Outsourcing Immigration

No cool links here. Just pondering, while watching another GOP debate, the immigration issue. Long time readers of the H-blog (Hi Ma!) know that I'm pro immigration. Not that I'm a pro at immigration, honestly I've never even immigrated before, not once. More that I'm all for free trade and that I'm all for allowing people to pull an Eddie Murphy.

But what made me stop and say, "STOP THE PRESSES!" is "Outsourcing." Remember when that was the big danger facing our country? Remember all those books? How it was destroying the economy, killing off jobs here, making the poor, poorer and the rich, richer? How if it kept up America would fall into ruin and we would be owned by India? Funny how none, and I do mean none of that happened. Funny also, how during this Presidential Election Cycle I can't find a single candidate staking his (sigh, or her) election on this most pressing issue. This catastrophic event was something like two years ago, and now its dead. We're all OK, no bill were needed, no new laws, no...nothing.

Could it be that the same thing is happening with Immigration? I'm pretty sure that there's some saying about "those who don't learn good from history* stuff, make it all bad again."

Could it be that we're a nation of lemmings? Following whatever latest "America Destroying Danger" the politicians come up with to run on?

Nawwwwww?


*How come the feminists haven't jumped all over HIStory like they did Womyn?

Immigration quick hits

Two quick posts on the immigration front.

One, a California judge struck down Escondido's law forcing landlords to get verification of tenants immigration status and give that to the city for proofing. I'm not going to pretend to understand the legalese of the suit, but I want to take this chance to say that I think its a bad law. Again, we have law enforcement to take care of these things. Plus, I can't figure out how it works. Do landlords ask for status from everyone? I don't have any immigration proof. Or does she (I'm so progressive) only target those she thinks are immigrants? If it's everyone, does it make sense to have a city look over every applicant? Escondido has about 135,000 people, seems like a lot of forms to clarify.

The other is about flags. In Pahrump, NV you can't fly a foreign flag alone. Off the bat, this a gross violation of the First Amendment. What's also interesting is what does "fly" mean with respect to this law? Looking at the reason behind the law,

flag restriction was a reaction to nationwide demonstrations in May against a crackdown on illegal immigration. He said he didn't like seeing protesters waving Mexican flags and demanding immigrants not go to work that day.

it may mean just carrying a flag of another country. What about on a shirt? Or a bumper sticker? I love the sensibility of any law that starts from, "I don't like it when people..."

However I came around when I read this,

"In Pahrump, we had Mexican restaurants closed that day," he complained. "Only one restaurant stayed open."

Now that I understand. It's totally unacceptable to get between a man and his burrito. Why there oughtta be a law...

Immigration Idea

Much like Muscles For Justice in Drives Ed, the Immigration Bill failed. Not much to add, only that I continue to be surprised by how quickly this issue became a hot button and how emotional it is. As always, I think that the "immigration crisis" is a created phenomenon.

However, looking at it, I do have one question. Why is the ability to work tied to citizenship? Seems like we can have a guest worker program (I'm for open borders on working, but I'll take this as a step) that has nothing to do with citizenship. This way the US can have the benefit of cheap labor that expands the market of available goods and services or all Americans and the benefit of taxing that labor (which in theory lessens the burden on all of us, but in reality just means more moolah for the feds to spend), while letting immigrants keep their original citizenship. This means less worry for us and allows a country like Mexico to actually grow its middle class and strengthen its own economy. I know that the argument is that all foreigners want citizenship, but I'm not sure that's the case. I think they want citizenship so they can have access to jobs. If you could travel freely across the border, you could live well in Mexico and work in the US, and I bet most would choose something like that. I could be wrong, but bifurcating the two will prove it.

The GOP should accept this idea as it helps business but doesn't add to the Democratic Party's voter rolls. Loosening the worker restrictions would also allow the government to keep better track of immigrants and immigrants are incentivised to take this legal route over the illegal one. There is not threat of "Amnesty" because this has nothing to do with legalization. And just for kicks, the GOP could still rally around blowing billions on a wall to keep out those workers without permission to work here (and now use some of the new tax revenue to build said boondoggle).

Sometimes deconstructing thing makes them more plausible. We don't always need 15 volume laws that try to accomplish everything to everyone. Simpler is better.

CO immigration and Co's.

Colorado just passed a wave of immigration bill's all expected to be signed by the Guv. These merit attention as CO is concidered a preview of what state's may do nation-wide.

Most are harmless, "get money owed by feds," some that aren't exactly "look out for our fellow man" types with the potential to cause more harm than good, mandating that CO only provide those services that are federally mandated, one that officially complains to the feds for the immigration problem. All of these are boiler plate bills. I do like the ones that make it a crime to extort from illegals, or threaten documents that allow workers to be here. Nice touch, I hope these also serve as a model for other states.

There are a few that really rankle me. These are the the bill's that place the onus on business to prove that they don't have any illegals working for them, and to vet each employee for legal/illegal status. One, I'm no expert on any document. If someone hands me a forged doc, am I responsible? Do I have to hire extra people, or incur additional expense to insure legal status? Thanks for the new taxes guys. Especially because I already pay the tax that's supposed to enforce these laws. Why do I have to pay more because someone else isn't doing their job. What's next, mandatory employee drug testing at my expense? How about verifying that no employee commits a crime. Not only that, but I get peanalized if I hire someone who I think is legal. Why is it my business' duty to enforce the laws? Shouldn't I just be able to hire people and let the enforcement agencies do their job and tell me when someone's illegal? Actually, why must I presume guilt on all of my employees? Isn't "innocent until proven guilty" something of a cornerstone of our American society. As this law is written, if I hire Muscles for some rescue work, eventhough I've know him for decades, I have to verify his legal status.

I don't like this trend of pushing enforcement onto business. Government should do their job and leave me free to do mine. Hitting my profitability with a "back up the government's ineptitude" tax just adds insult to injury.

"Issue" Politics

Harris Interactive has a new poll out. Not much new, W is at 29%, congress is at 28%. But looking through the other data, in particular, the data the question, "What do you think are the two most important issues for the government to address?" and this interesting info comes up.

Immigration goes from 2% in 2003 to 16% (the second highest) today. Gas is similar, but there's a catalyst for it. Immigration is a created issue. No one cared until the GOP told them to care. Unemployment's at 5% and the economy is humming.

