No Illegal Immigrants in NC Community Colleges

(You can also view this post at Associated Content!)

A 1982 Supreme Court ruling says that illegal immigrant children are entitled to an education in the public U.S. system through high school. Somehow people got it in their minds that this automatically meant that illegal immigrants are welcome in public community colleges and state universities as well.

In North Carolina, the state attorney general has passed down new guidelines to all 58 of the state's community colleges barring the enrollment of illegal immigrants. The new rules go into effect on Tuesday. Students who are illegally in the United States and will be graduating from high school this month (after leeching from the public school system for numerous years) will no longer be admitted into North Carolina community colleges.

These guidelines do not effect the 16 public universities located in North Carolina, so those are still legal options for the illegal immigrants - for now.

Of course, Hispanic advocacy groups are up in arms and outraged. This is the first decision of its kind, which means that it will likely be challenged in court after the inevitable parade of protests and petitions.

As for those who are undocumented but have received their acceptance letters before the cutoff date of Tuesday, they will still be allowed to attend the community college. The summer session will be starting in just a few short weeks.

As for the 16 public universities that will still accept illegal immigrants, many undocumented prospective students are complaining that they can't afford the out-of-state tuition bills (since they obviously don't have legal residence in the state or the United States in general) and are not eligible for state or federal financial aid (since they obviously don't deserve to leech any more of the government's money after so many years of federally-allowed public school attendance).

So, why don't undocumented students apply for citizenship? Some say its a lengthy and expensive process.

You know what else is supposed to be a lengthy and expensive process? COLLEGE! If you can't hack the tedium and annoyance and price of going through the process to be a legal citizen, why should you deserve the right to attend the tedium and annoyance and price of higher education?

(1) Anti-illegal-immigration groups argue that illegal immigrants are stealing U.S. jobs from legal American citizens.

(2) Pro-illegal-immigration groups argue that most illegal immigrants are doing jobs that most Americans don't want to do in the first place, like picking fruit and janitorial services and menial tasks.

If (2) is true, then why would illegal immigrants need higher education? The only reason for getting higher education (other than "bettering yourself") is to get a better job that is higher up on the corporate ladder - jobs that legal American citizens are already struggling to fight for in the marketplace today.

This just proves that (2) is false and (1) is true.

I just don't see any possible other explanation. It's probably because I'm biased against illegal immigration, but look at the logic. The ONLY reason why you go to college or basically any higher education than high school - is to get a better job with better pay. And the definition of "better job" is almost certainly the subset of jobs that are NOT these "degrading" jobs to which American citizens would supposedly turn up their noses. Which means that illegal immigrants want to take away jobs from American citizens.

Q.E.D.!

I think that it's frankly a brilliant idea on North Carolina's part, and that it needs to take effect in the public universities as well and then spread to the other states. They are totally allowed to do so, given that the Supreme Court only mandates allowing criminal illegal immigrants into our public schools until high school.

I want to see the looks on protesters' faces when their tirades against such laws are faced against this plain and simple argument. And for those of you who, like me, are attacked with the "they're only taking away jobs Americans don't want to do" argument over and over, now you have this bit of weaponry in your arsenal.

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IS ILLEGAL.

(The article about the decision)


Read more!

Crisostomo? I Blame Disney.

If you haven't been caught up, there is now a second Elvira Arellano. Her name is Flor Crisostomo, and she is another illegal immigrant from Mexico who was caught, told to surrender herself for deportation, and decided to hole up in a Chicago church claiming "sanctuary" instead of going back to Mexico. She had the choice to give herself up, and she refused - deciding to become a fugitive instead of doing the right thing and going back to the country that accepts her as a citizen.

So here's the big question: Can a church really provide sanctuary to criminals to avoid arrest?

NO, IT CANNOT.

I am 99% certain that there is no law and no precedence for being able to legally claim "sanctuary" from US law by entering a church. I'm leaving that 1% open in case someone can actually cite law or precedence, since I'm not a lawyer or anything. The main reason why people have been getting away with it is a matter of public relations. The police and federal agents don't like the "bad press" if they were to storm into a church just to make an arrest of a fugitive. They have EVERY LEGAL RIGHT to do so, but they apparently choose not to, for appearance's sake.

