A TAXPAYER CALLS IN - "HELLO MR. PRESIDENT ..."

By Marty Lich
Dec 23, 2004, 23:20

Email this article
Printer friendly page

Hello Honorable President Bush, it is I, the weary and beleaguered United States of America taxpayer speaking to you.
As is typical behavior for me, honorable Sir, I read your press release on December 20, 2004 from cover to cover. And as is typical for you, the message you put out is same as it has been since 2001. This old refrain is:

Good-hearted people.
Hardworking people.
Family values people.
But there is no mention of aid for American citizens in this December 20, 2004 compassionate "people" White House Press Conference of yours; it only speaks of aid for people who break our laws.

I have always thought of myself, my family, and my friends, as fitting the following. Goodhearted. Hardworking. Family oriented. From my legal American perspective, my friends, family, and I seem to have only one strike against us. We are the lawful citizens here.

My belief has always been that "law-abiding, good hearted, putting food on their families tables" people, aka legal residents of the United States of America were the ones most respected, the ones most responded to, and the ones who made America the great and prosperous country that She is today.

Guess I thought wrong. Guess we all thought wrong.

It is apparent to me that the public’(tm)s plea to secure our borders and please address these "good hearted", "family value" unlawful, criminal, illegal aliens currently residing in the United States will go un-addressed by your administration, other than to assign these Willing Workers the title of “Legal Here Now.”

So Mr. President, I have a new thought here. A couple of them in fact. My children will grow up in the United States of America. Your grandchildren will grow up here, Mr. President. I am going to make the assumption that that your grandchildren and my children will be the minority in this country by adulthood and they will also be the higher United States income tax producers for our country. With that in mind President Bush, here is my proposal. I think it has merit. I think that my lawful American resident viewpoint is the reason that Arizona's Prop. 200 passed there with nary a hitch, and I believe it is the reason that Colorado's Constitutional Amendment, Defend Colorado Now, will also have no trouble in passing when it reaches the Colorado voter's ballots in 2006. More people think like I do than people who think as you do, Sir.

Before we allow this amnesty aka Willing Worker proposal to reach its apparent and inevitable conclusion in the great country of America, a few items demand changes.

Seal the borders. Completely and with intent. Such as Mexico does on HER southern side. They have guns.
Eliminate any and all Public Aid (welfare) nationwide for all illegal aliens, and for all "Willing Worker" GWB-Fox Team Guest Pass ticket-holders. No Free/Reduced school lunches, no WIC (Women, Infants and Children, grocery store tax-funded checks), no housing and utility tax aid, no nothing without that verified genuine Social Security number and proof of citizenship or legal residency. "Willing Worker" will not count towards public aid. Only "Proof Positive" counts via verified prior tax returns, with all the pertinent legal citizen or resident records completed. No verified Social Security numbers from years past? Then no United States taxpayer funded welfare money.
Eliminate birth citizenship rights. Treat any babies born here as we treat foreign diplomat's United States born children. Non-citizens that happen to have been born in the United States of America. That eliminates any welfare money being mailed out of the country. And will stop all 'Anchor' baby "you are citizens here" family reunification plans as well. We stopped kidnapping people for slavery years ago to best of my knowledge. Therefore the kidnapped slaves birthright citizenship law is no longer applicable today.
No hospitalization, no free medical care. Life or death emergency care only. When the willing workers are stabilized, they are returned home at their expense. Like they do in Mexico. The "pay or leave" system seems to function rather well in Mexico.
Last but certainly not least. All money, other than employer paychecks electronically sent out of our country is taxed. Heavily taxed. I think 30% should be just about right. That money will help offset the taxpayer's costs of paperwork, not to mention the billions of dollars the Internal Revenue Service said it has lost this year in non-taxed, sent out-of-country, cash. This tax will also help offset the United States taxpayer burden of welfare services for the 'willing worker' employees of companies who are paying out that non-reported, non-taxed, cash income.
I believe if these carrots were no longer dangling, much of what ails the United States would self-resolve. Pretty painlessly. Most illegal aliens would go home, to their legal homes. 'Willing Workers' might not be quite so willing after all if they are not given a free dollar ride on the American taxpayer's backs. The ones that remained in America and toughed it out would be a benefit, not a detriment, to our society and our future.

Sincerely, Marty Lich. A "good-hearted" but exhausted American taxpayer who would "like to continue putting food on the table" for her American family and has "family values" that also do not stop at the Rio Grande River, but that DO stop short of breaking the law.

