Blogs for Borders - Bloggers dedicated to American sovereignty, border security and a sane immigration policy. We support legal immigration. We share news, articles and opinions on issues related to our nation's borders, immigration policy, illegal aliens and amnesty proposals.
Home Page | Link-Up | Contact | Our Feed
Free Email Subscription | Facebook Group

Thursday, September 30, 2010

Updated: ALIPAC Director William Green Calls for Arrest of Meg Whitman



Update from CNS News: Meg Whitman denied allegations that she knew for years her housekeeper was an illegal immigrant from Mexico, and that she ignored warnings from the government that her employee might have dubious legal status in the U.S. . . . Whitman said she was not aware the housekeeper was in the U.S. illegally until the woman volunteered the information in 2009, after which Whitman fired her. In all, the woman worked for the Whitman family for nine years, making $23 an hour.

Her campaign released employment applications filled out when the housekeeper was hired in 2000, including a copy of a Social Security card and a California driver's license, that indicated the woman was a legal resident.
------------
Meg Whitman Refutes Allegations by Former Housekeeper

------------
Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC): In response to the explosive revelations that California gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman employed illegal alien Nicky Diaz for nine years, ALIPAC is asking Immigration and Customs Enforcement to arrest and charge both Whitman and Diaz for numerous immigration and employment law violations.

"We need equal justice for both the illegal alien and the employer," said William Gheen, President of ALIPAC. "Nicky Diaz should be charged and deported and Meg Whitman should face the existing penalties under current US law as well. No Amnesty for Whitman or Diaz, the Rule of Law must be restored in America."

Nicki Diaz gave a tearful interview to reporters today, accompanied by Gloria Allred, a longtime Democratic supporter. Diaz claims that Whitman, a Republican candidate for Governor of California, knew she was an illegal alien and was abusive to her and failed to pay her all her wages. Diaz cried through most of the interview in what was an obviously contrived display of political theater.

"Best illegal alien actor award of 2010 should go to Nicki Diaz for her role as the tearful victimized invader," said William Gheen. "Meg Whitman's financial gain from the movie rights should be seized by the courts to compensate the American taxpayers who have paid the price for her illegal laborer over the years."

Americans curious about Meg Whitman's support for Comprehensive Immigration Reform Amnesty (CIRA) that would lift current laws and penalties for both illegal aliens and their employers now know why. If CIRA were to pass, exploitative employers like Whitman would escape the existing penalties under US law which have a nine year statute of limitations.

The American public has indicated in numerous scientific polls that well over 80% of Americans want employers like Meg Whitman heavily fined. Over 50% want the employers of illegals, like Whitman, jailed.

Americans have also shown overwhelming support for the arrest, detention, and deportation of illegal immigrants like Nicki Diaz. Both the US Constitution and the existing laws of Congress mandate that both Whitman and Diaz should be charged and treated equally under those laws.

"We stand with the majority of American citizens who want our existing border and immigration laws enforced!" said William Gheen. "Therefore we call on all appropriate authorities to arrest and charge both Meg Whitman and Nicki Diaz."

[Blogs for Borders does not endorse the actions of either William Green or Meg Whitman in this reported story]

Tags: ALIPAC, California, Meg Whitman, illegal aliens To share the post, click on "Post Link." Please mention / link to Blogs for Borders. Thanks!

Tuesday, September 28, 2010

Obama Refers to Illegal Aliens as ‘Us’ As He Renews Call for Amnesty

By Terence P. Jeffrey:(CNSNews.com) - President Barack Obama referred to illegal aliens in the United States as “us” on Tuesday while renewing his call for giving them a “pathway to citizenship”—an amnesty--and castigating opponents of such an amnesty as demagogues.

Obama’s made the statement at what the White House billed as a “backyard discussion” at a private home in Albuquerque, New Mexico. It came in the midst of a 754-word answer he gave in response to a woman who asked: “How do you envision a comprehensive immigration reform as one measure towards America’s economic recovery and long-term vitality?”

“Let’s provide a pathway to citizenship for those who are already here, understanding that they broke the law, so they’re going to have to pay a fine and pay back taxes and, I think, learn English, make sure that they don’t have a criminal record,” said Obama. “There are some hoops that they’re going to have to jump through, but giving them a pathway is the right thing to do.

“Now, unfortunately, right now this is getting demagogued,” Obama said. “A lot of folks think it’s an easy way to score political points is by trying to act as if there’s a ‘them’ and an ‘us,’ instead of just an ‘us.’ And I’m always suspicious of politics that is dividing people instead of bringing them together. I think now is the time for us to come together.”

Obama lamented that his effort to push for “comprehensive immigration reform” is hampered by U.S. Senate rules that require 60 votes to move legislation to a final vote and by the fact that a number of Republicans have changed their minds on the immigration issue in recent years and now oppose amnesty.

“So this is a priority that I continue to have,” said Obama. “Frankly, the problem I’ve had right now is that--and I don’t want to get into sort of inside baseball by Washington. But basically the rules in the United States Senate have evolved so that if you don’t have 60 votes, you can’t get anything through the United States Senate right now. And several years ago, we had 11 Republican senators who were willing to vote for comprehensive immigration reform, including John McCain. They’ve all reversed themselves. I can’t get any of them to cooperate. And I don’t have 60 Democrats in the Senate.”

Tags: Barack Obama, speech, amnesty, illegal aliens To share the post, click on "Post Link." Please mention / link to Blogs for Borders. Thanks!

Sunday, September 26, 2010

Obama's Illegal Aunt: Declares "You Have The Obligation to Make Me a Citizen"

StandWithAZ Comments on CBS Special Report - Video: Zeituni Onyango's comments about America is breathtaking. She came illegally, lived in public housing for years, collected welfare, even got $51k in disability. And still she is angry at America. This case is beyond depressing. And it underlines what many people see today: that in the old days, immigrants came to America to lend a hand to our growing nation. But far too many today merely come for a handout. And their arrogance and sense of entitlement is a symptom of the broken borders and lawlessness we have permitted, which lets anybody in, asks nothing of them, and gives charity to the lazy while so many deserving citizens are forgotten. And where is the multi-millionaire Obama in all this? His Aunt, whom he spoke lovingly about in his book, STILL does not work, STILL receives disability, still claims to have "no money".


Tags: Obama's Aunt, Zeituni, Obama's aunt, Barack Obama, illegal alien, Boston, CBS report, asylum, welfare, Governmentt assistance, amnesty, To share the post, click on "Post Link." Please mention / link to Blogs for Borders. Thanks!

Saturday, September 25, 2010

'DREAM Act' Nightmare Remains A Threat

by Elise Cooper, American Thinker: Senator Harry Reid launched a sneak attack by adding the "DREAM Act" to the Defense Authorization Bill. Although the Defense Bill was temporarily sidelined Tuesday, most expect it to be revived at a later date. The Act will allow students who have lived in America for five years to obtain a green card after they attend college or serve in the military. This is nothing more than an amnesty program that gives citizenship to these illegal immigrants.

Although employers are the number-one contributor to illegal immigration, politicians such as Reid have now become accessories. It appears that they are rewarding those who are here illegally. Congressman Brian Bilbray (R-CA), chairman of the Immigration Reform Caucus, said, "Harry Reid is trying to pander to the illegal population and their supporters. He is sending a message that the leader of the U.S. Senate wants to reward those that are here illegally. That mixed signal causes people to think there are long-term benefits for coming here illegally."

Gaining admission into some California colleges is very difficult. There are only so many spaces, and this bill reduces the slots for legal residents and denies them the opportunity for a college education. Bilbray rightfully points out that that this is a "misguided concept where you reward people for breaking the law. There are a lot of foreign nationals that go to college; yet we don't offer them legal status or citizenship. These people are not being offered the same proposal."

