Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Shooting Ethicists For Fun And Profit

Well, just the fun part anyway. Still haven't made a profit of this blog or any of the shootings I've been involved with. But, I digress. The New York Times inhouse not-so-Ethicist Randy Cohen has sent his commandments down from on high. Thou shalt not kill wolves for fun. http://ethicist.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/08/killing-wolves-for-fun/?ex=1269835200&en=564ba59ad5a3c718&ei=5087&WT.mc_id=GN-D-I-NYT-MOD-MOD-M116-ROS-0909-L2&WT.mc_ev=click

As a good liberal, he, of course, does not confuse the issue with thinking, but in an appeal to a higher authority, Peter Singer, of child-killer fame. He also agreed that rape is different from rape-rape and does not apply to Hollywood celebrities.

Interestingly he concedes on the non-recreational issue of shooting wolves: "To be clear, I concede all putatively practical justifications for hunting and repudiate only the idea that hunting is a legitimate recreation." Of course, the operative word is "putative", which will be challenged once the author gets the Wise Latina to impose a ban on recreational hunting. A ban on non-recreational hunting is certainly around the corner for those unwilling to take their own food, just as Stalin was unwilling to shoot Trotsky, Buhkarin, Kaminev, etc, himself. A good liberal always has a functionary to do his wet-work.

So, just what is the moral dimension of hunting for food if you enjoy it? And if his unholiness Peter Singer approves of child-killing, what is the status of shooting ethicists at bankrupt newspapers? Do ethicists at bankrupt newspapers serve a purpose similar to immature children and those unborn as Singer says? Does it matter if one would enjoy shooting an ethicist? And what of the putative benefits of shooting ethicists? Is it still moral if you enjoy it? What if you approve of the benefits? Like few dead trees. Do trees have rights like wolves? If not, what separates them? We make board games of paper. Is a board game recreation? Or just a game? Is it worth the life of a tree? Is it ethical to allow ethicists to have a carbon footprint? Because the EPA says carbon dioxide is a pollutant, is an ethicist a polluter?

Inquiring minds want to know. Do tell Randy Cohen, if that is your real name.

Sunday, September 27, 2009

The Case For Profiling

Al Queda has developed a bomb that can be placed inside the anus of a suicide bomber and the bomb cannot be detected by conventional metal detectors currently deployed by airport security worldwide. http://hotair.com/archives/2009/09/27/video-the-implications-of-the-body-bomb/

This makes the case for religious and ethnic profiling air tight. It also makes the case for prohibiting the entry of any Muslim into the United States crystal clear.

One Out Of Three Ain't Bad, Sort Of

Time had an article on three important questions regarding the arrest of the Muslim terrorist (as if those two don't always go together) Najibullah Zazi. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1926292,00.html (h/t Hot Air http://hotair.com/)

Of course two of the questions were either stupid or were not really important questions. Time first asks why did he do it? Well, because he is a practicing Muslim. The more a Muslim practices his religion, the more likely he is to be engaged in terrorism on non-Muslims.

The next question asked is who are his associates. Well, the FBI arrest two of his assosicates and reports show that many others are under surveillance, and, might I add, unlikely to be arrested or deported for their conspiracy. The FBI is acutally on the ball regarding this issue. It will just be a matter of will for Eric Holder to actually prosecute a Muslim and Janet Reno Napalitano to deport a Muslim in this case. Both are unlikely to agressively prosecute or deport the arrested trio or the other unnamed co-conspirators. They just don't want to do that to people of color and their political allies. Similar to the cases with ACORN and the violent SEIU. But, in any event the accomplices remain at large. http://wire.antiwar.com/2009/09/28/ap-source-nyc-terror-probe-focuses-on-accomplices/

However, the third question was the real question, sort of: Where was he recruited? While Al Queda is now relying on the decentralized method of guerilla warfare, Zazi was not so different from many decentralized groups in that he did travel to Pakistan to receive training. Some of the 7/7 bombers in the UK traveled to Pakistan for training, most others from other plots in the UK did not, but received trainign from those who did. Zazi appears to be a trainer and organizer. It is unlikely that someone in Denver would be the operational commander of action taken in NYC and it is most likely that the actual intended perpetrators of the terrorist acts themselves are still at large. http://wire.antiwar.com/2009/09/28/ap-source-nyc-terror-probe-focuses-on-accomplices/

But back to the real question, not so much where he was recruited, but who put him in contact with those in the know. It is clear that Zazi had the motivation and hatred of the U.S. and we made no effort to keep him out of the U.S. There was no attempt to screen him or his father for hatred of the U.S. during the legal immigration process.

It appears that the center of the conspiracy is the imam of the mosque he attended in NYC is the recruiter and organizer of the action; Ahmad Wais Afzali, who is also a double agent, serving as an informant to the NYPD. In this position he misdirected law enforcement activity away from the real plots and at hapless crazies not involved or provided essentially useless information to the authorities. Or maybe he just served as connection to the "community." Of course the NYPD, the FBI, and law enforcement in general are all about making contact with mosque leaders, but usually the information flow is one way, to the jihadis.

It works like this: A Muslim agent or officer, himself a likely subject for either recruitment or being a double agent, contacts the mosque leader and offers assistance on issues ranging from parking to hate crimes to membership on an advisory committee. In return he asks about radicals. The leader misdirects the officer or agent to some loner radical, probably mentally defective or a poor security risk for the real terrorists. Law enforcement spends many useless hours tracking those they were misdirected to. Or perhaps they are for real, perhaps a self created cell that could bring the heat down on the real plot, so they are a sacrifice. Sometimes it is all a game and those who were identified by the mosque leader are in on it and have lawyers and counter surveillance ready similar to the case where the ACLU spied on CIA agents. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/aclu_spies_endanger_america_3sv8REoFioQIHcaF1ROXoO Here you get a bonus, ostensibly innocent Muslims spied upon by the government. Then the Muslims are able to get a financial award from the courts.

But the real question in the end is why are these people here in the first place. The bearded Zazi and Afzali should have never been allowed into the U.S. in the first place. Zazi's father, Mohammed Wali Zazi, is a more interesting question. He most likely entered the U.S. many more years ago, perhaps claiming oppression from the Soviets or the Taliban, and he doesn't wear a beard. Perhaps he did that purposely, but it is also likely he just became more of a Muslim while in the U.S., radicalized in the process at a Wahabbi mosque. The imam probably came to the U.S. on a R visa for religious workers.

We are literally commiting suicide by immigration.

Saturday, September 26, 2009

Shades of 9/11

The Bush Administration had a policy of not enforcing immigration law within the U.S. The result was their enabling of the 9/11 terrorists. The Obama Regime has the same policy and they almost allowed another 9/11. Hosam Maher Husein Smadi, a Jordanian Muslim and in the U.S. on an expired student visa was planning another 9/11, whether in connection with the other recent arrests in Denver, New York and Illinois is not known. http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/wfaa/latestnews/stories/wfaa090925_wz_studentvisas.1b7ce84f0.html

Smadi is an erie replay of 9/11, even being stopped by local police for a crime he should have been arrested for in any event, but any alien should have been arrested for as a matter of routine. A number of the 9/11 hijackers were similarly arrested for various traffic offenses and released. http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/01/08/inv.hijacker.video/index.html It is clear that both plots could have either been stopped or stopped sooner had local police been required to inquire and hold aliens who have been arrested or cited for any offense. We were lucky with Smadi, as his plot was uncovered by the FBI, and not ICE by the way. However, Smadi's plot could have thwarted sooner by basic immigration law enforcement and ending the wall of separation between local agencies and federal immigration enforcement.

It appears though with the Obama Regime ending local enforcement, the likely hood of another terrorist attack in the U.S. will increase. This week alone four major plots were thwarted. Who knows what else is out there.

