Merida Initiative

Written by InSight

The "Mérida Initiative" is a multi-billion dollar effort by the United States government to assist Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean in their fight against drug trafficking organizations. Proposed under President Bush and implemented under President Obama, the program has provided close to $1.8 billion in assistance to the region to date. About $1.5 billion has gone to Mexico, $300 million to Central America and $40 million to the Caribbean.

In some ways, the initiative mirrors U.S. efforts to aid Colombia through what became known as "Plan Colombia". The money for the Isthmus region and Caribbean basin goes mostly for equipment and military hardware, and police and judicial training to deal with the increasingly violent and sophisticated drug trafficking organizations (DTOs). These DTOs frequently have better weapons and intelligence gathering equipment than their counterparts in the state and undermine law enforcement efforts by corrupting vast sections of the regional governments.

However, critics, which include the U.S. Government Accounting Office (GAO), have said the initiative’s money has been slow to arrive and represents a small portion of what is needed. This is particularly true of Central American nations, which do not have the resources or training to face to the growing presence of largely Mexican DTOs in their territory.

The initiative has also come under attack by watchdog groups for its emphasis on the enforcement component of the strategy. Most of the aid has gone to the Mexican army and police who are fighting the DTOs. The Mexican army’s growing role in the battle in Mexico has come under particular scrutiny due to allegations of human rights abuses by that institution. But while allegations of abuses have risen, accountability has not followed. Human Rights groups say military courts have not prosecuted any member of the military for abuses.

The Obama administration appears to be aware of these criticisms and concerns. In its proposal for FY2011 funding, which officials dubbed “Beyond Mérida,” the administration created a four-pillar strategy, which includes (1) disrupting the flow of drugs; (2) reforming the judicial system in Mexico; (3) creating a “21st Century border”; and (4) strengthening communities. Of the $310 million that would go to Mexico, $175 million would go toward justice reform. The proposal needs the approval of congress, which is likely to include a similarly large package of aid outside the auspices of Mérida to border protection.

Grassley Asks the Right Questions

Phyllis Schlafly - Eagle Forum

Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA), a good friend of the Constitution and We the People, has sent President Obama a powerful letter co-signed by 20 Senators.  The letter spells out many unlawful aspects of Obama’s recent announcement that he will not enforce U.S. laws against young illegal aliens and will reward their illegal status with residency and work permits.

Grassley doesn’t mince words in his letter.  He accuses Obama of taking an action for which he lacks legal authority, is contrary to his constitutional duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” is an affront to representative government and the legislative process in bypassing Congress, and is an inappropriate use of Executive power.

Grassley points out that Obama has full knowledge that his action was unlawful.  Just last year, Obama stated, “This notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is just not true. …  We live in a democracy.  You have to pass bills through the legislature, and then I can sign it.”

Here are a few of the 29 questions (slightly paraphrased and condensed) which Grassley asked the President to answer.  Why has your position on your legal authority changed?

Did you consult with attorneys about this and get a legal opinion and, if so, please provide copies of those legal opinions and emails.  How will you treat the parents and others who deliberately violated federal immigration law by illegally bringing these young people into the U.S.?

What criteria will you use to decide who gets work permits and who doesn’t, and what will be the status of the illegal aliens after the expiration of the two-year span of your executive order?  Will the implementation cost of this gigantic program be paid by those who benefit, or be loaded onto the U.S. taxpayers?

Obama supporters try to justify his illegal order by claiming that the young people were brought into the U.S. through no fault of their own.  Then we must assume that the fault belongs to the parent or whoever brought the kids, so those persons should be deported and allowed to take their children with them.

Although Obama bragged that his executive order will make our policies “more fair” and “more just,” Grassley prefaced his litany of legal and fiscal questions about Obama’s executive order by citing its fundamental unfairness.  American citizens of ages comparable to the illegals whom Obama is rewarding, ages 16 to 24, are suffering 17 percent unemployment, and another 32 percent of American citizens aged 18 to 29 are underemployed.

Grassley wrote:  “It is astonishing that your administration would grant work authorizations to illegal immigrants during this time of record unemployment.”  No wonder Obama wouldn’t answer a reporter’s question as to why he favors foreign workers over American.

Obama argues that he has the authority to stop deportations of illegal aliens and reward them with work permits because he was using “prosecutorial discretion.”  But prosecutorial discretion is properly applied only on a case-by-case basis to deal with extenuating circumstances, not for cancelling prosecution of a million people.

Obama’s action is an open invitation to fraud and lies.  For example, Obama says his plan is for illegal aliens who arrived in the U.S. before the age of 16 and are still under the age of 30.  Will the young illegal aliens Obama is favoring be required to prove their age with verifiable documents such as birth certificates, school records, W-2s, or tax returns, or affidavits under penalty of perjury?

