Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu said requests by Arizona law enforcement personnel and Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) for 3,000 National Guard troops along the state’s border with Mexico have been answered so far with 1 percent of that number deployed there this week.

“We have a whopping 30 [National Guard troops] this week that are showing up,” Babeu told CNSNews.com. “It’s less than a half-hearted measure designed to fail.”

But the federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has placed 15 signs along a 60-mile stretch of Interstate 8 that links San Diego with Phoenix and Tucson warning travelers of drug cartels and human trafficking operations.

“DANGER – PUBLIC WARNING, TRAVEL NOT RECOMMENDED,” read the signs placed along Interstate 8. “Visitors May Encounter Armed Criminals and Smuggling Vehicles Traveling at High Rates of Speed. Stay Away From Trash, Clothing, Backpacks, and Abandoned Vehicles.”

“BLM Encourages Visitors To Use Public Land North of Interstate 8,” the signs say.

“I think the American people are outraged that we can fight wars half-way around the world, send our nation’s treasury and our most precious resources – our American heroes that serve in the military — and yet here in our own country somehow they believe it’s okay for us not to have a secure border,” Said Sheriff Babeu.

“And that it’s okay to put up signs in my county and parts of America to surrender parts of our country to foreign born criminals,” Babeu added, “warning our own American citizens to stay out.”

Pinal County (Ariz.) Sheriff Paul Babeu
In May, President Barack Obama said he would deploy 1,200 National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico border to help quell the violence there, which is less than half of the 3,000 troops requested by Babeu, Cochise County Sheriff Larry Dever, Sen. McCain and Sen. Kyl for Arizona’s border during a press conference on Capitol Hill in April.

The Obama administration has said it will deploy National Guard troops to the southern border incrementally to eventually have 1,500 troops in place. In addition, $600 million in “emergency border protection funding” was approved in legislation the president signed into law in August.

Babeu said the warning signs are 70 to 80 miles from the border and just 30 miles from Phoenix, the fifth largest city in the United States.

Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio said Thursday the Justice Department “sandbagged” him with the lawsuit it filed earlier in the day against him.

The Justice Department claims in its suit that the controversial Arizona lawman refused for more than a year to turn over records in an investigation into allegations his department discriminates against Hispanics.

“It surprises me because our lawyers have been meeting with the Justice Department officials the last week and we were cooperating,” Arpaio told Fox News’ Neil Cavuto. “Now all at once, I’m being sandbagged and they’re suing me.”

The lawsuit calls Arpaio and his office’s defiance “unprecedented,” and said the federal government has been trying since March 2009 to get officials to comply with its probe of alleged discrimination, unconstitutional searches and seizures, and having English-only policies in his jails that discriminate against people with limited English skills.

Arpaio had been given until Aug. 17 to hand over documents it first asked for 15 months ago.

Arpaio’s office had said it has fully cooperated in the jail inquiry but won’t hand over additional documents into the examination of the alleged unconstitutional searches because federal authorities haven’t said exactly what they were investigating.

Arpaio questioned why the lawsuit was being filed now.

“It’s been a year and half they’ve been investigating me and my office for alleged racial profiling. Nothing has happened. But why now?” he told Fox News. “They sued the state two months ago. They just filed another suit against some county schools. And now here I’m being sued.”

“So I think there’s a move afoot to go after Arizona because they don’t like us enforcing illegal immigration laws,” he added. “So they’re really going after the people of Arizona. The people of Arizona want something done and now they’re zeroing in with these lawsuits.”

It’s the latest action against Arizona by the federal government, which earlier sued the state to stop its strict new immigration law that requires police officers to question people about their immigration status.

“The actions of the sheriff’s office are unprecedented,” said Thomas Perez, assistant attorney general for the department’s civil rights division. “It is unfortunate that the department was forced to resort to litigation to gain access to public documents and facilities.”

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Phoenix and names Arpaio, the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office and the county.

Arizona’s new law — most of which a federal judge has put on hold — mirrors many of the policies Arpaio has put into place in the greater Phoenix area, where he set up a hot line for the public to report immigration violations, conducts crime and immigration sweeps in heavily Latino neighborhoods and frequently raids workplaces for people in the U.S. illegally.

Arpaio believes the inquiry is focused on his immigration sweeps, patrols where deputies flood an area of a city — in some cases heavily Latino areas — to seek out traffic violators and arrest other offenders.

Critics say his deputies pull people over for minor traffic infractions because of the color of their skin so they can ask them for their proof of citizenship.

Arpaio denies allegations of racial profiling, saying people are stopped if deputies have probable cause to believe they’ve committed crimes and that it’s only afterward that deputies find many of them are illegal immigrants.

The sheriff’s office has said half of the 1,032 people arrested in the sweeps have been illegal immigrants.

Last year, the federal government stripped Arpaio of his special power to enforce federal immigration law. The sheriff continued his sweeps through the enforcement of state immigration laws.

Last year, the nearly $113 million that the county received from the federal government accounted for about 5 percent of the county’s $2 billion budget. Arpaio’s office said it receives $3 million to $4 million each year in federal funds.

In a separate investigation, a federal grand jury in Phoenix is examining allegations that Arpaio has abused his powers with actions such as intimidating county workers by showing up at their homes at nights and on weekends. – FOX News

There can be few sights more humiliating for the American people than that of a US president kowtowing to a foreign leader or to supranational institutions. Continental Europeans are used to this sort of thing after decades of dominance by unelected bureaucrats in Brussels, and have grudgingly accepted over time the gradual and undemocratic erosion of their freedoms. But most Americans fiercely defend their national sovereignty, and find the idea of giving international organisations a say over their laws and lives completely unacceptable.

