California's Not Dreamin'

This Is the Nightmare of an Obama Second Term
by Roger Hedgecock  (Former Mayor of San Diego )

I live in California. If you were wondering what living in Obama's second term would be like, wonder no longer. We in California are living there now.

California is a one-party state dominated by a virulent Democratic Left enabled by a complicit media where every agency of local, county, and state government is run by and for the public employee unions. The unemployment rate is 12%.

California has more folks on food stamps than any other state, has added so many benefits and higher rates to Medicaid that we call it "Medi-Cal." Our K-12 schools have more administrators than teachers, and smaller classes but lower test scores and higher dropout rates with twice the per-student budget of 15 years ago. Good job, Brownie.

This week, the once and current Gov. Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown had to confess that the "balanced" state budget adopted five months ago was billions in the red because actual tax revenues were billions lower than the airy-fairy revenue estimates on which the balance was predicated.

After trimming legislators' perks and reducing the number of cell phones provided to state civil servants, the governor intoned that drastic budget reductions had already hollowed out state programs for the needy, law enforcement and our school children. California government needed more money.

Echoing the Occupy movement, the governor proclaimed the rich must pay their fair share. Fair share? The top 1% of California income earners currently pays 50% of the state's income tax.

California has seven income tax brackets. The top income tax rate is 9.3%, which is slapped on the greedy rich earning at least $47,056 a year. Income of more than $1 million pays the "millionaires' and billionaires'" surcharge tax rate of 10.3%.

Brown's proposal would add 2% for income over $250,000. A million-dollar income would then be taxed at 12.3%. And that's just for the state.

Brown also proposed a one-half-cent sales tax increase, which would bring sales taxes (which vary by county) to 7.75% to 10%. Both tax increases would be on the ballot in 2012.

The sales tax increase proposal immediately brought howls of protest from the Left (of Brown!). Charlie Eaton, a sociology grad student at UC Berkeley and leader of the UC Student-Workers Union, said, "We've paid enough. It's time for millionaires to pay."

At least five other ballot measures to raise taxes are circulating for signatures to get on the 2012 ballot in California. The governor's proposals are the most conservative.

The Obama way doesn't end with taxes.

The governor and the state legislature continue to applaud the efforts of the California High Speed Rail Authority to build a train connecting Los Angeles and San Francisco. Even though the budget is three times the voter-approved amount, the first segment will only connect two small towns in the agricultural Central Valley. But hey, if we build it, they will ride.

And we don't want to turn down the Obama bullet-train bucks Florida and other states rejected because the operating costs would bankrupt them. Can't happen here—we're already insolvent.

If we get into real trouble with the train, we'll just bring in the Chinese. It worked with the Bay Bridge reconstruction. After the 1989 earthquake, the bridge connecting Oakland and San Francisco was rebuilt with steel made in China. Workers from China too. Paid for with money borrowed from China. Makes perfect sense.

In California, we hate the evil, greedy rich (except the rich in Hollywood and in sports, and in drug dealing). But we love people who have broken into California to eat the bounty created by the productive rich.

Illegal aliens get benefits from various generous welfare programs, free medical care, free schools for their kids, including meals, and of course, instate tuition rates and scholarships too. Governor Perry, California has a heart. Nothing's too good for our guests.

To erase even a hint of criticism of illegal immigration, the California Legislature is considering a unilateral state amnesty. Democrat State Assemblyman Felipe Fuentes has proposed an initiative that would bar deportation of illegal aliens from California.

Interesting dilemma for Obama there. If immigration is exclusively a federal matter, and Obama has sued four states for trying to enforce federal immigration laws he won't enforce, what will the President do to a California law that exempts California from federal immigration law?

California is also near fulfilling the environmentalist dream of deindustrialization.

After driving out the old industrial base (auto and airplane assembly, for example), air and water regulators and tax policies are now driving out the high-tech, biotech and even Internet-based companies that were supposed to be California's future.

The California cap-and-trade tax on business in the name of reducing CO2 makes our state the leader in wacky environmentalism and guarantees a further job exodus from the state.

Even green energy companies can't do business in California. Solyndra went under, taking its taxpayer loan guarantee with it.

No job is too small to escape the regulators. The state has even banned weekend amateur gold miners from the historic gold mining streams in the Sierra Nevada Mountains.

In fact, more and more of California's public land is off-limits to recreation by the people who paid for that land. Unless you're illegal. Then you can clear the land, set up marijuana plantations at will, bring in fertilizers that legal farmers can no longer use, exploit illegal farm workers who live in hovels with no running water or sanitation, and protect your investment with armed illegal aliens carrying guns no California citizen is allowed to own.

The rest of us only found out about these plantations when the workers' open campfire started one of those devastating fires that have killed hundreds of people and burned out thousands of homes in California over the last decade.

It was said after California's Proposition 13 in 1978 cut property tax rates and was copied in other states, that whatever happened in California would soon happen in your state.

You'd better hope that's wrong. 

TOP 10 IMMIGRATION STORIES FOR 2011

By Kevin R. Johnson, Guest blogger December 19, 2011 

It has been an exciting immigration year. I reviewed the ImmigrationProf blog postings for the year and came up with my top 10 immigration and immigration-related stories in the United States.

