In an absolutely shocking scandal at Miramonte Elementary school in Los Angeles, California, two teachers were arrested for lewdness involving their students.  One of the teachers taught third grade, where he allegedly forced children to eat his semen from a spoon over the course of five years.  The case widened yesterday when the police found 200 more photos of the teacher committing lewd acts, bringing the grand total to around 600.  The teacher also sent notes and CDs to students, who were all of nine or ten years old.

So what took so long for this pervert to be caught?  According to the Contra Costa Times, the school is heavily attended by illegal immigrants.  Their parents were afraid to report the situation to the authorities for fear of being arrested and sent back to their home countries.  Manuel Flores, one parent at the school, told the Times that he wouldn’t attend a parents’ meeting, since the school “was full of police.”  Said a lawyer for some of the victims’ families, “One little girl told me she doesn’t want to come forward because she’s afraid her parents will be deported.”

(more…)

In a time when America’s immigration system is swamped – when illegal immigrants are routinely caught and released, many of whom are dangerous – it seems that one of ICE’s top priorities is public relations with illegal immigration advocates.  Yesterday, Andrew Lorenzen-Strait announced via the Department of Homeland Security website that he had been named ICE’s “first-ever public advocate.”

Lorenzen-Strait

His job will be to “serve as a point of contact for individuals, including those in immigration proceedings, NGOs, and other community and advocacy groups, who have concerns, questions, recommendations or important issues they would like to raise.” This new role, says Lorenzen-Strait, will help ICE “focus the agency’s immigration enforcement resources on sensible priorities” – code for doing less, since the Obama Administration consistently makes a big deal out of the notion that most illegal immigrants aren’t dangerous and therefore should be left to their own devices – and “implement policies and processes that priorities the health and safety of detainees in our custody.” And he has one more job, according to ICE Enforcement Director John Morton: he’ll have to explain to all of us why ICE lets illegal immigrants off the hook.

What did Lorenzen-Strait used to do? He’s been with ICE since 2008. Before that, he was a pro bono attorney in Maryland, doing child advocacy and divorce work via Community Legal Services. How does that qualify you for working in immigration, exactly? And then there’s the question of money spent. It’s more and more obvious these days that working for the government is the quickest road to a healthy paycheck – and Lorenzen-Strait’s salary proves it. In 2010, he was paid $112,224 by the feds. We can only imagine that the salary has risen since then. Not bad for being a public relations officer who does nothing to actually enforce immigration law.

We’re constantly hearing that the government has trouble finding places to cut spending. This seems like a good place to start.

Republican presidential contender Newt Gingrich has come under fire for his amnesty plan. Most Americans cringe at the word “amnesty.” After all, most citizens view it as government acquiescence for political expediency, and, of course, they are right to feel that way. Amnesty is nothing more than to say that elected officials do not possess the will to enforce federal laws — the very thing they take an oath on before assuming their congressional duties.

With that being said, the details for amnesty make the whole gimmick all the more preposterous. Take Newt Gingrich’s plan, the Pew Hispanic Center concluded in their research that an estimated 3.5 million illegal aliens would qualify for amnesty under Gingrich’s plan. That means roughly 30% of the estimated 11 million illegal aliens would be “graced” into society after arriving here illegally. If the number is much higher than 11 million, which many experts say is very likely, then the prospects of amnesty will never really reveal the actual problem and will offer no incentive to fix it.

(more…)

Against the expressed wishes of Obama White House lawyers, the United States Supreme Court has agreed to resolve the Obama Department of Justice’s lawsuit against the State of Arizona over its get-tough illegal immigration law (SB 1070). The decision comes just weeks after the High Court announced it would take on a lawsuit over the constitutionality of Obamacare, setting the stage for two extremely contentious legal battles in the middle of a heated presidential election year.

According to Bloomberg:

The U.S. Supreme Court said it will consider reviving the trailblazing Arizona law that would use local police and prosecutors to crack down on illegal immigration.

Already set to rule on President Barack Obama’s health-care law by the middle of next year, the justices today added another high-profile case that has implications for similar laws around the country and for the 2012 elections.

