2008, says the Pew Hispanic Center. Critics call them "anchor babies" because the children give parents a foothold for possibly gaining legal status and U.S. citizenship themselves one day.
Angle chose her words carefully when asked whether she, too, has a concern about the 14th Amendment's use by illegal immigrants to win citizenship for their babies.
"I think perhaps the Congress needs to now become involved," Angle told reporters at her Las Vegas campaign headquarters.
Angle didn't call for a repeal of the amendment, but she said a constitutional expert she consulted, John Eastman, raised questions about how it has been interpreted.
The 14th Amendment says those born in the U.S. are under the jurisdiction of its laws, Angle noted.
"Certainly someone who has not come here observant to the rule of law is not under our jurisdiction and so that, I think, needs to have definition as to exactly what that entails," Angle said. "We've been relying upon the Supreme Court to make those definitions."
The 14th Amendment was passed in 1868 after the Civil War to initially grant citizenship to former slaves. It says "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisidiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, the Democratic incumbent Angle is trying to defeat, recently said the amendment's drafters “purposely chose an objective standard of citizenship – birth – that was not subject to politics. Reconstruction leaders established a firm, sound principle: To be an American citizen, you don't have to please a majority, you just have to be born here."
Republicans looking to change the amendment are “either taking leave of their senses or their principles," Reid said, according to an Associated Press story last week.
Illegal immigration became a hot-button issue after Arizona passed a law that would allow police to check the legal status of people they stop for other reasons.
Angle argues Arizona is using its 10th Amendment, or state's rights, to protect its borders after a failure of the U.S. government to enforce the laws against illegal immigration.
Reid, on the other hand, has called for broad immigration reform focused first on securing the border. But he has failed to move ahead on the issue, which appeals to Hispanic voters that he'll need to win re-election. Two years ago, activists boosted Hispanic involvement in the election to 15 percent of the Nevada electorate, a record high.
Monday, August 9, 2010
Sheriff targeted in Justice probe arrested most immigrants deported in federal-local program
Officers from a single Arizona county helped deport more than 26,000 immigrants from the U.S. through a federal-local partnership program that has been roundly criticized as fraught with problems.
Statistics obtained by The Associated Press show that the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office was responsible for the deportation or forced departure of 26,146 immigrants since 2007.
That's about a quarter of the national total of 115,841 sent out of the U.S. by officers in 64 law enforcement agencies deputized to help enforce immigration laws, some since 2006, under the so-called 287(g) program.
The tens of thousands of immigrant arrests show local officials already have a significant amount of authority to enforce immigration laws and help remove illegal immigrants from the country.
Arizona wanted more of its officers to be able to ask people to prove they are legally in the U.S. under its law that was to take effect Thursday. But a U.S. district court judge on Wednesday blocked the most controversial parts of the law from taking effect.
Among parts of the law blocked is the a section requiring officers to ask for a driver's license, passport or other identity document if they reasonably suspect a person is not allowed to be in the U.S. The immigration checks were to be made by officers while enforcing other laws or ordinances.
The federal government already is under fire for doing a poor job of keeping watch on local officers enforcing immigration laws and ensuring safeguards for protecting civil rights are in place. Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio is the top law officer among all those deputized. He is under federal investigation on allegations of civil rights violations, which he denies.
The government had argued that the Arizona law usurps its authority. The Justice Department said in its suit challenging the law that the 287(g) federal-local partnerships are one way Congress allowed states to assist in enforcing immigration laws.
"At the pragmatic level, if local police are already allowed to do this and are allowed to do this with federal cooperation with the state, then why do they need the (new Arizona) law?" said Muzaffar Chishti, director of the New York office of the Migration Policy Institute, an immigration think tank.
There are several other ways local officials can assist, including Secure Communities, a more widely used program that allows local officials to check the fingerprints of anyone they book into their jails against FBI and Homeland Security Department databases.
But the 287(g) program gives officers the most direct authority to stop people on the street, in their cars or in their communities and check whether they are in the country illegally. Federal watchdogs have been critical of the job the Homeland Security Department has been doing in running the program.
The department's inspector general reported in March that the 287(g) program was poorly supervised and provided insufficient training to officers, including on civil rights law.
Local officers have operated outside their agreements dictating the limits of their authority, the report said. In all, the inspector general made 33 recommendations for overhauling the program, some of which have not yet been resolved. It was the second critical report for the program. The Government Accountability Office had criticized the program in July 2009.
Complaints about Arpaio's immigration enforcement tactics led the federal government last October to yank his authority to enforce immigration laws during patrols. That month, the Obama administration rewrote all agreements with local partners in attempt to address complaints of racial profiling and civil rights violations.
Even so, the federal government continues to allow the sheriff and deputies to check their jails for deportable inmates.
Arpaio has denied the allegations and says he is a target because of his tough immigration enforcement. His office has continued to do immigration sweeps. Arpaio said he is enforcing state anti-smuggling and anti-illegal immigrant hiring laws.
Arpaio said about 100 of his deputies were trained over five weeks to act as federal agents under the 287(g) program. They were trained on racial profiling and other civil rights laws, he said.
