Our loathing; of the illegal immigration (invasion and insurrection) problem in our country and our state; of the Obama administration, the DOJ, and their war on Arizona; and of the democrats generally and specifically their insanely left leadership; has not diminished in the least. Here’s some of the latest…
Regardless of what one liberal activist Federal Judge (a Clinton appointee) has to say, polling hasn’t changed with Americans still overwhelmingly supporting the State of Arizona and their efforts and opposing santuary cities, amnesty efforts, and illegal immigration in general.
So Gov Brewer, Sheriff Arpaio, Rep Pearce, Professor Kobach, and others – WE STAND WITH YOU.
Gov. Jan Brewer called Wednesday’s decision “a bump in the road” and vowed to appeal. The key sponsor of Arizona’s law, Republican Rep. Russell Pearce, said the judge was wrong and predicted that the state would ultimately win the case. “The ruling … should not be a reason for Utah to not move forward,” said Utah state Rep. Carl Wimmer, a Republican from Herriman City, who said he plans to co-sponsor a bill similar to Arizona’s next year and wasn’t surprised it was blocked. “For too long the states have cowered in the corner because of one ruling by one federal judge.”
Sheriff Joe Arpaio: I’ll Enforce Arizona’s Immigration Law
Sheriff Joe Arpaio, the controversial top cop in Maricopa County, Ariz., tells Newsmax in an exclusive interview that the federal court ruling Wednesday blocking parts of Arizona’s popular immigration law will have little effect on how he does business. The man who’s responsible for 25 percent of all U.S. deportations plans to kick off Thursday with a major sweep to catch even more illegal immigrants.
FULL STORY
More Stories
July 29, 2010
Federal judge issues injunction against parts of Arizona’s immigration law
Tom Rowan
Welcome back to the Wild West America! “Federal Judge Bolton” blocked Arizona’s claim to enforce laws today, whether federal, state, or local.
If this decree is allowed to stand, then I demand that Florida become a “sanctuary state” in regards to drilling for oil. Why not? We could be richer than Kuwait in a matter of months! Scofflaws are to be held in a higher esteem by judges than those who would dare to enforce the laws.
We have just witnessed dyslexic liberal logic at its finest folks. Judge Bolton has decided that actual enforcement of federal laws somehow interferes with the federal government’s prerogative to ignore federal law.
Bolton has pulled yet another thread from the fabric that holds our society and ordered liberty together; The United States was grounded on being a nation of laws and not of men and their current fashions. When illegal becomes fashionable are we to ignore unfashionable laws already on the books? If the AZ law is so outside the bounds then where is the clamor to repeal the federal laws that it simply mirrors?
If this ruling stands, then all bets are off in regards to the rule of law. Far away men in black robes shall decide our fate, safety, and lives from the comfort of their benches. The ACLU runs our legal system along with our wars. Do we have to ask the ACLU permission to go to the bathroom? Apparently, we better check with our guardians of civil rights.
Federal laws against marijuana are flouted in California yet that never seems to collide with State Vs Feds authority of enforcement. Do federal kidnapping laws trump enforcement of state and local law enforcement of kidnapping? If the feds will not enforce kidnapping laws or bank robbery are we all just to throw up our hands and give up and give in to crime? Ignorance of the law or ignoring the law does not make something legal.
Decriminalization of law is practiced everyday by liberal judges. They smite mandatory minimum sentencing laws, reduce sentences for the alleged problem of “overcrowding” in prisons, and generally turn out menaces to society on a daily basis. (Hello Lindsey Lohan!)
It was once said that God created all men and Sam Colt made them equal. But don’t worry; the feds are wasting no time in decriminalizing illegality and criminalizing the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. No wonder ammo & gun sales are up in the downer Obama economy. “Does hope & change” really mean the return to the Wild West where the rule of law came at the point of a gun?
Judge Bolton’s decree invites Arizonans to ignore her very own decree in the instant case. Why not? It’s all the rage, it is very fashionable, and everyone else is doing it.