I, for one, blame Disney for spreading this malarchy to the public's attention. It's all because of The Hunchback of Notre Dame that people think you can enter a church and claim "sanctuary" and then everything's hunky-dory as long as you stay inside the church's confines. That scene with Quasimodo screaming "SANCTUARY!!!" over and over tugs at your heartstrings, but don't let it affect your brain, people.

There is no such thing as church "sanctuary". Can you guess why?

Exactly. Then you'd need law governing what is and isn't a church. Would it apply only for Catholic churches? What about Evangelical? Lutheran? Protestant? Presbyterians? How about a synagogue? A mosque? Could I create my own religion, claim my house is my church, and claim sanctuary there?

No, because the police wouldn't bat an eyelash about storming through my door and arresting me, despite the fact I am the ordained Pope of Beefinatorix claiming "sanctuary" in the only Meatingplace of Beefinatorix.

Meanwhile, Flor Crisostomo is following Disney Law and has claimed "sanctuary" in that same church, under the assumption that as long as she stays inside, she can avoid her imminent arrest and deportation. If this is the case, how can people say with a straight face that "She has three kids who depend on her and what she sends from the U.S."? Of course, that quote comes from the last sanctuary-claimer of that church, Elvira Arellano, so you can't blame a criminal for devious tricks.

If she has three kids who depend on her to send them money, then what is the point of holing yourself up in some church? That is the OPPOSITE of work! It earns NO money! Flor Crisostomo is the only one to blame for her kids going hungry due to a lack of ill-gotten funds!

Call me a cynic, but the bitch should have given herself up instead of getting the public's attention - since that way she'd probably have gotten deported back to Mexico and sadly illegally entered America again within a very small timeframe.

It's very sad, but it's the truth. After all, that's exactly what Elvira Arellano did the FIRST time she got arrested and deported. The second time was when she decided to be a bitch with her sanctuary plot, making sure that the media attention would mean that after her inevitable arrest, sneaking back in would be exponentially more difficult thanks to her danged spotlight.

Also, this whole nonsense about becoming a fugitive to "take a stand" and "try and change U.S. immigration laws" is really pissing me off. Listen up, you criminal non-citizens! LEARN ABOUT AMERICA BEFORE YOU TRY AND CHANGE AMERICA! Maybe then Crisostomo would have known that laws are changed by US legislators and bureaucracy, and voted upon by CITIZENS.

Finally, the priest of that church should be locked up as well for aiding and abetting a known fugitive. He allowed her to enter and claim sanctuary, knowing fully well that is would make her a fugitive. That means that he willfully associated himself with the crime, which is pretty much the definition of "aiding and abetting" as far as I know.

If any of my information is wrong, please let me know.

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IS ILLEGAL.

(The online version of the article)


Read more!

Another Arellano??

I picked up the paper today with all the hopes of "I hope there's something in here I can rant about today" - and I was not at all disappointed. (I mean with finding something to rant about - the news itself is very disappointing.) Right there on the front page were the words "Church harbors another illegal immigrant", and I hurried to Page 8 to find out what the hell is going on in my city.

It turns out that the SAME CHURCH that sheltered Elvira Arellano for that horrible year plans to allow ANOTHER illegal immigrant to seek shelter there instead of turning herself over to the authorities like she is supposed to do today.

This new illegal immigrant criminal was arrested in 2006 as a result of a nationwide raid of the IFCO Systems pallet company, which resulted in 26 illegal immigrant workers being arrested. Flor Crisostomo is supposed to be surrendering to the federal immigration authorities today. After retreating to the Adalberto United Methodist Church in Humboldt Park where her FRIEND Elvira Arellano hid from the feds for a year, she is supposed to be "announcing" her decision today of whether she plans to turn herself in or the more likely option of thumbing her nose at the law like she did when she illegally entered the country from Oaxaca in 2001 and staying in the church and claiming sanctuary.

My biggest issue with all this nonsense, aside from the fact that the church does NOT provide sanctuary for criminals and it's about damned time the feds proved it by storming in and arresting her criminal ass, is that it's evoking the stupidest debates as a result. A criminal illegally enters the U.S., gets caught and arrested, refuses to accept the punishment, and all people are talking about is federal immigration reform??? What's even worse is the slew of comments being written down that are completely ass-backwards!

