CRASH: Why Are These Pukes Ordering My World?

“I have only one loyalty,” he says, “and that’s to the immigrant community.  "He" is Rep. Luis Gutierrez (Thug, Chicago).  You and I pay his salary as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives.  Another Obamic "community organizer".


I take him at his word.  Which is why I wonder why this pizzle is making laws anywhere but the House of Immigrant Community...wherever and whatever that may be.

Seriously, why do we put up with this?  Out of his own pie-hole, he tells us he has no loyalty to the U.S. Constitution...or to this nation as anything like a nation, and not an illegal migrant sponge.  He has no business warming a seat in the House, voting on laws that he intends will take our nation down.


And he's hell-bent to see that the DREAM act, which is an important step in knocking down the few barriers to open borders that hang on threads now, is enacted by these lame ducks.  When do we insist this stop?

CRASH: The New Broken Window--Illegal Immigration Enforcement

During the 1980s and 1990s, people like Rudy Giuliani put the "broken windows theory" to work in some of America's most violent and crime-ridden cities.  It apparently worked.

Now comes evidence that enforcing our immigration laws on the streets leads to reduced crime...especially violent crime.  This is exactly the opposite of what people like Bill White (former mayor of sanctuary city Houston, Texas) and Harold Hurtt (one of White's police chiefs) told us would happen.  They insisted that policing illegal immigration will result in MORE crime, since the illegals will be less prone to report perdators in their midst (among other things).

What is really significant here is that Hurtt is now the ICE Director of the Office of State and Local Coordination (OSLC).  In other words, this anti-enforcement devotee is in charge of the interface between state, local, and Federal law enforcement.  The Obami are nothing if not consistent.

Hurtt and his views on immigration enforcement play a pivotal role in the drama between the Feds and Arizona...and every state in the Union.  What the study shows is that Hurtt and the other sanctuary "thinkers" are not only mistaken, they are exposing Americans...and very likely immigrants...to greater risk of harm.

And, according to the study, after a period of adjustment, everyone...including Hispanics...found they could live quite nicely with our laws being enforced.  Imagine.

Maybe enforcing our laws...contrary to what the Collective tells us...actually works to make all law-abiding people safer.  Maybe living with dignity is something to which every good person responds well.

CRASH: The ICE Conspiracy With Illegal Aliens

A good working definition of a conspiracy is this: an agreement between parties to do or facilitate any illegal or wrongful act, or a lawful act by illegal means.

That definition seems perfectly applicable to the actions of John Morton, the Obami who heads ICE, and his staff.

Consider this: Morton, via his staff, is circulating an internal memo for comment that calls for an ORDER directing BOTH Federal and state officials acting under ICE authority to NOT detain illegal aliens legally stopped for traffic violations.

Under item 3, "Policy"--

3.1 Only immigration officers may issue detainers [a notice that ICE intends to take someone into custody].

3.2 Immigration officers shall issue detainers only after an LEA has exercised its independent authority to arrest the alien for a criminal violation.

3.3 As a general matter, immigration officers should not issue detainers aganist an alien charged only with a traffic-related misdemeannor unless or the until the alien is convicted, unless--

• the alien has a prior criminal conviction;
• the alien previously has been...deported...or allowed to voluntarily return to his or her native country...
• the alien is the subject of an outstanding immigration warrant...
• ...is part of an existing criminal investigation;
• an articulable reason exists to believe that the alien presents a danger to national security or a genuine risk to public safety; or
• the...the misdemeanor involves driving under the influence..., physical injury to a person or property, or flight from the scene of an accident. (emphasis added)

The memo goes on to state that ICE will issue a detainer ONLY IF the LEA has made an actual arrest.  The ICE agent has the right to second-guess the LEA, and ONLY issue a detainer IF he/she feels it "comports" with the "policy", and even then says that the ICE official "MAY" issue a detainer.  If it suites ICE after issuing a detainer, the detainer can be "withdrawn or rescinded and the LEA notified".

The policy is schizophrenic on its face; EVERY traffic misdemeanor...by definition...presents a "risk to public safety".  But the ICE agents get to determine if that risk is "genuine" or not.  They MAY...or may NOT...issue a detainer, even after the LEA has jumped all the hoops, and after issuing a detainer THEN may simply blow the whole deal off.

Morton has already implemented a "catch and release" policy, whereby ICE catches removable aliens in jails or through local arrests, and then releases all but the most serious offenders from custody. Making matters worse, ICE agents are now defaulting to the most time-consuming deportation process – even obviously removable aliens are routinely dumped on the overloaded immigration court dockets to await hearings before an immigration judge – instead of using the perfectly legal and more efficient administrative procedures available to them to remove an illegal alien. This means that even criminal aliens can hang around for many months after they are discovered. While in proceedings they are usually free to continue their life of crime or impaired driving, as was the case with Carlos Montano, the drunk and illegal driver who recently killed a nun in Virginia. A very large share will not bother to show up for the immigration hearing when the day finally arrives. It's no wonder that the number of aliens removed this year is noticeably lower than last year.

But this policy goes farther, stipulating that ICE will not even take a look at the illegal aliens who expose themselves to law enforcement by committing a traffic violation. And, neither will those local officers who have discovered lots of illegal aliens in the course of enforcing traffic laws.

The locals are rightly upset. For one thing, Congress never intended for ICE to micromanage the 287(g) agencies in this way. One local officer had this to say about the proposed policy: "Just as many of us suspected, the introduction of Harold Hurtt [Yom Steel's boss, the embattled ex-police chief who kept Houston as a sanctuary city until several of his officers were killed by illegal aliens] as the director of OSLC is leading to policy proposals and changes that will slowly chip away from the little power we have at a local level to try and control the influx of illegal immigrants. Soon, the administration will make so many changes, they will then claim there is no longer any need for 287(g) and we will be back to where we were years ago – with no ability to identify illegal immigrants, beyond the ineffective Secure Communities, in our jails. That will, once again, place a larger burden on our local governments and place our citizens in danger."

