The ACRU Blog

On Friday Feb 29th, John Armor and Ken Blackwell will be on the air.

At 12:30pm EST, John Armor will be talking to Bill Darwin on WRTC AM 1340 in Elkhart, IN. He will be talking about Immigration, Drivers Licenses or any other subject that comes up. You can listen live here.

At 5:00pm EST, Ken Blackwell will be on the Michael Medved Show. He will be talking about Second Amendment issues. You can click here to find out what station the show is on in your area.

At 7:00pm EST, Ken Blackwell will be talking to Terry Gilberg, who will be filling in on The J.D. Hayworth Show. Ken will be talking about Congress' failure to pass the Protect American Act. You can here him in Phoenix, AZ on KFYI 550AM or online by clicking here.

John Armor will be discussing the latest ACLU Outrage, The ACLU siding with illegal immigrants, with Elaine Lawson and The PartyLine on WILO/WSHW in Frankfort, KY. He will be on from 8:30-9:30am EST January 18.

The facts for this story, but not the legal conclusions, come from a column in the Boston Herald on 27 September.

On September 26th, Antonio Montenegro ran over a child on a bicycle in a crosswalk, in Lynnfield, Massachusetts. Montenegro is an illegal immigrant who has been driving without a license for eight years. Onlookers forced him to stop when he ran over 12-year-old Zachary Titus, who was on his bicycle..

Zachary suffered a broken leg, but is otherwise okay. What happened to Montenegro is what's interesting. Original media reports that he was "released on his own recognizance" are false. It was worse than that. He was never arrested in the first place. He was given two tickets, one for driving without a license and the other for "failure to yield at a crosswalk."

The day after the arrest, the Lynnfield police claimed that Montenegro presented a visa that showed who he was. This is contradicted by Montenegro himself, who told a local TV station he "could not get a license because he was in the country illegally." He further said that he'd been in the country illegally for eight years, and that he'd built up a painting business, which owned the van that he drove over Zachary Titus and his bicycle.

The local police said there was nothing else they could or should have done. This writer has not curled up with the Massachusetts Criminal Code for an evening of light reading. However, I am fairly certain that it is illegal to run over a child in a crosswalk, even in the liberal bastion of Massachusetts. Breaking a child's leg certainly qualifies as "great bodily harm," a phrase that the common law - which Massachusetts follows - uses to draw a line between a technical harm, and one that is really serious.

The only reason why this man was not arrested, fingerprinted, and photographed front and side, is that the local police apparently thought it would be politically incorrect to arrest this gentleman because he was, after all, an "undocumented immigrant" who was "working hard to better himself."

If there is reason and logic in Massachusetts - bear with me, this might somehow happen - Montenegro should be arrested on the more serious charge of running over the child. The Police Chief of Lynnfield should be encouraged to seek alternative employment. And the parents of the child should sue this illegal driver back to the Stone Age before he is deported.

Go here for this story on the Net: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view.bg?articleid=1034352

The ACLU has settled one case against Homeland Security concerning a holding facility in Texas for whole families of illegal aliens. At the same time, one of the largest, most left-wing unions in the US files a new suit against Homeland. Both cases are of a piece in trying to prevent the US from enforcing its immigration laws.

The lawsuit Texas concerned the 512-bed T. Don Hutto Family Residential Facility in Taylor, Texas. The ACLU had claimed that Homeland Security was "mistreating" families, and especially children, who were being held pending deportation at that place.

A fact-finding trial was about to begin concerning that facility. According to the article, Immigration and Customs Enforcement had begun "improving education, recreation, medical care and privacy standards at its first large holding facility for illegal immigrant families." From the Washington Post article, it is not possible to judge whether these were improvements that ICE intended to make anyway, or were caused by the filing of this law suit.

When filed, the ACLU lawsuit claimed a chamber of horrors as being inflicted on long-suffering immigrants, without ever using the word "illegal." Apparently, the ACLU abandoned any claim that the families who were taken into this facility were anything other than probable illegal aliens who could be deported when they had been given a hearing on that matter.

Also, it is worth noting that the ACLU switches sides on factual matters, choosing the position with the highest "ain't it terrible" index. In Massachusetts, the ACLU challenged ICE "raids" that "separated parents from their children." In Texas, the ACLU challenged ICE precisely because it was not separating children from their parents.

Interestingly, the Post includes in this article a separate subject of a different suit in Oregon. It states that "the Service Employees International Union plans today to file a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Portland, Ore., against another federal immigration agency, charging that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services exceeded its authority by raising fees significantly July 30, including increasing charges for citizenship applicants from $400 to $675.

"The increase 'presents a huge barrier to thousands of immigrants' anxious to vote in the 2008 presidential primary and general elections, said Eliseo Medina, the union's executive vice president. 'This lawsuit is about accountability.' "

Were the reporters and editors responsible for this article thinking as they were typing in preparing these two paragraphs? Everyone who has not been living under a rock knows that illegal immigrants are paying upwards of $5,000 a piece to be smuggled into the United States. And yet, this particular American union claims that raising the fee for a citizenship application by - are you ready for this? - $275.

But most important is the absurdly laughable reason why the SEIU has filed this case, because thousands of immigrants are "anxious" to vote in next year's elections. Even aliens who have a right to become citizens under an obvious category such as marriage to an American, do not get their citizenship fast enough to vote in next year's elections. A competent reporter or editor should have known this, and pursued an additional point.

Perhaps the Executive Vice President of this Union was committing accidental truth, admitting that these illegals WILL vote in next year's elections, unless effective steps are taken to cut down on vote fraud.

The facts for this article, but not the legal conclusions, come from an article in the Washington Post, published on 26 August.

Go here to find this article on the Net.

It is well-known that illegal aliens often use false Social Security numbers in seeking employment in the US. Research has shown that in some instances, hundreds of illegals are using the same number, often taken from a real and employed American. To deal with this, Homeland Security adopted a new regulation requiring employers to take action when notified that an employee had an apparently false Social Security number.

The ACLU and the AFL-CIO claimed that this would be used as "an excuse" for employers to fire employees. But the law allows the employee 90 days to correct the problem before they would be fired. The San Francisco judge who issued the injunction was appointed by former President Clinton. If the injunction is made permanent pending trial, the appeal would go to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, the most "liberal" and the most-reversed Circuit in the nation.

A logical conclusion was that the plaintiffs did some serious judge-shopping in this case. It could have been filed in any federal court in the nation. They chose to file it in San Francisco, where Homeland Security might have to appeal all the way to the US Supreme Court to dispense with this attack on efforts to deal with illegal aliens in the US.

Notice this telling statement about the case by John Sweeney, president of the AFL-CIO, who said, "This rule is a new tool to repress workers' rights in the name of phony immigration enforcement." Notice this statement assumes that illegal aliens using other people's Social Security numbers have a "right" to do exactly that, and that American labor unions are in the business of protecting those "rights."

The facts for this article, but not the legal conclusions, come from Webwire, an Internet resource for recently broken stories. This article was published on 4 September, based on ACLU documents.

Go here to find this article on the Net.

The Attorney General of New Jersey has done the work of the ACLU in telling the Mayor of Morristown that his police should not check the immigration status of people pulled over for traffic stops or minor crimes. Mayor Donald Cresitello first proposed that in a letter to US Attorney Christopher Christie.

The US Attorney's reply claimed that this plan "directly contradicted" plans by the Attorney General of New Jersey, Anne Milgram, to check the immigration status of people charged with serious crimes or drunk driving. The US Attorney also wrote that checking status for less serious crimes is "something our office thinks should not happen."

The Mayor is trying to be more diligent in finding illegal aliens in his jurisdiction than either the State of New Jersey or the US government. And representatives of both the state and federal governments conclude - and put it in writing - that this is a bad idea. This happened in a state where the bodies are not yet cold in the ground for the assassination of three young people by an illegal alien who should long since have been behind bars, or thrown out of the US. One victim survived and told police what she saw. Two juvenile accomplices have apparently confessed.

