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.”

Hezbollah Supporter Penetrates FBI

Dearbornistan strikes again… Not only immigration rules been bypassed but one of the suspects got jobs at both the FBI & CIA and accessed files of investigations in Detroit regarding Hezbollah as well as identities of Agents investigating them.

Of concern here is the sharing of information as well as the use of information. The CIA had knowledge of problems with Prouty, yet did not disclose this information with the FBI, ultimately leading to the hiring of Prouty by the FBI. Then the CIA, knowning she was suspect, stole her away from the FBI and gave her a job at the CIA…

A perplexing thought is this woman is free on bond, walking around the streets doing as she pleases… She is an illegal alien as she fraudulently optained citizenship, she compromised the identity of agents working on cases, more than likely undercover agents, she perjured herself and impeded a criminal investigation, she broke into federal computers 6 times…

That’s right the Dearbornistan connection… The Islamic Nation does not have to abide by US law, Dearbornistan is a sovereign Muslim Nation…

The safety of agents are at risk and our courts are pandering to the whim of a terrorist. This woman and all those involved, including the men they paid to become US citizens need to be in jail and deported at the earliest possible time.

Note the husband, a known Hezbollah supporter, of one of the convicted fled to Lebanon in 2005…

  

Violated FBI files named snitches

December 6, 2007

BY DAVID ASHENFELTER

FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER

An illegal immigrant who parlayed a sham marriage into citizenship and key jobs at the FBI and CIA made five unauthorized inquiries into an FBI computer system to find out about investigations of Hizballah, a federal prosecutor said in court papers filed Wednesday in Detroit.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Kenneth Chadwell didn’t indicate why Nada Nadim Prouty, a Lebanese immigrant who once lived in Taylor, wanted the information or what she did with it. But he said four of the inquiries involved files containing the names of confidential FBI informants

In another development, a federal official familiar with the case said the CIA had access to derogatory information about Prouty before the FBI hired her in 1999, but failed to disclose it when the FBI contacted the CIA during a background check.

Had the information been disclosed, the official said, the FBI might not have hired her. More perplexing, the official said, is why the CIA hired Prouty away from the FBI.

The CIA declined comment.

The court papers filed Wednesday said Prouty made at least one unauthorized inquiry to find out whether one of the investigations of Hizballah involved her brother-in-law, fugitive La Shish restaurant owner Talal Chahine. Prosecutors have said Chahine is a supporter of Hizballah, which the U.S. government has designated as a terrorist group.

The latest details about Prouty’s unauthorized computer inquiries were laid out in an indictment of Chahine.

U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers, a Brighton Republican and ex-FBI agent who serves on the House Intelligence Committee, said the Prouty episode is alarming. She pleaded guilty in the case last month in Detroit.

“I think this is a very serious security breach,” Rogers said Wednesday, adding that the House Intelligence Committee has started looking into the case and hopes to conduct hearings in late January.

Michael Cutler, a former federal immigration agent from Brooklyn, N.Y., who has testified before Congress on immigration and terrorism issues, called it “a very disturbing picture. … My concern is what she did with the information and what happened to the confidential sources.”

Meanwhile, the indictment said Chahine, 51, formerly of Plymouth, wrote letters to immigration officials in 1992 to falsely say that Prouty’s first marriage was legitimate and that he personally knew Prouty and her husband.

It said Chahine told an FBI agent before Prouty was hired that he wasn’t aware of anything in her background that could be used to subject her to coercion or compromise or reflect badly on her character.

Chadwell wouldn’t elaborate on the court papers, the latest twist in an unfolding scandal involving Chahine, his wife, her sisters and the sisters’ former roommate, who became a Marine captain and pleaded guilty Tuesday. The women are accused of hiring U.S. citizens to marry them so they could stay in the United States.

Prouty, 37, of Vienna, Va., pleaded guilty to citizenship fraud and accessing an FBI computer system without authorization on two occasions, in 2000 and 2003. She wanted to find out whether she, her sister and Chahine were being investigated by the FBI and to learn details about a Detroit-based investigation of Hizballah.

Wednesday’s court papers listed six unauthorized inquiries from 2000 to 2003, five of them involving Hizballah. In May this year, Prouty falsely told FBI agents that she hadn’t accessed the FBI computer to find out whether one of the Hizballah investigations involved Chahine, court documents said.

Prouty’s lawyer, Thomas Cranmer, said he couldn’t comment. Prouty is free on bond pending sentencing next year. She quit the CIA last month.

Last week, Prouty’s sister Elfat El Aouar, 40, of Plymouth pleaded guilty to citizenship fraud. She married Chahine in 2000 and is serving 18 months in prison for helping him evade $6.9 million in federal taxes on his Dearborn restaurant chain. He fled to Lebanon in 2005.

Contact DAVID ASHENFELTER at 313-223-4490 or ashenf@freepress.com

Dix Six Gun Supplier Pleads Guilty

Missed this one, but it important to note, because the Dix Six still have yet to stand trial. The fact that this piece of scum has admitted to supplying the rest with weapons is a damning statement against the rest once they reach court. Now either Abdullahu did supply them weapons and is being punished for it, or he is lying, being punished for it and then will have commite perjury if they did not. I think I will go with the fact that he did supply these Jihadist with weapons.

Fort Dix Six update: Gun supplier pleads guilty

By Michelle Malkin  •  October 31, 2007 11:24 AM

Newhouse News Service reports the latest development in the Fort Dix Six jihadi plot:

A Monroe Township supermarket worker accused of arming a band of immigrant Muslims intent on attacking Fort Dix will plead guilty today to weapons charges, his attorney said.

