Small-town mayor stoned to death in western Mexico: Drug Cartel’s Blamed for Murder of 5th City Leader

By GUSTAVO RUIZ
Associated Press Writer

MORELIA, Mexico (AP) – A small-town mayor and an aide were found stoned to death Monday in a drug-plagued western state, the fifth city leader to be slain in Mexico since mid-August.

Michoacan state Attorney General Jesus Montejano said the bodies of Tancitaro Mayor Gustavo Sanchez and city adviser Rafael Equihua were discovered in a pickup truck abandoned on a dirt road near the city of Uruapan.

Montejano’s spokesman, Jonathan Arredondo, said initially that the victims were hacked to death with a machete, but the attorney general said they were killed with stones.

Arredondo said police were trying to determine a possible motive.

Tancitaro, a town of 26,000 people, is in a region where soldiers have destroyed more than 20 meth labs in the last year and several police officers have been killed by suspected drug gang members.

Last year the city council chief, Gonzalo Paz, was kidnapped, tortured and killed. Then in December, the mayor and seven other town officials resigned saying they had been threatened by drug traffickers and local police were not showing up to work.

Soon after, the department’s entire 60-officer force was fired for failing to stop a series of killings and other crimes, and Michoacan state police and soldiers took over security in the town. Sanchez was named mayor in January.

Also Monday in Michoacan, five gunmen and a marine were killed in a shootout in Coahuayana on the Pacific coast, the navy said in a statement. A second marine was wounded, and authorities were searching for more gunmen.

Coahuayana authorities canceled school and warned people to stay indoors.

The navy said another gunbattle across the country in the Gulf coast state of Tamaulipas left eight gunmen and one marine dead in the border city of Reynosa.

Meanwhile, the Defense Department said soldiers arrested a man suspected in the kidnapping and killing of the mayor of Santiago in the border state of Nuevo Leon. It said in a statement that Miguel Cervantes was arrested Monday.

In the border state of Chihuahua, gunmen broke into a police complex, subdued the guards and stole at least 40 automatic rifles and 23 handguns, police spokesman Fidel Banuelos said.

Banuelos said 10 officers who were in the building at the time were being questioned. He said it was not clear whether the assailants were members of a drug cartel.

In Ciudad Juarez, a border city in Chihuahua, the Public Safety Department announced the capture of a drug gang member who allegedly helped set up a car bomb that killed three people.

Suspect Jose Contreras allegedly killed a man and dressed him in a police uniform to lure federal agents to the area where the car bomb exploded, killing a federal police officer and a doctor who was helping the shooting victim.

Contreras is a member of La Linea gang, which works for the Juarez drug cartel, the department said in a statement.

Ciudad Juarez, across the border from El Paso, Texas, has become one of the world’s most dangerous cities amid a turf war between the Sinaloa and Juarez cartels.

http://www.abc-7.com/Global/story.asp?S=13224935

Criminal Illegal Alien Deportees Blamed For Caribbean Crime Wave

By MIKE MELIA

Associated Press Writer

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico — The crime was horrifying enough – a nightclub owner, hacked to death with a machete, was found buried in pieces. But what really outraged people was that the accused killer had been deported from the U.S. to his native Grenada as a convicted felon.

As a foreign-bred criminal, the suspect never should have returned to the close-knit tropical nation, relatives of the victim and others said. Islanders called for more vigilance over deportees by the government, which says it needs help from Washington to handle the return of hardened convicts.

“I hope that my brother did not die in vain and something can be done to monitor these criminal deportees,” said Gemma Raeburn-Baynes, a sister of the nightclub owner, Michael Raeburn-Delfish.

The United States has deported thousands of convicted criminals to the Caribbean annually since 1996, when Congress mandated that every non-citizen sentenced to a year or more in prison be kicked out of the country upon release. In all, the U.S. is responsible for about three-quarters of the region’s returning criminal deportees, with the United Kingdom and Canada accounting for most of the other ex-cons arriving in the islands.

It’s a phenomenon that also afflicts many parts of Central America, where street gangs that grew out of Los Angeles spread to the region through massive deportations. Brutal and powerful, the “Maras” are blamed for rampant violent crime, extortion and more recently acting as enforcers for drug cartels.

In the Caribbean, governments say deportees are exacerbating crime in nations with high levels of violence such as Jamaica. On the smaller islands such as Grenada, once considered idyllic havens from gang violence, officials say the returning deportees are partly to blame for increasingly bold and sophisticated crimes and homicide rates soaring to record levels.

