SEEING RED WHEN GREEN CARDS LEAD TO PINK SLIPS FOR AMERICANS

BY Michael W. Cutler - December 2, 2011 (Part I of II)

Here is my most recent commentary for CAPS- Californians for Population Stabilization.

As I noted in my commentary below, the legal immigration system has flooded the labor market with increasing numbers of foreign high tech workers and filled seats in our universities with foreign students who will also ultimately compete with American students and workers for high tech jobs!

Incredibly, even as more and more American families are finding it increasingly difficult to pay the ever increasing college tuitions for their sons and daughters to attempt to provide them with a decent future, there are politicians calling for providing instate tuition for illegal alien students! These politicians are apt to talk about being compassionate for these illegal aliens but never utter a single word about the plight of American students! As education costs are lowered for illegal aliens, the expenses incurred by universities have to be payed for somehow and increasingly, that “somehow” involves raising tuition and other fees and cutting back on programs on campus!

Under the current economic crisis, millions of Americans are unemployed and still more are underemployed. Just about every political candidate for a wide variety of elected positions including those who are seeking the Presidency are quick to embrace the need to create new jobs- yet not one candidate has really addressed the issue to liberate jobs currently held by foreign worker!

For millions of our fellow citizens, The “American Dream” is becoming more elusive than ever before. Rather than discuss how American workers can be provided with jobs in high tech industries, candidates for the Presidency talk about how important it is to import more foreign workers for the high tech jobs!

It is beyond belief that not a single GOP candidate for the Presidency has even mentioned the idea of training American workers to enable them to take these important jobs! Instead they talk about providing visas to enable foreign nationals to take jobs that Americans would sorely want to have because they are desperate to hold onto their homes and their ability to support themselves and their families. These are the people who line up looking for work whenever and wherever jobs become available.

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) is that all-inclusive body of laws that regulates the entry of aliens into the United States and also their presence in the United States.

The INA establishes the way that applications for immigration benefits are to be adjudicated and the grounds under which an alien might be removed (deported) from the United States.

The INA:”…excludes aliens seeking to immigrate “for the purpose of performing skilled or unskilled labor,” except that such aliens may be eligible for a visa if:

the Secretary of Labor has determined that (A) there are not sufficient United States workers who are able, willing, qualified and available at the time of application for a visa and admission into the United States and at the place where the alien is to perform the work, and (B) the employment of the alien will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of the United States workers similarly employed.”

Of course there are those who seek to game this visa process for their own personal gain. Corporations who seek to lower labor costs generally resort to two tactics- outsourcing jobs, often moving entire factories outside the United States where they can hire workers at a fraction of the cost that American workers would expect and ignore not only labor laws but health and safety laws as well as environmental laws. Let’s face it, all companies, no matter what industry they are involved in all share the common goal of maximizing profits.

Company executives are not the only people who stand to gain by hiring aliens for so-called hi-tech jobs. Immigration lawyers are eager for companies to hire aliens to take jobs in the United States- this is how lawyers earn their wages. Companies that hire American citizens and lawful immigrants have little need for immigration lawyers. In order to drum up business, lawyers have to convince employers to hire them so that they can provide them with highly skilled professionals at significantly lower wages than American professionals would expect to be paid.

The antidote for those who would commit visa fraud is simple, ICE needs to conduct investigations randomly and routinely to deter those who would seek to game the process. With extremely limited resources, such investigations are few and far between. The result is that while the law makes it clear that no foreign workers should be admitted to the United States to work if it would harm American workers similarly employed, in the real world, Americans are routinely displaced by foreign workers.

The problem is twofold. First of all, ICE has no resources to routinely conduct any of these investigations and the administration not only lacks to the desire to conduct these investigations, but has promulgated immigration policies that bemoan the fact that the DREAM Act may have failed, but that for all intents and purposes, ICE will deal with foreign students as though that vigorously opposed legislation had passed! Could you imagine anything more outrageous? The administration has taken to doing end-runs around the United States Congress! If the administration is happy with a law that is passed, then it enforces it. If a law the administration finds a law it favored did not pass, it simply issues policy directives that, for all intents and purposes, have the same affect as the law would have had, if it had passed!

When states attempt to remedy problems such as the immigration crisis by passing their own immigration laws because the federal government assiduously ignores those laws, then the federal government initiates lawsuits against those states!

Yet I have yet to hear the Republican candidates for the Presidency hammering away at the outrageous tactics of the current administration- could it be that they would be no better if any of those candidates are elected?

