Typical open borders nut hates Border Patrol – which is mostly Hispanic:
June 30, 2010
June 29, 2010
Chattanooga Times Free Press
Illegal immigration bill signed by governor
Despite some reservations, Gov. Phil Bredesen on Monday signed legislation requiring local jailers to attempt to determine the immigration status of prisoners and forward the information on to federal immigration officials. — The bill was opposed by [illegal alien “rights”] groups and the Tennessee chapter of the ACLU, whose Executive Director Hedy Weinberg urged the governor to veto the legislation, calling it “un-American.”
Sanctuary city advocate exposed: Widow HPD officer says immigration policies left by ICE official endanger force
Widow HPD officer says immigration policies left by ICE official endanger force
The widow of a Houston police officer killed by an illegal [alien…. criminal] said Sunday that the policies left in place in her city by a top immigration official in the Obama administration continue to put officers in danger. — That official, former Houston Police Chief Harold Hurtt, is taking a job to oversee partnerships between federal and local officials with ICE…
You and Inger are doing one helluva job. I can only imagine what you could do with more funding, I sent in what I could, and I am telling everyone I know to support you.
Amnesty Advocates Discuss Legislative Strategy
By David North, June 28, 2010
Legalization advocates had what sounded like a pretty frank discussion of their legislative strategy, at the 7th Annual Immigration Law and Policy Conference in Washington Friday.
The annual summertime gathering of pro-open borders policy wonks and some immigration lawyers took place at the Georgetown University Law School, and was sponsored by the Migration Policy Institute and the Catholic Immigration Network Inc.
Leading the discussion was Jeanne A. Butterfield, now a Senior Advisor to the big open borders advocacy group, the National Immigration Forum; she had been for years the top staff member of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA).
After admitting that the chances for comprehensive immigration reform (CIR) were remote in the current session of Congress – “there are only 25 to 30 legislative days left, and there are the budgets, the confirmation of a Supreme Court Justice, and perhaps some energy legislation,” Ms. Butterfield said, “but maybe we can get a piece or two, the Dream Act and/or the AgJobs bill.”
“What we do not want is a symbolic vote in the Senate [for comprehensive reform] that lets the White House say ‘see, we tried, and the Republicans blocked it’,” she continued.
She also expressed opposition to any version of the Dream Act (which would legalize the presence of illegal aliens who entered the nation as children and then subsequently enrolled in American colleges) that was weighted down with too many enforcement amendments.
She discussed the positions of several individual Republican senators, saying that Richard Lugar of Indiana was the only GOP cosponsor of the Dream Act, and that three Republicans leaving the chamber this year Judd Gregg (NH), Robert Bennett (UT), and George Voinovich (OH), might, in the end, support the Dream Act.
She also speculated that Lindsay Graham (SC), who is very close to John McCain (AZ), might start cooperating with the Democrats on immigration matters after McCain’s primary battle ends in August. The implication was that Graham would not want to do anything in the next few months that would complicate McCain’s primary campaign against former Rep. J.D. Hayworth for the GOP Senate nomination in that state.
Butterfield reminded her audience that the immigration acts of 1986, 1990, and 1996 all were passed late in the session. She did not, however, speak specifically of the prospects of a lame duck legislative session this year.
The “half-a-loaf is better than nothing” metaphor was not used in this discussion, but she did suggest that the Dream Act might set in motion enough momentum to bring about comprehensive immigration reform in the future.
As to legislative prospects in 2011, she said they would be much less encouraging if
“Lamar Smith (R -TX) resumes his chairmanship.” The congressman, a restrictionist, would presumably become chairman of the House Judiciary Committee (which includes the immigration subcommittee) were the House to go Republican.
As to why CIR had not made progress so far this year, Butterfield cited four reasons: 1) lack of effective White House leadership, 2) Republican obstruction, 3) too little political power of the advocates, and 4) external events. The election of Scott Brown (R-MA) to the late Ted Kennedy’s seat to was cited as the principal external event.
