For some reason, the pollsters over at Pew Hispanic thought Mexican public opinion regarding America would be worth measuring. Perhaps it was published to reflect Obama’s Thursday taco junket to visit the new Mexican president on his home turf (n.b. Key issues on Obama’s Mexico trip: Trade, immigration and drug war).
Anyway, wouldn’t it be better for Mexicans to dislike America, particularly if the feeling dissuaded them from relocating here? A report of positive attitudes on the part of Mexicans is not reassuring.
Plus, it is revealing that Mexicans’ opinion of the US is up considerably from three years ago when Arizona enacted its own immigration enforcement law. That finding suggests that Mexicans see the United States only as a sponge for its excess citizens, and that it is their right to move here at will because they regard the southwest as belonging to them.
When U.S. President Barack Obama travels to Mexico this week, he will encounter a Mexican public that has far more positive attitudes about the United States than at any time in the last several years.
America’s image south of the border fell sharply in 2010, when Arizona passed a “show me your papers” law aimed at identifying, prosecuting and deporting immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally. But Mexican views have rebounded since then, and U.S. favorability ratings are now at their highest point since 2009. The prospects for U.S. immigration reform may be, at least in part, the source of renewed Mexican approval of their neighbor to the north.
A new Pew Research Center poll found that 66 percent of Mexicans have a favorable opinion of the U.S., up 10 percentage points from a year ago and up 22 points from May 2010, immediately following the enactment of Arizona’s immigration law. The last time America’s image was as strong among Mexicans was in 2009, when 69 percent said they had a favorable opinion. [. . .]
Doesn’t anyone in the polling universe care about what Americans think of Mexico and its demanding inhabitants? Particularly since Mexico is largest sending country of immigrants by far. A search of the handy internet turned up a survey from the National Journal last November, expressed rather cleverly.
The word cloud below answers the survey question, “Now, thinking about Mexico, what are three words that come to mind?”
As the newly elected Mexican president travels to Washington next week, a new survey released by consulting firm Vianovo on Monday underscores the startling challenges Mexico faces with its international image, especially in the U.S.
The survey highlights what has been widely assumed: that Americans have a generally unfavorable view of Mexico. But while illegal immigration and border crossings may be at the forefront of concerns in the Southwest, drugs and corruption are the ringing concerns of most Americans.
“Drugs” was the word most often used to describe Mexico by those surveyed, as is stunningly illustrated by the survey’s word cloud. Additionally, 72 percent cited drug cartels and traffickers as the main reason behind their negative perception of their neighbors to the south.
Of those surveyed, an astounding 72 percent of Americans think Mexico is unsafe for travel and only 17 percent consider the country to be modern. Continue reading this article
The Catholic church has upped its bankroll to wreck American law and sovereignty. It has added $800,000 to its previous amnesty spending of $3 million, since opening the borders to millions more hispanic Catholics is highly desirable for the bishops.
Not that it’s new for Vaticrats to work to subvert a nation that has been very generous to them. The Catholic hierarchy believe their organization supersedes mere laws and nation-states, particularly when the church sees a way to fill its empty pews. Immigration-fueled demographic change has supplied the Catholic church with more credulous worshippers, helpful to replace the many Americans who have left the church out of disgust with its pervert priest problem. (Around 10 percent of Americans are former Catholics, according to Pew research.)
In a 2005 article titled Church organizing anti-Minuteman campaign, (Brownsville Herald, Sept 3), priest Michael Seifert stated, “Any family in economic need has a right to immigrate, that’s our posture.” In Catholic teaching, such Marxist views are called Liberation Theology, which sounds so much nicer than “redistribution.”
Anti-sovereignty Catholics shouldn’t complain so much about Americans, since they get billions of taxpayer dollars, supposedly for Catholic Charities to perform refugee resettlement and “immigrant” services. The chart below comes from the 2010 edition of Catholic Charities at a Glance. FYI, 62% (the Government Revenue) of the total = $2,895,092,130.
The organization of U.S. Catholic bishops said it would make $800,000 in grants available for projects aimed at mobilizing regular Catholics to push for the bishops’ immigration platform That includes family reunification, a path to citizenship and addressing the root causes of immigration, among other things.
The bishops’ anti-poverty program in the past year has invested more than $3.5 million in grass-roots immigration reform.
