Minuteman National Blog

The Austin City Council discussed their resolution denouncing the Minutemen last night. Read it and (chuckle.)

Mayor Wynn: THEY''RE IMPORTANT, BUT WE COULDN''T GET TO THEM. SO THAT LEAVES US WITH ITEM NUMBER 55. IT WASN''T OUR INTENT TO HAVE TO TAKE IT UP THIS LATE, BUT WE ARE. AND I GUESS I''LL RECOGNIZE ANY OF THE SPONSORING COUNCILMEMBERS. WE HAD 14 PEOPLE SIGNED UP EARLIER IN THE DAY ON THIS ITEM. I DON''T THINK THEY''RE HERE. OR MANY OF THEM. SO PERHAPS JUST A BRIEF PRESENTATION OR SUMMARY BY COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ.

Alvarez: I''LL KEEP IT VERY BRIEF, MAYOR. THIS IS A RESOLUTION RELATED TO THE ACTIVITIES OF THE MINUTE MEN. IT''S SOMETHING YOU MAY HAVE READ ABOUT OR SEEN IN THE PAPER ABOUT CITIZEN GROUP THAT''S INTERESTED IN HELPING TO ENFORCE OUR IMMIGRATION LAWS. AND AGAIN THE MEDIA HAS REPORTED ON THE EXISTENCE AND PLANNED FORMATION OF THESE ARMED GROUPS OF INDIVIDUALS WHO ENGAGE IN ACTIVITIES TO PREVENT THE ENTRY OF PEOPLE MIGRATING TO THE U.S. AND ACTIVITIES THAT SEEK OUT IMMIGRANTS RESIDING IN THE U.S. WITH THE INTENT OF FACILITATING THEIR REMOVAL. AND AGAIN, BECAUSE THESE ARE FOLKS WHO ARE NOT TRAINED LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL, THERE''S A VERY REAL THREAT THAT THEY MAY ENGAGE IN DISCRIMINATORY ACTIVITIES AND RACIAL PROFILING AS WELL AS A POTENTIAL USE OF FORCE OR THREAT OF FORCE IN WAYS THAT VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF CITIZENS AND NON-CITIZENS ALIKE, RESIDENTS OF AUSTIN COULD POTENTIALLY BE AFFECTED IN THIS WAY. AND I THINK THAT -- REALLY I THINK THAT ACTUALLY THE FIRST SPEAKER TODAY I THINK -- WHO MADE A COMMENT ABOUT THAT I SHOULD GO BACK TO MEXICO I THINK KIND OF CALLED ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT THERE''S SOME FOLKS WITH CITIZENS, FOLKS WHO AREN''T TRAINED TO ENFORCE THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES AND WHO DON''T HAVE A CODE OF CONDUCT THAT THEY AGREE TO FOLLOW CAN DO RACIAL PROFILING, ENGAGE IN DISCRIMINATION AND VIOLATE THE RIGHTS OF OTHER FOLKS. AND WHAT I WOULD SAY ABOUT GOING BACK TO MEXICO IS THAT REALLY MY FAMILY -- THERE''S NO FAMILY IN TEXAS THAT CAN SAY THEY''VE BEEN IN TEXAS LONGER THAN MY FAMILY BECAUSE WE WERE HERE WHEN THIS STATE WAS CREATED. THE WHOLE ISSUE OF WE DIDN''T CROSS THE RIVER, THE RIVER CROSSED US. AND SO OBVIOUSLY THE FACT THAT THE GENTLEMAN MADE THAT COMMENT OBVIOUSLY IS -- JUST POINTS TO A LEVEL OF MISUNDERSTANDING AND MISCONCEPTION OUT THERE. TO SOME DEGREE THAT''S WHAT WE''RE TRYING TO CALL ATTENTION TO AND SAY THAT WE RESPECT THE RIGHT OF THESE GROUPS TO EXPRESS THEIR FREE SPEECH, BUT NOT TO THE EXTENT WHERE THEY VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF OTHER MEMBERS OF OUR COMMUNITY. SO THAT''S REALLY THE GIST OF WHAT THE RESOLUTION SAYS, AND I''LL JUST OPEN IT UP FOR OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS, BUT OTHERWISE I''M READY TO MAKE A MOTION.