Agron Abdullahu of Collings Lakes in Atlantic County will admit to conspiring to help illegal immigrants obtain or possess weapons, federal public defender Richard Coughlin said. The crime carries a maximum term of five years, but his attorneys previously have said the federal guidelines for the crime suggest a sentence of less than two years.

Abdullahu’s decision to plead guilty is not expected to drastically alter the case. Since his arrest with the others in May, prosecutors have emphasized Abdullahu was not accused of participating in the overarching plot to kill U.S. soldiers. And, his attorney said, he is not cooperating with investigators.

A 24-year-old ethnic Albanian who fled Kosovo in 1999, Abdullahu settled with his family in Buena Vista and worked at a local ShopRite. As a legal U.S. resident, he was the only defendant capable of buying guns. Prosecutors say he helped train the others at a firing range in northeast Pennsylvania in 2006 and 2007.

Look for the CAIR types to downplay or ignore this guilty plea. They’ll seize on Abdullahu’s lawyers’ spin that he had nothing to do with the jihadi designs.

I remind you of Abdullahu’s lovely sentiments about our FBI:

Drawings found in the prison cell of a man suspected of plotting to attack Fort Dix suggest that he wants to seek revenge against FBI agents and should remain in custody, prosecutors said Monday.

The drawings—include one with the letters “FBI” and a gun pointing to them—are another reason that Agron Abdullahu should not be released from custody as he awaits trial, the U.S. Attorney’s Office said in legal documents filed Monday.

Abdullahu seemed to be thinking about “seeking revenge against the FBI agents who caused him to be imprisoned in the first place,” they wrote. “Releasing Abdullahu now would not only endanger the community at large, but also the agents who investigated this case.”

Guards at the Federal Detention Center in Philadelphia found the FBI drawing and another in the one-person cell where Abdullahu is being held.

The other drawing was of the phrase—”Rainca Kosava UCK.” Prosecutors contend that it refers to the Kosovo Liberation Army, which they say has links to some terrorist groups. Authorities said Abdullahu admitted to drawing the graffiti and explained that “Rainca” was the town where he was born.

The government said the drawings were etched with the screw from a light switch plate onto the door of Abdullahu’s cell.

Just a poor, oppressed, misunderstood soul…

Hillary Straps One On For The “Boys”

Hillary Clinton has stepped up her game and gone on the offensive in the Las Vegas Democratic debates… Taking one for the team, she is now trying to potray herself as the dominant one on the playing field by attacking bothe Barak Obama and John Edwards… Pulling from her arsenal of past mistakes, she sees to it Obama stumbles on the Drivers Licenses for Illegals issue and spanks John Edwards for Flip Flopping.

The Lower Ranks of the Democratic candidates also came out swinging in an attempt to show the public their strong sides, not that it will mean much in the long run as they don’t have a shot in hell at winning the primaries…

She is now trying to downplay the gender card and make up for her past mistakes, well folks this could be it. She out smarted the “boys” now that she is thinking clearly instead of emotionally…

LAS VEGAS  —  Hillary Rodham Clinton showed she knows how to use the roughhouse tactics of the political boys club.Two weeks after a rocky presidential debate performance where she appeared at times both defensive and evasive, the New York senator came into Thursday’s Democratic forum ready to rumble.For the first time, she directly challenged the records of her top rivals, Barack Obama and John Edwards. She even chided Edwards, her fiercest critic in this debate and others, for “throwing mud” Republican-style.

Spectators inside the debate hall appeared to echo that criticism, repeatedly booing Edwards and occasionally Obama when they criticized Clinton.

And after days of torturous contortions on whether she supported granting driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants, Clinton was able to stand by and watch as Obama was tripped up on the issue this time.

“To the degree she might have been stumbling in the last debate, she regained her footing tonight,” Democratic strategist Garry South said. “It was a very impressive performance by Hillary Clinton. She showed she could battle back criticism very well.”

It was a night during which many of Clinton’s rivals also turned in strong performances. Joe Biden demonstrated his expertise in foreign policy during an exchange over the growing crisis in Pakistan. Chris Dodd displayed his fluency on education issues, parrying a question on merit pay for teachers by saying he supported such pay for teachers in poor rural and urban districts.

But with exactly seven weeks until Iowa holds its leadoff caucuses, the dynamic between Clinton and her top two rivals loomed large. Polls show Clinton, Obama and Edwards locked in a tight three-way race in the state, and a Clinton win would be seen as her glide path to the nomination. Anything less and the nomination is up for grabs.

After months of avoiding any direct confrontation with her rivals, Clinton adopted a more aggressive tone. She took on Obama on his health care plan, arguing it would leave 15 million Americans uninsured. Obama has said he would first focus on bringing down costs.

She also noted that Edwards hadn’t supported universal health care when he ran for president in 2004. “I’m glad he is now,” she said.

Edwards responded by angrily denying he had “flip flopped” on important issues, as he’s repeatedly accused Clinton of doing.

“Anybody who’s not willing to change based on what they learn is ignorant, and everybody ought to be willing to do that,” he said. “I’m saying there’s a difference between that and saying the exact same two contrary things at exactly the same time.”

If anything, the former first lady showed she knows how to learn from her mistakes.

After her rough outing in the last debate, Clinton lamented the “all-boys club of presidential politics” while her campaign advisers accused her male rivals of “piling on.”

This time, Clinton smoothly deflected questions about whether she had played the gender card.

“It is clear, I think, from women’s experiences that from time to time there may be some impediments,” she said. “And it has been my goal over the course of my lifetime to be part of this great movement of progress that includes all of us, but has particularly been significant to me as a woman.”

To be sure, it wasn’t a perfect debate for Clinton.

