Is it true, what they say about Oklahoma?

Nora Brinker sent me an email yesterday under the subject line "Did you know about this?", containing a link to this examiner.com article. I sent an affirmative reply to Nora --Yes, I do know about, and can confirm that the legislation is legit. But the assertion that all of our illegals have fled the state is false. Many of them fled initially when H.B. 1804 first took effect back in November of 2007. Two key provions in the law (Sections 7 and 9 specifically), however, have been under federal suspsension since July of 2008 (actually I think it may have been late June, 2008, when the 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals preemptively passed down its ... opinion that these provisions probably violate federal immigration law, but who's keeping count?), and under the protection of this illegitimate 10th Circuit opinion, many of our illegals have returned to the state. Indeed, I was in Ardmore, Ok., over the weekend, and it was almost shocking to me, the number of illegal Mexican aliens walking around there as opposed to where I live. Shocking I say because it was almost like I was in another state that happens to border ours to the South.

Anyway, how do I know that these illegals are, well, illegals? Let's just say that if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, and otherwise conducts itself like a duck, chances are very high that it probably is a duck.

Read More

Randy Brogdon on the specter of Specter's 'defection'

I wrote about the specter of Senator Specter's defection from the Republican party on April 29, and asked the question "how much idiocy can be crammed into a single article?" As was made strikingly evident in the article in question, it all depends on the idiot writing the article, as well as the idiots on all sides whom the writer quotes. In that particular case it was like unto a couple of dozen circus clowns exiting a V.W. But anyway,...

Oklahoma Republican State Senator Randy Brogdon of Owasso released a public statement concerning Arlen Specter's 'defection' on April 28, in which Brogdon stated the following:

Every day, dozens of 'conservatives' in Congress defect to the other party when they join with Obama by voting for new government programs, increased deficit spending, and billions in federal earmarks," said Brogdon. The only difference is that Senator Specter finally admitted he is in lockstep with the Democratic [sic] leadership. (emphasis added)

My only beef with that portion of Mr. Brogdon's statement is his referring to the Democrat 'leadership' as the 'Democratic' leadership. But that's a whole separate issue which basically boils down to semantics.

Randy Brogdon obviously gets it. He knows that Senator Specter was, while donning the mask of a Republican, nothing more than a subversive and an infiltrator, and that he is/was far from being alone. Few 'conservatives' (not to mention liberals) seem to be able to come to this understanding on their own. I can't tell you how many conversations of very recent antiquity I've had with (nominal) conservatives in which they express genuine anguish over the fact that the official U.S. Senate numbers are now 59 Ds, 41 Rs. If, they say, that jackass prevails in Minnesota, we are all but doomed. But we're already all but doomed, and we have been since January 20. There aren't 41 reliable Republicans in the U.S. Senate, and there weren't 42 a couple of weeks ago. Are you kidding me? The Minnesota situation is not only bogus, it is a diversion. And any conservative worth his salt ought to be smart enough to know it.

(I think too many of you are putting way too much stock in what Sean Hannity and the like have to say on the matter. Pay more attention to the public statements of Senate 'Republicans' like Olympia Snowe, John McCain, what's-his-name from South Carolina (I know his name, do you?), and etc., all of which have said publicly, on the heels of Specter's 'defection,' that the Republican party is becoming too conservative; that the Republican party needs to become more inclusive, blah, blah, blah. In other words, they seek to destroy the Republican party from within. Y'all don't understand that?)

As I've said numerous times, there are enough RINOs in that body to pass any self-destructive, anti-American (yes, anti) piece of legislation that comes down the pike with several to spare for another issue -- you know, so that one or two don't have to take all the flac all the time, and be outed themselves subversives and infiltrators, which they most definitely are nonetheless. And John McCain, my friends, is among them. Speaking of which, thank you Senator McCain for your service and your suffering in Vietnam. Now please be gone from public life before we have to drum you out. Comprehende Amigo? And that goes for the rest of you infiltrators. But I digress...

I did want to mention that Senator Brogdon is running for the governorship in Oklahoma. Someone as clear-headed as Brogdon, who sees the subversive nature of the Arlen Specters of the world and the danger it poses to conservatism, definitely has my endorsement.

Brogdon was also among those Oklahoma legislators who refused a specially made copy of the Koran from Governor Henry's illegitimate, falsely named, secretive Muslim front group which I've also written about at this blog. Does anyone think that so-called "council" will remain intact under a Brogdon governorship? Furthermore, does anyone believe that our Tenth Amendment Resolution would be vetoed under Brogdon's leadership? On the immigration front, Governor Henry did sign Oklahoma's immigration bill into law, but not before he was dragged kicking and screaming, in fine Janet Napolitano style, to the signing table, announcing to the public that "immigration is an issue exclusive to the federal government." Later when the law was challenged, Governor Henry indicated that it was up to the courts to decide whether Oklahoma has the right and the responsibility to its citizens to protect them and our state against invasion. I've already thoroughly refuted the abjectly stupid (not to mention, dangerous) assertion that immigration is federal issue exclusive to the federal government by its own decree, so I don't think I need to go over it again. Given Brogdon's positions on other issues, how do you think he'd come down on the immigration front, particularly on Oklahoma's unalienable right to protect herself from her enemies, foreign and domestic?

