Study Finds 5,000 Non-Citizens Likely Voted in Colorado

Chairman of House Subcommittee on Elections Pledges Review of Voter Registration Processes After a Recent Study by Colorado Secretary of State Revealed 12,000 Non-Citizens Registered to Vote in 2010 Elections and 5,000 Likely Voted

WASHINGTON – Today, Subcommittee on Elections Chairman Gregg Harper, R-Miss., issued the following statement announcing a review of state voter registration processes after a recent Colorado study revealed that as many as 5,000 non-citizens voted in Colorado during the 2010 elections:

“This report is extremely troubling and cause for a thorough review of the current registration processes implemented across the country, which I guarantee will be a priority for this Subcommittee. It also calls into question each state’s ability to enforce current voting laws and whether or not we need to pursue additional measures to better protect the integrity of our electoral process.”

According to the study conducted by the Colorado Secretary of State in conjunction with the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles, 11,805 non-citizens registered to vote in the 2010 elections and 4,947 voted. The report also finds that without access to federal citizenship data, the state is unable to identify and remove non-citizens from its voter rolls.

Your Vote, Your Opinion: Are the President's Actions Really "Impeachable"?

Vote in the column to the left. Comment below.

Arizona Legislator Calls Obama’s Actions “Impeachable”

The campaign to impeach Barack Obama has a distinguished new advocate: Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce, who authored Arizona’s immigration law S.B. 1070. During a speech on November 19, Pearce told an audience:

Think about it. This is the first time in the history of the United States that a sitting president has sided with a foreign government to sue the citizens of its country. For defending our laws? For defending and protecting the citizens of the state of Arizona? It’s outrageous, and it’s impeachable.

Senator Pearce was referring to the Obama administration’s decision to invite 11 Central and South American nations to join the federal government’s lawsuit against Arizona. This outsourcing ignores the president’s numerous lawsuits against the state, as well as motions against Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio for “racial profiling,” on the grounds he arrested too many Hispanics near our open border with Mexico.

The lawsuit was perhaps the least offensive or forceful measure the president has taken against the will of his own citizens. The Obama administration hauled Arizona before the UN Human Rights Council after it passed Pearce’s bill.

After Governor Jan Brewer learned about Obama’s outrage, she sent a letter demanding Hillary Clinton strike the reference from the UNHRC report. Hillary refused.

In September, a UN committee issued a thinly veiled denunciation of Arizonans as “xenophobes and racists.” Then Obama allowed human rights violators to humiliate the United States in the Geneva forum while appointing milquetoast globalists like “transnationalist” Harold Koh to “defend” America.

His efforts to enlist foreign nations and the UN to overturn state policies with which he disagrees is indeed unconstitutional, and one of many grounds for impeachment. This author is pleased to have perhaps the best state senator in the United States voicing such truths, especially to those who are hostile to them.

Sentencing postponed for Howard Industries exec

Gonzalez

The sentencing hearing for the only company executive convicted following the nation’s largest workplace raid on illegal immigrants was postponed again after federal prosecutors in Mississippi filed sealed motions in the case.

Jose Humberto Gonzalez, the former personnel director of Howard Industries, was the only executive charged in relation to a massive federal raid in August 2008 that ended with the detention of nearly 600 illegal immigrants.

Gonzalez pleaded guilty Dec. 9, 2009, to conspiracy, admitting that he knowingly hired illegal immigrants at Howard Industries’ transformer plant in Laurel. He faces five years in prison. His sentencing was scheduled for Thursday, but U.S. District Judge Keith Starrett postponed it until Jan. 6.

The judge did not offer an explanation for the delay.

Gonzales was to be sentenced Aug. 30, but that, too, was postponed after prosecutors filed sealed motions in the case.

MBJ

Flouting the rule of law seems to be a family trait.

Obama's Aunt, you may remember, became an issue during the campaign. But, it all magically went away. She's still here, and she thinks you have an obligation to take care of her, because God said so.

Muslim woman converted to Christianity, given legal US residency fearing retribution from parents

Runaway Ohio convert gains legal US residency

A lawyer for a Christian convert who ran away from her parents says the now-18-year-old woman has gained permanent U.S. residency after living in Ohio as an illegal immigrant.

A lawyer for Rifqa Bary said Tuesday the Sri Lanka native can now start applying for a driver's license, Medicaid coverage and college scholarships.

