DVD Talk
One & Only Illegal Immigration Thread: Part VI [Archive] - Page 3 - DVD Talk Forum
 
Best Sellers
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
The Longest Day
Buy: $54.99 $24.99
9.
10.
DVD Blowouts
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Alien [Blu-ray]
Buy: $19.99 $9.99
8.
9.
10.

PDA
DVD Reviews

View Full Version : One & Only Illegal Immigration Thread: Part VI


Pages : 1 2 [3] 4

wishbone
01-30-08, 07:29 PM
Will Arizona's Immigration Law Work?

excerpts

The question remains, how essential is illegal labor to America's prosperity? One thing is clear: The people who want it should not be providing the answers.

The National Journal asked (Gov. Janet) Napolitano about "business community" complaints that Arizona's law would hurt the local economy. Napolitano said she hears them, but other parts of the "business community" are telling her, "We're tired of competing against companies that are hiring illegally and therefore don't have to pay the same wages we pay."

The president does not seem to share these anxieties. As a cheap-labor conservative, Bush's warm spot for open borders is understandable.

Less explicable are the views of diversity liberals who otherwise despise the man but attribute his policies to a soulful feeling for Mexico. A recent New Yorker article saw Bush's tolerance of illegal immigration through the prism of his experience as governor of Texas, a border state with deep Hispanic roots. No mention was made of Bush's long record as a stomper of labor standards wherever they might impair corporate profits.http://banderasnews.com/0801/edat-willlawwork.htm"Hispanic Panic" as Arizona Immigration Crackdown Bites
By Scott Seckel
Agence France Presse
Saturday 26 January 2008

Phoenix, Arizona - One month after Arizona introduced a law cracking down on businesses which employ illegal immigrants, Latino workers are fleeing the state and companies are laying off employees in droves, officials and activists say.

Arizona has become one of the frontlines of the US immigration debate and broke new ground on January 1 with a law that threatens to put out of business companies which knowingly hire undocumented workers.

The effects of the law have been immediate, according to businessmen, workers and rights activists who spoke to AFP, with companies driving up wages to attract labor while being forced to part company with prized employees.

Even though a federal judge ruled last week that there will be no prosecutions under the law until March, it has done little to prevent a phenomenon being dubbed "Hispanic Panic."

"There's a lot of fear and some people are leaving," said Salvador Reza, an immigrant-rights activist who runs a day labor center in Phoenix.

"The fear is not only at the worker level, it's at the employer level. I've never seen that before in my life."

Workers are going back to Mexico or to other states, Reza said. He predicted small businesses forced to lay off skilled employees like welders will now pay them in cash, creating a black economy.

"The underground economy is going to take hold now, and there will be less money for the state," Reza said.

Ten men were laid off at Ironco, a steel fabrication company in Phoenix which builds large-scale construction projects.

"We had to let them go," president Sheridan Bailey said. "Unfortunately some of these people were our best workers. This is terribly tragic."

Two out of three men who apply at Ironco, a construction firm that specialises in buildings and parking garages made with heavy steel, are Hispanic or foreign-born Hispanic, the company said.

Ironco has raised steel fitters' wages 30 percent from a year ago, according to Bailey. "We've raised wages, competing for a diminishing supply (of workers)," he said. "We've been on a campaign of quality improvement, training, scouring the waterfront, so to speak, for American vets, ex-offenders trying to find their way back into society."

A crew leader who worked for Rick Robinson's Phoenix landscaping company left the state because his wife is an illegal worker. The worker was scared his wife would be deported.

"I've talked to other companies who have said they can't find anybody," Robinson said. "I've heard they're going to Utah or Texas or New Mexico because they don't have a law like this. We and other landscape companies are uncertain as to how far-reaching it will be. People don't know what they can and can't do. The whole thing is confusing, gross, and unfair."

David Jones, head of the Arizona Contractors Association, said he knows of three construction companies which have laid off 30, 40, and 70 employees respectively since the beginning of the year.

"They can't stand the risk of losing their license," Jones said. Many workers are heading to neighboring Nevada to find jobs.

"We've created a climate which will make Arizona's construction industry subordinate to Nevada," Jones said.

"We're all frustrated (with illegal immigration), but I don't think this is the right approach. If we don't have a functional guest worker program in this country, we're going to be in trouble."

Businesses feel exposed to discrimination lawsuits and anonymous malicious complaints from competitors, said Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce vice president Todd Sanders.

"What we're hearing from folks is a level of uncertainty because there are some loose ends in the law," Sanders said.

The ripple in Arizona's economy has spread to other sectors. Real estate agent John Aguero Sr. said he gets four to seven calls each day from people asking about what they can do with their homes.

Fifteen out of 100 people who call Aguero "are just walking away from their property," he said.

One man called and asked how long the foreclosure process would take if he skipped his 1,600 house payments. Aguero told him four months.

"Well, I'll save that and just go home (to Guatemala)," Aguero said. "His wife is a citizen but he's not. The whole family will pack up and leave. He has three children, all of whom were born here."

Royal Palms Middle School serves a largely Hispanic and immigrant area of the city. Three or four students have formally left the school since the beginning of the year. Twice that number haven't shown up to school in ten days. Attendance is down five percent.

"We've tied what we're hearing to attendance," said principal Lenny Hoover.

An announcement was made to students that police cannot come into the school and seize them. "What I have noticed is a great deal of student mental diffidence about it," Hoover said. "They're worried about it, and kids don't worry about a lot."http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/012608B.shtml

Wage increases of 30%, jobs for vets and ex-offenders, companies not being undercut by other companies employing illegal aliens for low wage labor -- it looks like the consequences of enforcement are not as dire as predicted.
http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/6918/thumbsup2sb4.gif

NotThatGuy
01-30-08, 07:45 PM
I think these churches should immediately get their tax exempt status suspended while they aid and abed criminals. Once they have to choose between money and their morals they suddenly will not appear so brazen.
FTW.

How is this any different than hiding away a criminal who is evading the police for assaulting someone, dealing drugs, etc....oh wait, it isn't. Anyone who works for the church and knowingly supports the illegals should be thrown in jail.

-p

NotThatGuy
01-30-08, 07:49 PM
http://banderasnews.com/0801/edat-willlawwork.htmhttp://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/012608B.shtml

Wage increases of 30%, jobs for vets and ex-offenders, companies not being undercut by other companies employing illegal aliens for low wage labor -- it looks like the consequences of enforcement are not as dire as predicted.
http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/6918/thumbsup2sb4.gif
Agreed.

It also helps answer the question of, "How are we suppose to deport 20 million illegal immigrants?"....let them do it themselves by enforcing current laws on the books and implementing new laws to further crack down on businesses who employee illegals.

-p

NotThatGuy
02-07-08, 11:29 AM
I didn't want to clutter the presidential thread with this, as people will say there is a thread for II.

http://www.betterimmigration.com/candidates/2006/prez2008.html

Franchot
02-07-08, 01:45 PM
Well, it's obvious that with Romney bowing out of the race that amnesty is going to be granted to all the illegal immigrants in this country and that the wall will never be finished because all three remaining candidates have no interest in stopping illegal immigration. McCain "claims" to "now" be against illegal immigration and securing the borders, but I have a hard time believing his new change of heart due to his abysmal record of the past.

wishbone
02-07-08, 02:30 PM
Well, it's obvious that with Romney bowing out of the race that amnesty is going to be granted to all the illegal immigrants in this country and that the wall will never be finished because all three remaining candidates have no interest in stopping illegal immigration. McCain "claims" to "now" be against illegal immigration and securing the borders, but I have a hard time believing his new change of heart due to his abysmal record of the past.It will depend on the type of legislation that is proposed: even with a pro-legalization president and members of Congress bills like S1348, S1639, and the DREAM Act failed.For a solid six months, newspaper editorial boards, the majority of columnists and reporters as well as the leadership of businesses, unions, civil rights groups, universities, religions (most visibly the Roman Catholic Church) and ethnocentric lobbyists predicted that “comprehensive immigration” legislation was inevitable.

They were all wrong. Instead, the bill was stopped in the Senate without ever getting to the House.

Here’s what happened instead:

- The Senate defeated amnesty and a green card increase in May…and again in June!

- A smaller amnesty, the Dream Act, also considered inevitable because of its impact on “the children” went down in October.

- As a result of three consecutive defeats and despite a massive assault by the print media and the Chambers of Commerce nationwide predicting bushels of unpicked rotting fruit, an AgJobs amnesty never surfaced.

- The new Democratic leadership in the House headed by illegal immigration fanatic Nancy Pelosi did not even attempt to move an amnesty bill through a subcommittee—let alone the floor.

In the meantime,

- Rep. John Gingrey (R-GA) introduced H.R. 938, the Nuclear Family Priority Act that will reduce the numbers of family sponsored immigrants (chain migration) and limit them to spouses and minor children. The bill currently has 31 co-sponsors.

- Rep. Robert Goodlatte (R-VA) has added 58 co-signers to his H.R. 1430, the Security and Enhancement Fairness for America Act that would eliminate the 50,000-diversity visa lottery. This is a significant move forward in reducing legal immigration.

And, most significantly, Congressional Democrats proposed tough enforcement legislation

- Rep. Heath Shuler (D-NC) introduced the SAVE Act (Secure America Through Verification and Enforcement) that bulks up the E-verify system to identify legal U.S. workers. The bill has been co-signed by 142 representatives—50 Democrats and 92 Republicans.

- Mark Pryor (D-ARK) and David Vitter (R-LA) forwarded legislation similar to Shuler’s in the U.S. Senate.

Use 2007—widely but incorrectly predicted to be a disastrous year for patriotic immigration reform—as a guideline.

And, big difference, in 2008, we are forewarned and forearmed.

Not the slightest clue exists that Americans are more receptive to amnesty than they were in 2007.http://www.vdare.com/guzzardi/080206_amnesty.htm

Franchot
02-07-08, 03:17 PM
It will depend on the type of legislation that is proposed: even with a pro-legalization president and members of Congress bills like S1348, S1639, and the DREAM Act failed.http://www.vdare.com/guzzardi/080206_amnesty.htm

Although I agree with what you've posted, I just don't know how much longer people are going to continue to fight this uphill battle against pro-amnesty legislators who continue to appease special interest groups while at the same time going against what most people want. How long before these special interest groups have swelled their ranks to become the majority? I've recently seen how the money allocated for building the border fence has been taken away when that "late night" security bill was passed that you and I had no say in.

In other words, "You can't fight City Hall." And with McCain, Clinton, or Obama running City Hall...

wm lopez
02-07-08, 03:51 PM
It looks like a very good future for the illegals in America.
And I'm sure we are going to get more pro-illegal marches this summer with candidates Obama & McCain. Remember the hispanic (Mexican) vote is out there for the taking.

Franchot
02-07-08, 04:55 PM
It looks like a very good future for the illegals in America.
And I'm sure we are going to get more pro-illegal marches this summer with candidates Obama & McCain. Remember the hispanic (Mexican) vote is out there for the taking.

It seems like it's a given that the 20 million plus illegal immigrants will be granted amnesty, but what's the next step after that? Big business will still want a continuing flow of cheap labor into the country and both parties will be looking to add more unregistered members to fill their ranks. Honestly, I don't see McCain, Obama, or Clinton doing anything to make the borders less porous.

General Zod
02-07-08, 04:58 PM
Obviously immigration laws in this country are a joke even to the people running the country. A terrorist attack or two from those who slipped in from Mexico and the fence will go up and all the idiot politicians running around today saying we should have open borders will then claim they voted for the fence or somehow otherwise wanted a fence and this was someone else's fault..

As we have seen we as a country like to bury our heads in the sand until someone kicks us in the arse.. then we properly protect ourselves. Until then.. We are fools.

NotThatGuy
02-07-08, 07:34 PM
Yeah, get ready to get kicked in the balls before deciding to pro-actively do something about it.

wm lopez
02-08-08, 08:13 AM
On Lou Doubs on CNN Thursday they had a segment where Mexican gangs are kidnapping Americans along the U.S. boarder. And also American tourists are getting kidnapped in Mexico.

classicman2
02-08-08, 09:36 AM
American tourists have been kidnapped, robbed, beaten, etc. in Mexico for decades.

American tourists have been kidnapped, robbed, beaten, etc, in other countries for decades.

What has that have to do with illegal immigration?

If Lou Dobbs says it - it must be true. :rolleyes:

Superboy
02-08-08, 01:24 PM
American tourists have been kidnapped, robbed, beaten, etc. in Mexico for decades.

American tourists have been kidnapped, robbed, beaten, etc, in other countries for decades.

What has that have to do with illegal immigration?

If Lou Dobbs says it - it must be true. :rolleyes:

Americans have also been kidnapped, robbed, and beaten in their own country by Mexicans. Don't forget that.

wm lopez
02-08-08, 05:53 PM
Here's my solution:
Build a wall and put army on the border.
Now no drugs or illegals get in.
Now if your working here like in a food place you don't get deported unless you commit a crime. But suburbs can crack down on housing violations and the big cities can keep their sanctuary status. So all illegals should live in big cities and leave the suburbs to the middle class like it used to be. Crime free and quiet!

NotThatGuy
02-08-08, 08:33 PM
Here's my solution:
Build a wall and put army on the border.
Now no drugs or illegals get in.
Now if your working here like in a food place you don't get deported unless you commit a crime. But suburbs can crack down on housing violations and the big cities can keep their sanctuary status. So all illegals should live in big cities and leave the suburbs to the middle class like it used to be. Crime free and quiet!

:lol:

NIMBY!

Technically they *all* committed a crime by breaking into our country and staying here....;)

wishbone
02-08-08, 10:48 PM
Mexico’s Calderon aims at U.S. campaign
Leader hopes next president will have ‘broader vision’ on immigration
AP
2/8/2008

MEXICO CITY - Mexican President Felipe Calderon's first trip to the United States next week is a high-stakes effort to shape the immigration debate during the U.S. presidential race.

Calderon won't meet President Bush or any of his would-be successors this trip, but will make his voice heard in major U.S. cities at a time when both Republican and Democratic candidates are carefully calibrating their positions on hot-button issues, such as the border wall, deportations, guest-worker programs and driver's licenses for illegal immigrants.

Many undocumented Mexican migrants who have raised families and built careers in the United States are facing a much bleaker future as federal, state and local governments crack down. And the election year isn't helping, according to Calderon, who has accused U.S. presidential candidates of using migrants as "symbolic hostages in their speeches and strategies."

"I am especially worried about the growing harassment and frank persecution of Mexicans in the United States in recent days," Calderon told Mexico's migrant assistance agency.

Calderon instructed Mexican consuls across the United States to triple efforts to promote positive contributions of Mexicans north of the border. "The key is to neutralize this strategy of confrontation and discrimination that forms part of U.S. society's mistaken perception," he said.

What Calderon wants is for the U.S. Congress to allow more Mexicans to live and work legally north of the border. But such reform is politically futile this year, and his visit could backfire if it drives the controversial immigration issue back to the forefront. Senator John McCain, the likely Republican nominee, already must defend himself to conservatives who view him as too liberal on immigration.

On the Democratic side, exit polls showed Hispanics backing Hillary Rodham Clinton by a 2-1 margin in Tuesday's primaries, even though Barack Obama, the son of a Kenyan immigrant, was alone in supporting driver's licenses for illegal immigrants. But as both Clinton and Obama look toward the general election, Calderon's presence could prompt a hardening of their positions as well.

Calderon has not publicly expressed a preference for any candidate, saying he does not meddle in other countries' affairs. But he has openly accused them of "swaggering, macho and anti-Mexican posturing" attitudes.

And in a pre-trip interview with the Los Angeles-based Spanish-language newspaper Hoy, Calderon called on the next U.S. president to have a "broader vision — the ability to analyze the migration phenomenon more calmly and objectively, less emotionally and more rationally."

Immigration issue not going away
Calderon's coast-to-coast trip, beginning Sunday, with stops in New York, Boston, Chicago, Sacramento, California, and Los Angeles, "allows him to refresh in the minds of the candidates of both political parties that the immigration issue is not going to go away and that he'll be back in 2009," said Riordan Roett, director of Western Hemisphere studies at Johns Hopkins University.

He will meet with some political allies, such as California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has spoken out against extending the border fence, and Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, a Hispanic leader who endorsed New York Senator Hillary Clinton. He also will meet with U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon and deliver a speech at Harvard University.

Criticizing U.S. attitudes on immigration is a must for any Mexican president, but Calderon also has focused more than his predecessor Vicente Fox on improving conditions at home, promising to create more jobs at home and announcing large infrastructure projects and other initiatives aimed at helping the Mexican economy grow and resist a U.S. economic downturn.

Calderon has 66 percent job approval according to a poll in late January. Ministering to the 11 million Mexicans living in the United States can help maintain this popularity as he launches the second year of his six-year term.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23074668/

So President Calderon, US society has a mistaken perception on illegal aliens and identity theft (http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1214/p01s01-ussc.html) and fraud (http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-02-830T)? How about businesses that undercut their competition (http://www.ice.gov/pi/news/newsreleases/articles/060502fargo.htm) with illegal aliens and low wage labor? When you lecture the US on the harassment and frank persecution of Mexicans (http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/refworld/rwmain?page=updates&docid=47a87c0b46) you should look no further than your own government. Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. (http://www.citizensforaconstitutionalrepublic.com/waller4-6-06.html)

Franchot
02-09-08, 01:57 AM
Yeah, President Calderon. Why don't you stay in your own damn country and give a speech to your own damn people about how you're going to improve Mexico so that your citizens don't have to flee their home country to the United States because they can't make a decent wage to survive in their own damn country?

What a hypocritical bag of shit he is. I wish McCain would blow some of his hot temper and foul language at that hypocritical bag of shit.

Giantrobo
02-09-08, 06:48 AM
On Lou Doubs on CNN Thursday they had a segment where Mexican gangs are kidnapping Americans along the U.S. boarder. And also American tourists are getting kidnapped in Mexico.

Latino Gangs are also "cleansing" neighborhoods by intimidating and in some cases killing Blacks. They say these orders come from the "Mexican Mafia" in Prisons. Naturally Black gangs retaliate then you have minor Race Wars in poor areas. Obviously the Latino Gangs have numbers on their side so....

NotThatGuy
02-09-08, 09:39 AM
Latino Gangs are also "cleansing" neighborhoods by intimidating and in some cases killing Blacks. They say these orders come from the "Mexican Mafia" in Prisons. Naturally Black gangs retaliate then you have minor Race Wars in poor areas. Obviously the Latino Gangs have numbers on their side so....

Wait...you are telling me GANG MEMBERS are BREAKING INTO OUR COUNTRY too?! I thought it was only people looking for the American Dream who want to assimilate peacefully and go through the proper procedures to pay into the system and become contributing members of society. Thank god they aren't coming here to BILK US DRY, ABUSE OUR SOCIAL SERVICES, PILLAGE OUR COMMUNITIES through DRUGS and VIOLENCE, REJECT OUR AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE, and then DEMAND MORE RIGHTS and SERVICES...if that happened, we'd *REALLY* be in trouble.

The next thing you are going to tell me is that many others are SMUGGLING DRUGS, GUNS, and other ILLEGAL THINGS! I thought everyone coming in with the shirt on their bags and a dream in their hearts! Thank you for straightening me out.

Rockmjd23
02-09-08, 11:35 AM
Latino Gangs are also "cleansing" neighborhoods by intimidating and in some cases killing Blacks.
They're just doing the jobs us Americans won't do!

DVD Polizei
02-09-08, 12:20 PM
:lol:

NotThatGuy
02-09-08, 01:30 PM
There are plenty of white gang bangers, they are just being exponentially outnumbered, they should unionize! I guess they sort of are....but they need to join larger unions.

Man, I just supported a union.....what is happening to me?!!!

Giantrobo
02-09-08, 02:22 PM
They're just doing the jobs us Americans won't do!


Pretty much. Provide Cheap Labor, making white business owners richer, reducing the Black population, providing large voting numbers for the BITCH WHORE Repubs and LAYING SHIT Dems.

No wonder neither party wants to do shit about Illegal Immigration.

It's a Win, win....

;) Ethnic Cleansing in L.A. (http://www.alternet.org/story/46855/)

wishbone
02-13-08, 03:36 PM
District judge upholds employer-sanctions law
Mary Jo Pitzl
The Arizona Republic
Feb. 8, 2008 12:00 AM

A federal judge upheld the merits of Arizona's landmark employer-sanctions law Thursday, saying it does not overstep the federal government's authority to regulate illegal immigration.

U.S. District Judge Neil Wake dismissed arguments by a coalition of business and Latino civil-rights groups that the law unconstitutionally gives the state controls over immigration. Wake noted that the state law controls business licenses and does not determine who should be admitted into the United States.

The Legal Arizona Workers Act gives the state authority to suspend or revoke the business license of any employer found to have knowingly or intentionally hired an illegal immigrant. The 15 county attorneys have the power to enforce the law but have said they have no intention of bringing any enforcement actions before March 1.

Gov. Janet Napolitano signed the bill into law after it won lopsided approval from the Legislature in June. The lawsuit was filed 11 days later.

Wake ruled that the law "does not make employers conform to a stricter standard of conduct than federal law."

"The licensing sanctions of (the law) carefully track the federal employer-sanctions law. The act does not make employers conform to a stricter standard of conduct than federal law," Wake ruled, adding, "Just like the federal law, the act contains procedures for weeding out frivolous complaints and provides enforcement officers with discretion."

Wake also found that the law provides employers with due process.

"No employer may be sanctioned without a full evidentiary hearing in the Superior Court of Arizona. . . . The state has the burden to prove that the employer knowingly or intentionally employed an unauthorized alien. The Superior Court has full evidence-taking, fact-finding and discretionary authority on all issues of liability; it simply cannot find an employee unauthorized absent a federal determination to that effect," Wake stated.

Lawmakers and attorneys defending the case applauded Wake's ruling, the third in as many months.

"I appreciate the thoughtful review of the facts and findings of law by Judge Wake in this important case," Attorney General Terry Goddard said in a statement.

"I'm proud of the excellent work done by the lawyers in my office in representing the state. My office will continue to vigorously defend this law should it be appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals."

Attorneys for the business groups in the case said they will quickly appeal the case, seeking to consolidate it with an appeal from an earlier lawsuit that has been before the 9th Circuit since December. The court put the earlier appeal on hold until Wake could issue his ruling.

Attorney Julie Pace noted that, given the prosecutors' commitment to not bring any enforcement action before March 1, there should be time for the appeals court to act on a request for an injunction in the coming weeks.

Many in the business community were resigned to losing, at least for now, given the tone of the two previous rulings in the controversial case.

"I'm not shocked. I would be surprised if I saw it (the law) go away," said Ken Rosevear, executive director of the Yuma County Chamber of Commerce. He also expects the case will be upheld on appeal.

"Fortunately, there haven't been any (enforcement) issues here," added Rosevear, who was a member of a committee headed by House Speaker Jim Weiers, R-Phoenix, to consider problems and patches to the law.

Produce growers in Yuma saw a drop-off in workers after the law went into effect but have been able to hire enough people to work the lettuce crop, which is at its peak now, he said.

Still, Rosevear said, employers will eventually feel the law's sting.

"It's one of those deals where it's not a problem until it's a problem," he said.

Ellen GilBride, a private attorney handling the case on behalf of Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas, said the case is far from over.

"The 9th Circuit is pretty independent. They're going to do what they want to do," she said.

House Speaker Weiers noted that Wake did not resolve one of the nagging questions that has dogged the case since its first day in court in November: whether it applies to all of a company's employees or only those who have been hired since Jan. 1, the effective date of the law.

Wake acknowledged the dispute over that section of the law but added that no county attorney has indicated any intent to prosecute an employer for having hired an illegal worker before Jan. 1.

"(T)he court need not decide whether the act permits enforcement for old hires, which would have to await an actual case with those facts," Wake wrote.

Weiers said lawmakers will move ahead with proposed changes to the law, although he did not specify which ones.

"We are undertaking the task of clarification," Weiers said. His advisory committee of business owners submitted a report two weeks ago, but its suggestions will not necessarily be written into the law, Weiers has said.

Like others opposed to the law, immigrant advocate Alfredo Gutierrez hopes the sanctions law will be thrown out by the appellate court.

He and other Latino activists contend the sanctions law will lead to discrimination against legal and U.S.-born Hispanic workers. But, so far, that has been difficult to prove because no cases have yet come forward.

"After the law goes into effect and they begin to enforce it, we will be able to show it is causing discrimination," he said.

In his ruling, Wake noted the plaintiffs' concerns that the sanctions law does not specifically outlaw discrimination.

But, he wrote, workers and employers are protected by existing anti-discrimination laws at both the state and federal levels.

"The state did not have to duplicate these laws by inserting an independent discrimination provision into the act," Wake wrote.http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0207sanctions0207-ON.html

I think it will be difficult for immigrant advocate Alfredo Gutierrez to demonstrate discrimination when an illegal alien has been caught providing false documentation or has committed ID theft to obtain employment illegally.

Workplace (http://www.ednews.org/articles/88/1/Immigration-Milestones-The-1986-Amnesty/Page1.html) enforcement (http://www.takatalaw.com/us/iract96.html) is on the books -- now we may actually see enforcement enforced. http://www.codingforums.com/images/smilies/thumbsup.gif

bhk
02-13-08, 03:38 PM
I heard on the Jerry Doyle radio show(I think it was his show) that the mayor of a Mexican town accross the border from AZ is complaining about the influx of Mexican citizens leaving AZ and saturating his city's public school system.

wishbone
02-13-08, 05:07 PM
Sonoran officials slam sanctions law in Tucson visit
SHERYL KORNMAN
Tucson Citizen
Published: 01.16.2008

A delegation of nine state legislators from Sonora was in Tucson on Tuesday to say Arizona's new employer sanctions law will have a devastating effect on the Mexican state.

At a news conference, the legislators said Sonora - Arizona's southern neighbor, made up of mostly small towns - cannot handle the demand for housing, jobs and schools it will face as illegal Mexican workers here return to their hometowns without jobs or money.

The law, which took effect Jan.1, punishes employers who knowingly hire individuals who don't have valid legal documents to work in the United States. Penalties include suspension or loss of a business license.

Its intent is to eliminate or curtail the top draw for immigrants to this country - jobs.

The Mexican delegation, members of Sonora's 58th Legislature, belong to the National Action Party (PAN), the party of Mexico's president, Felipe Calderón.

They spoke at the offices of Project PPEP, a nonprofit that provides job retraining for farmworkers and other programs.

The lawmakers were to travel to Phoenix for a Wednesday breakfast meeting with Hispanic legislators.

They want to tell them how the law will affect Mexican families on both sides of the border.

"How can they pass a law like this?" asked Mexican Rep. Leticia Amparano Gamez, who represents Nogales.

"There is not one person living in Sonora who does not have a friend or relative working in Arizona," she said in Spanish.

"Mexico is not prepared for this, for the tremendous problems" it will face as more and more Mexicans working in Arizona and sending money to their families return to hometowns in Sonora without jobs, she said.

"We are one family, socially and economically," she said of the people of Sonora and Arizona.

Amparano said the Mexican legislators are already asking the federal government of Mexico for help for Sonora.

Rep. Florencio Diaz Armenta, coordinator of the delegation, represents San Luis, south of Yuma, one of Arizona's agricultural hubs, which employs some 28,000 legal Mexican workers.

"What do we do with the repatriated?" he asked. "As Mexicans, we are worried. They are Mexicans but they are also people - fathers and mothers and young people with jobs" who won't have work in Sonora."

He said the Arizona law will lead to "disintegration of the family," as one "legal" Mexican parent remains in Arizona and the other returns to Mexico.

Rep. Francisco Garcia Gámez, a legislator from Cananea and that city's former mayor, said the lack of mining jobs there has driven many Mexicans to Arizona to find work. He said they depend on jobs in Arizona to feed their families on both sides of the border.

Gov. Janet Napolitano, in her State of the State speech Monday, said the new law needs some modifications, including a better definition of what constitutes a complaint.

Barrett Marson, director of communications for the Arizona House of Representatives, said Speaker Jim Weiers, R-Phoenix, "has some concerns about how the law will be administered and applied."

He said the speaker sought testimony from the business community last fall "to get ideas about how to make following the law easier. In the end, that's what he wants - compliance, but make it as easy as possible to do."

Marson said Weiers is "waiting for the governor to come out with her idea of what she wants to do" before he makes his own recommendations.http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/ss/border/74193.php

It looks like the 12th largest economy in the world by GDP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico) needs to make good on its pledge to boost the economy (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-calderon13feb13,0,6907730.story) for its repatriated citizens.

NotThatGuy
02-13-08, 06:11 PM
I heard on the Jerry Doyle radio show(I think it was his show) that the mayor of a Mexican town accross the border from AZ is complaining about the influx of Mexican citizens leaving AZ and saturating his city's public school system.

rotfl

¿Cómo los quiere usted manzanas?!!

(How do you like them apples?!)

bhk
02-13-08, 06:35 PM
This is the answer to all those that are saying we cannot deport them because there are too many: make conditions such that they self-deport as is happening in AZ.

Rockmjd23
02-13-08, 06:50 PM
I heard on the Jerry Doyle radio show(I think it was his show) that the mayor of a Mexican town accross the border from AZ is complaining about the influx of Mexican citizens leaving AZ and saturating his city's public school system.
He's a racist!

General Zod
02-15-08, 09:16 AM
This is the answer to all those that are saying we cannot deport them because there are too many: make conditions such that they self-deport as is happening in AZ.
This can't be the answer. I've been told, by some of the very same people that inhabit this forum, that self-deporting was a dream and would never happen. There must be some other explanation..

I never understood AZ. They pass laws like this yet they vote for McCain who LOVES illegal immigration.

wishbone
02-15-08, 10:32 AM
Arizona cops claim large smuggling ring busted

PHOENIX, Arizona (AP) -- Forty-eight people accused of taking part in an immigrant trafficking ring have been indicted on human smuggling and money laundering charges, authorities said.

http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/2008/US/02/15/immigrant.smuggling.ap/art.arizona.gi.jpg
People cross illegally into the U.S. near San Luis, south of Yuma, Arizona.

The group brought in as much as $130,000 a week moving people from Naco, Mexico, to its center of operations in Phoenix and then to destinations across the United States, Phoenix police Lt. Vince Piano said Thursday.

Piano said the ring was believed to be one of the biggest operating in Arizona, the busiest illegal entry point into the country.

"It's not the end of the game, but we believe we have made some very important intelligence directions in the fight against the smugglers," said Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, whose office was prosecuting the case.

Ten of the 48 suspects were arrested. An additional 10 people who are expected to face charges in the future also were netted in the sweep, authorities said.

The investigation led to the discovery of 13 "drop houses" in Phoenix where human smugglers hold customers until they pay up and are sent to their final destinations. The area is believed to have about 1,000 drop houses.

Authorities allege that two Cuban immigrants living in the area, 41-year-old Jose Luis Suarez-Lemus and 35-year-old Roel Ayala Fernandez, ran the ring and paid people in Mexico and Arizona to help smuggle immigrants.

"The police just came in the house and found no proof," said Suarez-Lemus' stepson, Daril Hidalgo, who answered the phone at the accused smuggler's home and whose name wasn't mentioned in the redacted indictment released to reporters. Hidalgo said he didn't know the name of Suarez-Lemus' lawyer.

It wasn't immediately clear whether Fernandez had a lawyer. He didn't have a listed phone number.

The two paid recruiters in Mexico to find customers, Mexican police to allow smugglers to stage their crossings and trail guides to lead immigrants through a conservation area in southeast Arizona, Piano said.

Drivers were paid to bring the immigrants by van to Phoenix, and other drivers were used to spot law enforcement vehicles and protect rival smugglers from forcing them off the road in an attempt to kidnap and extort their customers, he said.

Once the immigrants were in a drop house and payments were made, drivers were hired to bring immigrants to spots across the country, authorities said.

They said the group would move four to six loads of immigrants per day, each with six to 10 people. Smuggling fees averaged $2,500 per person.http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/02/15/immigrant.smuggling.ap/index.html

Mexican police were allegedly assisting with illegal alien smuggling... -ohbfrank-

NotThatGuy
02-15-08, 11:40 AM
color me shocked....i mean, it isn't like their president and other officials are openly supporting the illegals to break into our country...oh wait.

Franchot
02-15-08, 01:28 PM
I never understood AZ. They pass laws like this yet they vote for McCain who LOVES illegal immigration.

By what percentage does McCain win his elections?

There might be just enough corporate types and recent immigrants into Arizona voting for him to push him into the winners' column. Also, Arizona is a pretty big state. Northern Arizona is probably apathetic about what is happening in the part of the state that is next to the border to Mexico...kind of like how it works here in California.

On a side note, our mayor here in Los Angeles, Tony Villaraigosa, met with President Calderon of Mexico and, of course, it was a love fest. President Calderon came to the USA to chastise us about how horribly we treat his illegal brethren who sneak into our country. Mayor Villaraigosa joked with Calderon that Los Angeles has more Mexicans living here in LA than are living in Mexico City, Mexico. Some joke.

So, like McCain getting elected in Arizona despite his pro-illegal stance, Los Angeles knowingly voted for Villaraigosa despite (probably because) knowing that he was very much pro-illegal immigration and an ex-member of LaRaza...and an ex-gang member.

wishbone
02-15-08, 03:38 PM
Immigration bill sparks debate
WTHR-TV
updated 12:13 p.m. ET, Thurs., Jan. 24, 2008
Kevin Rader

Indianapolis - A bill concerning the employment of illegal immigrants sparked some strong opinions Wednesday in the Indiana Senate.

The individual is already held accountable, but under SB 335 (http://www.in.gov/apps/lsa/session/billwatch/billinfo?year=2008&session=1&request=getBill&docno=335), businesses would have something at stake as well.

In the Senate chamber Wednesday, the bill provoked debate.

Senator Mike Delph's bill could revoke business licenses for companies that knowingly hire illegal immigrants. It's stirred up a myriad of emotions.

"We would agree new legislation is needed but the new legislation is needed at the federal level. The federal law is broken and it needs to be fixed at the federal level," said John Livengood, Hospitality Industry.

"Did you know that right now there is undocumented people specifically from the Hispanic community, the Latino community, that are fighting for this country in Iraq?" said Rafael Ayala, businessman.

But the other side came armed with studies and statistics. IU Law Professor John Hill says there are anywhere from 55,000 to 110,000 undocumented immigrants in Indiana which costs the state $259 million or an estimated $200 per household annually. Hill says for every six or seven undocumented immigrants one job is lost. In Indiana that means anywhere from 15,000 to 16,000 jobs.

The ramifications aren't just economic. Former INS Special Agent Mike Cutler from New York says it's a matter of national security.

"We don't know their names. We don't know their nationalities. We don't know their criminal histories. We don't know if they are simply coming to work or coming to commit crime or if they are coming because they are fugitives from justice from some other country. This is a matter of criminal justice. This is a matter of national security," said Cutler.

In the end the committee citing the rule of law passed the bill by a 10-1 vote, but Mary Jane Gonzalez may have had the last word.

"In our history, men and women broke the laws to change the law and change the course of history," she said.

