Saturday, February 26, 2011

Illegal Immigration Truths



How some Americans view the world.
Illegal Immigration Truths

This long player thread contains articles on the issue of 'Illegal Immigration.'

1) Immigration Editorial

A lady wrote the best letter in the Editorials in ages!! It explains things better than all the baloney you hear on TV.

Recently large demonstrations have taken place across the country protesting the fact that Congress is finally addressing the issue of illegal immigration. Certain people are angry that the US might protect its own borders, might make it harder to sneak into this country and, once here, to stay indefinitely. Let me see if I correctly understand the thinking behind these protests.

Let's say I break into your house. Let's say that when you discover me in your house, you insist that I leave. But I say, "I've made all the beds and washed the dishes and did the laundry and swept the floors; I've done all the things you don't like to do. I'm hard-working and honest (except for when I broke into your house).

According to the protesters, not only must you let me stay, you must add me to your family's insurance plan, educate my kids, and provide other benefits to me and to my family (my husband will do your yard work because he too is hard-working and honest, except for that breaking in part). If you try to call the police or force me out, I will call my friends who will picket your house carrying signs that proclaim my right to be there.

It's only fair, after all, because you have a nicer house than I do, and I'm just trying to better myself. I'm hard-working and honest, um, except for well, you know.

And what a deal it is for me!! I live in your house, contributing only a fraction of the cost of my keep, and there is nothing you can do about it without being accused of selfishness, prejudice and being an anti-housebreaker. Oh yeah, and I want you to learn my language so you can communicate with me.

Why can't people see how ridiculous this is?! Only in America.
__________________________________________________
2) Illegal Immigrants in Mexico

The following is from a director with SW BELL in Mexico City.

I spent five years working in Mexico.

I worked under a tourist visa for three months and could legally renew it for three more months. After that you were working illegally. I was technically illegal for three weeks waiting on the FM3 approval.

During that six months our Mexican and US Attorneys were working to secure a permanent work visa called a FM3. It was in addition to my US passport that I had to show each time I entered and left the country. Barbara's was the same except hers did not permit her to work.

To apply for the FM3 I needed to submit the following notarized originals (not copies) of my:

1. Birth certificates for Barbara and me.

2. Marriage certificate.

3. High school transcripts and proof of graduation.

4. College transcripts for every college I attended and proof of graduation.

5. Two letters of recommendation from supervisors I had worked for at least one year.

6. A letter from The ST. Louis Chief of Police indicating I had no arrest record in the US and no outstanding warrants and was "a citizen in good standing."

7. Finally; I had to write a letter about myself that clearly stated why there was no Mexican citizen with my skills and why my skills were important to Mexico. We called it our "I am the greatest person on earth" letter. It was fun to write.

All of the above were in English that had to be translated into Spanish and be certified as legal translations and our signatures notarized. It produced a folder about 1.5 inches thick with English on the left side and Spanish on the right.

Once they were completed Barbara and I spent about five hours accompanied by a Mexican attorney touring Mexican government office locations and being photographed and fingerprinted at least three times. At each location (and we remember at least four locations) we were instructed on Mexican tax, labor, housing, and criminal law and that we were required to obey their laws or face the consequences. We could not protest any of the government's actions or we would be committing a felony. We paid out four thousand dollars in fees and bribes to complete the process. When this was done we could legally bring in our household goods that were held by US customs in Loredo Texas. This meant we rented furniture in Mexico while awaiting our goods. There were extensive fees involved here that the company paid.

We could not buy a home and were required to rent at very high rates and under contract and compliance with Mexican law.

We were required to get a Mexican drivers license. This was an amazing process. The company arranged for the licensing agency to come to our headquarters location with their photography and finger print equipment and the laminating machine. We showed our US license, were photographed and fingerprinted again and issued the license instantly after paying out a six dollar fee. We did not take a written or driving test and never received instructions on the rules of the road. Our only instruction was never give a policeman your license if stopped and asked. We were instructed to hold it against the inside window away from his grasp. If he got his hands on it you would have to pay ransom to get it back.

We then had to pay and file Mexican income tax annually using the number of our FM3 as our ID number. The companies Mexican accountants did this for us and we just signed what they prepared. I was about twenty legal size pages annually.

The FM 3 was good for three years and renewable for two more after paying more fees.

Leaving the country meant turning in the FM# and certifying we were leaving no debts behind and no outstanding legal affairs (warrants, tickets or liens) before our household goods were released to customs.

It was a real adventure and if any of our senators or congressmen went through it once they would have a different attitude toward Mexico.

The Mexican Government uses its vast military and police forces to keep its citizens intimidated and compliant. They never protest at their White House or government offices but do protest daily in front of the United States Embassy. The US embassy looks like a strongly reinforced fortress and during most protests the Mexican Military surround the block with their men standing shoulder to shoulder in full riot gear to protect the Embassy. These protests are never shown on US or Mexican TV. There is a large public park across the street where they do their protesting. Anything can cause a protest such as proposed law changes in California or Texas.

Please feel free to share this with everyone who thinks we are being hard on illegal immigrants.
__________________________________________________
3) LET ME SEE IF I GOT THIS RIGHT!

IF YOU CROSS THE NORTH KOREAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET 12 YEARS HARD LABOR.

IF YOU CROSS THE IRANIAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU ARE DETAINED INDEFINITELY.

IF YOU CROSS THE AFGHAN BORDER ILLEGALLY, YOU GET SHOT.

IF YOU CROSS THE SAUDI ARABIAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE JAILED.

IF YOU CROSS THE CHINESE BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU MAY NEVER BE HEARD FROM AGAIN.

IF YOU CROSS THE VENEZUELAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE BRANDED A SPY AND YOUR FATE WILL BE SEALED.

IF YOU CROSS THE CUBAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE THROWN INTO POLITICAL PRISON TO ROT.

IF YOU CROSS THE U.S. BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET

1 - A JOB,
2 - A DRIVERS LICENSE,
3 - SOCIAL SECURITY CARD,
4 - WELFARE,
5 - FOOD STAMPS,
6 - CREDIT CARDS,
7 - SUBSIDIZED RENT OR A LOAN TO BUY A HOUSE,
8 - FREE EDUCATION,
9 - FREE HEALTH CARE,
10 - A LOBBYIST IN WASHINGTON
11 - BILLIONS OF DOLLARS WORTH OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS PRINTED IN YOUR LANGUAGE
12 - AND THE RIGHT TO CARRY YOUR COUNTRY'S FLAG WHILE YOU PROTEST THAT YOU DON'T GET ENOUGH RESPECT.

I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I HAD A FIRM GRASP ON THE SITUATION.
__________________________________________
4) Of Flags and Cinco de Mayo
Joseph C. Phillips
Monday, May 10, 2010

Last week, Americans of all nationalities celebrated Cinco de Mayo; some, like me, acknowledged the day by partaking of margaritas and carne asada.

Others, like the Mexican students at Live Oak high school in Northern California, observe the day by wearing the Mexican colors of red, white, and green. In a gesture meant to display American pride, five Live Oak students--Daniel Galli, Austin Carvalho, Matt Dariano, Dominic Maciel, and Clayton Howard--decided to wear American flag t-shirts and bandannas. After receiving complaints from some Mexican students, Assistant Principal Miguel Rodriguez asked the boys to turn their shirts inside out. The boys refused, were threatened with suspension, and were asked to leave the campus.

I am old enough to recall a time when wearing the American flag on a piece of clothing was seen as disrespectful to Americans. Even images of the flag worn as fashion were viewed as a vulgar desecration of a cherished symbol. But times have changed.