Lawyer Kort Gatterdam says Bary got her permanent residency card last week and can apply for citizenship in five years.

Bary had sought the green card as she argued she could not reunite with her Muslim parents. She alleged they threatened her with harm for converting, and she fled Ohio to stay with a minister in Orlando, Fla.

Bary also sought legal residency to achieve health coverage as she battles uterine cancer.

Opinion: Awww!!! Mexico is Angry!

BY: Martha Donahue

Three cheers for Arizona !!!

The shoe is on the other foot and the Mexicans from the Staten of Sonora, Mexico do not like it. Can you believe the nerve of these people? It's almost funny.

The State of Sonora is angry at the influx of Mexicans into Mexico. Nine state legislators from the Mexican State of Sonora traveled to Tucson to complain about Arizona's new employer crackdown on illegals from Mexico. It seems that many Mexican illegals are returning to their hometowns and the officials in the Sonora state government are ticked off.

A delegation of nine state legislators from Sonora was in Tucson on Tuesday to state that Arizona's new Employer Sanctions Law will have a devastating effect on the Mexican state. At a news conference, the legislators said that Sonora, - Arizona's southern neighbor - made up of mostly small towns - cannot handle the demand for housing, jobs and schools that it will face as Mexican workers return to their hometowns from the USA without jobs or money.

The Arizona law, which took effect Jan. 1, punishes Arizona employers who knowingly hire individuals without valid legal documents to work in the United States. Penalties include suspension of, or loss of, their business license.

The Mexican legislators are angry because their own citizens are returning to their hometowns, placing a burden on THEIR state government.

'How can Arizona pass a law like this?' asked Mexican Rep Leticia Amparano-Gamez, who represents Nogales. 'There is not one person living in Sonora who does not have a friend or relative working in Arizona ,' she said, speaking in Spanish.

'Mexico is not prepared for this, for the tremendous problems it will face as more and more Mexicans working in Arizona and who were sending money to their families return to their home-towns in Sonora without jobs,' she said. 'We are one family, socially and economically,' she said of the people of Sonora and Arizona.

Wrong! The United States is a sovereign nation, not a subsidiary of Mexico , and its taxpayers are not responsible for the welfare of Mexico's citizens. It's time for the Mexican government, and its citizens, to stop feeding parasitically off the United States and to start taking care of its/their own needs.

Too bad that other states within the USA don't pass a law just like that passed by Arizona. Maybe that's the answer, since our own Congress will do nothing!

New Immigration Laws: Read to the bottom or you will miss the message...

1. There will be no special bilingual programs in the schools.

2. All ballots will be in this nation's language.

3. All government business will be conducted in our language.

4. Non-residents will NOT have the right to vote no matter how long they are here.

5. Non-citizens will NEVER be able to hold political office.

6. Foreigners will not be a burden to the taxpayers. No welfare, no food stamps, no health care, or other government assistance programs. Any burdens will be deported.

7. Foreigners can invest in this country, but it must be an amount at least equal to 40,000 times the daily minimum wage.

8. If foreigners come here and buy land... options will be restricted. Certain parcels including waterfront property are reserved for citizens naturally born into this country.

9. Foreigners may have no protests; no demonstrations, no waving of a foreign flag, no political organizing, no bad-mouthing our president or his policies. These will lead to deportation.

10. If you do come to this country illegally, you will be actively hunted & when caught, sent to jail until your deportation can be arranged. All assets will be taken from you.

Too strict ???

The above laws are current immigration laws of MEXICO !

MOU

Opinion: The Children Of Illegals Have No Business Demanding Anything

They took their protests right to the steps of Congress. Hundreds of students, including ten from Georgia, lobbied at the nation’s capitol for “The Dream Act,” which offers undocumented students a chance to become legal citizens.

I contend we don’t need “Immigration Reform” but “Enforcement Reform”, meaning the federal government should do its job and enforce the existing laws on the books. However, the children of illegal aliens believe they should get a pass because they didn’t do anything wrong.

Here’s my analogy on this situation….

Let’s say one day a family wakes up to the sound of the front door of their home being bashed in. The father is handcuffed and escorted out of the home by federal law enforcement officials and is audibly charged with embezzlement. The family is told they have five minutes to gather their most personal belongings and then vacate the premises because their home and automobile is being seized because stolen money is believed to have purchased said assets.

The family soon finds out their bank accounts have been frozen because they too may contain monies as a result of the father’s possible theft.

