La Enfermedad

**This blog entry was written previously and is being reposted here in an effort to consolidate all articles in one location**

He estado viendo las discusíones sobre la nueva ley de Arizona #1070.  Es necesario aclarar muchas de las malas representacíones al respecto de esta ley.  Pero mas que eso, todo la discusíon evita enfrentar lo que es realmente el problema. El problema de la inmigracíon illegal es simplemente un sintoma de una enfermedad mucho mas grande.  La política económica y el ambiente de negocios en México.  Roma se quema y nadie ve el humo.

Nadie quiere reconocer lo que es mas obvío de la situacíon, la razon por la cual vienen millones de immigrantes a los Estados Unidos es que la economia en Mexico no esta suficientemente estable o fuerte para mantener empleados a todos sus ciudadanos.  Y la razón por la cual las empresas no van a Mexíco es por las reglas y la inseguridad de hacer negocios. Hay ciertos hechos que se tienen que presentar.

El dinero enviado por los trabajadores mexicanos en Estados Unidos a sus familias alcanzó la marca de 12 mil millones de dólares en el 2003.  Los envíos “son nuestra principal fuente de ingresos extranjeros, mucho más que el petróleo, el turismo o las inversiones extranjeras”, dijo (Presidente) Fox a la prensa luego de reunirse con empresarios méxico-estadounidenses. 1   En 2009 la suma de remesas a Mexico era de 21.1 billones de dólares, 15.7% menos que en el año 2008. 2  México obtuvo divisas por turismo de 11.275 billones de dólares en el 2009, menores a los 13.289 billones de dólares del año previo.3 

PEMEX anuncio que perdió 16.6 billones de pesos (1.3 billones de dólares) en el ultimo cuatrimestre del 2009 que resulto en una suma de  48.5 billones de pesos de pérdidas para él año.4 

La politica economica de Mexicoesta a la raíz del problema.  Nos tenemos que preguntar, ¿porque?
¿Porque teniendo tantos recursos naturales Mexico no sale adelante?
¿Como es posible que en esta economia global una empresa petrolera pierde dinero?
¿Que tiene la economia Mexicana que su pueblo no ve oportunidad o forma de salir adelante?
¿Porque se le hace dificil a las empresas extranjeras establescerce en Mexíco?

Hay muchas preguntas pero al fin de cuenta el problema sigue siendo el ambiente de negocios en Mexíco. Por ejemplo, el porcentage de los impuestos que le cobra el gobierno Mexicano a una empresa son 51%5  y el promedio de dias que toma un pleito comercial son 415 dias 5    para resolverse.Las grandes empresas, tal vez, estan dispuestas a soportar semejantes costos. Pero una empresa apenas formandose o una empresa de tamaño mediano, no tiene los recursos o no esta dispuesta a aceptar tan grandes desventajas y buscará otro lado para poner su negocio. 

Cada uno de nosotros quiere salir adelante y proveer para nuestros hijos algo mejor que lo que tuvimos.  En este sentido entiendo porque se vienen los latinos de todas partes.  Pero ningún país puede permitir que se ignoren sus leyes y vengan y vayan inmigrantes cuando y como quiéran.  Es hipocrecía que Mexíco, y en particular, presidente Calderon regañe al estado de Arizona cuando la verdad es que las leyes migratórias de Mexico son sumamente mas estrictas que las de los Estados Unidos o el Estado de Arizona.  Y ademas, el problema no es la ley de los Estados Unidos, mucho menos la ley de Arizona, el problema es Mexíco.
La solucíon no es ni va ser fácil, pero tiene que empesar con el gobierno de Mexico.  Los Estados Unidos pueden poner todas las leyes que quieran, pero eso no cambia las situacíon en Mexíco.  El gobierno Mexicano tiene que tomar responsabilidad de lo que pasa, y de lo sucedido desde hace muchos años.  Pero siempre se le hace mas fácil dejar las cosas como estan; en parte porque no le cuesta nada al gobierno Mexicano, al contrario recibe el pais una gran cantidad de ingresos y el gobierno no tiene que invertir nada. Y al fin el pueblo se haya entre la espada y la pared, o se quedan en Mexico en la pobreza o se van ilegalmente a los Estados Unidos a buscar oportunidad y la posibilidad de una mejor vida para sus hijos.  La desgracia es que su gobierno prefiere culpar a los Americanos en vez de verse al espejo y tomar la responsabilidad por sus politicas que no le permiten el exito a su gente.

No entiendo porque se niega la gente ver que toda la situación es economica, y la entidad responsable es el gobierno de Mexíco.  El exportacíon principal de Mexíco, desgraciadamente, no es petróleo, ni madera, es su gente. Exporta su pueblo a cambio de dinero en la forma de remesas.

Systematic Immigration Reform (STEP III)

**This blog entry was written previously and is being reposted here in an effort to consolidate all articles in one location**
This is the Third and final part in a series outlining a strategy to address illegal immigration.  Please see Step One here and Step II, here.
Now that we have covered both stopping the flow of illegal immigrants and the regularization of those that are here; we can begin to discuss the accommodations for those caught up in the middle, through no fault of their own.  I am specifically talking about illegal immigrants that were children brought illegally to the United States by their parents.  You must separate the individuals into a two categories.

1. Those that are still minors at the time the legislation is passed.
2. Those that have resided in the United States since childhood but are now adults.

