Monday, February 8, 2010
Australian Immigration Minister Chris Evans announced Monday several reforms to his country's immigration policy, including several policy changes aimed at attracting more highly-skilled immigrants to the country.
Criticizing the ongoing trend for new immigrants to enroll for vocational courses for gaining residency, Evans said that Australia would change the current list of 106 skills in demand and review a points test based on qualifications, skills and proficiency in English currently used to assess migrants. He said that the present list will now be replaced by a "more targeted" Skilled Occupations List.
"We had tens of thousands of students studying cookery and accounting and hairdressing because that was on the list and that got them through to permanent residency," Evans told Australian radio, adding that such courses will no longer be an assured path to permanent residence.
"The current points test puts an overseas student with a short-term vocational qualification gained in Australia ahead of a Harvard-educated environmental scientist," Evans said.
"We want to make sure we're getting the high-end applicants," Evans said, stressing that the changes brought about by the new immigration policies would try to attract more health workers, including more doctors and nurses, as well more qualified professionals in the fields of engineering and mining.
"The new arrangements will give first priority to skilled migrants who have a job to go to with an Australian employer. For those who don't have an Australian employer willing to sponsor them, the bar is being raised," Evans said.
"If hospitals are crying out for and willing to sponsor nurses, then of course they should have priority over the 12,000 un-sponsored cooks who have applied and who, if they were all granted visas, would flood the domestic market," he added.
Evans also pointed out that some 170,000 people applied for living and working permanently in Australia last year alone, when there were just 108,000 vacancies available. He added that all lower-skilled applications lodged before 1st September 2007 would be withdrawn and application fees worth $14 million refunded.
The reforms in Australia's immigration policy comes in wake of reports that thousands of students from overseas, mainly from Asia, were manipulating the existing system by providing fraud documents to enroll for vocational courses at private Australian colleges, purely to gain residency permits.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Best Buy is now accepting the matricula consular, an unverifiable piece of "identification" issued by the Mexican government that is needed only by illegal aliens. Any Hispanic-looking person can roll up to a Mexican consulate, show the foreign government employees a photocopied Mexican birth certificate (or something that passes as one) along with a random utility bill, and the consulate cranks out a little ID. Again, no one needs it other than illegal aliens. It's a breeder document, meaning that it is a key to living freely -- albeit illegally -- in the United States. Read all about the card's worthlessness and dangerousness, here and here.
Obviously, if one wants to open a credit card at Best Buy -- or any department store -- one needs to have a drivers license, a verifiable social security number, and perhaps some other form of identification. But illegal aliens don't have a social security number, and their "credit worthiness" simply isn't verifiable under a standard credit check.
But Best Buy still wants illegal aliens to make purchases they cannot afford. So, the electronics store is accepting the cards as valid identification at 30 of their stores is are planning on expanding the program. An e-mail from their office is posted in full, below.
Here's a major problem: Illegal aliens are routinely deported. It is undeniable that thousands of illegal aliens with an open Best Buy credit card -- and perhaps thousands of unpaid dollars on the card -- will be shipped back to Mexico over the next few years. There is NO WAY for Best Buy to track down the individual, and the costs will never be recouped.
The result: YOU THE CONSUMER will have these losses passed on to you in the form of higher prices. That's how basic business practices work.
Read the e-mail exchanges below, and send Best Buy your own thoughts.
Best Buy is currently running a test in 30 select stores in which the Marticula Consular is being accepted as a valid form of ID for processing Best Buy Credit Card and Reward Zone Mastercard applications. The Matricula Consular is an official document of the Mexican Government for the identification and registration of Mexican Nationals abroad. The Matricula does not mention the holder's "immigration status" in the U.S. but is used for purposes of verifying his or her identity, place of residence, and place of birth.
Currently more than 800 U.S. police departments and 70 banks accept the Matricula as a form of identification. Please do not hesitate to contact us with additional questions or concerns.
Best Wishes from Best Buy,
Dayjah and the Consumer Relations Team
Thank you for the response. Please be aware that matriculas are needed ONLY BY ILLEGAL ALIENS. Legal immigrants have no use for the cards. And since illegal aliens are regularly deported, they'll have a new address, will be untraceable, and all of the money Best Buy loses in loans WILL BE PASSED ON TO ME, the consumer.
Banks that have accepted them are losing millions; just look at Wachovia and Bank of America.
MY PROMISE: I will not purchase anything from Best Buy until you end this disgusting practice. If it becomes permanent, I will never shop at another Best Buy. I closed my Wachovia account two years ago and will never go back.
Friday, February 29, 2008
And now, Bush has scaled back even his "virtual" border fence plan, claiming that America will not see much security along the southern border until late 2011 at the earliest.
The "virtual fence" has been virtually eliminated.
According to the Washington Post and the Washington Times, a measly 28-mile-long border pilot program has indicated that even the sensors and surveillance gear -- the crux of the "virtual fence" -- will not be effective any time soon. One might think that after the White House gave Boeing over $85 million dollars of taxpayer money to create the virtual fence pilot program we'd have something to show for it. But that would incorrectly infer that this White House actually wants a secure border.
Boeing and White House officials now claim that they might have 100 miles of a "virtual" fence by 2011 -- which leaves about 1800 miles of unsecured border (if one accepts that "virtual" fencing provides any security whatsoever).
The White House claims that it is still trying to build 370 miles of a "pedestrian fencing" -- whatever that is -- and another 300 miles of vehicle barriers. There are numerous conflicting reports on how much of this has actually been created, but the White House claims these two projects will be completed by the end of this year. Of course, the General Accountability Office -- the non-partisan research center for Congress -- notes that DHS is likely not going to achieve this goal because DHS officials "do not yet know the type of terrain where the fencing is to be constructed, the materials to be used, or the cost to acquire the land." Furthermore, the "virtual border" plan was implemented with "minimum input" from Border Patrol agents.
In other words, the designed-to-fail border fence has barely gotten off the ground. And you can be assured that when it comes to the "cost to acquire the land" the White House will be dragging its feet. This is going to require the governmental purchase of private lands through a legal process called eminent domain. Such a process rightfully conjures up concerns about governmental intrusion into private property rights, but it has been done for centuries, and the process is actually pretty easy for the government as the courts will be quite deferential to the feds. The cost of the land is calculated as the actual market value to the owner, not by how much it would be worth to the government. And since Bush seems ready to send $1.4 Billion to Mexico, as noted in a recent post, there's every reason to believe that landowners will be reasonably compensated. Nevertheless, it's likely that this White House, with the goal of discrediting border security, will make the eminent domain process as difficult as possible on landowners.
