Monday, 6 September 2010
It's 'An Outrage' + the "Myths"
COMMENT: And some lawmakers and candidates don't think states should take the immigration issue into their own hands...when their own government leaves them completely vulnerable. This HAS to stop! Thankfully, Tennessee passed some legislation this year and when January comes, we will see a flurry of additional bills.
Nearly Half of United States Considering Arizona-Style Immigration Legislation
Thursday, August 19, 2010
By Fred Lucas, Staff Writer
(CNSNews.com) - Twenty-two states are now in the process of drafting or seeking to pass legislation similar to Arizona's law against illegal immigration. This is occurring despite the fact that the Obama administration has filed a lawsuit against the Arizona law and a federal judge has ruled against portions of that law - a ruling that is now being appealed.
Next month, two Rhode Island state lawmakers, a Democrat and a Republican, will travel to Arizona to speak with Republican Gov. Jan Brewer, local sheriffs, and other officials about how to better craft their own bipartisan immigration bill for Rhode Island, which already has been enforcing some federal immigration laws.
Meanwhile, 11 Republican state lawmakers from Colorado traveled to Arizona this week to meet with officials there on how to craft legislation for the Mile High state.
In addition, Alabama House Republicans announced this week that they would seek to "push an illegal immigration bill similar to the recently approved Arizona law." This law would "create a new criminal trespass statute that allows local law enforcement to arrest illegal immigrants for simply setting foot in Alabama," said Alabama's House Minority Leader Mike Hubbard.
In Florida, proposed legislation against illegal immigration has been retooled to address some concerns raised by a federal judge who blocked the proposed bill, though it would still allow Florida state police to enforce immigration law.
In all, there are 22 states considering copycat legislation from the Arizona law against illegal immigration, according to the Americans for Legal Immigration Political Action Committee (ALIPAC), a group that advocates for stricter immigration enforcement. Read more here.
Arizona Sheriff: Border Patrol Has Retreated from Parts of Border Becaust It's 'Too Dangerous'
Monday, August 16, 2010
By Terence P. Jeffrey, Editor-in-Chief
(CNSNews.com) - Sheriff Larry Dever of Cochise County, Ariz., one of four Arizona counties contiguous with the U.S-Mexico border, said Friday that the U.S. Border Patrol has pulled back from parts of the border in his and neighboring counties because manning those areas has become too dangerous.
"And you frankly have Border Patrolmen--and I know this from talking to Border Patrol agents-who will not allow their agents to work on the border because it is too dangerous," Dever told CNSNews.com in a videotaped interview. "Now what kind of message is that for crying out loud?" Read more here.
More Illegal Immigrants Getting Licenses
Carlos Hernandez packed up his family and left Arizona after the state passed its sweeping immigration crackdown. The illegal immigrant's new home outside Seattle offered something Arizona could not: a driver's license.
Three states - Washington, New Mexico and Utah - allow illegal immigrants to get licenses because their laws do not require proof of citizenship or legal residency. An Associated Press analysis found that those states have seen a surge in immigrants seeking IDs in recent months, a trend experts attribute to crackdowns on illegal immigration in Arizona and elsewhere.
"It's difficult being undocumented and not having an identification," said Hernandez, of Puebla, Mexico. "You can use the Mexican ID, but people look down on it." An American driver's license is also a requirement for many jobs.
The immigration debate has thrown a spotlight on the license programs, which supporters say make financial sense because unlicensed drivers typically do not carry car insurance. Opponents insist the laws attract illegal immigrants and criminals.
"Washington state and New Mexico have been magnet states for the fraudulent document brokers, human traffickers and alien smugglers for years," said Brian Zimmer, president of the Coalition for a Secure Driver's License, a nonprofit research group in Washington, D.C. Read more here.
Sheriff Babeu: It's 'An Outrage' Obama Stopped Building Border Fence
Thursday, August 26, 2010
By Terence P. Jeffrey, Editor-in-Chief
(CNSNews.com) - Sheriff Paul Babeu of Pinal County, Ariz., says it is "an outrage" the Obama administration has stopped building the double-fencing needed to assist the Border Patrol in securing the U.S.-Mexico border and says it is time for the United States to begin fighting illegal immigration and drug smuggling directly at the border instead of within the country where it harms American citizens and communities.
By the time Obama was inaugurated in January 2009, according to the Justice Department, only 108 miles of the 262-mile-long Arizona portion of the 2,000-mile-long U.S.-Mexico border had been fenced.
"We shouldn't be fighting this battle in the interior. We should be fighting it directly on our international border," Babeu said in an "Online With Terry Jeffrey" interview. "And it's an outrage that our own federal government stopped building the fence."
