The Shocking Link Between Tom Horne and An Alleged Fast & Furious Co-Conspirator

Campaign finance reports occasionally reveal a donation or two that can place a political candidate in the awkward position of having to defend a donor. Oftentimes the candidate is unaware of the controversy until notified by a persistent pesky reporter or the opposing campaigns.

However, it’s also not often that a donor rises to the level of being at the center of what many believe is the biggest scandal of the scandal-plagued Obama administration.

Once such donation is to Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne, who accepted a political contribution of $500 from Patrick Cunningham on February 13, 2014. If Cunningham’s name sounds familiar it’s because he was named as a co-conspirator in the Fast and Furious scandal.

The Chair of the House committee that investigated the Fast and Furious scandal, Congressman Darrell Issa, went as far as to say that “Mr. Cunningham may have engaged in criminal conduct with respect to Fast and Furious…” and that his refusal to testify before congress was a “…major escalation of the department’s culpability.”

Justice Department officials even claimed Cunningham misinformed them about Fast and Furious. The conservative local blog SeeingRed AZ previously covered the scandal here.

The Operation Fast & Furious “gun walking” saga placed hundreds of guns into the hands of Mexican drug cartels. The scandal had a distinct Arizona connection. The firearms were sold and bought in the Phoenix and Tucson metro areas, and ultimately one the guns was used to murder Arizona Border Patrol agent Brian Terry.

Arizona U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke, the former Chief of Staff to former Governor Janet Napolitanoran the Fast and Furious operation. Burke eventually walked away from charges and resigned from his post despite his fingerprints being all over the scandal. Many considered Burke to be the sacrificial lamb for the Obama Administration.

Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa criticized the U.S. Attorney’s office including Cunningham and Burke for their obstruction in the case:

“The U.S. Attorney’s Office advised ATF that agents needed to meet unnecessarily strict evidentiary standards in order to speak with suspects, temporarily detain them, or interdict weapons,” Chairman Issa said. “ATF’s reliance on this advice from the U.S. Attorney’s Office during Fast and Furious resulted in many lost opportunities to interdict weapons.”

Advice and management from people like Dennis Burke and Patrick Cunningham.

Patrick Cunningham worked directly under Burke as the chief of the criminal division. Cunningham was called before Issa’s committee to testify, but ultimately he plead the 5th rather than incriminate himself, Burke, and members of the Obama Administration. Cunningham was allowed to resign his position and eventually he accepted a position working for HighGround Public Affairs in Phoenix. Ironically, HighGround now serves as a campaign consultant to Tom Horne’s re-election bid.

Cunningham provided the inaccurate (or false) information to Senator Grassley and the Justice Department that the ATF (which was overseeing the program with the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Arizona) never intentionally allowed the the guns to cross the border or knowingly allowed the sale of weapons to suspicious straw buyers. That was obviously later proven false and the Justice Department later took the unprecedented step of pulling the letter they sent to Congress.

While Tom Horne attacks his Republican opponent, Mark Brnovich, for a $120 donation made to a Democrat back in 2006, Tom Horne is actively soliciting donations from Democrats.

Tom Horne is running on a message of border security and fighting back against Obama this cycle, but how can you truly trust Tom Horne to secure the border and fight the overreach of the federal government when he’s receiving financial support from the very people who were engaged in the Obama Administration’s Fast and Furious cover up?

Editor’s note and correction: This post was in error regarding the political affiliation of Patrick Cunningham. A representative of High Ground clarified Cunningham has been a registered Republican since the early 70’s.

Scott Smith sends mixed message on immigration crisis

Scott SmithTuesday, gubernatorial candidate and former Mesa Mayor Scott Smith announced he would race to the border Wednesday in order to meet with Nogales Mayor Arturo Garino. The reason for their meeting? – to hold a joint press conference to discuss the transportation and “dumping” of immigrant children by the Border Patrol in an old refurbished produce warehouse in Nogales.

In his statement, Mayor Scott Smith called the Obama Administration’s policy of dumping immigrants in Arizona a “failure of leadership” and “the absolute height of stupidity.” The former Mesa mayor also called for Washington to fix our broken border and immigration system.

Smith’s “rush to the border” and his subsequent message following the presser, seem to conflict with his longstanding position on immigration issues and even statements made by Nogales Mayor Garino who was supposedly at the same press conference as Smith.

It was Mayor Scott Smith who opposed Arizona’s effort to enforce federal immigration law through the passage of SB1070 in 2010. This is the same mayor who ran into trouble with Sheriff Joe Arpaio when it was discovered that the City of Mesa was contracting with companies who hired illegal immigrants. Apparently, now that Smith is running for higher office, he’s having to finesse his position to attract hard-line anti-immigration voters. A little pandering only goes so far. Well, maybe not so far in Santa Cruz County.

Smith was also in conflict with Mayor Garino’s statements on Monday when Garino said that all the children being held in the temporary warehouse were in good care and he was comfortable with their living conditions. Keep in mind that Mayor Garino’s record on immigration is quite dismal.  During a private meeting with President Obama, Garino told the president, “I have your back” on comprehensive immigration reform. Garino also argued that the border was secure and criticized illegal crossing prosecution. Yesterday, Garino told the Nogales International that federal officials informed him more children would be processed through the Nogales facility throughout the rest of the summer. He noted after a tour of the facility that, “Border Patrol was doing a great job.”

While the Obama Administration handed the State of Arizona another election year issue, Scott Smith is only nine days late to weigh in on the crisis. Since it was revealed that DHS and the US Border Patrol began the operation over two weeks ago, Arizona officials have already called for federal action. In fact, last Monday, Congressman Paul Gosar at the urging of Governor Brewer and State Treasurer, Doug Ducey, called for a congressional investigation with the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee into the shipping and detention of immigrants in Arizona. Congressman Darrell Issa, chairman of the committee, has pledged to look into the situation as quickly as possible.

Where gubernatorial candidate Scott Smith stands on this issue is anyone’s guess. His opposition to enforcement of immigration law as a mayor tells one story. His support for stronger enforcement as a candidate tells another story. It is an election year after all and finding the right message to appeal to voters is foremost in the mind of most candidates. Let’s hope the voters choose based on proven leadership rather than on finessed messaging.

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.

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