Arizona versus the United States?

American Thinker By Elise Cooper

Arizona is fighting against a two-front assault.  The first is of no surprise: trying to secure the state's border against illegal immigrants.  The second one, related to the first, has President Obama and his administration using their powers to intimidate and bully the state.  Under this administration, the federal government has not stepped up to the plate to help enforce the Supreme Court decision upholding the heart of S.B. 1070 and allowing law enforcement to ask for ID to determine who is and is not legally here after stopping someone for a violation.  Instead, the president is using his powers in an attempt to make this law unenforceable.  American Thinker interviewed Arizona Governor Jan Brewer and Congressman Paul Gosar (R-AZ) to get their opinion on what is transpiring.

Supreme Court Justice Kennedy, in writing his opinion, noted, "With power comes responsibility, and the sound exercise of national power over immigration depends on the Nation's meeting its responsibility to base its laws on a political will informed by searching, thoughtful, rational civic discourse. Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration while that process continues."

Governor Brewer agrees and told American Thinker that if the federal government were doing its job, there would be no need for S.B. 1070.  As she travels around the country, she is heartened that "across America, I have found that people support the rule of law and S.B. 1070.  Those against this bill try to make Arizonans look like bigots and racists.  I get so tired of having to defend that, especially since those of us that live in the Southwest are very diverse.  We all go to school together, go to work together, go to Church together, and are each other's neighbors."  In fact, Congressman Gosar points out that over 70% of Americans support S.B. 1070.

By their actions, the people in the Obama administration have encouraged some, including a coalition of civil rights organizations, to file a motion in federal court asking the fed to block the implementation of the police immigration checks, even though the Supreme Court upheld this provision.  The governor is frustrated and wonders why these groups do not worry about "the civil rights of those illegal immigrants who are kidnapped, have money extorted, and have been raped.  These issues go on and on."

President Obama is bombarding Arizona with retaliatory actions.  As Congressman Gosar suggests, "[i]t's a war on Arizona from this administration.  We are being singled out."  Just hours after the Supreme Court ruling, the Obama administration announced that it was suspending a vital program that allows state and local law enforcement agencies to enforce federal immigration law according to the Immigration and Nationality Act Section 287(g), that ICE agents will not be responding to calls from Arizona law enforcement about a person's immigration status, and that there will be no sharing of federal databases with Arizona authorities. 

Logically speaking, the federal government should want to work with Arizona to make sure the law is enforced the right way and that law enforcement is trained accordingly.  Governor Brewer commented to American Thinker, "What was really outlandish and unbelievable is that the DOJ took away 287(g).  We had to hear it from the news, and three hours later we got confirmation from the feds.  Shortly thereafter we find out that they are establishing a hotline for those who feel their civil rights were violated.  Someone can call the DOJ, who will then file a complaint against my law enforcement.  Yet they are preventing my law enforcement from gaining access to data regarding who is here legally and who isn't or if someone committed a federal crime.  We are the only state they took it away from.  Regarding ICE agents, they have always worked along with us.  Now what is the message going to be?"

After expressing the view that "the federal government is saying 'drop dead Arizona,'" Brewer presented two scenarios.  There is what Arizona law enforcement calls "roadside amnesty."

Currently, after stopping someone for a violation, there is no way for law enforcement to validate if that person is a citizen, in addition to the fact that the person in question cannot be held for a long period of time.  This generally leads to said person being released.  Brewer also believes that there are people just waiting to file suit, which puts a burden on the state, since the state will have to defend against frivolous lawsuits.

This brings about Brewer's second scenario, where the person let go could possibly be wanted for a criminal act or could commit an illegal act.  "People will sue because our law enforcement has not done their job.  We stopped them and did nothing.  Something is unholy if my law enforcement cannot use tools afforded to everyone else in this country."

To address this problem, the governor has gathered together, over a period of several meetings, the state police and local law enforcement, including the Sheriff's Department, to discuss their options.  She wants Arizona's law enforcement to follow federal law as well as state law, making sure something is formulated in writing to ensure that everyone is on the same page.