For a decade, the bishops have had a clear policy on immigration, called “Strangers No Longer.” In addition to being part of general church teaching, support for newcomers matches the demographics of a U.S. church built by immigrants. Even today, half of Americans born abroad are Catholic. Continue reading this article
Congressman Lamar Smith (R-TX) has compiled a fine to-do list of immigration enforcement strategies that would help if they were the implemented instead of a multi-trillion-dollar amnesty trough of goodies for lawbreaking foreigners. Among the items, several are suggested upgrades to existing laws plus a couple new ones, including ending the odious anchor baby magnet.
There could have been a few more. Let me add my suggestions:
=> Lower the overall number of legal immigrants to 100,000 annually, maximum. That should be more than enough to serve the interest of the American people.
=> End dual citizenship. No more polygamously fractured national loyalty.
=> End immigration from Special Interest Countries that are said to “promote, produce, or protect terrorist organizations or their members.” Why welcome spies and enemies? Aliens from the officially unfriendly nations (also called Specially Designated Countries, SDCs) get extra security checks to enter or immigrate. Why allow any immigrants from those places when presumably plenty of nice people want to become Americans?
=> End the diversity visa, period. We have more than enough diversity already and don’t need to import more.
Amnesty advocates argue that our immigration system is broken and can only be fixed by legalizing millions of illegal immigrants. But they ignore the real problem plaguing our system today: lack of enforcement of laws already on the books.
America has the most generous immigration system in the world, admitting one million legal immigrants every year. There is a right way and a wrong way to enter our country. The right way is to play by the rules and wait your turn, not cut in front of the line and ignore the law. Better border and interior security will benefit American taxpayers and workers and make our communities safer.
But even if the border itself is secure, that doesn’t mean that individuals won’t continue to gain legal entry and remain in the country illegally. That happens when those on student, visitor or business visas don’t return home after their short-term visa has expired. They account for 40% of all illegal immigrants, more than four million people. Border security must go hand-in-hand with interior enforcement. Congress can take numerous actions to reduce illegal immigration at the border and inside the country. Some of these merely require that the government enforce existing law:
• Require employers to only hire legal workers. This will reduce the magnet of the easy availability of jobs that entices many to enter illegally. And it will reduce the competition for scarce jobs that hurts legal workers. More than 425,000 employers have signed up voluntarily for E-Verify that ensures that prospective hires are legally authorized to work in the U.S. And 99.5% of legal workers are confirmed immediately.
• Increase work-site investigations by Immigration and Customs Enforcement to make sure employers are hiring legal workers. This will protect jobs for unemployed or underemployed Americans. Unfortunately, work-site enforcement is down 70% under the Obama administration. Continue reading this article
In the big capitol city, the Gang of Eight senators continue working in secret to create a “compromise” plan to legalize the 11 million illegal aliens mooching in America. Doubtless the plan is to spring the complete amnesty scheme as a done deal and shove it through the Congress as rapidly as possible. Senator Durbin remarked on Sunday that the ad hoc group meets “virtually every day.”
The work permit IS amnesty. “Normalizing status” IS amnesty. Legalization IS amnesty.
Illegals don’t care about the so-called “path to citizenship” that politicians chatter about to distract and confuse the voters. Illegals come for the money, period. Therefore the legalization that will occur immediately upon the bill’s signing will give them everything they want, namely access to American jobs and no more threat of deportation.
It’s further interesting that the Gang of Eight plotters are not at all dissuaded by the bad faith shown by Obama’s sequester release of 2,000 illegal alien criminals who were set to be deported. A top job of government is supposed to be the protection of public safety, although illegal alien lawbreakers are apparently exempt.
WASHINGTON – Capitol Hill was fixated last week on the sequestration that went into effect on Friday, but behind the scenes, the U.S. Senate’s so-called Gang of Eight pressed forward with its work on bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform legislation.
The group of four Republican and four Democratic senators met three times last week, most recently on Thursday, U.S. Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., told The Arizona Republic.
“We’re working through the items one by one,” Flake said after Thursday’s meeting during an interview on the second floor of the Senate. “Sometimes we have to come back to them, but we’re progressing, and everyone is sticking together.”
Earlier in the week, U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., another member of the group, also reported general progress.
Some of the topics under discussion include border security, the future flow of immigrant labor and employer sanctions, he said.