AMNESTY VS. BORDER CONTROL

By Congressman Tom Tancredo
Team America PAC | December 14, 2004
President Bush announced in a meeting with Mexico's President Vicente Fox in November that he will give "high priority" in 2005 to his guest worker plan that will grant legal status to the four to six million Mexican nationals (and others) now working in the United States illegally. That proposal was first announced in January of 2004 as a set of "principles."
However, since it was never introduced in Congress as legislation, no details are known about the plan. The public needs answers to the many questions raised by the proposal. Among those questions are the following:
QUESTIONS ABOUT AMNESTY
1. The president says his plan does not offer amnesty to lawbreakers, but if an unlawful act is forgiven and not penalized, is that not the same as amnesty? Isn't it amnesty if people who entered our country illegally are not required to go home before applying for a work permit?
2. Why is it not reasonable to believe that offering a "legal route to employment" for people who entered the country illegally will only encourage millions more to follow the same path in the expectation that they, too, will eventually be offered legal status? Is The White House aware that the National Border Patrol Council, which represents rank and file Border Patrol agents, says the president's plan will produce another surge in illegal alien traffic?
NATIONAL SECURITY
3. The president says that his plan will free up the Border Patrol to catch drug smugglers and terrorists. In view of the very real terrorist threat facing our nation and the certainty that terrorists are well aware of how easy it is to cross our open borders, would it not be more sensible and much safer for the country to first make our borders secure and then experiment with new guest worker programs, rather than the other way around?
4. What about the 150,000 people coming across our borders each year from outside Mexico, hundreds of them from countries on the State Department's watch list of nations known to harbor terrorists? Why is border security taking a backseat to a temporary worker program?
JOBS
5. The president says his temporary worker plan will be limited to "jobs Americans won't do." But since willingness to do any job is always relative to the wages being offered for that job, isn't it true that millions of jobs will be lost by Americans to foreign labor willing to work at a lower wage? When an employer lowers the wage of a job so only a foreign worker will take the job, as is already happening in construction trades and many other occupations, how can anyone say this is not taking jobs away from Americans?
6. The president frequently describes his plan as one that "will match willing workers with willing employers." Since his plan puts no limits on the types of jobs to be included, isn't it likely that employers will find additional millions of "willing workers" to fill millions of jobs at lower wages?
WHAT IS A "TEMPORARY WORKER"?
7. The president says his plan will allow "temporary workers" to take jobs for a three year term, renewable to six years. If a worker signs up for the program to obtain legal employment and works six years, but then does not want to go home because he now has a wife and also three children born in the United States, will the plan require him to go home? If he returns home, what happens to his wife and children?
8. If the temporary worker is not required to go home after his term of employment expires, then isn't it more accurate to call the president's plan a new immigration program with built-in preference for immigrants from Mexico and Central America? If a "temporary worker" is allowed to file an application for citizenship and to remain in the United States after his temporary work permit expires, is this not really an immigration program and not a temporary worker program?
ENFORCEMENT POLICIES
9. The president says his plan will include stepped up enforcement of labor laws to punish employers who continue to hire illegal workers. But isn't it true that this same promise was made to Congress and the American people in 1986 and that promise was never kept?
10. Since current laws against hiring illegal workers are virtually unenforceable, what specific changes is the president proposing to curtail and penalize this employment practice? Will employers be required to verify a valid Social Security number (available to any legal worker) before offering employment? Will Social Security cards be made fraud-proof? Will illegal workers who use phony Social Security cards or other people's numbers be deported and not merely fired and allowed to seek a different job as is the case today?
11. The president says that offering a legal way to find work in the U.S. will bring an end to the border problems. But if our borders are not made truly secure, won't millions of desperate people continue to enter illegally way instead of waiting in line for a work permit?
COMPETENCE AND CAPABILITIES OF OUR ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
12. If today's Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement cannot locate the 400,000 "absconders" who have already been ordered deported, including almost 100,000 criminal aliens, and if this enforcement agency can't intercept and deport the criminal aliens already incarcerated in our jails, nor the two million student, tourist, and other "visa overstays," why should anyone believe they will be willing and able to locate and deport an additional six to eight million "temporary workers" if these workers choose to stay when their permit expires?

FISCAL CONSERVATIVES TAKE ON THE WHITE HOUSE

By Nathan Tabor

I was captivated by a front-page story in this Monday’s edition of USA Today. “CONSERVATIVES TO CHALLENGE BUSH,” the headline screamed.

About 100 real Conservatives in Congress are ready to rumble over amnesty for illegal immigrants, potential pro-abortion judicial appointments, top-down federal mandates in education, and fundraising limits in political campaigns. They also want to stop the financial bleeding caused by runaway entitlement programs such as Bush’s controversial prescription drug benefits for seniors.

These Republicans are discontent with many of the Big Government policies promoted by the White House – policies that were to blame for turning a federal budget surplus into a $422 billion deficit during Bush’s first term. They now want to cut back on non-defense government spending far more than Bush does.

“Congress needs to assert itself more,” the article quoted Rep. Zach Wamp, R-Tenn. -- to which I add my own hearty AMEN!