A cynic would say that the GOP created it, as they did the "Gay Marriage will destroy America" issue (which, while we still don't have an amendment marginalizing Americans, the country still hasn't collapsed-fingers crossed), as an election year issue. Only it looks like this one has backfired. While its easy to rally the base around hating gays, immigrants are harder. They work (like gays), they attend church (like gays), but unlike gays, we all come from immigrants. That and there's nothing inherently creepy about them. I think immigration is a terrible issue for the GOP, its really dividig it, only creating more of an opportunity for the Dems. Bad issue creation.

For all the press that the Dems are getting on their chances in 2008, they rank a whopping 3% higher (20 v. 23%) at the congressional level. I wouldn't plan that "We're Relevant Again" post taking the House party just yet if I were them.

Also interesting in the poll, Social Security is actually down from 25% in 1999, to 4% today. This is after Bush made SS reform the focus of his second term. Nothing's changed and people aren't as worried about it. Oops.

Despite MSMRight carping on about the "War on Christmas" and "War on Catholisism" "Decline of Religion" is at 2%.

Apparantly M3K is all alone in his quest for World Peace at 1%, but it still makes a heckuva answer in all those beauty pagents he enters.

Really interesting to see what American's care and don't care about in that whole section.

The Bush is burning

Bush's numbers hit a new low according to this poll, more numbers here. Yes, yes, Stalin, I know you don't believe polls. But I'm going to talk about this anyway, you can't stop me with your cynicism. A few things strike me about this poll, and what options Bush has. First, this low comes not after any particularly bad news. It seems to be a sign of gradual erosion which must be troubling to the White House. If he dipped on some event, the 3000th soldier dying in Iraq, for example, then that could be viewed as a dip, that would recover as the event passed. This is different. Also, the number of people who strongly disagree is more than twice the number of people who strongly agree, and greater than his net approval number. Its even more glaring if you look at the trends in "Strongly Approve" and "Strongly Dissaprove." At some point he falls off a cliff. Your seeing some of the fall out in the way his party is treating him, both on the ports deal, and in Specter calling for him to explain his roll in the leaks.

The problem is how to reverse this trend. In the past, the GOP found a new group to viciously attack to bolster numbers. Those who questioned Iraq, homosexuals, 75 year old lawyers, you get the picture. This seems to be the plan with illegal immigrants. But this group has some problems. One its not a small group like gays. The millions of legal hispanics are deeply connected to the illegal. They vote, they march, and they remember. They have the numbers to move elections, especially when the GOP/Dem balance is so close. Especially in Texas and Florida. Two, there's no easy constituency to back the attack. Religious groups are mostly in the lets not watch them suffer group, putting them at odds with House Republicans. Businesses want them, and hispanics are the fasted growing group in the country, and they further divide the religious base. Moderates don't care, and this concept of a wall is so distaseful that building it will destroy the GOP. This is the crux of the problem. Taking a harsh line on immigration appeals to the base that is largely the group that gives him his 38 percent rating. However, in order to improve that rating you have to reach out beyond that base, and ease the hard line against immigration, but doing so risks the base. If you fail, you lose the base, and your number goes down even more.

This immigration issue has wheels. A misstep here, or more accurately, more missteps here, and the GOP may lose the hispancs for years, while further consolodating the dem base. This may mean that this GOP nirvana over the last 8 years is a blip.

The Real Mystery: Who Voted for Her?

No one knows what to think about our immigration problems. Not only does an elected city councilman from LA not understand what to do about the problem..she didn't even know she was part of it. For some reason a person deemed competent enough to lead her fellow Americans didn't realize that not being born here may actually effect her resident status. Now, I don't expect Mrs. Meyer to know everything, but isn't it a no-brainer that you would want to look into what restrictions apply to you knowing you weren't born in the country where you are running for public office? And trying to scare up sympathy with the old, "If they can do this to me they can do it to anybody" nonsense is just pathetic. I think most other people would have had the sense to make one call to the immigration office at some point in their life to check on the rules.

I really don't want Mrs Meyer to be deported because she clearly didn't violate the intent of the law. And I wouldn't mind having her as a neighbor because she is probably a very nice lady. However, I do hope the people of LA are sharp enough to realize that if someone can't manage something so simple in their personal life, they have no business managing a city.

McCain cirlces the drain

The information in this post should not be new to any long time reader of the H-Blog (Hi Ma). But for the rookies, it looks like John McCain is real trouble after raising just $11.2 million in the second quarter (H-Blog called him "Dead Man Walking" in February). Yes $11.2 million is a lot of jack, but not when it puts you third in fund raising. See, its all about perspective and the perspective is all bad for McCain right now. Ron Paul would be thrilled with $11.2 million as it would signal upward momentum, but for Mr McCain, $11.2 is a big signal of downward mo'. Also, everyone likes to back a winner, and the perception that you're stallin' and fallin' only makes it harder to raise money. Mr McCain is on the edge of the dreaded downward spiral, where things are going bad, and things going bad only makes more bad things happen. Disappointing fund raising ($24.8 million so far on a $100 mil year end goal) and layoffs are a huge signal that bad things are happening (the bad event). Now, who's going to rush in and support that camp (the more bad things event)?

So the question is why? And that dear readers is why you come to the Hblog. Yahoo and CNN blame the two I's Iraq and Immigration, where McCain finds himself on the wrong side of public opinion on both issues. "Wrong" on Iraq with the general population, where Mr McCain used to be the belle of the ball, and "wrong" on Immigration within the GOP where Mr McCain plays Carrie.

But that's not really the issue. CNN Political Editor Mark Preston gets closest,

"He's going back to what he did in 2000. He realizes that the way he is going to win this nomination is not by getting the establishment votes but rather a grassroots campaign."

And there you have it. Mr McCain sold out. Sold out big, and sold out early. The cult of his particularly personality was built on "Maverick Senator John McCain." But immediately after he withdrew from the 2000 election he went from the voice of the people and supposed King Maker, to chief lap dog for the guy who blew him up. It killed him with his public. The man that fell victim to push polling suggesting he had a black baby, kissed the feet of the man who ordered the poll. Nothing maverick or heroic about it. A man who had the reputation of being a "man of principle" sold that principle to win. And that's just not his gig.