Sunday, September 20, 2009

No ICE With That Arrest

A group of aliens have been arrested for terrorism. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090920/ap_on_re_us/us_nyc_terror Of course, they were arrested by the FBI. They were not arrested by the Department of Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). According to AILA, the immigration attorney group, they should have been arrested by ICE. They say that because they don't want ICE actually doing their job, which is arresting illegal aliens. (Sorry no link to their despicable website. It should only be viewed by those with training and knowledge, as they lie and distort. Without the proper background you could easily be deceived.)

Unfortuneately, Janet Reno Napalitano, thinks that ICE should be in the business of arresting terrorists, and has warned us all about the threat of American abortion protestors, veterns and gun owners. It never occured to Janet Reno Napalitano that ICE has no jurisdiction over such domestic terrorists, but Janet Reno Napalitano wants her own Waco and Ruby Ridge.

The interesting thing above about the arrests is that all were charged with 18 United States Code, Section 1001, False Statements. Unfortuneately the maximum penalty for those violations is 5 years in jail or 8 if the government proves a terrorism connection, but in acual practice, a first time offender gets a sentence of only 0-6 months per the sentencing guidelines, with 99% of those convicted getting only probation.

What will actually happen is that only one of those involved will be convicted and will get the minimum sentence, then there will be 10 years of fighting this case in deportation proceedings, with the defendant claiming that he will be tortured once he is returned to Afghanistan. So, in the end, this will all be about nothing as Najibullah Zazi will remain in the U.S., free to plan the next attack.

Saturday, September 19, 2009

Don't Arrest Too Many Criminals

The moronic mayor of Wellford, SC, has taken the policy of not arresting criminals to its logical conclusion. http://www2.wspa.com/spa/news/local/article/mayors_memo_may_handcuff_police_officers/26918 (h/t Hot Air http://hotair.com/) She has prohibited her town's police officers from chasing criminal suspects on foot. Now usually crime ridden cities like Baltimore and San Francisco have no pursuit policies, but those for for vehicle chases. And the predictable thing happened, criminals learned they would not be chased and now flee in vehicles more often than before the no-pursuit policy. And, of course, crime rose.

The usual excuse was that vehicle pursuits can be dangerous and sometimes innocent bystanders are injured or killed. But the increase in violent crime when these policies are instituted usually make up on the body count when pursuits are prohibited. Not to mention the emboldened behavior of criminals in general, because mayors and police chiefs who prohibit pursuits are usually not very concerned about crime. What they are concerned about is that too many minorities are going to prison. And that is clearly Mayor Sallie Peake concern.

This non-pursuit in guise of non-arrest policy has a more widespread symptom. It is the corrupt and incompetant police chiefs who aquiesce similarily to the manner in which Wellford Police Chief Chris Guy aquiesced to the clearly stupid orders of May Peake. Chief Guy is also not too terribly interested in arresting too many black men. In the immigration issue there is an analogous situation. Big city chiefs refuse to arrest illegal aliens and claim that arresting the criminals who violate immigration laws hurts law enforcement. George Gascon, formerly chief of Mesa, AZ, and now chief of the sanctuary city San Francisco, notoriously supports illegal immigration and has a policy of not arresting illegals, despite the fact that illegal aliens give cover and concealment to gangbangers and other violent criminals. Because he too is an immigrant, he thinks that illegal aliens should not be arrested and has implemented policies that result in criminals going free, just like Mayor Peake. They both have the same concern, not arresting members of their favored race, blacks for Peake, and Hispanics for Gascon.

Friday, September 18, 2009

Infighting G-Man Style

Besides the fact that the decision to prosecute someone is highly political, as is the decision not to prosecute, the decision to investigate and who investigates is also highly political.

Many federal agencies are at war with each other. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is in the midst of a civil war, Customs versus Immigration; ICE is at war with DEA; DEA is at war with FBI; FBI is at war with ATFE; Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is at war with ICE; ICE is at war with its own mission; and U.S. Border Patrol is on its own mission, and no one knows what that is. And, of course, the U.S. Secret Service is playing its own game and has the President's ear, and a black SAC of the protective detail of the President. I wonder how that happened. And, of course, the FBI and Secret Service never work with each other. At least Obama is willing to put his life on the line for affirmative action.

The FBI, the primary investigative arm of the the United States, has recently been in the news about its ongoing war with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATFE, formerly known as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearm and the people who brought you Waco and Ruby Ridge). http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_bomb_probes_feud;_ylt=ArkndYhKUGVIRXvL.1SY1NZH2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTJtMTZkaXRxBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkwOTE2L3VzX2JvbWJfcHJvYmVzX2ZldWQEY3BvcwM3BHBvcwM3BHNlYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcmllcwRzbGsDZmJpYXRmZmV1ZGlu (h/t Of Arms and the Law
http://armsandthelaw.com/)

As usual, the FBI claims primary jurisdiction over all crime and terrorism specifically. However, ATFE is supposed to be the primary agency in matter of explosions, as well as the ever enjoyable alcohol, tobacco and firearms. I just call that fun. Unless of course, that explosion is committed in the furtherence of terrorism, then it is back in the FBI's court.

The dynamic was always funny, as in the old days the then ATF was a Department of Treasury agency and had a Treasury secretary to protect it. And the ear of the president once removed, as the USSS was also once a Treasury agency. As was Customs by the way.

However, 9/11 changed everything, except the unhappy dynamic among federal law enforcement. Hocus pocus, presto chango, agencies were moved around and things were supposed to be new and improved. DHS was created, Customs moved to DHS, Immigration moved to DHS, Secret Service moved from Treasury to DHS. Treasury was obviously the big looser, ATF to Justice and a name change to ATFE, Customs broken in half, the INS broken in thirds; It all stirred around and what did we have? Newer dynamic agencies dedicated to protecting America?

No, just a relaunch of old jealousies. The FBI always wanted to absord ATF and their conflict with ATFE has intensified as the FBI can just taste absorbing ATFE; CBP now jealous of ICE's monopoly on the obscure Office of Personnel Management definition of those who are allowed to investigate crimes because CBP was not allowed to have them, the infamous 1811 series in the long list of classification of federal employees, Criminal Investigators, AKA Special Agents, exept of course for the 1812 classification, Special Agent, Special Agents, of the Fish and Wildlife Service. In CBP they now have their 1811s but they are not 1811s, they are 1801s, another classification they call Special Agents. But according to OPM they are Investigative Program Specialists, and their poorer cousins, Marine Interdiction Agents and Air Interdiction Agents, both of those formerly Criminal Investigators, 1811, under Customs, but now reclassified to 1801. Interestingly enough identical to Deporation Officers, also 1801 and do similar work to the Criminal Investigators, 1811, who work for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

Confused yet? Don't be. The internicine jealousies reflected above also appear between the CIA and FBI, and gave us 9/11, as the CIA did not trust the FBI to find the two highjackers who were identified in Malaysia before that fateful day in New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. The CIA did not trust the FBI with all their info on two of the highjackers and the FBI did not want that information, hoping to find the two before any aid was offered from the CIA, and unwilling to actually take the action to find the two because Jorge Bush thought that Muslims were A-OK on 9/10. Not that that changed much, but we digress.

In any event, the lesson learned is that the Federal government is not interested in solving any criminal or terrorist problem, because doing so would require that federal agencies, many in the same departments, work to the same purpose, but that is not the acutal goal of those agencies. Protection of their turf is their most important goal, because that is how money and power from the Federal largess are budgeted.

So, if you think that the FBI, Fusion Centers, and the rest of the alphabet soup are concerned about your life and safety, think again.

Thursday, September 17, 2009

Asylum Lies

Leftist attorneys are always trying to find a new fraudulent claim to asylum in the U.S. The latest scam developed after Central American drug dealers were exposed with their use of Central American teenaged gangbangers to deal drugs, then be protected by San Francisco Demoncrat District Attorney Kamala Harris, a lightskinned black who passes for white in San Francisco. She was the big protector of the teenaged gangbanger drug dealers.

