Tuesday, July 31, 2007

Munley's World - Part 3

We are all relieved to find out that Chief Justice Roberts did not suffer a stroke nor did they discover a brain tumor. It appears that his seizure was a result of reading Munley’s opinion on the Hazleton ordinance! He has been ordered by his physician to stop reading it.

You may recall that there was a case in Tyler Texas (Plyler v. Doe) way back in 1981 that went all the way to the U S Supreme Court. As a result all God’s children are entitled to a free public education in any U S public school. Talk about unfunded mandates! And at the hands of the Court, not the Congress.

Take your local school district’s average cost per student, multiply that by 13 (K-12), and you have the amount YOU PAY to educate one illegal alien. (Well, in most cases it is higher than the average due to bilingual ed, special ed services, low-income lunch support…)

Well, Plyler keeps on giving. Munley used it in his opinion when he said, “As Supreme Court Justice Blackmun noted: “[T]he structure of the immigration statuses makes it impossible for the State to determine which aliens are entitled to residence, and which eventally will be deported.”
Plyler, 457 U.S. at 236 (Blackmun, J., concurring). Additionally, Supreme Court Justice Lewis F. Powell stated: “Until an undocumented alien is ordered deported by the Federal Government, no State can be assured that the alien will not be found to have a federal permission to reside in the
country.” Plyler, 457 at 241 n.6 (Powell, J., concurring).” (pg. 130)

Munley tells us that even a person caught and slated for deportation is still eligible to work! He explains that the immigration laws are so convoluted that it would seem that only a handful of people in the world are qualified to explore all loopholes and pass judgment. In other words, the country is up for grabs.

He points out that Basic PILOT and SAVE, two on-going federal screening programs for employers and social service providers respectively, are inadequate and flawed. Watch for lawsuits to follow as employers and welfare departments are sued when they use the tools Washington has provided. There is no burden of proof. All you need to do now is quote Munley.

It is all so Clintonesque; you haven’t done anything wrong until the right people catch you.

I am afraid that this ruling is so broad that I can see literally millions of illegals hiding in the folds of Munley’s robes.

Monday, July 30, 2007

Munley's World - Part 2

You and I might think that being an American citizen is something special.

And record numbers of Green Card holders have been flocking to the Citizenship office in the past 90 days to become citizens. (Some would say they are only doing it to save money, since the application fees are increasing. How cynical of them. Of course, they want to become citizens because of their deep allegiance to our country.) (Listen to me, being cynical of the cynics)

But in his Hazleton ruling, here’s what Judge Munley writes: “Our analysis applies to illegal aliens as well as to legal residents and citizens. The United States Constitution provides due
process protections to all persons.” (page 187. Italics are in the original text.)

I’m with him up to a point. Due process protection does apply to all persons. “Innocent until proven guilty” is vital to our society. I think the Hazleton ordinances are based on establishing lawful presence before any action is taken, but Munley may have rightly worried about the appeals process.

But then Munley goes beyond due process and gets dangerously vague with this statement from page 189:

“Even if federal law did not conflict with Hazleton’s measures, the City could not
enact an ordinance that violates rights the Constitution guarantees to every
person in the United States, whether legal resident or not.”

Suddenly the door is thrown wide open. One could easily extend suffrage to illegal aliens with just the right interpretation of that sentence. Or even the right to hold public office.

And it is reinforced in Munley’s final paragraph immediately preceding the court order. He writes:
“The genius of our Constitution is that it provides rights even to those who evoke the least
sympathy from the general public. In that way, all in this nation can be confident of equal justice under its laws. Hazleton, in its zeal to control the presence of a group deemed undesirable, violated the rights of such people, as well as others within the community. Since the United States Constitution protects even the disfavored, the ordinances cannot be enforced.”

People you and I would define as illegal aliens, Munley calls:
1) “those who evoke the least sympathy”
2) “a group deemed undesirable”
3) “the disfavored”

Clearly justice is blind in this case; blind to the fact that these people have willfully violated immigration laws and do not have lawful presence in the United States!

If Munley’s ruling is left standing, citizenship becomes virtually meaningless.

Munley's World - Part 1

I’ve been reading Judge Munley’s ruling that denies Hazleton PA the right to protect itself from the influx of illegal aliens. It is an interesting read. I would like to take a couple of blogs to explain the world Munley lives in.

At the end of his 206 page ruling Munley includes 13 pages of source material. This should be helpful to the Appeals Court as they try to figure out where he is coming from.

Interestingly, his source material isn’t case law or statute. Here’s what Munley read in preparation for his decision, as he quotes extensively in his Appendix:
JOHN HIGHAM, Strangers in the land: Patterns of American Nativism
SUCHENG CHAN,European and Asian Immigration into the United States in Comparative
Perspective, 1820s to 1920s
VIRGINIA YANS-McLAUGHLIN, Immigration Reconsidered: History, Sociology and Politics
MAE M. NGAI, Impossible Subjects: Illegal Aliens and the Making of Modern America
KITTY CALAVITA, The Paradoxes of Race, Class, Identity, and “Passing”: Enforcing the Chinese Exclusion Acts, 1882-1910
RONALD TAKAKI, Strangers from a Different Shore
MAE NGAI, The Lost Immigration Debate: Border Control Didn’t Always Dictate Policy
DANIEL KANSTROOM, United States Immigration Policy at the Millenium: Deportation, Social Control, and Punishment: Some Thoughts About Why Hard Laws Make Bad Cases
PATRICIA A. SEITH, Escaping Domestic Violence: Asylum as a Means of Protection for
Battered Women
GLORIA SANDRINO-GLASSER, Los Confundidos: De-Conflating Latinos/as’ Race and Ethnicity
LENNI B. BENSON, Back to the Future: Congress Attacks the Right to Judicial Review of Immigration Proceedings
GERALD L. NEUMAN, Symposium: Admissions and Denials: A Dialogic Introduction to the
Immigration Law Symposium
PETER J. SPIRO, Learning to Live with Immigration Federalism
ARISTIDE R. ZOLBERG, Reforming the Back Door: The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 in Historical Perspective

Two thoughts about the appropriateness of this material:
1) Methinks Judge Munley has professor envy. Perhaps his work would be better appreciated in some Latino studies classes at Berkeley.
2) When it comes to the laws of the land, I would prefer that our judges drink from the source, not downstream after the cattle have waded through it.

Just looking at this bibliography one could make a strong case that Munley is an “Activist” judge.

Thursday, July 26, 2007


The good news is that the Senate voted 89-1 today to strengthen enforcement at the border. It is a strong message that the Senators realize their folly from earlier this summer. I’m sure there are other motives because it is tied to the Homeland Security package and everyone wants to be on record supporting home defense.

There is quite a contrast between the media’s take on the bill yesterday and the vote today. Reporters were saying yesterday that Bush was against it and the Dems would never go for it. But today everyone is in favor.

Something smells here but I’m not sure what. We’ll see how it actually shakes out over the next few months. My guess is that there were some promises for leniency toward illegals if they got behind the enforcement part.

The bad…Federal Judge James Munley ruled that the Hazleton ordinance was unconstitutional. This is the local ordinance that made it illegal to harbor aliens (rent to them) and illegal to hire them. The ACLU is dancing in the streets.