As explained in previous posts, the goal of the Bush Administration has been to discredit actual security whenever and wherever possible. Their plan is simple: haphazardly enforce immigration laws, cause as much conflict within the business community as possible, do a poor job at enforcing border security, and then announce, "Hey, we tried the enforcement-only approach, and it doesn't work; let's try an amnesty now!"
The White House hopes that it can trick the People into supporting an amnesty through this method, but it isn't going to work.
The only conclusion a rational person can take from this is that virtual fencing doesn't work. It's time to demand ACTUAL fencing! It's time to construct REAL fences!
Otherwise, at a rate of 1 million illegal aliens entering the country each year (the generally accepted estimate), the United States will continue to see 2,740 illegal aliens entering the country EVERY DAY.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Today, Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) responded to Calderon's ignorant attacks with a letter posted, in part, below.
Too bad this letter didn't come from the White House.
I was disappointed by misguided comments you recently made regarding U.S.-Mexico relations and U.S. immigration laws. Purveying misinformation and absurd allegations is hardly a positive step to building a constructive partnership.
According to the Associated Press you recently said, "You have two economies. One economy is intensive in capital, which is the American economy. One economy is intensive in labor, which is the Mexican economy. We are two complementary economies, and that phenomenon is impossible to stop." Yes, both countries benefit by the 85% of Mexico's manufacturing exports that come to the U.S., but people are not commodities. While I appreciate your concern for our joint prosperity, the economic and social ills that plague your country cannot be resolved by simply exporting your citizens to the United States.
It is undeniable that Mexico faces major challenges. Endemic corruption and the power of violent drug cartels still dominate everyday life across Mexico. Beyond the headlines, Mexico has deep institutional maladies. Mexico's absurdly antiquated Napoleonic-inquisition styled legal system and the squandering of robust energy-industry opportunity by a poorly managed, state-run Pemex monopoly are just two examples of the kind of self-inflicted wounds that hobble your troubled nation.
I understand that you are attempting to resolve some of these problems and applaud your leadership in trying to do so. But what would contribute more to the long term stability of your economy and your country would be to focus more energy on addressing your domestic challenges and less on lobbying the U.S. to provide amnesty for Mexicans who have illegally entered this country with the blessing of your government. In doing so, you might be able to keep Mexico's "best and brightest young men" in Mexico – where they can contribute more to Mexico's economy than remittance payments. Unfortunately, your recent comments indicate that Mexico will continue its policy of encouraging illegal immigration and treating the United States as little more than a dumping ground for your social and economic problems.
In your speech yesterday to the
Keep reading, here.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
As soon as this summer's amnesty failed, Bush and his open-border friends in Congress immediately began promising that they would start enforcing immigration laws already on the books. They promised to "clamp down on employers" and to "come down on them like a ton of bricks!" As explained in an earlier post, the goal of amnesty-supporters in doing this is to create as much friction and chaos as possible in an effort to discredit the "enforcement only" approach to illegal immigration.
Today, we have seen yet another move by the open-border crowd to discredit immigration law enforcement, this time directed at the pending double-border fence.
Recall that the "Secure Fence Act" was begrudgingly signed into law by President Bush in the Fall of 2006. As authored by current presidential candidate Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), the Secure Fence Act authorized the construction of 854 miles of double-border fencing along our southern border. Such a double fence has worked very well along California's southern border where the first double fence created by Hunter dramatically reduced drug and human smuggling. It also dramatically reduced crime.
The problem for Bush & the Dems: the fence will work too well.
So late last night, the Dems and their open-border Republican friends inserted a little language into a 3,500 -page spending bill that pretty much guts the ENTIRE Secure Fence Act altogether. The new language eliminates the requirement that the fence be a double-fence; a scraggly barbed wire fence will now suffice. Additionally, the locations specified for fencing in the Act have been eliminated. Now, the Department of Homeland Security (which is an Executive Branch administrative agency that falls under Bush's control) will have complete authority to decide where to put up fencing.
In other words, the original signed-into-law Act has been completely abandoned. The border fence has been defunded.
The goal of the open-border crowd is to build one of the most porous, useless border fences imaginable with the hope that you will not notice. They want millions of illegal aliens to be able to seek through with ease so that they can say the following a year from now: "see, border fencing doesn't work, but hey, we tried! Let's try an amnesty now."
It's disgusting, but that is the politics of the open-border crowd.
In response, Hunter noted that "Pulling back from the double-fence mandate is a prescription for failure that will only allow more smugglers, criminals and illegal aliens to enter the United States through our land border with Mexico."
But Bush cannot wait to sign the death of the Secure Fence Act into law. We need to make sure we never settle until all 854 miles of the double border fence are constructed.
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Bowman: "The troops are coming home from Iraq, and they're still waiting for boats and planes to take them back to America, and, what if, like, the illegal immigrants start to take action and start bombing buildings and stuff?"
(audience ignorantly breaks into laughter, indicating that none of their loved ones were aboard the planes flown into buildings by immigrants on 9/11)
Obama: "Well, what's your name?"
Bowman: "Beau Bowman."
Obama: "Beau? Well, thanks, Beau. I appreciate the question. What grade are you in, Beau?"
Obama: "You're in 5th grade? Lemme, lemme talk to you a little bit about immigrants. And, um... Because I think your question shows... um... part of what's going on in politics. And I don't want to be too complicated on this answer, but, we've got a problem with terrorists, who are trying to kill us. The handful -- maybe 20,000... 30,000 terrorists -- all around the globe, and, they're the ones who blew up the Twin Towers in New York, on 9/11. That's a separate problem from immigrants. We've got illegal immigrants who are coming into this country and they're not blowing things up, they're usually working in meatpacking plants, or they're working in restaurants, or they're working in agricultural, they're picking up vegetables... (audience member interrupts) Excuse me? Yeah, they're mowing Mitt Romney's yard."
