Carolina Politics Online

Take immigration, for example. S.C. lawmakers have proposed an anti-illegal-immigration bill modeled after a new Arizona law, which national Democrats have roundly criticized. Sheheen said a South Carolina law approved in 2008 is a better law because it sets tougher standards for verifying employee residency and provides local law enforcement the ability to enforce immigration law.

“Ours is frankly tougher,” Sheheen said. “We need to fully implement the law that we passed and that’s not been done.”

The State

I honestly have no idea how our law stacks up against Arizona, but Sheheen is definitely correct about it not being funded nor enforced.  The Republicans passed this two years ago and Governor Sanford signed it and here we are with little of it being enacted.  What’s the point of passing legislation to crackdown on illegal immigration in the state if the legislature isn’t going to allocate funds to carry it out?  Was the state assembly seriously trying to address the issue or was it just window dressing to garner fervor with the voters?

Sheheen was less definitive about his position on the health care reform law, saying he supported parts of the law that prevented insurers from eliminating coverage for those who get sick or denying it to those who have previously had major illnesses. Sheheen also supported extending coverage to dependents until the age of 25.

While on the surface that may sound like a great thing, it’s those two provisions that have already begun driving up health insurance costs for everybody else.  And the extended coverage for “children” up to age 26 is bull.  If you’re dependent on your parents at 26 years old then you’re a total loser.  A 26 year old is not a kid and should be well adapted to taking care of himself.

But independent analysts have said the law will likely increase health care costs, and the S.C. Department of Health and Human Services estimates state costs would increase by $914 million by 2020 — a 4.4 percent increase over what the state would have spent if the new law were not approved.

“I’m seriously concerned about those. I think it’s the governor’s job to voice those concerns to federal officials,” Sheheen said, adding it was unclear to him how the law would affect the growth of Medicaid, the tax-funded health insurance program for low-income residents and the disabled.

“Time will tell how we handle these” questions, he said.

Yeah well, right now we can’t afford it.  Sooner or later Sheheen is going to have to be more clear about where he stands on ObamaCare, more so, where does he stand on the unconstitutional mandate?  This is going to be a huge issue in this fall’s election all across the country and skepticism as to where Sheheen comes down on this issue will hurt his chances.

On abortion, Sheheen, a Roman Catholic, said his position is clear.

“I have always supported life and my voting record has supported that,” he said.

So we know that both he and Haley oppose abortion.  That matters why?  Until Roe v Wade gets overturned, if it ever does, there is nothing Vincent Sheheen nor Nikki Haley can do to stop people from getting abortions in South Carolina so why is this even an issue in this election?

With Congress gridlocked on an immigration bill, the Obama administration is considering using a back door to stop deporting many illegal immigrants – what a draft government memo said could be “a non-legislative version of amnesty.”

The memo, addressed to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Director Alejandro Mayorkas and written by four agency staffers, lists tools it says the administration has to “reduce the threat of removal” for many illegal immigrants who have run afoul of immigration authorities.

“In the absence of comprehensive immigration reform, USCIS can extend benefits and/or protections to many individuals and groups by issuing new guidance and regulations, exercising discretion with regard to parole-in-place, deferred action and the issuance of Notices to Appear,” the staffers wrote in the memo, which was obtained by Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican.

The memo suggests that in-depth discussions have occurred on how to keep many illegal immigrants in the country, which would be at least a temporary alternative to the proposals Democrats in Congress have made to legalize illegal immigrants.

The Washington Times

I don’t take the idea of impeachment lightly, but if the Obama administration actually gives the nod on something like this then I consider that grounds for it.  As president he swore an oath to uphold the nation’s laws and he has a duty to the security of the nation.  Something like this clearly violates Federal laws in place to deal with illegal aliens and it puts American citizens at risk.

Oh and here is a shot of the protests in Phoenix two days ago with the Mexican flag waving around.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) announced Wednesday night that he is considering introducing a constitutional amendment that would change existing law to no longer grant citizenship to the children of immigrants born in the United States.

Currently, the 14th Amendment grants citizenship to any child born in the United States.

But with 12 million illegal immigrants living in the U.S., Graham said it may be time to restrict the ability of immigrants to have children who become citizens just because they are born in the country.

“I may introduce a constitutional amendment that changes the rules if you have a child here,” Graham said during an interview with Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren. “Birthright citizenship I think is a mistake … We should change our Constitution and say if you come here illegally and you have a child, that child’s automatically not a citizen.”