1. Supreme Court to review Arizona’s S.B. 1070
The US Supreme Court has decided to review Arizona’s controversial immigration law known as S.B. 1070. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a preliminary injunction barring implementation of four core provisions of the Arizona law, including the section that would require local police to verify the immigration status of anyone they had a “reasonable suspicion” of believing is undocumented. Opponents of the law have claimed that its implementation would, among other things, increase the racial profiling of Latinos.

2. US Department of Justice finds that Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Maricopa County Sheriff Office violated civil rights of Latinos and immigrants
Sheriff Joe Arpaio has been dubbed “America’s Toughest Sheriff,” but he has been criticized on many occasions for violating the civil rights of Latinos and immigrants. Earlier this month, the US Department of Justice issued a detailed report finding, based on a thorough investigation, that the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office in Arizona had engaged in a pattern and practice of “unconstitutional policing” and violated the civil rights of Latinos and immigrants in police stops and the conditions of detention. Read the report documenting the violations. It is troubling that such lawlessness could go on for so long.

3. Obama administration sets another deportation record
The Obama administration, pursuing its “enforcement now, enforcement forever” deportation policy set another removal record for the fiscal year of nearly 400,000. Last year's record-setting number of removals made the list of top immigration news stories for 2010.

4. The Obama administration unveils “prosecutorial discretion” guidelines and promises to review all open removal cases to ensure that they are priority cases
Provoking criticism from advocates of greater immigration enforcement, the Obama administration issued new prosecutorial discretion guidelines. In a surprising move, the administration also called for the review of hundreds of thousands of removal cases to see if they deserve priority treatment under the new guidelines. Implementation has been spotty with many undocumented immigrants uncertain of where they stand.

5. Alabama passes toughest state immigration law: Georgia, South Carolina also follow Arizona’s lead
Consistent with its checkered civil rights history, the Alabama legislature in June passed what its supporters claimed was the "toughest" state immigration law in the United States, no small feat with state after state seeking to earn that “honor.” Georgia and South Carolina also have Arizona-like immigration laws, which have been subject to legal challenge. The US government's challenge to the Alabama law is pending in the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

6. "Secure Communities" program remains controversial
The Obama administration has championed the Secure Communities program, which, it says, targets, criminal offenders for removal. Some state and local law enforcement agencies have resisted participation. Controversy ensued when the administration announced that Secure Communities was not a “voluntary” program. In any event, while the program has boosted removal numbers, most of those removed appear to have been guilty of low level criminal offenses (traffic violations, etc.).

7. Failure of Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform
It is hard to say that it is news but, for another year, Congress has failed to enact comprehensive immigration reform. President Obama has registered his support for reform but Congress does not appear to want to get around to it until the next elections. President Obama promised to pass comprehensive immigration reform his first year in office. The failure of comprehensive immigration reform also made the top news stories for 2010.

8. Congresswoman shot in Tucson
Last January, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, as well as US District Judge John Roll and five others, were shot in a murderous rampage by a deranged gunman in Tucson, Arizona. Although not really immigration news, the killings occurred in a state that had for years seen overheated political rhetoric over immigration. Miraculously, Congresswoman Giffords is recovering well from the shooting.

9. Anti-immigrant activist convicted of murder
Anti-immigrant activist Shawna Forde was convicted of murdering an Arizona father and daughter in a home invasion robbery that turned horribly bad. Prosecutors claimed that Forde sought money to support her anti-immigrant political activities. She was convicted and given the death penalty. The mainstream media paid little attention to this case.

10. Death on the US/Mexico border continues
This is not really news because nobody seems to be paying any attention. But, due to heightened enforcement along the US-Mexico border, migrants continue to die horrible deaths in deserts and mountains in the region. This story also made the top immigration news for 2010.

--- Kevin R. Johnson is dean and professor of law at the University of California, Davis, School of Law. He is an editor of  ImmigrationProf Blog.

 

We're Enforcing Federal Immigration Law

Alabama Speaker of the House Mike Hubbard, R-Auburn.

Since Alabama passed a law cracking down on illegal immigration, special interest groups and the Obama Justice Department have misrepresented facts about the law in an overt effort to generate fear and anger. They do this because it is difficult to convince reasonable Americans that it is somehow unfair to require proof of legal residency from those wishing to receive public benefits, or that it is somehow discriminatory to require employers to hire only legal, documented workers.

What they won't tell you is that our law's most ballyhooed provisions are virtually identical to federal law. Current federal immigration law penalizes employers for hiring undocumented workers; requires non-citizens to carry documentation; and prohibits conduct that aids and abets federal immigration violations.

Rather than resist federal laws, as was unfortunately the case in the 1950s and 1960s, Alabama today is insisting that federal law be enforced, by state officers if necessary. That's because, in Alabama, we believe obedience to law ensures fairness and protects the rights of everybody.

Conversely, the federal government, particularly the Obama administration, has discouraged fairness and endangered the rights of Americans by refusing to deal with the nation's illegal immigration problem.

Opinions expressed in USA TODAY's editorials are decided by its Editorial Board, a demographically and ideologically diverse group that is separate from USA TODAY's news staff.
Most editorials are accompanied by an opposing view — a unique USA TODAY feature that allows readers to reach conclusions based on both sides of an argument rather than just the Editorial Board's point of view.

