First, let me make clear that I would take any legal immigrant who values the freedom of our great country over any complacent American born fool who clearly has no idea of what it means to be an American. I have tremendous respect for those who have sacrificed to come to our country the legal way. Do not take for granted the many gifts our great nation offers us. For which they come from God not of man. God bless the USA!

“A Nation Without Borders Is Not A Nation” — Ronald Reagan

Fox News Poll: Secure the Border First

A majority of American voters think the federal government should secure the country’s borders first, before Congress works on new immigration legislation.

The Obama administration wants comprehensive immigration overhaul to come first, while Republican leaders are pushing for improved border security as the top priority. A Fox News poll released Friday asked American voters what should happen first: 59 percent think the government should secure the border first, while 30 percent think the priority should be new legislation.

[...]

Just over half of voters — 52 percent — favor Arizona’s new immigration law. That’s almost twice as many as the 27 percent who oppose it. Another 21 percent have no opinion.

[...]

Read article

Arizona’s Closed Federal Parkland is a No-Man’s Land

BUENOS AIRES NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE, Arizona – The number of illegal immigrants and drug smugglers crossing through this magnificent national parkland in southern Arizona has “decreased significantly” in the last four years, park officials say.

But there’s a dark cloud to this silver lining: To make it happen, the refuge had to close a sliver of this slice of heaven to the quarter-billion American taxpayers who own it — essentially creating a no-man’s-land on which only drug smugglers, gun-runners, human traffickers and the Border Patrol agents who track them down dare to tread.

And with rival Mexican drug gangs gunning each other down less than 50 miles away, the chance that the closed portion of the wildlife refuge will reopen in the foreseeable future appears to be between slim and none. For the time being, officials say, a small portion of this public land will be closed to the public.

[...]

Read article

Arizona law’s foes are using the real immigration scare tactics
By George Will – Sunday, May 2, 2010

“Physician, heal yourself,” said the founder of the church in which Roger Mahony is a cardinal. He is the Catholic archbishop of Los Angeles, and he should heed the founder’s admonition before accusing Arizonans of intemperateness. He says that Arizona’s new law pertaining to illegal immigration involves “reverting to German Nazi and Russian Communist techniques whereby people are required to turn one another in to the authorities on any suspicion of documentation.”

“Our highest priority today,” he says, “is to bring calm and reasoning to discussions about our immigrant brothers and sisters.” His idea of calm reasoning is to call Arizona’s law for coping with illegal immigration “the country’s most retrogressive, mean-spirited, and useless anti-immigrant law.” He also says that it is “dreadful,” “abhorrent” and a “tragedy” and that its assumption is that “immigrants come to our country to rob, plunder and consume public resources.”

The problem of illegal immigration is inflaming Mahony, who strongly implies, as advocates for illegal immigrants often do, that any law intended to reduce such illegality is “anti-immigrant.” The implication is: Because most Americans believe such illegality should be reduced, most Americans are against immigrants. This slur is slain by abundant facts — polling data that show Americans simultaneously committed to controlling the nation’s southern border and to welcoming legal immigration.

[...]

Read article

Obama says politics to blame for immigration delay

WASHINGTON – Hoping to breathe new life into the stalled immigration effort, President Barack Obama on Thursday blamed the delay on recalcitrant Republicans whom he said had given in to the “pressures of partisanship and election-year politics.”

Republicans responded that Obama’s first step going forward must be to secure the border.

In his first immigration speech, Obama took Republicans to task, in particular 11 GOP senators who had backed attempts during the previous Republican administration to tighten the immigration system. He did not call out anyone by name.

[...]

Read article

Obama: U.S. Borders Cannot Be Secured With Fences and Border Patrols

(CNSNews.com) – President Barack Obama said today that U.S. borders cannot be secured with fences and border patrols. “It won’t work,” he said.