In the entire article, only two people spoke the plain, unvarnished truth. The Mayor did so when he said the state's Attorney General had "handcuffed law enforcement in the state." The other burst of semi-honesty came from Maria Juega, of the Latin American Legal Defense and Education Fund, who said, "The mayor wants to purge immigrants from his town."

Ms. Juega is being semi-honest because she missed one word. The Mayor is not trying to "purge immigrants." If so, he would be packing his own bags, because his name sounds very Italian. He is trying to get "ILLEGAL immigrants" out of his town.

The deliberate sloppiness of claiming that steps against illegal immigrants are steps against all immigrants is how the ACLU and its allies - like this legal defense fund - try to defend the idea of open borders for the United States. They get away with this deception in part because members of the press, including Newsday in this very article, do not point out the critical deception. Perhaps in the midst of their personal bias, the press does not even notice this deception.

The facts for this article, but not the legal conclusions, are drawn from an article in Long Island Newsday on 27 August. (Go here to find this article on the Net)

John Gizzi over at Human Event Online, in his latest "Gizzi on Politics" post, has written an important post regarding the ACLU's efforts to thwart local ordinances to protect against the crime and costs of illegal immigration. Here's the relevant section:

The ACLU Strikes Again -- And Again -- For Illegal Immigration

At a time when thirty two states have successfully enacted legislation to deal with illegal immigration and more than fifty local governments have either taken action or are considering it on the issue, there is a major roadblock that their actions will almost surely have to overcome: the American Civil Liberties Union.

In two of the communities that have taken high-profile action to stem an alarming tide of illegal immigration, the ACLU is already hot on the job. In fact, an ACLU suit (in which the group was joined by seven other plaintiffs) against the town of Hazelton, Pennsylvania was recently upheld in U.S. District Court. Facing a rising tide of overcrowded housing and crime because of illegal immigrants, Hazelton Mayor Lou Barletta won enactment of the Illegal Immigration Relief Act, which suspended business licenses of employers who knowingly hire illegal alien and also penalized landlords who rent to them. Once the measure took effect, Barletta told me in June, "you could see the [illegal] people leaving....There was nothing to keep them there when employers and landlords were going to check them out."

Now Barletta and the city fathers must go the U.S. Court of Appeals in an attempt to overturn the decision, issued by a Clinton-appointed district judge, James Munley.

In Prince William County, Virginia, County Supervisor John Stirrup was inspired by Barletta's original measure (which he read about in HUMAN EVENTS) and offered a tough measure of his own to deal with the mounting illegal immigration problem: permitting the county police force to ask residents if they are illegal immigrants and, if found to be in the country illegally, arresting them and sending them on to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency for deportation. Following a crowded and stormy public meeting, the eight-member Board of Supervisors in Virginia's second-most populous county voted unanimously last month to enact the Stirrup measure.

And -- you guessed it! -- the ACLU was on the job again. In a letter sent to the supervisors on July 9th -- the day before the vote on the Stirrup measure -- ACLU Executive Director Kent Willis and Legal Director Rebecca Glenberg sent a letter denouncing "this ill-conceived resolution" and warning of "legal and policy problems that will have a severe impact on the civil liberties of Prince William County residents."

So, as Congress remains vague on what it will do to deal with the problem and local communities deal with what they say is a crisis that hits home, forewarned is forearmed: the ACLU is out there, waiting.

Executive Summary:

Judge Munley has ruled (AP: "Judge strikes down Hazleton's illegal immigrant law,") that local ordinances to protect munincipalities of bearing the cost of illegal immigration, like the one in Hazelton, PA, re "preempted by federal law." This is flatly contrary to prior decisions of the Supreme Court. The driving force behind the appeal of this case, and a similar decision by another federal judge against ordinances of Farmers Branch, Texas, will be future harms to the American citizens who live in those towns. There will be more rapes, robberies, assaults and murders of citizens by illegal aliens. There will be more injuries, damage and deaths from illegal aliens who are driving without licenses, without insurance, and often, while drunk. The citizens of those, and other towns, which are being overrun by illegal aliens, will rightfully blame this death and destruction on the federal judges who have, so far, stripped the local governments of the power to protect their own citizens -- which is the first duty of all local officials, everywhere.

News Channel 5 in Nashville, TN, published an article on its website on 10 July about illegal aliens suing local officials for illegally arresting them. They are claiming $100 a day for their incarceration until they are thrown out of the US in their suit against the Maury County Sheriffs' Office, and the Sheriff himself.

Nowhere does the article describe these as "illegal" immigrants. But they would not be in jail, awaiting deportation, if their status were legal.

The illegals were arrested during a raid conducted by the Sheriff and immigration officers at a mobile home park near Nashville. They were searching for, and apparently found, a man wanted for rape. The article quotes a local resident as saying, "she's scared the officers are targeting Hispanics." The rape suspect was Hispanic, as were the illegal aliens who were found and arrested.

There is no indication that the ACLU is directly involved in this case. But there is no question that the thinking here - illegal aliens have a "right" to be in the US and anyone who interferes with that "right" should pay - is right up the ACLU alley.

Go here, to find this story on the Internet:
http://www.newschannel5.com/Global/story.asp?S=6771363

Executive Summary:

An unlikely alliance between a talk radio host and a college professor, who got run down by an illegal alien, has sparked a turn-around for Tulsa, Oklahoma. From a sanctuary city it has become a watchful and wary city. And due to an extraordinary response by viewers, MSNBC has noticed and reported on this radical change.

On Monday, June 11th, the Georgia Supreme Court reversed a trial court decision that a Georgia law requiring photo ID for all voters, was unconstitutional. The court's decision was unanimous, but not substantive. It was that the Plaintiff lacked standing to object to the law, and therefore the case was dismissed.

The subject of the constitutionality of the Georgia law remains open, however, because a preliminary injunction against the law has been granted in a separate, federal challenge to the law, which is still pending.

Opponents to voter ID laws, which in many cases include the ACLU, argue that requiring photo IDs will "disenfranchise minorities, the poor and the elderly." These arguments have a tough time dealing with the practical fact that someone who wants to write a $20 check at the grocery store for milk, eggs and bread for breakfast, has to present valid, photo ID. And it is hard to argue that voting is less important than buying stuff for breakfast.

Most of the arguments in Georgia and other states against such laws claim that they amount to an "illegal poll tax." States have responded to these claims by making the process free for those citizens who want a government-issued ID in lieu of a drivers license. The real reason why opponents dislike these laws is that honest drivers licenses with photos and proof of citizenship would go a long way toward shutting down voter fraud.

And the voter ID laws will be indirectly tightened up by a federal law requiring proof of citizenship for all US and state citizens to obtain state drivers licenses, with different designs and expiration laws for any legal aliens who also obtain drivers licenses. The combined effect of voter ID and license laws will be that voters in American elections would be almost entirely living, American citizens voting only once.

Similar voter ID laws have been upheld in Arizona by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and struck down by the state Supreme Court in Missouri. Since the question of "discrimination in voting laws is a First Amendment, federal issue, it is likely that a US Supreme Court decision will settle out all these cases, both state and federal.

As a 33-year practitioner in the US Supreme Court on First Amendment issues mostly, I predict that when that Court takes one of these cases, it will rule in favor of the law, as long as there is a mechanism such as a poverty affidavit by which the poorest people can obtain state photo IDs without charge.

In the last week (as of 18 June), the US Senate and House have acted in opposite directions on the subject of "Sanctuary Cities." These are cities which take deliberate steps to protect illegal immigrants within their boundaries, who can and should be deported, and in some cases already have been deported at least once.

In the Senate, Senator Coleman proposed amendment #1158. This would have amended the "comprehensive" illegal immigration bill before the Senate last week, and rising from the dead to be before the Senate again this week. Coleman's proposal would have required that local law enforcement is not prohibited (in "sanctuary cities") from acquiring information about the immigration status of a person they have probable cause to believe is not lawfully in the U.S. This was defeated, 48-49.