Asked how intent Graham is on introducing the amendment, the South Carolina Republican responded: “I got to.”

“People come here to have babies,” he said. “They come here to drop a child. It’s called “drop and leave.” To have a child in America, they cross the border, they go to the emergency room, have a child, and that child’s automatically an American citizen. That shouldn’t be the case. That attracts people here for all the wrong reasons.”

Read more: Politico

I am very open to this idea.  Illegal immigration has simply become too much of a problem and it’s getting out of hand.  Illegals are coming here and abusing our laws by taking advantage of loopholes such as anchor babies.  They come here and have their child, their child becomes a citizen, and then they collect social services for the child, get them free public education, etc. all paid for by everyone but them.

Citizenship should be determined upon having at least one of your parents being an American citizen.  That would resolve the anchor baby issue.

Predictably, two amendments of Senator DeMint’s voted on in the U.S. Senate yesterday were rejected.  One would have barred the Obama administration’s ability to sue the State of Arizona over their illegal immigration crackdown law and the other would have permanently repealed the Estate Tax.

The illegal immigration amendment was defeated 55 to 43.  It would have barred funding for the Federal government to prosecute the law.  Democrat Kay Hagan voted against the amendment, while Republicans Lindsey Graham and Richard Burr, along with DeMint, voted for it.  A few Democrats from other states crossed over to support DeMint’s efforts, but not nearly enough and that was expected.  The left has been particularly outspoken against Arizona’s efforts to protect their state from the harm caused by mass illegal immigration.

Permanent repeal of the Estate Tax was nothing but a pipe dream and only 39 Senators voted in favor of it, about what I would expect.

The repeal movement has lost some steam in recent years as former enthusiasts in the business community have sought compromise with the Democratic majority on a plan that would lower the tax, not eliminate it.

But a core of groups representing small businesses and conservatives continue to push repeal, arguing that the tax is an unfair government intrusion and that it serves as a disincentive for individuals to build family businesses.

“What right does a government have to take someone’s property because they die?” DeMint said on the Senate floor.

NASDAQ

Great question, huh?  That is the one that has always rankled me.  Why is the government entitled to anybody’s property simply because they die?  It’s absurd.  The property should stay in the family where it rightfully belongs.  Family business owners and family farms get clobbered by this.  Just because one’s estate is valued at a few million dollars does not mean they are millionaires bathing in golden bathtub of 100 dollar bills.  Pieces of farm equipment can cost a few hundred grand alone and that is all added into the value of the estate.  It’s not uncommon for the children of a family farmer to have to sell off the farm in order to pay the inheritance taxes on the estate.

The Estate Tax is nothing more than another weapon used in the Marxist tactic of class warfare.  It was established by politicians seething with envy, jealousy, and greed.

SUMMERVILLE — Councilman Walter Bailey said he wants to make a statement about the federal government’s lack of action on illegal immigration.

“I don’t think the federal government is doing enough to secure the border,” he said.

Bailey, who said illegal immigrants are taking jobs from legal residents, is proposing an ordinance that would bar anyone in Summerville from housing or hiring illegal immigrants.

The proposal, which will be up for an initial vote Wednesday at a Town Council meeting, lists grievances against illegal immigrants that include crime, taking jobs and creating a drain on town resources.

Councilwoman Kima Garten-Schmidt supported the proposal Monday at a Finance Committee meeting, but Councilman Aaron Brown opposed it.

Brown questioned the need for such a town ordinance and wondered about the potential burden of enforcing it.

“I think we could create a problem for ourselves,” he said.

The Post and Courier

We’re going to see a lot more of this in the wake of the Arizona law and the frustration that has been brewing for several years now over the Federal government’s lack of action in enforcing immigration laws.  I’m not sure if any ordinance Summerville passes will be able to stand up in court, however.

If you are someone who follows national politics closely, you may have heard of Lou Barletta.  He is the mayor of Hazleton, Pennsylvania and currently a candidate for Congress.  Barletta gained political fame (or notoriety, depending on how you look at it) for signing a city law that made it illegal to rent housing to illegal aliens within the city limits back in 2006.  The law was struck down the following year by a federal judge who declared the law was unconstitutional as it was pre-empted  by federal law.  I imagine a similar challenge will hit Summerville if they follow through with their  proposal.

Of course, they may already know this and this might be just be a ploy to bring further attention to the problem.  I guess we’ll see how it plays out.