Two types of people win elections. People who will live and die by their conviction (W) and people with no conviction (Clinton). People will respect the first for their principles, and respect the second for their effectiveness (if they ever even notice it). But if your gig is that of conviction and you publicly sell out, well, it makes people gag. Its the worst of both. And that's John McCain. And Mr McCain's biggest "gag" moment was selling out on the Torture bill. It was a sad, sad moment. It was also when he lost this election. Everyone kept waiting for him to rise and champion something that should be so close to his heart. But everyone forgot that he sold his heart in 2000. Once his supporters, and his opponents realized this, he was done. Mr McCain was publicly played, and no one, not one single American, can vote for someone who was so badly manipulated in public.

So when Mr McCain says that he tried the maverick route last time and he lost, so this time he's going to court the right and suck up to his old opponents, it tells you a lot about the man and why he's destined to lose again.

For the record, I do believe that if he stayed with his Straight Talk Express persona (and that's clearly what it was), and repeatedly challenged the White House, then he would be the front runner. Now, not only will he badly lose the primary, but he cannot fall back to the "I'll run as an Independent" line. In 2000 he alienated the GOP core chiefmakers but won the hearts of the independents, some Republicans and a lot of Democrats. Feeling stung (aka panic), he spent the next eight years alienating all those R's, I's and D's. And what's that spell? RID, and that's exactly what the public is doing. They're getting RID of McCain (No? Too cute?).

So now its about layoffs and falling well short of his fund raising goals. Next it will be about falling well short of the White House (Was that better?).

Why any border fence will fail.

The Denver Post just ran an article on the Border Fence and given the last post on the H-Blog, I thought I'd comment.

The article shows the flaws in the border fence, either as the GOP favored physical wall or the Dem favored high-tech wall. Basically for the GOP wall, you can ask any prison warden how effective walls are without people manning them. For the Dems, this ain't a movie, technology just isn't there yet, and yet may be a looooong time coming.

But what's staggering is the cost, $7.6 billion (initial cost, I've seen nothing on recurring expenses, improvements, maintenance, etc), and no one in their right mind thinks that that cost is anywhere close to the real cost (if it's ever built, I'm thinking at least $20 bln).

The solution to the illegal immigrant debate isn't a wall of any kind. It may make people think that somethings being done, but in reality its the ultimate red herring. As the wall fails to "fix" the illegal immigrant problem, the solution will inevitably become to keep "fixing" the wall. The solution is political, economic. and legal. Allow more legal immigrants, focus on the big ticket offenders, work to get Mexico more economically viable (pie in the sky I know), and figure out what kind of crime illegal immigration really is and enforce it accordingly. Is someone coming to America and working as a dishwasher the equivalent of murder? Kidnapping? Grand Larceny? Petty Theft? Jaywalking? Seriously. We keep hearing that illegal immigration is bad, and we're clearly ready to spend billions, but what kind of crime is it? How does should it rank on our enforcement priority given the damage it causes? This is one topic I've heard nothing about, and to me, its kind of key.

Bottom line, of all the really stupid ideas I've heard recently, the wall is, by far, the most stupiderist. Really expensive and totally worthless.

More dividends from the new regime

Looks like the Dems will scuttle the "Border Fence." Hooray, my bet is that most Republicans are glad too. The fence just seemed like more like a "get out the vote" move than a practical solution to illegal immigration. As a quick side note, it seems that this particular issue never caught fire. Not only was immigration not a big factor among voters, moderates (or those who favor a comprehensive solution, like W - a former border state governor) did much better in close elections than the radicals.

The problem with the GOP's wedge issue politics is the same as the Dems "we're not Republican's" strategy. Neither does anything. At some point the electorate wants action, at some point people just get emotionally drained, at some point you miss, or the other ceases failing, and at some point people just tune out until you deliver.

I think the GOP understands that now, I wonder if the Dem's have figured it out too?

Minutemen and the fence

Thought this was a solid response to a negative article from Minuteman founder Jim Gilchrist (of border watching fame, not of Revolutionary War fame - that or he's using a heckuvalot of botox). Yes, he gets a little emotional at points, but he's responding to an article called "Minutemen have a right to be idiotic," not really a neutral, fact based starter article, see my post below 'bout morons. If someone were to write an article called, "Hydrabloggers have a right to be idiotic" I may get a tad emotional too.

Anywho, I honestly don't see all the hub-bub about the Minutemen. Thankfully, I have many, many, many, and well, many better things to do in my average day than sit out in the hot sun and hope to see someone breaking the law. But from what I've gathered its mostly peaceful, with MM just calling up the border patrol and reporting what they've seen. I haven't heard of anyone tackling any suspects, throwing rocks, playing cop, netting, vigilanting (viglilanticizing?), tripping, or giving wedgies to potential illegal immigrants. The way I see it, its more like a huge neighborhood watch program, and everyone loves those guys. Yeah its boring, and yeah I'd never do it, but so what? (Ed. note: Apparently I have 16 posts with the word "immigration" in them. If your bored, but not Minuteman bored, you can search the Hydrablog for my opinions - and yes 16 posts on immigration shows that I may have a touch extra-time in my day...smarty.)

If you boil the fat out of it, these folks are mad that other people are blatantly breaking the law and are lawfully doing something about it. Is that now a crime?

To me, the much more radical (dare I say "idiotic") move is to build a huge, massively expensive, totally useless wall. Thank you W for signing just such a bill today.

Sniff, Sniff. Ahhhh, the sweet stink of election season

It must be election season. Facing an increasingly unpopular war, unrestrained spending, the fact that after 6 years Binny is still on the loose, scandals at every turn including big issues for Rove and Cheney, W's forced...to...reach...for...the...Bat...Base...Rallier. First it was immigration, but that's kind of backfired, so it was back to the old stand-by. "Hey, look over there, gay people!" The good news is that passage of a constitutional amendment against US citizens looks to have less chance of passing then two years ago, the bad news is that the issue is still in play.

W say's, "As this debate goes forward, we must remember that every American deserves to be treated with tolerance, respect and dignity." Just not with equality.

I really hope we've weathered the storm on this issue, but you never know. Immigration wasn't on anyone's radar until the GOP made an issue out of it and gays are a much easier target. Once the Rove Hate Machine gets rolling, it's very possible that tide could turn again.