At the same time, the House acted decisively in the opposite direction. On Friday, 16 June, the House passed an amendment proposed by Rep. Tom Tancredo to withhold federal emergency services funding from sanctuary cities. Many press accounts add the phrase "so-called" before the word sanctuary.

There is no doubt factually that there are sanctuary cities. Los Angeles has exactly the policy tying the hands of its police that Senator Coleman sought to end. New Haven, Connecticut, has just passed by a vote of 25-1 of its Aldermen to provide City ID to illegal immigrants. And last week the Mayor of Portland provided free city services to families of illegals arrested there, and referred to them as "citizens of Portland." The fact that they were also citizens of other nations apparently escaped his notice.

So there are sanctuary cities, to which Rep. Tancredo's amendment was addressed. And his proposal to amend the funding for the Department of Homeland Security was accepted by the House by a vote of 234 to 189, with 50 Democrats voting in favor. According to Tancredo's home state paper, the Rocky Mountain News, he had proposed similar amendments seven times before, all defeated.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has said that she needs "70 Republican votes to pass the immigration plan." Rep. Tancredo said that the defection of Democrats and the solidity of Republicans on this issue indicates that the House "will crush" the Senate bill on illegal immigration in anything like its current form.

No actions of the Senate and House are final, of course, until either House has passed its final version of any bill, and the versions of each House have been approved by joint committees of both Houses.

Under pressure from a federal law suit of the type that has been filed by the ACLU against many small communities across the country, the City of Mamaroneck, NY, agreed that it will not enforce federal laws concerning citizens of Mexico and other nations who are in the town illegally. Instead, it has agreed to provide special benefits to these citizens of other nations beyond those available to mere citizens of Mamaroneck. (See "Day-laborer hiring site greeted by cheers, jeers in Mamaroneck")

A federal judge is expected to approve this settlement. It will probably remain in place until a number of citizens of Mamaroneck are killed in criminal activities by these citizens of other nations, or local citizens are killed in drunk driving accidents by these citizens. Until then, it is unlikely that the City leaders of Mamaroneck will be either indicted or removed from office for contributing to criminal activity in their town.

The Board of Aldermen of New Haven, Connecticut, have by an astonishing vote of 25-1 approved special City-issued IDs for illegal aliens. The program is also strongly supported by Mayor John DeStefano, Jr., who said, "It's a practical response to a real problem of a large segment of the population who felt isolated from civil authority, were fearful of civil authority and that was contributing to a lack of civility and order in our community."

New Haven is apparently the only local community which has taken such a step. The Mayor estimated that 10% of the City's 120,000 population are "undocumented." The reason why most local governments are going in the exact opposite direction can be seen in the daily press, across the country.

How will the New Haven IDs work? They "would allow access to city libraries and parks, while a debit component would facilitate purchases at some 50 stores and payment at parking meters." The claim is that the cards require the same information as banks do to open accounts. Maybe things have changed since I got my first job, had my first child, and bought my first house. But way back then, banks wanted to know that you had a legal right to stick around before they would lend you money, especially for 30 years.

Hospitals and schools are being over-crowded and bankrupted by the demands of the illegal community. Crimes, and not just drug crimes, are increasing because of the illegal community. And when the deaths from murders and drunk drivers are combined, illegals are killing more Americans every year than enemies and terrorists in all parts of the world from Iraq to the Philippines.

Why did New Haven go in the exact opposite direction from Hazleton, Pennsylvania, and Farmers Branch, Texas? Because those cities paid more attention to the interests of their citizens than the Aldermen in New Haven did. But it's not entirely their fault. They were advised by the worthies at Yale Law School.

The genesis of the program, as "Michael Wishnie, a lawyer with the legal clinics at the Yale Law School, said, was public safety and the request from immigrants to have identification they could show police." Think about that. Lawyers advising people who commit crimes how to avoid the consequences of their illegality. Let's hope this concept doesn't spread to other law schools.

Wishnie claims this is "sound local governance." He claims that police around the country see this as "moving forward." He cites Los Angeles and Chicago as good examples of police deliberately ignoring the illegal status of people they encounter.

How long will this new policy of New Haven last? Just until an illegal slaughters a few local citizens over a drug deal gone bad. Or until a drunk illegal in a car slams into a local couple at night and kills one of them and both of their children. The people will find out if the person causing the deaths had multiple encounters with the police, or worse, had been deported before, and yet was back again. Then, the Mayor and 25 of his Aldermen will feel the backlash, and this policy will die. Yale Law School, however, will feel no such backlash, and learn nothing from the experience.

New Haven could learn their lesson earlier than that. Some members of the state legislature have proposed cutting off all state aid to the city until the policy is changed. Since half of the city's budget comes from the state, this would be immediately effective. As when Congress has threatened to cut off highway funds to state governments, first there are complaints, then a loud sucking sound, then the state or local government backs down. The US Supreme Court, by the way, has approved the use of federal or state fund withholding to force changes in state or local government behavior.

I am grateful for a very thorough, factual article in the New Haven Register on 10 June, which provides much more information about the New Haven ID program than the rest of the mainstream media, put together.

The Aldermen of New Haven, Connecticut, have just approved ID cards for illegal immigrants in that City. The purpose is to allow them to open bank accounts and receive city services including welfare. Was anyone on the Board of Aldermen thinking when they adopted this measure?

To put this in context, would they even consider offering Get Out of Jail Free cards for bank robbers in New Haven? How about Free Lance Pharmacy cards for drug dealers? I shudder to think what they might do, to give a free ride to rapists or child molesters.

There is, of course, a serious point here. Under federal law, it is a separate violation of federal law for anyone, including an Alderman from New Haven, to deliberately assist someone else in violating federal law. There is also a practical side for dealing with New Haven and all other "sanctuary" cities.

There is no major urban area in the nation which could survive more than three months without the steady influx of federal funds for a variety of programs. If Congress passed a law saying that no more federal money from ANY federal program would go to any city that deliberately encouraged violations of federal immigration law, what would happen?

There would be a loud sucking sound. And then New Haven, Los Angeles, and all the other "sanctuary" cities would get back in line, PDQ. Actions like this happen whenever politicians get divorced from reality. Cutting off the money is the shotgun wedding to reintroduce them to that reality.

Perhaps last week's top news story, not counting whatever Rosie O'Donnell and Lindsay Lohan were doing, was the story of Andrew Speaker, the Atlanta personal injury lawyer who decided it would be a good idea to fly a few thousand miles here and there notwithstanding his knowing that he had a virulent form of tuberculosis. The passengers cooped up with him on his long, trans-oceanic flights have not been entirely thrilled with Mr. Speaker's decisions. They bear some misgivings about having had to share enclosed cabin space with the updated version of the Black Death.

The effort to track down Mr. Speaker and keep him from re-entering the United States was not entirely unsuccessful. His passport was flagged and instructions were given that he was to be detained at the border. The border agent who encountered him when he tried to enter from Canada picked up the flag, but decided -- he claims -- that the hold-at-the-checkpoint instructions were "discretionary." So Mr. Speaker crossed the border.

This episode surely has implications for the immigration package now being considered by Congress. All sides believe (or say they believe) that concrete guarantees of effective border security must be the anchor of any new plan. But how could those guarantees be taken seriously? We saw over the last few days how easy it was for a person whose identity and risk factors were known in advance to walk right past security even though he had been flagged and stopped.

By far the major problem with border security exists at our southern border. The problem is, specifically, that anonymous illegal immigrants by the thousands cross there, mostly with impunity, because they never encounter a border guard at all and even when they do, there is at best only spotty enforcement. Since we now know how porous and inept border security is even when both the opportunity and the mechanisms for enforcement are better than they will ever be in the Southwest, it is simply impossible for sensible people to believe the "guarantees" we are hearing about will be worth the proverbial paper they're printed on.

Scott Johnson of Power Line tells us what gets sanctuary in "sanctuary cities" in his shocking report, which I repeat in full below. To give the short answer, what gets sanctuary is human trafficking and sex slavery.