Governor Brogdon -- it has a nice ring to it, don't ya think.

Read More

My country, my State

In connection with the two preceding entries, the reason I'm feeling such pride in my country and my state should be fairly obvious with the knowledge that my state, Oklahoma, is one of only two states in this union who have passed in both houses of their legislatures their versions of the tenth amendment resolution. Oklahoma's bill passed the House and Senate by margins of 83-13 and 25-17 respectively.

Also recall that Oklahoma was on the forefront of introducing and passing into law state initiated immigration legislation. And in specific connection with this post, Oklahoma's constitution also affirms our Judeo-Christian, European heritage, which of course is deemed "uncivilized" by certain leftist organizations in America.

The map I've posted is unfortunately a bit out of date, showing only 26 individual states which have introduced their own tenth amendment resolutions. There are now, by my tally, 28 such states and counting. The two additional states not represented on this map being Nevada and Ohio.

Also keep in mind that when one house of a given state's legislature "kills" a bill such as this in committee or whatever, it doesn't necessarily mean that the bill is forever dead. Sometimes legislatures and legislative committees are simply rejecting a specific bit of language in a measure, essentially requiring that the objectionable language be re-written or altogether stricken, and the measure re-submitted. I think that is likely the case with the New Hampshire resolution, the language therein being very strong and threatening. But, of course, I have no way of being absolutely certain that is the case.

Nonetheless, essentially the same thing can be said without such purposefully threatening effrontery. I mean "cease and desist, otherwise we're going to war" and such as that doesn't seem very, ummm, diplomatic. And it is, after all, that the states have a diplomatic relationship with, and carry on diplomatic relations with foreign governments through, the central government.

So, you guys keep trying up there in New Hampshire. There may well come a time for strong language such as contained in your resolution, but I don't think that time is now. You can always add it later when the central government, in direct defiance of the various states and their wishes, continues to abuse its powers and encroach upon your rights under the ninth and tenth amendments. Let the record show that you did not provoke the central government, but that the central government and perhaps certain states in this union ignored your petitions and remonstrances:

The Unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America

The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

[...]

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

Change a few words around using that as your model, and you've got it.

Read More

Time for full enactment of H.B. 1804!

An alternate title might be something to the effect of "Either lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way!" That title would be more pointedly directed at the 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, of course, where two key provisions in Oklahoma's Immigration law remain under federal suspension pending hearings on the matter.

Perhaps this recent court ruling on the subject in another state might help the 10th Circuit Court to make the right decision so that we in Oklahoma can get on with the business at hand. Indeed, there are security, as well as economic reasons for requiring that businesses confirm the eligibility of their employees via E-Verify. Of the two aspects mentioned in the article (there are more), I've focused mainly on the economic implications. But the security issue is very important, and a good argument can be made that the provisions in 1804 are necessary on that basis alone.

Incidentally, I think the record needs to be set straight on this little matter. While I can't be at all places in the state at all times, I do get around enough to know that on one point the author is misled into believing that the initial mass exodus of illegals from the State of Oklahoma ... to points unknown ... is an ongoing phenomenon. Not true. In fact, many of those who left the state initially are back. And they're definitely not currently leaving the state in droves as he says. In point of fact, I'd venture an educated guess that the illegal Mexican population in Oklahoma is on the rise again due in part to our inability to enforce certain provisions in 1804, namely sections seven and nine of the law as mentioned above.

The author also forgot to mention that our popular Democrat Governor has some kind of a fetish for Islam and Islamic subversives. It takes the form of something he calls the Governor's Ethnic American Advisory Council. But I guess that's beside the point.

Read More

Liberals never cease to amaze...

...and we have our share of 'em right here in "conservative" Oklahoma.

I recalled this and other related "horror" stories that have been documented in Oklahoma ever since the provisions of H.B. 1804 went into effect on November 1, 2007 as I had my Oklahoma driver license renewed yesterday. I was prepared for a lengthy delay in receiving my license renewal, but as it turns out this was by far the quickest renewal period I personally have ever experienced. I was in and out of the local tag office, new license in hand, in less than twenty minutes.

From the knee-jerk story linked above:

HB 1804 was aimed at cracking down on illegal immigrants. Instead, this portion of the law is creating unnecessary burdens for people who have lived here all their lives. Coming up with a fix must be a priority for lawmakers. In the meantime, check your license, or you may regret it.

Great advice in the concluding sentence of the article -- check your license or you may regret it indeed. Ask my eldest son. But just because someone has lived in Oklahoma all or most of his life, this does not mean he's a legal citizen of Oklahoma or of the United States entitled to the priveleges and immunities thereof.