Obama’s estimated figure of eligibles is 800,000, but the Pew Hispanic Center says it will be 1.4 million.  The bipartisan amnesty of the 1980s was estimated to top out at one million, but wholesale document fraud coupled with lack of enforcement of sanctions increased the number to 3 million.

Obama undoubtedly thinks he will benefit from the Mainstream Media’s continued failure to report the many costs to U.S. taxpayers of tolerating the influx of illegal aliens. 

According to Victor Davis Hanson, California is a showcase of the problem:  taxes are the highest and rising, 70 percent of the last 10 million new Californians are on Medicaid, public schools have plunged to 48th and 49th in English and math test scores, and 50 percent of college freshmen need to take remedial courses.

Obama’s pitch to illegal aliens is one more unlawful, unilateral, dictatorial action added to his Administration’s 21 specific violations of law that were itemized in an amazing document issued a few weeks go by the Attorneys General of nine states.

Obama’s gambit to admit illegal aliens will not help our country.   It is clearly designed to help Obama attract a bloc of voters to reelect him in November, and that’s no excuse for violating the laws of the United States.

Illegal Aliens, In-State Tuition and the Law

Mike Brownfield The Foundry Heritage.org

Consider it an illegal fringe benefit for illegal aliens. Today, 12 states allow individuals who are in the United States illegally to pay the same in-state tuition rates as legal residents of the state without providing the same rates to others in the country who are here legally. And those states are doing it in direct contravention of federal law.

In a new paper, Heritage’s Hans von Spakovsky and Charles Stimson explain that in 1996, Congress passed–and President Bill Clinton signed into law–the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. Under Section 1623 of the law, state colleges and universities are prohibited from providing in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens “on the basis of residence within the State” unless the same in-state rates are offered to all citizens of the United States.

“By circumventing the requirements of § 1623 these states are violating federal law, and the legal arguments offered to justify such actions are untenable, no matter what other policy arguments are offered in their defense,” von Spakovsky and Stimson write. Which states are on the list? The offenders include California, Texas, New York, Utah, Washington, Oklahoma, Illinois, Kansas, New Mexico, Nebraska, Maryland, and Connecticut.

Despite these violations, the federal government is doing nothing about it, all while the Justice Department has brought action against Arizona and Alabama for assisting in the enforcement of federal immigration law. Meanwhile, President Obama’s U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement department announced over the summer relaxed standards for pursuing and dismissing immigration cases.

Apart from being illegal, granting in-state tuition to illegal aliens isn’t at all popular with the American people, either. A poll conducted in August shows that 81 percent of voters oppose providing in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens–and with good reason. For starters, the cost of doing so is breaking an already strained bank. In 2005, the cost of providing in-state tuition in California was between $222.6 million and $289.3 million; in Texas, it was estimated between $80.2 million and $104.4 million. Von Spakovsky and Stimson note that the policy has other serious flaws, as well:

Granting financial preference to illegal aliens also discriminates against otherwise qualified citizen students from outside the state. Furthermore, states that offer in-state tuition to illegal aliens act as a magnet for more illegal aliens to come to the state. Arguments to the contrary are unpersuasive, and not supported by the facts.

The core issue, though, is the Constitution and the rule of law. And while the United States welcomes immigrants, it is also a country of laws, and there are limits imposed on those who seek citizenship. States cannot cast aside those laws where they see fit, as von Spakovsky and Stimson explain:

Americans take pride in their heritage and this country’s generous policies regarding legal immigration. Yet, as citizens of a sovereign nation, Americans retain the right to decide who can and cannot enter this country—and what terms immigrants and visitors must accept as a condition of residing in the United States. As mandated by the U.S. Constitution, Congress sets America’s immigration policy. State officials have considerable influence in Congress over the crafting of immigration laws, and they may take steps to help enforce federal law. However, state officials cannot act contrary to a congressional statute.

The Supreme Court has held that “The states have no power, by taxation or otherwise, to retard, impede, burden, or in any manner control, the operations of the constitutional laws enacted by Congress to carry into execution the powers vested in the general government.”

Unfortunately, in offering illegal aliens in-state tuition in violation of federal law, that is exactly what these states are doing. Now it is up to the President and the Attorney General to enforce that law and take action against these 12 states.

ADMINISTRATION TELLS AMERICANS: WE WON'T PROTECT YOU!