Mayor Wynn: THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER. FURTHER COMMENTS? I''LL SAY WE HAD 35 CITIZENS SIGN UP, SOME WISHING TO SPEAK, SOME NOT WISHING TO SPEAK. WE WILL RECORD ALL THESE INTO THE RECORD. NINE CITIZENS SIGNED UP IN OPPOSITION TO THIS ITEM. 26 CITIZENS SIGNED UP IN FAVOR. COMMENTS, QUESTIONS? AND I''M ASSUMING THAT NO ONE REMAINS HERE TO TALK ABOUT THIS ITEM, BUT IF ANYBODY HERE WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS US, PLEASE STEP FORWARD. FURTHER COMMENTS, QUESTIONS? COUNCILMEMBER KIM.

Kim: MAYOR, I JUST WANT TO TALK ABOUT THIS RESOLUTION, AND AS COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ POINTED OUT, IT HAS TO DO WITH PEOPLE TAKING THE LAW INTO THEIR OWN HANDS, AND THIS VIGILANTISM IS REALLY A PROBLEM WHEN IT IMPEDES ON THE AUTHORITY OF FEDERAL AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS TO ENFORCE IMMIGRATION LAWS. AND ALSO WOULD CREATE A PROBLEM FOR OUR LOCAL ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY IN TERMS OF WHAT -- WHEN THEY DON''T HAVE THE TRAINING, THESE MINUTE MEN. AND RACIAL PROFILING IS A PROBLEM MANY TIMES, INCLUDING ASIANS, THEY DON''T EVEN KNOW WHAT ETHNICITY THEY ARE OR THE STATUS OF THEIR CITIZENSHIP. IF THEY DID, IT''S STILL NOT SOMETHING THAT THEY NEED TO TAKE INTO THEIR OWN HANDS IN TERMS OF ENFORCING IMMIGRATION LAWS. SO I SUPPORT THIS MOTION AND I GUESS WE''LL READ THIS INTO THE RECORD, THE RESOLUTION.

Alvarez: I WAS JUST SUMMARIZING AND ASSUMING THAT WOULD BE ENOUGH UNLESS FOLKS WOULD LIKE FOR US TO DO THAT.

Mayor Wynn: FURTHER COMMENT? MAYOR PRO TEM.

Thomas: I JUST WANT TO THANK THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL FOR THE SUPPORT OF THIS RESOLUTION. THANK MY COLLEAGUE, COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ AND COUNCILMEMBER KIM SAID ENOUGH, BUT IT JUST LETS US KNOW, LET''S PEOPLE KNOW THAT THE MINUTE MEN AND OTHER PEOPLE THAT WANT TO TAKE THE LAW INTO THEIR OWN HANDS, THAT CITIZENS OF AUSTIN AND THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THIS GREAT CITY SEND A MESSAGE TO LET THEM KNOW THAT THEY''RE NOT TRAINED TO DO THAT AND UNFORTUNATELY THEY DO HAVE A RIGHT TO PACK ARMS THESE DAYS. AND UNLESS THEY PASS A LAW. BUT IT JUST LETS THEM KNOW THAT WE WON''T TOLERATE THEM ABUSING PEOPLE''S RIGHTS BECAUSE EVERYBODY HAS A RIGHT, CONSTITUTION AL RIGHTS AND WE SHOULD RESPECT THAT. I APPRECIATE Y''ALL''S SUPPORT. THANK YOU.

Alvarez: MAYOR?

Mayor Wynn: COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ.