Like I said, Watch this very closely

Bush wants to militarize the border with Mexico by sending 5000 non-border troops to the southern border. First, I want to express my dismay with W on this. I originally hoped that he would lead his party to a rational conclusion on immigration because he seemed to really care for and understand the immigration issue. What I should have realized is that it's very difficult for a man with no principles to stand on them. My bad.

So now we're going to send 5000 troops to the border. They won't make arrests, detain, etc and will only be used to help with surveillance. They also will only be there while the border control gets beefed up. My prediction, more troops over time, with an increased role for those troops. But beyond that is the question, "why?" As I've stated before, this is a created issue. Why all this hype and urgency? Yes, people are coming over illegally. No question, but is a wall, or thousands of US troops the answer. Millions of people speed every day, should we post military personnel along the nation's highways? Unemployments hovers around 5%, clearly if you want a job you can find one. Where is the harm that requires these kind of ideas? Are we really at the point where an implied, hyped, or imagined issue merits troop movements? This is blatent poll politics from Bush. Are GOP politicians really willing to send the National Guard in to help ratings, or score political points on an issue they created?

Well, at least one is. In a quote that takes the already pathetic Frist to the head of the class of low-life politicians, he says, "lawmakers who doubt that the National Guard, whose members have served for years in Iraq and went to the Gulf Coast after last summer’s hurricanes, could take on border patrol duty are “whining” and “moaning.”" He sure seems to be taking the awsome responsiblity of troop movements and the impact on them and their families very seriously. When I look at the political parties in this country and their leaders, Frist, Pelosi, Hastert, Reid and Bush, its no surpirse that only three in 10 Americans think either party, or their leaders is worth a damn.

If I only had a brain

Read this interesting piece on student visas (yes I said interesting). Apparantly, the only way to get a student visa in the US is to promise to leave as soon as you get it. So, the thinking goes, "hey come here, get your PhD, maybe even on scholarhship, and then leave before the US can get any benefit of your new education. Hurry! Get out, we don't want your lousy highly educated kind sticking around. Go home, and give them the benefit of your knowledge, learned here, on our dime. If you don't we'll arrest and deport you." I'm no immigration expert, but I think all PhD's should be excempt from any immigration quotas. Period. We'll take you if you want to come and your smart and home working. Seriously, we want you.

"Limited?"

I believe SM called FISA an extremely limited tool. Maybe not. This WSJ aritcle shows otherwise. I highlighted some key points. I'm not saying this guy is a saint, nor that he's innocent. But reading this is chilling.


Volatile Formula
How Patriot Act
Helped Convict Man
In Baby-Food Ring
Mr. Jammal Faces 10 Years
After Terror-Probe Tapes
Are Used in Criminal Trial
A 14-Minute Rant Against U.S.
By JOHN D. MCKINNON
April 4, 2006; Page A1

Three months before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, police in Tempe, Ariz., began investigating information from Wal-Mart Stores Inc. suggesting that a local grocery wholesaler named Samih Jammal was part of an organized ring stealing baby formula from Wal-Mart stores and trucks.

The investigation proceeded uneventfully until shortly after 9/11 when it was turned over to a joint local and federal terrorism task force. Phoenix police, in a written report later provided to Mr. Jammal as part of his prosecution, said they had "confirmed" that he "had significant connections to terrorist organizations, including al Qaeda." At some point after that -- prosecutors won't say precisely when -- authorities got a warrant to tap Mr. Jammal's phone and bug his office.

It wasn't an ordinary warrant, the sort routinely authorized by judges in response to applications from police and prosecutors who want to eavesdrop to catch crooks. It was a national-security warrant authorized by the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, giving authorities much more leeway, and giving wiretap targets fewer rights.

Mr. Jammal, a 36-year-old U.S. citizen born in Lebanon, was never charged with any offense related to terrorism. Yet evidence collected in the FISA eavesdropping played a role in his conviction last April on federal charges focused on fencing stolen baby formula, for which he was sentenced to 10 years in prison.

His case sits on the fine line between the government's responsibility to go all-out to prevent terrorism and its duty to protect the constitutional rights of American citizens accused of crimes. It's a line that has blurred considerably since 9/11 and the 2001 passage of the Patriot Act. It allows authorities to use FISA wiretaps authorized by special courts not only to gather foreign intelligence but to investigate domestic crimes.

Mr. Jammal is appealing, contending that FISA evidence used against him was illegally obtained and crippled his defense. He says the charges against him were trumped up by a government determined to show progress in the war against terror. "It's baby formula of mass destruction here," he said at one pretrial hearing.

With an ordinary warrant for electronic surveillance, authorities must show probable cause that the target committed a crime and limit eavesdropping to conversations about crimes. They must also eventually notify those who were bugged (even if they aren't accused of a crime) and must give defendants complete access to the warrant application, court orders and any actual recordings.

To get a FISA warrant, in contrast, authorities need to persuade a federal judge that there is probable cause that the target is an agent of a foreign power such as a terrorist organization. For U.S. citizens, prosecutors also must show that some crime might be involved. Armed with such a warrant, authorities can eavesdrop on any conversation, regardless of whether it involves a crime. They can withhold from defendants the basis for issuing the warrant, hindering legal challenges to the FISA evidence. And they can restrict defendants' access to the classified transcripts and tapes, which makes it harder for the defense to parry the government's charges or mount its own case.

The FISA warrant in the Jammal case distinguishes it from the controversial warrantless wiretaps that President Bush authorized the National Security Agency to conduct in pursuit of terrorism.

Constitutional Question

Even with warrants, critics fear defendants' rights to a fair trial will be eroded, as authorities use intelligence-gathering techniques to pursue criminal cases. "If evidence is procured by methods that wouldn't stand up to the Fourth Amendment, the courts are going to have to stop it," said Rep. Jerrold Nadler of New York, top Democrat on the House Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution. Cases like Mr. Jammal's "should be challenged in court," he said. "That kind of thing shouldn't happen."

Andrew McCarthy, who prosecuted Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman on terror charges in New York, says the old dividing wall between foreign intelligence operations and domestic criminal investigations doesn't make sense in the fight against terrorism. "They usually commit an array of garden-variety crime in the course of trying to conduct terrorism operations," [Thus everything is fair game-Ed] says Mr. McCarthy, now a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a Washington-based group that studies national security issues. That means investigating crimes and gathering intelligence through plea bargains and other techniques can be an important tool.