This is not the end of this debate. SB 335 now moves on to the full Senate.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22810311/A hospitality industry lobbyist said his clients depend on immigrant labor.

"The economy needs immigrant labor. The employers need immigrants, both documented and undocumented," said the lobbyist, John Livengood.http://www.theindychannel.com/showcase/15120448/detail.html

No Mr. Livengood, it is not the economy that needs immigrant labor; it is the business sector that you represent believes that it needs undocumented, low wage labor.

Again, work place enforcement is in place at the federal level therefore it is not broken -- it is just not being enforced. Once enforcement is enforced there will be a two-fold effect: employers will ensure that they are hiring personnel with proper documentation; and illegal aliens will cease applying for these jobs due to the increased risk of being caught.

Xytraguptorh
02-15-08, 03:45 PM
Does anyone have any faith that something positive will be done at the federal level? It is nice to see quite a few states taking positive steps at least, since their hands aren't tied by business and ethnic lobbyists like the federal government's. Judges have also been upholding these laws, finally. Though that could be shortlived once Obama, Clinton, or McCain get in office.

As for McCain, I believe he got less than 50% of the vote in Arizona in the primary, so there's obviously a lot of people who don't agree with him, but as usual that is washed away by those who have no idea about any issues and vote on name recognition only. This becomes obvious when the ballot initiatives pass so easily while they continue to vote for someone completely opposed to what those stand for. McCain lobbied against official English and the other measures a couple years ago.

Franchot
02-15-08, 04:18 PM
Does anyone have any faith that something positive will be done at the federal level?

Bush--NO
Clinton--No
Obama--NO
McCain--If I believe his new stance, perhaps. If I go by his previous record, NO!

Xytraguptorh
02-15-08, 04:29 PM
Bush--NO
Clinton--No
Obama--NO
McCain--If I believe his new stance, perhaps. If I go by his previous record, NO!

The trouble with his new stance is that he has Juan Hernandez as his "hispanic outreach director".

I read that 29% of voters who name illegal immigration as their number one issue voted for McCain on super Tuesday. That is unbelievable, but it illustrates how someone like him can get elected in Arizona. Too many people are just completely clueless about where candidates stand.

General Zod
02-15-08, 07:18 PM
Does anyone have any faith that something positive will be done at the federal level?
Bush--NO
Clinton--NO
Obama--NO
McCain--NO

The *good news* (if there is any) is that the growing momentum in this country is very much against illegal immigration. What will likely happen is that whatever president is in charge will hit the same brick wall as Bush did trying to get their amnesty bills through. We may have 4 years of the same thing, but I'd rather 4 years of no change than 4 years of BAD change.

Xytraguptorh
02-15-08, 10:39 PM
Bush--NO
Clinton--NO
Obama--NO
McCain--NO

The *good news* (if there is any) is that the growing momentum in this country is very much against illegal immigration. What will likely happen is that whatever president is in charge will hit the same brick wall as Bush did trying to get their amnesty bills through. We may have 4 years of the same thing, but I'd rather 4 years of no change than 4 years of BAD change.

I agree with your sentiment on change. I actually think Clinton is the least likely candidate to get "comprehensive" surrender to Mexico passed. The Republicans in congress would unite against her for sure. I'm more worried about McCain or Obama. McCain simply because quite a few Republicans would follow him off the amnesty cliff simply because he's a Republican. And Obama... I think there's some aura about him that could convince otherwise sane people to vote for his policies.

I never thought I'd actually be hoping Hillary gets elected... this can't be happening.

Tuan Jim
02-16-08, 03:15 AM
The trouble with his new stance is that he has Juan Hernandez as his "hispanic outreach director".

I read that 29% of voters who name illegal immigration as their number one issue voted for McCain on super Tuesday. That is unbelievable, but it illustrates how someone like him can get elected in Arizona. Too many people are just completely clueless about where candidates stand.

Well, let's just say not everyone is a single-issue voter - especially when it comes to the presidency.

Xytraguptorh
02-16-08, 01:24 PM
Well, let's just say not everyone is a single-issue voter - especially when it comes to the presidency.

That's very true, but what amazes me is that McCain has SO MANY issues that rile conservatives, yet he still managed to get the nomination. Of course, one on one he would have lost to either Huckabee or Romney. The conservative vote (anti-McCain) was definitely split between those two, with Ron Paul even getting some of the conservative vote which could have been important in a close one-on-one race. McCain says the economy is not his strong point. Illegal immigration obviously isn't either. The only thing he has going for him is name recognition and his support of the surge in Iraq, an issue which polls say ranks behind the economy and immigration. It's frustrating that we had a couple decent candidates to choose from and we got stuck with by far the most liberal of the bunch.

wm lopez
02-16-08, 04:43 PM
Also if an illegal can get in so can drugs.
If only the illegals would have adopted to American living instead of changing areas where they move in to "barrios".

NotThatGuy
02-16-08, 05:42 PM
Bush--NO
Clinton--NO
Obama--NO
McCain--NO

The *good news* (if there is any) is that the growing momentum in this country is very much against illegal immigration. What will likely happen is that whatever president is in charge will hit the same brick wall as Bush did trying to get their amnesty bills through. We may have 4 years of the same thing, but I'd rather 4 years of no change than 4 years of BAD change.

The growing trend is against wanting people to break into our country...makes sense, no? Now the problem is that the candidates all are ignoring this, and instead are pushing for special interest groups.

NotThatGuy
02-16-08, 05:48 PM
Also if an illegal can get in so can drugs.
If only the illegals would have adopted to American living instead of changing areas where they move in to "barrios".
"can"...no, DO get in.

As for openly rejecting American living (and at times downright insulting it), this is a huge concern...as there are huge divides in areas that have large illegal immigrant populations. There are complaints that they are put in place by Americans, but in reality it is quite hard to judge because the illegal immigrants actively reject everything American and don't even give a chance for assimilation.

John Sy
02-16-08, 09:35 PM
All I can say is this...if the situation were reversed and Mexico were the economic superpower and the United States was the Third World country, in what direction do you think the flow of illegal immigrants will go?

While I don't support illegal immigration in any way shape or form, we must all be aware of the all too human reason for it--these people are all seeking a better life, just like you.

The United States should make legal immigration easier. Having been through the process myself, I can tell you that if Americans had to go through the legal immigration process, they would illegally immigrate too. It's so much easier!

crazyronin
02-16-08, 09:42 PM
All I can say is this...if the situation were reversed and Mexico were the economic superpower and the United States was the Third World country, in what direction do you think the flow of illegal immigrants will go?


It would be stopped at Mexico's northern border much the same way it is stopped at Mexico's southern border, with machine guns and lots and lots of razor wire. Plus they would be just as actively deporting illegals back north they way they are actively deporting them back south today.

wishbone
02-16-08, 11:08 PM
All I can say is this...if the situation were reversed and Mexico were the economic superpower and the United States was the Third World country, in what direction do you think the flow of illegal immigrants will go?:lol: Mexico is not a third world country (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Mexico)

Franchot
02-17-08, 04:23 AM
While I don't support illegal immigration in any way shape or form, we must all be aware of the all too human reason for it--these people are all seeking a better life, just like you.

Which is exactly why we should stop illegal immigration. The people who are enticing illegal immigrants into this country are paying them wages far below what American citizens would accept. In effect, they are short changing and cheating illegal immigrants who enter this country and are not treating them in a very humane way.

Instead, we should insist that Mexico with its vast wealth support their lower class citizens and give them proper social services and public assistance instead of allowing them to push their poverty-stricken citizens into our country so that we can help them. On his way back from Africa, Bush should stop in Mexico and have a meeting with Calderon to chastise him about how poorly his government treats many of its citizens. I'm sure that Calderon is quite cognisant of the reason why so many people flee his country, so maybe Bush could grow a pair and tell Calderon that the U.S. is going to start billing Mexico for all the illegal immigrants from Mexico now living in the United States who receive an education and medical services.

Xytraguptorh
02-17-08, 05:30 PM
The United States should make legal immigration easier. Having been through the process myself, I can tell you that if Americans had to go through the legal immigration process, they would illegally immigrate too. It's so much easier!

We already accept far more immigrants than any nation. About two million per year are given legal status (though not necessarily citizenship). If that is not enough, then how much? It is not a human right to immigrate to this country. If we allowed everyone who wanted to come here to enter this would become a place people want to immigrate from rather than to. Though I believe it's headed that way now with historically high legal immigration combined with unchecked illegal immigration.

And about illegal immigration, like others said, in the long run we're only enabling Mexico's failure and corurpution by serving as a safety net for their nation's poor. That they criticize us for taking modest steps to secure our southern border while they have stricter immigration laws than us is incredibly hypocritical.

wm lopez
02-18-08, 01:02 PM
All I can say is this...if the situation were reversed and Mexico were the economic superpower and the United States was the Third World country, in what direction do you think the flow of illegal immigrants will go?

While I don't support illegal immigration in any way shape or form, we must all be aware of the all too human reason for it--these people are all seeking a better life, just like you.

The United States should make legal immigration easier. Having been through the process myself, I can tell you that if Americans had to go through the legal immigration process, they would illegally immigrate too. It's so much easier!
But if we just ask who wants to come to America and become a citizen we will get flooded with just other countries poor people. And they will vote just Democrat, because they want the welfare benefits. How is that good for America? It's good for the poor people of other countries.

wishbone
02-18-08, 02:38 PM
Arizona lawmakers want to start state-run temporary worker plan
AP Feb. 11, 2008 04:47 PM

A group of Arizona lawmakers is proposing a state-run temporary worker plan that would let Mexicans come to the state to work in businesses hard-hit by labor shortages.

The lawmakers cited their frustrations with Congress' failure to overhaul the country's immigration policies and update its guest worker programs to provide businesses with more access to skilled labor. Ironically, Arizona would need the approval of Congress to enter into a guest worker agreement with Mexico.

"We are looking at trying to solve real business problems," said Republican Rep. Bill Konopnicki of Safford, owner of six restaurants and an author of the proposals.

America's guest worker programs are run by the federal government. Linton Joaquin, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center, an advocacy group for low-income immigrants, said he wasn't aware of any state having such a program.

The Arizona proposals would allow employers who experienced skilled labor shortages and can't find local employees to recruit workers through Mexican consulates.

An approved skilled foreign worker would get an ID card valid for two years and could travel to and from Mexico through ports of entry in Arizona. They would be prohibited from traveling to other American states.

Criminal background checks would be required of the foreign workers, who would be disqualified if they were convicted of U.S. crimes or Mexican violations that would be felonies in this country.

Arizona is at the forefront of a movement to get state and local governments to crack down on illegal immigration. Last year, the Republican-majority Legislature and Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano approved a law that prohibits employers from knowingly hiring illegal immigrants.

Republican Rep. John Kavanagh of Fountain Hills, an advocate for tougher immigration enforcement, said he was open-minded about the state starting a guest-worker program, but believes it must require that the workers be thoroughly screened and be kept from becoming permanent residents.

A neutral party also should determine the maximum number of workers to be admitted into the program, Kavanagh said. The proposals set no such limit.

"I don't want to depress American wages or displace American workers," Kavanagh said.

Lawmakers pushing the proposals said illegal immigrants already living in Arizona wouldn't be eligible for the program and that employers would have to go to Mexico to recruit workers.

Senate Minority Leader Marsha Arzberger, a Democrat from Willcox who authored some of the proposals, said a state-run guest worker program would result in fewer illegal border crossings in Arizona, the busiest illegal entry point into the United States.

David Jones, president of the Arizona Contractors Association, said the construction business in fast-growing Arizona needs labor - and it will be hard to meet those needs with only American-born workers.

"We do not have the interest of young Americans who want to work in 105-degree temperature roofing buildings and tying off rebar," Jones said. "It's not that they are lazy; it's just that after World War II we brought them up to go to college and get an education."http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0211temp-workers0211-ON.html(referring to the comprehensive immigration bill in 2007) ...one loophole in the “enforcement trigger” fails to require the U.S. VISIT system – the biometric border check-in/check-out system established by Congress in 1996, but never implemented – to be fully functioning before new worker or amnesty programs begin. Without the system in place, the U.S. has no method of ensuring that workers and their families do not overstay their visas.http://sessions.senate.gov/pressapp/record.cfm?id=275456A study by the Washington-based Pew Hispanic Center last month indicated that 45 percent of the undocumented migrants in the United States overstayed legal visas.

Confirming those findings or knowing the home country of those who overstay their visas is tricky because U.S. authorities don't track the problem. Immigration authorities also generally don't compare entry and exit information to see who should have left the country.http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=14221609

The federal government cannot manage its own visa process and yet we are to expand the temporary worker program?

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
-- Albert Einstein

Franchot
02-18-08, 02:50 PM
^^^^^^^

Is the United States so badly in need of workers from other countries? Or is just Arizona just experiencing a shortage? What's the unemployment rate in Arizona? Maybe Arizona could try recruiting U.S. citizens from other states so they could save time and effort instead of going through all these paperwork and background checks.


Nice highlight -wink-

"We are looking at trying to solve real business problems," said Republican Rep. Bill Konopnicki of Safford, owner of six restaurants and an author of the proposals.

visitor Q
02-18-08, 04:25 PM
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/02/11/the-white-house-wants-a-14-billion-stimulusnational-security-packagefor-mexico/

"The White House wants a $1.4 billion stimulus/national security package…for Mexico"

huzefa
02-18-08, 04:47 PM
We already accept far more immigrants than any nation. About two million per year are given legal status (though not necessarily citizenship). If that is not enough, then how much? It is not a human right to immigrate to this country. If we allowed everyone who wanted to come here to enter this would become a place people want to immigrate from rather than to. Though I believe it's headed that way now with historically high legal immigration combined with unchecked illegal immigration.

And about illegal immigration, like others said, in the long run we're only enabling Mexico's failure and corurpution by serving as a safety net for their nation's poor. That they criticize us for taking modest steps to secure our southern border while they have stricter immigration laws than us is incredibly hypocritical.


Please don't lump Legal immigration in with ILLegal immigration. The Legal immigrants who follow the rules and wait their turn provide a much-needed benefit to the country. Who can argue that we don't need more nurses since there is a chronic nursing shortage in this country (even with increasing nursing school enrollment almost 100% in some places). The legal immigration quota has not changed to reflect the current economy in almost 20 years (and there's no sign of it changing anytime soon).

It might not be a human right to immigrate to the US, but it certainly is a human right to have access to timely nursing/medical care. This is just one of many examples where legal immigration has to be increased. There are many nuances to legal immigration; and it does not help the discussion to identify legal immigration with illegal immigration.

As far as I care, the illegal immigrants should all be deported to their countries at their expense.

I.Flores
02-19-08, 01:06 PM
It would be stopped at Mexico's northern border much the same way it is stopped at Mexico's southern border, with machine guns and lots and lots of razor wire

I've been to Mexico's southern border, and there isn't neither machine guns nor Razor wire fences.
Heck, there isn't even a fence. On a lot of parts, what separates Guatemala form Mexico is a 2 ft deep stream.
And in Mexico they're called "undocumented workers", not an archaic term like "illegal aliens"

wishbone
02-19-08, 02:11 PM
And in Mexico they're called "undocumented workers", not an archaic term like "illegal aliens"Undocumented Workers

Non-Political Description and Discussion
“Undocumented worker” is one of a host of euphemisms for people in the U.S. who do not fit the definition of a resident alien or a citizen. There is a lot of confusion over what is the proper term for this class of people in the country partly because of the intensely charged political atmosphere surrounding them and because there is no legally defined term in federal law for their status. Even the federal government is confused because I found at least 11 different terms being used to describe the same group of people. One study (http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/illegal.pdf) done by Homeland Security refers to the same group of people as undocumented immigrants, illegal immigrants, illegal aliens, and refers to another document about “unauthorized immigrants” all within six pages.

To separate neutral terms from the euphemisms that have been coined for political purposes we need to look at which terms have legal definitions.

We all know what a citizen is but what if you’re not a citizen but are living in the United States? The Immigration and Nationality Act (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=cb90c19a50729fb47fb0686648558dbe) defines an alien (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=ec21136d2035f010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCRD&vgnextchannel=b328194d3e88d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1RCRD) as “any person not a citizen or national of the United States.” The act classifies aliens remaining within the US on a permanent basis as immigrants (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=4f9f95c4f635f010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCRD&vgnextchannel=b328194d3e88d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1RCRD) without regards to an individual’s legal status.

So an alien is someone who isn’t a U.S. citizen and an immigrant is an alien who is permanently living in the U.S. So far so good. And what are the legally defined terms for people who are immigrants to the country?

Resident Alien (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=84578fa29935f010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCRD&vgnextchannel=b328194d3e88d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1RCRD)- Applies to non-U.S. citizens currently residing in the United States. The term is applied in three different manners: Permanent Resident, Conditional Resident, and Returning Resident. Note that all three manners define a particular legal status.

Permanent Resident (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=6e9c8fa29935f010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCRD&vgnextchannel=b328194d3e88d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1RCRD)- Any person not a citizen of the United States who is residing in the U.S. under legally recognized and lawfully recorded permanent residence as an immigrant. Also known as “Permanent Resident Alien (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=9a1f95c4f635f010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCRD&vgnextchannel=b328194d3e88d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1RCRD),” “Lawful Permanent Resident (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=070695c4f635f010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCRD&vgnextchannel=b328194d3e88d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1RCRD),” “Resident Alien Permit Holder,” and “Green Card Holder.”

Immigrant (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=4f9f95c4f635f010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCRD&vgnextchannel=b328194d3e88d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1RCRD)- Any alien in the United States, except one legally admitted under specific non-immigrant categories. An illegal alien who entered the United States without inspection, for example, would be strictly defined as an immigrant under the INA but is not a permanent resident alien.

Migrant (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=783795c4f635f010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCRD&vgnextchannel=b328194d3e88d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1RCRD)- A person who leaves his/her country of origin to seek residence in another country.

There doesn’t appear to be a legal definition for an immigrant who doesn’t meet any of the legal definitions above. The only immigrants defined are those who have a some form of federally recognized legal status. So how does the federal government refer to immigrants who fall outside of the above legal definitions? Take your pick.

There are a variety of terms which can be found in official government agency reports and press releases: undocumented worker (http://www.eeoc.gov/press/6-28-02.html), unauthorized worker (http://www.usdoj.gov/eoir/OcahoMain/publisheddecisions/Hardbound/Volume1/119.pdf), illegal alien (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/8/chapters/12/subchapters/ii/parts/ix/sections/section%5F1365.html), undocumented alien (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04472.pdf), unauthorized resident alien (http://www.treas.gov/tigta/auditreports/2004reports/200430023fr.html), undocumented migrant (http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/newsroom/news_releases/archives/2006_news_releases/072006/07212006.xml), unauthorized migrant (http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0061.html), illegal migrant (http://www.cbp.gov/xp/CustomsToday/2006/March/other/sbi.xml
),
undocumented immigrant (http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/whd/whdfs48.htm), unauthorized immigrant (
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/ill_pe_2006.pdf
), and illegal immigrant (http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/illegal.pdf).

By looking at the how these terms are constructed we can can peel away the politically charged phrases from the neutral, if not legally defined, ones. The phrases use the legally defined words “alien,” “immigrant,” “migrant,” as well as the generic term “worker” for the noun. It is then modified either by illegal, unauthorized, or undocumented.

“Worker” is not a legal term that relates to being an immigrant or an alien except as a general descriptor. A person can be an immigrant and not be a worker and vice-versa. I am a citizen and could be called an undocumented worker if I was working a job for cash on nothing more than a handshake with my employer. I’d be an illegal worker if my employer didn’t file the appropriate paperwork with the government or didn’t make FICA deductions from my pay. I might even be an unauthorized worker if I took one too many bathroom breaks.

An alien is anybody who isn’t a U.S. citizen so being an “illegal alien” doesn’t even make sense. Queen Elizabeth, who doesn’t have any legal status in America nor lives here, would qualify as an illegal alien. It’s a meaningless phrase which was only reinforced by Phil Collins who, in addition to having a hit about an imaginary girlfriend with an imaginary name (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sussudio), sang about illegal aliens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_Alien_%28song%29) in a very catchy way. “Undocumented alien” is just as meaningless for the same reasons but not nearly as catchy to sing. “Unauthorized Resident Alien” carries some weight however. A resident alien is actually a legal entity but the word “unauthorized” is weak and imprecise. You may not be authorized to take a day off from your job but that doesn’t make it illegal.

A migrant is effectively the same thing as an immigrant so let’s deal with them together. “Undocumented immigrant” is a very weak phrase. One doesn’t even need documents to be legally considered an immigrant. If an immigrant is returned to the home country by immigration authorities and a record is made of that, does that make them a documented immigrant? If the someone immigrated, became a permanent resident alien but then all the records related to his legal status was destroyed, is he then an undocumented immigrant? Unauthorized is stronger than undocumented but still has its problems. A person doesn’t need authorization or legal standing to become an immigrant. All you need to do is cross the border and find a place to live.

Immigrants who go through the legal process to have a federally recognized immigration status are formally called resident aliens and there are three categories of legal resident aliens. It makes sense that immigrants who don’t go through that legal process should be called Illegal Resident Aliens. That is the term I’ll use from now on. I doubt this will catch on though because of all the political points that are to be made by calling these people something else.

Political Descriptions & Benefits
Those who have a sympathetic, if not positive, view of illegal resident aliens work to soften the connotations inherent in the phrase. To be illegal is to imply criminality. No one wants criminals to immigrate except other criminals. Saying someone is unauthorized instead softens the implication. All of us have done unauthorized things at one time or another but that doesn’t mean you’re a criminal. It does still imply that what you did wasn’t right. If that is still too strong, remove the right and wrong aspect of it by saying that someone is undocumented. Being undocumented is like not getting your high school diploma. It would be good to have but you’re not wrong if you don’t. It’s more of an inconvenience than a matter or morality.

So now that you have weakened the descriptor from something that implies criminality to one that’s more about inconvenience, it’s time to modify the noun used. Resident alien, despite being the legal term for immigrants, is not a phrase that most Americans would recognize or would intuitively describe what it refers to. Saying you know a resident alien sounds like you have a Vulcan or a Wookie as a next door neighbor. So you don’t want to refer to aliens.

How about immigrant? Everybody knows immigration is a legal process and since hard work was put in to remove the implications of legality in the descriptor, the last thing one would want to do is invoke it in the noun. Let’s call them workers instead. That’s a nice, bland, and generic word for somebody and it implies that they are contributing to society and taking care of themselves. Perhaps illegal resident aliens are contributing to society and taking care of themselves but it has no bearing on a person’s legal status in the U.S.

In order to have a reasonable discussion on the national problem of illegal resident aliens, you first have to remove the euphemisms and name the subject at hand. Unfortunately, the atmosphere is now so polarized that a reasonable discussion and resolution of the problem is not only highly unlikely, but near impossible until all can agree on what to call the problem to begin with.http://thedcshuffle.com/political-euphemism-glossary/undocumented-workers/

Illegal Resident Alien (IRA) it is then. ;)

General Zod
02-19-08, 04:49 PM
This is why I laugh, chortle, and utterly guffaw when Bush says that he's done some amazing stuff to "protect our borders" which includes the wonderful and amazing "laser" fencing which has PROVEN to be completely ineffective (when it is turned on.. which has been very rare due to hardware "issues").

http://www.myfoxcolorado.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail;jsessionid=1375BA76DA95E6D5D481F55382F2B646?contentId=5814233&version=8&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=1.1.1&sflg=1

22-year-old Human Smuggler Arrested for 15th Time

EAGLE COUNTY -- Two illegal immigrants were arrested for human smuggling in Eagle today. One of the men has been deported 14 times for human smuggling prior to today's arrest. He is 22 years old.

At 8:21am a deputy pulled over a silver Chevy Venture van in the eastbound lane of I-70 for a license plate violation. The deputy discovered 13 illegal immigrants inside the vehicle.

The driver said he planned on delivering the twelve adult males in various locations that included Denver, Iowa, and Georgia.

Omar Alaverez-Mecedo, age 22, was arrested and charged with Human Smuggling, a class three felony, and operating a vehicle without a valid driver's license, a class two misdemeanor.

In the course of the investigation it was discovered that "Omar Alaverez-Mecedo's" real name is Israel Robles-Gaytan. According to ICE, Robles-Gaytan had already been caught and deported fourteen times; he gave law enforcement officials a different name each time.

Robles-Gaytan will be charged with Criminal Impersonation and 2nd degree Forgery in addition to the charges of Human Smuggling and operating a vehicle without a valid driver's license.

Silvestre Bermudez, age 37, was arrested and charged with Possession of a Forged Instrument and Second Degree Forgery.

Both men were in the country illegally. Alaverez-Mecedo admitted to previously being deported three times prior.

Alaverez-Mecedo and Bermudez are currently being held at the Eagle County Detention Facility with an Immigration Customs Enforcement holds and bond amounts of $15,000 and $2,000 respectively.

The eleven other occupants of the vehicle have been placed in ICE's custody pending deportation.

A procedure recently adopted in Eagle County allowed the Eagle County deputy to take immediate action regarding immigration enforcement.

I'm sure there are tens of thousands of Alaverez-Mecedos in the country that have been deported numerous times and simply come right back. Our current border "security" is a complete joke. Hopefully, eventually, we will get someone in who is serious about solving the problem. Unfortunately we'll need to wait another 4 years or so..

NotThatGuy
02-20-08, 11:02 AM
Great deterrent by the border security. :rolleyes: . People need to learn if they don't make it sting/hurt, it isn't going to curb behavior. Whether that be fines, incarceration, etc.

wishbone
02-20-08, 09:51 PM
U.S. Program to Verify Worker Status Is Growing
By RANDAL C. ARCHIBOLD
Published: February 13, 2008

LOS ANGELES — The number of businesses taking part in a voluntary program that allows them to verify electronically their newly hired employees’ legal authorization to work in the United States is soaring, the federal government said Tuesday.

About 52,000 employers are now using a Web-based system, known as E-Verify, compared with 14,265 a year ago. The system has been growing in the past year by 1,000 employers a week, said the United States Citizenship and Immigrations Services, which runs the program with the Social Security Administration.

Although the tally is a small fraction of the 5.7 million employers nationwide, program officials said it proved the system was catching on.

“This program is proving to be a key component in promoting the integrity of the employment verification process of our workforce,” Emilio Gonzalez, the director of citizenship and immigration services, said in a statement.

The system, which is free, verifies documentation like Social Security cards and immigration papers that people need to work in the United States.

About a third of the employers, 18,000, are in Arizona, where a new state law requires businesses to use the program to verify the right to work for new employees.

Business and immigrant rights groups in Arizona have sued to block the law, saying in part that E-Verify prompts employers to dismiss workers who may be authorized to work but do not have their paperwork in order. A federal judge upheld the law, but the groups have appealed.

In a separate case, a federal judge in December issued a stay in a lawsuit filed by the federal government against Illinois, which had passed a law prohibiting employers from using the system over questions about its accuracy.

About 93 percent of the employees checked in the program receive authorization in a manner of seconds.http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/us/13immig.htmlQ : Why should I consider participating in E-Verify?
E-Verify is currently the best means available for employers to electronically verify the employment eligibility of their newly hired employees. E-Verify virtually eliminates Social Security mismatch letters, improves the accuracy of wage and tax reporting, protects jobs for authorized U.S. workers, and helps U.S. employers maintain a legal workforce.

Q : Can I verify the immigration status of a new hire that is not a U.S. citizen?
No. E-Verify verifies a new hire's employment eligibility, not his or her immigration status.

Q : Can I terminate at any time?
Yes, you may choose to leave E-Verify at any time.http://www.dhs.gov/ximgtn/programs/gc_1185221678150.shtm

Obviously not all parties are on board with E-Verify and they will fight it tooth and nail.Attorney warns businesses about E-Verify
Chamber adviser: Wait to sign up for fed's program
Howard Fischer
Capitol Media Services
Oct. 18, 2007 12:00 AM

An attorney who represents the state's largest business group is urging companies not to sign up for a new government database that verifies workers' immigration status - at least not yet.

David Selden acknowledged that a law approved earlier this year by the state Legislature to punish companies that knowingly hire undocumented workers requires firms to enroll in the federal E-Verify Program. That system is designed to ensure new workers are in this country legally.

But Selden, who represents the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry, said if a federal judge rules that the law is illegal, firms that have signed up could face some unhappy implications, including the loss of some of their own constitutional rights.

And he said withdrawing from the program if the law is voided not only takes 30 days but also has legal implications of its own. Federal officials might take the decision to stop checking the legal status of new employees as an indication the firm is knowingly hiring those it should not, he said.

Selden's advice comes as the state Department of Revenue sent out notices to the approximately 130,000 companies in Arizona advising them of the new law, set to take effect Jan. 1.

The notice explains how companies found guilty of knowingly hiring people in the United State illegally can have Arizona business licenses suspended for up to 10 days for a first offense and lose licenses entirely for a second. It also details the requirement to use the federal database, complete with a link to the program's Web site.

What it does not explain, Selden said, are the strings that come with signing up.

"The memorandum of understanding is like a contract between you and the federal government," he said.

"You're waiving your Fourth Amendment rights," Selden continued. "You're consenting to allow the government to come in and conduct additional searches and seizures of your business records and access to your employees."

That waiver of rights, which is part of the E-Verify Program, is one of the legal arguments Selden and others are using to ask U.S. District Court Judge Neil Wake to declare the Arizona law - and its requirement to use the program - illegal. The lawsuit also contends the statute is an improper infringement by the state into issues of immigration, which are solely the purview of the federal government. (Q: Can I verify the immigration status of a new hire that is not a U.S. citizen? E-Verify verifies a new hire's employment eligibility, not his or her immigration status.)

Canceling participation in the program if the lawsuit is successful, Selden said, presents potential legal problems of its own.

"Somebody might, in the future, argue that you knowingly employed undocumented people because you withdrew from the program," he said. (Q: Can I terminate at any time? Yes, you may choose to leave E-Verify at any time.)

Selden noted that Wake has promised to rule on the legality of the law before the Jan. 1 effective date. He said that would give companies enough time to sign up.

But Selden conceded that it's not that simple for some firms.

For example, he mentioned a call he got recently from a man in Sierra Vista who said his company has only two employees. More to the point, Selden said, the company owner said his firm does not have a computer or Internet access, both necessary to use the database.http://www.azcentral.com/abgnews/articles/1018abg-employment1018.html

It will be interesting to hear the cries of those who continue to fight employee verification when a majority of businesses are in compliance and they are not.

Tuan Jim
02-21-08, 06:18 PM
Please don't lump Legal immigration in with ILLegal immigration. The Legal immigrants who follow the rules and wait their turn provide a much-needed benefit to the country. Who can argue that we don't need more nurses since there is a chronic nursing shortage in this country (even with increasing nursing school enrollment almost 100% in some places). The legal immigration quota has not changed to reflect the current economy in almost 20 years (and there's no sign of it changing anytime soon).

It might not be a human right to immigrate to the US, but it certainly is a human right to have access to timely nursing/medical care. This is just one of many examples where legal immigration has to be increased. There are many nuances to legal immigration; and it does not help the discussion to identify legal immigration with illegal immigration.

As far as I care, the illegal immigrants should all be deported to their countries at their expense.

I remember a flight I had a few years ago when I sat next to a man whose job it was to fly overseas to the Philippines and other countries specifically to hire health care workers. Despite the nursing schools at UNC and other universities, even those university hospitals are always short on staff. Personally I'd welcome any increase in legal Balikbayan workers - most of them area already fluent in English, they're well-trained and they'd be a lot better off in the US than trying to work in the middle east.

Xytraguptorh
02-22-08, 09:22 PM
Please don't lump Legal immigration in with ILLegal immigration. The Legal immigrants who follow the rules and wait their turn provide a much-needed benefit to the country. Who can argue that we don't need more nurses since there is a chronic nursing shortage in this country (even with increasing nursing school enrollment almost 100% in some places). The legal immigration quota has not changed to reflect the current economy in almost 20 years (and there's no sign of it changing anytime soon).

It might not be a human right to immigrate to the US, but it certainly is a human right to have access to timely nursing/medical care. This is just one of many examples where legal immigration has to be increased. There are many nuances to legal immigration; and it does not help the discussion to identify legal immigration with illegal immigration.

As far as I care, the illegal immigrants should all be deported to their countries at their expense.

Even at the current rate the population growth we're causing with historically high legal immigration numbers will make the nation a vastly different place. I'm amazed how many folks want to increase it even more.

Please watch this short video and see if you still can be so complacent about importing millions of people per year. And this video has immigration numbers that are actually lower somewhat than current rates. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7WJeqxuOfQ

NotThatGuy
02-22-08, 11:58 PM
Even at the current rate the population growth we're causing with historically high legal immigration numbers will make the nation a vastly different place. I'm amazed how many folks want to increase it even more.

Please watch this short video and see if you still can be so complacent about importing millions of people per year. And this video has immigration numbers that are actually lower somewhat than current rates. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7WJeqxuOfQ

That's a great link!

The reason why I'd increase the legal immigration....is because I'm wanting to replace a certain % of those deported (and their children).

General Zod
02-28-08, 09:16 AM
No surprise here. Virtual fencing was PROVEN to be mostly ineffective (in the rare circumstances where it worked) yet it is what the administration sold to the American people to appease them. Of course a real fence would definitely work - which is why they aren't going that route.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/27/AR2008022703747_pf.html

'Virtual Fence' Along Border To Be Delayed

The Bush administration has scaled back plans to quickly build a "virtual fence" along the U.S.-Mexico border, delaying completion of the first phase of the project by at least three years and shifting away from a network of tower-mounted sensors and surveillance gear, federal officials said yesterday.

Technical problems discovered in a 28-mile pilot project south of Tucson prompted the change in plans, Department of Homeland Security officials and congressional auditors told a House subcommittee.

Though the department took over that initial stretch Friday from Boeing, authorities confirmed that Project 28, the initial deployment of the Secure Border Initiative network, did not work as planned or meet the needs of the U.S. Border Patrol.

The announcement marked a major setback for what President Bush in May 2006 called "the most technologically advanced border security initiative in American history." The virtual fence was to be a key component of his proposed overhaul of U.S. immigration policies, which died last year in the Senate.

Investigators for the Government Accountability Office had earlier warned that the effort was beset by both expected and unplanned difficulties. But yesterday, they disclosed new troubles that will require a redesign and said the first phase will not be completed until near the end of the next president's first term.

Those problems included Boeing's use of inappropriate commercial software, designed for use by police dispatchers, to integrate data related to illicit border-crossings. Boeing has already been paid $20.6 million for the pilot project, and in December, the DHS gave the firm another $65 million to replace the software with military-style, battle management software.

In an interview, Gregory L. Giddens, the department's executive director for the border effort, confirmed that "we . . . have delayed our deployment as we work through the issues on Project 28. While there is clear urgency of the mission, we also want to make sure we do this right."

Boeing has said that the initial effort, while flawed, still has helped Homeland Security apprehend 2,000 illegal immigrants since September. It estimated in 2006 that it would spend $7.6 billion through 2011 to secure the entire 2,000-mile southern border, an ambition that was meant to win support from conservatives for legislation creating a guest-worker program and a path to legalization for 12 million illegal immigrants.