It's past time to secure this country's borders and build an immigration system that works. Until the president and Congress get serious and take action, more states will join Alabama, Arizona, Indiana, South Carolina, Utah and others to take it upon themselves to ensure the current law is enforced.

In Alabama, we're focused on making our law work better, clearing up misconceptions and correcting any portions that might be vague or require additional definitions. We seek to ensure more efficient and less burdensome application of the law for businesses and local governments. Lawmakers are right now working with business leaders to see what updates might be necessary to maintaining what we believe is the most business-friendly environment anywhere in America.

Alabama wants a positive work environment, and we welcome legal residents to be a part of it. We can have a thriving business environment that rivals any in the world while also shutting off the magnet drawing illegal immigrants to our state.

Definitions

Alien, Immigrant, Illegal Alien, Undocumented Immigrant

These related terms are often used in deliberately confusing and conflicting ways.  Here is a set of definitions that will help you sort out the difference.

IMMIGRANT:  In popular usage, an "immigrant" is generally understood to be a person who migrates to another country, usually for permanent residence.  Under this definition, therefore, an "immigrant" is an alien admitted to the U.S. as a lawful permanent resident.   The emphasis in this definition is upon the presumptions that (1) the immigrant followed U.S. laws and procedures in establishing residence in our country; (2) he or she wishes to reside here permanently; and (3) he or she swears allegiance to our country or at least solemnly affirms that he/she will observe and respect our laws and our Constitution.

ALIEN:  By contrast, an "alien" is generally understood to be a foreigner -- a person who comes from a foreign country -- who does not owe allegiance to our country.

ILLEGAL ALIEN:  An "illegal alien" is a foreigner who (1) does not owe allegiance to our country; and (2) who has violated our laws and customs in establishing residence in our country.  He or she is therefore a criminal under applicable U.S. laws.

The term "illegal alien" is used by U.S. citizens who believe that non-citizens entering our country must comply with our immigration laws. 

The term "illegal alien" is predicated upon U.S. immigration law which requires foreigners entering the U.S. to comply with our country's rules and laws regarding entry into, and residence within, our country.

UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANT:  The term "undocumented immigrant" is an oxymoron (the parts conflict). An immigrant is synonymous with "permanent legal resident." The old term for the document authorizing a permanent legal resident is "green card." The term "undocumented" is derived from the accurate term "undocumented aliens" who are often called "border crossers."

Proper terms are "illegal alien" or "undocumented alien" but not "undocumented immigrant." Although not commonly used, the term "documented alien" accurately refers to foreign nationals who have an unexpired non-immigrant visa such as H-1B.

Most U.S. citizens do not use the term "undocumented immigrant" and prefer, instead, the more descriptive and accurate term "illegal alien".

The term "undocumented immigrant" is used by those who believe in "open borders", i.e., non-regulation of foreigners entering into and assuming residence in the U.S., including even those foreigners who owe allegiance to a foreign government and/or who may intend harm to the U.S.

DISCUSSION:

Commonly, in U.S. politics and U.S. news stories, the term "alien" is most often used with the modifier "illegal".

By contrast, the term "immigrant" is often deliberately used without a modifier, leaving the impression -- correct or not -- that the immigrant is legally or permissibly in the U.S. under our laws.  Of course, this is frequently not the case!

Liberal politicians and news organizations prefer to refer to illegal aliens as "undocumented immigrants" because this term deliberately deflects discussion away from the fact that such individuals are in our country illegally.  The term "undocumented immigrant" is designed to deliberately gloss over the fact that such individuals have broken our laws.

Conversely, conservative and libertarian politicians and news organizations tend to refer to illegal aliens as "illegal aliens" which properly keeps the focus of the discussion on the fact that such individuals have broken our laws and are therefore criminals to one degree or another, and that these individuals do not owe allegiance to our country.

In fact, folks who like to use the term undocumented immigrant also tend to believe we should be spending U.S. taxpayer funds to provide illegal aliens (criminals) with health care, social security and in some cases in state tuition at our colleges and universities.  They also tend to believe that illegal aliens should be able to obtain U.S. drivers' licenses, open U.S. bank accounts, and be free from arrest and deportation by our police officers.

Illegal Immigration Is Immoral

By Victor Davis Hanson December 7, 2011 ( Part II of II)

5. Mexico. The largest ethical myth of illegal immigration is the notion of a Mexico morally concerned about the treatment of its expatriates. Of all the players in the illegal-immigration tragedy, the government of Mexico has proven the most heartless. It facilitates its own citizens’ leaving, going so far as to publish comic books on how to do it (apparently assuming both that its potential emigrants are illiterate and that they should act illegally). It counts on remittances as its second-largest source of foreign exchange, apparently cruelly calibrating that while it won’t fully support its own people, they should help support it once they leave the country. It has opened dozens of new consulates to facilitate help for illegal aliens in the United States, when Mexican citizens in Mexico are in far more need of such government concern. And while Mexico is far more interested in luring wealthy Americans southward with prospects of selling vacation homes in Baja California than it is in helping its own people find housing in Oaxaca, it somehow poses as the protector of the rights of Mexicans in America, whom it never troubled to help when they were in Mexico. Without illegal immigration, Mexico would lose American cash, have to reform its own social and economic policies, and forfeit leverage on U.S. social and foreign policy.

