Poll: Was the defeat of Russell Pearce a “green light” to comprehensive immigration reform including amnesty?
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: May 26, 2011
CONTACT: Mike Philipsen
Court Backs “Fair and Legal Employment Act”
(Phoenix, State Capitol) —The U.S. Supreme Court this morning upheld an Arizona law that penalizes companies for knowingly hiring illegal aliens and requires firms to use the E-verify system.
The law came out of HB 2779, the Fair and Legal Employment Act, sponsored in 2007 by then-Rep. Russell Pearce, now Senate President.
“Arizona was the first state in the country to enact legislation to prevent illegal aliens from working. Now, the highest court in the land has given its legal authority to this law. Arizonans should be proud,” says Pres. Pearce.
Then-Gov. Janet Napolitano signed the bill into law, but that was only because of the threat of a tougher initiative going to the ballot. “Make no mistake, Gov. Napolitano did NOT support this legislation, and serving in the Obama administration, she has been fighting us all along the way. Now that a huge majority of Arizonans are behind this, she is trying to rewrite history, and suggest she is a strong supporter. We know the truth,” says Pres. Pearce.
In his ruling for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts said the employer sanctions law “falls well within the confines of the authority Congress chose to leave to the states.”
“That is an important statement. That sends a pretty clear signal to me that we are headed for U.S. Supreme Court support for SB 1070, as well,” says Pearce. “This is a huge victory for America and the American worker. It is a defeat for the open-borders, profits-over-patriotism crowd. It is a death penalty for employers who continue to hire illegals and displace American workers.”
Conflicting headlines today in two local new sources:
“Hispanic buying power hits $34B in Arizona.” This appears in the Phoenix Business Journal written by Lynn Ducey and details the influence of the Hispanic community in Arizona.
The second headline is from The Arizona Capitol Times: “Latinos face cultural, structural barriers in building wealth.” Written by Alyssa Newcomb, this article details the financial barriers and hardship of Latinos seeking to save and build wealth.
The first article touts how the Hispanic community is growing in influence among the business community:
“What this shows is that we not only matter, but we matter more every day,” said Hispanic Chamber Interim President and CEO, Gonzalo de la Melena.
The later article bemoans the difficulties Hispanics face in the financial services industry due to citizenship, culture and language barriers. Here’s a quote from that article:
According to a Filene Research Institute report by Barbara Robles, a former Arizona State University professor who is now a senior researcher for the Federal Reserve System, the gaps on a series of median financial indicators continues to widen as the population ages.
The sharp divide between the net worth of Latinos and the rest of the population creates a group that is poorly equipped to deal with emergencies or retirement. Robles’ report says that for every dollar of non-Hispanic white net worth, Latinos hold only 40 cents.
“The border remains a military zone. We remain a hunted people. Now you think you have a destiny to fulfill in the land that historically has been ours for forty thousand years. And we’re a new Mestizo nation. And they want us to discuss civil rights. Civil rights. What law made by white men to oppress all of us of color, female and male. This is our homeland. We cannot – we will not- and we must not be made illegal in our own homeland. We are not immigrants that came from another country to another country. We are migrants, free to travel the length and breadth of the Americas because we belong here. We are millions. We just have to survive. We have an aging white America. They are not making babies. They are dying. It’s a matter of time. The explosion is in our population.“
Professor Angel Gutierrez, University of Texas at Arlington, founder of La Raza Unida Party; 1995
Here are a couple of little known quotes on immigration from another point of view.