Everyone SHOULD send their comments to ann.yom@dhs.gov.  Expect to get an automated response saying she's out of the office...on vacation, we guess.  No kidding.

This is one of those outrageous moves that show the Collective has revolted against the people.  It should be investigated by Congress, but that will almost certainly have to wait the seating of the NEW Congress.

CRASH: The California Canary

California has for decades been pointed to as the national trend-setter.  Just now, the trend in California is distinctly swirling down, and the vortex is tightening.

Between 1970 and 2008 the share of California’s population comprised of immigrants (legal and illegal) tripled, growing from 9 percent to 27 percent.¹ This Memorandum examines some of the ways California has changed over the last four decades. Historically, California has not been a state with a disproportionately large unskilled population, like Appalachia or parts of the South. As a result of immigration, however, by 2008 California had the least-educated labor force in the nation in terms of the share its workers without a high school education. This change has important implications for the state.
Among the changes in California:

• In 1970, California had the 7th most educated work force of the 50 states in terms of the share of its workers who had completed high school. By 2008 it ranked 50th, making it the least educated state. (Table 1a)
  
• Education in California has declined relative to other states. The percentage of Californians who have completed high school has increased since 1970; however, all other states made much more progress in improving their education levels; as a result, California has fallen behind the rest of the country. (Table 1b)
  
• The large relative decline in education in California is a direct result of immigration. Without immigrants, the share of California’s labor force that has completed high school would be above the national average.
  
• There is no indication that California will soon close the educational gap. California ranks 35th in terms of the share of its 19-year-olds who have completed high school. Moreover, one-third (91,000) of the adult immigrants who arrived in the state in 2007 and 2008 had not completed high school.²
  
• In 1970 California was right at the national average in terms of income inequality, ranking 25th in the nation. By 2008, it was the 6th most unequal state in the country based on the commonly used Gini coefficient, which measures how evenly income is distributed. (Tables 2a and 2b)
  
• California’s income distribution in 2008 was more unequal than was Mississippi’s in 1970. (Tables 2a and 2b)
  
• While historical data are not available, we can say that in 2008 California ranked 11th highest in terms of the share of its households accessing at least one major welfare program and 8th highest in terms of the share of the state’s population without health insurance. (Tables 3 and 4)
  
• The large share of California adults who have very little education is likely to strain social services and make it challenging for the state to generate sufficient tax revenue to cover the demands for services made by its large unskilled population. 

But, of course, California has DIVERSITY, which is...as the collective reminds us...the great panacea that overcomes all else.

BURN: Massive Child Abuse Ring Revealed In Los Angeles

After yesterday, any parent who keeps a kid in the Los Angeles Unified School District is contributing to child abuse.  If a mind is a terrible thing to waste, how about a whole city of young minds being wasted via radical racial indoctrination.  (H/T Hot Air)

Tuesday, the LAUSD board voted to assure that all children under their commissariat WILL be taught that Arizona's law is un-American.  Of course, this news could be worse; up to 50% of kids in some of the LAUSD's schools have severed the LAUSD's ability to teach them lies by the simple expedient of dropping out.

The school board voted unanimously on Tuesday to “express outrage” and “condemnation” of the law, and it called on the school superintendent to look into curtailing economic support to the Grand Canyon State. About 73 percent of the students in the school district are Latino.

According to its press release, "The Los Angeles Board of Education also requested that Superintendent Ramon Cortines ensure that civics and history classes discuss the recent laws with students in the context of the American values of unity, diversity and equal protection for all people.” 

"America must stand for tolerance, inclusiveness and equality,” said Board President Monica García, according to the release. “In our civics classes and in our hallways, we must give life to these values by teaching our students to value themselves; to respect others; and to demand fairness and justice for all who live within our borders. Any law which violates civil rights is un-American."

Just a brief reality check: Arizona's immigration law will not go into effect until the END of July, 2010.  Nobody knows its effect, because it hasn't been implemented yet.  It can't be violating anyone's civil rights, because it has yet to see the light of day in an enforcement application.

The board said the laws “effectively sanction and promote unconstitutional racial profiling and harassment,” and “blatantly violate the civil rights of both Arizona residents and all visitors to the State.”

Hmmm....  Note the careful avoidance of the term "citizens", and the preference for "residents".  The use of "visitors" is also suggestive.  Note also that every assertion in that sentence is a lie (see "reality", above).

They said Arizona’s new laws also “severely restrict the education of all children in Arizona by refusing to incorporate vital sections of history that incorporate the contributions of this country’s many diverse groups.”

Here, the radicals at the LAUSD are referring to...and trying to dictate....Arizona law which limits elementary and secondary curricula to, oh, subjects that do NOT teach racial indoctrination, unlike that of the Los Angeles schools.  Arizona kiddies will learn about the contributions of "diverse groups" just fine.  They may miss out on the reconquista bilge, however.

