Reason No. 6034: Why We Should Split the State – The Trust Act

by Jack

It’s called the Trust Act, but it’s just another silly sanctuary bill to protect illegals in California. If signed into law, it would in greatly limit California law-enforcement agencies from participating with the federal government’s ICE program that has led to millions of deportations of…. tens of thousands illegals Mexicans. (Yeah, I meant to say that, you know we have a porous border and they keep coming back)

Supervisor Cortese is one of five liberal Santa Clara Supervisors that passed an immigration law 2 years ago that conflicts with the federal law and forces local police to ignore federal requests to detain people charged with crimes on immigration grounds. It makes you wonder who they represent, the people of America or Mexico?

Immigration Activists Discuss Supreme Court's Ruling On Arizona's Immigration LawArizona tried to pass their own immgiration laws and they were immediately charged with interfering with the administration of federal immigration law. then again they sought to rid themselves of illegals.  These were the illegals that were causing no end of criminal problems and placed a heavy burden on their safety nets as they drained their tax coffers. The action against AZ was initiated by the Obama Administration and it drew widespread applause from liberals and illegals alike. Santa Clara’s sanctuary laws, as well as a host of other cities, also interfere, but in the opposite way. They want to protect illegals from deportation and oddly they are subject to little or no criticism from the White House because it’s politically expedient and advantageous to take that position.

The sanctuary laws found in Stockton, Sacramento, San Francisco, Berkeley, Los Angeles, etc., blatantly pander to the Hispanic vote and they fit the utopia belief by those who seek a borderless society where people are free to roam. However, it’s now a proven fact such laws also tend to protect criminals, encourage crime and raise the cost of government.

The new Trust Act would define certain crimes that do not warrant a phone call to immigration because in the authors mind the higher duty is to protect the family unity. Somewhere along the line these legislators have lost sight of their first and highest duty to protect American citizens.

    And you wonder why there is a movement to split this state?
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

31 Responses to Reason No. 6034: Why We Should Split the State – The Trust Act

  1. Libby says:

    “The new Trust Act would define certain crimes that do not warrant a phone call to immigration because in the authors mind the higher duty is to protect the family unity. Somewhere along the line these legislators have lost sight of their first and highest duty to protect American citizens.”

    Jack, any notion you may have about the people who pick your tomatoes being a threat to your life or livelihood reposes entirely inside your head. And it is unlikely that there are enough people sharing this delusion to justify the creation of a new state.

    Do you realize that your post only reinforces my earlier point regarding the deficiencies of tribalism as an organizing principle? You won’t believe what I just found on the “Ayn Rand Lexicon”.

    “Tribalism had no place in the United States—until recent decades. It could not take root here, its imported seedlings were withering away and turning to slag in the melting pot whose fire was fed by two inexhaustible sources of energy: individual rights and objective law; these two were the only protection man needed.”

    But I don’t know if this really meets the point, because you seem hell-bent on securing the individual right not to associate with Mexicans. That is, the melting pot aspect of Butte County has got you going all tribal.


    • Post Scripts says:

      Okay Libby, I understand what you said about tribalism, however I just don’t think it applies here. Your statement on tribalism is another way expressing prejudice. An irrational and loathsome quirk caused by differences between people, even if it’s only geographic. I get it, but I don’t own it and let me explain why I don’t. We have laws to protect minority people from discrimination in the work place and we have a very large consensus from the American people that says blatant social discrimination, i.e., tribalism, is a moral wrong and I fully agree with both points! The great melting pot concept is fundamental to our survival, so again I agree with you completely. So your tribalism reference has no bearing on the situation at hand.

      Then what’s left? Think about it for a moment…what could it be? Why am I writing critically about the Trust Act if I am not prejudice and not tribal? Hint, it’s the word “i-l-l-e-g-a-l”, as it relates to the law and to law enforcement. Cops (law enforcement) are told to apply the law equally, do NOT pick and choose which laws you enforce! Then it turns out that biased privilege is reserved for you liberals in elected government…now that’s puzzling. How do you rationalize your unequal application of the law?

