Friday, July 30, 2010

the "memo" for alternatives to comprehensive immigration reform

ABC news --

In a memo from the US citizenship and immigration services, subject: ADMINISTRATIVE ALTERNATIVES TO COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM,
"this memorandum offers administrative relief options to promote family unity, foster economic growth, achieve significant process improvements and reduce the threat of removal for certain individuals present in the United States without authorization...

…To promote family unity, US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) could interpret two 1990 general counsel options regarding the ability of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) applicants who enter the United States without inspection to adjust or change status. this would allow thousands of individuals in TPS status to become lawful permanent residents... where no relief appears available based on an applicants employment and/or family circumstances, but removal is not in the public interest, USCIS could grant deferred action. This would permit individuals for whom relief may become available in the future to live and work in the US without fear of removal… "

it sounds like that no matter what the people want, the government is going to do what it wants to do regardless.

I am still baffled at why the US government is so adamant to not expel people who have entered this country illegally.

If you listen to the talk shows, they're stating that it's for the Democratic vote.

I'm not buying that excuse. I think that there's something more behind it that they're not telling us. Why else would they be defending it so heartily?

If it turns out that the whole reason for selling out our country is solely to try and gain the Hispanic vote for the Democrats, then we have a real serious problem on our hands in which case we need to SERIOUSLY think about dissolving the two-party system altogether as it has become detrimental to the health of our country.

If the security and sanctity of our country solely depends on elected officials trying to get reelected, then that would definitely lead to the downfall of our country in my opinion.

As the old rule of thumb says, "follow the money" there needs to be some serious investigation.

"Immigration-gate" might be the new word for congressional inquiries to the traitors of the US in the U.S. Constitution as well as our security.

government once again thinks it knows what's best for you

Herald and news --

ORS 471.403 is having an effect for a local home brewers of beer and wine. Under the new ordinance, home brewers are allowed to "brew" their own beverage however, you are not allowed to take it outside of your home unless you have a license.

"Earlier this month, the Oregon State Fair had to cancel their decades-old beer and wine home-brewing competition after the Oregon Department of Justice deemed the competition violated an 80-year-old liquor law."

with everything that's going on in the state of Oregon, including the recession... when and why did this become major concern?

one of the things that I really love about our glorious state... is that instead of addressing issues of more importance such as, oh I don't know, creating jobs in a recession may be... they spend their time on stupid issues like this and making the Dungeness crab the State crab.

In Oregon, as Ray Stevens puts it in his music video, we need to "throw the bums out" and get people in office that will actually help the state instead of hurting it.

We also [as I've been preaching] we need to put a system in similar to Parliament whereby the legislature can get rid of a governor or other elected official simply by a vote of no confidence.

I feel that having such a system would make our elected officials more accountable to the people and get rid of the attitude of saying anything to get elected without any consequences after being elected.

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

Federal program expanding fingerprinting of illegal aliens

AP --

467 jurisdictions in 26 states have joined a federal government program called Secure Communities to identify illegal immigrants using fingerprints from arrests for anyone who was booked into a jail for a crime and compared with FBI criminal history records and the Department of Homeland Security immigration records to determine their immigration status.
"It has the potential to revolutionize immigration enforcement,said Sunita Patel, an attorney who filed a lawsuit in New York against the federal government on behalf of a group worried about the program.

ICE will be using biometric identification technologies currently in use by the FBI and other parts of DHS which is designed to accurately and efficiently identify illegal aliens and to prioritize them based on the severity of their crimes.
The Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition said in its letter to the governor that the Secure Communities is "inherently flawed and should not be implemented." CIRC said one of its main concerns is that in cases of domestic violence, where both parties may be taken into custody while authorities investigate a case, victims may feel reluctant to report a crime out of fear that their illegal status will be discovered."

... "inherently flawed and should not be implemented." Am also a 100% sure that by checking EVERYBODY that the system is also a racist.

