BIG DEMONSTRATIONS FOR CRIMINALS ON TAP TODAY

It's May Day. This used to be the big day for Communists to celebrate their grand successes in bringing the world under Communist rule. Communists seem to be somewhat quite right now. They don't have a lot of successes to brag about. So it looks like the great May Day demonstration platform is wide open for some other group to occupy!

So ... how about the mob rule crowd! How about turning the May Day chanting over to those who don't think all that much about our rule of law, and who want to legitimize the Mexican invasion of the United States.

So .. prepare yourselves for demonstrations around the country for "immigration reform." Now what they mean by "immigration reform" is allowing those people who have broken the law by coming into this country illegally, staying here illegally and working here illegally to get special treatment from our government; treatment that is not afforded people who use the legal processes to enter America. In other words, the demonstrations you see today will call for rewarding criminals for their criminal behavior. Simple as that.

The supporters of criminal aliens are trying to tell us that there is no way the 12 to 20 criminal aliens in this country could possibly be sent back home ... that we're just going to have to find a way to accommodate them.

Wrong.

It can be done. Control over our borders can be established. We just have to be willing to take some rather strong steps to get it done.

Now this idea isn't original with me ... I've just adopted it because it works. Here's your plan for sending those who are here illegally back home while making sure that American businesses and agriculture will get all the workers they need to stay in business.

Step One: You enact harsh -- draconian -- penalties for any employer, no matter how large or small, who knowingly or carelessly hires someone who is in this country illegally. These employers are going to have to use the services of private sector firms that verify citizenship or legal residency. If the demand for such certifications is created, that demand will be met by private businesses. The law would require the federal government to cooperate in all respect with any companies in the business of certifying legal residency. There would also be harsh penalties for any landlord who knowingly or carelessly rented living quarters to anyone not in this country legally.

Step Two: All federal funds would be withheld from any cities or other local governments who refuse to cooperate with federal immigration authorities in the enforcement of our immigration laws. This would put an end to this "Sanctuary City" nonsense.

Step Three: A law would be passed that would allow U.S. Businesses to hire temporary workers who are not legal residents of the United States. All of this hiring would be done through federally licensed but privately operated employment agencies. The companies using the temporary labor would make all payments to the employment agencies, and the employment agencies would in turn pay the temporary workers. The penalties for any payments made by employers to temporary workers outside of this system would be harsh. Very harsh. Say, for instance, denial of any rights to hire temporary workers through this program again.

Step Four: U.S. law would require that any foreign person seeking work in the United States through the temporary worker program would have to have a temporary worker card issued by the United States. Without this card the employment agencies would not be permitted to bring these people into the U.S. for temporary work assignments.

Step Five: The temporary worker cards would only be issued in that worker's home country. Nowhere else. In other words, if you are already in the United States you would have to return to your home country to be issued a card. If you chose to remain in the United States you would be unable to find any work because you would be ineligible to be hired through the federally licensed employment agencies, and no employer would dare take a chance on the fines that would result from paying you outside of the federal temporary worker program.

Step Six: When a U.S. company need some workers, construction, agricultural ... whatever, that company would go to one of the federally licensed employment agencies and put in an order. That agency would then arrange to have the needed workers brought into the country and would arrange for their temporary housing. The employer would be billed for these costs. When the temporary work assignment was over the agency would provide transportation either back to the temporary workers home country or to the next temporary job. All payments to the temporary workers would cease until another assignment was found.

We have all of these illegal criminal aliens in this country because there is a demand for them. This program would eliminate the demand. Workers would be available through the temporary worker program. Going outside of the program would be unthinkable, considering the harsh penalties involved. Illegals already here would simply have to go back to their home countries to get that temporary worker card. We could even give them preferential treatment in issuing those cards ... just so long as they return to their own country to get them. The demand for illegals would dry up ... and those who truly need and want to work would, in spite of the inconvenience, abide by the law to accomplish their goals.

In many ways this idea gives the Republicans what they want, labor for American business. The problem in getting a program like this implemented is that it would most certainly NOT give the Democrats what they want ... more votes. Democrats see every one of these illegal aliens as a potential vote. Why, after all, do you think there are voter registration drives being promoted today? Just who are they trying to register? And which party is it that screams bloody murder whenever suggested that people voting or registering to vote show some ID or prove that they are eligible? 'Taint the Republicans. Connect the dots.

