States take on illegal immigration while Feds stay mum

[Jeanfromfillmore]

States take on illegal immigration while Feds stay mum
COMMENTARY | President Obama pulled the plug on the virtual border fence that is one of the most well-known federal money pits in recent history. Instead of the promised technological surveillance that would keep illegal aliens from crossing the border between Mexico and the United States, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano advised that border security would now rely on already developed technologies.
Even so, there is precious little other noise coming from D.C. about the problem of illegal immigration. Granted, there are discussions about birthright citizenship and the 14th Amendment to the Constitution from the Republican side of the aisle, but there is precious little else. Is it surprising that the states are getting antsy and taking matters into their own hands?
So what's going on in the states' illegal immigration battles?
Kentucky: Senate Bill 6
Critics point out that Senate Bill 6 will likely carry a $40 million annual price tag. The reason for this cost would be the increase in detention costs for illegal aliens who are caught in the state. If the state's senate Republicans get their way, every undocumented immigrant who gets caught is guilty of committing a state crime. Lawmakers do not count on maximum enforcement but instead believe that even only sporadic enforcement will make Kentucky a state that illegal immigrants deem to be an undesirable home.
Texas: Tackling Sanctuary Cities
Governor Rick Perry has placed sanctuary cities on the Texas legislature's calendar as an "emergency item." Noting that Texas will protect its borders even if the feds fail to step up to the plate, Governor Perry nevertheless does not want to go down the road that Arizona went. As a result, he aims for the ensuring that none of Texas' cities become sanctuary cities that curtail law enforcement's cooperating with federal immigration enforcement.
Montana: House Bill 178
A very controversial bit of legislation deals with the employment of illegal immigrants. The Montana legislature is looking at House Bill 178, which makes it impossible for illegal aliens to receive worker's compensation benefits. As a side note, driver's license issuance would be tied to a cross-check with a federal database to verify citizenship and eligibility.
Even if these proposed state laws would make it past the legislators (and the voters), they would still have to face federal scrutiny. In spite of the federal government's inability to deal with the illegal immigration problem head-on, the Arizona showdown has proven that attorneys are quick to file suit if they perceive an encroaching on federal enforcement rights.
On the flipside, how many lawsuits against various states will it take before the federal government registers the need to do something about the unsecured border? As plenty of talk now surrounds -- the as of yet amorphous term -- "comprehensive immigration reform," political animals know that with the presidential election coming up on the radar, this hot potato may just as well get kicked down the curb for President Obama's second term.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ac/20110116/..._feds_stay_mum