“In recent years a new International System has been developing, oriented toward the establishment of norms and principles of universal jurisdiction, above national sovereignty, in the areas of what is called the New Agenda…we have to confront ….. what I dare to call the Anglo-Saxon prejudice against the establishment of supra-national organizations.” — Mexican President Vicente Fox Club XXI, Hotel Eurobuilding, Madrid, Spain 5/16/02
“I have proudly affirmed that the Mexican nation extends beyond the territory enclosed by its borders and that Mexican migrants are an important – a very important – part of this.” – Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo, Chicago on July 23, 1997
“The effort to unite the economies of the Americas into a single free-trade area began at the Summit of the Americas which was held in December 1994 in Miami. The heads of state and government of the 34 democracies in the region agreed to construct the Free Trade Areas of the Americas (FTAA) in which barriers to trade and investment will be progressively eliminated. They agreed to complete negotiations towards this agreement by the year 2005 and to achieve substantial progress toward building the FTAA by 2000.” So begins the history of what President George W. Bush called “The Century of the Americas” (Summit of the Americas, 1994).
Lets now consider some of the following goals and objectives of the FTAA as taken from their website:
Share best practices and technologies with respect to increasing citizen participation in the electoral process, including voter education, the modernization and simplification of voter registration…” [remember motor-voter and the ubiquitous early vote by mail]
Support initiatives designed to strengthen linkages among migrant communities abroad and their places of origin and promote cooperative mechanisms that simplify and speed up the transfer of migrant remittances to their country of origin. [do you get the idea that because Mexico is bankrupt and ungovernable, remittances from the U.S. are about all that's keeping that country stable?]
Support programs of cooperation in immigration procedures for cross-border labor markets and the migration of workers, both in countries of origin and destination, as a means to enhance economic growth in full cognizance of the role that cooperation in education and training can play in mitigating any adverse consequences of the movement of human capital from smaller and less developed states into … [I think you get the idea where that one goes]
Strive to ensure that migrants have access to basic social services, consistent with each country’s internal legal framework… [now you know why AHCCCS is subsidized by the Federal government to some extent]
In Mexico’s official “National Plan of Development 2001-2006″ specific strategies for expanding the nation’s political reach far beyond the U.S. / Mexico border are outlined. Through out the lengthy document, globalization is frequently referenced, however again, the devil’s in the details. To achieve their national plan, the government of Mexico reliles on those of its peoples migrating into the United States who, in 2002 sent back to Mexico over $14 billion dollars of hard U.S. currency. These remittances as of 2006/07 were Mexico’s #1 source of foreign capital, replacing tourism and oil. This of course isn’t counting drug money pouring into that country.
In 2001 the Mexican National Congress established dual citizenship for all Mexican national living abroad, legal or otherwise. In the words of Mexican Congressman Manuel de la Cruz, an American citizen elected to the Mexican National Congress in 2002 and residing in California, “There are 23 million Mexicans in the U.S. that need a voice in Mexico.” (Washington Times, Ken Bensinger)
In a 2000 FoxNews interview, Mexican President Vicente Fox made Mexico’s intentions crystal clear:
“I’m talking about a community of North America, an integrated agreement of Canada, the United States, and Mexico in the long term, 20, 30, 40 years from now. And this means that some of the steps we can take are, for instance, to agree that in five years we will make this convergence on economic variables. That may mean in 10 years we can open up that border when we have reduced the gap in salaries and income.”
Now does it all make more sense? Now do you have an idea why the Obama Administration is suing the State of Arizona? Now do you know why our Southern Border is open and our Federal government has no intention of doing anything unless they achieve an Amnesty Program?
And why John McCain is needed back in the U.S. Senate? Is it beginning to make some sense? Its not about race and its not about human rights – its about globalism and the Free Trade Area of the Americas.
Everyone should know that at the Arizona Farm Bureau Governor’s Forum, candidates were given the questions weeks in advance. Buzz Mills was actually reading his answers.
See for yourself.
We still know nothing about Buzz Mills, hopefully we will be finding out alot real soon.
Here is today’s yellow sheets with Mill’s spin-meister attempting to pull the wool over the voter’s eyes.
