USA v. Arizona: Let the Games Begin

Okay, America, here we go.

Today, the Guy from Chicago, aided and abetted by his mouthpiece at the Justice Department and his aide at the Department of Homeland Security, publicly announced that the lawsuit they have been threatening to file for nearly two months would, in fact, be filed today. And, surely not wanting to disappoint, they followed through on the threat.

The lawsuit seeks to block the enforcement and implementation of Arizona’s new law of self-defense against the tide of illegal immigrants that the federal government has allowed to flood over the state. That law, SB 1070, is attacked in the suit not on the grounds that it unconstitutionally allows for and encourages “racial profiling” — instead, the feds’ argument is based on the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution and contends that the Arizona law must be deemed “preempted” by federal immigration law, the latter being supreme over conflicting state laws because the Arizona law purportedly “usurps federal authority.”

Where to start, where to start? So much rhetorical fog, so little time.

First, for this regime to be suing a sovereign state of the United States of America for having the temerity to defend itself against the damage wrought upon it and its citizens by illegal immigration because of federal incompetence in the area is an outrage unto itself. This is all the more evident when viewed against the backdrop of former Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano’s virtually identical calls to then-President George Bush to secure and enforce the border between Arizona and Mexico when she “governed” Arizona. Furthermore, that the actual decision to file the suit was first disclosed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Ecuadorean television during a interview last month, rather than directly to Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, merely underscores the classless venality of this administration.

Second, if other states in the Union and other municipalities in those states think the problem is isolated and can be resolved by confining the battle to Arizona, they need to switch from decaf lattés back to fully-leaded Starbucks Jet Fuel. While there may be close to a half million illegal immigrants now living in Arizona, there are between 12 and 20 million illegal immigrants scattered throughout the United States. The current problems of Arizona–dumped on its plate by an administration seemingly more intent on placating Mexico and The Guy’s Hah-vahd alumni buddy, Mexico’s Felipe Calderón–are merely small trailer previews of coming attractions for Washington, Colorado, Kansas, Texas (more about that state in a moment), Illinois, Ohio, Georgia, New York, Virginia and all the other states of the Union.

Third, speaking of Texas, while The Guy and DHS Secretary Napolitano were assuring the nation that “there are more boots on the ground at the border than ever before” and that the border “is as secure as it has ever been…,” we hear that only last week the El Paso, Texas City Hall was hit by seven rounds from an AK-47.  The shots were apparently errant ones from a gun battle a few blocks away in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico between Mexican police and some bad guys … maybe even drug dealers.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott responded by “firing off” a letter to The Guy demanding that the feds elevate border security to a higher priority and demanding they start doing something on the ground as opposed to merely talking about how “violence is down” and the border “is as secure as it has ever been.” If, by that statement, Napolitano means the border is not secure, just as it has not been secure in the past, then her words make sense. Perverted sense, of course, but sense nonetheless from this administration’s contorted perspective.

Fourth, back to the suit by the feds against Arizona. Memo to Eric Holder: please explain why, if your theory is that the Arizona law is preempted by federal immigration law as being inconsistent and/or that the Arizona law will impede execution of federal immigration policy, Congress enacted 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g), a federal statute entitled “Performance of immigration officer functions by State officers and employees.” Please explain as well how an Arizona law that essentially incorporates and assimilates into its state code the identical provisions of federal law can be deemed “preempted.”

Preemption theory is relatively straightforward and usually occurs under one or more of three scenarios. First, Congress can define explicitly the extent to which its enactments preempt state law; second, in the absence of explicit statutory language, state law is preempted where it regulates conduct in a field that Congress intended the federal government to occupy exclusively; and third, state law is preempted to the extent that it actually conflicts with federal law. See English v. General Electric Co., 496 U.S. 72, 78-79 (1990).

Given the specific enactment by the Congress (as contrasted with the feckless enforcement of same by this administration) of 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g), it should be readily apparent that the Arizona law fits none of the “preemption” criteria. So how is it that the Arizona law “usurps federal authority?” Webster’s defines the term “usurp” as meaning “to take or make use of without right.” Again, considering the enactment by Congress of 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g), the feds’ contentions that Arizona is somehow “usurping” the federal government’s authority to continue its program of mismanaging border security and controlling the flood of illegal immigrants rings a bit hollow. Congress–not to be confused with the Department of Justice–has invited the states to assist in addressing these difficult immigration issues.

