We Must Stop Amnesty! But, is anybody even asking for it?

AmnestyThe battle cry goes far and wide… No Amnesty, No Way, No How! Great! I am with you 1000%. Absolutely no amnesty. But wait, no one is asking for amnesty. So why is it that you hear someone parroting this mantra of “No Amnesty, No Amnesty” every time you turn on talk radio or go to a meeting where anything even remotely connected (or sometimes not even connected at all) to immigration is being discussed? It is the new word for “Shut the hell up!”

You see, the left has been doing this for years. Disagree with something they want and they scream “RACIST!” at the top of their lungs to the offending conservative knowing that because no one wants to be called a racist, you will simply shut up. Well, we all know that quit working a long time ago, but you still hear it from the left.

Now a small group from the loud extreme right has adopted this tactic using the word “Amnesty!” They know that no elected official, or any conservative political candidate wants to, in any way, be associated with the word amnesty so they shout it loudly and often in an attempt to halt any discussion of anything that resembles meaningful reform of our broken system of immigration and border security. What they have accomplished during this time is they have stopped anything from happening that would either secure our borders or do anything about the millions of undocumented people living within our borders. They have left our borders wide open and delivered a virtual amnesty that the causes the continuation of lawless behavior.

Case in point is the Gang of 8 bill from the U.S. Senate. While no where near perfect, it is certainly a good starting point for discussion when the House comes back into session next month. And, it is certainly not amnesty.

YouTube Preview Image

Let’s take a look at this video from the Cato Institute which lays out all the steps, background checks, fines, fees and taxes that must be paid by an illegal immigrant before they can even apply for a green card after ten years. I don’t know about you, but if I had to do all of this for a traffic ticket, or any other kind of offense, I don’t think I would feel like I got amnesty…

Like the word racist, let’s save the word amnesty for a case where it truly applies. Let’s give the word back some meaning and power. For those on the extreme right who want to continue screaming “AMNESTY” at every conceivable moment, I would suggest you take a look at MSNBC when they are screaming “RACIST” at every person who dares to criticize Obama’s economic policies. That will give you a real image of just how foolish you sound and how meaningless your argument has become.

Editor’s Note: Re-posted from TexasGOPVote.com with author’s permission – original link.

####

Bob Price

Bob Price

Bob Price is a political commentator for TexasGOPVote.com. He is an expert about issues related to border security and illegal immigration and has expanded to cover stories of local, state and national interest from a Conservative Texas Perspective. He also volunteers with US Border Watch, a civilian volunteer border security organization, as Communications Director. He has been with USBW for over six years. Price is a Life Endowment Member of the National Rifle Association.

Recently, Price became the Texas Director of Cafe Con Leche Republicans. CCLR is an organization established to foster better communication within the Republican party toward immigrants.

Sheriff Paul Babeu to Congress: “Secure the Border First”

Elected officials have used the illegal immigration issue to their political advantage for years. In our opinion, Arizona is blessed with several of those rare elected officials whose commitment to fighting illegal immigration and promoting border security despite the political risks never wavers. I checked in with one of those leaders this week, and offer you readers this update here:

Sheriff Paul BabeuPinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu became a familiar face and household name in April 2010 when he appeared in the “Build the Dang Fence” commercial with Senator John McCain who was battling against J.D. Hayworth to retain his seat in the U.S. Senate.  During that same time, Sheriff Babeu also helped Senators’ McCain and Kyl develop their 10-Point Border Security Plan.  Senator McCain has since abandoned the border security plan and instead he has spent his time working with the “Gang of Eight” to create an amnesty plan for the 12-23 million illegals in the United States today.

The McCain-Kyl “10-Point Border Security” plan mirrored what was already accomplished in the Yuma Sector where border crossings and apprehensions have been reduced by over 96%.  The Yuma Sector as a result of this plan still enjoys this same success today.  Sheriff Babeu was a United States Army Major at the time, and played a key role in the success of this plan as the commanding officer for “Operation Jump Start.”  Through this effort, the Yuma Sector of the border was secured because armed soldiers were placed on the border, the military constructed a double barrier fence, and illegals caught crossing into the U.S. were prosecuted for their crime(s) instead of Pres. Obama’s “catch & release” policy in place today.

Sheriff Paul Babeu has twice served as president of the Arizona Sheriff’s Association, and more recently was voted unanimously as the spokesperson for the Western States Sheriff’s Association on all issues related to immigration and border security.  During July of this year, he worked with Congressmen Goodlatte and Gowdy on their “Strengthen and Fortify Enforcement Act” to help protect American citizens from illegal aliens already in the United States.

Pinal is the third largest county in Arizona.  Unfortunately, it ranks as the “top pass through county” in the nation for both drug- and human smuggling.  They received this distinction because those involved with drug and human smuggling funnel north through Pinal County from the counties below it, a result of both the county’s terrain and the system of roads and highways.

Pinal County residents have seen more than their fair share of crimes as a result of America’s still-unsecured border. Mind you, despite what Homeland IN-Security Secretary Janet Napolitano promises, our border remains very insecure. Almost daily, Sheriff Babeu’s deputies are involved in vehicle pursuits with cartel members smuggling drugs or people. The county has seen executions, and Mexican cartels have now sent assassins into Pinal County to carry out the murders of other cartel members on U.S. soil.

In addition, Mexican drug and human smuggling cartels have sent Rip Crews” into Arizona, including Pinal County, which have been involved in gun battles with other cartel members. These so-called “Rip Crews” (ultra-violent gangs tied to the cartels to steal from other cartels) have conducted traffic stops and been involved in heinous crimes including, but not limited to homicides, home invasions, kidnappings, shootings, sexual assaults, burglaries and thefts.

Pinal Deputies have confronted armed individuals both in the desert and in vehicles, and been involved in shootings and physical confrontations.  Just last month, they caught a smuggler who had already been deported from the United States 11 prior times.  This time when deputies attempted to contact him, he fled in a vehicle, then fled on foot, and when deputies tried to arrest him he assaulted them. And at the time, he was attempting to smuggle 220 pounds of marijuana into the U.S.

As if all that weren’t enough to keep him busy, Sheriff Babeu also helped “Whistle Blower” employees from ICE and U.S. Border Patrol come forward after they were ordered by the Obama Administration to secretly release over 2,000 illegals from detention facilities throughout the United States. As we’ve now learned, many of those illegals released by Pres. Obama into our communities had criminal histories which included manslaughter, child molestation, aggravated assault, weapon offenses, forgery, drug offenses or other serious crimes.

Illegal immigration isn’t the only crime Sheriff Babeu or his dedicated team face in Pinal County, but I asked him why he puts so much effort into this cause. His answer is important for all the right reasons: “Until this administration gets serious and properly secures the border, if we don’t stop it here then it will continue throughout America.”

He continued by telling me, he instructs his deputies, “to dismantle and disrupt drug and human trafficking operations and arrest those responsible.  Every time the cartels change their tactics to try to win the war, we will change ours to defeat them.”

For this blogger, it seems most days the White House and Congress are more interested in winning elections than securing our border, protecting our communities, stopping the flow of drugs into our schools, and saving the lives of any of the women and children lost each year, month, week and day to human trafficking and the global sex trade.

Thankfully there are still elected officials out there who haven’t given up. One of the very finest is Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu.

~For God and Country

Maricopa GOP Chair Rallies LD Censures

To all Arizona County and LD Republican Committee Chairmen -
Below is the front page article of the July 15 Arizona Capitol Times. I want to express my appreciation to those courageous and principled County and LD Republican Committees who have already conducted votes of “censure” and/or “no confidence.”
Jan Brewer, the legislators and their crony capitalist friends that support ObamaCare and Medicaid expansion have betrayed Americans, Arizona Republicans and the Republican Party Platform.  Their lack of ethics, integrity and egregious acts are motivated by only two things – greed and the lust for power – at the expense of hard working tax paying Americans.
The law was expected to cost $898 billion over the first decade when the bill was first passed, but this year the Congressional Budget Office revised that estimate to $1.85 trillion.  Money that will have to be borrowed from the Chinese or printed in the backroom of the Federal Reserve.  Latest polls indicate a majority of Americans are opposed to ObamaCare and Medicaid expansion with an overwhelming majority of Republicans in opposition.
During the past six months, we did everything we could to make a solid argument against ObamaCare and Medicaid expansion, we tried to reason with these people and even tried to make them see the light.  Unfortunately, our lobbying efforts fell on deaf ears and without success.
During one of Ronald Reagan’s difficult political battles he said,
               ”When you can’t make them see the light, make them feel the heat.”
I’m asking all the County and LD Republican Committees to make these people feel the heat by passing public censures for their actions.  They are elitists who think what they have done should be forgiven. They are mistaken.  We are not going to be able to defeat all of them, but we can defeat a majority of them in the 2014 Primary Election.
You can go to “MCRC Briefs” and get examples of public censures that have already been passed.  http://briefs.maricopagop.org/  Just type “censure” in the search field on the left.
Warmest regards,
 A. J. LaFaro
Chairman, Maricopa County Republican Committee
P.S.  Please encourage all of your PCs to keep up their daily efforts in getting petition signatures for www.urapc.org  Getting ObamaCare and Medicaid expansion on the November 2014 ballot will be historic for Arizona’s grassroots conservatives.