The superintendent was also asked to investigate ways to curtail contracts with Arizona-based businesses and district travel to the state.
          "We need to do everything in our power to help our students be global citizens, develop appreciation for the diversity in our midst, and reject any forms of racism or bias," said Board Vice President Yolie Flores. "This resolution highlights our commitment to ensuring that our students understand the ideals and constitutional rights that this great country is founded on, while also gaining an appreciation of the histories and cultural contributions of those who have helped build this nation."
        “It is a sad day in America when the rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution are trampled upon under the color of law and authority,” said LAUSD Board Member Martinez. “Everyone, regardless of their status in the United States, has the right to equal protection under our laws. These Arizona laws are nothing but a knee-jerk backlash resulting from the lack of a comprehensive and well thought out immigration reform policy.”  [Code for amnesty]

And these people are presuming to teach the children of Los Angeles.  Metrics show they fail miserably.  Take a second, and scan the names of the people quoted in this story.  Anybody see a trend?  Does anyone believe America is in a post-racial nadir?  To what extent does la raza play a role in this policy, and the nonsense the kids of LA have to wade through at school?

BURN: Deemocrat Police Chiefs Play The Fear Card On Immigration

This was totally predictable.  A cabal of collectivist police chiefs have flopped the fear card on the table in response to Arizona-style laws being proposed across the nation.  It is a tried and untrue tactic of the collective.

In the face of overwhelming support by the people citizens of Arizona and the entire U.S., the collective is trotting out the canard that enforcing law will result in more crime.

"This is not a law that increases public safety. This is a bill that makes it much harder for us to do our jobs," Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck said. "Crime will go up if this becomes law in Arizona or in any other state."

Well, too late, Charlie!  The law IS the law in Arizona, and several other jurisdictions are headed in that direction.

But let's look at the argument these APPOINTED police chiefs are putting forward:

The new Arizona law will intimidate crime victims and witnesses who are illegal immigrants and divert police from investigating more serious crimes, chiefs from Los Angeles, Houston and Philadelphia said. They will join their counterparts from Montgomery County and a half-dozen other U.S. cities in meeting Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. on Wednesday morning to discuss the measure.

 I've heard the same nonsense from Bill White, candidate for Texas Governor and former Mayor of Houston, Texas.  "Why, golly, if police are made immigration cops, they just won't have time for effective crime prevention."  As I wrote a while back:

How does it REMOTELY cost good crime fighting...for the city to ALWAYS refer the illegal alien to ICE?  I suggest the opposite is true, and for this reason; illegal aliens are disproportionately likely to commit crime, as compared to other segments of our population.

In fact, I think it deductively obvious that RELEASING an illegal alien from either a custodial stop or actual incarceration is IRRESPONSIBLY EXPENSIVE.  We have them; we know or can learn their status; how is "catch and release" anything but a poke in the eye of immigration law...or effective police work?  A very good case can be made that the White policy...which is used by other Texas mayors...cost several peace officers their lives.

The other half of that BS is that illegal aliens will not cooperate with police investigations if they are prone to suffer the consequence of being in this country illegally.  There are several things wrong with that--

1. There is nothing in the Arizona law that would suggest that a witness would have their immigration status questioned.  (Read the law, dammit!!!)
2. The same "reasoning" would argue that we should not enforce drug law, since a drug user would have the same theoretical reluctance to provide information to police investigating a crime.  (The same applies to any law and offender.)
3. The idea presupposes that illegals are cooperative with police investigations now.  That isn't established: "[Pinal County Sheriff Paul] Babeu called the police chiefs' argument "'flawed from the beginning.'"  Cooperation from illegal immigrants, particularly those coming from Mexico, is already low, he said, because they are in the United States illegally and because of law enforcement corruption in their native countries.  "'Somehow when they appear in the U.S., magically their perception of law enforcement improves overnight?'" Babeu said." 
4. Police are not stupid; they extend protection within their discretion NOW to witnesses or informants in exchange for information.  In the Arizona law, there is more than adequate discretion for officers to simply avoid the ambit of immigration status when questioning a cooperative witness.
5. The argument that there is a population of people who will not cooperate with public safety because of their own illegal status works AGAINST, rather than FOR the Deemocrat chief's case.  They are, by admission, people who present both a prey population for criminals, and a population of abettors of crime.

 The chiefs behind this are APPOINTEES by very Deemocrat administrations (Houston, Phoenix, Los Angeles, Tuscan and Phillidelphia.  Sheriffs, like Babeu and Arpio, who have to face voters, and who deal with the horrific consequences of illegal immigration every day, are supportive of the new law.

Deemocrats and their appointees like "catch and release" in lieu of enforcing the law, just as they are pushing amnesty (aka "comprehensive immigration reform") instead of securing our borders. 

BURN: ICE Chief Outlawry Approved By Vanity Fair

The "public servant" who heads Immigration and Customs Enforcement under Nappy Jan declared himself an outlaw the other day.  See, according to the Obami, enforcing the law is optional.

Echoing comments by President Barack Obama and others in the administration, Morton said that Arizona’s new law targeting illegal immigration is not “good government.” The law makes it a crime to be in the state illegally and requires police to check suspects for immigration paperwork.

    Morton said his agency will not necessarily process illegal immigrants referred to them by Arizona officials. The best way to reduce illegal immigration is through a comprehensive federal approach, not a patchwork of state laws, he said.

“I don’t think the Arizona law, or laws like it, are the solution,” Morton said.

But, as Bruce McQuain points out, thinking about the Arizona law isn't really part of Morton's job description; enforcing IMMIGRATION law is his job.

Deciding what is or is not "good government" at the state level is not Mr. Morton's job, either.  That job belongs to the people of Arizona.  Who are, BTW, supported overwhelmingly by the American people.

But, one has to ask, HOW the HELL would it be a bad thing for the discharge of his DUTY if Arizona hands his personnel bunches of illegal aliens, ripe for deportation?  Is he doing an adequate job at present?  Not if dozens or hundreds of terrorists are entering through Mexico, as seems evident.  (h/t Doug Ross)

The terribly sophisticated types at Vanity Fair find all this too, too droll.