"It is very difficult to make this decision. Whatever it is, it will be worthwhile. ... It's not just to benefit me, it's to benefit the community," Crisostomo said in an interview inside the church.

No, you lawbreaking bitch, this IS about benefitting yourself and NOT AT ALL about benefitting the community. If allowing criminals to hang around your neighborhood actually benefitted communities, then property values in some southside neighborhoods would have skyrocketed past all of the upscale northside neighborhoods a long time ago. What WOULD benefit the community would be you giving yourself up to the federal agents and making an announcement to all of your illegal brethren to follow suit and say "let's all go back to Mexico." THAT would make property values rise and lower the crime rates significantly.

"I am taking a stand of civil disobedience ... I believe with all my heart that the United States and Mexico must end the system of undocumented labor," said Flor Crisostomo.

You know what, Flor? I completely agree. We must end the system of undocumented labor. By sending all the undocumented workers back to Mexico!! For the love of all things good and right in the world, you can't tell me that entering the U.S. illegally and getting work with a fake I.D. and sending money to your three kids and mother back in Mexico is a system we should be applauding or trying to help in any way! American workers are supposed to have that money and that job and help the U.S. economy and the rest of the legal citizens of this country. Some states and cities ARE trying to end the undocumented worker situation - by holding businesses more responsible in their hiring practices with the threat of losing their license if they hire an illegal immigrant.

Maybe one day, to add insult to injury, our federal agents will calculate how much money the United States have lost as a result of illegal immigrants coming in from Mexico, just so we can sue Mexico for damages. Maybe if they got their own shit together, people wouldn't be fleeing to steal jobs from Americans across the border. Maybe if they beefed up their OWN security at the border, less people would make it through and be stuck to help Mexico's failing economy for a change!

In the meantime, Flor Crisostomo should be reunited with her family, thanks to a deportation bus ride back to her hometown at the hands of federal agents. And Gail Montenegro, spokeswoman for the ICE here in Chicago? I know that you said "ICE officers are sworn to enforce the nation's immigration laws and will do so at appropriate times and places," but I just have to say:

The proper time is ALWAYS. The proper place is WHEREVER THESE CRIMINALS ARE HIDING.

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IS ILLEGAL.

(The online version of the article)


Read more!

Elvira Arellano, Go Back to Mexico!

Fine, accuse me of being a hateful person for using the phrase "Go back to Mexico." I'll say it as many times as I have to until something gets done and this criminal is back where she belongs: Mexico, her country of origin from which she entered the US illegally. TWICE.

For those of you who aren't aware of the year-long story of The Illegal Who Cried "Sanctuary" - here's a recap:

- In 1997, Arellano attempted to cross the Mexico/US border with fake papers. She was caught and deported back to Mexico.

- In December of 2002, as part of a terrorist sting at O'Hare, Arellano was arrested for working under a false Social Security number.

- In 2003, she was convicted in federal court of Social Security fraud and ordered to leave the country.

- Somehow three years go by, and she decides to hole up in a church here in Chicago, claiming sanctuary to avoid deportation from officials. The date is August 16th, 2006.

So now it's one year later. She's been using her "anchor baby" to literally do her bidding between here in Chicago and Washington D.C., taking an eight-year-old boy and turning him into her personal media-whore. And she's made an announcement: She's going to leave her sanctuary on September 12 to travel to Washington D.C. to lobby for immigration reform.

Feds: It's up to you to catch her.

I say that with just the SLIGHTEST bit of hope that something will actually be done. After all, it's been an entire freakin' year and nobody's bothered to do ANYTHING about it yet. She just stays cooped up in the church, and nobody's deported her yet. Even though they have every right to. That's right! The whole myth of "sanctuary" is pretty much a lie. The only thing that's protecting her in her "sanctuary" is the fact that the public would outcry federal agents breaking into a church.

Which they have every legal right to do. They can bust in there and catch her and deport her ass back to Mexico where she belongs. They just haven't, because of whiny bleeding-heart liberals. And probably some devout Christians. But mostly the liberals.