The Obama administration however has submitted a report to the UN Commissioner on Human Rights, South African judge Navanethem Pillay, which makes direct reference to a popular Arizona immigration law aimed at tackling illegal immigration, which is fiercely opposed by the White House, and is the subject of legal action by the Justice Department. The report references

A recent Arizona law, S.B. 1070, (which) has generated significant attention and debate at home and around the world. The issue is being addressed in a court action that argues that the federal government has the authority to set and enforce immigration law. That action is ongoing; parts of the law are currently enjoined.

The highly controversial reference to the Arizona law serves only one purpose – to gain UN and international support for the Obama administration’s position in the face of mounting opposition from Arizona legislators and a majority of the American people. A recent Rasmussen poll showed 61 percent of Americans backing Arizona-style laws for their own states, and just 28 percent supporting a Justice Department challenge .

By doing so, Obama officials undoubtedly hope to stir up international condemnation of the Arizona policy in advance of the UN General Assembly meetings in September, which they believe will increase pressure on Arizona to back down. It is a highly cynical move that speaks volumes about the Obama team’s willingness to undercut American sovereignty and popular will on the world stage.

This approach has rightly been strongly condemned by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, who described the Arizona reference in the government report as “downright offensive”, and called on it to be removed. The State Department has just announced that it will stand by its decision to include Arizona in its UN submission, with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton strongly in favour of it.

It is important to note that the Obama administration’s report to the United Nations will go before the UN Human Rights Council, which includes in its current membership some of the world’s worst human rights abusers. The likes of China, Cuba, Libya, Russia, and Saudi Arabia, will have a right to pass judgment over the Arizona immigration law, a humiliation for a great superpower before some of the most brutal regimes on the face of the earth.

Over the course of the last 19 months, Barack Obama has bowed before Emperors and Kings, and apologised for his country on numerous occasions, from Cairo to Strasbourg. By deliberately placing the immigration policy of a US state before the Human Rights Council, he is now bowing before the United Nations, and undercutting the sovereignty of his own nation. This is not leadership but a surrender of US interests before a declining world body that is a hotbed of anti-Americanism, and a bully pulpit for many of the world’s most odious tyrants. It is also yet another example of an imperial-style presidency that is increasingly out of touch with the American people and public opinion. – Nile Gardiner @ Telegraph UK

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer demanded Friday that a reference to the state’s controversial immigration law be removed from a State Department report to the United Nations’ human rights commissioner.

The U.S. included its legal challenge to the law on a list of ways the federal government is protecting human rights.

In a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Brewer says it is “downright offensive” that a state law would be included in the report, which was drafted as part of a UN review of human rights in all member nations every four years.

“The idea of our own American government submitting the duly enacted laws of a state of the United States to ‘review’ by the United Nations is internationalism run amok and unconstitutional,” Brewer wrote.

Arizona’s law generally requires police officer enforcing other laws to investigate the immigration status of people they suspect are illegal immigrants.

Critics say it would lead officers to target Hispanics. Supporters, including Brewer, say the law prohibits racial profiling and other human rights abuses.

The U.S. Justice Department sued to block the measure, arguing federal law trumps the state’s authority to enforce immigration laws.

A federal judge in July sided with the Justice Department and blocked enforcement of the law’s most controversial provisions a day before it was scheduled to take effect.

In its report, the State Department does not specifically allege that Arizona’s law would lead to racial profiling.

“A recent Arizona law, S.B. 1070, has generated significant attention and debate at home and around the world,” the report says. “The issue is being addressed in a court action that argues that the federal government has the authority to set and enforce immigration law. That action is ongoing; parts of the law are currently enjoined.”

A State Department spokesman had no immediate comment on Brewer’s letter.

(In this final paragraph ABC News just thinks you should know:)

Brewer, a Republican, is running for election in November. Her popularity in Arizona and her national profile have soared since she signed the immigration measure in April. – ABC News

PHOENIX — Gov. Jan Brewer’s lawyers on Thursday filed the first brief in their appeal of a ruling that put the most controversial elements of Arizona’s new immigration law on hold.

The governor says the federal ruling blocking portions of Arizona’s controversial immigration law “has caused irreparable harm” to the state’s residents.

Brewer wants the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco to reverse the ruling U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton made last month.

The governor’s office says Bolton abused her discretion by applying the wrong legal standards and basing her ruling on the federal government’s speculation that it would be harmed by Arizona’s law. Brewer says the judge ignored key provisions of federal law that allow states to enforce immigration law.

“The decision to suspend portions of SB 1070 has caused irreparable harm to the safety and well-being of Arizona’s citizens who continue to suffer every day that the federal government refuses to do its job,” Brewer said in a written statement.

The U.S. Justice Department went to court in a bid to invalidate the law.

The Justice Department had no immediate comment Thursday.

Bolton blocked provisions of the law that requires immigrants to obtain or carry immigration registration papers and that require police, while enforcing other laws, to question people’s immigration status if there is a reasonable suspicion they’re in the country illegally.

But the judge let other portions take effect late last month, such a ban on blocking traffic when people seek or offer day-labor services on streets, and amendments to existing state immigration laws.

Illegal aliens from terrorist nations released in U.S. by DHS

Jim Kouri

Law Enforcement Examiner

* August 25th, 2010 3:25 pm ET

The dangerous terrorist group Hezbollah is active in South America training and recruiting members. Photo: Jerusalem News

In what it termed a reprehensible move for an agency charged with protecting the nation, a non-partisan legal group is reporting that the Department of Homeland Security has released nearly 500 illegal aliens — who remain fugitives — from terrorist-sponsoring countries and others known to present a danger to the U.S.

A conservative news web site, CNS.com, had obtained government records under the Freedom of Information Act. The records show that, the Department of Homeland Security caught and released 481 illegal aliens from nations designated by the State Department as sponsors of terrorism or “countries of interest.”

