"Do Your Job!"

CNN:

The same day President Obama is delivering a high profile speech on immigration, a web video is making the rounds featuring a frustrated Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer imploring the president to "do your job" when it comes to securing the borders.
In the web video posted earlier this week, Brewer stands in front of recently erected signs 80 miles from Arizona's Mexican border that warn travelers "smuggling and illegal immigration may be encountered in this area."
"Two weeks ago I met with President Obama, he promised that we
would get word from his administration on what they were going to do to secure
the border. Well, we finally got the message, these signs," Brewer says. "I'm 80
miles away from the border and only 30 miles away from Arizona's capital. This
is an outrage."
"Washington says our border is as safe as it's ever been…Does this look safe to you? Washington is broken, Mr. President," a visibly angry Brewer continues. "Do your job. Secure our borders."
The newly-erected signs are the product of the Bureau of Land Management, according to local TV station KPHO, amid urging from local residents who have witnessed a wave of drug-related crimes.
Brewer's comments come more than a week after a senior Obama administration official confirmed justice department lawyers are planning to file a legal challenge to the controversial Arizona immigration law championed by Brewer.
Federal government lawyers who have been working on the expected challenge for several weeks will most likely file their arguments in federal court in Phoenix in the days leading up to July 28, when the statute is scheduled to take effect, the official said.
Administration officials have indicated the question of Arizona usurping federal authority to control the border and enforce immigration law is the most likely federal point of attack against the state law signed by Gov. Jan Brewer earlier this year.
In his immigration speech Thursday, Obama again took aim at the controversial Arizona measure, calling it "ill conceived."
"It is not just that the law Arizona passed is divisive, though it has fanned the flames of an already contentious debate, laws like Arizona's put huge pressures on local law enforcement to enforce rules that ultimately are unenforceable. It puts pressure on already hard-strapped state and local budgets," Obama said.
The president also defended his efforts to secure the border both with Mexico and Canada.
"We doubled the personnel assigned to border enforcement security task forces," he
said. "We tripled the number of intelligence analysts along the border. For the first time we have begun screening 100 percent of southbound rail shipments. And as a result, we're seizing more illegal guns, cash, and drugs than in years past."
"The bottom line is this, the southern border is more secure today than at anytime in the past 20 years," Obama added.

I can certainly understand Govenor Brewer's frustration. I can also understand Obama's frustration with Arizona. Govenor Brewer, and many other people for that matter, are blaming Obama for an immigration and insecure border issue that should have been taken care of many administrations ago. The fault doesn't lay at Obama's feet-unless he does nothing during his presidency. The fault lies more with Bush II(who should have secured the borders after 9/11), Clinton, Bush I, and all previous administrations. The southern border is entirely unsecure-drugs, money, guns, and of course people, are constantly flowing into and out of our country through the southern border. It's time it stops.

While disagreeing with SB 1070 and other actions that Arizona has taken, I certainly have to give respect to the state for trying something. For trying to get Federal attention. Let's hope it worked. Let's hope thaat Obama listens and does much more than any of his predecessors did. Let's hope he begins to solve the problem.

Arizona at it again; targets "anchor babies"

This has to be my favorite part:

"If you go back to the original intent of the drafters ... it was never intended to bestow citizenship upon (illegal) aliens," said [John] Kavanagh, who also supported Senate Bill 1070 -- the law that gave Arizona authorities expanded immigration enforcement powers.

Read the rest of the article here.

In summary:

A proposed Arizona law would deny birth certificates to children born in
the United States to illegal immigrant parents...

John Kavanagh, a Republican state representative from Arizona who supports the proposed law aimed at so-called "anchor babies," said that the concept does not conflict with the U.S. Constitution.

"If you go back to the original intent of the drafters ... it was never intended to bestow citizenship upon (illegal) aliens," said Kavanagh, who also supported Senate Bill 1070 -- the law that gave Arizona authorities expanded immigration enforcement powers.

Under federal law, children born in the United States are automatically
granted citizenship, regardless of their parents' residency status...

Kyrsten Sinema, a Democratic state representative, strongly opposes the bill.

