An anonymous Washington attorney writes:

Kansas is one of eight states that have enacted legislation guaranteeing illegal aliens who reside in the state the same reduced-rate college tuition as legal state residents. Out-of-state students, even if they are native-born citizens or legal immigrants, pay much more.

This politically correct Kansas legislation happens to be blatantly illegal. A federal immigration statute, on the books since 1996 provides:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an alien who is not lawfully present in the United States shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a State . . . for any postsecondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit (in no less an amount, duration, and scope) without regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident.

Impressed by the blinding clarity of this federal law, and no doubt grateful that their Congress deemed them worthy of rights at least equal to those of illegal aliens, a handful of US citizens who attend Kansas state colleges from out of state (and some of their tuition-impaired parents) sued the Governor of Kansas in the local US District Court, demanding that either the law be overturned or they be given the same reduced-rate tuition as the illegals.

On July 5 US District Judge Richard Rogers ruled that the citizen students had no enforceable rights in the matter. Plagiarizing the story line of Catch 22, Judge Rogers held that the citizen students had no “standing” to overturn the Kansas law because Kansas’s generosity towards illegal aliens did not injure the out-of-state students and no “right of action” to demand equal treatment because the federal law was aimed at denying benefits to illegals, not conferring benefits on citizens!

Adding insult to injury, the court ruled that the Kansas League of United Latin American Citizens and the Hispanic American Leadership Organization did have standing to intervene in the case against the citizen students!

The US citizen students did of course learn a lesson about the value of citizenship in politically correct America.

The President this morning speaking of the “War on Terror” to an audience at the FBI Academy in Quantico Virginia:

“To protect the American people, we continue to take extraordinary measures to defend the homeland. We created a new Department of Homeland Security. We’re posting Homeland Security personnel at foreign ports and strengthening airport and seaport security. We’re instituting better visa screening for those entering the United States.

We’re working to prevent potential terrorists from coming across our borders and violating our immigration laws…”

I am an American citizen who does not depend on the MSM for my view of the world, and someone who has been to the Arizona- Mexico border twice in the last year.

This is nonsense at best.

Illegal immigration has increased since 9/11.

I am personally acquainted with many families who have lost loved ones to illegal aliens since then.

Border Patrol Agents tell a very different story than the Chief Executive.

Bush today:

“Our enemy is constantly studying our defenses and adapting its own tactics, so we must constantly strengthen our

capabilities.”

The enemy is constantly studying our defenses. And we must certainly strengthen our capabilities.

When I say it, I envision actually having a secure border and enforcing our immigration and employment laws.

When Bush says it, he means that he will not do any of those things because it may cost corporate North America a couple of points on the quarterly report…but is sure sounds good in a speech.

President Bush is in violation of his oath of office. Where is the MSM on this?

President Bush is as much at fault for any future terrorist attack on the America he swore to protect and defend as Osama Bin Laden.

To North America Inc. of which Bush is the current head errand boy, the deaths of Americans that occur as result of our intentionally un-secured borders are merely a part of the price of doing business.

Why does this not represent sufficient ” high crimes and misdemeanors?”

Hispanics continue shouldering aside US born – Peter Brimelow

Twice in the past few weeks, at summer gatherings here in the Connecticut Berkshires, I have heard apolitical neighbors sadly reporting that their high-school and college-age children have been unable to find seasonal work. Peter Gadiel precisely identified this as an illegal immigrant effect here recently – it has been a concern of Joe Guzzardi’s for some time.

So receiving Ed Rubenstein’s latest comment on the employment data was poignant:

Hispanics garnered 45,000, or 28 percent, of the 163,000 jobs created in June - this according to the Household Survey. In percentage terms their monthly job growth was more than twice that of non-Hispanics - 0.24 percent versus 0.10 percent… Since the start of the Bush Administration in January 2001 Hispanic employment has risen by 2.51 million, or by 15.6 percent, while non-Hispanics gained 1.36 million positions, a 1.1 percent increase. The ratio of Hispanic to non-Hispanic employment indexes, which we call VDAWDI, rose to a record 114.3 in June from 114.1 in May.

Ed supplies a chart.

Slowly, recognition of the impact of immigration on the employment data, first publicized by Ed Rubenstein on VDARE.com, is starting to appear in conventional channels. U.S. jobless rate dips to 9/11 levels Contra Costa Times -By George Avalos July 9 2005
[access requires free registration] reports

The government’s closely scrutinized payroll survey in June showed far less job growth than the less-watched household survey — a trend that’s been under way for about two years… Why does this job chasm persist? The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics is failing to properly gauge jobs being obtained by illegal immigrants and self-employed individuals, or being created through small companies and startups

Mark Vitner, senior economist, Wachovia Securities is quoted saying:

“We are not counting jobs held by undocumented workers nearly as well as we did in the 1990s …In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, many immigrants went underground following roundups of illegal immigrants at airports and other sensitive places. A lot of work has gone underground. In a lot of cases, these immigrants have formed their own companies…”

(Many businesses started by immigrants are employment brokerages or “Gangmasters” of course. And the way they grab so much of the employment pie is by undercutting wages.)

Vitner is probably inaccurate as to the history of this development – the Bush Administration’s abandonment of employer enforcement has probably been far more influential. But he is right about the economic effect, and is a brave man for mentioning it. Congratulate him.