Don’t expect immigration enforcement from Republicans

Dave Gibson Immigration Reform Examiner

On Tuesday, Florida Republican Senator and much-hyped vice-presidential hopeful Marco Rubio announced that he is crafting his own version of the DREAM Act which would grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens.

While the announcement has disheartened much of the Republican faithful, it really should come as a surprise to no one…

Over the past several months, the Obama administration through executive order, has been implementing one disastrous move after the next which when completed, will add up to a blanket amnesty for all of those currently inside this country illegally.

While the anger among conservative activists and law abiding Americans has been palpable, the silence coming from the national Republican Party on these lawless policies has been deafening.

-On June 17, 2011, the Obama administration issued a memo announcing immigration officials no longer have to deport illegal aliens if they are enrolled in any type of education program, if their family members have volunteered for U.S. military service, if they have filed a civil rights lawsuit or even if they are pregnant or nursing.

The policy known as 'prosecutorial discretion' was also quietly announced on a Friday afternoon, and completely ignored by the mainstream press.

-In August 2011, the Obama administration announced that they would now only deport illegal aliens who have been convicted of crimes in this country, more than likely, that means only those convicted of felonies. Perhaps, even more devastating, the administration will also reportedly distribute work permits to those illegal aliens allowed to stay even as U.S. unemployment remains very high.

-On January 6, 2012, the U.S. Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services announced the agency’s proposed rule change which will allow illegal alien spouses and children to stay in this country while seeking legal residency status, rather than waiting for a green card back home.
Under the new rule, they will supposedly have to return home to visit a U.S. consulate for an interview. However, this will be but a formality.

The federal government would issue hardship waivers to the illegal aliens so that they can easily re-enter the country.

While Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) has never failed to issue a statement condemning each one of Obama’s aforementioned actions, rhetoric is where the GOP leadership begins and ends on the subject of illegal immigration and what to do about the millions of illegal aliens already here (and still coming).

In January 2011, it was announced that Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-CA) would head the House Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement. The California Congressman was chosen for the top job, even though Rep. Steve King (R-IA) was the ranking member of the subcommittee when Democrats controlled the House.

Rep. King has consistently been the loudest voice in the U.S. Congress, calling for strict border enforcement and at times, seemingly the only one on Capitol Hill who is concerned about the public safety crisis caused by illegal immigration.

In 2006, King released the results of a study which found that 12 Americans are murdered daily by illegal aliens, and 13 are killed by drunk illegal alien drivers every day.

That same study also determined that eight American children become victims of sexual abuse by illegal aliens every day, translating into 2,920 child victims annually.

King once said: “Members of Congress that vote for a guest-worker plan ... will be supporting an amnesty plan and they should be branded with the scarlet letter 'A' and pay for that amnesty in the ballot box in November [elections].”

In the past, King has introduced legislation which would deny birthright citizenship to the children of illegal aliens.

It seems that it is that same, out-spoken nature, and no-nonsense attitude that sunk him with the Republican elitists, anxious to please their Chamber of Commerce benefactors.

We must not forget that only a few years ago, it was the Republicans who were championing amnesty for illegal aliens. President Bush wanted it, and Sen. John McCain wrote the bill…Of course, Republicans were in control of both houses of Congress at that time.

In the lead-up to the 2010 midterm elections, we heard tough talk on immigration from the Republicans, but that was when they were farther out-of-power than that party had been in nearly a generation.

The chairmanship rightfully belonged to King, but just as in the past, the GOP has placed more importance on pandering to Hispanic voters than on the rule of law—it would appear they may be going down that same destructive path again.

During a recent conversation with my good friend and fellow Examiner, Rick Oltman, we both concluded that Congressional Republicans are more than likely, very relieved by Obama’s actions because now the issue is effectively over and they do not have to risk alienating Hispanic voters by calling for strict enforcement.

If the Republican Party returns to the ways of Bush and McCain and goes back on their word to
Americans eager to see our immigration laws enforced, those same Americans will find what they are looking for in a third party and leave the GOP behind forever.

An Un-Corrected Problem Tends to Turn to Sarcasm

Everyone should become an illegal alien

By Mike Shaner, Hollywood City Guide Examiner

 According to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics (DHS), an estimated 2,600,000 illegal immigrants resided in California in 2009. Protectionist and anti-immigrant advocates claim undocumented workers contribute to the unemployment crisis and benefit from the entitlement system without paying in.  Those across the aisle say illegal aliens do not impact unemployment levels, but are actually crucial to the economy because they take jobs that other citizens don’t want.  Finally, there is a third, too often muted argument that both sides are inconsistent in their argument and that all Americans should become “illegal.”