These "horror stories" have been reported in any number of publications in Oklahoma since Nov. 1, 2007. But it is the personal "horror stories" that get around by word of mouth that are the most common. I have a friend who is a staunch immigration restrictionist. But when he heard of the difficulties a female friend of his encountered while attempting to renew her expired Oklahoma driver license several months back, his immediate response was very similar to the story linked above. I explained to him in a private discussion on the matter that this was all part of Oklahoma's immigration law, and that immigration restrictionists should be more than willing to go along with tighter restrictions on driver licensing in Oklahoma for the greater good. Initially he was not particularly receptive to my explanation, nor my advocacy for that particular provision in H.B. 1804. But as these sorts of things generally go, once he had time to reflect upon it he began to realize that he and I and all Oklahoma citizens, if we truly support the intent of H.B. 1804, must be willing to make certain personal sacrifices in pursuit thereof when necessary. You know, being willing to incur the "horror" of committing a grand total of three or four hours of our lives (provided we don't allow our licenses to expire once issued) to act in compliance with the provisions of Oklahoma law.

It used to be in Oklahoma that an expired license was no big deal to renew, I can personally attest. Indeed, I once learned that my license was several months expired during a routine traffic stop. The officer simply requested that I "take care of it immediately" which I was very happy to do. It is now more difficult to "take care of it" due to the provisions of H.B. 1804. So, as the story above puts it, and to reiterate, if you're an Oklahoma citizen and you possess a valid Oklahoma driver license, don't let it expire or you might regret it. On the other hand, you may well be in for a treat, prepared as you should be for the worst, yet hoping for the best.

But it's funny, I've personally been reminded several times during the course of this month when showing my driver license not to allow it to expire. You know, neighbor and fellow citizen taking care of neighbor and fellow citizen. All part of the master plan, knee-jerk liberalism notwithstanding.

Read More

The late election and what it portends for immigration restriction

I predict that under the Hussein Obama administration the new Democrat controlled, virtually filibuster-proof, Congress is going to come to an agreement on "Comprehensive Immigration Reform," by and with the aid of that RINO John McCain, and other liberal RINO Senators. What this means effectively is that Oklahoma's H.B. 1804 (and all other state and local immigration restriction laws), while probably remaining on the books for symbolism's sake, will become shortly nothing more than a dead letter as the all-powerful central government will have comprehensively "occupied the field" of immigration, and comprehensively left no doubt that it "intended a complete ouster" ... of the state and local authorities on immigration restrictionism.

Prepare to be overrun by Mexican and other third-worlders, America! Most of you who support immigration restriction to one extent or the other have literally been dragged kicking and screaming to create your own state and local laws on immigration -- kicking and screaming that immigration is a federal issue and a federal responsibility. Well, believe me when I say that the feds have heard you and they will respond to your dependency in fairly short order.

Read More

Saving E-Verify

Here again, I've written numerous times about the E-Verify system and why it is essential to maintain it as a federal clearinghouse for determining employment eligibility of prospective employees.

Below is what I wrote to Senators Inhofe and Coburn this morning on the importance of reauthorizing E-Verify this week:

Dear Senator,

I'm writing today to ask that you do all in your power to stop Senator Menendez's attempts to force his will on the Senate body and the People at large regarding reauthorization of the E-Verify system.

As a strong advocate for state initiated immigration law, and cooperation between local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies, I consider it a matter of infinite consequence the clean reauthorization of this vital tool for determining the eligibility of prospective emplyees.

Recent Census Bureau reports indicate that our efforts at the state and local level to force attrition on the vast number of illegal immigrants currently in our country are working, but we must do more. The efficacy of Oklahoma's (and Arizona's and Georgia's, etc.) law depends on the existence of E-Verify as a federal clearinghouse for verifying employment eligibility of all new hires.

However, I believe that yielding to Menendez's demands for an additional 550,000 greencards issued to aliens in exchange for his ending his filibuster would send the wrong message and set the wrong kind of precedent. We need to be reducing the number of greencards we're alloting, not increasing them. And we should not allow a rogue Senator from a sanctuary state to determine policy for the entire nation, nor to set such a precedent.

Again, please do all in your power to force a clean reauthorization of E-Verify.

Sincerely, ...

Here is Roy Beck's appeal on the subject.

Read More

Will Texas go the way of Okahoma and Arizona?

Texas is notoriously friendly to Mexican immigrants, but have Mexicans finally begun to wear out their welcome in Texas? Might we be seeing in Texas a classic case of "giving them an inch, and their taking a mile"? Here's a story that suggests that at least in some Texas cities, this is the case:

Opponents of a Dallas suburb's ordinance aimed at barring illegal immigrants from renting housing asked a federal judge Monday for a temporary restraining order to block its enforcement. A group of landlords and a former city council member suing Farmers Branch over the ordinance filed for the restraining order.The ordinance would require prospective renters to obtain a city license. The city would then forward information from the license application to the federal government for verification of the person's immigration status.

Anyone who couldn't prove legal U.S. residency would be denied tenants licenses, and the city would penalize landlords who rent to people without a valid license.

Opponents say the city is trying to regulate immigration even though that is the domain of the federal government.

Here again we have the same argument that we've heard over and over from the usual suspects, and for the umteenth time, it is not just the domain of the federal government to regulate immigration. States and local governments have an immediate interest in protecting their own communities. And once again, the city of Farmer's Branch is simply trying to deny illegal immigrants access to housing, legal immigrants would not be denied this access per the new ordinance.