Obama made the statement in a speech at American University in Washington, D.C. in which he called on Congress to enact a “comprehensive immigration reform” law that would include a “pathway for legal status” for illegal immigrants—or what critics call amnesty.

[...]

Read article

Mexican Drug Cartels Issue Threat to Arizona Cops

Banks Financing Mexico Gangs Admitted in Wells Fargo Deal

Just before sunset on April 10, 2006, a DC-9 jet landed at the international airport in the port city of Ciudad del Carmen, 500 miles east of Mexico City. As soldiers on the ground approached the plane, the crew tried to shoo them away, saying there was a dangerous oil leak. So the troops grew suspicious and searched the jet.

They found 128 black suitcases, packed with 5.7 tons of cocaine, valued at $100 million. The stash was supposed to have been delivered from Caracas to drug traffickers in Toluca, near Mexico City, Mexican prosecutors later found. Law enforcement officials also discovered something else.

The smugglers had bought the DC-9 with laundered funds they transferred through two of the biggest banks in the U.S.: Wachovia Corp. and Bank of America Corp., Bloomberg Markets magazine reports in its August 2010 issue.

[...]

Read article

Wachovia, Wells Fargo caught funding Mexican Drug Cartels – Bank of America also implicated

Brewer to Obama: Warning Signs Are Not Enough

President Obama speaking regarding our borders

Ariz. Cops Expect Scrutiny of Immigration Law

Laura Ingraham Interviews Ali Noorani On Immigration Reform – 07/01/10

Drug Gang Enforcer Admits Ordering U.S. Consulate Worker’s Killing, Mexico Says

MEXICO CITY (AP) — A top drug gang enforcer says he ordered the killing of a U.S. consulate worker because she helped provide visas to a rival gang in the border city of Ciudad Juarez, federal police said Friday.

Jesus Ernesto Chavez, whose arrest was announced on Friday, leads a band of hit men for a street gang tied to the Juarez cartel, said Ramon Pequeno, the head of anti-narcotics for the Federal Police.

[...]

Read article

Rep. Pete Stark Mocks Border Security Advocates: Who Are You Going to Kill Today? – June 29, 2010

Glenn Beck – Rep Pete Stark (D-CA) – June 30, 2010

NEW: Arizona Sing-A-Long: Read Immigration Law! – May 21, 2010

President Obama, No One in Arizona is Laughing – May 07, 2010

Jan Brewer and Sarah Palin – Secure The Border – May 15, 2010

For those that missed the video last month of Governor Jan Brewer on Greta Van Susteren. – Governor Brewer made her first appearance on national TV since signing SB1070. Governor Brewer explains the problems Arizona is facing because of illegal immigration.

UPDATE: GLENN BECK EPISODE – The Coming Insurrection And The Arizona Protests
Radicals following playbook from Europe

3/2/10: Must watch video showing an undermining of capitalism by the radical fringe who want to “change” our country fundamentally into a “communist” nation. They were passing around the most extreme communist literature denigrating capitalism as some imperialist regime.

Radical Immigration Reform Rally, Atlanta GA

This was passed along to me in a email. I must share.

From: “David LaBonte” My wife, Rosemary, wrote a wonderful letter to the editor of the OC Register which, of course, was not printed. So, I decided to “print” it myself by sending it out on the Internet. Pass it along if you feel so inclined. Written in response to a series of letters to the editor in theOrange County Register:

Dear Editor:

So many letter writers have based their arguments on how this land is made up of immigrants. Ernie Lujan for one, suggests we should tear down the Statue of Liberty because the people now in question aren’t being treated the same as those who passed through Ellis Island and other ports of entry.

Maybe we should turn to our history books and point out to people like Mr. Lujan why today’s American is not willing to accept this new kind of immigrant any longer. Back in 1900 when there was a rush from all areas of Europe to come to the United States, people had to get off a ship and stand in a long line in New York and be documented. Some would even get down on their hands and knees and kiss the ground. They made a pledge to uphold the laws and support their new country in good and bad times. They made learning English a primary rule in their new American households and some even changed their names to blend in with their new home.

