Secure our borders from illegal aliens or country will fail

www.greatfallstribune.com January 22, 2012 By Dorie Cameron

Illegal immigration has been a controversial topic in the news for awhile now. Some people want all illegal aliens deported, some say to leave them alone, and others want a large wall to be built along the border.

Today, 500,000 illegal aliens from Mexico sneak across the border into the United States each year. .

What happens to them after they arrive here? They don't often get deported. Instead they live among us, dodging the law, yet taking advantage of everything we have to offer.

Many suggest that the noble act of sacrificing everything and taking the risk to provide a better life justifies the act, and that our land of opportunity should be available to anyone and everyone. This thinking is flawed in its practical application.

A nation that does not enforce its borders and laws will fall. Many civilizations have collapsed because they have not properly protected their borders, including Rome. Let's not make that same mistake.

There are those out there who say "roll out the welcome mat for legal aliens, we're perfectly fine with them! Why do you think we established Ellis Island?"

It's true that many legitimate immigrants from around the world play positive roles in this fine nation. However, illegal aliens drain more resources than the taxes they pay and are tarnishing the image of those who came here legally.

In response to those who make it personal and tug at the heartstrings of Americans by suggesting that our land of opportunity is a blessing to be shared with illegal aliens, I propose this perspective.

Imagine sitting in your home, when you hear a knock at the door. A strange person walks in, uninvited, helps himself to some drinks from the fridge, then asks you to make him some food — all in a strange language. That person decides to stick around, taking your paycheck, eating your food, refusing to speak in a way you can understand. All he does all day is watch TV and mess up your stuff. How do you feel? This is your own home!

Normally, you could have the police just arrest this man, but since this house represents America and the government is practically letting the strange guy stick around in your house, what are you to do?

I have lived in three border States for the majority of my short life, California, Arizona and Texas, and have seen firsthand the effects of illegal immigration. In my experience, most of the illegal aliens haven't even bothered to learn English. Not assimilating leads to anti-American attitudes and corrodes the fabric of our culture.

Illegal aliens do not separate from their home country. This was most apparent when I lived in California and watched protests that boasted anti-American sentiments. Protesters toted Mexican flags and desecrated the American flag. The protesters included illegal aliens, and they demanded the same rights as U.S. citizens, at the same time suggesting that Mexico should get its land back from California.

In a time when the world seems particularly dangerous because of the threat of terrorism, national security should always be at the forefront of our concerns. Having an open border is unnerving. How are we supposed to feel safe when we have no idea who is coming in and what their intentions are? Much crime has been linked to illegal aliens, not only drugs and violence, but also identity theft.

Other problems include overcrowded jails and prisons, voter fraud, and a negative impact on American education, which I witnessed up close while attending school in California for four years.

When illegal aliens are given rights it devalues the rights of American citizens. What is it going to mean to a regular immigrant who worked hard to get his family into America if all those other guys just entered for free? It just won't seem quite as worth it.

What exactly are we supposed to do about this? There is no point in deporting every single illegal alien now, considering how many there are in America today.

We can instead try to sort through those who are here and determine the best course of action. An absolute part of the solution is to legitimately enforce the border, build a higher, thicker wall, stick in some more border officers and discontinue incentives that draw people across the border.

To encourage legal immigration, it perhaps would be best to get rid of the time-consuming and expensive bureaucracy that our government is so fond of. Streamlining the process and making it more efficient and cost effective would promote legal citizenship. Those who are in the United States illegally should certainly not be given preference over those who are going through the immigration process legally.

Dorie Cameron is a seventh-grader at North Middle School and a member of the Tribune's Teen Panel.

A Response to Frank Sharry

02/13/2012 Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) is Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee

Frank Sharry hasn't gotten his way and is now making his tantrum personal. In his recent 850-word rant, Sharry resorts to name-calling and misrepresentations as he attacks me and others for a pro-enforcement approach to illegal immigration. But Sharry is flailing in all directions and stomping his feet because his amnesty ambitions are threatened by the majority of Americans who support the rule of law and want to protect jobs for legal workers.

