In a few months President Obama will push legislation to legalize the nation’s 12 million illegal immigrants, according to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, who assures her boss’s jam-packed agenda won’t delay his campaign promise to the influential La Raza movement. 

By early next year the country’s immigration system will be overhauled, guarantees Napolitano, who is the president’s point person on the matter. The former Arizona governor dispelled suggestions that the administration is too busy with health care, Middle Eastern wars and other pressing issues to postpone enacting immigration legislation. 

Addressing a liberal policy group in Washington D.C., Napolitano said that legalizing illegal immigrants will enhance national security and protect American workers from unfair competition created by lower-paid, easily exploited illegal immigrants. “Let me emphasize this: we will never have fully effective law enforcement or national security as long as so many millions remain in the shadows,” Napolitano affirmed. 

Under the plan Congress will provide temporary worker programs and a path to citizenship for an estimated 12 million people currently living in the U.S. illegally. In return, the illegal aliens must take a number of steps such as pay back taxes and fines, learn English and pass criminal background checks. 

Unlike the legislation that Congress nixed in 2007, Napolitano says this one will pass because Obama has achieved border security and enforcement against employers hiring illegal immigrants. This may sound like a joke, but the Homeland Security chief is dead serious. “I know a major shift when I see one and what I have seen makes reform far more attainable this time around,” proclaimed a confident Napolitano.  

Leaked tidbits of the highly touted overhaul bill reveal that the measure is guaranteed to be “compassionate,” according to the lawmaker (Illinois Democrat Luis Gutierrez) drafting the House version. Besides the citizenship path for millions of undocumented immigrants, it includes strict rules for humane treatment of illegal aliens in U.S. prisons and a plan to adjust (increase) foreign visa quotas for American employers. 

Under the plan illegal immigrants will also get coveted discounted tuition at public colleges and universities nationwide and families will be allowed to remain together in the U.S. even when several members are in the country illegally. This opportunity to come out of the shadows will present the only practical and humane solution to the nation’s illegal immigration crisis, according to the legislators putting the final touches on the bill.

Referring to a congressman who stashed a $90,000 cash bribe in his freezer as a “cancer on the body politic,” a Virginia federal judge slapped the once-powerful Democrat with a 13-year prison sentence for accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes during his lengthy political career. 

Disgraced Louisiana Congressman William Jefferson, the first lawmaker charged with violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act while in office, received the longest prison sentence of any current or former member of Congress. In August a federal jury convicted him of nearly a dozen felonies, including bribery, fraud, money laundering and racketeering. 

After an eight-week trial the jury found that Jefferson, who represented New Orleans in the U.S. House of Representatives for nearly two decades, took hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes—and unlawfully used his office to seek millions more—to broker business deals in Africa. Prosecutors said he was involved in 11 separate bribery schemes during a five-year period alone. 

The lawmaker’s lengthy corruption scheme gained notoriety when the FBI, hot on his tracks for years, videotaped him accepting a $100,000 bribe in a leather briefcase at a hotel in Virginia. Authorities subsequently found $90,000 of the marked bills stashed in the freezer of Jefferson’s house, wrapped in foil and hidden in boxes of frozen pie crust. This earned him the nickname “Dollar Bill.” 

In a frantic effort to elude jail, Jefferson adopted various outlandish defense tactics that repeatedly got struck in court. First he played the race card by requesting his corruption trial be moved from the jurisdiction (Virginia) where he was caught taking the $100,000 bribe on video because there weren’t enough blacks for the jury pool.

Then he demanded the charges get dropped by claiming that the bribery indictment unconstitutionally infringed on his privileges as a congressman because grand jury testimony given by his staffers violated the Constitutional clause that protects legislative activity from intervention by other branches of government. Judicial Watch explains the Speech or Debate clause in an amicus brief involving the Jefferson case.  

In another desperate argument, Jefferson claimed his misdeeds were technically influence peddling and not bribery as federal prosecutors charged. Based on that laughable theory, federal bribery laws apply to a congressman only if a bribe is exchanged for official action like taking votes or sponsoring legislation.

Corruption is a Jefferson family affair. Five members of the once-prominent Jefferson family have been charged with federal crimes in the last few years and little sister Brenda Jefferson was the first to plead guilty last summer. William Jefferson’s conviction resolves the second case and three others are still pending. Applauding “Dollar Bill’s” sentence in an editorial, Jefferson’s hometown newspaper writes that his crimes reinforced the negative stereotypes about Louisiana as a bed of political corruption. 

The Senate Ethics Committee has cleared a Louisiana Democrat who steered a $2 million earmark to a company that had just donated tens of thousands of dollars to her campaign, marking the third time in the last few months that the panel dismisses a serious allegation against a member. 

It took nearly two years for the bipartisan U.S. Senate Select Committee on Ethics to absolve Senator Mary Landrieu for giving the Texas literacy firm the generous multi million-dollar federal allocation just four days after receiving $30,000 in campaign contributions from its executives and their relatives.