Paul Charlton, the U.S. attorney for Arizona whose office brought the case against Mr. Jammal, says in an interview that existing procedures properly balance the rights of defendants with the government's need to maintain secrecy to protect national security. He notes that, as in all FISA cases, a federal judge approved the initial application for the Jammal warrant privately. Prosecutors were "scrupulous" about avoiding suggestions at trial that Mr. Jammal was linked to terrorism, he adds, trying to ensure he got a fair trial.

Prior to passage of the Patriot Act, court interpretations required that the "primary" purpose of a FISA warrant had to be gathering foreign intelligence. The Patriot Act, passed in October 2001, broadened the rules so that intelligence gathering need only be a "significant" purpose of wiretapping. Evidence obtained under FISA warrants has been used in a handful of cases involving charges not directly related to terrorism, including at least one immigration proceeding.

Mr. Jammal's case shows how much the legal environment changes when FISA wiretaps enter the picture in criminal cases. His first two court-appointed lawyers stepped down in part because the secret tapes required them to get security clearance. Even with such clearance, however, they wouldn't be able to discuss the tapes with their client. His third lawyer, who did get clearance, was able to review only translated summaries, not transcripts, of selected wiretapped conversations. At trial, the government played the jury a recording made under the FISA warrant that proved damaging to Mr. Jammal: a rambling 14-minute diatribe in which he rails against the U.S. government in Arabic, and talks about fleeing to Lebanon if officials came after him for unpaid taxes.

The case against Mr. Jammal began in June 2001 when Wal-Mart investigators, frustrated by a rash of baby-formula thefts, gave Tempe police detective Tom O'Brien information about a recent attempted theft in Midland, Texas. For reasons that aren't clear, that led to a police stakeout outside Mr. Jammal's business, located in a warehouse complex in the Phoenix suburb of Tempe. Checks of license plates revealed people with shoplifting records showing up to do business with Mr. Jammal.

Sent to U.S. for College

Mr. Jammal grew up in Lebanon and Kuwait. His father owned fruit and vegetable export firms, a farm, a small phone company and a school, according to Mr. Jammal. The family was prosperous enough to send Mr. Jammal to the U.S. in 1988 to study at West Virginia's Marshall University, named after the nation's first chief justice, John Marshall. Wiry and athletic, Mr. Jammal played for a while on the school's soccer team. The family businesses suffered in the early 1990s, and Mr. Jammal began working odd jobs to put himself through school, according to Mr. Jammal's wife, Gretchen, who grew up in Ohio and whom he met while attending Marshall. After college, Mr. Jammal gravitated toward the business of selling baby-formula on the advice of a friend, and moved to Arizona starting in 1994 to live near a cousin and savor the warmer weather.

Mr. Jammal joined a number of other entrepreneurs -- some of Middle Eastern origin -- who were buying up large quantities of formula at big chain stores, which often sold it as a loss leader. The brokers then sold to wholesalers who, in turn, resold to smaller retailers, who often served low-income families participating in federal food-aid programs. None of this is illegal, although some manufacturers raised concerns about the practice. Taking baby formula out of the original packages and repackaging for resale can be a crime, however. In 1998, Mr. Jammal pleaded guilty to a single charge of improper repackaging of baby formula. He got three years' probation and a $1,000 fine.

Big retailers and formula manufacturers sought to choke off the gray market in baby formula -- for instance, by limiting the amount of formula that could be purchased off-the-shelf at one time. Still, Mr. Jammal's business, Jamal Trading Co., thrived. He says he took advantage of loss leaders at big-box stores and also distributed cereals, juices, diapers and other grocery items. He opened several small retail stores in Arizona. In May 2003, unaware that he had been secretly indicted, he moved his family into a $550,000 suburban home in Mesa, Ariz., where he kept a dozen sheep and goats.

Meanwhile, federal authorities say they got interested in Mr. Jammal in October 2001 when they happened to overhear him on a Drug Enforcement Agency wiretap of Osamah Yacoub, an immigrant from Jerusalem who was living in Houston. The two were talking about the baby-formula business, Mr. Charlton, the U.S. attorney said. Mr. Yacoub later pleaded guilty to a charge related to methamphetamine trafficking and cooperated with the government in its prosecution of Mr. Jammal.

Around the same time, according to a Phoenix police affidavit, a confidential informant told authorities that Mr. Jammal was trying to "facilitate the release of a non-U.S. citizen who was in federal custody" -- Malek Seif -- and smuggle him to Mexico. Mr. Seif later pleaded guilty to falsifying immigration and Social Security records. Through one of his appeal lawyers, Mr. Jammal said the story is not true. "Someone made it up," said the lawyer, Scott MacPherson.

A 9/11 Hijacker at Mosque

Federal authorities won't say exactly what led to Mr. Jammal's case being turned over to the terrorism task force. Mr. Jammal suspects one factor was that he and Mr. Seif attended a Tempe mosque where one of the 9/11 hijackers worshipped briefly -- Hani Hanjour, a Saudi Arabian who was aboard the American Airlines jet that crashed into the Pentagon. Mr. Jammal, who says he has no sympathies with terrorism, says he expressed skepticism about Mr. Hanjour's culpability when Federal Bureau of Investigation agents came to the mosque shortly after 9/11.

Beginning in December 2001, authorities devised a sting aimed at Mr. Jammal and his associates. Mead Johnson, a unit of Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. and maker of the Enfamil brand, gave police posing as middlemen baby formula to sell to Jamal Trading Co., representing it as stolen. Mr. Jammal didn't buy formula directly in the sting, and typically insisted that associates get signed statements attesting that any formula they bought wasn't stolen.

But police did sell 1,400 cases from the back of a Wal-Mart truck to Mr. Jammal's partner in several businesses, an Egyptian-born businessman named Tamer Swailem, in May 2002. Testifying against Mr. Jammal, Mr. Swailem said he expressed misgivings to Mr. Jammal about buying the formula in a cellphone conversation. "It didn't feel right....[but] finally we decided just to go ahead and have him [the agent] sign the paper," Mr. Swailem said. Mr. Jammal, who didn't testify at this trial, says in an interview that he told Mr. Swailem to "get the hell out" if he believed the formula in the truck was stolen.