Over the years, attitudes have not only relaxed, but they have completed a 180 degree turn. The flag has become an oft-used element in fashion design, and wearing the flag is now considered a display of patriotism. An image burned into my memory is one of the actress Halle Berry wearing a form-fitting gown comprised of small American flags. Disrespectful or not, if that image doesn’t make you stand up and salute, nothing will.

Yes, times have certainly changed. I doubt that anyone ever imagined a time in this country when American children would be criticized for wearing the American flag not because it offended traditional American sensitivities, but because it was seen as disrespectful to Mexicans.

Principal Rodriguez said that the request was made in an effort to prevent fights from breaking out. What remains unclear is why wearing an American flag on one’s shirt would provoke violence--even amongst testosterone-filled teen boys. Daniel Galli and his buddies were minding their own business. If it is the opinion of the principal that just the sight of an American flag on Cinco de Mayo will produce conniption fits among Mexican children, it seems clear to me that he does not have a very high opinion of the Latino students that attend the school.

If it is an educator’s job to promote critical thinking among his students then the administrators at Live Oak failed miserably. Here was a “teaching moment;” here was a real opportunity for Rodriguez and Principal Nick Boden to provide a lesson in patience, priorities, and the true meaning of tolerance. But multi-culturalism has turned people into thin skinned grievance junkies—babies that cry at every cross-look or unkind word and must be coddled lest they toss themselves on the floor and begin kicking and screaming. So, rather than suggest to the aggrieved students that they ignore the red, white, and blue t-shirts, enjoy their day, and get back to class, Rodriguez and Boden indulged the multi-cultural temper tantrum, which ironically, played into the worst stereotypes of Mexican people. "You had better take those shirts off. You know these Mexicans; they will pull their knives at the drop of a hat!"

The following day some 200 Mexican students walked out of class in protest. As they marched down the street waving the Mexican flag they demanded the boys’ suspension. And once again, rather than demand maturity from the Mexican students, the protest was greeted by the district superintendent with promises to hold a rap-session, where the students would be encouraged to express their feelings. I would like to suggest that rather than encouraging cross-cultural understanding, the school district should instead encourage a cross-cultural Algebra tutoring session. Given that Live Oak is underperforming the state average on both the California Standards test and the California High School Exit Exam, such an endeavor seems far more necessary and certainly more practical.

Responding to the ongoing drama at Live Oak, a young Latina declared that wearing the American flag on Cinco de Mayo was akin to Mexicans wearing the Mexican flag on the Fourth of July. The essential point that this young woman misses is that should she be strolling the streets of Mexico City on July Fourth her donning of the Mexican flag would indeed not raise many eyebrows. We are, as it happens, not in the country of Mexico; rather we reside in the United States of America.

The sight of the American flag in America—even on Cinco de Mayo—should not be a source of offense to Americans of Mexican descent, but pride, providing of course that one sees him or herself as an American first. And here is the point that this young woman, the school administrators and a handful of sympathizers seem forever not to grasp. Americans do not want to be an extension of Mexico! Indeed many of us have had a peek south of the border and do not like what we see. The political culture and the values that support it hold little interest for those proud of our flag and “the republic for which it stands.”

Among many Americans, there is a growing sense that immigrants to this country have no interest in becoming Americans. Illegal immigrants are largely seen as people who disrespect our laws, our language, and our traditions. More significantly, they are viewed as taking advantage of everything this nation has to offer and yet refusing to assimilate into our American culture. The political class says that these fears are unfounded, and the elite label such thoughts as bigoted. And yet we are treated to stories like this one, wherein American children are sent home from school for wearing an image of the American flag. Should we believe the political elites? Or our lying eyes?
_______________________________________________
5) How Mexico Treats Illegal Aliens
Michelle Malkin
Wednesday, April 28, 2010

Mexican President Felipe Calderon has accused Arizona of opening the door "to intolerance, hate, discrimination and abuse in law enforcement." But Arizona has nothing on Mexico when it comes to cracking down on illegal aliens. While open-borders activists decry new enforcement measures signed into law in "Nazi-zona" last week, they remain deaf, dumb or willfully blind to the unapologetically restrictionist policies of our neighbors to the south.

The Arizona law bans sanctuary cities that refuse to enforce immigration laws, stiffens penalties against illegal alien day laborers and their employers, makes it a misdemeanor for immigrants to fail to complete and carry an alien registration document, and allows the police to arrest immigrants unable to show documents proving they are in the U.S. legally. If those rules constitute the racist, fascist, xenophobic, inhumane regime that the National Council of La Raza, Al Sharpton, Catholic bishops and their grievance-mongering followers claim, then what about these regulations and restrictions imposed on foreigners?

-- The Mexican government will bar foreigners if they upset "the equilibrium of the national demographics." How's that for racial and ethnic profiling?

-- If outsiders do not enhance the country's "economic or national interests" or are "not found to be physically or mentally healthy," they are not welcome. Neither are those who show "contempt against national sovereignty or security." They must not be economic burdens on society and must have clean criminal histories. Those seeking to obtain Mexican citizenship must show a birth certificate, provide a bank statement proving economic independence, pass an exam and prove they can provide their own health care.

-- Illegal entry into the country is equivalent to a felony punishable by two years' imprisonment. Document fraud is subject to fine and imprisonment; so is alien marriage fraud. Evading deportation is a serious crime; illegal re-entry after deportation is punishable by ten years' imprisonment. Foreigners may be kicked out of the country without due process and the endless bites at the litigation apple that illegal aliens are afforded in our country (see, for example, President Obama's illegal alien aunt -- a fugitive from deportation for eight years who is awaiting a second decision on her previously rejected asylum claim).

-- Law enforcement officials at all levels -- by national mandate -- must cooperate to enforce immigration laws, including illegal alien arrests and deportations. The Mexican military is also required to assist in immigration enforcement operations. Native-born Mexicans are empowered to make citizens' arrests of illegal aliens and turn them in to authorities.

-- Ready to show your papers? Mexico's National Catalog of Foreigners tracks all outside tourists and foreign nationals. A National Population Registry tracks and verifies the identity of every member of the population, who must carry a citizens' identity card. Visitors who do not possess proper documents and identification are subject to arrest as illegal aliens.

All of these provisions are enshrined in Mexico's Ley General de Población (General Law of the Population) and were spotlighted in a 2006 research paper published by the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Security Policy. There's been no public clamor for "comprehensive immigration reform" in Mexico, however, because pro-illegal alien speech by outsiders is prohibited.

Consider: Open-borders protesters marched freely at the Capitol building in Arizona, comparing GOP Gov. Jan Brewer to Hitler, waving Mexican flags, advocating that demonstrators "Smash the State," and holding signs that proclaimed "No human is illegal" and "We have rights."

But under the Mexican constitution, such political speech by foreigners is banned. Noncitizens cannot "in any way participate in the political affairs of the country." In fact, a plethora of Mexican statutes enacted by its congress limit the participation of foreign nationals and companies in everything from investment, education, mining and civil aviation to electric energy and firearms. Foreigners have severely limited private property and employment rights (if any).

As for abuse, the Mexican government is notorious for its abuse of Central American illegal aliens who attempt to violate Mexico's southern border. The Red Cross has protested rampant Mexican police corruption, intimidation and bribery schemes targeting illegal aliens there for years. Mexico didn't respond by granting mass amnesty to illegal aliens, as it is demanding that we do. It clamped down on its borders even further. In late 2008, the Mexican government launched an aggressive deportation plan to curtain illegal Cuban immigration and human trafficking through Cancun.

Meanwhile, Mexican consular offices in the United States have coordinated with left-wing social justice groups and the Catholic Church leadership to demand a moratorium on all deportations and a freeze on all employment raids across America.