The ugly? It is what Judge Munley wrote in his ruling. It must not be allowed to stand as precedent! If so it will give Constitutional protection to unlawfully present citizens of other countries. It will be more far reaching than the Plyler decision in 1981, declaring that all children from any country have a right to a free public education here.

Here’s what Munley wrote: “Even if federal law did not conflict with Hazleton's measures, the city could not enact an ordinance that violates rights the Constitution guarantees to every person in the United States, whether legal resident or not.”

This phrase alone would grant Constitutional rights to people who are here illegally. Like I say, we cannot allow that notion to stand. Mayor Barletta promises to appeal the ruling.

Note: Munley was appointed to the bench in 1998 by President William Jefferson Clinton, the gift that keeps on giving.

Wednesday, July 25, 2007

Doing the work Americans shouldn't do

Crabtree Nature Preserve is located northwest of Chicago in Barrington. It is the staple of Cub Scout and Brownie Troops as they view the exhibits and walk the trails.

We learned today that it was also the home to 30,000 marijuana plants! A college intern stumbled across a couple of men who claimed to be city workers cultivating the crop of weed. He called the cops and they set up a surveillance of the area. After observing the situation for a few weeks, they moved in and arrested two Hispanic gentlemen.

Gentleman #1, Jose Verra, is an illegal alien. Gentleman #2, Bernardo Rangel, is a Mexican citizen with a green card. The police and the media are surprisingly candid about their immigration status. I guess it is due to the nature of the crime, because they seldom disclose it when it comes to most area crimes, even violent ones.

These two farmers were very well equipped. They were pumping water out of the ponds in the area onto their crops, using electric pumps and generators. They had cots for sleeping, a shower, a camp stove, and food. They even had a rat hole bunker that would make Saddam Hussein proud.

In all there were 11 fields with 30,000 plants worth a total of $10 million. And it was all less than a ½ mile from the nature center exhibit building and a block from Route 59, a major road that passes along the forest preserve.

Well, Bernardo is out on bond ($40,000) but Jose is still locked up due to his immigration problem.

Just so you don’t get confused, these aren’t the decent, hard-working people of faith who just came here for a better life. But it would sure be hard to tell them apart walking down the street.

The DEA had a big bongfire on Tuesday.

Legalize pot growers

I got to thinking about the sweet irony involved in the pot farm run by an illegal alien. Pres. Bush, Karl Rove, and a host of Congressmen wanted to legalize aliens last month. These politicians who are supposed to represent conservative values were telling us we ought to allow 12 million people to remain here and have their status magically changed to “legal” because:
1) They are already here
2) There are too many of them to just remove them
3) They provide us a valuable service
4) Some people have no problem with them
5) They refuse to leave anyway
6) It would be safer if they came out of the shadows

So, taking those same reasons, why don’t we legalize marijuana? Say Bush, why not? You’ve been telling us that unlawful presence is a victimless crime; Lots of people say the same thing about smoking dope.

Heck, if we did this right we could have some tax revenue. First of all, you could lay off some policemen and DEA agents (a peace dividend of sorts). The park district could lease the land to the growers. Ka-ching! We could meter their water. More $$$. We could impose a sin tax on each joint sold, just like cigarettes. And they wouldn’t have to work under the table so we’d get payroll taxes from them.

While were at it, how about gays in the forest preserves. We could put up parking meters and collect money from them when they cruise the parking lots looking for partners. We could even throw up some rental cottages so they could get comfortable in their diversions.

Once you have no problem declaring wrong as right, the possibilities are endless. And once you make it legal, you no longer need to track it as a crime statistic. Viola! Problem solved.

Tuesday, July 24, 2007

Brown on Brown

I’ve been taking note lately of the number of crimes committed by Hispanics against other Hispanics. They sometimes put their trust in each other and wind up used and abused.

You’ll never hear the media talking about it but it’s true. Look around at the cleaning businesses, roofing contractors and landscaping companies with Latino names. Imagine this: Lopez Landscaping gets an SBA Minority-owned Loan from Uncle Sam. Mr. Lopez is perfectly legal but he hires illegals. They speak his language. They trust him.

Lopez has an advantage over Smith Landscaping because Smith hires only legal workers and he pays them according to the tax laws. Lopez pays his workers under the table, cash money, $75 a day. Smith pays $80 a day but takes out taxes. Smith also pays FICA and other withholdings, which costs him money. So, the cost per employee to Smith is $110 a day.

So, is Lopez helping his workers, or exploiting them?

How about these cases…
Gerardo Dominguez was a plant manager for QSI, a cleaning company in Beardstown Illinois. He not only hired illegal aliens but he also provided them with fake IDs. He had an accomplice in the personnel department named Maria Del Pilar Marroquin. Now 49 illegals are in custody and Gerardo and Maria are in jail for identity theft, including Social Security numbers of U. S. Citizens.

In Ogden Utah Heber Nevarez worked for Centro de Servicios Hispanos, an agency that helps Latinos “assimilate”. It turns out that Heber was helping himself. It seems that German Rodriguez used Heber’s help in preparing his taxes and Heber used Mr. Rodriguez’s identity to get credit cards and car loans.

Another victim of the scam was Juan Jesus Lopez. Centro employees helped themselves to his financial/identity information and purchased a Hummer H2, Dodge Durango, a Ford F-350 truck.

By the way, Centro de Servicios Hispanos was never a registered business with the state, nor did it have a business license. Sweet, huh?

Talk about helping yourself, a Chevy Suburban with 14 illegals crammed inside rolled in the Utah desert in April. Eight people were killed. Some were never identified, though authorities believe they were from Guatemala. It seems the driver was helping himself, fondling a female passenger in the car, when he lost control and rolled the vehicle. Rigoberto Salas is also helping himself to the services of a Public Defender in the Utah courts. I hope he sends the taxpayers a thank you note!

You may recall the raids last December at the Swift meatpacking plants around the country. Two of the defendants charged with supplying fake IDs are Eleuterio Gutierrez and Veronica Carrillo.

And I didn’t even get to the stabbings, rapes, and murders committed in the Latino community. It kinda reminds you of a third world country sometimes. But it would be wrong for us to judge another culture, especially a non-white one. (Sigh.)

Monday, July 23, 2007

Deliberate Loopholes

When you consider the way Washington operates it is hard to take them seriously. In the interest of affirmative action, several obstacles to enforcement have been built in to the law. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the employment verification area.

The I-9 form has been around for a couple of decades. I can remember when our personnel department had everyone fill out the form and present their ID for verification. It was much simpler in the early days. There weren’t three columns of ID to choose from and the form itself was less than one page (including the instructions).

There are however a couple of nuggets of truth in the current I-9 form. For example, the box right at the top of the first page reminds employers that it is OK to discriminate against illegal aliens because THEY DON’T HAVE ANY RIGHTS. It says, “It is illegal to discriminate against any individual (other than an alien not authorized to work in the U.S.) in hiring, discharging, or recruiting…….”

But that is about the only toughness you’ll find on the current form. There are lots of ways to get around the fact that you are “undocumented”.

Now, if I were here illegally I would present a voter registration card as one form of ID. Here in Illinois it is easy to get. First I would find a Democrat Party activist who is a registrar, show her my electric bill, and sign that I am a citizen. Viola! Instant ID.