The United States is attempting to defuse tensions with island governments by exploring programs to help them reintegrate deportees. During a visit to Barbados in June, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said the U.S. is no longer ignoring complaints that have topped the Caribbean’s diplomatic agenda for more than a decade.

U.S. officials say privately that the deportations cannot be blamed for the increase in violent crime, but declined to discuss the issue on the record, saying the U.S. does not want to hurt relations with Caribbean governments with which it cooperates on other issues.

The man accused in the machete attack in Grenada, Ronald Michael Phillip, 55, was deported from the United States on July 6, 2000, the day after leaving a state prison in Uncasville, Connecticut, where he had spent more than six years.

Island police know only the rough outline of his life abroad: Phillip moved overseas in 1986 and lived in Canada and Brooklyn, New York, before moving to New London, Connecticut. He was arrested in December 1993 on assault and drug charges.

But the officer who found Raeburn-Delfish’s severed head and limbs in three shallow pits on Sept. 5 said the nature of the murder led him to believe the suspect was a practiced killer.

“He had a level of experience with dealing with dead people or animals,” forensics expert Trevor Modeste said. “We don’t usually have crime like that. We don’t usually have planned and executed murders.”

Modeste said his suspicions were confirmed when Phillip, known locally as Ronald de Ally, boasted to police that he killed and buried two people in the United States who were never found.

Grenada police spokesman Troy Garvey said that claim has not been verified. Garvey said investigators’ focus is on solving Raeburn-Delfish’s slaying, but they will pass anything they learn about crimes in the U.S. to the appropriate jurisdiction.

Raeburn-Delfish was Phillip’s landlord, but no motive has been established in the slaying. Phillip, who is charged with murder, did not have an attorney at his first court appearance.

At the heart of the problem is the disparity of wealth between the United States, where migrants often learn their criminal ways, and their poor homelands, where jobs are scarce and police resources are limited. Moreover, islanders who often left their native lands as children return to countries they barely recognize, with no remaining family.

Jean Nemorin, 47, who returned to Haiti in 2008, more than three decades after he arrived in the United States with his family at age 11, said there is a stigma attached to people like him when locals learn of their criminal past, making it tough to find work or a place to live.

“I struggled to feed myself for the first six months,” Nemorin said. He declined to describe his conviction in the United States but said he is crime-free today, operating a moto-taxi in Port-au-Prince that he bought with money from relatives overseas.

The biggest impact has been in heavily populated countries like Jamaica, where deportees are suspected in several violent crimes each week, according to Leslie Green, an assistant police commissioner.

But smaller islands are increasingly leading the calls for help from Washington. A Grenada government spokesman, Richard Simon, said they lack the counseling, monitoring and housing services needed to absorb deportees with serious criminal records.

In Dominica, at least one criminal deportee is suspected in a recent pair of brazen, daylight robberies by masked men, Security Minister Charles Savarin said.

In St. Lucia, an island of 170,000 people that received 18 criminal deportees from the U.S. last year, Security Minister Guy Mayers said some of the convicts were apparently recruited into local drug rings that exploit their contacts from overseas prisons.

“We are not responsible for them becoming monsters,” Mayers said. “We need support to be able to rehabilitate these people.”

In 2007, the U.S. launched a pilot program managed by the United Nations’ International Organization for Migration to help reintegrate deportees. The $3 million project provided services including career counseling and housing assistance in Haiti, Guyana and the Bahamas.

U.S. officials say they hope that effort will be the starting point for a regional discussion, but no money has been assigned so far to keep the program going.

Island governments say the deportee issue will remain a sticking point with Washington until they see more action.

“I raise this with U.S. authorities every chance I get,” Mayers said.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/09/25/1841717_p2/caribbean-crime-wave-linked-to.html#ixzz10XkKpA1l

McAuley’s World Comment:

Under what theory are American taxpayers obligated to pay for the incarceration of a foreign national who commits a crime in his nation of origin … First, the individual enters the U.S. illegally, then they commit are caught and convicted of criminal activity in the United States. Then they serve the sentence prescribed by American Courts at the expense of American taxpayers before being returned to their Country of origin when they return to criminal activities …. Isn’t this a basic prerequisite of a civilized nation or government? To protect it’s citizens from the criminal element, foreign or domestic, within it’s borders?

SECURE BORDERS: Obama Administration – Fails To Address Home Grown Terrorist Issue, Reports 9-11 Commission Authors

Report: US must deal with domestic radical problem

WASHINGTON – The U.S. was slow to take seriously the threat posed by homegrown radicals and the government has failed to put systems in place to deal with the growing phenomenon, according to a new report compiled by the former heads of the Sept. 11 Commission.