Governor Brewer wishes the Obama administration would be part of these meetings that addresses Arizona's border problem instead of bombarding Arizona with obstacles.  She explains, "A country without borders is like a house without walls; it collapses.  The federal government needs to obey the rule of law and work with us as partners to address our border problem.  Americans need to understand that the Obama administration is a government totally out of control."

Congressman Gosar believes that the way to deal with an executive branch that oversteps is either through legislation or in the courts.  Because of the Senate's inaction, the first remedy is basically powerless.  Gosar supports Congressman Steve King (R-IA), who plans to sue the Obama administration over a separation of powers issue regarding the selective illegal immigration law enforcement policy. 

The congressman regards "everything this administration has done to Arizona as being underhanded, nontransparent, and not forthright.  The immigration issue is a clearly defined doctrine for Congress to handle and only Congress.  This administration has violated the Constitution. 

President Obama, a constitutional scholar, has defiled the Constitution and due process of law.  He is just destroying it.  The problem is the intentional noncompliance from the Senate and the president.  I find this despicable.  We don't have a leader in the White House; we have a monarch who thinks what deserves to be enacted is his will and only his will."

Both the congressman and the governor agree on what needs to be done.  They want the president to understand that they will not back down and will fulfill their duty to protect Arizonans.  Gosar summarized it best: "Be careful who you pick a fight with, since we will finish it.  They want a war with Arizona; bring it on.  This president; our former governor, Janet Napolitano; and Eric Holder have defiled everyone who has stood up to them, from Jan Brewer to our legislators.  The first Tuesday in November will hopefully resolve this issue and will show there are consequences to these actions or inactions, as the case may be."

Supreme Court gives states a green light to follow Arizona's lead on immigration

By Roy Beck, NumbersUSA, June 25, 2012

In all the analysis of whether Arizona or Pres. Obama came out on top in the Supreme Courts ruling on S.B. 1070 today, the key question is: how well did unemployed Americans fare?

And the answer is: Very well.

Combined with another Court ruling on an Arizona law last year, states now have all the legal room they need to pursue attrition-through-enforcement measures that cause illegal aliens to depart from a state, opening up jobs for unemployed Americans and legal immigrants.

Although headlines have focused on the court knocking down three of four provisions before it, it should be noted that S.B. 1070 began with 14 sections. After all the challenges at several court levels, 11 of those sections are still standing and the court today ruled against only half of the twelfth. The one that was cleared today by the Court was the right of police to question people about their immigration status. This may be the most important provision in causing illegal aliens to leave Arizona, judging by the frenzy of concerned reaction by the pro-amnesty forces and the Obama administration.

We have always regarded S.B. 1070 as supplementary to the far more important, earlier Arizona bill that requires every employer to use E-Verify to keep illegal aliens and tourists from taking jobs. The Obama administration also opposed this effort, but the Court last year entirely upheld the right of states to protect its workers in that way.

Combining the two rulings, Arizona now has the Supreme Court-approved model to show all other states that they don’t have to sit idly by while an estimated 7 million illegal aliens take U.S. jobs in construction, manufacturing, service, transportation and even some in the professions. These are the occupations where most of the 20 million Americans who are unemployed or forced into part-time work are also seeking a job.

Since 1986, the prevailing theory about illegal immigration in Washington has been one of inevitability that nothing can be done to cause illegal aliens to leave once they get into the country. Hence, Congress passed seven amnesties between 1986 and 2000.

Now, Arizona and presumably a number of other states can be full-effort laboratories to prove inevitability a false theory.

We are heartened that even in writing the majority opinion that blocked three parts of Arizona’s law, Justice Kennedy recognized that decisions by three straight presidents to significantly ignore federal immigration law have put states in a bind.

