Obama’s Justice Department has confirmed that it will file a legal challenge to Arizona’s Immigration law. A detailed review of the law can be found at the above site.
As this writer has stated in previous posts, the Administration’s challenge will fail.
THOMAS JEFFERSON
The purpose of this post is not to review the constitutionality of the Arizona law; however, I will briefly state the three reasons the Arizona law will be found to be Constitutional.
1). The Arizona law does not violate the 14th Amendment of the Constitution as it does not violate any individual’s rights to “equal protection” under the law. The Arizona Law specifically prohibits racial profiling. The law does not allow for any law enforcement officer to “stop or detain” an individual and ask for their identification. The law instructs law enforcement officers to question a “suspect” under investigation for the violation of some crime, other than an immigration crime, about their immigration status, if the suspect cannot produce identification during questioning. The law lists 11 different types of identification that will create a presumption of legal citizenship or legal residency.
2). The law does not violate Article 6 of the Constitution as it does not violate the Federal Government’ s right to legislate the country’s
BEN FRANKLYN
immigration laws. The Arizona law does not “usurp” the Federal Government’s right to set immigration quotas or to issue immigration documents. The Federal Government has the exclusive right to determine how many immigrants will enter the Country every year and how many immigrants will be granted citizenship every year. The Federal Government has the exclusive right to set specific requirements for those seeking citizenship and criteria for “deporting” those who have entered the Country. The Arizona Law does not usurp any power preserved for the exclusive use of the Federal Government.
The Arizona law notes that Arizona Law enforcement officers have “concurrent jurisdiction and responsibility” with Federal Law Enforcement Officials for enforcing Federal Immigration law, something noted in the Federal Immigration statutes. Specifically, the Arizona law mandates that all Arizona State Law Enforcement officers comply with the provisions of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, the last “comprehensive immigration law” passed by the U.S. Congress. The Arizona law does not usurp the Federal Government’s rights; the Arizona Law mandates state compliance with the statutes passed by the Federal Government.
I will briefly note here, that Article 6 of the Constitution reserves certain rights to the Federal Government. Article 6 reserves those rights for all three branches of the Federal Government; The Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial. The Obama Administration’s current actions are an attempt to usurp the constitutional powers granted to the legislative and judicial branches of our government. The Obama Administration believes in an “Imperial Presidency” rather than a “Constitutional Republic”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clausehttp://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/hb2162c.htm
3). When the Courts review the constitutionality of any given law, the determination of constitutionality is not based on the possibility that some individual may commit an act of “misfeasance”.
THE DEATH OF GENERAL WARREN AT BUNKER HILL
Misfeasance is defined as: a). a wrong, actual or alleged, arising from or consisting of affirmative action. b). the wrongful performance of a normally lawful act;the wrongful and injurious exercise of lawful authority. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/misfeasance
Example: The speed limit in front of my home is 25 miles per hour. There is nothing “unconstitutional” about that law or setting a 25 mile an hour speed limit. If a law enforcement officer pulls over a black driver, because they are black and not because they were speeding, that officer has committed an act of racial profiling. Racial profiling is an act of malfeasance which is punishable in both the criminal and civil courts, however, the speed limit law is constitutional and there is no question that the speed limit law is constitutional. None!
The Obama Administration knows the Arizona Law to be Constitutional.
The Obama Administration’s challenge to the law is, however, rooted in a significant constitutional question. The Obama Administration is attempting to subvert our Constitution and create an Imperial Presidency.
Imperial Presidency vs. Constitutional Republic
The United States is a Constitutional Republic. A Republic is defined as “a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.” http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Republic
BOSTON TEA APRTY
In our Constitutional Republic we select our representatives and they govern with our consent. In our Constitutional Republic our Federal Government is divided into three equal branches, Executive, Legislative and the Judiciary. Each of the branches has its own rights and its own duties or responsibilities. The first such responsibility, a “duty” shared by every member of every branch of our Government, is the “duty” to “protect and defend our Constitution”. Our Constitution also states that any right not specifically granted to the Federal Government is reserved for the governments of the individual states.
Emperors were autocratic rulers: An autocracy is a form of government in which one person possesses unlimited power. An autocrat is a person (as in an Emperor) ruling with unlimited authority. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocracy
A single ruler with unlimited power and unlimited authority. Power and authority taken from the people not granted by the people.
Under Imperial Rule all rights and civil liberties belong to the Emperor. Our Republic is founded on the belief that basic rights belong to the citizens of the Republic and are “inalienable”: that these basic rights cannot be transferred to someone else or taken away by the Government.
CIVIL WAR - PICKETT'S CHARGE AT GETTYSBERG
Obama’s Attempt to Circumvent the Constitution and Create an Imperial Presidency
Under our Constitutional Republic the right to create and pass laws rests with the Legislative Branches. Our Supreme Court has ruled that the U.S. Congress has the exclusive right to pass laws that establish immigration quotas or limits and that all “immigration quotas and limitations” established by Congress are binding upon the Executive Branch and the individual states. The Supreme Court has also ruled that the individual states have “concurrent jurisdiction” to enforce our Federal immigration laws. To enforce the Federal immigration laws, not to rewrite them. The Arizona law does not attempt to rewrite the laws passed by Congress, in fact, the Arizona law calls for the enforcement of the 1996 Federal Immigration Law – Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.
President Obama and various members of the Obama Administration believe in the concept of “open borders”. The
Obama Administration supports an “amnesty” for illegal aliens.
WORLD WAR I DOUGH BOYS
An “open borders policy” means the elimination of immigration quotas. Under an “open borders policy”: any migrant, from any country, would be free to enter and live in the United States once they crossed our border.
This post will not debate whether we should adopt an “open border policy” or grant yet an additional “amnesty”, the third “amnesty” in the last 30 years, before we secure our borders.
This post will note the Obama Administration’s attempt to usurp power granted constitutionally to the Legislative and Judicial branches and create an Imperial Presidency.
When the Obama Administration states that they want “comprehensive immigration reform” the Administration means they want an “open borders policy” with an “amnesty” for those currently within our borders illegally.
The overwhelming majority of American people are diametrically opposed to such a “open border policy” or the implementation of an additional “amnesty”.
Under our Constitutional Republic, implementing such a change in our “existing laws” would need to be initiated by our Congress not the Obama Administration or the Executive Branch.
A proposal to adopt either an “open borders policy” or an “amnesty program” would be soundly defeated in both Houses of the U.S. Congress.