As a small business owner with over 150 employees, I know that you can’t keep on spending more money than you are bringing in, or you won’t be around for long. When a business gets in a bind, it cuts back, reduces its expenses, and lowers the price on its products.

But when the government gets in a bind, the politicians always want to raise our taxes and promote some new boondoggle. The government needs to learn to operate like a business. We need some financial discipline. If our President wants to be a Texas cowboy, he should rope in Government Spending and bulldog the Tax Code.

Americans pay out way too much to Uncle Sam. The best way to energize our economy is to let folks keep more of what they earn, not siphon off their wealth and pour it down the black hole of Big Government bureaucracy. Raising taxes should be made as difficult as possible. We need a Constitutional Amendment to require a two-thirds supermajority to raise our taxes.

The Tax Code has become too burdensome and complicated. It is time to scrap the income tax, inheritance (or death) tax, and marriage penalty tax, and to replace all of these with a simple tax code. Whether you want a Fair Tax or a Flat Tax, we need comprehensive tax reform that will ELIMINATE the IRS, make paying taxes simpler and fairer for all Americans, encourage savings and investment, and promote growth and prosperity.

Next, it’s time for some belt-tightening inside the Beltway. The best way to limit the size of government is ensure that federal spending does not grow at a faster pace than the private sector. And we need to give the President the power to eliminate waste in the federal budget with a line item veto.

Congress should create an independent watchdog agency to review the finances of every federal agency to see if our tax dollars are being wasted. There are dozens of federal agencies hanging around that no longer have much use but are very tough to get rid of. We also need a Sunset Law that requires the review of each agency every five years to decide whether it should be continued or eliminated.

Finally, we need a Balanced Budget Amendment to force the government to balance its books every year. This single step could save our children and grandchildren untold billions of dollars in future years.

These are all good, sound, common sense ideas that could work – if only there were enough courageous leaders with the political will to make them a reality.

Copyright © 2004 by Nathan Tabor

GOVERNOR ORDERS IMMEDIATE IMPLEMENTATION OF PROP. 200

Federal Court Lifts TRO

PHOENIX – Governor Janet Napolitano has issued an Executive Order directing state agencies to immediately and fully implement the terms of proposition 200 and related federal laws.  The Gov. took that action late this afternoon, after a temporary restraining order was lifted.

“We’ve done a lot of work to prepare for this day, and we’re ready to go,” said Governor. Napolitano. “I’ve asked state agencies to fully comply with Proposition 200, and I have now ordered agencies to perform additional, random checks to make sure that we are doing it right.” 

Proposition 200, also known as “Protect Arizona Now,” was approved by voters in the general election on November 2, 2004.  The initiative requires state agencies to ensure that certain state and local public benefits are not provided to people who are in the United States illegally.

On November 30th, in response to a lawsuit, federal court judge David Bury issued the temporary restraining order that prevented Proposition 200 from taking effect. That restraining order was lifted after a hearing this afternoon in Tucson.

The Arizona Department of Economic Security administers 5 programs that are affected by Proposition 200. DES has completed the training of more than 2,000 employees and has prepared new procedures and policies that reflect the changes in the law.  As part of her Executive Order, the Governor has also directed Executive Branch agencies affected by Proposition 200 to institute audit procedures to confirm the new law is applied correctly.  Reports of those audits must be delivered to the Governor by March 30, 2005, and must continue to be submitted annually.

“The voters made the decision, and I intend to make sure the law is enforced correctly,” said Governor Napolitano. 

Voting-related provisions of Proposition 200 must be pre-cleared by the United States Department of Justice before they can take effect.

Included with this news release is a summary of frequently asked questions related to the implementation of Proposition 200 and a copy of the Executive Order issued today.

ILLEGALIZE ILLEGALS: TIME FOR SHOWDOWN IN OPEN FRONTIER

By WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY JR.

The new intelligence law, courtesy of 9/11, is mystifying because it does not face directly what is the most prominent threat to homeland security. 
It is:
inimical action by non-Americans.  All the people who participated in 9/11 were foreigners, here under various auspices.  And yet the bill that has evolved from the findings of the 9/11 commission reads like an elocutionary exercise by a national committee to avoid saying anything unpleasant about unpleasant people born abroad. Specifically, the threat at this moment is from foreign terrorism.  The day may come when there are native-born Americans who join in such a threat, such as the Weather Underground types we experienced during the '60s.

But at this point, the terrorists come from abroad.  "Last May," writes National Interest editor John O'Sullivan, "illegal aliens from Malaysia, Pakistan, Morocco, Uganda and India were released without bond. They are now at large in the U.S."  What happened is that as the intelligence bill crystallized, a fear developed that it might be construed as xenophobic. 
Somewhere along the line the word came down from the White House that for the president to be able to sign the bill, it had to be plucked clean of any suggestion that an illegal Muslim fundamentalist should be treated at all differently from an illegal Christian evangelist.  Remember the odd deportment of Norman Mineta, who has been reappointed as transportation secretary?
He went to extraordinary lengths several years ago to insist that security personnel at airports should pay no greater attention to 30-year-old Near-Eastern Muslims called Mohammed than they would to Shirley Temple.

