Also from Lou Dobbs

Top 5 Dumbest Things in the Immigration Bill
5) Taxpayers will pay for the immigration lawyers for illegal aliens if working in agriculture.
4) Illegal aliens would be given legal status just one day after their application is filed even if a background check is not completed.
3) Gang members are eligible for amnesty if they renounce their gang status.
2) Borders do not have to be secure before the amnesty program begins.
1) $2,600,000,000,000 -- That is the cost the Heritage Foundation estimates to cover the retirement benefits of 12,000,000 illegal aliens if this amnesty bill becomes law.

From Lou Dobbs Tonight.

I am not alone.

Do you believe states should be required to notify ICE when they have criminal illegal aliens in their prisons?
Yes
97%
11587
No
3%
379
Total Votes: 11966

From Lou Dobbs Tonight.

A beautiful quote.

Here is a statement from Fred Thompson.

"Twelve million illegal immigrants later, we are now living in a nation that is beset by people who are suicidal maniacs and want to kill countless innocent men, women and children around the world," the former Tennessee senator said. "We're sitting here now with essentially open borders."

How much more Illegal???

Ok, I just love it when an Illegal Immigrant proves me right. I do not even think I need to add my two cents to this story.

Dad pleads not guilty to drunken driving, hit-and-run charges

By Dana Littlefield
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
July 19, 2007
DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO – A father accused of driving drunk and fleeing the
freeway crash that killed his 9-year-old son pleaded not guilty yesterday to
gross vehicular manslaughter and other charges.
Marcos Munoz Sanchez, 33,
faces several felony and misdemeanor charges, including child endangerment,
driving under the influence and hit-and-run. If convicted, he could be sent to
prison for up to 15 years.
San Diego Superior Court Judge David M. Szumowski
set bail for Munoz at $500,000.
Deputy District Attorney Melissa Vasel said
Munoz was driving on Interstate 8 near Texas Street on Saturday when he crashed
into a car parked on the shoulder around 1:40 a.m. His son, Alex Munoz , was in
the passenger seat and died as a result of the impact.
Vasel told the judge
that a witness came out of a nearby restaurant shortly after the crash and saw a
man running from the area. Later, police saw a white pickup circling the
restaurant parking lot.
Vasel said police saw the same truck again later
that day near the family's Linda Vista apartment and contacted the men inside.
Marcos Munoz , the passenger, had minor injuries and glass in his hair and
clothes, authorities said. Another man, Raul Munoz Sanchez, was driving the
pickup. The men are believed to be related, Vasel said.
Raul Munoz , 33,
pleaded not guilty yesterday to a charge of being an accessory after the fact
and several misdemeanors, including drunken driving. He could be sent to prison
for up to three years if convicted. He is being held in county jail in lieu of
$50,000 bail.
Vasel told the judge that Raul Munoz 's blood-alcohol content
was measured at 0.19 percent after his arrest. Marcos Munoz 's blood-alcohol
content measured 0.11 percent a little more than three hours after the
collision. The legal threshold for drunken driving is 0.08 percent.
Deputy
Public Defender Paul Rodriguez said Marcos Munoz has no significant criminal
record, except for a misdemeanor conviction from 2005. Both men work in
construction.
Police have said that both men were in the country illegally
and were not licensed drivers.

I heard this all before...

Ok, here we go again. The fear mongers are freaking out and saying we will all suffer and be hurt if we do something to help ourselves. I guess those who believe them on this issue believed we would have unending bloodshed and gun battles on our streets when states began offering Concealed Weapons Permits on a Shall Issue basis. Here is what I am talking about.

This comes from Seatle P.I.

Employers brace for crackdown on immigrants

Restaurants and hotels worry they will lose workers

By DAN RICHMANP-I REPORTER

Restaurants, hotels and other low-wage Washington businesses could be
hit hard by tough new immigration rules released Friday, union officials here
said, echoing concerns from labor groups and employers across the country.

Among the most worrisome are new requirements on employers over whether
a worker's name and Social Security number match federal records.