“There are a lot issues involved, obviously, with immigration reform,” McCain said.
Flake said he didn’t think the unrelated bickering over the sequester and other fiscal matters will hurt the chances of the immigration legislation. The immigration bill is on track to be ready by the end of March, he said. Continue reading this article
At a time when college costs are rising more rapidly all the time (up 1120 percent since 1978), foreign interlopers are being given special benefits for their education.
The kiddies in question are illegal aliens in Philadelphia (pictured) blessed by King Barak with no-deport status because they were fortunate (but not culpable!) when their parents supposedly dragged the youngsters across the border against their will to stupid-generous America. Lucky them!
A 2011 poll found many Californians struggling to afford college, where the study found that the state ranks 41st in the number of bachelor’s degrees awarded per every hundred high school graduates, with cost being the major factor. A few decades back, people actually moved to California for the excellent education system.
But there’s always a helping hand for illegal aliens in Obama’s America. Hard-working citizens, not so much.
PHILADELPHIA (CBS) – Thousands of young undocumented immigrants have been coming out of the shadows to apply for President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.
The program gives these dreamers a chance to get a social security number, a work permit and drivers license. And now several young people in the region have been awarded the scholarships to help them get one step closer to their dream.
“This is like, a dream come true. Everything that I wanted is coming along.”
Sixteen-year-old Montserrat Gallegos stood in a basement room at Juntos headquarters in South Philadelphia with joyful tears in her eyes. Gallegos came to America nine years ago by crossing the border from Mexico into Arizona.
She’s moved from Arizona to New Mexico and finally to Philadelphia a few years ago. Money is tight at her home, so the $465 DACA application fee was a huge burden. Thankfully, the scholarship pays the fee which allowed Gallegos to take the first step in pursuing her dream. Continue reading this article
Even during an election that showed big gains for Democrats, many of whom are permissive regarding borders and US sovereignty, a majority of voters nevertheless remain favorable to tough immigration policing.
A poll commissioned by Breitbart.com and JudicialWatch.org found that 61 percent of voters preferred an approach like Arizona’s state enforcement law to crack down on immigration anarchy.
A Breitbart News/Judicial Watch Election Night poll found Americans are more conservative when it comes to immigration policy than mainstream journalists, liberals, and even some Republicans may suggest.
After Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney lost more than 70 percent of the Hispanic vote in the 2012 presidential election, a chorus of media and establishment figures have insisted Republicans need to embrace more liberal immigration policies.
However, the Breitbart News/Judicial Watch Election Night poll found Americans are still fairly conservative when it comes to immigration policy, with 61% of voters favoring Arizona-style immigration laws and the nation nearly evenly divided on President Barack Obama’s executive action that gave temporary two-year work permits to illegal immigrants who had been brought to this country as children, with 40% in support and 37% opposed. Continue reading this article
Raza open-borders extremists like to fake outrage by comparing the ID requirement to Nazis’ “show me your papers” behavior. Hardly. Anti-sovereignty enthusiasts conveniently forget that LEGAL immigrants are instructed by law to carry their proof of legal residence at all times:
(e) Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d). Any alien who fails to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both.
PHOENIX (AP) — A judge has ruled that police in Arizona can immediately start enforcing the most contentious section of the state’s immigration law, marking the first time officers can carry out a requirement that officers, while enforcing other laws, question the immigration status of those suspected of being in the country illegally.
The decision on Tuesday by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton is the latest milestone in a two-year legal battle over the requirement. It culminated in a U.S. Supreme Court decision in June that upheld the provision on the grounds that it doesn’t conflict with federal law.
Opponents who call the requirement the “show me your papers” provision responded to the Supreme Court decision by asking Bolton to block the requirement on different grounds, arguing that it would lead to systematic racial profiling and unreasonably long detentions of Latinos if it’s enforced.
Other less controversial parts of the law have been in effect since July 2010, such as minor changes to the state’s 2005 immigrant smuggling law and a ban on state and local government agencies from restricting the enforcement of federal immigration law. But those provisions have gotten little, if any, use since they were put into effect.
Arizona’s law was passed in 2010 amid voter frustration with the state’s role as the busiest illegal entry point into the country. Five states — Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina and Utah — have adopted variations on Arizona’s law. Continue reading this article
While states like Arizona and Alabama have succeeded to some degree in exerting more control over the illegal alien brigands in their midst, the California legislature is in a mad rush to legalize the millions in the state as far as it can.