The Obama administration has put itself in an awkward position that the reporter exposed. The whole basis of the Federal government’s lawsuit is that only they have the authority to enforce immigration law. However, as the reporter notes, sanctuary cities have been publicly breaking the law and even flaunting it and yet the Feds aren’t going after them. Illegal immigration is costing our country approximately $113 billion a year.

Lawmakers in Oklahoma, South Carolina and Utah, which have already taken steps against illegal immigration, say that Arizona-style measures have a realistic chance of passing when their legislatures reconvene in 2011.

The Obama administration sued Arizona in federal court Tuesday, charging that the state law usurps federal authority, would hamper immigration enforcement and would lead to police harassment of those who have no proof of lawful status. The government asked that a federal judge stop the law from taking effect July 29.

Legislators in at least 17 other states introduced bills this year similar to the Arizona law, which allows officers to question anyone they suspect of being in the country illegally. But most of those measures are not considered likely to be adopted or signed by governors.

The political climate in Oklahoma, South Carolina and Utah, however, improves the chances that state legislatures there could follow Arizona’s lead in 2011.

The Washington Post

An Arizona style bill was introduced in the South Carolina State House a few months ago, but there has really been no movement on it.  I imagine the decision as to whether or not to pursue it in the next legislative session will lie with the decision the courts make regarding Arizona’s law.  If it’s upheld, which Arizona’s governor seems fairly confident about, it won’t just be South Carolina implementing such laws, but a few dozen states all over the country.

In her letter to Napolitano, Rep. Sue Myrick, R-N.C., called on Homeland Security to find out and report more on the extent of the problem. She cited several troubling developments that would point to Hezbollah creeping closer to and inside the United States, with the help of Mexican drug gangs.

“It is vital we know what is happening on our border, especially as crime and violence continue to rise there and as terrorist plots and threats are increasing inside the U.S.,” she wrote.

Myrick outlined a complex set of potential threats and evidence of their existence. She said “Iranian agents and members of Hezbollah” are thought to be learning Spanish in Hugo Chavez-run Venezuela before trying to obtain false documents to enter the United States as purported Mexicans. She said Hezbollah, known for its tunnel-digging skill, could be receiving drug money from cartel operations in exchange for help forging better tunnels across the U.S. border for trafficking.

She said gang members in prisons in the American southwest are starting to show up with tattoos in Farsi, implying a “Persian influence that can likely be traced back to Iran and its proxy army, Hezbollah.”

Fox News

This is the most important reason why our southern border needs to be secured and this is something that many people following 9-11  have speculated could happen.  With as porous as the southern border is, how hard would it be for a terrorist group to sneak across with a bomb or some other kind of weapon and smuggle it into one of the U.S.’s cities?  Hundreds if not thousands of people run across that border every single day.

This is a clear and present danger and it just flies in the face of logic that the Congress and this administration are just sitting on their hands for political reasons.  We don’t need a comprehensive immigration reform bill passed in order to secure our border.  That is part of the Constitutional duty of both the President and the Congress.  Their game of political football may cost us the lives of innocent Americans.

DURHAM — City Council members voted 6-1 Monday night to suspend any city-funded travel by Durham officials to Arizona, reserving the right to approve exceptions proposed by their top aides.

The vote came in protest of recent moves by Arizona’s government to crack down on illegal immigrants, and answered a request from Durham’s Human Relations Commission.

The vote Monday, though, came on a compromise resolution sponsored by Mayor Bill Bell.

Bell’s draft left open the possibility that council members might OK trips suggested by City Manager Tom Bonfield, City Attorney Patrick Baker or City Clerk Ann Gray.

It also embraced language submitted by Councilman Eugene Brown that called on federal officials to get on with a comprehensive reform of U.S. immigration laws.

It should, members agreed, simultaneously tighten border controls, establish “a path to earned legalization, citizenship and social integration” for immigrants already here and help other countries secure the economic development they need to “reduce the flow of immigrants in the first place.”

Bell said he thought the travel limits would have little effect on city operations or on Arizona’s economy.

The Herald-Sun

Which is exactly what I was thinking as I was reading through this.  How much business does the City of Durham, North Carolina actually do with the State of Arizona?  I’m guessing, not a whole lot.  Yeah, I’ll bet the State of Arizona is just throwing a temper tantrum over this.

