Illegal Immigrants Exodus

Amazing, who would have thought, you pass some laws that will keep illegal immigrants from getting jobs and bam, they leave… I just love the liberal and illegal views… They are being terrorized and oppressed because of these laws. Wake up, they are here ILLEGALLY, thus the term illegal aliens. They are breaking the law. Get a green card and you are more than welcome in my country, until then get out.

PHOENIX, Arizona (AP) — Illegal immigrants in Arizona, frustrated with a flagging economy and tough new legislation cracking down on their employers, are returning to their home countries or trying their luck in other states.

Border Patrol officers in Phoenix, Arizona, check a bus depot for illegal immigrants in June 2006.

var CNN_ArticleChanger = new CNN_imageChanger(‘cnnImgChngr’,’/2007/US/12/22/immigrants.leave.ap/imgChng/p1-0.init.exclude.html’,1,1); //CNN.imageChanger.load(‘cnnImgChngr’,’imgChng/p1-0.exclude.html’);

For months, immigrants have taken a wait-and-see attitude toward the state’s new employer-sanctions law, which takes effect January 1. The voter-approved legislation is an attempt to lessen the economic incentive for illegal immigrants in Arizona, the busiest crossing point along the U.S.-Mexico border.

And by all appearances, it’s starting to work.

“People are calling me telling me about their friend, their cousin, their neighbors — they’re moving back to Mexico,” said Magdalena Schwartz, an immigrant-rights activist and pastor at a Mesa church. “They don’t want to live in fear, in terror.”

Martin Herrera, a 40-year-old illegal immigrant and masonry worker who lives in Camp Verde, 70 miles north of Phoenix, said he is planning to return to Mexico as soon as he ties up loose ends after living here for four years.

“I don’t want to live here because of the new law and the oppressive environment,” he said. “I’ll be better in my country.”

He called the employer-sanctions law “absurd.”

“Everybody here, legally or illegally, we are part of a motor that makes this country run,” Herrera said. “Once we leave, the motor is going to start to slow down.”

There’s no way to know how many illegal immigrants are leaving Arizona, especially now with many returning home for normal holiday visits. But economists, immigration lawyers and people who work in the immigrant community agree it’s happening.

State Rep. Russell Pearce of Mesa, the author of the employer sanctions law, said his intent was to drive illegal immigrants out of Arizona.

“I’m hoping they will self-deport,” Pearce said. “They broke the law. They’re criminals.”

Under the employer sanctions law, businesses found to have knowingly hired illegal workers will be subject to sanctions from probation to a 10-day suspension of their business licenses. A second violation would bring permanent revocation of the license.

Nancy-Jo Merritt, an immigration lawyer who primarily represents employers, said her clients already have started to fire workers who can’t prove they are in the country legally.

“Workers are being fired, of course,” she said. “Nobody wants to find out later on that they’ve got somebody working for them who’s not here legally.”

When immigrants don’t have jobs, they don’t stick around, said Dawn McLaren, a research economist at Arizona State University who specializes in illegal immigration.

She said the flagging economy, particularly in the construction industry, also is contributing to an immigrant exodus.

“As the jobs dwindle and the environment becomes more unpleasant in more ways than one, you then decide what to do, and perhaps leaving looks like a good idea,” she said. “And certainly that creates a problem, because as people leave, they take the jobs they created with them.”

Pearce disagreed that the Arizona economy will suffer after illegal immigrants leave, saying there will be less crime, lower taxes, less congestion, smaller classroom sizes and shorter lines in emergency rooms.

“We have a free market. It’ll adjust,” he said. “Americans will be much better off.”

He said he’s not surprised illegal immigrants are leaving the state and predicts that more will go once the employer-sanctions law takes effect next month.

“It’s attrition by enforcement,” he said. “As you make this an unfriendly state for lawbreakers, I’m hoping they will pick up and leave.”


And Still Our Government Does Nothing

When will our government get the balls to stand up to Iran… Nothing happens in Iran without the governments direct involvement or blessing Their president has kidnapped before… Their president has authorized support of terrorism… Their president is a terrorist… Yes the government cooperates on the surface, but that is only to cover up their involvement.