Morton’s disapproval differs from the stance of, say, Apollonic Arizona bureaucrat Gary Pierce. Morton’s agency “handles detentions and deportations,” according to Politico’s Ben Smith, which means that his opinion—again, unlike that of Pierce—actually matters. Smith also adds, “Morton's position also appears aimed at undercutting the argument from the state law's advocates that it is harmonious with existing federal law.”

Apparently, the Eastern elitist writers and readers of that pap have no issue with Morton's official declaration of outlawry.  His opinion...and his actions...certainly DO matter.

Morton's signal that he intends to selectively defy his duty, out of a callously political motive, WILL matter to the American people, and to the courts.  It tells us, again, about the Obamic orientation to democracy and the rule of law.

BURN: Where I Agree With What Obama Said, While Doubting He Does

Today in remarks again slamming a law I doubt he's read, THE ONE deplored Arizona's effort to staunch the flow of illegal immigrants, while calling for a solution that will open the wound further.  He said something with which I agree, but I doubt he meant a word of it.

“I want everyone, American and Mexican, to know my administration is taking a very close look at the Arizona law,” he said. “We’re examining any implications, especially for civil rights, because in the United States of America, no law-abiding person, be they an American citizen, a legal immigrant, or a visitor or tourist from Mexico, should ever be subject to suspicion simply because of what they look like.” 

Fine.  Excellent.  Total concurrence.

Of course, the Arizona law is specifically designed to assure every component of that statement.  Every one.   I know, having read it.  I know, since he keeps distorting it, Obama is either ignorant of it, or he's lying.

No LAW ABIDING person needs be concerned.  If one of us is "subject to suspicion", it cannot be "simply because of what we look like".  Not if the law is followed.  Plus, if we become suspect, we can quickly and painlessly dispel the suspicion by providing one of many forms of documentation the law provides, showing we are, indeed, a "law-abiding person".

Of course, as Calderon made clear, migration must be legal.  Unimpeded.  Free.  For all Mexicans into the U.S.  But not for anyone into Mexico! 

BURN: FYI, Chinese Immigration Law...SWEET

Outrageously STUPID Obami have apologized...on our behalf...to the ChiComs for Arizona's law...which is NOT IN EFFECT as yet.  Read up on the Chinese law...

CHAPTER III RESIDENCE

[Article 13] Foreigners residing in China must hold an identity card or residence permit issued by the competent authorities of the Chinese Government.

The period of validity of the identity card or residence permit shall be fixed according to the particulars of entry.

Foreigners residing in China shall, within the prescribed time, submit the documents to the local public security authorities for examination. 

So, you don't just NEED papers you "MUST HOLD", but you have to carefully "SUBMIT THE DOCUMENTS" to the local commissar. 

[Article 16] Foreigners who fail to observe the laws of China may have their period of residence shortened or their resident status revoked by the competent authorities of the Chinese Government.

[Article 17] Foreigners lodging temporarily in China shall go through the formalities of registering their temporary lodging in accordance with the regulations.

[Article 18] Foreigners holding residents' permits who change their place of residence in China shall register their move in accordance with the regulations.

[Article 19] Foreigners without residence permits and those studying in China may not be employed in China without the permission of the competent authorities of the Chinese Government. 

CHAPTER IV TRAVEL

[Article 20] Foreigners with valid visas or residence permits may travel to those areas stipulated by the Chinese Government as being open to foreigners.

[Article 21] Foreigners who wish to travel to areas that are not open to foreigners are required to apply to the local public security authorities for travel permits. 

Question: who do you think the average illegal alien would RATHER face, an Arizona peace officer, or a Red Chinese security agent?  Who would you rather face?

Hence, we have an anti-American puke apologizing for our law to people who are ORDERS of magnitude more draconian...and more serious...with respect to who they let in their country, the documentation they have to carry AND provide without even being asked, where they can live, and where they can travel.  I feel safer every passing day.

CRASH: What I Learned From Bill White: Immigration

Several days ago, I attended a "town hall" sponsored by a TEA Party outfit from a northern Houston suburb featuring Bill White, the Deemocrat candidate for Texas governor. It was an education.

First, some full disclosure: I voted for White as mayor of Houston when I lived there.  I generally like White, and found him to be a VAST improvement as mayor over his recent predecessors.  I am NOT an unqualified fan of Rick (Gov. Goodhair) Perry.  I regard him with a healthy degree of skepticism, which I insisted on bringing to the Bill White event.  Both candidates richly deserve to be viewed skeptically.

Second, and without any desire to slam the hosts at this TEA Party event, this was undoubtedly the weakest excuse for a "town hall" I can imagine.  I have no idea why, but the organizers elected to have this event "moderated" by a guy with some connection to their organization.  This translated to the moderator addressing White, with virtually no input from voters except via some note cards bearing questions that were passed to the "moderator".  The moderator mangled the questions on the cards, distilled the subject-matter according to his own lights, and generally failed to press White on direct answers to direct questions.  In short, it reeked.  A town hall should be an open-forum, hurly-burly, give-and-take between people and those who represent...or hope to represent...them.  TEA Party people should know this, if anybody does.

As a result of this format, White was able to get away with a lot of evasion, deflection, and filibustering.

Mr. White made a fairly extended opening comment, which was a slick, packaged stump speech in the "aw-shucks, I just want to serve you" mode...which was much to be expected.  He has made no secret that he hopes to peel off GOP voters, and he seems to have settled on a few themes he expects will work to that end.