(audience laughs, again)
Obama: "That was the best line of the night. I forgot about old Mitt. Who's got the gall to run all these ads about illegal immigrants? You know? So that's... People are coming here, and they don't have papers, they haven't gotten a visa, so they're not supposed to come in without us knowing why they're coming in, and they're just basically coming in to work. Now that's a problem. We need to stop the flow of illegal immigrants into the country. We gotta make sure that stops. But we shouldn't confuse that with terrorism. They're not here to blow us up. And, most of them are just coming here to work. And what we need to do is we need to have strong borders so that terrorists can't come in, and illegal immigrants can't come in. But those immigrants, even if they came here illegally, once we have our borders secure, if they've been here for 10 or 12 years, some of them have children who are your classmates, or were born here and are U.S. citizens, we've got to give them some sort of path so that they can become legal over time, by paying a fine, learning English, doing some other things, so that they can earn citizenship. Okay? But in the meantime, I don't want you to think that they're going to be blowing us up anytime soon. Alright? And my job as president will be to make sure that doesn't happen."
One hardly knows where to begin. Obama -- along with apparently most Dems in Iowa -- clearly fails to understand the relationship between immigration and terrorism. He claims that terrorism is a "separate problem" from immigration; he couldn't be more wrong. Although it never got much press, the 9/11 Commission actually produced two 9/11 reports: one was the report that we've seen a thousand times and the other was an equally-long report devoted entirely to the relationship between immigration and terrorism. For a great analysis of the obvious relationship between terrorism and immigration, read the report from the Center for Immigration Studies called, "The Open Door: How Militant Islamic Terrorists Entered and Remained in the United States, 1993-2001." It is available online, here. Among the report's amazing findings:
- Foreign-born militant Islamic terrorists have used almost every conceivable means of entering the country. They have come as students, tourists, and business visitors. They have also been Lawful Permanent Residents and naturalized U.S. citizens. They have snuck across the border illegally, arrived as stowaways on ships, used false passports, and have been granted amnesty. Terrorists have even used America's humanitarian tradition of welcoming those seeking asylum.
Regardless of the exact number, these "terrorists around the globe" are going to have to come to the United States in order to kill us.... they're going to have to "immigrate" here. That's something even a 5th grader can understand.
Obama is correct in noting that illegal aliens are "not supposed to come in without us knowing why they're coming in." Unfortunately, in the same breath Obama states, "They're not here to blow us up." Really? Is Obama going to be our first psychic president? It's well documented that immigrants have come here with the goal of killing Americans "without us knowing why they're coming in." Again, read the report linked above. Obama, we have no idea what intentions illegal aliens have in entering the country; they could be busboys, they could be terrorists. But one thing's for sure: if an uneducated, poor Mexican janitor can successfully evade our Border Patrol, then surely a trained al-Qaeda operative can do the same.
On the positive side, Obama seems to understand that border security is a necessity. But since he is still bent on supporting the Bush Amnesty, it's clear he doesn't understand how amnesties help terrorism. In 1986, two illegal alien N.Y.C. taxi drivers applied for that failed amnesty -- Mahmud Abouhalima and Mohammed Salameh. One of them, Abouhalima, was granted amnesty. His new status allowed him to travel freely around the globe without fear of being stopped by law enforcement upon reentry to the United States. He used his new status to travel to the Pakistan border where he received terrorist training. He put those new skills to work as the ringleader of the 1993 WTC attack. But guess what else? The other illegal alien, Salameh, had his amnesty application denied. But he was never deported. Instead, he remained in the United States and also helped with the 1993 WTC attack. The end result: the amnesty actually aided terrorism and did absolutely nothing to eliminate the threat. That amnesty involved only about 4 million applicants. Today, we're looking at more than 12 million applicants. How many terrorists will benefit from a new amnesty is unknown. And this is something that little Beau Bowman seems to understand.
Obama, you are not smarter than a 5th grader.
And although we should thank ABC for covering this story, their headline illustrates that, like Obama, the media thinks the relationship between immigration and terrorism is imaginary. The title ABC gave to their article -- "Did Immigration Ads Spark Link to Terror?" -- is ridiculous. No, ABC: Immigrants flying planes into buildings a few years ago "sparked" the link to terror.
FOLLOW UP: The producers of the game show "Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader" actually asked Obama, Hillary, and Giuliani to appear on the show. All three said, "No."
Monday, December 10, 2007
If the call were successful in Maryland, at least 2/3 of state legislatures country-wide would then have to follow suit in order to move into an actual convention. Then, any proposed amendment that came from the convention would have to be ratified by 3/4 of the states.
It's a tall order, but perhaps our elected leaders are getting the picture...
Sunday, December 9, 2007
The only candidate to apparently understand that such a debate fractures society, Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) chose not to attend. He said the following:
"It is the law that to become a naturalized citizen of this country you must have knowledge and understanding of English, including a basic ability to read, write, and speak the language. So what may I ask are our presidential candidates doing participating in a Spanish speaking debate? America has been a melting pot of people from all over the world but it can not survive as a nation if our immigrants do not assimilate. A common language is essential to that goal. Bilingualism is a great asset for any individual, but it has perilous consequences for a nation. As such, a Spanish debate has no place in a presidential campaign."
I would add that because debates are designed to entice voting, and because voting can be done only by U.S. citizens, and because citizenship requires a basic understanding of English, foreign-language debates are useful only to attract unauthorized voters to the voting booth. So in addition to the balkanization, such debates are destroying the meaning of citizenship and harming our elections.
Months ago, none of the candidates signaled any desire to attend, save illegal immigration cheerleader John McCain. But in the last month, the rest of the Republican contenders turned an about-face and decided that having their voices translated into Spanish would be fun.
Compared to the Democrat Univision debate, less time was spent on the immigration issue. Here, only 45 minutes were devoted to the subject compared to over an hour for the Dems. Despite this debate's shortcomings, it is wonderful to see a good amount of time devoted to the subject of immigration. Perhaps after the candidates are filtered down to only a few remaining contenders, MSNBC/CNN/FOX can hold issue-specific debates; an hour or two on immigration and border security would be fantastic. And, it would ensure that no open-border candidate is elected in 2008. Recall that the Bush/Kerry debates included only ONE question on the subject even though the moderator prefaced the question with, "I received more e-mails on this subject than any other." But of course, the subject was barely addressed and we never got a good read on their immigration policies. We all know how that has turned out.
During the Univision introduction, the biggest applauses went to Giuliani, McCain, and Paul. This is probably due to the fact that Giuliani and McCain are honorary Mexican presidents. Paul probably had dozens of his loudest and loyal supporters stand in line for hours in order to get into the theater.