(Look how much worse the problem is in NY than AZ, and what is the NYS Governement doing, nothing but going in the wrong direction. Sanctuary cities in Ny contributing to the problem have only grown worse, and as the the budget gap issue, well these are 2009 numbers, and as we know 2010 is far far worse)
| State Budget Gaps vs. State and Local Outlays for |
| Illegal Immigration 2009 (Figures Shown in Millions) |
| Red = Neg |
| State |
Budget Gap |
Illegal Alien Cost |
Difference |
As % of gap |
| Alabama |
$1,070 |
$298 |
$772.00 |
27.9% |
| Alaska |
$1,520 |
$139 |
$1,381.00 |
9.1% |
| Arizona |
$2,432 |
$2,569 |
$136.80 |
105.6% |
| Arkansas |
n/a |
$244 |
| California |
$19,639 |
$21,756 |
$2,117.00 |
110.8% |
| Colorado |
$1,185 |
$1,451 |
$265.70 |
122.4% |
| Connecticut |
$1,353 |
$957 |
$396.20 |
70.7% |
| Delaware |
$236 |
$312 |
$75.90 |
132.1% |
| Florida |
$3,175 |
$305 |
$2,870.00 |
9.6% |
| Georgia |
$2,926 |
$5,463 |
$2,536.60 |
186.7% |
| Hawaii |
$639 |
$155 |
$483.90 |
24.3% |
| Idaho |
$405 |
$188 |
$217.30 |
46.4% |
| Illinois |
$4,317 |
$4,592 |
$275.00 |
106.4% |
| Indiana |
$973 |
$608 |
$364.80 |
62.5% |
| Iowa |
$35 |
$350 |
$315.00 |
1000.0% |
| Kansas |
$186 |
$442 |
$256.20 |
237.9% |
| Kentucky |
$456 |
$326 |
$130.10 |
71.5% |
| Louisiana |
$341 |
$224 |
$117.00 |
65.7% |
| Maine |
$270 |
$66 |
$203.60 |
24.5% |
| Maryland |
$1,385 |
$1,724 |
$339.50 |
124.5% |
| Massachusetts |
$2,950 |
$1,862 |
$1,088.00 |
63.1% |
| Michigan |
$313 |
$929 |
$616.00 |
296.8% |
| Minnesota |
$426 |
$744 |
$318.00 |
174.6% |
| Mississippi |
$407 |
$106 |
$300.50 |
26.1% |
| Missouri |
$779 |
$338 |
$440.50 |
43.4% |
| Montana |
n/a |
$32 |
| Nebraska |
$5 |
$262 |
$256.60 |
4851.9% |
| Nevada |
$1,094 |
$1,191 |
$97.00 |
108.9% |
| New Hampshire |
$250 |
$129 |
$121.00 |
51.6% |
| New Jersey |
$4,400 |
$3,478 |
$922.00 |
79.0% |
| New Mexico |
$454 |
$608 |
$153.80 |
133.9% |
| New York |
$1,707 |
$9,479 |
$7,772.00 |
555.3% |
| North Carolina |
$2,200 |
$2,063 |
$137.00 |
93.8% |
| North Dakota |
n/a |
$33 |
| Ohio |
$1,181 |
$765 |
$415.70 |
64.8% |
| Oklahoma |
$7 |
$465 |
$458.20 |
6838.2% |
| Oregon |
$755 |
$705 |
$50.00 |
93.4% |
| Pennsylvania |
$2,600 |
$1,378 |
$1,222.00 |
53.0% |
| Rhode Island |
$449 |
$278 |
$171.30 |
61.9% |
| South Carolina |
$1,185 |
$391 |
$793.70 |
33.0% |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| South Dakota |
$71 |
$39 |
$32.40 |
54.6% |
|
| Tennessee |
$1,074 |
$547 |
$527.00 |
50.9% |
|
| Texas |
n/a |
$8,878 |
|
| Utah |
$875 |
$453 |
$422.00 |
51.8% |
|
| Vermont |
$75 |
$63 |
$11.70 |
84.3% |
|
| Virginia |
$1,660 |
$1,905 |
$245.30 |
114.8% |
|
| Washington |
$1,373 |
$1,510 |
$137.00 |
110.0% |
|
| West Virginia |
n/a |
$71 |
|
| Wisconsin |
$942 |
$883 |
$59.00 |
93.7% |
|
| Wyoming |
n/a |
$59 |
|
| Source: National Conference of State Legislatures, “State Budget Update: July 2009 |
As if the security risks and various degrees of economic harm aren’t bad enough, how about this perspective concerning our health:
by Dr. Manny Alvarez
The simple answer is: Yes. If you look at the way that legal immigration is conducted around the world, it is always based on a set of checks and balances. One of those checks is the prevention of certain communicable diseases.