Talking points:

1. Local governance is the best governance
2. He's a strong backer of the Second Amendment ("owns a pistol")
3. Any notion that Houston under White was a sanctuary city is "a myth and a lie"
4. Immigration enforcement via an Arizona-type law would damage police function
5. Cap and Trade isn't the right solution (which may mean it isn't economically invasive enough)
6. In spite of No. 1 (above), he's good with dictating where kids can go to school

According to the "moderator", the most popular questions on the note-cards filled out by people at this event were about immigration policy...a VERY broad topic.

White was asked to comment on Perry's remarks that the Arizona law was not a good fit for Texas (with which a LOT of us strongly disagree, BTW).  Instead of answering the question he was asked, White took off on his own, pat prepared themes on immigration policy.  During his riff, White declared that, "Felons should not get driver's licenses", which I'm sure was a mistake made in his lather to get out his red meat talking points.

Mr. White knows that Texans...especially conservative Texans...want criminal illegals (those with records or who are actively committing crime BESIDES being here illegally) out of our state.  So this is one area where he can authentically SOUND tough, and where his record backs his rhetoric...to SOME degree.  As Houston's mayor, White was vocal about getting criminal aliens off the street, and actually DID some things effective in that direction.  But that is hardly the whole story.

White went on to re-state a theme he has used for years; if we divert police from normal beat functions to make them immigration agents, our public safety will suffer.  It is a canard you often hear from the collective, and even some conservatives.  It is deductively foolish and false, and a straw-man argument to boot.  The Arizona law obviously does not convert peace officers into immigration agents, and their contacts with illegal aliens will come (according to the plain meaning of the law) only as a collateral result of normal police work.  I believe Bill White knows this perfectly well, and has always known it.

The idea that allowing Houston police to effectively enforce immigration policy would be too costly and detrimental to good policing is one White has proffered for years.  It never held water, and it DOES expose him to criticism as a "sanctuary city" advocate.

This was a hot issue with White.  He declared any suggestion that Houston under his tenure was a "sanctuary city was a myth and a lie".  This, naturally, peeked my interest.  I've learned that when you get a lot of heat in a denial, it is often because the denier is guilty as hell.  This became a subject of some research.

What I learned is that Houston has, indeed, been considered a sanctuary city...and authoritatively so...under Bill White.  Much more important to me, Houston was effectively a sanctuary city, following a Bill White policy which seems designed to at once give him the patina of illegal alien crime fighter, while at the same time doing nothing to put life in that image, perhaps as a sop to his collectivist race-baiting wing.

White was sufficiently wed to this policy that he risked angering his police department rank and file, which is anathema to a big TEXAS city mayor.  White claimed during his presentation that ICE had full access to City Of Houston jail computers, and implied that thousands of illegals were referred to ICE as a result.  Statements from ICE officials during his term as mayor refute this.

Without question, we know that there has been a long-standing HPD directive that puts effect into the White meme that good, aggressive immigration enforcement only comes at the expense of good criminal suppression.  It would be worthwhile to examine that idea, especially since we see it repeated so often in the current debate on immigration.

Consider this mechanism: a peace officer, in the normal course of his or her duties, makes a fully justified "police contact" with an illegal alien.  Perhaps this is in connection with something as innocuous as a traffic stop, or with something as awful as a child molestation.  In the course of the interaction, the illegal status of the alien becomes apparent, or is at least reasonably suspected (a HIGHLY defined and developed term of art in criminal law, BTW).  Or, in another setting, an illegal alien gets to visit the city jail as a guest, and their status is checked and discovered.  How does it REMOTELY cost good crime fighting in either case for the city to ALWAYS refer the illegal alien to ICE?  I suggest the opposite is true, and for this reason; illegal aliens are disproportionately likely to commit crime, as compared to other segments of our population.

In fact, I think it deductively obvious that RELEASING an illegal alien from either a custodial stop or actual incarceration is IRRESPONSIBLY EXPENSIVE.  We have them; we know or can learn their status; how is "catch and release" anything but a poke in the eye of immigration law...or effective police work?  A very good case can be made that the White policy...which is used by other Texas mayors...cost several peace officers their lives.

I encourage you to read through the links I provide.  Link to the links they offer, too.  I do not vouch for the verity of these resources, especially as some are patently anti-White.  I merely cite to them to provide you with a research thread you can follow to learn what you can.

http://www.wfaa.com/news/politics/The-governors-race-Defining-Bill-White-86296372.html

http://www.texasgopvote.com/blog/what-should-texas-do-about-border-security-dont-ask-bill-white-04284

http://www.americanpatrol.com/REFERENCE/SanctuaryWatch.html

http://blogs.chron.com/immigration/archives/2009/03/hpd_police_chie.html

My conclusion on the issue of immigration is that White has been carefully misrepresenting his actual actions while in office, and his intentions if elected governor.  I found his remarks disingenuous, especially in light of hard evidence...and my own subjective feeling as I listened to the man.

CRASH: A Brief Round-up

The Wall St. Firm Of Shuck & Jive (h/t redstate)--

When asked a couple of really simple questions by Sen. Tom Coburn, Goldman Sachs' Chairman goes into full-tilt shuffle!



In Oil Spill News: WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE...!!!! (h/t daily beast)--

Oil Leak Threatens Human Health

"Oil from the Deepwater Horizon has officially hit U.S. shores, and Feds are preparing to contend with a range of human health risks the slick may pose. Fallout from the spill could affect humans in any number of ways, causing headaches or runny noses or even increased risk of cancer from contaminated seafood. Said Dr. Jimmy Guidry, Louisiana's state health director: "We don't know how long this spill will last or how much oil we'll be dealing with, so there's a lot of unknowns… But we're going to make things as safe as humanly possible." Some Louisiana residents are already complaining of a foul odor hanging in the air."