Freer Labor: A Biblical Concept for Immigrant Labor

Freer Labor: A Biblical Concept for Immigrant Labor[1]

Holy BibleAt first glance when reading through the Bible, one would think that the Bible does not directly address the concept of free labor – the concept that immigrants should legally be allowed to travel and be employed without any overly encumbering restrictions. However, if one takes a closer look, one will notice several key biblical principles that can support the idea behind a biblical policy for immigrant labor. Moreover, economic data also reveals that there is also a net benefit that is achieved from immigrant labor. In Romans 13, Paul is clear that God gave the sword to the government to punish those who do evil and God expects the government to reward good behavior. The United States government does much good and it gets many things right. Yet, one of its grave shortcomings has to do with the issue of immigration. The current immigration system in the US can even be considered unjust due to three inherent flaws: (1) its regulations infringe on the Christian individual/business owners’ rights to be able to carry out God’s command to be hospitable towards immigrants, (2) its regulations are unrealistic towards immigrant laborers and employers, (3) and its regulations go against God’s command to do good for the nation’s people.

First, the scripture makes it clear that God expected His people to be hospitable towards immigrants. The Hebrew word used to refer to resident aliens or immigrants in the Old Testament is gēr. This term is used to refer to both Israel and any other people group residing in a foreign land (Ex 23:21). In a sense gēr is referring to an individual’s status or position in the foreign nation.[2]  The scriptures also makes mention of the verb gur, which means to “reside [as an alien].”[3] According to Rousas Rushdoony, the biblical laws dealing with hospitality towards aliens both “permanent and temporary” are dealing with those who resided in the land and not those foreigners who were just passing through.[4] This concept of hospitality was a personal, individual, or familial decision to take care of the immigrant.[5]

God called his chosen people to treat the resident immigrant justly. In fact, the Old Testament is very specific in requiring the people of God to treat the immigrant as a protected class (Ex 20:10, 23:12; Lev 16:29). This is most clearly shown in Exodus 22:21 which states, “You shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt,” and Deuteronomy 27:19, “‘Cursed is he who distorts the justice due an alien, orphan, and widow.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’” (NASB) In the book of Exodus, God reminds the nation of Israel that they were once resident aliens in Egypt. One can therefore infer that the reason God willed for them to remember this, was so they would make it a point to treat the immigrants in their land as they would have wished to be treated in Egypt.

God also had expectations of how the nation of Israel was to treat foreign laborers, in matters such as being given the right to glean for food and to be employed as residents if taken in by a family to work on their residence. Daniel Carrol states,

Without land and kin, many sojourners would be dependent on Israelites for work, provisions and protection. They could be day laborers (Deut. 24:14), and the Old Testament mentions that they were conscripted to do the labor in building the temple (1 Chron. 22:2; 2 Chron. 2:17-18). [6]

In other words, God expected his people to treat the immigrant labor justly. Bernhard Asen even further bolsters this point by stating that Israel was not just to treat the ger as a protected class, but the people of Israel were to also incorporate or include them into their society. Asen States, “in addition to protection, inclusion of the gēr into the community to share privileges also is seen as important.”[7]  This incorporation according to Christopher Wright included the “feast of weeks and booths,” and a resident alien who happened to be a hired laborer could also be included at Passover.[8] Write argues the eligibility was based on the fact that they would have been included within an Israelite family with whom they were residing.[9] Therefore, the people of God in the Old Testament were to be hospitable toward the resident alien and include and protect them as a class, just as they would have wanted to have been treated when they were in slaves in the land of Egypt.

This concept is even more important if one looks at the teaching of Jesus. As he stated in Luke 6:31, “Treat others the same way you want them to treat you.”  Thus, just as Christians would want people from other nations to give them help and employment, so that they could take care of their families, so then should Christians help out those immigrants who wish to labor for their families. However, this has proven problematic in the United States since there are unrealistic worker visa programs that make it almost impossible for Christian business owners to be able to be hospitable and have the opportunity to hire immigrant laborers who are in need. The current federal caps on immigrant labor incentivize many immigrants to come here illegally and risk being caught. Many of these people, if they could, would have obtained a work visa or a legal means to come to the United States.

This becomes a problem, biblically, for Christians because as the chosen people of God they too should be hospitable towards aliens and any other class of people who should be protected. This is why the current immigration policy restrictions pose a dilemma for Christians, because while they are to be submissive and respectful to the government God has placed over them, they also have an obligation to protect and seek justice for those who are in classes that need to be protected, like the resident alien. Christian individuals/business owners should respect their government, while at the same time seek for a more biblical policy that will lead to a more realistic policy towards aliens seeking work, and continue to work to incorporate the alien into the community. This is all founded on the basic biblical concept of loving one’s neighbors and treating them, as the believer would want to be treated if he or she were in a similar situation.

The second problem with the immigration system is that it has unrealistic regulations on immigrant labor. As previously mentioned, the scriptures do not ban migrant or immigrant labor. Rather, it takes for granted that foreigners would be around and would need protection. Just as prohibition failed because it was an unrealistic regulation on human action; so too the current immigrant labor quota system is failing because it is unrealistically regulating labor. There is not a biblical mandate on the total number of immigrants a nation should allow to enter its borders; rather, the Scriptures simply presuppose that resident aliens will be around.  The guest worker program in the United States is broken down into three major sections H-1b[10](skilled labor) which is capped at 65,000 persons and the  H-2a(agricultural) and H-2b[11] (non agricultural) visas – both capped at 66,000. These all do not even come close to meeting the demand for labor that many American industries need.

In addition to these quotas, the Federal government, under the current administration, has made it harder on farmers to legally higher immigrant labor. According to an Immigration Works policy brief, the Obama administration’s new regulations eliminated “the streamline application process for employers” implemented by the Bush administration and instead in required employers to “submit to a lengthy DOL(Department of Labor) review,” to apply for immigrant laborers.[12] The Obama administration also has raised the federal minimum wage on foreign workers to $9.48, and increased fines to $1,500 per employee for farmers who are missing even one piece of paper work.[13] This is on top of that fact that it costs farmers thousands of dollars to hire lawyers to help them file all the legal paper work with the department of labor. Another added cost for farmers created by new regulations is the increased risk for being sued. David Bier explains,

Labor Department requirements mandate U.S. employees be treated similarly to migrants, but Obama officials created a new definition of ‘corresponding’ treatment that could be interpreted by courts to include the housing, transportation, and in some instances, meals that H-2A regulations require employers to supply to migrants. Disgruntled employees who are citizens or permanent residents could sue under the ambiguous definition and potentially collect damages.[14]

The current administration has also passed new regulations on highly skilled laborers with H-1b visas that are adding cost to businesses that would keep their business here in America if it were not for these added costs. One such regulation dictated that no company who had employees with H-1b visas could be eligible to partake in federal bailouts through the Trouble Asset Relief program known as TARP.[15] There has also been an increase in the processing fees of business with more than 50 employees who wish to higher immigrants with H-1b visas “from $325 to as much as $2,300.”[16] These are all added cost that do harm to business and ultimately the nation’s economy.

All of these added costs and legal liabilities incentivize farmers to hire illegal immigrants. The caps on legal immigration also incentivize immigrant workers to come work in the United States illegally, even with increased federal enforcement.  The fact is, “if the extra cost of such enforcement[along with these new regulations] is larger than the net fiscal cost of illegal immigration, then driving illegal immigration to zero would fail a cost benefit test.”[17] Current federal enforcement for hiring legal immigrants may cost more than to take a risk to higher immigrants who are not authorized to be here. A perfect example of this risk taking by business owners can be found in Arizona, since it passed the Legal Arizona Workers Act (LAWA). LAWA required Arizona employers to use E-verify to ensure the legal status of their employees. In response to this law, employers and immigrants responded differently. First, there was an increase in self employment by 73%, of which, “about 25,000 Arizona Hispanic noncitizens dropped out of the formal wage market and became self-employed.”[18] Moreover, employers responded with only a “72 percent” participation rate in 2010, and a “67 percent in 2011.”[19]  The reality is that this is a Genesis 3 world; unrealistic laws like prohibition and immigration labor regulations are unjust because they do not coincide with basic human nature. The government should seek to do good for its citizens (Rom 13:4), and placing unrealistic labor restrictions that incentivize individuals to sin by breaking laws is not good. This is why Christians should seek to reform immigrant labor laws to be more free and open by removing these unrealistic restrictions.