Here is a list of things people applying for visa/residency status in this country may be tested for during their physical exam as required by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Citizenship and Immigration Services.
Tuberculosis, Syphilis (for applicants 15 years or older), HIV (blood test), Gonorrhea, Narcotic drug addiction, Physical or mental disorders with associated harmful behavior, Chancroid, Lymphogranuloma venerum, Granuloma inguinal
Under the immigration laws of the United States, a foreign national who applies for an immigrant visa abroad, or who seeks to adjust status to a permanent resident while in the U.S., is required to receive vaccinations to prevent the following diseases:
Mumps Measles-Rubella, Polio, Tetanus and Diphtheria Toxoids, Pertussis, Haemophilus influenzae type B, Hepatitis B, Any other vaccine-preventable diseases recommended by the Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices
Now, this list is not just an American standard — you will find similar lists in most developed countries around the world. Without a system of checks and balances, we run the risk of having diseases that have otherwise been eradicated in this country coming back in a big way. When people travel here illegally, they could have the potential to spread certain diseases that could be very devastating to the general population.
Let’s take tuberculosis for instance. Active tuberculosis is a very dangerous communicable disease that is easily spread if someone is an active carrier. Early onset of tuberculosis may not have any warning signs, and yet it could develop into a full-blown case of the disease, as we have seen happen many times over the last decade in this country. One of the scariest things about tuberculosis, is that there are now many strains of the disease that are resistant to the current medical treatments.
The prevalence of other diseases like malaria and Chagas disease – which is a parasitic infection in the blood stream – are being seen more frequently in areas of the country where some of these diseases were not present before. In the case of Chagas disease, more and more blood banks are testing for this parasite since it can be transmitted inadvertently during a routine blood transfusion. If infected blood happens to be given to patient with a compromised immune system, the consequences can be deadly.
I’m not here to argue what the best solution is for immigration laws in this country. My family and I are certainly beneficiaries of having the opportunity to come to this country and embrace the American dream. However, I do know that whatever immigration policy this administration decides to implement, a non-compromising point must be that the health of the American people be protected, because if we do not protect the health of our citizens, the long-term effects could be dangerous.
Speaking of health, does this sound like emergency life savings proceedures to you?
by Todd StarnesA Minnesota town is outraged over reports that an illegal immigrant was implanted with a penis pump – paid for by taxpayers.
Shakopee Police Chief Jeff Tate said the expense to taxpayers was more than $50,000.
“It’s shocking,” he told FOX News Radio. “It’s certainly disturbing as well. You know it’s not going to set well with the public at large.”
Scott County Attorney Pat Ciliberto wants to know how an illegal immigrant was able to obtain tens of thousands of dollars in medical assistance.
“There’s no logical argument for why that should have been approved,” Ciliberto told the Shakopee News. “I don’t know how many illegal aliens are getting emergency medical assistance for such a procedure.”
Ciliberto told county commissioners the cost of taking care of illegal immigrants in their community is skyrocketing.
“It should be obvious when Scott County goes from seven bookings in 2006 to 90 bookings in 2009 – that Arizona’s problem is Minnesota’s problem, too,” he told the newspaper.
According to published numbers, the county spent more than $800,000 housing inmates with immigration holds – and that doesn’t include medical coverage.
“We have no control over the southern border,” he said. “We don’t know who is coming in and what country they’re coming from.”
Regardless, local officials said they are required by federal and state laws to provide welfare to illegals – from court costs to health care – including a penis pump.
At least one local said they sympathize with the plight of Arizonans.
“My hats off to Arizona, to people who’ve said, ‘We’ve had enough,’” Commissioner Barbara Marschall told the newspaper. “We’re thousands (of) miles away from the southern border. It’s here and it’s going to get worse.”
AZ Accuses ACLU of Spreading Hate, Fear - Because they are. Remember the ACLU is, was, and apprently will always be a communist and anti christian front group. They are a despotic organization and we have nothing but utter contempt for their positions on this issue.
And yet another example of how much of the “public” education system in many instances is on the wrong side of this issue too!
UNIVERSITY ACCUSED OF HELPING ILLEGALS
A Georgia university president is under fire for granting in-state tuition to a student who is an illegal immigrant and to make matters worse, for using taxpayer-funded resources to interfere with and stop the student’s deportation process.