The new rules, which take effect in 30 days, say that, under some
circumstances, employers will be required to fire employees with non-matching
Social Security numbers or face legal sanctions.

Several employers declined this week to talk about the changes, perhaps
fearing they would invite unwanted attention if they acknowledged hiring
undocumented workers.
But unions providing those employers with workers --
many of them undocumented -- said the companies are alarmed.

"The companies I deal with in the janitorial industry are very
concerned about this, because some of them get no-match letters. But you can't
just by that expect to know whether a person is documented," said Sergio
Salinas, president of Service Employees International Union Local 6.
"They
are trying to comply, but they say it could happen they have undocumented
workers, and they're worried they won't be able to continue their business
normally."

SEIU Local 6 represents 3,700 cleaners and security guards at
commercial buildings in King County and in Tacoma. Among them are a significant
number of undocumented workers, Salinas said.

"Normally the cleaning industry is an entry-level job for immigrants,"
he said. "We don't know and we don't want to know if they're here illegally.
That's for the employer to find out."
Under the rules issued by the Bush
administration, employers who receive a so-called no-match letter must be able
to show within 90 days why an employee's Social Security number does not match
the government database. The reason could be a clerical error or a name change
because of marriage. However, if legal status can't be confirmed, the employee
must be fired.

Employers who don't comply could be fined up to $10,000 per worker or
face criminal penalties.
"There has been ambiguity about how employers should
respond" when a worker's name and number don't match the database, said
Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman Veronica Valdes in an interview
Thursday. "We're going to eliminate that. We're not going to accept
excuses."

Some employers are worried because names and Social Security numbers
often don't match the Social Security Administration database owing to typos,
clerical errors, misunderstandings or cultural differences in naming
practices.

Under the new rules, employers effectively become surrogates for the
government, charged with determining the validity of documents workers give them
and facing penalties if they're wrong, the unions said. The unions also fear
that employers will fire workers indiscriminately rather than risking federal
sanctions.

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and Commerce Secretary
Carlos Gutierrez said they were forced to beef up enforcement after Congress
failed to pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill.

"We're going as far as we possibly can without Congress acting," White
House spokeswoman Dana Perino said.

Recognizing the crackdown could hurt some industries, particularly
agriculture, Gutierrez said the Labor Department will try to make existing
temporary worker programs easier to use and more efficient.

The American Farm Bureau Federation, an industry group representing 75
percent of U.S. farmers, estimates at least half the nation's 1 million farm
workers lack valid Social Security numbers. Losing them would devastate the
industry, particularly fruit and vegetable growers, which rely heavily on manual
labor, farmers said.

Other new rules beef up security at the U.S. borders, strengthen
efforts to keep out gang members, toughen requirements that temporary workers
leave the country when their visas expire and standardize the naturalization
test.

But attracting the most attention are the changes in how employers must
respond to no-match letters.

United Here Local 8 in Seattle, a union of 5,000 Washington hotel and
restaurant employees, attacked the rules. Research analyst Stefan Moritz called
them "increased enforcement measures without any solution in terms of a path to
citizenship."

He predicted that the rules "will definitely be a factor in the
hospitality industry."

Employers of construction workers worry they're being
pushed into serving as the government's proxy for determining a worker's
citizenship, said Eric Franklin, a spokesman for the Pacific Northwest Regional
Council of Carpenters, which represents about 8,500 carpenters in Western
Washington.

"The documents workers give you often appear to be authentic," Franklin
said. "If they later turn out not to be, how were employers supposed to know
that? The devil is in the details, and there will be lawsuits for years to come
if these rules go into effect."

The building trades are filled with undocumented workers, many of whom
have moved from agriculture because the money is better, Franklin said.

Restaurants in Washington employ about 178,000 workers, some
undocumented, "working and paying taxes -- but we're not giving them a pathway
to citizenship," said Anthony Anton, chief executive of the Washington
Restaurant Association.

Conservative groups lauded the move, saying it would be welcomed by
those tired of watching illegal immigrants and their employers go
unchallenged.

