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.”

According to the Center for Immigration Studies, “While rumors abound of illegal aliens who allegedly refrain from reporting crimes out of fear of deportation, we could find no substantiated cases of crime victims who were removed as a result of having reported crimes to authorities unless the victims turned out to be criminals as well.”  So this is a nonsensical problem.  But it is constantly dragged out by liberal advocates to suggest normalization of illegal immigrants.  The solution, of course, is twofold: first, encourage everybody to report crimes, regardless of immigration status.  Second, control the border.

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.

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.

Mr. Gingrich set himself apart from his leading rivals for the Republican presidential nomination last week by saying that he would open a path to legal status for illegal immigrants who had been in the country for many years, had strong family ties here — children and maybe grandchildren — and no criminal record. (NYT | The Caucus)

Here is the real issue with an amnesty plan such as the one Gingrich is proposing: since illegal aliens are undocumented, there is no system in place in which to judge who qualifies for amnesty and who doesn’t. In other words, fraud on the part of illegal aliens will run rampant. Gingrich’s criterion is baseless by virtue of the problem with illegal immigration in the first place. Again, they are undocumented. If they are undocumented, what prevents them, their employees, their relatives, or their friends from being dishonest in their claims for amnesty? The Pew Hispanic Center has a great population breakdown.

Personal integrity is not the variable to solve for here. For those who broke laws to enter the country, are we to somehow believe they will not break more to stay?

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.

The State of Arizona will now have the opportunity to demonstrate that SB 1070 is completely consistent with federal law. As the Legislature argued in its court filing:

The [Arizona] Legislature invoked its well established police powers in crafting SB 1070, for the purpose of protecting the people of Arizona. Rather than welcoming the Legislature’s enactment, the United States sued Arizona.

Contrary to the view of the United States, not every state action related to aliens is preempted by federal law…Only the determination of who should or should not be admitted into the country, and the conditions under which that person may remain, is the regulation of immigration.

Accordingly, the Legislature enacted SB 1070 in reliance on the principle that it had authority to utilize well-established police powers in areas touching on immigration…

Look, the Obama administration’s game plan on illegal immigration is crystal clear: bypass Congress and grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens by suspending deportations; tell sanctuary cities that they will not be prosecuted for ignoring federal immigration laws; and attack any state that attempts to protect citizens from the scourge of illegal immigration through law enforcement. The endgame for the Obama administration is to legalize millions of dependably liberal voters before the 2012 elections and to curry favor with the all-important Hispanic voter demographic – politics over the rule of law.

I expect the Supreme Court Justices who hear this case will ignore the political scheming and conniving by the Obama administration and will instead look purely at what the law dictates. And if they do, they will see that SB 1070 is a commonsense and constitutional response to the significant problems Arizona faces as a border state on an uncontrolled border.

As former Arizona State Senate President Russell Pearce, the author of SB 1070, has stated:

States have an inherent duty under law and the Constitution to protect their citizens from those who break our laws. I pray the Supreme Court honors states’ inherent authority and right under the police powers and supports Arizona in the protection of our state from the Obama administration, who has sided with foreign governments against our state and our citizens. The Obama administration’s attack on our state’s sovereign right to defend itself from the illegal alien invasion is unconscionable.

Former Senator Pearce also noted that the enacted provisions of SB 1070 have already helped reduce crime significantly and have led to a mass exodus of illegal aliens from the State of Arizona. So not only is SB 1070 lawful, it’s also effective. Let’s hope the Supreme Court overturns the lower court’s moratorium and SB 1070 (along with similar state laws also under attack) can be put into full force!

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

The law in the southwestern state of Arizona would authorize police to stop suspected illegal immigrants and demand proof of citizenship, a power that the administration argues infringes on the authority of the federal government.

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.

Both camps have legitimate viewpoints. It is essential that the Republican Party attend to both in developing a thorough, multi-faceted immigration policy—one far superior to the “comprehensive immigration policy” the Obama regime supports.

Behaviorist principles can inform the issue of immigration. By definition, all reinforced behaviors will continue or increase in frequency or intensity. Surely, illegal immigration makes up a set of behaviors that have been reinforced for decades. Illegal immigrants are directly rewarded by powerful financial incentives, including employment opportunities and an array of entitlements. Indirectly, they are reinforced by the weak Executive Branch follow-through on immigration laws. These are the “magnets” to which several Republican candidates have often referred.

Understanding this, who can blame immigrants who enter our country illegally? Presumably, they are aware of basic immigration laws; surely, they are equally aware that these laws are weakly, if ever, enforced. Can a parent blame a child who regularly sneaks candy and every time he gets caught, his parents simply say, “Oh Junior, you shouldn’t have” but do absolutely nothing about it (like locking the cupboards or allowing the child candy only when he has eaten a healthy meal)? When the behavior continues, the blame should be laid on the agent of reinforcement (parents), not the child.