Alvarez: I JUST WOULD ADD THAT THIS WAS RECOMMENDED BY THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, NOT NECESSARILY THIS PARTICULAR WORDING, BUT THAT WAS ONE OF THE GENTLEMEN NIS OF THIS -- GENESIS OF THIS RESOLUTION AND ONE OF THE GROUPS THAT SUBMITTED LETTERS IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU, MAYOR.

Mayor Wynn: THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER. I''LL JUST SAY I HAVE SORT OF A POLICY AND A RECORD OF NOT VOTING FOR NONBINDING RESOLUTIONS THAT I THINK ESSENTIALLY ARE DEALING WITH INTERNATIONAL OR EVEN NATIONAL ISSUES, AND THIS HAZELMENTS OF THAT -- AND THIS HAS ELEMENTS OF THAT CLEARLY. HOWEVER WHAT THIS ITEM DOES IS KEEP OUR CITY MANAGER TO KEEP COUNCIL AND OUR CITIZENS INFORMED OF ACTIVITIES IN OUR CITY RELATED TO THIS KIND OF ACTIVITY. AND SO BECAUSE OF THAT I WILL BE SUPPORTIVE OF THE MOTION. IT DOES IN FACT HAVE A LOCAL IMPACT AND I THINK IT BEHOOVES US TO BE COGNIZANT OF ISSUES OCCURRING IN OUR CITY. I WILL STATE -- AND I ALSO HAVE -- FROM WHAT I KNOW OF IT, I SEEM TO AGREE IN A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT WAY WITH WHAT MY UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT OUR PRESIDENT''S GENERAL POSITION IS ON OUR BORDER, AND THAT IS A DRAMATIC NEED FOR DRAMATIC IMMIGRATION REFORM THAT WILL ALLOW FOR, FRANKLY, SIGNIFICANT CROSSINGS OF THE BORDER FOR GUEST WORK PROGRAMS AND OTHER TRADE. FURTHER COMMENTS, QUESTIONS? COUNCILMEMBER MCCRACKEN.

McCracken: I''LL JUST SAY, MAYOR, I HAVE THE SAME PHILOSOPHY AS YOU DO ABOUT THE RESOLUTIONS. I AGREE THIS IS DIFFERENT TOO. WE''VE SEEN IN VIRGINIA THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS HAVE HAD TO CONFRONT MINUTE MEN TRYING TO ROUST DAY LABOR SITES AND CHECK ID''S AND INTRUDING INTO THE POLICE FUNCTIONS OF THOSE COMMUNITIES. IT''S SOMETHING WE NEED TO KEEP OUR EYE ON AND SO I''LL ALSO SUPPORT THIS.

Mayor Wynn: FURTHER COMMENTS, QUESTIONS? SO COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ MADE THE MOTION. I THINK COUNCILMEMBER KIM -- WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND? JUST IN CASE, MOTION MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ TO APPROVE ITEM NUMBER 55 AS OUTLINED AND PRESENTED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KIM. FURTHER COMMENT? HEARING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE.

AYE.

Mayor Wynn: OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES ON A VOTE OF SEVEN TO ZERO. MS. SPENCE, IS THAT ALL OF OUR -- THERE BEING NO MORE BUSINESS BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL, WE NOW STAND ADJOURNED. IT IS 1:12. MERRY CHRISTMAS, HAPPY HOLIDAYS AND A SAFE NEW YEAR

End of Council Session Closed Caption Log

NumbersUSA has a continuously updated Web page on tonight''s House floor debate about amendments to the Sensenbrenner-King bill, H.R. 4437, regarding illegal immigration and border security.

Click the title link to follow along with the live broadcast on C-SPAN. Post your comments and observations here.

Human Events reports on Rep. J.D. Hayworth speaking his mind about Mexico President Vicente Fox''s recent comments on the proposed border fence:

U.S. Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R.-Ariz.) said Thursday that Mexican President Vicente Fox should “shut up” about his opposition to a proposed U.S.-Mexico border fence.