Against this backdrop, therefore, the only rational explanation for the DoJ’s decision to file suit and seek to prohibit the enforcement and implementation of the Arizona law is that Mr. Obama, Mr. Holder and Ms. Napolitano apparently believe that it will impermissibly frustrate and impede the administration’s policies. Those policies seemingly include continuing and expanding the activities of pandering to Mexico and its leaders, pandering to the amnesty for all illegal immigrants and open-borders crowd and perpetuating the inadequate and ineffective “enforcement” measures which have in the past facilitated an exponential increase in the flow of illegal immigrants into this country, with Arizona serving as the doormat. Arizona has simply grown weary of functioning as this administration’s doormat.

And unless other states in what remains of this Union want to become the next doormat, they had better start lining up in support of Arizona rather than indulging in meaningless and ill-informed “boycotts” of the state. When you are under attack and being invaded by foreign forces, it makes no sense at all to boycott those who are on the front lines fighting for you. Unless, of course, you are in favor of the invasion.



  1. Jeff Schreiber says:

    I think that might be my favorite among all of the pieces Rick has submitted to AR. And, as an added bonus, it served as a nice little review of the Supremacy Clause and preemption. Two birds, one stone.

    Love it.

    Back to work,


  2. Old Richard says:

    Great job !!!! What is it that this group of of people don’t get about thew law??? Oh silly me, they are from Chicago. How can people not see that is an act of treason??? They drop charges against black panthers who are in the act of intimidating voters ( on film no less) and then sue a state who is doing thier job for them. Is there not a definition of treason as aiding and abetting the enemy??? There is a forign nation invading our borders and stealing our resources and the people that are sworn to protect us are sueing the people that want to keep these invaders out. This has to be treason.
    Is not treason an impeachable offense ???
    We must rally and speak out loudly before we have to take up arms against this
    outrage of nimrod rectal cavitys.
    I see where Arizona is asking for donations to help fight ths lawsuit. I sent what I could afford this month, next month there will be more, also investing in ball and powder.
    God bless you Rick for keeping us aware and God bless you Jeff for providing the platform.
    Just sayin’
    Old Richard

  3. Hot Rod Girl says:

    Article III Section 3 of the US Constitution delineates treason as follows:

    Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

    The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

    Food for thought: This lawsuit appears to me to be treason, for the fact that filing of the lawsuit is clearly giving our Enemies (illegal aliens) Aid and Comfort. Now the big question is, does anyone in Congress have the cojones to pursue this?

  4. Gail B. says:

    Well! I got two birds with one stone, too, Jeff:

    Rick wrote such a great “closing argument” that I looked (as I did with Robert) to see what his law background/education is, and also “heard from” Jeff when he surfaced from book dust to comment on this excellent piece!

    Rick, thank you for saving Jeff some time–no doubt he is squirming to write about some of this legal harassment by the federal government! You have done it for him.

    Arizone should file a counter suit against the fed government for obvious reasons and for malicious prosecution, if nothing else!

    Rick, you mentioned Texas. is a private and law enforcement coalition site that invites citizens from anywhere (not just from Texas) to sign up as a Virtual Texas Deputy to monitor the webcams (22 of them) set up across the Texas border as surveillance points to catch illegal aliens crossing the border and drug traffickers. It’s free, and it enables citizens to “do something” to help with the problem.

    Now, I am going to copy and paste your piece and send it to the Madison Forum, a network here in Georgia that researches,shares, and comments on political information.

    Rick, this was outstanding, and I thank you for your time, effort, and skills!

  5. Knock Knock Who's there says:

    This lawsuit is a flaming bag of dog poop on the doormat.

  6. T.I.M. says:

    One study just released showed that in a number of states, the state’s deficit was less than its cost for illegals — meaning there would be a surplus without the cost of illegals. Yet our administration is fine with “Sanctuary Cities” — which means aiding and abetting law breakers, while taking limited tax dollars to fight Arizona for fighting the federal government’s unfought battlles.

    Illegal aliens are guilty of breaking and entering. But rather than enforcing the laws of this country, we have numerous “Immigration Rights” groups. Do they only protect trespassers, or are they also going to advocate for killers (they already do, in fact), arsonists, muggers, rapists, embezzlers, burglars, etc?