Violence and Elections

Watching America - May 24, 2012
Those of us who benefit from bi-national infrastructure projects on the Mexico-United States border see a different Mexico than those living in the middle or southeast regions of the country. Bi-national infrastructures are mostly constructed on the banks of the Rio Bravo, where organizations are unafraid of consequences regarding the exchange of illegal merchandise between Mexico and the United States. They have turned the area into a battlefield.

The Mexico-United States border has had a complicated 150-year history because it is there that the best and worst of both countries come together, where we hope that the best conquers the worst. The construction of infrastructure is one way to fulfill this hope, but there is also a struggle of the worst against the worst. This has generated violence, transforming a place of opportunity into one of danger. Under such circumstances, we have lost investments, jobs and competitiveness at the international level.

The Mexico-United States border has suffered four basic types of violence: physical/armed, psychological, structural and cultural. Physical/armed violence is the most visible form of violence, and serves to deter, coerce, wound and even kill. Psychological violence seizes the people’s hearts and minds to incapacitate the collective power of a state of mind. Psychological violence also produces mental suffering, spreading fear and hate among populations. The third is structural violence (e.g. discrimination between specific groups), incorporated in the social structure and less apparent than the aforementioned forms of violence. Finally, the fourth instrument is cultural violence, which uses culture to legitimize the other forms of violence.

In the middle and southeast of Mexico, the last thing we want is the extension of this violence past the border. The electoral seasons are fertile ground for this, as the clash between political parties and society facilitates the expansion of the territory where illicit products are traded.

Because of this, the political parties during election season must think through their strategies against opposing parties. Their eagerness to win at any cost may generate violence and destabilization, allowing those who operate outside of the law the opportunity to seize more territory. On the border, we are suffering from this violence, and we hope that it does not spread further. Instead of creating a place of opportunity for the Mexico-United States border and Mexico itself, it becomes a place of danger. We need to worry about Mexico.

By Arturo de las Fuentes Hernández, Translated By Monica McCarthy, Edited by Audrey Agot

Much more can be done on immigration before election

By Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) - 06/19/12 

Congress doesn’t have to wait until Election Day to respond to what the American people care about. Poll after poll shows that the American people are overwhelmingly concerned about jobs and the economy. They also consider national security an important issue. By making some changes to our immigration system, Congress can take action now to address the issues Americans care about the most. 

We could open up millions of jobs for unemployed American workers by requiring all U.S. employers to use E-Verify. Last year, the House Judiciary Committee approved a bipartisan bill that does just that, the Legal Workforce Act. 

E-Verify is a Web-based program that quickly identifies illegal immigrants in the workforce and protects jobs for legal workers by checking the Social Security numbers of new hires. The program is free, quick and easy to use. It only takes about a minute to run a newly hired employee through E-Verify and persons eligible to work here are immediately confirmed 99.5 percent of the time. More than 375,000 employers already use E-Verify, and 2,200 new businesses sign up each week. 

Considering its track record, it’s no surprise that a recent poll found 82 percent of Americans surveyed support the expansion of E-Verify. And with 13 million Americans unemployed and 7 million illegal immigrants working here, now is the time to expand this popular program.  

We could also boost job creation and improve our economy by allowing the United States to retain some of the world’s best and brightest foreign graduates of American universities. Foreign students receive nearly 4 out of every 10 master’s degrees awarded in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) fields and about the same percentage of all doctorates. These students have the potential to come up with an invention that could save thousands of lives or jump-start a whole new industry. They also have the ability to start a company that could provide jobs to tens of thousands of American workers. 

Unfortunately, our immigration system does not always put American interests first — we select only 5 percent of our immigrants based on the skills and education they bring to the United States. Our immigration laws should not force the country to forfeit retaining some of the most talented students from around the world. We should make tweaks to our immigration system to allow more of the top foreign graduates of American universities to stay and work here. 

Our immigration system should also better protect our country and citizens from foreign nationals who wish to do us harm. Recent events underscore the need to strengthen and improve visa security; we know terrorists use loopholes and weaknesses in our immigration system to enter the United States. In fact, all of the 9/11 terrorists entered the country legally on visas. And terrorists will continue coming to the United States legally if we do not improve and tighten our visa security process.

The Secure Visas Act, approved by the House Judiciary Committee last year, helps prevent terrorists from obtaining U.S. visas by expanding the number of visa security units overseas to areas designated as “highest risk” for terror threats. Visa security units ensure that thorough background checks are conducted on all visa applicants, not just a select few. The bill also allows U.S. officials to expedite the removal of terrorists who are in the United States on a visa. Visa security is critical to America’s national security. 