"The pervasiveness of federal regulation does not diminish the importance of immigration policy to the States," he wrote. "Arizona bears many of the consequences of unlawful immigration. . . . Statistics alone do not capture the full extent of Arizona’s concerns. Accounts in the record suggest there is an epidemic of crime, safety risks, serious property damage, and environmental problems associated with the influx of illegal migration across private land near the Mexican border."

In his dissent, Justice Scalia was much more specific, citing the Obama administrations announcement just two weeks ago that it would refuse to enforce the law against illegal aliens who would benefit from the DREAM Act amnesty that Congress has rejected three times.

"After this case was argued and while it was under consideration," Scalia wrote, "the Secretary of Homeland Security announced a program exempting from immigration enforcement some 1.4 million illegal immigrants under the age of 30.

"The president said at a news conference that the new program is 'the right thing to do' in light of Congress failure to pass the Administrations proposed revision of the Immigration Act. Perhaps it is, though Arizona may not think so. But to say, as the Court (majority) does, that Arizona contradicts federal by enforcing application of the Immigration Act that the President declines to enforce boggles the mind."

As if to underscore Scalia’s assessment of the current administration as a nullifier of congressionally-passed laws, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano only hours after the ruling, announced that she would suspend yet another enforcement required under federal immigration laws. Because the Court ruling will result in a lot more illegal aliens being brought to the attention of the feds, she said, her department will suspend the 287(g) program in Arizona, and pledged that nothing in the ruling will interfere with the administrative amnesty announced last week.

Fortunately, all states now have a bright green light from the Court to follow Arizona’s lead in enforcing the laws in the way that Congress intended, even if the president insists on violating those laws.

(This analysis originally appeared as an op-ed on FoxNews.com)

Interesting Reuters Interview With Kris Kobach

Kris Kobach: Immigration isn't just a federal matter

April 16 (Reuters) - The battle over illegal immigration heads to the U.S. Supreme Court next week, when the high court will hear arguments for and against new Arizona laws requiring police, employers and landlords to expose undocumented immigrants. Arizona of course is not alone in its crackdown on illegal immigrants, with states including Alabama, Georgia, Utah, as well as a number of cities, passing similar measures. The movement's chief legal architect is 45-year old Kris Kobach, a former constitutional law professor, current secretary of state of Kansas and adviser to Mitt Romney on immigration issues. While Kobach is not arguing in the Arizona case, he has been helping other states and cities defend their laws against challenges by the Justice Department and civil rights groups.
Reuters' Terry Baynes recently caught up with Kobach to discuss the issue of state versus federal authority in immigration matters. The questions and answers were edited for clarity and brevity.

Reuters: What do you think about immigration policy changes being forged in the courts? 
Kobach: Almost all of these cases center on the question of federal preemption -- whether or not states and cities can pass laws that regulate immigration alongside the federal government. Arizona won a victory last year when the Supreme Court upheld its 2007 legal workers law that requires employers to verify the immigration status of their employees. That sent a green light to all states and cities that if they want to require employers to run E-Verify searches on employees, they can.

Reuters: Why isn't immigration an exclusively federal matter? 
Kobach: The federal government has primary authority over immigration, but the Supreme Court has ruled multiple times that states have spheres of activity where they can operate to discourage illegal immigration. It's an area of shared authority.

Reuters: How do you respond to the Obama administration's argument that federal immigration law is not designed to ferret out every person unlawfully present in the United States but rather to serve a broader federal policy with its own set of priorities? 
Kobach: The federal immigration law written by Congress is very clear and uncompromising. It calls for enforcement across the board. The Obama administration's argument has been: We, the executive branch, choose to not enforce these laws. It's a novel theory, but it doesn't square with preemption. Acts of Congress, treaties and the Constitution can preempt state laws. Executive pronouncements do not preempt.