"Unlike (Senate Bill) 1070, it is clear this bill runs immediately afoul of
the U.S. Constitution," she said.

"While I understand that folks in Arizona and across the country
support S.B. 1070, they do so because we have seen no action from the federal
government," said Sinema. "Unfortunately, the so-called 'anchor baby' bill does
nothing to solve the real problems we are facing in Arizona."

The founding fathers were illegal aliens. In fact, the first few presidents weren't born here. James Madison was the first president born in the nation known as the United States. We are a nation made of immigrants (unless you are Native American Indian). If children born here, even to illegals, are not citizens, then what exactly would qualify as citizenship? Do infants now need to apply for citizenship?

I don't agree with illegal immigration. It's illegal. And we have to do something about it. But not this. Children born here have always been, and always should be, United States citizens. Arizona is seeking to directly punish children for the crimes of their parents. And that just isn't right.

What further angers me is that this bill is being pushed by Republicans. Republicans, the party of Abraham Lincoln. Republicans, the party that pushed for the end of Slavery. The party that has expoused patriotism so fiercly, is now pushing yet another unpatriotic law, built upon unpatriotic ideas.

If this passes, can the Union recover? Probably. But we'll definitely be a little further away from the Constitution than we were yesterday.

Crossposted to Republicans United

Law Enforcement Split on Arizona Immigration Bill

From Time magazine. To read the entire article, click here.

The law's main champions certainly include some law-enforcement figures, like
Maricopa County sheriff Joe Arpaio and the bill's state senate sponsor, Russell
Pearce, a former cop whose son (also a policeman) was once shot by an illegal
immigrant. But the official opposition of the Chiefs of Police Association — on
the grounds that the law amounts to an unfunded mandate, that it could hurt
community relationships and that it distracts attention and resources from more
serious criminality — shows that in Arizona, cops are just as divided about the
law as everyone else.

Brian Livingston, president of the Arizona Police
Association, which represents 9,000 rank-and-file officers and agents in the
state, supports SB1070 without reserve. "What we've seen is inaction, a lot of
discussion," he said. "We have officers getting killed, getting severely injured
by illegal aliens." He told the story of officer Marc Atkinson, a young Phoenix
cop whom Livingston had personally recruited to the force. Atkinson was killed
by an illegal alien during a drug bust, said Livingston.

David Aguilar,
acting deputy commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, followed that
speech with his own prescription for immigration and border issues. He didn't
explicitly take sides on SB1070, but he argued for a "holistic" approach that
includes a lot of help for America's neighbor to the south. "Speaking cop to
cop," he told the audience, the real question should be "How do we help [Mexico]
reduce the violence?"

The controversy alone made some law-enforcement
officials uncomfortable. Walking on the floor of the exhibition hall, police
chief Jerald Monahan of Apache Junction didn't want to comment about the law,
except to take issue with the rising calls to boycott Arizona: "To boycott all
of us when they're mad at a few people is not right," he said. "We're doing good
work."

Chief John Harris of Sahuarita, the current president of the
Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police, said he opposed the law before Governor
Jan Brewer signed it and still does today. He listed his objections: Immigration
has traditionally been a federal issue, and the police already have "manpower
and budget issues" that will only get worse under the law. "If we then arrest
[illegals] on state charges, who will pay?" he asked. He's also concerned that
victims may not report crimes to his officers. And finally, the threat of
lawsuits — any citizen may sue a police officer or department for impeding the
enforcement of immigration laws — makes him leery.
When told of the Arizona
Police Association's support for the law, Harris nodded. "It gives police
officers, in their mind, another tool," he said. "But if they get hit with a
civil rights lawsuit, well, that's a problem for the chief of police."

Ultimately Harris and the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police will
continue to oppose the law until it takes effect in mid- to late-summer. After
that, however, they will uphold its provisions while being as fair as possible.
"We are sworn," he said, "to enforce the laws of Arizona."

----------------------------------------

I find this really interesting, that Law Enforcement doesn't even agree on this issue. I've been following a lot of debate back and forth on this, and I'm not sure where I stand on it, really. I do think parts of the bill are unconsitutional and will ultimately hurt law enforcement, while other parts have long been needed.

