State Immigration Laws & Original Intent

I mentioned in my PajamasMedia article some weeks back that there was considerable evidence of original intent that supported Arizona's immigration law.  I was thinking about it this morning before church, and I suddenly remembered a bunch more examples that support such an original intent argument--enough from which to construct a law review article.  It's unfortunate that work that pays has to take precedence over work that really matters--but I have to prepare for next week's class.  It's unfortunate that I can't devote myself to public policy problems--but I have to make a living.

Arizona Immigration Law not Historically Unusual

That's the title of my piece at PajamasMedia yesterday.

The Semester Is Almost Over

The Semester Is Almost Over

Which means, at least for a few weeks (until the summer term starts at ITT Technical Institute), I have some time to blog. This arrived in my email:

Let me see if I got this right.


If you cross the North Korean border illegally you get 12 years at hard labor.

If you cross the Iranian border  illegally you are detained indefinitely.

If you cross the Afghan border illegally, you get shot.

If you cross the Saudi Arabian border illegally, you will be jailed.

If you cross the Chinese border illegally, you may never be heard from again.

If you cross the Venezulan border illegally, you will be branded a spy and your fate will be sealed.

If you cross the Cuban border illegally you will be thrown into political prison to rot.

And the author could have mentioned that if you cross the southern border of Mexico illegally, you are subject to a two year prison sentence.

If you cross the U.S. border illegally you get:

* A JOB,
* A DRIVERS LICENSE,
* SOCIAL SECURITY CARD,
* WELFARE,
* FOOD STAMPS,
* CREDIT CARDS,
* SUBSIDIZED RENT OR A LOAN TO BUY A HOUSE,
* FREE EDUCATION,
* FREE HEALTH CARE,
* A LOBBYIST IN WASHINGTON
* BILLIONS OF DOLLARS WORTH OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS PRINTED IN YOUR LANGUAGE
* THE RIGHT TO CARRY YOUR COUNTRY’S FLAG WHILE YOU PROTEST THAT YOU DON’T GET ENOUGH RESPECT
* AND, IN MANY INSTANCES, YOU CAN VOTE.
*

I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I HAD A FIRM GRASP ON THE SITUATION

This is very funny, but not entirely correct. If an illegal alien applies for welfare or food stamps, and their status is discovered, they will be denied these benefits. (But widespread document fraud means that it may not be discovered.) If any alien registers to vote, they are breaking the law--and this does not seem to actually be terribly common. (Legal immigrants voting before they have become citizens--that played a part in the Dornan v. Sanchez Congressional race some years ago, but it was hundreds of such unlawful votes, not tens of thousands.)

This list also conflates those things that the government provides (free education, at least K-12), those things that are theoretically not available to illegal immigrants, and and those things that are provided because some businesses are too stupid to think clearly. (Why, oh why, would you make a house loan to someone who might be deported on a few days notice?)

Still, there is a rather interesting point to this rant above: the U.S. is vastly more hospitable to illegal immigrants than many other countries.  Now, at this point, liberals will start saying, "Of course we are: because we are morally superior."  But much of the time when this debate about illegal immigration comes up, liberals are screeching that America is a racist, hate-filled country that treats illegal immigrants like garbage.  Which is it?

UPDATE: A reader tells me that in Texas, illegal aliens get to pay in-state tuition.  I was at a going away party for a friend recently, who, because he does silly things like obey immigration laws, is having to leave the U.S.  He was here on an H-1B visa, and his job evaporated--nor could he get another job.  But since he isn't illegally present here, he has to leave the country. 

At the going away party, I was chatting with a young lady who is just graduating high school.  She was running into a problem that because she isn't a permanent resident, she doesn't qualify for in-state tuition at Boise State University.  She has no accent.  She has lived in Idaho for many years with her parents, who are here on an H-1B visa.

There is an argument that someone who is not a permanent resident does not enjoy the benefits as a permanent resident.  But it seems absurd that someone who has followed the law is no better off than a person who has entered the country unlawfully.

How Hard Is This?

How Hard Is This?

The question of the constitutionality of the Arizona law.  We have a surprisingly similar case already decided by the Supreme Court involving a state attempting to regulate the arrival of immigrants.  From New York v. Miln (1837):

In February, 1824, the Legislature of New York passed "an act concerning passengers in vessels arriving in the port of New York." By one of the provisions of the law, the master of every vessel arriving in New York from any foreign port or from a port of any of the states of the United States other than New York is required, under certain penalties prescribed in the law, within twenty-four hours after his arrival, to make a report in writing containing the names, ages, and last legal settlement of every person who shall have been on board the vessel commanded by him during the voyage, and if any of the passengers shall have gone on board any other vessel or shall, during the voyage, have been landed at any place with a view to proceed to New fork, the same shall be stated in the report.

...

The act of the Legislature of New York is not a regulation of commerce, but of police, and, being so, it was passed in the exercise of a power which rightfully belonged to the state. The State of New York possessed the power to pass this law before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States. The law was "intended to prevent the state's being burdened with an influx of foreigners and to prevent their becoming paupers, and who would be chargeable as such." The end and means here used are within the competency of the states, since a portion of their powers were surrendered to the federal government.