Sharry and his organization, America's Voice, claim to "stand with the majority of Americans who support real, comprehensive immigration reform." But contrary to its name, America's Voice does not speak for the majority of Americans. America's Voice has no members and is funded primarily by a few liberal donors. It's basically a special interest group that lobbies for illegal immigrants.

According to a recent poll, two-thirds of Americans actually want to see our immigration laws enforced, not ignored. That's why the American people have defeated amnesty attempts by both this and previous administrations. Whether it was the 2007 comprehensive immigration reform proposal or the recent push for amnesty under the DREAM Act, time and again the American public has rejected calls to reward lawbreakers.

Sharry's philosophy is also threatened by those who support American workers over illegal workers. As chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, which has jurisdiction over immigration policy, I stand with the American people and oppose the worldview of putting illegal immigrants ahead of the interests of American citizens and legal workers.

Over 23 million Americans are unemployed or can't find full-time work. Yet an estimated seven million illegal immigrants remain in the U.S. work force. We could make jobs available for citizens and legal immigrants if we simply enforced our current immigration laws.

That's why the House Judiciary Committee passed a bipartisan bill to expand E-Verify. This web-based program quickly identifies illegal workers and protects jobs for citizens by checking the Social Security numbers of newly hired employees. This program is free, quick, and easy to use. Persons eligible to work here are immediately confirmed 99.5% of the time. Nearly 320,000 employers already voluntarily use E-Verify and another 3,000 new businesses sign up each week.

With this sort of track record, it's no wonder that the American people have consistently supported E-Verify. A recent Rasmussen poll found that 82% of likely voters think all businesses should be required to use E-Verify. And the breakdown of the poll shows that individuals from all races and political affiliations support its use. In fact, 78% percent of black voters, 72% of other minorities, primarily Hispanics, and 73% of Democrats agreed.

Throwing a tantrum may get attention but it doesn't change the facts. All Sharry managed to accomplish in his tirade is insult the majority of Americans who support immigration enforcement, the rule of law, and putting the interests of American citizens first.

Expression of a Concerned Citizen

Address Immigration Policies

 January 16, 2012 

This nation's immigration policies need to be addressed beyond illegal, amnesty and deportation. Other issues add to why out-of-control immigration problems the federal and state governments could easily correct.

·         Implement for workers an E-Verify type of accounting system that will eliminate illegal workers in the country.

·         Reduce numbers of incoming immigrants for citizenship and eliminate chain migration that will balance and control country population growth.

·         Enforce the real intent of the 14th amendment by eliminating citizenship to babies born in America to noncitizen mothers.

·         English must be made the official language of the country to make American language and culture assimilation — the melting pot — work.

·         Approve, implement and enforce total security across our borders that adds to national security.

·         Require all states to enforce federal immigration laws.

·         Support and implement the illegal-immigrant attrition concept by approving the worker E-Verify identification system rather than amnesty or deportation.

This nation's poor, weak and outdated immigration laws need a 21st-century update to make immigration fair, controllable, accountable and workable — so that it maintains the rule of law and our more than two centuries of united American culture.

To date, federal and state governments have been passive on immigration. The question is, will Florida voters this 2012 election allow federal and state politicians to remain passive on major immigration issues?

WALT BACK, Lakeland

2012 ALSO AN ELECTION YEAR SOUTH OF THE BORDER

By Allan Wall February 15, 2012 NewsWithViews.com

This year, 2012, there are presidential elections scheduled in both the U.S.A. and in Mexico. This is already providing plenty of grist for the mill of the media and interested voters of both countries.
Mexican presidential elections are scheduled for July 1st. The winner then has 5 months to wait until taking office in December, replacing current president Felipe Calderon. In the Mexican system, a presidential term lasts six years with no re-election permitted.