BORDER AGENTS AND CITIZENS TOLD TO RUN & HIDE

Our own government has posted signs INSIDE our own borders, warning American citizens that the area is unsafe. Our government knows and admits that ILLEGAL immigrants are conducting human trafficking, drug wars and a myriad of other ILLEGAL activities right inside our own border! Yet, instead of solving the problem and protecting us, the Administration is telling Border Agents and American citizens to RUN AND HIDE!

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer stands next to a sign that reads:

DANGER - PUBLIC WARNING
TRAVEL NOT RECOMMENDED

• Active Drug and Human Smuggling Area
• Visitors May Encounter Armed Criminals and Smuggling Vehicles Traveling at High Rates of Speed
• Stay Away From Trash, Clothing, Backpacks and Abandoned Vehicles
• BLM Encourages Visitors To Use Public Lands North of Interstate 8

Our own government is asking Americans to restrict our freedom, because the Administration feels free to not enforce their own laws.

The Majority Staff Report of the House Committee on Homeland Security has this to say:
"Not all illegal aliens are crossing into the United States to find work. Law enforcement officials indicate that there are individuals coming across the border who are forced to leave their home countries because of criminal activities. These dangerous criminals are fleeing the law in other countries and seeking refuge in the United States."

Since 2006, Mexican crime has left over 55,000 dead on the other side of the border. One of the border towns, Juarez, Mexico, is known as the "Murder Capital of the Western hemisphere." Yet in spite of these staggering numbers, our Administration wants to leave our borders open and our citizens unprotected. This crisis affects not only Border States like AZ, NM and TX; but also every state in the country. The FBI says that Mexican and South American gangs, along with their violence and drug trade, have spread to every single major US city. Our own Justice Department admits that Colombian and Mexican cartels bring in $18-39 billion in sales from the United States.

But gangs are not the only issue. The other, often overlooked problem is TERRORISM. In 2007 FBI Director Robert Mueller alerted Congress that "there are individuals from countries with known al Qa'ida connections who are changing their Islamic surnames to Hispanic-sounding names, obtaining false Hispanic identities, learning to speak Spanish and pretending to be Hispanic immigrants. Our administration has this information, knows the danger, yet does NOTHING to stop the problem or protect Americans.

Apparently, appealing to a specific minority voting block to get re-elected and defeat the American People is more important to this Administration, than actually doing their job and protecting our citizens and our borders.

Just last week, we reported that the Department of Homeland Security is telling Border Agents to run and hide. And road signs posted within our own borders tell American citizens to basically do the same.

When our own government warns us away from dangerous areas within our own country - dangerous areas that same government could, but won't clean up; we have a bigger problem than just the issue of Illegal immigration. We have either lost our freedom due to government incompetence or our current administration is simply in the business of actively giving our freedom away.

"Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Orwell

Military and Law Enforcement Officials understand that desertion of your post is a serious and severely punishable offense. Yet new FEMA and DHS are officially sanctioning desertion and dereliction of duty by instructing agents to run and hide from danger.

The DHS' new mandatory class, "Active Shooter" for Customs and Border patrol agents, instructs it's on and off duty personnel to literally "run away" and "hide" and only engage dangerous suspects if all attempts to "Run and Hide" have been exhausted.

From the mandatory FEMA-administered computer course, entitled "IS-907- Active Shooter: What You Can Do,"

• Evacuate: If there is an accessible escape path, attempt to evacuate the premises.
• Hide out: If evacuation is not possible, find a place to hide where the active shooter is less likely to find you.
• Take action: As a last resort, and only when your life is in imminent danger, attempt to disrupt and/or incapacitate the active shooter

Customs agents themselves are disgusted with new Federal instruction. Brandon Judd, leader of Arizona's Customs & Border Patrol Union # 2544 wrote,

"We are now taught in an 'Active Shooter' course that if we encounter a shooter in a public place we are to 'run away' and 'hide' If we are cornered by such a shooter we are to (only as a last resort) become 'aggressive' and 'throw things' at him or her. We are then advised to 'call law enforcement' and wait for their arrival (presumably, while more innocent victims are slaughtered)."

CBP Agents know they are obligated to protect the whether they are on duty or not. Given the new instructions, some are worried they will be punished should they do their job and take down a gunman as in the cases of Ft. Hood or Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

Another post by a CBP agent on the local Union #2544 website goes on to say,
"It is always comforting to know that for those of us who carry a weapon when we are off-duty, if we should encounter such a situation, stop a shooter and save countless lives, we can look forward to being disciplined or fired by the Border Patrol because we should have run away to hide and then maybe thrown objects at the deranged killer instead of taking action and stopping him with a firearm."

THIS IS THE AMERICAN BORDER and the force that keeps the bad guys out. Yet now our own Department of Homeland Security, ostensibly charged with keeping America safe, is telling enforcement officers to "run away."