The safety of all Americans could be further enhanced by enacting the Keep Our Communities Safe Act that was approved by the House Judiciary Committee last year. This bill is designed to prevent dangerous criminal immigrants from being released into our communities. 

Recent Supreme Court decisions have ruled that under current law, illegal and criminal immigrants cannot be detained for more than six months when they cannot be removed to their home country in the near future. Because some countries refuse to take back their criminal immigrants, federal authorities have had no choice but to release thousands of dangerous criminal immigrants into our neighborhoods. 

Tragically, there have been at least eight preventable deaths because of this loophole. We cannot continue to let dangerous criminal immigrants slip through the cracks of our legal justice system. We have a responsibility to make sure the laws of this land protect Americans rather than endanger them. The Keep Our Communities Safe Act provides a legislative remedy to this problem by allowing dangerous criminal immigrants to be detained beyond six months if they cannot be deported. 

Election Day might be just five months away, but that shouldn’t stop Congress from doing its job now. Congress still has an opportunity to work across party lines and take up immigration bills that will help put Americans back to work and make our country safer. 

Obama, Our Illegal Immigration President

American Thinker by Gayle Kesselman 

We have entered a new era when it comes to illegal immigration.  We can thank the Obama administration.

President Obama recently directed the Department of Homeland Security to cease all efforts to deport individuals between the ages of 16 and 30 who had lived in the United States for 5 years, had come to this country as children, and had either served in the military or graduated high school.  In addition, these individuals will be issued papers enabling them to enter the job market and look for work.

Naturally, President Obama justified this action as "the right thing to do for the American people."  But is that true?  Is it the right thing to do for millions of our own American young people, some of whom are graduating college with five- or six-figure student loan debt, and who cannot find work?  Is it the right thing to do for those in the African-American and Latino-American communities, where unemployment is even higher than the national average of 8.2 percent?

Naturally, one could answer that the 800,000 individuals who would be getting working papers is a relatively small number and would not seriously impact the labor market as a whole.  However, put another way, President Obama may as well have issued an invitation to under-30 foreigners from all over the world to enter our country and look for work and/or mayhem.

The fact is that there is no realistic way to verify the conditions of this program.  How will the applicants prove that they have lived here for five years?  With an electric bill?  Or a rent receipt?

One imagines a harried government worker, advised not to "create trouble" with embarrassing questions, stamping the documents he is given robotically, all the while praying that he is not the one to give the go-ahead to some lunatic who wants to blow up the new Freedom Tower.

President Obama's response to the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision on Arizona's SB 1070 also shows that we have turned the page on the past.

In 1996, Congress passed legislation creating Program 287(g), which allows local police to contact the federal government and learn the immigration status of those individuals who are detained in the course of routine police work.  But now, apparently in a fit of anger over the Supreme Court's upholding the key section of SB 1070, the Obama administration has unilaterally canceled its participation in Program 287(g) and said it will not even answer calls from Arizona police.  

Furthermore, as if to throw salt in the wound, the administration created a 24/7 hotline for people to use to report civil rights complaints if any Arizona policemen has the temerity to ask any detainee about his or her citizenship status.

There was a time not too long ago when we could blame greedy employers looking for cheap labor for 12 million illegal immigrants living in our country.  Politicians could be given somewhat of a pass as they turned a blind eye to the situation or claimed that they were powerless to do anything about it.

Now all that is past.  By his actions over the past weeks, we have seen President Obama become a powerful advocate for illegal immigration.  We can truly say that he has become our illegal immigration president.

Program Combats Root Cause of Illegal U.S. Immigration

By David W. Caulkett | June 1, 2012

David W. Caulkett is vice president of Floridians for Immigration Enforcement says E-Verify Combats the root cause of illegal immigration.

Illegal immigration is but one of the serious U.S. problems that seemingly defy resolution. Illegal immigration's broad reach negatively impacts many problem areas including debt, education and unemployment — all contributing to the frightening decline of our middle class.
Along with enforcing a slew of unenforced immigration laws, an effective method to combat illegal immigration is E-Verify. E-Verify is a popular, effective and highly accurate federal program to verify employment eligibility of new hires.

E-Verify has been effective at reducing illegal immigration because it addresses the job magnet — which is the root cause of illegal immigration. Because the federal government has failed so miserably at enforcing employment eligibility, many states have utilized E-Verify at the state level. Enhanced document security should supplement E-Verify.