TEHRAN, Iran —  The wife of a missing former FBI agent said Saturday she has been unable to find out what happened to her husband despite visiting the Iranian island where he was last seen.

The Iranian government reiterated that it had no information about Robert Levinson’s whereabouts.

“Our trip is almost over and the miracle we were hoping for has not happened. We still don’t have answers about what happened to Bob,” Christine Levinson said at a news conference in Tehran following her visit to Kish Island, a resort off the southern coast of Iran.

Her 59-year-old husband was last seen March 8 on Kish, where he had gone to seek information on cigarette smuggling for a client of his security firm.

“We tried to retrace his steps and met with airport officials and members of the hotel staff where Bob stayed before he disappeared,” Christine Levinson told reporters at the Swiss Embassy. “We still don’t know where Bob is, and the nightmare I and my family are experiencing will continue.”

Christine Levinson arrived in Iran on Tuesday to look for her husband, accompanied by her 22-year-old son, Daniel, and her sister, Suzan Halpin. According to the Swiss Embassy, which looks after American interests in Iran, she is scheduled to stay in Iran until Sunday.

Government spokesman Gholam Hossein Elham told reporters earlier Saturday that the Iranian government had no information proving that Levinson had gone missing while visiting Kish.

“If new information is given to us on this matter, we will follow up the case,” Elham told reporters.

Iran has said it has informed U.S. officials through the Swiss Embassy that authorities have conducted an investigation but do not know what happened to Levinson.

Christine Levinson said Iranian officials have been cooperative, but she still believes her husband is in Iran because his name has not shown up on any flight manifests of planes leaving the country. She also said she saw her husband’s signature at the Mariam Hotel in Kish, where he stayed.

“I saw my husband’s signature in the hotel book,” she said. “There is a record of him checking out.”

Christine Levinson said she has not given up.

“I’m still hoping to find my husband,” she said. “I always have hope.”

Robert Levinson, a father of seven from Coral Springs, Fla., was an FBI agent in New York and Florida until he retired in 1998.

Obama Camp Confused On Race Issue

The Obama camp is getting ready to throw the race card into the 2008 Presidential Elections… The claim stems from Clinton’s assertation that Obama might not be the best candidate because he admits to having had used drugs and his lenient political outlook on drug use

How the hell is this a race issue, is Obama asserting that drug use is exclusive to blacks…

I remember in Bill’s election the issue of his drug use came up, I did not inhale, remember that…

Or how about Bush’s election with the issue Cocaine and Alcoholism…

As for his lenient political stance on conviction of drug dealers, again how is that an issue of race…

It appears the Obama camp cannot get the black vote, even with Oprah, so they need to resort to false attacks against him to try and garnish those votes.

This is far from a racial attack on Obama, more of a holier than thou moral attack…

It has unfolded mostly under the radar. But an important development in the 2008 Democratic battle may be the building backlash among African Americans over comments from associates of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton that could be construed as jabs at Sen. Barack Obama‘s race.

These officials, including Clinton aides and prominent surrogates, have raised questions or dropped references about Obama’s position on sentencing guidelines for crack vs. powder cocaine offenses; on his handgun control record; and on his admitted use of drugs as a youth. The context was always Obama’s “electability.” But the Illinois senator’s campaign advisers said some African American leaders detect a pattern, and they believe it could erode Clinton’s strong base of black support.Here’s a sample of how the issue is playing out:From the “Tom Joyner Morning Show,” Dec. 14:

Tom Joyner: “Yeah, man, they are coming after you now. So the story about the Clinton campaign putting out this statement not to vote for Barack Obama because he used drugs, and then yesterday I understand that she apologized and the campaign worker quit.”

Obama: “Well, I think everybody knows, because I wrote about it in a book 10 years ago. . . . and part of the reason I wrote about it and I talk about it in schools is because I want young people out there to know that if they make the same kinds of mistakes that I made that they can get over it and that they can move on. . . .”