According to legal eagles at Judicial Watch, these dangerous illegal aliens remain fugitives whose whereabouts are unknown, as proven by Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s own database accessed by the news group. All came from four nations that sponsor terrorism — Iran, Syria, Sudan and Cuba — or countries determined by the U.S. government to present a threat. Those include Afghanistan, Algeria, Lebanon, Libya, Nigeria, Iraq, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia and Yemen.

The information obtained in the public records request includes the date that each illegal immigrant was taken into custody by the federal government, which ICE jurisdiction arrested them, the date they were released, the status of their case and other personal details about the alien. The records specifically state that there are 481 “active” cases for “fugitives” from the four state sponsors of terror and nine of the 10 “countries of interest.”

Cuba has the most with 137, followed by Nigeria (97), Pakistan (87) and Lebanon (34). Iran and Iraq have 29 and 26 respectively. The rest include Somalia (22), Sudan (14), Syria (13) and Yemen and Algeria with eight each. Afghanistan has four and Saudi Arabia, where most of the 9/11 hijackers came from, has two.

ICE justifies their release by explaining that the immigration detention system can only accommodate a portion of the 1.6 million aliens being processed in the country. Everyone can’t be detained, so “we have to prioritize who we put in detention,” an ICE official told CNS.

Apparently the U.S. government doesn’t consider it a priority to keep undocumented nationals from terrorist-sponsoring nations from roaming freely throughout the country, said an official from Judicial Watch.

Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and he’s a columnist for The Examiner (examiner.com) and New Media Alliance (thenma.org). In addition, he’s a blogger for the Cheyenne, Wyoming Fox News Radio affiliate KGAB (www.kgab.com). Kouri also serves as political advisor for Emmy and Golden Globe winning actor Michael Moriarty.

He’s former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed “Crack City” by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations. He’s also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country. Kouri writes for many police and security magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer and others. He’s a news writer and columnist for AmericanDaily.Com, MensNewsDaily.Com, MichNews.Com, and he’s syndicated by AXcessNews.Com. Kouri appears regularly as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Fox News Channel, Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, etc.

To subscribe to Kouri’s newsletter write to COPmagazine@aol.com and write “Subscription” on the subject line.

via Illegal aliens from terrorist nations released in U.S. by DHS – National Law Enforcement | Examiner.com.

The Department of Homeland Security is systematically reviewing thousands of pending immigration cases and moving to dismiss those filed against suspected illegal immigrants who have no serious criminal records, according to several sources familiar with the efforts.

Culling the immigration court system dockets of noncriminals started in earnest in Houston about a month ago and has stunned local immigration attorneys, who have reported coming to court anticipating clients’ deportations only to learn that the government was dismissing their cases.

Richard Rocha, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokesman, said Tuesday that the review is part of the agency’s broader, nationwide strategy to prioritize the deportations of illegal immigrants who pose a threat to national security and public safety. Rocha declined to provide further details.

Critics assailed the plan as another sign that the Obama administration is trying to create a kind of backdoor “amnesty” program.

Raed Gonzalez, an immigration attorney who was briefed on the effort by Homeland Security’s deputy chief counsel in Houston, said DHS confirmed that it’s reviewing cases nationwide, though not yet to the pace of the local office. He said the others are expected to follow suit soon.

Gonzalez, the liaison between the Executive Office for Immigration Review, which administers the immigration court system, and the American Immigration Lawyers Association, said DHS now has five attorneys assigned full time to reviewing all active cases in Houston’s immigration court.

Gonzalez said DHS attorneys are conducting the reviews on a case-by-case basis. However, he said they are following general guidelines that allow for the dismissal of cases for defendants who have been in the country for two or more years and have no felony convictions.

In some instances, defendants can have one misdemeanor conviction, but it cannot involve a DWI, family violence or sexual crime, Gonzalez said.

Massive backlog of cases
Opponents of illegal immigration were critical of the dismissals.

“They’ve made clear that they have no interest in enforcing immigration laws against people who are not convicted criminals,” said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates for strict controls.

“This situation is just another side effect of President Obama’s failure to deliver on his campaign promise to make immigration reform a priority in his first year,” said U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas. “Until he does, state and local authorities are left with no choice but to pick up the slack for prosecuting and detaining criminal aliens.”

Gonzalez called the dismissals a necessary step in unclogging a massive backlog in the immigration court system. In June, there were more than 248,000 cases pending in immigration courts across the country, including about 23,000 in Texas, according to data compiled by researchers at Syracuse University.

‘Absolutely fantastic’
Gonzalez said he went into immigration court downtown on Monday and was given a court date in October 2011 for one client. But, he said, the government’s attorney requested the dismissal of that case and those of two more of his clients, and the cases were dispatched by the judge.

The court “was terminating all of the cases that came up,” Gonzalez said. “It was absolutely fantastic.”

“We’re all calling each other saying, ‘Can you believe this?’ ” said John Nechman, another Houston immigration attorney, who had two cases dismissed.

Attorney Elizabeth Mendoza Macias, who has practiced in Houston for 17 years, said she had cases for several clients dismissed during the past month and eventually called DHS to find out what was going on. She said she was told by a DHS trial attorney that 2,500 cases were under review in Houston.

“I had five (dismissed) in one week, and two more that I just received,” Mendoza said. “And I am expecting many more, many more, in the next month.”

Her clients, all previously charged with being in the country illegally, included:

An El Salvadoran man married to a U.S. citizen who has two U.S.-born children. The client had a pending asylum case in the court system, but the case was not particularly strong. Now that his case is terminated, he will be eligible to obtain permanent residency through his wife, Mendoza said.