Besides the presidential race, there are congressional elections also scheduled for July 1st. All 128 members of the Mexican Senate are elected to 6-year terms, and all 500 members of the Chamber of Deputies (500 members) are chosen. Also, 6 states have gubernatorial elections.
As of February 5th, all the major parties have selected their candidate.

The three principal parties are the PRD (Partido de la Revolución Democrática, the Party of the Democratic Revolution), the PRI (Partido Revolucionario Institucional, the Institutional Revolutionary Party), and the PAN (Partido Acción Nacional, the National Action Party).

On November 16th, 2011, the PRD chose as its candidate Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, known by his initials AMLO.

On November 21st, 2011, Enrique Pena Nieto, became the candidate for the PRI.
And finally, on February 5th, 2012, the PAN primary election was held, with the winner being Josefina Vazquez Mota, making her the candidate.

Mexico has three major political parties. One should be careful in comparing political parties internationally, as each country has its own particularities and you can’t fit Mexican political parties into exact equivalencies with, say, parties in the U.S.A.

Bearing this in mind, though, the “left-right” political spectrum can be useful. Analyzing these three parties by Mexican political standards would put the PRD on the left, the PAN on the right, and the PRI somewhere in the middle.

Looking at it individually, who are these three candidates, each of whom wants to be the next president of Mexico?

ANDRES MANUEL LOPEZ OBRADO (known by his initials AMLO) was born in 1953 in Macuspana in the eastern Mexican state of Tabasco. (See map here).

AMLO served as the PRD´s president from 1996 to 1999. Following that, from 2000 to 2005, he was head of government of the Federal District, Mexico City.

In 2006, Lopez Obrador was the party’s presidential candidate. The 2006 election was very close, and Felipe Calderon defeated Lopez Obrador with less than 1% of the vote. AMLO refused to concede defeat, insisting he had been robbed and massive protests ensued. Now Lopez Obrador is back for another try.

ENRIQUE PENA NIETO was born in the city of Atlacomulco, in the state of Mexico. This state is located north of the Federal District, and in fact includes part of the Mexico City metropolitan area. (See map here).  Pena Nieto was governor of the state of Mexico from 2005 to 2011.

JOSEFINA VAZQUEZ MOTA was born in 1961 in Mexico City. (See map here). In the 2006 election, she was Felipe Calderon’s campaign manager. From 2006 to 2009, she served as Secretary of Education in the Calderon cabinet, after which she served as a representative in the Mexican Congress.

After campaigning for the internal selection of the PAN, Josefina Vazquez Mota won the party’s nomination on February 5th, 2012.

That makes the slate complete. Each of the three major parties now has its presidential candidate.
Has the race begun then?  Well, yes and no. Officially, campaigning does not begin until March 31st.

We know though, that if the party’s candidates are chosen, that in reality the campaign is going on. Although the contenders can’t officially “campaign”, they and their advisers are carefully considering what they say and do, with a view as to how it would affect their run for president.
On March 31st, the campaign officially begins and the gloves are off.

All three candidates already have slick campaign websites. Interested readers can access them here: AMLO, Pena Nieto and Josefina.

Polling is already going on as well, with Pena Nieto currently leading in the polls. A lot could transpire, however, before July 1st. There is plenty for the candidates to discuss and argue about and plenty for Mexican voters to consider.

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

The newsconnection.com Randy Haberman 02/02/2012  

There is a fierce debate on what to do with illegal aliens who have sneaked across our borders. I think if you take a hard look at illegal immigration, you realize the damage illegal aliens are doing to this country especially economically.

You kind of understand why some people and politicians are fighting so hard to end illegal immigration. They are being called racists, bigots and are insensitive to the plight of these people. The media and advocate groups portray illegal aliens as just poor people trying to find a job, support their families, cause no harm to us and can break our laws. This could not be further from the truth.

Illegal aliens are overwhelming our health care, education, government, criminal and social services to the point that these services are on the verge of collapsing in many states and cities and depriving legal residents of these services. It is estimated about 4,000 illegal aliens attempt to cross our borders every day. The average illegal is under 24 years old, usually illiterate, can only speak Spanish and has little or no skills.