Fox on Wednesday called the idea of a fence “disgraceful and shameful.”

“I’m going to step away from diplomatic rules and offer President Fox some straight talk: President Fox should shut up,” Hayworth told HUMAN EVENTS. “He should shut up about all of this because he is only fanning the flames of poor relations between our two nations. He needs to cease and desist.”

Hayworth continued: “What’s disgraceful is President Fox presuming to lecture the United States on how best to protect itself against an invasion -- an invasion that has his wholehearted advocacy. . . . He needs to stop his advocacy of an invasion of his countrymen into our nation. What’s shameful is that, as the president of the Republic of Mexico, he does nothing to stem this invasion. He actively endorses it.”

Speaking Wednesday in the Tamaulipas state bordering Texas, Fox said: “The disgraceful and shameful construction of walls, the increasing enforcement of security systems and increasing violation of human rights and labor rights will not protect the economy of the United States.”

Click the title link to read the rest of the article.

The Denver Post reports on Rep. Tom Tancredo''s statement that 51 illegal aliens had been arrested by federal terrorism investigators:

In fact, none of the 51 people arrested from September 2004 through September 2005 were charged with terrorism offenses, according to officials from two divisions of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security as well as the document released by Tancredo. Many were arrested on immigration violations.

The suspects were investigated by federal terrorism officials because they came from "countries of interest," such as Iran, Iraq, Lebanon and Syria, the FBI said.

"I''m unaware of any instances at this time of individuals that have been charged with terrorism-related offenses (among) individuals who have been smuggled across the border," said FBI spokesman Bill Carter.

However, neither he nor a spokesman from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement could rule out any ongoing terrorism investigations involving any of the 51.

SNIP

Asked about his press release saying that the suspects had been arrested on terrorism-related charges, Tancredo said, "We shouldn''t have been probably so definitive in that, and I''m sorry we did that. I take responsibility for that."

Nevertheless, Tancredo said, the data are the first evidence that people in the country illegally are being investigated for possible terrorism connections.

Read more at the title link.

The Bush administration released a statement supporting the Sensenbrenner-King bill, H.R. 4437, dealing with border security, illegal immigration and employers of illegal aliens. Click the title link to read the PDF file statement.

We''re compiling links to several news articles about the ongoing battle by the Herndon Minutemen in this post. Click the title links below to read the articles.

The Washington Times: Herndon Center Open to Laborers

The Washington Post: Words Fly at Day-Laborer Center in Herndon

Loudon Times-Mirror: Immigration Debate Heats Up

The Associated Press: Official Day Laborer Site Draws Protests, Few Contractors

Letter to the Editor, Wash. Post: The Cost of Virginia''s Illegal Immigrants

The Washington Post: Where Laborers Go, They Will Follow

The Washington Times: Minutemen Report Illegal Contractors

Times Community: Minutemen Report ''Illegal'' Employers

The Herndon Connection: Minutemen Surveillance

Tne story gets a bit more traction...

SAN DIEGO -- One of the toughest border security bills in a decade is expected to clear the U.S. House of Representatives by the end of the week, bringing the controversial bill one step closer to becoming law.

Currently, immigrants in the U.S. without a visa or green card are breaking civil law and often left alone if they make it past the border. The proposed new legislation would make it a violation of criminal law -- making it a federal crime to live in the United States illegally -- that is enforceable anywhere and at any time.

The security bill is setting off a heated debate.

"There''s always going to be an opening," a man at the U.S.-Mexico border told NBC 7/39.

Former U.S. Attorney Pete Nunez said that he has been asking for a bill strengthening immigration laws for almost two decades.

"It should serve as an incentive for some illegal aliens to depart because they now can be prosecuted," said Nunez. "Prosecuted easily."

A bit more at the title link.

The chorus is starting to warm up...