The earmark paid for a controversial children’s reading program called Voyager Expanded Learning in District of Columbia public schools. Senator Landrieu supposedly got involved because the literacy program had been successful in her Louisiana jurisdiction and she just wanted to help students who were performing below standard in D.C.

A government watchdog group filed the complaint after reading a news report detailing the unscrupulous earmark and it took the ethics committee 22 months to respond. It its decision this week, the panel claims that it “carefully evaluated” the allegations, considers the matter to be “resolved” and “intends no further action.” 

Senator Landrieu has long asserted that the complaint was “frivolous” and “wholly without merit.” She simply did it for the good of the children in a state located hundreds of miles from the one she has represented in Congress for more than a decade. Appalled that three out of four D.C. fourth graders could not read at the most basic national standard, she secured the funding to help them, claiming: “Here stood our nation’s capital setting the lowest of examples for the nation.”

Truly touching isn’t it? Like so many others before her, the veteran lawmaker benefitted from the ethic committee’s addiction to exonerating offenders. In the last few months alone, two other members—Chris Dodd and Kent Conrad—have been cleared in high-profile cases. Both Democrats accepted heavily discounted mortgages from a bank (Countrywide) that folded. The unethical perk, which they referred to as a courtesy similar to frequent flyer miles, saved them tens of thousands of dollars.  

A major U.S. county that has long offered illegal immigrants sanctuary and taxpayer-financed services formalized its policy this week by passing a law that prohibits public agencies and employees from asking a person’s immigration status. 

With a 5-4 vote, lawmakers in Washington’s King County approved the measure to officially make it an illegal immigrant sanctuary. The largely upscale Seattle-area county of about 2 million residents has long offered illegal aliens public services, including medical care at county-run clinics, and the sheriff’s department has a don’t-ask-don’t-tell immigration policy. 

But lawmakers wanted bona fide legislation in the county books to prevent future administrations from violating the unwritten sanctuary policy. The councilman (Larry Gossett) who sponsored the sanctuary law said it’s intended to discourage racial profiling and “ratchet down the fear level” when illegal immigrants seek public health services or deal with law enforcement officers. 

King County public clinics have offered illegal immigrants free medical care since 1992 and the county’s Public Health Director says “denying access to care because of citizenship status is not good medicine…” A councilwoman (Julia Patterson) who voted for the sanctuary law insists she does not condone illegal immigration but says she supported the measure because she’s in favor of “humane treatment and care” for the people in her community.

Hundreds of municipalities nationwide provide illegal immigrants with sanctuary and dozens have passed legislation to make it official. Among them are practically every city in California, New Haven Connecticut, Denver Colorado, Chicago Illinois, Cambridge Massachusetts, practically the entire state of New Jersey, Washington D.C. and all of Oregon, to name a few.

Judicial Watch has legally fought sanctuary policies nationwide, including Houston, Los Angeles, Chicago, the District of Columbia and Phoenix. Click here to read about Judicial Watch’s numerous investigations and court actions involving illegal immigration.

In what appears to be a growing trend among those who live in the U.S. illegally, another undocumented alien has sued an American law enforcement agency for violating her constitutional rights by arresting her.

Roxana Santos, an illegal immigrant from El Salvador, claims in a federal lawsuit that sheriff deputies in Maryland’s Frederick County unlawfully and unconstitutionally detained and interrogated her based solely on her race or ethnicity. By doing so the officers violated the Fourth and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution as well as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, according to the complaint. 

Santos was approached by deputies about a year ago as she sat on a curb behind a food co-op during a lunch break. When the officers asked for identification she initially said she had none but subsequently provided a Salvadoran national identification card which is not valid in the U.S. Deputies booked her and she was later transferred to a Maryland immigration detention center.

Santos was granted supervised release for “humanitarian purposes” and lives at an “undisclosed location in the United States” with her family. She seeks at least $1 million in damages and asserts that federal law does not allow state or local police to enforce immigration laws. The complaint also names the Frederick Board of County Commissioners and federal immigration officials as defendants. 

Less than a month ago a group of illegal immigrants in Connecticut sued the federal agents that arrested them, claiming their constitutional rights were violated in the raids that led to their apprehension. A judge had previously blocked their deportation, ruling that their constitutional rights were “egregiously violated” because immigration agents entered their apartments without a warrant, probable cause or consent. Now they stand to get money from the government. 

Just last week five Muslim illegal immigrants detained in New York after Middle Eastern terrorists attacked the area won $1.26 million from the U.S. government to settle a lawsuit accusing federal authorities of violating their rights. The illegal aliens were among 170 Arab and Muslim men jailed for immigration law violations in New York during post 9/11 roundups and most have been deported. 

A few years ago hundreds of illegal immigrants, represented by a nonprofit agency largely funded by American taxpayers, sued the U.S. government following a raid at a Massachusetts factory. The illegal aliens accused the government of acting in bad faith by moving them to Texas and denying them adequate access to lawyers.

The fraud-infested nonprofit whose public funding was recently slashed by Congress amid mounting corruption scandals is suing the U.S. government in an effort to reverse the legislation that cut the flow of federal dollars.

