A False Sense of Border Security


0704L_IMMIGRATION2On Thursday, the Senate reached a tentative deal on border security aimed at encouraging more Republicans to support so-called comprehensive immigration reform. Senators Bob Corker (R-TN) and John Hoeven (R-ND) put together a deal with the “Gang of Eight” that calls for 700 miles of new fencing along the Mexican border, a near doubling of Border Patrol agents, and the purchase of aerial drones for additional border policing. Breitbart’s Matthew Boyle accurately describes the real objective behind this effort. “The so-called ‘compromise’ on border security…is a sham meant to give political cover to Republicans who want to vote for amnesty but cannot be seen opposing border security.”

Boyle’s spot-on assessment is burnished by the reality that earlier the same day, the Senate defeated an amendment offered by Sen. John Cornyn’s (R-TX), calling for mandatory border security triggers to be put in place before illegal aliens were granted legal status. The vote was 54-43 to table the effort, with Sens. John McCain (R-AZ), Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Jeff Flake (R-AZ), all voting to kill the measure outright, and Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) voting to table it. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), who may have sensed that he needed to save what little is left of his shredded credibility, broke ranks with the Gang of Eight and supported Cornyn. Yet later in the day, when the aforementioned compromise was reached, Rubio was effusive. “If you look at what’s being proposed here, this is a dramatic expansion and improvement in border security that I hope will allow finally for this legislation to have the support it needs,” he told Fox News.

Nonsense. Moreover, Rubio has a short memory. Seven years ago, Congress passed the “Secure Fence Act of 2006.” It ordered the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to “provide for at least 2 layers of reinforced fencing, the installation of additional physical barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors” along 700 specific miles of the almost 2000-mile border dividing the U.S. and Mexico. A year later, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) quietly added a provision to an omnibus appropriations bill essentially eliminating the mandate, “if the (DHS) Secretary determines that the use or placement of such resources is not the most appropriate means to achieve and maintain operational control over the international border at such location.” Today, according the Washington Times, only 36 miles of fencing are double-tier, 316 miles are single-tier pedestrian  fencing, and another 299 miles are nothing more than vehicle barriers that do not stop people from crossing the border. At least 49 miles have no fencing at all.

What’s to stop Congress from changing the parameters again, once this bill is passed? Absolutely nothing.

The doubling of Border Patrol agents is another sham underscored by reality. In August 2012, 10 U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents and deportation officers sued the Obama administration, contending that they were forced to choose between enforcing immigration law and getting reprimanded by their superiors, or obeying those superiors and violating the law. “ICE is at a point now where agents are being told to break federal law,” said the agents’ attorney Kris W. Kobach. “They’re pretty much told that any illegal alien under the age of 31 is going to be let go. You can imagine, these law enforcement officers are being put in a horrible position.” The litigation was engendered in large part by the president’s unilateral declaration that allowed any illegal under 30 years of age to avoid deportation and acquire work permits renewable every two years indefinitely.

In April, Federal Judge Reed O’Connor sided with the plaintiffs, noting the the DHS “does not have discretion to refuse to initiate removal proceedings.” But O’Connor further noted the ruling remains incomplete until both the administration and the agents supply him with additional information. Regardless, this case reveals the fatal assumptions behind the idea that more agents equals better border enforcement: that is only true if Border Agents are allowed to do their jobs.

The use of aerial drones to patrol the border is another idea that might look good on paper, but is once again belied by reality. Assuming drones are effective in locating illegals crossing the border, that effectiveness only matters if the information is acted upon in a timely manner–meaning Border Patrol agents or other law enforcement officials must be present to detain the crossers. And again, unless those agents are allowed to enforce the law, drones are irrelevant.

Yet even that may not matter. During her testimony on April 23 before the Gang of Eight Committee, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano told Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) she believes that administration officials can tell law enforcement agents which laws to enforce or ignore. “There are tensions with union leadership, unfortunately, but here’s what I expect as a former federal prosecutor and attorney general, and that is that law enforcement agents will enforce the law in accord with the guidance they’re given from their superiors,” Napolitano contended.

Furthermore, one could make the argument that the use of drones on the border will inevitably involve “mission creep”–if that reality had not already occurred. On Wednesday, FBI Director Robert Mueller not only admitted to Congress that drones have been used for surveillance on U.S. soil, but that the agency has no guidelines or policies to regulate their usage.