No one knows for sure how many illegal aliens are in our country but it has been estimated to be between 12 and 20 million. These people come here not for the love of this country but because they had no other place to go and we take care of them.

Border States like California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas and Florida are bearing the high cost of taking care of illegal aliens and are practically bankrupting some of these states. It is estimated illegal aliens cost the U.S. taxpayer more that $100 billion each year. Texas spent more than $350 million on health care alone.

Almost 80 percent of the women who gave birth to babies at Parkland Hospital were illegal immigrants with no insurance or way to pay. Many come back multiple times thinking the more babies they have the less chance they will be deported. The Obama administration calls this, establishing ties to the community, of course at taxpayer expense. These women receive free prenatal care including medication, nutrition, birthing and childcare classes. They also get free car seats, bottles, diapers and formula. In Mexico, they would have to pay at least $200 to start. If they cannot pay, the hospital will not accept them. Here it is free.

There is a myth sold to the American people that illegal aliens only take jobs Americans don’t want. This is not true. It is because illegal aliens work these jobs at a third of the wage with no benefits that would have to be paid to Americans. After Georgia instituted tougher new immigration laws, some illegal aliens fled the state leading some farmers to complain they had no one to pick their fruit. But Georgia was paying less than $5 an hour for this hard work where Washington state was paying $15 an hour and had no shortage of people applying.

Illegal aliens hurt the working class by driving down wages and benefits. Also summer jobs college people used to have to support themselves are now being taken by illegal aliens. It is estimated illegal aliens take millions of jobs from citizens who are looking for work.

Another myth is illegal aliens pay income taxes. Now how much taxes do you think a dishwasher is going to pay compared to the billions of dollars they receive in free education, free health care, free housing assistance, and free food stamps along with sending $23 billion out of this country yearly?
Actually half of the illegal aliens are paid cash under the table without paying any kind of taxes.

It is not a pretty picture and the reason some states such as Arizona, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama and others have tried to stop the flood of illegal aliens overwhelming their states by passing new immigration laws to make it tough for them and drive them out. So what does our government do but sue them and block the implementation of these laws.

We as Americans should push our government to put the brakes on illegal immigration by electing people who are not afraid of enforcing our existing immigration laws and securing our borders. Repeal any law that provides tax-paid services to illegal aliens. We need to make it as tough on illegal aliens as we can. We should also consider changing the 14th Amendment where by a baby born in this country automatic becomes an instant citizen. Illegal aliens are using this to get a foothold in this country. Most countries like England, France, New Zealand, South Africa, Australia and others have restrictions on birthright citizenship and so should we.

I don’t care how you roll it illegal immigration is not good for this country and is practically destroying many areas of the southwest United States. The economic burden that these millions of illegal immigrants have put on our system is almost incalculable. Look to Mexico, this could be our future.

Deadly, violent illegal aliens deserve no favors, says US lawmaker

By Jim Kouri, Law Enforcement Examiner January 26, 2012

A criminal alien from Haiti who was ordered deported by an immigration judge in 2007 after being convicted for two felonies was released by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in October 2010 and went on to kill three Americans in Miami, Florida two months later, according to a report released by the U.S. House of Representatives this week. 

This criminal alien was released in the United States because the Obama administration had halted deportations to Haiti in January 2010 and the federal government was not able to deport him back to Haiti due to two Supreme Court decisions that require the release of dangerous illegal and criminal immigrants back into American communities when they cannot be removed to their native country in the “reasonably foreseeable future.”

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) angrily released a statement yesterday saying, “It is a tragedy that three Americans lost their lives because a dangerous criminal [alien] could not be deported to his home country.  This is a failure of both the Obama administration and our immigration system."

“Kesler Dufrene, an immigrant from Haiti, was convicted of two felonies and ordered removed by an immigration judge in 2007.   But because the Obama administration suspended all deportations to Haiti in January 2010, Dufrene couldn’t be deported to his home country," Rep. Smith said. 