Thirdly, the current immigration policies inhibit economic growth and reduce national productivity. This is counter to the idea that, “one of the primary responsibilities of government is to act as God’s servant to ‘do good’ for the citizens of a nation (see Rom. 13:4).”[20]  The reality is that immigration will increase the nation’s ability to produce and therefore increase economic growth. Yet, there are some detractors who disagree with this position like Californians for Population Stabilization (CAPS), and possibly the most academic detractor when it comes to low skilled immigrant labor is Economist George Borjas.

For example CAPS runs sensational TV ads, insinuating that Americans are unemployed, because immigrants are “taking American jobs.”[21] This is clearly Malthusian’s thinking that there are only a set number of jobs. There are not a set number of jobs. Jobs are created and lost every day; there is no set labor force. Since the 1950s, there has been an increase of about 90 million new workers in the labor force including women, and baby boomers.[22] This has not resulted in any “long term increase” in unemployment rates.[23]  Many activists who support immigration and immigrant labor argue that immigrants do the jobs that Americans won’t do,  at least for the wages being offered, but if the wages were increased then Americans would apply for those jobs. In some cases this may be true, but it does not ring true in all situations. The problem is that higher wages would mean that many of those jobs would no longer be there.[24]  Benjamin Powell explains,

Approximately one third of all garment workers in the United States are immigrants. If wages needed to be higher to get Americans to take the jobs, many of these jobs would have gone overseas. .. In Arizona, for example, only 30 percent of the 2004 lettuce crop was harvested; the rest was left in the ground to rot. Losses were nearly $1 billion. Farmers certainly could have paid higher wages to get the crop harvested, but losses would presumably have been even greater.[25]

In the end, an increase in wages could result in a loss of productivity and economic growth.

Another proponent of the idea that immigrants are taking “American jobs” is Harvard Economist George Borjas.  In 2010 he coauthored an article arguing that African American incarceration rates were on the rise because low skilled immigrants were taking their jobs.[26] Diana Furchotgott-Roth explains the flaws in Borjas’s study. First, African American men started to “withdraw from the labor force in the 1960s,” when immigrants made up “less than 1 percent” of the labor force.[27]Moreover,  “The percentage of black men between ages 16 and 24 who were not in school, not working, and not looking for work rose to 18 percent in 1982 from 9 percent in 1964. It then reached 23 percent in 1997 and remained at that level as of 2011.”[28] Finally, Borjas does not even mention in his study the changes in laws and policies, nor does he consider how both have been enforced. Therefore, immigration is not the reason for the rise in African American unemployment or the direct reason for the increase in their incarceration rates.

Another problem with this argument that immigrants take American jobs is the fact that, many more families are moving towards both parents working outside of the household. Hanson found that this, “often requires hiring outside labor to care for children, clean the home, launder clothes, and tend to the yard.”[29] He also found that the in cities where immigrant labor was prevalent that these services were more affordable.[30]

Borjas in several of his studies showed that cheap immigrant labor harms the high school dropouts by reducing their wages. In 2003 he claimed wages dropped by 9%, in 2004 by 7%, and in 2006 by 5%.[31] There are two other studies worth noting.  One is by David Card which showed that low skilled immigrant labor reduced low skilled workers wages by 3 percent in cities where the population of immigrants was higher. The second study was done by Giovanni Peri, who found that immigrants only cause 0.7 percent decrease in low skilled workers’ wages.[32] In other words, even though wages are depressed for high school drop outs, there is not enough decisive evidence to point out how much wages are lowered, nor is there enough negative evidence to call for a reduction in low skilled immigrant labor compared to its benefits.

There any many benefits to having affordable labor. As previously mentioned, in cities that boast a high percentage of low skilled immigrant labor, goods and services are provided at a more affordable rate. This translates into cost savings for the population as a whole.  It is imperative to understand that the total national income is not lost from these savings; rather it is redistributed by creating employer gains and savings for consumers.[33]  The savings for the consumer will allow them to later choose where they would like to spend the extra cash, which would in turn help another business, consequently, helping the employees of that business. In the end, the wealth is not lost.  In addition, high skilled laborers who are paid less than native born employees actually add to economic growth and job creation. Economist Peri explains that “firms pay immigrants less than their marginal productivity, increasing the firms’ profits. Such cost savings on immigrants act as an increase in productivity for firms…[T]his allows firms to expand production and employ more people in complementary task many of which are supplied by natives.”[34] Therefore, immigrant labor helps to creates more affordable goods and services by increasing profits to businesses and helps them to employ more Americans, which are net benefits, instead of a net loss.

In conclusion, a biblical policy towards immigrant labor would be to allow for a freer more open system, because it fulfils God’s command that the government do good to the people, and it allows Christian individuals/business owners to legally carry out God’s command to be hospitable towards immigrant laborers. This should include the removal of federal caps on labor and a shift towards a system where the free market decides the number of laborers that are needed.  There should also be a removal of unrealistic federal mandates and regulations that make it harder for business owners to legally hire immigrant labor. A policy based off the free market would not just benefit the United States, but it would also benefit the immigrant who comes to the United States to make several times more than he or she could have earned in their home nation. In many cases, this move would also improve the immigrant’s standard of living. Some may argue that these immigrants harm low skilled native born workers; but the reality is that these people already have protections which come in the form of unemployment insurance, welfare, food stamps and so on. Ultimately, the government’s job should not be one of creating jobs, but one of being just. A just society creates the ideal framework for economic growth and prosperity – for both the citizen and the immigrant.


[1] The term freer labor is used instead of Free Labor because, the author does not believe in open borders, but does believe that the free flow should be allowed by the Government who should screen and have limited regulations, but not cap allowing people to freely and legally come to work in the United States.

[2] Baker, D. L. Tight Fists or Open Hands?: Wealth and Poverty in Old Testament Law. Grand Rapids, Mich: William B. Eerdmans Pub, 2009.178.

[3] Baker, Tight Fist Open Hands, 178.  This verb “gur” (1481a.גּוּר)has been translated by the NASB several ways which many can convey the idea of residing, or dwelling: “abide*(1), alien(1), aliens(1), assemble(1), colonize(1), dwell(3), dwells(1), habitation(1), live(4), live as aliens(2), lives(1), reside(13), resided(1), resides(3), sojourn(11), sojourned(9), sojourning(1), sojourns(13), stay(6), staying(4), stays(1), strangers(3).” Robert L. Thomas, ‘1481aגּוּר   gur.” New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries : Updated Edition (Anaheim: Foundation Publications, Inc., 1998).

[4] Rushdoony, Rousas John. The Institutes of Biblical Law 2, Law and Society. (Nutley, N.J.]: Craig Pr, 1982.):199.

[5] M.  Daniel Carrol R., Christians at the Boarder: Immigration, the Church, and the Bible. (Grand Rapids: Baker Pub. Group, 2008): 95.

[6] Carrol, Christians at the Boarder, 103.

[7] Bernhard Asen, “From Acceptance to Inclusion: The Stranger (גֵּר /gēr) in Old Testament Tradition, in Christianity and the stranger: historical essays. (ed. Nichols, Francis W. Atlanta, Ga: Scholars Press, 1995): 16-35.

[8] Christopher J. H. Wright, God’s People in God’s Land: Family, Land, and Property in the Old Testament. (Grand Rapids, Mich: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co, 1990.): 101.

[9] Wright, God’s People in God’s Land, 101-102.

[10] United States citizen and immigration services, “Cap Count for H-2B Nonimmigrants,” 17 April 2013, (21 April 21, 2013).

[11] Andorra Bruno, “Immigration of Temporary Lower-Skilled Workers: Current Policy and Related Issues,” Congressional Research services. (2012): 9.

[12] Immigration Works USA, “Reduced Access: New Regulations Aimed at Temporary Worker Visas.” (2009):1.

[13] David Beir, “Obama’s Secret Anti-Immigrant Campaign.” Real Clear Politics.com, 9 July 2012,  (16 April  2013).

[14]Beir, Obama’s Secret, 2012.

[15] Beir, Obama’s Secret, 2012; & Immigration Works USA, “Reduced Access,” 2009, 3.

[16] Beir, Obama’s Secret, 2012

[17]Gordon H. Harrison, Immigration and Economic Growth, CATO Journal. 32, 1 (2012): 31.

[18] Alex Nowrasteh, The Economic Case against Arizona’s Immigration Laws, Cato Policy Analysis No. 709. (2012).9.

[19] Nowrasteh, The Economic Case, 9.

[20] Wayne Grudem, Politics According to the Bible: A Comprehensive Resource for understanding Modern Political Issues in the Light of Scripture, (Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 2010), 269.

[21] Californians for Population Stabilization (CAPS), “Press Release: Memorial Day TV Ad Ask why President Obama is admitting millions of Immigrant Workers when 1 in 3 Young Veterans are Jobless.” 22 May 2012.

[22] Benjamin Powell, An economic Case for Immigration, 7 June 2010.

[23] Powell, Case for Immigration, 2010.