However, the scam was exposed, and under threat of federal prosecution for protecting the gangbangers, the Demoncrat Party scam ended.

The treason bar is very inventive and they now have their new criminal defense and the newest claim to asylum. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/09/17/BAHU19NHSC.DTL

The gangbangers are now claiming they were forced to do it. That is their first step in criminal court, but their next step will be before the ever credulous morons at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Asylum Office and at the even more idiotic Executive Office for Immigration Review, San Francisco Office. After getting off the criminal charges, the gangbangers will seek to be protected by an asylum claim or a claim as a crime victim and get an S, T or U non-immigrant immigrant visa from the same USCIS. Those visas misapply named for crime victims, but are actually always for co-conspirators who claim they helped the prosecution, but usually their help is useless or inadequate, because criminals never fully tell the truth about their friends. I know that because I just interviewed an alleged reformed criminal who went through all the phony 12 steps, but still refuses to rat out his friends because it does not help him.

Why not, we give asylum to gangbangers who fear having to return to El Salvador. Why not this crazy idea? http://federaleagent86.blogspot.com/2009/06/asylum-madness.html Why not Hondurans?

Mark my words muchachos.

No Way Jose

Jose Hernandez, the alleged American, but in reality and ideology, an Mexican, a NASA employee and astronaut, decided to grace Mexico with his presence and opine on issues in public without NASA permission. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-mexico-astronaut17-2009sep17,0,7903541.story

Well, Jose, you claimed that you were an American citizen and had the right to speak out on any issue. Well, no, you are a Mexican and federal employees are not allowed to talk to the press without permission and are only allowed to discuss issues as directed by your employing agency.

Hernandez spouted of to a Mexican television talk show that all illegal aliens should be given amnesty. Well, muchacho, amnesty is not part of NASA's bailiwick, it deals with issues such as space flight, not what to do with illegals.

Just imagine if a different astronaut, or any other federal employee, said just the opposite, that all illegals should be deported. That person would have been fired in nanoseconds. But it appears that there is a double standard for Mexicans who support illegal immigration and, seditously, want all borders removed.

Interestingly enough though Hernandez told the Mexican audience that they should be less Mexican if they want to succeed in life. He said Mexican parents should stop drinking beer and turn off the telenovellas and make their children study, not gangbang.

Proxy Marriages, The Next Islamist Fraud

The radical left likes to use hard cases, or sympathetic ones to push their anti-American agenda and the current sob-story du jour is no different. This involves a Marine killed in Iraq who's Japanese wife and child are in legal limbo. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090917/ap_on_re_us/us_marine_s_widow_immigration

But let us first deal with the cause of the brughaha: Sgt. Michael Ferschke engaged in a year of pre-marital sex and had a child out of wedlock. That is shameful behavior for a Seargeant of the United States Marine Corps. While there may be alot of recreational sex by Marines, when you shack up with a girl and have a child, there is no excuse not to get married. As they say, the wages of sin are legion. And here we have it, if Sgt. Ferschke had done the honorable thing and got married before he had a child, much less spent a year banging the same chick, there would be no problem.

Now the liberals want to solve this small problem by changing the laws on marriage and immigration. The Department of Homeland Security is a strange beast. It currently ignores the laws that prohibit the immigration of aliens who engage in sham marriages and poligamy. Muslims already hear are also free to engage in polygamy and no effort to stop this is made by DHS.

But in an effort to solve the above problem caused by the dishonorable behavior of Sgt. Ferschke, the radical left wants to legalize proxy weddings. DHS has already succumbed to other attempts at marriage fraud by radical Islam and now allows fiance visas (K-1) for Muslims who have never even met their future bride(s). Now the radical left wants to legalize weddings where the bride and groom never meet. This will aid not only marriage fraud in general, but will specifically assist radical Muslims bringing multiple wives to the U.S.

Thanks Sergeant. Thanks alot.

Immigration Kills

Aside from the drunk drivers and gangbangers, immigration kills. The 1993 and 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center killed thousands and were perpetrated by immigrants, immigrants of all kinds: illegal aliens, immigrants, refugees, students, tourists, etc. All classes of immigrants kill Americans. And they enjoy it, as well as being protected by the Evil Party and the Stupid Party. And they were at it again recently: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2009/09/16/2009-09-16_fbi_unit_set_for_more_antiterror_raids_in_queens_sources_fears_of_madridstyle_su.html

A group of immigrants, most Afghan, who allegedly came here as refugees from radical Islam or whatever lie they told to the Asylum or Refugee Officer at the old INS or the new USCIS. We allowed these Muslim fanatics to travel freely in Pakistan of all places. Just looking at Najibullah Zazi could tell you that he is a hatefilled fanatic, but common sense is not allowed. http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2009/09/16/madrid-style-subway-bombings-prompted-nyc-terror-raids/


What matters is diversity and toleration of those who want to kill us. Zazi came here lying about threats to him in Afghanistan and so did his fellow conspirators from Afghanistan and Pakistan. They all openly attended Wahabbi hate mosques where jihad and sharia were the only subjects of preaching. The mosques are staffed by crazed zealots trained in Saudi funded institutions and they come here on a visa origionally created for the Catholic Church to bring in priests because the Church refused to allow Catholic men loyal to the Church to enter the seminary. Only homosexuals are currently allowed into most seminaries and they never last, they end up returning to the bars of Castro Street or get arrested for child molestation. So, now the R non-immigrant visa is the primary method of entry by hate preachers from Wahabbi institutions to enter and help organize and protect terrorism. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/queens/bomb_raid_at_home_visited_by_associate_8BSSuO280oy7oBlXoUCIpI

And the money quote: "The man, whose name was withheld, had allegedly notified an imam that the FBI was looking for their Denver pal, and the Muslim leader, in turn, contacted the suspect's family to have them warn him."

Of equal interest is what is, as usual, missing from national security and terrorism investigations involving aliens: Immigration and Customs Enforcement. As usual, ICE, and DHS, which claim they are the front line against terrorism, is missing in action. The case involves enemy aliens and that is supposed to be ICE's forte, but either Janet Reno Napalitano isn't interested in terrorism not originating with white folk, or the DHS and ICE mission is seriously misrepresented to the public. Of course, former Secretary Michael Chertoff, is responsible for some of this PR dishonesty, but as guilty are the Demoncrats that agitated for creation of DHS as well. The terrorism gambit, while comical in the prism of bureaucratic wrangling over budget and publicity, does help hide the deliberate misdirection of DHS resources away from its real responsibilities, the traditional enforcement of immigration and customs laws, in favor of a deliberate non-feasance in favor of illegal aliens and the drug trade.

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

Much Ado About Nothing

Governor Wetback Rick and RINO Kay Bailey Hutchinson of Texas are in a dustup about illegal immigration. Each is trying to appear tougher than the other on illegal immigration and border security. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32793136/ns/us_news-security Wetback Rick has ostentatiously announced teams of Texas Rangers and Texas National Guardsmen, mystertiously named Counter Drug Forces, have been deployed to the Mexican border. http://governor.state.tx.us/news/press-release/13577/ That in itself is very interesting as there is not to my knowledge a Military Occupational Specialty in "counter drug forces." Perhaps these are military police officers and K-9 teams, perhaps surveillance specialists. It is not described. At the same time Wetback Rick has demanded that Janet Reno Napalitano fund the deployment of 1,000 other Texas Guardsmen on the border, which ain't going to happen and he knows it.

RINO Hutchinson, running for governor in the upcoming against Wetback Rick in theupcoming guvernotorial election, has attacked Wetback Rick for his continuing failure to do anything substantial on the border, deriding the Ranger Recon teams as insufficient. She has also pointed out that no Texas law enforcement agency, including the Department of Public Safety and the Texas Rangers, participate in 287(g), the Federal-State alliance on rooting out illegal immigrants.