MILLS ‘MISSPOKE’ ON EMPLOYER SANCTIONS
ARTICLE POSTED 4.22.2010 | 4:05 PM
At a recent GOP gubernatorial candidate forum, Mills told the Arizona
Farm Bureau why he didn’t like employer sanctions. “I’m not your guy
for employer sanctions,” Mills told the crowd on April 8. “That is a
failure on the part of the feds that has made you the policeman. We
need a different system.” Despite his apparent distaste for employer
sanctions, campaign manager Camilla Strongin, said Mills supports the
legislation and simply misspoke at the candidate forum. “If you spent
as many days giving speeches, unfortunately sometimes you get your
words mixed up,” she said. Strongin said Mills didn’t change his
stance on employer sanctions because of the crowd he was speaking to,
and said his comments were meant to criticize federal inaction on
illegal immigration. “If the federal government was doing their job,
then it would take the pressure off business owners,” she said.
WASHINGTON — The estimated time when whites will no longer make up the majority of Americans has been pushed back eight years — to 2050 — because the recession and stricter immigration policies have slowed the flow of foreigners into the U.S.
It was once said, by the losing side of the last major debate over immigration, ‘… they who control a nation’s immigration policy control the future of that nation.’
That was said in 1924 just prior to the passage of the Immigration Act of 1924. Many are unaware that in the nearly two decades leading up to this legislation , the issue of immigration had been building to a crescendo of national passion and debate. So what’s changed?
Consider carefully the policies, cultural practices, religious orientation, and achievements of the United States prior to the last huge wave of population migration onto our shores. This flood of humanity, many responding to the words on the Statue of Liberty, lasted for just a bit more than one generation, about 30 years.
During that time our population grew dramatically and peoples mostly from Eastern Europe and the Mediterranean region fled oppression and sought new political expression within our borders. Certainly they did not assimilate immediately. However, its been now about three generations and look at the changes in our policies, cultural practices, religious orientation and society today. The wave of immigration shown in this chart certainly changed America.
Now consider the abortion chart below (provided courtesy of the Alan Guttmacher Institute, special research affiliate of Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
There have been more than 32.5 million abortions in the twenty one years since the U.S. Supreme Court legalized unrestricted abortion on January 22, 1973.
Next consider the chart of illegal immigration into the United States – presently supported by some U.S. Senators from border states and entirely supported by the previous U.S. Administration.
Next consider the chart of illegal immigration into the United States – presently supported by some U.S. Senators from border states and entirely supported by the previous U.S. Administration.
Unlike any culture in history, we are aborting our children. Have we bought into the Self-Hate so much that we are committing a protracted national and cultural suicide?
America can you handle the CHANGE? You’ll have to. Consider once again that we are aborting our native born population and importing their replacements. The numbers speak for themselves.
Presently the Department of Homeland Security estimates the population of individuals residing within the United States now to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 12 million souls. This does not include children of undocumented residents. They are counted as legal citizens under a Supreme Court interpretation of the Constitution.
A glimpse of the past is necessary once again here. In 1964 the Republicans passed the Civil Rights Act, and under Republican President Richard Nixon the first Affirmative Action programs were instituted in 1971. There are 2 cases ruled by the SCOTUS that directly shaped the outcome of these actions; Griggs v. Duke Power Company in 1971 and the University of California v. Bakke in 1978 in which a minority student was admitted to the university’s medical school with a C+ undergraduate grade average over a non-minority student who held an A- undergraduate GPA.
The entire point of this trip down memory lane is to understand where we are as a people today. To understand why the Associate Press in conjunction with other mainstream media chose to highlight the story that is linked to in the opening paragraph of this blog. Why does it matter when the whites become a minority? If we are moving towards a color blind society, it should not. Yet there it was in big headlines on Yahoo.
Please understand, Veritas is not really concerned about daily life in the North American Union much after 2040. For me the point is moot. My hope is to bequeath to posterity an independent, sovereign and color blind United States in which the innocent unborn native population will realize the American Dream. Unchecked immigration is no substitute for a healthy birthrate.