MONTERREY, Mexico – President Vicente Fox on Wednesday criticized the United States'' decision to strengthen its border security and complete a wall along the two countries common border calling it "disgraceful and shameful."

"This situation we''re seeing, a disgraceful and shameful moment where walls are being built, security systems are being reinforced, and human and labor rights are being violated more and more, won''t protect the economy of the United States," Fox said.

On Monday, a U.S. federal judge lifted the final legal barrier allowing for the completion of a border fence along the Mexico-California border. Plans call for two additional fences running parallel to the existing steel barrier, with sensors and cameras tracking any movement. The fences will run along the final 3 1/2 miles (5.6 kilometers) of the border before it meets the Pacific Ocean.

-- snip --

"It would be hard to know what would happen to the economy of the United States if it wasn''t for the enormous contribution, the productivity, the quality of work of our countrymen in that country," Fox said.

Speaking in the border city of Reynosa, across from Hidalgo, Texas, Fox said he remained hopeful the United States will approve a temporary guest worker program next year.

Bush has proposed a temporary guest worker program, but that plan envisions having most workers return home after up to six years working in the United States. Mexico is pushing for more permanent, legal residence for many of the millions of undocumented Mexicans living and working in the United States.

"What the United States needs is a young (work) force, energy, quality, productivity, which is what keeps that economy competitive and the only way it can stop losing jobs to Asia, to China," Fox added.

-- snip --

Fox was in Reynosa supervising the Paisano Program, a government effort to clamp down on corrupt public officials and welcoming Mexican migrants coming home for the holidays.

Since taking office in 2000, Fox has traveled each year to Mexico''s northern border to greet the wave of returning migrants, both legal and illegal. His government has posted more than 1,000 independent observers at major crossings and installed hotlines for migrants to report abuse.

Home for the holidays. Sounds like January would be a good time for watching the border...

Let the games begin!

MEXICO CITY – A bill that would toughen U.S. immigration enforcement is "wrong," Foreign Relations Secretary Luis Ernesto Derbez said on Monday, and he called for U.S. groups to lobby against the measure.
The bill, sponsored by Republican Representative James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, passed the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday. It would make undocumented migration, now a civil offense, a federal crime.

"We are trying with great force to avoid" passage of the bill, Derbez told a local radio station, according to a transcript of the interview supplied by his office.

"It appeared to us wrong, because it is a bill that tried to resolve migration issues on a judicial basis with control measures," Derbez said.

"This type of law that build walls, puts more people on border patrols, or hardens the sanctions against those who hire an undocumented person, don''t lead to adequate solutions," Derbez said.

The next couple of months promise to be filled with similar amusing sound bites. A bit more of the story is available by clicking the title.

Click this link for a brief video clip of Lou Dobbs on his CNN show last Friday saying some very nice things about the Minutemen.

The Whittier Daily News reports on the findings of a study released by the Center for Immigration Studies on legal and illegal immigration:

The number of immigrants in the United States reached a new high this year after the biggest five-year increase in American history, said a study released Monday by the Center for Immigration Studies.

Nearly 7.9 million immigrants - about half of them believed to be illegal - settled in the United States between January 2000 and 2005, boosting the total number of immigrants in the nation to 35.2 million, the study said.

About 1.8 million immigrants during that period entered California, more than any other state, according to the study by the D.C.-based think tank that favors immigration control and analyzed Census Bureau data.

"The 35.2 million immigrants living in the country in March 2005 is the highest number ever recorded - 2 1/2 times the 13.5 million during the peak of the last great immigration wave in 1910," said Steven Camarota, the center''s director of research.

The report comes as the House prepares to pass Republican legislation reinforcing U.S. borders, easing deportations and creating a nationwide system whereby employers must check workers'' immigration status.

The study said nearly half of all California households receiving food stamps, subsidized housing or other public assistance are headed by an immigrant. And it said immigrants and their children in California are twice as likely to be uninsured, with more than half of all immigrants in the state receiving Medicaid.