The controversy surrounds Jessica Colotl. In March her life began to unravel. Colotl was stopped by campus police and arrested on charges of not having a valid driver’s license. Police ran a background check and determined she was in fact – an illegal immigrant.
According to an account in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, her family snuck into the country from Mexico 11 years ago. Until now, the family’s illegal immigration status had gone unnoticed.
A ridiculous policy to begin with; undocumented students are allowed to enroll at Georgia universities but they must pay out-of-state tuition – typically three times as much as in-state. Colotl though was allowed to pay in-state tuition.
As a result of an agreement between local police and the federal government, Colotl was transferred to a detention center where deportation proceedings were launched. That’s where the story gets a bit unusual.
KSU’s president, Daniel Papp allegedly intervened on her behalf. According to the AJC, the university released a statement that said Coltl was a student in good standing and a leader of several campus groups (so what). He also asked that, within the letter of the law, she be allowed to return to the university to finish her education (uh, the letter of the law would be that she is deported and comes back through legal means).
Last week, authorities decided to release her from custody and President Papp said she will be welcomed back to the university. “She was granted a deferment to finish her education,” Papp said in a written statement. “This is great news for Ms. Colotl, her family and friends and for the KSU community. (really!)
Not everyone is overjoyed at the news. Phil Kent, a spokesman for Americans For Immigration Control is demanding the KSU president be fired. “President Papp ought to be fired by the regents of the university,” Kent told WAGA. “He’s undermined the rule of law.”
“Our colleges must not be turned into sanctuaries for illegal immigrants,” he said in a prepared statement. “Papp’s bleeding-heart actions are especially an insult to Georgia taxpayers and their children who hope to attend college yet are discriminated against in favor of illegal immigrants.”
The Republican candidate for governor is also making political hay out of the issue. Eric Johnson issued a statement calling for tougher rules for students who are in the country illegally.
As for Colotl’s family, they are troubled by the incident. Her mother, who does not speak English (still after 11 years !), told WAGA through a translator that the fair solution is to let her daughter finish her education and then return to Mexico. (Fair, you know whats not fair, you sneaking into our country, remaining knowingly illegal all this time, driving without licenses, taking advantage of the tax payers of this country vis a vis the tuition issue, and who knows what else. Want someone to blame, blame yourselves).
Federal Failure and Arizona
Anthony W. Hager
Washington’s wink-and-nod approach to immigration is a losing position whether or not Arizona successfully defends its immigration enforcement statute. More
July 23, 2010
Federal Judge Rips Pres. Obama’s Lawsuit Against Arizona
Did you know? and do you wonder why?
Rhode island – no lawsuit no boycott, Arizona – a lawsuit and a boycott.
Supporters of Arizona’s new illegal immigration law have in recent weeks cited Rhode Island as a state where police have been quietly carrying out comparably tough enforcement without a court challenge from the Obama administration.
In Rhode Island, both sides of the debate agree that the executive order issued by Gov. Don Carcieri in 2008 is less sweeping than the Arizona law, which takes effect this month. However there are comparisons of the two approaches which do tend to rationalize the law in Arizona, generally more conservative than Rhode Island, a heavily Democratic state. Of course not is you ask Steven Brown, a leading critic of the governor’s order and executive director of the Rhode Island affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union.
“The only reason I can see individuals focusing on Rhode Island is for political purposes and stretching what’s happened here as a way to try and compare a largely Democratic state — a blue state — with a red state and somehow claim that Rhode Island should be looked at similarly,” Brown said. Arizona’s law makes it a crime to be in the state illegally; Rhode Island’s executive order has no such provision. Arizona’s law requires local police officers, while enforcing other laws, to check the immigration status of anyone they suspect of being in the country illegally. Rhode Island’s order directs the State Police to help with immigration enforcement and encourages — but, importantly, does not require — local police to seek a suspect’s immigration status.
Really,
State troopers in Rhode Island routinely check the immigration status of crime suspects, as well as people pulled over for traffic violations, if they have reasonable suspicion and will alert federal immigration authorities if it’s determined someone is in the country illegally, said State Police Superintendent Brendan Doherty.
A Boston-based federal appeals court last year upheld a Rhode Island trooper’s decision during a 2006 traffic stop to seek immigration documents from passengers in a van carrying about a dozen Guatemalans who were in the country illegally.