On a serious note, I understand some of the concerns people have with Arizona’s crackdown on illegal immigrants, but people around this country like the city council in Durham and the city council in Los Angeles instituting these so-called  boycotts really need to grow up.  Arizona has a serious problem with illegal immigration and nobody in Durham, North Carolina can possibly relate to the issues they are dealing with.  If the Federal government had done its job, Arizona wouldn’t have been pushed into doing this.  They ought to take a lesson from Atticus Finch.  “You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view – until you climb into his skin and walk around in it.”

U.S. Rep. Gresham Barrett, who faces state Rep. Nikki Haley in a runoff June 22 for the GOP nomination, said he believes South Carolina needs to be tough on illegal immigration.

“The Obama administration has failed to enforce our federal immigration laws, and as governor, Gresham Barrett will stand up for South Carolina’s Tenth Amendment rights,” Barrett’s campaign spokeswoman Erin Ingraham said in a statement. “Gresham will ensure the laws already on the books will be stringently enforced — and will also push to pass an Arizona-style immigration plan right here at home.”

Haley said the state needs to take action but officials must be practical.

“Laws are only as good as our ability to enforce them,” she said in a statement. “In order to enforce illegal immigration reform in this state, we have to fund the prosecution of the laws we passed and give Reggie Lloyd and his staff the resources they need.

“Governing effectively is all about prioritizing how we spend taxpayer dollars and making sure that the laws we pass are actually working for the people of this state — right now, that’s not happening, but as the reform movement that’s sweeping South Carolina continues to grow, it will.”

The Democrats’ nominee, state Sen. Vincent Sheheen, said the solution to illegal immigration issues goes hand in hand with enforcing the law that bars employers from using illegal labor, said Trav Robertson, Sheheen’s campaign spokesman.

“When companies and businesses really understand that there are penalties for hiring illegal immigrants, then we can help eliminate that problem,” Robertson said.

The Post and Courier

All three candidates seem to have the right ideas on handling illegal immigration, since the Feds refuse to do their job.  I’m not entirely opposed to Barrett’s idea of an Arizona type law here in South Carolina, however, I do worry about the potential of abuse by law enforcement with such a law.  Once Arizona’s law goes into effect we can get a better idea of how problematic that may or may not be.

Haley is correct too.  Laws don’t matter worth squat if the resources don’t exist to enforce them.  The question remains then, where are we going to get the funding to enforce a major crack down on illegals?  State services have been cut out of the budget left and right for the past two years since the recession started.

Vincent Sheheen actually has the most practical solution and one that I’ve advocated over and over.  If illegal immigrants can’t work, guess what?  They’ll leave.  That’s really what it comes down to.  If the state makes it incredibly painful for a business owner to get caught knowingly employing illegal immigrants then they’ll stop hiring them and the illegals will leave and either go back to where they came from or head up to North Carolina.

If Lindsey Graham were up for reelection to the U.S. Senate this year, he’d be riding down a rocky road. According to the poll taken by Public Policy Polling, Graham would be in line to follow the same fate as his colleagues, Senators Bob Bennett (R-UT) and Arlen Specter (D-PA) who were both defeated in their state’s primaries within the past month. Only 40% of likely Republican primary voters in South Carolina approve of Graham’s job performance, while 45% disapprove. 64% of conservative Republicans and 18% of moderates think Graham is too liberal.

Gee, can’t imagine why. Maybe it’s his unabashed support of Cap and Fraud and his dedication to amnesty for illegal immigrants? The only real mystery here is where in the hell all of these disenfranchised Republicans were two years ago when Graham was actually up for reelection.

For a state that has been harshly demonized over the past month for stepping up where the Feds have miserably failed, Arizona sure has become the shining beacon on the top of the hill for other states that have been struggling with illegal immigrants.  North Carolina is now one of 20 states joining the fray where legislation has been introduced requiring resident aliens to carry proof of citizenship on them.

Senator Don East, a Surry Republican, introduced his resolution, S1349, this week to consider legislation that requires immigrants carry identification that proves they’re in the country legally. Twelve Republican senators, including Senator Bob Rucho of Matthews and Austin M. Allran of Hickory, have signed on to co-sponsor the resolution.

Charlotte Observer

The state is about to step up its efforts to purge South Carolina’s workforce of illegal immigrants by scouring the files of small businesses for evidence of undocumented workers.

On July 1, state officials will begin auditing 110,000 companies with fewer than 100 employees to make sure they are complying with South Carolina’s Illegal Immigration Reform Act, which lawmakers passed in 2008 to weed illegal aliens from the workplace.