Mexico is doing the job Arizona is now doing -- a job the U.S. government has failed miserably to do: putting its people first. Here's the proper rejoinder to all the hysterical demagogues in Mexico (and their sympathizers here on American soil) now calling for boycotts and invoking Jim Crow laws, apartheid and the Holocaust because Arizona has taken its sovereignty into its own hands:

Hipócritas.
_______________________________________________
6) Protecting Our American Identity
Diana West
Thursday, May 20, 2010

Excellent news: Most Americans approve of Arizona's new immigration law. And by wide margins. According to Pew, the overall number is 59 percent. The New York Times poll came in at 60 percent. According to the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, that overall number is higher still: 64 percent. These solid majorities show stirrings of a surprisingly resilient national survival instinct.

I say "surprisingly" because that instinct -- in some cases perhaps no more than a reflexive urge to hold the line -- has been subjected to decades of steady, acidic corrosion in the "politically correct" re-education camps we know as our nation's school systems. There, we all learn (or are all taught, anyway) that borders are "divisive" and immigration laws are "discriminatory." In other words, it's either "We are the world" or you are a racist. The moral blackmail that begins in kindergarten doesn't stop.

But if we think past it for a minute -- a quiet, reflective minute, away from our minders -- the logical notion that borders necessarily divide (nations), and immigration laws necessarily discriminate (between citizen and non-citizen) is still likely to coalesce. And that's excellent news. Who knows? With Arizona as our shining state in a desert, the electorate might even come to realize that without borders and without immigration laws, there is no nation and there is no citizenship, and that we had better beef up both -- and fast.

No wonder our transnational elites and rowdy, open-border agitators are so unnerved by what's going on in Arizona. And they make a lot of noise telling us so. In fact, when I sat down to write the week's column, I falsely assumed Arizona was getting hammered from all sides. After all, headlines scream, municipalities in Northern California (the usual - Berkeley, Oakland, San Francisco), Boston, Seattle and Austin have voted to boycott Arizona businesses. Los Angeles, too (which prompted an Arizona energy official to offer, tartly, to help turn off the lights in L.A., which buys 25 percent of its power from the state). Rumors of sports boycotts float. Assistant Secretary of State Michael Posner even complained about Arizona on the subject of human rights to totalitarian China, for Pete's sake.

Still, Arizona is really only getting it from one side. (As noted in the Pew poll, even a strong majority of Democrats favor essential provisions of the Arizona law, with almost half supporting the law itself.) The anti-Arizona side, however, is the one with mainstream media access and Washington political clout. It's the same side that almost reached critical mass under George W. Bush, with his "comprehensive immigration reform" -- shamnesty - plan, and it hasn't leveled off under Barack Obama, now gunning for similar legislation.

"In the 21st century, we are defined not by our borders, but by our bonds," said the President of North America, I mean, the United States, in an appearance with Mexican president Felipe Calderon this week. We want "a border that will unite us instead of dividing us," Calderon said in turn. This was somewhat less imperialistic than Calderon's 2007 line, "Where there is a Mexican there is Mexico," but the gist is clear. Neither president wants a border, both want amnesty for millions of mainly Mexican illegal aliens, and Arizona makes them mad.

That's because nothing could be worse for such "citizens of the world" than Arizona's immigration law -- except, maybe, Arizona's other restorative new law, which, to further the principle that "public school pupils should be taught to treat and value each other as individuals and not be taught to resent or hate other races or classes of people," now prohibits courses, for example, that "promote resentment toward a race or class of people," or "advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals." (It will be almost amusing to watch Leftists slam a law against teaching racial resentment and hatred as "racist.") The fact is, the Arizona legislature is onto the multicultural masquerade -- the non-Western grievance industry pretending to be "education." The party's over.

It all fits, really. The state that wants to protect American identity to ensure that all of its citizens, regardless of race or origin, have one. Call it the Spirit of Arizona. And let's hope it's catching.
_____________________________________________
7) An U.N.-Conscionable Act
Ed Feulner
Tue, Sep, 21, 2010

Thanks to a certain immigration law, the Obama administration isn’t very happy with Arizona these days. But did you know the White House has gone so far as to put Arizona “on report”? And to the United Nations, no less.

That’s right. Apparently the federal government can’t handle this dispute alone. It needs to elevate it to the world stage, encouraging international criticism of the offending state. So Arizona’s alleged transgression comes up in a report the administration submitted to the U.N. Human Rights Council:

“A recent Arizona law, S.B. 1070, has generated significant attention and debate at home and around the world. The issue is being addressed in a court action that argues that the federal government has the authority to set and enforce immigration law. That action is ongoing; parts of the law are currently enjoined.

“President Obama remains firmly committed to fixing our broken immigration system, because he recognizes that our ability to innovate, our ties to the world, and our economic prosperity depend on our capacity to welcome and assimilate immigrants. The Administration will continue its efforts to work with the U.S. Congress and affected communities toward this end.”

No wonder Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, in a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, called this “downright offensive.” If the administration felt compelled to mention an unsettled legal dispute in a report to an international body, it should have at least adopted a more neutral tone. Instead, it sounds like the administration is saying, “Don’t worry, world; we’re doing all we can to show this slow, backward child of ours the error of its ways.”

Here’s a larger question, one worth considering as the United Nations gathers for its annual General Assembly meeting: Should the United States even have joined the Human Rights Council, whose membership roll includes such blatant human-rights tramplers as China and Cuba?

The HRC was created in 2006 as a replacement for the U.N. Commission on Human Rights. For years, the commission had failed to hold governments accountable for violating basic human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Unfortunately, the HRC’s track record has been no better. In theory, it “offers an unprecedented opportunity to hold the human rights practices of every country open for public examination and criticism,” as Heritage Foundation experts Brett Schaefer and Steven Groves have noted. But in practice, the HRC “has proven to be a flawed process hijacked by countries seeking to shield themselves from criticism.”

Consider Cuba’s report to the HRC. It turns out its “democratic system is based on the principle of ‘government of the people, by the people and for the people’.” And guess what? Its citizens enjoy the right to “freedom of opinion, expression and the press.” I’m sure that will surprise the thousands of Cubans who have risked life and limb to escape the island nation, and the thousands more who remain locked in Castro’s jails for political “crimes.”

China made similarly laughable assertions in its report to the HRC. It even claimed its citizens enjoy a right to religious freedom. North Korea, too, is a downright utopia, judging from its report to the U.N.

It’s bad enough these countries lie. But it’s not unexpected. What’s worse is that the U.N. accepts these demonstrably false claims at face value. The majority of member states approve these reports.

To avoid becoming a party to this charade, the Bush administration wisely declined membership in the HRC. The Obama administration reversed that policy. So we have a situation where the U.S., just by being a member, lends legitimacy to a U.N. farce on human rights. And now the administration is compounding the error by offering up a state for criticism by a body that includes some of the world’s most egregious human-rights offenders.

Talk about “downright offensive.”
_________________________________________________
8) Joe Legal vs. Jose Illegal

Here is an example of why hiring illegal aliens is not economically productive for the United States. Follow along.

You have two families: "Joe Legal" and "Jose Illegal". Both families have two parents, two children, and live in California.

Joe Legal works in construction, has a Social Security Number and makes $25.00 per hour with taxes deducted.

Jose Illegal also works in construction, has NO Social Security Number, and gets paid $15.00 cash "under the table".

Ready? Now pay attention...

Joe Legal: $25.00 per hour x 40 hours = $1000.00 per week, or $52,000.00 per year. Now take 30% away for state and federal tax; Joe Legal now has $31,231.00.

Jose Illegal: $15.00 per hour x 40 hours = $600.00 per week, or $31,200.00 per year. Jose Illegal pays no taxes. Jose Illegal now has $31,200.00.