The federal government does not pay for local officers to participate in the 287(g) program. U.S. taxpayers pay the federal cost, which has grown from $5 million in 2006 to $68 million in 2010, according to the DHS inspector general. Immigration and Customs Enforcement reimburses some of the local agencies for housing immigrants in their jails. The immigrants can be in the country illegally or legally present but have committed a crime that makes them eligible for deportation.
Joanne Lin, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, said it is alarming that one Arizona county is responsible for a disproportionate share of deportations.
The Los Angeles County's Sheriff's Office, a distant second to Maricopa, helped find 13,784 immigrants who were later deported or left the country. The Sheriff's Office's agreement with the federal government allows it to check its jails for deportable immigrants, but not to enforce immigration laws during street patrols. A renewal of the agreement is under negotiation.
An estimated 10.8 million people, about 26 percent of the state's population, are living illegally in California, compared with 460,000, about 12 percent, in Arizona.
"These statistics bear out that you have rogue sheriffs in certain counties that are bent on targeting immigrants," Lin said.
Statistics obtained by The Associated Press show that the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office was responsible for the deportation or forced departure of 26,146 immigrants since 2007.
That's about a quarter of the national total of 115,841 sent out of the U.S. by officers in 64 law enforcement agencies deputized to help enforce immigration laws, some since 2006, under the so-called 287(g) program.
The tens of thousands of immigrant arrests show local officials already have a significant amount of authority to enforce immigration laws and help remove illegal immigrants from the country.
Arizona wanted more of its officers to be able to ask people to prove they are legally in the U.S. under its law that was to take effect Thursday. But a U.S. district court judge on Wednesday blocked the most controversial parts of the law from taking effect.
Among parts of the law blocked is the a section requiring officers to ask for a driver's license, passport or other identity document if they reasonably suspect a person is not allowed to be in the U.S. The immigration checks were to be made by officers while enforcing other laws or ordinances.
 |
| Sheriff Joe Arpaio |
The government had argued that the Arizona law usurps its authority. The Justice Department said in its suit challenging the law that the 287(g) federal-local partnerships are one way Congress allowed states to assist in enforcing immigration laws.
"At the pragmatic level, if local police are already allowed to do this and are allowed to do this with federal cooperation with the state, then why do they need the (new Arizona) law?" said Muzaffar Chishti, director of the New York office of the Migration Policy Institute, an immigration think tank.
There are several other ways local officials can assist, including Secure Communities, a more widely used program that allows local officials to check the fingerprints of anyone they book into their jails against FBI and Homeland Security Department databases.
But the 287(g) program gives officers the most direct authority to stop people on the street, in their cars or in their communities and check whether they are in the country illegally. Federal watchdogs have been critical of the job the Homeland Security Department has been doing in running the program.
The department's inspector general reported in March that the 287(g) program was poorly supervised and provided insufficient training to officers, including on civil rights law.
Local officers have operated outside their agreements dictating the limits of their authority, the report said. In all, the inspector general made 33 recommendations for overhauling the program, some of which have not yet been resolved. It was the second critical report for the program. The Government Accountability Office had criticized the program in July 2009.
Complaints about Arpaio's immigration enforcement tactics led the federal government last October to yank his authority to enforce immigration laws during patrols. That month, the Obama administration rewrote all agreements with local partners in attempt to address complaints of racial profiling and civil rights violations.
Even so, the federal government continues to allow the sheriff and deputies to check their jails for deportable inmates.
Arpaio has denied the allegations and says he is a target because of his tough immigration enforcement. His office has continued to do immigration sweeps. Arpaio said he is enforcing state anti-smuggling and anti-illegal immigrant hiring laws.
Arpaio said about 100 of his deputies were trained over five weeks to act as federal agents under the 287(g) program. They were trained on racial profiling and other civil rights laws, he said.
The federal government does not pay for local officers to participate in the 287(g) program. U.S. taxpayers pay the federal cost, which has grown from $5 million in 2006 to $68 million in 2010, according to the DHS inspector general. Immigration and Customs Enforcement reimburses some of the local agencies for housing immigrants in their jails. The immigrants can be in the country illegally or legally present but have committed a crime that makes them eligible for deportation.
Joanne Lin, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, said it is alarming that one Arizona county is responsible for a disproportionate share of deportations.
The Los Angeles County's Sheriff's Office, a distant second to Maricopa, helped find 13,784 immigrants who were later deported or left the country. The Sheriff's Office's agreement with the federal government allows it to check its jails for deportable immigrants, but not to enforce immigration laws during street patrols. A renewal of the agreement is under negotiation.
An estimated 10.8 million people, about 26 percent of the state's population, are living illegally in California, compared with 460,000, about 12 percent, in Arizona.
"These statistics bear out that you have rogue sheriffs in certain counties that are bent on targeting immigrants," Lin said.
Change the 14th Amendment! No More Anchor Babies!
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told "The Hill" on Monday that Congress "ought to take a look at" changing the 14th Amendment, which gives the children of illegal immigrants a right to U.S. citizenship.
There is growing support within the GOP for the controversial idea, which has also recently been touted by Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyle (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).
Senator McConnell said: "I think we ought to take a look at it - hold hearings, listen to the experts on it," McConnell said. "I haven't made a final decision about it, but that's something that we clearly need to look at. Regardless of how you feel about the various aspects of immigration reform, I don't think anybody thinks that's something they're comfortable with."
Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyle (R-Ariz.) has said: "There is a constitutional provision in the 14th Amendment that has been interpreted to provide that, if you are born in the United States, you are a citizen no matter what. ... And so the question is, if both parents are here illegally, should there be a reward for their illegal behavior?" Kyle went on to say: "We should hold some hearings and hear first from the constitutional experts to at least tell us what the state of the law on that proposition is." Kyle’s Remarks were made on CBS's "Face the Nation" last Sunday.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has said: "birthright citizenship is a mistake." We should change our Constitution and say if you come illegally and you have a child, that child is automatically not a citizen."
If you are a regular reader of our rants, then you know we have been calling for an end to the practice of "Anchor Babies" for a good long while now.
Anchor babies are children born in the United States to illegal alien parents. "These children may instantly qualify for welfare and other state and local benefit programs. Additionally with the passage of the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act, the child may sponsor other family members for entry into the United States when he or she reaches the age of twenty-one (See also Chain Migration). The sheer numbers are staggering. In Stockton, California (2003), 70 percent of the 2,300 babies, born in San Joaquin General Hospital's maternity ward were anchor babies
Section one, of the 14th amendment, was written to ensure that former slaves would enjoy full citizenship in the US. But, it has been stretched to encompass the babies of those who have entered this country illegally. Once that baby is born, they have their "anchor" here and, at age 21 that now "grown" baby, can petition the government to bring his family into the US as well.
It is estimated that 300,000, or more, anchor babies are born each year in the United States. The US is now the only country, which allows this practice. Ireland did, for a while, but quickly changed the law when it became obvious that pregnant immigrants from Africa were flooding their country every year. The Anchor Babies instantly quality for a host of federal, state, and even local benefit programs. All of this happens as a result of the way the courts decided to interpret the 14th amendment to the US Constitution.
One must remember that at the time the 14th amendment was passed, the United States had no immigration policy at all. The amendment was added to our Constitution as part of the reforms (after the Civil War), which were intended to address injustices to African Americans. It states: "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States." It was worded in that manner to stop any state government from denying citizenship to anyone born in the United States.
Look closely at the wording of the amendment. Notice the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The intention of that phrase was to exclude from automatic citizenship American-born persons whose allegiance to the United States was not complete.
It is the belief of many in the US, today, that illegal aliens (who are in the US unlawfully, remember) have little, if any, allegiance to the US. At the very least that allegiance is "incomplete. Therefore, it logically follows that any children born of them, within the US, are NOT automatically United States citizens.
Action by Congress is needed, and needed desperately, to make clear, once and for all, that the 14th Amendment did not intend for children of illegal aliens, born in the US, to automatically become citizens.
It is time to lean on our Congresspersons and Senators and let them know how you feel about "Anchor Babies." Let them know you want it stopped. Let them know you want the US borders sealed, and secured, and the illegal aliens already within the US deported - and -- you want the 14th Amendment changed to put a stop to Anchor Babies once and for all.
J. D. Longstreet is a conservative Southern American (A native sandlapper and an adopted Tar Heel) with a deep passion for the history, heritage, and culture of the southern states of America. At the same time he is a deeply loyal American believing strongly in "America First". He is a thirty-year veteran of the broadcasting business, as an "in the field" and "on-air" news reporter (contributing to radio, TV, and newspapers) and a conservative broadcast commentator.
Longstreet is a veteran of the US Army and US Army Reserve. He is a member of the American Legion and the Sons of Confederate Veterans. A lifelong Christian, Longstreet subscribes to "old Lutheranism" to express and exercise his faith.
There is growing support within the GOP for the controversial idea, which has also recently been touted by Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyle (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).
Senator McConnell said: "I think we ought to take a look at it - hold hearings, listen to the experts on it," McConnell said. "I haven't made a final decision about it, but that's something that we clearly need to look at. Regardless of how you feel about the various aspects of immigration reform, I don't think anybody thinks that's something they're comfortable with."
Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyle (R-Ariz.) has said: "There is a constitutional provision in the 14th Amendment that has been interpreted to provide that, if you are born in the United States, you are a citizen no matter what. ... And so the question is, if both parents are here illegally, should there be a reward for their illegal behavior?" Kyle went on to say: "We should hold some hearings and hear first from the constitutional experts to at least tell us what the state of the law on that proposition is." Kyle’s Remarks were made on CBS's "Face the Nation" last Sunday.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has said: "birthright citizenship is a mistake." We should change our Constitution and say if you come illegally and you have a child, that child is automatically not a citizen."
If you are a regular reader of our rants, then you know we have been calling for an end to the practice of "Anchor Babies" for a good long while now.
Anchor babies are children born in the United States to illegal alien parents. "These children may instantly qualify for welfare and other state and local benefit programs. Additionally with the passage of the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act, the child may sponsor other family members for entry into the United States when he or she reaches the age of twenty-one (See also Chain Migration). The sheer numbers are staggering. In Stockton, California (2003), 70 percent of the 2,300 babies, born in San Joaquin General Hospital's maternity ward were anchor babies
Section one, of the 14th amendment, was written to ensure that former slaves would enjoy full citizenship in the US. But, it has been stretched to encompass the babies of those who have entered this country illegally. Once that baby is born, they have their "anchor" here and, at age 21 that now "grown" baby, can petition the government to bring his family into the US as well.