From columnist Derrick Z. Jackson of the Boston Globe, Dec. 15:

“That leaves open as to how far the Clinton campaign, whose poll leads have evaporated in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, will go to stereotype Obama as not only naive, but cast him in a sinister light in a nation where black drug use and criminality is exaggerated in the media . . . .”

” ‘I don’t think these strategies are very subtle,’ Obama said. ‘I won’t speak to the racial element of it because I think, you know, if I were a white candidate, obviously, somebody suggesting falsely they were a drug dealer, it’s never good.’ But in sum, Obama, who has written about his teenage drug use in his memoirs, said, ‘There’s been a series of these kinds of tactics that at some point we’ve just got to send a clear signal this is not what we’re about.’ ”

From Black Star News of New York, Dec. 19:

“So the Clinton campaign decided to use the race card. A senior campaign official, Billy Shaheen, the co-chairman of Hillary Clinton’s campaign in New Hampshire, warned voters that Obama might not be the suitable candidate because were he to win the Democratic nomination, those nasty Republicans could bring up the fact that Obama has admitted to using marijuana and cocaine in his youth. Might the Republicans not even ask whether Obama had also been a drug dealer? This was clearly playing to the deep seated stereotype that some white people harbor — of Blacks as natural born criminals and drug dealers.”

Huckabee’s Message Simple for Christmas

Practically every candidate running for president is up with some sort of Christmas commercial ranging from the serious (Sen. John McCain‘s retelling of Christmas in a POW camp) to the humorous (Rudy Giuliani’s appearance with Santa.)

The Fix chose three of the ads — Giuliani’s, as well as the commercial by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in which she is wrapping a variety of presents corresponding to the issues of her campaign and former governor Mike Huckabee’s “reason for the season” spot — and asked a variety of unaffiliated political operatives for their takes.

Here’s what they had to say:

The favorite, by far, of our informal panel was Huckabee’s ad. “Huckabee’s ad is the most effective because it was first, it is simple, and, in case there was any doubt, it reminds viewers of his singular strength — that he’s a Christian,” said Democratic consultant Stephanie Cutter. “He is just so genuine that it really does give you a good feeling,” said Democratic pollster John Anzalone, a sentiment echoed by Republican pollster Glen Bolger: “Huckabee’s is the best, because it is not political and shows a sense of genuineness about the guy.”

Reviews were more mixed for the ads by Giuliani and Clinton.

Of Giuliani’s “Santa” commercial, Democratic pollster Dave Beattie said: “It attempts to use humor to makes promises and criticize the process, but unlike Huckabee’s and even Hillary’s ad, it is more about the process of politics rather than political belief and motivation.” Jennifer Burton, a Democratic media consultant, was more complimentary — arguing that Giuliani’s ad “succeeds in hitting his message points and using humor to make Rudy two-dimensional.”

Not surprisingly the Clinton ad, like everything in her campaign, provoked strong feelings on both sides. “Hillary’s ad is a clever treatment,” said Republican media consultant Erik Potholm. “The spot does a good job of bringing the viewer in — as if they are watching the latest ads for Macy’s last-minute, holiday sale — while reminding voters of her agenda.” Beattie was far less sanguine about the ad’s impact. “It treats the holidays as a prop, which probably does little to move voters and does little to keep expanding her image as a person rather than a politician.”


Remember this name: Jay W. Ragley. The new executive director of the South Carolina Republican Party, Ragley has long been the boy wonder — he’s 27 — of Palmetto State GOP politics. He first came on The Fix’s radar as political director for the party in the 2006 cycle before jumping over to serve as the South Carolina director for the National Federation of Independent Business.

In Ragley’s new post, he will get plenty of national attention early next year when Republican presidential candidates descend on the Palmetto State for its Jan. 19 primary.

11 days: It’s almost here. The Iowa caucuses loom as large as ever on the political landscape despite the compression of the nominating calendar.

37 days: Florida hosts its presidential primary. Will it be the last meaningful contest of the primary season?

US Rendition Laws

I wonder how long it will take the liberals to blame this one on Bush and claim that we are loosing more Constitutional Rights…

As is pointed out the current law which dates back quite a ways, deals with bounty hundting, during a time when extradition was probably not a feasibility.