Joe Legal pays medical and dental insurance with limited coverage for his family at $600.00 per month, or $7,200.00 per year.
Joe Legal now has $24,031.00.

Jose Illegal has full medical and dental coverage through the state and local clinics at a cost of $0.00 per year. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.

Joe Legal makes too much money and is not eligible for food stamps or welfare. Joe Legal pays $500.00 per month for food, or $6,000.00 per year.
Joe Legal now has $18,031.00.

Jose Illegal has no documented income and is eligible for food stamps and welfare. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.

Joe Legal pays rent of $1,200.00 per month, or $14,400.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $9,631.00.

Jose Illegal receives a $500.00 per month federal rent subsidy.
Jose Illegal pays $500.00 per month, or $6,000.00 per year.
Jose Illegal still has $ 31,200.00.

Joe Legal pays $200.00 per month, or $2,400.00 for insurance. Joe Legal now has $7,231.00.

Jose Illegal says, "We don't need no stinkin' insurance!" and still has $31,200.00.

Joe Legal has to make his $7,231.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, etc.

Jose Illegal has to make his $31,200.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, and what he sends out of the country every month.

Joe Legal now works overtime on Saturdays or gets a part time job after work.

Jose Illegal has nights and weekends off to enjoy with his family.

Joe Legal's and Jose Illegal's children both attend the same school.

Joe Legal pays for his children's lunches while Jose Illegal's children get a government sponsored lunch.

Jose Illegal's children have an after school ESL program. Joe Legal's children go home.

Joe Legal and Jose Illegal both enjoy the same police and fire services, but Joe paid for them and Jose did not pay.

Do you get it, now?

If you vote for or support any politician that supports illegal aliens...

You are part of the problem!

It's way PAST time to take a stand for America and Americans!
______________________________________________
9) A How To Guide for Becoming a DREAM Act Beneficiary
By Bob Dane
12/15/2010

Thanks to the hardworking efforts of lots of nice folks who know how to manipulate a lame-duck session of Congress to get unpopular legislation passed, the DREAM Act is heading to the U.S. Senate for a vote. This nifty “educational initiative” that – just between us is really an amnesty plan – offers a range of features and benefits to help you overcome the inconvenience of being an illegal alien. Just in case this passes, we thought you’d like a handy reference guide to help you choose your options wisely:

Are you an illegal alien? Congratulations! This is the most important qualification.

Did you enter the U.S. illegally before age 16 and have you lived here for 5 years? Are you up to, but not over, the age of 30? The answers to these questions don’t really matter since you can easily forge the documentation needed to establish when you entered the country, how long you have lived here and how old you are. You been illegally present in the U.S. so how will the federal government really be able to verify anything about you?

Are you over 12 and enrolled in primary or secondary school? You get a Stay of Removal.

Do you have a high school diploma or a GED? You’re granted 5 years of Conditional Nonimmigrant Status. You’re now eligible to work in the United States and travel to and from the U.S. without impediment.

OK, now you have two options to qualify for a green card. The first option is 2 years of college. Would you like to attend? If yes, good choice because you can access federal student loan programs plus financial aid, grants, loans and scholarships, and in-state tuition in 11 states. Better hurry too, because there are lots of legal residents applying for those limited resources too. Your other benefit is that you don’t actually have to earn a degree. You must only complete the equivalent of two years of coursework. But if you don’t prefer this option, don’t worry. Homeland Security may waive the educational requirements if you demonstrate “hardship.” They will either extend your five year conditional nonimmigrant status or grant you a green card outright.

The other option is serving in the military for 2 years. Why even choose this when the college option is so much easier? But if you choose military service, that hardship waiver applies here also.

This all sounds great but I’m worried about giving personal information to the government. Don’t be. Application information is confidential. The DREAM Act absolutely prohibits any government official from using this information to initiate removal proceedings, even if your application is denied or conditional nonimmigrant status is revoked.

Uh, I have three misdemeanor convictions. The DREAM Act lets bygones be bygones. As long as your 3 misdemeanors convictions did not result in an aggregate 90 day sentence, you’re good to go.

What about federal benefits once I get my green card? Won’t I have to wait 5 years before I get them like all legal immigrants who get their green card? Wrong. The longstanding 5 year waiting period for federal benefits is waived, just for you! You will be immediately eligible for all federal benefits, including coverage under the new health care law.

Do I have to leave my family behind? Of course not. Once you get your green card (and are at least 21 years old), you can petition to get green cards for your relatives too, including your parents who brought you here illegally to begin with.

That’s pretty much it. See you down the hall, second door on the left at the Green Card Window in the Federal Department of Amnesty, oops, we mean the Department of Homeland Security.
_____________________________________________
10) Under Siege
Oliver North
8-27-10

TUCSON, Ariz. -- "We're under siege," said rancher Ed Ashurst as he pointed to where he had tracked the killer of his friend and neighbor to the U.S.-Mexico border. "Five years ago, we didn't even bother to lock our doors. Now my wife and I carry firearms everywhere we go."

John Ladd is a fifth-generation cattle rancher in southern Cochise County, Ariz. The southern boundary of his family property is a 10-mile stretch of steel fence erected by the U.S. government. On the other side of the fence: Mexico. He told us, "Mexican drug cartels are running this part of America."

The poet Robert Frost posited that "good fences make good neighbors." From what our Fox News' "War Stories" team documented this week, that's not the case here in southern Arizona, where "the fence" on the U.S.-Mexico border remains unfinished. According to many levelheaded, beleaguered Americans here, the fence is little more than a "speed bump" for drug couriers, killers, human smugglers and lesser criminals flooding into our country.

Wednesday night, just hours after Barack and Michelle Obama and their doting supporters dined on Martha's Vineyard, our team, accompanied by members of the Cochise County sheriff's Border Interdiction Unit, walked up a quiet hilltop a few hundred yards north of the "fence." There we watched through night-vision devices as a group of individuals approached the Mexican side of the steel barrier, timing their movement with the passing of U.S. Border Patrol vehicles.

By the time we departed for another location two hours after dawn, the "jumpers" -- all wearing backpacks -- had yet to make it into the U.S. Heartened by what we had seen, I said to one of the deputies, "It looks as if the fence worked."

"Yeah," said one of our guides and well-armed protectors, "but they have spotters who saw us leave. They will try again. Maybe we'll get 'em, maybe not. But there are a lot more of them than there are of us. And they are better-armed than we are because the cartels have bigger budgets."

The numbers verify the claim. Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman -- a multibillionaire who heads the Sinaloa cartel just across Arizona's border -- commands an army of more than 11,000 "shooters" equipped with heavy machine guns, other automatic weapons, rocket-propelled grenades and armored vehicles. That's more than twice as many "troops" available to the U.S. Border Patrol, Arizona Department of Public Safety, Indian Affairs police and county sheriffs on Arizona's border.

Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu -- more than 90 miles north of the border -- explained the consequences: "Our deputies are outnumbered and outgunned. We're up against drug runners carrying AK-47s," the Soviet-era weapon used by al-Qaida terrorists and Taliban insurgents fighting U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

After one of his deputies was wounded by an AK-47-toting border crosser, Babeu requested funding to purchase AR-15 rifles for his department. The county turned him down for lack of funds. He told us, "My deputies shouldn't have to buy their own weapons to protect themselves and the public." A group of concerned citizens is soliciting donations to buy the rifles for them.

Larry Dever is the sheriff of Cochise County. At 6,000 square miles, it is larger than Connecticut. His jurisdiction is home to Tombstone, scene of the legendary 1881 shootout at the OK Corral. It also shares an 82-mile border with Mexico. Last year, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, more than 550,000 people were arrested trying to enter the U.S. illegally. Nearly half of them crossed the border in the "Tucson sector," which includes Cochise County. Yet Dever has fewer than 90 sworn deputies.