So here's what needs to happen: On September 12th, there needs to be an operation to arrest her, publicly and openly. I want a van with a federal agent and a newscaster chosen to get the "exclusive story" in the front, and a few local police cars in the vicinity in case they sneak out the back. As soon as she's sighted - go in for the takedown. Make it known on public television that if you are an illegal immigrant, YOU WILL BE DEPORTED!

You know what? Add in that van a person from child protective services! I want that child to be torn from the arms of this abusive and/or neglectful mother to show that not only are "anchor babies" a horrible idea, but you CANNOT make them "do your bidding". For the love of all things good and holy, if I were a single parent in Chicago, I still would not be letting my 8-year-old go to the store to get groceries - let alone allow him to walk to and from school by himself.

I certainly wouldn't let him travel to MEXICO with some woman from a random immigration rights group!

That's called "bad parenting". Hopefully it's bad enough to warrant child services making a case against her. She's a criminal who left her child in the custody of practically a stranger to travel to Mexico. She should be found unfit to care for her child (who she obviously hasn't cared for anywhere other than this room in a church) and since HE is a citizen and SHE isn't - take Saul Arellano away and into a foster home with real parents who'll give him an actual childhood and won't make him go to Mexico to appeal to governments about immigration reform.

You call it "breaking up a family". I call it "justice".

Don't let her get to Washington, federal agents! The only reason I would accept for not arresting her outright here in Chicago and deporting her ass is that you want to do it in Washington because you have the home court advantage. It's a criminal walking straight to a police station and yelling "I'm a criminal but I shouldn't be arrested for it!" Take her down, in the middle of the lobby for immigration reform. Let the public know that we don't need immigration reform - we need to enforce our immigration laws.

Oh, and be sure to have lots of agents stationed outside the area, so that when they pop out to arrest and deport Arellano - there are people ready to catch all of the fleeing illegals who are frightened by the presence of ICE agents. I've always said that the best place to sweep for illegal immigrants is at an immigration reform conference or protest.

Seriously, feds! Just take a look online or at websites! Find out where and when these protests and lobbies are being held - and then show up to arrest and deport all of the illegals! It's time to enforce the laws and scare some of these MILLIONS of criminals back to their countries of origin because they'll know we're finally enforcing the laws!

Feds, we can't do this without you. Help us take down Elvira Arellano and make a statement.

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IS ILLEGAL.





Read more!

Liberals Taking Away More Liberties!

You know, I always thought that the word "liberal" was supposed to be about liberty - about making sure we citizens had the liberties and rights to live our lives as we saw fit without having the government come in and trample those rights.

Turns out I was wrong. Because everyone else seems to be wrong. These people we call "Liberals" - the Democrats who blue up the blue states with their anti-Republican stances - aren't the ones who are protecting our liberties. They're the ones taking them away. And Gov. Blagojevich just pulled down his pants and made a bowel movement all over another liberty on Monday.

The liberty to smoke.

Thanks to the new law signed by the governor, on Jan 1st, 2008, smoking will be restricted to private homes and outside (more than 15 feet from a public building entrance). No more smoking in taverns or restaurants with bar areas. Can't smoke in a dormitory, either. Can't smoke in a PRIVATE home if there's a business open to the public operating out of the same space.

Face it - your liberties have just been written off.

You know what? I'm not even a smoker. I loathe the smell of cigarette smoke, it doesn't take much for me to start coughing, and I'm sure several branches of my family tree have been affected by smokers and the cancers they PROBABLY got from all of their smoking. (Yea, that's right - I'm still not totally convinced. I mean I'm convinced that smoking can cause cancer - but at the rate of other things scientists keep coming up with that ALSO cause cancer, I'm not as sure you can pin any of it directly on the smoking itself.) Even so, I am fully aware that they have every right to smoke and do whatever they want to themselves for themselves. You know what I have the right to do?

Go stand somewhere else.

Which is why I can understand why some places SHOULD be non-smoking, or rather that they should have designated non-smoking areas and designated smoking areas. Workplaces, because there you don't have the right to go somewhere else. Eateries, so you can have the CHOICE to be in one or the other section. Gas stations, so you don't make things explode.

