Immigration

Unlike Obama Administration, Virginia Will Enforce Immigration Laws

Posted August 2nd, 2010 at 5:32pm in Protect America Print This Post

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli is having quite a day. As Todd Gaziano explains, a federal district court denied the U.S. Justice Department’s request that the court dismiss the lawsuit Cuccinelli filed on behalf of the citizens of Virginia against the unconstitutional mandates in Obamacare.

News also broke today that Cuccinelli issued an official advisory opinion on July 30 that was another shot across the bow of the Obama Administration in the ongoing fight over enforcement of federal immigration laws.

In response to an inquiry from a state representative, Cuccinelli advised all Virginia law enforcement officers that, just like Arizona police officers, they can “inquire into the immigration status of persons stopped or arrested.” Moreover, local officers can arrest any individual who has “violated a criminal law of the United States, including a criminal violation of the immigration laws.”

Unlike the specious “legal” opinion issued by Judge Susan Bolton in the Arizona immigration case, Cuccinelli’s opinion is fully in accord with federal immigration law and prior court decisions that have held that local police officers can inquire into the immigration status of individuals they lawfully detain or arrest. On the ability to arrest those who have criminally violated federal immigration laws, Cuccinelli very pointedly explains that “it would be most surprising if state and local officers lacked the authority…to arrest individuals suspected of committing federal crimes.” If they did, then local law enforcement would have “to stand idly by and allow” bank robbers, kidnappers, or terrorists who have violated federal law “to proceed with impunity.” Why should criminal violators of federal immigration laws be somehow different? That is, of course, a ridiculous claim, although it has not prevented pro-illegal aliens groups and their spokesmen from criticizing Cuccinelli’s opinion.

In the heart of the opinion, Cuccinelli makes it very clear that Virginia police “have the same authority to make the same inquiries as those contemplated by the new Arizona law. So long as the officers have the requisite level of suspicion to believe that a violation of the law has occurred, the officers may detain and briefly question a person they suspect has committed a federal crime.” The real problem, of course, will be if the federal government then refuses to pick up and deport illegal aliens who have been found by local police—an unfortunate problem that illustrates the importance of having someone in the White House who understands the President’s constitutional obligation to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”

We should never forget that this issue has real consequences: two teenagers in Virginia Beach were killed in 2007 by a drunken illegal alien who rammed their car at a stoplight. He had been previously arrested and convicted for public drunkenness and DUI—if local police had checked his immigration status after those prior arrests and the federal government had picked him up and deported him back to Mexico, those two girls would likely be alive today.

Hopefully, not only will local police officers in Virginia use the authority that Attorney General Cuccinelli has given them, but other state attorneys general will follow his lead and issue similar opinions. The Justice Department and the Obama Administration need to be confronted by states contesting their ill-advised and dangerous policy of not fully enforcing our immigration laws.

Seems odd to fly Mexican Flags if you are so proud and so desperate to be an American?!?

Here is the Amnesty memo - http://www2.nationalreview.com/memo_UCIS_072910.html

 

Some States Rethink Illegal Immigration Bills After Arizona Ruling… As they Wait to See

By Alan Gomez, USA TODAY

PHOENIX — Legislators who wanted to bring an Arizona-style immigration law to their own states are changing course after a federal judge temporarily halted the core ofArizona's law.

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton ruled last week that key portions of the law could not go into effect, prompting an immediate appeal from Republican Gov. Jan Brewer that could end up before the Supreme Court.

Courtney Combs, a Republican state representative in Ohio, was planning to file a nearly identical bill this week but says he will remove the parts Bolton blocked to avert the possibility of a lawsuit.

Filing an Arizona-style bill "would be wasting taxpayers' money," Combs says. "I think we need to make sure that we comply with what the federal courts come up with."

Arizona's law, known as S.B. 1070, would have required police to question the immigration status of anyone stopped for another suspected offense if there was a "reasonable suspicion" the person was in the country illegally. Bolton issued a temporary injunction to halt enforcement of that section of the law, but she allowed others, including bans on harboring illegal immigrants and hiring day laborers from vehicles, to take effect Thursday.

Robert Geddes, the Idaho state Senate's highest-ranking Republican, says his colleagues had planned to file an S.B. 1070 replica but are making changes.