By having non-citizens serve in the military, Reid has hypocritically allowed only the government to hire illegal immigrants while maintaining that other employers will violate the law. According to Bilbray, politicians should quit pandering to the illegal population, and employers should quit hiring them. This is not how America should function.

The congressman's solution is very simple: institute an E-Verify system, since "if Congress can use the system, anyone can use it. A bill with E-Verify will do more to stop the flow of illegal immigrants. We don't have to do it with the military at the border but with enforcement in the workplace." It is an internet-based system that allows an employer, using information reported on an employee's form, to determine the eligibility of that employee to work in the United States. For most employers, the use of E-Verify is voluntary and limited to new hires only. However, currently, every federal government agency must use E-Verify. The Obama administration has mandated that all contractors with the Federal Government use this system.

To make sure E-Verify will work, Bilbray wants the social security card, a national employment card, to be upgraded. Nothing has been done with this card since its inception in 1937. By using biometrics, the card will become tamper-proof, and identity fraud will be greatly reduced. For Bilbray, "it's not brain surgery. Once you dry up the jobs for illegal immigrants in this country, you will dry up the majority of this problem. This is not a border problem, but an illegal employment problem. If the federal government had passed E-verify, we would not be talking about Arizona trying to address this issue on their border."

Does Bilbray think that the Democrats will hijack the illegal immigration issue and pass it regardless of American objections? Most definitely, because several congressmen stated while in Mexico that "they were going to push amnesty after the November election." It will probably be passed because the Democrats in power want it. The mentality in Washington right now is that if they lose the majority after the 2010 elections, then they will put forth whatever they want. This is pretty scary since they are going to do what they want despite public opinion being against it.

The "DREAM Act" is sending the wrong signal that the way you become an American is to break the law. Congressman Bilbray is frustrated and upset and wants to make it clear that "Harry [Reid] is desperate and is in a tight election. However, there should be some issues more important than politics."
------------------
Relevant Articles:
Today in Washington, D.C. - Sept 23, 2010 - Warning: Shenanigans - Democrats Move to Silence Free Speech
DREAM Becomes a Nightmare
Sen. Blanche Lincoln Cosponsors Amnesty!

Tags: Dream Act, nightmare, amnesty, illegal aliens, students To share the post, click on "Post Link." Please mention / link to Blogs for Borders. Thanks!

Friday, September 24, 2010

Arizona Sheriff Arpaio Gets Favorable Audit

By Evan Perez, The Wall Street Journal: A federal audit gave favorable grades to Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio for his treatment of inmates, amid a Justice Department probe into possible discrimination by the Arizona lawman against Hispanic inmates. Mr. Arpaio's lawyer said the audit grades from the U.S. Marshals Service show the sheriff runs a clean operation and underscore his contention that the probe is politically motivated.

The Justice Department said in a statement that its investigation "pertains to allegations of discrimination in jails and police practices that are not covered by the Marshals Service review."

Mr. Arpaio has gained a national reputation as an anti-illegal immigration firebrand, using his local agency to round up undocumented immigrants and turn them over to federal officials for deportation. The 18-month Justice probe has looked into how he treats jail inmates and whether he discriminates against Hispanics.

Hispanic and civil-liberties groups have criticized practices of Mr. Arpaio, such as using tents to house detainees and dressing them in pink uniforms.

The Marshals Service conducted routine inspections of jail facilities operated by the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office in September 2009 and again recently. Those inspections, separate from the Justice civil-rights probe, were done as part of agreements under which the Maricopa sheriff houses some of the Marshals Service's federal prisoners.

Mr. Arpaio's department polices much of the suburban region outside of Phoenix. In the inspections, the Marshals Service gave Mr. Arpaio's facility "compliant" grades, the highest mark, in all major categories, according to the September 2009 inspection reports. In another series of inspections this month, the Maricopa County jails received the same grades, Marshals Service spokesman Thomas Henman said.

In particular, the Maricopa County facilities received "compliant" ratings related to prevention of discrimination against detainees, according to the 2009 reports. The inspections cover everything from the cleanliness of kitchens and showers to health care for inmates and security. "This deputy was impressed with the overall facility operation and cleanliness," read one passage in the September 2009 reports.

Mr. Arpaio's lawyers have cited similar high marks received after 2008 inspections by investigators from the Department of Homeland Security to argue that the Justice Department's probe of Mr. Arpaio is without merit. Robert Driscoll, a lawyer for Mr. Arpaio, said: "These reports are just further evidence that the DOJ's Civil Rights Division has gone rogue, to the point of ignoring the findings of federal law enforcement and other components of the DOJ itself, in its politically motivated pursuit of the sheriff."

One U.S. official said the Marshals' inspections are "check-box" reviews that aren't intended to be as in-depth as the continuing civil-rights investigation, which the Justice Department has said is looking at patterns or practices.

The Justice Department began its probe of Mr. Arpaio in March 2009, and since then the two sides have been at odds for months over his cooperation. In a lawsuit filed earlier this month seeking to compel Mr. Arpaio to turn over documents and allow visits by investigators, Justice Department lawyers said they were probing "alleged national origin discrimination in [Maricopa] police practices and jail operations."

The legal tussles over Mr. Arpaio's policing practices come as the Obama administration and Arizona's state government battle over immigration enforcement. The Justice Department sued the state in July seeking to block enforcement of a new state law that required local police to check the immigration status of people stopped for other possible violations. President Barack Obama said the state law could lead to civil-rights violations.

A federal judge has suspended the most controversial parts of the Arizona law based on the Justice Department's argument that it would infringe on federal immigration powers.

Tags: Arizona, Sheriff, Joe Arpaio, audit, jail, illegal aliens To share the post, click on "Post Link." Please mention / link to Blogs for Borders. Thanks!

Thursday, September 23, 2010

Fence for the Southern Border of Mexico

The Blaze: Reporting from Guatemala City, Danilo Valladares of the Inter-Press Service (IPS) notes that there will be one more barrier for Guatemalan immigrants in their trek to the United States. In addition to dodging dangerous drug traffickers and immigration officials, the latest obstacle is emerging: a wall between Guatemala and Mexico.

According to the head of customs for Mexico’s tax administration, Raul Diaz, the Mexican border state of Chiapas is constructing a wall along the country’s southern border with Guatemala, along the river Suchiate which divides the countries. Diaz says the purpose of the wall is to prevent the passage of contraband, but admits, “It could also prevent the free passage of illegal immigrants.”

According to Mexico’s National Commission on Human Rights (CNDH), 500,000 people from Central America cross into Mexico illegally every year — the vast majority of them attempting to reach the United States. In addition, smugglers reportedly use the Suchiate River to move goods across the international border without paying duty taxes.

Just as Mexican authorities have opposed more strict border enforcement and the construction of a border fence along the U.S. border with their country, Mexico is now receiving a great deal of criticism from Guatemalan officials. According to IPS, Guatemalan civil and government organizations have called the move “senseless,” saying a border fence will not prevent undocumented migrants from crossing the border on their way north. . . .

Similar to areas surrounding America’s southern border with Mexico, the Guatemalan-Mexico border region is wrought with crime, including lawless drug cartels’ kidnapping and exploitation of migrants. On Aug. 23, 72 migrants heading north from Guatemala were brutally murdered in San Fernando, a town on the Mexican side of the border. Authorities presume the massacre was carried out by a well-known drug cartel. In addition, a total of 9,758 kidnappings of migrants were reported in Mexico from Sept. 2008 to Feb. 2009, according to the CNDH. . . .