6. Poverty. We do not know how many billions of dollars leave the U.S. economy each year bound for Latin America. Before the recession, the number was estimated at anywhere between $25 billion and $50 billion, more than half of it believed sent to Mexico. If it is true that millions of illegal aliens, who are the primarily remitters, are poor and at some point in need of public assistance for their housing, sustenance, and health care, then their sending dollars home is a direct subsidy by American taxpayers to foreign governments. In California the cost of providing support for illegal aliens ranges from $8 billion to some $12 billion a year, a figure that might roughly match the amount of money sent to Mexico from California each year. In a moral universe, illegal aliens would not remit money home and then expect their hosts to make up the difference; a moral Mexico in turn would not expect its most impoverished to work abroad and live cheaply, in order to send billions home to alleviate Mexico City’s responsibility for its own poor. And in a moral universe, to suggest all that would not be deemed a thought crime.

7. Moral racketeering. One of the most disturbing aspects surrounding illegal immigration is the attempt to silence debate with charges of racism, nativism, and bias. In fact, there are legitimate concerns that have nothing to do with race or ethnicity, but simply are not being voiced about the consequences of millions arriving illegally, without capital or education, and without English. At present, there may be anywhere from 20,000 to 30,000 illegal aliens incarcerated in the California penal system (exact figures are rarely released). The high-school dropout rate among first- and second-generation Hispanic males in California now nears 60 percent. To say out loud that millions of illegal aliens have some connection to California’s declining test scores, its insolvent finances, and the exodus of California citizens from the state is absolutely taboo, but it is generally and quietly assumed.  More disturbingly, an entire edifice of victimization has been built on American culpability for purported oppression on the basis of class and race. It has now reached the point of an eerie Orwellianism, in which many in the Hispanic political establishment make moral claims against an America unwilling to grant blanket amnesty, and yet must simultaneously assume that such a morally suspect entity is a far more desirable place than is Mexico — though the reasons for that tacit assumption must never be voiced. A disturbing example of how this plays out was the recent booing of the American national soccer team in the Los Angeles Coliseum by the “hometown” crowd. A psychiatrist is needed to explain why thousands were booing symbols of a country that they risked their lives to reach, while cheering on a country that they were dying to leave. That schizophrenia was inculcated largely in America.

8. Politics. The Republican candidates have been advised to tread carefully in talking about illegal immigration, in fear of the wrath of Hispanic voters, which has so effectively been massaged by President Obama (“punish our enemies,” “alligators and moats”). Indeed, even to talk of illegal immigration in any but the vaguest terms is considered near suicidal to one’s career and reputation. But such a calculus ignores long-term reality. Closing the borders will hasten assimilation, integration, and intermarriage, as the success of third- and fourth-generation Mexican-Americans attests. Compliance with the law is the only mechanism to allow the full expression of a naturally conservative Hispanic culture. The Mexican-American community deals first-hand with the chaos of massive illegal immigration and is not always happy about the consequences. In contrast, open borders and amnesty will ensure a constant influx of illegal immigrants who become constituents of those who facilitate illegal entry and residence.

There are ways that are both moral and practical to deport recent arrivals, felons, and those entirely on public assistance, while offering mechanisms for long-residing aliens, employed and not convicted of felonies, to apply for citizenship — without automatic approval, however, and only after meeting logical criteria and paying fines. The only real issue is whether the qualified should obtain temporary residence cards while waiting for adjudication of their requests, or must return to Mexico to apply; but that is a decision that follows, not precedes, an end to open borders. A fence, changed economic conditions in both the United States and Latin America, and new public doubts about illegal immigration are already beginning to slow down the influx, suggesting that it is time to address the issue in ways that will lay the groundwork for better policies in the future.

But for now, it is also time to change the entire tenor of the discussion, and accept that the proponents of illegal immigration have lost all moral credibility.

Illegal Immigration Is Immoral

By Victor Davis Hanson December 7, 2011 ( Part I of II)

  

Illegal immigration has been in the news daily during the Republican primary campaign, even though a depressed economy here, stronger border enforcement, and vast new finds of petroleum in Latin America may soon radically curtail the number of illegal entrants into the United States. But for now, conservatives are warned that coming down hard on illegal immigration (i.e., enforcing federal statutes) would lose them the all-critical Hispanic vote. Meanwhile, in California, some legislators want to grant de facto state amnesty to illegal residents. But lost in the continuing furor, pro and con, is the moral dimension. The strange notion has developed that supporting something as immoral as illegal immigration is somehow ethical. It is not, and there are several reasons why.

1. Entry-level labor. Real wages for the working poor in the United States have been stagnant for decades, especially in the Southwest — largely because of the influx of millions of illegal aliens, who, at least for a time, will work for considerably lower wages than Americans. In the last three decades, we have written off an entire class of Americans on the premise that “They won’t do the work.” Here in a California of 10 percent–plus unemployment, everyone from farmers to landscapers complains from experience that the citizen poor cannot or will not work manually. But in theory, why should they, when employers have a constant option of undercutting their wages, and when expanding entitlements make entry-level work an unattractive alternative, both financially and socially? We have expanded social services and decreased workers’ incentives, and then we wonder that a subsidized welfare class lacks the spunk of people crossing the border illegally from an impoverished Mexico.

