We know exactly the cause of our disastrous immigration crisis. It was us. We voters have only ourselves to blame.
Biden didn’t even try to deceive us on this one. In the 2020 presidential debates, he vowed “on day one” to reverse Trump’s immigration policies. He promised to provide free healthcare to illegal aliens.
Unlike many other campaign promises, he faithfully kept these. He also terminated the Remain in Mexico policy and ended the ban on travel from centers of terrorism. He loosened the rules for seeking asylum so that millions of healthy appearing military-aged males were able to claim, “I am afraid” and be admitted to the land of the free.
Most Americans didn’t think through the consequences of an open immigration policy. Now, the associated problems are beyond obvious. Yet many, particularly religious NGOs, see welcoming all immigrants as an act of decency and compassion which all people of goodwill should applaud.
Is importing tens of millions of persons without qualifications into America, with only the hope they will somehow engage and become productive and independent, really the way to build a better world? There are 8 billion humans on this planet. They obviously can’t all be brought here.
Immigration does not increase the world’s net wealth. It merely redistributes it. The winners are those who are willing and able to make the arduous trek here and defy our laws. The losers are those still in their country of origin and the rest of us.
But the real force driving the illegal immigration surge came from Democrats and the political left. There is no other way to interpret the events over the last three years other than as a brazen attempt to attract millions of future Democrat voters and permanently alter the character of the American polity. Long after the political winds began to blow against the administration’s policies, the Biden gang was willing to take one for the team and keep on going.
The question now is: will the grand scheme work? Signs are appearing that racial minorities might not be Democrat wards forever, like the perhaps apocryphal one who told Democrats, “We’ve been voting for you for 60 years and we’re still poor.” Democrat-led big cities, which is virtually all of them, are getting fed up with the squalor and budget pressures that have come with thousands of demanding “newcomers” appearing in the night, not to mention luxury hotels filling up. The immigration disaster is looming as a major—possibly the decisive—factor in the upcoming election.
Immigration advocates claim that immigrants are actually valuable additions to our society. They are correct that modern America was created by immigrants, without whose efforts we wouldn’t exist.
Yet there’s a world of difference between the Ellis Island immigrants who loved America and were eager to fulfill the requirements of citizenship, and the millions streaming in today. To paraphrase JFK, they seem to care little about what they can do for their new country, but only what it will do for them.
Even if unlimited immigration were a great policy that benefited both immigrants and their hosts, the timing is terrible for two reasons. First is the rapid advance of AI and other labor-saving technologies that will replace many of the low-scale jobs that, in the brightest scenario, the uneducated masses would fill. The question for labor economists has changed from who will pick the lettuce and staff the fast food chains to how we find employment for the laborers—now including the “newcomers”—whose jobs are disappearing.
The other, more serious, problem is that we live in an increasingly dangerous world. With the rise of Islamist jihadists and the growing belligerence of international communism and other mortal enemies, it is lunacy for America to maintain an essentially unmanned border.
The solutions at this point have narrowed. First, we need an administration that will turn off the spigot. But now we have 20 million non-Americans who, as they age, will increasingly demand their share of benefits, which are already imperiled due to lack of future funding.
Repatriation, the ultimate solution, is logistically and politically fraught. We will be a long time regretting this massive foolishness.
Dr. Thomas Patterson, former Chairman of the Goldwater Institute, is a retired emergency physician. He served as an Arizona State senator for 10 years in the 1990s, and as Majority Leader from 93-96. He is the author of Arizona’s original charter schools bill.
Border apprehensions continue to be high in southern Arizona.
Last week, the Chief Patrol Agent of the U.S. Border Patrol’s Tucson Sector, John R. Modlin, posted an update on the number of apprehensions of illegal aliens from his area of jurisdiction. Chief Modlin wrote that there were 7,500 encounters over the last week.
According to Modlin, there were also 23 human smuggling events and 6 significant arrests.
A local reporter noted that “apprehensions in the Tucson Sector remain steady in the first week with Biden’s executive order in effect.” There were over 7,400 encounters of illegal aliens in each of the previous two weeks.
In the first week at the border with Biden's EO in effect apprehensions in the Tucson Sector remain steady.
7,500 this week compared to 7,800 last week, and 7,400 the week before that.
Chief Modlin also shared a chart to compare year-over-year apprehensions in the sector, showing that the past three weeks have produced thousands more encounters than in Fiscal Year 2023.
Over the past year, Tucson has been at the top – if not the top – of the nation when it comes to apprehensions of illegal immigrants at the southern border each month.
These numbers do not factor in the ‘gotaways’ who escape detection from law enforcement on the ground. The ‘gotaways’ in the Tucson Sector are always estimated to be very high.