The immigration problem is the primary unmet challenge of modern times.  It is so because the whole of our political establishment cringes at any suggestion that the United States is inhospitable to immigration.  We do have laws on the books, but they are apparently made for the sole purpose of flouting them.
Time magazine published the most florid essay on the question, estimating the annual flow of illegal immigration at more than 2 million persons.

There are two questions on the table.  The first deals with raw immigration:
How many people beyond those formally welcome under existing laws should we admit into the United States? The second, what are the risks to security in being as offhanded as we have been?  In the age of terrorism, it is obvious that the enemy will seek to do damage operating within U.S. territory.
That, of course, was the story of the 9/11 hijackers, 19 Muslim terrorists who took
advantage of loose laws to practice flying accurately into U.S. skyscrapers.

But the movements of such folk are not of primary concern to the U.S. government, to judge from the record.  O'Sullivan reports that the Transportation Department has launched several lawsuits against airlines because pilots had banned passengers they thought were security risks.

Asa Hutchinson, an official in the Department of Homeland Security, recently cut down a Border Patrol initiative to catch illegal aliens. The reason?  It was catching too many illegal aliens.  We have the piquant problem of what to do with illegals.  It approaches the problem of what to do with drinkers during Prohibition. You couldn't put them all in jail because there weren't enough jails. Illegals remain largely undisturbed, and the main reason for it isn't
U.S. sentimentality toward aspirant Americans. It is the market contribution to the dilemma:  There are jobs only illegals are willing to perform, e.g. serving as nannies for Bernard Kerik.  Much of the menial and agricultural work done in the southwestern states is done by illegals.

The result of the combined forces — the need for cheap labor and the passion to avoid any appearance of ethnic or religious discrimination — is an open frontier. Yes, a few illegals are deported.  These should get a parade, signaling such distinction as attaches to the infrequency of their apprehension.  And perhaps a parade when they come through the next
time, often through the same gap in the southwestern frontier.

A subsidiary but not uninteresting question is:  Where do our deportees gather?  What help is available to them to reassemble? Perhaps to return to Arizona in time for high school reunions?  It's a tough one politically, but Congress should bear down on the subject, intimately related to concerns for homeland security.

Buckley is a nationally syndicated columnist based in New York

MIGRANT REFORM BILL IN WORKS
BUSH TALK BOLSTERS BIPARTISAN EFFORT BY MCCAIN, KENNEDY

Billy House
Republic Washington Bureau
Dec. 25, 2004 12:00 AM
WASHINGTON - Arizona Sen. John McCain and Massachusetts Sen. Edward Kennedy are working together to draft a bipartisan bill for comprehensive immigration reform to introduce in the new session of Congress.

The efforts, bolstered by President Bush's reiteration on Monday that he wants to give temporary legal status to any "willing worker" who has found a job Americans do not want, come as many Republicans in Congress are pointing to the threat of terrorism as a reason to further restrict immigration.

And many Democrats remain skeptical about Bush's vision for a new guest worker plan that may or may not lead to permanent legal status for the millions of undocumented workers in the United States. They argue that few would come forward to register for temporary labor cards or visas, if only to risk losing them after three years.

Still, even though Republicans control the presidency, as well as both chambers of Congress, any immigration bill would need significant support from Democrats to pass. That is one reason McCain, a Republican, is working with Kennedy, a Democrat, on a measure that could be supported by both parties, as well as Bush.

McCain says he's committed to getting comprehensive immigration reform passed.

"Since the election, Senator McCain has spoken with the president and many members of Congress, including Senator Kennedy, trying to forge a consensus on immigration reform in an effort to move forward on this issue during the new Congress," spokeswoman Crystal Benton said.

Kennedy, a longtime proponent of immigration reform said, "Congress needs to fix our broken immigration system as soon as possible, not only for economic and humanitarian reasons, but for urgent national security reasons as well. I'm hopeful we can reach bipartisan agreement early in the new Congress on reforms that are obviously needed."

Almost one year ago, Bush floated his idea of a guest worker program, just as he was entering his campaign for re-election. At the time, he offered no details, and did not talk much about it during the presidential race.

On Monday, Bush again raised the immigration issue, but wants Congress to write the legislation. He likely will mention the topic in his inauguration address on Jan. 20.

Generally, Bush says he wants to balance the concerns of those who say illegal immigration is costing taxpayers money, and may even be a national security threat, with U.S. business needs for a reliable source of low-cost labor. However, Bush also says he would not support a full amnesty of automatic citizenship for the estimated 8 million to 12 million undocumented immigrants currently working in this country illegally.