In 2010 alone, the United States has given $450 million to Mexico, with an additional $100 million requested from Congress to be sent to Central America, in order to “provide equipment and training to support law enforcement operations and technical assistance for long-term reform and oversight of security agencies,” says the State Department.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has halted the construction of a fence on America’s own southern border and the U.S. Department of Justice is seeking to prevent the adoption of localized border state laws attempting to curb the flow of illegal immigrants and drug-related violence.

While the Obama administration condemns the efforts of Arizonans and the calls from many Americans who insist on constructing a fence on the country’s southern border, will the U.S. government continue to funnel millions of taxpayer dollars to Mexico as they build their own border defenses? . . . [Full Article]

Tags: The Blaze, border fence, Mexico, Guatemala, amnesty, illegal aliens To share the post, click on "Post Link." Please mention / link to Blogs for Borders. Thanks!

Tuesday, September 21, 2010

No Defence for Defending Illegals

U.S. Constitution reads in Section 8 "The Congress shall have the Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States."

by Leanne Hoagland-Smith: Notice that defence now spelled defense comes before general welfare. Additionally to defend the country (national security) comes before any other responsibility. Yet, Congress and the executive Branch continue to ignore their first priority and focus on their recognized responsibilities second or less priorities. This document, U.S. Constitution, was written very intentionally as to where the words were placed and even to what words were capitalized. These intentions were part of the reason it is took so long for adoption.

Also, after paying the debts, the collected money is to first go to national defense or national security as we so call it today. Yet how many times do we hear people complaining about so much money going to defense where it should be directed to the general welfare? Protecting our country's border is the first priority or as some would say it is Job #1.

I was reminded of this once after listening to numerous U.S. elected official continue to deny this primary responsibility and reading about this alarming trend. A new study by the Pew Hispanic Center suggested that 8% of all babies born in this country are from 4% of the population and that population is illegal immigrants. Common sense seems to have flown the chicken coop and replaced by self serving interests (more votes to keep corrupt elected officials in office) especially many of these births are being paid through the tax dollars of legal U.S. citizens.

Since I am a first generation Swede on my father's side, I am quite offended by those who break the law when others are denied entry into this country. My father's family entered through Ellis Island along with millions of others and had to be sponsored by a current American citizen.

My grandmother being an incredible woman actually had her brother immigrate to this country from Sweden 20 years earlier, establish a farm in Northern Wisconsin, become a naturalized citizen and then sponsor the rest of her family. Later they applied for U.S. Citizenship through the proper channels. Yes she wanted a better life, but she did it legally as did millions of other immigrants during the early 1900's. This is the essence of the Rule of Law and it is the second reason (establish Justice) why the United States of America became a nation. (See the preamble of the U.S. Constitution.)

Being Scandinavian and a history buff, probably some of my ancestors were Vikings. These individuals invaded other European countries. They were not considered illegals, but were call invaders because their behaviors consisted of robbing, murdering and kidnapping. (Of course the Vikings were not the only ones engaged in such behaviors, but they were as feared by many and I am not condoning these behaviors.)

So what is the difference between these behaviors of over 1,000 years ago and the behaviors of those who cross into the U.S. illegally? The people of Arizona have to live with the behaviors of these invaders a.k.a. illegal immigrants and cannot have "domestic Tranquility" as noted in the preamble of the U.S. Constitution. Once again legal, contributing U.S. citizens suffer at the hands of the very government that was charged to protect them. There are no valid arguments to support illegal immigrants and the continued abandonment of this Constitutionally mandated responsibility.

Tags: illegal immigrants, national security, U.S. Constitution, illegal aliens To share the post, click on "Post Link." Please mention / link to Blogs for Borders. Thanks!

Monday, September 20, 2010

Harry Reid’s Illegal Alien Student Bailout

by Michelle Malkin: The so-called DREAM Act would create an official path to Democratic voter registration for an estimated two million college-age illegal aliens. Look past the public relations-savvy stories of “undocumented” valedictorians left out in the cold. This is not about protecting "children." It’s about preserving electoral power through cap-and-gown amnesty.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced this week that he’s attaching the DREAM Act to the defense authorization bill. With ethnic activists breathing down his neck and President Obama pushing to fulfill his campaign promise to Hispanics, Reid wants his queasy colleagues to vote on the legislation next week.

Open-borders lawmakers have tried and failed to pass the DREAM Act through regular channels for the past decade. That’s because informed voters know giving green cards to illegal alien students undermines the rule of law, creates more illegal immigration incentives and grants preferential treatment to illegal alien students over law-abiding native and naturalized American students struggling to get an education in tough economic times.

This bad idea is compounded by a companion proposal to recruit more illegal aliens into the military with the lure of citizenship (a fraud-ridden and reckless practice countenanced under the Bush administration). DREAM Act lobbyists are spotlighting heart-wrenching stories of high-achieving teens brought to this country when they were toddlers. But instead of arguing for case-by-case dispensations, the protesters want blanket pardons.

The broadly drafted Senate bill would confer benefits on applicants up to age 35, and the House bill contains no age ceiling at all. The academic achievement requirements are minimal. Moreover, illegal aliens who didn’t arrive in the country until they turned 15 -- after they laid down significant roots in their home country—would be eligible for DREAM Act benefits and eventual U.S. citizenship. And like past amnesty packages, the Democratic plan is devoid of any concrete eligibility and enforcement mechanisms to deter already-rampant immigration benefit fraud.

The DREAM Act sponsors have long fought to sabotage a clearly worded provision in the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) that states: "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an alien who is not lawfully present in the United States shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a State (or a political subdivision) for any postsecondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit (in no less an amount, duration, and scope) without regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident."

Ten states defied that federal law and offered DREAM Act-style tuition preference to illegal aliens: California, Illinois, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah and Washington. The last time DREAM Act champions tried to tack their scheme onto a larger immigration proposal, they snuck in language that would absolve those 10 states of their law-breaking by repealing the 1996 law retroactively—and also offering the special path to green cards and citizenship for illegal alien students.

Despite the obvious electoral advantage this plan would give Democrats, several pro-illegal alien amnesty Republicans crossed the aisle to support the DREAM Act, including double-talking Sens. John McCain, Richard Lugar, Bob Bennett, Sam Brownback, Norm Coleman, Susan Collins, Larry Craig, Chuck Hagel, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Mel Martinez and Olympia Snowe, as well as presidential candidate Mike Huckabee (who champions even greater illegal alien student benefits than those proposed by Democrats).

After paying lip service to securing the borders, McCain promised DREAM Act demonstrators this week that he supported the bill and would work to "resolve their issues." Out-of-touch pols might want to pay attention to the world outside their bubble. A recent Quinnipiac University poll shows that Americans across the political spectrum favor tougher enforcement of existing immigration laws over rolling out the amnesty welcome wagon.

When asked, "Do you think immigration reform should primarily move in the direction of integrating illegal immigrants into American society or in the direction of stricter enforcement of laws against illegal immigration?" solid majorities of registered Republicans, Democrats and independents chose stricter enforcement over greater integration of the illegal alien population.

Democrats outside the Beltway have grown increasingly averse to signing on to illegal alien incentives—especially as the Obama jobs death toll mounts and economic confidence plummets. Here in Colorado, a handful of Democrats joined Republican lawyers to kill a state-level DREAM Act amid massive higher education budget cuts and a bipartisan voter backlash. Asked why she opposed the illegal alien student bailout, one Democratic lawmaker said quite simply: "I listened to my constituents." An alien concept in Washington, to be sure.

Tags: DREAM Act, Harry Reid, amnesty, illegal aliens, To share the post, click on "Post Link." Please mention / link to Blogs for Borders. Thanks!