In a July 7 post on the National Review website titled “United States v. Arizona — How ‘Bout United States v. Rhode Island?”, commentator Andrew McCarthy, a former New York federal prosecutor, asked why the Obama administration had not already sued Rhode Island for “carrying out the procedures at issue in the Arizona immigration statute.”
William Jacobson, an associate law professor at Cornell University, wrote this month on his blog, Legal Insurrection, that “Arizona is the new Rhode Island” and said it was ironic that strict enforcement practices would be carried out in the “state of Sheldon Whitehouse,” a Democratic senator.
And an Internet post this month by commentator Ed Morrissey said Rhode Island has been doing for years what Arizona now wants to do — but “without a peep” from the U.S. Department of Justice.
The Justice Department did not immediately return an e-mail seeking comment Monday on whether it had considered challenging laws in states other than Arizona.
Carcieri imposed the executive order in March 2008, blaming illegal immigrants for using up state resources and, like Arizona officials, faulting the federal government for failing to control the problem. The Pew Hispanic Center has estimated Rhode Island’s illegal immigrant population as between 20,000 and 40,000. (now consider why AZ’s approach though similar, is tougher, than RI. The numbers are in the 100′s of thousands, not 10′s of thousands)
The executive order in Rhode Island, as well as Arizona’s law, prompted an outcry from civil rights groups and immigrant advocates who feared it could lead to racial profiling. Some who support the order say they don’t think it goes far enough and prefer the Arizona law, which is the target of a Justice Department lawsuit and is set to take effect July 29.
Now as we’ve advocated many times, on the issue of sanctuary cities, to which there are varying degrees of throughout the country, some are outright aggregious (several in NY, and especially Gavin Newsome’s San Francisco as one of the worst examples). They need to be shut down, officials thrown out of office, and some even prosecuted.
Critics Question Why Obama Administration Doesn’t Crack Down on Sanctuary Cities
By Molly Henneberg
Published July 15, 2010
Now that the Obama administration is suing Arizona over its tough immigration law, some critics are asking why so-called sanctuary cities are getting a pass for ignoring federal immigration law.
More than 50 cities in the U.S provide sanctuaries to illegal immigrants. Supporters of such policies say they want the local police to focus on solving crimes and leave the immigration work to the federal authorities.
“What sanctuary cities are saying is, we are not going to preempt the federal government. It’s the federal government’s responsibilities,” said Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill.
But Richard Land, the president of Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Liberty Commission, said while he supports comprehensive immigration reform, he opposes sanctuary cities.
“We can’t have government officials deciding which laws they are going to enforce or not enforce. That undermines the rule of law. We have to have officials who are under the rule of law,” he said.
Sanctuary cities are not a new idea. They’ve been around for decades and no administration — Democrat of Republican — has really gone after them.
But the Obama administration is going after Arizona for its new law that permits officers to ask about a person’s immigration status during the course of other law enforcement duties, such as a traffic stops. Opponents say the law promotes racial profiling and is unconstitutional. But supporters deny those charges.
“The Arizona law is in compliance with federal law,” said Rosemary Jenks, director of government relations at Numbers USA. “The Justice Department should stay out of it. They should be encouraging Arizona to be enforcing the laws. Secondly, they should be enforcing federal immigration law, which means challenging cities and states that have sanctuary policies.”
The Justice Department sees it differently, saying Arizona is unconstitutionally interfering with the federal government’s role in immigration control. “There is a big difference between a state or locality saying they are not going to use their resources to enforce a federal law, as so-called sanctuary cities have done, and a state passing its own immigration policy that actively interferes with federal law,” Justice spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said.
(We dissent, Schmaler – Holder – State officials in sanctuary cities – et al, are not only wrong but they are fools. It is they who are acting unconstitutionally not doing their duty, violating their oaths of office, while perpetuating bad policy and disregard for the law that brings harm in many ways to this Country and our States. To suggest that it’s OK for states not to uphold enumerated constitutional federal laws in this instance is to suggest they don’t have to uphold or enforce any, which is course is a crock. Furthermore, states have rights and also a duty to protect their “citizens” and in a border state like AZ, they have even more constitutional authority in the matter than a state like RI.)
To those who support the Arizona law and oppose the idea of sanctuary cities, the Justice Department positions seem like a cop-out.
“The administration has shown again and again it has no intention of enforcing federal immigration laws,” Jenks said.