Tough bill on illegal immigration ready to go
A state lawmaker thinks it's time Indiana followed Arizona's lead in cracking down on illegal immigration, and he wants to go even further by barring the use of any language but English in most government transactions.
State Sen. Mike Delph, R-Carmel, has been trying since 2008 to toughen Indiana's enforcement of laws against those who immigrate illegally and those who knowingly hire them. This year, with strong GOP majorities in the Senate and House, Delph is pursuing a wide-ranging bill that goes beyond any legislation sought in the past.
"We're taking the handcuffs off of law enforcement. We're holding employers who are thumbing their noses at the law accountable. And we're lifting up the English language," Delph said Friday.
Gov. Mitch Daniels' office had no comment, saying it had not yet reviewed the measure. But the bill already has drawn stiff opposition -- from those who fear Hispanics and other ethnic groups will be unfairly targeted and from business groups that think it's outrageous that the measure could put employers out of business.
"I'm worried that the unintended consequences of what he's doing is to put a sign on our state saying we don't want immigrants," said John Livengood, co-chairman of the Alliance for Immigration Reform in Indiana, a coalition of groups that want to see immigration reforms left to the feds.
Delph admitted Senate Bill 590 may be tough but said no one who follows existing immigration laws should fear it.
The 30-page proposal tackles numerous areas.
As in Arizona, the bill requires state and local law enforcement officers who stop anyone for violating a law or ordinance to ask for proof that the person is here legally if the officers have "reasonable suspicion" that the person is not a citizen or legal visitor.
Businesses that knowingly hire illegal immigrants could be investigated by the state attorney general's office or county prosecutor, who could subpoena business records. If found guilty, businesses would face penalties from probation up to the loss of their licenses to do business. Delph's bill allows a few exceptions for institutions such as utilities and hospitals, which cannot be shut down without harming the public.
Most government transactions, documents and meetings would be in English. The state would have to shut down the Spanish-language portal on its website and stop issuing forms, such as for voter registration or absentee ballots, in other languages. Exceptions are made for law enforcement and court proceedings, public health needs, and tourism and international trade needs.
The state would be required to tally the costs of illegal immigration on Hoosier taxpayers, including for education, health care and law enforcement, and to bill Congress for reimbursement.
Illegal immigrants could not get financial aid, scholarships or grants to attend an Indiana university and would have to pay out-of-state tuition.
Cities and counties would be barred from limiting the enforcement of federal immigration laws.
That, Delph said, is meant to bar so-called "sanctuary cities."
Asked what cities he was referring to, Delph said: "I think Indiana has become a sanctuary state, quite honestly. . . . We've had our Hoosier hospitality abused."
According to the Washington-based Pew Hispanic Center, Indiana was estimated to have 120,000 illegal immigrants in 2009, up from 10,000 in 1990.
Delph said he has tried to allay concerns by including a provision requiring police officers who check people's citizenship status to do so "without regard to race, religion, gender, ethnicity or national origin."
And businesses that use the federal verification systems to make sure they are hiring people here legally could not be penalized. It's an easy way, he said, to make sure that a business doesn't run afoul of the law.
On Friday, Delph went to the Indiana Farm Bureau offices in Indianapolis to meet the Alliance for Immigration Reform in Indiana. That coalition includes not only the Farm Bureau, but the Indiana Chamber of Commerce, the Indiana Manufacturers Association, social service groups, the Catholic Conference and other likely opponents.
Afterward, Livengood, the group's co-chairman, called Delph's bill "very ambitious . . . but I'm doubtful that I can find any way to support it."
Despite Delph's insistence that the bill would be fairly applied by police, Livengood and others feared it would result in improper profiling -- with those who look different and speak differently singled out and harassed.
"This is going to lead to profiling almost surely," Livengood said. "Our biggest fear -- my biggest fear -- is that Indiana becomes known as a state where immigrants aren't welcome."
Angela Adams, an immigration attorney and member of the coalition who also attended Friday's meeting, noted that the Arizona law, which was passed in April and is now being challenged by the U.S. Department of Justice, is still under appeal.
"It would be premature to say whether the Indiana bill would pass constitutional muster," Adams said.
Rep. Mara Candelaria Reardon, a Hammond Democrat who is one of two Hispanics in the legislature, agreed.
"While I don't condone illegal activity, it's pretty foolhardy to pass a bill modeled after a bill being litigated in federal court," she said.
Toby Miller, director of the Race and Culture Relations Leadership Network, thinks the stampede of states to adopt Arizona-style immigration laws could create a system ripe for abuse.
"It does create a social and political environment where groups of citizens, because they look a certain way, are presumed to be in violation," Miller said. "It creates a situation where a group of citizens are unfairly targeted or viewed through a lens of suspicion.
"I think that's un-American," he added.
Others singled out the provisions aimed at employers. Kevin Brinegar, president of the Indiana Chamber of Commerce, said that at a time when Indiana's unemployment rate is hovering at nearly 10 percent, "any provision that puts Indiana businesses out of business and puts innocent people, who had nothing to do with the hiring, out of work -- that just makes no sense whatsoever."
Brinegar said the chamber has gotten "pretty strong indications" that legislative leaders also don't think that's good public policy and expects changes, "if it passes at all."
Delph, though, said he thinks many lawmakers share his concerns about the burden illegal immigration has placed on Indiana. The bill has already been promised a hearing in the Senate Pensions and Labor Committee. Ten senators have signed on as co-sponsors, and Delph expects more.
He predicted: "This is going to fly."
http://www.indystar.com/article/2011...yssey=nav|head

[ilbegone]

We don't need a fence of any sort.

What we do need is to sufficiently spank enough employers who hire illegals to make an example of scofflaws and take away social services that a number of illegals exploit.

Viola. Significantly fewer illegal alien problems because most will go home.

[Jeanfromfillmore]

Originally Posted by ilbegone

We don't need a fence of any sort.

What we do need is to sufficiently spank enough employers who hire illegals to make an example of scofflaws and take away social services that a number of illegals exploit.