Nationally, the study found, 28.6 percent of immigrant households use a welfare program compared with 18.2 percent of U.S.-born households, while 47 percent of all immigrants are either uninsured or have insurance provided through Medicaid.

SNIP

Click the title link for the complete article.

The Gwinnett Daily Post reports on the new immigration bill by Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.):

ATLANTA — Georgia’s senior U.S. senator will introduce legislation today that would combine a get-tough approach toward illegal immigration with flexibility to allow some illegal farm workers to remain in this country temporarily.

Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss’ bill has many of the enforcement provisions contained in other measures pending before Congress, including hiring more Customs and Border Patrol officers, building more border checkpoints and detention centers and authorizing state and local police agencies to enforce federal immigration law.

But the bill also would allow illegal immigrants working in farming or related businesses — including poultry production and landscaping — to remain in the country for up to two years at the request of their employers.

“This is not amnesty. Amnesty allows them to stay here illegally for an indefinite period of time,’’ said Chambliss, chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee.

“(But) we can’t stick our head in the sand and say, as a practical matter, that we can round up all these folks and send them back where they came from.’’

SNIP

Click the title link to read more.

The Boston Globe has an opinion article by their Washington bureau chief, Peter S. Canellos, on the effect of the Gilchrist campaign:

WASHINGTON -- Jim Gilchrist, who started citizens'' patrols to catch illegal immigrants along the Mexican border, struck an even bigger blow last week for his cause: Running for an open California seat in Congress on an anti-illegal immigrant platform, he picked up 25 percent of the vote as an independent, in a normally Republican district.

Gilchrist''s big protest vote grabbed the attention of almost every politician in Washington, thereby guaranteeing that curbing illegal immigration will be a refrain in next year''s congressional races.

Republican and Democratic officeholders in border states tend to agree that it''s a complex issue, requiring numerous different strategies.

Among them: increasing the numbers of border agents; building more holding cells; enacting a guest-worker program to give agents a better chance of identifying drug dealers and terrorists; expanding an innovative plan to return illegal immigrants to their homes in the interior of Mexico, thereby discouraging them from immediately crossing over again.

SNIP

Click the title link to read more.

The American Spectator has an opinion article by John Tabin on the ramifications of Jim Gilchrist''s Congressional campaign:

Last week California State Representative John Campbell won a special election to fill the U.S. House of Representatives seat vacated when Chris Cox was appointed to chair the Securities and Exchange Commission this summer. But Campbell''s victory, which was never in doubt, wasn''t the headline of the election. Jim Gilchrist, founder of the volunteer border-watching group known as the Minutemen, ran as an independent on a border-security platform, and garnered about a quarter of the vote, 10% higher than his showing in the 19-candidate "jungle primary" in October. Campbell''s share of the vote dropped a percentage point from the primary, to 45%. In fact, Gilchrist actually won among voters who cast ballots on election day; Campbell needed absentee ballots to put him over the top.

Lawmakers in Washington are taking this political signal very seriously. Before the election, Bob Novak reported that the sense among Republicans on Capitol Hill was that "a strong showing by Gilchrist -- anything above 20 to 25 percent" would doom the guest-worker program favored by President Bush. After the election, an anonymous congressman told John Fund that "members will be spooked at the thought of primary challengers or third-party candidates draining votes from them with an immigrant-bashing platform."

SNIP

Click the title link to read the entire piece.

On Lou Dobbs Tonight on CNN, Mr. Dobbs wholeheartedly expressed his support for the Minutemen.

Dobbs: "I support the Minuteman Project and the fine Americans who make it up in all they''ve accomplished, fully, relentlessly, and proudly"

To read the entire article, click on the headline link!

''What''s to stop an al-Qaida operation from doing exactly the same kind of thing?''

An illegal alien twice deported by the U.S. "hit the jackpot" on his third try, gaining a job paying $44,000 a year and a federal loan helping him to buy a home in North Carolina.