On April 11, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld an injunction against the enforcement of some of the law’s provisions, prompting the State of Arizona to petition the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case.

Back in September, Judicial Watch filed an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief with the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of our client, the Arizona State Legislature, which is now a defendant in the lawsuit in support of the Supreme Court petition. And as I said in a press statement at the time, “We hope the Supreme Court accepts the State of Arizona’s petition, protects the rule of law and upholds the rights of the States to protect its citizens.”

Well, we’re one step closer. (more…)

From AFP:

The US Supreme Court on Monday agreed to review a controversial immigration law which has been challenged by President Barack Obama’s administration.

(more…)

Listening to the current debate on immigration within the Republican ranks, one would think that demons occupy either side. Proponents of amnesty or quasi-amnesty (or anything that could even marginally be construed as any form of amnesty) are targeted with insults challenging their conservative credentials and sense of justice. On the opposite extreme, hard-liners are labeled “haters”, “heartless”, and anti-immigration, their compassion questioned and grotesquely distorted.

Both of these extremes do great disservice to the party. Conservatives need to avoid painting caricatures of each other. These insults weaken the party, prevent reasoned debate, and offer Democrats potential talking points like Christmas presents wrapped with silver bows.

The immigration debate involves many principles worthy of serious discussion. The two most important—often exaggerated or underestimated by opponents and the media—are justice and compassion.

The principle of justice is intimately connection to the rule of law. Those who prioritize justice above all focus on the following question: Does a sovereign nation like the United States have the right to set immigration policy and, as a result, remove any and all breakers of immigration law, even if certain persons have lived in the United States for decades, have contributed to society, and attend church? Hardline conservatives answer with an impassioned and simple “yes”.

Many conservatives, on the other hand, believe that the primary concern in the immigration issue should be compassion. Presumably, many consider it immoral to deport whole swaths of people from their homes, especially those hardworking and otherwise moral people who have resided here for decades and who have contributed something important to society. Many undoubtedly are interested in garnering support specifically from the Latino community, hoping that the fastest growing minority voting bloc could be swayed by compassionate immigration policy.

The crucial point here is that for those whose number one priority is justice, compassion is not unimportant. Conversely, those who emphasize compassion generally do not dismiss the rule of law. It appears that Newt Gingrich, for example, seeks to prioritize both. Many hardline conservatives appeared crestfallen by their interpretation of his immigration policy, which equated a plea for compassion with amnesty. But Gingrich never suggested that compassion should trump justice—only that it should be a crucial consideration.

(more…)

If I were living in Mexico I would do everything in my power to get myself and my wife across the border to America, and that would include breaking immigration laws. There’s no way I could live with myself if I didn’t do everything a husband should to get his wife out of the poverty, corruption and hopelessness that represents too much of Latin America. Knowing this about myself makes it hard for me to condemn others who actually  are in that situation and have decided to do the same.

Though he’s taken it back enough times for me to believe him, Governor Rick Perry was wrong to question the “hearts” of those who disagreed with his decision to offer in-state tuition to the children of illegal immigrants, and he was even more wrong to create a magnet that uses taxpayer dollars to incentivize even more illegal to cross the border and burden our system.

But Newt Gingrich is absolutely right that of the 11 or 12 million illegals currently living in this country, many have lived here for years and are a part of a community and a part of a family that deportation would tear apart.

Are we really prepared to do that?

Talk radio host Dennis Prager once made a point about this issue that’s worth repeating: Every day throughout Southern California thousands of illegals gather outside Home Depots everywhere (this is a fact) looking for someone to pick them up and give them day labor. Every day, who knows how many housewives pick up these illegals and take them home alone to do that day labor. And yet you never hear about a rape or robbery or murder in these circumstances. Never.

(more…)

Is it possible to be pro-immigration in this country and still support the principles of the State of Alabama’s immigration laws, dubbed some of the strictest in the nation? Absolutely. Sound paradoxical?

Not at all.