The report says U.S. authorities failed to realize that Somali-American youths traveling from Minnesota to Mogadishu in 2008 to join extremists was not an isolated issue. Instead, the movement was one among several instances of a broader, more diverse threat that has surfaced across the country.

“Our long-held belief that homegrown terrorism couldn’t happen here has thus created a situation where we are today stumbling blindly through the legal, operational and organizational minefield of countering terrorist radicalization and recruitment occurring in the United States,” said the report, which was obtained by The Associated Press.

As a result, there is still no federal agency specifically charged with identifying radicalization or working to prevent terrorist recruitment of U.S. citizens and residents, said the report, slated to be released Friday by the Washington-based Bipartisan Policy Center’s National Security Preparedness Group.

The group, headed by former 9-11 commission leaders Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton, laid out a detailed description of domestic terror incidents ranging from the Fort Hood, Texas, shooting spree and the attempted Christmas Day airliner attack in late 2009 to last May’s botched truck bombing in New York’s Times Square.

Over the past year, terrorism experts and government officials have warned of the threat posed by homegrown radicals, saying terror recruits who go abroad could return to the U.S. to carry out attacks.

But the U.S., the group said, should have learned earlier from Britain’s experience. Prior to the 2005 London suicide bombings, the British believed that Muslims there were better integrated, educated and wealthier than their counterparts elsewhere.

Similarly, the U.S. believed that its melting pot of nationalities and religions would protect it from internal radical strife, the report said.

The terrorists, said the report, may have discovered America’s “Achilles’ heel in that we currently have no strategy to counter the type of threat posed by homegrown terrorists and other radicalized recruits.”

The report also points to an “Americanization” of the leadership of al-Qaida and its allied groups, noting that radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who had links with suspects in the failed Times Square bombing and the Fort Hood shootings, grew up in New Mexico. And Chicagoan David Headley played a role in scoping the targets for the Lashkar-e-Taiba attacks on Mumbai in late 2008 that killed more than 160.

Abroad, Al-Qaida, its affiliates and other extremist groups have splintered and spread, seeking safe havens in undergoverned areas of Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and places in North and East Africa. That diversified threat has intensified as militants reach out to potential recruits through the Internet.

Assessing future threats, the report lists potential future domestic targets, including passenger jets, western or American hotel chains, Jewish or Israeli sites and U.S. soldiers, even at their own bases in America.

And it also warns that it is no longer wise to believe that American extremists will not resort to suicide bombings. As an example they point to Army Maj. Nidal Hasan, who has been charged with killing 13 people and wounding 32 in last year’s shootings at Fort Hood, saying he had written about suicide operations in e-mails, and that his attack appeared to be one.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700064357/Report-US-must-deal-with-domestic-radical-problem.html?s_cid=rss-5

McAuleys World:

First we must secure our borders … Then Prsident Obama could always schedule a “beer summit” with the Countries enemies …. or maybe he can schedule a “beer sunnit” with America’s original domestic terrorists, those like Bill Ayers who have already participated in random, violent and lethal attacks on American facilities, motivated by hatred and blind rage …. then again, President Obama has had lots of “beer summits” with Ayers … while Ayers helped him plan his early political campaigns ….

“Ayers, born in 1944, was raised in a Chicago suburb. He became active in the anti-war leftist group, Students for a Democratic Society, while he was a student at the University of Michigan in the mid- 1960s. In 1969, Ayers helped lead a group that splintered off from SDS, Weatherman (known as the Weathermen). The group set off a number of bombs against U.S. targets in the early 1970s, earning it the label of “domestic terrorist organization” from the FBI.”

Notable Attacks:

  • 1970: Bombing of New York City Police Headquarters
  • 1971: Bombing of U.S. Capitol Building
  • 1972: Bombing of Pentagon
  •  

    http://terrorism.about.com/od/groupsleader1/p/Bill_Ayers.htm

    Bill Ayers 1968 Police Photo

    On the SDS, Communism and Anarcho-Communists: An internal battle of SDS ideology. http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard122.html

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Rudd

    “in March 1970 following the Greenwich Village townhouse explosion, an incident in which three members of the organization died when an explosive device, intended for a servicemen’s ball, detonated prematurely. Among the dead were Terry Robbins, Diana Oughton, and Ted Gold … and according to some Weatherman members like Bill Ayers, build an underground revolutionary movement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Rudd

    The new organization was intent on overthrowing the government through violent actions. Spreading communism was a priority for the members of Weather, as when Rudd told other members of SDS, “ Don’t be timid about telling people we’re Communist. Don’t deny it, be proud of it.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Rudd

    Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) was founded by Aryeh Neier (Director of the socialist League for Industrial Democracy) in 1960. Its principles were elaborated by Tom Hayden in the Port Huron Statement of 1962, which adopted the position of “anti-anti-Communism,” refusing to support the West in the Cold War. What began as a movement to involve the largest possible number of American students in the democratic processes had become by 1969, as a contemporaneous FBI memo summarizes, “an organization totally dedicated to the destruction of American society…In the span of seven years, the SDS had evolved into a hard line Marxist-Leninist-Maoist organization dedicated to the destruction of Western democratic traditions and ideals.”