The Obama Administration wants to implement two immigration policies but lacks the Constitutional power to do so, two policies strongly opposed by the legislative branch and a majority of Americans.
Prevented constitutionally from unilaterally implementing these changes the Obama Administration has adopted policies and ignored existing laws in the Administration’s attempt to implement a “de facto” open border and amnesty program. (“de facto”: actually existing, without lawful authority). http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/de+facto )
The Obama Administration is refusing to enforce our existing immigration laws. The Administration is willfully failing to secure our borders. The Administration is refusing to send appropriate resources to secure our borders and has even failed to deploy the 1200 National Guard Troops promised to our Border States. In adopting these actions the Obama Administration has moved to usurp (to use without authority or right) powers granted to the Congress under the Constitution. The Obama Administration cannot get an “amnesty program” or an “open borders policy” passed through Congress as the Constitution requires, so the Obama Administration is adopting extra constitutional (not authorized by or based on a constitution; beyond the provisions of a constitution) measures to achieve policies it cannot obtain constitutionally. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/extraconstitutional
WORLD WAR II - D DAY: GI JOES OMAHA BEACH
The Obama Administration must challenge the Arizona Law, not because the Administration believes the law to be unconstitutional, but because the Administration fears that other States will pass similar laws. The Obama Administration must challenge the Arizona law because the Obama Administrations’ attempts to implement “de facto” amnesty and open borders policies will be thwarted by the States when the States move to enforce the laws passed constitutionally by Congress.
The Obama Administration views itself as an Imperial
OPEN BORDERS - AMNESTY
Presidency – with President Obama as the omnipotent autocrat – possessing unlimited power, unlimited authority and unrestrained by Constitutional limitations. An autocrat free to ignore his oath to “protect and defend the constitution”, free to selectively enforce or ignore the laws of the land as he chooses, free to implement his policies without the advise or consent of the Congress or the American people.
Prologue:
Ancient Rome started as a Republic. Like the United States, the Roman Republic was founded after the overthrow of a monarchy. The Roman Republic was based on a Constitution which honored the principles of separation of powers, of a need for a system of checks and balances within the Government. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Republic
The end of the Roman Republic was brought about by the Roman leaders who “transitioned” Rome, leaders who “fundamentally transformed” Rome from a Republic to an Imperial State. A state ruled by autocratic Emperors. The Emperors were men who subverted the Roman Constitution for their own power, for their own political gain. The Emperor’s usurped the powers granted to the Roman Senate and Legislative Assembly and after consolidating their power proclaimed themselves perpetual dictators (Julius Caesar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Republic ), Supreme Majesty (Augustus ), Imperator Caesar Maximus Naughtius Pretentious Stroppius Homosexius Nero Augustus (Nero, http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Nero ) and Caligula (Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, http://www.roman-emperors.org/nero.htm).
My generation was very familiar with a saying (it is actually a book title), “The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire”. Rome rose as a Republic and Rome fell because it was “fundamentally transformed” into an autocratic Empire ruled by despots. Despot: a king or other ruler with absolute, unlimited power; autocrat. any tyrant or oppressor. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/despot
It is ironic that America’s coming battle, a battle that will determine whether the Country will remain a Constitutional Republic or be “fundamentally transformed” into an Imperial Presidency, will be fought over the issue of illegal immigration, most particularly, illegal immigration into the State of Arizona. The President’s true objective, an extra constitutional usurpation of powers granted to Congress, is being disguised as a phony “civil rights issue”. A false issue the President is exploiting to garner political support among his Hispanic and far left base. The President is guilty of “race baiting” as he moves to esatblish his Imperial Presidency. http://www.ask.com/bar?q=race+baiting&page=1&qsrc=2891&dm=all&ab=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtontimes.com%2Fnews%2F2010%2Fmay%2F03%2Fobamas-race-baiting%2F&sg=aqQrV3cX93bwZwf8zn%2BMF2wfMlOuCjIOuGwZHEDm8Vk%3D&tsp=1277047957762The Hispanic portion of his base has very close ties to our southern neighbor, Mexico.
Mexico, the Country that twice had to fight to escape from the despotic rule of Emperors. (In 1821 when Mexico declared independence from Spain (Mexican Independence Day) and in 1867 at the end of The Second Mexican Empire).
Mexico fought again, for a third time, to free the Country from another autocratic ruler (Porfirio Diaz) during the Mexican Revolution (1910 – 1920: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Revolution ).
VIETNAM - INSERTION INTO HOT LZ
How can the Country of Mexico, a Country that has tasted the violence of autocratic rule 3 times in the last 150 years and fought its Revolution less than 100 years ago, support or applaud the “fundamental transformation” of America into that which they, the Mexican people, want to flee. Mexico has rejected Imperial rule three times, yet Mexico would support the “fundamental transformation” of the America Republic into an Imperial Presidency.
Is the purpose of coming to America rooted in a desire to share in the American Dream, to embrace the Republic for which it stands or is the goal to “fundamentally transform” America, transform the Republic into another Empire, an Empire ruled by an Imperial Presidency, an Imperial Presidency where one man or woman rules with unlimited authority and unlimited power.
Remember these two things: 1). There has never been a “compassionate dictator” or “despot”, and 2). Dictators are neither liberal nor conservative; they are first and always, dictators.
Uptick in Violence Forces Closing of Parkland Along Mexico Border to Americans
Published June 16, 2010
| FOXNews.com
About 3,500 acres of southern Arizona have been closed off to U.S. citizens due to increased violence at the U.S.-Mexico border, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The closed off area includes part of the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge that stretches along the U.S.-Mexico border.
Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu told Fox News that violence against law enforcement officers and U.S. citizens has increased in the past four months, forcing officers on an 80 mile stretch of Arizona land north of the Mexico border off-limits to Americans.
The refuge had been adversely affected by the increase in drug smugglers, illegal activity and surveillance, which made it dangerous for Americans to visit.
“The situation in this zone has reached a point where continued public use of the area is not prudent,” said refuge manager Mitch Ellis.
“It’s literally out of control,” said Babeu. “We stood with Senator McCain and literally demanded support for 3,000 soldiers to be deployed to Arizona to get this under control and finally secure our border with Mexico. “
U.S. Fish and Wildlife officials have warned visitors in Arizona to beware of heavily armed drug smugglers and human traffickers.