Opposition comes mainly from extremely well-funded business groups such as the Florida Chamber of Commerce, Associated Industries of Florida, and agricultural interests that have the resources to concoct and promote a large number of false claims.

Their false claims are easily refuted:

Opponents claim E-Verify is not accurate, but 98.3 percent of employees are automatically confirmed as authorized to work.

Opponents claim E-Verify is a massive new burden on employers, but E-Verify is but an incremental enhancement that uses electronic technology rather than an antiquated paper process, so there is only a minor burden.

Opponents claim E-Verify is difficult to use, but E-Verify has the highest customer-satisfaction rating of any federal program (82 percent), and a customer-support approval of 89 percent.

Opponents claim E-Verify is fundamentally flawed. This allegation relates to the major problem of document security that has existed for decades because our federal government has allowed counterfeit documents to proliferate unabated. While Floridians for Immigration Enforcement and others acknowledge the possibility that E-Verify can be circumvented by fraudulent documents, it's certainly not the only arena where fraudulent documentation is a concern. An E-Verify photo-matching capability is planned that will go a long way in addressing the issue of counterfeit documents; however, our government must comprehensively address document security as a national-security issue.

Agricultural interests claim migrant farm workers are the only source of labor, without which food prices would be exorbitant. Agricultural interests for many decades have exploited farm workers in many ways including wage theft, intolerably overcrowded housing, and unsafe working conditions such as unsafe pesticide application. All the while, the social costs are passed on to taxpayers at state and local levels. If exploited agricultural workers received a fair wage, the increased cost to the American family would be a mere $9 a year. This is because harvesting wages account for a very small portion of retail prices.

E-Verify is the best possible long-term solution for Florida, and it far outweighs the unacceptable status quo of the huge negative consequences of illegal hiring.

This is not a complicated issue; it's about the rule of law. You decide:

Is it right that the interests of greedy law-breaking businesses trump law-abiding citizens and legal employers?

Broken Immigration, Broken Education

By Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh February 1, 2012

Our broken education system and the immigration without integration issues were brought to the forefront once more in the recent fight of a woman in Arizona who wishes to run for a city council seat.

According to the Phoenix Sun, Cabrera does not speak proficient English and uses an interpreter to communicate, in spite of the fact that she is a graduate of Kofa High School in Yuma.

She acknowledges her English skills are limited but, in an area where Spanish is the predominant language, it is not necessary to speak English in order to serve the population’s interests.  This statement begs the question, who is going to represent the interests of the American citizens who are here lawfully and do speak English? In addition, why did she receive a high school diploma from an accredited high school if she does not speak English?

Social promotion in our schools on any level is wrong, yet liberal academics have been pushing this issue for many years, diluting the quality of graduates to the point that some are unable to read, write, or do simple arithmetic.

“State law requires elected officials to know English, but Cabrera’s attorneys claim the law does not define proficiency in the language.” (Phoenix Sun).

A socio-linguist expert, who administered three tests to Cabrera, an English-speaking skills test, a reading skills test, and an English comprehension test, deemed her unable to answer questions in English.

“Cabrera’s lawyers said the action against their client was politically motivated.” Whatever the claim, the fact remains that, as a member of the council, she would be unable to serve her English speaking constituents without the help of an interpreter. Taxpayer dollars would have to provide her with an interpreter on a daily basis and such services are expensive.

Liberals love to defend and hinder assimilation into this country in spite of ample evidence from the failed and disastrous European model of allowing immigrants to bring their countries, their customs, and their language with them into self-isolating ghettoes.

President Merkel of Germany and President Sarkozy of France have admitted in separate statements that multiculturalism is a failure in Europe, socially, economically, and politically, and it is not sustainable. “The hostility of young minority men toward authority across communities in Europe” has escalated, the deep-seated antipathy leading to frequent and deadly violence.

Socioeconomic as well as linguistic integration are necessary for a group to progress and thrive within the same borders. Expecting the local population to provide expensive translators to a subculture that refuses to learn the language of the land is detrimental to both groups, preventing inclusion and economic success.

The Roman Empire had established Latin as the administrative language of the conquered lands. They viewed communication as an important ingredient of economic success and governance. Many tribes reluctantly accepted Latin but transformed it to suit their native languages and dialects. The result was the six Latin-based romance languages that are spoken today:  French, Italian, Spanish, Romanian, Portuguese, and Romansh. Romansh is spoken in a particular canton in Switzerland.