In addition to a large number of apprehensions and ‘gotaways,’ the Tucson Sector is home to one of the most active drug smuggling corridors in the nation, with international cartels able to send much of their illicit and deadly stashes north through Arizona and across the rest of the country.
The out-of-control and dangerous border crisis has forced Arizona legislative Republicans to find ways to take matters into their own hands to help secure and protect communities around the state. Earlier this month, the Arizona Legislature put the finishing touches on HCR 2060, the Secure the Border Act, to send the measure to state voters for the November General Election. If courts do not pause its inclusion on the ballot, Arizonans will have the opportunity to enact multiple border-related policies that will help local law enforcement to mitigate the negative effects of this crisis.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
Illegal immigration is the number one issue heading into November’s election, and Democrats have no one to thank but themselves. Over the past three years, the left has single-handedly created an open-border disaster under the neglectful policies of a Biden administration that has completely abandoned its constitutional duty to protect each state from invasion. As ground zero for the current border crisis, the people of Arizona know this all too well.
A surge in illegal immigrants in the Tucson Border Sector along with a dramatic rise in the number of “gotaways” has left our state on edge. Meanwhile, cartel violence has increased near southern Arizona communities, and we’ve even seen a report revealing that thousands of “special interest aliens” from mostly Middle Eastern countries have been apprehended while crossing the border illegally in the past two years. And that’s just barely scratching the surface of the catastrophe that has become our border.
You would think that the governor of a state facing a daily invasion would do something, but Katie Hobbs has proven time and time again that she would rather ignore the problem and hope it goes away. So, after Hobbs vetoed the Arizona Border Invasion Act (SB 1231), which would have significantly enhanced our state’s border security, Republican legislators decided it was time to allow voters to take matters into their own hands through the Secure the Border Act (HCR 2060). And the response from Democrats has been telling…
Arizonans will likely have the opportunity to bolster their state’s protections against illegal immigration in the November 2024 election.
This week, Senate President Warren Petersen announced that Arizona legislators would soon be passing HCR 2060, the Secure the Border Act. Arizona Senate Republicans will “adopt a strike everything amendment to HCR 2060,” giving them the legislative vehicle to consider and pass the ballot referral for the November General Election.
🚨FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Negligence of Katie Hobbs and Arizona Democrat Lawmakers Force Republicans to Send the 'Secure the Border Act' to November Ballot pic.twitter.com/v37S202YWW
“Arizona Democrats in power have shown us time after time, with every ‘no’ vote and veto of our border security legislation, that they are not concerned for the safety and well-being of our citizens, nor do they have any care for the wasted taxpayer dollars being used to mitigate the fallout from Biden’s border invasion,” said Senate President Warren Petersen. “Their priorities are tone deaf to the realities Arizonans are facing, and this will be confirmed when voters have the chance to take matters into their own hands this November. Republicans are committed to securing the border and returning sanity to our state after the chaos Democrats have willfully perpetuated with our current Governor leading the charge.”
According to Petersen’s press release, the ballot referral will be heard in committee this upcoming Wednesday, and it is expected on the Senate floor the following week.
The revelation of this push from Arizona legislators to send this referral to state voters comes almost two months after Governor Katie Hobbs vetoed SB 1231, the Arizona Border Invasion Act, which would have “ma[de] it unlawful for a person who is an alien (unlawful immigrant) to enter Arizona from a foreign nation at any location other than a lawful port of entry and outline[d] penalties for violations of illegally entering Arizona and provide[d] immunity from civil liability and indemnification for state and local government officials, employees and contractors who enforce this prohibition” – according to the purpose from the state Senate.
In her veto letter to Senate President Warren Petersen, Hobbs said, “This bill does not secure our border, will be harmful for communities and businesses in our state, and burdensome for law enforcement personnel and the state judicial system. Further, this bill presents significant constitutional concerns and would be certain to mire the State in costly and protracted litigation.”
Senator Janae Shamp, the sponsor of SB 1231, vowed that members of her party would continue to push forward solutions to combat the border crisis, saying, “The Republican-controlled Legislature will continue to prioritize closing our border and providing law enforcement with the tools they need. This veto is a slap in the face to them, Arizona’s victims of border-related crimes, and other citizens who will inevitably feel the wrath of this border invasion in one way, shape, or form at the hands of Hobbs and Biden.”
Earlier this spring, a group of legislative Republicans signed a letter to request that House Speaker Ben Toma and Senate President Warren Petersen “convene a special committee hearing, whereby Texas-style border security legislation can be promptly advanced and placed on the ballot.”
Democrats were quick to react to the latest news from President Petersen, signaling their adamant opposition to these efforts. Representative Nancy Gutierrez said, “They can feel the majority slipping away. Instead of working in a bipartisan manner, they choose to be petty and vindictive.”