It is estimated that 300,000, or more, anchor babies are born each year in the United States. The US is now the only country, which allows this practice. Ireland did, for a while, but quickly changed the law when it became obvious that pregnant immigrants from Africa were flooding their country every year. The Anchor Babies instantly quality for a host of federal, state, and even local benefit programs. All of this happens as a result of the way the courts decided to interpret the 14th amendment to the US Constitution.
One must remember that at the time the 14th amendment was passed, the United States had no immigration policy at all. The amendment was added to our Constitution as part of the reforms (after the Civil War), which were intended to address injustices to African Americans. It states: "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States." It was worded in that manner to stop any state government from denying citizenship to anyone born in the United States.
Look closely at the wording of the amendment. Notice the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The intention of that phrase was to exclude from automatic citizenship American-born persons whose allegiance to the United States was not complete.
It is the belief of many in the US, today, that illegal aliens (who are in the US unlawfully, remember) have little, if any, allegiance to the US. At the very least that allegiance is "incomplete. Therefore, it logically follows that any children born of them, within the US, are NOT automatically United States citizens.
Action by Congress is needed, and needed desperately, to make clear, once and for all, that the 14th Amendment did not intend for children of illegal aliens, born in the US, to automatically become citizens.
It is time to lean on our Congresspersons and Senators and let them know how you feel about "Anchor Babies." Let them know you want it stopped. Let them know you want the US borders sealed, and secured, and the illegal aliens already within the US deported - and -- you want the 14th Amendment changed to put a stop to Anchor Babies once and for all.
J. D. Longstreet is a conservative Southern American (A native sandlapper and an adopted Tar Heel) with a deep passion for the history, heritage, and culture of the southern states of America. At the same time he is a deeply loyal American believing strongly in "America First". He is a thirty-year veteran of the broadcasting business, as an "in the field" and "on-air" news reporter (contributing to radio, TV, and newspapers) and a conservative broadcast commentator.
Longstreet is a veteran of the US Army and US Army Reserve. He is a member of the American Legion and the Sons of Confederate Veterans. A lifelong Christian, Longstreet subscribes to "old Lutheranism" to express and exercise his faith.
The Day the ACLU Joined Al Queda
December 1944. American artillery near the Belgian village of Losheim opens fire on advancing German troops during the Battle of the Bulge. Suddenly a jeep pulls up and a lawyer jumps out waving a piece of paper. "Stop what you're doing immediately! I represent Obersturmführer Gunther Stoltz down there, and I have an order here from Federal District Court Judge Gantz forbidding you from killing my client without due process in an American courtroom."
Insane yes, except that's just what the ACLU is after. Captured Muslim terrorists have never lacked for civil liberties lawyers in the past. Whether it was collective organizations like the ACLU or the CCR, or pro-terrorist lawyers like Lynn Stewart or Stanley Cohen, there has never been any shortage of lawyers eager to fight for terrorists in or out of a courtroom. From enthusiastic defenses for terrorists on trial to fighting for the rights of terrorists detained in US military custody outside the United States, groups like the ACLU have served as Al Queda's legal department before. But the ACLU and the CCR are no longer satisfied with fighting for the release of captured terrorists. Instead they're fighting to provide terrorists in the field with immunity from US attacks.
The ACLU's lawsuit on behalf of Anwar Al-Awlaki, a terrorist leader operating in the field, moves beyond protecting captured terrorists, and toward protecting active terrorists on the battlefield. It's the equivalent of that jeep pulling up during the Battle of the Bulge with a stop firing order. The ACLU and its allied organizations have always hidden behind the argument that they were protecting the rights of defendants in the court system. But there is no court system here. Al-Awlaki is not in US custody. He's conducting a terrorist campaign of attacks that includes the Fort Hood Massacre and the attempted Christmas Day bombing of Northwest Flight 253. What the ACLU is doing is arguing that the United States cannot kill Al-Awlaki on the battlefield, even though he's trying to kill Americans.
The ACLU has actually filed court papers asking to allow them to provide "legal services on a pro-bono basis to Nasser Al-Awlaki, the father of Anward Al-Awlaki, as representative of the interests of Anwar Al-Awlaki."
That's an American organization providing pro-bono representation to prevent US forces from killing a terrorist on the battlefield, who continues participating in acts of terrorism against American civilians. And you might think that the pro-bono representation is because poor Anwar and Nasser are dirt farmers. Not the case. Not the case at all.
Nasser Al-Awlaki is Yemen's former Minister of Agriculture and a relative of Yemen's current Prime Minister, Ali Mohammed Mujawar. Ali is from the Shabwa province, and that is also where Al Queda and Al Awlaki are currently located in Yemen. The Awlakis are part of Yemen's political elite. Their influence freed Al-Awlaki from prison once and continues to shelter him from the United States. Which leaves America no option but to either invade Yemen and capture him using ground forces, or take him out using a drone.