I would welcome some other points of view on this. If you support it, why and what parts?

If you don't, the same: why and what parts? What would you do differently?

Illegal Immigrants Actually good for US economically

I have my bachelors degree in Spanish, for those of you who don't know. Many of my senior papers were written on immigration, and I've done quite a bit of research during my 4 1/2 years of college, as well as living abroad in Mexico for awhile, so I do know what I'm talking about here.

Nonetheless, I'm not an expert (most of us bloggers aren't either).

This is from an article I read in USA Today in early 2008 (I read it in TIME as well, but can't find that one right now) goes right in the face of many arguments about deporting the 11 million illegals we have.

Illegal immigrants are paying taxes to Uncle Sam, experts agree. Just how
much they pay is hard to determine because the federal government doesn't fully
tally it. But the latest figures available indicate it will amount to billions
of dollars in federal income, Social Security and Medicare taxes this year. One
rough estimate puts the amount of Social Security taxes alone at around $9 billion per year.

Paycheck withholding collects much of the federal tax from illegal
workers, just as it does for legal workers.

The Internal Revenue Service doesn't track a worker's immigration
status, yet many illegal immigrants fearful of deportation won't risk the
government attention that will come from filing a return even if they might
qualify for a refund. Economist William Ford of Middle Tennessee State
University says there are no firm figures on how many such taxpayers there
are.
"The real question is how many of them pay more than they owe. There are
undoubtedly hundreds of thousands of people in that situation," Ford said.
...
"It's a mistake to think that no illegal immigrants pay taxes. They
definitely do," said Martha Pantoja, who has been helping Hispanic immigrants
this tax season as an IRS-certified volunteer tax preparer for the non-profit
Nashville Wealth Building Coalition.
...
Pantoja said she has helped a number of construction workers who,
because they are classified as independent contractors by their employers and
have no taxes withheld, owe big tax bills come April. Beyond income tax, they
have to pay the full Social Security and Medicare taxes due.
The
Social Security Administration estimates that about three-quarters of illegal
workers pay taxes that contribute to the overall solvency of Social Security and
Medicare.
...
The impact on Social Security is significant, though, because most
of that money is never claimed by the people who pay it but instead helps cover
retirement checks to legal workers.

"Overall, any type of immigration is a net positive to Social Security.
The more people working and paying into the system, the better," Hinkle said.
"It does help the system remain solvent."
The Social Security Administration
drew from census and Immigration and Customs Enforcement data in 2007 to project
the effects of higher and lower immigration patterns.
If net immigration is
high at 1.3 million people a year, the SSA's combined trust fund would be
exhausted in 2043. But the fund runs out four years earlier if
annual net immigration amounts to about half that — 472,500 legal immigrants and
250,000 illegal immigrants.
...
In 2006, then IRS Commission Mark Everson told Congress that
"many illegal aliens, utilizing ITINs, have been reporting tax liability to the
tune of almost $50 billion from 1996 to 2003."
An IRS spokesman said
more recent figures aren't available.
The Social Security and Medicare taxes
from mismatched W2s for the same period was $41.4 billion,
Hinkle said.

That adds up to roughly $90 billion in federal taxes during
they eight-year period.
The IRS defends the ITIN system, despite
criticism that some illegal immigrants have used it to open bank accounts, get
mortgages and establish a record of residency and taxpaying they hope might
someday lead to legal status.

"The ITIN program is bringing taxpayers into the system," Everson told
Congress.
Ford, of Middle Tennessee State University, said a majority of
economists agree that illegal immigrants are a net benefit for the U.S.
economy.

He said the tax contributions from illegal immigrants, including sales
taxes, property taxes and excise taxes (such as the gas tax), are
significant.

He calculates that illegal immigrants contributed $428 billion
dollars to the nation's $13.6 trillion gross domestic product in 2006.
That number assumes illegal immigrants are 30% less productive than other
workers.

"If anything we need more immigrants coming into the country, not less,
especially with the baby boomers retiring," he said.