But I would need one other form of ID. Maybe a “Native American tribal document” or a birth certificate from a state far away. After all, what are the odds that an employer will even know what a Montana birth certificate looks like? (And what are the odds that an employer will even CARE?)

The employer has a choice here. Should I make a photocopy of the IDs presented or not? Well, if you don’t make a copy for the file, that’s OK. And it is safer, because if someone decides to check, there will be no evidence of how bogus the document looked. In other words, it becomes almost impossible to prove that an employer deliberately hired a person they knew was here illegally.

You might think the next step for the employer is to verify the social security number presented. (See the blog “This is the PILOT). But that step is optional, voluntary, not required. I don’t know why. Most employers have access to the Internet these days. If not, there is always the telephone.

Now, we all know that Social Security is in trouble. They are running out of money. They have increased the retirement age for workers in order to keep the fund afloat.

One way the SSA keeps money in the account is by accepting payroll deductions from people who are known to be here illegally. In fact, they LOVE illegals because they will pay in but never draw out. (But watch the politicians. Some of them want illegals to be able to collect. Some of them want to mingle the funds with Canada and Mexico so eligibility is expanded and never compromised.)

Even today the SSA withholds information from Homeland Security about bogus or conflicting Social Security numbers. Things are better, but some secrets remain.

And reading the “No match” letters sent to employers of illegal aliens is laughable. Talk about presumed innocent! If an illegal uses someone else’s Social Security number on the W-2, the employer will get a letter in about six months that says there is a conflict. They list three reasons why the conflict exists:
1) Clerical error
2) The employee changed their name and didn’t report it
3) The information was incomplete or blank.

It doesn’t say that the person might actually be committing fraud. In fact, there is a warn saying: “This letter does not imply that you or your employee intentionally gave the government wrong information….Nor does it make any statement about an employee’s immigration status.”

How PC of them. I’m glad we don’t have an identity theft problem in the U.S. or that attitude might seem careless.

The letter goes on to warn employers NOT to take any drastic action. It sweetly says, “It would be a great help to us if you could respond within 60 days with the information that you are able to correct…”

Wow! Most of the government notices I have seen talk about $500 fines for every day you are in violation and the threat of a jail term. How nice of the SSA to be so friendly.

They can afford to be friendly because all the money that cannot be applied to a legitimate account goes in to a fund to keep Social Security solvent.

No wonder employers hire illegals. They know our government is so screwed up that they can’t or won’t enforce the law. All the company has to do is fill out the I-9 and put it on file.

And Washington wants to scare us by threatening the other extreme, a tamper-resistant national ID card that violates our privacy. I say there is a reasonable middle ground that would catch 75% of the illegals and make fake IDs unaffordable for all but the most determined.

I think Washington doesn’t really WANT to fix the problem.

Saturday, July 21, 2007

It still troubles me

I’m trying to understand exactly what was going on in the Senate with Comprehensive Immigration Reform. Why were they all in such a hurry? (Always worry when Bush sides with the Democrats on the Hill. Something is up.) And remember when Trent Lott said, “Talk radio is running this country”, then suggested that they needed to fix that problem?

I think it all points to a change in the way Congress works. There was a time when Senators would make their deals with each other. Maybe they didn’t even read the fine print before they voted. They knew that Sam was getting what he wanted and Tip had his hand in it and Dan was the sponsor so you had to vote for it.

But now civilians are reading up on the bills. People with an interest in the issue read the bill and find flaws and pork. They get out on the Internet with the details, talk radio and the press pick up on it (it’s not just Fox and the conservatives – the libs use the MSM in the same way), and suddenly you have lots of constituent feedback.

So here’s what I think happened. The “grand bargain” of comprehensive immigration reform attempted to solve a POLITICAL problem. Congress and Bush were under attack from Latino protesters to give them amnesty. At the same time, conservatives wanted them to stop the nonsense. You had the makings of civil unrest, all due to the government ignoring the problem for 20 years.

These senators began to look at the issue and decided that courting the brown vote wasn’t worth the risk anymore. It was an attractive swing bloc but the cost was too high, especially with both extremes mobilized.

So, I think the grand bargain compromise was an agreement to “call it a draw”, a declaration that this new “third rail of politics” wasn’t worth the risk. Crafted right, each party could claim part of the victory for campaign purposes and Washington could scrape the issue off the bottom of its shoe.

But public exposure of the details of the bill made it clear that it did nothing to solve the social and economic problems with illegal aliens, especially at the local level.

Here’s what it would do for the feds:
1) Increase the likelihood that more people would be paying in to the IRS and Social Security funds.
2) Relieve the pressure cooker of this disconnect between the law and the status quo.
3) Please business interests.

But what it actually did was further erode the trust of the people in our elected officials. The GOP took a huge hit from its conservative base while reaching out (unsuccessfully) to the Latinos.

It is a prime example of situational ethics. Congress was telling us, “Sure they came here illegally, but they work hard and we need their labor. So lets give them a pass.”

Worse, the executive branch has shown us that they have deliberately under-enforced, even walking away from Homeland Security funding support, in an effort to appear tolerant. To the average citizen, such behavior is unconscionable.

Anchor Babies

May was a busy month in Washington with all the talk of immigration reform. Quietly over in the House an effort was made to end anchor baby citizenship.

To begin with a definition, the 14th Amendment to our constitution states: “All persons born…in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States…” In other words, any baby born here is a citizen, even if their parents are here illegally.

Hence the term “anchor baby” refers to the children of illegal aliens because they provide an “anchor” for the family, making them eligible for free government benefits and helping them qualify for legalization.

I won’t go into it here, but the 14th Amendment was to make some changes after the Civil War. The clause on citizenship was to establish the fact that children of slaves are citizens. It was understood that foreigners (even American Indians) were NOT part of the deal. It was a court interpretation decades later that included everyone.

Over in the House of Representatives, HR 1940 was presented in early May. The intent was to pass a law that would exclude illegal alien children from citizenship. According to the bill at least one of the parents would have to be legal in order to allow citizenship for the baby. (Or parental military service would also qualify them.)

The bill was quietly sent to the House committee on immigration and added to the pile of ideas stacking up there.

You would think that the Senate would have picked up on this idea when they were debating immigration reform. With all the amendments to the bill, this would have been a nice addition.

But this idea has zero chance of advancing in Congress. Why?
1) It is too simple. The entire resolution, including and the names of sponsors and an ample number of whereases and therefores, is only three pages. No one tried to bury a bridge or a highway or some other pork in the fine print. Nope. What you see is what you get.
2) It would agitate the Latino activists and subject members of Congress to criticism of racism. It would be seen as cruel and punitive. It would not find support in liberal circles, even though Mexico does not grant citizenship to babies of foreigners.

Still, if you get a chance, find out who your House Rep is and give ‘em a shout. It might give them a little courage.

Thursday, July 19, 2007

What is this 287(g) stuff?

Chicago news outlets are talking about 287(g) these days after the City of Waukegan voted to have their police participate in the program. So what is 287(g)?

The name comes from the federal immigration act passed in 1996 (IIRAIRA). There is a section of the law (287(g)) that allows state and local law enforcement departments to receive training and power to act as immigration officers.

Some folks in Washington try to make it sound like infrastructure protection (power stations, water treatment plants…) but we weren’t so much interested in such things in 1996.