Reuters: Are you involved in the Arizona case? 
Kobach: I submitted an amicus brief on behalf of Arizona, addressing two narrow issues. First, the executive branch cannot preempt the states. It must be Congress, and the acts of Congress do not express any attempt to push aside the involvement of the states. Second, the Department of Justice argues that the decision whether to deport a particular alien is a complicated one that the federal government needs to be able to make. But if you look at the federal immigration laws passed in 1996, Congress took away that prosecutorial discretion the Obama Justice Department claims it has.

Reuters: What's the biggest challenge in the litigation over immigration laws? 
Kobach: Judges will sometimes have difficulty separating out the political arguments from the legal arguments. That's always a challenge, to make sure that the politics does not interfere with what should be an apolitical legal determination concerning preemption.

Reuters: How were the Arizona and Alabama laws drafted to withstand legal challenges? 
Kobach: The state law must use the exact terminology of federal law. It must also define prohibited behavior at the state level so that it's perfectly congruent with prohibited activity at the federal level. One common misconception is that Arizona was doing something new and different by requiring immigrants to carry their registration documents. But that's been required by federal law since the 1950s.

Reuters: You've described these laws as part of a policy of "self-deportation." What do you mean? 
Kobach: There's a false dichotomy that constantly emerges when you see politicians talking about immigration. They'll say you can't round up 11 million people and enforce the law 100 percent, so amnesty is the only rational way to move forward. But no serious thinker would say those are the only two approaches to a law enforcement problem. The rational solution is to ratchet up the level of enforcement. Then illegal aliens will self-deport because the cost-benefit calculation changes.

Reuters: A study by the Center for Business & Economic Research at the University of Alabama found that Alabama's new immigration law will shrink the state economy by $2.3 billion and cost the state 70,000 jobs. What do you think about the economic impact of the new immigration laws? 
Kobach: The Alabama study did not consider the huge fiscal burden illegal immigration is placing on Alabama taxpayers. The other factor that needs to be considered is the benefit of removing Americans from welfare rolls and allowing them to work. Once illegal aliens are removed from the labor market, wages will inevitably come up.

Reuters: What's your own immigration story? 
Kobach: My great grandparents came from Norway and Germany and settled in Wisconsin. They were farmers for the most part. I'm a fourth-generation American.

Reuters: How did you become interested in immigration reform? 
Kobach: One of the biggest epiphanies for me was the 9/11 hijackings. I was working at the Justice Department for Attorney General John Ashcroft. All hijackers had come into the states legally, but five of the 19 became unlawfully present during their stays. Four of those five were apprehended by state and local police for traffic violations while they were in the country illegally. In none of those cases did the state or local officer have the information available to make an arrest and potentially foil the 9/11 plot. That realization was essential to my understanding of how critical federal and state cooperation is in this area.

Reuters: What's the most influential law review article you've written? 
Kobach: In 2008, I published an article in the Georgetown Immigration Law Review, "Reinforcing the Rule of Law: What States Can and Should Do to Reduce Illegal Immigration." Arizona's SB 1070 manifests many of the concepts that I prescribed in that article.

Reuters: Has anything surprised you about how these laws have played out? 
Kobach: I didn't anticipate these state laws would become national issues in the way they have. I also never imaged the Justice Department would sue a state for trying to help the federal government enforce the law. That's never happened in American history before.

The Judge's Summary Followed by a Personal Question

November's Choices

By Judge Andrew Napolitano 8/16/2012

 We are in terrible straits this presidential election. We have a choice between a president who has posed more of a danger to personal freedom than any in the past 150 years and a Republican team that wants to return to Bush-style big government.

President Barack Obama has begun to show his hand at private fundraisers and in unscripted comments during his campaign. And the essence of his revelations is dark. His vision of a shared prosperity should frighten everyone who believes in freedom, because it is obvious that the president doesn't. He believes the federal government somehow possesses power from some source other than the Constitution that enables it to take from the rich and give to the poor. He calls this "a new vision of an America in which prosperity is shared," and he declared, "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."