Dangerous criminal immigrants deserve no favors from the federal government.  The Obama administration should not grant blanket reprieve to illegal and criminal immigrants no matter what the circumstances are, stated the Republican lawmaker.

“Since Dufrene couldn’t be deported to Haiti, he was released into our communities because of two Supreme Court rulings that have inadvertently created a safe haven for dangerous illegal and criminal immigrants.  Just because a criminal immigrant cannot be returned to their home country does not mean they should be freed into our communities.  Dangerous criminal immigrants need to be detained," the Texas lawmaker stated.

“Last year the House Judiciary Committee approved a bill to remedy this problem, the Keep Our Communities Safe Act.  This bill is desperately needed.  We cannot continue to let dangerous criminal immigrants slip through the cracks of our legal justice system.  While we are too late to prevent some tragedies, we should act to prevent many more,” Smith said.

The Deadly Alien

In the 2001 decision of Zadvydas v. Davis, the Supreme Court ruled that under current law, immigrants who had entered the U.S. and then ordered removed could not be detained for more than six months where removal would not occur in the “reasonably foreseeable future”.  
In the 2005 case of Clark v. Martinez, the Supreme Court expanded its decision in Zadvydas to apply to illegal immigrants.  According to observers, the problem with both of these rulings is that not every criminal alien who is ordered removed can be because of the unwillingness of some countries to accept return of their nationals. 

"If a foreign nation doesn't want one of its citizens returned because he or she is a danger to other people, why does the U.S. become responsible for these predators and criminals?" asks former New York police officer Iris Ortiz.

"Issues with repatriation run the gamut of problems with providing travel documents necessary for repatriation to blanket refusal of a country to accept return of criminal immigrants," political strategist and attorney Mike Baker added. 

As a result, the Justice Department and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have had no choice but to release thousands of criminal aliens into American neighborhoods.  In the last two years, close to 8,000 criminal aliens with orders of removal were released in the U.S. because their own countries refused to take them back.  Justice Department officials have stated that these criminal aliens include rapists, child molesters, murderers, and other dangerous criminals. 

Last July, the House Judiciary Committee approved the Keep Our Communities Safe Act (H.R. 1932), a bill to stop the release of dangerous criminal immigrants into American communities.  The bill was reported favorably to the House floor by a vote of 17-14 and provides a statutory basis for DHS to detain as long as necessary specified dangerous criminal immigrants under orders of removal who cannot be removed. 

The 14 votes against H.R. 1932 were cast by Democrats on Chairman Smith's committee.
"Does anyone see a pattern with many members of the Democrat Party? When it comes to criminals, terrorists, illegal aliens and other malefactors, the Democrats can always be counted on to take their sides," said former military intelligence officer and police detective Michael Snopes.

"They worry more about prisoners in Gitmo than they do the American guards who are frequently attacked and mistreated. They decry the deportation of illegal aliens even if they've committed heinous acts. Or they become angry and indignant when an American state decides to execute a depraved killer," said Snopes. 

Anatomy of Effective Immigration Reform Legislation

Recent Demographic Change in Arizona

Executive Summary (FAIR)

The efforts of Arizona policymakers to deter the settlement of illegal aliens in the state and to encourage those already in the state to leave have made major advances in their objective. The achievements include a reduction in the illegal alien population and, as a consequence, in related state and local expenditures. The following indicators of change all point to major progress:

• The rapid population growth prior to 2007 that was fueled by illegal immigration has significantly dropped. After 2007, the average annual population growth decreased by nearly 150,000 persons and about 90,000 of that change is accounted for by a drop in foreign-born persons moving to the state.

• Between 2007 and 2010 the resident foreign-born population in Arizona from Latin America fell by an annual average of 33,500 residents. This reflects the disproportionate representation of Mexicans in the state’s illegal alien population. According to Pew Hispanic Center researchers, in 2010 — after the reduction noted above — between 81 and 95 percent of the state’s illegal alien population was Mexican.