    Here’s one solution that would put more boots on the ground and allow our “leaders” to get a realistic look at the situation: Move the White House to El Paso, Texas. Sounds about right, since they give illegals “the pass”.

  7. Jeff Schreiber says:

    TIM — do you have a link to that study?

  8. T.I.M. says:


    The study is from Federation for American Immigration Reform (via Drudge)

  9. Gail B. says:

    Question: How fair is it to bring this suit in FEDERAL COURT rather than in an ARIZONA COURT?

  10. T.I.M. says:

    One other quick link that shows Rhode Island is being ignored by the W.H.O. for consistently doing what AZ is doing, while O’s pal Deval in Mass. is doing the opposite:

  11. John Feeny says:

    If I were the Governor of Arizona – and, believe me, the Mexican authorities should be on their knees thanking their lucky stars that I’m not – my first reaction, assuming a defeat in court, would be to turn to “The Guy” and say, “Okay. You win. We’ll enforce the federal statute instead” – which is, if course, much more draconian than Arizona’s attempt to merely enforce the law.

  12. William A. Rose says:

    Ok folks. We know all the details. What the current Administration is doing is clearly Treason. So,what are We The People going to do about it? Nothing can happen until November and then not until November, 2012. And that’s the “nice” way of responding. What about immediate action? I can assure you, if I were to commit a crime, the response by the authorities would be immediate. I suspect the same would hold true for each of you. What puts the President or any other high-ranking Federal Employee above the average ctizen? We The People need to do something, and we need to do it now.

    Marching on Washington, demanding immediate resignation by all persons involved with this Treason, and actually moving to remove them from their respective perches, would be viewed as an insurrection and would be met very intensely by The Secret Service and the Capitol Police and D.C. Police forces.

    So, what do we do? Simply go through the motions in courts that will be dragged out for months and waste a whole bundle of taxpayer money? The way this Administration is doing things, and the way the Courts tend to lean progressively and liberally and kow-tow to the Federal Government, I’d expect to see Arizona’s Law set aside and the invasion will continue unabated. The invasion does not need to abate. It needs to STOP. END. And all the illegal invaders need to be sent back to their home country.

    This is war folks. It really is. Does anyone see it and believe it?

    It’s time to organize.

  13. Dee says:

    Rick, thank you for a very good article. I was incensed when I heard this. I don’t know why I was surprised considering this administration but it amazed me that the federal government would sue one of it’s own states for enforcing a law that they, the federal government, should have been enforcing. I thought that if BO does not like Arizona enforcing the law, that maybe Arizona should agree to the same law for illegal immigrants that Mexico has. I understand that it is far worse than ours.

    Hot Rod Girl, Governor Brewer has bigger conjones than anyone in DC! She is also cracking down on abuse of food stamps.

    Old Richard, where can I find info on sending money to Arizona to fight this?

    There was a letter to the editor this morning in one of our local papers that asked if Arizona cannot enforce this law because the Feds are the ones who should be doing it, then wouldn’t that also apply to such crimes as robbing a bank? The local police could say that since it is a federal offense, the bank needs to call in the FBI.

    The Black Panther case is totally amazing. How much clearer can voter intimidation be! It will be interesting to see what happens after Mr. Adams is done testifying. If I were him, I would fear for my life.

    Hello, Jeff, glad to see you are alive and well. Keep studying!

  14. Arizona is contributing to our society by doing the job the Feds don’t want to do.

  15. Jeff Schreiber says:


    Jurisdiction and venue are proper here. Federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over cases arising between the federal government and a state.


  16. Anonymous says:

    That photo of Brewer….. now THAT’S the look I want in my president.
    Bring on 2012, quickly.

  17. whats_up says:

    @William Rose:

    William this is not treason, just because someone disagrees with you politically doesnt make it treason. I sure wish the sore losers would get over that. What the Feds are doing here is stating that Arizona is engaging in affairs that are left to the Federal Government, and that is fine. These type of cases come up fairly often, certianly not one of this magnitude or with such passion, however it is nothing new for the Fed Govt to step in thru the courts and claim that the States overode their perogative. It will be interesting to see how it comes out. However none of it falls to the level of treason.