Documentation must be presented to determine into which category the individual will be placed.  This can be easily done with report cards from elementary, middle and high school.  If the individual cannot prove that he/she was brought to the United States as a minor he/she will be subject to the previously outlined conditions of the CERIC (Conditional Employment and Residency Identification and Card).
Regardless of Category everyone will be processed per the CERIC requirements to include fingerprints, DNA, and photo identification.  They must meet the conditions for the CERIC, i.e. they have no warrants, no felony convictions and other condition previously stipulated.   If they fail to meet the requirements they will be processed for deportation.
Category 1- Minor Children would be issued a CERIC.  If these individuals graduate high school and have no previous criminal record they will be eligible and may apply for permanent residency at age 21.  If they fail to graduate from high school they will continue under the CERIC until age 23 after which time they may apply for permanent residency. 
Category 2-  If the individuals in this category can show proof of graduation from US education through high school, they will have a two-year CERIC requirement and then will be eligible to apply for permanent residency status through existing procedures.  Those individuals in this category who did not graduate high school will have a five-year CERIC requirement and would subsequently be eligible to apply for permanent residency.
Other special conditions that should be implemented include the following:
Any person that is eligible for a CERIC and can meet the requirements for military service may enter into the United States Armed Services.  Upon honorable completion of a 4-year active duty commitment, those individuals will immediately be eligible to apply for US citizenship.
The last and final step to Immigration reform is to make the hiring of illegal immigrants prohibitively expensive in future years.  This would easily be accomplished by implementing one clear, precise and ironclad law for all businesses: If you knowingly or negligently hire an illegal alien, after the implementation of this program, you shall be fined $500,000 per incident.  This will make it prohibitively expensive to break the law.  No business in their right mind will risk the fine to save $2.00 an hour in labor costs.  This will protect the workers from exploitation and prevent future waves of illegal aliens from crossing the border looking for work.  If they know that there is a close to zero chance of finding a job because no business will hire them, they will cease to look north as a viable option.  Businesses will also benefit; businesses will be on an even playing field and competiveness will increase across many industries in the economy.  Because all the new CERIC card holders will be legal, businesses can no longer undercut the competition by using illegal laborers.  The net result will be a more reliable work force and safer working conditions for all workers.  This will all happen in the marketplace, on its own.  This can only be looked upon as a net positive. 
In order to facilitate the verification of workers, an E-Verify type system would be set up with the information from the CERIC.  Upon entry of the CERIC number the system would show the employer a photo of the owner of that number/card along with a physical description.  The employer could then be assured that the individual was in fact legally eligible to work in the United States. And, absolve him of legal repercussions should fraud be subsequently discovered.  This process must be simple and quick along with being inexpensive.  There are no technological reasons this cannot be done.  The only obstacles to establishing these policies for the employer are and will undoubtedly be political.
The underlying theme to SYSTEMATIC IMMIGRATION REFORM and the CERIC is that it is CONDITIONAL!  The conditions are straightforward, fair and achievable.  This is not and should not be misconstrued to be a “trap” to catch and deport anyone.  It is merely a method by which illegal immigrants can prove what they never tire of telling people: “I am law-abiding and I just came here to work.”  They must abide by the law, period.  If they break the law, by committing a felony crime, commit a third misdemeanor crime, or a 2^nd DUI, they will be processed for deportation.  It is not unreasonable to ask that these immigrants follow our laws as a condition for legal status in the United States; and I believe many of them would be happy to accept these terms and end the constant anxiety of being caught and deported.
I believe that this country is the greatest nation ever devised and established by man.  I wholeheartedly understand the manic rush of people to come to this great country.  They are looking for, what we as Americans sometimes take for granted; the freedom to pursue life, liberty and happiness.  But, while I may empathize with their motivations, I cannot condone their lack of respect for the rule of law.  I firmly believe that a great majority of Americans would be supportive of legislation that would adopt the concepts outlined in this series and would embrace a new wave of LEGAL immigrants, while at the same time forgive and give those who would necessarily be required to register themselves under this program an opportunity to prove that they are, in fact, law abiding and worthy of the chance to become US citizens.  The People of the United States have always been and continue to be the most open, understanding, and charitable people in the world; they only ask that the laws, borders and sovereignty of the United States be respected.
This road map is not a complete solution; obviously, many details would have to be worked out.  But if the general concepts were adopted and the conditions unambiguously established, it would make political, practical and common sense.  Whatever its final version, the key to its success is simplicity; adding another 1000 pages of regulation and bureaucratic red tape to the already dizzyingly complicated immigration statutes would serve no purpose and would only exacerbate the problems we face today.
Finally, I must reiterate that the first and most critical step in this Systematic approach is to SECURE THE BORDER.  Much like the recent oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, you can send hundreds of skimmers and emplace hundreds of miles of barriers and booms and build all the sand levies you like, but at the end of the day they still had to stop the leak.  Stopping the leak is just the first step.  True recovery would have been impossible until the leak was stopped, and there is still a long recovery process forthcoming.  In the same way, all the laws and regulations for both immigration and enforcement at all levels of government that are enacted won’t solve the problem if you are unwilling to stop the leak.
I challenge any and all politicians to use this roadmap of ideas as a true guide to once and for all solve the illegal immigration problem in the United States.  But it will take intestinal fortitude and daring.  Those that are weak of heart need not apply.  The only way this problem is going to be solved it to tackle it directly and to ignore the petty political bickering and backbiting.  This will take determination and a concerted effort, but it can be cone and it should be done; not only because it will solve or many of the issues associated with illegal immigration, but because it is the right thing to do.

Systematic Immigration Reform (Step II)

**This blog entry was written previously and is being reposted here in an effort to consolidate all articles in one location**

This is the second part in a continuing series outlining a strategy to address illegal immigration.  Please see Step One here. 

After step one is complete.  It is now possible to begin the arduous task of sorting out those individuals that are in the country illegally.  But, before we go any further there must be one absolutely understood aspect of my proposal; NO AMNESTY!! And, citizenship opportunities will be the exception not the rule, but those instances will be discussed later in the series.
The second step must be an effort to register as many illegal aliens in the country as is possible.  This would be accomplished by establishing registration sites where illegal aliens could register.
One of the most common things illegal immigrants express is– the only law they have violated is crossing the border illegally.  Well, this program will give all illegal aliens the opportunity to demonstrate their respect for the laws of this country and to prove that they are willing to abide by those laws in exchange for the opportunity to work and make a living to provide for their family.
The federal government should establish an open window of time; say 12 months, for all illegal aliens to register.  This includes adults and children (illegal immigrant children will be addressed in future steps).  The individual will have to pay a fine and an application fee (the schedule for this can be determined at a later date, the important issue is that they must be registered for the purposes of identification). At the end of the registration process the individual will be presented with a Conditional Employment and Residency Identification Card (CERIC) which will include a tax identification number.  Additionally, a CD/DVD with quick essential English lessons should be distributed, this will encourage assimilation. There may be arguments for requiring that individuals take a simple test for English at some point after issuance of the CERIC, this would only cover the most basic “survival” words and phrases. This is a debate which must be had and resolved.
Any person who fails to register within the appointed time and cannot present the CERIC after the window has closed will be summarily designated for deportation.  Most of those unwilling to register are likely the same people unwilling to abide by the law and should be dealt with accordingly.   At this point illegal aliens will be unable to use the worn out, overused meme that they “are law abiding except for crossing the border,” as an excuse/explanation for their illegal status.  They must either abide by the law as a condition for residency and employment or face deportation.
The Card will allow the individual to work in the United States for three years; at which time the individual must reapply and must be re-screened before renewal of the CERIC is granted.  This re-screening will allow the Federal Government to determine if the individual is abiding by the conditions for the residency permit; if not the individual shall be processed for deportation.  If ANY individual fails to reapply for the CERIC after the initial three years, they have, ipso facto, violated the conditions of the CERIC and shall be detained and processed for deportation.  All holders of the CERIC will be afforded habeas corpus, but upon a felony conviction or a third misdemeanor crime (not to include traffic violations except DUI) the individual should be complete his/her sentence and be subsequently deported.
The Tax ID number will be used to track and collect individual annual federal and state income tax.  There shall be NO opportunity for the individual to apply for collect or otherwise receive any social security benefits from the United States government or state governments to include food stamps, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, or housing assistance. In other words, the only benefit they will receive through the temporary worker program is the opportunity to find employment, period. The card will also allow the immigrant to get a bank account, driver’s license, insurance and other civil actions.  There will certainly be those that argue that this is unjust, but illegal immigrants themselves consistently say that all they want is the opportunity to work and make a living. 
The registration process will allow for identification of the person, to include fingerprints, DNA sample and photo identification.  The card should be equipped with either a magnetic strip, bar code, or micro-chip with all identification information embedded for use by law enforcement.   Additionally, the individual will be screened for any outstanding warrants and civil subpoenas, as well as a criminal record check.  Any one found with a felony conviction or more than three misdemeanor convictions shall be denied a work permit and be processed for deportation.  Anyone with an outstanding arrest warrant shall be arrested and extradited to the corresponding jurisdiction for prosecution and subsequent deportation.
All individuals, who desire to become a resident, and subsequently a citizen, must repatriate to their home country and apply for a visa and/or residency through already established processes.
And finally, I would immediately increase the quota for visas from Central and South America and Europe as well, and allow 200-300% more immigrants a year to enter the US.  If Mexico and South American and European countries are going to willingly allow their citizens to seek out economic exile, which has the resulting effect of draining those countries of their best talent in all areas, then we should expedite and facilitate the assimilation and absorption of all these people as soon as practicable.  It is in the interests of the United States to bring in as many engineers, doctors, dentists, IT professionals, nurses, scientists and businessmen as soon as possible into the country which will fuel small business and the overall economy.
The problem is not with immigrants coming into this country and finding a new way of life by complying with immigration laws.  Americans welcome legal immigrants with open arms. I for one would like the process to be easier and quicker. Additionally, I would like the process expanded to more people, and afford them a shot at the American Dream, as it was afforded to my parents and to me; through a process of assimilation into the culture.  What I don’t want is entire segment of the population who has shown blatant disregard for the law to be rewarded.  A population of illegal aliens who will take advantage of the opportunity, liberty, and freedom this country provides while at the same time denigrating the country that provides it.  What I don’t want is a segment of society made up of illegal aliens who will tell you of the lawlessness and disrespect for the rule of law in their country of origin as they shamelessly ignore the laws and create evermore lawlessness in this country.
This concludes step two.  The next step will begin to address the “exceptions” and a “path to citizenship” for certain subsets of individuals.  After all the United States as a country has traditionally been and continues to be the most compassionate and welcoming country in the world.

Money Can't Buy You Love or Education

I read an article in the Arizona Republic that relates what former Intel CEO Craig Barrett said at a meeting of the Arizona Commerce Authority.   Mr. Barrett took the opportunity to talk about the quality of education in Arizona and implied a cause and effect relationship between that and the State budget cuts in education proposed by Governor Brewer.  I don’t think that there is a correlation between the amount of money spent on education and the quality of education received.  This is borne out in study upon study across the United States.  The Heritage Foundation compared federal education spending to National Assessment of Educational Performance and found there was no connection between the two.

But I decided to look up some data myself and see if this was actually the case.  Using data from the US Department of Education I compared the by-state expenditure per pupil in the year 2006-2007 and compared that data to by-state SAT mean scores of college bound seniors for 2007-2008 (the years didn’t match up); the conclusion of this simple comparison is that there is no direct correlation between higher per pupil spending and higher SAT scores.  Washington D.C. scored the highest in per pupil spending at $20,596, yet scored 50^th out of 51 (Maine scored last in all three categories but this is likely due to the fact that all juniors are required to take the test, not just those interested in going to college) in all three SAT categories (reading, mathematics, and writing).  Iowa ranked 40^th in spending ($9,114) and ranked 1^st in reading and mathematics and 2^nd in writing.  South Dakota ranked 42^nd in spending ($8,821) and scored 3^rd, 9^th, and 7^th in reading, mathematics, and writing respectively. 

Arizona was 46^th in spending ($8,335) and scored 30^th in reading and mathematics and 31^st in writing.  I am not saying this is great, and there is certainly room for improvement.  But consider that Mississippi, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Idaho, and Utah were 47^th, 48^th, 49^th, 50^th and 51^st in spending per pupil and all of them achieved better results than did Arizona; Oklahoma scored in the top 15 in all three categories.

Of the top ten states in spending per pupil (New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wyoming, Connecticut, Alaska, Massachusetts, and Maryland) none of them had scores in the top 10 in any of the three categories.  Arizona scored better than six of them in reading and mathematics and better than five of them in writing.

What does this indicate?  That throwing money at education is not the answer.  The real answer lies in how kids are spending their time in the classroom.  I continue to see articles about different curricula and how the newest technique will make great strides in educating children.  But I think that we as a society should just concentrate on the basics; reading, writing and mathematics.

Teach kids phonics; school districts should get corporate licenses for “Hooked on Phonics” or other phonics teaching systems.  It is the easiest way for kids to learn the language; that is true for reading and for writing.  There are 26 letters, six vowels, and 44 sounds and once kids learn them there is practically nothing they can’t read.  I can still remember my teachers and my parents telling me to “sound it out” whenever I saw a word I didn’t previously know; that’s the beauty of phonics.  If school districts switched to a phonics curriculum they would also save tons of money; there is no reason to buy new books every third year, since phonics don’t change.  The only things that a district would need to purchase are workbooks. 