Who should the family be mad at, the federal government that suspected the father of theft or the father for putting the family in the precarious position they find themselves in now? I suspect the wife would be rightfully furious with the husband, as would be the kids. But when it comes to parents who knowingly violated our sovereign border, no blame is being issued to them by their children. No, it’s the federal government’s fault for not letting those kids have their way and let them operate freely in a country they are in illegally.

For this reason (as lacking in compassion as is sounds) I have no sympathy for the offspring of illegal aliens who are being denied in-state tuition for colleges, or admittance at all. They have no business protesting a college, state legislature, congress or citizenry of a state or the nation. If anything, these kids should demand their parents explain why they decided to break the law and hide out for decades knowing it could hurt them in the long run.

The federal government wouldn’t drop the charges against an embezzler because it would inconvenience his or her family.

Illegal aliens aren’t deserving of amnesty and their kids are in no position to make demands.

Black and Right

From the "It's about damn time" file . . . but is it enough?

The Obama Administration released the following Press Release this morning:

OBAMA ADMINISTRATION ANNOUNCES AUG. 1 NATIONAL GUARD DEPLOYMENT TO SUPPORT FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ALONG THE SOUTHWEST BORDER


WASHINGTON—Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Department of Defense (DOD) today announced that National Guard deployments to the Southwest border will begin on Aug. 1 as part of the administration’s unprecedented efforts to combat the transnational criminal organizations that smuggle weapons, cash and people across our Southwest border.

“Over the past year and a half, this administration has pursued a new border security strategy with an unprecedented sense of urgency, making historic investments in personnel, technology and infrastructure,” said Secretary Napolitano. “These troops will provide direct support to federal law enforcement officers and agents working in high-risk areas to disrupt criminal organizations seeking to move people and goods illegally across the Southwest border.”

In May, the President authorized the deployment of up to an additional 1,200 National Guard troops to the Southwest border to provide support for intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance, and counternarcotics enforcement—providing support for one year as part of the administration’s unprecedented efforts to crack down on transnational smuggling and cartel violence, as CBP continues to recruit and train additional officers and agents to serve on the Southwest border.

The National Guard Southwest Border deployments augment CBP and ICE resources and assets already at the border, and include:

· 224 in California

· 524 in Arizona

· 72 in New Mexico

· 250 in Texas

· 130 serving as command and control and other support.

In deploying these personnel, the National Guard Bureau is operating under a request for assistance from DHS. Border security is a law enforcement mission, and these troops will augment the Administration's efforts to crack down on the drug cartels and transnational criminal organizations that operate along our Southwest border.

“In agreement with DHS, beginning August 1, selected National Guard Members from Southwest border states will begin the necessary training and integration planning to knit them into our nation's border security operating structure,” said Gen. Craig McKinley, Chief of the National Guard Bureau. “The National Guard is deploying in response to DHS’ request for assistance,” he added, “and will serve in law enforcement support roles consistent with the Administration's view that border security is a law enforcement challenge.”

The President has also requested $600 million in supplemental funds for enhanced border protection and law enforcement activities, which are critical to our ongoing efforts.

Last week, Secretary Napolitano announced more than $47 million in fiscal year 2010 Operation Stonegarden grants for the Southwest border states to support law enforcement personnel, overtime, and other related costs to enhance the capabilities of state, local and tribal law enforcement to secure the U.S.-Mexico border. Nearly 80 percent of the fiscal year 2010 funding will go to Arizona , California , New Mexico and Texas —up from 59 percent in 2008.


Immigration

Miss. officials eye immigration policy

State requires employers to check legal status of workers by E-Verify

As the nation eyes Arizona's controversial immigration law, some Mississippi officials say they want to see similar legislation here.

Mississippi is one of 14 states that require employers to use the E-Verify system before hiring new workers. E-Verify, an Internet-based service, uses federal databases to check the legal status of potential employees.

Since July 1, all companies in Mississippi with more than 30 workers have had to register. Those with fewer than 30 workers have another year to comply.

Rep. Becky Currie, R-Brookhaven, plans to introduce a bill in the next legislative session to expand the state's immigration restrictions.

"It's pretty much the same bill (as Arizona's)," she said.

The Arizona bill, which both proponents and critics have described as the strictest and broadest immigration effort in years, has come under fire from those who say legal residents and visitors will be unfairly targeted and possibly harassed.

