Arizona TV Station: Sheriff Arpaio under FBI investigation

Phoenix CBS television affiliate, KPHO reports that the "FBI is looking into accusations that Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio is using his position to settle political vendettas." The so-called "America's toughest sheriff" and anti-immigration icon has denied any wrong doing but the article states:

The list of people subjected to the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office ivestigations reads like a Who's Who of the Valley, and it includes people who have authority over the sheriff and people who challenged his authority:

Dan Saban, who ran against the sheriff in 2004 and 2008
Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard
Maricopa County Manager David Smith
The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors
Superior Court Presiding Judge Barbara
Mundell
ACLU attorney Daniel Pochoda

None of the investigations resulted in convictions; however, they cost the targets hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees and tarnished reputations. Many of the targets were never charged with a crime.

Better to harness prayer than anger.

The group Americans for Legal Immigration issued a press release where it vowed to prepare "tea parties" to oppose comprehensive immigration reform and "to organize and channel the backlash wave of anger that is coming into peaceful civic action designed to remove many lawmakers who do not serve the wishes or interests of their constituents in 2010!" According to their website, there is a tea party protest against immigration reform scheduled for November 14, 2009 at the Tarrant County Courthouse from 12-3pm.

I have blogged before that immigration is a hard issue to discuss because it invokes so many emotions. But this is a blog that seeks to view immigration from a Christian perspective.

So what would Jesus do on November 14th if he were in Fort Worth?

What about the rule of law?

Libby Grammer Garrett has a well written article entitled On immigration: Do Baptists believe the Bible. In the article, she gives the example of Lidiana, an undocumented immigrant, who married a legal resident. Her husband petitioned for her to remain in the country legally:

But in the meantime, her marriage became abusive, and Lidiana was forced to leave her husband. He withdrew the papers he had filed for her, making her ineligible to obtain legal status. Her only option to regularize her status was using novel legal arguments from a skilled attorney, but she still faced the possibility that the petition could be rejected. If rejected, she would be put in deportation proceedings, leaving her children with no mother and no income to support them in the only home they have ever known.

Ms. Garrett then argues that Baptists must respond more Biblically and choose to either "view them [illegal aliens] through the lens of our Kingdom citizenship -- or our national xenophobia." This provoked a comment from "Robber":

So where exactly does the rule of law fit in with your thesis?... I don't want them here because they entered the country illegally; and if they don't have respect for our laws then what else might they do when they're here? What you present is a sad story. If I were her neighbor, I would do what I could to help her. Make sure she was clothed, and fed. But it wouldn't change the fact that she was here illegally; and she should return to Mexico. I'm having trouble making ends meet right now, but that doesn't give me a right to break into my rich neighbor's house and take money or food -- no matter how desperately I might need it. It's a matter of law (emphasis added)... .

I would make this reply to Robber. It fits in perfectly. The fact scenario states that Lidiana did enter illegally but then attempted to adjust her status to that of a legal resident. She was trying to follow the law and the law allowed her to apply for an adjustment. Immigration law is not written on a postage stamp. The law, to which Robber so sacredly upholds, has many variables and alternative courses of actions for illegal aliens depending on the circumstances. That was what Lidiana was doing. So if Robber is upset that Lidiana had the option to apply for a chance to stay legally, then Robber's quarrel is with the law and not Lidiana.

New poll shows support for immigration reform but also tighter restrictions

Photo of The Immigrants (1973) by Luis Sanguino near the entrance to Castle Clinton, Battery Park, New York City under Creative Commons from melanzane1013.

A recent poll by the Pew Center for the People and the Press shows an upswing in support for immigration reform. Sixty-three percent (63%) were in favor of "providing a way for illegal immigrants currently in the country to gain legal citizenship if they passbackground checks, pay fines and have jobs?" Interestingly, the same poll showed that 73% of respondents wanted the United States Government to "restrict and control people coming to live in our country more than we do now." You can read the full report here.

Do the undocumented pay taxes?

We are blessed; pray for the Haitian refugees

Photo used under Creative Commons from BL 1961

"Oh beautiful, for spacious skies..." We are blessed to live in a naturally beautiful country and one that has freedom and opportunities that others do not. Several hours ago, the U.S. Coast Guard called off a search for survivors from a capsized boat off the coast of Florida. The boat was carrying refugees and immigrants from Haiti. According to an article from the Associated Press, "At least nine people died, including a 1-year-old girl, and 16 others were rescued about 15 miles off the coast of southern Florida when the boat was spotted early Wednesday."

We may disagree about how to politically solve this nation's immigration issues. But we can agree on this, there are people who risk their lives crossing deserts, oceans, and mountain ranges to come to the United States. That should give us pause to thank the Lord for being blessed to live in this country and to pray for the families and victims of this tragedy.