This third eye sees a certain hypocrisy in Republicans who claim to want less government and lower taxes bellowing to regulate an entire group of people, even demanding that they (everyone) carry papers.  It sees the same type of glibness in a Democrat argument that says there are jobs Americans will not do, but feverishly lobby to extend unemployment insurance.

There is a freedom movement that suggests the problem is not with illegal aliens but with a system that requires business owners to act as tax collectors and individuals to carry papers with them at all times. To this group unemployment is at an all-time high due to over-regulation and government meddling. They suggest that instead of chastising illegal immigrants we should join them.

“Conservatives have it all wrong on immigration,” said a Hollywood landscaper who asked to remain anonymous for obvious reasons. “They should be advocating for everyone to quit paying taxes and refuse to get drivers licenses. These taxes fund immoral wars and hurt the economy. I hire so-called illegal aliens, not because it saves me a few dollars an hour in pay roll, but because of the thousands extra I would have to pay in payroll tax, unemployment tax, workers comp, and everything else. I would prefer to hire English speakers, communication would be easier and the customers would be more comfortable, but the government makes that impossible, especially here in Los Angeles County where we are taxed on top of tax.”

Others suggest that if we ended the nanny state and allowed the market to work both the unemployment crisis and the immigration problem would take care of itself. Connie Wood, a local daycare provider had this to say: “I believe people have a natural right to travel freely, but as Milton Friedman said we can’t have a welfare state and open borders at the same time. If we ended the welfare state and let markets work the only immigrants who would want to come here would be those looking to work hard and contribute. Those are the type of Immigrants who made America great in the first place.”

The anonymous Hollywood landscaper added: “Instead of complaining about the government all the time we need to do something. Don’t be mad at Jose who just wants to work, take care of his family, and be left alone, Join him instead. If you contribute to a broken system you are part of the problem. If you fund the wars—you are a warmonger. Instead of bitching about illegal aliens doing all the things we wish we could do we should join them. We should all become illegal aliens.”

When Presidents Whisper…We, the People, Lose 

By Billy Tedreck – Washington County Resident – The Spectrum                        

"This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility."  These words, not meant for public consumption, were uttered by President Obama to Russian President Dmitri Medvedev in hushed tones on a hot mic during a huddle in which they were discussing the planned implementation of the U.S.-NATO anti-ballistic missile defense shield. Russia is adamantly opposed to the missile defense shield that would be deployed in Europe, claiming that it would compromise their nuclear delivery system and prevent them from making necessary pre-emptive strikes.

After learning of this exchange, many of our citizens are wondering what else is on Obama's agenda that he isn't sharing with the American people? What is he whispering to other world leaders that, if known, might negatively impact his re-election chances?

A few days after the hot mic incident, Mexico's President Felipe Calderon came calling on President Obama. We don't know what was whispered between them, but it is known that they share common interests not necessarily shared by the American people. One of which is pro-immigration reform (or de facto amnesty).

Obama would like to further pander to the large US Hispanic population (legal & illegal) in the hopes of increasing the Democratic voter base, but is leery of a voter backlash that might impact his re-election bid. If he could whisper to Calderon that "after my election I have more flexibility", word would get out to the Latino community that Obama is still pandering.

For his part, Calderon would like to open the floodgates for his countrymen to cross their Northern border and access the milk & honey America has to offer.  According to the Pew Hispanic Center study, between 2009 - 2010, immigrants (both legal & illegal) gained 656,000 jobs while US born workers lost 1.2 million jobs. The part that Calderon likes is that during that year $21.2 billion was sent to Mexico by remittances from Mexican workers (mostly illegal). Last year, more than $17 billion in remittances helped considerably in mitigating the Calderon Administration's budget shortfalls.

Because of their mutual goals, Obama and Calderon have a cozy relationship (Calderon visited the US at least 5 times last year).  And Calderon has Obama's back by not publicly criticizing the fiasco known as Fast & Furious in which Eric Holder's Justice Dept. and the ATF Bureau orchestrated the delivery of more than 2,000 firearms to Mexican drug cartels, resulting in the death of US Border Patrol agent Brian Terry and at least 200 homicides in Mexico.