Interestingly, although the Roman Empire disappeared in the West in 476 A.D., scholars across Europe had used Latin for centuries afterwards to promote writing and learning, while the Catholic Church published documents in Latin and used it ceremonially.

Alfred the Great (849-899), the only Anglo-Saxon scholar king that we know could read and write, was convinced that learning was the key to a better life for all. He commissioned the translation of instructive books from Latin to English. It is interesting to note, although English is a Germanic language, 51 percent of its vocabulary comes from Latin. The Roman Empire disappeared long time ago but its language lives on.

I do not know the status of every person who does not speak English in this country, whether they are here legally or illegally. A significant portion of the 10.8 million illegal immigrants inside the United States entered with a valid visa and stayed after their visas expired. A large percentage hides within enclaves and never learns English, depriving themselves of better social and economic opportunities.

Furthermore, the current administration, by suing various states who passed legislation to enforce immigration laws, is giving the signal that entering the U.S. illegally and staying indefinitely will not be penalized but rewarded through stealth amnesty. When our economy will improve, we will see more illegal immigration since economic need is the primary reason for illegal immigration from Latin America.

A guest worker program would help establish a respect for the rule of law and fill the employers’ needs for seasonal workers. The Bracero Program (bracero means strong-arm in Spanish), a series of laws and diplomatic agreements with Mexico instituted by FDR in1942, worked well until 1964 when it was canceled.

Visa programs for temporary or seasonal agricultural workers should be streamlined. E-Verify system and Self Check to correct errors and issues should be encouraged.

Amnesty granted to 3 million illegal immigrants in 1986 made the situation much worse, encouraging a new wave of illegal immigration. President Reagan admitted the failure.

If the economic situation of a country is good, there is no need to migrate illegally to the U.S. We do not see many Chileans here because their economy is good compared to other Latin American countries. Thus promoting economic development and good governance in Latin America would go a long way to stem illegal immigration.

According to the Heritage Foundation, the “push-pull effect caused by the combination of slow economic growth in Latin America and the need for workers in the United States” is a large contributor to illegal immigration.

No matter how we view or present the legal and illegal immigration issues, the facts and statistics show the burden on the U.S. economy:

• 400,000 illegal immigrant women give birth to “anchor-babies” who become automatic U.S. citizens
• One in every four inmates in federal prisons is an illegal immigrant (U.S. Government Accountability Office)
• 50-60 percent illegal immigrants are high school dropouts (Heritage Foundation)
• Illegal immigrants come from Mexico (58 percent), Latin America (23 percent), Asia, Europe, and Africa (18 percent)

A controversial proposal to grant illegal immigrant students in-state tuition passed in twelve states as of July 2011. As this law attempts to improve and address the education of illegal immigrants, opposing groups highlight the fact that their parents have broken the law in crossing the border illegally and are thus not entitled to same rights as American citizens. The controversy is not likely to diminish, particularly when generations of “anchor-babies” turn eighteen and demand family integration and full rights as American citizens.

We Need More Like Representative Randy Forbes (R-Va)

Forbes: America's foundation holds her steady

By: J. RANDY FORBES | Times-Dispatch  April 08, 2012

Updated: April 08, 2012 - 12:00 AMJ. Randy Forbes represents Virginia's 4th District in the U.S. House of Representatives. Contact him through his website, http://www.forbes.house.gov/.

Americans are not giving up. Even in the face of economic challenges and a polarized government, there remains a hope for an optimistic future. I hear it in the voices of men and women who ask me if the future of America is positive. I see it in the members of our youngest generation who look at me with earnestness, continuing to believe that the opportunities before them are endless.

Why are Americans so tenacious? Why do we refuse to accept a future that is anything but better than where we are today? Because we know we stand on something that is worth fighting for.

Two-hundred thirty-five years ago, our Founding Fathers had a vision for a nation free from the tyranny of England. They had no reasonable expectation of success, and they were unsure what the new world would look like — they had only a dream. And out of that dream — despite the overwhelming chance of failure, of personal ruin, of death — they built a revolution. They built America.

When they built our nation, they placed her on four foundational pillars that hold our nation steady. These core pillars are unique because they find strength in each other. Together, they build a product that is stronger than any one on its own. They are wholly dependent upon each other, and chipping away at one is to weaken the others.

These four pillars are the exceptional combination of economic freedom, respect for the rule of law, dedication to a well-guarded peace, and commitment to a freedom of faith. Most Americans understand to a very personal degree what each of these pillars means, because they are built into our daily lives and rooted deep beyond a surface level.