Yet there is something abhorrent about the present American notion of giving up on incentives to promote American labor — among which would be the prevention of cheaper foreign workers entering the country illegally and undercutting wages. Advocacy for illegal immigration is now a de facto lack of concern for the American underclass.

2. Ethnic chauvinism. Illegal immigration is primarily a Hispanic phenomenon, in general from Latin America and in particular from Mexico. Advocates for open borders, other than cynical employers, are today largely Hispanic activists or those who seek political advantage by catering to them. They argue for changes in or relaxation of immigration law, both out of an understandable sense of ethnic solidarity and real concern for the downtrodden, and, yet in some cases, out of a more dubious notion that the more Latin Americans who enter the country by any means necessary, the more power will eventually accrue to Spanish-speaking American elites who represent the collective interest. Or as Los Angeles County supervisor Gloria Molina put it in an infamous 1996 rant, “We are going to talk to all of those young people that need to become registered voters and go out to vote, and we’re politicizing every single one of those new citizens that are becoming citizens of this country. And what we are saying is by November we will have one million additional Latino voters in this country, and we’re gonna march, and our vote is going to be important. But I gotta tell you, there’s a lot of people that are saying, ‘I’m gonna go out there and vote because I want to pay them back!’”

Immigration lobbyists, remember, are not really worried about the plight of Chinese or Indian students who overstay their visas. Somehow ethnic chauvinism has been cloaked with a thin humanitarian veneer, when in fact the concern is not for illegal aliens per se, but for a particular category of illegal aliens. Try a thought experiment. Ask the National Council of La Raza whether it would support offering fast-track citizenship to a commensurate 15 million economic refugees from an imploding Europe or an impoverished Africa, even on conditions not imposed on those from Latin America, such as legality, mastery of English, a college degree, and proof of sustenance. Unfortunately, present advocacy for illegal immigration assumes that race and race-based identity politics shall determine the winners and losers in the immigration lottery. And that seems to me immoral to the core.

3. Legal immigration. Hundreds of thousands from Asia, Africa, and Europe wait patiently and in legal fashion to apply for citizenship. “Crowding to the front of the line” is not a cheap talking point, but an accurate description of those who ignore the rules while others suffer. In essence, the United States has established that several million foreign nationals have precedence for citizenship by virtue of the facts that (a) they have already broken the law in entering the U.S., (b) they are currently residing illegally in the U.S., and (c) they are of a particular ethnic group. To question why a Ph.D. in electrical engineering from India must wait for years to gain permanent residence in the U.S. while someone from Oaxaca without a high-school diploma is exempt from such scrutiny is deemed illiberal; in fact, the reality, not the description of it, is the real illiberality.

4. The law. Much of the discussion focuses on the fact that illegal immigration flouts federal law. But the problem is less the initial entry into the U.S. without documentation, and more the succession of law-breaking that needs must follow. If one crosses the border illegally, then one is not likely to state the truth on dozens of subsequent official documents, from matters of identification to certification of employment and entitlement. At each juncture, the law itself is insidiously eroded and the calls for it to be ignored increase. The real immorality is not a law that is found oppressive, but the notion that anyone, most ironically a foreign national, has the right to pick and choose which laws he will obey. No civilization can survive when the law hinges on individual interpretation. If foreign nationals are not required to abide by U.S. law, why would American citizens think that they must?

Dictionary's Definition of Anchor Baby

By Bob  Dane December 09, 2011 | FoxNews.com

After receiving a complaint from the Immigration Policy Center, an organization known for its open-borders and amnesty agenda, the American Heritage Dictionary redefined the term “anchor baby” as an offensive term, admitting they had made a mistake.

Translation: the American Heritage Dictionary capitulated to a small, but vocal, special interest group that is trying to manipulate the political, legal, cultural and linguistic landscape on behalf of illegal aliens.

The American Heritage Dictionary is trailing only slightly behind major newspapers in redefining words to fit politically correct molds, surrendering the language to drive political goals, and affixing inflammatory connotations to words and phrases used in policy discussions with which they disagree. Thus, to promote precision and clarity, and liberate healthy free speech, we have provided a handy reference guide to the three most common words and phrases in the immigration debate.

The American Heritage Directory’s new definition of “anchor baby” reads as: 

"Offensive - Used as a disparaging term for a child born to a non-citizen mother in a country that grants automatic citizenship to children born on its soil, especially when the child's birthplace is thought to have been chosen in order to improve the mother's or other relatives' chances of securing eventual citizenship."

Is that really an impartial dictionary definition? Or, is it a subtle editorial about the aspirations of illegal aliens and an ominous warning to those would dare to use such a “disparaging” term while trying to address the escalating problems of unchecked illegal immigration?

The offensive aspect of “anchor baby” isn’t the term itself, but the practice of having children on U.S. soil for the sheer purpose of gaming the system. 

The birthright citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment was originally meant to provide fair and due citizenship to newly freed slaves after the Civil War. Now, however, it is used and abused by illegal aliens and non-immigrants to unfairly gain citizenship for their children. At least 363,000 babies are born in the U.S. every year to illegal aliens, 1 in every 12 births nationwide.

The publisher’s definition also affixes a motive to the term suggesting that having an anchor baby helps the mother stay with a hint of covert endorsement that it should. 