But Calderon is quick to criticize any state that attempts to pass legislation that would curtail his citizen's illegal access to America. He joined with the Obama Administration in suing Arizona over its attempt at protecting its citizens and sovereign border against the illegal invasion from the South. Calderon has high praise for sanctuary cities and states, but uses terms like racist and xenophobic for policies that he does not agree with.

For Presidents Obama and Calderon, the immigration issue is a tool for votes and power for one and money and greed for the other.

Either way legal US citizens lose.  

Immigration amnesty, a continuing saga

Examiner.com John W. Slagle

For many years, the U.S. Immigration Service and the U.S. Border Patrol was responsible for the control of legal as well as illegal immigrants entering and remaining in this nation. The system was far from perfect yet law enforcement was very effective prior to political intervention. In 1972 the total number of agents on the Mexican and Canadian border was less than 2,000.

In 2012, the number of border patrol agents will be increased to 21,370. Last year border  apprehensions of illegal aliens entering the United States totaled 340,000. The major factor that draws people of most nations to enter the United States is employment opportunities and a constant political "welcome mat" from Washington, D.C.

Amnesty for anyone that has disregarded the immigration laws has not ceased in over thirty years. Legal immigrants and non immigrants who obey the law must go through the proper channels, necessary paperwork and wait in line.

The  Department of Homeland Security will soon halt the deportation of certain illegal immigrants by granting them “unlawful presence waivers.” The new waivers would apply to illegal aliens who can prove they have a U.S. citizen relative. Currently illegal aliens with  relatives in the U.S. must return to their native country and request a waiver of inadmissibility in an existing overseas immigrant visa process.
The Department of Homeland Security has established a priority mission to deport criminals and immigrants who pose a threat to national security. Immigration Customs Enforcement Officers will have "prosecutorial discretion" or  the ability to decide, on a case-by-case basis, whether an illegal alien should be deported.  A nationwide training program  will assure that enforcement agents and prosecuting attorneys don’t remove illegal immigrants who haven’t been convicted of crimes. 

Pending deportations would be cancelled and illegal aliens could claim to qualify for special consideration if they have not committed a serious felony in the United States or are a suspected terrorist. Claims can be anything from long periods of residence in the U.S.  with numerous relatives to alleging that they would be in danger if returned to their own country.

The 1980-1992 El Salvadorian Civil War created thousands of illegal entries along the southwest borders. Some were legitimate refugees but most entered for economic reasons, such as jobs.

There were also criminal elements, suspected members of the MS-13, a very violent gang affiliation who also entered the U.S. illegally. All who requested political asylum due to fear of death or persecution were usually granted a stay of deportation by immigration judges. Suspected criminals to anyone “with a wish” to remain in the U.S. claimed asylum when they were arrested by immigration officers.

The First Amnesty Immigration Reform Act was passed in 1986 and opened the “floodgates of illegal immigration and crime upon the nation. There were insufficient law enforcement agents to control the Borders and interior cities for labor sanctions violations or to investigate fraudulent admissions. 2.7 million people were legalized as Special Agricultural Workers.

The first and only Amnesty has never really ended despite political proposals of another comprehensive immigration reform act in 2012.

The continual influx of illegal aliens since 1986 is a known factor in Washington. In 1994 Congress approved a temporary rolling Amnesty for 578,000 Illegal Aliens under Section 245 (i).
There was also a 1996 Citizenship USA program which required the Immigration Service to reduce the two year period of time for immigrant applications to six months in many areas of the United States. The taxpayer funded Citizenship U.S.A. was geared to provide new voters prior to the 1996 elections and was directed by Vice President Al Gore.

The normal criminal background checks and fingerprints checks were not done or done in haste to meet the scheduled political goals.  1.3 million immigrants benefited from the program including 80,000 new naturalized citizens that had criminal backgrounds found on fingerprint cards that were submitted. Politics and the Immigration Service are forever intermingled it seems and it doesn’t matter which party is in power.

In 1997, the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act allowed one million people legal status. In 1998, the Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act was created which allowed additional legalization for Haitian nationals.

The late Amnesty Act of 2000 was rather remarkable in politics. This Act was an Amnesty for 400,000 illegal aliens residing in the U.S. who claimed they should have been granted Special Agricultural Worker status under the fraud filled 1986 IRCA.

The Life Act Amnesty was the best example of political lack of common sense.