Obama again cornered her on how she would keep Social Security solvent, a question she has sidestepped repeatedly. And she was forced to defend her Senate vote to take a more aggressive stand against Iran amid questions from a returning Iraq soldier and his mother who said they feared a showdown with Iran was coming next.

“Her weakest issue right now is Iran. It puts her at an enormous disadvantage in these debates,” Democratic strategist Bill Carrick said.

But Clinton was able to take advantage of other moments to showcase her toughness on foreign policy.

In an exchange over the situation in Pakistan where Gen. Pervez Musharraf has declared a state of emergency, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson said he believed that human rights were more important than U.S. national security.

Clinton flatly disagreed. “The first obligation of the president of the United States is to protect and defend the United States of America,” she said.

The strangest moment in the debate — and the most fortuitous for Clinton — came over a discussion of granting licenses to illegal immigrants, a question that has haunted Clinton since the last debate.

Until this week, she said she generally supported governors’ efforts to find ways to promote public safety in their states in the absence of federal immigration reform. But Wednesday, she completely reversed herself, announcing she opposed giving driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants.

When CNN moderator Wolf Blitzer pressed the candidates on whether they supported granting licenses, Obama gave a long and convoluted answer. When Clinton was asked, she simply said “no.”

Arresting Illegal Aliens Equates To Harassment

According to Mexican politics, the arrest and deportation of Illegal Mexican Immigrants in the US is considerered harassment. What is wrong with this picture, people sneak across the border, thus breaking the law, are working illegally, most likely not paying taxes, thus breaking another law, and we are harassing them by arresting them…

Calderon is quite correct in his assessment that Immigrants do contribute to US society and economic growth, however that is when they are here legally. The Illegal Immigrants are a drain on society and tend to raise crime levels. Mr. Calderon needs to differentiate between the Illegal and Legal Immigrants.

MEXICO CITY —  President Felipe Calderon decried Wednesday what he called “the growing harassment” of Mexicans in the United States and said his government will work to counter it by funding a media campaign to show migrant success stories.

Mexican officials have expressed concern over a recent wave of immigration raids and a U.S. political climate perceived as anti-migrant. Calderon said U.S. presidential candidates were using migrants as “symbolic hostages” on the immigration issue.

“I am especially worried about the growing harassment and frank persecution of Mexicans in the United States in recent days,” Calderon said at a meeting of the Mexican government’s migrant assistance agency.

He called on leading U.S. presidential candidates to “stop holding Mexicans in their country as symbolic hostages in their speeches and (campaign) strategies.” He was apparently referring to the hard line some candidates have taken on the immigration issue, and other candidates’ unwillingness to take a clear stance in the debate.

To bolster the image of migrants in the U.S., the Mexican government will launch “direct media campaigns aimed at showing migrant success stories and raise awareness of the many contributions” migrants make to U.S. society, he said.

Calderon noted 6 million of the 11 million Mexican migrants in the United States are undocumented, and endorsed the creation of what he called the League Against Discrimination Against Mexicans in the United States.

Pablo Alonso Flores, a member of advisory council of the Institute of Mexicans Abroad, described the new anti-discrimination league as a group “run by Mexican-Americans, aimed mainly at defending our rights peacefully and respectfully, while not allowing media attacks on the integrity, roots and customs of Mexicans.”

Calderon also endorsed a project to expand shelters for deported migrants in Mexican border cities.

Several recent high-profile immigration enforcement raids, and political setbacks like Wednesday’s decision by New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer to abandon a plan to issue driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants, have put immigrant activists in a grim mood.

Also Wednesday, Mexico City officials announced a program to offer city residents living in the United States low fees for sending money home.

As part of the program, the estimated 600,000 Mexico City migrants will also receive free life insurance policies. If they die, the policy will enable their relatives in Mexico to repatriate their remains free of charge.

Airport Security Bypassed By Illegal Immigrants Working In Secure Areas

This another prime example of the security gap in the US as well as another arguement for stronger illegal immigration laws and enforcement. It is one thing when companies are busted for using illegal immigrants to reduce payroll costs, however when a company does that and the company has security priviledges in places like airports, that becomes a much larger crime as it puts the public at risk. These loopholes and lack of checks and balances by Federal agencies, outlines the continued lack of interest in protecting American lives…. Right now it is just illegal immigrants, next time it will be terrorists. How many times must stories similar to this be played out before Americans speak up and tell our government to do something.

I know the problem is the liberal agenda in the country is more concerned with protecting our “right to privacy” than to enforce the laws designed to protect us.

CHICAGO —  Nearly two dozen illegal immigrants were arrested Wednesday, accused of using fake security badges to work in critical areas of O’Hare International Airport, including the tarmac, authorities said.

The 23 illegal workers were employed by Ideal Staffing Solutions Inc., whose corporate secretary and office manager also were arrested after an eight-month investigation that involved federal, state and Chicago authorities.

The company contracted work for carriers including United Airlines, KLM and Qantas, said Elissa A. Brown, a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent.

“The investigation identifies a vulnerability that could compromise national security, while bringing criminal charges against individuals who built an illegal work force into their business practice,” Brown said.

Ideal Staffing officials did not return a telephone message left after business hours Wednesday by The Associated Press.

Much of the investigation centered on the airport security badges issued by the Department of Aviation, said U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald. Agents found that 110 of the 134 badges issued to Ideal Staffing workers did not match the individuals who carried them, he said.

The discrepancies were first noted in March by a U.S. Customs and Border Protection inspector, Fitzgerald said.

“If we are to ensure public safety, we must know who has access to the secure areas of airports,” Fitzgerald said. “A fundamental component of airport safety is preventing the use of false identification badges, and punishing those who commit or enable such violations.”