"If somebody who is here working wants to be a citizen, they can get in line," Bush said.

Bush's guest worker idea has drawn fire from conservatives in his own party who say it would reward illegal behavior. On Monday Bush responded to those criticisms.

"We want our Border Patrol agents chasing crooks and thieves and drug runners and terrorists, not good-hearted people who are coming here to work," Bush said. "People are coming to put food on the table; they're doing jobs Americans will not do. And to me, it makes sense for us to recognize that reality."

At the same time, immigrant advocate groups say they will not be satisfied unless any immigration reform includes a way undocumented workers could earn permanent legal status, an area in which they say Bush falls short.

"We are going to continue to push for a path for permanent residency," said Michele Waslin, director of immigration policy at the National Council of La Raza.

Both McCain and Kennedy have sponsored guest worker bills in the past, and need to come up with a bill that will pass muster on both sides of the political aisle.

In the just-completed Congress, McCain joined fellow Arizona Republican Reps. Jim Kolbe and Jeff Flake in sponsoring legislation that would grant a path to citizenship to qualified undocumented workers.

Kennedy also favors granting legal status - and eventually, citizenship - to undocumented workers who already have been in the country for several years, have jobs and pay taxes. His past bills also called for expediting citizenship for the spouses and children of undocumented immigrants.

"Both Senator McCain and Senator Kennedy think the system is broken and we need to fix it," said a congressional staffer familiar with discussions between the two senators. "I think at this point we're trying to see if we can bridge the gaps between our two offices and other (congressional offices) on this.

"We're still very early in the process," the staffer added.

Angela Kelley, deputy director of the National Immigration Forum, another immigrant advocacy group, predicts that the complexities of the immigration issue and its far-reaching impacts will delay any historic reform legislation.

"We're certainly not going to see anything within the first 100 days of the session," she said. "What I think we will see in '05, though, is a deepening of the debate, introduced at a whole new level."

Ira Mehlman, media director for the Federation of American Immigration Reform, said that even if the White House gets behind a guest worker bill sponsored by McCain and Kennedy, or anyone else, the measure will face "serious opposition," from immigration foes, including many Republicans in the U.S. House.

"The president doesn't have to run (for office) again. House members are always running for re-election," he said.

RUMSFELD SAYS 9-11 PLANE “SHOT DOWN” IN PENNSYLVANIA
DURING SURPRISE CHRISTMAS EVE TRIP, DEFENSE SECRETARY CONTRADICTS OFFICIAL STORY

WASHINGTON – Ever since Sept. 11, 2001, there have been questions about Flight 93, the ill-fated plane that crashed in the rural fields of Pennsylvania.
The official story has been that passengers on the United Airlines flight rushed the hijackers in an effort to prevent them from crashing the plane into a strategic target – possibly the U.S. Capitol.
During his surprise Christmas Eve trip to Iraq, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld referred to the flight being shot down – long a suspicion because of the danger the flight posed to Washington landmarks and population centers.
Was it a slip of the tongue? Was it an error? Or was it the truth, finally being dropped on the public more than three years after the tragedy of the terrorist attacks that killed nearly 3,000?
Here's what Rumsfeld said Friday: "I think all of us have a sense if we imagine the kind of world we would face if the people who bombed the mess hall in Mosul, or the people who did the bombing in Spain, or the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania and attacked the Pentagon, the people who cut off peoples' heads on television to intimidate, to frighten – indeed the word 'terrorized' is just that. Its purpose is to terrorize, to alter behavior, to make people be something other than that which they want to be."
Several eyewitnesses to the crash claim they saw a "military-type" plane flying around United Airlines Flight 93 when the hijacked passenger jet crashed – prompting the once-unthinkable question of whether the U.S. military shot down the plane.
Although the onboard struggle between hijackers and passengers – immortalized by the courageous "Let's roll" call to action by Todd Beamer – became one of the enduring memories of that disastrous day, the actual cause of Flight 93's crash, of the four hijacked jumbo jets, remains the most unclear.
Several residents in and around Shanksville, Pa., describing the crash as they saw it, claim to have seen a second plane – an unmarked military-style jet.
Well-founded uncertainly as to just what happened to Flight 93 is nothing new. Just three days after the worst terrorist attack in American history, on Sept. 14, 2001, The (Bergen County, N.J.) Record newspaper reported that five eyewitnesses reported seeing a second plane at the Flight 93 crash site.
That same day, reported the Record, FBI Special Agent William Crowley said investigators could not rule out that a second plane was nearby during the crash. He later said he had misspoken, dismissing rumors that a U.S. military jet had intercepted the plane before it could strike a target in Washington, D.C.
Although government officials insist there was never any pursuit of Flight 93, they were informed the flight was suspected of having been hijacked at 9:16 am, fully 50 minutes before the plane came down.
On the Sept. 16, 2001, edition of NBC's "Meet the Press," Vice President Dick Cheney, while not addressing Flight 93 specifically, spoke clearly to the administration's clear policy regarding shooting down hijacked jets.
Vice President Cheney: "Well, the – I suppose the toughest decision was this question of whether or not we would intercept incoming commercial aircraft."
NBC's Tim Russert: "And you decided?"
Cheney: "We decided to do it. We'd, in effect, put a flying combat air patrol up over the city; F-16s with an AWACS, which is an airborne radar system, and tanker support so they could stay up a long time ...
"It doesn't do any good to put up a combat air patrol if you don't give them instructions to act, if, in fact, they feel it's appropriate."
Russert: "So if the United States government became aware that a hijacked commercial airline[r] was destined for the White House or the Capitol, we would take the plane down?"
Cheney: "Yes. The president made the decision ... that if the plane would not divert ... as a last resort, our pilots were authorized to take them out. Now, people say, you know, that's a horrendous decision to make. Well, it is. You've got an airplane full of American citizens, civilians, captured by ... terrorists, headed and are you going to, in fact, shoot it down, obviously, and kill all those Americans on board?
"... It's a presidential-level decision, and the president made, I think, exactly the right call in this case, to say, I wished we'd had combat air patrol up over New York.'"

PENTAGON: RUMSFELD MISSPOKE ON FLIGHT 93 CRASH
DEFENSE SECRETARY’S REMARK TO TROOPS FUELS CONSPIRACY THEORIES

From Jamie McIntyre
CNN Washington
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A comment Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld made during a Christmas Eve address to U.S. troops in Baghdad has sparked new conspiracy theories about the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

In the speech, Rumsfeld made a passing reference to United Airlines Flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania after passengers attempted to stop al Qaeda hijackers.

But in his remarks, Rumsfeld referred to the "the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania."

A Pentagon spokesman insisted that Rumsfeld simply misspoke, but Internet conspiracy theorists seized on the reference to the plane having been shot down.

"Was it a slip of the tongue? Was it an error? Or was it the truth, finally being dropped on the public more than three years after the tragedy" asked a posting on the Web site WorldNetDaily.com.

Some people remain skeptical of U.S. government statements that, despite a presidential authorization, no planes were shot down September 11, and rumors still circulate that a U.S. military plane shot the airliner down over Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

A Pentagon spokesman insists Rumsfeld has not changed his opinion that the plane crashed as the result of an onboard struggle between passengers and terrorists.

The independent panel charged with investigating the terrorist attacks concluded that the hijackers intentionally crashed Flight 93, apparently because they feared the passengers would overwhelm them.

STOLEN PASSPORTS MISSED AT U.S. BORDERS

By Jerry Seper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
From the Nation/Politics section
Foreign nationals applying for admission to the United States using stolen passports have "little reason to fear being caught" and usually are admitted, even when their fraudulent documents have been posted on the government's computerized "lookout" lists, a report said.
   The Department of Homeland Security's Office of Inspector General said in a 40-page report that of the 176 foreign nationals who its investigators identified as having used a stolen passport in an attempt to enter the United States from 1998 to 2003, 136 were admitted.
   "While most persons using stolen passports to enter illegally into the United States may be simply violating immigration laws, some could have more sinister intentions," said the department's acting inspector general, Richard L. Skinner.
   The report, completed in November but made public this week, also said when U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers received new reports of stolen passports, they did not routinely review existing admission records to determine whether any already had been used.
   Even if there was such a procedure, the report said, CBP had no way to give the information on the stolen passports to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Homeland Security's investigative arm.
   "While the 136 successful entries using stolen passports is a relatively small number, it is significant for several reasons," Mr. Skinner said. "First, the passports were obtained by criminal acts. Second, though small, the number could and should be zero, at least for those admissions that occurred after lookouts were posted. Third, there was no law-enforcement pursuit once it was recognized an illegal entry had occurred."
   Mr. Skinner said actionable information was reported and logged in the lookout system, yet entry was accomplished, "defeating a costly apparatus established precisely to prevent such an occurrence."
   The inspector general's probe targeted travelers from the 27 foreign countries for whom a visa is not required, including France, Germany and Britain.
   Although those travelers were told in October to present either a machine-readable passport or a U.S. visa, CBP has given officials at ports of entry the discretionary authority to grant one-time exemptions in an effort to facilitate travel.
   President Bush also has signed legislation delaying until October 2005 the requirement for visa-waiver countries to include biometrics in their passports.
   Mr. Skinner said the "vast numbers of stolen passports available" presented a significant challenge for U.S. immigration authorities, noting that Interpol estimated last year that more than 10 million lost and stolen passports are in circulation.
   CBP records show that during 2003, more than 12.7 million travelers to the United States from visa-waiver countries were inspected at ports of entry -- nearly 35,000 a day -- and that 4,368 fraudulent passports were intercepted. The United States had 40.4 million international visitors last year.
   According to the inspector general's report, of the 98 foreign nationals who did not have lookouts posted for their stolen passports before their attempted U.S. entry, 79 were admitted -- a rate of 81 percent. Of those 78 aliens who had posted lookouts on their passports, 57 gained entry -- a rate of 73 percent.
   Of those 57 who gained entry despite "lookouts" on their passports, 33 did so after the September 11 attacks.
   The report also said that 18 aliens whose passports had posted lookouts were referred by immigration officers to secondary inspections for more intensive interviews, but got in anyway.
   "We could not determine from the secondary inspections records, the inspectors' rationale for admitting the aliens with lookouts for the stolen passports," Mr. Skinner said, describing the records as nonexistent or "so sketchy that they were not useful."
   Mr. Skinner's report made several recommendations:
   * Primary inspectors should refer foreign nationals to secondary inspections when their passports are the subject of a lookout.
   * The inspectors should record in detail the results of the secondary inspections and justifications for any subsequent admission.
   * There should be a supervisory review and approval of a decision to admit an alien who was the subject of a lookout.
   * Inspectors should enter new names into the lookout database on a timely basis.
   * CBP should initiate routine reviews of admission records to identify prior uses of stolen passports.
   * Information on the successful use of stolen passports should be reported to ICE for investigation.
   Homeland Security Undersecretary Asa Hutchinson, who oversees CBP and ICE, said the inspector general's report had reached "overly broad and generalized conclusions" based on a limited study.
   But he said CBP agreed with the recommendations and had taken "prudent steps" to address them.
   Mr. Skinner also recommended that ICE develop procedures to investigate, locate and remove from the United States foreign nationals who have used stolen passports to gain entry to the country and to report the outcomes of its investigations to CBP.
   For those aliens who used stolen passports that have terrorist links, he said, ICE should investigate their activities while in the United States and determine their whereabouts.
   Mr. Hutchinson said efforts were under way to ensure that ICE investigated all questionable cases.
   CBP inspects the millions of foreign nationals arriving at the nation's land, sea and air ports of entry to determine their eligibility for admission. Secondary inspections are sought when more detailed information is required. ICE is responsible for enforcing immigration law in the nation's interior.

BORDER PATROL ARRESTS 94 ILLEGAL IMMIGRANRS AT TACTICAL CHECKPOINT

Dec 24, 2004
 
U.S. Border Patrol agents on Thursday arrested 94 illegal immigrants, the majority of whom authorities said were on their way to farm-related work in Yuma County.

The arrests, which took place at a tactical checkpoint in Dome Valley, mark the second time within days U.S. Border Patrol agents have caught and arrested several dozens of illegal immigrants attempting to avoid two established and well-known checkpoints while on their way to farm-related work here.

Border Patrol agents on Monday arrested 138 illegal immigrants at a Dome Valley checkpoint, about 50 of whom were aboard four labor buses.

"The tactical checkpoint operations are important because our field intelligence indicates a large number of vehicles have continued to circumvent the established checkpoints since Monday," said Joe Brigman, spokesman for the Border Patrol's Yuma sector.

Of the 94 that were arrested, an unspecified number were on three labor buses and the rest were either in harvest-related work vehicles or in privately owned vehicles, said Brigman.

Some who were on the labor buses fled on foot, but all of them were arrested, Brigman said.

Border Patrol agents were still processing the arrested illegal immigrants as of late Thursday afternoon, Brigman said. Several have prior criminal convictions for various offenses, he said.

Some had been deported from the United States in the past, Brigman said.

Brigman said agents did not find any weapons, illegal drugs or counterfeit identification.

The Border Patrol is continuing their investigation into those who employ illegal immigrants, Brigman said.

I found this buried in a much smaller article in the Huntsville Times this morning... Christmas Day - guess it is a good day to bury what should be NEWS on the front page.  I found a couple other articles related to this as well.
Be sure to read this article as well as it ties right in with the ILLEGAL INVADERS and how they get to stay here. l will post the entire article in the next post.
Federal officials increasing their focus on government corruption.

U.S. to allow employers to file foreign worker requests online
BY DAVID JACKSON
The Dallas Morning News

WASHINGTON - (KRT) - The Labor Department, seeking to streamline the review of foreign worker requests, will soon allow employers to file those applications online.

With more than 300,000 applications pending, the plan includes two temporary "backlog elimination centers" in Dallas and Philadelphia, said attorneys familiar with the changes.

In addition, new applications that had once been reviewed in individual states will now be submitted to "national processing centers" in Atlanta and Chicago, officials said.

While streamlining the process for foreign workers, federal officials said they would protect the rights of American workers, who have first claim on all jobs.