One of the more egregious examples of power politics in the all-Democrat-run capitol was the unscrupulous technique called “gut and amend” to push through a bill that has not gone through the normal process.
Last winter, a Los Angeles-area lawmaker launched a petition drive to place an initiative on the California ballot. Its name was innocuous: The California Opportunity and Prosperity Act. Its aim was not: It would have allowed illegal immigrants to live and work in the state without fear of deportation.
Not surprisingly, the drive failed to get enough signatures, and that should have been the end of that.
But no. This week, Assemblyman Felipe Fuentes revived the effort to give as many as 2 million illegal immigrants “safe harbor” in the state. Using the sneaky “gut and amend” method of slipping controversial laws through the Capitol in the final days of a legislative session, the Democrat from Sylmar has turned a state Senate bill about vehicle pollution into a bill to make life easier for illegal residents.
Fuentes had told The Sacramento Bee the proposed ballot measure was a “moderate, common-sense approach” to immigration reform, and his spokesman told the newspaper this week that the effort “shows that we’re a compassionate state.” Both said it’s a reaction to the federal government’s failure to enact comprehensive immigration reform.
The state’s voters should be the judge of all that. Or, if such a significant change in such an important policy is to be considered in the Legislature, it should be done with time for careful thought and public comment, not in the frenzy of the last week of the 2012 session. [. . .]
California legislators must think the state has too much public safety to unleash foreign criminals with such abandon. It’s all up to Gov. Jerry Brown now to sign or veto the evil bills.
Following is an overview of the whole assortment of legislation that puts the pleasure of lawbreaking foreigners before the rights and safety of the citizens.
California lawmakers are pushing this week to pass four bills that would make life easier for immigrants living and working here illegally, but all require the support of a governor who chooses his immigration causes carefully.
Gov. Jerry Brown won praise last fall from Latinos and immigrant communities when he signed a law giving illegal immigrant college students access to state financial aid, but this season he must sift through a more complicated set of measures that opponents view as defying federal prerogatives.
The flurry comes in the last days of the 2012 legislative session and tests the compassion and political future of Brown, who supports a path to citizenship for California’s more than 2 million illegal immigrants but has repeatedly said the solution must come from the federal government.
Already on Brown’s desk is the Trust Act, which would partially pull California out of an immigration dragnet that has deported about 80,000 people from the state since Brown, as attorney general, signed a federal-state partnership in 2009. Continue reading this article
On Tuesday, an article appeared that was something of a head-scratcher, which indicated that some states could use a federal immigration database to check their voter rolls to delete illegal aliens. Underline “some” because that was the headline:
WASHINGTON — The federal government is expanding access to an immigration database so that several states can use it to purge ineligible voters, officials said Monday.
Homeland Security Department representatives notified Florida officials last week that they could check to see whether registered voters were actually noncitizens who should not be eligible to cast a ballot. State officials said Monday that the department was offering similar access to other states who had requested the information.
“I’m pleased that DHS has agreed to work with states to verify the citizenship of people on the voter rolls and help reduce our vulnerability,” said Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler, who had renewed his request for the data last week, writing a letter with the support of several other states.
Elections leaders in Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, New Mexico, Ohio and Utah had signed onto Gessler’s request. Five of the states — Colorado, Iowa, Michigan, New Mexico and Ohio — are expected to be competitive in the 2012 presidential race. Each of the election chiefs in those states are Republican. [. . .]
So what’s the deal? Why aren’t ALL states allowed to use the federal database to
purge voter rolls of non-citizen voters?
So the friends of electoral integrity have good reason to fear widespread voter fraud. The ability of states to purge illegal alien voters would be a step in the right direction.
Wednesday’s news has a partial answer, with the hint that states may officially request permission to use the Washington database. If so, then citizens of responsible states could lobby their governments to take that step to help assure an honest election in November — although there are signs of considerable pushback:
Texas elections officials on Wednesday joined a growing number of states across the country seeking access to a massive immigration database to check voter rolls for possible noncitizens.
Texas Secretary of State Esperanza “Hope” Andrade sent a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano requesting access to a federal database that contains more than 100 million immigration records.