• The federal immigration authorities estimate of Arizona’s illegal alien population fell by 100,000 from 560,000 in 2008 to 460,000 in 2009. A drop in the estimated illegal alien population occurred in other states as well — by an estimated 8 percent nationally. However, the estimated drop in Arizona of nearly 18 percent was by far the largest in the country.

• American Community Survey data show a notable drop in Arizona families living in poverty between 2005 and 2008; a reduction by 5.5 percent compared to a drop of 4.9 percent nationally. Arizona families with annual earnings of less than $35,000 increased between 2000 and 2005 and then dropped. There were more than 40,000 fewer low-wage families in the state in 2009 than in 2005.

• Births in the state in 2010 were 13,500 fewer than in 2007. This drop paralleled the reduction in the poverty population and the illegal alien population, and suggests that this also represents a reduction in births paid for by Medicaid.

• According to data of the Arizona Department of Education, preliminary enrollment data for Limited English Proficiency classes in 2010 show about 37,600 fewer students in 2010 than in 2005, i.e., a decrease of 24.4 percent while nationally LEP enrollment was increasing by 4 percent. The related annual savings was about $97 million.

• FBI crime data registered a major drop from 2005 to 2010 in violent crimes in Arizona — by 14.4 percent compared to a 10.4 percent drop nationally. Property crimes declined more steeply — by 21.4 percent, i.e., more than twice the reduction nationwide (10.7%).

Besides the immigration restriction legislation enacted in 2007, other factors that likely have played a role in curbing illegal alien residence in the state include local-national law enforcement cooperation and border security measures, while at the same time the state was experiencing the effects of the recession, loss of jobs and growing unemployment.

The confluence of all of these factors constituted a strong message that Arizona was no longer a desirable destination for illegal aliens and that already settled illegal aliens faced increased exposure to identification and deportation.

Concurrently there were activities designed to reassure illegal aliens that they would still be able to find supporters and protectors if they decided to come to or remain in the state. These efforts included an initiative by the Mexican government to indicate safe illegal border-crossing routes, state-based organizations which provided water supplies for illegal aliens crossing remote stretches of desert on foot, Mexican consular services for those in the state, support services provided to illegal aliens by religious and other groups, as well as legal efforts supported by the Obama administration to nullify the restrictive measures.

The demographic data point to the fact that these accommodating messages have been out-weighed by the law enforcement messages.

The Government as Lawbreaker, Again

by Andrew P. Napolitano on December 16, 2011

Can Congress make legal something that is inherently wrong, and can Congress take a freedom that is a part of our humanity and make its exercise criminal?
If there were no First Amendment, would we still have the freedom of speech? The answer, like many in the law, depends on what values underlie the legal system. If the government is the source of our rights, then without the First Amendment’s guarantees of free speech, any government could legally punish you for saying words and expressing thoughts it hated or feared; and it could even silence you before you spoke.

On the other hand, if our rights come from our humanity and our humanity is a gift from God, then we would still enjoy the freedom of speech, whether it is insulated from government interference by the First Amendment or not. The wording of the First Amendment itself gives us a peek at what its authors thought. They wrote: “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.” It doesn’t say that Congress shall grant freedom of speech; rather, it prohibits Congress from interfering with it. And by referring to free speech as the freedom of speech, the drafters recognized that the freedom of speech already existed before the country that they were founding even came to be.

The same founders who drafted the First Amendment also accepted Thomas Jefferson’s values articulated in the Declaration of Independence that we are endowed by our “Creator with certain inalienable rights, (and) that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” It is clear beyond serious dispute from just scratching the surface of history that wedded to this country at its birth is the Judeo-Christian concept of the natural law. The natural law is the self-evident truth that our rights come from our humanity; that we have them by virtue of our mortal existence; that they do not depend upon government for their existence; that they do not vary as a consequence of where we are now or where our mothers were when we were born; and thus we remain fully endowed of these rights so long as we live, wherever we go. If you believe that we are the present result not of a supreme being, but of natural selection, you can accept as the founders did that humanity – and not government – is the repository of freedom.