    Several prominent SDS members organized Progressives for Obama in March of 2008. Among the organizers are Carl Davidson, Mark Rudd, and Todd Gitlin; while several Klonsky family members are represented, Mike Klonsky is conspicuously absent from the signers. http://www.conservapedia.com/Students_for_a_Democratic_Society

    SDS was an important subject within the Soviet directed and funded Communist Party USA (CPUSA) in early 1968.

    By 1974 Maoism had supplanted the Soviet ideological doctrine guiding many New Left groups willing to use violence to achieve socialist revolution. In Prairie Fire, Ayers, Dohrn and Jeff Jones identified the WUO primary strategy on the side of Maoist thought in the following way,

    The Chinese Revolution is a wonderful development in the advance of humanity. Mao Tse-tung and the Chinese Communist Party have made many important breakthroughs in developing revolutionary strategy in the semi-feudal, semi-colonial world. The thought common to Mao and Ho Chi-minh – that the central revolutionary force of our time is the oppressed nations and peoples of the world leading the liberation struggle against imperialism – is the guiding strategic principle of this era.”

    http://www.conservapedia.com/Students_for_a_Democratic_Society

     

    Mao Zedong: Mao remains a controversial figure to this day, with a contentious and ever-evolving legacy. He is officially held in high regard in China as a great revolutionary, political strategist, military mastermind, and savior of the nation. Conversely, Mao’s social-political programs, such as the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, are blamed for costing millions of lives, causing severe famine and damage to the culture, society and economy of China. Mao’s policies and political purges from 1949 to 1976 are widely believed to have caused the deaths of between 40 to 70 million people. Since Deng Xiaoping assumed power in 1978, many Maoist policies have been abandoned in favour of economic reforms.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_Zedong

    Mao was killing between 40 to 70 million of his own people at precisely the time AYERS and SDS adopted Ma0ist’s ideology …

    Mao as a supporter of human right’s policies … Mao as a supporter of civil rights …. what a crock!   

    Obama’s Solution To Secure Our Borders: After Months of Delay – 30 National Guard Troops Will Arrive In Arizona Monday – But They Won’t Have Any Law Enforcement Authority…

    McAuley’s World Comment:Read it and weep …. Thankfully the November election is only 60 days away … What a “spin job” …

     Guard troops to deploy to Arizona border on Monday

    PHOENIX – The first of 532 National Guard troops are set to begin their mission in the southern Arizona desert on Monday under President Barack Obama’s plan to beef up U.S.-Mexico border security, although they won’t have any law enforcement authority.About 30 troops will start their jobs on the border Monday, and waves of more troops will be deploying every Monday until all 532 are expected to be on the Arizona border by the end of September. In May, Obama ordered 1,200 National Guard

    Shhh ... but They Won’t Have Any Law Enforcement Authority…

     troops to boost security along the border…. [120 days to deploy 30 troops who are reporting on station without the authority necessary to do the job … what a Commander … what a Leader …  you’ve heard the old saying, “Never send a Community Organizer to do a man’s job …]

    The troops will be “extra eyes and ears” for U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents, and though they will have guns for self-defense, they will not have the authority to arrest anyone, said Arizona National Guard spokesman Lt. Valentine Castillo. [Exactly what are the “rules of engagement” – see the first video below]

    He said if troops spot illegal immigrants, they must report them to the Border Patrol, whose agents would make the arrest.

    The troops will be stationed in the desert at “strategic locations” along the border, he said, but did not provide specifics.

    Mario Escalante, a spokesman for the Border Patrol’s Tucson sector, said the troops will use binoculars, night-vision equipment, remote cameras and computers to conduct surveillance on the border, and will have radios to communicate with Border Patrol agents.

    They’ll be set up at high points in various locations in the desert, he said.