While the Texas Rangers are one of this nations permier law enforcement agencies, RINO Hutchinson is correct to say this is insufficient. We don't know how many Rangers are going, but unless they number in the thousands, they will have little or no effect. They will make some good arrests and get a great many convictions, it is just a drop in the bucket. They will concentrate on making good criminal cases, but criminal cases are time consuming and paperwork heavy. Once an arrest is made, that Ranger is tied up for a long time, usually months. He will be responding to pre-trial requests, sitting long hours in court waiting to testify or working with the local DA to tie up loose ends, following up developing leads, waiting for endless negociations between the DA and the suspect's defense attorney, working on pre-trial disclosure, etc. He will be effectively out of action. And this does not take into account the corrup local District Attorney's Office who will be sabatoging his every move and giving out sweetheart deals to the drug lords who contribute to local elections for DA, Sheriff, and Constable. Perhaps this Ranger will present his case in Federal court, but that does not change his long hours of down time. Nor does it take into account the policy of the overworked United States Attorney's Offices to avoid trials, unless they are prosecuting Border Patrol Agents for shooting fleeing drug dealers, and make deals that avoid any real work.

In reality both Wetback Rick and RINO Hutchinson conspired to end the most effective form of border violence control, the double layer border fence. Both decried it as separating communities, as if borders with Mexico do not exist. http://federaleagent86.blogspot.com/2009/07/thanks-kay-bailey-hutchinson.html http://homelandsecuritynewswire.com/single.php?id=8653 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/25/national/main3407305.shtml

Hutchinson inserted the language that killed the border fence and allowed DHS to waste the money on the SBINet that still doesn't work. We know that double and triple fencing dramatically slows illegal immigration in the areas it is built, but both Wetback Rick and RINO Hutchinson oppose the most effective solution, both in stopping illegal immigration and cost-effectiveness as well.

Wetback Rick's deployment of Ranger Recon teams will be temporary and expensive. Rangers still have to be paid and they will be getting a per diem and staying in hotels during this deployment. Not cost effective and a short term solution to a long term problem.

In the end it is just boob bait for bubbas, Republican-style, from both of them, who both favor more immigration, both legal and illegal.

Monday, September 14, 2009

Obama Surrenders, But It Won't Matter

The Obama Regime has surrendered and asked Congress to bar illegal aliens from receiving assistance under the health insurance reform legislation and verify enrollees. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/09/11/2065287.aspx (h/t Ace of Spades HQ http://ace.mu.nu/) That certainly was quick and kudos to Fighting Joe Wilson.

However don't celebrate. This is at best a half victory. Note the weasel words in the MSNBC story: "Those who are lawfully present in this country would be able to participate."

I exposed this subtrefuge earlier on a post on the Dead Kennedy-Friend of Angelo Act: http://federaleagent86.blogspot.com/2009/06/its-out-health-care-reform-to-cover.html

Lawfully present covers alot of things: Tourists, business visitors, grandma staying six months to help watch the kids, non-immigrants on work visas, etc. It also includes that class of illegal aliens who are allowed to obtain benefits like food stamps because they have what is called "constructive legal presence" based on an application by a spouse, child or parent to adjust that illegal alien. These aliens cover millions. While not expecting many business men or tourists to avail themselves of free medical coverage, it will happen. Today we already have birth tourists, mainly from India and Korea who come to give birth in the U. S. for free and the reward of an American passport for their child.

Just throw in amnesty and you will literally have an unlimited number of aliens covered by Obama's welfare healthcare as every year millions of temporary visitors come to the U.S.

I thank Joe Wilson for calling out Obama as a liar, but more needs to be done to keep millions of aliens off the dole.

And of course this policy covers millions more of aliens admitted for legal permanent residence, aslyees, and refugees.

Friday, September 11, 2009

Not Enforcing The Law

You cannot enter the United States as an immigrant or a non-immigrant if you are mentally ill. http://www.uscis.gov/propub/DocView/slbid/1/2/31?hilite= However, the New York Times is on a roll for a mentally ill Chinese woman, Xiu Jiang, to remain in the U.S. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/11/nyregion/11mental.html?_r=1&hpw and http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/04/nyregion/04immigrant.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Xiu%20Ping%20Jiang&st=cse

She is divorced and has been sterized in China. She certainly is unable to get married being mentally ill and should not be having children. However she has run up an impressive array of expenses in the United States. Cancer treatment and mental illness treatment all at the expense of the taxpayer. Neither of Xiu Jiang's two sisters living in the U.S. have paid for that treatment. But she was able to obtain $35,000.00 despite being an impoverished peasant from Fukian Province in China. How did she do this? Certainly her sisters probably helped. However, she claims that she came to the U.S. for asylum, but never applied for it once she got here, despite the fact that her sisters either knew of the possibility or more likely used it themselves. Curiously she was working while in the U.S. with no problems for years, entering the U.S. in 1995, but was not arrested until 2007 when she was in Florida seeking other employment.

So, they NYT is claiming she is incapable of defending herself in court but she managed to live here for over ten years with no problems.

Liberals are also argueing that she is mentally ill, but no one, especially Immigration and Customs Enforcement is argueing that she should be removed because she is mentally ill:

Sec. 212. [8 U.S.C. 1182]
(a) Classes of Aliens Ineligible for Visas or Admission.-Except as otherwise provided in this Act, aliens who are inadmissible under the following paragraphs are ineligible to receive visas and ineligible to be admitted to the United States:
(1) Health-related grounds.-
(A) In general.-Any alien-
(iii) who is determined (in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services in consultation with the Attorney General)-
(I) to have a physical or mental disorder and behavior associated with the disorder that may pose, or has posed, a threat to the property, safety, or welfare of the alien or others, or
(II) to have had a physical or mental disorder and a history of behavior associated with the disorder, which behavior has posed a threat to the property, safety, or welfare of the alien or others and which behavior is likely to recur or to lead to other harmful behavior...


The law is clear, but ICE and the late Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) took it upon themselves not to enforce this particular part of the law. Mentally ill people are free to immigrate to the U.S. in violation of the law.

Of coure, when this illegal alien gets asylum, her children will follow. Then we will have to support not only a mentally ill woman, but her children as well.

Which brings up the next issue, the law prohibits aliens entering the U.S. who may become a public charge:

(4) Public charge.-

(A) In general.-Any alien who, in the opinion of the consular officer at the time of application for a visa, or in the opinion of the Attorney General at the time of application for admission or adjustment of status, is likely at any time to become a public charge is inadmissible.


However, like the mental illness exclusion charge, this is ignored as well. This started during the first Bush administration, but was entrenched during the Clinton Administration and not revived under Jorge Bush. When I was working for the late unlamented INS, we were instructed to ignore section 4 Public Charge. And ICE continues to ignore it with no legal justification.

All this is quite amusing in some aspects. Liberal lawyers and newspapers are argueing before courts that a crazy woman should be allowed to remain in the U.S. and using the fact that she is crazy to justify it, despite the law that says crazy people aren't allowed to enter the U.S. Their arrogance is enormous and the immigration courts and ICE are just ignoring the law that says crazy people can't come here, much less an impoverished crazy person who cannot pay for her medical and mental treatment. And she has two children that will follow, whom she cannot support. And she has two sisters who are also undoubtedly on welfare as well.

Is this the best and brightest that Thomas Friedman and Bill Gates keep claiming we need?

Why Edwin Ramos Will Go Free

The black District Attorney for the City and County of San Francisco, Kamala Harris, has decided, allegedly after agonizing decision process despite her campaign pledge never to seek a death sentence, not to seek the death penalty for the illegal alien gangbanger Edwin Ramos who killed Tony Bologna and two of his sons, wounding a third son who survived and has testified against Ramos in preliminary hearings. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/09/10/BAM819L7NE.DTL

Many think that the death penalty is too expensive and life in prison is enough. However, they dissemble, as life in prison lasts only as long as the life of the most important witness.

Perhaps you remember the life sentence to Elmer Geronimo Pratt, the Black Panther who killed Caroline Olsen and shot her husband, Kenneth Olsen, who survived and was the star witness against Pratt.