This Act, a reinstatement of Section 245 (i) allowed Amnesty for 900,000 illegal aliens who might have been qualified as Special Agricultural Workers in 1986 if they had presented documentation, I-705s prior to the deadline for admissions. Usually a deadline in a sensible society means "that's it" end game or close of business, no more applicants accepted at any office. The U.S. Government has a very liberal immigration policy and accepts more legal immigrants than any other nation in the world.

On illegal immigration issues, over stay visas, criminal sections of the law, elected officials have sought to reward law breakers for decades with few restrictions.

Amnesty has continued over thirty years for Agricultural Workers, Guest Workers by Congressional authority and year after year, the American people are led to believe there is a “shortage of laborers” in the United States. The H1- B "needed foreign worker" Visa program has always been a successful program.  Needed skills could be anything from an experienced sheep herder, agricultural worker to technical fields in science. Sponsors were required to prevent fraudulent entries, overstays and was very effective.  Immigrants and non-immigrants obeyed the laws set by Congress and were appreciated.

Michael Coley Sees The Full Picture

Those most harmed by illegal immigration are the U.S.’s poor

Jeanie Fusaro’s response to my commentary on immigration is correct: I am a racist. That’s usually the first thing thrown out when anyone disagrees with pointing out the illegal immigration problem.
Now that we have established that, maybe we can talk about facts and my opinion piece.

I wrote the letter from the perspective of someone who has been to the border many times, and seen first-hand the damaged caused by illegal immigration.

I am new to Fayette County and can see the stark differences in a state which still (for now) enforces its immigration laws and a state and city which does not.

It’s easy for someone who lives in the suburbs to wishfully say let’s have an open door policy of let the taxpayers foot the bill, when they do not live in the middle of those who the taxpayer is supporting.
Oh, don’t get me wrong, people are people, and generally they go about their everyday lives working, going to school, raising their children, and being decent neighbors.

But in Texas there are “coyotes” that get paid for getting pregnant woman across the border just in time for their child to be born in the U.S. But must this happen on the back of taxpayers?
When I see these everyday examples: our hospitals being used as emergency rooms for pregnancies and healthcare, even for minor instances, I know the taxpayer is footing the bill.

For those going to work and being paid under the table, I know an American worker is not getting hired. When our schools are being overcrowded, and teachers have to slow down the curriculum for those who do not speak English, my child is being left behind and not getting the full attention. It’s kudos to Fayette County schools for providing the non-English speaking students additional resources for this; but again, with taxpayer money.

Assimilation was a process which occurred much quicker years ago in 1895 and before the entitlement society made taxpayers responsible. This was before the August 2000 Clinton Executive Order requiring all agencies receiving federal funding to provide bilingualism and the 1986 amnesty (Reagan later admitted he regretted this because of a Democratic majority in Congress and due to it creating an even bigger magnet for those coming to the U.S. illegally).

We now have chain migration to go along with the world’s most open country for legal immigration, which needs to be streamlined to allow a more balanced country of origin process.

The largest number of legal immigration? Mexico. The largest number of illegal aliens? Mexico and those passing through it.

Illegal immigration (through deportations/lawsuits) and chain migration has so clogged the immigration process, that legal immigration is more difficult.

In 1895 you did not have mass transportation allowing for ease of illegal drugs, human trafficking and criminal gang members slipping into the country. Yes, I know, not all illegal immigrants are gang members or carrying illegal drugs, but those activities are increasing due TO illegal immigration.

This current President has stopped the enforcement on illegal immigration by directing Homeland Security to ignore the prosecution and deportation of illegal immigrants except the most extreme violent offenders. Kind of like saying let’s just ignore the drunk drivers except for those who actually crash and cause injury to others.

Bush tried to pass an amnesty program, and thank goodness it did not pass. But at least he left enforcement in place.

It would be great if we all had a universal translator. Bilingualism is great for an individual but unless you expect every citizen to learn every language to communicate with every other person, then we as a nation need the one thing that holds us together as a nation (remember E Pluribus Unum). We need a common language. And no matter how hard ethnic groups try to rewrite history, our country’s founding documents are based on the English language and our common language is English.

In Houston, south Florida and California a person cannot even obtain employment without knowing Spanish, because those who come to this country are not required to learn English. If they are not required to learn it, (the entire print media and government documents in Spanish that make English irrelevant) why bother teaching English or becoming proficient?

It’s an endless cycle. I know those who have been in this country for years and still make no effort to learn English. I’ve seen parents scold their children for speaking English instead of Spanish.