A renowned criminal enterprise, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) claims that banning it from receiving federal aid violates the U.S. Constitution because it unfairly singles the group out for punishment. The congressional resolution cutting its taxpayer funding constitutes legislation that illegally targets one group, according to ACORN’s 35-page lawsuit filed in a New York federal court this week.

ACORN claims in its complaint that it was punished by Congress “without an investigation” and has been forced to slash important programs that counsel struggling home owners and the unemployed. The group actually charges Congress with violating a provision of the constitution (known as Bill of Attainder) that punishes a specific group or individual without a trial or judicial hearing, violating the Fifth Amendment right to due process and infringing on the First Amendment right to freedom of association by targeting affiliated and allied organizations.

An illicit enterprise that has received tens of millions of tax dollars over the years, Chicago-based ACORN has offices across the nation and a documented history of embezzlement, fraud and cooking the books. The crooked community organization with close ties to President Obama has been criminally prosecuted for voter registration fraud in various elections and was recently exposed in a now world-famous video for advising prostitutes and pimps on how to skirt housing and taxing laws.

Incredibly, weeks after federal lawmakers cut ACORN’s public funding this year, the group received nearly $1 million in Homeland Security funds intended for fire departments. Outraged veteran fire officials pointed out that the radical leftwing organization has no background in fire prevention yet it got the hefty grant over more worthy agencies with reputable track records. 

The endless saga of ACORN scandals have been extensively probed by Judicial Watch, which continues tracking, documenting and publishing crucial information about the group’s widespread corruption and mounting legal problems. To follow Judicial Watch’s ongoing investigation of ACORN, including litigation and public records requests, click here.

After investing millions of dollars to enforce the nation’s toughest law against businesses that hire illegal immigrants, Arizona has not punished one employer and a chunk the money remains largely unspent by counties throughout the state.

When legislators passed the Legal Arizona Workers Act two years ago with great fanfare, they allocated the sufficient funds (about $5 million) to enforce it. After all, the state is estimated to have nearly half a million undocumented workers and the landmark law allows authorities to severely punish—even revoke the license—of businesses caught hiring illegal aliens.

But two years later no one has been prosecuted and at least $1.44 million sits idle because authorities in nine of the state’s 15 counties say there have been few complaints about employers violating the law. In Maricopa County, Arizona’s largest, none of the 22 businesses that have been caught hiring illegal aliens have been punished, even though more than 300 employees have been arrested for identity theft and using fake identification to work. 

Never the less, Maricopa County has spent nearly all of the $2.86 million provided under the sanction law to crack down on other crimes related to illegal immigration, such as identity theft and human smuggling. Some of the money went to the salaries of six sheriff deputies and a sergeant assigned to investigate employer sanction violations.

Some county prosecutors complain that the law is virtually impossible to enforce because it doesn’t give local authorities charged with pursuing violators civil subpoena power to examine personnel records that could prove illegal aliens were knowingly hired. Without it, authorities are forced to rely on the voluntary disclosure of crucial personnel records by the very businesses being investigated. Not surprisingly, all the accused have opted not to cooperate.

As a result dozens of investigations throughout the state have been shut because authorities can’t access crucial data that could prove wrongdoing. In Yavapai County for instance, crippled investigators have been forced to close 20 of their 23 probes into businesses that they say employ illegal immigrants.

The administration that directed Americans to report “fishy” speech opposing its policies and killed a federal decree banning the use of web technologies to invade privacy has ordered an internet news site to provide detailed information on its readers and keep the request secret.

Keeping with its big government motto, the Obama Administration subpoenaed records of reader visits to a Philadelphia-based news web site (Indymedia) and ordered the operators “not to disclose the existence of this request” unless authorized by the Justice Department. In other words, the Obama Administration secretly slapped a media outlet with a gag order to cover its unscrupulous actions. Perhaps the feds need a little refresher course on the First Amendment.

The subpoena demands the unique number assigned to every internet-connected device, known as Internet Protocol (IP), for all traffic to the news site on June 25, 2008. It also requests other identifying information including, addresses, birth dates, Social Security, bank account, credit card and driver’s license numbers. The feds claim they are conducting a criminal investigation which they have yet to disclose.

The request evidently came from the top since Justice Department guidelines specifically state that no subpoena may be issued to any member of the news media without the express authorization of the attorney general (in this case Eric Holder, who orchestrated the shameful pardons of a fugitive financier and a pair of jailed domestic terrorists for Bill Clinton). The guidelines also say that subpoenas to the media must be directed at material information regarding a “limited subject matter,” not the broad information that was requested. 

This case is one of several that indicate big brother is definitely watching. Just a few months ago, the president announced he’d reverse a 9-year-old federal policy forbidding the U.S. government from implementing methods on federal internet sites that threaten private data, track users’ every click and identify people and their viewing habits. Even the notoriously liberal American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) chastised the move, assuring it will pose serious threat to Americans’ personal information. 

Around the same time, Obama set up a highly controversial web account for Americans to report “fishy” speech from those who oppose his healthcare policies. The administration eventually got rid of the heavily promoted electronic tip box amid public outrage and questions from lawmakers and privacy groups about how the data would be used by the White House.