Mary Gurin, 36, of Carpentersville, and Norinye Benitez, 24, of Franklin Park, were each charged with one federal count of harboring illegal immigrants for gain and one federal count of misuse of Social Security numbers. They were scheduled for a preliminary appearance later Wednesday in U.S. District Court, Brown said.

Benitez is believed to be an illegal immigrant from Mexico, and Gurin employed her and signed her airport badge application while knowing her illegal status, Brown said.

The workers arrested, 21 from Mexico and two from Guatemala, were being held in the Cook County jail. They face state criminal charges and deportation, Brown said.

According to affidavits in a complaint against Gurin and Benitez unsealed Wednesday in U.S. District Court, the applications for the 110 bogus badges listed Social Security numbers that either did not exist or belonged to other individuals, some of whom were dead.

One affidavit from a temporary worker who cooperated with authorities said Benitez told him to look through a box containing about 20 airport security badges and to pick one with a picture that resembled his own face.

The affidavits allege that Ideal Staffing told workers they needed to have identification, but that the documents did not have to be legitimate, and also accused the company of supplying some workers with deactivated badges issued in other names.

Brown, Fitzgerald and other officials declined to answer questions about how workers could use deactivated badges to enter secure areas of the airport, saying that the investigation continued and that not all details could be revealed.

Cook County State’s Attorney Richard A. Devine said his office has issued more than 100 arrest warrants in the case.

Al Qaeda Is the EU’s Biggest Threat

Finally someone in the EU is realizing the threat they face from Al Qaeda as well as the Islamification that has been occuring throughout all of Europe. The only problem is they still see the current war on terror as the cause of Islamification. What they, like most Americans, do not realize is the threat was there but hidden, plotting and waiting. What the war on terror has done is force the enemy to show their face. Anyone who thinks that the current threat would not exist if we were not fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan is a fool. The enemy has been at war with us for quite a while now. It is only recently that we are able to see the  magnitude of the threat.

The Islamic terrorist group Al Qaeda continues to be the most serious terrorism threat to Europe, the bloc’s new anti-terrorism chief told EU lawmakers.

“An attack perpetrated by local or international networks remains likely,” Gilles de Kerchove, appointed in September to coordinate counter-terrorism efforts among EU member states, told the European Parliament.

 

He called on EU states to be more active in combating radicalism and emphasized the importance of Internet surveillance.

 

The conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan had “a considerable impact on radicalization of extremists in Europe,” added de Kerchove.

 

Terrorists close to home

 

Bildunterschrift: Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift:  Authorities are worried about the international nature of the al Qaeda movement

European converts to radical Islam have had a hand in several recent terrorism plots on European soil, including a foiled attack in Germany in September.

 

Germany authorities now know of up to 50 Islamic militants linked to the three men suspected of planning the attack, the head of Germany’s federal police, Jörg Ziercke, said in an interview in the Tuesday edition of the Cologne daily Kölner Stadt-Anzeiger.

 

Two German citizens and one Turkish national have been arrested in connection with the plot. They allegedly trained in terrorism camps in Pakistan before founding the domestic cell of an al Qaeda affiliate in Germany.

 

“We believe there are still members of this network in Pakistani training camps,” Ziercke said. “Whoever comes back to Germany so radicalized is for us extremely dangerous.”

 

The next generation of terror

 

Britain’s intelligence chief Jonathan Evans also spoke out against domestic radicalism Monday, saying that the number of individuals in Britain with suspected terrorist links has risen to at least 2,000 this year, compared with 1,600 last year.

 

“As I speak, terrorists are methodically and intentionally targeting young people and children in this country,” he said in a speech to the Society of Editors Conference in Manchester. “They are radicalizing, indoctrinating and grooming young, vulnerable people to carry out acts of terrorism.”

 

Call for jihad in the Maghreb

 

Bildunterschrift: Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift:  Ayman Zawahri called for Jihad in the Maghreb via an audio message

Some EU member states see growing Islamic extremism in North Africa as a particular threat, especially those countries that have large immigrant populations from the Maghreb.

 

An existing Islamic Maghreb terror group aligned itself with al Qaeda earlier this year, winning the support of terror boss bin Laden.

 

Al Qaeda’s second-in-command Ayman al Zawahiri called over the weekend for a holy war against the leaders of Libya, Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco due to their support for the US-led war on terror.

 

“The fact that [the Maghreb] has embraced al Qaeda’s international terrorism, and [its] geographical proximity to Europe brings terrorism closer to the borders of Europe,” said EU anti-terror chief de Kerchove.

DW staff (kjb)

American’s Want Change, Not Necessarily Democrats

This is a great Article. The only concern is that several people I have talked to think that the article means that the majority of the country is going to vote Democrat and that this article is saying that Republicans are going to vote Democrat in the 2008 Presidential Elections.

The article points out several important issues in the upcoming elections and does seem to prod the reader into thinking Republicans are bad…. However it is not that people necessarily support Democratic change in the election. I myself, support change from the current path the Bush Administration is taking. I would like to see the Bush Administration return to the path it was taking initially during his first term. He brought the country together, forced the Democrats to become bi-partisan for those four years, achieved economic improvements for us middle class folks. When he switched and caved into Democratic pressure, he faltered.

Read each of the stats and think about what they really mean. Yes change,  

By Dan Balz and Jon Cohen

Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, November 4, 2007; Page A01

One year out from the 2008 election, Americans are deeply pessimistic and eager for a change in direction from the agenda and priorities of President Bush, according to a new Washington Post–ABC News poll.

Concern about the economy, the war in Iraq and growing dissatisfaction with the political environment in Washington all contribute to the lowest public assessment of the direction of the country in more than a decade. Just 24 percent think the nation is on the right track, and three-quarters said they want the next president to chart a course that is different than that pursued by Bush.