    Read the full story here:  

    Remember this account of our National Guard being “detailed” to the border without proper authorization … without proper “Rules of Engagement” … the 6000 National Guard Troops mentioned in this report were sent home by Obama’s Atttorney General Holder almost two years ago …come Monday their 30 replacements will arrive …

    and this report

    We need an Administration that will be serious about securing our borders … Vote in November …

    Obama On Border Patrol

    The Immigration Debate; The Arizona Law & Its Place In The History Of American Immigration Laws

    Enough already with the race baiting from the left …..

    Arizona’s new law is neither unconstitutional nor does Arizona’s new law call for racial profiling.

    For a discussion of Arizona’s new “immigration law” see  https://mcauleysworld.wordpress.com/2010/05/05/the-immigration-debate-arizonas-law-facts-from-fiction-are-you-tired-of-being-lied-to/     or https://mcauleysworld.wordpress.com/2010/05/14/el-debate-de-inmigracion-la-ley-de-arizona-hechos-de-la-ficcion-%c2%bfesta-cansado-de-que-nos-mientan/ 

    THE CURRENT POLITICAL SPIN

    The left is trying to create a poltical advantage and distract the American public from the real issues of unemployment a faltering economy and rising crime rates with fabricated claims of racism in the new Arizona law, a law which is incorrectly being called an “immigration law” when in fact the law focuses on the prevention of criminal acts and the enforcement of exisiting criminal laws. See: https://mcauleysworld.wordpress.com/2010/05/05/the-immigration-debate-arizonas-law-facts-from-fiction-are-you-tired-of-being-lied-to/     or  https://mcauleysworld.wordpress.com/2010/05/14/el-debate-de-inmigracion-la-ley-de-arizona-hechos-de-la-ficcion-%c2%bfesta-cansado-de-que-nos-mientan/ 

    The race baiters are not interested in uniting our neighborhoods, healing our wounds or bringing people together, for making our Country a safer place for all, for bringing an end to the illegal drug smuggling or sexual trafficking trade, for ending 21st century slavery ……. they are hoping to bring destruction, to destroy communities and to divide the people for their own personal gain.  

    Earliest History of America’s Immigration Laws

    The United States Constitution was adopted in 1789. Congress adopted the first “immigration law” one year later in 1790 when it granted citizenship to the first “immigrants”. Subsequent legislation passed in the 1790’s required prospective citizens to renounce or give up former allegiances to other “Sovereign Nations” and to surrender titles of nobility granted by foreign monarchs prior to being granted citizenship in our great country. 

    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.

    A total of 10 million 250 thousand people “immigrated” to the United States between 1790 and 1875. 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 1903 the United States added “anarchists” to the list of those to be “denied entry” into the United States. An anarchist is someone who who seeks to overturn, by violence, all constituted forms and institutions of society and government, with no purpose of establishing any other system of order in the place of that destroyed. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anarchists

    In 1918 Congress expanded this exclusion when it enacted the “Anarchist Act” which expanded the definition of those to be denied entry to include,  “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. 

    The Sovereign Right To Regulate Immigration

    All sovereign nations have the right to regulate immigration.

    See: The Human Rights Library of the University of Minnesota: http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/immigrationlaw/chapter2.html

    “The broad power of the federal government to regulate the admission, removal, and naturalization of non-citizens has its roots in the early history of the United States. Modern statutes, Supreme Court decisions, and federal agency regulations attest to the plenary (plenary = unlimited or full) nature of this power.” http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/immigrationlaw/chapter2.html

    THE SOURCE OF THE FEDERAL POWER 

    Throughout the history of the United States the Supreme Court has upheld all manner of federal statutes regulating immigration. By contrast, Supreme Court decisions preclude states from passing legislation that directly impinges on this area of federal dominion. The Supreme Court’s basis for action is clear when the area regulated is naturalization. Article 1, § 8, clause 4, of the United States Constitution specifically grants Congress the power to establish a “uniform Rule of Naturalization.” By expressly allocating this power to Congress, the Constitution prevents the confusion that would result if individual states could bestow citizenship. The Constitution does not, however, explicitly provide that the power to deny admission or remove non-citizens rests with the federal government as opposed to state governments. In the early immigration cases the Supreme Court faced the problem of identifying the source of the federal government’s exclusive and plenary power over immigration. Ultimately the Supreme Court found the plenary power to be an inherent sovereign power. http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/immigrationlaw/chapter2.html

    Early cases cite specific constitutional provisions to support the inference that the federal government possesses complete power over international relations, including immigration matters. In addition to citing the foreign commerce power, the Supreme Court in Nishimura Ekiu v. United States (Sup.Ct.1892) cites the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization; the power to declare war, and to provide and maintain armies and navies; and the power to make all laws necessary and proper. The Fong Yue Ting v. United States (Sup.Ct.1893) case adds the power to define and punish piracies, felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations. http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/immigrationlaw/chapter2.html

    The Migration and Importation Clause in Article I, § 9, clause 1, provides: “The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight….”. The specific limit on congressional power before 1808 could be construed to imply that after 1808, Congress would have power over migration and importation. http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/immigrationlaw/chapter2.html

    The War Power, found in Article I, § 8, clause 11, is an additional source of federal control over immigration. The War Power gives Congress the authority to “declare war.” The War Power authorized the exclusion and expulsion of enemy aliens. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of such provisions in Ludecke v. Watkins (Sup.Ct.1948).

