At long last, Mexico is cracking down on those unscrupulous individuals who hop across the border intent on soaking up nanny-state benefits at taxpayer expense.  Fox news reports:

A Mexican border city has begun fining U.S. drivers who cross the border to fill extra drums, tanks or barrels with government-subsidized Mexican fuel.

The city of Ciudad Acuna, across the border from Del Rio, Texas, said Friday that it fined four U.S. residents for carrying extra diesel and would impound their cars until they pay. The fines equal 70 percent of the value of the diesel confiscated.

U.S. drivers can fill up their own vehicles, but carrying extra fuel containers back across the border violates customs regulations and possibly safety rules, a report from the city said.

Mexico, one of the world’s top 10 oil producers, sells diesel fuel domestically at subsidized prices of about $2.25 per gallon, about half the U.S. price.

What, did you think I was talking about Mexicans coming into America?  No doubt similar fines on illegals soaking up benefits in America would constitute a human rights violation.

What Mexico needs is comprehensive diesel reform.  We need to get these diesel-moochers out of the shadows, not intimidate them by enforcing fines and seizures and whatnot.  We must realize that we are not two separate nations, but one interconnected macro-economy, and thus this is not just their subsidized diesel, but the subsidized diesel of all North Americans.  Furthermore, these diesel-moochers, who are the real victims here, should be issued Mexican driver’s licenses, to ease the transition into Mexican society for their brief jaunts south of the border.  They’re just looking for a better life, and to fill the gas tanks that Mexicans won’t.

Just in case we needed yet more evidence that illegal aliens will exit in droves if we remove their incentive to continue breaking the law:

According to Mexican consulate officials in Dallas, some 400 immigrant families have told them so far this year that they’re going back to Mexico and asked for transfer documents to enroll their children in Mexican schools.

Enrique Hubbard Urrea, Mexican consul general in Dallas, said it is impossible to track every Mexican who leaves the area. But he said the number asking for transfer documents at the consulate is on the rise.

In 2005, the consulate issued 162 such documents; in 2006 it was 199; and last year it was 270. At the current rate, more than twice as many people will leave this year as last, he said.

“There is no doubt the trend indicates that the number is growing,” Mr. Hubbard said.

And it isn’t happening only in Dallas. At the Mexican consulates in Chicago and Phoenix, too, the number of Mexican families applying for transfer documents for their children has increased.

So far in 2008, more people (752) have visited the Mexican consulate in Phoenix to apply for transfer documents than the total for 2006 (248) and 2007 (330) combined, according to officials there.

According to informal surveys by the Mexican consulate in Dallas, most of those wanting to return to Mexico cite the sudden scarcity of jobs, fear of deportation and uncertainty about obtaining legal resident status any time soon.

This is not the first time we’ve noted this behavior at the Compendium. The argument that “we can’t possibly round up and deport all the illegals” as a justification for supporting amnesty has always been a straw-man for just this reason.

We don’t need to round them up and deport them, we merely need to remove their access to jobs and social benefits that provide the incentive to migrate here illegally in the first place.

In today’s culture everyone is victim. It doesn’t matter how responsible one is for getting themselves into a situation, the fault always lies elsewhere. The following WaPo article pulls out all the stops in trying to get readers to sympathize with the criminals (illegal aliens) instead of law enforcement.

Antonio Escobedo ran to get his wife Monday when he saw a helicopter circling overhead and immigration agents approaching the meatpacking plant where they both work. The couple hid for hours inside the plant before obtaining refuge in the pews and hall at St. Bridget’s Catholic Church, where hundreds of other Guatemalan and Mexican families gathered, hoping to avoid arrest.

What a terrible plight for this family man who, if this opening is anything to go by, is guilty of nothing more than trying to work in a country run by a bunch of fascists!

“I like my job. I like my work. I like it here in Iowa,” said Escobedo, 38, an illegal immigrant from Yescas, Mexico, who has raised his three children for 11 years in Postville. “Are they mad because I’m working?”