Overwhelmingly, Democrats want a new direction, but so do three-quarters of independents and even half of Republicans. Sixty percent of all Americans said they feel strongly that such a change is needed after two terms of the Bush presidency.

Dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq remains a primary drag on public opinion, and Americans are increasingly downcast about the state of the economy. More than six in 10 called the war not worth fighting, and nearly two-thirds gave the national economy negative marks. The outlook going forward is also bleak: About seven in 10 see a recession as likely over the next year.

The overall landscape tilts in the direction of the Democrats, but there is evidence in the new poll — matched in conversations with political strategists in both parties and follow-up interviews with survey participants — that the coming battle for the White House is shaping up to be another hard-fought, highly negative and closely decided contest.

At this point, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), the Democratic front-runner, holds the edge in hypothetical match-ups with four of the top contenders for the Republican nomination. But against the two best-known GOP candidates, former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani and Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), her margins are far from comfortable. Not one of the leading candidates in either party has a favorable rating above 51 percent in the new poll.

And while Clinton finds herself atop all candidates in terms of strong favorability — in the poll, 28 percent said they feel strongly favorable toward her — she also outpaces any other candidate on strong unfavorables. More than a third, 35 percent, have strongly negative views of her, more than 10 points higher than any other contender.

Overall, the public’s sour mood is evident not only in the desire for a change in direction but also in assessments of those who control the reins of power in Washington. For the fourth consecutive month, Bush’s approval rating remains at a career low. Thirty-three percent said they approve of the job he is doing, and 64 percent disapprove. Majorities have disapproved of Bush’s job performance for more than 2 1/2 years.

In follow-up interviews, people were quick to find fault with what they see in Washington and to express their desire for something different. “I think Bush has been extremely polarizing to the country,” said Amber Welsh, a full-time mother of three young children who lives in Davis, Calif. “While I think it started before Bush, I think Bush has pushed it even further. I think the next president needs to be one who brings us together as a country.”

Democrats can take little comfort in Bush’s numbers, however. A year after voters turned Republicans out of power in the House and the Senate, approval of the Democratic-controlled Congress’s performance is lower than the president’s rating, registering just 28 percent. That is the lowest since November 1995, when Republicans controlled Congress and the capital was paralyzed in a budgetary fight that shut down the government.

Congressional Democrats now fare just slightly better. Only 36 percent of those surveyed approve of the way they are handling their jobs, down sharply from April when, 100 days into the new Congress, 54 percent said they approved.

Whatever their dissatisfaction with the Democrats, however, a majority of Americans, 54 percent, said they want the party to emerge from the 2008 election in control of Congress; 40 percent would prefer the GOP to retake power. One reason is that 32 percent approve of congressional Republicans, and in a series of other measures it becomes clear that the eventual Republican nominee for president may be burdened by a tarnished party label in the general election.

Thirty-nine percent of Americans said they now have a favorable impression of the Republican Party, lower than at any point since December 1998, when Republicans were in the midst of impeachment proceedings against then-President Bill Clinton.

Among the GOP rank and file, Republican favorability has fallen 15 percentage points since March 2006 (from 93 percent to 78 percent). It has dropped 19 points among independents, whose support for Democratic candidates in last year’s midterm elections contributed significantly to GOP losses in the House and the Senate.

Only 23 percent of those surveyed said they want to keep going “in the direction Bush has been taking us,” and the appetite for change is as high as it was in the summer of 1992, in the lead-up to Bill Clinton’s defeat of President George H.W. Bush. It is significantly higher than it was in the summer of 2000 or the fall of 1988.

“We’re in a terrible mess,” said Jay Davis, who works on computers for an insurance company and lives in Portland, Maine. “The war is an incredible mistake, and it becomes more and more obvious. The economy is just being propped up with toothpicks.”

Jo Wright, a retired Episcopal priest from Vinita, Okla., said, “It just seems that after these eight years most people think there’s got to be a change, and I’m with them.”

Greg Coy, a 911 dispatcher who lives in Shippensburg, Pa., is less pessimistic about the overall state of the country than Davis or Wright, but he is unhappy with both the president and Congress. He voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004, but he said: “If he came up again [for reelection], I wouldn’t vote for him. The last year I think he’s dropped something, and I’m not sure what it is.”

Coy also offered a broader indictment of a political system he sees as gridlocked by partisanship. “Here’s the problem with this country,” he said. “Just because it’s a Republican idea, Democrats don’t like it, and because it’s a Democratic idea, Republicans don’t like it. The Congress should go with what works for this country. We have gotten away from that.”

Justin Munro, a contractor from Reading, Pa., offered a less widely held view of Bush’s policies and the direction of the country. “I’m pretty confident that time will prove that maybe going into Iraq was the right thing to do,” he said. He also believes that Bush has not gotten enough credit on the economy: “I think we’ll look back on that, too, and see that the tax cuts were the right thing to do.”

At this stage, three issues dominate the electoral landscape, with the war in Iraq at the top of the list. Nearly half of all adults, 45 percent, cited Iraq as the most or second-most important issue in their choice for president. About three in 10 cited the economy and jobs (29 percent) or health care (27 percent). All other issues are in the single digits.

Iraq is tops across party lines, but Democrats are twice as likely as Republicans to highlight health care as one of the two most important issues for 2008 (34 percent to 16 percent). Health-care concerns peak among African Americans: Twenty percent called it the election’s most important issue, and 38 percent said it is one of the top two.

While 12 percent of Republicans and 10 percent of independents cited immigration as one of the top two issues, it was highlighted by 3 percent of Democrats. Terrorism is also a more prominent concern among Republicans; 17 percent put it in their top two, while 3 percent of Democrats did the same.