Therefore, economic freedom is more than just a thriving housing market or low interest rates — it is the degree to which our government empowers ordinary people to achieve their highest aspirations. When Americans see government leaders spending away our future, increasing its involvement in individual pocketbooks, regulating businesses or hindering global competition, they know a pillar is being weakened. Our nation was built on the premise that we are the "land of the free." Economic freedom is not separate from that premise, and Americans refuse to accept otherwise. We must empower businesses to create jobs. We must increase competitiveness for U.S. manufacturing. We must pay down America's unsustainable debt burden.

Respect for the rule of law is far greater than appointing the right judges to the bench. It is about protecting a set of rights that are anchored in our Constitution and birthed by concepts in the Declaration of Independence. When we hear the secretary of defense say we need international permission to go to war or see Supreme Court justices using foreign law as a basis of decisions in the United States, it feels strongly like abandoning the rule of law. What is at stake? Our very rights as Americans. We must renew our commitment to the Constitution.

Americans understand that casing our defense budget is the dedication to a well-guarded peace. Our Founding Fathers knew that our freedoms were so precious that they were worth protecting and worth defending. They also knew, as we know today, that one of the realities of having these freedoms is that there will always be individuals who want to rob them from us. We would be foolish to place our national defense second. We must fight for a strong defense, because it creates a strong America.

Americans know that a commitment to faith is about something deeper than the right to pray or recite the Pledge of Allegiance in classrooms. It is about a set of rights, endowed by the Creator, that cannot be taken away from us. It is about being created one nation, under God. These foundations lay the bedrock of liberty and freedom upon which we stand. To chip away at the freedom of faith is to break the very core of who we are as a nation. We must reaffirm and protect the freedom of faith that defines our nation.

Americans are tenacious because there is too much at stake. To this day, no other nation in the world has matched the level of America's greatness. Our nation didn't just happen. Our principles are different from the rest of the world's. We have inherited a nation worth fighting for, and it isn't government that will sustain us. It is our people — our tenacious people — because the pillars of America are collectively rooted in the rights of the individual.

Bordering on Sense

By The Editors www.nationalreview.com

Arizona and other states suffering from out-of-control illegal immigration won an important if partial victory in the Supreme Court today. In a rebuke of the Obama administration, all eight justices (Elena Kagan recused herself) upheld Arizona’s requirement that police officers determine the immigration status of anyone they stop, detain, or arrest if a “reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien unlawfully present in the United States.” This was the provision relentlessly attacked by President Obama, who has now made it abundantly clear that strong immigration enforcement is not the top item on his agenda.

The Court threw out three other provisions of SB 1070, including one that made it a misdemeanor for an unauthorized alien to seek work in Arizona. But taken in perspective, these aren’t critical to the effectiveness of Arizona’s law.

Last year, in U.S. Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting, another big loss for the Obama administration, the Supreme Court upheld Arizona’s requirement that employers use the E-Verify system before hiring new employees — and affirmed the state’s authority to yank the business license of any employers that knowingly hire illegal aliens. Mandatory E-Verify will be much more effective in preventing illegal employment than Arizona’s threatened misdemeanor charge.

The majority of the provisions of SB 1070 are now good law. The Obama administration didn’t even challenge almost a dozen parts of the law, such as one that makes it a crime to stop a motor vehicle to pick up day laborers. The administration lost in the district court on its challenge to other provisions, such as one that allows the impoundment of vehicles used in transporting illegal aliens.

But as noted, this is only a partial victory. For example, in upholding the core provision of the law, the justices read it narrowly and left the door open to challenges to the way it is enforced. Also, Justices Scalia and Thomas got it right when they argued in their dissents that all four provisions of SB 1070 should have been upheld. There is no conflict between federal immigration law and SB 1070.

As Scalia notes, Arizona has “moved to protect its sovereignty — not in contradiction of federal law, but in complete compliance with it.” Arizona’s laws do “not extend or revise federal immigration restrictions, but merely enforce those restrictions more effectively.”

As Scalia scathingly concludes, “If securing its territory in this fashion is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign State.” There is a reason we have 50 states instead of one, and the states are not mere administrative subdivisions of the federal government.

Each has its own powers and its own interests, a fact that is of particularly acute interest when the federal government is failing to meet one of its fundamental responsibilities, which is precisely what is happening with illegal immigration.