Andrade, appointed by Gov. Rick Perry, is the latest of roughly a dozen Republican election leaders from across the United States to seek the information since Homeland Security granted Florida officials permission last week after a protracted fight.
Andrade’s plans to check voter rolls against the DHS database mark the latest chapter in an ongoing controversy over the state’s efforts to combat voter fraud. Texas officials and the Department of Justice already are embroiled in a court battle over a Texas law passed last year that requires voters to show photo identification at the polls.
Some Texas voter advocates worried that Andrade’s plans to run checks through the immigration database – coupled with the state’s controversial voter ID law – would fuel confusion and discourage minority voters from going to the polls in November.
“We think this will address a problem that doesn’t really exist and will create confusion about a supposed or alleged fraud that – if it happens at all – is so miniscule that it has no impact,” insisted Carlos Duarte, the Texas Director of Mi Familia Vota, an advocacy organization. “This is happening so close to the election that the actual effect is going to be disenfranchising people who otherwise should be eligible to vote.”
First request in 2007 Spokesman Rich Parsons at the secretary of state’s office said Texas plans to start using the DHS database “as quickly as possible,” but did not have a timeline and could not say if it will begin the checks before the November election.
For months, the Obama administration resisted granting Florida access to the DHS database, but relented after a judge ruled in the state’s favor on a separate issue related to its efforts to purge noncitizens from its voting rolls.
Since then, election leaders in nearly a dozen states have expressed interest in gaining access to the DHS database. But opponents of the move argue that the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements Program, also known as “SAVE,” was intended for use by government agencies verifying the immigration status of applicants for benefits and licenses – not to purge voter rolls. Continue reading this article
Yet another poll shows that the American people still approve of Arizona’s state approach to immigration enforcement, in which law and sovereignty are taken seriously. Not only that, they wish their state was more like Arizona in cracking down on immigration anarchy.
Perhaps the average citizen knows that legal immigrants are required to carry their green cards at all times by law, yet liberal scribblers continue to fret over the possibility that illegals might face a similar requirement.
(e) Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d). Any alien who fails to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both.
Regarding the issue of what to do with the millions of existing illegal infiltrators, which concerns the anti-sovereignty cadres so thoroughly, nearly half of those polled (49%) thought the foreigners should be sent along home.
After the Supreme Court upheld Arizona’s law allowing police to check immigration status of those they stop in the course of their duties, an overwhelming majority of Americans say they want to see their own states enact the same kinds of laws.
The latest The Washington Times/JZ Analytics survey, released Monday night, found about two-thirds of all likely voters would like to see their own police be able to check status during routine traffic stops. Support was high across most demographics, including self-identified Republicans and independents, and even Hispanics favored the policy by a 55 percent to 41 percent margin.
After a challenge by the Obama administration, the Supreme Court last month struck down most of Arizona’s 2010 law that tried to create state penalties for illegal immigration, but the high court said states and localities do have the authority to empower their police to check the immigration status of those they detain during their routine duties.
All of the justices agreed the checks were legal in theory, though they said that could change if police use them in a way that violates other rights, such as detaining someone for too long.
In the poll, voters were told arguments for and against the law, then asked if they wanted to see their own communities enact something similar. Overall, 50 percent of voters said they “strongly” agreed with enacting that law, and another 17 percent “somewhat” agreed. Just 29 percent strongly or somewhat disagreed, and the rest were uncertain. Continue reading this article
The relentlessly open-borders President can hardly stand to let an occasion go by without twisting it into an amnesty plug.
On Independence Day, he welcomed a couple dozen immigrants serving in the military in a naturalization ceremony. Nice optics, but he couldn’t resist talking up his unlawful administrative amnesty and pushing for the whole enchilada of very expensive citizenship for millions of lawbreaking foreigners.
Interestingly, the Daily Caller noticed that Obama’s high-profile amnesty message appeared on the hispanic section of the campaign website, but was not similarly featured for black citizens, who are suffering record unemployment under the current President, who was supposed a friend but treats African-Americans like a doormat.
President Barack Obama used the White House’s Independence Day celebrations to tout his June 15 amnesty for at least 800,000 illegal immigrants, and to suggest that the sweeping change is more important to the nation than compliance with the law.
“Just as we remain a nation of laws, we have to remain a nation of immigrants,” he told his audience.