How does the ACLU justify their actions in protecting a wanted terrorist leader from US forces on the battlefield? By claiming that since Al-Awlaki is a US citizen, the government should have to win a case in court against his father's ACLU lawyers-- before US personnel can actually shoot at him. (This incidentally highlights the importance of Lieberman's Denaturalization bill when stripping US born terrorists like Al-Awlaki of their citizenship. The bill has been opposed out of ignorance by people like Beck, who are ignorant of the fact that Denaturalization was standard until the 1950's when the Warren Court created another imaginary Constitutional right that had never existed until 1958.)
According to ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero, "This is a dual blow to some of our most precious liberties, and such an alarming denial of rights in any one case endangers the rights of all Americans." Apparently "our precious liberties" involve the right to join Al Queda, murder Americans and then have the right not to be shot by American soldiers or bombed by American planes or drones. And killing a terrorist on the battlefield, whose mother happened to have dropped him in a hospital bed on US soil endangers "the rights of all Americans".
The ACLU has innovatively invented a new right. The right to be an Al Queda terrorist leader without having to worry about getting killed. And then still trying to wrap themselves in the flag, warn us that if we deny Al-Awlaki the freedom to murder as many Americans as he wants with no worry of retribution from the sky, we'll all lose our right to murder as many Americans as we want with no fear of retribution.
Vince Warren, executive director of CCR, has an even more cynical argument to make. "Yemen is nearly 2000 miles from Afghanistan or Iraq. The U.S. government is going outside the law to create an ever-larger global war zone and turn the whole world into a battlefield." According to Vince, it's the United States that is "creating a battlefield" in Yemen, not Al Queda terrorists who bombed the USS Cole, or Al-Awlaki himself, who was minding his own business until the United States decided to try and kill him for no reason at all.
No, it's the United States that's "creating a battlefield" in Yemen. Because when you fight back against Muslim terrorists-- you're the one who's creating the problem. There was no problem for the CCR when Al Queda bombed the USS Cole or when one of Al-Awlaki's disciples tried to kill hundreds of people in Times Square. The problem only begins when the terrorists are under fire.
Al Queda is doubtlessly grateful that the ACLU could take some time out of their busy schedule advocating on behalf of Teresa Lewis, who had her husband and son murdered to collect on the insurance, and then went through his pockets while he lay dying on the floor-- in order to invent a legal doctrine granting immunity to Al Queda terrorists who happen to have US citizenship.
But they don't need to worry. The ACLU is now fighting to provide immunity on the battlefield to an Al Queda terrorist leader. And the Rubicon has been crossed.. Civil liberties lawyers are no longer fighting a rear guard action on behalf of captured terrorist, they're working on behalf of active terrorists, to protect their right to kill Americans, while remaining immune from American bombs and bullets. And they're trying to do it by using the court system to handicap the military even well outside the United States.
Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU's National Security Project, and an attendee at Obama's Ramadan dinner, whose department's John Adams Project exposed the identities of CIA agents to captured terrorists, traveled to Yemen to meet with Al-Awlaki's father. Nasser Al-Awlaki is not some innocent father. He's part of Yemen's political elite and he has stated that his son is under the protection of his Awaliki tribe, and that he was, "simply a preacher who has the right to spread the word of Islam wherever he likes." The Awlaki tribe has already warned "Whoever risks denouncing our son (Awlaqi) will be the target of Al-Awaliq weapons" and is tied up with Yemen's Separatist movement and plenty of members of the tribe are also members of Al Queda. Yemen's President has already called for opening negotiations with Al Queda.
Nasser Al-Awlaki and the ACLU know exactly what Anwar Al-Awlaki is. His own words indict him. Yemen's government is too unstable to hand over a man, who is a son of their own political elite. The Al-Awlaki tribe has become tangled up with Al-Queda, which in the convoluted linkages between tribe and religion, may just have as much to do Al-Awlaki's Jihadism. Nasser Al-Awlaki has spent enough time abroad to know how to play the game. Anwar Al-Awlaki knew how to play the game very well, condemning the attacks of September 11, while counseling and advising terrorists himself, including the 9/11 hijackers. Then he decided to take the mask off and stop playing the game.
From his days posing as a moderate for the gullible media, assuring them that terrorism is against Islam, to his current activities in Yemen. Al-Awlaki has always relied on the kindness of liberals to protect him. And now conducting a war against the United States, they are still trying to protect him. The ACLU has become Al Queda's legal department. Its tactics are no longer limited to the defensive, but the organization is increasingly going on the offensive on behalf of terrorists. With the sun setting on Guantanamo Bay, Rendition and many of the other measures that the Bush Administration used to protect against Islamic terrorism-- the ACLU is aggressively expanding beyond the United States to defeat American soldiers and aid terrorists wherever they may be found.
After 9/11, the ACLU marketed its pro-terrorism lawfare as concern about the civil rights implications of the War on Terror. Today when defending Al-Awlaki's right to kill Americans, the ACLU is still making the same fales claims, talking about "our precious liberties" and "the rights of all Americans"-- when their advocacy is focused on helping murder Americans. When the ACLU was trying to free captured terrorists, then it could play the old lawyer's game of claiming that they were trying to provide fear legal representation, and not taking sides. But when it offers pro-bono representation to a terrorist on the battlefield, so that American military forces will not be allowed to kill him before he can cause more deaths, the mask is off for good.