The U.S. Justice Department filed a lawsuit last week arguing Arizona Senate Bill 1070 is unconstitutional. The suit alleges the federal government - not individual states - must regulate immigration. The law is scheduled to go into effect July 29.

The most controversial provision requires law enforcement officers to attempt to determine whether suspected immigrants are in the country illegally and requires legal immigrants carry documentation.

The legislation also places strict penalties against harboring illegal immigrants and directly targets the hiring of workers who congregate at locations, such as home improvement stores.

"It's clearly unconstitutional," Mississippi Immigrants Rights Alliance executive director Bill Chandler said. "The Arizona bill racially profiles Latinos."

Massive influxes of illegal immigrants and high crime rates have been cited by Arizona officials as the need for the law.

But most Mississippi supporters point to jobs and a potential burden on state resources. Mississippi's unemployment rate was 11.4 percent as of May.

"I'm just more concerned that we put Mississippians to work instead of illegal immigrants," Currie said.

Read the entire story at The Clarion Ledger Online


Immigration

Oklahoma, South Carolina and Utah may follow Arizona's lead on immigration law

Attention is focused on Arizona and the federal government's challenge to the state's strict new immigration law, but three other states could adopt similar legislation next year.

Lawmakers in Oklahoma, South Carolina and Utah, which have already taken steps against illegal immigration, say that Arizona-style measures have a realistic chance of passing when their legislatures reconvene in 2011.

The Obama administration sued Arizona in federal court Tuesday, charging that the state law usurps federal authority, would hamper immigration enforcement and would lead to police harassment of those who have no proof of lawful status. The government asked that a federal judge stop the law from taking effect July 29.

Legislators in at least 17 other states introduced bills this year similar to the Arizona law, which allows officers to question anyone they suspect of being in the country illegally. But most of those measures are not considered likely to be adopted or signed by governors.

The political climate in Oklahoma, South Carolina and Utah, however, improves the chances that state legislatures there could follow Arizona's lead in 2011.

In 2007, Oklahoma led the way on such laws by adopting legislation that makes it a felony to knowingly transport or shelter an illegal immigrant. It also blocked illegal immigrants from obtaining driver's licenses and in-state tuition.

State Rep. Randy Terrill (R), who sponsored the measure, has expressed a desire to go beyond the Arizona law when he introduces a bill next year that would seize property from businesses that knowingly employ illegal immigrants.

Terrill cited the arrest last week of an alleged Mexican drug cartel member in Oklahoma as evidence that an "Arizona-plus" measure is needed urgently. He said the effect of Arizona's law has been to push illegal immigrants "straight down Interstate 40" toward Oklahoma.

Vivek Malhotra, advocacy and policy counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, said the administration's decision to sue Arizona could discourage other states from doing the same. But he also said that similar legislation may be adopted in 2011.

"After the other border states, it is natural to look at the states that have enacted the most anti-immigrant laws" before Arizona, Malhotra said. He said he expected Oklahoma, South Carolina and Utah to make the "most vigorous effort" to enact similar legislation early next year.

Ira Mehlman, spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, said he thinks the Obama administration designed the lawsuit against Arizona as a "shot across the bows" of all states considering similar moves. He said he doubts, though, that Terrill will be deterred.

"Randy Terrill has made this his issue in Oklahoma and has earned bipartisan support in the past," he said. "He is a determined guy and he is not going to back down too easily."

In Utah, state Rep. Stephen Sandstrom (R) has been making regular fact-finding trips to Arizona as he finalizes a draft bill. But, following the announcement of the federal suit, he said he may consider watering down one of the Arizona law's most contentious elements.

Under the law, state officers are instructed to check immigration status if they have a "reasonable suspicion" that a person is in the country illegally. Sandstrom said his measure may require officers to meet the higher legal standard of "probable cause" to suspect someone of being undocumented before checking.

"I don't want people of Hispanic descent to feel my bill is aimed at them," he said.

A Utah law that took effect last year made it illegal to harbor or employ undocumented workers. Gov. Gary R. Herbert (R) has said he expects to sign new immigration legislation next year and is meeting with all sides to find a way forward.

South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford (R) touted a comprehensive set of measures against illegal immigration as the nation's strictest when he signed it into law in 2008. The far-reaching legislation forced businesses to check the immigration status of their workers. Harboring and transporting illegal immigrants also became a state crime. State lawmakers are seeking to build on it and were quick this year to draw up an Arizona-style bill, introducing it less than a week after the Arizona measure was signed.