Other than that (and probably some other places, but I'm not here to make a list of hypothetical exceptions to my own rule), smoke wherever and whenever! And if I've got a problem with that, I can stand somewhere else! This goes right along with the idiots who don't realize the have the option to change the channel or station when something they don't like is on the TV or radio. Stop taking away our freedom of speech and expression and go practice your freedom of choice and choose something else! These are our liberties, people! Stop letting those false advocates of liberty take them away!

The article I'm reading has a quote from a 70-year-old named Wally who says, "It's the General Assembly being our new nanny. After this they'll ban foods that are too fatty. You'll have to ask the state what you can eat and drink - they'll start regulating hamburgers." Oh, Wally... I guess you don't know/remember that they've already started with the trans fats... Your burgers ARE being regulated, Wally.

For those of you who want to argue "secondhand smoke", I'm going to refer you back to "go somewhere else" and leave it at that. These people are the ones arguing that since it affects them and endangers their health that they should be able to make it illegal. So here's one (or two) of my famously-crazy analogies:

I'm standing on the street with one leg placed out at an angle. I'm not trying to trip anyone at all - I'm just placing my leg out because I feel like it and I have every right to stand how I choose to. It's not MY fault if you don't have the wherewithall to, um, LOOK AROUND and notice it and trip over my leg that's been in the same position for the past three minutes. Lots of people didn't trip, because they walked somewhere else and paid attention and were vigilant about where their feet were walking. Just because you got hurt somehow doesn't mean what I did was illegal. I didn't do in in a malicious manner and I wasn't attacking someone. You just tripped. I am not at fault.

Let's try something even closer. I'm standing on the street with my dog, on a leash. Everything's legal with that. Dog's not even pooping on the sidewalk. And then you come along, with your horrible allergy to dogs, and maybe you didn't notice the dog or you didn't think you'd wind up that close to the dog, but you breathe in some dog hair from my dog and start having an allergic reaction. You're going to potentially die, even though the risk is low because it was just errant dog hair or something and worst case scenario we call 9-1-1 and they pump you full of epinephrine or something. Even so, I didn't do anything wrong - YOU did by not paying attention to your OWN problems. I'm allowed to have a dog and follow the laws. You shouldn't be allowed to blame me for your allergic reaction. See a dog - get the hell away from it.

You don't get to declare it illegal to have a dog out in public because people on the street might have an allergic reaction.

I don't have any advice as to how to fix this. My initial thought was a call to every smoker to follow every disgusted-look-giving non-smoker they encounter, blowing as much smoke at them as possible. Maybe if you could smoke inside, you wouldn't be out here, blowing smoke at people. Of course, that gives them argument to be extreme jackasses and try to ban smoking entirely.

My second thought was a smoking protest - lining up about fifty smokers in a ring 15 feet away from the entrance to an important building (like the Sears Tower where I work) and just smoking. As everyone outside tries to get in, say you can't move, because you can't get within 15 feet of the door. At first I threw out this idea because preventing entrance to a public building is probably an arrestable offense, but then I remembered - the place has two entrances! (Three, if you count the Skydeck, where the tourists are supposed to go to get up to the top but always wander into the office entrances instead.)

I just don't know what else to offer other than my condolences. I mean, I'm not a smoker, so this really doesn't affect me much more than my smoking friends getting a little grumpier over having nowhere nice to smoke. Let's face it, in the summer and the winter, the extreme temperatures are NOT helpful to smokers. This law is even LESS helpful.

And don't even get me started on "but maybe this will encourage them to quit." That's not for the government to decide. That's not for you to decide with a vote, either. That's for them and ONLY them to decide. They have that liberty to choose what to start and when to quit.

At least they used to. Until the "liberals" decided otherwise.

Read more!

Waukegan - You Are Not Dead To Me!

Rejoice!

The aldermen of Waukegan may keep their jobs in my eyes, for they held true to their words and did not back down from the swarm of protesters who used everything from prayer vigils to corporate boycotts to coerce the city councilmen away from their initial 7-2 ruling in favor of applying for the federal program which will train some police officers and give them the power to set the deportation process in motion. Even though the hall only had enough seats for 200 people, of course the city had to sell 400 tickets to the meeting. This led to over 100 people having to stand in the room and hallways, hoping for a seat to open up. This is in addition to the hundreds outside, still protesting for and against the measure.