But officials said yesterday that they now expect to complete the first phase of the virtual fence's deployment -- roughly 100 miles near Tucson and Yuma, Ariz., and El Paso, Tex. -- by the end of 2011, instead of by the end of 2008. That target falls outside Boeing's initial contract, which will end in September 2009 but can be extended.

The virtual fence was to complement a physical fence that the administration now says will include 370 miles of pedestrian fencing and 300 miles of vehicle barriers to be completed by the end of this year. The GAO said this portion of the project may also be delayed and that its total cost cannot be determined. The president's 2009 budget does not propose funds to add fencing beyond the 700 or so miles meant to be completed this year.

"The total cost is not yet known," testified Richard M. Stana, the GAO's director of homeland security issues, because DHS officials "do not yet know the type of terrain where the fencing is to be constructed, the materials to be used, or the cost to acquire the land."

The pilot virtual fence included nine mobile towers, radar, cameras, and vehicles retrofitted with laptops and satellite phones or handheld devices. They were to be linked to a near-real-time, maplike projection of the frontier that agents could use to track targets and direct law enforcement resources.

GAO investigators said that Boeing's software could not process large amounts of sensor data. The resulting delays made it hard for operators in a Tucson command center 65 miles to the north to lock cameras on targets. Radar systems were also triggered inadvertently by rain and other environmental factors. Cameras had trouble resolving images at five kilometers when they were expected to work at twice that distance, Stana said.

He added that the system was developed with "minimal input" from Border Patrol agents, resulting in an unworkable "demonstration project" instead of a operating pilot system. He blamed the DHS for acting too hastily in trying to deliver a working pilot by last June.

The effort produced "a product that did not fully meet user needs, and the project's design will not be used as the basis for future . . . development," Stana testified, adding that the DHS plans to replace most of the components. The Wall Street Journal said Saturday that Boeing's pilot project will not be replicated.

A nongovernment source familiar with the project said that the Bush administration's push to speed the project during last year's immigration debate led Boeing to deploy equipment without enough testing or consultation.

With more time, the source said, equipment and software will be tested more carefully and integrated with input from Border Patrol agents in three remote locations. "Doing it this way mitigates all kinds of risk," said the source, who was not authorized to speak publicly. Those running the project "basically took equipment, put it on towers and put it out there without any testing as such" because of the tight deadline.

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said Friday that the department will "take elements" of the pilot project and apply them elsewhere, but that it plans to expand the number of mobile ground surveillance units from a handful to 40, and to double its fleet of three unmanned aerial vehicles. Boeing has offered DHS a $2 million credit from the funds it has already received.

Technology at the border is "not necessarily going to be in the configuration of P28," Chertoff said, adding that unmanned aerial systems in particular "will play a major role" in most border areas.

Boeing spokeswoman Deborah Bosick said the company is referring all questions to the DHS.

So, as predicted, this will be the game plan. Promise to do it but spend money on failed pilots for advanced technical fencing for years and years and then eventually just give up on the project all together. Basically, just sell the American people a lie to make them happy.

The Bus
02-28-08, 10:02 AM
That's a great link!

I paused it at 45 seconds. Apparently, low/no population growth has greatly benefited the "advanced" nations of the world, like Japan and Germany. :lol:

And at 2:45, he argues building schools is bad? What?

I also like how he has immigration in red and IMMIGRANTS in nice capital letters.

And his chart is a nice low-tech version of Al Gore's but it's not even that, um, shocking. He said we'd have ~340 million people by 2030. Even if we have 375 million, that's a shocking growth rate of... 1%.

<hr>

Also, immigration seems to have completely disappeared off the radar as far as political discussion. I guess we're moving on to another topic, eh?

wishbone
02-28-08, 10:55 AM
I paused it at 45 seconds. Apparently, low/no population growth has greatly benefited the "advanced" nations of the world, like Japan and Germany. :lol:

And at 2:45, he argues building schools is bad? What?

I also like how he has immigration in red and IMMIGRANTS in nice capital letters.

And his chart is a nice low-tech version of Al Gore's but it's not even that, um, shocking. He said we'd have ~340 million people by 2030. Even if we have 375 million, that's a shocking growth rate of... 1%.

<hr>

Also, immigration seems to have completely disappeared off the radar as far as political discussion. I guess we're moving on to another topic, eh?At least you watched the video longer than 20 secs (http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showpost.php?p=8431343&postcount=1). ;)

General Zod
02-28-08, 12:11 PM
Also, immigration seems to have completely disappeared off the radar as far as political discussion. I guess we're moving on to another topic, eh?
The only reason it has disappeared is because the current potential presidential candidates are already all on record of loving illegal immigrants. Probably the only one of the group that would actually really do anything even somewhat positive about it is Hillary.

So as far as really dealing with this issue the right way.. we're pretty much screwed over for another 4 years. So it isn't that the problem has gone away it's just that it doesn't do any good to discuss any real solutions with the current pro-illegal-immigration candidates we have to choose from.

Individual states and local ordinances will only continue to increase their anti-immigration policies so there will be plenty to talk about as the governments in-action continues to stifle any potential positive resolution.

Franchot
02-28-08, 07:29 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080228/ts_nm/usa_immigration_smuggling_dc

Vast immigrant smuggling ring smashed in L.A.

Thu Feb 28, 1:33 PM ET

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - U.S. immigration officials said on Thursday they had dismantled a Guatemalan human smuggling ring that brought more than 100 illegal immigrants a week into the Los Angeles area.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) said 13 people, including two of the suspected ringleaders, face charges in connection with what officials described as one of the largest human smuggling operations uncovered on the West Coast in recent years.

The nearly three-year investigation was sparked by the discovery in May 2005 of two "drop" houses in south Los Angeles where more than 140 illegal immigrants were living.

According to court documents, immigration agents uncovered an organization run by Guatemalan nationals that provided housing and transport to immigrants who had already been smuggled across the U.S.-Mexico border to Phoenix.

The immigrants were taken from Arizona to the Los Angeles area where they were held in drop houses before being loaded onto vehicles and driven to U.S. cities around the nation.

The immigrants, mostly from Central America, paid the organization between $1,200 and $3,700 each for the journey.

"Based on our investigation, we suspect this ring was transporting more than 100 illegal aliens a week into this area," said Los Angeles ICE investigator Jennifer Silliman.

"The human smuggling trade is a ruthless, greed-driven enterprise that puts communities at risk and generates billions of dollars in illicit proceeds," she said.

Seven suspects, including a third alleged ringleader, are still being sought. Those in custody face charges of transporting and harboring illegal aliens.

An estimated 12 million illegal immigrants, most of them Latinos, are thought to be living and working in the United States. Attempts to reform U.S. immigration laws and provide a path to legal status have been stalled in Congress for almost two years.

In a follow-up story, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and Chief Police William Bratton of Los Angeles gave the ringleaders of the human smuggling ring two "paddy-wacks" on the wrists and made them promise to "never, ever do anything naughty like this again."

Those people in the Los Angeles area awaiting their shipment of illegal immigrants can expect those shipments to be completed later this week after this story blows over. Sorry for the delay.

wishbone
02-29-08, 10:01 AM
Ariz. Illegal Immigrant Hiring Ban Stands
Court Won't Block State From Penalizing Employers Who Knowingly Hire Illegal Immigrants
PHOENIX, Ariz., Feb. 28, 2008

(AP) An appeals court's decision Thursday against temporarily putting on hold Arizona's employer sanctions law clears the way for prosecutors to begin bringing cases against businesses that knowingly hire illegal immigrants.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied an injunction request made by business groups that are challenging the law and appealing a lower court's decision that upheld the law. The groups sought to block the law while their case was under appeal.

"This removes what may have been a potential obstacle," said Roger Hall, an attorney representing 10 of Arizona's 15 county prosecutors in the case.

The law, intended to weaken the economic incentive for immigrants to sneak across the border, took effect Jan. 1 but prosecutors agreed to not file any cases before March 1 to allow enough time for lawyers to file appeals.

It prohibits businesses from knowingly hiring illegal immigrants and suspends or revokes business license penalties for violators.

Thursday's decision was the latest in a steady stream of setbacks dealt to the business groups in federal courts, where the challenge was filed.

Julie Pace, an attorney for groups, said it was possible that employers who face enforcement cases could file challenges to specific elements of the law in state court, such as whether it applies to only new hires or all workers on the payroll.

A decision from the federal appeals court could come by late summer or early fall, Pace said.

Opponents of the law said the new rules will burden employers, poison Arizona's business climate and that cracking down on such hirings is the sole responsibility of the federal government.

Supporters said state punishments were needed because the federal government hasn't adequately enforced a federal law that already prohibits employers from knowingly hiring illegal immigrants.http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/28/national/main3889437.shtmlThursday, February 28, 2008
Federal appeals court denies injunction against Arizona immigration law
Nick Fiske at 5:52 PM ET

[JURIST] The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Thursday upheld (http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/immigrants/valledelsol_v_goddard_orderdenyinginjunction.pdf) [order, PDF; ACLU press release] a district court's denial [JURIST report] of an emergency injunction to block enforcement of an Arizona law that penalizes employers who hire illegal immigrants while opponents of the law argue their case [ACLU materials] before the appellate court. Civil rights groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, filed a lawsuit and application for a temporary restraining order [PDF texts] against the Legal Arizona Workers Act [AZHB 2779 text, PDF; Arizona Republic backgrounder] in December 2007, alleging that the Act could either cause irreparable injury or undue hardship to state employers if allowed to operate during trial.http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2008/02/federal-appeals-court-denies-injunction.php

http://img172.imageshack.us/img172/6156/thumbsupqe2.gif

http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/4194/musicnoteqw0.gif All we are say-ing... is give enforcement a chance... http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/4194/musicnoteqw0.gif

Xytraguptorh
02-29-08, 08:25 PM
I paused it at 45 seconds. Apparently, low/no population growth has greatly benefited the "advanced" nations of the world, like Japan and Germany. :lol:

And at 2:45, he argues building schools is bad? What?

I also like how he has immigration in red and IMMIGRANTS in nice capital letters.

And his chart is a nice low-tech version of Al Gore's but it's not even that, um, shocking. He said we'd have ~340 million people by 2030. Even if we have 375 million, that's a shocking growth rate of... 1%.

<hr>

Also, immigration seems to have completely disappeared off the radar as far as political discussion. I guess we're moving on to another topic, eh?


Immigration may be given little attention among presidential candidates, but it is definitely on the radar in congress and local and state politics. Heath Schuler's SAVE Act may be coming up for a yes/no vote very soon. If it passes it will likely make a big impact at the national level. Attrition through enforcement clearly works, as proven at the state level, and the SAVE Act may just prove it at the national level. Despite all the name calling and empty rhetoric coming from the open borders lobbies and chambers of commerce, the tide is slowly turning in this debate. Clinton, Obama, and McCain can keep preaching about how we need to adopt Bush's domestic version of Iraq all they want ("comprehensive immigration reform"), but I don't believe it's in the cards.

I also don't believe Americans approve of growing the population so fast by immigration that we'll have half a billion people here by mid century (sooner if "comprehensive immigration reform" passes with its greatly accelerated chain migration, etc.). Yeah, yeah, I know: "...bigots... know nothings... fearmongers... diversity is our strength... the cost of produce will skyrocket... a nation of immigrants... enough room for one billion people... lower population density than Europe..."

NotThatGuy
02-29-08, 08:41 PM
I'm not naive enough to think the future president will do something positive in regard to real illegal immigration reform, I am just hoping they don't do severe damage to the small bits of progress states have been realizing recently.

Unfortunately non-border states (with few exceptions) aren't feeling the burden yet and they are being sold a false set of goods by most politicians that it is in our (US Citizens) best interest to welcome MILLIONS of illegals and the BILLIONS of negative dollars associated with them. Unfortunately if something isn't done soon (it may be too late), then we are screwed. I'm not talking about a blip on the economic radar, but long-last, society-damning, irreversible damage.

wishbone
03-02-08, 10:56 AM
Act of enforcement
Sheriff’s officers, deputies graduate from immigration program
Originally published March 01, 2008
By Nicholas C. Stern

Under the supervision of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, a branch of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the 26 deputized officers and deputies may initiate deportation proceedings on individuals encountered during their normal course of duties, found to be in the country illegally.

Graduates of ICE's 287 (g) program received instruction on immigration law, intercultural relations, and how to use U.S. Department of Homeland Security databases to help identify criminals and immigration violators, according to the Sheriff's Office.

"I believe in my heart this will be the single best thing we can do for our country, and for the citizens of Frederick County," said Sheriff Chuck Jenkins, who spoke at the ceremony.

Jenkins said Friday he did not foresee any direct costs to the county for implementing the 287 (g) program. Funding will be provided through ICE's budget, including reimbursements for handling and detaining violators in the county detention center.

Officers still have to wait for computer hardware and software installation for the program to fully take effect, Jenkins said.

Jenkins could not provide an exact date of when that will happen.

"(We will) push it along as fast as we can," he said.

James Dinkins, special agent in charge of the Baltimore division of ICE, said the Frederick County Sheriff's office is the sixth in the nation to have trained both correctional and task force officers under the 287 (g) program.

There are more than 400 local and state officers in more than 60 municipal, county and state agencies trained in the program, according to ICE.

Deputized officers will be able to enforce administrative and criminal violations of immigration law, Dinkins said. Local officers, as is the case with ICE officials, will not be able to question or detain people for simply speaking another language or having a different color of skin, Dinkins said.

"But if you snuck across the border," he said, "you should be fearful of being captured."http://www.fredericknewspost.com/sections/news/display.htm?StoryID=71892

How long before pro-illegal groups will decry local immigration enforcement as profiling even though the law does not allow for it?

The Bus
03-02-08, 12:08 PM
I also don't believe Americans approve of growing the population so fast by immigration that we'll have half a billion people here by mid century

Would you prefer a slower rate of growth? What if we limited our population to grow, say, 1.5% per year?

foggy
03-02-08, 01:36 PM
Would you prefer a slower rate of growth? What if we limited our population to grow, say, 1.5% per year?

A stable population is healthiest, but good luck with that.

foggy
03-02-08, 01:43 PM
I paused it at 45 seconds. Apparently, low/no population growth has greatly benefited the "advanced" nations of the world, like Japan and Germany. :lol:

And at 2:45, he argues building schools is bad? What?

I also like how he has immigration in red and IMMIGRANTS in nice capital letters.

And his chart is a nice low-tech version of Al Gore's but it's not even that, um, shocking. He said we'd have ~340 million people by 2030. Even if we have 375 million, that's a shocking growth rate of... 1%.

<hr>

Also, immigration seems to have completely disappeared off the radar as far as political discussion. I guess we're moving on to another topic, eh?


Building schools is bad, it's expensive. I enjoy having a home in a wealthy town with many seasonally occupied homes. That adds up to small schools, huge grand list, and low property taxes. On a home that is assessed at about $250K, I pay property taxes of around $700 a year.

NotThatGuy
03-02-08, 04:38 PM
Building schools is bad, it's expensive.
Especially went they are in response to millions of illegals flooding our country and abusing our services. Current schools are suffering from spikes in violence, drops in standardized scores, and divides in the community because of illegal immigrants.

The Bus
03-03-08, 01:23 PM
A stable population is healthiest, but good luck with that.

Healthy? How, and for whom?

Franchot
03-03-08, 11:54 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20080303/wl_mcclatchy/2867869

Mexicans say changing NAFTA may force them to move to U.S.

By Franco Ordonez, McClatchy Newspapers

Mon Mar 3, 6:17 PM ET

MEXICO CITY — Jesus Velasquez doesn't want to move to the United States .He fears, however, that he may have to if he loses his job selling avocados. Velasquez, 36, says he and his family have benefited from the North American Free Trade Agreement. For him, the alternative is to immigrate to the United States .

"The trade act is good because we have jobs," he said Sunday, speaking loudly over the clamor of hundreds of workers hauling fruits and vegetables off rumbling trucks. "If there are no jobs, more people are going to go to the U.S. I have so many friends who can't find jobs and leave."

As voters in Ohio , Texas , Rhode Island and Vermont prepare to go to the polls Tuesday, some workers and distributors at this 800-acre food market, one of the biggest in the world, are expressing concern about presidential candidates Hillary Clinton's and Barack Obama's threats to pull out of NAFTA unless it's renegotiated.

NAFTA is unpopular in Ohio , a key battleground state for Clinton and Obama, where thousands of manufacturing workers have lost jobs.

Several vendors at the Central de Abasto food market said NAFTA isn't perfect. Prices on many products have risen, and many corn farmers said they've been run out of business because of the influx of cheaper American grown corn. But overall, they say, NAFTA has been good for the country, and they worry what changes the U.S. would seek should it return to the negotiating table with Mexico and Canada .

"People are worried," said Gerardo Peralta , 55, who sells rice, nuts and condiments. "If the U.S. tries to renegotiate, they are going to do what's best for them. That could be bad for Mexico ."

Some Mexican leaders sought to downplay the candidates' statements as political rhetoric and "campaign talk."

Sen. Ricardo Garcia Cervantes said that any renegotiation of NAFTA would be based on the issues and not on the "heated statements" made by the American political candidates in hopes of gaining their party's nomination.

"In this electoral environment, one that we have to be very attentive to, we also have to be aware that many of these declarations by the Democratic candidates and Republicans are made for gaining votes," Garcia Cervantes , chairman of the Mexican Foreign Relations Commission for North America , said in a statement.

Mexico has gained because of NAFTA, according to Mexican Economy Secretary Eduardo Soto . He told a gathering last week of U.S., Canadian, and Mexican representatives that the Mexican economy has grown 51 percent because of NAFTA, that nearly 5 million jobs have been generated and that exports to the U.S. and Canada have multiplied five times.

"As representatives of the Mexican government, we do not want to insert ourselves into the U.S. political campaigns," he said. "However, we are convinced that what North America needs is more integration and not less integration. North America needs to look to the future and not return to the past."

Avocados have flourished under NAFTA, but not everyone is in favor of the trade agreement. Last month, hundreds of thousands of farmers clogged Mexico City streets with tractors to protest lifting corn tariffs under the free-trade agreement.

Corn farmers said the entry of cheap imported corn has undermined their profits, and towns are emptying because thousands of small farms have gone out of business. Many head to the U.S. illegally looking for better pay.

"It's not that we're against free trade," said Victor Suarez , the executive director of ANEC, a farmers' coalition, who helped organize the Mexico City rally. "We're in favor of free trade that is balanced— not one that is for corporations and monopolies. We want free trade that is fair for all parties involved."

Is this meant to be some sort of a joke? Where I live I haven't seen any Mexican citizens being denied entrance into the United States. As a matter of fact, Los Angeles is considered a sanctuary city and welcomes all immigrants--legal and illegal.

The Bus
03-04-08, 12:01 AM
Is this meant to be some sort of a joke? Where I live I haven't seen any Mexican citizens being denied entrance into the United States. As a matter of fact, Los Angeles is considered a sanctuary city and welcomes all immigrants--legal and illegal.

I love how the article is about opening up free trade and (by extension) our borders, and you seem to focus on a single quote from it. :lol:

DVD Polizei
03-04-08, 12:10 AM
I thought the article was about Mexicans extorting Americans coming into the US. Like Franchot says, big fuckin' deal. They come anyway, legal or illegal, and NAFTA just gives them justification to come here...legally or illegally.

Poor Jesus Velasquez from Mexico. He can't sell his avacados anymore. Boo hoo. He's forced to come to the US. Huh? Oh yeah. Because if you fail anywhere else in the world, the US is your guaranteed home. Why try in your own country? Just move to the US.

The Bus
03-04-08, 10:41 AM
Some of you may hear a whooshing sound while reading that story.

wishbone
03-05-08, 11:19 AM
Tuesday, March 4, 2008 - 10:37 AM MST
Identity Theft 911 report blames illegal immigration, government inaction for state's top ranking
The Business Journal of Phoenix

A new report by Identity Theft 911 says illegal immigration, fraudulent employment, methamphetamine use and the state's lack of enforcement have helped keep Arizona as the No. 1 spot for identity theft.

Scottsdale-based Identity Theft 911 provides fraud solutions and consumer education to Fortune 500 companies, insurance companies, corporate benefit providers, financial institutions and colleges.

Arizona ranks No. 1 in the nation for identity theft complaints per capita, the number of instances having risen 55 percent since 2002, the report states. Other findings include:

- More than 293,000 Arizona residents fell victim to identity theft in 2007.
- More than 1.1 million Arizona children's identities have been stolen.
- More than a third of stolen identities in Arizona are used for fraudulent employment.
- Identity theft cost Arizona victims an estimated $147 million last year.
- About 1.57 million Arizona residents, or 25 percent of the state's population, have been victims of identity theft in the last six years.http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2008/03/03/daily17.html

Hopefully the Legal Arizona Workers Act will help remedy this problem.

Dr Mabuse
03-05-08, 02:05 PM
you know the next president.. whoever it is from either party...

is going to make sure nothing happens on this issue...

they are all for amnesty and a 'let 'em come until every dollar of the GNP goes to entitlements' approach...

which the current Comptroller General David Walker says will be by 2026 at the latest... he is retiring early because of this and says he can no longer participate in the government that is helping that coming train wreck along...

The Bus
03-05-08, 02:33 PM
http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2008/03/03/daily17.html

Hopefully the Legal Arizona Workers Act will help remedy this problem.

:lol: An Arizona-based business states the need for their service is greatest in their state? Color me shocked.

wishbone
03-05-08, 09:23 PM
:lol: An Arizona-based business states the need for their service is greatest in their state? Color me shocked.http://img159.imageshack.us/img159/1647/arizonawo5.jpg

Consumer Fraud and Identity Theft Complaint Data January-December 2007 (http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2008/02/fraud.pdf)
Federal Trade Commission

wm lopez
03-06-08, 01:02 PM
In Chicago they are planning more marches in favor of the illegals this year.

wishbone
03-06-08, 08:56 PM
In Chicago they are planning more marches in favor of the illegals this year.Illinois Law Prohibiting the Use of E-Verify Further Suspended
February 21, 2008

The State of Illinois has agreed to delay until April 15, 2008 the implementation of a new law that would prohibit employers from using the federal government's E-Verify employment eligibility verification system. The law was to become effective on January 1, 2008. In September, the federal government sought to block implementation of the Illinois law by filing a lawsuit challenging its legality. In January, Illinois agreed to suspend the law until February 15, 2008 as part of the litigation. This week, the federal government and the State of Illinois agreed to put a hold on the lawsuit for another sixty days while the Illinois legislature considers two bills to amend the E-Verify law. As a result, Illinois will not enforce the law during the hold period. During this timeframe, employers operating in Illinois may continue to enroll in and use E-Verify.

As we reported earlier, the Illinois law would prohibit the use of E-Verify until the Department of Homeland Security and Social Security Administration (SSA) databases are able to resolve 99% of the discrepancy notices they issue within three days. Also under the law, employers that use E-Verify must (1) complete a standard attestation form issued by the state's Department of Labor, and (2) post in a place accessible to all prospective employees a notice stating that the employer is enrolled in E-Verify, along with standard anti-discrimination notices. While Illinois will not enforce the section of the law prohibiting the use of E-Verify, these additional requirements have been in effect since January 1, 2008. At this time, it is uncertain how the litigation will affect the additional requirements.http://www.visapro.com/Immigration-News/?a=808&z=22RESULTS OF REVIEW

We cannot predict the types of documentation each of the tested numberholders might present to an employer when attempting to prove their identities and authorization to work in the United States—as the current process allows a number of varying sources of this information. Accordingly, our audit conclusions only pertain to the accuracy of SSA’s Numident file when compared to (1) information SSN numberholders provided to SSA when applying for their original and/or replacement Social Security cards and, if applicable, (2) certain data elements DHS had for the Numident records tested. Despite these limitations, we found SSA’s Numident file information to be generally accurate.

We identified some discrepancies that could result in the Basic Pilot providing incorrect feedback to employers attempting to determine the employment eligibility of their workers. Specifically, of the 2,430 Numident records reviewed, 136 contained discrepancies in the name, date of birth or citizenship status of the numberholder or we determined that the numberholder may be deceased. In all of these cases, the Basic Pilot provided incorrect results. As a result, we estimate that discrepancies in approximately 17.8 million (4.1 percent) of the 435 million Numident records could result in incorrect feedback when submitted through the Basic Pilot. While the accuracy of SSA’s Numident records is noteworthy, if use of an employment verification service such as the Basic Pilot becomes mandatory, the workload of SSA and DHS may significantly increase—even if only a portion of these 17.8 million numberholders need to correct their records with one of these agencies.

We are particularly concerned with the extent of incorrect citizenship information in SSA’s Numident file for the foreign-born U.S. citizens and non-U.S. citizens we tested. Based on DHS information, we determined that 62 (7.7 percent) of the 810 foreign-born U.S. citizen Numident records we reviewed were misclassified—and the numberholders were not actually U.S. citizens. Given this exception rate, we estimate that about 616,420 of the approximate 8 million numberholders in the foreign-born U.S. citizen category are not actually U.S. citizens. Additionally, we noted that 57 (7.0 percent) of the 810 non-U.S. citizen Numident records we reviewed were currently misclassified—because the individuals had become U.S. citizens after obtaining their SSN but had not updated their records with SSA. Although SSA is not at fault for these latter misclassifications, we estimate that of the 46.5 million non-U.S. citizen records in SSA’s Numident file, about 3.3 million contain out-of-date citizenship status codes. As such, these individuals may need to visit an SSA office to correct their Numident record before they would be confirmed eligible for employment by the Basic Pilot.http://www.ssa.gov/oig/ADOBEPDF/A-08-06-26100.pdf

Given the estimates that ~600,000 people are misclassified as US citizens and ~3.3 million people have out-of-date citizenship status codes it would seem to be an undue burden on the DHS and SSA to resolve 99% of the discrepancy notices they issue within three days.

DVD Polizei
03-06-08, 10:11 PM
Just wait until a few dozen of those Mis-classified people become the next terrorists who wreak death and destruction on US soil.

We'll have camps setup to deal with the issue within weeks.

The US can do it. It just needs a little incentive.

NotThatGuy
03-06-08, 10:20 PM
http://img159.imageshack.us/img159/1647/arizonawo5.jpg

Consumer Fraud and Identity Theft Complaint Data January-December 2007 (http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2008/02/fraud.pdf)
Federal Trade Commission

Arizona, California, Nevada, Texas, Florida......the top 5. What do all of these states have in common? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

Yeah.

The Bus
03-06-08, 11:13 PM
Arizona, California, Nevada, Texas, Florida......the top 5. What do all of these states have in common? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?



Islamofascists?

NotThatGuy
03-07-08, 01:05 AM
Islamofascists?

All are border states and have huge problems with illegals....yes, even FL, as cutting across the gulf is a very popular path.

Franchot
03-07-08, 02:40 AM
Just wait until a few dozen of those Mis-classified people become the next terrorists who wreak death and destruction on US soil.

All are border states and have huge problems with illegals...

That day may be coming pretty soon because things are about to get a whole lot easier for people who wish to cross into the United States illegally.

http://kob.com/article/stories/S367486.shtml?cat=0

National Guard to be pulled from border patrol

The state said there will be a six month gap of vulnerability at the border when feds pull National Guard troops.

Sate homeland security said the National Guard on the border will leave in July, six months earlier than expected. Officials said border agents won’t take over until December at the earliest, leaving more than 180 miles of border virtually unwatched.

The original plan was to have the National Guard watch the border until 6,000 new agents could be properly trained.

Border patrol officials said that won’t happen until December, but state officials said that’s not stopping the feds from pulling the plug early.

State officials said the feds are not saying what’s behind the early withdrawal of guard troops from across the country.

The state said the withdrawal leaves the New Mexico border vulnerable.

"We'll create a window where the smugglers and the cartels and the border criminals may try and take advantage of," said Tim Manning of New Mexico Homeland Security.

Homeland security said heavy patrols and new fencing in Arizona and Texas means there will be a funneling effect of immigrants and smugglers into New Mexico.

Yeah. Why the fuck is the federal government withdrawing those troops so early? Is our government so stupid and blind that it would leave the door wide open when we get reports like this:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080307/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/terror_threat

WASHINGTON - Al-Qaida terrorists may be plotting more urgently to attack the United States to maintain their credibility and ability to recruit followers, the U.S. military commander in charge of domestic defense said Thursday.

Air Force Gen. Gene Renuart, chief of the U.S. Northern Command, also told reporters he has not seen any direct threats tied to the U.S. presidential elections. But he said it would be rash to think that such threats are not there.

"We need only to look at Spain and see that they're certainly willing to try to do something that is significant that could affect an election process," Renuart said. "I think it would be imprudent of us to let down our guard believing that if there's no credible threat that you know of today, there won't be something tomorrow."

While he said that U.S. authorities have thwarted attacks on a number of occasions, he said terrorist cells may be working harder than ever to plot high-impact events. He did not point to any specific intelligence that authorities have received but said the "chatter" they are hearing "gives me no reason to believe they're going to slow down" in their efforts to target the U.S.

"If an organization like that is to maintain credibility and continue to grow more of its extremists, it has to show tangible results," Renuart said. "So I think there may be a certain sense of urgency among that organization to have an effect. So it would tell me that they're trying harder."

Asked about the terror threat, Homeland Security spokesman Russ Knocke said, "There continues to be no credible information telling us about an imminent threat to homeland at this time."

In July, U.S. intelligence analysts, in a threat assessment, concluded that al-Qaida had rebuilt its operating capability to a level not seen since just before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The report said the terror network had regrouped along the Afghan-Pakistan border, but it also noted that officials knew of no specific credible threat of an attack on U.S. soil.

About the same time, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff raised eyebrows when he said he had a "gut feeling" that the United States faced a heightened risk of attack.

On Thursday, however, Chertoff said the U.S. has successfully lowered the risk of a large-scale domestic terrorist attack for the near future.

"We have significantly reduced the risk of a major attack in the short term," Chertoff told a group of editors at The Washington Post in a report posted online Thursday.

Chertoff said the U.S. effort was one of the reasons there has been an increase in attacks by Islamic extremists in Europe. Improvements in U.S. traveler screening and border security have shifted the focus of al-Qaida operatives and sympathizers to Europe, he said.

Renuart said that of the more than a dozen daily events that Northern Command responds to — ranging from natural disasters to threats — two or three may have the potential to be terrorist incidents.

The chatter, which included public audio and video tapes released on the Internet by al-Qaida leaders, suggests that they are looking for a way to have a big impact again, he said. Pressed for details, he said the chatter was more common but "whether that's louder or more ominous, I'm not sure I'm ready to draw that conclusion."

He did, however, repeat his assertion — which he first made in July — that he believes there are al-Qaida cells or sympathizers within the United States.

President Bush, in a speech Thursday, also said the United States remained under threat from terrorists. Marking the fifth anniversary of the creation of the Homeland Security Department, Bush said that in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks "it was hard to imagine that we would reach this milestone without another attack on our homeland."

Yet he said, "On this anniversary, we must also remember that the danger to our country has not passed. Since the attacks of 9/11, the terrorists have tried to strike our homeland again and again. We've disrupted numerous planned attacks — including a plot to fly an airplane into the tallest building on the West Coast and another to blow up passenger jets headed for America across the Atlantic Ocean."

Bush said the lesson is clear: "The enemy remains active, deadly in its intent — and in the face of this danger, the United States must never let down its guard."

If they're not going to build the fence, then at least leave some National Guard troops to protect us in case we get attacked from the south.

DVD Polizei
03-07-08, 03:29 AM
They're pulling the National Guard so they can be on stand-by for people who are going to start stealing gas at gas stations...

NotThatGuy
03-07-08, 05:21 PM
Just wait until a few dozen of those Mis-classified people become the next terrorists who wreak death and destruction on US soil.

We'll have camps setup to deal with the issue within weeks.

The US can do it. It just needs a little incentive.
If that's what it takes. I have no sympathy for anyone who breaks into our country and then gets found out. With terrorists, drug smugglers, human traffickers, gang members, etc crossing the borders....anything we can do to stop them, so be it.

Laser Movies
03-10-08, 05:19 PM
I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this one.

http://www.sss.gov/

ATTENTION, UNDOCUMENTED MALES
& IMMIGRANT SERVICING GROUPS!

If you are a man ages 18 through 25 and living in the U.S., then you must register with Selective Service. It’s the law. You can register at any U.S. Post Office and do not need a social security number. When you do obtain a social security number, let Selective Service know. Provide a copy of your new social security number card; being sure to include your complete name, date of birth, Selective Service registration number, and current mailing address; and mail to the Selective Service System, P.O. Box 94636, Palatine, IL 60094-4636.

Be sure to register before your 26th birthday. After that, it’s too late!

Selective Service does not collect any information which would indicate whether or not you are undocumented. You want to protect yourself for future U.S. citizenship and other government benefits and programs by registering with Selective Service. Do it today.

wm lopez
03-10-08, 11:33 PM
I saw on THE FACTOR on Monday that San Francisco is announcing that if you are an illegal alien that you are welcomed to S.F. And that they are planning on printing info to hand out. And THE FACTOR plans on helping them spread the news so that S.F. can get all the aliens there. Anybody live in S.F. and know more?

NotThatGuy
03-11-08, 11:27 PM
I saw on THE FACTOR on Monday that San Francisco is announcing that if you are an illegal alien that you are welcomed to S.F. And that they are planning on printing info to hand out. And THE FACTOR plans on helping them spread the news so that S.F. can get all the aliens there. Anybody live in S.F. and know more?
No, and if that happens....I'm never going there.

Franchot
03-13-08, 01:00 AM
Here's an interesting alternative to building a fence between the United States and Mexico:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080313/us_nm/usa_border_moat_dc

Arizona city seeks moat to secure Mexico border

YUMA, Arizona (Reuters) - Most plans to gain control of the porous U.S.-Mexico border focus on some combination of fence. But this city in far west Arizona is looking to build a moat.

Faced with high-levels of crime and illegal immigration, authorities in Yuma are reaching back to a technique as old as a medieval castle to dig out a "security channel" on a crime-ridden stretch of the border and fill it with water.

"The moats that I've seen circled the castle and allowed you to protect yourself, and that's kind of what we're looking at here," said Yuma County Sheriff Ralph Ogden, who is backing the project.

Curbing illegal immigration and securing the nearly 2,000 mile (3,200-kilometre) southwestern border are hot topics in this U.S. election year. Washington has pledged to complete 670 miles of new barriers by the close of 2008, despite resistance from landowners and environmentalists.

The proposal seeks to restore a stretch of the West's greatest waterway, the Colorado River, which has been largely sucked dry by demand from farms and sprawling subdivisions springing up across the parched southwest and in neighboring California.

The plan to revive the river, which drains from the Rocky Mountains through the Grand Canyon and runs for 23 miles (37 kilometers) along the border near Yuma, seeks to create a broad water barrier while also restoring a fragile wetland environment that once thrived in the area.

"What you are building is a moat, but it's bringing the life and the wildlife back," said Ogden, an Old West lawman with a handlebar mustache, explaining how the project differs from other plans to fix the border.

"It's innovative thinking. It doesn't take much brainpower to build a 12-foot high fence around something, but this is unique."