Saturday, September 18, 2010

Illegal Alien Child Molester Awarded $4.5 Million in California


by Chet Nagle, Family Security Matters: California is so broke it is being compared to Greece. But the Orange County Board of Supervisors gave away 4.3 million real dollars to an illegal Mexican alien who is also a child molester. Why did the supervisors do it? Answer: “The lawyer made me do it!”

The first chapter in this distasteful story begins with Fernando Ramirez, a 24-year-old illegal alien, being caught molesting a 6-year-old girl in a park. He was duly convicted and sent to the Orange County Central Jail. The second chapter is predictable.

Inmates in prison for murder, bank robbery, mugging old ladies, and other assorted thuggery agree on at least one thing: They hate child molesters. So when Mr. Ramirez was finally incarcerated, his life insurance company should have been quick to cancel his policy. That the California court allowed Fernando to plead guilty to ‘battery against a child,’ instead of putting him on trial for child molestation, did not impress his fellow inmates. They beat him to within the proverbial inch of his life.

 In the third chapter a California lawyer takes over. Attorney Mark Eisenberg is not an ambulance chaser. Let’s face it, that’s a tacky vocation that is not really cost-effective. Instead, lawyer Eisenberg seems to have discovered that being a noble defender of downtrodden child molesters is just the ticket. By some means, Mr. Eisenberg was mysteriously advised about Fernando being roughly used by the other gents in the Orange County lockup. If he did have an informant somewhere in the county system, no doubt Eisenberg would have simply thanked him, and assured him that his reward could only be in heaven. Then Eisenberg swung into righteous action.

Bringing a case before the Orange County Board of Supervisors, the kindly attorney claimed that Ramirez had suffered brain damage because of the beating, that he needs help walking, and that he now has the intellect of a four-year-old child. Luckily, that age was two years less than the six-year-old child he had molested, so the supervisors must have been very saddened by his alleged condition.

In the fourth chapter, the supervisors take stock of the dire financial straits of Orange County. They then conclude that county taxpayers can still find it in their hearts to hand the child molester and his lawyer the largest settlement ever given to anyone in county custody: $3.75 million, plus $900,000 for medical expenses. With a wave of their wands, Orange County Supervisors made Fernando one of the richest non-citizens in the country!

You might ask questions about that award, but you will get no answers. The case was heard behind closed doors, and the supervisors have absolutely and wisely refused to make any comment on the matter since Joshua Jamison broke the story in The Raw Deal blog. It was later picked up by American Thinker.com on July 11th.

We should remember that lawyers who do not chase ambulances, like Mark Eisenberg, do their work for free. Just like we see advertised on television. What we do not see on television is that lawyers like Eisenberg work on a “contingency fee” basis. That means that if they take your case (and they will not take it unless they reckon they will win) they will take a share in the winnings. Usually, that is at least 30 percent. In this case, that means lawyer Eisenberg took home over $1 million of Orange County taxpayer money. Not bad for a quick closed-door decision by the supervisors.

The final question is: Did the board of supervisors also let millionaire Fernando out of the hoosegow? They must have. It is the only way he could spend his new-found wealth and be the financial stimulus Orange County needs so badly.

Family Security Matters Contributing editor Chet Nagle is a graduate of the US Naval Academy and Georgetown Law School. He was a Cold War naval aviator, a Pentagon official, and an intelligence agent in Africa and the Middle East, where he was awarded the Order of Oman. Chet Nagle is now a columnist and the author of IRAN COVENANT

Tags: California, child molestor, crime, amnesty, illegal aliens, Chet Nagle, To share the post, click on "Post Link." Please mention / link to Blogs for Borders. Thanks!

Wednesday, September 15, 2010

Reid Adds Controversial Immigration Measure to Defense Bill

Washington (CNN) - Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Tuesday he will add the DREAM Act, a controversial immigration measure, to a defense policy bill the Senate will take up next week.

The decision means the defense bill, which often passes with bipartisan support, will be home to two major, thorny political issues – the other being the repeal of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

Reid called the DREAM Act "really important" and said it should be passed because it provides a path to citizenship for young illegal immigrants who go to college or serve in the military. DREAM is an acronym for Development, Relief and Education of Alien Minors Act.

"I know we can't do comprehensive immigration reform," Reid said at a news conference. "But those Republicans we had in the last Congress have left us."

Many Hispanic voters are angry with Democratic leaders for not doing more to pass an immigration overhaul. The decision by Reid to add the DREAM Act now could help soothe that anger.

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell called Reid's decision "needlessly controversial."

The Senate will need 60 votes to take up the bill next week, and Reid said Tuesday he doesn't know if he has enough votes.

Tags: Harry Reid, DREAM Act, amnesty, illegal aliens To share the post, click on "Post Link." Please mention / link to Blogs for Borders. Thanks!

Tuesday, September 14, 2010

Midterms imperil immigration bill

By Carrie Budoff Brown, Politico: A Republican rout in November would usher in a class of Senate freshmen who ran on pledges of no amnesty for illegal immigrants — a changing of the guard that could doom President Barack Obama’s already faint chances of passing a comprehensive immigration reform bill in his first term.

Immigration reform advocates could see turnover in 17 seats held by Democrats and Republicans who, at one point, voted for a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants, according to a POLITICO analysis of the Senate campaign field. In all cases, the Republicans running for those seats have vowed to never support a legalization program or at least not consider it until the border has been certified secure.

This means the Democratic vision of immigration reform, which couples tough border enforcement and a crackdown on employers with plans to legalize 11 million undocumented immigrants, would need to shift much further to the right to stand any chance in a closely divided Senate. “The prospects for victory of comprehensive immigration reform are slim,” said Frank Sharry, executive director of America’s Voice, an immigrant advocacy group.

If predictions for a broad Democratic defeat in the midterm elections prove accurate, immigration advocates could start out in January with as few as 30 senators on their side. A total of 73 senators backed a key test vote on immigration reform in 2006, but that coalition shrank to 46 when a similar bill came up in 2007. The Senate is the battleground on immigration because a bill would originate there, where 60 votes are needed to pass anything controversial.

The outlook for immigration reform turned gloomy last month when Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) became the third senator to lose this year among those who once supported a legalization program.

Murkowski lost the Republican nomination to attorney Joe Miller, who was designated a “True Reform” candidate by the group Numbers USA, which favors immigration restrictions. Unless she runs as a write-in candidate, Murkowski will be one of five Republican incumbents leaving office this year who have voted for immigration reform. She was viewed as a potential swing vote along with Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, Bob Bennett of Utah, George Voinovich of Ohio and Sam Brownback of Kansas — all of whom will be gone.

Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet, one of only six Democrats to even mention immigration on their campaign websites, could be replaced by attorney Ken Buck, who argues that illegal immigrants should return to their country of origin and enter America legally. And a key Democratic moderate, Arkansas’s Sen. Blanche Lincoln, who has twice voted to open debate on a reform bill, appears likely to fall to Republican Rep. John Boozman, a member of the conservative House Immigration Reform Caucus who has vowed to fight “out-of-control illegal immigration.”

“At this point, what Latino immigrants are facing is a Republican Congress that will be out for mass deportation; that is the only way I could put it bluntly,” Sharry said.

Roy Beck, executive director of Numbers USA, said no matter which party controls the House and Senate, “there is no chance for an amnesty in the next Congress.” A significant shift in the political composition of Congress holds countless implications for the president’s agenda. But the trouble it spells for immigration stands out.

Obama wooed Hispanics on the campaign trail in 2008 with a promise to produce a comprehensive immigration bill within his first year in office. His inability to deliver on that promise has received critical coverage in the Spanish-language media, contributing to some erosion in the president’s support among Hispanics.

Not only would immigration reform be a major unfulfilled campaign pledge, but Hispanic leaders predict Obama would struggle to win back the trust of these voters in time for the 2012 election.