    National Sovereignty

    The United States Supreme Court ultimately found the source of the federal power to regulate immigration in a combination of international and constitutional legal principles. The Chinese Exclusion Case (Sup.Ct.1889) was the first case to hold that the federal power to exclude non-citizens is an incident of national sovereignty. The Court reasoned that every national government has the inherent authority to protect the national public interest. Immigration is a matter of vital national concern. Furthermore, it is the role of the federal government to oversee matters of national concern, while it is the province of the states to govern local matters. Therefore, the Court found that the inherent sovereign power to regulate immigration clearly resides in the federal government.

    Subsequent cases reinforced national sovereignty as the source of federal power to control immigration and consistently reasserted the plenary and unqualified scope of this power.

    Fong Yue Ting v. United States (Sup.Ct.1893) explicitly held that the power to expel or deport (now “remove”) non-citizens rests upon the same ground as the exclusion power and is equally “absolute and unqualified.”

    “To be a sovereign nation, a people must have control over its territory. Without such control, a nation would be unable to govern itself and its borders effectively, and as a result, would be subject to the sovereignty of other nations. The power to regulate immigration is therefore inherent in the Constitution’s creation of a sovereign nation.” 

    THE SCOPE OF THE FEDERAL POWER

    To date there have been no successful challenges to federal legislation that refuses admission to classes of non-citizens or removes resident aliens. Federal immigration power thus appears limitless. Indeed, the Supreme Court has stated: “[O]ver no conceivable subject is the legislative power of Congress more complete.” Fiallo v. Bell (Sup.Ct.1977), Kleindienst v. Mandel, (Sup.Ct.1972), and Oceanic Steam Nav. Co. v. Stranahan (Sup.Ct.1909). Extreme judicial deference bears witness to the truth of this statement.

    The United States Constitution & The United Nations Charter

    The Constitution and the U.N. Charter have been dismissed as grounds for opposing federal immigration power. The federal courts and immigration authorities have without much consideration rejected an assertion in Hitai v. INS (2d Cir.1965), Vlissidis v. Anadell (7th Cir.1959), and Matter of Laurenzano (BIA 1970) that the immigration quota system is inconsistent with the U.N. Charter. The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of federal statutes that detain non-citizens for the brief period necessary for their removal proceedings (Demore v. Kim (Sup.Ct.2003)) and that exclude non-citizens on the basis of race (Chinese Exclusion Case (1889)) and political belief (Kleindienst v. Mandel (Sup.Ct.1972)). Moreover, excluded non-citizens have no constitutional right to a hearing. Shaughnessy v. Mezei (Sup.Ct.1953). Mezei also determined that excludable non-citizens can be indefinitely detained if their country of origin refuses to accept them.

    THE FUNCTIONS OF THE THREE BRANCHES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN REGULATING IMMIGRATION

    The plenary and unqualified power of the federal government to regulate immigration, naturalization, and related foreign policy belongs to Congress. The possible international consequences of decisions in this area have made the federal judiciary extremely reluctant to substitute its judgment for the legislature’s. Justice Jackson articulated the Court’s position in Harisiades v. Shaughnessy (Sup.Ct.1952): “[A]ny policy towards aliens is vitally and intricately interwoven with contemporaneous policies in regard to the conduct of foreign relations, the war power, and the maintenance of a republican form of government. Such matters are so exclusively entrusted to the political branches of government as to be largely immune from judicial inquiry or interference.” Subsequent decisions echo this sentiment. Since the judiciary poses no obstacle, Congress has been historically free to “exclude aliens altogether or prescribe the terms and conditions upon which they may enter and stay in this country.” Lapina v. Williams (Sup.Ct.1914).

    For example, Congress exercised its plenary authority in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (“IIRIRA”) that facilitated the removal of non-citizens.