Below are some limited and roughly-translated highlights. I turned up my television as loud as possible and listened to the faint English feed buried beneath the blaring Spanish translation. Although Univision put the English language version on SAP3, my old television prevented me from accessing it.
Some of the close, but not 100% accurate highlights:
Hunter: If we have another amnesty, we will have a new wave of immigration. We have two traditions: welcoming immigrants, and the rule of law. Immigrants that came illegally have to go home. (surprisingly, the audience applauded.) I built the double-border fence in southern California. It reduced crime. You need to talk to people directly. I got more folks from the Hispanic community to vote for me; they do agree with order. So come in, but follow the rules.
Romney: We're a very compassionate people...we're also a people who follow the law. The landscaper is an old friend...apparently he made a mistake. He doesn't have a way to determine who he is hiring whether he is legal or illegal. That's why we need an employment verification system so that we can determine who is eligible to work. (big applause.) We're going to finally have a program to have people here legally, not illegally. Those who are born here should become legal citizens. I don't think that chain migration polices are good; they say you can bring the whole family here; they're a mistake. We can end illegal immigration and protect legal immigration.
Thompson: Our courts have ruled that babies born here are U.S. citizens. It's the 14th Amendment, but our focus shouldn't be on that. I believe the concern should be on chain migration. I do not think that there should be endless chain migration.
McCain: When we failed to pass comprehensive reform, now we have cities and towns that are sanctuary cities or not... the message of our failure is that they want the borders secure first. We have very difficult issues, but once we seal the borders... but until we get the borders secure, they're not ready to address these issues.
Paul: (blamed America for Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro; audience booed loudly. This represents support for the United States' current policy over "blame America first" policy -- a fine distinction that one wouldn't expect a foreign audience to necessarily understand, much less boo. Likely, the audience was full of English-speaking, Federalist Society college kids.)
Stay tuned for more updates.
Additionally, the Univision website provides a biography of each of the Republican candidates. The highlights include:
McCain: "He is one of the candidates non-born in the United States. This candidate was born in Panama." [This fact is suspiciously difficult to find on McCain's website. His father was a naval officer stationed in Panama; McCain was born there in 1936, but is considered a U.S. citizen under the law.] "He recently made a 180 degree turn on his immigration proposal: first he spoke of a guestworker program and now he proposes strict regulations to end illegal immigration. McCain is a senator with a noticeable character, and a bad sense of humor, attacking several important personages of the world like: Chelsea, the president of North Korea, and fellow Republican, Sen. Chuck Grassley."
Hunter: "The Californian representative has reiterated his support to the double wall between the United States and Mexico and tries to become one of the strongest candidates in the electoral fight. In his campaign for the presidency, Hunter is declared an antiabortionist, who looks for a fairness of powers between the family, and also she has been described to be anti-immigrant."
Huckabee: "This candidate is in favor of the war against of the Muslim radicalismo, against legalizing the homosexual marriages, and for the hiring of legal migrants in great factories. This minister baptist, at this moment, also is against a proposal to deprive public services to illegal immigrants."
Tancredo: "one of the strongest adversaries of illegal immigration in the country... Faithful to his political position, Tancredo has denied rights to immigrants."
Thursday, December 6, 2007
The U.S. Congress is offering $1.4 BILLION of taxpayer money to the corrupt nation of Mexico with the hope that it will be used in that country's war on drug cartels. It's quite a generous sum of money, and one would think that any nation receiving these funds would be grateful to the American people.
But not Mexico.
In an UNBELIEVABLE statement, Calderon reacted to the possibility that there might be some conditions on the donation as follows:
"I cannot accept any submission or subordination...Give it to me. And give it to me without conditions!"
This ungrateful schmuck's statement should be immediately shot down by the President of the United States. The U.S. Congress should immediately end discussion on the aid package, and instead invest the $1.4 billion in border security.
But our current Executive and Legislative branches are full of deballed, pathetic individuals who remain too happy to give away taxpayer money. Don't look for a response any time soon.
But Calderon didn't stop there. He also said that U.S. presidential candidates are "swaggering, macho, and anti-Mexican."
He said that Americans have "a total lack of understanding and aggravation, hostility toward Mexico."
He then bizarrely criticized the way the U.S. spends its own money, saying that U.S. leaders are "spending Americans' money and putting the government into debt to finance their military adventure, and that is squeezing out private investment."
This last statement is supremely odd considering that Mexico has limited private enterprise in most of its industries -- namely, the oil industry -- a economic decision that has put 50% of Mexicans below the poverty level.
Bottom line, this is OUR money, Felipe. If you expect our country to hand over a billion dollars to one of the most corrupt countries in the Western Hemisphere with no conditions whatsoever, you are truly ignorant and arrogant. We've already taken in 15 million of your poverty-stricken countrymen to the detriment of the American taxpayer. And now we're offering you free money, yet you complain. Do you really wonder why Americans are becoming "anti-Mexican"?
Next time, Felipe, just say 'thank you' and follow our lead. Clearly, you need all the help you can get.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
And here we are, six years later... Nothing has changed.
Sunday, September 9, 2007
The Executive Director of Univision explained that this debate is "designed specifically for the Hispanics in the United States." Of course, most Hispanics in the United States speak English; what he really means is that this debate is for unassimilated immigrants and illegal alien voters.
The debate was hosted by the University of Miami which is calling the event, "Destino 2008" which translates to "destiny 2008" as if the Dems are "destined" to take the White House. What drew the Dems to the University of Miami? Well, the university's president is none other than President Bill Clinton's Health and Human Services appointee, Ms. Donna Shalala.
Watching American presidential candidates being forced to answer questions that CNN would never ask would normally be a good thing; unfortunately watching American candidates being translated into a foreign language is disgusting and stomach-wrenching. It is a clear indicator that the United States is heading in the wrong direction.
Here are some of the highlights:
Hillary Clinton: "Absolutely" wants a "path to legalization" for 12 million illegal aliens. She says, "We have to educate the American people [that immigration] is as important today as when my family came across Ellis Island." In answering a question about "anti-Hispanic" sentiment, Clinton says that there are many people in politics and "frankly, in broadcast media who take aim at our immigration. There was a particularly egregious example in the House bill last year which tried to criminalize illegal immigrants." She was upset that the bill would have criminalized church staff that gives sanctuary to illegal aliens, saying, "It would have criminalized Jesus Christ!" Clinton says she supports a border fence, but largely a technological one, and that the whole debate on the fence is "being used to bash immigrants."