State Sen. Larry Martin (R) said in an interview that an Arizona-type measure was introduced too late this year. "But I have every expectation a new bill will be introduced in January," he said. "As long as an officer has a lawful reason to question someone, and then a suspicion develops [that] they are an undocumented person, then I think our law enforcement folks ought to be able to pursue that," he said.

Washington Post



Immigration

Arizona Gets Help In Defense From Federal Lawsuit, Congressman Harper Among Critics of Obama Lawsuit

One News Now has a story on a Christian law firm that will assist Arizona in its defense against the Obama Justice Department's lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of The Grand Canyon State's immigration enforcement statute.

The lawsuit argues that Arizona's new measure, which requires state and local police to question and possibly arrest illegal aliens during the enforcement of other laws, like traffic stops, usurps federal authority.

President Barack Obama has called the state law "misguided," but Jordan Sekulow, director of international operations with the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), contends that Obama's grievance is what is misguided.

"For President Obama to invoke race in this, which he did in that speech -- calling this divisive, saying this may lead to people being pulled over because of how they talk or what color their skin is, and then, of course, invoking religion -- is totally misguided," Sekulow argues

Not missing an opportunity to cry wolf, Benjamin Todd Jealous, president and CEO of the NAACP, cheered the lawsuit. Maybe he was "Jealous" that Obama was stealing some of his "poor me" mojo, and wanted to ride the President's coat tails. At any rate, he had the following statement

“In filing this lawsuit, the Obama administration has taken a strong and principled stand against Arizona’s discriminatory law," said Jealous. "African-Americans have the misfortune of being all too familiar with the pernicious effects of racial profiling, and we welcome the addition of the administration to the broad spectrum of organizations already challenging this unconstitutional law.”

Sekulow says that while a crackdown on illegal immigration has the support of the majority of Americans, many Christian groups "have bought into President Obama's propaganda."

The international operations director adds challenging the constitutionality of Arizona's border enforcement law is not going to do anything to solve the root problem: the continued failure of the federal government to protect the United States from the illegal alien invasion.

"You have drug wars going on 12 miles from the Arizona border where 21 people are killed, and this is creeping right into the state," he notes. "So what our leaders have done here in our country is made it a political issue."

Sekulow says the ACLJ is going to file an amicus brief supporting the border state's law.

Mississippi Congressman Gregg Harper joined other conservative members of the House condemning the adminstrations decision to follow through with the lawsuit.

"It is illegal to be in the United States without proper documentation, plain and simple. Those who are here illegally should have to face consequences," said Harper. "Arizona had taken a reasonable and constitutional approach to end this decades-old problem that has continuously been ignored by the Obama Administration. Illegal immigration is a matter of national security."

Scary Stuff In Dearborn Michigan: Sharia Law (Video)

No Surprise: Arizona Law Is Working

Immigrant families leave Arizona and tough new law

PHOENIX -- "Cuanto?" asks a young man pointing to four bottles of car polish at a recent garage sale in an east Phoenix neighborhood.

The question, Spanish for "How much?" sends Minerva Ruiz and Claudia Suriano scrambling and calling out to their friend, Silvia Arias, who's selling the polish. "Silvia!"

Arias is out of earshot, so Suriano improvises.

"Cinco dolares," she says. "Five dollars." And another sale is made.

As the women await their next customer in the rising heat of an Arizona morning, they talk quietly about food and clothes, about their children and husbands. They are best friends, all mothers who are viewed as pillars of parental support at the neighborhood elementary school.

All three are illegal immigrants from Mexico.

They're holding the garage sale to raise money to leave Arizona, along with many others, and to escape the state's tough new law that cracks down on people just like them.

The law's stated intention is unambiguous: It seeks to drive illegal immigrants out of Arizona and to discourage them from coming here.

There is no official data tracking how many are leaving because of the new law. "It's something that's really tough to get a handle on numerically," said Bill Schooling, Arizona's state demographer. "It's not just the immigration bill. It's also employer sanctions and the economy. How do you separate out the motivating factors?"

But anecdotal evidence provided by schools and businesses in heavily Hispanic neighborhoods and by healthcare clinics suggest that sizable numbers are departing. Ignacio Rodriguez, associate director for the Phoenix Roman Catholic diocese's Office of Hispanic Ministries, said churches in the area are also seeing families leave.