After Cochise County rancher Bob Krantz was murdered by an illegal border jumper March 27, the Obama administration promised to deploy 1,200 National Guard troops to "assist the U.S Border Patrol on the Mexican border." Arizona will get fewer than 550 of them -- when they finally arrive. Not one cent of the $600 million appropriated by Congress this month for "border security" will go to any of the border states or sheriffs. The money all goes to federal agencies.

Instead of new weapons, reinforcements and help protecting our southern border, Arizona's sheriffs and Gov. Jan Brewer received something entirely different from the Obama administration: a federal lawsuit. Last month, a federal judge in Phoenix decided Arizona could not enforce certain provisions of a state law -- SB 1070 -- which allowed Arizona law enforcement officers to ascertain the citizenship of individuals stopped for legal infractions. Arizona filed its appeal in the case this week, while we were on the border.

That's not all that happened this week in what one of our hosts called "the northern edge of the new war zone." A mass grave containing the remains of more than 70 murdered men, women and children from Central America and South America was found in northeastern Mexico, less than 90 miles from the U.S. border. That brings the civilian murder toll in Mexico to more than 28,000 since 2006 -- higher than Afghanistan. And last night, two were killed and three were wounded in a drug-related gunfight here in Tucson.

Meanwhile the president -- who insinuated himself in a local police matter in Cambridge, Mass., and a zoning matter for a mosque in Manhattan -- has been too busy to send condolences to Sue Krantz, the widow of an American murdered by a foreign criminal on U.S. soil.
_______________________________________________
11) Illogical Immigration
Victor Davis Hanson
8-5-10

Some 11 million to 15 million illegal aliens are now residing in America, most after crossing into America unlawfully. Once a federal law is arbitrarily not enforced, all sorts of bizarre paradoxes arise from that original contradiction. As proof, examine the following illogical policies and contradictions involving illegal immigration.

Take, for example, profiling -- the controversial questioning of those who appear likely to be illegal aliens. Apparently, American border guards have developed criteria for profiling those deemed likely to be unlawful aliens. Otherwise, how would they have arrested and deported hundreds of thousands in 2009?

Yet apparently, at some arbitrary point distant from the border, those who cross illegally are not supposed to be asked about their immigration status. OK, but exactly why did procedures so radically change at, say, five, 10, 20, or is it 100 miles from the border? A border patrolman often profiles, but a nearby highway patrolman cannot?

The federal government is suing Arizona for the state's efforts to enforce the federal immigration law. The lawsuit alleges that Arizona is too zealous both in enforcing immigration law and encroaching on federal jurisdiction.

But wait -- for years, several American cities have declared themselves sanctuary cities. City officials have even bragged that they would not allow their municipalities to enforce federal immigration statutes. So why does Washington sue a state that seeks to enhance federal immigration laws and yet ignore cities that blatantly try to erode them?

Something is going very wrong in Mexico to prompt more than half a million of its citizens to cross the border illegally each year. Impoverished Mexican nationals variously cite poor economic conditions back home, government corruption, a lack of social services, and racism. In other words, it is not just the desirability of America but also the perceived undesirability of Mexico that explains one of largest mass exoduses in modern history.

But why, then, would Mexican President Felipe Calderon, whose country's conditions are forcing out its own citizens, criticize the United States, which is receiving so many of them? And why, for that matter, would many of those illegal immigrants identify, if only symbolically, with the country that made them leave, whether by waving its flag or criticizing the attitudes of the Americans who took them in?

And how does Mexico treat the hundreds of thousands of aliens who seek to illegally cross its own southern border with Central America each year? Does Mexico believe in sovereign borders to its south but not to its north?

Is Mexico more or less humane to illegal aliens than the country it so often faults? Why, exactly, does Mexico believe that nearly a million of its own nationals annually have claims on American residency, when Chinese, Indian, European and African would-be immigrants are deemed not to? Is the reason proximity? Past history?

Proponents of open borders have organized May Day rallies, staged boycotts of Arizona, sued in federal and state courts, and sought to portray those who want to enforce existing federal immigration law as racially insensitive. But about 70 percent of Americans support securing our borders, and support the Arizona law in particular. Are a clear majority of Americans racist, brainwashed or deluded in believing that their laws should be enforced? And if so, why would immigrants wish to join them?

It is considered liberal to support open borders and reactionary to want to close them. But illegal immigration drives down the hourly wages of the working American poor. Tens of thousands of impoverished people abroad, from Africa to Asia, wait patiently to enter America legally, while hundreds of thousands from Latin America do not. How liberal can all that be?

America extends housing, food and education subsidies to illegal aliens in need. But Mexico receives more than $20 billion in American remittances a year -- its second-highest source of foreign exchange, and almost of it from its own nationals living in the United States. Are Americans then subsidizing the Mexican government by extending social services to aliens, freeing up cash for them to send back home?

These baffling questions are rarely posed, never addressed and often considered politically incorrect. But they will only be asked more frequently in the months ahead.

You see, once a law is not considered quite a law, all sorts of even stranger paradoxes follow.
________________________________________________
12) The Sound of One Hand Clapping
By Cal Thomas
10/12/2010

I was preparing to applaud the Obama administration and specifically Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano for announcing the deportation of a record number of criminal aliens last year. According to the Washington Times, "the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement deported 392,862 aliens in fiscal year 2010, slightly less than a 1 percent increase over 2009 but short of the agency's goal to remove 400,000 this year."

What curbed my enthusiasm was news that removal of other illegal immigrants -- those not convicted of crimes, though it could be justifiably argued that their status as illegal immigrants is, by definition, the breaking of American law -- fell to the lowest number since 2007.

Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), said that while it is nice that Secretary Napolitano believes removing people in the country illegally is an important function for the Department of Homeland Security, "policy directives from the highest levels of DHS clearly demonstrate that the administration is refusing to enforce laws against noncriminal aliens."

That bad cop/good cop approach is designed to pacify those on the political right while the administration and some Democrats in Congress simultaneously lay the groundwork for legalizing those who broke our laws to get here and remain in the country illegally.

In a desperate last-minute pre-election move to win more votes for Democratic candidates, New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez and Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy introduced the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2010 prior to adjournment. This bill, if passed, would effectively grant amnesty to illegal immigrants currently in the country. No one expects the bill to pass when Congress returns for a lame duck session, especially if Republicans win a House majority and make substantial inroads to the Democrats' Senate majority, or take back the Senate.

According to FAIR's analysis, DHS data show the Obama administration has "dramatically curtailed all aspects of immigration enforcement against illegal aliens who have not committed violent crimes in this country." FAIR says when it comes to enforcement of the law at worksites, "administrative arrests have fallen by 77 percent, criminal arrests are down 60 percent, indictments are down 64 percent, and convictions have fallen by 68 percent since 2008."

We have seen this political game played out over many years and with administrations of both parties. Big business, which mostly contributes to Republican political campaigns, wants cheap labor and so favors illegal immigrants. Democrats want the illegal immigrants because they see them as potential Democratic voters.

Rep. Lamar Smith, Texas Republican, says, "Millions of Americans are struggling to find work, while an estimated 7 million illegal immigrants are working in the U.S. Worksite enforcement could help make those much-needed jobs available for U.S. citizens and legal immigrant workers."

That is a debatable point whether the unemployed would be willing to do the grunt work illegal immigrants often do, especially when Americans can now collect unemployment checks for more than a year. What should not be debatable is that lax enforcement of our immigration laws leads to more disrespect for those laws and serves as an incentive for more people to enter the country illegally.