Barack Obama: Says he supports a secure border, "otherwise we'll have thousands of people coming across." (He apparently doesn't realize that there are already millions coming across.) Also says he has "already committed" to comprehensive immigration reform. He then compared illegal alien hunger strikes to Martin Luther King, Jr.'s quest for racial equality.
Bill Richardson: Promises to reform immigration in his first year in office and says that a "path to citizenship" is necessary. He claims that there is a bill that would create a "12-foot wall" along the border and says, "You know what's going to happen? A lot of 13-foot ladders." The Mexican moderators and the audience laughed out loud. Richardson also promises to end ICE raids on businesses illegally hiring illegal aliens. Also says, "Hispanics are the heart of the United States."
Mike Gravel: Would "immediately" make amnesty happen. Says he is "embarrassed at the thought of building a wall." He would "absolutely" suspend ICE raids. When asked whether he thinks Venezuela's Hugo Chavez is a dictator, Gravel responded, "No, not at all. In fact, I'd reach out to him." (In other words, if Gravel were elected president, he feels he could take control of the media and oil industry without being labeled a dictator.)
John Edwards: Speaking on illegal aliens he says, "We should be proud we have so many workers coming into this country who deserve a path to citizenship." He's committed to a path to citizenship for illegal aliens.
Christopher Dodd: Says that he supports universal health care and that illegal aliens should be allowed to take advantage of the program. (He apparently doesn't realize that "free" health care and open borders is not a sustainable strategy.)
Dennis Kucinich: Says, "Of course we need to give people a path to citizenship."
What is most saddening is that the vast majority of Americans will never hear the answers these candidates gave to some very pressing issues. The ENTIRE FIRST HOUR of the debate (and much of the second hour) was devoted to immigration. Will CNN-FOX-MSNBC follow suit and hold their own English version of an immigration debate? Probably not. Will CNN-FOX-MSNBC air the translated version of this debate? Probably not. The result is that only a small percentage of English-speaking Americans will ever hear what was said (and that's only if talk radio gets a copy before the Dems pass the "Fairness Doctrine"). The leftists controlling the media will do what they can to make sure that Americans don't hear the off-the-wall answers some of the Dems gave. In fact, the Associated Press piece that was just published has only a few quotes on immigration -- even though more than half the debate was on immigration.
Additionally, the Univision website provides a biography of each of the Democratic candidates. The highlights include:
Hillary Clinton: She is "la candidata de sexo femenino" (the candidate of the feminine sex) who wants to repair "los errores de Bush" (the errors of Bush).
Barack Obama: He is the "afroamericano" candidate with a relatively short political history. He opposes the Free Trade Agreement, but supports "la protección de los inmigrantes ilegales" (the protection of illegal immigrants).
Bill Richardson: "Proud of his ancestry, Bill Richardson is the only candidate of Mexican origin." He supports amnesty and wants all troops out of Iraq before the end of 2007.
Mike Gravel: He strongly opposes the War in Iraq and will stop drug trafficking by "legalizar la marihuana" (legalizing the marijuana). He's also against registration for the purposes voting. (In other words, he wants illegal aliens to be able to vote.) He's also against the death penalty.
Christopher Dodd: He was described as the "voice of experience" and speaks fluid Spanish. He has assured his support for immigration and says "all are children of immigrants and that variety is the wealth and the power of the United States."
Dennis Kucinich: His parents are immigrants: a Croatian taxi driver and a European housewife.
John Edwards: His is the "most progressive" of the candidates.
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
As noted in a previous post, Ms. Arellano is seeking to return to the United States as a "peace and justice" ambassador under some sort of diplomatic immunity. One would think that being a document fraudster felon might disqualify a person from the post "peace and justice" ambassador, but this is Mexico we're talking about.
The thinking of the Mexican lawyers and activist groups backing this plan is that Arellano would not be deportable under the laws of the United States. She would be free to traipse around the United States, thumb her nose at law enforcement, and laugh in the face of the American taxpayer.
However, President Bush can decide whether or not to officially recognize Arellano; the United States must grant a diplomatic visa. And that's where it gets interesting. How will Bush react to this plan? Will he say anything? Will the President of Mexico demand it?
According to the Associated Press, Ms. Arellano has already made her demands clear:
Keep yapping, Ms. Arellano.
Sunday, September 2, 2007
In response to the United States possibly enforcing our immigration laws for the first time in two decades, Calderon screamed the following at his recent "state of the union" speech:
"I want to express again an energetic protest at the unilateral measures taken by the U.S. Congress and government which exacerbate the persecution and abusive treatment of undocumented Mexican workers."
One hardly knows where to begin.
The term "persecution" suggests that innocent people are being thrown into prison, perhaps for a political or religious belief. However, illegal aliens are actually "prosecuted" for breaking federal law. Perhaps Calderon simply confused the two terms...
The phrase "abusive treatment" apparently refers to the fact that illegal alien Mexicans are returned to Mexico in accordance with the law (deportation). As explained in my most recent post, being forced to live in Mexico is arguably abusive treatment.
Finally, the odd use of the phrase "unilateral measures" is what deserves most attention. In reality, it make no sense because a nation generally enforces its own laws the only way it can: unilaterally. Should we be asking Japan to help us enforce U.S. immigration laws? I think not. What Calderon is suggesting is that immigration law is something to be determined by international standards. He's suggesting that the United Nations should be involved and that the United States has no legitimate right to protect its sovereignty and to deport people who violate it. Recall that Mexico has ALREADY threatened to take the State of Arizona to the World Court over the passage of Proposition 200, an overwhelmingly-supported ballot initiative that discouraged illegal immigration. This posturing is something that will grow out of control very soon. Hopefully we will have a President in the White House who will vigorously defend the United States should we end up in the World Court.
The current White House is following this closely, but likely sees how quickly their plan for amnesty will spiral out of control. The Bush White House has incorrectly calculated that the anticipated cries and screams from the open-border crowd that come as a result of minimal enforcement will turn public sentiment in favor of amnesty. But the more they yell, the more resolved the public becomes in ensuring our laws and sovereignty are respected.
Before relations with Mexico sour beyond repair, it's important that we build the border fence. There has never been a more pressing need to realize the saying "good fences make good neighbors." We've certainly learned that the exact opposite is true.