"We wish they had done this earlier, but even at this late stage, they
have an opportunity to regain the confidence and support of the American
public," said Dan Stein, president of Federation for American Immigration
Reform.

Immigrant-rights organizations blasted the new rules as
counterproductive.

"They would simply drive folks who are fired further underground, or
the employers will pay them off the books," said Shankar Narayan, policy
director for Seattle's Hate Free Zone, a rights organization serving the Pacific
Northwest.

"We know the fired employees won't simply leave the country. They'll
stick around to find even more marginal jobs."

About 2.5 million unauthorized workers arrived in the U.S. between 2000
and 2005, according to an April 2006 report from the Pew Hispanic Center.

"There's an economic reality that employers can't meet their labor
needs given the unreasonable visa caps, so it's hardly surprising some employers
are hiring undocumented folks," Narayan said.

"It's a system not satisfactory for either workers or
employers."

RULES AT A GLANCE

The 26 rules announced by the Department of Homeland Security and U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement affect border security, guest-worker
programs, the workplace and assimilation into U.S. culture. Among other things,
they:

• 
  Reduce the number of documents usable to prove citizenship.
• 
  Raise fines 25 percent on employers who knowingly hire illegal
  immigrants and expand investigations into such employers.
• 
  Mandate a revised naturalization test.

So, there is one story, and now let us pick apart the Fear Mongers statements.

Restaurants, hotels and other low-wage Washington businesses could be hit hard
by tough new immigration rules released Friday, union officials here said,
echoing concerns from labor groups and employers across the country.

Hit hard? All I have to say to that is they should be hit hard if they have not been obeying federal laws concerning Illegal Immigrants. Half the reason these are "low-wage" jobs is because they want to pay low wages to boost the profits. In addition to that, Illegals are willing to work for almost anything, which allows the business' to pay less, hurting the Legal worker and citizens.

Several employers declined this week to talk about the changes, perhaps
fearing they would invite unwanted attention if they acknowledged hiring
undocumented workers.

If they have been hiring Illegal Immigrants, they should be in FEAR of needed attention. If you have been breaking the law, you should fear the law. It is really simple, to avoid fines and punishment, do not break the law.

But unions providing those employers with workers -- many of them undocumented
-- said the companies are alarmed.

Alarmed? I am alarmed that our society can see this issue of crime as acceptable. The only way we can stop the Illegal Immigrants from coming here is to dry up the work. I have no quarter for anyone hiring Illegals. If you knowingly hire Illegals, you should go to prison.

"The companies I deal with in the janitorial industry are very
concerned about this, because some of them get no-match letters. But
you can't just by that expect to know whether a person is documented," said
Sergio Salinas, president of Service Employees International Union Local 6.

Very concerned about what? If you receive a "No-match letter" all you have to do is get the person to prove themselves to you. If you have a valid drivers license, or a passport, your all good. If you cannot produce one of these or get one in 90 days, could it be you are Illegal? The only people I have met who cannot get these who are citizens are trying to hide from warrants and child support. So as I said before, this is not a bad thing.

"They are trying to comply, but they say it could happen they have
undocumented workers, and they're worried they won't be able to
continue their business normally."

If I was a business owner, and I found out I had an Illegal working for me, I wouldn't be worried, I would fire them as soon as ICE arrived to deport them. It isn't that hard to figure out the solution here. If people cannot identify themselves, do not hire them.

"Normally the cleaning industry is an entry-level job for immigrants," he said.
"We don't know and we don't want to know if they're here
illegally. That's for the employer to find out."

I guess he made his point here. The Unions do not care, they just want their due money! This is the problem, people are getting rich off of these Illegals, and if they get booted, they will lose that additional income. If they knew, they would be required to do something. It is easier to collect the money and say nothing. But wait, see how he shifts the problem back onto the "business owners"?

Some employers are worried because names and Social Security numbers often
don't match the Social Security Administration database owing to typos, clerical
errors, misunderstandings or cultural differences in naming practices.

