A borderline case against the immigration law in Arizona - CSMonitor.com

A borderline case against the immigration law in Arizona - CSMonitor.com

TeamObama's court fight against Arizona's immigration status validity check law is obviously grounded in politics, not a legitimate and essential requirement to enforce existing federal laws. Stronger border security is favored by a vast majority of Americans and in recent polls nearly 70% support the Arizona law. Border security has been sadly neglected by TeamObama and catering to Hispanic voters is the obvious reason for the legal battle.

"...Arizona was also careful to anchor its statute in federal law, aiming to complement Washington’s efforts rather than work against them. No new requirements, for example, are imposed on aliens. (The Justice Department decided not to make a federal case out of concerns about possible racial profiling by Arizona police.)

The law, SB 1070, also does not preempt the federal role of defining the admission, authorization, or deportation of aliens. In fact, it builds on Supreme Court rulings that have long recognized the rights of states to discourage illegal immigration.

Rather than see the Arizona law as an obstacle to better enforcement, Obama must start to work better with the states as partners. As the often-quoted federal judge Learned Hand once wrote, “it would be unreasonable to suppose that [the federal government’s] purpose was to deny itself any help that the states may allow.”

Illegal Immigration

Illegal immigration seems not to be an important issue with President-elect Obama...or with Senator McCain for that matter. It never was a campaign issue. Perhaps they entered a pact not to talk about it. The media never asked about it. They were obviously complicit in the pact. Sad! Pandering of the worst sort to Latino voters.

I perfectly understand they both wanted Latino votes, but to avoid the issue is just wrong!

Toleration and Islamic Law - WSJ.com

This from the Wall Street Journal (Subscription may be required to view the complete article) earlier in the week. The archbishop is far off base to think that more than one legal system can exist in a democracy. England and the other countries with large Muslim populations should be clear and crisp on this issue. Only one legal system is possible in a democracy. Otherwise the democracy begins a slide down slippery slope to chaos or worse.

"The archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, earned an unusual rebuke from British Prime Minister Gordon Brown last week for suggesting that some version of Islamic -- "Shariah" -- law would inevitably be introduced in Britain. Even in rejecting the idea, however, Mr. Brown noted that some aspects of Shariah could be accommodated on a "case-by-case" basis.

This exchange highlights an issue that is fast reaching a boiling point in Britain and other Western countries with increasingly assertive Muslim communities. Can a modern democracy house more than one legal system, even on a limited basis, and remain a democracy as we have come to understand that term over the past two centuries?.."

"...Permitting any portion of the body politic to have its legal rights defined by community, rather than citizenship, would be a giant step backward. It is by no means clear how Western societies could practice such accommodation, even on a limited basis, without undercutting their social compact."

(Messrs. Rivkin and Casey served in the U.S. Justice Department under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.)

The Economist piece on the subject skillfully points out the fallacy of creating more than one legal system in a democracy. Acuiescence would play right into the hands of those who would detroy democracy...and the demographics are on the side of the Muslims. Thew archbishop had best keep his mouth shut on this subject.

Toleration and Islamic Law - WSJ.com

Homeland Security proposes delayed Real ID rollout | Tech news blog - CNET News.com

The debate will continue to rage, but the fundamental need for security and identification of people who live in the United States has not changed. The ACLU and privacy advocates will always oppose any ID program. So will the immigration (legal or otherwise) advocates. This effort wisely, recommended by the 9/11 Commission, should be implemented as soon as feasible. I find no compelling argument from the opponents.

I think the time has come for a national ID card. I see no harm in the information that it's proposed to contain. Identification of persons, with that ID having been verified by an authorized agency of government, is a valid need in any modern society, particularly one that is under attack and in a war with Radical Islamic terrorists who have shown themselves willing and able to kill thousands of us.

"Arguably the biggest change in the final rule is the timeline. States will generally have a larger chunk of time, broken into "milestones," to become compliant with the new standards. Earlier in the planning process, Homeland Security had envisioned requiring the IDs to be in place starting on May 11, 2008--and no later than 2013--unless states had applied for an extension.

The final rule dictates that by the end of 2009, states will have to complete certain checks on all residents who apply for driver's licenses, such as verifying against Homeland Security databases that the cardholders have legal immigration status and ensuring that the Social Security number provided matches with Social Security Administration records. States will also have to conduct background checks on motor vehicles employees "to ensure licenses are not issued by corrupt insiders."

By May 11, 2011, states are expected to have methods in place to verify that the identity documents provided by driver's license applicants, such as birth certificates, are valid. They'll also be expected to start issuing Real ID-compliant licenses by then, if not sooner.