Having worked in the oil field, most crude oil does not smell bad.  It smells kind of good, in fact.  If you've ever driven in many parts of Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, or California, you've smelled crude oil.

Having lived in Louisiana, the foul odor reported by "some residents" is their state.  Not to be harsh.  Just saying...

Having been a child in the fifties, I remember when parents used to use kerosene and diesel for (a LOT of) medicinal and first-aid purposes.  So maybe we won't all die.

In Immigration News: "Pound Sand, Chucky", Gov. Brewer--

Sen. "Chuck-you" Schumer, in a transparent and cynical ploy to keep "comprehensive" immigration reform (amnesty) alive, asked Gov. Brewer to delay implementation of the new Arizona code.  Such a move by Brewer would have resulted in political pressure (i.e., a "crisis") that would provide at least some momentum to a dead-in-the-water push by Deemocrats and Obami for amnesty.

Greatly to her credit, Brewer (who has been demonized 24/7 by the collective as "Hitler's Daughter", among other names), declined to play the chump for Chucky.

Race-baiter In Chief Keeps The Divide Wide Open--

In "special" Cinco de Quatro remarks yesterday, THE ONE (Post-Racial Healer Deluxe) was again in full race-baiting mode as he again criticized Arizona for passing an effective self-preservation measure in the face of Federal diddling on immigration.

Obama acknowledged that "immigration is broken", and continued, "But the answer isn't to undermine fundamental principles that define us as a nation. We can't start singling out people because of who they look like, or how they talk, or how they dress. We can't turn law-abiding American citizens --- and law-abiding immigrants --- into subjects of suspicion and abuse."

Which, of course, nobody proposed to do.  Obama brought his Straw Man, again.  Obama's resort to the "fundamental principles" meme is telling.  He uses it frequently, often when trying to sell us on the idea that national suicide is one of our "fundamental principles".  But he never elaborates, preferring to wave vaguely in the direction of "fundamental principles"...whatever the hell they are...

Nobody is proposing to "single out" people "because of who they look like, how they talk, or how they dress" (!?!?!).  Well, maybe how they speak...sheesh...

And NOBODY is turning on law-abiding citizens or legal (THE ONLY LAW-ABIDING KIND) immigrants.  We CAN AND BETTER start controlling our borders and who comes into our nation...that is, if we want to be a nation.

BURN: Hey, Eugene...Get A Clue!

Eugene Robinson writes that Arizona is hyperventilating over nothing, passing "outrageous law" over nuttin....NUTTIN.
 

Border security isn't the problem 

Eugene snorts derisively: Fact-based analysis is increasingly out of fashion, however, and so the border-first hallucination has become popular among politicians and pundits reacting to Arizona's new "breathing while Latino" law.

So, Gene wants some "fact-based analysis", hey...?  How about we start with his own, fact-based assertions:

"In Nogales, the busiest Arizona crossing, there is already a big, impassable fence; the place is crawling with Border Patrol agents and other police. Most of those who cross illegally do so in remote areas, where they have to walk for many miles across scorched, unforgiving desert.

"Undocumented migrants already find ways to overcome daunting and potentially deadly obstacles, and it would take a lot more than rhetoric to make the border truly "secure."

"An attempt to design a high-tech "virtual" fence using sensors and cameras has not gone well. The equipment has not been able to discern people from wildlife. And even if there were a system that could alert authorities whenever an illegal immigrant had stepped onto U.S. soil, how would authorities find him or her in the vast wilderness?" 

Golly, Eugene...those are real posers, that's for sure....

Let's list those out:

1. impassable fence 
2. the place is crawling with ICE and police types
3. the poor illegals have to cross in remote areas
4. the poor illegals have to walk for "many" miles across a scorched, unforgiving desert
5. the high-tech sensors can't discern people from wild-life  

Boy, that sure seems like an unassailable set of "fact-based analysis", don't it?
h/t Dan Riehl



Watch, Gene, as the low-tech private citizen fisks your BS "facts" all to pieces.  Anybody who reads Eugene Robinson after this is doing it for comic relief.

BURN: Desmond Tutu Is "Saddened"

Desmond Tutu is, by some accounts, a good guy.  He's from South Africa, so he really does know some things about Apartheid.  He doesn't know jack about America or our laws, though.  He needn't be "sad". 

I am saddened today at the prospect of a young Hispanic immigrant in Arizona going to the grocery store and forgetting to bring her passport and immigration documents with her. I cannot be dispassionate about the fact that the very act of her being in the grocery store will soon be a crime in the state she lives in. Or that, should a policeman hear her accent and form a "reasonable suspicion" that she is an illegal immigrant, she can -- and will -- be taken into custody until someone sorts it out, while her children are at home waiting for their dinner.

 Tutu assumes a legal immigrant, forgetting her documents as she goes to the store for groceries for the kiddies.  Only now, with the passage of the Arizona law, does she "commit a crime" on those facts.  The kiddies await mama, peering into the black night, hungry, helpless, and cold. Mama claws at the cruel cold steel bars of her cell, primal cries for justice jerked from her core.

Please.  What a load of crap.

First, our LEGAL immigrant (we'll call her 'mama') has been required to keep her documents with her at all times for DECADES.  Even in her home.  It is Federal law.

Tutu's second BIG error; the bad, bad Arizona policeman who arrests mama in his tear-jerking melodrama never gets near mama on his facts.  Unless, of course, mama gets sloppy drunk and wraps her Buick around a passing Arizonan.  See, any peace officer would need "articulable suspicion" that mama is doing something illegal, as we've discussed before under "Terry stop", to even ask mama her immigration status ACCORDING TO THE LAW.  Mama's accent not only isn't illegal, it isn't unusual. 