This is what occurred following the "comprehensive" immigration reform under Ronald Reagan and it would happen again unless our borders are fully secured and something is done about those illegal immigrants already here. Granted, they won't all be deported, but they should not be allowed to escape punishment for breaking the law. Otherwise, the law is meaningless.

So let's hear it for Homeland Security's successful deportations of criminal aliens. But given that the U.S. is only enforcing a portion of its immigration laws, all I can offer is the sound of one hand clapping.
______________________________________________
13) Celebrating American Immigrants
Terry Paulson
8-16-10

The long line to immigrate into America is the sincerest form of flattery to the power of the American Dream. People aren’t trying to get out; the gate to America swings in! For America’s success, immigration has and must remain a necessary contributor to its creativity, vitality and economic growth.

As an added benefit, there’s nothing like a fresh dose of new American citizens to remind us how fortunate we are to have been born in this great country and how easy it is to take American citizenship for granted.

Andy Anderson, writing for Southwest’s Spirit magazine, captured the pride and excitement of new citizens in his article, “I’m Truly Home Now!” As you read their comments, add passion to their voices and visualize the tears of joy in their eyes:
Kassegn Befekadu, born deaf in Ethiopia, said, “There are no rights there for people like me. I have so many opportunities here. I can get an education; I can drive and work. I love America.”

Roya Dura Mohammad, from Pakistan, confessed, “In Pakistan, after 5 o’clock, you cannot go outside because it is dangerous. In here, 24/7, I go when I want to go. In here, life is, like, way different. Thank you America, for having me here in the United States.”

Miguel Zaragoza, came from the Philippines with his mother and now is a tank mechanic in the U.S. Army. He says with pride, “I miss my family in the Philippines, but I don’t miss the poverty. It’s a pleasure for me to live in such a great place, so, to my fellow citizens, don’t take this for granted.”

For India immigrant Avtar Singh it was one word that said it all, “Freedom.”
They came here legally, overcame hurdle after hurdle, and are now “home.” These proud new “adopted” citizens have chosen to become “Americans.” They join a rich mosaic of citizens from many countries who have come together over the history of our republic. These new citizens played by the rules, persevered and earned the right to join our diverse but connected patchwork quilt. Yes, E Pluribus Unum—out of many one!

They now are as American as you or I. In many ways, they’re more so, because they chose to embrace American values we so often take for granted. After all, most of us won the national lottery and were born here. That happy accident of citizenship has allowed us opportunities others around the world just dream of.

But to honor immigrants, we must protect the immigration process. Recently, Arizona has come under attack from the U.S. Department of Justice for passing an immigration enforcement law designed to assist the federal government in enforcing existing federal laws.

SB 1070 is being tested out in the courts, and, most likely, will result in the Supreme Court resolving the case. But in speaking with “Early Show” anchor Harry Smith, President Obama criticized what he sees as political opportunism in Arizona’s initiative, “What we can’t do is allow a patchwork of 50 different states, or cities or localities, where anybody wants to make a name for themselves suddenly says, ‘I’m going to be anti-immigrant, and I’m going to try to see if I can solve the problem ourself.’”

Mr. President, the vast majority of Americans on either side of this issue are not “anti-immigrant.” We are anti “illegal” immigration. We want our immigration laws enforced and our border secured. Instead of taking on the states like Arizona who are making a stand against illegal immigration, we need politicians who will prosecute entities who are taking the law into their own hands by providing “sanctuary” in open defiance to existing federal law.

If people want to help illegal immigrants become American citizens, support their return to their country of origin. Help them secure employment and support their legal efforts to become an American immigrant. Let them earn that right the old fashioned way, by getting in line, making their case and respecting the laws of the country they wish to join. A blanket amnesty is an insult to those immigrants who have waited and faithfully played by the rules.

Richard Lamm said it best, “Amnesty is a big billboard, a flashing billboard, to the rest of the world that we don’t really mean our immigration law.”

If you have had enough of an administration that prosecutes those committed to upholding immigration laws and protects those who refuse to obey it, in November, elect candidates who will.
_____________________________________________
14) Arizona State Senator Sylvia Allen explains SB 1070 Law
5-5-10

I'm Arizona State Senator Sylvia Allen. I want to explain SB 1070 which I voted for and was just signed by Governor Jan Brewer.

Rancher Rob Krantz was murdered by the drug cartel on his ranch a month ago. I participated in a senate hearing two weeks ago on the border violence; here are just some of the highlights from those who testified.

The people who live within 60 to 80 miles of the Arizona/Mexico Border have for years been terrorized and have pleaded for help to stop the daily invasion of humans who cross their property. One Rancher testified that 300 to 1200 people a DAY come across his ranch vandalizing his property, stealing his vehicles and property, cutting down his fences, and leaving trash. In the last two years he has found 17 dead bodies and two Koran bibles.

Another rancher testified that daily drugs are brought across his ranch in a military operation. A point man with a machine gun goes in front, 1/2 mile behind are the guards fully armed, 1/2 mile behind them are the drugs, behind the drugs 1/2 mile are more guards. These people are violent and they will kill anyone who gets in the way. This was not the only rancher we heard that day that talked about the drug trains.

One man told of two illegals that came upon his property one shot in the back and the other in the arm by the drug runners who had forced them to carry the drugs and then shot them. Daily they listen to gun fire during the night it is not safe to leave his family alone on the ranch and they can't leave the ranch for fear of nothing being left when they come back.

The border patrol is not on the border. They have set up 60 miles away with check points that do nothing to stop the invasion. They are not allowed to use force in stopping anyone who is entering. They run around chasing them, if they get their hands on them then they can take them back across the border.

Federal prisons have over 35% illegal's and 20% of Arizona prisons are filled with illegal's. In the last few years 80% of our law enforcement that have been killed or wounded has been by an illegal.

The majority of people coming now are people we need to be worried about. The ranchers told us that they have seen a change in the people coming they are not just those who are looking for work and a better life.

The Federal Government has refused for years to do anything to help the border states. We have been over run and once they are here we have the burden of funding state services that they use. Education costs have been over a billion dollars. The healthcare cost billions of dollars. Our State is broke; $3.5 billion deficit and we have many serious decisions to make.

One is that we do not have the money to care for any who are not here legally. It has to stop.

The border can be secured. We have the technology we have the ability to stop this invasion. We must know who is coming and they must come in an organized manner legally so that we can assimilate them into our population and protect the sovereignty of our country. We are a nation of laws. We have a responsibility to protect our citizens and to protect the integrity of our country and the government which we live under.

I would give amnesty today to many, but here is the problem, we dare not do this until the Border is secure. It will do no good to forgive them because thousands will come behind them and we will be over run to the point that there will no longer be the United States of America but a North American Union of open borders. I ask you what form of government will we live under?

How long will it be before we will be just like Mexico, Canada or any of the other Central American or South American countries? We have already lost our language; everything must be printed in Spanish also. We have already lost our history it is no longer taught in our schools. And we have lost our borders.

The leftist media has distorted what SB 1070 will do. It is not going to set up a Nazi Germany. Are you kidding. The ACLU and the leftist courts will do everything to protect those who are here illegally, but it was an effort to try and stop illegal's from setting up businesses, and employment, and receiving state services and give the ability to local law enforcement when there is probable cause like a traffic stop to determine if they are here legally. Federal law is very clear if you are here on a visa you must have your papers on you at all times. That is the law. In Arizona all you need to show you are a legal citizen is a driver license, MVD identification card, Native American Card, or a Military ID. This is what you need to vote, get a hunting license, etc.. So nothing new has been added to this law. No one is going to be stopped walking down the street etc... The Socialist who are in power in DC are angry because we dare try and do something and that something the Socialist wants us to do is just let them come. They want the "Transformation" to continue.

