Grassley provision adds habitual drunk driving to list of deportable offenses. See the original post here: ‘Uncle Omar’ amendment would send drunk driving aliens home
Here is the original post:
‘Uncle Omar’ amendment would send drunk driving aliens home
Something unusual … well, maybe not that unusual … happened when the State of Alabama enacted strict new laws regarding illegal immigration. The state’s unemployment rate dropped by 1.7% in just three months as U.S. citizens started being hired to do jobs that illegal immigrants had fled. You know, American citizens suddenly started doing those “jobs Americans won’t do.”
Link:
Unemployment Rate Drops as Illegals Flee Alabama
Ah, San Francisco : A bill being drafted by a state legislator would limit local law enforcement from holding arrestees on behalf of immigration authorities seeking to deport them. Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco) said he is finalizing amendments to a bill that would be the first statewide measure to counter the Secure Communities enforcement program, which requires law enforcement agencies to forward to immigration authorities the fingerprints of all arrestees booked into local jails. If those authorities identify a candidate for deportation, they can issue a detainer, which asks the agency to hold them beyond the time when they would normally be released so immigration agents can take custody. The program has come under fire because many of those ensnared have never been convicted of crimes or are low-level offenders. When states like California or Arizona have tried to pass legislation that helps the federal government enforce federal immigration law, the immigrants’ rights advocates always tell us those law are illegal — because federal law is supreme in the area of immigration. So, local laws can’t touch on immigration (so the argument goes) because that steps on federal toes. (I have never understood this argument, because helping the feds enforce the law can’t be seen as stepping on their toes . . . can it??) Where is the “federal preemption” crowd here? This law explicitly seeks to interfere with federal programs designed to catch people in custody who have violated our immigration laws. Wouldn’t that . . . step on federal toes? What needs to be remembered is that people who are subject to deportation have already violated the law . What’s more, if they have been arrested, they are on average more likely to be among the least desirable among those who have violated our immigration laws. A “Deport the Criminals First” policy uses our limited resources in the manner that best protects public safety, by concentrating on people who have (by and large) committed crimes other than violating immigration laws. Because criminals are more dangerous than non-criminals, this policy saves lives. And even if it turns out that they didn’t commit other crimes, they still violated immigration laws anyway, and we have them in custody . Ammiano’s plan is an open borders plan: EVERYONE is welcome, including the diseased, the immoral, and the criminal. Our country is a country of immigrants, but we have the right to control which immigrants are allowed to enter, to keep the country healthy and safe. Orderly immigration laws seek to import immigrants who are not criminals or afflicted with communicable diseases. A policy of simply throwing open the borders removes these checks, which has the effect of welcoming people with TB and serious criminal histories. I don’t see why our country needs to be burdened with a crop of undesirables (criminals) when we have insufficient resources to take care of the people we already have. The U.S. is fishing for illegals. We can’t catch every fish in the sea, but we can catch some. Ammiano wants to take the fish that are already in the net and throw them back out to sea. That only makes sense if you think fishing is morally wrong. Me, I don’t think it is. And I don’t think deporting criminal illegals is wrong either. But then, I don’t live in San Francisco.
Read the original here:
San Francisco Based State Legislator Fights “Deport the Criminals First” Policy
Slams Romney over Immigration Stance on Univision DORAL, Fla. — Newt Gingrich said Wednesday that Mitt Romney lacks concern for some illegal immigrants’ “humanity” and chided the former Massachusetts governor for how he makes money. Speaking at a GOP candidate forum put on by Univision, the Spanish-language television network, Mr. Gingrich mocked Mr. Romney for
Go here to read the rest:
Newt Goes “Hispandering”
When Mitt Romney suggested “self-deportation” as a solution to illegal immigration at last night’s debate, his comments were met with confusion and a certain amount of derison. A few commentators pointed out that when the federal government gave 475,000 illegal immigrants a chance to turn themselves in and effectively self-deport, they were only three takers . But Romney isn’t proposing a repeat of the ill-fated Schedule Departure program. Rather he is drawing on the attrition through enforcement strategy developed by think tanks like the Center for Immigration Studies and implemented by Arizona and other states (albeit over the objections of the Obama-led federal government). CIS executive director Mark Krikorian has described it as an approach to change incentives for illegal immigrants through verification and targeted enforcment: Shrink the illegal population through consistent, across-the-board enforcement of the immigration law. By deterring the settlement of new illegals, by increasing deportations to the extent possible, and, most importantly, by increasing the number of illegals already here who give up and deport themselves, the United States can bring about an annual decrease in the illegal-alien population, rather than allowing it to continually increase. The point, in other words, is not merely to curtail illegal immigration, but rather to bring about a steady reduction in the total number of illegal immigrants who are living in the United States. The result would be a shrinking of the illegal population to a manageable nuisance, rather than today’s looming crisis. The idea is that illegal immigrants are coming to the United States for jobs. Make the jobs harder to obtain illegally and not only will fewer come, but more will leave. The whole process can be done more gradually and more humanely than a mass deportations regime. Of course, it cannot be done totally painlessly or without any political opposition.
Read more here:
The Strategy Behind Romney’s "Self-Deportation" Line