[24] Powell, Case for Immigration, 2010.

[25] Powell, Case for Immigration, 2010.

[26] Borjas, George J., Jeffrey Grogger, and Gordon H. Hanson. 2010. “Immigration and the Economic Status of African-American Men.” Economica 77, no. 306: 255-282.

[27] Diana Furchotgott-Roth, “The Path Forward for Immigration”. Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. 12 December 2012.8.

[28] Furchotgott-Roth, The Path Forward, 2012, 12.

[29] Harrison, Immigration and Economic Growth, 2012, 28.

[30] Harrison, Immigration and Economic Growth, 2012, 28.

[31] Furchotgott-Roth, The Path Forward, 2012, 9.

[32] Furchotgott-Roth, The Path Forward, 2012, 9.

[33] Harrison, Immigration and Economic Growth, 2012, 28.

[34] Peri, Giovanni. “IMMIGRATION, LABOR MARKETS, AND PRODUCTIVITY.” CATO Journal 32, no. 1 (Winter2012 2012): 35-53.44.

Bibliography

Asen, Bernhard, “From Acceptance to Inclusion: The Stranger (גֵּר /gēr) in Old Testament Tradition, in Christianity and the stranger: historical essays. ed. Nichols, Francis W. Atlanta, Ga: Scholars Press, 1995.

Baker, D. L. Tight Fists or Open Hands?: Wealth and Poverty in Old Testament Law. Grand Rapids, Mich: William B. Eerdmans Pub, 2009.178.

Beir, David, “Obama’s Secret Anti-Immigrant Campaign.” Real Clear Politics.com, 9 July 2012, (16 April  2013).

Borjas, George J., Jeffrey Grogger, and Gordon H. Hanson. 2010. “Immigration and the Economic Status of African-American Men.” Economica 77, no. 306: 255-282.

Bruno, Andorra, “Immigration of Temporary Lower-Skilled Workers: Current Policy and Related Issues,” Congressional Research services.2012.

Californians for Population Stabilization (CAPS), “Press Release: Memorial Day TV Ad Ask why President Obama is admitting millions of Immigrant Workers when 1 in 3 Young Veterans are Jobless.” 22 May 2012.

Carroll R., M. Daniel. Christians at the Border Immigration, the Church, and the Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker Pub. Group, 2008.

Furchotgott-Roth, Diana ,“The Path Forward for Immigration”. Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. 12 December 2012.8.

Grudem, Wayne, Politics According to the Bible: A Comprehensive Resource for understanding Modern Political Issues in the Light of Scripture, Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 2010.

Harrison, Gordon H.,  Immigration and Economic Growth, CATO Journal. 32, 1 (2012): 31.

Immigration Works USA, “Reduced Access: New Regulations Aimed at Temporary Worker Visas.” (2009):1.

Nowrasteh, Alex, The Economic Case against Arizona’s Immigration Laws, Cato Policy Analysis No. 709. (2012).1-20.

Peri, Giovanni. “IMMIGRATION, LABOR MARKETS, AND PRODUCTIVITY.” CATO Journal 32, no. 1 (Winter2012 2012): 35-53.44.

Powell, Benjamin , An economic Case for Immigration, 7 June 2010.

Rushdoony, Rousas John. The Institutes of Biblical Law 2, Law and Society. [Nutley, N.J.]: Craig Pr, 1982.

Thomas, Robert L.  ‘1481aגּוּר   gur.” New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries : Updated Edition,Anaheim: Foundation Publications, Inc., 1998.

United States citizen and immigration services, “Cap Count for H-2B Nonimmigrants,” 17 April 2013, (21 April 21, 2013).

Wright, Christopher J. H. God’s People in God’s Land: Family, Land, and Property in the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co, 1990.

This was originally published on Thomas’s personal Blog Arizona Seminarian

####

Reposted with author’s permission – original link.

Editors note: as with all blog postings that appear with a by-line, the opinions presented are the author’s and not necessarily the positions of Cafe Con Leche Republicans.

Thomas Martin Salazar

Thomas Salazar

Thomas Martin Salazar is an Arizona leader of the Café con Leche Republicans. Thomas was born and raised in Arizona. He holds a Bachelor’s degree in History from Grand Canyon University and is currently working on obtaining a MDiv in Biblical Communication from Phoenix Seminary. Thomas has also served as the Grand Canyon University College Republicans Vice President and interim President (February 2007-April 2008) and as a Maricopa County Republican Precinct committeeman (August 2009 – August 2012).

Senator Jeff Flake Amendments to Immigration Bill Adopted in Committee

Washington, D.C. – United States Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ), today offered two amendments during the Senate Committee on the Judiciary markup of S. 744, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act. The amendments were adopted en bloc.  

Flake #1: Adds three private land owner representatives (one from the Northern border region and two from the Southern border region) to the Department of Homeland Security Border Oversight Task Force included in the bill. 

Flake #2: Revises the schedule for the Department of Homeland Security’s submittal of the semiannual status report regarding the implementation of the Comprehensive Southern Border Security Strategy to 180 days after submission and every 180 days thereafter. Additionally, it adds the Comptroller of the United States as a recipient of the status report, and adds a requirement for an annual review by the Comptroller of the reports and an assessment of the status and progress of the strategy.

Senator Flake announced the adoption of these amendments on Twitter:

###

Immigration Reform for the Sake of National Security

by Bob Price (re-posted with author’s permission – original link)

Immigration reform should be viewed as a matter of national security and not social engineering. Currently our immigration system is more about family reunification than it is about economic needs and national security. In fact, the current system is so broken that we have millions of undocumented people wandering around the country,  and we have no idea who they are, why they are here, or the history of their background. The current system must be reformed, not to pander to the voting block of one particular group or another, but rather because our national needs require it.

Many times groups try to label any attempt at immigration reform as amnesty. They dig their heels into the ground screaming “Amnesty, Amnesty” like it is some kind of honorable battle cry. The reality is, their blocking of immigration reform has actually granted a de facto amnesty to those who have entered the country illegally and those who entered legally but remained after their visas expired. Millions of people are allowed to stay without examination as to purpose or history. This is a dangerous situation to us all.

Furthermore, our current stance of increasing border security (which should continue) without correcting the problems of our broken immigration system have led to much lawlessness along the border and across the nation. While our borders have become more secure, we do not have any kind of guest worker program for people to come here legally, which has created a market for human trafficking and slavery. Instead of simply applying for a legal work permit, people who are starving for work to support their families are forced to engage in criminal behavior to come here. Not only do they spend thousands of dollars to human smugglers, they end up bringing their families because it is too difficult to come and go legally.

The revenue of human trafficking along our borders also helps fuel the armies of the drug cartels. A virtual civil war is going on along our southern border making parts of Mexico more dangerous than Iraq. Thousands of Mexicans are being killed because of this. Furthermore, once the human cargo has arrived in the United States, we have created more lawlessness as many unscrupulous employers will illegally hire these workers and improperly misclassified them as independent contractors, pay them sub-standard wages, steal wages from their workers and deprive the government of much needed tax revenue.

Most of the millions of people who are here and who come here illegally, do so without any evil intent. They come here seeking work and wages whereby they can support themselves and their families. But for those who do come here with criminal intent, our broken system enables them to hide in the shadows. Once they have committed crimes, they can simply change their names and disappear into the darkness, or they can simply move to another community and start over again. A reformed system should provide for a biometric identification system which would render annonymity much more difficult.

In addition to the national security needs of our nation, immigration reform is also needed for economic reasons. Despite the fact that our nation suffers from high levels of unemployment and underemployment, there is still a high and unfulfilled demand for manual labor workers. Our current education system is focused on sending people to colleges and universities for high-paying white-collar jobs. In the mean time, employers in the service, construction, agriculture and many other industries struggle to find workers.

Immigration Reform and Guest Worker Programs are not about providing cheap labor to employers. It is about providing workers who are willing to do the work. I remember hearing President Bush, in a State of the Union speech, say that we need immigrant workers to do the jobs American’s won’t do. I was angry – very angry. I thought that was a lie. But as I have studied this problem and talked with employers who want and can’t find legal workers in adequate supply, I have learned that it really is true. Groups like FAIR, the Center for Immigration Studies, and NumbersUSA claim that a guest worker program would create a slave-labor class of workers. The exact opposite is true. Our current broken system has already created a slave labor pool of unidentified workers who cannot compete in the open marketplace and who are afraid to report substandard wages and wage theft.

McAllen International Bridge between US and Mexico

Workers participating in a legal guest worker program would be able to compete in the open marketplace for jobs. If an employer attempted to abuse the worker’s rights either by paying substandard wages or comitting wage theft, the worker would be able to report the employer’s unethical and illegal behaviors as well as move to another job.