      Libs, I never said anything about tomato pickers? And I sure never said Mexicans are outside my tribe and I don’t like them, these are your words and they are wrong. Speaking as a former tomato picker, I find that insinuation downright offensive! I like tomato pickers and I like all crop pickers for that matter. I believe that hard work is good for the soul! As to Mexicans or people of Mexican descent…hey, now you’re talking about my family! How can I be hell bent on not associating with Mexican’s when I have gone out of my way to invite them into my family? lol Libs, you come up with such strange notions about me all the time?

      You said it was all very, “puzzling.” But, m’dear Libs there should be nothing puzzling about it! You have your leftist agenda and it comes straight from your politics on borders and immigration. You see it very differently than the way I see it. I believe in the rule of law and national borders for controlled legal immigration, so we can protect and preserve what we build here.

      That’s all pretty clear isn’t it? Doesn’t make me a bad guy or as you say, a tribalist, for wanting a strong and united America does it? Oh, it might just make me right, but that’s for history to decide. However, I’m pretty if it’s American history that we’re reading then support for borders, language and culture will noted as the underpinning of our nation’s future. If it’s a one world, socialist government that is doing the history writing, then I bet you’re going to look pretty good!

  2. Tina says:

    BESIDES…pretending that law abiding tomato pickers are the people committing “certain crimes that do not warrant a phone call to immigration…” is just too convenient as an argument.

    If all we had was people picking tomatoes to be concerned about they wouldn’t be showing up on anyone’s radar…including the liberals who see them as voters and can’t wait to sign them up!

    Our prisons are filled to the brim with people that have committed crimes here after entering the country illegally…they represent 13% of the California inmate population at a cost of about $1 Billion.

    How many kids could be educated properly with that money Libby? How many computers, band instruments or sports equipment could be purchased with that money year after year?

  3. Libby says:

    “Hint, it’s the word “i-l-l-e-g-a-l”, as it relates to the law and to law enforcement. Cops (law enforcement) are told to apply the law equally, ….”

    But the law is not static, it evolves. And, what with changing demographics, it is evolving away from your comfort zone. We are getting somewhere: at the weakness in Ms. Rand’s notion of “objective” law. I don’t believe there is, or ever was, such a thing. As long as the law upholds your world view, all well and good. But when you fall into the minority … and cannot accept that ….

    Think about it. All over the globe, folk new to democracy are giving it a shot (I must find another word) and finding they can’t cope. They lose an election, and out come the guns.

    We are suppose to be past that … but I guess not.

  4. Princess says:

    Number one reason to split the state: Water. We are a giant state that receives tons of Federal transportation money. Where does most of that money go? Southern California infrastructure improvement. A bullet train from central California to Southern California. Do you think anyone cares if it is easy for us to get to Eureka? People in Northern California might appreciate a bullet train so we don’t have to fly down there but it will never get up here.

    The only thing we do is ship our water to Southern California so they can have lawns and swimmng pools in the desert. They make big promises to us, take the water then ignore us. We can split the state and sell them our water.

  5. Tina says:

    Libby: “But the law is not static, it evolves.”

    There’s the problem in a nutshell.

    Laws E_V_O_L_V_E and our Constitution, seen as a “living ” dicument can also E_V_O_L_V_E.

    Good grief! No wonder the rule of law means not much of anything anymore.

  6. Tina says:

    Libby: “…and out come the guns.”

    Nothing that anyone has suggested is even close to vigilante justice or anarchy. all that has been proposed is a change using the process we have been given for such change.

    I think if you need examples of such rabid abuses of the process you need look no further than the radical progressives of the Democrat Party who use the Justice Department and our very own president who instructs his department czars to waive or write law!

    Guns! You really do need to do a brain search and come up with another term.

  7. Pie Guevara says:

    Mindless turds here and at the state level try to make this about picking tomatoes, villages, and race. It is about immigration, legal and illegal. It is not about “comfort zones” or any other shit-for-brains misdirection or delusion.

    God, am I fed up with this moronic crap or what? Yes, INDEED, who do these people represent?