The new count? 8-2 in favor of applying for the federal program!

The extra vote came from the Mayor, also in favor of applying for the program. While I have not yet confirmed this, I suspect that the two "nay"s were the same as the first vote, those two aldermen who claimed it would lead to racial profiling or that it would frighten even the legal immigrants and they wouldn't be able to trust the police.

While it IS true that the ability to deport extends not just to illegal immigrants, but also to legal immigrants - that only applies to those who are arrested for heinous crimes like murder, rape and some drug-related felonies.

So hey, legal immigrants - don't murder or rape or smuggle cocaine! Got it??

That's all it takes! Don't commit these crimes! I'm more than willing to admit that harsher laws don't really have that desired effect to deter criminals from committing those crimes - but you have to admit that once deportation is on the line for immigrants (both legal and illegal), they're hopefully going to think twice before KILLING SOMEONE. I mean "think thrice", because if you're going to kill someone without a second thought, you don't deserve deportation - you deserve the death penalty.

Maybe now that we've shown that SOME City Councils out there have the balls to follow through with their decision to apply for this great federal program that cuts down on the red tape and paperwork, we can get some other cities with high illegal immigration populations to apply for it as well.

This is a trend that needs some momentum, and we need to keep it going bigger and stronger. Maybe someday major cities like Chicago will be able to participate and we can finally start ENFORCING the laws that ALREADY EXIST!

Write your City Council! Tell them to apply for 287(g) and get your local law enforcement this training program!

An article ringing in the good news! Read more!

Wal-Mart and Life Insurance

Karen Armatrout died in 1997. She was an employee of Wal-Mart at the time. Earlier, and without Karen's knowledge, Wal-Mart took out a life insurance policy on her. When she died in 1997, Wal-Mart collected on the insurance money. As it turns out, Wal-Mart has placed life insurance policies on about 350,000 of their employees. Michael Myers (no relation to the horror-movie character or Canadian actor), an attorney in Texas, estimates that Wal-Mart collected on the life insurance of 75 to 100 policies taken out on Florida employees. He's trying to turn Armatrout's case into a class-action lawsuit.

Wal-Mart filed for these life insurance policies back in 1993, for all of their full-time employees between the ages of 18 and 70 who were taking part in the medical benefits program. They were supposedly given notification and the opportunity to opt out. They stopped taking out the policies in 1995, and due to the fact that they were losing money with this program, canceled the policies in 2000.

So here's where judge and jury will step into it - was there wrongdoing? Who's to blame if there was?

I say Wal-Mart is not at all at fault here. I'm not even seeing fault in the first place, except possibly with the insurance companies selling the life insurance policies. The whole problem people seem to be finding with Wal-Mart in this case is I guess either that the employees didn't know about the policies, or that they think Wal-Mart is trying to "profit off the deaths of others" or something.

First off, they obviously didn't profit from this venture, which is why they canceled all of their outstanding policies in 2000. I can completely understand where Wal-Mart is coming from with having them in the first place. I started working for this company about a year ago. When they hired me, on my first day we went into the conference room (there was another guy hired at the same time) and the boss pretty much went over the company policies with us. One thing he mentioned is that the company is going to do everything they can to make sure we stay in these jobs. It's not a matter of "one complaint and you're out" or threatening firings if numbers start slipping. He made us aware of how much money is spent on advertising for the open positions, the time spent by employees to interview when they could be doing other profitable things, and the time spent training someone new - not to mention the profit lost in these positions which were empty between the last person leaving and one of us filling that spot.

Employees are expensive to obtain, train, and even more expensive then lost. I've clawed my way up in this business, though more laterally than vertically. I'm by no means a supervisor or manager, but I now have knowledge of many things in the company, and have a lot of people reliant on my work and the information I know and the files I keep. I finally feel that I have job security because firing me would be losing so much information, having to start over on huge deals and projects, and training a full replacement would either take several months or several new hires.