When the police turn a blind eye to the law -- when they are ordered turn a blind eye -- what exactly did we think was going to happen?

Read Scott's report:

Today's print edition of the Washington Times, in the "Inside Politics" section, quotes Senator Barack Obama as congratulating the Bush Administration on opening talks with our peace-loving friends in Iran (peace-loving, that is, when they're not engaged in acts of piracy, hostage taking and building The Big One). Senator Obama is quoted as saying, "I have to give the administration credit, which I rarely do....[It's] not because I trust the Iranians, but because I think they have a self-interest. They don't want to see Iraq completely collapse because they're going to have millions of people pouring over their borders," he said.

How's that?

Did Senator Obama just acknowledge (1) that a country's self-interest is properly taken into account when setting its national policy, and (2) that it is in a nation's self-interest not to "have millions of people pouring over [its] borders?"

Now if the Senator can connect the dots, so to speak, he might discern that it is also in the national interest of the United States not "to have millions of people pouring over [our] borders," as they have been doing for years, courtesy of see-no-evil border security and the 1986 amnesty deal, which effectively rewarded exactly that.

I am assuming here, of course, that Senator Obama believes that the United States is entitled to act in its self interest just as Iran is, but I confess that is only an assumption. If it's correct, however, we can hope that the Senator will recall this as he deliberates what our immigration policy should be. So hope -- but don't hold your breath.

Our ACRU bloggers have attempted to bring to this site the views of exceptionally bright and intellectually honest conservative thinkers concerning the immigration debate going on in Congress and around the country. Eric Langborgh has posted a videotaped discussion by former Attorney General (and ACRU Board Member) Ed Meese, and I have posted the views of Thomas Sowell and Charles Krauthammer. In this enty, I post the views of Paul Mirengoff, a brilliant and wonderfully clear-thinking legal and cultural analyst. Few people can hang with Paul in a debate -- I know, because he routinely routed me in the hallway debates we had in the law dorm at Stanford 35 years ago. Now his two daughters could rout me as well, were I foolish enough to take them on. Paul's entry on PowerLine, of which he is a founder, is as follows:

Conservatives demonized by unlikely source

The White House communications operation is in overdrive promoting its immigration reform proposal. I'm getting three or more emails per day on the subject. I feel frustrated that the White House failed, in my view, to push this hard for initiatives I favor, or when it came to defending itself on Iraq.

In keeping with the ACRU's commitment to a free and robust exchange of ideas (no speech codes in these parts), I re-produce below, from RealClearPolitics, Charles Krauthammer's views on the current debate in Congress on illegal immigration. Dr. Krauthammer believes that the bill under consideration does indeed create amnesty, but does not per se oppose it on that account. On the other hand, Dr. Krauthammer's take on amnesty comes with a twist:

Here is the Hon. Ed Meese, ACRU Policy Board Member and former Attorney General under President Ronald Reagan, commenting on the Bush-Kennedy immigration bill currently being debated in congress in a "Heritage In Focus" video, produced by the Heritage Foundation:

Be sure also to read what Mr. Meese recommends instead regarding immigration, and the principles he lays out in his paper, "Where We Stand: Essential Requirements for Immigration Reform."

The ACRU does not lobby for or against pending legislation. This does not prevent us from joining an important national debate, however, by bringing readers the views of others (and sometimes our own) on issues relevant to the discussion. Many of these issues, if not all of them, long pre-existed the introduction of the immigration bill presently before Congress.

Below, I re-produce in full a piece by the brilliant Thomas Sowell. For full disclosure purposes, I should add that I was a teaching assistant for Professor Sowell a mere 38 years ago, when he had a dank basement office in the Economics Department of Cornell University. He went on to become a renowned thinker and writer; I went on to become an obscure government lawyer.

Professor Sowell's views, published Tuesday in RealClearPolitics, are as follows:

Many readers will remember that Farmers Branch, Texas, a Dallas suburb, recently enacted an ordinance to the effect that landlords may not rent to illegal immigrants. The ordinance went to a vote after a pro-illegal immigrant group waged a vigorous campaign to, as they put it, "Let the Voters Decide." The voters promplty did so. By a margin of 68% to 32%, they decided to adopt the ordinance.

Without missing a beat, it then became time to "Let the Court Decide," a strategy the previously pro-vote group has now pursued. Yesterday they obtained, from a federal judge appointed by President Clinton, a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the ordinance the voters decided upon. The gist of the court's reasoning is that because the law makes regulating immigration an exclusively federal concern, the Farmers Branch ordinance is an impermissible encroachment on federal power.

My astutue colleague John Armor has thoroughly analysed the court's opinion, and I would add only a few thoughts. The ordinance does not actually enforce or have anything directly to do with the enforcement of federal law. It never says an illegal immigrant can't live in Farmers Branch, take residence in a house there or buy property. It says only that landlords may not rent to illegal immigrants. But that does not affect any specifically FEDERAL interest in immigration, since federal law does not cover rental agreements with aliens, legal or illegal. To whatever extent the ordinance may tangentially affect federal law, however, it is not inconsistent with it, but instead acts in aid of it, just as drug enforcement by local police acts in aid of federal drug statutes.

One might point out that sanctuary city ordinances, which actually DO affect the enforcement of federal law (namely by frustrating it), have never, on that account, been declared unconstitutional as an impermissible local infringement on matters exclusively reserved for federal control.

Finally, under the court's "reasoning," a "reverse sanctuary city" ordinance would a fortiori have to go. That is, if a city adopted an ordinance requiring its police to inquire after immigration status and report illegals to the federal government, that would (hopefully) have an effect on federal immigration enforcement far greater than the no-renting ordinance does. This would plainly meet the court's definition of local "infringement." So it turns out that anything a local government wants to do to assist enforcement of federal law, even ever so indirectly (as in the Farmers Branch case), is verbotten, while anything that turns its back on federal law is consistent with exclusive federal authority.

Translation: If your city wants to assist federal immigration enforcement, such of it as there is, that constitutes infringement, but if your city wants to squelch federal enforcement, that constitutes good government.

Go figure.

Farmers Branch, a small Texas town near Dallas, passed an ordinance imposing penalties on landlords who might rent their apartments to illegal aliens. The act included a requirement that the voters must approve it. In an exceptional turnout last Saturday, the voters did approve, 68% to 32%.

The ACLU and various parties took the town to court, claiming that the ordinance was unconstitutional. The court then ruled that the councilmen and residents of Farmers Branch are too stupid to govern themselves, substituted its judgment for theirs, and struck the ordinance as unconstitutional.

No, that's not the stated reason for the decision of US District Judge Sam Lindsay for issuing an injunction against the ordinance. But that is the effect of his decision. This was a "temporary" injunction, one that will probably remain in effect for years while the decision is on appeal.

The judge noted, correctly, that the Constitution gives sole power to regulate immigration to Congress. But then he dives right into the argument of the ACLU and others that Farmers Branch was preempted by federal laws on immigration. He did quote, but then passed quickly over, the preamble to the ordinance in which the town asserted its "police power" to act to protect the "health, safety and general welfare" of its citizens.

Had the court bothered to look at the history of cities, he would have discovered that "municipal corporations" were making decisions about how and where people could live and work, to protect their health and safety, centuries before the United States was a gleam in anyone's eye. What Farmers Branch sought to do was well within the normal power of any city.

The judge also failed to note that self-government through elected representatives is the most basic right possessed by all Americans. The Declaration of Independence states that "to secure these [unalienable] rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...."

The Constitution in Article IV turns that statement of philosophy into a principle of law, when it guarantees to every state (and all its cities and counties) "a Republican Form of Government." And, in case the judge didn't know what that means, that is a government in which "the supreme power is held by the citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives."

The court based much of its analysis on De Canas, a 1976 Supreme Court case, which approved a California law dealing with employment of illegal immigrants to the detriment of "lawful resident workers." In that case, the Supreme Court said that states (or cities) are engaging in forbidden "regulation of immigration" when they determine who should or should not be admitted to the country.