"I don't know that we would cut and paste exactly what Arizona has, based on what the judge has already ruled," Geddes says. "That doesn't help us much to engage in the same battle that Arizona has lost."

Minnesota state Rep. Steve Drazkowski, a Republican, says any law with the provisions Bolton blocked would have a hard time passing. "The political palatability of such a bill would be greatly diminished," he says.

Texas state Rep. Debbie Riddle, a Republican, plans to continue pushing for an Arizona-style law because it remains too easy to cross the southwestern border. She worries that it exposes the country to terrorists and violent gang activity.

"The first priority of any elected official should be to make sure that the safety and security of the citizens is well-established," Riddle says.

Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies, which backed the Arizona law, says a few states might go forward with the core components of S.B. 1070 to see if other judges rule differently.

"There may be some states that figure, 'What the heck, Arizona was the first responder and has done well, and the governor has done well politically,' " he says, but, "most states are going to want to stand back and let Arizona do the heavy lifting."

Who’s the immigration demagogue, President Obama?

By Michelle Malkin  •  August 2, 2010 09:41 AM

I’m looking at the man in the mirror…

If Barack Obama wants public officials to stop demagoguery of the immigration issue, he should set an example and stop doing it himself.

On CBS News, he accused enforcement advocates of taking “anti-immigrant” positions: (Full Article Here)

THIS MAY CHANGE YOUR MIND ABOUT AZ IMMIGRATION LAW!

Video: Judge Napolitano Clearly EXPLAINS the Constitution

What we need to do is over-turn the 13th and 14th Amendments, and Judge Napolitano has encouraged that before.  We must enforce all the laws on our books and perhaps Arizona and other states may eventually have to threaten secession???

-->  KUHNER: Should Arizona secede?  And some other eye-opening thoughts…  <--

Amnesty Costs 70 Times More Than Enforcement

The cost of amnesty: $999 billion.
The cost of attrition by enforcement: as little as $14 billion.
Amnesty would cost up to 70 times as much as enforcing existing law.

$999 billion cost of Amnesty (Mass Legalization)

Source: The Heritage Foundation
Summary: The Heritage Foundation issued two studies in 2007 pointing out that the big problem with mass legalization is that (a) most illegal aliens are low-skilled and therefore do not earn enough money to pay enough taxes to cover the government benefits they receive; and (b), amnesty would eventually make them eligible for the full array of welfare and medical benefits offered by local, state and federal governments. They found the cost of allowing illegal aliens to remain in the United States, and eventually to become citizens, would be $3.7 trillion through the year 2056. That works out to a present cost of $1 trillion, at a 5 percent discount rate. In other words, immediately upon passage of an amnesty bill, the United States government would need to put $1 trillion into an investment earning 5 percent per year if it were honest about paying for the costs of amnesty.

$14 billion cost of attrition through enforcement option #1.

Source: Congressional Budget office Estimate for H.R. 4437.
Summary: This option is the bill H.R. 4437 sponsored by Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner that passed the House of Representatives in 2005. This bill would have been so effective in combating illegal immigration that some 1 million illegal aliens marched in cities around the United States on May 1, 2006 to protest it. The Congressional Budget Office estimated the bill would cost $1.9 billion over the 5 years 2006-2010, which we extrapolate out to the year 2056 using a linear model to account for cost increases. Then we use a discount rate of 5 percent to bring the future costs back to a single present cost figure. The resulting cost was actually $13.5 billion, which we round up to $14 billion to facilitate comparison to the other cost figures.

$177 billion cost of attrition through enforcement option #2.

Source: Congressional Budget Office Estimate for H.R. 4088.
Summary: This option is the SAVE Act (Secure America Through Verification and Enforcement Act) that was introduced in the House of Representatives in 2007. This is a strong attrition through enforcement bill. The Congressional Budget Office estimated the bill would cost $40.7 billion over the 10 years 2009-2018, which we extrapolate out to the year 2056 using a linear model to account for cost increases. Then we use a discount rate of 5 percent to bring the future costs back to a single present cost figure.

Detailed Explanation:

Amnesty Would Have a Present Cost of $1 Trillion

In 2007, the Heritage Foundation issued two studies, one on the cost of low-skilled immigration and one on the cost of amnesty. The study on the cost of low-skilled immigrationnoted that low-skilled immigrants do work hard: “It is important to note, these families are rarely idle; they consistently work and pay taxes. However, the taxes they pay are seldom, if ever, sufficient to cover the cost of the government benefits they receive. In consequence, these households must be continually subsidized by other taxpayers.” The Heritage study concluded that low-skilled immigrant households will cost native born U.S. taxpayers $89.1 billion per year over each of the next 30 years.