Also, I'd point out that Farmer's Branch is attempting to partner with the federal government in determining the immigration status of prospective renters. Undoubtedly the federal system to which these applications would be forwarded is the E-Verify system which I've written about here before. But what is it that's causing all this confusion in Texas; what is it that pits Texan against Texan, landlords against their own city governments in a state that, as I said before, is notoriously friendly to Mexican immigrants? Part of the answer may be found in this WND story:

While illegal aliens flee strict immigration enforcement policies in several states and settle in Texas, the state's budget is suffering and violent crime, soaring.

News reports indicate a flood of illegal aliens is coming from states such as Arizona and Oklahoma – where immigration crackdowns have made life more difficult for them. In the meantime, Texas' violent crime rates have taken a turn for the worse.

Now, don't get me wrong, I derive no pleasure from learning that our neighbors to the south are beginning to feel the effects of a rapidly growing illegal population which consists largely of cultural incompatibles. Texas is a large state with a large population. But no population of any size has an unlimited capacity for taking on hordes of immigrants, legal or illegal. That my state's law, which I've advocated for since it was first initiated in the Oklahoma HoR, is partially responsible for the current unrest in the state of Texas gives me no pleasure. I simply have the satisfaction of knowing that I've been predicting this very thing, this very outcome all along. I've pleaded with and warned other states before, in very plain spoken language, 'you'd better get your ducks in a row on this immigration situation, because once Oklahoma's law goes into effect our illegals are going to invade your states, causing the same kinds of problems they were causing here.'

At least one state which borders Oklahoma did recognize what was happening very quickly following the enactment of H.B. 1804. Missouri responded by writing and passing its own law which closely resembles that of Oklahoma. But like Oklahoma, Missouri is a small state with a relatively small population by comparison to Texas.

But as I've written so many times before, the preferred direction for these illegals to travel is south. The problem with that for Texas, in the short run, is that Texas, already feeling the effects of an overpopulation of illegal immigrants there, is going to incur even more of these, and all the undesirable things they bring along with them. Whereas it used to be that Texas was simply being used by Hispanics, legal and illegal, to smuggle illegal Hispanics into neighboring states like Oklahoma, the tables now have been turned.

The good news is this, Texas will soon find itself at a crossroads. Indeed, it would greatly surprise me if the Texas legislature is not currently working behind the scenes on its own law in an attempt to alleviate this growing problem before it becomes completely unmanageable. But Texans are quickly learning that there is a limit to how many immigrants they can take on. And let's be frank, most of Oklahoma's illegal Mexican population made its way here from Texas. It's only natural, then, that those who are now seeing the handwriting on the wall would make their way back through that state.

To my friends and relatives living in Texas, my sympathies are with you. My fondest hope is that the Texas legislature will act on this crisis in short order; that Texas will soon join the growing list of states in this union who have already passed, or are in the process of passing their own immigration legislation.

Read More

Why E-Verify?

I've written before about the E-Verify system, how I learned of its existence, its inclusion in the provisions of H.B. 1804, and so on.

To learn more about the E-Verify system -- how it originated, how it has transformed over the years from the Basic Pilot Program to E-Verify, its current accuracy rate, ease and rapidity of use as well as affordability, states which currently require its usage and under what conditions, and etc,... -- read this lengthy and informative CIS report. It is loaded with very useful information concerning all of the above and much more. For instance,...

Did you know that President Bush, in 2007, signed an executive order (EO) requiring all businesses which contract with the federal government to register with E-Verify? That and many many other useful tidbits of information are contained within the piece.

Below is an excerpt from the report concerning the current status of E-Verify as a lawfully established federal clearinghouse for determining the employment eligibility of prospective employees:

E-Verify statutorily sunsets on November 30, 2008. The Basic Pilot Program was authorized for four years under IIRIRA, with a one-year implementation period. In 2002, the pilot was extended for two years, and then for five more years in 2003 under The Basic Pilot Program Extension and Expansion Act of 2003. 25 In July 2008, the House of Representatives reauthorized the program for another five years, 407-2. 26

The Senate has yet to reauthorize E-Verify. Two reauthorization bills are pending, one by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Ia.) 27 and the other by Senators Arlen Specter (R-Penn.) and Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.). 28 The Specter/Leahy bill is a straightforward five-year reauthorization similar to the measure passed by the House. Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) has put a hold on the Specter/Leahy bill. If the hold is not lifted, or if the House-passed version can't be voted on, E-Verify will disappear.

Do read the rest of the report, which as I said contains a great deal of useful and interesting information. But it's really no surprise to anyone, is it, that a Senator by the name of Menendez would oppose reauthorization of the E-Verify system, and stand in the way of its re-enactment?

Now if you'll excuse me, I have a couple of letters to write my Senators, James Inhofe and Tom Coburn. I'm sure you know what it's about.

Read More

On the immigration front, cont.

I wrote two days ago about the 9th Circuit Appeals Court ruling on Arizona's immigration law. The part of Arizona's law which had been challenged were the sections dealing with non-compliant employers, those sections intended to remove the incentive for employers to hire illegal (mostly) Mexican labor, and thereby remove the employment incentive for illegals to stay in Arizona. As with Oklahoma's law, as I said in the other post, these sections of the Arizona law are vital to the final achievement of the Bill's intent.

However, it occured to me later that what I'd read in the article about Arizona's law concerning employers of illegal aliens actually made Arizona's law tougher, quite a bit tougher as a matter of fact, than Oklahoma's law when it comes to employer sanctions. According to the article, which is linked in the other post, Arizona employers who are caught violating the law can lose their business licenses. Whereas, as I've explained before, Oklahoma's law does not go that far. In fact, according to the provisions in Oklahoma's law, employers are only required to verify the employment status of their employees if they wish to enter into contract with government organizations. Otherwise, Oklahoma employers are left free to hire illegal aliens, though they remain subject to surprise factory and jobsite raids by local, state, or federal authorities.

So the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals upheld Arizona's much tougher restrictions on employers while the Tenth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has thus far refused to do so with Oklahoma's comparatively weak employer sanctions -- sections seven and nine of the bill respectively -- saying that Oklahoma's provisions probably violate federal law and are therefore probably unconstitutional. That's pretty interesting, don't ya think?

Well, as I said in the other post, the Ninth Circuit's ruling gives me some hope that Oklahoma's provisions will eventually be upheld in the Tenth Circuit. Additionally, the author of Oklahoma's bill, Rep. Randy Terrill, has stated before that Oklahoma would like to expand on the law, and as I recall (though I could be wrong) part of Terrill's plan involves toughening up our employer sanctions once we've gotten over the initial legal hurdles we're facing at the moment. Hopefully the recent ruling on Arizona's law will help us achieve that as well. I for one am completely and utterly unsympathetic towards employers who would commit treason against their countrymen in this fashion, and fully support the introduction of stricter penalties against such non-compliant businesses and business owners. (Some of you may think the term "treason" is a bit harsh. I don't.)

Read More

On the immigration front

Good news today out of Arizona. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday, Sept. 17th, upheld the provisions in Arizona's immigration law which requires employers to verify the employments status of all new hires, and penalizes employers for knowingly hiring illegal aliens:

PHOENIX (AP) — A federal appeals court on Wednesday upheld an Arizona law that penalizes businesses that knowingly hire illegal immigrants and requires them to verify the employment status of their workers.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision rejected a challenge by business and civil-rights groups that contend the law infringes on federal immigration powers.

The law, intended to lessen the economic incentive for immigrants to sneak into the country, imposes civil penalties on employers by suspending or revoking their business licenses when they are found to have knowingly hired illegal immigrants.

While it upheld the law, a three-judge panel of the court left the door open for other challenges, saying no one has been accused of violating the law since it took effect nine months ago.

This is very good news for people like myself who advocate for state and local immigration control.

Oklahoma has similar provisions in its law, H.B. 1804, which are currently under federal suspension pending further hearings in the 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. These provisions (sections seven and nine) are vital to the efficacy of Oklahoma's law. Let us hope that the 9th Circuit's ruling will help to effect a similar outcome in Oklahoma's case so that we in Oklahoma can get on with the business at hand; the business that should have begun on July 1st of this year.

Read More

Quote of the day

The AP article I linked to in the previous entry contains the following quote by Arizona Rep. Russell Pearce of Mesa, a statement which deserves a post to itself:

Locals are just as responsible for the crisis in America in this invasion (of illegal immigrants) as the federal government.

Indeed, as I've said numerous times before. In fact, I'm not sure we're not more responsible...

Read More

Aliens leaving U.S. in "droves"?

Here's another story I picked up over at Outraged Patriots which claims that 1.3 million illegal aliens -- or eleven percent of the illegal population -- have voluntarily returned home over the past year.

Recently the Center for Immigration Studies released a study revealing that, since August 2007, the illegal immigrant population has dropped 11 percent -- the equivalent of 1.3 million illegal aliens returning home. Fox News recently reported that the Mexican consulate office in Dallas is seeing increasing numbers of Mexican nationals requesting paperwork to go home for good.

Of course we can't be sure that the study's numbers are accurate, but obviously significant numbers of Mexican illegals are seeing the handwriting on the wall and fleeing the United States. This is very good news.

Ron De Jong, spokesman for Grassfire.org credits the "crackdown on enforcement," and the "building of the border fence" as mainly responsible for the exodus. I'd say that the former is probably the main reason these people are fleeing, particularly the crackdown at the state and local levels of government with the introduction of state laws prohibiting illegal immigration and denying social benefits to illegals.

But we have to remain steadfast and resolved. 1.3 million is a good start, but it's only a start. And if the federal government will get the hell out of the way, we'll settle this issue at the state level once and for all. As has been said before, "lead, follow, or get out of the way."

Read More

Sanctuary State Utah seeking assistance from Oklahoma lawmaker

According to this Tulsa World story, (Hat tip: Outraged Patriots) the Utah state legislature is seeking the assistance of Oklahoma's Randy Terrill, primary author of Oklahoma's H.B. 1804.:

Utah lawmakers are using legislation drafted by Republican state Rep. Randy Terrill of Moore as a model for their own efforts to fight illegal immigration.

Even the sanctuary state of Utah is feeling the devastating effect of the Mexican invasion, in part, no doubt, because states like Oklahoma and Arizona, Georgia and North Carolina, Colorado and Missouri have created their own laws sending illegals packing in large numbers to other states.

Meanwhile sections seven and nine of H.B. 1804 are still under federal suspension pending a hearing of the issue in the tenth circuit I believe. Believe me when I say that these two provisions are vital to the full and intended success of H.B. 1804. But the provisions themselves, just like the other provisions in 1804, closely adhere to federal immigration law. The quicker this issue is resolved in favor of their being "constitutional", the better for Oklahomans and the people of other states who are using Oklahoma's law as a model for their own.

And for all of you who are not yet onboard, as they say, better late than never.

Read More

An interesting exchange

Under my post from two days ago, an exchange was had between myself and a couple of disagreeable Hispanic commenters. Also, jdogg, an Indian who we've all come to know and love, decided to leave his mark in the thread as he bid us all a fond adios. So long jdogg, we will miss thee.

Now, don't get the wrong impression. I'm not touting the exchange as containing any intellectually stimulating value at all, because it most definately doesn't. I apologize for that. But there are some valuable aspects to it nonetheless. For instance, here is what Fernando has to say during the exchange:

The country as we know it now is super young and you brought your ilk brought your disgusting diseases and poxes as well.

Indigenous people have been here long before your kind and at least these people didn't lie and deceive and cheat and kill.

This is just prior to Fernando's attacking me for being a "racist", mocking my religion, and calling white Okies "hillbillies", I mean uneducated "racist hillbillies":

"Third World" is just another replacement word for "brown". I call a racist a racist, no need to disguise it, and you are a racist. Pray to your god to figure that one out.

Of course Fernando's statements can't be racist. You can't be brown, or more broadly non-white, and racist at the same time, irrespective of what you say about a given non-brown race.

And here's jdogg in his farewell's eve message, and in his wonderfully articulate way, mocking concerns over the alarming growth of the illegal Mexican population in this country, and, again, calling me a racist and an alarmist:

Not that it matters, but what IF the Mexican population has grown? All populations grow, and by the way this must have happened in the last four years because that's when I left.

This continues to smack of nothing to racism and fear, that's all. It's repub racism at it's finest.

Oh man the messicans are taking over! Pretty soon we will all be eating burr ee toes!

How many times do these people need to call me a racist and an alarmist, an extremist right-winger and so on before they learn that I'm immune to it? They can call me what they like as many times as they like, it doesn't change anything. And as I pointed out to Fernando, I'm simply unwilling to sit back and allow my country and my state to be overrun by third-worlders. That's just a fact that I guess I'll just have to keep teaching to them.

Read More

Missouri reacts, in kind, to 1804

As I've said many times before, I believe the best method for handling the immigration crisis as it exists now is for the individual states in this union to take the initiative, creating their own immigration legislation. My theory has always been that when one or two affected states enact their own laws denying immigrants employment and social services, and etc., other bordering states would soon find it necessary to craft similar legislation for themselves due chiefly to the fact that the former state's immigrant population must go somewhere to avoid capture and deportation. The preferred direction is South, but that's not the direction many will go so long as there are states which have yet to enact their own immigration laws, although some certainly will and have.

A case in point is Oklahoma's northeastern neighbor, Missouri. In this article from the "Carthage Press" in Carthage MO., a Missouri State Legislator, Kevin Wilson, R-Neosho, is quoted as saying the following concerning Missouri's new immigration legislation, which, incidentally, basically mirrors the provisions contained in Oklahoma's H.B. 1804:

We need to always emphasize that we are talking about illegal immigrants,” Wilson said. “Immigration is what founded this nation, but this is about illegals, people who are bypassing the system. Oklahoma passed a comprehensive bill and our concern was that if Missouri didn’t then those folks leaving Oklahoma would migrate to Missouri and stop here. (emphasis added)

There you have it. One reason, according to Mr. Wilson, that the Missouri legislature thought it necessary to craft its own legislation dealing with the problem of illegal Mexican immigration is because, as a state which borders my state of Oklahoma, the Missouri legislature wisely concluded (after many illegal immigrants which had once resided in Oklahoma fled to Missouri and took up residence there, I should think) that illegal Mexicans fleeing my state, post enactment of 1804, would go to Missouri with intentions to stay. And anyone who knows the first thing about this knows that once established in a given area, these illegals begin to smuggle more illegals (friends and relatives and acquaintences) into the U.S., and the state and cities wherein they reside. So once they're there to stay, their numbers begin to grow rapidly by leaps and bounds.

I personally do not think it will require a majority of states following suit before illegal Mexicans already here and those waiting to come will, having seen the handwriting on the wall, regain their sense of direction and begin a migration in the preferred direction aforesaid. At that point, it may only be necessary for us to offer them safe passage out.

So who will we be hearing from next, Kansas, Arkansas, Illinois, Tennessee, Kentucky, Iowa? Anyone have an idea? I'm going to take a chance and put my money on Kentucky. Don't let me down Kain-Tuck.