“We need support from the federal government. It’s their job to secure the border and they haven’t done it,” said Babeu. “In fact, President Obama suspended the construction of the fence and it’s just simply outrageous.”
Signs have been posted warning Americans not to cross into the closed off territory south of Interstate 8. Babeu said the signs are not enough – he said Arizona needs more resources to help scale back the violence caused by the drug cartels.
“We need action. It’s shameful that we, as the most powerful nation on Earth, … can’t even secure our own border and protect our own families.”
UPDATE: From the official website of the U.S. Fish & Wild Life Service 06/16/2010
Welcome Visit a landscape of rippling grassland flanked by mountains, and riparian zones rich in bird life. Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge provides approximately 118,000 acres of habitat for threatened and endangered plants and animals. The semidesert grassland supports the reintroduction of masked bobwhite quail and pronghorns.
Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge Remains Open
June 2010 Recently there were reports in the news stating that the Buenos Aries National Wildlife Refuge was closed. This information is not correct.In early 2006, a small section of land (about 3% of the refuge) along the border was closed to visitation. However, no new restrictions are in place and the majority of the refuge remains open. Today, we are seeing a decline in violent activity in the southern most area thanks to ongoing cooperation between the US Fish and Wildlife Service and US Customs and Border Protection. The Refuge will reopen the lands along the border at such time that it is determined to be safe for visitors.
McAuleysWorld: Let me see, “The Refuge will reopen the lands along the border at such time that it is determined to be safe for visitors”means the lands are in fact, still closed. Unless you are using some type of new math, 3% of 118,000 acres equals 3540 acres. Please note that the ”Federal Fish & Wildlife Service” is in agreement with the Secretary of Homeland Security who claims the border has never been safer, well actually the Fish and Wildlife staff just say it is relatively safere, but not safe enough to reopen the “closed” section of the park. On the other hand the County Sheriff, as reported above, has a significantl;y different take.
You can decide.
This says nothing about the ecological damage being done to the Park, a subject that the Federal Fish & Wildlife Service is forbiding park employees to discuss … What ecological damage you ask …..
Comprehensive Reform? What, we need to “reform” again? The “system is broken? I think not. The problem, according to American People, is that you, Mr. President, are failing to enforce our existing laws.
Is Comprehensive Immigration Reform Needed Again?
Oh, really! We need to “Reform” again. When a liberal Democrat says “Reform” what he means is “increase immigration quotas”, to allow additional numbers of immigrants to enter the Country.
When a Democrat says “Reform” the word you should hear is amnesty. As in amnesty for the illegals who are currently residing illegally within our borders.
Well, Mr. President, we have tried that path and history clearly shows that the “amnesty” path does not work. We have tried that “path” and it failed.
BRIEF HISTORY OF US IMMIGRATION LAWS
The United States adopted its Constitution in 1789. The United States granted citizenship to immigrants for the first time in 1790.
In 1798 Congress authorized the President to expel “dangerous” aliens in the Alien Friends Act and the Alien Enemies Act.
The Naturalization Act of 1802 expanded the provisions of the 1795 law and created a “five-year legal residency requirement” prior to granting an immigrant citizenship. Then in 1808, Congress enacted a law forbidding the importation of slaves.
No official immigration records were kept until 1820, but it is estimated that 250,000 immigrants, 1/4 of a million people, arrived in the United States between 1790 and 1820 - the 1st 30 years of the Constitutionally governed United States. It is estimateed that an additional 10 million immigrants came to American between 1820 and 1875 when the US passed its first “restrictive” immigration law.
The first ”restrictive immigration law” in 1875 excluded ”convicts” and “prostitutes”, the 1st classes of individuals to be denied “lawful entry” into the United States. Those same “class” restrictions continue to this day.
In 1918 Congress passed the “Anarchist Exclusion Act”. An anarchist is ”a person who promotes disorder or excites revolt against any established rule, law, or custom.”. The Act of 1918 did not only deny admission to the United States but also provided a basis to deport “anarchists” out of the Country.
The Act specifically identified the following people
(a) aliens who are anarchists;
(b) aliens who advise, advocate, or teach, or who are members of, or affiliated with, any organization, society, or group, that advises, advocates, or teaches opposition to all organized government;
(c) aliens who believe in, advise, advocate, or teach, or who are members of, or affiliated with, any organization, association, society, or group, that believes in, advises, advocates, or teaches:
(1) the overthrow by force or violence of the Government of the United States or of all forms of law, or
(2) the duty, necessity, or propriety of the unlawful assaulting or killing of any officer or officers, either of specific individuals or of officers generally, of the Government of the United States or of any other organized government, because of his or their official character, or
(3) the unlawful damage, injury, or destruction of property, or
(4) sabotage;
(d) aliens who write, publish, or cause to be written or published, or who knowingly circulate, distribute, print, or display, or knowingly cause to be circulated, distributed, printed, or displayed, or knowingly have in their possession for the purpose of circulation, distribution, publication, or display any written or printed matter, advising, advocating, or teaching opposition to all government, or advising, advocating, or teaching:
(1) the ovethrow by force or violence of the Government of the United States or of all forms of law, or
(2) the duty, necessity, or propriety of the unlawful assaulting or killing of any officer or officers of the Government of the United States or of any other government, or
(3) the unlawful damage, injury, or destruction of property, or
(4) sabotage;
(e) aliens who are members of, or affiliated with, any organization, association, society, or group, that writes, circulates, distributes, prints, publishes, or displays, or causes to be written, circulated, distributed, printed, published, or displayed, or that has in its possession for the purpose of circulation, distribution, publication, or display, any written or printed matter of the character in subdivision (d). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_Exclusion_Act
Limits on Immigration- Immigration Quotas – The 1920′s
In the 1920′s Congress implemented the first numerical controls on immigration. Enacted first, as a temporary measure, the 1921 Quota Law marked a major shift in the U.S. approach to immigration control. The law limited immigration from each foreign nation to 3% of the number of foreign-born persons of that nationality residing in the U.S. as of the 1910 census.
The total quota for the Country was 357,000 new immigrants per year.
In 1924, Congress further restricted immigration by reducing the immigration quota from 3% of foreign-born persons under the 1910 census to 2% of the foreign-born under the 1890 census. This change cut the total quota of new immigrants per year to 164,667.