A woman from Cameroon, who was in removal proceedings after being caught by the U.S. Border Patrol, had her case terminated by the government. She meets the criteria of a trafficking victim, Mendoza said, and can now apply for a visa.

Memo outlines priorities
Immigrants who have had their cases terminated are frequently left in limbo, immigration attorneys said, and are not granted any form of legal status.

“It’s very, very key to understand that these aliens are not being granted anything in court. They are still here illegally. They don’t have work permits. They don’t have Social Security numbers,” Mendoza said. “ICE is just saying, ‘At this particular moment, we are not going to proceed with trying to remove you from the United States.’ ”

In a June 30 memo, ICE Assistant Secretary John Morton outlined the agency’s priorities, saying it had the capacity to remove about 400,000 illegal immigrants annually — about 4 percent of the estimated illegal immigrant population in the country. The memo outlines priorities for the detention and removal system, putting criminals and threats to national security at the top of the list.

Up to 17,000 cases
On Tuesday, ICE officials provided a copy of a new policy memo from Morton dated Aug. 20 that instructs government attorneys to review the court cases of people with pending applications to adjust status based on their relation to a U.S. citizen. Morton estimates in the memo that the effort could affect up to 17,000 cases.

Tre Rebsock, the ICE union representative in Houston, said even if the efforts involve only a fraction of the pending immigration cases, “that’s going to make our officers feel even more powerless to enforce the laws.” -- Houston Chronicle

MEXICO CITY - A Mexican federal official says a witness has told police that 72 people found dead at a ranch near the U.S. border were migrants.

The official says the witness says the migrants had been kidnapped by an armed group and taken to the ranch in San Fernando, a town south of Brownsville, Texas. The witness was a migrant who managed to escape and alerted the marines who found the bodies.

The official had access to the investigation and spoke Wednesday on condition of anonymity because the was not authorized to speak publicly about the case.

How about “bite me” … Flipper.

Tamil migrant ship docks off Canada’s West coast
August 13, 2010
FoxNews.com

A rusting cargo ship crammed with hundreds of Tamil asylum seekers from Sri Lanka docked at a Canadian navy base on Friday after a grueling three-month journey.

The government confirmed that there were 490 people aboard the ship, the MV Sun Sea, and that the ship had declared them to be refugees. But Canada forced them to dock at a military base, saying there were concerns that Tamil extremists could be on board.

Gary Anandasangaree, a lawyer with the Canadian Tamil Congress, was on the scene as the boat arrived and said he couldn’t believe how a ship just 194 feet long (59 meters) could be carrying so many people.

“It clearly gives us an idea of the type of conditions that could have been inside. Very cramped, given the size,” Anandasangaree said.

Initial images of the vessel showed women and children, some smiling, aboard the tarp-draped freighter.

People began to leave the ship several hours after it docked. The first two men were followed by a woman who had to be helped ashore by officials. Children followed her.

Some were taken away on a stretcher. All were shielded from the view of cameras by black umbrellas. Ambulances were seen coming and going from the dockside and buses are also standing by.

Public Safety Minister Vic Toews said again Friday that the government has concerns that there may be members of the rebel Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, or Tamil Tigers, on board and that they’re coordinating a human smuggling operation. Canada has labeled the Tamil Tigers as a terrorist group since 2006.

The Tamil Tigers fought a civil war for a quarter of a century in Sri Lanka seeking an independent state for ethnic minority Tamils, claiming decades of discrimination by the Sinhalese majority. The conflict, which killed more than 80,000 people, ended in May 2009 after a massive government operation against the Tigers.

“We are very concerned that there are elements of the LTTE or Tamil Tigers on this vessel and indeed may well be coordinating this as part of a larger enterprise,” Toews said. “Our goal is to ensure that our refugee system is not hijacked by criminals or terrorists.”

The boat reportedly approached Australia a few months ago but was either turned away or feared it wouldn’t be allowed to dock and sailed toward Canada. Canada is home to about 300,000 Tamils, the largest such population outside Sri Lanka and India.

The MV Sun Sea was boarded by Canadian security officials late Thursday and brought to a seaside military facility for processing. The rusty boat is being held at Canadian Forces Base Esquimalt on the outskirts of British Columbia’s provincial capital of Victoria on Vancouver Island, 47 miles (75 kilometers) east of Vancouver on the Canadian mainland.

Harry Reid: “I don’t know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican.”
BY John McCormack
The Drudge Report.com
August 10, 2010

While campaigning in Nevada Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told an audience of mostly Hispanic voters: “I don’t know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican, okay. Do I need to say more?”

Reid’s racially-charged comments come as the Nevada Democrat is trying to boost Hispanic turnout in his bid for reelection this November. Polls show, however, that Reid’s positions on immigration are very unpopular with Nevada voters in general. Reid supports the Obama administration’s lawsuit against Arizona over its immigration law, but 63 percent of Nevada voters oppose the lawsuit, according to a Rasmussen poll.

Reid voted against a measure to complete a 700-mile fence along the Mexican border in May, but 68 percent of voters nationally support building a border fence, according to Rasmussen.

Perry greets Obama with request for 1,000 more deployed to border

Texas Republican Gov. Rick Perry, donning a tan suit and cowboy boots, welcomed President Obama

to the Lone Star State today with a hearty handshake on a Texas tarmac. But that’s not all the Republican had for the president.

After greeting Obama at Austin Bergstrom International Airport Monday morning, Perry pulled a letter from his suit pocket and handed it to presidential adviser Valerie Jarrett — who was right behind the president — warning the president about the “dire threat amassing on our southern border,” and asking for 1,000 more National Guard troops to be stationed along the Texas border.

In the letter, provided by the governor’s office, Perry said that since 2006, the drug cartels have killed 28,000 people. “Absent stronger federal action, it’s only a matter of time before that violence affects more innocent Americans,” he wrote.