All of the above ought to be more than enough to convince Senate Republicans that comprehensive immigration reform is a disaster. Yet there are even more inconvenient realities that this legislation will engender. An analysis by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reveals that illegal immigration into the United States would be decreased by a paltry 25 percent compared to the current law. Proponents of the legislation tout the report’s estimate that it would reduce the nation’s deficit by $875 billion over 20 years, completely contradicting a Heritage Foundation Report that estimates amnesty would add $6.3 trillion to the national debt over a longer time frame. Sen. Sessions explains that this is the result of the same kind of accounting gimmicks used to hide the true cost of ObamaCare. In this case, he notes that “eligibility for the most expensive federal benefits was largely delayed outside the 10-year scoring window.”

Yet the most damnable part of the CBO report reveals that Americans on the lower end of the workforce will take a tremendous hit if this bill is passed. “Although the average wage would be lower than under current law over the first dozen years, the minimum wage would keep the wages of some less skilled workers from falling, dampening businesses’ demand for those workers,” the analysis states. That would be lower wages and a dampening demand for American workers. On the other hand, investors and business owners will do quite well. “The rate of return on capital would be higher [than on labor] under the legislation than under current law throughout the next two decades,” says the report. On the “sunny” side, it further notes that average wages will once again begin to increase — in 2025.

Sessions minced no words regarding these realities. “This bill guarantees three things: amnesty, increased welfare costs and lower wages for the U.S. workforce,” he said. “It would be the biggest setback for poor and middle-class Americans of any legislation Congress has considered in decades.”

Yet above all else, the so-called Corker-Hoeven compromise can’t obscure the reality that legalization first, border security second remains the order of the day. The Associated Press confirms that reality. “Under the legislation as drafted, legalization could begin as soon as a security plan was drafted, but a 10-year wait is required for a green card,” it reported. Despite that unambiguousness, Linsey Graham epitomized the fecklessness of Republicans looking for any excuse to support this legislation. “We’re on the verge of doing something dramatic on the border,” Graham told reporters. “What we’re trying to do is put in place measures that to any reasonable person would be an overwhelming effort to secure our border. This is a key moment in the effort to pass the bill.”

A Republican Senate aide who contacted Matthew Boyle has warned Americans what to expect in the upcoming weeks. ”Proponents of the bill have shown they can’t sell the bill without lying about what’s in it,” said the aide. “Now that most of the lies have been exposed, the strategy is to pretend to fix all the problems in the bill with a new magical compromise amendment. The talking points will come out days before anyone gets to see actual legislative text so that the media will sell it while no one has the opportunity to see what it really says. And once we finally see it, we’ll be lucky to have a few hours to read it before senators vote. We saw this with the fiscal cliff, Toomey-Manchin and other terrible bills the Washington Establishment wants to pass. This is the new ‘regular order.’”

It is a “new regular order” with disastrous prospects for our nation. Democrats couldn’t care less, because the tradeoff for them is a permanent majority. Spineless Republicans have deluded themselves into believing that they too will win the hearts and minds of Hispanics.

Again, they have a short memory. In 1984, Ronald Reagan won 37 percent of the Hispanic vote in a landslide victory over Walter Mondale, who got 61 percent of the Hispanic vote. Four years later–and two years after Reagan signed the 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli Immigration Reform Act granting unambiguous amnesty to 2.7 million illegal aliens, George H.W. Bush got 30 percent of the Hispanic vote, compared to 69 percent for Democrat candidate Michael Dukakis.

Yet even more importantly, the other two provisions in the 1986 bill, the same promise of border security and the same promise about cracking down on employers who hired illegals were, and have been, calculatingly ignored. Not enforcing that bill is precisely why there are now 11 million illegals–assuming that’s an accurate number–demanding legalization. And if the CBO’s estimate that 75 percent of illegal crossings won’t be stopped even with the passage of this bill, what then?

Just before the 2008 election, President Obama told his supporters they were “only five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” That Republicans would aid and abet that transformation–even as they more than likely assure their own irrelevancy in the process–is pathetic.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • Tan

    Obama’s false security plan for the border is only the beginning. Now they are trying to disarm us all over the place. Check this out.

    http://www.nranews.com/ginny/video/apps-california-s-universal-registration-scheme/list/ginny-feature

    • saris1

      Honestly, they’re not trying to disarm you. They’re trying to disarm people that should not have guns in the first place. Yes, I do support background checks, yes I do support taking guns out of the hands of people that have known mental illness.