“That’s why… we’re lifting the shadow of deportation from … deserving young people who were brought to this country as children,” he said at a citizenship ceremony for 10 Latinos and 15 other people from Russia, the Philippines and Africa who have served in the U.S. armed forces.
Many legislators and lawyers say Obama’s decision to stop enforcing established immigration laws is a violation of federal law, which he is legally obliged to enforce. The Obama administration has claimed “prosecutorial discretion” as its means for ignoring the law.
Though the campaign denies an election-year relationship with the change, Obama is trying to maximize November turnout among Hispanics, which his campaign staff say is vital to victory in several states, including Florida, Colorado, and Virginia.
Obama’s June 15 de-facto amnesty offers work-permits to people who show documents saying they arrived as children. The White House’s July 4 citizenship ceremony included at least one Latino who was brought into the country as a child. Continue reading this article
It must be disappointing to the anti-border extremists over at la Raza (aka “the Race”) that two years of an intense campaign of lies and propaganda against Arizona’s sensible immigration enforcement law has had little effect. The majority of American citizens want immigration to be a legal and controlled procedure, where the decision of who gets US citizenship is not decided by foreign lawbreakers.
A recent survey conducted by CBS and the New York Times found a majority thought the law was “about right.” Only 33 percent believed it “went too far.” Apparently all the shrieking that immigration enforcement in Arizona was “racism” didn’t sell very well.
Another interesting item was the belief among the public (62%) that immigration enforcement was a job for both the federal and state governments.
Of course, legal issues are not determined by public opinion, but certainly the people notice that federal and state governments work in partnership every day to enforce the law.
(CBS News) As the Supreme Court weighs a decision on Arizona’s controversial immigration law this summer, a new CBS News/New York Times poll shows that more than half of Americans see the law as “about right.”
The legislation, which was signed into law in April 2010, is considered among the most stringent immigration laws in the nation. It requires Arizona law enforcement members to check the citizenship status of anyone they believe appears to be an undocumented immigrant — and has incited much controversy about whether or not it effectively legalizes racial profiling in a state with a heavy Latino population.
According to the survey, conducted from May 31-June 3 among 976 adults nationwide, 52 percent of Americans believe Arizona’s immigration policy is about right, while 33 percent say it goes too far. Eleven percent say the law does not go far enough.
The U.S. Department of Justice is challenging the law on the grounds that it conflicts with what it contends is the federal government’s exclusive right to set immigration laws for the country.
Most Americans seem to disagree. Sixty-two percent of respondents – and majorities of Republicans, Democrats, and independents – say both the federal government and state governments should be able to determine laws regarding undocumented immigrants. Twenty-five percent (30 percent of Democrats and 16 percent of Republicans) think such laws should be determined exclusively by the federal government, and 11 percent (4 percent of Democrats and 15 percent of Republicans) think they should be determined by state governments only. Continue reading this article
Fair Use: This site contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of issues related to culture and mass immigration. We believe this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information, see: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000107----000-.html. In order to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond "fair use", you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
For some reason, the pollsters over at Pew Hispanic thought Mexican public opinion regarding America would be worth measuring. Perhaps it was published to reflect Obama’s Thursday taco junket to visit the new Mexican president on his home turf (n.b. Key issues on Obama’s Mexico trip: Trade, immigration and drug war).
Congressman Lamar Smith (R-TX) has compiled a fine to-do list of immigration enforcement strategies that would help if they were the implemented instead of a 
The kiddies in question are illegal aliens in Philadelphia (pictured) blessed by King Barak with no-deport status because they were fortunate (
Apparently Arizona police will finally be allowed to do the job the public wants them to do, namely fully check persons identification during traffic stops, etc. Arizonans and the American public have 
On Tuesday, an article appeared that was something of a head-scratcher, which indicated that some states could use a federal immigration database to check their voter rolls to delete illegal aliens. Underline “some” because that was the headline:
Yet another poll shows that the American people still approve of Arizona’s state approach to immigration enforcement, in which law and sovereignty are taken seriously. Not only that, they wish their state was more like Arizona in cracking down on immigration anarchy.
The relentlessly open-borders President can hardly stand to let an occasion go by without twisting it into an amnesty plug.
A recent survey conducted by CBS and the New York Times found a majority thought the law was “about right.” Only 33 percent believed it “went too far.” Apparently all the shrieking that immigration enforcement in Arizona was “racism” didn’t sell very well.