Really think about it. Has immigration become a substitute for a natural birth rate? And consider the impacts of a generation of immigration, remembering the first huge wave of immigration from Eastern Europe and the changes it has wrought in all sectors of our society and has influenced our view of government and society.
So what might the United States look like in 3 generations following the mid-1980s, or a decade before there is no more ethnic majority? And what cultural, political and religious changes will their posterity on our shores bring? Here are the sources for the look of the future.
|Country of Origin (January 2006)|
|Latin & Central Amer.||3,000,000||24%|
|Europe + Canada||720,000||6%|
|Rest of World||480,000||4%|
|Often we are unaware of events happening on the other side of the Atlantic. This has been posted, so that you may consider the issue of “Defamation of Religions” as viewed by the Islamic world.
Of course, little thought is given by them to reciprocity in regards to Christians…
|(Geneva, Switzerland) – The European Centre for Law and Justice (ECLJ), the international affiliate of the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), has told the United Nations Human Rights Council that it is pleased that the “Defamation of Religions” concept being promoted by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) is continuing to lose support.
It became clear that the OIC countries – lead by Egypt and Pakistan – continue to see an erosion of support which became evident during a public discussion before the U.N. Human Rights Council on September 30th. During that session, discussion focused on the most recent report “on the manifestations of defamation of religions, and in particular on the serious implications of Islamophobia, on the enjoyment of all rights by their followers.” (Document A/HRC/12/38)
This report, presented by Githu Muigai, the new Special Rapporteur “on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance” advocates for a “change of paradigm” – has shifted the debate from the “sociological notion of the defamation of religions to the human rights and legal concept of incitement to racial and religious hatred.” This legal concept is grounded in relevant international, regional and national instruments, in particular references are made to article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), and to articles 19 and 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which proscribe incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.
The ECLJ, in its oral presentation before the Human Right Council, expressed its satisfaction to see the gradual abandonment of the concept of “defamation of religion” and the shift toward a legal approach. The ECLJ has been advocating for two years in favor of this legal approach and considers this change as very positive. The ECLJ representative recalled that anti-blasphemy laws are very often implemented in a totally arbitrary way and serve as a pretext for persecution of religious minorities – mostly Christians – in countries like Pakistan, for example.
“It is clear that the continuing push to protect Islam with this ‘defamation of religions’ concept amounts to a dangerous effort to eradicate current international standards on freedom of expression, said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ECLJ and ACLJ. “We’re already getting ready for the next phase in the challenge over the ‘defamation of religions’ which will intensify at the end of October at the U.N. General Assembly in New York, when the OIC is expected to once again introduce its ‘defamation of religions’ resolution. We will continue to educate member nations about the dangers of this concept.”
During the discussion, the OIC countries strongly opposed this shift away from the concept of defamation of religions, explaining that the issue is “too complex” to be addressed by the legal norm of non-incitement to national, racial or religious hatred. In fact, it’s clear that the goal of the Islamic countries is nothing less that to internationally defend and safeguard the “name of Mohamed” and the religion of Islam against any form of irreverence or criticism, by limiting the freedom of expression actually protected in international human rights laws. That places current international legal standards on freedom of expression at risk.
The ECLJ has been working to educate and inform member nations about the dangers of the concept of “defamation of religion”, a concept often used to silence religious minorities – including Christianity in many countries. A growing number of organizations and legal experts recognize now the threat of this notion to religious freedom.
In June, the European Center for Law and Justice had already been invited to submit to the U.N. High Commissioner of Human Rights a detailed legal analysis on the same issue.
“I support legal and orderly immigration. Enforced borders and orderly entry are prime factors that define a nation; that is my position,” declared the candidate.
His opposition, however opined at length to the contributions of immigrants, carefully omitting the word “illegal” and whined about the impossibility of stemming the hemorrhage from south of the border.
This is the short form of today’s critical national immigration debate.