By Dec. 1, 2014, all Americans under the age of 50 will be expected to present Real ID-compliant licenses when boarding airplanes and entering federal buildings. Exactly three years later, all Americans, regardless of age, will have to meet those requirements."

Homeland Security proposes delayed Real ID rollout Tech news blog - CNET News.com

What Part of ‘Illegal’ Don’t You Understand? - New York Times

Mr. Downes' rant about the word illegal as it applies to those living in this country illegally is an absurdity. Illegal aliens is a perfectly correct description of those who are in this country and have broken our laws to be here. I suppose its helpful to be exposed to all the views about this immense problem. But most Americans , Mr. Downes excluded, seem to understand the reality that we have not enforced our immigration laws nor secured our borders. Shame on us, but the 'illegals' are still illegal.

There is much debate about the problem and what to do about it, but there should be little about the descriptive adjective applied to those who have not followed our rules.

I can sympathize with the plight we and the millions of illegals face, and I understand all the arguments about amnesty, economic impacts, justice, fairness, etc., ad nauseam.

Mr. Downes would have us believe there is something sinister and nasty about the word. It does not 'pollute the debate' as he alleges. Words have meaning and illegal aliens is a proper use of the language.

Mr. Downes suggests no better descriptor or a solution to the problem. His rant is foolish and silly.

Immigration Malpractice - New York Times

Immigration Malpractice - New York Times

If the Times has its facts right, this is one more example of why our government could not be trusted to to the right thing on immigration matters...and another good reason for dumping the immigration bill last week. If the government badly screws up legal immigration, how can we trust them to do well with illegals?

The remedy: tight border security first with fences if necessary; implement legal immigration fairly and effectively; then take steps to deal with illegals already here. Stern measures with employers and 'no benefits' for illegals should be the approach, including a fool-proof identification card or system for those who are here legally. Catch and deport should be the MO. It may seem harsh, but without stern measures, the problem will never be solved. Unfortunately, some Americans don't believe illegals are a problem for this nation. This attitude speaks volumes about their values concerning this country.

Immigration Strategy Momentum

The immigration issue has people energized, for sure. Now, the task will be to hold and exploit that energy for real reform. I fear that will be difficult because, led by our Vermont Senator Leahy, the Democrats will try to focus our and the media's attention on the "bad" Bushies. They are doing this by issuing subpoenas for White House personnel to testify. Bush has rejected them (appropriately), but all this is a lead-in for the 2008 campaign to make the present administration look bad.

The immigration strategy must be to target the leadership in the House, Senate and the White House. a critical supporting approach will be to target local officials to pass and enforce local laws AND turn over the illegals detained or arrested locally to immigration authorities. In other words, work hard locally to 'flood' the system, while continuing to demand that Homeland Security do something about them.

In Vermont we have an immigration issue on a scale that is minuscule compared to that in southern California. Here, dairy farmers are hiring immigrants, some legal, some illegal, because 'these are jobs locals won't take.' There's sympathy for the farmers' plight because dairy in Vermont struggles to survive, although with the present high milk prices, they are financially better off than they've been for a while. There's no backlash against the illegals.

Another key strategy should be to insure there's a grass-roots effort to force the immigration issue as one of the top 2-3 in the 2008 Presidential and Congressional campaigns. If the public is truly fired up about the issue, keeping it in the media and public eye is critical. No politician should be let off the hook for this, nor should the Bushies who must enforce present laws.

Activists deservedly should have a moment of basking in their present success, but a great deal more work will be required to keep Washington constructively engaged with the issue.

Immigration Bill Failure

NumbersUSA Senate Immigration Overhaul Fails

I agree that the failure of the immigration bill in the Senate is a good thing (it was much too complex to have ever been implemented), but the problem remains to be fixed. If the flow of illegal aliens across the borders, particularly the southern border, is not halted (the estimate is that nearly 1/2 million come annually) we have accomplished little in terms of the big picture. The pressure must remain to secure the borders, but does anyone think that the Bush administration or the Democrat leadership in the Congress will do anything to accomplish that now that their 'comprehensive' attempt failed? What they should do if they are really listening is insist that the present laws are followed and provide the necessary resources to do so.

What I think we'll see is many cities and towns enact laws to make it tough for illegals to be there and for employers to hire them. This will lead to court challenges, but the likely results will be that the Feds have jurisdiction, not the locals, and the Feds are not funded or equipped to deal with thousands of illegals that locals might choose to turn over to them.

What needs to happen now is for serious funding, yes, maybe more fences, to keep out illegals. Dealing with those already here is a problem that I don't see any practical solution to at this time. Do you?

Nevertheless, here's one relatively simple proposal