Thanks to judge Susan Bolton, illegal immigrants are temporarily claiming a victory

US District Judge Susan Bolton issued a temporary injunction to halt key parts of Arizona Senate bill 1070 that would have required police to check immigration status of anybody suspected of being an illegal alien if they are stopped by police.

"the number of requests that would emanate from Arizona as a result of determining the status of every arrestee is likely to impermissibly burdened federal resources and redirect federal agencies away from the priorities they have established," Judge Bolton wrote

"... burdened federal resources and redirect federal agencies away from the priorities they have established."

What the heck does that mean? I mean I am "assuming" that their PRIORITY is the protection of the United States and its citizens. But I digress.

What the judge is basically saying is that we do not have enough resources to protect our own country from foreign invaders.

Think about that statement for a moment before you make your decision about this issue. Even the Secretary of Homeland security has indicated that Arizona's borders are too "big" to protect.

Now doesn't that just make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside as you think about the security of our country against foreign invaders.

consider this...What if every one of these people that cross the borders were actually armed and their primary purpose was to take over this country by force? Think about it.

In my opinion, I think the judge's decision has opened up a Pandora's box because it will literally come down to a battle between "them" and "us".

The federal government's argument against the Arizona law is that [listen carefully] "states are not allowed to go beyond federal law."
If that were true, then there are other issues ranging from college requirements on the administrating student loans to California going beyond the EPA requirements on emissions.

But for those who are jumping up and down with joy over the judge's decision, don't break out the champagne just yet. This is ONLY a stay of execution and this issue will be challenged all the way up to the Supreme Court.

Although the judge put on hold the major portions of the Arizona law, one provision that she is allowing is penalties permitting civil suits for sanctuary cities.

For a list of the judges determinations can be seen here at Fox news.

I also have to admire Arizona Governor Jim Brewer for sticking to her guns and standing up to the federal government for what she and the people of Arizona believe in.

Wednesday, July 21, 2010

It's 137° outside and no air conditioning
Could you work and sleep in these conditions?

Robin's Commentary --

Would you work in an office when it's 137° outside with no air conditioning?

How about sleeping in those conditions?

More than likely not.

Most people are unaware or even care that for the over the road truck driver, these are the type of unhealthy living and sleeping conditions that the driver must endure almost every day.

The no idle rule.

Every truck driver knows what it is.

It is a law that was enacted by states in order to cut down on air pollution and limits idling no matter how hot or cold it gets. Violation of the rule could cost the driver $100 to $300 in fines depending on the state. (Some cities and counties in Colorado the penalty is fines up to $1,000 and/or 1 year imprisonment.)

In addition to these laws, some companies have enacted their own anti-Idle rule in order to save money. Violation of the rule differs from company to company. Some companies make the drivers reimbursed the company for the fuel used; others threaten to write up the driver with threats of termination.

One option for driver relief was a company called IdleAire that offers an in-truck climate control alternative located at most truck stops which provides both heating and air-conditioning, plus electricity through a large tube with an adapter that attaches to the passenger side window for $20-30 dollars a night. Spendy, but worth it on those hot nights.

Unfortunately, IdleAire went out of business this year leaving drivers with no other option for relief from the weather.

You would think that OSHA or other work force protection agencies would be there to protect the driver's health from these type of working conditions. Unfortunately, most OSHA regulations do not protect the driver from heat exhaustion or heat stroke, and lack of sleep also contributes to driver fatigue.

For more information on anti-Idle regulations, please check out the information below.

EPA anti-idle regulations by state
idling laws by state (full page)
idling laws by state (Card)

update on IdleAire -- July 12 2010, IdleAire is making progress to restart services in the near future. More information, go to their website at

are we really looking at the big picture here?

Robin's commentary --

As I'm checking some of the headlines just before going to work this morning one of the headlines that caught my attention was the following...

"AP- PHOENIX – Seven other Latin American countries want to join Mexico in supporting a lawsuit challenging Arizona's immigration enforcement law.