Immigration reform would also help legitimate employers in the marketplace. Under our current system, unethical employers are able to have an improper competitive advantage over companies who seek to follow the law. They do this by avoiding taxes through misclassifying workers as independent contractors, paying substandard wages and even stealing wages from a captive slave-labor market. In addition to unfair business competition, these unethical employers also place a burden on taxpayers. By misclassifying workers as independent contractors, they allow deadbeat parents to hide from the child support collection process thereby adding single parents not receiving child support to our welfare roles. Furthermore, by not providing workmen’s compensation and health insurance benefits to their “independent contractors”, workers who are injured on the job end up being dumped in emergency rooms adding to our expanding healthcare costs. Additionally, many of these employers hold these workers under hostile conditions where they are truly held as captors in a slave-labor market.

Border Security and Immigration Reform must both move forward. Not because it is pandering to one side or the other, but because it is the right thing to do for our nation’s security, social and economic needs. The current standoff plays into the hands of Democrats who want to keep the issue as a wedge issue to separate some conservatives from voting for Republicans. But more importantly, it is simply an ongoing amnesty for the people who are here and for those who illegally and improperly profit from this stalemate. We must continue to make the borders more secure, but we cannot wait until some date in the future to also address the issue of reforming our broken immigration system.

Finally – A Conviction in the Murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry – Is it Too Little, Too Late?

by Bob Price (reposted with permission of author – original link. Bob Price is the Texas State Director of Cafe Con Leche Republicans)

Nearly two years after U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was murdered by a gang of Mexican thugs in the desert night of southeastern Arizona, the federal government has finally secured a conviction. Yesterday, Manuel Osorio-Arellanes, plead guilty to the murder but denied being the shooter. He pled guilty in exchange for having the death penalty taken off the table during the sentencing portion of the trial, set for January. Osorio-Arellanes faces life in prison as his maximum punishment. Is this conviction too little, too late from an Obama Administration that appears to be up to their ears in the Fast and Furious program that led to Terry’s murder and its subsequent cover-up?

I spoke with Brian Terry’s brother, Kent Terry, today about this news and his reaction. He indicated he was not aware that the defendant was going to change his plea and said, “I am glad justice was served somewhat.” Terry questioned the timing of this plea bargain and its proximity to the election next week.

As do many Americans, Kent Terry believes that President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder are directly involved in the Fast and Furious program that put two of the guns used in Brian Terry’s murder into the hands of these gangsters. Terry said, “I am ashamed of how Obama handled Fast and Furious and Benghazi.” He feels Obama’s failure to comment on Fast and Furious or pressure his Administration to get to the truth about Fast and Furious and Benghazi are indications of Obama’s direct complicity.

Osorio-Arellanes was part of a gang of Mexican bandits who had come into the United States illegally solely for the purpose of committing crimes. In his plea statement, Osorio-Arellanes admitted he was part of this “rip-off” crew. They sneaked into the U.S. from Mexico about a week prior to Agent Terry’s murder. They had stashed food and weapons (including at least two guns from Fast and Furious) and were searching for Mexican marijuana smugglers to rob when they encountered Agent Terry’s BORTAC team and engaged them in a fire fight. Osorio-Arellanes admitted raising his weapon but said he did not fire on the agents. Osorio-Arellanes was shot during the gunfight and has been in federal custody ever since.

Clearly our borders are not secure. Not only are drug smugglers free to traffic their products into our nation. They also are freely engaging in human smuggling, human trafficking and sex-slavery as they bring their human cargo into America. In addition, rip-off gangs like the one Osorio-Arellanes was a part of, freely come and go across our border preying on their victims and endangering our Border Patrol Agents.

President Obama has failed in his primary duty as Commander-in-Chief – that of protecting our borders from an invasion of an army of smugglers and gangsters who endanger the lives of American citizens every day. Brian Terry’s murder is not the only one attributable to Obama’s failure to secure our borders. Many other Americans have lost their lives to bandits like this.

Our nation deserves to have a president who will take seriously, the dangers associated with our unsecured borders. And we deserve the opportunity to engage in real reform of our broken immigration system that makes it too easy for people to enter our country illegally and much too difficult for many to find a legal way to come here.

While immigration reform and border security have not been talked about very much in this presidential election season, it is an important issue and one where Obama has failed. You can make a statement by getting out and voting for Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. Send a message of overwhelming magnitude and unarguable force that we reject the last four years of this Lawless Presidency and tell the Democrat party they must re-tool their issues from the ground up if they want to remain a viable party in our nation’s political system. You can do this by not just winning this election, but by getting every single voter you know to the polls. Vote a straight Republican ticket to send your message all the way down the ballot!

Part Two: Kyrsten Sinema Addresses SB1070, the Border and comments by Gabriela Saucedo Mercer with Muslim Community

*Last week, Honey Marques published an article on Western Free Press entitled ‘Kyrsten Sinema associates tied to Hamas-linked CAIR and other MB front groups: Part 1’ which exposed the questionable backgrounds of two individuals who sponsored an event for Sinema’s campaign. This second part includes audio files and deals with the event itself wherein Sinema took the opportunity to discuss with members of the Muslim community matters of immigration, border security and to deliver criticism of Republican congressional candidate, Gabriela Saucedo Mercer, who is running against the CD-3 incumbent Democrat Raul Grijalva, over comments she made in a discussion regarding OTMs (Other Than Mexicans).

***

1948 is a year of historic significance. It is the year in which the nation of Israel gained her independence.  Interestingly, 1948 is also the security code publicly listed on the Sinema campaign event page for entry into the residential area for those who attended the September 29 campaign event hosted by Hassan Elsaad and Mohamed El-Sharkawy.  It seemed a premonitory coincidence.

Upon entering the home of Hassan Elsaad, one was welcomed graciously. When Kyrsten Sinema spoke, she largely discussed her formative years which served as the basis for her future career as an attorney and in the Arizona state legislature highlighting her work on domestic violence issues. Certainly, working on issues concerning the serious nature of domestic violence is noble; however, most of the room was filled with men aligned with organizations, such as CAIR, which support the implementation of Shariah Law wherein the rights of women do not exist. Does Ms. Sinema realize the irony in her statements?

Sinema then invited the audience to ask questions. The first question was from a gentleman regarding her position on SB1070, which is in the following audio file: SB1070 discussion

The following highlights are worth noting from Sinema’s commentary:

  1. Sinema’s omission of the threat of violence coming from a group of people, categorized as OTMs, crossing our southern border illegally.  Many of these individuals include radical Islamic extremists coming from terrorist sponsoring nations whose only intentions are to bring Jihad to America.
  2. Referring to illegal Mexicans as “migrants.”  We used to call them “illegal aliens.”
  3. Accusing Sheriff Joe of “…specializing in abusing people’s civil liberties.”  This is factually inaccurate and misleading. See recent article posted in Feds Close Criminal Investigation into Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio.
  4. Advising Muslims who happen to be without “papers” to seek legal advice - indicating they may be unlawfully profiled if detained for not having proof of citizenship or legal residency. This seemed a potential incongruity. Why wouldn’t they have “papers” if they are here legally? Furthermore, law enforcement cannot inquire about one’s identification unless there is a question raised. For example, identity can be questioned during a routine traffic stop wherein a driver fails to produce a license or registration. If someone is questioned at a crime scene, again, they simply need to identify themselves – something we all do every single day through business transactions, writing checks, using or applying for credit or jobs, etc.

SB1070 was passed and signed into law as a step toward discouraging illegals from unlawful entry into the state in the first place. It was also written to put pressure on the federal government to finally do the job it isrequired to do which is to protect our border. Our state law mirrored federal law. All Arizona did was reiterate that responsibility and hold the federal government accountable on its duty. If Ms. Sinema is looking to point a finger at who has put Arizona’s citizens at risk, she ought to point to the federal government’s negligence, which has put an undue hardship on our ranchers, Arizona businesses, our state’s economy, education and healthcare institutions, law enforcement, and taxpayers.

Toward the end of the audio clip addressing SB1070, Sinema also addresses Mohamed El-Sharkawy’s work with law enforcement in Phoenix to assist with “cultural understanding.”  In order to truly understand the nature of such “understanding,” it is important to note that part of CAIR’s mission is for the Islamic community to foster a relationship within our law enforcement communities for the purpose of sensitivity training.  As readers may recall, Marques’ article last week revealed that the FBI “…cut all ties with Hamas-linked CAIR at both the national and local levels across the nation as a result of the findings of a 15-year FBI investigation of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HFL), the largest Islamic charity in the U.S. at that time.”

It is troubling that our local law enforcement is willing to work with El Sharkawy and Hamas-linked CAIR despite the FBI’s legitimate disassociation with the group. One wonders if CAIR addresses concerns about OTMs (Other Than Mexicans) with local law enforcement.  Again, such concern was clearly absent on the part of Kyrsten Sinema, who failed to mention the real threat of terrorists among OTMs before launching into an attack on comments delivered by Republican congressional candidate Gabriela Saucedo Mercer on the subject. An audience member asked for Sinema to respond to Mercer’s comments and here is what she had to say: Response to comments by Saucedo Mercer

First of all, Sinema appeared to be clueless about the true nature of Mercer’s comments or who Mercer was. Mercer’s statements were on point with OTMs crossing the southern border at an alarming rate.  (See full version of Mercer video where she clearly speaks of OTMs  beginning at 7:27; she refers to OTMs coming from ‘special interest countries’ our government defines as terrorist sponsoring nations: WFP Interviews Gabriela Saucedo Mercer).