It’s best for a dictionary to simply describe the “what” as opposed to the “why.” After all, the American Heritage Dictionary defines a “burglar” is “someone who commits burglary. It does not amend the definition with “for the purpose of feeding his/her kids.”

If the American Heritage Dictionary can buckle so easily in this instance to politically correct dictum demanded by special interests, what’s the next taboo word, phrase or thought?

At this rate, the two other commonly used terms in immigration - “illegal alien” and “amnesty” – may also be at risk of being labeled as offensive or euphemized into semantic pabulum.

“Illegal alien” is a descriptive term, but quickly being replaced by “undocumented workers.” Amnesty advocates believe that using the adjective “undocumented” magically erases the illegality, while claiming they are “workers” suggests all are gainfully employed, which they’re often not. The proper reference is “illegal aliens.” “Illegal” means prohibited by law. Yes, entry without inspection into the U.S is prohibited. And “alien” is a term defined in 8 U.S.C. Section 1101 and used by legal professionals across the board including the United States Supreme Court. It’s ok to say illegal aliens.

“Amnesty” is another descriptive term but has been substituted for “path to citizenship.” Euphemisms for amnesty wear thin quickly so even this new phrase is giving way to “earned legalization.” We already have a “path to citizenship” and it starts with applying for a green card and getting in line. 

“Earned legalization” is kind of crafty. It implies that as long as illegal aliens actually have to do something, no matter how inconsequential like paying a modest fine, it is not really amnesty. Beware of both phrases. 

Substitute the word “amnesty” and describe it as “rewarding those who have broken the law.”
By politicizing the term “anchor baby” and making a moral judgment about its use, the American Heritage Dictionary has become willing partner in the illegal alien lobby’s quest to create toxic words that intimidate users and stifle debate.

Here’s another word – “objective.” The American Heritage Dictionary should look that up.
Bob Dane is Communications Director, Federation for American Immigration Reform.

RESENTMENTS AND HOSTILITIES

By Bill Barton (Former Utah State Senator & WVC Businessman) January 9, 2012

One of the most concerning things about the illegal immigration issue is the attitude that we have promoted within our society by not enforcing the existing laws on undocumented persons. Feelings of friction and instability continue to brew within our communities. It is unfortunate but it has gotten so anyone who may look like a minority is automatically viewed in a negative way.

We read in newspapers and see on television where our local leaders refuse to enact and enforce laws that were intended to protect citizens against unfair and questionable practices by people who have illegally entered this country and then encroach on programs and rights designed for our citizens.

Our leaders have fed the fires of resentment and hostilities by closing their eyes to these genuine ensuing problems.

How are our citizens expected to react when they go to the market, for instance, and enter the checkout stand behind someone with a cart heaping with food, cannot speak English, and whips out a government sponsored card to pay for the food? The first thing that comes to mind is that this is another illegal person obtaining their food on my tax dollar. It’s interesting to speak to cashiers candidly about this happening and how often.

What kind of attitude do we expect citizens to have when family members, friends or even themselves have been out of work for several months, then find that illegal’s are working daily at the same jobs they formerly had?

How are citizens supposed to feel when they see illegal aliens organizing, protesting and demanding that we give them the same rights as citizens?

We read about two state workers who were fired and prosecuted for blowing the whistle on over 1000 illegal aliens who were receiving aid from tax payer funds that were intended for citizens who had financial difficulties. Was there any outrage about what they uncovered?

We read about large numbers of citizens, especially children, who have had their identities stolen for fraudulent SS numbers. Many will have their credit records ruined or distorted for life. Why are these criminals not prosecuted for their crimes?

We all know someone who has been in an accident with an undocumented person who has caused the accident. There is no way to recover the costs incurred because the other person was not insured, much less, is not held accountable for what they have done.

This negatively affects all Americans regardless of ethnic background. Many Hispanics, for example, are hard working, law abiding citizens and the illegal aliens are making it difficult for them because they are unfairly assumed to be illegal aliens.

After witnessing these unfair and illegal behaviors, citizens begin to question who the government is really trying to protect and if their rights really mean anything.

Frighteningly, the violence and hatred are frequently the results among both groups. Rude comments on the internet, articles in newspapers and magazines, and talking to people who live in areas where ethnics are the majority. This attitude is very disturbing.

The continued procrastination of enforcing immigration laws is indeed destroying our society.  Our elected leaders should recognize that and take immediate steps to correct it.
It is clear that the federal government is not going to do anything about this so it is up to us to take action where the problem is felt.....in our cities and states.

American Patrol Report  Christmas in Apache, Arizona

By Ed Ashurst -- December 29, 2011 -- Apache Arizona – (PART III OF III)

 But this, in my opinion, is only the beginning. Chapo Guzman who heads up the Sinaloa Cartel is a multibillionaire. This guy and others like him may be cruel and sinister people but they are also very smart businessmen. They are reaping profits off of the largest tax free unregulated business on the planet. They have so much cash they are befuddled what to do with it all. But they are going to figure it out.