But their more immediate concern is that the issue will depress Hispanic turnout this November, throwing Congress back into Republican hands and dooming immigration reform as Democrats see it. That’s because the House and Senate Judiciary Committees would be led by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) and Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), two hard-line foes of the Democratic approach.

“The prospect of a turned House would frighten me because of the change in leadership,” said Tamar Jacoby, president of ImmigrationWorks USA, a national employer federation pushing for comprehensive reform. “But a turned Senate could be better.”

A slim Democratic majority in the Senate could create an environment in which bipartisan compromise was possible, advocates said. The addition of several Republican moderates in the Senate, . . . would broaden the universe of Republican co-sponsors for Democrats to target. . . .

No matter which party wins control Nov. 2, an immigration reform bill in a closely divided Congress would very likely look different than the current Democratic framework. The bill would set tougher “triggers” that must be met before illegal immigrants could move to permanent resident status. And the pathway to citizenship could take longer, cost more money, be available to fewer illegal immigrants and be off limits to those with even minor criminal infractions.

Beck said he expects lawmakers to abandon any kind of legalization push and focus on mandating that employers verify the citizenship of every worker. He said his group would want a Republican-controlled Congress to take a serious look at revoking birthright citizenship and calling a “timeout” on legal immigration until the unemployment rate drops.

The prospects for reform will hinge on the outcome of Senate races in a handful of states, some of which are the focus of a large get-out-the-vote effort on “low propensity” Hispanic voters.

As the Service Employees International Union works to bring out more than 500,000 of these voters in California, Colorado, Florida, Arizona and Texas, field organizers are finding people angry with Obama and Congress about the lack of progress on immigration reform, said Eliseo Medina, the union’s international executive vice president.

“The fact that we don’t have immigration reform is not a reason not to participate; it is a reason to participate,” Medina said, describing the pitch to voters. “If we don’t participate, the likelihood of getting immigration reform soon is much, much less than if we participate.”

Tags: immigration reform, elections 2010, Senate freshmen, amnesty, illegal aliens To share the post, click on "Post Link." Please mention / link to Blogs for Borders. Thanks!

Monday, September 13, 2010

Another Challenge to CBP Border Search Policy

by Marty Ficke, Security Debrief: The lawsuit filed on Tuesday, September 7, in the Second Circuit challenging the federal government’s border search policy is yet another attempt to complicate and restrict our ability to protect the United States. The lawsuit specifically challenges the government’s border search exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement as it relates to detaining and examining international travelers’ laptop computers, cellphones and other electronic devices.

At issue is the government’s position that its authority to protect the border includes the ability to review and examine the contents of the above described electronic devices without the “reasonable suspicion” requirement. That position has been consistently upheld by the federal appeals courts.

This continued challenge to the “suspicionless” border search exception in the post-September 11th era comes as both the Bush and Obama administrations have emphasized its use in an enhanced effort to stop terrorists from entering the U.S., and to uncover terrorist plots.

In reviewing the border search exception to the Fourth Amendment, the courts have clearly made a distinction between routine and non-routine border searches. They have summarized that Customs and Border Protection (CBP) may conduct routine searches without any suspicion while non-routine searches must be supported by reasonable suspicion. A routine search includes a traveler’s property, such as luggage, briefcases, wallets, bags and other containers. Searches of a traveler’s body, including strip and body cavity and involuntary x-rays, are considered non-routine.

The lawsuit comes at a time when laptops, and now smart phones, have become virtual extensions of the traveler. Even though only a small percentage of laptops are searched each year by U.S. border authorities, requiring reasonable suspicion to complete the examination process of a traveler’s laptop makes this device not his property (routine) but an extension of his body (non-routine). That is the classic “slippery slope” I do not think any of us want to deal with.

Tags: border security, policy, court challenge, Marty Ficke, Security Debrief To share the post, click on "Post Link." Please mention / link to Blogs for Borders. Thanks!

Friday, September 10, 2010

ICE Caught and Released 506,232 Illegal Aliens Who Are Now Fugitives - More Than Entire Population of Sacramento, CA

U.S. ICE Director John Morton speaks about
immigration enforcement in Phoenix on Thur, Aug. 12, 2010
U.S. Marshal David Gonzales (left)&
Patrick Cunningham with DOJ
Penny Starr, (CNSNews.com): The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) says that as of Sunday, Sept. 5, it had caught-and-released 506,232 illegal aliens who are now fugtives. That is more than the population of Sacramento, California, which currently numbers 486,189.

Fugitive illegal aliens are individuals who were apprehended ICE for being in the United States illegally and then were released ahead of their court proceedings and deemed fugitive when they failed to appear in court.

CNSNews.com asked Brian P. Hale, director of public affairs at ICE, about DHS’s annual report Immigration Enforcement Actions: 2009, which includes information on apprehensions and deportations but does not include data on illegal aliens who are fugitives from the law. CNSNews asked if ICE could provide the number of illegal alien fugitives for FY 2009 and the number to date for 2010.

In an e-mail to CNSNews.com, Hale said the fugitive backlog as of Oct. 1, 2009 (the first day of FY 2010) was 534,497. He also said that number had been reduced by 28,265 since then, making the total fugitive backlog of illegal aliens 506,232 as of Sept. 5, 2010.

Sacramento County, CA,
incorporated & unincorporated areas.
(Wikipedia Commons)
Hale said that ICE personnel are spending more time arresting criminal illegal aliens rather than fugitive illegal aliens. “It is important to note that our fugitive operations teams now can spend up to 30 percent of their time arresting convicted criminals at-large,” Hale said. “Thus, their fugitive arrests don’t reflect all of their work.”

In an earlier story on the number of fugitives that are in the United States illegally from countries other than Mexico, CNSNews.com asked ICE spokeswoman Gillian Brigham to define what DHS considers a fugitive.

Brigham said a “fugitive” is defined as an individual who has been found legally deportable and has evaded authorities. “A fugitive is an individual who has a final order of removal and has absconded,” Brigham said.

Given the fugitive backlog of 506,232, for comparison the population of the city of Sacramento, Calif., is 466,687, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, while Kansas City, Mo., is 482,299; Albuquerque, NM., is 528,497; and Atlanta, Ga., is 540,921.

Tags: ICE, Caught and Released, Sacramento, CA, illegal aliens To share the post, click on "Post Link." Please mention / link to Blogs for Borders. Thanks!

Thursday, September 09, 2010

Appeals Court Blocks PA Town's 4 Year Old Immigration Law

By Michael Rubinkam, GOPUSA: ALLENTOWN, PA: A federal appeals court ruled Thursday that Hazleton, Pa., may not enforce its crackdown on illegal immigrants, dealing another blow to 4-year-old regulations that inspired similar measures around the country.

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia said that Hazleton's Illegal Immigration Relief Act usurped the federal government's exclusive power to regulate immigration. "It is ... not our job to sit in judgment of whether state and local frustration about federal immigration policy is warranted. We are, however, required to intervene when states and localities directly undermine the federal objectives embodied in statutes enacted by Congress," wrote Chief Judge Theodore McKee.

The northeastern Pennsylvania city had sought to fine landlords who rent to illegal immigrants and deny business permits to companies that give them jobs. A companion measure required prospective tenants to register with City Hall and pay for a rental permit. Mayor Lou Barletta had pushed the measures in 2006 after two illegal immigrants were charged in a fatal shooting. The Republican mayor, now mounting his third try for Congress, argued that illegal immigrants brought drugs, crime and gangs to the city of more than 30,000 and overwhelmed police, schools and hospitals.