Bolivia, Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Paraguay and Peru filed separate, nearly identical motions to join Mexico's legal brief supporting the lawsuit filed by U.S. civil rights and other advocacy groups"

so the question that I'm asking, is why do these other countries care if we check to see if somebody is legally authorized within our own country?

what is the real reason behind it?

Or more importantly... what is it that they have to hide?

The only thing that the Arizona law does is it gives the state the authority to question somebodies immigration status when they are lawfully stopped by a local police officer.

Big deal... I got pulled over the other day for not using my turn signal in a lane change.

Not only did the police officer check my ID, but they also checked the ID of my passenger.

[maybe it was gender profiling since were both female]

so how is the Arizona law any different?

I guess my point is, with so many people that are upset over Arizona and now other countries who are wanting to join Mexico's lawsuit against Arizona...

What is really going on and what is it they have to lose?

Monday, July 19, 2010

Citizenship for Sale for a mere $1475
Better known as the 14th amendment birth tourism package

Washington Post --

in Shanghai China, $1475 can buy you a US passport and citizenship for your new baby.
"Zhou and Chao, a husband and wife from Taiwan who now live in Shanghai, run one of China's oldest and most successful consultancies helping well-heeled expectant Chinese mothers travel to the United States to give birth..."

the package, which includes a three months stay (two months before birth and one month after)takes advantage of one of the loopholes in the 14th amendment.

"Zhou and Chao insist that everything they do is legal, noting that the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1868, says anyone born on U.S. soil has the right to citizenship. "We don't encourage moms to break the law -- just to take advantage of it," Zhou said. "It's like jaywalking. The policeman might fine you, but it doesn't break the law."

"We are not snakeheads," he added, using the common term here for Chinese gangsters involved in smuggling illegal immigrants. "

the Chinese, have found a way to profit from the 14th amendment and to do it legally.

one thing I find very interesting in the article, is that the writer states that a some of the parents that bring their children over here to be born US citizens have no intention them selves in remaining in the United States. They are simply more concerned for their children's future unlike in my opinion those who cross the border illegally dragging their three-year-old child here apparently unconcerned at all for the type of future that they're placing their child into.

it still doesn't make it right, however, it is another reason to take another look at the 14th amendment.

Friday, July 16, 2010

over 25,000 people put their money where their mouth is concerning support for Arizona's law

Fox news --

Arizona governor Jan Brewer established a defense fund in late May to help pay for defending the state's law cracking down on illegal immigration now totals more than $1.2 million with donations from over 25,000 people.

25,000 people!

I guess in one sense, you can say that it's 25,000 people contributing to help fight against the US government.

Additional news --

Fox news --

governor Jan Brewer dropped her request to accept private contributions after her campaign rival Buz Mills suspended his campaign for governor.

"The Yavapai County businessman said Tuesday he suspended his campaign because the illegal immigration and border security issues had drowned out discussion of budget and economic concerns that prompted him to enter the race. "

he's either smart or chicken.

Tuesday, July 13, 2010

Take a picture the BP oil spill, and it is now a federal violation* subject to a $40,000 fine

News Busters --

the White House enacted stronger rules to prevent the media from showing what's happening with the oil spill in the Gulf Coast. The new ruling keeps photographers and reporters and anyone else from coming within 65 feet of any response vessel or booms out on the water or on beaches.

In order to get access, you have to get direct permission from Coast Guard captain of the Port of New Orleans. Violators of the new rule could face a fine of $40,000 and a class D. felony charge. more...

(more photos of oil spill)

Saturday, July 10, 2010

working in the United States illegally -- you're fired!

New York Times --

Present Obama in a speech last week explained a two-step immigration policy where he promises tough enforcement against illegal immigration in the workplace and at the border while at the same time the enforcement on illegal aliens creates no drama, no trauma, no families being torn apart and no handcuffs."