Today in America, nearly half of all households receive either a salary or some financial benefit from the government; the other half pay for it. In Obama's vision for America, no one will be permitted to become too rich, no matter his skills and hard work. He somehow believes that government seizures and transfers of wealth generate prosperity. We know, of course, that the opposite occurs. Seizing wealth through taxation removes it from the private sector for investment. That produces job losses and government dependence on a massive scale.

The federal government has a debt of $16 trillion. We have that debt because both political parties have chosen to spend today and put the burden of paying for the spending onto future generations.

The debt keeps increasing, and the feds have no intention of paying it off. Every time the government has wanted to increase its lawful power to borrow since World War II, members of Congress and presidents from both parties have permitted it to do so.

Last week, Gov. Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, blasted Obama for borrowing more than one trillion dollars in just the past year. He must have forgotten to look at the voting record of his designated running mate, Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan.

Ryan voted for nearly every request to raise the debt ceiling during his 14 years in Congress. He voted for TARP, the GM bailout and most of the recent stimulus giveaways. He also voted to pay for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars on a credit card, which added another trillion dollars to the government's debt. And he voted to assault the Constitution by supporting the Patriot Act and its extensions, as well as Obama's unconstitutional proposal to use the military to arrest Americans on American soil and detain those arrested indefinitely.

We have a rough idea of how Obama would bring about government control of private industry through Obamacare and Dodd-Frank. From Ryan's voting record, we have a rough idea of what Romney-Ryan would bring us: more of the Bush-era big government. In other words, Ryan is just another big-government Republican holding himself out as a fiscal conservative. Even his controversial budget proposals -- which the House approved, but the Senate declined to address -- would have increased government spending. It was less of an increase than Obama wanted, which is why the Senate Democrats refused to consider it, but it was not a cut in spending.

I am a firm believer that the Constitution means what it says. The federal government can only do what the Constitution authorizes it to do. The modern-day Republican and Democratic Parties have made a shambles of that principle. Nevertheless, I understand the "anybody but Obama" urge among those who fear his excesses, as do I. Obama has killed innocents, altered laws, rejected his oath to enforce the law faithfully, and threatened to assault the liberty and property of Americans he hates and fears.

Even though Ryan is a smart and humble and likeable man who was once a disciple of Ayn Rand on economics, as am I, the Republicans want the Bush days of war and spending beyond our means and assaults on civil liberties to return. The Bush years were bad for freedom; without them, we would not have had an Obama administration.

Which do you want?

Obama’s Illegal Immigration Policy Pits Border Agents & Sheriffs Against the Feds

America Free Press By Victor Thorn (Part III of III)

As Barack Obama’s and Eric Holder’s Department of Justice continue its vendetta against states that want to enforce their borders, a dangerous situation is being created where, due to the federal government’s treasonous agenda, sheriffs and local police officers are unable to serve and protect their communities.

During a July 5 interview, small business owner, political consultant and former congressional candidate Steve Beren told this writer: “The instinct of policemen and Border Patrol agents is to stop crime and enforce laws. It’s their entire livelihood and career. It contradicts the purpose of law enforcement if you allow serious crimes to exist as Barack Obama is doing with illegal immigration. These crimes then lead to other crimes.”

Beren expanded on these thoughts. “If the feds won’t intervene on the side of American lawmen and instead support foreign criminals, it’s an encouragement to other illegals,” he said. “Over time, this deteriorates the spirit of our law enforcement personnel. Many in this profession feel disgust and anger toward the president beyond what average citizens believe.”

With this subject in mind, Beren provided another insight: “If Obama thinks there should be a change to the law, he should propose it to Congress. There already is a path to legal citizenship. But the DREAM Act is poor legislation, which is why Congress never passed it. Rather than persuading the people first and convincing them of the law’s merits, Obama crammed it down our throats via executive order and threats made toward the courts.”