MAY DAY: OPEN-BORDERS MATH

By Michelle Malkin

Let's start off today's May Day illegal alien rally day with some misleading immigration numbers:

The Drudge Report trumpeted the NYTimes spin by headlining this stat:

Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials, facing intense political pressure to toughen enforcement, removed 221,664 illegal immigrants from the country over the last year, an increase of more than 37,000 — about 20 percent — over the year before, according to the agency’s tally.

221,664.

It sounds like we're getting serious about immigration enforcement--until I remind you of this inconvenient truth that will get glossed over in all the MSM sob stories today:

U.S. Can't Account for 600,000 Fugitives
March 26, 2007

Teams assigned to make sure foreigners ordered out of the United States actually leave have a backlog of more than 600,000 cases and can't accurately account for the fugitives' whereabouts, the government reported Monday.

The report by the Homeland Security Department's inspector general found that the effectiveness of teams assigned to find the fugitives was hampered by "insufficient detention capacity, limitations of an immigration database and inadequate working space."

Even though more than $204 million was allocated for 52 fugitive operations teams since 2003, a backlog of 623,292 cases existed as of August of 2006, the report said.

The number of illegal immigrants in the United States has been estimated at between 11.5 million and 12 million. About 5.4 percent of them are believed to be "fugitive aliens," those who have failed to leave the country after being ordered out.

The inspector general found there is not enough bed space available to detain such fugitives and that agents are hampered by an inaccurate database. Other factors that limit the teams' effectiveness are insufficient staffing, the report said.

Until the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, attempts to catch such fugitives were mostly carried out by teams not exclusively devoted to the task. After the attacks, an Absconder Apprehension Initiative was created within the Justice Department to find, apprehend and deport such immigrants. When the Homeland Security Department was created in March 2003, it assumed responsibility.

Plans for the new office stated that it aimed to eliminate the case backlog by the end of 2012, although a field manual put the timetable at 2009, the report said.

Yet "despite the efforts of the teams, the backlog of fugitive alien cases has increased each fiscal year since the program was established in February 2002," the inspector general said.

221,664 "removed" illegal aliens vs 623,292 released illegal alien fugitives.

That's right, people.

There are nearly three times as many officially designated illegal alien fugitives freed by the feds as there are illegal aliens who have been removed over the last year.

Just doing the context-setting and number-crunching the rest of the MSM won't do...

***

Guess what else? More and more of the illegal aliens caught by immigration authorities and ordered to appear for deportation hearings are skipping out. From the Department of Homeland Security's Inspector General:

As the IG explains:

Each year, thousands of illegal aliens fail to respond to orders to appear at their scheduled immigration hearing. In most of these cases, the Immigration Judge (IJ) will conduct an in absentia (in the absence of) hearing and order the alien removed from the U.S. However, a failure to appear does not always result in an in absentia order. In 4 percent of the cases the IJ may also administratively close a failure to appear case without ordering the alien removed. Of the 461,556-immigration judge decisions and administrative closures issued by the Executive Office of Immigration and Review (EOIR) between FY 2001 and FY 2004, 39 percent (181,807) were issued to illegal aliens who had been released but later failed to appear at their respective immigration hearings.

Although the percentage of released aliens who failed to appear at their respective hearings has declined in recent years, the total number of aliens failing to appear is increasing.

During FY 2001, 42,030 aliens failed to appear compared to 52,890 who failed to appear during FY 2004, a 26 percent increase.

In fact, according to DHS's Detention and Removal Office, 85 percent of the illegal aliens released that have been issued final orders of removal, will abscond. That goes not just for illegal aliens from Mexico, but for illegal aliens from terror-friendly and terror-sponsoring nations:

Illegal Aliens from Special Interest Countries (SIC) and State Sponsors of Terrorism (SST) Countries. A significant number of OTMs that are apprehended and released each year originate from SIC and SST. From FY 2001 through the first half of FY 2005, 91,516 SIC and SST aliens were apprehended of which 45,000 (49%) were later released. It is not known exactly how many of these SIC and SST aliens were ultimately issued final orders of removal and were actually removed since such data is not tracked by DRO. However, assuming SIC and SST aliens are being removed at the same rate as other apprehended and released aliens, 85 percent of the SIC and SST aliens released who eventually receive final orders of removal will abscond.