While the Obama administration plans to send 1,200 National Guard troops to the southwest border, Perry said, the less than 300 personnel expected in Texas is “clearly insufficient.”

“The need for border security along the Rio Grande should no longer be underestimated by the federal government, Mr. President,” Perry wrote. “An unsecured border is a threat to our national security and to the safety and security of all our citizens.”

Perry also renewed a standing request for Obama, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Defense Secretary Robert Gates to meet with him and his staff about the issue.

White House spokesman Bill Burton, speaking with the reporters traveling with the president on Air Force One before Perry greeted Obama, said Obama has no plans to hold a lengthy discussion with Perry on the issue during today’s trip.

The White House declined comment when reached by The Daily Caller. – The Daily Caller

As Republican members of Congress press for changes to the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, preventing automatic citizenship for babies born to illegal immigrants, opponents insist the debate is not really about babies.

Instead, they say it is about politics and votes – not fixing the immigration system.

Still, the debate could resonate in Texas, where not only 1.5 million illegal immigrants are estimated to reside but at least 60,000 babies are added to their households annually.

Parkland Memorial Hospital delivers more of those babies than any other hospital in the state. Last year at Parkland, 11,071 babies were born to women who were noncitizens, about 74 percent of total deliveries. Most of these women are believed to be in the country illegally.

State Rep. Rafael Anchía, D-Dallas, accused Republicans of using the births to generate an explosive election issue.

“They’re pulling the pin on the immigration grenade,” he said. “It’s all about the November elections and continuing to use the immigration issue as a wedge to win votes this fall.”

But to Republicans, the emerging national debate is long overdue, considering that millions of immigrants have been living illegally in this country for years.

“They’re violating our law, and we’re giving their children the benefit of U.S. citizenship,” said state Rep. Leo Berman, R-Tyler, whose 2009 bill in the Legislature would have challenged the birthright of immigrant children.

That bill died in committee, although Berman has vowed to file another version next year that would prohibit the state from issuing birth certificates to the children of “illegal aliens.”

“I’ve checked the Congressional Record for when the 14th Amendment was written, and the author was quoted as saying that it did not apply to foreigners,” he said. “There’s no question in my mind about it.”

Amendment’s history

The 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868 as a way to block state laws that prevented former slaves from becoming citizens. It also effectively overruled the Dred Scott decision of 1857 in which the U.S. Supreme Court declared that slaves were mere property and could not become citizens.

The amendment offered a broad definition of citizenship in one simple sentence: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”

Donald Kerwin, a vice president of the Migration Policy Institute in Washington, D.C., said he feared that altering the current interpretation of that law “would essentially restore the Dred Scott reasoning and create a hereditary underclass in the United States.

“These children, who didn’t break any laws, would have no rights and nowhere to go,” he said. “It’s a very extreme position.”

The effort to reinterpret the 14th Amendment has been talked about for years and been targeted by numerous congressional measures that went nowhere. Last year’s unsuccessful Birthright Citizenship Act, which had about 100 co-sponsors in Congress, would have required at least one parent to be a U.S. citizen for a baby to become an American citizen at birth.

The difference in this year’s effort to change the 14th Amendment is that prominent Republicans are offering their support and making public statements demanding a national debate of the issue.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, called Wednesday for a review of “birthright citizenship,” after concluding that illegal immigrants had taken advantage of the post-Civil War constitutional provision.

“We need to have hearings,” he said. “We need to consult constitutional scholars and study what the implications are.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said he might introduce a constitutional amendment that would repeal the citizenship provision of the amendment.

And both Arizona Republican senators, John McCain and John Kyl, announced that the time was ripe for such a change.

“If both parents are here illegally, should there be a reward for their illegal behavior?” Kyl said recently on a Sunday morning talk show.

Changing the Constitution, however, is not as simple as getting a bill through Congress by majority vote.

Amendments have to be approved by a two-thirds vote in both the Senate and the House of Representatives, then ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures. It has happened only 27 times in U.S. history, most recently in 1992 in reference to congressional pay increases.

This latest effort would fall far short of tackling the entire Latino population now living illegally in the U.S. – the 11 million to 12 million people, according to estimates by the Pew Hispanic Center – because it would target only the children.

That distinction has drawn an outcry from some, who believe the U.S. should be embracing its growing diversity rather than trying to disenfranchise the youngest elements of it.

“Babies are born without awareness, while other individuals chose to migrate because they want something,” said Dr. Jacobo Kupersztoch, an associate professor at Richland College. “If we want to grow and we want to continue to be on the top of the world, we have to continue to integrate these people into our system.”

16 percent of births

In Texas, between 60,000 to 65,000 babies achieve U.S. citizenship annually by being born in the state’s hospitals, according to a tally released by the state’s Health and Human Services Commission. Last year, such births represented almost 16 percent of the total births statewide.

Between 2001 and 2009, births to illegal immigrant women totaled 542,152 in Texas alone.

“The next 10 years will be an even more transformative decade demographically for Texas,” said Dr. Roberto Calderon, an associate history professor at the University of North Texas and a Latin American expert following the debate.

He speculated that the Republicans probably were aware of this ongoing demographic shift and how it might threaten their party since Hispanic voters tend to support Democrats.

“Manipulating the status … the rights and the opportunities for Latinos is the only avenue many on the conservative right see as a solution to remaining viable electorally,” he said. “They’re expecting what used to be safe Republican seats on the state and federal level will no longer be so safe.”

However, Dr. Steve Murdock, a past director of the U.S. Census Bureau, said it would be difficult – even impossible – to turn this demographic tide by targeting the legal status of future births.