They had waved good bye to their birth place to give their children a new life and did everything in their power to help their children assimilate into one culture. Nothing was handed to them. No free lunches, no welfare, no labor laws to protect them. All they had were the skills and craftsmanship they had brought with them to trade for a future of prosperity.

Most of their children came of age when World War II broke out. My father fought along side men whose parents had come straight over from Germany , Italy , France and Japan . None of these 1st generation Americans ever gave any thought about what country their parents had come from. They were Americans fighting Hitler, Mussolini and the Emperor of Japan . They were defending the United States of America as one people.

When we liberated France , no one in those villages were looking for the French-American or the German American or the Irish American. The people of France saw only Americans. And we carried one flag that represented one country. Not one of those immigrant sons would have thought about picking up another country’s flag and waving it to represent who they were. It would have been a disgrace to their parents who had sacrificed so much to be here. These immigrants truly knew what it meant to be an American. They stirred the melting pot into one red, white and blue bowl.

And here we are with a new kind of immigrant who wants the same rights and privileges. Only they want to achieve it by playing with a different set of rules, one that includes the entitlement card and a guarantee of being faithful to their mother country. I’m sorry, that’s not what being an American is all about. I believe that the immigrants who landed on Ellis Island in the early 1900’s deserve better than that for all the toil, hard work and sacrifice in raising future generations to create a land that has become a beacon for those legally searching for a better life. I think they would be appalled that they are being used as an example by those waving foreign country flags.

And for that suggestion about taking down the Statue of Liberty , it happens to mean a lot to the citizens who are voting on the immigration bill. I wouldn’t start talking about dismantling the United States just yet.

(signed) Rosemary LaBonte

Wasn’t sure if I should have posted this video in a separate post but I thought this is fitting for this one. (thanks to my friend Mel for passing this along)

During a Tucson city council meeting, however, a beautiful lady named Gabriella Salcedo stood and spoke from her heart about the bill. Take note, as we’ve said over and over and over again, we want people to come. We are not in any way against immigration; we are merely against illegal immigration. None of us cares what color your skin is. This woman has a wisdom that few could hope to achieve in their lifetime and is the perfect example of the immigrant that America needs. (click here)

Sean Hannity: Michelle Malkin rips into Francisco Hernandez, border attorney

Friend of mine on Facebook included me on a note of a recent debate he had regarding the Arizona bill. I left out all names. In orange is from someone who opposes the bill and in black text are the responses from my friend articulating points that favor the law.

I love the fact that people are boycotting all things Arizona..including the tea(which is from New York for the unknowing)

Protesting on the behalf of those who break the law. Only in the liberal mind does that make sense.

Sorry man but it is the sheep that follow the liberals that think it makes sense…The Libs just like the continued growth of their moronic base

Except for the fact that they’re already detaining American citizens, born in America, for not having proof of citizenship. The “reasonable suspicion?” Being hispanic. When are they going to ask us all for our “papers, please?”

And nobody’s protesting on behalf of people who’ve broken the law, they’re protesting on behalf of Americans who’ve done nothing wrong. The #2 country of origin for illegal immigration to the US? Ireland. They, by nature of the statute, have to ask EVERYBODY for their papers. Sitting on a park bench? Papers, please. Sittin’ in yer house? Papers, please. Riding on the bus, washing your car, gettin’ your groceries… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maus

Interesting rebuttals; let’s address and examine the points at issue and set aside for a moment using wikipedia as a primary source and the false parallel to Gestapo tactics that you used to buttress your points.

What is the issue that motivated the creation of the law? The issue is illegal immigration and the impact that it has on the borders, language, culture, and resources of the US.

Why was the law created? Due to a failure of the federal government in enforcing its’ duties as enumerated in the constitution (provide for the common defense, ensure domestic tranquility, etc). Also as enumerated in the constitution is the fact that anything not expressly forbidden to the states by the federal government, it falls on the state to regulate.