The court notes that Farmers Branch did not make any new determination of who should be admitted. Its councilmen and citizens accepted federal definitions, down the line. However, the court noted that the town adopted definitions and forms developed by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, to be used in its regulation of landlord tenant law in the town. Presuming that the HUD laws and regulations have been tested and found constitutional, the court does not explain why Farmers Branch is "creating a new definition" when it is using existing federal documents, word for word.

The court did not consider any other issues in the case.

The law that this court denied to the town and its citizens, would have required that landlords ask all tenants to provide a declaration that they are citizens, or in the alternative, a declaration that they are legal aliens, and sign an immigration form created by Customs. These documents would be kept on file, and would be available as need be to both state and federal officials. Landlords who failed to follow these conditions would be subject to fines.

One aspect of this decision is pathetic. The court told Farmers Branch that it could not enact an ordinance solely within its own boundaries, because it was interfering with federal control of immigration. The double and obvious defects of that position are that the federal government is NOT controlling immigration now, and that the town did not say that anyone could not be in the US, only that certain illegals could not rent apartments in that town, no more, no less.

There is also litigation in Hazleton, Pennsylvania, against similar ordinances concerning both illegals being employed and renting apartments. These two cases are the leading edge of what will become dozens of cases around the country. Ultimately, it is the Supreme Court which will decide whether or not cities and towns can act with respect to illegal aliens within their own boundaries.

Since this is a simple matter of local decision-making, the towns should ultimately prevail. And when they do, they should seek costs and fees against the ACLU for assaulting the most basic civil right of all, the right to self-government.

Below is a description of the provisions of what is inaccurately being called the National ID Act. These are minimum standards which all states are required to follow, as a matter of national security and illegal immigration. All states are free to have whatever requirements they choose, above and beyond these minimums.

The "Real ID Act of 2005" was actually passed as Section B of the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005. It repealed a prior law that sought consultation between federal agencies and the states, to set standards for issuance of Drivers Licenses and IDs (subsequently referred to here as DL/ID). It replaced that with a required set of standards.

It required these minimum elements in all DL/IDs: (1) person's full legal name, (2) person's date of birth, (3) person's gender, (4) DL/ID number, (5) digital photograph, (6), person's address of legal residence, (7) person's signature, (8) physical security features designed to prevent tampering, counterfeiting or duplication for fraudulent purposes, and (9) a common machine-readable technology with defined data elements.

The way that a federal standard could apply to a state-issued document was this: "A federal agency may not accept a driver's license or personal identification card (DL/ID) after May 11, 2008, unless the state has been certified by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in consultation with the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) to meet the requirements of the law." This means that no American can use his/her state drivers license to board an airplane, draw Social Security, receive other federal benefits, or obtain a passport, etc., unless his/her state is in compliance with this federal law, by that date. Non-conforming DL/IDs shall state on their face that they "may not be accepted for federal identification or any other official purpose, and [have] a unique design or color indicator to alert federal agencies or other law enforcement personnel that it may not be accepted...."

States must obtain proof of the following: A photo identity document (except that a non-photo identity document is acceptable if it includes both the person's full legal name and date of birth). Documentation showing the person's date of birth. Proof of the person's social security account number (SSN)... or verification that the person is not eligible for an SSN. Documentation showing the person's name and address of principal residence. The state is required to verify each of the documents presented, and to keep both paper documents and electronic scans for a required number of years. If the Social Security Number has apparently been issued to more than one person, the state must "resolve the discrepancy" before issuing the DL/ID.

There is also a negative: A state shall not accept any foreign document other than an official passport.

Before issuing a DL/ID the state must require and verify documentation for the fact that the applicant is an American citizen, or is one of five categories of aliens. In the latter categories, the license shall be temporary and issued only for the length of stay in the US, or if no length is shown, for no more than a year.

Each state shall make available the information in its motor vehicle data base to all other states.

Lastly, the Department of Homeland Security is empowered, "in consultation with the states" to issue regulations to carry out the provisions of the law.

Note that this law does not prevent any state from passing a law to allow DL/IDs to be issued other than the federal law requires, including to illegal aliens. It simply provides that such DL/IDs will not be usable for federal purposes, and will be clearly marked so any law enforcement personnel will know it is not valid for such purposes.

In January, five years ago, I was invited to meet in Washington, D.C., with an ad hoc group of state legislators from around the country, The subject was the security implications of state drivers licenses, which have long been the basis of personal identification, credit issuance, etc. The point they already understood, and which I stressed, was that the state DL/ID system was as weak as its weakest link. Because all states had reciprocal laws with all others, anyone could go to the state with the most lax requirements, get a license there, and then trade that in for a license in any other state at any other address. The terrorists of 9/11 did exactly that.

I stressed to the state legislators that they would have to establish, in consultation with their colleagues across the country, the minimum standards that all states should follow, and stop the reciprocity for any states which refused to go along. Or, in the alternative, the Congress would inevitably set the minimum standards and enforce them against the states. The legislators in the group recognized the necessity for action. However, the states themselves could not agree on standards, by any of several routes.

So, ultimately, Congress stepped in to deal with the failure of the states to act, and this law was the result. Note that this law does not mean that a state cannot issue a drivers license to an illegal alien. But if a state does that, it must issue a licence that by color, design and statement on its face is "not valid for federal identification." Of course, such a drivers license would also immediately show to any state or local law enforcement personnel that the person presenting it is not a citizen of the United States. It may just be that those who promote open borders for the US have just realized this last consequence of this law, and are encouraging conservatives to attack the law (as an unwanted "national ID card") in hopes of protecting illegal aliens from identification in routine circumstances.

Columnist Mark Steyn has a must-read Op-Ed at the New York Sun today concerning illegal immigration. As he points out, sponsors of the recent accord between the White House and the Senate don't like the word "amnesty" any more than the deal's critics do. Rather, Steyn argues, we should call it "zamnesty." As he writes:

That's why the [proposed Z-1, Z-2, and Z-3] visa starts with the letter that's furthest away from the one "amnesty" begins with. "Z" stands for zellout ...no, hang on, zurrender or Zapatista, or some other word way up the other end of the alphabet from "amnesty". But the point is, at a stroke there will be no more illegal immigrants. Because being illegal means you're now legal.

To read Steyn's full article, click here.

Wall Street, or at least the Wall Street Journal, seems quite satisfied with the immigration deal brokered late last week between the White House and the Senate. Said the opinion editors of the esteemed business journal, it "looks like the best chance in years to balance border security with human and economic realities." In the article, "Immigration Opening: The Bush-Kennedy Proposal's Vices and Virtues," the editors look favorably upon the smooth glide path to legal status provided for the 12 million undocumented aliens living in the U.S., thinking that good for the American economy. However, the Wall Street Journal looks less favorably upon the merit-based restrictions the deal would purportedly put on future immigration. And they strongly dislike the harsher "guest worker" policies, border control provisions, and employer-sanctions against those who would hire illegal aliens.

Meanwhile, many other conservatives are up in arms about the whole deal. Regardless of what the bill's proponents want to call it, these critics say it amounts to amnesty, of rewarding foreign nationals for breaking our immigration laws. Further, they say that the new "restrictions" this deal would impose on immigration and "guest workers" are highly fungible, likely to be ignored as so much chaff, just as previous laws and restrictions have been so cavalierly ignored following past immigration reforms. And the bill's attempt to tighten the sieve that is the U.S.-Mexican border amounts to a Band-Aid on a porous dike, that will be quickly overwhelmed by the great demand created through our awarding of amnesty to previous waves of illegal aliens. Perhaps most devastating, some of these critics reveal that fifty years of history with such huge immigration reform bills has shown, again and again, that the results are always far different than those predicted by the bills' sponsors, and have always resulted in the opening of the illegal immigration floodgates.

With various views in between, the above summarizes the "basically pro" versus the "definitely con" views of the pundits following word of the immigration reform deal brokered last week by national leaders. Though it must be said that at 700-plus pages, crafted in secrecy, details of the bill are still trickling out.