Hispanic groups and illegal immigrants sued to overturn the measures, and a federal judge struck them down following a trial in 2007. The laws have never been enforced. . . . [Read More]

Tags: Hazleton, Pennsylvania, immigration law, Federal Judge, illegal aliens To share the post, click on "Post Link." Please mention / link to Blogs for Borders. Thanks!

Tuesday, September 07, 2010

Just in Case Anyone was Still Wondering: SEIU Exposes Agenda Behind Amnesty

I didn’t plan on doing a lot with the blog today. I was just spending time with the family. But, as I was checking the igoogle, I saw this from Newsbusters.



So, the purple people beaters confirmed it, amnesty is about getting voters.

It’s not that they actually care about the Latinos. They will turn them into another client group- dependent, and mired in permanent poverty by government interference. Then, every election cycle, they’ll visit and explain that their plans have failed, and that the evil, racist, gringo, GOP are at fault. Rinse and repeat, and you have a permanent underclass!

Cross posted at the Conservative Hideout.


Tags: amnesty, illegal aliensTo share the post, click on "Post Link." Please mention / link to Blogs for Borders. Thanks!

Monday, September 06, 2010

Sheriff Takes "Sanctuary City" Policy To The Extreme

Jim Kouri
By Jim Kouri, Conservative Crusader: The top cop for a major California county may prove to be the polar opposite of Arizona's Sheriff Joe Arpaio. San Francisco Sheriff Michael Hennessey is vigorously working to withdraw from a federally mandated program that checks criminals’ immigration status because it violates the area’s sanctuary policies.

Sheriff Hennessey is hailed as a progressive law enforcement commander -- while Sheriff Arpaio is being vigorously investigated sued by President Barack Obama's Justice Department -- because Hennessey operates the county jails, and for months has tried to gain an exemption from a program (Secure Communities) that requires local authorities to check the fingerprints of arrestees against a federal database.

Hennessey -- San Francisco's Sheriff since 1979 -- is the consummate liberal-left politician. For instance, he said he's not ready to jump on board with suggestions of legalizing any and all drugs, regulating them, and taxing them. "I'd like to give more thought to heroin and methamphetamines and that kind of stuff. Also, I think it'd be very hard to regulate it and tax it."

The idea of Secure Communities, which is run by the Homeland Security Department's Immigration & Customs Enforcement directorate, or ICE, is to deport dangerous criminal aliens, many of whom have fallen through the cracks over the years, according to officials from a public-interest group that investigates political corruption.

But Hennessey is outspoken about his belief that complying with Secure Communities -- a federal law --violates San Francisco’s longtime sanctuary law, which forbids public employees and police from asking anyone about their immigration status.

"The famously liberal city by the bay also offers illegal aliens official government identification cards and all sorts of taxpayer-financed public benefits," said officials at the public-interest group Judicial Watch.

These so-called sanctuary-city policies have proven themselves to protect violent criminal aliens from deportation, including those who have been convicted of heinous crimes such as homicide, rapes, sexual assaults of children, drug trafficking and other felonies.

Just this year, law enforcement officials revealed that the killer of Chandra Levy -- one of the biggest and most media-covered crime cases of the new millennium -- was in fact an illegal alien from El Salvador who was already serving a prison sentence for similar attacks on American women.

In another case a MS-13 gang member with two felony convictions murdered a father and his two sons because San Francisco law enforcement agencies never turned him over to federal authorities for removal. Secure Communities was implemented nationwide in 2008 precisely to avoid situations like those, according to attorneys at Judicial Watch.

"There is something truly rotten in Denmark and in the Obama White House. On the one hand, the Obama political power-structure is attempting to torpedo a sheriff who is attempting to protect Americans in Arizona; and on the other hand, a sheriff in San Francisco boldly admits he's ignoring a federal statute. Does anyone else in Washington understand the absurdity here?" asks former police detective now security firm owner Sid Franes.

Incredibly, Sheriff Hennessey's priority is to continue shielding illegal aliens from deportation even when they commit crimes in the community he’s been elected to protect. Earlier this year Hennessey formally requested that California’s attorney general exempt his agency from participating in Secure Communities and when the request was denied, he asked the feds directly, according to Judicial Watch attorneys investigating this case.

In rejecting the exemption request California’s attorney general said that Secure Communities “serves both public safety and the interests of justice" because it “advances an important law enforcement function by identifying those individuals who are in the country illegally and who have a history of serious crimes or who have previously been deported."

Meanwhile, California's Governor Arnold Schwartzennegger is silent, although he's shown tremendous sympathy towards illegal aliens in his state. This turnaround surprised many of his early supporters since as a newly elected governor he pondered the creation of a state-run border patrol in California.
----------
Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police. He's former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed "Crack City". In addition, he served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country.

Sanctuary City, California, San Francisco, Sheriff Michael Hennessey, amnesty, illegal aliens To share the post, click on "Post Link." Please mention / link to Blogs for Borders. Thanks!

Sunday, September 05, 2010

Illegal Aliens Set Large CA Brush Fire: Claim Mexican Authorities Told Them To Do It!

By Chicago Ray: Like LA needed this ....more illegal immigrant caused misery, and frankly I'd bet many of the fires we see out west are sparked by illegals and or flat out terrorists but they just don't tell us. Every once in a while they can link it up to someone when a culprit happens to fall right in their hands with evidence left behind or so forth.

That doesn't seem to be the issue in this case although the Mexicans know who they are, as they basically toasted 900 acres at their instruction according to the reports, and the whole 'lot' better better pray one of our fireman doesn't die or become injured fighting the damn thing.

Furthermore, the idiots in Mexico who provided that 'sage' advice should be held responsible right along with the illegal 'firestarter' since they're the dumb asses who of all things in the middle of a forest in the dead of summer told them to start a freakin 'signal fire' .......not a '1000 acre forest fire'.

What Morons! The idiots probably couldn't comprende the instructions, even in Spanish.
L.A. NOW | Los Angeles Times: "A fire that blackened nearly 900 acres in San Diego County was caused by illegal immigrants who were apparently lost and set off a signal fire.

The Cowboy Fire did not burn any homes or cause injuries. More than 1,300 firefighters battled Friday's blaze. Authorities said they were still trying to find those who sparked the blaze. The illegal immigrants had called Mexican officials 'and advised them that they had been lost for two days, were stranded, dehydrated and were going to light a signal fire to attempt to get some help,'' Cal Fire spokeswoman Roxanne Provaznik told Fox 5 San Diego.

'Investigators from Cal Fire and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service determined that there was evidence near the area of origin [of the blaze] of illegal aliens traveling through that area, which supports this report,' she added. The fire is now 50% contained.

Tags: California, forest fire, illegal aliens, Mexico, San Diego, United States, Chicago Ray To share the post, click on "Post Link." Please mention / link to Blogs for Borders. Thanks!

Saturday, September 04, 2010

DOJ Eric Holder Abuses Power - Sues Sheriff Arpaio . . .

Wash Times: Justice Dept. sues Arizona sheriff . . . Sheriff Arpaio's attorneys, Robert Driscoll and Asheesh Agarwal, both former deputy attorneys general in the Civil Rights Division at Justice during the Bush administration, said federal investigators were politically motivated, citing a news conference in March at which Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. was quoted as saying he expected the Justice inquiry to "produce results."

Sources Complements of eGOPNews
Fox: Arpaio: Justice Dept. 'Sandbagged' Me With Lawsuit in Civil Rights Probe
WSJ: U.S. Sues Arizona Sheriff Over Policing Probe
NYT: Justice Dept. Sues Sheriff Over Bias Investigation
WaPo: Justice Department Sues Arizona Sheriff Arpaio


Tags: DOJ, Justice Department, Sues, Arizona, Sheriff Arpaio, policing policy, civil rights, illegal aliens To share the post, click on "Post Link." Please mention / link to Blogs for Borders. Thanks!