RECLAIMING NO-MAN'S-LAND

The project is starting with a desolate 450-acre patch of scrub and thickets known as Hunter's Hole, a once-thriving wetland on the border a few miles southwest of Yuma that has become a haven for drug smugglers and illegal immigrants crossing from Mexico and a headache for local law enforcement.

"It's in the United States, but it's become a no-man's-land, an area where bodies were dumped, where people and drugs were smuggled over the border," said Ogden, whose deputies share much of the responsibility for tackling border-related crime with federal police.

Engineers plan to dig a "security channel" up to 10-feet (3 meters) deep and 60 feet wide through the problem area, which lies a short way inside the border. The dirt removed would be used to create a levee along the outside to give U.S. Border Patrol agents an elevated patrol road overlooking the line.

The area would also be replanted with native sedges and rushes to provide habitat for threatened local species such as the Yuma Clapper Rail, a secretive marsh bird. Backers say it would also provide a space for residents of Yuma, a farming town popular with winter visitors, to walk and fish.

The organization behind the project would like to extend it the entire course of the Colorado River, which marks the U.S.-Mexico border, in what it sees as an environmental recovery program that complements the Border Patrol's task.

"It doesn't replace the Border Patrol's efforts, it supplements them. At the same time you are restoring habitat in a secure environment and creating a place to relax," said Charles Flynn, the executive director of the Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area Corporation.

PROMOTING SECURITY AND FRIENDSHIP

Curbing illegal immigration and securing the border are issues that frequently confront both presumptive Republican Party nominee Sen. John McCain and Democratic rivals Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, who are campaigning to be their party's pick for the November election.

The U.S. government has sought remedies including boosting police numbers, adding surveillance technologies, and, controversially, constructing hundreds of miles of vehicle and pedestrian barriers along the international boundary, which has drawn fierce opposition from some quarters.

More than a hundred border landowners in south Texas have resisted a government bid for access to their lands to build new fencing, which they see as a meddlesome and unwelcome intrusion, while environmentalists say fences may sever key wildlife corridors for animals including the jaguar.

The planned revival of the Colorado River, where it carves through desert peppered with fertile farmland, is something of a standout.

It has won the backing of the federal Bureau of Land Management, which owns the land; the Bureau of Reclamation, which has provided a grant to drill wells and pump groundwater, and a letter of support from the Border Patrol. Also on board are Yuma City Council and local residents including the Cocopah Indian tribe, who have farmed the river's flood plains for centuries.

Perhaps more surprisingly, it has also won support across the boundary in Mexico, where plans to build border fences are eyed with suspicion. Local environmentalists there have embraced the project and plan to work in tandem to restore the wetlands on the Mexican side.

"Instead of putting up walls and promoting division, we can promote security and friendship," said Osvel Hinojosa, the director of Pro-Natura, an environmental group in northwest Mexico, of the proposal.

"Moreover, instead of damaging the environment, we can improve it."

Of course, it would be impossible to build a moat that stretches across the entire border between Mexico and the United States. And even if such moat could be constructed, I'm sure that those who argue that we should not build fences between our neighboring countries will argue that since we now have a moat we need to build MANY BRIDGES so that people can easily pass between the two countries.

Giantrobo
03-13-08, 02:51 AM
Is that an Onion article? A moat?

Puzznic
03-13-08, 07:04 AM
People make rafts to sail from Cuba to the US. No moat is going to stop them, which is exactly why the mexican official would support it over a fence.

The Bus
03-13-08, 03:17 PM
Here's an interesting alternative to building a fence between the United States and Mexico

We need more than a moat. Make it bigger, and have the water moving, like a river. Then give it a name in Spanish so they understand that it is a Big River.

Yes, that should work flawlessly. A big river.

jdodd
03-13-08, 03:37 PM
We need more than a moat. Make it bigger, and have the water moving, like a river. Then give it a name in Spanish so they understand that it is a Big River.

Yes, that should work flawlessly. A big river.
:lol:

It's like you reached into my brain and transcribed my thoughts. And then made them funny.

wishbone
03-13-08, 04:25 PM
They probably received the memo on moats, rivers, etc., anyway.

http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/9832/mexicanbordercomicni7.jpg
PELIGROS POR CRUZAR EN ZONAS DE ALTO RIESGO
Cruzar por el río puede ser muy riesgoso, sobre todo si cruzas solo y de noche.
La ropa gruesa aumenta su peso al mojarse y esto dificulta nadar o flotar.

NotThatGuy
03-17-08, 02:13 PM
Weak immigrant sent home after free treatment in Ariz.

Chris Hawley
Republic Mexico City Bureau
Mar. 17, 2008 12:00 AM
ECATEPEC, Mexico - When the motorcycle that illegal immigrant Laura Velázquez was riding slammed into a concrete wall, it cost a Phoenix hospital $478,000 to save her life.

The hospital is footing the bill. But Velázquez's life in America is finished after hospital officials sent her back to Mexico.

Velázquez's story is an example of what happens when uninsured illegal immigrants need medical care, a problem that costs American hospitals and taxpayers millions of dollars each year. It's a critical issue, because a federal program aimed at reimbursing hospitals is scheduled to disappear at the end of this year.

But Velázquez's case also shows how innocent people can get ensnared in the illegal-immigration controversy. Velázquez, now 22, never asked to come to the United States; she was brought as a child. She wasn't driving the motorcycle; she was only a passenger.

Her journey home has attracted the attention of Mexico's national media. Government officials in Ecatepec, her hometown on the outskirts of Mexico City, say she should have been allowed to recover in Phoenix, and they have accused the United States of indifference.

Velázquez, meanwhile, lies in a dim, windowless room in a relative's home in Ecatepec and thinks about how things used to be.

"I want to walk again," she said, her voice a whisper because of a tracheotomy tube. "I want to go home."

When Velázquez was 11 years old, she and her mother climbed into a car trunk in Nogales, Sonora, and emerged again in Arizona.

They moved to Laveen with her father, a landscaping worker. Velázquez learned English, attended Summit High School and had two children with her high-school sweetheart. She worked off and on at a furniture store, processing credit applications.

On Jan. 26, a neighbor invited her for a ride on his motorcycle.

What happened next is unclear. The Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, the Arizona Department of Public Safety and the Phoenix Police Department have no record of the crash. Velázquez remembers little, her family says.

But whatever happened, it was violent. When an ambulance brought her to St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix, her upper spine was snapped, her left lung was collapsed, and her left leg and arm were broken.

Paramedics reported that the motorcycle had hit a concrete wall, said Margaret McBride, the hospital's vice president of mission services. The driver escaped with minor injuries, said Velázquez's mother, Estela Loera.

For days, Velázquez fought for her life.

"The patient has been medically unstable," doctors' notes said. "Surgery has been canceled multiple times."

In all, Velázquez underwent three operations to repair her spine, mend her bones and install breathing tubes.

No one is sure how much uninsured illegal immigrants like Velázquez cost the United States, according to a 2004 report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office. That's because hospitals usually don't ask patients about their immigration status.

But a study by the Border Counties Coalition estimated that illegal immigrants accounted for more than $200 million of the $845 million in unpaid medical and ambulance bills in 2002 at hospitals along the U.S.-Mexican border.

(Not nationally....JUST along the US-Mexican border)

By law, hospitals must treat emergency medical patients until they are healthy enough to be discharged.

The cost is a serious burden for hospitals in border states. Some have had to cut back on other services.

"I've had to close my OB department down, I've had to close my long-term-care facility down, because the drain on the resources doesn't allow it," said Jim Dickson, administrator of Copper Queen Community Hospital in Bisbee. "We're into rationing because of the uncompensated (care)."

Under pressure from lawmakers in border states, in 2003 the federal government set aside $250 million a year to reimburse hospitals for illegal-immigrant care.

But the program applies only to the first two or three days of care, and the program expires at the end of this year. Hospital trade groups are lobbying to get it renewed.

As Velázquez's tab grew, hospital officials knew they would never get the money back, McBride said. So they declared her a charity case, essentially forgiving her $478,000 bill.

Last year, St. Joseph's spent $17 million on such charity cases, immigrants and U.S. citizens alike.

So how does this effect them community.......

"Ultimately, it does cost the community," McBride said. "It affects the programs we can offer, the technology we can buy, the raises we can give employees."

Hospital officials knew another problem was on the horizon: Velázquez would need long-term care. Without insurance or legal residency, no U.S. hospital would take her. Mexico, however, has government-run hospitals and a free, if rudimentary, socialized medical system.

Velázquez arrived in Hermosillo, capital of the northern Mexican state of Sonora, in an aircraft chartered by St. Joseph's. In her immigration photo, blue-and-white breathing tubes cover her face.

Relatives went to the Ecatepec government for help bringing Velázquez the remaining 1,000 miles home. That's how the Mexican press learned about her case.

"Woman deported in vegetative state," read a headline in the newspaper El Universal. "Hospital that treated her reported her as illegal," read one in El Gráfico. "(Mexican) federal authorities did nothing," El Milenio added.

The stories exaggerated. Velásquez wasn't in a vegetative state, her family says. She can talk a little and move her head, arms and toes. She wasn't deported, either: McBride said St. Joseph's never had any contact with immigration officials.

But at a time when the United States is building border fences and cracking down on illegal immigrants, the story of the comatose woman kicked out by the Americans quickly spread around Mexico. None of the articles mentioned the free medical care.

The Ecatepec government looked into flying her home, but no airline would take a patient in such grave condition, said Osmar León, a city councilman who chairs the health committee. A chartered jet was out of the question: It would have cost $40,000, one-tenth of the city's entire health budget, he said.

And so Velázquez was loaded into an ambulance for a 26-hour ride across Mexico.

She arrived in Ecatepec on Feb. 21, her 22nd birthday, with an infection. Three days later, she stopped breathing. The family gave her CPR and rushed her to an Ecatepec hospital.

"She should never have left Phoenix. She needed more time to recover," León said. "The United States of America has intervened in other countries in the name of human rights but is incapable of respecting the human rights of its own immigrants."

Loera said she had hoped Velázquez could go through rehabilitation in Phoenix. León said he was asking Ecatepec's congressmen to try to get her into a rehabilitation program at a federal neurological hospital in Mexico City, but there has been no progress.

McBride said St. Joseph's doctors believed Velázquez was stable enough to travel when they discharged her. They also said it is unlikely she will walk again.

For now, Velázquez spends her days in a bed in her aunt's small house in a poor, unkempt neighborhood in Ecatepec. A bare light bulb lights the room. A picture of the Virgin of Guadalupe hangs over her bed.

"I know the doctors did their best up there," Loera said. "I just wish she could have stayed longer."

SOURCE: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0317injuredimmigrant0317.html

The Bus
03-17-08, 02:26 PM
So, ped, I guess you're pro giving out universal insurance to poor Americans?

After all, it costs you guys $645 million each year.

wishbone
03-17-08, 02:54 PM
U.S. to pay medical bills for illegal immigrants
Tuesday, May 10, 2005 Posted: 9:59 AM EDT (1359 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Health care providers can charge the government for emergency care provided to illegal aliens beginning Tuesday.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services issued final guidance Monday that sets up a system for reimbursement. Lawmakers set aside $1 billion over four years for the program, created by Medicare legislation passed in 2003.

For hospitals in border states, the additional money can mean the difference between running a profitable business or an unprofitable one, said Don May, vice president of policy for the American Hospital Association.

"I don't know if it will completely change their financial picture, but for those hospitals on the border, this is going to make a difference in ensuring they are there to treat the patients, not just the undocumented ones, but all the patients living in those communities," May said.

Two-thirds of the money will be distributed to health care providers based on a state's percentage of undocumented aliens. The remaining third will go to providers in the six states with the largest number of arrests of undocumented aliens.

The states receiving the highest amounts in the current fiscal year are California, $70.8 million; Texas, $46 million; Arizona, $45 million; and New York, $12.25 million.

Payments to providers will be made on a quarterly basis and will be adjusted proportionately if the bills exceed the state's allocation.

One group that advocates stricter immigration policies said the government's reimbursement of hospitals was the right thing to do.

"It seems to me that if the federal government has abdicated its responsibility for immigration enforcement, then it's responsible for making those jurisdictions whole," said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a think tank based in Washington.http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/10/heallth.illegal.ap/Velázquez's story is an example of what happens when uninsured illegal immigrants need medical care, a problem that costs American hospitals and taxpayers millions of dollars each year. It's a critical issue, because a federal program aimed at reimbursing hospitals is scheduled to disappear at the end of this year.Looks like time is about up for federal assistance on this issue.

Th0r S1mpson
03-17-08, 03:26 PM
I'm in favor of a moat if it is easy set aflame via motion sensor

The Bus
03-17-08, 04:43 PM
I'm in favor of a moat if it is easy set aflame via motion sensor

You were in favor of the wall too, until I pointed out a Catapult could take it down. Sure, they can be taken down by peasants, but they can take down a Tower!

Franchot
03-17-08, 04:58 PM
Although I have a great deal of compassion for this woman's injuries, at what point does the United States finally come to the conclusion that it simply cannot help all the needy and underpriviledged in the world? When the U.S. is bankrupt, has slid into third-world status, or has been overthrown by terrorists because money used to defend the country isn't available anymore?

Mexico has a large number of millionaires and a healthy economy. In fact, the world's richest man, Mexican tycoon Carlos Slim, is from sunny Mexico. Perhaps, the woman's plight could be broadcast on the television networks and maybe some of those millionaires can reach into their piggy banks and help her out.

The Bus
03-17-08, 05:21 PM
In fact, the world's richest man, Mexican tycoon Carlos Slim, is from sunny Mexico.

Did Warren Buffet change names and addresses?

NotThatGuy
03-17-08, 07:19 PM
So, ped, I guess you're pro giving out universal insurance to poor Americans?

After all, it costs you guys $645 million each year.

:lol:......no. Absolutely against it.

crazyronin
03-17-08, 07:23 PM
Did Warren Buffet change names and addresses?

You might want to read this. (http://money.cnn.com/2007/08/03/news/international/carlosslim.fortune/index.htm)

Franchot might want to read this. (http://www.stockmarketsview.com/mukesh-ambani-becomes-worlds-richest-man/22/)

Franchot
03-17-08, 08:45 PM
Franchot might want to read this. (http://www.stockmarketsview.com/mukesh-ambani-becomes-worlds-richest-man/22/)

Correction. :D

"...Carlos Slim, the second* richest man in the world..."

(*.9007 or almost/about a billion less than the man in first place)

wm lopez
03-18-08, 06:09 AM
Why not pass a law where if your not a citizen no service.
And if your visiting America you must buy Health Care insurance as long as you stay here visiting.

The Bus
03-18-08, 12:12 PM
You might want to read this. (http://money.cnn.com/2007/08/03/news/international/carlosslim.fortune/index.htm)

Franchot might want to read this. (http://www.stockmarketsview.com/mukesh-ambani-becomes-worlds-richest-man/22/)

Sorry, didn't know we were <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idUSN0564885820080305">ignoring current events</a> and going back to old articles as proof.

Venusian
03-18-08, 09:54 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/immigrationreducescrimerates

immigration causes crime rates to go down

jiggawhat
03-19-08, 02:13 AM
What's so funny about the article above is that 100% of illegal immigrants are committing a crime, but that somehow doesn't get counted.

Franchot
03-19-08, 02:44 AM
What's so funny about the article above is that 100% of illegal immigrants are committing a crime, but that somehow doesn't get counted.

That would go under the category of "Unreported Crimes" along with many other types of criminal acts which go "unreported" in cities such as Los Angeles where gang intimidation and the fear of retaliation for reporting such crimes is prevalent.

From the article:

Crime dropped even in immigration hot spots, such as Los Angeles (where it dropped 45 percent overall)

It's often mentioned out here on the radio and in the papers that gang activity and homicides are not included in these crime statistics. Why? I don't know. (And I can't recall the reason for it, either. Maybe someone else knows the answer and can supply it.) Gang crime in Los Angeles is on the rise and doesn't look to be included in Harvard University sociologist Robert Sampson's report. (To tie this into this thread, there is a substantial number of illegal immigrants (or sons and daughters of illegal immigrants) who are involved in the L.A. gangs.)

http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?id=157826

Interracial gang violence rises in Los Angeles as crime falls

Violence between black and hispanic gangs increased in Los Angeles last year despite an overall fall in crime for a fifth consecutive year, according to newly released figures.

Crime rates dipped by 7.7 percent in 2006, with 31.5 crimes per 1,000 people, Los Angeles Police Department Chief William Bratton and Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa told a press conference late Tuesday.

The crime figures, which must still be officially verified by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, are the lowest the city has had since 1956.

However, the fall in crime was offset by a spike in interracial violence, mostly between black and hispanic gangs. Around 56 percent of the city's 478 murders in 2006 involved gangs, Bratton said.

Eighty-six percent of murder victims and 92 percent of suspects were either black or Latino -- a disproportionately high number, considering the city's population is 11 percent black and 48 percent Latino, Bratton said.

Villaraigosa said authorities would make tackling gang crime a priority in the coming year.

"Our New Year's resolution in 2007 is to make violent street gangs public enemy number one," he said. "The idea that anybody would be shot or killed because of their race or ethnicity is unacceptable in this, the most diverse city anywhere in America."

The problem is that many innocent victims are shot in the crossfire between these feuding gangs.

(I'll have to try and find some statistics for 2008, but the mayor and police chief have been in the news lately scratching their heads and butts as to why gang violence has dramatically risen this year while the city's other violent crime continues to fall.)

Giantrobo
03-19-08, 05:48 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/immigrationreducescrimerates

immigration causes crime rates to go down

That's a nice "Feel good" article but it doesn't take into account that -<i>some</i>- of the kids of these Illegals immigrants do turn to gangs. I've pointed out before, but no one cared, certain areas of LA are seeing an increase in race related gang crimes due to fighting between Black and Latino gangs. It's been pointed out the Latino gangs, supposedly under order from the Mexican Mafia, are trying to run Blacks out of areas once traditionally Black that are now becoming largely Hispanic.

As pointed out in the post before this one, for some odd reason they don't count this in their numbers. I also laugh when they say that "HATE CRIMES" are supposedly down, yet "Hate Crimes" between Blacks and Hispanics are on the upswing. Hell, here in the Southern California we have race related incidents in Black and Hispanic High Schools more than anyone would like to admit. For a while there schools were being shut down due to small riots almost every couple weeks.

Venusian
03-19-08, 08:51 AM
because they are talking about violent crimes

wishbone
03-19-08, 10:21 AM
Saturday, June 30, 2007
Too Many Broken Windows or Too Few Immigrants?

As homicides soar in a number of East (and West) Coast cities, criminologists and police experts are divided on how to explain this dramatic turn around to what had been a nearly universal decade of crime decline between 1994 and 2004. As profiled in a recent Yahoo story (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070629/ap_on_re_us/homicide_corridor), one emerging explanation focuses on the failure of these cities to adopt the right kinds of policing strategies, the other emphasizes the role of immigrants in defusing violence within low income parts of the city.

One theory is that police in these particular cities (Philadelphia, Baltimore, Newark) missed out on the revolution in police technique carried out in the 1990s in various cities (especially New York). Some adherents of this view emphasize the popular Broken Windows theory that when police crack down on a minor misbehavior (from public urination to marijuana use) they send signals through the community that results in fewer serious crimes.

The other major theory, promoted by criminologists Robert Sampson of Harvard and Larry Sherman of Penn emphasizes the relative absence of immigrants in these same cities. Sherman has offered the most complete explanation (although he acknowledges it is untested and incomplete):"Cities that have heavily concentrated and segregated African-American poverty are the places that have increases in homicide," Sherman said. "The places that have lots of immigration tend not to have nearly as much segregation and isolation" of poor blacks.

Sherman acknowledges the theory is evolving and unproven.

"The fundamental driver of the homicide rate is honor killings among young black men," Sherman said. "What is it about immigration that tends to tone it down? I don't think we know the answer to it."

He said immigrants "change the spirit" of a community and affect the way young black men in poor areas relate to each other.

"It seems a plausible way to account for the big difference in the trajectory of homicides" in stagnant cities versus ones with lots of immigration, he said.

The percentage of foreign-born residents is 11 percent in Philadelphia, compared with 22 percent in Chicago, 37 percent in New York and 40 percent in Los Angeles, according to 2005 census figures.It is noteworthy that these theories point in very different policy directions. Fixing more "Broken Windows" would mean more "governing through crime." Getting more immigrants, many of whom are illegal, into places like Newark and Philadelphia would be mean less "governing through crime."http://governingthroughcrime.blogspot.com/2007_06_01_archive.htmlexcerpt

Harvard sociology professor Robert Sampson and University of Michigan education professor Stephen Raudenbush, criticizing broken windows in The American Sociological Review, were similarly selective. To measure levels of disorder, they filmed neighborhoods systematically — but only between 7 A.M. and 7 P.M., when light was sufficient for their cameras. That's like looking for lost car keys under the lamppost because that's where the light is good, not because that's where the keys were lost. Missed in this approach were bar closings, early-morning drug sales, prostitution, and other forms of disorder that take place between dusk and dawn.

Sampson and Raudenbush also misrepresented the broken windows hypothesis. They claimed that broken windows posits a direct link between disorder and serious crime. From the first presentation of broken windows we have argued, to the contrary, that the link, while clear and strong, is indirect. Citizen fear, created by disorder, leads to weakened social controls, thus creating the conditions in which crime can flourish.http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/bratton_kelling200602281015.aspThe Connection Between Immigration and Crime
Research sociologists Rubén Rumbaut and Robert Sampson to lead discussion for congressional staff and press in a teleconference hosted by the Immigration Policy Center.http://www.asanet.org/cs/immigrationteleconferenceThe Immigration Policy Center (IPC) is the research arm of the American Immigration Law Foundation (AILF). IPC was established in 2003 with the mission to provide policymakers, academics, the media, and the general public with access to accurate information about the effects of immigration on the U.S. economy and society. The IPC attracts nationally recognized scholars as research fellows and guest authors, and publishes timely reports on the role of immigrants and immigration policy. Together, the IPC director, fellows, and staff have been a major voice in the national debate on immigration. They have testified before Congress and regularly serve as experts on immigration law and policy issues for members of the media.http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/index.php?content=aboutWSJ's Illegal Immigration Naivete Continues, with a Small Concession
By Tom Blumer
Created 2007-12-31 08:56

A subscription-only editorial [1] (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119906137541358533.html
) in the Wall Street Journal on Monday propagated a carefully-worded whopper, but at least made a small change to the paper's insufferable 23-year "There Shall Be Open Borders" mantra (bolds are mine):

A recent paper by the Immigration Policy Center, an advocacy group, notes that "Numerous studies by independent researchers and government commissions over the past 100 years repeatedly and consistently have found that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes or be behind bars than the native born." Today, immigrants on balance are five times less likely to be in prison than someone born here.

None of this is to argue that illegal immigration doesn't have costs, especially in border communities and states with large public benefits. In the post-9/11 environment, knowing who's in the country is more important than ever. That's an argument for better regulating cross-border labor flows, not ending them.

The Immigration Policy Center's use of 100 years averages things out quite a bit, doesn't it?

Looking at more recent data might be a little more helpful -- like the two May 2005 items that follow, documented here last year [2] (http://www.bizzyblog.com/2006/10/02/illegal-immigration-in-sw-ohio-willful-blindness-is-a-big-part-of-the-problem/
).

First, Government Accountability Office (GAO) report number GAO-05-337R [3] (http://www.gao.gov/htext/d05337r.html) ('Information on Criminal Aliens Incarcerated in Federal and State Prisons and Local Jails,' issued May 9, 2005) informed us that:

At the federal level, the number of criminal aliens incarcerated increased from about 42,000 at the end of calendar year 2001 to about 49,000 at the end of calendar year 2004--a 15 percent increase. The percentage of all federal prisoners who are criminal aliens has remained the same over the last 3 years--about 27 percent."

If the current estimate of 12 million illegals in the US is accurate, that would mean that illegals are over nine times MORE likely to be in federal prison:

- 49,000 divided by 12 million is 0.41%.
- 133,000 citizen prisoners [the other 73%] divided by the US population of about 300 million is .044%.
- .41% divided by .044% is 9.21. That's more likely to be behind bars -- not less, as the Immigration Policy Center claims.

A second GAO report, number GAO-05-64R [4] (http://www.gao.gov/docsearch/abstract.php?rptno=GAO-05-646R) ('Information on Certain Illegal Aliens Arrested in the United States,' also released on May 9, 2005), studied the criminal records of over 55,000 incarcerated illegal immigrants, and found the following (bold is mine):

..... they were arrested at least a total of 459,614 times, averaging about 8 arrests per illegal alien. Nearly all had more than 1 arrest. Thirty-eight percent (about 21,000) had between 2 and 5 arrests, 32 percent (about 18,000) had between 6 and 10 arrests, and 26 percent (about 15,000) had 11 or more arrests. Most of the arrests occurred after 1990. They were arrested for a total of about 700,000 criminal offenses, averaging about 13 offenses per illegal alien. One arrest incident may include multiple offenses, a fact that explains why there are nearly one and half times more offenses than arrests. Almost all of these illegal aliens were arrested for more than 1 offense. Slightly more than half of the 55,322 illegal aliens had between 2 and 10 offenses. About 45 percent of all offenses were drug or immigration offenses. About 15 percent were property-related offenses such as burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and property damage. About 12 percent were for violent offenses such as murder, robbery, assault, and sex-related crimes. The balance was for such other offenses as traffic violations, including driving under the influence; fraud--including forgery and counterfeiting; weapons violations; and obstruction of justice.

Here's a question for the WSJ -- How much criminal activity does it take before you'll be convinced that there indeed is a culture of criminality and violence in the illegal-immigrant population, and that it permeates a disproportionate percentage of its population?

As to the "concession," I may have missed it previously, but it's the first time I've seen the Journal acknowledge that its July 3, 1984 "There Shall Be Open Borders" [5] (http://www.bizzyblog.com/2007/06/01/shes-right-and-her-newspaper-is-and-has-been-wrong/#more-5314) editorial (reproduced at link for fair use and discussion purposes) was even slightly imperfect. Now I guess it's "There Shall Be Regulated Labor-Flow Borders."

It's a start.http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2007/12/31/wsjs-illegal-immigration-naivete-continues-small-concession

I think the jury is still out on the assertion that "Immigration Reduces Crime Rates."

NotThatGuy
03-19-08, 11:38 AM
What's so funny about the article above is that 100% of illegal immigrants are committing a crime, but that somehow doesn't get counted.

[Pro-Illegal Supporter]"But *THAT* doesn't count...because it isn't a REAL crime. A real crime is the mistreatment....blah blah blah. We want free everything, you better give it to us, or you are racist. blah blah blah. Unfair labor practices. They deserve equal rights, etc.[/Pro-Illegal Supporter]

Franchot
03-19-08, 12:42 PM
Here are the latest Los Angeles crime statistics that Robert Sampson might want to look into:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-homicide19mar19,1,180590.story

Jump in homicides not tied to racial animosity, LAPD says

Los Angeles Police Department officials, alarmed by the continued rise in the homicide rate this year, sought Tuesday to debunk the notion that racial animosity has been at the heart of many of the killings.

A detailed analysis of each of the homicides this year leaves little doubt that race is not the prime factor and that "the most likely suspect is one that looks just like their victim," Deputy Chief Charlie Beck said in a presentation to the department's civilian Police Commission.

By Monday, 93 people had been killed in Los Angeles this year, compared with 69 during the same period last year -- a nearly 35% increase. As the weeks pass, the bloodshed in 2008 grows worse than the previous year. Two weeks ago, for example, the increase in the homicide rate over last year stood at 27%. The rise is also outpacing those in New York City and Chicago -- cities that have seen significant, but less dramatic, increases this year, according to Det. Jeff Godown, who oversees the LAPD's extensive effort to analyze crime statistics.

In addressing the commission, however, Beck and Godown hammered on a message that top police officials have been sounding for weeks: that neither race nor any other single factor can explain the increase in homicides.

In fact, they said, department statistics for this year found that in cases in which police have information about the suspect, the vast majority of alleged assailants in the killings of Latinos were other Latinos and the vast majority in killings of blacks were other blacks.

Of 57 Latinos killed this year, 87% are believed to have been struck down by other Latinos, the LAPD data show. (Those statistics do not include several cases in which the race of the suspect is unknown and one case in which the assailant is white.)

Nearly two-thirds of black homicide victims, meanwhile, are suspected to have been killed by other blacks. In about one of every three cases, the killer is thought to be Latino -- up from 14% over all of 2007. But even in instances in which a Latino is believed to have killed a black person or vice versa this year, police insist that there is no evidence that points to race being the primary factor in the homicide.

Police Chief William J. Bratton is counting on those raw numbers to deflate what several commissioners and police officials called the "rumors" and "myth" of violent racial tensions between blacks and Latinos. True or not, that sentiment has gained credence in recent weeks with several high-profile slayings and injuries in which suspected Latino gang members killed blacks. In one case, a 6-year-old black boy was shot in the head when two men flashed gang signs and opened fire on the SUV the boy was riding in. Days earlier, 17-year-old football standout Jamiel Shaw Jr. was gunned down on the sidewalk near his home, allegedly by a member of the notorious 18th Street gang. The attacker shot Shaw after demanding to know if the teenager belonged to a gang.

The question of race-related homicides has been a prickly one for Bratton. At a recent news conference about several high-profile slayings, he angrily rebuked a television news reporter for suggesting that the crimes spoke to racial tensions.

"He's full of [expletive]," Bratton said of the reporter.

Black civic leaders, although agreeing that there is no evidence to support the notion of a full-scale, widespread race-driven battle between Latinos and blacks, cautioned Bratton and others not to downplay the idea that race has played a role in some of the killings.

"Anyone who is saying that race is not a factor at all is not completely in touch with the feelings of people on the streets," said John Hope Bryant, chairman of Operation HOPE. Referring to Shaw, Bryant said police would be "hard pressed to tell people on the streets that it is not about race . . . when two Hispanics approach you with a clear energy that is about race and shoot you dead."

Earl Ofari Hutchinson, a political analyst who heads the Urban Policy Roundtable, echoed Bryant.

"They do not want to inflame tensions; I understand that," he said. "But . . . they also must not disarm a community by not fully coming to grips with the possibility" that race is a factor in some cases.

Despite the new numbers from the LAPD, authorities have said in the past that race-based violence has been a problem in some L.A. neighborhoods. Federal prosecutors last year charged members of a Latino gang with a violent campaign to drive blacks out of the unincorporated Florence-Firestone neighborhood, which allegedly resulted in 20 homicides over several years.

In the Harbor Gateway district of L.A., police launched a crackdown last year on another Latino gang accused of targeting blacks, including 14-year-old Cheryl Green, whose death became a rallying point. In 2006, members of the Avenues, a Latino gang, were convicted in federal court for a series of assaults and killings in the early 1990s targeting blacks in Highland Park.

But both police and some academics who have studied L.A. homicide numbers have long insisted that interracial violence is still relatively rare.

Apart from dissecting each homicide in search of common denominators, Bratton and his deputies have been at a loss on how to counter the rise in killings this year. In many ways, the homicide rate appears to be an anomaly, because other violent crimes, and crime overall, are down in the city.

With the so-called precursor crimes -- such as assault with a deadly weapon and shootings -- down, Bratton and Beck said they still expected homicides to taper off as the year goes on. And the city is struggling with the perception of widespread violence in part because there was a record low number of killings last year. Compared with the homicide rate for the same period of 2006, this year's figures are up only 7%.

Regardless, it has been a frustrating year, police said. "If I could find a pattern, if I could find something that I could immediately impact . . . I would," Beck said. "But the truth is that so far there is not a lot of connectivity" between the killings.

Perhaps, Mr. Sampson, Mayor Villarigosa, and Chief Bratton are looking for that silver lining in all of this and overlooking the facts.

Giantrobo
03-19-08, 08:55 PM
They're trying to have to both ways and ignoring what people living in this mess and who've been victims are telling them. Bratton, Villarigosa, and others are full of it.

Whatever...that's nothing new in LA.

Franchot
03-23-08, 03:19 PM
Where was ICE at during this "sporting event"? Why didn't they take on Super Mojado and send him back to Mexico?

From today's LA Times:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lucha23mar23,1,954248.story

Pin pals grapple for a cause

Wrestler Super Mojado takes on INS Man in a fundraiser for recently arrested immigrants.

By Louis Sahagun, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
March 23, 2008

More than 300 Latino immigrants gathered in a sweltering Panorama City lot on Saturday to witness the birth of an unassuming hero -- a compact, dark-skinned man wearing a T-shirt, jeans, running shoes and a garish silver-and-blue mask.

They call him Super Mojado, or Super Wetback.

He was the star of a main wrestling event where bad guys in stretch pants worn under brightly colored underwear were supposed to get their lumps to raise funds for 130 illegal immigrants waiting to be deported. The immigrants were arrested during a recent Immigration and Customs Enforcement raid at the Van Nuys headquarters of Micro Solutions Enterprises, a manufacturer of computer imaging supplies.

Tickets went for $10 a person, or whatever a customer could afford.

Super Mojado strode into the ring and climbed up on the ropes to declare his mission -- "I've come to fight against discrimination and for immigrants of all ethnic backgrounds!" Moments later he was confronted by a grimacing white foe whose affiliation was announced in the huge letters sewn onto the legs of his orange-and-black stretch pants: INS, the former acronym of the U.S. Immigration Service.

It was classic lucha libre, or Mexican "free fight," which is a popular form of teatro do los pobres, or poor man's theater, in which the good guys get beaten senseless and trampled while on their backs and gasping for breath. Then, as the referee is about to slap a open palm down on the mat for a third time, they rally and take care of business.

For their mostly working-class fans, the luchaderos embody the most pressing desires and hot-button issues of the moment. When the Mexican economy was in a nose dive, a tag team emerged as the Dollar and Peso.

Then there was Super Barrio, the poor man's friend, and Super Amores, a titan of love whose black costume was covered with red hearts.

Now, in the aftermath of a series of high-profile immigration raids that have separated parents from their children and focused renewed attention on deportation proceedings, Super Mojado has emerged to defend the nation's estimated 12 million illegal immigrants.

"You're going back to Mexico!" INS Man yelled as the crowd hurled a torrent of angry epithets, called groceros, at him.

Super Mojado and loyal sidekicks, including Matt of the Repo Show, didn't like that. Tag team warfare erupted in the ring.

Eventually, the good guys chased the combatants back into a nearby dressing room.

So who is that masked man?

"I want to keep that a secret from everyone except my mother because I needed her blessing," Super Mojado said in Spanish. "I will come out of hiding whenever the community needs me."

For all his strength, courage and wit, however, there was one thing Super Mojado could not do. That was to get rid of the house-arrest tracking bracelets attached to the legs of the 130 arrested Feb. 7 pending their court proceedings. Many of them volunteered at Saturday's grunt-and-groan spectacle to serve lunches of tacos and corn on the cob, clean the lot and sell tickets.

"I want to reach out and take off their ankle bracelets," Super Mojado said from behind the mask. "But I can't."

The wrestling ring, which was 19 feet square and 3 feet high, and the services of the 25 grapplers who fought in it were donated by Joe and Leo Medina, owners of Pacific Promotions, which specializes in professional wrestling and boxing events.