During the 1930′s and the “Great Depression” more people emigrated out of (left) the United States than “immigrated” into the Country. In the entire decade of the 1930′s only 500,000 ( 1/2 million) immigrants entered the United States. In the year 1932 only 35,000 (thirty five thousand) immigrants entered the country while 100,000 (one hundred thousand) left or emigrated out of the country.
In the 1940′s the United States negotoated the first of its “temporary worker” programs with Mexico.
In a 1948 response to problems created by the devastation of Europe in World War II and the Nazi Holocaust, Congress adopted the Displaced Persons Act that allowed for the admission into the U.S. of some 400,000 non-citizens.
A Brief History of 20th Century Immigration Law Reform
THE 1952 ACT
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (INA) consolidated previous immigration laws into one coordinated statute. As amended, the 1952 Act provided the foundation for immigration law in effect today.
The 1952 Act retained the national origins quota and established a 150,000 person limit.
Within the quota system, four types of entrance preferences were established. First preference was given to those entrants with skills or experience needed by the U.S. economy. Those persons with close family relations to U.S. citizens or permanent residents received lower preferences.
It should be noted that spouses, children, and parents of U.S. citizens were not and are still not subject to the quota or preference system. For that reason, they are called “immediate relatives.”
Following the passage of the 1952 law a large increase in apprehensions of deportable non-citizens occurred. The Border Patrol, numbering just about 1,000 strong, apprehended 800,000 deportable non-citizens in 1952; in 1954, that number increased to one million.
THE 1965 AMENDMENTS
The 1965 amendments replaced the national origins formula with a limit of 20,000 on each country in the Eastern Hemisphere and an overall limit of 170,000 for that hemisphere. The law established a quota of 120,000 for the Western Hemisphere, without preferences or country limits to take effect in 1968. ( A total of 290,000 new “legal immigrants” were to be allowed per year).
The 1965 amendments abolished the old four-preference system and established in its place a seven-preference system for close relatives and those immigrants with needed occupational skills from the Eastern Hemisphere.
Spouses of U.S. citizens were permitted to immigrate without reference to the quota or preference system.
Under the preference system, unmarried adult children of U.S. citizens received highest preference; second preference was granted to spouses and unmarried children of permanent residents. The preference for immigrants of “exceptional ability” and those in “the professions” was changed from first to third. Other relatives of citizens and permanent residents received the fourth and fifth preferences. Sixth preference was given to needed workers. Seventh preference was allocated to refugees.
THE 1976 AMENDMENT
The 1976 amendment applied the Eastern Hemisphere preference system to the Western Hemisphere, both hemispheres were subject to the 20,000 per country limit and the seven preference system.
THE 1978 AMENDMENT
The 1978 amendment established a world-wide quota of 290,000 and applied the same per country limits and seven preference system to both hemispheres. This worldwide ceiling eliminated the hemisphere consideration and allowed visas to go where the need was greatest.
Illegal Immigration in the 1970′s
The number of deportable non-citizens, which fell in the 1950s, climbed rapidly in the 1960s and 1970s, as did the number of total entries. In 1972, one half million deportable non-citizens were apprehended. By 1977, that annual figure had doubled. The Border Patrol had grown to a force of 2,400.
The Immigration Service estimated that, between undetected border crossings and violations of legal entry conditions, millions of undocumented non-citizens were living in the U.S. in 1974. In 1979 the Border Patrol apprehended one million deportable non-citizens. That year, the INS employed almost 11,000 personnel and had a 300 million dollar budget.
THE 1980 REFUGEE ACT
The Carter Administration asked for special legislation to deal with the issue of the “”Mariel Boat Lift” that delivered 100,000′s of Cubans to the shores of Florida. It later became evident that Fidel Castro, the Communist dictator in Cuba, had emptied his prisons and placed untold number of Cuban criminal felons on the boats with the non-criminal Cubans seeking asylum in the United States. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariel_boatlift . The boat lift began on April 1, 1980 and ended in October 1980.
Estimates vary on how many of the incoming immigrants were “undesirables” or former felons. The low estimate placed the number at 7,500 with a high estimate of 40,000 convicted felons. Congress adopted an official estimate of 12,500. Approximately 2700 of the immigrants were denied entry due to their criminal past.
The “boat lift” was depicted in the movie “Scarface”.
THE 1986 IMMIGRATION REFORM AND CONTROL ACT (IRCA)
In 1980 the United States Census Bureau counted 2,047,000 undocumented non-citizens in the country. Based on the Bureau of Census experience in miscounting other segments of the population, the Bureau had estimated that there were 5,965,000 undocumented persons in the country on census day April 1, 1980.
The 1986 the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) dealt with the major problem of undocumented workers by imposing sanctions on employers while it legalized the status (provided amnesty) of undocumented entrants who had arrived prior to January 1, 1982.
In exchange for the increased enforcement provisions of IRCA, Congress offered a broad amnesty for many undocumented non-citizens already present in the country.
Non-citizens who met these requirements and filed an application between May 5, 1987, and May 4, 1988, were granted temporary residence. After 18 months of temporary residence, the non-citizens had one year in which to apply for adjustment to permanent resident status or they would become undocumented once again.
Response to the amnesty program was less enthusiastic than expected. The INS originally estimated that between two and four million applications would be filed by the almost 5.5 million illegals estimated to be in the Country, but when the program ended, only 1.4 million people had applied for amnesty.
A proposal to extend the application deadline passed the House of Representatives but died in the Senate, due to fears that an extension would send the message that the U.S. could not enforce its immigration laws. The program thus ended as planned on May 4, 1988.
Another concern in adopting IRCA was the potential adverse financial impact on the states. For this reason, IRCA included extensive provisions disqualifying newly legalized non-citizens (except Cuban/Haitian entrants) from receiving most federal public welfare assistance for five years.
THE IMMIGRATION ACT OF 1990
In 1990, Congress passed a series of amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act, collectively referred to as the Immigration Act of 1990 (“1990 Act” also known as “IMMACT 90″).
The most visible feature of IMMACT 90 was the increase by approximately 35% in the numerical limitation system, or overall immigration allowed. IMMACT 90 established an annual limit for worldwide immigration of 700,000 for three years, after which it decreased to 675,000. Because other provisions of the 1990 Act allowed immigration of groups not counted in the 700,000, and a separate law permitted as many as 125,000 refugees to be legally admitted, the actual worldwide immigration limit was closer to 900,000.
This number represented a nearly 300% increase over the 290,000 immigrants allowed in 1978.