Sheriff: Mexican Cartels Control Parts of Arizona

The TexasFred Blog Reports:
The federal government has posted signs along a major interstate highway in Arizona, more than 100 miles north of the U.S.-Mexico border, warning travelers the area is unsafe because of drug and alien smugglers, and a local sheriff says Mexican drug cartels now control some parts of the state

The signs were posted by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) along a 60-mile stretch of Interstate 8 between Casa Grande and Gila Bend, a major east-west corridor linking Tucson and Phoenix with San Diego.

They warn travelers that they are entering an “active drug and human smuggling area” and they may encounter “armed criminals and smuggling vehicles traveling at high rates of speed.” Beginning less than 50 miles south of Phoenix, the signs encourage travelers to “use public lands north of Interstate 8″ and to call 911 if they “see suspicious activity.”

Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu, whose county lies at the center of major drug and alien smuggling routes to Phoenix and cities east and west, attests to the violence. He said his deputies are outmanned and outgunned by drug traffickers in the rough-hewn desert stretches of his own county.

Full Story Here:
Sheriff: Mexican Cartels Control Parts of Arizona
TexasFred Comments: Do you know and understand what an invasion is?
invasion – noun
1. an act or instance of invading or entering as an enemy, esp. by an army.
2. the entrance or advent of anything troublesome or harmful, as disease.
3. entrance as if to take possession or overrun: the annual invasion of the resort by tourists.
4. infringement by intrusion
What’s happening along the U.S. border with Mexico is well defined by all parts of that definition except for one part, #3, they aren’t tourists and this isn’t a resort. Well, on 2nd thought, for them it may well BE a resort.

Now, does anyone know what it means to be a sovereign nation? Do you know the definition of sovereignty?

sovereignty – noun, plural -ties.
1. the quality or state of being sovereign.
2. the status, dominion, power, or authority of a sovereign; royalty.
3. supreme and independent power or authority in government as possessed or claimed by a state or community.
4. rightful status, independence, or prerogative.
5. a sovereign state, community, or political unit.
The act of invasion is an ACT OF WAR against a sovereign nation. These Mexican cartels have, and are currently engaged in, Acts of WAR against the United States of America.
“Mexican drug cartels literally do control parts of Arizona,” he said. “They literally have scouts on the high points in the mountains and in the hills and they literally control movement. They have radios, they have optics, they have night-vision goggles as good as anything law enforcement has.

"This is going on here in Arizona,” he said. “This is 70 to 80 miles from the border – 30 miles from the fifth-largest city in the United States."
So, what does the U.S. government, the entity that is supposed to react to, and in turn repel foreign invaders do?
He said he asked the Obama administration for 3,000 National Guard soldiers to patrol the border, but what he got were 15 signs.
15 signs? That's it. 15 signs, and a handful of National Guard troops that aren't allowed to go on a search and destroy mission. Oh hell no, all they can do is watch and look and call in the U.S. Border Patrol if the see any ILLEGAL activity.

That my friends, is exactly how the President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama goes about defending the sovereignty of this United States and protecting our SOVEREIGN nation!

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer condemned what she called the federal government's "continued failure to secure our international border," saying the lack of security has resulted in important natural recreational areas in her state being declared too dangerous to visit.
Gov. Brewer, it's not just Arizona. It's not just some "natural recreation areas". It’s the heart and soul of this nation that is being attacked, and over-run by these invading hordes.

And the powers that be (federal) won't even sprinkle a few drops of water on the fire!

BLM spokesman Dennis Godfrey in Arizona said agency officials were surprised by the reaction the signs generated when they were put up this summer.

"We were perhaps naive in setting the signs up," he said. "The intention of the signs was to make the public aware that there is potential illegal activity here. But it was interpreted in a different light, and that was not the intent at all."

He said there should be "no sense that we have ceded the land," adding that no BLM lands in Arizona are closed to the public. "I kind of liken it to if I were visiting a city I were not familiar with and asked a policeman if it were safe to go in a particular area," Mr. Godfrey said.
I submit this opinion to my readers; Dennis Godfrey is an Obamabot and a MORON!

But he does bring up an excellent point. IF there is a section of a U.S. city, any city, that is unsafe for visitors to traverse, WHY hasn't that section of city been fully pacified and the "dangerous" cretins that are making it unsafe removed? By any means necessary?

Ladies and Gentlemen, this nation is under siege. It is quite obvious that the federal government is going to do nothing about it. It is also apparent that state and local governments are not going to do too much to secure their cites and states from these invaders and criminals either.

What is even more apparent, and more disturbing is this; when a state DOES attempt to secure itself from the invasion, when that state passes laws and attempts to remove the ILLEGALS and drug cartels that are the truly the heart of the problem, they themselves face prosecution from the likes of Attorney General Eric Holder at the behest of his master, Barack Hussein Obama.

The invasion of this nation didn't start with Obama, but it has increased exponentially under his watch, yet he has done even less to stop the invasion of our nation than any of his predecessors.

Border security, and the part about sections of Arizona being controlled by cartels is a matter that the U.S. government must address, and address mightily. This is NOT a time for weak responses, or the prosecution of states like Arizona and patriots like Sheriff Joe Arpaio and Sheriff Paul Babeu.

The biggest question Americans need to ask their elected officials is this; "What, exactly, are you going to do about the acts of war being committed against this nation?" If the answer is less than satisfactory, if they say, "Nothing at all," the next question should be "Where do you plan on hiding out after the next election?" Because they certainly need to be removed from public office!

If the elected officials of this nation are too gutless, too PC, too afraid of offending the enemy to stand up and defend this nation, it's time to remove them ALL and put PATRIOTS in place that WILL fight for America, and rid Her of this cancer that is rapidly causing Her death!


Tags: TexasFred, Mexican cartels, Arizona, sheriff, BLM, U.S. Border Patrol, Illegals, drug cartels, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, Sheriff Paul Babeu, illegal aliens To share the post, click on "Post Link." Please mention / link to Blogs for Borders. Thanks!

Friday, September 03, 2010

Opposing View On 'Anchor Babies': Reject Birthright Citizenship

By Roy Beck, NumbersUSA: Birthright citizenship is a powerful anchor for keeping illegal workers in a country — and for keeping the jobs they fill out of reach of unemployed legal residents. It is incompatible with a modern age of easy transportation and organized people smuggling. Every developed nation in the world, — except the USA and Canada, — has rejected citizenship for births to tourists and unlawful foreign residents.

An estimated 4 million current U.S. residents have received this type of citizenship. Who’s hurt by this? Millions of poor American children live in families suffering from unemployment or depressed wages because an estimated 7 million illegal foreign workers are holding construction, manufacturing, service and transportation jobs. Anything that slows the decision of illegal workers to go back home prolongs the disadvantaging of the 30 million less-educated Americans and legal immigrants who don’t have a job and who generally seek work in the same non-agricultural industries where most illegal workers are found.

Birthright citizenship is a major anchor for illegal workers already here who are led to feel that their birthright citizen children may give them a claim to remain. Note that one of the loudest arguments for giving illegal workers permanent work permits is that it would be wrong to make them go back home if they have U.S. citizen children. Of course, ending birthright citizenship is not enough. Congress should pass the SAVE Act to impede outlaw businesses from hiring illegal workers, and take other actions to protect legal U.S. workers from an immigration system that is importing hundreds of thousands of working-age immigrants annually during a jobs depression. With unemployment high and wages stagnant in most occupations, we don’t have labor shortages and don’t need additional foreign labor (or the illegal labor already here).