One more updated graph for you from the immigration court bureaucracy shows that failure to appear rates rose again in 2005 and held steady through 2006:

And there's this truly frightening reality:

[The Detention and Removal Office] estimates that in FY 2007 there will be 605,000 foreign-born individuals admitted to state correctional facilities and local jails during the year for committing crimes in the U.S. Of this number, DRO estimates half (302,500) will be removable aliens.

Currently, most of these incarcerated aliens are being released into the U.S. at the conclusion of their respective sentences due to the lack of DRO resources.

Homeland security? What homeland security?

IT'S WORSE THAN WE THOUGHT

By Doug Patton

Earlier this year, I wrote that congressional Democrats would disappoint their liberal base because "holding power means compromise." I was wrong. Democrats are doing their level best to please their radical leftist constituencies, and it's worse than we thought. In their first 100 days in control of Congress, they have introduced legislation that would cripple small business, surrender in Iraq, socialize our medical care and extend the redundant hypocrisy of "hate crimes" to gays.

The Dems recently passed the "Employee Free Choice Act" through the House. This Communist-inspired legislation (no kidding...the Communist Party USA has proudly endorsed it) removes a worker's right to a secret ballot when deciding whether or not to join a union. Unions could invade workplaces with a "card-check" system that lets them organize if a majority of workers sign up.

Imagine a burly Teamster showing up at your home on a Saturday morning, pressuring you to vote in favor of the union. A small business owner with three employees could be forcibly unionized if two of those employees sign the card. Employees who don't want to work in a union environment would lose their right to vote on this issue.

If you think having unions infest America's 22 million small businesses, demanding absurd wages and outrageous pensions, is a good idea, ask General Motors. After being systematically eviscerated by the United Auto Workers for the last 50 years, GM has now fallen behind Toyota as the world's number one maker of automobiles.

From there we move on to the condescending protection of "minorities" in the form of superfluous hate crimes legislation. The latest attempt has been named the Matthew Shepard Act, in honor of a Wyoming meth addict killed in a drug deal gone bad. The fact that he happened to be gay apparently entitled him to more protection than your average straight meth addict.

Do we really believe that a murderer is going to pause in the commission of his crime and say, "Wait, you're not gay, are you?" What if the killer himself comes out of the closet while on trial? Is it no longer a hate crime? And what are the ramifications for a preacher who dares to tell his congregation what the Bible says about homosexuality? Suppose the next day a homosexual is beaten up in that community? Is that preacher's sermon now "hate speech?"

Then there is the issue the Dems think is their ticket back to the Oval Office: THE WAR. The "This Is Hard So Let's Give Up" bill is set to cross the president's desk this week with a date certain for U.S. surrender to the terrorists in Iraq. Predictably, it will be vetoed. This legislation was passed so that Dems can go back to their districts next year and say, "We tried to bring the boys home, but Bush wanted them to stay and get killed." One of the few Democrats I know of who has consistently hoped for our troops to fail is Dennis Kucinich. The fact that Dennis Kucinich is now a Democratic trendsetter may just be the saddest thing ever.

And, of course, there is the constant Democrat drumbeat to return to the tired old concept of "universal health care." This idea will not die, despite the utter failure of such programs in Europe, Canada and elsewhere.

Several other pieces of legislation are in the works. One is an elaboration of the original 1993 Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), which would cost businesses millions and give even more paid leave to new parents. How on earth did we, as Americans, ever manage to have both kids and jobs before 1993? The average family today has fewer children and more disposable income than any previous generation, and yet we need even more time off than they did?

Democrats are singing the same socialist tune they have since FDR declared himself Nanny-in-Chief. It goes something like this (especially since the sixties): "You cannot take care of yourself. You deserve more than others. Rich people owe you. Armed conflict is never the answer, especially when it takes longer than a month. You deserve free medical coverage. If you are gay, non-white, female, 'transgendered' or whatever, you need even more protection."

Here's the reality: we are Americans. Let's start acting more like adults and less like Democrats.