They can feel the majority slipping away. Instead of working in a bipartisan manner, they choose to be petty and vindictive. https://t.co/7kzrVrxHZE
— Representative Nancy Gutierrez (@nancygforAZ) May 2, 2024
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
As a border state, Arizona has confronted the consequences of illegal immigration for decades. A not-often-discussed constitutional loophole is making this challenge perpetually harder to resolve.
Counting illegal aliens as citizens, as outlined in the 14th Amendment, leads to the over-allocation of seats to the dominant party in districts with large illegal populations. Democrats benefit from this, which may be why they don’t seem interested in solving the border crisis.
To analyze this, we can examine the districts where there is a high concentration of illegal immigrants and compare the number of registered voters in those districts to the ones where there are very few illegal immigrants. The districts with more illegal immigrants will likely have a significantly lower number of total voters compared to the ones with fewer illegal immigrants.
This is covered in detail in Howard Husock’s Citizenship and Congressional Districting in National Affairs-Fall 2023. He shows how congressional district voting totals vary widely for districts that are supposed to be equal, as in equal representation but aren’t.
In the 2022 Congressional Election, Jim Jordan’s Ohio 4th District had 290,156 votes, with 69.2% in his favor, while Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s New York 14th District had 118,062 votes, with 70.6% supporting her. Interestingly, Jordan’s district had 146% more votes cast than AOC’s, despite being equal in size. It’s interesting to note that Jordan’s district is 99.1% U.S. citizens, and AOC’s is only 76.4% U.S. citizens (source: Data USA).
How is this possible? Due to the drafting of both the U.S. Constitution and the 14th Amendment, the courts have determined that for the apportionment of the U.S. House of Representatives, we must count all the “persons” residing in a state. The drafters likely had no idea that their words would be used to give political power to individuals who are not citizens and, in many cases, are breaking the law by even being in the U.S. Nothing short of a constitutional amendment will solve this problem on a federal level.
What about the states?
Arizona may adopt counting resident U.S. citizens for apportioning districts for state offices. Most states count all persons for apportioning state legislatures, including illegal immigrants, which can significantly affect seat allocation. By counting only residents of the U.S., Arizona could have a more accurate representation.
In the 2022 Arizona State Senate election, Republicans won 17 out of 32 districts, while Democrats won 15. If the theory is correct, Democrat districts should average a significantly lower number of total votes than Republican districts because most illegal aliens tend to live in Democrat majority districts. They are counted in the census, even though they are not U.S. citizens, and therefore, they are counted for purposes of apportionment.
In fact, the differences in voting population have been proven. The Democrat-winning districts have an average number of voters of 54,310, with a range of 25,626-123,321 total voters. The Republican-winning districts have an average total number of voters of 91,260, with a range of 59,471 to 133,510 total voters. The overall average total number of voters in a state senate district is 78,123. The average Republican-won district’s total number of votes is 68% greater than the average Democrat-won district’s total number of votes. These figures are prima facie proof of the theory.
Two U.S. Supreme Court decisions are of particular interest to state reapportionment. In 2016, the court decided Evenwel v. Abbott,which found a state (Texas) could not be forced to use a method, in this case voter-eligible population, to apportion its state legislative seats. The court ruled that the total population of persons was an acceptable method as it is the same method used by the U.S. House of Representatives and certainly met the court’s one-person, one-vote standard articulated in Reynolds v. Simms (1964).
In the Evenwel case, the plaintiffs failed to prove that the state’s method of counting the total population of persons violated the one person, one vote principle. The court clarified that the total population of persons was not the only basis for apportionment. Justice Ginsburg’s opinion indicated that it may not be the only method the court would accept for state legislative apportionment. Justice Alito’s concurrence vehemently disagreed with the Solicitor General’s argument that state legislative districts must be equal in total population, even if it resulted in grossly unequal districts in the number of eligible voters, particularly because of the illegal alien concentration in certain parts of the state. Alito called it a meretricious argument, “apparently attractive but having in reality no value or integrity-according to Oxford Languages.”
In 1966, the Court decided in Burns v. Richardson that Hawaii’s apportionment based on registered voters was valid. The state used registered voters because of the large number of tourists and non-resident military members. The Court clarified that the equal protection clause doesn’t require using total population figures from the census. It suggested that in Hawaii’s case, the state-resident U.S. citizen population would be more appropriate. While the court allowed the use of registered voters, it indicated that state citizen population was the best method. The court also noted that the distribution of registered voters approximates the distribution of state citizens or another permissible population base.
Arizona may change its constitution to use the US resident population for apportionment in state offices. Other states should consider doing the same.