The 1990 Act increased the allocation for both family-related and employee-related immigration. In addition, the new law created a separate basis by which “diversity” immigrants, that is, nationals of countries with relatively low numbers of immigrants since 1965, could gain entry.
Of the first 700,000 annual allotment, 465,000 visas were made available to family-sponsored immigrants, 140,000 for employment-based immigrants, and 55,000 for diversity immigrants.
Beginning October 1, 1991, all family-sponsored immigration was limited to approximately 480,000 annually for two years, after which the yearly limit dropped to 465,000. The relatively large percentage of the overall limit allocated to family-related immigration reflected the continued commitment to family unity as a primary goal of immigration policy.
There is still no limit on immigration by immediate relatives.
The 1990 Act did guarantee admission of at least 226,000 other relatives of U.S. citizens and permanent residents, an increase of approximately 65,000 over the former quota, set just 4 years previously in 1986.
THE ACTS OF 1996 (AEDPA and IIRIRA)
Three new immigration acts were signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996.
The first of these acts was the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), which became law on April 24, 1996.
The second was the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (Welfare Reform Act), which became law on August 22, 1996. The changes made by the Welform Reform Act were part of a comprehensive reform of the American Welfare System and were not reforms solely made to target immigrants or illegal immigrants.
The third was the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), which became law on September 30, 1996. The AEDPA and IIRIRA increased the number of criminal acts for which a non-citizen could be removed and eliminated nearly all forms of relief for non-citizens with criminal convictions.
IIRIRA also stiffened the requirement for affidavits of support for immigrants entering on the basis of their relationship to U.S. citizens or permanent residents. A sponsor must agree in the affidavit to provide support for the immigrant at an annual income that is not less than 125% of the federal poverty standard. Also, the sponsor must reimburse the government if the non-citizen receives means-tested public benefits within ten years of admission, unless he or she has naturalized. IIRIRA also added a ground of removability for any non-citizen who becomes a “public charge” within five years of admission.
Like the affidavit of support requirement, the 1996 Welfare Act reflected Congress’ concern that immigrants were placing an increasing burden on the federal budget. The Welfare Act made most non-citizens, including permanent residents, ineligible for federal benefits such as food stamps and Supplemental Security Income (SSI). Immigrants who entered the country after August 22, 1996, were ineligible for all means-tested public benefits for a period of five years. The Welfare Act also authorized the states to deny benefits to certain classes of non-citizens.
In 1998 reinstated federal benefits for most permanent residents who were receiving them before passage of the Act.
SECTION 434 & SECTION 642 of the 1996 ACT
The 1996 law states the following:
“Pursuant to § 434 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA, P.L. 104-193) and § 642 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA, P.L. 104-208) states and localities may not limit their governmental entities or officers from maintaining records regarding a person’s immigration status, or bar the exchange of such information with any federal, state, or local entity.
This language was placed in the “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” of 1996 in repsonse to the creation of ”Sanctuary Cities” and the adoption of “Sanctuary City Statutes” by many U.S. cities.
As the previous parargarphs clearly establish, Immigration Laws and Quotas are the responisbility of the Federal Government, any attempt by State of City Governments to usurp this power from the Federal Government is unconstitutional. A States attempt to enforce a Federal Immigration Law is not unconstitutional. Simply put, while States and Cities don’t create Immigration Law, they are expected to enforce them.
The term “Sanctuary City” refers to a city or state that enacts policies which are favorable to illegal immigrants. Specifically, sanctuary cities often mandate local laws which prevent inquiry into a person’s immigration status.
How does one administer the Federal, State and Local criminal laws and civil laws governing the allocation and distribution of Federal, State and Local Welfare benefits?
Sanctuary policies are a violation of federal law, such as the section 642(a) of the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, which prohibits the embedding of illegal immigrants, and the March 2005 United States Supreme Court case, Muehler v Mena, which stated that law enforcement has the right to ask about immigration status.
While the laws differ from Commmunity to Community, an example of a “Sanctuary City” ordinance, taken from the city of Tacoma Park, Maryland, follows:
“Introduced by: Councilmember Seamens First Reading: October 22, 2007: Second Reading: October 29, 2007
CITY OF TAKOMA PARK, MARYLAND, ORDINANCE NO. 2007-58,
AN ORDINANCE REAFFIRMING AND STRENGTHENING THE CITY OF TAKOMA PARK’S IMMIGRATION SANCTUARY LAW
WHEREAS, in 1985, as an expression of these values, the Takoma Park City Council passed the City of Refuge Ordinance, which prohibits City employees, including police officers, from cooperating with federal immigration authorities in the enforcement of civil and criminal immigration laws and prohibits City employees from requesting or disclosing information regarding the immigration status of individuals.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TAKOMA PARK, MARYLAND:
SECTION 1. Title 9, Civil Liberties and Human Relations, Chapter 4, Rights of Non-U.S. Citizens in Takoma Park, of the Takoma Park Code (2004 edition) is amended as follows: 9.04.010 No City enforcement of immigration laws. A. No agent, officer or employee of the City, in the performance of official duties, shall assist the United States Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement in the investigation or arrest of any persons for civil or criminal violation of the immigration and nationality laws of the United States.
9.04.020 No inquiries into citizenship. No agent, officer or employee of the City, in the performance of official duties, shall ask any person about his or her citizenship or immigration status or inquire about any person’s citizenship or immigration status with any third person.
No agent, officer or employee of the City, in the performance of official duties, shall release any information regarding the citizenship or residency status of any City resident.immigration status of any individual to any third party.”
Theintent of the Tacoma Park, Maryland statute is obvious, a liberal attempt to usurp the Federal Governements authority to regulate immigration into the United States and to disrupt the co-operation between Federal, State and City Law Enforcement officials while they attempt to enforce the laws of this Country. How does one enforce Federal or State welfare laws that prohibit dispersing benefits to illegal aliens while reserving the benefits for citizens and “legal immigrants” if one cannot make a legal determination of who is in the Country legally and who is here illegally?
The devastating effect this short sighted, unconstitutional activity could have on the safety of America became all to clear on September 11, 2001.
THE COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM 09/11/2001
The September 11, 2001, attacks resulted in significant changes in immigration law and policy. Congress passed several acts intended to improve national security, including the USA Patriot Act (115 Stat. 272), the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act (116 Stat. 543), and the Homeland Security Act (116 Stat. 2135). One of the most dramatic consequences of these measures was the elimination of the INS and the transfer of immigration functions to the Department of Homeland Security in 2003. Other provisions of these acts broadened the class of people who can be excluded or removed for terrorist activity, mandated increased screening of applicants for admission, and called for new data systems to track non-citizens in the U.S.