    The Supreme Court and the Paths To Citizenship

    The Fourteenth Amendment “contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only, birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law.” United States v. Wong Kim Ark (Sup.Ct.1898). As with exclusion and deportation (now “inadmissibility” and “removal”), the Supreme Court has accorded great deference to the naturalization guidelines set by Congress. In United States v. Ginsberg (1917) the Court stated, “An alien who seeks political rights as a member of this nation can rightfully obtain them only upon the terms and conditions specified by Congress. Courts are without authority to sanction changes or modifications; their duty is rigidly to enforce the legislative will….” In cases involving classifications in the naturalization process, the Court has given a near absolute presumption of validity to distinctions drawn by Congress.

    Congress has been historically free to “exclude aliens altogether or prescribe the terms and conditions upon which they may enter and stay in this country.” Lapina v. Williams (Sup.Ct.1914).

    The Executive Branch and Immigration

    As in other areas of the law, the function of executive agencies in the field of immigration is to enforce the legislation passed by Congress. The Executive Branch is not empowered to create Immigration Policy.

    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 covicted 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 of undocumented entrants who had arrived prior to January 1, 1982.

    In response to the demand for foreign agricultural labor, IRCA created a program that granted temporary and permanent resident status to qualified agricultural workers.

    The IRCA did not substantially restructure the immigration law as it pertains to immigration quotas or the requirements for admission.

    Another major goal of IRCA was improvement of enforcement and services. The act increased border patrol as well as other enforcement activities of the INS to deter unlawful entry of aliens into the U.S..

    In exchange for the increased enforcement provisions of IRCA, Congress offered a broad amnesty for many undocumented non-citizens already present in the country. The one-time, limited amnesty program allowed qualified non-citizens who met its strict deadlines to obtain permanent resident status. To qualify, non-citizens were required to show that they had entered the United States before January 1, 1982, and had resided unlawfully and continuously in the United States from that date until the date they applied for amnesty. Non-citizens who entered with a valid nonimmigrant status that later expired could also qualify for amnesty by showing that their unlawful status was known to the U.S. government. Applicants were specifically required to (1) have been physically present in the U.S. since November 1986, except for “brief, casual, and innocent” absences; (2) meet most of the requirements of immigrant admissibility to the United States; (3) have not been convicted of any felony or of three or more misdemeanors committed in the United States; (4) have not assisted in any form of persecution; and (5) register for the draft, if required to do so.

    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. To adjust to permanent resident status, applicants were again required to meet the criteria for permanent residence and also meet minimal English and civics requirements.

    IRCA mandated procedures to ensure strict confidentiality. The Act allowed voluntary organizations to receive applications and forward them to the INS. Whether a non-citizen applied through such an organization or directly to the INS, access to information in the applications was restricted to INS officers with no deportation responsibilities and the INS could only use the information to make a determination on the application or impose penalties for false statements.

    Despite these precautions, 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. Appropriations were also included to compensate state and local governments for other public assistance and medical benefits conferred upon people granted amnesty, as well as for the costs of incarcerating undocumented non-citizens and “Mariel” Cubans.

    IRCA also established a separate program for granting temporary and permanent status to qualified agricultural workers. This program was the result of agribusiness pressure for greater availability of such farm workers.

    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 800,000.

    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 “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.

    http://www.ilw.com/immigrationdaily/news/2009,1026-crs.pdf

     WHAT IS A SANCTUARY CITY?

    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.”

    http://www.takomaparkmd.gov/clerk/agenda/items/2007/102907-2.pdf

    The intent of the Tacoma Park, Maryland statute is obvious, a liberal attempt to usurp the Federal Governements authoirty 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.

    Department of Homeland Security

    In November 2002, Congress passed the Homeland Security Act (116 Stat. 2135), which abolished the Immigration and Naturalization Service and transferred most immigration functions to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). As suggested by the Commission on Immigration Reform some years earlier (see § 1-7.6, supra), the INS’ service and enforcement functions were separated in this reorganization. These functions have been divided among three bureaus within the DHS: the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), which adjudicates immigrant and nonimmigrant petitions, naturalization petitions, asylum applications, and other matters; the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), which includes the Border Patrol and immigration inspections at ports of entry; and the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which enforces immigration laws in the interior of the U.S..

    Restrictions on Immigration

    The USA Patriot Act (115 Stat. 272) broadened the definition of terrorist as used in the grounds for inadmissibility and removal. Under this Act, anyone who endorses or provides financial support to a terrorist organization, or who actually participates in terrorist activities, is inadmissible or removable.

    To identify possible terrorists, U.S. consulates are required to check visa applicants’ names against “lookout lists” prior to issuing a visa.

    Monitoring of Non-Citizens in the U.S.