Scholars make strong arguments on both sides of what the 14th Amendment’s birthright citizenship provision means. Only the Supreme Court can say, and it has never ruled about tourists and illegal residents. For now, Congress should leave the Constitution alone and pass legislation (H.R. 1868) that simply clarifies the birthright provision in current immigration law — and then see how the Court rules.
Roy Beck is executive director of NumbersUSA, an immigration-reduction organization.

Tags: Roy Beck, birthright citizenship, anchor babies, NumbersUSA, illegal aliens To share the post, click on "Post Link." Please mention / link to Blogs for Borders. Thanks!

Justice Dept. Sues Arizona Sheriff in Civil Rights Probe

Fox News/Associated Press: The U.S. Justice Department sued Sheriff Joe Arpaio on Thursday, saying the Arizona lawman refused for more than a year to turn over records in an investigation into allegations his department discriminates against Hispanics. The lawsuit calls Arpaio and his office's defiance "unprecedented," and said the federal government has been trying since March 2009 to get officials to comply with its probe of alleged discrimination, unconstitutional searches and seizures, and having English-only policies in his jails that discriminate against people with limited English skills.

Arpaio had been given until Aug. 17 to hand over documents it first asked for 15 months ago.  Read more...

See also: Radical Obama Justice Department Sues Sheriff Joe Arpaio

Tags: U.S. Justice Department, DOJ, Sheriff, Joe Arpaio, Arizona, illegal aliens To share the post, click on "Post Link." Please mention / link to Blogs for Borders. Thanks!

Thursday, September 02, 2010

Number of Illegal Immigrants in U.S. Fell, Study Says

Illegal Immigrants in the U.S.
by Julia Preston: The number of illegal immigrants in the United States, after peaking at 12 million in 2007, fell to about 11.1 million in 2009, the first clear decline in two decades, according to a report published Wednesday by the Pew Hispanic Center.

The reduction came primarily from decreases among illegal immigrants from Latin American countries other than Mexico, the report found. The number of Mexicans living in the United States without legal immigration status did not change significantly from 2007 to 2009. Some seven million Mexicans make up about 60 percent of all illegal immigrants, still by far the largest national group, the Pew Center said. . . . [Full Story]

Tags: Pew Hispanic Center, amnesty, illegal aliens To share the post, click on "Post Link." Please mention / link to Blogs for Borders. Thanks!

Obama Adm Uses Child-Indoctrinating Socialist to Promote Illegals Pay Program

by Pam Key on The Blaze:


Tags: Obama Administration, indoctrinating children, socialists, benefits for illegals, DOL, Department of Lobor, illegal aliens To share the post, click on "Post Link." Please mention / link to Blogs for Borders. Thanks!

Wednesday, September 01, 2010

America Under Siege

by Oliver North, Human Events: Tucson, AZ – “We’re under siege,” said rancher Ed Ashurst, as he pointed to where he had tracked the killer of his friend and neighbor to the U.S.-Mexican border. “Five years ago, we didn’t even bother to lock our doors. Now, my wife and I carry firearms everywhere we go.”

John Ladd is a fifth generation cattle rancher in southern Cochise County, Arizona. The southern boundary of his family property is a ten-mile long stretch of steel fence erected by the U.S. government. On the other side of the fence: Mexico. He told us, “Mexican drug cartels are running this part of America.”

The poet Robert Frost posited that “good fences make good neighbors.” From what our FOX News War Stories team documented this week, that’s not the case here in southern Arizona – where “the fence” on the U.S.-Mexican border remains unfinished. According to many level-headed, beleaguered Americans here, the fence is little more than a “speed bump” for drug couriers, killers, human smugglers and lesser criminals flooding into our country.

Last night, just hours after Mr. and Mrs. Obama and their doting supporters dined on Martha’s Vineyard, our FOX News War Stories team, accompanied by members of the Cochise County Sheriff’s Office Border Interdiction Unit, walked up a quiet hilltop a few hundred yards north of the “fence.” There, we watched through night vision devices as a group of individuals approached the Mexican side of the steel barrier, timing their movement with the passing of U.S. Border Patrol vehicles.

By the time we departed for another location two hours after dawn, the “jumpers” – all wearing backpacks – had yet to make it into the U.S. Heartened by what we had seen, I said to one of the deputies, “It looks like the fence worked.”

“Yeah,” said one of our guides and well-armed protectors, “But they have spotters who saw us leave. They will try again. Maybe we’ll get ‘em, maybe not. But there are a lot more of them than there are of us. And they are better armed than we are, because the cartels have bigger budgets.”

The numbers verify the claim. Joaquin “Chapo” Guzman – a multi-billionaire who heads the Sinaloa Cartel just across the Arizona border – commands an army of more than 11,000 “shooters” equipped with heavy machine guns, automatic weapons, RPGs and armored vehicles.

That’s more than twice as many “troops” available to the U.S. Border Patrol, Arizona Department of Public Safety, Indian Affairs Police and County Sheriffs on the Arizona border.

Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu – more than 90 miles north of the border – explained the consequences. “Our deputies are outnumbered and outgunned. We’re up against drug runners carrying AK-47s” – the Soviet-era weapon used by Al Qaeda terrorists and Taliban insurgents fighting U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

After one of his deputies was wounded by an AK-47 toting border-crosser, Sheriff Babeu requested funding to purchase AR-15 rifles for his department. The county turned him down for lack of funds. He told us, “My deputies shouldn’t have to buy their own weapons to protect themselves and the public.” A group of concerned citizens is now soliciting donations to buy the rifles for them.

Larry Dever is the Sheriff of Cochise County, Arizona – at 6,000 square miles, it is larger than the states of Connecticut or Delaware. His jurisdiction is home to Tombstone – scene of the legendary October 26, 1881 Shootout at the OK Corral. It also shares an 82-mile long border with Mexico. Last year, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, more than 550,000 people were arrested trying to illegally enter the U.S. – nearly half of whom crossed the border in the “Tucson Sector” – which includes Cochise County. Yet, Sheriff Dever has fewer than 90 sworn deputies.

After Cochise County rancher Bob Krantz was murdered by an illegal border jumper on March 27th of this year, the Obama administration promised to deploy 1,200 National Guardsmen to “assist the U.S Border Patrol on the Mexican border.” Arizona will get fewer than 550 of them – when they finally arrive. Not one cent of the $600 million appropriated by Congress this month for “Border Security” will go to any of the border states or county sheriffs. The money all goes to federal agencies.

Instead of new weapons, reinforcements and help protecting our southern border, Arizona’s sheriffs and Governor Jan Brewer received something entirely different from the Obama administration: a federal lawsuit. Last month a federal judge in Phoenix decided Arizona could not enforce certain provisions of a state law – SB 1070 – which allowed Arizona law enforcement officers to ascertain the citizenship of individuals stopped for legal infractions. Arizona filed its appeal in the case this week while we were on the border.

That’s not all that happened this week in what one of our hosts called, “the northern edge of the new war zone.” Since we arrived here, a mass grave containing the remains of more than 70 murdered men, women and children from Central and South American countries was found in northeastern Mexico, less than 90 miles from the U.S. border. That brings the civilian murder toll in Mexico to more than 28,000 since 2006 – higher than Afghanistan. And last night, two were killed and three were wounded in a drug-related gunfight here in Tucson.

Meanwhile, the president who insinuated himself in a local police matter in Cambridge, Massachusetts and a zoning matter for a mosque in Manhattan has been too busy to send condolences to Sue Krantz, the widow of an American murdered by a foreign criminal on U.S. soil.
----------------
Lt. Col. North (Ret.) is a nationally syndicated columnist and the author of the FOX News/Regnery books,

Tags: Oliver North, America, under siege, criminals, Mexican border, terrorists, gangs, Cochise County, Arizona, illegal aliens To share the post, click on "Post Link." Please mention / link to Blogs for Borders. Thanks!