That in mind, if I were to die - the company would still be out lots of money. Why wouldn't they consider a life insurance policy on me? Or rather - the idea of one. I'm not sure if my value to the company is really worth a life insurance package, but in a larger scale, I can totally see it happening. Large companies take policies out on VPs and other executives. Does it really matter if the employee knows? Not really. The company wouldn't want to let them know how much or how little they're worth, and not everyone would respond calmly to finding out their dead body is now worth money.

Which brings us to the policy-sellers. I don't know much about life insurance policies or that entire industry at all. I don't know how legal it is to have a policy on someone without their signature. I would think that a policy on my head would be something I would have to sign off on. My realist logic, though, says that is probably not the case. I don't have to know who's profiting from my death - it's their insurance, anyway. If I were a director of a movie, I could see myself maybe taking out a policy on an actor or something. If I stand to lose money based on someone dying - I don't care if you personally know them or not, you'd want that investment to be safe. Life insurance doesn't sound like a bad idea.

Do I really see a lawsuit here? No.

I just see an overreacting and emotional loved one who's lashing out at someone who seems better off in some way as a result of that person dying. And if they want it as a class-action lawsuit, it's just a larger number of emotional people.

The company didn't profit. It just helped cushion the blow of the financial burden of rehiring and money lost as a result of that employee's death. Families take out policies on loved ones to help pay for the financial burden of funeral costs. A decrease in sales and interviewing schedules and training programs are the funeral costs to a company - they should have the right to take out policies to help with their burdens as well.

Of course, I could be wrong. I don't know the whole legal aspect of it all. I'm just a person making logical assumptions and what my brain thinks is right and wrong. Let me know if you think otherwise or have more information on the legality of it all.

The original article Read more!

Florida Sheriff Has the Right Idea

It's so simple - I can't believe we hadn't thought of it sooner. We've all seen footage of sting operations, probably on the TV show COPS, where the police will leave a car in a high-crime area with something valuable inside and then just sit back and wait for some criminal to steal it so they can arrest another criminal. Maybe you've seen it and had a thought about "entrapment", or accused them of "creating a crime" when in reality they just created a controlled opportunity for crime rather than having to wait for that person to commit a crime somewhere else.

This idea is about a hundred times better. And we have Florida Sheriff Frank McKeithen, who created the Illegal Alien Task Force. So what's the plan? Well, it's based on the classic notion of "an innocent person wouldn't do that."

The task force gets several police cars together and have them all pull up with their sirens at a construction site. Then all they have to do is see who runs.

The task force chases down the runners and if they cut through private property in the pursuit, they can charge the runner with trespassing. If the runner is hiding on property while fleeing, they also have the option of charing them with loitering. If they get into a car to get away, odds are good that reckless driving or speeding become viable options. Once they're under arrest, a quick check for green cards or other proof of citizenship can lead to the wave of notifications to I.C.E. of who they suspect of being an illegal immigrant.

You can't even accuse the police officers of "creating a crime" - because they're hunting for people who already broke the law. The only crimes being created are created by the criminals who have decided to flee from the police. And if they weren't already in trouble with the law or afraid of being deported - they'd have no reason to run.

And you can't argue that it's not working - because over 500 people have been reported to immigration officials since November by this task force. And the real target is the construction industry, due to the long-standing Florida law prohibiting employers from knowingly hiring illegal immigrants. If you're working on a site and five police cars can manage to scare away your entire work crew - your business is obviously not using proper hiring practices.

"[B]uilders are worried the crackdown will deprive them of the labor they need to take part in a building boom in which Panama City's Beach cheap spring-break motels are being torn down and replaced with high-rise condos."

Hey, builders! Try hiring CITIZENS!! Yeah, those people who are legally allowed to be employed in your state and have a much lesser chance of running away from the job site due to police sirens!

I applaud this sheriff and the Illegal Alien Task Force he created. Finally, an idea that works to help combat the rampant illegal immigration in our land. If only more local and state law enforcement officers would offer to chip in and help out the I.C.E. and get these criminals off our streets and out of our country! Read more!