Part of the new strategy is called "silent raids" where instead of sending large number of federal agents into a business and arresting the illegal aliens that happened to be on the premises at the time, a "quieter" and more cost effective method of enforcement is to send several federal agents into the business and scour the company's records for illegal immigrants.

Over the past year, ICE has conducted audits of employee files at more than 2900 companies and the agency has levied a record of $3 million in civil fines so far this year.

The audit forces businesses to fire every suspected illegal immigrant on the payroll, not just those that happened to be on the premises at the time of the raid. There are no arrests, no deportation and therefore no families are separated as a result of the raids.
" Even if discovered, illegal aliens are allowed to walk free and seek employment elsewhere” said Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the senior Republican on the Judiciary Committee. “This lax approach is particularly troubling,” he said, “at a time when so many American citizens are struggling to find jobs."

John Morton, the head of ICE, said the goal of the audits is to create "a culture of compliance" among employers and leaves it up to the employers to fire workers who documents cannot be validated.

well, that's one of the things that "we" wanted was to take away the carrot that attracts illegal aliens to the country.

By making employers more accountable, should make it a little bit harder for illegal aliens to find work within the country. however, do you feel that the illegal aliens who are discovered as a result of these raids should just be allowed to walk free?

What about criminal charges against somebody using a stolen Social Security number or deliberately falsifying the INS I-9 form?

Isn't that a federal crime?

At least (even though the federal government profits from it) it's a step in the right direction.

Thursday, July 08, 2010

what your opinion if Arizona loses?

Robin's commentary...

I've been reading a ton of news articles regarding the federal government's lawsuit against Arizona... and the majority of readers comments made on these articles are in favor of Arizona and are also setting a tone of anger against the federal government for even thinking about filing a lawsuit to protect illegal trespassers.

So in your opinion, what do YOU feel will happen as a result of this lawsuit no matter who wins?

In my opinion, if Arizona loses, the federal government and local governments are going to see an uproar from the people that they've never seen before.

Tuesday, July 06, 2010

The federal government filed suit against Arizona prohibiting them from enforcing federal immigration law

Fox news --

The Department of Justice on Tuesday claiming that the federal government has "preeminent authority" on immigration enforcement filed a lawsuit challenging the state's immigration policy claiming that the "invalid" law interferes with federal immigration responsibilities.
"Arizonans are understandably frustrated with illegal immigration, and the federal government has a responsibility to comprehensively address those concerns," Attorney General Eric Holder said in a written statement. "But diverting federal resources away from dangerous aliens such as terrorism suspects and aliens with criminal records will impact the entire country's safety. Setting immigration policy and enforcing immigration laws is a national responsibility. Seeking to address the issue through a patchwork of state laws will only create more problems than it solves."

... The United States Constitution forbids Arizona from supplanting the federal government's immigration regime with its own state-specific immigration policy," the suit says. "A policy that, in purpose and effect, interferes with the numerous interests the federal government must balance."

Already the high court is weighing a separate Arizona law establishing penalties for employers that don't check the immigration status of employees, which the Justice Department argues impinges on federal immigration authority. {WSJ}

Depending on the outcome, supporters of the measure hope that this will set the new precedent on immigration.

first of all, Attorney General Eric Holder is full of …..
"Diverting federal resources away from dangerous aliens..." that's about the same BS is saying I'm going to leave my front door unlocked and take my chances on who enters my house.

I want to take issue with several things at this article is saying.

1. Diverting federal resources away from "dangerous aliens" and "aliens with records" will impact the entire country safety." Okay, how do you know if they are "dangerous" or have a "record" if you don't check it when you get the opportunity?

2. "Supplanting the federal government's immigration regime with its own state specific immigration policy." Arizona is simply enforcing federal immigration laws.

3. "... a policy that, in purpose and effect, interferes with the numerous interests the federal government's must balance" like what, some type of trade deal with Mexico that we are not aware of? WorldNetDaily exclusive July 6, 2010

Anyway, here is my prediction if Arizona loses the lawsuit.