In March 2003, Mr. Jammal was indicted secretly. Although the government refuses to say when it tapped Mr. Jammal's phones and bugged his office under the FISA warrant, summaries of about 20 conversations introduced in criminal proceedings against Mr. Jammal date from May and June 2003.

Clifford Fishman, a Catholic University law professor who has studied wiretap laws, says using FISA-authorized wiretaps to bolster an already pending criminal case "would be a clear misuse of the law." A spokeswoman for Mr. Charlton, the prosecutor, said that the "basis for the FISA intercept was unrelated to [Mr. Jammal's] involvement in organized retail theft," adding that it was conducted by a separate investigative team. She said officials can't reveal reasons for seeking the FISA warrant.

Mr. Jammal was arrested in July 2003, and charged with eight felony counts including interstate transportation of stolen property. The government now says that of the 27 defendants in the case, 22 were arrested; 18 pleaded guilty and four of them so far have been deported, while others are pending deportation; and four others including Mr. Jammal were convicted at trial.

Federal prosecutors used declassified conversations recorded under the FISA warrants to argue successfully that he should be jailed awaiting trial. They said his expressed interest in running for the Lebanese parliament proved that he had no strong ties to the U.S.

As Mr. Jammal's trial approached, the FISA-authorized wiretaps also posed difficulties for his court-appointed lawyer, Michael Reeves. The government insisted that Mr. Reeves obtain security clearance to examine classified evidence in the case and agree not to talk about the evidence with anyone, even his client. Mr. Reeves's doubts deepened when he got a look at the security-clearance application. Under penalty of perjury, it asked detailed information "like 'Have you ever missed a mortgage payment?' " Mr. Reeves recalls. "It made me nervous."

Ashcroft Weighed In

While Mr. Reeves pondered the matter, he asked the court to order the government either to reveal the basis for issuing the FISA warrant so he could challenge its legality or bar the evidence altogether. The government countered with an affidavit from then-Attorney General John Ashcroft who said telling defense lawyers why the FISA warrant was issued "would harm the national security." [And that was that-Ed]The federal trial judge, Frederick J. Martone, sided with the government.

Judge Martone allowed Mr. Reeves to withdraw and appointed Michael Smith of Mesa to take his place. But he, too, eventually pulled out, arguing that serving as an effective advocate for Mr. Jammal meant sharing the FISA evidence with his client -- something that would expose Mr. Smith to prosecution.

In October 2004, Judge Martone named Robert Kavanagh, a former Phoenix police officer, to represent Mr. Jammal. Mr. Jammal says Mr. Kavanagh inherited from the previous lawyers only a few CD's -- apparently a small portion of the surveillance videos that were made outside his client's warehouse -- plus a largely inaudible tape recording of one of the FISA conversations. With time running out and no more delays possible before the trial, Mr. Kavanagh, who had obtained a security clearance, reviewed classified summaries of some wiretapped conversations, prepared by FBI translators and agents. But he says he was unable to review many conversations.

The government was free to offer any declassified FISA-obtained evidence in its case against Mr. Jammal, and the defense also could use that material. Federal rules require prosecutors to turn over any evidence that might help the defense. Government lawyers didn't go through all the tapes, many of which recorded conversations in Arabic, but "reviewed all translated summaries of the FISA intercepts and found no exculpatory evidence," the U.S. attorney says.

At one point during the trial, Judge Martone questioned how the government could fulfill its obligation to turn over material favorable to the defense. "There isn't any lawyer who's making this judgment," the judge complained during one conference with lawyers, a transcript shows. But he allowed the government to use FISA-gathered evidence anyhow.

Seeking Help From Tapes

Mr. Jammal insists a review of the voluminous, classified FISA evidence would show that he warned would-be sellers that he would not accept stolen property [But we'll never know-Ed]. He also says that the tapes could have helped undercut the testimony of former associates who agreed to plea bargains and testified against him. Mr. Charlton, the U.S. attorney, counters that seven witnesses testified to Mr. Jammal's guilt. The government introduced evidence, for example, that Mr. Jammal was told by an associate that at least one supplier was stealing. Prosecutors also argued that Mr. Jammal should have known from the prices he was paying that he was buying stolen goods.

Over defense objections, the prosecution played for the jury a conversation recorded under the FISA warrant -- Mr. Jammal's 14-minute rant from June 26, 2003, about his sense that the government was after him, even though he didn't know he'd already been indicted [The Feds get to pick and choose evidence now-Ed].

"I'm trying to establish a business in Lebanon, because I know 80% to 90% that the day will come when the American government is going to come and ask me for taxes," he said, according to a translation presented in court. "OK, that's why, when that day comes, I'll tell them, 'F- you!' Then take everything, I'll pick up everything and go to Lebanon."

Jurors took six hours to convict Mr. Jammal and other defendants on most of the charges. A few days before his sentencing hearing in October, Mr. Jammal fired off a 43-page letter to civil-rights groups, hoping to generate interest in his appeal, and copied Judge Martone. "I fail to see how my conversation concerning the baby formula business could qualify as 'foreign intelligence,' " he wrote.

CO puts farmers between immigrants and inmates

Colorado passed one of the toughest illegal immigrant bills in the nation last year. Which received many "huzzah's" from immigration hardliners nationwide. Even better, it like it worked, illegal immigrants fled the state (and maybe some legal ones too). Now the hard-liners song, "For Colorado's a jolly good fellow..." Two for two and on a roll. Now the stage is set for the final piece of the theory to be proven. With all those jobs that illegal immigrants took in agriculture that US citizens are pining away for available, citizens surely rushed in to fill the void. Right? Right?

Mmmmm, not so much. It looks like no one wanted those jobs after all, and crops rotted because there was no one to work the fields. Maybe as Meatloaf sang, "Two out of three ain't bad."

In any case, now CO farmers need a solution. And the survey says...Prison labor! That will get those fields tended to. Plus $.60 an hour (plus no unions!) can't beat that. But wait, wasn't that the problem to start with? How can any American, no matter how desperate work for $.60 an hour? I mean you'd have to force someone to work at those wages.

Which makes one wonder how serious the argument that illegal immigrants take jobs because they work at lower wages really is. I mean, if the solution is to use people who will work for less than 10% of the new minimum wage (at gunpoint), how does that help American workers get those jobs?

Two final points.