What do you think?

Last week I provided a link to, and summarized the broad principles outlined in, a Backgrounder paper penned by ACRU Policy Board member Ed Meese and Dr. Matthew Spalding of the Heritage Foundation. Is this bill consistent with the principles and policy recommendations laid out in the paper, "Where We Stand: Essential Requirements for Immigration Reform"?

Other questions: Do you believe this bill will be signed into law? Should it be? Why or why not? Is this true immigration reform or more of the same? What do you think of those who hold the views summarized above? If you believe reform is needed, what should that reform look like? What, broadly speaking, would you propose?

Let us know what you are thinking.

The Hon. Ed Meese, ACRU Policy Board Member and former Attorney General under President Ronald Reagan, has co-authored an important paper with Dr. Matthew Spalding of the Heritage Foundation concerning immigration reform.

The Backgrounder paper is titled "Where We Stand: Essential Requirements for Immigration Reform." At a time when the Congress is considering a comprehensive immigration reform bill that reports indicate will do little to stem the tide of lawless immigration and will do much to reward those who have already breached our borders illegally, this is a much read.

In the paper, Mr. Meese and Dr. Spalding lay out several policy proposals and overarching principles, the latter which I summarize here:

1. The First Priority: National Security - America's immigration system must be a national strength and not a strategic vulnerability


2. Uphold the Rule of Law - The rule of law requires the fair, firm, and consistent enforcement of the law, and immigration is no exception


3. Amnesty Is Not the Answer - Those who enter, remain in, and work in the country illegally are in ongoing and extensive violation our immigration laws


4. Strengthen Citizenship - Each nation has the responsibility--and obligation--to determine its own conditions for immigration, naturalization, and citizenship


5. Benefit the American Economy - Immigration policy should be a fiscal and economic benefit not only for immigrants, but also for the nation as a whole


6. A Real Temporary Worker Program - A temporary worker program must be temporary, market-oriented, and feasible

[Lawmakers] should oppose and, if necessary, the President should veto any reforms or reform packages that do not comport with these principles, are not in the best interest of the United States, and are inconsistent with the great traditions and compassionate practices of America's ongoing experiment in ordered liberty.

For more details, including the specific policy proposals that fall under each of these principles, download "Where We Stand: Essential Requirements for Immigration Reform" here.

Yesterday, I had the privilege of discussing the Farmers Branch ordinance with Terry Lowry on his Houston radio show, "What's Up." There is more news today.

There appears on the MSNBC website a story about the reaction to Farmers Branch. As many readers will recall, the ordinance, which requires landlords to verify the legal status of renters, was adopted by Farmers Branch voters by a margin of 68% to 32%. The balloting was held after a campaign to, as ordinance opponents put it, "Let the Voters Decide." These, incidentally, are the same opponents who, after the voters did decide, wasted no time running off to federal court to get a life-tenured judge to, as it were, undecide.

The MSNBC story includes an interactive poll asking readers whether the ordinance should stand. Now polls of this kind are unscientific and therefore not reliable. Still, they tell us something, and my experience with MSNBC interactive polls is that the pool of respondents is not necessarily conservative, to say the least.

The result of the poll is this: About 11% say the ordinance should be overturned, while 89% say it should stand.

A Reuters article published yesterday ("Workers sue U.S. factory after immigration raid") reports that several hundred illegal immigrant workers at a plant south of Boston have sued the company for cheating them on their wages. The article portrays the illegal immigrants as victims -- of the government's raid, and of factory management's greed -- but there is a different way to look at it.

About a month ago, I wrote in this space that the foremost reason to oppose "sanctuary cities" and their indulgence of illegal immigration is that these things sow disrespect for the rule of law:

"If elected officials pretending to be leaders can turn their backs on laws they dislike, where does that 'principle' stop?....Democratic self-government presupposes fidelity to law, even when one disagrees with it. Were it otherwise, self-government would dissolve into anarchy. All are free to attempt to change the law by persuasion and argument -- in other words, by making their case to the electorate. But they are not free [simply] to thumb their nose at [it]."

It is therefore not the case that the "undocumented" workers bringing this suit are simply victims. Illegal immigrants who make a deal with the Devil to obtain under-the-table employment should expect the same results as anyone else who enlists Satan as a business partner. Employers who cheat, or at best look the other way, in order to get cheap labor, are exactly the employers who can be expected to keep on cheating once the workers show up. That they do so (or at least have been alleged to do so) can hardly come as a surprise, least of all to the illegals who have jobs with the employer to begin with only because the employer was willing to join with them in walking away from the rules. Once indulgence of illegality starts -- as it did when the immigrant workers illegally crossed the border -- it's not so easy to stop. The irony of illegal workers suing the employer for illegal pay may be lost on Reuters, but it should not be lost on the rest of us.

Illegal immigrants are still human beings and children of God, but they are exceptionally poorly positioned to be complaining about other people's disrespect for law. Having started down that path, where did they expect to wind up?

Who says standing against illegal immigration and the consequences thereof is a political loser?

The ACRU has been fighting in support of the mayor of Hazelton, PA and his effort to crack down on landlords and employers who create the demand for and perpetuate the problem of illegal immigration, and the criminological ills and financial burdens that come with it, in his town and similar municipalities across America. Our own John Armor has described the issue very well in his article, "The Hazelton Rebellion."

Predictably, the ACLU has lined up on behalf of those who break our laws and against the democratic rule of legal citizens at the local level in Hazelton and elsewhere.

The good news is that word comes today that the voters in Hazelton - of both political parties - strongly disagree with the ACLU and those that would keep in place the incentives that encourage aliens to cheat our immigration laws and cut in line in front of those who choose to immigrate here lawfully. Here is the remarkable story:

Mayor Who Targeted Illegal Aliens Wins Both GOP and Dem Primaries

(CNSNews.com) - Hazleton Mayor Lou Barletta, who gained national attention by cracking down on illegal immigrants living in his small Pennsylvania city, won the Republican nomination for a third term on Tuesday - and he unexpectedly won the Democratic nomination, too, through a last-minute write-in campaign, the Associated Press reported. "I think the message is clear," Barletta said. "The people of Hazleton want me to keep fighting for them." Barletta became mayor in 2000, and in 2006 at his urging, city official passed a strict ordinance that would fine landlords who rent to illegal aliens, deny business permits to companies that employ them, and make English the town's official language. The Illegal Immigration Relief Act came after four illegal immigrants were charged with shooting and killing a man. The measure is now being challenged in court.

The question remains whether a judicial oligarchy will subvert the will of the people on this issue. But for now, citizens in Hazelton, PA and across America have much to cheer.

John Armor notes that a pro-illegal immigrant group which opposed the Hazelton-style ordinance adopted in Texas (by a vote of better than two-to-one) called itself, "Let the People Decide." Not to miss a beat, this same group is now going to court, presumably under the motto, "Let the Judges Undecide." The irony here parallels what the anti-war press has been trying to hang around the President's neck when he spoke several years ago on a destroyer donning a huge, "Mission Accomplished" sign. If you think the press is going to cover the Texas "vote-then-sue" story with anything like the zeal it covered, and continues to cover, the aging "Mission Accomplished" episode, however, you've been reading a different press.

One might inquire as to what the allegations of this lawsuit will be, now that the people have decided. I read a short article about that this morning, I believe in USA Today. The story was that the suit will claim the ordinance is unlawful because (1) immigration enforcement is a federal matter, not given over to state or local governments, and (2) the ordinance is "discriminatory."

These arguments should not long detain the courts. First, as I understand it, the ordinance does not purport to "enforce" federal law (which in the matter of immigration means deportation). It simply attaches a price to practices that encourage or facilitate breaking federal law -- practices that have local consequences and absorb local tax dollars. (And, tragically, practices that in extreme instances have cost local lives, namely the killings of a father and son in Los Angeles and two teenage friends in Virginia Beach, resulting at least in the latter case in a change in that city's previous "sanctuary"-oriented immigration policies).