The initial push will focus on industries that tend to employ foreign workers, such as landscaping companies, farms, restaurants, hotels, construction firms and golf courses. But other businesses will be under the microscope as well, state officials said.

The Post and Courier

It’s a shame that we need to waste our state resources performing a function that the Federal government is responsible for, yet refuses to do.  In the wake of the Arizona law, however, I think we are going to be seeing a lot more of this from states around the country.

I figured the Arizona law would set off a domino effect in other states and I also speculated that South Carolina wouldn’t be too far behind.  I win my bets.  A group of State House Republicans introduced H.4919 on Thursday that would allow local law enforcement to enforce immigration laws.  From the bill:

Section 23-3-1300.        (A)    Notwithstanding another provision of law, when a lawful contact is made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this State or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, municipality, or other political subdivision of this State when reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt must be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation. If the person is arrested for an alleged violation of state or local law or the officer has probable cause to believe the person to be arrested has committed an offense which makes the person removable from the United States, the law enforcement officer may arrest the person without a warrant, and the law enforcement officer or agency shall determine the person’s immigration status before the person is released from custody. The person’s immigration status must be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 U.S.C. Section 1373(c). A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, municipality, or other political subdivision of this State may not solely consider race, color, or national origin in implementing the requirements of this section except to the extent permitted by the United States or South Carolina Constitution. A person is presumed not to be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States if the person provides to the law enforcement officer or agency any of the following:

(1)    a valid South Carolina driver’s license;

(2)    a valid South Carolina identification card;

(3)    a valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification; or

(4)    if the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance, any valid United States federal, state, or local government issued identification.

That’s the main teeth of it.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, the sole Republican who was working on a bill to legalize illegal immigrants, in effect put the bill on the shelf on Tuesday, saying a debate now would destroy any prospects for passage and saying the issue needs to wait until 2012.

The remarks likely signal the end of any serious chance for broad immigration legislation to pass this year, since Mr. Graham, South Carolina Republican, was the best hope for a partnership with President Obama and Democrats who want to write a bill.

“It is impossible for me and any other serious Democrat to get this body to move forward until we prove to the American people we can secure our borders,” Mr. Graham told Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, who was testifying at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.

“I believe we can do it by 2012 if we’re smart,” he said.

The Washington Times

Oh, I don’t think Lindsey’s handlers at the White House are going to go for that.  The Big O is plenty peeved with Arizona’s new illegal immigration law and he wants something done immediately.  The Democrats only need one Republican to cross over and support cloture for a bill and Maine Republican Olympia Snowe is usually good for that.

Bear in mind that Graham hasn’t changed his position on amnesty either.  He is still for allowing these 12 to 20 million illegals to become American citizens, just not this year.  If this does push off until 2012 that will make one hell of a presidential election cycle.

Sen. Lindsey Graham’s (R-S.C.) decision to walk away from Senate talks on climate change and energy legislation – at least for now – has prompted the measure’s remaining architects to scuttle Monday’s planned unveiling of the bill.

Graham is upset over Democratic plans to take up immigration legislation this year – he accuses Democratic leaders of pushing forward immigration “haphazardly” and calls it an election-year political gambit.

Kerry praised Graham’s work on the climate effort and expressed hope that he would rejoin the initiative “once the politics of immigration are resolved,” but vowed to press ahead one way or the other.

The Hill

Graham is such a fraud.  Who does he think he is fooling?  He has as much of a hard on for giving away citizenship to millions of illegal immigrant lawbreakers as he does for destroying our nation’s economy with Cap and Trade.  Are we really supposed to believe he is going to walk away from Tax and Fraud just because the White House wants to try and jam amnesty through as a knee jerk reaction to Arizona’s new law cracking down on illegals?  Graham has bought the whole junk climate science hook, line, and sinker and he’ll be right there with his nose up John Kerry’s behind when they’re ready to push forward with it.  That’s after he surrenders our nation to the Mexican invasion, of course.

There was agreement that greater enforcement of state and federal laws would help solve the problem, but Bauer also blamed welfare. Workers, he suggested, are content to sit at home rather than fill jobs taken by illegal immigrants, typically in agriculture, construction or service.

“The real problem is the work force,” Bauer said, speaking of a state with 12.2 percent unemployment, the sixth-highest jobless rate in the country. “The problem is we have a give-away system that is so strong that people would rather sit home and do nothing than do these jobs. Laziness is not a disability. There are a lot of people that are flat-out lazy and they are using up the goods and services in this state.”