No, it was intended to help immigration officers do their job. They are understaffed so a local officer who is properly trained can at least do the screening to determine who is deportable.

And the local news outlets were throwing out the term “deportation authority”. That is not true! The involvement of a 287(g) officer is at the very beginning of a LOOOOONG road that might lead to deportation. Let’s not give the impression that a Waukegan cop can pull over an illegal and send him to the border. It doesn’t work that way and the reporters should know better.

Probably the agency with the most trained officers is the Alabama State Police (Highway Patrol). They have 60 officers who have graduated from the program. They must like it because these officers were trained in three “waves” of 20 each. You would think that they wouldn’t keep signing up for more if they didn’t think it had value.

Actually, the State Police model is a good one. We think about them out on the highways making traffic stops, which is true. The Illinois State Police made 459,733 traffic stops in 2006.

But they do more than that. They have Selective Enforcement Teams (SETs) that do everything from car insurance roadblock checks to street gang sweeps. Having them trained in immigration would be a good thing.

But don’t hold your breath in Illinois. Gov. Blago wants to set up Welcome Centers for illegals (I am not kidding) so giving state troopers immigration powers is out of the question for this administration.

Of political note: When Mitt Romney was governor of Massachusetts he authorized his state police to participate in 287(g) but the new gov crushed the eggs before they hatched.

Other than that, 287(g) has been used mostly in county jails. Having someone trained to screen the inmates is a good thing.

A handful of cities have applied for the program in an effort to expose the criminal element among illegal aliens. 287(g) officers can at least identify them and tag them for removal, something most local police don’t bother to pursue. You don’t need to be told “no” very many times before you give up. My police department told me that they don’t ask ICE because they save the requests for when they need special favors. They didn’t want to go to the well too often.

There are some problems with implementation of this program. The first is political will on the part of ICE in Washington. Sec. Chertoff who is in charge of immigration enforcement made it clear in an NPR interview June 8th that he didn’t want local interference in immigration enforcement.

Predicting what would happen if the Senate didn’t pass the amnesty bill, he told Robert Siegel, “You’re also going to see an increasing number of localities passing their own individual immigration bills. They’re going to be everywhere from ordinances that create sanctuary cities to ordinances in cities that say it’s illegal to rent to undocumented workers. And that means that businesses are going to be faced with hundreds of inconsistent requirements. There’s going to be a lot of confusion.”

Chertoff is the same person that must sign off on 287(g) programs. Maybe I’m misreading him, but I don’t think he wants to do it. Chertoff is for legalizing the illegals as a solution to the problem, not strengthening enforcement. I could be wrong, but I think Pres. Bush feels the same way.

The second problem has to do with the priorities of ICE. Any police department that has contacted ICE to pick up an illegal will tell you that they will only respond to a select type of request. There are a half dozen or so ICE priorities. They include gang members, human smugglers, child molesters, terrorist infiltrators, and certain people who have been ordered deported but have not left the country.

So a local rapist isn’t likely to make their list. But now you have a 287(g) officer who puts the rapist on the list. Now what? He’ll need to be flagged through the court/prison process, he’ll need a detention bed, and he’ll need to be sent home after serving his time. Bush knows that 20-30,000 beds won’t do the job. And he knows that another BIA appeal added to the workload won’t help Washington.

I feel for them, but the alternative is absurd. You can’t just put a criminal illegal alien back on the streets in the United States.

Personally, I wholeheartedly support the 287(g) program for the following reasons:
1) It puts a number to the problem, exposing just how many illegal aliens pass through our local jails.
2) It puts pressure on Washington to protect citizens from people who do not have a lawful presence in the United States.
3) It helps create a deterrent to future illegals, just knowing that someone out there cares about their status and will question them.
4) It reestablishes the truth that illegals are not supposed to be here and are subject to removal.
5) It makes our communities safer.

Manure over the fence

I’m in trouble with my next-door neighbor, and I don’t think it’s right. Here’s what happened.

I bought a load of manure for my yard the other day. It was real primo manure, too. It wasn’t too dry and wasn’t too sticky. And it had a fine aroma, like good manure should.

Then the trouble starts. I bought too much. Since I had some left over I figured I’d just give it to my next-door neighbor. So I tossed it over the fence into his yard. I didn’t think anything of it until the police came knocking at my door. After all, who would mind receiving free manure? He didn’t have to pay for it. And heaven knows he needs it.

When I explained it to the cop, he questioned me. He said, “Did you ask your neighbor if he wanted the manure?” “Well, no. It was good manure. Why would I need to ask?”

“Did you tell him you were sending over some manure?” “No. He needs it for his flower gardens.”

“I don’t suppose you asked him where he wanted it?” “Naw. He’d figure it out once he saw it on his side of the fence.”

What is wrong with people these days? Here I do him a favor and he gets all upset. He just doesn’t understand. Manure is good and organic. It is cheaper than that chemical fertilizer he usually uses. Besides, this was a free gift from me to him. You can’t beat that.

Next time I’ll deliver it at night and hide it around his yard.

Tuesday, July 17, 2007


If you travel north out of Chicago on Lake Shore Drive, you’ll come to Waukegan about eight miles before the Wisconsin line. With a population of about 90,000, 45% are Hispanic and 31% white.

Last night there was a demonstration outside city hall. The hot topic inside was immigration; specifically, whether or not the city should have a couple of officers trained by the feds as deputy ICE agents. They actually voted on it a few weeks ago but the protesters slept through it so the council agreed to vote on it again.

This time they had a boycott, a prayer vigil, and a protest at the meeting in an attempt to sway the city fathers.

They even had a court order from the judge regulating the tickets for entry into the hall itself.

But once again, support for the program came through. Waukegan will request federal training for two officers.

One of the arguments was that this program will result in racial profiling. The theory goes that now the police have deportation powers (a false statement to begin with), they will pull over people for minor traffic offenses and ship them out of the country. If only it were that simple.

What these protesters don’t seem to realize is that this training will actually include coursework in avoiding racial profiling. It will give those officers an even greater understanding of the problem.

And there is a misunderstanding due to “silent amnesty” about who is legal and who isn’t. It is far too easy in our society to assume that all brown-skinned people with a heavy accent are here illegally. That simply is not true.

At least with this training, the police will be able to know for sure. And those who are here legally have even less to worry about. (By the way, those who are here on visas and green cards are required by law to carry the documents on their persons at all times.)

It always bothers me when people come out to protest like that. Are they in favor of lawlessness? How can they openly admit to harboring? And to threaten that they will take millions of dollars out of the community (as one Hispanic businessman claimed on TV last night) means that the problem is so deeply entrenched that they have no shame.

The Catalyst - Waukegan

Time and time again we see cause-and-effect in regards to local efforts to control illegal aliens. Usually it is more than just frustration over Congress. And usually it isn’t because of the tax bill arriving at the house.

No, usually someone has to die. That’s what happened in Hazleton PA. The same thing happened in Allen County Ohio. People die at the hands of illegal aliens and the local politicians wake up.

Well, no one can say for sure what is going on in the minds of the Waukegan city fathers, but I think this story has something to do with their strong resolve.