Yes, that’s exactly why they’re mad. Don’t ask me why they don’t arrest all those millions of people working while legally in the country, though. I’m sure that’s just coincidence.

Monday’s raid on the Agriprocessors plant, in which 389 immigrants were arrested and many held at a cattle exhibit hall, was the Bush administration’s largest crackdown on illegal workers at a single site. It has upended this tree-lined community, which calls itself “Hometown to the World.” Half of the school system’s 600 students were absent Tuesday, including 90 percent of Hispanic children, because their parents were arrested or in hiding.

Cry me a river.

Current and former officials of the Department of Homeland Security say its raid on the largest employer in northeast Iowa reflects the administration’s decision to put pressure on companies with large numbers of illegal immigrant workers, particularly in the meat industry. But its disruptive impact on the nation’s largest supplier of kosher beef and on the surrounding community has provoked renewed criticism that the administration is disproportionately targeting workers instead of employers, and that the resulting turmoil is worse than the underlying crimes.

“They don’t go after employers. They don’t put CEOs in jail,” complained the Postville Community Schools superintendent, David Strudthoff, 51, who said the sudden incarceration of more than 10 percent of the town’s population of 2,300 “is like a natural disaster — only this one is manmade.”

He added, “In the end, it is the greater population that will suffer and the workforce that will be held accountable.”

“Disproportionate” is a favorite cry of liberals when they want to try and evoke the issue of fairness in situations where it is entirely irrelevant. Criminals do not get to cry that it’s not fair that they got caught while other criminals did not. Yes, the administration should go harder after businesses that knowingly hire illegals, but those cases, due to the necessity of proving what they knew about their employees, are much more difficult to build than those against individuals illegals, whose very presence in the country is all the evidence necessary. That not enough effort is being put into going after these businesses is not a reason to sympathize with the criminal behavior of illegal aliens, as the author of this article so desperately wants the reader to conclude.

Disappointed by Fred’s Iowa showing, my initial analysis following the Hawkeye cauci about his chances to win the nomination was rather pessimistic. Well, that’s an understatement. I gave him no chance. I still am pessimistic about his odds, but after watching the ABC New Hampshire debate I now see a path for him back to competitiveness.

It’s not yet clear whether Romney or McCain will come out ahead in New Hampshire, but it is all but certain that Huckabee will not have a strong showing. With a split in the early primary winners, no candidate will have control of the race heading into the next big momentum shifting state: South Carolina. The Thomspon campaign has made it clear they are targeting South Carolina and hope ride a “southern strategy” to the nomination.

In the ABC New Hampshire debate, Thompson dogged Guiliani on the issue of immigration (see video), asserting that if illegals receive any reward for their law-breaking is amnesty. Thompson’s lawyerly background is on evidence here as he first lays out a clear definition of amnesty for all to understand, and then proceeds to hold Rudy’s feet to the fire by repeatedly questioning if his plan would allow illegals to remain in the U.S.

Every single major candidate but Thompson has a weak record on immigration. South Carolinians rank immigration has their number one issue. If I’m Fred Thompson I’m saying one thing between now and January 19th: Immigration, immigration, immigration. If his campaign is on the ball they’ll continue to lay the groundwork on that issue in tonight’s Fox debate.

Chalk another one up for common sense.

Illegal immigrants packing up and leaving Arizona

Illegal immigrants in Arizona, frustrated with a flagging economy and tough new legislation cracking down on their employers, are returning to their home countries or trying their luck in other states.

For months, immigrants have taken a wait-and-see attitude toward the state’s new employer-sanctions law, which takes effect January 1. The voter-approved legislation is an attempt to lessen the economic incentive for illegal immigrants in Arizona, the busiest crossing point along the U.S.-Mexico border.

And by all appearances, it’s starting to work.

“People are calling me telling me about their friend, their cousin, their neighbors — they’re moving back to Mexico,” said Magdalena Schwartz, an immigrant-rights activist and pastor at a Mesa church. “They don’t want to live in fear, in terror.”

Yes, what a “terror” it must be to have to follow the legal process to enter a new country. Oh the humanity. This just goes to show, once again, that incentives matter. Remove the benefits of being here illegally and they will stop being here illegally. This was never rocket science. But it’s good to see yet another blatant straw man - that the only way to remove illegals is to deport them all - shot down by empirical evidence. And to think, the law hasn’t even gone into effect yet!

So we all know by now that one of the favorite tactics of the left, when they can’t get their way, is to accuse everyone else of being racists. This strategy has been used heavily over the many immigration debates. Irving, Texas, which has dared to enforce immigration laws, is now seeing just this sort of dishonest intimidation campaign being waged against its law enforcement officials.

Irving, TX Criminal Immigrant Program Called Racist - Corruption Chronicles

A Texas city?s program to get rid of criminal immigrants has led to more than 1,600 deportations and furious Latino rights advocates will rally at City Hall this weekend to block further implementation because they say the measure is racist and discriminatory.

Irving?s Criminal Alien Program simply checks the immigration status of anyone arrested within city limits. Those found to be in the country illegally are turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement and eventually deported for violating federal immigration laws.

…Now illegal immigration advocates, who initially supported the effective program, are playing the race card. They claim that police officers are bigots who racially profile suspects and that all immigrants?legal and illegal alike?now live in fear.

So a program that targets all criminals for immigration status checks is racist. Logic is wasted on these people. One thing is clear though, if this program has them this upset it must be working. Every city should adopt this common sense strategy.

Last year the City Council of Irving, Texas unanimously approved implementation of the Criminal Alien Program which allows for constant communication between local law enforcement and federal authorities to deport illegal aliens suspected of a crime. Since then, the city has turned over for deportation at least 1,600 illegals accused of crimes - crimes in addition to breaking immigration law, of course.

[Mayor] Gears said he believes Irving turns over more illegal immigrants for deportation than any other city in the country. And he estimates the number at about 300 people a month ? from 23 countries, including Mexico and El Salvador.

The No. 1 offense that people are arrested for is driving with a suspended license, he said.

Mr. Gears, however, opposes using a federal program called “287g” that trains local officers and jailers to act as immigration officers.

“Why do we have to turn our officers over to the federal government?” he asked.

In testimony to the effectiveness of such enforcement measures, the Mexican consulate has urged it’s citizens to avoid Irving like a nuclear disaster zone.

“In this city, one has to be extra careful,” he told Al D?a. “And if possible, avoid going through there, because we suspect, and with good reason, that people are being detained simply because of their appearance.”

Actually, people are being detained first because they were committing a crime, such as driving with a suspended license, and then because further investigation exposed their immigration violations. Their appearance has nothing to do with it, and any perceived racial disparities are solely a consequence of almost all illegal immigrants in this country being hispanic. But hey, if race-baiting sleight of hand works for the Jena 6, why can’t it work for the millions of criminal aliens in this country?

Should Mexican citizens heed the consulate’s advice, no doubt the citizens of Irving will reap the dividends of having extricated themselves of the burden of a class parasitic invaders there to suck on the lifeblood of the community. Makes you wonder. If every city in America took a similar approach toward illegal immigration, maybe the consulate would suggest that the illegals avoid our country altogether.

As with every issue, the solution to the illegal immigration problem is too simple for Washington to figure out. Cut off their welfare benefits, employment opportunities and actually enforce the laws, and you don’t even have to deport them. They’ll go away on their own.

Continuing in their efforts to erode U.S. sovereignty, a number of leftists groups is suing the government for “discrimination” against illegal aliens. From Corruption Chronicles:

Under the new measure, which was announced by the Department of Homeland Security earlier this month, companies that hire undocumented workers will be heavily fined and criminally prosecuted. Businesses that ignore warning letters about employees suspected of having fake Social Security numbers will also be fined and face criminal prosecution.

But a lawsuit filed against the Department of Homeland Security this week contends that the new rules are discriminatory and will lead to mass firings of legal workers. Even United States citizens will face discrimination if they look or sound foreign, according to the suit.

Filed in a San Francisco federal court this week, the 17-page complaint also names the Social Security Administration as a defendant because it says letters informing businesses of discrepancies between employee records and the agency?s database would violate worker?s rights and impose burdensome obligations on employers.

This suit is absurd on its face. How can the government discriminate against those looking or sounding foreign when they are not looking or listening to the individuals before issuing the letters? This is typical leftist scare-mongering and demagoguery. These groups cannot stand the thought of respecting immigration laws and national sovereignty, and they’ll pull out every dirty trick they can to protect this criminal enterprise.

Coming as little surprise to those of us perpetually baffled by the government’s disregard for enforcing its own immigration rules, The Washington Times reports that federal, state and local governments are among the biggest employers of those using ‘non-work’ Social Security numbers. These numbers are issued to aliens who are not authorized to work in the U.S. but who are allowed to succor from our welfare teat (see here for more on that).

If President Bush is serious about getting tough on U.S. employers who hire illegal aliens, he can start with his own administration, which employs thousands of unauthorized workers, says the top Republican on the House immigration subcommittee.

A 2006 audit showed federal, state and local governments are among the biggest employers of the half-million persons in the U.S. illegally using “non-work” Social Security numbers ? numbers issued legally, but with specific instructions that the holders are not authorized to work in the U.S.

. . .According to the 2006 audit by the Social Security inspector general, 17 of the 100 worst employers using employees with non-work numbers were government agencies: seven federal agencies, seven state agencies and three local governments. That means the government knows who those employees are, but usually does not go after them.

If the government can’t even follow it’s own simple rules by not giving work to those it has issued no work social security numbers to, how can we believe it is being thorough in keeping terrorists and jihadists out of our country? In fact, I’d say the odds are pretty good some of these terrorists are currently government employees.

More on the issue from the Compenium File: Border Security & Immigration

From Corruption Chronicles:

A program designed to measure the illegal immigration crisis in Texas has been halted because Mexican rights advocates say state troopers are committing racial profiling and violating the law by asking suspects about immigration status.

For the last two years the Texas Department of Public Safety has tracked state troopers? encounters with illegal immigrants because, like other states that share a border with Mexico, it has been severely impacted by illegal aliens.

The valuable information has been gathered by state troopers during stops. Officers would simply document the number of stops that involved illegal immigrants, the number of them released with no action, the number released to immigration officials and the number jailed. Nearly 50,000 illegal immigrants were encountered during the two years.

But the program was abruptly halted because outraged Mexican rights advocates accused the state of gathering the information illegally and racial profiling. They say there should be a clear division between federal and state agencies when it comes to immigration law enforcement and that local departments should only enforce criminal activities.

Pro-illegal immigration advocates love to argue that local and state police shouldn’t deal with immigration, but they never articulate just why that should be the case. There seems to be no principle of government they are basing this opinion on. Why then do they insist that it must be so? The answer is: their argument is entirely political. They do not want illegal immigration to be stopped, and they know the federal government has proven disinterested in the task and, in the rare occasions they deign to act, entirely incompetent. This self-serving declaration should be recognized, and thus dismissed, for the poison pill that it is.

This program served an important role of providing information for both policy makers and the public. The opposition arguments to these programs are inherently dishonest. They do not care about racism, because everyone knows that hasn’t anything to do with it. They simply don’t want people to know just how blatantly our laws are being flaunted. They want the public too ignorant to know that they should be demanding action.

Now if we just ban the words “illegal immigration,” the trifecta will be complete