    After September 11, the INS was criticized for its inability to track non-citizens in the U.S. or to identify persons who might pose a threat to national security. In 2002, the INS promulgated regulations requiring nonimmigrants from twenty-five countries to register at INS district offices and report periodically as to their whereabouts and activities in the U.S. See § 8-2.2(c), infra. That same year, the INS and the State Department implemented a new database system, called “SEVIS” to track foreign students. Immigration authorities also began to enforce change of address reporting requirements that had been part of the INA since 1952 but were rarely publicized or enforced.

    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.”

    http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ca50_bilbray/morenews/drakeamend.shtml

    The Democratically controlled U.S. Senate blocked a vote on the Drake Amendment in 2007 & 2008.

    THE ARIZONA LAW 2009

    See: https://mcauleysworld.wordpress.com/2010/05/05/the-immigration-debate-arizonas-law-facts-from-fiction-are-you-tired-of-being-lied-to/

    The State of Arizona passed Arizona House Bill 2162 and it was signed into law on April 26, 2010. http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/hb2162c.htm

    On the day the law wasssigned 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.4

    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.7 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

    IMMIGRATION 2010

    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 ( 1 million, 130 thousand, 8 hundred and eighteen) for the year ending December 2009.

    An additional 1,000,000 immigrants were granted the rights of “Naturalized Citizens” in 2009. http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/natz_fr_2009.pdf

    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.

    Why America needs To Have Secure Borders & Voter ID Laws – Stop Human & Drug Trafficking Across Our Borders

    Armed men kidnap 27 farmworkers in Mexico

    CULIACAN, Mexico – Police hunted Tuesday for 27 farmworkers who were kidnapped in northwestern Mexico by dozens of heavily armed men wearing military-style uniforms.

    Assailants roused the farmworkers from bed before dawn Monday at a vegetable farm just outside the Sinaloa state capital of Culiacan, then drove off with the group in a caravan of sport utility vehicles, according to a statement from state Attorney General Alfredo Higuera.

    The victims, all men between 16 and 61 years old, made less than $10 per day.

    Higuera said the motive in the mass kidnapping was still being investigated. But local news media reported that a drug gang may have kidnapped the men to make them work growing marijuana.

    The owner of the vegetable camp has family ties to Vicente Carrillo Fuentes, a suspected leader of the Juarez drug cartel, according to a statement from the office of joint police and military operations in Culiacan.

    Also Tuesday, 21 police were arrested in the northern border city of Tijuana on suspicion of working with criminal gangs, said Rommel Moreno, attorney general of Baja California state, where Tijuana is located. Two of the officers were state police and the rest came from municipal ranks, Moreno said.

    Moreno declined to release further details of the case to avoid compromising the investigation.

    Police corruption is a key impediment to Mexico’s efforts to root out drug gangs and other criminal groups.

    More than 4,000 people have been killed across the country this year as cartels battle for drug routes and lash back at President Felipe Calderon’s national crackdown on organized crime.

    On Tuesday, the body of a 28-year-old man was dumped in an empty lot in the beach resort of Rosarito, outside Tijuana. The victim was still carrying a loaded gun.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081112/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/lt_mexico_violence;_ylt=AuOB0oFy5gbuU_VzCFPC7vwDW7oF

    WITHOUT VOTER ID LAWS THESE SAME PEOPLE WILL BE ELECTING OFFICIALS ON THE US SIDE OF THE BORDER.

    To Read More On Human Trafficking SEE:

    http://www.humantrafficking.org/combat_trafficking

    http://www.unfpa.org/gender/violence1.htm

    http://www.salvationarmyusa.org/trafficking

    Human trafficking is the third most profitable criminal activity, following only drug and arms trafficking. An estimated 9.5 billion is generated in annual revenue from all trafficking activities, with at least $4 billion attributed to the worldwide brothel industry. [Based on 2005 Statistics]

    Each year, an estimated 600,000 to 800,000 men, women, and children are trafficked across international borders (some international and non-governmental organizations place the number far higher), and the trade is growing. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/ncvrw/2005/pg5l.html

    Trafficking in persons is modern-day slavery, involving victims who are forced, defrauded or coerced into labor or sexual exploitation. Annually, about 600,000 to 800,000 people — mostly women and children — are trafficked across national borders which does not count millions trafficked within their own countries.

    People are snared into trafficking by many means. In some cases, physical force is used. In other cases, false promises are made regarding job opportunities or marriages in foreign countries to entrap victims. Human trafficking is a multi-dimensional threat: it deprives people of their human rights and freedoms, it is a global health risk, and it fuels the growth of organized crime. http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/rls/33109.htm

    %d bloggers like this: