J's Cafe Nette

Archive for the ‘Illegal Immigration’ Category

Yes, laws are laws.

Certainly illegal immigration is a problem we continue to deal with in America.

However, read this and tell me it makes any sense whatsoever.

CUMMING, Ga. — A family is fighting an immigration mix-up that may force them to send their 11-year-old daughter back to Poland.

The Forsyth County girl, whose father is a U.S. citizen, could be deported if she doesn’t leave the country by July.

Ewelina Bledniak hasn’t been in Poland since she was 2 years old, but now immigration officers are ordering her to return and wait a year before she can come home.

“I was really sad because I’m going to have to leave so much,” said Ewelina.

The 11-year-old, who goes to school in Forsyth County, is seen as an illegal immigrant by the feds.

“She has to leave (the) country before July 23, if not, she’ll be deported. If she stays here and they deport her, she will not get back here for 10 years,” said Agnes Bledniak, Ewelina’s mother.

Where in the world are Georgia Senators Chambliss and Isakson? Is there nothing they can do to assist this family?

I discovered this story via a link at JammieWearingFool where I wish I had the answer to the question with which he opens his post.

For now the best I can offer is I just do not know.

Tweet This Post

I have just about given up on anything substantial being accomplished on illegal immigration in this country.

While I understand that many businesses depend on folks who are not American citizens to carry their workload, if we do not begin somewhere, and not just by building a fence, how will we ever arrest this ever growing problem?

A federal judge barred the Bush administration yesterday from launching a planned crackdown on U.S. companies that employ illegal immigrants, warning of its potentially “staggering” impact on law-abiding workers and companies.

In a firm rebuke of the White House, U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer of San Francisco granted a preliminary injunction against the president’s plan to press employers to fire as many as 8.7 million workers with suspect Social Security numbers, starting this fall.

President Bush made the effort the centerpiece of a re-energized enforcement drive against illegal immigration in August after the Senate rejected his proposal to overhaul immigration laws. But the court ruling — sought by major American labor, business and farm organizations — highlighted the chasm that the issue has opened between the Republican Party and its traditional business allies.

The case also called attention to the gulf between Washington rhetoric about the need to curtail illegal immigration and the economic reality that many U.S. employers rely on illegal labor, as well as to the government’s inability for nearly three decades to develop adequate tools for identifying undocumented workers.

One of the questions I have in this case, is if these indivividuals are fired, where do they go. If we simply allow them back into the system and do not deport them, will we as taxpayers be footing the bill for more illegals than we already do?

There are no simple answers to illegal immigration but it appears that no matter when anyone, Congress, the President, Secretary of DHS, or citizens attempt to take the lead, ideas are squashed at their inception either by the courts or lawmakers themselves.

Let’s take a quick look at the judge who rendered this decision:

On Aug. 31, U.S. District Judge Maxine M. Chesney issued a temporary restraining order pending an Oct. 1 hearing before Breyer, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1997 and is the sister of Supreme Court Justice Stephen G. Breyer.

If this is appealed to the USSC, I wonder what their view will be of the entire case. According to the article, we will have a lengthy wait to find out.

HT: Macsmind

Tweet This Post

This is amazing, Why hasn’t someone thought of this before? There are still geniuses in government.

Undocumented immigrants are starting to leave Arizona because of the new employer-sanctions law.

The state’s strong economy has been a magnet for illegal immigrants for years. But a growing number are pulling up stakes out of fear they will be jobless come Jan. 1, when the law takes effect. The departures are drawing cheers from immigration hard-liners and alarm from business owners already seeing a drop in sales.

It’s impossible to count how many undocumented immigrants have fled because of the new law. But based on interviews with undocumented immigrants, immigrant advocates, community leaders and real-estate agents, at least several hundred have left since Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano signed the bill on July 2. There are an estimated 500,000 illegal immigrants in Arizona.

“I would say we are losing at least 100 people a day,” said Elias Bermudez, founder of Immigrants Without Borders and host of a daily talk-radio program aimed at undocumented immigrants.

Immigration hard-liners say the exodus is a sign the employer-sanctions law is working, even before it becomes official. The law is aimed at shutting off the job magnet by imposing harsh penalties on employers caught knowingly hiring unauthorized workers. Violators face a 10-day suspension of their business license for a first offense and could lose their license for a second offense.

“This is exactly what it is supposed to do. (Illegal immigrants) have no business being here, none,” said Rep. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, the main architect of the employer-sanctions law. “Shut off the lights, and the crowd will go home. I hope they will all self-deport.”

Story

Hat Tip: Captain’s Quarters.

Tweet This Post

A Mexican woman who has already been deported to Mexico once, made it back here and took sanctuary in a church in Chicago.

Now, she decided to speak out against the injustices of our immigration system and got herself caught by ICE after speaking at 3 Los Angeles churches and on her way to a fourth.

Elvira Arrellano, a Mexican woman who sought sanctuary from deportation in a Chicago church was arrested Sunday in Los Angeles.

A spokesperson from the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency would not confirm Arrellano was taken in by ICE agents on Olvera Street, near La Placita Church, in the Los Angeles Civic Center area at about 3 p.m.

Arellano and her son Saul, 8, who is a U.S. citizen, were in Los Angeles seeking immigration reform and were staying at La Placita Church.

She visited three area churches to speak about immigration, but was arrested before she could go to a fourth church.

Arellano defied a deportation order to report to the Department of Homeland Security on Aug. 15, 2006. Instead, she sought refuge in the Adalberto United Methodist Church in the Humboldt Park area of Chicago.

…

Arellano claims she seeks to remain in the United States so her American-born son can get medical care for his attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder.

A legal guardian says her son, Saul, is taking his mother’s arrest better than expected.

She has two choices. Take her American-born son with ADHD with her to Mexico or leave him here in the care of a guardian while she goes back to Mexico.

I’m sure when I was a kid many people had what is now called ADHD or ADD or whatever. We just called them bad kids and their parents dealt with them at home. They usually adjusted and without meds.

Update and temporary bump: She’s now in Tijuana, which is just across the border to San Diego. Her son remains in the U.S. with his legal guardian.

Tweet This Post

This story definitely speaks for itself.

– Israel closed the door Sunday on a surge of asylum-seekers from Sudan’s Darfur region and from other African countries, the largest influx of non-Jewish refugees in the modern history of the Jewish state.

Authorities announced that they had expelled 48 of more than 2,000 African refugees who have entered illegally from Egypt in recent weeks. Officials said they would allow 500 Darfurians among them to remain, but would deport everyone else back to Egypt and accept no more illegal migrants from Darfur or other places.

Story

Tweet This Post

These days it’s a big deal to be a federally recognized Native American tribe.

The tribe has to prove it has existed as a tribe for a long time and there’s a lot of paperwork associated with it. After recognition, the tribe is usually sovereign meaning they make their own laws on their reservations and the people from the outside can’t interfere with their government.

Federal recognition also brings with it money from the federal government in the form of grants among other things.

Now comes news that two unrecognized tribes are selling memberships for as little as $50 to illegals, telling the illegals this will be able to make them legal.

“You can’t just decide to become a member of a tribe and all of a sudden legalize your status,” said Marilu Cabrera, a spokeswoman for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

In Nebraska, some people reported paying up to $1,200 to join the Kaweah Indian Nation, which became the target of a federal investigation after complaints about the tribe arose in at least five states.

Manuel Urbina, the tribe’s high chief, acknowledged his group has sold at least 10,000 tribal memberships to illegal aliens for about $50 each.

“We are not going against the law, we’re with the law,” he said, claiming membership papers can help illegal aliens avoid being detained by authorities if they are asked for documents.

A Florida man has made similar sales pitches to illegal aliens on behalf of a North Dakota-based tribe.

The federal Bureau of Indian Affairs denied the Kaweah group recognition in 1985 because it was not a real tribe. A Kaweah tribe did exist once, but is unrelated to the one that applied for recognition.

John Dossett, a lawyer for the Washington-based National Congress of American Indians, called the group “just a total sham” and compared its membership offer to spam e-mail solicitations.

Angel Freytez of the Nebraska Mexican-American Commission said advocates have fielded complaints about the group from illegal aliens in Kansas, California, Tennessee, Texas and Oklahoma.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokesman Tim Counts confirmed that documents from the tribe offer no protection “from the consequences of being in a country illegally. It won’t work.

My daughter in law is a member of an unrecognized tribe, and because she is it means my grandchildren by her are not recognized as Native American because my son just hits the bare minimum blood quantum to be considered a member of our tribe.

It’s like a band of Ward Churchills getting together and deciding they are a tribe because they claim a few drops of Indian blood somewhere way back in their heritage. Wanting it doesn’t make it so.

Tweet This Post

From Politico and AP News Myway comes basically the same story that the Bush Administration is preparing to finally get serious about the borders of our country and the illegal immigrant problem.

Since Politico has more information I’ll quote from it:

The administration is unveiling a series of tough border control and employer enforcement measures designed to make up for security provisions that failed when Congress rejected a broad rewrite of the nation’s immigration laws in June. The plans are scheduled to be announced at 10:30 a.m. by Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and Commerce Secretary Carlos M. Gutierrez.

Details were provided to Capitol Hill on Thursday. As part of the new measures, the secretary of Homeland Security will deliver regular “State of the Border” reports beginning this fall.

In one of the most interesting revelations, the plans call for the administration to “train growing numbers of state and local law enforcement officers to identify and detain immigration offenders whom they encounter in the course of daily law enforcement,” according to a summary provided to The Politico by a congressional source.

…

As part of the package, Bush is planning to increase muscle at the Mexican border, as conservatives have long pleaded. “The administration will add more border personnel and infrastructure, going beyond previously announced targets,” according to the summary. “The Departments of State and Homeland Security will expand the list of international gangs whose members are automatically denied admission to the U.S.”

…

“The Department of Homeland Security will raise the civil fines imposed on employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants by approximately 25 percent,” the summary continues. “The administration will continue its aggressive expansion of criminal investigations against employers who knowingly hire large numbers of illegal aliens.”

The administration is promising to reduce processing times for immigration background checks by adding agents and converting paper documentation to electronic forms. And the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration say they will study and report on the technical and recordkeeping changes necessary to deny credit in our Social Security system for illegal work.

Under the tougher menu, the administration vows to fund additional beds for people caught breaching the border, ensuring that illegal entrants are returned to Mexico rather than being let go because there’s no space for them, as often occurred in the past.

“The administration will implement an exit requirement at airports and seaports by the end of 2008, and will launch a pilot land-border exit system for guest workers,” the summary says. “By the end of 2008, the administration will require most arrivals at our ports-of-entry to use passports or similarly secure documents.”

It sounds like they are finally going to enforce existing law, which is what we’ve been asking for all along.

Tweet This Post

Oh NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

The FBI is investigating an alleged human smuggling operation based in Chaparral, N.M., that agents say is bringing “Iraqis and other Middle Eastern” individuals across the Rio Grande from Mexico.

An FBI intelligence report distributed by the Washington, D.C. Joint Terrorism Task Force, obtained by the Blotter on ABCNews.com, says the illegal ring has been bringing Iraqis across the border illegally for more than a year.

Border Patrol officials in the area said they were unaware of the specifics of the FBI’s report, and federal prosecutors in New Mexico told ABCNews.com they had no current cases involving the illegal smuggling of Iraqis.

Story

Tweet This Post

Mona Charen has a column up at Townhall.com declaring she is a “mushy moderate on immigration”.

I think she spells out some of the conflicting feelings I’ve had about immigration, legal or illegal.

It won’t surprise regular readers that I consider myself to be moderate to liberal on some social issues, and I am evolving on my strict position of immigration reform.

Let me quote Mona:

I’ve been quiet on this debate because I find myself in the unfamiliar position of moderate. I cannot rejoice with so many of my conservative friends over the defeat of immigration reform, yet neither would I have been happy to see the legislation passed in the form it was offered. I don’t think we have begun to deal properly with the immigration problem because I believe it implicates other questions, like those of education, welfare and national identity.

[...]

I have heard nothing to convince me that the illegal immigration problem is not a reflection of legal immigration quotas that are too low. We have a full employment economy and a poor neighbor to the south. Is it any shock that employers are loath to turn away willing workers or that impoverished people are streaming across the Rio Grande? Are these low-skilled workers? You bet. Do we need them? Arguably yes.

[...]

If I were writing the law all by myself, I’d increase the legal immigration levels, beef up border enforcement, establish a national ID card so that we could really know who is here, and reform welfare so that only those who truly want to work would be tempted to immigrate. I’d also reform education to convey the greatness of this nation (warts and all). So here I am, in the awkward middle.

When all is said and done we do have to face reality, and reality is we have an illegal immigration problem that hasn’t been fixed and doesn’t look as though it will be for at least a couple of more years.

Kids who are in high school will do the jobs Mona says the graduates won’t do, and I know for a fact our landscaper went to trade school to learn how to be a good landscaper.

I also know he hires all American help. Whether they graduated from high school or not I can’t tell you, but they are all adults.

Maybe we all need to cool down and think this problem through. There has to be a solution; we just need to find it.

Mark me down as against the bill as it was written, but willing to try for a bill that is fair for everyone and protects our country.

If that makes me a mushy moderate too, then so be it.

Tweet This Post

The Senate voted 53-46 to defeat cloture on the Immigration bill. The clay pigeon is now a dead duck.

Tweet This Post

To all those “conservatives” who proudly cast their votes for President Bush twice and are now calling him names because he supports the immigration bill (as proposed it’s a bad bill), you can take heart because it seems some of the senators you are also bashing and have declared war on are not going to support the next cloture motion.

The Senate immigration bill’s chances of passage seemed in doubt late this afternoon as several lawmakers signaled that they were undecided about supporting the legislation.

The bill is in more danger “than I thought a few hours ago,” Senator Christopher Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut, told Bloomberg News. His comments came after the Senate voted down several attempts to make the immigration bill stricter, including one that would have barred illegal immigrants from a chance for eventual citizenship.

But the bill’s very fate was in doubt as senators who voted Tuesday to allow the bill to go forward said today that they were either now against allowing a vote on final passage or were inclined that way.

The wavering senators were Richard Burr of North Carolina, Christopher Bond of Missouri, John Ensign of Nevada and Pete Domenici of New Mexico, all Republicans, and Jim Webb and Ben Nelson of Nebraska, according to Bloomberg News.

The stances of those six are crucial, since all voted Tuesday to allow the debate to proceed. That cloture motion got 64 “yes” votes, or four more than necessary under Senate rules.

Another cloture motion is scheduled for Thursday, and if it does not get the required 60 votes, immigration legislation will probably be shelved for the foreseeable future.

If just five of these six senators vote against cloture the bill is dead. If all six and more vote against cloture the bill is dead.

If, by some miracle the bill passes the Senate, I have heard that Pelosi has said she won’t even bring it to the floor of the House unless she has at least 60 Republican votes and the Republicans are pretty well lined up against it in the House.

I don’t have a link to the Pelosi story as I heard it on the radio on my way home from a doctor’s appointment, but I honestly do not expect this bill to go anywhere in the Senate.

This is what happens when a bill is agreed upon by a group of Senators without the benefit of a committee hearing where nothing is done in secret. At least it’s not supposed to be done in secret.

So, for all the conservatives who think the bill is too easy on the illegals and all the liberals who think the bill is too tough on the illegals, don’t let your blood pressure rise until you see the final vote.

To see more of the sausage-making process go here and you will read basically the same thing with a bit more information.

It ain’t over till the fat lady sings and she’s not even warming up yet.

Tweet This Post

I’ve been reading some conservative web sites and I thought our country had just been attacked.

I had to have a portrait taken for our church directory and on the way back the host of the talk show on at the time must have had every vein in his head and neck bulging to the point of bursting because cloture passed. Oh, and all those Republican senators should be voted out.

Then I heard the news and I heard Harry Reid say in order for the immigration bill to pass he needed 25 Republican votes. I went over here and counted twice. If my eyes haven’t deceived me I have counted 24 Republicans who voted for cloture. That’s one shy of what Harry Reid says is needed, and many said they would vote for cloture but not vote for the bill.

So, the bill hasn’t come up for a vote except for cloture, some Republicans who voted for cloture will vote against the bill, and we still have to get it passed in the House if it passes the Senate.

Am I missing something here?

Someone please tell me if I should be upset over a cloture vote when no final vote has taken place and when the House hasn’t taken up the bill yet. I’m all eyes and ears.

Tweet This Post

According to the information I have heard about the attempted resuscitation of the immigration bill, Leader Reid will use what is called a “clay pigeon”.

Yesterday I heard it described this way: First the Senate will try to get cloture on the bill. This in itself is doubtful and if cloture is not reached the bill goes to the grave.

If cloture is passed then each amendment (some 21 I heard) will be voted on separately with just a simple majority passing or rejecting any of them.

At the end of the votes for the 21 amendments the entire bill as amended will be voted on with a simple majority required to pass or reject the bill.

Kay Bailey Hutchison and now Charles Grassley have added their names to the no side of cloture.

It’s not often a politician admits to making a mistake, but that’s exactly what Sen. Charles E. Grassley says he did when he voted for the 1986 amnesty for illegal aliens.

Twenty-one years later he has become one of the most steadfast opponents of amnesty and the strongest critic of the federal government’s ability to handle a new legalization program.

“I was fooled once, and history has taught me a valuable lesson. Amnesties just don’t work,” the Iowa Republican wrote in a letter to his colleagues yesterday, telling them he is fulfilling a “duty to warn you of the mistakes” of passing yet another bill that would put illegal aliens on the path to citizenship — this time for an estimated 12 million to 20 million, far more than the 3 million from 1986.

This time around he has also become one of the new Senate bill’s most dangerous foes, offering an amendment that threatens to splinter the fragile “grand bargain” underlying the bill. His proposal would remove some of the obligations of businesses to check the legal status of their workers, and limit immigration authorities’ ability to obtain information from other government agencies such as the Internal Revenue Service.

Mr. Grassley said he thought he had agreed with the secret negotiators to protect IRS data. But when the bill was introduced, his provisions were gone.

Asked whether he was worried his amendment would be a deal-breaker, he said that was a problem for the negotiators.

“The deal break was when I left the rump sessions they were having back there in April or early May,” Mr. Grassley told reporters yesterday. “I thought I had a compromise on the table, and when the final document comes out it puts every taxpayer in this country’s privacy in jeopardy.”

Read the rest to see how this amendment could be the deal breaker.

Tweet This Post

I’ve been reading some editorials about the immigration bill now before the Senate, and I’m beginning to think about it more than I have in the past.

What happens if we don’t pass an immigration bill this year? I guess everything would remain the same, but will Congress and the president finally realize we want border security before we will consider anything else?

Our economy cannot continue to absorb millions of people who are here illegally and counting on us to sustain them.

I feel sorrow for the majority of these people, who just want a better life for themselves and their families, but then there are the ones who want to be able to get in and out of the country at will to deliver drugs and whatever else will bring them a quick buck.

On the other hand I feel if we don’t do something this year we won’t do anything for a long time to come and the flow of illegal immigrants will just continue to surge.

I haven’t read the bill because I’m not the type of person who can sit down and read legalize and actually have it sink in as I get bored with it almost from the beginning. What I have heard about it tends to show there are some good things in there if we secure the borders first.

It’s called by its detractors an amnesty bill because so many illegals already here will be given a free pass to stay here at least for a period of time.

It is being pushed by big business, which makes me wonder why they would be so interested in seeing it pass. The answer is money of course. Cheap workers mean cheap overhead. Then that lowers the standard of living of the entire country and soon we could be a third-world country.

I saw a video on YouTube the other day where a consulting company was telling its clients how to hire illegals legally. It has since been removed from YouTube.

The gist was when they advertise for a job the Dept. of Labor says they have to do certain things such as post an opening at the workplace and put in a newspaper etc. Since most newspapers are online they post to the print version and the online version, which takes care of two of the three requirements. They also make plain they publish in little-known newspapers where no regular Americans would think to look for an ad.

The objective is to not get American workers but to get a green card for a foreign or illegal worker. This was actually stated in the video. No wonder it was taken down by the user, which was the consulting company.

I may not be one who would bend over all day picking lettuce, but I’ll bet we have high school students who would do it for a summer job. I may not want to sling hamburgers at McDonald’s but I know we have high school students who will do it. I may not be able to maintain my yard but I know for a fact there are American companies that do it. I may not be able to do brick work but I know plenty of Americans know how and would do it if they could only get the job.

Yes, it costs a bit more because we pay our people more, but in the end it’s worth it.

I can’t think of many jobs an American will not do, except his price is higher. So we pay a little more for lettuce and our brick home.

I have seen the work of some of the illegals and it is good work. I couldn’t complain about the quality of the work, but it needs to be offered to our people first.

I am in the group of people who say we secure our borders first before we do anything else. Let the government prove they can do that and we’ll talk about the rest.

It’s been an evolving process for me but I think it’s the best solution.

Tweet This Post

The leaders of both sides of the Senate have agreed to bring up the immigration bill next week after completion of the energy bill.

Yesterday President Bush threw his support behind a $4.4 billion funding plan for border security which he and Congress have approved but never funded.

This has not won over any Republicans, as they want to see a funding bill and not just a promise as before.

Sources familiar with the talks said the sides are still negotiating which amendments will be allowed, though they have exchanged lists and have agreed to an approximate number.

The amendments matter because the bill strikes a tenuous balance and those who want it to pass will have to fend off attacks from both liberals and conservatives, each with their own set of criticisms.

Sources familiar with the talks said the agreement does not guarantee that the bill will pass, and Republicans did not promise to deliver enough votes, which Mr. Reid said earlier this week must happen.

The bill stalled a week ago when Mr. Reid called for an end to the debate, prompting 50 senators — 38 Republicans, 11 Democrats and one independent — to balk and vote to prolong the debate and offer more amendments. Mr. Reid then pulled the bill from the schedule.

But under pressure from President Bush, Mr. Reid agreed to return to the bill and Mr. McConnell pledged to limit the number of amendments that Republicans will offer. Last night, the White House said it was “encouraged by the announcement.”

The leaders want to finish the bill by the July 4 recess, but there are still plenty of potential pitfalls.

Earlier in the day, Sen. Jeff Sessions, Alabama Republican and a chief opponent of the bill, said he would use whatever procedural tools he can to block the bill from being revived — a powerful threat in a chamber where one member can delay or block action.

“There are a number of senators who will utilize the powers of the Senate to avoid going back to the failed bill,” Mr. Sessions said.

Unless something irresistable is put into the bill, don’t look for it to pass—again.

Tweet This Post

When the immigration debate began which now seems like an eternity ago, it appeared to be the general consenus here at “J”’s that calm should prevail and we would wait and see if and when legislation was actually offered for consideration and then offer reasoned opinions.

This certainly did not mean that after reading the preliminary work which was offered we did not find areas which we felt deserved another look and major revision.

As I look back now to those first few nights, I remember feeling like an outsider within my own party as many immediately went on the attack, both against the crafters of this legislation and the President. I asked myself how can you be so critical of something which has not taken more than just baby steps? Why would we vilify those who had worked tirelessly on this complex issue? Was this again going to be the issue which ripped out the heart of the Republican party?

AJ Strata has written a post which explains exactly how I feel now on the immigration issue. He does so with a link to Lorie Byrd whose piece is a worthwhile read.

These two paragraphs from AJ define exactly how I perceive those who “jumped the shark” a few weeks ago and I thank him for saying it so eloquently.

I stand proudly with Bush, Kyle, McCain, Kennedy, The Anchoress and many others. And I will not ever stand with the Buchannans, Tancredos, and the Ingrahams. I do not care if occasionally their blinders lift and they agree with me on Iraq or lower taxes or any other issue. I don’t care if they can be civil and gracious on other topics. The fact is they cannot maintain the facade on all issues, and that means problems. Great for them when they concur and they do so civilly. But the test is when you don’t agree – that is what defines strong alliances.

They exposed a side of them that showed so much anger and vitriol I cannot ever see a way to align my good name with their withering hate. We could ally again – but the mea culpa required on their side is way too much for them to swallow to bridge the gap. Not to gain the limited support of this small blogger. I know this. I am fine with this.

Again, we will never solve the illegal immigration problem in this country by wringing our hands and stabbing each other in the back. We complain when Congress does nothing meaningful and yet when they attempt to offer something we condemn to the point that legislation dies. That old tired word compromise creeps into this conversation always. I think that for some members of the Republican party this time though, it is just to late…not for a new bill and meaningful legislation but for the fences among ourselves to be mended.

Tweet This Post

Kimsch from Musing Minds has a good post up that tells what she would like to see when the immigration reform bill is reconsidered.

So called “Sanctuary” cities, counties, and/or states lose federal funding until they stop being sanctuaries. If local governments won’t follow federal immigration laws, why should aliens?
Deport the criminals first. (see Patterico’s series – Part 10 here and links from there) Removing “sanctuary” cities, counties, and/or states will go a long way to make this happen. We have enough home grown criminals. We don’t need to be importing them as well.
Sunset date on the provisional “Z” visa. Once the provisional “Z” visa is obtained, it will expire after a certain time period. The alien must then either qualify for and receive a regular “Z” visa or leave.
Sunset date on the regular “Z” visa as well. Once an alien has received the regular “Z” visa, it will expire after a certain period of time. The alien must then apply for and receive citizenship or leave.
Family (chain migration): Family in this circumstance should include husband, wife, children and perhaps parent(s) of the husband/wife. I see parents because some adult children do take care of their parents. No sisters, brothers, aunts, uncles, cousins or “my sister’s husband’s cousin’s husband’s sister’s cousin’s aunt by marriage” If you don’t want to leave your extended family behind, then don’t leave in the first place.

Go to this link and read the rest.

Tweet This Post

I cannot tell you where this happened or how I know, but it’s a true story that happened last night.

An emaciated illegal male checked into a hospital emergency room yesterday sometime, complaining of excruciating pain in his digestive tract.

He was passing blood in his urine and from his rectum.

Diagnostic tests revealed something in his digestive tract that was not normal. I’ll tell you what it was later.

He was taken to surgery and operated on, at which time a tape worm measuring almost 45 inches was removed from his gut.

The tissue surrounding the tape worm was scraped to be checked for illegal drugs.

The tapeworm, before meeting its demise in a bucket of alcohol, was dissected enough to get any fluid from it to send off to see if it had illegal drugs in it.

The theory is this man was a drug mule, someone who swallows plastic bags of drugs to smuggle into a country and then hopes to pass the bags as nature takes its course.

This man’s problem was his tapeworm was eating all his drugs and it finally got big enough to make him sick enough to risk going to a hospital and being caught as an illegal.

Big deal on being caught. His life was saved and he’ll probably get deported, only to try again, but the worm had done so much damage to him he probably will never be able to eat regularly again.

Tweet This Post

After a couple of days of wrangling to get the new immigration bill through the Senate, in the end the Senators couldn’t agree on whether or not to extend debate and Senator Reid withdrew the bill, saying he hopes to revisit it this year.

Supporters of the bill could only muster 45 votes to limit debate and move the bill to a final vote, while 50 votes, made up of mostly Republicans, voted to extend debate so they could try to get more amendments into the bill.

All but seven Republicans voted against ending debate, with many arguing they needed more time to make the bill tougher with tighter border security measures and a more arduous legalization process for unlawful immigrants. Thirty-eight Republicans and Sen. Bernard Sanders, a Vermont independent, opposed the procedural tactic.

All but 11 Democrats supported the move, but they, too, were holding their noses at provisions of the bill. Many of them argued it makes second-class citizens of a new crop of temporary workers and rips apart families by prioritizing employability over blood ties in future immigration.

Thirty-seven Democrats and Sen. Joseph Lieberman, a Connecticut independent, voted to advance the measure.

If this measure doesn’t come up again this session of Congress, we have lost our best chance at beginning to solve our immigration problem, but of course those far-right and far-left members of both parties don’t see it that way. They’d rather gripe about it than actually put forth the effort to support a bill that can be a foundation for a better overall bill later on.

Tweet This Post

The immigration bill that is now before the Senate is being tweaked a bit.

I’m going to quote from an AP story that is on Fox News.com.

A proposed immigration overhaul narrowly survived several strong Senate challenges Wednesday, but it suffered a potentially deal-breaking setback early Thursday.

Shortly after midnight, the Senate voted 49-48 to end a new temporary worker program after five years. The vote reversed the one-vote outcome on the same amendment — offered both times by Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D. — two weeks ago. Six senators switched their votes, reflecting the issue’s political volatility.

The temporary worker program is crucial to many business groups, and the bill’s backers vowed to try on Thursday to undo the damage. Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said he or his allies would slightly reword Dorgan’s amendment and hope for a change of heart by one or more senators who “don’t want to kill the bill.”

Dorgan, who contends that immigrants take many jobs Americans could fill, said no one in the debate “is talking about the impact on American workers.”

“There are a lot of people here who want jobs and can’t find jobs, and find downward pressure on their incomes,” Dorgan said.

That sounds reasonable to me and I fail to see how protecting jobs for Americans can be a deal breaker unless there really are jobs Americans won’t take.

If given a choice I wouldn’t bend over in a hot field all day picking produce or stay in the sun reaching up to pick fruits. I have, however, seen lots of what appear to be immigrants, whether legal or not, working on good-paying construction jobs.

They do a lot of brickwork, which is a good paying job, but backbreaking work also, they frame houses and that’s not easy work in the heat, they do landscaping and I know Americans will do that because my landscaper has three crews and all are Americans.

Cooking at restaurants and doing maid work in hotels is probably not the preference of most Americans, but if someone needs a job it seems he or she doesn’t have the luxury of choosing what comes along and expecting to be the CEO of the company on the first day.

A lot of well-off Americans use illegals to be the care givers for their children.

This all begins to sound like slavery to me. They are good enough to watch our children, cook for us, clean for us, cut our lawns and plant flowers, but they’re not good enough to become legalized citizens. Read the rest of this entry »

Tweet This Post

From the Washington Times:

The Senate’s immigration bill will only reduce illegal immigration by about 25 percent a year, according to a new Congressional Budget Office report, Stephen Dinan will report Tuesday in The Washington Times.

The bill’s new guest-worker program could lead to at least 500,000 more illegal immigrants within a decade, said the report from the CBO, which said in its official cost estimate that it assumes some future temporary workers will overstay their time in the plan, adding up to a half-million by 2017 and 1 million by 2027.

“We anticipate that many of those would remain in the United States illegally after their visas expire,” CBO said of the guest-worker program, which would allow 200,000 new workers a year to rotate into the country.

And in a blow to President Bush’s timetable, the CBO said the “triggers” — setting up the verification system, deploying 20,000 U.S. Border Patrol agents to duty and constructing hundreds of miles of fencing and vehicle barriers — won’t be met until 2010.

Those triggers must be met before the temporary worker program could begin, and Mr. Bush had hoped to have them completed about the time he leaves office in January 2009.

CBO’s report said the new bill’s effects on future illegal immigration were “uncertain.” The analysts said past enforcement measures have “historically been relatively ineffective,” but said but said new enforcement measures — extra agents, prosecutors and investigators, fencing and workplace sanctions — will have some effect.

