Crime & Extraterritorial Terrorists Threaten the Americas

By Jerry Brewer March 26, 2012    

While a media frenzy continues to report the carnage of gang violence and drug trafficking throughout Mexico and the northern cone of Central America, a menace has grown into full adulthood with terror-like capabilities that can easily overshadow narco-terrorism.  The mismanagement of this rapidly nurtured specter threatens more sinister capabilities and potential intentions to harm the United States and free nations north to the U.S. border.

In July of last year, Roger F. Noriega, former U.S. Ambassador to the Organization of American States (OAS), testified before the House Committee on Homeland Security. In his testimony, Noriega warned of two parallel, collaborative terrorist networks "growing at an alarming rate" in Latin America. One network was described as being operated by "Venezuelan collaborators," and the other "managed by the Qods Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps."

With a ten year history of the southern cone tri-border area of Argentina, Paraguay, and Brazil festering with terrorist groups, smuggling, corrupt officials and organized criminals, it is not surprising that their movements continue north.  The U.S. Treasury Department reported in 2002 that there were "clear examples" of Islamic groups in the region that "finance terrorist activities." 
Why has this threat of escalating criminal acts, as well as the potential for terrorist expansion, gone essentially unchecked?

Hezbollah, labeled an international terrorist organization by the United States, has expanded exponentially throughout Latin America. They finance training camps, funnel large amounts of money to militia leaders in the Middle East, and have been linked to bomb attacks in South America.  The Qods Force and Venezuelan collaborator networks are estimated to encompass "around 80 operatives" in at least 12 countries, with a major focus in Venezuela, Argentina, Brazil, and Chile.

President Barack Obama made his first trip to South and Central America in 2011.  His perceived limited attention to Latin America prompted a statement accusing the government of Venezuela of threatening "basic democratic values."  Too, his remarks on Iran and Cuba were that those two countries do not "serve the interests of [their] people."

It is no secret that the threat dilemma is far worse, and demands much more attention and collaboration with U.S. allies within the hemisphere.  Venezuela President Hugo Chavez has facilitated Iran's strategic presence in Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Cuba and Nicaragua.

There is also a growing Iranian influence in Central America and Mexico.  And there is a concern that the aforementioned leftist governments could possibly thrive in a mutually beneficial, symbiotic relationship. The Central Intelligence Agency has consistently listed the Mexican border as an "especially inviting target for Hezbollah operatives."

Iranian and Hezbollah footprints on Venezuelan soil must be a top concern for the U.S. government and the intelligence community.  Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Venezuela's Chavez have made their hatred for the U.S. commonly known.  What is obviously missing in interpretation of the term threat within Latin America itself is the fact that Chavez and Ahmadinejad have not been linked to statements professing hate for any other western hemisphere nation.

Ahmadinejad's visit to Venezuela in January was believed to be an intention to solidify Iran's interests in Latin America as "Chávez loses ground in his fight with cancer." Iran's relationship with Cuba, Russia and China must raise eyebrows as to Venezuela's future with or without Hugo Chavez.

Radical Islamic groups in Venezuela, and on its Margarita Island, possess unprecedented capabilities to threaten neighbors and the United States. U.S. Vice President Joe Biden announced recently that such fears were overblown. "People talk about Hezbollah. They talk about Iranian support for weapons and the rest. I guarantee you, Iran will not be able to pose a hemispheric threat to the United States," he said.

James R. Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, in recent testimony stated "Iranian officials" at the highest levels "are now more willing to conduct an attack in the United States."

It appears that the U.S. intelligence community and the White House could possibly be at odds on the correct assessment and transnational multifaceted nature of the problems.

Venezuela's Margarita Island is reported to currently be the principal safe haven and center of Hezbollah operations in the Americas. "Chávez's most trusted security officials -- from senior to operational levels -- have provided material support to Hezbollah."  There are secret tunnels on the island with arms deposits and used by paramilitary groups in training.  The prevalent area is located on the remote peninsula of Macanao. Reports "link the presence of originating people of the Middle East in these locations." Portions of the island have restricted fly zones.

Cuba's previous dual-use biotechnology to rogue states must also be a concern.  Reports have described Castro's bio warfare labs in detail and "believe he has moved some to Venezuela."

Neutralizing and dismantling viable threats in the Americas must remain a top priority for the U.S. and its neighbors.

Jerry Brewer is C.E.O. of Criminal Justice International Associates, a global threat mitigation firm headquartered in northern Virginia.  His website is located at http://www.cjiausa.org/.