Is there any question that the problem of pauperism and public charge is a motivator for Arizona's law?

It is obvious that the passengers laws of the United States only affect, through the power over navigation, the passengers whilst on their voyage and until they shall have landed; after that, and when they shall have ceased to have any connection with the ship, and when therefore they have ceased to be passengers, the acts of Congress applying to them as such, and only professing to legislate in relation to them as such, have then performed their office, and can with no propriety of language be said to come into conflict with the law of a state, whose operation only begins where that of the laws of Congress end, whose operation is not even on the same subject, because although the person on whom it operates is the same, yet, having ceased to be a passenger, he no longer stands in the only relation in which the laws of Congress either professed or intended to act upon him.

A state has the same undeniable and unlimited jurisdiction over all persons and things within its territorial limits as any foreign nation when that jurisdiction is not surrendered or restrained by the Constitution of the United States.

It is not only the right but the bounden and solemn duty of a state to advance the safety, happiness, and prosperity of its people and to provide for its general welfare by any and every act of legislation which it may deem to be conducive to these ends where the power over the particular subject or the manner of its exercise are not surrendered or restrained by the Constitution of the United States.

All those powers which relate to merely municipal legislation or which may more properly be called internal police are not surrendered or restrained, and consequently in relation to these the authority of a state is complete, unqualified, and exclusive.

Is there any question that Arizona's interest in dealing with public education expenses, public medical care, and criminals unlawfully present in Arizona falls under the police powers of the state?

Persons are not the subjects of commerce, and not being imported goods, they do not fall within the reasoning founded upon the construction of a power given to Congress to regulate commerce and the prohibition of the states from imposing a duty on imported goods.

I understand that there is some question as to whether Congress, by regulating immigration, has a legitimate basis for action, but unless Congress acts (and for practical purposes, they have not acted), the state seems free to do so.

Nasty Stereotyping & the Arizona Illegal Immigration Law

Nasty Stereotyping & the Arizona Illegal Immigration Law

I wish Idaho's legislature had enough conservative Republicans to pass a law like Arizona did.  But much of our Republican Party here is owned by corporate interests, so they don't pay attention to us.  Perhaps the Arizona law creates some risk of increased racial profiling, but if the federal government is too busy whoring after corporate interests and ethnic identity groups, what's the choice?

Anyway, this article from the April 23, 2010 Washington Post has an example of exactly the sort of vicious, nasty stereotyping that many people are warning about:

"It's going to change our lives," said Emilio Almodovar, a 13-year-old American citizen from Phoenix. "We can't walk to school any more. We can't be in the streets anymore without the pigs thinking we're illegal immigrants."[emphasis added]

Is it still 1968? Pigs?

Why Reward Obeying The Law?

Why Reward Obeying The Law?

Over the last few years, I've noticed that some of the most vigorous opponents of illegal immigration are legal immigrants--the ones that filled out the forms, asked permission to move to the United States, paid the fees. You know, those silly foreigners who actually obeyed the law. One of my Swedish co-workers at HP wore a T-shirt that asked, "What part of illegal didn't you understand?"

I have another friend who moved to the U.S. several years ago on an H-1B visa, working for Applied Materials as a Customer Engineer in the chip fab area. He loves it here, and sold his home in Britain. Shortly thereafter his wife and kids were able to legally join him in the U.S. (By "legally," I mean that they didn't sneak across the border, or overstay on a tourist visa.) Now, because of the general collapse of the economy, his job has evaporated, and if he doesn't find another employer to take him on under H-1B in the next 60 days--he and his family have to return to their home country. This will lead to enormous hardship because his house is underwater, there will be enormous costs to move back, and there are certain...items that can't go back to Britain. (Most regular readers of my blog will know that he is a member of our fraternity!)

This may not seem like a big deal--but Ronnie loves being in America. This is exactly the sort of immigrant that our laws are supposed to be encouraging: highly skilled workers with technical skills that are usually in short supply in this country who obeyed the laws to come here. If you are aware of any positions anywhere in the U.S. that might be able to justify hiring someone on an H-1B visa with chip manufacturing equipment experience, please get in touch with me, so that I can hook you two up.

Probably The Most Dishonest Action Ever Taken By An Elected Government

Probably The Most Dishonest Action Ever Taken By An Elected Government

Berthold Brecht is most noted as the Communist who, when East Germany finally abandoned all pretense of building socialist utopia, observed, "The government is unhappy with the people; then let the government elect a new people." Well, it now appears that the Labour Party in Britain effectively did that. From the October 28, 2009 Daily Mail:

This astonishing revelation surfaced quite casually last weekend in a newspaper article by one Andrew Neather. He turns out to have been a speech writer for Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.
And it was he who wrote a landmark speech in September 2000 by the then immigration minister, Barbara Roche, that called for a loosening of immigration controls. But the true scope and purpose of this new policy was actively concealed.