So, mama has committed no crime at all under Tutu's sad little scenario.  Let's say that mama's car was a rolling safety infraction, and she was stopped appropriately on her way to the grocery.  Mama now apparently HAS violated Arizona laws, and the LEOs MAY check into her immigration status during their totally justified traffic stop.  Unless Rev. Tutu's poor mama in this story ALSO forgot to bring her driver's license, she is good to go.  No problem; though she has violated Federal law, going about without her papers, she is fine with Arizona law.

Now, suppose mama DID forget her driver's license, too.  Mama MIGHT go into the back of the police car for a ride to the station.  Just like me.  Or you.

Change the scene a few miles to the south, into Mexico.  Mama is from Ecuador, a legal immigrant in Mexico.  She bops out for some vittles for the kiddies.  Big problem!  Mexico requires she have her papers, but unlike our federal government, Mexico is serious about immigration.

Strange, I can't recall a single word written by Rev. Tutu on the subject of Mexican immigration law.  Hmmm....  Maybe Rev. Tutu should learn more, and write less until he has.

CRASH: Matt Lewis Thinks We're Hypocrites

Matt Lewis (clever young man, I'm sure) says that Arizona Gov. Brewer should have vetoed a bill he does not begin to understand, and says people who support it (like me, with reservations) are hypocrites.

Principled conservatives should be skeptical of Arizona’s recent decision to grant police the power to question illegal aliens (and U.S. citizens) about their immigration status—and to arrest those who cannot show documentation.

Well, principled conservatives who know what they're talking about recognize that the powers Lewis is carping over are not new, novel powers.  Police have had the power, during a valid Terry stop, to ask ALL kinds of questions, and to arrest someone who cannot identify themselves if "probable cause" exists to suspect commission of a crime.

But let's consider that principled conservative stuff. There has always been a tension between good public safety policy and good civil liberties policy.  Most anyone with a brain sees that, and there is certainly valid argument about where precisely on that continuum the ball should be spotted.  But principled conservatives are not anarchists.  They are not people who watch absorb too much of Hollywood's pap, either.  Neither are they people who refuse to read, or people who refuse to suspend the urge to condemn a law that has NOT YET SEEN THE LIGHT OF DAY.

Much of the problem stems from the words, “reasonable suspicion,” which appear in the bill. After all, illegals don’t advertise their immigration status publicly, and while the law specifically prohibits the police from solely considering race, one can imagine the Arizona police won’t be pulling aside many Canadians, Brits or Swedes for this sort of interrogation.

Actually, if Arizona was following my advice (and even my clients often don't), EVERYBODY would be asked about their immigration status during any valid stop by a police officer.  That would be entirely neutral.  It would also offer illegal aliens a chance to fess up or lie...another offense.  Additionally, if Shamus O'Flynn is arrested in a bar fight, I'm betting the cops run his immigration status, too.

More likely, the criteria for questioning will include both class and race, meaning that if a Mexican-American lawyer walks down the street in a nice business suit, he’s probably okay, but the law-abiding Mexican-American landscaper may get hassled on a daily basis.

Now, here Matt just gets silly.  Or paranoid.  Or liberal.  Much of the population of Arizona is Hispanic.  Many of the cops on the beat in Arizona are Hispanic.  Arizona is considered to have a model program, in place for years, against racial profiling.  What in the world makes people...like young Matt...think that all of a sudden, small businessmen are going to "get hassled on a daily basis"?  How long do you think that would last before a Federal court intervened, which NOBODY wants?  Or public opinion was soured, which NOBODY wants?

There are many worthwhile steps that must be taken in order to stem illegal immigration, including increasing border security and cutting off the ability of illegals to gain employment once in the United States.

Which is actually what the BULK of this law does, Matt.  MOST of the law, if you read it, involves stuff besides criminalizing illegal alien status.  But you wanted it VETOED?

Supporting tough “law-and-order” immigration laws and individual liberty are not mutually exclusive. What is hypocritical, however, is picking choosing when it’s okay for the government to violate citizens’ individual liberty.

This is simply nuts.  Especially in light of the fact that NOBODY has put this law on the streets yet.  So, whose "individual liberty" has been violated?  And EVERY time we enact a criminal statute, there is the POSSIBILITY that it will be abused.  That is why we have a VERY well-developed due process jurisprudence.  IF...IF...cops abuse their authority, the arrest is invalid, the evidence derived from the contact is tossed, and the citizen...or illegal alien...WALKS.

So, Matt, you need to redirect your "Fight da Man" indignation, and let this law be implemented before you go calling people who support it...with reservations..."hypocrites". 

CRASH: NappyJan--"The System...er...BORDER Worked..."

One of the most astoundingly inept (which is really frightening) of the Obami is Nappy Jan Napolitano, who declared "The system worked" after nothing about the system worked respecting the Christmas "Fruit-Of-Kaboom Bomber".

Well, she's at it again, this time assuring Americans and Arizonans that we are doing just peachy on our southern border.

“I say this again, as someone who has walked that border, ridden it, flown it and driven it,” she said. “I believe it is as secure as it ever has been.”

Really, Jan...?!?!?  How about leaving your security detail behind one evening, and hanging out around the border.  Oh, sure, bring your shotgun, if you want.

“If immigration comes up this year, it will be absolutely devastating to this issue” and future passage of a comprehensive bill, [Lindsey] Graham insisted. “Most Americans think we will have lost our minds if we move forward without securing our border first.”

Napolitano, a former Arizona governor, stood her ground at the hearing, continuing to press Congress to take up a reform bill.

The level of delusion...and political hackery...working in Homeland Security's highest echelons is just stupefying...and DANGEROUS!