Being pro-immigration shouldn’t mean that you are an advocate of illegal immigration. It just means that you are sympathetic to the needs, dreams, and goals of those who come to our country to make better lives for themselves and their families. Try looking at it from their perspective; imagine if all you were trying to do was make a better life for you and your family. You too would do whatever it takes to make that a reality, and that’s all they wish to achieve. People can have these dreams and come into our country the right way, coming up with solutions to stop or slow the influx of illegal’s will help allay the belief that illegal immigrants are stealing American jobs and degrading our society.

Yes, the state’s laws are tough, and in some cases, questionable, as in one provision that requires students to document their immigration status before enrolling in school. The fact that less than 10% of Hispanics failed to do so in recent weeks shouldn’t come as any surprise, if you believe that close to 10% of Alabama’s Hispanic population is here illegally. I don’t know the exact number in the state, but it’s not as if no one of Hispanic origin showed up to school that day.

I hate to continue laying America’s toughest social problems – the economy, moral compass, immigration, etc. – at the feet of this President and Congress, but it’s ultimately their fault. (more…)

There are certain “types” of people who are just not allowed to be conservative. You know what I’m talking about. For example, a certain African American Supreme Court Justice will always be the subject of bilious contempt because he holds legal and constitutional views that differ from what a black public servant is expected to hold.

We saw this dynamic play out recently in the Washington Post’s vicious and sloppy attack on Sen. Marco Rubio. Rubio is, of course, a quickly rising star in the Republican Party; one with broad – even national – appeal. Clearly the left knows the threat Sen. Rubio presents to its grip on Hispanic voters, so they felt it necessary to muddy him up with a shoddy news story questioning his family story.

Now come the attacks on New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez. The attacks on Martinez are much subtler than those on Sen. Rubio, but no less dangerous if left unanswered. They come in the form of a pervasive rumor about her family origins; a rumor that has been reported uncritically by the mainstream media, including the New York Times.

Here we have a popular and successful Latina politician with a bold, conservative agenda in an important swing state. As far as the mainstream media is concerned, there has to be a catch.

“Ms. Martinez, who grew up along the border, is also Mexican-American, with news reports since her election revealing that her paternal grandfather came to the United States as an illegal immigrant,” wrote Marc Lacey in a New York Times profile three months ago.

“…The New Mexican’s Sandra Baltazar Martínez reported recently, at least two of the governor’s grandparents also were [undocumented immigrants],” wrote the Santa Fe New Mexican in a recent editorial.

Lest you be under any illusions about the nature and motives of these news items, bear in mind that Gov. Martinez wants to roll back certain of her predecessor’s policies regarding illegal immigration in New Mexico, most notably, a policy that allows illegal immigrants to secure drivers licenses. “The governor’s opponents have pointed to her immigrant grandparents as an example of why New Mexico should welcome illegal immigrants and continue to allow them to get a driver’s license,” reports the Associated Press.

Obviously, the stage is set for the media and her political rivals to paint Gov. Martinez as a hypocrite and a traitor to her people.

There’s only one problem: The story about Martinez’s grandparents is junk. The Governor’s grandparents were not U.S. citizens, but they were most certainly not illegal immigrants.

(more…)

The illegal immigration debate could not be any hotter. While JW was protecting the rights of Maryland citizens to stop tuition breaks for illegal aliens in Maryland, on October 14, a federal court blocked provisions of Alabama’s new tough illegal immigration enforcement law from taking effect — at the urging of the Obama Department of Justice (DOJ) — while allowing other provisions to be enforced. At the same time, Arizona’s illegal immigration enforcement law, SB 1070, is expected to go before the U.S. Supreme Court soon (Judicial Watch currently represents the Arizona State Legislature in court and recently filed an amicus curiae brief with the High Court, which began its current term on October 3).

In the midst of this firestorm, Judicial Watch took aggressive action, launching a national television advertising campaign to combat illegal immigration. The purpose of the campaign is to collect petitions from the American people to send to the governors of all 50 states, urging them to obey and enforce all laws against illegal immigration. This campaign to encourage our nation’s governors to stand strong on illegal immigration law enforcement has become more urgent now that the Obama DOJ has decided to sue states for merely trying to protect their citizens from the scourge of illegal immigration.