Now, the 24-year-old Mexican is accused of terrorizing American women, as authorities believe he committed up to nine rapes in addition to other crimes.

According to the Greensboro News-Record, Gilberto Cruz Hernandez of Mexico was caught and ousted from the United States twice, but was able to gain entry a third time, and secure employment with a printing company in North Carolina''s Piedmont area.

Ironically, "the same federal government that twice deported him put its financial might behind a $123,000 Federal Housing Administration loan that allowed him to buy a brand-new house in Winston-Salem," the paper notes.

And even though he was ticketed 11 times for speeding and other driving infractions, none of the stops resulted in his detention as an illegal alien, a prior deportee or a potential threat to public safety.

"I''m not saying that we think everybody who is doing this is a terrorist," Randy Jones of the Alamance County Sheriff''s Department told the paper. "But you don''t have to be extremely intelligent to figure out where this all could lead if it can be done by some Juan Doe who might not even be able to read or write.

"What''s to stop an al-Qaida operation from doing exactly the same kind of thing, only with more financing so they can do it even better? This isn''t anti-Hispanic or anti-immigrant. It''s anti-crime, and we better get a handle on it."

Jones says even though his department does background checks for those of questionable nationality, the federal system can take up to two weeks to respond.

"They say you don''t have the guy you thought. He''s this other person and he''s a criminal, illegal alien who was deported on drug-trafficking charges," Jones said. "But by then, he''s bonded out (on the local charge) and long gone."

"He did have a North Carolina license issued in July of this year," Capt. Gary Hastings of the Greensboro Police Department told the paper last month.

As WorldNetDaily reported, North Carolina''s requirements to obtain a driver''s license are weaker than those of many surrounding states, according to a performance audit of the licensing process.

Now, a political action committee called Americans for Legal Immigration is blasting the Associated Press for its lack of coverage of Hernandez and similar cases.

"Associated Press? Can you hear me?" asks president William Gheen in an open letter. "The citizens of North Carolina would really like to know this information since you so loudly proclaimed that [Gov.] Mike Easley had secured our licenses from illegal aliens during the elections of 2004. Don''t you think you should announce that he deceived everyone and that illegal aliens are still getting licenses hand over fist? You have not told the state about officials in Florida and New Jersey telling us that busloads of illegal aliens come to N.C. for licenses and tags and that police in N.J. are seizing licenses from illegals hand over fist! With all due professionalism I respectfully ask that you start doing your damn job and tell the people what they need to know!"

Some interesting tidbits from a Professor of Law...

The 14th Amendment provides that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens . . . ." To treat the last clause as describing merely territorial jurisdiction, as Ms. Jacoby does, is to render the clause superfluous. Even temporary visitors are subject to U.S. jurisdiction in that sense; everyone here has to obey our traffic laws, for example. The clause must therefore mean something much more -- an allegiance-owing jurisdiction.

The debates in the Congress that approved the clause, and the unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court justices who first interpreted it, confirm this understanding. Sen. Reverdy Johnson of Maryland explained during floor debate, for example, that "all this amendment provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign power -- for that no doubt is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us -- shall be considered as citizens of the United States." The author of the provision, Sen. Jacob Howard, announced that the clause "will not, of course, include foreigners."

The Supreme Court first considered the clause in the Slaughter-House Cases of 1872, unanimously recognizing that the phrase "was intended to exclude from its operation children of . . . citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States." This view was confirmed in the 1883 case of Elk v. Wilkens. The phrase, according to the court, meant "not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance." Children of temporary visitors to the United States, particularly those who are here illegally, owe primary allegiance to their parent''s country, not to the U.S., and are therefore not guaranteed citizenship by the terms of the 14th Amendment.

This article first appeared in the Wall Street Journal on December 7th. Click the title for additional reading pleasure...

Food for thought: how much of a bureacracy would be needed to manage a guest worker program?