However, Johnnie Cochran and other red lawyers waited until Kenneth Olsen died, then filed a series of appeals that led to the conviction being overturned because another witness in the case was an undisclosed FBI informant.

The key to free Pratt was centered on Kenneth Olsen, because he identified Pratt as one of the two men who shot him and his wife. After Kenneth Olsen was dead, the fix was in. Gil Garcetti, the ambitious Los Angeles District Attorney appealed to the California Court of Appeals, and lost at the first appellate level, but failed to continue the appeal to the California Supreme Court. He more importantly refused to retry the case, claiming it was impossible since Kenneth Olsen, the star witness, was dead. http://www.nytimes.com/1999/02/18/us/in-california-black-panther-wins-in-court-after-30-years.html

But, like Pratt, Ramos claims that someone else that he knows committed the murders, but that person is conveniently missing. Pratt has similarly claimed that two dead Panthers committed the murder.

Harris claims that Ramos will die in prison: 'Harris said outside court that her office will do everything it can to make sure Ramos "dies in prison for these horrific crimes."'

As with Pratt though, Ramos' lifetime sentence will probably be only as long as the surviving Bologna son survives. Once he is dead, Ramos will undoubtedly claim some absurd behavior by cops or whoever, and demand a new trial, a trial that will be impossible with a dead eyewitness.

So, in order to pander to the illegal alien community, Harris is ensuring that Ramos will be out of prison sooner or later by making sure Ramos will have a few years of free meals and weightlifting equipment.

It Has Begun

The left is on the warpath. They have begun their campaign of open deadly violence against individual Americans. http://theblogprof.blogspot.com/2009/09/breaking-anti-abortion-activist-shot.html Before the left targeted Americans, but it was for intimidation, such as the attacks on Joe the Plumber, eco-sabatage, demonstrations in front of John Yoo's home, and boycotts of Glenn Beck and Michael Savage. However those actions have been uneffective. The radical left has since decided to start assasinating individual Americans who dare oppose them. http://federaleagent86.blogspot.com/2009/05/equal-before-law.html

And the Obama Regime is silent. The FBI is doing nothing. There are no US Marshal Service Deputy US Marshals protecting those Americans targeted for violence from the radical left, unlike leftists who get 24/7 protection from the federal government. No Department of Justice Civil Rights Division trial attorneys winging their way to Owosso, MI, to file charges against the perpetrators of this civil rights violation. Nothing. You think we have a government that is supposed to protect all the people? You should think again. Your life means nothing to the Obama Regime. http://federaleagent86.blogspot.com/2009/08/famous-but-incompetant.html

I had thought that it would begin with a Ruby Ridge or Waco, but it appears that the Obama Regime has decided to just allow the radical left to murder Americans with impunity.

It appears that the government will no longer be protecting you. It is now your responsibility. It started with beatings and mayhem on tea party protestors. http://news.aol.com/article/mans-finger-bitten-off-during-health/654697 http://stlouisteaparty.com/2009/08/07/union-thugs-deliver-unprovoked-beating-on-black-conservative-at-carnahan-town-hall/ It clear that this is a deliberate campaign to intimidate opposition to the Obama Regime. I suggest that the next time you go to a protest, bring a gun, pepperspray, tazer, and be ready to use them. You might be the next person assasinated, beaten or have your finger bitten off. It is clear that the police will not be protecting you. And nor will the FBI or US Marshals Service. The Department of Justice will not be prosecuting any of your attackers.

Remember, this violence has always been a part of the fantasy of the left. Their publications cheer on attacks by the Black Bloc terrorists at demonstrations, they fantasize about killing cops and support cop killers like Mumia, they brag about wanting to kill Bush. http://www.freemumia.com/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_bloc http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/5333220.stm http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3177092&mesg_id=3181455

The left has declared war on Americans and this is not the first shot, but it is their Rubicon. Be forewarned.

Wednesday, September 9, 2009

Vetting, Or Not, It Doesn't Matter

The controversy over Obama's Green Jobs Czar Van Jones and the vetting he either received or did not receive has been in the news. http://patterico.com/2009/09/08/the-unvetting-of-van-jones/ However, most have missed the point of background investigations of federal employees.

First, although the FBI conducts background investigations of political appointees, there is no legal basis for their background investigation, as a federal employee must have actually been offered a job before a background investigation can begin.

The next misconception is that the FBI looks for information that may embarrass the administration. That, again is not true, the FBI background investigations, a Single Scope Background Investigation which leads to a security clearance of either Confidential, Secret or Top Secret, is, by law, restricted to suitability to employment based on three things: 1) criminal activity, mostly related to criminal convictions, as arrests, dismissals and findings of not guilty are not legally examinable; 2) national security threat related to past, present, or future threat regarding espionage, terrorism, sedition, and treason; and 3) honesty on the background investigation itself.

Most SSBIs or their lesser cousin, BI, are conducted by contract employees of the Office of Personnel Management, usually the not well known contractor, U.S. Investigations Services. http://www.usis.com/

Some agencies direct contract with either individual investigators or other contractors, or perform the SSBI or BI. A BI, Background Investigation, is just for suitability and does not provide a security clearance. Most federal employees do not have a security clearance.

However, all employees, including the Czars, that have offices in or work at the White House have one of the three levels of clearance.

Critics have stated that there was a either a failure of the background investigation or there was no interest or concern about that which either was raised or could have been raised by the investigation.

But what the critics of Jones have brought forward are not part of an SSBI or BI, and, technically, FBI agents doing the background are not authorized to explore the issues that were raised about Jones. An SSBI and BI do not concern themselves now with public statements or associations, unless they directly advocate felonious behavior or result in a national security threat.

While most may say that his open communism and racism would be a concern, as well as his inane belief that Bush managed the 9/11 attacks, none of that could have been legally or practically contained in an SSBI or BI. Why? Because mere advocacy of what was once considered treasonous or seditious cannot be included in a SSBI or BI.

When I was trained to do background investigations we were instructed that similar material was protected by the 1st Amendment and could not even be included in reports.

The only thing we were trained to look for was dishonesty in facts, like failure to give accurate addresses. The only questions unrelated to the SSBI form, Standard Form 86, Questionaire for National Security Positions, http://contacts.gsa.gov/webforms.nsf/0/67959D7F54B5826E85256A7200447F47/$file/SF86.pdf we were allowed to ask, were of references and we asked the references if the applicant was honest, if he engaged in criminal behavior, and if the applicant ever advocated overthrow of the United States.

Membership in a communist front organization, irrelevant, advocacy of communism, irrelevant (unless a Communist Party member), associated with Communists, irrelevant, associated with hostile foreign nationals, irrelevant, advocacy of a one world government, irrelevant, participation in violent public demonstrations, associations with those who wish to overthrow the U.S., irrelevant, association with violent religious groups or violent religions, irrelevant, and so on.

Even worse was the unofficial issues an investigator was told to avoid. Don't try too hard to find something. If you obtained an allegation from a developed source, that does not hold weight if unproved or contradicted by claims of references. Basically we were to be uncrital consumers of what the subject's chosen references stated. So even if Jones advocated the overthrow of the U.S. government, it is unlikely that anyone he associated with or listed as a reference would admit that. And that was considered a sufficient investigation. We also were told to ignore homosexual behavior and sexual partners in general.

Take for instance Jones' criminal conduct. He had obviously been arrested a number of times for crimes committed during demonstrations. None of that would be relevant to an SSBI unless he lied about the arrests. Of course in big liberal cities, no one is ever actually charged or prosecuted for such crimes and they would not stop the granting of a security clearance.

Nothing in a background investigation is actually geared to determining if a person is morally fit for such positions. Today those are political decisions, which is why no background investigation would have stopped the appointment of a czar, even though interestingly they are federal employees whose funding for their positions is transferred from an agency to the White House.