  18. Gail B. says:

    From Congressman Walter B. Jones (R-3rd NC):


    WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today U.S. Representative Walter B. Jones (NC-3) expressed his strong disapproval of the Obama Administration’s decision to sue the state of Arizona over its new anti-illegal immigration law. The lawsuit filed yesterday in the U.S. District Court in Phoenix questions the constitutionality of Arizona’s new immigration policy, insisting the federal government’s authority to regulate immigration is being overridden by state law. Jones was one of the first Members of Congress to speak out in support of the Arizona law when it passed in April.

    “The American people have every right to be safe and protected,” said Jones. “Our border is becoming more dangerous by the day and the federal government has not taken appropriate action. The states have the right to protect their citizens when the federal government fails to do so.”

    According to a study released yesterday by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), illegal immigration is costing federal and local taxpayers $113 billion a year. The study entitled “The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on U.S. Taxpayers”, finds the average American household pays $1,117 a year towards services and benefits for illegal aliens. Arizona’s annual cost of illegal immigration is $2.5 billion.

    “The drain of illegal immigration on this country is out of control. Hard-working American taxpayers are footing the bill for people that enter this country illegally,” said Jones. “I believe Arizona waited as long as they could for assistance from the Obama Administration and the assistance never came. Instead of suing Arizona, the Administration should focus its energy on securing our border and stopping the violence, crime, narcotics and human trafficking that go along with illegal immigration.”

    For additional information, please contact Catherine Fodor in Congressman Jones’ office at (202) 225-3415.

  19. whats_up says:

    @ Hot Rod Girl:

    Illegal aliens arent our enemies, they are simply trying to make a better life. That doesnt mean i agree with simply letting them come in whenever they want but lets not call them something they arent. A little less rehetoric from the right would be nice.

  20. Rick Saunders says:


    Here is a copy of Governor Brewer’s press release, which also contains a link to a support website:

    Thanks for wanting to get involved.


  21. Jeff Schreiber says:

    I agree with Whats Up on both accounts. Certainly not treason, and the illegal aliens aren’t our enemies — well, those who come here simply to send money back home, rather than for other, more nefarious reasons…

    Either way, that’s it for me for a while. Got Agency Law and Partnerships and Business Organizations (B’Zorgs, as I like to say) waiting for me tonight, tomorrow and Friday.


  22. Gail B. says:

    Jeff, I realized the jurisdiction was appropriate. It’s just sorta not fair, in my opinion. However, after Obama said what he did in his State of the Union address to the US Justices, I hope a federal judge smacks Obama’s and Holder’s hands but GOOD! I mean, the Justice Department has a golden opportunity to restore a smidgen of faith in the government if they rule in favor of Arizona. The ACLJ is helping AZ with this.

    Everybody–thanks for great comments. And, thanks for the great help from Jeff’s staff/volunteers/whizzes.

  23. William A. Rose says:

    Illegal is illegal. It does not matter how you slice it. If you are here in the USA, or in any nation for that matter, and have bypassed that respective nation’s immigration laws and procedures, you are there illegally. Thus, we have what we have – 20 million or so illegal people who have invaded our nation. Imagine if they’d all organize. A 20 million man Army of sorts. You have all heard the rhetoric, which may well not be rhetoric, from the Mexican people. They want to take the Southwest back. The believe it is their’s. They have the sheer numbers to do it.

    As for the treason, that is simple. Any stance taken by the government that provides aid and comfort to the illegals is treasonous.

    It’s a bitter thing to say, but it is the raw truth.

  24. Anonymous says:

    From Merriam-Webster

    enemy: one who is antagonistic to another.

    Have you seen these Hispanic rallies and boycott-Arizona marches made up of ILLEGAL immigrants? They look VERY antagonistic to these eyes. ‘Enemy’ sounds like a fit to me.

  25. J.B. says:

    Jeff, I, and apparently others, disagree with you and whats up. Illegal aliens are our enemies at this time. They are breaching our borders and causing crime, disruption, and great expense to us. I’m also inclined to agree with the treason part.

  26. Gail B. says:

    Just an afterthought–

    We miss Jeff but understand his absence. We are also in absolute awe of the great hands he has put this site in!

    Jeff, you are in our prayers to pass that pesky exam. Just remember–if the late Charlie Sanders of Spartanburg could pass it, you certainly can!