The event was held at the headquarters of Hermandad Mexicana, a nonprofit organization dedicated to helping immigrants with legal problems.

"I never thought this character, Super Mojado, would get this big this fast," Joe Medina said. "This is his first of many matches. But we're not going to exploit it."

Super Mojado is wrestling for charity, not profit, Medina explained.

Judging from the outpouring of appreciation at Saturday's free-for-all, Super Mojado would probably continue to be top of the ticket at future events, taking a beating and then bopping his opponents with the moral support of allies like Matt of the Repo Show, a first-generation Irish immigrant dedicated to defending underdogs.

"Super Mojado symbolizes the hopes and struggles of immigrants everywhere," said lucha libre fan Marisol Velasquez, 33. "I think we have a winner."

I hope Super Mojado doesn't support the illegal immigrant below. I'd be severely disapppointed in him if he did.

Also from today's LA Times:

Man accused in teen's slaying is in U.S. illegally

By David Zahniser, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
March 23, 2008

An alleged gang member accused of killing a 17-year-old high school student just one day after being released from jail has been living in the country illegally, possibly for more than a decade, federal immigration authorities said Saturday.

The Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency has filed paperwork naming 19-year-old Pedro Espinoza, the suspect in the March 2 killing of Los Angeles High School football star Jamiel Shaw Jr., as a potential candidate for deportation.

Virginia Kice, a spokeswoman for the immigration agency, said an immigration hold was issued for Espinoza on March 13, nearly a week after he was arrested in connection with Shaw's death.

No such hold was placed on Espinoza on March 1, the day he was released from a Los Angeles County jail after serving roughly four months for exhibiting a firearm and resisting arrest, said Sheriff's Department spokesman Steve Whitmore.

"We are going to follow up to determine whether or not we have had prior interactions with this individual," Kice said.

The federal immigration agency confirmed the deportation filing on the same day that Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa participated in a ceremony dedicating a memorial in Arlington Heights where Shaw was killed.

A highly regarded running back for his school's football team, Shaw was named the Southern League's most valuable player in 2007. He had drawn the interest of recruiters from Stanford and Rutgers universities, his family said.

The killing outraged civic leaders and reignited a citywide debate over the role that race has played in a recent spate of homicides.

Both the immigration agency and the Sheriff's Department have employees who interview jail inmates about their immigration status. Those interviews can be undermined when inmates give aliases or inaccurate places of birth, authorities said.

After his most recent arrest, Espinoza was "uncooperative," telling immigration investigators he did not know where he was born or the whereabouts of his family, Kice said.

The next day, investigators found a relative of the suspect who said Espinoza had been smuggled into the United States from Mexico when he was 4, Kice said.

In the greater Los Angeles area, the immigration agency files several thousand immigration holds each month on inmates who are considered deportable, Kice said. Those inmates are identified as deportable if they are living in the country illegally or if they are legal residents who have been convicted of certain crimes.

The immigration hold placed on Espinoza will mean little if he is convicted of first-degree murder.

"If this prosecution goes forward and he's convicted, in all likelihood he's looking at a very, very severe sentence," Kice said.

So if I'm arrested for a weapons offense and I'm uncooperative and cannot give any background about my country of origin, I'm free to go? Hmmm...

Laser Movies
03-23-08, 03:34 PM
Here's another recent LA Times article. Just doing jobs Americans won't do for less than minimum wage.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-carwash23mar23,0,3592975.story?page=1


Inspectors find dirt on books at Southern Calif. carwashes
Owners frequently violate labor and immigration laws with little risk of penalty, officials say. Many workers are loath to complain, but some have formally accused their bosses of underpaying them.
By Sonia Nazario and Doug Smith
Los Angeles Times Staff Writers

2:34 PM PDT, March 22, 2008

A team of state inspectors strode into the Blue Wave Car Wash in West Los Angeles, past latte-sipping customers in electric massage chairs and into the gritty carwash tunnel.

"¿Cuánto gana usted?" the inspectors asked worker after worker, about 20 of them, most Latino immigrants. How much do you make? Each carwashero responded that he earned minimum wage or more -- just as the owner of the Blue Wave, one of the region's busiest carwashes, had told the inspectors.

Looking over payroll records, however, the regulators became suspicious. Employees who said they were full time were listed as working just 10 or 15 hours a week.

Inspector Martha Mendoza ushered Juan Cruz Santiago, a small man with salt-and-pepper hair, away from the others. During gentle questioning under a ficus tree, he admitted that most days, he and his 66-year-old father worked for tips only. So did nearly half the other employees, he said. It had been that way for at least six years.

"It's bad," the 41-year-old Oaxacan immigrant whispered to Mendoza, his eyes darting nervously toward his boss' office. "Other carwashes are the same, no?"

Many are. A Times investigation has found that hand carwashes, automotive beauty shops patronized by tens of thousands of Southern California motorists every day, often brazenly violate basic labor and immigration laws, with little risk of penalty.

Half or more of carwash owners flout the minimum-wage law, estimated David Dorame, the longtime lead investigator for low-wage industries at California's Division of Labor Standards Enforcement.

Despite many undocumented workers' reluctance to complain to authorities, employees at a fifth of Southern California's carwashes in the last five years have formally accused owners of illegally underpaying them, The Times found.

From Santa Monica to Westwood to Koreatown, many workers said they received only tips for some or all of their shifts. Labor division inspectors estimated that about 10% to 20% of car dryers are not paid by owners.

"Tips only" is a requirement for some new workers until owners are satisfied that they can properly dry a car, laborers said. Their take is typically $10 to $30 a day.

At the Blue Wave, owner Isaac Shanfeld of Beverly Hills told inspectors that all of his workers earn at least minimum wage, costing him $700,000 a year. He said he didn't know of anyone working for tips alone, but added: "I can't police everyone." After the inspection last fall, he was issued a $2,600 citation for wage violations.

'Want to go home?'

Paid workers at some of the other 1,000 washes throughout Southern California said they earned as little as $1.63 an hour. As of January, the minimum wage was $8 an hour.

"We sweat like animals," said detailer Manuel Varela, 42, who until recently worked at a carwash just west of downtown Los Angeles.

To survive, carwasheros often pool resources, cramming into cheap one-room apartments, sometimes sleeping side-by-side on the floor like, as one worker put it, salchichas embolsadas, or stuffed sausages.

"Employers feel out the lowest amount these workers will take," said Timothy Kolesnikow, a former attorney at California's labor division who now represents carwasheros and others in his private practice."People don't realize the human misery involved in getting their cars washed. There is a dark side to this."

Desperate for a toehold in the region's underground economy, many in the largely undocumented workforce are loath to complain for fear of being fired, physically threatened or deported.

Pedro Guzman, an undocumented Honduran immigrant, said a manager at a Hollywood carwash was able to keep employees washing at a furious pace -- 350 to 700 cars a day -- with two words in ungrammatical Spanish: "Quiere casa?" "Want to go home?"

Immigration authorities have done little to discourage the steady flow of undocumented workers into carwash jobs, affording owners an endless supply of cheap, eager and easily exploited laborers.

Despite the national debate over illegal immigration and a recent crackdown on some employers, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials say they have not raided a single California carwash in at least four years.

A 2000 survey by the U.S. Census showed that 92% of Los Angeles County's carwasheros were noncitizens, and nearly a third acknowledged they were undocumented. Even some owners say that a majority of the workforce is in the country illegally.

"I cannot get legal employees," said Gene B. Ho, owner of Pico Car Wash on West Pico Boulevard near Western Avenue. "If anyone called immigration authorities, they'd shut me down."

The Times analyzed worker claims and lawsuits as well as all state inspection reports for the last five years at carwashes in California's eight southernmost counties. A reporter interviewed dozens of workers and owners and visited numerous carwashes, sometimes accompanied by state inspectors or labor advocates.

The problems are hidden in plain sight. Carwashes dot nearly every Southern California neighborhood, but workers often are paid off the books. Regulators tend to visit carwashes infrequently, and they hold employers to account even less often.

Nearly a quarter of carwashes inspected in the last five years were not itemizing payroll deductions, suggesting not only that they might not have been paying minimum wage but also that the government was losing significant tax revenue.

Thin profit margins

In Southern California, each carwash grosses an average of nearly $1 million a year, according to the Western Carwash Assn., an industry trade group. But legitimate operators typically run on 8% to 10% profit margins and sometimes struggle to make payroll, said Randy Cressall, a board member of the association and owner of Valencia Auto Spa in Valencia.

Operators who skirt minimum wage and other laws -- a minority, according to Cressall -- make it tough to compete.

His association actually supports increasing fines as much as threefold so that they are not accepted as merely a cost of doing business.

"We still allow people to operate cheaper illegally, even faced with fines, than legally," he said. "Large carwashes can save $5,000 or $10,000 at least a month by not abiding by the law."

He has advice for customers as well: Shun carwashes that offer a complete cleaning, inside and out, for as little as $5.

Fares Ennabe, the Honduran immigrant owner of Western & Fourth Car Wash in Koreatown, said owners are just trying to give customers what they want.

"People here want good quality, and cheap," said Ennabe, who in 2005 and 2006 paid three settlements totaling $42,500 to workers who claimed he did not pay minimum wage, records show.

According to a 2005 survey by the International Carwash Assn., nearly two-thirds of motorists nationwide used carwashes, often going four to six times a year. In car-obsessed Southern California, the numbers might be higher.

On a fall day at Pico Car Wash, a steady flow of vehicles rolled through the wash's tunnel, pulled along by a chain as workers rushed to soap them up.

"The chain doesn't stop," said Erick Garcia, a secador, or dryer. He has done every job at Pico, which has settled five individual wage claims totaling nearly $22,000 since 2000 and is embroiled in a lawsuit over wages by 13 workers, including Garcia.

Soapers, or jaboneros, wash 500 cars on the busiest days, crouching to brush wheel rims and climbing to scour SUV roofs, Garcia said.

"Your hands have to be like lightning," swiftly lathering one side in less than two minutes as the boss expects, said Garcia.

After a worker parked dripping cars in a line, a sweating Garcia toweled off one after another. As customers waited in the shade, he wiped the interiors of vehicles cooked uncomfortably hot by the midday sun, then sprayed degreaser on the wheel rims. He and the other workers, about a dozen men aged about 20 to 40, wore baseball caps over wet rags to keep from overheating.

Time was everything. Garcia's boss, inside an air-conditioned office adorned with a "God Bless America" banner, watched his workers on security monitors. And Garcia said he didn't want customers to complain or hold back on his tip.

By comparison to some of his co-workers' jobs, his was easy. He pointed toward the entrance of the car wash, where vacumeros were suctioning dust out of carpets and plucking out debris, including rotten food, matted dog hair and used condoms.

"You spend all day stooped over," said Garcia, who spent his first year at the wash as a vacumero. His back would spasm as he bicycled home after 11-hour days.

The owner, Ho, said his workers are exaggerating.

"They are trying to rip me off," said Ho, who emigrated from South Korea in 1979. He called many of his workers lazy. "I try to treat employees better than at any other car wash."

Drying by hand

Elsewhere in the country, most carwashes are automated, requiring few workers. But in Southern California, hand carwashes proliferated in the 1990s, fueled by a large influx of cheap immigrant workers and low start-up costs. (Such carwashes sometimes use machinery to soap cars but rely on people to dry them by hand.)

Many of the business owners are legal immigrants from Asia and the Middle East. Kevin Kish, an attorney with Bet Tzedek Legal Services, a nonprofit agency that provides low-wage workers free legal help, said the new owners often brought from their homelands a cavalier attitude toward the law and a tendency to treat workers almost like property.

Many Latino immigrants, particularly those newly arrived, find working at a carwash preferable to the uncertainty of day labor and are happy to earn many times what they can back home.

An aggrieved worker, however, has limited options for redress.

He can rely on state inspectors to fine owners for problems on the job. Or he can seek back pay through a lawsuit or a wage claim, which involves administrative proceedings.

With just a dozen labor division investigators to focus on carwashes and six other low-wage industries statewide, inspections are relatively rare. Until 2007, the state labor investigators visited just a few dozen of California's 1,600 carwashes each year.

Increased oversight

In the last year, the division has stepped up its oversight. Together with federal labor inspectors, as well as health, safety and tax regulators, it has targeted those suspected of being the worst offenders. Visits are triggered, for instance, when workers at a single carwash have filed five or more wage claims.

Regulators still are hampered by limited resources and bosses who routinely threaten workers or coach them to lie, said Lupe Almaraz, who retired last year as the labor division's deputy chief in charge of field operations.

Inspectors often are reduced to relying on the employer's own records, which they say are easily falsified.

A 2003 state law gave the division better tools and more funding to crack down on the industry. But the agency has largely failed to implement the law. Nearly four in 10 carwashes aren't even registered with the state, the law's most basic requirement.

Two-thirds of carwashes inspected in the last five years were out of compliance with one or more state labor laws -- considered by regulators to be the worst record among the state's low-wage industries, including agriculture and garment manufacturing. Although some violations were minor, others were fundamental: underpaying workers, hiring minors, going without workers' compensation insurance and denying meal breaks.

When the state fines the businesses, not only are the amounts often low, but workers don't see much of what is collected. Since 2003, the state has fined carwashes a total of $4.7 million. Most went to the state, with just 12% going to workers, according to a Times analysis of state data.

State officials say one reason is that workers have the option of filing suits or claims. But that carries its own risks. Not the least of them is retribution from bosses.

Three former workers from South Gate Car Wash were granted temporary restraining orders in December, saying the former owner threatened one man's life and another man's family in Guatemala after the men filed wage claims. The matter was settled.

In fact, more than half of claims end without any award, often because the worker drops the matter.

State labor officials acknowledge that they encourage settlements rather than full hearings, to spare the strapped division the cost and time involved. From 2003 through 2007, workers who received settlements got a third of what they claimed to be owed, state data show.

A settlement -- or even a victory -- doesn't ensure compensation. About half the time, owners still don't pay, labor division and worker advocates said.

In some cases, the money at stake can be substantial.

The owners of Thousand Oaks Hand Wash saved themselves more than $1 million by underpaying 100 employees over four years, according to a 2007 lawsuit by one undocumented worker that seeks class-action status.

The lawsuit triggered a state inspection, and the owners, Hadi and Barbara Shirazi, were fined $372,000 for not paying minimum wage, and for overtime and child-labor violations. To settle the state's case, the owners agreed to pay $200,000 to current and former employees, according to the Shirazis' attorney, Michael Justice.

Such a resolution is rare.

Some carwasheros, like Gabriel Chavez, 24, have learned that complaining to the state doesn't pay.

The former bus driver from Chiapas, Mexico, was on his knees, vacuuming a car, at Nary's Hand Car Wash west of downtown L.A. when a pair of labor division inspectors made a surprise visit in April 2004. As they talked to owner Patrick Lo in his office, he said, Lo's wife hurried up to Chavez and half a dozen other workers and pressed two fingers against her lips, according to Chavez and a co-worker.

Chavez felt torn. He had crossed the border illegally to pay off $3,000 in debt and feed his wife and two young daughters back home. He needed this job.

Still, he felt what Lo was paying was unjust. Speaking out might boost his pay, even get him back to his daughters faster. Quietly, behind the carwash, he told one of the inspectors about his true pay, then between $3 and $4 an hour.

The inspector informed Chavez of what minimum wage was at that time: $6.75 per hour. "He's robbing us," he told the other workers that day. "We have to tell the truth."

The officials fined Nary's and Lo $17,000 for violating payroll requirements. But the money went to the state, not to workers, and the government did nothing to investigate further, state records indicate.

Lo started paying minimum wage, but workers say he compensated them for fewer than half the hours they actually put in.

Through his attorney, Lo said he had to pay workers less than minimum wage to stay competitive. "In the laws of the underground economy, he couldn't raise wages without having no or a very small return," said Jonathan Primuth.

All Chavez knew was that his paycheck totaled the same as before the inspectors arrived.

"From now on," he told himself, "I'll just take what the boss gives me."

sonia.nazario@latimes.com

doug.smith@latimes.com

If you suspect a particular car wash is in violation of state labor laws, call the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement hotline toll-free at (877) 227-5158.

NotThatGuy
03-24-08, 12:31 AM
Anyone leave this at PostSecret? :lol:

http://bp1.blogger.com/_a7jkcMVp5Vg/R-WH71TzPII/AAAAAAAAEe8/xmf4St20OzA/s400/sick.jpg

Giantrobo
03-24-08, 07:09 AM
Original Story that's been pretty big here in So Cal.

L.A. Police: Gang Member Charged With Murder in High School Football Star's Death (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,336834,00.html)

and then....


Here we go again... Maybe if they would just take the current laws seriously and enforce them then stuff like this could be avoided. Yeah right....


Is Jamiel Shaw's killer in U.S. illegally? (http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local&id=6036162)

Suspect is 19-year-old Pedro Espinoza


LOS ANGELES (KABC) -- Immigration officials report that Jamiel Shaw's killer <b>may be</b> in the U.S. illegally.

Shaw, a high school football star was gunned down just steps away from his home by a Los Angeles street gang member.

The suspect is 19-year-old Pedro Espinoza.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokesperson Virginia Kice said that her agency has filed an immigration hold against him.

Espinoza had been released from incarceration on an unrelated charge on March 1.

Shaw was shot and killed March 2.

al_bundy
03-24-08, 08:36 AM
this used to be the norm back when the gangs were the bloods and the crips, nothing changes

Giantrobo
03-24-08, 09:22 AM
this used to be the norm back when the gangs were the bloods and the crips, nothing changes

Whatthefuckever dude. I guess that makes it ok then.

Maybe if they had locked up some of those Crips and Bloods it would've happened less. Now they're not dealing with the latest social problem, that being Illegal immigration, and so a whole new set of killers is shit on our streets.

NotThatGuy
03-24-08, 11:47 AM
Whatthefuckever dude. I guess that makes it ok then.

Maybe if they had locked up some of those Crips and Bloods it would've happened less. No they're not dealing with the latest social problem, that being Illegal immigration, and so a whole new set of killers is shit on our streets.

Anyone in CA, particularly LA and SoCal law enforcement, can talk the HUGE increases in latin gang growth and violence, and how they are targeting AA gangs and AA CITIZENS in general, not to mention most other races for economic gain.

I may be a NIMBY'er, but in cases like this, I don't want them ANYWHERE in my country.....particularly if they are going to rape/pillage/murder law abiding citizens.

Laser Movies
03-25-08, 03:11 AM
I don't know if any illegal immigrants were involved but here is another example that appears to have a racial aspect between blacks and hispanics in California. Wouldn't surprise me if it was gang related.

http://www.turnto23.com/news/15691251/detail.html


Easter Picnic Turns Violent At Local Park
Man Stabbed; Golf Club May Also Have Been Used

POSTED: 8:27 am PDT March 24, 2008
UPDATED: 8:47 am PDT March 24, 2008


BAKERSFIELD, Calif. -- An Easter Sunday picnic at a Bakersfield park turned violent.

The Bakersfield Police Department said about 200 people spent the day barbecuing at Beale Park before a brawl broke out Sunday night.

Police officers found several Hispanic men fighting with black men. They also found an older black man on the ground with stab wounds. He was taken to a local hospital.

Sgt. Frank Gonzales of the Bakersfield Police Department said the man’s injuries are unknown at this time.

A golf club found at the scene may have been used as a weapon.

The group of men scattered when police arrived, so no arrests were made.

Anyone with information should call the Bakersfield Police Department.

Laser Movies
03-25-08, 03:17 AM
Here's one in Florida were a group of illegal immigrants attacked a police officer over a noise complaint. Lucky he wasn't killed.

http://www.wftv.com/news/15688136/detail.html?taf=orlc


Five Arrested After Deputy Gets Attacked By Mob Of Men

POSTED: 6:19 am EDT March 24, 2008
UPDATED: 3:35 pm EDT March 24, 2008


LAKE COUNTY, Fla. -- Five men, including four illegal immigrants have been caught after cops say they attacked a Lake County deputy. It happened on Long Acres Road in Sorrento, just off State Road 46, Sunday night.

Lake County sheriff's deputies used their helicopter to search the area in an attempt to find the men who beat up Deputy Cliff McMennamy.

"You wouldn't think a noise complaint would generate something like that," the deputy told Eyewitness News in an interview over the phone Monday morning.

McMennamy said he was checking out a complaint of a loud party when 35-year-old Miguel Gomez threw a beer bottle at his car. McMennamy chased him down and hit him with a taser. The deputy said he was then surrounded.

McMennamy was punched above his right eye, hit with a beer bottle and even kicked in the jaw.

"While it was in progress, my worst fear was one of them having a weapon, a gun or a knife," he said.

Before they took his taser and bullets, McMennamy tried to radio for help, but it didn't get reception.

Amazingly, he used his cell phone to call while he fought away the attackers. The Lake County Sheriff's Office says their motivation was murder; they were trying to pull the gun from his holster.

"This is a bad situation that could have been worse," said Sgt. John Herrell, Lake County Sheriff's Office.

The 27-year-old deputy has been a member of the sheriff's office for two years. He said he'll be back to work on Wednesday.

"It won't be hard. I wouldn't trade this job for the world," he said.

Deputies are still looking for seven other men involved in the attack. Four of the five men they've caught are going to be deported since they were in the country illegally.

Franchot
03-25-08, 01:18 PM
Maybe now that crimes like the Jamiel Shaw and Deputy Cliff McMennamy cases are being reported by the media without downplaying the fact that illegal immigrants commited these crimes, we'll see some sort of a backlash, ESPECIALLY against illegal immigrants who are gang members. I'm sure it's going to be a long battle, though, because the pro-illegal immigrant supporters are still going to be screaming "racism" and downplay the crimes.

wishbone
03-25-08, 04:58 PM
Arizona's immigration law a mean-spirited move hurting state's economy
By ILLENE DURST
last updated: March 17, 2008 01:32:24 AM

Arizona's attempt to halt the employment of the undocumented within its borders will not deter more workers from crossing the border.

Exasperated with what it perceives as the federal government's failure to control our border with Mexico, Arizona will sanction employers in the state who knowingly hire the undocumented. Employers with repeat offenses run a serious risk of losing their licenses to operate a business.

Though the state has reported more people leaving since Jan. 1, when the law took effect, only the politicians and anti- immigrant coalitions who supported the law are claiming success.

Economists point out that the state's economy is experiencing a serious downturn, and it is impossible to distinguish whether the law or the weak economy is causing increased apartment vacancy rates, reductions in school populations, or shorter lines in emergency rooms.

The Arizona Republic in Phoenix has reported that "everyone knows someone who is struggling to hang onto a business closely tied to the housing industry." And those who are leaving Arizona might be taking their consumer expenditures along with them: sales tax collections show a 2 percent decline statewide for the current fiscal year.

Arizona undermines its own economy by seeking to rid itself of immigrants. A Congressional Budget Office report from December recognized that most efforts to evaluate the economic impact of unauthorized immigrants on state coffers have concluded that tax revenues generated by documented and undocumented immigrants exceed the cost of public services they use.

Another report from the American Immigration Law Foundation cited a 2007 study that balanced Arizona state tax revenues paid by immigrant workers -- including naturalized citizens and noncitizens -- against exceeded services provided, and found a net profit to the state of about $940 million for fiscal year 2004.

Most analysts believe that studies such as these apply to the undocumented as well. Studies showing the specific contributions by the undocumented in Iowa, Oregon, Texas and the Chicago area all showed revenues exceeding services for the population. Finally, the CBO report concluded that even if public spending exceeded the taxes generated, spending by state and local governments on services to the undocumented on average accounted for less than 5 percent of total spending for a given service.

Arizona has one issue right: Workers cross the border unlawfully to find jobs. If the opportunity to support oneself and one's family is no more present in the United States than in Mexico, many Mexicans much prefer to eke out a living in the country where they were born, speak the language, have a history. But even with the United States' depressing economic forecast, our economy remains far stronger than Mexico's.

Much like the $15 million high-tech "virtual border fence," the law will accomplish little to regulate the flow of workers across the border.

This country has a 70-plus year history of luring Mexican workers across the border, first for agricultural labor, then for household help, and now for construction, manual labor and manufacturing.

One state's threat to punish business owners through license forfeiture will not stop this entrenched pattern. At best, Arizona will only "deport" the undocumented to neighboring states.

Let us hope that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco recognizes this legislated meanness as misguided scapegoating, frequent in economic hard times, and an unconstitutional subversion of the federal government's authority to police immigration.

Durst (http://www.tjsl.edu/faculty_i_durst) is an associate professor of law at the Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego.http://www.modbee.com/opinion/national/story/241746.html

While Prof. Durst is so cavalier about citing the Congressional Budget Office report (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=8711) that tax revenues exceed public services used by legal and illegal immigrants the report itself has this to say about unauthorized immigrants:- The tax revenues that unauthorized immigrants generate for state and local governments do not offset the total cost of services provided to those immigrants.

- Federal aid programs offer resources to state and local governments that provide services to unauthorized immigrants, but those funds do not fully cover the costs incurred by those governments.Legislated meanness. :rolleyes:

Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=04a295c4f635f010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCRD&vgnextchannel=b328194d3e88d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1RCRD)
Public Law 99-603 (Act of 11/6/86), which was passed in order to control and deter illegal immigration to the United States. Its major provisions stipulate legalization of undocumented aliens who had been continuously unlawfully present since 1982, legalization of certain agricultural workers, sanctions for employers who knowingly hire undocumented workers, and increased enforcement at U.S. borders.

see also, Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=104_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ208.104.pdf)

The Bus
03-25-08, 05:52 PM
So, we obviously need more legal immigration, if there's a net benefit. :)

Franchot
03-25-08, 06:30 PM
So, we obviously need more legal immigration, if there's a net benefit. :)

I'm all for legal immigration to add more workers to the United States as needed. It protects illegal workers from being paid "slave" wages and helps to protect this country by scrutinizing the flow of people who may be coming here with a destructive agenda in mind. Many people in favor of illegal immigration are looking for cheap labor and a fresh flock of voters. They are not the altrustic do-gooders they pretend to be.

The Bus
03-25-08, 07:04 PM
I'm all for legal immigration to add more workers to the United States as needed. It protects illegal workers from being paid "slave" wages and helps to protect this country by scrutinizing the flow of people who may be coming here with a destructive agenda in mind. Many people in favor of illegal immigration are looking for cheap labor and a fresh flock of voters. They are not the altrustic do-gooders they pretend to be.

:up: :up:

Yay! We can be friends now!

<img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/168/442739396_ca8527871f.jpg">

Giantrobo
03-25-08, 11:43 PM
I'm all for legal immigration to add more workers to the United States as needed. It protects illegal workers from being paid "slave" wages and helps to protect this country by scrutinizing the flow of people who may be coming here with a destructive agenda in mind. Many people in favor of illegal immigration are looking for cheap labor and a fresh flock of voters. They are not the altrustic do-gooders they pretend to be.

Agree 100% and have said so in the past. :up:

General Zod
03-25-08, 11:48 PM
You can look through every single one of these illegal immigration threads and see time and time again where those railing against ILLEGAL immigration have said they are for LEGAL immigration. People just tend to ignore it and forget it a thread later (or a few pages later).

The Bus
03-25-08, 11:58 PM
You can look through every single one of these illegal immigration threads and see time and time again where those railing against ILLEGAL immigration have said they are for LEGAL immigration. People just tend to ignore it and forget it a thread later (or a few pages later).

Yes, but some people don't want to increase legal immigration.

The posting of random single acts commited by illegals doesn't really help any side. Yes, criminals are going through our borders. That's pretty clear. But you don't see me posting every immigrant-woman-forced-to-perform-fellatio-on-an-immigration-officer story I see either.

(Again, I don't think those stories are inaccurate or racist, they just do nothing but distract us from the serious discussion).

Giantrobo
03-26-08, 02:05 AM
Yes, but some people don't want to increase legal immigration.


Yeah but some don't want to decrease Illegal immigration either so it's a wash. :p


The posting of random single acts commited by illegals doesn't really help any side. Yes, criminals are going through our borders. That's pretty clear.


Point taken. But I think those stories are posted out of desperation.


But you don't see me posting every immigrant-woman-forced-to-perform-fellatio-on-an-immigration-officer story I see either.

(Again, I don't think those stories are inaccurate or racist, they just do nothing but distract us from the serious discussion).


Why not? I think the Anti-ILLEGAL folks here have also pointed out that Illegals are abused by those in power quite frequently.


Plus the Bad Cop/Hot Chick Prisoner theme is kinda hot. :drool:

Franchot
03-26-08, 03:35 AM
I seriously doubt that the people posting against illegal immigration in this thread are against helping poor and less fortunate people. But if the United States does not have the infrastructure to support all of these unchecked poor people coming into the country, what will the result be? More and more cities like Los Angeles? (Where I live.)

What I've witnessed in the last twenty years is:
Hospitals closing right and left. Twelve hour waits in the emergency rooms for the hospitals that are open. Public schools that are built for 1200 students, but are forced to house and school over 5000 students which results in failing schools that treat education like a factory commodity. Congested traffic on the freeways from sun-up until nine o'clock at night. Rampant gangs and graffiti due to an increase in illegal "citizens" in our "sanctuary" city. I could go on and on... To the people coming here from third-world poverty, Los Angeles probably seems like Paradise despite all the congestion and dwindling services.

(And yet, Los Angeles is one of the wealthiest cities in the state, but our taxes rise every year because we do not have enough money to hire enough police, build enough schools, keep enough hospitals open, etc. Rich as we are from the film industry, economically, we can barely keep our head above water.)

And what really irks me is that a country such as Mexico has many resources and a thriving economy and yet due to its corrupt government those things do not filter down to its poorer citizens. Instead, the United States is expected to welcome those poorer citizens provide them with employment, health care, schooling and all the things that Mexico COULD and SHOULD provide them with. And then to top it all off, the President of Mexico has the audacity to bitch and complain that the people from Mexico who come to this country illegally are not treated decently and with respect by the United States. Please.

People who are preaching against illegal immigration are just looking at the long-term effects that it will have on this country. And those who are preaching the loudest are, no doubt, living in cities such as Los Angeles where the quality of life continues to worsen each year. Don't shoot the preachers of how bad ILLEGAL immigration is for this country--just try to understand why we would even bother posting about it. We just might have some reliable insights.

General Zod
03-26-08, 12:02 PM
Yes, but some people don't want to increase legal immigration.
Another common misconception. Most people that are against illegal immigration DO want to raise the amount of LEGAL immigrants allowed to come into the country. The problem is you can't do it while millions of illegals are still pouring over the borders because there simply isn't the infrastructure to support all those net-new people (Just look at the reduction of the amount of emergency rooms here in southern California, the road conditions, and the completely out-numbered police departments). Regain control of the border and then crank up the number of LEGAL immigrants we allow in. I much prefer this as it helps give control as to who is coming in so we aren't stuck with only the uneducated and unemployed.

wendersfan
03-26-08, 12:24 PM
Yes, but some people don't want to increase legal immigration.
And in spite of what people might say here, the more you oppose illegal immigration the more likely you are to oppose increases in <i>legal</i> immigration as well.

Franchot
03-26-08, 01:05 PM
And in spite of what people might say here, the more you oppose illegal immigration the more likely you are to oppose increases in <i>legal</i> immigration as well.

I can't speak for other people on this thread, but I don't feel this way. I'm opposed to illegal immigration, but would gladly welcome more legal immigrants to this country if they have job skills that will benefit and help this country and if there is a shortage of such workers. The exception being if employers are merely looking to displace highly-skilled workers who earn decent wages with highly-skilled legal immigrants who will work at severely reduced wages. That scenario leaves us with too many unemployed Americans or Americans who must seek work at lower wages.

Basically, I'm in favor of preserving the middle-class of America which I've always felt is the backbone of this country.

The Bus
03-26-08, 08:44 PM
There's been a couple of people on here (usually among the hard liners) who have said they don't want to increase legal immigration at all.

And Franchot, highly-skilled workers will get displaced one way or another. Truly highly-skilled workers will never have a problem. :)

wishbone
03-26-08, 09:34 PM
Is Tech Industry Guilty of Ageism?
Posted by Ann All on January 25, 2008 at 5:38 pm

Should education and experience always command a high salary? It seems reasonable to think so — yet older employees with advanced degrees may lack the specialized skills needed to satisfy rapidly changing market demand. In perhaps no field is this more true than the tech industry.

I recently conducted an e-mail interview with Norm Matloff (http://www.itbusinessedge.com/item/?ci=38187), a professor at the University of California, Davis, who believes there is widespread age discrimination in the tech industry. (His busy schedule made it impossible to get Matloff on the phone.)

In particular, Matloff contends that the tech industry has manufactured a false talent shortage in order to push for more H-1B visas, which allow them to employ younger — and far less expensive — workers.

So I was interested to see Matloff’s name mentioned in a BusinessWeek piece (http://www.itbusinessedge.com/item/?ci=38268) written by Vivek Wadhwa, who also has conducted some interesting research (http://www.itbusinessedge.com/item/?ci=31560) on outsourcing, immigration and related issues, some of which I’ve cited in prior blogs. In the article, Wadhwa voices an issue that receives little play in the tech industry (perhaps because of fear of litigation). He writes:Tech companies prefer to hire young engineers. Engineering has become an “up or out” profession — you either move up the ladder or you face unemployment. In other words, even though globalization has compounded the difficulties for aging engineers, it’s not the culprit.Wadhwa notes that tech start-ups simply cannot afford to hire experienced workers. To save money, they employ recent graduates or others willing to work for relatively low pay and then provide on-the-job training to expand their skills.

Even tech companies that can afford experience may find that younger workers better suit their needs, writes Wadhwa. He cites software patent firm Neopatents, whose CEO says younger workers tend to be more creative, flexible and schooled in the latest technologies. In contrast, the CEO says some older workers expect to be paid for their experience — whether or not it is relevant to the job.

Interestingly, Google faces an age-discrimination suit (http://www.itbusinessedge.com/blogs/hdw/?p=1000) brought against it by Brian Reid, its 54-year-old former director of engineering. Reid says older workers routinely get less favorable performance evaluations and lower bonuses at Google. While Google hasn’t publicly offered a reason for Reid’s dismissal, Reid also says he was told he was “a poor cultural fit” at the search giant.

Google does appear to place a high value on youth, as evidenced by its unconventional professional development program (http://www.itbusinessedge.com/blogs/sts/?p=247) for associate project managers and its college campus-like work environment (http://www.itbusinessedge.com/blogs/sts/?p=182).