The Heritage report estimated that illegal residents comprise 41 percent of low-skilled immigrant households.¹ Simple multiplication indicates that illegal-immigrant households cost the U.S. taxpayer $36.5 billion each year. Over 30 years, that works out to $1.1 trillion in costs. Using a financial calculator, we assumed a discount rate of 5 percent, and computed the net present value of a cost stream of $36.5 over the next 30 years to be $589 billion.

Cost to Taxpayer for Government Benefits to Illegal Aliens:

Years
Cost Each Year
Total Cost
Present Cost @ 5% discount rate

2007-2037
$36.5 billion
$1.1 trillion
$589 billion

2038-2056
$144.5 billion
$2.6 trillion
$410 billion

$999 billion

A second report was issued by the Heritage Foundation a few weeks after the report discussed above. This report discussed the costs allowing current illegal aliens to become United States citizens. They will become eligible for the full array of welfare and medical benefits offered by state and federal governments. This study concluded that the $36.5 billion per year figure is valid for the next 30 years. The average age of an illegal alien is early 30s. Beginning 30 years from now, the current illegal alien population will retire. The problem is that low-skilled illegal aliens do not earn enough money to support their families, send remittances back to their homelands, and save adequate money for retirement. The U.S. taxpayer will be stuck supporting most illegal aliens in retirement. And each retired illegal alien is projected to cost the U.S. taxpayer $17,000 per year.

The Heritage report continues, that of the 10 million retired illegal aliens, some 8.5 million will live to the retirement age of 67 years old. At that time, the statistically normal lifespan is an additional 18 years. $17,000 per year for 18 years is $306,000. That is the cost of supporting one amnestied illegal alien through retirement. Multiplied by 8.5 million people, and that comes to the astounding figure of $2.6 trillion.² Using a financial calculator, we assumed a discount rate of 5 percent and computed the net present value of a cost stream of $144.5 billion per year for 18 years from the years 2039-2057. The net present cost was given as $410 billion.

Attrition Through Enforcement Would Have a Present Cost of as Little at $13.5 Billion

H.R. 4437, The “Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005,” had Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner as its original sponsor. This bill had several features to combat illegal immigration including:

• mandatory E-Verify 6 years from date of enactment
• end the “catch-and-release” policy for all persons apprehended at border
• require DHS to reimburse counties within 25 miles of the border for the costs relating to illegal aliens
• removal orders would become final more quickly and readily
• facilitate removal of aliens who reenter the country illegally after having been deported
• mandatory minimum prison sentences for offenses related to illegal entry into the United States
• additional port-of-entry inspectors and canine detection teams

This was the bill to which Sensenbrenner offered an amendment to reduce the penalty for illegal presence (aimed at visa overstayers) from a felony to a misdemeanor (Amendment 656, Roll Call Vote 655).³ However, all but 8 Democrats voted against the amendment (in other words, they voted for upgrading illegal presence to a felony) because they wanted to use the provision as a rallying point from which to stir up opposition to the bill.

The passage of this bill attracted a firestorm of opposition from the open borders lobby, including illegal alien demonstrations in a number of cities on May 1, 2006.

The illegal alien lobby was opposed to this bill because it would have been effective. This is why we can safely conclude that effective attrition through enforcement would cost as little as $13.5 billion.⁴

Strong Attrition Through Enforcement Would Have a Present Cost of $177 Billion

The SAVE Act (Secure America Through Verification and Enforcement) Act was introduced in the United States House of Representatives on November 6, 2007. It never made it to a vote because the House leadership would not allow it. Among the key provisions of the bill were:

• mandatory E-Verify 4 years from the date of enactment;
• increased employer sanctions for those knowingly employing illegal aliens;
• a "National Birth and Death Registration System" to reduce stolen identities;
• 140 additional Criminal Alien Program (CAP) officers to identify and remove criminal aliens detained in federal, state and local facilities;
• training at least 250 state and local law enforcement officers on how to perform federal immigration enforcement procedures;
• 8,000 additional beds for illegal aliens detained by immigration officials;
• 13 additional federal district judges in border states to increase the flow of deportations, including 4 for the District of Arizona and 5 for the Southern District of California;

The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the bill would cost $40.7 billion over the 10 years between 2009-2018.⁵

---

¹Robert E. Rector and Christine Kim, The Fiscal Cost of Low-Skill Immigrants to the U.S. Taxpayer, Special Report #14, May 22, 2007, The Heritage Foundation.