At around 10 pm on a rainy Super Bowl Sunday 2005, a gentleman pulled out of the Laundromat parking lot into traffic. His car was T-boned by a police car. It was determined that the police car was going 40 mph in a 30 mph zone. According to witnesses there were no lights, no siren. The witnesses also said the officer was going with the flow of traffic.

The gentleman died a few hours later. His name was Wilson Lopez-Ochoa. He was from Honduras. He also had no insurance. He was also an illegal alien.

On May 23rd of this year a jury awarded $2 million to the family of the illegal alien. The jury assigned no fault to Ochoa, despite the fact that he pulled out into traffic. And the jury awarded an additional $33,000 for funeral and medical expenses.

Like I said, I don’t know if the city writing checks for $2 million to the family of an illegal alien had anything to do with their willingness to embark in immigration enforcement, but I would guess that it did.

It would be nice if cities and towns would do these things on their own (like Carpentersville, Illinois has) but I still see most mayors and city councils doing little more than pointing their fingers toward Washington.

Monday, July 16, 2007

Newt on You Tube

I just saw a clip on You Tube of Newt Gingrich poking fun at Homeland Security.

His premise was that there is a world that works and one that doesn’t. The working world is FedEx and UPS where they are able to track millions of packages a day in real time. (Newt isn’t the first to use this analogy. I first read it in a book by Michelle Malkin.)

He says that you can punch in the tracking number of your package and tell where it is at all times.

In the world that doesn’t work, there are 12 million people who are here illegally and we can’t find them. Newt’s solution is to send every illegal alien a package! That way we’ll know where they are.

His second example is the ATM machine. He said he was in Germany recently, stepped up to an ATM, put in his card and his PIN, and 11 seconds later the machine was dispensing his money (at an obscene exchange rate). In the world that works, this ATM accessed Newt’s account info 5,000 miles away and gave him cash from it.

The world that doesn’t work is a case where a California judge is defending the rights of 13 illegal aliens who lost their jobs in an immigration sweep. He said one of the 13 held a fake Social Security Number that had been used 42 times before! The ATM got it right the first time; our government is still failing after 42 opportunities to correct the problem.

We’ve had some IRS/SSA problems at our house. It seems that someone else used my wife’s SSN to file taxes this year. I guess the rule with the IRS is that the first person to use the number is home free. The second person has the burden of proof, even if the second person has been using that same name and number combination for 30 years!

And there doesn’t seem to be any urgency on the part of government at the federal or local level to get to the bottom of the problem.

This indicates to me that there are so many security breeches with bogus SSNs that the government has given up control. Perhaps it is also one of the areas Bush and Chertoff have let slide because they approve of the presence of illegal aliens.

Besides, to crack down would expose the real impact of illegals in our society, and that would be bad politics. Part of Newt’s equation is the political will to attack the problem. We all know that government can be ruthless when they really want to enforce the law.


I’m not sure what’s happening in Elgin Illinois these days. It seems a bit of common sense has crept into the City Council Chambers.

For a couple of years now the city has had an ordinance that if your car stereo can be heard from 75 feet away, you can be stopped, ticketed, and your car towed. To be honest, we still hear the car stereos from a block away but I think it has been a little quieter as a result of the law.

Now, the city council has just passed a new law that they will hook your car if you are stopped for a DUI or no license. The fine is $250 PLUS towing and storage.

Other towns have $500 fines for the same offenses.

In true form, the police chief had exact figures for the impact of the new law. When a council member asked how many such violations were happening each month, she said, “A bunch.” (As long as the council tolerates a sloppy staff, they will get that kind of answers.)

I suppose the question is, “What do you have to do to get your car back?” Common sense would tell you that if it is a DUI, you get sober and pick up your car (unless you’ve lost your license altogether due to previous offenses).

But what about those towed for no license? Do they have to show up with a valid drivers license in order to get the car back? Or do they just have to bring along a friend who does have a license? Hmmm. I’ll have to see about that.

I remember a case a year ago where they towed a car for reckless driving. They also ticketed the driver for no insurance. Well, he got his car the next day and the release slip just said “insurance pending” where the policy number was supposed to be.

I certainly hope there are some teeth to this ordinance.

Sunday, July 15, 2007

This is the PILOT

OK, way back in 1994, one of those federal commissions recommended to Congress that they establish some sort of database for checking Social Security Numbers. The rationale was that some employers weren’t even considering Hispanic applicants because it was too risky. “What if they are illegal aliens? I don’t want any part of that.”

So, in 1996 the Basic PILOT program began in a few states. The rules were simple; you couldn’t run the SSN of applicants, but once you hired someone you could check their SSN within three days. You could phone it in or do it on-line. It was a voluntary program.

Later it was expanded to all 50 states, still voluntary. It was admittedly quick and dirty but if your applicant was a 25-year old male Filipino in California and the number was registered to an 80-year old female in Maine, you knew there was a problem.

The process was a bit laughable once you found a conflict. You couldn’t fire the employee and you couldn’t call Immigration. You just told them politely that they needed to contact the nearest Social Security office to clear up the matter.

The bold ones came back with a completely different number that was a better quality fake and the timid ones just stopped coming to work.

Anyway, I was able to get our local city fathers to do Basic PILOT in their HR department. Immigration has a tougher screening program called IMAGE, but they wouldn’t go for that. At least they have a fighting chance when they hire the security guard at the water treatment plant.

Sooo…there was an article on Monday about the City of Mission Viejo California and their requirement to use Basic PILOT. But they went a step further and require all contractors who work for the city to do the same. It’s a nice touch. You ought to get your town to do it.

Saturday, July 14, 2007

Hispanic voters

The San Diego Union Tribune offered an editorial opinion the other day that Hispanics had returned to the Democratic Party after discovering the Bush and his “Big Tent” friends were unable to deliver an open border for illegals.

The editorial then went on to talk about solutions to the problem.

As usual, I consider the source. The Union Trib is decidedly left wing and pro-illegal alien. They have consistently preached the need for amnesty. It is a bit of a surprise since San Diego is hard hit by the illegal invasion. You can’t get more of a border state mentality than San Diego.

You can’t blame the people. The battle is fought there with tunnels and drug dealers and coyotes in the news almost daily. Heck, it is almost a suburb of Tijuana.

As further evidence of their liberal views, the Union Trib is home turf for Rueben Navarrette. Rueben is always good for an essay on why the illegals are a necessary part of our society.

Anyway…back to Hispanic voters. The editorial makes the assumption that brown people vote on one issue only; immigration reform. Jerry Campagna, the editor of a Spanish/English newspaper in suburban Chicago, makes the same mistake.

Jerry says that Republicans got “spanked” in November of 2006 because the Hispanics reacted to strong talk on illegal aliens. I think that’s wrong. To state that is to say that Latinos don’t care about deficit spending, scandals, the Iraq war, and a dozen other lesser issues that make up the mind of the voter.

Maybe the fraudulent voter has only one issue- remain in the United States. No one really knows the size of that problem. Democrat politicians have resisted investigations and voter ID laws as though it were a plank of the platform.

Heaven knows that in Illinois it would be simple to get a voter card. All you need is a utility bill and the willingness to sign that you are a citizen. There are no other requirements. And the person receiving the application is a party hack who will gladly sign you up. So the door is wide open for fraud.

Like most information relative to illegal aliens, no one knows for sure.