    I took a sabbatical from commenting on Post Scripts, perhaps I should renew that and take sabbatical from reading both Post Scripts and the comments section.

  8. Tina says:

    Jack: “Doesn’t make me a bad guy or as you say, a tribalist, for wanting a strong and united America does it?”

    Last time I looked there were a lot of Americans of Latin decent that have the very same concerns as you do. The question I prefer is why do progressives fight against reforming immigration laws so that it can be easier for legitimate seasonal workers to come here to pick fruit & vegies, legitimate immigrants & green carders to come to America, and its easier for border security to keep those coming to America illegally OUT? The radicals of the democrat party fight reforms that work to secure our borders and make the process work!

    The media is also culpable since they cover for the left. But lesser known sites give these people a voice:

    Groups pushing for illegal aliens to receive amnesty would try to have you believe that they represent the views of all Hispanics or Latinos in the United States, but there is a large portion of this country who are citizens and legal residents of Hispanic descent that do not agree with them at all. One such group, You Don’t Speak For Me was founded years ago during the push for amnesty in 2006 (Carmen Morales pictured at left).

    Since that time many Americans of Hispanic descent have become very active in the community opposing illegal immigration. They are largely ignored by the media because they don’t fit with their agenda. Most of the media will go to the National Council of La Raza or to some immigration attorney who happens to be of Hispanic descent to provide the “Hispanic view” when it comes to illegal immigration. One and all they spout that they represent the growing 44 million Hispanics in the United States and try to make sure it is understood that all Hispanics vote in a big bloc of voters.

    The truth is that the views on illegal immigration in the Hispanic community are nearly equally split.

    If progressives like Libby didn’t depend so desperately on labels (racist!) they might begin to understand what you are saying.

    • Post Scripts says:

      Thanks Tina, well said as usual. People like Libby keep harping on who is going to pick our crops? That’s a total dodge. Most crops are harvested with machines nowadays. The wages are good and the work is not considered too hard, so those jobs appeal to more than just temporary Mexican laborers.

  9. Tina says:

    Pie we miss you when you’re gone but I can’t blame you for needing a rest. The situation you describe represents what we are up against in our nation. A portion of the boomer generation split off and dove into the commmie pool. There is no way to compromise with them we must win the argument with the newer generations. And that is a gargantuan task since the commies have been educating them.

    They won by relentless yammering. I have a tenacious spirit and have joined the cause to restore our republic from one little corner of the country even if I have to yammer myself to exhaustion every day.

    Join us as you are willing and never, ever, shy away from moving the conversation in another direction…I will enjoy the respite!

  10. Chris says:

    Jack: “These were the illegals that were causing no end of criminal problems”

    That’s not true, and as a cop, you should know that. Immigrants are actually five times less likely to be incarcerated than native citizens, and there is no correlation between illegal immigration and crime:

    “Nationally, since 1994, the violent crime rate has declined 34% and the property crime rate has fallen 26%, even as the number of undocumented immigrants has doubled. According to the conservative Americas Majority Foundation, crime rates during the period 1999–2006 were lowest in states with the highest immigration growth rates. During that period the total crime rate fell 14% in the 19 top immigration states, compared to only 7% in the other 31. Truth is, foreign-born people in America — whether they are naturalized citizens, permanent residents, or undocumented — are incarcerated at a much lower rate than native-born Americans, according to the National Institute of Corrections.”

    • Post Scripts says:

      “That’s not true, and as a cop, you should know that. Immigrants are actually five times less likely to be incarcerated than native citizens, and there is no correlation between illegal immigration and crime” Chris S.

      Chris, that’s just not even remotely true! AZ didn’t just pull their deportation law out a hat one day and say, here’s a law for no reason other than we hate Mexicans! There was a deep, dark, lingering reason why this State finally said we have had enough of illegals and it’s time to start removing them from our State and if the feds won’t we will!