“It might slow it down some,” he said. “But the idea that the majority of Texas Hispanics are illegal is ludicrous. The vast majority are citizens.”

Murdock, previously the state’s chief demographer and now a professor at Rice University, said the growth of Hispanics as a group in Texas has more to do with their relatively younger ages than the Anglo majority and their higher birthrates.

“In the last decade in Texas, over 60 percent of the state population increase was due to Hispanics,” he said. “The idea that the growth of Hispanics is sudden or happened only in the past few years or only in Texas is not correct.” – The Dallas Morning News

In an unprecedented move within the Department of Homeland Security, the detention and removal officers and agents responsible for and sworn to enforcing our nation’s immigration laws issued an exhaustive, scathing letter simply titled “VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE IN ICE DIRECTOR JOHN MORTON AND ODPP ASSISTANT DIRECTOR PHYLLIS COVEN” on June 11, 2010. The letter, acquired through sources, provides a litany of examples of how ICE’s mission is being skewed towards supporting an unflinching goal of amnesty by refusing to allow agents to do their job; allowing criminal aliens to roam free; depleting resources for key enforcement initiatives that preceded this administration; and misrepresenting facts and programs, demeaning the extent of the criminal alien problem and geared to support amnesty.

The letter, authored by ICE Union President Chris Crane, begins as follows, noting that all ICE union representatives have signed on to a unanimous “Vote of No Confidence” in ICE leadership:

On June 11, 2010, the National Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council and its constituent local representatives from around the nation, acting on behalf of approximately 7,000 ICE officers and employees from the ICE Office of Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO), cast a unanimous “Vote of No Confidence” in the Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), John Morton, and the Assistant Director of the ICE Office of Detention Policy and Planning, (ODPP), Phyllis Coven.

Providing numerous facts the media and public have not been privy to, the letter relates ICE leadership dishonesty and failure to abide by their oath to uphold the law. The letter also outlines the importance of local law enforcement referrals to ICE, and the striking symbiotic relationship between local enforcement and ICE on immigration matters. Exemplary are these two bullets:

• While ICE reports internally that more than 90 percent of ICE detainees are first encountered in jails after they are arrested by local police for criminal charges, ICE senior leadership misrepresents this information publicly in order to portray ICE detainees as being non-criminal in nature to support the Administration’s position on amnesty and relaxed security at ICE detention facilities.

• The majority of ICE ERO Officers are prohibited from making street arrests or enforcing United States immigration laws outside of the institutional (jail) setting. This has effectively created “amnesty through policy” for anyone illegally in the United States who has not been arrested by another agency for a criminal violation.

In one uncharacteristic note of sarcasm, the outcome of the Obama Administration new detention policy is described as follows, including dance lessons and hanging plants for criminal aliens in detention facilities:

• ICE Detention Reforms have transformed into a detention system aimed at providing resort like living conditions to criminal aliens. Senior ICE leadership excluded ICE officers and field managers (the technical experts on ICE detention) from the development of these reforms, and instead solicited recommendations from special interest groups. The lack of technical expertise and field expertise has resulted in a priority of providing bingo nights, dance lessons and hanging plants to criminals, instead of addressing safe and responsible detention reforms for non-criminal individuals and families. Unlike any other agency in the nation, ICE officers will be prevented from searching detainees housed in ICE facilities allowing weapons, drugs and other contraband into detention centers putting detainees, ICE officers and contract guards at risk.

Interestingly, ICE Director John Morton told the Washington Post, in regard to this letter and other interest groups that call for his resignation (apparently this is quite common for him), that such letters are just, “part of the territory here.” Mr. Morton, may I suggest that a significant problem with dismissing a No Confidence Vote from your entire employee population is, when you run an agency of 7,000 officers and agents, you can’t do your job unless they do theirs? Oh wait, that is the whole point, is it not? – Janice Kephart @ Center for Immigration Studies

Thousands of illegal immigrants escape deportation because police fear being called racist

Thousands of illegal immigrants are escaping deportation as police fear being accused of racism if they question a suspect’s nationality, according to a Home Office report.

Failure to carry out the proper checks on migrants while they are in police custody is leading to huge amounts remaining in the country rather than being deported.

Police fear asking questions about their nationality because they will be hung out to dry by politically correct regulations.

The Home Office report recommends that more checks on suspects while in custody and a closer relationship with the UK Border Agency is needed to identify illegal immigrants.

A pilot study found that when enhanced checks were applied, more than three times as illegal immigrants were found. The 14 custody suites in England and Wales showed that the number of those identified rose from 73 to 250 during the three-month trial.

In one city, 20 suspected illegal immigrants were found during the first month, but only six were deported due to a lack of detention space. The rest were all given temporary release with conditions.

The Determining Identity and Nationality in Local Policing report also revealed that 435 foreign nationals were arrested in the same area and period – accounting for 25 per cent of all arrests.

‘The research demonstrated that more rigorous practices in custody suites could increase the number of foreign nationals and illegal migrants who are identified as being involved in criminal activity,” its authors said.
‘In some sites there was a marked reluctance to challenge arrestees who claimed to be British, even though officers suspected that the claims might be false.

‘This reluctance was commonly ascribed to the fear that any such challenge could result in an accusation of racism.’

The report also found that police officers were generally uncomfortable with detaining illegal migrants who had not been charged with a criminal offence and, in half of the 14 sites studied, ‘custody suite leads perceived illegal migrants as being a drain on custody suite time and resources’.

‘The use of police custody suites to detain arrestees because of their immigration status was a significant source of tension between the police and the immigration service in nearly every site visited,’ the report added.

Just under one in five of all suspected illegal migrants arrested were questioned over serious offences, compared with just over one in ten of UK citizens arrested, the report found.