In its 1997 election manifesto, Labour promised 'firm control over immigration' and in 2005 it promised a 'crackdown on abuse'. In 2001, its manifesto merely said that the immigration rules needed to reflect changes to the economy to meet skills shortages.
But all this concealed a monumental shift of policy. For Neather wrote that until 'at least February last year', when a new points-based system was introduced to limit foreign workers in response to increasing uproar, the purpose of the policy Roche ushered in was to open up the UK to mass immigration.
This has been achieved. Some 2.3million migrants have been added to the population since 2001. Since 1997, the number of work permits has quadrupled to 120,000 a year.

...

The Government's 'driving political purpose', wrote Neather, was 'to make the UK truly multicultural'.

It was therefore a politically motivated attempt by ministers to transform the fundamental make-up and identity of this country. It was done to destroy the right of the British people to live in a society defined by a common history, religion, law, language and traditions.
It was done to destroy for ever what it means to be culturally British and to put another 'multicultural' identity in its place. And it was done without telling or asking the British people whether they wanted their country and their culture to be transformed in this way.
Spitefully, one motivation by Labour ministers was 'to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date'.

It's pretty clear that the Democrats (and much of the Republican Party as well) is intent on the same strategy. They aren't happy with the people and culture that lives here--just allow and encourage mass illegal immigration so that they can have a new population.

The real test of whether it is too late for Britain (and the U.S.) is whether a population that overwhelmingly (even among Democrats) wants illegal immigration stopped--can elect a Congress prepared to do so. Right now, I'm skeptical.

Obama Is Serious About Immigration Law

Obama Is Serious About Immigration Law

Well, at least he's serious about making sure that there aren't enough police enforcing the law. From the October 7, 2009 Wall Street Journal:

The Obama administration is curbing the powers of an Arizona sheriff who has led one of the most contentious fights against illegal immigrants.

Under an agreement involving local enforcement of federal immigration law, Sheriff Joe Arpaio's deputies will no longer have the authority to arrest suspected illegal immigrants in the streets in the course of their duty.

Now, if you think that this is just aimed at Sheriff Arpaio, whose deputies have been accused of "racial profiling," you are thinking wrong:

Homeland Security announced in July that all localities participating in the enforcement program -- more than 60 from Alabama to California -- would have to sign revised enforcement deals by Oct. 15. Unlike others participating in the program, Mr. Arpaio will be restricted to determining the immigration status of inmates booked into Maricopa County jails. Vincent Picard, an ICE spokesman in Phoenix, declined to comment. ICE is a unit of the Department of Homeland Security.

Mr. Arpaio was an early participant in a federal immigration program that enlists and trains local police to identify suspected criminal aliens in jails and on the streets. The program, known as 287g, is designed to target drug dealers, gang members and human smugglers.

Since February 2007, Mr. Arpaio has arrested about 30,000 illegal immigrants who were booked into jails in his county. The street-enforcement component, the most contentious portion of the program, resulted in the apprehension of far fewer people suspected of being in the U.S. illegally.

So what, exactly, did they revise? You might get the impression that the Obama Administration isn't keen on having any help from local law enforcement with respect to enforcing federal law. But guess what? This was the goal from the start:

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano ordered a comprehensive review of the 287g program shortly after taking office.

A person close to the Obama administration said some DHS officials had been hoping Mr. Arpaio would withdraw from the program altogether when confronted with a watered-down version.

Make no mistake about it. The Bush Administration only with the greatest reluctance was willing to do what the executive branch is supposed to do: enforce federal law. And the Obama Administration seems intent on doing even less.

One off these days, the Republican Party will decide to get on the side of the vast majority of Americans: white and black, Republican and Democrat, and enforce the existing law about illegal immigration. And if they do so, and choose to make an issue of it, they can probably win elections. As if the Republican Party wanted to do that.

No Requirement For Legal Status For Health Care

No Requirement For Legal Status For Health Care

If the Republicans decided that they wanted to win the 2010 elections--and were prepared to offend the corporate interests that like a supply of cheap labor--they would run with this next year. From the September 30, 2009 The Hill:

Senate Finance Committee Democrats rejected a proposed requirement that immigrants prove their identity with photo identification when signing up for federal healthcare programs.

Finance Committee ranking member Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said that current law and the healthcare bill under consideration are too lax and leave the door open to illegal immigrants defrauding the government using false or stolen identities to obtain benefits.

Grassley's amendment was beaten back 10-13 on a party-line vote.

...

But Democratic Sen. Jeff Bingaman, who represents the border state of New Mexico, said that the type of fraud Grassley said he wants to prevent is highly uncommon. "The way I see the amendment, it's a solution without a problem," Bingaman said.

Illegal aliens with fake IDs are rare? That's absurd.

Or illegal aliens signing up for federal health insurance are uncommon? Then what's the objection?

Ways To Shorten Emergency Room Visits

Ways To Shorten Emergency Room Visits

This arrived in my email, and I got a good laugh out of it. (Not particularly applicable here in Idaho, but when I lived in California--this might work!)

The other day, I needed to go to the emergency room.

Not wanting to sit there for 4 hours, I put on my old Army fatigues and stuck a patch onto the front of my shirt that I had downloaded off the Internet.

When I went into the E.R., I noticed that 3/4 of the people got up and left. I guess they decided that they weren't that sick after all. Cut at least 3 hours off my waiting time.