1. You will a record flood of illegal aliens entering the country because the only system in place to verify their immigration status would be the federal government and they've already proven that they are not interested in doing so.

2. Because of the record number of US citizens that are in favor of such laws such as Arizona's and the firm belief that the federal government has failed to do its constitutional duty in protecting our borders and our country, you're going to see an uprising (hopefully peacefully) of outraged citizens.

Voter outrage is already starting to show in the primaries in the fact that incumbents are not being reelected and tea party supporters are.
Comprehensive immigration reform (whatever the heck that means) that the president is trying to pass, you might as well forget it. NO AMNESTY!

While I am a firm believer that the children who were brought here at a very young age illegally who are now graduating from high school and know no other country than this one, that we should have some leniency towards them simply because we (government) for failing to enforce our laws have created these circumstances in which they now face, should be allowed some path to citizenship. All others, go home and come back to the front door and be welcome.

I would hope that if Arizona does lose this battle, that it along with the other states would in turn sue the federal government and demand since they so adamantly insists that enforcing immigration laws is their job, make them step up to the plate and do it.

While our immigration system is not perfect, it is the one that is currently in place and by circumventing the law itself just because you don't agree with it, does not make what you're doing right, and even more so, it is unfair to the millions of legal immigrants who spent the time money and trouble to become Americans.

Friday, July 02, 2010

Is anybody offended by Independence Day?

Robin's commentary --

As I was searching the Internet and online news medias for articles to blog about, I got to thinking about all the things that have been going on in the 21st century and the effect from the politically correct crowd. And I got to wonder if anybody was actually offended by Independence Day Fourth of July.

Think about this for a minute...

On Memorial Day, the question was asked at my workplace, "what is it and why should I care?"

So I put the question out there regarding Independence Day.

Other than beer, fireworks and an extra day off, do you really know or really care what Independence Day is?

are we taking our independence for granted thinking that we could never lose it?

Growing up, just before Christmas, we were bombarded with tons of children's shows about saving Christmas. I never gave it much thought; Christmas will always be here. Who would want to ever kill Christmas?

More importantly, who would ever think that Christmas could ever be offensive.

in the 21st century, we have to fight to keep the Christmas tree, a Christmas tree.

Then I see headlines like this one...

Arlington, Massachusetts school bans American flag, Pledge of Allegiance in schools.

The world is a much different place now. The teachings in our schools now are isolating our children from the "violence" of the world and rewriting our history and how we gained our freedom and I personally believe that it is our ignorance and a lack of patriotism, which will be the downfall of America.

And the next time that somebody demands to place a foreign countries flag in place of our own on our own soil, that I suggest that you really take a close look at the words below about what our flag, the red white and blue really stands for.

For those of you that have served in the armed forces to protect our freedoms, I say thank you for your service and contributions.

So as we go into the weekend celebration, stop for a moment and give thanks to the freedoms that we enjoy today.

RED SKELTON: I — me, an individual, a committee of one — pledge — dedicate all of my worldly goods to give without self-pity — allegiance — my love and my devotion — to the flag — our standard, Old Glory, a symbol of freedom. Wherever she waves, there is respect because your loyalty has given her a dignity that shouts freedom is everybody's job — of the United — that means that we have all come together — States — individual communities that have united into 48 great states; 48 individual communities with pride and dignity and purpose, all divided with imaginary boundaries, yet united to a common cause and that's love for country — of America and to the Republic — a republic, a state in which sovereign power is invested in representatives chosen by the people to govern. And government is the people and it's from the people to the leaders, not from the leaders to the people — for which it stands. One nation— meaning, so blessed by God — indivisible — incapable of being divided —with liberty — which is freedom, the right of power to live one's life without threats or fear or any sort of retaliation — and justice — the principle or quality of dealing fairly with others — for all — which means, boys and girls, it's as much your country as it is mine.