MURTHA-----UGH

Moonbat Murtha strikes again. This time the democratic Congressman is using the "I" word: Impeachment. Not surprising. The goal of democrats like Murtha is to undermine America in any way possible. You might remember his little speech last summer when he called the US's presence in Iraq a greater threat to the world than North Korea or Iran. This is the same Iran that is providing money and means for insurgents in Iraq, who are attacking US and British soldiers and innocent Iraqis. This is the same North Korea that has a Gargoyle at the tip of a nuclear trigger button. And yet the United States, according to moonbat Murtha, is the source of all the wrong in the world—and George W. Bush is the ring-leader.

Mistakes were made in Iraq, but that, in no way, makes George W. Bush a war criminal. He is not like Serbian war criminal Milosevic or Iraq's Saddam Hussein, both of whom tortured and abused innocent civilians.

Calling for Impeachment of your own President because of Iraq not only attempts to place George W. Bush on this hideous level, but also makes the rest of the world think it is ok to do the same. If there is any great threat to our peace, it is John Murtha's insistence of weakening his own country.

For the first time in his relatively lackluster career in politics, Murtha is in the spotlight. He gets recognized in all the fine restaurants, and the interview shows on TV are calling every day. Pretty impressive stuff. Impressive enough to betray our men and women and uniform, not to mention our country.

DEMOCRATS DON'T WANT YOU TO READ THIS

Good news from Iraq...and from the New York Times? Say it ain't so! The Anbar province of Iraq, just west of Baghdad, is showing a homogeneous front against terrorism. Thousands have joined the police force, working with American troops. Office buildings for government workers are being renovated as well as hotels for visitors. While there is still a ways to go, the decrease in daily violent acts and a united police force is showing turns toward a better direction for stability and freedom for Iraqis.

But the reporter, Kirk Semple, points to a simple yet crucial reason as to why this turn has occurred: "While the anti-American sheiks in Anbar and Al Qaeda both opposed the Americans, their goals were different. The sheiks were part of a relatively moderate front that sought to drive the Americans out of Iraq; some were also fighting to restore Sunni Arab power. But Al Qaeda wanted to go even further and impose a fundamentalist Islamic state in Anbar, a plan that many of the sheiks did not share.... For all the sheiks' hostility toward the Americans, they realized that they had a bigger enemy, or at least one that needed to be fought first, as a matter of survival."

This is what I have been saying all along folks. You can't fight "terror" because terror is a tactic. You can't attempt to establish democracy and freedom when you are constantly worried about your basic need to just survive. Only once you have gotten rid of your threat to survival—Al Qaeda—can you finally work towards greater ideals and goals.

By the way ... I began this entry with the phrase "good news from Iraq." Remember this: Good news from Iraq is almost always bad news for the Defeatocrats. Democrats are truly invested in our defeat in Iraq. They feel that they have no chance of regaining full control in Washington if Iraq starts to go our way. With every bit of good news from Iraq look for Defeatocrats to become more vocal in their demands for immediate withdrawal. Oh ... and the media, of course, will be more than willing to help them along.

LIGHT BULBS THAT DON'T SIGNIFY IDEAS

BY MARK STEYN

Everything's difficult, isn't it? In the Democratic presidential candidates' debate, Sen. Barack Obama was asked what he personally was doing to save the environment, and replied that his family was "working on" changing their light bulbs.

Is this the new version of the old joke? How many senators does it take to "work on" changing a light bulb? One to propose a bipartisan commission. One to threaten to de-fund the light bulbs. One to demand the impeachment of Bush and Cheney for keeping us all in the dark. One to vote to pull out the first of the light bulbs by fall of this year with a view to getting them all pulled out by the end of 2008.

In 1914, on the eve of the Great War, British Foreign Secretary Sir Edward Grey observed, "The lamps are going out all over Europe. We shall not see them lit again in our lifetime." Whether he was proposing a solution to global warming is unclear. But he would be impressed to hear that nine decades later the lights are going out all over Washington.

This week, both the House and the Senate voted for defeat in Iraq. That's to say, Congress got tired of waiting for deadbeat insurgents to get their act together and inflict devastating military humiliation on U.S. forces. So America's legislators have voted to mandate the certainty of defeat. They want the withdrawal of American forces to begin this October, which is a faintly surreal concept: Watching CNN International around the world, many viewers unversed in America's constitutional arrangements will have been puzzled by the spectacle of a nation giving six months' notice of surrender. But the cannier types in the presidential palaces will have drawn their own conclusions.