BURN: Linda Greenhouse Is A DOPE...!!! UPDATED!!!

"Breathing While Undocumented" is Linda Greenhouse's considered, thoughtful bag of BS about the new Arizona law.  She isn't always stupid, so what did it for her this time?

UPDATE: Too Good to Check   [Mark Krikorian]

Let's consider this 'graph...

What would Arizona’s revered libertarian icon, Barry Goldwater, say about a law that requires the police to demand proof of legal residency from any person with whom they have made “any lawful contact” and about whom they have “reasonable suspicion” that “the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States?” Wasn’t the system of internal passports one of the most distasteful features of life in the Soviet Union and apartheid-era South Africa?

But, Linda...why be THAT selective in your effort to smear?  You left out Nazi Germany.  But, more telling, you left out Mexico, which has immigration laws WAY more draconian than ANYTHING in Arizona.  You also left out MOST EVERY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD, including those in modern, socialist Europe.

I’m not going back to Arizona as long as it remains a police state, which is what the appalling anti-immigrant bill that Gov. Jan Brewer signed into law last week has turned it into.

Of course, Arizona is far less a police state than is Washington, DC...or New York..., but how do we get to this law being an "appalling anti-immigrant bill"?  The bill has absolutely no impact on legal immigrants, or on documented temporary workers.

So, Linda, we're left with the conviction that your problem isn't really documenting the legal status of aliens (since virtually all nations do that), but that somebody in the United States is doing something effective to cut back on illegal immigration.

CRASH: "Irresponsible" AZ Commits Democratic Self-Preservation...Obama Wept

Stepping back from the abyss, and taking a small step toward sanity and self-preservation, Arizona...using that democracy thingy...passed a very durable, measured law respecting unlawful invasion.  Obama wept.

There has been a GREAT deal of weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth over the passage of this new law.  A LOT of hyperventilation, much of it committed by our nominal president, who called it "irresponsible", "misguided", and prone to "undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans".  Just how the poster boy child for irresponsible, misguided government sets himself up to pass judgment on a state law enacted by a democratically elected legislature using "notions of fairness we all cherish as Americans" was unclear.  The bitter irony of a sitting president slamming state legislation in those terms was VERY clear.

You will have read or heard various legal-sounding nonsense from the collective.  Obama immediately set the DOJ dogs loose, using the Chicago response to rational legislation; "Say, nice little state treasury you have there...".  I don't think Arizona has too much to worry about, based on the stupid legal "arguments" suggested so far.

I have read the law.  I am an attorney.  It is a very carefully drafted law.  It is apparent that it is intended to be very carefully unforced.  If it is, it will survive.

Let's look at some of the nonsense out there first--

"It's going to change our lives," said Emilio Almodovar, a 13-year-old American citizen from Phoenix. "We can't walk to school any more. We can't be in the streets anymore without the pigs thinking we're illegal immigrants."

 This is not atypical.  This poor, stupid punk has been fed a line of crap by people he makes the mistake of listening to; they lied, of course.  Young Emilio's life will not change; he will not be unsafe walking to school.  Nobody is going to keep him off the streets, although they certainly SHOULD (it should be his parents, but we'll leave that for another day).

Mexico has warned the proposal could affect cross-border relations. On Thursday, Mexico's Senate unanimously passed a resolution urging [Arizona Governor] Brewer to veto the law.

Gov. Brewer declined to obey the Mexican Senate, preferring to do what the vast majority of Arizona citizens told her they wanted done.  Presumably, Arizonans WANT cross-border relations affected...and for the better.  Mexican pols really, really do not.  What Mexican legislators do want...and they have done this VERY effectively...is for their own borders to be secure.

"Police in Arizona already treat migrants worse than animals," said Francisco Loureiro, an activist who runs a migrant shelter in the border town of Nogales, Mexico. "There is already a hunt for migrants, and now it will be open season under the cover of a law."

This is a personal favorite, I must admit.  If illegal imMIGRANTS are treated worse than animals, they sure would not be risking life and limb...and lots of money...to come to Arizona.  So we know that part is a lie.  Yes, Senor Loureiro, there is a hunt for people coming into this country against its laws...sort of...  Now, the state of Arizona is adding another law to the mix, but NOTHING NEARLY AS HARSH AS THAT OF YOUR NATION.

The Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund said it plans a legal challenge to the law, arguing it "launches Arizona into a spiral of pervasive fear, community distrust, increased crime and costly litigation, with nationwide repercussions."

Oopsie, MALDEF...too late!  All THAT stuff is why the legislation was passed.  If anything, it should "LESSEN a spiral of pervasive fear, community distrust, increased crime and costly litigation, with nationwide repercussions" respecting Arizona.  At the same time it damages your corrupt organization!  Bonuses all around!  Of course, La Raza (The Race) was pissed, too.

I heard an ACLU bimbette intone something about "immigration being a uniquely Federal issue".  Balls to that.  Admiralty law is EXPRESSLY a Federal question; but just about every state with navigable waters has their own admiralty law, too.  Supremacy doctrine does not prohibit COLLATERAL or SUPPLEMENTAL state law; just CONFLICTING law.  Arizona's drafting INCORPORATES Federal statutes.

Nor does Arizona intend to do what ICE does...deportation.  It will refer illegals for deportation by ICE.  Under its statute, it will fine and incarcerate illegal aliens, people who employ them, etc.  That isn't in conflict with the feds.

The one...and ONLY...land-mine in Arizona's road to sane immigration policy is CIVIL RIGHTS litigation.  That one is really very easy.  If EVERY stop by Arizona peace officers involves a simple question...regardless of who is stopped...about immigration status, there will never be a successful challenge to this new law.