Alright, I will give into the fact the government does sometimes screw up, but that's what this program was created for originally. It wasn't created to hunt Illegals, but to fix problems. Our government didn't want the money you earned going to the wrong person. Now, in addition to that, our government realized that you could easily track Illegals the same way they do people owing child support. This isn't new nor novel in any terms.

Under the new rules, employers effectively become surrogates for the
government, charged with determining the validity of documents workers give them
and facing penalties if they're wrong, the unions said. The unions also fear
that employers will fire workers indiscriminately rather than risking federal
sanctions.

More BS. The unions should know better than to bring this one up because the unions are responsible for helping create laws against unlawful terminations. Look up "Wrongful Termination" and you will find laws against this, so this is more FEAR MONGERING. If you win one of these lawsuits, you can be sitting really pretty.

The American Farm Bureau Federation, an industry group representing 75
percent of U.S. farmers, estimates at least half the nation's 1 million farm
workers lack valid Social Security numbers. Losing them would
devastate the industry, particularly fruit and vegetable growers, which rely
heavily on manual labor, farmers said.

When I was born, my parents filed paperwork regarding this matter so I got a Social Security number. So either we have a butt load of stupid parents out there, or these employers already knew they were hiring Illegals, or they would never say such a statement. Quite honestly, if they wouldn't have been cutting their costs by hiring cheap Illegal laborers, they wouldn't have this problem. I am sure people were upset when they made Drunk Driving illegal. Now they would get in trouble for doing something wrong. Oh, and are we saying that we, the most advanced country in the world cannot create equipment to do these jobs? I bet it is already out there and these people are just being too cheap to buy it, or invest in it being made. Sorry, your bad, not mine.

United Here Local 8 in Seattle, a union of 5,000 Washington hotel and restaurant
employees, attacked the rules. Research analyst Stefan Moritz called them "increased enforcement measures without any solution in terms of a path
to citizenship."

Excuse me? Have you ever seen our immigration laws? They are quite easy to follow as long as you can read. We do not have racist policies, or even homophobic ones. We actually have the easiest immigration policy in this world. If these people would have done it the Legal way, they wouldn't need a Solution. How backwards can you get?
"I stole this watch because I didn't have money. If you would have given me money, I wouldn't have stolen it from you!" This is exactly what they are saying. Another way to say this is "I wouldn't have to be in prison if you wouldn't have made murder a crime!"

Employers of construction workers worry they're being pushed into serving as the government's proxy for determining a worker's citizenship, said
Eric Franklin, a spokesman for the Pacific Northwest Regional Council of
Carpenters, which represents about 8,500 carpenters in Western Washington.

Hmmm, how many other things are we proxy for? Do we make sure federal laws concerning Child Labor are obeyed? Or how about making sure Woman can have jobs? How about obeying any other Fair Labor standard like the federal minimum wages laws are complied with. We do it every day, so why try to separate this issue? How does this differ? It doesn't.

"The documents workers give you often appear to be authentic," Franklin said.
"If they later turn out not to be, how were employers supposed to know that? The
devil is in the details, and there will be lawsuits for years to come if these
rules go into effect."

That's what this program is for, to help you! If they do not match, find out why. What lawsuits? An employer can retain the employee if they decide to. If they are proven wrong, they will be fined. They give you 90 days, or three months. I am sure any legal person can solve this problem in Three Months. So what are you going to sue about? I knowingly hired an Illegal, and you fined me for it. I am going to sue you because I broke the law! Always trying to scare people with lawsuits. More Fear Mongering. Whatever...

Restaurants in Washington employ about 178,000 workers, some undocumented,
"working and paying taxes -- but we're not giving them a
pathway to citizenship," said Anthony Anton, chief executive of the Washington
Restaurant Association.

Are they really paying taxes? How? If they do not have a valid Social Security number, they are not paying taxes. At least, not for themselves, but for whomever they stole the Social Security from. Identity Theft is a crime, plain and simple. Are they getting a tax return? Isn't that tax fraud? That's a federal crime also. I bet if they even file, they are claiming every credit out there to get more back. More fraud. So, people want you to forget that they broke the law in the original action of coming here Illegally. They skipped their pathway to citizenship in the original act, so why should we do anything for them as a benefit for them? "Ah, sir, you ran over that child with you car back in that playground. Here are keys to a new house." No, we do not reward criminals!