Here's the patch. Feel free to use it the next time you're in need of quicker emergency service.

Yet Another Reason San Francisco Should Be Expelled From the Union

Yet Another Reason San Francisco Should Be Expelled From the Union

This is something so awful that if a novelist wrote it, you would put the book down in disgust, because it would be so unbelievable. From the June 22, 2009 Los Angeles Times:

San Francisco D.A.'s program trained illegal immigrants for jobs they couldn't legally hold

As she runs for state attorney general, prosecutor Kamala Harris faces questions over a program that trained illegal immigrant drug felons for jobs, kept them out of jail and expunged their records.

The assault on Amanda Kiefer at dusk in San Francisco's posh Pacific Heights was extraordinary enough for its cruelty.

A stranger, later identified as Alexander Izaguirre, snatched her purse and hopped into an SUV, police say. The driver sped forward to run Kiefer down. Terrified, she leaped onto the hood and saw Izaguirre and the driver laughing. The driver slammed on the brakes, propelling Kiefer to the pavement. Her skull fractured. Blood oozed from her ear.

Only after the July 2008 attack did Kiefer learn of the crime's political ramifications. Izaguirre, police told her, was an illegal immigrant who had pleaded guilty four months earlier to a drug felony for selling cocaine in the seedy Tenderloin area.

He had avoided prison when he was picked for a jobs program run by San Francisco Dist. Atty. Kamala Harris, now a candidate for California's top law enforcement post. In effect, Harris' office had been allowing Izaguirre and other illegal immigrants to stay out of prison by training them for jobs they cannot legally hold.

The program, Back on Track, is a centerpiece of Harris' campaign for state attorney general. Until questioned by The Times about the Izaguirre case, Harris, a Democrat, had never publicly acknowledged that the program included illegal immigrants. In interviews last week, she and her office offered inconsistent explanations.

The fact is that San Francisco's DA can do stuff like this without worry of the voters getting upset. They like this sort of thing. It makes them feel so progressive.

Wasting Resources on the Border

Wasting Resources on the Border

The May 18, 2009 Dallas Morning News reports on the efforts to stop the flow of guns southward--and what a waste of energy it is:

This is what the Obama administration's new commitment to help Mexico fight its drug cartels looks like.
President Barack Obama this spring promised his Mexican counterpart, Felipe Calderón, that the U.S. would fight two of the biggest contributions U.S. residents make to drug cartels: cash and weapons. The latter is hard to come by in Mexico.
For the past five weeks, hundreds of agents participating in a newly intensified $95 million outbound inspection program have been stepping into southbound traffic lanes and stopping suspicious-looking cars and trucks.
Associated Press reporters fanned out to the busiest crossings along the Mexican border – Laredo and El Paso; Nogales, Ariz.; and San Diego – to see how effective the inspections are.
The findings? Wads of U.S. currency headed for Mexico, wedged into car doors, stuffed under mattresses, taped onto torsos, were sniffed out by dogs, seized by agents and locked away for possible investigations. No guns were found as the reporters watched; they rarely are.
"I do not believe we can even make a dent in [southbound smuggling] because that assumes the cartels are complete idiots, which they're not. Why in the world would they try to smuggle weapons and currency through a checkpoint when there are so many other options?" said Border Patrol Agent T.J. Bonner, president of the agents' union.

The wads of cash being seized are, very likely, going to the drug cartels, as payment for drugs smuggled north. To the extent that this effort reduces money received by the drug cartels, it may make a dent in their ability to buy weapons--but we already know that most of the weapons aren't coming from the U.S.

Mexico's Drug Cartels & Their Weapons

Mexico's Drug Cartels & Their Weapons

I'm pleased to see that this March 15, 2009 Los Angeles Times article admits that the escalation of the fight in Mexico involves weapons that aren't coming from U.S. gun stores:

It was a brazen assault, not just because it targeted the city's police station, but for the choice of weapon: grenades.

The Feb. 21 attack on police headquarters in coastal Zihuatanejo, which injured four people, fit a disturbing trend of Mexico's drug wars. Traffickers have escalated their arms race, acquiring military-grade weapons, including hand grenades, grenade launchers, armor-piercing munitions and antitank rockets with firepower far beyond the assault rifles and pistols that have dominated their arsenals.

Most of these weapons are being smuggled from Central American countries or by sea, eluding U.S. and Mexican monitors who are focused on the smuggling of semiauto- matic and conventional weapons purchased from dealers in the U.S. border states of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California.

The proliferation of heavier armaments points to a menacing new stage in the Mexican government's 2-year-old war against drug organizations, which are evolving into a more militarized force prepared to take on Mexican army troops, deployed by the thousands, as well as to attack each other.

These groups appear to be taking advantage of a robust global black market and porous borders, especially between Mexico and Guatemala. Some of the weapons are left over from the wars that the United States helped fight in Central America, U.S. officials said.

Now, the article does say that more conventional weapons are coming in from the U.S., but it is pretty clear what the real danger is:

Grenades or military-grade weapons have been reported in at least 10 Mexican states during the last six months, used against police headquarters, city halls, a U.S. consulate, TV stations and senior Mexican officials. In a three-week period ended March 6, five grenade attacks were launched on police patrols and stations and the home of a commander in the south-central state of Michoacan. Other such attacks occurred in five other states during the same period.