Those most harmed by illegal immigration are the poor in this country, regardless of skin color. They have to compete with illegal aliens who will work for slave labor wages; and when businesses take advantage of illegal immigration, it is a form of modern day slavery.

Americans will pay more for a head of lettuce if means not using more taxpayer money for hospitals, jobs and schools.

So, when the conversation about illegal immigration moves beyond “you are a racist,” then facts can come out and an intelligent discussion can be made for greater enforcement of our southern border.
Illegal immigration also robs the south of the border countries of their most valuable resource: Their people.

Michael Coley, Fayetteville, Ga.

Illegal immigration is a serious threat to America’s national security

By Rep. Phil Roe (R-Tenn.)  04/26/12 

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court justices heard arguments regarding Arizona’s immigration law. The way I see it, Arizona is simply trying to enforce our basic immigration laws that make it illegal to be in our country without a visa or proper citizenship.

With nearly 12 million illegal immigrants in this country, it is clear that our system is broken and the federal government needs to enact and enforce strict immigration laws in order to protect the citizens of our country. The problem with illegal immigration has gone on too long, and the Arizona law is an attempt from states to address a problem that the federal government has not.

The law would allow state and local law enforcement in Arizona to enforce federal immigration statutes, but it has been struck down at the district and appeals court levels.

This hearing is a product of the Obama Administration filing a legal challenge against the new Arizona immigration law, originally claiming it is unjust because it will lead to “racial profiling.” However, the Obama Justice Department is now arguing the law violates the Constitution’s supremacy clause, which states that the Constitution, federal laws and treaties supersede state laws.

I personally see the supremacy clause line of attack as questionable since it would seem that Arizona is simply trying to enforce our basic immigration laws, which make it illegal to be in our country without a visa or proper citizenship.

The Arizona law, known as SB 1070, requires police officers to verify the legal status of people if the officer is suspicious that the person is in the United States illegally. The bill makes it a state crime to be in the country without authorization.

According to Reuters, several U.S. Supreme Court justices in the hearing today voiced support for Arizona's effort to crack down on illegal immigration, appearing to reject Obama Administration arguments that the federal government has sole responsibility for dealing with people who illegally enter the United States.

As a member of the bipartisan Immigration Reform Caucus, I have cosponsored a number of immigration reform bills, including H.R. 2000, the Secure America through Verification and Enforcement (SAVE) Act.

The SAVE Act offers a three-part plan to drastically reduce illegal immigration, which includes a strict emphasis on border security, the verification of an employee’s legal status, and increased enforcement of existing laws. H.R. 2000 would hire 6,000 additional new Border Patrol agents and 1,150 new ICE agents. In addition, it provides the tools necessary to ensure the INS agents can successfully protect our borders, including additional vehicles, better infrastructure, new facilities, lighting units, weapons, and armor.

The SAVE Act also expands E-Verify and makes it available for use by every employer over a four-year period. This will benefit employers because they will be able to efficiently check whether or not their employees are legally authorized to work in the United States. 

If the federal government would do their job and pass legislation such as the SAVE Act, Arizona would not have a need to enforce SB 1070, and they would not be on trial for the law today.

Illegal immigration is a serious threat to our national security, one that is very expensive and a burden to hardworking taxpayers. Furthermore, there is a national debate over what to do with the 12 million illegal immigrants in the country.

Something needs to be done to solve this problem. The federal government needs a comprehensive solution to the problem of illegal immigration that starts with securing our borders.

Rep. Phil Roe (R-Tenn.) is a member of the Education and Workforce and Veterans' Affairs Committees.

A Clarion Cry For E-Verify

Underclass workers

By Galan Stewart in Salt Lake Tribune April 27, 2012

It was great to see the editorial "Enforce E-Verify: It’s time to provide penalties" (Our View, April 13).

Utah law "mandates" that all businesses with 15 or more employees use the free federal E-Verify program to determine if prospective employees are legal to work in the United States and to prevent ID theft of names of children for employment purposes.

About 5,461 Utah employers use E-Verify, with about 468 in the hospitality industry — hotels, restaurants and fast food. The hospitality industry has become the primary employer of illegal labor in Utah. Two large hotels have recently been busted by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Grand America and Stein Eriksen).

Unlike jobs in manufacturing and technology, jobs in hospitality, construction, farming, etc., cannot be exported to cheap-labor countries such as China, so employers use cheap illegal labor instead.

Illegal labor serves the same purpose as indentured servitude and even slavery. It creates an underclass that must work for depressed wages. This flood of underclass workers suppresses the wages of Americans who would otherwise take these jobs.