"We're trying to make the taxpayers' dollars we use go farther and do better," said a Labor Department official involved in the planning. He requested anonymity because the changes won't be announced publicly until next week.

Members of organizations involved in the immigration debate described the changes as more organizational than political.

"It makes the process more efficient and it standardizes the rules," said Crystal Williams, deputy director of programs with the American Immigration Lawyers Association. "Each state has had its own quirky rules."

Ira Mehlman, a spokesman with the Federation for American Immigration Reform, said efficiency is not the major issue.

"The Labor Department has basically rubber stamped every request employers have made," Mehlman said, calling the foreign workers system "a back-door immigration program."

Labor Department officials said they do not rubber stamp anything, and that the changes will help them more thoroughly review every request for foreign workers.

"They're going to strengthen the program and its integrity," the labor official said.

In new rules submitted for publication in the Federal Register, the Labor Department stressed that employers must still certify they sought out qualified American workers and none were available; employers also cannot undercut the prevailing wages for American workers.

Employers for foreign workers must also request visas for them from the departments of state and homeland security.

WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW ABOUT THE LATEST ON PROPOSITION 200

The Arizona Republic
Nov. 14, 2004 12:00 AM
Attorney General Terry Goddard has concluded that Proposition 200 affects certain public welfare benefits for undocumented workers, but not a wider array of services such as public housing assistance, health care and postsecondary education.

His opinion shed light on the potential effects of the immigration initiative approved by voters Nov. 2. But many questions remain, some of which were resolved by the latest ruling in federal court.

Goddard, for example, did not address the impact of Proposition 200 on voting in Arizona. The initiative would require all Arizonans to show proof of citizenship to register to vote and to show an ID when casting a ballot in person. That provision must be cleared by the U.S. Department of Justice.

In the wake of Goddard's opinion and other developments over the past week or so, here are some key questions and answers:

Q: How does the initiative affect Arizonans?

A: It says that all Arizonans must show proof of citizenship when registering to vote and prove legal status when asking for certain types of non-federally mandated public benefits.

Q: How will it affect undocumented immigrants?

A: They will not be entitled to receive certain state and local welfare benefits. Goddard's opinion says those benefits must be defined narrowly as those identified under Title 46 of Arizona statutes, which deals with welfare. Undocumented immigrants would continue to receive welfare benefits they are required to receive under federal law.

Q: Will this be a big change for undocumented immigrants?

A: Some legal experts say the changes would be minimal, that Proposition 200 as interpreted by Goddard would mainly enforce the existing law. The big difference would be that state and local workers could be charged with a misdemeanor if they don't withhold / certain welfare benefits from undocumented workers.

Q: Are judges required to follow Goddard's opinion?

A: No, although the opinion and the research are expected to be influential when the case goes to court.

Q: What will happen after lawsuits are filed against the initiative?

A: Lawyers will ask a federal judge to issue a preliminary injunction. If the injunction is granted, the initiative would be put on hold until all the legal matters are resolved.

Q: What if the court refuses to put it on hold?

A: Then it goes into effect. At that point, state and city employees will have to check the immigration status of everyone who applies for public welfare benefits. Goddard said his office will be working with state and local agencies to help them determine which welfare benefits are in question.

Q: Will children of undocumented workers be allowed to attend public schools in Arizona after the measure goes into effect?

A: Federal law exempts kindergarten to 12th grade public education, emergency medical care and any federally mandated programs.

Q: Is it safe for undocumented immigrants to send their children to school?

A: Yes. Public schools will not turn over to immigration authorities students who are living here illegally.

Q: Will undocumented workers be able to receive emergency care at Valley hospitals?

A: Yes. Such care is federally mandated.

Q: Will undocumented workers be able to get care under the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System?

A: Yes, according to Goddard's opinion. He said the measure doesn't affect AHCCCS, the program that provides health coverage to the poor.

Q: Will doctors be asking for immigration papers?

A: Not when people go to the emergency room. Federal law says medical providers must treat anyone who has a medical emergency.

Q: How about private doctors?

A: Private medical providers may be required to verify the legal status if they provide any publicly funded services.

Q: What kind of identification will be needed when seeking services?

A: That's still unclear. But likely the following: a birth certificate, naturalization papers, Arizona driver's license issued after 1996, legal residency card, commonly known as a "green card."

Q: Will such services as police and fire protection be affected by Proposition 200?

A: Not according to Goddard's opinion.

Q: What welfare benefits could be affected under Title 46?

A: Goddard and local officials acknowledge they are still sorting it out, but authorities say the programs could include Meals on Wheels for seniors, domestic violence services and utility assistance programs. Title 46 also covers such programs as temporary assistance for needy families, child care services, short-term crisis services and supplemental payment programs.

[Home] [Borderline Politics] [Contact] [Donate] [Photo Gallery] [Minuteman Project Standard Operating Procedure] [Registration]