I suspect that most people accept the natural law. We have even seen people in the government claim to accept it. Yet almost as soon as they take the oath to uphold these values, they start rejecting them. In the Patriot Act, for example, Congress made it a crime to reveal that the feds came calling on you with a search warrant in which a federal agent authorized himself to search records that you might have. This, of course, not only violates the Fourth Amendment, which stipulates that only judges may authorize searches, but it also violates the First Amendment because it punishes speech.

This week, Congress is wrestling with more proposals that violate the natural law. One of our fundamental natural rights is the right to be free from government restraint, absent a proven case of criminal behavior. This, too, was articulated by the framers when they wrote in the Fifth Amendment: “No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” This recognizes the right to be free from restraint by the government, unless the government, utilizing due process, can make a case against you. That means a fair trial in your presence, with lawyers defending you and jurors deciding your case under the guidance of a neutral judge.

Yet, your representatives in Congress are about to authorize the president to violate your natural rights by enacting legislation that would permit him to use the military to arrest Americans and restrain them without due process. Even King George III, against whose armies the colonists fought for freedom, did not have the power to do that. And, just because Congress votes to make these acts of tyranny legal does not mean they are constitutional. The Constitution is a higher law than anything Congress can write; and all that Congress writes must conform to it.

Since the Constitution was written to keep the government from violating our natural rights, what can you do when the very government we have hired to protect those rights is violating them? If you live in Iowa or New Hampshire, you can vote for the only Republican candidate running for president who believes that the Constitution means what it says. You know who he is.

Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at the Fox News Channel, and the host of “FreedomWatch” on the Fox Business Network. His latest book is It is Dangerous to be Right When the Government is Wrong: The Case for Personal Freedom. This article originally appears courtesy of Lew Rockwell.

Congressman says Obama's immigration strategy a “backdoor amnesty policy"

Homeland Security NewsWire: In your opinion has the Obama administration’s immigration strategy been effective? In particular, has the administration’s approach of targeting employers who hire undocumented workers as well as illegal aliens with criminal records been successful?

Representative Michael McCaul (Texas 10th District): What should not go unnoticed is this administration’s policy of incentivizing people to come into the United States illegally by allowing them to apply for work permits if they aren’t violent criminals.

This goes around the will of the Congress, and I think, is akin to a backdoor amnesty policy.  As a former federal prosecutor, I understand prosecutorial discretion, but there is a difference between not deporting and giving someone a job. This kind of backdoor amnesty policy is a serious concern to the American worker and to our national security. An alarming example of this would be Mohammed Atta, who was one of the 9/11 hijackers who overstayed his visa but did not have a criminal record.

HSNW: Given the current fiscal climate on the Hill and the more than $1 billion SBInet project that was ultimately cancelled, are there any cost-effective solutions to border security that you are examining in particular?

MM: Technology working in concert with boots on the ground is the key to securing the border. Nearly four years ago I started pushing for DHS to incorporate existing DOD technology, including sensor surveillance technology, that’s already proven to work on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. This equipment is readily available and it would save taxpayers’ money because there would be no additional R&D cost.

In addition, last month I passed several amendments through the Homeland Security Committee addressing border security. One of them secures two more Unmanned Aerial Vehicles for the Southwest border. Another scraps a program that was wasting taxpayer dollars on radiation detectors that did not work and diverts $15 million to our BEST teams, which confiscate southbound weapons and cash that arm and fund the cartels. This reallocation specifically targets the life-blood of the cartels without increasing the budget.  Both of these will have a direct impact on our ability to seal the border and disrupt the movement of human, drugs, and weapons trafficking.