The State

Bauer is correct.  We hear all the time from supporters of illegal immigration that we need them here because they do jobs that Americans won’t do.  Well, that’s partially true, but the reason for that is because the welfare state subsidizes Americans to not do that kind of work.  I assure you if we were to suddenly pull the plug on Medicaid, Section 8 housing, and food stamps, those lettuce picking jobs would fill up real quick by Americans.

That is only half the problem, though.  The other reason illegal immigration is so rampant in our country is because of a demand for cheap labor.  A lot of farmers and other factory owners love having illegals do this work because they can pay them under the table and ignore OSHA laws.  If Americans on welfare suddenly had to fill those jobs they’d have to be paid a market wage and job safety and other state and Federal statutes would need enforced, adding to the bottom line.  This is why I have said repeatedly that the way to fix the illegal immigration problem is to go after the employers and show them no mercy.

One other thing to note.  The State article that I quoted reported on several topics discussed in last night’s debate.  Why then did John O’Connor choose to title the article “Bauer takes aim at the ‘Lazy’ in S.C.” when that was only one of several issues mentioned in the article?  Don’t you just love that “unbiased” reporting from the media?

Good news for pie sellers and tomato vendors in Chapel Hill…

Oh brother….

The “gay-baiting” begins at 6:20. Gheen comes out with this “revelation” the Lindsey Graham is homosexual. Of course, Gheen is a bit late to the game. That rumor has bounced around Washington and South Carolina political circles for a long time because naturally any man over the age of 40 who has never been married must surely be gay, right?

So two things come to mind. One, if Graham is gay, who gives a damn? I know, dumb question. We’re in the Bible Belt. The second thing is that for argument’s sake say Graham is gay, what the hell does that half to do with his support for illegal immigration? Well Gheen has jumped feet first into the endless ocean of what are Washington conspiracy theories and has concluded that Graham’s support for granting amnesty to illegal immigrants is due to his secret homosexual lifestyle being held over his head. It’s blackmail by President Obama and Janet Napolitano and any other bogeyman or woman you can conjure up.

Now, I think Mr. Gheen makes some very good points in regards to why we should oppose this resurrected push for amnesty, but he relegates himself to “kookdome” and World Nut Daily lunacy when he makes unsubstantiated allegations like this. Furthermore, in making these comments at the Greenville tea party he fuels the leftist media’s fire that the tea party movement is full of bigoted hateful neanderthals.

So William Gheen would be wise to heed Bane Windlow’s words of wisdom, those being, “Dude, for the love of Versace, shut the hell up.”

I don’t like to quote crazies like Glenn Beck, but this is one of those instances in which I want to wrap my head in duct tape so it doesn’t explode.

Yes, we’re talking about the mecca of moonbat asshattery known as Asheville.

As he works to bar city employees from participating in the enforcement of federal immigration law, Asheville City Councilman Cecil Bothwell has repeatedly said the proposal would improve public safety.

“I think the basic thing is if immigrant people trust the local police, they report crimes. It’s building trust,” Bothwell said.

Though that’s really a matter of opinion, a 2009 report issued by The Police Foundation, a national nonprofit, supports Bothwell’s assertion.

Local participation in immigration enforcement “exacerbates fear in communities already distrustful of police,” the report found.

The foundation surveyed 237 law enforcement professionals nationwide. More than 70 percent said immigrants in their communities were less likely to contact law enforcement when they were victims of or witnesses to crime.

Asheville Citizen-Times

And you know what?  I don’t doubt that’s true.  I’m sure it is.  It sounds quite logical, but where is the proof or the numbers to show the trade off of illegal aliens reporting crimes is greater than not deporting them when they are identified and allowing them to stay in the city?  Bothwell doesn’t have a quantitative argument; he has an emotional one and a misguided one at that.  But you see, I do have numbers.

Almost 300 illegal immigrants were arrested throughout North Carolina in 2007 on the charge of DWI and those are the ones who were caught.  The actual number of those indulging themselves in that favorite past time is obviously higher.  Hispanics accounted for 18 percent of DWI arrests even though they only made up 7% of the population.  They were also 2.5 times more likely than whites and three times more likely than blacks to be drunk when in a car accident.

So when Asheville Councilman Cecil Bothwell infers that the people of Asheville would be a safer place if they moved closer to being a sanctuary city, who is he referring to?  Will it be safer for the legal residents or safer for Pedro to careen down I-240 at 100 miles per hour chugging his bottle of Jose Cuervo?