At least one grenade attack north of the border, at a Texas nightclub frequented by U.S. police officers, has been tied to Mexican traffickers.

How many weapons have been smuggled into Mexico from Central America is not known, and the military-grade munitions are still a small fraction of the larger arsenal in the hands of narcotics traffickers. Mexican officials continue to push Washington to stem the well-documented flow of conventional weapons from the United States, as Congress holds hearings on the role those smuggled guns play in arming Mexican drug cartels.

It would be silly to claim that there are no weapons being smuggled into Mexico from the U.S. I don't doubt this at all. But the great escalation involves weapons that aren't even legal to sell in the U.S.--like grenades!

If Mexico has a problem with "undocumented weapons" (no weapon is truly illegal) entering Mexico, then they can do what we need to do: make this into a real border, where we stop smuggling and unlawful entry. Fewer illegal drugs moving north means less money for the drug cartels to use to buy weapons moving south. Having a real border is a win-win situation.

Thanks to Arms and the Law for bringing this to my attention.

What An Absurd Lawsuit Against Sheriff Arpaio

What An Absurd Lawsuit Against Sheriff Arpaio

I've long respected Maricopa County (Arizona) Sheriff Arpaio for doing what he can to enforce the laws--and sometimes being very creative in how he does it. As Crimes, Gun, and Videotape explained a while back:

The problem the good sheriff had was that his deputies were paying parking fees or getting citations on county cars at the Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport. The deputies need to pick up many freshly extradited prisoners there wanted for felony matters to deposit in Sheriff Joe’s jail.

The problem was that the City of Phoenix refused to cooperate by ending their parking fee extortion against the county cops.

Fighting Extortion With Extortion

The City of Phoenix just unveiled their new light rail mass transportation system with service to Sky Harbor Airport. City officials are feverishly trying to get the public to use the new system. Sheriff Joe could not wait to oblige and help them with their public relations campaign. I don’t think Sheriff Joe’s publicity idea was what the city politicians were looking for to increase ridership.

Sheriff Joe announced he had a way to save $75,000.00 per year in airport parking costs. He pulled off yet another media stunt announcing his deputies would begin using the light rail to transport felons. With TV news cameras in tow the resourceful Sheriff went along as his well armed deputies picked up a hapless wanted felon from Sky Harbor Airport transporting her by light rail to his jail.

The thought of Sheriff Joe expanding the program to include jailed chain-gangs being sent to work sites worked incredibly well to get city official’s minds right. They agreed to let deputies park their vehicles at the airport without charge while there on official business.

Maricopa County has a big problem with crimes committed by illegal aliens (as do many cities and counties across the United States). Arpaio worked out an arrangement a while back to have his deputies cross-trained by ICE (the federal agency that now almost enforces immigration law). His deputies are now arresting large numbers of illegal aliens, and speeding up their deportation. So what is Obama's Department of Justice doing? According to March 12, 2009 CNSNews:

(CNSNews.com) - The Department of Justice (DOJ) has launched an investigation of the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office in Arizona following requests by congressional Democrats and allegations by liberal activists that the department has violated the civil rights of illegal aliens.

Reps. John Conyers (D-Mich.), Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), and Robert Scott (D-Va.) requested the investigation, and activists groups such as National Day Laborer Organizer Network and ACORN launched petition drives and rallies in support of the probe.

The investigation focuses on Sheriff Joe Arpaio and dozens of officers under his command who were trained through the Department of Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Agreements of Cooperation in Communities to Enhance Safety and Security (ACCESS), which partners federal and local law enforcement to enforce immigration laws. (The Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement division is known popularly as ICE.)

In a letter dated March 10, 2009, Loretta Smith, acting assistant attorney general at the DOJ, detailed what her department would be investigating:

"This is to inform you that the United States Department of Justice is commencing an investigation of the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office (''MCSO'') pursuant to the pattern or practice provisions of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994,42 U.S.C. §14141 ("Section 14141") and the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968,42 U.S.C. § 3789d ("Safe Streets Act"), and pursuant to the prohibitions against national origin discrimination in Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d to 2000d-7 ("Title Yr') and the Safe Streets Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3789d(c)."

The letter continues: "The investigation will focus on alleged patterns or practices of discriminatory police practices and unconstitutional searches and seizures conducted by the MCSO, and on allegations of national origin discrimination, including failure to provide meaningful access to MCSO services for limited English proficient (LEP) individuals."

"In conducting the investigation, we will seek to determine whether there are violations of the above laws by the MCSO," the letter says.

Sheriff Arpaio's efforts to enforce immigration laws have been the focus of previous criticism, but Arpaio has defended his department and the results his ICE-trained officers have netted.

Concerning the DOJ’s investigation, Arpaio told CNSNews.com: “I will not back down. What I am doing is upholding the laws of the state of Arizona, and I will not be persuaded to turn my back on my oath of office as sheriff of this county.”