It’s all about growth. Today, three-fourths of the U.S. population growth is directly due to immigration – both legal and illegal (including their birth rate). At this rate of increase, our present population of about 288 million will nearly double to over 500 million in less than 45 years. With them they bring their labor, but they also bring their cultural attitudes. One only has to study the last great wave of immigration from 1890 to 1920 to see the changes they wrought in our society, culture and future.
But where is that growth? Notice it is among new immigrants — both legal and otherwise. The net population of Western European Americans is aging and declining. By the year 2050 the United States will be a very different place. Here’s an example of what I mean, this new demographic is generally Christian, Pro-Life, and not too interested in Gay Marriage. Of course, if an devout immigrant Muslim father learns that his two twin 9 year old daughters are being exposed to the LBGT agenda in school, who knows what he’s apt to do about it.
Two historical events directly impacted this current immigration explosion: the Immigration Act of 1965, which radically altered traditional U.S. immigration policy, and the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. The 1986 Act, under then Vice President George Bush, granted amnesty to an estimated three million illegal aliens in exchange for strict sanctions against employers hiring workers without documentation. The 1986 Act has been enforced very sparingly if at all in the years since.
In 1925, during the last wave of major immigration, it was noted that, “… they who control a country’s immigration policy controls the future of that country.” What does that mean for our present future as a people? [and as something fun to do, find out where the quote came from, I know where, but its much better if you look it up for yourselves.]
Just how many sides are there to the immigration issue? You might as well try to figure out how many sides to a sphere, just try to find something that current illegal immigration doesn’t impact.
Immigration impacts (in no particular order):
· Urban sprawl
· Education quality
· Infrastructure development (roads, transportation and energy needs)
· Wages, jobs, and the legal system
· Crime, police, the courts, and the prison system
· The environment and open spaces
· Housing costs
· Political power as individuals with little or no background in our Constitutional Republic begin to organize politically and demand a voice in the process
· The religious institutions of our society
· Our welfare and social services
· Our taxes
· Our social security
· Our health care systems (and our health)
· Our language
· National Park System, which just announced spending federal funds to explore ways to increase park attractiveness to new migrants!
All of these facets to immigration require resources; they cost money. Where are those resources going to come from? A single undocumented worker’s family often has a single wage earner at the semi-skilled end of the wage scale and, from that income a wife and children (and grandparents) must be supported. The tax revenues simply aren’t there to support all the social costs of the larger extended families and special needs based on the taxes derrived from the wage earner.
In simple terms contrast the immigrant just here from Sinaloa having his mother-in-law, his wife, and six children … with the mid-50 year old childless university couple looking forward to retirement. Now tell me this is a single point issue.
The bottom line is, an equitable system must be established to deal with labor migration in North America. I for one would love to enjoy the political, social, and economic benefits that migrants in the US enjoy – in Mexico. Unfortunately it doesn’t seem to work two ways (yet).
Mesa police chief, George Gascon, is scheduled to testify before the House Judiciary committee tomorrow. The committee is holding hearings regarding local law enforcement’s involvement in enforcing U.S. immigration laws. Mesa is Arizona’s third largest city and a haven for ILLEGAL immigrants because, in part, Chief Gascon (like his Phoenix counterpart, Jack Harris) is a committed to non-enforcement of our immigration laws.
2008 was an embarrassing year for Gascon. Crime sweeps last April conducted by the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Department in Mesa netted dozens of ILLEGALS. All Gascon could do was grumble in a letter to Sheriff Joe Arpaio saying: “….these operations have attracted a substantial level of attention by groups in support and against your anti-immigration policies.” “Anti-immigration policies”? If there were any doubts about where Gascon stood on ILLEGAL immigration he really let the cat out of the bag on that one! More embarrassment was to follow.