The media has already clung to the term kidnap, which in this case is really apprehension of a suspected criminal. This is not news, it is bringing to light something overlooked…

As for how this is considered legal, the US Supreme court did not rule that it was legal, they ruled that US courts do not have the power to determine if said rendition is illegal as the rendition occured outside of their juristiction. This is not the same as saying it is legal, they were saying the country where the rendition occured retains juristiction and the case must be made there.

US says it has right to kidnap British citizens

AMERICA has told Britain that it can “kidnap” British citizens if they are wanted for crimes in the United States.

A senior lawyer for the American government has told the Court of Appeal in London that kidnapping foreign citizens is permissible under American law because the US Supreme Court has sanctioned it.

The admission will alarm the British business community after the case of the so-called NatWest Three, bankers who were extradited to America on fraud charges. More than a dozen other British executives, including senior managers at British Airways and BAE Systems, are under investigation by the US authorities and could face criminal charges in America.

Until now it was commonly assumed that US law permitted kidnapping only in the “extraordinary rendition” of terrorist suspects.

The American government has for the first time made it clear in a British court that the law applies to anyone, British or otherwise, suspected of a crime by Washington.

Legal experts confirmed this weekend that America viewed extradition as just one way of getting foreign suspects back to face trial. Rendition, or kidnapping, dates back to 19th-century bounty hunting and Washington believes it is still legitimate.

The US government’s view emerged during a hearing involving Stanley Tollman, a former director of Chelsea football club and a friend of Baroness Thatcher, and his wife Beatrice.

The Tollmans, who control the Red Carnation hotel group and are resident in London, are wanted in America for bank fraud and tax evasion. They have been fighting extradition through the British courts.

During a hearing last month Lord Justice Moses, one of the Court of Appeal judges, asked Alun Jones QC, representing the US government, about its treatment of Gavin, Tollman’s nephew. Gavin Tollman was the subject of an attempted abduction during a visit to Canada in 2005.

Jones replied that it was acceptable under American law to kidnap people if they were wanted for offences in America. “The United States does have a view about procuring people to its own shores which is not shared,” he said.

He said that if a person was kidnapped by the US authorities in another country and was brought back to face charges in America, no US court could rule that the abduction was illegal and free him: “If you kidnap a person outside the United States and you bring him there, the court has no jurisdiction to refuse — it goes back to bounty hunting days in the 1860s.”

Mr Justice Ouseley, a second judge, challenged Jones to be “honest about [his] position”.

Jones replied: “That is United States law.”

He cited the case of Humberto Alvarez Machain, a suspect who was abducted by the US government at his medical office in Guadalajara, Mexico, in 1990. He was flown by Drug Enforcement Administration agents to Texas for criminal prosecution.

Although there was an extradition treaty in place between America and Mexico at the time — as there currently is between the United States and Britain — the Supreme Court ruled in 1992 that the Mexican had no legal remedy because of his abduction.

In 2005, Gavin Tollman, the head of Trafalgar Tours, a holiday company, had arrived in Toronto by plane when he was arrested by Canadian immigration authorities.

An American prosecutor, who had tried and failed to extradite him from Britain, persuaded Canadian officials to detain him. He wanted the Canadians to drive Tollman to the border to be handed over. Tollman was escorted in handcuffs from the aircraft in Toronto, taken to prison and held for 10 days.

A Canadian judge ordered his release, ruling that the US Justice Department had set a “sinister trap” and wrongly bypassed extradition rules. Tollman returned to Britain.

Legal sources said that under traditional American justice, rendition meant capturing wanted people abroad and bringing them to the United States. The term “extraordinary rendition” was coined in the 1990s for the kidnapping of terror suspects from one foreign country to another for interrogation.

There was concern this weekend from Patrick Mercer, the Tory MP, who said: “The very idea of kidnapping is repugnant to us and we must handle these cases with extreme caution and a thorough understanding of the implications in American law.”

Shami Chakrabarti, director of the human rights group Liberty, said: “This law may date back to bounty hunting days, but they should sort it out if they claim to be a civilised nation.”

The US Justice Department declined to comment.