Let me guess: his officers are using that a person doesn't speak English as a basis for asking if they have ID? Perhaps they are assuming that because you don't speak the language of this country, that there is a possibility that you might not be a lawful resident? By itself, of course, that's not enough, but if you have already been stopped for a violation of law, asking a couple of questions and doing a records check seems unobjectionable.

Why We Need A Border With Mexico

Why We Need A Border With Mexico

And something more than a color stripe on a map. From the March 7, 2009 Houston Chronicle:

The order was clear: Kill the guy in the Astros jersey.
But in a case of mistaken identity, Jose Perez ended up dead. The intended target — the Houston-based head of a Mexican drug cartel cell pumping millions of dollars of cocaine into the city — walked away.
Perez, 27, was just a working guy, out getting dinner late on a Friday with his wife and young children at Chilos, a seafood restaurant on the Gulf Freeway.
His murder and the assassination gone awry point to the perilous presence of Mexican organized crime and how cartel violence has seeped into the city.
Arrests came in December when police and federal agents got a break in the 2006 shooting as they charted the relationship and rivalries between at least five cartel cells operating in Houston. A rogue’s gallery of about 100 names and mug shots taken at Texas jails and morgues offers a blueprint for Mexican organized crime.
Houston has long been a major staging ground for importing illegal drugs from Mexico and shipping them to the rest of the United States, but a recent Department of Justice report notes it is one of 230 cities where cartels maintain distribution networks and supply lines.
At Chilos, the real crime boss was sitting at another table, as were two spotters. The hitman waited in the parking lot for Perez to leave the restaurant.
“I just remember that guy coming up to us and he started shooting and shooting and shooting and never stopped,” said Norma Gonzalez, Perez’s widow. He was hit twice.
“I know they will pay for what they have done, maybe in the next life,” she said of Perez’s killers. “I don’t know what is going to happen to them in this life.”

The Illegal Alien Suit

The Illegal Alien Suit

My friend Dave Hardy was defending Arizona rancher Roger Barnett in a lawsuit filed by illegal aliens upset that they had been arrested by Barnett while trespassing on his land. It was only a partial victory, but on the really dangerous part of the suit, Barnett won. From the February 18, 2009 Washington Times:

A federal jury in Tucson ruled Tuesday that an Arizona rancher did not violate the civil rights of 16 Mexican nationals he stopped after they sneaked illegally into the United States, but awarded $78,000 in actual and punitive damages on claims of assault and the infliction of emotional distress.
The jury of four men and four women returned the verdict Tuesday afternoon in U.S. District Court in Tucson after a day and a half of deliberation. The jury, after a nine-day trial, also threw out charges of false imprisonment, battery and conspiracy against Douglas, Ariz., rancher Roger Barnett.
In a case that generated national outrage over the ability of Americans to stop illegal immigrants, most of the award - about $60,000 - was for punitive damages.
The illegal immigrants, five women and 11 men, had sought $32 million in actual and punitive damages - $2 million each - in a lawsuit brought by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF). The allegations were based on a March 7, 2004, incident in which Mr. Barnett approached a group of illegal immigrants while he patrolled his ranch carrying a gun and accompanied by his dog.
The ranch has become a major corridor for armed drug and immigrant smugglers.
Mr. Barnett's attorney, David T. Hardy of Tucson, described the decision as an "80 percent victory," adding that he wished he and his client "would have gotten the other 20 percent." But he said he would appeal the decision, citing what he called "solid grounds." He also said U.S. District Judge John M. Roll, who heard the case, was "scrupulously fair" during the trial.

The article goes on to remind us what sort of people Barnett arrested:

One of the 16 illegal immigrants allowed to bring the lawsuit is a convicted felon deported from the U.S. after a 1993 arrest on federal drug charges, court records show. Gerardo Gonzalez, 38, was convicted in September 1993 of possession of a controlled substance for sale and ordered deported to his home country.
In a March 2007 deposition, Border Patrol agent Manuel Rodriquez said agents ran a records check of those detained on the Barnett ranch in the 2004 incident and found that other members of the party had made prior attempts at illegal entry.

I think the government should be rewarding Barnett for doing their work for them. That assumes, of course, that our government thinks enforcing immigration laws is worth anything.

Dave discusses his work on the case--and why he thinks that they will win even the $78,000 amount on appeal, here. He also gives instructions for contributing to Barnett's legal fees:

This from a supporter of Roger: "Anyone interested in making a contribution to Roger's defense by check, please send and address funds directly to:
Roger Barnett Legal Defense Fund
1498 E. Fry Blvd.
Sierra Vista, AZ 85635
or by Credit Card: call Barnett's Towing: 1-800-722-2303
- Tell them you want to make a credit card contribution to the Roger Barnett Legal Defense Fund
- At this time, there is no mechanism for making credit card contributions over the internet."

This seems like a good idea to me!

Why We Are Losing

Why We Are Losing

This February 9, 2009 Washington Times report is about a lawsuit under way in Arizona that, by coincidence, my friend Dave Hardy is defending:

An Arizona man who has waged a 10-year campaign to stop a flood of illegal immigrants from crossing his property is being sued by 16 Mexican nationals who accuse him of conspiring to violate their civil rights when he stopped them at gunpoint on his ranch on the U.S.-Mexico border.