A Home Office spokesman said: ‘This research is more than three years old, and we are committed to improving the way the police and UK Border Agency work together.

‘We have already started making improvements with better information sharing, joint Local Immigration Crime Teams, and the introduction of a 24-hour phone service allowing police officers to check an offenders’ nationality with the UK Border Agency.

‘The new Government has recognised that much more still needs to be done – that is why we are currently undergoing a summer of activity to crackdown on foreign lawbreakers, and why we are committed to speeding up the removals of those with no right to be in the UK.’ – Daily Mail UK

Facing Potential Justice Dept. Lawsuit, Arpaio Refuses To Back Down
August 4, 2010
FoxNews.com (AP)

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who rose to national fame with his highly publicized crackdowns on illegal immigrants, is standing his ground against the Justice Department, which is threatening to sue his office, arguing that he has refused to cooperate with a civil rights investigation and that he is not in compliance with federal law.

The Justice Department has been investigating Arpaio’s office in Phoenix since March 2009 for alleged discrimination and for unconstitutional searches and seizures. Arpaio says the inquiry is focused on his immigration efforts.

Robert Driscoll, a Washington lawyer representing Arpaio, told FoxNews.com that Arpaio has cooperated and accused the Justice Department of trying to make an example out of Arpaio as the Obama administration seeks to discourage states and local authorities from enforcing their own brand of immigration policy.

“I don’t think there’s any doubt,” Driscoll said when asked whether he believed the investigation is politically motivated. “It’s a media game.”

Driscoll added that if Arpaio was guilty of racial profiling, there would be evidence.

“Could there be a police operation that is more transparent than Sheriff Arpaio’s office?” he said. “There are camera crews, reality shows following him as his deputies round up folks in sweeps. He announces them on TV three days before doing it.”

A spokeswoman for the Justice Department declined to comment beyond the letter to Arpaio.

In the letter, Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez, head of the Justice Department’s civil rights division, said the sheriff’s office is not turning over material that Perez’s lawyers are requesting. More than a year ago, Arpaio’s lawyers asked that the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility investigate alleged attorney misconduct regarding the investigation. In his letter to Arpaio’s lawyers, Perez said such “unfounded allegations” are not a basis for refusing to cooperate with the Justice Department probe.

In June, the office concluded that no civil rights division attorney at the Justice Department committed professional misconduct or exercised poor judgment in the probe of Arpaio’s office.

Perez gave the sheriff’s office until Aug. 17 to turn over documents first requested last year in what the department calls an inquiry into claims of discrimination based on national origin.

Arpaio and his legal counsel said a year ago that the sheriff’s office would not cooperate with the inquiry.

The office “has continued its unwarranted refusal to cooperate,” Perez wrote.

In June, the office supplied a position statement regarding the operation of its jail facilities.

The statement says “nothing at all about the allegations of discriminatory police practices,” and includes no agreement to provide access to sheriff’s office facilities and personnel, Perez said in the letter to the sheriff department’s legal counsel. The letter also said a limited production of accompanying documents fails to respond to the first request for material made 17 months ago.

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in federally assisted programs on the basis of race or national origin.

Perez pointed out that the sheriff’s office signed contractual assurances under Title VI agreeing to allow examination of relevant records by the Justice Department.

The Title VI implementing regulations require that every application for federal financial assistance be accompanied by an assurance that the program will be conducted in accordance with all requirements.

“It’s kind of laughable,” Driscoll told FoxNews.com, adding that the Justice Department is probably under pressure from Obama supporters to take action.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

The The Infinite Bureaucracy tangled web of the ObamaCare flow chart.

Round 1 Victory for Virginia … But a Long Way to Go

Challenge to Health Care Law Advances

Virginia federal judge Henry Hudson on Monday ruled that he’ll let the state of Virginia’s challenge to the landmark health care law passed in March go forward, at least for the time being. Click here for the early Reuters story; here for the 32-page opinion.

The Department of Health and Human Services had moved to dismiss the lawsuit, which was filed in March (click here for the complaint), shortly after the passage of the law. But Judge Hudson on Monday denied the motion.

The ruling represents a setback that will force the Obama administration to mount a lengthy legal defense of the law. The suit, filed by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (pictured), alleges that the law’s requirement that its residents have health insurance violates the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

Virginia’s lawsuit is one of several trying to undo the health-care law. Another large one was filed in a Florida federal court by a handful of state attorneys general.

In his opinion, Judge Hudson ruled:

The guiding precedent [on the Commerce Clause] is informative but inconclusive. Never before has the Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause been extended this far. At this juncture, the court is not persuaded that the Secretary has demonstrated a failure to state a cause of action with respect to the Commerce Clause element.

In other words, off to discovery we head. – WSJ

Virginia Destined for Arizona-esque Immigration Showdown?

More on the flow chart @ HotAir.

For all those in the MSM and on the left claiming the Tea Party and the Arizona illegal alien law are racist they need to take a long hard look in the mirror. But then, I doubt it is a case of ignorance to their own bigotry on their part. I wouldn’t doubt it is just a tool they use, knowing full well they could give a rat’s-ass about racism and bigotry. They seem to be experts at practicing it.

Moonbattery @ Phoenix Rally for Secure Borders and Immigration Enforcement
: [...] Despite the liberal establishment’s desperate lie that grassroots resistance to their agenda is “racist,” non-Caucasians were as usual hardly underrepresented. America’s Black Shield is only one example. The excellent speakers included SB1070 author Russell Pearce and Ted Hayes. Unfortunately, it wasn’t always easy to hear them, because the Tea Party movement is now very much on the radar screen of our collectivist rulers, who dispatched a motley contingent of communist thugs to drown out the proceedings. [...]

And who is Ted Hayes?