Waukegan Applies for Deportation Abilities

It's nice to hear some good news on the illegal immigration front. What with the amnesty bill still meandering through the upper levels of the government, it's nice to see that on a local level, there are those who haven't given in or given up in the fight against illegal immigration.

On Monday, the City Council of Waukegan voted 7-2 to authorize Police Chief William Biang to apply to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement for the power to enforce federal immigration laws. City officials say that while the details have yet to be hammered out, they assure the townsfolk that this is just a measure to further stop violent criminal offenders, and further punish undocumented criminals. Mayor Richard Hyde put it bluntly: "The purpose of this is to get those who commit felonies off the street and out of the country."

Apparently the federal government allows for local law enforcement to apply for this power, which can be granted after approval, certification and training. This program has been going on since 1996 when Congress passed the Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. I'm sad that I'd never heard about this program. I'm certainly going to write to MY city officials and suggest it.

Of course, my city alderman are the idiots who unanimously passed a ban on foie gras, and is "highly influenced" by Alderman Burke - the moron who wants to have city drivers pay a "congestion fee" and also wants to ban a radar that makes drivers safe. I doubt a logical and sensible idea like local deportation rights would go over well.

(At least, not until 2011 when I run for City Council Alderman!!)

So here's where we get into the debate and I get to point out things in the article that riled me up enough to actually post about this. I mean, it's news enough to hear about a fight in your backyard for a cause you actually believe in - but the idiocy of those against it just boggles the mind sometimes.

"Long a predominantly white, working-class city, Waukegan has seen an influx of immigrants from Mexico and other Central American countries in recent decades. According to 2005 U.S. census estimates, 38,000 to 50,000 of the city's 91,000 residents are Hispanic or Latino. Authorities don't have a good estimate as to how many undocumented immigrants live in the city." . . . "[Alderman] Cunningham objected because it could lead to racial profiling."

Yea, do the math. The huge influx of immigrants, many probably illegal, are from Mexico and other countries where Hispanic/Latino is the primary race. Do you really think the white guys are going to get asked to show proof of citizenship? The black guys not mentioned in the statistics? Or do you think it's going to be the huge number of Mexicans being asked to show that they're not illegally in the country?

It's not racial profiling. It's called MATH. And LOGIC.

Margaret Carrasco, 47, a former mayoral candidate, said there are some who 'will see this as a license to hunt down immigrants. Is that the society that we want?' She said the program would make law-abiding immigrants reluctant to call police to report crimes for fear that they would be arrested for being undocumented.

Hey, Margaret! I think we DO want a society that actively removes criminals from itself! I think a society that's able to govern itself by identifying those that are illegally in that society and then kicking them OUT of that society - that's a society I want to be a part of. Margaret Carrasco would apparently rather have a society that says, "Oh, there's a rapist on the loose somewhere in town - no big rush or importance catching this sex offender." Is illegal immigration on the same level as rape? Maybe not. But if the rapist is an illegal immigrant, and this policy is geared to deport undocumented violent criminals, then I feel safe in making that leap.

Oh, and did anyone else cringe at the stupidity of her reference to undocumented immigrants being "law-abiding"?

HEY! Being an undocumented immigrant is what's known as "illegal immigration" and that means you DIDN'T abide by the law. It means you BROKE the law. Again, this magical thing called LOGIC. I'm so sorry that you apparently never took (or slept through) Common Sense 101 in school. I've heard a lot of lessons on sanity and rational thinking get taught there.

This application, if approved, would allow the local law enforcement to just hurry along the process. Instead of having to wait on the federal I.C.E. agents after busting several illegal immigrants involved in a drug-trafficking ring, the police officers would be able to start the deportation paperwork themselves and save time in the process. Yes, if you're illegally here, and you commit a crime, the police should be informing I.C.E. and deporting you. Unfortunately, this process takes too long with not enough federal agents, and these criminals slip through the cracks or something else happens and the opportunity to deport them is lost.

Let's not allow that to happen any more. Please write to your City Council aldermen and tell them to apply for the power to enforce this federal law.

Especially if you're in Chicago, like me. Every city applying for this power is another step towards finally being able to properly enforce the immigration laws we already have - before our government winds up screwing us all over with an amnesty bill. Read more!