The issue of OTMs from countries of special interest was something Sinema never addressed in previous audio clips or when speaking about her position on Immigration Reform.  For such an important topic, why was this issue not addressed with the group of moderate Muslims at the event who share the same concern about radical Islamic extremists committing terrorist acts against this nation?

CAIR Arizona was also very critical and accused Mercer of discriminating against all Middle Easterners which is simply not the truth. Even the media were quick to conveniently edit Mercer’s comments out of context as seen in this outrageous report: CAIR-AZ Asks Governor Not to Back GOP Candidate

The issue of Islamic radicals entering the United States illegally, and legally, with the intent to do our nation harm has been well documented. We know that some of the 9/11 terrorists were in this country legally. Some even attended flight schools, took English courses and lived in Arizona cities. As recently as September 2012, three men of Middle Eastern descent with ties to Hezbollah (one an American citizen and two citzens of Belize) were apprehended in Mexico.

In fact, reports are available online detailing the significant rise in OTM’s from countries of special interest (countries sponsoring terror networks) coming through our porous southern border (255 Illegals From Countries That Promote, Produce, Protect Terrorists Along US-Mexico Border;  Judicial Watch Obtains New Border Patrol Statistics for Illegal Alien Smugglers and “Special Interest Aliens”Foreign Terrorists Breach U.S. Border).

The Washington Times reported the following OTM information last year:

“Department of Homeland Security statistics confirm that hundreds of OTMs are apprehended each year. An independent analysis of department data shows that the problem of OTM apprehensions on the southwestern border has been growing at an alarming rate. While overall apprehensions at the Mexican border have declined dramatically – 67 percent – from 2000 to 2009, apprehensions of OTMs have not declined. In fact, apprehensions of OTMs and special-interest aliens – those migrants who originate in countries that are known to sponsor terror – have jumped during the same period – 58 percent and 67 percent, respectively.”

Read more: SWAIN & SHARAD: Radicals lay siege to our border – Washington Times

The CRS Report for Congress titled Border Security: Apprehensions of ‘Other Than Mexican’ Aliens (Updated June 20, 2006) also validates the Washington Times piece as illustrated in the following:

Overall OTM Apprehensions
Figure 1 shows the overall number of OTMs apprehended by the Border Patrol
over the past nine years. The number of OTM apprehensions remained relatively
stable from 1998 to 2002, averaging almost 37,000 a year over the six-year time
period. Apprehensions increased by 33% from FY2002 to FY2003, and 52% from
FY2003 to FY2004. In FY2005, OTM apprehensions more than doubled from
FY2004, increasing by 119%. Indeed, over the last three years OTM apprehensions
have more than quadrupled, increasing by 343%. This trend is in stark contrast to
apprehensions of Mexican aliens, which have remained relatively stable over the
same period. Figure 1 illustrates the dramatic increase in OTM apprehensions over
the past three years.

Surprisingly, no further updates for the CRS Report for Congress (Border Security: Apprehensions of ‘Other Than Mexican’ Alienswere found on the expected government websites listing CRS reports and  TRAC Immigration.

For someone seeking a congressional seat, and as one who has served in the legislature of a border state, it is incomprehensible that Sinema would not take the opportunity to discuss the OTM threat to an audience clearly raising questions about her immigration views. Her naïve approach and simplistic remarks regarding a very serious, timely, and dangerous threat to our national security and sovereignty cannot go without sound critique. In fact, what is most revealing is what was not said at the event (including discussions of the attacks in Libya or the situation in Syria). Aside from the occassional acknowledgement of cartels described as “bad,” mean,” or “dangerous,” Sinema made their activity and presence on the border appear as a remote issue altogether separate from the popular narrative of the poor seeking a better life (as if breaking federal law and not honoring our immigration system somehow illustrates one’s pursuit of a better life). Perhaps if one’s goal is to see the Dream Act manifest nationally and cater to groups of people for political points instead of promoting assimilation into American life, then it is rather inconvenient to present sound truths and solid solutions rooted in the preservation of America’s heritage.

During the event, Sinema brought up her desire that all who wish to enter this country to achieve the American Dream be given the opportunity to do so, failing to note that that opportunity already exists in the form of legal immigration. To listen to Sinema’s comments, one  would think there were no present “path” to citizenship. Of course, we have had a process from the founding of this country whereby one becomes a citizen; it is rooted in shedding allegiances to the country of origin in order to adopt American values, laws, and language so as to assimilate and contribute to this great nation. It appears that some in attendance of this event view themselves as victims, and stated so; some choose to self-segregate, referring only to their community and desire to reinforce their own history and culture, which is being done through their own schools. Sinema also spoke of the school noted in the previous audio link.

There was an additional concern brought up by someone in attendance referring to “special needs” of their community being addressed by government officials: The community addressing congress. In the link, Sinema also mentions that Keith Ellison, the Muslim congressman from Minnesota, held a fundraiser for her recently. Please listen to full audio carefully to hear a man in attendance mention Ellison’s suggestion that they (in the Muslim community) pay a pilgrimage to DC as they do to Mecca.

Many in attendance have been in this country for some time. Some expressed their involvement in politics stemming back to Jimmy Carter’s presidency. Assuming they are citizens or here with legal residency, are they not afforded the same Constitutional rights as ALL Americans?  Once someone becomes a citizen of this country, they become the beneficiaries of the same rights that any other American enjoys including the freedom to practice their faith, vote, have a voice, and to enjoy the unalienable rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness – just as Gabriela Saucedo Mercer chose to do. Therefore, the Muslim community is not being disenfranchised. Self-segregating instead of assimilating is entirely their preference; however, it does not constitute as any sort of disenfranchisement worthy of a congressional ear.

The September 29 event would have been a perfect opportunity for Kyrsten Sinema to educate instead of fostering a mentality of victimhood within the community, reinforcing false narratives concerning major legislation, and failing to adequately address the mortal danger presented by the federal government’s negligence on border security and abandoning current immigration policy.

So what additional “special needs” are being demanded from the Muslim community when their civil liberties are already protected equally as with non-Muslims under our Constitution? Does Sharia Law now become part of that discussion of “special needs” (CAIR’s Sharia Fog Machine)?

The event for Kyrsten Sinema never became an outright discussion on Sharia Law; however, Arizonans should be concerned about candidates and sitting representatives sympathizing with and having support among groups (like CAIR) who advocate for the implementation of Sharia Law – at any level – for it cannot coexist with the Constitution of the United States.

 

See supported links below including extra audio from the September 29 event.

Audio:

Response to housewife comments, NRCC ads, being referred to as communist

Mohamed speaking about Sinema

Corey Harris speaks

Sinema identifies points of importance to her

 

Site links for more info:

DHS Funded Report Assesses Factors Related to Violent Extremism Among Somalis in Minneapolis-St. Paul

Southwest Border Violence: Issues In Identifying and Measuring Spillover Violence

Hamas: Background and Issues for Congress

Hezbollah: Background and Issues for Congress

Immigration Fiscal Impact Statement

HB 2582: Arizona’s attempt to stop Sharia Law in the state

Congressman Flake Issues Statement on Shooting of Border Patrol Agents in Naco, Arizona

Mesa, Arizona – Republican Congressman Jeff Flake, who represents Arizona’s Sixth District, today issued the following statement on the shooting of two border patrol agents, one who was killed and the other wounded, near the Brian Terry Station in the Tucson Sector of Border Patrol:

“Our thoughts and prayers are with the agents’ families at this difficult time,” said Flake. “Violence along Arizona’s border cannot be tolerated by the federal government any longer. The federal government must commit the necessary resources to secure the border, because that’s simply not happening right now.”

###

Arizona Correctional Officers Endorse Sheriff Paul Babeu

Florence, Ariz. – The Arizona Correctional Peace Officers Association (AZCPOA) formally endorsed Sheriff Paul Babeu for re-election. The labor organization represents 2,500 correction officers throughout Arizona, and many reside in Pinal County with their families.

Kevin McClellan, AZCPOA president said, “Paul Babeu is a great leader, who has delivered results. Not only have the emergency response times improved, Sheriff Paul has increased neighborhood patrols, focused on training and new technology to help his staff do their jobs. We support and proudly endorse Sheriff Paul Babeu for re-election. Sheriff Paul understands the need to ensure our prisons and county jails are secure to keep the criminals behind bars and away from our families. This requires proper facility and equipment maintenance, new technology and continual staff training to ensure that we can meet any threat.”