      There are no end of stories like this one: A twice-deported illegal alien criminal in Arizona came back a 3rd time to become a serial rapist. All of the victims were young girls between the ages of 12 and 15. He started his raping spree last June–targeting young girls living in single-parent homes after watching the victims and casing their homes before the attacks. Maybe you would like to make him “Arizonan of the Year?” After all, he was earning a living as a heavy equipment operator and that’s all you seem to care about. By the way, your liberal pals assured us that our border is now secure and further that federal background checks will keep illegals from being employed. So much for that big whopper! Thankfully the police busted this creep for sexually assaulting five girls and attacking another in the “Chandler Rapist” crime spree that spanned 18 months.

      Now check this fact out. Of all the prisoners serving time in Arizona state prisons for kidnapping, 40 percent were undocumented! 40% Chris! Whoa, do you know how much money that represents and how much harm is caused?

      Chris, I have to ask, do you really believe the stuff you come up with? Because I have the facts and they sure don’t agree with your baloney and my facts came from the AZ Dept of Corrections, not leftwing CBS News.

      How about this fact: Of those in prison on drug charges, 24% were undocumented! 24% for major narcotics violations! And 13% of those serving time for murder were undocumented immigrants, according to the new data from the Arizona Department of Corrections.

      The number of undocumented immigrants in Arizona state prisons has also grown in recent years. In December, 2004 there were 4,098 undocumented immigrants in the Arizona state prison population making up 12.6 percent according to state data. By June 2010 the number had increased to 14.8 percent for a total of 5,983 incarcerated undocumented immigrants. Why do you think Phoenix is the kidnap capital of Western America? It’s because of Mexicos drug trade and the illegals it brings into AZ.

      Chris I get tired of stating a fact only to have you say I’m wrong. I don’t mind a little of this, but you seem to want to make it your job to find fault with almost everything we write here. Why? Do you hate conservative free speech that much? Has the far left college indoctrination program warped your brain that much that you have no room for anything that doesn’t fit into the liberal agenda? I can’t wait until you graduate and get out into the real world and loosen up a bit.

  11. Peggy says:

    Could we please get this secession going, like now!!!

    L.A. County to Dole Out Millions in Welfare Benefits to Illegal Alien Parents:

    “Los Angeles County is on track to pay out roughly $650 million in welfare benefits to illegal alien parents in 2013, county officials said Monday.

    The figures, which come via the Department of Public Social Services, show that approximately $376 million in combined CalWORKs and food stamps benefits were doled out through July to illegal alien parents for their native-born children, CBS Los Angeles reports.

    Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich made the announcement.

    The California county pays out roughly $54 million in welfare payments each month, according to official data. Of that amount, approximately $20 million comes from CalWORKs and roughly $34 million comes from food stamp issuances, the report adds.
    Of the 60,000 illegal aliens in Los Angeles County, approximately 100,000 children receive aid, said Antonovich.

    He adds that estimates for 2013, which are up $1 million from 2012’s $53 million per month benefit payments, show the importance of the national debate on immigration.
    “When you add the $550 million for public safety and nearly $500 million for healthcare, the total cost for illegal immigrants to county taxpayers exceeds $1.6 billion dollars a year,” said Antonovich.

    “These costs do not even include the hundreds of millions of dollars spent annually for education.”

    • Post Scripts says:

      Peggy I appreciate your urgency. I’m hoping you will join us when we converge on the supervisor’s next meeting and let them know we are concerned about the future and see a real opportunity to make significant changes for the good, if we act now.

  12. Chris says:

    Jack, nothing you wrote contradicts anything I wrote. The statistics you cite (which, as usual, you do not link to) do not prove that undocumented immigrants are any more likely than American citizens to commit crimes, nor do they contradict the fact that crime in the U.S. has gone down as illegal immigration has gone up. That’s what’s relevant here; you need to find out how much of the immigrant population is actually committing crimes relative to the citizen population, not just the percentage of prisoners who are undocumented for given crimes. If undocumented immigrants as a group pose such a great threat, then we should be seeing crime go up as they immigrate here. And the rapist anecdote is just that, an anecdote, and doesn’t tell us anything about what our immigration policy should be as a whole. Certainly there are plenty of born citizens who go on rape sprees.

  13. Libby says:

    Yes, Tina, we know the vote means nothing to you.