Wadhwa writes:The harsh reality is that as engineers progress in their careers, they need to stay current in new technologies and become project managers, designers, or architects. To keep their jobs, engineers need to build skills that are more valuable to companies and take positions that can’t be filled by entry-level workers.Yet Matloff calls the skills issue “a red herring.” He says:Just look at the major tech firms that have admitted to replacing Americans by H-1Bs and L-1s, and then forced the Americans to train their foreign replacements. Clearly, it’s the Americans who have the skills, not their foreign replacements. I’ve seen numerous cases of American programmers and engineers who have the skills being advertised but who never even get called for a phone interview.Meanwhile, the tech industry is working to keep the H-1B visa and related immigration issues on the front burner (http://www.itbusinessedge.com/item/?ci=38269). Ken Wasch, president of the Software & Information Industry Association, tells Infoworld that unless the U.S. loosens immigration restrictions, it will provide “an incentive for the industry to create knowledge centers outside the United States.” The SIIA is asking Congress to raise the cap on H-1B visas and to make it easier for foreign nationals graduating from U.S. colleges to obtain permanent residency.http://www.itbusinessedge.com/blogs/sts/?p=292

So Brian Reid was not a truly highly-skilled worker? :hscratch:Reid received his B.A. from the University of Maryland and then worked in industry for some years before entering graduate school at Carnegie-Mellon University. From 1981-1986 he was a faculty member in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at Stanford University. During this period he and colleagues built the first Cisco router and founded Adobe Systems. Denied tenure, he was immediately hired by the Digital Equipment Corporation where he eventually became director of the Network Systems Laboratory. He experimented with electronic publishing with his USENET Cookbook project. His laboratory created the first firewall in 1987 and the first high-powered internet search engine, AltaVista, in 1991. In 1987, he and John Gilmore created the alt. hierarchy on usenet.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Reid_%28computer_scientist%29

http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/13/bobsts4.jpg
Peter: You're gonna layoff Samir and Michael!?
Bob Porter: We're gonna bring in some entry level graduates for us to work in Singapore, that's the usual deal.
Bob Slydell: Well, it's standard operating procedure.

The Bus
03-27-08, 11:42 AM
So Brian Reid was not a truly highly-skilled worker? :hscratch:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Reid_%28computer_scientist%29


Where does it say he wasn't? It was a bad "cultural" fit. I don't work at Google and I don't know Brian Reid personally, so I can't go much further than that. But surely you understand that no matter how good you are, if there's not a good "cultural fit" between the company and you, you're not likely to stick around.

wishbone
03-27-08, 03:12 PM
Where does it say he wasn't? It was a bad "cultural" fit. I don't work at Google and I don't know Brian Reid personally, so I can't go much further than that. But surely you understand that no matter how good you are, if there's not a good "cultural fit" between the company and you, you're not likely to stick around.In Reid’s only written performance review while employed at Google, Rosing described Reid as having “an extraordinarily broad range of knowledge concerning Operations, Engineering in general and an aptitude and orientation towards operational and IT issues,” he “project[s] confidence when dealing with fast changing situations,” “has an excellent attitude about what ‘OPS’ and ‘Support’ mean,” is “very intelligent,” “creative,” “a problem solver,” and that the “vast majority of Ops run great.” Reid was given a performance rating indicating he “consistently [met] expectations.” From February 2003 to February 2004, Reid received bonuses including 12,750 stock options.

Reid’s performance review also contained the following statement by Rosing: “Adapting to the Google culture is the primary task for the first year here. . . . [¶] . . . [¶] Right or wrong, Google is simply different: Younger contributors, inexperienced first line managers, and the super fast pace are just a few examples of the environment.” When Reid was later terminated, he was told by Rosing that he was not a “cultural fit.”

...

On February 13, 2004, Rosing met with Reid and told him he was not a “cultural fit,” and there was no longer a place for him in the Engineering Department. Reid asked Rosing who made the decision to terminate him, and specifically asked if Larry Page made the decision and Rosing nodded in a manner indicating a “yes.” Rosing encouraged Reid to apply for positions with other departments. Google maintains that Rosing told Reid that the in-house graduate program was being eliminated, and that was the reason for his termination. However, Reid disputes this, and maintains that he was not told any reason for his termination other than lack of “cultural fit,” and he believed the graduate program would continue.

E-mails among various employees of Google show that there was no intention of hiring Reid in another department after he was removed from engineering. Shona Brown, Vice President of Business Operations wrote: “you should make sure I am appropriately prepped. My line at the moment is that there is no role for him in the HR organization.” She later wrote: “we should probably get me clear on this before tomorrow.” HR Director Sullivan sent an email to Rosing and Brown stating, “Seems [Reid’s] first interest is to continue his work on the college programs he’s been working on. He’ll explore that option first with both of you.” Sullivan continued: “I propose [Brown] . . . meets with [Reid] this Tues. and lets him know there’s no role [for him] in her org . . . I’ve talked with [Chief Financial Officer (CFO) George] Reyes live, he will not have an option for Brian…this is The Company Decision.” Sullivan also wrote: “We’ll all agree on the job elimination angle . . . .”

Ten days after he was terminated from engineering, Reid met with CFO George Reyes, who told him there was no position in his department. Reid then met with Brown, who also stated there were no positions for him in her department, and told him there were no openings for Reid because he was not a “cultural fit” at Google.http://www.scribd.com/doc/372799/H029602

Something is rotten in the state of :google:

The Bus
03-27-08, 03:18 PM
That last posts completely refutes your claim that he wasn't considered skilled enough.

I looked at some BLS data maybe a year or more ago. Looked at positions and how much they paid and there was a nice increase in salary for several higher-skilled type jobs and a decrease in salary for what seemed to be more low-skill jobs. I doubt I even have the charts anymore, but the data is on the BLS site.

wishbone
03-27-08, 05:36 PM
The exception being if employers are merely looking to displace highly-skilled workers who earn decent wages with highly-skilled legal immigrants who will work at severely reduced wages.The H-1B swindle
A new study shows that companies hire foreign workers for cheap labor, not skill
By Ephraim Schwartz
October 25, 2005

It appears there is hard evidence to prove that employers are using the H-1B visa program to hire cheap labor; that is, to pay lower wages (http://www.infoworld.com/3449) than the national average for programming jobs.

According to “The Bottom of the Pay Scale: Wages for H-1B Computer Programmers — F.Y. 2004,” a report by Programmers Guild board member John Miano, non-U.S. citizens working in the United States on an H-1B visa are paid “significantly less than their American counterparts.” How much less? “On average, applications for H-1B workers in computer occupations were for wages $13,000 less than Americans in the same occupation and state.”

Miano based his report on OES (Occupational Employment Statistics) data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (http://www.infoworld.com/3450) which estimates wages for the entire country by state and metropolitan area. The report’s H-1B wage data came from the U.S. Department of Labor’s H-1B disclosure Web site (http://www.infoworld.com/3451).

Miano went out of his way to be balanced, and whenever possible he gave the benefit of the doubt to the employer. For example, he used OES data from 2003 because this is the wage information that would have been available to the employers when filing an LCA (labor condition application).

Miano had some difficulty matching OES job codes with LCA job titles, which employers typically create. Where both the OES and the LCA listed a job as “programmer/analyst,” Miano took the conservative approach of assuming that the LCA was describing a programmer, a job title that typically earns a lower wage than a systems analyst.

Nonetheless, Miano’s report shows that wages paid to H-1B workers in computer programming occupations had a mean salary of $52,312, while the OES mean was $67,700; a difference of $15,388. The report also lists the OES median salary as $65,003, or $12,691 higher than the H-1B median.

When you look at computer job titles by state, California has one of the biggest differentials between OES salaries and H-1B salaries. The average salary for a programmer in California is $73,960, according to the OES. The average salary paid to an H-1B visa worker for the same job is $53,387; a difference of $20,573.

Here are some other interesting national wage comparisons: The mean salary of an H-1B computer scientist is $78,169, versus $90,146 according to the OES. For an H-1B network analyst, the mean salary is $55,358, versus the OES mean salary of $64,799. And for the title “system administrator,” there was a $17,478 difference in salary between the H-1B mean and the OES mean.

H-1B visa workers were also concentrated at the bottom end of the wage scale, with the majority of H-1B visa workers in the 10-24 percentile range. “That means the largest concentration of H-1B workers make less than [the] highest 75 percent of the U.S. wage earners,” the report notes.

While it would be difficult to prove that any one particular employer is hiring foreign workers to pay less, the statistics show us that, for whatever reason, this is exactly what is happening on a nationwide basis. Miano says lobbyists will admit that a small number of companies are abusing the H-1B program, but what he has found in this research is that almost everyone is abusing it.
“Abuse is by far more common than legitimate use,” he says.http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/10/25/44OPreality_1.html

Franchot
03-27-08, 05:39 PM
I don't know if the criminals in this crime are illegal immigrants...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080327/ap_on_re_us/english_or_jail

Pa. judge sentences 3 to learn English

WILKES-BARRE, Pa. - A judge known for creative sentencing has ordered three Spanish-speaking men to learn English or go to jail.

The men, who faced prison for criminal conspiracy to commit robbery, can remain on parole if they learn to read and write English, earn their GEDs and get full-time jobs, Luzerne County Judge Peter Paul Olszewski Jr. said.

The men, Luis Reyes, Ricardo Dominguez and Rafael Guzman-Mateo, plus a fourth defendant, Kelvin Reyes-Rosario, all needed translators when they pleaded guilty Tuesday.

"Do you think we are going to supply you with a translator all of your life?" the judge asked them.

The four, ranging in age from 17 to 22, were in a group that police said accosted two men on a street in May. The two said they were asked if they had marijuana, told to empty their pockets, struck on the head, threatened with a gun and told to stay off the block.

Attorneys for the men said they were studying the legality of the ruling and had not decided whether to appeal. One of the attorneys, Ferris Webby, suggested that the ruling was good for his client, Guzman-Mateo.

"My client is happy," Webby said. "I think it's going to help him."

The judge sentenced the four men to jail terms of four to 24 months. But he gave the three men, who already had served at least four months, immediate parole. Reyes-Rosario remains imprisoned on an unrelated drug charge.

Olszewski ordered the three to return with their parole officers in a year and take an English test. "If they don't pass, they're going in for the 24 (months)," he said.

Olszewski is known for outside-the-box sentencing.

He has ordered young defendants who are school dropouts to finish school. He often orders defendants to get full-time employment. But he also has his staff coordinate with an employment agency to help them find the jobs.

...but maybe McCain can get a law passed such as this one after he gets elected to prove that he is serious about comprehensive immigration reform.

The Bus
03-27-08, 05:40 PM
You have to draw the line somewhere. If all the people willing to do the job of, say, cashier at a coffee store demand $25/hour, then you've got a shortage. Not a shortage of bodies, but a shortage of people willing to do the job at the "market" wage.

My only real problem would be if these cost savings just end up in executive's pockets, and not in those of shareholders (or consumers, through lower costs).

NotThatGuy
03-27-08, 06:29 PM
People who are preaching against illegal immigration are just looking at the long-term effects that it will have on this country. And those who are preaching the loudest are, no doubt, living in cities such as Los Angeles where the quality of life continues to worsen each year. Don't shoot the preachers of how bad ILLEGAL immigration is for this country--just try to understand why we would even bother posting about it. We just might have some reliable insights.
I live in S. FL, and it has definitely negatively impacted the quality of life down here. I am concerned that by the time the rest of the country wakes up to realize the problems, that it will be too late.

I work in a field that has a lot of crossover into social/health/education areas....and there is a HUGE strain in those areas because of illegals.

As for why individual stories are posted....because the "pro" side tries to push their propaganda that everyone coming over is here for a better life and are law abiding people who just want a chance....so pictures of poor families and children are referenced, instead of acknowledging the large amount of people flooding our country who have a history of criminal activity and ill-intentions....and could care less about doing anything by sucking out what they can before leaving and going back to their original country.

NotThatGuy
03-27-08, 08:25 PM
I can't speak for other people on this thread, but I don't feel this way. I'm opposed to illegal immigration, but would gladly welcome more legal immigrants to this country if they have job skills that will benefit and help this country and if there is a shortage of such workers. The exception being if employers are merely looking to displace highly-skilled workers who earn decent wages with highly-skilled legal immigrants who will work at severely reduced wages. That scenario leaves us with too many unemployed Americans or Americans who must seek work at lower wages.

Agreed.

I think legal immigration is all well and good, IF THERE IS A NEED. Until we can get the illegal immigration problem under control, increasing legal immigration is just adding to the economic burden. If there is a true need, then allow more legal immigrants in...but with 20m illegal here, adding MORE people (legal or not) without addressing the 20m would not be responsible.

wishbone
03-27-08, 08:31 PM
You have to draw the line somewhere. If all the people willing to do the job of, say, cashier at a coffee store demand $25/hour, then you've got a shortage. Not a shortage of bodies, but a shortage of people willing to do the job at the "market" wage.Unfortunately Bill Gates and company want us to believe that there is a tech worker shortage (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070226-8924.html) and we need to increase the amount of H-1B visas available. If it is simply a matter of filling these positions then the foreign workers should be making a prevailing wage (http://www.myvisa.com/Visasage/h1bnutshell.htm) which apparently they are not given the BLS data.My only real problem would be if these cost savings just end up in executive's pockets, and not in those of shareholders (or consumers, through lower costs).Generally I agree.

http://img174.imageshack.us/img174/7497/14014w400ws1.jpg

NotThatGuy
03-27-08, 08:33 PM
http://www.itbusinessedge.com/blogs/sts/?p=292

So Brian Reid was not a truly highly-skilled worker? :hscratch:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Reid_%28computer_scientist%29


I saw first hand the problems with 'out-sourcing' when I worked in the tech industry. I got stuck working with a few companies who out-sourced code (then then would send it to my company to incorporate into the larger systems), and the coding was crap. I'm not talking about a different style, I'm talking about barely working, horrid data architecture, no documentation, etc. It looked like they took 2nd year college IS majors and programmed it. Most programmers can talk to the differences in quality, but many companies don't care......talk about BILLIONS of dollars that are lost because of crappy coding/programming.

The reason my company made hand over fist money was "in-sourcing" by training older, but highly skilled programmers in the newest technologies. They were able to take their years of knowledge and update it and become high level people we placed into companies. They took a short-term pay cut while they went through training, and then they'd be guaranteed a job either in-house or placed in another company (at a much higher salary). The same can be done in engineering, but companies would rather cheap out and go with the knock-off jobs that are very flawed.

foggy
03-29-08, 11:50 PM
There's been a couple of people on here (usually among the hard liners) who have said they don't want to increase legal immigration at all.

And Franchot, highly-skilled workers will get displaced one way or another. Truly highly-skilled workers will never have a problem. :)

It seems to me that there is already plenty of legal immigration going on. I don't see why it should be assumed that the numbers have to be increased. What is it, like 3 million people a year? Some of the legal immigration programs are ridiculous, too, like the green card lottery. 30,000 green cards are granted every year to people who enter their name in a random drawing, they don't have to be of any value to the US and are often a net drain.

You work in real estate sales, correct? That's kind of an outsource proof field (although I guess things are not too peachy right at the moment), so it's easy to be smug.

Laser Movies
03-30-08, 01:28 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/28/washington/28immig.html?_r=2&ref=us&oref=slogin&oref=slogin


March 28, 2008
304,000 Inmates Eligible for Deportation, Official Says
By JULIA PRESTON
At least 304,000 immigrant criminals eligible for deportation are behind bars nationwide, a top federal immigration official said Thursday.

That is the first official estimate of the total number of such convicts in federal, state and local prisons and jails.

The head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Julie L. Myers, said the annual number of deportable immigrant inmates was expected to vary from 300,000 to 455,000, or 10 percent of the overall inmate population, for the next few years.

Ms. Myers estimated that it would cost at least $2 billion a year to find all those immigrants and deport them.

This week, Ms. Myers presented a plan to the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security intended to speed the deportation of immigrants convicted of the most serious crimes by linking state prisons and county jails into federal databases that combine F.B.I. fingerprint files with immigration, border and antiterrorism records of the Homeland Security Department.

In an interview on Thursday, Ms. Myers said the plan would bring “a fundamental change” by streamlining deportations of foreign-born criminals.

Representative David E. Price, Democrat of North Carolina and chairman of the subcommittee, wrote a five-page letter on Thursday saying that the agency’s plan did “not meet the legal requirements” of the 2008 appropriation that gave the agency $200 million to deport criminals.

Mr. Price said the plan failed to focus mainly on illegal immigrants who committed crimes, did not provide for any coordination with immigration courts and justice officials and included huge unexplained cost increases.

Based on the schedule in the plan, Mr. Price said, he did not see evidence that the agency “shares my sense of urgency about removing criminals from our country before they victimize Americans again.”

In the intensely contentious debate over immigration, one point that generally draws broad agreement is that federal authorities should deport illegal immigrant criminals as swiftly as possible. But considerable confusion prevails about how fast that might be. Immigrants convicted of crimes — including illegal immigrants and those who had legal immigration status at the time of the crime — must serve their sentences before they can be deported. Many immigrant convicts are naturalized United States citizens who are not subject to deportation.

Ms. Myers said her agency, known as ICE, was seeking to expand operations to identify jailed immigrant criminals. The agency is working in all federal and state prisons, but reaches just 300 of 3,100 local jails, an official said.

The agency plans a major effort to use new technology and databases at local jails so law enforcement officers can determine at booking whether immigrants have previously committed serious crimes or immigration violations.

ICE officers bring charges while immigrants are serving their sentences so they can be deported as soon as they complete their terms without being released from custody.

“We will identify individuals who pose the greatest risk as quickly as possible,” Ms. Myers said, including in jails that the agency cannot visit regularly.

Surprised by Mr. Price’s letter, she rejected his criticism of the plan’s legality. She was supported by Representative Harold Rogers of Kentucky, senior Republican on the appropriations subcommittee, who said the plan could be refined.

In fiscal 2007, 164,000 immigrant inmates were charged with immigration violations to prepare the way for deportation, and 95,000 immigrants with criminal histories were deported, according to Immigration and Customs Enforcement figures.

Immigration lawyers warned that unless local law enforcement officers were trained in immigration law, the ICE plan could focus on many immigrants who committed minor violations that did not make them deportable.

“Immigration law is confusing and convoluted and not user friendly,” said David Leopold, a vice president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association. “To turn that over to local law enforcement without training is asking for trouble.”

Laser Movies
03-30-08, 01:44 AM
Here are the latest Los Angeles crime statistics that Robert Sampson might want to look into:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-homicide19mar19,1,180590.story

Jump in homicides not tied to racial animosity, LAPD says

Los Angeles Police Department officials, alarmed by the continued rise in the homicide rate this year, sought Tuesday to debunk the notion that racial animosity has been at the heart of many of the killings.

A detailed analysis of each of the homicides this year leaves little doubt that race is not the prime factor and that "the most likely suspect is one that looks just like their victim," Deputy Chief Charlie Beck said in a presentation to the department's civilian Police Commission.




Perhaps, Mr. Sampson, Mayor Villarigosa, and Chief Bratton are looking for that silver lining in all of this and overlooking the facts.


Here's the latest position by Bratton and the LA mayor Tony Villar.


http://www.dailybreeze.com/ci_8715625


Mayor, LAPD chief backtrack on 'race' shootings
From wire reports
Article Launched: 03/27/2008 08:17:27 AM PDT


After weeks of suggesting that victims were not targeted because of their race, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and police Chief William Bratton said today race may have played a role in the city's recent wave of shootings.

However, police do not have any evidence that would support hate crime charges, Bratton said.

There have been 95 homicides in Los Angeles this year, compared to 72 at this point in 2007, when the city's murder rate hit a 37-year low. A report presented to the Police Commission last week found that the majority of Latinos are killed by Latinos, and the same was true for blacks.

"In a city as diverse as this one, is there conflict among races? Of course. Is it increasing? It may be. But I can tell you this, it's nowhere near what we've heard, frankly, from some of the media sources when these incidents occur," Villaraigosa said.

Bratton echoed that sentiment.

"Do I personally suspect that race might have been a factor underlying the gang issues? I do. Can I prove it? I cannot," Bratton said.

U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey met with city leaders today about gang violence. He said police do not "discriminate" in enforcement of the laws.

"When somebody is murdered, whether they're African American or Caucasian or Asian or Hispanic, that is a tragedy and it's a tragedy we don't want to suffer," Mukasey said.

"That's one life less, one world less. When somebody kills, whether they're
Caucasian or African American or Hispanic, they're just as guilty. That's the principle that we're all operating on. That's why we're all there."
Speaking with reporters at the LAPD's 77th Division station a day after arguing a case before the Supreme Court over the sentence of a man who plotted to bomb Los Angeles International Airport, Mukasey said the federal government's efforts to prevent an international terrorist attack have not taken funds from fighting gangs.

"We are devoting resources to this, we're devoting resources to that. I don't think it's fair to say we're draining resources from one to help the other," Mukasey said.

Acknowledging that more attention can always be paid to domestic criminal activities, Mukasey defended the federal government's time and money spent on international terrorists.

"I've got to tell you, I get a briefing every morning on international terrorism and I don't think that anybody can say we're devoting too much in the way of resources to fighting that because those folks are intent on committing murder on a mass scale. The more, from their standpoint, the merrier," he said.

In addition to meeting with Villaraigosa and Bratton, Mukasey announced the indictment of 13 suspected gang members and associates. He did not announce any federal funding for the city's efforts to reduce gang-related crimes.

"The Justice Department has taken its own hits," Mukasey said. "We're trying to do as much as we can with what we've got."

Laser Movies
03-30-08, 01:58 AM
It seems to me that there is already plenty of legal immigration going on. I don't see why it should be assumed that the numbers have to be increased. What is it, like 3 million people a year? Some of the legal immigration programs are ridiculous, too, like the green card lottery. 30,000 green cards are granted every year to people who enter their name in a random drawing, they don't have to be of any value to the US and are often a net drain.

You work in real estate sales, correct? That's kind of an outsource proof field (although I guess things are not too peachy right at the moment), so it's easy to be smug.


And another problem is the government is too backlogged to handle the legal immigrants already in the process of trying get citizenship. Give an amnesty to 12 to 20 million illegal immigrants and what do you think happens when they impact an already overburdened system that is in place. I'm sure the government is going to do thorough checks on everyone.

The Bus
03-31-08, 01:24 PM
30,000 green cards are granted every year to people who enter their name in a random drawing, they don't have to be of any value to the US and are often a net drain.

Legal immigrants, on average, end up being a ~$120,000 benefit to the US over their lifetime. This was a figure somewhere in one of these threads.

The immigration system needs to be overhauled here. If it was easier to legally enter the country, less people would enter it illegally.

fujishig
03-31-08, 02:27 PM
Legal immigrants, on average, end up being a ~$120,000 benefit to the US over their lifetime. This was a figure somewhere in one of these threads.

The immigration system needs to be overhauled here. If it was easier to legally enter the country, less people would enter it illegally.

But maybe if the immigration laws were less stringent, that ~120,000 would be significantly less? We have no way of knowing.

I, too, am all for reform of the immigration system, but if we can't even control immigration anyway, what's the point? And as has been constantly said over and over, a lot of the draw of illegal immigrants is that they work for less than they would if they were actually legal citizens... so legalizing them would remove some of their job prospects. Guess who would come in to fill those (sometimes criminally) low-paying jobs? New illegal immigrants. So across-the-board legalization is not the answer.

The Bus
03-31-08, 02:42 PM
But maybe if the immigration laws were less stringent, that ~120,000 would be significantly less? We have no way of knowing.


You were talking about current legal immigrants.

fujishig
03-31-08, 02:49 PM
You were talking about current legal immigrants.

I know, I thought (perhaps mistakenly) that you were using that number solely to justify opening the immigration floodgates.

The Bus
04-01-08, 01:49 PM
I know, I thought (perhaps mistakenly) that you were using that number solely to justify opening the immigration floodgates.

I've posted this a few times but I'd figure I can repeat it once per thread. The person whose views most closely mirror mine are Michael Badnarik, and this is the closest I would ever get with identifying with anyone who is remotely a libertarian:


We have two -- actually three -- separate issues here. I'll handle outsourcing first.

Capital migrates to where it is most profitably invested. That's just a fact of the market. If I can get a 10% return in Country A and a 25% return in Country B, you know where I'll be investing.

We can deal with that reality, or we can fight it. If we fight it, we'll lose. The future is not in trying to restrict trade or outlaw outsourcing -- it's in allowing innovation and competition, and in removing government impediments, like high taxes and expensive regulation, to keeping jobs here.

When a particular job or skill _does_ move offshore, all other things being equal, it merely frees Americans -- the most productive workers in the world -- to develop the NEXT job or skill or to come up with a more efficient, profitable way of providing the old one. And those innovations are make us the wealthiest country in the world. Instead of wondering where our jobs sewing soles on shoes went, we should be looking to what we can do that the sewing machine operator in Korea CAN'T do yet.

People also migrate to where they can make the most for their labor. Once again, that's just a fact of the market. One can hardly expect a Mexican agricultural laborer to work for $2.00 a day in Guadalajara when he can make $8.00 an hour in the San Joaquin Valley.

And, once again, we can deal with that reality or we can fight it -- and if we fight it, we'll lose.

Legal immigration is a net economic benefit to our country. The fact that workers come here to pick our crops, work in our poultry plants, -- even take coding jobs at computer firms -- lowers the cost of the goods and services we buy, and frees us up to pursue ever more profitable opportunities. That may be cold comfort to a particular worker who's just been sent home while an Indian on an H-2 visa sits down at his old workstation, but it's a fact. If that worker hadn't come to the job, the job would have gone to him via outsourcing -- or it would have gone undone because the profit margin was unattractive by comparison to other investments in labor.

I advocate lifting all restrictions on peaceful immigration. Immigration is not something we can stop. We might as well get the benefit of it instead of tying ourselves into knots fighting it.

This brings up the third issue: Borders. Some people believe that lifting immigration restrictions implies "open borders." That's like saying that an invitation to my house means it's okay for you to crawl through my bedroom window at four in the morning.

Immigrants should be welcome to come here -- as long as they're willing to come in through the front door. They should enter the US through a Customs and Immigration checkpoint, identify themselves, and let us verify that they aren't terrorists or criminals.

People who come across our borders at remote locations under cover of darkness, when they were free to enter through the front door, aren't immigrants. They're invaders. Illegal immigration creates an industry of "coyotes" to guide people across, and it provides cover for the non-peaceful -- terrorists and criminals -- to enter the country.

The border is a national security feature. I propose to treat it as such. In tandem with lifting immigration restrictions, I'd free our military to defend the border against invaders. And those invaders would no longer have a place to hide among real immigrants, or an underlying infrastructure of support for getting them across, because the peaceful immigrants would be entering legitimately.

http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/09/20/1423219

Giantrobo
04-01-08, 05:51 PM
Immigrants should be welcome to come here -- as long as they're willing to come in through the front door. They should enter the US through a Customs and Immigration checkpoint, identify themselves, and let us verify that they aren't terrorists or criminals.

People who come across our borders at remote locations under cover of darkness, when they were free to enter through the front door, aren't immigrants. They're invaders. Illegal immigration creates an industry of "coyotes" to guide people across, and it provides cover for the non-peaceful -- terrorists and criminals -- to enter the country.


Well fuck...I <i>thought</i> this was pretty much the opinion of the majority of the Anti-ILLEGAL folks here. Am I missing something? Why all the pissing back and forth in this thread? :p

Then again, just like people here like to point out the "Extreme anti-any immigrant" side of this debate, the other side of that coin wouldn't even be happy with what that guy says in the article. The pro-NO BORDERS AT ALL-COME AND GO AS YOU PLEASE" and the "TAKE BACK THE SOUTHERN US LANDS FOR MEXICO" folks don't want to hear anything about "Coming through the front door".

Franchot
04-01-08, 06:08 PM
After I read the article, I can only come to the conclusion that Michael Badnarik is a racist and is anti-immigrant. How dare he champion such cruelty towards his fellow humans. -wink-

Franchot
04-01-08, 11:31 PM
April Fool's!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080401/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/border_fence

Rules to be waived for border fence

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration will use its authority to bypass more than 30 laws and regulations to finish building 670 miles of fence along the southwest U.S. border by the end of 2008, federal officials said Tuesday.

Invoking the two legal waivers, which Congress authorized, will cut through bureaucratic red tape and sidestep environmental laws that currently impede the Homeland Security Department from building 267 miles of fencing in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas, according to officials familiar with the plan. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to comment publicly about it.

The move is the biggest use of legal waivers since the administration started building the fence, and it will cover a total of 470 miles along the Southwest border, the department said. Previously, the department has used its waiver authority for two portions of fence in Arizona and one portion in San Diego.

"Criminal activity at the border does not stop for endless debate or protracted litigation," Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said in a statement. "These waivers will enable important security projects to keep moving forward."

As of March 17, there were 309 miles of fencing in place, leaving 361 to be completed by the end of the year to meet the department's goal. Of those, 267 miles are being held up by federal, state and local laws and regulations, the officials said.

One waiver will address the construction of a 22-mile levee barrier in Hidalgo County, Texas. The other waiver will cover 30 miles of fencing and technology deployment on environmentally sensitive ground in San Diego, southern Arizona and the Rio Grande; and 215 miles in California, Arizona and Texas that face other legal impediments due to administrative processes. For instance, building in some areas requires assessments and studies that — if conducted — could not be completed in time to finish the fence by the end of the year.

Chertoff had said using the waivers would be a last resort. The department has held more than 100 meetings with lawmakers, environmental groups and residents in an effort to work out obstacles and objections to fence construction.

The department will conduct environmental assessments when necessary. But the waivers enable the department to start building before completing the assessments. Chertoff said the department will continue to ask for input on the construction plans.

Even as the fence is being built, debate continues about whether it will stem illegal immigration.

Fernando Carrillo, a 32-year-old construction worker who was deported from Arizona six months ago, said the added security wouldn't stop him from trying to get back to his wife and three children in Phoenix. His youngest child was born while he was in Mexico.

"They can do what they want, but we will keep trying," he said while walking Tuesday with two other migrants along the newly built wall west of Nogales.

He said they were heading to an area where the wall had yet to be built.

"Whatever they do, you just have to keep trying because there, if you work hard, you can make ends meet," he said.

Residents and property owners along the U.S.-Mexico border have complained about the fence construction. In South Texas, where opposition has been widespread, land owners refused to give the government access to property along the fence route. The government has since sued more than 50 property owners in South Texas to gain access to the land.

Environmentalists have also complained about the fence because they say it puts already endangered species such as two types of wild cats — the ocelot and the jaguarundi — in even more danger of extinction. They say the fence would prevent them from swimming across the Rio Grande to mate.

"Unwilling to consult with local communities or to follow long-standing laws, Secretary Chertoff chose to bypass stakeholders and push through this unpopular project on April Fool's Day," Sierra Club executive director Carl Pope said in a statement. "We don't think the destruction of the borderlands region is a laughing matter."

Chertoff has said the fence is good for the environment because immigrants degrade the land with trash and human waste when they sneak illegally into the country.

The Bus
04-02-08, 07:52 AM
Well fuck...I <i>thought</i> this was pretty much the opinion of the majority of the Anti-ILLEGAL folks here. Am I missing something? Why all the pissing back and forth in this thread? :p

For what it's worth, there hasn't been a single "give the land back to Mexico" supporter in any of these threads.

Badnarik's suggestion is for a much more open border, in the sense that if you are currently in Mexico and want to come to the US, all you have to do is cross the border through an official checkpoint. His point is that we need to know who's coming in and out. If it's easy to come in legitimately, there will be less reason to cross the desert in the middle of the night.

wishbone
04-02-08, 09:07 AM
For what it's worth, there hasn't been a single "give the land back to Mexico" supporter in any of these threads.

Badnarik's suggestion is for a much more open border, in the sense that if you are currently in Mexico and want to come to the US, all you have to do is cross the border through an official checkpoint. His point is that we need to know who's coming in and out. If it's easy to come in legitimately, there will be less reason to cross the desert in the middle of the night.The “enforcement trigger,” required to be met before the new temporary worker program begins, does not require that the exit portion of U.S. VISIT system – the biometric border check-in/check-out system first required by Congress in 1996 that is already well past its already postponed 2005 implementation due date – to be in place before new worker or amnesty programs begin. Without the U.S. VISIT exit portion, the U.S. has no method to ensure that workers (or their visiting families) do not overstay their visas. Our current illegal population contains 4 to 5.5 million visa overstays, therefore, we know that the U.S. VISIT exit component is key to a successful new temporary worker program. [See pp. 1-2].http://sessions.senate.gov/pressapp/record.cfm?id=275456

Perhaps we should follow the state of Illinois and its assertion that E-Verify should be 99% accurate (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14962703) before full implementation -- that our immigration services should account for 99% of its guest workers and visa overstays before it is expanded further?

Giantrobo
04-02-08, 09:43 AM
For what it's worth, there hasn't been a single "give the land back to Mexico" supporter in any of these threads.

Maybe, maybe not. But like any extremist they're out there in the real world.




Badnarik's suggestion is for a much more open border, in the sense that if you are currently in Mexico and want to come to the US, all you have to do is cross the border through an official checkpoint. His point is that we need to know who's coming in and out. If it's easy to come in legitimately, there will be less reason to cross the desert in the middle of the night.

Again, I think most of the Anti-ILLEGAL folks here are ok with that. But I also think they feel like we should somehow get a handle on the current out of control mess first, <i>then</i> we can sit down and reform our difficult immigration process.

NotThatGuy
04-02-08, 10:01 AM
Illegal Immigrants Cause Public School Crisis
Tue, 03/11/2008 - 13:43 — Judicial Watch Blog

While cities across the nation pass ordinances to seek relief from the devastating toll of illegal immigration, the nation’s public school districts will continue suffering from the influx thanks to a federal law that says they must provide a free education to all children regardless of immigration status.

There are an estimated 1.5 million school-aged illegal immigrants in the United States and the government spends an estimated $12 billion annually to educate them. The biggest chunks are spent by California ($7.7 billion) and Texas ($3.9 billion), where the situation has become a public education crisis with no end in sight.

The Lone Star State’s public schools have seen a huge increase in illegal immigrant Hispanic students with dismal Mexican and Central American education histories that are contributing to an overall lowering of academic standards across the board.

Case in point: The Irving School District, located mostly in Dallas. It has suffered one of the nation’s largest increases—63%--of illegal immigrant students in the last year compared to a 33% increase in 1995. Irving’s superintendent says it’s tough to bring so many students with such poor schooling up to state and federal standards.

Mexican government statistics reveal that only 58% of Mexicans 15 and older have some elementary school education and working with them requires slowing down and teaching the very basics. Many of the kids that attend Irving District schools haven’t been in a classroom for years and educating them is an ongoing uphill battle that has depleted public resources in many Border State districts.

Besides spending nearly $6,000 a year to educate each student, the districts also spend more than $1.5 million annually to pay bilingual teachers extra because they are hard to find and have additional credentials. Illegal immigrants are well aware of the free education perks and admit they are a big incentive to enter the country illegally.

A family of illegal immigrants living in Irving says it has greatly benefited from the U.S. taxpayer-financed free education, which makes living in the country illegally worth the risk. The 35-year-old mother took free English classes offered by Irving schools so that parents can help their children with homework and her children speak English fluently thanks to their free topnotch U.S. education.

If the family gets deported, the illegal immigrant mother said, they could use their new language in the tourist industry in Mexico. Otherwise, they have no plans to return to Mexico.

SOURCE: http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/illegal-immigrants-cause-public-school-crisis

NotThatGuy
04-02-08, 10:23 AM
Here are a few points worth considering......keep in mind this is actually from 2004, so this data is probably much worse by now, considering the average #'s of illegals breaking in each year.