An example of how Obama’s policies are heightening conflicts occurred last year when a Washington State Forest Service agent detained a man and woman who were illegal aliens. Since they couldn’t adequately speak English, the agent requested a translator. As he did so, the man fled, leaped into a stream and drowned. However, one of Obama’s cronies— Department of Agriculture Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Joe Leonard—decided that the forest agent violated the woman’s civil rights because calling a translator was “humiliating to Hispanics.”

The question remains: Why is Obama punishing states by rewarding criminals? Or, as Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said, “The administration should be working with states, not against them, to enforce our immigration laws.”

Globalist and cultural Marxist George Soros has funneled millions into ads that denigrate men like Maricopa Counyt, Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio. In an April 22 article, actor Chuck Norris wrote,  “…the mainstream media, or MSM, are working double time with the federal government to make sure when you think of sheriffs, the picture painted in your mind is one of runaway renegades – badged outlaws on the loose.”

Norris didn’t hide his anger. “It is pathetic that President Barack Obama, as well as the entire left-wing progressive establishment, is in a multi-million dollar smear campaign to discredit and take down Sheriff Joe . . . because he won’t turn a blind eye to tens of thousands of illegal aliens flooding into America,” wrote Norris.

As it stands, Obama displays an undeniable antagonism toward U.S. lawmen while maintaining strange allies such as Soros, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Mexican nationals.

On the bright side, some still believe the citizens of this country will refuse to roll over and play dead.

“The American people haven’t reached the point yet where we’re willing to give up the Republic,” said Beren. “There is a revolt going on.”

——

Victor Thorn is a hard-hitting researcher, journalist and the author of over 30 books.

Obama Executive Order Means Open Door Amnesty

America Free Press By Victor Thorn (Part II of III)

When Barack Obama delivered his June 15 speech in the White House Rose Garden where he provided amnesty to more than 800K illegal aliens through an executive order (EO), he failed to mention one crucial point: The parents of these future citizens would also not be deported.

The announcement was part of a shrewd political move on the part of Obama to bypass Congress and enact the DREAM Act, a major piece of legislation that legalizes the children of illegal aliens, known as “DREAMers,” who came to the United States as minors.

During a June 15 interview, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer asked Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, “Should the parents [of amnestied DREAMers] be concerned that they could be deported?”

Napolitano replied: “No. We are not going to do that. We have internally set it up that parents are not referred for immigration enforcement if the young person comes in for deferred action.”

On July 5, this writer spoke with illegal immigration activist Glenn Spencer, who founded American Border Patrol over a decade ago.

When asked what impact Obama’s EO will have on America, Spencer explained, “We’re importing poverty into this nation, and it’s bankrupting states like California. Demographics are destiny, and it won’t get any better in the future. We’re erasing our tax base and facing huge pension problems. At some point the feds will have to bail out California.”

Spencer continued to use California as a microcosm of a much larger problem.

“California is a basket case because of illegal immigration,” he said. “Some 60% of all the uninsured are Hispanics, and they’re in California because the feds won’t enforce our laws. In fact, these uninsured were one of the reasons given as to why we needed Obamacare. Where did these uninsured people come from? Mexico.”

In terms of estimates given as to how many DREAMers will receive amnesty, Spencer commented, “I spoke with a chief border patrol agent, and he said there’s so much fraud in the system that they have no ability to check everyone’s status. So they’ll pretty much have to accept their word for it, especially when this administration is so biased in favor of illegal aliens. What we’re going to see is a spike in the number of illegal aliens that will be much larger than anyone imagined. It’s a slap in the face to all of us who are here legally.”

When AMERICAN FREE PRESS inquired as to Obama’s ultimate goal, Spencer didn’t hesitate: “It’s the same agenda as the European Union—globalism. Very powerful people decided after WWII that there would be no borders. They’d put the whole globe under one rule. Mexico will retake the Southwest and put it under its flag.”

To convince doubters, Spencer referenced a quote by Mario Obledo of the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund. “California will be a Hispanic state,” said Obledo, “and anyone who doesn’t like it should leave.”