      It’s not 1776 anymore, if the State wants to “take over” it could, what is a gun going to do to a Bomber? Yeah thought so.

      • Aizino Smith

        You do not shoot a gun at a bomber. You use it for guerilla warfare. You use the gun to get better guns and eventually crew served weapons. that is the way many guerilla insurgencies work.

        Saris you have not done your homework, are bing flippant or being disingenuous.

        I am not advocating anything, just pointing out the flaws in your argument.

        Is this explanation sufficient or does everything need to be footnoted, linked ad naseum?

        I see gun violence as being tied more to social policies and social mores than to gun access. The peak of gun violence across western nation was 1991 and has been declining since then? How do you account for that? Maybe you should pick yup a book on sociology. HMMM?

        • saris1

          And here is the major flaw in your argument…

          Why do they need to disarm you? You already do as you’re told and pay your taxes.

          Honestly, I don’t see the big deal. Why are background checks a bad thing? If you’re a law-abiding citizen with no history of violence or mental illness you can still get a gun.

          • Nabuquduriuzhur

            Big problems with background checks is that they are 1: becoming extremely costly to discourage gun ownership (NY’s is over $300 per check) and 2. with government becoming socialist, their standards will be irrational things, such as you go to church so you can’t have a gun.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “2. with government becoming socialist, their standards will be irrational things, such as you go to church so you can’t have a gun.”

            Yeah, but we could let one of our trusted agencies, like the IRS, process the permits.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Or you are a veteten so you don’t get a gun. (That has already begun.) The possible (probable) prohibition list is endless but it would begin with those deemed to pose the greatest threat to the cultural elites.

          • Aizino Smith

            @ Saris

            You assume that I will always do as I am told or “commanded”.

            Background checks are defacto registration if they are 100%. All they have to do is one day is to stop throwing away the data. There are so many willing to do so in government. Take the fact that the government does not follow its own law. It is law to build 700 miles of border fence. They completed 36 miles. they simply refused to build fence. God knows they have spent TARP money and they are willing to blow out the budget. So why no fence? It would be a jobs program. Well Napalitano bleated that it cost too much and that it was technically infeasible. How would she know? She is not an engineer! She is hack crony lawyer. After the IRS scandal & the border fence not being built. I could see a hack political appointee telling an IS tech to not purge data every 3 days or every 6 months.

            Me I want 100% background check. but once we give them that they will move the goal posts again. Like Schumer does with immigration. Negotiating with Schumer or Feinstein is ‘like’ negotiating with the Devil.
            Besides the Democrats pulling a Lucy on us there is the IRS scandal Again all they have to do is to forget to purge the older background checks. ***Oopsie! snicker, snicker ***

            If you keep pushing it then i will have to suspect you of trying to social engineer support.

          • Aizino Smith

            Saris1

            You assume a lot. You assume that the U.S. will never fragment. there was a Soviet academic who suggested that the U.S. would do exactly that. It was disquieting. and in some respects I put it down to professorial musing and/or propaganda to dispirit Americans.

            But America has broken up before. As has China as has Russia. So a person with a grasp of history would acknowledge this. I don’t like this as my family has lost good bottom ground due to being on the wrong side of the argument. They fled north ahead of the outbreak of the Civil War. Maybe you do not realize how big of a deal that is. There is dry land farming at one end of the spectrum and then there is bottom land. That is like hitting the jackpot.

            of course we know in past insurgencies or whatever that whole military units never defect. Never!. Of course we know that a machine gunner does not need a couple of rifle men on each flank for his/her security.

            So you think rifles are useless? You grasp of history seems tenuous especially military history.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igor_Panarin

            Like i said this might be musing or propaganda. Then again only his timing might be off. Then again China & Russia would find America easier to deal with if it was in pieces. Russia had 4,000 known agents (known at the time or after the fact) in America during the 1930s. then again we have La Raza who wants a greater Mexico.

            So why are you so smug? I am not. I don’t want war and I don’t want the governement turning the screws ion us.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Why do they need to disarm you? You already do as you’re told and pay your taxes.”

            Because “transformation” has not even really started yet, and that hope and change promised was not really speaking about the overburdened taxpayers. It was and is a dog whistle for the moochers.