    Ain’t it a bummer to be born into the 21st century, when the 19th was really more your speed?

    You’re just handing me ammo … you gotta quit doing that.

  14. Libby says:

    Oh, Pie, don’t do that.

    Your erudition, your sterling prose, they are an inspiration to us all.

  15. Peggy says:

    The illegal immigrant convicted sex offenders problem is even worse. If their home country won’t take them back they are released on our streets where they are raping and committing other criminal acts. All because our Supreme Court says they can’t be held for more than six months.

    Nearly 3,000 Illegal Immigrant Sex Offenders Released Under Court Order:

    Some 2,837 illegal immigrants convicted of sexual offenses were recently cut loose from American jails to comply with a Supreme Court order that says immigrants cannot be held if their home countries refuse to take them back, according to The Washington Times.

    That was just a small percentage of the nearly 59,347 released from jail as of September of last year due to the court order. Since they could not be deported, they were released under some form of supervision, the Times reported.

    The release information came from a Government Accountability Office report issued last week that also showed five percent of the sexual offenders released were not registered in local communities.

    The Supreme Court ruled in 2001 that immigration detention cannot be punitive, so if illegal immigrants can’t be deported they must be released back into American communities.

    Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies at the Center for Immigration Studies, said immigration officials are not rigorous about monitoring sexual offenders released from jail.

    “I’m surprised that only five percent of them are not properly registered,” Vaughan said.

    The GAO report also suggested the court order made it more difficult to keep track of sexual offenders. “The risk that alien sex offenders will reside in U.S. communities without being registered is increased,” the GAO said.

    The report also revealed that large numbers of convicted sex offenders that were deported simply turned around and came back to the United States, where they committed other offenses.

    Read Latest Breaking News from

    Feds Release Thousands of Immigrants Who Are Sex Offenders:

    The federal government has to release many of these sex offenders because of a 2001 Supreme Court ruling that said “detention for immigration purposes can’t be punitive; therefore, if there isn’t a likelihood someone can be deported, they generally have to be released.”

    As the Times noted, that ruling matters “because many countries delay documents to make it more difficult for U.S. deportation.” For instance, Qatar reportedly takes an average of 800 days while Cambodia and Vietnman take 522 and 368 days, respectively.
    Though “under existing law, once another country refuses to accept its people for repatriation, the government is supposed to begin refusing to issue travel visas for citizens of that country to visit the U.S.,” neither party has used this tool that is already on the books.

    “When you start denying student visas — any narrow category that you want, that hits people in the ruling elite in that other country — they start paying attention,” Vaughn, of CIS, told Dinan. “That is the best leverage we have with people in other countries, is visas, because they all want to come here, go to school here, go to Vegas, Disney World, whatever.”

    (Check out the disgusting picture.)

  16. Tina says:

    Oh Libby of course the vote means something to me…legal votes should mean something to everyone! legal votes should be counted…every one.

    I do believe it is illegal to count votes from people who are not citizens. California motor voter is one of the great ways the left has found to make sure some of those here illegally get to vote. Obummercare navigators will be out in droves signing them up as well!

    Legal voting…its not only 19th and 20th century, it’s 21st century too.

    Lady you’re just shootin’ blanks and hoping to hit something.

  17. Tina says:

    Actually Chris it is your national statistics that have nothing to do with reasons for Northern Californians to establish the state of Jefferson. Your argument, as usual, derives from a typical left-wing racist labeling context that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

    As I wrote in an earlier comment, illegals represent 13% of the California inmate population at a cost of about $1 Billion. Those two figures are relevant and represent two of many good reasons to form the state of Jefferson.

    Crossing our borders without proper documentation is the first criminal act. Now it may only be a small breach but it doesn’t represent a good beginning.

    I repeat my question. Why are liberals (progressives) against reforms that would make more crossing legal, create less stress for overworked border agents and the courts, and put less strain on certain states budgets?

    Could it be they like having the issue…they like playing the race card at election time?

  18. Chris says:

    Tina: “Crossing our borders without proper documentation is the first criminal act.”