Men Run Onto Citi Field With Mexican Flags
Saturday, 31 Jul 2010, 5:42 PM EDT
Originally Published July 31, 2010
FoxNews.com

NEW YORK – Two men carrying Mexican flags in protest of Arizona’s immigration law ran into the outfield during the seventh inning of the New York Mets’ game against the Arizona Diamondbacks on Friday night at Citi Field.

The men were apprehended by security fairly quickly without much incident.

Prior to the game, about 40 people across the street from the ballpark chanted “Oppose racism!” and “Boycott Arizona!”

Others stationed closer to the subway exit handed out leaflets that requested Major League Baseball move next year’s All-Star game out of Phoenix.

“It’s not going to distract me. I’m here to play baseball,” Diamondbacks interim manager Kirk Gibson said after his team’s 9-6 victory over the Mets. “You have an opinion, I have an opinion. They have the right to say what they want, but it’s no distraction.”

As the trespassers were taken from the field people in the stands started chanting “USA, USA.”

GOP Senators Want Answers On Amnesty Memo
August 1, 2010
by Heidi Noonan
FoxNews.com

Sen. David Vitter, R-La., on Sunday said he and his colleagues are still looking for answers on whether the administration has seriously considered mass legalization for illegal immigrants, after an administration memo surfaced outlining ways to grant legalization without going through Congress.

The draft memo, first obtained by Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley’s office from the U.S. Customs & Immigration Services, outlines ways the administration was exploring to legalize swaths of illegal immigrants “in the absence of Comprehensive Immigration Reform.” The memo describes how to, “reduce the threat of removal for certain individuals present in the United States without authorization.”

Several Republican senators wrote a letter to President Obama regarding the memo, and they are waiting for a response. Vitter expressed frustration Sunday.

“The first letters were in June. We had heard rumors about this sort of activity; no answer. We followed up in July; no answer,” he told Fox News. “Then this 11-page memo has gotten out, and it’s not alleged anymore. It’s right there in black and white. So, again, we’re reiterating our strong concerns, and still no answer.”

Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.., also said on CBS’ “Face the Nation” that he was “very disturbed” to see the memo discussing “non-legislative ways to achieve amnesty.”

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs addressed the issue Friday to Fox and Friends, “The White House doesn’t support amnesty and I think people that support comprehensive immigration reform don’t support amnesty either. What we need to do again is try to figure out how we’re going to secure borders, deal with those that are here, but do it in a comprehensive way and do it at a federal level, because as frustrated as Arizonans are, and we understand that we can’t have a patchwork of immigration laws throughout each of the 50 states.”

The memo isn’t dated, but appears to be from earlier this year. A Homeland Security official told Fox News the memo was never signed.

PHOENIX – A federal appeals court has decided not to step into the controversy over Arizona’s tough immigration law until November, leaving state officials to consider other steps they might take in the meantime.

Republican Gov. Jan Brewer, who signed the law and appealed a ruling blocking its most controversial sections, said Friday she would consider changes to “tweak” the law to respond to the parts U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton faulted.

“Basically we believe (the law) is constitutional but she obviously pointed out faults that can possibly be fixed, and that’s what we would do,” Brewer told The Associated Press. She said she’s talking to legislative leaders about the possibility of a special session, but said no specific changes had been identified.

In her temporary injunction Wednesday, Bolton delayed the most contentious provisions of the law, including a section that required officers to check a person’s immigration status while enforcing other laws. Bolton indicated the federal government’s case has a good chance at succeeding in its argument that federal immigration law trumps state law.

Brewer has said she’ll challenge the decision all the way to the Supreme Court.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in an order late Friday that it will hold a hearing on Brewer’s challenge in the first week of November. Briefs from the state are due Aug. 26.

Brewer had asked for an expedited appeals process, with a hearing scheduled for the week of Sept. 13. State lawyers had argued that the appeal involves an issue of “significant importance” — the state’s right to implement a law to address “the irreparable harm Arizona is suffering as a result of unchecked unlawful immigration.”

The federal government countered that there was no need to expedite the matter because “the only effect of the district court’s injunction in this case is to preserve a status quo that has existed for a long period of time.”

Calls Friday night to Brewer spokesman Paul Senseman and Phoenix attorney John Bouma, who is defending the immigration law on the governor’s behalf, were not immediately returned.

Democrats scoffed at Brewer’s desire to change the law, with a key House minority leader calling it laughable.

“Why would we help her?” asked Rep. Kyrsten Sinema of Phoenix. “This bill is so flawed and clearly a federal judge agrees.”

House Speaker Kirk Adams said there would be little support among fellow Republicans to weaken the law.

Attorneys have begun reviewing the statute to identify possible changes, he said: “It’s embryonic.”

Sen. Russell Pearce, the law’s chief sponsor, said he would only back changes to make it stronger.

Even though the law’s critics scored a huge victory with the judge’s decision, passions among hundreds of immigrant rights supporters still flared at demonstrations near the federal courthouse in downtown Phoenix after the parts of the law that weren’t blocked took effect Thursday. At least 70 people have been arrested.

The law’s supporters reacted too, and a fund set up to help defend the measure added $75,000 Wednesday alone, giving the state more than $1.6 million to get Bolton’s ruling overturned.

Meanwhile, hundreds of e-mails and phone calls — including some threats — have poured into the courthouse.

Federal officials in charge of court security wouldn’t say whether anyone made a death threat against Bolton and wouldn’t provide specifics of the threats they were examining. But a majority of the e-mails and phone calls to the judge’s chambers and the court clerk’s office are from people who want to grouse about her ruling, officials said.

“We understand that people will vent and have a First Amendment right to express their dissatisfaction. We expect this,” said David Gonzales, the U.S. marshal for Arizona. “But we want to look at the people who go over the line.”