 There are rumors that Guzman is financing modern, state of the art feedlots and packing houses in Mexico with plans to overtake America as the Western hemisphere's leading beef producer. This is probably only a small part of his plans. Mexico is a nation rich in natural recourses. Petroleum is abundant and the corrupt Mexican government is in control of all of it. Pemex is the only gas station in town. Pemex, because of the incompetent Mexican government, is broke. Chapo Guzman is at war with the Mexican government and has dreams (not unrealistic) of controlling the entire nation. Think of all of Mexico's natural resources in the control of Chapo Guzman! He already has the most profitable business in the world - selling Marijuana to your next door neighbor. Think what he could do with a tax free unregulated strangle hold on a nation of poor people begging to work for practically nothing.

 Do you think that Chapo Guzman and others like him haven't thought of all of this? Do you think that Guzman isn't laughing all the way to the bank as he watches the evening news and hears how the American Government proclaims that the situation on the border is under control? What is going on in northern Mexico is capitalism in its rawest form. They have an untaxed unregulated business making huge profits and they have no plans of closing up shop any time soon. We here in the U.S. are overtaxed, overregulated and being smothered by increasingly intrusive government that makes it hard to do business in a successful manner. You don't have to be rocket scientist to figure this one out.

 This has nothing to do with being Republican or Democrat or Latino or White. It has everything to do with being right or wrong. I came from a long line of Democrats. My great uncle was a U.S. Senator for several decades. My grandfather was an attorney, and a Superior Court Judge. I have a 1939 copy of a Time Magazine with his picture when he ran as a Democrat for Congress. The only time in history the U.S deficit was paid off was by a Democrat - Andrew Jackson. John Kennedy announced nearly 50 years ago that America could put a man on the moon and in less than a decade we did it.

 I am now a registered Republican, but I'm not a Democrat hater. But, how can the president of the "can do" nation of Andrew Jackson's and JFK's party say we can't seal the border? We conquered Adolph Hitler in World War II, but can't seal the border? We put a man on the moon but can't seal a leaking oil well in less than 90 days? While this is going on we tax and regulate American business with a vengeance that stifles the free market system that has made our country great. While Janet Napolitano announces the border is safer than ever, Chapo Guzman and others pack billions of American dollars south to invest in a tax free market with one of the largest cheap labor force on the planet at his disposal!

 I challenge you to come to Douglas, AZ and drive east on the Geronimo Trail, or northeast on US Hwy 80 to places on the map like Chiracahua and Apache. Or go to Rodeo and Hatchita, NM. Go and search out the 5 biggest cattle ranches in the Apache, AZ area and ask them what they think. Go to Hidalgo County, N.M. and ask the ranchers and cowboys there what they are seeing and hearing. Ask the people who we do business with what they think of our opinions. I challenge you to ask the prominent people in this area, who work hard and pay taxes if they agree with Barack Obama or Ed Ashurst when it comes to what is really going on near the U.S.-Mexican border. Unlike Obama and others I don't have to be surrounded by sycophants to make a statement. I purposefully left out the names of those who helped me with my map and the data I collected when preparing for the Fox interview.

In closing I challenge you to look around to see if what I say is the truth. This isn't about a few Mexicans wandering around looking for a job. This is about American civilization going into a time of tremendous change - a building has foundations and walls, maybe the foundation of our country is still strong, I don't know, but the walls have certainly fallen down and the keepers of the house are out to lunch.

American Patrol Report  Christmas in Apache, Arizona

By Ed Ashurst -- December 29, 2011 -- Apache Arizona – (PART II OF III)

Outlandish incidents - 4

 Example: One bachelor in the Portal area was burglarized around 100 times. He finally took all his valuables and put them in a steel vault and welded the door shut. He then moved out of his house into a shed hoping the illegal aliens would leave him alone. They did not and he finally abandoned his property. Another outlandish event was when outlaws stole a brand new Caterpillar motor grader on the Geronimo Trail east of Douglas, AZ and drove south through the border fence never to be seen again. The grader belonged to Cochise County Hwy Dept.

 Financial losses to private sector - $100,000,000.00 (losses in real estate value, personal property, etc., losses in wildlife habitat - immeasurable)

 Last but certainly not least, the murder of Rob Krentz, which is right in the center of our map.

 Let me put this in perspective. The area I'm talking about is an area that covers approximately 17 or 18 townships with only 20 miles being adjacent to the US - Mexico Boundary. Within this area, there is a population of perhaps 600 people, 90% of which reside in Rodeo, N.M. or Portal, AZ, 30 miles or so north of Mexico. No less than 80% of the people in this area have been burglarized or otherwise molested by illegal aliens. This area is about half as big as the Diamond A ranch or Babbitt ranch in northern AZ, both of which I've been employed on.

 I'm sorry to report that this, in my opinion, is the small part of the story. The Mexican-American border has taken a dramatic change for the worse in the last several years. Those of us who live here see it first hand. As early as February of 1999 Sheriff Larry Dever warned me and others at a town hall meeting at the Apache School that the Sinaloa Cartel was moving into the Douglas-Agua Prieta area (Rob Krentz was at this meeting). The cities of Nuevo Laredo, Coahila, Cuidad Juarez, Chihuahua, and other border towns south of Texas have been controlled by outlaws for years. There is virtually no law enforcement in those places. The law is the law of the jungle. Until the last two years it seemed that Agua Prieta and Nogales were safer places but that has dramatically changed in recent months.