"They would simply drive folks who are fired further
underground, or the employers will pay them off the books," said
Shankar Narayan, policy director for Seattle's Hate Free Zone, a rights
organization serving the Pacific Northwest.

First, since when are we not supposed to Hate people who break our laws? Some criminals I just dislike, others I cannot stand, and others, I truly Hate them. Does this group say we shouldn't hate child raping killers too? Do you want to know why someone might hate these Illegal Immigrants? It is because we law abiding people feel cheated, wronged, and stabbed in the back. I hope the place further underground they are driven to is the border, or where ever they came from. Employers can pay them off of the books, but I would hate to be audited and explaining why I pay out so much cash every two weeks.

"There's an economic reality that employers can't meet their labor needs
given the unreasonable visa caps, so it's hardly surprising
some employers are hiring undocumented folks," Narayan said.

I will tell you what is unreasonable here. The rate of pay. The companies are upset they would have to follow federal wage laws, and also pay a living wage to Americans. All citizens will do better if we remove this crap from business. How many good people lost jobs and business' because of these jerks undercutting them with Illegal workers? Compete on a level field, and the best service provider will win. Illegal workers hurt the legal workers in compressed wages, and that is a fact.

"It's a system not satisfactory for either workers or
employers."

It is for me and everyone I know. Our wages will increase, our taxes will go to Legal Citizens, and not Illegals. It is so satisfactory, I am gleeful to see this actually happen. I notice they always ignore how we, the blue collar has been hurt by this nationwide. This is good for all citizens who have not been trying to get rich off of Illegal Immigrants. Those using Illegal Immigrants for work, and paying them substandard wages are just like SLAVE OWNERS!

Maybe that should be the headline here. SLAVE OWNERS FEAR REAL WAGES!

Impressed

Alright, I do have to say I am impressed by David Skaggs. He actually wrote me back, which is a first. In addition to this, he explained himself. Here is his letter.

Dear Mr. Peterson,


Thank you for letting me know your views on this
issue.


I’m afraid you may have misread the story in Friday’s paper
or heard or read some of the news coverage that omitted a key fact. I was not
addressing the question of resident tuition for illegal aliens. My point is that
all Colorado students who are legal U. S. citizens should be treated the same
way, without respect to whether their parents are undocumented. The statute that
prescribes tuition status also require schools to determine the residency or
domicile of a student’s parents. I believe there is an equal protection issue
under the 14th Amendment to the U. S. Constitution if certain Colorado students
who are citizens are treated differently based solely on the status of their
parents. These are students who typically have graduated from Colorado high
schools, are over 18 (and so viewed legally as adults for many purposes) and are
qualified and encouraged to continue their education. The best estimate is that
there may be 75 students in the state in this unusual category – students who
are legal Colorado residents and U. S. citizens, but with parents in Colorado
who are not able to document their immigration status. I suggest that we will
all be better off if they achieve the highest level of education of which they
are capable and so are in a position as adults to be productive, tax-paying
citizens. You might also be interested in the analysis in this morning’s Rocky
Mountain News editorial:
www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/editorials/article/0,2777,DRMN_23964_5664771,00.html.

Best wishes,

Alright, I am glad I wrote him, and that he explained his standing. If you come across my blog David, good show sir. I cannot complain if it is a legal citizen, I do begrudge his parents for being criminals however.

It sounds good...

Here is an article from the Wall Street Journal.

Proving
Worker Status Poses Burden to Farms

By JUNE KRONHOLZ
August 9, 2007; Page A7

WASHINGTON -- Employers warned of labor shortages, particularly in
agriculture during the fall harvest, as the Bush administration appeared ready
to implement new rules that would press employers to fire workers who appear to
be in the U.S. illegally.