In October sheriff’s deputies armed with 25 warrants conducted a pre-dawn roundup in the Mesa city hall and in the library arresting over a dozen persons here illegally using stolen identification and employed by a cleaning service under contract with the city. The roundup was the culmination of an investigation that lasted several months and began when a former city employee reported to the Mesa police that the company was hiring ILLEGAL aliens. When no action was taken the former employee tipped off the sheriff’s department which infiltrated the company with an undercover person claiming to be here illegally. Say what you will about the sheriff’s tactics but with this many ILLEGALS right under Gascon’s nose how could he be so inert?
There is no question where Chief Gascon stands on ILLEGAL immigration issues. In both word and deed he is a firm believer in non-enforcement of our immigration laws. So, I will predict in summary form what Gascon will tell the committee tomorrow: he will say that local enforcement of immigration laws is dangerous, anti-immigrant and, probably, racist.
Facts about this incident are scanty but apparently Phoenix police raided a private residence this past Thursday or Friday thought to be in conjunction with an internal investigation. According to one report the police seized all of the computers, routers and modems in the residence. The warrant was reported to be missing the page that specified the reasons for the search and seizure. The residence is the home of a man who runs the blog: BadPhoenixCops.com, a blog that is hyper-critical of Phoenix police administration, especially the assistant city manager for public safety, Jack Harris.
I scanned through the blog, it’s generally an unsavory read, but it does bring up some noteworthy questions about the activities of the PPD’s upper management. I’m in no hurry to conclude that there has been any abuse of power by the police. The facts, once they all come to light, will eventually answer that question.
For the moment it is interesting to me that our state’s largest newspaper, the Arizona Republic, has so little interest in the story, despite the suspicious smell of retaliation. I predict that if the Republic ever gets around to covering the story it will be much different than their coverage of Sheriff Joe (unless the owner of the blog is an ILLEGAL immigrant.) The reason for this is that Jack Harris has been extremely helpful in creating a city environment where ILLEGALS know that they can live free of fear that our immigration laws will be enforced. When it comes to immigration laws Phoenix is an enforcement-free zone.
Note to Attorney General Terry Goddard: the raid may be worth investigating. Surely you could link it to Phoenix mayor, Phil Gordon. Take down Phil now and you’d have one less opponent in a future governor’s race.
Maybe the raid will merit an investigation by the Obama/Napolitano justice department? Not likely, unlike the sheriff, Janet left Arizona on good terms with Jack Harris.
One thing Democrats have learned to do well—a skill that Republicans unfortunately have yet to acquire—is the use of government power to destroy the opposing political party. Why, our very own Arizona attorney general (a Democrat), Terry “Barney Fife” Goddard prosecuted Republicans faster than we could elect them.
Now that the Democrats control Washington they’ve taken their act on the road to target Republican Sheriff Joe Arpaio for alleged civil rights violations. A “civil rights violation” appears to be defined by Democrats as any act done by Republicans that Democrats don’t like. Too bad the Bush justice department missed the opportunity to investigate Goddard’s civil rights violations—maybe we could do that next time around?
Could it be that the sheriff is interfering with Democrat plans to turn these ILLEGALS into perpetual Democrat voters? Once the ILLEGALS are on government assistance they’ll be forever Democrat voters—once amnesty is granted. The next time Janet Napolitano is in town busily ignoring our open southern border we should ask her.
What is most troubling about the political takedown of the sheriff is the silence of our congressional Republican delegation. Where is McCain, Kyl and Flake? Where’s the angry press conference?
Why aren’t they demanding an investigation of the Obama justice department?
It would be nice to see a prominent Republican with a spine (just once!)—be willing to denounce this dangerous and naked use of government power to destroy our sheriff. This investigation is nothing more than an attempt by a Democrat controlled federal government to destroy a Republican—a Republican who is doing his job.
Sadly, because McCain, Kyl and Flake are more interested in amnesty than enforcement the sheriff may get thrown under the bus! If this happens no one is going to be willing to enforce the law regarding ILLEGAL immigration. By the way, when do we get to investigate a Democrat for “civil rights violations”?