    False. Crossing the border without proper documentation is a civil offense, not a criminal act.

    “Actually Chris it is your national statistics that have nothing to do with reasons for Northern Californians to establish the state of Jefferson.”

    The reasons presented in this article for forming a new state (a goofy pipe dream that will never happen, but have fun!) had to do with illegal immigration. Jack claimed that illegal immigrants bring over more crime. That claim is simply not true. Illegal immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than citizens. That is completely relevant to this discussion.

    “Your argument, as usual, derives from a typical left-wing racist labeling context that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.”

    Excuse me? I never mentioned race or racism in this discussion, nor did I ever imply that you are motivated by racism. Methinks thou doth protest too much.

    “Why are liberals (progressives) against reforms that would make more crossing legal”

    I’m not sure I understand the question. I am 100% in favor of reforms that would make immigration easier and let more people in, as is every liberal I know. The idea that our immigration policies should be more restrictive, only letting in certain types of immigrants (the “best and brightest”) is something that I’ve only heard from conservatives. So what ideas are you talking about? If you genuinely do want to make legal immigration easier than we may have a rare point of agreement. Right now my sympathy for illegal immigrants is mostly borne from the fact that legal immigration is so difficult.

  19. Tina says:

    Slitting hairs Chris. The act is unlawful…I know it, they know it, and you know it!

    Jacks article: “…such laws also tend to protect criminals, encourage crime and raise the cost of government.”

    Protecting lawbreakers from prosecution does encourage unlawful activity by its very nature. If you ever have children you will get a life lesson in this simple truth from a three year old.

    The amount of crime committed is irrelevant. The cost in human suffering or loss and taxes is relevant. The lack of moral backbone is also relevant. mexicans probably are more aware of this one than are squishy liberals who pretend its about inclusion or compassion…such phonies!

    Every argument from the left to dispute conservative concerns about illegals in our country is wrapped in accusations of racism.

    Conservative proposals for reform are always met with accusations of racism and the reforms are never considered seriously. We’ve been attempting to reform the immigration laws for at least thirty years and it never gets done mostly because leftists will not cooperate in bipartisan fashion but instead engage in blatant partisan politics to label Republicans. They can’t compete for votes based on the effectiveness of policy so they resort to such games.

    The question about those who work against reforms was not directed to you personally. You are just a small (somewhat unenlightened) cog in the big wheel as a supporter of an incredibly devious, unscrupulous, radically partisan and alter-American party.

    I posted, long ago, a very good plan to reform our immigration system…it went nowhere. Democrats love and need the controversy as a racism issue at election time. You seem to have a big blind spot to your parties games.

    The purpose for bringing in the best and the brightest is survival. It isn’t a plot to exclude others. Expand your thinking! There is more to life, more to the great expression of life, than racial and gender realities.

  20. Chris says:

    Tina, today: “The amount of crime committed is irrelevant.”

    Tina, yesterday: “As I wrote in an earlier comment, illegals represent 13% of the California inmate population at a cost of about $1 Billion. Those two figures are relevant…”

    It seems that facts are only relevant to Tina if she thinks she can use them to support her preconceived notions. The moment they no longer do that, she dismisses them.

    I haven’t read your ideas for making more immigration legal. Let’s hear it.

  21. Tina says:

    Chris I guess you believe that you got me but if I recall your statistics had to do with national figures (irrelevant); the stats that apply to California that I posted are relevant. There is no conflict in my statements.

    One of the best policies to address immigration as a problem is trade agreements. They encourage entrepreneurs, opportunity, and work in other countries and offer the same in our own. As the third world grows the problem will lessen…especially if we model what works to create vibrant economies instead of modeling the welfare state. To this end there are business people working with small business entrepreneurs, many of them women, in other countries helping them to establish businesses and provide work.

    It’s important to recognize the difference between those who have a legitimate and honest desire to be here, and to help them to do so legally, and others who come for destructive or clandestine reasons.