Babeu, whose southern Arizona county sits astride major drug-and-alien-smuggling routes running north from Mexico, has joined with Sheriff Larry Dever of Cochise County, Ariz., and Arizona's two U.S. senators, John McCain and Jon Kyl, to push a 10-point plan for securing the border. The plan includes, among other provisions, completing the necessary border fencing, deploying 3,000 National Guard troops to cover just the Arizona stretch of the border, and deploying significantly more surveillance aircraft than are currently used to patrol the border.
Babeu, who is also a major in the Army National Guard and who did a tour in Iraq, formerly commanded Task Force Yuma, a deployment of 700 Army and Air Force National Guard troops who worked with the Border Patrol to secure one segment of the U.S.-Mexico border in Arizona. Read more here.
by Gregory Kay
After watching the ongoing debate over illegal immigration, I keep hearing the same old arguments brought up, both by power-hungry liberals, money-hungry conservatives, and collection-hungry clergy about why it's necessary. They have developed an entire joint mythology around the subject, and, frankly, I am both tired of it and disgusted with it, so I have decided to do a little debunking of these myths, and bust their arguments wide open. Here are the nine most common immigration myths.
MYTH #1: "Immigration is a Federal problem, not a State problem!" This is obviously wrong. If that were the case, then the Federal Government, not the State, would be paying the full cost of immigration, legal and otherwise. If it was a Federal responsibility, they would be Federal wards, and the Federal Government would foot the bill and provide all logistical services for food stamps, welfare, public housing, public education, bi-lingual paperwork, interpreters, medical care, court costs, and incarceration of all illegal aliens no matter where they were in the United States. As the States are forced to pay most of this now, it is very much a State problem.
MYTH #2: "Jesus, Mary and Joseph were illegal immigrants in Egypt!" No, they were not. Egypt, like Judea, Palestine, and much of the known world, were part of the Roman Empire. By being born into it, they, like the Apostle Paul described himself, were freeborn Roman citizens, with as much legal standing and the same rights as if they had been born in Rome itself. They didn't cross the border from one country into another; they crossed the border from one Roman province to another, not much different than I might cross the border from West Virginia into Ohio.
MYTH #3: "Illegals do jobs Americans won't do!" Anyone who says this is either a damned liar or a damned fool, and you can tell him I said so. The number of illegal aliens - not even to mention the legal ones - is about triple the number of Americans out of work, so the only possible mathematical conclusion is obvious. The people who make this claim do so because the illegals, being from the Third World, will work for Third World wages under Third World conditions, something Americans, quite justifiably, will not do.
MYTH #4: "It's un-Christian to stop illegal immigrants who just want to better their lives!" Actually, it is un-Christian to support them, because they are, according to the Bible, thieves. Jesus Christ said so himself, in John 10:1: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber." Remember, that guy breaking into your house and stealing your TV is just trying to better his life too. There is absolutely no moral difference between them; both are intentionally breaking the law in order to take something, be it a TV or a job - or, more likely, welfare - that is not theirs and they are not entitled to.
MYTH #5: "We have to accept them because we came here uninvited ourselves!" Tell you what; got out to a reservation and ask an Indian what happens when you allow a bunch of strangers in. There is no moral onus on us that forces us to repeat someone else's tragic mistake just because we benefited from it. The lesson is plain and in front of us, and we're fools if we don't pay heed to it.
MYTH #6: "It's morally wrong to throw out women and children!" What if you came home from work, and some strange woman and her brood of brats had moved into your house without your permission, were eating your food, taking your own kids' belongings, and demanding that you pay for their bills, medical care, and education? They'd be lucky if their little brown butts only bounced three times on the sidewalk before they hit the curb, and you know it. Well, illegal immigration is the exact same thing, only on a larger scale, and should be handled in exactly the same manner.
MYTH #7: "We will never be able to completely secure the Southern border!" Oh, so we've sunk so far we don't even have the power or technology of the 1960s Soviet Union, who built this little thing called the 'Iron Curtain?' It's much less difficult with modern technology, especially when, in our case, the vast majority of our people are behind the idea.
MYTH #8: "We can't realistically deport millions of people!" Of course we can, through a logical, step-by-step process.
1. Make them want to leave by severing all public assistance funding, including medical care and education for illegals.
2. Begin severely fining businesses and arresting people who hire them, and begin asset seizure proceedings against those who make a pattern of doing so under the RICO statutes, with the said assets to be sold at public auction to recoup the cost of immigration enforcement.
3. Charge any person, organization, or church intentionally harboring illegal aliens with conspiracy to violate Federal immigration law, imprison the offenders, and begin asset seizure proceedings against them.
4. Charge any public official who votes for 'sanctuary city' status with conspiracy to violate Federal immigration law and imprison the offenders.