          • Aizino Smith

            I read Saris other posts. Not a plant or provocatuer. However,however much background checks makes sense, if we implement them 100%, they will have registration. I would not trust Napolitano as the saying goes “as far as I can throw her”. And I cannot throw here because well she is a slob.” There are many more apparatchicks where she comes from. She is at DHS to do a political job.

            the arc of her life has been the Anita Hill hearing to Federal district attourney (reward from Clinton for being a soljah in the trenches) to Attourney General (AZ) to governor (AZ) to DHS.

            With the vast amount of experience she has accumulated, I would trade her for a plumber, an interior decorator, a wet behind the ears college grad, or a Cuban refugee.

      • Aizino Smith

        I have also looked at the homicide rate in England from 1856 on.

        There is not spits with of difference between the homicide rate before or after any gun laws for a 100 years. The English have gone on to ban swords and some doctors in England want to ban knives and design cutlery for the kitchen. Soon we will have people to wipe out tushes for us because we will be so infantilized.

        Given the current trajectory, the criminally insane (read activists and lawmakers) will have ban 2 x 4s, acid, glass bottles and cricket bats. the are banning objects but not curbing behaviour with penalties. It shows they haven’t the will. Since the have not the will to police, the criminals have taken note.

        • Nabuquduriuzhur

          While the homicide rate is not much different, the violent crime rate in the UK is currently more than 500% of the U.S. Europe is more than 400% higher than the U.S.

          Roughly 1.5 as many massacre type crimes happen in western Europe as the U.S. (I’ve a list to 2009 in one of my books). Familicides are similarly higher in the E.U. than the U.S.

          It’s a pity. When I was in high school in the late 1980s, Europe was THE place to go. It was safe then, most countries had courtesy, etc. Definitely not safe now.

          • Aizino Smith

            I have been to London more than once. Saris cannot persuade of whatever truth they think they might know. I know how angry and violent the Muslims there are. Are saw the bills they posted on walls and lampposts surrounding the Central mosque. I talked to the imam of said mosque. I have followed the news reports. Although the American press does a piss poor job of aggregating these reports and say trust us, I do not trust the American press.

            Unless someone here has a bachelors degree in the hard science (& maybe a few in the social sciences) I dare say no j school grad or communications major is going to tell me I am wrong about the stats. Unlike most of them I have had more than 3 courses in stats.

        • ziggy zoggy

          Mostly true except that prisons, jails and the so called criminal justice system are some of America’ top industries. EVERYTHING is illegal here.

      • knowshistory

        in 1775, the british marched to lexington to take guns from people who should not have them in the first place. now it is the us government who is taking guns from people who shouldnt have them. in both cases, the people who shouldnt have them are patriotic americans, and it is the enemies of patriotic americans who have decided that they should not have them.

    • Everett Vulgamore

      i watched it, and two words come to mind:

      Molon Labe

      i will die before i give up my guns

  • American1969

    The entire bill needs to be scrapped and the entire thing needs to be rewritten—WITHOUT SPECIAL INTEREST INVOLVMENT! We supposedly pay members of Congress to write bills, not special interests. If that’s the case, what do we need Congress for?
    If there is no border security, there is nothing to discuss. We have laws on the books already, let’s enforce the laws we have. It’s because Congress has failed to do it’s job that we’re dealing with this again.

    • Jmor

      Speaking of special interest involvement, what was Trumka’s face doing in the gang of 8 photos?

    • knowshistory

      and if we do have border security, we dont need immigration “reform”. the only reason we need immigration “reform” is because its supporters have no intention whatsoever of ever in any way enforcing our immigration laws. any promise of border security after immigration “reform” is pure democratic party taqiyya. taqiyya (arabic for lies) is kind of like tequila. it makes you feel better about acting stupid, but you sure do have a headache the next morning

    • http://www.americarepublicspring.com/ Marvin E. Fox

      I agree with you generally. I do think the Bill should be scrapped. But, no Bill should replace it until our Government enforces the constitutional and Federal law that are being broken or ignored to encourage the increasing flow of undocumented Democrats across our border.
      Marvin Fox

  • http://www.friv3.org.in/ friv3

    Obama is making us more safe with his policies but I hope he will do more

    • ziggy zoggy

      Depends on who you mean by “us.”