* Households headed by illegal aliens imposed more than $26.3 billion in costs on the federal government in 2002 and paid only $16 billion in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of almost $10.4 billion, or $2,700 per illegal household.
* Among the largest costs are Medicaid ($2.5 billion); treatment for the uninsured ($2.2 billion); food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches ($1.9 billion); the federal prison and court systems ($1.6 billion); and federal aid to schools ($1.4 billion).
* With nearly two-thirds of illegal aliens lacking a high school degree, the primary reason they create a fiscal deficit is their low education levels and resulting low incomes and tax payments, not their legal status or heavy use of most social services.
* On average, the costs that illegal households impose on federal coffers are less than half that of other households, but their tax payments are only one-fourth that of other households.
* Many of the costs associated with illegals are due to their American-born children, who are awarded U.S. citizenship at birth. Thus, greater efforts at barring illegals from federal programs will not reduce costs because their citizen children can continue to access them.
* If illegal aliens were given amnesty and began to pay taxes and use services like households headed by legal immigrants with the same education levels, the estimated annual net fiscal deficit would increase from $2,700 per household to nearly $7,700, for a total net cost of $29 billion.
* Although legalization would increase average tax payments by 77 percent, average costs would rise by 118 percent.
* The results of this study are consistent with a 1997 study by the National Research Council, which also found that immigrants' education level is a key determinant of their fiscal impact.

Welfare use. On average, illegal households pay more than $4,200 a year in all forms of federal taxes. Unfortunately, they impose costs of $6,950 per household.

http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscal17.gif

Social Security and Medicare. We estimate that illegal households create a combined net benefit for these two programs in excess of $7 billion a year, accounting for about 4 percent of the total annual surplus in these two programs. However, they create a net deficit of $17.4 billion in the rest of the budget, for a total net loss of $10.4 billion.

The Impact of Amnesty.....we estimate that under the most likely scenario the average illegal alien household would pay 77 percent ($3,200) more a year in federal taxes once legalized. While not enough to offset the 118 percent ($8,200) per household increase in costs that would come with legalization....

What's Different About Today's Immigration. Many native-born Americans observe that their ancestors came to America and did not place great demands on government services.....the arrival of unskilled immigrants in the past did not have the negative fiscal implications that it does today.

Moreover, the American economy has changed profoundly since the last great wave of immigration, with education now the key determinant of economic success. The costs that unskilled immigrants impose simply reflect the nature of the modern American economy and welfare state. It is doubtful that the fiscal costs can be avoided if our immigration policies remain unchanged.

Enforcing Immigration Laws. If we are serious about avoiding the fiscal costs of illegal immigration, the only real option is to enforce the law and reduce the number of illegal aliens in the country. First, this would entail much greater efforts to police the nation's land and sea borders. At present, less than 2,000 agents are on duty at any one time on the Mexican and Canadian borders. Second, much greater effort must be made to ensure that those allowed into the country on a temporary basis, such as tourists and guest workers, are not likely to stay in the country permanently. Third, the centerpiece of any enforcement effort would be to enforce the ban on hiring illegal aliens. At present, the law is completely unenforced. Enforcement would require using existing databases to ensure that all new hires are authorized to work in the United States and levying heavy fines on businesses that knowingly employ illegal aliens. Finally, a clear message from policymakers, especially senior members of the administration, that enforcement of the law is valued and vitally important to the nation, would dramatically increase the extremely low morale of those who enforce immigration laws.

Policing the border, enforcing the ban on hiring illegal aliens, denying temporary visas to those likely to remain permanently, and all the other things necessary to reduce illegal immigration will take time and cost money. However, since the cost of illegal immigration to the federal government alone is estimated at over $10 billion a year, significant resources could be devoted to enforcement efforts and still leave taxpayers with significant net savings. Enforcement not only has the advantage of reducing the costs of illegal immigration, it also is very popular with the general public. Nonetheless, policymakers can expect strong opposition from special interest groups, especially ethnic advocacy groups and those elements of the business community that do not want to invest in labor-saving devices and techniques or pay better salaries, but instead want access to large numbers of cheap, unskilled workers. If we choose to continue to not enforce the law or to grant illegals amnesty, both the public and policymakers have to understand that there will be significant long-term costs for taxpayers.

Results Similar to Other Studies. Our overall conclusion that education level is the primary determinant of tax payments made and services used is very similar to the conclusion of the 1997 National Research Council report, "The New Americans." The results of our study also closely match the findings of a 1998 Urban Institute study, which examined tax payments by illegal aliens in New York State. In order to test our results we ran separate estimates for federal taxes and found that, when adjusted for inflation, our estimated federal taxes are almost identical to those of the Urban Institute. The results of this study are also buttressed by an analysis of illegal alien tax returns done by the Inspector General's Office of the Department of Treasury in 2004, which found that about half of illegals had no federal income tax liability, very similar to our finding of 45 percent.

SOURCE: The High Cost of Cheap Labor: Illegal Immigration and the Federal Budget

http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html

Franchot
04-04-08, 12:30 PM
Whenever the pro-ILLEGAL immigration supporters tout that illegal immigrants are just hard-working people who are not a burden to our country and that they actually contribute more than they take from our system, I like to show them articles like the following. (Granted, Maria "Chata" Leon, no doubt, is an exception, but my God what an exception!)

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-adme-drewstreet30mar30,1,1777897,full.story

Outside the law

L.A.'s once-peaceful Drew Street has become a crime fortress, where family bonds thwart police efforts to stop the violence.

By Sam Quinones, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
March 30, 2008

The brick house with the enormous black satellite dish in the driveway sits empty now, the tenants evicted. The building is fenced, its windows are boarded and a For Sale sign hangs outside.

Last year, the Los Angeles city attorney's office sued to close the house at 3304 Drew St. in Glassell Park as a public nuisance. Authorities are now seeking to demolish it.

For more than a decade, the Satellite House, as it's known in the neighborhood, was the center of the drug trade on two-block Drew Street, where dealers and gang members have operated with near-impunity for years, police said.

During at least two raids at the house since 2002, according to court documents, officers found guns and drugs as well as surveillance cameras, laser trip wires and a shrine to Jesus Malverde, the Mexican folk hero who has become drug smugglers' unofficial patron saint.

Occupying the house until recently was Maria "Chata" Leon and her family.

An illegal immigrant and mother of 13, Leon has a lengthy arrest record and three convictions for drug-related crimes -- for which she's served no prison time, according to court documents. She declined to be interviewed for this story.

Police said Leon, 44, and her extended family were deeply involved in the drug trade that has made Drew Street among L.A.'s most notorious.

The neighborhood came to the attention of most people only after undercover police officers got into a shootout there last month with gang members who had allegedly killed a man in another Northeast Los Angeles neighborhood. But police had long had Drew Street on their radar.

It is "hands down the worst area of Northeast Division," said LAPD Officer Steve Aguilar, who has patrolled the street for five years. "I've worked two other divisions and even in South-Central. This is worse."

The Leons -- and members of several other immigrant families on Drew Street whom authorities have charged with criminal acts -- hail from the town of Tlalchapa in the state of Guerrero, which has a reputation as one of Mexico's most violent regions. Police estimate that dozens of members of these extended families belong to the Avenues gang.

"It's been a safety net for them to rely on each other -- brothers, cousins and all," said LAPD Lt. Robert Lopez. "The likelihood of someone within your family ratting you out is really low."

Drew Street's Tlalchapa contingent began arriving in the 1970s, some lured by the promise of jobs at the Van de Kamp canned-food factory a few blocks away, residents and former factory workers said.

"We created a little Guerrero up there," said Robesbier Aguirre, who worked as foreman at the now-shuttered plant. Aguirre and others said his family was not part of the criminal activity on Drew Street and left when it got bad.

Poverty sent many Tlalchapans to the U.S. looking for work. But so did the violence stemming from the local drug trade and deadly family feuds, authorities and former residents said.

One place people from Tlalchapa landed was Drew Street. The early arrivals lived mostly in peace, said Epifanio Serrato, Tlalchapa's mayor, who met his wife on Drew Street when he lived there in the early 1970s before returning to Mexico.

"The first of us there had no problems," Serrato said. But as their numbers grew, the area's white residents began selling to developers, he said.

The number of apartment buildings doubled. City records show that from 1984 to 1992, builders razed 30 single-family houses and erected apartment complexes in their place, adding 480 units to the 12-square-block neighborhood -- between the Glendale Freeway and Forest Lawn Memorial-Park -- that includes Drew Street.

Living conditions began to resemble those of many public housing projects, particularly on Drew Street, where the concentration of apartments was the greatest. Poor people crowded into the long, tall buildings, which were hard for police to patrol and easy for criminals to hide in. Parked cars packed the streets, providing gang members a line of armored defense.

Tlalchapans moved into many of the new apartments, said former Drew Street residents. As they did, neighbors said, fights, parties and heavy drinking became more common. Minor disputes escalated into gunplay.

"There wasn't a weekend you didn't hear gunshots in the air," said one neighbor, who bought a house on the block more than 20 years ago.

By the early 1990s, some immigrant families who initially came to escape violence in Guerrero began to leave.

"People with aspirations didn't want to be there," said one former resident.

Another resident who left was Aguirre's brother Flocelo, also a onetime foreman at the Van de Kamp factory, who feared that his sons would end up dead or in jail. He moved his family to Dalton, Ga., where carpet factories have attracted Tlalchapans from Drew Street.

As more Tlalchapans arrived on Drew Street, "it was the law of the revolver," Flocelo Aguirre said. "By 1990, you couldn't live there anymore."

A string of arrests

Still, many Tlalchapans stayed. One of them, police said, was Maria Leon. She was 21 and destitute when she showed up in 1985, according to those who knew her.

By then the Van de Kamp factory was slowly shutting down, so Leon took menial work elsewhere, residents said. Later, she told a judge that she sold gold jewelry door-to-door.

She was arrested at least 14 times dating to 1985, according to court records. But she never seemed to spend much time in jail.

In 1992 Leon was arrested twice on Drew Street on suspicion of possession of drugs for sale, including PCP and marijuana, according to police records. She was not charged.

In 1994, Leon was arrested for narcotics possession, police records show. She was given diversion and the case was dismissed. The next year, she was sentenced to jail and probation for selling drugs.

Over the years, Leon had 13 children with five men, according to court records. Several of her sons are documented gang members, according to police. One of Leon's sons, Daniel, was killed last month in the shootout on Drew Street after allegedly firing an AK-47 at officers.

The family ties on Drew Street, along with the poverty and overcrowding, have made it hard for police to penetrate, authorities said. Police report having seen lookouts standing atop apartment buildings, watching for cops or rival gang members, ready to whistle or chirp their Nextels in warning.

In one 2002 raid at the Leon house, Glendale police arrested Maria Leon and found cocaine, marijuana, a Tec-9 assault weapon, ammunition, a small explosive, packaging material and a cellphone that kept ringing with customers' drug orders, according to court records. Inside were six children under 10 years old, including Maria Leon's youngest child, a 3-month-old boy.

An older son, Jose Leon, pleaded guilty to possession of drugs for sale in connection with the case and was sentenced to four years in prison.

Maria Leon pleaded guilty to child endangerment and possession of an assault weapon and was sentenced to six years and eight months for child endangerment. She was given credit for 259 days served and turned over to federal immigration authorities in May 2003. She was deemed a "deportable alien," but it's unclear if she was deported. A spokeswoman for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement declined to comment on her case, citing privacy laws.

One of Leon's sons, Francisco Real, was convicted in 2002 of immigrant smuggling, according to court records. Three other convicted drug dealers with close ties to the Leons also have been arrested on suspicion of immigrant smuggling, authorities said.

Trying to make a dent

Police task forces, gang sweeps, arrests -- even a 2002 gang injunction -- have done little to break the bonds of family and culture that breed criminal activity on Drew Street, officials said.

"We've really put a lot of focus on trying to build a community there," said Councilman Eric Garcetti, whose district includes the street.

But Drew Street renters come and go. Landlords say they often can't find reputable tenants to fill their units.

The city said that "I'm not supposed to have gangs out in the yard" in front of the apartment building, according to one landlord who requested anonymity, fearing reprisal. "I'm the one who is supposed to go and chase them out? I don't think so."

Finding a witness to testify is almost impossible, police said. So gang members are rarely charged with violent felonies. Without witnesses, police must rely on cases they can make themselves, usually for narcotics possession.

Other government efforts to crack down on criminal activity on Drew Street have been frustrated.

In 2002, the city built Juntos Park on the street; the park, which cost $6 million, has since become another spot for drug dealing, neighbors said.

Last year, the city installed surveillance cameras without bulletproof glass. Gang members shot them out the first night.

"Now we have to put in cameras to monitor the installation of cameras," Garcetti said.

Prisoners in their homes

Drew Street today remains a drug marketplace, police said. But there have been some changes over the years.

In 1998, the city down-zoned the area to prevent more apartment construction. A Neighborhood Watch group recently formed, though it meets in secret.

Maria Leon and her family have moved to a two-story house in a new subdivision in Victorville. But police believe the family remains a force in the street's drug trade.

In Tlalchapa, 2,000 miles away, Drew Street is so notorious that it's called el barrio bajo -- "the low neighborhood."

Nearby, some homeowners said they feel imprisoned in tidy, graffiti-free homes they've tried unsuccessfully to sell.

"We don't let the kids play in the front," said one resident, who did not want to be identified. "The drug dealers are so common they're part of the scenery. We need something permanent done. We're barely surviving here."

So, Maria Leon came here with the good intent of getting a job and when the job market for her skills dried up she turned to a life of crime. If only she had been stopped at the border. Now, Maria is living in Victorville which is 80 miles outside of Los Angeles in San Bernardino County--one of the fastest growing areas in California for gangs and illegal immigrants. Maria should feel right at home. How about sending her back to her home country?

Laser Movies
04-04-08, 12:35 PM
Since reconquitsa was mentioned recently here is an ad that is running in Mexico City promoting Absolut Vodka.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=60642

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/laplaza/2008/04/mexico-reconque.html


Mexico reconquers California? Absolut drinks to that!
The latest advertising campaign in Mexico from Swedish vodka maker Absolut promises to push all the right buttons south of the U.S. border, but it could ruffle a few feathers in El Norte.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2251/2383371667_df5fc24e2d.jpg

The billboard and press campaign, created by advertising agency Teran\TBWA and now running in Mexico, is a colorful map depicting what the Americas might look like in an "Absolut" -- i.e., perfect -- world.

The U.S.-Mexico border lies where it was before the Mexican-American war of 1848 when California, as we now know it, was Mexican territory and known as Alta California.

Following the war, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo saw the Mexican territories of Alta California and Santa Fé de Nuevo México ceded to the United States to become modern-day California, Texas, New Mexico, Utah, Colorado and Arizona.

The campaign taps into the national pride of Mexicans, according to Favio Ucedo, creative director of leading Latino advertising agency Grupo Gallegos in the U.S.

Ucedo, who is from Argentina, said: “Mexicans talk about how the Americans stole their land, so this is their way of reclaiming it. It’s very relevant and the Mexicans will love the idea.”

But he said that were the campaign to run in the United States, it might fall flat.

“Many people aren’t going to understand it here. Americans in the East and the North or in the center of the county -- I don’t know if they know much about the history.

“Probably Americans in Texas and California understand perfectly and I don’t know how they’d take it.”

Meanwhile, the campaign has been circulating on the blogs and generating strong responses from people north of the border.

“I find this ad deeply offensive, and needlessly divisive. I will now make a point of drinking other brands. And 'vodka and tonic' is my drink,” said one visitor, called New Yorker, on MexicoReporter.com.

Reader Paul Green goes into a discussion on the blog Gateway Pundit of whether the U.S. territories ever belonged to Mexico in the first place, and the News12 Long island site invited people to boycott Absolut, with one user, called LivingSmall, writing: “If you drink Absolut vodka, you can voice your approval or disapproval of this advertising campaign with your purchases. I know I will be switching to Grey Goose or Stoli and will never have another bottle of Absolut in my house.

“Hey Absolut ... that's my form of social commentary.”

-- Deborah Bonello and Reed Johnson in Mexico City

fujishig
04-04-08, 12:53 PM
Surprised nobody's posted about the mayor of San Francisco's press conference yesterday, and the money they'll be spending on ads promoting the city as a sanctuary city.

Franchot
04-04-08, 01:09 PM
Surprised nobody's posted about the mayor of San Francisco's press conference yesterday, and the money they'll be spending on ads promoting the city as a sanctuary city.

What's to say really? I don't think anybody would be too surprised at anything that Gavin Newsom does.

I hope that they begin putting up billboards here in Los Angeles that point north to "San Francisco, The Santuary City. ALL are welcome UP THERE!"

(Then, maybe the overcrowded freeways, schools, prisons, and hospitals around here will become just a little less congested.)

wishbone
04-04-08, 02:33 PM
Since reconquitsa was mentioned recently here is an ad that is running in Mexico City promoting Absolut Vodka.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=60642

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/laplaza/2008/04/mexico-reconque.htmlhttp://img137.imageshack.us/img137/5642/greaterfinlandtr2.jpg

The Bus
04-04-08, 02:43 PM
With nearly two-thirds of illegal aliens lacking a high school degree, the primary reason they create a fiscal deficit is their low education levels and resulting low incomes and tax payments, not their legal status or heavy use of most social services.

It is priceless that you post this immediately after a complaint about illegals using our school system. I mean, really. The timing couldn't be better.

The Bus
04-04-08, 02:45 PM
That Absolut ad is garbage. I would say I'd boycott them but I haven't had any of their swill in about a decade.

fujishig
04-04-08, 02:48 PM
http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/5642/greaterfinlandtr2.jpg

So what's the German ad look like?

Laser Movies
04-05-08, 12:32 AM
Absolut's statements about the controversial ad on their blog. It appears it is generating a lot of interest and comments.

http://absolut.com/iaaw/blog/in-an-absolut-world-according-to-mexico


In an ABSOLUT World according to Mexico
Posted Friday, April 04, 2008, 5:26:34 PM

The In An Absolut World advertising campaign invites consumers to visualize a world that appeals to them -- one they feel may be more idealized or one that may be a bit "fantastic." As such, the campaign will elicit varying opinions and points of view. We have a variety of executions running in countries worldwide, and each is germane to that country and that population.

This particular ad, which ran in Mexico, was based upon historical perspectives and was created with a Mexican sensibility. In no way was this meant to offend or disparage, nor does it advocate an altering of borders, nor does it lend support to any anti-American sentiment, nor does it reflect immigration issues. Instead, it hearkens to a time which the population of Mexico may feel was more ideal.

As a global company, we recognize that people in different parts of the world may lend different perspectives or interpret our ads in a different way than was intended in that market. Obviously, this ad was run in Mexico, and not the US -- that ad might have been very different.

By Paula Eriksson, VP Corporate Communications, V&S Absolut Spirits

Laser Movies
04-05-08, 12:35 AM
Surprised nobody's posted about the mayor of San Francisco's press conference yesterday, and the money they'll be spending on ads promoting the city as a sanctuary city.

They might need to come up with 5 million extra.


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2008/04/04/MN6PVU14S.DTL


Feds want $5.4 million back from S.F.
Jaxon Van Derbeken, Chronicle Staff Writer

Friday, April 4, 2008

The U.S. Department of Justice wants San Francisco to repay $5.4 million in grant money earmarked to help fight the war on drugs in states bordering Mexico because federal auditors found the city was not eligible for the funding.

San Francisco had sought the grant under the Southwest Border Prosecution Initiative, which compensates law enforcement agencies in California and other border states for the costs of handling prosecutions in lieu of federal authorities.

As of March of last year, the city claimed it had handled more than 2,241 such cases, but a federal audit released this week found that none of the cases had been referred by federal officials to District Attorney Kamala Harris' office as required under the program.

The audit found that the cases the city cited in its application should have been "disallowed" as "unsubstantiated" under the government's grant criteria.

City officials contacted Thursday were unable to explain the circumstances surrounding San Francisco's application for the grant or how it spent the funds.

A spokeswoman for Harris' office, Erica Derryck, said, "We're aware of the national audit report and are in the process of looking at the questioned costs for San Francisco outlined in the report."

Harris' office would not make the top prosecutor available on Thursday for an interview about the audit, and Derryck declined to answer questions about the report findings or the 2,241 cases in the city's application for federal funds.

Mayor Gavin Newsom's office, in a statement provided by spokesman Nathan Ballard, also acknowledged that city officials know about the report and are working "cooperatively with the Department of Justice to resolve any issues the audit raises."

Evan Peterson, U.S. Justice Department spokesman, said Thursday that the federal government wants its $5.4 million back.

"While we will seek to have excess funds under the Southwest Border Prosecution Initiative returned, we have not yet determined by what means that process will be carried out," he said in a statement.

Federal authorities said the grant program, created in 2000, awarded border states a total of $30 million in the past fiscal year. In addition to going to the San Francisco district attorney's office, funds from the program also helped defray the costs of jailing and defending criminal suspects in the city whose cases the city listed in its application as federally generated.

As a sanctuary city, San Francisco is committed to not assisting federal authorities in immigration-related cases. While some border-related crime might involve illegal immigrants, border law enforcement agencies have long been able to bill federal authorities for many other crimes not related to illegal border crossings.

Cynthia Schnedar, spokeswoman for the auditing arm of the Department of Justice, the Office of Inspector General, would not comment on whether San Francisco's case has been referred to another arm of the Justice Department for possible civil or criminal action.

The audit, conducted in November, recommended improvements to the tracking of federal grant money and changes are being implemented, Schnedar said. Among the changes expected is a requirement that local governments provide detailed documentation in their applications for border grants.

The potential loss of the grant money comes as Harris' office and other city law enforcement agencies have been asked by the mayor's office to reduce their budgets as part of across-the-board cuts.

Josh Eaton, spokesman for U.S. Attorney Joseph Russoniello, said the office does track how many referrals it makes to local agencies, who then seek money under the grant program. Eaton said other federal agencies also can make local referrals.

Officials with the local federal law enforcement agencies, including immigration, the FBI and the Drug Enforcement Administration, did not have information on how many individuals they refer for state prosecution.

The district attorney's $40 million budget for the current fiscal year cites a projected boost in revenue of $800,000 as a result of an "increase in funds based on current year receipts" from the Southwest Border Prosecution Initiative.


Audit of S.F.
Online: Read the Justice Department's report on the Southwest Border Prosecution Initiative Reimbursement Program at: links.sfgate.com/ZCXL


E-mail Jaxon Van Derbeken at jvanderbeken@sfchronicle.com.

Laser Movies
04-05-08, 11:38 PM
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/05/MNEV100953.DTL


S.F. topped border counties for crime grant
Jaxon Van Derbeken, Chronicle Staff Writer

Saturday, April 5, 2008


San Francisco's $3.7 million federal grant to help fight border crime in 2006 was the largest awarded to any county in four states bordering Mexico, according to a federal audit that found the city was not entitled to any of the funds.

City officials have not explained why a city 500 miles from the state's southern border would have prosecuted more than 2,000 cases for the federal government that were related to drug gangs and crimes near the border in a three-year period.

The audit, which was released this week and challenged all $5.4 million that the city received from 2004 to 2006, raises questions about the basis for the city's request for funding under the Southwest Border Prosecution Initiative.

Federal officials who challenged San Francisco's grants were told that the city simply made an "estimate" of the number of cases it handled on behalf of the federal government, the audit found. In a footnote, the audit quoted city officials as saying that the grant requests were not based on "actual cases."

Federal officials also suggested in the audit that San Francisco's apparently inflated grant requests robbed other jurisdictions of money that was supposed to help them fight drugs and crime on the federal government's behalf.

In the 2006 fiscal year, smaller amounts were awarded to compensate much larger counties close to the border, including San Diego, San Bernardino and Los Angeles counties, the audit found.

The offices of San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris and Mayor Gavin Newsom have not responded publicly to questions raised by the federal audit, saying only that they are cooperating with the investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice.

Federal authorities have declined to release detailed findings or correspondence associated with the audit, citing the ongoing nature of the case. Federal officials say they will ask San Francisco to repay the $5.4 million the city has received as part of the program, but they have not determined how to go about it.

The program, launched in 2000, is designed to help local jurisdictions pay for prosecuting cases they were saddled with as part of federal efforts to combat crime in states bordering Mexico.

The program requires applicants to keep three years of records on file to show that they were handling local prosecutions referred to them by federal prosecutors or agencies, a requirement that San Francisco did not comply with, according to the audit.

The audit also said the city increased its grant request from $40,000 in 2004 to $1.7 million the next year and $3.7 million in 2006. The city's grant was more than San Diego's $2.5 million, San Bernardino's $2.5 million or Los Angeles' $1.9 million under the program that fiscal year.

Alameda County received $10,000 that year, Contra Costa County $60,000, San Mateo County $86,000 and Santa Clara County $13,000, according to the audit.

The grant requirements indicate that the federal government need only receive an e-mail each quarter of the year that details how long the cases were taking to handle. The longer the case was in the system, the more the agency could seek, up to $10,000 for each case that languished longer than 90 days.

Erica Derryck, a spokeswoman for Harris, said the cases San Francisco cited in seeking grant money were legitimate.

"The cases submitted for reimbursement were actual prosecuted cases," she said. "What is in question is whether or not the prosecuted cases submitted were eligible for reimbursement under the federal program guidelines."

The program requires that for a county to get money to house and prosecute offenders, the agency must have some sort of referral from federal authorities and be handling them on behalf of the authorities.

After checking a sample of the lists and finding no referrals, the auditors concluded that all of the money San Francisco had taken in was not justified.

Kevin Ryan, who was the U.S. attorney in San Francisco in 2006, the year San Francisco asked for and got $3.7 million from the program, did not return calls seeking comment. He currently heads Newsom's Office of Criminal Justice.

Earlier this week, the city controller's office sent an e-mail to the Police Department's fiscal division seeking records of all arrests made between January 2003 and December 2006 by San Francisco officers participating in federal task forces. The office set a deadline of April 25 and asked that the information be forwarded to the district attorney's office.

San Francisco tops Southern California
In 2006, San Francisco received more money from a federal program to fight border crime than any of more than 60 counties in California and three other states that share borders with Mexico. The five California counties that received the most money were:

San Francisco

$3.7 million

San Diego

$2.5 million

San Bernardino

$2.5 million

Los Angeles

$1.9 million

Riverside

$1 million


Source: U.S. Office of Justice Programs

Chronicle staff writer Cecilia M. Vega contributed to this story. E-mail Jaxon Van Derbeken at jvanderbeken@sfchronicle.com.

Laser Movies
04-06-08, 02:11 AM
Here's the Absolut ad for the United States.:lol:

http://i247.photobucket.com/albums/gg143/Byron300/myabsolutworld.jpg

NotThatGuy
04-06-08, 11:34 AM
It is priceless that you post this immediately after a complaint about illegals using our school system. I mean, really. The timing couldn't be better.

They could get their own f'ing education....you know, the one where they may have contributed something into the system. Instead, they try and suck out ours....many of which just taking up space. This may help all of the illegal's kids born here, but not the 18+ year olds that flood into our country. We shouldn't have to educate all of the illegals who break in, but that is yet another problem with the current setup.

It isn't our job to educate people who break into our country. If LEGAL immigrants want to come in and CONTRIBUTE to our society, and then choose to use the services and educational system, then that is a much different story.

wm lopez
04-06-08, 12:30 PM
They could get their own f'ing education....you know, the one where they may have contributed something into the system. Instead, they try and suck out ours....many of which just taking up space. This may help all of the illegal's kids born here, but not the 18+ year olds that flood into our country. We shouldn't have to educate all of the illegals who break in, but that is yet another problem with the current setup.

It isn't our job to educate people who break into our country. If LEGAL immigrants want to come in and CONTRIBUTE to our society, and then choose to use the services and educational system, then that is a much different story.
What if they want to become citizens they have to join the armed forces for 6 years. Male or female no matter what age. That way we won't have our soliders doing more than 1 tour of duty.

NotThatGuy
04-06-08, 01:02 PM
What if they want to become citizens they have to join the armed forces for 6 years. Male or female no matter what age. That way we won't have our soliders doing more than 1 tour of duty.
I'm okay with that.

Tuan Jim
04-06-08, 09:46 PM
But...but that would require actually forcing them to learn English. How dare we!

NotThatGuy
04-06-08, 10:16 PM
But...but that would require actually forcing them to learn English. How dare we!

God forbid they learn the language of where they live....legally or not.

fujishig
04-07-08, 01:30 PM
What if they want to become citizens they have to join the armed forces for 6 years. Male or female no matter what age. That way we won't have our soliders doing more than 1 tour of duty.

I would question having an armed forces (or a portion of the armed forces) primarily composed of illegal immigrants...

The Bus
04-07-08, 02:18 PM
I would question having an armed forces (or a portion of the armed forces) primarily composed of illegal immigrants...

As long as they're <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Patrick's_Battalion">not Irish</a>, I think we'll be OK.

My Other Self
04-08-08, 01:21 PM
http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20080407/capt.2a6b7b3f4840461d9344c3ba683280d9.mexico_us_absolut_ads_mxtt101.jpg
MEXICO CITY (Reuters) - The distillers of Sweden's Absolut vodka have withdrawn an advertisement run in Mexico that angered many U.S. citizens by idealizing an early 19th century map showing chunks of the United States as Mexican.

The billboard ad has the slogan "In an Absolut World" slapped over a pre-1848 map showing California, Arizona and other U.S. states as Mexican territory. Those states were carved out of what had been Mexican lands until that year.

Although it was not shown in the United States, U.S. media outlets picked up on the ad, and after a barrage of complaints, Absolut's maker said on Sunday the ad campaign would cease.

Defending the campaign last week, Absolut maker Vin & Spirit said the ad was created "with a Mexican sensibility" and was not meant for the U.S. market.

"In no way was this meant to offend or disparage, nor does it advocate an altering of borders, nor does it lend support to any anti-American sentiment, nor does it reflect immigration issues," a spokeswoman wrote on Absolut's Web site.

"Instead, it hearkens to a time which the population of Mexico may feel was more ideal," she wrote.

Absolut's blog cite has received more than a thousand comments since the ad campaign was launched a few weeks ago, with many calling for boycotts of the Swedish company.

"I have poured the remainder of my Absolut bottles down the sink," one blogger wrote.

A war between Mexico and the United States from 1846 to 1848 started with Mexico's refusal to recognize the U.S. annexation of Texas and ended with the occupation of Mexico City by U.S. troops.

At the end, Mexico ceded nearly half of its territory to the United States, forming the states of California, Nevada, Utah and parts of Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico and Wyoming.

Mexicans remain sensitive about the loss and the location of the border. At the same time, the United States is fortifying barriers to keep out undocumented Mexican migrants.

Some Mexicans use the term "Reconquista" (reconquest) to refer to the growing presence in California of Mexican migrants and their descendants.

France's Pernod Ricard is taking over Absolut vodka, one of the world's top-selling spirit brands, after buying Vin & Spirit from the Swedish government at the end of March.Source (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080408/us_nm/mexico_absolut_dc;_ylt=AmS69kfzBODl_8NR6n8KlB4XIr0F)

kvrdave
04-08-08, 01:24 PM
It does not offend me.

Deftones
04-08-08, 01:28 PM
It does not offend me.

Yeah, truth hurts, doesn't it?

NotThatGuy
04-08-08, 01:29 PM
It definitely offends me, and it should offend every other LEGAL resident of our country. Absolut is shit vodka anyway.

Venusian
04-08-08, 01:34 PM
It doesn't offend me and I'm a legal resident of this country.

then again, not much offends me

Nick Danger
04-08-08, 01:34 PM
You notice that Absolut drew the modern borders for El Salvador, Panama, Colombia, and so forth. Shouldn't they all have been the same shade of green, all the way to Brazil?

McHawkson
04-08-08, 01:37 PM
Well, we're all illegal alien on Native American land.

gilbertr76
04-08-08, 01:38 PM
I choose not to be offended.

I do wonder, however, if any Mexicans took offense when we stole Texas, proceeded to kick the crap out of them for their protest, and then made off with half their territory as a result? :shrug:

Laser Movies
04-08-08, 01:39 PM
I like this ad better.

http://i247.photobucket.com/albums/gg143/Byron300/myabsolutworld.jpg

Mopower
04-08-08, 01:39 PM
Well, we're all illegal alien on Native American land.


And the Native Americans invaded from central Asia. All this land was mammoth land before they came here and killed them all.

Bandoman
04-08-08, 01:42 PM
I'm descended from mammoths, so all of you offend me.

superdeluxe
04-08-08, 01:46 PM
The Southwest is basically new mexico anyways, with the numbers of illegal aliens moving into those areas. This just goes to show how big of a problem it is.

General Zod
04-08-08, 01:46 PM
I do wonder, however, if any Mexicans took offense when we stole Texas, proceeded to kick the crap out of them for their protest, and then made off with half their territory as a result? :shrug:
They got a good deal. Not only did we take the land but instead of just keeping it we PAID them for it.

It's not like cities like Houston and L.A. would have simply popped up out of the ground like it's some magical dirt. Those cities were built with American ingenuity and hard work. If the land still belonged to Mexico it would look like the cesspool that is already most of Mexico.

The Ad didn't offend me as much as it confused me trying to figure out what the point was? Drink Vodka and the U.S. will give land back to Mexico?

General Zod
04-08-08, 01:47 PM
I like this ad better.

http://i247.photobucket.com/albums/gg143/Byron300/myabsolutworld.jpg
:lol: :up:

fumanstan
04-08-08, 02:01 PM
Doesn't offend me, and i live in Absolut Mexico!

Quatermass
04-08-08, 02:06 PM
"I have poured the remainder of my Absolut bottles down the sink," one blogger wrote.

Dude, you already paid for them.

wishbone
04-08-08, 02:09 PM
The map in Absolut's ad is interesting considering that Mexico won its independence from the Spanish Empire in 1821 and ceded this territory -- which it barely controlled -- to the US after the Mexican-American War in 1848.A French diplomat visiting California in 1840 reported, "Whatever nation chooses to send a warship and two hundred men" could take California. On July 7, 1846, this is precisely what the United States did in the early months of the Mexican-American war (1846-1848). California had never had close ties to the central government in Mexico City and in fact in the early 1840's there were fewer than 7,000 Mexican citizens in all of California.http://www.pioneertheatre.org/season/PYW_directornotes.html

ADD'L INFOexcerpt

Beginning with Texas in 1845, which initially became a separate country in 1836, (the Lone Star State) and California, Nevada, Utah, and parts of New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado and Wyoming, (all which Mexico ceded to the U.S. in 1848) American settlers outnumbered Spaniards/Mexicans by approximately 23-1. What these settlers wanted was stabile government, something Mexico, because of its absentee ownership mentality, was unable to provide. And so began the inevitable movement for independence among American settlers, a people used to getting things done through representative government.

Without question, President Polk engineered the 1846-1848 war with Mexico in order to bring California and the other western states into the union. By the same token, there’s little question about Mexico’s inability to indefinitely hold-on to her 1846 American territories had the Mexican-U.S. war not taken place. Sooner or later, all 7 states would have followed Texas’ lead, and brought about the same results since Mexico hadn’t the focus, wherewithal, stability, moxy or muscle to govern American settlers.