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Well, her trip out of hiding to Los Angeles for a pro-amnesty rally finally did her in. She's been deported back to Mexico -- again -- where she's joining forces with the Mexican government to destroy the rule of law in the United States. Apparently, the Mexican Senate hopes that the corruption and lawlessness that defines Mexico will spread further al Norte. In fact, the Mexican Senate passed a bill demanding that President Felipe Calderon protest the White House. One Mexican senator said: "We cannot remain quiet in view of this injustice and must ask for firm action from our authorities!" Apparently, being forced to live in Mexico is an injustice.
Highlighting the ignorance was a press event where Arellano said, "The United States is the one who broke the law first. By letting people cross over without documents, by letting people pay taxes... But I know I am not alone."
One must ask WHERE this felon got the idea that the United States is "letting" people evade our immigration laws and enter the country illegally. Of course, one must look no further than the White House for an answer to that question. If we actually had a President, there would be a rapid response from the White House explaining to Ms. Arellano and the Mexican Senate that Arelleno certainly is NOT alone and that she should expect about 14 million of her fellow-felons to join her shortly. And if we had a President, the border fence would already be constructed.
In yet another statement clearly crafted by MALDEF, Arellano stated that she is seeking to return to the United States as a "peace and justice" ambassador. She said, "What I'm asking for is a diplomatic visa so that I can be an ambassador for peace and justice because I'm not a terrorist and the United States can't continue treating undocumented migrants as terrorists."
Of course, if we HAD treated Ms. Arellano as a "terrorist" she would be in Guantanamo. Perhaps this would, in fact, be an improvement over Mexico where 50 percent of the population lives at or below the poverty line. However, the United States was overly-generous to Ms. Arellano, taking years and years to finally hold her accountable for her actions. Note to Arellano: We treat illegal aliens as illegal aliens and the result of your decision is deportation.
It's unfortunate that the Mexican Senate is spending time on helping Arellano bash the United States. It's unfortunate that the Mexican Senate isn't working to improve living conditions in Mexico. Considering a fifth of the Mexican population already lives in the United States, the Mexican Senate should take a long, hard look in the mirror.
In the meantime, the United States must fortify all immigration laws, borders, and ports of entry before it's too late. Remember, according to a Zogby poll, 57 percent of Mexicans believe that "Mexicans should have the right to enter the U.S. without U.S. permission."
It's time to send a strong message al sur.
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Today, the Bush White House is trying to take a different path to amnesty. Over the past year, they heard that the People want a serious commitment to law enforcement. They heard that we want an end to illegal immigration through employer sanctions and border security before any discussion of legalization takes place. The thinking from the supporters of law enforcement is that once we make the United States unwelcoming to those wishing to come illegally, the illegal alien population will reduce slowly over time. After about a decade of serious enforcement and the creation of secure borders, then -- and only then -- should we discuss a possible legalization for those remaining in the country.
The White House interprets this "attrition" policy as an opportunity for amnesty. In an announcement from the loudest amnesty advocates -- Bush, Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez, and DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff -- it was promised this morning that the White House would actually do its job of enforcing immigration laws. What they don't realize is that they come across as dishonest con artists; it's pretty much impossible to believe any of them. Their promised enforcement is available in English -- and Spanish -- on the White House website, here.
The transcript from the press conference is most revealing. It is clear that they are begrudgingly enforcing the law with the goal of amnesty. It also appears their plan is to haphazardly enforce our immigration laws and create as much fear, confusion, and economic strife so that in six months the White House can announce: "See, enforcement-only is a failure; we need an amnesty now!" Look for this announcement Spring 2008.
Multiple times during the conference, Chertoff lamented the failure of the amnesty bill and basically foreshadowed its return:
"We're obviously disappointed in the fact, as is the President, that Congress has not chosen to act on our comprehensive solution... Our hope is that the key elements of the Senate bill will see the light of day at some point."
"Now, let me make it clear that under the Senate bill, which did not pass, we would have actually made enrollment in E-Verify mandatory for employers..."
"Of course, because Congress didn't pass the comprehensive immigration measure, we don't have all the tools we'd like to have..."
Open-border Gutierrez echoed Chertoff's sadness:
"...we had hoped to get comprehensive reform passed on Capitol Hill..."
"Ultimately - ultimately, Congress will have to pass comprehensive immigration reform. Without reform, we're going to end up with a patchwork of laws nationwide."
"This issue is not going to go away; Congress needs to act."
THEN, these two amnesty advocates showed their true plan: make the enforcement-only approach appear to fail by creating fear and confusion via "the sky is falling" statements:
They claim they will "clamp down on employers" and "come down on them like a ton of bricks."
They claim that "there's going to be an economic consequence to tough law enforcement," which must mean complete economic failure, of course.
Apparently, "Without reform, we will also see many of our agricultural products coming from overseas. And without reform, small businesses and farmers are going to go out of business."
Considering how difficult is it to buy "Made in America" produce already, I don't think an amnesty is going to make much of a difference.
Chertoff then threatened Congress, claiming it would be their fault when the United States falls apart: "...at the end of the day, the enforcement of the law is going to have some consequences. The one thing I think we've tried to do from the very beginning is to be really up front and transparent about what the consequences of these decisions are. We don't get a vote in Congress. We can't make Congress pass it. But we can be very sure that we let Congress understand the consequences of the choices that Congress makes."
Then Gutierrez repeated these tired lines: "We do not have the workers our economy needs to keep growing each year" and, "comprehensive immigration reform...is essential for our nation's future security and prosperity."
The true goal of this proposal, of course, is to provide pro-slavery businesses and open-border advocacy groups with talking points while encouraging them to scream and yell and cry so that Bush can claim that enforcing our laws is impossible. A secondary goal is to prepare the media to craft sob stories.
One can already predict the type of articles the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and Washington Post will be publishing over the next six months from the questions that were asked at the press conference:
"The AFL-CIO is saying that they're afraid that legal immigrants may suffer discrimination because of this. And the Chamber of Commerce is saying we're afraid businesses are going to get sued because of that; they're both talking about challenging these regulations in court. Your reaction?"
and... "How about the likelihood here that you're going to drive a lot of employers and employees underground?"
and... "Where are [the workers] going to come from?"
and... "Won't this be disruptive to agriculture?"