E-Verify does not deport anyone; it simply levels the playing field for the unskilled American workers forced into poverty by employers ignoring the law.

Gaylan Stewart

Spanish Fork

Helping others while hurting ourselves: immigration in the U.S.

April 16, 2012  by Rebecca Kumar

Citizenship in the United States is often something many people take for granted. From the moment we are born on American soil, we are automatically granted a membership to an exclusive club with a slew of opportunities and benefits, regardless of how our families or our parents got here. There is a debate heating up the political arena regarding the effects of birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants on American culture. On the one side, commentators are saying that granting birthright citizenship to children of illegal immigrants is an inappropriate interpretation of the 14th amendment. In rebuttal, scholars are saying that inclusiveness and assimilation are promoting the melting pot idea that America has long been associated with.

Citizenship in the United States is based on "jus sanguinis," meaning by blood, and "jus solis," meaning by soil, and we have some of the most inclusive immigration policies in the world. Because of these open arms, there are nearly 4 million children of illegal immigrants living in the U.S., with approximately 65,000 of them graduating from our high schools each year. Ultimately, with these numbers, it is hard to imagine that the government will continue to be able to support this rapidly growing illegal population and their families. With limited government resources, especially regarding welfare and the excessive strain on taxpayers, in addition to the effect of illegal immigrant enrollment in universities, birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants should be reinterpreted because the benefits of their presence in the U.S. are being outweighed by the strains on the culture and the economy.

Those in favor of keeping the birthright citizenship interpretation reference the Supreme Court ruling of 1898, the court case regarding Wong Kim Ark's status as a citizen of the U.S. Many say that this case establishes precedent for the way the government should interpret the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." However, there is a nuance that is often forgotten that undermines this argument.

Ark's parents were "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" because they were legally recognized aliens residing in the U.S., making them subject to U.S. laws. In the case of illegal immigrants — because they entered illegally — they are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction and should not receive the benefits of being subject to U.S. laws.

Another argument from the pro side discusses the cultural value of inclusiveness and assimilation and how this is a foundational element that has made America the place it is today and that removing the birthright citizenship interpretation will create an underclass of people in America. The case for cultural value, however, is quickly being shot down by the more practical, statistics-oriented enthusiasts who bring dismal statistics to the table, showing that many of the illegal immigrant population do not do well in schools and seem to have accepted that their place in American society is to remain at the bottom of the job market rather than assimilate into the competitive, climb-the-ladder perspective that many attribute to an American way of life.

With that in mind, the fear of an underclass of people in America seems to be deemed null and void because it is clear that this underclass exists with the current interpretation already. What many of the proponents of the cultural value argument seem to forget is that these cultural values of the melting pot phenomenon are only valuable if the new additions to this multiethnic country club are contributing more than they are taking from it, which is not necessarily the case. Many of the welfare benefits that illegal immigrants are looking for are benefits such as Medicaid and food stamps, both of which they can receive on behalf of their U.S. born children. Approximately 40 percent of illegal aliens nationally receive some type of welfare, and this number is growing rapidly.

To bring this around to a local level, there are approximately 1,777 illegal immigrants enrolling in New York State universities, public and private, each year. To counteract the strains on universities, the government is looking to attempt to provide tuition assistance and methods of becoming legal citizens here in the U.S. through higher-level education. The Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act is looking to provide tuition assistance to illegal immigrants, which is estimated to cost the state an extra $627,428 per year  — maybe more, considering statistics on illegal immigrants are spotty — which will mean a tax adjustment.

Eventually, we will all hit the job market, and we are all paying taxes as legal citizens here. As the number of illegal immigrants goes up, so does the number of people that we have to support as taxpaying citizens because universities and government programs have to accommodate for the number of people that are using their services.

Ultimately, resources are not unlimited, and it is difficult to appropriate government resources fairly and efficiently when the number of people receiving these benefits is not completely accurate and is off by a fair margin.

At the end of the day, the financial argument will trump the cultural advantage argument because no one likes to pay for free riders.

A Case For Attrition by Enforcement

Arizona immigration law echoes U.S. law

By John Kavanagh

Arizona lies in the cross hairs of the illegal immigration problem. The success of federal border security efforts in California has made Arizona the default gateway for illegal immigrants. Worse yet, the Obama administration's policy of near non-enforcement of immigration laws has worsened Arizona's problem.