Sheriff Babeu said, “I’m proud to earn the endorsement from our correctional officers who help keep Pinal County safe. Many correctional and detention officers live locally and they need to know they have our full support and deep appreciation as protectors of our community.”

Sheriff Babeu continued, “Our own Pinal County Jail recently received national accreditation for excellent security, health care, programing, facility maintenance, food services and the quality of staff training. We run the best Jail in Arizona and this is evidenced in our perfect 100% audit rating. We are the only Arizona Jail to receive these high marks and earn national accreditation. I’m so proud of our detention officers and civilian staff that are so disciplined and work hard to protect our families.”

Sheriff Paul Babeu was named America’s 2011 Sheriff of the Year, the first time an Arizona Sheriff has been recognized with this prestigeous honor by National Sheriff’s Association. He reduced his budget by 10% while decreasing response times to emergencies by 50%. As a police officer, Babeu was awarded two medals for saving lives, and served as President of the Chandler Law Enforcement Association. A retired Major in the United States Army National Guard, he commanded Task Force Yuma, which reduced illegal border crossings by 97%, and served a tour of duty in Iraq.

Sheriff Babeu has an Associates Degree in Law Enforcement, Bachelor’s Degree in History and a Masters of Public Administration. Babeu served for two years as the President of the Arizona Sheriff’s Association and is a national leader on fighting illegal immigration, violent Mexican Drug Cartels and fighting the Obama/Holder administrations’ Fast and Furious gun running program. Sheriff Babeu is a member of the American Legion, VFW, board member for the Arizona Peace Officers Memoral and National Organization for Victims’ Rights.

Rep. Ben Quayle Discusses Border Security on Fox and Friends

YouTube Preview Image

Victory: Court Decision on Arizona’s Controversial Immigration Law SB 1070

By Former State Senator Karen Johnson

Many people are unhappy about the June 25th Court decision on Arizona’s controversial immigration law (SB1070) and the fact that the Court struck down three out of the four provisions of the bill that had been challenged. Now, if this were a game of tennis or baseball, losing three out of four would be a near defeat. But the ruling on SB1070 is not about sports, and a mere count of the provisions the court affirmed or struck down is not a measure of the success or failure of SB1070. The court’s ruling was, in fact, a great victory. There is no cause for mourning over SB1070.

First, it must be understood that SB1070 was a long, complex piece of legislation that ran for 19 pages and involved 10 sections of statute, some of which had multiple provisions in subsections. Some very important sections of SB1070 were never challenged, such as the sections on human smuggling and employee sanctions. Attempts were made early on to challenge Section 2 (a prohibition against “sanctuary cities”) and Section 5(a) (streetside solicitation by day workers). But these attempts to thwart SB1070 were fended off in early court proceedings before the suit arrived at the Supreme Court. So, of the 10 sections to the bill, a full six of them, many with multiple provisions, were either in effect from the start or had been exonerated by the time the challenge arrived at the doorsteps of the Supreme Court. That means that 60 percent of SB1070 had already been cleared before June 25. What remained for review by the Supreme Court were all of Sections 3 and 6, and a single piece each of Sections 2 and 5. Section 2(b) was upheld in the June 25th ruling, so comes off the table (70 percent of SB1070′s 10 sections now prevailing.). That leaves three items.

Sections 3 and 6 each address a single provision of law, and each were struck down by the Court. But Section 3 isn’t absolutely required in order for the states to arrest and detain illegal immigrants; it was just an additional tool. Nice to have, but not a key provision of SB1070. Section 6 was somewhat redundant because states already have authority for that provision and can work around the court’s decision. So, losing Sections 3 and 6 is not a fatal blow to SB1070.

Lastly, Section 5 had seven different provisions in it, but only one was challenged. The Court struck it down, so a mere one-seventh of Section 5 was invalidated by the June 25th ruling, while the remaining six-sevenths stood. So, in the end, three small provisions that were not terribly crucial were struck down by the court. In contrast, the most significant provision of SB1070, the one which allows police officers making traffic stops to check for residency status, was upheld. This provision was the heart of SB1070. It was by far the most important part of the bill, the most important item under judicial review, and the one to which the Justices gave the most attention during oral arguments. And that section was upheld unanimously by all eight Justices.

Despite SB1070′s near perfect score after two years of attacks by the Left, and despite the puny success of the opponents who were so enraged about the passage of the bill, the media blathered incoherently the day of the decision about how the court “gutted” the bill and overturned nearly all of it. It’s hard to know whether such trash reporting merely reflects the usual incompetence of the mainstream media or is an overt attempt to spin the story to cover up a very public defeat of the radical Left. The anti-American Hispanic groups, the Chamber of Commerce, and various other open borders advocates spent two years and a lot of ink trying to kill SB1070 without success. Considering that the lawsuit against SB1070 was brought by the current administration in Washington, then the administration shares with its Leftist friends the sting of defeat in the face of the court’s ruling. Our current leaders forsook the Constitution long ago. The court ruling on SB1070 is a stern reminder to them that even kings (and presidents) are not above the rule of law.

Among the most satisfying aspects of the June 25th ruling are the comments and support offered in the dissenting opinion of Justice Scalia. Scalia voted to uphold all four provisions of SB1070 that were under review, and he expresses an articulate defense of the law in his dissent. “Scalia eviscerates Kennedy’s explanation” for the majority, said Arizona Senate Majority Leader Andy Biggs, an attorney who helped to pass SB1070 in 2010 and reviewed the opinion as soon as it appeared on the Court’s website. Basically, reports Biggs, Scalia says that Kennedy’s legal logic was faulty, and that Justice Kennedy misunderstood aspects ofArizona law, a failure which colored his opinion.

While Scalia’s dissent is a minority opinion, it will likely be embraced by patriots because it gives hope to those who love our country and want to protect it from the malicious efforts of those who consistently tear away at the Constitution. Here are a few of Scalia’s comments in his dissent:

“There is no federal law prohibiting the States’ sovereign power to exclude [illegal aliens].”[1]

“… the Federal Government must live with the inconvenient fact that it is a Union of independent States, who have their own sovereign powers.”[2]

“… the States have the right to protect their borders against foreign nationals, just as they have the right to execute foreign nationals for murder.”[3]

“Arizona is entitled to have ‘its own immigration policy’ ­ including a more rigorous enforcement policy ­ so so long as that does not conflict with federal law.”[4]

“… there is no reason Arizona cannot make it a state crime for … any illegal alien … to remain in Arizona.”[5]

“In my view, the State can go further … and punish them for their unlawful entry and presence in Arizona.”[6]

“The Government complains that state officials might not heed ‘federal priorities’. Indeed they might not, particularly if those priorities include willful blindness or deliberate inattention to the presence of removable aliens in Arizona.”[7]

“The State has the sovereign power to protect its borders more rigorously if it wishes ….”[8]

“It is beyond question that a State may make a violation of federal law a violation of state law as well.”[9]

Scalia is scathing in his denunciation of the majority opinion:

“But to say, as the Court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of [federal law] that the President declines to enforce boggles the mind.”[10]

“What I do fear ­ and what Arizona and the States that suppport it fear ­ is that ‘federal policies’ of non-enfforcement will leave the States helpless before those evil effects of illegal immigration that the Court’s opinion dutifully recites in its prologue but leaves unremedied in its disposition.”[11]

Scalia’s scorn for the majority ruling condenses itself into a question about the Constitutional Convention in 1787: “Would the States conceivably have entered into the Union if the Constitution itself contained the Court’s holding?”[12]

His answer: “The delegates to the Grand Convention would have rushed to the exits.”[13]

Scalia exposes the main obstacle the states face in their struggle to contain illegal immigration: “A Federal Government that does not want to enforce the immigration laws as written, and leaves the States’ borders unprotected against immigrants whom those laws would exclude.”[14]

And he raises the question that needs to be faced by everyone who cares about our freedom:. “Are the sovereign States at the mercy of the Federal Executive’s refusal to enforce the Nation’s immigration laws?”[15]

The answer to that question, of course, is no. Our nation was built on the concept of “popular sovereignty,” meaning that power rests in individuals, not government. We confer certain limited powers on government for the purpose of maintaining an orderly society, not for the purpose of stealing our freedom. The Founders recognized the dangers of an all-powerful, overbearing federal government. They did not leave the states or individual citizens at the mercy of the Executive Branch.

But what is the remedy, then, for a government that refuses to obey the laws and the Constitution and does everything it can to thwart state efforts to do so? Senator Biggs calls the current leaders in Washington ”a rogue administration. They are acting outside the scope of their Constitutional authority.”