Letter sent to Utah Senate Leader Michael Waddoups.

Dear Michael,

As we review the past legislative session and consider the happenings we
start to understand them a little better, but we also have cause to wonder

about some of the things that are more difficult to understand, like what

didn't happen.

I find it very disappointing that nothing was done about the very evident

problem of illegal immigration.  The impacts to our citizens remain ongoing,

the problems with employing illegal aliens continue and identity theft goes on.

I think that the original adoption of the Commission on Immigration was
a mistake and a miss carriage, and further, the appointments to its
membership constituted a very one-sided and biased action.  It was
further a slap in the face to find that two of the few advocates of the
citizen's side that were appointed as members were not allowed to
participate in the meetings.

As a friend and former colleague, it is my opinion it was a breach of
trust for you to be the one who made the motion that the commission
petition the legislature to keep all immigration bills locked up without
being aired during the entire session especially when myself and others
who had previously met with you on more than one occasion, came away
with the confidence that you would help to see that our bill(s) would at
least be aired and treated fairly.

Again it is my opinion that it was a broken trust to the citizen taxpayers of

the state of Utah, several legislators who worked tirelessly on bills aimed

at solving the many problems felt by their constituents,  and to the hundreds

of individuals, for you and Speaker Lockhart to accept that petition on the

part of the legislature.

I was very sorry to see that so much influence from sources other than
constituents and citizens weighed so heavily on your decision to keep
one of the highly important issues that keeps screaming for solutions, to
remain bottled up.

It certainly looks like Utah will retain its 'sanctuary' status among the

western states and our value of citizenship will continually diminish.

Sincerely,

Bill Barton, Former Utah State Senator

Study the Links in This Message

Obama’s Open-Borders Triumph

By Jacob Laksin February 20, 2012  In Daily Mailer,FrontPage

Mitt Romney was ridiculed recently for proposing “self-deportation” as a way to reduce illegal immigration, but at least he was trying to address the problem. The same cannot be said for the Obama administration, which has seen a Bush-era trend toward declining illegal immigration come to an abrupt halt on its watch.

In a new set of findings, the Center for Immigration Studies estimates that the U.S. illegal immigrant population stands at 10.9 million, plus or minus 200,000. If accurate, that would mean that illegal immigration stopped declining under Obama after falling by over 1 million in the final two years of the Bush administration. It’s not so much immigration reform as immigration reversal.

There are several reasons for the negative change. In a bid to court Hispanic voters, Obama has repeatedly signaled that he will accommodate rather than crack down on illegal immigration. This January, for instance, the administration moved, over Republican objections, to reduce the amount of time that illegal immigrants separated from family members in the U.S. will have to spend out of the country before reapplying for legal status. Under current law, illegal immigrants are barred from returning for a minimum of three years. But under the revised rules, they can claim that their absence would pose a hardship for their family and ask the Department of Homeland Security to waive the re-entry restrictions. However well-intentioned, the revised policy sends the message that the administration is not serious about reducing illegal immigration.

Reinforcing that message is the administration’s policy of “prosecutorial discretion,” which allows most illegal immigrants without a criminal record to remain in the country. The administration announced last summer that it would indefinitely delay deporting illegal immigrants without criminal records and give them a chance to apply for a work permit. As critics were quick to note, this amounted to a de facto amnesty for illegal immigrants. In drawing the distinction between illegal immigrants with and without criminal records, the administration obscured the fact that being in the country illegally was itself a crime, and thus thwarted the enforcement of immigration laws.

When the administration has paid lip service to enforcement, its actions have not matched its rhetoric. Obama has maintained that his administration has done its part to curb illegal immigration by providing federal funding for border fencing and security. Yet the evidence suggests that the administration has not really delivered. The Government Accountability Office noted in 2011 that Border Patrol had full control over only 15 percent of the border with Mexico. Of the nearly 2,000 miles separating the U.S. and Mexico, 873 – or 44 percent – are under only under the “operational control” rather than the full control of the Border Patrol. The broad majority of the border remains unsecured.
That seems unlikely to change. Even though border security remains far from comprehensive, Obama has mocked Republicans for calling for increased enforcement and resources, even cracking that they will not be satisfied unless there is a moat with alligators on the border. In reality, Republicans are asking only for more meaningful enforcement.