Read More

Nuff said?

Not by a long shot! Picking up where I left off in the entry immediately preceding this one, in which I quote Oklahoma Republican Senator Harry Coates as saying that "enforcing immigration laws is up to the federal government, not businesses," in a statement supporting federal suspension of key provisions in Oklahoma's law, I'd like for us to examine the implications of Coates's statement a little closer.

Besides the implied meaning of the statement which I discuss here, the statement is further problematic taken at face value without the implied meaning. Taken to its logical conclusion, it is the task of the federal government, and only the federal government, to craft, debate, pass, enforce and scrutinize any and all immigration standards on the books in this country even to the remotest parts. That's why dependents like Coates insist that if there is the slightest hint or perceived contradiction between federal immigration law and state immigration law, the former always trumps the latter which must be done away with forthwith. So the legal citizens of the United States, and of every state and municipality under its rule are relegated, according to Coates, to waiting for hell to freeze over or for their respective communities and towns and states to be completely and utterly ransacked by the invading hordes of third-worlders, whichever comes first. In other words, say the Coateses of the world, the United States must first be destroyed before we can allow any portion thereof to initiate policies designed to secure its own preservation independent of the all-powerful all-knowing all-encompassing federal government.

All-destroying attitudes like this literally make me sick to my stomach. But that's liberalism for you in a nutshell. And yes Senator Coates, I'm calling you a liberal, your affiliations with the Republican party definately notwithstanding.

Read More

Do the federally suspended provisions of H.B. 1804 require Oklahoma businesses to enforce immigration laws?

Apparently one Oklahoma legislator believes so. In a June 6 Tulsa World story Republican Oklahoma Senator Harry Coates of Seminole sets the world straight about whose responsibility it is, and whose it isn't, to enforce immigration laws:

Sen. Harry Coates, R-Seminole, said that "all bets are off having to do with those provisions."

Coates filed unsuccessful legislation in the past session to repeal sections of the law. He noted that federal statutes still apply to businesses.

Coates said portions of the law are good.

However, he said, enforcing immigration laws is up to the federal government, not businesses.

The law has caused many legal citizens to leave, creating a major work force problem for many businesses, Coates said. He said many Oklahoma businesses pay well more than minimum wage but still can't find workers. (italics added)

With all due respect to the Senator, I don't get his line of argument re who should and shouldn't be tasked with enforcing immigration law. But I've heard the argument stated in his exact terms more times than I want to count during this whole debate over H.B. 1804. And we've all heard it said before, but it bears repeating in this case:

"There's nothing so absurd than if you repeat something often enough people begin to believe it."

If H.B. 1804 contains no provision requiring Oklahoma businesses to enforce immigration laws, then what relevance does the good Senator's statements bear to the issue at hand? In other words, what impelled him to make the statement? Is that the best he can come up with, or has he heard it said so many times himself that he's been conditioned to repeat it on command? Can the Senator cite a specific provision in the law which in fact requires law enforcement of Oklahoma businesses? The answer is no. All the law requires of Oklahoma businesses is that they comply with its provisions concerning the hiring of illegal immigrants. And if they don't comply then there are penalties for non-compliance. And it goes without mentioning the absurdity of having a law without the means to enforce it.

At the Immigration Seminar I attended a few months back someone raised the issue of whether businesses, according to the law, could be held liable for not reporting a known illegal applicant to the proper authorities. A discussion ensued and I interjected pointing out that businesses using the E-Verify system in compliance with the law would, on entering questionable or falsified information provided them by the applicant (that's the way it works; the applicant provides the employer with his information and the employer, in turn, runs it through the E-Verify system -- it's the incentive program; if you're an illegal alien residing in the state of Oklahoma, don't apply for a job unless you wish to be deported, or, stated more directly, if you're an illegal alien residing in Oklahoma, you're not welcome here so leave!), automatically be alerting authorities as to the potentiality of the applicant's illegality; that on this basis the concern was ill-founded and that the legislature had in fact provided, whether intentional or not, a measure of protection to businesses using the E-Verify system. But I don't want to lose sight of the fact that the law does not even require businesses to register with E-Verify; that it merely denies them access to government contracts if they choose not to comply with that provision of the law. So, if a business is not interested in obtaining government contracts, and if it has a reasonable internal policy regarding the hiring of employees, i.e., don't hire illegal aliens, then the business in question may continue to operate as if H.B. 1804 were never enacted. Somehow though this is considered an undue burden on businesses, that to secure government contracts they must be registered with and using E-Verify to confirm the employment eligibility of their new applicants.

But the main point still stands. Has Senator Coates, a State law-maker, fallen prey to the absurdity of having heard the implied statement "H.B. 1804 wrongly requires businesses to enforce immigration law" so often that he now believes it and thus instinctively repeats it in public pronouncements of opposition to the law?

Read More

My State's law is tougher than your State's law!