Maybe it is too late to save America. Maybe we are not worthy of freedom anymore. But as an elected official I must try to do what I can to protect our Constitutional Republic. Living in America is not a right just because you can walk across the border. Being an American is a responsibility and it comes by respecting and upholding the Constitution the law of our land which says what you must do to be a citizen of this country. Freedom is not free.
_________________________________________________
15) Let's Make a Deal, Sr. Presidente Calderon
Rich Galen
Wednesday, April 28, 2010

As regular readers know, because I have the attention span of the average 5-year-old, I rarely write on the same topic twice unless, because I have the memory of a 63-year-old, I forgot that I'd written about it.

Today will be a departure because of the response of Mexican President Felipe Calderón to the new immigration law in Arizona.

According to the CIA World Factbook, Mexico has a population of about 111 million people with a net migration of "-3.61 migrant(s)/1,000 population." I may be wrong about this but that means every year about 400,000 people leave Mexico.

I'm guessing that some of those migrants end up in the United States of America.
According to the U.K. Guardian, El Presidente is muy agravado over this new law and "promised to raise it with President Barack Obama during a visit to Washington next week."

This would be really funny: How about if Maryland State Troopers were to stop Calderón's motorcade on its way in to the District of Columbia from Andrews Air Force Base and made everyone show their passports?

Ok, that's not funny. But this is.

According to reporter Ewen MacAskill:

The Mexican foreign ministry, long used to warnings from the US state department about the risks of travelling to Mexico because of drug wars, retaliated by issuing an alert to Mexicans and migrant communities because of the "adverse political atmosphere" in Arizona.

UPI wrote that the warning "advised Mexican nationals to use 'extreme caution' traveling to Arizona -- even before the law takes effect -- and listed consulates where people can get help."

It added, "As long no clear criteria are defined for when, where and who the authorities will inspect, it must be assumed that every Mexican citizen may be harassed and questioned without further cause at any time."

Calderón told a group of migrants in Mexico City Monday that "Criminalizing immigration, which is a social and economic phenomenon, this way opens the door to intolerance, hate, discrimination and abuse in law enforcement."

Sneaking into the United States has long been criminalized. This law applies to people who are illegal aliens who, because the word "illegal" is involved, would appear to have been involved in criminal activity in the first place.

More importantly, it seems that migrants in the U.S. are much safer than migrants in … Mexico as this lead paragraph from another U.K. Guardian article shows:

Stalked by kidnappers, murders, rapists and corrupt officials, the journey Central Americans make through Mexico on their way to the United States is one of the most perilous migration routes in the world.

The report on which that article was based, states:

"Migrants in Mexico are facing a major human rights crisis leaving them with virtually no access to justice, fearing reprisals and deportation if they complain of abuses."

And, before you roll your eyes thinking this was the work of some anti-Mexican hack with an ax to grind, the report was produced and released by Amnesty International - not exactly an organization known for embracing conservative causes.

Whoa! ¡nos trae la cuenta por favor! (Which either means, "check, please!" or "Is this the right road to Tumazunchale?")

Felipe Calderón is whining about the way we are treating immigrants in the U.S. because they may be asked to produce documents proving they are here legally, while immigrants in his very own country are being kidnapped, robbed, raped, and murdered by the tens of thousands, according to the report.

So, Sr. Presidente, why don't you deal with the social and economic phenomenon of immigration in Mexico and let us deal with the s & e p of immigration in the United States?

Until that, let's have an informal agreement: No American citizens will come to Mexico, and no Mexican citizens will come to the U.S.
¿tenemos un reparto?
______________________________________________
16) Five Arguments Republicans Should Use Against Obama's Immigration Bill
John Hawkins
Tuesday, April 27, 2010

As you may have heard, after more than a year of giving little more than lip service to illegal immigration, the Democrats have suddenly become extremely interested in pushing comprehensive immigration reform. This is quite curious in that the bill almost assuredly cannot pass.

A year ago, when I interviewed Roy Beck, head of Numbers USA, he didn't think that they had the votes:

Just look at the Senate. It looks like there's going to be a good chance that the Senate is going to have 59 Democrats. There were about 15 Democrats who voted against the amnesty in 2007. I think we ought to get about half of those and maybe more. If you got 8 Democrats to vote against it, that means you'd need 9 Republicans. I don't see it. At most, I see 6 and they might not get but 2 or 3 -- especially if they offend McCain.

...I don't think Pelosi thinks she has the votes. ...She goes out and makes statements that get all of us all upset and gets her applause from the Hispanic caucus. But ...there were right around 50 Democrats who co-sponsored the SAVE ACT last year, which was a very, very strong enforcement bill. This amnesty will not have nearly the strength of that. I think one of the reasons that those Democrats signed that bill is that they're from districts whose constituents are pushing them hard on this. So, I think we'd have a good chance to get 60-70 Democrats in the House to vote against that and I don't think we ought to lose more than a half dozen Republicans. If we did that well, then we'd beat it in the House.

Keep in mind that since then, in large part because of health care and deficit spending, the political environment has become absolutely poisonous for Democrats. There are plenty of predictions that the Democrats will lose the House, only Democrats in bluest districts can feel completely safe, and make no mistake about it: comprehensive immigration reform would be about as popular as Barack Obama at a Tea Party.

So, why would the Democrats consider pushing the bill at all if it won't pass? There are probably two reasons for it.

One, they're hoping that it'll fire up the Democrats' Hispanic base, which is an iffy proposition to begin with. Although Hispanic Americans do tend to be pro-illegal immigration, polls show that for the most part, it's not one of their biggest issues. Still, the Democrats have made a lot of promises and some Hispanic liberals are starting to get antsy. For example, Rep. Luis Gutierrez (Ill.) has been threatening to encourage Hispanic Americans to "stay home" on election day to punish Democrats for not pushing amnesty.

Plus, as an extra added bonus, Republicans fought each other like rabid wolverines over the issue last time and the Democrats will be hoping for a repeat while they scream "racist," "nativist," and "bigot" from the sidelines. In other words, this probably has a lot more to do with politics than policy.

So, since that's the case, how do we fight this bill? We fight it by playing it smart, not tearing each other to shreds, and by sticking with the arguments that will have the most resonance in the 2010 election.

#1) We need "security first." Even John McCain, the man who led the fight for comprehensive immigration reform last time around, has since admitted that the American people don't believe we'll secure the border.

Incidentally, there's good reason for that. For example, the Obama Administration has announced that the border fence which was begun by the Bush Administration won't be "finished until at least 2016." So, if we're lucky, in 2016, 15 years after 9/11, we may for the first time have a secure border that terrorists can't just walk over with a nuclear bomb. That'll be great, won't it?

Tell you what: let's stop putting the cart before the horse. Let's finish the fence, adequately staff the border patrol, get a proven system in place to prevent illegal aliens from being able to get jobs with fake Social Security numbers and then and only then, we can come back and discuss the whole "path to citizenship" issue. If that's too long to wait for the illegal immigrants, then they can always just go home.

#2) Jobs, jobs, jobs. Amnesty for illegals: It's for those times when you have a 9.7% unemployment rate & want to take even more jobs from Americans. When so many people are out of work and having trouble taking care of their families, why in the world would anyone want to give away American jobs and drive down American wages? How out of touch with what's going on in this country do you have to be to want to hand American jobs to foreigners via amnesty when so many people are hurting?

#3) We're too broke for an amnesty. As is, 47 percent of Americans are paying no income taxes. Do we really need to add to their ranks -- and let's not kid ourselves because that's what we're talking about.