Roger Barnett, 64, began rounding up illegal immigrants in 1998 and turning them over to the U.S. Border Patrol, he said, after they destroyed his property, killed his calves and broke into his home.

His Cross Rail Ranch near Douglas, Ariz., is known by federal and county law enforcement authorities as "the avenue of choice" for immigrants seeking to enter the United States illegally.

Trial continues Monday in the federal lawsuit, which seeks $32 million in actual and punitive damages for civil rights violations, the infliction of emotional distress and other crimes. Also named are Mr. Barnett's wife, Barbara, his brother, Donald, and Larry Dever, sheriff in Cochise County, Ariz., where the Barnetts live. The civil trial is expected to continue until Friday.

The lawsuit is based on a March 7, 2004, incident in a dry wash on the 22,000-acre ranch, when he approached a group of illegal immigrants while carrying a gun and accompanied by a large dog.

Attorneys for the immigrants - five women and 11 men who were trying to cross illegally into the United States - have accused Mr. Barnett of holding the group captive at gunpoint, threatening to turn his dog loose on them and saying he would shoot anyone who tried to escape.

The immigrants are represented at trial by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), which also charged that Sheriff Dever did nothing to prevent Mr. Barnett from holding their clients at "gunpoint, yelling obscenities at them and kicking one of the women."

What Dave tells me is that he was unsure if the woman was unconscious or not, and pushed her with his boot to see if she was responsive. Remember that Barnett was greatly outnumbered by a group of illegal aliens, and he was all alone.

If the government actually, you know, enforced our immigration laws, perhaps it wouldn't be necessary for citizens to end up in these absurd situations. And what provoked Barnett to start this?

The lawsuit said he then called his wife and two Border Patrol agents arrived at the site. It also said Mr. Barnett acknowledged that he had turned over 12,000 illegal immigrants to the Border Patrol since 1998.

In March, U.S. District Judge John Roll rejected a motion by Mr. Barnett to have the charges dropped, ruling there was sufficient evidence to allow the matter to be presented to a jury. Mr. Barnett's attorney, David Hardy, had argued that illegal immigrants did not have the same rights as U.S. citizens.

Mr. Barnett told The Washington Times in a 2002 interview that he began rounding up illegal immigrants after they started to vandalize his property, northeast of Douglas along Arizona Highway 80. He said the immigrants tore up water pumps, killed calves, destroyed fences and gates, stole trucks and broke into his home.

Some of his cattle died from ingesting the plastic bottles left behind by the immigrants, he said, adding that he installed a faucet on an 8,000-gallon water tank so the immigrants would stop damaging the tank to get water.

Mr. Barnett said some of the ranch´s established immigrant trails were littered with trash 10 inches deep, including human waste, used toilet paper, soiled diapers, cigarette packs, clothes, backpacks, empty 1-gallon water bottles, chewing-gum wrappers and aluminum foil - which supposedly is used to pack the drugs the immigrant smugglers give their "clients" to keep them running.

I have this uncomfortable feeling that we are never going to get a handle on the major problems confronting our country until the Republican Party decides to stand for something, instead of whoring after the Democratic Party's natural constituency, big companies and the obscenely rich. And so far, I have seen only the slightest hints that the Republican Party stands for anything.

H.R. 45

H.R. 45

This is a bill from Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL) that would require a federal license to possess:

`(A) means--
`(i) any handgun; or
`(ii) any semiautomatic firearm that can accept any detachable ammunition feeding device; and
`(B) does not include any antique.'.

Snowflakes in Hell points out the absurdity of a law that requires you to pass a written test in order to exercise a Constitutional right, comparing it to the literacy tests that the South used to use to prevent blacks from voting.

The only federal license that I am going to accept is one that accomplishes the following:

1. Allows you to buy and sell guns in any state.

2. Allows you to carry concealed in all 50 states.

3. Costs nothing to get, and is good until revoked. Why should an individual gun owner pay for a license at all? It isn't for the benefit of the gun owner, but of the society as a whole.

Pretty clearly, even ignoring the federalism problems of pre-emption of state laws, such a bill isn't going to get through this Congress.

One of the arguments that is going to be used to justify garbage like H.R. 45 is the problem of smuggling across the Mexican border. No, I don't mean illegal alien smuggling north, but gun smuggling south. This article from the January 30, 2009 Houston Chronicle reports on what the new Director of Homeland Security has in mind:

WASHINGTON — The country’s new homeland security chief said Friday that the Obama administration is mapping out a crackdown on the flow of firearms smuggled to Mexico’s murderous drug gangs operating along the Texas border.

Janet Napolitano said she had directed the Customs and Border Protection service “to find guns going south and interdict them.” Additionally, the homeland security secretary said she will give Mexican authorities access to a government database to trace the U.S. origin of seized weapons.

U.S. and Mexican officials have been investigating organizations in Houston and elsewhere believed to have smuggled large numbers of weapons into Mexico. On Friday, a second man pleaded guilty in Federal Court in Houston to illegally purchasing military-style weapons that ended up with Mexican drug cartels.