This is why the Senate has such an important role. That is why the Senate's failure to hold Sonia Sotomayor accountable for her racism and radicalism is such a disappointment. Do you think that the racist and communist Van Jones would have been stopped by the Senate? He was no different than Sotomayor, but at least there is a potential of political embarrassment by his communism, racism and support for radical Islam. And therein lies the cure. A capable and aggressive Senate opposition, hopefully embarrassing the Obama Regime into stop appointing dangerous seditious traitors like Jones. However, a background investigation will not do that. Only a political investigation based on public policy issues will have an effect. Just remember an open communist who privately supported overthrow of the U.S. government passed an FBI SSBI.

The Texas Way

The Chicago Way is if they put one of yours in the hospital, you put one of theirs in the morgue. The Texas Way is if they bring BB guns to the burlary, you plug them all. http://www.sanmarcosmercury.com/archives/9764 (h/t San Jose Examiner http://www.examiner.com/x-2879-Austin-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m9d8-Successful-selfdefense-leaves-2-robbers-dead via Keep and Bear Arms http://www.keepandbeararms.com/news/nl/disp.asp?d=9/9/2009)

Also brings to mind that wops bring knives to a gun fight then is it an improvement if Mexicans bring BB guns to a real gunfight? But this does beg the question if Frank Castro is one of the best and brightest that Comrade Thomas Friedman wants to bring to the U.S.?

Tuesday, September 8, 2009

Surprise

China is exporting tires to the U.S. and displacing the U.S. tire manufacturers. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/07/AR2009090702260.html?hpid=topnews Just as they did with the textile industry, China is replacing another American industry. Sadly in the the WaPo article, one displaced worker, previously displaced from a textile plant as well, training for a new profession in welding observes: '"Welding is not something they could import very easily," he said.'

What little does poor Mark Burns know. They are coming for you as well. Welders are skilled labor and companies want to replace you as well. They may not be able to import welds, but they can import welders, usually illegally. http://www.wdsu.com/news/15554345/detail.html and http://www.thaicdchome.org/cms/assets/Uploads/human-trafficking/Trafficking-Case-Ends-For-48-Thai-Welders.pdf and http://www.eeoc.gov/press/12-8-06.html

Seriously Now

The San Francisco Chronicle is not a serious newspaper and will soon be going bankrupt. It has done some good work on local immigration issues related to illegal alien criminality, but in general is a cheerleaders for all that is immigrant related diversity, all aside from its main duty of promoting homosexuality.

It tries to be hip and cool, the millenial of newspapers, but is failing badly. This too hip, too cool for school attitude does tend to bad journalism.

Today it took a funny look at a burglary at a city office, the Department of Public Health's Vital Records Office. Yeah, the office that issues birth certificates. You would think that would be a serious issue, but it was amusing for the ever-hip Chron. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/cityinsider/index?

It spun the story as an attempt to get drugs. But the only thing take was some petty cash and all the special paper used to produce birth certificates. The equally clueless city official responding to the Chron reporter speculated, yes, speculated incredulously that maybe they were going to forge birth certificates.

Well, duh, that is what a certain group of criminals, called forgers, do. Birth certificates are valuable items, but given the disrespect the Chron exhibits for citizenship, the only contribution one can make to citizenship for them is diversity, I am not surprised.

The Chron cannot be taken seriously as a newspaper when reporting crime and its support for amnesty and diversity show it cannot be taken seriously when discussing issues of deadly seriousness to America.

Just Like China

Well, is that a good idea? http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/08/sports/tennis/08lina.html?hpw Chinese tennis lesser star Li Na was profiled in the NYT and it appears that both she and the NYT like the idea of America becoming Chinese. '“It is exactly like China,” Li said with a broad smile.'

They both also appear to think that American taxpayers should be subsidizing retired Chinese. "She stood near tables of men huddled around games of checkers." Don't these people have jobs or are they on SSI? SSI I will bet. Over 70% of the people on SSI are immigrants.

In a similar vein, Anthony Bourdain, the snob and travel writer, denigned to visit the outer boroughs of NYC and was happy to find them devoid of white people. http://www.travelchannel.com/TV_Shows/Anthony_Bourdain/Episode_Guide_New_York_Outer_Boroughs He even happily observed that the Koreans don't like white people in "their" restaurants.

Imagine if some white person had said that about blacks. Opps, they did, and we got the 1964 Civil Rights Act, but apparently Bourdain did not get the memo.

He has the typical disdain and hatred for his fellow whites, but expresses it in strange terms. KISS, bad, New York Dolls, good.

Praytell, what is the difference. Both are all male rockbands who dress up like women. One is bad, uncool, white, and can actually play their instruments after a manner, and they actually had some hits. The other is cool, but can't play an instrument, and had no hits.

Apparently Comrade Thomas Friedman wants in on the China action. Sounding much like a facist, but we really know deep in his heart Friedman is a Red, he says that a one-party dictatorship is better than democracy. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/09/opinion/09friedman.html?_r=2

The money quote from Comrade Friedman apparently channeling both Hitler and Trotsky at the same time:

"Watching both the health care and climate/energy debates in Congress, it is hard not to draw the following conclusion: There is only one thing worse than one-party autocracy, and that is one-party democracy, which is what we have in America today.

One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks. But when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can also have great advantages. That one party can just impose the politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move a society forward in the 21st century. It is not an accident that China is committed to overtaking us in electric cars, solar power, energy efficiency, batteries, nuclear power and wind power. "

And they can build autobahns and lots of steelmills, too.

It appears that Bourdain and Friedman are just selfhating BoBos who never goes anywhere in the U.S. except Manhattan, but loves the rest of the world so long as they are not white or American.

Monday, September 7, 2009

E-Verify Isn't Perfect, So Lets Replace It With Something Else That Isn't Perfect

Doris Meissner, the Clinton Regime lacky who as Commissioner of the legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service took it on herself not to enforce the immigration laws of the United States, except on one occasion to arrest and remove a Cuban alien using hundreds of Border Patrol Agents, Deportation Officers, and Special Agents. Never before in the history of the INS has so many INS officers been deployed and used, except in the cases of the other Cuban aliens who rioted at prisons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanta_Prison_Riots Those of course were real criminals who could not be legally admitted as aliens because they were mentally ill criminals.

However, Doris Meissner, thought that one child was the only alien who should be deported. Of course, her regime never deported any other asylum applicant and refused to deport criminal aliens from China and Vietnam for some reason.

However, she is on the warpath, not against refugees from communism in Cuba, but on E-Verify, the easy, effective, and accurate internet system that verifies Social Security Numbers and immigration status of aliens seeking employment. http://www.cis.org/Everify

She seems to think that E-Verify doesn't work or not work well enough. http://www.ilw.com/articles/2009,0901-meissner.pdf But she wants to replace it with a new system that cannot be more accurate than E-Verify, especially with its new photo verification system based on Department of Homeland Security records and State driver license and identification card records. While it does have an error rate, 100% is just an impossible standard, it is basically 99% accurate. And given that most errors are caused by aliens who fail to update their Social Security records after marriages, there is no problem. However, E-Verify is too accurate for Meissner and, in fact, it represents a threat to illegal immigration. Meissner when Commissioner aided and abetted illegal immigration, instituting policies that dicouraged enforcement and allowed illegal aliens free reign in the U.S.

She wants to take years to replace E-Verify and develop a new system to do the same job. Just as Obama has created a defacto amnesty, Meissner is the point woman on slowing immigration enforcement to aid the upcoming amnesty. That is her goal, not an effective and accurate employment verification system. Amnesty is her goal.

The Obama Amnesty Begins

While it has been in effect for some time, the Obama Amnesty has hit primetime. http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/09/07/case_by_case_activists_fight_deportations/ (h/t American Patrol http://www.americanpatrol.com/) Earlier this year a couple of crooked immigration attorneys at the communist run immigration lawyers site, ILW, proposed that Obama ignore the law and the Constitution to impose an amnesty for illegal aliens on the country without bothering to obtain legislation to the effect. (Sorry I won't link to the commie site.) http://federaleagent86.blogspot.com/2009/02/amnesty-by-executive-order-stroke-of.html

Well, it appears that the Obama Regime is taking their advice and proceeding with an illegal and unconstitutional amnesty by executive order.