This isn't the first time DHS has issued boneheaded and downright dangerous policies. In fact, the night Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was killed, his team of BORTAC agents was following DHS policy when they fired bean bag warning shots at AK-47 armed Mexican bandits. Not surprisingly, the bandits fired back with live ammunition and Agent Brian Terry was killed.

Right here, right now, we have armed Gangs, Drug runners, illegal aliens and even Muslim terrorists coming across our borders. Apparently DHS would just as soon let the bad guys in than do anything to stop them.

This sort of insanity MUST STOP. Our borders need to be protected, running and hiding or throwing bean bags won't cut it. We need an active, engaged policy to protect America and her people!
Defend America,

Alan M. Gottlieb
Chairman, American Political Action Committee (AmeriPAC)
PO Box 1682
Dept Code 6688-n-ga
Bellevue, WA 98009-1682

Disastrous results, or personal demise, either way immigrants suffer

        www.examiner.com August 26, 2012 By: Don Allison

Have you ever wondered what President Obama presents as a campaign speech to the Latino community? Since taking office, his administration, supposedly leads the ‘rat pack’ in the area of illegal immigrant deportation. The scenario many are debating is whether or not the high number of deportation cases are actually realistic, or inflated.

If the numbers are realistic, then that would suggest the Latino community is the picture perfect audience for ‘campaigning to the stupid.’ Let’s not assume the worst. Instead let’s assume the latter of this debate, which would indicate perhaps the Latino community know the numbers are inflated and it’s a well kept secret between Democrats and the Latino community.

The Washington Times presents “The Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee is charging that the Obama administration has “falsified” deportation records to artificially boost numbers — a move critics of the Homeland Security Department have long suspected.” Now this charge would sustain the latter, but then the question would be, why?

The Obama administration, as well as, its campaign is very small on actuals, but very big on theatrics. It’s no secret, for years, blanket amnesty has been at the forefront of their agenda, but it’s a move that’s not widely accepted across the country and could prove to be disastrous over a period of time. So, enter theatrics, which is to inflate the numbers, while drumming up support through sympathy for immigrant families caught up in their own demise.

In order to prevent disastrous results down the road, Democrats, have employed Center for American Progress, which are amateurs who constantly digress on all issues, to spearhead a case of separation on behalf of illegal immigrant’s own demise.

The organization presents, “Deportation have a large effect on families, forcing children into foster care as their parents are shipped out of the country and leaving single mothers struggling to make ends meet.”

Well, that’s all a mute argument now. Obama’s executive order that allows the child to stay in the country, apply for a work visa and ultimately use this new status to cover their parents will realistically, lead to those disastrous results, so feared.

Let’s be real, if you replace the permanent taxpaying middle class with temporary non-taxpaying immigrants, how far down the road will that get you?

10 Things You Need to Know About Obama’s Amnesty

August 16, 2012 By Kristen Williamson Immigrationreform.com

Yesterday, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) began accepting applications for deferred action through US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). FAIR has been closely tracking developments in President Obama’s executive amnesty since its announcement on June 15. Below are some of the things you need to know about the President’s unilateral changes to U.S. immigration policy.

1. President Obama’s amnesty will add nearly 2 million workers – possibly more – to the U.S. job market. This is a negligent economic and social policy with over 8% unemployment and half of recent young college graduates unemployed or underemployed.

2. Lax documentation requirements to prove eligibility. DHS application instructions explicitly state that only copies of documents will be required to meet the eligibility criteria for amnesty including length of presence in the U.S., education, and even identity. Also, illegal aliens will be able to submit any and all documents they deem relevant to prove their eligibility. Virtually any form of documentation will be accepted, from report cards and plane tickets to mere personal correspondence.

3. The Administration is making this up as they go along. In June, President Obama touted this policy as the “right thing to do” for some of the best and brightest. However, it is clear that the educational, residency and character requirements are becoming increasingly lax as more details about the implementation of the amnesty emerge.

4. No face-to-face interview required. Most applications will be approved based only on the documentation submitted.

5. Few safeguards against and limited consequences for filing fraudulent applications or documents. If DHS is actually diligent enough to identify fraud, the new amnesty instructions merely state that the Administration “may” elect to penalize illegal aliens by denying immigration benefits or placing them into removal proceedings. However, since illegal aliens are only required to submit copies – which lack identifiers of authenticity – it is unknown how USCIS employees will be able to identify fraud in the first place.

6. USCIS turns blind eye to past illegal employment. Illegal aliens may use employment records to show eligibility for amnesty despite the fact illegal aliens are barred from working in the U.S. Past employers of illegal alien applicants are not likely to face prosecution for hiring illegal aliens.