Lastly, as defined by article 4 section 4 of the constitution, the AZ law is fully justified under the reasoning provided by that article. So now that we’ve established the constitutional basis for the law, let’s move on to the civil liberties issues you bring up.

Your assessment of the flaw in the law is that it requires everyone to prove their eligibility to be in the US legally as well as an assertion that this law creates a disparate impact to the Hispanic community.

Let’s address the civil liberty issue first. Civil liberties apply to all of those citizens (in a generic sense) who have a legal foundation to exist within a defined set of borders. The legal foundation is the key; if you are here illegally you do not get in a broad sense the civil liberties guaranteed to those who are legally here.

The second part of the issue is determining who is actually supposed to be here. That’s where the proof of identity (et.al) comes in. This applies to everyone equally. I see no problem at all with having to require proof of identity for all citizens in order to determine status.

Your claim that the law unfairly targets a specific group of people is unfounded since there has been no evidence of that taking place. The law actually has a mechanism for redress of any issues within it as well. Furthermore, the law applies to all residents equally when there is probably cause not reasonable suspicion.

When you examine the things that this law is attempting to do, it really boils down to attempting to act in response to the failure of the federal government. Since 9/11 there have been over 30k murders committed by illegal aliens (borderpatrol.org) and vast numbers of additional “lesser” crimes. In their efforts to provide for the domestic tranquility of their citizens, each and every state in the union should enact similar laws to enforce their immigration policy.

If you think that this law is harsh, take a look at any nation in the world and examine what they do to secure their borders, language, culture, and resources. Furthermore, take a look at how Mexico enforces their southern border against people trying to gain illegal entry and examine what Mexico requires before you can get LEGAL residence in the country.

BTW-here are the realities of how the law is implemented:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/29/opinion/29kobach.html

Not that it will shift the left wing narrative…

well argued. Let’s talk about a couple of your errors:
“I see no problem at all with having to require proof of identity for all citizens in order to determine status.”
Do you currently carry your proof of citizenship? There’s a difference between what’s accepted as “identity” and “citizenship.” A driver’s license, commonly accepted as identity, is not the same as proof of citizenship or resident alien status. Are we all now supposed to carry our passports? What about people who don’t have passports? Are we all now supposed to carry our birth certificates? If you’re advocating for a national ID card, it’s an excellent point and I’ll agree with you there, it’s just that conservatives have traditionally argued against any sort of national ID:http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press99/pr101599.htm . I , for one, am one of the few liberals who sees no probably with photo ID to vote – let’s just cross that hurdle as soon as possible and get on with our lives. However, which do you prefer – National ID or no National ID?
” Furthermore, the law applies to all residents equally when there is probably cause not reasonable suspicion.” This is false – this law and many others specifically cite “reasonable suspicion.” As a law enforcement tactic itself, it’s fairly effective – probable cause should NOT be required of police officers to do their duty effectively – if we had probable cause as the standard, cops wouldn’t even be able to ask for directions, let alone ask them for identification. “Reasonable Suspicion” is a reasonable tactic most of the time, but I don’t think it’s reasonable here. What would engender a cop’s “reasonable suspicion” about an ordinary person walking down the sidewalk? Freckles? A shirt that says “Guinness?”

And that’s one of the points – I, as an American citizen, am affected by this law. If I stop for gas in Arizona, I am subject to an unreasonable and unlawful detention if I’m not carrrying my Arizona ID card or whatever they determine is proof. I’m not concerned about extending the rights of citizenship to illegal immigrants, I’m concerned about keeping MY rights of citizenship.