“A growing wave of criminal violence in Mexico’s border communities and in the interior of the country, fueled by the availability of guns and currency smuggled south from the U.S., poses a serious threat to Mexico’s security,” Napolitano said, “and portends deepening problems for our nation’s border regions.”

Assault rifles

Napolitano, a former federal prosecutor, battled gun runners while serving as governor of Arizona. She said she had stepped up discussions with officials of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, or ATF, Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Mexican law enforcement to combat U.S.-based gun smuggling, which enables Mexican drug lords to outfit their paramilitary gunmen with assault-style weapons.

Guns bought in the U.S. that end up in Mexico have become an irritant in bilateral relations.

President Barack Obama promised Mexican President Felipe Calderon at a pre-inauguration summit in Washington on Jan. 13 to take stronger action against gun running.

Is there a problem there? I would not be terribly surprised. Are some of these guns coming from within the Mexican government itself? I also wouldn't be terribly surprised. But if gun smuggling is an "irritant" in bilateral relations, what is the illegal alien smuggling problem? A salve on the irritant? I don't think so.

If Mexico wants some help on this (and I think it would be a good neighborly thing to try and help them), perhaps they could provide some help on stopping the illegal alien problem, too.

How To Make Yourself Very Unpopular Right Now

How To Make Yourself Very Unpopular Right Now

The February 2, 2009 Idaho Statesman reports on the consequences of bad timing:

Members of a new business group advocating immigration reform have been subjected to personal attacks and racist comments since announcing last month that they would advocate reforms to help secure an adequate labor supply, according to a lobbyist for the group.
Brent Olmstead of the Idaho Business Coalition for Immigration told the House Agriculture Committee on Monday that the group’s members have received disturbing feedback since announcing its aims on newspaper opinion pages across the state.
“Most of these letters and e-mails have ignored the issue of immigrant labor and instead have been based in personal insults and racist comments,” Olmstead said. “In response, the coalition promises to stick to the issue and what can be done to improve the availability of labor for Idaho’s employers.”
The coalition includes the Idaho Association of Commerce and Industry, agriculture groups, food processors and contractors.
Olmstead said some people have criticized the group for seeking “cheap slave labor.”
He said Idaho agriculture pays more than the minimum wage. Irrigators make more than $8 an hour, and the fast-growing dairy industry pays $10 to $14 an hour, he said. “These are good paying jobs in rural Idaho, and they often come with benefits,” he said.
Olmstead said his group opposes making mandatory the federal “E-verify” program, as some states have. E-Verify is an Internet-based system operated by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Free to employers, it links to federal databases to help them determine employment eligibility of new hires and the validity of their Social Security numbers.

Gee, U.S. citizens and legal residents are losing their jobs--and a group arguing for immigration reform to increase the number of workers gets some upset letters? I am so surprised.
If U.S. citizens and legal residents are unemployed, why would any sensible person want to "reform" our immigration laws to let more workers into the country? If an employer hires $8 per hour workers, you can be pretty sure that they aren't going to be getting health insurance. The losers on this are the taxpayers who end up subsidizing emergency rooms and Medicaid so that employers can hire $8 per hour workers--instead of paying a market wage to hire those who are already legally present.
I'm not angry at illegal immigrants who want a job. I'm angry at employers that think that they have a right to socialize the costs, while enjoying the individual benefits of cheap labor. The only immigration "reform" that makes sense is enforcement of the existing laws. Either employers will have to pay legal workers better, or figure out how to automate those jobs. Either is a win for the U.S.
This would have been a bad idea last year. But now? Talk about a "tin ear." I am also disappointed to see IACI involved in this. Based on discussions that we had last year when I was running for State Senate, I am surprised to see them hostile to E-verify. Perhaps it was a good thing for them that I lost!
UPDATE: A reader points out that perhaps this crowd has learned from Citibank, which similarly has enjoyed individual benefits, and socialized costs.

H-1B Visa Fraud: A Government Report

H-1B Visa Fraud: A Government Report

From the October 8, 2008 Business Week:

A report released Oct. 8 by the U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services (USCIS) reveals that 13% of petitions filed for H-1B visas on behalf of employers are fraudulent. Another 7% contain some sort of technical violations.

The study, released to members of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, marks the first time the agency, part of the Homeland Security Dept., has documented systematic problems with the controversial program. Technology companies, in particular, have come to rely on the H-1B visa program to bring in skilled foreign workers to fill jobs that employers claim can't be filled with U.S. candidates. Tech companies like Oracle (ORCL), Microsoft (MSFT), and Google (GOOG) have pushed to get more visas, claiming that a shortage of skilled workers is hampering U.S. competitiveness. Microsoft Chairman and co-founder Bill Gates has twice testified in front of Congress on the issue.

Critics say H-1Bs help U.S. companies replace American workers with less costly foreign workers. "The report makes it clear that the H-1B program is rife with abuse and misuse," says Ron Hira, assistant professor of public policy at the Rochester Institute of Technology. "It shows the desperate need for an auditing system." However, both Presidential candidates, Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.), have said they support expanding the program.

Figures. Both of these lefties--one pretending to be moderate left, and one pretending to be moderate right--are behind this.