Make kids memorize multiplication tables and other standard "non-changing" building blocks to include geography (states and capitols), history (the preamble to the Constitution, the Gettysburg address) and biology (taxonomy).  Through route memorization kids will be able to easily retrieve information, and as they get older the comprehension and application will come much easier.   Make mathematics a priority, math is critical for higher learning, plus it is very valuable in every day use as we get older. 

There are a myriad of ways to improve education in Arizona or anywhere else for that matter, but the key is to focus and stop all the distractions; chief among them is that spending more money will get you a better education.  Quit changing the curriculum every year and changing teachers every two hours. Encourage healthy competition, both in the class and on the playground, and push kids to outperform their peers.  Reward children that excel and give extra time to the ones that are putting forth the effort but don’t see the results. 

And finally, stop giving kids an excuse to underperform.  I always read about how inner-city or minority kids are at a disadvantage.  This very may well be, but it is not because the child is incapable of achievement. It is because we inculcate that child with the idea that he is handicapped by his environment.  Rather than teach children that their achievement is limited by their environment, we as a society, should endeavor to teach children to triumph through achievement in spite of it.  

Society should make a quality education a common denominator for our children rather than a socio-economic divider.

Why Somos (We Are) Republicans Aren’t

An acquaintance of mine sent me a link to an article titled “Somos Republicans” will not be endorsing Gabriela Mercer in which Somos Republicans expressed that they would not support Gabriela Mercer in a race against Raul Grijalva.  I have read about Ms. Mercer’s announcement to run in Arizona’s 7^th Congressional District, but I was curious as to why “Somos Republicans” won’t endorse her candidacy.  I didn’t understand why any Republican organization would immediately rule out an endorsement without even waiting to see how many candidates there are and which one best aligns with its values.  I didn’t know much about “Somos Republicans” so I went to their website and started to analyze it.  The more I dug in the more I believe that this group should not be called “Somos Republicans” (We are Republicans) rather “Apenas Republicans” (Barely Republicans).   How did I come to this conclusion? Well… 

First let’s discuss Somos Republicans’ Principles.  Let me just say that I also believe in the Right to Life; free market capitalism, low taxes, small government, the Second Amendment, and traditional marriage.  It isn’t until you get to the last “principle” that you begin to understand Somos Republicans’ real raise d’être; Amnesty!  Below is the final principle for “Somos Republicans”:
Humane Viable Immigration Solution. Tough immigration is not a conservative “value” but rather an issue.  This issue needs to be dealt with in a manner that directly affects the well-being of our community. We believe this issue has been largely ignored, and it has placed Republicans and our community in a predicament which is inconsistent with the economic realities of our Free Market Capitalism, labor demands, and humanitarian tradition. Therefore, it is imperative that we promote a viable solution to this dilemma that is in concert with our economic demands. Such humane and viable solutions ought to resonate with ideals of President Reagan, Bush, and Conservative Think Tanks–such as the Goldwater Institute, the Hoover Institution, and CATO–that, too, have argued that a solution to this predicament is long overdue.

I tried to ignore the incoherence of the statement and try to dissect what “Somos Republicans” is trying to say.  But this is tough, because as far as I am aware, Immigration is solved.  A person that wants to immigrate into the United States goes to their local consulate or embassy, gets in line and submits an application for entry into the United States, they wait for a visa and when they get it they are free to enter the country and proceed to apply to become a permanent resident and ultimately a US citizen.   I believe what they probably wanted to address in the “principle” is “a humane and viable solution to the illegal immigration issues facing our nation.”  So why don’t they say that?
“Somos Republicans” then states that “tough immigration” is not a “conservative ‘value’” but an issue; “tough immigration” isn’t an issue either, it is an adjectival phrase absent a noun to modify, but I digress.  I assume they are talking about tough immigration policy or laws or legislation or proposals.  Anyway, it isn’t tough immigration they are talking about; it’s really “tough anti-illegal immigration policy” that they are addressing.  And again “Somos Republicans” fails to use the word illegal.   Their “principle” then goes into some rambling about putting “our community” into a predicament. 

The bottom line is: There is nothing inconsistent with people wanting the law to be adhered to and enforced.  The fact that “Somos Republicans” addresses labor demands and economic demands in the statement proves the shortsightedness of the group; with the national unemployment rate over 9% there is no “labor demand.”  I know, I know, illegal immigrants do jobs that Americans won’t do, but if that was the case before it sure isn’t now.  “Somos Republicans” also talks a lot about being “humane,” and a “humanitarian tradition.”  Has anyone at “Somos Republicans” done some research on the Chinese when they came over to build the railroads or the Irish or the Italians to compare the “humane” treatment they received?  The only tradition that I know of is one of working.  People worked and they either found some measure of success or they didn’t.   And the most important part is that the great majority of immigrants prior to the 1960’s all came to the United States legally.  Illegal immigration as a policy issue is a rather recent phenomena.
Finally “Somos Republicans” throws around names like Presidents Reagan and Bush, sprinkle in the Cato and Goldwater Institutes, and the Hoover Institution and Presto! “Somos Republicans” has established its bona fides as a Republican entity. 

But let’s get back to why “Somos Republicans” won’t endorse Gabriela Mercer.  Well they NEVER TELL YOU!!  They mention Ms. Mercer twice in the article; once in the Headline and once in the first sentence when they mention that the Republican Party needs to find a better candidate.  This is a bloggers version of a drive-by shooting.  
“Somos Republicans” leaves the reader contemplating Ms. Mercer’s candidacy while they continue on with statistics from a Pew Hispanic Center survey trying to convince the Arizona Republican Party, and anyone else unfortunate enough to be reading the article, that 80% of Hispanics are against “SB1070 type of laws”.  (An assertion that is specious at best and dishonest at worst.) And, that no one should support any candidate that favors SB1070.

There is only one problem.  The Pew study that “Somos Republicans” diligently cites over and over again was conducted in 2008.  As a refresher, SB1070 was passed and signed by Governor Brewer in 2010.  So whatever questions were asked by the Pew Hispanic Center, they were not in regards to SB1070. 

In addition to this small, seemingly insignificant fact; is the fact that in the same Pew Study, only 44% of the over 2000 people that were interviewed, were US citizens and registered to vote. 
“Somos Republicans” then let’s their target audience, the Arizona Republican Party, know that any Hispanic who supports SB1070 is a “token” “yes-man” and that these Hispanics don’t know how Latinos really feel.  This is the tired old meme taken right out of the leftist book of tactics and is nothing more than an attempt to marginalize and silence anyone who disagrees with “Somos Republicans” view on illegal immigration: if you can convince everyone that pro-SB1070 Hispanics are “tokens” then they aren’t worth listening too because they are a super small minority. To discredit the people who disagree with you by calling them names is something worthy of a 4^th grade playground; How truly juvenile. 

Then… the coup de grâce!!  “Somos Republicans” tells the Republican Party that it must “prove to the increasing number of Hispanic voters that all Republicans are not a bunch of bigots who want to empty a clip on “illegals.” So, the burden of proof is on Republicans to prove they are NOT a bunch of bigots.  This can be accomplished by denouncing those that “Somos Republicans” says should be denounced. (For the Record: I do believe that Virgil Peck should be held to account for what he said.)  And then mention Russell Pearce, J.D. Hayworth, Tom Tancredo, and Steve King, so no one gets confused about who “Somos Republicans” considers extremists.  And finally…. the digestif to wash the whole thing down, “Somos Republicans” reminds everyone that they are Ronald Reagan Republicans and want to restore the Party of Abe Lincoln. 

First, to the Republican Party:  Be aware of what this group stands for: AMNESTY! If you are pro amnesty then you have found the right Latino group for you. If you chose to affiliate yourself with “Somos Republicans” be aware that you are taking the side of illegal aliens over law abiding immigrants and citizens (Somos is anti-SB1070 and Pro-Sanctuary City), you are taking the side of illegal students from foreign countries over US Citizens from out of state (Somos is Pro-DREAM Act), and you will be affiliated with the pro-amnesty movement. I am a Hispanic that believes in the rule of law and supports efforts such as Arizona SB1070 to control the illegal immigration crisis in the United States. I am one of the tokens of whom “Somos Republicans” speaks, but I am not alone. Ignore me at your peril. 

To Gabriela Saucedo Mercer:  I do not know you personally but, as they say; you can tell a lot about a person by who his/her “enemies” are.  And if Somos Republicans is your “enemy” then I support you in your efforts to unseat Raul Grijalva in Arizona Congressional District 7 as should every republican in the state.

THE TIME IS NOW

**This blog entry was written previously and is being reposted here.  I will post all of my previous articles here as a method to consolidate all articles in one location**

Before I start this article and before people begin to rake me over the coals for flawed legal analysis, let me caveat this article by saying that I am NOT a lawyer (but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night).  I am writing this article on some of my own observations and, ­­dare I say it, common sense and logic.  I have read the decision by Judge Bolton as it relates to the Arizona law SB1070.  It seems to me that the entire judgment was a travesty to a society founded on law.  The federal government’s argument is ridiculous and the judge’s ruling even more so.  Part of the judge’s ruling states the following:  "Thus, an increase in the number of requests for determinations of immigration status, such as is likely to result from the mandatory requirement that Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies check the immigration status of any person who is arrested, will divert resources from the federal government’s other responsibilities and priorities."

What could be more of a priority than to ensure the safety of the citizenry and security of the borders?  Isn’t this the primary function of government and more specifically the Department of Homeland Security, to include the Border Patrol, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)?

But beyond that, it seems to me that if we are to extend the same logic that the judge used in this ruling to all laws that are overseen by the federal government as the basis for a preemption argument we, as a nation, are in big, big trouble.  Here is just one example:  Arizona state law classifies as illegal, under Title 13 – Criminal Code 13-3552, the commercial sexual exploitation of a minor (excerpt follows):

13-3552. Commercial sexual exploitation of a minor; classification
A. A person commits commercial sexual exploitation of a minor by knowingly:
1. Using, employing, persuading, enticing, inducing or coercing a minor to engage in or assist others to engage in exploitive exhibition or other sexual conduct for the purpose of producing any visual depiction or live act depicting such conduct.
2. Using, employing, persuading, enticing, inducing or coercing a minor to expose the genitals or anus or the areola or nipple of the female breast for financial or commercial gain.
3. Permitting a minor under the person’s custody or control to engage in or assist others to engage in exploitive exhibition or other sexual conduct for the purpose of producing any visual depiction or live act depicting such conduct.
4. Transporting or financing the transportation of any minor through or across this state with the intent that the minor engage in prostitution, exploitive exhibition or other sexual conduct for the purpose of producing a visual depiction or live act depicting such conduct.
B. Commercial sexual exploitation of a minor is a class 2 felony and if the minor is under fifteen years of age it is punishable pursuant to section 13-705.

AND here is the federal Law:

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 110 > § 2251
§ 2251. Sexual exploitation of children
(a) Any person who employs, uses, persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any minor to engage in, or who has a minor assist any other person to engage in, or who transports any minor in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, or in any Territory or Possession of the United States, with the intent that such minor engage in, any sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing any visual depiction of such conduct or for the purpose of transmitting a live visual depiction of such conduct, shall be punished as provided under subsection (e), if such person knows or has reason to know that such visual depiction will be transported or transmitted using any means or facility of interstate or foreign commerce or in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or mailed, if that visual depiction was produced or transmitted using materials that have been mailed, shipped, or transported in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer, or if such visual depiction has actually been transported or transmitted using any means or facility of interstate or foreign commerce or in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or mailed.

They are quite similar.  As a matter of fact, the federal law is, essentially, restated in the state statute.  Much the same way federal immigration law is restated in AZ SB 1070.   Are we to understand that state and local municipalities are prohibited from enforcing child pornography laws because this would pre-empt the federal government as it would divert resources from the Department of Justice’s other responsibilities and priorities?  I would hope NOT.  I think it is safe to say that most sane people would say that IF there were a sudden rise in child pornography and local jurisdictions began to refer cases to the DOJ for adjudication that they would expect the DOJ to take those cases.  Using Judge Bolton’s ruling as a guide it would be possible for the DOJ to claim preemption because they have other responsibilities and priorities and a sudden increase in Child Pornography cases would divert resources.  Does that make sense to anyone?

A by-product of the ruling is the idea that a State may not enact a law to support and supplement federal law. This can and may have far reaching ramifications and unintended consequences in the future.  This has the possibility of affecting prosecutions and verdicts in many jurisdictions.

But there are more basic questions.  For example:  What does it mean when the federal government takes a position against the enforcement of a law that would have the effect of assisting that same federal government in fulfilling its obligation under the United States Constitution in favor of millions of law breakers?   How does the federal government justify a position of accepting the status quo rather than accept the help of state, county and municipal jurisdictions indentifying, detaining and arresting people who have violated our countries immigration laws? What has happened to the rule of law?