HSNW: Cities and states across the country have been widely opposed to the Secure Communities program and there has been significant confusion surrounding whether participation is mandatory or not. In light of the criticism surrounding the program, what can be done to bring states and cities on board and assuage opponents of Secure Communities?

MM: The Secure Communities program is an incredible asset of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency that we need to continue to support. Through the program we have seen a 71 percent increase in the deportation of convicted criminals, which contributed to 81,000 more criminal removals in FY 2010 than in FY 2008. These are incredible numbers of criminals that are no longer roaming our towns and cities.

The key to making this program more successful is open communication and real dialogue. ICE should more thoroughly communicate its role to state and local authorities so they understand the benefits. When a police department makes an arrest, the FBI automatically cross-references the fingerprints with ICE so it can provide the suspect’s immigration status to local authorities. If the suspect is here illegally, ICE sends agents to make the removal.

The key here is dialogue and communication. ICE must do more than distribute electronic guides and pamphlets to ensure states and local law enforcement understand the program and how ICE is addressing the issues that states and law enforcement are bringing up.

HSNW: With residents living along the U.S.– Mexico border increasingly concerned about the influence of Mexican drug cartels in the United States, what can be done to better secure the border from violence and smugglers?

MM: This goes back to technology supplementing boots on the ground.  There is no doubt we need more border patrol agents. However, it is not realistic to think we can line them up side by side across a 2,000-mile porous border. Our agents need the benefit of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and infrared sensor technology to conduct surveillance, and then the resources to quickly pursue what is found.

HSNW: Finally, in your view, what is the greatest challenge in securing U.S. borders? That is to say, despite the billions of dollars spent and the thousands of troops and border agents deployed, how are cartels and non-U.S. citizens able to regularly cross the border?

MM: Same as above – porous border and technology. 

Words Do Have Meaning, Use Them Wisely

Calling illegal aliens “immigrants” is an insult to those who come here legally

By Dave Gibson, Immigration Reform Examiner

The issue of “immigration” played a prominent role during Thursday night’s GOP presidential debate. However, it was not “immigration” that was being discussed, but rather “illegal immigration.”

While most people now refer to illegal aliens as “immigrants” and often use the blanket term of “immigration,” even when referring to those who enter this country illegally en masse, it is doubtful they realize the effort that has been gone into convincing them to ignore the definite distinctions between the terms.

Referring to illegal aliens as “immigrants” is not only dishonest, it is incredibly insulting to the millions of folks who have come to this country legally, and belittles their contributions.

During a July 2010 webcam interview with NBCLA, Arianna Afsar, a UCLA sophomore, and recently crowned Miss California came out strongly against amnesty, saying: “I think that people who want to be a United States citizen need to come over here legally in order to get the privileges that every American receives.”

Afsar’s father is an immigrant, from Bangladesh. He also helped three family members come here. All arrived through legal means.

Afsar told the reporter: “It ended up taking him 10 years, but he did it legally. I don't think that if you are close to the border that you have the right to be given the rights of a United States citizen.”

Not surprisingly, on their website (nbclosangelescom), NBC described Afsar’s belief that the rule of law should apply to everyone as “controversial.”

Unfortunately, just as they have with so many issues, the left has co-opted the language in this case. For instance, the act of aborting a baby is no longer “abortion,” but has transformed into “a woman’s right to choose.”

Politicians and advocacy groups who continue to push for a so-called “path to citizenship” for illegal aliens conveniently ignore the fact that such a “path” already exists and it has been successfully taken by millions of people. Of course, it is not quick, and it does not reward criminals.
Changing the language to soften or gain acceptance for an unpopular, or even immoral or illegal activity is simply a propaganda tactic.

We are constantly subjected to such propaganda from the likes of President Obama and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich when they speak about the difficulties one faces as an immigrant to this country. Of course, they are not referring to legitimate immigrants, but to the millions of illegal aliens, now placing a huge burden upon this nation.

While our success may be as a “nation of immigrants,” we are also a nation of laws and turning our backs on either will undoubtedly spell our demise.