“CBO estimates that those measures would reduce the net annual flow of unauthorized immigrants by one-quarter,” the report said. Still, with estimates of hundreds of thousands to one million illegal aliens per year, CBO is assuming a large problem will remain.

If it fixes only 25% of the problem then we have a big problem. We need to secure the entire border and not just 370 miles of it.

We need to go after the employers who are knowingly hiring illegals and force them to pay the fines. They will let the illegals go and if they have no job there will be no reason to stay here and live in the shadows.

If we hire more border patrol agents we need to make sure they get a decent salary and don’t get thrown in jail for doing their jobs.

In other words, it’s up to us to protect our country first and worry about the citizens of another country later if they are crossing our borders at will and staying here as long as they wish.

Write a bill with some teeth in it and enforce it for a change. I said earlier it was a start. It doesn’t appear to be a good enough start at this point.

Tweet This Post

After a Memorial Day week spent back home with their constituents backers of the Senate Immigration bill are more optimistic about its passage so long as it stays in its current form.

Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), who led negotiations on the bill for his party, said the flood of angry calls and protests that greeted the deal two weeks ago has since receded every day.

“You just have to recognize you will get 300 calls, you’ll get conflicts at town hall meetings — all of them negative,” said Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), who consulted with Kyl and hopes to carry a similar deal through the House in July. “The last few days have really turned things around.”

Public opinion polls seem to support Kyl’s contention that Americans are far more open to the deal than the voices of opposition would indicate. In a Washington Post-ABC News poll released today, 52 percent of Americans said they would support a program giving illegal immigrants the right to stay and work in the United States if they pay a fine and meet other requirements. Opposition to that proposal was 44 percent.

So far, the dozen senators who cut the deal have been able to hold their compromise together. They have beaten back amendments that the group deemed to be coalition-killers, such as one to strike the bill’s temporary-worker program and another to remove its provisions to legalize the nation’s estimated 12 million illegal immigrants.

This week’s amendments are more subtle, and therefore, more threatening to the coalition.

Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) will push to make the Department of Homeland Security consider more of the family-based immigration applications that have already been filed, adding 833,000 immigrants. Kyl said he will withdraw his support for the bill if the amendment passes.

He also said he will walk away if Menendez and Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) win passage of an amendment that would more than double the number of green cards available under the bill for the parents of U.S. citizens. Kyl said conservatives believe today’s family unification system is being misused by illegal immigrants, whose U.S.-born children are citizens.

Such amendments will be difficult to resist for the compromise’s chief Democratic architect, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.), who helped create the family unification system in 1965 and whom conservatives are now counting on to help dismantle it.

Republicans in the coalition will be expected to oppose amendments that put them in equally difficult positions. One, sponsored by Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), would expand the list of crimes making illegal immigrants ineligible for legalization. Cornyn has emphasized infractions such as gang activity and “aggravated felonies.”

Democrats say the list would virtually wipe out the legalization program by barring undocumented workers who ignored deportation orders, overstayed their visas or otherwise evaded immigration authorities.

In addition, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) would like to prohibit illegal immigrants who are legalized under the law from obtaining the earned-income tax credit to bolster low-income work.

I don’t support anything that would make it easier for illegals to become citizens, and it does seem to me we shouldn’t be passing out citizenship papers to people who have broken our laws and shoved it in our faces. Cornyn’s concerns seem legitimate to me.

The fact remains we have to start someplace, and if I’m not wrong, this bill does include securing the borders. If they can actually do that then I think that’s a big step in the right direction.

One thing I would love to see in this bill is an unconditional pardon for the Border Patrol agents who have been incarcerated for doing their jobs. Let them out free unless they committed a genuine act of murder.

This business of bringing illegals back into this country for medical treatment for wounds that may or may not have been made by the border patrol agents in the line of duty so they can testify against the border patrol agents is incomprehensible to me. Then the illegal drug-runners have the gall to sue us for damages.

Adding an unconditional pardon for these border patrol agents to the bill would be the right thing to do and I’d like to see it done.

This should only be the beginning of dealing with the illegals in our country. There should be further steps taken once the border is secure to make sure we don’t have to face this problem in another twenty years.

Tweet This Post

Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California says the public emotion surging around efforts to overhaul the nation’s immigration policy is the greatest she has seen since her 1992 election.

The Democrat said the topic hasn’t translated into the 30,000-plus phone calls to her office that would mean “something is really going on” in the nation’s most populous state, but the enthusiasm of opinion is fervent.

“We’re dealing with an issue about which people have very strong, very deeply set views,” Mrs. Feinstein said.

She said most of the nearly 8,000 calls her office has fielded have been “very hostile and very negative” despite polls that show up to 80 percent of Californians support legalizing “undocumented workers.”

From the Western border states to the heartland and the East Coast, lawmakers are being flooded with constituent calls as the Senate considers mechanisms for granting citizenship to some of the estimated 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens in the United States and ways to improve border security and the nation’s guest-worker program.

The office of Sen. Johnny Isakson, Georgia Republican, says it has received several thousand calls, the majority from people opposing what they call “amnesty” for aliens who entered the country illegally. Nearly all 5,000 callers to Mr. Isakson’s office expressed disapproval of the Senate plan.

“We’re still getting calls on other topics, such as Iraq, gas prices and hate crimes, but these topics are generating less than a dozen calls each per day,” said Isakson spokeswoman Joan Kirchner.

A staffer for Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican, says: “The phones have been off the hook.”

The pressure on legislators mounted immediately after a bipartisan group of senators announced their intentions on immigration reform last week. Lawmakers expect to get an earful from constituents when they go home this weekend for the Memorial Day recess.

I’ve called my congressman and one senator. The other senator’s phones are constantly busy. They’d better go on a secret vacation next week or their ears will be burning about this issue. People on both sides of the aisle are upset about this.

Source.

Tweet This Post

James Lileks offers his take on the illegal immigration bill.

Interesting news about the immigration debate, eh? I understand they’ve crafted some sort of bill. Having read the whole thing, I feel compelled to offer some of the highlights:

6 (1) (D) Undocumented Xenonationals who have been in the country since noon March 16, 2004 (this language reflects a compromise between the hardline “AM” faction and moderates who wanted to extend the deadline to 4:57 PM) will have to report to a government office to announce they are departing. This is the HIMBG Provision, or the “Hello, I Must Be Going” provision. Immigrants will have to return to the Mexican border, put their left foot in, put their left foot out, put their left foot in and shake it all about. (Language requiring that the applicant then “do the hokey pokey was removed over an inability to define the exact nature of said action.) The immigrant is then required to return to the place where he announced he was leaving, present a notarized photograph of himself sticking a portion of his body into Mexican airspace; at that point, he will be eligible to receive a “Q” visa, which enables him to start the process towards a “Z” visa, which estabishes a legal framework towards a “path towards citizenship,” although applicants who have paid 67% of their adjusted tax burden over the last 14 years, minus inflation, will be put on a “jogging path” towards citizenship.