“If you think that this law is harsh, take a look at any nation in the world and examine what they do to secure their borders, language, culture, and resources”
Okay, Japan, for example. Island nation, easy to secure, but I was never, once, asked for my passport except at the airport. Nor do they stop Japanese people on the street and ask them for their birth certificates. Next? France. Checked at entry, never again. England – checked at entry, never again. Germany, checked at entry, never again, and I bet it’s VERY difficult to ask Joe German “Your papers, please?” Taiwan, Korea, The People’s Republic of frickin’ CHINA, never stopped on the street and asked for my papers. And Mexico neither checks at entry (granted, US Border) or on the street.
“Your claim that the law unfairly targets a specific group of people is unfounded since there has been no evidence of that taking place…”
Nice try, thank you for playing: http://www.azfamily.com/news/91769419.html
But that’s not the point – the point is that they can stop YOU, or Rick, or Carrie, or me, or any other American and ask for your papers. Just cuz. What if you’re 11 and walking to school?

” Since 9/11 there have been over 30k murders committed by illegal aliens” Nice figure, what’s your source? I can’t find that anywhere, and “borderpatrol.org” is a squatter site. Actually, I can find that figure in a lot of places, but I don’t click on Stormfront links.

If that’s indeed the case, then why is crime in Arizona (except for drug kidnappings) down since 9/11?http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=crime+in+AZ

Then why is violent crime down in Arizona since 9/11?
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=violent+crime+in+AZ

If that’s indeed the case, then why didn’t GWB enable this law when he was the Governor of Texas? Or ask for it when he was President? Why hasn’t Rick Perry or Arnold Schwarzenegger or Jeb Bush or Charlie Crist advocated for these laws?

It’s because they understand that liberties extended to American citizens cannot be revoked for real or imagined threats.

Nothing scares me so much that I’m going to leave behind the things that I swore to serve.

I read Kobach’s op-ed. Interesting that he builds the strawman about how people opposed to this are interested in relaxing illegal immigration enforcement. I’m not, actually interested in this, because illegal immigrants are an unprotected underclass, a danger to commerce and overwhelmingly victims of crimes that they cannot report. I *am,* however interested in unreasonable intrusions into my liberty, and my failure to produce an AZ driver’s license to an AZ cop will, under the law, be illegal. He doesn’t seem to care about the restrictions this will cause, and his laughable assertion that a state legislature is at the front lines of anything is almost enough to disregard the op-ed in its entirety.

But what he does say effectively is that we should legislate away our rights through fear. I vociferously disagree.

I’ll hand the cudgel over to a Republican, who is a little more direct in his condemnation and colorful in his speech: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/95123-mack-r-compares-ariz-law-to-nazi-germany

Rick pointed out that folks can be stupid when they get wrapped around the axle about things – a point I agree with wholeheartedly.

Before I address those “errors” you point out let me establish what I see as real immigration reform. Bear in mind that this is coming from a naturalized 1st generation immigrant, not some “crazy, racist, kook-fringe, right winger” as the left labels those who support this law (not say that you fall into the same category [just defining the narrative]).

For legitimate occur the following issues must be addressed: 1) Reform can only occur once both the northern and southern borders are secure, 2) the plan must include a provision for the repatriation of illegals to their native lands, 3) it must include the creation of a national ID card which establishes both citizenship and identity 4) it must include a difficult path for illegals to obtain legal residence 5) it must create severe penalties for employers who hire illegals 6) it must create and enforce severe penalties for those who circumvent the immigration laws and 7) for those who do not abide by the provisions to obtain legal status, deportation is the only recourse. These steps will solve the issue of immigration once and for all if there is the political will to execute the plan.