  • CowboyUp

    They have to shut down existing border crashers and illegal aliens first, before considering anything further. Otherwise, they just won’t enforce the new laws, like they don’t enforce the old ones, and they’ll continue to prevent states from doing so. When they shut down illegal immigration, we can begin to believe DC might be getting serious when they use the term “immigration reform”.

  • sashamanda

    “It would be the biggest setback for poor and middle-class Americans of any legislation Congress has considered in decades.” Sessions got it right. The GOP, content to shift the social and economic costs of amnesty on those least able to bear it, is about to prove the liberal charicature of the GOP as elitest crony capitalists accurate.

  • davarino

    These repubs are pathetic. This time around I will vote for the best conservative choice, and if that means the dems win, fine. I’m not being held hostage anymore. I want my country back and I dont give a crap about the RNC if they dont give a crap about me.

    • sashamanda

      I’ve told the RNC, the speaker’s office, Rubio, Ryan, and Rand Paul that I will never vote for anyone who votes for amnesty no matter who is running.

    • knowshistory

      sorry, dav, you arent going to like democonservatives any better. demoserves are only allowed by their demotraitor party bosses to vote conservative if the issue will not be changed by their vote. if their vote matters, they are only allowed to vote for the liberal choice. this is a lot like the republicans. if their vote doesnt matter, they are conservative. when it does matter, they are liberals. it really does not matter who you vote for, what you get is liberalism.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    As for as a practical solution to our illegal alien problems are concerned, there is only one solution that is practical as for as I’m concerned, and that is to seal off the border then to follow up by throwing those that hire illegal aliens under the jail. Once illegal aliens realize they can no longer work in America, they will have no other choice but to self-deport or otherwise starve.

    Nevertheless, with respect to terrorists sneaking in through our porous borders goes, that is not a major concern for me because I know that Muslims are not terrorists since terrorism is not holy fighting in the cause of Allah to establish Islam via the imposition of Sharia. Instead, that is jihad and jihadists don’t have to sneak in via our very porous borders, because they are invited and welcomed in mass right through the front door via our very insane State Department.

  • nimbii

    One thing’s for sure, if illlegals were voting Republican, Obama, Pilosi, Reed and the rest would be down on the border in battle fatigues sporting an M24 on each hip to keep the illegals out of the US and the MSM would be providing breathtaking coverage all the way.

  • Rodonaves
  • Jeff Ludwig

    Excellent article. It’s settled in my mind. In New York City, ads supposedly under “Conservative” auspices are stating that there is an illegal immigrant problem that has to be solved. My question: what is the problem? Doing nothing is better than encouraging this behavior by giving amnesty.

  • GSR

    It’s all about the DC Elite “electing a new people”, that is, replacing native-born Americans with grade-school educated peasants,who will be more “graeful” to their Big Government largess.

  • USARetired

    The Gang of Eight should be ‘Keel hauled’ and ‘Recalled’, as traitors to their country!

  • dizzyizzy

    Immigration reform has now turned into an almost hysterical debate, with the Right split on the question. I called for a less apocalyptic view of the matter here: http://clarespark.com/2013/06/21/apocalypse-and-the-escape-artist/. “Apocalypse and the Escape Artist.”

    • Raymond Golich

      Only govt dependent lefties want to flood the country with uneducated peasants, who just curiously, usually support leftist policies by roughly 75%. Hmm, I wonder why conservatives oppose this Democrat Voter Drive of 2013?

      • dizzyizzy

        Not true, Raymond. A segment of right-wing thought wants immigration reform. The Wall Street Journal editorial page is on board with it. They may be moderates to you, but to the Democratic Party, they are rightists. Open-borders libertarians also favor the measure.

        • GSR

          Well Dizzy, you are cherry-picking small groups. Libertarians are insignifcant, mostly young, pot smoking idiots. WSJ editoris are very moderate and only interested in GDP. Most Americans favor deporation. 99% of today’s Democrats are either foolish, govt. dependent or just gaming the system in order to get elected, aka Barry Soetoro.

          • Guest

            Check out Laura Ingraham right now on Fox.

          • dizzyizzy

            Bill O’Reilly has a huge audience, and I doubt he would commit financial suicide by going against them. Laura I. sitting in for him now. I did say that there was a split. Why not acknowledge that there is controversy?