Local ordinances that work in tandem with federal law are in any event neither new nor improper. For example, local ordinances banning "head shops" work in tandem with federal anti-drug laws, but no serious person (and no court known to me) has taken the view that such ordinances are illegal for doing so. A federal system of government means that there is a separate sphere of authority for state and local governments; it does not mean that those governments may not freely choose to cooperate with the aims of federal law.

The notion that the new ordinance is "discriminatory" stands on a different footing, since it's true. It does indeed discriminate. But the Constitution at no point prevents discrimination. It prevents invidious discrimination -- that is, the government's apportioning penalties and rewards based on characteristics a person cannot control, such as race, color or ethnicity.

The best that can be said of the notion that a person cannot control whether he sneaks into the country is that it is preposterous. It is true, of course, that an illegal immigrant might (and in the typical case certainly does) have a reason for wanting to by-pass the rules others have to follow, such as that he wants a quick route to a better paying job (or a better paying welfare agency, or better funded social services, etc.). But the mere existence of a reason for behavior does not give it Equal Protection significance; indeed, it does not take the legal discussion beyond the level of a truism. All conscious behavior takes root in some sort of reason. To say that it's "discriminatory" for the law to take account of a person's choosing to help himself -- rules be damned -- is to warp the concept of "discrimination" beyond recognition. It's the same as saying that we can't toss (say) an Hispanic bank robber in jail because this would be "discriminatory" toward hold-up artists.

Illegal immigrants have a choice, just as the far more numerous group of legal immigrants did and do. When a town, be it in Texas or Pennsylvania, reacts against the illegal (and selfish and costly) choice, that can constitute "discrimination" only in an alternate universe.

One of the slogans of the opponents of the Farmers Branch immigration ordinances, was "Let the people vote." (See "Anti-Illegal-Immigrant Law OK'd in Texas.") Now, the people HAVE voted, 68-32, to approve the ordinances designed to discourage illegal immigrants in their town. So, the opponents are going to court to have an unelected judge tell the people and the town they have no right to make this decision.

In short, the ACLU and its allies are attacking the basic right of all Americans, to govern themselves under a "republican" government, which in accord with the constitutional guarantee means government by elected representatives. This subject will spread to many more than the 90 communities considering it so far. And the basic subject, constitutional self-government, should concern all Americans.

On 5 May, 2007, the Associated Press ran a story entitled "Local Immigration Laws Bring High Costs." It described a nationwide shakedown project by the ACLU. Only the AP missed the larger story.

The story as written, said, "Cities across the U.S. are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars defending themselves against lawsuits and other challenges to ordinances enacted to keep out illegal immigrants."

It went on to describe how at least 90 cities had considered ordinances like those of Hazleton, Pennsylvania, but that many were backing away in fear of the costs. And, those costs come in two varieties: the fees that cities pay to their lawyers to defend themselves from legal attacks by the ACLU. The second cost is that courts may order cities to pay legal fees and costs to the ACLU.

It is only between the lines of the facts in this story that readers can see the 'shakedown' project being run by the ACLU. The ACLU wants fear, not logic, to stop cities from acting to protect their own citizens from criminal and financial losses at the hands of illegal immigrants.

It is beyond the ken of the AP to recognize that it is describing a wholesale assault on American civil rights. The first right claimed by the Declaration of Independence is self-government. The most basic right guaranteed by the Constitution is "republican government." For those not up on their constitutional definitions, that means living under laws written by our elected representatives.

In simple terms even a grade school student would understand, Americans are opposed to "taxation without representation." That means that all levels of government, including cities, should tax and spend through decisions of elected representatives, not non-elected judges. That means the whole thesis of this article should be reversed.

Hazleton-type laws should be approved by the courts, not struck down. And then, fee awards should be made against the ACLU in favor of the victimized cities. That's because the ACLU is attacking the most basic right of Americans, the right to self-government.

Yesterday, May 1, was supposed to be a banner day for rallying support for "immigration reform." ("Immigration reform," incidentally, is one of those phrases that belongs in the Dictionary for the Politically Incorrect, since its actual meaning is concealed behind its lofty appeal for "reform." Its actual meaning is: changing immigration law so that illegal immigrants reap rewards for their disregard of the rules).

But I digress. The mainstream media has had little to say about the May 1 rallies. Indeed, the only article I have seen about it is one posted on the MSNBC news site, titled, "L.A. to probe police force at rally." Evidently, for MSNBC, the only important story to emerge from yesterday's events was that the police might have used "inappropriate force." (This notwithstanding that, a few inches down the page, the article quietly reports that "[t]he skirmishes at MacArthur Park, west of downtown Los Angeles...resulted in about 10 people being taken to hospital for treatment of injuries including cuts...None of the injuries was believed to be serious").

In fact, the major story about the illegal immigration rallies is this: They were a flop. As the MSNBC story discloses in its fifth paragraph, "Turnout nationwide for the May Day marches on Tuesday was light compared to a year ago. Los Angeles brought out about 25,000 people, only a fraction of the 650,000 who rallied last year. In Chicago, where more than 400,000 swarmed the streets a year earlier, police officials put initial estimates at about 150,000. Organizers said fear about raids and frustration that the marches have not pushed Congress to pass reform kept many people at home. They said those who did march felt a sense of urgency to keep immigration reform from being overshadowed by the 2008 presidential elections."

Some observations.

First, out of a crowd of 25,000, 10 were taken to the hospital, all for non-serious injuries. Assuming that all 10 were innocent bystanders and not one provoked a fight with the police (an unrealistically generous assumption), 10 out of 25,000 is not what one would call a police riot.

Second, fear of raids and frustration about Congressional inaction could not possibly account for the dramatic decease in participation. There was at least as much chance of a "raid" last year, and anger about Congressional inaction would prompt more participation, not less.

Third, if the amnesty movement were gaining traction, there would scarcely be a "sense of urgency" to keep it from being "overshadowed" by the 2008 elections. To the contrary, it would be an important issue in those elections.

The upshot is that the excuses for The Big Flop don't add up. I suspect -- although I can't prove -- that there is a very different reason the rallies ran out of gas. Pro-amnesty organizations are discouraged that people have started to catch on to the costs of illegal immigration. This is happening none too soon, but better late than never.

The Virginian-Pilot reports today that Virginia Beach, which had instructed its police that, except in limited circumstances, they were not to inquire into the immigration status of persons they arrested, has now changed course. The Pilot article begins as follows:

VIRGINIA BEACH - "City police will begin asking all people from another country about their immigration status if they are arrested, even on misdemeanor charges, and taken before a magistrate.

"The change, announced at a news conference Tuesday by Chief of Police Jake Jacocks Jr., represents an about-face for Beach police and comes after public outrage over a car crash March 30 that killed two Beach teenagers.

"Alfredo Ramos, charged with aggravated involuntary manslaughter in the deaths, admitted he is in the country illegally and that he had been drinking before the crash. Ramos had [four] previous alcohol-related convictions, all misdemeanors. The city's policy had prohibited police from asking foreigners their immigration status except in felony cases.

"Jacocks said he arrived at the decision to change the two-year-old policy after meeting this week with federal immigration authorities. The policy change 'is effective right now,' he said."

Unfortunately, "right now" comes too late for the teenage girls.

There are two other noteworthy items about the Pilot story. First, it recounts that a person identified as an "Hispanic leader" said that this was not a happy day for Virginia Beach. It is unclear how happy the day was when the girls met their fate, or whether the "leader" has an opinon about that. Second, the story is accompanied by an interactive (and therefore unscientific) poll asking readers whether they approve of the change in policy. Result: 6% disagree with the change, 94% agree.

A headline among today's MSNBC news entries reads, "Immigrant rights groups rally across the U.S." The story beneath the headline notes that some of the participants in the rallies will decline to wear T-shirts they donned last year, which bore the message, "We're illegal. So what?" Cooler heads have apparently concluded that this particular slogan was, for a variety of reasons, imprudent.