Most glaringly, the administration has repeatedly and aggressively frustrated individual states’ attempts to make up for the federal government’s failures of enforcement by making their own efforts to get illegal immigration under control. Undoubtedly the prime example, symbolized by last month’s tense tarmac standoff between Obama and Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, is the administration’s attempt to overturn Arizona’s 2009 law making illegal immigration a crime and permitting police to check immigration status. Assailed by Obama and challenged by the Justice Department, the law has now been taken up by the Supreme Court. In the meantime, a state that has suffered more than most from the effects of illegal immigration – illegal immigration has cost Arizona taxpayers more than $2.7 billion since 2009 – has been forced into legal limbo.

But while the Obama administration’s attempts to block meaningful enforcement may appease select constituencies, they are increasingly out of step with the public’s priorities. Polls have consistently shown that Americans favor tougher measures against illegal immigration, which explains why Arizona’s law has enjoyed the backing of a solid majority of the public even as it has been denounced by the administration. That holds true even in solidly liberal bastions like Massachusetts, where 67 percent of residents believe that illegal immigration harms their state.

Illegal immigration may not be the central issue of the 2012 campaign, but it does present the Republican candidates with an opportunity to draw a clear contrast with the incumbent. Whatever one’s view of Mitt Romney’s proposal, one thing is clear: Those hoping for a more assertive federal enforcement effort won’t get it under the current president.

When will The Sun realize illegal immigration is a crime?

March 2, 2012

On Sunday The Sun carried a rather extensive article concerning illegal immigration ("Immigrants, city fear divide over status checks," Feb. 25). Throughout the article you actually quoted several illegal aliens as they commented on their plight.

Interestingly enough the writers talked about the crime being a minor one, and some of the people they interviewed didn't even consider what they did was a crime. However in all the cases the words used by the illegal aliens were, "afraid of being caught." They were worried about being stopped and not being able to produce proper documentation because they were here illegally.

They know that they are breaking the law but feel like it is not for them to follow this law. How convenient for them, maybe all of us should do the same. If we feel like the law is more of a nuisance then just ignore it. And if our legislators also believe this way, then why even enact these laws? Take them off the books.

One person, a grandfather who had numerous grandchildren, was stopped for a driving infraction and could not produce a driver's license or proof of insurance. Now he was concerned about being deported and then not seeing his grandchildren who were citizens by virtue of their being born here but to illegal alien parents.

This person then uses the justification that he had never been in trouble before. But he broke, federal law by coming into this country illegally, and he broke Maryland by driving without a valid license and also not having any insurance.

A citizen found to have broken the same state laws is in for a world of grief. Others are obeying the state laws and paying for their licenses and for insurance, plus more to cover uninsured drivers, like this illegal.

The taxes we pay are not enough. Now we are being told that we should also want to be paying for people in this country illegally because they have been here for years with no problems recorded, and driving with no insurance.

I guess the police should not bother arresting a felon who after breaking out of prison has not been caught committing another crime, so he should not be prosecuted.

This is not ethical government.

August J. Nicastro, Forest Hill

Michael Coley Has it Right!

Immigrants making no effort to assimilate into U.S. culture

March 6, 2012

In the news recently are the illegal immigration laws of Georgia, being challenged in court.

Having lived in Texas for the past 20 years and in downtown Houston for the past 10 (and now in Fayette County), let me tell you about the affects of illegal immigration and why Georgians should all be following the law’s progress through the courts.

Pockets of immigrants in a city, has always been a factor of immigration, acting as a transitional zone for the newcomers into American society.

In the past, this was not a problem. The immigrants had no choice but to learn English to function in American society. But these pockets in Houston have grown so numerous that entire areas are now strictly Spanish-speaking.

There is no longer an eagerness or willingness to learn English and transition into American society. And why should they, when all the radio and TV stations, newspapers, government services are in Spanish? In many areas, one cannot obtain a job without knowing Spanish.

Bilingualism is great for an individual but creates a Tower of Babel for neighbors, a neighborhood, city, county, state and a nation.

In the public schools in Houston that our son attended, the PTA meetings were held in Spanish first, then English. The parents could not talk to each other in order to form a community because more than half did not speak English. But yet the parents made no attempt to enroll in English classes.
I can see this happening to the Fayette County School system.

An entire shopping mall area, once called Sharps Town Mall, is now called PlazAmericas and all the outside signs and advertisements and stores are in Spanish. I can see this happening to the Pavilion in 20 years, being renamed La Pavilion.