  27. Boston Blackie says:

    How impressive, too bad there aren’t lawyers at the DoJ like you. What happened to Obeyme’s promise to sue because the law is an excuse for racial profiling. He made a point of saying that you won’t be able to get ice cream with your kids without your “papers”. Funny how that issue is nowhere to be found in the suit. Let’s have Napolitanoe explain what has changed in the last few years to make her change her tune. Oh, that’s right, it would the change in D.C. To paraphrase Obeyme, the DoJ acted stupidly. But hey – laws, we don’t need no stinkin’ laws. BTW, has Caleron filed his suit against Arizona yet. I can’t wait for that one.
    All I can say is thank God my mother is no longer a border patrol guard in El Paso!

  28. Anonymous says:

    It seems someone disagrees with Merriam-Webster.

  29. Anonymous says:

    The ‘enemy’ is disregard for the LAW. No matter the skin color or circumstances.
    Why have laws, at all, if they may be disregarded.

  30. M. Webster says:

    I am confused. William can post a 4 paragraph opinion, but I post a one sentence opinion verifying his opinion with a word (5 letters) from a dictionary and it is discarded.

  31. Anonymous says:

    It’s interesting, I have watched the approving of these comments…… it appears the moderators took far longer to approve these comments than the comments to the other stories. Do they fear dissent? Stay strong Mr. Rose, you are not alone.

  32. William A. Rose says:

    @ M. Webster, thanks for your comment. Some folks will be willingly ignorant. Anonymous chose to be at 4:11 pm.

    I apologize for such long comments. I think what I said had to be said. Most everybody here at AR makes great comments.

  33. Randy Wills says:

    I would not use the word “enemy” to describe most of the illegal immigrants from Mexico. Yes, they are lawbreakers and should be treated as such, but most of them come simply because they can find work that is not available in Mexico to feed their families. The root of the problem, of course, is that U.S. businesses (and private individuals) willingly look the other way and hire them at reduced wages, vis a vis American workers.

    I fully support Arizona’s law and I am totally in favor of controlling our borders and instituting a viable guest-worker program, but I hate to see us feed the racial conflict that I believe is inevitable, thanks primarily to the President’s divisive policies, by reacting emotionally to a problem that our federal government could have solved any time they wanted to in the past. To put it succinctly, I’m a lot more sypathetic to the illegal immigrant than I am to our elected officials who dare not offend the indiginous Hispanic vote. Moral cowards, every one of them.

    As for the criminal element, nothing, other than a military force standing shoulder-to-shoulder along the border, will stop them from entering illegally as long as the market for their products is as lucrative as our fellow citizens make it. They operate on the same principle that most business people do; the cost of doing vs the cost of not doing, and so far, the cost of doing is much lower than the cost of not doing if dollars are the metric. Just look across the border to see what value they place on human life vs the profits to made in the drug trade.

    And as an aside, I would like to add that I think that Sarah Palin did a very poor job of responding to Bill O’Reilly’s questions this evening regarding what she would do to solve the problem of illegal immigration. Her answer was pretty much “whatever it takes”. How easy it is to fall for the simple answer to a complex situation. She’s got to do better than that to get my vote if she runs in the 2012 primary.


  34. Liberal_Genius says:

    When are whites going to understand that they need SOMEONE to do their work for them? Look, we all know that on the whole whites are too physically weak and lazy to work outside or in a kitchen. Since most of the indigenous US population has been killed off, and whites are now so terrified of Blacks that they’re paying them tribute in the form of public assistance in order to keep them pacified, the workers have to come from somewhere! I thought Republicans believed in markets! Mexicans have come to do the work that whites can’t (or might break a nail or a sweat trying) do, and instead of being grateful, whites want to kick them out! It’s unbelievable. Who do you expect to manufacture your goods, pick your fruit and vegetables, build your houses, pave your roads, cook your food, cut your grass, and all of they other things that you’re physically incapable of doing for yourselves? The “Service” economy of calling each other on the phone and selling things to each other has to rest on a foundation of production. I guess (as always) whites want it both ways. They want other people to do their work for them, but they don’t want to have to look at those people and be reminded of their anatomical inferiority.

  35. Jeff Schreiber says:

    Liberal_Genius seems to be making sweeping generalities that, if it were a Conservative_Genius doing so, would immediately be labeled “racist.”

    No more.