Arpaio protesters have been getting more media coverage lately, and for little reason. Overreported in the mainstream media, supposedly “thousands” or “hundreds” depending on which account you read protested against him Saturday. What the articles fail to tell you is about once a year, illegal immigrants and their supporters have a march to support illegal immigration. Last year the turnout was dismal, probably due to the fact that many illegal immigrants have left the state, and Arpaio is now monitoring the parades, so they’d be risking arrest if caught violating the law. Relative to the first illegal immigrant march about three years ago, which sources report had 30,000 protesters, this one was actually sparsely attended.
The Republic’s pro-illegal immigrant liberal columnist E.J. Montini wrote a column yesterday criticizing the protesters for getting their facts wrong, discrediting their argument by trying to portray Arpaio negatively for things that weren’t accurate, like comparing him to a former racist Sheriff (the title of the march was “Stop Immigrant Bashing in Arizona. No More Bull Connors!”):
Joe Arpaio is no “Bull” Connor. Saying so is not only inaccurate. It’s stupid. It diminishes the credibility of those who make the claim. It would be a good thing to stop immigrant bashing in Arizona, but you can’t do so by Arpaio bashing, particularly if your rhetoric doesn’t match the facts.
Many of the illegal immigrants marching in the parade carried signs that blamed Arpaio for inmates’ mental health treatment, something the jails have received failing grades for from the government. Montini should have mentioned this mistaken blame in his article too. The county – Board of Supervisors – is responsible for choosing the mental health provider contracts, not Arpaio.
But for the most part, as the Republic struggles to breathe its last dying gasps before it follows other newspapers like the Tucson Citizen out of business, it is pulling out the stops to bash Arpaio in practically every issue. On Feb. 26, the Republic featured a top-of-the-fold, front page article declaring, “Report: ICE program used by Arpaio a failure.” A few sentences into reading it revealed that it it wasn’t some legitimate report put out by the government or a reputable, well-known organization. It was by “Justice Strategies” out of Brooklyn, NY. What does a little-known organization in another state know about our jails? If you just go to the About Us – Staff page on their website, you’ll see that BOTH of their two staff members are funded by none other than the left wing millionaire George Soros. Why didn’t the Republic report this, in the interests of fairness and exposing bias? If Soros is funding a study, you can guarantee which way it will turn out. One of their founders, Kevin Pranis, is co-founder of the NY Moratorium Project, which means he wants to eliminate prison altogether. “In 1996 Pranis established the Prison Moratorium Project for the express purpose of working to eliminate all prisons in the United States — particularly private-sector, for-profit prisons. Affiliated with the U.S. chapter of the Socialist International.” He’s also Former Youth Section Chair of the Democratic Socialists of America.
So there you have it. An organization that wants to eliminate prisons entirely has concluded that the 287g program permitting local law enforcement to arrest illegal immigrants “doesn’t work.” Is there *any* program Arpaio could implement that *would* work? According to Justice Strategies, no program would work since their ultimate goal is to get rid of jails and prisons. If they were honest, they would call themselves “Eliminate Incarceration.”
So don’t believe all the hype against Arpaio. It’s just the usual annual clamor by illegal immigrants, now funded by Soros. Arpaio isn’t “anti-immigrant,” he’s anti-illegal immigration, just like the vast majority of law-abiding Arizonans. To try and confuse the two is deceptive and dishonest. Arpaio is doing his job. If the Soros types out there don’t like it, then they need to get the law changed.
I have to admit, I cannot stand the immigration issue probably because for me, it hijacked the singlemost important issue I believe this country is facing – the wanton destruction of future generations of Americans - and also because it has torn our party apart. I have tangled with this issue because my forefathers were Swedish and German immigrants and I understand why people from around the world want to come to the greatest country in the world.