Political ownership of something the size of the American Southwest can only be realized through conquest, settlement or transfer of ownership from one country to another. The Pope never owned this territory, and thus couldn't transfer it to Spain. The Spanish never conquered nor settled these lands to any meaningful degree, and therefore couldn't transfer or cede them to Mexico. Between 1821 and 1848, Mexico never conquered the American Southwest, nor undertook any meaningful steps to settle or develop the territory, and never had anything but an ancient ecclesiastically sanctioned map, a few thousand settlers, and a sprinkling of missions, churches and pueblos to make their ownership claim stick. After making an offer to buy the Southwest, and being refused, the U.S. used force. On the other hand, the territory had been ignored by Mexico, as by Spain before her, to such a sorrowful extent, and over so many centuries, that a virtual power vacuum existed. Mexican rule was accordingly pre-determined and temporary, and conquest by a foreign power was inevitable, be that power Russian, English, French or American. The United States just happened to be the first foreign power that had the practical means to accomplish it.

To infer that the one-two-three punch of Pope Alexander V1, Conquistador Hernán Cortés, and King Carlos 111 somehow gave Mexico title over the American Southwest is just plain nutty. American Indians owned these lands for thousands of years. Then came Spain, (on paper) largely by virtue of an ecclesiastical shell game with the Catholic church for some 300 hundred years. Next Mexico, (again on paper) between her victory over Spain in 1821, and her defeat by the U.S. in 1848, for 27 years. Finally the United States (the first to truly settle the lands) for the last 158 years. Neither Spain, nor Mexico, nor the United States acquired the American Southwest with clean hands, and it makes little sense to infer that Mexico has/had a more solid case for sovereignty than the United States. And, - 158 years later, all this bumper sticker about Mexico being the legitimate owner of the American Southwest is as untrue, as it is moot, as it is nutty.http://www.ninehundred.com/CalNews/wwwboard/messages/916.html

How long before this is moved to Political Talk? ;)

Jericho
04-08-08, 02:11 PM
People have too much time on their hands

JasonF
04-08-08, 02:18 PM
You notice that Absolut drew the modern borders for El Salvador, Panama, Colombia, and so forth. Shouldn't they all have been the same shade of green, all the way to Brazil?

There is a sentiment among some Mexicans that America basically took Texas, California, and the various lands claimed after the Mexican-American War at gunpoint. That same sentiment is not shared with regard to their southern neighbors. And Mexico never purported to have any claims to lands south of Costa Rica, so it would only be green down to Panama.

NotThatGuy
04-08-08, 03:21 PM
I saw those on a blog....thankfully someone posted the second image. :D

Sean O'Hara
04-08-08, 04:26 PM
There is a sentiment among some Mexicans that America basically took Texas, California, and the various lands claimed after the Mexican-American War at gunpoint.

They might have a point with some of those territories, but Texas seceded fair and square in a revolution that was popularly supported by the Tejanos as well as Anglos.

Chrisedge
04-08-08, 04:52 PM
I was not offended...

Giantrobo
04-08-08, 07:56 PM
I was not offended...

Neither was I. You know why? Eeeeeevery time someone pulls a stunt like this, it pisses people off across the nation and they start paying more attention to the Illegal Alien issue. Every little bit helps.:lol:

As a matter of fact, I think it's high time for another nationally televised Pro-Illegal Alien march in LA with people <b>demanding rights and privileges</b> while waiving Mexican flags and burning American flags. rotflrotfl


:p

NotThatGuy
04-08-08, 08:27 PM
Neither was I. You know why? Eeeeeevery time someone pulls a stunt like this, it pisses people off across the nation and they start paying more attention to the Illegal Alien issue. Every little bit helps.:lol:

As a matter of fact, I think it's high time for another nationally televised Pro-Illegal Alien march in LA with people <b>demanding rights and privileges</b> while waiving Mexican flags and burning American flags. rotflrotfl

Yeah, more people need to see the shit that goes on at those rallies.

wishbone
04-08-08, 09:11 PM
Neither was I. You know why? Eeeeeevery time someone pulls a stunt like this, it pisses people off across the nation and they start paying more attention to the Illegal Alien issue. Every little bit helps.:lol:

As a matter of fact, I think it's high time for another nationally televised Pro-Illegal Alien march in LA with people <b>demanding rights and privileges</b> while waiving Mexican flags and burning American flags. rotflrotfl


:phttp://img516.imageshack.us/img516/3194/immigration2featureta4.jpg

NotThatGuy
04-10-08, 05:48 PM
That's about par for the course.

Laser Movies
04-11-08, 01:38 PM
Now we are getting Vodka wars over the Absolut ad.

http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20080411005171&newsLang=en


April 11, 2008 09:01 AM Eastern Daylight Time


SKYY® Vodka, Made in the USA, Proudly Supports Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo
America’s Most-Popular Domestic Vodka Decries Absolut® Vodka’s Suggestion to Redraw North American Map

SAN FRANCISCO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--In 1848, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo officially ended the Mexican-America War (1846-1848). With the signing of this treaty, the United States gained control of what was to become the Golden West, including California, Arizona, Utah, Nevada and parts of Colorado and New Mexico. Today, SKYY® Vodka, the number-one vodka produced in the United States, spoke out against suggestions by Absolut® Vodka to disregard that treaty, as well as the joining of Texas to the Union in 1845, as depicted in Absolut’s recent advertising.

“Like SKYY Vodka, the residents of states like California, Texas and Arizona are exceptionally proud of the fact that they are from the United States of America,” said Dave Karraker, SKYY Vodka. “To imply that they might be interested in changing their mailing addresses, as our competitor seems to be suggesting in their advertising, is a bit presumptuous.”

In the ad, an “Absolut World” is depicted where the map of North America is re-drawn with Mexico claiming much of the Western United States, negating the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, as well as the Gadsden Purchase (1853), and the independence of Texas (1836).

“Don’t get me started on the Gadsden Purchase,” continues Karraker. “I think the folks in Tucson and Yuma would be rubbed the wrong way if they hear this landmark deal was somehow nullified as suggested by Absolut, a Swedish-owned brand.”

SKYY Vodka was founded in San Francisco in 1992 and continues to be produced in the United States. Premium SKYY Vodka is made from American grain carefully selected from the Midwest and 100% pure filtered water. SKYY’s proprietary four-column distillation and three-step filtration process consistently ensures exceptional quality. SKYY Vodka products include luxury SKYY90® and new SKYY Infusions™, a unique, all-natural infused experience made with premium SKYY Vodka and succulent real fruit.

Franchot
04-11-08, 03:04 PM
Now we are getting Vodka wars over the Absolut ad.


If Grey Goose steps into the fracas, I'm done with drinking vodka.

wishbone
04-11-08, 03:20 PM
So we have Dr. Pepper apparently helping nudge the release along of Chinese Democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_democracy) and now a vodka tête-à-tête over the boundary line between the US and Mexico. What's next for the world of liquid refreshment? :D

The Bus
04-11-08, 03:39 PM
“Don’t get me started on the Gadsden Purchase,” continues Karraker. “I think the folks in Tucson and Yuma would be rubbed the wrong way if they hear this landmark deal was somehow nullified as suggested by Absolut, a Swedish-owned brand.”

This reads like an Onion article.

I.Flores
04-12-08, 01:58 PM
They got a good deal. Not only did we take the land but instead of just keeping it we PAID them for it.


Yeah, just like if you tapped the window of a guy driving a Ferrari on a traffic light and offered him $100 for his ride, while holding a gun against his head.
The guy gets a really good deal too. He can buy an iPod with it.

Business 101.

I.Flores
04-12-08, 02:03 PM
The treaty provided for the Mexican Cession, in which Mexico ceded 1.36 million km² (525,000 square miles) (55%[3] of its pre-war territory) to the United States in exchange for US$15 million (equivalent to $313 million in 2006 dollars)

Let's see, 525K square miles for 313 million. That's $600 per square mile.

Yea, they got a good deal alright. -ohbfrank- :sarcasm:

The Bus
04-12-08, 02:36 PM
Let's see, 525K square miles for 313 million. That's $600 per square mile.

Yea, they got a good deal alright. -ohbfrank- :sarcasm:

That's funny. France doesn't want Louisiana back, and they were given less than half as much for land which was much more useful (arable, etc.)

The Bus
04-12-08, 02:38 PM
(It's also three times as much per square mile as what Alexander II got for the land he sold us).

I.Flores
04-12-08, 03:25 PM
That's funny. France doesn't want Louisiana back, and they were given less than half as much for land which was much more useful (arable, etc.)


:scratch2:

France isn't bordering Louisiana, now is it? :) Louisiana isn't half a million square miles either.

The Bus
04-12-08, 03:34 PM
:scratch2:

France isn't bordering Louisiana, now is it? :) Louisiana isn't half a million square miles either.

I guess you never took US history or chose not to pay attention.

Sean O'Hara
04-12-08, 04:10 PM
This reads like an Onion article.

No, if it was an Onion article, the headline would be funny, and then there'd be five paragraphs belaboring the point.

Franchot
04-24-08, 01:22 AM
Welcome To Los Angeles!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/global/main.jhtml?xml=/global/2008/04/23/noindex/wla123.xml

Los Angeles 'is a Third World city'

Los Angeles is becoming a "Third World city" with immigrants making up half its workforce, says a new study.

A third of immigrants have not graduated from high school and 60 per cent do not speak English fluently, the Migration Policy Institute found.

It said this left immigrants ill-equipped to fill California's fastest-growing occupations, such as computer software engineering and nursing. The organisation added that as the so-called baby boomers reach retirement age, a similar pattern will spread across the US.

Ernesto Cortes Jr, of the Industrial Areas Foundation, a think-tank that specialises on social change, claimed Los Angeles was at a crossroads.

"The question is are we going to be a 21st century city with shared prosperity, or a Third World city with an elite group on top and most on near poverty wages?" he said.

General Zod
04-24-08, 01:26 AM
They finally scrapped the "Virtual fence" today. It was all a lie to begin with since there was no proof at all it would work. In fact, in almost all areas where "virtual fencing" has been tested, it has failed. In all cases it proved to be less effective than a real fence. So, naturally, this is what the govt hung the hat on as the perfect solution to our illegal immigration enforcement.

Now they are talking again of updating radar and sensors instead of building the real fence which would, of course, do the job quite well. But.. Our gov't is not serious about border enforcement. When they are - they will go with the solution they know will work.

So.. all those who said the McCain bill would have been so wonderful.. guess what would have happened? Exactly what I am others aid. Amnesty would have been granted and all the promises of enforcement would have failed. And we'd be even worse off than we are today. Thank goodness some of us were paying attention and weren't so easily suckered.

Giantrobo
04-24-08, 07:41 AM
Welcome To Los Angeles!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/global/main.jhtml?xml=/global/2008/04/23/noindex/wla123.xml

You can't fight Globalization Man. Get with the program! -ohbfrank-


:p

Laser Movies
04-24-08, 12:58 PM
There has to be a NAFTA joke in here somewhere.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,352378,00.html


Secret Service Catch Mexican Official Nabbing White House BlackBerries
Thursday , April 24, 2008


Whether he was up to no good or simply desperate to play BrickBreaker, a Mexican press attaché was caught on camera by Secret Service pocketing several White House BlackBerries during a recent meeting in New Orleans, FOX News has learned.

Sources with knowledge of the incident said the official, Rafael Quintero Curiel, served as the lead press advance person for the Mexican Delegation and was responsible for handling logistics and guiding the Mexican media around at the conference. He took six or seven of the handheld devices from a table outside a special room in the hotel where the Mexican delegation was meeting with President Bush earlier this week.

Everyone entering the room was required to leave his or her cell phone, BlackBerry and other such devices on the table, a common practice when high-level meetings are held. American officials discovered their missing belongings when they were leaving the session.

It didn't take long before Secret Service officials reviewed videotape taken by a surveillance camera and found footage showing Quintero Curiel absconding with the BlackBerries.

Sources said Quintero Curiel made it all the way to the airport before Secret Service officers caught up with him. He initially denied taking the devices, but after agents showed him the DVD, Quintero Curiel said it was purely accidental, gave them back, claimed diplomatic immunity and left New Orleans with the Mexican delegation.

It is unclear what disciplinary measures, if any, await him in Mexico. White House spokeswoman Dana Perino refused to discuss the incident, telling FOX News, "We are aware of the situation, but as it's under investigation by law enforcement officials, we will decline to comment."

fujishig
04-24-08, 01:31 PM
That doesn't have much to do with illegal immigration but man, "accidental?" Is he serious?

Franchot
04-24-08, 01:36 PM
It is unclear what disciplinary measures, if any, await him in Mexico. White House spokeswoman Dana Perino refused to discuss the incident, telling FOX News, "We are aware of the situation, but as it's under investigation by law enforcement officials, we will decline to comment."

There will be no disciplinary measures taken by Mexico against this thief--perhaps, an award.

There will be ABSOLUTELY no disciplinary measures taken by the United States against this thief--most assuredly an apology from our government for interferring with this hard-working gentleman. And probably a large cash settlement to the gentleman for daring to accuse him of what was an honest mistake.

Laser Movies
04-24-08, 01:51 PM
I thought the article did have connections to immigration and free trade since it was related to the recent North American Leader's Summit in New Orleans involving President Bush, Mexican President Calderon, and Canadian Prime Minister Harper. Also there was a recent reopening ceremony of a Mexican consulate in the area, which are notorious for giving matricula consular cards to illegal immigrants for ID.

http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20080422006562&newsLang=en

Franchot
04-24-08, 01:57 PM
Wait a sec. I thought the illegal immigrants coming into this country were hard-working people looking for a better life for themselves and their families.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/crime/la-me-riot24apr24,1,5709810.story

Hundreds Riot at L.A. Detention Center For Illegal Immigrants

L.A. County sheriff's officials are looking into the gang-related "melee" that broke out Tuesday at the Lancaster Mira Loma Detention Center. Two detainees were badly injured.

By Molly Hennessy-Fiske and Anna Gorman, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
April 24, 2008

Los Angeles County sheriff's officials are investigating a riot that broke out Tuesday involving hundreds of immigration detainees at a county-run facility in Lancaster, where guards had to use tear gas grenades to restore order, authorities said today.

The Sheriff's Department contracts with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to house about 900 detainees awaiting deportation at the Mira Loma Detention Center, according to sheriff's spokesman Steve Whitmore.

Sheriff's and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel spent much of the night interviewing detainee witnesses, and some who instigated the riot may be prosecuted on criminal charges, authorities said.

ICE officials plan to send a review team to Mira Loma this week to conduct an in-depth inquiry.

"Any incident not only puts the lives of the detainees but also the lives of the sheriff's officers and department personnel in harm's way," said Virginia Kice, a Los Angeles regional spokeswoman for ICE. "We are committed to doing everything we can to ensure safe, secure and humane conditions for those in our custody."

Tuesday's riot started as a morning fight between two detainees from rival gangs, then escalated by 1:30 p.m. into a "melee" in the detention center's outdoor yard, Kice and Whitmore said.

Additional deputies came to the detention center from nearby Lancaster and Palmdale stations to assist the guards with separating detainees, and the riot was diffused "within minutes," Whitmore said.

Two detainees suffered serious, though not life-threatening, head injuries during the riot and were taken to a local hospital, Whitmore said. About 20 other detainees suffered minor injuries and no deputies were injured, Whitmore said.

Mira Loma guards routinely separate detainees based on gang affiliation, and that process will be evaluated as part of the sheriff's investigation into the riot, Whitmore said. Gang leaders, or "shot callers," inside the facility can be placed in isolation, in different cell blocks or moved to other facilities, he said.

Already, 50 detainees involved in Tuesday's riot have been identified as gang members and bused to other federal facilities, he said this morning. Whitmore would not say what gangs those detainees were affiliated with or which gangs were involved in the riot.

"We do the very best we can to identify, isolate and secure them in the facility and one of the reasons we have not had any incidents up there is because of that," Whitmore said. "The big key to managing any jail is identifying an inmate's affiliation."

Last year, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors approved a $10-million plan to expand Mira Loma.

Amensty for the illegal immigrants already in this country. Stop building the fence and let's have open borders. Yeah, right. We already have enough home-grown gang members in Los Angeles. We don't need to import any more.

wendersfan
04-24-08, 02:03 PM
Wait a sec. I thought the illegal immigrants coming into this country were hard-working people looking for a better life for themselves and their families.I think most of them are.

Franchot
04-24-08, 02:07 PM
I think most of them are.

I agree with you 100% that most are, but some aren't. And the some that aren't seem to be quite dangerous which is why we need stricter border enforcement and a fence with checkpoints to know exactly who is coming into the country.

Laser Movies
04-25-08, 01:03 AM
Well it looks like they fired the official who took the blackberries. Maybe he could apply for a job working for the drug cartels. I heard they are hiring and looking for new recruits in the border city of Nuevo Laredo (http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4709186&page=1).

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,352378,00.html


Mexican Embassy: Official Fired After Getting Caught With White House BlackBerries
Thursday , April 24, 2008

Whether he was up to no good or simply desperate to play BrickBreaker, a Mexican press attaché was caught on camera pocketing several White House BlackBerries during a recent meeting in New Orleans and has since been fired, FOX News has learned.

Sources with knowledge of the incident said the official, Rafael Quintero Curiel, served as the lead press advance person for the Mexican Delegation and was responsible for handling logistics and guiding the Mexican media around at the conference.

Mexican Embassy spokesman Ricardo Alday said Thursday he was asked to tender his resignation once he arrived back in Mexico City.

"Mr. Quintero will be responsible for explaining his actions to the American authorities conducting an investigation. The Mexican Government deeply regrets this incident," he said.

Quintero Curiel took six or seven of the handheld devices from a table outside a special room in the hotel where the Mexican delegation was meeting with President Bush earlier this week.

Everyone entering the room was required to leave his or her cell phone, BlackBerry and other such devices on the table, a common practice when high-level meetings are held. American officials discovered their missing belongings when they were leaving the session.

It didn't take long before Secret Service officials reviewed videotape taken by a surveillance camera and found footage showing Quintero Curiel absconding with the BlackBerries.

Sources said Quintero Curiel made it all the way to the airport before Secret Service officers caught up with him. He initially denied taking the devices, but after agents showed him the DVD, Quintero Curiel said it was purely accidental, gave them back, claimed diplomatic immunity and left New Orleans with the Mexican delegation.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino refused to discuss the incident, telling FOX News, "We are aware of the situation, but as it's under investigation by law enforcement officials, we will decline to comment."

DVD Polizei
04-25-08, 01:17 AM
Hey, he's just doing the jobs that burglars in the US wouldn't do.

The Bus
04-25-08, 06:55 AM
There will be no disciplinary measures taken by Mexico against this thief--perhaps, an award.

I'd like to see a link showing previous awards give to other thieves, as well as cash settlements given to them.

The Bus
04-25-08, 06:56 AM
Hey, he's just doing the jobs that burglars in the US wouldn't do.

OK now that's funny. :lol:

Franchot
04-25-08, 02:01 PM
I'd like to see a link showing previous awards give to other thieves, as well as cash settlements given to them.

I was being sarcastic or facetious. Take your pick.

(Here's a site to have some fun with:

http://illegal.globalincidentmap.com/home.php ) ;)

The Bus
04-25-08, 04:17 PM
Here's a site to have some fun with:

Hm... Nothing blinking in 90-minute radius. Guess all the illegals around here are AOK. :up:

Laser Movies
04-27-08, 01:11 AM
All the talk about the Iraq war and it looks like we have one going in our own backyard.

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN2639514820080427?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0


Seventeen killed in Mexico drug battle near U.S.
Sat Apr 26, 2008 11:56pm EDT
By Lizbeth Diaz

TIJUANA, Mexico (Reuters) - Seventeen Mexican drug gang members were killed near the U.S. border on Saturday, their bodies scattered along a road after one of the deadliest shootouts in Mexico's three-year narco-war.

Rival factions of the Arellano Felix drug cartel in Tijuana on the Mexico-California border battled each other with rifles and machine guns in the early hours of the morning, police said.

Fourteen bodies were lying in pools of blood on a road near assembly-for-export maquiladora plants on the city's eastern limits. The corpses were surrounded by hundreds of bullet casings and many of their faces were destroyed.

The 15th body was found nearby. Two more men died in hospital on Saturday evening, police said.

Six men were wounded and another six were arrested, but some gang members are thought to have escaped.

Two of the dead were believed to be senior hitmen for the Arellano Felix cartel and were identified by large gold rings on their fingers. The rings carried the icon of Saint Death, a ghoulish figure that gangsters believe protects them, police said.

"Today shows we are facing a terrible war never seen before on the (U.S.-Mexico) border," Baja California Attorney General Rommel Moreno told a news conference.

Some 190 people have been killed in Tijuana so far this year. In 2007, there were more than 2,500 drug killings across Mexico and there have been more than 900 this year.

Police cordoned off the surrounding roads, forcing workers at a nearby maquiladora to walk through the crime scene to get to work.

"Another shootout," said a woman who gave her name only as Lisa. "There are just too many. We are so afraid."

TROOP REINFORCEMENT

Heavily armed federal police patrolled across Tijuana after the gunfight. Soldiers and police guarded the city's main hospital where the wounded were being treated to prevent any attempt by drug gangs to pull them out.

Baja California state police chief Daniel de la Rosa said fresh troops from Mexico City were arriving in Tijuana, which borders San Diego, California.

President Felipe Calderon has sent thousands of troops to Tijuana and Baja California state since taking office in December 2006. Some 25,000 soldiers and federal police are deployed to fight cartels in drug hot spots across Mexico.

The army in Tijuana said it was on high alert for reprisals against soldiers and federal police after the shootout and the ensuing arrests.

"The risk of attacks against our agents after an event like this is extremely high," said Lt. Col Julian Leyzaola, Tijuana's police chief.

The Arellano Felix gang was long the dominant trafficking organization in Tijuana, smuggling drugs into California. Recently the group has been under attack from a rival gang from the Pacific state of Sinaloa, led by Mexico's most wanted man, Joaquin "Shorty" Guzman.

Laser Movies
04-27-08, 01:34 AM
Well it looks like when you openly declare yourself a sanctuary city it comes with a heavy price, when at the same time you are the biggest city in the state and nation getting Federal funds to prosecute border crimes. I almost forgot about this one. It keeps getting worse at 9.3 million dollars and growing in unauthorized crime funds.


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/09/MNRH101UFG.DTL


S.F. stalled on crime grant proof, feds say
Jaxon Van Derbeken, Chronicle Staff Writer

Wednesday, April 9, 2008

San Francisco repeatedly staved off federal auditors before finally admitting that the city had no proof it was entitled to $5.4 million in grant money it got for helping federal authorities fight border crime, according to a U.S. Justice Department report released Tuesday.

The department said last week that it wanted San Francisco to repay the entire sum, which the city received from 2004 to 2006. It said there was no evidence that any of the 2,241 prosecutions that San Francisco cited in its applications for the grant money had been referred to District Attorney Kamala Harris' office by federal authorities.

In the report released Tuesday, the Justice Department's inspector general in charge of the audit said the city had requested more time to produce documentation when federal officials approached them last July about justifying the prosecution money.

The city finally turned over 152 criminal case files for the auditors, who checked 71 and concluded that none qualified for money under the federal Southwest Border Prosecution Initiative. That program reimburses local jurisdictions for the cost of prosecuting border-related crimes, mostly involving drug trafficking.

Instead, the auditors reported, "San Francisco selected approximately 30 percent of its drug cases (for federal dollars)" based on the assumption that those cases could have been prosecuted under federal law but that the local U.S. attorney would not do so.

Double billing
The audit also found that San Francisco billed the federal government twice for more than 10 percent of the 2,241 cases for which the city received money from Washington.

San Francisco's share of the federal program's money was considerable. The $3.7 million the city received in fiscal 2005-06 was more than any other county in the nation.

In a response to the audit, which the Justice Department finished in November, then-City Controller Ed Harrington argued that Harris did not need explicit permission from federal authorities to prosecute the cases in order to be repaid by Washington.

Harrington said the federal auditors had misinterpreted the guidelines of the program and that the city was assured by the Justice Department in 2003 that it was operating correctly. He did not provide documents to back up the assertion, however.

D.A. says she didn't know
City officials have not said whether they will repay any of the $5.4 million. Harris said Monday that she had begun a review of the matter, expected to take two weeks, and that the city would "do the right thing."

On Tuesday, she said members of her staff believed there was a "legitimate difference of opinion" with the federal authorities but that they had not told her about it. The first she heard of the dispute was last week, she said.

"Now that I'm informed about the situation, I'm doing everything I can, as thoroughly as I can, to determine what happened and reach a resolution," Harris said.

The district attorney's applications for the federal money were prepared by Brad Burgess, a private consultant who worked for Public Resource Management Group in Roseville (Placer County). He declined to comment Tuesday, saying he first would have to consult with the city controller's office.

Harrington, now the head of the city's Public Utilities Commission, did not return calls.

In their report on San Francisco, auditors said that only criminal cases that federal officials handed off to local prosecutors qualified for repayment. The cases need not be formally reviewed by federal prosecutors, the auditors said - they could be ruled out under blanket standards used by U.S. attorney offices, as long as they came out of a federal investigation or arrest.

For example, crimes involving small quantities of drugs might not be enough to merit federal prosecution, but counties could be eligible for repayment if they decided to bring suspects to trial.

To verify San Francisco's applications, federal auditors sought to meet with city officials Aug. 6. But a week before that, the officials said they needed two more weeks to obtain files from an "off-site storage facility," the audit said.

Two sets of files
The city handed over 260 criminal case files Aug. 20, then told auditors that those had been pulled by mistake and were not eligible for reimbursement, the Justice Department said.

The city handed over the revised collection of 152 criminal-case files four days later, but then "informed us the case files requested for review may not contain evidence that the cases were federally initiated," the audit said.

The Justice Department nonetheless went ahead with audit and found that the first 71 cases reviewed showed "no evidence of federal initiation."

San Francisco officials explained that they had misinterpreted the grant guidelines, the report said.

"According to San Francisco officials, the (grant) requests were not based on actual cases. Instead, San Francisco selected approximately 30 percent of its drug cases" under the assumption that they qualified for funding but that federal prosecutors would never pursue them.

S.F.'s story
San Francisco officials told the auditors that they "did not consider the fact that the cases had to be initiated by a federal law enforcement agency or task force."

San Francisco had other problems, federal auditors found. Of the 2,241 cases that the city said were eligible for reimbursement, Harris' office double-billed the government for 283 of them, the report said. The cost to the federal government for those cases was $1.1 million, the audit said.

In his Nov. 2 response to the audit, Harrington said the district attorney hadn't pursued repayment based on a set formula of 30 percent of drug cases. Instead, the city did a "computer run" to screen cases "from the eligible population of potential candidates," Harrington said without elaborating.

He said the city consulted with the Justice Department in 2003 and "believed its submissions met program requirements." Harrington insisted that the government was now misinterpreting its own program and was insisting on impossible-to-meet documentation requirements.

"Four years later," Harrington said, "the report concludes that the interpretation of (the grant) guidelines shared by all parties was incorrect and applies a new, more demanding standard of proof for federal initiation."

Auditors countered that the standard had never changed and was not so burdensome that it could not be followed by other counties.

In his response, Harrington insisted the city was right in its belief that it could seek federal payment for prosecutions it handled on its own without a specific referral from a U.S. attorney. He added that the city hadn't documented federal referrals because it did not know it needed to.

E-mail Jaxon Van Derbeken at jvanderbeken@sfchronicle.com.




http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/10/MNP01032AP.DTL


S.F. returns half of border crime grant
Jaxon Van Derbeken, Chronicle Staff Writer

Thursday, April 10, 2008


(04-09) 20:19 PDT SAN FRANCISCO --

Under threat of federal legal action, San Francisco has paid back half the $5.4 million it received in disputed grant money to prosecute border crimes and pledged to make good on whatever else it owes by midyear, officials said Wednesday.

District Attorney Kamala Harris, whose office received most of the money, and City Attorney Dennis Herrera announced the action in a statement in which they said they would resolve the dispute with U.S. Justice Department auditors "cooperatively, transparently and as quickly as possible."

Harris said Tuesday that she did not know until last week that federal auditors had concluded the city had no proof it deserved the grant money. However, the statement issued Wednesday revealed that the city repaid $2.7 million to the Justice Department on Feb. 28.

Neither Harris nor Herrera was available for comment regarding the apparent discrepancy.

The federal government gave the money to San Francisco from 2004 to 2006 under the Southwest Border Prosecution Initiative, which Congress created to reimburse counties for the cost of prosecuting border-related crimes, such as drug trafficking that federal authorities referred to local agencies.

San Francisco's share was the largest of any county in the nation in fiscal 2006. But in an audit in November, the Justice Department concluded that the city had no evidence that federal prosecutors had referred any of the more than 2,000 cases that Harris' office said it had taken on under the program.

Auditors said San Francisco had simply sought federal funding for 30 percent of all the drug prosecutions that Harris undertook, assuming those would qualify under the program. Federal officials said the city should repay the $5.4 million it received from 2004 to 2006 and since have added $300,000 for what the city got in 2007.

Harris said Monday that she had launched a review expected to take two weeks. Late Wednesday, she and the city attorney released a statement saying the city had submitted a "corrective action plan" at the government's request, spelling out how San Francisco will comply with the audit's recommendations.

In an April 3 letter, the city said it would respond to federal authorities by July 31.

Harris and Herrera also released a Feb. 14 letter the city received from the local U.S. attorney's office indicating that federal officials were contemplating suing the city to recover the money. Such a suit, if successful, could result in treble damages against the city, or more than $16 million.

U.S. Attorney Joseph Russoniello asked to review documentation with city officials and said, "If I do not hear back from you by March 7, 2008, I will assume that San Francisco does not wish to discuss this matter further" and will proceed to act "without the benefit of your views."

Russoniello already had written a similar letter Jan. 29, threatening civil action and giving San Francisco until Feb. 15 to respond.

On Feb. 28, documents show, the city paid $2.7 million of the disputed sum.

Harris and Herrera also released documents that the city has sent to the Justice Department indicating that the city no longer is using the contractor who prepared her requests for the federal money since 2004.

The documents show that the city signed a three-year contract in 2004 with Brad Burgess of the Public Resource Management Group in Roseville (Placer County), under which he was paid $75,000 the first year and $55,000 in subsequent years. However, the contract gave Burgess a $15,000 annual bonus if the amount the city received from the federal government increased at least 10 percent over the previous year, which it did in both fiscal 2005 and fiscal 2006.

The city has sent Burgess two letters since January demanding that he repay $145,000 for the first two years of his contract, the documents released Wednesday show. There is no indication of whether he has replied.

Burgess declined to comment about the dispute with the federal government when reached by phone Tuesday.

E-mail Jaxon Van Derbeken at jvanderbeken@sfchronicle.com.


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2008/04/12/MN8E103D28.DTL


Grant fiasco cost soars to $9.3 million
S.F. stands to lose an extra $3.6 million in crime funds feds say weren't authorized
Jaxon Van Derbeken, Chronicle Staff Writer

Saturday, April 12, 2008

San Francisco is expected to suffer a $9.3 million budget hit in the wake of the federal audit that found the city reaped millions of dollars without justification to prosecute border-related crimes, city officials said Friday.

Federal officials released an audit last week that found that the city was not entitled to any of the millions it got over three years under the Southwest Border Prosecution Initiative grant program, which repays local authorities in border states for handling prosecutions on behalf of federal authorities.

U.S. Justice Department auditors said there was no evidence federal prosecutors had referred any criminal cases to San Francisco and that the city had simply estimated how much it deserved.

The city repaid $2.7 million in February after federal prosecutors threatened to sue the city for the $5.4 million in grant money the city owed the government. That sum the city owed later increased to $5.7 million, and on Friday, Deputy City Controller Monique Zmuda said the city probably would lose another $3.6 million in grants it was counting on this year, bringing the total hit to $9.3 million.

"Ouch," she said of the sum, which the mayor's office has figured into the $338 million deficit that the city faces next year. "It's painful."

The city hired a private consultant from Placer County, Brad Burgess of Public Resource Management Group, to prepare its requests for the federal money. About half the funding went to the district attorney and half to the Sheriff's Department.

District Attorney Kamala Harris, who opened an investigation and promised to "get to the bottom" of what happened, said through a spokeswoman late Thursday that the consultant had been "hired by, and worked for and at the direction of the (city) controller, not the district attorney."

Asked if the controller and the hired consultant were solely to blame for the city improperly obtaining the federal money, Harris spokeswoman Erica Derryck said Friday, "We are not saying we didn't have a role in this."

Harris then issued a statement that did not specify her office's role but said, "I take full responsibility for my office's role in the application, audit and resolution process."

Blanket formula
Zmuda said the controller, the district attorney and sheriff had come up with a formula for billing the federal government for a blanket 30 percent of city drug prosecutions. Drug-trafficking cases make up a large chunk of border-related crimes.

Zmuda said she thought the Justice Department had agreed to the formula. But government auditors said they made no such deal and that the city had to be able to show that each criminal case had come from federal authorities.

"When we were contacted by federal auditors and it was clear they weren't interested in sampling and required justification for each and every case, the first thing we did is set aside (repayment money)," Zmuda said. "It's a big hit in a bad year."

Sheriff Michael Hennessey said his office played a minimal role in the grant process. "We were asked to provide the names of individual defendants who met certain criteria and how long they were in custody," he said. "It was up to other people to decide whether those cases were eligible."

Bonus for extra cases
Burgess had a three-year contract with the city that paid him $75,000 the first year and $55,000 in subsequent years. The pact also included $15,000 bonuses for every year in which the city's caseload under the federal program increased 10 percent.

Zmuda said the consultant had no role in coming up with the city's formula for obtaining the grant money. Nonetheless, city officials have asked Burgess to return $145,000 he earned under the contract because of a provision that says he has to give it back if the city does not get paid by the federal government. Burgess has declined to comment.

Officials decided to hire a consultant rather than have city employees do the work because "finding the cases to identity is not an easy feat," Zmuda said. "The amount of money that the contractor was going to be paid was relatively small, compared to the administrative burden of making the claims."

Including the $15,000 annual bonus for coming up with more cases was "an incentive for a contractor to be diligent and do the work, to get through the drudgery," Zmuda said.

Burgess met the goal of a 10 percent annual caseload increase and then some. By the 2006 budget year, San Francisco got the largest share of dollars under the federal program of any county in the nation.

Cases were real
Although federal auditors concluded that the U.S. attorney didn't refer any of the more than 2,000 prosecutions for which the city sought reimbursement, Zmuda said the cases were genuine.

"The costs were incurred, no question there," Zmuda said. "There's a question as to whether they qualify under this program."

Now the city is going to "systematically go through all of these cases and find out where the referrals were made and costs incurred," she said.

She said Tim Silard, a member of Harris' staff, was the official representing the district attorney in dealings with the controller's office and federal auditors. Silard has not returned phone calls seeking comment, and late Friday a spokeswoman for Harris referred questions about his role to City Attorney Dennis Herrera.

E-mail Jaxon Van Derbeken at jvanderbeken@sfchronicle.com.

fujishig
04-28-08, 01:32 PM
10 million is a lot, but dang, a 338 million dollar deficit? That's like a drop in the bucket.