Viola. Significantly fewer illegal alien problems because most will go home.

You're exactly correct. But what some are pushing is for employers to use EVerify only on new hires, when they already have illegals working for them. Also, they're going after those companies that have a hundred or so employees, yet it's the small companies that can so easily get away with hiring them, especially the food service industry.

Remember you've been warned more than once by La Raza itself that they will spit in your food.

[Twoller]

Originally Posted by Jeanfromfillmore

You're exactly correct. But what some are pushing is for employers to use EVerify only on new hires, when they already have illegals working for them. Also, they're going after those companies that have a hundred or so employees, yet it's the small companies that can so easily get away with hiring them, especially the food service industry.

Remember you've been warned more than once by La Raza itself that they will spit in your food.

Without secure borders, there is no point in patroling the interior. Without patrolling the interior, there is no point in securing the borders. The two go hand in hand. We must have fences on our border with Mexico. The ease by which illegals cross over our border on foot is half the problem and it's not just Mexicans any more. What sense does it make wringing our hand over slain border patrol agents, when we won't give them a fence to help them with their jobs? In all the times that border patrol agents have been killed or injured, was there a fence in the area? Or were they just patrolling open ground where no fence was?

The problem with employers hiring illegals is not a lack of verification, but the fact that most of the people doing the hiring are themselves not citizens or are considered citizens under a false pretext. We need to strip the citizenship of naturalized citizens who hire illegals. We should also consider making it illegal for non-citizens or naturalized citizens to hire any non-citizen.

[wetibbe]

It isn't often, indeed almost never, that I disagree with Glenn Spencer - American Border Patrol. But when he says the Boeing 1 billion dollar virtual, high tech fence was deliberately designed to fail I do have to disagree. The technology was defeated by weather basically. Not because Boeing was deliberately engaged in some conspiracy to ensure it wouldn't work.

However, I do believe that DHS was up to it's armpits engaging in back room, under the table scheming to fool the public. And still are. They put up a front, painting happy faces, and at the same time resort to mischief. The "virtual fence" was not what Congress called for in the secure borders act. It called for a double fence. DHS hasn't built double fence. They install old rail road rails as vehicle barriers which are porous to human traffic and easily bridged over by the traffickers. Then brag about how much fence they built. They just neglect to say that it was out of compliance and wouldn't stop pedestrians.

The DHS digression from plan, virtual fence instead of physical barrier, was a fools errand that resulted in 4 years lost and 1 billion dollars frittered away for nothing. The high tech fence only detected movements. CBP agents still had to be called out on horse back, vehicle or aircraft. The virtual fence didn't have logic. Humans would have been a much better option such as the Minutemen. DHS could have paid border watchers !!!

"Big Sis" is still plodding along down the same dumb path now resorting to "proven" technology such as UAV's. The record of UAV's flights is that in the past they only flew, at best, less than 5% of the time and the record of detections that resulted in apprehensions was minuscule while the cost per apprehension using UAV's versus humans was multiple times more costly.

As regards internal enforcement, it is at best slipshod, shoddy, desultory and checkered. As Mike Cutler pointed out, ICE only has about 6,000 employees to cover 50 stated and 300 million people while New York City has 30,000 police officers to cover 8 million citizens in 5 boroughs which comprise, land wise, a tiny fraction of the areal extent of the Sate of New York. Hundreds of thousands of businesses employ illegal aliens openly and in plain view with complete impunity. Furthermore there are tens of thousands of "organizations" and churches, as well as Villages, Towns and Cities, and private citizens, that promote day laborers openly, aid and abet illegal aliens, hire them, house them, transport them with no repercussions at all in vast areas of the country. In fact there have been many instances of ICE refusing to deal with illegal aliens and in some cases actually encouraging Villages to operate day laborers hiring halls.

For all of the Big Sis bluster, it remains that Federal Law enforcement lacks adequate funds, manpower and resources. And there are many in Government that are quite content with that deficiency as well as very large numbers of the ciitizens. Two of the worst of the worst are New York City and San Francisco. NYC hired 2,000 day laborers, *( illegal aliens ) to shovel snow ! Talk about defiance and chutzpah !!

[Don]

We need a militarized border including fences, mine fields and armed soldiers. If our military will not defend our borders against foreign invasion, why do we have a military?