For example, as Congress was voting, Vladimir Putin announced that Russia would withdraw from the post-Cold War arrangements of the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty in protest at American plans to install missile defense systems on the Continent. In the first months of the Bush administration -- pre-9/11 -- this issue was mostly theoretical. European leaders couldn't quite figure out why anyone would need a system to take out incoming nukes but Bush seemed hot for it and, that being so, you might as well be inside the system rather than out.

Six years on, Iran is going nuclear and nobody seems minded to stop them. So a missile defense shield in Eastern Europe is a more practical benefit than it once seemed. In fact, the mullahs are precisely the kind of fellows the system's intended for: small nuclear powers less susceptible to conventional deterrence theory. There might be quite a few of these a decade down the line. Reluctant to find themselves living under a Shia Persian nuclear umbrella, the Sunni Arab dictatorships are said to be pondering whether they might benefit from going the nuke route. The Saudis and Egyptians could certainly afford it very easily.

So what's Putin's game? Well, he leads a country with severe structural defects (a collapsed birth rate for everyone except Russia's Muslims, a depopulating east, disease-ridden menfolk face down in the vodka) but a relatively buoyant economy -- or, to be more precise, kleptocracy. In particular, Western Europe is increasingly dependent on Russia as an energy supplier. Putin calculates that even a weak Kremlin can make mischief for America. The missile-defense interceptors might have been expressly designed for fin-du-civilization Europe: You don't have to do anything, you don't have to attack anyone, you don't have to be beastly and aggressive like the swaggering Texan cowboy. You just have to go about your business and, if anything's heading your way, the Yanks will press a button and blow it to smithereens and send you a confirmatory e-mail afterward. But Putin is putting Continental leaders in the position of having to choose between even this benign defensive technology and relations with Russia. And, given European dispositions, he must surely feel he's got a sporting chance of winning this one. And, if he does, he will in effect be making the world safe for Iranian nuclear blackmail.

Why would he do this? Well, why wouldn't he? As I always say, if you live in Tikrit and Ramadi, the Iraq issue is about Iraq. But, if you live anywhere else on the planet, Iraq is about America. In Tehran, Pyongyang, Khartoum, Caracas, Beijing, Moscow and the South Sandwich Islands, they watch Harry Reid & Co. on the 24/7 cable channels and draw their own conclusions about American will.

The Defeaticrats are being opportunist: They think they can calibrate the precise degree of U.S. defeat in Mesopotamia that will bring victory for them in Ohio and Florida. Contemptible as this is, it wouldn't be possible had the administration not lost the support of many of the American people over this war. The losses are devastating for the individuals' families but they are historically among the lowest in any conflict this nation or any other has fought. So I don't believe the nightly plume of smoke over Baghdad on the evening news explains the national disenchantment. Rather, the mission as framed by the president -- help the Iraqi people build a free and stable Iraq -- is simply not accepted by the American people. On the right, between the unrealpolitik "realists" and the "rubble doesn't cause trouble" isolationists and the hit-'em-harder-faster crowd, the president has fewer and fewer takers for a hunkered-down, defensive, thankless semi-colonial policing operation. Regardless of how it works on the ground, it has limited appeal at home. Meanwhile, the leftists don't accept it because, while they're fond of "causes," they dislike those that require meaningful action: Ask Tibetans about how effective half a century of America's "Free Tibet" campaign has been; or ask Darfuris, assuming you can find one still breathing, how the left's latest fetishization is going from their perspective:

"On Sunday, April 29, Salt Lake Saves Darfur invites the greater Salt Lake community of compassion to join with us as we honor the fallen and suffering Darfuris in a day of films, discussion and dance with a Sudanese dance troupe."

Marvelous. I hope as the "Salt Lake Saves Darfur" campaign intensifies in the decades ahead there'll be enough Darfuris to man the dance troupe. It would be truer to say that the greater Salt Lake community of compassion, like Sen. Obama with his light bulbs, is "working on" saving Darfur.

In Khartoum, Tehran, Moscow and elsewhere, the world's mischief-makers have reached their own conclusions about how much serious "work" America is prepared to do.