Is South Carolina's new immigration law tougher on illegal immigration even than Oklahoma's? No way! I think I even read once that Arizona's law is tougher than the Sooner State's. Well, no matter; whichever state ends up with the toughest immigration legislation in the country, that's a state that I can respect, without conceding that your state's law can beat up my state's law. We're all in this fight together by golly! And now a full ten percent of the states in this union have enacted their own comprehensive immigration packages. (Where are you other ninety percent???)

If it's any consolation to my fellow Okies, I think our state will always bear the distinction of being among the very first to enact this vital form of legislation; of being on the frontlines, at the tip of the spear in this historic battle to save our country from foreign invaders. And of course, every state that follows in our footsteps will have studied our legislation (either directly or indirectly), and hopefully improved and expanded upon it. Indeed, if S.C.'s new legislation is now rightfully being touted as the "toughest immigration legislation in the country", as H.B. 1804 once was, and this trend continues, imagine what advances we have to look forward to in this fight!

By the way, I picked up this story at Outraged Patriots.com which I have a permanent link to in the Links of Interest section in the right sidebar of this blog.

Read More

Federal injunction (temporarily) blocks full enactment of H.B. 1804

I learned of this new development yesterday evening when a friend and local businessman, and a staunch advocate of illegal immigration restriction, called me on my cell to inform me and to vent his outrage. This individual and I attended the March 6 immigration seminar of which I wrote on May 18 together; it was there that we both learned of the then pending lawsuit filed on behalf of the State (and federal) Chambers of Commerce which is responsible for this new development. Indeed, the speaker (whose OKC based firm filed the original lawsuit on behalf of the State Chambers of Commerce) spoke rather glowingly about his firm's legal work in opposition to the new Oklahoma law, saying, in no uncertain terms, that the law is unconstitutional because it (1) violates federal immigration law, and (2) unfairly burdens Oklahoma business owners with an undue responsibility to enforce the provisions of H.B. 1804. As to the second claim, I just rolled my eyes in utter contempt that someone would be so presumptuous as to suggest that Oklahoma business persons have no responsibility to reasonably attempt to verify the employment status of their prospective employees, particularly those who they suspect are illegal. "Fact of the business", no such provision should even be necessary in a sane society, but the necessity of the provision, i.e., the insanity of our society, is made strikingly evident by the very strength of the opposition to it. However, as the first reason was given by the speaker in terms that I thought required an explanation, I did challenge him to defend that assertion in more particularity -- "On what basis is it that Oklahoma's law violates federal immigration law?" When he asked for clarification of my question, I put it to him in these terms: "Is the basis some sort of privacy issue, or is it simply that the language in Oklahoma's provisions doesn't match up to the language in the federal law, or what?" He answered that it was the latter; that the language in the respective laws differed, but he didn't elaborate further.

Notwithstanding all of that, the federal government has now injected itself into the dispute over Oklahoma's immigration law. Sections seven and nine of the law are now declared by the federal government to be, for all intents and purposes and until further notice from on high, unconstitutional:

By RON JENKINS, Associated Press Writer
Wed Jun 4, 6:24 PM ET

OKLAHOMA CITY - A federal judge on Wednesday blocked parts of an Oklahoma law targeting illegal immigration, saying the measures are probably unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge Robin J. Cauthron issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting enforcement of provisions of the law that subject employers to penalties for failing to comply with a federal employee verification system.

The decision came on a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Oklahoma Chamber and other business groups, who argued that the electronic verification system is voluntary under federal law and that employers should not be subjected to state penalties.

"Through harsh civil penalties, the Oklahoma law unfairly shifts the burden of immigration enforcement from government onto the backs of business," Robin Conrad, executive vice president of the U.S. Chamber, said in statement.

The provisions in effect since November prohibit illegal immigrants from receiving tax-supported services and make it a state crime to transport or harbor illegal immigrants, a provision loudly criticized by social agencies that work with the immigrant population.

The state law took effect in November 2007, but the employer provisions under attack were set to take effect July 1.

Cauthron held that the plaintiffs would probably establish that the state measure pre-empted federal law on immigration.

Attorney General Drew Edmondson defended the law.

"We will attempt to overcome this hurdle when the matter is set for hearing on the permanent injunction," he said.

Rep. Randy Terrill, a Republican who introduced the legislation, predicted the case would be appealed if the plaintiffs prevail in their quest for a permanent injunction.

No hearing date has been set. (all emphases mine)

In closing, allow me to set the record straight. The inference that Oklahoma's law conflicts with federal law in that it "requires" businesses to register with the employment verification system is simply false. As I explained in this post, only if a company voluntarily enters into contractual agreement with a government entity to provide goods or services in exchange for payment, is the company in question "required" to register with E-Verify to confirm the employment status of all new hires. No company is under any obligation whatsoever to enter into such a contract, and therefore, by Oklahoma law, no company is under any obligation whatsoever to register with the E-Verify employment verification system. In other words, it's all voluntary and the complaint is bogus, always has been. But you know how it is; there are a bunch of well-to-do government welfare cases out there who couldn't maintain their elaborate and lavish lifestyles if the goverment didn't provide them a swollen teat to suck off of. To wean them off of it is simply unthinkable. The best we can do is to occasionally slap them on the forehead and painfully exclaim "don't bite!"

Read More