But it’s not just the federal government that is to blame. Some states have decided to side with the illegal aliens, rolling out the welcome mat for illegal aliens through costly and unlawful sanctuary policies. That’s why we’re going national with this petition campaign. The petition campaign is being driven by a series of television advertisements that began broadcasting this week in California, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas, as well as nationwide on Fox Business News (FBN) and the Military Channel.

In this new national campaign, Judicial Watch asks Americans take a stand on this illegal immigration crisis:

The cost of illegal immigration is a burden on every taxpaying citizen. That’s why Judicial Watch fights hard to hold politicians accountable when they violate and undermine immigration law. Take a stand. Sign this petition and tell your state governor to enforce our federal immigration laws.

The objective of our television campaign is to educate the public and encourage citizens to petition their government in support of the rule of law. Here’s what our petition states (If you’d like to sign off on these principles, then please click here and join our cause!):

(more…)

Does it matter if a so-called “conservative” presidential candidate believes, and practices, “big government” liberalism on a state level? Do we believe that a governor, who may have worked to implement “big government” mandates and policies in his state, and excused them as “states’ rights,” will later be able to rein himself in and become a small government proponent and leader in Washington?

Frankly, I don’t see a heck of a lot of difference between the approaches taken by both Mitt Romney and Rick Perry when it comes to their respective “hot seat” issues, namely, mandated health insurance, for Romney, and immigration and mandated vaccines, for Perry.

In Tuesday night’s debate, when Perry challenged Romney on the Romneycare issue, Romney responded rather defensively- moreso than at any other time- that he wanted to insure all the children in his state because he cares. He attempted to contrast his caring with, in his view, Perry’s “lack of caring,” with figures reflecting the many children in Texas who are uninsured.

Romney also asserted, as he now often does in his defense of his signature healthcare legislation, that Romneycare was the right decision for his state, a decision to which his state was entitled to make, while Obamacare was a bad decision for the country. Surprisingly, there was no mention, during the debate, of the news that President Obama apparently consulted with Gov. Romney’s staff to obtain ideas for the implementation of Obamacare. Nevertheless, it sounds like Romney wants us to believe that caring is a good reason to support a “big government” mandate, albeit on a state level.

(more…)

It is unbelievable that any government worker or private employee who is privy to sensitive information regarding national security and defense who has the kind of background and prior associates as President Obama does, could then become the foci around which all information is collected and delivered. I know for a fact that if citizen Barack Obama were to apply for any government agency or private contractor he would be denied any special access. He would fail qualifications needed to posses a Top Secret clearance. He would not get past the questionnaire, let alone a background check, and certainly he would fail a polygraph test.

• Foreign intelligence services;
• Organizations or people who wish to overthrow or undermine the United States government through unconstitutional means, violent acts, or other terrorist group activities;
• Individuals who:
  • May be susceptible to pressure or improper influence.
  • Have been dishonest or demonstrated a lack of integrity that has caused others to doubt their reliability.

Granted, Presidents are automatically granted full approval by virtue of their position and, of course, from the election process where it is believed he has been fully vetted by the American people.

Obviously that was not the case as is evident from the latest skeleton in our President’s closet. While media hired guns were dispatched to Alaska to dig through Gov. Palin’s trash, then surely a dozen could have been sent just to interview Obama’s known relatives living in the US.

Boston Globe: Obama’s uncle is called a fugitive

FRAMINGHAM – The uncle of President Obama arrested here last week on drunken driving and other charges has been a fugitive from deportation since 1992, according to two federal law enforcement officials with knowledge of the case.

(more…)

There are some very interesting numbers coming out of Alabama since their passing landmark immigration reform in June. How about decreasing unemployment and increasing passport applications?  Yes, Mexican nationals are overwhelming passport offices to secure passage for themselves and their “anchor” children BACK to Mexico.

While radical leftist groups have joined with the Obama Administration Justice Department to assail Alabama for doing locally the job the Feds refuse to do, common sense law and order types now have numbers to show who is right.

Teresa Ferguson is a Mama Grizzly who had never been involved in politics until she singularly took on the challenge of ending the devastating effects of illegal immigration in her community.  After getting hit and run by an illegal in a town in which the majority of kindergarteners are children of illegals and brothels and methamphetamine are rampant, she decided to take action.  She began by reaching out to candidates for statewide office, insisting they visit her county to see the damage first hand.