Here is the money quote:

"Deferrals remain rare, and usually follow an outpouring of community support, from US representatives, teachers, friends, classmates, and clergy. Last year only 311 people of all ages won deferrals; so far this year 356 have been granted, said Brigham. She said ICE evaluates each case individually and would not comment on specific cases because of privacy laws."

What they call deferrals are actually two separate actions. The first is basically non-action. It, however, has no basis in law, as it is a deliberate decision by ICE not to do their job. In the law lingo that is called non-feasance. And actually illegal, as ICE has no legal basis not to enforce the law. Not enforcing the law against some seriously impacts 14th Amendment arguments of equality before the law. Why is A being deported for the same violation that B committed but B is allowed to stay. Pretty simple.

And, in practice, it is based on the political influence of the person being deported. Aside from Private Bills, actual legislation proposed in Congress giving an alien legal permanent residence, what is called deferrals have no basis in the Immigration and Nationality Act. Whereas if a Private Bill is filed on behalf of an alien, any removal proceedings are suspended until the next Congress or the Private Bill passes. However there is nothing in the INA that authorizes not taking action. It is in regulations, but those regulations have no basis in law, as there is nothing in the INA that provides for "deferral" or what is called "Deferred Action." "Deferred Action" is basically ICE saying that we won't enforce the law on this particular person. This is in fact illegal, as ICE and all federal agencies are required to enforce the law without prejudice. Basicly "Deferred Action" is for those who have the political pull to intimidate ICE. Similar situations occur when illegal aliens claim sanctuary in churches and ICE basically refuses to arrest them. Sanctuary has no basis in American law, just as "Deferred Action" has no basis.

It is similar to the DHS policy of not enforcing immigration law against the widows/widowers and minor children of U.S. citizens who die during the immigration process. You can't be sponsored by a dead person, but Janet Reno Napalitano has decided that certain dead people can and roded USCIS [U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services] and ICE not to take action against certain aliens in anticipation of what she says is future Acts of Congress doing what she wants. This is similar to hearing officers (immigration judges) refusing to deport aliens who they think might be subject to upcoming amnesties or the DREAM Act. http://www.ilw.com/immigdaily/news/2009,0901-spouse.pdf (Yeah, I had to link but in principle I don't like to their main site. sigh)

But back to the upcoming amnesty. The article explains it in brief, the policy, but not the open amnesty:


"Matt Chandler, spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees ICE, also declined to comment on the cases. He said the agency’s policies haven’t changed on this issue, but they are being examined.

'Along with all of our immigration and border security policies, the department is conducting a review of policies pertaining to cases such as these,' he said.
Some speculated that the Obama administration is acting more sympathetic toward young immigrants because Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and others support the Dream Act. 'A lot of the things that everybody was hoping would change haven’t yet,’' said Andres Benach, a Washington lawyer who aided one of the students. 'But this is something where a pattern does appear to be developing.'"

"....a pattern does appear to be developing." That is putting it mildly. It is the amnesty that failed in Congress two years ago. Basically ICE and USCIS have been instructed to stop enforcing the law and become the Welcome Wagon for illegal aliens.

Saturday, September 5, 2009

Ray LaHood Is A Racist

The Department of Transportation is on a anti-drunk driving binge and he apparently thinks that white people are the problem. http://www.dot.gov/affairs/2009/dot12509.htm The DOT commercials are all over the place and all the drunks on the commercials are white. http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=1910836n A few of the well dressed cops are black, but it appears that the racist Ray LaHood hates white people and thinks they are all drunks. Perhaps this is a case of projection, but in reality Hispanics and blacks are more likely to drive drunk, especially Hispanics.

So like the FBI, who apparently think that Hispanics can be victims of hate crimes, but not perpetrators, the DOT is on an anti-white propoganda campaign with you in its sights. Like the hate crimes bill, drunk driving laws are designed to put more white people in jail, searching for the Great White Defendant. But the reality is that drunk driving is a Hispanic problem. But Ray LaHood just hates white people and wants to suck Obama's cock.

Friday, September 4, 2009

Vindicated

The Phoenix Business Journal has vindicated my observation that the new DHS enforcement strategy of criminally prosecuting employers of illegal aliens is a farce. http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2009/08/31/daily51.html (h/t Stein Report http://www.steinreport.com/archives/012772.html)

I have previously exposed the new DHS policy of targeting employers for criminal prosecution rather than concentrate on civil fines of employers and arresting the illegals. I pointed out that criminal prosecution is inheritantly more difficult and time consuming, and therefore less effective in discouraging illegal immigration. http://federaleagent86.blogspot.com/2009/05/real-meaning-behind-new-immigration.html

Well, even Sheriff Joe Arpaio has indirectly endoresed my observations. He stated the obvious:

"Arpaio said it is tough to prove businesses knowingly hire illegal immigrants who show fake IDs, but will arrest suspected workers during the raids. 'It’s hard to hook the employer,' Arpaio said." [emphasis mine]

It is hard, it is the hardest thing to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt, but much easier to remove an illegal alien or prosecute an illegal for identity theft.

This revelation from the Phoenix Business Journal vindicates my observation that the new DHS policy of criminal prosecutions is bound to fail and is therefore designed to enable illegal aliens to remain in the U.S. to await the upcoming amnesty.

Thursday, September 3, 2009

Political Prosecution

Perhaps you were under the illusion that the Department of Justice (DOJ was in the business of prosecuting criminals in a professional and unpolitical way. Perish the thought. http://triangle.bizjournals.com/triangle/othercities/phoenix/stories/2009/08/31/daily56.html

The politically motivated persecution of Sheriff Joe Arpaio is just one example of the reality behind the DOJ. The most important and overwhelming factor in the Obama DOJ is politics. Just like Andrey Januaryevich Vyshinskiy and his master Stalin, all prosectutions are political. All of the major decisions by the Obama DOJ have been motivated by politics.

First the decision to abjectly surrender on the already successful prosecution of the Philidelphia Black Panthers, the decision to prosecute CIA agents after prosecution had been previously declined, the decision not to prosecute Governor Bill Richardson, the decision to add 50 attorneys to the misnamed Civil Rights Division while claiming that racism is rampant in the U.S., the attack on Sergeant James Crowley, it is all based on politics, not justice. The Obama Regime is approaching Stalin levels of political prosecution.

It is very important that every reader know that such decisions flow downward to United States Attorney's Offices (USAO). Perhaps you don't pay all your taxes. Usually that is not prosecuted in federal court, as there are too many who cheat. Usually those are left to the IRS to solve administratively, but you can soon expect that local USAOs will soon be seeking out cases based on lists of political opponents from flag@whitehouse.gov or voter registration roles. Do you all remember IRS audits of the NRA and other groups that opposed the Clintong Regime? Obama has stepped things up. Companies and corporations that donate to conservative causes or Republican candidates can soon expect agressive attack from the DOJ Civil Rights Division and local USAOs for racial discrimination if they don't have the exact number of minorities in proportion to the local population or national population, which ever is worse for the company. Eric Holder has an agressive plan for racial quotas. He also is an opponent of English and will hunting down state and local governments who don't provide services in Somali and Spanish. Local governments run by Republicans will soon feel the impact of lawsuits from the DOJ to force them to provide every service in an assortment of languages at huge expense and a subsidy to the Demoncrat Party who will provide the translators.

Nothing in this Regime is not political, that is the lesson of Obama's communist inspired Alinsky radicalism. All is political. And the DOJ is now the sharp end of the spear pointed at Obama's opponents.

If you thought you would be safe from the Obama Regime, just wait until you come to their attention.