As further evidence, Spencer spoke of another nefarious individual. “Do you know who’s the chairman of this year’s Democratic National Convention?” asked Spencer. “It’s Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. This guy joined with the president of Mexico and engineered the killing of California’s anti-illegal immigration bill. He subverted our laws in favor of Mexico, yet this traitor to the U.S. is coordinating the Democratic National Convention.”

Moving from the concept of Mexican allegiance, Spencer illustrated why Hispanics favor Obama’s EO, even if it costs them jobs.

“Ethnicity trumps the dollar,” he said. “As they say, once a Mexican, always a Mexican. The nationalistic glue of these people is very strong. They’re unified and tribalistic. Their culture trumps everything.”

Sadly, by selling out our country via his DREAM Act EO, Obama vividly showed that he doesn’t possess this same sense of nationalistic pride in America.

If Obama’s decision isn’t reversed, Spencer envisions a horror story in the future.

“With the system now in place, it’s illogical to think that Obama’s people want anything other than open door amnesty,” he said. “They’ll rubber stamp everyone claiming to be a DREAMer, keep this information secret, and then in four or five years we’ll have given amnesty to 5M illegal aliens.”

Victor Thorn is a hard-hitting researcher, journalist and the author of over 30 books.

Cooking the Immigration Books

America Free Press By Victor Thorn (Part I of III)

Government accused of hiding real number of illegal aliens in U.S.

Over the past two years, federal agencies and think tanks have provided what would sound like good news to most Americans, reporting that there has been a dramatic decline in the number of illegal aliens crossing into the United States from Mexico. Three primary reasons are cited for this supposed reduction: a stagnant economy that has never rebounded out of recession, tougher border enforcement and a higher cost of living in regard to food and housing.

According to a study in 2010 conducted by the Pew Hispanic Center, the flow of illegals into the U.S. has slowed by a half-million per year compared with the previous decade. The Obama administration has also boasted about what officials call a considerable increase in the number of illegal aliens sent back to Mexico.

But many border agents in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and Southern California remain skeptical that the influx is actually waning. In a May 14 article for The Washington Examiner, Sara Carter quoted an unnamed Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) official who said: “The guys in my office were laughing when we heard the Pew Report and when we see DHS [Homeland Security] flat-out lie.”

T.J. Bonner, former president of the National Border Patrol Council, agrees that certain reports of decreasing numbers are not substantiated by what he sees.

The most vocal critic is undoubtedly Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), who blasted the funny numbers on Oct. 18, 2011.

“The Obama administration is cooking the books to make it look like they are enforcing immigration laws when in reality they are enacting amnesty through inaction,” he said.

Smith added on Feb. 6, “The Government Accountability Office recently found that less than half of the southwest border is under operational control.”

With the actual unemployment rate in the United States hovering above 15%, it is estimated that 7M illegal aliens currently work in America.

The negative impact of illegal aliens on American workers, who are still suffering through a non-existent recovery, is glaringly apparent. Most illegal aliens arrive in America without even a high school diploma. They accept low wages and often work under the table. And even though they do not pay taxes at the local, state and federal level, they still receive benefits such as healthcare and free education.

Believe it or not, some illegal aliens even receive tax credits and get money back from the Internal Revenue Service. Although exact figures vary, illegal aliens generally cost American taxpayers more than $100B per year.

In a June 22 article for Law Enforcement Today, Juli Adcock uncovered another scheme where refugees are brought into this country, then placed on welfare. In return, their handlers receive kickbacks from these foreigners. Since very little is done in terms of verifying their status, the corruption continues unabated.

A study by the Center for Immigration Studies confirms these findings.

Some 51% of Mexican immigrant households used at least one major welfare program, while 28% used more than one.

Also, 62% of all “undocumented immigrants” in the United States work for cash and don’t pay taxes, leaving American taxpayers to pay out $52B each year to educate the children of illegal aliens.

Victor Thorn is a hard-hitting researcher, journalist and the author of over 30 books.