 I am personally acquainted with 2 Mexican men, that I know to be honest and trustworthy, who have been involved first hand with Mexican outlaw terrorist acts. One witnessed first hand an execution of several people in broad daylight in Juarez. Several weeks later his daughter witnessed an assassination in Casas Grandes, Chihuahua no less than fifteen feet from where she stood. The other man is a legal Mexican green card holder (who was employed by the Krentz family for years) whose nephew was murdered by cartel members in Sonora. At night people in Douglas are hearing machine gun fire from Agua Prieta south of the border fence.

 The Sinaloa Cartel is now putting a stranglehold on Agua Prieta. No more than 2 months ago 8 armed Mexicans were confronted by 2, U.S. Border Patrol agents north of the International Boundary in southeast Cochise County disguised as Federalizes. They were in fact cartel employees armed with assault rifles and automatic pistols. Mexican people that know tell me the situation in Agua Prieta has deteriorated dramatically in recent months. The good people are told to look the other way "or else." Volumes could be written about this subject alone, but I will move on.

 You could ask, "So what does this have to do with us living north of the border fence?" Plenty! The situation on the border isn't just about a few workers walking north. It has everything to do with big business. Billions of dollars are being made trafficking humans, drugs, and contraband across the International Boundary. The Sinaloa Cartel, headed by Chapo Guzman and others, is reaping huge profits doing business along the border. The average coyote charges $1500 - $2500 to guide an illegal alien north to find work; usually abandoning them a short distance north of the line. A young man willing to pack dope north can make more than a construction worker or a teacher in the U.S. and only work a day or two a week.

 This is not all south of the line. I could take you and show you businesses where checks and credit cards are not accepted and where very few customers walk through the door, yet the owners live in the largest mansions in town and drive very expensive cars. Could there be some money laundering going on? There are only two industries of any significance in Douglas, AZ: law enforcement (Douglas has one of the largest Border Patrol stations in America), and the illegal trafficking of drugs, people, etc. across the border. These two industries feed on each other, and the powers that be seem happy with the situation. Crooked politicians look good to the public when they clean up drunk driving and prostitution, until you find they own bars and whore houses south of the line. These things have happened!

American Patrol Report  Christmas in Apache, Arizona

By Ed Ashurst -- December 29, 2011 -- Apache Arizona – (PART I OF III)

 I believe story telling to be an art form, certainly verbal record is the oldest form of recording history and recognized by historians worldwide. There is an old adage among those who love to tell a good tale, "Never let the truth get in the way of a good story." And yet there are times when the truth is even more fantastic than exaggeration. What I write here is the truth, plain and simple.

 I reside on, and manage a large cattle ranch in the far southeastern corner of Arizona. I've been here for 13 years and in that time frame have become far too familiar with the illegal trafficking in human beings, marijuana and other illicit drugs. Some have called it "the wetback culture" or "America's border problem". Lately it's been taking steroids.

 The recent murder of Robert Krentz by an illegal alien has received massive amounts of publicity worldwide. I live on the ranch bordering the Krentz ranch to the east and north. I can see the Krentz home looking out of my front door approximately 10 miles away. The day after Rob's death I was involved in tracking the outlaw into Mexico. I saw the outlaw's footprints where he crossed the border fence. I mention this to say I feel that I'm qualified to speak about current border issues.

 My home has been broken into twice. My son's home has been broken into also and between us we have had between twenty and thirty thousand dollars worth of stuff stolen from us including two ranch pick-ups, a four wheeler, 9 firearms (including a loaded AK 47) cash, jewelry all of our credit cards, driver's license, etc. A guest house here on the ranch has been broken into so many times we quit counting... many times we haven't even called the Sheriff's dept. The Cochise County Sheriff's dept. has no less than fifteen reports on file where I've called for assistance dealing with an outlaw illegal alien.

 Several months ago, not long after Rob Krentz's death, Fox news (channel 10 in Phoenix AZ) contacted me and expressed interest in coming down and doing a news story about me and the problems myself and other ranchers in this area have had in recent months with illegal outlaws. To prepare for my interview with Fox, I asked for assistance from six other neighboring ranchers and businessmen. All of these men are prominent men in the community, tax payers, business owners and individuals who have the best of reputations.

Together we made a map of the area which covered from the southeastern corner of AZ going west about 20 miles to the silver creek area, and going north about 30 miles to the area around the towns of Portal, AZ and Rodeo, N.M. On this map we made marks recording violations to United States law committed by illegal aliens.

We did not use government statistics (we wouldn't know how to get them) but recorded incidents that we knew had happened first hand, many of which we had witnessed. We tried to record only the incidents that have happened in the last several years.

 The sum total of what we recorded is this:

The arrest or capture of 40 illegal in one bunch - 40 (we didn't bother with the countless smaller groups)

 Loads of Marijuana found and captured - 213

 Dangerous encounters with illegal aliens - 132 (assault, burglaries, forced entries, etc.)

 Dead illegal aliens found by civilians - 16

 High speed vehicle chases between dope haulers and law enforcement - 14

 Illegal aliens spotted with firearms - 12

 Fires started by illegal aliens - 9

 Over 1000, 000 acres burned with the cost to taxpayers of $40,000,000. One fire near Portal AZ in June of 2010 cost $10,000,000. to fight (forest Service estimate)