Unfortunately, both parties gain from maintaining the status quo. Democrats have a vast pool of undocumented voters to exploit and Republicans (and their big business allies [who also support Democrats in this fashion]) have a pool of extremely cheap labor to exploit. As a result of these dynamics, as well as the Fabian Socialist principles which drive both parties, nothing will every truly be addressed in any meaningful sense. When the author of the NYT article states “people opposed to this are interested in relaxing illegal immigration enforcement”, he is basing that assessment on these underlying principles and thus is not making a straw man argument.
In your analysis of the NYT article it is interesting to note how you rail against legislating out of fear when the crux of your argument is based on an unfounded fear of losing your civil liberties due to unlawful search and seizure. The criteria for establishing that standard has long been established in case law from Terry v Ohio (1967) going forward. Furthermore you cite that the “reasonable suspicion” standard is too vague as the central premise for making the leap to the conclusion that all sorts of inane possibilities could occur due to abuse. Is that possible in any real sense if unencumbered by law? Yes. Is it realistic? No.

Case law establishes what constitutes reasonable suspicion as well in Ornelas v US (1996), Illinois v Gates (1983), Illinois v Lidster (2004), and Florida v Royer (1983) just to name a few. I would encourage you to examine those in detail prior to running off into the fire swamps screaming about your rights being taken away. There is a clearly defined standard which establishes what is and is not appropriate behavior.

“Errors” Assessment-

I think I sufficiently addressed the issues you brought out except for the remaining items of crimes by illegal aliens and how other nations address legal and illegal immigration.

Let’s take a look at the crime issue first. You said that you are not aware of the data on the number/volume of crimes committed by illegal aliens (specifically the murder number that I cited and you question the reliability of the source) and then cite two statistics which point to overall crime and violent crime declining in the state as evidence to support your point. Unfortunately the statistics you cite don’t disprove my overall point. You can have crime drop as an overall statistic and still have demographics show increases in total quantity and percentages within that larger measurement.
If you want to get the scope of crimes committed by the illegal alien community, take a look at the following (you can also go to the FBI database and statistics on the federal prison population to draw the same conclusions):
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/1738432/posts
http://www.usillegalaliens.com
/impacts_of_illegal_immigration_crime_summary.html
http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_1_the_illegal_alien.html
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?article_id=53103
Hopefully, those sources along with the primary sources embedded in them meet your discerning criteria.

The second “error” that you point out was regarding immigration policy of other nations. You cite your personal experience traveling to various nations as evidence to the contrary to rebut my point. I have traveled to many of those nations and have had a similar experience as you have but that does not disprove my point.

You are engaging in a weak analogy logical fallacy to state your case. Furthermore you are drawing on evidence from a tiny sample size to come to a conclusion that isn’t supported by evidence. Lastly, the circumstances you describe are under the umbrella of immigration but you completely missed the distinction I was making. You equated your experience as a traveler to those countries, with the requirements for legal residence in those countries. That comparison is vastly different.
The following are links to immigration policies and consequences for non-compliance for various nations:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,584741,00.html
http://www.debito.org/permres.html
http://www.mexperience.com/liveandwork/immigration.htm
As you review those, hopefully you glean the difference between life as a tourist and life as a semi-permanent or permanent resident.

Staying with the theme of how illegal immigrants are treated, you may be interested to read about how Mexico treats those that illegally encroach on their borders.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/uc/20100428/cm_uc_crmmax/op_1913861
http://veracitystew.com/2010/04/29/amnesty-international-mexico-has-its-own-problems-with-illegal-immigration/

Liberal Bias of Tea Parties vs Arizona Immigration Riots

Earlier this week riot police were called to a Tea Party in Quincy, Ill to protect against unruly grandmas and peaceful Americans singing ‘God Bless America’. Completely an utterly ridiculous! Oh, because you know these women were totally out of control. Not like the riots in Arizona. (click here)

‘Small’ Riot in Arizona over Illegal Immigration Bill
by Connie Hair
New aerial footage has surfaced of the violence that broke out at the Arizona state capitol building after a new illegal immigration bill was signed into law on Friday. In stark contrast to peaceful Tea Party rallies, the pro-illegal immigration protesters took to the streets pelting police with rocks and water bottles as a means to voice their discontent. (click here)

Glenn Beck on Tea Party vs Arizona Riots