The Democratic Party holds double-digit leads over the GOP as the party most trusted to handle the three most frequently cited issues for 2008: Iraq, health care and the economy. The Democratic advantages on immigration and taxes are narrower, and the parties are at rough parity on terrorism, once a major Republican strong point.

There are other signs suggesting that the political landscape has become less favorable to Republicans than it was at the beginning of Bush’s presidency. By 50 percent to 44 percent, Americans said they favor smaller government with fewer services over bigger government with more services — long a key Republican argument. But support for smaller government is significantly lower than it was before both the 2000 and 2002 elections.

In the new poll, support for allowing same-sex civil unions is up significantly from 2004. A majority of respondents, 55 percent, now support giving homosexual couples some of the legal rights of married heterosexuals.

There is a more even divide on another hot-button issue: Fifty-one percent would support a program giving illegal immigrants now living in the United States the right to live here legally if they pay a fine and meet other requirements; 44 percent would oppose that.

Strategists in both parties agree on the overall shape of the political landscape a year from the 2008 election, but they differ as to how voters will ultimately register their desire for change.

Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg said an electorate that took out its anger on Republicans a year ago remains mad, with the hostility still focused on the president’s party.

Republican pollster Neil Newhouse said, “It is a political environment pretty heavily tilted toward the Democrats.” One hope, he added, is that an early end to the GOP nominating battle will allow the winner time “to put the current administration in the rearview mirror, placing the focus on the nominee’s candidacy and agenda.”

Still, strategists on both sides foresee another close election. “The biggest dynamic is that people want change from the policies of the Bush administration,” said Mark Penn, Hillary Clinton’s chief strategist. But he added that “it’s not a clear path” to victory for the Democrats, noting that no Democratic nominee has won 50 percent of the general-election vote since Jimmy Carter in 1976.

Stuart Stevens, a media adviser to former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, said no Republican candidate will argue next year that the country is in great shape, but he discounted the effectiveness of running against Bush in the fall of 2008. “A year from now, it’s not going to be a referendum on President Bush, it’s going to be a choice between two candidates,” he said.

Much will happen in the coming months that could reshape the political climate. But at this point, in a matchup of current front-runners, Clinton and Giuliani are tightly paired: 50 percent of respondents would support Clinton, 46 percent Giuliani. Against McCain, Clinton has a clearer edge, 52 percent to 43 percent. She has even larger advantages over former senator Fred D. Thompson of Tennessee (16 points) and Romney (18 points), both of whom remain undefined in the eyes of many voters.

In each of these potential contests, Clinton has a big edge among women. In a head-to-head with Giuliani, 56 percent of women would back Clinton, and 40 percent would vote for Giuliani. By contrast, men would tilt toward Giuliani 51 percent to 44 percent.

Independents, who fueled the Democratic takeover of Congress last November, are evenly divided, 47 percent for Clinton, 46 percent for Giuliani. The split is one indicator that, despite current Democratic advantages and an electorate strongly oriented toward change, the 2008 election is likely to be closely and hotly contested.

The Post-ABC poll was conducted by telephone Oct. 29 to Nov. 1 among a random sample of 1,131 adults, and includes additional interviews with randomly selected African Americans for a total of 203 black respondents. The results from the full poll have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.

Polling analyst Jennifer Agiesta contributed to this report.

Dem On Dem Attacks – With Friends Like This Who Needs Republicans

Hillary’s camp crying over Democrat on Democrat attacks. During the latest Democratic Debate, Hillary avoided answering questions, with coaching from Bill she does a wonderful job at dodgeball, flip flopped on issues during the debate and made herself look like a complete asshat. Her opponents, dug in deep and would not back off. Now that the debate is over, she is answering those questions, the ones she could not answer while under fire. Hmmm… Imaging if there was a real crisis she had to respond to with limited time to make a decision. No Imagine if she were President of the United States and we were under attack from Terrorists, maybe terrorists flying planes into buildings. Now Imagine her response. Is this what you want to lead our country? I hope your answer is no.

Hillary, take a bit of advise, take a position on the various issues you are confronted with, support those positions and act upon them. The people will have more respect for you than if you whine about how the “boys” picked on you…

Hillary Clinton’s campaign made a new fundraising pitch on Thursday, looking to somehow capitalize on the flak she’s taking from her Democratic opponents over her performance at a debate Tuesday night in Philadelphia.

In a letter circulated by Clinton Campaign Manager Patti Solis Doyle, the campaign announced that the presidential race has “entered a new phase.”

“On that stage in Philadelphia, we saw six against one. Candidates who had pledged the politics of hope practiced the politics of pile on instead. Her opponents tried a whole host of attacks on Hillary,” the letter said. It then asked readers for a campaign contribution.

The missive came as Clinton’s opponents continued to take shots at the frontrunner over her seeming double talk at the debate. Most of the criticism has come in response to Clinton’s confusing answer regarding her position on New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s plan to give illegal immigrants driver’s licenses, a stance she has since tried to clarify. That issue is not necessarily a divisive topic for Democrats, but rather the response is indicative of what opponents say is Clinton’s fatal flaw.

The campaign for John Edwards, the former North Carolina senator who was especially critical Tuesday night, released a statement Thursday saying Clinton is engaging in the “politics of parsing.”

“All the distractions in the world won’t undo the fact that on Tuesday night millions of Americans saw John Edwards speak honesty and directly while Senator Clinton once again took multiple positions on multiple issues,” the statement said. “We understand that the Clinton campaign isn’t happy about that, but instead of smoke and mirrors, how about some truth-telling?”

Clinton has tried to clear the air of confusion, saying late Wednesday that she supports Spitzer’s plan.