    The Supreme Court has recognized the right for us to do so. In 1977, the Supreme Court said: “over no conceivable subject is the legislative power of Congress more complete than it is over” the admission of aliens. Our cases “have long recognized the power to expel or exclude aliens as a fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the government’s political departments largely immune from judicial control.”

    We should separate the two issues of legal and illegal entry when considering legislation. Combining them just offers legislators too much room to cloud the arguments and pander to constituents.

    We should strictly enforce our borders first and insist on respect for the laws of our nation. Border control should be taken very seriously and strong legislation that declares our intent to the world must come first.

    We need a justice department that honors our laws and respects our sovereignty.

    Those who are subject to deportation should be questioned and, when possible or practical, directed to alternative, legal methods for entry.

    Those who are repeat offenders up to no good (we know them by their record) should be denied entry with stiff repercussions for illegal entry. A cooperative agreement with Mexico to jail repeat offenders in Mexico might be possible with the right diplomatic effort. I have heard Mexico refuses to do this but there are incentives…an American run jail in Mexico would cost America less than it costs Californians to house them.

    Suggestions have been made to increase the number of work visas that we allow (but in our crappy economy this is not likely to help much).

    There was an idea to offer a special visa for those who come strictly as farm workers. It was suggested that systems of transport be arranged by cooperative’s of growers so that people wanting just this seasonal work could come here safely, have better awareness and access to the work, and both enter and exit in a controlled, timely fashion. Orchards in the Northwest and Northeast still require these workers and their distance from the Southern border means a long distance to travel.

    Reducing the time and money barriers for immigration visas might help. America should be welcoming but demanding. We should curtail incentives like unending welfare, free college, and the anchor baby incentive that represent unproductive or insincere motivations and encourage entrepreneurs and professionals who want to be Americans. We should encourage assimilation.

    If people are living here illegally and they want to be citizens there is a way to do that through the application process. One way to know how serious someone, or some family is, is to invite them to apply and go through the requisite steps to become citizens. The path to citizenship is a fairly meaningless political phrase since we already have one and it is insane to make the path easier for those who don’t respect our laws than we do those who do.

    I don’t pretend to have the answers but I would love to move away from contentious accusations and defenses to look for and discuss workable solutions that address both issues. I wish I could find that study; Ive tried and just haven’t been able to do it. I don’t have time to search through our archives.

    I did find this article from Heritage that informs about the things we are already doing with Mexico and suggests we could do more.

    Or was that a sarcastic question? 😉

  22. Pie Guevara says:

    What astonishes me about the “arguments” presented here is that none of them address the issue of immigration and central crime issue of illegal immigration. A bullshit game, especially as presented by the usual dopes.

    1) Do illegal aliens commit more crime? Hell if I know. Maybe yes, maybe no. My unqualified guess is that statistically, country wide, blacks commit far more crime than any other group if you want to use the questionable criteria of race to classify crime. In any case, certainly no illegal alien drawing a monthly welfare allowance for food and rent has a reason to commit crime. Right? I defer to real people dealing with real problems in Arizona. Perhaps they do not have the same problems Chicago has with violent crime.

    2) Does the state of California under the iron fist of liberals and the Democratic Party counter federal law, counter our own law, allow and encourage a porous boarder if not, in fact, try to eliminate a boarder even in these times of very real terrorist threats?


  23. Peggy says:

    Jack, Just let me know when it is and I’ll be there.

  24. dewey says:

    We are not splitting the state. I am proud of California North and south. I will try to remove our corrupt Congressman who cares only about his multiple farm subsidy welfare.

    We will remove the corruption politician by politician. I just hope Arnold’s Chinese bridge does not fall.

    • Post Scripts says:

      Dewey its good that you would want to remove corrupt legislators, but the bad part is I don’t think you would recognize one if he walked up and shook hands with you!

      That was just my opinion, but I base it on some pretty naive stuff that you have written here and I really have to question your judgement and what you think you know. You have partisan blinders on to the degree that you can’t see past your party’s own rhetoric.

  25. Dewey says:

    Saw the attack on me, Wouldn’t recognize a corrupt politician….Look in the mirror jack, How did the election go?;-)

    I see you weekly!

Comments are closed.