Faced with the negative consequences of illegal immigration — including crime and the high costs of incarceration, education and medical care for illegal immigrants and their children — Arizona has fought back with many popular landmark laws that have denied illegal immigrants public benefits, licenses, jobs and even bail.

These defensive efforts culminated in 2010 with the passage of SB1070, an anti-illegal immigration enforcement bill most known for its requirement that state and local law enforcement officers inquire into the immigration status of people they have already stopped for legitimate reasons, when they reasonably suspect that the persons are in the country illegally.

The Obama administration and other opponents of Arizona's law falsely argue that it unconstitutionally pre-empts federal law. Instead, SB1070 legally echoes federal law. The only thing that SB1070 pre-empts is the transient, political policy of the Obama administration to not enforce America's immigration laws.

How ironic and disingenuous that the same administration that helped create an unbearable illegal immigration problem in Arizona now intervenes in court to stop Arizona from defending itself.

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.

In addition, the Obama administration's position against Arizona's law flies in the face of court precedent and federal law. The enforcement of federal law, including immigration law, by state and local police officers is a longstanding point of cooperation between these levels of government and a practice that has been repeatedly sanctioned by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Moreover, federal law requires federal immigration officials to respond to immigration inquiries by state and local police. So how does Arizona relying on federal law pre-empt federal law? Finally, SB1070 does not enable police to discriminate against citizens any more than do traffic stops or other legal law enforcement actions, and nobody is calling for an end to them. Besides, were a police officer to use SB1070 to discriminate, the problem is not a bad law but a bad cop.

John Kavanagh, a Republican, is a member of the Arizona House of Representatives and a sponsor of SB1070.

Drug Trafficking

Insight – Organized Crime in America (Part III of III)

Marijuana

Marijuana began and remains the most widely used and widely trafficked drug by volume in the Americas and the world. Production figures are difficult to determine because countries tend to measure production in different ways and there is an increasing amount of indoor production. The region’s top producer, the United States, measures by the number of plants. The second largest producer, Mexico, measures by hectare. The United States also appears to be one of the top indoor producers.

The only indoor production found outside of the United States in the region was in Argentina. The difficulty in measuring the amount of cannabis worldwide was evident in the most recent United Nations’ World Drug Report in which the organization estimated that it ranged between 200,000 and 641,800 hectares.

The greatest concentration of marijuana production in the region is from the northwestern Sierras in Mexico up through northwestern United States. Mexican production is concentrated in nine states: Sinaloa, Nayarit, Jalisco, Michoacán, Guerrero, Oaxaca, Chihuahua, Sonora, and Durango. Guerrero, Nayarit, and Michoacán are the traditional production areas, but U.S. intelligence reports say that large Mexican organizations have shifted production to central and northern Mexican states of Sonora, Sinaloa and Durango in recent years to avoid increasing eradication efforts by the Mexican government and to get closer to the main consumption market, the United States.

Mexican drug trafficking organizations (DTOs) also operate large, outdoor fields in western United States, most notably in California, but increasingly in more northern states such as Oregon and Washington. The Mexican DTOs are also increasingly making connections to groups east of the Mississippi River.

In South America, the largest producers appear to be Bolivia and Paraguay. Colombia is also a major producer. In addition to shipping supplies to the United States and Europe, these countries supply a growing South American market.  

The potency of marijuana has also increased in recent years, giving the traffickers greater returns on fewer hectares. This includes Mexican traffickers who have developed sophisticated techniques such as using greenhouse seedlings, planting the seedlings before late April, separating the male from the female seedlings before pollination, and using fertilizer high in nitrogen.

Given the lack of knowledge about production, there are differing arguments as to how much money is in the marijuana business. A recent paper on cannabis in the United States said domestic production in the U.S. alone in 2006 was worth an estimated $35 billion. And some say that marijuana represents the Mexican DTOs largest source of income. 

Resources

• "National Methamphetamine Threat Assessment 2010," U.S. Department of Justice. (pdf)
• “World Drug Report 2010,” United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. (pdf)
• “International Narcotics Control Strategy Report, Volume I, 2010,” United States Department of State.
• “Domestic Cannabis Cultivation Assessment 2009,” United States National Drug Intelligence Center.