Despite talk of these improvements – and so far it''s only talk – the president remains wedded to his temporary-worker program, an idea that will not only worsen the immigration bureaucracy, but will do nothing to reverse a growing trend among immigrants to reject assimilation and citizenship in lieu of filching the American dream.

Part of the guest-worker program involves registering all of its participants, a process that undoubtedly will take years to complete and cost boatloads of money. This ongoing process – I assume there will always be "jobs Americans won''t do," so I assume there will always be poor immigrants to fill them – will serve to add multiple layers to an already overwhelmed border enforcement bureaucracy, without guaranteeing there won''t be fraud and abuse rampant throughout the system.

And what happens when these guests overstay their welcome – and some of them will. Americans are being led to believe the government will then search them out and ship them home, which – if it even happens – will add still more layers of bureaucracy onto the overburdened immigration system, because it will add new duties and responsibilities to the federal government.

I realize these guests will only be able to enter the United States if they have a job (it was hard to say that with a straight face), but what happens if they want to change jobs? Will they be allowed to? And if so, will they be required to file paperwork denoting a change in employment status with immigration officials? Will it simply be a notification process, or will it be a request that needs to be approved by someone – in which case you can bet it will become another process that gets bogged down.

Thereby further complicating and overburdening the system.

Thereby making the system even more expensive and difficult to maintain.

Listen, this whole "guest-worker" charade may make a good sound bite and it may win the Republicans a few Hispanic votes and it may placate the business interests that feed dollars to both major political parties. But as public policy, it stinks worse than a New Orleans street.

This entire concept of a guest worker program simply does not pass the tests of logic or logistics. As usual, click the title for the full article.

A good article from the Christioan Science Monitor by two gentlemen who are experts in the study of illegal labor. Their findings:

Temporary-worker programs are often portrayed as a legal and humane alternative to unauthorized migration. But they fail to acknowledge that the last major Mexico-US temporary worker program, the so-called bracero program, actually was the initiator and accelerator of today''s large-scale unauthorized migration. The same is true across Western Europe, where "guest worker" programs based on similar claims were embraced during the economic booms of 30 to 40 years ago. Their "guests" for temporary work were transformed into millions of permanently resident "foreigners," who today have very high rates of unemployment and welfare dependency.

Most current proposals involve some form of "legalization" to "clear the slate" of about 11 million unauthorized residents, usually via a gradual process by which unlawful residents can earn legal immigrant status by doing farm or other work. Here, too, the record is more than clear: Such policies have a dismal recent history. In 1987-88, 2.8 million unauthorized migrants obtained US legal status. Yet despite this massive legalization, the farm labor market in California again is dominated by unauthorized workers.

Given this history, one might wonder why some US politicians are now proposing yet another guest-worker program. The subject is driven by odd coalitions of long-antagonistic regional, ideological, economic, and ethnic interest groups. Both conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats see the potential to gain large numbers of additional political and financial supporters. How? Conservatives expect to draw voters who favor their traditional social and cultural values. Liberal advocates expect to swell their political constituencies by favoring income redistribution policies, organized labor, affirmative action, and so on.

Of course both expectations cannot both be right. In politics, if someone gains, someone else loses. In addition, while guest worker and legalization proposals are being promoted as panaceas to reduce unauthorized migration, all contain the very seeds of their own failure. The most likely outcomes actually would be to increase unlawful flows across the borders.

Why is a guest-worker program being pushed? Because some employer and ethnic lobbies expect to benefit substantially and rapidly. There would be costs, but these would be slower to appear, and would be paid for by the federal and local governments rather than by the interest groups that benefit. The result is politics driven by small, concentrated, and well-financed interest groups that expect to profit significantly in the short term.

People, as economist Adam Smith once observed, are "the most difficult baggage to transport over borders." Among those who have carefully studied recent experience, there is an overwhelming and concise consensus: There is nothing more permanent than temporary workers.

Clicking the title link will yield a good bit of political background as well.