But the editorial makes some interesting points about the need for Latinos to stay in the political game. It suggests that the worst thing that could happen is that Hispanics will be forgotten as everyone assumes they will vote Democrat and stop courting them.

Mister (Former) Speaker

I’ve been copying my Rep., Dennis Hastert, on all my correspondence to the Senate on immigration reform. Today I got a letter in the mail from him in response. (FYI, I haven’t received any other responses from any other leaders in months. I guess they are a little behind in their letter writing.)

Here’s the tone of his letter: “serious problem”, “balanced approach”, “rich immigrant tradition”, “embracing our common identity”. He gives a nice overview of the house bills being considered this year and the Kennedy plan in the Senate. But nowhere does Hastert tell us what he wants to do. He never gives his personal opinion.

He gives an explanation of STRIVE (HR 1645), proposed by Luis Gutierrez, a pro-illegal Democrat from Chicago, and tells us where it stands in the process. But he never tells me how he feels about it.

In contrast, Hastert’s letter to me on February 9th included a strong statement of his position. He said, “during the 109th Congress, with my support, the House passed H.R. 4437…” and “House Republicans …oppose efforts to reward the behavior of illegal immigrants.”

His position has softened. I’m not sure what is going on. Some possibilities: He is no longer Speaker of the House. The Republican Party is in disarray. He’s contemplating retirement or running again thus has gone into "campaign mode". He’s had a change of heart.

No one really knows what he’s thinking but it is clear that he currently wants to report what’s going on without taking a stand. That’s too bad; most of us appreciate a leader who takes a stand. And after 11 terms in Congress, he ought to know what he wants to do about immigration. I am about ready to write him off as another evidence of the need for term limits.

Friday, July 13, 2007

Another victim story

This illegal alien story is a real tear jerker. Victor and Maria Roa snuck into the US from Mexico in 1990. They applied for asylum, thinking they would be able to stay here. (Of course, that defense doesn’t work when your country of origin is Mexico. Duh!)

So, after appeals and more appeals, they were ordered to leave voluntarily in November of 2004. (We are so merciful, aren’t we? We put them on the honor system to go home. They call them “run letters” for some reason.)

Well, they didn’t leave, so they received a deportation order in May of 2007. They had until June 26th to surrender.

Now, here’s the sad part. In May of 2005, six months after they were ordered to leave the country, they conceived a child. Hazelle was born in February of 2006. Despite their total disregard for the law, and a standing deportation order, little Hazelle is an American Citizen.

Sadly Hazelle has birth defects that will require life-long care. Despite what Michael “Sicko” Moore tells us, the best care for the child isn’t in Cuba. The parents believe it is at the University of California, San Francisco Medical Center, where the staff is familiar with the case and the bills are paid by the State of California.

Unfortunately, we don’t know what the Mexican government has to say about the case. My guess is that they would want the family to remain here.

The feds gave the family another month to stay here so they could figure out what to do. Their choices are:

Take the child back to Mexico with them.
Allow the child to stay with “legal” family members.
Allow the State to arrange a foster home for her.

What do you think they should do?

Amy Jacobson

Amy is a Chicago investigative reporter. Her MO has been to get close to the people involved in a story, show her concern, and scoop a story from what they tell her. And she has been successful for eleven years using that model.

But her method backfired this week when she got a call from the family of a woman who disappeared three months ago. At the last minute Amy was invited to visit with the estranged husband and his sister poolside at his home.

So Amy runs over there in her two piece bathing suit with her two small children (ages 2 and 3) in tow. Amy is tall and blonde and in her early thirties.

Unbeknownst to Amy, a rival TV station is making a tape of her visit from the house next door. So all the world can now see Amy, her kids, and the estranged husband on tape in swimming suits.

On Monday Amy got fired. By Wednesday she was making the rounds on talk shows and giving print interviews defending herself and telling the world that she messed up but didn’t deserved to get fired.

On Thursday the police declared that the husband is “a person of interest” in the disappearance of the woman.

Remember Tony and Mirthala the other day? Well, at this point Telemundo hasn’t announced what they were going to do with Ms. Salinas, and she did a lot more with the Mayor than sit around a swimming pool talking.

Do you think this is another case of “ethnicity matter”?

(By the way, I personally think Amy got what she deserved. I think some journalists have gone way too far in their tactics and the entertainment value of the news. Maybe this will help clean up the trade.)

Wednesday, July 11, 2007

Fly Free

Fly Free
Sounds like a great deal, huh? Read this clip from the Associated Press:

MEXICO CITY – Constantino Hernandez considered it a blessing when U.S. authorities arrested him after walking for two days in the harsh Arizona desert.
“I was rescued,” said the 37-year-old Mexican migrant, who has been going to the United States illegally to work in restaurants since 1992.
Hernandez was one of 74 migrants who flew to the Mexican capital Monday under a U.S. summer program, now in its fourth year, that gives participants free transportation all the way to their hometowns instead of simply deporting them back across the border.
Washington touts the $15 million program as a way to reduce migrant deaths during the hot summer, but critics argue it does little to reduce total migration and only makes the journey harder and more expensive for those who participate.
Through the end of September, thousands will volunteer for the twice-daily charter flights between Tucson, Arizona, and Mexico City. From there, they hop buses to their hometowns, often in poor southern states such as Oaxaca, Chiapas and Guerrero.
Since the program was launched in 2004, after years of record-setting migrant deaths from exposure, more than 50,000 migrants have participated.
Southwestern desert temperatures can soar to more than 100 degrees in summer, and deporting migrants just across the border only encourages them to try again at the next opportunity, officials say.
Hernandez said he volunteered to get a free trip to rest and visit his family in the Pacific coast state of Guerrero. In a couple of weeks, he said, he'll try his luck again in the desert.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
So….what’s wrong with this picture? Well, it doesn’t seem to slow down Hernandez. He’s working the system. I’d say that we ought to calculate the total cost of deportation and DEDUCT IT FROM THE FOREIGN AID GRANTS WE HAND OUT TO THESE COUNTRIES. Maybe then the Mexican government (and others) will think twice about encouraging people to come here.

Deseret Snooze

There are two daily papers in Salt Lake; The Tribune and the Deseret News. It is interesting to read the way each paper reports a story differently.

For example, the Deseret News never mentions names of perpetrators unless they are high-profile people. If a crime has enough momentum to carry into a second article the next day, then the names come out.

And they never mention someone’s immigration status or race. They are very careful and very PC.

Here’s the same item from both papers dated July 9th:

Salt Lake Tribune
“A man is dead and his mother’s companion is in jail after a family argument ended in gunfire early Sunday in Salt Lake City.
“Police said Nathan Valdez, 25, brandished a shotgun and confronted his mother’s companion, David T. Smith, about 2 a.m. after learning Smith had kicked his mother out of the apartment the couple shared at 746 N Irving.
“Wielding a handgun, Smith allowed Valdez into the apartment, where the two argued until Valdez pointed the shotgun at Smith, police said. Smith fired one shot from a handgun into Valdez’s chest.
“Valdez died at LDS Hospital.
“Smith, 48, is jailed on a charge of criminal homicide, police said.”