Drug Trafficking

Insight – Organized Crime in America (Part II of III)

Heroin

Like cocaine, heroin is derived from a plant, in this case what is known as the opium poppy. The opiate from the plant is the source for morphine, codeine and heroin, among others. The plant grows in high altitude, mountainous areas. Organized criminal groups have been deeply involved in the trade of the opium and its derivatives for at least two centuries. The highly addictive nature of the drugs, and the relative ease with which the criminal groups can move the drugs, make it a lucrative venture. Like cocaine, heroin revenue, which the UN estimates to be $55 billion yearly, also finances insurgencies worldwide.

This helps explain why 85 percent of the world’s heroin comes from Afghanistan. It supplies the world’s largest consumer markets, Western Europe and Russia. Nonetheless, there is a sizeable heroin market in the U.S., an estimated 20 metric tons a year, according to the UN. The supply comes principally from poppy fields in Mexico, Guatemala and Colombia. Mexico, in particular, has seen poppy production rise dramatically in recent years.

The United States Government estimates that cultivation of opium poppy, the raw material for heroin, rose from 6,000 hectares to 15,000 hectares between from 2008 to 2009, making it the third largest producer of poppy in the world behind Afghanistan and Myanmar. Part of this rise may be due to a decrease in availability on the Colombian side and an increased vertical integration on the Mexican side. The USG estimates that poppy cultivation in Colombia dropped by as much as 50 percent between 2000 and 2006, and has remained steady ever since.

Indeed, there are indications that Guatemala has overtaken Colombia as the second largest poppy producer in the region. Part of this may be due to Mexican cartels’ attempts to use the fertile area in the San Marcos region, along the Mexican border, as a new headquarter for poppy cultivation and processing into heroin.

Heroin is a highly profitable business as organized criminal gangs take advantage of sparsely populated areas and corruptible officials in Mexico, and their proximity to the U.S. market. Mexican organizations, such as the Sinaloa Cartel, have established numerous heroin processing labs near the largest areas of production, namely the Western Sierra mountains in the Sinaloa, Durango and Chihuahua states. Often referred to as the “Golden Triangle,” these three states have upwards of 80 percent of the poppy production in the hemisphere. They move these drugs in the same corridors as the cocaine traffic: via commercial trucks, private vehicles and human mules through man-made tunnels under the U.S.-Mexican border.

In the U.S., these organizations have established distribution networks in the major cities and often reaching into the countryside. These networks include mini-distribution teams in Los Angeles, Chicago and other major distribution centers. The heroin often passes through Houston and Los Angeles on its way to the other major distribution centers. Money for the drugs then goes back through those main hubs, then is smuggled back into Mexico where it is laundered in legitimate businesses and the black market.

Methamphetamines

The synthetic drug industry in the Americas is relatively new but growing exponentially. What was once a U.S.-based operation that relied on local precursors and “shake and bake” laboratories, has become a sophisticated international business that includes securing supplies from as far away as Asia, developing the methamphetamines in large, elaborate labs in Mexico and Central America, and transporting the drugs across the U.S. border via tunnels, or using commercial vehicles or human mules. Indeed, authorities in the United States now believe that Mexico supplies 70 percent of the methamphetamines consumed in the United States.

The transfer of the methamphetamine industry from the U.S. to Mesoamerica owes much to better U.S. law enforcement and new laws that regulate the importation and sale of the drug’s precursors, ephedrine and pseudoephedrine, ingredients common in cough medicines and other over-the-counter drugs. These new laws have made it more difficult to import and move the precursors for the drugs.

The meth traffickers in the U.S. have adapted, creating small scale, “one-pot” labs. But the Mexican cartels have created “super-labs” – giant meth factories that produce huge quantities of the drug. The largest labs are in the Mexican states of Jalisco and Michoacán, but Mexican authorities have also raided large labs in other states, like Durango and Sinaloa. The Mexican traffickers have also circumvented the laws limiting the availability of the ephedrine and pseudoephedrine by using alternative precursors, such as phenyl-2-propanone, much of it smuggled in from Asia.

Still, most of the drugs are made using the ephedrine and pseudoephedrine. Up until two years ago, Mexico’s Central American neighbors, principally Guatemala and Honduras, were supplying the raw material for the meth production. These two countries, as well as Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Belize, Perú and Argentina, have since enacted laws limiting imports of the precursors.

But the traffickers are finding new ways to get them to the mega-labs in Mexico and the smaller labs in Central and South America. The routes often mirror those of the illegal drugs leaving the region. The principal supplier of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine is India. Its precursors mostly go directly to Mexico. But some pass through Central America. And other go through East Africa, then Central America, often on their way to Mexico’s super-labs.