Butterfield did not discuss either why she supported CIR, or its legislative components; she apparently assumed that she was speaking with knowledgeable friends of the legislation, so she concentrated on tactics. She said that “we sent 73 organizers out to 66 congressional districts” to drum up support for CIR; she did not discuss what entities were paying the organizers.
During Q&A session I asked the panel why the discussion of various immigration matters did not include any mentions of the total size of the American population, “since we all know that virtually all population growth in the U.S. is caused by immigration, and because a larger population makes larger demands on both the environment and the infrastructure.”
The principal reply came from Doris Meissner of MPI, the former INS Commissioner. She said that “historically America has had no appetite for a population policy . . . it is not appropriate to place those concerns on the immigration process.”
The Hill — Washington
Kyl stands behind original account of immigration confrontation with Obama
…[Sen. Jon] Kyl said he stood entirely behind his characterization of a meeting with Obama in which the senator described the president as threatening not to bolster border security until Republicans sign onto a comprehensive immigration reform [read: amnesty] bill providing illegal [aliens…. criminals] a path to citizenship
What angry Jerry Gonzalaz and the rest of the ethnic hustlers hope most people don’t know about Ag workers and H2A visas
June 24, 2010
Two and Two Is Five [Mark Krikorian]
A number of House Republicans have written to Sen. Jeff Sessions requesting that he ask Elena Kagan about her role, as solicitor general, in the Obama administration’s request that the Supreme Court overturn Arizona’s 2007 immigration law. That measure required use of E-Verify for all employers in the state as a condition of having a business license. This is important in judging Kagan’s likely propensity for judicial activism, because even the Ninth Circuit upheld that Arizona law.
The administration is now claiming that the 2007 Arizona state law (signed by Janet Napolitano) is preempted by federal law, but when you look at the statute in question (8 USC 1324a), there is simply no way to argue such a thing in good faith. The relevant section says this:
The provisions of this section preempt any State or local law imposing civil or criminal sanctions (other than through licensing and similar laws) upon those who employ, or recruit or refer for a fee for employment, unauthorized aliens.
I think “other than through licensing” is pretty obviously about, you know, licensing, which is what the Arizona law deals with. So the administration’s brief to the Supreme Court (which Kagan apparently helped draft) isn’t just mistaken or trying to bootstrap something by talking about emanations and penumbras. It’s an unambiguous example of bad faith, of trying to use the courts to overturn something explicitly permitted by statute. This is a brazen attempt at subverting democratic governance.
What’s next? When the 22nd amendment says “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice,” it doesn’t really mean twice? Where Article 1, Sec. 2 says “No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years,” it doesn’t mean 25?
VIDEO! 1:36 minutes HERE
For those of you who may not have seen this yet:
This video catches Democratic County Supervisor Peggy West showing off her geography skills during a debate whether Milwaukee should boycott Phoenix by proclaiming that :
“If this was Texas, which is a state that is directly on the border with Mexico, and they were calling for a measure like this saying that they had a major issue with undocumented people flooding their borders, I would have to look twice at this. But this is a state that is a ways removed from the border.”
America, meet the Obama voters who would repeat the amnesty of 1986…
WHO IS Peggy West?
“…A committed believer in community service, Supervisor West volunteers for UMOS, Inc. and Mexican Fiesta and serves as a mentor at Notre Dame Middle School.
Peggy serves on the Latina Resource Center Advisory Board, Sports Authority Planning Council, Health Care Policy Task Force, Milwaukee Center for Independence Board of Visitors, Kosciuszko Community Center Advisory Board and Esperanza Unida Board of Directors; she is Co-Chair of the Side Side National Night Out Planning Committee as well as the Cesar E. Chavez Drive Advancement Committee. She also serves on the Executive Committee of the Milwaukee Democratic Party.
Supervisor West resides in the Walker’s Point neighborhood and is the proud parent of three daughters.”
Rome News- Tribune
GOP govenor hopefuls talk tough on illegal immigration
by KATE BRUMBACK, Associated Press Writer
ATLANTA (AP) — With rhetoric about immigration intensifying nationwide, Georgia’s Republican candidates for governor are taking every chance they get to reiterate their tough stances on illegal immigration.