One candidate for governor actually took an entire day out of his schedule to visit Marshall County.  Alabamians now call the responsive candidate Governor Bentley.  He signed the legislation in June.  Another lawmaker who visited with Mrs. Ferguson, State Senator Scott Beason called on Alabamians to get serious and “empty the clip” on the issue.  He joined State Representative Micky Hammon in passing HB56, the most comprehensive, common sense illegal immigration law in the country.  The law, despite being enjoined by the courts, has nevertheless produced amazing results yet to be reported anywhere.

(more…)

Judicial Watch Director of Litigation Paul Orfanedes, along with Judicial Watch attorney Julie Axelrod, appeared before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans last Wednesday on behalf Houston police sergeant Joslyn M. Johnson.

Houston, Texas, as you may recall, is a sanctuary city. And here’s the principal argument our client is trying to make in court, as described in our original complaint:

Sergeant Johnson challenges current policies, practices, and procedures of the Houston Police Department that substantially restrict, if not prohibit, Plaintiff from communicating with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) about illegal aliens who are criminally present in the United States.

Plaintiff does not seek to detain or arrest persons in order to inquire about their immigration status. Rather, Plaintiffs seeks to use her professional judgment to determine when it is appropriate to contact ICE to inquire or provide information about a person’s immigration status if, in the course of carrying out her duties and responsibilities as a law enforcement officer, she has reason to believe a crime may have been committed.

Now I say Mrs. Johnson is “trying” to make these arguments because the lower court dismissed the lawsuit before the merits of the case could even be considered. (For more information on the “reason” for this dismissal, please read our latest court filing in the case.)

If Judicial Watch is successful at the appellate court level, the lawsuit would be remanded to the district court level again where Sgt. Johnson could make her case.

This sanctuary policy issue personally affects Sgt. Johnson. Not only because she serves in the Houston Police Department and sees the potential dangers of allowing illegal alien criminals to roam free, but because Mrs. Johnson is also the widow of former Houston police officer Rodney Johnson, who was murdered by an illegal alien during a routine traffic stop on September 21, 2006.

(more…)

The Obama administration stealth amnesty scandal that emerged last year is heating up. It all began with an internal U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services memo outlining ways the Obama administration could bypass Congress to enact amnesty for millions of illegal aliens through “administrative means.”

And then the Houston Chronicle exposed an effort by the administration to suspend the deportations of illegal aliens that supposedly have not been convicted of any “serious” crimes.

JW filed two FOIA lawsuits against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to get to the truth about this deportation plan. And according to documents our litigation recently pried loose, not only did Obama administration officials skirt congressional authority when implementing this unlawful scheme behind closed doors, but apparently they also lied about it when they got caught.

The documents, which we obtained from the Obama DHS, show that DHS officials misled Congress and the public about the scope of the immigration enforcement policy change which gave wide latitude to local immigration officials to dismiss illegal alien deportation cases.

And perhaps most shocking of all, officials considered the dismissal of charges against illegal alien criminals convicted of violent crimes!

(more…)

What has happened to liberals in the past 50 years? A quick perusal of the news each day shows a clear pattern of anti-American behavior and actions by Democrats. We read of Democrat behavior today that would have appalled American liberal statesmen like John Kennedy and Patrick Moynihan. While liberals of 50 years ago stood for generous social programs and higher taxes on the rich, we never doubted their love of America. Today, it is difficult to believe otherwise!

It is clear liberals view America as evil, hateful and a problem for the world. They curse and ridicule traditional values that made America grow from once-poor colonies to the world’s greatest superpower in a few hundred years. A quick viewing of headlines today shows the hatred liberals have for our country and even the desire to strengthen our enemies. For instance:

Liberal wacko Congressman Dennis Kucinich praises Syria murderer Bashad al-Assad
Holder: Justice to Drop Investigations Into CIA Officials Involved in Torture That Democrats advocated investigating these heroes that keep us safe proves my point!