Read the rest and enjoy!

Tweet This Post

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has announced the Senate will delay final action on the Immigration Reform Bill.

Senate leaders agreed Monday that they would wait until June to take final action on a bipartisan plan to give millions of unlawful immigrants legal status.

The measure, which also tightens border security and workplace enforcement measures, unites a group of influential liberals, centrists and conservatives and has White House backing, but it has drawn criticism from across the political spectrum. In a nod to that opposition, Senate leaders won’t seek to complete it before a hoped-for Memorial Day deadline.

“It would be to the best interests of the Senate … that we not try to finish this bill this week,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., as the chamber began debate on the volatile issue. “I think we could, but I’m afraid the conclusion wouldn’t be anything that anyone wanted.”

The bipartisan compromise cleared its first hurdle Monday with a bipartisan Senate vote to begin debate on a separate immigration measure. Still, it faces significant obstacles as lawmakers seek dozens of modifications to its key elements.

Republicans want to make the bill tougher on the nation’s estimated 12 million illegal immigrants. Democrats want to change a new temporary worker program and reorder priorities in a merit-based system for future immigration that weights employability over family ties.

The unlikely coalition that brokered the deal, led by Sens. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., and Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., is plotting to protect the agreement from “deal-breaker” changes that would sap its support. The group will hold daily meetings starting Tuesday to determine whether proposed revisions would sink what they are calling their “grand bargain.”

“We have to try our very best to work together to get something that will actually pass,” Kyl said.

Among the first changes to be debated will be a proposal by Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., to shrink the temporary worker program created by the compromise plan. Some lawmakers in both parties consider the initiative, which would provide at least 400,000 guest worker visas annually, too large.

Others charge it’s impractical and unfair to immigrants, because it would allow them to stay only temporarily in the U.S. without guaranteeing them a chance to gain legal status.

“We must not create a law that guarantees a permanent underclass, people who are here to work in low-wage, low-skilled jobs but do not have the chance to put down roots or benefit from the opportunities of American citizenship,” Reid said.

I guess they heard an earful from their constituents on both sides of the issue and are now going to try to work out the major objections.

It remains to be seen if an immigration reform bill will pass in this Congress or any other in the near future.

Tweet This Post

Not every illegal immigrant is Mexican. I know that probably surprises a lot of people—NOT! But a lot of people feel they are all Mexicans.

Many people from the poor countries in Central America sneak into the United States via Mexico, but they are not Mexicans.

The proposed immigration reform bill goes to the Senate floor for debate today, and you’d think the sky had fallen and it’s already passed in its virgin form.

We have squawkers on the right and I’m sure squawkers on the left. I read last night that Lindsey Graham was booed in SC at the Republican convention because he endorses the proposed immigration bill.

I would have booed him too because he is not the senator I thought I elected, but maybe this will be his wake-up call to serve those who elected him and stop being Arizona’s third senator.

A very reasonable question was posed on a Conservative site. Something to the effect of imagining you are an employer or farmer and think of the problems you face, then imagine you are Congress and what would you do to solve the problem to the good of everyone.

Here’s one answer that stood out to me as being so rigid there is no room for movement, and of course the president has caused the Republican Party to self-destruct all on his own:

We can’t send them all back. Given
We can’t pay for medical/social security for them. Given
Those in jail – need to be deported. Given
Employers need to be penalized for under the table employment – or should have the option of not paying benefits/social security/workman’s compensation – and pay citizens a flat fee just like they do illegals. Fix that one way or the other. Given.
No More. Shut down the border. Shut it down. Now.
No more spanglish options. English only. It’s my taxes that provide translations – I would rather used that money to send them home or build a fence.
Those who are here illegally must register, find a sponsor (one of those employers paying them for a job “Americans won’t do” – if this is true – then it shouldn’t be too hard.) and provide proof of gainful employment in order to stay. Their American citizenship status and that of their children cannot be achieved until after those who entered the country legally.

Anyone who migrates here must be in line for citizenship. No more “make the money here and send it home”. We are Mexico’s largest source of income. If they come here, they must register, get a job, and get in line for citizenship. If not- they should be stopped at the border.

Any Mexican who breaks the law here goes to jail in Mexico – or we take all of our convicted prisoners and turn them loose in Guadelahara with forged Mexican passports, train tickets to Mexico City, and 1000 pesos.

Make it a misdemeanor to shoot someone illegally entering this country. [A misdemeanor to possibly kill someone? A baby? A child? ED]

…. there’s more….

Make all the Senators who crafted this bill live in LA county for six months.

Someone needs to tell GWB that we would like to retain one branch of government… as much as he is trying to make it the last time a republican is trusted with the White House ever – we really would like to put another republican in there in 08 and he needs to work with us not against us. And then someone please ask republicans in the Senate if the NYT will ever generate votes for them. If any answer yes – deport them to Mexico.

… more later.

More later. I guess this person hasn’t vented enough. Since we are all armchair Congresscritters and presidents we talk a good game, but when it comes down to it how realistic is it to think you can get it all at one time?

Some of it sounds reasonable, but even though the New York Times is no friend of the Republicans, why say if you are endorsed by them to deport you? You can’t deport someone who has been born in this country. That statement doesn’t even make sense, but then we are on an issue that has everyone angry, and the fact the illegals marched with Mexican flags last year demanding “their” country back doesn’t help things.

Secure the borders first makes sense and I think that’s what the bill states.

Before we all get upset because our ice cream fell on the ground let’s wait for it to fall on the ground and act like adults on this issue.

I know the writers on this blog will.

Tweet This Post

It has been another whirlwind day on Republican blogs. Many see the death of the Republican Party due to the upcoming Illegal Immigration legislation. As I wrote in the wee hours of yesterday morning, they are entitled to their thoughts. I for one do not respond well to shrill rhetoric and tend to tune out those who believe they have the superior voice on any topic.