ATTEMPTED IMMIGRATION REFORM OF 2007
U.S. House Passes Drake Amendment to Eradicate Sanctuary Cities. Amendment withholds federal funding for localities that violate Section 642(a) of the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act
July 25, 2007
Washington D.C. — The U.S. House of Representatives today passed an amendment by Representative Thelma Drake (R-Va.) to H.R. 2638, the Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2008. Passing by a voice vote, Rep. Drake’s amendment aims to eliminate what are commonly referred to as “sanctuary policies” in local municipalities, whereby law enforcement officials are barred from asking suspects about their immigration status or reporting them to Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE). The amendment will ensure that existing law is enforced uniformly across the country by withholding federal funding for cities that choose to violate section 642(a) of the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA).
“Although predominately a federal issue, we have all witnessed how the epidemic of illegal immigration can impact members of a local community,” said Rep. Drake. “Solving this problem is going to require the commitment from all levels of government to engage in an active partnership.
“Sanctuary cities undermine these partnerships by willfully and selectively choosing to disregard federal laws that are already on the books. Most Americans agree that if you want to get serious about addressing our nation’s failed immigration system, enforcing existing laws is a good place to start.
“This amendment says that when Congress took steps to eradicate sanctuary policies back in the Nineties, we meant it. I am committed to ensuring that this language remains in the legislation and is signed into law by the President.”
Under section 642(a) of IIRIRA, a “Federal, State, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.”
On the day the law was signed into effect Arizona has at least 4 ”Sanctuary Cities” violating the Federal Law; Phoenix, Tuscon, Chandler and Mesa.
Section 3 of the Arizona is titled; “Cooperation and assistance in enforcement of immigration laws.”
Section 3 of the Arizona Law mandates that all State, Local and City Employees enforce both Federal and State laws regarding criminal acts committed by illegal aliens. The law mandates that the laws be enforced “concurrently” by all Federal, State and Local law enforcement officials.
Section 3 does not permit law enforcement officials to stop and ask anyone for their ID. No one!
Section 3 does require that once law enforcement officials have “stoppped, detained or arrested” an individual and are “conducting a criminal investigation”, the suspect will be asked for identification.
All indivuals who find themselves the subject of an investigation will be asked for their ID.
PRESUMPTION OF LAWFUL CITIZENSHIP UNDER THE ARIZONA LAW
Any individual who can produce one of the following pieces of identification is presumed to be a “lawful citizen of the United States”: 1). A valid Arizona driver license. 2). A valid Arizona nonoperating identification license. 3). A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification. 4). If the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance, any valid United States federal, state or local government issued identification.
Section 3 also provides, “A law enforcement official or agency may not consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution”.
FEDERAL DETERMINATION OF CITIZENSHIP STATUS UNDER THE ARIZONA LAW
If some one is “stopped, detained or arrested” and cannot produce identification, the law enforcement officals are instructed to continue their investigation, however, the determination of whether any individual is an “illegal alien” is determined according to Federal Law: “In the implementation of this section, an alien’s immigration status may be determined by: 1. A law enforcement officer who is authorized by the federal government to verify or ascertain an alien’s immigration status, or 2. The United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement or the United States Customs and Border Protection Act pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373(c).”
THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG – SCAAP PAYMENTS – THE HIDDEN COST OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION:
SCAAP is a payment program administered by OJP, through its component the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), in conjunction with the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) bureau within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).2 SCAAP was authorized by the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 to provide federal assistance to states and localities for the costs of incarcerating certain criminal aliens who are in custody based on state or local charges or convictions.3 In fiscal year (FY) 2005, BJA distributed $287.1 million in SCAAP payments to 752 state, county, and local jurisdictions.
The following table displays the 10 jurisdictions that received the largest SCAAP payments from the FY 2005 appropriation. Collectively, they accounted for nearly 69 percent of the SCAAP payments made from that appropriation.
TOP TEN SCAAP RECIPIENTS – FY 2005
State
Jurisdiction
Amount
California
State of California5
$ 85,953,191
New York
State of New York
24,022,356
Texas
State of Texas
18,582,484
New York
City of New York
15,893,255
Florida
State of Florida
12,806,110
California
Los Angeles County6
12,530,034
Arizona
State of Arizona
12,139,791
California
Orange County
6,562,437
Illinois
State of Illinois
4,731,269
Massachusetts
State of Massachusetts
4,728,549
TOTAL
$197,949,476
The program only reimburses states and localities that incur correctional officer salary costs for incarcerating undocumented criminal aliens who: (1) have at least one felony or two misdemeanor convictions for violations of state or local law, and (2) are incarcerated for at least four consecutive days during the established reporting period. Applicants for funding are required to provide correctional officer salary costs, the total of all inmate days, and details about eligible inmates housed in their correctional facilities during that period.
In April 2005, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report stating that 80 percent of the SCAAP aliens were incarcerated in the five states of Arizona, California, Florida, New York, and Texas in FY 2003.
The total costs for Federal, State and Local detection, apprehension, arrest and incarceration are in the 100,’s of billions of dollars.
REPEAT OFFENDERS IN THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT COMMUNITY
The Department of Homeland Security reported the following to Congress.
Congression asked the Department of Homeland Security to determine how many criminal offenses were committed by criminal aliens who were released from state or local custody without a referral to DHS for removal from the United States.
To address this question, the DHS performed limited testing to determine the number of subsequent arrests of criminal aliens who were released from state or local custody. We based our testing on information from the vetted FY 2004 SCAAP database, which was the last year when ICE reported to BJA on the status of every person identified in support of applications for SCAAP funding. There were 262,105 records in that database. We requested assistance from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to have those records compared to arrest data in the FBI’s National Crime Information Center (NCIC).
After querying NCIC, the FBI provided us with nearly 433,000 text files that could not be searched by automated means. The volume of files was too great to search manually and quantify the results. Consequently, we judgmentally selected a sample of 100 criminal histories, which we reviewed for evidence of arrests of criminal aliens subsequent to June 30, 2003. The criminal histories for 73 of the 100 individuals documented at least one arrest after that date. Those 73 individuals accounted for a total of 429 arrests, with 878 charges and 241 convictions. These figures represent an average of nearly six arrests per individual.