This is not about civil rights. Anwar Al-Awlaki is not sitting in an American prison cell. He's among Al Queda terrorists, actively recruiting and possibly helping organize the next attack. He's on the battlefield, and the ACLU wants to argue that he can't be killed. Why? It's not about the law, it's what it has always been about. Helping terrorists. Not because of the Constitutional issues or the legal issues-- but because they support the terrorists. Because they have always supported the terrorists.
In 1934, Roger Nash Baldwin, Co-Founder and Executive Director of the ACLU, wrote an article for "Soviet Russia", in which he quite clearly explained why he was fighting for civil liberties.
I believe in non-violent methods of struggle as most effective in the long run for building up successful working class power. Where they cannot be followed or where they are not even permitted by the ruling class, obviously only violent tactics remain. I champion civil liberty as the best of the non-violent means of building the power on which worker's rule must be based. If I aid the reactionaries to get free speech now and then, if I go outside the class struggle to fight against censorship, it is only because those liberties help to create a more hospitable atmosphere for working class liberties. The class struggle is the central conflict of the world; all others are incidental. When that power of the working class is once achieved, as it has been only in the Soviet Union, I am for maintaining it by any means whatever.
To understand this paragraph is to know why the ACLU is a scam. The ACLU does not believe in civil liberties. It is not fighting for an America with freedom and civil liberties. Civil liberties are only a tactic that the ACLU uses to undermine and overthrow America, in order to replace it with a totalitarian state, that they will maintain "by any means whatever". When the ACLU, on rare occasions, defends conservatives, it only does so for the long game in order to maintain a political environment that favors the eventual takeover of America.
"Political democracy is useful only as a tool of peaceful change," Baldwin wrote, on another occasion. The goal was "change", or as Baldwin had written previously in the Yale yearbook, "Communism is the goal". Before the Fish Committee in 1930, he testified that he supported the right of aliens to advocate the violent overthrow of the United States. For this same reason, Baldwin defended Soviet repressions as, "Weapons of the struggle in a transition period toward socialism." Back then Baldwin and his comrades were using civil liberties to enable a Communist takeover of the United States, that would end all civil liberties. Today they and so many on the left are working to enable an Islamist takeover.
Once again, Baldwin himself said it best. "I don't regret being part of the communist tactic. I knew what I was doing. I was not an innocent liberal. I wanted what the communists wanted and I traveled the United Front road to get it." Today the United Front is Red and Green, the Marxist-Islamist alliance, and the left thinks that it and the Islamists want the same things. Including the violent overthrow of the United States.
The ACLU is not protecting Al-Awlaki's civil rights. It is protecting his ability to organize the murder of Americans. And it is doing so for the same reason that the ACLU was protecting Communists, while pretending not to be Communist. Because it supports their aims. The anti-war movement and the civil liberties campaign on behalf of Muslim terrorists are both products of a United Front between Islam and the Left. The terrorists wage a violent campaign, while their leftist enablers tie the hands of those who would resist them
Insane yes, except that's just what the ACLU is after. Captured Muslim terrorists have never lacked for civil liberties lawyers in the past. Whether it was collective organizations like the ACLU or the CCR, or pro-terrorist lawyers like Lynn Stewart or Stanley Cohen, there has never been any shortage of lawyers eager to fight for terrorists in or out of a courtroom. From enthusiastic defenses for terrorists on trial to fighting for the rights of terrorists detained in US military custody outside the United States, groups like the ACLU have served as Al Queda's legal department before. But the ACLU and the CCR are no longer satisfied with fighting for the release of captured terrorists. Instead they're fighting to provide terrorists in the field with immunity from US attacks.
The ACLU's lawsuit on behalf of Anwar Al-Awlaki, a terrorist leader operating in the field, moves beyond protecting captured terrorists, and toward protecting active terrorists on the battlefield. It's the equivalent of that jeep pulling up during the Battle of the Bulge with a stop firing order. The ACLU and its allied organizations have always hidden behind the argument that they were protecting the rights of defendants in the court system. But there is no court system here. Al-Awlaki is not in US custody. He's conducting a terrorist campaign of attacks that includes the Fort Hood Massacre and the attempted Christmas Day bombing of Northwest Flight 253. What the ACLU is doing is arguing that the United States cannot kill Al-Awlaki on the battlefield, even though he's trying to kill Americans.
The ACLU has actually filed court papers asking to allow them to provide "legal services on a pro-bono basis to Nasser Al-Awlaki, the father of Anward Al-Awlaki, as representative of the interests of Anwar Al-Awlaki."
That's an American organization providing pro-bono representation to prevent US forces from killing a terrorist on the battlefield, who continues participating in acts of terrorism against American civilians. And you might think that the pro-bono representation is because poor Anwar and Nasser are dirt farmers. Not the case. Not the case at all.
Nasser Al-Awlaki is Yemen's former Minister of Agriculture and a relative of Yemen's current Prime Minister, Ali Mohammed Mujawar. Ali is from the Shabwa province, and that is also where Al Queda and Al Awlaki are currently located in Yemen. The Awlakis are part of Yemen's political elite. Their influence freed Al-Awlaki from prison once and continues to shelter him from the United States. Which leaves America no option but to either invade Yemen and capture him using ground forces, or take him out using a drone.