Now, Deseret News
“One man was killed and another is behind bars after police say a domestic dispute resulted in gunfire early Sunday morning.
“The incident occurred around 2 a.m. at an apartment at 746 N. Irving St, (1630 West). Police say the victim’s mother had called him to say that her 48-year-old boyfriend had kicked her out of the apartment.
“Lt. Dave Hoffman said the 25-year-old went to the apartment to confront the boyfriend. Hoffman said the victim may have possibly brought a firearm with him. Inside the apartment, the two men argued and the boyfriend pulled a handgun and shot the victim in the chest, Hoffman said. He said the victim died at a hospital. Police booked the man into the Salt Lake County Jail.”

Well, your secret is safe with the Deseret News.

Monday, July 9, 2007

Banned by the Kiwanis Club

Back in August of last year I was contacted out of the blue by a man I had never met. He said he was the program chairman for the noon Kiwanis Club in town and that he’d been following my ideas in the local newspaper. How would I like to come and speak?

I called him back and arranged to take the afternoon off work so I could drive back from the office and speak to the group. The date was set.

Then he called me a week before the speech and said, “In my 39 years of doing this I have never had to call and un-invite anyone, but I would like to ask you not to come next Tuesday.” He went on to explain that a couple of members, on hearing that I was going to speak, went to the President and demanded that I be removed from the program.

He said those members work for groups that survive on outside funding and they did not want to be labeled the “white racists club” for allowing me to speak.

He went on to say that their concerns were unfounded in his mind. He told me there had been lots of unusual speakers over the years, like Rob Sherman (the atheist), a practicing Hare Krishna, a member of the Arab League, a sex therapist for pets, and an engineer from the sanitary district who gave a presentation on how they treat excrement.

So, that’s how I got banned from making a presentation to the Kiwanis.

As an epilogue, that same man called me a few weeks later and wondered if I would speak in a debate format with a Latino activist. I told him no.

The leadership had changed in the Kiwanis Club and I finally did give a presentation, on Election Day. And there was no protest. I knew who my antagonists were from their questions, but they did not represent the feelings of the group as a whole.

It seems that these clubs are becoming less and less the merchants and professionals in the community and more of the “United Way” types, working for social service agencies. Has anyone else noticed that?

Sunday, July 8, 2007

Dysfunctional Democrats?

Pres. Bush devoted his weekly radio address last Saturday to the fact that the Democrats who control Congress can’t seem to get their work done. And he used the failed immigration bill as an example.

I have no lost love for the Democrats, but Bush is way off base here and everyone knows it. I am beginning to wonder if the President has lost his marbles. From what I can tell, the immigration bill failed because of the Republicans in Congress, not the Democrats. Reid was right when he told Bush that the Lefties had their votes lined up; the GOP was the one who couldn’t get the votes for passage.

Now the true Republicans were right to defeat the immigration bill. It was the wrong thing to do. And the voters did a good job of telling them to vote against it.

What I don’t get is why Bush would bring it up now and blame the Democrats. He knows better than that. I just don’t know what he’s up to. Maybe he’s trying to shame them in to passing the budget bill, but he’s going to have to do better than that. It just won’t do for him to say the things he did when everyone knows it ain’t so. Things in Foggy Bottom are getting stranger all the time.

Saturday, July 7, 2007

If I were President...

The “grand bargain” bunch didn’t get away with their compromise. The way I see it, the bargain was votes for the politicians, cheap labor for some employers, and a sweet deal for the illegals. The rest of America was supposed to hold their noses and live with it.

We’ve learned some things about this illegal alien problem as a result of the Senate’s failure to pass reform. Here are a few lessons Washington should have learned:
1) You can’t bargain with promises, especially if they are old promises you should already be keeping.
2) In this Internet age, don’t criticize the people. Pres. Bush called the Minutemen “vigilantes” and told us it was un-American to be opposed to his bill. Sen. Lott attacked talk radio. Sorry fellas, we’re voters too, and nothing brings out the Silent Majority like name calling by our leaders.
3) The compromise gave away too much and yielded too little. Somehow, legalizing all of the aliens and only reducing the flow by 25% is not much of a compromise.
4) It did nothing to minimize the current local impact of the problem.
5) You can’t eliminate chain migration and still keep family unification.
6) We need to make strong statements in order to deter future illegal immigration.
7) We aren’t as dumb as we look.

If I were Bush, I’d send a message to the illegals: Go home on your own because it will no longer be business as usual.

I’d begin by releasing the Border Patrol Guards Campeon and Ramos.

I would then take advantage of all the illegals in custody in local jails around the country and get them on the list for deportation. (Yes, there will be a need for many more beds.)

I would propose emergency funding for more border fence and more border patrol agents. Maybe not $4.4 billion, but a sizeable amount.

I would tax remittances back to Mexico. A 10% tax would yield $2.3 billion a year.

I would challenge Congress to fix three significant magnets for border crossers:
1) Anchor baby citizenship.
2) Free emergency room care.
3) Free public education.

I would start putting the employers in jail.

I would get a handle on the visa overstayers. Both Chertoff and Ridge say it accounts for 40% of the illegal alien leakage. The US VISIT technology isn’t working. It’s time to do something else. The law is clear that if you are out of status on your visa, you are deportable. How about a little fear through selective enforcement?

I would fire Chertoff. He obviously doesn’t have the stomach to do what needs to be done.

Well, Bush lacks the political will to do any of these things. Aside from taxing remittances and the three magnets mentioned above, he already has the laws in place to do the rest.

So the third world will continue to invade until someone comes along who does. I believe it will take another terrorist attack on U S soil, traced to the Mexican border, to make it happen.

Friday, July 6, 2007

Tony and Mirthala

LA has a Hispanic mayor; the first one in that town since 1872. His name is Antonio Villaraigosa. His girlfriend is a reporter for the Spanish TV Network Telemundo. And they’ve been seeing each other for about a year now.

The trouble is that the mayor is married to someone else and has two children from his wife and two adult children from other “relationships”. (My, he’s been busy!)

This has nothing to do with the blog, but he was also the LA Chapter President of the ACLU. And as a college student he was active in MECha, the Chicano movement to take back the Southwest for Mexico. Don’t you just love this guy?

On July 3rd, Villaraigosa came clean about the affair in a news conference. Maybe “came clean” isn’t the right term after you read what he said.

“I take full responsibility for my actions.” (That’s good. To me that would mean severing his relationship with the reporter, attempting to reconcile with his wife, and getting some counseling.)

Then he said: “I don’t believe that the details of my personal life are relement …(did he mean “relevant” or “are element”? Or did he have a Bush moment?)… to my job as mayor.”

He goes on to explain that most of us base our trust on “whether or not you keep your promises.” (Well, there was that promise he made at the altar to the woman in white. Is that one of the promises he’s talking about? I suppose not. Promises he makes to politicians are much more important.)

As for the reporter, Mirthala Salinas, she said: “I am confident that when all the facts are analyzed, it will be clear that I conducted myself in an appropriate way.” (The only way that is true is if she was also married to him before the relationship began and didn’t know he was still married.)

One last tidbit from this circus; Tony has endorsed Hillary Clinton for President and is the national co-chairman for her campaign committee. It will be interesting to see if his brownness trumps his infidelity. We know Hillary is a veteran victim of marital affairs; we’re just not sure what her position is on adultery. My guess is that he stays because politics always came first for her and Bill. They stayed together for the good of the country (gag).