    Every day, roads are paved, food is cooked, farms are tended and grass is cut by a myriad of people — black, Hispanic and white alike. This is about the LAW here. We are a nation of laws, and when you cross the border and enter this country without authorization, you are BREAKING THE LAW. In Mexico, if it were one of your white desk-jockeys who entered without consent, he would be immediately incarcerated and deported … and he could be arrested simply for looking different, a stark contrast to the Arizona law.

    Give it up, chief.

  36. Jeff Schreiber says:


    Moderation happens when it can. There is no set schedule. In this case, Robert has been preoccupied with his own studying, I’ve been immersed in mine, and Feeny has been working on his own material. Don’t read into things unnecessarily.

    No fear of dissent here, so long as it’s grounded in fact.

  37. jim donoghue says:

    whats_up says: Illegal aliens arent our enemies. Come to Phoenix AZ. i live here.JD

  38. jim donoghue says:

    Boston Blackie Caleron filed his suit against Arizona yet.Yes he Did last week.

  39. Gail B. says:

    From a Border Patrol website:

    Death Toll Calculator

    If it is Monday, July 12, 2010 4:36:00 PM, then:

    Illegal aliens have murdered more than 11076 people inside the USA so far this year, and:

    Illegal aliens have murdered more than 38712 people inside the USA since 9/11.

  40. Randy Wills says:

    And Gail. my friend, whom I almost always agree with, what percentage of the total illegal aliens in this country were responsible for these terrible crimes?

    Believe me, I’m not an apologist for illegal immigrants, but it’s all too easy to fall prey to painting with a brush much too wide. This is what Obama is counting on to stir up group conflict.

    I am just campaigning for caution in how we react and compassion for the individual. We – or better yet – the politicians and the businesses who find it advantageous to hire the illegals – have never given anything more than lip service to controlling our borders. I believe that our anger should be focused on them.


  41. Bill says:

    You’re right Randy. If we want the borders controlled, we need to be angry at politicians (left and right) and businesses. Leftist politicians want the illegals to vote and expand social programs. Right politicians want the illegals here because their allies in business want the cheap labor. Businesses obviously want cheap labor and in some cases the freedom from having to pay those pesky taxes that come along with legal employees. And for those who think that all illegals do is pick fruit, pull you heads out of your a#%es. If you’ve ever eaten in a restaurant in the western US, chances are that it was cooked and its dishes washed by illegal labor. More and more construction is being done by illegals, because once again its cheap and under the table. Even when an illegal is “legitimately” on a payroll, they’re using someone else’s social security number. Sure, hackers stealing people’s identity is sexy for the news and all, but I would reckon (I doubt statistics exist) that illegal labor is one of the largest causes of identity theft. Happened to someone I know. One day you get a letter in the mail from the state government asking for taxes from a job in a city to which you’ve never been. These things can ruin people’s lives. Let’s have a bloodbath at the polls in November, and stop supporting businesses that we strongly suspect use illegal labor. Anything less and the blame lies with us.

  42. Dean says:

    Yes, we can get the illegals out of the country, and most of them would then return within a short time through legal means. I really believe that, given a chance at being a legal alien, a large majority of those who are here illegally would make the legal effort. The Feds should put together a program that says (approximately): 1. Every illegal alien in the US has 24 months from the start of the program to voluntarily contact our country’s immigration services and to inform it of their return to their home coutnry. If they do that and stay in their home country for no less than 24 months, they will be given expedited status when they apply to legally return to the US. At the time they are granted entry, they must pay a hefty fine for their illegal act or will not be allowed to return. 2. Should they choose to remain here illegally, if they are found by authorities during the 24 months, and have made no effort to voluntarily return to their home country, they will be immediately processed for deportation and sent back to their home country, where after 24 months they will be allowed to apply for legal immigration the same as anyone else from their country. If they gain entry status, they would have to pay an even heftier fine before they could again be allowed to enter the US. 3. If, after the 24 month program, illegal aliens are still found in the US (and they will be), they will be immediately deported and not be allowed to return to the US. Seeing as Mexico is the country where most illegals come from, the US should request that it make meaningful efforts to stem the tide and tell it that if it doesn’t make a real effort, the US will immediately decrease foreign aid and DEA funds that are sent to Mexico by a significant amount. And, by the way, we should request equal time to have our leaders speak to Mexico’s legislative body the way Calderon (the slug) spoke to ours. He is one who should never be invited or allowed to return to the US.

Speak Your Mind