And how did all this take off? A little known Executive Order past in August 2000 by Bill Clinton made it mandatory that any entity receiving government funds, including public schools, must offer bilingualism if a certain number of people speak a different language.

So goes the government, and so goes the businesses.

So what can the citizens of Fayette County do? On a macro level, support the new immigration laws that Georgia passed. Since Obama has made it a point to sue states like Arizona, and go after Alabama and Georgia, and he has said make sure your children speak Spanish, vote this administration out.

Also, we must make sure the cities within Fayette County pass laws which make it mandatory that any company doing city business must use E-Verify, make sure their workers are legal and do all business in English.

On a micro level, do not hire illegal aliens to do your yard work, and refuse businesses who hire illegal aliens. If you hire a roofing company, make sure the company understands you do not want illegal aliens doing the work.

Are you really saving that much money when you consider that your money is supporting illegal aliens staying in Georgia and receiving tax-dollar, free schooling, medical and housing?

And all those menial jobs? Offer descent wages and Americans will do those jobs.

Right now, the Fayette County School system has a low number of illegal alien children. Granted, this is no fault of the children; that’s the parent’s choice and responsibility. But if continued, it will be all of the citizens of Fayette County’s responsibility.

Michael Coley, Fayetteville, Ga.

Illegal Aliens, Terrorists and the Left

By John Hull | Yahoo! Contributor Network Feb 19, 2012

COMMENTARY | A 29-year-old illegal alien was arrested by an FBI task force Friday after plotting a suicide bombing at the Capitol building.

Amine El Khalifi, a Moroccan illegally in the U.S., as reported by CNS News, thought he was working with al-Qaida when he approached the Capitol with an inoperable gun and dummy explosives on a vest. Khalifi reportedly wanted a body count of at least 30 people.

Khalifi is a prime example of why America needs to take a strong stand on immigration enforcement, starting with securing the southern border. Khalifi is one of the 38 percent of illegal aliens classified by the Department of Homeland Security as OTM (Other Than Mexican) entering the U.S. due to the deliberate inaction of the government.

Democrats, who benefit from the influx of illegals, fight to maintain a porous border, while Republicans back down obediently, fearing the wrath of the left-leaning media.

In the meantime, the drain on American resources to support those here illegally costs tax payers billions of dollars annually, $600 million in Los Angeles County alone in 2010, as reported by Fox News.

Democrats are contributing to the financial problems facing the middle class they claim to represent by supporting the illegal invasion. Not only does it cost the middle class more in taxes to support the welfare rolls, but also services such as medical care to compensate for illegals who don't pay and auto insurance costs because of illegals who have no insurance and crash. These are but a few of the added costs paid by the middle class who are growing increasingly less and less wealthy due to left wing policies.

Knowing people are unlikely to bite the hand that feeds them, Democrats, through their policies, are increasing the welfare rolls which is taking a toll on state budgets, as shown by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Working to legalize millions of aliens on welfare would mean a dramatic increase in voting Democrats.

Top Democrats such as Nancy Pelosi take their support of illegals personally. Pelosi employed illegal aliens at her vineyard, as reported by the American Thinker. Speaking of Pelosi's vineyard and the middle class, did I mention it is a nonunion winery? But I digress.

There has been a sharp increase in domestic terrorism since the Democrats took control of the government in January 2007. Coincidentally, the economic downturn soon followed.

The DHS released a report in 2010 citing, "The number and pace of attempted attacks against the United States over the past nine months have surpassed the number of attempts during any other previous one-year period," as reported by Chicago Press Release Service.

Some loyal left wing drone will no doubt cite the Obama administration's claims that fewer illegals are crossing the border than before. This is because there are no jobs under this administration.

With President Barack Obama killing projects like the oil pipeline and raising taxes and regulations on employers, this trend is likely to continue.

Another Outstanding Victor Davis Hanson Commentary

 

Please, a little honesty about illegal immigration

Victor Davis Hanson Tribune Media Services February 16, 2012

President Barack Obama recently assured El Salvador that the United States would not deport more 200,000 Salvadorans residing illegally in the United States. As the election nears, and the president looks to court Hispanic voters, he also created a new position of "public advocate" for illegal immigrants. His duties would appear to be to advocate that millions circumvent, rather than follow, current federal law.

The administration has also said it will focus enforcement only on those who have committed crimes -- with the implicit understanding that it is no longer a crime to illegally enter and reside in the United States. In contrast, Obama has caricatured those supporting completion of a fence on the border as wanting to place alligators in the Rio Grande.