Today’s decision, coupled with Whiting, ensures that states now have the tools they need not only to identify illegal aliens and prosecute those who smuggle and transport them but also to make it difficult for them to find employment. It also certifies that the states are to remain in a deeply subordinate role on immigration, which is unfortunate:

If the Obama administration were half so energetic in enforcing federal law as it is in undermining state laws, Arizona’s efforts would be superfluous. But that is not so, and on the issue of immigration the states remain dependent upon a federal government that is not to be depended on.

The Zetas now Mexico's largest drug gang. Who are they?

According to Mexican authorities, the Zetas have become the biggest drug trafficking organization in Mexico. A recent report from Stratfor, based on data from Mexico's attorney general's office, says the group now operates in 17 states, surpassing the geographical sway of the once-dominant Sinaloa Federation.

1. The origins of the Zetas

The Zetas are former elite military members who deserted the army and began serving as the armed wing of the Gulf Cartel in the 1990s. But when those two groups split in early 2010, the Zetas became their own organization, rising today to become one of two dominant players in the drug trade in Mexico. They control much of the east of the country, while their rivals, the Sinaloa Federation, control the west. The Zetas received international attention in Sept. 2011, after 35 corpses were left on a busy roadside during rush hour in the port of Veracruz.  The so-called "Zeta-killers," a group of hooded men who appeared on YouTube claiming that society was fed up with the brutal tactics of the Zetas, claimed responsibility.

2. Why you may have heard of them before

If a sensational attack in Mexico makes US news, chances are the Zetas are the suspects. One of the worst events in Mexican President Felipe Calderon’s five-year strategy against drug trafficking organizations was the arson attack at a casino in Monterrey in August of 2011. Some 52 people were trapped inside and killed, many of them middle aged women. The previous year, 72 migrants mostly from Central America were found killed en masse in the northern state of Tamaulipas, allegedly hauled off buses and killed after refusing to work for the Zetas. They are suspected in the shooting death of a US immigration agent in Mexico last year, as well.

3. Why do Mexicans care?

Drug trafficking organizations have different reputations among Mexican society. There are often regional alliances, and some are even supported for their “good deeds,” like paying for church renovations or paving roads. But the Zetas are widely feared and detested in Mexico. They resort to targeting not just rivals but regular folks, extorting small business owners and kidnapping middle class citizens to line their pockets. The security consulting firm Stratfor notes that the Sinaloa group usually resorts to bribing and paying off officials to achieve its objectives.
“It also frequently provides intelligence to authorities and in doing so uses the authorities as a weapon against rival cartels,” Stratfor notes. “On the other hand, Los Zetas prefer brutality. They can and do resort to bribery, but they lean toward intimidation and violence. Their mode of operation tends to be far less subtle than that of their Sinaloa counterparts, and with a leadership composed of former special operations soldiers, they are quite effective in employing force and fear to achieve their objectives.”

4. How is the government fighting them?

The Mexican government deployed the military to states where the Zetas are active, particularly Veracruz, where violence flared in 2011. But despite the government offensive, which saw the takedown of 17 group leaders as well as their communications network in multiple states, the Zetas have not lost any territorial ground in 2011.  Instead, they have expanded into new states. One reason for their fortitude is their ability to recruit recent army deserters and police officers. Stratfor forecasts that the Zetas and the Sinaloa Federation will remain the two dominant groups this year, and an end to violence might only come with the brokering of an unlikely truce between the two. 

Anomie and Immigration

Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh June 8, 2012

“The purpose of American immigration laws and policies is not to be either humane or inhumane to illegal immigrants. The purpose of immigration laws and policies is to serve the national interest of the country.” (Thomas Sowell, November 29, 2011)

We have had an incremental communist/Islamist/fascistic/environmentalist revolution in the U.S. facilitated by illegal immigration, refusal to accept American values, culture, and language, lack of border protection, the liberal indoctrination of our population in the name of religious tolerance, political correctness as a form of speech control, unions, politicians’ betrayal, and environmentalism.
The tragedy is that nobody paid attention or noticed.

European nations such as France and Germany acknowledged through their respective leaders that the darling liberal philosophy of “multiculturalism” has failed miserably across Europe.

Associate Professor of Political Science Jonathan Laurence at Boston College believes the culprit for the failure of Islamic immigrants’ integration in Europe to be “anomie.” (The New York Times, “How to Integrate Europe’s Muslims,” January 23, 2012)

The dictionary defines “anomie” as a societal instability caused by the erosion and abandonment of moral and social codes. Muslims perceive the absence of a supporting moral and social framework in the country they immigrate to and express their displeasure through a social alienation and feelings of disorientation, which result in violence and hatred.