How does the ACLU justify their actions in protecting a wanted terrorist leader from US forces on the battlefield? By claiming that since Al-Awlaki is a US citizen, the government should have to win a case in court against his father's ACLU lawyers-- before US personnel can actually shoot at him. (This incidentally highlights the importance of Lieberman's Denaturalization bill when stripping US born terrorists like Al-Awlaki of their citizenship. The bill has been opposed out of ignorance by people like Beck, who are ignorant of the fact that Denaturalization was standard until the 1950's when the Warren Court created another imaginary Constitutional right that had never existed until 1958.)
According to ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero, "This is a dual blow to some of our most precious liberties, and such an alarming denial of rights in any one case endangers the rights of all Americans." Apparently "our precious liberties" involve the right to join Al Queda, murder Americans and then have the right not to be shot by American soldiers or bombed by American planes or drones. And killing a terrorist on the battlefield, whose mother happened to have dropped him in a hospital bed on US soil endangers "the rights of all Americans".
The ACLU has innovatively invented a new right. The right to be an Al Queda terrorist leader without having to worry about getting killed. And then still trying to wrap themselves in the flag, warn us that if we deny Al-Awlaki the freedom to murder as many Americans as he wants with no worry of retribution from the sky, we'll all lose our right to murder as many Americans as we want with no fear of retribution.
Vince Warren, executive director of CCR, has an even more cynical argument to make. "Yemen is nearly 2000 miles from Afghanistan or Iraq. The U.S. government is going outside the law to create an ever-larger global war zone and turn the whole world into a battlefield." According to Vince, it's the United States that is "creating a battlefield" in Yemen, not Al Queda terrorists who bombed the USS Cole, or Al-Awlaki himself, who was minding his own business until the United States decided to try and kill him for no reason at all.
No, it's the United States that's "creating a battlefield" in Yemen. Because when you fight back against Muslim terrorists-- you're the one who's creating the problem. There was no problem for the CCR when Al Queda bombed the USS Cole or when one of Al-Awlaki's disciples tried to kill hundreds of people in Times Square. The problem only begins when the terrorists are under fire.
Al Queda is doubtlessly grateful that the ACLU could take some time out of their busy schedule advocating on behalf of Teresa Lewis, who had her husband and son murdered to collect on the insurance, and then went through his pockets while he lay dying on the floor-- in order to invent a legal doctrine granting immunity to Al Queda terrorists who happen to have US citizenship.
But they don't need to worry. The ACLU is now fighting to provide immunity on the battlefield to an Al Queda terrorist leader. And the Rubicon has been crossed.. Civil liberties lawyers are no longer fighting a rear guard action on behalf of captured terrorist, they're working on behalf of active terrorists, to protect their right to kill Americans, while remaining immune from American bombs and bullets. And they're trying to do it by using the court system to handicap the military even well outside the United States.
Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU's National Security Project, and an attendee at Obama's Ramadan dinner, whose department's John Adams Project exposed the identities of CIA agents to captured terrorists, traveled to Yemen to meet with Al-Awlaki's father. Nasser Al-Awlaki is not some innocent father. He's part of Yemen's political elite and he has stated that his son is under the protection of his Awaliki tribe, and that he was, "simply a preacher who has the right to spread the word of Islam wherever he likes." The Awlaki tribe has already warned "Whoever risks denouncing our son (Awlaqi) will be the target of Al-Awaliq weapons" and is tied up with Yemen's Separatist movement and plenty of members of the tribe are also members of Al Queda. Yemen's President has already called for opening negotiations with Al Queda.
Nasser Al-Awlaki and the ACLU know exactly what Anwar Al-Awlaki is. His own words indict him. Yemen's government is too unstable to hand over a man, who is a son of their own political elite. The Al-Awlaki tribe has become tangled up with Al-Queda, which in the convoluted linkages between tribe and religion, may just have as much to do Al-Awlaki's Jihadism. Nasser Al-Awlaki has spent enough time abroad to know how to play the game. Anwar Al-Awlaki knew how to play the game very well, condemning the attacks of September 11, while counseling and advising terrorists himself, including the 9/11 hijackers. Then he decided to take the mask off and stop playing the game.
From his days posing as a moderate for the gullible media, assuring them that terrorism is against Islam, to his current activities in Yemen. Al-Awlaki has always relied on the kindness of liberals to protect him. And now conducting a war against the United States, they are still trying to protect him. The ACLU has become Al Queda's legal department. Its tactics are no longer limited to the defensive, but the organization is increasingly going on the offensive on behalf of terrorists. With the sun setting on Guantanamo Bay, Rendition and many of the other measures that the Bush Administration used to protect against Islamic terrorism-- the ACLU is aggressively expanding beyond the United States to defeat American soldiers and aid terrorists wherever they may be found.
After 9/11, the ACLU marketed its pro-terrorism lawfare as concern about the civil rights implications of the War on Terror. Today when defending Al-Awlaki's right to kill Americans, the ACLU is still making the same fales claims, talking about "our precious liberties" and "the rights of all Americans"-- when their advocacy is focused on helping murder Americans. When the ACLU was trying to free captured terrorists, then it could play the old lawyer's game of claiming that they were trying to provide fear legal representation, and not taking sides. But when it offers pro-bono representation to a terrorist on the battlefield, so that American military forces will not be allowed to kill him before he can cause more deaths, the mask is off for good.