The Bush White House has already proven that it useless when it comes to immigration enforcement. Bush is simply gearing up for another shot at amnesty in early 2008. We must prevent it once again and hope that the next inhabitant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue will listen to the People. The next White House is our only hope.
FOLLOW UP: On September 12th, be prepared for a White House photo-op as celebrity illegal alien Elvira Arellano comes out of hiding to demand amnesty in Washington, D.C. You might recall she was working illegally at the Chicago-O'Hare airport when arrested by ICE in 2002. Shortly thereafter, she found sanctuary in a church and has been evading the rule of law ever since. The Washington Post reports that Arellano "knows she could be arrested during next month's planned trip," but that if ICE comes to arrest her, they'll "find [her] praying." The Bush White House must be elated. Both Bush and the Post understand that this will be a PERFECT photo-op to discredit law enforcement. Bush could have directed ICE to deport her any time over the past five years; but now, she can be used to create even more sob stories which Bush hopes will soften the public's stance on deportation. But he is miscalculating as most people will likely applaud her deportation.
Monday, August 6, 2007
And now Giuliani is following in Bush's footsteps. Read closely the following statement:
"I hope President Bush puts his energy now into building the fence...building a technological fence, increasing the size of the Border Patrol and creating order at the border..." (available here)
Giuliani has NEVER stated that he supports an actual, real, physically-existent double-fence along the border. Yet, for some reason, conservative pundits and newscasts have taken the bait, hook, line, and sinker.
When it comes to the "debates," it's time for some real answers and real questions. When will the open-border FoxNews/CNN cabal ask the following question: "Do you support the completion of the double-border fence?"
And let's not forget that while Mayor of New York, Guiliani presided over an illegal alien sanctuary city -- a fact that he is now somehow denying.
At this point, if you want more Bush-style, open-border neo-conservativism, Guiliani is your man.
Less than 24 hours after posting the discussion above, Guiliani proudly flashed his open-border credentials once again by endorsing pro-amnesty, pro-lawlessness, anti-fence advocate John McCain. At a campaign stop, Guiliani said the following:
"I happen to be a very big admirer of Senator McCain. And I can tell you quite honestly: if I weren't running for president, I would be here supporting him. If I for some reason had made a decision not to run, he'd be my candidate. And I really admire the man tremendously." Available, here.
What about McCain's rapid plunge in the polls on account of the McCain-Kennedy illegal alien amnesty, Rudy? Or are you in complete agreement?
FOLLOW UP #2:
Now the Associated Press is reporting that Giuliani has "vowed to stop the flow of illegal immigrants into the United States." Specifically, Giuliani said, "We can end illegal immigration. I promise you, we can end illegal immigration." Of course, the notion of deportation doesn't seem to be on Rudy's radar. The article reports that Giuliani "would allow a pathway to citizenship only for illegal immigrants who identify themselves as illegal, who learn English and who go to the back of the line to apply." In other words: amnesty. Unless the back of the line is in the illegal alien's homeland, this is amnesty. Giuliani's proposal is the equivalent of ending the running of red lights in New York by removing red lights. It's only going to make matters worse. No, Rudy, we need to enforce the laws.
In the same article, multi-multi-billionaire Michael Bloomberg, speaking about illegal aliens and New York's status as a sanctuary city said: "let 'em come." This, of course, is expected from a person who lives in a gated community and will never have to compete with illegal aliens for a job.
FOLLOW UP #3:
The Associated Press has finally made it clear as of November 19, 2007, that Giuliani wants an open border with "virtual" fences. In speaking against actual fencing, Giuliani just said:
"And frankly, the virtual fence is more valuable because it alerts you to people approaching the border, it alerts you to people coming over the border..."
True, "virtual fences" will alert us to people coming over the border, but an actual fence will PREVENT people from coming over the border. That's what we want, Rudy. People must be funneled through a port of entry. Your plan makes you no different than Bush, McCain, or Hillary for that matter.
FOLLOW UP #4:
Now, the New York Times is reporting that Giuliani has been pushing an electronic (pretend) border fence for the past year because he was "partner in a company trying to market such technology." In other words, his support for a "virtual fence" was at least partially based on personal finances. Maybe now that his relationship with this company he'll start supporting "actual" fencing along the southern border? Don't hold your breath.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Although media personalities are doing their best to marginalize what happened today, the defeat of the Bush-McCain-Kennedy-Big Business amnesty bill symbolized that the People can defeat special interests if the People push hard enough. So many Americans called Capitol Hill to demand the bill's failure, that the Capitol Hill switchboard was literally fried! For most of the day, all phone lines were down. But, of course, Lou Dobbs was the only person in television media to report this fact.
There is really no reason this bill should have failed considering the millions of dollars and thousands of hours committed by Big Business, Big Religion, Big Ethnic Interest, Bid Media, the White House, the entire Democratic Party, half the Republican party, the RNC, the DNC, and dozens of foreign governments (Ireland and Mexico have been very active), etc, etc...
But the will and determination of the People have overcome the big money and strong-arm tactics. It's truly impressive and something we're not going to see for awhile. Congress understands very well that the voters are furious and want to see enforcement, not amnesty.
So what is the next step?
It should be clear to anyone following the immigration debate that Americans want enforcement -- along the border and in the workplace. And if you believe everything the proponents of this amnesty bill have said, there is no disagreement on the need for enforcement.
So, it's time to call their bluff.
It's time to tell Bush that amnesty has failed (for the third time) and that we MUST now move forward with enforcement.
This White House has based its entire existence on national security. If there really are millions of evil-doers around the globe who want to kill us all, it would probably -- just maybe, maybe -- make sense that we secure our borders and make sure that people are entering only through legal ports of entry.
It just might make sense that we require all businesses to sign up for the long-existing DHS Basic Pilot Program so that they can verify exactly WHOM they are hiring. Remember, prior to receiving illegal alien amnesty in 1986, the '93 WTC bombers were illegal aliens working illegally as NYC taxi cab drivers. The non-enforcement of workplace laws allowed them to make a living; the amnesty allowed them to travel to and from the Middle East to gain terrorist training.
It's not that difficult to understand how non-enforcement of immigration laws harms national security. Not to mention the negative impact on American workers, the Middle Class, and the poor.
So, Mr. President: If we all agree that enforcement of immigration laws is critical, and since the amnesty is history, will you now begin enforcing the laws on the books?
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
The White House is only pushing the amnesty portion of the bill.