It is not that young immigrants of Muslim faith hate the infidels. It must be anomie that persuades immigrants to take to the streets, causing violence and burning private property, while calling for the destruction of the very Western culture, which took them in and supported them financially. Western culture is not only ignored and maligned, but also rejected vehemently.

Liberals like to attribute the lack of Muslim integration to right-wing citizens who do not allow Muslims their religious requirements, thus preventing assimilation and creating radicalism. The fact that mosques teach children intolerance and hatred toward Christians, and Christians are killed all over Africa gets lost in the narrative.

Liberals think that Muslims should have “democratic rights” to form associations and participate in political life. Democracy is a lofty goal, however, most Muslim countries do not understand the concept of democracy which is alien to their history. They are totalitarian regimes ruled by seventh century norms of behavior and moral code. Furthermore, Shariah Law is incompatible with western law and our Constitution.

Once a person desires to immigrate to another country, they should abide by the laws in that country, not the Shariah Code of the country they have left. Rejecting the law of the land should have one solution, repatriation of the immigrants to the country of origin where they are free to follow their tribal law.

Nobody prevents Muslims from seeking political office, they certainly have plenty of money to run campaigns and have done so successfully. They can buy businesses, real estate, and land, build mosques, and open their own schools.

A Western nation believes in religious liberty. It has a unifying language, a legal code, and culture that define that country. Excessive tolerance to allow immigrant sub-sets to take over will result in the destruction of the host country and culture.

Liberals are eager to vilify citizen patriots as right-wing extremists and hate mongers when they blame the lack of integration of the large-scale immigrant population, Muslim or Christian, into the host western culture on excessive tolerance.

The immigration influx started in the early seventies, enabled, promoted, and protected by progressives. The fruits of such policies are social unrest, legal and justice duality, all born and sustained by unbridled multiculturalism.

Liberals have turned many European cultures upside down with their excessive tolerance towards immigrants from non-Christian roots, giving them not only basic rights as the local population, but privileges that ordinary citizens do not have but must subsidize through taxation.

At the same time, it is hard to blame Muslims for rejecting a western culture, which is defined by rampant corruption, lawlessness, moral decay, and the trampling of faith and family. However, if they are so incensed by Western cultures, they should have stayed in the countries they left where they were comfortable and happy with their own value system.

Women in western countries have fought hard to gain equal rights with men in the work place, the right to vote, drive cars, go to church alone or with their husbands, express their opinions freely without consulting first with a male family member, go out in public in the garment of their choice, go to the beach in a bikini, and go shopping or on vacation without a male chaperone. Western females are not subjected to the Muslim-style dual daily reality of separate but equal, and the status of a half a person in a court of law.

Islamic theology is incompatible with Western values and particularly our Constitution. Shariah Law should not co-exist within our legal system. Everybody should be equal under the law of a country and appear in front of the same judge not a special theocratic tribal judge.

Everybody should learn the history of the host country, the language, the culture, should respect the Constitution, the flag, the national anthem, and obey the laws. Seeking to establish a world Caliphate and replacing our democratically elected representatives with a theocratic system of government is alien to our culture. Wearing costumes that hide completely the identity of a person is not a western custom. Expecting and demanding special treatment because of religious beliefs is counter-productive to a civil society.

Liberal political correctness has replaced for decades common sense and stifled conservative freedom of speech. Hate speech has now taken the place of political correctness in Britain and soon in the U.S. by adding the punishing teeth of the law. Conservative speech is now deemed inflammatory and resulted in the banning from England of a famous talk show host.

I may be naïve, but in modern times, I cannot imagine a Christian who would censor or object to any worshipper of another God. We welcome anyone who is faithful to the U.S. and swears allegiance to protect it.

I understand Americans who mistrust immigrants who carry allegiance to their former countries and seek to destroy the host country as well as forbid and annihilate any other faith other than their own. Until such time, IN GOD WE TRUST features prominently on our U.S. currency and in any institution that has not been sued by the atheist ACLU to have any mention of God removed from the premises.

While we are busy developing new ways to improve life and alleviate pain and suffering for humanity, “nation building” Iraq and Afghanistan into the democracy they do not want, the Islamists are confident that we will submit to their seventh century theocratic life style and the Caliphate will reign supreme.

While the communist elites want to control us for the “common good,” “social justice,” and the interest of the proletariat by eliminating the middle class, the so-called “bourgeoisie,” the environmentalists on the march are restricting our lives, property, and freedoms into “sustainability” through regulatory doomsday faux predictions, sending us to the stone age by interdicting the use of fossil fuels.