Priests are "seeing some people approach them and ask for a blessing because they're leaving the state to go back to their country of origin or another state," he said. "Unless they approach and ask for a sending-off blessing, we wouldn't have any idea they're leaving or why."

Ruiz and Suriano and their families plan to move this month. Arias and her family are considering leaving, but are waiting to see if the law will go into effect as scheduled July 29, and, if so, how it will be enforced.

The law 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 also makes being in Arizona illegally a misdemeanor, and it prohibits seeking day-labor work along the state's streets.

Read more at the Sun Herald

Ariz. lawmaker takes aim at automatic citizenship

PHOENIX – Emboldened by passage of the nation's toughest law against illegal immigration, the Arizona politician who sponsored the measure now wants to deny U.S. citizenship to children born in this country to undocumented parents.

Legal scholars laugh out loud at Republican state Sen. Russell Pearce's proposal and warn that it would be blatantly unconstitutional, since the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to anyone born in the U.S.

But Pearce brushes aside such concerns. And given the charged political atmosphere in Arizona, and public anger over what many regard as a failure by the federal government to secure the border, some politicians think the idea has a chance of passage.

"I think the time is right," said state Rep. John Kavanagh, a Republican from suburban Phoenix who is chairman of the powerful House Appropriations Committee. "Federal inaction is unacceptable, so the states have to start the process."

Earlier this year, the Legislature set off a storm of protests around the country when it passed a law that directs police to check the immigration status of anyone they suspect is in the country illegally. The law also makes it a state crime to be an illegal immigrant. The measure, which takes effect July 29 unless blocked in court, has inflamed the national debate over immigration and led to boycotts against the state.

An estimated 10.8 million illegal immigrants were living in the U.S. as of January 2009, according to the Homeland Security Department. The Pew Hispanic Center estimates that as of 2008, there were 3.8 million illegal immigrants in this country whose children are U.S. citizens.

Pearce, who has yet to draft the legislation, proposes that the state of Arizona no longer issue birth certificates unless at least one parent can prove legal status. He contends that the practice of granting citizenship to anyone born in the U.S. encourages illegal immigrants to come to this country to give birth and secure full rights for their children.

"We create the greatest inducement for breaking our laws," he said.

The 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868 in the aftermath of the Civil War, reads: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." But Pearce argues that the amendment was meant to protect black people.

"It's been hijacked and abused," he said. "There is no provision in the 14th Amendment for the declaration of citizenship to children born here to illegal aliens."

John McGinnis, a conservative law professor at Northwestern University, said Pearce's interpretation is "just completely wrong." The "plain meaning" of the amendment is clear, he said.

Senate candidate Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican and darling of the tea party movement, made headlines last month after he told a Russian TV station that he favors denying citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants.

A similar bill was introduced at the federal level in 2009 by former Rep. Nathan Deal, a Georgia Republican, but it has gone nowhere.

The Federation for American Immigration Reform, based in Washington, said Pearce's idea would stop immigrants from traveling to the U.S. to give birth.

"Essentially we are talking about people who have absolutely no connection whatever with this country," spokesman Ira Mehlman said. "The whole idea of citizenship means that you have some connection other than mere happenstance that you were born on U.S. soil."

Citizenship as a birthright is rare elsewhere in the world. Many countries require at least one parent to be a citizen or legal resident.

Adopting such a practice in the U.S. would be not only unconstitutional but also impractical and expensive, said Michele Waslin, a policy analyst with the pro-immigrant Immigration Policy Center in Washington.

"Every single parent who has a child would have to go through this bureaucratic process of proving their own citizenship and therefore proving their child's citizenship," she said.

Araceli Viveros, 27, and her husband, Saul, 34, are illegal immigrants from the Mexican state of Guerrero. He has been in Phoenix for 20 years, she for 10, and their 2- and 9-year-old children are U.S. citizens.

"I am so proud my children were born here. They can learn English and keep studying," Viveros said in Spanish.

She said her husband has been working hard in Phoenix as a landscaper, and their children deserve to be citizens. The lawmaker's proposal "is very bad," she said. "It's changing the Constitution, and some children won't have the same rights as other children."