One. The "illegal immigrants take jobs argument" is false for roughly the same reasons as the minimum wage concept doesn't really help. The jobs II's (I squared?) take are jobs no one wants. These are the true "entry level" gigs. There are no third generation manual laborers. Sucking out supply won't bring in new American workers because there are no American workers looking to do the work. The jobs that are filled by II's can't pay more because the end product can't charge more, there's no way to pass on the increased cost. In fact, in most cases prices are going down. Get rid of labor supply and the industry just goes away, jobs are lost, product is lost, revenue is lost, and taxes are lost. Look at CO. The answer to this new supply of jobs is not a rush of labor, its Prison Labor. Doesn't this demonstrate anything? Bottom line, hardliners create lots of loses but no gains. Brilliant! But typical of government.

Two. When listening to the debate its important to look at who's talking (but not look who's talking too-terrible movie). Farmers and the like are very much against the hardliners. Makes sense, their livelihood, their homes, their land and homes depend on this supply of labor. Everyone wants to keep US agriculture alive, II's are the way, much better than subsidies. But who's arguing against? There's no group, American's Who Want to Work Crazy Hard for Low Wages (or AWWWCHLW-bless you), debating the point. Its politicians looking to gain points with the electorate. Or better put, people who have nothing at stake trying to gain favor from other people who have nothing at stake. No politician or voter against II's really touch the issue (nanny's exempted). The people who do touch this issue are uniformly against this new dance craze.

Beware politician's who smell votes...

Bite Someone Else's Hand

You could almost respect the opinions of those throughout the world who spew all their frustrations at the US. Almost. Right up until the point when they present their begging bowls and admit that they have no solutions, only complaints.

It makes perfect sense to hate the Yankees when every year they beat your team (and everyone else's). To root against them with all your might is almost a requirement for every other team's fans. And to use that as motivation to get even better so you can unseat them is one of the most admirable drivers of human behavior. However, once you show up at Yankee Stadium and demand that they send their coaches to improve your players and spend their championship winnings to improve your team's position you've admitted to being a loser...and from then on you will always be a loser.

A man has a right to criticize anyone else when he has a better way. And if he thinks one way is evil he has a moral duty to disassociate himself with it. But when the little countries of the world surround the American limo and jockey for the best positions in line to get their handouts they don't reveal their bankruptcy until they huddle in the alley devouring their charity and bemoaning how evil the people in that limo are.

Mexico says they don't want to lose vital, working citizens to immigration yet condemn the wall. Europe slashes military budgets to just above zero and then complains about American unilateralism. Chavez calls Bush a fascist and warmonger (to many cheers) as he steals industries and starts his military build up. And "leaders" like John Kerry say we need to change our ways so these same people won't criticize us any more.

In a room full of madmen, the sane guy will be the least popular.

Rush-ing to judgement (Long Version)

Avert your eyes Stalin.

Rush today says that GOP losses "liberated" him. Key points.

no longer am going to have to carry the water for people who I don't think deserve having their water carried. Now, you might say, "Well, why have you been doing it?" Because the stakes are high. Even though the Republican Party let us down, to me they represent a far better future for my beliefs and therefore the country's than the Democrat Party and liberalism does. I believe my side is worthy of victory, and I believe it's much easier to reform things that are going wrong on my side from a position of strength. Now I'm liberated from having to constantly come in here every day and try to buck up a bunch of people who don't deserve it, to try to carry the water and make excuses for people who don't deserve it. I did not want to sit here and participate, willingly, in the victory of the libs, in the victory of the Democrat Party by sabotaging my own.

And,

here have been a bunch of things going on in Congress, some of this legislation coming out of there that I have just cringed at, and it has been difficult coming in here, trying to make the case for it when the people who are supposedly in favor of it can't even make the case themselves -- and to have to come in here and try to do their jobs. I'm a radio guy! I understand what this program has become in America and I understand the leadership position it has.

Also,

t has been a challenge to come in here and look at some of the weaknesses and some of the missed opportunities and try to cover for them and make up for them

I agree with everything Rush said. My point to Stalin for years is that Rush is not the voice for truth, he's a GOP mouthpiece, a sort of cigar smoking cheerleader. To go to Rush for intellectual honesty is like going to a palm reader for advice about your future. She knows why she's there, and you know why you're there, so all sides agree. It's not about truth, its about feeling better. This is Rush. He's not about truth, he's about making his listeners feel better.

I don't think it was always this way. Like the GOP, his message became about staying in power. On the march towards power he could afford to be honest because the stakes weren't as high. It takes discipline to take power. If some random Republican steps out of line, punish him, keep the focus on the mission (to take power) and keep everyone locked in. That was the position he enjoyed up until 1994. However, once the his team took control, discipline meant the possibility of short term loss of power. Honesty risked loss. Rather than risk honesty, he took the path of "cover" and the GOP grew fat and lazy. Rush started playing the "relative" game.

Even though the Republican Party let us down, to me they represent a far better future for my beliefs and therefore the country's than the Democrat Party and liberalism does.

Relativism isn't discipline. Relativism is a path towards the continuing downward spiral. On election day, it spiraled past "loser."

I believe that Rush and the GOP faced the same dilemma, power v. integrity of the mission, and both chose power. However, it looks like Rush is geared up to be a real voice of conservatism, already turning on W.

The president during the campaign said that he was convinced that if the Democrats won power, that the war on terror would suffer a setback. They're not that interested in victory. He totally took that back today. He said (paraphrased), "Well, people say things on campaigns. You know, the campaign's over and the Democrats won, and so it's over. What do you want?" It was the "What do you want?" press conference. "You want immigration reform? Ha-ha-ha! You got it. You want a minimum wage increase? Yoooooou got it! You want Rumsfeld? Yoooooou got him!" Bush has seen this before, and this is how you get out of town in two years with an approval rating that is above the thirties and maybe into the fifties or the sixties. Stem cells are another thing. The whole point here is: "We're going to do everything we can to make everybody happy. We're going to do what we can to make everybody happy."

If Rush is really on the case, I think it's better for the country. I'm not a fan, but he has a large base, and if he focuses back on conservative ideals, and not partisan flattery, then maybe conservatism can make a comeback.

Sometimes you have to take a step back to take two steps forward.