Wednesday, September 2, 2009

30% Success Rate Is Failure

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has released a report on the effectiveness of the inspection of aliens at Ports-of-Entry (POE). http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/53402 and http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/cfo_apr_fy2008.pdf To the uninitiated a POE is the place where aliens and goods arrive to be inspected by a CBP officer, who then makes a decision as to whether the alien or goods are to be admitted to the U.S.

Given that a successful intercept rate of 60% would a grade of D, a score of 30% is a big fat F- and they were aiming for 35%, which is still a F-.

One might wonder why that is. Perusal of the CBP website reveals one of the reasons: Wait times. http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/travel/wait_times/

At both airports and land borders, a CBP Port Director is judged by one metric. Wait times and complaints related to wait times from the public and airlines. Wait times are the amount of time it takes for an officer to inspect an arriving person. For airlines and land borders it included the amount of time once an alien is referred to secondary inspection where most illegals are caught up. Why that is is a mystery, except at airports where an airline representative must remain until a particular foreign origin flight has cleared inspection. It also includes processing of immigrants, who take a longer amount of time to process. Wait times are also driven by the rich in the border areas who want their illegal alien maids to arrive on time to perform their duties. Those of course are the local rich and well connected who are more concerned about their employees than national security. They and the airlines don't care if thousands of Americans die because a terrorist was let in. Two of the major airline culprits are American Airlines and United Airlines. When I worked at an airport POE both were constant complainers when flights took too long to clear. They also objected because they paid specific taxes on tickets that were supposed to pay for the inspection process, including base and overtime pay of officers. However, the funds were routinely allocated by the Clintong Regime to the general fund, resulting in low staffing rates and massive mandatory overtime for officers, usually requiring a six day work week plus. You can imagine the moral and productivity of employees who worked year long mandatory overtime. Essentially the airlines had to pay higher rates for the inspection of their passengers but with no increase in productivity. That then let to inspection quotas of 60 seconds per passenger, which resulted in lower levels of discovery of major fraud. Basically before 9/11 the U.S. was wide open to illegals and terrorists. You should not be surprised that the government moved so fast to indemnify United and American after 9/11. The just sowed what they reaped.

Just imagine yourself as terrorist. You have a 30% chance of getting caught if you try to enter the U.S. legally. This does not include crossing the border, land, sea or air, illegally.

Despite improvements, the U.S. is wide open, and is wide open because the government and the campaign contributers, airlines and border consumers of Mexican domestic help want it so. And the workers in the World Trade Center be damned.

Major Islamist Victory

Islamist terrorists and their Bolshevik allies in academia have scored a major victory given to them by communist judges. http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/7796

The background is that an Islamist Tariq Ramadan was sponsored by Notre Dame University for an H-1B non-immigrant visa as an instructor and think tank wonk in religious studies.

Ramadan is a grand child of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, a terrorist organization that also founded Hamas, Egyptian Islamic Jihad, and Al Queda. Ramadan is the leading appologist for radical Islam and refuses to condemn terrorism or the oppression of women or the death penalty for apostacy from Islam.

He was recently banned from Holland and has been banned in France for his support for Islamic terrorism.

However, the radical left never gives up and they filed a number of lawsuits ostensibly on behalf of Americans who claim their First Amendment rights to hear Ramadan's views were violated by the revocation of Ramadan's H-1B visa based on a finding by the Department of Homeland Security and subsquent finding by the Department of State and the refusal of the Department of State to issue another visa to Ramadan, a B-1 business visa.

The case is rather confusing, as origionally Ramadan was issued the H-1B visa and Ramadan was on his way to the U.S. However, when his views became public and his open support for terrorism and human rights violations came to public notice, the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement notified the DOS that Ramadan was placed on DHS ICE and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) lookout system and would be refused entry when he arrived, the DOS had his H-1B visa revoked based on exclusion charges that prohibited the entry of aliens who support for terrorism.

However, soon afterward, the DOS and DHS publically stated that the refusal was based on Ramadan's contributions to organizations on the DOS list of terrorist organization. Contributing to terrorist organizations is also an exclusion charge as well as a prohibition to being issued a visa.

But, leftists never give up and Ramadan applied for another visa to visit the U.S. to talk to various leftist groups. That was a B-1 non-immigrant business visitor's visa. That visa was also refused based again on his contributions to the terrorist groups.

Of course this was not the end of the story. Ramadan and a group of leftist academics filed suit claiming that Ramadan had a constitutional right to come to the U.S. to present his views and the academics had the right to hear his views in person. Interestingly enough Ramadan is a public intellectual and is widely available on the internet and in published works in the dead tree industry. He also participated in a webcast with the same academic groups that claim their rights were violated.

However, the ultimate goal of the lawsuit was to remove the parts of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) amendments that made non-material support of terrorism an exclusion charge that prohibited the issuance of a visa or the entry into the U.S. This has always been the goal of the left. Before the 1991 amendments to the INA, communists were prohibitied from entering the U.S. However, the radical left succeeded under Bush I to remove those provisions. These are commonly referred to as ideological exclusion charges, e.g. they are based on non-material support for an issue, such as communism, as opposed to actual support in a material manner, such as contributions or activity.

The left became enraged when new ideological exclusion charges were added to the INA by the Patriot Act, which prohibitied those who provide ideological, philosophical, or public support for terrorism to the list of exclusion charges that prohibit entry or issueing of visas to aliens who support terrorism. Now, this is just terrorism and not radical Islam. You are still free to enter the U.S. if you support Sharia law, religious dicrminiation, executing homosexuals, child marriage, and poligamy. Only support of terrorism is prohibited.

The enraged academics and Ramadan of course filed suit but the suit was dismissed by the trial judge based on the fact that there was no First Amendment interest by the acadmeics as they were free to consume Ramadan's ideas regardless of where he was and there was no Constitutional right held by Ramadan to enter the U.S. as he was not within the jurisdiction of the U.S. as he was applying outside of the U.S. and consular decisions were not reviewable by the courts.

The radical left has been fighting to have consular decisions on visas and other issues to be reviewed. The amnesty provisions of the 2007 act specifically included that all decisions on issueing of visas was to be reveiwable in federal courts. This is the height of absurdity, but was part of the strategy of the radical left to bring as many aliens to the U.S. as possible as to aid in their implementation of Marxism in this country. Aliens have always been considered a lobby for welfare and socialism, especially those from the third world.

Every year consular offices deny hundreds of thousands of applications for visas by those who's only intent is to come to the U.S. to sponge off the system. Denying visas is the first line of defense of our borders. Had the DOS been doing their jobs properly none of the 9/11 terrorists would have been issued visas as none had legally qualified for their visas, but lazy and incompetant Consular Officers, who have never been held accountable for their acts, allowed the terrorists in. Only one was stopped at our borders by a brave and intelligent Immigration Inspector for the former Immigration and Naturalization Service, who bucked the system by doing his job as well.

But, now to the issue at hand: The Second Circuit Court of Slemeels (can you believe that it wasn't the Nineth Circuit?) has decided that there is a Constitutional right to come to the U.S. and that the courts could review consular decisions.

Of course, the case was not helped by the incompetance of the Bush Administration, who apparently thought they could not defend a decision based on Ramadan's ideologically based support for terrorism and had to resort to two contributions Ramadan made to Palestinian terrorist front groups. The Second Circuit seized on this, claiming that Ramadan had a right to an appeal and to explain away his contributions.

And therein lies the danger. He can realistically claim that he was just thinking that the contributions were just to help widows and orphans. While we all know that is not true, appeals court judges are not bright enough or are ideologically committed to an imperial judiciary to ignore the reality of Ramadan and his support for terrorism.

So, there we have it, the radical left has now achieved one of their most desired goals, judicial review of consular decisions, a goal that they have never been able to obtain legislatively, just like free lawyers for poor criminals.

This decision is one of the most dangerous to America and will open the floodgates to massive illegal immigration.