7. Family of deferred action recipients will also reap the benefits. Application instructions explicitly state that information collected on an illegal alien will not be used against him or her, or their “family members and guardians,” for the purpose of immigration enforcement.

8.Illegal aliens granted work authorization can obtain Social Security cards. Illegal aliens granted deferred action must apply for employment authorization if they present an “economic necessity.” Once received, DHS work authorization will allow them to apply for a Social Security Number and possibly other benefits like driver’s licenses.

9. Illegal aliens with a criminal history DO qualify. DHS says only felony and “serious misdemeanor” convictions will make illegal aliens ineligible for amnesty, and even then, convictions won’t necessarily be considered if they are expunged. Additionally, criminal convictions in foreign countries will go undetected and DHS will “exercise discretion” when considering juvenile records.

10. USCIS doesn’t have a great track record. Earlier this year, the DHS Inspector General found that USCIS leadership told employees to rubber-stamp applications for immigration benefits – including work authorization. In leaked documents to the Associated Press, USCIS estimated that it will review 3,000 deferred action and work authorization applications daily, only increasing the pressure to overlook possible fraud and approve benefits quickly.

Good and Bad Immigration Proposals

by Phyllis Schlafly Eagle Forum August 29, 2012

After a genuinely grassroots Republican platform committee produced a principled document on a plethora of issues, including immigration, some people who were not part of the process are promoting pro-amnesty proposals. Writing this week in the Wall Street Journal, Jon Huntsman suggested that President Obama’s executive order offering work permits to 1.6 million illegal immigrants doesn’t go far enough.

The facts do not support the pie-in-the-sky views of those, such as Jon Huntsman, who say they want to increase immigration because it will boost our sagging economy. A new study by the Center for Immigration Studies reports that the economic progress made by all immigrants, legal, illegal, and their U.S.-born children under age 18, lags far behind native-born Americans and nearly half remain below the poverty line.

The 2010-2011 census data found that 43 percent of immigrants who have been in the United States at least 20 years are receiving welfare benefits. That figure is nearly twice as high as welfare given to native-born Americans.

Immigrant children account for one in five public school students, and one in four public school students speaks a language other than English at home. The expensive boondoogle called bilingual education keeps children speaking their native language year after year instead of using the successful early 20th-century immersion system of teaching the kids only in English, who then went home and taught English to their parents.

Immigrant households account for half of all overcrowded households. Only 2 percent of native Americans live in overcrowded households, compared to 13 percent of immigrant households.

Only 7 percent of adult native Americans have not finished high school, but that’s true of 28 percent of adult immigrants. That is a major reason for their low economic status and prospects.

One of the great myths about immigrants is that they are doing jobs that Americans will not do. The truth is that native Americans are the majority of workers in all the jobs where immigrants are reputed to be especially needed, such as janitors, maids, construction laborers, butchers and meat processors.

Legal and illegal immigration over the last 10 years has caused 80 percent of our total population growth, but it is a big myth that this has increased our economic wealth. Even after immigrants have been in the United States for 20 years, they are still well behind native Americans in economic well-being.

Highly paid lobbyists are continually pressuring Congress to expand immigration for foreigners to fill science and engineering jobs, using a variety of visas, especially H-1Bs. Their propaganda often includes labeling these young foreigners “the best and the brightest.”

The notion that foreigners are better and brighter than Americans is nonsense. And we have enough unemployed and underemployed engineers to fill vacancies, if there are any.

The big businesses like to employ foreigners because they can be paid less than Americans and given fewer benefits. Visa employees are subject to carrot-and-stick control: the offer of a path to citizenship, and the threat of deportation if they try to transfer to another company.

The question we should ask all candidates this year is, with jobs and unemployment being our Number One problem, why did we tolerate the decade from 2000 to 2010 becoming the highest decade of immigration to America in history? It’s clear that the Obama administration has betrayed its own constituency of African-Americans, as well as citizens of all races who desperately need entry-level jobs.

Despite the low level of job creation in the so-called recovery, the Center for Immigration Studies calculates that more than half of net new jobs in the last five years have gone to recent immigrants. The share of immigrant men holding a job is now higher than the percentage of native-born men who are employed.

Our government used to obey a federal law that denied visas to potential immigrants who were unable to support themselves and might become a “public charge.” Somehow, that whole concept seems to have disappeared.

Just this month, some Republican Senators wrote to Homeland Security and the State Department asking why they don’t consider whether potential immigrants would use some of our nearly 80 federal welfare programs when they evaluate visa applications. We’re still waiting for an answer to the senators’ letter.