There is no argument that the federal government has failed and continues to fail in its duty to protect and defend the general welfare of the citizens of this country.  No one is denying this fact.  What is unbelievable is that the government, while acknowledging its failure to properly enforce the law, continues to erect obstacles to ensure the status quo.  The solution to the border problem is not solved by closing park lands and erecting signs south of Phoenix warning citizens that there are drug smugglers in the area, but by immediately increasing forces along the border to keep the smugglers out.  The government’s response to Arizona SB1070 is inconceivable, but somehow, not surprising.

How many hospitals must be shut down?  How many billions of dollars must we spend on social services, medical care, and schools?  How many citizens and legal residents must be assaulted, robbed, raped, and killed before we finally demand that the federal government do its job?  We have to ask ourselves, how long are we going to accept the federal government’s dereliction of duty?  How long are we going to wait for the petty politics in Washington to catch up to the real world realities along our southern border?  There comes a time when states must take a stand for what is right and what is just.  There is a time when states must act in the interests of their citizens’ safety and security.

For Arizona, that time is now!

The Nightmare that is the Dream Act

**This blog entry was written previously and is being reposted here.  I will post all of my previous articles here as a method to consolidate all articles in one location**
Keep this article in mind when you hear this Act is again before Congress for passage. RRB

The DREAM Act is a complete and utter disaster. The DREAM Act as it is currently proposed is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to pass amnesty to a vast number of illegal aliens.  This act does nothing to solve the current illegal alien crisis and should be opposed by all Americans who believe in the rule of law.  I went online and read the proposed act to see what all the hubbub is about.  First of all let me just say that I am not a lawyer, but fortunately you don’t need to be to understand what the DREAM Act is trying to do nor how it is trying to do it.  The surprise here is how overt liberals have become in telling the American public exactly what they plan.  The only catch is that the American public has to read the act and engage as necessary.  I am not writing this as an opinion commentary, this is a column to inform you of what is in the act.  If you don’t agree you need to get off you duff and start calling your senator and congressman.  You have no idea what this act allows for and the politicians advocating its passage don’t want you to know, because if you knew there would be a national uprising of indignation and disgust.  Here’s hoping for a little of that.

Before we get too far, there are parts of this act that might require a lawyer but I will only address those portions which I both think are egregious and are straightforward. There is no way that a congressman should be able to argue that he/she didn’t understand the language or that he/she wasn’t aware of the consequences, etc…   I have excerpted the part of the bill in question so you can see the language yourself.  So here we go!!!

SEC. 3. RESTORATION OF STATE OPTION TO DETERMINE RESIDENCY FOR PURPOSES OF HIGHER EDUCATION BENEFITS.

(a)   In General- Section 505 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1623) is repealed.
The federal law mentioned above prohibits illegal aliens from getting instate tuition. I would like to take the time to point out the irony that any state that allows illegal immigrants to get instate tuition is violating federal law, this would be the perfect example of Preemption, unfortunately the federal government won’t stop this practice.

SEC. 4. CANCELLATION OF REMOVAL AND ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS OF CERTAIN LONG-TERM RESIDENTS WHO ENTERED THE UNITED STATES AS CHILDREN.

(a) Special Rule for Certain Long-Term Residents Who Entered the United States as Children
(1) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law and except as otherwise provided in this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security may cancel removal of, and adjust to the status of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, subject to the conditional basis described in section 5, an alien who is inadmissible or deportable from the United States, if the alien demonstrates that–
(A) the alien has been physically present in the United States for a continuous period of not less than 5 years immediately preceding the date of enactment of this Act, and had not yet reached the age of 16 years at the time of initial entry;
This act would allow anyone who is 5 years plus one day who was brought into this country as a newborn to be eligible.  Later in the act it stipulates that the “alien” can be not older than 35 years old to apply.  Has anyone thought about how many people we are talking about?  And once all these people are rewarded with citizenship they can proceed to legalize all of their relatives.
(B) the alien has been a person of good moral character since the time of application;
This essentially forgives anything the alien has done up to the point of application.  So, technically an alien could apply and there would be no consideration of any previous criminality, this might also include DUI, and any other previous arrests and/or convictions.
(2)   WAIVER- Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the Secretary of Homeland Security may waive the ground of ineligibility under section 212(a)(6)(E) of the Immigration and Nationality Act and the ground of deportability under paragraph (1)(E) of section 237(a) of that Act for humanitarian purposes or family unity or when it is otherwise in the public interest.
DHS can waiver anyone and stop them from being deported.  Under the guise of family unity that would essentially include every single illegal “alien” that applies for the program. But in case that isn’t enough DHS can waive deportation if they can find some public interest as determined by DHS.
(d) Exemption From Numerical Limitations- Nothing in this section may be construed to apply a numerical limitation on the number of aliens who may be eligible for cancellation of removal or adjustment of status under this section.
There is no limit to how many people can qualify under this act.  If there are 13 million, so be it. People will wait for years to get approved and, as you will see later; once they apply they cannot be deported if they have pending application.
(f) Removal of Alien- The Secretary of Homeland Security may not remove any alien who has a pending application for conditional status under this Act.
ONCE AN ILLEGAL ALIEN APPLIES HE/SHE CANNOT BE DEPORTED!!!!

SEC. 5. CONDITIONAL PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS.

(2) HARDSHIP EXCEPTION-
(A) IN GENERAL- The Secretary of Homeland Security may, in the Secretary’s discretion, remove the conditional status of an alien if the alien–
(i) satisfies the requirements of subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of paragraph (1);
(ii) demonstrates compelling circumstances for the inability to complete the requirements described in paragraph (1)(D); and
(iii) demonstrates that the alien’s removal from the United States would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the alien or the alien’s spouse, parent, or child who is a citizen or a lawful permanent resident of the United States.
The DHS can determine a hardship and remove the conditional status of the alien, without the alien having either completed a degree or serving in the armed forces.  Notice that the hardship can affect anyone in his immediate family who is a US citizen.  This paragraph will essentially allow anyone who entered illegally as a child and subsequently had children to stay in the US.

SEC. 7. EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION.