I found myself searching for reasonable attention to this issue and found it in the usual spots. I may not agree 100% with any of these individuals, however I am drawn to the respect they show both their readers and the process.

Captains Quarters where Mr. Morrissey writes:

As I wrote yesterday, this is about as good as we will get in this Congress. In fact, the Democrats probably had enough votes to pass something much more like a wide-open amnesty, given a few Republican votes in support of that and the relaxed attitude of the White House on immigration reform. The GOP did a pretty good job of holding the line and forcing the Democrats to include the border-first triggers, the reduction of the family interest, and the rest of what Kyl managed to retain.

It’s not great, and it’s not even very good. It’s not bad, though, and given our lack of strength in Congress and the White House on this issue, it’s a good deal that will strengthen our national security now rather than wait another two years to address it. To quote the Rolling Stones, you can’t always get what you want, but sometimes you get what you need. This is one of those times. (via Hot Air)

The Captain linked to this at Big Lizards which is a great overview of all the information which has been tossed about in several locations concerning this bill. While I appreciate all his efforts to consolidate what has otherwise been difficult to follow, I thought this paragraph was fantastic.

- I haven’t read anything on the subject by Michelle Malkin, the Center for Security Policy, nor Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO, 92%), and for a very good reason: their prior hysterical opposition to any immigration reform that even hints at anything other than a wall, imprisonment of employers, and mass deportations of 11 million illegals. They have collectively become “the boys who cried ‘amnesty!’” — at everything, without exception, that goes beyond enforcement.

Neither have I read the above individuals as I clearly remember what took place the last time this time bomb was addressed. IMHO these folks contributed heavily to the loss of both Houses of Congress in 2006. Leaving no room for opposing opinions or debate will never prove an answer to me.

Another person I admire for never jumping the shark on Illegal Immigration is Harold Hutchinson.
Here is a brief look at his commentary. Writing at Called As Seen:

We were never going to deport 12-20 million illegal immigrants. We can, however, fine them, make sure they pay their taxes, and find out who has been employing them and if not punish them, we will know who to keep an eye on.

Last but certainly not least the Anchoress who always writes with clarity.

For thirty years the immigration situation has been kicked down the road from one president to another. For most of that time, little was even said about it. Since 9/11 some folks have been demanding action but rejecting anything but the most extreme response. Lost in all of this is the fact that many, many folks here illegally came legally and then for one reason or another remained past their date. Lots of them have worked hard, lived responsibly and built lives and families here. Their humanity and ours demands that we find a way to make them productive citizens without “shipping them back” and disrupting whole societies.

Each of these individuals seems to understand that while we all have our personal feelings and opinions on this topic, there will never be the absolute answer many are demanding. I have no desire to throw the party of which I have been a member for many years under the bus because they chose to compromise with Democrats.

Now it is wait and see..what will the Senate debate produce in the way of a final bill and will the House find it acceptable? Will the President sign an end product into law? There will be ample time at each juncture to debate the fine points of this bill. This legislation could change direction many times between now and completion.

Personal thanks to all those whom I have linked. It was a pleasure to read calm, reasoned words on this explosive topic.

Tweet This Post

It is refreshing to read of compromise in the United States Senate. Now if we can keep the extreme factions of both parties from going over a cliff ,we might see some real movement on a bill addressing Illegal Immigration.

From heading right :

Senators negotiating a bipartisan immigration reform bill have settled on the details of a plan that would immediately grant legal status to all illegal immigrants currently in the United States.

The deal on “Z visas” for illegal immigrants is one of several issues where Democrats and Republicans have reached broad agreement. …

The plan to award legal status to all illegal immigrants who meet certain qualifications would occur only after other “triggers” are met. These triggers would require that certain border security and work-site enforcement measures be in place before other aspects of the overhaul go forward.

The Z visa plan would start with the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States going on a probationary legal status. If the triggers are met — a process that Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) estimated would take 18 months — then illegal immigrants who qualify could get Z visas. Those who have committed felonies would not be eligible, Graham said, and all participants would have to pass security checks, pay a fine and a processing fee and pass an English proficiency test.

Z visa holders would be able to apply for legal permanent resident status, a step toward citizenship. But at some point, the heads of households with Z visas would have to return to his or her home country and then reenter the United States. They would have to take their Z visa to the U.S. Embassy or consulate and would be guaranteed reentry. The Z visa would include a photo and fingerprints, Graham said.

I am certain skeptics will come out with all of their objections to which they are entitled, but for the moment it is gratifying to think our elected officials are working diligently toward a resolution of an extremely complex issue.

Read the whole piece at heading right to get Ed Morrissey’s take on this compromise. It is written with a great deal of common sense and of course, his usual flair.

Tweet This Post

Theodore Roosevelt’s ideas on Immigrants and being an AMERICAN in 1907.

“In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American…There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag… We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language … and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”

Theodore Roosevelt 1907

Tweet This Post

Source of this shortened version.

JUAREZ, Mexico — The man shot in the buttocks by two U.S. Border Patrol agents now in prison for the shooting and the coverup is breaking his silence, saying he is well aware that ‘everybody hates me there (in America).’

Osvaldo Aldrete Davila was shot in February 2005 by Border Patrol Agents Jose Compean and Ignacio Ramos as he tried to drive further into the United States with a van full of 700 pounds of marijuana. He was given immunity from prosecution in March 2005 for his cooperation in that investigation and subsequent trial, which culminated last year.

Ramos and Compean are now serving 11 and 12-year prison sentences.

In an interview with The El Paso Times, Aldrete Davila said while it was wrong for the agents to shoot him, he thinks the prison sentences are too excessive.

Aldrete Davila also said he only agreed to help smuggle the drugs in a moment of “desperation” because he needed the cash to get his commercial driver’s license. He said he was promised $1,000 to walk across the Rio Grande on Feb. 17, 2005, and get into a gray Ford Econoline van waiting for him with the keys in the ignition.

“I didn’t know exactly what was in the van. I didn’t look. But, you know, I knew it was bad,” he told The El Paso Times.

Aldrete Davila is suing the U.S. government for $5 million — money he says is needed to rebuild his urethra, which was shattered by the bullet. He lives with a rubber tube sticking out of his belly button that connects his bladder to a plastic bag.

“I know it was wrong what I did, but I’m paying for it with my health,” he told the newspaper. “People don’t know how it is for me to go to the bathroom, how painful it is.”

You can read the rest of this sob story here.

Tweet This Post