This is not about civil rights. Anwar Al-Awlaki is not sitting in an American prison cell. He's among Al Queda terrorists, actively recruiting and possibly helping organize the next attack. He's on the battlefield, and the ACLU wants to argue that he can't be killed. Why? It's not about the law, it's what it has always been about. Helping terrorists. Not because of the Constitutional issues or the legal issues-- but because they support the terrorists. Because they have always supported the terrorists.
In 1934, Roger Nash Baldwin, Co-Founder and Executive Director of the ACLU, wrote an article for "Soviet Russia", in which he quite clearly explained why he was fighting for civil liberties.
I believe in non-violent methods of struggle as most effective in the long run for building up successful working class power. Where they cannot be followed or where they are not even permitted by the ruling class, obviously only violent tactics remain. I champion civil liberty as the best of the non-violent means of building the power on which worker's rule must be based. If I aid the reactionaries to get free speech now and then, if I go outside the class struggle to fight against censorship, it is only because those liberties help to create a more hospitable atmosphere for working class liberties. The class struggle is the central conflict of the world; all others are incidental. When that power of the working class is once achieved, as it has been only in the Soviet Union, I am for maintaining it by any means whatever.
To understand this paragraph is to know why the ACLU is a scam. The ACLU does not believe in civil liberties. It is not fighting for an America with freedom and civil liberties. Civil liberties are only a tactic that the ACLU uses to undermine and overthrow America, in order to replace it with a totalitarian state, that they will maintain "by any means whatever". When the ACLU, on rare occasions, defends conservatives, it only does so for the long game in order to maintain a political environment that favors the eventual takeover of America.
"Political democracy is useful only as a tool of peaceful change," Baldwin wrote, on another occasion. The goal was "change", or as Baldwin had written previously in the Yale yearbook, "Communism is the goal". Before the Fish Committee in 1930, he testified that he supported the right of aliens to advocate the violent overthrow of the United States. For this same reason, Baldwin defended Soviet repressions as, "Weapons of the struggle in a transition period toward socialism." Back then Baldwin and his comrades were using civil liberties to enable a Communist takeover of the United States, that would end all civil liberties. Today they and so many on the left are working to enable an Islamist takeover.
Once again, Baldwin himself said it best. "I don't regret being part of the communist tactic. I knew what I was doing. I was not an innocent liberal. I wanted what the communists wanted and I traveled the United Front road to get it." Today the United Front is Red and Green, the Marxist-Islamist alliance, and the left thinks that it and the Islamists want the same things. Including the violent overthrow of the United States.
The ACLU is not protecting Al-Awlaki's civil rights. It is protecting his ability to organize the murder of Americans. And it is doing so for the same reason that the ACLU was protecting Communists, while pretending not to be Communist. Because it supports their aims. The anti-war movement and the civil liberties campaign on behalf of Muslim terrorists are both products of a United Front between Islam and the Left. The terrorists wage a violent campaign, while their leftist enablers tie the hands of those who would resist them
Saturday, August 7, 2010
Americans split over how to solve illegal immigration
Americans are split over how best to proceed with immigration reform, with about 50 percent saying that stopping new undocumented migrants from arriving should be the top US priority, a new poll found Tuesday.
But the survey by the Gallup polling organization and USA Today newspaper also found that nearly as many respondents -- about 45 percent-- preferred to deal first with the millions of undocumented migrants already in the country.
The same poll, by 62 percent to 32 percent, also found Americans are more likely to see illegal immigrants as a burden on taxpayers by virtue of the social services they receive, rather than as productive people who contribute their fair share of taxes.
The Gallup/USA Today survey, taken between June 11 and 13, follows a roiling months-long debate in the United States over immigration policy, after the state of Arizona enacted a tough new law cracking down on undocumented migrants.
The Arizona law, which is scheduled to go into effect on July 29, requires police to determine the status of people they stop and also suspect are in the country illegally, and makes it a misdemeanor to lack proper immigration documents in Arizona.
Publication of the poll also follows a major speech last week by Barack Obama, in which the US leader argued that immigration reform should include effective strengthening of US borders and sanctions on businesses which hire illegal workers.
The random telephone survey of 1,014 adults had a sampling error of plus or minus four percent.
But the survey by the Gallup polling organization and USA Today newspaper also found that nearly as many respondents -- about 45 percent-- preferred to deal first with the millions of undocumented migrants already in the country.
The same poll, by 62 percent to 32 percent, also found Americans are more likely to see illegal immigrants as a burden on taxpayers by virtue of the social services they receive, rather than as productive people who contribute their fair share of taxes.
The Gallup/USA Today survey, taken between June 11 and 13, follows a roiling months-long debate in the United States over immigration policy, after the state of Arizona enacted a tough new law cracking down on undocumented migrants.
The Arizona law, which is scheduled to go into effect on July 29, requires police to determine the status of people they stop and also suspect are in the country illegally, and makes it a misdemeanor to lack proper immigration documents in Arizona.
Publication of the poll also follows a major speech last week by Barack Obama, in which the US leader argued that immigration reform should include effective strengthening of US borders and sanctions on businesses which hire illegal workers.
The random telephone survey of 1,014 adults had a sampling error of plus or minus four percent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)