(c) Employment- An alien whose removal is stayed pursuant to subsection (b) may be engaged in employment in the United States consistent with the Fair Labor Standards Act (29 U.S.C. 201 et seq.) and State and local laws governing minimum age for employment.
Once the alien applies he/she is legally allowed to work. Fancy that! Who needs a guest worker program when all you have to do is go to school or join the army?

SEC. 9. CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION.

(b)    Penalty- Whoever knowingly uses, publishes, or permits information to be examined in violation of this section shall be fined not more than $10,000.
I’m not completely sure but I think this is a clause that will prohibit the oversight of this program by anyone outside of DHS and the DOJ.  That means there is no way to see what is happening behind the scenes. Who is getting a waiver, who is a hardship, how many are in the program, how many actually completed the requirements.  It is unconscionable that the federal government would legislate that a federal program cannot be audited or examined.

SEC. 11. HIGHER EDUCATION ASSISTANCE.

Notwithstanding any provision of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.), with respect to assistance provided under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq.), an alien who adjusts status to that of a lawful permanent resident under this Act shall be eligible only for the following assistance under such title:
(1) Student loans under parts B, D, and E of such title IV (20 U.S.C. 1071 et seq., 1087a et seq., 1087aa et seq.), subject to the requirements of such parts.


(2) Federal work-study programs under part C of such title IV (42 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.), subject to the requirements of such part.

(3) Services under such title IV (20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq.), subject to the requirements for such services.
The American Tax Payer will foot the bill for the education of all these Illegal aliens getting an education. YOU have to pay for it. You have to subsidize the failure of other governments to offer economic opportunity to their citizens.
There is more in this very short proposition, I recommend everyone read it. Then ask yourself what the hell is going on in this country when not only are we rewarding illegal aliens with the opportunity for an education but we may in fact end up paying for it.  Meanwhile law-abiding immigrants are essentially punished for following the law and trying to do things the right way.
Call your Senator.

LOCATION, LEGISLATION, AND IMMIGRATION: THE TRUTH BEHIND BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP

Many people on both sides of the issue, as it relates to anchor babies and birthright citizenship, cite the 14th Amendment to support their particular view on the subject of illegal aliens and whether or not their children are citizens.  In Arizona the debate has intensified as the Legislature debates the passage of Senate Bills (SB) 1308, 1309, and 1611.  Additionally, there has been an increase in the debate of birthright citizenship and whether there is a method by which this can be changed.  There are various views of the argument; some argue that birthright citizenship is a Constitutional right and cannot be changed without a Constitutional Convention, while I would argue that, in fact, birthright citizenship is statutory in nature and the only requirement to change the status quo is for Congress to clarify the existing statutes through legislation.  That is the argument which I will lay out in this article.

First, here are some facts that should be taken into consideration when discussing the issue.

1.   The power of establishing naturalization statutes lies with the Legislative Branch under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution; “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization...”

2.  The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was passed and became law in April, 1866; it redefined the requirements for citizenship eligibility as it pertained to slaves, former slaves and children of slaves and specifically excluded “Indians not taxed.”

3.  The 14th Amendment was ratified on July 9^th, 1868. It was designed to codify into the Constitution the provisions passed in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, giving citizenship rights and immunities to the newly emancipated slaves after the Civil War. 

4.  The 14th Amendment, through the jurisdiction clause, did not give citizenship rights to everyone born in the United States, and did not retroactively apply to all peoples in the US at the time. 

Now, let’s step through the events logically.

The Constitution clearly stipulates that naturalization is a power held by the Legislative Branch of the government.  As such, it is Congress that decides who can and cannot become a citizen, and under which circumstances citizenship can be granted.  Congress is responsible for the regulations of citizenship and modifications of those regulations.  If Congress is empowered by the Constitution to establish the “Rule of Naturalization” then it cannot be said that citizenship, whether it be birthright citizenship or naturalization, is a Right as set forth in the 14th Amendment.

The Civil Rights act of 1866 was passed two years before the 14th Amendment.  This means that Congress had granted citizenship to all emancipated slaves and their children two years before the 14th Amendment was ratified.  The Civil Rights Act of 1866 specifically excluded “Indians not taxed” to avoid giving citizenship to Indians who were members of tribes on reservations who were members of those sovereign “Indian nations.”   Indians born within the United States (boundaries) were not considered and were not extended citizenship rights; presumably because they did not have allegiance to the US, rather to their tribe.  The point here is that the determination of citizenship was statutory, since at the time of passage of the Civil Rights act of 1866 the 14th Amendment did not exist.  Again, this is evidence that citizenship is granted through statutory regulation rather than as a direct consequence of the 14th Amendment.

This begs the question: If slaves were already citizens why was the 14th amendment necessary?  I think it is safe to say that Congress wanted to codify into the Constitution the provisions passed in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, giving citizenship rights and immunities to the newly emancipated slaves after the Civil War.   By codifying these rights into the Constitution it would prevent any future congress from changing the naturalization statutes in the future and void or jeopardize the rights of emancipated slaves by simple majorities.

During the debate over the amendment Senator Jacob Howard, the author of the citizenship clause in the Fourteenth Amendment, defined who would fall within the "jurisdiction of the United States": [E]very person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country. Senator Jacob Merritt Howard of Michigan proposed the addition of the phrase “Subject to the Jurisdiction.”   Sen. Reverdy Johnson of Maryland explained the jurisdiction requirement as: “[A]ll persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power -- for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before -- shall be considered as citizens of the United States.”  Sen. Lyman Trumbull of Illinois said that 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States' meant subject to its 'complete' jurisdiction, meaning “not owing allegiance to anybody else.”

The very real and relevant point about the ratification of the 14th Amendment is that (there is no mention of slaves or Native Indians) it did not grant citizenship to everyone in the United States by edict.  Native Indians were not granted or considered citizens as a consequence of the 14th Amendment.  When the 14th Amendment was passed it made no mention of excluding Native Indians, nevertheless, it was plainly understood that Native Indians had not previously been citizens nor were they granted citizenship as a result of the 14th Amendment’s ratification.  Native Indians, although born in the territory of the United States were not considered US Citizens.

In Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) the Supreme Court ruled that Native Indians were not citizens and that individuals could not become citizens merely by declaring themselves so: “But an emigrant from any foreign state cannot become a citizen of the United States without a formal renunciation of his old allegiance, and an acceptance by the United States of that renunciation through such form of naturalization as may be required law.”  The justices go on to point out that: “Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.”  This case established the precedent on citizenship issues as they relate to birthright citizenship.   As a matter of fact, in 1919 Congress passed the American Indian Citizenship Act.  This act provided that American Indians who had participated in World War I and had been honorably discharged could apply for and subsequently be granted citizenship.  So even into the early 20th Century Indians, although born in the United States Territory, were not considered Citizens nor automatically granted that privilege under the law.  And it wasn’t until 1924 that Congress passed the Indian Citizen Act which granted citizenship to all Native Americans born in the United States.  This was done through statute and passed by Congress, it was then that Native Indians gained birthright citizenship in the United States. 

Subsequent decisions are cited to support the idea that birthright citizenship is a Constitutional right, particularly US v. Wong Kim Ark.  But even though Wong was granted naturalization based on his birth in the United States, his parents were legally present in the country through a treaty with China, at least part of the decision rested on his perceived allegiance to the United States vis a vis China.  It can be said that Wong was wrongly decided since immigration and naturalization was expressly prohibited in the treaty with China at the time and it was understood that Chinese workers were still subjects of China.  But even this decision acknowledged the right of Congress to legislate naturalization laws. 

Additionally, the argument that you are citizen based on the physical location of your birth is not recognized by any other nation.  It is contrary to common law as it has been understood for hundreds of years.  A person’s citizenship is always based on his parents’ status.  This is why the US government has written legislation to accommodate children born in foreign countries and those born to Military servicemen overseas, among many others; because other countries do not automatically recognize the child born as a citizen of their respective countries unless one of the parents is a national of that country.  There was even an act granting citizenship to Mexicans who elected to reside in the US after the War with Mexico; otherwise those people would have remained Mexican citizens.  The presumption is that a child inherits his citizenship from his parents.  This idea is not new and it is disingenuous to believe or to argue otherwise.  Just because a child is born in Germany does not make him German, in order to be a citizen he must be born to parents who are subject to German law.  And one cannot ignore hundreds of years of jurisprudence because it suits his agenda.

All of the arguments notwithstanding look at the “jurisdiction” clause and ask yourself whether or not illegal immigrants in this country are truly under the jurisdiction of the United States.  To answer that question, one must wonder why illegal immigrants often call the Mexican Consulate for legal assistance.  If they are claiming citizenship for their children (because they are presumably under the jurisdiction of the United States per the 14^th Amendment), they would, by definition, have no allegiance to Mexico; why would they call a foreign diplomatic corps for assistance?  Probably because we all know instinctively that allegiance to your country, no matter who you are, is much more than the physical location of your birth.

Much, much more…

"DOMESTIC VIOLENCE " AGAINST ARIZONA

Immigration has become a hot issue once again with the introduction of SB1308, SB1309, and SB1611 in Arizona.  The problem is that confusion and distraction has been created as the State of Arizona tries to address the illegal immigration problem by passing legislation to discourage illegal aliens from coming to Arizona or encourage illegal aliens to leave.  The subsequent court battles then surround the constitutional issue of “birth-right citizenship” and the issue surrounding the 14th Amendment.  But this does not allow for a real and substantive discussion about the real issues. 

 The illegal immigration problem is made to be complex but, in fact, is relatively simple.  It can be summed up thusly:  The federal government of the United States has ignored its responsibility under the Constitution to provide for the “common defence.” Interestingly the "common Defence" is one of the primary reasons for establishing the Constitution in the first place.

By ignoring the illegal immigration crisis on the southern border of the US the federal government has put the “common defence” in jeopardy.  There is no logical argument that can be made that this is not the case.  The Federal government knows the territories of the US are threatened by criminals both foreign and domestic, so much so, that it has erected signs in the Arizona desert warning US citizens that the areas may be monitored and patrolled by members of Drug cartels (here), (here), (here).
 
Providing for the “Common Defence” is one of the powers of Congress under Article I Section 8.  It is the duty of the legislature to accomplish this; through statute and appropriations.  This is a major failing of our government and of the officials our nation has sent to Washington to represent us.
 
Under Article IV, section 4 of the Constitution the States are guaranteed that the Republican Form of Government “shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on application of the legislature, or the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.”  There is little doubt that Arizona is victim to both an invasion and “domestic Violence” as it relates to illegal immigrants crossing the international sovereign border of the United States and committing violence inside the boundaries of the US.  Border Security should be the priority effort, both at the Federal and State level.  The Federal government is the guarantor from “domestic Violence” against the States, and Arizona and other states should demand that the Federal government make good on that guarantee.

The single most effective method of coming closer to solving the illegal immigration morass and making good on the guarantee to protect the nation from "domestic violence" and ensure the "common Defence" is to build a physical barrier along the border with Mexico. 
 
A physical barrier/fence/moat will greatly decrease the amount of illegal aliens crossing the border.  According to a report by the Congressional Research Service in 2007, data shows that after the construction of a triple-fence in the San Diego sector apprehensions dropped from 480,000 in FY1996 to 100,000 in FY2002.  The US Border Patrol’s “Imperial Beach and Chula Vista stations saw their apprehensions decline from 321,560 in FY1993 to 19,035 in FY 2004 – a reduction of 94% over the 12 year period.”   And the results for the San Diego sector could be even starker but the fence in the sector can’t be completed due to environmental concerns.  

But the average American doesn’t need studies and reports to validate what we all know intuitively.  Physical barriers work.  There is a reason that “Good fences make good neighbors.”  That is why we have doors on our houses, fences around our yards and gates around our neighborhoods.  We use physical barriers every day, in all aspects of our lives.  You need a badge to access some work areas; everyone must pass through security at the court house and the airport; there are vehicle gates at parking garages, parks and businesses.   The argument that Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Napolitano made when she said; “show me a 50-foot wall and I’ll show you a 51-foot ladder” is specious at best.  Like Secretary Napolitano, many argue that the fences don’t deter illegal border-crossers, that they will just go to where there is no fence.  But that is entirely the point.  Fences work, period.  A continuous fence would work better.  A continuous double or triple fence with concertina wire at the top and all along the back side would work best.
 
The state of Arizona should force the Federal government to uphold the guarantee stipulated in Article IV, section 4 of the Constitution and put forth an “Application of the Legislature” against domestic Violence.   Take this official step and force the Federal Government to directly and explicitly either comply with or ignore the founding document of our Nation and our Republic.

At least, that way Arizonans will know whether the Federal Government and this administration stand with them or with the illegal criminals crossing the borders everyday.