5. Offer a bounty of $1000 dollars a head to anyone giving information leading to the arrest and deportation of an illegal alien.
6. Give any illegal currently living here who owns property the chance to turn himself in; he will be given ninety days to get his affairs in order and put his property up for sale, after which he can leave in an orderly manner. If he fails to turn himself in, all personal property will be seized and he will be immediately deported.
7. Secure the Southern border using a combination of National Guard and regular military troops, a border fence, and high tech surveillance equipment, empowered to make arrests and use deadly force as necessary. Guarding the country's border is the single most legitimate function of the military.
8. Make any illegal entry subject to one year in Federal prison at hard labor, followed by immediate deportation with no appeal.
MYTH #9: "Illegal immigrants contribute to our economy!" This statement is patently untrue. The middle of the road figure in the studies I examined indicate that each illegal alien costs the American taxpayer $9000 per year. There are well over 20 million illegals in this country, so you can do the math. That kind of economic contribution we can do without!
Originally published in THE FIRST FREEDOM monthly: http://www.gulftel.com/firstfreedom/ May be distributed free and unedited only; all for-profit publication by permission of the author only. Contact: email@example.com
Gregory Kay is the author of THE THIRD REVOLUTION Series, available at
Posted on 09/06/2010 11:11 AM by Bobbie Patray
Monday, 6 September 2010
Putting the Brakes on ObamaCare
GOOD NEWS: Rep. Steve King (R.-Iowa) has the signatures of 170 House members on a petition to vote this year on a repeal of Obamacare. King doesn't have a multi-million dollar campaign for this effort, but he has something more valuable: the support of the American people. August 30 story; source HERE. From Cong. King's website: Read and print the full document here. A picture of the signed document is here. A list of Members who have signed the document is available here. [Note: this list is from February, so may not have been updated.]
Public sours on health care reform as midterms loom
Sebelious: Administration Has a Lot of 'Reeducation' To do on Obamacare
Uncertain whether the last 18 months of dismal health-care speeches and rallies had entirely destroyed the myth of the Obama administration as gifted, uplifting message mavens, Kathleen Sebelius bravely ventured into the rhetorical orchards and brought forth this rotten fruit:
"Unfortunately, there still is a great deal of confusion about what is in [the reform law] and what isn't," Sebelius told ABC News Radio in an interview Monday.
"So, we have a lot of reeducation to do," Sebelius said.
Cult of competence, I believe they were once called.
One is left wondering if this will be a standard PSA-style push or something more along the lines of a camp environment. This Healthcare.gov video offers a pretty clear look at the end result of reeducation efforts. Start studying, keep the eyes vacant, the accent regionally neutral, and the tone uniformly, creepily pleasant while repeating your Obama talking points, folks. Read more here.
Putting the Brakes on ObamaCare
How a Republican Congress could begin the process of repealing this unpopular law.
By GRACE-MARIE TURNER
If Republicans take control of one or both houses of Congress this fall, many will have been elected with a promise to "repeal and replace" ObamaCare. But what are their options, really? There likely will be an initial showdown, but President Obama will surely veto any challenge to the law, and it would be hard to imagine mustering the votes to overturn it.
Information is the key weapon. Republicans can use congressional hearings to explain what ObamaCare is doing to the economy and the health sector. Their strongest cases would be built around jobs, the cost of health care, and the rising deficit.
If evidence shows that looming mandates on employers are crippling job-creation, they should be repealed. If health costs are rising, as they inevitably will be, Congress needs to hold hearings to investigate the causes and explain why the offending taxes and regulations must be repealed.
Here are six key strategies that a Republican Congress could employ to put on the brakes:
• Defund it. House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio has vowed to choke off funding for implementation of the legislation, starting with parts that are especially egregious such as the "army of new IRS agents" needed to police compliance.
While Republicans could target the most damaging provisions of the legislation and tie their defunding measures to appropriations legislation that the president wants and needs to sign, they'd better be ready for battles. When former House Speaker Newt Gingrich lost a stand-down with President Clinton over closing down the government in 1996, it was widely seen as a setback for GOP efforts to scale back big government.
• Dismantle it. To focus committee action and floor votes, Republicans can look for provisions in the law that Democrats are on record as opposing. For example, Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D., N.D.) has said that the new federal program to fund long-term care-the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports Act, or CLASS Act-is "a Ponzi scheme of the first order, the kind of thing that Bernie Madoff would have been proud of." Mr. Conrad and five of his Democratic colleagues sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) before the legislation passed opposing the program and expressing "grave concerns" about its fiscal sustainability. Read more here.
Posted on 09/06/2010 8:42 AM by Bobbie Patray