²Robert E. Rector, Amnesty Will Cost U.S. Taxpayers At Least $2.6 Trillion, Web Memo #1490, June 6, 2007, The Heritage Foundation.

³See The Congressional Record – House – December 16, 2005, H11951-11953.

⁴The CBO report can be found by searching www.cbo.gov for H.R. 4437.

⁵The CBO report can be found by searching www.cbo.gov for H.R. 4088.

Source:  NumbersUSA

Sarah Palin: Jan Brewer Has Something President Obama Doesn’t

Video:  They Don’t Want to Secure the Borders (the want Amnesty… not matter what they say!)

-->  SEE:  This is NOT a JOKE:  Rockefeller Wants Open Borders… We Do Not!!  <--

Why is the leaked Amnesty Memo so worrisome?  Because of Progressives like Pete Stark (Obama, Obama’s Cabinet and Czars Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid… and the list goes on (Progressives In Congress)

They actually believe that the government’s power is endless and that because the average person is stupid that they, the elitists should wield unending power to fix and control us!

Dem Rep. Says 'The Federal Gov't Can Do Almost Anything in This Country' – Full Story

There are answers to fix our immigration situation and many are already on our books… It is just a matter of finding more people like Jan Brewer, Joe Arpaio, Ken Cuccinelli, Glenn Beck, Judge Andrew Napolitano, Sarah Palin, the Minutemen, Jim DeMint, Michelle Bachmann, Tea Party Members, 9/12’ers, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Laura Ingraham, Rush… (and the list goes), plus a whole lot more average Americans… standing up and demanding the stop of the insanity and to insist on the rights and will of the American People be done and upheld!

SECURE THE BORDERS USING WHATEVER MEANS NECESSARY (FENCES, ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE, TROOPS ETC) and STOP ALL IMMIGRATION, LEGAL AND OTHERWISE UNTIL WE DO!!

• STOP SANCTUARY CITIES FROM OPERATING!
• PROSECUTE ANYONE WHO HIRES ILLEGALS TO THE FULLEST EXTENT OF THE LAW!
• DEPORT ALL ILLEGAL CRIMINALS IMMEDIATELY, UNLESS THEY ARE SERVING MAXIMUM SECURITY TYPE OFFENCES AND ARE LOCKED UP. DEPORT THEM IF THEY ARE EVER ELIGIBLE TO BE RELEASED!
• STOP THE MISINTERPRETATION OF THE ANCHOR BABY AMENDMENT AND MAKE IT RETROACTIVE… AT LEAST FOR 5 YEARS
• REDUCE MINIMUM WAGE TO HELP SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS CREATE JOBS GOOD FOR SUPPLEMENTING STUDENTS, THE ELDERLY AND YOUNG PEOPLE, BUT NOT ENOUGH TO SUPPORT ILLEGAL WORKERS… MANY WILL GO HOME ON THEIR OWN
• INSTEAD OF LEGALLIZING MARIJUANA ALL OVER THE COUNTRY, SO THE PROGRESSIVES CAN DUMB US ALL DOWN FURTHER AND MAKE EVERYONE EVEN MORE DOCILE, WE SHOULD BE TIGHTENING THE RULES, ESPEICALLY IN BORDER STATES AND PROSECUTING EVERYONE:  DEALERS, MULES, SUPPLIERS AND USES! (THIS ENTIRE LEGALIZATION MOVEMENT AT THIS TIME IS NOT JUST A COINCIDENCE!)

Then Once we confirm that all the borders, ports and airports are secured… for a sustainable amount of time… DOUBLE THE ARMED SECURITY FORCES AND SURVEILLANCE AT THE BORDER.