Spitzer’s plan, which he has retooled in the face of heavy criticism, would grant identification on a three-tier basis, decreasing with the level of proper documentation. Undocumented, illegal immigrants would receive a license only to be used for driving, and be inscribed “not for federal purposes,” meaning it couldn’t be used to board flights or cross borders.

“Senator Clinton broadly supports measures like the ones being advocated by Governor Spitzer, but there are details that still need to be worked out,” Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said Wednesday.

“Senator Clinton supports governors like Governor Spitzer who believe they need such a measure to deal with the crisis caused by this administrations failure to pass comprehensive immigration reform,” he added.

During the debate Tuesday night, Clinton offered support for Spitzer, saying he was trying to “fill the vacuum left by the failure of this administration to bring about comprehensive immigration reform,” and noted millions of illegal immigrants are in New York at any one time. They should be able to have identification if they’re in an auto accident, for instance, she said.

When all seven of the candidates were asked whether they agree that illegal aliens should have driver’s licenses, only Sen. Christopher Dodd said he disagreed. He then pressed Clinton on the issue and argued against the plan, saying: “A license is a privilege, and that ought not to be extended, in my view.”

Clinton responded: “Well, I just want to add, I did not say that it should be done, but I certainly recognize why Governor Spitzer is trying to do.”

Dodd then quickly interrupted Clinton before she could finish, seizing on the apparent discrepancy. Moderator Tim Russert then tried to elicit an answer on whether she supported the plan or not, but she avoided offering specific support for the plan.

Then Edwards and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, both attorneys like Clinton, took turns dicing her statement.

“Unless I missed something, Senator Clinton said two different things in the course of about two minutes just a few minutes ago,” Edwards said.

“I was confused on Senator Clinton’s answer. I can’t tell whether she was for it or against it,” Obama said.

Clinton’s apparent indecision also made fodder for Republicans on the campaign trail.

Speaking to reporters in Nashua, N.H., former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani took a page out of President Bush’s campaign playbook, playing on a phrase used against Democratic candidate John Kerry in 2004.

“Hillary Clinton was for it, she was against it, and she wasn’t sure if she was for it or against it, in the space of one answer,” Giuliani said. “She is known for taking one position with one audience and another position with another audience. … What they didn’t know is she can actually take two different positions in front of the same audience.”

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney likened her support for driver’s licenses to tolerance of illegals in the workforce and those who benefit from city services.

“What that does is it communicates to people coming to the country illegally that with a wink and a nod it is alright. This sanctuary state of mind seems to permeate many liberals that they are going to have sanctuary cities, we are going to have sanctuary driver’s licenses, sanctuary tuition discounts for children of illegal aliens, and that sanctuary state of mind has contributed to millions of people coming here illegally, and it has to stop,” Romney said.

Former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson said Clinton’s response was “another example of (her) dodging hard issues.” He later suggested that Clinton’s lack of clarity in her debate answers raises questions about her ability to handle diplomacy and foreign policy.

“When our worst enemy sits down at the negotiating table and looks across the table … how much can they get away with, how much of what they’re hearing is really true? Are they going to mean what is said on the other side of the table? The question is, ‘Who do we want on the other side of that table facing them?”‘ he told a crowd of GOP donors in Las Vegas.

And the Republican National Committee issued its own talking points memo, pointing to statements it said show that “Hillary’s stance on illegal immigration reforms remains vague and undefined.”

Meanwhile, the controversy over Spitzer’s plan is not going away any time soon. On Thursday, 32 Republican New York Assembly members filed a lawsuit against Spitzer, seeking to quash the license plan.

The suit states the plan violates the section of New York law that says the Department of Motor Vehicles must require a Social Security number before issuing a driver’s license. Among the concerns about the plan is that it will giving illegal immigrants the right to get ID that they could use to vote, to support terror activities or buy weapons.

“The basis of the suit is the governor’s proposal is unlawful,” said Josh Fitzpatrick, spokesman for New York Assembly Republican Leader James Tedisco, who is leading the effort against Spitzer.

Fitzpatrick said the assembly members resorted to court action after a move to amend the governor’s plan failed in special session. He said Clinton’s response to Spitzer’s plan during the debate Tuesday “raised awareness” about the issue but did not by itself prompt the lawsuit.

“It’s a battle that’s been raging for about six weeks now,” he said.

Nonetheless, Tedisco bashed Clinton in a statement Wednesday, calling her a flip-flopper and comparing her to 2004 Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, whose positions were mocked by opponents as malleable.

Amid the renewed national attention, Spitzer stood by his plan Thursday.

“I have a very serious obligation. That’s to improve the security of the state, and that’s what we’re doing,” the governor said.

FOX News’ Judson Berger contributed to this report.

Illegally Hiring Illegal Aliens OK for Mayor Against Illegal Imigration

Bogota, NJ Mayor Steve Lonegan busted… Lonegan is a staunch proponent of curbing illegal imigration and has been recognized on both the local and national level for his stance. When he got busted hiring two illegals, the only ones he got caught on, he lied. To make matters worse, his elitism came out when he told the world he makes up his own rules and if someone doesn’t like it too bad.

Well Mr. Lonegan, you hired illegal aliens, you lied about it when questioned, then when the two illegals where inteviewed and refuted your claims, you as an elected official and Public Servant, tell the people that the law does not apply to you and you will make up your own rules. Sorry Mr. Lonegan, but hiring illegals is ILLEGAL and had some middle class nobody done this, they would have been charged with a crime.

The only profiling taking place is your profiling of cheap labor. You intentional went to a location where illegals wait for work, you hired them and promised them money and food, so that you would not have to pay the minimum wage. Then on top of that, you state that if they did the work and you found out later that they were illegal, you would not have paid them, that is called SLAVE LABOR Mr. Lonegan. The only criminal here is you and you attempt to shift the blame onto the police is absurd.