Obama’s Illegal Immigration Policy: Break the Law, Don’t get Sued
Usually if someone does something illegal, they face criminal charges, a lawsuit, or some other law enforcement action. If someone follows the law, then everything is OK. Afterall, the whole basis for having a law is so that people will follow it, right? Now, let’s look at that idea in terms of local governments. Applying the same principle, a state or local government that attempts to follow a federal law, should be in good shape. But those governments which don’t uphold the law should be subject to prosecution and lawsuits, right? Well, maybe in a “normal” country under “normal” circumstances. However, we are in Obama’s world now, and if you try to enforce illegal immigration laws, you will be sued. Ignore them, and you’ll be fine. Read more
Mexican Border: Route 66 for Terrorists?
July 24, 2010 by Norah Petersen,
In a
Wall Street Journal op-ed this week, Representative Jane Harman (D-California) and Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine) call attention to the on-going threat of Al- Qaeda’s pursuit of dirty bombs. In the article, Harman and Collins cite the danger of terrorist at-large, Adnan el-Shukrijumah, who was recently indicted for his connection to the New York City subway bomb plot. Harman and Collins relate that Shukrijumah is “a trained nuclear technician allegedly tasked by al Qaeda with carrying off an “American Hiroshima.”
What Harman and Collins fail to mention in their op-ed, is that, according to law enforcement officials , Shukrijumah (alias “Jafar the Pilot”) may have traveled into the United States via the Mexican border in 2004.
Sigifredo Gonzalez, Jr., sheriff of Zapata County in Texas, stated in a 2009 written testimony before a subcomittee of the House Committee on Homeland Security :
Amazing News Clip Video – everyone should watch this and forward it to everyone you know.
If you don’t live in AZ, this should give you some idea of WHAT SB1070 IS REALLY ALL ABOUT!
What the heck is going on with the Obama administration letting this happen??? We have got to stop this from continuing and reverse this problem now!!! Please get the word out to every good citizen you know…
http://www.prisonplanet.com/mexicans-take-over-parts-of-arizona.html
and now for a word on jobs and our seriously everlasting unemployment problem
Congress Avoids Best Solution to Assisting Unemployed Americans
|
Congress Avoids Best Solution to Assisting Unemployed Americans
|
Isn’t the danger of our unsecured border inextricably related to the threat of dirty bombs and the threat of terrorism in general? It would seem so. Yet, if those in Washington feel that way, they have done a smashing job of keeping it to themselves.
When will politicians stop sweeping this crisis under the rug? Without border security there is no homeland security and there is no national security.
“We have always maintained that if you don’t live on the border you don’t know how vulnerable this country is for a terrorist attack. Persons living 50 miles or more away from the border have the impression that this border is very well protected. This is a farce. The border is not protected.”
by Chris Chmielenski, NumbersUSA
While the Senate spent a good part of the week working on an extension of benefits for unemployed Americans, the news was filled with stories that screamed of other obvious ways to help solve the problem.
First, court proceedings began in Arizona on Thursday where the federal government launched its effort at shutting down Arizona’s attempt at enforcing immigration laws. Earlier in the week, more than 80 Members of Congress signed a Friend-of-the-Court brief, supporting Arizona and its right to protect its citizens, especially the unemployed. Laws similar to the one passed in Arizona would help free up the 8 million jobs currently held by illegal aliens.
Meanwhile, a clear line was drawn in the Senate between lawmakers who want tougher enforcement of immigration laws and those that don’t. The Senate struck down an amendment offered by Sen. DeMint (R-S.C.) that would have prevented Justice Department funds from being used in the lawsuit against Arizona. Check our vote tracker to see how your two Senators voted and check your Action Board for new actions in response to their vote.
Also in the news this week was Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke’s report to Congress on the state of the economy. Bernanke said it would be years before the unemployment rate dropped below 7%. Just a few weeks ago, the esteemed Brookings Institute released a report on the same topic, and by their calculations, it would take 11 years for the number of jobs lost during the recession to be recovered. But journalist and blogger David Frum was quick to note that the Brookings’ report factored in population growth, but failed to mention the greatest source of that growth – legal immigration.
So while leaders in Congress bickered over ways to provide benefits to America’s unemployed, they continue to avoid a simple, low-cost solution – enforce existing immigration laws and a call for a moratorium on legal immigration.
Mike Opelka
;){kind=link}