The charges for the 73 individuals ranged from traffic violations and trespassing to more serious crimes, such as burglary or assault. Some of those charges included:
• 166 drug-related;
• 37 immigration-related;
• 213 burglary, robbery, or theft;
• 40 assault;
• 10 property damage;
• 3 terrorist threat;
and 13 weapons charges.
Based on this limited sample, the DHS could not statistically extrapolate the number of offenses committed by undocumented criminal aliens who were released from local custody without a referral to ICE. Based on the information available to us in the criminal histories, we could not determine the number of the criminal aliens in our sample that were deported, if any, and later arrested after reentering the United States. We also could not determine if ICE was notified before the criminal aliens in our sample were released from custody. But if this data is indicative of the full population of 262,105 criminal histories, the rate at which released criminal aliens are rearrested is extremely high. http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/OJP/a0707/final.pdf
Today, in 2010, as in every year since the mid 1980′s, the US has allowed at least 1 million (1,000,000) new immigrants to enter this Country. More than 1 million each and every year. Yes, despite our economic down turn, over 1,000,000 immigrants entered this Country as LPRs (Legal Permanent Residents) in 2009. http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/lpr_fr_2009.pdf
Yes, the exact number, according to the Obama Administration, was 1,130, 818 for the year ending December 2009.
An additional 1,000,000 immigrants were granted the rights of “Naturalized Citizens” in 2009.
In addition to these numbers, believe it or not, it is estimated that 160 million (160,000,000) non-immigrant admissions occur on an annual basis. Non-immigrant admission include, ”tourists and business travelers from Canada, Mexican nationals with Border Crossing Cards, ….”. http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/ni_fr_2009.pdf
The United States allows more “legal” immgration every year than all the other Countries in the world combined.
SUMMARY
The list below summarizes the “Comprehensive Immigration Reforms of the 20th and 21st centuries. After every ”Reform” the Federal Government admits increasing numbers of aliens while it fails to secure our borders.
Year Immigrants Granted Entry
1921 357,000
1924 164,667
1932 35,000
1948 400,000
1952 150,000
1965 290,000
1976 290,000
1978 290,000
1980 290,000 + 120,000 Cuban refuges
1986 290,000 + amnesty for 1.4 million.
1990 800,000
1996 1,100,000
2001 1,100,000
U.S immigration quota limits do not include “direct family members” of “naturalized citizens”. A “naturalized citizen” can bring “direct relatives”, defined as the ”naturalized citizen’s” mother, father, spouse, brothers, sisters and children, into the coutry as immigrants without having the “direct relative” qualified under the existing immigration quotas.
Since 1965 we have implemented 8 ” comprehensive immigration reforms”. Since 1986 we have increased the annual immigration quota from 290,000 to 1,100,000. In the 1980′s we offered “amnesty” to 5.6 million “illegal immigrants” and only 1.4 million accepted the offer. We have not managed to secure our borders even once.
One final question: Did any of the Law Enforcement Officers in the videos look like they had the free time to spend their days “profiling” innocent Hispanics taking their families to the local Dairy Queeen?
Intellectually dishonest and morally bamkrupt!
Slavery, in the form of human trafficking, is a larger enterprise and more profitable today than at any time in the history of mankind.
We must identify and root out the corrupt Politicians and Public Officials who are benefiting from this modern travesty. This modern day slavery cannot exist without the complicity of the Politicians and Public Officials. We must follow the money trial and identify those taking the “kickbacks” or cash from the smugllers and coyotes, accepting bribes from the brothel owners and operators, assisiting the drug smugglers, selling or renting the drop houses and brothels and turning a blind eye to the drug barons. Trafficking and drug smuggling are two of the most profitable illegal enterprises of our time. They cannot exist and flourish without the help of corrupt politicians and equally corrupt public officials.
How exactly, do we enforce our laws, when you prohibit Law Enforcement from even asking for ID.
Ask yourself why the Politicians are race baiting and then follow the money trail!
By Michael Sheridan
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER: Thursday, May 27th 2010, 8:06 AM
Terror attacks on the United States are on the rise, and it’s only going to get worse, Homeland Security warns.
CNN reported on Thursday that an unclassified intelligence memo states “the number and pace of attempted attacks against the United States over the past nine months have surpassed the number of attempts during any other previous one-year period.”
Terror organizations will also target the United States with “increased frequency,” the memo warned.
Dated May 21, the document obtained by CNN was created for law enforcement groups throughout the country.
“We have to operate under the premise that other operatives are in the country and could advance plotting with little or no warning,” it said.
Noted in the memo are the recent attempts to attack New York City, including the failed Times Square car bombing and Najibullah Zazi’s alleged plot to blow up the city’s subways.
Future attacks will be more challenging to stop or prevent because operatives will likely be more ingrained in our society and be able to develop weapons with commonly available items which are more difficult to track, the memo went on to state.
It also warns that possible terrorists would likely spend less time overseas “compared to lengthier training cycles for earlier operations, reducing our ability to detect their activities.”
Tehrik e-Taliban Pakistan, the terrorist group which is believed to have had a hand in the attempted Times Square attack, as well as ties to Al Qaeda, was mentioned in the memo.
Future terrorists will likely opt for “smaller, more achievable attacks against easily accessible targets” then trying for big, high-profile targets, the memo warned.
McAuleysworld: Remember the Obama Adminstrations solutions: Don’t ask for ID. Don’t secure the borders. Let the terrorists hide in the “Sanctuary Cities” and do away with Immigration Quotas and Immigration Screening. If a “terrorist” is apprehended in Arizona, the Feds (ICE) may not accept a “transfer” of the “prisoner” or “process” the terrorists for arrest or deportation!
By Jana Winter: Published May 26, 2010 | FOXNews.com
The Department of Homeland Security is alerting Texas authorities to be on the lookout for a suspected member of the Somalia-based Al Shabaab terrorist group who might be attempting to travel to the U.S. through Mexico, a security expert who has seen the memo tells FOXNews.com.
(McAuleysworld: Did DHS also warn Texas authorities not to ask the illegals crossing the border for their IDs?).