The MSNBC story also notes that a number of rallies will highlight how "families are being torn apart" by law enforcement raids and the deportation of parents found to have entered the country illegally.

In this story, as in so many others like it, one key fact goes unmentioned: The number of immigrants who enter the country legally. This group needs to be pushed into the shadows because its existence belies both the analytical and sentimental thrust of the illegal immigrant amnesty movement (by whatever euphemism "amnesty" may be called).

The main analytical thrust of the movement is that illegal entry is the only practical solution for foreign nationals who want a better life in the United States. The figures tell a different story. According to a September 2005 Working Paper by the Department of Homeland Security Office of Immigration Statistics, from 1990 through 2003, our country had roughly 12.7 million legal immigrants. In other words, in just that period of a little over a decade, the United States had more legal immigrants than the entire estimated population of illegal immigrants. The notion that illegal immigration is the only choice is, therefore, sheer baloney. Illegal immigration is like illegal anything else -- it is virtually never a product of necessity and virtually always a product of selfishness.

The main sentimental thrust of the amnesty movement -- at least if today's rallies are any indication -- is that children who have done nothing wrong will be hurt by the deportation of their illegal parents. In the first place, as a factual matter, this hardly need be the case; the parents can take their children with them (and if they maintain the "strong families" we are constantly being told illegals have, they will). But even were it otherwise, the blame for damage to children lies not with those who enforce the law but with those who took the gamble that they could get away with breaking it.

For years when I was a prosecutor, I heard at sentencing that the defendant shouldn't have to go to jail because that would harm his kids. Occasionally this was true. But it is not up to the law, nor society generally, to remedy for criminals what they knowingly jeopardize for themselves. People know when they make methamphetamine that they might get jailed. They also know that when they sneak into the country they might get deported. The time to have thought about their families was when they decided -- unlike the millions and millions of legal immigrants who will never face this problem -- that the law wasn't that important.

Just obey the rules. We're not asking that much.

It is not very often that the American Civil Rights Union has kind words for the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. Nor does the US Supreme Court have many kind words for them, either. That Court reverses decisions of that Circuit more than all other Circuits combined.

But every rule has its exceptions. And a unanimous decision of a panel of the Ninth Circuit upholding an Arizona law on voter IDs causes us to say, "One cheer for the Ninth Circuit."

A widely reported AP story entitled, "Ruling lets Arizona require proof of citizenship of voters," tells part of the story. A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals left standing the federal trial judge's decision that Arizona could require all new voters to show proof of citizenship, before being allowed to register to vote.

This is the second half of Arizona's citizen initiative to be reviewed by the Ninth Circuit. The first half, that voters had to present IDs in order to vote, was temporarily struck down by the Ninth Circuit last fall, just prior to the election. On an emergency basis, the US Supreme Court unanimously reversed that decision.

Did the Ninth Circuit learn a lesson? Probably not, because dozens of prior reversals have done little to change its behavior. The plaintiffs and their ACLU attorneys will probably ask the whole Ninth Circuit to reverse its panel decision. That will probably be denied, and the Supreme Court will refuse review. The case will then go back to Phoenix for trial in US District Court.

The idea that voters in American elections should be American citizens, was not such an outlandish idea to the people of Arizona, who approved this law. It was not outlandish to the trial judge. And now, finally, it is not outlandish in the Ninth Circuit. Common sense has reared its ugly head in the Circuit in San Francisco.

Precisely because something like this happens so seldom, let's hear it: One cheer for the Ninth Circuit....

Source: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20070420-1403-voterid.html

Congratulations to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for its decision on Friday refusing to enjoin Arizona from enforcing Proposition 200, which Arizona voters adopted in 2004 to stem vote fraud.

Proposition 200 amended Arizona law to require persons wishing to register to vote for the first time in that state to present proof of citizenship, and to require all Arizona voters to present identification when they vote in person at the polls.

The law was challenged as improperly burdening the right to vote, and the plaintiffs went to federal court seeking a preliminary injunction against its enforcement even before a trial established the facts. The trial court turned them down, but on October 5, 2006 -- a little more than a month before the election -- a panel of Ninth Circuit judges reversed that ruling and ordered that an emergency injunction be entered, effectively opening the door on election day to the very potential for fraud that Arizona voters had sought to prevent.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court saw it differently (as it so often does in reviewing actions of the Ninth Circuit, which is both the most liberal and the most reversed federal appellate court in the country). The Supreme Court vacated the injunction, and the 2006 elections were conducted with the safeguards Arizona voters had chosen.

But the plaintiffs did not give up. They returned to the trial court, and again sought to enjoin enforcement of the registration identification requirement (they did not, however, resume the battle at that stage about the voter identification requirement).

The trial court once more ruled against them. On Friday, a unanimous panel of the Ninth Circuit agreed, holding that they had failed to so much as "raise serious questions going to the merits of their arguments." So for the moment, at least, the voters of Arizona who chose to enact modest measures against vote fraud have an important victory.

Kudos to the Ninth Circuit. The case, which can be found on the Ninth Circuit's website, is Gonzalez v. State of Arizona, No. 06-16521.

Reason No. 5: Because sanctuary cities facilitate and encourage illegal immigration, they are unfair to legal immigrants, who waited in line, followed the rules and showed respect for the law.

Reason No. 4: Sanctuary cities impose costs on their residents -- citizens and legal immigrants -- that they shouldn't have to bear. Tax dollars that ought properly to benefit the people who paid them go instead to underwrite hospital, police, prison and education services for those who are not entitled to be here in the first place.

Reason No. 3: Sanctuary cities promote crime and thus jeopardize our citizens. The Los Angeles Times recently reported on a mind-boggling 2005 study by the Government Accountability Office. The study examined the cases of over 55,000 illegal immigrants incarcerated in federal, state and local facilities. It found that they had been previously arrested an average of eight times each, that roughly half had been convicted of a felony, and a fifth had been arrested for a drug offense. Many had also been convicted of violent crimes.

Our citizens and legal immigrants deserve better than that -- a good deal better. The paramount civil right is the right to live in one's own neighborhood and community in peace and safety. Why do liberal organizations like the ACLU turn their back on that right to carry water for lawbreakers?

Reason No. 2: Sanctuary cites burden and endanger the police. In litigation being prepared to challenge the oldest of the sanctuary cities, Los Angeles, the attorney undertaking the case free of charge said that one of the reasons he offered his services was, as the L.A. Times reported, "'to help out police officers so they don't have to put their lives on the line repeatedly re-arrestingdrug offenders who should have been deported the first time.'" As the Times further noted, "One veteran LAPD officer, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of fear of punishment, said....that he [and other officers] thought the suit was a good idea...."'We are having a revolving door out there in terms of people we arrest for drug offenses who are in this country illigally,'" he said.

Reason No. 1: Sanctuary cities breed disrespect for the rule of law. When the police, of all people, are told by politicians running the city to look the other way at illegal immigraton, what message does that send? If elected officials pretending to be leaders can turn their backs on laws they dislike, where does that "principle" stop? Are such leaders also free to disregard federal laws against heroin and LSD (for example), on the theory that drug penalties are too harsh and these drugs have "mind-expanding" qualities? And after the drug laws are tossed overboard, what next?

Democratic self-government presupposes fidelity to law, even when one disagrees with it. Were it otherwise, self-government would dissolve into anarchy. All are free to attempt to change the law by persuasion and argument -- in other words, by making their case to the electorate. But they are not free to thumb their nose at the law, much less to tell police officers that they must follow the same grossly irresponsible, and dangerous, path.

OneNewsNow.com today features an article on the ACRU's opposition to the distrubing trend of American cities declaring themselves "sanctuary cities" for illegal aliens. The article - "American Civil Rights Union Blasts Sanctuary City Policy" - comes out of their recent radio interview with Bill Otis, director of legal affairs at the American Civil Rights Union.

As Bill is quoted in the article,

"As serious as the problems of illegal immigration may be even more serious is the problem of officials in this country turning their back on the law."