Point being, if 47 percent of Americans aren't paying income taxes, how many illegals, most of whom have low paying jobs, would be paying income taxes if they became citizens? 10%? 20%? In other words, when the country is broke, why do we want to bring in millions more people to collect food stamps, welfare, and earned income tax credits even though they don't pay income tax? Are we so short of Americans who do that sort of thing that we actually need to bring in poor people from other parts of the globe to take advantage of our social safety net?

#4) Amnesty is unfair to immigrants. Nobody has been treated worse in the whole amnesty debate than legal immigrants. They love and respect this country enough to obey the rules -- and what do they get in return? Oftentimes, they have to wait in their home country. They fill out reams of paperwork. They pay thousands of dollars in legal fees.

Then what happens? They're spoken of in the same breath as some guy who snuck into our country in the middle of the night and stole somebody's Social Security number. Furthermore, despite all the rhetoric to the contrary, illegals are going to be rewarded for breaking American laws while legal immigrants have to put up with the same old hassles. What's the message to legal immigrants? The message is, "You're stupid for loving and respecting this country enough to obey our laws." Legal immigrants to this country deserve to be treated better than that.

#5) We've already tried this once before. It didn't work then and it won't work now. As former Reagan Attorney General Ed Meese has noted, we've already tried this once during the Reagan Administration.

They allowed roughly 2.7 million illegal aliens to become citizens and in exchange, we were supposed to implement security measures to fix the system. Guess what? We never fixed the security problem and today, we're talking about giving citizenship to roughly 4 times as many illegals.

So, why would anyone who actually wants to solve the problem suggest implementing a government policy that's already a proven failure? Of course, that's just it: What politicians want is more illegal workers to pad the bottom lines of businesses that give them campaign contributions and more potential voters for the Democratic Party. What they don't want is to fix the problem because they're worried about what's good for them personally, not what's good for the country.
__________________________________________
17) A Moral and Just Response to the Immigration Crisis
Richard Land
Thursday, May 13, 2010

The time has come for our nation to resolve the immigration crisis. It is imperative that we find an acceptable solution to the plight of the millions of undocumented immigrants living in our nation. Currently, the two extremes—deportation and amnesty—are being played against each other, resulting in a stalemate in Congress and growing frustration and division in society.

The recent passage of the new law in Arizona is a cry for help from the citizens of a state made desperate by the federal government’s shameful and flagrant dereliction of its duty to control the nation’s borders and to enforce its laws. This is manifestly a federal responsibility and the U. S. government has failed in its responsibilities to its citizens under both Democratic and Republican administrations.

The Arizona law is a symptom, not a solution. While I sympathize with the plight of the beleaguered citizens of Arizona, the law they have passed faces severe challenges. Attorneys I trust and respect tell me that if the law survives the manifold court challenges it faces and goes into effect, it will be abused by genuinely bad people (like drug dealers and human traffickers) whose unscrupulous lawyers will claim falsely that they were victims of racial profiling and prejudice when they were arrested legitimately.

Neither of the extreme solutions of deportation or amnesty are appropriate, workable solutions. To force those who are here illegally to leave is neither politically viable nor humanitarian. To offer “amnesty” to those who broke the immigration laws of our country is disrespectful of the rule of law. What is needed is a solution that respects the rule of law while at the same time treats undocumented immigrants compassionately.

As Christians, we must think through the question of illegal immigration not only as concerned citizens, but also as compassionate Christians. As citizens of the United States we have a right to expect the government to fulfill its divinely ordained mandate to punish those who break the law and to reward those who do not (Rom.13:1-7).

As citizens of the heavenly kingdom (the church), we also have a divine mandate to act redemptively and compassionately toward those in need. Jesus commanded us to love our neighbors as ourselves (Matt. 22:39) and to do unto others as we would have them do unto us (Matt. 7:12). Our Lord instructed His followers to meet the needs of those who are suffering (Matt. 25: 31-36). The writer of the Book of Hebrews instructed his readers to “show hospitality to strangers” (Heb. 13:2).

As U.S. citizens we have a right to expect the federal government to enforce the laws regarding who may cross our borders. Border security is a question of national security, domestic safety and tranquility and the federal government fulfilling its divinely mandated responsibilities to enforce the law.

As people of faith we must lead our churches to engage in multi-faceted human needs ministries on a massive scale to meet the physical and spiritual needs of millions of men, women and children living in the shadows of society where they are exploited by the unscrupulous and victimized by predators.

As citizens, we also have a responsibility to help our nation respond to the plight of these millions of people in a manner that respects their innate dignity and humanity. The millions of undocumented workers living among us suffer as outcasts without the full protections of the law or full access to the opportunities this nation offers to all to fulfill their God-given potential.

It is imperative that the U.S. Congress—consistent with national sovereignty and national security—expeditiously find a way to resolve this moral problem in ways that are consistent with our national ideals.

I favor a measure that includes controlling the borders and enforcing immigration laws inside the country first, while offering no amnesty for lawbreakers. This is my position and the position that emerges from any fair and objective reading of a resolution on immigration that Southern Baptists adopted at their annual convention in June 2006.

The resolution calls on the federal government “to address seriously and swiftly the question of how to deal realistically with the immigration crisis in a way that will restore trust among the citizenry.”

It also stresses that it is the government’s obligation “to enforce all immigration laws, including the laws directed at employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants or who are unjustly paying these immigrants substandard wages or subjecting them to conditions that are contrary to the labor laws of our country.”

Proper reform should consist of a program that provides an earned pathway that requires an illegal immigrant who desires to remain legally in the U.S. to undergo a criminal background check, pay a fine, agree to pay back taxes, learn to speak, write and read English and get in line behind those who are legally migrating into this country in order to apply for permanent residence after a probationary period of years. They must also acknowledge and pledge allegiance to America’s governmental structure, the duties of citizenship and our core values as embodied in the Declaration of Independence. People who fail background checks or who refuse to comply with this generous opportunity to earn legal status should be deported immediately.

This is not amnesty. Amnesty is what President Carter gave the draft dodgers who came home from Canada with no penalties, no fines and no requirements whatsoever.

It should be remembered that most of these undocumented workers who have broken the law (and thus should be penalized) came here in order to work, whereas most of our home-grown criminals break the law in order to avoid work.

While the government focuses on enforcing the law, Christians are mandated to forgive and reflect God’s grace toward all people within their communities, including illegal immigrants. The recent SBC resolution encouraged “churches to act redemptively and reach out to meet the physical, emotional and spiritual needs of all immigrants.”

As citizens of the Lord’s heavenly Kingdom, we have a divine mandate to respond compassionately toward those who are in need.

There is neither the political nor economic will in the U.S. population for forcibly rounding up 12 million people—many of them who have children who are American citizens—and shipping them back to their country of origin. Politics and public policy are the “art of the possible.” The reality is that it is not feasible for the United States government to attempt to deport 12 million people. There has to be another way to resolve this issue.

In hopes of providing a biblical solution to this matter, I have joined with other Evangelicals in calling for bipartisan immigration reform that: • Respects the God-given dignity of every person

• Protects the unity of the immediate family
• Respects the rule of law
• Guarantees secure national borders
• Ensures fairness to taxpayers; and
• Establishes a path toward legal status and/or citizenship for those who qualify and who wish to become permanent residents.

The reality is that we have been—and remain—a nation of immigrant settlers and the descendents of such settlers who braved oceans and many obstacles to come to this matchless land of opportunity to become Americans. Whether our ancestors came early or late, we are Americans, whatever nationality may be used to describe our heritage before we arrived. We should, and we will, always have room in this great nation for those who are willing to embrace the American dream and the American ideals that both inspired that dream and define it.

1 comment:

Asif MooXani said...

Immigration Services
I want to check all the good information available here but alas! Time is very limited for this as I’m very busy in work these days. I hope to check out all the information in free time.