Halt to Deportation of Citizen’s Same-Sex Partner Draws Fire So much for enforcing laws such as the Defense of Marriage Act signed by President Clinton!
CNN: McKinney blasts U.S. on Libya TV

U.S. shifts to closer contact with Egypt Islamists Does anyone really believe we should be doing business with the Muslim Brotherhood or Taliban?

Veterans Allege VA Censoring Prayer Would the VA have banned a Muslim ceremony with the Koran?

Dick Durbin: Illegal Alien Could Become President Instead of enforcing immigration laws, Democrats advocate changing the Constitution!

(more…)

You probably have seen plenty of evidence of the Obama administration’s hostility to existing immigration law, from supporting illegal alien sanctuary cities, to suspending the deportations of illegal alien criminals, to the infamous Obama administration memo outlining “administrative” ways to bypass Congress and enact illegal alien amnesty.

But if you needed more convincing, just follow the money trail. As first reported last week by our own Corruption Chronicles blogger Irene Garcia:

A Judicial Watch investigation reveals that federal funding for a Mexican La Raza group that for years has raked in millions of taxpayer dollars has skyrocketed since one of its former top officials (Cecelia Muñoz) got a job in the Obama White House. [Muñoz currently serves as Obama’s Director of Intergovernmental Affairs.]

How high has the funding skyrocketed? Government cash infusions to the radical Chicano organization, known as the National Council of La Raza (NCLR), almost tripled the year Muñoz joined the White House, from $4.1 million to $11 million!

According to Irene’s report, the funding came from a variety of sources within the Obama administration:

(more…)

By way of law and order and in an effort to protect its citizenry, the state of Georgia has enacted an anti-illegal immigration law similar to SB 1070 proposed by the state of Arizona.

Georgia’s measure seeks to “empower police to investigate the immigration status of certain suspects… punishes people who transport or harbor illegal immigrants in Georgia or use fake identification to get a job.”  The law also “requires many businesses to use the federal E-Verify program to ensure their newly hired workers are eligible to work in the United States.”

It wasn’t long ago that Barack Obama complained about the state of Arizona passing a similar illegal immigration law.  At the time, the President claimed that Arizona’s effort to control illegal immigration abused individuals by unfairly asking for identification even from parents taking children out for an ice cream cone. The president warned:

“If you [don’t] have your papers and you [take] your kids out for ice cream, you could be harassed.”

Despite the deaths of innocent citizens at the hands of marauding interlopers toting guns, not double-scoop ice cream cones, and in an effort to protect aficionados of frozen creamery from undue persecution, the Obama Justice Department filed a federal lawsuit against the Arizona immigration law.

Therefore, it was not surprising when the “Anti-Defamation League” together with “Mexico and the governments of several Central and South American countries filed court papers…in support of efforts to halt Georgia’s tough new immigration enforcement law.”

(more…)

Wait! Don’t build that fence along our southern border just yet. We may not really need it any more than we need one on the northern border with Canada. In order to fix the problem of illegal immigration we must first understand why we have an estimated 12 million illegals in the United States. A Risk-Benefit Analysis model provides insight into both the causes of the problem and the solution to it.

We all make risk-benefit decisions every day. “Should I have the apple or the cheeseburger for lunch?” Or, “Should I send a Tweet with a risqué photo of myself to that young coed?” Millions of people on our northern and southern borders face the decision to enter the United States illegally, but we don’t have a fence with Canada because we don’t need one. Canadians are not streaming into the USA demanding ice cold Molson beer and raising maple leaf flags in front of public schools. Why not? It’s simple: Canadians enjoy a good quality of life at home, so the perceived benefit in coming here illegally is not worth the risk.

But the same is not true for our southern neighbors. Life in Central and South America is…well…bleak. America sits like a shimmering jewel on the horizon where benefits abound: healthcare, education, citizenship, and jobs, to name a few. The risk in coming here is perceived to be low in comparison to the benefits to be had. So they come. Politicians puff out their chests, call it an outrage, and demand fences be built. Unfortunately, fences have never worked in the past. But we’re ignoring the obvious solution: end the benefits, ratchet up the risk, and we won’t need a fence for the same reason we have none with Canada.

(more…)