• WE BEGIN TO LOOK AT THE OPTIONS OF WHAT CAN BE DONE WITH THOSE ALREADY HERE.  REALISTICALLY THERE ARE ONLY SO MANY OPTIONS

1. DEPORT EVERYONE THAT CAME HERE ILLEGALLY
2. ALLOW THOSE TAHT ARE NOT CRIMINALS TO REMAIN, BUT MAKE IT DIFFICULT FOR THEM TO WORK, AND CUT ANY BENEFITS WHICH WOULD INCLUDE NO OPTION OF BECOMING A CITIZEN UNLESS THEY RETURN HOME AND THEN APPLY LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE.
3. REMAIN IDIOTS AND JUST IGNORE THE SITUATION AND DO NOTHING FOR OR AGAINST THOSE WHO ARE ALREADY HERE… BUT NO CITIZENSHIP.
4. GIVE EVERYONE AMNESTY, WHICH IS WHAT THE PROGRESSIVES WANT TO DO… AND DON’T EVEN HAVE THE GUTS TO SAY IT (SEE:  Amnesty Memo, WHERE THEY PLAN TO BYPASS EVERYONE, BUT DO WAHT THEY WANT.)
5. DEVELOP A PACKAGE: DEPORT EVERY ILLEGAL WHO HAS ANY TYPE OF CRIMINAL RECORD.  STOP THE ANCHOR BABY POLICY. MAKE THE BORDER, PORT AND AIRPORT SECURITY FORCES PERMANENT.  AND ALLOW THE REST TO STAY, BUT EVERYONE MUST REGISTER WITHIN 30-DAYS TO QUALIFY FOR A SLOW PATH TO CITIZENSHIP; ADD ADDITIONAL TIME TO THE WAIT TO TAKE THE TEST AND START THE TIME OVER FROM WHEN THEY GET THEIR NEW GREEN CARD.  AND HERE IS THE PIVOTAL PART:  GET AN HONEST COUNT…. 20 MILLION+.  FIND OUT WHERE THEY ARE FROM, FROM REGISTRATION.  AND CONTINUE THE BLOCK ON ALL FURTHER IMMIGRATION UNTIL WE HAVE REACHED THE PRESENT QUOTAS FROM IMMIGRANTS FROM EACH COUNTRY INVOLVED.

EXAMPLE BY SCALE:

If Country A has a present quota of 10 ‘legal’ aliens a year to come into the United States and they have 100 illegal aliens already here, we allow the 100 to stay, but Country A gets no additional slots for legal immigration for 10-years (or until their illegals are compensated for) plus an additional penalty of 1 to 5 years… for not helping to monitor their own citizens and so on down the line for all countries who have illegal aliens in the United States… period.

As Charles Krauthammer said, we have always opened our doors to immigration, but we are allowed as a nation to reduce, stop and choose who comes into our nation and from where.

Immigration Roundtable:

Yesterday (Monday's) special four hour program, a panel of experts discussed the increasing problem of illegal immigration in the United States. Journalist and teacher Frosty Wooldridge, and author Jerome Corsi appeared for the entire show, while journalist Ron Barber, Jim Gilchrist of the Minuteman Project, and security analyst Douglas Hagmann dropped in for shorter segments. While Wooldridge outlined how the massive illegal immigration numbers-- over 2 million people entering the US per year-- were putting a strain on natural resources and jobs, Corsi expressed concerns that open borders serve as invitations to terrorists, criminals, and drug cartels.

"Drugs are the Microsoft of Mexico," and this trade has infiltrated into the United States at a massive rate, with many of the illegal immigrants involved in it, said Barber. The War on Drugs has been a huge failure, and has been funding terrorists around the world, Wooldridge commented, adding that he favors legalization of drugs using the European model. Pres. Obama's plan to send 1,200 troops to the border is "peanuts," said Gilchrest, who suggested 12,000 troops and more funding to protect the borders were needed. Wooldridge argued for an even higher number of troops-- 50,000, stationed from Brownsville to San Diego, to really seal off the borders, as well as methodically going after employers who hire illegals. If they didn't have jobs, we'd start to see a mass exodus of foreigners leaving the U.S., without the need to deport them, he suggested.

Hagmann characterized the border situation as a national security risk. From a law enforcement perspective, while the majority of illegal immigrants are not causing trouble, "the fact is they are already criminals by being in this country illegally," he noted. 18 different states are considering immigration laws like Arizona has passed, though after Judge Bolton's ruling about the constitutionality of certain provisions of the law, they are reconfiguring them slightly, Wooldridge reported.

www.coasttocoastam.com -   Streamlink Audio -  Always something Interesting!