But there has to be rules. Americans love rules because Americans love fairness. Try cutting ahead in line at the grocery store and you’ll see what I mean. Many immigrants who have become Americans know all too well what it means to wait in line and follow the rules. Many of these Americans are the staunchest defenders of lines and the obeying rule of law.
I also believe there are ideaologies and people who believe those ideaologies and that they will do what they can to infiltrate our country and act out their hatred against us. The most immediate way to prevent that is to secure our border and keep them out.
Needless to say, I believe that we must have an immigration policy that secures our border, identifies and locates every foreigner here, and requires they follow a citizenship process if they want to stay here. Most important, I believe that if they’ve come to American to stay, they embrace American culture. In essence, E Pluribus Unum.
Bloggers tend to hat tip one another when appropriate. I’m going to tip my hat to Len Munsil today for his post on the GOP and the issue of Immigration. He writes:
One of the reasons the Republican Party in Arizona, and nationally, is in such disarray is that when we disagree, we seem to have misplaced the capacity to assume good intentions about each other.
Nowhere has that been more obvious than the debate over illegal immigration. I have always supported a hard line against illegal immigration, and I opposed Congressional efforts over the past two years to enact comprehensive reform. I believe border security is a national security priority. I supported employer sanctions and voted against efforts to weaken Arizona’s current law.
But the people I agree with on the issue were wrong in their treatment of conservative Republicans who favored comprehensive reform. Republican Party officials have every right to call up elected officials and (1) scream bloody murder, and (2) let them know privately that they are getting angry calls and letters from the Party faithful. In fact, they have an obligation to do so. But party officials hurt their own cause when they launch public campaigns challenging elected officials of their own party.
This debate reminds me of my many years involvement in the pro-life movement and how perceptions and stereotypes are created and reinforced. There are great people in our party who vehemently disagree on how the GOP should manage, control, spin this issue. The fact of the matter is that we are beating up on one another on an issue that is far less significant than the taking of innocent human life. I hope to God we can settle this issue soon and get back to what really matters – protecting the unalienable right to life.
Hopefully, we will not lose any more ground (elections are about addition) on this issue by not agreeing on the basics: border security, thorough citizenship procedures and American assimilation and acculturation. With 2010 just around the corner, the GOP cannot afford to lose another election cycle, especially when all our newest citizens see is warring factions.
Here is the second resolution being offered to Maricopa County Republicans on Saturday March 10th during the organizational meeting:
MCRC RESOLUTION #2
Resolution Against Amnesty
WHEREAS, amnesty was the failed solution of past federal legislation; and
WHEREAS, amnesty allows for increased cost in all areas of life for legal citizens; and
WHEREAS, amnesty for the 12 to 23 million illegal aliens in the U.S. will cost the taxpayer over $3.9 trillion according the Heritage Foundation, and
WHEREAS, amnesty rewards illegal aliens for breaking our laws; and
WHEREAS, amnesty would allows illegal-alien gang members, criminal and terrorists to be eligible to be citizens of the United States; and
WHEREAS, amnesty would increase the poverty rate and allow more people to collect unemployment; and
WHEREAS, amnesty would encourage millions more to apply for amnesty fraudulently; and
WHEREAS, amnesty actually serves to punish those foreign nationals that respect the law and seek to enter the country properly; and
WHEREAS, amnesty would increase those eligible for the already suffering Medicaid and Medicare systems; and
WHEREAS, amnesty would allow individuals to become eligible for Supplemental Security Income, which is in terrible trouble; and
WHEREAS, the cost of amnesty estimated in the trillions and would add additional burden onto all State and federally funded programs;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Maricopa County Republican Committee: urge the Congress of the United States to strongly oppose any legislation supporting amnesty or the granting of lawful status to any person that has entered or remained in the United States illegally.
(Passed unanimously as amended by the MCRC Resolutions Committee on December 12, 2008. David Braswell, Chairman.)