MINO's

Someone soon is going to jump on the concept of MINO's or Minority in Name Only. As the Hispanic popluation continues to grow, at some point they can't, as a group, be considered a "minority." According to this AP article, hispanics make up 14.5% of the population, and non-hispanic whites are a "minority" in four states plus DC. Clearly, no matter what, non-hispanic whites will never merit "minority" status, but when does a named minority group lose it's status. Is it nation wide? At the state level? Can you qualify for minority perks at the federal level, but not at the state level? Since Texas is one of the states where non-hispanic whites are a minority, I'm assuming that statistically hispanics are not a "minority." Does this affect hispanic preferential hiring agreements with fire and police departments? Like I said, whites will never get overt preferential hiring status, but should hispanics get to keep theirs when they're no longer a statistical minority?

My bet is that minority status is a forever lable, there's too much at stake to give it up. But while immigration is a non-sensical platform, a politician could get the same boost from his targeted base from taking up the more rational argument for taking away minority status from hispanics, freeing them of the lable, freeing up tax dollars, and getting rid of hiring/admission quotas. The obvious counter to this is to furhter segment "hispanic." "Cuban's aren't Mexican's" and will be the chant, and you will be called racist for grouping them together. Fun, fun, fun.

In any case I get the copyright on MINO's. You read the it here first.

Illegal Alien

"Boy let me tell you that its no fun (its not much fun) being an illegal-eagle alien." Genesis. GENESIS RULES!!!-sorry, the 17 year old version of the blogger came out for a sec...all better now.

Now that immigration is the hot button issue of the year I'm going to have to start paying attention to it.

So where what have I learned. Well listening to the political shock-jocks (Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity, etc) illegal immigrants are clearly destroying the country (I thought gay marriage was, but I guess that's so yesterday). Not only that, but
ordinary citizens are constantly bombarded with pushy, cheap working, criminally inclined. non-English speakers. Listening to some of the callers and the sympathetic shock-jocks it sounds like just walking downt the street in America is akin to walking down the barrio in Mexico City. With emotions running so high I keep waiting to wake up to a call to boycott Taco Bell, lousy Mexican fast food taking jobs away from good ol' American fast food companies. No wonder Burger Queen failed. I have to be honest, having lived in Florida, Texas and Colorado for more than thirty tres el decades I can honestly count on one hand the number of times I've run across anyone who didn't speak any English, and at least two of those fingers go to Greeks (but not the middle one-the Unknown Blogger is a known Greek). So when I hear stories of people being surrounded by all these folks who can't speak English, I have to wonder where they're standing. Or maybe, just maybe, they do speak English, but have figured out that pretending not to let's them escape having to talk to you. Believe me, I've tried that before, but pretending to speak just pig latin only takes you so far in this world.

In the spirit of fairness, I'm going to hanlde the main issues devoid of facts, with counter arguement devoid of facts.

First, some fun with math. 12 million illegal immigrants, 300 million Americans. Roughly 4%. Keep this in mind when you hear of all the damage being caused. All this hullabloo surrounding 4 in 100 people.

No speaka the Englaise. Yes, some small percentage of immigrants can't speak any English. But this is a small percentage. English is the most widely spoken language on earth, even when I travel abroad, it's rare that I find someone who doesn't speak any English-so unless countries are making the concerted effort to send us those that don't, it's safe to assume that most immigrants speak the language. Not only that, but to get around, even in a well protected sub community, you have to speak some English. However, the second generation speaks English, period. By the third generation, the first generation is now complaining that the grandkids don't speak any of the native tongue and that the culture is lost. This is no different from any non-English immigrant, legal or illegal, for the entire history of the nation. The melting pot works. Also, when people say they "constantly come acrosse people that don't speak English" think of this. If the full alotment of illegal immigrants didn't speak a lick of English, that's still only 4 in 100 people. And since we know that the illegal immigrants are not dispersed evenly, the chance of encountering anyone who doesn't speak any English is extremely remote. My bet is that a lot of these anecdotes are like when my friend told me that his cousin knew the "Hey Mikey" kid, and he was dead.

Crime. Oddly, with more than 12 million depraved illigal immigrants in the country, crime has stayed near it's hisoric low levels.

"Lousy Mexican's taking all our jobs." Just to be clear, these immigrants, who can't speak English, are taking jobs away from Americans. Apparantly the vast resevoir of wealth that is the non-speaking, non-understading, completely unskilled section of our economy is in danger! Clearly we need 500 bills at the state level this session to deal with this. PS, unemployment is near the historical lows. Here's my example. When I was growing up, before the Dukes of Hazzard came on I had to mow the lawn. I didn't know anyone who had a lawn service, and I don't think I ever saw but one Lawn Service truck, and I grew up in Florida. No one could afford it. Now, just about everyone with a lawn can afford to hire someone to mow it. The question is this, are illegal immigrants taking lawnmowing jobs from Americans? Nope. If you take away the immigrants, the cost of the service goes up, and less people can afford it, meaning less work, meaning less jobs, meaning I risk missing Dukes of Hazzard re-runs, which means I miss the hilarious hijinx of Cooter and Cleatus. Immigrants are creating their own jobs. Since they're poor, they spend nearly 100% of the deneros the earn, the economy expands and more jobs are created. Thanks Pepe. And Pepe is lonely, again what kind of job damage can be caused by 4 in 100 people.

Illegal Immigrants suck up all our services. Apparantly while being so hardworking that they will take the absolute crap jobs for almost no money, they are also so lazy that they suck up all our assistance spending. This while being terrified of being deported if they report anything. These are truley advanced people.

Education. "They're killing the education system, kick them out!" I agree, the best way to deal with people who are poor and uneducated is to keep them that way. And yes, they're the cuprits behind the failling US education system. Vote Pedro.

And one of my favorites as heard by one of the shock-jocks (I honestly don't remember which one, they all sound the same to me). Paraphrased-"If I hear one more automated prompt, you know from a bank or something, asking for English press 1, or Spanish press 2, I'm going to blah blah blah." Dude, I feel the same way. When I'm at Disney World and the monorial voice tells me to be careful in English, and then tells me to take the nino's by the hand, man that ticks me off. I don't care if they are a business making a business decision, it bugs me so they must stop. Same with Starbucks and their "vendi lattes." I think their ought to be a law making them call it a "medium milk," and if I go to Taco Bell I don't want to hear any talk of "Taco's el Grande," I want to order a "Large Mexican sandwhich."

This is America, el go-o el homo.

PS, I'll try to put together some fact for my next foray.