Now imagine if after years of allowing the child to sneak candy, the parents determine to change their policy. They announce that they will keep the cupboards full with healthy food and few sweets, which must be earned. Additionally, any sneaking sweets will result in the removal of the child’s favorite reinforcers (e.g., dessert, electronics, sleepovers) for a week. And to the child’s surprise, the parents follow through on their policy.

No one would deny the legitimacy of this change in policy and enforcement (i.e., an increase in the rule of law). But some cry foul at the notion that we could legitimately change our immigration policy. Of course, there is a marked difference between being deported from the greatest nation on earth and losing one’s XBox for a week.

Just as children are—often inadvertently—trained to misbehave, our nation’s policies have trained immigrants to come here illegally. For decades, we have welcomed them in and now we are complaining that they are here. Again, we have the right to change immigration policy and to enforce it actively and consistently. However, punishing current illegal immigrants for behaving in ways that we have actively encouraged seems unfair to many. More importantly, it focuses on the wrong source of the problem: our own immigration policy and its enforcement.

The question remains: which principle trumps all others? The Republican Party actively and nobly struggles with this question; we have been witnessing this struggle during the Republican primary debates. Voters are getting a sense of whose immigration policy satisfies the principles that match their priorities.

Voters are quite able to prioritize and emphasize multiple principles. It would be wise for Republicans to recognize that these voters—particularly independent-minded voters—likely desire a candidate whose policies simultaneously and successfully emphasize multiple principles. Voters will be repulsed by a candidate whose one-track mind lacks nuanced thinking. Republicans must be skilled and assertive in explaining their position on immigration in a way that protects them from appearing to lack this balance and complexity.

George W. Bush advanced the cause of conservatism by espousing principles and policies under the banner of “Compassionate Conservativism”. Conservatives would do well to skillfully communicate an immigration policy that espouses both justice and compassion. True compassionate conservatism should reflect a commitment to work hard to balance the rule of law with compassion. Comprehensive immigration policy would not only be moral, but pragmatic. It would satisfy those voters for whom the rule of law is supreme and those who emphasize compassionate treatment of illegal immigrants. We don’t have to choose only one.

I call all Republican candidates to not only cease using caricatures in attacking their opponents, but to seek to honor the principles underlying the difference in their opponents’ policies. A candidate who believes that justice should remain one of the highest priorities—second only to mercy and compassion—is not heartless, any more than a conservative who seeks to prioritize compassion is guilty of flaunting the rule of law.

The Republican nominee will have plenty of opportunity to release his or her venom on Obama’s policies, which err on many sides and whose priorities are radically different from those of almost every Republican candidate. For now, they should follow the dictum of Ronald Reagan to “speak no evil of a fellow Republican.”

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.

For almost eight years I lived in East Los Angeles where illegals are as interwoven into that culture as rich, white, elitist America-haters in Santa Monica. On the hottest days of the year, I’m talking 110 degrees, while the rest of the city hibernates in air conditioned cars and offices, you simply know it’s the illegals  still out there building our homes, washing our cars, and cutting our grass. Work Americans won’t do? I’ve never bought that argument. But a willingness to show up for that kind of work in that kind of heat is a sign of character.

Simply put, because I love my country and want what’s best for it, if I were King I’d deport all of Santa Monica to Mexico before a single Mexican illegal.

I’m well aware that not every illegal comes here with the good faith I would in their situation, with the intention of becoming an American in the best sense of the word, even if you can’t become one legally.  And the crimes some illegals commit are awful and so are the parasites (American and illegal) who contribute nothing to our society other than adding their name to the welfare rolls. But not all illegals are equal and they shouldn’t be treated as such.

I get that it’s illegal to be an illegal and I’m as opposed to amnesty as anyone and as someone married to a woman born in Mexico who waited in line for two decades to gain her American citizenship, I’m opposed to letting people jump that line. But if someone’s been here illegally for years without being a drain on our welfare state and without getting into trouble with the law, the thought of tearing a family apart or deporting a person of good character who contributes to our society is unthinkable and unwise.

The first thing we need to do is secure the border once and for all. Magnets such as sanctuary cities and college tuition also have to go. Don’t even talk to me about a step two before that’s a fact. From there, though, we  deal with the 11 million or so illegals who are already here on a case by case basis and based on what’s in the best interest of our country.

Gingrich’s idea of a community review board is a good one. You start by going out into the community to make sure every illegal knows he or she has 3 or 6 or 12 months to report to this board to go through the process. Anyone found with a criminal record gets deported. Anyone on social services gets deported. Anyone who doesn’t report to this board gets deported.

But those who have a job and a family and are prepared to learn English and pay any back taxes, they get green cards and are put at the BACK of the line for citizenship.

This isn’t just a humane way to handle this, this is what’s best for our country. We want to embrace those who instinctually understand that America is the place where if you work hard and follow the rules a good life can be had. Our country is and will continue to be stronger for having them.

I know they broke the law and I agree there should be a penalty for that. But from my personal experience, I’d be willing to bet that 90% of illegals are more “American” than over half of Santa Monica and all of Occupy Wall Street.