If Bush wanted more enforcement, he could have been working for more enforcement for years through basic enforcement of laws already on the books. There are employer sanctions for hiring illegal aliens. There is a worker verification program that could be made mandatory with a presidential decree. And look at the border fence bill Bush begrudgingly signed nearly a year ago. Of the 800+ miles of double-fencing mandated, about a dozen miles have been constructed.
If Bush really was concerned about security and ending illegal immigration, one would assume that he'd be working overtime to make sure the fence was constructed.
But the White House has put all political capital and energy in pushing for the legalization of 12-15 million illegal aliens. Bush is constantly giving speeches, the White House website has been converted into "amnesty headquarters," and numerous White House officials have been twisting the arms of Senators in order to get the amnesty.
Every time Bush talks about "security" or "enforcement" it is ALWAYS in an effort to advance amnesty. As Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies puts it, Bush's political posturing can best be described as, "a spoonful of enforcement helps the amnesty go down."
And now, the White House is threatening more lawlessness if the People don't give in to their demands of mass amnesty.
Here's what Joel Kaplan, White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy said during a pro-amnesty press event just yesterday:
"...without immigration reform they're not going to get the tough new border security and work site enforcement measures that we need to get control of the border."
In other words, if there is no amnesty, the White House will make no effort at border security and work site enforcement.
When a White House that has built its credentials on national security threatens the People with non-enforcement of laws and decreased security, one must question the President's entire commitment to national security. Heck, six years after 9/11 our borders remain wide open -- that should be enough for one to question the White House's sincerity. How can the President claim that there are millions of "evil-doers" around the globe seeking our destruction, and at the same time be content with porous borders? The answer: Big Business wins out over security with this White House.
This amnesty bill is allowing the People to see our elected leadership's true colors. Money, not logic or the will of the People, is currently dictating policy.
How dare the White House threaten to abdicate its responsibility of national security! If Bush cannot do his job without capitulating to Big Business, then he must resign.
Saturday, June 23, 2007
Today's quote comes from illegal immigration supporter Thomas Saenz, counsel to Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.
Here's the issue: The latest version of the Bush-McCain-Kennedy illegal alien amnesty may include an amendment that would prevent cities from requiring private businesses (read, Home Depot) to build day laborer (read, illegal alien) hiring centers on their privately-owned land.
Cities like Los Angeles, which have been forcing private businesses to help with the hiring of illegal aliens, are unhappy with the proposal. They want to make sure that the illegal hiring of illegal aliens continues.
Here's what Saenz had to say: "This is quintessentially a local decision. There is no reason for the federal government to intervene."
State and local officials made the same argument about slavery decades ago. They argued that states should be able to decide for themselves whether slavery should continue; the feds should play no role.
Of course, we all know the outcome of that debate. But today, we have new advocates for cheap labor, big profits, and exploitation making the same arguments once again.
And now, cities are forcing businesses to comply with aiding and abetting illegal activity as a prerequisite of opening up shop. Companies like Home Depot must either build a hiring center on their premises or find some other way to assist employers in illegally hiring illegal aliens.
And I know personally that Home Depot execs are not happy. They've spoken with the U.S. House Judiciary Committee in an effort to figure out what legal alternatives they have. They don't want to play a role in illegal activity, but they do want to open businesses in these pro-illegal immigration cities.
Villaraigosa wrote a letter to Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) on this issue:
"We understand some companies may have expressed a concern to you about their financial liability. They might do well to consider their potential liability from injuries or accidents that could occur in their parking lots and driveways should a federal preemption leave it so workers would simply move in and around cars and customers to match up with those seeking their labor."
In other words, "if these businesses don't help employers break federal law, we'll make sure they get sued."
It is sad to see people who claim to be civil rights leaders work to undermine the rule of law in favor of exploitation.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
But as a press release available on her website clearly indicates, she's still thoroughly confused.
She is correct in noting that a guestworker program would "lead to the exploitation of workers" and that it would "exert downward pressure on wages at a time when we are already losing our middle class." This is precisely why Big Business has been pushing for this bill for years -- bigger profits.
But the Senator immediately contradicts herself when she says, "There are concepts in the bill I strongly support -- a path to legalization for the 12 million undocumented immigrants..."
So here's the simple question: Why would a legalization policy have a different impact on wages than a guestworker policy?
The simple answer: It wouldn't. Both guestworker programs and amnesty programs "exert downward pressure on wages." It's Economics 101: When you increase the supply of cheap labor (which both policies do), the result is a decrease in wages.
Repeated calls to the Senator's offices indicate that her staffers rightfully don't even want to attempt to explain her illogical statements. I've sent a letter and will post any clarification of the Senator's position.
For More Information:
Measuring the Impact on Native-born Workers
Thursday, June 14, 2007
One would think that an opposing political party would take the White House to task for failing to uphold the rule of law. Especially when the failure to enforce the law has a negative impact on America's working poor and middle class. But we're talking about immigration law.
The failure to enforce borders and employer sanctions means an increase in poor laborers. An increase in poor laborers means lower wages; it basic economics. Lower wages means a greater profit margin. More profit makes the wealthy elites happy, regardless of whether they have an (R) or a (D) after their name.
And because Bush and Feinstein are both multimillionaires, they find companionship in pushing an amnesty bill that will perpetuate high profits at the expense of the taxpayer and Middle Class.
Compare these statements:
"The bill provides a path to legalization for the undocumented people now living in the U.S. It is not amnesty."
-- Senator Diane Feinstein (D-California); letter to constituents on Bush amnesty bill
"With this bill, it is not amnesty."
-- President George W. Bush (R); speech pushing amnesty bill on June 1, 2007, available, here.
The pair doth protest too much, methinks. An amnesty by any other name smells just as sour.
Unfortunately, the elites have joined forces against the Middle Class. It is more evidence that we will return to the days of kings and paupers if we don't protest more.
But the second statement in Sen. Feinstein's letter is even more shocking:
"I believe this bill helps restore the rule of law."
Really? So not enforcing laws on the books, giving illegal aliens and their employers a pass by not holding them accountable, and erasing 20+ years of immigration law will "restore the rule of law"?
It is one of the most preposterous statements I've heard from a policymaker in a long time.
The only thing that helps restore the rule of law is enforcement of the rule of law. The White House, the entire Democratic Party, and a group of neo-conservative policymakers have been working to destroy the rule of law for years. It's time we demand our laws be enforced.