In times past, the remedy for rogue government was almost always, of necessity, an overthrow. But in a country like ours, that honors the rule of law, revolution isn’t the first option. The answer is (what else?): the rule of law! Even the most clever despot cannot outwit the rule of law. It is probably not possible to overstress the importance of this principle. Dallin H. Oaks, former Justice of the Utah Supreme Court, has said that, “All the blessings enjoyed under the United States Constitution are dependent upon the rule of law …. The rule of law is the basis of liberty.”[16] If that is the case, and I believe it is, then the remedy for a lawless government is to pursue the rule of law vigorously. The answer lies in the state legislatures, which are, after all, supposed to be stronger than the federal government anyway. SB1070 is a state assertion of the rule of law. Many other options exist, such as nullification and rejection of the federal money that makes the states slaves to federal mandates. Are we at the mercy of the Federal Government? Not on your life. Not unless the state legislatures choose to make us so.

The Supreme Court ruling on SB1070 was a step toward reestablishing respect for the rule of law. Our current Chief Executive (who has no respect whatsoever for the rule of law) has already announced that he will oppose efforts by Arizona to implement the provisions of SB1070 and will instruct ICE officials to refuse to cooperate with local law enforcement officers who apprehend illegal aliens. Arizona will need to stand up to such outrageous lawlessness on the part of the federal government.

The commander in chief is setting up a power struggle between the states and Washington, a national staring contest, so to speak, a giant game of Chicken. Whoever blinks first loses. But liberty never backs down. Freedom never loses in the long run. The pages of history are filled with tales of tyrants who went too far.[17] Tyrants always lose. Scalia closes his dissent with a blunt stand on behalf of state sovereignty that should give all states the courage to assert themselves and not back down to the federal government:

“Arizona bears the brunt of the country’s illegal immigration problem. Its citizens feel themselves under siege by large numbers of illegal immigrants who invade their property, strain their social services, and even place their lives in jeopardy. Federal officials have been unable to remedy the problem, and indeed have recently shown that they are unwilling to do so. Thousands of Arizona’s estimated 400,000 illegal immigrants—including not just children but men and women under 30 ”are now assured immunity from enforcement, and will be able to compete openly with Arizona citizens for employment. Arizona has moved to protect its sovereignty—not in contradiction of federal law, but in completee compliance with it. The laws under challenge here do not extend or revise federal immigration restrictions, but merely enforce those restrictions more effectively. If securing its territory in this fashion is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign State. I dissent.”[18]

Hurray for Justice Scalia! Hurray for the Constitution! Hurray for SB1070!

(c) 2012 Karen Johnson - All Rights Reserved

Footnotes:

1. Supreme Court decision on SB1070. Arizona et al v. United States, No. 11-182., Scalia Dissent, p. 7. [Link]
2. Ibid., p. 8. [Link]
3. Ibid., p. 8. [Link]
4. Ibid., p. 12. [Link]
5. Ibid., p. 12. [Link]
6. Ibid., p. 13. [Link]
7. Ibid., p. 13. [Link]
8. Ibid., p. 13. [Link]
9. Ibid., p. 14. [Link]
10. Ibid., p. 21. [Link]
11. Ibid., p. 16. [Link]
12. Ibid., p. 21. [Link]
13. Ibid., p. 22. [Link]
14. Ibid., p. 21 [Link]
15. Ibid., p. 21. [Link]
16. Dallin H. Oaks, former Justice of the Utah Supreme Court, “The Divinely Inspired Constitution,” Ensign, February, 1992.
17. See “The Utah Compact and the Rule of Law,” by Karen Johnson, Sept. 14, 2011.
18. Supreme Court decision on SB1070. Arizona et al v. United States, No. 11-182., Scalia Dissent, p. 22.

Quayle Introduces Bill to Stop Obama’s Immigration Power Play

Ben Quayle

PHOENIX, AZ- On Monday, June 18, Congressman Ben Quayle introduced the “Prohibiting Back-Door Amnesty Act of 2012”. This bill prohibits the Department of Homeland Security from picking winners and losers and blatantly ignoring our laws.

“President Obama’s decision to alter our nation’s immigration laws undermines border security and our entire immigration system. It is disappointing that the President of the United States is so desperate that he has to launch backdoor amnesty orders in an attempt to pander to voters.”

“The American people want their border secured and that must be accomplished now, as I have insisted for two years. The president has refused to honor that plain duty of his office, and now seeks to exercise power he does not have for his own political purposes. His first obligation is to the Constitution, and all of the American people, and not to his re-election calculus.”

“My bill, the ‘Prohibiting Back-Door Amnesty Act of 2012’ will nullify the immigration policy changes outlined by President Obama and Secretary Napolitano. In addition to stopping these policy changes, the bill will also prevent any similar executive overreaches from occurring. It’s time to send a clear message to the President that his clear disdain for our nation’s laws and reversal on border security enforcement will not be accepted.”

—————————–

Congressman Ben Quayle was the first to introduce legislation to counteract Obama’s immigration edict. He continues to gain attention for his leadership on the issue of immigration enforcement and border security. The immigration enforcement advocacy group “Numbers USA” recently granted Rep. Quayle an ‘A’ grade, ranking him the highest in the Arizona delegation.

###

Wil Cardon: Congressman Flake & President Obama: Advocates for Amnesty

Congressman Flake says he does not support comprehensive immigration reform.

BUT…

YouTube Preview Image

In 2007, Congressman Flake co-sponsored a bill promoting comprehensive immigration reform which included amnesty for illegal immigrants. (H.R. 1645)

Sounds a lot like President Obama’s decision to grant amnesty to more than 1 million illegal immigrants…

See For Yourself:

To read President Obama’s latest amnesty plan, click here.

To read Congressman Flake’s STRIVE Act, click here.

To read Wil Cardon’s plan to secure our borders and enforce our country’s rule of law, click here.

###

Congressman Flake Applauds Passage of Secure Border Act

Operational Control in Each Border Sector is Key to Achieving Border Security

Washington, D.C. – Republican Congressman Jeff Flake, who represents Arizona’s Sixth District, today praised the passage of H.R. 1299, the Secure Border Act, introduced by Congresswoman Candice Miller of Michigan.

The bill directs the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to create for congressional approval a strategy for gaining operational control of the northern and southern U.S. borders.

“Given that the Obama Administration has given up reporting the level of operational control on the border, it’s no wonder Congress has to force them to come up with an approved plan to achieve it,” said Flake.

In 2011, Congressman Flake introduced in the House H.R. 1507, the Border Security Enforcement Act of 2011, which is focused on achieving operational control of the southern U.S. border by increasing border resources. Senators John McCain and Jon Kyl introduced the legislation in the Senate. Among the 10 key provisions of the bill is the deployment of up to 6,000 National Guard troops and 5,000 additional Border Patrol agents to the United States-Mexico border by 2016. It would create additional Border Patrol stations along the southwest border and six additional permanent Border Patrol Forward Operating Bases and would upgrade existing bases.

###

Gaither Martin’s Muddled Immigration Message

Gaither Martin of Round Valley is running for Congress in CD1. His message on immigration as portrayed on his web site is clear enough: “I will not support amnesty of any kind while in Congress. . .”

However, Martin, in meeting with local citizens, spoke of a process within which illegal aliens can reach citizenship status. His audience interpreted this position as tantamount to amnesty. Back pedaling, Martin stated his position was not amnesty but he apparently did not convince his audience.

According to the White Mountain Independent, this is how the exchange with the local tea party group went:

“He then proceeded to try to describe a process through which current illegal residents can go to eventually reach citizenship. The audience construed this as amnesty, which they were vocally against.

Martin insisted it is not the blanket, ‘no-work’ amnesty that occurred during the Reagan and Clinton administrations.”

Martin’s muddled message is strong on paper, weak in person.

Questions will likely continue regarding whether Martin is for amnesty or against amnesty. The question is integral to Martin’s stance on border security and national security, which are synonymous in the minds of many.

Congressman Flake Pans Obama Administration’s New Border Strategy

Operational Control Should Be Metric for Success

Washington, D.C. – Republican Congressman Jeff Flake, who represents Arizona’s Sixth District, today criticized the border security proposal outlined by the Department of Homeland Security’s Chief of U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

The five-year plan moves away from operational control as the metric for measuring effective and sustainable border security and shifts the focus of border security from being resource-based to risk-based.

“Unless the federal government has operational control, the border is not secured,” said Flake. “When the Tucson Sector looks like the Yuma Sector, the Obama Administration can start patting itself on the back. But to abandon operational control as the metric of success now makes me question the seriousness of the Administration’s proposal.”

“We have a plan in Congress that would put the federal government on the path to operational control – The Border Security Enforcement Act.”

In 2011, Congressman Flake introduced in the House H.R. 1507, the Border Security Enforcement Act of 2011, which is focused on increasing resources along the Southern U.S. border. Senators John McCain and Jon Kyl introduced the legislation in the Senate. Among the 10 key provisions of the bill is the deployment of up to 6,000 National Guard troops and 5,000 additional Border Patrol agents to the United States-Mexico border by 2016. It would create additional Border Patrol stations along the southwest border and six additional permanent Border Patrol Forward Operating Bases and would upgrade existing bases.

###