"With no expectation there's a fall-back workforce, you'll put
employers in the position of either firing workers or losing their crops," said
Craig Regelbrugge of the American Nursery and Landscape Association, a trade
group.

The administration is under pressure from voters, and particularly
Republican conservatives, to show it's tough on illegal immigration after an
immigration bill supported by President Bush collapsed in the Senate in June.
The administration's apparent intention to proceed with the regulations, a year
after first proposing them, was reported earlier by the Los Angeles Times.

The regulations will require employers to play a greater role in
verifying that their workers are in the U.S. legally, potentially putting new
administrative burdens on industries, particularly agriculture, health care and
construction, that typically hire large numbers of immigrants.

In return for the increased records checks and a willingness to fire
suspected illegal immigrants, the regulations offer employers "safe harbor"
protections against prosecution for illegal hiring.
The Department of
Homeland Security said it would implement the regulations "in the very near
term," without saying when. But if that happens during the harvest season, trade
groups predicted huge problems for growers who already face labor shortages. An
estimated two-thirds of agriculture workers are thought to be in the U.S.
illegally.

The department first proposed the regulations in June 2006 but then
failed to implement them while an immigration-overhaul made its way to the
Senate floor. That bill collapsed in part because of a public outcry over the
administration's lax enforcement of immigration laws already on the books.

Currently, an employer reports a new worker's name and Social Security
number with the Social Security Administration, and if the two don't match
government records, the employer receives a so-called "no-match" letter. The
department sends a similar letter if the worker's name doesn't match the
identity document that the worker shows to prove he or she has the right to work
in the U.S.

Employers aren't required to act on those letters, so workers can
present counterfeit or stolen Social Security numbers without much danger of
being challenged by labor-hungry bosses.

Under the new regulations, employers would have to sort out the
discrepancy by asking the worker for new identity and immigration documents. If
the problem still isn't resolved, the regulations say that "the employer must
choose between taking action to terminate the employee or facing the risk" of
prosecution. Employers who complete and document the multi-step verification
process and still don't discover that the worker is an illegal immigrant also
wouldn't be prosecuted under the department's safe-harbor provision.

The new rules "will provide clarity for employers," said Russ Knocke, a
DHS spokesman.
Industries with largely legal workforces will take some
comfort in the safe-harbor provisions, said Scott Vinson of the National Council
of Chain Restaurants, a trade group. But employers in industries that are highly
dependent on immigrants predicted the regulations could lead to a slowing
economy.

"Employers might have to start firing, and then you might have a
workforce that's barely adequate," said Shawn McBurney of the American Hotel and
Lodging Association.
The regulations also are likely to cause paperwork
burdens for employers in low-skill industries, which typically have high
turnover and attract immigrant workers. Those employers will be faced with
sorting through the documents of workers suspected of being in the U.S.
illegally, but also of workers who receive no-match letters because of clerical
errors, name changes or records confusion.

The regulation could quiet criticism by Republican conservatives that
the administration's failure to enforce immigration laws is attracting some half
million illegal immigrants yearly. Under pressure from those critics, the
administration has vastly stepped up worksite enforcement in the past year.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents made 3,839 worksite arrests in the
first eight months of the current fiscal year, up from 1,282 in 2005, according
to a department Web site.

But advocates of immigration overhaul contend that tougher enforcement
will create labor shortages and drive illegal workers into the underground
economy, but it won't keep them from coming. Mr. Regelbrugge also predicted that
employers would move more operations overseas or, as with agriculture, to Mexico
and Canada. "Doing enforcement only is going to have tremendous downside
consequences on the economy," he said.

Write to June Kronholz at june.kronholz@wsj.com

Now I, as I said in the post prior to this about this issue, do not have a problem with this. If we would have had our government Enforcing laws already on the books for the years that have passed before this, it wouldn't have been such a hit. However, in saying that, is it really going to be that painful? This makes me remember those who cried "streets of blood" and "non-stop gunfire everywhere" when states passed Right To Carry laws. It never happened. So I doubt that the pain will be more than a drop of rain on my head.