At debates and forums, on their websites and in television advertisements, the four top contenders in the seven-person GOP primary say they’d support a tough immigration law like the one that recently passed in Arizona. And they’re calling on state college administrators to make sure no illegal immigrants attend state schools.
“The competing Republican gubernatorial candidates are simply trying to show that they are very much committed to tougher immigration policy,” said University of Georgia political science professor Charles Bullock. “There’s probably not a whole lot of difference between what they would do but, you know, it plays well.”
With a comprehensive immigration reform plan seeming unlikely to make it onto the congressional agenda this year, immigration might have lost footing this election year to pressing issues like health care and the economy. But the passage of a strict new law in Arizona in April sparked months of heated debate.
“The reality is illegal immigration is a big problem nationwide, and it’s a big problem in Georgia,” said Stephen Puetz, campaign manager for Insurance Commissioner John Oxendine, the GOP money leader. “Our state needs to do more if the federal government isn’t going to enforce their laws.”
The Arizona law, which goes into effect next month, requires police investigating another incident or crime to ask people about their immigration status if there’s a “reasonable suspicion” they’re in the country illegally.
It has been widely decried by civil liberties and immigrant rights activists, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently said the federal government planned to sue over the issue.
The four leading contenders for the Republican nomination for governor in Georgia have all said they would like to see a law here that mirrors the Arizona law.
“Nathan would put into law legislation similar to what passed in Arizona,” said Brian Robinson, a spokesman for former congressman Nathan Deal. “Immigration reform will be part of his mandate in his first session at the Legislature as governor.”
The high-profile case of an illegal immigrant student at Kennesaw State University who was arrested in the spring after being stopped for a minor traffic violation and was nearly deported before the federal government deferred action on her case for a year has also fueled the immigration debate in Georgia.
“Karen thinks we should check the legal status of students, and that those who are not here legally should be removed from school and should, frankly, be sent back to their country of origin,” said Dan McLagan, a spokesman for former Secretary of State Karen Handel.
Handel and the other three leading Republican candidates have all called on the Board of Regents, which oversees the state’s public universities and colleges, to come up with a way to verify that applicants are in the country legally.
Former state Sen. Eric Johnson earlier this month unveiled a proposal that would require elementary and secondary schools to collect citizenship data on enrolling students and also would require public hospitals to find out which patients are in the country legally.
Deal has publicly sparred with Johnson over that proposal, saying teachers and hospitals shouldn’t be dragged into enforcement of immigration laws.
Oxendine has said he will work with the state’s next attorney general to sue the federal government to recoup prison and other costs incurred by the state for the detention of any illegal immigrant. His reasoning for that, said Puetz, is that states wouldn’t have to bear those costs if the federal government had effectively done its job of keeping illegal immigrants out.
In his role as insurance commissioner, a seat he’s held since 1994, Oxendine hasn’t dealt much with the issue of illegal immigration. The other three leading Republicans all tout their past records as indicators of future toughness.
Johnson notes that he was president pro tem in the state Senate when Georgia passed one of the toughest immigration laws in the country.
Handel implemented the use of the federal SAVE database to verify the immigration status of applicants for professional licenses when she was secretary of state, McLagan said.
Deal’s campaign notes he consistently pushed for stricter enforcement of federal immigration laws while he was in Congress.
While immigration has been a much-discussed topic for Republicans in the gubernatorial primary, it’s barely been a blip on the radar on the Democratic side. But Bullock, the UGA professor, thinks it’s a topic the Democratic nominee won’t be able to avoid.
“I think it will continue on into the general election,” he said. “It’s going to be an issue that I think we’re going to see Republicans using across the nation.”
That wouldn’t be a new tactic. When Gov. Sonny Perdue was running for re-election in 2006, GOP ads depicted him as tough on illegal immigration after he signed a strict immigration bill into law and accused Democratic challenger Mark Taylor of failing to show leadership on the issue.
Read more: RN-T.com – GOP govenor hopefuls talk tough on illegal immigration