It is time that Americans revisit the issue and ponder very carefully the morality of entering the United States illegally.

True, American employers have welcomed in illegal aliens as a source of cheap labor. Employers were happy to pass the ensuing social costs on to taxpayers. To summarily deport those who have resided here for 20 years, obeyed the law, worked hard, stayed off public assistance and are now willing to pay a fine, demonstrate English proficiency and pass a citizenship test would be impracticable, callous and counterproductive.

Most, however, probably do not fit those reasonable criteria.

More importantly, we forget that the influx of millions of illegal aliens unfairly undercuts the wages of the working American poor, especially in times of high unemployment.

Crossing the border was also hardly a one-time "infraction." It was the beginning of serial unethical behavior, as illegal aliens on everyday forms and affidavits were not truthful about their immigration status.

The legal process of immigrating to America was reduced to a free-for-all rush to the border. Million of applicants abroad wait patiently, if not naively, in line to have their education, skills and capital resources evaluated. But they are punished with delay or rejection because they alone follow immigration law.

Billions of dollars in state and federal social services do not just help provide parity to illegal aliens, but also free them to send back about $50 billion in remittances to Latin America each year. That staggering sum also suggests that Mexico and other Latin American governments, as an element of national policy, quite cynically export human capital to gain U.S. dollars, rather than make the necessary economical, social and political reforms to keep their own at home.

Nor is it very liberal to turn illegal immigration into an issue of identity and tribal politics. Too many advocates for open borders and amnesty argue about the politics of ethnic solidarity rather than considerations of immigration law. In other words, we do not hear much national outrage over the plight of the occasional Pole, Nigerian or Korean who overstays his tourist visa, but rather equate the circumvention of immigration law almost exclusively with social justice for Latinos.

How reactionary and illiberal that debate has become, when Mexican Americans who object to the undermining of immigration law are slandered as sellouts, while non-Hispanics who do the same are smeared as racists and nativists.

In fact, illegal immigration unfairly warped perceptions of undeniable Hispanic success. If one does not include millions of recently arrived poor Latin American foreign nationals in federal and state surveys, then Hispanic American citizens prove statistically to be assimilating, intermarrying, integrating, and finding economic success at rates comparable to many other immigrant groups of the past.

To mean anything, laws have to be followed. When newcomers choose to ignore them, then the entire structure of jurisprudence crashes as well. If aliens are free to ignore federal immigration law, then cannot citizens likewise pick and choose which statutes they find inconvenient?

Finally, illegal immigration has wrongly been couched in terms of a xenophobic and insensitive exploiter preying on a more noble and defenseless guest. In truth, the United States is the most generous host in the world, and never more so than during the present age.

There are now about 40 million foreign-born people residing in the United States, both legal and illegal immigrants. That is both the greatest absolute number and percentage of the population in our nation's history. No other country in the world is more liberal in its legal immigration policies or has been more caring toward new arrivals. To suggest otherwise is dishonest and shows an ignorance of how most countries, who now export their citizens to the U.S., treat any who would do the same to them.

We can argue about the history or the future of illegal immigration. But please spare us the psychodramatic appeals to a higher morality.

In most regards, illegal immigration has proven as immoral as it is unlawful.

(Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and the author of the just-released "The End of Sparta." You can reach him by e-mailing author@victorhanson.com.)

John Morley Has it Right!

America's Unemployment Problem is, Really an Immigration Problem

February 13, 2012

Part of the unemployment problem we are suffering in America is a result of illegal aliens taking jobs for any wage that is offered. Illegal aliens are not just working on farms or in kitchens. I have firsthand knowledge of illegal aliens working on assembly lines of subsidiaries of high-tech companies, including defense-industry companies.

Illegal aliens have also become the majority workforce in every construction trade from carpenters to sprinkler fitters. Every morning, beginning at 4:50, a van stops at the corner of my street to pick up workers. Every 10 minutes thereafter, until 7 a.m., a new van stops. The workers are always Spanish or Asian. Illegal construction workers gather at Home Depot early every morning.

American unemployment compels us to revisit the issue of illegal immigration. The federal government has taken no discernible or significant action to deport illegal aliens.

States, however, can take action. Just as we can solve equations with components of unknown quantities, state laws can be written that end the employment of illegal aliens without conflicting with federal policy and actions, or, more accurately, federal omissions.