Mauling the relevant facts: The case of Congo

Photo used under Creative Commons from Laenulfean

In June 2007, Giovanni Rivera along with three other workers arrived early at the home of Guy and Elizabeth James. According to the New York Times,"Congo, who is typically kept inside when workers are about, was provoked when Mr. Rivera became scared of the dog and grabbed Mrs. James." Congo mauled Rivera. Rivera received 65 rabies shots, underwent a 3 hour operation and spent 5 days in the hospital. A municipal judge declared Congo a "vicious dog" and ordered it to be euthanized. The James fought the order publically. As the campaign to "save Congo" ensued, it was revealed that Rivera was an undocumented alien from Honduras. At that point, the attack began to stir other emotions in the upscale community. Some bloggers and supporters of Congo began sending emails and comments in support of Congo and against Rivera. The Times gives an example of some of these comments: "“The dog deserves an award,” said one posting to The Princeton Packet Web site. “One less Mexican alien is a boost to society.” Other examples of the vilification of Rivera were given by ABC News.

A state assemblyman introduced "Congo's law" to try and save the dog. The bill did not pass but Congo eventually got a reprieve and was able to return home. Less than one year after returning home, Congo attacked Mr. James' 75- year- old mother-in-law. This time Congo and three other dogs were euthanized. Paul Mulshine, a reporter for the online edition of the New Jersey newspaper, the Star Ledger, did a little digging and found some interesting backstory to the entire saga.

As a dog owner, I understand why one would try to save their animal from euthanasia. What I don't understand is why some of Congo's supporters made Rivera's immigration status an issue. Congo did not care whether Rivera was a U.S. citizen, tourist, or illegal alien when it was mauling him. Would Congo's supporters have switched allegiances to Rivera if he had been a U.S. citizen? I doubt it.

As I posted previously about the Swine Flu and immigrants, there are media personalities and others who willing distort facts or provide irrelevant and false information to further their agenda. Immigration is an emotional issue. As Christians, we do not have to agree on how to solve the system's problems. We do have to take care to not let irrelevant facts cloud our judgment and spiritual discernment on these issues. Remember, keep separating the wheat from the chaff!

Can you pass the New Citizenship Exam?

Photo used under Creative Commons from mashmal

To become a naturalized citizen, a lawful permanent resident must have continuously resided in the United States for at least 5 years or have been residing in the United States for 3 years while married to a U.S. citizen. In addition to other things like a criminal background check and other qualifications, the applicant must pass an oral exam given by a USCIS officer. The exam, known as the Citizenship Exam, covers fundamental principles of government and history of the United States. The applicant must get 6 out of 10 questions correct. Do you think you could provide the right answers? Remember it is an oral exam not multiple choice:

1. The idea of self government is in the first three words of the Constitution. What are these words?

2. How many amendments does the Constitution have?

3. The House of Representatives has how many voting members?

4. What are two Cabinet-level positions?

5. Under our Constitution, some powers belong to the federal government. What is one power of the federal government?

6. There are four amendments to the Constitution about who can vote. Describe one of them.

7. There were 13 original states. Name three:

8. The Federalist Papers supported the passage of the U.S. Constitution. Name one of the writers.

9. Name one war fought by the United States in the 1800s.

10. Name one state that borders Canada.

Of cheese sandwiches and ID theft

Photo used under Creative Commons from DarwinBell

The Supreme Court, in Flores-Figueroa v. United States, has just held that the offense of "aggravated identity theft" requires the defendant to know that the documents that they are using actually belong to someone else.

In 2000, the defendant, Ignacio Carlos Flores-Figueroa gave his employer a false name, birth date, and Social Security number. These identification numbers were fake and did not belong to anyone. Six years later, Figueroa gave his employer new counterfeit Social Security and alien registration cards with his real name and birth date. The indentification numbers in these new documents, however, did belong to someone else and the employer notified immigration officials. Figueroa was charged inter alia with the "aggravated identity theft" which makes it a crime when someone "knowingly...uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person." The aggravated crime adds two years to any prison sentence.

Figueroa argued that he did not know the identification numbers belonged to someone else, thus he was not guilty of the crime. The government, in a bit of mental and grammatical gymnastics, argued that the word "knowingly" did not modify the phrase "a means of identification of another person."

In a 9-0 decision (Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito concurring in judgment but writing separate opinions), the Supreme Court held that the plain language of the statute requires the Government to show that the defendant knew that the means of identification at issue belonged to another person. The Court stated, "If we say that someone knowingly ate a sandwich with cheese, we normally assume that the person knew both that he was eating a sandwich and that it contained cheese."