Associated Press

Senator Kyl: Administration holding border security "hostage" until it is combined with immigration reform (Video)

On June 18, 2010, Arizona Republican Senator Jon Kyl told the audience at a North Tempe Tea Party town hall meeting that during a private, one-on-one meeting with President Obama in the Oval Office, the President told him, regarding securing the southern border with Mexico, "The problem is, . . . if we secure the border, then you all won't have any reason to support 'comprehensive immigration reform.'" [Audible gasps were heard throughout the audience.] Sen. Kyl continued, "In other words, they're holding it hostage. They don't want to secure the border unless and until it is combined with 'comprehensive immigration reform.'"





Immigration

Canada may point the way to sensible immigration policy

BY: Froma Harp

Immigration reform? Look north. Canada has a large immigration program but little illegal immigration, because Ottawa won't tolerate it.

Ripped from the news: Haitians are illegally crossing into Vermont from Canada, looking for work.

Why didn't the Haitians stay in Canada, where the social-safety net is far cushier? Because, as the head of a Haitian radio station in Montreal told The New York Times, "they saw that they had no chance to become Canadian permanent residents." And, he added, "people thought that the United States were going to receive all the Haitians."

What do we take home from this?

First off, porous borders are not the biggest reason that illegal immigration has become such a huge problem in the United States. Note that while President Obama is sending up to 1,200 National Guard troops to secure the border with Mexico, there are no troops, rivers or even fences along most of the U.S.-Canadian border. Some country roads mark the boundary with a simple stone.

True, illegal aliens can walk into the United States from Mexico. The logistics are easier in the American Southwest. But there are plenty of illegal workers in Washington state, Michigan and Maine — and little stopping them from going on to Canada.

Our northern neighbor has a large immigration program but little illegal immigration, because Ottawa won't tolerate it. No country with generous entitlements can afford a growing population of low-income workers.

Canada tweaks its immigration program to meet economic needs. It favors entrants with highly desirable skills. And when the economy recently turned sour, it stopped renewing many temporary work permits.

Should America do as Canada does? Should it stringently enforce its ban on hiring illegal workers? Yes. And should it stop fretting over what happens to undocumented people already in the country? Yes, but not yet.

What separates the United States from Canada on illegal immigration is a consistent message.

America's landmark 1986 immigration-reform law banned the hiring of illegal workers while granting amnesty to several million already here. But it was purposely rendered toothless at the last minute, when saboteurs yanked out a provision requiring a secure check of job applicants' identities.

Talk about messages. Suppose you're an impoverished Mexican. You know that the United States has offered several amnesties to illegal workers, and in any case, hasn't much enforced the law. You heard President George W. Bush announce that he was going to "match any willing worker with any willing employer." And you know that the conservative Wall Street Journal has called for open borders, while the liberal New York Times runs editorials on immigration that refuse to distinguish between legal and illegal.

What would you do? You would come to the United States, papers be damned.

We've had several decades of a two-faced immigration policy during which millions have come to this country illegally, taken jobs, started families and become part of the American scene. They are mostly good people who have been integrated into our economy and communities. There must be a last amnesty to cover them.

And it will be the last one if two things happen: One, we pass immigration reform that requires every new hire to present counterfeit-proof ID. Two, the public demands that their government go after lawbreaking employers.

After virtually no enforcement in the Bush years, the Obama administration has begun to cite and fine employers who break the law. This is needed to move public opinion toward an immigration package that includes legalizing many already here. Sending troops to the border may also boost confidence.

But as Canada shows us, it's not the ease of crossing the border that encourages illegal immigration, but the ease of getting a job once in. The United States needs to get its act together and its message straight on immigration.



Immigration

Obama to send 1,200 troops to US-Mexico border

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama will send 1,200 National Guard troops to boost security along the U.S.-Mexico border, officials said Tuesday, pre-empting Republican plans to try to force votes on such a deployment.

Obama will also request $500 million for border protection and law enforcement activities, according to lawmakers and administration officials. The moves come as chances for action on comprehensive immigration reform, Obama's long-stated goal, look increasingly small in this election year. But Obama is under pressure to do something with the issue front and center after Arizona's passage of a tough crackdown law.

The National Guard troops will work on intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance support, analysis and training, and support efforts to block drug trafficking. They will temporarily supplement border patrol agents until Customs and Border Protection can recruit and train additional officers and agents to serve on the border, an administration official said.

The official, speaking on condition of anonymity ahead of a public announcement, disclosed the plans shortly after Obama met at the Capitol with Republican senators who pressed him on immigration issues including the question of sending National Guard troops to the border.