States could require every person working in construction or a factory to take a simple test related to job-site safety. The only requisite would be English literacy. I have passed every OSHA test required in my industry without ever opening a federal regulation. My ability to read English, coupled with my actual work experience, was all that was needed to pass. In many instances I received a grade of 100. This is a testament to the simplicity of the test, for I have only average intelligence.

Illegal aliens will be denied employment simply because they will not be able to read the test questions. State governments will then create thousands of JOBS, JOBS, JOBS.

John H. Morley Jr., Philadelphia

Media Ignores the Facts on Illegal Immigration

By Lamar Smith February 6, 2012 

It’s hard to imagine a worse example of media bias than the national coverage of illegal immigration. Every week, it seems there are stories across the United States that minimize the issues of illegal immigration and border security. But look at the facts and the media’s bias towards illegal aliens is clear.

Many reporters often neglect to mention that the immigrants they write about are illegal aliens. For example, in an article that appeared in the San Antonio Express-News last year, “Hunt for border-crossers is on ground and in air,” the reporter used the words “immigrant” and “immigration” five times but couldn’t bring himself once to use the word “illegal.”

It’s not right to gloss over the difference between legal and illegal and call them both immigrants. There’s a huge difference, and political correctness shown by some reporters cannot bridge the gap.

Illegal immigration and securing the U.S.-Mexico border are serious concerns for millions of Americans, but it seems some reporters try to diminish these issues. For example, several newspapers, including the Washington Post, have published editorials and articles claiming that the border is more secure than ever.

Despite this growing media chorus that repeats the Obama administration’s talking points, the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office recently found that less than half of the Southwest border is under operational control. Less than 50 percent is a failing grade and reporters should not gloss over this fact.

Because the Obama administration has failed to secure the U.S.-Mexico border and enforce our immigration laws, illegal aliens continue to live in the U.S., taking away scarce jobs from citizens and legal immigrants and soaking up taxpayer-funded resources. But when you read a newspaper, chances are you don’t read about these problems.

Recently, in a New York Times article, the reporter cited a questionable study that recommends we give amnesty to illegal aliens to increase revenue for state and federal agencies. But the reporter failed to mention that there is a consensus among nonpartisan economists that illegal aliens are a fiscal drain on American taxpayers.

A majority of illegal aliens have less than a high-school education and have well below average incomes. The nonpartisan National Research Council found that an illegal alien  without a high-school degree will impose a net cost on taxpayers of $89,000 over his or her lifetime.

Illegal aliens also pay little in income taxes. Low-skilled workers very often pay no income taxes and receive tax credits from the Internal Revenue Service. In fact, illegal aliens received $4.2 billion in tax credits last year.

Illegal aliens also receive huge amounts of taxpayer-funded benefits, such as health care and education. Some estimate that illegal aliens cost taxpayers as much as $113 billion annually. All in all, if illegal aliens are granted amnesty, one study estimates that it will cost at least $2.5 trillion in retirement expenditures, including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Supplemental Security Income.

Many newspapers have also published articles that minimize the impact illegal immigration has on the current unemployment crisis and overstate the opposition to an E-Verify system that could help eliminate this problem.

Currently, 23 million Americans are unemployed or cannot find full-time work. At the same time, 7 million people work illegally in the U.S. These jobs should go to American citizens and legal workers, but rarely will you read about this in a newspaper.

And when the House Judiciary Committee approved the Legal Workforce Act last year, a bill that could open up these jobs for unemployed Americans by requiring all U.S. employers to use E-Verify, reporters from both the Wall Street Journal and USA Today portrayed the bill as unpopular. But these reporters failed to mention that 82 percent of likely voters — including 78 percent of black voters and 72 percent of other minorities, primarily Hispanics — think all U.S. employers should be required to use E-Verify.

The truth is that E-Verify enjoys strong support from the American people because it is free, quick, and easy to use. This web-based program quickly identifies individuals working illegally in the U.S. and protects jobs for legal workers by checking the Social Security numbers of new hires. Persons eligible to work in the U.S. are immediately confirmed 99.5 percent of the time, and it only takes a minute to run a new hire through E-Verify. It’s a jobs bill for Americans and legal workers.

Despite some reporters’ efforts to minimize the problems posed by illegal immigration and our lack of border-security, both remain big issues. Our national media should be held accountable for their performance, just like any other institution. We need to remind the media of their profound obligation to provide the American people with the facts, not tell them what to think.

— Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) is Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and the Media Fairness Caucus.