          • GSR

            THere is a “split” among the govt/media elite. Not among the right of center public. Why would anyone other than a Democrat hack support this bill that will bring 30+ million more people here in the next ten years? Nearly all poor, lowly educated and already left leaning?
            This bill is a “get out the vote” Democrate voter drive. Nothing more. It will make it such that the GOP or any right of center, patriotic, nationalist, small govt. candidate can never win any election.
            Masses of “non-Americans” will swing every election. President’s Zero’s legacy. And one he keenly is aware of. This is his purpose, to shatter White, Christian Americans into irrelevancy.

          • dizzyizzy

            Where is your defense of persons like me, who partly agree with you, but are put off by the “White Christian Americans” remark? I am of Jewish ancestry, am “secular” and am as worried as you are about the Democratic machine and lawlessness in general. Had my ancestors not fled Europe, I would not be alive today, and am as good a patriot as you are.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Obama wants to subjugate you too, Izzy. He hates Dem Joos more than any other “Whites.” Beig secular wont protect you if he gets his way.

          • dizzyizzy

            I am not a Democrat.

  • http://www.americarepublicspring.com/ Marvin E. Fox

    Any new law used to control the border will be as useful as the ineffective laws presently being ignored that have left it open. We are expected by Democrats and Republicans to believe a new incremental approach to solving the the undocumented Democrat problem( previously the undocumented worker/illegal alien/ immigration problem) will work even though the laws that should have worked, didn’t. We have governors, and mayors of cities who have vocally and factually nullified Federal Law by declaring areas of our Republic as areas where illegals are welcome and whose illegal status will not be challenged. They have not been charged with that nullification of law.
    The old laws would have worked if they had been enforced. Why would any sensible person believe your new laws would be enforced while you refuse to enforce the laws we have.
    Constitution Art. 4 Sec. 4, states, The United States…shall protect each of them (the States) against invasion…! Neither political Party has done that. None of our national politicians have done that. You aren’t going to do that.Your new undocumented Democrat/illegal alien/undocumented worker/immigration reform Bill is not worth the paper it is written on until that is done.
    Marvin Fox

  • AmericaFirst

    The utter “chutzpah” of neocon jews whining about this is astounding, when neocon jews opened up the floodgates to third-world immigration in the first place. Watch and learn, goyim. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBex8dMJ_jo

    • ziggy zoggy

      Sig Heil!

  • emptorpreempted

    If the current immigration laws are not being enforced, then it should be obvious that passing more laws is not the answer.

  • Raymond – Jesus is Lord.

    New Immigration Laws

    Be sure to read to the bottom or you will miss the message…

    1. There will be no special bilingual programs in the schools.

    2. All ballots will be in this nation’s language.

    3. All government business will be conducted in our language.

    4. Non-residents will NOT have the right to vote no matter how long
    they are here.

    5. Non-citizens will NEVER be able to hold political office.

    6. Foreigners will not be a burden to the taxpayers. No welfare, no
    food stamps, no health care, or any other government assistance
    programs. Any who are a burden will be deported.

    7. Foreigners can invest in this country, but it must be an amount
    at least equal to 40,000 times the daily minimum wage.

    8. If foreigners come here and buy land, their options will be restricted.
    Certain parcels including waterfront property are reserved for
    citizens naturally born into this country.

    9. Foreigners may have NO protests; NO demonstrations, NO waving
    of a foreign flag, no political organizing, NO bad-mouthing our
    president or his policies. These will lead to deportation.

    10. If you do come to this country illegally, you will be actively hunted
    and, when caught, sent to jail until your deportation can be arranged.
    All assets will be taken from you.

    Too strict?

    The above laws are the current immigration
    laws of MEXICO!

    • ziggy zoggy

      Bazinga!

  • cynthia curran

    The Republican leadership ran to Loretta Sanchez district which has not been Republican since she defeated Bob Dornan in 1996. The OC Register a libertarian rag wrote wrote about the Hispanic pandering in Sanchez’s district which is Santa Ana, Garden Grove and Anaheim. Most Republicans here hate California, so why does the leadership the Chariman and latin Republicans go to Santa Ana. Bush won but lots of offices in those cities, Santa Ana, Garden Grove, and parts of West Anaheim vote Democratic. On the other hand, cities with more professional folks in Orange County where the Republicans have lost like Irvine are completely ignored, and recently a Republican Korean Steve Choi had won in Irivne but whites and asians do not have kids as much as Hispanics so the fastest growing city in Orange County was ignored by the Republican elite.

  • triopticaonline

    Terapia complicat