Arizona Republican Sens. John McCain and Jon Kyl have been urging such a move, and Republicans planned to try to require it as an amendment to a pending war spending bill.

In a speech Tuesday on the Senate floor, McCain said the situation on the U.S.-Mexico border has "greatly deteriorated." He called for 6,000 National Guard troops to be sent, and he asked for $250 million more to pay for them.

"I appreciate the additional 1,200 being sent ... as well as an additional $500 million, but it's simply not enough," McCain said.

Democrats were considering countering McCain's amendment with a proposal of their own after disclosure of the White House plans.

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., said that the administration would announce the deployments late in the day Tuesday. But the White House wasn't expected to formally send the spending request to Capitol Hill until after the Memorial Day recess, said Kenneth Baer, spokesman for the White House Office of Management and Budget.

Homeland Security and Pentagon officials have been jousting over the possible National Guard deployment for the better part of a year. Pentagon officials worried about perceptions that the U.S. was militarizing the border and did not want Guard troops to perform law enforcement duties.

In 2006, President George W. Bush sent thousands of troops to the border to perform support duties that tie up immigration agents. But that program has since ended, and politicians in border states have called for troops to be sent there to curb human and drug smuggling and to deal with Mexico's drug violence that has been spilling over into the United States.

More than 20,000 Border Patrol agents are deployed now, mostly along the Southern border.

The Sun Herald

17 States Now Filing Versions of Arizona's Immigration Bill SB 1070

One of America's national organizations fighting against illegal immigration is announcing that 17 states are now filing versions of Arizona's SB 1070 law which is designed to help local police enforce America's existing immigration laws.

Numerous national and local polls indicated that 60-81% of Americans support local police enforcing immigration laws.

"Our national network of activists have been working overtime trying to help the state of Arizona and the brave Arizonans who have passed this bill," said William Gheen, President of Americans for Legal Immigration PAC. "Arizona no longer stands alone and we have now documented state lawmakers filing, or announcing they will file, versions of the Arizona bill in seventeen states! We will not stop until all states are protected from invasion as required by the US Constitution."

ALIPAC has documented the following 17 states are following Arizona's lead in response to citizen pressure.

ARKANSAS, IDAHO, INDIANA, MARYLAND, MICHIGAN, MINNESOTA, MISSOURI, NEBRASKA, NEVADA, NEW JERSEY, OHIO, OKLAHOMA, PENNSYLVANIA, RHODE ISLAND, SOUTH CAROLINA, TEXAS, UTAH

Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC) has helped to pass some form of immigration enforcement legislation in over 30 states, while the group has also gained a national reputation for defeating legislation designed to give licenses, in-state tuition, and other taxpayer benefits to illegal aliens in 20 states.

ALIPAC's President, William Gheen is a former campaign consultant, Legislative Assistant, state lobbyist, and Assistant Sgt-At-Arms staffer in North Carolina who has turned his local experiences into a political battle plan by driving the national operations of ALIPAC.

"The Federal government has been hijacked by special interests that are neglectful of their duties and even hostile towards the rightful citizens of America," said William Gheen. "It is incumbent upon our states to protect American lives, property, jobs, wages, security, and health, when the Executive Branch fails to honor its Constitutional responsibility to do so by enforcing our existing border and immigration laws."

Americans for Legal Immigration PAC lobbied state lawmakers and AZ Governor Jan Brewer to pass SB 1070, which strictly prohibits racial profiling while empowering local police officers to enforce immigration laws.

ALIPAC's activists have been working for almost four weeks now to encourage state lawmakers across the nation to file versions of SB 1070, to help alleviate boycotts and other political antagonism towards Arizona. Citizen activist are being asked to call, e-mail, visit, and fax their state lawmakers to encourage them to support existing SB 1070 type bills or to file them as soon as possible.

For a list of the 17 states joining Arizona's push for this kind of legislation, and to view the associated documentation, please visit our tracking link for updated information at....

Americans for Legal Immigration

Investigation finds terrorist slipping in through Mexico via Europe to South America

This report by Atlanta's Channel 2 television station, shows the evidence many have been talking about for over a year now. We are leaving ourselves vulnerable to attack.

Channel 2 Investigates U.S. Border Security--Part One

Channel 2 Investigates U.S. Border Security--Part Two

Immigration Boycotts: Two can play that game!

Boycotts of Arizona not working out so well.