Tony’s not the first adulterer from either party, nor will he be the last. It always surprises me just how matter-of-fact they are about such things. More surprising is our tolerance for such scoundrels.

I suppose culturally I’m looking through the WASP lens. Maybe we ought cut him some slack for his machismo because he is of Mexican descent. (Is that a lib answer?)

There is another wrinkle to the divorce. You see, Tony’s last name used to be Villar. He changed it in 1988 after he married Corina Raigosa. (How progressive of him. Now, do the feminists praise him for helping Salinas explore and liberate her sexuality or condemn him for cheating on his wife? Ah, the dilemmas of liberalism.)

So, does he change his name after the divorce? What do you think? Any suggestions?

Thursday, July 5, 2007

Mexico's mad at us

Our failure to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” has made Mexico mad at us. This is bad.

For example, Jorge Bustamente, a UN human rights rep, says: "It means the continuation and probably a worsening of the migrants' vulnerable conditions." (How come we get blamed when they sneak across the border?)

The editor of El Universal newspaper complained that migrants "will continue to be subjected to extraordinary means of discrimination." (Again, are we dragging them across the border?)

La Jornada’s editor warned: "The most powerful country on the planet will have to continue living, for many more months, with the scandalous contradiction between its laws and the real needs of its economy.” (Oh, the compromises we make so we can have cheap spinach.)

And Mexican President Felipe Calderon tells us that the failure in the Senate "worsens illegal migration." (And it doesn’t help him unload his social burdens permanently.)

And Calderon is just as indignant about the fence as Vicente Fox was.

The sad part is that some politicians in America actually listen to these jerks and worry about how they feel about us. Perhaps the thought never enters their heads that we are being taken for a ride here.

Homeland Insecurity

I came across a transcript from a Fox News interview between Chris Wallace and Michael Chertoff, Secretary of Homeland Security.

Now, Chertoff has been up on the Hill pushing immigration reform for President Bush for the last several weeks. He has told Congress that his job is impossible without comprehensive reform, including the legalization of 12 million aliens.

So I shouldn’t be surprised to hear more of the same from him last Sunday. But it still bothers me when the man in charge of protecting us from foreigners tells us he’s done all the enforcement he can.

Chertoff said it is really hard to build a fence. He said of the 700 miles in the bill last fall, we’ll finish 140-150 miles this year and have a total of about 370 by the end of 2008. I can only hope they are putting it in strategic places.

He also says that the fence is overrated; that the real way to stop illegals is to go after the employers. Is this the same guy who told NPR on June 8th that we need these workers so the economy won’t fall apart? Yes he is.

He then goes on to say that Homeland Security has done all they can already with the tools they have. “Tools” is code for money, I think. He told Wallace that Congress has failed to give them an enforcement bill and failed to give them a comprehensive bill, so he is doing the best he can with the money he has been given.

For Chertoff, the employee verification process is inadequate. He wants a tamper-proof card. But he doesn’t talk about the employers he’s sent to jail because there aren’t any. Those are Bush supporters and for the most part they have been safe. And this is the same Chertoff that was telling us how effective the current verification program is.

It is a laugh to go to the Homeland Security website and snoop around the press releases over the past couple of years. Chertoff talks about the wonderful US VISIT technology that combines fingerprint matching to passports. But that program doesn’t work.

And it doesn’t speak well of the enforcement of existing laws. We need to be able to prosecute employers and ID thieves with the existing laws. We need the cooperation between Immigration, the IRS, and Social Security so they will share data and go after the criminals.

Chertoff cannot truthfully say he is doing all he can when hundreds of illegal aliens are in custody in local jails for serious offenses and they are let go because Immigration won’t pick them up. Surely he knows that 12 people a day are murdered at the hands of illegals and another dozen die daily in DUI traffic accidents.

If Chertoff really believes his own words it would be a good time to be vocal about his needs and force the Congress and the administration to fund and execute enforcement. If Chertoff had been as visible and vocal about HB4437 maybe the Senate would have taken it seriously.

You can’t have it both ways, Mike. The truth is that Chertoff has said whatever Bush wanted him to say. Chertoff paints the “victim” picture well when he says he’ll enforce the law but he’s gonna have to deport some parents along the way and leave behind crying children.

So, maybe if we want strong deterrence, Chertoff is not our man. Neither is Bush. Tom Ridge felt the same way about illegals. Like I said in my blog yesterday, this administration is withholding enforcement as a bargaining chip for legalization.

Wednesday, July 4, 2007

The Fright of the Phoenix

I am pleased that the Senate failed to get enough votes for the immigration reform bill on June 28th. It did my heart good to see a photo of Harry Reid and Ted Kennedy all glum over the defeat.

But I thought this thing was dead last time and they brought it to life again. Like the mythical bird, it rose from the ashes.

We have seen some pretty desperate measures to try to pass this thing; from secret committees to procedural shenanigans. And we know this is the centerpiece of the Bush domestic agenda.

Soooooo…keep an eye on our friends is Washington. They just might try again. And what worries me is that we know these fellows are not above bribing their colleagues with a highway or a bridge or a pet project of some sort.

Sleep with one eye open.

On the other hand, this is a great question for any candidate. It’s a great issue for smokin’ out the RINOs.

What now?

I’ve been out of the country for a week (Utah) and always find the news coverage interesting. Utah is a red state, yet Salt Lake City is liberal hog heaven. Despite the Republican bent in the Beehive State they have a strong compassionate streak, sometimes to their detriment. They say that if a con man can’t make it in Utah, he needs to find another line of work.

At any rate, when the immigration reform bill went down in flames in the Senate last week, there was a front page, above the fold, article in The Salt Lake Tribune with the title, “Immigration: What now?” The author, Jennifer Sanchez, lamented the failure of the bill and talked about some of the state and local efforts that probably will proliferate because the feds failed to act.

My first answer to the question, “What now?” was the logical, “How about enforcing the laws we already have?” followed by, “Give Homeland Security the money to do the job.”

One thing this immigration debate has exposed is the lack of enforcement in the past. Last fall Bush signed the border fence bill, but very little has actually been done due to lack of funding (well, lack of political will to do it, really) and so our “leaders” dangled a $4.4 billion promise for fence money if the Senate would pass the bill.

And Bush also talked about doubling the number of detention beds right away.

So, my question is, Why haven’t they been doing this already? We’ve had ample signs that things were out of control. Why didn’t Congress and the President respond to the need?

This most recent debate explains it all; they wanted to bargain with us. Bush and the Senate came to us and said, “Look, we’ll step up enforcement with the fence, detention beds, employer sanctions, better ID…IF…you’ll let us legalize the illegals.”

But enough Americans were smart enough to say, “You were supposed to be doing all those things anyway. That’s the law. Do you job!” But I have zero confidence that things will change as a result of this debate. Bush is our chief executive and I don’t see him getting significantly tougher with the illegals who are here. In fact, if he’s given up hope of passing a bill, he may back off from his flurry of enforcement activity.

And with Mike Chertoff at the helm in Homeland Security we really don’t have much hope that he will be more vigorous. After all, he was chief lobbyist for the White House during these debates. We know he’s an “amnesty” man; not a “rule of law” type.

As for state and local effort, those who were waiting to see what Congress was going to do will now have to get busy. I do hope the courts will cooperate.