The Bogota Police and INS should file charges against you Mr. Lonegan, why haven’t they, because you are the Mayor, what a load of crap. Please charge this man as you would charge anyone else.

Two undocumented workers hired by Bogota Mayor Steve Lonegan last week disputed his account of events Monday, saying he sought them out for work and never asked whether they were legal residents.

Lonegan, widely known as a staunch proponent of stricter policies on illegal immigration, acknowledged he recruited them the morning of Oct. 8 but insisted he asked them whether they had proper papers and received an affirmative answer before hiring them.

On Friday, Lonegan had said that the workers had come looking for work at the Bogota building where his office is located.

The Guatemalan men, 20-year-old Elder Chuta and 22-year-old Victor Evaristo, said Monday that two men — a driver and a passenger they later identified as Lonegan from a photograph — picked them up along the Route 46 ramp at Broad Avenue in Palisades Park, a popular spot for day laborers in search of jobs.

The two men were later questioned by police at a home Lonegan owns in Bogota after a resident called police and said there were two Hispanic men walking through the vacant residence, which is for sale.

Lonegan hired the men to assemble lawn signs for his taxpayer advocacy group, Americans for Prosperity. The driver was an employee of the group who often drives Lonegan, who is legally blind.

When asked why his account on Friday differed, Lonegan first said he had been taken aback when told by a reporter that the police had been to the home. He went on to say that he considered the details irrelevant.

“It doesn’t matter to me,” he said. “To me, it’s irrelevant, whether they were standing inside or outside. I will hire anybody I want, and if they don’t prove to be proper, they don’t get paid.”

Chuta said the car pulled over on the morning of Oct. 8, and the man on the passenger side said, “I need two guys.” He said he and Evaristo were driven to the home, shown the signs and offered $80 each for eight hours of work. They were offered soda and promised lunch later in the day, he said.

Both workers said they were never asked to show documentation or questioned about their legal status by Lonegan. Although they said their English was poor, they said they understand enough to know whether such questions were asked.

Lonegan said he “absolutely” asked about their status and planned to ask them to fill out paperwork later in the day. When he returned to the house later that day, he said, they were gone, and he did not realize that police had taken them to the station.

Evaristo was cited for giving a false identity, a disorderly persons violation, when a fake Mexican identification card he carried in his wallet — a document frequently given to Central Americans by smugglers to help them cross through Mexico — did not match the name he gave to officers. He has a Municipal Court date today at 2 p.m.

Evaristo said they struggled to communicate with the officers, who did not speak Spanish.

“It’s the first time I’ve ever been questioned by police,” Evaristo said. “I was so nervous. I told them my full name, my birthday. I told the cops the truth.”

On Monday, Lonegan repeated his contention that the police officers would not have reacted in the same way if the workers had not been Hispanic. He called for an investigation into the department’s handling of the matter on Saturday.

“I have a big problem with this, and I’m not letting it go,” he said. “Would it be OK if I went up to Bogota High School and got a couple of white kids?”

He also questioned why police did not alert him to the incident and accused the department of attempting to pay him back for acrimonious labor negotiations earlier this year.

“These two guys did not deserve to be put through this,” he said. “These guys got hurt by malicious cops. If the police had called me, I would have come right down and straightened it all out.”

He said he would like to pay the two men — out of his own pocket — to compensate them for the work they did and to make up for their treatment.

Chief Frank Gurnari, who met with Lonegan on Monday to discuss the incident, said the allegations of racial profiling were “absurd.”

“The officers didn’t initiate that investigation,” he said. “We responded to a call for service. They handled that as they would have any similar call.”

He also said that the officers had contacted the realty company and may not have known that Lonegan owned the house. Lonegan has said police are well aware that he owns the property and should have contacted him last week.

Jerome Fowler, a patrolman and the president of the police union, said the labor talks were not relevant to the incident.

“We’re two months into arbitration,” he said. “Are we not supposed to do our job when a citizen makes a complaint that there are suspicious persons at a vacant residence in Bogota? I don’t see what one has to do with the other.”

At a news conference Monday evening, Democratic Councilman Patrick McHale and Councilwoman Tara Sharp called on the Republican mayor to resign.

“We are appalled at the statements made by Mayor Lonegan about our Police Department,” said McHale, who is running for mayor. “It is ridiculous to imply that our officers were engaged in any racial discrimination.” They said that Lonegan’s policies had created racial tension in the town.

Lonegan, who is not running for reelection, said the statement was simply a “cheap” campaign ploy.

“The call on me to resign is part of a silly campaign effort,” he said. He said the Democrats should be willing to join him in an investigation of the police if they are truly convinced there was no improper behavior.

Lonegan said the controversy, which he labeled a “tempest in a teapot,” shows how challenging it is for employers to be certain their workers are legal.

“Should I suspect them?” he said. “I guess in today’s environment, you need to suspect that every Hispanic is illegal. That’s the message I’m getting here.

“This is the fallout from a failed federal immigration policy,” he said.

Evaristo said he wanted to go to court to explain that he had been trying to tell the truth, adding that the incident had left him afraid of the potential legal consequences and the possible impact on his family.

Lonegan, long outspoken on illegal immigration, made headlines last year when he tried to get McDonald’s to remove a Spanish-language billboard in the borough, and attempted to have English designated the town’s official language.

Evaristo and Chuta said they did not know who Lonegan was, and had never heard of him or his stance on immigration.

“If we had known any of this, knowing the way the immigration debate is here, we never would have gotten in that car,” Evaristro said.