The LA Times discusses the ruling and notes that the tactic of charging undocumented workers with "aggravated identity theft" gave the government significant leverage to get the workers to plead guilty and facilitate deportation.

What do you think?

Immigrants and Swine Flu- Part 2

The graphic above is from today's Wall Street Journal. The Journal notes that "Until recently, Mexico was widely assumed to be ground zero. Now, however, some California doctors are questioning that." The Dallas County Health Department has an excellent run-down of the cases in Texas so far. As you can see, some individuals had travel history to Mexico but others did not.

Despite what some talk radio personalities are currently saying, there is no credible evidence that the H1N1 flu outbreak was caused by immigration- legal or otherwise.

Please keep the patients, health care workers, and health officials in your prayers. And remember, keep separating the wheat from the chaff!

Immigrants and Swine Flu

As the world deals with the very serious implications of the current H1N1 Influenza (Swine Flu) virus, we must take care to examine the facts and not to jump to any conclusions. Unfortunately, some radio and television personalities have used this current health crisis to spread- no pun intended- misinformation about how the Swine Flu has arrived in the United States. For example, Michele Malkin stated in her blog, “I’ve blogged for years about the spread of contagious diseases from around the world into the U.S. as a result of uncontrolled immigration.” (bold in original). She then uses the current crisis to argue that it is “time to get serious” about border security.

According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), there are 91 cases of Swine Flu in ten states as of April 29, 2009 at 11:00a.m. Eastern Standard Time. These states are: Arizona (1), California (14), Indiana (1), Kansas (2), Massachusetts (2), Michigan (2), Nevada (1), New York (51), Ohio (1), and Texas (16). A closer examination, however, reveals that there are no known cases of the virus being spread by illegal immigrants. Details about the Arizona patient were unknown. In California, at least one of the patients had traveled to Mexico over Easter break. Additionally, others had traveled or had been in contact with those that did. According to WBNG News in New York, “So far, all of the confirmed or suspected cases of Swine Flu [in New York] are linked to recent travel to Mexico or another state with the virus.” In Indiana, the patient is a Norte Dame student who had not traveled out of the region this year. The toddler that tragically died in Texas this week came from Mexico to visit relatives about 3 weeks ago. This has prompted some to urge that the US/Mexican border be closed. This is despite the fact that World Health Organization deputy chief Keiji Fukuda said, “With the virus being widespread... closing borders or restricting travel really has very little effects in stopping the movement of this virus.”


While the control of the Swine Flu is of utmost importance, it is important to note that the majority of the cases in the United States are believed to be from persons who visited Mexico and then returned. Dr. Anne Shuchat, from the Centers for Disease Control, in an April 26, 2009 press briefing, advised that the CDC had confirmed the “disease in people who traveled to Mexico.” A fair examination of the facts shows that there is currently no evidence that illegal immigration is the cause of the virus’ spread. Please take care to stop the spread of the virus and also the spread of misinformation about it. For more on what preventative measures you can take, visit the CDC’s website here.

Judge blocks new Texas DPS immigrant DL Rules

A state judge blocked the Texas Department of Public Safety from continuing to enforce new rules that were designed to prevent undocumented immigrants from obtaining licenses but which were also preventing legal immigrants from getting them. You can read the article here. You can also read a more detailed look at the DPS rules in the December 2008 ISAAC Newsletter.

According to the article, "The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund sued on behalf of five people who have permission to work in the country and a landscaping business that employs seasonal workers through a federal program. MALDEF said its clients needed to drive as part of their jobs but couldn't get a license under the new policies because their visas are valid for only 10 months."

If the ruling stands, legal immigrants, who otherwise qualify and have a valid visa, will be able to obtain a drivers license.

Facts are stubborn things: Texas AG Opinion on "Sanctuary Cities"

President John Adams allegedly said, "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."

Passions get stirred up when people think about the so-called "sanctuary cities." In response to this letter from Texas Representative Frank J. Corte, Jr., Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott issued this official Opinion on "local government policies that hinder enforcement of federal immigration laws." In this opinion, Attorney General Abbott concluded that the:

Texas Legislature is not prohibited from adopting some form of legislation designed to compel local governments to comply with any duties they may have under federal immigration laws, so long as such legislation is not inconsistent with federal law.

I do not quibble with the legal conclusion. Rather, I want to stress this opinion does not require local governments to report illegal aliens. Rather it simply recites a correct statement of law. Federal law prohibits states, counties, and cities from restricting their employees from relaying information about someone’s immigration status to the proper federal authorities. The Texas Legislature can also pass legislation to compel local governments to comply with any existing duties they have under federal immigration laws. The Opinion should not be read to create or impose any new duties to report some one's immigration status. For a more in depth discussion about the so-called "sanctuary city", click here.