The warning follows an indictment unsealed this month in Texas federal court that accuses a Somali man in Texas of running a “large-scale smuggling enterprise” responsible for bringing hundreds of Somalis from Brazil through South America and eventually across the Mexican border. Many of the illegal immigrants, who court records say were given fake IDs, are alleged to have ties to other now-defunct Somalian terror organizations that have merged with active organizations like Al Shabaab, al-Barakat and Al-Ittihad Al-Islami.
In 2008, the U.S. government designated Al Shabaab a terrorist organization. Al Shabaab has said its priority is to impose Sharia, or Islamic law, on Somalia; the group has aligned itself with Al Qaeda and has made statements about its intent to harm the United States.
In recent years, American Somalis have been recruited by Al Shabaab to travel to Somalia, where they are often radicalized by more extremist or operational anti-American terror groups, which Al Shabaab supports. The recruiters coming through the Mexican border are the ones who could be the most dangerous, according to law enforcement officials.
Security experts tell FOXNews.com that the influx of hundreds of Somalis over the U.S. border who allegedly have ties to suspected terror cells is evidence of a porous and unsecured border being exploited by groups intent on wrecking deadly havoc on American soil.
The DHS alert was issued to police and sheriff’s deputies in Houston, asking them to keep their eyes open for a Somali man named Mohamed Ali who is believed to be in Mexico preparing to make the illegal crossing into Texas. Officials believe Ali has ties to Al Shabaab, a Somali terrorist organization aligned with Al Qaeda, said Joan Neuhaus Schaan, the homeland security and terrorism fellow at Rice University’s Baker Institute, who has seen the alert.
An indictment was unsealed in Texas federal court earlier this month that revealed that a Somali man, Ahmed Muhammed Dhakane, led a human smuggling ring that brought East Africans, including Somalis with ties to terror groups, from Brazil and across the Mexican border and into Texas.
In a separate case, Anthony Joseph Tracy, of Virginia, who admitted to having ties to Al Shabaab, is currently being prosecuted for his alleged role in an international ring that illegally brought more than 200 Somalis across the Mexican border. Prosecutors say Tracy used his Kenya-based travel business as a cover to fraudulently obtain Cuban travel documents for the Somalis. The smuggled Somalis are believed to have spread out across the United States and remain mostly at large, court records show.
(McAuleysworld: I wonder how many of these terrorists headed straight to one of our “sanctuary cities” where they can safely hide until they are activated for the next 911 style attack?)
Somalis are classified by border and immigration officials as “special interest” — illegal immigrants who get caught trying to cross the Mexican border into the U.S. who come from countries that are considered a high threat to the U.S., Neuhaus Schaan explained.
DHS did not respond to multiple e-mail and phone requests for comment.
In addition to the Somali immigration issue, Mexican smugglers are coaching some Middle Eastern immigrants before they cross the border – schooling them on how to dress and giving them phrases to help them look and sound like Latinos, law enforcement sources told FoxNews.com.
“There have been a number of certain communities that have noticed this, villages in northern Mexico where Middle Easterners try to move into town and learn Spanish,” Neuhaus Schaan said. “People were changing there names from Middle Eastern names to Hispanic names.”
Security experts say the push by illegal immigrants to try to fit in also could be the realization of what officials have feared for years: Latin American drug cartels are helping jihadist groups bring terrorists across the Mexican border.
J. Peter Pham, senior fellow and director of the Africa Project at the National Committee on American Foreign Policy, said that for the past ten years there’s been suspicion by U.S. law enforcement that drug cartels could align with international terrorist organizations to bring would-be-jihadists into the U.S.
That kind of collaboration is already being seen in Africa, said Dr. Walid Phares, director of the Future Terrorism Project at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.
McAuleysworld: Are they referring to Somalia, again, where international drug smuggling, human trafficking, piracy and Jihadism go hand in hand? My kudos to President William Jefferson Clinton, January 1993 - January 2001, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton) and his handling of Mogadishu, Somalia in October 1993. Clinton’s withdrawal of U.S. troops from Somalia on March 31, 1994 left a “free field” for the Terrorists to over run and consolidate their control of the Country when Clinton ordered a “U.S. retreat and the surrender of Somalia” to the Terrorists. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mogadishu_(1993))
“Al Qaeda could easily say, “Ok, now we want your help getting these guys into the United States,” Phares said. “Eventually the federal government will pay more attention, but there is a window of time now where they can get anyone they want to get in already.”
Experts also say the DHS alert and recent court case highlights the threat of terrorists penetrating the Mexican/Texas border — and the growing threat of Somali recruitment efforts to bring Americans of Somali descent back to Somalia for jihadist training, creating homegrown terrorists.
Pham says the DHS alert comes too late. “They’re just covering themselves for the fact that DHS has been failing to date to deal effectively with this,” he said. “They’re already here.”
Michael Weinstein, a political science professor at Purdue University and an expert on Somalia, said, “In the past year, it’s become obvious that there’s a spillover into the United States of the transnational revolutionaries in Somalia.”
“It’s something that certainly has to be watched, but I don’t think it’s an imminent threat,” he said. “This has to be put in context with people smuggling — everybody and their brother is getting into the United States through Mexico; I read last week that some Chinese were crossing, it’s just a big market.”
Pham disagrees. “The real danger is ‘something along the lines of jihadist version of ‘find a classmate,’ he said, referring to Al Shabaab’s potential to set up sleeper cells in the U.S. “Most of them rely on personal referral and association. That type of social networking is not beyond their capabilities.”
Pham says the DHS alert is too little, too late.
“This is like shutting the barn door after the horses got away,” he said.
SPECIAL ALERT FROM McAULEYSWORLD TO AMERICA’S LAW ENFORCEMENT COMMUNITY: Remember this, when you encounter one of these terrorists crossing into our Country illegally, under no circumstance should you offend these individuals by asking to see identification. It doesn’t matter what the terrorists are bringing into the Country, be it illegal weapons or illegal drugs, don’t complicate their visit into our Country by asking for identification.I’d suggest you contact your local member of the “Progressive Law Enforcement Officers Association”, the organization that recently met with Attorney General Holder in opposition to the Arizona ID Law, and arrange transit to the nearest Sanctuary City where these “Progressives” refuse to enforce our Immigration Laws. There the terrorists can safely wait for orders to carryout the next 911 style attack on our Country.
Immigration LawFor a detailed review of Arizona’s immigration law and the history of America’s immigration laws see: http://mcauleysworld.wordpress.com/2010/05/05/the-immigration-debate-arizonas-law-facts-from-fiction-are-you-tired-of-being-lied-to/ 
